Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

There has not been any conclusive evidence that belly putters give an unfair advantage. The PGA or some governing body should conduct tests of say 10 ft. putts and 20 ft. putts with belly putters and conventional putters to obtain some data...

Completely unnecessary, since the basis of the proposed rule has NOTHING to do with whether anchoring confers an advantage.  "No advantage" is simply a debating point for those who oppose the proposed rule.  Basically a red herring, IMO.

And it wouldn't be very conclusive anyway.  If you have a single person as the test subject, more might go in with one putter simply because *that* person is better with *that* putter. If you have multiple test subjects and more go in with people of one putter type, it could be simply because those people are better putters regardless of what they use.

I don't think there's any way you could study it and prove which one is better. But it sure seems reasonable to assume that providing an anchor point would help. Can't imagine why anyone ever would've switched if that weren't the case.

It's moot though, since as turtleback and countless others have pointed out, "providing an advantage" is not the reason they're being banned.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Chuck Howe

I went ahead and traded in my 2 belly putters for a traditional length putter. I had already been hearing from other golfers that I was a cheater for using it. I am participating in 9 tournaments so far this year and really don't want to hear it. Afraid its going to affect my concentration.

If anchored putting is your best stroke why inhibit yourself from scoring your best in upcoming tournaments because of some misguided and clueless comments? Ask them their definition of cheating. Anchored putting has been within the rules forever and will continue to be for the next three years.

Then ask them if Ernie Els and Keegan Bradley are “cheating” during this year’s Masters.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

There has not been any conclusive evidence that belly putters give an unfair advantage. The PGA or some governing body should conduct tests of say 10 ft. putts and 20 ft. putts with belly putters and conventional putters to obtain some data...

[Mulligan Jeff]

You make a good point Turtleback per Mike Davis, Executive Director of the USGA, "The players 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." Quote unquote. In Mr. Davis' statement there was no mention of giving an unfair advantage in anchoring the club.

[Chas]

Here's another theory for you guys to ponder. Back in the high Middle Ages (14th to 15th centuries), jousting became the tournament pursuit of choice for the ambitious young knight. Prior to that, tourneys consisted mostly of a "melee" between groups of knights, which was much what it sounds like. In a joust, two knights attacked each other with lances astride their steeds, feet in stirrups (a relatively recent invention) and rear end securely placed in a deep saddle. The key point here is that the lance was always UNANCHORED in proper "sanctioned" tournaments. At some point it was shown that anchoring the lance to an appendage of the saddle provided a significant advantage in bringing down your opponent - makes sense - but this was felt to be against the rules of chivalry and hence verboten. NOTE: the analogy fails in that no clear advantage to the average player has been shown for anchoring a putter, an important distinction. But clearly, anchoring of the stick remains an unchivalrous thing to do :>)

[alkapit]

No golf club was ever intended to be anchored to the body.  I understand the attraction to steady the stroke especially as we all age.  Maybe it should be allowed on the senior tour only.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by alkapit

No golf club was ever intended to be anchored to the body.

Except for every single putter that pertains to this thread.

[Mulligan Jeff]

All this talk about the anchored putter - they say it's been around for years. How long has Bernard Langer been using it or Tim Clark - did Sandy Lyle use it? What did the media think about anchored putters when players first started using them. Is there any footage of coverage back then?? Why the big debate now?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

Why the big debate now?

Asked and answered.

Repeatedly.

[dave67az]

I swear this is beginning to look like an all-too-literal Frequently Asked Questions thread (in book form).

For those who haven't read this thread (lucky you) I'd like to preface my post with this:

The anchored ban has NOTHING to do with any advantage that anchored putting may or may not provide.  It's about whether there is a probability that anchored putting may someday be more popular than traditional putting, and what future effect this may have on the traditions of the game.  It is purely subjective, at the discretion of boards which have governed the rules of golf longer than most of us have been alive.

Now...where was I...

Having established that (a) some pros have stated that they feel anchored putting provides an unfair advantage, but (b) most of the pros who stated this opinion (few exceptions) haven't switched, I had previously stated that I believed they hadn't switched because they thought the stroke was inappropriate.  I had previously used the word "illegal" instead of "inappropriate" which was a mistake on my part.  Obviously the stroke isn't "illegal" by definition, otherwise there would be no need to modify existing rules in order to band the stroke.

