Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[dsc123]

PGA != PGA Tour

(Phone. Sorry for short reply.)

opps.  I meant to say Tour in both sentences.  The Bishop letter refers to both.

They don't really have any more right to a say than any other golf organization.

Why?  Why should a group which is composed of only a few hundred players (and an infinitessimal percentage of the whole golfing world) have any more say than anyone else.  It's irrelevant that they happen to be pretty good players - that may allow them the opportunity to all be millionaires, but it still doesn't give them the right to set the rules.  There are pretty good players in Europe, in Australia, in Japan, and others scattered around the world.  Why aren't you speaking up for their "rights"?  Your opinion sounds like the opinion of a homer.

I think Bishop meant a more meaningful seat than before, not a more meaningful seat than the PGA of Japan or whoever.

I was explaining why I think the PGA Tour might reasonably expect to be consulted--not consulted more than any other particular group.  I think the logistical hurdles of consulting every single golfer in the world would be significant.  So it makes sense to look to representative organizations for input.  The PGA of America claims to be the largest sports organization in the world and the PGA Tour is, at least in some ways, the most influential golfing organization.  Both would be significantly impacted by rule changes.  So yeah, I think it is reasonable for them to expect to be consulted.  Particularly since it seems like they both reached out to the USGA and expressed an interest in the topic.

Ultimately, Erik is probably right that they don't actually have a bigger seat at the table, but Bishop wanted to claim victory for his efforts.

For the record, the PGA Tour already has representation on the USGA Rules Committee, and the European Tour already has representation on the R&A; Rules Committee. And the PGA Tour Rules officials and European Tour Rules officials work closely together.

The PGA and the USGA do cooperate in presenting the Rules of Golf Workshops in the US, and do a great job.

However, I doubt that Mr. Bishop (PGA, not PGA Tour) made many friends at the USGA with his bombastic news releases and statements.

Good info, thanks!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Why?  Why should a group which is composed of only a few hundred players (and an infinitessimal percentage of the whole golfing world) have any more say than anyone else.

Rick, the PGA is not the PGA Tour.

The PGA is 30,000 golf professionals who do a lot of work with the "average golfers." I know you know the difference. The note I posted came from the PGA, not the PGA Tour.

And I could make an argument that you sound like a homer if you want to dismiss the PGA Tour as an unimportant body. They're more important than you'll likely ever admit. :) If they weren't important, companies wouldn't pay what they pay for PGA Tour golfers to play their equipment, for example.

I know that, but the post I was replying to was talking about the Tour.

[iacas]

I know that, but the post I was replying to was talking about the Tour.

Then I'd request that you make the correction. The post to which you responded had "PGA" in bold.

[Rulesman]

For the record, the organisation Bishop represents is the 'PGA of America'. The PGA is a similar organisation based in but not limited to the UK. It is the trustee of the Ryder Cup and formed in 1901.

The PGA of America was founded in 1916.

[iacas]

For the record, the organisation Bishop represents is the 'PGA of America'. The PGA is a similar organisation based in but not limited to the UK. It is the trustee of the Ryder Cup and formed in 1901.

The PGA of America was founded in 1916.

And to everyone in the U.S., and to those participating in this discussion about the letter I posted, "the PGA" is the PGA of America. Just like how we say "The Masters" when Germans might have their own "Masters" tournament.

But you knew that, and you know virtually every major country has their own PGA. Like https://www.pga.de , http://www.pgaofcanada.com , etc.

I don't think anyone is confusing "the PGA" with the one started 15 years before the U.S. one started.

P.S. It's like when we say "The PGA Championship" or sometimes just "He won the PGA" we're of course referring to the PGA Championship of the U.S. even though other countries have their own PGA championships. :)

Anyway, if anyone's confused, those posts should clarify things. But I don't think anyone was… :D

[Fourputt]

For the record, the organisation Bishop represents is the 'PGA of America'. The PGA is a similar organisation based in but not limited to the UK. It is the trustee of the Ryder Cup and formed in 1901.

