Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[meenman]

Originally Posted by Chas

It seems likely that some belly or long putter users are going to adjust their action minimally, just enough not to anchor per the regs but allowing them to still benefit from use of their unconventional putters, at least in their own view.

I am not going to speak for everyone else, but I know with me, I putt better with a long putter because I can practice longer.

I dont consider myself old, but in 20+ years of sales, I spend a lot of time driving, which is murder on my back - I can not practice putting for hours with a shorter putter, where I can putt all day long with the broomstick. In my viewpoint, the only advantage is the amount of time I can spend practicing with it.

[Rulesman]

Just don't anchor it. The only guy I know who uses a long putter has his top hand about 1.5" from his chin/chest. He says he doesn't see the need to anchor.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Logical, even if the elbow is "anchored' to the body rather than the forearm?

I guess I don't see how it can be deemed "swinging freely" if one hand is holding the end of the grip stationary.

The USGA proposed rule reads;

"In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either 'directly' or by use of an 'anchor point.'

"Note 1:  The club is anchored 'directly' when the player intentionally holds the club or a gripping hand in contact with any part of his body, except that the player may hold the club or a gripping hand against a hand or forearm.

"Note 2:  An 'anchor point' exists when the player intentionally holds a forearm in contact with any part of his body to establish a gripping hand as a stable point around which the other hand may swing the club."

This is where the USGA is going to create a nightmare for golfers and tournament directors because it's a very fine line between the elbow touching and not the forearm.  Under many circumstances (overweight golfer, loose fitting shirt, rain jacket) it may be quite difficult to discern if the forearm is touching or just the elbow is anchored.  Even the pictures they provide aren't conclusive as it's not clear in the approved "Long Putter Not Anchored" if the forearm is touching the torso.

I also heard an interesting argument in favor of the ban, Keegan Bradley appears to be a pretty nervous golfer, lots of starts, stops and jerky motions.  The theory is that the anchored stroke is most beneficial on 6' and shorter putts because it helps to reduce the influence of nerves.  The show host felt that Keegan's nerves might have caused him to miss some critical shorter putts if he had to take a traditional stroke on the Sundays he won tournaments.

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

This is where the USGA is going to create a nightmare for golfers and tournament directors because it's a very fine line between the elbow touching and not the forearm.  Under many circumstances (overweight golfer, loose fitting shirt, rain jacket) it may be quite difficult to discern if the forearm is touching or just the elbow is anchored.  Even the pictures they provide aren't conclusive as it's not clear in the approved "Long Putter Not Anchored" if the forearm is touching the torso.

I don't think the USGA/RA care THAT much. Their goal is primarily to reduce/eliminate the trend towards anchored putters. If there is an advantage, it is very small (keegan/simpson/ernie have less than 10 tourneys w/ anchoring). If some random guy somewhere gets a way with a little anchoring b/c he's too big or too clever, so be it. He/She will eventually be found out and at the end of the day it's not worth getting caught cheating just to anchor. I doubt even a very,very small number of people will try to get away with something like this.

[CowtownGrindrrr]

Since no study, evidence or statistic has substantiated a long/belly advantage, the obvious motivation of the rule is going after guys who might not survive on tour using a conventional putter.  Anchoring only became problematic, of course, when these dudes started taking majors.  I guess anchoring is only innately wrong ('against the spirit of the game'-whatever in the Sam hell that means) when it's successfully employed.  Pretty shaky principle.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by CowtownGrindrrr

Since no study, evidence or statistic has substantiated a long/belly advantage, the obvious motivation of the rule is going after guys who might not survive on tour using a conventional putter.  Anchoring only became problematic, of course, when these dudes started taking majors.  I guess anchoring is only innately wrong ('against the spirit of the game'-whatever in the Sam hell that means) when it's successfully employed.  Pretty shaky principle.

No study, evidence or statistic substantiating a long/belly advantage is necessary because they made it very clear that the reason for the proposed ban had nothing to do with the possibility of a long/belly advantage.

It's an arbitrary rule for a silly game; they don't need to provide evidence of anything.

