Anchored Putters Rules Change - Page 59

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

And if I could say that the anti-anchoring people agree that there is no advantage, why don't they mind their own business and let us anchor.

 

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

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"

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

And if I could say that the anti-anchoring people agree that there is no advantage, why don't they mind their own business and let us anchor.

 

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

Yes, you could, but since nobody is agreeing to that (their simply stating emphatically that that is not part of the equation) then it's not applicable.

Oh, and the "slippery slope" argument is the dumbest argument there is, in my opinion.  Don't make me "equate" (see what I did there??) this to gay marriage again. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35 

My confusion in this matter is this. If the pro anchoring people are adamant that it is not an adavantage, then why are they getting so upset? Just switch to non anchoring, if their is no advantage to anchoring then their is no disadvantage to non-anchoring, right?

My sentiments exactly.

I would add that since the actual equipment (ie the long putter) has not been banned, those with back issues can continue to practice and play with the long putter. They just cannot anchor it to the body.

This isn't the first time a type of stroke has been banned. It is just unfortunate that it took so long.
 

Rule 16-1e. Standing Astride or on Line of Putt

The player must not make a stroke on the putting green from a stance astride, or with either foot touching, the line of putt or an extension of that line behind the ball.

Exception: There is no penalty if the stance is inadvertently taken on or astride the line of putt (or an extension of that line behind the ball) or is taken to avoid standing on another player's line of putt or prospective line of putt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35 


Sweet. I is not a english teacher, i ams a math Teacher.

Plus I still can't figure how to use this site on my phone very well. Sausage fingers.

Do you use the "mobile" version on your phone?  It's easier to navigate, but, yeah, it's still not the same as using a desktop or laptop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

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.

The difference is we "traditionalists" don't think as you do that golf should evolve at the same rate as technology because the game would be more about the technology and less about a golfer's skill.  Our scores would be based more on how much technology we can afford to buy rather than how much time we commit to practice and improvement.

I don't want a golf ball that is impossible to slice or hook.  I don't want clubs with GPS and gyros that always hit it toward the hole.  I get much more reward from using my own skills to hit a shot.

I guess my kind of philosophy doesn't fit well with some people who demand instant gratification rather than committing their time to the practice range/green in order to get game improvement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35 

My confusion in this matter is this. If the pro anchoring people are adamant that it is not an adavantage, then why are they getting so upset? Just switch to non anchoring, if their is no advantage to anchoring then their is no disadvantage to non-anchoring, right?

 

And if I could say that the anti-anchoring people agree that there is no advantage, why don't they mind their own business and let us anchor.

Actually I don't think you can say that. Most anti-anchoring people do think there's an advantage. It's just that that's not the primary reason we (or the USGA/R&A) are against anchoring.

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35 


To change my putter swing, it wouldn't be a catastrophic event. To have 3 years to switch it, no problem. It's not like they are banning the right handed swing. If they were I would learn to hit left handed. That's all I'm gonna say. I will watch everyone make 200 more posts talking about the same thing.

I think that's a good point.  These people are going to be fine.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

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.

That's true, and that's what the debate should be.  We allow hybrids, metal drivers, etc., why not anchoring?  My response would be that its not the same as those examples because its not a technological advance, really.  Its a different way to hit the ball.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

The difference is we "traditionalists" don't think as you do that golf should evolve at the same rate as technology because the game would be more about the technology and less about a golfer's skill.  Our scores would be based more on how much technology we can afford to buy rather than how much time we commit to practice and improvement.

 

I don't want a golf ball that is impossible to slice or hook.  I don't want clubs with GPS and gyros that always hit it toward the hole.  I get much more reward from using my own skills to hit a shot.

 

I guess my kind of philosophy doesn't fit well with some people who demand instant gratification rather than committing their time to the practice range/green in order to get game improvement.

I would agree that I would not want these crazy ideas either.

But dont be afraid of a little modernization - trust me, switching to an anchored stroke was far from instant gratification. Ask the guys who tried it once or twice and backed away because it wasnt easily easy to them.

Ok, now this might be explosive (or ignored) but as much as I, and others, keep saying its not about the competitive advantage, it really is, isn't it?  

The USGA just doesn't say that because its a losing argument for them.  They moved first, and got to frame the discussion.  

In reality, my guess is that the motivation is 50/50 aesthetic/practical advantage.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35 

 That's all I'm gonna say. I will watch everyone make 200 more posts talking about the same thing.

The rule comes out this "spring" right?  I think we might be able to hit 200 pages before then, saying the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

The rule comes out this "spring" right?  I think we might be able to hit 200 pages before then, saying the same thing.

I am putting the over/under at 325 (unless it get so out of control the penalty box must be used)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

Ok, now this might be explosive (or ignored) but as much as I, and others, keep saying its not about the competitive advantage, it really is, isn't it?  

 

The USGA just doesn't say that because its a losing argument for them.  They moved first, and got to frame the discussion.  

 

In reality, my guess is that the motivation is 50/50 aesthetic/practical advantage.  

 

 

The USGA couldn't logically claim competitive advantage because they'd be compelled to produce stats, and that would get nowhere because depending on what stats you use it either looks like anchored putters are great or they're the worst thing for a golfer to use.

To avoid this, the USGA in their brilliant wisdom, decided to ban based on the "untraditional nature" (golf club anchored to the body) of the stroke, which is something only Sand Trap users could argue with.

But seriously...here's a quote you'll find no anchored putter user saying anywhere "I switched to it and spent hours learning a new stroke because it doesn't improve my putting at all."

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

 

But seriously...here's a quote you'll find no anchored putter user saying anywhere "I switched to it and spent hours learning a new stroke because it doesn't improve my putting at all."

 My putting improved after putting many hours into it - what is your point?

Most people probably improve practicing many hours with any club.

I realize a lot of this thread is the same old stuff rehashed (mostly when someone new pops up and rather than spend a weekend reading the previous posts simply throws out something that we've already discussed...15 times) but I AM trying to keep it fresh by introducing new material, like the story from augusta.com that I posted earlier today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman 

 My putting improved after putting many hours into it - what is your point?

 

Most people probably improve practicing many hours with any club.

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.