Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 60

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

The reason people switch to a different type of club or change their swing is because they think it will improve their game.

It makes no sense for those same people to then claim that the change they made wasn't done because of any improvement it offers.

Right.  Meenman probably would have improved spending that time with a normal putter.  But he probably bought the new one, and spent hours with that one instead of his old one, because he thought in the end he would putt better with the anchoring.

I get that the USGA and the R&A are not calling it an advantage.    I also get that some people don't like the look of anchored putters.   What I don't get is the idea that to constitute a golf stroke, the club must be swung "freely".   I did a search for rules of golf and definitions of a stroke.    I found several sets of rules, including the oldest know surviving set of rules (dated 1744).  None of them that I found (including the current rules), make any statement that the club must be swung "freely".   

Without some definition of a golf stroke that required the club to be swung freely, one is left to surmise that throughout the history of the game, it has never been against the rules to anchor a club against the body.   And if there indeed never has been a rule forbidding the anchoring of a club, and given that the ruling bodies have not declared there to be an unfair advantage gained by anchoring, then creating a rule against it now is not legitimately an effort to "preserve the traditions of the game" but rather an effort to create a new tradition that meets the asthetics of those who are making the rules.

For the record, I am 6'4" and use a 35" putter, so whatever they decide will not have an effect on me one way or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allin 

You didn't notice I said in a formal debate? A forum is a conversation without the conventions needed for formal debate, including a formal premise. Beyond that inductive reasoning at best could be applied. It never fails some blowhard knno it all responds assuming every one else is an idiot. It was an ironic statement, jeez.

So let me get this straight:

You came on a forum and made fun of somebody's argument, calling it a fallacy and flawed logic.

Somebody called you on it.

Now, you say that "duh, I wasn't referring to the forum, just formal debates."

So, why did you post it in the first place?

(And, I don't know if you noticed but all of my words are soaking wet ... because the bolded statement up above them is dripping with irony.  (more like gushing)

Quote:

Originally Posted by allin 


You didn't notice I said in a formal debate? A forum is a conversation without the conventions needed for formal debate, including a formal premise. Beyond that inductive reasoning at best could be applied. It never fails some blowhard knno it all responds assuming every one else is an idiot. It was an ironic statement, jeez.

To be honest, I don't remember even remember what your original post was, and it's probably not worth going back 10 pages to drudge it up.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

To be honest, I don't remember even remember what your original post was, and it's probably not worth going back 10 pages to drudge it up.  

You're right.  I tried and gave up after a couple of minutes.  It's way back there apparently.  We've obviously been talking about this subject waaaaaaaaaay too long.

I just didn't find it fair that he could criticise somebody over their lack of knowledge of the rules of debate, then after he's corrected, come back and say "that's not what I meant" AND criticise the one who corrected him.

All the while, attempting to talk well above the heads of a lot of us and at the same time, calling somebody else a blowhard know-it-all.

That doesn't sit right with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

You're right.  I tried and gave up after a couple of minutes.  It's way back there apparently.  We've obviously been talking about this subject waaaaaaaaaay too long.

 

I just didn't find it fair that he could criticise somebody over their lack of knowledge of the rules of debate, then after he's corrected, come back and say "that's not what I meant" AND criticise the one who corrected him.

 

All the while, attempting to talk well above the heads of a lot of us and at the same time, calling somebody else a blowhard know-it-all.

 

That doesn't sit right with me.

haha, I typed two long winded responses before settling for my short response.  

The only thing missing from your post was that I think his one ended with something along the lines of "I smile and laugh to myself while looking down my nose at all you uneducated people making such an elementary mistake" (paraphrasing, of course).  Adds to the irony AND tends to show that he was talking about the forums, not some hypothetical formal debate.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThominOH2 

To prove my point scientifically, take a pencil or marker and tape string to it and dangle it from a pivot point..  Pull back the pencil with one hand and let it go.. You will notice that it NEVER makes the exact same path across your target line.. This whole debate is over OPINIONS with no data.

Others made fun of this already, but I couldn't help myself from quoting it again. It reminds me of that old parlor trick about dangling a pencil from a string over someone's palm and it will tell you the gender of their children.

ThominOH multiple accounts are forbidden so your "2" account was banned. Please use your ThominOH account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

If only the USGA knew about gravity, we could have avoided all of this!

Seriously. Idiots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

This is a slippery slope - you don't care if they ban anchoring - I don't care if they ban your hybrids.

