Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

What I think will be most interesting is to see how the anchored putter guys handle the rule change.  Will they wait until 2016 or make the switch immediately.  Will also be interesting to see how the change affects their scores.  Some guys used a traditional putting stroke first so they will be more comfortable going back to it, but I'd think guys like Bradley will have a tougher time making the switch. 

If I were them, I'd do this:

2013 - Putt with my belly putter. Occasionally mess around with short putter.

2014 - Putt with my belly putter. Mess around during off-season and off weeks with short putter. Maybe pull out the short putter for an event or three at the end of the year (fall series stuff).

2015 - Putt with belly putter and short putter in PGA Tour events, moving more towards the short putter as the year went on.

2016 - Short putter! :)

Makes sense as rushing to the short putter could cost some their pro card.  I wonder how those that continue to use the anchored stroke after the rule change is announced will be treated by the galleries and if they will feel more self conscious given the rules committees basically will have ruled that the stroke is illegal and after 2016 would be considered cheating. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

If I were them, I'd do this:

 

2013 - Putt with my belly putter. Occasionally mess around with short putter.

2014 - Putt with my belly putter. Mess around during off-season and off weeks with short putter. Maybe pull out the short putter for an event or three at the end of the year (fall series stuff).

2015 - Putt with belly putter and short putter in PGA Tour events, moving more towards the short putter as the year went on.

2016 - Short putter! :)

I find this interesting

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2012/11/6/3609908/tiger-woods-adam-scott-belly-putters

I'd expect Scott and others to defend their putting style as they currently depend on it to put food on their tables.  Woods hasn't said or done anything more than Arnie has for year, he's provided a personal opinion on the topic when asked. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derrick Parker 

I find this interesting

 

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2012/11/6/3609908/tiger-woods-adam-scott-belly-putters

Has the USGA and or the R&A stated when they would make an official announcement on the subject?  

I personally would like the governing bodies to focus on other rules that are (in my humble opinion) bad for the game.  One example is grazing a blade of grass or leaf while in a hazard.  Another one is when a ball oscillates slightly when you have addressed it on the green or in the fairway.  These are just 2 examples that in no way improves your lie or stroke but is a penalty under the current rules.  As for the topic though I personally do not like the anchored putters but I don't feel it gives players an unfair advantage.  Full disclosure, I do not and never have used an anchored putter.

Beachcomber... I just heard on the Golf Channel that the decision will be made before the end of the calendar year.

I understand Phil's logic, but it's not like the rule would impact golfers overnight.

Also, by that logic other equipment changes would be unfair as well.  But as long as they are uniform, it will be equitable.  And again, if anchoring a putter offers no advantage, then it shouldn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyTNgolfer 

I personally would like the governing bodies to focus on other rules that are (in my humble opinion) bad for the game.  One example is grazing a blade of grass or leaf while in a hazard.  Another one is when a ball oscillates slightly when you have addressed it on the green or in the fairway.  These are just 2 examples that in no way improves your lie or stroke but is a penalty under the current rules.  As for the topic though I personally do not like the anchored putters but I don't feel it gives players an unfair advantage.  Full disclosure, I do not and never have used an anchored putter.

 

 

Beachcomber... I just heard on the Golf Channel that the decision will be made before the end of the calendar year.

Um.... neither of the examples you cited is a breach unless the blade of grass or leaf is detached and lying loose, AND your ball lies in a water hazard or bunker.  Brushing grass or brush or weeds which are still attached or growing is never a penalty unless in the process you do something to improve your lie or the area of your intended swing.  The ball oscillating is also not a penalty.  It's only a penalty if it moves.   The definition of Move from the Rules of Golf:

I just do not understand the problem with the rule changes. I played university hockey, and have been training athletes for years now. So many changes came down the pipes through the years, that I could not name them all if I tried. Never have I seen lawsuits over rule changes, it is just absurd. I am 6'4, and 245 pounds. I was one of the roughest defenseman that minor hockey, AAA, and university hockey had ever seen. Not just rough, but dirty. A McSorley who could actually play hockey.

I had to alter my playstyle drasticly over the years. I grew up in an era where going for the head was just what you did. It wasn't a good check unless you caught the jaw with it. The instigator rule affected me also, because back then, fighting was a part of hockey. I mean, our teams paid for us to train in boxing gyms, and coaches pointed out who they wanted 'taken out'. When rules changed, I didn't threaten lawsuits because my style of play had to change. I changed my style of play.

Rules change. Governing bodies have a right to do that. If they feel something is not in line with the spirit of the game, then it is up to them to change it. It is their right.

I have no use for belly putters. But then I have no use for a 460cc driver, either. However, if other golfers do like these things and choose to use them, then that's up to them.

Not sure how you can attempt to roll back innovation in golf equipment. Sure, you could say that everyone has to play persimmon, blades, and balata - but all you'd be doing then would be rolling back time to technologies that were "cutting edge" in the 1960s, and hence a huge improvement over the hickory of the 1920s or whatever...

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't "put the genie back in the bottle."

It seems that manufacturers have tried (so they'd tell us) to make this game easier ever since it was conceived. Still difficult though, isn't it? Belly putters, spring-faced drivers, whatever else....none of it really matters, you can't buy yourself a golf game, all you can do is buy the equipment that seems to work best for you and your swing. It's not as though anyone is coming for my traditional-looking bladed putter and forcing me to play with one of those outlandish-looking putters I seem to see in pro shops everywhere these days, so depriving other players of the equipment they choose to use strikes me as an odd idea for leveling the playing field - not that I'm certain the playing field needs leveling.

