2013 PGA Tour Thread

[St. Pats]

On the lack of statistical evidence that an anchored stroke is an advantage: "The playing rules are not based on statistical studies; they are based on judgments that define the game and its intended challenges. One of those challenges is to control the entire club, and anchoring alters that challenge.

What bozo wrote this stuff --What contradictory junk. The challenge is altered? How so when the stats say it isn't? Because somebody says so?

"Moreover, the issue is not whether anchoring provides a statistically demonstrable advantage to the average player, or on every stroke or in every circumstance. What matters here is whether, by diminishing obstacles inherent in the traditional stroke, anchoring may advantage some players at other times. Statistics are not necessary to resolve that issue."

This one is hilarious. Stats prove that there is no advantage but stats aren't neccessary because obstacles have been diminished and therefore the stats lie.


• On few using an anchored stroke: "Many golfers believe that anchoring is not a proper way to play the game and have not anchored for that reason. Also, the trend over two decades is toward remarkably increasing use -- a particularly worrisome trend now that beginners and juniors are being taught anchored strokes."

Many golfers believe it's not the way to play the game / remarkably increasing use is the trend. Well which is it? Sounds like a typical old farts argument. It ain't the way we did it so it's wrong. I don't care what the stats say or about the popularity of it. I just want it to be just like it was. What a ridiculous argument especially in golf where absolutely nothing is the same as it was. Not the courses, the balls, the equipment, the training, etc to the enth degree.

[Flabbibulin]

The crazy thing about Sergio's comments are they basically bring an end to the feud- no way he ever says anything bad about Tiger in public again.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

On the lack of statistical evidence that an anchored stroke is an advantage: "The playing rules are not based on statistical studies; they are based on judgments that define the game and its intended challenges. One of those challenges is to control the entire club, and anchoring alters that challenge.

What bozo wrote this stuff --What contradictory junk. The challenge is altered? How so when the stats say it isn't? Because somebody says so?

"Moreover, the issue is not whether anchoring provides a statistically demonstrable advantage to the average player, or on every stroke or in every circumstance. What matters here is whether, by diminishing obstacles inherent in the traditional stroke, anchoring may advantage some players at other times. Statistics are not necessary to resolve that issue."

This one is hilarious. Stats prove that there is no advantage but stats aren't neccessary because obstacles have been diminished and therefore the stats lie.


• On few using an anchored stroke: "Many golfers believe that anchoring is not a proper way to play the game and have not anchored for that reason. Also, the trend over two decades is toward remarkably increasing use -- a particularly worrisome trend now that beginners and juniors are being taught anchored strokes."

Many golfers believe it's not the way to play the game / remarkably increasing use is the trend. Well which is it? Sounds like a typical old farts argument. It ain't the way we did it so it's wrong. I don't care what the stats say or about the popularity of it. I just want it to be just like it was. What a ridiculous argument especially in golf where absolutely nothing is the same as it was. Not the courses, the balls, the equipment, the training, etc to the enth degree.

I trust you will be quitting golf with an attitude like that?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

On the lack of statistical evidence that an anchored stroke is an advantage: "The playing rules are not based on statistical studies; they are based on judgments that define the game and its intended challenges. One of those challenges is to control the entire club, and anchoring alters that challenge.

What bozo wrote this stuff --What contradictory junk. The challenge is altered? How so when the stats say it isn't? Because somebody says so?

"Moreover, the issue is not whether anchoring provides a statistically demonstrable advantage to the average player, or on every stroke or in every circumstance. What matters here is whether, by diminishing obstacles inherent in the traditional stroke, anchoring may advantage some players at other times. Statistics are not necessary to resolve that issue."

This one is hilarious. Stats prove that there is no advantage but stats aren't neccessary because obstacles have been diminished and therefore the stats lie.


• On few using an anchored stroke: "Many golfers believe that anchoring is not a proper way to play the game and have not anchored for that reason. Also, the trend over two decades is toward remarkably increasing use -- a particularly worrisome trend now that beginners and juniors are being taught anchored strokes."

Many golfers believe it's not the way to play the game / remarkably increasing use is the trend. Well which is it? Sounds like a typical old farts argument. It ain't the way we did it so it's wrong. I don't care what the stats say or about the popularity of it. I just want it to be just like it was. What a ridiculous argument especially in golf where absolutely nothing is the same as it was. Not the courses, the balls, the equipment, the training, etc to the enth degree.

