[Doug Siebert]

George,

I think you partially hit on what some people have issue with...and I must admit, even I did for a time.

Going to wedges for bunker play benefited everyone.
Going to better balls benefited everyone, short hitters and long hitters alike benfit
Going to bigger club heads benefited everyone, short hitters and long hitters.
Introducing hybrids both pros and hacks alike benefited

But going to a long putter/belly putter only benefits the poor putters.  The good putters have no need to use one.  Putting is the best part of my game and I couldn't imagine fixing something that ain't broke.

I'm damn mad cause I want a club that benefits my crappy driving that won't make the long ballers even longer.  

I'd disagree that the modern ball benefits short hitters and long hitters equally.  There is a relatively greater benefit for longer hitters (i.e. higher percentage of distance gained)

While big headed drivers have COR that benefits big hitters disproportionately (short hitters can't swing with enough force to deform the face) I think on the whole they benefitted crappy drivers far more.  When I first started playing, it was the last days of persimmon headed drivers.  I'd estimate that only 20-25% of golfers I'd see on the course actually used a driver.  Most teed off with a 3W, because the driver was too hard to hit.  That went to more like 50% when metal drivers appeared, but is now close to 100% because the 460cc driver is the easier club in the bag to hit for almost anyone.

Yes, you can still pull/push/hook/slice it, but you have to manage a truly awful swing to get the heel hits, tops, undercuts and various foozles that were common in the days of the 200cc driver.

As for the subject, yes I'd ban the long putter.  I also wish they'd roll back the ball by requiring it to spin more off the driver to remove the multilayering's ability to react differently depending on how hard it is hit.  This is something that would hurt me more than most, but like Patrick I'm not acting in a self serving manner here but thinking of what is best for the game.  But also like Patrick, so long as the rules allow it, I'm not going to refuse to use it out of spite.

[PThomas]

just read on Geoff S's site that the USGA expects to make a decision on them by the end of this year....seems to me that implies they are at least considering banning them...

[Chris Buie]

Here's an article about whether to ban a putter in...1910.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag42g.pdf

"Mr. Arthur G. Lockwood, several times Massachusetts State champion, says:
"I think it is an excellent idea barring the Schenectady putter, as it will stop these everlasting improvements which, if encouraged, will eventually ruin the game."

I suppose these debates will go on one way or the other for as long as the game - or remnants of it - are around.
Personally, I'd hate to see talents like Adam Scott or Ernie Els not be relevant by banning it - but it does appear to give an unfair advantage. I'd probably vote to ban it on tour.
For me there is no gray zone when it comes to the ball though. I think without a doubt there should be a pro tournament ball. The interesting thing is that after some grumbling I think they would end up liking it. One of several reasons why they would end up liking it is that they could play the classic courses as they are intended to play instead of having at these ridiculous versions with the anorexic fairways. Who wouldn't prefer that?
To bore you a bit further on a matter that relates to a degree, I just returned to persimmon (always vintage MacGregor!) and (1951 Tommy Armour) blades. It really is a lot more fun to play that way. I switched back because it is not so interesting hitting short irons into par-4's the vast majority of the time. I am really enjoying hitting more long to mid irons - or attempting to rather.

[Howard Riefs]

just read on Geoff S's site that the USGA expects to make a decision on them by the end of this year....seems to me that implies they are at least considering banning them...

The related article Paul mentions above:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-equipment/blogs/hotlist365/2012/06/anchored-putters-no-decision-r.html

[Tom_Doak]

There is so much poor reasoning in this thread.

First of all, are Adam Scott and Ernie Els really going to fall off the Tour if the long putter is banned?  Only if they are mental wimps.  They will just have to do what they should have been doing all along, and what most golfers in history have had to do -- work on their putting.

The second thing is the reasoning that poor players have benefitted much more than good players from the big drivers.  This would be true, if you changed "players" to "drivers".  But the dirty secret you are ignoring is that a lot of supposedly good players today [even a lot of Tour players] were actually pretty poor drivers of the golf ball, until they owned a club where they didn't have to worry about missing the sweet spot.  So -- yes, Greg Norman wishes that the Big Bertha was banned from its inception.  But most of today's Tour pros do not -- Big Bertha is the only reason a lot of them are even out there.

What we have to ask ourselves -- and what the USGA and R & A SHOULD be asking themselves -- is whether the traditional form of putting (and the traditional form of driving) is integral to the game, or whether players who are lesser skilled at these aspects should be allowed to catch up via technology.  When looked at in that light, it is hard to see them preserving putting when they already punted on preserving driving.

[Brent Hutto]

Well if they punted on the ball and the driver when it had an obvious, measurable, significant effect on everything from golf courses to casual play to elite competition then it's really hard to imagine them taking the bull by the horns when it comes to jabbing the butt of a putter up against your belly or chest. Long putters have not demonstrated any significant effect on anything other than the funny way it looks when someone putts like that.

