Anchoring Ban Continues To Highlight The Distance Issue
I'm beginning to think the anchoring ban was a clever ploy by the governing bodies to unlock previously muted opinions on the distance issue!
Royal and Ancient Golf Club member Michael Bamberger is the latest to note the Old Course changes with little enthusiasm but says "the real problem is that the R&A/USGA have consistently lacked a 'staff futurist' to anticipate how various issues would spiral."
The R&USGA should be focused on how to make courses far shorter and easier to maintain. As modern layouts approach 8,000 yards, maintenance becomes incredibly expensive (a cost that's passed on to golfers), and the courses become excessively punitive and excruciating slow.
So, where to start? Brown, for starters, should truly be the new green. Augusta National, ridiculously verdant, sets a terrible example in this regard.
But where the governing bodies absolutely blew it was by allowing big-headed titanium drivers almost 20 years ago. It's because Dustin Johnson can use modern weaponry to drive the ball 370 yards that the Old Course is getting these pointless renovations.
And add him to the bifurcation camp.
The modern ball, coming off the face of the modern driver, flies way too far for golfers on TV trying to break 60. But it doesn't for us, shooting our newspaper 89s. The solution is two sets of rules. Rory and Co. should have a ball they can call their own. Bifurcation. That's the word they don't want us to use.
"I think it's kind of dumb," said pro golfer Chip Lynn of Lillington. "There's a lot of other stuff that they could ban that affects the game more."
Lynn is a former Fayetteville State golfer who now plays on the Egolf Tour and got through the first round of PGA Tour qualifying this year. He said he tried a belly putter in "six or seven events" this year and found it didn't help him.
"I didn't putt any better," he said. "I don't think the belly putter gives you that much more advantage. I didn't notice anything different. My putts weren't better during the round."
Lynn said technology has affected the game more than anchored putters.
"I agree with Webb Simpson who said there are a lot more things that have affected the game than just the belly putter," he said. "I don't think it's that big of a deal.
"If you're going to change that rule, you probably need to do something about the balls, the driver heads and the technology that has really affected the game instead of the belly putters."
And Adam Scott continued to press his case on this theme Wednesday, asking for some consistency from the governing bodies
Maybe, just maybe, all of this crying out for a distance solution was part of the plan to start with when the anchoring ban came about? I know, they aren't that clever. But the unintended consequences of screwing with the Old Course and moving first on anchoring could ultimately work out in the favor of the governing bodies.
Geoff
**Thanks to reader PMDF6 for this Frank Deford NPR commentary on the same theme. The link includes an audio version of DeFord reading it.
Now understand, modern golfers have kryptonite drivers with club heads as large as prize pumpkins, and steroid balls that would not pass the drug test, even if the hapless International Cycling Union were doing the random sampling.
Golfers are slugging the dimpled rockets so far that all sorts of classic courses have had to be lengthened — even the sacred Old Course at St. Andrews. This is like if baseball bats and balls had been supercharged so much that Bud Selig decreed that now it had to be 100 feet instead of 90 between bases.
But never mind the bazooka transcontinental drives. No. The golf honchos have issues with the little itty-bitty part of the game called putting. If the U.S. Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient were in charge of nuclear proliferation, they would handle things by legislating the size of bayonets.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 12:57 AM 43 Comments | in Belly Putter, Old Course, State of the Game
Reader Comments (43)
But does anybody seriously think it will ever happen?
Would we even go so far as to thank Dawson & Co.?
Now that would be ironic...
Just roll back the ball, how hard can that be? Actually, I would like to hear why I keep hearing that this would open the governing bodies to litigation. Can someone with some law background sum it for me?
Ping sued over grooves.Titleist et al would sue if you tried to change the ball spec-shouldn't be able to but they will.
However, I don't see why bifurcation is such a big problem. Baseball has bifurcation. Metal bats are used all over the college ranks, but the pros can only use wood. Bifurcation doesn't seem to cause any problems there.
