The Anchoring Ban

[JF]

Anchoring your putter steadies your club. NO ONE can argue that. It gives 3 points of contact...

So then everyone is welcome to go get themselves an anchored putter and steady their putter. Those who use short putters are voluntarily giving up that advantage that doesn't really exist.


THPing on Tapatalk

 

[Kobey]

I think the biggest reason people are against them is because they now have the reputation of being a crutch for poor putters. Instead of being just an option, like a 460cc driver or GI irons, they are perceived as a "quick fix" that will instantly solve your putting problems. So now when someone wins a tournament using one, people cry foul and say if he was using a standard length putter he wouldn't have been able to do it. That's just human nature.

So the problem isn't that they give anyone that uses one an advantage, it's that they might give a small percentage an advantage.

 

[SharkHat]

I think the biggest reason people are against them is because they now have the reputation of being a crutch for poor putters. Instead of being just an option, like a 460cc driver or GI irons, they are perceived as a "quick fix" that will instantly solve your putting problems. So now when someone wins a tournament using one, people cry foul and say if he was using a standard length putter he wouldn't have been able to do it. That's just human nature.

So the problem isn't that they give anyone that uses one an advantage, it's that they might give a small percentage an advantage.

Yes, it might help a small percentage of players putt better, but so might oversized non-tapered putter grips. The point is that while it may benefit them, it's not an unfair advantage.

 

[blugold]

So the problem isn't that they give anyone that uses one an advantage, it's that they might give a small percentage an advantage.

The crazy thing is, the USGA doesn't even believe there is any advantage. Their concern is that it looks different.

 

[JF]

Yes, it might help a small percentage of players putt better, but so might oversized non-tapered putter grips. The point is that while it may benefit them, it's not an unfair advantage.

There's no such thing as an unfair advantage if everyone is able to go buy the thing that supposedly gives this advantage.


THPing on Tapatalk

 

[robn311]

That's a great argument why anchored putters are not that big of a deal. The putting statistics on tour also show that anchored putter don't artificially make people better golfers

I am NOT for the ban, but I think everyone on both sides needs to clarify arguments if the discussion is to get anywhere. So, what statistics are you talking about?

If you mean the overall numbers, where you look at the stats of everyone on tour and see if those with belly putters are any better than those without, I don't think that's the issue they're concerned about. Same as when people say, "Look, the vast majority of tournaments are won by guys with regular putters." Factually correct, yes, but not the issue. As an analyst pointed out the other day, most of the guys who SWITCH to a belly putter do so because they're either not very good to begin with or get the yips. The guys who continue to use the standard putters are already better, so that's not the proper comparison to make.

The issue is whether or not something that the USGA sees as "not a swing" or as a "gimmick" makes an INDIVIDUAL a better putter without an increase in skill. So the statistic to look for would be a "before and after" stat: whether or not an individual (who currently uses a long putter) got much better after switching. And I have no idea what that stat looks like. I've heard guys like Adam Scott and Ernie Els got much better after the switch. On the other hand, a guy like Keegan was incredibly successful with a standard putter.

Again, I'm not for or against it (I don't really care one way or the other, just find the debate fascinating). But I think arguments need to be clarified on both sides.

 

[SkiBumGolfer]

I really can't see it being an unfair advantage - I tried putting with one once, and I was definitely worse than with my standard length putter. It takes practice just like a standard putting technique.

 

[LargePhil]

There's no such thing as an unfair advantage if everyone is able to go buy the thing that supposedly gives this advantage.


THPing on Tapatalk

The USGA and R&A don't think advantage is even in the discussion. They think it doesn't look like a stroke. If that is the criteria for playing golf, a lot of us will have to quit. This is purely an Ivory Tower proposal that hurts the game. 28% of amateurs use some form of the long putter now. Anchoring has grown the game or at least kept people in it. We don't need a rule that hurts that.

How many of you knew that both the R&A and the USGA ruled to allow them twice already. This is a reversal because someone doesn't like them.

 

[blugold]

I am NOT for the ban, but I think everyone on both sides needs to clarify arguments if the discussion is to get anywhere. So, what statistics are you talking about?

