Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by dave67az

The USGA and R&A; have never intended to prohibit the gradual evolution of equipment in the game.  The first clubs were crafted by the players themselves.  So you're suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you can make your own clubs?

Cavity back irons, 460cc drivers, and hybrids all have one thing in common:  they still require the player to do exactly what he has been doing since golf was created.  So long as the skills required to play the game are retained in the golfer and not the equipment, I see nothing wrong with gradual evolution.  It's when you completely eliminate an area (like the mental game) that you're making a mistake.  You'll also notice that since the advent of cavity backs, metal woods/hybrids that the combined scoring averages for golfers hasn't changed.  Seems to me this is evidence that the equipment isn't evolving too fast.  And before you make an argument about the length of drives these days, I think the USGA's own data shows that's more about swing speed than driver size or ball dynamics.

A wedge or iron with grooves from pre-2010 still require the player to do "exactly what he has been doing since golf was created" but they are no longer considered conforming in many tournaments this year.

[rogolf]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

A wedge or iron with grooves from pre-2010 still require the player to do "exactly what he has been doing since golf was created" but they are no longer considered conforming in many tournaments this year.

Can you verify this with a list of tournaments, other than professional tournaments?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

... I still don't see an issue with trends being used as factors for rulings, because I can't imagine a trend that would *only* exist at pro levels...

Originally Posted by newtogolf

A wedge or iron with grooves from pre-2010 still require the player to do "exactly what he has been doing since golf was created" but they are no longer considered conforming in many tournaments this year.

Even though you weren't responding directly to me, I must admit that's actually a good example of a trend that was only visible at pro levels (the bomb-and-gouge) that resulted in a rule/equipment change that applied to amateurs. I do question though whether it really affected amateurs much if at all, or made the game any more difficult for them. (The exceptions being perhaps the amateurs who were already so good that the amount of spin on wedge shots from the rough was noticeably different with the new grooves.)

[mp33 man]

The USGA and R&A; have never intended to prohibit the gradual evolution of equipment in the game.  The first clubs were crafted by the players themselves.  So you're suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you can make your own clubs? Cavity back irons, 460cc drivers, and hybrids all have one thing in common:  they still require the player to do exactly what he has been doing since golf was created.  So long as the skills required to play the game are retained in the golfer and not the equipment, I see nothing wrong with gradual evolution.  It's when you completely eliminate an area (like the mental game) that you're making a mistake.  You'll also notice that since the advent of cavity backs, metal woods/hybrids that the combined scoring averages for golfers hasn't changed.  Seems to me this is evidence that the equipment isn't evolving too fast.  And before you make an argument about the length of drives these days, I think the USGA's own data shows that's more about swing speed than driver size or ball dynamics.

1) I never said anything about not being allowed to play, I was making the point that by the this rational (if you can't hit a standard length putter then you need to practice more) if you can't hit a blade then you should also practice more. 2) Hitting a 460cc driver is not the same swing required to hit a wooden driver. 3) Hitting a hybrid sure as hell isn't the same as trying to hit a 3 iron. 4) Your not really trying to argue that an anchored putter eliminates the mental aspect of the game are you? Do you really think that the guys on tour are mentally weaker if they use an anchored putter? If so than I challenge you to read some of the putts that they have to read, hit some of the greens that they have to hit and get up and down from some of the places that they have to. 5) Please note that I never said anything about long drives, I did however say "keeping a Persimon in the fairway" is more difficult. I think that driving distance is more about the evolution of the golf swing than equipment.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

A wedge or iron with grooves from pre-2010 still require the player to do "exactly what he has been doing since golf was created" but they are no longer considered conforming in many tournaments this year.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Even though you weren't responding directly to me, I must admit that's actually a good example of a trend that was only visible at pro levels (the bomb-and-gouge) that resulted in a rule/equipment change that applied to amateurs. I do question though whether it really affected amateurs much if at all, or made the game any more difficult for them. (The exceptions being perhaps the amateurs who were already so good that the amount of spin on wedge shots from the rough was noticeably different with the new grooves.)