It is completely unnecessary. The idea that the tour players are hitting significantly further than good amateur players just isn't true. The rather prosaic fact is distances on tour have gone up only a tiny amount since 2003. Advances in equipment are more or less at a limit, constrained by R&A and USGA rules, and the laws of physics.
"I'm beginning to think the anchoring ban was a clever ploy by the governing bodies to unlock previously muted opinions on the distance issue!"
Brad I too am against bifurcation, notwithstanding my solution for the worlwide angst over the putter-anchoring rule, which is to 'reverse bifurcate' it, banning any anchoring first at the level of junior competitions and then letting the rule follow that generation through junior, collegiate, and amateur levels and only lastly going to the tours where guys are depending on putting to make a living. That way, anchored putting wouldn't be precipitously taken away from anyone and would gradually fade into memory with a new generation. The USGA's stated concern with young players adopting the technique(s) from the beginnings of their competitive careers would be focused exactly where they want it.
As far as legal action versus the USGA for any action to roll back balls: It depends on how the rollback were implemented. The trending popular suspicion is that Acushnet, the leading ball producer and the holder of innumerable patents on multilayer solid core urethane balls, would sue the USGA and (if it adopted the USGA rule) the PGA Tour based upon the same general legal theories as were used in the old case of Gilder v. PGA Tour, a/k/a the Ping Eye 2 grooves case. To wit: The complaint sought injunctive relief and alleged that the actions of the PGA and its directors (1) violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1, 2; (2) violated the Arizona antitrust laws, Ariz.Rev.Stat. 44-1401 et seq.; and (3) interfered with the Karsten's and the professionals' business relationships. There are other business-tort theories that might play as well.
http://openjurist.org/936/f2d/417/gilder-v-pga-tour-inc
Where is the line drawn between the two audiences i.e., is there a set of 'Rules of Professional Golf' and another set of 'Rules for Amateur Golf' or is it 'Rules for Serious Golf' (which could include events such as state amateurs and club championships etc.) and 'Rules for Slap&Tickle Golf' that apply to everything else?
Once you've separated the two audiences, do the current (plus the proposed anchoring ban) Rules apply for one of those audiences or do you propose throwing that set out and starting over for both audiences?
If the dividing line is 'Serious Golf' vs. 'Slap & Tickle Golf' I would, as others have, argue that we already have such bifurcation but without the blessing (and rules authorship of the USGA and R&A). Is that blessing important to the bifurcationistas? If not, then why haven't attempts such as Flogton been given any serious support? Could it be that there really isn't a market for a set of 'Slap & Tickle Rules'?
IMO, being 'for bifurcation' by itself means about as much as being 'for peace.' Neville Chamberlain was 'for peace' but his methods certainly didn't help to achieve that end.
True players are bigger,fitter,stronger and better schooled than ever before and that accounts for quite a bit of the increase.
My problem is that now that courses are being overpowered by today's top pros and ams-and they are-then the top players are not being given a proper examination-bunkers,dog-legs,hazards are not testing the players in the way that they should because they can just blast it past the trouble.Greens that were testing for a long iron are easy peasy when approached by a 9 iron-I cite the Road Hole as a prime example of a hole that has had so much bite taken out of the green that they have had to make the tee shot ridiculous.
Skill and strategy are becoming less important.Players who were exceptionally gifted with the driver or long irons or wedges used to have a distinct advantage over the average-but now you have a massive sweet spot on the driver as well as,hybrids and lob wedges and nearly everyone appears brilliant.
None of my members want a longer harder course-I would bet very few world-wide do(and we are a tournament venue)
We must be the only sport where the venue is altered to suit the equipment/player.
I think a set of tournament regulations for equipment for elite events would be good for the future of the game.
And yes; for whatever reason, everybody who buys golf equipment for the most part wants it to be legal, conforming equipment, whether or not they acutally play by the rules. Even though most recreational players don't religiously follow the rules, it is a marketplace death knell for equipment to be ruled non-conforming.
