Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[ThominOH2]

Ya'll can cry and whine all you want.. What Ernie, Adam and Keegan did was make a PUTTING STROKE.. They was still a backswing and swing using the long putter... Using the excuse that a "fulcrum" makes you a better putter is BS, and we all know it..  To prove my point scientifically, take a pencil or marker and tape string to it and dangle it from a pivot point..  Pull back the pencil with one hand and let it go.. You will notice that it NEVER makes the exact same path across your target line.. This whole debate is over OPINIONS with no data..

Wait till someone makes a putter that operates like a pendulum, that is not anchored to the body, then what?  Cry foul again?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by ThominOH2

Ya'll can cry and whine all you want.. What Ernie, Adam and Keegan did was make a PUTTING STROKE.. They was still a backswing and swing using the long putter... Using the excuse that a "fulcrum" makes you a better putter is BS, and we all know it..  To prove my point scientifically, take a pencil or marker and tape string to it and dangle it from a pivot point..  Pull back the pencil with one hand and let it go.. You will notice that it NEVER makes the exact same path across your target line.. This whole debate is over OPINIONS with no data..

Wait till someone makes a putter that operates like a pendulum, that is not anchored to the body, then what?  Cry foul again?

I give up.  Maybe all caps will help.

NOBODY SAID IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN ADVANTAGE!

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by ThominOH2

Ya'll can cry and whine all you want.. What Ernie, Adam and Keegan did was make a PUTTING STROKE.. They was still a backswing and swing using the long putter... Using the excuse that a "fulcrum" makes you a better putter is BS, and we all know it..  To prove my point scientifically, take a pencil or marker and tape string to it and dangle it from a pivot point..  Pull back the pencil with one hand and let it go.. You will notice that it NEVER makes the exact same path across your target line.. This whole debate is over OPINIONS with no data..

Wait till someone makes a putter that operates like a pendulum, that is not anchored to the body, then what?  Cry foul again?

Holy crap!  I hadn't thought of that.  Now that its scientifically proven, I guess the debate is over.

[dsc123]

You gotta admit, Dave, the fact that a pencil hanging from a string is affected by gravity, indisputably settles whether anchored putting is consistent with the spirit of the game.

If only the USGA knew about gravity, we could have avoided all of this!

[JerseyThursday]

The “it gives people an unfair advantage” is one of the pro-ban arguments that has been voiced (by some) on this thread. My statement was in response to that.

I still stand by the conviction that, since there is no unfair advantage in using an achored stroke, golfers should be given the choice of either putting method.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I give up.  Maybe all caps will help.

NOBODY SAID IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN ADVANTAGE!

Reading comprehension is apparently not as simple and common a skill as I once thought.

At some point we're just going to have to start ignoring these comments, otherwise we'll be here till the end of eternity explaining to people that the advantage argument doesn't fly.

Heck, there was some clown on TGC (19th Hole or Golf Central, I don't remember which) making that argument last night!  "Oh, well, look at the top 20 putters and none of them are anchorers so obviously there is no advantage, so they shouldn't ban it."

Heck, I could argue that they shouldn't ban it because the sky is blue and I would have exactly the same amount of logical footing to stand on as the non-advantage arguers.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by dsc123

You gotta admit, Dave, the fact that a pencil hanging from a string is affected by gravity, indisputably settles whether anchored putting is consistent with the spirit of the game.

If only the USGA knew about gravity, we could have avoided all of this!

I laughed.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

The “it gives people an unfair advantage” is one of the pro-ban arguments that has been voiced (by some) on this thread. My statement was in response to that.

I still stand by the conviction that, since there is no unfair advantage in using an achored stroke, golfers should be given the choice of either putting method.

But they are just as wrong as you.  (Heck, this thread is so old, I might have even been one of them at one point or another.  But I'm learning as I go)  They are not the USGA/R&A; and they are not the ones imposing the ban, so why bother?

Look, I am not adamantly in favor of the ban - I actually don't care or think it's really necessary, so if I had a vote I'd probably vote against it - but I will at least ackowledge that their reasoning is sound.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But they are just as wrong as you.  (Heck, this thread is so old, I might have even been one of them at one point or another.  But I'm learning as I go)  They are not the USGA/R&A; and they are not the ones imposing the ban, so why bother?

