Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

The PGA of America's position appears to be that this could potentially disallow the sport to grow (presumably with novice/younger players).  It seems ridiculous to suggest that there are huge groups of people out there, young and/or new to golf, that would be dissuaded from picking up the sport because they only considered trying the sport with a long putter.

Not to mention most kids and noobs typically start out playing off the rack bargains, hand-me-downs or garage sale finds. At that level you suck regardless of what you have in your hands. The difficulty of the game is more than putting for those folks. Putting is an odd thing for many amatuers as it is. I played with guys this summer where it was difficult to tell if they were playing golf or Twister after seeing their putting technique.

[Dormie1360]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

The most the PGA of America said is that they have "concerns" about any legislation that could possibly hurt "growth and enjoyment of the game."

I just can't buy this argument either.  Growing the game of golf does have some issues, but really, do you think people are going to decide not to take up the game because they can't anchor long putters.  As far as "enjoyment",  I don't know, I guess if enjoyment  is based on how you are allowed to stroke a putt, yeah I guess it's going to bother some folks.  I just think in the end, that would be a very small number of recreational or amateur golfers.

[Rulesman]

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2012/November/Anchoring.aspx

[mvmac]

Wanted to share this tweet from Ron Sirak

AND Gary Van Sickle chimes in with his frustration

Quote:

The USGA and the R&A; must be joking.

With all the pressing issues in golf, they've decided to ban anchored putting ? That's like the Emperor Nero issuing jaywalking tickets to residents fleeing Rome as it burns.

Golf is losing participants in droves for three main reasons: it's too difficult, too expensive and too slow. The game is in a recession, or worse, and the USGA is worried about a style of putting that may make golf easier, has been around for more than a quarter century and is used by a small minority of players?

The Rules of Golf should not be dictated by commercial concerns, but eliminating long putters just as they're gaining in popularity with recreational players is just plain wrong.

We have 460-cc drivers made of high tech alloys, graphite shafts, balls that go forever, and more technology in every clubhead than golfers could have dreamed of even 20 years ago. All these things have had a much greater impact on golf than long putters. In an era when 350-yard drives are no longer Happy Gilmore pipe dreams, why is all the scrutiny on one type of putting stroke?

It's simple. Because players wielding belly putters have won three of the last five major championships Keegan Bradley at the 2011 PGA, Webb Simpson at the 2012 U.S. Open and Ernie Els at the 2012 British Open . Because belly putters are more and more common on the PGA Tour and are starting to get a foothold with recreational golfers and junior players. And because some so-called purists simply don't like the way they look.

Those who made this decision would argue that a golf stroke should be made with the arms only, and that hinging the club against the body takes nerves, a crucial part of golf and putting, out of play. Many would also argue that in addition to being an unfair advantage, this style of putting is simply unseemly, and not the way the game was meant to be played.

And if anchored putting strokes are so terrible, so against the spirit of the game, then why weren't they banned decades ago? Johnny Miller stuck a second shaft in his putter and jammed the handle into his armpit at the 1980 Los Angeles Open. Charlie Owens pioneered the "broomstick" putter in the mid-'80s. The belly putter era truly began when Paul Azinger, after tinkering with a longish putter tucked into his stomach, brought it on tour and immediately won the Hawaiian Open in 2000.

It seems arbitrary to ban the method now, and unfair to the players who have perfected the various hinged putting strokes. Some young players have always used an anchored putting style, and changing at this point will be a major undertaking for them.

If tradition is the argument, then I'm not buying it. Tradition went out the window with stymies and mashies and featheries and plus-fours.

The game's ruling bodies are playing with fire here, too. It's a long shot, but with a number of players' careers at stake, the PGA Tour could decide to become its own rule-maker and governing body. Why let a bunch of blue-coated amateur golfers in New Jersey make the rules for all of pro golf? Who put them in charge, anyway?

This ban on anchored putting is pointless, arbitrary and unscientific, and it doesn't solve any of golf's pressing issues.

[atb5079]

I dont buy the argument that its gonna deter/slow the growth of the game amongst amateurs or potential new golfers. At all. Its a terrible argument. I completely agree with the USGA/RA ruling. Perhaps it was not entirely necessary for the rules to stretch beyond the pros, but so be it. The ruling is just. And i'm not gonna rant about my reasoning as to why it was correct because I completely agree with their ruling and pretty much all of the pros for it opinions as well.

