Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by dsc123

The PGA Tour has to cave in if the USGA sticks to its guns. A lot of the players who are on the fence, or who have been going back and forth on it will probably feel more strongly against bifurcation than they do against the ban.

Nobody wants the PGA Tour to have different rules than the US Open, British Open, Euro Tour, and WGC playing with different.

Good point, and a relatively fresh addition to this tired topic :)

Originally Posted by dsc123

Ok, now this might be explosive (or ignored) but as much as I, and others, keep saying its not about the competitive advantage, it really is, isn't it?

The USGA just doesn't say that because its a losing argument for them.  They moved first, and got to frame the discussion.

It's the path of least resistance at play.  If you state there is an advantage, you create a burden-of-proof for yourself that they presumably can't definitively prove.  Any advantage is theoretical because there isn't an easy way to isolate the differences to produce empirical data.  You can avoid that discussion entirely by using other justifiable measures within your scope.

I get that the USGA and the R&A; are not calling it an advantage.    I also get that some people don't like the look of anchored putters.   What I don't get is the idea that to constitute a golf stroke, the club must be swung "freely".   I did a search for rules of golf and definitions of a stroke.

First, the entire point of this ruling is that there was never a ruling on this before.  So, yeah...you're right.  But second, the absence of the ruling before doesn't necessarily prove the absence of intent.  Presumably, when the game was created, virtually all competitors swung the club freely.  As others have pointed out, and as has happened in all competitive sports at one point or another, it's not until loopholes are realized and/or exploited that rules are enacted to forbid them.  It's an ironic combination of our lack of foresight in setting rules coupled with our competitive ingenuity in finding ways to bend rules without breaking them that leads to an ever expanding rulebook.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There was never a definition or rule limiting the number of clubs a player could carry until it was deemed necessary by the Ruling bodies for the preservation of the game.  Scooping. pushing, spooning strokes were prohibited when it became necessary for the preservation of the game.  Club form and shape, and ultimately performance, were regulated when it became necessary.  I'm sure that you can see where this is headed.  Many additions and refinements of the rules were not addressed until a problem was perceived as being detrimental to the game by the governing bodies.  They have declared the the anchored stroke is not a proper stroke, and not in keeping with the game as it has always been played.  The proliferation of various types of anchored strokes from the belly, chest, and even the chin, have forced them to further refine the definition of a stroke.  Your contention that this is somehow a capricious whim of the governing bodies is an invalid argument.

Neither is there anything "noble" about it.  It just is what they are supposed to do, to preserve our game in a way that holds as nearly as possible with the traditions of the game.

One of the definitions of "noble" is:

admirable in dignity of conception, manner of expression, execution, or composition

Under that definition, I would call preserving the game noble if that was what the ruling bodies were doing. I would even call changes made for the betterment of the game noble if it can be demonstrated how those changes actually improve the game.

I am not arguing that changes are not made for good reasons, even if those reasons are not stated.  However, in this case, the ruling bodies gave their reasons.

The reasons given (by the ruling bodies in their statements and by you as highlighted above) refer to preserving the game's past and attempt to portray the game's founders and earlier ruling bodies as having an intent that was never actually expressed or for that matter, even implied in any of their rules.   Past ruling bodies determined a need to address intent when they ruled that a stroke needed to be defined, and that the definition needed to clearly indicate that having the intent to strike the ball, even if you missed still constituted a stroke.  Since they specifically addressed intent to strike the ball, it can not be said with certainty that there was an implied intent that the stroke had to be "swung freely."

Regarding "how the game has always been played".   It is clear from the photo that anchoring was not something just thought of in the last couple of decades.  For all we know, anchoring may have been common at some clubs in the past.

Bplewis,

I agree that rules are added/changed to close loopholes.   But I also believe that innovation that results in improvements is often born from those loopholes as well.   Regardless, closing a loophole is not what the ruling bodies gave as a reason and many here have made a point of referring to the specific reasons given.   My posts go to that point.

Regarding how the game was played when created, we really don't know for sure.  Most of what we know of how golf was played is from paintings, pictures and early movie reels, all of which were made centuries after the game was invented.   Since the earliest forms of golf purportedly involved using shepherd's staffs (which were often as tall as the shepherd himself) to hit rocks into rabbit holes, it is entirely possible that anchoring was used in those early years if for no other reason than their length and weight could have made them unwieldy to control in motion if not braced against the body.  It is also possible that shorter, lighter clubs evolved later as a way to gain additional control (similar to cutting down a driver shaft from 46" to 44" for added control).   Of course, that is speculation but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

[Vic Uroda]

there was no problem with long putters until King tiger could not win any mayors. Unfortunately he has to much influence on R&A; and USGA that is not good for the interest of game of Golf. I use short putter and have tried broomstic putter but could not put any better. Just can not see any advantage using long putter. I think only bad sports use this issue as an excuse.

