Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[jamo]

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.

Oh come on. Not even you can believe that's half true.

[phan52]

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

Your avatar is very appropriate, BTW. Tissue?

[meenman]

Originally Posted by jamo

Oh come on. Not even you can believe that's half true.

Slight exaggeration? maybe

But I'm not that far off.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by meenman

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.

That's just stupid.

Posts like this put you very close to being restricted from the thread.

[David in FL]

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.

A friendly word of advice. Re-read your posts before hitting "submit" to make sure they reflect that which you actually believe , or you run the risk of being viewed as simply another kook.....

[Mordan]

An article from Sports Illustrated published in 1967, with many interesting parallels.

Quote:

Never in the 70 years that the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews and the United States Golf Association have been the guardians of golf's traditions and the arbiters of the sport's rules, equipment, ethics and etiquette have the two organizations made quite so bold a stroke as they did last week. Backing up their decision with words like "appalled" and "travesty of the game" and "aberrations," the USGA and the R&A; outlawed the increasingly popular croquet style of putting, and all kinds of unusual putters as well. To millions of hands that quake over four-footers, this blow for esthetics felt like a karate chop.

The ruling, which takes effect in January 1968, was a venture into new territory, for always in the past the USGA 's and the R&A;'s concern for good form has been a concern for good manners, not for the technical execution of the swing. Now, for the first time in golfing history, the game's ruling bodies were telling a man how he had to hit the ball. The essence of the rule is that not only does a golfer have to try to sink a putt, he has to look good doing it.

"We made the decision with great reluctance," says USGA Executive Director Joseph C. Dey, "but we felt it was the only way to eliminate the unconventional styles that have developed in putting. The game of golf was becoming bizarre. It was some other game, part croquet, part shuffleboard and part the posture of Mohammedan prayer."

Variations of the croquet style are used by Sam Snead—the most notorious of the Mohammedans—Touring Pros Bob Duden and Dean Refram, USGA President Ward Foshay, two former captains of St. Andrews and countless amateurs who have taken to it, instead of drink, to cure their putting wobbles. Snead, who shot a 64 on his 55th birthday last weekend while using his stooping croquet technique, says, "I putt better this cockeyed way. Not too many people can bend over quite as well as I can, but I think it is good for old golfers. They don't have to coordinate two hands, only one."

Dean Refram began putting the croquet way when a doctor told him his eyes did not focus along the same line. Standing astride the ball, he found he could sight his putts better.

But Joe Dey contends that the success of the technique in steadying nerves or curing optical ills does not justify its use. "Should you make allowances in a sport for physical peculiarities or infirmities?" he asks rhetorically. "I think not. The way golf clubs were originally made, with the shaft attached to the heel, indicates that the game was always meant to be played from one side or the other."

There is nothing new about facing the problem of putting head on. A player showed up at the first U.S. Amateur Championship in Newport, R.I. in 1895 with a billiard cue which he used for a putter. Soon thereafter the USGA scratched that idea, ruling that the cue did not conform to golf equipment standards. In 1904, however, the British made the mistake of allowing three-time U.S. Amateur Champion Walter J. Travis to use an unorthodox center-shafted putter in their Amateur tournament. Travis won the tournament. The British had hardly handed Travis his trophy before they banned his club and all similar travesties. But the USGA , perhaps influenced by the fact that an American had finally been able to win a British championship, began allowing some deviations from the traditional design of putters. Finally in 1951 the Royal and Ancient and the USGA met to standardize the Rules of Golf, and the British agreed to allow the use of USGA -approved putters.

Today there are innumerable different types of putters registered with the patent office in Washington , and hundreds of them have USGA approval. But many certified models, including the croquet-style putter, will now be outlawed. Among the stipulations announced last week by the USGA and the R&A;, for example, is one that requires club shafts "to be substantially straight and plain in form and generally circular in cross-section." In those cases "where the shaft of a putter is attached to the head at a point other than the heel" a certain angle will be specified.

These radical adjustments in the specifications of putters will have immediate consequences for golf-club manufacturers who find their putters no longer conform to USGA standards. They are not going to please club pros and retail stores who have large stocks of weirdly shaped clubs.

The USGA says its new rule is justified for "the good of the game." Joe Dey has said, in effect, that in the past the USGA approved too many kinds of putters. "Manufacturers are always on the make for money," he says. "They come up with gadgets and gimmicks. The aberrations have grown. Once you start down the primrose path you are in trouble. I feel we were too far down the path."

The deputy secretary of the Royal and Ancient, Neil Loudon, puts it even more strongly: "The danger signal was evident after American professionals began using croquet putters and that style of putting. When it first started, only a few elderly crackpots who had got the jitters used the method. It is absurd. You might as well lie on the green and use the end of the putter like a billiard cue to pot the ball. These are things we can do without. I have seen shafts with the most extraordinary kinks in them. The bottom of one looked more like a trombone than a golf club."