But for God's sake this is not the reason the "growth of the game" will be impacted. $$$$$$$$$ is. Time is. Course length is. If you're gonna talk about game related reasons, I think most people who start out, and I can think of myself when I first started playing about a decade ago and many other friend's when they were starting, putting was the absolute last part of the game holding myself or them back. The swing itself with all 13 other clubs is the hardest thing to practice and learn. Putting is all about reading greens and speed. For newbies, getting that swing down so you aren't constantly shanking it, topping it, thin/fat, slice/hook...all are the game related reasons for the "growth of the game" to be slowed. My putting has never been very good and I almost gave up golf about 4 years ago for a few reasons, but not because of putting and I sure as hell cant imagine many people quitting golf for good because they cant anchor their putter. I almost gave it up because of the price, slow play and most importantly I was really struggling with my swing. It was at the point where I couldnt find a fairway, I was far too inconsistent and had such a terrible slice it almost went backwards.

[jamo]

AND [URL=http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/banning-anchored-putting-stroke-usga-proves-it-focused-wrong-thing?sct=hp_t2_a9&eref;=sihp]Gary Van Sickle chimes in with his frustration[/URL]

I can only guess as to what Van Sickle means by "unscientific." As if a 48-inch shaft was really a world-altering innovation. I doubt it will make one iota of difference as to the popularity of golf.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

I just can't buy this argument either.  Growing the game of golf does have some issues, but really, do you think people are going to decide not to take up the game because they can't anchor long putters.  As far as "enjoyment",  I don't know, I guess if enjoyment  is based on how you are allowed to stroke a putt, yeah I guess it's going to bother some folks.  I just think in the end, that would be a very small number of recreational or amateur golfers.

I agree. Personally, I don't like them, but I also don't think it makes that much of a difference, so why bother? I think it just comes down to purist sensibilities and that isn't a good enough reason. I love the USGA and the way they maintain the rules of the game, but this smells of golf snobbery.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejimsmith

nice to know the pga agrees with me too:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2012/11/28/pga-of-america-opposes-anchoring-ban/1731719/

Resident Hater here, chiming in:

Nothing in that post is really compelling.  The most the PGA of America said is that they have "concerns" about any legislation that could possibly hurt "growth and enjoyment of the game."  Also adding that they aren't sure what new evidence they could produce, presumably to persuade them that this particular legislation would hurt the growth and enjoyment of the game.

And, frankly, I find this argument to be the least compelling of all justifications for allowing anchored/belly putting.  As has been alluded to before by other posters, I have only seen ONE person all year use an anchored/belly putter.  I've probably played 50-60 rounds this year.  And that one person happened to be a guy in an NCGA Association Net Championship, which I would classify as being comprised of avid golfers.

If it's so bad for the game, then how did the game grow so much during the 80's and 90's when most people had never seen or heard of one?  That happened because the economy was good during most of those decades. In the Golf Channel interview with Jack Nicklaus they asked the same question, and he just waived it off as irrelevant, and I see it the same way.  No player starting out is going to have any concern at all about how he swings the putter.  His concern is just moving the ball in the right general direction.  When I started, we didn't even have metal woods and GI irons, yet I stuck with it.  Most of us get hooked on the game because of the challenge, not looking for an easy way out.  There is kind of a perverse pleasure in being humbled, then going back the next time determined to do better.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by atb5079

I dont buy the argument that its gonna deter/slow the growth of the game amongst amateurs or potential new golfers. At all. Its a terrible argument. I completely agree with the USGA/RA ruling. Perhaps it was not entirely necessary for the rules to stretch beyond the pros, but so be it. The ruling is just. And i'm not gonna rant about my reasoning as to why it was correct because I completely agree with their ruling and pretty much all of the pros for it opinions as well.

But for God's sake this is not the reason the "growth of the game" will be impacted. $$$$$$$$$ is. Time is. Course length is. If you're gonna talk about game related reasons, I think most people who start out, and I can think of myself when I first started playing about a decade ago and many other friend's when they were starting, putting was the absolute last part of the game holding myself or them back. The swing itself with all 13 other clubs is the hardest thing to practice and learn. Putting is all about reading greens and speed. For newbies, getting that swing down so you aren't constantly shanking it, topping it, thin/fat, slice/hook...all are the game related reasons for the "growth of the game" to be slowed. My putting has never been very good and I almost gave up golf about 4 years ago for a few reasons, but not because of putting and I sure as hell cant imagine many people quitting golf for good because they cant anchor their putter. I almost gave it up because of the price, slow play and most importantly I was really struggling with my swing. It was at the point where I couldnt find a fairway, I was far too inconsistent and had such a terrible slice it almost went backwards.

Here here!!

It's a little disheartening to hear all these so-called 'experts' and 'pros' spewing so much rubbish about the ban.  Listen to them carefully.  They'll first claim that anchored putters aren't a threat because nobody uses them.  Then they'll claim it's going to hurt the game because nobody will be allowed to use them.  Then they make ridiculous statements about how nobody will want to play because it's too difficult.

Really?  So, before all this "new equipment" that made it "easier", nobody wanted to learn the game?  With that kind of logic, it's amazing that golf even exists today.  Unless, of course, that logic is flawed.

