Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

If they could admit they had made a mistake by not addressing this issue (again publicly in 89), they would gain some credibility.

To be fair, the current people in the USGA can't really admit that they were wrong. It'd be like a current President trying to "admit" that a former president was wrong (or right) about something. There's "the office" or "the institution" and then there are the actual people that fill those roles.

"The USGA" screwed up, but "Mike Davis" did not.

They being the USGA, not the people that run it. Does anyone really know who they are if you are not really involved (unlike a former President). There would be absolutely nothing wrong with saying something like this:

"While hindsight is 20/20, we, as the governing body of golf, had missed an opportunity to properly address this in the past..." I don't see the harm in it and it accomplishes something (admittedly I am not sure if anyone can quantify what that something may be).

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by Stretch

World's longest-gestating seed. These methods have been available to golfers for decades -- at least -- with only (you note yourself) a tiny niche uptake. But by golly we better prohibit them right now or everybody will surely be using them tomorrow! Come on. Most people don't, and will never, putt with an anchored putter. For the same reason that most people don't, and will never, putt left hand low. It looks odd, it feels odd and, in most cases, it simply won't help you make more putts.

You don't think an anchored stroke is a proper stroke. Fine. But I wish you (and the USGA) would just say that and be done with it, rather than constructing these bullshit scenarios in which if nothing is done then every child to take up the game of golf from now on will compulsorily be issued a broomstick putter in their first US Kids Golf peewee set.

Exactly...I almost feel that the PGA statement may be giving them a reason to cave. Why not just ban the stroke and be done with it. The general golfing public won't care, but the OEMs and some of the "Players" will.

Side question, is there any rumors of lawsuits? While I think that suing over this is ridiculous, it has some precedent. I hope it never gets to that point. Then the USGA will lose something.

[jgreen85]

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8963801/steve-stricker-says-see-pga-tour-ignoring-putter-ban - some of the players have moderated their positions on the ban. Hedging their bets in case they need to switch to the anchor later in their careers a la Ernie? Ultimately, their main focus is on maintaining their card and having the option to switch to an anchored stroke should the yips kick in....

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Stretch

World's longest-gestating seed.

You know what I said. The "seed" was basically dormant for a long long time. It's only recently become a sprout.

Besides, buds occur on mature trees. :)

Originally Posted by Stretch

But by golly we better prohibit them right now or everybody will surely be using them tomorrow! Come on. Most people don't, and will never, putt with an anchored putter.

Among average golfers the number might always be low, but among the game's best the number is exploding. And the explosion is all recent. And there's no doubt that use amongst regular golfers would continue to increase. They'll follow the PGA Tour.

Originally Posted by Stretch

But I wish you (and the USGA) would just say that and be done with it, rather than constructing these bullshit scenarios in which if nothing is done then every child to take up the game of golf from now on will compulsorily be issued a broomstick putter in their first US Kids Golf peewee set.

Andrew, be fair now. At what point have I deviated from what I've said? It's not a stroke. The USGA probably should have banned it long ago (even if they'd done it when I first commented on it seven or eight years ago people would have been in a huff about it, not as much as now), but again, they didn't and so they did it now.

They were asked the question "why now?" and answered it. I'm not a ruling body - again, I'd have done it long ago. So you can say "bullshit scenarios" all you want, Andrew, but I call bullshit on your characterization of what I've said and what the USGA has said. Additionally, your posts continue to ignore the R&A;'s stance in all of this.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by jgreen85

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8963801/steve-stricker-says-see-pga-tour-ignoring-putter-ban - some of the players have moderated their positions on the ban. Hedging their bets in case they need to switch to the anchor later in their careers a la Ernie? Ultimately, their main focus is on maintaining their card and having the option to switch to an anchored stroke should the yips kick in....

Or keeping in good favor with their OEM sponsors who don't want to see a niche market disappear overnight. I would like to see what is going on behind the scenes.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Bullitt5339

Just recently at work, they told us that by security regulations, we could no longer use the entry/exit doors that we've always used which are closer to our offices and much more convenient.  They decided that the security risks for the future were too great, even though it had been allowed for years.  Of course we grumbled a little, but we started using the main entrance because it was a rule identified an outside agency and our company was required to comply because our rules are governed by that agency.  We like our jobs, so we use the other door, even though it's out of the way and inconvenient especially for the oldest workers who have a little trouble walking long distances.

