604 replies to this topic

[Jamboy72]

I don't think it's prudent to claim that anything is obvious at this point...would OEM's have an interest in a pending rule change...certainly...but these thinly veiled posts that information is out there...but it isn't being shared really only confuses the issue more..Coach Ditka would say, "Stop IT..."

[KYMAR]

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

I don't think it's prudent to claim that anything is obvious at this point...would OEM's have an interest in a pending rule change...certainly...but these thinly veiled posts that information is out there...but it isn't being shared really only confuses the issue more..Coach Ditka would say, "Stop IT..."

So you think they have announced a ruling is coming only to then announce that nothing is changing? If they were going to do nothing wouldn't they, in fact, do nothing? The rule against anchoring is coming. There is little doubt about that at this point.

[Jamboy72]

I wouldn't put anything past the USGA and/or RA at this point..I think they are capable of screwing up nearly anything....I think anyone who believes a rule changing is coming...and that change will be swift, without controversy and seamlessly implemented is fooling themselves...if they were going to do nothing, that is still an option at this point...doesn't mean I don't believe they will make some ruling, it just seems a bit silly to me to get so far ahead of something which will likely take many twists and turns before it reaches a resolution...

[KYMAR]

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

I wouldn't put anything past the USGA and/or RA at this point..I think they are capable of screwing up nearly anything....I think anyone who believes a rule changing is coming...and that change will be swift, without controversy and seamlessly implemented is fooling themselves...if they were going to do nothing, that is still an option at this point...doesn't mean I don't believe they will make some ruling, it just seems a bit silly to me to get so far ahead of something which will likely take many twists and turns before it reaches a resolution...

uh, What?

"It is not legal for the player to anchor the club to the his or her body while making a stroke"

Where is the ambiguity? If you mean people are going to whine and complain about it, I will agree. But that didn't do much do dissuade them from the groove rule. Where there was actual outrage. Even from the OEM's and all they really wanted (titleist especially) was an additional year before it was implemented.

[TexasAg]

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

If you mean people are going to whine and complain about it, I will agree. But that didn't do much do dissuade them from the groove rule. Where there was actual outrage. Even from the OEM's and all they really wanted (titleist especially) was an additional year before it was implemented.

The groove ruling was stupid and did not have the intended effect.  This hypothetical change (and it's purely speculative at this point) will impact the ability of PGA tour pros to earn a living.  This is going to be a very different animal than the rule change, IMO.

[Jamboy72]

My friend, ambiguity is all this conversation is...there isn't any portion of this conversation which is black and white...you're quoting a rule which either doesn't exist or isn't followed...the ruling bodies tell us they are going to tell us something that they have plans on telling us....we have people dropping hints that decisions have been made and articulated to OEM's, yet nothing has come out publicly...everyone is in a wait-and-see mode until we have better information....but then again, it seems like maybe some of us already have that better information, but aren't willing/able to share it...yet, you're asking where the ambiguity is....I guess I'll reiterate what I've said many times before, which is if this were such a clear cut decision, there would be no benefit in delaying what should be such a clear and simple rule...but clearly, it isn't that simple...

[Sean2]

If the USGA is going to ban it then ban it. If not, then don't. This three year this or three year that is BS.

[jnradioactive]

[tElihu]

Would be nice if the USGA addressed equipment that is rendering classic courses obsolete (ball and driver) before those that only make the game harder for the average golfer.

But that's par for the course for the USGA.

[jnradioactive]

tElihu, on 17 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Would be nice if the USGA addressed equipment that is rendering classic courses obsolete (ball and driver) before those that only make the game harder for the average golfer.

But that's par for the course for the USGA.

Come on now, there is no definitive, beyond a shadow of a doubt proof that they help anyone putt better, so by that token taking it away can't possibly make the game harder for the average golfer...

Edited by jnradioactive, 17 October 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[Jamboy72]

Oh dear...you're missing the entire point...the argument has never been whether or not a belly putter makes a part of the game easier for anyone..belly putters help SOME players...but so do the other myriad technologies which we've discussed ad naseaum....the point is whether or not the technique or equipment is violating an established rule...or whether there should be a rule which makes either the equipment or technique illegal...

[jnradioactive]

will227457, on 17 October 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters.

This

Is it really an advantage? and if it is why is not every tour pro using one?

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Oh dear...you're missing the entire point...the argument has never been whether or not a belly putter makes a part of the game easier for anyone..belly putters help SOME players...but so do the other myriad technologies which we've discussed ad naseaum....the point is whether or not the technique or equipment is violating an established rule...or whether there should be a rule which makes either the equipment or technique illegal...

