Anchored Putters Rules Change - Page 37

Just recently at work, they told us that by security regulations, we could no longer use the entry/exit doors that we've always used which are closer to our offices and much more convenient.  They decided that the security risks for the future were too great, even though it had been allowed for years.  Of course we grumbled a little, but we started using the main entrance because it was a rule identified an outside agency and our company was required to comply because our rules are governed by that agency.  We like our jobs, so we use the other door, even though it's out of the way and inconvenient especially for the oldest workers who have a little trouble walking long distances.

Kind of the same thing I'm seeing with this rule:

1:  "We've always done it"....... same argument.  Doesn't make it right.

2:  "It was never specifically against the rules to use those doors, but if you read the security regulations it was against the best interests of the building and it's occupants"...... same argument, since many argue that an anchored putter really didn't constitute a stroke under the original rules.  It just wasn't spelled out.

3:  "Makes it tougher on people with physical impairments".........  back problems with the conventional putter?

4:  "I was taught to enter/exit through that door".........  Oh Well, adapt or find a new job.

5:  "Why do we have to follow their rules?  We are our own organization."  Because they govern the security rules for all DoD facilities.  Just like the PGA going against the USGA and R&A's ruling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt5339 

Just recently at work, they told us that by security regulations, we could no longer use the entry/exit doors that we've always used which are closer to our offices and much more convenient.  They decided that the security risks for the future were too great, even though it had been allowed for years.  Of course we grumbled a little, but we started using the main entrance because it was a rule identified an outside agency and our company was required to comply because our rules are governed by that agency.  We like our jobs, so we use the other door, even though it's out of the way and inconvenient especially for the oldest workers who have a little trouble walking long distances.

Sorry but that may be the worst example so far, JMO.

This debate will go on forever, its like gun control and abortion, it deeply divides people. I use a belly putter, I love it. I think the USGA screwed up banning it, but that's just my opinion. I don't see it as a detriment the the spirit of the game nor do I think its really that far off from a so called "traditional stroke." Plus, I think the USGA waited way too long to ban it and now either way they are going to have to eat a big sandwich because of their procrastination. What I know is if the USGA sticks to their guns and bans it, then I will switch back to a standard putter on Jan 1, 2016. I certainly am not going to quit playing golf.

What is stupid is trying to persuade people to change their mind about this whole situation. I am certainly not going to read some post on here and go, "I have been wrong all along!"  Nor do I expect anyone who supports the ban to do that either. Its an opinion, and I am glad we are all able to have our own. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how this whole mess plays out.

The USGA reviewed long putter use in 1989 and decided it was not detrimental to the game.  They had years to make a statement that they were reconsidering the decision.  To come out in 2012 after three of the four majors winners used an anchored putter stroke to ban their use contradicts previous decisions and seems reactionary. 

They shouldn't continue to allow the mistake to exist but they also owe the golfers that use the stroke a better explanation and justification if they want it to be more widely accepted.  A good first step towards gaining the support of the PGA is for the USGA to acknowledge they blew it in 1989 and now have to rectify the situation. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

So again: if the USGA feels that they made a mistake in not banning anchoring sooner, they should just continue to allow the mistake to exist?

 

No, they take steps to correct the mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

The USGA reviewed long putter use in 1989 and decided it was not detrimental to the game.  They had years to make a statement that they were reconsidering the decision.  To come out in 2012 after three of the four majors winners used an anchored putter stroke to ban their use contradicts previous decisions and seems reactionary. 

 

They shouldn't continue to allow the mistake to exist but they also owe the golfers that use the stroke a better explanation and justification if they want it to be more widely accepted.  A good first step towards gaining the support of the PGA is for the USGA to acknowledge they blew it in 1989 and now have to rectify the situation. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

So again: if the USGA feels that they made a mistake in not banning anchoring sooner, they should just continue to allow the mistake to exist?

 

No, they take steps to correct the mistake.

So I take it that you have nothing new to add.  You've made 3 posts with this same statement.  We've all read it.  It hasn't changed anything.

Perhaps he just wants to be sure you saw it, since you keep making assertions like this?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

Perhaps he just wants to be sure you saw it, since you keep making assertions like this?

 

 

I've been a USGA Associate/member since 1987, and this is the first I ever heard of it.  If they did make such a statement, they sure as hell didn't make it very visible at the time.  He had to do some digging to find that.

