3rd Annual Golf Channel State Of The Game Highlights
In a bold move toward sustainability, the Golf Channel abandoned 2012's Southwestern pottery motif and 2011's bocce balls, instead buying up the stock of a local succulent nursery for the third annual "State of Tiger's Game" discussion. With concise chats about Rory's problematic equipment change and Tiger's quest to catch Jack, the discussion moved to the hot button topics of anchoring and bifurcation.
;)
Photo: Mike MooreThe governing bodies might want to bottle some of this transcript. Dan Hicks asked Johnny Miller and he made a totally different case than he did in this week's conference call. This time, he confirmed that anchoring is in indeed an advantage for some:
There's no doubt about how The PGA of America feels about this. My question to you, Johnny: Is there any kind of scenario that you can envision, the USGA backing off this stance? It would be pretty remarkable if they did. It do you see anything like that happening?
JOHNNY MILLER: Well, it's going to be awkward for them if the TOUR decides to allow it, isn't it. It's going to be really awkward.
The belly putter and the anchored putter, does really three things for a player. The upper hand keeps the face from opening, twisting. Also with it anchored, it keeps you from going like that and pushing it and like that and pulling it. And then anchoring here gives you a perfect swing plane.
So it actually does three things for you, that when your putter is normal like this, you can do all three things wrong, and when you're anchored, it eliminates those three. So if a kid starts really young and he's got a lot of talent like a Rory or a Tiger, it probably is an advantage.
But in the spirit of game, I was the first guy to win with a putter up the arm, which is going to be legal if they keep it the way it is now. I did feel like it was not in the spirit of the game. I felt like I was sort of ‑‑ I probably shouldn't have been doing it even though it was legal. And these guys are even anchoring, and I used to just put it up the arm.
I think the game is bigger than all of this. The game is bigger, either way it goes the game is bigger.
Which I believe translates to, it should be banned and the game will move right along. Sir Nick?
SIR NICK FALDO: That's what I thought and you go back to history and it's called a golf swing, it's not called a golf hinge, or you know, so I agree with all of that.
And I thought the R&A wrote it up really well. I thought, how are we going to get this clear to us, and in 20 words they basically said you could not anchor it or hinge it. I thought they did a great job on that.
Now as time has gone by in these couple of weeks or couple of months, and we look at what's been happening over the last ‑‑ guys have been using this for 30 years. And then Keegan Bradley then Tweets the picture I then saw from the clubhouse at Riviera of a gentleman back in about 1929 with the thing anchored there (indicating touching upper chest). So, wow.
I would like us to stick with the true traditions of the game, because it's called a golf swing and that is part of the uniqueness and the skill of this game. But I can fully see that ‑‑ how, you know, as we are saying, youngsters come out of college and they put this ‑‑ they see it in the pro shop and off they go, they have never tried anything else.Now I may have softened a little bit. The one I do look at is this, fellas, it looks you ugly to me, it doesn't look like a golf swing, we are going like this. It doesn't look like a golf swing at all.
So if they are going to soften a little bit, maybe the belly ‑‑ then that's a compromise, and I don't think we are ever in this game to compromise the rules.
So we'll put Nick down as supporting the ban, too.
;)
Brandel Chamblee...
People that say the USGA didn't present a good enough case to say that it was, in fact, an aid. All you need to do is look at before and after of Orville Moody, who was, God bless him, a great ball‑striker and a marvelous guy, but maybe the worst the putter that ever played golf for a living. And then he led the Champions Tour in putting.
All you need to do is look at Adam Scott's history at Augusta National. He never averaged under 28 putts until he put the long putter in the bag, and he did; and he finished second. He played in 40 majors without a long putter and he's had four Top‑10s. And he's played in eight since he put the long putter in the bag, and he's had four Top 10s since then and two second place finishes.
And just even look further at who switches to it. Nobody is switching from a long putter to go from good to great. They are looking at it to go from horrible to average.
