Twitter: GeoffShac
  • The 1997 Masters: My Story
    The 1997 Masters: My Story
    by Tiger Woods
  • The First Major: The Inside Story of the 2016 Ryder Cup
    The First Major: The Inside Story of the 2016 Ryder Cup
    by John Feinstein
  • Tommy's Honor: The Story of Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris, Golf's Founding Father and Son
    Tommy's Honor: The Story of Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris, Golf's Founding Father and Son
    by Kevin Cook
  • Playing Through: Modern Golf's Most Iconic Players and Moments
    Playing Through: Modern Golf's Most Iconic Players and Moments
    by Jim Moriarty
  • His Ownself: A Semi-Memoir (Anchor Sports)
    His Ownself: A Semi-Memoir (Anchor Sports)
    by Dan Jenkins
  • The Captain Myth: The Ryder Cup and Sport's Great Leadership Delusion
    The Captain Myth: The Ryder Cup and Sport's Great Leadership Delusion
    by Richard Gillis
  • The Ryder Cup: Golf's Grandest Event – A Complete History
    The Ryder Cup: Golf's Grandest Event – A Complete History
    by Martin Davis
  • Harvey Penick: The Life and Wisdom of the Man Who Wrote the Book on Golf
    Harvey Penick: The Life and Wisdom of the Man Who Wrote the Book on Golf
    by Kevin Robbins
  • Grounds for Golf: The History and Fundamentals of Golf Course Design
    Grounds for Golf: The History and Fundamentals of Golf Course Design
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Art of Golf Design
    The Art of Golf Design
    by Michael Miller, Geoff Shackelford
  • The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back
    The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • Lines of Charm: Brilliant and Irreverent Quotes, Notes, and Anecdotes from Golf's Golden Age Architects
    Lines of Charm: Brilliant and Irreverent Quotes, Notes, and Anecdotes from Golf's Golden Age Architects
    Sports Media Group
  • Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club
    Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Golden Age of Golf Design
    The Golden Age of Golf Design
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • Masters of the Links: Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design
    Masters of the Links: Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design
    Sleeping Bear Press
  • The Good Doctor Returns: A Novel
    The Good Doctor Returns: A Novel
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Captain: George C. Thomas Jr. and His Golf Architecture
    The Captain: George C. Thomas Jr. and His Golf Architecture
    by Geoff Shackelford
« Feherty Outtakes... | Main | Fall Winners To Get Masters Invitations? »

Letter From Saugerties: Tim Finchem & Anchoring Edition

Former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan saw PGA Tour Commissioner's appearance on Sunday's WGC Match Play telecast and felt compelled to analyze the tour's surprising decision to not support the proposed ban on anchoring putters. You can read Frank's past letters here.

Letter from Saugerties                                                                                    February 27,2013

PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem gets away with murder.

During his endless interviews throwing the USGA under the bus last weekend on the anchoring issue, nobody asked him the right question: when did you first know that the USGA was moving in the direction of a ban on anchoring and what did you say in reaction?

The PGA Tour is represented at USGA Rules of Golf committee meetings by an employee named Tyler Dennis. It is surely his job to tell Finchem where the USGA is heading. My point is this: Finchem last year, long before the USGA made known its position on anchoring, could have stopped the movement cold by telling the USGA and/or the R&A at the British Open that he did not know how his members would react to a ban on anchoring.

The USGA exists to offer a set of rules that it believes make sense, accompanied by an argument that the game is best served if those rules are broadly accepted. Nobody has to buy that argument but virtually everybody does.  As former USGA Executive Director David Fay once said, "We govern by all the power not vested in us."

Albeit unhappily, the USGA recognizes that the influence of the PGA Tour is enormous because golfers think what they see on television is the genuine article. This has been so since the 1960s when the Tour was first invited to participate in the rules making process.  The consequence has been worldwide uniformity, a most unlikely achievement given the money and egos of modern golf.

The USGA would never have moved to ban anchoring had it known the Tour would diverge. The average male golfer has about a 17 handicap and struggles to break 100.  Do you think the USGA cares what method he uses to putt?  Hypothesize that anchoring had somehow caught on in everyday golf but was used by no Tour players. There is no chance the rules would have been changed.

Finchem evidently misread his members - who are his employers. That can happen. He's dealing with 300 relatively young people who have a lot of money and very insular views of the world. Few of them have ever done a lick of work other than hit golf balls. It's a pure recipe for fickleness.

