668 replies to this topic

[dcmidnight]

Wow....

http://www.golf.com/...ting-ban-sunday

[502 to Right]

Not really that big a deal.  The PGA Tour will tell the USGA they oppose the anchor ban.  The USGA, seated in their ivory tower, will ignore this and change the rule anyway.  And the PGA Tour will play under the new USGA/R&A rule despite their opposition.

Edited by 502 to Right, 22 February 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[paulshack]

what about thurs fri & saturday?

[Jamboy72]

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Not really that big a deal.  The PGA Tour will tell the USGA they oppose the anchor ban.  The USGA, seated in their ivory tower, will ignore this and change the rule anyway.  And the PGA Tour will play under the new USGA/R&A rule despite their opposition.

I don't know that I agree...for the PGA tour to basically draw a line in the sand on this issue is, imo, a big deal - In the past the USGA has not done well with significant opposition to a rule change/modification (see Ping)...and I can't think of any other such "proposal" which has drawn such spirited debate on both sides...I also don't know that it's a slam dunk that the PGA will just follow suit...especially with the possibility of the local rule option...

[rustyputterguy]

paulshack, on 22 February 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

what about thurs fri & saturday?

Some one had to say it, thank you.

[502 to Right]

topekareal, on 22 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Not really that big a deal.  The PGA Tour will tell the USGA they oppose the anchor ban.  The USGA, seated in their ivory tower, will ignore this and change the rule anyway.  And the PGA Tour will play under the new USGA/R&A rule despite their opposition.

I don't know that I agree...for the PGA tour to basically draw a line in the sand on this issue is, imo, a big deal - In the past the USGA has not done well with significant opposition to a rule change/modification (see Ping)...and I can't think of any other such "proposal" which has drawn such spirited debate on both sides...I also don't know that it's a slam dunk that the PGA will just follow suit...especially with the possibility of the local rule option...

But the PGA Tour isn't drawing a line in the sand.  They are saying, "We don't like this proposed rule."  If Tim Finchem says the PGA Tour has decided they will not follow the rule if instituted, then I will be impressed.  But he's not going to say that.

The reason the PGA Tour is going to follow the rule if imposed is because 2 of the 4 majors are guaranteed to ban the anchored stroke (the U.S. Open and British Open--which are run by the USGA and R& A respectively).  The PGA Tour is not going create a dilemma for their members to use the anchored stroke for most tournaments--but then be barred from doing so for 2 of 4 majors.

[Jamboy72]

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

But the PGA Tour isn't drawing a line in the sand.  They are saying, "We don't like this proposed rule."  If Tim Finchem says the PGA Tour has decided they will not follow the rule if instituted, then I will be impressed.  But he's not going to say that.

The reason the PGA Tour is going to follow the rule if imposed is because 2 of the 4 majors are guaranteed to ban the anchored stroke (the U.S. Open and British Open--which are run by the USGA and R& A respectively).  The PGA Tour is not going create a dilemma for their members to use the anchored stroke for most tournaments--but then be barred from doing so for 2 of 4 majors.

I don't necessarily disagree with that you think it is going to happen...but there is a little sliver of me which thinks the PGA might say what you're stating they won't...and there is an even bigger part of me which thinks the PGA would toss in the possibility of enacting a local rule for all PGA tour events...as much as most people care about the majors, I think there are many more tour players who make their livings outside of these 4 events and would be just fine with the PGA tour doing it's own thing on this....couple this reality with the fact the USGA needs the PGA to support this rule for it to be successful and we have ourselves a wonderful little pissing match...

[24vince]

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

I don't know that I agree...for the PGA tour to basically draw a line in the sand on this issue is, imo, a big deal - In the past the USGA has not done well with significant opposition to a rule change/modification (see Ping)...and I can't think of any other such "proposal" which has drawn such spirited debate on both sides...I also don't know that it's a slam dunk that the PGA will just follow suit...especially with the possibility of the local rule option...