How would it even be possible to set up controls to determine conclusively whether it provides a statistical advantage or not? Show some stats that prove it is not an advantage! Maybe Mythbusters could tackle the subject.

I think the most succinct statement I've heard is a lever is easier to control than a pendulum. The rules of golf are not designed to provide the easiest way possible to get the ball from the tee into the hole. Otherwise people would be using these clubs http://totallyabsurd.com/12gaugegolfclub.htm

The stroke should have never been allowed in the first place, and will now be rightfully labelled as cheating.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

How would it even be possible to set up controls to determine conclusively whether it provides a statistical advantage or not? Show some stats that prove it is not an advantage! Maybe Mythbusters could tackle the subject.

I think the most succinct statement I've heard is a lever is easier to control than a pendulum. The rules of golf are not designed to provide the easiest way possible to get the ball from the tee into the hole. Otherwise people would be using these clubs http://totallyabsurd.com/12gaugegolfclub.htm

The stroke should have never been allowed in the first place, and will now be rightfully labelled as cheating.

In the very defense of the ruling it is stated that it is NOT an advantage statistically but that the rules aren't based on stats. There is no leg to stand on here with scientific evidence and they have plainly said so. Some golfers have success with different grips, or a multitude of different putters and the long putter feels good to some other guys. It ain't putting the ball in the hole for them. Statistical evidence isn't there so they are using other rubbish reasons. Cheating would be something that gave you an actual advantage.

This is just a bunch of old farts whining.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

In the very defense of the ruling it is stated that it is NOT an advantage statistically but that the rules aren't based on stats. There is no leg to stand on here with scientific evidence and they have plainly said so. Some golfers have success with different grips, or a multitude of different putters and the long putter feels good to some other guys. It ain't putting the ball in the hole for them. Statistical evidence isn't there so they are using other rubbish reasons. Cheating would be something that gave you an actual advantage.

This is just a bunch of old farts whining.

I believe they conceded that there is a lack of evidence demonstrating an advantage. That is very different than stating that there is no statistical advantage.

Freely swinging the club with two hands is the essence of golf. Leveraging the club against your body, getting down on all fours and shooting it in pool cue style, strapping a long driver to your fore arm all detract from the game. If you want to play like that, no one is going to kick you off the course, but don't expect to be able to compete against people trying to play the game as it was designed. Changing grips does not detract from that fundamental.

And I thought it was mostly old farts who used long putters?

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I believe they conceded that there is a lack of evidence demonstrating an advantage. That is very different than stating that there is no statistical advantage.

Freely swinging the club with two hands is the essence of golf. Leveraging the club against your body, getting down on all fours and shooting it in pool cue style, strapping a long driver to your fore arm all detract from the game. If you want to play like that, no one is going to kick you off the course, but don't expect to be able to compete against people trying to play the game as it was designed. Changing grips does not detract from that fundamental.

And I thought it was mostly old farts who used long putters?

According to them it's exploding among the youth as well. The game as it was designed is comical. The game does not even remotely resemble the game as it was originally. Advances in tech have made courses obsolete. Heck if you want it back to traditional old fella then you would have to be banning a whole lot of things.

The bottom line is there is no scientific reason for changing what has been going on for decades. It just reeks of a bunch of retirees in a back room somewhere longing for the golden days.

[moon]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

The bottom line is there is no scientific reason for changing what has been going on for decades. It just reeks of a bunch of retirees in a back room somewhere longing for the golden days.

Except Leggat stated that 90% of current pro would vote to ban them.

While no way to be sure of the 90% the fact he was on the tour recently gives him some credibility and the likelihood that it is obviously a big majority and these guys aren't retirees in a back room longing for the golden days.

If guys like Scott, Simpson and Els can't hold the putter straight and have the yips so bad they can't putt then too bad for them. Putting is part of the game and having the nerves to make it is something that seperates winner from losers on Sunday.

Good to see them ban the putters in the professional game.

[transplant99]

This change is from the USGA and the R&A......nothing about it means the PGA tour has to follow suit. They are under no obligation to do anything they do not want to as a professional sports orginization that has its own set of rules.

So no, its not about a group of "old men" longing for the golden days or whatever nonsense you wish to apply here.

