Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[ejimsmith]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

A. I don’t like anchored putters. We need to refine the definition of the stroke for the sake of the game’s integrity.

B. Why do we need to refine the definition of the stroke?

A. To get rid of anchored putters, I don’t like them.

nice summary!

[meenman]

Originally Posted by ay33660

Actually Tiger is still firmly for the ban.

From the Golf Channel -

“My position hasn't changed,” he said after the Honda Classic pro-am. “I still think that it should be swung, it shouldn't be anchored and that hasn't changed at all.”

Tiger did soften a bit before that quote - I guess he has a bit of Johnny Miller in him

Originally Posted by ay33660

The only thing that I don't understand is why the USGA and R&A; has not addressed the use of a long putter to take relief. I have seen long putters that are 2 to 4 inches longer than a driver. This can be a real advantage when taking relief from an unplayable lie. Two club lengths for a 52" long putter could be an 8 inch difference in relief to using a driver which is limited to 48 inches in length. Most of the guys on tour are over 6 feet tall so a 52 inch long putter may be managable.

My long putter is only about an inch longer than my driver, but I always use it in relief situations - just to tweak my playing partners.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer

i disagree with the bolded, i think they have been aware of it but saw no reason to deal with it, i think the saw it as an inferior stroke that would go away eventually. in the mean time they had no problem with it. all of the sudden Simpson, Bradley Els win majors with it - Els makes some comment about cheating like all of the others and here we are.

I thing it is obvious they have a problem with all of the players using long putters or they wouldn't have changed the rule - wait sorry redefined the rule. I am willing to bet those old timers that started this awesome game didn't wear gloves when they played maybe we should ban them... the whole thing is garbage, there many items bigger for them to worry about then an anchored putter.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me or change my life one bit, i am going to stick my 28" putter and continue to love it.

it does amaze me how many people just drink the kool-aid

You really mean people who have a different viewpoint than you.

And BTW, you are still free to play with or without a glove.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Those names were used intentionally since they flip flopped and are the most well known on the Tour right now.  The general public doesn't care, but they will side with who they know, assuming they even bother to find out what their position is.

Ultimately it's a game of chicken, I heard today that the USGA is going to push back because they don't think the PGA Tour will follow through with their own set of rules, especially given the R&A; hasn't even flinched on their position to ban them and has all the Euro Tour golfers support.

I say Davis and Finchem settle this in the UFC cage.

I really don't think it is. Finchem has just stated that they are not in agreement, not that they are going to actually DO anything. In the end, I don't think they will.

[ay33660]

Originally Posted by meenman

Tiger did soften a bit before that quote - I guess he has a bit of Johnny Miller in him

My long putter is only about an inch longer than my driver, but I always use it in relief situations - just to tweak my playing partners.

I think it was at the British Open and I saw someone with a long putter and using it to take relief from an unplayable lie.

The commentators noted that it appeared the long putter was longer than the driver and when he took relief he was able to get it back onto the rough instead of the hay. It made a big difference between dropping back into the hay, going back to the original shot or picking a spot keeping the ball in a straight line to the green but going back (this was not an option).

[Lefty-Golfer]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

A. I don’t like anchored putters. We need to refine the definition of the stroke for the sake of the game’s integrity.

B. Why do we need to refine the definition of the stroke?

A. To get rid of anchored putters, I don’t like them.

Originally Posted by turtleback .

This level of argument is not likely to be taken seriously, IMO.

You may feel that it is not to be taken seriously however it is about spot on correct with where the rule change is. As a matter of fact it is an outstanding summary and sadly enough in context.

[ThominOH2]

This whole rules change really makes no sense to me.. It is nothing more then a group of people cherry picking what they want golf to be over another group of people, with NO LOGIC or data to prove one side or the other.. If anything the fact that golfers using the long putter are NOT in the top 10 or top 20 list of putting stats show me anchoring doesn't make you God.. Was original golf played with a glove?  I bet it wasn't, but we allow it, cause it helps.. Was original golf played with a 460 cc driver? NOPE, but we allow it because it helps.. I find it hypocritical that people like Tiger or Davis, use advancements that benefit themselves, but demand a ban on those things that don't..

