+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 78
Thread: Ban the belly now!
-
04-16-2013 05:23 PM #31
It lives! Just like the ugly putting! For now
Donny Vantage NFL Guru, since 1974
Money won is twice as sweet as money earned
-
04-16-2013 05:31 PM #32
Of course, if I had my way, drivers would be capped at 300cc and .79 co, iron heads would at least have to be made of one piece of something, you can forget about 90% of the putters made in the last 20 years lol.
-
04-16-2013 05:31 PM #33
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Ottawa
- Posts
- 293
Just an extension of the anchoring topic. Matt Kuchar holds it against his forearm. Odyssey is coming out with bent shafts that allow the putter shaft to stay connected all along the forearm.
What do people think of this?
-
04-16-2013 05:40 PM #34
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- ottawa
- Posts
- 118
Blasphemy , what a great description , damn I wish I had used that one , my thoughts exactly
-
04-16-2013 05:50 PM #35
I don't like it. Hold the club in your hands, make a stroke. Isn't that how it's always been done up to 10 years ago?
Again, these guys playing competitively, I wouldn't hold it against them for standing on their head to putt if the rules allowed it and it helped their game.
-
04-16-2013 06:42 PM #36
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- ottawa
- Posts
- 118
Again I'm not for this one , I really do think that the big guys who enforce the rules on us should have gone a bit further with the proposed ban on anchored putters , I had hoped they would have brought in some sort of maximum shaft lenth , to me they have just tried to limit the amout of complaints from tour pros by still allowing long putters , sort of a bad trade of if you want to think of it that way
-
04-16-2013 07:45 PM #37
I'm not a student of the History of Golf, so correct me if I'm missing something here. Where does all this "unrest" come from re: the belly/anchored putter? Unfair advantage? Come on folks... Over-size AND metal "woods"; steel then carbon fibre shafts; grooves; limited number of clubs (I'm a little sketchy on this one); plastic spikes; GPS; compression balls; manicured fairways and greens... I'm sure there are more... so why the big deal about a longer putter? It's not changing or ruining the game any more than the other "advancements" since the game was invented. If things did not change then we'd still have white male players and black caddies at Augusta...
"All I need to know about life, I learned from my dog".
-
04-16-2013 07:53 PM #38
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,163
-
04-16-2013 09:20 PM #39
-
04-16-2013 10:37 PM #40
-
04-17-2013 12:25 AM #41
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- around here
- Posts
- 2,102
I could not find any rule that prohibits anchoring ANY club (if that's what you wished to do), or dictates that a club must "swing freely":
14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.
It seems to me that a long putter does that. Furthermore, there is nothing in the definition of a stroke that would indicate that "anchoring" a club should not meet that definition:
Stroke
A “stroke’’ is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball...
Just because someone found a new (and perhaps better) way to do something does not mean that it should dismissed out-of-hand as cheating. There are many different swing styles, and there are many different putting styles. To me there is no difference between the long putter vs short putter and claw grip vs traditional grip, "modern" golf swing vs. reverse "C", etc. Different techniques and styles work for different people.
The onus should be on the ruling bodies to show why something should not be allowed rather that on why something should be permitted. So far they haven't made a very good case for disallowing it.
-
04-17-2013 06:07 AM #42
You look fabulous in that hat Pablo!
Life dinnae come wit gimmies so yuv got nae chance o' gitt'n any from me.
-
04-17-2013 06:40 AM #43
-
04-17-2013 07:54 AM #44
Ive played with a few people that use the long putter and have never thought to myself that they had an advantage on me, dont understand why any amateur would actually care about this.
-
04-17-2013 08:10 AM #45
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Location
- Kanata, Ontario
- Posts
- 1,491
If you "Ban the Belly" there will be a lot of people, myself included, cutting out the beer and hitting the diet machines. I don't think the governing bodies, who probably all aren't flat bellies, will go along with that rule change. I think banning Pablo's bucket would be more appropriate.
-
04-18-2013 07:53 AM #46
We should take a poll to see how many of us think Adam Scott or Ernie Els would of won their last major without an anchored putter. These 2 guys couldn't putt to a basketball from 10 feet away under pressure. (With a normal putter) What a great masters finish though, you had to feel good for Scott.
-
04-18-2013 08:11 AM #47
-
04-21-2013 05:35 AM #48Proud member of the 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ottawa Golf Ryder Cup teams.
-
04-21-2013 06:07 AM #49
But there is no controversy with the ' normal ' equipment.
Donny Vantage NFL Guru, since 1974
Money won is twice as sweet as money earned
-
04-21-2013 09:31 AM #50
If "no competitive advantage" was the standard then there would be no reason to have any restriction on equipment or use of equipment. But it is not the standard. Equipment and use of it is restricted as per 14-3.
I think 14-3 addresses it in some regard.
First part says you can't use equipment in an unusual way that MIGHT assist him in making a stroke. To me that covers anchoring to a tee (remember it says MIGHT assist).
But the second part says it it OK if it is used in a traditionally accepted manner and there is certainly an argument to say that anchoring has been used long enough to have been "traditionally accepted". It certainly has been accepted for quite a while.