But the other aspect of the new ruling—how you have to hit the ball—is causing more controversy. It says, in effect, that you cannot stand on or astride the line of the putt or any extension of that line. (One immediate hazard arises with the tap-in putt, which will always have to be stroked from a normal position to avoid a two-stroke penalty.)The rule has already been widely criticized by the pros. "I don't think golf is the USGA 's personal baby," says Snead. "I think they changed the rule because they didn't like the looks of me putting at the Masters. Some people got talking. They'd say, 'My God, look at old Sam. He's playing croquet.' I think it's my business how I stroke the ball. It hasn't been proved that the croquet way is not the best way to putt. I think if I practiced it diligently I'd be a better putter than I ever was before." Bob Shave Jr., who plays with a croquet type of putter that he calls "The Last Straw," said at the Oklahoma City Open last week that he may have to leave the tour when the new putting rule goes into effect. His wrists, he said, begin to jump spasmodically when he uses a conventional putter.

Gary Player , who has had enough putting troubles to make him try just about everything but the croquet style, says, "I don't believe you should put a man down to hitting the ball one way." Jack Nicklaus agrees. When he heard about the new rule he said, "This is ridiculous. Why don't they just let us tee up the ball and play it?"

No British professional uses the croquet method at present, but the 1964 British PGA champion, Tony Grubb, tried it for a few weeks last summer. He took it up, he said, "in desperation when my putting became so bad that I considered quitting the game. It helped so much I finished eighth in one tournament and second in the next. It is definitely better from six feet or closer. The club is upright, and this makes the stroke mechanically sounder. But it is not so good from a distance. You tend to leave yourself more putts of around four feet. I found using the croquet putter rested my mind. I abandoned it at the British Open, but it has been comforting to think I could return to it in an emergency."

There is little likelihood of a pro rebellion over the issue, and the PGA is expected to enforce the rule on the tour, even if the Royal and Ancient and the USGA , both amateur bodies, seem to be almost literally calling the professionals' shots.

In fact, it is the amateurs who will suffer most. A noteworthy one who is doing his suffering silently is USGA President Ward Foshay, who began using the croquet style some time ago. He is now reading Henry Cotton in his search for a new way to putt.

But Prescott Bush , a former USGA president who has putted from an astride position for years, has remained a vociferous advocate of the method. "It simply makes golf enjoyable and takes away the suffering," he says. "I mean the real suffering that comes from that lack of confidence, that panic on the backstroke, that thrust called the yip. I believe it is good for the game of golf to have more people enjoy it. We should encourage any grip or stance that will add to the pleasure of the play."

One thing that the USGA and the Royal and Ancient, concerned as they are with the esthetics of golf, certainly are learning this week is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and nothing is more beautiful to a golfer than the putt that drops.

[ay33660]

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.

Wow its Tigers fault.

Thanks for the insight.

[ay33660]

Originally Posted by meenman

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.

Do you really believe this?

I often think the USGA and R&A; are run by a bunch of morons but even I don't think this would be the end result of the anchoring ban.

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by Chas

I admire your tenacity Sir ......

Well, we've explicitly disqualified data as a means of evaluating the wisdom of this decision, so all we're left with is opinions. And you know what they say about those ...

[Chas]

Meenman:  your argument above is known in the trade as a "reductio ad absurdam", only in your case you have used it (unwittingly) against yourself instead of against your opponent.  Why? Because the consequences you posit are patently absurd!

But you are right when you say that the view that anchoring goes against the true nature of the game is a matter of opinion.  It certainly doesn't involve a law of nature.  But then again golf is a man-made activity.  All of the rules that govern golf are essentially "matters of opinion" that have been agreed upon and codified.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Well, we've explicitly disqualified data as a means of evaluating the wisdom of this decision, so all we're left with is opinions. And you know what they say about those ...

I forget.   What do they say?

(already wish I hadn't asked .... )

Mordan: thanks for that quote, very interesting.  I occasionally play a bit of croquet myself - if anchoring is allowed I say " BRING BACK CROQUET PUTTING !"  I'd have the jump on you guys, for one thing.

Heck maybe I could even get the manufacturers to back me up, there's gold in them there weirdly shaped putters ....

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Fictitious and not be to taken seriously? Why, because you happen to disagree with it? Its called an opinion.

But thanks for driving home the core difference in the matter.

One side is self-righteous and, despite zero evidence that anchored putting is an advantage, they want it done away with and wrap themselves in the shroud of upholding the integrity of the game.

The other side simply wants golfers to be able to continue to choose either putting method (like they have for the last 40+ years).

Which side is more open-minded and looking out for the enjoyment/betterment of the game?

No what makes it fictitious is that you are making false statements to set up a straw man and then swat it by completely misrepresenting the basis on which the new rules proposal was based.up

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

The “it gives people an unfair advantage” is one of the pro-ban arguments that has been voiced (by some) on this thread. My statement was in response to that.

I still stand by the conviction that, since there is no unfair advantage in using an achored stroke, golfers should be given the choice of either putting method.

