Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

This is really, REALLY well written. Admittedly I'm biased since I've always been pro-ban, but this writeup refutes (successfully, IMO) every anti-ban argument that has been presented in this thread or anywhere else - in many cases using the same arguments almost word-for-word that the pro-ban people in this thread have been making. And many additional supporting reasons are given that I'd not thought of.

It took me two days to get enough spare time to read through the entire thing, but if any of the anti-ban people have the patience to do the same, I think there's a very good chance their opinion could be swayed.

Agreed ... this is well written.  I am going to confuse you now, I'm sure, but here goes anyway.  I totally agree with their rationale, and have no problem with the ban, however I previously was, and still am, anti-ban.  :)

I just don't think it is necessary.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by szaino

In the old days, they used to putt with a lot of wrist action, especially on the short putts, not like today where the pendulum motion is used.

Here is a perfect example of Bobby Jones putting in this fashion. They used to anchor their forearms against their legs and use all wrist and body turn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnYXZ79nKKY

Resting par of their hand or even part of the forearm against the leg while making the stroke would now constitute anchoring.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

This is really, REALLY well written. Admittedly I'm biased since I've always been pro-ban, but this writeup refutes (successfully, IMO) every anti-ban argument that has been presented in this thread or anywhere else - in many cases using the same arguments almost word-for-word that the pro-ban people in this thread have been making. And many additional supporting reasons are given that I'd not thought of.

It took me two days to get enough spare time to read through the entire thing, but if any of the anti-ban people have the patience to do the same, I think there's a very good chance their opinion could be swayed.

Agreed ... this is well written.  I am going to confuse you now, I'm sure, but here goes anyway.  I totally agree with their rationale, and have no problem with the ban, however I previously was, and still am, anti-ban.  :)

I just don't think it is necessary.

Fair enough, and not really confusing/contradictory... My stance is that the ban is fine since A) All the counterarguments have been adequately addressed (at least I feel they have, either in this thread or in the article Rulesman posted the link to), and B) It's nothing more than a rule change, which is completely within the auspices of the ruling bodies.  It sounds like you agree with both A and B, but just have a personal preference to not ban anchoring.  That's cool.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by longball87

I believe that its being blown out of proportion and that they need to really re-consider this. First i would like to state, i DO NOT use a belly putter or long putter. Since high school, i have been putting with my same Scotty for years and consider it my "bill baroo". I have tried different styles and lengths and being the height that im at (6'5") and found out that i like my Scotty and just made it a bit longer than the norm (37"). I do not think anchoring is cheating by all means, i feel whatever the player feels comfortable with they should use it. Golf is not the game of perfect and that is why i love it!! You can have the worst god damn looking swing, but if it works for you play it! I feel the same with putting. Ive tried the long putter and the belly and to me they didnt work. But for some of the guys on tour or amateur, it works wonders. To me they are making people change their game?? Thats complete load of crap! Just because they feel its "cheating" because your "anchoring", comon folks get with it. My thing is this, if its the best thing on the pro circuit and they "make everything" then why dont every pro convert to it then??? Its not like the groove change way back when, this is just a set up that certain players like and i feel for em. Thats like saying that i cant use my 47 inch driver anymore because its "too long" and i hit it "too far" and its "cheating". Each person has their own way of putting and they should keep it that way!! As i stated previously, if was such a big game changer and made the game "easier" then everyone one of the pros would go to it and would be shooting lights out!

Whether or not players are comfortable with something or whether they like something is really no basis for allowing something to continue.  I'm sure quite a few players would be more comfortable with a golf ball that is guaranteed to go straight for 300 yards even on a mishit.  I know I'd play a lot better if I could wear some kind of wrist brace to make sure my left wrist is flat at impact.  The point is, golf is about overcoming the obstacles and challenges of the game.  It's not about changing things so everyone is comfortable with their game.  If you have a problem with the yips because you're not as able to overcome your nerves as your opponent is, you SHOULDN'T be comfortable with your game.  You need to master that area of the game just as your opponent did.  There are no shortcuts to good golf, and there shouldn't be.  That's what makes it a worthwhile experience.

You say they're making people change their game but, in fact, those people who use an anchored stroke have changed something that many feel is fundamental to the game: the definition of a stroke.

