Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[meenman]

Again today, paired up with some prospective members and it didnt take 3 holes for one of them to ask me what I am going to do when the club is banned.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by meenman

Again today, paired up with some prospective members and it didnt take 3 holes for one of them to ask me what I am going to do when the club is banned.

Look at the bright side ... they didn't call you a cheater, right? :)

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by meenman

Again today, paired up with some prospective members and it didnt take 3 holes for one of them to ask me what I am going to do when the club is banned.

Depending on how they ask it, it's a fair question, they might just be curious.  I don't know anyone personally that uses an anchored stroke, but I'd be curious to find out their thoughts on the potential rule change and what their plans were should it remain in place as is.

[caniac6]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The length of the putter might help but anchoring makes no difference. It does not relieve or prevent back problems. Bending over may be a problem but then how do they mark and lift the ball?

But when will people realise there is no proposal to ban the clubs.

The back thing was something I've never figured out. It would seem that the full swing would be a lot more stressful on ones back than the putting stroke. You have to bend over for every shot. And the argument about practice doesn't make sense, either. Most guys that practice putting will also practice full shots. I know i have strained my back on the range, but never on the putting green. Mabye this is simply a case of me not understanding the problem, but I think if your back is good enough to rip one right down the middle, you should be able to use a standard length putter.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Depending on how they ask it, it's a fair question, they might just be curious.  I don't know anyone personally that uses an anchored stroke, but I'd be curious to find out their thoughts on the potential rule change and what their plans were should it remain in place as is.

But this goes along with people always only knowing part of the story. Once again, even if the(proposed) ban goes through - 2016 is light years away as far as I am concerned right now.

Then again, they were from Michigan - they probably have not seen a golf course since the farce on an announcement from the USGA.

But it is hard for the common golfer to fight the man when they are clueless,

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by caniac6

This is a little off subject, but one poster said that the policies of the USGA are keeping young people away from the game. I play often, and I don't see a lot of young golfers. I play at a good course that is reasonably priced. To be honest, I don't know why young people are not playing, but I doubt they really care about the USGA.

Actually, I think that is currently on-subject, as a portion of the anti-ban argument (including that guy from TaylorMade) appears to be that the ban would hurt the growth of the game and an anchored-putting-stroke ban could eventually kill the sport.

Bull.  You are dreaming if you really think that.  It is now, and always has been, rare that people start to play golf at a young age.  They play little league and soccer, not golf, because the cost of both team sports is a fraction of what it costs to play golf.  There are summer recreational programs in most cities and towns which make soccer and baseball readily available.  All you need is a park with a ball diamond or a field with goals set up to play them.  Golf requires acres of land, constant maintenance, and a regular staff.  Even practicing costs money.  With baseball a kid can go the the park with his dad and throw the ball around, shag grounders, etc.  For soccer a kid can even practice dribbling and ball control by himself.  Two or three kids can even work up some sort of a game, and it costs nothing more than one of them has a ball.

They don't even think about playing golf unless someone in the family introduces them to it.  They need clubs that are suited to them with shorter shafts - getting equipment that fits a young person isn't like just taking an old club from the garage and turning them loose.  Then they have to be taken to a practice facility and spend time on the fundamentals and learn to make some sort of contact with the ball before they can even consider going to a golf course.  Then pay green fees and keep them in balls and tees.  Even a minimal outlay for golf is several times what it costs for the other games.

So which do you think that the average parent is going to encourage?

[Bullitt5339]

Originally Posted by caniac6

The back thing was something I've never figured out. It would seem that the full swing would be a lot more stressful on ones back than the putting stroke. You have to bend over for every shot. And the argument about practice doesn't make sense, either. Most guys that practice putting will also practice full shots. I know i have strained my back on the range, but never on the putting green. Mabye this is simply a case of me not understanding the problem, but I think if your back is good enough to rip one right down the middle, you should be able to use a standard length putter.

Actually as someone who has had multiple back surgeries, I can give you a little more insight.

While the full swing does cause a little discomfort after a full round of golf, just 30 minutes of putting practice will make me stiffen up and make my back ache.  It's probably why I don't practice enough.  So I can relate with the back problems, but I have no problems making a correct stroke with my back problems with the putter.  Does it hurt a little?  Sure, but not that bad.  More uncomfortable than anything.  But I demo'd a long putter and couldn't hit anywhere near the hole with it and I think it looks silly.  So I found a more comfortable putting stance that takes some of the stress off and I'm still using a standard putter.

If the bending over problem bothers them, there's no length requirement on the putter, just that it can't be anchored.  So they could slightly modify their current putting style and just keep the butt of the club off their chin, chest or belly.  The still wouldn't have to bend over as much.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Bull.  You are dreaming if you really think that.  It is now, and always has been, rare that people start to play golf at a young age.

I'm on several golf discussion boards and on each one there are one or two guys who have gone completely off the tracks and believe this will be the end of golf and there is no possibility that the ban will stand.  Delusion seems to be the order of the day in some circles.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I'm on several golf discussion boards and on each one there are one or two guys who have gone completely off the tracks and believe this will be the end of golf and there is no possibility that the ban will stand.  Delusion seems to be the order of the day in some circles.

We could call you delusional for the same statement - there is a chance the ban will stand, but there is also a chance it will not.  I am pretty sure any crystal ball you are reading is as clueless as the rest of us,

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Golf just tends to be a game that people pick up later in life.  Adults generally don't play baseball, football, and other sports.  When they can't do that anymore, they turn to golf, which they can play until they are very old.

Word.  That's what I've done.

