Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35

I guess it must be based on the area you play in.  I have played all over the Central Valley of California, at Public and Private courses and on the Golf Channel Amateur Tour and have only seen 1 person who anchors in the last 2 years.  I must be playing during the non anchoring tee times.

You and me both.  Maybe California just doesn't have many hardcore golfers?

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.

You're smarter than this, or you're just resorting to flat out bull**** at this point.  Either way, it's beneath you.

[Beachcomber]

I played yesterday, and saw a kid two groups behind us, probably 12 years old, using a belly putter - as a long putter, by anchoring it into his chest. I wanted to ask him why he was anchoring, but instead I decided to hit a 285yd bomb up the fairway with my 460cc driver.

[phan52]

Much ado about nothing. Tim Finchem is just doing his job but, in the end, he will abide by whatever the USGA and R&A; decide. And I'm pretty sure they will decide to institute the ban.

Side note, I was watching the golf yesterday and I am intrigued by Kuchar's method (shaft up the left arm). I may give that a try this spring.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by 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.

All make compelling points...and maybe we should ban slow play!

IMO, the controversy is all about the money...and it's not all about the actual Tour Players but also about the OEMs that are sponsoring the Tour Players...I have stated this before...

The groove rule was a win-win for many people. The USGA won whatever they think they won and the OEMs sold a ton of wedges and opened a new wedge market. They pumped out the old wedges to those who wanted to stockpile and then sold the new conforming wedges to those who needed to conform or wanted to conform. When the dust settled nothing really came of it because it didn't make that much difference on Tour, there were no Karsten battles to fight, and OEMs did just fine.

With the anchor stroke ban, it would kill a blossoming market (TM says 15% of putter sales) and not provide a replacement product because every person who has come on board with an anchored putter most likely has a traditional putter (probably a few) in the garage. All this really does is kill a portion of the OEM's sales.

Now if we are talking about what is best for golf and not about the money behind it I would say the best reason not to ban is because it has been allowed for a long time. Even Paul Runyun, in a book published in 1979, advocated the split hand method that shoved the butt in the belly. The best reason to ban is that it is really not a stroke, it is an aberration that has been allowed to exist and is not in the same spirit as any other allowable stroke.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Stretch

NA and no problem with anchoring. In exactly the same way I'm NG but have no problem with two guys getting married. World would be a much better place if everybody just minded their own ****ing business.

Funny, I spent 10 minutes trying to find the other guy you were referring to in the other post of yours I quoted below and only found this.  Thoroughly confused wondering why you were referring to yourself in the third person, then I finally found NM's quote. :)

I agree with you both.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

That's a false equivalency, though.  Rules enforcement of a competition affects all participating members in the competition.  I--like you--could care less if two guys want to marry or if my unreliable, philandering, unemployed but heterosexual uncle wants to marry.

Again, neither of them are saying they are the same thing, and that golf is as important as human rights, just that the arguments are the same.

"It doesn't affect me at all but I don't like the way you do things and I don't think it should be allowed."  Which one was I referring to there?

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.

Ah, here is the quote Stretch was referring to. ;)  Sometimes I think that it would be a really good idea if the website was able to include a post number in the box of a post that is quoted, therefore it's easier to find if you want to read the rest of it or quote it yourself. :)

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.

Yeah, that's how I took it too.

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Also, I don't believe that he was suggesting at all that if you were anti-anchoring then you HAD to also be anti gay marriage.

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

The best reason to ban is that it is really not a stroke, it is an aberration that has been allowed to exist and is not in the same spirit as any other allowable stroke.

And the side saddle line straddle ban* is a precedent imo.

* i'm not sure of the actual term for that type of putting stroke

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

With the anchor stroke ban, it would kill a blossoming market (TM says 15% of putter sales) and not provide a replacement product because every person who has come on board with an anchored putter most likely has a traditional putter (probably a few) in the garage. All this really does is kill a portion of the OEM's sales.

Now if we are talking about what is best for golf and not about the money behind it I would say the best reason not to ban is because it has been allowed for a long time. Even Paul Runyun, in a book published in 1979, advocated the split hand method that shoved the butt in the belly. The best reason to ban is that it is really not a stroke, it is an aberration that has been allowed to exist and is not in the same spirit as any other allowable stroke.

And yet, Odyssey and Titleist came out early supporting the ban.  I imagine that Odyssey sells one or two long putters too.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by Mordan

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.

Equate? Of course not. But show a similarity...yes. They are similar because gay marriage is basically being banned because people in power don't like the look of it. Its that simple, someone doesn't think its right so they ban it. No evidence mind you just a gut feeling.

Originally Posted by iacas

a) The USGA (and R&A; - why do people keep acting as if this is just the USGA?)