Straw man. Plus this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

Definition of a swing vs definition of legal equipment. Two totally different slopes there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

I get that the USGA and the R&A are not calling it an advantage.    I also get that some people don't like the look of anchored putters.   What I don't get is the idea that to constitute a golf stroke, the club must be swung "freely".   I did a search for rules of golf and definitions of a stroke.    I found several sets of rules, including the oldest know surviving set of rules (dated 1744).  None of them that I found (including the current rules), make any statement that the club must be swung "freely".   

 

Without some definition of a golf stroke that required the club to be swung freely, one is left to surmise that throughout the history of the game, it has never been against the rules to anchor a club against the body.   And if there indeed never has been a rule forbidding the anchoring of a club, and given that the ruling bodies have not declared there to be an unfair advantage gained by anchoring, then creating a rule against it now is not legitimately an effort to "preserve the traditions of the game" but rather an effort to create a new tradition that meets the asthetics of those who are making the rules.

 

For the record, I am 6'4" and use a 35" putter, so whatever they decide will not have an effect on me one way or the other.

Well stated.

Maybe we can find some 17th century painting of golfers with the end of their putters touching their bodies as they putt.
Then we can deem putting in an unanchored method is against the original intent of putting and force everyone to anchor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

This gets back to the oft-repeated, "the ban is not about an advantage, its about the aesthetics and what golf is supposed to be"

The traditionalists can also destroy things by living in the past.

 

What is golf supposed to be? Every other industry grows with technology - the *traditionalists* are trying to stifle it.

 

The 1800s are over, as are the 1900s. If the game wants to grow in the future, new ways to do things will have to be accepted.

Golf is a game, despite recent technological advances, which has always been steeped in tradition.  To so casually dismiss that is evidence that you really don't know much about the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

I get that the USGA and the R&A are not calling it an advantage.    I also get that some people don't like the look of anchored putters.   What I don't get is the idea that to constitute a golf stroke, the club must be swung "freely".   I did a search for rules of golf and definitions of a stroke.    I found several sets of rules, including the oldest know surviving set of rules (dated 1744).  None of them that I found (including the current rules), make any statement that the club must be swung "freely".   

 

Without some definition of a golf stroke that required the club to be swung freely, one is left to surmise that throughout the history of the game, it has never been against the rules to anchor a club against the body.   And if there indeed never has been a rule forbidding the anchoring of a club, and given that the ruling bodies have not declared there to be an unfair advantage gained by anchoring, then creating a rule against it now is not legitimately an effort to "preserve the traditions of the game" but rather an effort to create a new tradition that meets the asthetics of those who are making the rules.

 

For the record, I am 6'4" and use a 35" putter, so whatever they decide will not have an effect on me one way or the other.

It was never necessary to further define a stroke because most players could tell just by watching others what a golf swing was supposed to look like.    It wasn't until more than just one or two players started displaying the anchored pivot crutch that the governors felt that a refinement of that definition was necessary.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt  It wasn't until more than just one or two players started displaying the anchored pivot crutch that the governors felt that a refinement of that definition was necessary.  

What’s the different between a “crutch” and a preferred technique that works for some and doesn’t work for others?

Do you putt better anchoring but choose not to because you are such purist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt  It wasn't until more than just one or two players started displaying the anchored pivot crutch that the governors felt that a refinement of that definition was necessary.  

 

What’s the different between a “crutch” and a preferred technique that works for some and doesn’t work for others?

Do you putt better anchoring but choose not to because you are such purist?

It allows a  player with a broken putting stroke to putt better than he would otherwise, just like crutches help a person with a broken leg get around easier.  A crutch is a crutch.  

And yes, I like golf's tradition.  I also believe in playing by the rules.  If that makes me a purist in your eyes, then I'm happy to be one.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 
It was never necessary to further define a stroke because most players could tell just by watching others what a golf swing was supposed to look like. 

Considering that over the course of the history of golf there have been clubs made with scooped faces, holes in the face and vertical slots in the face, it's pretty clear that experimentation was occurring.   Therefore, I find it hard to believe that there was not a wide variety of types of strokes experimented with as well.    (The picture Keegan Bradley tweeted showing a golfer using an anchored putting stroke in the early 1900's would tend to support that idea.)  But, since you seem to know for certain what was going through the minds of those who wrote the rules back then, and how "most players" were swinging a club over the past several centuries, perhaps you have been around that long and know your statement to be absolutely valid.   If so, I will defer to your experience.  Otherwise you are speculating as to why a stroke was never further defined.   It could just as easily have been to allow golfers the option to make strokes using a variety of methods (speculation on my part).    