Maybe we should have a rule that states YOU must wear proper attire at all times when making a swing.. This means Tiger you must wear your shoes and socks when you made that hazard shot out of the water at the Honda.. Could it be said you gained an advantage in your swing by doing what you did?  I could make the argument, but no data to prove it..

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by ThominOH2

This whole rules change really makes no sense to me.. It is nothing more then a group of people cherry picking what they want golf to be over another group of people, with NO LOGIC or data to prove one side or the other.. If anything the fact that golfers using the long putter are NOT in the top 10 or top 20 list of putting stats show me anchoring doesn't make you God.. Was original golf played with a glove?  I bet it wasn't, but we allow it, cause it helps.. Was original golf played with a 460 cc driver? NOPE, but we allow it because it helps.. I find it hypocritical that people like Tiger or Davis, use advancements that benefit themselves, but demand a ban on those things that don't..

Maybe we should have a rule that states YOU must wear proper attire at all times when making a swing.. This means Tiger you must wear your shoes and socks when you made that hazard shot out of the water at the Honda.. Could it be said you gained an advantage in your swing by doing what you did?  I could make the argument, but no data to prove it..

You are wrong, in that is it quite in keeping with traditional logic for the way golf is played, but in the end it really doesn't matter.  Since we are  talking about a GAME , what has logic to do with anything?  Where is the fundamental human logic which says that golf must be played with balls and a stick?   That a stipulated round is no more than 18 holes?  It is a GAME which grew out of a pastime in which bored shepherds whiled away the day batting stones around the the pasture with their crooks.  At some point the game became more formalized, eventually the rules were codified, and then the R&A; ultimately filtered out as the rules watchdog.

When the game managed to emigrate across the Atlantic, the slow communications at the time dictated that the US have it's own governing body, and the USGA was born.  A reasonable attempt was always made to keep the rules as similar as possible, and eventually, with improving transatlantic communications, they became identical.  Changes are now made by joint agreement.  Equipment is only limited when it starts to get out of control (drivers, grooves for example).  They try to focus their discussions on issues which affect the way the game is played, and the anchored putting stroke fits precisely into that concern.

It is their contention that anchoring is not a stroke, based on the logic that it is not how the game has been played for more than 400 years.  The fact that this issue has been ignored for 30 years is insignificant in the context of the overall age of the game of golf.  The only relevant fact is that they did decide to do it now, and that there is logic in that decision, based on several hundred years of playing tradition.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer

You may feel that it is not to be taken seriously however it is about spot on correct with where the rule change is. As a matter of fact it is an outstanding summary and sadly enough in context.

Except that it's not spot on...it's fiction, and spin...which is why nobody has taken it seriously.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by ThominOH2

This whole rules change really makes no sense to me.. It is nothing more then a group of people cherry picking what they want golf to be over another group of people, with NO LOGIC or data to prove one side or the other.. If anything the fact that golfers using the long putter are NOT in the top 10 or top 20 list of putting stats show me anchoring doesn't make you God.. Was original golf played with a glove?  I bet it wasn't, but we allow it, cause it helps.. Was original golf played with a 460 cc driver? NOPE, but we allow it because it helps.. I find it hypocritical that people like Tiger or Davis, use advancements that benefit themselves, but demand a ban on those things that don't..

Maybe we should have a rule that states YOU must wear proper attire at all times when making a swing.. This means Tiger you must wear your shoes and socks when you made that hazard shot out of the water at the Honda.. Could it be said you gained an advantage in your swing by doing what you did?  I could make the argument, but no data to prove it..

