Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Ernie is using the short putter this week, but will anchor again at Augusta National.

Remember he'd previously called it "cheating" and said he'd keep on cheating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman

Poor example. Anchoring is currently legal and will be until a decision comes down saying it isnt. Last I knew, illegal drugs were illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

You have some serious moral issues if you think it's okay for a guy to say he thinks something is cheating and then go ahead and do it anyway.

His words...not mine.

Either he was lying about saying he thought it was cheating, or he's now cheating by using a long putter.  Pretty simple.

Wait, time out.  I'm with Meenman on this one.

If I recall correctly Tiger Woods said a very similar thing in regards to them playing lift, clean and place during a tournament awhile back.  He called it "lift, clean and cheat."  Of course, he still did it, just like all of the rest of them.

Granted, I just teed it up for you guys to make all of the Tiger Woods/no morals jokes you want, but come on.  Just because a guy says that something is illegal that clearly is not doesn't mean he has no morals.  It just means he is wrong.

I can say right now that I think it's illegal to drink soda while driving.  It doesn't mean that if I go and do it later that all of a sudden I have no morals.  That's silly.

And, Dave, to your last point ... isn't he allowed a change of heart?  Have you never changed your mind about something?  He said it once and now he has to believe that forever?  Maybe he realized that he spoke out of turn when he said that.  And it's not against the rules now, so it's not cheating.  Pretty simple if you ask me.

[Edit:  Sorry was still writing while Meenman posted, didn't mean to repeat]

Lift, clean and cheat is a commonly used tongue in cheek sarcasm.  Nobody in his right mind would be thinking that Tiger was seriously calling it cheating.  Very different from Ernie Els commenting on the anchored putting.  He was in dead ernest (sorry about the misspelling, but the pun required it ) when he called it cheating.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I totally appreciate your opinion, but I still fail to see anything wrong with this.  Just because he feels that it should be illegal does not mean that he should be expected to play by a different set of rules as everybody else.

There is another subtle point to make here:

In "lift, clean & cheat" everybody does operate by the same standard, right?

In terms of anchored putting, not everybody does.  Some anchor and some don't.

I forgot what my point was going to be, so I'm going to lunch instead.  Screw it!

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I totally appreciate your opinion, but I still fail to see anything wrong with this.  Just because he feels that it should be illegal does not mean that he should be expected to play by a different set of rules as everybody else.

Here's another example:  I bet you could find managers of American League baseball teams out there that feel that the DH should not be allowed in baseball.  Does that mean that they should make their pitchers hit?  Of course not, that would be absurd.

I think we need tax reform.  Am I immoral for taking all of the breaks offered me until then?  Nope.

Or how about this ... Jack Nicklaus is one of many who strongly feels they need to roll back the ball to reign in distance.  When he golfs, if he's not using a balata from 1980, is he an immoral cheater?  Again, nope.

See where I am coming from?

I do see where you're coming from.  I really do.

I'm just not the guy who proudly does things that go against my personal beliefs.

Here's another stupid example (I'm good at these).

My elementary school had elections for officers (President, Vice President, etc).

When I was in 5th grade, I ran for President against Doug Pitt (Brad's younger brother).  I was pretty popular, as was Doug, so it was pretty much between the two of us.  My campaign managers (two good friends) came up with a poster that said "Don't be a wuss, vote for Lewis."  I thought the language was inappropriate so I told them no.  They argued with me about it and wouldn't stop arguing, so I got new campaign managers.  My previous campaign managers went to work on Doug's campaign, came up with posters that said "Don't be a wuss, DON'T vote for Lewis" and with their added support he ended up beating me in the election.

Did I regret my decision?  Nope.  Because I acted out of conviction.  Would I have personally benefited to have them go ahead and do what I felt was wrong?  Most likely, judging from how close the election was.  It certainly would have made it easier for me to compete.

So yeah, I don't get how guys can know that an anchored stroke is not and has never fit the definition of a ball "fairly struck" at and continue doing it.  Just because it wasn't clarified until now, and not enforced until 2016 doesn't change the fact that they haven't been fairly striking the ball.  It just means they didn't realize it was wrong until now.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

There is another subtle point to make here:

In "lift, clean & cheat" everybody does operate by the same standard, right?