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The length of the putter might help but anchoring makes no difference. It does not relieve or prevent back problems. Bending over may be a problem but then how do they mark and lift the ball?

But when will people realise there is no proposal to ban the clubs.

If politics is any indication...never, or at the earliest, not until the ban goes into effect and long-putters are still around.  People simply do NOT give up arguing against straw-men ignorantly, they simply change the subject.

Originally Posted by meenman

Again today, paired up with some prospective members and it didnt take 3 holes for one of them to ask me what I am going to do when the club is banned.

Now I see why you hear about this subject much more than anybody else: you employ a long-putter so it sparks the discussion.  That seems pretty natural, however I doubt that means it's a hot button topic for everybody that asks you about it.  It's probably general curiousity and/or small talk than anything else.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Bull.  You are dreaming if you really think that.

It sounds like you're saying it's bull if I believe in the argument that I explained.  But I don't believe in that argument, I was simply stating that I think that is the argument from those on the anti-ban side.  I think the argument itself is completely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by meenman

We could call you delusional for the same statement.

You could, but it wouldn't make it true.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Bull.  You are dreaming if you really think that.

It sounds like you're saying it's bull if I believe in the argument that I explained.  But I don't believe in that argument, I was simply stating that I think that is the argument from those on the anti-ban side.  I think the argument itself is completely ridiculous.

Sorry, i misunderstood you.

[caniac6]

It was said on "Morning Drive" this morning that the PGA Tour will make a statement against the ban. I wouldn't be suprised if the PGA of America does the same. The PGA of America needs to do the most to grow the game in order to preserve jobs. If the ban goes into effect, it won't be the end of golf, but it might be the end for some golfers. For every golfer lost, obviously, a new golfer is needed, just to break even. In my area of NC, the growth of the game is, at best, stagnet. Clubs around here have been running membership specials for years, and ,at least one private club, is allowing some public play. All courses are looking for ways to increase their bottom line, and losing golfers won't help. I think the PGA tour, protecting the welfare of their players, and the PGA of America, possibly proctecting the jobs of their members, are living in the real world. I feel that, sometimes, the USGA exists in a vacuum, and doesn't really consider how some their rulings effect the economy of the game, and may actually hurt the game they are trying to protect.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by caniac6

It was said on "Morning Drive" this morning that the PGA Tour will make a statement against the ban.

That will be pretty big news.  One of the byproducts of that, if/when it happens, is that it will cause even more confusion and create more questions than answers among amateurs.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by caniac6

It was said on "Morning Drive" this morning that the PGA Tour will make a statement against the ban. I wouldn't be suprised if the PGA of America does the same. The PGA of America needs to do the most to grow the game in order to preserve jobs. If the ban goes into effect, it won't be the end of golf, but it might be the end for some golfers. For every golfer lost, obviously, a new golfer is needed, just to break even. In my area of NC, the growth of the game is, at best, stagnet. Clubs around here have been running membership specials for years, and ,at least one private club, is allowing some public play. All courses are looking for ways to increase their bottom line, and losing golfers won't help. I think the PGA tour, protecting the welfare of their players, and the PGA of America, possibly proctecting the jobs of their members, are living in the real world. I feel that, sometimes, the USGA exists in a vacuum, and doesn't really consider how some their rulings effect the economy of the game, and may actually hurt the game they are trying to protect.

The problem with statements like that is that the amount of golfers lost due to this wouldn't even be large enough to be described as a blip.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by iacas

The problem with statements like that is that the amount of golfers lost due to this wouldn't even be large enough to be described as a blip.

I'm having a hard time imagining that ANYONE, not even one, will quit the game over this unless it is some of the hardliners who would do it out of pique, not the actual loss of anchoring.  THIS is what I mean when I say there are some anti-ban people out there that are just delusional.  "People will quit".  "The USGA will fold up".  "Golf will die".

Delusional.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

I'm having a hard time imagining that ANYONE, not even one, will quit the game over this unless it is some of the hardliners who would do it out of pique, not the actual loss of anchoring.  THIS is what I mean when I say there are some anti-ban people out there that are just delusional.  "People will quit".  "The USGA will fold up".  "Golf will die".

Delusional.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by caniac6

It was said on "Morning Drive" this morning that the PGA Tour will make a statement against the ban. I wouldn't be suprised if the PGA of America does the same. The PGA of America needs to do the most to grow the game in order to preserve jobs. If the ban goes into effect, it won't be the end of golf, but it might be the end for some golfers. For every golfer lost, obviously, a new golfer is needed, just to break even. In my area of NC, the growth of the game is, at best, stagnet. Clubs around here have been running membership specials for years, and ,at least one private club, is allowing some public play. All courses are looking for ways to increase their bottom line, and losing golfers won't help. I think the PGA tour, protecting the welfare of their players, and the PGA of America, possibly proctecting the jobs of their members, are living in the real world. I feel that, sometimes, the USGA exists in a vacuum, and doesn't really consider how some their rulings effect the economy of the game, and may actually hurt the game they are trying to protect.

And that stagnation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how one holds a putter.  Growth of golf slowed long before anyone even mentioned the possibility of a ban, and putting such a ban in place will not change that trend positively or negatively.  It is simply a non issue in that regard.  People can babble all they want to about growing the game and bringing in young people, but trying to find a causation between those things and anchored putting is like searching for a needle in a haystack when you have no reason to believe that there even is a needle in that haystack .

[canadianpro]

The anchoring ban would be impossible to enforce,,,,is my left hand touching my chest or is it 1/4 inch off it and just touching my shirt. The head of the putter swings and is not pushed or scraped....what is wrong with that?