As for the "make everything" comment, I seriously doubt you meant to put that in quotes because I haven't heard those words from anyone who knows what they're talking about.  The ONLY thing I've heard was that some people have the opinion that anchored putting eliminates the "yips", and for golfers who have a problem with the "yips" (and ONLY for those golfers) anchored putting provides an advantage over traditional putting styles.  Golfers who don't suffer from that problem probably wouldn't benefit from the anchored style.  That's why it's rare that you see anyone go to the anchored style unless they already have a problem with their putting.  You don't fix what's already working.  If you want to improve, you practice more often.

Golf has challenges that are necessary for it to be Golf.  One of these is the challenge of overcoming the mental obstacles.  Those who think that the mental obstacles aren't necessary probably have no appreciation for the 17th at Sawgrass.  Golf needs holes like that to challenge not only the swing, but the mind.  And golf needs the "yips".  Removing them from the game (or eliminating them with an anchored stroke) to me is no different than building a golf course with no hazards or rough, and making all the greens perfectly flat with pins dead-center on each one.  If you need the game to be easier, take some lessons and hit the range.  Golf wasn't created by soccer moms who want to make sure everyone gets to play and everyone gets a trophy at the end of the day.  There are winners and there are losers in golf.  And if you work hard enough at your game, the reward is you might get to be a winner.  There's no reward in taking shortcuts.  If that's what folks want, they can save a lot of time and money.  Sell the clubs.  Use some of the money to buy a bunch of golf trophies and put them on their mantle.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Fair enough, and not really confusing/contradictory... My stance is that the ban is fine since A) All the counterarguments have been adequately addressed (at least I feel they have, either in this thread or in the article Rulesman posted the link to), and B) It's nothing more than a rule change, which is completely within the auspices of the ruling bodies.  It sounds like you agree with both A and B, but just have a personal preference to not ban anchoring.  That's cool.

That is exactly right.  I have absolutely no issues with their reasoning and their logic.  I just feel like the decision they came to the first time around - when they agreed that it was just a few guys doing it, not worth worrying about - still applies.  Granted, it's considerably more popular now than it was then, but I never thought (no way to prove it one way or another, especially now) that it would become any more common than it currently is, and would fall into the same category as all of the different grip styles that people tried, and continue to try.  A niche.

The vast (vast) majority of golfers always have, and, I believe, always would have, putted with a conventional length putter, their front hand above their rear hand, with nothing anchored to their body.  This is why I think it wasn't necessary.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That is exactly right.  I have absolutely no issues with their reasoning and their logic.  I just feel like the decision they came to the first time around - when they agreed that it was just a few guys doing it, not worth worrying about - still applies.  Granted, it's considerably more popular now than it was then, but I never thought (no way to prove it one way or another, especially now) that it would become any more common than it currently is, and would fall into the same category as all of the different grip styles that people tried, and continue to try.  A niche.

The vast (vast) majority of golfers always have, and, I believe, always would have, putted with a conventional length putter, their front hand above their rear hand, with nothing anchored to their body.  This is why I think it wasn't necessary.

I'm with you (again) Golfingdad, I don't believe an anchored stroke is a legal golf stroke and I'm overall happy the decision is made and final.  (Bold for emphasis)

I would have preferred the R&A; / USGA came to this conclusion in 1968 and not waited until now.  This mentality that the stroke was acceptable when only a few people were doing it and no longer is because more people are doing it leaves the potential for future decisions to be made based on golf trends rather than the strict interpretation of the existing rules and definitions.

Will a 460cc driver be banned once enough pro's are on the Tour that can drive the ball 400 yards?  Will hybrids be banned because they are determined to be so much easier to hit than long irons?   I know this is slippery slope but given the handling of the anchored stroke they left the door open for these sorts of questions to be asked.

I believe the R&A; / USGA brought all the negative press and feelings on themselves for not addressing this when the first anchored putting stroke was used.  Hopefully it's an isolated incident and not indication of how they manage the rules in the future.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That is exactly right.  I have absolutely no issues with their reasoning and their logic.  I just feel like the decision they came to the first time around - when they agreed that it was just a few guys doing it, not worth worrying about - still applies.  Granted, it's considerably more popular now than it was then, but I never thought (no way to prove it one way or another, especially now) that it would become any more common than it currently is, and would fall into the same category as all of the different grip styles that people tried, and continue to try.  A niche.