In terms of anchored putting, not everybody does.  Some anchor and some don't.

I forgot what my point was going to be, so I'm going to lunch instead.  Screw it!

You see why I didn't continue with that thought??!!!

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dave67az

...So yeah, I don't get how guys can know that an anchored stroke is not and has never fit the definition of a ball "fairly struck" at.  Just because it wasn't clarified until now, and not enforced until 2016 doesn't change the fact that they haven't been fairly striking the ball.  It just means they didn't realize it was wrong until now.

Again, you're equating moral correctness with the correctness of an arbitrary rule of a silly game. Your example with the election is one of the former, but what you are railing against is the latter.

Here's another example: If smoking crack was made legal, but you felt it was wrong, and shouldn't be legal, you would have every right to rail against those who thought it was wrong and should be illegal but did it anyway just because it was legal.

But like I say, we're talking about arbitrary rules of a game here. There is nothing wrong, morally or otherwise, with following the rules of a game.

And before you say "You need to have integrity in games, too" - Yes, you do. You need to always follow the rules. Even if everyone else is cheating, it's wrong to cheat too just because everyone else is. But that's not what we're talking about here.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Yes. You have to understand we're talking about the rules of a game.  I may not think it should be legal for a rook to move an unlimited number of spaces, but that's the rule. It's pretty idiotic to say "I'm only going to move it like a pawn" in order to stick to some internal personal principle.

I play chess, too, and I understand your point.

But there's no rule that says that anchored putting is a legal stroke in golf, now is there?

What we're talking about is the definition of a legal stroke...something which isn't detailed specifically in the rules and has never been defined in the past until someone comes along with a new method that the USGA and/or R&A; decide doesn't fit the traditional definition of a "stroke".

As for the "rules of a game" comment, I can only guess that the fact that I play my games with the same integrity that I play my life probably baffles some people, but I do.  Granted, I don't play in golf tournaments, but I have bowled in tournaments.  If they had come out with a rule that said wearing gloves was non-traditional and gloves would be banned in the next rulebook coming out in 3 years, I'd learn do to without it as soon as possible and not wait 3 years, regardless of whether the glove benefits me by giving me a more solid grip.  I realize I may not finish as well in the tourneys and I may not make as much money, but there are more important things in life than money.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Again, you're equating moral correctness with the correctness of an arbitrary rule of a silly game. Your example with the election is one of the former, but what you are railing against is the latter.

Here's another example: If smoking crack was made legal, but you felt it was wrong, and shouldn't be legal, you would have every right to rail against those who thought it was wrong and should be illegal but did it anyway just because it was legal.

But like I say, we're talking about arbitrary rules of a game here. There is nothing wrong, morally or otherwise, with following the rules of a game.

And before you say "You need to have integrity in games, too" - Yes, you do. You need to always follow the rules. Even if everyone else is cheating, it's wrong to cheat too just because everyone else is. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Thank you!!  You just made my point.

The rule is that the ball must be fairly struck at, correct?

Anchored putting has been determined by the governing bodies (as well as the majority of golfers from what I can tell) that it does not fit the definition of fairly striking at the ball.

Therefore continuing to use an anchored stroke is NOT following the rules.  No, it won't be enforced until 2016, but again that doesn't magically make it a stroke today but not a stroke then.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Anchored putting has been determined by the governing bodies (as well as the majority of golfers from what I can tell) that it does not fit the definition of fairly striking at the ball.

I'm not so sure about this one.  It seems to me that the vocal "it's not a stroke!" group is probably not much bigger than the group on the other end, which basically consists of only anchorers (except for Ernie :)).

I would guess that the majority would fall in the middle somewhere ... in the "I don't anchor but don't really care if others do, nor do I care much if it remains legal or not" camp.  Or some variation thereof.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dave67az

As for the "rules of a game" comment, I can only guess that the fact that I play my games with the same integrity that I play my life probably baffles some people, but I do.  Granted, I don't play in golf tournaments, but I have bowled in tournaments.  If they had come out with a rule that said wearing gloves was non-traditional and gloves would be banned in the next rulebook coming out in 3 years, I'd learn do to without it as soon as possible and not wait 3 years, regardless of whether the glove benefits me by giving me a more solid grip.  I realize I may not finish as well in the tourneys and I may not make as much money, but there are more important things in life than money.