Kind of the same thing I'm seeing with this rule:

1:  "We've always done it"....... same argument.  Doesn't make it right.

2:  "It was never specifically against the rules to use those doors, but if you read the security regulations it was against the best interests of the building and it's occupants"...... same argument, since many argue that an anchored putter really didn't constitute a stroke under the original rules.  It just wasn't spelled out.

3:  "Makes it tougher on people with physical impairments".........  back problems with the conventional putter?

4:  "I was taught to enter/exit through that door".........  Oh Well, adapt or find a new job.

5:  "Why do we have to follow their rules?  We are our own organization."  Because they govern the security rules for all DoD facilities.  Just like the PGA going against the USGA and R&A;'s ruling.

Thanks for injecting some common sense and practicality.  The people trying to turn this into a complex issue are doing so because it lends doubt to the validity of such a ruling.  I doubt there was this much critical analysis of the wedge groove ban.

[newtogolf]

Enough people are in an uproar that the PGA Tour is considering their options, one of which is to create their own set of rules.

I have heard from enough different sources that the R&A; was the catalyst for the rule change and the USGA felt the need to follow to maintain consistency.  The USGA is an organization that is quite unique to professional sports in that it sat in the background but had the power to set the rules for amateurs and professionals.   While the professionals that use an anchored stroke are the most upset and vocal about the ban, the way the USGA handled it put the spotlight on them.

The entire PGA Tour is on alert with some more concerned than others that an organization outside of their control is setting rules that they have to live by and may have serious impact on their earning potential.

Prediction:  USGA backs away from the anchored stroke ban, citing the need for more time to collect input from the golf associations, and will reconsider for 2020.  This allows them to save face, and avoid the potential fallout with the PGA and PGA Tour.

Originally Posted by iacas

Their members are not in an uproar over this. Very, very few of their members putt with an anchored stroke. And "being responsive and considerate" does not mean doing something you believe to be wrong.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Prediction:  USGA backs away from the anchored stroke ban, citing the need for more time to collect input from the golf associations, and will reconsider for 2020.  This allows them to save face, and avoid the potential fallout with the PGA and PGA Tour.

While the R&A; and the rest of the world ban the anchored stroke? Or is the rest of the world going to toe the line with the PGA Tour too?

[TourSpoon]

The way this is all playing out, it just seems odd. As calculated and sophisticated these organizations are, you can't tell me that the PGA Tour announcement is a total surprise. Certainly this had to be anticipated by the USGA as they have all been talking about it for so long.  I am not saying there is a conspiracy but to think that the powers to be didn't discuss this beforehand is a little naive.

[newtogolf]

That's a tougher question given it's believed the R&A; is the catalyst for the ban.  I'm guessing the USGA and R&A; meet to discuss the potential issues with ending the unification of the Rules of Golf.

If the USGA can convince the R&A; that they will seriously push the ban for 2020 and garner support for it, the R&A; might consider following the USGA.  Another alternative is for the R&A; to provide exemptions to existing Tour Pro's that use an anchored putting stroke and make the stroke illegal for everyone else in tournaments outside the United States.

Originally Posted by Mordan

While the R&A; and the rest of the world ban the anchored stroke? Or is the rest of the world going to toe the line with the PGA Tour too?

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Mordan

While the R&A; and the rest of the world ban the anchored stroke? Or is the rest of the world going to toe the line with the PGA Tour too?

Your statement presumes that the European Tour is going to go along with the R&A.;   Has anyone in authority from the European Tour actually made a statement as to their stance about this issue?   I haven't seen anything from them one way or the other.    Since the R&A; doesn't own the European Tour, if the PGA Tour decides to go against the USGA, it is conceivable that the European Tour could also decide to adopt their own rule on anchoring.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Or keeping in good favor with their OEM sponsors who don't want to see a niche market disappear overnight. I would like to see what is going on behind the scenes.

Good point.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Enough people are in an uproar that the PGA Tour is considering their options, one of which is to create their own set of rules.