The USGA admitted that the pros were the only ones who gained a significant advantage with the grooves.  The grooves had virtually no effect on surlyn balls which the vast majority of amateurs used.  They also don't matter unless you hit the green, and only 13% of amateurs can hit the green from 100-200 yds, while pros do it about 4 times that often.

The USGA's rationale was that the grooves allowed good spin on all shots, even out of the rough, which changed the game significantly because it virtually eliminated the importance of driving accuracy.  When you combine the increase in driving distance over the years with the ability to hit out of virtually any lie because of the grooves on your wedge, you've changed the nature of the game.  It's like my example of having a golf course without any rough or hazards.  It's not golf.

There's nothing wrong with gradual evolution of the game.  The USGA is just trying to make sure that no method or equipment is introduced that changes the game too much.  What is "too much"?  Well, that's up to the ruling bodies that have been around longer than you and I (and our parents in most cases) have been around.

I think the USGA has done just fine so far, so kudos to them.  Have they screwed up a few times?  I think so.  I don't like 460cc drivers, personally.  I think they look stupid.  I think the USGA was just as surprised as I was at how big manufacturers were making their drivers and when they finally stepped in it was at 460cc.  I wish they'd done it sooner.  I bought a cheap one just to see how it felt and I'm not crazy about it.  I usually use my 1980s-era Wilson Staff driver or the Synchron 250cc driver I bought 10 years ago.  I also use a persimmon 5 from the fairway and I love how it feels, but I have a feeling it's only got a few years left on it (the 3-wood started cracking after 25 years of use and I had to ditch it).

Is there a fine line?  Sure there is.  Why were grooves banned and not the cavity back irons?  Why are those funky putters with 3" of metal protruding from the back of the clubhead allowed?  Why are we prohibited from "testing the conditions" of a bunker but we're allowed to ascertain the same info by digging our feet into the sand in taking our stance?  Why are we allowed to dig our feet in to take a stance but we aren't allowed to put a towel down if we have to kneel for our shot?  Why does the rule about dropping a ball at the spot where you played your last shot not include a distance like every other drop instruction (i.e. "within 1 club length" or something like that)?  How close do you have to be for it to be considered your previous spot?  Do you have to drop on the divot?  In front of the divot where your ball was laying?  Within 6 inches?  1 inch?

We can nitpick all we want, but someone's gotta make the rules.  Yeah, you and I disagree with the USGA on a lot of things, but I do agree with their rationale for the most part and I hope you do, too.  I hope you agree that if golf WERE allowed to evolve at the discretion of the manufacturers, it would be a far different game than it is today.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by mp33 man

1) I never said anything about not being allowed to play, I was making the point that by the this rational (if you can't hit a standard length putter then you need to practice more) if you can't hit a blade then you should also practice more.

2) Hitting a 460cc driver is not the same swing required to hit a wooden driver.

3) Hitting a hybrid sure as hell isn't the same as trying to hit a 3 iron.

4) Your not really trying to argue that an anchored putter eliminates the mental aspect of the game are you?

Do you really think that the guys on tour are mentally weaker if they use an anchored putter? If so than I challenge you to read some of the putts that they have to read, hit some of the greens that they have to hit and get up and down from some of the places that they have to.

5) Please note that I never said anything about long drives, I did however say "keeping a Persimon in the fairway" is more difficult. I think that driving distance is more about the evolution of the golf swing than equipment.

I won't argue with you.  I thought you were saying that improvements in club design shouldn't be allowed.

(2)  I swing my 460 the same as my 250.  I can post a video to prove it if you don't believe me.  I hit them both equally bad.

(3)  I don't own a hybrid.  I can't say one way or the other.

(4)  I stated exactly what I meant:  that some have argued that anchored putting eliminates the "yips" which is a vital part of the mental game.  I've heard nobody say it makes it easier to read putts.

