I swear this is beginning to look like an all-too-literal Frequently Asked Questions thread (in book form).
For those who haven't read this thread (lucky you) I'd like to preface my post with this:
The anchored ban has NOTHING to do with any advantage that anchored putting may or may not provide. It's about whether there is a probability that anchored putting may someday be more popular than traditional putting, and what future effect this may have on the traditions of the game. It is purely subjective, at the discretion of boards which have governed the rules of golf longer than most of us have been alive.
Now...where was I...
Having established that (a) some pros have stated that they feel anchored putting provides an unfair advantage, but (b) most of the pros who stated this opinion (few exceptions) haven't switched, I had previously stated that I believed they hadn't switched because they thought the stroke was inappropriate. I had previously used the word "illegal" instead of "inappropriate" which was a mistake on my part. Obviously the stroke isn't "illegal" by definition, otherwise there would be no need to modify existing rules in order to band the stroke.
In any case, I've since changed my opinion that the reason they hadn't switched was because of some ethical reasons. After a lot of reading, I've decided the case is probably far simpler than that.
Some in this thread have stated that if the anchored stroke provides an advantage then everyone would be switching. I disagree.
If you listen to the testimonials of nearly every golfer who has explained why he switched to the anchored putter, a common theme seems to arise. The golfer was having trouble with his putting (often it was the "yips") and was looking for a way to improve. From a physics standpoint, a stable axis point minimizes the effects of those involuntary muscle contractions in the "yips". I believe this is exactly what the pros are talking about when they say it provides an "unfair advantage".
So why haven't they ALL switched?
Well, if you don't have a problem with the "yips" you really don't need to switch. If you aren't struggling with your putting, why would you switch to something else?
Is there any evidence of any of this? Well, no, of course not. Anyone who understands the scientific method must realize that it can't be applied to many sports because of many factors, the most significant (in my opinion) is that there are too many uncontrollable variables. There's also no way you can get a large enough sample size for any results to be considered valid.
The only evidence we have is personal testimony, and there are pro golfers who have told the story of how they were struggling with their putting and improved almost instantly (without a lot of additional practice) upon switching to the anchored stroke. Unfortunately even this doesn't mean anything because what works for one person doesn't always work for someone else. My irons are considered "game improvement" irons and I'm sure they work a lot better for me than muscle-backs would. But I'm pretty sure in the hands of Tiger or Rory that they would cease to be "game improvement" irons.
While I used to think the anchored stroke DID provide an advantage, I changed my mind. It may help cure golfers who suffer from specific problems (just as my irons will compensate for off-center or fat contact) but it's not going to do much for the majority of the golfers, in my opinion.
This would explain quite simply why more pros haven't switched. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
So yeah, I was wrong when I said they hadn't switched because they thought it was "illegal". That was something I read into their comments which I now believe was never there.
Sorry for any of you who have pacemakers or a history of heart disease. I realize you aren't used to seeing someone admit they were wrong or actually admit that they've changed their opinions because of these discussions. I'll try not to do it again.