Keegan Bradley would consider legal action to block belly putter ban

[Moecat]

http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2012/10/truth-rumors-keegan-bradley-considering-court-to-fight-belly-ban.html?sct=hp_t2_a13&eref=sihp

 

If Keegan Bradley is forced to give up his long putter, he plans to go down swinging it.

 

Bradley told Golfweek's Alex Miceli, who is reporting from China, that he'd consider taking golf's governing bodies to court to defend the anchored putting stroke:

 

“I'm going to do whatever I have to do to protect myself and the other players on Tour,” Bradley said. “I look at it as a whole, as us all together. I don't look at it as much about myself. I think that for them to ban this after we've done what we've done is unbelievable.”

 

Bradley, the first player to win a major with a long putter, has spoken out most aggressively, but other pros are upset that they have been largely bypassed in the decision-making process, and some expect player resistance as the process moves along.

 

Among those players is Ernie Els, who, after a period of opposition to the belly putter, seems to be softening his stance since he began using one. Funny what a major title will do:

 

“They're going to have a couple of legal matters coming their way,” Els said here, indicating the USGA and R&A. “It's going to be a bit of an issue now. I've been against it, but since I've been using it, it still takes a lot of practice, and you have to perfect your own way of putting with this belly.”

 

Despite player resistance, the USGA and R&A appear to be moving toward a rule change, which some expect by the end of the year.

[furu]

I was completely against the long putter but now I couldn't care less. Just let them keep using it. We have to stop making that rule book thicker!

 

I understand that players like Bradley who have used it for a long time feel that it's unfair to ban it. However - legal action is taking it too far. Make your case before the decision is made by USGA and R&A. If/when the rule is in effect everyone should act as a true golfer.

[GolfSpy WD]

I was completely against the long putter but now I couldn't care less. Just let them keep using it. We have to stop making that rule book thicker!

 

I understand that players like Bradley who have used it for a long time feel that it's unfair to ban it. However - legal action is taking it too far. Make your case before the decision is made by USGA and R&A. If/when the rule is in effect everyone should act as a true golfer.

 

Do the USGA and R&A even consult players about this? I'd hope so, but it's not the impression I get. I also disagree that taking legal action is taking it too far. If Keegan had to switch and it turns out it made him a much worse player, he would be out millions of dollars.

 

Now, if there was proof that it gave an actual advantage over others, then I agree to ban it, however, so far all I've heard is people don't like it cause it isn't traditional, which is a stupid reason imo to screw up someone's career.

[BK in TEXAS]

However - legal action is taking it too far. Make your case before the decision is made by USGA and R&A. If/when the rule is in effect everyone should act as a true golfer.

Nope....nothing wrong with legal action.

[revkev]

The players would have a great chance of winning because it would clearly a discriminatory action on the part of the ruling bodies. The USGA's record in high profile court battles is miserable - Casey Martin and Ping come quickly to mind.

 

Drop it and move on - the time for this was 20 years ago when the belly putter started not now, not with an entire generation of players growing up with it.

 

I hope they don't do it but if they do I hope they get sued and while they're at it I hope someone sues the NCAA - oops sorry about that last part.

 

Oh and I don't use a belly putter, have never even thought of trying one.

[RoverRick]

I would take it a step farther and say that legal action is not only warranted but it is necessary. The reason is let's say that Johnny Miller, Brandel Chamblee, and Nick Faldo, and others got on the TV every week and started saying that the hybrid was simply just not a legal club. (This is my opinion has caused all the problems now.) The TV guys have to fill the four hours with something, and Golf Channel has 24 hours a day to fill, so the fill it with creating a debate about long putters and something should be done.

 

Then Tiger and Rory and many others who have tested a hybrid and found they did not hit it better than a long iron jump in and express their agreement and begin to come up, to make up, reasons why this is the case. They continued keeping this a hot issue to the point that the ruling bodies not only thought about it but did it. Then everyone of those players who currently have hybrids, will be unable to use them. Advantage to those who do not use them now.

