Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016) - Page 36

I use lids on my pots to keep the frogs from jumping out but that's a nice analogy I'm sure I'll use somewhere one day. 

As for golf or life something either is or isn't, you can't be a little pregnant or dead, you either follow the rules of golf or don't.  Was there ever a time that it was acceptable for a few pro golfers to cheat?  

You are giving me traditionalist arguments but not addressing the fact that for over 20 years the stroke was deemed to be a legal putting motion.  Nothing inherent to the anchored putting stroke has changed over the last 20 years except for the number of people using it and the success professional golfers using an anchored stroke have enjoyed recently (especially in the Majors). 

IMO the USGA needs to acknowledge it failed to do it's job in the past by not banning the anchored stroke when it was first used, which to date I have not heard them do.  Otherwise they leave themselves open to the criticism they face today by those that want to see the rule overturned (which I do not but understand the frustration of those that do).     

And how is *We dont want you to do that (anymore)* vaild reasoning?

This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction after a couple of majors were won with anchored putting. Who knows, we could go another 10 years without an anchored putter winning a major.

This is no different than all the calls to *ban all guns* because of one nut job in CT.

I agree 100%!  As I've said many times (before the USGA told me what to think) anchored putting should have been banned as soon as the USGA noticed people doing it.  Unfortunately history has shown us that organizations are usually very slow to react.  Whether it's concussions in the NFL, implementation of head and neck restraints in NASCAR, or drivers that keep getting bigger and bigger (in golf...not NASCAR) it seems like the folks "at the top" just don't get what's happening until it's a bigger issue.

It's taken a growth in popularity for anchored putting to be considered a threat to the traditions of the game.  Just as they realized that the seemingly endless increases in driver size was getting out of hand.

It's interesting to me that some of the people who argue for anchored putting use the argument that the game needs to be easier to get more young people interested in it.  It makes me wonder how many people would opt for an easier game rather than put in the time and practice that it takes to actually get good at golf.

But all that aside, I share your opinion that the USGA needs to acknowledge that it should have seen this day coming years ago and stepped in sooner to ban what they apparently thought was an illegal stroke.  It'd be nice to see ANYONE who is big enough to admit a blatant mistake.  I'd also like to see them admit that they didn't stop the driver size increases soon enough and that they should have done it much sooner.  It's ridiculous that a driver head cover is big enough to be used as a baby's ski-cap.

It's interesting to me that some of the people who argue for anchored putting use the argument that the game needs to be easier to get more young people interested in it.  It makes me wonder how many people would opt for an easier game rather than put in the time and practice that it takes to actually get good at golf.

Years ago, "muscle backs" were all there were for irons.   Now we have all manner of "game improvement" irons and hybrids, clubs designed to make it easier to play the game.   So the answer to your question could be as simple as how many people play SGI irons &/or hybrids.  

Years ago, "muscle backs" were all there were for irons.   Now we have all manner of "game improvement" irons and hybrids, clubs designed to make it easier to play the game.   So the answer to your question could be as simple as how many people play SGI irons &/or hybrids.  

Good observation and point.  We golfers are a funny bunch. 

We won't allow the hole size to be larger, some refuse to tee it forward, most won't support simpler, more forgiving rules than the pro's use but offer us a club that's more forgiving, hits it longer and straighter and we'll snatch it up. 

I think your point is exactly why there seem to be more push back on this rule than other rule changes of the past.  Non-pro golfers that adopted the anchored putting stroke did so either for health reasons (bad back, shakes, yips) or they believed it gave them an edge with putting that was permitted and used by the pro's (even if they won't admit it).  The USGA banning hybrids would likely cause a similar reaction as the anchored putting stroke ban only at a much larger level. 

So the question then becomes "where do we draw the line?".  Do we simply allow manufacturers, golf course designers, and innovative golfers to change the game and its equipment as much as they'd like in order to increase popularity (even if they end up removing skill in the process)?

Do we remove restrictions on club sizes, clubface dynamics, use of arm braces and other appliances, golf ball distance and spin characteristics, etc. and just be happy that golf in SOME form is played, even though it's already changed a TON from the game they played 100 years ago?  At some point, if we were to do that, doesn't it eventually lead us to a point where a guy's golf game is more about how much money he can afford to spend on his technology and less about how much time and effort he has put into developing a fine golf game?