Bolding was added by me.
__________________________________________________ ___
14-3. Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment And Unusual Use Of Equipment
The USGA reserves the right, at any time, to change the Rules relating to artificial devices, unusual equipment and the unusual use of equipment, and to make or change the interpretations relating to these Rules.
A player in doubt as to whether use of an item would constitute a breach of Rule 14-3 should consult the USGA.
A manufacturer should submit to the USGA a sample of an item to be manufactured for a ruling as to whether its use during a stipulated round would cause a player to be in breach of Rule 14-3. The sample becomes the property of the USGA for reference purposes. If a manufacturer fails to submit a sample or, having submitted a sample, fails to await a ruling before manufacturing and/or marketing the item, the manufacturer assumes the risk of a ruling that use of the item would be contrary to the Rules.
Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment (see Appendix IV for detailed specifications and interpretations), or use any equipment in an unusual manner:
a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or
b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or
c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:
(i) gloves may be worn provided that they are plain gloves;
(ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and
(iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip.
Exceptions:
1. A player is not in breach of this Rule if (a) the equipment or device is designed for or has the effect of alleviating a medical condition, (b) the player has a legitimate medical reason to use the equipment or device, and (c) the Committee is satisfied that its use does not give the player any undue advantage over other players.
2. A player is not in breach of this Rule if he uses equipment in a traditionally accepted manner.
__________________________________________________ ___
There are sooooooo many red herring arguments on this issue, but the more I think about it (too much already), 14-3 is the whole issue in a nutshell:- An anchored stroke can reasonably be ruled to violate 14-3 (a) and if they had ruled that when anchoring started I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelash.
- However because anchoring has been used for an extended period of time Exception 2 can reasonably ruled to allow anchoring.
It appears that the above rule has been in place since 2008 the USGA and R&A so they missed a golden opportunity to ban anchoring then. They appear to be now going "oops" and want to change their mind. The pros and cons of that can be boiled down to:
PRO: If you made a mistake and can correct it going forward you should correct it going forward.
CON: It is unfair to require people to change from what has been accepted for an extended period.
Opinions will vary on whether the PRO or CON argument should "win". I don't think there is any fact or magic point that makes either stronger. Really no right or wrong answer. You just have to weigh them, pick one and accept that everyone won't agree.Last edited by jlaidley; 04-21-2013 at 10:11 AM.
Make your golf leagues GREAT with the "golfscoring" league system: LIVE scoring on your lounge TV, handicapping & lots of other features. PM me to learn more.
-
04-21-2013 10:41 AM #51
This 46 year old article could've been written yesterday.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...ne/MAG1079906/
-
04-21-2013 11:26 AM #52
-
04-21-2013 05:55 PM #53
-
04-21-2013 07:55 PM #54
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,163
Interesting. If aesthetics were really an important consideration by the RB's, why would they ban this? http://chicagogolfguy.files.wordpres.../01/photo3.jpg
And yet allow this aesthetically displeasing piece of junk? http://taylormadegolf.ca/TaylorMade/...ormade-putters
-
04-22-2013 12:52 AM #55
-
04-22-2013 04:38 AM #56
Lyle, I'm dumbfounded when it comes to why one of these uglies is in and the other is out. My brother used to play with a putter that looked like the business end of a ball peen hammer. Now that thing was disturbing in appearance, and yet it had received the seal of approval. Quite frankly I think it was approved out of a sense of mischief. If you could actually strike the ball with it, you deserved all the credit in the world. It's striking surface was a little bigger than a dime!
Proud member of the 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ottawa Golf Ryder Cup teams.
-
04-22-2013 08:12 AM #57
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,163
Do you mean that looks like this one? http://www.xfactordirect.com/putter.htm
I still have and once used Dave Pelz Three Ball Putter and when contact was made off the "sweet spot" the roll of the ball was as pure as any modern day putter. However, any contact away from centre would cause the ball to roll significantly off line because of the extremely low MOI.
-
04-22-2013 09:52 AM #58
-
04-22-2013 12:14 PM #59
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Liverpool
- Posts
- 1,340
http://www.xfactordirect.com/putter.htm
This club does not conform.
When the clubhead is in its normal address position, the dimensions of the head must be such that:
the distance from the heel to the toe is greater than the distance from the face to the back;
-
04-22-2013 01:23 PM #60
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Belly Putter
By Kiwi in forum Golf ClubsReplies: 2Last Post: 12-22-2011, 09:11 AM -
Looking for a belly putter LH
By Kbulm in forum PuttersReplies: 1Last Post: 09-07-2011, 02:58 PM -
Yes RH Emma Belly
By Matt44 in forum PuttersReplies: 1Last Post: 08-09-2011, 01:32 PM -
L.H Belly Putter
By BlueMan in forum PuttersReplies: 0Last Post: 03-15-2010, 02:17 PM -
belly putter
By sammy_dawson in forum Golf ClubsReplies: 3Last Post: 09-04-2003, 10:18 AM