 

Before anyone starts with "and anchored putter is not swinging the club" well, as swing "To move back and forth suspended or as if suspended from above." I have been using the broomstick putter of late, and I have to say that the putter head swings back and forth and strikes the ball.

 

As I have said before, the mallet style head, the different graphics, the oversized putters that look like dustpans all give the same type of advantage to different people as the "anchored putters" do to others. If you out law one you should outlaw them all and make everyone use a bullseye putter.

[GolfSpy WD]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/rex-hoggard/challenging-anchored-putting-ban-in-court-could-be-difficult/

 

Challenging anchored ban in court could prove difficult

 

Like that, the U.S. Golf Association's Halloween was suddenly filled with more tricks and less treats, thanks to an unmistakable salvo from Keegan Bradley, who told Golf Channel contributor Alex Miceli this week in China, “I'm going to do whatever I have to do to protect myself and the other players on Tour.”

 

Bradley's challenge, interpreted in some circles as a precursor to legal action, was directed at an impending announcement from the USGA and Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews that, according to various sources, will ban the act of anchoring during a stroke and, effectively, the long putter.

 

Both ruling bodies have been publicly silent on the ruling, which would likely outlaw anchoring beginning with the next rules cycle in 2016, but last month at Sea Island (Ga.) Resort, USGA executive director Mike Davis met with the PGA Tour Policy Board to discuss the issue.

 

“It seems like they've made up their mind (to ban anchoring) and they are just trying to get people on their side,” said one policy board player director.

 

Davis & Co. made the same pitch this week to players at the WGC-HSBC Champions which likely prompted Bradley's bold stand, but the cloud of legal action has been hanging low over the issue for months.

 

It has been widely assumed that some players might challenge the move in court, but until Bradley no one had been so definitive. In theory, the case to save anchoring is straightforward enough.

 

Carl Pettersson, for example, hasn't used a conventional-length putter since 1997 and it stretches the boundaries of fair play to change the rules mid-round, so to speak.

 

“It's unfortunate I've had 15 years of practice with the long putter,” he said earlier this year at TPC Boston. “I would definitely feel like I'm 15 years behind in practice.”

 

But in practical terms there doesn't seem to be a lot of case law when it comes to these types of issues. Specifically, under what legal premise would Bradley challenge a potential ban?

 

“They can always sue, whether they will be successful is the question,” said Ron Quillin, a Wisconsin-based personal injury attorney with the firm Lawyers at Work.

 

We may live in a litigious society but that doesn't mean the courts would rush to intervene on Bradley & Co.'s behalf.

 

According to Quillin, the legal concept of “blacky” may apply given how long the ruling bodies have allowed the act of anchoring.

 

“The USGA has let this happen for some 25 years,” he said. “You can make that legal argument that they've allowed it to happen for so long they should be barred from changing the rule. You do have these concepts in the law, but I'm not sure it applies to this situation.”

 

Tim Clark, who uses a belly putter, may be the exception to the legal dilemma. Clark was born with a condition that doesn't allow the South African to pronate his wrists outward, making putting with a traditional-length putter difficult, if not impossible.

 

Under that limited scope Clark could have a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the same law used by Casey Martin to successfully challenge the PGA Tour's ban on the use of golf carts during tournaments.

 

“The definition is pretty loose and they are liberal about defining it,” Quillin said. “You have to have a recognizable problem. It would make for a court action, but I don't know if you'd be able to win under those grounds.”

 

Even if the courts were to rule in Clark's favor in such a situation it would be limited to only those who could prove a physical inability to putt without anchoring, and there seems little chance the U.S. Supreme Court would fancy the notion that the yips are a physical ailment.

 

Nor does there seem to be much of a chance the USGA and R&A would create a grandfather clause that would allow longtime users of long putters, like Pettersson, to finish their careers the way they started them.

