Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[ejimsmith]

Originally Posted by ay33660

Absolutely agreed.

The vast majority of the players at my club who were watching the telecast in the men's lounge voiced the same opinion and were rooting for anyone OTHER than Scott to win.

if payne stewart were alive still, you guys would probably boo him because you don't like his look either.

get over it, anchored putting should stay.  sounds to me like the usga is starting to wavier a bit on their proposal.  good for them!!

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by ejimsmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay33660

Absolutely agreed.

The vast majority of the players at my club who were watching the telecast in the men's lounge voiced the same opinion and were rooting for anyone OTHER than Scott to win.

if payne stewart were alive still, you guys would probably boo him because you don't like his look either.

Why would folks who are for a traditional putting style boo someone who dressed in a traditional clothing style?

get over it, anchored putting should stay.  sounds to me like the usga is starting to wavier a bit on their proposal.  good for them!!

Source?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Why would folks who are for a traditional putting style boo someone who dressed in a traditional clothing style?

Good question.

I think those people are more likely to dislike Rickie Fowler (everything), Nick Watney or Hunter Mahan (flat brim), etc.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by ejimsmith

if payne stewart were alive still, you guys would probably boo him because you don't like his look either.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff

There has not been any conclusive evidence that belly putters give an unfair advantage. The PGA or some governing body should conduct tests of say 10 ft. putts and 20 ft. putts with belly putters and conventional putters to obtain some data...

The incredible period of time that anchoring has been permitted before this rule change along with lack of evidence that its an advantage is for some of the pro-banners on this forum is a non-issue because they want it to be a non-issue. To others, it does matter...

“The PGA Tour Policy Board met for the first time this year, and the four player members – Paul Goydos, Harrison Frazar, Jim Furyk and Steve Stricker – opposed the ban.

“My opinion and a lot of players’ opinions changed because the ban wouldn’t be just for us but for everybody who plays the game,” Stricker said at the Match Play.

Stricker, No. 16 in the Official World Golf Ranking, said many on Tour think the timing of the proposed ban is poor. On top of that, he said, there’s no evidence anchoring helps.

“We’re at a point in time in the game of golf that we’re trying to keep players, lure players into playing the game,” Stricker said. “A majority of the players feel that it only puts a negative spin on that, maybe detracts the local guy, the club member, the public player, whoever, from playing at times. And this rule has been good for 30 years.”

BTW, Stricker doesn't anchor.

[Rulesman]

Does Stricker actually know the majority of players? How does he know their views?

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Does Stricker actually know the majority of players? How does he know their views?

Considering he’s on the tour and was one of the representatives of the PGA Tour Policy Board, I’d have to imagine he got the opinions of a lot of players.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Considering he’s on the tour and was one of the representatives of the PGA Tour Policy Board, I’d have to imagine he got the opinions of a lot of players.

Presumably pretty well limited to the 250 or so PGA Tour players.

Sound like a lot to me.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Considering he’s on the tour and was one of the representatives of the PGA Tour Policy Board, I’d have to imagine he got the opinions of a lot of players.

And many if not all of these players are getting some bills paid by the manufacturers. Additionally these guys are a tight knit group and for one player who represents the interests of all to come out and take a position to potentially hurt someone's livelihood would not stand well with that community. When it comes to these groups, it is more about preserving financial interests over the long run.  I can't say that I blame them. The timing piece is huge and now that majors are being won by guys that grew up with anchoring, along with converts, it is a big decision.

Adam Scott winning doesn't have as much impact as Tianlang using it.  I am sure that China was watching him closely and his influence with anchoring has to be huge.

[mvmac]

Ted Bishop writes that watching Adam Scott win "was probably as painful as swallowing a handful of nails for the USGA and officials.  Bishop says that the last two major winners to anchor, Els and Scott, won the tournaments with their ball striking and not superior putting.  Even if Adam Scott is an average putter now, it's still better than what it was before.

Quote:

When Adam Scott dropped that winning putt in the darkness on Sunday afternoon, he completed a unique Grand Slam for the long putter.  Keegan Bradley got it all started with his PGA Championship victory in 2011. Last year Webb Simpson won the U.S. Open and Ernie Els took home the Claret Jug at the British Open. All four players were anchoring long putters.

Some will say that Scott’s victory at the Masters will probably seal the fate of the anchored stroke. Watching him win was probably as painful as swallowing a handful of nails for USGA and R&A; officials. Scott is popular, good looking and well spoken. At 32 years old, he is another player that represents the image that golf needs. How will his career be affected if he can longer anchor?

