Time for a coup d'etat?

[RoverRick]

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bonds bands that have connected them with another.....deriving their power from the consent of the governed....it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.....

 

 

As I watched these two "Despots" sitting in the studio at Golf Channel yesterday talking about how "they must restore the integrity of the game" and Rich Lerner trying to nail them down as to why the change, and these slippery bastards gave no real reason other than they simply did not like it. They did admit that there is no emphirical data to say it is an advantage.

 

At first, I was able to see their point that they are trying to "define the stroke" and "preserving the game". "Golf is funamentally about taking the club in your two hands and swinging it." Then they had Thomas Keagle, Director of Equipment, or something, for the USGA get on there and explained what you can do. Several times saying that they did not want to "stiffle creativity" and they did not want the players to "circumvent the rule." WTF. He said. "We could talk for an hour about what is allowed." There was no thought given to preserving the game when they still allow it being anchored to your wrist, or forearm.

 

Then they show an April 21, 2011 interview where Mike Davis says they looked at it and it is not detrimental to the game. Now 18 months later it is an evil that must be stop.

 

I was so struck by the hyprocrisy of it all. They were read the quotes by the PGA President where he said he feared it would have a negative impact on the game. Mike Davis blew this off and said that there were so few people that this affected it is insignificant. Yet it is significant enough to change a rule.

 

 

Yesterday afternoon, I went out and played around with the 4 Titans of the club. I call them that because, at 6 feet tall, I was smallest guy there by at least 5 inches. The biggest guy is 6' 8" and the smallest guy is like 6' 5". They all use belly putter. I mentioned this to them and the biggest one said (but with more colorful language) that the USGA could come try and take it out of his hands if they thought they were big enough.

 

So this brought up this post. And I also wanted to do a poll.

 

 

The coupe d' etat I am participating in is not being a USGA member. The past two or three years I have played in a local tournament and part of the entry fee I got a US Open Cap and a USGA Membership. I will skip it next year.

 

 

Since the King is not listening to my wishes, I am not going to pay my tee tax and no USGA Membership for me.

[BK in TEXAS]

How about a third option: Bifurcation.

 

I could care less what rules the tour pros play by. Us mere mortals should have a similar, but separate set of rules.

[RoverRick]

How about a third option: Bifurcation.

 

I could care less what rules the tour pros play by. Us mere mortals should have a similar, but separate set of rules.

 

 

Done.

[BK in TEXAS]

Done.

My bad.......I meant a 3rd option for your 1st question...... ban it for the pros, keep it for amateurs.

[GolfSpy WD]

My bad.......I meant a 3rd option for your 1st question...... ban it for the pros, keep it for amateurs.

 

Local rules can still do this. There was some talk on the radio of how funny would it be if Augusta allowed the belly putter during the Masters

[RoverRick]

Curious, why ban it for the pros versus simply not ban it? Does it really matter to you what putter or method someone uses? Personally, I think the claw looks stranger than the belly putter.

 

However, one thing that really makes me mad is that this means if you chip with a hybrid or FM or even a driver, and I have putted with a bellied driver, and a bellied wedge and every other club at some point, but these will now be illegal.

[ZenGolfer]

How about a third option: Bifurcation.

 

I could care less what rules the tour pros play by. Us mere mortals should have a similar, but separate set of rules.

If you arent playing in a tournament, you can play by whatever rules you want. The only question then is if you arent playing by the rules of golf as laid out by the USGA and R&A, are you really still playing golf?

[BK in TEXAS]

Right...tournaments...high school teams....friendly wagers....etc....

 

I just think it's time to separate the "tour pro" rules from the rest of us. I'm likely in the minority with that thinking though.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Right...tournaments...high school teams....friendly wagers....etc....

 

I just think it's time to separate the "tour pro" rules from the rest of us. I'm likely in the minority with that thinking though.

 

Maybe in the minority - but I'm with ya, BK.

[Firstkart]

Time for a new set of rules run by a new organisation with a new world wide competition.

 

Sponsored by a Network etc etc.

