The Overall Golf World Reflected Through the Ban on Anchored Strokes

[MS256]

Wait 'til you're 67 like me.   I'm definitely a shorter hitter now than I was at 30 something, but then I never saw the supposed added length that the evolving equipment was supposed to be generating.  My first metal driver, a TM Tour Driver (9.5° with a 43" steel TT shaft) back in 1988 was still as long as any I've ever owned - I've never been able to figure out why.  And that  was playing a Titleist Tour 100 Balata ball.  The equipment supposedly gets better, but I mostly stayed the same, even when I was still in my 40's.  I just played my game and didn't let it bother me that much.

I still believe that the added length is as much a factor of the 2-3 inch added shaft length in the driver and the stronger lofts in irons as it is in the hotter ball.  I cut my driver back to 44" for better control, so I wouldn't expect to see crazy distance out of it.

I played with a guy a couple of weeks ago that was 69 years old and he could consistently drive the ball around 280 yards. Not bad for anybody and great for that age. Of course I have no way of knowing what he did when he was 30. He was the longest "senior" (that I consider over 65) golfer that I've played with.

[Ernest Jones]

[QUOTE name="David in FL" url="/t/70989/the-overall-golf-world-reflected-through-the-ban-on-anchored-strokes#post_918040"] Hell, even I hit it longer now, at 55, than I did at 30.....[/QUOTE] So how sad does it make me, who still hits it shorter than when I was 30 (I'm 57).  :-( :cry:

Don't be too hard on yourself, you're a turtle.

[turtleback]

Don't be too hard on yourself, you're a turtle.

And turtle speed is about what my ball has as it leave the clubface.

On the plus side, I rarely hit it far enough to lose it.  There seems to be some mystical connection between how far I ht it and how far I can see.  LOL

[mvmac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robster 7

I couldn't care less about how something looks, the main issue is the fact that, when under pressure, the nerves affect your hands and this style of putting takes that out of the equation. Matt Kuchar's forearm anchoring doesnt sit too well with me either but they don't seem keen to take that on at this point.

They have addressed the Kuchar style though and found it to be fine.

Kuchar's take last year

Quote:

"I've been under the impression that the way I hold the putter is OK," Kuchar said. "I think (the USGA and R&A;) want the player to control both ends of the club. They want the butt end moving and the way I use it, both ends of the putter move. I was kind of hoping I would be OK with the rule and it sounds like I am."

[rkim291968]

I actually made a long putter and tried anchor putting.   I  played around/practice with it for about two weeks and I didn't feel it helped my putting.  What I gained in short putt accuracy, I lost it on long lag putts.

But I agree that the anchoring is banned from major pro tourneys.   If anything, the topic was becoming too controversial & disruptive.   By resetting the issue, players can now focus on playing golf.

[Nked95]

[QUOTE name="mvmac" url="/t/70989/the-overall-golf-world-reflected-through-the-ban-on-anchored-strokes/18#post_918345"]   They have addressed the Kuchar style though and found it to be fine.   Kuchar's take last year [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/86272/] [/URL][/QUOTE] Thank you for this post! It helps clarify the actual ruling really well!

[Keep It Simple]

However, those who do oppose such putters maintain that. in fact, the use of those putters does not conform to the traditional method of striking the ball. We can't scoop the ball, can't use the handle to hit the ball (ala billiards) nor can we push the ball with the club head. Tradition and current rules indicate that we use our hands only to hold the club and swing the stick to strike the ball. Positioning the club against our body, resulting in a stable point, denies a free swing of the club. Ergo, Banned!  I concur.

We have to look back and ask how the golf swing came about.  We don't scoop, use the handle (billiards style) or push the ball with the club head because each of these methods are not optimum.  The best way to swing an iron or wood is the way it is being swung today by the tour players.  There is no better way.  If you told a tour player to swing the club the most efficient way possible they wouldn't change a thing about what they are doing now.  And back in the day shortly after golf was invented, this would also be true.  The best player back then wouldn't change their swing either.  So, one could argue that given a club and told to strike the ball with intent to get it closest to the hole, you'll choose the "traditional method" which is to use the club anyway you wish to give yourself the best chance to get the ball closest to the hole and that method would be the one you see being used throughout the history of the game.  Based on this argument, the traditional way to swing a putter is to find the most efficient way to do so and proceed with that method.  I would argue this is tradition.  We don't anchor the other clubs because it provides a disadvantage.  If you decide an anchored stroke provides an advantage, tradition dictates for you to adopt this method and to feel free using it.  And that is what has been done all the way up until this current ban which flies in the face of tradition IMHO.