"As soon as possible"?! Not immediately upon hearing they were going to be banned? How would you sleep at night in the meantime? Where are your morals, man?!

Originally Posted by dave67az

...The rule is that the ball must be fairly struck at, correct?

Anchored putting has been determined by the governing bodies (as well as the majority of golfers from what I can tell) that it does not fit the definition of fairly striking at the ball.

Therefore continuing to use an anchored stroke is NOT following the rules.  No, it won't be enforced until 2016, but again that doesn't magically make it a stroke today but not a stroke then.

Ok, I kind of see what you're saying now. To rephrase, just to make sure I get it:

"Even though there is no rule explicitly *against* anchored putting, there is also no rule explicitly "permitting" it. Therefore, since the ball must be fairly struck at, and since anchored putting is defined as not fairly striking the ball, anchoring is *currently* illegal. It's just not enforced".

Does that accurately describe your rationale?

If so, I have two counterarguments for you to consider:

1) There are rules that define what a stroke is, what is fairly struck, etc. None of the rules currently in existence state that anchoring the stroke makes it an unfairly struck stroke. There *will* be such a rule in effect in 2016, but there is not one now.

2) Even if the current rules can somehow be interpreted as to make anchoring illegal, interpretations are addressed in Decisions on a regular basis. Since there is no Decision that states anchoring is legal or otherwise, there is no basis to say whether it's currently legal or otherwise.  You may say that's only because no one has challenged it and asked for a ruling/decision, but in the absence of such a ruling/decision, and in the absence of any on course officials ever saying to anyone "Hey you can't anchor - it's in the rules!", the players have no choice but to interpret that to mean that anchoring is currently legal.

It's an interesting argument you're making, but I'm just not convinced. It's certainly not cut-and-dried enough to warrant calling people's morals into question for using them.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Lift, clean and cheat is a commonly used tongue in cheek sarcasm.  Nobody in his right mind would be thinking that Tiger was seriously calling it cheating.  Very different from Ernie Els commenting on the anchored putting.  He was in dead ernest (sorry about the misspelling, but the pun required it   ) when he called it cheating.

Eh, I disagree. I feel exactly the same way about lift/clean/cheat as I do about the anchored stroke, so can easily imagine Els does as well: Neither should be allowed, but if they are I'm going to take advantage of them if I think it will help me, while tongue-in-cheekily calling them both cheating.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

"As soon as possible"?! Not immediately upon hearing they were going to be banned? How would you sleep at night in the meantime? Where are your morals, man?!

Ok, I kind of see what you're saying now. To rephrase, just to make sure I get it:

"Even though there is no rule explicitly *against* anchored putting, there is also no rule explicitly "permitting" it. Therefore, since the ball must be fairly struck at, and since anchored putting is defined as not fairly striking the ball, anchoring is *currently* illegal. It's just not enforced".

Does that accurately describe your rationale?

If so, I have two counterarguments for you to consider:

1) There are rules that define what a stroke is, what is fairly struck, etc. None of the rules currently in existence state that anchoring the stroke makes it an unfairly struck stroke. There *will* be such a rule in effect in 2016, but there is not one now.

2) Even if the current rules can somehow be interpreted as to make anchoring illegal, interpretations are addressed in Decisions on a regular basis. Since there is no Decision that states anchoring is legal or otherwise, there is no basis to say whether it's currently legal or otherwise.  You may say that's only because no one has challenged it and asked for a ruling/decision, but in the absence of such a ruling/decision, and in the absence of any on course officials ever saying to anyone "Hey you can't anchor - it's in the rules!", the players have no choice but to interpret that to mean that anchoring is currently legal.

It's an interesting argument you're making, but I'm just not convinced. It's certainly not cut-and-dried enough to warrant calling people's morals into question for using them.

"As soon as possible" means as soon as I can afford to buy a regular putter, if I don't already have one.  If I already have one, it means I'm going to hit the practice greens with my regular putter and stop using my long putter.  And if I can't afford to buy a putter, I certainly wouldn't be playing any golf considering a putter is cheaper than a round of golf.