It would be like turning a blind eye to bank robbery but then deciding you'll do something to crack down on people picking their nose in public.

[JMEvensky]

Playing Devil's Advocate--the USGA can always draw a distinction between equipment and how it's used.

The putter isn't the problem but anchoring it is.

I agree things would be better if they'd chosen to fight the earlier I & B battles rather than how someone uses a putter.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm with Rich and his post #53. Call us vain and superficial, but not looking like a doofus strikes me as a wholly justifiable guide to behaviour and decision-making.

Peter  

[Chris Buie]

There is so much poor reasoning in this thread.

It was my understanding that both Els and Scott had improved their putting significantly after they switched to the long putter. Is that not the case? Scott "wrote" an article called "How I got my confidence back on the greens."
These two went through a period when they were not competing on the level they had in tournaments. That is not the case now after the long putter - as we just saw last week at Olympic. I never said they were going to fall off the tour, I said they could not be relevant - as I thought the case was before they started putting with flag poles.
Is that poor reasoning on my part? Perhaps it is, I don't really keep up with stats, but that is how it appeared to me.

[Rich Goodale]

The belly putter does in fact have a "provable" advantage, as it can be, to the (possibly very significant) benefit of the golfer, used to measure 1-2 "club" lengths when taking relief under the Rules.

[Brent Hutto]

Chris,

You're just buying their "reasoning" which isn't reasoning at all but rationalization.

There was a time when Ernie Els made a lot of putts. Big putts, cruicial putts, putts that won tournaments. Putts that won majors. All with a conventional putter. Then there was a period where he didn't make any putts worth mentioning. Same guy, same kind of putter. Now there's a period where he's making a few more putts although still not major-championship-winners by any stretch. Same guy, new kind of putter.

Did his conventional putter suddenly start wiggling around in his hands a few years back? Or did he maybe, you know, start not putting as well because of his own self? If he gained confidence from jabbing the putter up against his body, he might just as well have gained confidence by giving his life to Jesus or because Bob Rotella whispered a magic word in his ear. IT WASN'T THE PUTTER AND IT WASN'T THE ACT OF TOUCHING HIS BODY WITH THE PUTTER.

It could well happen that a few years hence he starts putting badly with the long putter. A lot of guys when they happens have switched back to a shorter one, not anchored and found that their putting improved. Did those guys' long putters suddenly pointing itself in the wrong direction? Or is it that they just started putting bad and needed a change?

You can't prove that a different way of putting is better by pointing out a guy who wrote a magazine article saying it helped his game. You've got to look at totality of anchored-putting players vs. conventional-putting players and ask whether either one has a demonstrable advantage in putts made, all else being equal. I've seen no such argument made.

P.S. I think I'll adopt that name for it, the Act Of Touching Ones Body With The Putter. Sounds sort of like a quasi-religious (or at least quasi-sexual) ritual. Which I guess it basically is, in some cases.

[Garland Bayley]

The belly putter does in fact have a "provable" advantage, as it can be, to the (possibly very significant) benefit of the golfer, used to measure 1-2 "club" lengths when taking relief under the Rules.

When I was at Sagebrush during KP, I was wishing I had a belly putter. Never took so many unplayable lies in my life as I did there.

[Rich Goodale]

The belly putter does in fact have a "provable" advantage, as it can be, to the (possibly very significant) benefit of the golfer, used to measure 1-2 "club" lengths when taking relief under the Rules.

When I was at Sagebrush during KP, I was wishing I had a belly putter. Never took so many unplayable lies in my life as I did there.

Thanks, Garland.  Case proved!  Which gets me thinking......

How about a "putter" with a 10 or even 20+ foot shaft?  You wouldn't have to use it, just keep in in the bag for "relief" situations, chucking out one of your useless clubs to keep a legal bag of 14.  I hereby name it THE TREE (tm).

[Kalen Braley]

Here are some stats for Ernie Els since switching over to the belly putter in the summer of 2011.

This year, he's had his best putting year so far over the last 7 years.  Only in 2010 did he putt as well!!!

   2012   2011   2010   2009   2008   2007   2006
Total Putting   42   180   42   167   165   148   134
Strks Gained   69   181   39   155   185   119   123
3 putt Avoidance   33   126   30   135   171   98   10


P.S. I looked at Adam Scotts stats and over the last 6 years, by far and away his best two putting years have been the last two years since he switched over.

[Garland Bayley]

Here are some stats for Ernie Els since switching over to the belly putter in the summer of 2011.

This year, he's had his best putting year so far over the last 7 years.  Only in 2010 did he putt as well!!!

   2012   2011   2010   2009   2008   2007   2006
Total Putting   42   180   42   167   165   148   134
Strks Gained   69   181   39   155   185   119   123
3 putt Avoidance   33   126   30   135   171   98   10


P.S. I looked at Adam Scotts stats and over the last 6 years, by far and away his best two putting years have been the last two years since he switched over.

