Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mvmac

Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

Note: This thread is 864 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

1,929 posts / 68085 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted by ay33660

One way would be when Finchem was asked if the USGA did go thru with the ban and instead and answering with a we will deal with that when it happens, he could have unequivocally stated that, while the PGA disagree with the ban, the USGA and the R&A; are the bodies that define the rules of golf and the PGA will abide by their decisions.

Instead he went on his diatribe of how this is a disagreement among friends ... blah blah blah.

How is that flexing muscle?

If he was a true politician, he would have just lied and then changed his mind later.

This is an open discussion period - everyone can give their views.

Now let's see if the USGA was truthful and really takes all the comments into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

Originally Posted by dsc123

If you were running the PGA Tour, and the USGA asked for your opinion, what would you have said?

As I just stated in the previous post. Finchem is a very deliberate man and clearly it must have been discussions and a contingency plan set out with the tour policy board on what the PGA would do if the ban went ahead.

So if I wanted to make a clear statement without looking like the PGA was "flexing" it muscle I would have made a statement like this - "We have communicated with the USGA that the PGA is against the proposed ban ..... (state the reasons why and how the policy board has a majority opinion to oppose the ban etc.). THEN I would have stated "The USGA and the R&G; are the governing bodies that establish the rules of golf and the PGA will abide by their decisions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by ay33660

, he could have unequivocally stated that, while the PGA disagree with the ban, the USGA and the R&A; are the bodies that define the rules of golf and the PGA will abide by their decisions.

But the PGA probably hasn't made that decision.  Why would they?  They've been asked for their opinion on the proposed ban.  They gave it.  Why do they then have to engage in a hypothetical discussion with their members about what they would do if the rules of golf changed and they didn't like it?  This is the sort of thing that you take one step at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by ay33660

As I just stated in the previous post. Finchem is a very deliberate man and clearly it must have been discussions and a contingency plan set out with the tour policy board on what the PGA would do if the ban went ahead.

So if I wanted to make a clear statement without looking like the PGA was "flexing" it muscle I would have made a statement like this - "We have communicated with the USGA that the PGA is against the proposed ban ..... (state the reasons why and how the policy board has a majority opinion to oppose the ban etc.). THEN I would have stated "The USGA and the R&G; are the governing bodies that establish the rules of golf and the PGA will abide by their decisions."

Why would he declare that they will abide by the USGA decision?

They may or may not, but they do not HAVE to.

Finchem's first responsibility is to the PGA Tour - not you, me or the USGA. He is doing the right thing for his group - whether you agree with it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by ay33660

As I just stated in the previous post. Finchem is a very deliberate man and clearly it must have been discussions and a contingency plan set out with the tour policy board on what the PGA would do if the ban went ahead.

So if I wanted to make a clear statement without looking like the PGA was "flexing" it muscle I would have made a statement like this - "We have communicated with the USGA that the PGA is against the proposed ban ..... (state the reasons why and how the policy board has a majority opinion to oppose the ban etc.). THEN I would have stated "The USGA and the R&G; are the governing bodies that establish the rules of golf and the PGA will abide by their decisions."

Basically, you think the only way the PGA tour can avoid being the bad guy is to immediately state that they will follow the USGA.  Basically, the PGA tour has to cave or they're the bad guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by meenman

How is that flexing muscle?

If he was a true politician, he would have just lied and then changed his mind later.

This is an open discussion period - everyone can give their views.

Now let's see if the USGA was truthful and really takes all the comments into account.

By stating that the PGA will in fact follow the USGA rules which ever way they decide, it will take out any inference that the PGA may depart with the USGA in rules setting.

In my opinion Finchem was deliberately coy when Miller asked this question on the TV broadcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by dsc123

But the PGA probably hasn't made that decision.  Why would they?  They've been asked for their opinion on the proposed ban.  They gave it.  Why do they then have to engage in a hypothetical discussion with their members about what they would do if the rules of golf changed and they didn't like it?  This is the sort of thing that you take one step at a time.

Well in my opinion I think that a guy like Finchem would have raised the issue in the discussions with the tour policy board. If I was Finchem I most certainly would have discussed whether or not the PGA would following the ban if the USGA went thru with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by ay33660

By stating that the PGA will in fact follow the USGA rules which ever way they decide, it will take out any inference that the PGA may depart with the USGA in rules setting.

In my opinion Finchem was deliberately coy when Miller asked this question on the TV broadcast.

So you think Finchem should just bow to the USGA?

Do you just bow down to those that you disagree with?

The tour has every right to decide how they want to handle this. However, as of now they did the same thing you and I can do - express their opinion .

You are reading way too much into this and trying to create controversy that isnt there. (just like many in the media admit they are doing)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ay33660 View Post

Well in my opinion I think that a guy like Finchem would have raised the issue in the discussions with the tour policy board. If I was Finchem I most certainly would have discussed whether or not the PGA would following the ban if the USGA went thru with it.

Finchem doesnt care about your opinion. There was no reason for him to address a future that may not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by meenman

Why would he declare that they will abide by the USGA decision?

They may or may not, but they do not HAVE to.

Finchem's first responsibility is to the PGA Tour - not you, me or the USGA. He is doing the right thing for his group - whether you agree with it or not.