When you say "as soon as possible" do you really mean "when I'm damn good and ready and not a minute sooner"?  I don't.  I mean literally "as soon as possible".  I've worked with many people who don't mean it when they say it.  It bugs me.  If you don't mean it, don't say it.  (are you seeing a familiar theme here?)

And yes, you nailed my rationale exactly.  When we're talking about interpretation of current rules already in existence, in my opinion, ruling should be immediate and enforced immediately (just like in their Decisions).  It makes little sense to me to say that they interpret a rule a certain way, and that they SHOULD have been interpreting it that way all along, and that they regret not acting on it 20 years ago (or more) but then to say we won't bother enforcing it until 2016.  The only reason I can think that they might have done that is they were offering a little compromise to the golfers who currently use the method. I think it's a stretch to say that it's going to take someone that long (3 years?) to learn how to putt with an unanchored stroke.  Since 90% of putting is reading the break and speed correctly, and that won't be changing, the only thing they have to learn is how far the ball travels with a certain length of stroke.  Every interview I've read/seen with a current anchored user has them stating that they picked up the new stroke pretty quickly (within weeks even).  And most of them are going to be switching back to something they did for years before anchoring, so it's not like they're learning a new stroke...they're simply relearning something they already did (which should take even less time than it did for them to be proficient with an anchored stroke to begin with).

So if it doesn't take 3 years to learn how to use an anchored putter, why exactly does it take 3 years to switch back?  THAT's the crux of my argument.  They should have made a Decision, should have published it ASAP, explained that the Decision would be expanded on in the next set of rules, and should have acted on it just as quickly as they do any Decision.  That would have given every PGA Tour golfer the entire off-season to get the feel of their old putter back.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by dave67az

So what you're telling me is that you don't see anything wrong with someone saying that they think something should be illegal and then going out and doing it anyway.

Again, if I had a change of heart and no longer thought it should be illegal, and if I was in the public eye as much as pro athletes, I'd be a little more concerned with how it would make me look.  But then again, you guys have made it pretty clear that you don't think it makes a person look bad to act against what they've said their personal beliefs are, so I'm not even sure it matter to you.

There has always been a rule that the ball must be fairly struck at, so it's not like it's a new rule.  They've made it clear that anchoring is NOT fairly striking at the ball.  Regardless of when they decide to enforce it, if you continue to do it then you're not fairly striking at the ball.  How is this not clear?

Here's the current definition of a stroke according to the Rules of Golf.

A “ stroke ’’ is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke .

I don't how anchoring the putter violates the rule, as a golfer using an anchored putter must simply have the intent to strike and move the ball.  The USGA and R&A; have chosen to revise the rules to define how a stroke can be made;

The underlying principle is that anchoring the club is contrary to the fundamental concept that a golf stroke should involve the player freely swinging the entire club at the ball.

The proposed Rule defines this concept as follows: “In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either ‘directly’ or by use of an ‘anchor point.’” Note 1 of the proposed Rule defines the meaning of “directly” anchored and Note 2 defines the meaning of “anchor point.”. This prohibition would apply to all strokes made while anchoring the club, including the two particular anchored strokes that have been seen with increasing frequency: (1) putting with a belly-length putter with the end of the shaft stuck into the player’s midsection, and (2) putting with a chest-length putter with the club or the player’s gripping hand held against the chest, chin or similar body part.

It actually is a new rule, as this refinement of the definition did not exist previously and to my knowledge won't appear in the Rules of Golf until 2016.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

So what you're telling me is that you don't see anything wrong with someone saying that they think something should be illegal and then going out and doing it anyway.

Again, if I had a change of heart and no longer thought it should be illegal, and if I was in the public eye as much as pro athletes, I'd be a little more concerned with how it would make me look.  But then again, you guys have made it pretty clear that you don't think it makes a person look bad to act against what they've said their personal beliefs are, so I'm not even sure it matter to you.

There has always been a rule that the ball must be fairly struck at, so it's not like it's a new rule.  They've made it clear that anchoring is NOT fairly striking at the ball.  Regardless of when they decide to enforce it, if you continue to do it then you're not fairly striking at the ball.  How is this not clear?

Here's the current definition of a stroke according to the Rules of Golf.

A “stroke’’ is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.

