[Mike Hendren]

What is the legal basis for a suit?  

From a man who passed the bar but never practiced a day in his life:

1. Estoppel Theory
2. Course of Dealing

Shelly and Shivas?

[jeffwarne]

It is a shame that the USGA and R&A seem happy to deal with this none important issue instead of reducing the distance the ball flies. This makes them appear to be so out of touch with the real problem facing not just the pro tours but nearly all clubs.

Jon

Ditto

[Jim_Kennedy]

Michael,

Fat clerics are obscene.

The USGA can avoid a brouhaha w/equipment manufacturers if it just bans anchoring a club against the body for any type of shot, not banning the equipment itself.

But if they do decide to ban the putters they can do it w/a grandfather clause, similar to the recent one that pertained to grooves. They can always add a few years to mollify Tour Pros, giving them time to adjust without causing them any financial harm.

They could expand this same logic to golf balls, forcing producers to adjust balls to sensible distances over several years time. 

[JR Potts]

"we have a good investment portfolio" - USGA's Davis

If the fight materializes: 15 rounder, USGA wins by decision.

JR what do you do for a living?  

What if some governing body that only controls 1/45th of your earning potential each year decided to change the rules so that you would earn less money and maybe far less money?  Might you fight the ruling, might you gather others with the same gripe and fight the potential rule change?  

Get off your high horse , I have never met you , but you are far from perfect I can guarantee that!

I don't understand what the last sentence has to do with anything.

That said, you asked the wrong guy.  I'm a lawyer.  A lawyer who has laws changed every day that effect how I make my living.

And, if Obama is elected, the laws he will pass will cost me a lot of my money....and I will take it like a man....and bitch about it on facebook and twitter.

Rules change - laws change - and people have a right to contest them.  That said, litigating over golf rule changes when the wording seems so clear rubs me the wrong way - big time.  Thus, I have labeled those who fight the rule change dick-wads.

And in case anyone is wondering, I am perfect.

[JESII]

Brian Sheehy,

If you feel like having a conversation about let me know, until then...

[Jay Flemma]

PGA Champ and Ryder Cup star or no, perhaps Keegan should wait a few years before throwing his weight around? That or learn to putt normally...

[C. Squier]

Certainly there are tours that Keegan can compete on that will allow belly putters. Can't make as much as playing on the PGA Tour? Boo hoo. Last time I checked the world doesn't have to guarantee Keegan Bradley the ability to make millions.

[David Bartman]

"we have a good investment portfolio" - USGA's Davis

If the fight materializes: 15 rounder, USGA wins by decision.

JR what do you do for a living? 

What if some governing body that only controls 1/45th of your earning potential each year decided to change the rules so that you would earn less money and maybe far less money?  Might you fight the ruling, might you gather others with the same gripe and fight the potential rule change? 

Get off your high horse , I have never met you , but you are far from perfect I can guarantee that!

Melyvn David,

First, that would be JK, not JR.  

Second, don't drink and type.  

Hope your dyspepsia gets better.  

Just a misclick, I was responding to other poster who called anyone who stands up against this " a dickwad "

[Kyle Henderson]

Has anyone demonstrated a statistical advantage to using anchored putting techniques over traditional stokes?

Conversely, did any baseball players sue when the started using a humidor to treat balls used for Rockies home games?

I believe the extreme performance of modern golf balls threatens the financial viability of the amatuer game while the anchored putting issue poses a paper-thin threat to the perceived integrity of the professional game. Moreover, I believe damage to the amateur game threatens pro tours more than vice versa. Hence, I find the priorities of golf's governing bodies are misplaced.

[John Kavanaugh]

Has anyone demonstrated a statistical advantage to using anchored putting techniques over traditional stokes?

Conversely, did any baseball players sue when the started using a humidor to treat balls used for Rockies home games?

I believe the extreme performance of modern golf balls threatens the financial viability of the amatuer game while the anchored putting issue poses a paper-thin threat to the perceived integrity of the professional game. Moreover, I believe damage to the amateur game threatens pro tours more than vice versa. Hence, I find the priorities of golf's governing bodies are misplaced.