Andrew: I don't know exactly what you mean by "golf's big players." You seem to assume that Acushnet/Titleist, Augusta National, the USGA, the R&A, the PGA Tour, Ping, TaylorMade adidas Golf, etc., are all part of the same enterprise with the same interests. You might be right; but I am not so sure. What we do know is that so far, the one thing that the ball-regulator (the USGA) and the ball-maker (Titleist) agree on is that they both publicly oppose bifurcation beyond what we already have with things like grooves, and so you are clearly right about that.
Chico had a very important statement:
''I think a set of tournament regulations for equipment for elite events would be good for the future of the game.''
As to 2 sets of rules- come on keep the ROG, but be aware that most of the rounds played do not use this ''sacred cow'' before the group leaves the first tee, as someone ''takes a mulligan''. So let's be honest here when we start getting all uppity about ''not needing a second set of rules'', or ''I'm against Bifurcation''.
Good for you.
Money being spent to accomodate a tiny percentage of golfers.
I think champions should have to prove themselves over a stern test-courses playable with a driver and a short iron won't do that.
I think bifurcation offers a good solution to the problem.
It was done for years in Europe when we had both the 1.62 and 1.68 ball.Pro events and national amateur events opted for the big ball.Club golf was played with the small ball. It worked well!
Only came to an end when the manufacturers whined at having to make two golf balls(sounds familiar!)
Do you have a better solution or do you think there is no problem?
Chico, you make a lot of fair points. Distance gains have been minimal since 2003 though, and by no means all the top players are able to over power courses. If we're wanting to provide good tests for tour players there's a lot courses can do to toughen up their challenge without just adding length.
Ultimately though, the lowest score wins whether 10,20 or 30 under and I think we have to accept progress.
And I just don't think the current generation of players are in anyway less skilled than those of a bygone era e.g. 2012 Major winners Watson, Simpson, Els, McIlroy. Best golfers still come to the top.
Why should we have to spend money toughening courses?
20 or 30 under scores will not have tested the players on many aspects of the game.
Els and McIlroy-yes-two of the best ever I fancy,
I rest my case with the other 2!
I find drive,short iron,drive short iron boring,As I do with way too narrow fairways and silly rough.
But then I'm old-and I bet you aren't?!
Jim
Totally with you that the US Open style set up aiming for a level par winnning total is no fun for anyone. I agree that I wouldn't want to see a Major won at 20 or so under par, but I don't see a problem with 10 to 15 under par totals in Majors.
Lengthening courses just plays into the big hitters hands e.g. McIlroy's 24 under par or so winning total at the 7675yard Earth course.
I think we can make courses trickier though. Valderrama was one of the shorter courses on the European Tour but it infuriated players.
Modern designers should look at holes such as the postage stamp, the 12th at Augusta and many other great holes that have stood the test of time, despite their length.
And Chico you don't rate Watson or Simpson! Have to say I think Bubba's an amazing one-off player-the 2nd shot he hit at the 10th in the playoff at the Masters was like Seve at his best. Webb Simpson's no less a player than many previous US Open winners.
In any event, with a roll backed ball, wouldn't it be the pros who'd stand to lose comparatively more distance than the club golfer? Would the club golfer even notice!?
In the wider world people have to adapt frequently to changing situations so, in the grand scheme of things, I really don't think a rolled back ball is going to hurt the game at club level. Indeed, given the crisis point the game has reached in regard to excessive distances, I rather think the club golfer would be quite happy to support a change even if it did mean losing a few yards.
I agree though that if the ball is to be rolled back, then it should be same for everyone, pros and ams.
Its just that every good young player I meet these days(and through work I meet a lot) thinks that their superior striking is wholly down to their superior skill-I just don't happen to agree!
And no-I think Watson is fortunate to be playing now-he wouldn't have kept it on the planet 25 yrs ago-and I don't really rate Simpson to be honest.
Anyway its lovely in front of the fire-and I'm fed up of typing for now!
No other change is required.
And the rest of us can go on with our everyday lives.