Meanwhile, the USGA is hardly blameless. Given their policy of rules uniformity as the Holy Grail, they should never have gone where they did without an iron-clad agreement from the Tour. Instead, they end up with golf's version of sequestration.

Since the ban was not to take effect until 2016,  along with a 90-day period inviting comments, I figure the USGA was racked with internal dissension. Finchem could have made it easier for them to back off by voicing the opposition of the players quietly - even last week. Instead, he opted to go as public as possible, accompanied with wild specious arguments such as claiming  20% of amateur golfers are anchorers. Evidently he got that number from his new best friends at the PGA of America. Why he chose to play it as he did, whereby there must be a winner and a loser, is beyond my comprehension.

I see much of the USGA clumsiness as a consequence of systemic foolishness. All power is granted to a volunteer executive committee of 15.  Some are golf sophisticates. Some are golf ignorant. The USGA by laws say that the president of the executive committee, who lives nowhere near headquarters and already has a full time job, is the CEO. The same by laws refer to the USGA staff as "clerks."  The executive director of the staff of some 300 has no job description.

But let's suppose that the president happens to be a gem, a genuine prize. (As USGA Executive Director I was lucky enough to have three).  USGA presidents serve two years and then depart. (The USGA has had only one one-year president. That was Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of US presidents, in 1935.  I have no idea why he bailed out early.)

Has anyone ever heard of a viable institution that has a bona fide winner as CEO and then dumps him after two years? Even college presidents hang around for four or five years as their agents search for higher paying jobs.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (64)

The USGA approached the Tour before the announcement.
The PAC discussed it. Mike Davis wanted to get the Tour on board.
When the PAC members talked to the players, who they represent,
there were many who felt it wasn't right, after all the time, and multiple opportunities
to address the anchoring issue (every four years), to force players to change their putting method.

The 90 day period was put forth by the USGA. How is responding with their position, "throwing them under the bus?
Because it was very public? Do you really trust the USGA and R&A to be forthright and honest (see #11 TOC). The tour had to try to get out in front of this. The USGA can stick to their guns, and the tour can react accordingly.
Trying to paint anybody negatively for commenting (on their belief) during a commentary period?
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenter20/20 rearview
Let's also remember that it was Frank Hannigan who left the USGA in near financial disaster, something that David Fay had to clean up.This is also a man who in his retirement decided to criticize an incorrect USGA ruling on air during the 1994 US Open rather than attempt to get some information to those who could prevent the mistake. His tenure wasn't as strong as remembers, kinda similar to some blowhard announcers he also has a history of pissing into the wind, I take his criticism with the largest grain of salt.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterBaltch
20/20 from what I understand the letter, the Tour was informed about the decison not 90 days ago but 12 months ago. If Finchem really had a problem with it, why didn't he chose to tell so before the announcement came. To me that is a valid point
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterRyan
Force the Majors to be non-anchoring - players will get rid of the long stuff, Finchem gets a kick in the n.... Problem solved.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterkafka01
Interesting stuff. Shows that behind the scenes each side is not so much coordinated, but flying by the seat of their pants. I still think the USGA is in the driver-seat should they choose to hold firm on their position. However, more than anything else, I'd like to see one set of rules prevail rather than bifurcation, regarless of which way this goes.

Maintaining unification of the rules is more important than the direction taken on anchoring in my opinion.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterPJ
The USGA would never have moved to ban anchoring had it known the Tour would diverge...

If this is true, than why didn't the USGA "officially" poll the Tour somehow behind the scenes (asking Finchem to do what he just did a week or so ago with Tour PAC) before making the announcement about the change. They made a decision without all of the facts and regardless of how it turns out now it makes everyone look bad. I highly doubt in a month or two when the USGA replies, they are are going to say "just kidding."
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterJpalmer
Several polls (informal) were taken before the USGA announced its decision. And in nearly every one the vast, vast majority of the players were in favor of the ban. Implying that the USGA had not consulted with the PGA Tour prior to announcing the proposed ban, was just one of many disingenuous moments for Tim Finchem on Sunday.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterelf
"I see much of the USGA clumsiness as a consequence of systemic foolishness. All power is granted to a volunteer executive committee of 15. Some are golf sophisticates. Some are golf ignorant. The USGA by laws say that the president of the executive committee, who lives nowhere near headquarters and already has a full time job, is the CEO. The same by laws refer to the USGA staff as "clerks." The executive director of the staff of some 300 has no job description." fh

Just classic. No wonder the game has gotten so out of hand, these guys never had a chance standing up to the equipment companies. One has to wonder about this organization. From Sam Snead, to Harvey Ward, to Bobby Jones to Tiger Woods this organization has picked petty fights and won them by their own edict. Because of them we have 8000 yard golf courses and 5 hour plus rounds and an antiquated rule book. What a bunch of rubes in fancy sport coats.

