We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The Anchoring Ban

Fourputt said:
Not really. When anchored the club is being pivoted around a fixed point, not swing freely separate from the torso. That is clearly different from the normal golf swing.
Click to expand...
What about Kuchar anchoring against the forearm, still free swinging. The arms still move the exact same way anchored or not. The body has no bearing on the putt.
 
Smallville said:
Tad:

How dare you try to make the anti-anchor people think in any other way than to argue for the integrity of the game.
Click to expand...
I know, right! What funny is that I have yet to have my question answered by anyone that is for the ban.
 
Tadashi70 said:
I know, right! What funny is that I have yet to have my question answered by anyone that is for the ban.
Click to expand...

That question, all the comments about Phil and all the comments from forum members who tried the anchoring method but went back to a traditional putting stroke, have all been ignored, many times.

The anti people keep bringing up "not a real stroke" and "integrity of the game" and "three points of contact" but just ignore those who the method didn't work for.
 
SharkHat said:
I seriously doubt that. The majority of golfers probably don't give 2 shakes.
Click to expand...

According to the GC over 60% want the ban to go through. I'm not sure where they get their data but I would think it came from people that play golf, wouldn't you? They could have pooled people in front of a supermarket too I guess.
 
Trout Bum said:
According to the GC over 60% want the ban to go through. I'm not sure where they get their data but I would think it came from people that play golf, wouldn't you? They could have pooled people in front of a supermarket too I guess.
Click to expand...

I know that you know that any survey can be skewed however the person taking it wants it to go.
 
Trout Bum said:
According to the GC over 60% want the ban to go through. I'm not sure where they get their data but I would think it came from people that play golf, wouldn't you? They could have pooled people in front of a supermarket too I guess.
Click to expand...

60% of the responders to a Golf Channel poll (probably done online) does not translate to 60% of all golfers.
 
Trout Bum said:
According to the GC over 60% want the ban to go through. I'm not sure where they get their data but I would think it came from people that play golf, wouldn't you? They could have pooled people in front of a supermarket too I guess.
Click to expand...

I saw that survey. Not sure how accurate it is, but it does measure their audience. It reminds me of the stats put out (by USGA or anyplace else) that talks about average driving distance and it being right around 200 yards. Well, I was at a facility that they measured that 3 years ago and they failed to mention the average age of the person hitting was about 65 (Hammock Beach Golf Resort).

Now, all of these golfers were GHIN members, so it is a real statistic, and one they went with for an average, but not sure how accurate it really is. Now the GC one, I bet is more accurate than that. In fact I would bet that the ban does favor the "for" over the against marginally from what I have seen/heard. Not sure it makes it right, especially the way it is explained, but it does say what some feel.

Sadly, the USGA as an organization (and R&A as well) we all know never listen to the common golfer, so the idea that they ever would be "protecting" said golfer is absurd. Hence the reason there has been some pretty big backlash both by the most visible golfers in the world as well as early on from the PGA of America.
 
The anti people keep bringing up "not a real stroke" and "integrity of the game" and "three points of contact" but just ignore those who the method didn't work for.[/QUOTE said:
Some golfers just can't putt.. Nothing can fix a really bad stroke!
Click to expand...
 
JB.

I will ASSUME most golfers are not in the Ghin system. I will also ASSUME most golfers don't play in leagues or any other "competitive" functions. I will ASSUME 80% of people getting involved in these polls on the GC and ANY other poll are under 30 and never saw most of the greats of the 60"s, 70"s and 80"s. I will ASSUME many of our posters on here fib about the skills and handicap.

I really hope the USGA actually puts out the names and statistics I ASSUME they have compiled.

I ASSUME those who use the anchored putter will continue to do so...:drinks:
 
I have no idea what any of that means. Except to tell you that your one stat in there is very far off.
 
JB said:
I have no idea what any of that means. Except to tell you that your one stat in there is very far off.
Click to expand...

Just rambling and having fun... Which stat are you referring to? I hope you aren't referring to the handicaps....
 
Smallville said:
That question, all the comments about Phil and all the comments from forum members who tried the anchoring method but went back to a traditional putting stroke, have all been ignored, many times.

The anti people keep bringing up "not a real stroke" and "integrity of the game" and "three points of contact" but just ignore those who the method didn't work for.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it works for someone or not. It is the way the stroke is made which is under scrutiny, not whether it works for Joe but not for Sam. Its efficacy is irrelevant. It's the deviation from a traditional golf stroke which is being addressed. You can bet that anchoring was a hot topic at the joint rules conclaves for years before a few guys had exceptional success with it. All of the discussions I've read about revolved around nothing but defining a stroke. Advantage or disadvantage, success or lack of success is irrelevant.
 
