The Anchoring Ban

[Mulligan9111]

How does the anchor point impact anything that you just said.

And, once again, since that statistic is for Tour players, it's a terrible statistic to use for the basis of this decision.

I completely agree that the Tour players shouldn't really be a factor in the decision. My point is that if at the top echelon of the sport, they can't prove that anchored putting provides an advantage, how can they say it does for amateurs?

 

[MWard]

How does the anchor point impact anything that you just said.

And, once again, since that statistic is for Tour players, it's a terrible statistic to use for the basis of this decision.

You can't measure in any way if it can or can't help. It's not a bad stat for measuring players, but it doesn't help for the basis.

The jist if it. If I want it banned, what reason can I give to do it. Could it help with nerves? Maybe.. Is it proveable? Not really. But it's not proveable that it's not helping either. Big gray area. PERFECT!

Banned.

 

[JB]

You can't measure in any way if it can or can't help. It's not a bad stat for measuring players, but it doesn't help for the basis.

The jist if it. If I want it banned, what reason can I give to do it. Could it help with nerves? Maybe.. Is it proveable? Not really. But it's not proveable that it's not helping either. Big gray area. PERFECT!

Banned.

This is it.
Its absurd how the ruling body works, but this is it.
It would be like me saying that too many guys are using hybrids. They are able to make the ball go higher, without any adjust to the swing or loft on the club. Therefore they are easier to hold greens. I think they should be banned.

Crazy isnt it? Well, its clearly not that crazy.

 

[Rhyno]

This is it.
Its absurd how the ruling body works, but this is it.
It would be like me saying that too many guys are using hybrids. They are able to make the ball go higher, without any adjust to the swing or loft on the club. Therefore they are easier to hold greens. I think they should be banned.

Crazy isnt it? Well, its clearly not that crazy.

Well in a way you can prove hybrids give an advantage.

You still can't prove that an anchored putter makes a difference.

So it's even more absurd them your example.

~Joseph~
Via Tapatalk

 

[MWard]

It's kinda brilliant really. I applaud the loophole they found that really is hard to prove otherwise. What judge is able to overturn that? On what evidence?

 

[tvandyke]

Gaijin_Golfer said:

"I think they made the right decision. They can be PC all they want but I still believe that anchoring gives an advantage. If it didnt, you wouldnt see pros who were struggling with their putting making the switch and then suddenly winning. Look at Adam Scott. His career was in the toilet before he switched because he couldnt putt. Now, he's a Masters champion.
I think the key wording is that they didnt limit the length of the putter, they simply said you cant anchor it. That way, someone who has a back problem and says bending over to putt hurts their back can still use a long putter, they just need to find a way to use it (such as the arm lock) without anchoring.
Its going to be just like the groove rule was. At first, people cried foul and said it was going to ruin the game and now you dont hear so much as a peep about it."


Here's the problem with this logic. I've heard a bunch of people say the same thing, "he was struggling, made the change and got better so obviously it gave him an advantage". First of all, only someone who is struggling with part of the game will be searching for a cure. All of us here have struggled with something (driving, putting, iron play, pitching, etc) at some point, probably multiple times over. Once we find something, anything that seems to help, we change. I wouldn't have 3 drivers and 4 driver shafts sitting at home if that wasn't the case. You could make the exact same argument with anybody that makes a change either to their grip, swing or equipment and improves their game then it's giving them an advantage. When Phil switched to the Claw grip and his putting improved I didn't hear anyone say that the claw grip must somehow give him and advantage. If someone was struggling with long irons, switched to hybrids and as a result, improved the exact same logic would apply wouldn't it? You could easily make the statement, "hey, that guy could never hit a decent 3 iron shot and now he's deadly with his 3 hybrid and it's not fair". The real test would be this: You take two golfers that are about equal in putting where one uses an anchored stroke and one uses a traditional un-anchored stroke and have them switch putters. Have a putting contest and see who does better. By your logic the guy who has the anchored putter in his hand should always win the contest. Right? A great putter that uses a traditional putter should get even better with an anchored putter, right? If not, then your logic is flawed. It's really no different than a guy who prefers a 4 iron over a 4 hybrid. Putting a 4 hybrid in his hands instead of the iron doesn't necessarily mean he should be better with it. Putting is such an individual thing it's simply not that cut and dry.

 

[Kobey]

A great putter that uses a traditional putter should get even better with an anchored putter, right? If not, then your logic is flawed. It's really no different than a guy who prefers a 4 iron over a 4 hybrid. Putting a 4 hybrid in his hands instead of the iron doesn't necessarily mean he should be better with it. Putting is such an individual thing it's simply not that cut and dry.

I don't think that's right either. If anchoring only helps with certain swing flaws and the great putter doesn't have them, he won't improve with anchoring. In fact, he would probably get a lot worse for a while as he adjusted to the new style. That would be like saying if you give a great driver a club designed to help with a slice he would get better. It's not a question of whether or not anchoring helps everybody, it's whether or not it helps some people.

