or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 72

post #1279 of 1852

Q: Are you for against the proposed ban on anchoring the putter?

Zach Johnson: “I think the reasons to keep it legal far outweigh the ones to make it illegal. I think the game is so far into it, and the trickle-down effect in pro shops, to the amateurs, and to who knows who, is too deep. If it’s that big of an advantage, then we’d all be doing it, and we’re not.”
 

Golf Magazine - April 2013



 

post #1280 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

PGA president: 'Bifurcation seems destined' if anchoring banned

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/pga-president-bifurcation-seems-destined-if-anchoring-banned/

 

 

Here was the main argument, summarized in this paragraph:

Quote:
"We have serious concerns on how the ban on anchoring could affect the enjoyment of the game by our amateur customers," he explained. "Over the past few months, I have received dozens of letters from concerned amateurs ... these people are discouraged and frustrated that the anchoring ban will be imposed after they adopted a previously legal method of putting. Most indicate they will play less golf or quit. The game cannot afford this."

 

Emphasis mine.  "Dozens."  Does that carry a lot of weight?  And I call bull**** that they will quit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyThursday View Post

Q: Are you for against the proposed ban on anchoring the putter?

Zach Johnson: “I think the reasons to keep it legal far outweigh the ones to make it illegal. I think the game is so far into it, and the trickle-down effect in pro shops, to the amateurs, and to who knows who, is too deep. If it’s that big of an advantage, then we’d all be doing it, and we’re not.”
 

Golf Magazine - April 2013



 

 

They aren't even being coy in speaking to the heart of the matter.

post #1281 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

 

 

Here was the main argument, summarized in this paragraph:

 

Emphasis mine.  "Dozens."  Does that carry a lot of weight?  And I call bull**** that they will quit.

 

 

Well, a ton could quit.

 

If they continue to anchor if anchoring is banned, then they are no longer playing golf, since they would be playing by another set of rules. (yes, i know some people dont currently follow the rules either - but this would make law abiding citizens turn into non-golfers)

post #1282 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post


 

 

They aren't even being coy in speaking to the heart of the matter.


Seems pretty much to the heart of the matter. They asked if Johnson (who doesn’t anchor, btw) if he agrees with the ruling. He does not and gave his reasons.

post #1283 of 1852

Hopefully the dozens that quit are the slow ones.

 

Bye bye.

post #1284 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

Well, a ton could quit.

 

If they continue to anchor if anchoring is banned, then they are no longer playing golf, since they would be playing by another set of rules. (yes, i know some people dont currently follow the rules either - but this would make law abiding citizens turn into non-golfers)

 

A ton.  That's what...like 7 or 8 golfers?  lol

 

Language means a lot.

 

"Dozens of golfers" to me pretty much means less than 100, otherwise he would have said "hundreds" since he was trying to emphasize that a lot of people were writing in.

 

Wonder how many "dozens" will write in after his statement to back the ban.  Wonder if we'll ever find out.  Yeah...I'm thinking not.

post #1285 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

Wonder how many "dozens" will write in after his statement to back the ban.  Wonder if we'll ever find out.  Yeah...I'm thinking not.

I believe the comment period is over - so those that write in either way should (in theory) be wasting their time.

post #1286 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

I believe the comment period is over - so those that write in either way should (in theory) be wasting their time.

 

I don't remember the PGA of America saying they had a deadline on their comment period.

post #1287 of 1852
Quote:
"We have serious concerns on how the ban on anchoring could affect the enjoyment of the game by our amateur customers," he explained. "Over the past few months, I have received dozens of letters from concerned amateurs ... these people are discouraged and frustrated that the anchoring ban will be imposed after they adopted a previously legal method of putting. Most indicate they will play less golf or quit. The game cannot afford this."

 

 

They have received dozens of letters from those opposed to the ban?  Well whoop-de-doo.  Did they expect to get many letters from those who are content with it?  You rarely make a concerted effort for something that you are in favor of.  People only get loud when they're bitching about something.  You buy something which works exactly as advertised, you don't go the complaints department and tell them how wonderful it is.  But if you have a complaint, then you raise a ruckus.  

 

If they were to take an honest poll of amateurs at all levels, those adamantly opposed would be such a tiny minority that it would probably be statistically insignificant.  Probably half the players polled would have to have it explained because they wouldn't even know what you were talking about.

post #1288 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

A ton.  That's what...like 7 or 8 golfers?  lol

Language means a lot.

"Dozens of golfers" to me pretty much means less than 100, otherwise he would have said "hundreds" since he was trying to emphasize that a lot of people were writing in.