 

 

AJ

[Shambles]

I find the idea of bifurcation disagreeable. It's already bad enough that the tour plays a very different course from the rest of us simply because the governing powers do not want to show the truly low scores those pros can achieve playing the same course we do. Bifurcation will only destroy the dream of being as good as we will never be.

 

I do agree with the idea of denying support to an organization that displeases you. For the same reason, one can also refuse to buy the souvenirs or attend the events supported by that organization. The same sort of thing once happened in Tennis and probably in other sports. The public votes with it's wallet and it's support can be withdrawn at any time. We are ruled with our consent and we need not consent to rules that cannot be made sensible to us.

 

 

 

Shambles

[RoverRick]

I find the idea of bifurcation disagreeable. It's already bad enough that the tour plays a very different course from the rest of us simply because the governing powers do not want to show the truly low scores those pros can achieve playing the same course we do. Bifurcation will only destroy the dream of being as good as we will never be.

 

I do agree with the idea of denying support to an organization that displeases you. For the same reason, one can also refuse to buy the souvenirs or attend the events supported by that organization. The same sort of thing once happened in Tennis and probably in other sports. The public votes with it's wallet and it's support can be withdrawn at any time. We are ruled with our consent and we need not consent to rules that cannot be made sensible to us.

 

 

 

Shambles

 

I agree and this is the point I was trying to get across.

[Dhuck Whooker]

If anchored putting is such an advantage, why doesn't everybody do it? It appears to me that just became some golfers have had success with it, those who haven't want to take it away.

 

If they took the "ban it approach" to all the other developments in golf that have transpired over the years, what would we have today?

 

"Golf spikes give certain golfers the ability to "anchor" their feet to the ground. A golfer should be able to maintain their balance without the aid of a spiked shoe. Golf is a game where the golfer must be able control their body throughout the golf swing without the aid from an artificial device like a shoe with nails...."

 

"The sand wedge gives certain golfers the ability to displace the golf ball from a sand trap without having the club dig into the sand. Golfers should be able to control their nerves and their hands well enough to hit the ball out of the sand without the aid of a contrived golf club whose sharp leading edge has been ground away into a rounded bottom..."

 

"The golf glove gives certain golfers the ability to securely grip the golf club and eliminates unwanted slippage during the golf swing. Golf is a game of feel and skill, therefore one must be able to grip the club and swing it with their bare hands instead of using an artifical device to faciliate one's hold on the club..."

 

 

Then, we have the 460cc driver head, hybrids, graphite shafts, juiced golf balls, GPS and lasers, perimiter weighted irons, etc. While these innovations were created to improve the performance of all golfers, some benefitted more than others, yet they haven't been banned.

[Dhuck Whooker]

If anchored putting is such an advantage, why doesn't everybody do it? It appears to me that just became some golfers have had success with it, those who haven't want to take it away.

 

If they took the "ban it approach" to all the other developments in golf that have transpired over the years, what would we have today?

 

"Golf spikes give certain golfers the ability to "anchor" their feet to the ground. A golfer should be able to maintain their balance without the aid of a spiked shoe. Golf is a game where the golfer must be able control their body throughout the golf swing without the aid from an artificial device like a shoe with nails...."

 

"The sand wedge gives certain golfers the ability to displace the golf ball from a sand trap without having the club dig into the sand. Golfers should be able to control their nerves and their hands well enough to hit the ball out of the sand without the aid of a contrived golf club whose sharp leading edge has been ground away into a rounded bottom..."

 

"The golf glove gives certain golfers the ability to securely grip the golf club and eliminates unwanted slippage during the golf swing. Golf is a game of feel and skill, therefore one must be able to grip the club and swing it with their bare hands instead of using an artifical device to faciliate one's hold on the club..."

 

 

Then, we have the 460cc driver head, hybrids, graphite shafts, juiced golf balls, GPS and lasers, perimiter weighted irons, etc. While these innovations were created to improve the performance of all golfers, some benefitted more than others, yet they haven't been banned.

[RoverRick]

If anchored putting is such an advantage, why doesn't everybody do it? It appears to me that just became some golfers have had success with it, those who haven't want to take it away.

