Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The anchored putting simply wasn't a big enough deal 20 years ago when 2 or 3 players in the world were using it - other issues took priority.  It stayed under the radar for a long time.  It was only when it suddenly became more popular with the advent of the belly putter that the RB's took serious notice and felt that the issue needed to be addressed.

In essence, that statement proves the point. It was OK back when, but low and behold it became popular. Now in reality, wouldn't one think that someone or  some few voiced a protest and it only would have any weight if money was involved (ie; Pro Tour), otherwise why would it even come to the attention of the RB's

That didn't say that it was ever okay, it just wasn't worth worrying about when almost nobody was doing it.

[iacas]

In essence, that statement proves the point. It was OK back when, but low and behold it became popular. Now in reality, wouldn't one think that someone or  some few voiced a protest and it only would have any weight if money was involved (ie; Pro Tour), otherwise why would it even come to the attention of the RB's

That didn't say that it was ever okay, it just wasn't worth worrying about when almost nobody was doing it.

In addition to what @Fourputt said, @disco111 , what kind of approach would that be?

Suppose you have a child. He does something occasionally. You hope he grows out of it. A year later he's doing it more, and it crosses the line where you start to figure it's a real problem. So you enact a policy and enforce it to curb the behavior.

How dumb would it be if you had to just live with letting something go for eternity just because you let it go initially? People aren't allowed to change their minds.

[Fourputt]

For me, I long ago adjusted to the arm lock style and sold the old broomstick while I could still get something for it.

But, playing with an older gentleman this past weekend, I really felt bad. Mind you this guy still works and only plays once a week with the group, but his transition has not been good.

He recently put away the broomstick so he will not be handcuffed and dragged off of the course come January 2016, had his broomstick cut down to short putter size and just can not putt the ball. Words can not describe his putting motion. Last tournament the guy had 8 3 putts and I am not sure how the ball ever went in.

I am really going to feel like an a-hole this weekend since he is my first round match play championship opponent and there is no way I can concede even a 2 foot putt to him unless I am out of the hole. I know the USGA will never miss my $35/year due to their decision, but they have to be kind of desperate to offer me the same membership for $10/year now.

Coincidentally, my membership packet came in the mail today.  Member in good standing since 1987.

[disco111]

In addition to what @Fourputt  said, @disco111 , what kind of approach would that be?

Suppose you have a child. He does something occasionally. You hope he grows out of it. A year later he's doing it more, and it crosses the line where you start to figure it's a real problem. So you enact a policy and enforce it to curb the behavior.

How dumb would it be if you had to just live with letting something go for eternity just because you let it go initially? People aren't allowed to change their minds.

Really, a child doing something and you enforce a policy!!...........Where talking about a tool that was not looked upon with any viewpoint of being illegal or detrimental to the game. You can't for go 20+ years of use and not think that it's time to put a policy in place because we just didn't care about it earlier. I'm sorry, but that thought process just smacks of entitlement by behind the scenes forces. Truth be told, I'd bet that those tour players that wanted to litigate at the outset of this farce, where most likely informed it would not be in the best interest to do so. But here's a better analogy for you........Plumbers union officials decree that only crescent wrenches are authorized for use and pipe wrenches are hereby forbidden...........sounds stupid doesn't it..........so does the decree on the stroke/putters

It's fine for people to change their minds, but when it impacts the lively hood of the few in order to placate the many (In this case the tour players), to me is biased favoritism. I've tried the long putter and in truth, there's a heck of a lot more going on with it, stroke wise, than most folks think and it's not all for the good. Went back to the standard putter, but at least that option was available. But I can still go out and get that new $400 driver that will give up an additional 15 to 20 yds and that new set of irons that I can now reach that pesky 190 yd par 3 with a 7 iron and last but not least, the new and even better improved ball, that is more forgiving on spin rate because of new dimples or it's the new fast core or maybe it's the new french polymer cover that is great off the driver and spins like crazy on the greens. I could go on ranting, but lets face it, we'll just agree to dis-agree.

