TaylorMade and Titleist CEO's Speak Up about the USGA and Bifurcation of the Rules

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yes, it is a problem because that would change our game more than this insignificant modification of the definition of what constitutes a stroke.  Your examples are of TEAM sports in which the organized versions have a cadre of officials whose job it is to call fouls.  You simply can't transplant that over onto a sport which is played solo with that task placed on the player.  (Even when playing in a group, you are solo unless it's match play.)   The individual player is responsible for his adherence or nonadherence to the rules.  If you choose the latter, then have at it, but forget about playing in any authorized competition.

You still haven't come with anything persuasive to support your premise.  I still say that your problem isn't with the change itself, but you just have a problem with anyone having the effrontery to try and tell you what you can and can't do.

I am not the one that started the well other sports have conformed rules, maybe you should read all post before commenting, your team examples. My premise, I stated that I that Mark King sounded right in response to someone calling him a Kook. I really don't need anything to stand on as that is MY opinion. Everything escalated from there, yes that was probally mostly me. I don't mind a good debate. And yes my problem is someone telling me what is best for the game, that's like the government telling me what's best to do with my money. Yet no one has said how banning an anchored putter will make the game better/funner.

The point isn't "funner".  The point is refining the definition of what constitutes a golf stroke, and the history and tradition of the game says that anchoring to a pivot point isn't a proper stroke.  Such prohibitions have been made several times in the past, so there is even a precedent for it.  You aren't allowed to push or scoop the ball.  You aren't allowed to putt croquet style.  You can't get down and use the putter like a pool cue.  Hopefully, soon the anchored putting stroke will join those other prohibitions.

[sofingaw]

WRT The anchoring ban, I do understand the contention that the anchored stroke has not been conclusively proven to provide an advantage. That is a fair point.  However, I think the R&A; and USGA have decided to leave that question out of the game entirely by just picking a side. If the ban goes through, then in 10,25,50,100 years, it won't matter if its easier or not. It just won't be done, and there will be no debate.

I think they just want to avoid debate.

[Jspangler]

Banning the anchored putting stroke (no clubs are being banned, to be clear) is not being done to make the game better, or more fun. Nor are any of the rules written for that purpose necessarily. It's just the line in the sand that is being drawn by the game's governing bodies so that the game doesn't free fall into becoming manipulated by techniques that may make it easier than it (granted, in their experienced and trusted opinion) should be. Those who we have acknowledged as responsible for governing the sport we play, may indeed make, update, and enforce rules to that end as they see fit.  Or we can quit playing golf. Hell, I'd love to ground my club in a bunker. But I can't.  So...I don't. Doesn't make the rule illegitimate cause i wish it wasn't there. Nor does that rule necessarily make the game 'better', or more fun. Just consistent. (some call consistency good, or better for the game.)  What it does do is prevent potential issues from arising due to a moving ball caused by a club being grounded and moving sand and ball. Likewise, the anchoring ban is to prevent issues that may arise if an anchored stroke is proven (or suspected, even) of being easier to execute.  The rules are not written to make anything fun or good. They are to make it fair.

Where do you get you facts that an anchored putter is easier or those that use them have an unfair advantage? I will use the tour because its easy, if anchoring were easier and you are playing for 1 million dollars a week why isn't everyone using one. Also why are no anchor putters in the top 10 in strokes gained putting, I mean it is so much easier right?[quote name="sacm3bill" url="/t/64682/taylormade-and-titleist-ceos-speak-up-about-the-usga-and-bifurcation-of-the-rules/30#post_807173"] Absolutely I am one of those, for exactly the reasons I stated above. (And there are a few supreme court justices who agreed with me, they just happened to be in the minority in Martin's case).  On an emotional level, I loved seeing him out there. On a logical/intellectual level, I think it's ridiculous to force a professional sports organization to attempt to negate the inherent disadvantages that disabled persons have. And btw, Martin's was a special case where it was ruled he didn't have any disability playing the sport of golf, only that he had a disability with respect to walking the course, which was ruled not integral to the game. (Another point that many disagree on.) Point being, his case would've been laughed out of the first courtroom it saw if he had a disability (bad back, for example) that made it difficult to swing a club (including a putter.) [/quote] Can you honestly tell me you think Casey Martin has an unfair advantage because he rides in a cart?