You anti anchorers worry about "defining a stroke" and play your sliceless ball and use your oversized frying pans and cry about WWHD (what would Hemingway do) and strict construction of the rules like a mob at the Salem witch trials. Too funny, your terms and rules are created by an organization with no rudder.

And don't think the R and A is any different they are probably worse...
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterBNO
Hannigan: Some excellent points,....but his notion that the USGA laments the influence of the PGA Tour on "regular" golfers while not also grasping the more important concept...i.e., that the USGA has no clue what the regular golfer is thinking, and moreover could care less about the more revealing aspect. Hannigan just cannot cleanse himself of USGA arrogance, even after all these years, even after fighting them on the handicap system front (he lost), even after some other widely known conflicts (and who knows how many more unknown).

Again and again the USGA is the body who resides in the insular bubble, not the Tour, the Tour players, the PGA of America. Hannigan et. al. should tee it up at a muni once a week for the next year - then come back to us with your assessment. Call it micro or macro management, but another recent USGA decision only supports the theory of a group of private club part time administrators who didn't like college kids from public courses winning their Publinx championship so often....what to do? Hmmmmm.....I know, let's get rid of the tournament...that will show these kids.....way to go are the epitome of the nanny state....deciding what is good and not good for the masses who cannot think for themselves....
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commentermcaron
elf nails it and this is something the media has not really explained: what happened to all of these players who were so passionately for this ban? Why are they backing down? Who got to them.

I'm not a huge fan of the USGA but there is no way they went into this without strong assurances that they would have PGA Tour support. Thanks Frank for pointing out how these things would work and how long Tim Finchem had to rally his troops but chose not to in the end.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterOB

Spot on. It's the same anti-anchorers who are against all the other things you mentioned, which basically nullifies 75 percent of your point. But other than that, your screed is spot on.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterRES
I sure like this Frank Hannigan! Open invite to you too Frank, anytime you want to play BP I am at your service!
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterDTF
On the subject of bifurcation...

I know a lot of the same people who are for the anchoring ban are also for the ball rollback. If bifurcation were necessary in order to achieve a rollback of the ball at the professional level, would it (bifurcation) then be deemed acceptable?
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterDTF
Why was Balch's criticism of Hannigan's (Hannibal's) tenure and subsequent actions at Oakmont deleted? The possibility of Hannigan being biased is a reasonable issue when judging his comments.

[posted at 07:26 Pacific -- how long will this comment last?]
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterArthur Nelson
I am for a ball rollback (or a driver rollback) at the pro level, and I am in favor of bifurcation. I am not however, in favor of bifurcation that allows Tour players to use an anchored putter (or longer ball) but not amateurs, which would be the case if the tour used a local rule to allow anchoring and impose bifurcation.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterelf
``The USGA would never have moved to ban anchoring had it known the Tour would diverge. The average male golfer has about a 17 handicap and struggles to break 100. Do you think the USGA cares what method he uses to putt?''

A nasty comment from a former executive director of the USGA. I think Hannigan will regret this comment. And I think he should. Does Hannigan really believe that the USGA - and the R&A, for that matter - are a phony organizations that will plead with the 17-handicapper for annual dues but not give a hoot how he plays the game of golf? He owes the organization he once had the honor to serve an apology. It is sickening to think that Hannigan believes the USGA takes its cues from the PGA Tour. I don't believe it. Nor should he.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterLiberty Apples
I can readily accept all the denigration EXCEPT that by the guy who says I left the USGA in a financial shambles. When I left the USGA it was home free financially,partly because TV rights fees had blossomed unexpectedly and partly because of very careful management. I resisted adding staff, such as full time in house counsel, which is very expensive. I was a small government guy. In brief, I was very good with the money and spent an inordinate amount of time on that subject.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterFrank Hannigan
I took the opportunity to go back and read previous letters from Hannigan. Here's a portion of one:

``The USGA exists in an attempt to preserve a game.


``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.''

