Keegan Bradley would consider legal action to block belly putter ban

[GolfSpy WD]

Thank you! Drunk or not, good question!

 

BTW, how do ya feel? Do ya find that it hit's ya harder than it used ta?.lol

 

 

My Best

 

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever

 

If you're talking about the hangover...very much so <_ at least i broke even poker>

[RoverRick]

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.

 

You state that the purpose of the USGA is to preserve the "game". They have allowed this to happen for nearly 1/4 of the time they have been in exisitance.

 

I do not buy the arguement that allowing them was a mistake. Just as allowing any other innovation is a mistake. This is a freaking game. This is not preservation of the democratic system, this not the preservation of the free market system, this is a game. If the long putter allows people to enjoy the game more than great.

 

Does it bother you when someone in your foursome, takes some wierd stance, for example, trail foot a couple of feet back, so that they can make some big over the top move and still hit the ball square? Does it bother you if someone you are playing uses a longer putter? If so, Why?

[RoverRick]

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.

 

How is this an advantage in windy conditions? The stupid R&A said it could be used as a crutch in windy conditions, and I would like to know how you can anchor one end to your body, and use the other end as a crutch. WHICH END DO YOU FREAKING HIT THE BALL WITH? I have standard length, belly, and broomstick putters, but none of them have more than 2 ends.

 

Also, if this is a shortcut, and is eliminating some of the challenge, then why are you not doing it. And as far as eliminating some of the fun. Horse Hockey! I had 10 putts yesterday on 9 holes shot a 33, and I promiss I have never had more fun. The guys I was playing had fun with me making all those putts. Mainly because we did not have a bet and it did not matter to them, but they were high fiving and laughing along with me.

 

 

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.

 

The full challenge of putting are still there. The challenge of putting is hitting the ball the right speed on the right line. Nothing else matters. You can use any putter and have a beautiful stroke, or you can use the leading edge of your wedge, it is all about direction and distance. Yeah, I was using a long putter yesterday when I got hot and sank them from every where, but, I have had days using the short putter that were like that. I do not believe that the putter I had in my hand made any difference when I hot. And on the first 5 holes, I chipped within 2 feet of the cup every time and while we were putting them out, I did not even use a putter 4 times, just tapped in with the wedge because they were so close.

[RookieBlue7]

The common argument: There's no provable or statistically provable evidence that long/belly putters provide any type of advantage.

 

My answer: Provide me with data or proof, statistical, that losing them/anchoring would make their putting worse.

[Will Par]

This is an analysis of the issue as I see it. The mechanics of an anchored stroke does two things: (1) it takes the wrists out of the stroke, and (2) it stabilizes forearm rotation during the stroke. In a non-anchored stroke, the two most likely areas for mechanical issues (other than head/body movement) are wrist breakdown and excessive forearm rotation. The anchored stroke automatically corrects two critical points of mechanical failure.

 

Does this make it a superior way to putt? No. I don't think anchored putting offers any advantage over a standard stroke when both are mechanically sound. Good putting involves a lot of things other than mechanics. You can have perfect mechanics but if you don't have the other skills that lead to good putting you won't putt well.

 

But... if you are an instructor, coach, parent, or anyone else recommending the best way to learn to putt, you will never go wrong recommending an anchored method. It automatically corrects common faults that most golfers struggle with when using a standard length putter. It is not a better way to putt, but it is a better way to learn to putt.

 

Take that thought one step further and ask this question: Fifty years from now, what method will the majority of golfers be using? Common sense tells me that almost everyone will be using an anchored method because it is an easier method to learn and an easier way to avoid common faults. That is what we are already seeing... an increase in the number of players using an anchored method. So if you agree with this analysis, it becomes a question of whether you want the game to evolve and change naturally, or if there is a benefit in preserving traditional methods.

 

I've got a lot of time and effort invested in my traditional stroke. I wish I had known years ago what I know now. I wonder how many putts I've missed because I had a little too much wrist break, or a little too much forearm rotation? Maybe anchoring really is a superior way to putt. I hope someone will convince me it's not.

[Mrs.Manbearpig]

Has the belly putter really been around 20 years???? What about this chest putter? I don't like the long putter idea (and no Dan my putter doesn't count I like it just fine the way it is) I personally think it's kind of cheating but that's just me.

[The Dansome]

Has the belly putter really been around 20 years???? What about this chest putter? I don't like the long putter idea (and no Dan my putter doesn't count I like it just fine the way it is) I personally think it's kind of cheating but that's just me.

 

Oh boy, here we go.

 

Anyways I'll give my 2 cents really quick on the long putter. I believe at the top level of pro golf everyone should be sticking to what a traditional shot/stroke is, arms hanging yada yada. I just feel like everyone should be attempting to get the ball in the hole in pretty much the same fashion. Now if the governing bodies rule that the belly/chest has become traditional over the last 20 years then I'm all for it.

 

With that said, anyone below the professional ranks should be allowed to use longer putters. I remember back in the day it seemed to have started out as a bad back thing etc so guys didn't have to slouch over so much and for that reason let em use it. But really when it comes to the everyday amateur who cares we're just out to have a good time.