[Jspangler]

there was no problem with long putters until King tiger could not win any mayors. Unfortunately he has to much influence on R&A; and USGA that is not good for the interest of game of Golf. I use short putter and have tried broomstic putter but could not put any better. Just can not see any advantage using long putter. I think only bad sports use this issue as an excuse.

While I support you on the long putter ban is ridiculous. As I found a belly putter very hard to have any feeling with. But your thought that Tiger had anything to do with this just sounds stupid, and I don't even like tiger. The real reason is people started winning consistently with them on tour. Had nobody won a major with them nobody would care.

[bplewis24]

Teamroper60, you've stated your argument well.  What you've illustrated for the most part is that you find no documented, explicit evidence supporting the notion that the intent of the game was for the club to be swung freely.

I do disagree with some portions of that, but that's sorta irrelevant.  Even if we assume your position is 100% correct, you are arguing from the perspective that there is a burden of proof on the rules committee to prove the intent all along was for the club to be swung freely, and in the absence of that, it necessarily means there was intent for the ball to be struck any way imaginable. You're removing any burden to prove the intent was for the ball to be struck in any way a person wants.  Therefore, even if we accept that your argument is sound, all we've decided is that there is no way to prove intent one way or the other.

Under those circumstances, it would be within the USGA's scope to dictate to us what they believe the intent was...as they interpret the customs, history, etc.  In the case of Golf it seems like it would be easy to illustrate that swinging the club freely has been a well-established custom for a long, long time by virtually all golfers with very few exceptions.

Now, in putting, there is a growing trend with a variation to the "swinging freely" concept, which is why they are addressing it.  I don't believe they have some burden to produce a historical document from the founding fathers of golf stating that the club couldn't be anchored or must "only" be swung freely (something they could not necessarily foresee), in the same way that the founding fathers of our country wouldn't have to explicitly say that military drone strikes must follow a specific protocol, or that I should be taxed for purchases made on Amazon.com, etc., for those issues to be decided at some point in time when there is a need to address them.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Vic Uroda

there was no problem with long putters until King tiger could not win any mayors. Unfortunately he has to much influence on R&A; and USGA that is not good for the interest of game of Golf. I use short putter and have tried broomstic putter but could not put any better. Just can not see any advantage using long putter. I think only bad sports use this issue as an excuse.

To be clear, IMO that's just about the stupidest post you could make on the subject.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Teamroper60, you've stated your argument well.  What you've illustrated for the most part is that you find no documented, explicit evidence supporting the notion that the intent of the game was for the club to be swung freely.

I think Fourputt rebutted that point quite well. There was no evidence... until there was a rule proposed against it. Like MANY things in the game of golf - until it became something worth noting, it was not in the rules. That's why the original rules are so short - they hadn't encountered everything yet. He gave several examples.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I do disagree with some portions of that, but that's sorta irrelevant.  Even if we assume your position is 100% correct, you are arguing from the perspective that there is a burden of proof on the rules committee to prove the intent all along was for the club to be swung freely, and in the absence of that, it necessarily means there was intent for the ball to be struck any way imaginable. You're removing any burden to prove the intent was for the ball to be struck in any way a person wants.  Therefore, even if we accept that your argument is sound, all we've decided is that there is no way to prove intent one way or the other.

There are rules, as we all know, that govern how the ball is to be struck, and with what part of the club. So dictating some of this is not completely without precedent.

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by iacas

There are rules, as we all know, that govern how the ball is to be struck, and with what part of the club. So dictating some of this is not completely without precedent.

Agreed. It's still wrong, though.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There was never a definition or rule limiting the number of clubs a player could carry until it was deemed necessary by the Ruling bodies for the preservation of the game.  Scooping. pushing, spooning strokes were prohibited when it became necessary for the preservation of the game.  Club form and shape, and ultimately performance, were regulated when it became necessary.  I'm sure that you can see where this is headed.  Many additions and refinements of the rules were not addressed until a problem was perceived as being detrimental to the game by the governing bodies.  They have declared the the anchored stroke is not a proper stroke, and not in keeping with the game as it has always been played.  The proliferation of various types of anchored strokes from the belly, chest, and even the chin, have forced them to further refine the definition of a stroke.  Your contention that this is somehow a capricious whim of the governing bodies is an invalid argument.

