Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[dave67az]

Seems to me the putter sales tell the whole story, just as someone else suggested.  Any math nerds want to guess how many years of doubling it takes before it would become the majority putter choice?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/sports/golf/belly-putter-could-lift-golf-equipment-sales.html?_r=0

To match the growing demand, the leading shaftmaker True Temper has increased its production of belly and long putter shafts to 120,000 last year from 60,000 in 2010. The company says it expects to produce more than 500,000 shafts this year.

Chris Koske, the global director of Odyssey Golf, said the company sold 8,000 belly putters in 2010 and more than 34,000 units last year. He has high hopes for this season.

“I’d like to get to 100,000,” he said. “I think it is completely doable.”

[meenman]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Seems to me the putter sales tell the whole story, just as someone else suggested.  Any math nerds want to guess how many years of doubling it takes before it would become the majority putter choice?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/sports/golf/belly-putter-could-lift-golf-equipment-sales.html?_r=0

To match the growing demand, the leading shaftmaker True Temper has increased its production of belly and long putter shafts to 120,000 last year from 60,000 in 2010. The company says it expects to produce more than 500,000 shafts this year.

Chris Koske, the global director of Odyssey Golf, said the company sold 8,000 belly putters in 2010 and more than 34,000 units last year. He has high hopes for this season.

“I’d like to get to 100,000,” he said. “I think it is completely doable.”

I do not see it becoming the putting choice of the majority - but those are some big numbers for a *small niche*

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by meenman

I do not see it becoming the putting choice of the majority - but those are some big numbers for a *small niche*

Another article (I can't find it again right now, but it was from late last month) had a quote from a Taylormade rep who said that 15% of their 2012 sales were from belly/long putters.  If they saw the same increase that Odyssey did (more than tripling from 2011-2012), and if they were projecting the same as Odyssey for the future (barring any USGA action), then they should expect anywhere from 45-50% or more in 2013.  Sorry, but this isn't difficult math.

And people are still asking why the USGA acted now??  Seriously?

[meenman]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Another article (I can't find it again right now, but it was from late last month) had a quote from a Taylormade rep who said that 15% of their 2012 sales were from belly/long putters.  If they saw the same increase that Odyssey did (more than tripling from 2011-2012), and if they were projecting the same as Odyssey for the future (barring any USGA action), then they should expect anywhere from 45-50% or more in 2013.  Sorry, but this isn't difficult math.

And people are still asking why the USGA acted now??  Seriously?

It does make sense that 15% of their putter sales would be long and belly putters. Most guys do not buy putters like they do drivers. The only ones that would buy putters are those changing their putting method.

Once the USGA backs down - anchored putting sales will be through the roof. Those that are holding off for fear of the (proposed) ban will buy one once it is safe.

The whole USGA plan will backfire on them - they just gave a ton of free publicity to what they are trying to stop. Some of these guys that will buy anchored putters probably never knew anything about them before (as we can tell from all of those on here that say they have never seen someone anchor.)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by meenman

Once the USGA backs down - anchored putting sales will be through the roof. Those that are holding off for fear of the (proposed) ban will buy one once it is safe.

The whole USGA plan will backfire on them - they just gave a ton of free publicity to what they are trying to stop. Some of these guys that will buy anchored putters probably never knew anything about them before (as we can tell from all of those on here that say they have never seen someone anchor.)

We'll see. Making some bold predictions. The PGA Tour is not the entire world. I haven't heard anything in opposition from any of the other major tours, PGAs, etc.

[Chas]

Dave67, thanks for the data - interesting. meenman: I'd be surprised if many active golfers are only now learning about long putters/anchoring, as a result of the present controversy. You'd have to be living in a hut in back of the tenth green or something.

[NM Golf]

All this discussion is fascinating! As a person who anchors the putter and is against the ban, I kinda wish some people weren't on my side as their ridiculous arguments do not help the cause. Ban or not, golf will go on. A miniscule few might give up the game and nobody, and I mean NOBODY is going to not pick up the game because of the ban. Golf is bigger than this ban. I sure as hell am not giving up the game I love.