 

“It's like in baseball you can outlaw the (spit ball) and then say this guy has been throwing a spitter his whole life we should let him use it, but everyone knows it's just out and out cheating,” Quillin said.

 

A potential legal challenge from an equipment manufacturer of a new rule on anchoring would seem to have a better chance, but even that may be mitigated by how the ruling bodies seem to be crafting the ban.

 

Manufacturers have in the past successfully challenged new rules, most notably the 1990 lawsuit involving Ping's square grooves, but by making it a rules of the game issue (anchoring) and not an equipment issue the ruling bodies seem to have limited their exposure.

 

Davis seemed to suggest as much in July when asked if the new rule could be as simple as making the putter the shortest club in a player's bag. “I can give you 50 reasons why that wouldn't work,” he said.

 

Which brings us back to Bradley, Pettersson and Clark who will certainly be aggrieved by a potential ban, but proving it in court may end up being more difficult than a downhill 6-footer.

[GolfSpy WD]

Personally, I think Rex Hoggard found a lawyer who agreed with his article in order to stir the pot, but I'm not legal expert. That said, I still don't see the justification for screwing up someone's career and how that can't be made into a lawsuit.

[furu]

When I say that legal action is taking it too far, consider the fact that I come from a country that couldn't be more different than the USA. Your legal system fits perfectly in Alice in Wonderland but not in the real world. It's a complete joke towards humanity. I'm sorry.

 

The correct etiquette and fair play would be to follow the rules. If you find them unfair, sorry but that's life for you. It's completely ridiculous that a multi millionaire should sue because he'll have a harder time making more millions on the golf course. Go practice like everyone else! Golf is based on sportsmanship. Lets keep it that way and behave like grown ups with more brain cells than birdies.

[GolfSpy WD]

When I say that legal action is taking it too far, consider the fact that I come from a country that couldn't be more different than the USA. Your legal system fits perfectly in Alice in Wonderland but not in the real world. It's a complete joke towards humanity. I'm sorry.

 

The correct etiquette and fair play would be to follow the rules. If you find them unfair, sorry but that's life for you. It's completely ridiculous that a multi millionaire should sue because he'll have a harder time making more millions on the golf course. Go practice like everyone else! Golf is based on sportsmanship. Lets keep it that way and behave like grown ups with more brain cells than birdies.

 

I would ask the reverse though. New rules shouldn't be based on tradition for something that's been going on for 25 years. So what is the justification for the rule change?

 

Also, Keegan is just one example and someone who has the means to bring this to court. There are probably many players on the Web.com tour who will never see that kind of money yet have practiced with the belly putter all their life. Professional sports is already a huge gamble to begin with. 99% of pros don't see the big bucks and eek there way through.

 

Personally, I don't use anchored putters and have hated them anytime I've tried, but I sure love mallet putters, which can't be considered traditional either. Neither can hybrids, metal woods. Hell, hickory wasn't used until sometime in the 1900s and golf has been around longer than that.

[BK in TEXAS]

When I say that legal action is taking it too far, consider the fact that I come from a country that couldn't be more different than the USA. Your legal system fits perfectly in Alice in Wonderland but not in the real world. It's a complete joke towards humanity. I'm sorry.

 

A joke towards humanity? Really? You can say what you want about the USA.......but that doesn't mean you won't piss people off.

[BK in TEXAS]

Personally, I think Rex Hoggard found a lawyer who agreed with his article in order to stir the pot, but I'm not legal expert.

X2

 

For every lawyer with an opinion there are 5 more with 5 more opinions. It'll come down to who presents the best argument I'd expect.

[Super Tuna]

Do the USGA and R&A even consult players about this? I'd hope so, but it's not the impression I get. I also disagree that taking legal action is taking it too far. If Keegan had to switch and it turns out it made him a much worse player, he would be out millions of dollars.

 

Now, if there was proof that it gave an actual advantage over others, then I agree to ban it, however, so far all I've heard is people don't like it cause it isn't traditional, which is a stupid reason imo to screw up someone's career.

