Are you for or against the anchored putter?

[TripleBogieTim]

But there are no stats stating that long or belly putter useres are better putters. There is no advantage, stastically speaking.

There are no stats to show you would shoot a lower score with 15 clubs instead of 14, or with square grooves for that matter...but there are still rules against them.

 

[Chunkylover77]

But there are no stats stating that long or belly putter useres are better putters. There is no advantage, stastically speaking.

You are right that you really can't prove that a long putter makes you better. But IMO the anchoring of the club gives an advantage on the shorter putts which essentially eliminates the yips. That takes some of the mental aspects of the game out which is a shame. Something changed in Adam Scotts game and the only thing I can see is the putter. I would like to see them banned but I sure can see the argument for keeping them. Wouldn't really bother me whichever way they go. Heck I should probably be using one! It's a fun argument to have though

 

[ripper]

Ripper. I have an honest question to ask you. You said "He was asked a question and gave an honest answer". Why did you have such a problem with Steve Williams doing the same thing? When he was asked a question and gave an honest answer (to him anyway), your quote on this forum was

"Steve is bitter and should learn to take the high road like Tiger does. Sure, they asked him the question, but he can still have some class and stop beating the poor dead horse."

I responded with something of the sort of "He was asked a question and gave an answer. If he answers no comment, he gets crucified, if he answers what he feels honestly, he gets crucified. Its a lose lose.

Then you said this.

"I honestly doubt that everyone would jump all over him for saying "no comment"."

Now clearly these are different scenarios, but I am honestly curious. When should someone answer the media honestly and when should someone not? I dont understand how some get a pass and some are just doing the right thing by answering the question. And some are being rude and should shut up. I dont know why they ask what they ask, but some in the media ask ridiculous questions. I just dont know why we dont applaud actual answers all the time, rather than only when it suits someone or only when its done by a fan favorite.

JB, its a fair question, but I think the answer is in what you said, different scenarios. Steve had kind of wore out the being hurt by Tiger dumping him thing and I thought he should just avoid it, he had already made his point. In this case, Tiger was asked about belly putters, I havent seen anything from him really on this before or at least not recently. If he had been asked if Steve was a nice guy and he went on about Steve being a jerk, I would say the same thing, say no comment and move on. I just think you are comparing apples to oranges to make a point here. I still feel this is not about Tiger. I hope that made sense.

 

[Chunkylover77]

Its seriously an honest question. I just dont understand (maybe I am programmed differently) why we applaud some for "answering a question that is asked" and criticize others for doing the exact same thing regardless of topic. Sure tact comes into play and on a personal level, people have to accept their responsibilities, but at the general core, its the exact same thing. We should always want people to give honest answers when asked as long as they are not harmful (which neither was). I think that who we enjoy plays a larger role in these things than anybody wants to realize.

IMO, as Thainer said, one was a personal attack. There was a personal relationship there and Stevie kind of broke that locker room rule. That is the problem I had with it. Tiger is not attacking anyone here. He is stating his opinion on a topic. That is the difference that I see

 

[ripper]

John Daly does not have his card, but in all fairness, why does the #1 or #15 ranked player have more say in matters than the #50? I dont understand how one player's opinion on tour matters more than someone elses? Hard to compare it to actual government, because there would be no ability to speak to millions of people, however certainly it would not be hard to speak to 125 people on an issue that will impact their career rather than a select few that clearly the USGA deems more important.

I understand, but this goes back to my original question: Do you know they didnt talk to the #50 ranked player? Do you know they didnt talk to Tiger just to appease the golden goose and dont plan on even taking into account his opinion. We seem to be assuming a lot here.

 

[TripleBogieTim]

You are right that you really can't prove that a long putter makes you better. But IMO the anchoring of the club gives an advantage on the shorter putts which essentially eliminates the yips. That takes some of the mental aspects of the game out which is a shame. Something changed in Adam Scotts game and the only thing I can see is the putter. I would like to see them banned but I sure can see the argument for keeping them. Wouldn't really bother me whichever way they go. Heck I should probably be using one! It's a fun argument to have though

The quote I saw from the R&A the other day that never even crossed my mind was about "using the anchored putter to help steady themselves in high winds" ......that particular scenario never crossed my mind but when I read it, I was like....man that could be a huge difference!