 

If they took the "ban it approach" to all the other developments in golf that have transpired over the years, what would we have today?

 

"Golf spikes give certain golfers the ability to "anchor" their feet to the ground. A golfer should be able to maintain their balance without the aid of a spiked shoe. Golf is a game where the golfer must be able control their body throughout the golf swing without the aid from an artificial device like a shoe with nails...."

 

"The sand wedge gives certain golfers the ability to displace the golf ball from a sand trap without having the club dig into the sand. Golfers should be able to control their nerves and their hands well enough to hit the ball out of the sand without the aid of a contrived golf club whose sharp leading edge has been ground away into a rounded bottom..."

 

"The golf glove gives certain golfers the ability to securely grip the golf club and eliminates unwanted slippage during the golf swing. Golf is a game of feel and skill, therefore one must be able to grip the club and swing it with their bare hands instead of using an artifical device to faciliate one's hold on the club..."

 

 

Then, we have the 460cc driver head, hybrids, graphite shafts, juiced golf balls, GPS and lasers, perimiter weighted irons, etc. While these innovations were created to improve the performance of all golfers, some benefitted more than others, yet they haven't been banned.

 

Dhuck, I liked it so much I read it twice. Great post.

[Blade]

If anchored putting is such an advantage, why doesn't everybody do it? It appears to me that just became some golfers have had success with it, those who haven't want to take it away.

 

If they took the "ban it approach" to all the other developments in golf that have transpired over the years, what would we have today?

 

"Golf spikes give certain golfers the ability to "anchor" their feet to the ground. A golfer should be able to maintain their balance without the aid of a spiked shoe. Golf is a game where the golfer must be able control their body throughout the golf swing without the aid from an artificial device like a shoe with nails...."

 

"The sand wedge gives certain golfers the ability to displace the golf ball from a sand trap without having the club dig into the sand. Golfers should be able to control their nerves and their hands well enough to hit the ball out of the sand without the aid of a contrived golf club whose sharp leading edge has been ground away into a rounded bottom..."

 

"The golf glove gives certain golfers the ability to securely grip the golf club and eliminates unwanted slippage during the golf swing. Golf is a game of feel and skill, therefore one must be able to grip the club and swing it with their bare hands instead of using an artifical device to faciliate one's hold on the club..."

 

 

Then, we have the 460cc driver head, hybrids, graphite shafts, juiced golf balls, GPS and lasers, perimiter weighted irons, etc. While these innovations were created to improve the performance of all golfers, some benefitted more than others, yet they haven't been banned.

I like your post. The only thing is, everything you mentioned was equipment. They're not banning the putters. You can still use them, you just can't anchor it to your body.

[RoverRick]

I like your post. The only thing is, everything you mentioned was equipment. They're not banning the putters. You can still use them, you just can't anchor it to your body.

 

 

Still not a valid arguement because you can still anchor the putter to your wrist thus taking the nerves and wrist out of it. It accomplishes the same thing as anchored to the belly. So you ask if it accomplishes the same thing than what is the big deal. The big deal is that this is a stupid and senseless rule.

 

Not only that the leave it wide open for "creativity" but this they do not like but do not want people to go around the rule. Then what is the purpose of the "creativity.

[Blade]

Still not a valid arguement because you can still anchor the putter to your wrist thus taking the nerves and wrist out of it. It accomplishes the same thing as anchored to the belly. So you ask if it accomplishes the same thing than what is the big deal. The big deal is that this is a stupid and senseless rule.

 

Not only that the leave it wide open for "creativity" but this they do not like but do not want people to go around the rule. Then what is the purpose of the "creativity.

Oh I agree with that. I don't use them, but I couldn't care less if someone else does. I've heard people absolutely rant and rage about them. That I don't get.

[RoverRick]

I am watching Golf Channel and they replayed Mike Davis saying that the "fundamental golf swing is about taking the club in two hands away from the body and swinging freely." So how can they still allow anchoring the club along your forearm.

 

Why is that anchoring allowed and others not?

