We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The Anchoring Ban

Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bmik33 said:
Why such a long wait though? 2016 season?
Click to expand...

Because that is the next scheduled rule book revision.


Mulligan9111 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. They made that ruling based on Rule 33-7, a rule which has been on the books since the 1950's.
 
Fourputt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, that's why I included the last paragraph. Discount it all you want, but it's pretty obvious that it was a backdoor way to eliminate the putters, stroke, whatever, without using any sort of factual evidence that it harmed competition. The argument lies completely in emotion and is void of any real sense of logic or fairness, which is exactly what the USGA hoped when they picked that strategy.

For what it's worth, I don't listen to talking heads on TGC.
 
Hawk is my boy! Well put sir.
 
I've also said before that using a little honesty and just saying they don't like the way they look would go a long way.

At first we heard arguments that there was an advantage, the stroke was unfair, etc, until it was looked at from an objective point of view. The one that says there is all kinds of remedies available for golfers that struggle with small parts of their game. The one that said this remedy was available to the entire field. The one that showed the best putters aren't necessarily using anchored strokes.

At that point, it became an issue of integrity and tradition. I've got no interest in arguing it because it's no different than your wife saying "don't tell me how to feel" when she's mad for no reason. It's ridiculous, but how do you argue that? You don't because it's no better than bashing your head into a wall.

I don't anchor. Have no interest in it at all. However, I also think that rule changes (especially to something that's occured for DECADES) should serve a tangible purpose to protect the competitiveness of the game. I also think that eliminating one aspect of certain players' games, when they rely on it for money (or just enjoying their Sunday money game), is highly unfair, especially when there is a precedence for allowing all kinds of things to make the game easier and more enjoyable.

What a waste of time and money.
 
Just watching the Golf Channel. It seems the LPGA is more of an adult group than the PGA. They accept the ruling with out issue. They also talked about an interview with a college player who changed to an anchored stroke a short while ago. She stated it was a definite advantage for her.. Finally,,,, an honest "anchorer".. LOL
 
And please don't insult my intelligence by saying nobody follows the rules anyway, so why should it matter.

Find me a club that doesn't use handicaps for tournaments, outings, and money games before you throw that out there. My club, which was about as blue-collar as they come, was tight on handicaps and playing by the rules because money was involved.
 
fastbasser said:
Just watching the Golf Channel. It seems the LPGA is more of an adult group than the PGA. They accept the ruling with out issue. They also talked about an interview with a college player who changed to an anchored stroke a short while ago. She stated it was a definite advantage for her.. Finally,,,, an honest "anchorer".. LOL
Click to expand...

I love that you only come out to troll.

What makes disagreeing with a rule change that has an effect on your livelihood an un-adult way to act?

As for the last part, I doubt there is on piece of equipment in her bag that she doesn't gain some benefit from.
 
fastbasser said:
Just watching the Golf Channel. It seems the LPGA is more of an adult group than the PGA. They accept the ruling with out issue. They also talked about an interview with a college player who changed to an anchored stroke a short while ago. She stated it was a definite advantage for her.. Finally,,,, an honest "anchorer".. LOL
Click to expand...
So me saying that after working with a belly putter for over six months and deciding it didn't help me makes me dishonest?
 
fastbasser said:
Just watching the Golf Channel. It seems the LPGA is more of an adult group than the PGA. They accept the ruling with out issue. They also talked about an interview with a college player who changed to an anchored stroke a short while ago. She stated it was a definite advantage for her.. Finally,,,, an honest "anchorer".. LOL
Click to expand...

"Advantage for her..."

That means nothing. It really proves nothing. By that same logic, non anchored putters are an advantage because Phil, Bill Haas, Jim Fuyrk, Sergio Garcia, and Stewart Cink ( only to name a few) moved from a standard putter to a belly and back to a standard.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those players are free to use long putters so they don't have to bend over. They just have to hold it away from their body.

In fact if the anchored stroke gives such a huge advantage, why don't the top players in putting stats use them?
Click to expand...

If in fact it gives no advantage, then why do players struggling with their putting switch to them?