(5)  I only mentioned the long drives because whenever discussing the evolving game of golf, that seems to be the biggest complaint.  Just look at Jack Nicklaus and his complaints about how the USGA needs to stop it, even though the evidence shows that it's just like you and I have said, that it's the players swinging faster and not the balls being any "hotter".  But if you looked at my equipment, you'll notice I'm not one to keep up with trends since I play with the same irons I bought in 1982.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

A wedge or iron with grooves from pre-2010 still require the player to do "exactly what he has been doing since golf was created" but they are no longer considered conforming in many tournaments this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Even though you weren't responding directly to me, I must admit that's actually a good example of a trend that was only visible at pro levels (the bomb-and-gouge) that resulted in a rule/equipment change that applied to amateurs. I do question though whether it really affected amateurs much if at all, or made the game any more difficult for them. (The exceptions being perhaps the amateurs who were already so good that the amount of spin on wedge shots from the rough was noticeably different with the new grooves.)

The USGA admitted that the pros were the only ones who gained a significant advantage with the grooves.  The grooves had virtually no effect on surlyn balls which the vast majority of amateurs used.  They also don't matter unless you hit the green, and only 13% of amateurs can hit the green from 100-200 yds, while pros do it about 4 times that often.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm with you on that.

Originally Posted by dave67az

Is there a fine line?  Sure there is.  Why were grooves banned and not the cavity back irons?  Why are those funky putters with 3" of metal protruding from the back of the clubhead allowed?  Why are we prohibited from "testing the conditions" of a bunker but we're allowed to ascertain the same info by digging our feet into the sand in taking our stance?  Why are we allowed to dig our feet in to take a stance but we aren't allowed to put a towel down if we have to kneel for our shot?  Why does the rule about dropping a ball at the spot where you played your last shot not include a distance like every other drop instruction (i.e. "within 1 club length" or something like that)?  How close do you have to be for it to be considered your previous spot?  Do you have to drop on the divot?  In front of the divot where your ball was laying?  Within 6 inches?  1 inch?

FWIW, I feel there are very good reasons for all those things being the way they are, but I don't want to clutter the thread by getting into them.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

... but I don't want to clutter the thread by getting into them.

This just made me laugh! :)  Other than the Masters/Tiger Drop thread, I can't think of a recent one that is more "cluttered" than this one.

I was watching them discuss it last night on the golf channel (not on purpose though, it was "On the Range" and I was hoping for some pros swings, and when they started with this drivel, I switched it off.) and they were interviewing the Senior Tour guys.  Langer and Michael Allen, and they were basically saying it stunk and was unfortunate, but they'll figure it out.  I was thinking that Senior Tour shelf life is so short anyways - seems like most tournaments are won by 50 and 51 year olds - that by the time this goes into effect, they probably won't be winning anymore anyway.

I also really think that once it goes into effect, the complaining and discussion were disappear very quickly and everybody will just move on.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

This just made me laugh! :)  Other than the Masters/Tiger Drop thread, I can't think of a recent one that is more "cluttered" than this one.

I was watching them discuss it last night on the golf channel (not on purpose though, it was "On the Range" and I was hoping for some pros swings, and when they started with this drivel, I switched it off.) and they were interviewing the Senior Tour guys.  Langer and Michael Allen, and they were basically saying it stunk and was unfortunate, but they'll figure it out.  I was thinking that Senior Tour shelf life is so short anyways - seems like most tournaments are won by 50 and 51 year olds - that by the time this goes into effect, they probably won't be winning anymore anyway.

I also really think that once it goes into effect, the complaining and discussion were disappear very quickly and everybody will just move on.

I wouldn't call it cluttered.  There's only like 150 different posts.  Unfortunately, every time someone pops up who doesn't want to read 1600 posts (and I can't blame them) we end up repeating the same 150 posts over and over again.  And yeah, I'm one of the repeaters, I know.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I wouldn't call it cluttered.  There's only like 150 different posts.  Unfortunately, every time someone pops up who doesn't want to read 1600 posts (and I can't blame them) we end up repeating the same 150 posts over and over again.  And yeah, I'm one of the repeaters, I know.