I found this in less than 15 seconds...

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/how-it-all-began-notable-long-putter-moments/

August 1989: After nearly two months of debate, the USGA and R&A announce that long putters will continue to be permitted under the Rules of Golf. At the time, USGA executive director David Fay explained, "Putting is a very individualized art form. To inhibit a golfer's individual style would take some of the fun out of the game."

I think the USGA blew it in 1968. They banned croquet style putting but ignored Phil Rodgers use of a belly stroke in 1966 when he won twice with the belly. If they could admit they had made a mistake by not addressing this issue (again publicly in 89), they would gain some credibility.  If the PGA Tour, who looks at this issue with a different lens, bucks the system, then the USGA will have a mess on their hands. The USGA are the guardians, but the Tour has to protect its membership and their livelihoods. I have not read every post on this thread but I can see manufacturers not wanting a niche market to dry up either. 

As many of you know, I use a belly putter and I have one convert. The last time I played, we were the only 2 people that I saw using a longer putter. I have seen people use them, but it is in no way taking over. If everyone bans the anchor point, then I will just un-anchor. Currently the butt lightly touches my belly, but I have experimented with it not being anchored and it is not much different. I will adapt, but until they tell me I can't then I don't see a problem. I am on the fence about this issue and it will be fun watching how this plays out. If this is the biggest thing going in golf, then we are really in pretty good shape. 

Tee hee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

Tee hee.

Instigator! 

I guess you missed the meeting notes that year.  I didn't have to dig hard at all, ever use google? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

I've been a USGA Associate/member since 1987, and this is the first I ever heard of it.  If they did make such a statement, they sure as hell didn't make it very visible at the time.  He had to do some digging to find that.

Agitator!

I guess they're not worried about taking some of the fun out of the game anymore. 

Look, I'm being the devil's advocate here pretty much just for the sake of it, but I do understand the political dilemma the USGA found themselves in. The R&A told them that they were going to to go ahead and ban anchored putting, regardless. And the USGA then had to look for the least worst outcome. They decided that pissing off their OEMs and a lot of their ams and quite a few of their pros was preferable to losing unity between the governing bodies and going back to the bad old days of the Schenectady putter etc., where you had different equipment rules in Europe and America. The problem now is it looks like they may not be able to make it stick in the US and might then end up with the very situation they sought to avoid, plus some severely damaged credibility.

What the R&A will do if the the USGA is forced to row back is another very interesting question. 

In the past the R&A might have gone their own way but I believe since 1951 they have remained in synch so it would pose a problem for them. 

I believe the anchored stroke is not a proper stroke but I also believe organizations that serve a community have to be responsive and considerate of their members. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

Agitator!

I guess they're not worried about taking some of the fun out of the game anymore. 

 

Look, I'm being the devil's advocate here pretty much just for the sake of it, but I do understand the political dilemma the USGA found themselves in. The R&A told them that they were going to to go ahead and ban anchored putting, regardless. And the USGA then had to look for the least worst outcome. They decided that pissing off their OEMs and a lot of their ams and quite a few of their pros was preferable to losing unity between the governing bodies and going back to the bad old days of the Schenectady putter etc., where you had different equipment rules in Europe and America. The problem now is it looks like they may not be able to make it stick in the US and might then end up with the very situation they sought to avoid, plus some severely damaged credibility.

 

What the R&A will do if the the USGA is forced to row back is another very interesting question. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

Agitator!

I guess they're not worried about taking some of the fun out of the game anymore. 

 

Look, I'm being the devil's advocate here pretty much just for the sake of it, but I do understand the political dilemma the USGA found themselves in. The R&A told them that they were going to to go ahead and ban anchored putting, regardless. And the USGA then had to look for the least worst outcome. They decided that pissing off their OEMs and a lot of their ams and quite a few of their pros was preferable to losing unity between the governing bodies and going back to the bad old days of the Schenectady putter etc., where you had different equipment rules in Europe and America. The problem now is it looks like they may not be able to make it stick in the US and might then end up with the very situation they sought to avoid, plus some severely damaged credibility.

 

What the R&A will do if the the USGA is forced to row back is another very interesting question. 