The vast (vast) majority of golfers always have, and, I believe, always would have, putted with a conventional length putter, their front hand above their rear hand, with nothing anchored to their body.  This is why I think it wasn't necessary.

I'm with you (again) Golfingdad, I don't believe an anchored stroke is a legal golf stroke and I'm overall happy the decision is made and final.  (Bold for emphasis)

I would have preferred the R&A; / USGA came to this conclusion in 1968 and not waited until now.  This mentality that the stroke was acceptable when only a few people were doing it and no longer is because more people are doing it leaves the potential for future decisions to be made based on golf trends rather than the strict interpretation of the existing rules and definitions.

Will a 460cc driver be banned once enough pro's are on the Tour that can drive the ball 400 yards?  Will hybrids be banned because they are determined to be so much easier to hit than long irons?   I know this is slippery slope but given the handling of the anchored stroke they left the door open for these sorts of questions to be asked.

I believe the R&A; / USGA brought all the negative press and feelings on themselves for not addressing this when the first anchored putting stroke was used.  Hopefully it's an isolated incident and not indication of how they manage the rules in the future.

The fallacy in your concerns is that you are focusing on equipment.  They haven't banned any equipment in this case, I and I don't really expect them to do so in anyway that manifests itself as fallout from the anchoring decision.  If they make any changes in the equipment rules, that will be a stand alone ruling which is unrelated to this one.  The only real chatter I've heard along those lines concerns the ball, and none of that seems to be coming from the ruling bodies.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The fallacy in your concerns is that you are focusing on equipment.  They haven't banned any equipment in this case, I and I don't really expect them to do so in anyway that manifests itself as fallout from the anchoring decision.  If they make any changes in the equipment rules, that will be a stand alone ruling which is unrelated to this one.  The only real chatter I've heard along those lines concerns the ball, and none of that seems to be coming from the ruling bodies.

I agree that the chances of them altering equipment rules is extremely minimal.  However, I have to agree with newtogolf to some extent, because while reading that paper, I thought the same thing as he did.  For example, in "Section 2. The Underlying Rationale for Rule 14-1b and Its Benefits to the Game," there is a subheading C -title "Anchored Methods of Stroke Clearly Provide a Player with a Potential Advantage."  In that section, there are many arguments that I realize could apply to the big drivers newtogolf mentioned, or to cavity backed irons, or any other "game improvement" type equipment.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I would have preferred the R&A; / USGA came to this conclusion in 1968 and not waited until now.  This mentality that the stroke was acceptable when only a few people were doing it and no longer is because more people are doing it leaves the potential for future decisions to be made based on golf trends rather than the strict interpretation of the existing rules and definitions.

I don't agree (and neither do the ruling bodies, obviously) with your implied premise that trends should not play a rule in potential rules refinement. As explained in the previously linked statement:

Originally Posted by USGA/R&A;

A major argument heard during our review is that, although it would have been acceptable and perhaps even desirable for The R&A; and the USGA to prohibit anchoring as soon as it first arose, it is too late to adopt Rule 14-1b now because too many golfers have come to use and prefer this method of stroke. We understand the view that the current level of controversy and need to adapt might have been mitigated (though certainly not avoided), if anchoring had been prohibited at an earlier time and that, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, some might wish that we had done so. But we cannot accept that anchoring must be considered a permanent fixture in golf for the decades and centuries to come, regardless of what experience has revealed or may reveal about its effects on the game…

Those who believe that The R&A; and the USGA previously approved anchoring are mistaken… The fact that The R&A; and the USGA were aware that long putters frequently were used in an anchored manner and took no action to prohibit it did not, contrary to suggestions in some comments, mean that the governing bodies in effect “approved” that technique… although concerns deepened in the 2000’s, following the visible emergence of anchored belly putting, the low levels of usage around the world continued to suggest to some that anchoring these clubs was only a peripheral technique presenting no real long-term threat to the traditional way of playing the game. It was the recent upsurge in the use of anchored strokes that decisively changed this perception. It was no longer possible to dismiss the use of anchored longer putters as incidental or unlikely to affect the game as a whole...