I don't how anchoring the putter violates the rule, as a golfer using an anchored putter must simply have the intent to strike and move the ball.  The USGA and R&A; have chosen to revise the rules to define how a stroke can be made;

The underlying principle is that anchoring the club is contrary to the fundamental concept that a golf stroke should involve the player freely swinging the entire club at the ball.

The proposed Rule defines this concept as follows: “In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either ‘directly’ or by use of an ‘anchor point.’” Note 1 of the proposed Rule defines the meaning of “directly” anchored and Note 2 defines the meaning of “anchor point.”.  This prohibition would apply to all strokes made while anchoring the club, including the two particular anchored strokes that have been seen with increasing frequency: (1) putting with a belly-length putter with the end of the shaft stuck into the player’s midsection, and (2) putting with a chest-length putter with the club or the player’s gripping hand held against the chest, chin or similar body part.

It actually is a new rule, as this refinement of the definition did not exist previously and to my knowledge won't appear in the Rules of Golf until 2016.

This is correct.  The anchoring issue has nothing to with "fairly striking the ball".  Even with anchoring, the ball can be fairly stuck.  The new rule is simply adding a refinement to the definition for a proper stroke to cover an issue which has never been a problem until the last couple of years.  Many rules or definitions have had similar additions over the last 200 years as the need arose.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

And yes, you nailed my rationale exactly.  When we're talking about interpretation of current rules already in existence, in my opinion, ruling should be immediate and enforced immediately (just like in their Decisions).

Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and I can't fault you for taking issue with the timeline of when/if the USGA/R&A; implements/interprets/enforces rules on the playing field. But that has nothing to do with whether someone is adhering to the *current* rule or not, as it is *currently* implemented/interpreted/enforced. Besides, as others point out, this appears to be a new rule, not a reinterpretation of an existing rule.

Quote:

When we're talking about interpretation of current rules already in existence, in my opinion, ruling should be immediate and enforced immediately (just like in their Decisions).  It makes little sense to me to say that they interpret a rule a certain way, and that they SHOULD have been interpreting it that way all along, and that they regret not acting on it 20 years ago (or more) but then to say we won't bother enforcing it until 2016. The only reason I can think that they might have done that is they were offering a little compromise to the golfers who currently use the method. I think it's a stretch to say that it's going to take someone that long (3 years?) to learn how to putt with an unanchored stroke.  Since 90% of putting is reading the break and speed correctly, and that won't be changing, the only thing they have to learn is how far the ball travels with a certain length of stroke.

IMO you're trivializing how different the strokes are. Plus as others have said, even if switching is easy it takes time to do, so that is time you can't spend on other parts of your game.

And given how much push back there already is from amateurs and the PGA/PGA Tour against this rule, can you imagine what it would be like if the USGA/R&A; had said it was effective immediately? They know this rule change isn't happening in a vacuum, and they know they can't please everyone, so it makes sense for them to provide a suitable adjustment period.

Not to mention, there needs to be time for manufacturers to plan a transition phase since they'll likely need to focus less on long putters. Not saying the rules or the time frame to implement them should be based on how it affects manufacturers, but it doesn't hurt to at least consider that aspect and compromise when possible.

And finally, it's simply the policy that the rules get updated every 4 years. 2016 happens to be the next update.

If you don't agree with any of that, that's fine. These issues have been discussed/argued elsewhere in the thread. The problem I have though is that you're faulting the golfers for playing by the rules as they exist.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Here's the current definition of a stroke according to the Rules of Golf.

A “stroke’’ is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke.

I don't how anchoring the putter violates the rule, as a golfer using an anchored putter must simply have the intent to strike and move the ball.  The USGA and R&A; have chosen to revise the rules to define how a stroke can be made;

The underlying principle is that anchoring the club is contrary to the fundamental concept that a golf stroke should involve the player freely swinging the entire club at the ball.

The proposed Rule defines this concept as follows: “In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either ‘directly’ or by use of an ‘anchor point.’” Note 1 of the proposed Rule defines the meaning of “directly” anchored and Note 2 defines the meaning of “anchor point.”.  This prohibition would apply to all strokes made while anchoring the club, including the two particular anchored strokes that have been seen with increasing frequency: (1) putting with a belly-length putter with the end of the shaft stuck into the player’s midsection, and (2) putting with a chest-length putter with the club or the player’s gripping hand held against the chest, chin or similar body part.