That being said the more I think about it, this ban just sucks. The ban has been put in place and is being supported by a bunch of people that solely "believe" that anchoring the putter is bad for the game. They "believe" that its not a real stroke. Even the USGA admits there is no proof at all the stroke creates any sort of an unfair advantage. So its being banned simply on "belief"?

This is very similiar to the fight faced by the LGBT community as they try to gain the right to marry. Banning something based completely on aesthetics and not evidence just seems antiquated and wrong to me.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Seems to me the putter sales tell the whole story, just as someone else suggested.  Any math nerds want to guess how many years of doubling it takes before it would become the majority putter choice?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/sports/golf/belly-putter-could-lift-golf-equipment-sales.html?_r=0

To match the growing demand, the leading shaftmaker True Temper has increased its production of belly and long putter shafts to 120,000 last year from 60,000 in 2010. The company says it expects to produce more than 500,000 shafts this year.

Chris Koske, the global director of Odyssey Golf, said the company sold 8,000 belly putters in 2010 and more than 34,000 units last year. He has high hopes for this season.

“I’d like to get to 100,000,” he said. “I think it is completely doable.”

But wouldn't you then make the assumption that sales of regular putters would have declined by nearly the same amount?  Since supposedly golf is declining, I don't see how you could have one without the other.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

But wouldn't you then make the assumption that sales of regular putters would have declined by nearly the same amount?  Since supposedly golf is declining, I don't see how you could have one without the other.

Seriously?  You're that bad at math?

So you don't see how the numbers of belly putters can increase while the numbers of regular putters stay the same.

I'm sorry, when exactly did the government place a limit on the total number of putters allowed for sale each year?

Oh...finally found that other story with the Taylormade numbers and some more Odyssey numbers, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/sports/golf/proposed-golf-rule-changes-pushes-long-putters-out-of-style.html

[dave67az]

Want some more numbers, from a company responsible for compiling golf data?

http://www.golfdigeststix.com/golfdigeststix/20130206?sub_id=8biiFOmcnkxC#pg6

[Mordan]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

This is very similiar to the fight faced by the LGBT community as they try to gain the right to marry. Banning something based completely on aesthetics and not evidence just seems antiquated and wrong to me.

Wow there have been some questionable arguments in this thread that but that one takes the cake.

You're serious trying to equate a fight for the free choice to marry whoever someone pleases with decision over where the line lays in an arbitrary set of rules governing a made up game? Wow.

[Stretch]

I believe he's saying that the arguments and attitude of those opposed to both practices are rather similar. And I agree with him.

[Lefty-Golfer]

I don't understand this fight at all. the timing of seems silly to me... from what i have read the most crucial facts are below.

- according to the stats the USGA says there is no advantage to the anchored putter - this is either correct or part of an elaborate lie to write a rule change they think will stand up in court.

- the game is hurting for new growth numbers - why limit a stroke now that som many have spend time grooming.

- the rule is simply the intent to define a stroke - this IMO doesn't pass the smell test.

- long putters have been used in one fashion or another for close to 100 years.

just as an FYI - my putter is 28" so i don't have a horse in the race.

as a business person, parent and active memeber of several charitable organizations i have learned you need to pick your battles, there seems to me no logical reason to have this fight. the USGA and the Royal whatever need to just quietly push this under the rug and it will be forgotten about or at least pushed way back into the history books shortly.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

That being said the more I think about it, this ban just sucks. The ban has been put in place and is being supported by a bunch of people that solely "believe" that anchoring the putter is bad for the game. They "believe" that its not a real stroke. Even the USGA admits there is no proof at all the stroke creates any sort of an unfair advantage. So its being banned simply on "belief"?

a) The USGA ( and R&A; - why do people keep acting as if this is just the USGA?) has said that they're not banning it because it provides an advantage. It clearly does (provide a mechanical advantage), but that's not the reason they're banning it .

b) They DO get to decide such things. They DO get to decide that distance measuring devices are only allowed by condition of competition, they do get to decide that wedge grooves have gotten too severe, they do get to decide that the stymie is not allowed and your opponent can require you to mark your ball, etc.

