Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[Chas]

I don't know if this is the answer to your question, but I can tell you this.  After living in England for 5 years (1993-1998) I noticed a huge difference in the "British mentality" compared to us "Yanks" when it comes to preservation of history. In the States, in almost every city, most of us have noticed that we have little problem tearing down old, historic buildings and converting land to parking garages, office buildings, or shopping malls. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part we don't have as strong of an attachment to history and tradition as the Brits do.  Part of it, I believe, is the fact that OUR traditions, and OUR history dates back only a few hundred years.  English history (and European history, for that matter) dates back thousands of years.  I did a lot of traveling around the U.K. while I was there and it wasn't unusual to find a cathedral, castle, or other structures 500 years old and more sitting next to commercially zoned areas.  They respect their history too much to tear down many of these sites.  In the U.S., I've seen a different approach.  I've seen historic buildings actually dismantled and moved to a "more convenient" location in order to use the land for something more commercially beneficial. I honestly think this is the main reason they're more willing to accept rules that attempt to restore or at least hold onto history and tradition.  I also think it's one of the reasons the monarchy still exists.  The Royals are figureheads, but I can't see England ever getting rid of them because they're a link to a past of which many Brits are very proud.

As one who's lived about 30 years on each side of the pond I would agree on the whole. Great respect for tradition has it's up and down sides of course. That people in Ireland (Eire and the North, both) generally know their history at least back to the C17th has its down side. Same goes for the Scots come to think of it. My own English college is having its 750th this year and I shall attend. Harold Godwinson (King Harold) was a 6 hcp while his father (Edward the Confessor) was scratch. This is why William the Conqueror had all the English courses destroyed by about 1080. Many of them were replaced with castles and other fortified structures, the better to subjugate the Saxons. Scottish courses survived of course and the rest was golfing history. Don't believe me? Look closely at the Bayeux tapestry for proof positive ..... ;>)

[Chas]

But visit some of our marvelous Civil War sites (e.g. Gettysburg, Antietam) you will discover that Yanks DO know how to preserve certain aspects of their heritage. Compare with the battlefield at Hastings, arguably the most historically important bit of ground on the whole island.

[iacas]

From the R&A; site:

Quote:

Q) Have the governing bodies previously considered taking action to address anchoring?

A) The USGA and The R&A; have monitored and discussed the topic of both longer putters and anchoring a number of times over the years.

In response to concerns arising in the 1980s about the emerging use of the long putter, in 1989 The R&A; and the USGA considered but decided not to adopt an equipment Rule to limit the permissible length of a putter. The basic issue addressed was not the use of an anchored stroke, but whether long putters should be allowed at all. A key basis for the decision was that long putters were viewed as helping those with physical problems (e.g. back problems) who otherwise might have difficulty playing the game. Moreover, the view at the time was that long putters were used almost entirely by a small number of golfers with serious putting difficulties and there was little concern that this putting method would enter the mainstream.

The issue was also discussed a few years ago when concerns were deepened because of the more recent emergence of anchored putting with a belly putter. But there was no clear consensus about how best to address this issue through a Rule change (e.g. whether to use an equipment Rule or a playing Rule), and given the minor level of usage of such strokes, there was a continuing perception that there was no significant long-term threat to the traditional and established way of playing the game.

That continues to be in line with what they've said all along.

[Derrick Parker]

At least the R&A; didn't outright ban the long putter like they did the Schenectady putter after the 1904 British Am Open won by Walter Travis.  Man, they hated that stick. Walter was sinking forty footers with that ugly thing.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by iacas

From the R&A; site:

That continues to be in line with what they've said all along.

So, right around the time a young, prodigious Tiger Woods was taking the amateur golf world by storm, the USGA and R&A; decided to look into banning the long putter?  That can't be a simple coincidence.  Looks like this truly has been about protecting Tiger Woods' legacy after all!

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

So, right around the time a young, prodigious Tiger Woods was taking the amateur golf world by storm, the USGA and R&A; decided to look into banning the long putter?  That can't be a simple coincidence.  Looks like this truly has been about protecting Tiger Woods' legacy after all!

