Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Yes, you defined a "stroke".  But you stopped there.  Why?

Rule 14-1 states:

14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At

The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.

The definition of "fairly" is stated nowhere in the rules, requiring interpretation.  It's been interpreted whenever required throughout golf history (banning of the croquet stroke, etc).  The "new rule" isn't a "new rule" so much as it's a specific interpretation of "fairly struck at" as near as I can tell.

The fact that the word "fairly" is in there, and they didn't just say "struck at", tells me that there's more to it than just to say "you have to hit the ball with the club."

Furthermore, the definition is even up to interpretation because "forward movement of the club" can be deemed to mean more than simply "forward movement of the clubHEAD" (which is the primary reason that anchored putting doesn't fit the definition, from what I understand)

So yes, it is already in the rules.  It is a precise interpretation that they're putting into a specific prohibition just to make sure that nobody else misinterprets it, as the anchored putters have been doing for decades.

"Fairly" as you stated is subject to interpretation and until the most recent interpretation / ruling anchored putting was determined to meet the criteria and does not according to current version of The Rules of Golf violate that criteria and won't until 2016.

Also be aware that anchoring will still be allowed after 2016, just not against the body, as described by the USGA.  In the "Long Putter Not Anchored" example , the club head would be the only part of the club moving forward, the handle is anchored in the hand that does not have contact with the body.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

And that's where we fail to come to a meeting of the minds. I don't think anyone who is currently using the anchored stroke really thinks it's cheating. If they have said anything to that effect, it's been in the same vein as lift/clean/place is sometimes referred to as cheating.

That sums up my last half dozen posts, so I'll try to back off for a while. :-)

Understood.

I'd honestly probably be giving Ernie the benefit of the doubt had I known nothing about his history of arguments against anchored putting.

I wish I could say that I believe you're right...that he really doesn't think it's "cheating" and it's just his sarcastic nature coming out.

Knowing how passionately he argued against their use in the past, though, is what's tainting my view of the situation now.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

"Fairly" as you stated is subject to interpretation and until the most recent interpretation / ruling anchored putting was determined to meet the criteria and does not according to current version of The Rules of Golf violate that criteria and won't until 2016.

Also be aware that anchoring will still be allowed after 2016, just not against the body, as described by the USGA.  In the "Long Putter Not Anchored" example , the club head would be the only part of the club moving forward, the handle is anchored in the hand that does not have contact with the body.

And this was another of my arguments not long ago, one I actually wrote the USGA about.  It was a few thousands posts ago...don't go looking for it, I wouldn't waste my time and neither should you.

Swinging the club means the whole club...not just the clubhead.  I thought the USGA thought the same thing.  I thought the USGA believed that if the butt of a club was held at a fixed point in space while the rest of the club pivoted underneath it that this would NOT fit the definition of "forward movement of the club" and thus would be deemed NOT a legal stroke.  Then they came out with the poster describing what was legal and what wasn't.

They further muddied the waters when asked about Kuchar's stroke and why it was legal.  The response, from the USGA (I'm trying to find the quote now...I had it earlier today) was that it's legal because the entire club moves and not just the clubhead.

Well then WHY THE HELL is anchoring it away from the body allowed?

As far as I'm concerned the USGA has screwed the pooch on this one in some ways.  They're saying a stroke isn't legal by definition of stroke already in the rules, but that it's not going to be enforced until 2016.  Then they're saying that the same thing that makes an anchored stroke illegal (failure to move the entire club) is only being enforced if the club is anchored to the body and NOT if it's anchored to a fixed point in space.

I have a feeling we're going to be revisiting this again in a few years when they all of the sudden realize that the MOVEMENT OF THE CLUB is identical whether the butt is anchored to the body or whether it's being held stationary in space.

EDIT:  Found the quote from the USGA.
Here's the story:  http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/european-tour-will-support-anchored-putting-ban-leaving-pga-tour-odd-man-out

Here's the relevant quote:
In the meantime, the LPGA players asked a series of insightful questions about the proposed ban. They saw Matt Kuchar win that Sunday at the Accenture, the same day on which Finchem made his comments on national TV. They were interested to know why Kuchar's method, in which he runs the shaft up his left forearm, is not considered anchored putting. Mike Davis, the USGA executive director, gave the answer: because his hands are swinging freely. They are unencumbered.

[Fourputt]

The phrase "fairly struck at" has only to do with the movement of the clubhead.  Just as you can "fairly strike' the ball using Snead's croquet stroke.  He was never accused of not striking the ball, and they changed the definition of an allowable stance to quash his new stroke.  In this case, the ball is still fairly struck when the club is anchored (meaning that it isn't pushed or scooped or spooned).  The addition of a definition in how a player is allowed to hold the club is what is going to change, but he will still be striking the ball the same as he has when anchored.  The condition of the ball being fairly struck at will be unaffected.