[JerseyThursday]

A. I don’t like anchored putters. We need to refine the definition of the stroke for the sake of the game’s integrity.

B. Why do we need to refine the definition of the stroke?

A. To get rid of anchored putters, I don’t like them.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Am I the only one who reads this as though the PGA Tour is simply asking for those who currently use the method to be grandfathered in?

Originally Posted by dave67az

Sadly I don't see the general public LETTING themselves be educated.  They'll be the same jerkish fans as we have in any sport.  You'll still have idiots screaming out stuff to golfers they don't like.  I'm a huge NASCAR fan, but I really wish golf didn't go down that same road of "fan loyalty" to the extent that NASCAR has.  At some point you would HOPE that fans would appreciate a golfer's skill and performance for what it is and forget whether you "like" him or not.

I'm curious about the broomstick putters...has anyone actually said recently whether they know for a fact that broomsticks won't be affected by the ban?  I mean, if we're talking about a freely swinging club being required for a legal golf swing, the butt end of the club is just as anchored (held in a solid, immovable location) in a broomstick fashion as it is with a belly putter isn't it?

Yikes, I didn't mean for my post to touch of such a discussion about grandfathering.  Someone asked what, if you were the PGATour, would you say to the USGA, and that was my made up response.  My main point wasn't even the possibility of grandfathering, it was the final sentence that said that whatever was decided the PGATour would continue to play by the rules.

I am curious about something, can anyone recall any other situation in which the PGATour did NOT follow the USGA.R&A; rules?  I can't but my memory is far from perfect.

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

A. I don’t like anchored putters. We need to refine the definition of the stroke for the sake of the game’s integrity.

B. Why do we need to refine the definition of the stroke?

A. To get rid of anchored putters, I don’t like them.

This level of argument is not likely to be taken seriously, IMO.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The average person that might watch golf probably doesn't know or care who the USGA is, but they know who Tiger Woods and Phil Michelson are and that's who they will side with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Absolutely unmanageable.  How would you track who is grandfathered and who is cheating because they picked it up after the ban?

There's been a ton of chatter on something that has probably 0.00001% chance of happening.

Originally Posted by WWBDD

You guys have this all sorted out yet?

I say give us a few years and it'll be all sorted .  Just look at how much progress we've made in the 50+ pages of this thread...TONS!

[CowtownGrindrrr]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

A. I don’t like anchored putters. We need to refine the definition of the stroke for the sake of the game’s integrity.

B. Why do we need to refine the definition of the stroke?

A. To get rid of anchored putters, I don’t like them.

Amen.  This is the logic (faulty logic) at work.  A shining (and real) example of circular reasoning or 'begging the question'.  True dat Jersey!

[CowtownGrindrrr]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

No study, evidence or statistic substantiating a long/belly advantage is necessary because they made it very clear that the reason for the proposed ban had nothing to do with the possibility of a long/belly advantage.

It's an arbitrary rule for a silly game; they don't need to provide evidence of anything.

You make a fine point .

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Interesting you put it that way, especially considering how they and a few others have seemingly had a change-of-heart on this subject.  Does the public even know who they're siding with anymore?

Those names were used intentionally since they flip flopped and are the most well known on the Tour right now.  The general public doesn't care, but they will side with who they know, assuming they even bother to find out what their position is.

Ultimately it's a game of chicken, I heard today that the USGA is going to push back because they don't think the PGA Tour will follow through with their own set of rules, especially given the R&A; hasn't even flinched on their position to ban them and has all the Euro Tour golfers support.

I say Davis and Finchem settle this in the UFC cage.

[ay33660]

Originally Posted by meenman

Actually, Tiger has recently softened his stance (to show tour unity?)

Actually Tiger is still firmly for the ban.

From the Golf Channel -

“My position hasn't changed,” he said after the Honda Classic pro-am. “I still think that it should be swung, it shouldn't be anchored and that hasn't changed at all.”

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by ay33660

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman

Actually, Tiger has recently softened his stance (to show tour unity?)

Actually Tiger is still firmly for the ban.

From the Golf Channel -

“My position hasn't changed,” he said after the Honda Classic pro-am. “I still think that it should be swung, it shouldn't be anchored and that hasn't changed at all.”

Good.  Someone needs to lead the way.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay33660

Actually Tiger is still firmly for the ban.