But the PGA Tour isn't drawing a line in the sand.  They are saying, "We don't like this proposed rule."  If Tim Finchem says the PGA Tour has decided they will not follow the rule if instituted, then I will be impressed.  But he's not going to say that.

The reason the PGA Tour is going to follow the rule if imposed is because 2 of the 4 majors are guaranteed to ban the anchored stroke (the U.S. Open and British Open--which are run by the USGA and R& A respectively).  The PGA Tour is not going create a dilemma for their members to use the anchored stroke for most tournaments--but then be barred from doing so for 2 of 4 majors.

And it could very well end up 3 of 4....My guess is Augusta will probably follow suit with both Opens....Which would make it a mute point, I dont see any of the pro's trying to win a Major using a putting style they dont use year round. (I understand guys switch putters and even strokes but usually because they're searching for something, if they find that something they stay put till it runs out)

But thats just a guess....

[turtleback]

topekareal, on 22 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Not really that big a deal.  The PGA Tour will tell the USGA they oppose the anchor ban.  The USGA, seated in their ivory tower, will ignore this and change the rule anyway.  And the PGA Tour will play under the new USGA/R&A rule despite their opposition.

I don't know that I agree...for the PGA tour to basically draw a line in the sand on this issue is, imo, a big deal - In the past the USGA has not done well with significant opposition to a rule change/modification (see Ping)...and I can't think of any other such "proposal" which has drawn such spirited debate on both sides...I also don't know that it's a slam dunk that the PGA will just follow suit...especially with the possibility of the local rule option...

Sure, because players are very likely to want to play 2 or 3 of THE most important tournaments of the year (US Open, British Open, and almost certainly the Masters) using a completely diifferent putter than they use the rest of the year.  If the USGA and the R&A hold fast the PGATour will fold like a cheap suitcase, IMO.

[IM_ALL_IN]

turtleback, on 23 February 2013 - 02:33 AM, said:

topekareal, on 22 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Not really that big a deal.  The PGA Tour will tell the USGA they oppose the anchor ban.  The USGA, seated in their ivory tower, will ignore this and change the rule anyway.  And the PGA Tour will play under the new USGA/R&A rule despite their opposition.

I don't know that I agree...for the PGA tour to basically draw a line in the sand on this issue is, imo, a big deal - In the past the USGA has not done well with significant opposition to a rule change/modification (see Ping)...and I can't think of any other such "proposal" which has drawn such spirited debate on both sides...I also don't know that it's a slam dunk that the PGA will just follow suit...especially with the possibility of the local rule option...

Sure, because players are very likely to want to play 2 or 3 of THE most important tournaments of the year (US Open, British Open, and almost certainly the Masters) using a completely diifferent putter than they use the rest of the year.  If the USGA and the R&A hold fast the PGATour will fold like a cheap suitcase, IMO.

If they putt better with an anchor style of course they will. You're talking about 2-3 tournaments per year while there's still ~40 other tournaments a year including a 10 million dollar fed ex cup. They will putt with whatever works better and if the US Open/British won't allow it, they'll either putt with a standard size putter or simply skip it. Not a big deal.

[IM_ALL_IN]

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

I don't know that I agree...for the PGA tour to basically draw a line in the sand on this issue is, imo, a big deal - In the past the USGA has not done well with significant opposition to a rule change/modification (see Ping)...and I can't think of any other such "proposal" which has drawn such spirited debate on both sides...I also don't know that it's a slam dunk that the PGA will just follow suit...especially with the possibility of the local rule option...

But the PGA Tour isn't drawing a line in the sand.  They are saying, "We don't like this proposed rule."  If Tim Finchem says the PGA Tour has decided they will not follow the rule if instituted, then I will be impressed.  But he's not going to say that.

The reason the PGA Tour is going to follow the rule if imposed is because 2 of the 4 majors are guaranteed to ban the anchored stroke (the U.S. Open and British Open--which are run by the USGA and R& A respectively).  The PGA Tour is not going create a dilemma for their members to use the anchored stroke for most tournaments--but then be barred from doing so for 2 of 4 majors.

