180 replies to this topic

[Pat_Irish]

If the players believe that there is nothing wrong with the "long putter " why dont they use it when measuring a drop ?. Has anyone ever seen it used ? I think not . And as for the R&A and USGA making rule changes, there is nothing to stop the "Tours" from having a different rule. In fact its an ideal oppertunity to address a lot of equipment issues, starting with the ball

[Vindog]

Pat_Irish, on 06 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

If the players believe that there is nothing wrong with the "long putter " why dont they use it when measuring a drop ?. Has anyone ever seen it used ? I think not . And as for the R&A and USGA making rule changes, there is nothing to stop the "Tours" from having a different rule. In fact its an ideal oppertunity to address a lot of equipment issues, starting with the ball

It is my understanding, from the knowledgeable members here, that there is a ruling stemming from the Ping lawsuit that states the PGA tour must follow the rules set by the USGA/R&A.
Probably someone will chime in and clarify, but that's the basic gist of it.

[Jamboy72]

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

I disagree with Adam Scott.  More important issues???   That's not only subjective, it appears as if he's trying to redirect the subject.  Distance is an issue, as are courses being made longer,and the ball, but all are the result of lower scores.  We hear it all the time; if you want lower scores, make more putts; which begs a question.  Would those using anchoring be in the same position using a normal putter.  Something tells me no.  I'd sure would love to see them prove me wrong.

In every thread about this issue, people use the fact anchoring has been allowed for a long time, why change it now.  Up until the current economic downturn, golf around the world has been growing exceedingly fast, beyond expectations.  When facing such conditions, leadership has to address stand-out associated issues.  Additionally, long putters or anchoring has not been in our faces as a "acceptable" personal choice, as it's been seen as for old men, possibly with physical limitations.  Hence, its usage has been at most a blurred concern for the USGA and R&A.  Not until the recent crop of youngsters decided to use the poo pooed old men style, did anchoring come into view by the tours best traditional putters and leadership.

What's grabbed attention is more and more tour players that historically used traditional putters at considering it for the benefits of anchoring, and it's not seen as the old man putter it was.  But why, in hopes of resurrecting putting woos; Scott and Els are just two that fit in that segment.  Fantastic driver and hybrid technology, even the ball does NOT do anything to actually improve scoring.  It comes down to groove influence, and making a pure putting stroke so those key putts under 8' drop when needed.

Keegan, Petterson, Simpson, Watney, Scott, Els and Haas use some form of anchoring, and they are in the PGA's top 33, plus a few others that have tried it on tour.  IMO usage is by a minority segment, but for defined reasons.  Again, if it's banned, will they remain in the top 33???  Me hopes, but thinks not.

I absolutely agree with Adam - Tiger is, again, off the mark as he is suggesting a rule change relative to equipment, which the ruling bodies said isn't going to happen...and his suggestion would only limit putter length and wouldn't specifically address the issue of anchoring...You talk as though subjectivity is a negative in this conversation, but the reality is, the entire conversation is subjective, because there isn't any objective information on which to comment. Adam's assertion that there are bigger issues, is fairly easy to support as you can make a much stronger and objective argument which shows how other equipment is impacting course design, length, etc. Yes, putting is important, but if you really want lower scores, hit more greens...if you want to hit more greens, it's best to have shorter irons for second shots...if you want shorter irons for second shots, don't have courses playing 7000+ yds...

What's grabbed the attention of the ruling bodies isn't so much that young, able bodied players were using long putters...but the increase in the number of players (although it still sits at approximately 15%), but moreso the fact they were winning with them...and winning majors...if that doesn't happen, we don't have an issue, just as we didn't have an issue for the last 30 years...

I'm not sure how you can say that driver technology and hybrid technology has no impact on scoring...average handicaps, etc. haven't changed in however long, but courses continue to get longer...how can players continue to score well on longer courses if driver/hybrid technology hasn't had an impact??

[dalehead]

vegas005, on 06 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

The gray hairs have nothing better to do. They missed the boat on drivers, the golf ball, 60+++ degree wedges, and hybrids. Gotta fix something...must be that long putter, which I say again has no statistical advantage over any other legal form of putting.

Agree, especially on the golf ball. Letting the modern ball run away like they have has changed the game more than anything else. Certainly more than the long putter has or ever will.

