Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Some people just have to defy authority, and when that doesn't work, then they bitch.  The possibility that anyone can tell them what they can do on the golf course is untenable to them.

And other people have to impose their will on others.

I think pull carts look ugly and are dorky, so should I want everyone not to have them?

[Texian]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

In the blue example, the forearms are braced against the side of the body, but there is no pivot point that the club is being anchored to ... you still have to swing it with either your shoulders or wrists.

If your forearms are braced against the side of the body and don't move, and your shoulders don't move, then the movement by the wrists is a "pivot."

In order to "swing" the club, your arms or shoulders must move.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

And other people have to impose their will on others.

That's funny.

You're talking about the RULING BODY of the game.

So...........

[bplewis24]

And other people have to impose their will on others. I think pull carts look ugly and are dorky, so should I want everyone not to have them?

You're reaching now.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Texian

Your conviction is correct. I do consider myself smarter than the average Bear(Kat).

But let's say that something similar happened in 2016, and my playing partner, in a club championship match for instance, says, "Your forearm was touching your torso on that putting stroke. So I win the hole."

And I say, truthfully, "Well, I always hold my forearm away from my body on my putting stroke, so if it was touching, it wasn't intentional.'

It's almost impossible to prove "intent" in a court of law. Can you imagine the arguments and hard feelings this could cause on a golf course, when the "judge" is in the pro shop selling shirts or on the driving range giving a lesson?

Since you admit you are smarter then you really were making it up when you said you weren't making it up.  So my conclusion that you were just being silly is confirmed.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You agree you're smarter, but you contend there's some way for you or your friends to confuse what's a legal stroke and what's not.   The picture below makes it quite clear.  The putter can't be anchored directly against your body and you can't anchor your forearm against your body and hold the top of the putter.  Forearms and elbows touching the body are legal as is forearms held against the body.

Instead of posting here various scenarios that will cost you strokes in the future why not take some time to review the photos.  Print the picture out so you can help your not so smart friends understand what is and isn't a legal stroke and you should be fine in 3 years.

Because he isn't really interested in what is allowed and what isn't, he is just grousing about something he doesn't like.

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Again, the croquet style Sam Snead was banned from using was a stroke by your definition.

What happened?

Great point.  The rules say I cannot ground my club in a bunker.  So if I hit a ball out of bounds why can't I hit it from there?  After all, I'm not grounding my club in a bunker!  < / sarcasm >

I'm wondering where in the world you ever got the idea that there can only be ONE reason for banning a technique, since you apparently are arguing that since the new rule bans anchoring, ANYTHING that is not anchoring should be OK.

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

And other people have to impose their will on others.

I think pull carts look ugly and are dorky, so should I want everyone not to have them?

Go for it.  If you can convince the USGA . . .

No one says you have to play by the USGA rules.  They are a ruling body of a sport, not an arm of the government with police power.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

You're reaching now.

Now?  These guys have been reaching from the first moment

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

You're reaching now.

I often forget how literal most of you are.

I’m making the point that most people opposed the long putter/anchoring because they didn’t like the way it looked compared to what they personally envision as a traditional putting stroke. Therefore, they don’t want anyone to use it. They lobbied hard (imposing their will) to the governing boards to do away with it without one shred of numerical statistics that proved it gave an advantage to user.
They just wanted less putting options for everyone and wanted everyone to be more like them (imposing their will).

[David in FL]

I often forget how literal most of you are. I’m making the point that most people opposed the long putter/anchoring because they didn’t like the way it looked compared to what they personally envision as a traditional putting stroke. Therefore, they don’t want anyone to use it. They lobbied hard (imposing their will) to the governing boards to do away with it without one shred of numerical statistics that proved it gave an advantage to user. They just wanted less putting options for everyone and wanted everyone to be more like them (imposing their will).

It has nothing to do with how the putter or the stroke looks , but rather the mechanics of what is deemed to be an appropriate way to make that stroke. Thank goodness. If they were to ban strokes/swings deemed to be "ugly" I'd likely be asked to give up the game!

