Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Chas]

And there is no flintier rock or harder place than that. Nice post turtleback.

[iacas]

Ernie is using the short putter this week, but will anchor again at Augusta National.

Quote:

"But even if I won here this week, I will use the belly putter at the Masters simply because the greens are so quick over there.

"But after the Masters, I'll try to use the short putter more regularly."

Remember he'd previously called it "cheating" and said he'd keep on cheating.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by iacas

Ernie is using the short putter this week, but will anchor again at Augusta National.

Remember he'd previously called it "cheating" and said he'd keep on cheating.

I'm reminded of the excuse many athletes use for their reasoning behind why they started using performance enhancing drugs.  "Everyone else is using it, and I knew it was wrong, but I needed to do the same in order to remain on a competitive level."

[meenman]

I'm reminded of the excuse many athletes use for their reasoning behind why they started using performance enhancing drugs.  "Everyone else is using it, and I knew it was wrong, but I needed to do the same in order to remain on a competitive level."

Poor example. Anchoring is currently legal and will be until a decision comes down saying it isnt. Last I knew, illegal drugs were illegal.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by meenman

Poor example. Anchoring is currently legal and will be until a decision comes down saying it isnt. Last I knew, illegal drugs were illegal.

You have some serious moral issues if you think it's okay for a guy to say he thinks something is cheating and then go ahead and do it anyway.

His words...not mine.

Either he was lying about saying he thought it was cheating, or he's now cheating by using a long putter.  Pretty simple.

[meenman]

You have some serious moral issues if you think it's okay for a guy to say he thinks something is cheating and then go ahead and do it anyway. His words...not mine. Either he was lying about saying he thought it was cheating, or he's now cheating by using a long putter.  Pretty simple.

Moral issues? Just because he originally called it cheating does not make it fact, just like your uninformed opinion is far from fact. Bottom line, anchoring is legal and may possibly be illegal in 2016, until then, there is nothing wrong with a man admitting his own mistake, even if it was through action. If you have never changed your mind, then I guess you are just better than the rest of us.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

Ernie is using the short putter this week, but will anchor again at Augusta National.

Remember he'd previously called it "cheating" and said he'd keep on cheating.

Originally Posted by meenman

Poor example. Anchoring is currently legal and will be until a decision comes down saying it isnt. Last I knew, illegal drugs were illegal.

Originally Posted by dave67az

You have some serious moral issues if you think it's okay for a guy to say he thinks something is cheating and then go ahead and do it anyway.

His words...not mine.

Either he was lying about saying he thought it was cheating, or he's now cheating by using a long putter.  Pretty simple.

Wait, time out.  I'm with Meenman on this one.

If I recall correctly Tiger Woods said a very similar thing in regards to them playing lift, clean and place during a tournament awhile back.  He called it "lift, clean and cheat."  Of course, he still did it, just like all of the rest of them.

Granted, I just teed it up for you guys to make all of the Tiger Woods/no morals jokes you want, but come on.  Just because a guy says that something is illegal that clearly is not doesn't mean he has no morals.  It just means he is wrong.

I can say right now that I think it's illegal to drink soda while driving.  It doesn't mean that if I go and do it later that all of a sudden I have no morals.  That's silly.

And, Dave, to your last point ... isn't he allowed a change of heart?  Have you never changed your mind about something?  He said it once and now he has to believe that forever?  Maybe he realized that he spoke out of turn when he said that.  And it's not against the rules now, so it's not cheating.  Pretty simple if you ask me.

[Edit:  Sorry was still writing while Meenman posted, didn't mean to repeat]

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Wait, time out.  I'm with Meenman on this one.

If I recall correctly Tiger Woods said a very similar thing in regards to them playing lift, clean and place during a tournament awhile back.  He called it "lift, clean and cheat."  Of course, he still did it, just like all of the rest of them.

Granted, I just teed it up for you guys to make all of the Tiger Woods/no morals jokes you want, but come on.  Just because a guy says that something is illegal that clearly is not doesn't mean he has no morals.  It just means he is wrong.

I can say right now that I think it's illegal to drink soda while driving.  It doesn't mean that if I go and do it later that all of a sudden I have no morals.  That's silly.