[Blade]

I am watching Golf Channel and they replayed Mike Davis saying that the "fundamental golf swing is about taking the club in two hands away from the body and swinging freely." So how can they still allow anchoring the club along your forearm.

 

Why is that anchoring allowed and others not?

They also showed anchoring up by your sternum like Adam Scott does is not allowed. But hold it away from your chest a couple of inches and that's OK.

[RoverRick]

Yeah, this is not going to be that big of a deal. All Keegan has to do is basically get the same putter but 2" shorter and do everything else the same. You can still brace your elbows against your sides. I have a new (to me) Scotty Cameron Kombi that is 37". I stand and set up just like the belly putter and I am actually putting better that way.

 

As far as Adam Scott goes, I have one of those and have never actually braced it against my chest. They use words like brace, and leverage, and fulcrum, I mean, come on, we are talking about putting not prying a boulder off the ground, or jacking up a car or heavy lifting. We are talking the slowest least powerful swing in golf. Power is not an issue. Stability is not really that big of a deal, but I am opposed to any more freaking rules. Especially stupid ones that really accomplish nothing.

 

But for chipping with a driver, FM or hybrid or any club, you will not be able to belly that and putt with it. I have done this many times and while I have better distance control with out doing that, I want to decide that not be forced to do it.

[BK in TEXAS]

Plain and simple, they suck!

 

Now that's just my humble opinion.

I'll second that.

[Ice]

Not renewing your membership doesn't do you much good because the USGA doesn't care about that revenue. They won't complain. The US Open is where they make their money. Good luck shunning that away.

[Blade]

Another thought just occurred to me. This way of putting has been allowed for longer than most everyone on tour has been alive! Why is it suddenly a menace that has to be squashed?

[Shambles]

Not renewing your membership doesn't do you much good because the USGA doesn't care about that revenue. They won't complain. The US Open is where they make their money. Good luck shunning that away.

 

The loss of revenue is a factor so not renewing membership will affect that number. More important is the membership. An organization that purports to rule needs people to rule and if the numbers show a serious drop, their words lose significance. The USGA and the R&A rule with your consent. It's only our willingness to obey and enforce their rules that give them importance. I doubt that membership has ever been greater than a minority and their funding was sourced from patrons. Denying support is just a vocalization of disagreement. More vocal would be to continue to use the equipment involved, as was the case with the Ping Eye 2 and square grooves. Rule by fiat is a chancy thing.

 

I'm more inclined to believe the grace period for discussion is a means used by them to campaign for the acceptance of that rule. However it's also likely that they are using the very large public dissemination of the internet as a means of testing the idea by exposing it to a very wide examination. Discussion Boards are a cheap and convenient way to access more direct feedback from a population. Smart leaders wait for their followers to tell him where to lead them to before leading them there.

 

 

Shambles

[revkev]

Again I'm catching up on my reading here having been busy during the Christmas season.

 

I have to say that I'm totally in favor of two sets of rules - why not? Every other sport does it. I played baseball in High School and college and never thought I wasn't playing baseball because I played by a different set of rules than they did in the majors - likewise with football or basketball in High School - no big deal - the two sets exist whether or not some artificial rulings are devised to make it appear as if they don't.

 

I've written it in lots of places that it was the responsibility of the USGA to rule against the practice of anchored putting 30 years ago - once they allowed it for a period of time - say a decade or two it was way, way too late - they're losing their authority because of their unreasoned approach to things.

[RoverRick]

I have sent numerous emails to the USGA about this. They send back the same stock reply, here is what I got yesterday. The "nature of my inquiry" was how they can claim it is for the good of the game if this rule really in no way benefits anyone.

 

Thank you for your inquiry with the USGA.

 

If the nature of your inquiry is related to the proposed Rule 14-1b, which addresses anchoring the club in making a stroke, we have developed a variety of materials specifically to help answer your questions on the subject. These materials include photos, videos and answers to the most common questions, and can be found at www.usga.org/anchoring>. You may want to check back periodically for updates to this special section of our website.

 

Thank you for providing us with your comments or questions. We appreciate your interest in the USGA, and our work for the good of the game.