I'm guessing that 14-1 will have an additional point added or they will renumber and the new rule will become 14-2.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The phrase "fairly struck at" has only to do with the movement of the clubhead.  Just as you can "fairly strike' the ball using Snead's croquet stroke.  He was never accused of not striking the ball, and they changed the definition of an allowable stance to quash his new stroke.  In this case, the ball is still fairly struck when the club is anchored (meaning that it isn't pushed or scooped or spooned).  The addition of a definition in how a player is allowed to hold the club is what is going to change, but he will still be striking the ball the same as he has when anchored.  The condition of the ball being fairly struck at will be unaffected.

I'm guessing that 14-1 will have an additional point added or they will renumber and the new rule will become 14-2.

I feel like you're glossing over the word "fairly" as though it doesn't mean "in an acceptable manner", which is exactly what it means to me.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

They further muddied the waters when asked about Kuchar's stroke and why it was legal.  The response, from the USGA (I'm trying to find the quote now...I had it earlier today) was that it's legal because the entire club moves and not just the clubhead.

Well then WHY THE HELL is anchoring it away from the body allowed?

As far as I'm concerned the USGA has screwed the pooch on this one in some ways.  They're saying a stroke isn't legal by definition of stroke already in the rules, but that it's not going to be enforced until 2016.  Then they're saying that the same thing that makes an anchored stroke illegal (failure to move the entire club) is only being enforced if the club is anchored to the body and NOT if it's anchored to a fixed point in space.

Here's the relevant quote:

In the meantime, the LPGA players asked a series of insightful questions about the proposed ban. They saw Matt Kuchar win that Sunday at the Accenture, the same day on which Finchem made his comments on national TV. They were interested to know why Kuchar's method, in which he runs the shaft up his left forearm, is not considered anchored putting. Mike Davis, the USGA executive director, gave the answer: because his hands are swinging freely. They are unencumbered.

I don't agree that they muddied the waters there.  Those two pictures newtogolf posted fit well enough under your blue bolded definition from MIke Davis above.  In both cases, the hands are swinging freely and unencumbered.  Yes, I understand that in the top picture, the golfer is trying to keep his top hand perfectly steady as a defacto anchor point, but it's not really anchored against anything, is it?  I can easily walk up to him and push his hand in any direction I want (unless he's wearing one of those fancy power bracelets, obviously ;)) without anything getting in the way.

As far as the legality of Kuchar's stroke, they have to draw a line somewhere, right?  I mean, if they say you can't rest it against your forearm then what happens when people choke up a little bit on putts, chips, pitches, severe sidehill lies, etc, etc?  If you don't define the elbow as the cutoff, then, logically, it HAS to be the wrist, right?  There is no obvious point in between those two.  That seems like an entirely different can of worms to open.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't agree that they muddied the waters there.  Those two pictures newtogolf posted fit well enough under your blue bolded definition from MIke Davis above.  In both cases, the hands are swinging freely and unencumbered.  Yes, I understand that in the top picture, the golfer is trying to keep his top hand perfectly steady as a defacto anchor point, but it's not really anchored against anything, is it?  I can easily walk up to him and push his hand in any direction I want (unless he's wearing one of those fancy power bracelets, obviously ;)) without anything getting in the way.

As far as the legality of Kuchar's stroke, they have to draw a line somewhere, right?  I mean, if they say you can't rest it against your forearm then what happens when people choke up a little bit on putts, chips, pitches, severe sidehill lies, etc, etc?  If you don't define the elbow as the cutoff, then, logically, it HAS to be the wrist, right?  There is no obvious point in between those two.  That seems like an entirely different can of worms to open.

We'll agree to disagree on this I guess.

To me a hand held stationary, by definition, is not swinging freely, therefore doesn't meet MIke Davis' definition.

While it's not anchored AGAINST anything, it is indeed anchored according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Anchored -- To hold fast by, or as if by, an anchor.

It's not necessary for something to be held against something else for it to be held stationary, or anchored.

Whether you anchor the end of the club against your body or in mid-air, the action of the club (and the fact that the entire club doesn't swing as required in the rules) is identical.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by dave67az

From July 22, 2012.  It's things like this that make me lose respect for people.  On one hand you say that something is wrong, but then you try to rationalize it and go ahead and do it anyway.  I realize I'm in the minority here, but these things are important to me.  It's the foundation on which I've built my life, taught to me from the day I was born.

http://www.putterzone.com/2012/07/els-beat-cheat-competition.html

Did Ernie Els “cheat” his way to a British Open victory today?

