PGA 'O America Attacks: Bring On The PGA Tour Rules Of Golf!

Not since Sonny Corleone was hit with 300 bullets (yet not one to the face!) has one of Golf's Five Families gone on such a brazen attack of another family. Yet the PGA of America sounds determined to go after the USGA and R&A's place in the game with its latest missive, penned by president Ted Bishop in his weekly column that summarizes the recent PGA Conference of Leaders.

An "Open Forum" was convened and mostly discussed anchoring.

A straw poll was conducted on Tuesday and there was not one single hand that went in the air to support the proposed ban of the long putter by the USGA and R&A from the over 200 in attendance.

Or maybe just confirmation that groupthink is alive and well in America?

During the Open Forum, I gave a brief presentation to our PGA members on Local Rules and Conditions of Competition as defined by the Rules of Golf. The reason for doing this was to insure that our Section leaders were clear on their understanding that if the proposed ban is implemented, PGA professionals and their facilities will not have the ability to impose a local rule or a condition of competition allowing anchoring without it being a direct violation of the Rules of Golf.  This would be bifurcation of the Rules in its purest sense.

I do believe the Rules of Golf are entirely optional, so technically it's not bifurcation? More like, not playing by the optional Rules of Golf, right?

Currently, there are four Conditions of Competition in the Rules of Golf that are adopted differently by the four major championships. In the case of the One Ball Rule, the PGA Championship does not accept it while the other three majors do.

There's a buried lede for you! Go on...

However, there has been widespread speculation that if the proposed anchoring ban is implemented by the USGA and R&A that the PGA TOUR might adopt in its own set of rules which will allow anchoring. The question was then posed to PGA members in the Open Forum, which rules would you follow? Those adopted by the USGA, banning anchoring, or a set of PGA Rules, which might permit it? Less than a dozen in attendance indicated support of USGA Rules and well over 200 indicated support of what could be PGA Rules.

Great! Can't wait to read these special rules. That should only take about 1000 hours of Tim Finchem's time in the coming months, not to mention the massive legal bill they'll run up ironing out differences and proving they aren't plagiarizing the copyrighted Rules of Golf.

Just the thought of the non-profit PGA of America and PGA Tour dipping into their hundreds of millions in the bank and spending so much time on something that won't make them a dime makes my Friday!

Of course, it'll take them about three years to get these rules up and running. If we're lucky.

The PGA of Canada recently surveyed its membership and approximately 33% responded with nearly 65% opposing the proposed ban on anchoring. The PGA of Canada has sent a letter to the R&A and the USGA expressing the opinions of its members. I have also had conversations with Shizuo Mori, the Chairman of the PGA of Japan. He indicates that while there is nothing official yet, he agrees more with the position of the PGA of America and the PGA TOUR. Japan and Canada both are governed by the R&A.

PGA Tour, PGA of America, PGA of Japan. Tim, don't forget to build in translation costs to that bill for the new PGA Tour Rules of Golf! But it'll be great having your partners from Japan at the table, won't it?

A week ago, the European Tour issued a statement in support of the proposed ban. Some would say that this was a reversal of positions based on earlier comments by the European Tour that “there was no compelling reason to change the Rule at this time.” The Sunshine Tour, located in South Africa, also supports the ban.
 
The line in the sand seems to be the Atlantic Ocean. Golf bodies west of the Atlantic are agitated by the proposed anchoring ban. Those East of the Atlantic seem more inclined to follow the authority of the rules makers. As Michael Bamberger from Sport Illustrated pointed out to me, Americans always seem to be more inclined to challenge authority than their European counterparts. History has proven that.

Or maybe the Europeans don't have silly fast greens and therefore as many yippy golfers?

The PGA TOUR recently acquired the Darrell Survey Data from 2009 to present as it relates to usage numbers of mid-length and long putters at all official PGA TOUR events. In assessing this date, the TOUR has cross-referenced the number of players using these clubs per event (of whom almost all are presumably anchoring) with field size, identifying a percentage of use at each event.

