Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

All those manufacturers also make conventional length putters. Ping doesn’t care if you buy an anchored putter or conventional putter just so long as you buy a Ping putter.

The PGA Tour Policy Board along with the four player members took a stance that the ban is a bad idea because it is a bad idea. Maybe they care as much about the integrity of the game as USGA and R&A.;

Money talks...it is well documented that the long putters opened up a new revenue market (roughly 15% of all putter sales). That's not chump change. If you think any manufacturer really wants to close one of the fastest growing trends, then I guess we have to disagree.The same goes for representing the players who use anchoring. It really would be in bad form for any PGA player to throw another under the bus because the next time that bus may be running over you. There is somewhat of a code in this brotherhood. Honestly, I don't think that less amateurs will play golf if anchoring goes away and it won't hurt the game as they are suggesting. What it will hurt is some of the stars that have been using anchoring to make a living. Freddy, Ernie, Webb, Tim, Adam, etc. Their best argument is that it has been allowed for such a long time that a whole generation of golfers have trained using it and it could affect their wallets. I can't fathom them saying it is a bad idea because it is a bad idea and we are worried about the integrity of golf.

I will also add this. I guarantee that all the major stakeholders are paying attention to Tianlang. There is a potential for this rising star to have a tremendous influence on an untapped market.  Will his influence bring golf to this market and will there be a generation of new golfers that would just start with the belly because that's what he uses? Call it far fetched, but we all know that stars sell equipment. Why else would Nike throw money at Tiger and Rory? Is there a Nike contract in his future? Hmmm....a billion people who could be playing golf. Follow the money.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Quote:

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

And many if not all of these players are getting some bills paid by the manufacturers. Additionally these guys are a tight knit group and for one player who represents the interests of all to come out and take a position to potentially hurt someone's livelihood would not stand well with that community. When it comes to these groups, it is more about preserving financial interests over the long run.

All those manufacturers also make conventional length putters. Ping doesn’t care if you buy an anchored putter or conventional putter just so long as you buy a Ping putter.

The PGA Tour Policy Board along with the four player members took a stance that the ban is a bad idea because it is a bad idea. Maybe they care as much about the integrity of the game as USGA and R&A.;

A large portion of sales (I'd guess the majority) comes from current golfers switching putters in an attempt to putt better, as opposed to new golfers buying their first ones.  And golfers who switch are going to switch to something that's different obviously, otherwise they'd just stick with their current one. That's why there are so many different putter types to choose from. So I think manufacturers benefit from having more putter types to select from, and banning anchoring is going to virtually eliminate the long putter as an additional type.

As far as the Tour, call me cynical but I doubt they care about the good of the game as much as they care about protecting the players' livelihood.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

A large portion of sales (I'd guess the majority) comes from current golfers switching putters in an attempt to putt better, as opposed to new golfers buying their first ones.  And golfers who switch are going to switch to something that's different obviously, otherwise they'd just stick with their current one. That's why there are so many different putter types to choose from. So I think manufacturers benefit from having more putter types to select from, and banning anchoring is going to virtually eliminate the long putter as an additional type.

As far as the Tour, call me cynical but I doubt they care about the good of the game as much as they care about protecting the players' livelihood.

Think about it, the majority of players in the PGA Tour don’t anchor. So, if they only had self-serving intentions in mind they would want the ban to take place to get a leg up on those who prefer that technique.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

As I read it, Bishop was implying Scott's career would suffer if he couldn't use anchoring, but then used Scott's GIR stats to show Scott was not getting an advantage from anchoring. That's a narrow enough brush.

But my point is, even if anchoring gives an advantage to just *some* golfers, you can no longer use the argument that "Anchoring shouldn't be banned because it doesn't give an advantage".

It was an advantage for Scott because its a putting technique that suits him best, just as cross hand putting suits Rickie Fowler best.
About the only thing that is agreed upon in this thread is that there is no distinct advantage to anchored putting. That’s why the majority of golfers don’t anchor and don’t putt cross handed. Its not their preferred method. Those who do use it just want to be left the hell alone.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Think about it, the majority of players in the PGA Tour don’t anchor. So, if they only had self-serving intentions in mind they would want the ban to take place to get a leg up on those who prefer that technique.

I thought we were talking about manufacturers, not the Tour. I'm just saying that the manufacturers are against the ban because they'd lose business from all the golfers in the world who *aren't* on the Tour.

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

As I read it, Bishop was implying Scott's career would suffer if he couldn't use anchoring, but then used Scott's GIR stats to show Scott was not getting an advantage from anchoring. That's a narrow enough brush.

But my point is, even if anchoring gives an advantage to just *some* golfers, you can no longer use the argument that "Anchoring shouldn't be banned because it doesn't give an advantage".

