Ban Belly Putters?

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by mlf16507

Long live belly putters!  3 out of the last 4 major winners used belly putters-Bradley,Simpson and Els

Those are the bellies, The R&A; and USGA would have had a collective cow if Scott had won using a broomstick.

[newtogolf]

The game we are playing and the pro's are playing might us the same clubs and rules but its not the same game.  I have said before golf is at a crossroads, they can't continue to make the game playable by average Joe's like me and continue to challenge the pro's without changing equipment rules.  Real estate is finite eventually we'll run out of land to build longer courses and then they won't have a choice but to change the rules for pro's and have a "Tour ball spec" that the pro's have to use.  I see long/belly putters the same way, require the pro's to putt without anchoring the club to their body and don't change the rules for non-pro's.

Originally Posted by WUTiger

If you really think longer putters make the game too easy, and more people playing golf - and playing longer - is ruining your enjoyment of the game, why not sell your clubs and try another sport?

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Those are the bellies, The R&A; and USGA would have had a collective cow if Scott had won using a broomstick.

The R&A; dont like either, period. They are both anchored to the body. I get a kick out of people who think the long putter is somehow worse than the belly putter, THEY WORK ON THE EXACT SAME PREMISE, ANCHORING THE PUTTER.  Thats what they want to change, not the length of the putter. They dont care how long your putter is, they dont want it anchored. So stop trying to pretend that Els winning with a belly putter is somehow better than Scott winning with a long putter.

[B-Con]

I finally made my mind up. I'm against any anchored putters. My indecision for so long was because of the problem: What is the idea of golf? Is it to hit the ball from the side with a stick, or to hit the ball from the side with a freely-held stick? I now think the latter makes more sense.

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The game we are playing and the pro's are playing might us the same clubs and rules but its not the same game.  I have said before golf is at a crossroads, they can't continue to make the game playable by average Joe's like me and continue to challenge the pro's without changing equipment rules.  Real estate is finite eventually we'll run out of land to build longer courses and then they won't have a choice but to change the rules for pro's and have a "Tour ball spec" that the pro's have to use.  I see long/belly putters the same way, require the pro's to putt without anchoring the club to their body and don't change the rules for non-pro's.

Aside from a few states, there is more real estate to make golf courses than will ever be needed. Here in Canada, we have more land than we will ever need by about 10 times. They will NEVER go to a single ball for all pro's, because it would not be fair to manufacturers, and also, the balls are already standardized, period. They are only allowed to transfer so much energy at a certain swing speed (measured by very, very accurate machines), so what you are saying makes no sense. There is already a tour standard for balls. Thats why Nikes RZN cores have to be smaller, because at the size of a regular rubber core, they violate the tours rules on how far a ball can fly at a certain swing speed and smash factor. Diameter is standard as well, so why the hell would they need to regulate it any more than that?

Every tour player can use any conforming ball they want, so its not like there is any player with a ball advantage.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by ApocG10

The R&A; dont like either, period. They are both anchored to the body. I get a kick out of people who think the long putter is somehow worse than the belly putter, THEY WORK ON THE EXACT SAME PREMISE, ANCHORING THE PUTTER.  Thats what they want to change, not the length of the putter. They dont care how long your putter is, they dont want it anchored. So stop trying to pretend that Els winning with a belly putter is somehow better than Scott winning with a long putter.

IMO, Els winning with the belly was slightly more palatable than Scott winning with a broomstick. I am not pretending, I am saying it (and I don't need all caps to do so). Yes, anchoring is anchoring, but if there is a hierarchy then the belly would be before the broomstick because it uses more of the same motion and grip as the conventional putter.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

IMO, Els winning with the belly was slightly more palatable than Scott winning with a broomstick. I am not pretending, I am saying it (and I don't need all caps to do so). Yes, anchoring is anchoring, but if there is a hierarchy then the belly would be before the broomstick because it uses more of the same motion and grip as the conventional putter.

I call Adam Scott's putter the Neck Putter.

[newtogolf]

Golf is a global sport, not every country is blessed with the land that we have in U.S.A and Canada, take a trip to Japan.  I never said a single ball, I said a "Tour ball spec", any manufacturer could produce them, just as they produce conforming balls now.  The "pro ball spec" would limit distance so  they wouldn't have to lengthen courses before they host pro tournaments.   I understand that balls must conform to specifications now, I'm endorsing what others here have suggested here, a new set of specs for pro's and leave the current one in place for us regular guys.