I know your opinion is the only one you care about or apparently read, but there are plenty here who do indeed think the argument is that they "must not provide any advantage otherwise everyone would use them"  but since you did not say that I guess you assume no one has said that....

Must be tough...center of the universe and all...

[rafal]

Belly brigade is twisting themselves into a logical pretzel as they have for a couple of years.

I have no way to compensate for not driving 300 but my ham fisted buddy could get around his lack of feel on the green by using a belly putter.  Well, maybe no longer.

[Vindog]

rafal, on 17 October 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

I have no way to compensate for not driving 300 but my ham fisted buddy could get around his lack of feel on the green by using a belly putter.  Well, maybe no longer.

I believe you.  Really I do

[teeituphigh]

CARDY, on 17 October 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

complete insanity

I think am's (outside of USGA events) will be able to use them until 2025 ... like the wedges

I also think the PGA tour will waive the rule .. too many up and comers use them

From a few guys I deal with in the know, the ruling will be about the anchoring and making a stroke where a putter grip cannot "fulcrum" off one fixed position ie the grip has to move

That is unfair.  So rule out sternum and navel anchoring but make forearm and upper arm anchoring legal ???  Why ?

Let's ban wedges at 60* or higher ... let's ban rescues .. .let's ban graphite in irons .. let's ban anything that helps more people stay in the game.

Rescues is a great example.  Some players love them and some hate them ... just like putters

Golf is too hard for most everyone nowadays (wrxer's excluded) and now they want to make it more complicated.

^^^^^ This. The game is in a deep amount of trouble with numbers down all over the globe. (except Taylormades obviously...)

[Chief Illiniwek]

TexasAg, on 17 October 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

If you mean people are going to whine and complain about it, I will agree. But that didn't do much do dissuade them from the groove rule. Where there was actual outrage. Even from the OEM's and all they really wanted (titleist especially) was an additional year before it was implemented.

The groove ruling was stupid and did not have the intended effect.  This hypothetical change (and it's purely speculative at this point) will impact the ability of PGA tour pros to earn a living.  This is going to be a very different animal than the rule change, IMO.

I'm passed caring if the USGA does or doesn't ban anchoring, but one thing I don't understand is the argument that it will hurt PGA pros ability to make a living. No it won't. PGA pros will still make their money, the names just might change. You could argue that any change ever made to the rules hurt someone. If you were good at stymie-ing people it hurt you when they took that away. You just have to adapt to the new rules, or lose out to someone else who does.

[Wknd_Warrior]

Hurt the pga pro's ability to make a living?  I hate to say it but, who cares?  Last I checked the tour was the best of the best and you have to play your way on, how's that gonna change?  Maybe some of the faces will change but that's just too bad, like it's too bad I never got good enough to make a few mil a year playing on tour.

[KYMAR]

"What is this lawsuit about Mr Bradley?"

"Well your Honor, I simply feel like this new rule banning the anchoring of my putter to my body is limiting my ability to make money as a player on the PGA tour. BUT, there is no evidence these putters really make me a better putter! NO EVIDENCE OF THAT AT ALL!!!!"

[Jamboy72]

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

will227457, on 17 October 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters.

This

Is it really an advantage? and if it is why is not every tour pro using one?

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Oh dear...you're missing the entire point...the argument has never been whether or not a belly putter makes a part of the game easier for anyone..belly putters help SOME players...but so do the other myriad technologies which we've discussed ad naseaum....the point is whether or not the technique or equipment is violating an established rule...or whether there should be a rule which makes either the equipment or technique illegal...

I know your opinion is the only one you care about or apparently read, but there are plenty here who do indeed think the argument is that they "must not provide any advantage otherwise everyone would use them"  but since you did not say that I guess you assume no one has said that....

Must be tough...center of the universe and all...

I'm not sure levying personal insults is the most appropriate or mature way to continue the conversation...but so be it...If you have some actual facts or items to discuss, that would be wonderful, but I get the sense that isn't the way you tend to operate...

[Jamboy72]

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

"What is this lawsuit about Mr Bradley?"

"Well your Honor, I simply feel like this new rule banning the anchoring of my putter to my body is limiting my ability to make money as a player on the PGA tour. BUT, there is no evidence these putters really make me a better putter! NO EVIDENCE OF THAT AT ALL!!!!"

Again, I think you're missing the point.....I don't know that anyone is suggesting that belly putters don't help....there are many players who believe they putt better with them and they give them the best chance to win...but does that necessitate a rule change?  When you start to appeal to the history and tradition of the game in order to make a rule change, it's because there isn't any objective data or clear information on which to base a change...