The entire long putter thing has been as big a joke as the groove change of a few years ago. That was another rule change that solved a problem that didn't exist.

BTW, I don't use a long putter and don't expect to. I just know bungeling when I see it.

[kellygreen]

dalehead, on 06 November 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

vegas005, on 06 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

The gray hairs have nothing better to do. They missed the boat on drivers, the golf ball, 60+++ degree wedges, and hybrids. Gotta fix something...must be that long putter, which I say again has no statistical advantage over any other legal form of putting.

Agree, especially on the golf ball. Letting the modern ball run away like they have has changed the game more than anything else. Certainly more than the long putter has or ever will.

The entire long putter thing has been as big a joke as the groove change of a few years ago. That was another rule change that solved a problem that didn't exist.

BTW, I don't use a long putter and don't expect to. I just know bungeling when I see it.

Solves a problem that doesn't exist...while denying just how GOOD contemporary tour pros really are.

The USGA insisted that the deep grooves on wedges was giving unfair advantage, and taking "skill" out of the game (sound familiar??)....so change had to be made.

Change was made...and it didn't even amount to a SPEED BUMP.  The pros just started stopping their wedge shots with trajectory rather than spin...and scoring averages and scrambling percentages didn't even stop to catch a breath.

[jmck]

dalehead, on 06 November 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

vegas005, on 06 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

The gray hairs have nothing better to do. They missed the boat on drivers, the golf ball, 60+++ degree wedges, and hybrids. Gotta fix something...must be that long putter, which I say again has no statistical advantage over any other legal form of putting.

Agree, especially on the golf ball. Letting the modern ball run away like they have has changed the game more than anything else. Certainly more than the long putter has or ever will.

The entire long putter thing has been as big a joke as the groove change of a few years ago. That was another rule change that solved a problem that didn't exist.

BTW, I don't use a long putter and don't expect to. I just know bungeling when I see it.

Two big +1s here.  They've long since let the toothpaste out of the tube with the modern driver and ball.  Banning long putters is totally nonsensical--and that's as true today as it was 20 years ago, and as true as it will be 20 years from now.

Look at it this way, there's no one on tour still playing a Tour Balata and a MacGregor persimmon block.  If there was any real universal advantage to be gained by using a long putter, everyone would've switched over to them, just as everyone's switched to a modern driver and ball when they became available.  Long putters have been around practically forever, and while they might help some people, they certainly do not help everyone.  So tell me again why they must be banned?  Because they look funny?  Maybe we should also ban drivers that aren't black, or pants that aren't tan, or shoes that look like sneakers while we're at it.

The cynic in me is tempted to say they want something to keep golf on the first page of espn.com through the winter--like there's too long a gap between over-hyping the Ryder Cup and over-hyping the Masters.

[rlynham]

The long putter has been around for decades. This is nothing other than a knee jerk reaction to a couple of young guys winning majors with them. If Keegan/Web hadn't won majors then the USGA/ R&A wouldn't be looking to change the rules.

[rafal]

One might have more success arguing against the long putter at the Bradley family reunion than this forum.

[cxx]

rafal, on 06 November 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

One might have more success arguing against the long putter at the Bradley family reunion than this forum.

There is a fairly simple explanation for this.

[anth]

Anyone else find it amusing that the photo of Adam Scott in the OP article was taken by Bobby Yip?

[Ogre41]

You don't have to anchor a Long Putter either. You can hold that doohickey without having it wedged up against you. Of course you have one arm extended low like a Yeti and the other looks like its from a T Rex. But the club isn't anchored, if anything is, the player's arm or hand is.  Either way, I messed around wih one and I am thinking of making it a full deal. This is of course coming from a high handicap player who is just as likely to use a wedge as a putter if I left the putter in the bag rather than waste time going and getting it.

[Pepperturbo]

topekareal, on 06 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

I disagree with Adam Scott.  More important issues???   That's not only subjective, it appears as if he's trying to redirect the subject.  Distance is an issue, as are courses being made longer,and the ball, but all are the result of lower scores.  We hear it all the time; if you want lower scores, make more putts; which begs a question.  Would those using anchoring be in the same position using a normal putter.  Something tells me no.  I'd sure would love to see them prove me wrong.

