First Reactions To PGA Tour's Anchoring Opposition
Doug Ferguson's AP story says Commissioner Tim "Finchem threw a big wrinkle into the plan to outlaw the anchored putting stroke."
Bob Harig called the tour's opposition to the anchoring ban "stunning, really" and wonders how the minority is getting their way over the majority.
Forget the arguments being made that anchored putters are not a cure for putting ills, or that they've been allowed for 40 years and it's too late to change, or that putting-challenged amateurs don't need another reason to quit the game.
And don't go down the road that the game has bigger problems than how players putt.
The rules makers had a simple reason for proposing the change.
"Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball," said Mike Davis, the executive director of the United States Golf Association, when the proposed change was announced.
"The player's challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club."
And, because the rule would not go into effect until the next rules cycle takes place in 2016, players who anchor would have three years to get used to the new rule.
Randall Mell says the tour's move has put the game into "showdown mode" and says we should not be mistaken by the high profile way Finchem went about the announcement.
For those of you who think the PGA Tour’s posturing, maybe so, but Finchem went out of his way to make the PGA Tour’s opposition about as public as you could make it. He revealed the Tour’s opinion Sunday in a news conference during the finals of the WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship. And then he went on the NBC telecast and explained the Tour’s position.
Would Finchem go that far in stating the Tour’s opposition if it intends to acquiesce? Why make such a strong public stance then?
Charles Happell recalls his "uneasy feeling" about Tim Finchem dating to the 1998 Presidents Cup and felt today was inevitable given the Commissioner's thirst for power.
All in all, a very disappointing day for golf and one in which Tim Finchem revealed his true colours: a politician at heart who was happy to make a decision that had nothing to do with the health of the game and everything to do with expedience.
The Golf Channel/NBC gang's views, as selected by their PR department:
On PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem’s Announcement on the PGA TOUR’s Opposition on the Proposed Anchored Putter Ban
Brandel Chamblee: “I think this was a message from the PGA TOUR to the USGA to go find out and give them some definitive data that this is in fact, an aid. To the USGA’s response today, I would say that 14-1B, where was that two or three decades ago? If that always has been their position to define the stroke, they have had opportunity to talk and pass judgment on the anchored stroke. In the PGA TOUR’s eyes, they have missed the window. So, they need to do their homework.”
Frank Nobilo: “This isn’t just the USGA and the PGA TOUR. We might want to think that it is, but it also involves the R&A. Already the British PGA has decided to agree with the R&A and support that decision. If the European Tour follows suit, you would have the Open Championship which would have non-anchoring. If the Masters agrees with that, then you would have non-anchoring at the Masters and you would have non-anchoring if the USGA goes ahead with it at the U.S. Open. We are playing Russian Roulette with the game.”
Mark Rolfing: “I’m not in favor of the anchored stroke but I understand the PGA TOUR’s position. I hope we get this over with quickly. The more we talk about it, the more divided we might get and that is not good for the game.”
Peter Jacobsen: “I agree 100 percent with Tim. I am against the proposed anchoring ban. I don’t use the long putter, I never have and I probably never will. I putt better with the short putter. However, I was very happy to hear the TOUR’s position.”
Gary Koch: “This is not a surprise from what we were hearing from the players. That seemed to be their sentiment the TOUR was going to present to the USGA.”
Roger Maltbie: “I understand the TOUR’s frustration regarding the length of time the USGA has taken to introduce this proposed ruling. It is in the interest of the PGA TOUR and the PGA of America that more people enjoy golf and grow the game of golf. It is this time factor that has led to the frustration by many.”
Geoff
**Mike Stachura noted in GolfDigestix that GolfDatatech's survey found 5% of golfers were anchorers. For what it's worth, the Datatech survey was the most scientific one conducted and made public.
From golf.com's PGA Tour Confidential...
Mike Walker, senior editor, Golf Magazine: The anchored putter debate has turned into a power struggle over who controls the game. The USGA and R&A should call the PGA Tour's bluff: some players might complain, but the Tour will abide by the ban. Tim Finchem will never allow a situation where his players could be called cheats. Incidentally, this whole situation is not helping golf dispel its image as a game for doddering twits.
Alan Shipnuck, senior writer, Sports Illustrated: It's a sad day. The blue coats have made mistakes but their motivation has always been to protect the game. All Finchem cares about is protecting the Porsche money of a couple dozen yippy journeymen. This is a troubling precedent and, much like the Citizens United court decision, its ugly impact will only become more obvious over time.
John Hawkins on the mess this has made:
At the end of the day, you do what’s best for you. The Tour is opposed to bifurcation but doesn’t support the anchoring ban. Translation: It just tossed the matter back to the USGA/R&A in the form of a grenade.
Now what? If you’re the USGA, you have to think long and hard about imposing the ban at the recreational level only, which couldn’t have been what was intended. That would suffice as an admission that the USGA doesn’t hold any official jurisdiction over pro golf and compromise the original ideal, but it could also force Finchem into the rule-making business he doesn’t want to enter.
My Golf World Monday item on Tim Finchem's press appearances Sunday.
Sunday, February 24, 2013 at 10:17 PM 75 Comments | in 2013 PGA Tour, Belly Putter, PGA Tour, R&A, Tim Finchem, USGA
Reader Comments (75)
Finchem says 1/5 golfers anchor, strange---not in north Texas, not even close
ugly ugly hubris Finchem
Is Finchem on the record anywhere about his personal opinion on anchoring?
Keegan... maybe, but how does Webb appeal to the desired demographic? He's a mellow guy that not many people know about. Even after winning a major he doesn't have much of a following. I would say Adam Scott, who also uses a long putter, is far more marketable than Webb.
