Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[David in FL]

They don't like the embedded ball rule either. Could they make anchoring a local decision like embedded ball? Is this where this is heading?

Potentially. They could enact a condition of competition that allows for anchored putting. I may be wrong, but I don't think they'll do that though. The tour players themselves are split on the subject. Taking a hard stand like that would still leave a lot of players unhappy.....just a different group than are unhappy now. I just don't see the upside for Tim Finchem and crew to use that type of nuclear option.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Potentially. They could enact a condition of competition that allows for anchored putting.

I may be wrong, but I don't think they'll do that though. The tour players themselves are split on the subject. Taking a hard stand like that would still leave a lot of players unhappy.....just a different group than are unhappy now. I just don't see the upside for Tim Finchem and crew to use that type of nuclear option.

The Committee can't make a CoC which waives a Rule of Golf. Rule 33-1.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Erik, you stated you didn't think the USGA/R&A; was going to care about "we don't want to do that", which is essentially ignoring the feedback.

"We don't want to do that" is not feedback.

My wife and I allow and encourage our child to make a lot of decisions, to discuss things she disagrees with by presenting logical points, etc. We've never accepted "I don't want to do that" as a valid logical point. Never will.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Pro golfers using the anchored putting stroke can only argue that it's a putting stroke they've used for years and they don't want to change because the USGA now deems it's not a proper stroke.

I think the USGA/R&A; has already responded (preemptively) to that feedback.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm in favor of the anchored putting stroke ban but I'm playing devils advocate given there are huge implications if the PGA Tour and PGA decide to ignore the ruling or believe that it's within their rights to do so.

Let's be clear now: they could make a rule that you have to play a yellow and pink golf ball and it's within their "rights" to do so. Let's be careful about the language we use. It's within their "rights" to do a lot of things. Whether or not it makes sense to do so is the discussion.

Originally Posted by David in FL

Potentially. They could enact a condition of competition that allows for anchored putting.

I may be wrong, but I don't think they'll do that though. The tour players themselves are split on the subject. Taking a hard stand like that would still leave a lot of players unhappy.....just a different group than are unhappy now. I just don't see the upside for Tim Finchem and crew to use that type of nuclear option.

Precisely. Before, we heard from the people who thought it was not a valid stroke. Now we're hearing from the anchorers. I still think the anchorers are in the minority. Especially beyond the PGA Tour.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by iacas

"We don't want to do that" is not feedback.

And how is *We dont want you to do that (anymore)* vaild reasoning?

This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction after a couple of majors were won with anchored putting. Who knows, we could go another 10 years without an anchored putter winning a major.

This is no different than all the calls to *ban all guns* because of one nut job in CT.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by meenman

And how is *We dont want you to do that (anymore)* vaild reasoning?

This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction after a couple of majors were won with anchored putting. Who knows, we could go another 10 years without an anchored putter winning a major.

This is no different than all the calls to *ban all guns* because of one nut job in CT.

They gave all the reasons for doing it and did NOT stop at "we don't want you to do that."

Is this another attempt at discounting the decision because you refuse to acknowledge the arguments that have been presented?

My kid used to do that...just ignored explanations when he didn't agree with the premise they were based on.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The Committee can't make a CoC which waives a Rule of Golf. Rule 33-1.

How do they allow relief from an embedded ball through the green?

[jamo]

And how is *We dont want you to do that (anymore)* vaild reasoning? This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction after a couple of majors were won with anchored putting. Who knows, we could go another 10 years without an anchored putter winning a major.

To your first point, "we don't like belly putters nah nah nah nah boo boo" was not the USGA's reasoning. Read their press releases, or anything they've said since the ruling went public. To their credit, some people have made real points, like Stretch, but the vast majority of objections I've heard are misrepresentations, emotional whining, or illogical. To your second point, people have been asking for the USGA to look at this for years.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by David in FL

How do they allow relief from an embedded ball through the green?

By utilizing the authorised Local Rule.

4. Course Conditions – Mud, Extreme Wetness, Poor Conditions And Protection Of The Course

a. Relief for Embedded Ball

Rule 25-2 provides relief, without penalty, for a ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in any closely mown area through the green . On the putting green , a ball may be lifted and damage caused by the impact of a ball may be repaired (Rules 16-1b and c ). When permission to take relief for an embedded ball anywhere through the green would be warranted, the following Local Rule is recommended:

“Through the green, a ball that is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground may be lifted, without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.

Exceptions:

1. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely mown.

Incidentally, it was the exception that Tiger Woods fell foul of a couple of weeks ago.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by dave67az

They gave all the reasons for doing it and did NOT stop at "we don't want you to do that."

Is this another attempt at discounting the decision because you refuse to acknowledge the arguments that have been presented?

My kid used to do that...just ignored explanations when he didn't agree with the premise they were based on.