[sofingaw]

The lack of debate about rules, and clarity and ease of enforcement. That's the 'Integrity of the game' that's being protected. Not the sanctity of a stroke or type of equipment.

The way someone makes a stroke, or what they want to use are not individually important to the rules makers. What is important are clear standards that are enforceable are what gives the game 'integrity'. Not necessarily some sacred, cookie cutter club or swing type protected because of tradition alone.

But defining the equipment and swing seem to be necessary to a degree to keep debate about what can be allowed to a minimum.

[sofingaw]

I never stated that an anchored stroke was easy. I don't have facts, and never claimed to. Read what I wrote for comprehension, please.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if its actually easier or not. What matters is that people think it is, so it casts a shadow on the game.

Thats unfortunate. Especially if you happen to like it. But the debate that has arisen has to be arbitrated somehow. If anchoring remains, so does the debate.

If anchoring goes away, so goes the debate.

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by sofingaw

Also, what's with the insane amount of alarm regarding the 'death' of golf, or the urgency to grow it? The golf industry and most especially pro golfers are doing fine. Every course I play is packed with golfers. Golf is FINE, as far as I can tell.

It does and will grow and survive without much help from equipment changes.

I agree, but the economy is rocking in Alberta.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Where do you get you facts that an anchored putter is easier or those that use them have an unfair advantage? I will use the tour because its easy, if anchoring were easier and you are playing for 1 million dollars a week why isn't everyone using one. Also why are no anchor putters in the top 10 in strokes gained putting, I mean it is so much easier right?

I don't think anyone is arguing that an anchored putter makes it easier to be in the top 10 for stroke gained putting. It does however reduce the reliance on controlling nerves under pressure when putting. That's why many of the guys who have switched to anchoring a longer putter have been those who were beginning to miss the shorter putts under pressure. It's not going to make them a better putter than they used to be, nor are they going to suddenly become the best putter on tour, but it will help them miss less of those short nervy ones.

Holing a 5 footer to win a tournament, and the need to steel your nerves to do it has always been a part of golf. For some (not all) golfers this is easier to do when the putter is anchored and I agree with the R&A; and USGA that it shouldn't be allowed.

There are also the younger guys who just grew up with the anchored stroke (Bradley, Simpson etc). I doubt they're really gaining any great advantage by anchoring their putters, but likewise they should be able to learn a non-anchored stroke well within the timeframe they've got to make the switch.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by meenman

In the end, I think there enough dissension that will make the (proposed)anchor ban go away.

If the PGA does not go along with the USGA, here we go with the different rules between pros and amateurs (just not the way some intended)

Yes, I use a long putter, but honestly 3 years may as well be a lifetime away at this point - and the actual pro/against percentage of golfers is much different than you will find on the sand trap.

The ball issue is another total issue - some golf companies are already sending out surveys asking if we would play a non-confoming ball - i voted no, but unless the *ball police* are out, it may be a tough one to enforce.

I think the R&A; and USGA did enough sounding out of people in the background before making an official announcement that I doubt there will be any backing down. Sure there are a few noisy people (King etc) making a fuss at the moment but the R&A; and USGA wouldn't have gone public without the backing they knew they'd require to make the proposed change.

Ultimately the PGA only controls one of the majors. Can you imagine what it would be like if the PGA Tour and one of the majors had one set of rules, and the rest of the world's tournaments and the other 3 majors were played under a different set of rules. Mass confusion for the viewers and golfers everywhere.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Absolutely I am one of those, for exactly the reasons I stated above. (And there are a few supreme court justices who agreed with me, they just happened to be in the minority in Martin's case).  On an emotional level, I loved seeing him out there. On a logical/intellectual level, I think it's ridiculous to force a professional sports organization to attempt to negate the inherent disadvantages that disabled persons have.

And btw, Martin's was a special case where it was ruled he didn't have any disability playing the sport of golf, only that he had a disability with respect to walking the course, which was ruled not integral to the game. (Another point that many disagree on.) Point being, his case would've been laughed out of the first courtroom it saw if he had a disability (bad back, for example) that made it difficult to swing a club (including a putter.)

