Second Instant Poll: Would Two Sets Of Rules Make Golf Less Appealing?

/
The anchoring ban announced yesterday has provoked many emotions and hence, forced many golfers or fans to think about the big picture. And those thoughts usually come back to the odd situation we find where rulesmaking is and will be making decisions based on the elite players of the world.
Read More

Buried Lede In The Anchoring Ban Announcement?

/

Ron Sirak, writing about the announcment of a ban on anchoring putters against the torso:

So for those currently anchoring the long putter, the announcement today created their own version of the Mayan calendar, which some say predicts the word will end Dec. 21 of this year, which is bad news for those currently leading their fantasy football leagues.

And I say there is a 100 percent chance that this ban is not an end but a means to an end, a beginning salvo in a battle by the USGA and the R&A to push back against some of the ways the game has changed in recent years.

And he's right.

They used the opportunity to repeat some of the strongest words on distance to ever come out of St. Andrews, Far Hills or their new de facto headquarters in an Orlando conference room.

Peter Dawson had to quibble with my question referencing Webb Simpson and Adam Scott's past statements and the St. Andrews redo reference.

But then he moved to the distance topic that has created many more problems than anchored putters:

As far as the distance issue is concerned, clearly that is very germane to the future of the game.

Ok, right there. That alone is a big statement from Mr. Dawson. There's more...

It affects size of golf course, amount of land use, cost of play, and there can be no doubt at all that this distance issue has to be at the forefront of our minds at all times.

You'll recall the R&A and the USGA did issue a joint statement of principle ten years ago now saying that if distances crept up further, we would take action.  Distances have actually plateaued since then.

So he reverted to old habits there briefly. But then...

But I think the issues that surround the sustainability issue are coming more and more into play when we consider distance, and both the R&A and the USGA have research projects that are ongoing in order to make sure we are ready to address this at an appropriate time.

The fact that we have chosen to do something about anchored strokes that is a completely separate matter and it would be a mistake to feel that because we have done something about one that we don't care about the other.

And the USGA's Mike Davis then chimed in:

Just to add to that, Peter mentioned [2002], the joint statement of principles, I can assure everybody, that the R&A and USGA have been quite busy on these research projects the last ten years.  And looking forward, we are very concerned about the long‑term health of the game, the sustainability of the game.  We are concerned about water usage.  We are concerned about the cost of the game; time, as Peter mentioned.

So this is something that we are taking very seriously, and certainly we are looking, also, at distance.  We want to quantify if one day there was a need to reduce distance, and we are not suggesting today; that we feel that it's our duty, that it's part of our mission to look at the future of the game.

We want to understand what reduced distance might mean; how much matter would it save?  How much cost would it save?  For those courses that haven't been built yet, how much less land would it mean?  That's important to the future of the game.  We have 33,0000 golf courses in the world right now and we need to protect them.  But furthermore, we need to protect those courses that haven't been built yet.

It sure sounds like they are preparing to present data explaining what a reduced footprint would look like economically. Most of us know if they do that, combined with some shrewd forecasting on future water costs from the USGA Green Section, and their case for some sort of revised overall distance standard may just be easier to make than the anchoring case they presented Wednesday.

Pulitzer Committee Alert: NY Times Follows Up On Beljan Front Pager With Harrowing Stories Of Severe Acid Reflux

/

Some poor lad named Nate Schweber got the call from a golf savvy NY Times editor: justify our superfluous A1 story on Charlie Beljan's "panic attack" by finding more golfers suffering from an untold epidemic that has been quietly dooming the game.

So Schweber headed to Van Cortlandt Park where, of course, no one had read the story in spite of its A1 placement.

Mateo’s tale of an anxiety attack on the golf course was one of several that were heard during a random stop at the course in Van Cortlandt Park. None of the golfers interviewed had read about the PGA Tour player Charlie Beljan, who had had a panic attack last week, only to forge ahead to his first career victory.

But the golfers in the Bronx did not need much prompting. Told the details of Beljan’s harrowing experience, they shook their heads in recognition.

What the NY Times actually uncovered were stories of folks needing my drug of choice, Prilosec.

William Larkin, 44, the general manager of the golf course in Van Cortlandt Park, said he had an anxiety attack trying to qualify for a golf tournament in Westchester County about 15 years ago and had to be taken to a hospital.

“I was getting winded going up small hills, my mouth was dry, my left arm got stiff,” he said. “I started thinking I was having a heart attack, which made everything worse.”

He said he spent two days in the hospital having tests. His symptoms had been found to be psychosomatic except for one. His worry had caused his stomach to produce higher-than-normal quantities of acids, which rose up and caused his left arm to stiffen.

“I’ll never forget that day,” he said.

"Is Augusta National doing the right thing having events that qualify 14 year olds into the event?"

/

That's the question Steve Elkington posed on Twitter and after reading your many observations on the original post about Tianlang Guan's stunning Asia Pacific Amateur win, I think it's a question worth pondering.

And not to take away from Guan's stellar play or that of the kids (Zhang, Hossler) who contended at this year's U.S. Open, but maybe the broader questions should be: what is allowing people to play the game so much better at a younger age and is that a good thing?

Either way, Guan is setting lofty goals for himself!