The PGA of America was founded in 1916.

I understood this, but a great many golfers believe that the PGA Tour and the PGA of America are the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

For the record, the organisation Bishop represents is the 'PGA of America'. The PGA is a similar organisation based in but not limited to the UK. It is the trustee of the Ryder Cup and formed in 1901.

The PGA of America was founded in 1916.

And to everyone in the U.S., and to those participating in this discussion about the letter I posted, "the PGA" is the PGA of America. Just like how we say "The Masters" when Germans might have their own "Masters" tournament.

But you knew that, and you know virtually every major country has their own PGA. Like https://www.pga.de , http://www.pgaofcanada.com , etc.

I don't think anyone is confusing "the PGA" with the one started 15 years before the U.S. one started.

P.S. It's like when we say "The PGA Championship" or sometimes just "He won the PGA" we're of course referring to the PGA Championship of the U.S. even though other countries have their own PGA championships. :)

Anyway, if anyone's confused, those posts should clarify things. But I don't think anyone was… :D

No confusion with me.

[Rulesman]

P.S. It's like when we say "The PGA Championship" or sometimes just "He won the PGA" we're of course referring to the PGA Championship of the U.S. even though other countries have their own PGA championships. :)

Anyway, if anyone's confused, those posts should clarify things. But I don't think anyone was… :D

Of course there isn't any confusion in the US as the rest of the world might just as well be on another planet.

I believe there is some oddball game there where the contestants only come from the US but calls itself the World Series

We in the UK recognise that the PGA Tour has nothing to do with the PGA as all club professionals have the logo on their door and highlight their teaching qualifications from the PGA. I suspect that without the hoohah about anchoring, most players outside the US would never have heard of Finchem or Bishop.

But why oh why do US residents refer to the British Open

[iacas]

Of course there isn't any confusion in the US as the rest of the world might just as well be on another planet.

I believe there is some oddball game there where the contestants only come from the US but calls itself the World Series

We in the UK recognise that the PGA Tour has nothing to do with the PGA as all club professionals have the logo on their door and highlight their teaching qualifications from the PGA. I suspect that without the hoohah about anchoring, most players outside the US would never have heard of Finchem or Bishop.

But why oh why do US residents refer to the British Open

I think we're all on board with this, and it's not really on topic, so let's move on now please.

P.S. Because we have our own Open. And it doesn't help that even the R&A; called it the British Open for a few decades. But discuss that topic here…

[mp33 man]

Of course there isn't any confusion in the US as the rest of the world might just as well be on another planet. ;-) I believe there is some oddball game there where the contestants only come from the US but calls itself the World Series :hmm:    We in the UK recognise that the PGA Tour has nothing to do with the PGA as all club professionals have the logo on their door and highlight their teaching qualifications from the PGA. I suspect that without the hoohah about anchoring, most players outside the US would never have heard of Finchem or Bishop. But why oh why do US residents refer to the British Open :pound:   ;-) ;-)

This conversation took a "pissing match" turn awhile back but you just keep on going and going until someone responds and no one has so I will. 1) I believe that the letter was sent to members of the PGA of America so yea, as far as the letter is concerned the rest of the world may as well be on another planet. 2) I wouldn't expect you to know anything about baseball but it has long been known that the best baseball players in the world play in MLB therefore making the best team in MLB most likely the best baseball team in the world. 3) People in the United States of America (that don't know golf) call it the British Open for the same reason that most people feel the need to specify "the US Open". People in the US that know golf refer to it as "the Open" or "the Open Championship". And lastly: 4)I don't think that anyone was seeking a better role in rules decisions ,as far as more than Canada, Japan, the UK etc., as much as a better role than was had before. So in essence, can we please stop with the our golf is better than yours and the our organization has been around longer than yours bullcrap.

[mp33 man]

Sorry Erik, saw yours right after I posted...

[Rulesman]

It seems that some browsers don't support emoticons.