So I think the USGA if they needed to go further, they could hire an engineer, to build, to Johnny's point, to build something with multiple hinges to sort of duplicate how complicated it is with all those multiple hinges versus just one hinge. It is far easier. It should not be allowed at the professional level.
Won't it be awkard if the PGA Tour goes against the ban and you have three top commentators so vocally and eloquently calling out the anchoring method?
I wasn't sure where Nobilo stood to be honest, but here's what he said:
So I think most people agree, that this was wrong 30 or 40 years ago; that they should have done something about it and they didn't. So here we are 2013, and we have an opportunity, especially the professionals of today, to be remembered for more than guys just playing in this great age where they are playing for a lot of money. They can be remembered, their legacy can be: They put the game back on track.
Then the discussion turned to bifurcation of the rules and Dan Hicks tried his best to figure out where Johnny and Nick stood, but the man can only do so much...
What are your feelings on two separate groups of rules for amateurs and professionals now?
SIR NICK FALDO: I agree with Frank. If somebody came down from space and looked and said, this is our ‑‑ and we presented this is our game of golf, and we have got this amazing history we go back from 1860 from when the first Open Championship was played and Tom Morris and all those boys and where we are now. I think we are all so proud of our game and would like to be the custodians and look after it and pass it on in the spirit of how it really was, not spirit is not the right word; in the way it was deemed to be played.
DAN HICKS: So we go by the same rules?
SIR NICK FALDO: I would have thought so.
We had a really good case for ‑‑ with Gary McCord and Peter Kostis a couple weeks ago, and Finchie and David Feherty, and they were all very much leading their case.
It's a mess. The bottom line is it's a mess. They have got themselves in a real mess of a situation.
DAN HICKS: Johnny, what about you on bifurcation? It's a sensitive, very sensitive subject.
JOHNNY MILLER: Sort of like changing the Constitution, one state, like Texas or something, you know.
DAN HICKS: Other sports have different rules, there's the aluminum bats in college baseball.
SIR NICK FALDO: Same shaft, same swing.
DAN HICKS: Isn't that something special about the game of golf, that you compete with somebody, share a USGA handicap and then go about it in kind of the same fashion. You think you're kind of playing with a professional in the same kind of level.
SIR NICK FALDO: A good old Pro‑Am. You have one guy doing this and an amateur can't do that.
DAN HICKS: That's the mess you're talking about.
JOHNNY MILLER: What about the majors? You have The PGA of America saying, we would like to be able to do whatever you want with the long putter, and the USGA and R&A decide not to do it, you are playing majors and ‑‑
SIR NICK FALDO: The amateur, can all do whatever he likes, and then professional do whatever he likes, and the amateur has to play by the rules. And that means men then the major would have to overrule it, say, because we are open to amateurs and professionals. Well, we are going to have to make our own ruling for the week.
Okay, well back to the coherence world, Brandel makes his case.
People say that the best thing about golf is it's governed by one set of rules. That's an opinion. It's not a fact.
The fact is that golf is flat. Growth is flat. The fact is that golf is too expensive, takes too long. It's too elitist and it's too complicated. If in one foul swoop, if you add bifurcation at the professional level, you could roll golf equipment back and you could roll the core back, the Coefficient of Restitution. You could roll it back and you could disallow the anchored putter.
You could allow all those things at the amateur level. You could shrink golf courses back to two decades ago. You make golf cheaper, you make it faster, and I promise you, nobody quits golf because two different sets of rules govern it.
Nobilo then dared to suggest the topic no one wants to touch, that the equipment manufacturers have not made the game more accessible or affordable, so why should bifurcation change that?
It basically supports the theory that we have let manufacturers take the game to a different level. That's the thing. Manufacturers used to make incredible equipment. I think the late Carlson Simon (ph) did a great job for the average player to bring the price of equipment down and make sure the average amateur was fitted like the best pro but it's just taken off to a new level.
That's why it has become more expensive but personally I believe that's more of a public golf discussion; that we should have more public golf courses but that's totally different.