In every thread about this issue, people use the fact anchoring has been allowed for a long time, why change it now.  Up until the current economic downturn, golf around the world has been growing exceedingly fast, beyond expectations.  When facing such conditions, leadership has to address stand-out associated issues.  Additionally, long putters or anchoring has not been in our faces as a "acceptable" personal choice, as it's been seen as for old men, possibly with physical limitations.  Hence, its usage has been at most a blurred concern for the USGA and R&A.  Not until the recent crop of youngsters decided to use the poo pooed old men style, did anchoring come into view by the tours best traditional putters and leadership.

What's grabbed attention is more and more tour players that historically used traditional putters at considering it for the benefits of anchoring, and it's not seen as the old man putter it was.  But why, in hopes of resurrecting putting woos; Scott and Els are just two that fit in that segment.  Fantastic driver and hybrid technology, even the ball does NOT do anything to actually improve scoring.  It comes down to groove influence, and making a pure putting stroke so those key putts under 8' drop when needed.

Keegan, Petterson, Simpson, Watney, Scott, Els and Haas use some form of anchoring, and they are in the PGA's top 33, plus a few others that have tried it on tour.  IMO usage is by a minority segment, but for defined reasons.  Again, if it's banned, will they remain in the top 33???  Me hopes, but thinks not.

I absolutely agree with Adam - Tiger is, again, off the mark as he is suggesting a rule change relative to equipment, which the ruling bodies said isn't going to happen...and his suggestion would only limit putter length and wouldn't specifically address the issue of anchoring...You talk as though subjectivity is a negative in this conversation, but the reality is, the entire conversation is subjective, because there isn't any objective information on which to comment. Adam's assertion that there are bigger issues, is fairly easy to support as you can make a much stronger and objective argument which shows how other equipment is impacting course design, length, etc. Yes, putting is important, but if you really want lower scores, hit more greens...if you want to hit more greens, it's best to have shorter irons for second shots...if you want shorter irons for second shots, don't have courses playing 7000+ yds...

What's grabbed the attention of the ruling bodies isn't so much that young, able bodied players were using long putters...but the increase in the number of players (although it still sits at approximately 15%), but moreso the fact they were winning with them...and winning majors...if that doesn't happen, we don't have an issue, just as we didn't have an issue for the last 30 years...
I'm not sure how you can say that driver technology and hybrid technology has no impact on scoring...average handicaps, etc. haven't changed in however long, but courses continue to get longer...how can players continue to score well on longer courses if driver/hybrid technology hasn't had an impact??

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

[Sean2]

Yeah, well. Scott using his long putter for two club lengths? Meh...

[Vindog]

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

Subjectivity is at times negative, I agree, which is why some of us feel that making a ruling that is so subjective makes no sense.  Especially given the fact that there has been ample time to conduct research, yet none has been done.

I'm scientifically minded.  I like to see evidence, but apparently this is not going to happen...and unless it does, I will remain unconvinced that any advantage exists, no matter how red in the face anchored putter opponents get...

[Pepperturbo]

Vindog, on 06 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

Subjectivity is at times negative, I agree, which is why some of us feel that making a ruling that is so subjective makes no sense.  Especially given the fact that there has been ample time to conduct research, yet none has been done.

I'm scientifically minded.  I like to see evidence, but apparently this is not going to happen...and unless it does, I will remain unconvinced that any advantage exists, no matter how red in the face anchored putter opponents get...

I appreciate the scientific mind, but it often gets little done when it comes to making decisions at a high level; which is what we're talking about here.  I, personally, don't need scientific proof either; mostly because putting equipment and styles are, for the most part, personal.   I suspect its going to be dealt with much like the croquet style.  Leaders will listen to all the view points, factor in their thoughts, and vote amongst themselves; as it should be.  There are reasons for selecting men to lead the USGA and R&A, and why you, me and the rest of the golfing world do NOT chase the popular vote as to who holds those rolls.

[Jamboy72]

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

topekareal, on 06 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

I disagree with Adam Scott.  More important issues???   That's not only subjective, it appears as if he's trying to redirect the subject.  Distance is an issue, as are courses being made longer,and the ball, but all are the result of lower scores.  We hear it all the time; if you want lower scores, make more putts; which begs a question.  Would those using anchoring be in the same position using a normal putter.  Something tells me no.  I'd sure would love to see them prove me wrong.

