Wednesday
Jan302013
Tim Clark, Lead Anchoring Ban Victim Advocate
Doug Ferguson tells the tale of Tim Clark's apparently impressive appearance at the PGA Tour non-mandatory mandatory player meeting held at Torrey Pines last week.
;)
Geoff Ogilvy had this to say about Clark's questions and comments of USGA officials Mike Davis and Glenn Nager, comments which players generally refused to elaborate to Ferguson about:
"He's been researching this the whole offseason," Ogilvy said. "He basically put his position out there, and probably positions that Mike hadn't thought about or didn't acknowledge as importantly as Tim saw them.
"What Tim did achieve ... whether he had any effect on the USGA position, a big portion of the ambivalent people were on Tim's side when they walked out of the room."
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Reader Comments (28)
Dave C caddie says:
My impression- The PGA Tour will allow the current sets of equipment and current uses (anchoring). One cannot allow a use, for years, and then Dis-allow it. We’re talking about records in the books, real life players earning a living. To redefine a putting stroke after 100 years is foul. I’m not endorsing the anchor style, just sayin’
#2- They will be open to lawsuits, from manufacturers, and then players. Allowing manufacturers to make an implement, and then say its illegal is meat for lawyers.
#3- Here’s a stretch, but Americans w/Disabilities Act may come into play. If a player who clearly has “yips” from years of playing, resulting in neural pathway destruction, who then contends with medical evidence that he can putt and make a living with the long, anchored putter, may be able to argue under the ADA that this would be a “reasonable accomodation”, exactly the type of situation the ADA addresses. Lawyers and scholars knew Casey Martin was going to win, golfers didn’t think he had a chance.
He has a genetic condition that keeps him from turning his forearms and wrists inward. Clark has anchored the long putter to his chest for about as long as anyone has seen him play. Despite the physical limitations -- Clark has never ranked higher than 140th in driving distance -- he has won THE PLAYERS Championship, Australian Open, Scottish Open and twice the South African Open.
There is no doubt that this anchoring ban is a red herring to avoid the issue of long balls.
Anyone?
CM ... where is your proof that the govering bodies are not addressing this issue?
... never mind swing a golf club and hit a solid object with force.
I was thinking ADA way back when too, Collin. But the "reasonable accommodation" part of it only guarantees the ability to perform the work required. Whether you earn a living or not depends on your lifestyle.
They have not banned the long putter-merely refined the definition of stroke.
I think the Tour is going to put together local rules and have a system to allow anchored putters in PGA Tour events. I wonder what the Masters will do?
I'm not a lawyer, I am not sure that Tim Clark would have to go to court, just to Tour HQ. With a persuasive argument.
All they have done is redefine the stroke.Cant see a court upholding an action that says a governing body cant set the rules
point well taken...but why do I get the feeling lawyers are going to be in the middle of this anyway?
you asked "where is your proof that the govering bodies are not addressing this issue?" when I said "There is no doubt that this anchoring ban is a red herring to avoid the issue of long balls."
I didn't suggest they weren't addressing the issue, but they are delaying what they are doing for anchoring:
Get the issue out there, suggest a strategy- in this case a draft rule change, ask for comments from pros, get comments from journalists.
When do you think they will do this for balls? If ever?
-crutch
-pillsbury
-cheater
What else?!?
JFTR, Tim Clark has 1 win that *counts*.
I don't think it's appropriate to compare the anchoring situation with ball length. Quite apart from anything else, one is a rules issue whilst the other, equipment.
With the benefit of hindsight, anchoring ought to have been banned when it first came out. Trouble was, it gave a lifeline to those who suffered from the yips ergo a blind eye was turned. I think it also ought to be remembered that the belly putter came out later by which time anchoring had established itself within the yipping community via the broom handle. It certainly never occurred to anyone back then that anchoring would ever become 'mainstream' so I think criticism of the governing bodies has been unduly harsh. I think if anyone ought to sue, then yippers united should sue Keegan Bradley et al for denying them legal use of the anchoring method post 2016!
In so far as the ball situation is concerned, are they delaying? Delaying what exactly? Haven't the ball and driver thing been maxed out? In any event, what's to stop the pro tours introducing a shorter competition ball of their own volition? Provided it passed muster then surely this decision lies with them and not the governing bodies? Of course, if you're looking for red herrings, then perhaps you ought to be looking in the direction of ball manufacturers who might not like the idea of their product being 'reduced' at elite level.
I don't think it's appropriate to compare the anchoring situation with ball length. Quite apart from anything else, one is a rules issue whilst the other, equipment.
With the benefit of hindsight, anchoring ought to have been banned when it first came out. Trouble was, it gave a lifeline to those who suffered from the yips ergo a blind eye was turned. I think it also ought to be remembered that the belly putter came out later by which time anchoring had established itself within the yipping community via the broom handle. It certainly never occurred to anyone back then that anchoring would ever become 'mainstream' so I think criticism of the governing bodies has been unduly harsh. I think if anyone ought to sue, then yippers united should sue Keegan Bradley et al for denying them legal use of the anchoring method post 2016!
In so far as the ball situation is concerned, are they delaying? Delaying what exactly? Haven't the ball and driver thing been maxed out? In any event, what's to stop the pro tours introducing a shorter competition ball of their own volition? Provided it passed muster then surely this decision lies with them and not the governing bodies? Of course, if you're looking for red herrings, then perhaps you ought to be looking in the direction of ball manufacturers who might not like the idea of their product being 'reduced' at elite level.
I don't think it's appropriate to compare the anchoring situation with ball length. One is a rules issue and the other, equipment. Besides which, look at the brouhaha that’s kicked- off since the anchoring announcement was made.
With the benefit of hindsight, anchoring ought to have been banned when it first came out. Trouble was, it gave a lifeline to those who suffered from the yips ergo a blind eye was turned. I think it also ought to be remembered that the belly putter came out later by which time anchoring had established itself within the hand-challenged community via the broom handle. It certainly never occurred to anyone back then that anchoring would ever become mainstream so I think criticism of the governing bodies has been unduly harsh. I think if anyone ought to sue, then yippers united should sue Keegan Bradley et al for denying them legal use of the anchoring method post 2016!
In so far as the ball situation is concerned, are they delaying? Haven't the ball and driver thing been maxed out? In any event, what's to stop the pro tours introducing a shorter competition ball of their own volition? Provided it passed muster then surely this decision lies with them and not the governing bodies?
Of course, if you're looking for red herrings, then perhaps you ought to look in the direction of ball manufacturers who possibly don’t much like the idea of their product being 'reduced' at elite level.
Mind you, it might be “fun” to watch today’s professionals try to hit a Dunlop Warwick!