Tim Clark and anchoring

First topic message reminder :

Is anyone else struggling to understand Tim Clark's case against the banning of anchoring?

http://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/tim-clark-speaks-softly-makes-forceful-points-when-discussing-anchor-ban

If you look as his putting style in the following video, I don't understand why he can't putt the same way but without anchoring. I could understand him having more of a problem swinging a golf club which does require a certain amount of turning in of the forearms and wrists but I just to get the problem with the putting.

It certainly has stopped him accruing the thick end of $23m in career earnings!

http://www.titleist.com/my-game/videos/152/goals.aspx

Sorry Kwini, but the relevance of that is what? The two issues are about as unrelated as it's possible to be. If this plank Bishop is raising all-male golf clubs as an argument () about why they should allow anchoring, he's as good as admitting the anchorers have lost.

Agreed nb. Mind you kwini's spot on about Peter Dawson. He is an arrogant sod. Mind you, my estimation of him has gone up a little after he stuck it to Ted Bishop at Augusta which might explain why Bishop might be coming everso slightly unhinged.

I give you ..

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2013-05/gwar-ted-bishop-rosaforte-report-0506#ixzz2S21IvIFLtp://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2013-05/gwar-ted-bishop-rosaforte-report-0506

In the end, I pass off the differences between the PGA of America and the R&A to be a result as the difference between our two cultures," Bishop said in his email. "Europeans have a tendency to accept the things that are imposed by their respective governments, while Americans will debate, argue and vote on issues. I think that is the fundamental premise that America was founded on."

Fancy that ... insulting an entire continent!

He forgot "and cave to special interests" in the midst of that diatribe

Meanwhile, Rome is burning:
Slow play.
Ineffectual drug rules.
Trampoline clubs.
Turbo-charged balls.
Anti-gay sentiment for Tour member.


Not sure that I much care for Ted Bishop but I reckon he's spot on here. Anchoring is a ridiculous fight to pick in comparison to all the above.

What a nutjob. I never liked Watson before due to a number of reasons, I like him even less now.

kwinigolfer wrote:Meanwhile, Rome is burning:
Slow play.
Ineffectual drug rules.
Trampoline clubs.
Turbo-charged balls.
Anti-gay sentiment for Tour member.


Not sure that I much care for Ted Bishop but I reckon he's spot on here. Anchoring is a ridiculous fight to pick in comparison to all the above.

You are, of course, right about that but I'm not sure it means they shouldn't pursue the anchoring situation. Let's hope this stiffens a few spines and they address some of the issues you mention above.

kwinigolfer wrote:Meanwhile, Rome is burning:
Slow play.
Ineffectual drug rules.
Trampoline clubs.
Turbo-charged balls.
Anti-gay sentiment for Tour member.


Not sure that I much care for Ted Bishop but I reckon he's spot on here. Anchoring is a ridiculous fight to pick in comparison to all the above.

I agree that there are more issues than just anchoring putters but surely these organisations can manage to move through more than one thing at a time. I appreciate that the trampoline clubs and balls are going to be tougher but sorting out slow play, drug rules and anti-gay sentiment is really pretty simple.

Actually thinking about it, reining in the balls and clubs shouldn't be that tough. Long drivers will still be long drivers, there will still be clubs that go further than others, its just that they will all be going less distance than they are now.

To give you an idea of how fast technology has run I just upgraded my Taylormade R7 (2007) for a new RBZ and think that I am getting about 20-30 yards further or 8-12%.

kwini, you have to remember that ctts change within these organizations. No point in blaming the current lot just because they're proposing to do what should have been done 30 years ago by previous joint ctts.

I think the governing bodies are in a better financial position to take on the equipment companies but until there is definitive proof that distances haven't maxed out (according to them), then they're unlikely to do anything about it. That is not to say they are not actively seeking a 'shorter' ball. As I understand it, the club golfer would lose exponentially less distance than the pro with a rolled-back ball. They just don't think there's any need for it yet.

gael,
No doubt. Agree.