Of course he isn't going to come out and say that, there's no need to. He certainly will down the road if needed, but at this point, the rule is not instituted and "discussion" is still taking place.

The members themselves are asking for that dilemma. The PAC represents the players and they give the recommendation to the the Tour/Finchem who then relays that message to the world.

[nichho]

There is also the decision of the European Tour to consider. I know that they are separate organisations and could quite happily go their separate ways but then there are the co-sanctioned events such as the WGC, how will they work, Euro Tour members no anchoring PGA Tour members anchored. And what about the co-sanctioned Asian Tour events and Fincham's expansion plans.
For what it's worth (nothing) I believe the PGA Tour are taking a stance on behalf of their members, but that after all the behind close doors politiking has finished and if the ruling bodies go ahead with their decision, the PGA Tour will comply.

[Dead Solid Perfect]

The USGA/R&A have put themselves in a corner with this proposal.  The problem they have is they have admittedly said there is no data that shows putting with a belly putter is an advantage.  They come off like grumpy old men yelling get off my lawn.  What they don't like IMOP is the look of the stroke.  Also, the amount of time belly putters have been in play is an issue.  Long putters have been around as long as the Sand Wedge, just nobody was winning with them. They were in the shadows of the game for the most part.  The misconception of the belly is that it is fixed so it's cheating.  This is not true the putter can waver from it's path just as easily.  If you show me a guy using a belly I will show you a guy missing short putts, nothing is certain even with a belly.  Belly putters do help eliminate the yips but so does the pencil grip, left hand low, and the claw.  
Another trend we are seeing in putting is the use of large grips this is also meant to stop small twitchy movements of the hands should it be banned?  I've stated before in a time where rounds played are trending downward, time for play is diminishing, golf balls with 5 layers, is this what the USGA needs to be focusing on.

Now if the USGA/RA come up with data that shows it is a significant advantage then I guess they will have at least a leg to stand on, but I think those numbers are going to be hard to find.

[puttingmatt]

502 to Right, on 22 February 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Not really that big a deal.  The PGA Tour will tell the USGA they oppose the anchor ban.  The USGA, seated in their ivory tower, will ignore this and change the rule anyway.  And the PGA Tour will play under the new USGA/R&A rule despite their opposition.

Agreed !!! The PGA Tour did not stand firm on other changes, ( Grooves, Wedges, COR, Etc... )
This rule as others ,are not that big of a deal !!!  Another cackling hen item, added to a long list !!!!

[JaNelson38]

People have to remember that this is still just a proposed rule change.  If the PGA Tour and the rest of the worldwide tours (Euro Tour, Asian Tour, Sunshine Tour, etc) all stand together an oppose this proposed ban, there will be plenty of pressure on the USGA and the R&A to scrap the proposal.  The pro tours have more leverage than you think in this situation....they key is that they all need to stand together in this, if the PGA Tour is truly going to come out publicly against the proposed ban.

I personally think its gonna look awfully stupid if two of the 4 majors each year are going to be played under basically a different rule book.

This is a completely different situation than the wedge/groove issue.  This putting issue is going to force people who use a belly/anchored putter to fundamentally change the way they play the game.  Getting a new wedge with conforming grooves really didnt affect the game that much...good players can still get plenty of spin on a ball.  Making players play a piece of equipment they dont want to play is an entirely different animal.