Most of the PGA Tour stars do not use a long putter -- Tiger, Phil, Rory, Bubba, Fowler, Sergio, Dustin, etc. Keegan and Scott are the only really famous ones who use one.
High school classmates of Haspell should beware at reunions. Charles doesn't forget a slight.
Seems to me that by coming out against the governing bodies Finchem is trying to create such a stushie between now and 2016 that the governing bodies will be forced to back down. Personally, I regard it as a massive own goal and wouldn't be at all surprised if his precious marquee players were subjected to a bit of heckling from the fans between now and then.
As stated above, the governing bodies must hold firm on this as a point of principle.
Anchoring is ugly too.
I hope that R&A and USGA have the gonads to stand strong.
The less skilled (eg: the NON-pay for play crowd only)have no reason to feel shame using an aid on the course, so anchoring should be allowed (or tolerated) for 99.9% of golfers.
The best and the...err, not brightest since we're talking about golfers here...but rather the most talented (eg: the pay-for-play types) should be expected to be able to control BOTH ends of the stick vs only the one end/part. Crutches are suitable for rehabbing injuries and perhaps Charlie Owens but that's about it folks. As a compromise, broomsticks may be used, but they have to be at least as long as an average floor mop from the local Wal-Mart and must be anchored on the forehead...Indian poker style.
Seriously speaking...was there a vote among PGAT members concerning "yea" or "nea" with siding with the USGA? That might've been the easiest way to settle the issue...a closed/annonymous ballot with only the results being released. After all, Tim speaks for the players doesn't he? So let them speak wolle!!!
If there is no advantage then why would anyone use such an unorthodox putter? I will never be a fan of anyone using the anchored putter.
Finchem says for the good of amateurs? Really? My wife and I have a four course membership and play a lot of other courses and have never seen one in use on any of the courses. Seems with age that a normal putter would become the only club I would eventually be able to physically use.
If putting is a players weakness, sorry about that. It is part of the game. What about guys like Corey Pavin who never could drive 300yds. Give him some advantage for that? An illegal driver or ball? What about someone who just can't drive straight? Allow them to use Vaseline on the clubface?
Anchored players play slower to a man, reason enough to ban anchoring.
Nice visit to Golf Central today Geoff, very tempered.
BTW, statistically there is no way to "prove a benefit to anchoring as one cannot re-create play conditins to satisfy scientific method.
Only problem is that the RandA and USGA bodies waited so long. Just DO it already. I'd like to see the Masters announce that anchoring is banned immediately. That would get the job done.
SAME THING!
PGA players have their golf game in mind instead of the game of golf. Els was against the ban until he found out how much better he was with an anchor.
1. Matt Kuchar, $1.5 million
2. Hunter Mahan, $875,000
3. Jason Day, $615,000
4. Ian Poulter, $500,000
5-8. Steve Stricker, Webb Simpson, Robert Garrigus, Graeme McDowell, $275,000
9-16. Shane Lowry, Bubba Watson, Fredrik Jacobsen, Nicolas Colsaerts, Gonzalo Fernandez-Castano, Martin Kaymer, Scott Piercy, Tim Clark, $144,000
17-32. Second round losers, $96,000
33-64. First round losers, $46,000
That's a total of $8,750,000 in prize money for 64 players...just in case anybody cares.
Deep down I wonder what Finchem's personal opinion really is.
johnny, what do think of Jimmy Ballard's teaching ideas?
No grandfathering of current players. (that would be a complete joke)
Can't see any other outcome.
whether its wooden bats, two feet in bounds on catch, farther three-point line, etc
this is equivalent to letting guys who stink at shooting free throws stand a little closer to the basket as pros.
and, guess what, they still cannot Putt under pressure, even for 2$$$$.
The Masters, U.S. Open and British, will all three enforce the ban on long putters, PGA is so late in the season, it won't have a impact on the change in rules.
Fast tracking the PGA Championship to non-major status. That was its eventual destination anyways.
Playing in Eastern and Southeaster August Sweatboxes, allowing a gaggle of teaching pros into the field, using it as a pre-hype event for the Ryder Cup (which is half from by the PGA of America), and now the possibility of the only major to be played under "Circus Rules"
Good riddance. The global growth of the game deserves another overseas major to replace this celebration of irrelevancy otherwise known as Glory's Lost Hope.
This episode cannot be seen as an example of Finchem's personal power. It does not represent an expression of power; it doesn't represent a grab for power.
This is a prime example of Finchem being essentially pushed around. Finchem clearly wasn't ahead of the game when the USGA and the R&A were making decisions about the rule. Finchem was playing catch-up from the time they announced the proposed rule, through to the time when his players began protesting, up to the present when Finchem is merely responding, and perhaps not even to a majority of the Tour players.
That's a real question for Finchem: What does a MAJORITY of the Tour's say? Finchem isn't leading anybody or anything. He is following the procedural direction of the Player Advisory Council, which may not represent a majority of the Tour. It is a legalistic position that Finchem has taken. A process move; not any leadership at all.
Finchem could go way out in front and say that the ban is terrible, and wrong, and threaten a move to exempt the PGA Tour from the ban. Or he could determine whether a great majority of golf, and the Tour players, agree that the anchoring ban is overdue, and advocate for the ban. Finchem is doing niether. He is doing the absolute minimum that his job requires.
If Finchem is seeking power, it is only the power of a kind of negotiator between the two sides. Power that is exercised by doing nothing for as along as possible, avoiding taking sides. Some kinda leader.