Golf is a sport.  Why does anyone want to learn a sport?  One word:  heroes.  If we grew up in a house or around friends that watched baseball, and if our heroes played baseball, we learned to play baseball.  Same way with football, hockey, basketball and yes, even golf.  We watched John Wayne war movies and went outside after to play "war" with our friends.  We watched Gunsmoke or the Lone Ranger and went outside after to play "cowboys and indians".  Nowadays "outside" has been replaced by a PS3 or XBox, but the things that drive game sales are the same things that create people who want to play the game:  heroes.

Golf was on an increase thanks to guys recently like Tiger Woods.  Then it began declining as he did (and as the economy declined, naturally).  Ratings showed that many wouldn't bother watching golf unless Tiger was playing.

Well, thanks to our new "young" heroes like Rory, Bubba, Ricky, and a few others, there is no shortage of new "heroes" for kids to admire.  And as long as there are guys like that to attract youngsters to the game, the game is in no danger of disappearing.

So anyone out there who tries to say that this ban will ruin the game and drive people away doesn't know what they're talking about.  They're apparently forgotten why THEY learned to play in the first place.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by mvmac

AND Gary Van Sickle chimes in with his frustration

Man, this guy is all over the place.  In his 2nd paragraph he suggests anchoring makes the game easier, but later on says there is no evidence that they create an advantage.  He states the rules shouldn't be changed because only a small minority of players use the style, and later says the reason it's being banned now is because of it's popularity and growing foothold among amateurs.

Anyway, the main theme of his rant still appears to be that it will hurt the growth of a dying sport.  I'm actually surprised that there are many people using this as justification.  I fully understand and appreciate that there are amateurs out there that will be upset by this, but I'm betting that none of them would have never picked up golf had the rule been in place before they started.

Last thought for now: I'm getting annoyed by some of the guys talking about how big, oversized driver heads aren't banned (which I would be okay with, if they were), but that we're worried about putters.  Guys, no equipment has been banned!  The stroke has been defined.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by dave67az

It's a little disheartening to hear all these so-called 'experts' and 'pros' spewing so much rubbish about the ban.  Listen to them carefully.  They'll first claim that anchored putters aren't a threat because nobody uses them.  Then they'll claim it's going to hurt the game because nobody will be allowed to use them.  Then they make ridiculous statements about how nobody will want to play because it's too difficult.

Ha, you must have been reading the Gary Van Sickle article.  Either way, you nailed it.

[Hairy Feet]

I couldn't careless if the guys I'm playing against uses a belly putter or not BUT I do care if I'm going to continue to endure 5 hour rounds. That, added to rising costs of a game as many players drift away is of far greater concern to me than someone with a belly putter.

Look at the putting stats of top 5 belly putters 'v' the top 5 'traditional' putters. There's little to choose between them, so why worry? There is no advantage.

[Beachcomber]

Mike thanks for posting the ruling update.  Your post on page #9, post 158 was perfect and covered everything I needed to know.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mvmac

AND Gary Van Sickle chimes in with his frustration

Golf is losing some popularity because:

a) it takes too much time

b) it costs a lot

Way, way, WAY down on the list is "it is too difficult." For many, that's what they LIKE about the game. In fact, I've seen studies where that's one of the top three things people like about golf.

And when they talk about the "difficulty" of the game, I highly doubt putting is at the top of THAT list, either. Surely it's that they slice the shit out of the ball and shank it in the weeds twelve times a round.

PLUS , even though it was never my point that it may or may not offer an "advantage" - that's largely a straw man argument constructed by those who didn't favor this change - you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. If anchoring a putter makes the game easier , then it is an advantage!

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by iacas

The Kuchar and Langer strokes are still allowed, but you cannot anchor the club, your hand, or your forearm to your body.

I'm slightly confused about whether the Langer method will be allowed (it maybe that he has come up with a different version) but I remember him anchoring the shaft to his forearm by using the other hand to hold it against the shaft.

Which is different to Kucher just letting the shaft rest against his arm - which appears to be clearly okay.

[newtogolf]

Since anchored (to body) putting provides no advantage no one should be fighting the ban, right?  People with back issues can still use a long putter to avoid having to bend over.

It can't be both ways, you can't claim it doesn't offer any advantage and then complain you won't enjoy the game as much or play as well if they ban anchoring to the body.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

I'm slightly confused about whether the Langer method will be allowed (it maybe that he has come up with a different version) but I remember him anchoring the shaft to his forearm by using the other hand to hold it against the shaft.

Which is different to Kucher just letting the shaft rest against his arm - which appears to be clearly okay.

Look at the chart or watch the video.

Both are legal.

[Rulesman]

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2012/November/Anchoring.aspx