Uniform changes are not equitable. For example imagine they banned left handed golf swings (after all they look stupid).  Would you be willing to say that if left handed play didn't offer an advantage, then the change wouldn't matter? I doubt it. The belly guys have spent time on a skill that was rendered useless by the change. 

Now that doesn't mean the change shouldn't be done. It just means that it will impact some players more than others. But so did the 460 driver, graphite shafts, the modern golf ball, and a ton of other changes through the years.

Personally it seems to me the evidence that belly putter, long putters, mallet putters, heavy putters, left hand low, claw, and so on are actually better putting techniques is minimal at best.  They helps some people and hurts others. 

As far as making golf fun for the average guy, belly putters have basically zero effect. No on starting the game plays one.   The old guys do use a lot more long putters but it isn't clear to me if they will be banned by this ruling.

If they really wanted something to help the high handicapper and speed up play, legalize butter on the driver. Cutting the side spin by 2/3s would change the game drastically for pretty much anyone that can't break 100. Obviously I am a bit tongue in cheek about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

I understand Phil's logic, but it's not like the rule would impact golfers overnight.

 

Also, by that logic other equipment changes would be unfair as well.  But as long as they are uniform it will be equitable.  And again, if anchoring a putter offers no advantage, then it shouldn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApocG10 

I just do not understand the problem with the rule changes. I played university hockey, and have been training athletes for years now. So many changes came down the pipes through the years, that I could not name them all if I tried. Never have I seen lawsuits over rule changes, it is just absurd. I am 6'4, and 245 pounds. I was one of the roughest defenseman that minor hockey, AAA, and university hockey had ever seen. Not just rough, but dirty. A McSorley who could actually play hockey.

 

I had to alter my playstyle drasticly over the years. I grew up in an era where going for the head was just what you did. It wasn't a good check unless you caught the jaw with it. The instigator rule affected me also, because back then, fighting was a part of hockey. I mean, our teams paid for us to train in boxing gyms, and coaches pointed out who they wanted 'taken out'. When rules changed, I didn't threaten lawsuits because my style of play had to change. I changed my style of play.

 

Rules change. Governing bodies have a right to do that. If they feel something is not in line with the spirit of the game, then it is up to them to change it. It is their right.

Well posted and I have to say, wow!  I've never played ice hockey but followed it closely in Boston in the '73-74.  I knew it was a rough game and I don't wish to seem naive but ..... wow.

As you say, rules changes are common in many sports and have happened often in golf over the years.  Fundamentally the present case is nothing different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApocG10 

I just do not understand the problem with the rule changes. I played university hockey, and have been training athletes for years now. So many changes came down the pipes through the years, that I could not name them all if I tried. Never have I seen lawsuits over rule changes, it is just absurd. I am 6'4, and 245 pounds. I was one of the roughest defenseman that minor hockey, AAA, and university hockey had ever seen. Not just rough, but dirty. A McSorley who could actually play hockey.

 

I had to alter my playstyle drasticly over the years. I grew up in an era where going for the head was just what you did. It wasn't a good check unless you caught the jaw with it. The instigator rule affected me also, because back then, fighting was a part of hockey. I mean, our teams paid for us to train in boxing gyms, and coaches pointed out who they wanted 'taken out'. When rules changed, I didn't threaten lawsuits because my style of play had to change. I changed my style of play.

 

Rules change. Governing bodies have a right to do that. If they feel something is not in line with the spirit of the game, then it is up to them to change it. It is their right.

I agree.  It seems pretty absurd to me too, and somewhat petulant in the case of guys who just switched recently and are still implying they would bring legal action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas 

Well posted and I have to say, wow!  I've never played ice hockey but followed it closely in Boston in the '73-74.  I knew it was a rough game and I don't wish to seem naive but ..... wow.

 

As you say, rules changes are common in many sports and have happened often in golf over the years.  Fundamentally the present case is nothing different.

Nice. I've been a lifelong Bruins fan. Bobby Orr was my Idol, along with Ray Bourque.

Ya, hockey was a rough sport until the late '90's. I don't care what anyone says, i've played hockey my whole life, and follow both Rugby and football. Those sports have some hard hitting, but nothing compared to checking 'up' into someone's jaw at 40kmh coming at you at the same speed with their head down. I mean, playing Peewee AAA (the youngest checking league in east coast canada), I broke a guys neck in two places when I checked him into the boards, and didn't even get a penalty.

Had to leave the rink with with my whole team at my back though, cuz we were in their hometown, and the fans wanted blood. But that was just Canadian hockey. That is the way we played the game. I'm glad it changed, personally. I took pride in it back then, but looking back, I can see the permanent damage we could have caused. Especially since my defense partner, who I playeded with from 4yo, to 23yo in university, was as big and mean as I was. Nobody got checked for concussions back then. The trainer asked how many fingers he was holding up, and as long as you were within one or two, you were good to play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgiaGolfer 

Not sure how you can attempt to roll back innovation in golf equipment.

They're not. They're tightening the definition of a "stroke."

That ends up being a very different thing.

Yeah, ask James Harrison what he thinks of the NFL rule changes and how he's liked being fined over $100K for flagrant fouls after years of them being legal hits. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

 

I agree.  It seems pretty absurd to me too, and somewhat petulant in the case of guys who just switched recently and are still implying they would bring legal action.