It’s interesting when you consider Scott’s putting performance last week from a statistical standpoint. The field averaged 1.65 putts per green hit in regulation. Scott averaged 1.67, which was worse than the masses. When Els won the Open Championship at Lytham he was ranked 71 ^st in overall putting. So, I would argue that the last two major winners using the anchored putting stroke did so on the merits of their ball striking, not their putting.

[sacm3bill]

from Ted Bishop:

Scott is popular, good looking and well spoken. At 32 years old, he is another player that represents the image that golf needs. How will his career be affected if he can longer anchor?

It's interesting that Bishop feels keeping popular, good looking men in the spotlight should be considered when making rules changes. I do not concur.

from Ted Bishop:

It’s interesting when you consider Scott’s putting performance last week from a statistical standpoint. The field averaged 1.65 putts per green hit in regulation. Scott averaged 1.67, which was worse than the masses. When Els won the Open Championship at Lytham he was ranked 71st in overall putting. So, I would argue that the last two major winners using the anchored putting stroke did so on the merits of their ball striking, not their putting.

Several problems with that line of thinking:

1) Putts Gained would be a more accurate statistic than Putts Per GIR.

2) Els' ranking may have included tournaments where he was using a non-anchored putter, or while he was still adjusting to it. At the time he won he might have been a much better putter than his ranking would indicate.

3) You can't claim ball striking won the tournament, and not putting, unless the player somehow took zero putts for the whole tournament - otherwise you don't know whether any given made putt with an anchored stroke might have missed with a non-anchored.

4) Corollary to #3: There is no way to scientifically prove based on empirical data whether the anchor provides a statistical advantage or not. Reasons for this have been stated elsewhere.

5) Even if the anchor did give an advantage, that's not why they're being banned.

Not to mention, Bishop falls into the same logical trap that almost every opponent of the ban also does: In one breath he supposes Scott's career will be affected if he can't anchor, implying it gives Scott an advantage - and in the next he tries to show anchoring *doesn't* help one putt better.

[jamo]

Any time you mention "Adam Scott" and "strokes gained - putting" in the same sentence, you must link to the 2004 strokes gained - putting leader board: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02564.html#2004

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by jamo

Any time you mention "Adam Scott" and "strokes gained - putting" in the same sentence, you must link to the 2004 strokes gained - putting leader board: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02564.html#2004

Wow, he was blowing away the next closest player.  (But did you post that because you're saying his 2004 putting prowess has some relevance in this discussion, or just as a point of interest?)

[jamo]

Wow, he was blowing away the next closest player.  (But did you post that because you're saying his 2004 putting prowess has some relevance in this discussion, or just as a point of interest?)

Just because I find it crazy that he was, at one point, fantastic with the short putter.

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Presumably pretty well limited to the 250 or so PGA Tour players.

Sound like a lot to me.

Does the USGA and R&A; actually know the majority of players? How do they know their views?

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Not to mention, Bishop falls into the same logical trap that almost every opponent of the ban also does: In one breath he supposes Scott's career will be affected if he can't anchor, implying it gives Scott an advantage - and in the next he tries to show anchoring *doesn't* help one putt better.

Simply because it works for some (like Scott) and not for others. Therefore, it can’t be painted with the broad brush as “an advantage”.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Not to mention, Bishop falls into the same logical trap that almost every opponent of the ban also does: In one breath he supposes Scott's career will be affected if he can't anchor, implying it gives Scott an advantage - and in the next he tries to show anchoring *doesn't* help one putt better.

Simply because it works for some (like Scott) and not for others. Therefore, it can’t be painted with the broad brush as “an advantage”.

As I read it, Bishop was implying Scott's career would suffer if he couldn't use anchoring, but then used Scott's GIR stats to show Scott was not getting an advantage from anchoring. That's a narrow enough brush.

But my point is, even if anchoring gives an advantage to just *some* golfers, you can no longer use the argument that "Anchoring shouldn't be banned because it doesn't give an advantage".

[JerseyThursday]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

And many if not all of these players are getting some bills paid by the manufacturers. Additionally these guys are a tight knit group and for one player who represents the interests of all to come out and take a position to potentially hurt someone's livelihood would not stand well with that community. When it comes to these groups, it is more about preserving financial interests over the long run.

All those manufacturers also make conventional length putters. Ping doesn’t care if you buy an anchored putter or conventional putter just so long as you buy a Ping putter.
The PGA Tour Policy Board along with the four player members took a stance that the ban is a bad idea because it is a bad idea. Maybe they care as much about the integrity of the game as USGA and R&A.;