This comes right from the USGA website.  http://www.usga.org/news/2012/November/Proposed-Rules-Change-to-Prohibit-Anchoring/

New Rule Would Define and Preserve the Nature of the Stroke
In proposing the new Rule, The R&A and the USGA concluded that the long-term interests of the game would be served by confirming a stroke as the swinging of the entire club at the ball.  “Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball,” said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis. “The player’s challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.”

New Rule Would Address Recent Developments in the Game
This proposal reflects The R&A’s and USGA’s responsibility to define how the game is to be played. Aspects of how a player must make a stroke have been addressed in past Rules changes, such as the century-old Rule codifying that the ball must be fairly struck and not be pushed, scraped or spooned and the 1968 prohibition on the “croquet” style of putting. “As governing bodies, we monitor and evaluate playing practices and developments in golf, with our primary mandate being to ensure that the Rules of Golf continue to preserve the fundamental characteristics of the game,” added Davis.

Although anchoring the club is not new, until recently it was uncommon and typically seen as a method of last resort by a small number of players. In the last two years, however, more and more players have adopted the anchored stroke. Golf’s governing bodies have observed this upsurge at all levels of the game and noted that more coaches and players are advocating this method. The decision to act now is based on a strong desire to reverse this trend and to preserve the traditional golf stroke.

“Anchored strokes have become the preferred option for a growing number of players and this has caused us to review these strokes and their impact on the game,” said Dawson. “Our concern is that anchored strokes threaten to supplant traditional putting strokes which are integral to the longstanding character of the sport.”

What it basically gives is the refined definition of what a golf stroke is by the USGA and the rationale that it was an acceptable stroke until too many people started using it.

How can those against the ban make an argument when the USGA's rationale is basically the stroke was okay until too many people started using it.   For those that used the parent analogy it's the same as a parent telling their kid, "I was okay with you going to your friends house when you only asked once or twice a month but now that you're asking a few times a week I no longer deem it acceptable for you to ever go to your friends house."   

It was never the USGA's stand that it was "okay".  It was never acceptable or unacceptable as a stroke.  They made no public mention of it at all, so how can you put forth as fact something which never happened?  It was simply not prevalent enough for them to make the time to publicly address it.  For all you know they have been discussing it for 30 years.  Maybe it was hoped that it was a fad which would die on its own.  When a few prominent players showed up using the anchored stroke, the concern became more urgent.  It is also being pushed hardest by the R&A, despite the constant attempts on this board to put the onus on the USGA.  Both governing bodies are squarely behind the need to refine the definition what constitutes a stroke.  

For hundreds of years there was no need because golfers just knew how to make a stroke.  They didn't need a crutch to play the game.  If they were bad putters, then they just accepted that as how it was for them.  It's only in the last decade, a tiny blip in the history of golf, that players have started using this peculiar attempt at curing a flawed stroke.  The R&A and USGA didn't need to address it when less than one tenth of one percent of players were experimenting with it.  It's only the sudden upsurge which set off more serious discussions and ultimately the proposed ban.  They are doing no more than following the precedent set 100 years ago for preserving the traditional stroke.

What it basically gives is the refined definition of what a golf stroke is by the USGA and the rationale that it was an acceptable stroke until too many people started using it. 

How can those against the ban make an argument when the USGA's rationale is basically the stroke was okay until too many people started using it.   

Simple: it's about preserving the traditional golf stroke.  The traditional golf stroke wasn't threatened when only a few folks were anchoring.  But the popularity of anchoring has grown to the extent that now some young golfers are taught the anchored stroke having never been taught the traditional stroke.

It was never the USGA's stand that it was "okay".  It was never acceptable or unacceptable as a stroke.  They made no public mention of it at all, so how can you put forth as fact something which never happened?  It was simply not prevalent enough for them to make the time to publicly address it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

It was never the USGA's stand that it was "okay".  It was never acceptable or unacceptable as a stroke.  They made no public mention of it at all, so how can you put forth as fact something which never happened?  It was simply not prevalent enough for them to make the time to publicly address it.  For all you know they have been discussing it for 30 years.  Maybe it was hoped that it was a fad which would die on its own.  When a few prominent players showed up using the anchored stroke, the concern became more urgent.  It is also being pushed hardest by the R&A, despite the constant attempts on this board to put the onus on the USGA.  Both governing bodies are squarely behind the need to refine the definition what constitutes a stroke.  