From 2009 through much of 2011 between 5-10% of the fields anchored. From late 2011 to early 2012, there was a significant spike in usage where the TOUR saw 15-25% of the field using these clubs.

Which would be supporting the notion that anchoring was increasing at an amazing clip?

However, following the end of the West Coast PGA TOUR events in the early spring of 2012, usage begins to drop and we see a continuing downward trend that appears to be approaching the previous levels of 2009-2011.

And therefore...the announced proposed ban has already discouraged some? Or it was a fad and the governing bodies are merely eliminating a fad?

Certainly another issue facing PGA members is at the recreational level. We have serious concerns on how the ban on anchoring could affect the enjoyment of the game by our amateur customers. Over the past few months, I have received dozens of letters from concerned amateurs who look to the PGA of America to stand up and protect their interests.

Dozens?

These people are discouraged and frustrated that an anchoring ban will be imposed after they adopted a previously legal method of putting. Most indicate they will play less golf or quit. The game cannot afford this.

I think we need to commission a study on this, no?

We feel the USGA and R&A have underestimated the impact and ramifications that Rule 14-1b will have on the overall state of the game. It has become one of the most divisive issues that modern day golf has seen. All of these controversial issues will dissipate if the proposed ban is dropped.

Oh, something tells me that isn't so!

Update on 2013-03-15 20:01 by Geoff

**The PGA of Canada's Gregg Schubert has issued a similar letter addressed to the USGA's Glen Nager and Mike Davis with a much different tone but some of the same glaring omissions. Also a tad problematic is that it's dated March 14, which is two weeks after the 90-day comment period ended. What took so long?

Anyway, this is an ironic pairing of paragraphs:

So there is data to support the assertion that the number of golfers will decline, but we aren't actually going to cite that regression other than the opinions of Canadian golf professionals?

In the next paragraph the PGA of Canada then complains about the lack of scientific data cited to make the case for anchoring in the next paragraph?

Tim Clark On A Possible Legal Challenge To Anchoring Ban: "That would never be something I'd ever look to do."

Following up on last week's chat with select media members (reported here and here), Tim Clark and Adam Scott sat down with Golf Channel's Todd Lewis for their first TV interview to defend the rights of putter anchoring. Both players do their best to make their case, and Lewis asks some different questions which help clarify a few key points. (I've transcribed highlights as the Golf Central videos disappear into cyberspace in a week.)

Both players tell Lewis they were surprised by the announcement of the proposed rule change last fall, but remain respectful of the governing bodies place in the game. But asked why he switched, Clark said he "never felt I was a very good putter, still don't feel I'm a very good putter" and explains his medical condition.

I have a bit of a congenital arm issue where I can't supinate my forearms, so the short putter was just never very comfortable in my hands. I always looked awkward over it and it just felt awkward.

Lewis interrupts, asking for clarification whether the conditions is "uncomfortable or painful?" Clark:

"More uncomfortable. I mean, it's extremely hard to putt with tight forearms and you know, I picked up the long putter and it took me a long time to take it out into competition."

Lewis asks about nerves playing a part and both players were taken aback by the suggestion that anchoring eliminates nervous twitches. "Flabbergasting to me," said Clark, while Scott says those are "Completely unqualified comments" by anyone making that assertion.

Clark made clear he wants "to play by the rules" and appreciates Tim Finchem for finding the decision "unfair and unjust." Not sure he used such strong words...

Lewis asks if they'll be anchoring in 2016. Both players are optimistic and Scott noted that he thinks he'll be able to putt with any putter he wants. Of course, the wording of the rule change does not impact the putter in any way so that statement is certainly true.

As for the European Tour supporting the governing bodies, Clark says they changed their stance shortly before supporting the USGA and R&A:

"The interesting thing is that a week and a half ago we thought the European Tour would follow what the [PGA] Tour was going to do. I guess in a span of five or six days they completely changed their position. So that was a shock. You know we thought these guys have a good handle on what is going on and they're going to do the right thing. Obviously they changed their minds and we're not sure way. Obviously that was a bit troubling."