In sum, the fact that The R&A; and the USGA did not previously adopt a Rule to prohibit anchored strokes when their use emerged did not signify affirmative R&A;/USGA approval or a determination that anchoring would be permissible on an ongoing or permanent basis. No one who chose to use this technique was promised that a Rule prohibiting anchored strokes would never be adopted…The fact that a Rule was not adopted at an earlier time reflected no decision or assurance that a future Rule would not be considered or adopted. Any contrary suggestion is untenable, for insisting that any emerging issue of play either be resolved by immediate Rule change or be set aside and permanently ignored would place an untenable burden on the rulemaking bodies and be to the severe detriment of the game

I.e., trends do play a role in rule changes, in that the ruling bodies had to make a judgement call on when the increased use of the anchoring threatened to take the game in a direction they didn't want it to go. Until that happened, they elected to adopt a wait and see attitude. Without a crystal ball it was impossible to tell when anchoring would become as mainstream as it has.  Until it did, it wasn't hurting the game if there were only a few isolated practitioners.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Will a 460cc driver be banned once enough pro's are on the Tour that can drive the ball 400 yards?  Will hybrids be banned because they are determined to be so much easier to hit than long irons?   I know this is slippery slope but given the handling of the anchored stroke they left the door open for these sorts of questions to be asked.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I agree that the chances of them altering equipment rules is extremely minimal.  However, I have to agree with newtogolf to some extent, because while reading that paper, I thought the same thing as he did.  For example, in "Section 2. The Underlying Rationale for Rule 14-1b and Its Benefits to the Game," there is a subheading C -title "Anchored Methods of Stroke Clearly Provide a Player with a Potential Advantage."  In that section, there are many arguments that I realize could apply to the big drivers newtogolf mentioned, or to cavity backed irons, or any other "game improvement" type equipment.

Equipment already has rules-based limitations. What would be so bad about continuing to refine the allowed equipment if such refinement is for the good of the game?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I agree that the chances of them altering equipment rules is extremely minimal.  However, I have to agree with newtogolf to some extent, because while reading that paper, I thought the same thing as he did.  For example, in "Section 2. The Underlying Rationale for Rule 14-1b and Its Benefits to the Game," there is a subheading C -title "Anchored Methods of Stroke Clearly Provide a Player with a Potential Advantage."  In that section, there are many arguments that I realize could apply to the big drivers newtogolf mentioned, or to cavity backed irons, or any other "game improvement" type equipment.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Equipment already has rules-based limitations. What would be so bad about continuing to refine the allowed equipment if such refinement is for the good of the game?

Absolutely nothing. :)  I was not trying to imply that I thought there was anything inherently wrong with the similarities I noticed there, but was simply stating that I noticed them.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Equipment already has rules-based limitations. What would be so bad about continuing to refine the allowed equipment if such refinement is for the good of the game?

I think there would be more of an uproar if current equipment was banned. That is what would hurt the amateur golfer.

The wedge change was not a big deal because no one should be playing the same wedges in 2024.

A putter is a bit different since it is a club that could theoretically be used for a lifetime.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by meenman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Equipment already has rules-based limitations. What would be so bad about continuing to refine the allowed equipment if such refinement is for the good of the game?

I think there would be more of an uproar if current equipment was banned. That is what would hurt the amateur golfer.

Agreed, and I don't think it's likely we'll ever see much in the way of equipment bans (disallowing hybrids, for example) precisely because that would probably *not* be good for the game.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I don't agree (and neither do the ruling bodies, obviously) with your implied premise that trends should not play a rule in potential rules refinement. As explained in the previously linked statement:

I.e., trends do play a role in rule changes, in that the ruling bodies had to make a judgement call on when the increased use of the anchoring threatened to take the game in a direction they didn't want it to go. Until that happened, they elected to adopt a wait and see attitude. Without a crystal ball it was impossible to tell when anchoring would become as mainstream as it has.  Until it did, it wasn't hurting the game if there were only a few isolated practitioners.

Equipment already has rules-based limitations. What would be so bad about continuing to refine the allowed equipment if such refinement is for the good of the game?

I wasn't stating an opinion but an observation and question about the impact future trends in professional golf would have on the overall Rules of Golf given this precedent.  My understanding is the anchored stroke ban was proposed to address the trends the R&A; and USGA saw in professional golf and the only way they felt they could stop this trend from continuing at the pro level was to ban it at all levels.

Equipment refinement rules are different imo.  Pro's are hitting all their clubs longer, but their drives seem to get the most attention.   I realize this is the internet and everyone claims to hit their drives as far as Bubba Watson but the reality is very few do.  I was at a tournament last week that had a longest drive hole and the winning drive was 276 yards, not even close to being Bubba long or even Luke Donald long.  While one tournament doesn't make the case, I think most would agree the average weekend golfer or even club golfer isn't hitting their drives close to what the pro's do.