Look, I am not adamantly in favor of the ban - I actually don't care or think it's really necessary, so if I had a vote I'd probably vote against it - but I will at least ackowledge that their reasoning is sound.

I’m learning as I go, too.

If it hadn’t been for this thread I would not have understood the principals of the pendulum motion. So for that alone, its been worthwhile and entertaining.

I enjoy a good natured debate and at the end of the day practically everyone here seems like a good group of people that I would probably have a lot of fun golfing with.

Just let me bring my anchored belly putter (until 2016).

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by ThominOH2

Ya'll can cry and whine all you want.. What Ernie, Adam and Keegan did was make a PUTTING STROKE.. They was still a backswing and swing using the long putter... Using the excuse that a "fulcrum" makes you a better putter is BS, and we all know it..  To prove my point scientifically, take a pencil or marker and tape string to it and dangle it from a pivot point..  Pull back the pencil with one hand and let it go.. You will notice that it NEVER makes the exact same path across your target line.. This whole debate is over OPINIONS with no data..

Wait till someone makes a putter that operates like a pendulum, that is not anchored to the body, then what?  Cry foul again?

I don't understand this part.  I can't picture what is being done here.  Can anybody explain?  I understand that I'm dangling a pencil from a string, and that's it.  Not sure how that applies to creating an anchor point with one hand/point of the body and then swinging the club with the other hand.  Seems like this analogy almost directly applies only if the putter is dangling from a string?

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Look, I am not adamantly in favor of the ban - I actually don't care or think it's really necessary, so if I had a vote I'd probably vote against it - but I will at least ackowledge that their reasoning is sound.

Very fair.  And there are arguments that can be made, persuasively, against what the R&A; and/or USGA has put forth, but by and large very few people have done so.  If I were pro-anchored stroke, I would be arguing that the putting stroke is so different from the rest of the golf swings that the "freely swinging" standard shouldn't apply to it.  There may be other arguments to be made as well.  I also would stay as far away from the "advantage" angle as possible, as there may be no empirical data to prove it, but mechanically the theory of creating an anchor point eliminating some of the skill required to keep the putter on plane is pretty sound.  Also, if a large part of your argument is that there is no advantage, then you can't really prove any harm is done with a new ruling against it.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

The “it gives people an unfair advantage” is one of the pro-ban arguments that has been voiced (by some) on this thread. My statement was in response to that.

I still stand by the conviction that, since there is no unfair advantage in using an achored stroke, golfers should be given the choice of either putting method.

Yes, there are a few of us that have pointed out that WE THINK it eliminates the "yips".  But to imply that because you disagree with OUR opinion this means the USGA shouldn't be banning anchored putting doesn't make any sense.

Does that make sense?

As for WHY some of us think it eliminates the "yips", it's because an anchored stroke virtually guarantees that you will return the club head to the same exact angle as address because it eliminates twist in the putter shaft during the stroke.

But this is NOT why the USGA is banning it.  Let's not confuse the two.

As for ThominOH2's experiment, I guess it would be more relevant if we actually putted with string-shafted putters instead of steel.  Thom, have you used a long putter or belly putter?  It really is nice in that if you set up correctly it guarantees the club head will be in that same position (pointing right down your desired target line) when you strike the ball.  I personally think this takes some of the skill out of putting, and if someone is such a bad putter that they keep twisting the shaft inconsistently during the swing, this may help them.  But seriously, I don't think this is a problem that most pros on the tour have, so even if I think it makes putting easier for bad putters, that doesn't mean this is why the USGA is banning it.  Trust me, they're not banning it because they read The Sand Trap forums and thought "hey, those guys are really smart, we should definitely change the rules however they want."

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Yes, there are a few of us that have pointed out that WE THINK it eliminates the "yips".  But to imply that because you disagree with OUR opinion this means the USGA shouldn't be banning anchored putting doesn't make any sense.

To be fair, WE are not the only ones that THINK an anchored stroke minimizes the impact of nerves on short putts, I've heard professional golfers and commentators suggest the same thing.  As you stated, the USGA hasn't commented on whether it provides any advantage, they simply claim it's not a proper stroke.