In the most newsworthy portion of the conversation, Lewis asks if the ban happens whether the players would pursue "maybe a legal right to fight whomever to use anchor styled putter."  Clark:

"There's no way I want to be in a situation where I'm the only guy using something out there. So that would never be something I'd ever look to do."

Scott:

"I haven't given it that much thought at all. Because you can't make decisions on assumptions and foresight like that. I can only go with what is happening right now and we're dealing with this the best way we feel we can."

You feel for both during the interview but ultimately, their case is not going to be strong enough.

"Anchoring will be done and gone. And we will move on, as we always do."

Longtime USGA observer Jim Achenbach explains how the anchoring ban comment period has gone for the governing bodies.

Then he lays out how he thinks the proposed rule and political infighting will play out from here.

The USGA and R&A once again will thank everyone who submitted comments. They will talk about the family of golf. They will make it clear we’re all in this together. Then they will discuss the sanctity of the rules – history has shown us that the rules are the foundation of the game; we cannot disturb that bedrock without shaking and agitating the game itself.

Then it will be over. Except for the details and the method of implementation, anchoring will be done and gone. And we will move on, as we always do.

Jack Supports The Governing Bodies

Ryan Lavner, on Jack Nicklaus' comments from today's Honda Classic telecast appearance.

Not music to Tim Finchem's ears:

“It may be to some of the fellas’ detriment, one way or the other, but what I think the ultimate decision should be is the ruling bodies of golf and not the Tour.”

He also spoke at length about Rory McIlroy, as quoted in this unbylined story at ESPN.com.

LPGA Likely To Support Governing Bodies, Too

LPGA Commish Mike Whan was asked earlier in the week and made it hard to see the tour going any way but in full support of the USGA and R&A on the anchoring ban.

Whan:

On the issue of the USGA and R&A, I've said this many times, there's nobody better placed to establish the right rules of the game than the R&A and the USGA.  They don't have a stake in it in any other way; in equipment or players, etc., and we have been playing by their rules for a long time.  I certainly expect the LPGA will be playing by their rules for a long time from now on.

I respect the way they have gone about this which is they have given us the opportunity to provide feedback.  As most of you know that follow the LPGA, and most of you do, we don't have a large number of anchored or belly putter players.  I've asked Heather Daly‑Donofrio, our tour head from an operations perspective, to reach out to every player that we know that does and get their feedback; so their feedback will be involved as well.

But on a personal level, this is just Mike Whan speaking, I believe in the R&A and the USGA and their role in the game to do what is right without any stake one way or the other.

Randall Mell also got a quote from LPGA spokesman Kraig Kann who says the tour will issue a firm stance once the governing bodies decide how they will go forward following the comment perio.

Tim Finchem's "No Competitive Advantage" Canard

My colleague Sam Weinman is probably right that there are probably bigger issues in the game to be quibbling over than the proposed anchoring ban. I might have agreed, until the entire episode took on a new, bizarre and disconcerting twist when Commissioner Tim Finchem made his case last weekend by severely stretching the truth. And as Frank Hannigan pointed out in his letter to this site, Finchem had a long time to prepare his case.

The wise readers of this site knew it right away, and now the media is now calling him out. It should be noted, as I pointed out on Morning Drive Monday, that Finchem may just be doing the bidding (for a change) for his players, and averting a lawsuit. But a master debater who has had over a year to prepare a rebuttal failed so badly that his national television appearance could reflect poorly on the PGA Tour.

Jaime Diaz dismantles all of Finchem's key arguments for opposing the anchoring ban in a must-read Golf World column.

The lethal paragraph:

It would have been easier to accept if the commissioner hadn't been so obviously spinning. Like claiming that 20 percent of amateurs anchor, which is patently ridiculous compared to Golf Datatech research that puts the number at less than 5 percent. Or saying that the USGA had allowed anchoring since 1975 when the first long-putter cases occurred in the mid-1980s. Or maintaining that the USGA and R&A have conceded that anchoring provides no competitive advantage, when the associations have taken no stance on that criteria. Or that Webb Simpson and Keegan Bradley "grew up" with the belly putter, when Simpson switched from conventional in college and Bradley a year after turning pro. All things the old debate champion wouldn't have done with a real opponent in front of him.

