Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Good points all around, although I have a nuanced disagreement with your assertion that "good defenders" aren't affected by the rules you cited.  Particularly in the NFL's case (my area of expertise in football is at cornerback where I played for 7 years and have coached the position at various levels for the last 8 or so), there are different types of defenders, techniques AND schemes that all play into that rule.

The "Illegal Contact" rule benefited players that were smaller, quicker, had more fluid hips and better footwork, and punished players who were bigger, stronger and more physical.  One could argue that it shortened the careers of some of those latter types of corners who couldn't adapt to the change.  It also affected schemes and playcalling, as some defenses (cover 2, for example) were more dependent on a physical corner presence on the outside vs other defensive schemes.

At least with Golf it is for the betterment of the game as they would be promoting a higher skill level (IMO) truer to the original intent of the sport.  In the NFL's case, they were just trying to increase scoring to make the game more exciting and marketable, even though it actually hurts the sport (horrible illegal contact penalties called every week, defenders are at a marked disadvantage, and it decreases the ability to slow WRs down as they advance upfield, thereby increasing the collision speed of hits across the middle and down the field which has added to the inherent danger of the game).  Anyway, of course this hasn't eliminated the big, physical corner from the game as they are as prevalent as ever.  But they definitely had an adjustment period.  The same would apply to a golfer who anchors a belly putter currently: if they can't adapt, their career will be shortened.

Adapt.

I will definitely defer to your expertise on the nuances of the rule (I was a tight end in my day - which ended a long time ago because I never played past high school, and wasn't very good anyway) and how they affect specific types of players.  But, fundamentally, I agree with you that it comes down to simply being able to adapt .

Like Erik has said several times, rules change in sports all the time, and while they aren't all nearly as controversial as this one seems to be, they all involve players having to adapt to the change or retire.

Personally, I really don't care if they change the rule or not, which I guess means that I'm on the side of not banning anchoring.  It just doesn't bother me and I don't care if some people do it or not.  (I think certain members with Irish names who never post in these threads would be happy to hear that )

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

The NHL crackdown on obstruction from a few years back ended the careers of several high profile players. The Instigator rule also lead to some early retirements.

Were these guys top 1%? Probably not but many of them could name their team and price come free agency. A lot of big name players couldn't find jobs post lockout.

They were still the top 1% of hockey players. Stretch wasn't asking, I don't believe, about top 1% of PGA Tour players only.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

They were still the top 1% of hockey players. Stretch wasn't asking, I don't believe, about top 1% of PGA Tour players only.

Do your Marty McSorley, Claude Lemeiux and Tie Doomi types qualify as 1%-ers?

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Do your Marty McSorley, Claude Lemeiux and Tie Doomi types qualify as 1%-ers?

Whoa!!!! You can't put Claude Lemieux in the Domi - McSorley camp. He was and absolute CLUTCH performer come playoffs. Domi and McSorley couldn't carry Lemieux's jock with a wheel barrow.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Whoa!!!! You can't put Claude Lemieux in the Domi - McSorley camp. He was and absolute CLUTCH performer come playoffs. Domi and McSorley couldn't carry Lemieux's jock with a wheel barrow.

True, but he also never saw a dirty hit he didn't like ... that's why I threw him in there.  But, yes, he could actually play hockey, which could not really be said for the others.  I also could've said Scott Stevens, but I imagine that would ruffle some feathers too.

[Willie Malay]

There is talk about players suing to keep long putters "legal" for use in the PGA and RNA. What's your take? Here's mine:

I abhor most law suits, especially the lawyer-driven class action frivolous types. But I support the players that might sue and here's why. The long putters go back some 40 years! The time to ban them was then. Since they allowed the use of them I feel they are grandfathered in. You notice I call them long putters and not "anchored". I do not feel they are anchored. An anchor is an outside source that anchors it to you like, say a strap. Now, if you say because it touches the body in any other part than the hands and that makes it anchored, then the short putter is anchored also when a person runs the shaft up their forearm and anchors it to the forearm with the hand. That to me is much more anchored than the butt of the club touching the belly.

I feel the governing bodies are being reactionary just because some have won majors with it. Big whoop. The time to ban it was when it first came out many, many years ago. Why didn't they "outlaw" big-headed drivers when people started winning with them? Why didn't they ban the glove when people started winning with them(talk about an anchoring mechanism!).

No, I do not use a long putter and doubt I ever will. I think they are awkward at best.

I hope the players follow through with this because in my mind it is more about being reactionary than "protecting the game".

Let it fly...

[mvmac]

Seems Keegan Bradley is also going to take a stand against the inevitable USGA/R&A; ban on anchoring putters against the torso.