But I still don't think that is the issue. I don't think the USGA wants to put a stop to things that can help people be more competitive. They allow all kinds of equipment that does that. I think the big issue is that it looks funny and they decided to do something about it now that it has become more popular. Look how long it has taken to really start catching on. They probably figured only the older guys would do it so it wasn't worth worrying about all these years. Maybe they even thought it was just a fad and would fade away over time.

 

[tvandyke]

I don't think that's right either. If anchoring only helps with certain swing flaws and the great putter doesn't have them, he won't improve with anchoring. In fact, he would probably get a lot worse for a while as he adjusted to the new style. That would be like saying if you give a great driver a club designed to help with a slice he would get better. It's not a question of whether or not anchoring helps everybody, it's whether or not it helps some people.

But I still don't think that is the issue. I don't think the USGA wants to put a stop to things that can help people be more competitive. They allow all kinds of equipment that does that. I think the big issue is that it looks funny and they decided to do something about it now that it has become more popular. Look how long it has taken to really start catching on. They probably figured only the older guys would do it so it wasn't worth worrying about all these years. Maybe they even thought it was just a fad and would fade away over time.

But the new rule doesn't really stop anyone from continuing to use the longer putters. In all honesty, the belly putter is really the only putter that gets neutered by this new rule and I never thought someone using a belly looked that much different than someone using a traditional. Without anchoring, I don't really see much use for it. However, that isn't really true for the broomstick which is the putter that most consider to be the "funny" looking one, not the belly. A person can simply move the butt of the club off their chest and still use it and it would still look just as funny. If you really want to see something that looks "different", use a long putter with a sidesaddle stance. Most traditional sidesaddle users (not that there are many) didn't anchor anyway even though it was common to anchor against the shoulder it really isn't all that necessary. The main purpose of the broomstick in my opionion was to allow the golfer to putt with a more upright stance and anchoring was just a secondary afterthought. Adam Scott can simply move the putter off of his chest and from a visual perspective the stroke will look the same and be just as "untraditional" as far as the purists go. So in that sense, the new rule hasn't fixed anything.

 

[Fourputt]

But the new rule doesn't really stop anyone from continuing to use the longer putters. In all honesty, the belly putter is really the only putter that gets neutered by this new rule and I never thought someone using a belly looked that much different than someone using a traditional. Without anchoring, I don't really see much use for it. However, that isn't really true for the broomstick which is the putter that most consider to be the "funny" looking one, not the belly. A person can simply move the butt of the club off their chest and still use it and it would still look just as funny. If you really want to see something that looks "different", use a long putter with a sidesaddle stance. Most traditional sidesaddle users (not that there are many) didn't anchor anyway even though it was common to anchor against the shoulder it really isn't all that necessary. The main purpose of the broomstick in my opionion was to allow the golfer to putt with a more upright stance and anchoring was just a secondary afterthought. Adam Scott can simply move the putter off of his chest and from a visual perspective the stroke will look the same and be just as "untraditional" as far as the purists go. So in that sense, the new rule hasn't fixed anything.

Regardless of the popular opinion here, the rule change has nothing to do with appearance. It applies strictly to how the swing is made. As long as the club is not anchored to a pivot point and doesn't violate any other rules, then it's legal. The broomstick and belly putters are still legal as long as not anchored. The player can use a broomstick and hold his top hand an inch away from his chest, and as long as he isn't bracing his forearms against his rib cage, he can continue to look silly using it. The belief that the ruling bodies care about how it looks is reaching mythical proportions, yet that all it is... a myth.

 

[Kobey]

Regardless of the popular opinion here, the rule change has nothing to do with appearance. It applies strictly to how the swing is made. As long as the club is not anchored to a pivot point and doesn't violate any other rules, then it's legal. The broomstick and belly putters are still legal as long as not anchored. The player can use a broomstick and hold his top hand an inch away from his chest, and as long as he isn't bracing his forearms against his rib cage, he can continue to look silly using it. The belief that the ruling bodies care about how it looks is reaching mythical proportions, yet that all it is... a myth.

Does this mean you've been to some of their meetings? I'm just guessing when I say they want to get rid of it because it looks funny. Do you have some sources the rest of us don't that proves that's just a myth? What they put out to the public and what they say behind closed doors may be totally different. They may have a whole list of reasons why they want it gone, but they're only going to go on record with the one that's hardest to argue against. I'd bet they would like to get rid of broomstick putters as well, but they don't have a good reason to do so because of all the other equipment changes that have been allowed. So my guess is they are hoping that after the ban, longer putters will quietly go the way of the Dinosaurs.