It is what the USGA/R&A; has said that matters, not what people on a message board say.

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.

In reality, my guess is that the motivation is 50/50 aesthetic/practical advantage.

I don't think it is advantage so much as some perceiving it as an advantage.  When some achieve high profile success with a new method, then regardless of whether it was an advantage or not many many people will rush out to copy it.  I think THAT is what the R&A; and then the USGA were concerned about.  It wasn't so much that anchoring guys winning majors were really thought to have an advantage, it was that after that it was clear that advantage or not this was going to become a more popular method.  When the long putters started primarily on the senior tour who emulated them?  Older guys with yips.  And TPTB were content to leave it alone because it was not huge numbers and it was not perceived as an attractive method by most golfers in their prime.  But as it got used by younger and younger pro golfers, and then by major winners it just got to such a high profile that TPTB could no longer ignore it.

That is why the silly arguments about a small handful of guys who used it decades ago or the silly picture Bradley is so proud of having found at Riviera of the guy anchoring 100 years ago are just besides the point.  The rules are not going to be changed, generally, over low profile occasional discontinuities.  But once something becomes too high profile or too prevalent they have to and will act.  And they are doing.  Just as they had to act when the greatest tournament winner in PGATour history started using croquet putting - he was just too high profile to let it go.

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.

Hard to believe someone would join the board just to make such a foolish comment.

I found it ironic that Finchem addressed the issue in terms of the PGATour disagreeing with the USGA about what is good for golf.  I don't believe for a minute that any part of the focus of the PGATour is what is best for golf - they care only about what is best for their members and the vendors that sponsor their members.  Because if the PGATour wanted to do something that was for the good of the game they could unilaterally set AND ENFORCE slow play standards with stroke penalties what would ripple throughout the golf world and really do something positive for golf.

[Fourputt]

For those who are so stuck on this advantage thing. Some players may see some improvement in their putting by switching to an anchored stroke.  Note all of the qualifiers in that statement.  This doesn't mean that they gain a competitive advantage over anyone else, but it may prove to be a personal advantage over their previous putting stroke.  It's entirely possible that they will simply be a better bad putter.  They may improve on short putts but lose ground on long ones, ending up with a minimal gain, or even net loss, and not even realize it unless they keep careful statistics.

The only certainty is that anchoring removes a variable from the stroke (which is the whole point of the proposed change), therefore some players may achieve a statistical improvement in their putting when compared to their own previous performance. However, it doesn't seem to work for everyone, and it certainly isn't a panacea for bad putting.  Learning good fundamentals is a more certain cure for putting woes.

[meenman]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

For those who are so stuck on this advantage thing.  Some players may see some improvement in their putting by switching to an anchored stroke.  Note all of the qualifiers in that statement.  This doesn't mean that they gain a competitive advantage over anyone else, but it may prove to be a personal advantage over their previous putting stroke.  It's entirely possible that they will simply be a better bad putter.  They may improve on short putts but lose ground on long ones, ending up with a minimal gain, or even net loss, and not even realize it unless they keep careful statistics.

The only certainty is that anchoring removes a variable from the stroke (which is the whole point of the proposed change), therefore some players may achieve a statistical improvement in their putting when compared to their own previous performance.  However, it doesn't seem to work for everyone, and it certainly isn't a panacea for bad putting.  Learning good fundamentals is a more certain cure for putting woes.

Nicely said - I will stand by my statement that the only reason I am better anchoring is because I practice more.

[Chas]

turtleback: that is indeed an entertaining irony.  Thanks for pointing it out.

[phan52]

Nicely said - I will stand by my statement that the only reason I am better anchoring is because I practice more.

I would agree with that. In that regard I feel bad for guys like Bradley and Simpson who have practiced and played with anchored strokes over the years (not so much guys like Els who can transition easier). But I also believe that, once they begin to practice a lot with the the traditional stroke, they will be fine.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by phan52

I would agree with that. In that regard I feel bad for guys like Bradley and Simpson who have practiced and played with anchored strokes over the years (not so much guys like Els who can transition easier). But I also believe that, once they begin to practice a lot with the the traditional stroke, they will be fine.

His experience flies in the face of what Ernie Els said about how it's like "cheating." Ernie was putting in a LOT of time putting with his conventional putters, and got better quickly when he switched.

Still, this whole "advantage" thing is a straw man waste-of-time diversion.

[sacm3bill]

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/european-tour-will-support-anchored-putting-ban-leaving-pga-tour-odd-man-out

This article makes a lot of good points, but the primary one being that Finchem is basically just covering his bases, as a corporate politician must. He's asking the USGA to back off on the ban, but knows that the Tour would never be able to stand alone (and also knows that there's no reason to make a lot of waves when the majority of Tour players probably either support the ban or don't care either way), so will probably not fight it with any stronger statements or actions than that.  That appeases the anchorers in the Tour, to whom he can say "Hey, I tried".