Friday
Mar152013
Old Tom (Watson) On Gov Bodies: "If they were going to do something about it, they should have done something about it a long time ago."
A packed Toshiba Classic press room (well, four of us) enjoyed a lively session with Tom Watson revealing a key to his Ryder Cup selection process and also some surprisingly strong words for the governing bodies he has long supported.
;)
The Ryder Cup stuff I'll save for later.
Here's the part on anchoring:
Q Your friends with the PGA of America, and you've been a strong proponent though of the USGA and the R&A and you've also suggested you have some mixed feelings about anchoring. What do you think of how things have played out?
TOM WATSON: I do have mixed feelings and have direct, you know, feelings because my son Michael was a very poor putter with a conventional putter. He went to a belly putter and he makes everything, and he loves the game because of it. The game is fun. He can play lousy and then gets on the greens and he makes everything. And, yes, I don't think it's a stroke. I'm still in that camp, but the reality of the situation is this. This has been allowed to go on for X number of years, 30 years, 40 years. It's unlike I think the croquet putter you saw Sam Snead, I think the USGA made a very quick decision on that, said you can't do this, Sam. I'm not sure whether Sam was the only guy doing it, but made a very quick decision on that particular stroke. They didn't wait 30 years to make a decision on the stroke. So I think that's the crux of the issue. There's too many players who have been using it, and the USGA hasn't done anything about it. USGA and R&A haven't done anything about it. If they were going to do something about it, they should have done something about it a long time ago.
What does everyone think of this "settled law" argument? It's certainly stronger than some of the arguments put forth, though it would be nice if the PGA Tour and PGA of America commissioned a study to provide some data that backs up the suggestion that we'll lose a lot of golfers over this.
Friday, March 15, 2013 at 02:38 AM
Reader Comments (77)
Now obviously long putters is not exactly a life & death issue
Tom's son can still play the game and anchor and make putts like crazy. He can still enjoy the game, just not in competition.
And if Tom says "well, he doesn't want to break the rules so he has to comply" then I am sure his son will never ever take another mulligan, will always walk back to the place of the previous shot after a lost ball, will always putt everything out, will penalize himself if he moves a loose impediment in a hazard and on and on.
And I am with everyone on the "settled law" argument. Just because something is around for a while doesn't mean it can never be touched. How someone as knowledgable as Watson can say he doesn't believe it is a stroke yet say leave it is astonishing and diminishes him in my eyes.
I wonder if Tom thinks the laws and regulations put in place by the government this year, last year etc shouldn't be because the other way was allowed for so long. Forget that maybe they are trying to make things better or more fair.
Come on Tom.
On another note, Geof, what happened to getting some response to the original ''ok'' being to allow the POTUS to use it? No response from Frank> What about some of the Champions players?
Watson says "it's not a stroke." Enough said.
We're talking about rules of a game. To compare it to moral law is a bit much. If we want to go that route, stare decisis is good enough for Roe v Wade.
Obviously there is a difference as anchoring has/is currently allowed (legal). But if you are against something (as he states), does the fact that it has been done for a long time mean you shouldn't bother to change it?
No, I'd love some data on the number of anchorers, some of the startling putting leaps they've made and anything else the USGA would like to put out. But it would single out players and that would not be pretty. So I understand why they don't do it.
The Tour and PGA of America want data, but they also need this "data" to back up their points. At least the PGA of America surveyed their members and shared that. The PGA Tour Commissioner, who threw out some bogus numbers, needs to back up some of his claims if he's going to ask for data at the same time. Seems only fair, no?
The long ball is ruining the game... the anchoring is ruining the game... game improvement irons are ruining the game...
If you misread a putt .. how you putt is irrelevant.
If you yank a T-shot a 460cc Driver can be a big detriment.
If you generally hack up the course your GI irons are useless.
You start taking all this out of the game and you take players out of the game... Pros no... not immediately... but you will start taking Amateurs out and two sets of rules is not a real solution... No Amateur wants to be told its okay you suck so you can "cheat legally" They want to feel like they are playing the same game with the same kind of equipment.
When you shrink the number of Amateurs playing you will eventually reduce the talent pool of the pros. Most pros have a passionate weekend Amateur that started them in the game. Very few 2nd generation tour Pros. So if you have fewer Amateurs you have fewer kids exposed to the game and very likely some of those kids missing out have what it takes to become a touring pro... so you lose out on talent at the top end.
It smacks of elitism. A problem golf will struggle with for quite a while due to its roots.
It still takes a modicum of ability in golf to use an anchored putter.