In every thread about this issue, people use the fact anchoring has been allowed for a long time, why change it now.  Up until the current economic downturn, golf around the world has been growing exceedingly fast, beyond expectations.  When facing such conditions, leadership has to address stand-out associated issues.  Additionally, long putters or anchoring has not been in our faces as a "acceptable" personal choice, as it's been seen as for old men, possibly with physical limitations.  Hence, its usage has been at most a blurred concern for the USGA and R&A.  Not until the recent crop of youngsters decided to use the poo pooed old men style, did anchoring come into view by the tours best traditional putters and leadership.

What's grabbed attention is more and more tour players that historically used traditional putters at considering it for the benefits of anchoring, and it's not seen as the old man putter it was.  But why, in hopes of resurrecting putting woos; Scott and Els are just two that fit in that segment.  Fantastic driver and hybrid technology, even the ball does NOT do anything to actually improve scoring.  It comes down to groove influence, and making a pure putting stroke so those key putts under 8' drop when needed.

Keegan, Petterson, Simpson, Watney, Scott, Els and Haas use some form of anchoring, and they are in the PGA's top 33, plus a few others that have tried it on tour.  IMO usage is by a minority segment, but for defined reasons.  Again, if it's banned, will they remain in the top 33???  Me hopes, but thinks not.

I absolutely agree with Adam - Tiger is, again, off the mark as he is suggesting a rule change relative to equipment, which the ruling bodies said isn't going to happen...and his suggestion would only limit putter length and wouldn't specifically address the issue of anchoring...You talk as though subjectivity is a negative in this conversation, but the reality is, the entire conversation is subjective, because there isn't any objective information on which to comment. Adam's assertion that there are bigger issues, is fairly easy to support as you can make a much stronger and objective argument which shows how other equipment is impacting course design, length, etc. Yes, putting is important, but if you really want lower scores, hit more greens...if you want to hit more greens, it's best to have shorter irons for second shots...if you want shorter irons for second shots, don't have courses playing 7000+ yds...

What's grabbed the attention of the ruling bodies isn't so much that young, able bodied players were using long putters...but the increase in the number of players (although it still sits at approximately 15%), but moreso the fact they were winning with them...and winning majors...if that doesn't happen, we don't have an issue, just as we didn't have an issue for the last 30 years...
I'm not sure how you can say that driver technology and hybrid technology has no impact on scoring...average handicaps, etc. haven't changed in however long, but courses continue to get longer...how can players continue to score well on longer courses if driver/hybrid technology hasn't had an impact??

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

So the distance/direction you hit your driver has no impact on scoring. Got it.  Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. So if you hit the driver straighter and further, that isn't closer to the hole.  Got it.  It doesn't put a shorter club in your hand which gives you a better chance of hitting it closer. Got it.  I guess it's this type of logic which just baffles me and makes this conversation so difficult.

[bscinstnct]

Adam Scott is a loser.

He choked on his only chance to win a Major on the 18th hole on Sunday.

He has no Majors

Tiger Woods is a winner of 14 Majors and a legend as big as Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus.

Why would anyone care what Adam Scott says.

More people know the guy who carries his bag.

Its no surprise that a loser is on the losing side.

It is surprising that a 0 Major winning loser has the nerve to challenge

Tiger Woods

[whcwhc]

TheDarkOne, on 06 November 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

From the article...
"Fourteen-times major winner Woods has voiced long-standing opposition against the use of the long putters, which tend to measure between 38 and 46 inches, and has spoken to R & A chief executive Peter Dawson about amending the rules.

The American believes putter length should be capped and be equal or less than the shortest club in the golfer's bag. Scott was not a fan of that idea.

"His voice carries some weight on the issue, a lot of players have been quite outspoken about it and certainly when Tiger Woods speaks about it generates a lot of interest," the 32-year-old said of arguably the world's greatest golfer.

"But I'm not necessarily sure his views on what the putter should be are correct at all, I don't think the putter should be the shortest club in the bag, that has never been a rule in golf so I don't know why it should be now."

TDO just can't stand for anythign to be happening in GolfWRX and him not be part of the story. No shock to see him try to interject himself here.

Fixed.

[iBanesto]

Why not ban putting from the game?

Closest to the pin wins the hole!

