We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Worse Rule - Putters vs Wedges

Spivey said:
Anchor ban.
Groove rule is for the pros, does almost nothing for the amateur.
Anchor ban may prevent people from playing golf, due to back issues.
Click to expand...
This. The groves don't make a lick of performance distance for most golfers. The anchor putter however keeps certain people with physical issues in the game.
 
With regard to the groove rule, the two guys who were really targeted, who were really spinning the ball out of the rough, were Tiger and Phil. Both shrugged off the new rule saying they didn't play square grooves to begin with. The rule was also supposed to put a premium on hitting the fairway and making the "bomb and gouge" style of play far less desirable - like that has really changed. These guys are pros who can work directly with the equipment people, private instructors, have hours and hours of practice time and essentially have compensated for whatever effect the groove change supposedly did. In the amateur ranks, only elite amateurs are really affected by the groove change so it is a silly rule that, other than cost, has really proved to be ineffective in changing much of anything.

That said, I vote for the anchoring ban as the worst of the two, but not because of how it looks, any supposed advantages, the effect on people with health issues, etc. My reason is because they still allow a form of anchoring - the Kuchar style of putting. Unlike the belly putter and long putter which are anchored to a pivot point, they claim the Kuchar style is still "free swinging". I, on the other hand, feel that by extension up through the arm it is still attached to a "pivot point" that being the shoulder! If anchoring is to be banned ALL forms of anchoring should be banned.
 
Phil75070 said:
That said, I vote for the anchoring ban as the worst of the two, but not because of how it looks, any supposed advantages, the effect on people with health issues, etc. My reason is because they still allow a form of anchoring - the Kuchar style of putting. Unlike the belly putter and long putter which are anchored to a pivot point, they claim the Kuchar style is still "free swinging". I, on the other hand, feel that by extension up through the arm it is still attached to a "pivot point" that being the shoulder! If anchoring is to be banned ALL forms of anchoring should be banned.
Click to expand...
Anyone with a degree in mechanical engineering will agree with you. There are also other forms of anchoring the ruling bodies are allowing. That's one of the many problems with this rule. It's called the "Anchored Putting" ban, but to be correct it should be the "Some Anchored Putting" ban. Countless articles were written with headlines stating this or worse: like anchored putters ban. No wonder so many golfers are confused. In my experience less than 1 in 10 golfers have even a generally correct understanding of the new rule.
 
I have no issue with either rule.I notice no difference with grooves . maybe ball flies higher . belly putter, I never liked it, glad to see rule change . but, I think current players should have been grandfather ed in .
 
The groove rule. As others have said...it made zip difference to the pros. I remember when it was being debated before the ruling came down, was watching PGA tour and some pro hits one out of deep rough and the balls hits/bites/spins back. The commentary was that changing the rule would eliminate this from happening and it should because he was in the rough. Well, I still see it happening even today and the groove rule has been in place for years.
 
leftshot said:
Anyone with a degree in mechanical engineering will agree with you. There are also other forms of anchoring the ruling bodies are allowing. That's one of the many problems with this rule. It's called the "Anchored Putting" ban, but to be correct it should be the "Some Anchored Putting" ban. Countless articles were written with headlines stating this or worse: like anchored putters ban. No wonder so many golfers are confused. In my experience less than 1 in 10 golfers have even a generally correct understanding of the new rule.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point. It was allowed for over a century. Now suddenly because a couple of pros won majors with putting methods that anchor long putters those types of strokes are banned not because they're more effective, but because of looks. Whereas anchoring both forearms to your sides with a conventional length putter, or anchoring the shaft of a belly length putter to your forearm is allowed because it looks more "traditional."

The rule is very specifically written, too. The elbow and upper arm may be anchored to the body to accomplish the same purpose. That is perfectly legal. But enough people have been scared away by the new rule that it will not catch on.

14-1b Anchoring the Club

In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either "directly" or by use of an "anchor point."

Note 1: The club is anchored "directly" when the player intentionally holds the club or a gripping hand in contact with any part of his body, except that the player may hold the club or a gripping hand against a hand or forearm.