It is a political dilemma for the USGA and that is what makes this a provocative topic. I also realize that the survival of the USGA involves playing nicely with its golf partners and who they represent (survival is probably too strong of word in this statement). They really don't need the PGA Tour to even hint about bucking their authority publicly, but that is what it appears to be even if we call it "comments". You bring up a good point about the OEMs and we know that the OEMs have more influence on the Tour Players than they do with the USGA. Is this a backdooring of the USGA? It is getting interesting to say the least. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TourSpoon 

If they could admit they had made a mistake by not addressing this issue (again publicly in 89), they would gain some credibility.

 

To be fair, the current people in the USGA can't really admit that they were wrong. It'd be like a current President trying to "admit" that a former president was wrong (or right) about something. There's "the office" or "the institution" and then there are the actual people that fill those roles.

 

"The USGA" screwed up, but "Mike Davis" did not.

 

And again, we're mostly in the U.S. here, but as others have said it seems likely that the R&A is the one really pushing the issue, and the USGA agrees with them AND is obligated to try to maintain the same rules since '52.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

Look, I'm being the devil's advocate here pretty much just for the sake of it, but I do understand the political dilemma the USGA found themselves in. The R&A told them that they were going to to go ahead and ban anchored putting, regardless. And the USGA then had to look for the least worst outcome. They decided that pissing off their OEMs and a lot of their ams and quite a few of their pros was preferable to losing unity between the governing bodies and going back to the bad old days of the Schenectady putter etc., where you had different equipment rules in Europe and America. The problem now is it looks like they may not be able to make it stick in the US and might then end up with the very situation they sought to avoid, plus some severely damaged credibility.

 

What the R&A will do if the the USGA is forced to row back is another very interesting question. 

I honestly don't see them having to back down. If two or three of the majors all prohibit anchoring, what would be the point of the PGA Tour allowing anchoring? Is someone like Keegan or Webb really gonna try to use a short putter in the game's biggest events only, but putt anchored the rest of the year?

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I believe the anchored stroke is not a proper stroke but I also believe organizations that serve a community have to be responsive and considerate of their members. 

Their members are not in an uproar over this. Very, very few of their members putt with an anchored stroke. And "being responsive and considerate" does not mean doing something you believe to be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Their members are not in an uproar over this. Very, very few of their members putt with an anchored stroke.

But the whole justification for action is, according to the USGA, "that anchored strokes threaten to supplant traditional putting strokes, which are integral to the longstanding character of the sport.”

If almost nobody does it, why is it an issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

I honestly don't see them having to back down. If two or three of the majors all prohibit anchoring, what would be the point of the PGA Tour allowing anchoring? Is someone like Keegan or Webb really gonna try to use a short putter in the game's biggest events only, but putt anchored the rest of the year?

Good point.  Maybe your Tim Clark's or Carl Pettersons will really back up their talk about being terrible with the short putter and just accept that they now can't compete in the majors, but I'd be shocked if most of them didn't just switch to non-anchored 100% of the time.

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

But the whole justification for action is, according to the USGA, "that anchored strokes threaten to supplant traditional putting strokes, which are integral to the longstanding character of the sport.”

 

If almost nobody does it, why is it an issue?

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think you are right that perhaps they really overblew the whole thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

 

But the whole justification for action is, according to the USGA, "that anchored strokes threaten to supplant traditional putting strokes, which are integral to the longstanding character of the sport.”

 

If almost nobody does it, why is it an issue?

Because, as "late" as it may seem to some, if they nip it in the bud now the 2% of regular golfers won't grow to 10% or 20% or 50% or 90%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Because, as "late" as it may seem to some, if they nip it in the bud now the 2% of regular golfers won't grow to 10% or 20% or 50% or 90%.

World's longest-gestating seed. These methods have been available to golfers for decades -- at least -- with only (you note yourself) a tiny niche uptake. But by golly we better prohibit them right now or everybody will surely be using them tomorrow! Come on. Most people don't, and will never, putt with an anchored putter. For the same reason that most people don't, and will never, putt left hand low. It looks odd, it feels odd and, in most cases, it simply won't help you make more putts.

You don't think an anchored stroke is a proper stroke. Fine. But I wish you (and the USGA) would just say that and be done with it, rather than constructing these bullshit scenarios in which if nothing is done then every child to take up the game of golf from now on will compulsorily be issued a broomstick putter in their first US Kids Golf peewee set.