[newtogolf]

Really, a child doing something and you enforce a policy!!...........Where talking about a tool that was not looked upon with any viewpoint of being illegal or detrimental to the game. You can't for go 20+ years of use and not think that it's time to put a policy in place because we just didn't care about it earlier. I'm sorry, but that thought process just smacks of entitlement by behind the scenes forces. Truth be told, I'd bet that those tour players that wanted to litigate at the outset of this farce, where most likely informed it would not be in the best interest to do so. But here's a better analogy for you........Plumbers union officials decree that only crescent wrenches are authorized for use and pipe wrenches are hereby forbidden...........sounds stupid doesn't it..........so does the decree on the stroke/putters

It's fine for people to change their minds, but when it impacts the lively hood of the few in order to placate the many (In this case the tour players), to me is biased favoritism. I've tried the long putter and in truth, there's a heck of a lot more going on with it, stroke wise, than most folks think and it's not all for the good. Went back to the standard putter, but at least that option was available. But I can still go out and get that new $400 driver that will give up an additional 15 to 20 yds and that new set of irons that I can now reach that pesky 190 yd par 3 with a 7 iron and last but not least, the new and even better improved ball, that is more forgiving on spin rate because of new dimples or it's the new fast core or maybe it's the new french polymer cover that is great off the driver and spins like crazy on the greens. I could go on ranting, but lets face it, we'll just agree to dis-agree.

Your plumbers analogy doesn't fit.  A closer analogy off the top of my head would be when MLB made is against the rules for pitchers to use foreign substances on the ball to "aide their grip".

The R&A; and USGA decided that the anchored stroke was not a proper stroke.  If you want to be outraged, then you should be that they didn't ban them sooner.  As has been stated numerous times, non-pro's can still use an anchored stroke as long as it's for recreational rounds and not tournament play.  The pro's that used an anchored stroke will have had 3 years to make the change, and most have already.

[Golfingdad]

... non-pro's can still use an anchored stroke as long as it's for recreational rounds and not tournament play.

Why only non-pros?

[disco111]

Your plumbers analogy doesn't fit.  A closer analogy off the top of my head would be when MLB made is against the rules for pitchers to use foreign substances on the ball to "aide their grip".

The R&A; and USGA decided that the anchored stroke was not a proper stroke.  If you want to be outraged, then you should be that they didn't ban them sooner.  As has been stated numerous times, non-pro's can still use an anchored stroke as long as it's for recreational rounds and not tournament play.  The pro's that used an anchored stroke will have had 3 years to make the change, and most have already.

As for the Baseball analogy-----wrong. The foreign substance didn't aid the grip. it influenced the dynamics of the ball as it traveled to home plate. Pine tar or whatever they used actually stayed on the ball.

As for the outrage, I personal don't have a dog in the hunt, I just don't like seeing an obvious power play against a select few.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Your plumbers analogy doesn't fit.  A closer analogy off the top of my head would be when MLB made is against the rules for pitchers to use foreign substances on the ball to "aide their grip".

The R&A; and USGA decided that the anchored stroke was not a proper stroke.  If you want to be outraged, then you should be that they didn't ban them sooner.  As has been stated numerous times, non-pro's can still use an anchored stroke as long as it's for recreational rounds and not tournament play.  The pro's that used an anchored stroke will have had 3 years to make the change, and most have already.

As for the Baseball analogy-----wrong. The foreign substance didn't aid the grip. it influenced the dynamics of the ball as it traveled to home plate. Pine tar or whatever they used actually stayed on the ball.

As for the outrage, I personal don't have a dog in the hunt, I just don't like seeing an obvious power play against a select few.

My, oh my, you do have the wrong end of the stick.

[iacas]

Really, a child doing something and you enforce a policy!

It's a reasonable thing. Say a kid likes to suck on his fingers because it helps when he's teething or whatever. He does it only occasionally at first, so you don't say anything. Then it starts to become more frequent, and more of a habit. So you say something, and stop the child from doing it.

Replace "sucks his fingers" with whatever else kids do that, if they do it once a day for two seconds you don't care, but if they do it once every five minutes you do care.

You can't for go 20+ years of use and not think that it's time to put a policy in place because we just didn't care about it earlier.

Clearly you can because that's what's been done, no?

If you mean to say it's wrong to do it, why? Because I don't agree. Should you let the kid keep sucking his fingers even though it's gotten to the point where you think it's harmful just because you didn't mind the five-seconds-per-day rate at which it started?

But here's a better analogy for you........Plumbers union officials decree that only crescent wrenches are authorized for use and pipe wrenches are hereby forbidden...........sounds stupid doesn't it..........so does the decree on the stroke/putters

That's not the same thing. The tool is not being banned. The manner in which it is used is. Just like how you can't tap in a putt by turning your putter around and hitting it like a pool cue with the butt end of the club (the grip).