The other thing with Tim Rosaforte's piece on Dawson and Bishop is that Rosaforte comes across as a sycophantic parasite. Wonder what he'd do for a living if he somehow lost his media credentials?

Now it starts to get interesting. Correct decision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/22610307

Of course it is the correct decision. A shame it wasn't banned from day one given how obviously it is not a golf stroke. I still think the rule which stated you had to swing at the ball was enough to ban them.

No surprise the man sausage eyed idiots of the republican biased pga can't stand a little bit of extra regulation. I also notice the spoiled little sh1te keegan braddly has thrown a wobbly.

Well Bradley and the others will have to suck it up now won't they? Their position is non-sensical and they know it.

navy ... doesn't it all rather depend on how the tour itself deals with this. Won't the players themselves have to decide whether or not to go with the ban? If the concensus is to comply then surely Clark et al will have to sue the tour itself?

As you say "interesting".

Cue more lawyers getting richer.

Not sure Gael. I don't think any suit against the Tour will get beyond first base myself. Sure, the lawyers will make a load out of it though so I guess they'll be happy enough!
I think if the PGA Tour vote not to implement the ban on anchoring, they're just making a laughing stock of themselves. Not that that means they won't do it though!

The problem will go away eventually regardless of what the PGA does. All golfers start out as amateurs, so they'll learn to putt without anchoring in the next few years. There won't be an anchoring issue by the time they turn pro.

Don't see how the legal challenge has a hope of success, for a number of reasons:

1 - The rules of the game are set by the R& A and USGA. Players are required to abide by these rules, which are subject to change.
2 - There is precedent for changes being applied a few years after the introduction of equipment
3 - Perhaps more significantly, there is precedent for the rules of what constitutes a legal putting stroke being clarified, banning certain methods of play (croquet-style putting)
3 - No-one has the right to make their living as a professional golfer. If you can't cut it playing to the rules as they are currently written, then tough. I'd like to make my riches as a pro player, but am unable to simply through a lack of talent - can I demand a change in the rules to make the game easier (like making the hole 1000000% larger and never more than 10 yards away)?

don't forget dumby-half, this is pro golf we're talking about, where the use of performance enhancing drugs is acceptable, and rules of the game can be overlooked depending on who you are. don't be surprised by any outcome.

navyblueshorts wrote:Not sure Gael. I don't think any suit against the Tour will get beyond first base myself. Sure, the lawyers will make a load out of it though so I guess they'll be happy enough!
I think if the PGA Tour vote not to implement the ban on anchoring, they're just making a laughing stock of themselves. Not that that means they won't do it though!

As fanciful as this may seem, I just wonder if Team Pro USA is just using the anchoring debate as a platform to push for bifurcation?

incontinentia wrote:don't forget dumby-half, this is pro golf we're talking about, where the use of performance enhancing drugs is acceptable, and rules of the game can be overlooked depending on who you are. don't be surprised by any outcome.

Incontinentia

I was making the point regarding the likely legal position, not from a moral position. As others have said, there will be lawyers looking for pro golfers as clients and quite willing to take on the case, but I just don't see them as having any sensible recourse to the law courts in this situation.

Your point above would more be about the anchoring rule being written but then not implemented in a pro event. Be interesting to see what would happen in that situation, especially if it was a relatively big name that chose to flout the rules in a USPGA event.

Can someone please explain this to me;

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2013/5/29/tim-clark-could-find-himself-at-the-center-of-the-biggest-go.html

If he can hold a club to hit a full shot then how can he not hold the putter?

If he needs to he can surely use his normal grip after the anchoring ban comes in?

Would he also like to anchor his driver? his PW?

Should F1 change the rules so Robert Kubica can return? After all he has a real forearm injury.

Mac - no

It seems the PGA Tour is going to implement the anchoring ban after all:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/23139597

Good decision!