Quote:

“I'm going to do whatever I have to do to protect myself and the other players on Tour,” Bradley said. “I look at it as a whole, as us all together. I don't look at it as much about myself. I think that for them to ban this after we've done what we've done is unbelievable.”

Ernie Els added

Quote:

“They’re going to have a couple of legal matters coming their way,” Els said here, indicating the USGA and R&A.; “It's going to be a bit of an issue now. I’ve been against it, but since I’ve been using it, it still takes a lot of practice, and you have to perfect your own way of putting with this belly.”

[iacas]

Stupid players. Learn to play the game, follow the rules.

[dave67az]

I really get tired of whining.  The rules are the same for every player.  Nobody has an advantage.  Unless belly putters actually DO give a competitive advantage, there is no justification for all the complaints.  Simply filing a lawsuit is tantamount to saying "I'm not as good without a belly putter", which is EXACTLY what the PGA/USGA/R&A; are arguing.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by iacas

Stupid players. Learn to play the game, follow the rules.

Aren't they currently playing by the existing rules?

EDIT* maybe this would be more accurate, "Aren't they currently playing within the existing rules?"

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Willie Malay

But I support the players that might sue and here's why. The long putters go back some 40 years! The time to ban them was then. Since they allowed the use of them I feel they are grandfathered in.

That logic won't hold much water.  Imagine how many things would still be legal today if we went by the "well it's been going on too long, so we can't stop it now" measuring stick.

However, it would be interesting to see if the governing rules committee considered grandfathering any current players in as a way to avoid legal entanglements.  I highly doubt they would, because it would hurt the credibility of their own argument in allowing certain players to use an illegal stroke/club and not others.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Aren't they currently playing by the existing rules?

EDIT* maybe this would be more accurate, "Aren't they currently playing within the existing  rules?"

They are.  But threatening lawsuits means they will have a problem with playing under future rules requiring a different golf stroke, which is pretty ridiculous.

As we would say in Starcraft, "L2P!"

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

They are.  But threatening lawsuits means they will have a problem with playing under future rules requiring a different golf stroke, which is pretty ridiculous.

As we would say in Starcraft, "L2P!"

They want everyone to actually believe that they can grip and swing a wedge but can't grip and swing a putter because of something that makes them different.  I don't get it either, and I think it's just a copout for players who have the "yips" and haven't mastered the mental parts of the game.  To me, it's no different than someone wearing an elbow brace onto the course because they're having difficultly training their muscles to keep that left arm straighter.

Amateurs whose scores don't mean anything significant (other than for personal accomplishment) can play however they want with whatever equipment they want (hell, you can even use illegal golf balls and 16 clubs and I'm betting nobody gives a crap unless there's money on the line).

But pros are expected to be the best, NOT because of equipment that gives them an edge but because their years of practice and muscle control gives them an edge.

It's bad enough golf balls go 350 yards and more.  Personally I wish they'd fix that one, too.

[cliffj]

Where were these guys when the groove rule changed? (Except Keegan who was probably in diapers whining for food)...

[Ernest Jones]

Call me shallow, but that the fact that the long and belly putters look stupid IMO is enough to keep me using a traditional putter! Especially the the long putter like Adam Scott uses, makes me think of people that bowl between their legs! Effective but goofy looking!

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I really get tired of whining.  The rules are the same for every player.  Nobody has an advantage.  Unless belly putters actually DO give a competitive advantage, there is no justification for all the complaints.

This argument works for both sides.  If it doesn't give YOU a competitive advantage then why do you care if they are being banned?  But on the other hand, if it doesn't give THEM a competitive advantage then why do you want them banned?  (not "you" specifically" Dave, you in the general sense in all cases above )

Originally Posted by dave67az

Simply filing a lawsuit is tantamount to saying "I'm not as good without a belly putter", which is EXACTLY what the PGA/USGA/R&A; are arguing.

Very solid point.  This would kind of confirm that they are at a competitive advantage - or at least they believe that they are.

[phan52]

Bradley says he will fight it if necessary and the USGA says bring it on, our coffers are deep. I think the only way the Keegan Bradleys of the world could win a fight like that is if they had the backing of the Tour, which they won't.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by cliffj

Where were these guys when the groove rule changed? (Except Keegan who was probably in diapers whining for food)...

Well, didn't somebody fight to grandfather in some old Ping wedges?

Originally Posted by phan52

Bradley says he will fight it if necessary and the USGA says bring it on, our coffers are deep. I think the only way the Keegan Bradleys of the world could win a fight like that is if they had the backing of the Tour, which they won't.

If we're being honest with ourselves, I think at least a few of these players suggesting they would sue are blowing a lot of hot air.  Especially for a guy like Ernie Els who only recently switched, it doesn't make them look too good.