[geesecougar2]

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

So do you really believe that if we forced a belly-using Tour player to use a standard putter, it would have a greater effect on his chances of staying on Tour than if we forced him to use a Titleist Professional, a steel shafted Pittsburgh Persimmon, or to carry only a 56* as his highest lofted club?

Edited by geesecougar2, 06 November 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[bscinstnct]

iBanesto, on 06 November 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Why not ban putting from the game?

Closest to the pin wins the hole!

You are my hero

I play golf to let the ball (and the expletives) fly high and far.

It helps me sleep.

Putting is evil.

[MtlJeff]

driving distance has ranged from 270ish to 315ish since 2003. There have not been significant changes in average driving distance in almost 10 years now.

So we change the ball and then what? Shorten courses? Let the back tee boxes rot and grow shrubs. Until players get longer again due to training and then re-open them? Meanwhile the average player is worse off then he was.

At least the putter issue is right there in front of you, anchoring is a different stroke. I don't care if they ban it but at least i understand it.

I don't understand how governing bodies can demand distance (by "tiger proofing" courses) and then be mad when they get it. Change course designs to require different things before you change equipment IMO. You are already putting millions into lengthening them, put those millions into making them more strategic

[BENNYSUPREME]

I hat the long putter.  I can't get a feel for the thing.  If anything was to change, I think you should not be able to use it as part of your two club lengths.

Nope you shouldn't be able to I say.

[imakaveli]

Vindog, on 06 November 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

imakaveli, on 06 November 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

tbowles411, on 06 November 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

imakaveli, on 06 November 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I thought from the title that Adam Scott was gaining weight...

LOL!

That would't be good for golf btw

His pants are tight enough as it is...

I personally like the fit cut of that pants, I have never like large pants like the early Tiger

[TheDarkOne]

bscinstnct, on 06 November 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Adam Scott is a loser.

He choked on his only chance to win a Major on the 18th hole on Sunday.

He has no Majors

Tiger Woods is a winner of 14 Majors and a legend as big as Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus.

Why would anyone care what Adam Scott says.

More people know the guy who carries his bag.

Its no surprise that a loser is on the losing side.

It is surprising that a 0 Major winning loser has the nerve to challenge

Tiger Woods

So by this logic, would your opnion hold any merit in this conversation?
Personally, I think it should but from the stance you are arguing it wouldn't correct?

[Vindog]

imakaveli, on 07 November 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

Vindog, on 06 November 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

His pants are tight enough as it is...

I personally like the fit cut of that pants, I have never like large pants like the early Tiger

I'm a fan of Adam Scott, but man, his pants are so tight you can tell what religion he is.

Tiger doesn't dress well.  i think most Nike garb is boring and just...blah.

But I'm no fashion guru...at least going up against a guy from Milan, that is.

Edited by Vindog, 07 November 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[imakaveli]

Vindog, on 07 November 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

imakaveli, on 07 November 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

Vindog, on 06 November 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

His pants are tight enough as it is...

I personally like the fit cut of that pants, I have never like large pants like the early Tiger

I'm a fan of Adam Scott, but man, his pants are so tight you can tell what religion he is.

Tiger doesn't dress well.  i think most Nike garb is boring and just...blah.

But I'm no fashion guru...at least going up against a guy from Milan, that is.

I dunno, I mean, I don't think they are tight, they are right if you want a more taylored look I think, kinda like Ian Poulter. Don't think Scott will fit the "Fowler fit" Anyway, back to the topic!

[bscinstnct]

TheDarkOne, on 07 November 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

bscinstnct, on 06 November 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Adam Scott is a loser.

He choked on his only chance to win a Major on the 18th hole on Sunday.

He has no Majors

Tiger Woods is a winner of 14 Majors and a legend as big as Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus.

Why would anyone care what Adam Scott says.

More people know the guy who carries his bag.

Its no surprise that a loser is on the losing side.

It is surprising that a 0 Major winning loser has the nerve to challenge

Tiger Woods

So by this logic, would your opnion hold any merit in this conversation?
Personally, I think it should but from the stance you are arguing it wouldn't correct?

TDO!

I appreciate that you valued my opinion.

But, I assure you, my post does not contain any logic.

[bunter101]

MtlJeff, on 06 November 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

driving distance has ranged from 270ish to 315ish since 2003. There have not been significant changes in average driving distance in almost 10 years now.