 

[Chunkylover77]

The quote I saw from the R&A the other day that never even crossed my mind was about "using the anchored putter to help steady themselves in high winds" ......that particular scenario never crossed my mind but when I read it, I was like....man that could be a huge difference!

It theoretically could be. But then again so could crouching under the wind right? I can really see the argument both ways. My main problem with it is the fact that the yips can be erased just by simply using this putter. I don't like that at all.

 

[JB]

I understand, but this goes back to my original question: Do you know they didnt talk to the #50 ranked player? Do you know they didnt talk to Tiger just to appease the golden goose and dont plan on even taking into account his opinion. We seem to be assuming a lot here.

Yes I do know they did not talk to A LOT of players. Heck I contacted 16 today and none of them have been contacted. We heard through an agent that none of his guys were contacted either. Im not assuming anything really. I see this all the time and we saw this with the groove rule as well. I was glad to see a couple of guys say "eff you" early on (see Phil using the Ping wedge) because they felt slighted.

Tiger is NOT the USGA golden goose. He may be for the PGA Tour, but NO player should be allowed to be involved with the writing of rules while they are still competing in my opinion. OR every player must be involved. There is absolutely NO scenario in which one player's opinion should be taken into account in the actual writing of the rules that they will compete in unless all of them are.

 

[JB]

It theoretically could be. But then again so could crouching under the wind right? I can really see the argument both ways. My main problem with it is the fact that the yips can be erased just by simply using this putter. I don't like that at all.

But in reality that is no different than a tour player that all of the sudden develops a slice and corrects it by having the driver built closed right?

 

[TripleBogieTim]

Yes I do know they did not talk to A LOT of players. Heck I contacted 16 today and none of them have been contacted. We heard through an agent that none of his guys were contacted either. Im not assuming anything really. I see this all the time and we saw this with the groove rule as well. I was glad to see a couple of guys say "eff you" early on (see Phil using the Ping wedge) because they felt slighted.

Tiger is NOT the USGA golden goose. He may be for the PGA Tour, but NO player should be allowed to be involved with the writing of rules while they are still competing in my opinion. OR every player must be involved. There is absolutely NO scenario in which one player's opinion should be taken into account in the actual writing of the rules that they will compete in unless all of them are.

QFT! Well said JB!

 

[blugold]

There are no stats to show you would shoot a lower score with 15 clubs instead of 14, or with square grooves for that matter...but there are still rules against them.

Except there is. It iis easier to spin the ball with bigger grooves. There was less emphasis on hitting fairways with the square grooves. A 15th club would eliminate a gap somewhere in the bag. Both scenarios lower scores, especially on the professional tours. Belly putters do not equate to better results, especially on the professional tours.

 

[Smallville]

But there are no stats stating that long or belly putter useres are better putters. There is no advantage, stastically speaking.

But now someone has won a major using one and that infringes on their turf.

There are no stats to show you would shoot a lower score with 15 clubs instead of 14, or with square grooves for that matter...but there are still rules against them.

But there is no rule against long and belly putters.

 

[Chunkylover77]

But in reality that is no different than a tour player that all of the sudden develops a slice and corrects it by having the driver built closed right?

I'm not really sure dude honestly. One doesn't "seem" to be against the spirit of the game and one does if that makes sense. The pressure of a short putt to win a tournament is one of the more exciting aspects of the sport. I know it makes no sense what I'm saying but it is how I feel

 

[ripper]

Yes I do know they did not talk to A LOT of players. Heck I contacted 16 today and none of them have been contacted. We heard through an agent that none of his guys were contacted either. Im not assuming anything really. I see this all the time and we saw this with the groove rule as well. I was glad to see a couple of guys say "eff you" early on (see Phil using the Ping wedge) because they felt slighted.

Tiger is NOT the USGA golden goose. He may be for the PGA Tour, but NO player should be allowed to be involved with the writing of rules while they are still competing in my opinion. OR every player must be involved. There is absolutely NO scenario in which one player's opinion should be taken into account in the actual writing of the rules that they will compete in unless all of them are.

Ok, I can accept that. He seems to refer more to the R&A than the USGA. Different or the same feelings?

 

[JB]

I'm not really sure dude honestly. One doesn't "seem" to be against the spirit of the game and one does if that makes sense. The pressure of a short putt to win a tournament is one of the more exciting aspects of the sport. I know it makes no sense what I'm saying but it is how I feel

Hey, I understand it. I just dont think its a big difference than saying altering a driver open or closed to correct a flaw. Lets say you are Dustin Johnson and you are going into the final round of the US Open with the lead and the wind picks up before you tee off. You can have your driver altered to flight it lower to play that easier if you would like. Heck, nowadays they can do it quite easily.