It actually is a new rule, as this refinement of the definition did not exist previously and to my knowledge won't appear in the Rules of Golf until 2016.

Yes, you defined a "stroke".  But you stopped there.  Why?

Rule 14-1 states:

14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At
The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.

The definition of "fairly" is stated nowhere in the rules, requiring interpretation.  It's been interpreted whenever required throughout golf history (banning of the croquet stroke, etc).  The "new rule" isn't a "new rule" so much as it's a specific interpretation of "fairly struck at" as near as I can tell.

The fact that the word "fairly" is in there, and they didn't just say "struck at", tells me that there's more to it than just to say "you have to hit the ball with the club."

Furthermore, the definition is even up to interpretation because " forward movement of the club " can be deemed to mean more than simply " forward movement of the clubHEAD " (which is the primary reason that anchored putting doesn't fit the definition, from what I understand)

So yes, it is already in the rules.  It is a precise interpretation that they're putting into a specific prohibition just to make sure that nobody else misinterprets it, as the anchored putters have been doing for decades.

[Golfingdad]

Guys, sorry to interrupt your discussion ... and, don't get me wrong, it's a good one, I am enjoying the (very civil) back and forth, but I am tired of seeing that bad picture of Jason Dufner as a teenager (or college kid, whatever) gracing the "recent images in this thread" banner at the top, so I'd like to try and get it off the screen (or at least moved to the smaller thumbnail section).

Not that this is a great photo, but it's the best one that I could find that was also on topic. :)

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and I can't fault you for taking issue with the timeline of when/if the USGA/R&A; implements/interprets/enforces rules on the playing field. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is adhering to the *current* rule or not, as it is *currently* implemented/interpreted/enforced.

IMO you're trivializing how different the strokes are. Plus as others have said, even if switching is easy it takes time to do, so that is time you can't spend on other parts of your game.

And given how much push back there already is from amateurs and the PGA/PGA Tour against this rule, can you imagine what it would be like if the USGA/R&A; had said it was effective immediately? They know this rule change isn't happening in a vacuum, and they know they can't please everyone, so it makes sense for them to provide a suitable adjustment period.

Not to mention, there needs to be time for manufacturers to plan a transition phase since they'll likely need to focus less on long putters. Not saying the rules or the time frame to implement them should be based on how it affects manufacturers, but it doesn't hurt to at least consider that aspect and compromise when possible.

And finally, it's simply the policy that the rules get updated every 4 years. 2016 happens to be the next update.

If you don't agree with any of that, that's fine. These issues have been discussed/argued elsewhere in the thread. The problem I have though is that you're faulting the golfers for playing by the rules as they exist.

We didn't take 4 years to publish new rules in the USBC (bowling).  We do it every year.  I'm still trying to figure out why it takes 4 years for changes to happen in the USGA.  But then again, it's just another crazy thing about golf that makes no sense to me.

I understand your points.  I understand that even though it's not an equipment rule, most people won't keep the long putters and just use a non-anchored stroke, so manufacturers will lose sales and the companies need to prepare for the change.  I get that.  I'm just saying that if I thought something was "cheating" I wouldn't be doing it, regardless of what others are doing.  If I changed my mind on something, I'd also change my actions (whether one way or the other), but you wouldn't hear me saying "oh, I still think it's cheating but I'm doing it anyway."

As for the push-back, the USGA has pretty much admitted they should have banned it a long time ago (and many of us agree).  On one hand you can argue that letting people get away with it for a few more years won't hurt anyone.  But I just find that argument pretty weak.  Had they opted for immediate action, in three years I imagine we wouldn't be talking about it much.  Now they've pretty much guaranteed that we'll hear about it for three years and then some.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dave67az

...I'm just saying that if I thought something was "cheating" I wouldn't be doing it, regardless of what others are doing.  If I changed my mind on something, I'd also change my actions (whether one way or the other), but you wouldn't hear me saying "oh, I still think it's cheating but I'm doing it anyway."

And that's where we fail to come to a meeting of the minds. I don't think anyone who is currently using the anchored stroke really thinks it's cheating. If they have said anything to that effect, it's been in the same vein as lift/clean/place is sometimes referred to as cheating.

That sums up my last half dozen posts, so I'll try to back off for a while. :-)