Can you honestly tell me you think Casey Martin has an unfair advantage because he rides in a cart?

Obviously it's an advantage for him, otherwise he wouldn't have petitioned for it. And yes, it's unfair because the rest of the field was not allowed to also use carts. If you're implying that Casey's advantage in using the cart doesn't outweigh the disadvantage of all the other golfers *not* using a cart - well, maybe, maybe not. The point is that it's impossible to quantify those things and that it shouldn't be the job of the Tour or the Supreme Court to do so.  At the highest level of any sport, it's ridiculous to make allowances and adjustments for varying levels of disability. It's supposed to be the players that play the game the best, under the rules established.

But this thread isn't about Casey Martin, so I think the admins would prefer it if we posted further discussion here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Mordan

Ultimately the PGA only controls one of the majors. Can you imagine what it would be like if the PGA Tour and one of the majors had one set of rules, and the rest of the world's tournaments and the other 3 majors were played under a different set of rules. Mass confusion for the viewers and golfers everywhere.

I suspect that the PGA Tour is not too terribly concerned about that issue.   Aside from the Open Championship, their events happen in the US, so what is occurring overseas is most likely irrelevant to them.   The Open Championship has only been a PGA Tour event for a relatively few years anyway and could be dropped as a tour event if it had to be.

Regarding the different rules and having to play under USGA rules, I doubt that becomes an issue either.   A whole heck of a lot of USGA affiliated clubs host scramble tournaments, which we all know do not conform to the USGA rules of golf.    A club choosing to suspend their rules in favor of the PGA Tour rules for a tournament would be no different than suspending the rules for a scramble (other than the TV coverage and crowds of course!).   Then there is the issue of money (doesn't it always come down to money?).   If the courses refuse to let the PGA Tour play by their own set of rules and that refusal costs them big money, I would bet the courses cave in and allow non-USGA sanctioned events....

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Obviously it's an advantage for him, otherwise he wouldn't have petitioned for it. And yes, it's unfair because the rest of the field was not allowed to also use carts. If you're implying that Casey's advantage in using the cart doesn't outweigh the disadvantage of all the other golfers *not* using a cart - well, maybe, maybe not. The point is that it's impossible to quantify those things and that it shouldn't be the job of the Tour or the Supreme Court to do so.  At the highest level of any sport, it's ridiculous to make allowances and adjustments for varying levels of disability. It's supposed to be the players that play the game the best, under the rules established.

But this thread isn't about Casey Martin, so I think the admins would prefer it if we posted further discussion here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not.

That thread is locked.

Whose job would it be? Are we to accept that at the highest levels of sport discrimination is acceptable as long as it in the rules? Using that logic, all professional golfers would still be white, no Tiger Woods.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Obviously it's an advantage for him, otherwise he wouldn't have petitioned for it. And yes, it's unfair because the rest of the field was not allowed to also use carts. If you're implying that Casey's advantage in using the cart doesn't outweigh the disadvantage of all the other golfers *not* using a cart - well, maybe, maybe not. The point is that it's impossible to quantify those things and that it shouldn't be the job of the Tour or the Supreme Court to do so.  At the highest level of any sport, it's ridiculous to make allowances and adjustments for varying levels of disability. It's supposed to be the players that play the game the best, under the rules established.

But this thread isn't about Casey Martin, so I think the admins would prefer it if we posted further discussion here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not.

That thread is locked.

Whose job would it be? Are we to accept that at the highest levels of sport discrimination is acceptable as long as it in the rules? Using that logic, all professional golfers would still be white, no Tiger Woods.

Seriously?  By your bizarre definition of discrimination, the Tour would be guilty of it if they didn't allow a player with the yips to putt to a larger hole than everyone else on every green. The NBA would be guilty of it if they didn't allow a player who developed arthritis the right to run with the ball without dribbling it.

Unlike your reference to *actual* discrimination, no one told Casey Martin he couldn't play.  Neither his race, gender, sexual orientation, nor physical disability is keeping him out of tournaments. But that wasn't good enough, so Casey forced the Tour to change the rules for him, and only him.

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Seriously?  By your bizarre definition of discrimination, the Tour would be guilty of it if they didn't allow a player with the yips to putt to a larger hole than everyone else on every green. The NBA would be guilty of it if they didn't allow a player who developed arthritis the right to run with the ball without dribbling it.