The organization Hannigan is describing here is far different than the one he indicts in his latest letter, suggesting it is a lapdog and one that takes its cue from the PGA Tour. He contradicts himself for the world to see.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterLiberty Apples
First, thank you to Frank for his continued support of Geoff, and in turn, us. He has chosen this forum to speak his mind, as all of us do, and several things come to mind. I don't always agree with Frank, but I respect his opinion.

Now Frank, You and Geoff have an honest discussion about why the long putter was not banned back around 1990.

Now , for the meat of the PGA's ''announcement'' b Tim.

FOR MONTHS the ban or some decision was rumored- how the hell did WE know and not Finchem or at least some tour players? We know Bob Estes reads Geoff, and others have posted here, so they are aware, at least from time to time. The last minute ''change of heart'' of so many PGA players is EASY to figure out:

These guy make their living playing golf

They had other members cite their ''need'' to putt using the long putter

They all thought about players who were great putters, major winners (Retief Goosen, Ernie Els) who had it go away, and switched to the cheating method (Ernie Els word, not mine)

They then had a PANIC ATTACK and thought ~*~*~*~ThERe~* BuT*~*~ FOR the *~*~GRACE of GOD*~*~~ GO I (miss pac-man defeat sound -wew wew wew wew wew) ~*~*~*

FEAR, YES FEAR THAT ''IT COULD HAPPEN TO ME'' made the change in opinion.

There are a dozen men , maybe 2 or 3 dozen total( including the Web.Com and other mini tours.), who are affecting the USGA's ruling, if they back down from the proposal.

Have a pair- ban anchoring.
I don't understand Mr Hannigan's comment that the USGA would never have gone to an anchoring ban had they known the PGA tour was going to "diverge".

Is the USGA leadership that weak?

To heck with what Finchem and the bubbleheads on the tour think, the USGA should do what is right for the game, period.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterfyg
The USGA has historically been a country club driven organization. I believe what they see happening in the game is seen via that perspective and not the public/daily fee golfer perspective. At one time, the vast, vast majority of high level amateur players were members of private clubs. Without knowing for sure, I believe that the majority of players who play USGA tournaments are private club members. Taking all that into consideration, I would say that private clubs have a vastly higher percentage of players anchoring the putter than do public courses. As seen through the perspective of a typical USGA committee member, it's an epidemic. First they have professionals winning majors with anchoring, then high level amateurs showing up at the USGA event anchoring and finally their buddies at their club anchoring....It seems to them to be out of control. That's where someone like Finchem gets his 20% figure. Because that's what he is told or sees during his own golf experiences. It's not reality for those of us who play public, non-tournament golf. The USGA's golf world is very small compared to the real golf world. I think that's where this disconnect comes from. Myself, I don't believe that anchoring is a stroke and I have no problem with a rule change. But, I think the USGA is making this decision on what is taking place in a very small portion of the golf world...high level amateurs, elite juniors and professional golfers. But, as with anything I type, I could be wayyyyy off.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterHilltop
fyg, why is banning anchoring "right for the game"? Exactly where/how is the game suffering because anchoring is in? Be specific please. Similarly, if anchoring is banned exactly where will we see improvements in "the game", what will they be, and how much? Please quantify.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterDTF
This issue of anchoring is so cut and dry to me... its not how putting a golf ball was intended and it shuold and will be banned once and forever. A rules organization in concert with another leaves themself (as in one since they are united) open to weakness and defeat by opening the discussion up to comment periods and review. If they had just banned it like the knives that cut TOC we'd all get over it sooner than later and the rec golfer will still be anchoring.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterAmen Coroner

Anchoring is not a legal stroke in my view. Nothing else matters.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterfyg
You ask: "Why was Balch's criticism of Hannigan's (Hannibal's) tenure and subsequent actions at Oakmont deleted? The possibility of Hannigan being biased is a reasonable issue when judging his comments. [posted at 07:26 Pacific -- how long will this comment last?]"

Because it wasn't deleted. I did edit the "Hannibal" reference because the poster made a mistake. The rest is still there. Thanks for wasting my time and maybe you should find another blog, or better yet, start your own.
02.27.2013 | Registered CommenterGeoff
fyg -- So banning anchoring will make you feel better....but otherwise will not impact "the game" in any identifiable/measureable way whatsoever?

That's the embodiment of the old Because Thesis.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterDTF
Thank you Mr. Hannigan for taking your time to lend your insight as to how some of these decisions come about. Many of us are not aware of the complexities involved with the Rules process. As a former USGA Executive Director, and the current hot topic of anchored putting, I'd greatly appreciate your subjective point of view regarding a few of the rules that are currently in The Rules of Golf, rules book.