In any case, I've since changed my opinion that the reason they hadn't switched was because of some ethical reasons.  After a lot of reading, I've decided the case is probably far simpler than that.

Some in this thread have stated that if the anchored stroke provides an advantage then everyone would be switching.  I disagree.

If you listen to the testimonials of nearly every golfer who has explained why he switched to the anchored putter, a common theme seems to arise.  The golfer was having trouble with his putting (often it was the "yips") and was looking for a way to improve.  From a physics standpoint, a stable axis point minimizes the effects of those involuntary muscle contractions in the "yips".  I believe this is exactly what the pros are talking about when they say it provides an "unfair advantage".

So why haven't they ALL switched?

Well, if you don't have a problem with the "yips" you really don't need to switch.  If you aren't struggling with your putting, why would you switch to something else?

Is there any evidence of any of this?  Well, no, of course not.  Anyone who understands the scientific method must realize that it can't be applied to many sports because of many factors, the most significant (in my opinion) is that there are too many uncontrollable variables.  There's also no way you can get a large enough sample size for any results to be considered valid.

The only evidence we have is personal testimony, and there are pro golfers who have told the story of how they were struggling with their putting and improved almost instantly (without a lot of additional practice) upon switching to the anchored stroke.  Unfortunately even this doesn't mean anything because what works for one person doesn't always work for someone else.  My irons are considered "game improvement" irons and I'm sure they work a lot better for me than muscle-backs would.  But I'm pretty sure in the hands of Tiger or Rory that they would cease to be "game improvement" irons.

While I used to think the anchored stroke DID provide an advantage, I changed my mind.  It may help cure golfers who suffer from specific problems (just as my irons will compensate for off-center or fat contact) but it's not going to do much for the majority of the golfers, in my opinion.

This would explain quite simply why more pros haven't switched.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So yeah, I was wrong when I said they hadn't switched because they thought it was "illegal".  That was something I read into their comments which I now believe was never there.

Sorry for any of you who have pacemakers or a history of heart disease.  I realize you aren't used to seeing someone admit they were wrong or actually admit that they've changed their opinions because of these discussions.  I'll try not to do it again.

[Mulligan Jeff]

And to think they made Sam Snead change from pendulum stroke!

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

And to think they made Sam Snead change from pendulum stroke!

I don't get your point.  Sorry.

Are you saying the croquet method, straddling the line of the putt, should be okay in your opinion?

[Mulligan Jeff]

Doesn't appear to give any advantage...

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

And to think they made Sam Snead change from pendulum stroke!

It isn't a pendulum stroke, it's a croquet stroke and he straddled to the line to make it.  Just like the anchored stroke, it goes against what is seen as a traditional golf swing.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Curious did governing bodies deem the stroke unfair advantage or against traditional golf swing?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

Curious did governing bodies deem the stroke unfair advantage or against traditional golf swing?

Dude, seriously?

Read.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

Doesn't appear to give any advantage...

And this is relevant why?

Seriously, PLEASE read at least the last several pages or so of this thread before you comment.

At least that way you'll be up to speed on the facts.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

Curious did governing bodies deem the stroke unfair advantage or against traditional golf swing?

Google is a wonderful tool, by the way.

This one's a freebie.  Next time please do your own research?  Took me all of 5 minutes to find it.

Bobby Jones, co-founder of Augusta National and the Masters, told Snead he didn't care for the remedy Snead had found for the yips. Jones relayed his distaste to Joseph C. Dey Jr., executive director of the USGA, who had never been a Snead fan.

The wheels to outlaw croquet putting turned very fast. A little more than a month after the 1967 Masters, the USGA and Royal and Ancient GC met in Great Britain on the eve of the Walker Cup and proposed a rules change, subject to final approval by the association's executive committees, that would be effective Jan. 1, 1968: "On the putting green a player shall not make a stroke from astride, or with either foot touching the line of the putt, or an extension of that line behind the ball."

"The history of the game cries out that you play it from one side of the ball," Dey said at the time. "Bizarre stances and clubs were beginning to make it look like another game."

(http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2011/04/sam-sneads-desperate-measures-on-the-greens.html)