 

Why would they consult the players? It's been shown through their actions and comments that they'll lie, cheat and steal to get every possible advantage they can.

 

And how is it screwing up someone's career? If there's no data to support that people are putting better with them, then there's no data to show they'll be any worse without them. Ergo, their career will be just fine.

 

I couldn't care less if they keep it or ban it but the whinging of the players vs the Regulatory bodies is just childish.

[ZenGolfer]

If it does happen, Keegan just needs to get over it and move on. If he cant putt without anchoring, then he doesnt belong on the PGA Tour anyways. Its a sad state of the world when live in when people file a lawsuit just because they didnt get their way.

[GolfSpy WD]

Why would they consult the players? It's been shown through their actions and comments that they'll lie, cheat and steal to get every possible advantage they can.

 

And how is it screwing up someone's career? If there's no data to support that people are putting better with them, then there's no data to show they'll be any worse without them. Ergo, their career will be just fine.

 

I couldn't care less if they keep it or ban it but the whinging of the players vs the Regulatory bodies is just childish.

 

The argument is for overall standings when looking at all players over the past 15 years and factoring for the number of players that use each type of putter, there is no discernible advantage.

 

I'm totally agreeing that certain players are better with an anchored putter, whether it's because of back problem or because that's how they putted all their life or it just suits them better. However, you cannot definitely say someone who grows up using an anchored putter will be better than someone who grows up using a standard putter. The advantage of the anchored putter is in the same line as the advantage for mallet putters (higher moi) or anser style putters (better feel) because everyone plays different putters differently. That's why each pro uses a different kind of putter rather than everyone having a scotty blade.

 

The discussion of Rory changing clubs is a perfect example as to how changing putters can totally screw someone's career. Payne steward switched from blades to CB irons and became a completely different player. Why? Because the advantage he had with blades outweighed the advantage of the CB irons.

[Super Tuna]

The argument is for overall standings when looking at all players over the past 15 years and factoring for the number of players that use each type of putter, there is no discernible advantage.

 

I'm totally agreeing that certain players are better with an anchored putter, whether it's because of back problem or because that's how they putted all their life or it just suits them better. However, you cannot definitely say someone who grows up using an anchored putter will be better than someone who grows up using a standard putter. The advantage of the anchored putter is in the same line as the advantage for mallet putters (higher moi) or anser style putters (better feel) because everyone plays different putters differently. That's why each pro uses a different kind of putter rather than everyone having a scotty blade.

 

The discussion of Rory changing clubs is a perfect example as to how changing putters can totally screw someone's career. Payne steward switched from blades to CB irons and became a completely different player. Why? Because the advantage he had with blades outweighed the advantage of the CB irons.

 

I understand the argument towards personal preference, and that's why I really don't care if they ban, keep or change them. However unlike every other club in the bag, the anchored putter functions differently then a "traditional" putter where there is no anchoring. Whether that's actually a valid argument to be made for their exclusion, I don't know, but I'd say it's worth looking at.

 

For the record though, Keegan practices with a "traditional" putter all the time. It's not like he can't switch at the drop of the hat like say Petterson. He could do so at any point, except that he either feels more comfortable or is flat out plain better with an anchored putter.

 

RP: Don't take this as agreement with the USGA as an organization. I'm not impressed. Between this and the wedge debacle, and there's no other word for that smack up then debacle, I'm not a fan. That being said, I don't think they're wrong to at least investigate, assuming they know how, the anchored putter.

[GolfSpy WD]

I understand the argument towards personal preference, and that's why I really don't care if they ban, keep or change them. However unlike every other club in the bag, the anchored putter functions differently then a "traditional" putter where there is no anchoring. Whether that's actually a valid argument to be made for their exclusion, I don't know, but I'd say it's worth looking at.

 

For the record though, Keegan practices with a "traditional" putter all the time. It's not like he can't switch at the drop of the hat like say Petterson. He could do so at any point, except that he either feels more comfortable or is flat out plain better with an anchored putter.