 

For hundreds of years there was no need because golfers just knew how to make a stroke.  They didn't need a crutch to play the game.  If they were bad putters, then they just accepted that as how it was for them.  It's only in the last decade, a tiny blip in the history of golf, that players have started using this peculiar attempt at curing a flawed stroke.  The R&A and USGA didn't need to address it when less than one tenth of one percent of players were experimenting with it.  It's only the sudden upsurge which set off more serious discussions and ultimately the proposed ban.  They are doing no more than following the precedent set 100 years ago for preserving the traditional stroke.

The 2011 PGA champion, currently competing at the Northern Trust Open in Los Angeles, tweeted a picture from the Riviera Country Club clubhouse dating to the early 1900s of a golfer using the anchored putting stroke.......  

It was never the USGA's stand that it was "okay".  It was never acceptable or unacceptable as a stroke.  They made no public mention of it at all, so how can you put forth as fact something which never happened?  It was simply not prevalent enough for them to make the time to publicly address it.  For all you know they have been discussing it for 30 years.  Maybe it was hoped that it was a fad which would die on its own.  When a few prominent players showed up using the anchored stroke, the concern became more urgent.  It is also being pushed hardest by the R&A, despite the constant attempts on this board to put the onus on the USGA.  Both governing bodies are squarely behind the need to refine the definition what constitutes a stroke.  

For hundreds of years there was no need because golfers just knew how to make a stroke.  They didn't need a crutch to play the game.  If they were bad putters, then they just accepted that as how it was for them.  It's only in the last decade, a tiny blip in the history of golf, that players have started using this peculiar attempt at curing a flawed stroke.  The R&A and USGA didn't need to address it when less than one tenth of one percent of players were experimenting with it.  It's only the sudden upsurge which set off more serious discussions and ultimately the proposed ban.  They are doing no more than following the precedent set 100 years ago for preserving the traditional stroke.

I thought this was interesting in that if you changed the stroke description from croquet style and the names of the pro's quoted it would fit almost perfectly with what we're hearing today about the anchored putting stroke.

But the other aspect of the new ruling—how you have to hit the ball—is causing more controversy. It says, in effect, that you cannot stand on or astride the line of the putt or any extension of that line. (One immediate hazard arises with the tap-in putt, which will always have to be stroked from a normal position to avoid a two-stroke penalty.)The rule has already been widely criticized by the pros. "I don't think golf is the USGA's personal baby," says Snead. "I think they changed the rule because they didn't like the looks of me putting at the Masters. Some people got talking. They'd say, 'My God, look at old Sam. He's playing croquet.' I think it's my business how I stroke the ball. It hasn't been proved that the croquet way is not the best way to putt. I think if I practiced it diligently I'd be a better putter than I ever was before." Bob Shave Jr., who plays with a croquet type of putter that he calls "The Last Straw," said at the Oklahoma City Open last week that he may have to leave the tour when the new putting rule goes into effect. His wrists, he said, begin to jump spasmodically when he uses a conventional putter. 

But Prescott Bush, a former USGA president who has putted from an astride position for years, has remained a vociferous advocate of the method. "It simply makes golf enjoyable and takes away the suffering," he says. "I mean the real suffering that comes from that lack of confidence, that panic on the backstroke, that thrust called the yip. I believe it is good for the game of golf to have more people enjoy it. We should encourage any grip or stance that will add to the pleasure of the play."

And in those days they still hadn't even limited the number of clubs a player could carry (that didn't happen until 1939).  There were simply more important things to worry about.  It was nothing more than an oddity, really until Tim Clark started using it regularly.  Even then it was years before the advent of the belly putter, and that is what really started the concern.  The fact that a couple of big wins happened last season is more coincidence than causation.  The discussions were already in progress.

I can't find the article now but I read something that said the USGA had looked at anchored putting sometime in the past and opted to do nothing about it at the time.   Oddity or not, by doing nothing with it when it was first discovered, they effectively approved it, whether that was implicitly stated or not.   Furthermore, in a statement after the heckling incident, it was clearly stated that the anchored style of putting was still legal.    So again, it was (and as of now, still is) an approved, legal method of putting.  

IMHO, the time to "preserve the traditional stroke" was while anchoring was still an oddity, much like they did with Snead's croquet style, not at a point after it has been an approved and legal method for decades.  

This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction after a couple of majors were won with anchored putting. Who knows, we could go another 10 years without an anchored putter winning a major.

Are you going to cry because there are no more dinosaurs on this planet too?

The *tradition* argument is weak at best.

I would buy that explanation if they didn't act so quickly to ban billiard and croquet style putting strokes.  A brief historical overview might help;

…

It seems to me the USGA blew it on this one, plain and simple.