I believe I very clearly said USGA members. If the USGA is "responsible to their members" then the PGA Tour players are a teeny tiny percentage of that.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Prediction:  USGA backs away from the anchored stroke ban, citing the need for more time to collect input from the golf associations, and will reconsider for 2020.  This allows them to save face, and avoid the potential fallout with the PGA and PGA Tour.

I doubt it. 2016 is already pretty far off. No need to delay. I think they either adopt it or don't.

[newtogolf]

I'll be a big boy and admit I'm wrong if it turns out I am (won't be the first time )

I just can't see the USGA wanting to take on the PGA Tour and PGA right now if they decide to push back on the anchored stroke ban.  If the PGA and PGA Tour decide to ignore the rule, I believe it will have pretty big ramifications for the USGA going forward.

Originally Posted by iacas

I doubt it. 2016 is already pretty far off. No need to delay. I think they either adopt it or don't.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I just can't see the USGA wanting to take on the PGA Tour and PGA right now if they decide to push back on the anchored stroke ban.  If the PGA and PGA Tour decide to ignore the rule, I believe it will have pretty big ramifications for the USGA going forward.

I don't know. The PGA Tour might be the smaller player here. Are they really going to put a different rule in play than 2 or 3 of the game's best majors?

[caniac6]

I was wondering if the Tour will be in favor of anchoring as a legal move. This way if the rule is passed by the USGA, the players can take legal action against the USGA rather the Tour.

[newtogolf]

Based on what I've read it seems the PGA is not in favor of the banning because they feel it doesn't support their goal of making golf easier and expanding the sport.  The PGA Tour initially seemed to support the ban, but recently, especially since the conference call, everyone that was in favor of it is now backing off that position, even Tiger and Stricker who were quite vocal prior to the USGA decision.  This would indicate that the PGA Tour is creating a united front to take on the USGA.

If the PGA and PGA Tour go against the ban, then the question is who is the USGA making rules for?  I agree the PGA Tour represents a very small percentage of the golfers in the USGA but they are the most visible.  I see issues where Joe Golfer shows up at a USGA tournament and is told that he can't use an anchored stroke despite the fact he sees Keegan Bradley use one every week.  I'm not sure the USGA wants to take this kind of heat or be in the forefront of the sport like that.

The Majors are a problem and ultimately that's where the PGA Tour and USGA are playing a game of chicken.  If both sides believe the other side will back down if they force the issue we could see 3 of the Majors require the anchored putter users to either withdraw or be forced to use a conventional putting stroke for the event.   In either case this will not sit well with them and imo will likely lead to lawyers getting involved.

If the USGA completely abandons the ban they risk upsetting the R&A; and potentially causing a break in the unified Rules of Golf.  A delay in the decision buys the USGA some time to figure out what is best long term for the USGA which is why I predicted that would be the likely scenario.

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't know. The PGA Tour might be the smaller player here. Are they really going to put a different rule in play than 2 or 3 of the game's best majors?

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The Majors are a problem and ultimately that's where the PGA Tour and USGA are playing a game of chicken.  If both sides believe the other side will back down if they force the issue we could see 3 of the Majors require the anchored putter users to either withdraw or be forced to use a conventional putting stroke for the event.   In either case this will not sit well with them and imo will likely lead to lawyers getting involved.

On what basis could a player possibly challenge an event that didn't allow an anchored stroke in line with the rules of golf? Let's say the Masters follows the rule makers, a player is invited to play in the tournament under a recognised set of rules and you think they're going to be able to make a legal challenge just because they don't like the set of rule they're invited to play under? Not even in America.

[newtogolf]

The Casey Martin golf cart case set the precedent.  It would be a stretch for a golfer like Keegan Bradley to win in such a case but Carl Peterson might be able to.  Regardless of who wins, the legal battle will be messy and not good for the sport.

Originally Posted by Mordan

On what basis could a player possibly challenge an event that didn't allow an anchored stroke in line with the rules of golf? Let's say the Masters follows the rule makers, a player is invited to play in the tournament under a recognised set of rules and you think they're going to be able to make a legal challenge just because they don't like the set of rule they're invited to play under? Not even in America.