[KYMAR]

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

"What is this lawsuit about Mr Bradley?"

"Well your Honor, I simply feel like this new rule banning the anchoring of my putter to my body is limiting my ability to make money as a player on the PGA tour. BUT, there is no evidence these putters really make me a better putter! NO EVIDENCE OF THAT AT ALL!!!!"

Again, I think you're missing the point.....I don't know that anyone is suggesting that belly putters don't help....there are many players who believe they putt better with them and they give them the best chance to win...but does that necessitate a rule change?  When you start to appeal to the history and tradition of the game in order to make a rule change, it's because there isn't any objective data or clear information on which to base a change...

I don't appeal to the history of the game from a strictly nostalgic perspective. But I believe there is plenty of room to simply use the existing wording of the rules to outlaw the practice of creating an artificial fulcrum when producing a stroke. I realize the argument could then easily be "well why now, people have used these putters in this way for 15, 20 years or more" and it's a decent one. But simply because they were slow to act isn't justification for not acting now.

And I am not sure how you say that I am missing the point. Maybe it's not your opinion that anchored putters aren't an advantage for some ( again, not NECESSARILY an advantage over a given opponent, but over their own ability to putt otherwise) but just read this thread or any thread like it again. It's the most commonly used argument out there. That and the specious "well why isn't everyone one using one then?" I read and hear that all the time. It's baffling to me that the obvious answer eludes those who ask it. It's because those in the vast majority who don't anchor a putter haven't in desperation, resorted to using one to fix their flawed stroke. Which also goes to the heart of the matter about this being somehow so uniquely unfair, some will have a leg to stand on in court were they to choose to sue the USGA. What could the basis of that lawsuit possibly be other than "I need to be able to anchor the putter to myself in order to sustain the level of play this stroke has allowed me to achieve" or at least something like that?  Any such lawsuit is an admission of a lack of the skill required to putt to a similar level with a non anchored putter. I think few would be willing to face the scrutiny that would surely follow for even attempting to make that case.

[bobfoster]

IMO, putting is not like any other stroke in the game ... it is generally 90% psychological and 10% physical.

Objectively, some parts of equipment do matter ... nearly every player was affected by the groove rule. Virtually every player uses a 460 driver.

The putter? The top five on the money in the US PGA are Rory, Tiger, Brandt, Jason, and Bubba.

How many of them used a belly putter in the Fedex finals?

[Jamboy72]

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

"What is this lawsuit about Mr Bradley?"

"Well your Honor, I simply feel like this new rule banning the anchoring of my putter to my body is limiting my ability to make money as a player on the PGA tour. BUT, there is no evidence these putters really make me a better putter! NO EVIDENCE OF THAT AT ALL!!!!"

Again, I think you're missing the point.....I don't know that anyone is suggesting that belly putters don't help....there are many players who believe they putt better with them and they give them the best chance to win...but does that necessitate a rule change?  When you start to appeal to the history and tradition of the game in order to make a rule change, it's because there isn't any objective data or clear information on which to base a change...

I don't appeal to the history of the game from a strictly nostalgic perspective. But I believe there is plenty of room to simply use the existing wording of the rules to outlaw the practice of creating an artificial fulcrum when producing a stroke. I realize the argument could then easily be "well why now, people have used these putters in this way for 15, 20 years or more" and it's a decent one. But simply because they were slow to act isn't justification for not acting now.

And I am not sure how you say that I am missing the point. Maybe it's not your opinion that anchored putters aren't an advantage for some ( again, not NECESSARILY an advantage over a given opponent, but over their own ability to putt otherwise) but just read this thread or any thread like it again. It's the most commonly used argument out there. That and the specious "well why isn't everyone one using one then?" I read and hear that all the time. It's baffling to me that the obvious answer eludes those who ask it. It's because those in the vast majority who don't anchor a putter haven't in desperation, resorted to using one to fix their flawed stroke. Which also goes to the heart of the matter about this being somehow so uniquely unfair, some will have a leg to stand on in court were they to choose to sue the USGA. What could the basis of that lawsuit possibly be other than "I need to be able to anchor the putter to myself in order to sustain the level of play this stroke has allowed me to achieve" or at least something like that?  Any such lawsuit is an admission of a lack of the skill required to putt to a similar level with a non anchored putter. I think few would be willing to face the scrutiny that would surely follow for even attempting to make that case.