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

Golf is a game, despite recent technological advances, which has always been steeped in tradition.  To so casually dismiss that is evidence that you really don't know much about the game.

 

 

It was never necessary to further define a stroke because most players could tell just by watching others what a golf swing was supposed to look like.    It wasn't until more than just one or two players started displaying the anchored pivot crutch that the governors felt that a refinement of that definition was necessary.  

Kind of reminds me of the NFL with the addition of instant replay and the invention of HD TV.  Prior to those two, the definition of a catch needed to be nothing more than "a catch."  You either caught the ball or you didn't, plain and simple.  But now that they have the ability to see super clearly frame by frame what happens, it's extremely important that the definition of a catch take up ten pages in the rule book.  (I'm sure it's not quite 10 pages, but sometimes hyperbole is fun ;))

Also, at some point in the past I imagine that a lot of things like theft and perhaps even murder weren't explicitly against any rules ... because it just wasn't necessary.

Point is, Fourputt is correct.  The game evolves, and so must the rules.

Honestly, I really don't care one way or the other. Keep anchoring or ban it, I'd be ok with both. I've said before that if push came to shove and I had to decide one way or another that I'd support the ban, and I stand by that. I've also said that if it remained legal and I putted better doing it, I would (I tried it for a while too).

Quote:

Originally Posted by NM Golf 

Talk about opening a can of worms. No way could they grandfather in these players. This is how it will go down...The USGA isn't going to back down and they will institute the ban on January 1, 2016. The PGA Tour will abide by the ruling because it is the right thing to do. Players on the Tour currently using anchored putters will switch to non-anchored strokes and they will be fine or they will go the way of the buffalo. New stars will come in, other players will disappear. Its not like someone on Tour has never vanished like a fart in the wind before, anyone remember David Duval?

 

And poor me I will grudgingly switch back to my normal length putter, but it will at least give me a good reason to buy a new club.

 

I really don't see this as any kind of power play, I don't see any ulterior motives by anyone is this argument. We have a difference in opinion as to what is best for the game and nothing more. One side thinks anchoring the putter is bad, the other side doesn't, its as simple as that. I disagree completely with the USGA, but I am not so blind that I can't see whats ultimately going to happen.

Really though, this is what it comes down to and how I see things playing out as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Point is, Fourputt is correct.  The game evolves, and so must the rules.

I believe murder has been "against the rules" for just about as long as man has existed (if you believe the Bible, anyway). 

I am not disagreeing that the game and rules have evolved but the statement has been made repeatedly that a proper golf swing requires that the club be swung freely.   My comments were directed to the fact there has never been such a definition/rule.   Furthermore, since there has never been such a definition/rule, the ruling bodies are not in fact, preserving the past as they (and many here) have claimed but in fact, altering the future to suit their whims.   Is that within their right?   I suppose it may be, but it should be stated as such, rather than making it seem like the rule is being written because of some noble cause. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Point is, Fourputt is correct.  The game evolves, and so must the rules.

 

I believe murder has been "against the rules" for just about as long as man has existed (if you believe the Bible, anyway). 

 

I am not disagreeing that the game and rules have evolved but the statement has been made repeatedly that a proper golf swing requires that the club be swung freely.   My comments were directed to the fact there has never been such a definition/rule.   Furthermore, since there has never been such a definition/rule, the ruling bodies are not in fact, preserving the past as they (and many here) have claimed but in fact, altering the future to suit their whims.   Is that within their right?   I suppose it may be, but it should be stated as such, rather than making it seem like the rule is being written because of some noble cause. 

There was never a definition or rule limiting the number of clubs a player could carry until it was deemed necessary by the Ruling bodies for the preservation of the game.  Scooping. pushing, spooning strokes were prohibited when it became necessary for the preservation of the game.  Club form and shape, and ultimately performance, were regulated when it became necessary.  I'm sure that you can see where this is headed.  Many additions and refinements of the rules were not addressed until a problem was perceived as being detrimental to the game by the governing bodies.  They have declared the the anchored stroke is not a proper stroke, and not in keeping with the game as it has always been played.  The proliferation of various types of anchored strokes from the belly, chest, and even the chin, have forced them to further refine the definition of a stroke.  Your contention that this is somehow a capricious whim of the governing bodies is an invalid argument.  

Neither is there anything "noble" about it.  It just is what they are supposed to do, to preserve our game in a way that holds as nearly as possible with the traditions of the game.