Els, who was famously outspoken against the belly putter until he decided to use one himself, recently defended his switch by stating, “As long as it’s legal, I’ll keep cheating like the rest of them.”

Els once called for an outright ban on the belly putter, stating that anchoring the club to the body gives the golfer an unfair advantage. “Nerves and the skill of putting are part of the game,” he said.

But last year, with his putting woes mounting, Els made the switch to a belly putter.  He certainly gets points for honesty with his “cheating” comment. He didn’t pretend to have a change of heart. He just decided that if he couldn’t beat them, he’d join them. “Nothing should be anchored to your body, and I believe I still believe that,” he said. “I was in such a state that I felt that I needed to change something, which I did.”

So, there's a case where somebody is clearly gaining an advantage. At least he admits it.

Not that THAT is the issue. Just sayin...

[TourSpoon]

The first time I saw an anchored putter was in 1992. My brother and I switched putters for the round and he was playing my Ping B60. We got to the par 3 8th where we worked and he missed a 4 footer for birdie. He promptly anchored my putter in the middle of the pond. He must have done it well because the ball diver never did find it. After the toss, I told him that I would be hanging onto his Ping Pal for a while.

Seriously, let's get this decision made and move on.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by dave67az

We'll agree to disagree on this I guess.

To me a hand held stationary, by definition, is not swinging freely, therefore doesn't meet MIke Davis' definition.

While it's not anchored AGAINST anything, it is indeed anchored according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Anchored -- To hold fast by, or as if by, an anchor.

It's not necessary for something to be held against something else for it to be held stationary, or anchored.

Whether you anchor the end of the club against your body or in mid-air, the action of the club (and the fact that the entire club doesn't swing as required in the rules) is identical.

I disagree. The Kuchar style is not anchored because the butt of the club is free to move with his arm movement. I see it as an exaggerated version of the left hand low (or cross-handed), where most of the grip of the club is against your left forearm. The anchored stroke with the long putters has the butt of the club stuck where it is completely stationary.

I'm trying a Kuchar style putter this weekend.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by phan52

I disagree. The Kuchar style is not anchored because the butt of the club is free to move with his arm movement. I see it as an exaggerated version of the left hand low (or cross-handed), where most of the grip of the club is against your left forearm. The anchored stroke with the long putters has the butt of the club stuck where it is completely stationary.

I'm trying a Kuchar style putter this weekend.

I didn't claim Kuchar's style was anchored.  It's not anchored in any way.  No part of the club is stationary in space.  The ENTIRE club is swinging freely in space.

My argument was on the broomstick style that anchors the butt end of the club in a stationary position, allowing the rest of the club to pivot on a radius around that fixed point.  To me, if the entire club doesn't move in space, you're not swinging the club, and I THOUGHT that was how the USGA defined it, too, until I saw their poster saying that anchoring is allowed as long as it's not against the body or by a hand/forearm against the body.

[JerseyThursday]

Quote:

Did Ernie Els “cheat” his way to a British Open victory today?

Els, who was famously outspoken against the belly putter until he decided to use one himself , recently defended his switch by stating, “As long as it’s legal, I’ll keep cheating like the rest of them.”

Els once called for an outright ban on the belly putter, stating that anchoring the club to the body gives the golfer an unfair advantage. “Nerves and the skill of putting are part of the game,” he said.

But last year, with his putting woes mounting, Els made the switch to a belly putter.  He certainly gets points for honesty with his “cheating” comment. He didn’t pretend to have a change of heart. He just decided that if he couldn’t beat them, he’d join them. “Nothing should be anchored to your body, and I believe I still believe that,” he said. “I was in such a state that I felt that I needed to change something, which I did.”

An advantage over who? Its not like the other players in the tournament couldn’t use an anchored putter if they wanted. It was a technique that worked for him at the time. No different than if he switched to an overlap grip and had success that week.

For last the time, CHEATING (in golf terms) is breaking the rules, no matter what your opinion. Anchored putting was within the rules for the last 100+ years and looks like it will be for the next 3 years. Anyone (including Els) who throws that word around must be speaking tongue-in-cheek or needs a dictionary.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The phrase "fairly struck at" has only to do with the movement of the clubhead.  Just as you can "fairly strike' the ball using Snead's croquet stroke.  He was never accused of not striking the ball, and they changed the definition of an allowable stance to quash his new stroke.  In this case, the ball is still fairly struck when the club is anchored (meaning that it isn't pushed or scooped or spooned).  The addition of a definition in how a player is allowed to hold the club is what is going to change, but he will still be striking the ball the same as he has when anchored.  The condition of the ball being fairly struck at will be unaffected.