And, Dave, to your last point ... isn't he allowed a change of heart?  Have you never changed your mind about something?  He said it once and now he has to believe that forever?  Maybe he realized that he spoke out of turn when he said that.  And it's not against the rules now, so it's not cheating.  Pretty simple if you ask me.

[Edit:  Sorry was still writing while Meenman posted, didn't mean to repeat]

Yes, Tiger did indeed do what EVERYONE did in order to level the playing field.  And to you that's the same as one guy saying something is "cheating" and then going out and doing it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Let's look at the timeline here.  Ernie comes out and says he thinks it's cheating.  The R&A; comes out and says it's not a legal stroke.  The USGA analyzes their argument and agrees that it's not a legal stroke.  Ernie then states that he's going to anchor.

Does he still think it's cheating?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Could he have changed his mind?  Sure.  Does that all of the sudden make it a legal stroke?  Nope.

You guys are focusing on this 2016 thing like it's an actual "stroke" now and will suddenly stop being a "stroke" then.  That is NOT the case.  The fact is, it's not a stroke NOW and according to the R&A; and USGA it has NEVER been an actual stroke, but ENFORCEMENT of it won't begin until 2016.  Just because they've said that enforcement won't go into effect until a few years from now doesn't mean that an anchored stroke is any more a stroke now than it will be then.  It just means that it won't be enforced until then.

There's a HUGE difference.  I'm surprised you guys don't see that.

I'm kind of baffled that they can say something isn't, by their definition, a "stroke" but continue to allow it until the next set of rules is published.  If they've interpreted "fairly struck" to mean the club can't be anchored to the body then I can't see a logical reason to wait a few years to actually act on that interpretation.  Anchored putters are going to have to adapt at some time, whether it's right now or 3 years from now.

Yes, I've changed my mind.  But hear this...if I was in the public spotlight as much as a pro athlete, and I called something "cheating", I can GUARANTEE you that I'd come out with some sort of statement before being so bold as to start doing the same thing I called "cheating".

I guess it goes back to the point I made on another thread...if you say you're going to do something, stick to it and follow through.  That's your responsibility.  If that little responsibility is a little too tough for you to handle, I feel sorry for the people around you in life who thought you were trustworthy.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dave67az

There's a HUGE difference.  I'm surprised you guys don't see that.

Well, you're kind of failing to see the difference between someone having the opinion that something *should* be illegal, and *actually* being illegal. When someone refers to the anchored stroke (or lift/clean/place) as "cheating", obviously they mean they think it should be cheating, even though the rules don't define it that way. Since the rules allow it, it's clearly *not* cheating, and the people calling it so, as a figure of speech, know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

I'm kind of baffled that they can say something isn't, by their definition, a "stroke" but continue to allow it until the next set of rules is published.

They can define things however they want. That's totally separate from saying whether what they've defined is illegal or not. In this case, they've defined anchoring now, and are going to change the rules to make it illegal later. I don't see why that would be baffling. (Especially because there are many good reasons for doing that.)

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Granted, I just teed it up for you guys to make all of the Tiger Woods/no morals jokes you want, but come on.  Just because a guy says that something is illegal that clearly is not doesn't mean he has no morals.  It just means he is wrong.

I can say right now that I think it's illegal to drink soda while driving.  It doesn't mean that if I go and do it later that all of a sudden I have no morals.  That's silly.

It may not mean you have NO morals, but it does mean you're willing to do something you feel is wrong because you feel justified in doing so based on some other rationale.  So, yes, Ernie is either justifying his "cheating" or he has decided it is no longer "cheating."  There is only one or the other.

This example resonates directly with me: I feel strongly that it is cheating and if you ever catch me doing it, I would be choosing to cheat based on some other justification (i.e., these greens are tough, or everybody else is doing it).

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I'm reminded of the excuse many athletes use for their reasoning behind why they started using performance enhancing drugs.  "Everyone else is using it, and I knew it was wrong, but I needed to do the same in order to remain on a competitive level."

Originally Posted by dave67az

Yes, Tiger did indeed do what EVERYONE did in order to level the playing field.  And to you that's the same as one guy saying something is "cheating" and then going out and doing it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa ... you have got to be kidding me Dave?  (I haven't even got past this line in your post - I will go read the rest of it - but I have to respond to this right now.

You wrote the top post less than an hour before you wrote the bottom one.  WTF???

