The Long Putter and Golf's Regal Overseer

I am not a champion of the long putter but I find myself compelled to defend its use and take issue with the regal overseer of the game of golf, the U.S.G.A. Golf has become a zero growth industry for three reasons: (1) too much time; (2) too much money; (3) too much ability and frustration. The U.S.G.A. has plenty of time and money, so they don't feel any real need to address the first two issues. So let's move on to number three.

Golf is a game, to be enjoyed by those who choose to participate. Over the decades golf has evolved from hickory shafts and feathery balls to today's high tech instruments. And the U.S.G.A. allowed this for the "good of the game", and presumably for the fun of the game. During these years we also saw straddle putting, introduced to the public by one Sam Snead. But for the "good of the game" this putting stance was quickly banned. Other "advancements" have been offered to, and rejected by, the U.S.G.A., in short order.

Now the long putter, in an anchored position, is on the list of innovations which fail to meet the criteria for "good of the game". Those who have adopted this putting method did so to score better, which leads to more fun, and therefore less frustration with a game that is really quite difficult.

The bone of contention here is that the U.S.G.A. has simply waited too long to make this decision. The long putter has been around since the 1920's. It has become part of today's game. The authorities have approved it to the manufacturers who have produced these clubs for the public. The same public that plays for both the "good" and "fun" of the game. Why was the anchored putter ok in 1980, but fails to pass the test of time in 2013?

An Introduction

Fore!! From The Golf Czar will post mainly - but not exclusively - about the game and business of golf. Articles will appear on an irregular schedule, have a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and will never purposely embarrass any "non-public" individual (without their permission). This does not preclude taking shots, or extending kudos, to rich and famous (or not) organizations.