Jump to content
IGNORED

Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)


Note: This thread is 2817 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!

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.

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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."


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.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

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.

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

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.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

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.


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.


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.

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

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.


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.


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?

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

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.


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.


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.

Joe Paradiso

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.

Regards,

Big Wave

Golf is the only sport in which a thorough knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship - Patrick Campbell.


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.

Regards,

Big Wave

Golf is the only sport in which a thorough knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship - Patrick Campbell.


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.


Note: This thread is 2817 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!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 11: 2/16/2025 Rince and Repeat: Just like yesterday I spent several 5-10 minute sessions working on what I learned on Friday.   
    • Quick update. So, I got the PXG Secret Weapon and I have to say I like it... mostly. (see below) I spent some time with it on the range and I even gathered some data in doors. I'm not going to post data yet, as my swing is still a bit of a work in progress and I'd like to gather some more data after I settle down a little bit more. But here's my review.  First as a driver replacement. ... IMO it is not a replacement, it's clearly more of a supplement... for me anyway. Not long enough to really replace the driver. For me it's about 20 yards short of my driver. It is longer than my 30-wood off the tee. (15 yards-ish) I will say it is easier to hit off the tee than my 3-wood. I get some of my best shots teeing it low, but I also get some of my worst. If I tee it about a full inch off the ground I get very consistent shots. Super repeatable. Amazingly repeatable even with my messy swing. Off the tee, I find it draw biased just a bit. You can tinker with the set up if that isn't your personal cup of tea.  As a 3-wood replacement. For me it's about perfect. It's longer than my 3-wood off the deck (my data showed 10 yards longer) and it has a gentle fade to it, which I love. You do need a clean lie, but I never hit my 3-wood off anything but a clean lie anyway. I found it interesting that I hit a gentle fade off the deck and a slight draw off a tee. I'm sure that's not uncommon. Again, you can tinker with the set up to optimize that if you wanted to... I don't want to.  It's clearly a lot longer than my 3-wood off the tee. Easier to hit off the tee than my 3 wood, and off the deck it's also longer. So, it's a no-brainer 3-wood replacement for me. I will say that over the years I've learned to use my 3-wood for this low-flying-100-yard-punch-out-from-under-a-tree shot.  I'll have to see if the Secret Weapon can handle that duty. But it's going in the bag to replace the 3-wood.  I also turned my 5-wood down from 19 degrees to 17 degrees. ... Incidentally my 3-wood had been 16 degrees. I used to always hit my 5 wood and my hybrid about the same distance. This adjustment helps my gapping a bit at the top of the bag. I can clearly hit my 5-wood farther than my hybrid now.  Overall on the PXG Secret Weapon. The good: It's clearly longer and easier to hit off the tee than my 3-wood. It's a bit longer off the deck than my 3-wood.  It's super forgiving... surprisingly so.  It's uber adjustable. ... Although I do suggest getting fit for it. That will save you having to (or wanting to) buy a weight kit just to try out the infinite number of set ups. The headcover is super cool.  The maybe not so good: Shots out of the middle sound great. Shots off the heal sound great. Shots off the toe sound ... what's the work... clangy? It's very forgiving off the toe and the heal. The flight and the distance are incredibly consistent. But the sound off the toe isn't great.  For me I tend to draw it off the tee and fade it off the deck. You can set it up to be biased either way, but in my hands I think if I set up a draw off the deck, that might induce a duck hook off the tee. ... In fairness that could also be where my swing is at right now.  It's pretty spendy. ... If I really stop and think about it, I paid $450 for a new 3-wood. Granted it's a better performing 3-wood. But for me it's really a 3-wood replacement.
    • I've got my pain mostly under control and the meds are working.   I'd like to join. 
    • I would definitely attend if my calendar allows.
    • Finland: I've played Mid-Night Golf in Finland. Really cool. I looked at the schedule for my week out there and I saw that we were teeing off at 9PM... Feels weird, 9 PM tee time. But it was really great. We finished well after 1AM and sat around and drank on the golf course terrace. It was cool. It's really easy to loose track of time when the sun doesn't set.  Here's a picture of me in Finland hitting my approach on the final hole. It's roughly 1:30AM in this photo.  Egypt: Another cool experience was playing golf in Egypt. The entire course is sand. The greens are called browns, cuz they are just sand with oil poured on them and pounded down a bit. Your ball gets kind of oily when you putt, but the caddy cleans it for you after each hole. You carry around a little piece of fake grass (maybe 2 foot square) and place your ball on it each time before you hit. That is except when you go into a sandtrap. The sandtraps are just areas marked off where you don't get to use your little piece of astro-turf. Sometimes they are dug down a bit to make a bunker, sometimes not.  Spain: No special events or anything, but I played a bunch of golf in Spain in the mid-1990's. At that time Spain's economy wasn't doing the best and Europe hadn't quite switched to the Euro. So Spain was using the Peseta. The country of Spain has some incredibly breathtaking courses. (incredible scenery in general) But because of the conversion from the dollar to the Peseta (If memory serves it was 150 to 1), I got to play them for what I remember as being incredibly inexpensive prices. Gorgeous country and really nice people.  Holland or The Netherlands: I lived for a couple of years in what's called The Flevoland in Holland. It's one of the Dutch provinces and it's all land that was recovered from the sea. So, it's all under sea-level. One of the courses I played a few times out there had flags on every hole to show just how deep the water would be if it wasn't for the dams. 
×
×
  • 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...