I hear you - and you make some very quality points - but if there is so much room and latitude in the current wording, why is the process taking so long? Why, if the need to change the rules is so obvious, hasn't it happened already?    I do agree that if they change the ruling by outlawing the technique, there doesn't appear to be a lot of opportunity for suit. That being said, the fact the ruling bodies haven't acted in the last "x" decades is absolutely a valid point of conversation in that in only serves to further the notion that this entire issue wasn't even on the radar until mainline tour pros started to win and more importantly, win majors.  Unfortunately for the ruling bodies, the failure to acknowledge this reality undermines the entire conversation. On the topic of players using a long/belly putter in an act of desperation, how do you address the players who have never used a shorter putter (Carl P)? Or the players who moved to a longer putter simply because they had a preference for it and not as a fix for the yips or another similarly desparte situation (Keegan, Webb, etc)? Isn't it really an issue because it was just fine as long as it was Berhard Langer and other "has beens" whose "infractions" were forgivable because all of the AARP members didn't garner the attention of kids and OEMs?  Kind of hard to ignore this part of the conversation, but so many seem to conveniently just gloss over this...The fact the long putter is an issue now is, in my opinion, a very viable part of the conversation...

I agree that long putters can/might/perhaps make an individual a better putter than they might be with a shorter putter. But again, how is this any different than any other advanced technology. Hybrids make me a better long iron player than I would be otherwise...460 cc drivers make me a better driver than I would be otherwise...CB irons make my thin miss travel a bit farther than I probably deserve....so why should the putter be singled out???

I agree there will always be divergent perspectives on this particular issue and I appreciate the conversation, although I might not agree with your position...

[KYMAR]

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

"What is this lawsuit about Mr Bradley?"

"Well your Honor, I simply feel like this new rule banning the anchoring of my putter to my body is limiting my ability to make money as a player on the PGA tour. BUT, there is no evidence these putters really make me a better putter! NO EVIDENCE OF THAT AT ALL!!!!"

Again, I think you're missing the point.....I don't know that anyone is suggesting that belly putters don't help....there are many players who believe they putt better with them and they give them the best chance to win...but does that necessitate a rule change?  When you start to appeal to the history and tradition of the game in order to make a rule change, it's because there isn't any objective data or clear information on which to base a change...

I don't appeal to the history of the game from a strictly nostalgic perspective. But I believe there is plenty of room to simply use the existing wording of the rules to outlaw the practice of creating an artificial fulcrum when producing a stroke. I realize the argument could then easily be "well why now, people have used these putters in this way for 15, 20 years or more" and it's a decent one. But simply because they were slow to act isn't justification for not acting now.

And I am not sure how you say that I am missing the point. Maybe it's not your opinion that anchored putters aren't an advantage for some ( again, not NECESSARILY an advantage over a given opponent, but over their own ability to putt otherwise) but just read this thread or any thread like it again. It's the most commonly used argument out there. That and the specious "well why isn't everyone one using one then?" I read and hear that all the time. It's baffling to me that the obvious answer eludes those who ask it. It's because those in the vast majority who don't anchor a putter haven't in desperation, resorted to using one to fix their flawed stroke. Which also goes to the heart of the matter about this being somehow so uniquely unfair, some will have a leg to stand on in court were they to choose to sue the USGA. What could the basis of that lawsuit possibly be other than "I need to be able to anchor the putter to myself in order to sustain the level of play this stroke has allowed me to achieve" or at least something like that?  Any such lawsuit is an admission of a lack of the skill required to putt to a similar level with a non anchored putter. I think few would be willing to face the scrutiny that would surely follow for even attempting to make that case.

I hear you - and you make some very quality points - but if there is so much room and latitude in the current wording, why is the process taking so long? Why, if the need to change the rules is so obvious, hasn't it happened already? I do agree that if they change the ruling by outlawing the technique, there doesn't appear to be a lot of opportunity for suit. That being said, the fact the ruling bodies haven't acted in the last "x" decades is absolutely a valid point of conversation in that in only serves to further the notion that this entire issue wasn't even on the radar until mainline tour pros started to win and more importantly, win majors.  Unfortunately for the ruling bodies, the failure to acknowledge this reality undermines the entire conversation. On the topic of players using a long/belly putter in an act of desperation, how do you address the players who have never used a shorter putter (Carl P)? Or the players who moved to a longer putter simply because they had a preference for it and not as a fix for the yips or another similarly desparte situation (Keegan, Webb, etc)? Isn't it really an issue because it was just fine as long as it was Berhard Langer and other "has beens" whose "infractions" were forgivable because all of the AARP members didn't garner the attention of kids and OEMs?  Kind of hard to ignore this part of the conversation, but so many seem to conveniently just gloss over this...The fact the long putter is an issue now is, in my opinion, a very viable part of the conversation...