So we change the ball and then what? Shorten courses? Let the back tee boxes rot and grow shrubs. Until players get longer again due to training and then re-open them? Meanwhile the average player is worse off then he was.

At least the putter issue is right there in front of you, anchoring is a different stroke. I don't care if they ban it but at least i understand it.

I don't understand how governing bodies can demand distance (by "tiger proofing" courses) and then be mad when they get it. Change course designs to require different things before you change equipment IMO. You are already putting millions into lengthening them, put those millions into making them more strategic

Couldn't agree more. Add to the fact that these legends who bring up ball distance then go and 'design' courses over 7000 yards. basically adding to the problem. Course designers have no real imagination. Fairway bunkers aren't a punishment but a spin increasing help for long irons. No real need to be able to shape shots and no premium on accuracy.

[Pepperturbo]

topekareal, on 06 November 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

topekareal, on 06 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

I disagree with Adam Scott.  More important issues???   That's not only subjective, it appears as if he's trying to redirect the subject.  Distance is an issue, as are courses being made longer,and the ball, but all are the result of lower scores.  We hear it all the time; if you want lower scores, make more putts; which begs a question.  Would those using anchoring be in the same position using a normal putter.  Something tells me no.  I'd sure would love to see them prove me wrong.

In every thread about this issue, people use the fact anchoring has been allowed for a long time, why change it now.  Up until the current economic downturn, golf around the world has been growing exceedingly fast, beyond expectations.  When facing such conditions, leadership has to address stand-out associated issues.  Additionally, long putters or anchoring has not been in our faces as a "acceptable" personal choice, as it's been seen as for old men, possibly with physical limitations.  Hence, its usage has been at most a blurred concern for the USGA and R&A.  Not until the recent crop of youngsters decided to use the poo pooed old men style, did anchoring come into view by the tours best traditional putters and leadership.

What's grabbed attention is more and more tour players that historically used traditional putters at considering it for the benefits of anchoring, and it's not seen as the old man putter it was.  But why, in hopes of resurrecting putting woos; Scott and Els are just two that fit in that segment.  Fantastic driver and hybrid technology, even the ball does NOT do anything to actually improve scoring.  It comes down to groove influence, and making a pure putting stroke so those key putts under 8' drop when needed.

Keegan, Petterson, Simpson, Watney, Scott, Els and Haas use some form of anchoring, and they are in the PGA's top 33, plus a few others that have tried it on tour.  IMO usage is by a minority segment, but for defined reasons.  Again, if it's banned, will they remain in the top 33???  Me hopes, but thinks not.

I absolutely agree with Adam - Tiger is, again, off the mark as he is suggesting a rule change relative to equipment, which the ruling bodies said isn't going to happen...and his suggestion would only limit putter length and wouldn't specifically address the issue of anchoring...You talk as though subjectivity is a negative in this conversation, but the reality is, the entire conversation is subjective, because there isn't any objective information on which to comment. Adam's assertion that there are bigger issues, is fairly easy to support as you can make a much stronger and objective argument which shows how other equipment is impacting course design, length, etc. Yes, putting is important, but if you really want lower scores, hit more greens...if you want to hit more greens, it's best to have shorter irons for second shots...if you want shorter irons for second shots, don't have courses playing 7000+ yds...

What's grabbed the attention of the ruling bodies isn't so much that young, able bodied players were using long putters...but the increase in the number of players (although it still sits at approximately 15%), but moreso the fact they were winning with them...and winning majors...if that doesn't happen, we don't have an issue, just as we didn't have an issue for the last 30 years...
I'm not sure how you can say that driver technology and hybrid technology has no impact on scoring...average handicaps, etc. haven't changed in however long, but courses continue to get longer...how can players continue to score well on longer courses if driver/hybrid technology hasn't had an impact??

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

So the distance/direction you hit your driver has no impact on scoring. Got it.  Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. So if you hit the driver straighter and further, that isn't closer to the hole.  Got it.  It doesn't put a shorter club in your hand which gives you a better chance of hitting it closer. Got it.  I guess it's this type of logic which just baffles me and makes this conversation so difficult.

Like I eluded to, you're overstating influence in hopes of supporting your point... doesn't fit the scenario. 1+1 does not equal 5.    Driver and hybrid technology is NOT the same as anchoring, which is a specific style.