[GolfSpy WD]

The common argument: There's no provable or statistically provable evidence that long/belly putters provide any type of advantage.

 

My answer: Provide me with data or proof, statistical, that losing them/anchoring would make their putting worse.

 

Changing a rule should put the burden of proof to justify the change, not force those most effected by it to prove their case. Just my opinion.

[RookieBlue7]

Changing a rule should put the burden of proof to justify the change, not force those most effected by it to prove their case. Just my opinion.

 

So if they need to prove that it has effects on the game, why do those in favor not also need to prove that it will, indeed make their putting worse? Because they don't want to admit that they are an advantage for the users that use them that putted horribly before.

[GolfSpy WD]

So if they need to prove that it has effects on the game, why do those in favor not also need to prove that it will, indeed make their putting worse? Because they don't want to admit that they are an advantage for the users that use them that putted horribly before.

 

The onus is on the USGA right now IMO. If the USGA comes out with proof that long putters create an unfair advantage, then the onus switches to the players to disprove it.

 

It's kind of a innocent until proven guilty vs guilty until proven innocent debate. I think it's on the USGA simply because long putters have been around for so long and people have grown up using them. Had this debate been 25 years ago, then it would have been up to the players to prove their case.

 

Again though, I agree that for certain players, they are better with long putters, just as certain players are better with mallet putters. Look at Michelson for example, he gave the long putter a fair shake and it didn't work for him.

[BIG STU]

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.

Gotta agree with you Rick The GC with the exception of Faldo are a bunch of nothings and has beens and that is all they have to do. If Bradley and others launch a lawsuit the USGA and RA will back down because they cannot afford it monetarily. If the USGA gets into a legal battle they wont be doing it with my money. I have not renewed my membership in 4 years

[3putt53]

Read through this post, so here's my two cents. The issue isn't whether the long or belly putter is illegal, but anchoring a club to your body is. No one is going to take the putter away, you can still putt with it, just can't hold it against your body. Remember when Bernard langer held his short putter against his forearm and gripped his putter? The ban would likely make that type of stroke illegal as well. There have been many changes in the game since it was first invented steel shafts were against the rules for many years. Mallet style putters also have been used in the 19th century. Look at the clubs that looked like rakes, spades, etc. they were specialty clubs to get you out of ruts, holes, etc. the current sand wedge was invented by Gene Sarazen. When he first used it in the British open he kept a towel over it so his competitors couldn't get a look at it and have it declared illegal. As Ben Hogan once said, putting is not golf, it's a whole different thing. He would have changed the game where closest to the pin counted instead of putting.So to wind down, the long putters won't be banned, just the way you take a stroke.

[ms1195]

I'm pretty late to the conversation, but I will say that I am leaning towards agreeing with the ban of anchored putters. I think it is taking the "swing" out of a golf shot and against the spirit of the game. I realize there are plenty of arguments against my position and truthfully I am pretty indifferent on the ruling.

 

What I do have a problem with is the possibility of a lawsuit. I personally had a major problem with the US Government playing a role in the whole steroid situation in baseball, and I would really be down on seeing a belly putter case in the supreme court. Banning the belly putter is not discriminatory, golf is a sport. Not everyone can play at the top level, and that is how the world goes. I will never make it to the NBA but I'm not going to sue because the rims are too high and guys that can jump higher have an advantage.

 

I see this as an abuse of the legal system that is already in shambles, wasting tax money trying to make sure nobody is ever offended. The PGA is not a state or federally run department, so internal rulings should not be decided by states or the fed.

[Shambles]

 

 

I see this as an abuse of the legal system that is already in shambles, wasting tax money trying to make sure nobody is ever offended. The PGA is not a state or federally run department, so internal rulings should not be decided by states or the fed.

 

 

I see this as an example of why the legal system exists and is worthy of support.

 

Authoritarianism, regardless of good intentions, is not always beneficial for all the subjects thereof, nor even the majority. Too often rules are made by fiat simply because the rule maker is unable to appreciate a contrary viewpoint fairly. The one benefit of an authoritarian rule is to make rules easier to make in the vision of the rules makers. This is much too subject to abuse, be it intended or with the best intentions.

 

 

Shambles

[GolfSpy WD]

I see this as an example of why the legal system exists and is worthy of support.

 

Authoritarianism, regardless of good intentions, is not always beneficial for all the subjects thereof, nor even the majority. Too often rules are made by fiat simply because the rule maker is unable to appreciate a contrary viewpoint fairly. The one benefit of an authoritarian rule is to make rules easier to make in the vision of the rules makers. This is much too subject to abuse, be it intended or with the best intentions.

 

 

Shambles

 

Very well said!

[revkev]

I've tried to stay away from here mainly because none or very few of us here are attorneys and so we don't really know what we are talking about in regards to legal matters. My observations on legal things came as an outsiders who has seen the governing bodies lose a few very high profile cases. It's hardly an authoritative opinion - if there is a lawsuit brought after the ruling both sides will have their facts and case law to support them and we'll see what happens.