Maybe we'll get to that next year! I'm sparing my readers of the Vijay discussion. Because I'm a nice guy.
Saturday, February 23, 2013 at 08:55 AM
Reader Comments (31)
I'll tell you about the VJ--- it was said that Finchem would have been all over it if someone showed up to play wearing shorts. Pretty well sums up the PGAT- all style and no substance--or in this case no substance penalty.
These guys apparently don't know the difference between the PGA of America and the PGA Tour.
Seems odd.
- today we like Johnny.
- today Johnny is eloquent.
Tomorrow, that's for another time ;0)
This really is getting interesting!
I mean there's no doubt that Finchem is going to come out on Sunday and say "we will not play that rule"...right? Then what?
Today is the 23rd, when will the USGA and R&A respond?
The According to the R&A website "anyone wishing to submit comments or suggestions is encouraged to do so by 28 February, 2013 (and) the R&A anticipates taking final action on the proposed Rule in spring 2013."
That's pretty open ended...
I was having a little trouble figuring out whether this was Carly Simon or Karsten Solheim, but I googled Carly and she's still alive so it must be Karsten. But, like Carly, I haven't got time for the pain in worrying about this group of pundits.
And isn't a big part of the internal conflict, the fact that television broadcasters are dependent on their sponsors, and their sponsors have an interest in equipment rules? Not to mention that many of the commentators are paid spokesmen for equipment manufacturers.
And Johnny, for what it's worth, wasn't making much more sense in this case than in other cases. He looked a bit like a gargoyle, hunched into a crouch next to Sir Nick.
Geoff Shackelford is making 1000% more sense than any of those guys, and he is doing it daily.
The panel actually did a lot better with their discussion of Vijay than they did with equipment. And that actually doesn't surprise me.
Which brings up another horse that the USGA allowed to quickly gallop out of the barn unnoticed. Until it was too late.
But then, we hear that anchored putting is critical to some players (recreational players as well as elite players) being able to play at all. That players need anchored putting, or they'll quit the game.
Which is it? Is anchored putting advantageous, or not? Does it make putting easier, or not? Does it make putting easier for some people? If the answer is, "It makes putting easier for some people," is that an acceptable answer for this debate?
Seriously? You have a 46 inch driver. Your opponent uses a 50 inch broomstick putter. On that once-a-round drop both you and he take, you're actually saying that his 4-inch difference is an ADVANTAGE that makes you feel "cheated?"
And anytime I play against a guy who's so convinced that he'll be dropping enough times in a round that he NEEDS that 7-foot "club," I'll take that match any day. 1) He's at a disadvantage with only 13 clubs and 2) he's so wild that he knows he'll be dropping from trouble all day. Line'em up!
COR, not "core"
Karsten Solheim, not "Carlson Simon"
Can't they sort this out? I can do the transcripts for them if they send me the audio.
I wasn't sure if "foul swoop" was comedy, but now I'm going with your explanation, transcript error.
I like Tim Clark a lot, and know he's built his career on Tour around the long putter. However I have to ask: If he's able to grip and freely swing a wedge, how is it that he's somehow incapable of putting without anchoring? Maybe there's a simple answer - I honestly have no idea and can't seem to figure it out.
He says that if they ban his method he will stop playing in tournaments-including his member-guest. His explanation is that he HATES the feeling he gets over short, tournament putts with a short putter. He never really missed many of them, but the emotional stress makes playing no fun. Since he started using the broomstick, his index has shown no change... so it's hard to show that he's putting better.
We've talked about it enough that I'm pretty sure he'll follow through with giving up formal competition. The real decision will be the rest of his golf. He never, ever plays without some kind of game going on, so unless his buddies let him use the long putter he'll be using a short one. Making those putts for a few bucks might not cause the stress to rise above the comfort level, however.
K
But wouldn't this be simple to simply make it a condition of competition rule?
The USGA could impose the rule in its' tournaments
The PGA TOUR could say no.