Wonder how many "dozens" will write in after his statement to back the ban.  Wonder if we'll ever find out.  Yeah...I'm thinking not.
I agree, language does mean a lot. Not sure, though, that he could properly say "hundreds" unless it was at least 200. So that means that we're talking about somewhere between 24 and 199 golfers out of how many million? Not exactly "a ton." :)
post #1289 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Hopefully the dozens that quit are the slow ones.

 

Bye bye.

 

+1 absolutely agree.

 

Finally the PGA of America has come out and proven once and for all they are run by a bunch of morons.

 

Frankly I could not give a sh*t if tons and tons of golfers quit JUST because they cannot anchor the putter against their body when they putt.

post #1290 of 1852

Dozens of golfers is definitely less than 100 or he'd have said 100's.  Lame justification, as dozens of golfers aren't going to affect the future of the sport.  I also doubt the dozens that threatened to quit would actually do so if the ban is upheld.  I heard many people claim they'd leave the country if Obama was re-elected and they are all still here, so hollow threats at best. 

 

It seems the Europeans and LPGA has much more respect for the rules makers than the PGA and PGA Tour.  I saw a quote that basically said the reason the Euro Tour players are supporting the R&A is because they believe the R&A and USGA have no stake in the this other than to do what they feel is best for the game.  They feel they've done a great job up to this point based on the fact that both the Euro Tour and PGA Tour have followed their unified rules for the last 50 years and that they saw no reason to question their ability to set the rules now.

post #1291 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Dozens of golfers is definitely less than 100 or he'd have said 100's.  Lame justification, as dozens of golfers aren't going to affect the future of the sport.  I also doubt the dozens that threatened to quit would actually do so if the ban is upheld.  I heard many people claim they'd leave the country if Obama was re-elected and they are all still here, so hollow threats at best. 

 

It seems the Europeans and LPGA has much more respect for the rules makers than the PGA and PGA Tour.  I saw a quote that basically said the reason the Euro Tour players are supporting the R&A is because they believe the R&A and USGA have no stake in the this other than to do what they feel is best for the game.  They feel they've done a great job up to this point based on the fact that both the Euro Tour and PGA Tour have followed their unified rules for the last 50 years and that they saw no reason to question their ability to set the rules now.

 

+1 to a fellow lefty.

 

A much much more eloguent reply than mine but our sentiments are similiar.

post #1292 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

If they were to take an honest poll of amateurs at all levels, those adamantly opposed would be such a tiny minority that it would probably be statistically insignificant.  Probably half the players polled would have to have it explained because they wouldn't even know what you were talking about.

 

I think a more telling poll would be one that asks if people would quit the game if the ban took effect.

 

I could see some guys honestly saying they are against the ban, even if they don't anchor, and even if they don't much care either way.  They would just be expressing their opinion with little emotionally invested in the matter.  But ask how many would quit the sport, and that's where I think you would see the "statistically insignificant" numbers.  It wouldn't surprise me to see 20% of respondents claiming to be against a ban, but only 1% claiming to be willing to quit over it.

post #1293 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

If they were to take an honest poll of amateurs at all levels, those adamantly opposed would be such a tiny minority that it would probably be statistically insignificant.  Probably half the players polled would have to have it explained because they wouldn't even know what you were talking about.

 

I think a more telling poll would be one that asks if people would quit the game if the ban took effect.

 

I could see some guys honestly saying they are against the ban, even if they don't anchor, and even if they don't much care either way.  They would just be expressing their opinion with little emotionally invested in the matter.  But ask how many would quit the sport, and that's where I think you would see the "statistically insignificant" numbers.  It wouldn't surprise me to see 20% of respondents claiming to be against a ban, but only 1% claiming to be willing to quit over it.

 

 

1% is too high.  Golfers are stubborn, persistent people or they wouldn't keep plugging away against the odds in the first place.  Those few who would actually quit over something so trivial don't really have a golfer's mindset anyway.

post #1294 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

I think a more telling poll would be one that asks if people would quit the game if the ban took effect.

I could see some guys honestly saying they are against the ban, even if they don't anchor, and even if they don't much care either way.  They would just be expressing their opinion with little emotionally invested in the matter.  But ask how many would quit the sport, and that's where I think you would see the "statistically insignificant" numbers.  It wouldn't surprise me to see 20% of respondents claiming to be against a ban, but only 1% claiming to be willing to quit over it.
I think instead of 20% and 1% those numbers would be much more separated ... Like 35 or 40% against (if I HAD to vote I think I'd be in that group) and 0.0001% that would actually quit.
post #1295 of 1852

Please correct me if I am wrong but ..... the PGA of America is against the ban because -

 

"We have serious concerns on how the ban on anchoring could affect the enjoyment of the game by our amateur customers," he explained. "Over the past few months, I have received dozens of letters from concerned amateurs ... these people are discouraged and frustrated that the anchoring ban will be imposed after they adopted a previously legal method of putting. Most indicate they will play less golf or quit. The game cannot afford this." - Ted Bishop president of PGA of America

 

1. There is an assertion that anchoring does not result in any advantages over any other putting stroke.

 

So if that is the case then just do what meenman suggested in post #960 -

"Even if the (proposed) ban went through, myself and most of the 20+ golfers at my club with broomstick putters, would continue to use them in a perfectly legal way.
It is a stroke we have become accustomed to and it would be a matter of moving the club a quarter inch away from our chests."