I'm guessing that 14-1 will have an additional point added or they will renumber and the new rule will become 14-2.

I feel like you're glossing over the word "fairly" as though it doesn't mean "in an acceptable manner", which is exactly what it means to me.

As used in this case it has nothing to do with the definition of "fair" that you are referring too.  It is a more archaic (or more British, if you will) meaning of the term.  In this usage it means "to a full degree", or maybe "purely" is also appropriate.  It means only that he ball must be hansomely (another somewhat archaic term) struck with a moving club causing the ball to rebound off the face, not pushed or scooped or otherwise manipulated.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

We'll agree to disagree on this I guess.

To me a hand held stationary, by definition, is not swinging freely, therefore doesn't meet MIke Davis' definition.

While it's not anchored AGAINST anything, it is indeed anchored according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Anchored -- To hold fast by, or as if by, an anchor.

It's not necessary for something to be held against something else for it to be held stationary, or anchored.

Whether you anchor the end of the club against your body or in mid-air, the action of the club (and the fact that the entire club doesn't swing as required in the rules) is identical.

I don't know if that definition really applies here.  I certainly think the intent of the rule is to keep you from anchoring it against something.  That is the action that everybody has a problem with ... as far as it taking away the nerves, and the yips, and all that jazz.  Attempting to hold your hand still in mid air without holding it against something seems no different than attempting to move it in a perfectly straight line while not held against something.  It's a skill that can't be circumvented unless you anchor it against something.

(However, I agree that we can agree to disagree on this) :)

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

An advantage over who?

Probably himself...without the anchoring.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Probably himself...without the anchoring.

Good for him. What’s the problem?

[Chas]

Dave67: This is a bit silly. Neither Tiger nor any other sensible person is going to seriously handicap himself in his competitive performance by not doing something perfectly legal - like lift clean and place - because he thinks it ought to be illegal (if he in fact believes that). Obviously, he was using the word "cheat" in that context somewhat facetiously. No, there is nothing immoral, unethical or otherwise improper about his position. To suggest otherwise is somewhat disingenuous, to use a pretty word for it. Whatever else Tiger is or is not as a person he is a respecter of the rules and traditions of the game of golf. Sheesh ....

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Yes, you defined a "stroke".  But you stopped there.  Why?

Rule 14-1 states:

14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At

The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.

The definition of "fairly" is stated nowhere in the rules, requiring interpretation.  It's been interpreted whenever required throughout golf history (banning of the croquet stroke, etc).  The "new rule" isn't a "new rule" so much as it's a specific interpretation of "fairly struck at" as near as I can tell.

The fact that the word "fairly" is in there, and they didn't just say "struck at", tells me that there's more to it than just to say "you have to hit the ball with the club."

Furthermore, the definition is even up to interpretation because "forward movement of the club" can be deemed to mean more than simply "forward movement of the clubHEAD" (which is the primary reason that anchored putting doesn't fit the definition, from what I understand)

So yes, it is already in the rules.  It is a precise interpretation that they're putting into a specific prohibition just to make sure that nobody else misinterprets it, as the anchored putters have been doing for decades.

I think that in the bolded part you have completely misstated what is going on.  If your take was correct then the whole thing would have been done through a decision, not a rule change.  Decisions apply existing rules to particular fact patterns.  You seem to be saying that the USGA/R&A; proposed change is applying something already embodied in the rules to the fact pattern of anchoring.  Obviously the USGA and R&A; disagree with you, because otherwise they would have done it through a Decision.  What you are trying to do is apply a principle as if it were a rule.  And that just does not work.

The fact is that golf is played according to rules, not principles.  Hopefully the rules embody the principles in their entirety, but as a practical matter they never have and never will quite achieve 100%.  What you seem to be saying is that following the rules but violating the principles is cheating.  And that anchoring has always been against the principles and therefore implicitly against the rules and therefore using it has been cheating.  But again, the game is played according to rules, not principles.  It is the job of the USGA and R&A; to put those principles into the form of rules.  And, as stewards of the game, it is their job to take their actions in a measured responsible way that achieves their purpose in a reasonable way.  Which in this case means a delayed effective date.  People need time to start the adjustment process.  Companies need time to shut down production lines and shift to others.  I'd be happier with a shorter delay, but that is just details, not some moral issue.  Being on track to get to the right place is more important than being in the right place right this minute.  IMO