I agree that long putters can/might/perhaps make an individual a better putter than they might be with a shorter putter. But again, how is this any different than any other advanced technology. Hybrids make me a better long iron player than I would be otherwise...460 cc drivers make me a better driver than I would be otherwise...CB irons make my thin miss travel a bit farther than I probably deserve....so why should the putter be singled out???

I agree there will always be divergent perspectives on this particular issue and I appreciate the conversation, although I might not agree with your position...

To me, this is the worst objection pro anchoring people make and it's apparent they often find it their best argument. That is the "what about Hybrids what about 460 drivers". That argument goes nowhere because the expected benefit of a 460 driver making you "better than you might otherwise be" at driving the ball is a relative comparison to making the same stroke/motion with any other driver. In that, there is an inherent equality among all players who use them. Does that mean that all players of all abilities will hit a 460 driver the same? Of course not, but as with the oldest persimmon or an I20, the result of that shot is still entirely dependent on the user having all the requisite skill to make it work effectively.  There is no fundamental change of technique and certainly nothing about the use of these clubs that approaches the clearly different, dare i say, Unusual, stroke/use of an anchored putter. Again i say this contending that using an anchored putter is done for the purpose of eliminating a skill set that a traditional putter requires. You can say you reject that notion and that's fine, but do you really reject it entirely?

As to the issues of guys like Pettersson I am frankly unmoved by the notion that it's all he's ever used. If it's determined that the stroke with a belly putter is useful in overcoming a deficiency a player has in making a free flowing and natural stroke with a non-anchored putter, i really don't care if it's all he's ever used. I look at it like he has gotten 15 years of free rolls among the best in the world when maybe he shouldn't have. As far as Keegs and Webb claiming it's merely a preference, I am not sure i accept that preference isn't rooted in some aspect of this that I object to. I don't know that my argument has anything to do with the traditional yips as much as it does removing the entire skill set of a touch and feel. that certainly may include yips under pressure, but it isn't limited to that. But beyond that, How can it be determined that they don't "prefer" the anchored putter because it performs better for them for the reasons I have mentioned? It would seem that's easy to assume that has at least something to do with it. Whether they are conscious of it or not.

[asualum]

I must really suck with a long putter because I can't see the advantage.

[pingman1]

I don't think they can ban anchoring and not ban the long putter.  How are they going to police the players???

[jnradioactive]

[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1350528540' post='5809895']
[quote name='jnradioactive' timestamp='1350517735' post='5809015']
[quote name='will227457' timestamp='1350490582' post='5806753']
[quote name='highergr0und' timestamp='1350484696' post='5806181'] I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters. [/quote]

This

Is it really an advantage? and if it is why is not every tour pro using one?
[/quote]
[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1350511791' post='5808579']
Oh dear...you're missing the entire point...the argument has never been whether or not a belly putter makes a part of the game easier for anyone..belly putters help SOME players...but so do the other myriad technologies which we've discussed ad naseaum....the point is whether or not the technique or equipment is violating an established rule...or whether there should be a rule which makes either the equipment or technique illegal...
[/quote]

I know your opinion is the only one you care about or apparently read, but there are plenty here who do indeed think the argument is that they "must not provide any advantage otherwise everyone would use them"  but since you did not say that I guess you assume no one has said that....

Must be tough...center of the universe and all...
[/quote]

I'm not sure levying personal insults is the most appropriate or mature way to continue the conversation...but so be it...If you have some actual facts or items to discuss, that would be wonderful, but I get the sense that isn't the way you tend to operate...
[/quote]

Thanks for proving my point

[Vindog]

jnradioactive, on 18 October 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

Thanks for proving my point

And like wise, for you proving his point.  You have no facts, no evidence and barely an original opinion.

All you do is troll around and make yourself look like an idiot.  But...whatever floats your boat!

[tElihu]

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

tElihu, on 17 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Would be nice if the USGA addressed equipment that is rendering classic courses obsolete (ball and driver) before those that only make the game harder for the average golfer.

But that's par for the course for the USGA.

Come on now, there is no definitive, beyond a shadow of a doubt proof that they help anyone putt better, so by that token taking it away can't possibly make the game harder for the average golfer...

Way off the path of my original point, but excellent strawman argument nonetheless. Please continue...

[jnradioactive]

Vindog, on 18 October 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

jnradioactive, on 18 October 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

Thanks for proving my point

And like wise, for you proving his point.  You have no facts, no evidence and barely an original opinion.

All you do is troll around and make yourself look like an idiot.  But...whatever floats your boat!

Ok dog whatever you say dog