 

RP: Don't take this as agreement with the USGA as an organization. I'm not impressed. Between this and the wedge debacle, and there's no other word for that smack up then debacle, I'm not a fan. That being said, I don't think they're wrong to at least investigate, assuming they know how, the anchored putter.

 

Completely agree. Do an investigation and decide on the facts rather than for unfounded 'traditionalist' reasons.

[RoverRick]

He has NEVER had to worry about his wrist breaking prematurely just prior to impact & in last year's PGA he never once had to think about his left or right forearm rotating 1/8th" on a 6-8' putt, which would've cost him the putt(s).

 

 

Richard I have to call BS on him not having to worry about him rotating his forearms. Of course, I use the broomstick not the belly but it is not foolproof. Either that or I am more of a fool than it is proof because twice today I rotated the damned putter and missed short putts. Even with the long putter I was able to pull three putts today by rotating. Luckily I was striking the ball dead solid perfect. Missing three putts inside 4 feet and not making the longer ones I shot a -2 under. I hit 14 of 14 fairways and 12 GIR and still shot a 70 because I could not putt. I did not miss the putts by much but a miss is still a miss.

 

As an aside, I slowed my tempo down to feel like I was swinging in slow motion and actually gained 3-5 yards with the irons. It was freaking amazing. Of course the shorter driver is working out great.

[RoverRick]

Oh yeah, I got side tracked, (Let that be a lesson kids, Don't drink and type.)

 

This is about legal action. Furu earlier spoke, rather disparagingly, about our legal system. Three of my best golfing friends are lawyers, one a former mayor, one a former judge, and one a former DA. As lawyers they are firm believers in the lawyer adage that it does not matter whether you win or lose, as long as you get paid. In a case where they get paid the same, such as Sanduski, no matter how long it takes, the wheels of justice turn very quickly. In the case of Callaway v Acushnet the longer that the case took the more balls Titleist could make and the more money the lawyers could make. Therefore the wheels of justice turned more slowly and it took years to settle.

[Shambles]

I don't know much about the finances of Keegan Bradley but we are talking potential millions when it comes to a suit against the USGA. Both the USGA and Karsten reportedly each spent millions in their suit against each other wherein a court victory for either side would have meant financial ruin for the loser. That was why they agreed to a series of mock trials to settle the matter. This is why I have doubts that Bradley would finance a court case against the USGA.

 

With that said, it should be possible for Bradley to bring his complaint to the public via internet discussion groups and blogs. It would certainly be the more affordable means of seeking justice and making his point and the stakes are also considerable. Public rejection of the USGA's position on the square grooves of Ping made the Eye 2 a great seller and Ping a giant in the Golf industry. The USGA has since suffered decades of indecisiveness and timidity. I have no information on whether it also cost the USGA a loss of support and therefore income. It's possible some manufacturers will quietly support Bradley to defend the product.

 

 

Shambles

[BK in TEXAS]

Maybe the USGA will sponsor some Facebook voting to settle the dispute?

[RoverRick]

 

 

Should I have said NEVER. Probably not("Never say NEVER"..lol), though in referring to Keegan, it's probably as close to absolute as I'm ever gonna see. His word's good 'nuff for me..lol

 

 

The only reason I brought this up because the opponents of this say that coming down the stretch on Sundays it gives an advantage over the nerves, blah, blah, blah. Well, if that were true than everyone should have one. The Ryder Cup Team should have issued them. But my experience is that while it greatly reduces this, nothing is foolproof. I also admit that those misses I was referring to were more like a right cross than a puttig stroke. But nerves and concentration are still a major part of the equation.

[RoverRick]

Maybe the USGA will sponsor some Facebook voting to settle the dispute?

 

It really does not matter what the vote comes out to. If 99% of the votes are against the long putters, that does not make changing the policy after 25 years of allowing it simply because some people do not like it, any less discriminatory.

