Not every argument has to be for reasons other than aesthetic.

The best argument against them is that they look foolish/ridiculous/absurd and the sport looks goofy as long as the best in the world are putting like that. They might as well be putting through a clown's mouth. I remember the first time I saw a player putting like that my thought was "wtf is that nonsense?!" and I don't doubt that many new/casual viewers would think the same at first sight.

Like if everyone in baseball realized hitting like Craig Counsell was a better way to hit, I would want them to ban hitting like that because it makes the sport look absurd. Yeah that's a bad example but whatever. Seeing someone putt with the 6 foot putter anchored to their jaw is like watching a 4 year old riding a bike with training wheels.

I highly doubt most people are buying tickets to pga tour events with the intention of marveling at all the classic putting methods. Maybe they should ban Jim Furyk's swing too. It's ugly so it ruins the game ldo.

Well the sport should look out for its own best interest. If people can't take golf seriously because someone has a putter anchored up their nostril that's not great for them.

They should ban Furyk's 5 hour energy hat. At least in majors.

I now Paddy Harrington uses the Happy Gilmore swing at the range sometimes that has me curious... is teeing off like Happy Gilmore in a PGA event allowed? I'm guessing it is but really don't know.

Slim and none, and slim left town. If that were the case Casper's stroke would have been banned 50 years ago. It wasn't.
Yeah, I read some studies that basically said biggest difference was out of wet rough. But there was an effect, also from fairway to rock hard greens such as US Open conditions, both of which probably evaded any studies you cited.

USGA/R&A needs to be very careful in how they word this rule. I really don't see how they can avoid a slippery slope that could interpret strokes such as Casper's, or even Nicklaus' piston stroke where he locks in his right elbow against his right side as illegal, and would be LOL bad.

wtf does it matter how seriously people take it? Professional golf is not serious business, it's entertainment.

A better idea would be to ban nitbags like you who try to kill all the fun.

Swinging like happy gilmore is perfectly legal.

Well you're taking this minor issue very seriously bro. What do you care if they continue to use long putters? Are you a pro golfer?

uh no, you're the one taking it way too seriously. Did you not read the part where I said I'm on the fence on this issue? You're the one saying putting styles that are unattractive should be banned. Classic PHB retard post.

Dude, calm down.

.

Oh I thought this was a thread where people talk about their opinion of long putters?

I gave my opinion and Ron "Don't Touch Me, Bro" Burgundy got all butthurt and started throwing language like "wtf", "nitbag", "kill the fun", and "classic retard" at me.

That seems reasonable.

Its also the thread where people talk about their opinions of those who think a long putter is equivalent to putting through a clown's mouth.

I was being facetious, dawg.

The point is that the rule was designed to place more of a premium on driving accuracy and to try to put a damper on the bomb-and-gouge strategy that is becoming so prevalent. Clearly, that didn't work and the change had a minimal effect, if any. I'm not sure how you think certain conditions "evaded the studies" but that's neither here nor there.

And the big main point of bringing that up is to cite an example of the governing bodies of golf making a decisive ruling on a particular aspect of the game which has a minimal effect. It's been argued that anchoring a long putter provides an advantage, which it very well might. But the USGA/R&A have shown their ability to make decisive rulings on a seemingly innocuous issue such as groove shape - precedent indicates they have the ability to rule against long putters as well. Not saying that they WILL outlaw them, merely that they definitely won't be afraid to do so if their feelings match those exhibited by myself and many others.

I agree with the sentiment and understand what you mean by context, but what is PHB? is that PornHoleBlower on a new account?

yes

a standard debate with PHB goes like this:

1. PHB says something completely idiotic and overreacts to the problem in question.

2. someone tells PHB his reasoning and analogies make no sense and are a complete overreaction.

3. PHB throws up his hands and pretends that everyone else is overreacting and taking everything too seriously. This is mainly a way for him to avoid having to actually defend his original statement, because if he did, he knows he'd get burned.