Originally Posted by Stretch

I believe he's saying that the arguments and attitude of those opposed to both practices are rather similar. And I agree with him.

They're not the same. Give me a break. The Rules of Golf are arbitrary rules for a game we invented. They have absolutely nothing to do with basic human rights or civil liberties or actual LAW. And I couldn't care less if two people want to marry each other, regardless of either of their genders.

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer

as a business person, parent and active memeber of several charitable organizations i have learned you need to pick your battles, there seems to me no logical reason to have this fight.

Here's the deal: they don't feel it's a stroke, and they feel the game of golf will be better off if the practice is prohibited. They're doing it because they think it's the right thing to do.

They've been very clear about that. There was a time when we'd admire a group that stood up for what they thought was right. Now I guess we just say "there seems to me no logical reason to have this fight." They're doing what they think is best for the integrity of the game. Both the USGA and the R&A.;

[Fourputt]

A big question I'm asking is what is the reaction in the rest of the world.  Americans sometimes act that they are the only ones who count for anything, yet from what I've read the European PGA hasn't voiced any objection (I read somewhere that they do not oppose the ban), and I've heard nothing at all from Asia or anyplace else.  Anyone else heard or have any information on that?  The US doesn't rule the world, not even the golf world.

[meenman]

A big question I'm asking is what is the reaction in the rest of the world.  Americans sometimes act that they are the only ones who count for anything, yet from what I've read the European PGA hasn't voiced any objection (I read somewhere that they do not oppose the ban), and I've heard nothing at all from Asia or anyplace else.  Anyone else heard or have any information on that?  The US doesn't rule the world, not even the golf world.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the US may rule this time. While the r+a covers a bigger geographical area, the usga actually covers a higher percentage of golfers.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by meenman

Correct me if I am wrong, but the US may rule this time.

While the r+a covers a bigger geographical area, the usga actually covers a higher percentage of golfers.

Old numbers (five or six years ago) put it at about 50/50.

So among that 50/50, you have an incredibly small minority who opposes the ban, the perhaps equally small minority (or maybe smaller, who knows?) who support the ban, and the 90%+ of golfers who have no clue about the ban and never will.

And "favor" outside of the U.S. goes the way of supporting the ban.

You can do the math. The very fact that this is a tempest in a teapot is a big thing in favor of the USGA/R&A.; At the end of the day, the PGA Tour will abide by the Rules of Golf, and are not interested in becoming a rules-making body. Finchem said that. They may not like the rule, but in the end, I think they'll go along with it.

We'll see... In the "spring" apparently.

[iacas]

Mike Walker, senior editor, Golf Magazine: The anchored putter debate has turned into a power struggle over who controls the game. The USGA and R&A; should call the PGA Tour's bluff: some players might complain, but the Tour will abide by the ban. Tim Finchem will never allow a situation where his players could be called cheats. Incidentally, this whole situation is not helping golf dispel its image as a game for doddering twits.

Alan Shipnuck, senior writer, Sports Illustrated: It's a sad day. The blue coats have made mistakes but their motivation has always been to protect the game. All Finchem cares about is protecting the Porsche money of a couple dozen yippy journeymen. This is a troubling precedent and, much like the Citizens United court decision, its ugly impact will only become more obvious over time.

Eamon Lynch, managing editor, Golf.com There's nothing surprising in the Tour's stance. Finchem is employed by the players to represent their interests, and as Gary Van Sickle pointed out earlier this week, many Tour players don't like blue-blazered amateurs deciding on the tools of their livelihood. Expecting any other reaction from the Tour is akin to expecting the Teamsters to rise up against overtime. That said, the USGA and R&A; seem to be in this one for the long war. Trial lawyers are the only happy constituency. If only the various bodies in this spat were as eager to deal with slow play, which has much more of a detrimental impact on the game for most of us.