Clubs, tournaments, local/state organizations could use/not use. Done
Too simple, and it would still allow those who love to belittle tour pros plenty of ammo
Reporter: So why can't you go to a regular putter.
Player: Because I can't putt with it.
Duh!
Clark and the rest ought to be damn thankful they were allowed to get away with using those things as long as they did.
But instead, they want more.
If the PGA tour is worried about taking away their members ability to perform...would they also resist any attempts at reducing the ball? After all it, that would have a much bigger effect on the ability for certain players to excel.
ROG changes ave drastically had effects on players bread and butter for years...what of the player who relied on he stymie? As I long ago said, what of the Crenshaw grip bring outlawed....what of ll those penalty strokes for a ball moving on the green, which is now no penalty...are lawsuits lining up over lost income from these changes?
Rules change, rules that have been in use for decades. When Bobby Jons played, the god of so many for some reason I don't get, he could use as many clubs as he wanted, no limit...I want that back...I wat 17 clubs in my bag.... waaaaaa! (fake crying for effect)
To Clark I say show me...who the F has their palms facing forward wen putting? I t wasn't an impassioned speech--it was a buch of bullshit.he should be a politician, because the reporters and apparently the othr pros just takwe him at his word, and don't even bother with the facts...... and if I am wrong, I humbly apologize.
As with EVERYTHING I say online, i never say anythng I would not say to the person's face. I do not hide behind anonimity if someone want to call me out face to face,
I have no problem with that.
Sorry for the usual typos, much to the delight of KLG
And remember, the USGA/R&A proposal doesn't ban belly putters and long putters, it bans the anchoring of the putters against a player's body. I don't think the USGA did a good job in presenting that difference.
I am very conservative, did not vote for Bush or McCain though.
I'm against the anchoring ban. I'm against bifurcation. I would be for an across the board roll back in distance
Care to discuss without turning it violent?
Played with him. Because of his condition, he has to force his elbows and arms into an awkward
position to make a swing. At times, he hits it sideways. His swing is made with a lot of tension at address.
When he gets in synch, he hits it stupid accurate though.
The awkward set up he must make, has also help create a few serious injuries due to the stress of his motion.
Walk a mile
And that is why I am mystified by the notion that the Rules of Golf need to be contorted for recreational players who merely wink at the rules.
Let's keep the Rules of Golf a serious proposition for those who play the game seriously.
Why worry about complicated rules appendices, bifurcation, etc., for people who don't putt out, and who don't care (and sometimes don't even know) about the most basic rules like stroke-and-distance for a lost ball? People who want to play casually, and who aren't already following the Rules ought not to be telling the USGA about how to go about the task of rule-making.
If we were really concerned about the game of golf being too hard and too imposing for recreational players, we could do much more to make golf courses easier, shorter, faster, easier to walk (more exercise, less cart fees) and most of all cheaper. But instead, we keep worrying about a game dominated by expensive high-technology equipment, longer courses with GPS-equipped golf carts, etc.
Steve, I think most recreational golfers really do like the idea of one set of rules, so that they can think about playing the same game as the elite players at the highest level. And so that is why it is important to make the game sensible for those elite players. Recreational players can take or leave those rules, and that's okay. It's what they've been doing all along.
Now, I realize that this viewpoint runs counter in principle to my proposal for a "reverse bifurcation" as to anchored putting. (My proposal to ban anchored putting now, in junior competitions and expanding the ban up through competitive amateur ranks in subsequent years and finally to the professional ranks in future years. And in so doing, eliminate any future "reliance" on anchored putting.) My compromise -- and it is very much of a compromise -- is a temporary complication in the rules. But it avoids most of the argument against the anchoring ban (some tour players saying that their incomes in millions of dollars are dependent on a previously-legal mathod), giving the USGA time to figure out how to apply the rule in lower-level competitions, and giving the tour professionals time to find an alternative game plan. And we will have, in a relatively short space of time, freed ourselves from a generation of golfers who rely on anchored putting.