If the USGA and R&A; intend to use trends in professional golf to refine equipment conformity based on the ability of the pro's, the game is going to get a lot harder for non-pro's in the future unless courses get shorter or they introduce bifurcation of the rules.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I don't agree (and neither do the ruling bodies, obviously) with your implied premise that trends should not play a rule in potential rules refinement. As explained in the previously linked statement:

I.e., trends do play a role in rule changes, in that the ruling bodies had to make a judgement call on when the increased use of the anchoring threatened to take the game in a direction they didn't want it to go. Until that happened, they elected to adopt a wait and see attitude. Without a crystal ball it was impossible to tell when anchoring would become as mainstream as it has.  Until it did, it wasn't hurting the game if there were only a few isolated practitioners.

Equipment already has rules-based limitations. What would be so bad about continuing to refine the allowed equipment if such refinement is for the good of the game?

I wasn't stating an opinion but an observation and question about the impact future trends in professional golf would have on the overall Rules of Golf given this precedent.  My understanding is the anchored stroke ban was proposed to address the trends the R&A; and USGA saw in professional golf and the only way they felt they could stop this trend from continuing at the pro level was to ban it at all levels.

Equipment refinement rules are different imo.  Pro's are hitting all their clubs longer, but their drives seem to get the most attention.   I realize this is the internet and everyone claims to hit their drives as far as Bubba Watson but the reality is very few do.  I was at a tournament last week that had a longest drive hole and the winning drive was 276 yards, not even close to being Bubba long or even Luke Donald long.  While one tournament doesn't make the case, I think most would agree the average weekend golfer or even club golfer isn't hitting their drives close to what the pro's do.

If the USGA and R&A; intend to use trends in professional golf to refine equipment conformity based on the ability of the pro's, the game is going to get a lot harder for non-pro's in the future unless courses get shorter or they introduce bifurcation of the rules.

Re the part I bolded, I don't think that's the case at all. They wanted to ban it at all levels, not just the pros.  It's not like pros putt so much better than amateurs only because anchoring has been allowed - pros are going to be good putters whether anchoring is allowed or not.

Other than that, I get what you're saying, and I guess what I'm saying is I just don't have a concern that our equipment is going to start being taken away from us, or limited, in response to how the pros play the game. If pros start hitting it longer, whether because of equipment/technology or better sports science, then amateurs will be hitting it longer too for the same reasons. Sure, the gap might get incrementally bigger, but enough for equipment changes? Even if that happens, any adjustments made to reduce length would be to counteract an increase in length that, again, amateurs would be enjoying as well. So worst case scenario is the net result is the game remains exactly as hard as it is now.

And if anyone feels they need shorter courses because the game as been made too hard for whatever reason, there's a much simpler solution than creating shorter courses - just move up a tee!

[mp33 man]

Whether or not players are comfortable with something or whether they like something is really no basis for allowing something to continue.  I'm sure quite a few players would be more comfortable with a golf ball that is guaranteed to go straight for 300 yards even on a mishit.  I know I'd play a lot better if I could wear some kind of wrist brace to make sure my left wrist is flat at impact.  The point is, golf is about overcoming the obstacles and challenges of the game.  It's not about changing things so everyone is comfortable with their game.  If you have a problem with the yips because you're not as able to overcome your nerves as your opponent is, you SHOULDN'T be comfortable with your game.  You need to master that area of the game just as your opponent did.  There are no shortcuts to good golf, and there shouldn't be.  That's what makes it a worthwhile experience. You say they're making people change their game but, in fact, those people who use an anchored stroke have changed something that many feel is fundamental to the game: the definition of a stroke. As for the "make everything" comment, I seriously doubt you meant to put that in quotes because I haven't heard those words from anyone who knows what they're talking about.  The ONLY thing I've heard was that some people have the opinion that anchored putting eliminates the "yips", and for golfers who have a problem with the "yips" (and ONLY for those golfers) anchored putting provides an advantage over traditional putting styles.  Golfers who don't suffer from that problem probably wouldn't benefit from the anchored style.  That's why it's rare that you see anyone go to the anchored style unless they already have a problem with their putting.  You don't fix what's already working.  If you want to improve, you practice more often. Golf has challenges that are necessary for it to be Golf.  One of these is the challenge of overcoming the mental obstacles.  Those who think that the mental obstacles aren't necessary probably have no appreciation for the 17th at Sawgrass.  Golf needs holes like that to challenge not only the swing, but the mind.  And golf needs the "yips".  Removing them from the game (or eliminating them with an anchored stroke) to me is no different than building a golf course with no hazards or rough, and making all the greens perfectly flat with pins dead-center on each one.  If you need the game to be easier, take some lessons and hit the range.  Golf wasn't created by soccer moms who want to make sure everyone gets to play and everyone gets a trophy at the end of the day.  There are winners and there are losers in golf.  And if you work hard enough at your game, the reward is you might get to be a winner.  There's no reward in taking shortcuts.  If that's what folks want, they can save a lot of time and money.  Sell the clubs.  Use some of the money to buy a bunch of golf trophies and put them on their mantle.