 

I still believe that the ruling bodies are trying to work a deal with the group or class of players who currently use anchored putters. It could be that this group is saber rattling in order to put itself in a better position for some sort of pre ruling settlement - who knows.

 

As for ruling bodies I'm like many others in that I have a bias against them but I also acknowledge that they are necessary. Clearly there are two sets of rules, at least, I'd say four sets for rules. The first set is used for R and A and USGA events - its the rule book as we know it set. The second sete is still under that category but with a pretty interesting set of "local rules" in effect - that would be the rules used by the major tours - In this set of rules the players get very controlled sets of conditions that we couldn't possible realize - caddies who rake traps exactly the same way every time, grand stands that stop balls and afford drops, balls hit into parking lots or hosptitality tents, lift clean and place through the course - you know the drill. The third set of rules are in a sense a combo of the above - when we play tournament golf we play be the rules of golf but we are hardly (or very few of us are hardly) playing under the same course conditions as the big boys - we generally are on a different set of tees, the rough isn't as high, the greens aren't as fast, etc., etc. Finally there are the casual golfers who play by their own rules - mulligans off the first tee or 1 mulligan a side, gimmees, prefered lies (we had to yesterday or it would not have been enjoyable because the course we played was a debacle other than the greens), non-comforming equipment, switching balls throughout the round (I lost a Callaway Warbird but now I'm using a Pro VI) and on and on it goes.

 

One of my partners yesterday uses an anchored putter. We play allot. In the middle of the round he holed a nice putt and I asked him how it felt to be using that putter for the last time. He said when the USGA sends him a check he'll switch putters.

 

I suspect he's not alone and that's the bottom line. The USGA is going to need to send Keegan Bradley and his friends one heck of a huge check if it wants to get this ruling by without a lawsuit - pay now or pay later.

[Shambles]

I doubt any deals can be made in this. There are just too many interested parties with too many who also have interests to preserve. Besides, the primary battleground will be on the various discussion boards which can expose the various arguments for worth or lack thereof to the most important jurors, the consumers. The USGA and the R&A do rule with the consent of the governed, and if they rule on a matter that is not acceptable to even just a significant portion of the governed, they will lose support and be weakened accordingly. They could even be confronted with the outright rebellion that once confronted them in the case of the Eye2 square grooves. That convoluted way of measuring which singled out the Eye2 truly busted the ruling bodies in that case.

 

More likely, to my eyes, the battle is already joined and we are the jurors mulling the matter.

 

 

Shambles

[ms1195]

You speak of "our" legal system "being in shambles." I have one question, and it is a direct question, yes or no answer please. Are you a resident of The United States of America? It's not a trick question, you just said some things that I'm definitely gonna address, it's just a matter of if you're a citizen or not in how I address them.

 

I am a citizen, yes. Very proud to be born and raised here. I am not even close to being a lawyer, and I am not trying to come off as one, but I see stories all of the time about frivolous lawsuits because someone was "left out". An example is when a guy in TX sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him as waitress, that is what the putter situation reminds me of.

 

Maybe I am speaking more to my disappointment of the public mentality that you can always sue if you don't get your way and not the legal system itself, but they have control of allowing or not allowing these things to go to court. There are much more important cases our tax money could be used for, especially more important than making sure these millionaires can still compete despite inadequate skills.

[GolfSpy WD]

I am a citizen, yes. Very proud to be born and raised here. I am not even close to being a lawyer, and I am not trying to come off as one, but I see stories all of the time about frivolous lawsuits because someone was "left out". An example is when a guy in TX sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him as waitress, that is what the putter situation reminds me of.

 

Maybe I am speaking more to my disappointment of the public mentality that you can always sue if you don't get your way and not the legal system itself, but they have control of allowing or not allowing these things to go to court. There are much more important cases our tax money could be used for, especially more important than making sure these millionaires can still compete despite inadequate skills.

 

IMO, the analogy to the long putter debate is if Hooters had hired a guy for 15 years and then suddenly fired him because they noticed he wasn't a girl.

 

I totally agree with your point of frivolous law suits, the only problem with fixing them is to not prevent legitimate law suits. It's an extremely hard nut to crack.

[jayhawker]

I would have to vouch for Bradley in this case. While some people see it as unfair, I don't see it giving someone a distinct advantage, otherwise I think a lot more people would be using them. Especially considering that these players have spent thousands of hours practicing and acquiring the skills they have with these putters it is unfair. For me this case is like if the Usga wished to ban playing a draw. (Sure there are flaws in my analogy such as one cannot completely control their ball flight, but that is besides the point.) while a draw may have advantages, such as a more penetrating ball flight, not all players play a draw more than a fade. Both a draw and a fade have benefits, but ultimately a player would decide to use one or the other because it suits their game better. Just because the belly putter may have benefits or advantages in some areas does not mean that a non-anchored putter does not have other benefits and advantages that a player would rather take advantage of.

 

So sue away mr Bradley, because that rule is flat out unfair and puts the careers and ways of life of too many in jeopardy.

[RookieBlue7]

When Keegan can prove he'd putt worse without anchoring that same putter, he'll have a case. But then again, if he proves it causes him to putt worse, he'll strengthen the USGA's stance.