Note 2: An "anchor point" exists when the player intentionally holds a forearm in contact with any part of his body to establish a gripping hand as a stable point around which the other hand may swing the club.
 
My only thought on the long putter is with guys like Tim Clark who says he more less can not play with a short putter because of health issues. If true, how does he he swing a driver and all other clubs? I'm missing something.
 
Canadan said:
My biggest issue is with the anchoring purely because I know quite a few older guys who insist on playing within the rules, and use the longer anchored putters because of back problems.

I get why, to a point... But I don't respect it. Seems stupid.
Click to expand...
That's my thinking. There are guys I know who have switched to broomsticks and belly putters because the alternative is a lot of discomfort putting, rather than because it gave them a competitive advantage. That makes it worse, in my opinion.
 
rickkimbrell said:
The groove rule. As others have said...it made zip difference to the pros. I remember when it was being debated before the ruling came down, was watching PGA tour and some pro hits one out of deep rough and the balls hits/bites/spins back. The commentary was that changing the rule would eliminate this from happening and it should because he was in the rough. Well, I still see it happening even today and the groove rule has been in place for years.
Click to expand...

Yes, it had zero effect on the world class players. They still spin the ball back with the new grooves from the rough. The change though, did cost the OEM's $millions in re-tooling cost and they past that cost down to US. The pro's get their clubs for free. $110 wedges are now $130 wedges because the OEM's have to get their money back.

The USGA sucks. Maybe that Parsons guy with the $billions can buy them out..........
 
I never played with an anchored putter, so I'd vote Grooves. I still have a set of newer Callaway wedges with Zip grooves I break out from time to time. I never feel I can spin the newer wedges as well as I did the Zip wedges, but knowing me it's likely all mental.
 
Both rule changes were unnecessary IMO for all the reasons already mentioned.

I treat anchored putting as an innovation that helped improve putting much like game improvement clubs do.
Same argument for grooves - it it helps us play the game better then why not?
 
Nikhil said:
Both rule changes were unnecessary IMO for all the reasons already mentioned.

I treat anchored putting as an innovation that helped improve putting much like game improvement clubs do.
Same argument for grooves - it it helps us play the game better then why not?
Click to expand...

Because the USGA and the R&A only care about the professional games. These knee jerk changes come because of how the world class players, which make up only 0.01% of all the worlds play the game. The other 99.9% (all of us) suffer from this short sided way of thinking. The putter should have never been allowed to be anchored in the first place, but they allowed it for 25 years, and the grooves had been box or square forever. Wait until they change the ball. They are working on it. Take 50 yards away from that 0.01% and how much fun do you think golf will then be for us other 99.9%?
 
Paladin said:
That's my thinking. There are guys I know who have switched to broomsticks and belly putters because the alternative is a lot of discomfort putting, rather than because it gave them a competitive advantage. That makes it worse, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

That is me. Fifteen years with a broom to avoid back surgery, successfully I might add.
Made the switch as I have no choice but to drop the broom, so we will see.
If I had kept the broom ..... (1)having a handicap = no (2) playing in scrambles etc = no (3) playing in THP events = no
 
Last edited:
Both, however the groove rule change is slightly worse, as I believe it did not really accomplish what it was set out to do, from the FW vs the rough.
'Some' club & wedge manufacturers changed trajectories by simply lowering the muscle or CG, thus higher launches / traj / peak heights to drop and stop the ball at a stepper decent angle, rather than groves stopping the roll out. For the change in groove rules 'some' golfers have clubs that have more hang time, depending on the model or design, not so good in wind.
 
Last edited:
potbunker said:
That is me. Fifteen years with a broom to avoid back surgery, successfully I might add.
Made the switch as I have no choice but to drop the broom, so we will see.
If I had kept the broom ..... (1)having a handicap = no (2) playing in scrambles etc = no (3) playing in THP events = no
Click to expand...

If the broom was for your back, why not keep using it and just hold it an inch away from your chin/chest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jman said:
Groove rule.

Belly putters never should have been allowed to start, in my personal opinion, where the groove rule is much more asinine.
Click to expand...

+1 on this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top