Fourputt said:
It doesn't matter if it works for someone or not. It is the way the stroke is made which is under scrutiny, not whether it works for Joe but not for Sam. Its efficacy is irrelevant. It's the deviation from a traditional golf stroke which is being addressed. You can bet that anchoring was a hot topic at the joint rules conclaves for years before a few guys had exceptional success with it. All of the discussions I've read about revolved around nothing but defining a stroke. Advantage or disadvantage, success or lack of success is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Well said Fourputt. That is the true issue on the table..:drinks:
 
JB said:
I saw that survey. Not sure how accurate it is, but it does measure their audience. It reminds me of the stats put out (by USGA or anyplace else) that talks about average driving distance and it being right around 200 yards. Well, I was at a facility that they measured that 3 years ago and they failed to mention the average age of the person hitting was about 65 (Hammock Beach Golf Resort).

Now, all of these golfers were GHIN members, so it is a real statistic, and one they went with for an average, but not sure how accurate it really is. Now the GC one, I bet is more accurate than that. In fact I would bet that the ban does favor the "for" over the against marginally from what I have seen/heard. Not sure it makes it right, especially the way it is explained, but it does say what some feel.

Sadly, the USGA as an organization (and R&A as well) we all know never listen to the common golfer, so the idea that they ever would be "protecting" said golfer is absurd. Hence the reason there has been some pretty big backlash both by the most visible golfers in the world as well as early on from the PGA of America.
Click to expand...


Great response! I find it funny about the driving numbers and the age of the avg guy hitting them lol. I would have no idea about the GHIN numbers and chances are that only a small numbers of voters have an actual handicap. I also agree that it doesn't make it right especially the way it is explained and being delivered, I actually think it sucks, it's too late, they should have acted sooner.

On another note I saw an interview with Keegan and he said he doesn't like it but he putted with a short putter most of his life and will adjust
 
fastbasser said:
JB.

I will ASSUME most golfers are not in the Ghin system. I will also ASSUME most golfers don't play in leagues or any other "competitive" functions. I will ASSUME 80% of people getting involved in these polls on the GC and ANY other poll are under 30 and never saw most of the greats of the 60"s, 70"s and 80"s. I will ASSUME many of our posters on here fib about the skills and handicap.

I really hope the USGA actually puts out the names and statistics I ASSUME they have compiled.

I ASSUME those who use the anchored putter will continue to do so...:drinks:
Click to expand...

You know the old saying about assumptions. I guess when you don't have evidence, you are left to assumptions.

The one assumption you can make, is we can agree to disagree.
 
LargePhil said:
You know the old saying about assumptions. I guess when you don't have evidence, you are left to assumptions.
Click to expand...

You can can "legally" use your anchoring for a while yet...:rofl: Like many other things in life, what we think or say has no effect on the outcome! We an "assume" the decision has already been made!
 
I don't anchor, another assumption. It is the arbitrary nature of the rule that I disagree with. Face on putting, anchoring to the arm using long putters without anchoring using the belly putter without anchoring. All look just as bad as the anchored stroke. This was knee jerk reaction to 3 majors being won by people using anchored putters. That is the problem. It was poorly thought out and implemented. That seems to be a pattern with the R&A and USGA. You don't have to agree, but, these are real issues with the proposed rule.

Not only do I not anchor, I have carried a GHIN handicap for many, many years. Many folks here have played with me, and I also don't inflate how far I hit the ball, and I am a pretty good putter using the conventional method.
 
Fourputt said:
It doesn't matter if it works for someone or not. It is the way the stroke is made which is under scrutiny, not whether it works for Joe but not for Sam. Its efficacy is irrelevant. It's the deviation from a traditional golf stroke which is being addressed. You can bet that anchoring was a hot topic at the joint rules conclaves for years before a few guys had exceptional success with it. All of the discussions I've read about revolved around nothing but defining a stroke. Advantage or disadvantage, success or lack of success is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You are your buddy make a great deal of assumption without any facts. You two are set on this and no one will change your minds, fine. But please have more that conjecture if your going to argue a point as much as the two of you have. Neither has used or plans to use an anchored putter so your opinion is that of others and not your own.

The efficacy of the putter and its results most certainly should be in question. The fact that it doesn't work for the majority should tell you and the near sighted USGA something. There is no advantage to being anchored. Those that have successes with them are just good at what they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top