In the case of anchoring, the "settled law" argument has very little merit in my opinion. Like 460cc drivers and juiced golf balls, anchoring should never have been allowed.
You are so right. It would be fair. But the commish doesn't have the facts. When one doesn't have the facts in a debate they use other things and we saw it sadly.
The biggest problem (beyond singling out players as you mentioned) is how does one control a test for data. Time spent practicing matters, etc. It is not like Iron Byron can be used. Humans have nerves that react differently at different times. Anchoring down the stretch among the leaders in a major would probably be different performance than 1st round at Innisbrook.
I think the USGA approached this correctly. They focused on the anchoring and why it is not right.
Geoff, I'll take credit for repeatedly harping on the point that simply moving the left arm 1" (or even 1/16") away from the body satisfies the "ban"....you seem to believe this also.
My questions are how much of an impact do you think this will have on the putting stats of players like Adam Scott and Bernhardt Langer? If they employ this method would you then be satisfied? Does this accomplish the goals of "the ban"? If Adam employs this method and continues on with the same putter and putts well will there be call for further rules changes to eliminate this version of the stroke? Have you tried it? If Adam uses this technique and left hand or arm is touching his shirt are you going to trust him that nothing is anchored?
I have tried it and can assure that (i) nothing in the stroke changes, (ii) same right hand grip, (iii) same left hand grip, (iv) same putter head movement, (v) movement of butt of club is identical and (vi) I personally believe Adam and Bernhard will easily adjust. I also believe the Aesthetics Patrol will be mad about it and then we will have another crusade on our hands.
The belly putter is an entirely different issue, the proposed rule affects belly putters WAY more. Is this fair?
Please support your statement. If that's a true statement why was it in fact allowed, accepted, and deemed by the USGA President to be a non-issue, right up until Webb Simpson won the US Open?
If Tom's kid could putt, Tom would remain against anchoring.
It is ok to use a broom because it has been done for 30 years??? Poor defense. Time does not make a wrong a right and the game should not be changed just because a few were afraid to speak up earlier.
Flip-side, if the proposed ban is implemented 1,017 days from now how will the game benefit? Be specific. Please quantify.
Smug, elitist and arrogant statement. That is the precise attitude that keeps a lot of people from gravitating to the game.
Can we take this dog out back and shoot it? It's not an advantage for everyone. Good putters like Woods, Donald, Stricker would putt worse if they anchored. It's a crutch for terrible putters to close the competitive gap. Ernie said it out loud, it's cheating. Everybody knows it. Scott and Clark, getting all lawyerly, process-oriented and senatorial about it, who is that fooliing? It's thinly disguised terror.
The game will benefit by being played in a manner it was designed to be played. No Laying on the ground with a pool que shot; no between the legs croquet shot, and no sweeping the ball with a broom handle.
That's absurd. An insane comment.
THAT is the argument. They argument is that no method of swing has EVER been outlawed. And the reason is crystal clear: because it has always been up to The Player, and The Player alone, to determine what swing will work best for him!
This is meddling at its worst. The anchored swing presents NO THREAT to the game as a whole. It only presents a threat to 0.00001 percent of all golfers in the world who happen to be good enough to sniff winning a major and don't like the idea of somebody using a long club to beat them! That's all this is about. It has nothing to do with anchoring.
The proposed rule is a fraud. It is borne of fraudulent analysis. It is implemented under a fraudulent rationale. And it is benign peddled using fraudulent arguments. This is nothing more than a midnight coup de tat by the USGA, usurping the power to decided how to swing from every golfer on the planet.
Bottom line, it's about aesthetics -- hence they can't quantify anything.
Moving away from the body any amount will satisfy the rule. It sure would satisfy me that it is not anchoring even if 1/64 of an inch separation. Now if at any time during the stroke it would make contact with the body then there is a problem. And I would trust any pro that he is complying.
I just don't believe this is an aethestic issue for the ruling bodies. It is about nerves and performance imo.
If you are correct that there is really no difference between anchoring and non-anchoring then Langer and Scott have nothing to fear from the anchoring ban. I believe your nerves are better than theirs and my guess is you have not had a chance to test it while in the lead of a final round of a major where the nerves might be a bit ummmmmmmm different. (And I surely do not mean that as any slight against you personally, it is just an example as you believe there is no difference. I respect your posts here).
And the PGA members' belief that the game will be affected is just as if not more valid than ban proponents' opinions that anchoring is not a valid stroke. Can you please provide hard data that it is not a stroke?