[revkev]

With all due respect to Furu who is entirely entitled to his opinion here in part because of our Alice in Wonderland legal system I don't buy the logic of his or others agrgument in this case. This represents a changing of the rules - the governing bodies in golf have had 25 years to make this change and have not. No doubt any legal action will include golfers from lots of different places not just the US. Their argument will be that they are being discriminated against. It might be a very unpopular stance but that will have no bearing on how the matter is decided in court once it gets there.

 

Regardless of the Golf Channel article the USGA thought it was going to prevail in the Casey Martin and Ping affairs - I supported the USGA in the Martin case but not in the Ping case because Ping had dutifully submitted its clubs to the USGA for approval - if there was an issue with them it should have been resolved there. Legal arguments are not like High School debate club - they are based on legal precedent and the judge and jury weigh the facts as best they can against that law. I respect the opinion of the courts in the Casey Martin matter in fact they convinced me that I was wrong. I will respect the decision of the courts in this case as well and rest assured it will get to the courts unless something is worked out in advance - that's what's really going on right now - that something in advance, if possible, to avoid the cost of a good deal of legal wrangling.

 

The courts are there to resolve issues that two parties can't so that we don't disolve into anarchy. They are in effect the governing authority that you're looking for Furu - Once they've decided I abide by the law until the legally prescribed process of appeal is completed.

 

It's how our system works and we believe it works well, for us. I'm delighted that you believe the same thing about your country's system - it's how it should be - best to you and yours.

[BK in TEXAS]

Maybe the USGA will sponsor some Facebook voting to settle the dispute?

It really does not matter what the vote comes out to. If 99% of the votes are against the long putters, that does not make changing the policy after 25 years of allowing it simply because some people do not like it, any less discriminatory.

I was just poking fun at the USGA.

 

FWIW...Though I don't care much for belly putters, I am in the "it's discrimination" camp as well. Banning the putter or the stroke would be no less discriminatory at this point than banning the Hybrid.

[revkev]

All of it would be discriminatory. That's why I'm against it. As golf's governing bodies it's up to the USGA and the R and A to test equipment and or techniques before the equipment comes out and as soon as the technique is being employed to see if it conforms with the rules or fits the spirit of the game.

 

You can't have a 25 year test period where people grow up playing a certain way and then in midsteam say - oh you can't shoot jump shots now - only Wilt Chamberlin style shots will be allowed from outside of 5 feet.

 

That's how ridiculous this is when you think about it. I don't even get what the big deal is as so many have said if it were that great everyone would be doing - Everyone uses metal drivers and fairway woods because those are that good. Everyone uses a Pro VI or Ix type of golf ball because they are that good. Not everyone uses this because it's just another way to putt the ball that works for some, not for others. What's next a ban on all putters used by a player who holes over 50 percent of his putts from 9 feet?

[Shambles]

This is the general thought, though who knows. An OEM executive stated at the Ryder Cup that the feeling in the industry is if they(OEMs) could get a tour player, and none were mentioned, though Keegan is the poster child for the belly putter, to lead the attack on the ruling, either in the public domain or the courts, that it would look less self serving for the OEMs.

 

Who knows

 

Fairways & Greens 4evet

 

 

It's really very difficult to discuss a ruling that has not yet been made nor the grounds of which were not yet stated and relied upon. I will put on the table that if a ban is to be contemplated it would need basis upon the preservation of the traditional form and concept of the game. That was the stated purpose of the creation of the ruling body and many innovations were successfully declared non conforming over the decades and for as long as the public accepts the ruling as just, it will stand. 25 years of use does not justify the product simply because an error, even an old one, remains an error if proven so. All that would do is bring into question the quality of the executive who made the original decision.

 

I think waiting for something in writing and properly issued would be the better course.

 

 

Shambles

[Will Par]

I'm in favor of a ban on anchoring. It is clear that anchoring eliminates some of the challenges inherent in putting. It eliminates some of the moving parts and it offers advantages in very windy conditions. I think putting should be a challenging aspect of playing golf and I think everyone should have to face the full challenge without shortcuts. It is the challenge that makes the game fun, eliminate the challenge and you eliminate some of that fun.