 

[Fourputt]

Does this mean you've been to some of their meetings? I'm just guessing when I say they want to get rid of it because it looks funny. Do you have some sources the rest of us don't that proves that's just a myth? What they put out to the public and what they say behind closed doors may be totally different. They may have a whole list of reasons why they want it gone, but they're only going to go on record with the one that's hardest to argue against. I'd bet they would like to get rid of broomstick putters as well, but they don't have a good reason to do so because of all the other equipment changes that have been allowed. So my guess is they are hoping that after the ban, longer putters will quietly go the way of the Dinosaurs.

Don't blame me, you asked for it.

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/~/media/RandA/Related%20Documents/2013/AnchoringExplanation.ashx

 

[blugold]

Don't blame me, you asked for it.

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/~/media/RandA/Related%20Documents/2013/AnchoringExplanation.ashx

I have been saying that the rulers have banned anchoring because they don't like how it looks. I was being a little tongue in cheek about that. From what I understand is that they didn't want the stroke to be anchored. Why, I don't know. That's my problem. I don't understand how a putter, anchored to the body, hurts the game. It doesn't provide any other advantage than some players find it comforting.

 

[Kobey]

Don't blame me, you asked for it.

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/~/media/RandA/Related%20Documents/2013/AnchoringExplanation.ashx

Yes I did. Thanks, it was a good read.

 

[nicedivot]

Something about popular opinion not alway being the right opinion seems to fit here.

well.. a few hundreds years ago, popular opinion was that earth was flat and also was the center of the universe

 

[Rhyno]

well.. a few hundreds years ago, popular opinion was that earth was flat and also was the center of the universe

No, no it was not.

~Joseph~
Via Tapatalk

 

[nicedivot]

From what I understand is that they didn't want the stroke to be anchored. Why, I don't know. That's my problem. I don't understand how a putter, anchored to the body, hurts the game. It doesn't provide any other advantage than some players find it comforting.

what I heard the other night about that is including putting the spirit of the golf swing being free swing with arms (and hands), not anchored to the body

 

[blugold]

what I heard the other night about that is including putting the spirit of the golf swing being free swing with arms (and hands), not anchored to the body

Who decided that was the spirit of the game? If it was written or state somewhere I will be glad to read it. The spirit of the game, I always thought, was to get the ball from the tee box into the hole with as few strokes as possible.

Again, who does it hurt to anchor a putter? What tradition is it in spite of.

 

[blugold]

well.. a few hundreds years ago, popular opinion was that earth was flat and also was the center of the universe

I wasn't the first person in here to say that about popular opinion. Gaigin said it in a feeble attempt to discredit that a majority of PGA instructors were against the ban.

The he later used a popular opinion poll from sky caddie as the crux of his argument.

 

[nicedivot]

Who decided that was the spirit of the game? If it was written or state somewhere I will be glad to read it. The spirit of the game, I always thought, was to get the ball from the tee box into the hole with as few strokes as possible.

Again, who does it hurt to anchor a putter? What tradition is it in spite of.

The guy who made that official announcement, if I remember correctly when I saw the clip on golf channel.
I always thought that to get the ball from the tee box into the hole with as few strokes as possible is the objective (or goal) of the game.

 

[fastbasser]

I see some "prima donna" tour members are going to file a law suit. Some are saying they s/b able to make their own rules. No one s/b surprised... It appears they feel they are much better than everyone else. Hmmm, Sadly, this type of elitist behavior is the reason our country is heading down the toilet very quickly. Some pro golfers are becoming more like football, baseball and basketball players.

IGMFU's...

I think they should secede from the USGA, the PGA and start their own tour.

JMHO..

 

[JB]

Hmmmm.
Prima Donnas?
Elitists?

Couldnt the same argument be made (even more so) for the ones making the change? The answer is yes, yes it could.

But par for the course to get a rise without question.

 

[Rhyno]

I think they're pureist, or traditionalist.

What with their cast irons, graphite and steel shafts, hybrids, metal woods, 460 drivers, adjustable woods, and urethane covered multi layer balls.

~Joseph~
Via Tapatalk

 

[fastbasser]

Hmmmm.
Prima Donnas?
Elitists?

Couldnt the same argument be made (even more so) for the ones making the change? The answer is yes, yes it could.

But par for the course to get a rise without question.

I totally disagree. The USGA and R&A are the keepers of golf. Being such, I feel they have the right to keep with the tradition and history of the game.

Golf is an honorable game. Elitist and people with personal agendas should not be allowed to change the game to suit themselves.

 

[JB]

I totally disagree. The USGA and R&A are the keepers of golf. Being such, I feel they have the right to keep with the tradition and history of the game.

Golf is an honorable game. Elitist and people with personal agendas should not be allowed to change the game to suit themselves.

False. The people paying to play the game are the keepers of golf.

And that should NEVER be forgotten.

 

[fastbasser]

False. The people paying to play the game are the keepers of golf.

And that should NEVER be forgotten.

If you let the people that PAY become the keepers of golf, the game will be changed to where it will be unrecognizable. Classic case of the crazies running the asylum...