What year did Tiger's parents meet? Didn't they start looking at it that year as well? And then again the year he was born? I think you're on to something mr. lewis

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by Chas

But visit some of our marvelous Civil War sites (e.g. Gettysburg, Antietam) you will discover that Yanks DO know how to preserve certain aspects of their heritage. Compare with the battlefield at Hastings, arguably the most historically important bit of ground on the whole island.

Meh, not sure getting done by the French at home is going to go down as one of our favourite battles.

On a more serious note the preservation of historical sites, particular those of a significant size, is the preserve of the wealthy either in cash not needing to earn income from valuable land to go to waste or wealthy in land terms where the amount of unused land makes the actual land cheap. So Hastings - plough it over and grow crops on it, US sites blimey look at all that land stretching to the Pacific - leave it as it is.

The British upper classes remain immensely conservative and are absolutely sure that they are correct - the R&A; is run by them, it wouldnt surprise me if they tried to get the old balls back and bring back the stymie rule. The SI article from the early 70's will show this up even more.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

. The SI article from the early 70's will show this up even more.

Can you point us to it ?

[Wansteadimp]

Morden's post 1104 on this thread

[Rulesman]

Of course. Thanks

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

From the R&A; site:

That continues to be in line with what they've said all along.

So, right around the time a young, prodigious Tiger Woods was taking the amateur golf world by storm, the USGA and R&A; decided to look into banning the long putter?  That can't be a simple coincidence.  Looks like this truly has been about protecting Tiger Woods' legacy after all!

Give up on the conspiracy theory.  Never had anything do with anything.

[iacas]

Give up on the conspiracy theory.  Never had anything do with anything.

Pretty sure he was being facetious. :)

[Chas]

Meh, not sure getting done by the French at home is going to go down as one of our favourite battles. On a more serious note the preservation of historical sites, particular those of a significant size, is the preserve of the wealthy either in cash not needing to earn income from valuable land to go to waste or wealthy in land terms where the amount of unused land makes the actual land cheap. So Hastings - plough it over and grow crops on it, US sites blimey look at all that land stretching to the Pacific - leave it as it is. The British upper classes remain immensely conservative and are absolutely sure that they are correct - the R&A; is run by them, it wouldnt surprise me if they tried to get the old balls back and bring back the stymie rule. The SI article from the early 70's will show this up even more.

Not the whole field, but more than exists. It is not the preserve of the wealthy, it is a sign of respect by a nation for historical events with a profound role in its development. Bletchley Park was a disgrace when I visited not long ago. What's up with that? To get back on point, R&A; are showing proper respect for the history/traditions of the game, as is USGA, regarding anchoring. That is a good thing IMO. Golf has a tradition worth preserving. Cheers.

[Wansteadimp]

I think the point with Hastings is that the land was ploughed under years and years ago, I have vague recollections that they don't actually know of the exact site of the Battle of Hastings in any case.

As for Bletchley Park it does need to be better recognised. The chief man (name eludes me) is still officially under a cloud due to his homosexuality which he was prosecuted for, unbelievable disgrace. He did as much to win the war as any other Britain, probably more so and his name still has stigma attached to it.

[Ernest Jones]

Alan Turing.

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Alan Turing.

That's him, thanks. Absolute outrage.

[Chas]

What you guys need is a govt programme to fix up Bletchley and fix the economy at the same time (jobs, chicken-in-every-pot), like we did here in the U.S. starting in 2009 (TARP). Money would be well spent.  I'll look up Turing - how absurd.

Re: Hastings.  You have a point.  It was a while ago and that issue of the Canterbury Examiner is missing I believe.  Hard to tell from the tapestry.

Later: amazing! And pardon my ignorance - they don't tell you about that at Bletchley.  It's a national disgrace - they need to do something like name a tube station in his honor.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Chas

What you guys need is a govt programme to fix up Bletchley and fix the economy at the same time (jobs, chicken-in-every-pot), like we did here in the U.S. starting in 2009 (TARP). Money would be well spent.  I'll look up Turing - how absurd.

Re: Hastings.  You have a point.  It was a while ago and that issue of the Canterbury Examiner is missing I believe.  Hard to tell from the tapestry.

Later: amazing! And pardon my ignorance - they don't tell you about that at Bletchley.  It's a national disgrace - they need to do something like name a tube station in his honor.