Being the fact I play under USGA rules I only care about the USGA. If I move to Europe I will take up the fight with the R&A.;

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

No, there is no statistical data what-so-ever that provides proof it gives any advantage over the traditional stroke. Saying it does provide an advantage is again nothing more than an opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Measuring devices, wedge grooves, and stymies all have statistical data showing they give an advantage. Anchoring the putter, however, has no such data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Again, I do not equate them, I am merely showing a similarity whereas both practices are being banned due to someone else not liking the way it looks. Nothing else. No proof as to why its bad just a "feeling".

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

And I couldn't care less if two people want to marry each other, regardless of either of their genders

Never said you did nor would I ever accuse someone of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Again with the  "Feel" and "think" stuff again

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.;

The people that fight gay marriage probably feel the same way. They are not necessarily bad people they are just forcing the way they believe onto another person. Again, no proof not statistical data showing its bad, just a feeling they have.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Also, I don't believe that he was suggesting at all that if you were anti-anchoring then you HAD to also be anti gay marriage.

No of course not that would be ridiculous. Nor am I saying in any way that the ban on anchored putters is as important as someones human right to marry whom they choose. I am just showing the similarities between the two arguments.

[allin]

[COLOR=181818]All make compelling points...and maybe we should ban slow play! [/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]IMO, the controversy is all about the money...and it's not all about the actual Tour Players but also about the OEMs that are sponsoring the Tour Players...I have stated this before...[/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]The groove rule was a win-win for many people. The USGA won whatever they think they won and the OEMs sold a ton of wedges and opened a new wedge market. They pumped out the old wedges to those who wanted to stockpile and then sold the new conforming wedges to those who needed to conform or wanted to conform. When the dust settled nothing really came of it because it didn't make that much difference on Tour, there were no Karsten battles to fight, and OEMs did just fine. [/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]With the anchor stroke ban, it would kill a blossoming market (TM says 15% of putter sales) and not provide a replacement product because every person who has come on board with an anchored putter most likely has a traditional putter (probably a few) in the garage. All this really does is kill a portion of the OEM's sales. [/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]Now if we are talking about what is best for golf and not about the money behind it I would say the best reason not to ban is because it has been allowed for a long time. Even Paul Runyun, in a book published in 1979, advocated the split hand method that shoved the butt in the belly. The best reason to ban is that it is really not a stroke, it is an aberration that has been allowed to exist and is not in the same spirit as any other allowable stroke. [/COLOR]

Equipment makers resist any rule which limits their ability to innovate and market their stuff, pros resist any rule which they feel impacts players potential earnings, especially players already on tour. Their claims that they have the best interests on the game in mind is just lipstick on a pig, self serving bs. The justification that it has been to long is equally bs. Correcting an error, even belatedly is the right thing to do. Anchoring the putter is contrary to the basic nature of the game. It never should have been allowed, outlawing it is the proper action.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And yet, Odyssey and Titleist came out early supporting the ban.  I imagine that Odyssey sells one or two long putters too.

Sounds like Odyssey changed it's position:

“We don’t agree with (the proposed rule), but we’ll accept it,” said Austie Rollinson, Odyssey’s principal designer. “We see it as an opportunity to innovate within the new conforming standards being imposed.”

http://golfweek.com/news/2013/feb/19/potential-ban-has-damaged-sales-long-belly-putters/

and then they came up with a way to try to expand a market that is all but withering away with this Kuchar inspired design:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/odyssey-responds-to-anchor-ban-with-new-putter/

As far as putter companies supporting the ban, I think they painted an optimistic tune but I don't see support.

http://blogs.golf.com/equipment/2012/11/putter-makers-react-to-the-pending-anchored-putter-ban.html

Titleist: From Joseph J. Nauman, Executive Vice President, Corporate and Legal, Acushnet Company

“We intend to review the announcement regarding anchoring issued today by the USGA and R&A; and, as a matter of process, appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to them during the comment period.”

If this is support then I must be missing the point.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And yet, Odyssey and Titleist came out early supporting the ban.  I imagine that Odyssey sells one or two long putters too.

Sounds like Odyssey changed it's position:

“We don’t agree with (the proposed rule), but we’ll accept it,” said Austie Rollinson, Odyssey’s principal designer. “We see it as an opportunity to innovate within the new conforming standards being imposed.”

http://golfweek.com/news/2013/feb/19/potential-ban-has-damaged-sales-long-belly-putters/

and then they came up with a way to try to expand a market that is all but withering away with this Kuchar inspired design:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/odyssey-responds-to-anchor-ban-with-new-putter/

As far as putter companies supporting the ban, I think they painted an optimistic tune but I don't see support.

http://blogs.golf.com/equipment/2012/11/putter-makers-react-to-the-pending-anchored-putter-ban.html

Titleist: From Joseph J. Nauman, Executive Vice President, Corporate and Legal, Acushnet Company

“We intend to review the announcement regarding anchoring issued today by the USGA and R&A; and, as a matter of process, appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to them during the comment period.”

If this is support then I must be missing the point.

Odyssey:

Odyssey Golf

Regarding the USGA and R&A; proposal today, Odyssey has long held the belief that confidence with the putter is good for the game, particularly regarding player retention and growth potential. But one of the beauties of putting is that there are so many ways to do it.

