FYI: If The PGA Tour Rejects Anchoring Ban, Those Pesky "Other Issues" In Game Won't Get Dealt With Either
Since late November, I've been thrilled to read the nearly universal reaction to the USGA and R&A's proposed anchoring ban: really, aren't there bigger issues like the distance explosion and its side effects to deal with?
Shoot, the USGA's Mike Davis even predicted in 2011 would be the reaction if such a ban was ever put in place.
So when I read Rex Hoggard's report on the Player Advisory Council conference call Monday in which one member says "everybody" on the call was against the ban--a point PAC member Joe Ogilvie Tweeted was a false statement by Hoggard's source--this next quote from the source just amazed me.
“He gave everybody a chance to say their opinion,” the PAC member said. “The best point one guy made was there are a lot of other issues than this one to be concerned with.”
That's right, and do these men understand a rejection of the anchoring ban would neuter the governing bodies and virtually gurantee that any discussion of those "other issues" is off the table?
FYI for those of you wondering, here is the 16-member PAC for 2013:
2013 Player Advisory Council
Aaron Baddeley* (Scottsdale, Ariz.)
Jason Bohn (Acworth, Ga.)
Andres Gonzales* (Olympia, Wash.)
Jeff Gove (San Marcos, Calif.)
Charley Hoffman (Las Vegas, Nev.)
Doug LaBelle II* (Scottsdale, Ariz.)
Scott Langley* (Jupiter, Fla.)
Davis Love III (Sea Island, Ga.)
Joe Ogilvie (Austin, Texas)
Geoff Ogilvy (Scottsdale, Ariz.)
Ryan Palmer* (Colleyville, Texas)
Webb Simpson (Charlotte, N.C.)
Brendan Steele* (Irvine, Calif.)
Kevin Streelman (Scottsdale, Ariz.)
Bo Van Pelt (Tulsa, Okla.)
Mark Wilson (Elmhurst, Ill.)
*Indicates first-time PAC member
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Reader Comments (45)
Did I have that right?
......
Now WTF is wrong with that. If anything lit should be the other way round. They should be ashamed of themselves!
Great list of champion golfers.
I wonder how Webb Simpson voted......
I certainly agree. My point, I guess, is that although it is "their" Tour it seems somewhat nonsensical to have players voting on a measure like this.
Rid golf of the word "fulcrum"
Why would the players care about the usga? They are much bigger than the usga.
And what if Augusta declared the masters would be conducted with a rolled back masters ball?
Additionally, nothing against these guys, but where is TW, PM, and some of the pillars of the tour? This group is only a step or 2 more powerful than the PGAQ wives, thru no fault of their own. I'm sorry guys, if you read this.
If the 80% voted ''for keeping the anchoring'', as was reported, it tells me that may first statement is totally accurate.
Thanks.
The conclusion, don't shoot the PAC Board, they are only reflecting the majority opinion of PGA Tour membership collectively.
(by all accounts 'against' ban is 80%+, those 'for' the ban less than 20%)
The Policy Board comes out of the PAC to work with independent (business) directors and
one PGA of America representative to decide the direction of the Tour. They focus on the BUSINESS of
the tour.
There are players against the ban, and players for the ban. There are also a lot players trying to figure out why the
USGA/RA waited decades to address a style of putting that they don't like the look of.
There were at least 10 rules book revisions since players in highly competitive golf anchored putters in some way, and the USGA allowed it. Now there are players who have developed their competitive games around a method that the USGA allowed. Some of those players have seen great success, and could now be told to relearn a way to putt, the most important part of the game.
For the guys that have spent most of their professional life developing this style (Peterson, Clarke) it would be akin to telling them to
putt left handed.
Should anchoring be banned? If yes, it should have been when first introduced. It was allowed, two wrongs do not justify the decision IMO
Didn't he European Tour start that local rule years ago?
The Masters is run by Augusta GC
US Open is run by the USGA
The Open is run by the R&A
and The PGA Championship is run by the US PGA
Just a thought.....
The Indy car drivers, and primarly the owner of the Indianapolis race track wanted something different than the governing body was offering in the rules-- it doesn't matter what---it involved tech info and more, not unlike anchoring or not--- the best drivers went a different way, and 2 sanctioning bodies and 2 sets of races were formed -the Indy Racing League, and CART, and neither has ever had the crowds they once had, in spite of attempts to bring it all back together-- honestly all the details are very fuzzy, because, I lost interest, and I made my living as a manufacturer's rep for racing products.