[KevCarter]

Why should a small group of American shopkeepers and prima donnas

Please let me know your handle on other forums so I can start avoiding you...

[Rulesman]

Kev

I hope there was a missing emoticon.

But be careful, I can terminate you off elsewhere

[KevCarter]

Kev

I hope there was a missing emoticon.

But be careful, I can terminate you off elsewhere

That would be fine.

Golf professionals live at the golf course in order to cater to golfers just like those on these websites. We work very long hours because we love it, and I don't feel we need to be ashamed of spending "90% of our time minding the store" as another posted and deleted. I don't care to post where I am thought of as irrelevant because of my profession.

For the record, I don't believe the PGA or the PGA Tour needs a larger role in the rules. Too much chance of making decisions from a business standpoint. I think the rules are too pure for that to happen, and would leave the rules makers wide open for criticism whether $$$ came into play or not.

Thank you,

[bplewis24]

For the record, I don't believe the PGA or the PGA Tour needs a larger role in the rules. Too much chance of making decisions from a business standpoint. I think the rules are too pure for that to happen, and would leave the rules makers wide open for criticism whether $$$ came into play or not.

Thank you,

Since this is getting back near the topic, I'd like to point out that I agree.  While ultimately I'm satisfied with the USGA's decision, I thought they left open the opportunity for business to have too much influence, whereas the R&A; appeared to have a more principled approach.

There are benefits and detriments to both approaches.  Sometimes free market principles can have a good impact while relying heavily on "tradition" and ideology can lean to narrow-minded results, but in this case i think the principled approach is best.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevCarter

For the record, I don't believe the PGA or the PGA Tour needs a larger role in the rules. Too much chance of making decisions from a business standpoint. I think the rules are too pure for that to happen, and would leave the rules makers wide open for criticism whether $$$ came into play or not.

Thank you,

Since this is getting back near the topic, I'd like to point out that I agree.  While ultimately I'm satisfied with the USGA's decision, I thought they left open the opportunity for business to have too much influence, whereas the R&A; appeared to have a more principled approach.

There are benefits and detriments to both approaches.  Sometimes free market principles can have a good impact while relying heavily on "tradition" and ideology can lean to narrow-minded results, but in this case i think the principled approach is best.

The USGA has to be a bit more cautious since the Ping lawsuit 25 years ago.  They have to run everything they do through the legal blender and make sure that all the chunks are worked out before they can even state an opinion.  I think that's one reason why we never hear much about what they are discussing until all of the ramifications have been dealt with.  They have to work in secret out of self defense, so that nobody freaks out and starts a premature rumor that could adversely affect the whole process of rule revision.

[bplewis24]

The USGA has to be a bit more cautious since the Ping lawsuit 25 years ago.  They have to run everything they do through the legal blender and make sure that all the chunks are worked out before they can even state an opinion.  I think that's one reason why we never hear much about what they are discussing until all of the ramifications have been dealt with.  They have to work in secret out of self defense, so that nobody freaks out and starts a premature rumor that could adversely affect the whole process of rule revision.

Interesting.  Good point.  I'm not familiar with that lawsuit so that would make sense.

[Rulesman]

That would be fine.

Golf professionals live at the golf course in order to cater to golfers just like those on these websites. We work very long hours because we love it, and I don't feel we need to be ashamed of spending "90% of our time minding the store" as another posted and deleted. I don't care to post where I am thought of as irrelevant because of my profession.

For the record, I don't believe the PGA or the PGA Tour needs a larger role in the rules. Too much chance of making decisions from a business standpoint. I think the rules are too pure for that to happen, and would leave the rules makers wide open for criticism whether $$$ came into play or not.

Thank you,

Kev

I apologise if you misunderstood my clumsy attempt at humour. I am aware of your background and have every respect for teaching and 'shop' pros.

I wasn't suggesting that you or your colleagues were irrelevant, simply that they were no more or less important that those who use (or don't) your valuable services.

As you suggest, the rules are for players and players only.