Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[meenman]

I think both sides can hate on Harrington for this....

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/harrington-turns-to-anchor-putter-despite-backing-belly-ban-29239384.html

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by meenman

I think both sides can hate on Harrington for this....

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/harrington-turns-to-anchor-putter-despite-backing-belly-ban-29239384.html

I was all set to agree with you ... then I read the article and changed my mind.  I don't mind it so much because even though he's using it, he hasn't changed his stance.  I think if he was ornery and pretended like he didn't support the ban in the first place, then that would be a little lame.  But he's honest about it.

I think there are plenty of managers in the AL that think the DH is lame and should be banned, but that doesn't make them tools for employing one.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I was all set to agree with you ... then I read the article and changed my mind.  I don't mind it so much because even though he's using it, he hasn't changed his stance.  I think if he was ornery and pretended like he didn't support the ban in the first place, then that would be a little lame.  But he's honest about it.

I think there are plenty of managers in the AL that think the DH is lame and should be banned, but that doesn't make them tools for employing one.

I guess I took it a bit differently - almost like he's trying to sabotage us that are against the (proposed) ban.

If he had changed his stance on the (proposed) ban, I would have had no problem with it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by meenman

I guess I took it a bit differently - almost like he's trying to sabotage us that are against the (proposed) ban.

If he had changed his stance on the (proposed) ban, I would have had no problem with it.

OK, wait a second.  I'm looking at it from the point of view of an outsider who doesn't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on the ban.  (If somebody made me choose, I'd say it's not necessary, but whatever)

If I try to put myself in your shoes, then, yeah, I see your point.  This would be a perfect chance for you to add another voice that openly supports your cause ... yet he's refusing to do so.

[newtogolf]

I heard today that the USGA is considering making the use of an anchored stroke a condition of competition so that they can comply with the R&A;'s desire to ban anchored putters in their tournaments (US Open, British Open) but other tournaments will be able use their discretion in allowing them or not.

It could be a decent compromise that transitions them to an ultimate ban without causing them to get into a public battle with the PGA, LPGA, and Champions Tour which all had a majority that were against the ban.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I heard today that the USGA is considering making the use of an anchored stroke a condition of competition so that they can comply with the R&A;'s desire to ban anchored putters in their tournaments (US Open, British Open) but other tournaments will be able use their discretion in allowing them or not.

It could be a decent compromise that transitions them to an ultimate ban without causing them to get into a public battle with the PGA, LPGA, and Champions Tour which all had a majority that were against the ban.

The negative side of this is that it essentially eliminates a number of top players from those majors.  They certainly aren't going to use a standard stroke for 2 (or maybe 3 if the Masters follows suit) tournaments each year.  If the RB's waffle on this it's just going to continue the controversy.  We will have the same battle every year.  I don't see it as a reasonable compromise at all.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The negative side of this is that it essentially eliminates a number of top players from those majors.  They certainly aren't going to use a standard stroke for 2 (or maybe 3 if the Masters follows suit) tournaments each year.  If the RB's waffle on this it's just going to continue the controversy.  We will have the same battle every year.  I don't see it as a reasonable compromise at all.

I'm fine with them just banning the anchored putting stroke but it appears the PGA, LPGA and Champions Tour have opted to gang up on the USGA and make their feelings public.  Conversely the R&A; has reaffirmed they are banning the anchored putting stroke regardless of what the USGA does.

If the USGA were confident they would win this public battle with the pro tours I'd think they would have made their final decision already.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It appears the PGA, LPGA and Champions Tour have opted to gang up on the USGA and make their feelings public.

You can add the Golf Course Owners Association to the list that has publicly stated they are against the ban.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

it appears the LPGA and Champions Tour have opted to gang up on the USGA and make their feelings public.

Conversely the R&A; has reaffirmed they are banning the anchored putting stroke regardless of what the USGA does.

Have you got specific references/links for these statements?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

You can add the Golf Course Owners Association to the list that has publicly stated they are against the ban.

Who the heck are they?

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Who the heck are they?

You can’t figure it out by the name? You don’t think an organization with 5,300 members, all in the golf industry, has any clout?

The National Golf Course Owners Association, with more than 5300 members is the leading authority on the business of golf course ownership and management. The Association represents the key decision makers with ultimate responsibility for golf courses throughout the world...

http://www.ngcoa.org/

[iacas]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

You can’t figure it out by the name? You don’t think an organization with 5,300 members, all in the golf industry, has any clout?

Compared to the USGA and R&A;? No, not really.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

You can’t figure it out by the name? You don’t think an organization with 5,300 members, all in the golf industry, has any clout?

The National Golf Course Owners Association, with more than 5300 members is the leading authority on the business of golf course ownership and management. The Association represents the key decision makers with ultimate responsibility for golf courses throughout the world...

http://www.ngcoa.org/

They have nothing to do with Members' Clubs and have virtually no presence outside the USA. Their primary objective is to make money.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

They have nothing to do with Members' Clubs and have virtually no presence outside the USA. Their primary objective is to make money.

And THERE is the key difference.

The USGA and R&A; weren't established to make money.  Their goal is to do what they think is best for the game.  There is always dissent with any change in rules.  But at least you can't argue that they're changing rules in order to increase their income.

The goal of golf course owners (or any association who represents them) however is to increase profit.  You can look at every initiative they have on their Key Initiatives page and tie it to increasing their profits.  No, it's not wrong to want to increase profits.  But it DOES give you a bias that the USGA and R&A; don't have, and if you aren't being objective then your opinion loses a lot of value.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

They have nothing to do with Members' Clubs and have virtually no presence outside the USA. Their primary objective is to make money.

And THERE is the key difference.

The USGA and R&A; weren't established to make money.  Their goal is to do what they think is best for the game.  There is always dissent with any change in rules.  But at least you can't argue that they're changing rules in order to increase their income.

The goal of golf course owners (or any association who represents them) however is to increase profit.  You can look at every initiative they have on their Key Initiatives page and tie it to increasing their profits.  No, it's not wrong to want to increase profits.  But it DOES give you a bias that the USGA and R&A; don't have, and if you aren't being objective then your opinion loses a lot of value.

And I don't see that there is any significant evidence that a ban of anchored putting will have any effect on their bottom line.  I see it as more like they are just in lock step with the PGA of America.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I see it as more like they are just in lock step with the PGA of America.

Why? Because they happen to agree on the same thing?
The same could be said about the USGA being in lock step with the R&A.; The problem the USGA has is they are getting minimal support from their home country.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Who knows, maybe someone on tour will belly up to their wedge and find it's the next best thing...

[thanw]

The usga is rapidly losing touch with average golfers, course owners, and equipment manufacturers. Officious bullies imo. I don't really care what they say. I will buy whatever putter, wedge, driver I want and swing it however I want. Just ban whatever type equipment Tiger doesn't play and mess with everyone who isn't Tiger already so he can beat Jack's record. That's what they want.