It's fine for people to change their minds, but when it impacts the lively hood of the few in order to placate the many (In this case the tour players), to me is biased favoritism.

Huh? Who is it benefitting? Are the Tour players the ones whose livelihood is being threatened? Who are the many who are being placated?

I've tried the long putter and in truth, there's a heck of a lot more going on with it, stroke wise, than most folks think and it's not all for the good. Went back to the standard putter, but at least that option was available.

You're still free to go back to a longer putter. Heck, you can still use one that goes up to your chin… you just can't anchor that putter to your chin.

My, oh my, you do have the wrong end of the stick.

Certainly.

[14ledo81]

For the record (I am a plumber), a crescent (actually adjustable) wrench and a pipe wrench are completely different tools.......

[DrvFrShow]

I've gone away from a more anchored stroke that i used last year due to my balance issues (Meniere's Disease), and today shot 46 putts in a round. I can't putt to save my life anymore, when back in 1970 it was the best part of my game. I might have to go to side saddle putting and try that. But wait. When that becomes popular they'll ban that, too!

[wadesworld]

I've gone away from a more anchored stroke that i used last year due to my balance issues (Meniere's Disease), and today shot 46 putts in a round. I can't putt to save my life anymore, when back in 1970 it was the best part of my game. I might have to go to side saddle putting and try that. But wait. When that becomes popular they'll ban that, too!

There are players in this world that are missing an arm and might benefit from being able to attach the club to their body.  Should they make club attachment legal as a result?

What if you played basketball?  What changes to the rules of basketball have the ruling bodies made to accommodate your condition?

I'm very sorry you have the condition you do, and if a long putter helps, by all means, keep playing with it and keep anchoring it.  The only thing you'll be prevented from playing in is the most serious of competitions, same as in other sports.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrvFrShow

I've gone away from a more anchored stroke that i used last year due to my balance issues (Meniere's Disease), and today shot 46 putts in a round. I can't putt to save my life anymore, when back in 1970 it was the best part of my game. I might have to go to side saddle putting and try that. But wait. When that becomes popular they'll ban that, too!

There are players in this world that are missing an arm and might benefit from being able to attach the club to their body.  Should they make club attachment legal as a result?

What if you played basketball?  What changes to the rules of basketball have the ruling bodies made to accommodate your condition?

I'm very sorry you have the condition you do, and if a long putter helps, by all means, keep playing with it and keep anchoring it.  The only thing you'll be prevented from playing in is the most serious of competitions, same as in other sports.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be all that serious to still require that the rules be followed.  The Men's Club I was in for 22 years wasn't exactly "serious", but we still played by the rules.  They will be enforcing the anchoring ban next year.  That's just a self managed tournament club at a public course.  It only takes being part of a group that believes that the rules are an essential part of the game.

The Rules of Golf do make some accommodation for medical necessities, and some competition clubs will make special arrangements to allow special dispensations for those who really need it.  It may be that her group will allow her to continue to use her putter anchored, or possibly find some other accommodation that will  address her medical needs and allow her to still enjoy the game.  I think that it would be wise for her to investigate her options.

[wadesworld]

The thing is, it doesn't have to be all that serious to still require that the rules be followed.  The Men's Club I was in for 22 years wasn't exactly "serious", but we still played by the rules.  They will be enforcing the anchoring ban next year.  That's just a self managed tournament club at a public course.  It only takes being part of a group that believes that the rules are an essential part of the game.

The Rules of Golf do make some accommodation for medical necessities, and some competition clubs will make special arrangements to allow special dispensations for those who really need it.  It may be that her group will allow her to continue to use her putter anchored, or possibly find some other accommodation that will  address her medical needs and allow her to still enjoy the game.  I think that it would be wise for her to investigate her options.

Well, this is true, but very few casual groups I've been a part of refuse to make accommodations for something like a physical disability.  I'm quite sure the Golfweek Amateur Tour that I play on would have no problem allowing the putter and anchored stroke if someone could prove medical necessity.  Most clubs I've been around wouldn't have a problem with it either.  I'm sure there are some groups which are different and would stick to their guns, but I would think they would be few and far between.

But you're absolutely right - if such competitions are of interest, absolute contact the organizers and find out if an option for an exception exists.