I don't know about Adam, but Ernie says the belly putter should be outlawed.

[Carl Rogers]

bifurcation is the way to go
for the pros:
- 360 cc max size driver , no graphite shaft, no titanium head, no longer than 43.5 inches
- putter,  defined as a club w/ less than 6 degrees of loft and no longer than 36 inches
- no cheater line
- the 1990 golf ball

for the rest of it does not matter ....

[Matt_Cohn]

Wasn't one of the arguments in the Ping case that people had already purchased the clubs, and changing the rules would be unfair to consumers who had purchased the equipment legally?

I guess I feel that now as I just spent money on a belly putter. Of course, I make more putts with it so I'd like it to stay legal, I guess. But it would be legitimately annoying to spend money on something only to have it declared unusable 6 months later.

I wouldn't be surprised if somebody recycles that argument should the USGA try to ban them - companies and consumers have already invested in them.

It seems possible that the cat is out of the bag on this one.

[William_G]

Wasn't one of the arguments in the Ping case that people had already purchased the clubs, and changing the rules would be unfair to consumers who had purchased the equipment legally?

I guess I feel that now as I just spent money on a belly putter. Of course, I make more putts with it so I'd like it to stay legal, I guess. But it would be legitimately annoying to spend money on something only to have it declared unusable 6 months later.

I wouldn't be surprised if somebody recycles that argument should the USGA try to ban them - companies and consumers have already invested in them.

It seems possible that the cat is out of the bag on this one.

you could use your new putter, you just wouldn't be able to anchor it, LOL

[JNC Lyon]

I'm a big fan of the conventional putter, so don't get me wrong here.  But isn't the fact that Webb Simpson is the first player EVER to win a US Open with a belly/long putter proof that the belly/long putter doesn't provide any significant advantage.  To this day, the greatest putters have putted right-hand low with standard-length putter.  Until a truly great player starts winning consistently with the belly, I will remain unconvinced that anything other than the conventional style is the best way to putt.

[Tony Ristola]

The USGA needs to address the ball and other aspects of equipment first.  These issues are far more detrimental to the game. For example making some courses obsolete and the increase in maintenance costs for longer holes.

Is it to much for the USGA & R&A to address all aspects of the game constantly? To protect its integrity?
No... it is not.
Protecting the game is not just their job... it is their DUTY. If not, then leave and let someone else do it... please.

These so-called governing bodies should be headliners on fail.org

[Rich Goodale]

bifurcation is the way to go
for the pros:
- 360 cc max size driver , no graphite shaft, no titanium head, no longer than 43.5 inches
- putter,  defined as a club w/ less than 6 degrees of loft and no longer than 36 inches
- no cheater line
- the 1990 golf ball

for the rest of it does not matter ....

Ban the "cheater line" and the ball manufacturers will add one ASAP (in addition to the ones they already have in place...).

[William_G]

The USGA needs to address the ball and other aspects of equipment first.  These issues are far more detrimental to the game. For example making some courses obsolete and the increase in maintenance costs for longer holes.

Is it to much for the USGA & R&A to address all aspects of the game constantly? To protect its integrity?
No... it is not.
Protecting the game is not just their job... it is their DUTY. If not, then leave and let someone else do it... please.

These so-called governing bodies should be headliners on fail.org

+1

[Doug Ralston]

The belly putter does in fact have a "provable" advantage, as it can be, to the (possibly very significant) benefit of the golfer, used to measure 1-2 "club" lengths when taking relief under the Rules.

When I was at Sagebrush during KP, I was wishing I had a belly putter. Never took so many unplayable lies in my life as I did there.

Thanks, Garland.  Case proved!  Which gets me thinking......

How about a "putter" with a 10 or even 20+ foot shaft?  You wouldn't have to use it, just keep in in the bag for "relief" situations, chucking out one of your useless clubs to keep a legal bag of 14.  I hereby name it THE TREE (tm).

Wow! The 'Pandora's Box' or 'Domino' terror again. Abounds here.

Doug

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1227722-why-webb-simpsons-us-open-win-was-the-usgas-worst-nightmare

Do you think Webb's win will actually cause the USGA to ban anchored putters?

I spoke to Mike Purkey (formerly of GOLF magazine and now with Global Golf Post) and he said that statistical studies have been done that said that there is very little difference in the number of putts made with belly (and longer) putters than are made with traditional putters so the USGA will not make any changes...

[William_G]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1227722-why-webb-simpsons-us-open-win-was-the-usgas-worst-nightmare

Do you think Webb's win will actually cause the USGA to ban anchored putters?

I spoke to Mike Purkey (formerly of GOLF magazine and now with Global Golf Post) and he said that statistical studies have been done that said that there is very little difference in the number of putts made with belly (and longer) putters than are made with traditional putters so the USGA will not make any changes...

that does not make sense, sorry no disrespect, but anchored swinging is not a golf stroke regardless of it's effectiveness or ineffectiveness

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()