I do not think the USGA gave a reasonable argument, and you do - because we are both biased.

Originally Posted by jamo

To your first point, "we don't like belly putters nah nah nah nah boo boo" was not the USGA's reasoning. Read their press releases, or anything they've said since the ruling went public. To their credit, some people have made real points, like Stretch, but the vast majority of objections I've heard are misrepresentations, emotional whining, or illogical.

To your second point, people have been asking for the USGA to look at this for years.

Not aimed at you, but this would not only make those that have been asking for the ban not only whiners, but hypocrites too, for calling those against the ban *whiners*

At the end of the day, i am pretty much convinced that this proposed ban will not go through - and if it does, the USGA will become king of no one.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

By utilizing the authorised Local Rule.

4. Course Conditions – Mud, Extreme Wetness, Poor Conditions And Protection Of The Course

a. Relief for Embedded Ball

Rule 25-2 provides relief, without penalty, for a ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in any closely mown area through the green. On the putting green, a ball may be lifted and damage caused by the impact of a ball may be repaired (Rules 16-1b and c). When permission to take relief for an embedded ball anywhere through the green would be warranted, the following Local Rule is recommended:

“Through the green, a ball that is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground may be lifted, without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.

Exceptions:

1. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely mown.

Incidentally, it was the exception that Tiger Woods fell foul of a couple of weeks ago.

So they're using a standard "Protection of the Course" justification to allow for it?  My understanding is that it's a standing rule to allow relief through the green (except as noted in a sand area that isn't closely mown), is that right?

[newtogolf]

This comes right from the USGA website. http://www.usga.org/news/2012/November/Proposed-Rules-Change-to-Prohibit-Anchoring/

New Rule Would Define and Preserve the Nature of the Stroke
In proposing the new Rule, The R&A; and the USGA concluded that the long-term interests of the game would be served by confirming a stroke as the swinging of the entire club at the ball.  “Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball,” said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis. “The player’s challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.”

New Rule Would Address Recent Developments in the Game
This proposal reflects The R&A;’s and USGA’s responsibility to define how the game is to be played. Aspects of how a player must make a stroke have been addressed in past Rules changes, such as the century-old Rule codifying that the ball must be fairly struck and not be pushed, scraped or spooned and the 1968 prohibition on the “croquet” style of putting. “As governing bodies, we monitor and evaluate playing practices and developments in golf, with our primary mandate being to ensure that the Rules of Golf continue to preserve the fundamental characteristics of the game,” added Davis.

Although anchoring the club is not new, until recently it was uncommon and typically seen as a method of last resort by a small number of players. In the last two years, however, more and more players have adopted the anchored stroke. Golf’s governing bodies have observed this upsurge at all levels of the game and noted that more coaches and players are advocating this method. The decision to act now is based on a strong desire to reverse this trend and to preserve the traditional golf stroke.

“Anchored strokes have become the preferred option for a growing number of players and this has caused us to review these strokes and their impact on the game,” said Dawson. “Our concern is that anchored strokes threaten to supplant traditional putting strokes which are integral to the longstanding character of the sport.”

What it basically gives is the refined definition of what a golf stroke is by the USGA and the rationale that it was an acceptable stroke until too many people started using it.

How can those against the ban make an argument when the USGA's rationale is basically the stroke was okay until too many people started using it.   For those that used the parent analogy it's the same as a parent telling their kid, "I was okay with you going to your friends house when you only asked once or twice a month but now that you're asking a few times a week I no longer deem it acceptable for you to ever go to your friends house."

Originally Posted by jamo

To your first point, "we don't like belly putters nah nah nah nah boo boo" was not the USGA's reasoning. Read their press releases, or anything they've said since the ruling went public. To their credit, some people have made real points, like Stretch, but the vast majority of objections I've heard are misrepresentations, emotional whining, or illogical.

To your second point, people have been asking for the USGA to look at this for years.

[dave67az]

Quote:

How can those against the ban make an argument when the USGA's rationale is basically the stroke was okay until too many people started using it.   For those that used the parent analogy it's the same as a parent telling their kid, "I was okay with you going to your friends house when you only asked once or twice a month but now that you're asking a few times a week I no longer deem it acceptable for you to ever go to your friends house."

Simple: it's about preserving the traditional golf stroke.  The traditional golf stroke wasn't threatened when only a few folks were anchoring.  But the popularity of anchoring has grown to the extent that now some young golfers are taught the anchored stroke having never been taught the traditional stroke.

As long as we're using analogies, ever heard this one?  You put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out.  Put him in cold water and gradually heat it to boiling and he'll stay in until he dies.  The USGA finally woke up to the hot water and is doing something about a threat to golf traditions.  Would you prefer they wait until the traditional stroke is all-but-extinct to do something about it?