I am not disageeing that Finchem only owes his duty to the PGA Tour. I agree that he is doing the right thing for his constituency.

What I have stated is that if as a by product of this issue, and the PGA Tour ends setting their own rules of golf, it would bad for golf overall in my opinion.

Also I have stated that in MY OPINION, had the PGA Tour gone ahead and stated that they would continue to abide by the rules of golf as set out by the USGA then the threat of the PGA Tour becoming a rule setting authority would be eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by meenman

So you think Finchem should just bow to the USGA?

Do you just bow down to those that you disagree with?

The tour has every right to decide how they want to handle this. However, as of now they did the same thing you and I can do - express their opinion.

You are reading way too much into this and trying to create controversy that isnt there. (just like many in the media admit they are doing)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay33660

Well in my opinion I think that a guy like Finchem would have raised the issue in the discussions with the tour policy board. If I was Finchem I most certainly would have discussed whether or not the PGA would following the ban if the USGA went thru with it.

Finchem doesnt care about your opinion. There was no reason for him to address a future that may not happen.

Clearly Finchem doesn't care about my opinion. Not sure where you got that idea from.

In fact I would state that billions and billions of people don't care about my opinion.

Not sure why you even care about my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by ay33660

I am not disageeing that Finchem only owes his duty to the PGA Tour. I agree that he is doing the right thing for his constituency.

What I have stated is that if as a by product of this issue, and the PGA Tour ends setting their own rules of golf, it would bad for golf overall in my opinion.

Also I have stated that in MY OPINION, had the PGA Tour gone ahead and stated that they would continue to abide by the rules of golf as set out by the USGA then the threat of the PGA Tour becoming a rule setting authority would be eliminated.

There is no need for the tour to weaken itself in future negotiations. (which there will be before this thing is finalized one way or another)

In the end the USGA needs the tour more than the tour needs the USGA.

The PGA of America (which needs the USGA more than the tour) has also come out against the (proposed) ban. Why isnt everyone ripping them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

Basically, you think the only way the PGA tour can avoid being the bad guy is to immediately state that they will follow the USGA.  Basically, the PGA tour has to cave or they're the bad guy.

Not sure where I stated that the PGA tour were the "bad guys"?

I only stated that a by product of the USGA continuing on with the ban and the Tour departing from the ban would result in the PGA Tour establishing new rules of golf. And by inference the PGA Tour could become another body that will govern the rules of golf. And that in my opinion that would be bad for golf.

I have never state the ".. the PGA tour has to cave or they're the bad guy."

I don't make them out to be the bad guys I just don't want them to become the rules making body for golf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by meenman

The PGA of America (which needs the USGA more than the tour) has also come out against the (proposed) ban. Why isnt everyone ripping them?

I guess that speaks to everyone's opinion of which organization really holds the power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the PGA Tour has sent a letter to the USGA stating their position given they were asked for input.  Finchem is being respectful towards the USGA and giving them plenty of room to reconsider their decision without losing face.

If the USGA didn't want the PGA Tour to disagree they shouldn't have asked for input after making their decision public.  I'm not convinced that the PGA Tour is that passionate about defending the anchored stroke, I think it's posturing to help ensure that the USGA doesn't operate in a vacuum on future rules changes.

At this point it's up to the USGA to decide if the anchored putting stroke is worth getting into a media battle with the PGA Tour over (that's what it will come down to).

No one pays to watch the USGA or pays for the rights to broadcast USGA meetings.  The average person that might watch golf probably doesn't know or care who the USGA is, but they know who Tiger Woods and Phil Michelson are and that's who they will side with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Really, are you serious? Perhaps some reading glasses or instruction are in order?!

Its ridiculous replies like these that make is very frustrating to have a debate about anything. Thanks for adding so much to the conversation, !

Good grief.....can you not take a joke in the midst of all this?  You call this a debate?  Same stuff over and over again in fifty pages. Some of you must sit at home at try to sort the fly shit out of the pepper shaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by dave67az

I've found that people who play "dumb" when it comes to debates--taking comments out of context, acting like they don't really understand logical points that were made, trying to make it sound like someone meant something that they didn't--these people are usually just attention seekers who don't want to take the time to express a logical opinion but instead would rather get attention by pushing people's buttons.

The sad thing is they aren't aware how they look to everyone else.  I can only guess they're the jerks that went around in school bullying the smart kids because they felt like they needed to bring them down a few notches to their mental level.

Went around school bullying the smart kids? The sad thing is that you aren't aware how you look to everyone else.  It was a joke.  Good grief, how many times must you guys go over the same points and counter points and silly analogies.  Unbelievable, 50 pages and you haven't solved a thing but to try to one-up each other, most of the time spouting opinion and facts unsubstantiated. Not everyone, mind you, but quite a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by newtogolf

At this point it's up to the USGA to decide if the anchored putting stroke is worth getting into a media battle with the PGA Tour over (that's what it will come down to).

No one pays to watch the USGA or pays for the rights to broadcast USGA meetings.  The average person that might watch golf probably doesn't know or care who the USGA is, but they know who Tiger Woods and Phil Michelson are and that's who they will side with.

Interesting choice of players to use as I believe Tiger is for the ban and Phil is against the ban.

Don't know if you meant to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 864 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...