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

I often forget how literal most of you are.

I’m making the point that most people opposed the long putter/anchoring because they didn’t like the way it looked compared to what they personally envision as a traditional putting stroke. Therefore, they don’t want anyone to use it. They lobbied hard (imposing their will) to the governing boards to do away with it without one shred of numerical statistics that proved it gave an advantage to user.

They just wanted less putting options for everyone and wanted everyone to be more like them (imposing their will).

It has nothing to do with how the putter or the stroke looks, but rather the mechanics of what is deemed to be an appropriate way to make that stroke.

Thank goodness. If they were to ban strokes/swings deemed to be "ugly" I'd likely be asked to give up the game!

He and Texian ran out of logical arguments several pages ago, so now they are just shooting blanks - lots of noise with no substance.  Common sense has long since deserted this thread.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

I often forget how literal most of you are.

I’m making the point that most people opposed the long putter/anchoring because they didn’t like the way it looked compared to what they personally envision as a traditional putting stroke.

No, it has nothing to do with taking you literally.  I never thought you were serious with your golf cart analogy.  My point was that you're reaching because you're attempting to reduce the argument to a concept that is silly in nature because they may share one similarity.  You're purposefully oversimplifying the issue.

Look, this isn't that difficult or convoluted, but it also isn't as simple as a bunch of Big Brothers on a power trip that dislike the aesthetics of something.  Anybody using a long putter will still look weird, actually.  Maybe even more so.

I find that typically when people stop challenging something on the merits and instead start attempting to project a mens rea (state of mind; malice aforethought) on the people making the argument, they simply don't like the argument [or outcome] and thus want to paint the people making the argument in a negative light.  There's no real way to argue against you anymore when you're basically saying that the people doing this are bad people with bad intentions trying to do a bad thing....even if you aren't arguing that the thing itself lacks merit.

[Texian]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

He and Texian ran out of logical arguments several pages ago, so now they are just shooting blanks - lots of noise with no substance.  Common sense has long since deserted this thread.

We didn't run out of arguments. We presented arguments that no one could refute other than insightful comments like "I'll know it when I see it,." and "Uh, if you say so. It's about the stroke in my opinion."

The people (USGA and R&A;) imposing this change don’t seem to understand what it takes to propel a golf ball a short distance, as on a green.

You don’t have to “swing” at it. A “tap,” a “jab,” or a tiny movement that is no more than a “pivot” can move it the necessary distance on most putts.

You have to “swing” clubs other than the putter. If you tried a “pivot” movement with your driver, unless you have wrists like King Kong, the ball wouldn’t go 30 yards.

It makes you wonder if those USGA and R&A; people even play the game, or just spend their time sitting around making up arcane rules to make it more complicated.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

No, it has nothing to do with taking you literally.  I never thought you were serious with your golf cart analogy.  My point was that you're reaching because you're attempting to reduce the argument to a concept that is silly in nature because they may share one similarity.  You're purposefully oversimplifying the issue.

Look, this isn't that difficult or convoluted, but it also isn't as simple as a bunch of Big Brothers on a power trip that dislike the aesthetics of something.  Anybody using a long putter will still look weird, actually.  Maybe even more so.

I find that typically when people stop challenging something on the merits and instead start attempting to project a mens rea (state of mind; malice aforethought) on the people making the argument, they simply don't like the argument [or outcome] and thus want to paint the people making the argument in a negative light.  There's no real way to argue against you anymore when you're basically saying that the people doing this are bad people with bad intentions trying to do a bad thing....even if you aren't arguing that the thing itself lacks merit.I

I like how you edited out my key point: the governing boards are doing away with it without one shred of numerical statistics that proved it gave an advantage to user.

They were trying to solve a problem that never was a problem.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

I like how you edited out my key point: the governing boards are doing away with it without one shred of numerical statistics that proved it gave an advantage to user.

They were trying to solve a problem that never was a problem.