And, specifically regarding the bold ... Yes, THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  You know why?  Because Tiger "said something was cheating and then went out and did it."

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Well, you're kind of failing to see the difference between someone having the opinion that something *should* be illegal, and *actually* being illegal. When someone refers to the anchored stroke (or lift/clean/place) as "cheating", obviously they mean they think it should be cheating, even though the rules don't define it that way. Since the rules allow it, it's clearly *not* cheating, and the people calling it so, as a figure of speech, know that.

They can define things however they want. That's totally separate from saying whether what they've defined is illegal or not. In this case, they've defined anchoring now, and are going to change the rules to make it illegal later. I don't see why that would be baffling. (Especially because there are many good reasons for doing that.)

So what you're telling me is that you don't see anything wrong with someone saying that they think something should be illegal and then going out and doing it anyway.

Again, if I had a change of heart and no longer thought it should be illegal, and if I was in the public eye as much as pro athletes, I'd be a little more concerned with how it would make me look.  But then again, you guys have made it pretty clear that you don't think it makes a person look bad to act against what they've said their personal beliefs are, so I'm not even sure it matter to you.

There has always been a rule that the ball must be fairly struck at, so it's not like it's a new rule.  They've made it clear that anchoring is NOT fairly striking at the ball.  Regardless of when they decide to enforce it, if you continue to do it then you're not fairly striking at the ball.  How is this not clear?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Whoa, whoa, whoa ... you have got to be kidding me Dave?  (I haven't even got past this line in your post - I will go read the rest of it - but I have to respond to this right now.

You wrote the top post less than an hour before you wrote the bottom one.  WTF???

And, specifically regarding the bold ... Yes, THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.  You know why?  Because Tiger "said something was cheating and then went out and did it."

You're right, and I was wrong...they are exactly the same thing.  When I wrote it I was going to go into detail about how not everyone is using anchoring so Ernie can't use that excuse, but then decided not to.  In the end it came off sounding stupid and I agree with you...as stated they are exactly the same thing.  Someone saying one thing and then doing another.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

You're right, and I was wrong...they are exactly the same thing.  When I wrote it I was going to go into detail about how not everyone is using anchoring so Ernie can't use that excuse, but then decided not to.  In the end it came off sounding stupid and I agree with you...as stated they are exactly the same thing.  Someone saying one thing and then doing another.

No worries, I've done that too. :)  I've said this before on another long thread (heck, it could have been this one too) ... if somebody wanted to take the time and go back, I'm sure they could find me contradicting myself a lot.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I kind of agree with sacm ... him saying it's cheating is more him admitting that he thinks it probably should be cheating.  There are a lot of situations where you can find a sort of loophole around a rule that is a grey area.  Tiger Woods (him again? ;)) getting a bunch of big guys in the crowd to help him move a 1/2 ton boulder out of the way of his shot several years back in Phoenix (I think) was perfectly within the rules.  But it did seem a little shady, especially when you consider the fact that it's quite possible that he's the only guy with enough fans out there to do it.  Some journeyman pro with 8 people in his gallery has to chip out sideways and lose a stroke.  Does that make what Tiger did 'cheating?'  Definitely not.  But I bet if you asked you could find a lot of guys (perhaps even Tiger himself) who might refer to it as such.

[dave67az]

From July 22, 2012.  It's things like this that make me lose respect for people.  On one hand you say that something is wrong, but then you try to rationalize it and go ahead and do it anyway.  I realize I'm in the minority here, but these things are important to me.  It's the foundation on which I've built my life, taught to me from the day I was born.

http://www.putterzone.com/2012/07/els-beat-cheat-competition.html

Did Ernie Els “cheat” his way to a British Open victory today?

Els, who was famously outspoken against the belly putter until he decided to use one himself , recently defended his switch by stating, “As long as it’s legal, I’ll keep cheating like the rest of them.”

Els once called for an outright ban on the belly putter, stating that anchoring the club to the body gives the golfer an unfair advantage. “Nerves and the skill of putting are part of the game,” he said.

But last year, with his putting woes mounting, Els made the switch to a belly putter.  He certainly gets points for honesty with his “cheating” comment. He didn’t pretend to have a change of heart. He just decided that if he couldn’t beat them, he’d join them. “Nothing should be anchored to your body, and I believe I still believe that,” he said. “I was in such a state that I felt that I needed to change something, which I did.”