Robert Lusetich refers to Finchem's "bullying tactics" and highlights how the debate shifted with Finchem not exactly refuting the prevailing view of players that its unfair to have amateurs making the rules of golf:

Instead of arguing the merits of anchoring, proponents have twisted the debate, making it more about the USGA and R&A.

They persuaded PGA Tour players by preying on their historic dislike of golf’s ruling bodies; on the idea that amateurs shouldn’t be deciding what professionals can and cannot do.

They said that the USGA has allowed anchoring for 40 years, that’s there’s no data showing a competitive advantage for anchoring — a dubious assertion given many bad putters anchor, thus dragging down performance data — and that it won’t grow the game, as many golfers with the yips would stop playing.

“The USGA approved it twice,” Finchem noted.

And of course, they did not, something Bob Harig addressed already.

Michael Williams at GolfWRX also takes on the Commissioner and says "golf must be honest and consistent about its reasons" for banning anchoring, and he says the USGA/R&A has held up their end of the bargain. By going on national television the way Finchem did while uttering factually problematic statements, Williams says Finchem failed the game when he tried to pass off the "no competitive advantage" canard.

Finchem said in an interview there there was an “absence of data or any basis to conclude that there is a competitive advantage to be gained by using anchoring.” In one sense, he is correct. Of the top 20 percent of the Tour’s leading putters, none used an anchored putter. But the point is not if the long putter makes a given player statistically better than everyone else; the only meaningful statistic is if it makes the player better than he or she might have been using an unanchored putter with a conventional stroke. While the Tour has no way to compile such statistics, you can bet the players and their putting gurus do. If the putter works by the numbers on the practice green, then you can bet they are going to bring it to the course.

The USGA/R&A never conceded this "no competitive advantage" point. They made clear this is about the potential that an anchored stroke may provide a competitive advantage and may alter the competitive challenge of making a stroke.

The USGA/R&A emphasized that its proposal "comes in response to the recent upsurge in the use of anchored putting strokes at all levels of the game, combined with growing advocacy by players and instructors that anchoring the club may alleviate some of the inherent challenges of traditional putting and therefore may be a preferred way to play the game."

And: "The player’s challenge is to direct and control the movement of the entire club in making the stroke. Anchoring the club removes the player’s need to do so by providing extra support and stability for the stroke, as if one end of the club were physically attached to the body.”  

So here's the big problem with the "no competitive advantage" talking point Finchem presented: anchorers say that this method of lodging hand against torso does not provide them an advantage, but the moment it was suggested the governing bodies might take that anchoring option away, they said they would their living would be fundamentally impacted if not for the ability to anchor.

Who needs data when you get admissions like that?

And then there's Tim Clark's "plight."

Randall Mell talked to some players at the Honda Classic Tuesday who admitted that Clark's sad saga of genetic condition convinced them to oppose the ban.

Another canard.

“Tim Clark got up and said some things that were very sincere, about his livelihood and his family,” said Brandt Jobe, who was there. “When Tim spoke, that really impacted players who would have been on the fence. A lot of people who didn’t really care that much were affected by the points Tim made that night and decided, ‘I’m going in that direction.’”

Clark has a genetic condition that prevents him from turning his forearms and wrists inward. He has used a long putter for several years.

And under the proposed rule change, Clark will (A) be able to continue to use the same exact putter he uses now, and (B) will be able to grip that putter exactly the same way he has before, with one difference: the putter must not be anchored to his torso.

Clark and those with similar physical ailments merely have to move the putter 1/2 to 1 inch from their bodies.

Same grips. Same putters. Only now they have to use only their hands and arms to stroke the ball.

