The Overall Golf World Reflected Through the Ban on Anchored Strokes

[MS256]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meenman

From what I see on here, my club has a much higher percentage than any of you guys. Others have said I notice it more because I am one of them.

To put things in perspective, at age 44, I can probably count the members younger than me on one hand.

Wow, really? I bet that makes you feel good getting called 'young man' every five minutes :)

What makes me "feel good" is when somebody that is younger than I am thinks I am younger than they are.

There is a small percentage of golfers under 40 around here and many of the senior guys that kept the courses in business all these years are starting to diminish due to old age and health problems.

Very small percentage of anchored putters around here, even among senior golfers. I would say less than 1%. Never caught on here except for the occasional desperate soul, who usually went back to a short putter in short order when they found out they still couldn't putt with an anchored putter.

[mvmac]

I agree. It isn't about strokes gained on the field, it's about strokes they gained on their previous inability to use a short putter. I have a certain degree of sympathy for Keegan Bradley and the like who used this method from early in their career but it still shows that they were unable to putt using the short putter because let's face it, nobody would actually start the game using a long putter so they've switched at some point .

I think Keegan will be fine, who knows he might putt better without anchoring it.  He won't be going back to the same stroke he had when he first went to the belly, I think he switched in college.  After years of anchoring it, his un-anchored stroke is probably a lot better.

The big question to me in all of this is, "Will the banning of the anchored stroke restrict the growth of the game?"  Perhaps initially, but in the long run, probably not.

Not at all IMO

If they banned 460cc titanium drivers, that might be a different story

I can't see it having any effect on the growth of the game. How many amateurs actually use the longer putter? I think I've only ever played with one or two people who use them. The only reason pro's use them is because their livelihood depends on it. We don't have that pressure fortunately.

Yeah the reason pros use them is because it helps them putt better.  It's not for everyone, a lot of guys tried it but only a very small percentage have stuck with it.

There might literally be a ton of amateurs, but that's only 2000 pounds worth of amateurs.

LOL good one

All of those things are swung the traditional way, and contrary to the old lines you're pulling out, it's not about advances in technology, but simply curbing the manner in which the tools of the game are employed.

Nope. Because it does not meet their definition of what a "stroke" should be.

Correct....It would be nice if we didn't have to reiterate this every other post

[Ernest Jones]

Correct....It would be nice if we didn't have to reiterate this every other post

Well then just iterate it.

[Keep It Simple]

Yes it has http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-equipment/blogs/hotlist365/2013/05/usgara-ban-anchored-putting.html

Ok, thanks.  So the definition we are working with is basically the traditional stroke is any stroke which is not anchored to any part of the body and where the club can swing freely.  I disagree with this.  To me the traditional stroke should be defined as the most optimum way to strike a conforming golf ball with a conforming club.  It just so happens that this is a free swinging club with no anchor point for all clubs except the putter where some players may find it optimum to hold the club against a part of their body to help stabilize it.  You are not truly anchoring anything because the human body is never in a completely static state when standing up.  Just my opinion.  I would much prefer the governing bodies to restrict the length of the putter than to try and control how players use it.  The same way they do with the driver.

[boogielicious]

Well then just iterate it.

You are a instigator my friend!

Over the last 4 years, I have not played with one person using an anchored putting stroke with either a belly putter or full length.  I rarely see them on the course at all.  It will be no big loss.

[saevel25]

Ok, thanks.  So the definition we are working with is basically the traditional stroke is any stroke which is not anchored to any part of the body and where the club can swing freely.  I disagree with this.  To me the traditional stroke should be defined as the most optimum way to strike a conforming golf ball with a conforming club.  It just so happens that this is a free swinging club with no anchor point for all clubs except the putter where some players may find it optimum to hold the club against a part of their body to help stabilize it.  You are not truly anchoring anything because the human body is never in a completely static state when standing up.  Just my opinion.  I would much prefer the governing bodies to restrict the length of the putter than to try and control how players use it.  The same way they do with the driver.

What is optimal? Do you now ban Jim Furyk from swinging a golf club, because his swing sure doesn't look optimal.