Additionally, if you're already one of the top putters on tour, are you really going to mess around with your putting stroke? Heck, no. You're not changing a thing.

Hawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you could get statistics to back it up on either side of the argument. So 10 players with anchored putters putt the same or worse than 10 players with short putters. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

What does sway the issue for me is that in every putting lesson I've ever had, the pro emphasizes the importance of making a connected stroke. In fact, they suggest holding an alignment rod against the putter and up to my belly during practice so I can get the feeling of what a connected stroke is supposed to be. Hmm....or, if I use an anchored putter, that problem goes away.

Let me ask this question again: if anchoring the putter gives no advantage, why are people upset? Why not just putt with a long putter that's not anchored? Shouldn't make any difference.
 
wadesworld said:
Those players are free to use long putters so they don't have to bend over. They just have to hold it away from their body.



If in fact it gives no advantage, then why do players struggling with their putting switch to them?

Additionally, if you're already one of the top putters on tour, are you really going to mess around with your putting stroke? Heck, no. You're not changing a thing.



I'm not sure how you could get statistics to back it up on either side of the argument. So 10 players with anchored putters putt the same or worse than 10 players with short putters. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

What does sway the issue for me is that in every putting lesson I've ever had, the pro emphasizes the importance of making a connected stroke. In fact, they suggest holding an alignment rod against the putter and up to my belly during practice so I can get the feeling of what a connected stroke is supposed to be. Hmm....or, if I use an anchored putter, that problem goes away.

Let me ask this question again: if anchoring the putter gives no advantage, why are people upset? Why not just putt with a long putter that's not anchored? Shouldn't make any difference.
Click to expand...

By the same token, why change it at all? Should we change your stroke or your equipment without good reason?
 
Hawk said:
By the same token, why change it at all? Should we change your stroke or your equipment without good reason?
Click to expand...

You change if you believe it gives an advantage. Personally, I agree with USGA/R&A and have no problem with the ban.

What I'm upset about is we heard all about this subject for several months. Now we have hear about nothing but this for several months again. Ugh.
 
I can't be bothered to read through 60 pages of arguments, but its a ridiculous decision as far as I'm concerned. I've no problem with anchoring being banned, but not 30 odd years later!!! I really don't see what purpose this now serves except to cause division!!
 
wadesworld said:
You change if you believe it gives an advantage. Personally, I agree with USGA/R&A and have no problem with the ban.

What I'm upset about is we heard all about this subject for several months. Now we have hear about nothing but this for several months again. Ugh.
Click to expand...

The alliance said themselves that the change had nothing to do with giving an advantage though.
 
Last edited:
Hawk said:
The alliance said themselves that it didn't give an advantage though.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't hear that. I heard them say loud and clear that one of the fundamental principles of golf was having to control the club away from the body, and anchoring gave an advantage in that area.

They may have said they had no statistical proof, but as I said, how are you going to prove it with statistics? If 200 people with traditional putters putt better than 40 people with anchored putters, does that prove the anchored putters give no advantage? No. The 200 people might just be better putters, period.

To me, the proof is in the pudding. If it gives no advantage, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be upset.
 
Hawk said:
I love that you only come out to troll.

What makes disagreeing with a rule change that has an effect on your livelihood an un-adult way to act?

As for the last part, I doubt there is on piece of equipment in her bag that she doesn't gain some benefit from.
Click to expand...

I come out as I have time. I don't make this site my life. You have your opinion, I have mine AND am entitled to state it with out you attacking me. The PGA is becoming a bunch of prima donnas.
 
Hawk said:
I don't anchor. Have no interest in it at all. However, I also think that rule changes (especially to something that's occured for DECADES) should serve a tangible purpose to protect the competitiveness of the game. I also think that eliminating one aspect of certain players' games, when they rely on it for money (or just enjoying their Sunday money game), is highly unfair, especially when there is a precedence for allowing all kinds of things to make the game easier and more enjoyable.