But I can tell you this- the largest single day sporting event was the Indy 500, and the SECOND LARGEST SINGLE DAY SPORTING EVENT was the last day of qualifying--over 500,000 on race day, and over A QUARTER OF A MILLION- THAT'S 250,000! on the last day of qualifying---
now you can walk up and buy ticket on race day, it is not sold out, and you can sit anywhere you want on Q day-- there are only a few thousand there.
So PGA members--you are about to screw the pooch, and I told you so, right here, today; so DON'T DO IT.
Everyone will get inside the ropes in 20 years, because there won't be ay, and those 30 thousand dollar winner checks will be cherished toward the year money winner, bringing home 345 thousand, as watched on the Golf, Horseshoe and Washers Channel, with longtime host Gary ''Ringer'' Williams.
Great point!! Will be interesting to see players who anchor have to use a non-anchored stroke in The Open and the US Open (and hopefully the Masters) or not play. The PGA will let them anchor. Will be interesting. I hope the USGA and the R&A stick to their plan. That alone could force players who actually could win a major leave anchoring. We'll see who the golfers are and the ones who just love the money.
Interesting that Frank Hannigan's letter on bifurcation said this:
**In point of fact, the rules-making process is remarkably democratic. There are 5 members of the committee proper drawn from the USGA executive committee. They have no axes to grind. They are influenced and to some extent educated by the USGA staff. Additionally, there are 4 advisory members representing the PGA Tour, the LPGA, the PGA of America and the country's regional golf associations. They matter. I can't conceive of the 5 regular members shoving a rules change down the throats of the advisory people.**
So, now we have the PGA of America, and possibly the PGA Tour, against anchoring. Where do the LPGA and the "regional golf associations" representative shake out on the situation?
The "banners" and "broomers" are firmly planted, no one has made an original argument for or against in the last 6 months. I do find the Tour PAC issue this week pretty interesting.
Question: does anyone think that Y.E. Yang coud have hit that shot at Hazeltine with a blade 2 or 3 iron? Hybrids have done way more to make the game "eaiser" than any style of putting has, or could, ever.
Point taken on the hybrid. Yang would probably have not gotten so close.
But isn't putting probably the most important aspect to the game where nerves probably have the greatest impact? Missing one putt within 5 feet a round means finishing well down vs winning. Hitting a hybrid to 10 feet rather than 30 feet probably doesn't have as great an impact. Imagine Adam Scott down the stretch of the Open using a conventional putter. His nerves were affected with anchoring which suggests they were pretty bad (imo). Look at Els' stroke with the short putter at Innisbrook vs at The Open. My gut says neither Els or Scott would have bee near the lead at The Open with a free flowing stroke. Is that fair or right? Not in my book. Why not allow aids to help pendulum the stroke at some point? Anchoring is not automatically the panacea but personally I believe it aids especially under pressure. And that is what matters to me. The game should be won by the best physical and mental player and I just feel like anchoring reduces the mental aspect (nerves).
Chico, why are you and Digger now using cap's?
important facts
I think Scott's stroke at the last is a perfect example of the ineffectiveness of the long putter. That was a horrendous effort, low and weak the whole way. He wouldn't, or couldn't have made a worse stroke with a 34" Bullseye.
To me, and truthfully, I don't use one, but if someone wants to I say let 'em. I've said this before, the Belly especially, looks virtually the same unless you are directly in front of the player. So the aesthetic argument is a little off there. And if aesthetics are the barometer, does anyone think Hunter Mahan's swing looks like Nelson's? Did Nelson's look like Hagen or Jones? Advances in equipment and ideas will lead to new methods in all sports (Fosbury) Now, Sam Torrance and the chin, or most long putters I would agree look a little less traditional. But that's not my point here.
It just seems like the tone by some, not all, some of the "Banners" is a little too passionate (with a little condescension tossed in there) for such a small issue.
*460cc drivers, do make tee shots easier, more forgiving - this reduces the need for precision and reduces the effects of nerves.
*perimeter weighted irons, hybrids, 60+ wedges - all make the game MUCH MUCH easier.
*Caddies lining a player up looks sillly too, did you see Charlie Beljan, or the LPGA. Come on! Line up your own putts.