[BK in TEXAS]

The USGA sent out a survey which I decide to answer. In a nutshell, I let them know I would never purchase membership until they started thinking of the amateurs as much or more than the pros.

 

Unfortunately.........and I've seen it more than I care to........organizations like this will not change unless something drastic happens.........such as a large portion of it's members not renewing. Emails, letters, phone calls won't hurt, but it won't be enough for these narrow minded people to change their way of thinking. RP has it right.......dropping your membership is one of the best ways to make your voice heard.

[JMiller]

I have read 3 pages of people posting that haven't given one good reason in either direction, let me toss some things out there just for simple reading. I have already voiced my opinion on this matter probably a year ago on this forum, well before the rule change was ever announced or I even knew about it.

 

First a SINGLE PIVOT POINT STROKE (anchored to center belly, center chest, forearm across chest) anything where the shoulders don't really move and the arms don;t do much the putter just swings on a single pivot point (the anchor spot or top hand in arm across the chest) will give you a more stable stroke and be more easily repeatable in general but espesually under pressure.

 

Second a forearm anchor (Matt Kuchar) or a left hand low stroke w/ right knuckles anchored on left forearm (Padraig Harrington) both have a 3 point pivot relationship just like a conventional stroke. You can still manipulate the face with shoulders, a single arm, and wrists even with the anchor on the forearm. The only advantage that I see in this style putting is not flipping the head which like the USGA said is a "non-issue" on tour. This will still let you steer the stroke from many different components espesually under pressure.

 

Third there are zero restrictions on the putter equipment. Yo can have a 50" putter and a 380g head but you just can't anchor it to your body in the center of your body creating a single pivot point stroke.

 

 

The only thing you can do with a single pivot point stroke is move the distance of the putter has from your body closer or further away, the face can't twist or you'd feel the grip dig into you.

 

In a conventional stroke, forearm anchor or Harrington style stroke now you have wrists, arms, shoulders that can manipulate the face. 3 to 5 different pivot points to make the club stable and consistent through the stroke.

 

What sounds like it is a harder stroke to make consistently to you in general? As much as the people that use the anchored putter in the belly or a broom stick don't want to admit it, why was the switch made? Did you get the yips? Were you having too many missed putts because you steer the face with rotation? I would be willing to bet almost everyone switched to gain some sort of STABLE ADVANTAGE over a 3 pivot point stroke.

 

 

I have tried belly, broom stick, forearm across the chest, side saddle, left hand low, conventional. I have tried various grips: round, standard paddle, midsized paddle, different super-stroke sizes. I have also tried different head styles of putters (no offset, 1/2 shaft off set, full shaft off-set, heel shafted, center shafted, mallets, blades, etc) I tried a ton of different putters just for the sheer enjoyment of different styles but always stock to one style because it fit my stroke.

 

I felt the groove were a good rule change once i looked at the research and numbers. i feel this is a GREAT rule change honestly, but again I have spent the time to understand at the basic level different style of strokes. It is simple, when something can provide a more stable platform to "swing" a club, sort of like building a stance in a way then it shouldn't be legal in the first place.

 

 

I don't have any beef with the USGA and R&A at all on either rule I think both needed to be made. You should get reworded for hitting into the rough, and you shouldn't get reworded for having a single pivot point putting stroke. Golf as in life you get more rewording outcomes from hard work then you would being lazy and looking for hand outs. Just get fit and practice you have until 2016.

[revkev]

Sorry to disagree JMiller but I'm going to for this very simple reason if this weren't a stroke then why wasn't action taken 30 years ago when it was first introduced. Honestly I thought the motion should have been baned then and there but it wasn't and subsequently an entire generation of golfers has grown up employing the technique.

 

At least in the case of the grooves there is evidence that they impact better players and so I suppose the USGA believed it had to act. They also didn't allow something to go on for a ridiculous amount of time - they saw an issue develope, did a study and took action - I might disagree with their action or feel that there is a better way to reign in the bomb and gauge approach but I'm in agreement with what the USGA is trying to accomplish.

 

I would have been in full agreement on the anchored putting thing 30 years ago or 25 years ago - I'm not now - too late.