The United State Golf Association (USGA) recently released a
forty page explanation of its decision to adopt Rule 14-1b that makes anchoring
illegal.[1]
The explanation could have been considerably shorter. To wit:
The USGA looks upon the long putter
in the same way Judge Smails views Al Czervik in Caddyshack. Though we
believe the long putter should be banned, a previous USGA Committee ruled it
legal. Rather than start a food fight
with our former colleagues, we have ruled “anchoring,” the most pervasive
stroke using the long putter, illegal.
It is our hope that this ruling will diminish the usefulness of the long
putter and in the end lead to its demise.
The USGA goes to great lengths to argue “that freely swinging
the entire club is integral to maintaining the traditions of the game and
preserving golf as an enjoyable game of skill and challenge”[2]and
therefore, Rule-14-1b is necessary to protect the integrity of the game. It’s more likely the USGA is trying to protect
its image of the game. The Nabobs of New
Jersey see a player using a long putter holding the U.S. Open trophy as a
portent of societal decay. Unless it
acts, the next thing you’ll see is “some stuck-up jockey boy sittin’ on top of
Dan Patch.”
The USGA has acted before to protect the manly image of the
game. When Sam Snead started to putt
croquet style, setting golf on par with an English lawn party, the USGA was
quick to make the style illegal. Adam
Scott is the modern day Snead. Scott’s
golf swing is characterized by grace and power.
He walks the fairways with movie star looks and Aussie charm. He is every man’s son and every woman’s
heartthrob. Scott is the perfect image golf would like to project…until he gets
to the green. There he takes on the persona of Maude Frickert sweeping off
the front porch. If he only putted like
Mr. Jones or Mr. Hogan, then all would be right. Rule 14-1b is adopted to take care of that.
Much of the USGA’s explanation is muddled for the purpose of
drawing attention away the Rule’s real objective. First, the USGA argues the Rules of Golf are
not established on the benefits of a (putting) method that might or might not
be allowed.[3] Second,
they argue anchored methods of stroke clearly provide a player with a potential
advantage.[4]
(If the Rules are not based on benefits, why devote a section to the potential
advantages of anchored putting?) Third, the
USGA argues empirical evidence is irrelevant because ”the Rules of Golf…rest on
considerations such as tradition, experience and judgment, not on science and
statistics.”[5] In essence, the USGA argues benefit is
irrelevant, then implies it is another reason for 14-1b, and finally argues
that this benefit cannot be measured but only assessed by the combined wisdom
of the USGA Rules Committee.
If science and statistics are to be banned in rule making, doesn’t
this argue for closing the USGA Test Center?
After all, can’t the initial velocity and spin of the ball be measured
by human judgment? The ban on square
grooves in 2007, which is an action very similar in form to the ban on
anchoring, was the subject of intense empirical analysis. Interestingly, there is no mention of the
square grooves controversy in the USGAS’s lengthy report.
But the Luddites at the USGA aren’t content with arguing science
is irrelevant. They mistakenly argue there is not sufficient evidence for an
empirical analysis. The USGA contends
that ShotLink (a system used on the PGA tour) measures the success of putting,
but does not measure inherent ability, recent or current injury or physical
conditions, current form, extent of practice, effect of conditions, and
countless other factors that may affect a player’s performance. The USGA does not realize that all empirical
analyses, by necessity, omit variables. This does not mean analysis cannot be a
valid predictor of performance. For example, assume you have a cross-sectional
study of school performance. The
explanatory variables are school spending, socio-economic status, and so
forth. You do not have data on whether a
student felt well on test day or if he tends to choke on tests. The study assumes such missing variables are
not correlated with the explanatory variables (i.e., they are part of the
random error). The study would still be
capable of making an estimate of the impact of school spending on student
performance, and provide a probability that the impact is greater than zero
(i.e., the significance test for the coefficient of the school spending
variable). The same would be true in a study of the effectiveness of
anchoring.
The USGA also does not seem to understand the ShotLink
system. It argues the ShotLink data are
used to produce a putting statistic known as “strokes gained-putting,” as well
as a number of statistics which are intended to assess…the comparative success
of Tour players. The ShotLink data base actually
consists of millions of putts. Pope and
Schweitzer made use of this data base in trying to determine if players were
more successful at par putts than birdie putts.[6]
Pope and Schweitzer employed many of the control variables the USGA appears to
insist on. They used player fixed
effects that consist of various measures of a player’s ability. They also included variables measuring the
position of the putt on the green, distance from the hole, and the player’s
position in the tournament to name just a few. It would be a simple matter to
introduce a dummy variable representing whether a player anchored or did not
anchor his putter. The estimated
coefficient of that dummy variable would be an estimate of the size of any
advantage of disadvantage of using an anchored putter.
The USGA also contends that if statistical analysis showed
anchoring was not an advantage, it could be due to a biased sample.[7] Many who have gone to the long putter are
simply not good putters, and it is not fair to compare them with a group that
contains Tiger Woods, et. al. Using ShotLink data, however, it would be
possible to examine how the elite players using the anchoring method do on
short putts under pressure (i.e., when they are in contention on Sunday) and
compare their success rate with elite players who do not anchor.
The USGA’s reluctance to undertake scientific inquiry stems
from the probable outcome of such research. Since players using the anchored
method do not rate highly in the putting statistic the PGA Tour keeps--Strokes
Gained Putting—it is unlikely more formal analysis would find the advantage for
anchored putting the USGA claims.[8]
In summary, it is our belief—based on “experience and
judgment”—Rule 14-1b will not do anything to level the playing field since the
playing field is already level. It will
obtain its real objective, however, of moving golf up on the perceived scale of
athleticism, edging it slightly ahead of curling--except in Canada.
[1] United
States Golf Association, Explanation of
Decision to Adopt Rule 14-1b of the Rules of Golf, Far Hills, NJ, May 21, 2013.
[2] Ibid, p. 8.
[3] Ibid., p. 6.
[4] Ibid, p. 10.
[5] Ibid., p. 13.
[6]
Pope Devin. G and Schweitzer, Maurice E., Is
Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience,
Competition, and High Stakes, American
Economic Review (February 2011, pp. 129-157
[7]
USGA, op. cit., p. 14.
[8] As
of May 26, 2013, Keegan Bradley was ranked 37th , Webb Simpson was
ranked 44th , and Tim Clark
was ranked 54th in Strokes Gained-Putting.
No comments:
Post a Comment