That would actually be kind of funny .. if there was a program to combine all of the posts that say essentially the same thing (like all of the "this rule is stupid!  there is no advantage, anybody can use it!" posts) down into one, then I bet you are right.  Actually, you might be overestimating. ;)

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That would actually be kind of funny .. if there was a program to combine all of the posts that say essentially the same thing (like all of the "this rule is stupid!  there is no advantage, anybody can use it!" posts) down into one, then I bet you are right.  Actually, you might be overestimating. ;)

Isn't a variation of the definition of insanity "posting the same stuff over and over expecting a different response"?

I'm truly insane.  And WAY to optimistic!!

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by dave67az

We can nitpick all we want, but someone's gotta make the rules.  Yeah, you and I disagree with the USGA on a lot of things, but I do agree with their rationale for the most part and I hope you do, too.  I hope you agree that if golf WERE allowed to evolve at the discretion of the manufacturers, it would be a far different game than it is today.

I also agree with you, I'm a Eagle club member of the USGA and overall pleased with how they govern the Rules of Golf.  As an American I reserve the right to question any governing body and their decisions to ensure they are doing their appointed jobs properly.

We've seen it at the Federal, state and local levels that any government that is not forced to answer for their actions by the people they govern will at times lose sight of what the majority of the people want and govern to those that cry loudest or make the largest campaign contributions.

The USGA has a very difficult job in that they must manage one set of rules for a sport that is made up of 1% - highly gifted athletes on Tour and the other 99% which consists of people with varying age, levels of skill, health, athleticism and time to play.   They will never be able to make everyone happy.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

... but I don't want to clutter the thread by getting into them.

This just made me laugh! :)  Other than the Masters/Tiger Drop thread, I can't think of a recent one that is more "cluttered" than this one.

Ha, and that just made *me* laugh!  But you know what I mean - it's cluttered enough as it is, didn't want to further clutter with a non-anchoring topic.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

I wouldn't call it cluttered.  There's only like 150 different posts.  Unfortunately, every time someone pops up who doesn't want to read 1600 posts (and I can't blame them) we end up repeating the same 150 posts over and over again.  And yeah, I'm one of the repeaters, I know.

That would actually be kind of funny .. if there was a program to combine all of the posts that say essentially the same thing (like all of the "this rule is stupid!  there is no advantage, anybody can use it!" posts) down into one, then I bet you are right.

Yeah, the reason I like that detailed report from USGA/R&A; is it does exactly that.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I also agree with you, I'm a Eagle club member of the USGA and overall pleased with how they govern the Rules of Golf.  As an American I reserve the right to question any governing body and their decisions to ensure they are doing their appointed jobs properly.

We've seen it at the Federal, state and local levels that any government that is not forced to answer for their actions by the people they govern will at times lose sight of what the majority of the people want and govern to those that cry loudest or make the largest campaign contributions.

The USGA has a very difficult job in that they must manage one set of rules for a sport that is made up of 1% - highly gifted athletes on Tour and the other 99% which consists of people with varying age, levels of skill, health, athleticism and time to play.   They will never be able to make everyone happy.

Well this is completely unacceptable! I want a solution that is going to please the masses with a 99.8% approval rating and I want it now! As a matter of fact, I am going to boycott putting until we receive one and make a stand!

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I also agree with you, I'm a Eagle club member of the USGA and overall pleased with how they govern the Rules of Golf.  As an American I reserve the right to question any governing body and their decisions to ensure they are doing their appointed jobs properly.

We've seen it at the Federal, state and local levels that any government that is not forced to answer for their actions by the people they govern will at times lose sight of what the majority of the people want and govern to those that cry loudest or make the largest campaign contributions.

The USGA has a very difficult job in that they must manage one set of rules for a sport that is made up of 1% - highly gifted athletes on Tour and the other 99% which consists of people with varying age, levels of skill, health, athleticism and time to play.   They will never be able to make everyone happy.