Thanks for proving my point for me. If you can't hit a blade then you simply need to practice more... If you can't keep a persimon in the fairway then you need to practice more... You do realize that this is the point you just made? right?

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Re the part I bolded, I don't think that's the case at all. They wanted to ban it at all levels, not just the pros.  It's not like pros putt so much better than amateurs only because anchoring has been allowed - pros are going to be good putters whether anchoring is allowed or not.

What I had heard and read is the of R&A; and USGA didn't ban the anchored stroke in the past because it was traditionally used as a last resort by older pro's that could not putt well with a traditional stroke due to age related issues or the yips.  The catalyst for their review of the stroke last year was based on the number of junior golfers that were being taught to use an anchored stroke as their primary putting method and that the number of high school, college and local tour players using an anchored stroke were trending higher as well.  The concern being that with all of these kids learning to putt with an anchored stroke, more of them would eventually end up on the pro tours, like Keegan Bradley.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Re the part I bolded, I don't think that's the case at all. They wanted to ban it at all levels, not just the pros.  It's not like pros putt so much better than amateurs only because anchoring has been allowed - pros are going to be good putters whether anchoring is allowed or not.

What I had heard and read is the of R&A; and USGA didn't ban the anchored stroke in the past because it was traditionally used as a last resort by older pro's that could not putt well with a traditional stroke due to age related issues or the yips.  The catalyst for their review of the stroke last year was based on the number of junior golfers that were being taught to use an anchored stroke as their primary putting method and that the number of high school, college and local tour players using an anchored stroke were trending higher as well.  The concern being that with all of these kids learning to putt with an anchored stroke, more of them would eventually end up on the pro tours, like Keegan Bradley.

What I've read never singles out use of anchoring on the pro tour as the reason - rather it's the use of it in general. Yes, the decision cites increased anchoring by beginners and junior players, due to increased teaching of it by instructors, as the catalyst for acting now instead of earlier. But to say the rationale is to keep it from becoming more prevalent on the tour, instead of simply to keep it from being used by all golfers in general, seems like a stretch to me.  Sure, they don't want it used on the tour, but that's because they don't want it used anywhere.

You may be right, in that maybe that was the *secret* goal of the ruling, if not the stated goal. But even so, I still don't see an issue with trends being used as factors for rulings, because I can't imagine a trend that would *only* exist at pro levels. (Other than the obvious trend of "They're better than us", but that isn't really a trend that has ever or will ever change.)

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by mp33 man

Thanks for proving my point for me.

If you can't hit a blade then you simply need to practice more...

If you can't keep a persimon in the fairway then you need to practice more...

You do realize that this is the point you just made? right?

The USGA and R&A; have never intended to prohibit the gradual evolution of equipment in the game.  The first clubs were crafted by the players themselves.  So you're suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you can make your own clubs?

Cavity back irons, 460cc drivers, and hybrids all have one thing in common:  they still require the player to do exactly what he has been doing since golf was created.  So long as the skills required to play the game are retained in the golfer and not the equipment, I see nothing wrong with gradual evolution.  It's when you completely eliminate an area (like the mental game) that you're making a mistake.  You'll also notice that since the advent of cavity backs, metal woods/hybrids that the combined scoring averages for golfers hasn't changed.  Seems to me this is evidence that the equipment isn't evolving too fast.  And before you make an argument about the length of drives these days, I think the USGA's own data shows that's more about swing speed than driver size or ball dynamics.