How are amateurs being hurt by the modern golf ball?  At 52 I am a young baby boomer and I can't imagine a less lively ball would fuel my desire to spend more money on the game.  Golf can not lose the baby boomers and making us play even worse each year we grow older would do just that.

[David Bartman]

"we have a good investment portfolio" - USGA's Davis

If the fight materializes: 15 rounder, USGA wins by decision.

JR what do you do for a living?  

What if some governing body that only controls 1/45th of your earning potential each year decided to change the rules so that you would earn less money and maybe far less money?  Might you fight the ruling, might you gather others with the same gripe and fight the potential rule change?  

Get off your high horse , I have never met you , but you are far from perfect I can guarantee that!

I don't understand what the last sentence has to do with anything.

That said, you asked the wrong guy.  I'm a lawyer.  A lawyer who has laws changed every day that effect how I make my living.

And, if Obama is elected, the laws he will pass will cost me a lot of my money....and I will take it like a man....and bitch about it on facebook and twitter.

Rules change - laws change - and people have a right to contest them.  That said, litigating over golf rule changes when the wording seems so clear rubs me the wrong way - big time.  Thus, I have labeled those who fight the rule change dick-wads.

And in case anyone is wondering, I am perfect.

First of all, as a lawyer, your logic is embarrassingly flawed.  Nothing that Obama will pass will cause you to earn less money, it will certainly cause you to pay more in taxes and take home less, but not earn less.  Unless you were considering a less friendly business environment making people or companies or whomever you represent less litigious but that argument is a reach at best.  

Secondly, what wording are you talking about?  How can it rub your wrong way when there hasn't been any wording absorb?  

Lastly, what is your definition of dickwad?  Mine is an jerk or to be more frank, an a$$hole.  Are you really calling Keegan Bradley and dickwad for standing up for what he thinks is an outrageous rule change?  One that could directly effect his livlihood with little or no proof that it is an advantage?  

As an attorney, no matter which way you feel on Abortion rights, do you feel either side are dickwads for standing up for what they believe in?   My guess is that you probably feel that whomever feels differently than you on Abortion rights is a dickwad as well.   So we come full circle and get to the last line of my original post; just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't mean that they are dickwad, I'm sure many people disagree with you on a daily basis are you a dickwad?  

[Wade Whitehead]

The issue is the golf ball.

WW

[Jonathan Mallard]

I'm not a lawyer either, but here's how it goes down - in America, anyway:

Whatever statute they seek relief under, the decision must come down to this basic thesis:

The Supreme Court has already ruled that it has the ability to make an   "... Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable “essential” and “nonessential” rules of a made-up game..."

Everyone should read the last paragraph of Justice Scalia's dissent in this case. I'll copy it below and tweak to remove the ADA references. I don't think that will change the meaning, or what they will do. There have been some changes on the court since this was litigated, but I expect Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote. He voted for Casey Martin.

Complaints about this case are not “properly directed to Congress,” ante, at 27-28, n. 51. They are properly directed to this Court’s Kafkaesque determination that professional sports organizations, and the fields they rent for their exhibitions, are “places of public accommodation” to the competing athletes, and the athletes themselves “customers” of the organization that pays them; its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable “essential” and “nonessential” rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness .... mean(s) that everyone gets
to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one’s lack of ability ... will be a handicap. The year was 2001, and “everybody was finally equal.” K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997).

Full Case citation:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-24.ZS.html

[C. Squier]

The issue is the golf ball.

WW

For .001% of the golfing population. For the rest of us, the ball is fine.

[Bill Gayne]

I think I was the only one at the Dixie Cup using an anchored putter. Mike Hendren putted lights out using a standard length putter.

Now that my kids are older, I might go back to sailing if they ban the belly putter. Golf is really frustrating if you can't putt and it messes with your entire game. I switched to the belly putter last the Spring and it has changed my attitude towards the game.

[Jon Wiggett]

The issue is the golf ball.

WW

For .001% of the golfing population. For the rest of us, the ball is fine.

