Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[KevCarter]

  Rulesman said:

Kev

I apologise if you misunderstood my clumsy attempt at humour. I am aware of your background and have every respect for teaching and 'shop' pros.

I wasn't suggesting that you or your colleagues were irrelevant, simply that they were no more or less important that those who use (or don't) your valuable services.

As you suggest, the rules are for players and players only.

Thank you RulesMan, I have nothing but respect for you. In hindsight, I was being very thin skinned, and I apologize for not taking your post in the spirit you intended. May I please have a mulligan?

Kevin

[bplewis24]

  KevCarter said:

May I please have a mulligan?

Kevin

Oh, now you've done it!

[KevCarter]

  bplewis24 said:

Oh, now you've done it!

ROTFL!!!

[meenman]

Bottom line - the issue is over.

But it was good to hear my pro today say that he thought the USGA's stance was BS.

I will say the dummies still sent me 2 rule books even though I did not renew my membership. That is probably par for the course for them.

[Rulesman]

  KevCarter said:

Thank you RulesMan, I have nothing but respect for you. In hindsight, I was being very thin skinned, and I apologize for not taking your post in the spirit you intended. May I please have a mulligan?

Kevin

but have instead

[KevCarter]

  Rulesman said:

but have  instead

I'll buy!

[Rulesman]

  KevCarter said:

I'll buy!

No, if you pay for my flight over, I'll buy

[BriarCreekEd]

  geauxforbroke said:

I'm not a fan of belly putters or long putters, and can't putt with them to save my life, but I think it's a little silly to ban them. We can have massive lightweight drivers and space-age two-piece balls that go 350+, but we draw the line on anchored putters? The history of golf is littered with cases like this where something new and great came along, and out of fear, the USGA makes it illegal.

Agreed, I don't think that it goes against the spirit of the game. If these putters are against the "rules" shouldn't we all be hitting hand-carved clubs and feather-stuffed leather balls?

P.S. I use a regular shafted putter.

[Rulesman]

These putters are not and will not be against the rules.

[newtogolf]

  BriarCreekEd said:

Agreed, I don't think that it goes against the spirit of the game. If these putters are against the "rules" shouldn't we all be hitting hand-carved clubs and feather-stuffed leather balls?

P.S. I use a regular shafted putter.

It's not the putters, it's the stroke.  You can use a long putter or belly putter you just can't anchor them.

[mp33 man]

  newtogolf said:

It's not the putters, it's the stroke.  You can use a long putter or belly putter you just can't anchor them.

Semantics, nobody is impressed that you and rulesman read the rule. The long putter, for all intensive purposes, has been outlawed (when the rule takes affect). On another note I did see someone last week on the practice green with a long putter and instead of anchoring he was standing facing his target with his putter to the side of him and was putting really well. He said that he had tried anchoring when he first found the long putter but that it wasn't for him. Saw this article and was reminded of this new rule, this months Golf Digest also has a similar article. http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2011/04/sam-sneads-desperate-measures-on-the-greens.html

[newtogolf]

  mp33 man said:

Semantics, nobody is impressed that you and rulesman read the rule. The long putter, for all intensive purposes, has been outlawed (when the rule takes affect).

I'm not trying to impress you, golf is about knowing the rules.  The rules discuss the stroke, not the equipment so your statement that the long putter has been outlawed is incorrect.   You can use a long putter after the new rules come into affect, you just can't anchor them.  The new counter-balance putters are being offered in 38" and longer that some people are using with a traditional stroke as an alternative to the anchored stroke.

[iacas]

  mp33 man said:

Semantics, nobody is impressed that you and rulesman read the rule. The long putter, for all intensive purposes, has been outlawed (when the rule takes affect).

On another note I did see someone last week on the practice green with a long putter and instead of anchoring he was standing facing his target with his putter to the side of him and was putting really well. He said that he had tried anchoring when he first found the long putter but that it wasn't for him.

I'm not going to pile on as @newtogolf rebutted your argument, but I did want to emphasize that several people with long putters are already talking about (and have been for some time) simply moving their hand an inch off their chests. Or putting as you suggested in the article. So "for all intents and purposes" (I doubt you see the putting stroke as particularly intensive) it has NOT been outlawed.

[Golfingdad]

  mp33 man said:

Semantics, nobody is impressed that you and rulesman read the rule.

In a lot of cases, I tend to agree with this.  However, sometimes you can't tell if the person just flat-out doesn't know.  I don't think Joe is trying to be a pain, he's just trying to inform.

  mp33 man said:

The long putter, for all intensive purposes, has been outlawed (when the rule takes affect).

You're just trying to be funny here right?  I say this a lot too, but I say it on purpose with emphasis so people are aware I'm being silly.

  mp33 man said:

On another note I did see someone last week on the practice green with a long putter and instead of anchoring he was standing facing his target with his putter to the side of him and was putting really well. He said that he had tried anchoring when he first found the long putter but that it wasn't for him.

I met a guy sometime last year that did exactly this.  He wasn't superb, but he was pretty decent.

And this is all the more reason why it's acceptable for people to make those semantic corrections on the "illegal putter" comments.  Some of them genuinely don't understand the rule, and there are some potentially good options for continuing to use the putters, so it could be helpful to make the correction.

[mp33 man]

  Golfingdad said:

In a lot of cases, I tend to agree with this.  However, sometimes you can't tell if the person just flat-out doesn't know.  I don't think Joe is trying to be a pain, he's just trying to inform. You're just trying to be funny here right?  I say this a lot too, but I say it on purpose with emphasis so people are aware I'm being silly. I met a guy sometime last year that did exactly this.  He wasn't superb, but he was pretty decent. And this is all the more reason why it's acceptable for people to make those semantic corrections on the "illegal putter" comments.  Some of them genuinely don't understand the rule, and there are some potentially good options for continuing to use the putters, so it could be helpful to make the correction.

Yes, sorry posting at lunch and auto correct is working faster than my fingers Rebuttal to follow :)

[bplewis24]

  mp33 man said:

Semantics...

I believe that it's quite significant and substantive.

[mvmac]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/1/8/tim-clark-at-peace-with-anchoring-ban-kind-of.html

  Golfweek's Jim McCabe  said:

Golfweek's Jim McCabe talks to Tim Clark about the state of Clark's game and (sort of)finding peace with the anchoring ban due at year's end.

Clark is gong to give putting a try without lodging the club against his torso.

Playing without the anchored style isn’t daunting at all.

He said he would incorporate a “longish putter” and that he would adopt a similar style, one that was not anchored. Just as he figures out how to compete against guys who rip it 30 or 40 yards past him, Clark will solve the putting style challenge. He’s in a good place, no matter what, because “it comes down to confidence” and in that regard, he’s in ample supply.

[onthehunt526]

Next thing you know they'll be putting with a four year olds putter