Golf Digest Search Results

Five things we should be talking about instead of anchoring

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:03:00 GMT

By Sam Weinman

As we debate every side of the proposed ban on anchored putting -- whether it's good for golf, whether it's necessary, whether the PGA Tour should follow the USGA's lead -- another important question has risen to the surface: Don't we have anything better to talk about?

The answer, even in golf circles, is OF COURSE. It's true, three of the last five major championships have been won by players with anchored putters, but it's still an issue that is relevant to only a fraction of the golf population. So when PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem took to national TV to declare the tour's stance against the anchoring ban, there was a sense that he missed an opportunity to talk about issues with far wider ramifications.

You want to talk about important issues in golf? This is an important issue.
Photo by Cy Cyr

In case you forgot what those were:

1. The ball. Again, this is more of a problem at the tour level than it is among recreational players -- when was the last time one of your buddies complained about his ball traveling too far? -- but it's still an issue that has influence over how the game is played, how golf courses are built, and of course, how golf balls are made. So even if the decision by golf's governing bodies is to leave the ball alone, it's a decision that will have real significance.

Related: Why the PGA Tour is opposing the ban

2. The cost. We have a hard time believing there will be scores of golfers who will stop playing the game because they can't anchor their putters. What we can believe is there are plenty of dormant golfers who no longer play because the game costs too much. Clubs, balls, green fees -- the expense of it all is a major reason why golf participation has been flat for the better part of a decade. If Finchem were to bend Johnny Miller's ear on ways the tour wants to help golf be more affordable, well that would be compelling TV. OK, maybe compelling is too strong a word. It is Tim Finchem...

3. Slow play. The same case can be made about pace of play, another obstacle in golf's fight for relevance. Imagine a scenario in which the USGA announced it was going to implement stiffer penalties for slow play while the PGA Tour said it didn't want to follow suit. Who would you side with? Who cares? The point is it would be a debate worth having.

4. All-male memberships. Did you ever think you'd be longing to hear the name Martha Burk? OK, maybe not. But there is an important distinction between the limited reach of the the anchored putting issue and the limited reach of the Augusta National membership controversy: the Augusta discussion had great symbolic meaning. It wasn't so much about the membership practices of an elite Southern club as it was about golf's lingering air of exclusivity and the rights of private entities. And seeing how there are still plenty of esteemed golf clubs with all-male memberships, it's an issue that influences the perception of golf in our society. Anchored putting, meanwhile, is mostly just about anchored putting.

5. Cell phones. You laugh. But if an anchored putter isn't likely to factor into your Saturday game, there's a very good chance a cell phone will. Should you be allowed to make a phone call from the golf course? What's your feeling on texting? It may seem like a trivial matter, but given how prevalent technology is in our society, golf needs to reopen the conversation about what is and what is not appropriate on the course.

Because remember, at most courses, someone with a phone jammed in their ear is still a far more common sight than someone with a putter in their gut.

Follow @SamWeinman

Inside Golf World Podcast: Shaking things up at the USGA

Steve Hennessey — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:25:00 GMT

By Ryan Herrington Set aside for a moment your position on whether or not the anchored putting stroke should be banned.When the USGA teamed with the R&A last November to announce its proposed rules...

Video: How Seriously Do You Take The Rules Of Golf?

GolfDigest.com — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:00:00 GMT

We asked golfers for their thoughts on the game's rules, including the USGA/R&A's proposed ban on anchored putting.

Golf World's 2012 Newsmakers of The Year

GolfDigest.com — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:00:00 GMT

Taking stock of 2012 by counting down the year's 25 biggest headliners.

Drop the anchor: There's a better way

Sam Weinman — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:22:00 GMT

By Jeff PattersonAs golf's governing bodies propose a ban on anchoring, we propose you copy the pros who've putted just fine, thank you very much, without getting any dirty looks. Arnold Palmer, Mark O'Meara, Steve Stricker...

The Long And Short Of It

Ron Sirak — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The golf world reacts to the USGA/R&A's ban on anchored putting.

Ron Sirak: Let The Long Wait Begin

Ron Sirak — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The timing of the proposed anchoring ban is just one curious part of this decision.

Ron Sirak: Settling In For A Long Fight

Ron Sirak — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:00:00 GMT

An imminent ruling on anchoring would hardly mean the end of the debate.

Could Keegan & Co. have a case against the PGA Tour?

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:28:00 GMT

By Alex Myers

Earlier this week, Keegan Bradley said he would fight a potential ban on anchoring putters, and he encouraged fellow tour pros to join his cause. But would he and other golfers who use long putters have a case?

Apparently, they might, says attorney Jeff Rosenblum of the Memphis-based law firm of Rosenblum and Reisman.

"It's a potential legal issue. . . . There are ways to challenge," Rosenblum said. "Would it be a frivolous lawsuit? No. Would it be a good investment? That all depends."

Photo by Getty Images

Rosenblum has experience dealing with the governing bodies of golf. Three years ago, he represented Doug Barron, the first golfer to be penalized under the PGA Tour's drug policy. Despite the fact that this case would involve the USGA and R&A first implementing such a rule that would then be imposed by the pro tours, Rosenblum said, "There's not a whole lot different than the anti-doping issue, really."

What could be different, though, is the number of players such a ruling would affect, and just how effective Bradley is at rounding up fellow golfers to take their cause to court.

"It makes more sense if 10 millionaires get together and say 'we want to contest it,'" Rosenblum said. "Legally, the last guy on the Web.com Tour has just as much standing to sue as Keegan Bradley or Tiger Woods. The practical reality is, though, it's extremely expensive."

In other words, the push back has to come from players who are very confident their cause is worth it and probably not from guys like Barron, who fought his drug fight alone and who happened to go back and forth between belly and conventional putters this past season on the Web.com Tour.

As Rosenblum pointed out, cases against sports organizations -- like the recent one involving the NFL and "Bounty Gate" -- are becoming more common. Leagues and commissioner's can't just arbitrarily change/make rulings, but instead, must prove that there "is a nexus between the rule and the game and a need for the rule."

Rosenblum said that if a case like this ever went to court, it would probably be heard by a federal judge, "who doesn't care about the politics involved." Even if a trial were to be held in Jacksonville, Fla., the headquarters of the PGA Tour.

What could make that more complicated, however, is if golf's governing bodies decide not to make the ban across the board. For instance, what if established players like Bradley and recent U.S. and British Open winners Webb Simpson and Ernie Els could continue to anchor, while tour newcomers are forced to putt with a more conventional method? That seems unlikely, but as Rosenblum said, "It's amazing how decisions and compromises are made to keep things out of court."

Follow @AlexMyers3