I believe this to be wrong. The ball is definitely flying further for at least some club golfers and some of those are not so straight. This in turn puts pressure on courses to lengthen and widen their courses requiring more land, more maintenance thus pushing up the costs. Also, because of the extra distance being played players are having to wait longer before it is safe to play and searching for balls longer (especially because of the expense).

30 years ago most club courses were 5000 to 6000 yards in length and it took 2.5 to 3.5 hours to play 18 holes. Now you can add 1000 yards to that and 1.5 hours.

Yes, the ball might be fine for the rest of us but it is not fine for the future of golf.

Jon

[C. Squier]

The issue is the golf ball.

WW

For .001% of the golfing population. For the rest of us, the ball is fine.

I believe this to be wrong. The ball is definitely flying further for at least some club golfers and some of those are not so straight. This in turn puts pressure on courses to lengthen and widen their courses requiring more land, more maintenance thus pushing up the costs. Also, because of the extra distance being played players are having to wait longer before it is safe to play and searching for balls longer (especially because of the expense).

30 years ago most club courses were 5000 to 6000 yards in length and it took 2.5 to 3.5 hours to play 18 holes. Now you can add 1000 yards to that and 1.5 hours.

Yes, the ball might be fine for the rest of us but it is not fine for the future of golf.

Jon

No golf course on the planet is going to bulldoze the back tees. By your logic, rounds will take longer....golfers aren't going to move up en masse.

Bottom line, I don't know one golfer who has made his course obsolete due to brute length.  If club members would stop trying to protect par when the tour comes through once a century, we wouldn't be lengthening courses like we are. But the second a US Open flirts with double digits over par, panties get twisted and in goes longer tees.

[jeffwarne]

The issue is the golf ball.

WW

For .001% of the golfing population. For the rest of us, the ball is fine.

.

[JR Potts]

David Bartman - get over yourself. 

I called Keegan Bradley a dickwad for threatening to litigate over a rule that had yet to be pronounced.  I called Keegan Bradley out for violating the rules of the game.

I'm not going to be pushed into discussing abortion or even whether or not Keegan Bradley truly is a dickwad.  If he files suit and emasculates the ability of a private organization to regulate the rules of play for their organization - well then yes, I will continue to call him a dickwad.

It's no deeper than that and deserves no additional mental masturbation.

[Pat Burke]

<<Biased (former) player alert!>>

I am uncomfortable with changing a rule affecting such an important
part success in tournament golf.  There are players who switched,
learned, and built success, within the framework of the rules.

Now, these players may be told, sorry, you worked to become proficient at this,
but you are going to have to relearn the portion of the game that impacts success more than any other.

Of course an argument can be made that this is a big reason TO change the rule, because it is so important.
I use a 31" putter, so no dog in the fight.  But if someone has learned to use a long or belly putter
through their development, it be like telling me to putt left handed.  I could learn it, but the carnage would
be significant.

[Kyle Henderson]

Has anyone demonstrated a statistical advantage to using anchored putting techniques over traditional stokes?

Conversely, did any baseball players sue when the started using a humidor to treat balls used for Rockies home games?

I believe the extreme performance of modern golf balls threatens the financial viability of the amatuer game while the anchored putting issue poses a paper-thin threat to the perceived integrity of the professional game. Moreover, I believe damage to the amateur game threatens pro tours more than vice versa. Hence, I find the priorities of golf's governing bodies are misplaced.

How are amateurs being hurt by the modern golf ball?  At 52 I am a young baby boomer and I can't imagine a less lively ball would fuel my desire to spend more money on the game.  Golf can not lose the baby boomers and making us play even worse each year we grow older would do just that.

Modern golf balls have led to course renovations ($) and increased maintenance costs ($) associated with lengthening. These costs are often ultimately paid for by amateur golfers.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Aren't broomsticks generally used by anchoring the top hand to the chest?  If the upper hand is held away from the body then it wouldn't be an anchored stroke.  Seems to me, never having tried a broomstick, that it would be very difficult to suspend the upper hand in the air to provide a fulcrum.

In my opinion the non-anchored broomstick is a whole different kettle than the anchored belly putter for a couple reasons. I don't see a case against the long broomstick that is held with a split grip; one at the very top as the fulcrum and one further down which controls the stroke.