Before I get into some my questions about some of the Rules I'd like you to know that I have always putted conventional style. I've always considered myself a better than average putter of the golf ball so I never felt the need to experiment greatly with a long or belly putter. Sure, these putters are on display around every practice green at PGA Tour events for the purpose of trying them out. Yes, on a few occasions I did try a few, which resembled the first time i ever tried a cigarette, immediately I thought whats the purpose? I do have friends that compete on Tour with the long and belly putters, felt I needed to put that out there. My questions won't be about who or why someone choses to putt with these putters. My curiosity is strictly within the Rules of Golf as I'm reading from today. The questions I'd like to ask you about only came into my mind as all this controversy brought attention to these putters, so naturally I became inquisitive as a professional competitor.

Taken from the Decisions on the Rules of Golf
Appendix II
Design of Clubs

Definition of Clubs: The club must not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make. The club must be composed of a shaft and a head and it may also have material added to the shaft to enable the player to obtain a firm hold (see 3 below). All parts of the club must be fixed so that the club is one unit, and it must have no external attachments. Exceptions may be made for attachments that do not affect the performance of the club.

As I read this, the rule states by definition, a club comprises a shaft, clubhead, and a grip. These three parts make up ONE UNIT. The one unit is what I'm focusing on in this definition.

Rule 14. Striking the Ball
14-1 Ball to be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.

A "stroke" is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the club head reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.

My understand (my interpretations) from reading these rules and definitions in the Decisions on the Rules of Golf are as follows.
The club is one unit
The club is used to strike the ball
A stroke taken is the "forward" movement of the club with intent to strike, but can check his downswing, thus not a stroke.

After studying these rules my questions would be this:
If we all agree that the club is one unit, and this one unit is used for the purpose of striking the ball, and there must be a forward movement being seen with this one unit………… can this one unit be seen to be moving forward when part of this one unit has never been taken back? If there is no backswing seen comprising the entire unit, how could you say you've seen a forward movement of this one unit?

What I see with the anchored putters, the long putter, the belly putter, is part of the one unit being anchored so that that part of the one unit can not move. If that part of the one unit has never been put into motion, I personally can't comprehend anyone being able to make the argument that a successful "stroke" has been taken.

Define Anchor: to fix or fasten, affix firmly. to be firmly fixed. to hold fast, any similar device for holding fast or checking motion. any various devices designed to keep objects from moving.

My questions for you is this: If part of the one unit (club)(grip) is anchored for the purpose of preventing its motion, and we don't witness this part of the club (one unit) being put into motion…………Can you say a legitimate stroke has been taken?

If the answer is NO, which is my interpretation, what do we all do with this Rule?

Rule 1, The Game
1-3 Agreement to Waive Rules
Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

In my subjective opinion regarding the "stroke", I don't believe anyone can say the Anchored one unit has been moved according to the current rules of golf for the purpose of striking the ball. I further feel the rules of golf are being waved in accommodating this movememnt that doesn't fit the definition of stroke taken with one unit. Instead of creating a new rule, maybe it might be best to just follow the ones we already have.

I'm very interested to know your take on the point of views I hold.

Sean Murphy
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterSean Murphy
Sean would you say my putting stroke is illegal? Are you old enough to remember me?
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterIsao Aoki
It was really wristy right Aoki?
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterAmen Coroner
Hi Isao, sure I remember you well, we played a practice round together at the Hawaiian Open once, don't you remember?
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterSean Murphy
Mr or Mrs DTF,

Please apply your "Because Thesis" to Mr. Murphy's first post and let me know what you come up with, lol.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterfyg
Follow the MONEY, on the Long Putter subject. PGA members sell clubs to the Country Club players, must be big bucks there,

However, I think majority of the Long Putter Player are "SLOW" players, they have Putting problems and have a difficult time making the stroke. Take their money every week.

Would like to see every level of the Game play by the same rules, I am 75 years and still play with my Ping Anser, Scotsdale. 10 handicap. Could never consider using a long putter. But, they need to make a ruling and get on with it.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterD. Foster
I believe that banning the long/belly putters is the right thing to do, but I think banning the long/belly putter via anchoring is the wrong approach. A better approach would be to require putters to be built with the shaft connecting at the end of the putter (like other clubs). It is the center-shafted or center-balanced aspect of putters that allows the anchoring method to be effective because the clubface stays square on its own. Since most putters (long and short) today are center-balanced, good putting generally no longer requires the ability to square the clubface at impact.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterAnimal Kingdom
1994 was the last year that ABC broadcast the US Open. Resentment must have been present everywhere at the network, including the broadcast booth. I can see where Trey might have been hung out accidentally on purpose.