A visit to the USGA website will clarify this for anyone that still doesn't understand why the USGA and R&A; suggested the technique be banned so Dave doesn't have to repeat himself every other post.

[dave67az]

Have you guys seen this yet?

http://chronicle.augusta.com/sports/golf/2013-02-28/position-anchoring-ban-underscores-pga-tours-arrogance

Here's an excerpt:

Much of the logic used to defend the anchored putting status quo is reminiscent of the classic quote on social safety nets by “Coach” Craig T. Nelson.

“I’ve been on food stamps and welfare – did anybody help me out? No!” Nelson told Glenn Beck in 2009 in one of the all-time twisted thoughts.

The anchoring equivalent came from the lips of Harrison Frazar, a member of the PGA Tour Policy Board that helped convince Finchem to make his public declaration against the anchoring ban on behalf of the tour’s players.

“I’ve used long putters; I’ve used belly putters; I’ve used short and regular; I’ve used ultra short with fat grips; I’ve used all of it,” Frazar said recently. “And with the exception of helping me just simply get the ball in the hole from a foot-and-a-half, I didn’t notice a whole lot of difference. It never really made me a better putter.”

The straw man arguments used to defend anchoring have done little to dissuade the purists who see anchoring as anathema to the spirit of a true golf swing.

They’ve decried a lack of empirical data to support the theory that anchoring is beneficial, ignoring the obvious anecdotal information that struggling putters have converted for obvious reasons to combat the yips. They’ve trotted out the absurd statement that “if it was so much better everyone would be doing it,” as if already top putters would even consider making changes to something that isn’t broken.

They’ve asserted that a ban could drive away golfers in a game struggling to grow when all evidence points to cost, time and access as the biggest inhibiting factors regarding participation.

Golf’s governing bodies aren’t thinking about pro players or specific constituencies, but the overall good of the game and what defines a traditional stroke. Woods stands with the USGA’s Mike Davis and R&A;’s Peter Dawson on this.

“I still feel that all 14 clubs should be swung, it shouldn’t be anchored,” Woods said. “That hasn’t changed at all.”

While many players agree with him, the tour still opted to side with its growing ranks of anchorers. In a grand display of institutional arrogance, some of the several hundred pros who make up the game’s elite believe that they know what is best for the millions who play the game in the rest of the world. Golf revolves around them, of course. They are the center of the universe. Their precious bank accounts and means of acquiring wealth are the only thing that matters.

To heck with the folks who have been codifying the rules since the game began long before “professional” was considered a respectable word in golf.

“The real issue is, why do people who don’t play golf professionally, get to make rules for guys who do?” one tour pro was quoted as saying anonymously after players met with USGA executive director Davis in January at Torrey Pines.

Another unidentified peer countered that sentiment.

“Guys have lost the fact that the rules aren’t written for just pros or 200 guys, but for millions of people,” said another pro. “In my opinion, the height of arrogance is thinking the Rules of Golf should be tailored to us.”

[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?

[Golfingdad]

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?

Bingo.  That position basically argues against itself.

P.S.  Watch for yourself in the "Bad Grammar" thread shortly. ;)

[dave67az]

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?

Consider this.

How much time do you think it would take to change your swing?

Is that time valuable to you?

How about if someone told you that your swing was no longer legal and you now had to learn (or re-learn) a new one?

Regardless of whether anchored putting provides an advantage, it's going to take time for them to adjust back to a traditional stroke, and the time they could be working on another part of their game they're instead going to have to dedicate to putting.

So even if there's no advantage in anchored putting, there's an obvious disadvantage in being forced to change your swing/putting style.

[meenman]

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.

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

[dsc123]

The PGA Tour has to cave in if the USGA sticks to its guns. A lot of the players who are on the fence, or who have been going back and forth on it will probably feel more strongly against bifurcation than they do against the ban.

Nobody wants the PGA Tour to have different rules than the US Open, British Open, Euro Tour, and WGC playing with different.

Anytime you pass a rule you're going to have people on both sides.  Once its passed, its past.  People accept it.