It was an advantage for Scott because its a putting technique that suits him best, just as cross hand putting suits Rickie Fowler best.

About the only thing that is agreed upon in this thread is that there is no distinct advantage to anchored putting. That’s why the majority of golfers don’t anchor and don’t putt cross handed. Its not their preferred method. Those who do use it just want to be left the hell alone.

The bolded part isn't true at all, but that's not relevant to what you seem to be disagreeing with me on. All I was saying, in response to Bishop's comments, was you can't argue anchoring should be allowed because it doesn't give an advantage, while also arguing that it should be allowed because golfers who currently find it to be an advantage would suffer.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I thought we were talking about manufacturers, not the Tour. I'm just saying that the manufacturers are against the ban because they'd lose business from all the golfers in the world who *aren't* on the Tour.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

A large portion of sales (I'd guess the majority) comes from current golfers switching putters in an attempt to putt better, as opposed to new golfers buying their first ones.  And golfers who switch are going to switch to something that's different obviously, otherwise they'd just stick with their current one. That's why there are so many different putter types to choose from. So I think manufacturers benefit from having more putter types to select from, and banning anchoring is going to virtually eliminate the long putter as an additional type.

I don't really think that not having the belly/long putter as an option for those who like to switch putters often is going to change their mentality at all.  They're still not going to be satisfied with their current putting and are still going to want to tinker.  So they have to tinker with more wacky styles of short putters (or Kuchar style putters), but I highly doubt they are just going to "give up" their tinkering ways.  I would not expect putter sales to be affected at all.

Of course, the manufacturers will be affected enormously on the other side, with all that wasted R&D;, product, advertising, etc - but I doubt sales will change much.

Speaking of R&D; ... this state of limbo must really suck for the manufacturers right now.  Do you continue trying to innovate in the market?  If so, you risk wasting even more money if the ban goes through.  But what if you decide to cut your losses and then the ban doesn't go through?  Now you're screwed as well - I guess unless all companies made the exact same decision. :)

[Chas]

I would assume that sensible manufacturers have put their long putter R&D; efforts on hold for the time being, more or less.

On a separate point:  the notion that long or belly putters are important to the growth of the game as a whole is not credible imo - a rather desperate attempt by some to prevent the rule being finalized.  Those few actually giving up golf out of disappointment at not being allowed to anchor a putter are likely to have given up for some other reason not long thereafter.  Golf is meant to be challenging.

[JohnLund]

I guess I qualify as a 'tinkerer.' Having used a broomstick putter for three years...yes, it relaxed nervous hands....now I am working at relearning how to make a stroke with a short putter. Odessey is doing well by me as I bought the DART. Now I am curious to try the new TANK putter with heavy head, balanced shaft etc. So, really, I think the manufacturers' R&D; departments, and companies themselves, are doing just fine by the uncertainty surrounding the anchored debate. After comparing my own putting stats, I don't really care which way the decision goes as I don't think either method gives a player an advantage. All the anchored stroke does is allow the golfer more ways to experiment with in the hopes of finding something, anything, that works.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Never one to mince words Lee Trevino this week after using belly putter said "Now I see why they want to make this one illegal" he then added "It's like cheating. I swear to God. This is the easiest thing I've ever seen to putt with, is that belly putter." "It takes all the pressure out."

[mvmac]

The PGA of America's Ted Bishop remains outspoken about his anti-anchoring stance

Quote:

Ted Bishop, the man -- or maverick -- who orchestrated Tom Watson as the 2014 U.S. Ryder Cup captain and continues to push back against the anti-anchoring campaign by golf's ruling bodies is now questioning the Royal & Ancient's non-inclusiveness in its leadership role.

"The PGA of America has gotten the impression from the R&A; that we should have just accepted the proposed rule change and not issued any comments," Bishop said in his email. "Then why have a comment period at all? If you remember, Dawson stated on Nov. 28 that he doubted if any new evidence would surface during the comment period that would result in the ban on anchoring being dropped. That hardly set the stage for an 'open' comment period.'"

Bishop is proposing a compromise to the USGA that would make the ban a condition of competition. He says Davis and Nager have "openly welcomed" his comments and respected his position as leader of the largest working sports organization in the world. As it relates to the R&A;, he is pitching a game of hardball that transcends the ruling bodies.

"In the end, I pass off the differences between the PGA of America and the R&A; to be a result as the difference between our two cultures," Bishop said in his email. "Europeans have a tendency to accept the things that are imposed by their respective governments, while Americans will debate, argue and vote on issues. I think that is the fundamental premise that America was founded on."

[NM Golf]

Ted Bishop is my new hero!

His comments make a lot of sense .