 

[Oregon Golfer]

Hey, I understand it. I just dont think its a big difference than saying altering a driver open or closed to correct a flaw. Lets say you are Dustin Johnson and you are going into the final round of the US Open with the lead and the wind picks up before you tee off. You can have your driver altered to flight it lower to play that easier if you would like. Heck, nowadays they can do it quite easily.

That's a pretty good argument.... too bad the USGA and R&A don't take public comment. Or do they?

 

[Chunkylover77]

Hey, I understand it. I just dont think its a big difference than saying altering a driver open or closed to correct a flaw. Lets say you are Dustin Johnson and you are going into the final round of the US Open with the lead and the wind picks up before you tee off. You can have your driver altered to flight it lower to play that easier if you would like. Heck, nowadays they can do it quite easily.

I see your point. And it would be hypocritical for me to say everyone can do it since everyone can switch to a long putter. It all comes down to the freaking short putts to me! Man I might just switch to a belly

Also I think these guys have the capability to adjust the driver swing in terms of lowering the ball flight during a round. Throw it back in the stance. Shorter follow through. You can't adjust anything for the yips.

 

[TripleBogieTim]

Except there is. It iis easier to spin the ball with bigger grooves. There was less emphasis on hitting fairways with the square grooves. A 15th club would eliminate a gap somewhere in the bag. Both scenarios lower scores, especially on the professional tours. Belly putters do not equate to better results, especially on the professional tours.

Actually in 2009 with the old grooves the top 5 players on tour had a scoring average of under 70..........in 2010 with the new grooves the entire top 10 had a scoring average of under 70......so the groove rule did not effect scoring at all.

 

[roswellj]

While we're at it lets ban Hybrid clubs too as they haven't been around for very long and offer an advantage to players. Also lets ban golf carts as the original players had to walk so we should too. Why not ban adjustable clubs? If you can make a change to a loft of a club then aren't you really carrying more than 14 clubs in your bag?

My point is why do we want to ban innovation? If people turn around and ban everything that makes this incredibly difficult game just a tiny bit easier then there is no incentive for the big companies to put any money into R&D. Then we will be stuck with the same equipment year after year.
I can see the Taylormade slogans now; "Boringballz, just like every other club you've ever hit but this one is coloured beige"

 

[grambo]

IMHO
They are not talking about changing a rule. They are talking about enforcing one. It is clearly anchoring the club and that is against the rules. Why it has gone this far is beyond me. Maybe they thought ole Sam Torrence was an aberation and not worth a fuss. And it snuck up on 'em!
It is beside the point whether there is "statistical evidence" one way or another. It doesn't matter!! It is against the rules!!
And that is the only point.
By the way, roswellj, you can't adjust a club once you've teed off. So you are carrying only 14.

 

[JF]

I would be in support of a rule stating that you must keep the driver on one setting throughout the round.

 

[grambo]

I would be in support of a rule stating that you must keep the driver on one setting throughout the round.

That is the rule now.

 

[Smallville]

I would be in support of a rule stating that you must keep the driver on one setting throughout the round.

There already is.

 

[MFAWG]

IMHO
They are not talking about changing a rule. They are talking about enforcing one. It is clearly anchoring the club and that is against the rules. Why it has gone this far is beyond me. Maybe they thought ole Sam Torrence was an aberation and not worth a fuss. And it snuck up on 'em!
It is beside the point whether there is "statistical evidence" one way or another. It doesn't matter!! It is against the rules!!
And that is the only point.
By the way, roswellj, you can't adjust a club once you've teed off. So you are carrying only 14.

Can you reference the rule?

 

[blugold]

IMHO
They are not talking about changing a rule. They are talking about enforcing one. It is clearly anchoring the club and that is against the rules. Why it has gone this far is beyond me. Maybe they thought ole Sam Torrence was an aberation and not worth a fuss. And it snuck up on 'em!
It is beside the point whether there is "statistical evidence" one way or another. It doesn't matter!! It is against the rules!!
And that is the only point.
By the way, roswellj, you can't adjust a club once you've teed off. So you are carrying only 14.

Is it? I did not think there was any rule specifically stating that it was illegal to anchor a club.