From the Golf Channel -

“My position hasn't changed,” he said after the Honda Classic pro-am. “I still think that it should be swung, it shouldn't be anchored and that hasn't changed at all.”

You know...I could have sworn Tiger had softened his stance, but I saw a clip of him saying that on TGC last night.  Basically he is the only one who hasn't been changed.

Look at Rory.  On TGC they showed that he was for the USGA position when it came out, then against it after the PGA Tour players meeting.  But then there's this:

Quote:

If the USGA and R&A; press on despite the objections, the PGA Tour would have to decide whether to take the unprecedented step of ignoring the new rule. Telegraph Sport on Tuesday revealed that the European Tour is set to side with the governing bodies, a move McIlroy would clearly welcome.

“I read a thing that Monty [Colin Montgomerie] said this divide isn’t good for golf, and I don’t think it is,” McIlroy said. “I think we all need to be on one side or the other. We’ve trusted this game of golf and put it in the hands of the R&A; and the USGA for I don’t know how many years, and we’ve always abided by the rules that they have set. I don’t think this should be any different.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/9896089/Rory-McIlroy-backs-RandA-and-US-PGA-over-their-controversial-proposal-to-ban-belly-putters.html

Not exactly another change in position, but close.

[ay33660]

Originally Posted by meenman

I am not going to speak for everyone else, but I know with me, I putt better with a long putter because I can practice longer.

I dont consider myself old, but in 20+ years of sales, I spend a lot of time driving, which is murder on my back - I can not practice putting for hours with a shorter putter, where I can putt all day long with the broomstick. In my viewpoint, the only advantage is the amount of time I can spend practicing with it.

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Just don't anchor it. The only guy I know who uses a long putter has his top hand about 1.5" from his chin/chest. He says he doesn't see the need to anchor.

Rulesman hit it right on.

The ban is not on the use of the long putter, just anchoring it to the body.

I agree with meeman's point that using a long putter will keep those with a bad back playing the game longer and that is a good thing for golf. But the proposed ban does not stop anyone from using the long putter.

I guess because I don't use a long putter I don't see what the fuss is all about. To the equipment companies, they will still be able to sell long putters. In fact this has created tons of free publicity for their sales. To those with bad backs they can continue to use the long putters. The pros are the one really affected.

The only thing that I don't understand is why the USGA and R&A; has not addressed the use of a long putter to take relief. I have seen long putters that are 2 to 4 inches longer than a driver. This can be a real advantage when taking relief from an unplayable lie. Two club lengths for a 52" long putter could be an 8 inch difference in relief to using a driver which is limited to 48 inches in length. Most of the guys on tour are over 6 feet tall so a 52 inch long putter may be managable.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by dsc123

You know...I could have sworn Tiger had softened his stance, but I saw a clip of him saying that on TGC last night.  Basically he is the only one who hasn't been changed.

Look at Rory.  On TGC they showed that he was for the USGA position when it came out, then against it after the PGA Tour players meeting.  But then there's this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/9896089/Rory-McIlroy-backs-RandA-and-US-PGA-over-their-controversial-proposal-to-ban-belly-putters.html

Not exactly another change in position, but close.

I read the article about Rory last night and his position wasn't very firm on the merits of the actual issue.  Instead, he was basically saying that he doesn't want bi-furcation or different sets of rules for different tournaments/events/majors.  That leaves a lot of wiggle room, IMO, for later addressing the merits of the issue with a seemingly contrarian stance.  In fact, I believe he uttered one of the talking points we've been hearing from a lot of the members of the PGA Tour lately about how they need to "grow the game" and that the ban may not be the best thing for that.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I read the article about Rory last night and his position wasn't very firm on the merits of the actual issue.  Instead, he was basically saying that he doesn't want bi-furcation or different sets of rules for different tournaments/events/majors.  That leaves a lot of wiggle room, IMO, for later addressing the merits of the issue with a seemingly contrarian stance.  In fact, I believe he uttered one of the talking points we've been hearing from a lot of the members of the PGA Tour lately about how they need to "grow the game" and that the ban may not be the best thing for that.

Yeah, the quote i had wasn't so much about his opinion on the ban but on bifurcation.

I found it interesting that the article said the European Tour was going to back the R&A.;