They don't have to show numerical statistics proving it gave an advantage in order to ban it. Not required. I would imagine they didn't do such an analysis when they banned straddling the line, or pool-cue putting or pushing the ball.

No other stroke in the game is executed from an anchor point, or anchored club. Thus the movement was unique, and contrary to the definition of a stroke. That's why they ruled like they did - based on observation and definition, not by data or evidence.

So it was definitely a "problem" as it altered their definition of a stroke.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

They don't have to show numerical statistics proving it gave an advantage in order to ban it. Not required. I would imagine they didn't do such an analysis when they banned straddling the line, or pool-cue putting or pushing the ball.

No other stroke in the game is executed from an anchor point, or anchored club. Thus the movement was unique, and contrary to the definition of a stroke. That's why they ruled like they did - based on observation and definition, not by data or evidence.

So it was definitely a "problem" as it altered their definition of a stroke.

So, it took them 35 years to modify their definition of a stroke in regards to anchoring?

Then go on to make it more convoluted (made matters worse) by saying variations like this are somehow okay.

[JerseyThursday]

Not that I don’t mind get pummeled from all sides on the merit of the ruling, but what’s the deal with the Arm Lock putter?

Its hard to tell from the photo but it just looks like a standard belly putter (in the 45 inch range) braced against the forearm (Kuchar style).

Is the grip somehow configured to rest more comfortably against the arm?

[Rulesman]

Because the shaft is not held vertically they have adjusted the loft from 3* to 7* to compensate.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Texian

We didn't run out of arguments. We presented arguments that no one could refute other than insightful comments like "I'll know it when I see it,." and "Uh, if you say so. It's about the stroke in my opinion."

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

I like how you edited out my key point: the governing boards are doing away with it without one shred of numerical statistics that proved it gave an advantage to user.

* sigh*

There is a trend I'm noticing, where you two are intentionally ignoring the multiple times your arguments have been refuted.  I don't think it was even 20-30 posts ago that I and a few others illustrated that there is absolutely no burden on them to prove it's an advantage.  I'm not even going to get into what kind of a strawman argument that is, because it would take too much time.

And I'm sorry for lumping you into a group with Texian, since I know his posting history and you are nowhere near stooping to his level.  But I'm sure you will simply never see my point of view on this, so you can have the last word on it.

[newtogolf]

As the game evolves and people evolve the need for additional rules or clarification of existing rules may be required.  Look at how many new rules gets added to football and other sports on an annual basis or how many new laws get passed in our country.

Based on my limited insight to the rule change, it wasn't the USGA that pushed for the change, it was the R&A;, after Els won The Open.  According to the articles I've read, anchored putting is not as popular outside the US, and after seeing Ernie win their major the R&A; decided that they needed to ban anchoring before it became popular outside the US.  R&A; told the USGA of their intentions and gave them the option of joining in the decision or to have this affect only play outside the US.  USGA felt it would be confusing to have 2 sets of rules and joined with the R&A.;

Some might say that those using an anchored putting stroke were stretching the rules to their benefit.  While anchored putting overall may not provide an advantage to the traditional putting stroke, it does provide an advantage to those that use it.  There's a reason Keegan Bradley and Ernie Els use an anchored putting stroke and it's not because it makes them putt worse.  For them, and others that made the switch they did so because they putt better anchoring the putter than they did with a traditional putting stroke.

It's not convoluted if you take the time to review the rule and the examples.

Quote:

So, it took them 35 years to modify their definition of a stroke in regards to anchoring?

Then go on to make it more convoluted (made matters worse) by saying variations like this are somehow okay.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

So, it took them 35 years to modify their definition of a stroke in regards to anchoring?

Then go on to make it more convoluted (made matters worse) by saying variations like this are somehow okay.

Who cares how long it took? If it's right it's right. And it is.

And the only reason it seems "convoluted" to you is they had to not only accurately define anchoring, but to also address various methods of doing so. In the end, it's pretty clear what they were going for.