Edited by JaNelson38, 23 February 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[2zlinks]

Dead Solid Perfect, on 23 February 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

The USGA/R&A have put themselves in a corner with this proposal.  The problem they have is they have admittedly said there is no data that shows putting with a belly putter is an advantage.  They come off like grumpy old men yelling get off my lawn.  What they don't like IMOP is the look of the stroke.  Also, the amount of time belly putters have been in play is an issue.  Long putters have been around as long as the Sand Wedge, just nobody was winning with them. They were in the shadows of the game for the most part.  The misconception of the belly is that it is fixed so it's cheating.  This is not true the putter can waver from it's path just as easily.  If you show me a guy using a belly I will show you a guy missing short putts, nothing is certain even with a belly.  Belly putters do help eliminate the yips but so does the pencil grip, left hand low, and the claw.  
Another trend we are seeing in putting is the use of large grips this is also meant to stop small twitchy movements of the hands should it be banned?  I've stated before in a time where rounds played are trending downward, time for play is diminishing, golf balls with 5 layers, is this what the USGA needs to be focusing on.

Now if the USGA/RA come up with data that shows it is a significant advantage then I guess they will have at least a leg to stand on, but I think those numbers are going to be hard to find.

Great post, my point exactly!

[fore]

So now Finchem is going to add his voice to the whining about the anchored stroke ruling and we'll have another 30 page thread about if it's an advantage or not. Then  folks will say they should be looking at slow play instead or hybrids or scaling back the ball...

It's only about if should it be legal to anchor the pivot point of the club.

Did that article say Tim Clark can't putt conventional because of a wrist injury?  ahh sure, ok

[2zlinks]

Keegan Bradley tweeted a pic from inside the Riviera clubhouse of a golfer in the early 1900's using an anchored stroke. I don't think it is a stroke but I also think the USGA missed the boat on this. Let's call it what it is, a knee jerk reaction to the stroke winning some majors.

[fore]

2zlinks, on 23 February 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Keegan Bradley tweeted a pic from inside the Riviera clubhouse of a golfer in the early 1900's using an anchored stroke. I don't think it is a stroke but I also think the USGA missed the boat on this. Let's call it what it is, a knee jerk reaction to the stroke winning some majors.

I saw Charlie Owens using an anchored long putter in the 80's. No doubt, it took the ruling bodies a long time to make a decision.

[turtleback]

nichho, on 23 February 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

There is also the decision of the European Tour to consider. I know that they are separate organisations and could quite happily go their separate ways but then there are the co-sanctioned events such as the WGC, how will they work, Euro Tour members no anchoring PGA Tour members anchored. And what about the co-sanctioned Asian Tour events and Fincham's expansion plans.
For what it's worth (nothing) I believe the PGA Tour are taking a stance on behalf of their members, but that after all the behind close doors politiking has finished and if the ruling bodies go ahead with their decision, the PGA Tour will comply.

I agree, because ultimately the decision will be made by the TOUR advisory board, not the PLAYERS advisory board.   And the Tour advisory board has sponsors and businessmen on it that have access to their own PR guys who will tell them just what a big PR mistake this would be for the PGATour.  The Tour Advisory Board makes the decisions.  The Players advisory board just makes recommendations.  There are only 4 players on the Tour advisory board.

[minhjn]

good for the PGA Tour

[turtleback]

thatsone, on 23 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

So now Finchem is going to add his voice to the whining about the anchored stroke ruling and we'll have another 30 page thread about if it's an advantage or not. Then  folks will say they should be looking at slow play instead or hybrids or scaling back the ball...

It's only about if should it be legal to anchor the pivot point of the club.

Did that article say Tim Clark can't putt conventional because of a wrist injury?  ahh sure, ok

Yeah, he can't putt but he can chip and take a full swing.  Uh huh.  Balderdash.

[Jamboy72]

IMO, the USGA and R&A have put themselves in a no win position with this entire issue...They have mishandled this from the very get go and as such, they really can't make a "good" decision at this point - They will either follow through on their "proposal" at which point in time there will be continued discussion  possible dissension and who knows what else...

On the other hand, they could withdraw the proposal and further eradicate their already shaky credibility....and then at the end of the day, they really have no one to blame as they put themselves in this position

[502 to Right]

The USGA is a joke at this point.  And they have no one but themselves to blame.

