Fourputt
Head Rules Official
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.
How many times does it have to be said. They aren't singling out the putter, they are banning the anchored stroke. No equipment has been changed - the broomstick and belly putters remain conforming unless one somehow violates some other aspect of the design rules. If Clark wants to continue to use the broomstick putter, he is welcome to to do so. All he has to do is move his top hand away from his chest. His grip doesn't have to change at all.
The misinformation doesn't come from the USGA or R&A. It comes from people who persist in ranting the same incorrect statements over and over and over. And that includes the rabble-rousers on Golf Chanel.