 

Several have commented that the long putter has been permitted for 25 years and it would be wrong to make it illegal after that length of time. For most of those years, the long putter was considered a crutch and was only used by those who couldn't solve the challenge of using a standard putter. It is only in recent years that the long putter and anchoring has changed from a crutch to a potentially better way to putt. I remember watching the US Amateur Championship at Chambers Bay in 2010 and being surprised that so many college players were using long putters. Coaches had started recommending the long putter to students who whose putting was below average. That recommendation would not have been made to young players just a few years earlier. The acceptance of long putters and anchoring has only occurred in recent years.

 

I just want to see the full challenge of putting returned to the game and see that all golfers are required to face the full challenge. I think Keegan Bradley--and others who want to fight a ban--are taking the wrong approach by saying they will bring lawsuits. They should be taking a professional stance that says they are good enough to putt well using either method. If they are already doubting their ability to compete using a standard putter they have more to worry about than how they are going to fare in a court case.

[GolfSpy WD]

I'm in favor of a ban on anchoring. It is clear that anchoring eliminates some of the challenges inherent in putting. It eliminates some of the moving parts and it offers advantages in very windy conditions. I think putting should be a challenging aspect of playing golf and I think everyone should have to face the full challenge without shortcuts. It is the challenge that makes the game fun, eliminate the challenge and you eliminate some of that fun.

 

Several have commented that the long putter has been permitted for 25 years and it would be wrong to make it illegal after that length of time. For most of those years, the long putter was considered a crutch and was only used by those who couldn't solve the challenge of using a standard putter. It is only in recent years that the long putter and anchoring has changed from a crutch to a potentially better way to putt. I remember watching the US Amateur Championship at Chambers Bay in 2010 and being surprised that so many college players were using long putters. Coaches had started recommending the long putter to students who whose putting was below average. That recommendation would not have been made to young players just a few years earlier. The acceptance of long putters and anchoring has only occurred in recent years.

 

I just want to see the full challenge of putting returned to the game and see that all golfers are required to face the full challenge. I think Keegan Bradley--and others who want to fight a ban--are taking the wrong approach by saying they will bring lawsuits. They should be taking a professional stance that says they are good enough to putt well using either method. If they are already doubting their ability to compete using a standard putter they have more to worry about than how they are going to fare in a court case.

 

I'm going to start off by saying I'm drunk and may re-read this in the morning.

 

However, if the long putter was around for 25 years and people only used it as a last resort, how does that show it makes you a better putter? You can justify it on paper all you want, but where is the backing evidence? Finally, the "last resort" argument is extremely anecdotal and often only looks at players who were successful after switching to anchored putters rather than the entire group.

 

I'm not a great putter, but I'm a hell of a lot better with a standard mallet than an anchored putter. I think part of the reason is your body can naturally correct your stroke with a standard putter, but with an anchored putter, you are stuck in the plane you start your backswing with. There's very little freedom in movement.

 

How is it "being professional" to take a giant FU for those who are used to this method of putting? The burden of proof rests entirely on the USGA and R&A to show there is actually an advantage. They certainly have enough data to do so.

[Firstkart]

I am not a fan of governing bodies and therefore my comments will be biased.

 

So first off, WTF on changing the rules after 20+ years of using a piece of equipment. I do not care what equipment that is or who does not like it.

 

Second, who the F*** do these people think they are that a game that has been played for thousands of years ( ok maybe not that long) is suddenly their domain to make biblical changes to the rules. Lets understand that the rules of golf have been relatively unchanged since the origins of the game in the 1400's. Although the first rules were not officially recorded until 1744.

 

I personally would like to see a law suit that challenges any decision to ban the belly putter and hope that it succeeds and sets the tone for any future indiscretions.

 

AJ