If you mean the overall numbers, where you look at the stats of everyone on tour and see if those with belly putters are any better than those without, I don't think that's the issue they're concerned about. Same as when people say, "Look, the vast majority of tournaments are won by guys with regular putters." Factually correct, yes, but not the issue. As an analyst pointed out the other day, most of the guys who SWITCH to a belly putter do so because they're either not very good to begin with or get the yips. The guys who continue to use the standard putters are already better, so that's not the proper comparison to make.

The issue is whether or not something that the USGA sees as "not a swing" or as a "gimmick" makes an INDIVIDUAL a better putter without an increase in skill. So the statistic to look for would be a "before and after" stat: whether or not an individual (who currently uses a long putter) got much better after switching. And I have no idea what that stat looks like. I've heard guys like Adam Scott and Ernie Els got much better after the switch. On the other hand, a guy like Keegan was incredibly successful with a standard putter.

Again, I'm not for or against it (I don't really care one way or the other, just find the debate fascinating). But I think arguments need to be clarified on both sides.

But look at what happen to Adam Scott at the Open last year. He couldn't make a putt down the stretch.

Guys switch back and forth frequently. Phil, Bill Haas. Sergio, Stewart Cink, Vijay has been all over the map.

The same "better now than before" argument could be made with hybrids, cavity irons, Super Stroke grips, adjustable drivers, or even the ball.

 

[SharkHat]

There's no such thing as an unfair advantage if everyone is able to go buy the thing that supposedly gives this advantage.


THPing on Tapatalk

That's my point

 

[Kobey]

There's no such thing as an unfair advantage if everyone is able to go buy the thing that supposedly gives this advantage.


THPing on Tapatalk

Yes there is, if it's only an advantage to certain people. Let's say you and I were playing a round. You are great at judging distance and I'm horrible at it. Wouldn't it give me an advantage if rangefinders were allowed during our match? Sure, we'd both be allowed to use one, but since you wouldn't really need it, it would help my game a lot more than yours and could be the deciding factor in who wins.

 

[robn311]

But look at what happen to Adam Scott at the Open last year. He couldn't make a putt down the stretch.

Guys switch back and forth frequently. Phil, Bill Haas. Sergio, Stewart Cink, Vijay has been all over the map.

The same "better now than before" argument could be made with hybrids, cavity irons, Super Stroke grips, adjustable drivers, or even the ball.

But I think for the USGA it's the combination of what LargePhil said above (it's the fact that they say it's not a stroke) with the individual performance benefit. They don't want guys getting better by doing something that is "not a stroke." Thus, hybrids, new styles of grip, cavity irons....all just technological advances that they will put some sort of limits on anyway. But, according to them, anchored putting is not even a stroke, and thus it is cheating to improve.

All that said, I totally agree with you. And I think Adam Scott's meltdown last year - sad as that was - can end up being a good thing for the group opposed to the ban. It makes a strong case that nerves and jitters can still get the best of you down the stretch.

 

[SharkHat]

Yes there is, if it's only an advantage to certain people. Let's say you and I were playing a round. You are great at judging distance and I'm horrible at it. Wouldn't it give me an advantage if rangefinders were allowed during our match? Sure, we'd both be allowed to use one, but since you wouldn't really need it, it would help my game a lot more than yours and could be the deciding factor in who wins.

That's simply not an appropriate definition of unfair advantage

 

[blugold]

But I think for the USGA it's the combination of what LargePhil said above (it's the fact that they say it's not a stroke) with the individual performance benefit. They don't want guys getting better by doing something that is "not a stroke." Thus, hybrids, new styles of grip, cavity irons....all just technological advances that they will put some sort of limits on anyway. But, according to them, anchored putting is not even a stroke, and thus it is cheating to improve.

All that said, I totally agree with you. And I think Adam Scott's meltdown last year - sad as that was - can end up being a good thing for the group opposed to the ban. It makes a strong case that nerves and jitters can still get the best of you down the stretch.

You and I are on the same page. My biggest issue with the ban, if 20% of amateurs have found the game to be more fun because of an anchored putter, don't take them away. Let amateurs enjoy the game. The usga needs to stop trying to make the game harder for us "bad" golfers.

 

[JF]

Yes there is, if it's only an advantage to certain people. Let's say you and I were playing a round. You are great at judging distance and I'm horrible at it. Wouldn't it give me an advantage if rangefinders were allowed during our match? Sure, we'd both be allowed to use one, but since you wouldn't really need it, it would help my game a lot more than yours and could be the deciding factor in who wins.