Mac - Agree! I could never figure out the Tim Clark, can't hold a putter, argument.

I guess Tim Clark will have to enter every event possible from now until January 2016 to accumulate as much money as possible before he has to retire.

Shotrock wrote:Mac - Agree! I could never figure out the Tim Clark, can't hold a putter, argument.

Totally with you on this, he doesn't anchor his driver so just grip your putter like you driver!!

Seen a few mentions of 9 players who are taking legal advice about the ban... Clark, Scott and Pettersson have been named, anyone know any of the other 6?

What a bunch of desperate whiners. Playing the disability card and legal card. Any legal action will for sure ruin their career. Sponsors and fans will turn the back to them. Be a man and adapt to the new situation. You've got more than 2 years.

I still think this is totally bogus, but then again I've never been an anchorer.

But someone who has, and still is, is Carl Pettersson and he's suggesting any legal fight is not going to happen.
As golfchannel.com reports:
"It's over with and we'll just have to get on with it."
Is there still any potential for some type of lawsuit?
"I don't think so, no. I don't think that would do anybody any good."

Too bad. I was hoping for a dust up.
Still think this is the wrong issue at the wrong time and a bullying act by USGA and R&A who have sat on this for forty years while so many other aspects of the sport have got way out of hand.
Not surprising they're spending a year studying slow play; surprised it's not two years. Or maybe three. Pillocks.

Kwini

If sometime in the next ten years the ball is rolled back will you still feel the same about the anchoring ban (don't call it cheat stick ban or gael will be all over you) or do you agree that at some stage anchoring needed to be banned?

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2013/7/2/oy-vey-pga-tour-players-insist-they-must-be-better-informed.html

Has a PGA tour player ever given the impression that they are not a moron?

What a bunch of narrow minded, pampered and delusional half wits they are.

I couldn't care less if a player uses a snooker cue action to putt with but I do find hit hilarious that they claim they can't adapt to a new technique.
I've changed the way I play loads of golf shots. They've got all day every day to learn.

Mac,
If "they" roll the ball back, this affects everyone equally.
Banning anchoring picks on a small minority who, up until now, have been looked at with blind eye and deaf ear.
I'm not in favour of anchoring as have said a hundred times before; I AM in favour of treating all golfers fairly, especially given the industry that is spawned from professional golf.

And: Joe Ogilvie, Commissioner Elect-elect, is spot on.

The R&A and USGA clearly should have been working in some sort of harmony with the Tours and respective PGA's around the world. As usual they come across as a bunch of arrogant, silver-spooned out-of-touch amateurs - without the guts to address slow play or the issues which make your beloved golf architecture increasingly obsolete.

Anchoring, in contrast, never had a derogatory affect on anyone/anything, except aesthetics.

i see the slow play issue to be the tours at fault not the governing bodies. there are clear stipulations in the rules of golf for slow play and these are simply not followed (except in the case of some amateurs) on tour. slow play in the amateur game is simply a result of tv coverage etc. watching the pro's taking 5 mins to decide what they will do before pulling a club on each shot, has filtered down to amateurs copying the pro's - hence why slow play is so much more of an issue now than in previous decades/eras.

as for length off the tee - i want to see pro's controlling 350 yard drives - because of increased dispersion the further the ball travels greater skill is required. obviously this is tampered back a little by more forgiving new equipment, but where's the fun in seeing pro's hit the ball 250 yards and never missing a fairway as the dispersion level drops significantly. i suspect the argument against the current ball rules will disappear with the generation who are harping back to the good old days! - in 30 years time it'll just be mac fighting in that particular corner.

Recently saw some R&A guidelines on pace of play. Think it was something like 40 or 50 seconds allowable per person to play each shot. Not including getting to the ball and "slow" is deemed to be exceeding that by more than 10% (so 45 seconds on a 40 second shot). Now I think this was for elite amateur events where 3-ball would be the intended maximum group size but I did extrapolate out (sad eh?) for what must occur day in, day out. A 4-ball with an average of 18 handicap each.