Aside from being the worst "pro" I've ever witness (numerous OBs and muffed shots), on one hole I was on the green and his ball was in my line (he was driving up to the green). I marked his ball and tossed it a few feet to the left of the mark. We putted out as a scramble.
He then went to putt his ball, and as he was putting I noticed my ball mark still on the green....I had forgotten all about it and didn't mention it to him. He was visibly upset (even though he had no chance whatsoever at winning), and none of us could figure out the ruling....he putted from further away, BTW, and two putted from about 15 feet. I looked at the rules of golf on the USGA site, but am even more confused now.
The pro told me that I should have placed the ball a couple inches from the mark, which IMHO would have defeated the entire purpose of marking his ball. When I play with my friends, we mark each others balls all the time.
Also, both pro's (under 30) were using belly putters.
I started playing seriously in about 1987 when I was in my early 30s. I used a persimmon driver and a set of Tommy Armour 845s irons; I used a Titleist DT100 most of the time and a Tour100 "balata" when I felt rich. Played a hilly, difficult course from the blue tees at about 6600 yards. It was all I could handle with a high single-digit handicap. 25 years later I use a Ping i20 driver, 3-wood, and 5-wood and a set of S56 irons; the ball is a Bridgestone B330S. I am now eligible for the Senior Amateur and have come reasonably close in qualifying, with a lower handicap and a probably better golf swing. But because of the longer, trampoline-faced driver with a sweet spot the size of a half-dollar instead of a nickel and a ball that WILL NOT curve into the woods unless I really slice the damn thing, I now play a similar course at 6800 yards with no trouble. Except for the occasional all-world slice off the tee and 3-putt from 10 feet. The reason for this is 80% equipment/20% improvement in technique. I am right on the edge where the modern ball and driver help me. I have been outdoors on a good launch monitor precisely once. It helped. My best drive now stops 290 yards from the tee. 25 years ago that was 265, tops, on hard ground, and only when I caught it right in the screws with a low slinging hook. Imagine what that is like for the Tour Pro. Actually, you don't have to imagine anything. Just watch DJ and Bubba at the high end. Or Luke and Graeme at the low end.
Do I think it's pretty cool that I hit it farther as an old man? Hell, yes! But I also know that what allows me to play the course at 600-700 yards longer than I should also requires the 17th tee on the Old Course to be placed OB. The trade is not worth it.
No doubt the game today compared to 1987 is much easier thanks to the equipment advances, but there's still plenty skill required to play at a low single digit handicap. I've never heard of anyone quit because the game had become too easy.
The point I'm making is that the equipment advances stalled about 10 years ago and, though maybe it's gone a little too far, we are where we are and the game is doing ok. With a bit of thought we don't have to keep lengthening courses either.
And I think it's important pros and ams play to the same equipment rules.
I'd ban them too! (lol)
Every pro knows exactly how far he hits each club, and surely the fastidious ones would have recorded their yardages year on year over the last decade or two. Is there any way we could get hold of some of these numbers? That'd be some interesting reading.
And I'm anti-bifurcation (as in the pro-only ball). Just change the one we have as the penalty is proportionally less severe the shorter one hits the ball.
Can we just be a bit more realistic on the distances the average tour guy hits though? They don't hit 3 woods 300yards or 8 irons 180! Some do, but most don't except on bouncy fairways, downwind e.t.c.
How far do they hit through the air, no wind, no slope? That's the only measure. I'm swinging driver around 110mph, which plenty of guys on tour are doing, and I'll carry driver 255yards, 3 wood 230, 8 iron 160-that's all. What Bubba Watson, DJ e.t.c. do is different to be fair, but this is pretty close to the reality for the Furyks, Strickers, Donalds.
If one only uses their eyes, it becomes obvious that the ball.drive is going further over the last 10 years.
I guess some would call for another ''study'' too bad-- they eyes don't lie, but hey.
most important?
Those (less than) 1% guys need to be rolled back to save the game.
Need to tax the 1% more in the USA to get that 2 weeks of government cost. Yup that will fix it.