Also, I am pretty sure that George H W Bush must have dictated to the governing bodies to maintain the legality of the long, anchored, putter. After all, he is a Republican, and he is not playing golf these days. So it would make sense for Bush to give Mike Davis his blessing to outlaw anchoring.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterJesse Pinkman
fyg, just so we are clear, your answers are yes, and no. Yes, banning anchoring will make you feel better. No, you cannot identify even one measurable thing that will change to benefit of "the game" if anchoring is banned. OK, now that we've cleared that up...

As for the Because Thesis...this is reserved for people who claim to have a position but are unable to support they resort to "well because"...or "because I said so", etc... It is a common occurrence that people around here do not like what I think but it's well known that I'll back it up with detailed logic and facts, no use of the Because Thesis by Mr. DTF ;0)

As for Sean's thoughts, here's where I think he the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the rules (and I am out on a limb a bit as I do not have intimate rule knowledge, a shortcoming i intend to address) that says any part of the club (unit, single unit) has to move a certain distance so as to constitute a stroke.

In fact, the anchored end of a belly putter or a long putter does move. It may not move to the extent or direction that Mr. Murphy would like for it to move, but it does move.

So, if we were going to legislate rules based on the butt of the club moving it wouldn't really matter if it were anchored or not -- we would have to put in something that says "unless the butt of the club moves back and forward at least 2" a stroke has not been made"....right? Or is it 6 inches? Or a foot? I can think of plenty of scenarios where a player needs to chip out and simply drops the clubhead straight down on the ball and the grip rotates but achieves zero forward or vertical movement -- that would be a violation if the grip of the club was required to back and then forward to constitute a stroke.

There you go...
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterMr. DTF
Very cool to have Mr. Hannigan's expertise and opinions here. I do disagree with him though and still don't see what TF did wrong? There was a 90 day comment period and he represents the players and he expressed their thoughts on the matter. Wasn't that what the 90 day period was for. That's like saying were going to enact this law in 90 days(no matter what) but you have those 90 days to make all the comments you want. Why not just make the ban if they can't take the feedback? I don't see where he threw the USGA under the bus unless he told them 100% he was behind them and then blindsided them. I agree, I think a lot of the boys changed their minds during the time period.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterol Harv
My brother was a heck of a player, Won a pretty big (non tour) professional event with a long putter.
He did NOT stand like a statue, only moving his right arm. He still used a lot of shoulder motion
to putt.

So, in effect, though the left hand was against his sternum, the position of the top of the putter changed, in the backswing
as well as the forward swing.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered Commenterlongnews
Hi I just wanted to make an apology for stating information as fact when it was merely conjecture. In reading books that dealt with the subject of golf, "A Good Walk Spoiled" being one, on the grooves issue it was implied that a big reason the USGA settled with Ping was that they will, ill, ere not in the same conversation. ion al position to take on that legal case at the time. It is also mentioned in other writings that the USGA did not start making real serious money on the US Open until the switch to NBC, which kind of coincides with the explosion in most TV contracts for sports events during the 90's. So in short I do not have sufficient hard based evidence to accuse Mr. Hannigan of poor fiscal management of the USGA, and never should have drawn it from such tenuous links. My academic advisor would have failed my thesis had I attempted any such buffoonery.

I also should not have made a big deal out of the 1994 US Open thing. Whether or not I was correct, I framed it as an attack at Mr. Hannigan's respect of the organization, one moment that whether you agree or nots with it, should not be the basis of judging the merits, successes, or failures of one's career. I would be incensed to be judged this way, and Mr. Hannigan deserved better.

I apologize to everyone for lowering the debate, what should be focused on is where we want this game to go, do professionals need different rules, and what (if anything) do the amateur and professional sides of golf have in common anymore. I am sorry Mr. Hannigan, Mr. Shackleford for my disrespect in this conversation
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterBaltch
That's about as fine a mea culpa as we've ever seen around these parts! Good onya mate.
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterDTF
You are my new hero...keep exposing these "Because Theorists".
02.27.2013 | Unregistered CommenterShady golf

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.