Naturally, we all know these pros are unhappy about this simple shift because they believe they have gained a competitive advantage in anchoring the putter against their torso. Trying to claim anything otherwise while also suggesting livelihoods will be impacted means the "no competitive advantage" claim is an outright falsehood. And this is why any empathy some of us might have had for professional anchorers will be abandoned. (As for amateur yippers who may give up the game, that's another subject entirely and I don't know the answer.)

Professional golfing anchorers have a little less than four years to move their putter grip just millimeters away from their chest. In light of the mistruths they've spread after a good-faith effort by the governing bodies to hear their feedback, the USGA and R&A must call Tim and Tim's bluff and usher in the proposed Rule 14-1b ban.

Letter From Saugerties: Tim Finchem & Anchoring Edition

Former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan saw PGA Tour Commissioner's appearance on Sunday's WGC Match Play telecast and felt compelled to analyze the tour's surprising decision to not support the proposed ban on anchoring putters. You can read Frank's past letters here.

Letter from Saugerties                                                                                    February 27,2013

PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem gets away with murder.

During his endless interviews throwing the USGA under the bus last weekend on the anchoring issue, nobody asked him the right question: when did you first know that the USGA was moving in the direction of a ban on anchoring and what did you say in reaction?

The PGA Tour is represented at USGA Rules of Golf committee meetings by an employee named Tyler Dennis. It is surely his job to tell Finchem where the USGA is heading. My point is this: Finchem last year, long before the USGA made known its position on anchoring, could have stopped the movement cold by telling the USGA and/or the R&A at the British Open that he did not know how his members would react to a ban on anchoring.

The USGA exists to offer a set of rules that it believes make sense, accompanied by an argument that the game is best served if those rules are broadly accepted. Nobody has to buy that argument but virtually everybody does.  As former USGA Executive Director David Fay once said, "We govern by all the power not vested in us."

Albeit unhappily, the USGA recognizes that the influence of the PGA Tour is enormous because golfers think what they see on television is the genuine article. This has been so since the 1960s when the Tour was first invited to participate in the rules making process.  The consequence has been worldwide uniformity, a most unlikely achievement given the money and egos of modern golf.

The USGA would never have moved to ban anchoring had it known the Tour would diverge. The average male golfer has about a 17 handicap and struggles to break 100.  Do you think the USGA cares what method he uses to putt?  Hypothesize that anchoring had somehow caught on in everyday golf but was used by no Tour players. There is no chance the rules would have been changed.

Finchem evidently misread his members - who are his employers. That can happen. He's dealing with 300 relatively young people who have a lot of money and very insular views of the world. Few of them have ever done a lick of work other than hit golf balls. It's a pure recipe for fickleness.

Meanwhile, the USGA is hardly blameless. Given their policy of rules uniformity as the Holy Grail, they should never have gone where they did without an iron-clad agreement from the Tour. Instead, they end up with golf's version of sequestration.

Since the ban was not to take effect until 2016,  along with a 90-day period inviting comments, I figure the USGA was racked with internal dissension. Finchem could have made it easier for them to back off by voicing the opposition of the players quietly - even last week. Instead, he opted to go as public as possible, accompanied with wild specious arguments such as claiming  20% of amateur golfers are anchorers. Evidently he got that number from his new best friends at the PGA of America. Why he chose to play it as he did, whereby there must be a winner and a loser, is beyond my comprehension.

I see much of the USGA clumsiness as a consequence of systemic foolishness. All power is granted to a volunteer executive committee of 15.  Some are golf sophisticates. Some are golf ignorant. The USGA by laws say that the president of the executive committee, who lives nowhere near headquarters and already has a full time job, is the CEO. The same by laws refer to the USGA staff as "clerks."  The executive director of the staff of some 300 has no job description.

But let's suppose that the president happens to be a gem, a genuine prize. (As USGA Executive Director I was lucky enough to have three).  USGA presidents serve two years and then depart. (The USGA has had only one one-year president. That was Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of US presidents, in 1935.  I have no idea why he bailed out early.)

Has anyone ever heard of a viable institution that has a bona fide winner as CEO and then dumps him after two years? Even college presidents hang around for four or five years as their agents search for higher paying jobs.