The sad part is that in golf, as is in government, the 1% seems to have a louder voice than the rest because of their position in front of the media.  Thankfully the USGA doesn't rely on contributions from professional players in order to get elected to their boards.  And thankfully the USGA hasn't let non-objective equipment company CEOs run the show because I think it would detract from the purposes of the USGA.  Keeping that objectivity is essential to a focus on the true mission of the USGA and R&A.;

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by dave67az

The sad part is that in golf, as is in government, the 1% seems to have a louder voice than the rest because of their position in front of the media.  Thankfully the USGA doesn't rely on contributions from professional players in order to get elected to their boards.  And thankfully the USGA hasn't let non-objective equipment company CEOs run the show because I think it would detract from the purposes of the USGA.  Keeping that objectivity is essential to a focus on the true mission of the USGA and R&A.;

Well said.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

The USGA and R&A; have never intended to prohibit the gradual evolution of equipment in the game.  The first clubs were crafted by the players themselves.  So you're suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you can make your own clubs?

Cavity back irons, 460cc drivers, and hybrids all have one thing in common:  they still require the player to do exactly what he has been doing since golf was created.  So long as the skills required to play the game are retained in the golfer and not the equipment, I see nothing wrong with gradual evolution.  It's when you completely eliminate an area (like the mental game) that you're making a mistake.  You'll also notice that since the advent of cavity backs, metal woods/hybrids that the combined scoring averages for golfers hasn't changed.  Seems to me this is evidence that the equipment isn't evolving too fast.  And before you make an argument about the length of drives these days, I think the USGA's own data shows that's more about swing speed than driver size or ball dynamics.

A wedge or iron with grooves from pre-2010 still require the player to do "exactly what he has been doing since golf was created" but they are no longer considered conforming in many tournaments this year.

That had nothing to do with the definition of a swing.  It only addressed the issue of the rough no longer being a factor in the pro game unless it was cut to more than typical US Open height.  Note the comments from the last few US Opens prior to the groove change.  The rough was getting so bad that no club was capable of escaping from it.  By making that small change in the groove allowance they were able to set up courses which allowed the players to play golf again.

Originally Posted by mp33 man

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

The USGA and R&A; have never intended to prohibit the gradual evolution of equipment in the game.  The first clubs were crafted by the players themselves.  So you're suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you can make your own clubs?

Cavity back irons, 460cc drivers, and hybrids all have one thing in common:  they still require the player to do exactly what he has been doing since golf was created.  So long as the skills required to play the game are retained in the golfer and not the equipment, I see nothing wrong with gradual evolution.  It's when you completely eliminate an area (like the mental game) that you're making a mistake.  You'll also notice that since the advent of cavity backs, metal woods/hybrids that the combined scoring averages for golfers hasn't changed.  Seems to me this is evidence that the equipment isn't evolving too fast.  And before you make an argument about the length of drives these days, I think the USGA's own data shows that's more about swing speed than driver size or ball dynamics.

1) I never said anything about not being allowed to play, I was making the point that by the this rational (if you can't hit a standard length putter then you need to practice more) if you can't hit a blade then you should also practice more.

2) Hitting a 460cc driver is not the same swing required to hit a wooden driver.

3) Hitting a hybrid sure as hell isn't the same as trying to hit a 3 iron.

4) Your not really trying to argue that an anchored putter eliminates the mental aspect of the game are you?

Do you really think that the guys on tour are mentally weaker if they use an anchored putter? If so than I challenge you to read some of the putts that they have to read, hit some of the greens that they have to hit and get up and down from some of the places that they have to.

5) Please note that I never said anything about long drives, I did however say "keeping a Persimon in the fairway" is more difficult. I think that driving distance is more about the evolution of the golf swing than equipment.

This is just silly.  My swing is the same with my Callaway Diablo Edge as it was 23 years ago with my TM Tour driver, despite the fact the the TM was probably less than half the displacement.

The only difference with a hybrid is that it doesn't require the same perfection of swing that my 3I required, and the same basic adjustment was possible with a 7W, so that argument is shot down before it begins.

At this point in time it's just sour grapes to start trying to compare equipment evolution to a change in the traditional stroke.  All of the clubs you mention require that the stroke be made with the club held freely in the hands.  All the new rule is doing is maintaining this consistency through the putter.

[JohnLund]

Guys...give it a rest. You are splitting hairs. The topic is about banning anchoring not giving a historical review on the evolution of golf equipment.