What a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

This is where we depart. I think that the ruling bodies also have an obligation to protect (within reason) the 400 plus years of tradition which have formed this game we all love. And I don't feel that this ruling changes anything about the competitiveness of the game. The real effect is on a tiny, even minuscule, minority of players. Most of them will be able to switch either stroke or putter without any loss of competitiveness. The very few who are actually harmed by this are going to be nearly impossible to tabulate.
 
fastbasser said:
I come out as I have time. I don't make this site my life. You have your opinion, I have mine AND am entitled to state it with out you attacking me. The PGA is becoming a bunch of prima donnas.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has issue with your opinion or your entitlement to it. Your tone however...


If the PGA Tour are becoming prima donnas it's most likely because of the extreme gap in relevance and popularity between the PGA Tour and all of the other tours.
 
wadesworld said:
I certainly didn't hear that. I heard them say loud and clear that one of the fundamental principles of golf was having to control the club away from the body, and anchoring gave an advantage in that area.

They may have said they had no statistical proof, but as I said, how are you going to prove it with statistics? If 200 people with traditional putters putt better than 40 people with anchored putters, does that prove the anchored putters give no advantage? No. The 200 people might just be better putters, period.

To me, the proof is in the pudding. If it gives no advantage, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be upset.
Click to expand...

They said it in the orginal statement three months ago. Or the Q&A.

There is all kinds of precedent out there for equipment or different types of strokes to mitigate weaknesses on a personal level. That doesn't make it unfair or an advantage against the field. What is unfair is taking away a method that somebody's used under the rules without good solid evidence that it's protecting the competitiveness of the game.

fastbasser said:
I come out as I have time. I don't make this site my life. You have your opinion, I have mine AND am entitled to state it with out you attacking me. The PGA is becoming a bunch of prima donnas.
Click to expand...

Please spare me the sob story. You know what you've done here in the past and what you're doing today.
 
I hope the PGA tour adapts to this ruling, so glad to see anchoring gone.
 
I totally agree with the ban. It's just not a golf stroke. I wish it would have been addressed sooner. I believe it was the emergence of the belly putter that really made them change it. I'm not sure if they would have done much if the only method was the broomstick.

If the PGA whines or sues it will be very disappointing. You'll have 4 years (if you include the last year when it was apparent this would happen) to learn to putt without anchoring.


Tappin' on the Kingphone.
 
Fourputt said:
This is where we depart. I think that the ruling bodies also have an obligation to protect (within reason) the 400 plus years of tradition which have formed this game we all love. And I don't feel that this ruling changes anything about the competitiveness of the game. The real effect is on a tiny, even minuscule, minority of players. Most of them will be able to switch either stroke or putter without any loss of competitiveness. The very few who are actually harmed by this are going to be nearly impossible to tabulate.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it - and why the ban passed. There's no way to argue that, at least from a logical standpoint. I don't have the energy to debate tradition, but I will say that I think crying tradition today is hypocritical when we look at the massive changes we've seen in the last century, all of which were alllowed under the USGA/R&A's watch.
 
wadesworld said:
Those players are free to use long putters so they don't have to bend over. They just have to hold it away from their body.



If in fact it gives no advantage, then why do players struggling with their putting switch to them?

Additionally, if you're already one of the top putters on tour, are you really going to mess around with your putting stroke? Heck, no. You're not changing a thing.



I'm not sure how you could get statistics to back it up on either side of the argument. So 10 players with anchored putters putt the same or worse than 10 players with short putters. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

What does sway the issue for me is that in every putting lesson I've ever had, the pro emphasizes the importance of making a connected stroke. In fact, they suggest holding an alignment rod against the putter and up to my belly during practice so I can get the feeling of what a connected stroke is supposed to be. Hmm....or, if I use an anchored putter, that problem goes away.

Let me ask this question again: if anchoring the putter gives no advantage, why are people upset? Why not just putt with a long putter that's not anchored? Shouldn't make any difference.
Click to expand...

One would think that if anchored putting was such a huge advantage, they would be all over the top of the putting statistics for the PGA Tour, yet they are not.
 
I'm almost starting to look at anchoring the same way I do GPS, OK so the pros can't use it, but what's that to stop the rest of us amateurs from using it and making the game more fun, within the rules of course!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top