Its a governing body of a sport who have decided that the anchoring of a putter takes away from the fundamentals of the game...ie: swinging every club to make a stroke. Disagree with the definition all you like, but at least understand there is a real basis for the decision.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This change is from the USGA and the R&A......nothing about it means the PGA tour has to follow suit. They are under no obligation to do anything they do not want to as a professional sports orginization that has its own set of rules.

So no, its not about a group of "old men" longing for the golden days or whatever nonsense you wish to apply here.

Its a governing body of a sport who have decided that the anchoring of a putter takes away from the fundamentals of the game...ie: swinging every club to make a stroke. Disagree with the definition all you like, but at least understand there is a real basis for the decision.

The PGA tour can do what it wants for its tournaments, but they don't control any of the majors. Would be kind of lame if each of the majors had its own set of rules.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by moon

Except Leggat stated that 90% of current pro would vote to ban them.

While no way to be sure of the 90% the fact he was on the tour recently gives him some credibility and the likelihood that it is obviously a big majority and these guys aren't retirees in a back room longing for the golden days.

If guys like Scott, Simpson and Els can't hold the putter straight and have the yips so bad they can't putt then too bad for them. Putting is part of the game and having the nerves to make it is something that seperates winner from losers on Sunday.

Good to see them ban the putters in the professional game.

So that is why the explosion according to them amongst younger players --they all have the yips do they?

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This change is from the USGA and the R&A......nothing about it means the PGA tour has to follow suit. They are under no obligation to do anything they do not want to as a professional sports orginization that has its own set of rules.

So no, its not about a group of "old men" longing for the golden days or whatever nonsense you wish to apply here.

Its a governing body of a sport who have decided that the anchoring of a putter takes away from the fundamentals of the game...ie: swinging every club to make a stroke. Disagree with the definition all you like, but at least understand there is a real basis for the decision.

The fundamentals of the game? So the putter goes back and forth and the ball goes toward the hole. Don't see a change there. Those who do it with the putter in their belly, along their arm or up their arse for that matter not gaining any statistical advantage. This practice has been in place literally for decades. So now it's all of a sudden a fundamental of the game --Yep.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The PGA tour can do what it wants for its tournaments, but they don't control any of the majors. Would be kind of lame if each of the majors had its own set of rules.

Lame as in having to put asterisks on the majors already won with players using long putters?

[moon]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

So that is why the explosion according to them amongst younger players --they all have the yips do they?

No idea and explosion is kind of a lose term so does it mean that 10% are using it, 25%, 75%? Without knowing the actual numbers hard to say the exact reason but my guess is that it is a combination of kids/parents seeing guys use it on TV and think it is an answer, kids/parents wanting to blame anything but the kid for putting issue, greater availability of these putter compared to the past and perhaps in a small amount the yips.

[moon]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Lame as in having to put asterisks on the majors already won with players using long putters?

Why would they put asterisks on those majors?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

... along their arm or up their arse for that matter not gaining any statistical advantage..

You can keep saying that, doesn't mean it's true though.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by moon

Why would they put asterisks on those majors?

Because apparently the winners were defying the very fundamentals of the game and are despicable non traditionalist cheaters. Who have gained an amazing ability to sink putts from dang near anywhere at an incredible rate(though somehow stats don't show this).

[moon]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Because apparently the winners were defying the very fundamentals of the game and are despicable non traditionalist cheaters. Who have gained an amazing ability to sink putts from dang near anywhere at an incredible rate(though somehow stats don't show this).

Outside of you has anyone said anything close to that?

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by moon

Outside of you has anyone said anything close to that?

The very people in this thread defending the ruling. Plus them being called cheaters is commonplace.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

The fundamentals of the game? So the putter goes back and forth and the ball goes toward the hole. Don't see a change there. Those who do it with the putter in their belly, along their arm or up their arse for that matter not gaining any statistical advantage. This practice has been in place literally for decades. So now it's all of a sudden a fundamental of the game --Yep.

This is not a stat conversation. It is basic physics. A stat in this instance would never be able to prove a correlation between changing putting styles and gaining an unfair advantage. Obviously these guys are better at putting with an anchored grip than without, or else they wouldn't be doing it. If someone broke out a stat like that, there would just be people like you claiming that they are better because they like it, not because it is unfair.

The reason to use an anchored putting grip is to steady your hands in pressure situations. How could there be a stat for that? You would not heart monitors and such.

Just because your buddies are going to give you a hard time in a few years for using an illegal grip, doesn't mean you have to get into some serious butthurt denial over something that seems pretty obvious.