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

His comments make a lot of sense.

Not for me.

[Fourputt]

The comment period was not supposed to be just a bitch session, it's supposed to be for comments based on rules concerns.  All of the comments from the PGA Tour and the PGA of America have been more in the vein of "We don't like the idea so we oppose it." That isn't exactly a persuasive argument as far as the R&A; and USGA are concerned.  They throw out a lot of fluff about how it's a terrible idea for amateurs, or it will stop players from starting the game, but that just hyperbole.  They haven't offered any suggestions of real substance, at least nothing that I've seen.

While I'm in favor of the ban, I like to think that I'm open minded enough to admit it if they I thought that thePGA actually had a leg to stand on.  They lost me when they started spouting the clearly manufactured "statistics" that they tried to pass off on the percentage of players who would be affected.  I don't like anyone assuming that we are all stupid enough to believe that 20% of the players in the world are using a long putter with an anchored stroke.  I don't believe manufactured statistics from politicians, so I'm even less likely to believe what I can refute from my own experience.  All that does is convince me that they don't have any real substantive arguments to support their objections.

[Rulesman]

It is estimated there are 60,000,000 golfers in the world.

27,000 shopkeepers in the PGA of America.

< 250 play on the PGA Tour.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Not for me.

Ditto.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by mvmac

The PGA of America's Ted Bishop remains outspoken about his anti-anchoring stance

I think Mr. Bishop has a fundamental misunderstanding about the real purpose of a comment period.  The purpose of the comment period is to see if any of the commentators raises a point that had not previously been considered by those creating the proposed rule.  Neither the PGA of America nor the PGA Tour has raised any point or issue that was not well known to the USGA and the R&A; at the time they proposed the rule.  The likelihood that they would come up with some issue or point that the ruling bodies had not considered was always very small, which explains Peter Dawson's comment.  A comment period is not a debate nor is it the opening of a negotiation, both of which seem to be embodied in Mr, Bishop's comments.

As to Mr. Bishop's public importunings with Mr. Dawson, I can see why they would be distasteful to the R&A.;  The comment period was the time and venue to make comments.  Bishop was attempting to provoke a public debate, based on what I read in that article and the one it linked to.  Which was completely inappropriate.

[iacas]

Bingo.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I think Mr. Bishop has a fundamental misunderstanding about the real purpose of a comment period.  The purpose of the comment period is to see if any of the commentators raises a point that had not previously been considered by those creating the proposed rule.  Neither the PGA of America nor the PGA Tour has raised any point or issue that was not well known to the USGA and the R&A; at the time they proposed the rule.  The likelihood that they would come up with some issue or point that the ruling bodies had not considered was always very small, which explains Peter Dawson's comment.  A comment period is not a debate nor is it the opening of a negotiation, both of which seem to be embodied in Mr, Bishop's comments.

As to Mr. Bishop's public importunings with Mr. Dawson, I can see why they would be distasteful to the R&A.;  The comment period was the time and venue to make comments.  Bishop was attempting to provoke a public debate, based on what I read in that article and the one it linked to.  Which was completely inappropriate.

Are his comments the start to an "American Revolution" by exercising his "Freedom of Speech"? Or are they just comments? I don't think this will turn into a Boston Tea Party, but is anyone really bent over his comments which may be more provocative than what is normally expected? Was the expectation for the PGA and PGA Tour to acquiesce and go quietly into the night? Did anyone really think that would happen? I tend to think not. I believe it is good to get this out so when it is finally settled, no one can say they didn't put in their two cents.

[bluecollar01]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Think about it, the majority of players in the PGA Tour don’t anchor. So, if they only had self-serving intentions in mind they would want the ban to take place to get a leg up on those who prefer that technique.

It was an advantage for Scott because its a putting technique that suits him best, just as cross hand putting suits Rickie Fowler best.

About the only thing that is agreed upon in this thread is that there is no distinct advantage to anchored putting. That’s why the majority of golfers don’t anchor and don’t putt cross handed. Its not their preferred method. Those who do use it just want to be left the hell alone.

Adding on to this, I think "advantage" is the wrong word here.  It implies that he gains an unfair, measurable chance to win against his fellow competitors. It's an option / technique he chooses to employ because he feels it gives him the best chance to win.  It cannot be considered an advantage as every other competitor has the choice to use this technique under the current rules, just as players have the right to choose different equipment or swings within the current confines of the game that they feel maximize their chances of winning.

Personally, I don't use an anchored stroke so it doesn't affect me but I don't understand the logic behind the ban.  "The sanctity of the game" argument proposed by the USGA and R&A; lacks substance to me but I also feel that the "people will leave the game argument" is very weak as well.

Interested to see what happens.