Oh stop nit picking on the term anchor. Nothing is totally stable. You anchor stuff to the back of a truck when you tow something. The truck is still moving.

Here's the thing, they don't want to ban long putters. They want to ban a type of technique made. You can anchor a short putter to your wrist. Just take a left hand low grip, and then clasp your right hand onto the top of the club anchoring to your forearm.

[iacas]

Ok, thanks.  So the definition we are working with is basically the traditional stroke is any stroke which is not anchored to any part of the body and where the club can swing freely.  I disagree with this. To me the traditional stroke should be defined as the most optimum way to strike a conforming golf ball with a conforming club.

Then you're okay with people putting the ball by making a pool cue motion? Because if that's shown to be the most optimal way, then you'd allow that AND you ( @Keep It Simple ) would also be calling it "traditional?" Good luck with that one.

They drew the line in the sand between anchoring and not. It's very simple.

I would much prefer the governing bodies to restrict the length of the putter than to try and control how players use it.  The same way they do with the driver.

They already greatly restrict the way in which you can use a golf club. You can't push, scrape, or spoon the ball, for example.

[Ernest Jones]

They already greatly restrict the way in which you can use a golf club. You can't push, scrape, or spoon the ball, for example.

Spooning your caddie is also frowned upon.

[mvmac]

I disagree with this.  To me the traditional stroke should be defined as the most optimum way to strike a conforming golf ball with a conforming club.

So if a golfer has a crappy swing, not optimal, are they violating the rules of golf?

Ok, thanks.  So the definition we are working with is basically the traditional stroke is any stroke which is not anchored to any part of the body and where the club can swing freely.  I disagree with this.

It's fine to disagree but that's the definition they're going with.

[Robster 7]

Interesting that only one of the 56 players competing in the ET Race to Dubai finals this week is using a long putter. Probably would've been two but Ernie Els isn't playing.

[boogielicious]

Spooning your caddie is also frowned upon.

Don't tell Patrick Reed @Ernest Jones !

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2013/08/dont-expect-a-wave-of-wife-caddies-on-the-pga-tour-anytime-s.html

[Nked95]

This all can be summed up in strokes gained putting. The highest strokes gained putting is 0.854 strokes. Meaning that person gains 0.854 strokes on the field due to his putting. The best putters do not even get 1 stroke on the field. If this was about an competitive advantage, you'd think that the strokes gain putting would show a great advantage towards anchored putting.

Here's a short list of some anchored putter users.

Keegan Bradley: 0.250

Web Simpson: 0.314

Adam Scott: 0.001

Ernie Els: -0.139

Carl Petterson: -0.033

WOW, big advantage right?

Here's the thing, long game and ball striking is much more beneficial to the golf game than putting.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantages, it has everything to do with the integrity of what is considered a putting stroke.

Even if the advantage is not substantial, it still seems to be present. I'm also glad you mentioned the integrity of the stroke because that ties back into the traditional aspect of the golf world. It's long been accepted to use the conventional stroke so when recently many more players are using an unconventional strokes, especially in seemingly the most conventional aspect of the game, the integrity of golf seems to dwindle.

[Nked95]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

This isn't quite correct.  It has everything to do with competitive advantage, but only because they putt better with the anchored putter than they do without.  It still doesn't mean that they putt better than the next guy or that it gives them a competitive advantage over anyone except their former selves before they switched.  The fact is that the best putters don't use an anchored stroke, and that is why it can be stated unequivocally that the rule change isn't due to advantage gained, but due to the non-traditional nature of the stroke.

I agree. It isn't about strokes gained on the field, it's about strokes they gained on their previous inability to use a short putter. I have a certain degree of sympathy for Keegan Bradley and the like who used this method from early in their career but it still shows that they were unable to putt using the short putter because let's face it, nobody would actually start the game using a long putter so they've switched at some point .

I'm glad you pointed this out because by that reasoning, it essentially shows that the golf world views the anchored putting stroke as a beneficial alternative to their current putting stroke. Since players switch to the anchored stroke as a result of poor putting, the anchored stroke obviously must carry some weight as a better way to putt or else people wouldn't switch to it.