[newtogolf]

As for the Baseball analogy-----wrong. The foreign substance didn't aid the grip. it influenced the dynamics of the ball as it traveled to home plate. Pine tar or whatever they used actually stayed on the ball.

As for the outrage, I personal don't have a dog in the hunt, I just don't like seeing an obvious power play against a select few.

The point of the baseball analogy was that "spit balls" were permitted in MLB for over 20 years.  They were banned because more and more pitchers were utilizing it and it was deemed not in the best interest of the game,  since the league wanted to promote more scoring and home runs.

Prior to the ban, the popularity of the anchored putting stroke was increasing to a point where the R&A; and USGA felt they needed to step in.

[disco111]

The point of the baseball analogy was that "spit balls" were permitted in MLB for over 20 years.  They were banned because more and more pitchers were utilizing it and it was deemed not in the best interest of the game,  since the league wanted to promote more scoring and home runs.

Prior to the ban, the popularity of the anchored putting stroke was increasing to a point where the R&A; and USGA felt they needed to step in.

The difference between the two is that in baseball, what they allowed and then changed was because they wanted more scoring and home runs, thus making the game more popular and filling the stands, which in turn meant more revenue. In essence, it made for a playing field that was no longer a dominate factor for pitchers and was supposed to equal the playing field. In golf, it's the opposite. The playing field was for all intensive purposes, equal for those using the putter and now since it's taken away, that equality, if it ever was there is now gone. That putter, regardless of stroke clarification, didn't influence the ball in the same respect as the spit ball did.

As for needed to step in because of popularity, there were only a hand full, if that, that used it, but when Scott won the Master's, that looked like the launching pad against it and I'm still of the opinion that outside voices (On Tour and Senior Tour and a couple of heavy weights that shall remain nameless) were extremely vocal to the RB's and was very influential in helping the RB's with their final determination. OK, I've voiced my opinion and I'm sticking to it. You have your's and I respect that, so we'll agree to dis-agree.....

[newtogolf]

The difference between the two is that in baseball, what they allowed and then changed was because they wanted more scoring and home runs, thus making the game more popular and filling the stands, which in turn meant more revenue. In essence, it made for a playing field that was no longer a dominate factor for pitchers and was supposed to equal the playing field. In golf, it's the opposite. The playing field was for all intensive purposes, equal for those using the putter and now since it's taken away, that equality, if it ever was there is now gone. That putter, regardless of stroke clarification, didn't influence the ball in the same respect as the spit ball did.

As for needed to step in because of popularity, there were only a hand full, if that, that used it, but when Scott won the Master's, that looked like the launching pad against it and I'm still of the opinion that outside voices (On Tour and Senior Tour and a couple of heavy weights that shall remain nameless) were extremely vocal to the RB's and was very influential in helping the RB's with their final determination. OK, I've voiced my opinion and I'm sticking to it. You have your's and I respect that, so we'll agree to dis-agree.....

The R&A; and USGA noticed (as we all did) that pro's using an anchored stroke were winning Majors at an increased rate and they decided to intervene just as MLB banned the spit ball when the pitch was adopted by more and more pitchers.  I believe the R&A; and USGA believed that an anchored stroke gave those that used it an advantage (as spit ball pitchers had an advantage) but didn't want to get into the entire debate or discredit those that used an anchored stroke.  The chose to avoid the entire discussion by simply declaring that an anchored stroke wasn't an legal stroke.

The anchored stroke minimizes the effect of putter yips and nerves, those that switched to the anchored stroke did so because they were struggling with a traditional putter stroke.

[ColinL]

The R&A; and USGA noticed (as we all did) that pro's using an anchored stroke were winning Majors at an increased rate

Increased rate?

2014 Masters  - Bubba Watson?  No

2014 US Open - Martin Kaymer? No

2014 The Open - Rory McIlroy? No

2014 PGA - Rory McIlroy? No

2013   - Adam Scott?  Yes

2013 US Open - Justin Rose? No

2013 The Open - Phil Mickelson?  No

2013 PGA - Jason Dufner? No

2012 Masters - Bubba Watson? Yes

2012 US Open - Webb Simpson? Yes

2012 The Open - Ernie Els? Yes

2012 PGA -  Rory McIlroy? No

2011 Masters - Charl Schwartzel? No.

2011 US Open - Rory McIilroy? No

2011 The Open - Darren Clarke? No

2011 PGA - Keegan Bradley? -  Yes  (first major winner using anchored stroke)