The anchored belly putter, however, changes the fundamentals necessary to hole a putt. It virtually eliminates the possibility of an inconsistent angle of impact because the clubs swinging axis is now locked in place.

A full swing equivalent would be that practice drill that holds your wrists at a certain angle through impact. This particular "swing-aid" would benefit me greatly but I somehow think the USGA might not want me using it on the course.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bogey,

No religion on this thread, please.   

The distaste for the USGA on this site sometimes puzzles me.  They get damned when they do something - the grooves for instance, and damned when they don't - the ball for instance.  I guess you can't keep all the people happy all the time.

As to the epiphany about limiting the length of the stick, they've already limited the length for drivers, so this isn't exactly a new epiphany.  And, isn't the issue anchoring and not the length per se.

"we have a good investment portfolio" - USGA's Davis

Of course you do, because you haven't done a damned thing to grow the game, much less take on the moneyed ball manufacturers.  The only instutition that's worse is the church that stockpiles money while missionaries fend for themselves and God's other children go starving.  Golf has been, is now and always will be a stick and ball game.  And suddenly the USGA has an epiphany and decides to limit the length of a stick?   Because it looks goofy or because a small minority of players wield is effectively?  Trust me, no one will ever invent a putter that makes it easy to get a little ball in a little hole.  

Good for Bradley. If I'm him I sue them for everything they're worth, including their dandruff covered navy blazers.  

End of Rant.

Bogey

[Bryan Izatt]

Brian,

Glad to know that I'm normally reasonable although I seem to have lost my mind here.

I think you are going to an extreme in thinking of anchoring as it relates to a fixed granite object. The belly putter and the broomstick both provide relatively more stability to the butt end when they are pressed against the body than is the case for a regular putter in your hands.  Sure, your belly or your chest could move during a stroke, but it would be less disruptive on the stroke that a twitch in your hands or arms with a regular putter.  Also, there is no other stroke in golf where the club or hands are in contact with the body during the stroke.  I've been playing the game for 54 years; belly and broomstick putters were not the way I learned to play the game; I guess I'm just a traditionalist.  That said, I have no problem with modern balls or drivers.  They have provided me with little appreciable benefit and I still have to stroke the ball the way I always did.

I had the putting yips some years ago and went to a belly putter for a year or two. I didn't think it worked very well, but it did cure the yips.  I subsequently cut it down and used it as a regular putter for a while. I now use a regular putter again. 

[Jon Wiggett]

The issue is the golf ball.

WW

For .001% of the golfing population. For the rest of us, the ball is fine.

I believe this to be wrong. The ball is definitely flying further for at least some club golfers and some of those are not so straight. This in turn puts pressure on courses to lengthen and widen their courses requiring more land, more maintenance thus pushing up the costs. Also, because of the extra distance being played players are having to wait longer before it is safe to play and searching for balls longer (especially because of the expense).

30 years ago most club courses were 5000 to 6000 yards in length and it took 2.5 to 3.5 hours to play 18 holes. Now you can add 1000 yards to that and 1.5 hours.

Yes, the ball might be fine for the rest of us but it is not fine for the future of golf.

Jon

No golf course on the planet is going to bulldoze the back tees. By your logic, rounds will take longer....golfers aren't going to move up en masse.

Bottom line, I don't know one golfer who has made his course obsolete due to brute length.  If club members would stop trying to protect par when the tour comes through once a century, we wouldn't be lengthening courses like we are. But the second a US Open flirts with double digits over par, panties get twisted and in goes longer tees.

CSquier,

very few courses have tour events but almost every course that has been able to has been lengthened in the last 30 years. Why is this if not because of the ball flying further?

If courses have lengthened because of the ball as is my theory then it is logical they would shorten if the ball was shortened. In the past courses have had no problem in abandoning old tees as can be seen by the many old disused tee pads to be found on most of our UK courses. I agree they would not bulldoze them but rather no longer use them.

Longer ball flights are not just longer but also further left and right meaning more lost balls. Players spend ages looking for the expensive new balls as apposed to just dropping another an playing as we used to with the cheap old double dot rejects of yesteryears.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()