[meenman]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Simple: it's about preserving the traditional golf stroke.  The traditional golf stroke wasn't threatened when only a few folks were anchoring.  But the popularity of anchoring has grown to the extent that now some young golfers are taught the anchored stroke having never been taught the traditional stroke.

As long as we're using analogies, ever heard this one?  You put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out.  Put him in cold water and gradually heat it to boiling and he'll stay in until he dies.  The USGA finally woke up to the hot water and is doing something about a threat to golf traditions.  Would you prefer they wait until the traditional stroke is all-but-extinct to do something about it?

Who cares if the *traditional* stroke is extinct?  Are you going to cry because there are no more dinosaurs on this planet too?

Do you ever think for yourself or do you always do what the majority does and think if someone does something different that it should be banned.

Obviously anchoring is thought to be a good idea if it is growing - it shouldnt matter if kids do not putt the same way their grandparents did - maybe they shouldve stopped the automobile as it grew too so we could all ride around on horse and buggies all day long (to preserve *tradition* of course.)

[Stretch]

The traditional stroke will never be "all-but-extinct" for the simple reason that the overwhelming majority of golfers putt better with it than with an anchored stroke. As with the groove rule, the USGA's action on this issue was attempting to solve a problem that never really existed. And this is now their own fundamental problem. Every organization has a limited stock of credibility and influence. Consistently expend these in the wrong places (or on the wrong issues) and your stakeholders begin to regard you as irrelevant.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by meenman

Who cares if the *traditional* stroke is extinct?  Are you going to cry because there are no more dinosaurs on this planet too?

Do you ever think for yourself or do you always do what the majority does and think if someone does something different that it should be banned.

Obviously anchoring is thought to be a good idea if it is growing - it shouldnt matter if kids do not putt the same way their grandparents did - maybe they shouldve stopped the automobile as it grew too so we could all ride around on horse and buggies all day long (to preserve *tradition* of course.)

Wow, really?

I guess the appropriate juvenile argument on my part would be "well, are YOU gonna cry because you can't use an anchored stroke?"

Can we stick to something a little more mature please?  Is that too much to ask?

I imagine you might have no problem with the game evolving to match our current technology, including electronically enhanced clubs that guarantee you always return the club to the address position on the forward swing, balls with GPS locators so you never lose one again and always know the distance to the pin, balls with dimple patterns that make it impossible to slice/hook...personally I'm against that and it's also against the USGA's motto "For the good of the game".  Not the golfer.  THE GAME.

And clearly I never think for myself.  I'm supposed to think for myself?  So will you please tell me what I should think for myself? (I feel like I'm in a "Life of Brian" scene)

[newtogolf]

I use lids on my pots to keep the frogs from jumping out but that's a nice analogy I'm sure I'll use somewhere one day.

As for golf or life something either is or isn't, you can't be a little pregnant or dead, you either follow the rules of golf or don't.  Was there ever a time that it was acceptable for a few pro golfers to cheat?

You are giving me traditionalist arguments but not addressing the fact that for over 20 years the stroke was deemed to be a legal putting motion.  Nothing inherent to the anchored putting stroke has changed over the last 20 years except for the number of people using it and the success professional golfers using an anchored stroke have enjoyed recently (especially in the Majors).

IMO the USGA needs to acknowledge it failed to do it's job in the past by not banning the anchored stroke when it was first used, which to date I have not heard them do.  Otherwise they leave themselves open to the criticism they face today by those that want to see the rule overturned (which I do not but understand the frustration of those that do).

Originally Posted by dave67az

Simple: it's about preserving the traditional golf stroke.  The traditional golf stroke wasn't threatened when only a few folks were anchoring.  But the popularity of anchoring has grown to the extent that now some young golfers are taught the anchored stroke having never been taught the traditional stroke.

As long as we're using analogies, ever heard this one?  You put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out.  Put him in cold water and gradually heat it to boiling and he'll stay in until he dies.  The USGA finally woke up to the hot water and is doing something about a threat to golf traditions.  Would you prefer they wait until the traditional stroke is all-but-extinct to do something about it?

[meenman]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I imagine you might have no problem with the game evolving to match our current technology, including electronically enhanced clubs that guarantee you always return the club to the address position on the forward swing, balls with GPS locators so you never lose one again and always know the distance to the pin, balls with dimple patterns that make it impossible to slice/hook...personally I'm against that and it's also against the USGA's motto "For the good of the game".  Not the golfer.  THE GAME.

The USGA may not be doing what is good for the game. The *tradition* argument is weak at best.

The rest of civilization has to adapt to changes.

The USGA needs to adapt or it and it's *traditions* will end up with the dinosaurs.

My only question is who will get to continue to anchor (because someone will be able to when this mess is done) - will it be the amateurs, the pros or both?

[SCfanatic35]

Imo they need to allow amateurs to continue using them even if the pros can't.