Assuming 44 seconds allowable for each and every shot before being deemed "slow" and a 4-ball of 18 handicappers playing to their handicap on a par 72 course (ie 90 shots each). The maximum permissible time (without being pulled for being slow) of 4.4 hours actually "playing" shots BEFORE considering the time it takes to walk round. Assuming it's a 6160 yard course (as that equates to 3.5 miles, which is a reasonable hours walk but does rely on the assumption that everyone hits straight shots and there is no distance from green to next tee!) = a permissible time of 5.4 hours for a lap. (90 shots * 44 seconds *4 players = 15,840 seconds = 264 minutes = 4.4 hours + 1 hour walking at 3.5 mph = 5.4 hours).

This obviously wouldn't work out in the real world (a lot of putts are likely to be tap ins, you are unlikely to get 4 such deliberate players in the same group and I'd say there are almost certainly only very few 18 handicap players like that) but still it sounds like 5hrs 24mins could be presented as being within the guidelines.

Now I'm not the quickest (4 hr 4 ball is fine in my opinion) but if a permitted lap is 5 hrs and 24 minutes I will be giving up the game if I regularly get stuck behind people playing bang on the limit of what the R&A deem permissible. I'm guessing there is no-one on here that thinks a 5 and a half hour lap is acceptable for a 3 ball of pro's in a major round 7300 yards plus green to tee.

Again, I know that's not likely in every day, amateur, club golf (ie us lot for the most part) but does it reflect badly on the state of the game if the governing body puts out guidelines indicating that what (I guess) we all consider to be ball-achingly slow is actually (just) within their guidelines for acceptable pace of play.

Or... Have I missed something fundamental?

Yes I have missed something fundamental. I appear to have stuck it on the anchoring thread!

Ah well.

kwini, as I understand it, there was a pga representative "working in ... harmony" with the USGA.  If he didn't take all the information back to pga tour players then this is hardly the fault of the USGA.  Sour grapes from the anchoring brigade methinks.

Besides which, the anchoring issue has been nothing less than a ticking time-bomb over the last 30 years or so. With these putters moving into mainstream golf viz non-yippers that was the final straw and the governing bodies felt they had to take action.

kwinigolfer wrote:Mac,
If "they" roll the ball back, this affects everyone equally.
Banning anchoring picks on a small minority who, up until now, have been looked at with blind eye and deaf ear.
I'm not in favour of anchoring as have said a hundred times before; I AM in favour of treating all golfers fairly, especially given the industry that is spawned from professional golf.

And: Joe Ogilvie, Commissioner Elect-elect, is spot on.

The R&A and USGA clearly should have been working in some sort of harmony with the Tours and respective PGA's around the world. As usual they come across as a bunch of arrogant, silver-spooned out-of-touch amateurs - without the guts to address slow play or the issues which make your beloved golf architecture increasingly obsolete.

Anchoring, in contrast, never had a derogatory affect on anyone/anything, except aesthetics.

I'd have more sympathy with this argument if the ban had suddenly appeared out of the blue. But anchored putters have been controversial, to say the least, for years... you could check this site, or its BBC predecessor, any time in the past 6 or 7 years, and you'd be almost guaranteed to find a thread where a substantial number of posters were calling for anchored putters to be banned. And that reflected the general view certainly across golf at our sort of level, if not at the professional level - though even in the pro game there were similar calls made from time to time. The guys who have been using anchored putters - Clark, Pettersson et al - would have to have had their heads in the sand to an inconceivable degree, to not be aware that they were using equipment that was at the least controversial, and that there was a decent chance, at some point in the future, of that equipment being banned. And now that day has come, the authorities have been pretty reasonable by not just introducing an immediate ruling, but giving the players in question nearly 3 years to find and adapt to an alternative. Once it was decided to address the issue, I don't really see that the R&A and USGA could have approached it any more sensibly than they have.
I agree to an extent that it's unfair on anchored-putter users, to have been decreed legal for 30 years then suddenly find you're banned; but you can't use previous lack of action as a reason for not taking action now, if you genuinely believe the rules need to be changed. And equally, if you put off the anchored putting issue now, because of "more pressing concerns" such as ball technology or whatever, then you merely make the putter ruling even more controversial when you finally get around to making it. Better making it now, getting it out of the way, and being done with the whole thing; then we can move on to everything else.