Unlike your reference to *actual* discrimination, no one told Casey Martin he couldn't play.  Neither his race, gender, sexual orientation, nor physical disability is keeping him out of tournaments. But that wasn't good enough, so Casey forced the Tour to change the rules for him, and only him.

How is excluding people because of a disability not discrimination? As for the yips comment that is why the Tour and maybe the Supreme Court need to assess the validity of an individual's claim. According to your post it should not even be considered because they can't perform within the rules.

My point had more to do with your position that if it is against the rules it must be excluded. You said that only those who can play within the rules should be allowed to compete. There was a time when race was a requirement within the rules. It is a dangerous position to take that only those who are deemed acceptable by current standards should be allowed to play without consideration for amending the rules.

Whether this applies to Casey Martin I don't know. However I am not so quick to completely discount all of those who may have a legitimate disability from participating at the highest levels of sport because it does not fall within the rules.

[Jspangler]

Casey Martins ruling is a ruling within the PGA and the USGA had nothing to do with it. Why can the anchored putter not be the same? The PGA tour can ban the putter and the USGA would have no say in the matter is that so hard. My honest question in what's next? Where will it stop? No more 46" driver? The integrity of the game is a stake here.

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

I suspect that the PGA Tour is not too terribly concerned about that issue.   Aside from the Open Championship, their events happen in the US, so what is occurring overseas is most likely irrelevant to them.   The Open Championship has only been a PGA Tour event for a relatively few years anyway and could be dropped as a tour event if it had to be.

Regarding the different rules and having to play under USGA rules, I doubt that becomes an issue either.   A whole heck of a lot of USGA affiliated clubs host scramble tournaments, which we all know do not conform to the USGA rules of golf.    A club choosing to suspend their rules in favor of the PGA Tour rules for a tournament would be no different than suspending the rules for a scramble (other than the TV coverage and crowds of course!).   Then there is the issue of money (doesn't it always come down to money?).   If the courses refuse to let the PGA Tour play by their own set of rules and that refusal costs them big money, I would bet the courses cave in and allow non-USGA sanctioned events....

The Open is run by the R&A; and will obviously stick to the Rules of Golf. The US Open is run by the USGA and thus will also follow the Rules of Golf. I'm obviously guessing here, but I think the Masters is more likely to take the conservative line and stick with the Rules of Golf rather than follow the breakaway version of the PGA Tour. That's at least 2 of the majors, and possibly 3 that won't allow anchoring putters. How many players are going to exclude themselves from 2 or perhaps 3 majors by playing that way?

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by Jspangler

Casey Martins ruling is a ruling within the PGA and the USGA had nothing to do with it. Why can the anchored putter not be the same? The PGA tour can ban the putter and the USGA would have no say in the matter is that so hard. My honest question in what's next? Where will it stop? No more 46" driver? The integrity of the game is a stake here.

The use of carts is a condition of competition, a separate matter to the Rules of Golf. The PGA Tour may set whatever conditions of competition they wish, as long as they fall within the Rules of Golf. The definition of what is, or is not, a stoke is defined by the Rules of Golf and the PGA Tour may not re-interpret that without deciding to play a different game to what the rest of the world considers golf. Hardly the same thing.

[Jspangler]

It is being banned because a couple people won major and the old people behind the scenes didn't like the way it looked. They can word it however they and throw integrety in there so it sounds good. Lets not pretend its anything else. It has been around for many years but no one won consistently with it. Now they are. If it helps steady the hands in tournaments why did the only win 50% of the majors and not one time during the PGA playoffs? Why did Phil's putting get better after switch? The fact is the game is played tee to green and a normal putter wins more than an anchored putter, so once again please show when the advantage is.

[sofingaw]

A normal putter wins more than anchoring only because there are WAY more normal putters than anchored.

However, nobody can show you facts to prove that anchoring is certainly easier.

Like I said before, the authorities see the great rift and debate raging, (probably thanks to the recent major wins, sure) and have decided to end the debate by endng anchoring. It's really that simple I think.

Sucks for those who like anchoring. But since its claimed to be just as difficult, the switch to normal shouldn't be a biggie.