Everything you said is totally irrelevent to the issue. The equipment is not the issue. The long putter is not banned. It is the nature of the swing that is banned. Don't anchor the club. It's pretty simple.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by ThominOH2

This whole rules change really makes no sense to me.. It is nothing more then a group of people cherry picking what they want golf to be over another group of people, with NO LOGIC or data to prove one side or the other.. If anything the fact that golfers using the long putter are NOT in the top 10 or top 20 list of putting stats show me anchoring doesn't make you God.. Was original golf played with a glove?  I bet it wasn't, but we allow it, cause it helps.. Was original golf played with a 460 cc driver? NOPE, but we allow it because it helps.. I find it hypocritical that people like Tiger or Davis, use advancements that benefit themselves, but demand a ban on those things that don't..

Maybe we should have a rule that states YOU must wear proper attire at all times when making a swing.. This means Tiger you must wear your shoes and socks when you made that hazard shot out of the water at the Honda.. Could it be said you gained an advantage in your swing by doing what you did?  I could make the argument, but no data to prove it..

See that section I bolded and underlined?  You can make exactly the same argument for virtually any rule in golf, whether it's not being allowed to ground the club in a hazard to not being able to lift and clean your ball in the fairway or not being allowed to putt with the pin in place.

So what's your point?  That there shouldn't be a governing organization that makes standard rules for all golfers?  You think you should just be allowed to make up your own rules?

Fine.  Knock yourself out.  Nobody's stopping you.

But stop acting like the USGA owes you mountains of data when it comes to them and the R&A; wanting to change a rule.

[dsc123]

Data is irrelevant.  Its about what is or is not a stroke.  The USGA is preserving what they think the game should be, not banning a practice that is an advantage to those who use it.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Except that it's not spot on...it's fiction, and spin...which is why nobody has taken it seriously.

Fictitious and not be to taken seriously? Why, because you happen to disagree with it? Its called an opinion.

But thanks for driving home the core difference in the matter.

One side is self-righteous and, despite zero evidence that anchored putting is an advantage, they want it done away with and wrap themselves in the shroud of upholding the integrity of the game.

The other side simply wants golfers to be able to continue to choose either putting method (like they have for the last 40+ years).

Which side is more open-minded and looking out for the enjoyment/betterment of the game?

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Fictitious and not be to taken seriously? Why, because you happen to disagree with it? Its called an opinion.

But thanks for driving home the core difference in the matter.

One side is self-righteous and, despite zero evidence that anchored putting is an advantage, they want it done away with and wrap themselves in the shroud of upholding the integrity of the game.

The other side simply wants golfers to be able to continue to choose either putting method (like they have for the last 40+ years).

Which side is more open-minded and looking out for the enjoyment/betterment of the game?

I don't think the USGA said it was an advantage, did they?  I could very well be wrong.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Fictitious and not be to taken seriously? Why, because you happen to disagree with it? Its called an opinion.

But thanks for driving home the core difference in the matter.

One side is self-righteous and, despite zero evidence that anchored putting is an advantage, they want it done away with and wrap themselves in the shroud of upholding the integrity of the game.

The other side simply wants golfers to be able to continue to choose either putting method (like they have for the last 40+ years).

Which side is more open-minded and looking out for the enjoyment/betterment of the game?

*sigh*

Again, more spin and/or just completely ignoring information to frame it the way you want.  The ONLY core difference in the matter is whether or not you consider an anchored stroke as having a place in golf or not.  If people want to continue putting forth arguments with logical loopholes in them, they should probably stop being sensitive about the loopholes being called out or addressed.

The original post suggests that people are only trying to get rid of the anchored stroke because they don't like the putters.  If you want to call it an "opinion", go for it, but said opinion ignores the FACT that reasons have been offered and arguments have been made to get rid of the anchored stroke (by the very governing bodies themselves, no less) that have nothing to do with some subjective like or dislike of the putter.  To suggest otherwise is ignoring publicly available FACTS.  The existence of a publicly made statement is either verifiable or it is not.  The merit of the statement is a whole 'nother matter altogether.  But the original post was a statement suggesting that the reason for it is something other than has been stated and offered numerous times.  That is an "opinion" living somewhere other than reality.