[spitfisher]

I would love for the PGA to say we will NOT allow it in our tournaments, and watch, wait and listen for the R&A (whom I believe originally brought up this in first place, with the USGA more or less having to go along for the ride) to begin some sort of succession, or swallow thier pride and return to what is truly important to golf.

BTW, I thought the groove rule was a joke, it would have been far easier to grow the rough longer and make the landing areas of 260-350 yards tighter, as in 15 yards wide.

Edited by spitfisher, 24 February 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[monkeynaut]

This is all a smoke screen. Everywhere I look lately, the hardcore advocates of the ban are softening their language.  Why?  Diplomacy.  

The ban will proceed. They will be satisfied. So, in the meantime they abide by a little posturing so the guys in the locker room who are affected don't feel offended.  It's good sportsmanship 101.

[nichho]

spitfisher, on 23 February 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

I would love for the PGA to say we will allow it in our tournaments, and watch, wait and listen for the R&A (whom I believe originally brought up this in first place, with the USGA more or less having to go along for the ride) to begin some sort of succession, or swallow thier pride and return to waht is truly important to golf.

BTW, I thought the groove rule was a joke, it would have been far easier to grow the rough longer and make the landing areas of 260-350 yards tighter, as in 15 yards wide.

And if they don't? And for the record why would they want to, what leverage have the PGA Tour over the R&A?

[Well Shafted]

I don't understand the concept of a PAC for an organization like the PGA.  Why not just conduct a simple vote from all 125 card carrying members (or whatever the number is these days) as well as management?  Make the results public and transparent.  That is your stance, clear and simple.

[nichho]

Well Shafted, on 24 February 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

I don't understand the concept of a PAC for an organization like the PGA.  Why not just conduct a simple vote from all 125 card carrying members (or whatever the number is these days) as well as management?  Make the results public and transparent.  That is your stance, clear and simple.

Because that is too simple. Everything is politics, people who appear to do one thing but actually have a different, hidden, agenda. And so the players committee can come out and be as transparent as you want them to be, but the tour management board, no way.
If the PGA Tour come out against the change (no equipment ban here) and actually refuse to implement it, they are starting down the road of a different game. Once the journey is started where does it stop, does the PGA Tour become an administrator of rules (something I've read it has no interest in) and with the support of the OEM's do they then start to make significant changes to equipment rules;higher C.O.R, super spinning grooves?
What about you? Which game are you going to play? The one advocated by the PGA Tour or are you a member of a club, a club which plays by USGA rules?
Tricky isn't it.
I believe that the PGA Tour may try to persuade the governing bodies to back down but they won't. If they do then they loose control to the tours and to the OEM's and they become a none entity.
The PGA Tour may not like it but politics wins and the anchoring ban prevails.

[Well Shafted]

nichho, on 24 February 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Because that is too simple. Everything is politics, people who appear to do one thing but actually have a different, hidden, agenda. And so the players committee can come out and be as transparent as you want them to be, but the tour management board, no way.
If the PGA Tour come out against the change (no equipment ban here) and actually refuse to implement it, they are starting down the road of a different game. Once the journey is started where does it stop, does the PGA Tour become an administrator of rules (something I've read it has no interest in) and with the support of the OEM's do they then start to make significant changes to equipment rules;higher C.O.R, super spinning grooves?
What about you? Which game are you going to play? The one advocated by the PGA Tour or are you a member of a club, a club which plays by USGA rules?
Tricky isn't it.
I believe that the PGA Tour may try to persuade the governing bodies to back down but they won't. If they do then they loose control to the tours and to the OEM's and they become a none entity.
The PGA Tour may not like it but politics wins and the anchoring ban prevails.

The PGA is in a reactive position at this point.  It didn't start with PGA, it was simply asked to give its opinion.  Poll all the players and the PGA board/management, share the results with the USGA and public, and tell them this is our stance.  If the the USGA retracts, done.  If it carries on, then the PGA has to go back and decide what to do next.  Why make it more difficult than it needs to be?