Mulligan9111
Go Skers!!
Yet you answered/responded....
The Anchoring Ban
Yet you answered/responded....
SharkHat
Aquatic Headwear Fanatic
Somebody may need a nap.
JTnumbers
College Golfer
Never understood the ban, but it is what it is.
If Adam Scott was so nervous that anchoring the putter helped him with said nerves, how come he made 4 straight birdies to lose The Open. Just saying.
I think the rule is crap.
If Adam Scott was so nervous that anchoring the putter helped him with said nerves, how come he made 4 straight birdies to lose The Open. Just saying.
I think the rule is crap.
Damaikis
Fairway Finder
I believe they have already stated that they are against anchoring.
SharkHat
Aquatic Headwear Fanatic
Being against anchoring is fine. In a roundabout way, I believe it was implied that they might not invite someone to play at The Masters because they sued the USGA.
GolferMahn
New member
I'm glad they upheld the decision. That's the way it should have been since the beginning. Anchoring the putter to the body is an advantage anyway you look at it. Everyone knows that scores come down to who can make putts, and who can't. By anchoring the putter to the body, you take away a lot of the effects that nerves have on the stroke, such as turning the putter face, moving the handle, and wrist movement. Therefore creating an advantage.
For the people that say there's not proof, let me ask you this. If the pro's that moved to the anchored putter (who were bad putters with a regular length one) had no improved advantage, why would they stick with the anchored putter? If it wasn't an advantage, they wouldn't be so weary to have them banned.
For the people that say there's not proof, let me ask you this. If the pro's that moved to the anchored putter (who were bad putters with a regular length one) had no improved advantage, why would they stick with the anchored putter? If it wasn't an advantage, they wouldn't be so weary to have them banned.
Mulligan9111
Go Skers!!
As Rocco Mediate mentioned in his Feherty interview, he was unable to practice due to back problems with a "normal" putter. But he was able to practice with the long/anchored putter and therefore became a better putter. I believe Tim Clark has a condition where it's very painful to putt with a "normal" putter which is why he uses the broom-stick putter.
Nerves come into play with the anchored stroke just like in the normal stroke. Just look at Adam Scott at the British Open last year. The anchored stroke isn't a magic make everything stroke. There is a lot that can and does go wrong.
In fact if the anchored stroke gives such a huge advantage, why don't the top players in putting stats use them?
I don't disagree with your logic, I just wish they would have banned it 30+ years ago. They banned the concave face wedge the year after Jones won the grand slam with it. They banned the croquet style stance the year after Snead won the Senior PGA Championship with it. Why did it take so many decades to come to their conclusion?????
Could it also be a comfort thing? Not merely advantage comfort but, the relaxed feel?
jacob1
Needs more cow bell
Oh geez
TheWoo
New member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,298
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- The Flint Hills of Kansas
- Handicap
- 0.3 GHIN
By this logic, what about the players who try it and go back to the regular putter?
I believe it's an advantage for some people. It's not for others. A straight-back, straight-through stroke is an advantage for some and not others. That's not the point.
I believe this is less about today and more about the future - concern that anchoring really isn't the way they want strokes being made and being concerned this may continue to progress and grow as a technique and perhaps progress beyond putting.
Snap hooked from my Galaxy S3
- Staff
- #1,163
The problem with using that argument is that golf has a pretty longstanding tradition of allowing equipment variations to help mitigate all kinds of issues that people struggle with. Cavity back irons (probably the biggest advantage out of them all), overside drivers, mallets, counterweighting, hybrids, varying grips, shafts that perform better for different swing characteristics, etc. If you're arguing that point, I don't see how you could logically favor or use any of those items. Singling out a certain type of putter there lacks rationale.
As I've said before, the USGA played their cards right in that they admitted there was no statistical advantage vs the field with the anchored stroke. They stuck to euphemistic things like integrity, tradition (though evidence refutes it), etc, because they can't really be argued with facts. It's just one small groups opinion of what is 'right', whether it really has an tangible effect on the game or not.Perfect way to avoid the pitfalls of making it an equipment rule change, because people were expecting some sort of logical, factual explanation if it went that route.
Thechosen1
#Thistagwilltravel
Why such a long wait though? 2016 season?
Damaikis
Fairway Finder
Give guys time to adjust maybe?
TheWoo
New member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,298
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- The Flint Hills of Kansas
- Handicap
- 0.3 GHIN
The standard process is to implement new rules every four years. Especially with big changes that will impact players' actual strokes and/or equipment, they like to allow an adjustment period.
Belly and long putter inventories are going to be hard enough to sell now - had it been an immediate implementation, they'd be impossible. Also, this gives current anchorers two and a half years to play around with other options while staying competitive with their current strokes.
Snap hooked from my Galaxy S3
Mulligan9111
Go Skers!!
I got to hand it to the USGA, they admit to not wanting to use facts and figures to make a reasonable decision, instead they compare picking up the ball and rolling it into the hole with your hand to the anchored putting stroke. These are the people making decisions on what's best for golf....so pathetic.
Golf 'N Gator
Formally HoosierGolfer
I agree, but this is normal with rule changes. They wait until the next time the book is published, which is 1/1/2016.
This is the amazing sentence ever.
They went with the tradition of following the rules. But I digress.
Mulligan9111
Go Skers!!
Depends on how you look at it. But that's a completely different subject.
I look at it from the rule book's perspective. And tradition. The Augusta rules committee has made a similar ruling in the past.
Mulligan9111
Go Skers!!
If the rules committee had made a similar ruling in the past, it wouldn't have been as big of a deal as it was.
Traditionally speaking, an incorrect scorecard signature results in disqualification. They applied a new rule (even if it wasn't done correctly) and proceeded from there. The USGA has come out and supported them, but at the same time said that this was a special circumstance and should not be used for future rules decisions.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what they did. I don't think the golfer should have to pay for the indecision of the rules committee (saying no penalty before the round was over and then waiting to hear from said golfer later on and applying the penalty). But to say it went with tradition is a stretch.
Just my opinion though.
Mulligan9111
Go Skers!!
That would be great, except that's not the ruling they used. They used 33-7/4.5 which is the High-def television ruling. Which by the way does not absolve the player for not knowing the rules or applying the rules erroneously.