Originally Posted by ApocG10

Aside from a few states, there is more real estate to make golf courses than will ever be needed. Here in Canada, we have more land than we will ever need by about 10 times. They will NEVER go to a single ball for all pro's, because it would not be fair to manufacturers, and also, the balls are already standardized, period. They are only allowed to transfer so much energy at a certain swing speed (measured by very, very accurate machines), so what you are saying makes no sense. There is already a tour standard for balls. Thats why Nikes RZN cores have to be smaller, because at the size of a regular rubber core, they violate the tours rules on how far a ball can fly at a certain swing speed and smash factor. Diameter is standard as well, so why the hell would they need to regulate it any more than that?

Every tour player can use any conforming ball they want, so its not like there is any player with a ball advantage.

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Golf is a global sport, not every country is blessed with the land that we have in U.S.A and Canada, take a trip to Japan.  I never said a single ball, I said a "Tour ball spec", any manufacturer could produce them, just as they produce conforming balls now.  The "pro ball spec" would limit distance so  they wouldn't have to lengthen courses before they host pro tournaments.   I understand that balls must conform to specifications now, I'm endorsing what others here have suggested here, a new set of specs for pro's and leave the current one in place for us regular guys.

Yes, I have travelled extensively, and I realize countries like Japan do not have the spare land mass we do, but the top levels of golf are in america and europe, where countryside is so plentiful we never have to worry. The rest of the world does not need the lengthened courses we have in america, because the PGA and Euro tours do not generally play in those countries, and the best players from countries like Japan and Korea always come here or europe to develop their talent. The game is growing at a crazy pace, as far as people involved, but since the introduction of 460CC drivers and the ProV1, the pro's have not gotten any longer, nor will they. 300 will be the driving average of the longest pro's for years to come.

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

IMO, Els winning with the belly was slightly more palatable than Scott winning with a broomstick. I am not pretending, I am saying it (and I don't need all caps to do so). Yes, anchoring is anchoring, but if there is a hierarchy then the belly would be before the broomstick because it uses more of the same motion and grip as the conventional putter.

The R&A; does not agree, that is why they gonna get rid of both, not just the long putter. The belly putter has no more in common with the putting stroke than the long does, they are both anchored, and one is as bad as the other.

If anything, having used both just demoing them on practice greens, the long putter is far harder to putt well with than the belly putter, which is why far fewer pro's use them than the belly. Those long putters take quite a bit of skill to use. it still isnt a golf stroke though.

[newtogolf]

I believe the goal of adding golf to the Olympics is to increase exposure world wide and encourage developing nations to increase the number of golf courses within their countries to enable more people (especially kids) to participate in the sport.

I do agree with the pro's haven't gotten significantly longer in recent years, but that doesn't mean they haven't already outgrown many quality courses that are no longer suitable to host a Tour event.  Erik made a point in another thread that I also thought was a good alternative, make the shorter courses more penal for guys (similar to this past weekend) so they aren't trying to hit driver off of every tee.

Originally Posted by ApocG10

Yes, I have travelled extensively, and I realize countries like Japan do not have the spare land mass we do, but the top levels of golf are in america and europe, where countryside is so plentiful we never have to worry. The rest of the world does not need the lengthened courses we have in america, because the PGA and Euro tours do not generally play in those countries, and the best players from countries like Japan and Korea always come here or europe to develop their talent. The game is growing at a crazy pace, as far as people involved, but since the introduction of 460CC drivers and the ProV1, the pro's have not gotten any longer, nor will they. 300 will be the driving average of the longest pro's for years to come.

[TourSpoon]

The R&A; does not agree, that is why they gonna get rid of both, not just the long putter. The belly putter has no more in common with the putting stroke than the long does, they are both anchored, and one is as bad as the other. If anything, having used both just demoing them on practice greens, the long putter is far harder to putt well with than the belly putter, which is why far fewer pro's use them than the belly. Those long putters take quite a bit of skill to use. it still isnt a golf stroke though.