Notwithstanding the final ruling in 2013, it is Odyssey's pledge to ensure golfers have the same level of confidence when they line up a putt with one of our products – regardless of the putting technique. We have anticipated this proposal for some time now and have been busy exploring several alternative options.

It should be noted that Odyssey will continue to offer belly and long putters in the short term for golfers who want to continue using them recreationally.

We'd like golfers everywhere to know that Odyssey has an optimistic approach to the proposal regardless of the outcome. As the #1 Putter in Golf, we have more tour players around the world playing and winning with Odyssey putters than any other company, and we will continue to work with those players to innovate new products and new, alternative methods to putt at the highest level.

I don't remember which forum I read the Acushnet response on but it was actually quite positive.  They aren't going to be hurt by this anyway.  With all of the possibilities in putter design, I don't see them having any trouble finding new ways to separate golfers from their money.  All they seem to have to do is put a new label on the same old clubs and call it the 2013 model and people rush to buy them.

Golfers have to be just about the biggest spendthrifts in any sport I can think of.  They will buy a new $300, $400, $500 driver every year and think nothing of it, even though the actual performance differences are minimal.  I had a friend who never finished the season with the same driver he began with, yet his game never really changed (low single digit handicap).   Amateur photographers are similar, have to have the latest and greatest body or lens, even though it does nothing to change the quality of the photos they take.

Once you have quality gear, any real improvements are in technique, not equipment.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

With all of the possibilities in putter design, I don't see them having any trouble finding new ways to separate golfers from their money.

This is true and it is not real hard either. All it takes is for a guy to miss a crucial 3 footer and it's off to the pro shop for some new magic.

[dave67az]

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.

Originally Posted by Mordan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

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.;

1.  He never said they were "the same".  He said they were very similar.

2.  The Rules of Golf are arbitrary rules for a game we (mankind?) invented.  They have absolutely nothing to do with human rights, or civil liberties, or actual LAW.  Well, except that laws are arbitrary rules that we (mankind) invented and they're SO arbitrary that many vary depending on the city, county, state or country you live in.

To say that it's not similar and to forget that the process is nearly identical.  We elect representatives to create laws that we HOPE will be based on the needs and desires of the people.  In the same way we elect officers in the USGA with the HOPE that they will govern in a way that will promote the game while protecting its integrity as a sport.

Marriage laws are simply arbitrary laws created by society.  The age at which you can marry without parental consent varies widely throughout the world.  The requirements for marriage also vary (in Missouri I had a three-day-waiting period).  And just as the marriage laws differ, so do the divorce laws.

Marriage isn't a "human right".  Choosing to live your life with whomever you wish is a human right.  The "rights" that go along with marriage (you know, like the right to all of their possessions if they should die) are arbitrary laws that man created.  Marriage is a legal condition created by marriage laws.  It's a piece of paper.  Your COMMITMENT to your partner, no matter what sex they are, is what matters.  Not some piece of paper.  The only reason marriage is even an issue to homosexuals is because we've created so many MORE arbitrary laws that give benefits to people who get that piece of paper and they want those benefits as well.

But if you think that laws are somehow completely different than rules of a sport that were created by an elected, governing body, then I think you're reaching.

[SCfanatic35]

I must have clicked on the wrong thread. Thought this one was about anchoring putters.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35

I must have clicked on the wrong thread. Thought this one was about anchoring putters.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35

I must have clicked on the wrong thread. Thought this one was about anchoring putters.

I know it may seem irrelevant, but the fact is USGA rules are made in much the same way as any governing body makes rules/laws.  That was the point.  And just as some of us have stated, what PREVIOUS presidents/boards did shouldn't be a factor when it comes to making/changing rules.  That'd be like saying that because 20 years ago the U.S. president supported this or that means that future presidents have to carry the same stance (which is basically the argument SOME are trying to make when it comes to banning the anchored stroke now).

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Marriage isn't a "human right".  Choosing to live your life with whomever you wish is a human right.

The term "human right" doesn't really have any legal meaning in this country, but the term "fundamental right" does.  Of the right to marry, the Supreme Court has said " Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." It receives the highest level of protection; the same as your right to vote.

I think the competitive advantage argument is overblown.  There are plenty of things are forbidden by the rules of golf that don't necessarily provide an advantage.  Its about preserving what the golf "should" be, which as Finchem said, is totally subjective.

[Golfingdad]

Many of us have said that we almost never see anchorers out there on the course ... and I'm in that group.  To be fair, though, I think we can really only be talking about people who are either A) playing in our foursome, or B) playing with a broomstick.  Belly putters are pretty darn hard to see at a distance because the putting stroke looks the same, and those seem to be the ones on the trend up.

While I would still contend that the number of users out there is very, very small, maybe it's not quite as small as I was originally thinking.  I've never seen a belly putter being used on the course is probably not a true statement.  I should revise it to I've never noticed one being used.