Calling it self-righteous to point this out is a sneaky way to try and shift focus from the merit of the accusation/statement, and is just more framing of the argument/discussion/debate in order to fit a specific agenda.

As has been stated maybe 50 times in this thread alone, going on to argue about an "advantage", when that isn't even part of the rationale, is just another form of a straw man.  I'm not even addressing the way you dismiss the "integrity of the game" as if it's irrelevant or unreasonable.

Lastly, "open-mindedness" isn't a pre-requisite of rules governing that should somehow trump integrity of the game or what the governing body feels is best for the game.  You could be open-minded enough to allow baseball bats to be used for golfing if you want to...I'm not sure why that should make a difference.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Fictitious and not be to taken seriously? Why, because you happen to disagree with it? Its called an opinion.

But thanks for driving home the core difference in the matter.

One side is self-righteous and, despite zero evidence that anchored putting is an advantage, they want it done away with and wrap themselves in the shroud of upholding the integrity of the game.

The other side simply wants golfers to be able to continue to choose either putting method (like they have for the last 40+ years).

Which side is more open-minded and looking out for the enjoyment/betterment of the game?

Sez you.

But it's only an opinion, right?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

*sigh*

Again, more spin and/or just completely ignoring information to frame it the way you want.  The ONLY core difference in the matter is whether or not you consider an anchored stroke as having a place in golf or not.  If people want to continue putting forth arguments with logical loopholes in them, they should probably stop being sensitive about the loopholes being called out or addressed.

The original post suggests that people are only trying to get rid of the anchored stroke because they don't like the putters.  If you want to call it an "opinion", go for it, but said opinion ignores the FACT that reasons have been offered and arguments have been made to get rid of the anchored stroke (by the very governing bodies themselves, no less) that have nothing to do with some subjective like or dislike of the putter.  To suggest otherwise is ignoring publicly available FACTS.  The existence of a publicly made statement is either verifiable or it is not.  The merit of the statement is a whole 'nother matter altogether.  But the original post was a statement suggesting that the reason for it is something other than has been stated and offered numerous times.  That is an "opinion" living somewhere other than reality.

Calling it self-righteous to point this out is a sneaky way to try and shift focus from the merit of the accusation/statement, and is just more framing of the argument/discussion/debate in order to fit a specific agenda.

As has been stated maybe 50 times in this thread alone, going on to argue about an "advantage", when that isn't even part of the rationale, is just another form of a straw man.  I'm not even addressing the way you dismiss the "integrity of the game" as if it's irrelevant or unreasonable.

Lastly, "open-mindedness" isn't a pre-requisite of rules governing that should somehow trump integrity of the game or what the governing body feels is best for the game.  You could be open-minded enough to allow baseball bats to be used for golfing if you want to...I'm not sure why that should make a difference.

Well said, Brandon.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Fictitious and not be to taken seriously? Why, because you happen to disagree with it? Its called an opinion.

But thanks for driving home the core difference in the matter.

One side is self-righteous and, despite zero evidence that anchored putting is an advantage, they want it done away with and wrap themselves in the shroud of upholding the integrity of the game.

The other side simply wants golfers to be able to continue to choose either putting method (like they have for the last 40+ years).

Which side is more open-minded and looking out for the enjoyment/betterment of the game?

JerseyThursday, can you explain please?

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm guessing you're not one of those types that would just rant about something without any reason, right?

So where did you hear that this ban had ANYTHING to do with a playing advantage, as you implied?  I'm quite sure you wouldn't be so bold as to say something like that just to be self-righteous and act as though you knew better than the USGA what was best for the game of golf.

Right?  I mean, that'd be kind of hypocritical wouldn't it?

If you disagree with the ban, fine.  Then say so.  But don't make stuff up.  That just makes you look desperate.  And don't try to turn opinions into facts.  Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're "self-righteous" any more than you are for disagreeing with them.

The old "we've been doing this forever" argument didn't work when we went to 14 clubs, it didn't work when we changed how we drop a ball, and it's not going to work now.  Makes about as much sense as a teenager's "but mom everyone else does it" argument.