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

No worries, I've done that too. :)  I've said this before on another long thread (heck, it could have been this one too) ... if somebody wanted to take the time and go back, I'm sure they could find me contradicting myself a lot.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I kind of agree with sacm ... him saying it's cheating is more him admitting that he thinks it probably should be cheating.  There are a lot of situations where you can find a sort of loophole around a rule that is a grey area.  Tiger Woods (him again? ;)) getting a bunch of big guys in the crowd to help him move a 1/2 ton boulder out of the way of his shot several years back in Phoenix (I think) was perfectly within the rules.  But it did seem a little shady, especially when you consider the fact that it's quite possible that he's the only guy with enough fans out there to do it.  Some journeyman pro with 8 people in his gallery has to chip out sideways and lose a stroke.  Does that make what Tiger did 'cheating?'  Definitely not.  But I bet if you asked you could find a lot of guys (perhaps even Tiger himself) who might refer to it as such.

But see, here's the problem.  If you truly believe something should be considered cheating, as Ernie stated (and Tiger in your example) exactly what thought process allows you to then go out and do it anyway?  I realize a certain notorious troll may label me as a "goodie two shoes" for actually acting out of conviction rather than rationalizing my convictions enough to allow me to do what everyone else is doing, even if I think it's wrong.   But unless I've led some sort of sheltered existence in the military (and maybe I have) where I just haven't been exposed to what most "real people" are truly like, surely the majority of people out there have a little more personal integrity than this.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

From July 22, 2012.  It's things like this that make me lose respect for people.  On one hand you say that something is wrong, but then you try to rationalize it and go ahead and do it anyway.  I realize I'm in the minority here, but these things are important to me.  It's the foundation on which I've built my life, taught to me from the day I was born.

http://www.putterzone.com/2012/07/els-beat-cheat-competition.html

Did Ernie Els “cheat” his way to a British Open victory today?

Els, who was famously outspoken against the belly putter until he decided to use one himself, recently defended his switch by stating, “As long as it’s legal, I’ll keep cheating like the rest of them.”

Els once called for an outright ban on the belly putter, stating that anchoring the club to the body gives the golfer an unfair advantage. “Nerves and the skill of putting are part of the game,” he said.

But last year, with his putting woes mounting, Els made the switch to a belly putter.  He certainly gets points for honesty with his “cheating” comment. He didn’t pretend to have a change of heart. He just decided that if he couldn’t beat them, he’d join them. “Nothing should be anchored to your body, and I believe I still believe that,” he said. “I was in such a state that I felt that I needed to change something, which I did.”

I totally appreciate your opinion, but I still fail to see anything wrong with this.  Just because he feels that it should be illegal does not mean that he should be expected to play by a different set of rules as everybody else.

Here's another example:  I bet you could find managers of American League baseball teams out there that feel that the DH should not be allowed in baseball.  Does that mean that they should make their pitchers hit?  Of course not, that would be absurd.

I think we need tax reform.  Am I immoral for taking all of the breaks offered me until then?  Nope.

Or how about this ... Jack Nicklaus is one of many who strongly feels they need to roll back the ball to reign in distance.  When he golfs, if he's not using a balata from 1980, is he an immoral cheater?  Again, nope.

See where I am coming from?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Well, you're kind of failing to see the difference between someone having the opinion that something *should* be illegal, and *actually* being illegal. When someone refers to the anchored stroke (or lift/clean/place) as "cheating", obviously they mean they think it should be cheating, even though the rules don't define it that way. Since the rules allow it, it's clearly *not* cheating, and the people calling it so, as a figure of speech, know that.

They can define things however they want. That's totally separate from saying whether what they've defined is illegal or not. In this case, they've defined anchoring now, and are going to change the rules to make it illegal later. I don't see why that would be baffling. (Especially because there are many good reasons for doing that.)

So what you're telling me is that you don't see anything wrong with someone saying that they think something should be illegal and then going out and doing it anyway.

Yes. You have to understand we're talking about the rules of a game .  I may not think it should be legal for a rook to move an unlimited number of spaces, but that's the rule. It's pretty idiotic to say "I'm only going to move it like a pawn" in order to stick to some internal personal principle.