And who was this "pga representative" working for?
Presumably not the PGA Of America (altho' they might have been and hence Ted Bishop up first with his acrimonious, confrontational posturing with Dawson), and clearly not the PGA Tour.
If the PGA, the rep was clearly ignored!

Ned,
I pretty much agree with most of that. But why didn't they do anything when Charlie Owens first designed one and started using it on Tour - then Harold The Horse, Torrance, Azinger, Miller, Mediate and the rest is history?

kwinigolfer wrote:

Ned,
I pretty much agree with most of that. But why didn't they do anything when Charlie Owens first designed one and started using it on Tour - then Harold The Horse, Torrance, Azinger, Miller, Mediate and the rest is history?

If I could answer that I would Kwini! Should've been dealt with, one way or the other, years ago. But fact is, it wasn't, so dealing with it now is the best we can ask for.

Ned,
Unfortunately, to some of us at least, it comes across as capricious, calculating, selective, you name it.

What if Woods was an anchorer? Suspect there would be an entirely different course of action.
All rhetorical now, we'll all have our various views on this, now for the devil-in-the-details.

Kwin - Perhaps some different sentiment if Woods anchored, but not by me! (Plus he never needed to go there as so many others had to.)

Glad to see a backbone on this issue, now onto slow play ... eventually ...

Happy 4th to all the Yanks out there!

kwinigolfer wrote:Ned,
Unfortunately, to some of us at least, it comes across as capricious, calculating, selective, you name it.

What if Woods was an anchorer? Suspect there would be an entirely different course of action.
All rhetorical now, we'll all have our various views on this, now for the devil-in-the-details.

Trouble is Kwini that with that attitude, the present-day R&A/USGA (as opposed to the old farts of 30 years ago) are in a lose/lose situation. If they don't do anything, then they get the blame from the next generation for turning a blind eye and ignoring the issue. But when they do decide to act, they still get it in the neck for being opportunistic. I don't really see that you can complain about the suits not taking the initiative 30 years ago, but then have a dig at the current generation for making the decision you think should've been made way back when.

As for Woods, not sure if he alone would've made a difference... in fact, you could argue that if he'd always been an anchorer the change would've been made years ago. Certainly the "4 of the last 6 major winners" stat would've been wheeled out sooner...

The world changed when players started winning major championships using anchored long putters. Up to that point, the R&A was prepared to ignore the fact that it's not a free swing with the arms so that older guys, or guys with yips could continue to play and putt reasonably well.

This is an issue that will be all over by 2020, because there won't be any young players coming through that use anchored strokes.

Kwini

If the R and A were going to consult golfers on what rules changes to make why would that group by the 0.01% that play on a main tour?

It is ludicrous for them to think they have any bearing on the rules the governing bodies wish to implement.

It is a good theoretical first point Mac, one wouldn't focus on discussing with such a small percentage of end users, but to call it ludicrous for them to think they have any bearing is a tad naive.

Take up of golf does to a fairly decent extent depend on inspiration to do so. Like it or not the majority of inspiration will be generated by the best players on the best portrayed tour in the media. Therefore, whilst the PGA Tour may (I've not checked numbers) only be 0.01% of the number of players, it is probably the most influential to the growth of the game globally and worthy of at least some input.

I suspect that they had input but the rules bodies took the view that the opinions did not tip the balance they had on the view of the game as a whole.

I don't think there is any doubt that anchoring helps some players. Adam Scott for example - he couldn't putt it into a coal hole before, and now he contends in majors.