Neither is there anything "noble" about it.  It just is what they are supposed to do, to preserve our game in a way that holds as nearly as possible with the traditions of the game.

After 61 pages and 1100 posts, this is one of the simplest, most accurate, and easily comprehended posts on the subject.  Those that don't understand why the USGA is taking the position they are now, should read it several times to make sure it sinks in.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

First, the entire point of this ruling is that there was never a ruling on this before.  So, yeah...you're right.  But second, the absence of the ruling before doesn't necessarily prove the absence of intent.  Presumably, when the game was created, virtually all competitors swung the club freely.  As others have pointed out, and as has happened in all competitive sports at one point or another, it's not until loopholes are realized and/or exploited that rules are enacted to forbid them.  It's an ironic combination of our lack of foresight in setting rules coupled with our competitive ingenuity in finding ways to bend rules without breaking them that leads to an ever expanding rulebook.

All very nicely put.  The only reason I'm still reading this incredibly repetitive thread is because of occasional bits of text like this.

Some basic principles about golf are in play hear, which IS interesting if - like me - you haven't taken much interest in the development of golf rules over the aeons.

p.s. same goes for many of Fourputt's excellent contributions.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Agreed. It's still wrong, though.

I admire your tenacity Sir ......

[phan52]

And if I could say that the anti-anchoring people agree that there is no advantage, why don't they mind their own business and let us anchor. This is a slippery slope you don't care if they ban anchoring - I don't care if they ban your hybrids. s.

How many times do I have to point out in this thread that they ARE NOT BANNING THE PUTTER!!! You will still be able to use a long putter.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by phan52

How many times do I have to point out in this thread that they ARE NOT BANNING THE PUTTER!!! You will still be able to use a long putter.

And where did I say that the long putter was being banned? Did you feel a need to hear yourself speak?

Look through my previous posts (and 99% of everyone else's) - no one has this misconception.

But thank you for adding absolutely nothing to this thread.

[phan52]

And where did I say that the long putter was being banned d? Did you feel a need to hear yourself speak? Look through my previous posts (and 99% of everyone else's) - no one has this misconception.  But thank you for adding absolutely nothing to this thread.

When you suggested that an equivalent was banning a hybrid. Banning a piece of eqiupment is not even close to the issue of banning the way you make a stroke.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by phan52

When you suggested that an equivalent was banning a hybrid. Banning a piece of eqiupment is not even close to the issue of banning the way you make a stroke.

It is an equivalent.

If we let the USGA start with anchoring, it will never stop.

They will not be happy until everyone is hitting balls the same way they did in the 1800s.

Then we wont even need 14 clubs, we can just putt 5-6 times until we reach the green.

All of those persimmons the old bastards long for will be forced on the rest of us - and that will make people leave the game. Making it an elitist game where no one can afford a round.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by meenman

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

When you suggested that an equivalent was banning a hybrid. Banning a piece of eqiupment is not even close to the issue of banning the way you make a stroke.

It is an equivalent.

If we let the USGA start with anchoring, it will never stop.

They will not be happy until everyone is hitting balls the same way they did in the 1800s.

Then we wont even need 14 clubs, we can just putt 5-6 times until we reach the green.

All of those persimmons the old bastards long for will be forced on the rest of us - and that will make people leave the game. Making it an elitist game where no one can afford a round.

Yeah.... uh-huh.

Any other brilliant points to make?

[phan52]

It is an equivalent. If we let the USGA start with anchoring, it will never stop. They will not be happy until everyone is hitting balls the same way they did in the 1800s. Then we wont even need 14 clubs, we can just putt 5-6 times until we reach the green. All of those persimmons the old bastards long for will be forced on the rest of us - and that will make people leave the game. Making it an elitist game where no one can afford a round.

Sorry, that is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard on this overly long thread. I really don't think we will see the return of the feathery ball or persimmon clubs. And seriously, nobody is going to quit golf because they can't anchor the club. It is not in the spirit of the game. Get over it.

[Chas]

Succinct and accurate. What are you doing in this thread? :)

[meenman]

Originally Posted by phan52

It is not in the spirit of the game.

Your opinion - and not law unless the USGA decides it (dont care about the R+A - i'll never be subject to their rules)