But we both have the ability to use a rangefinder. It helps you more than it helps me, but I can use one. As an individual you gain more from it, but I can still use it.

Everyone has a different swing. For some, the best way to putt is the short,moor some the long. But each has the ability to switch to the other kind of putter.

I think it's ridiculous that they think it doesn't look like a stroke. Jim Furyk doesn't look like a swing but he's still allowed to do that.


THPing on Tapatalk

 

[Kobey]

That's simply not an appropriate definition of unfair advantage

Why not? It seems exactly the same to me. What about earplugs? If one golfer had a problem with outside noises making him nervous and the other didn't, couldn't it be argued that the one using the earplugs would have an unfair advantage over the other? They aren't allowed under the rules for just this reason. Learning to tune out noises and distractions are part of the mental game.

 

[SharkHat]

Why not? It seems exactly the same to me. What about earplugs? If one golfer had a problem with outside noises making him nervous and the other didn't, couldn't it be argued that the one using the earplugs would have an unfair advantage over the other? They aren't allowed under the rules for just this reason. Learning to tune out noises and distractions are part of the mental game.

Because it's not a suitable definition of the term. Unfair advantage doesn't imply that it will help one player more than another. If that were the definition, then why not ban cavity backs and perimeter weighting. Surely those benefit some players more than others?

It means exploiting an advantage that is not available to the other player.

 

[JF]

Because it's not a suitable definition of the term. Unfair advantage doesn't imply that it will help one player more than another. If that were the definition, then why not ban cavity backs and perimeter weighting. Surely those benefit some players more than others?

It means exploiting an advantage that is not available to the other player.

Precisely.

Anchored putters, rangefinders, and SGI irons are available to everyone.

We could say that some have an unfair advantage because they have more natural skill than other players which isn't available to everyone


THPing on Tapatalk

 

[SPG40]

It should be banned only on the tour, these are the best players in the world and all should be able to putt with a standard putter. History shows how almost all dominant players on the PGA tour have putted without anchoring. Im all for letting nonpros use the long putter, anything that makes golf more fun for the recreational player seems fine. I think pros should be held to a higher standard- examples such as conforming groove wedges and driver faces are the precedent.

 

[Kobey]

Precisely.We could say that some have an unfair advantage because they have more natural skill than other players which isn't available to everyone

Actually, you couldn't. Natural ability is not by definition considered an unfair advantage. A 7 foot basketball player may have an advantage, but not an unfair one, while a 5 foot player with special shoes with springs in them would be considered as having one. It is "outside influence" that determines whether it is unfair or not.

 

[Ole Gray]

The arms still have to swing the putter anchored or not. The stroke can still be way to inside or outside the line. Anchoring does not negate that fact.

I agree 100 %!

I still think they should make it mandatory for every pro to game one for six months and then ask the ones who are against it, what their opinion is after that period.

 

[JF]

Actually, you couldn't. Natural ability is not by definition considered an unfair advantage. A 7 foot basketball player may have an advantage, but not an unfair one, while a 5 foot player with special shoes with springs in them would be considered as having one. It is "outside influence" that determines whether it is unfair or not.

I was kidding.


THPing on Tapatalk

 

[LargePhil]

Actually, you couldn't. Natural ability is not by definition considered an unfair advantage. A 7 foot basketball player may have an advantage, but not an unfair one, while a 5 foot player with special shoes with springs in them would be considered as having one. It is "outside influence" that determines whether it is unfair or not.

Not the best example as the rules of basketball were changed because Wilt Chamberlain was deemed to have an unfair advantage with a narrower key.

Definitions can be very much like opinions. Personal perspective or preconceptions have a great influence.

 

[fastbasser]

Ok, just one question then...We all know it looks awkward. If there is no advantage why do you use it?

 

[SharkHat]

Ok, just one question then...We all know it looks awkward. If there is no advantage why do you use it?

I'm guessing it was the same as choosing any other putter. With practice they were able to perform better (or at least more consistently) than with their previous putter.

Or maybe it was more comfortable.

However, it's not a magic bullet. It doesn't read the green or choose a line for the players using it, and it still requires practice.