 

meenman also stated in post #969 -

"I toyed around with it when the rumors started. I already use 2 different putter strokes depending on the length of the putt (a full upper body tilt or just using my right hand) I do not put a ton of pressure into my chest as I anchor, so the feeling is not all that different. Really not a huge difference except I am going to need a steady left hand."
 

meenman I am not trying to pick on you it is just that you use a long putter and you raised some good points.

 

Surely moving the top hand a fraction away from the chest would not results in golfers that use the long putter to quit or play less golf.

 

2. Again meenman pointed out that many use the long putter because they have a bad back and they would not otherwise not be able to play or practice more.

 

This is a very valid concern. But again by merely moving the top hand a fraction away from the chest would still allow them to play or practice as much as they currently do. The long putter has not been banned just the anchoring to the body.

 

So if anchoring does not afford any advantages and those with a physical issue can still play and practice as much as they want why is the banning such a big issue????

 

 

My belief -

 

Now I can't emphasize this enough ...... the following paragraphs are my opinion only and there are no ways to quantify or prove empirically what I am stating. Please those of you who are against the ban don't jump all over me saying there is no empirical evidence .... I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS.

 

I THINK THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE TO SOME GOLFERS WHO USE THE ANCHORING METHOD OF PUTTING ...... omg I've stirred up the pot again.

 

I play with a golfer who when he gets within 12 inches of the hole he has the yips so bad he just cannot putt the ball into the hole. He take this ugly stab (and that is the only way to describe his stroke) at the ball and hopes somehow it get into the hole. The other parts of his game is just fine. He has tried every grip and it did not help. Then same player started using the belly putter and anchored it against his body, the yips were totally eliminated. He has stated to me that it is really no fun at all when he had the yips and contemplated quiting the game until he starting using the belly putter.

 

So why doesn't the PGA of America just come out and say it ..... for some golfers with the yips it allows them to enjoy the game more. There is an advantage for some.

 

Of course by coming out and saying this the PGA Tour would have to restate their assertion that it does not give any advantage and therefore there is no reason to ban the stroke.

 

OK this will keep the posts going for another 100 pages or so.

post #1296 of 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by ay33660 View Post

 

So if anchoring does not afford any advantages and those with a physical issue can still play and practice as much as they want why is the banning such a big issue????

 

 

My belief -

 

Now I can't emphasize this enough ...... the following paragraphs are my opinion only and there are no ways to quantify or prove empirically what I am stating. Please those of you who are against the ban don't jump all over me saying there is no empirical evidence .... I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS.

 

I THINK THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE TO SOME GOLFERS WHO USE THE ANCHORING METHOD OF PUTTING ...... omg I've stirred up the pot again.

 

I play with a golfer who when he gets within 12 inches of the hole he has the yips so bad he just cannot putt the ball into the hole. He take this ugly stab (and that is the only way to describe his stroke) at the ball and hopes somehow it get into the hole. The other parts of his game is just fine. He has tried every grip and it did not help. Then same player started using the belly putter and anchored it against his body, the yips were totally eliminated. He has stated to me that it is really no fun at all when he had the yips and contemplated quiting the game until he starting using the belly putter.

 

So why doesn't the PGA of America just come out and say it ..... for some golfers with the yips it allows them to enjoy the game more. There is an advantage for some.

 

Of course by coming out and saying this the PGA Tour would have to restate their assertion that it does not give any advantage and therefore there is no reason to ban the stroke.

 

OK this will keep the posts going for another 100 pages or so.

Even though this is a (proposed) stroke ban and not an equipment ban, I think this would basically ban the belly putter. I dont see how they can be used un-anchored. (probably because I never tried one)

 

Belly putter use may be more prevalent than any of us realize because it may not be obvious that a golfer is carrying one. Broomstick putters stick out, the belly putters do not unless you are watching someone on the green while you play.

 

I forget the post, but earlier someone stated that this whole *comment period* was nothing more than the USGA + R+A coming up with ways to fight any proposed arguments against the (proposed) ban and word the ruling to protect themselves against any frivolous lawsuits.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)