Clearly they are both anchored and in that respect equal in the eyes of the critics, however the long putter stroke is a lot farther away from the traditional stroke than the belly putter is as most people use it. I don't think the R&A; has an official position on that statement, but they sure look different to me and is why more belly putters are being used than long putters. In fact, one can effectively use a belly putter without anchoring it but by keeping the end pointed at a central spot. I wonder if at the British Open, the Belly putter felt bad for the Broomstick because while the Belly performed average, it was the Broomstick who lost it with a couple of short misses. Truthfully, it was ball striking (GIR) that made the difference. But, nonetheless, it's three for the Belly and none for the Broomstick. I wonder if the Belly will go for the Tiger Slam this year.

[GatorCallaway]

I've messed around with broomstick and belly putters at the stores before and must say I can't tell a difference between them or traditional length putters. I also was always under the assumption that the putter was the shortest club in the bag, so I've stood by that and never come close to buying a "longer" putter. Should they be banned? I don't know but it does seem to me that they are winning on tour rather frequently these days so of course there will be calls to eliminate their "advantage".

[ApocG10]

To me, the long putter is by far the hardest to putt with. Harder than the belly or regular. I have tried both. The long is just insanely hard to use, at least until you get used to it I imagine.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The game we are playing and the pro's are playing might us the same clubs and rules but its not the same game. I have said before golf is at a crossroads, they can't continue to make the game playable by average Joe's like me and continue to challenge the pro's without changing equipment rules. Real estate is finite eventually we'll run out of land to build longer courses and then they won't have a choice but to change the rules for pro's and have a "Tour ball spec" that the pro's have to use.  I see long/belly putters the same way, require the pro's to putt without anchoring the club to their body and don't change the rules for non-pro's.

I disagree, and I also think that unlike virtually every other sport, golf has a smoother gradient. A club pro can qualify for the U.S. Open as can an amateur player somewhere - imagine if they suddenly had to adjust to new equipment rules. It'd be like a good local baseball player qualifying to play in the World Series suddenly.

Golf has a gradient and people exist on that gradient. There are no clear "break points" at which you could say "these rules apply to these things on down." The grooves rule is about as close as they could get and even it basically said "if you're a competitive golfer, get new wedges and learn to use 'em pronto."

If we had different balls, then what, we'd have someone who's a +2 with the one kind of ball and an 1.2 with the other kind of ball? Which handicap would they use to enter qualifying for the U.S. Open?

I like that golf has the same rules. You can hit a shot that would make Tiger Woods say "wow I'd be happy with that shot!" and know that you didn't do it with a carbon fiber bat and a non-regulation baseball on a field where the center field wall is only 320' if you know what I'm saying. Same equipment, same rules.

[Whitetrash]

Not sure about banning them, I know the rule Thought of banning something that gave an unfair advantage would take all these huge drivers out of play. I know they limit the length of a driver but do they limit the length of any other club?

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by Whitetrash

Not sure about banning them, I know the rule Thought of banning something that gave an unfair advantage would take all these huge drivers out of play. I know they limit the length of a driver but do they limit the length of any other club?

Its not about an unfair advantage. Its about its not in the spirit of the game.

[newtogolf]

I understand your position and for a long time agreed with it.  The issue as I see it is the one set of rules will cause the USGA to pick a side, especially if the R&A; moves forward and bans anchoring of the putter.   Either they agree with the R&A; and ban anchoring (which is primarily targeted at the pro's) but would hurt amatuer participation (a big no no in the USGA) or they go against the R&A; which would result in the US and Europe having a different set of rules.

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree, and I also think that unlike virtually every other sport, golf has a smoother gradient. A club pro can qualify for the U.S. Open as can an amateur player somewhere - imagine if they suddenly had to adjust to new equipment rules. It'd be like a good local baseball player qualifying to play in the World Series suddenly.

Golf has a gradient and people exist on that gradient. There are no clear "break points" at which you could say "these rules apply to these things on down." The grooves rule is about as close as they could get and even it basically said "if you're a competitive golfer, get new wedges and learn to use 'em pronto."

If we had different balls, then what, we'd have someone who's a +2 with the one kind of ball and an 1.2 with the other kind of ball? Which handicap would they use to enter qualifying for the U.S. Open?

I like that golf has the same rules. You can hit a shot that would make Tiger Woods say "wow I'd be happy with that shot!" and know that you didn't do it with a carbon fiber bat and a non-regulation baseball on a field where the center field wall is only 320' if you know what I'm saying. Same equipment, same rules.