[Nked95]

Would you rather that they said simply that they did it for what they perceive as being "for the good of the game?"  That's really all the reason that they need.  Any other explanation is just to attempt to satisfy the cynics.  Most serious golfers can see exactly what they are talking about when they say that anchoring takes some of the skill and challenge of freely swinging the club out of the game.  Why do you think that players like meenman are so adamant that they won't give up the broomstick, and in fact will hold it in such a way that nobdy can actually tell if they are cheating or not?  Apparently, they don't want to be challenged by the game.

The real reason for the rule is to try and preserve what is left of that challenge after all of the modern equipment modifications have made other facets of the game easier.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe the golf world is in fact trying to preserve the concept of "fair play" in golf, or at least whatever is left of it by taking away a part of the game many feel as an easy fix to their putting woes. The argument, unfortunately, is that if every other piece of equipment is technologically advancing so players hit it farther, spin it more, etc..., why can't the putter be advanced as well? My only answer to that is every other modification is considered "traditional" with respect to the fact that people are still freely swinging the club, while the anchored putting stroke obviously is not traditional. The only way this argument stands is one adopts the meaning that traditional means a player is freely swinging the club.

[mvmac]

My only answer to that is every other modification is considered "traditional" with respect to the fact that people are still freely swinging the club, while the anchored putting stroke obviously is not traditional. The only way this argument stands is one adopts the meaning that traditional means a player is freely swinging the club.

Yes and that's exactly what the USGA/R&A; are doing, clarifying the definition of what a golf stroke is.

Welcome to the site Nked95, just wanted to share some info about multi-quoting, check it out

1. Multi-Quote

It grinds people's gears when you respond, minutes apart, to multiple users with multiple posts. This forum has the ability to let you respond to multiple posts inside of one post. It's called multi-quote, and it's useful, and virtually required. You can read more about it here: http://thesandtrap.com/a/discussion-forum-tutorial#user_replywithaquotation

http://thesandtrap.com/t/69379/newbie-helpers-little-things-everyone-expects-and-asks-of-users

[turtleback]

I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe the golf world is in fact trying to preserve the concept of "fair play" in golf, or at least whatever is left of it by taking away a part of the game many feel as an easy fix to their putting woes. The argument, unfortunately, is that if every other piece of equipment is technologically advancing so players hit it farther, spin it more, etc..., why can't the putter be advanced as well? My only answer to that is every other modification is considered "traditional" with respect to the fact that people are still freely swinging the club, while the anchored putting stroke obviously is not traditional. The only way this argument stands is one adopts the meaning that traditional means a player is freely swinging the club.

Is it really so hard to see that one is equipment and the other is technique?

[newtogolf]

I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe the golf world is in fact trying to preserve the concept of "fair play" in golf, or at least whatever is left of it by taking away a part of the game many feel as an easy fix to their putting woes. The argument, unfortunately, is that if every other piece of equipment is technologically advancing so players hit it farther, spin it more, etc..., why can't the putter be advanced as well? My only answer to that is every other modification is considered "traditional" with respect to the fact that people are still freely swinging the club, while the anchored putting stroke obviously is not traditional. The only way this argument stands is one adopts the meaning that traditional means a player is freely swinging the club.

They didn't ban the long putter in fact many manufacturers are offering longer (36" - 40") putters that are counter balanced.  What the rule banned was anchoring the putter, regardless of putter length.

This isn't an equipment issue, it's a stroke issue.  Read the rule, it doesn't limit anything with regard to the equipment, it's HOW the equipment is used.

[mvmac]

They didn't ban the long putter in fact many manufacturers are offering longer (36" - 40") putters that are counter balanced.  What the rule banned was anchoring the putter, regardless of putter length.

This isn't an equipment issue, it's a stroke issue.  Read the rule, it doesn't limit anything with regard to the equipment, it's HOW the equipment is used.

Correct, a good player that I've given a couple lessons to uses a long putter and plans to stick with it.  He's just going to have the grip end away from his sternum rather than anchored to his sternum.  I've seen him do it and he putts just as well.