[Robster 7]

Yeah thats a good bit of info, cheers! I still think he should control the putter with his hands rather than his forearm but I guess that may be a little pedantic :) Anyway, its a great step forward so no complaints from me. Next, hopefully they ban anyone who insists on wearing Loudmouth clothing and the like!

[meenman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

They have addressed the Kuchar style though and found it to be fine.

Kuchar's take last year

Next, hopefully they ban anyone who insists on wearing Loudmouth clothing and the like!

That statement is nothing short of racist.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joekelly

However, those who do oppose such putters maintain that. in fact, the use of those putters does not conform to the traditional method of striking the ball. We can't scoop the ball, can't use the handle to hit the ball (ala billiards) nor can we push the ball with the club head. Tradition and current rules indicate that we use our hands only to hold the club and swing the stick to strike the ball. Positioning the club against our body, resulting in a stable point, denies a free swing of the club. Ergo, Banned!  I concur.

We have to look back and ask how the golf swing came about.  We don't scoop, use the handle (billiards style) or push the ball with the club head because each of these methods are not optimum.  The best way to swing an iron or wood is the way it is being swung today by the tour players.  There is no better way.  If you told a tour player to swing the club the most efficient way possible they wouldn't change a thing about what they are doing now.  And back in the day shortly after golf was invented, this would also be true.  The best player back then wouldn't change their swing either.  So, one could argue that given a club and told to strike the ball with intent to get it closest to the hole, you'll choose the "traditional method" which is to use the club anyway you wish to give yourself the best chance to get the ball closest to the hole and that method would be the one you see being used throughout the history of the game.  Based on this argument, the traditional way to swing a putter is to find the most efficient way to do so and proceed with that method.  I would argue this is tradition.  We don't anchor the other clubs because it provides a disadvantage.  If you decide an anchored stroke provides an advantage, tradition dictates for you to adopt this method and to feel free using it.  And that is what has been done all the way up until this current ban which flies in the face of tradition IMHO.

Talk about twisting reality to fit your world view.  We are talking about the traditional golf stroke .  Period.  The traditional golf stroke is not anchored.  Period.  You feel that just because someone invented a new stroke after 300 years of tradition that it should simply be accepted without regard to the real traditional stroke.  All you are doing is twisting the facts to suit your argument - and rewriting the definition of the word "tradition".  That just won't fly.  Not with most of us here, and certainly not with the ruling bodies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robster 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

They have addressed the Kuchar style though and found it to be fine.

Kuchar's take last year

Next, hopefully they ban anyone who insists on wearing Loudmouth clothing and the like!

That statement is nothing short of racist.

Huh??  How.  Just what is your definition of "racist"?

[meenman]

Huh??  How.  Just what is your definition of "racist"?

My statement is about as ridiculous as the statement I was replying to.

[Robster 7]

Then call the fashion police! Haha

[misty_mountainhop]

We have to look back and ask how the golf swing came about.  We don't scoop, use the handle (billiards style) or push the ball with the club head because each of these methods are not optimum.  The best way to swing an iron or wood is the way it is being swung today by the tour players.  There is no better way.  If you told a tour player to swing the club the most efficient way possible they wouldn't change a thing about what they are doing now.  And back in the day shortly after golf was invented, this would also be true.  The best player back then wouldn't change their swing either.  So, one could argue that given a club and told to strike the ball with intent to get it closest to the hole, you'll choose the "traditional method" which is to use the club anyway you wish to give yourself the best chance to get the ball closest to the hole and that method would be the one you see being used throughout the history of the game.  Based on this argument, the traditional way to swing a putter is to find the most efficient way to do so and proceed with that method.  I would argue this is tradition.  We don't anchor the other clubs because it provides a disadvantage.  If you decide an anchored stroke provides an advantage, tradition dictates for you to adopt this method and to feel free using it.  And that is what has been done all the way up until this current ban which flies in the face of tradition IMHO.

With respect, that 'optimum' argument doesn't work here does it? Neither does your assertion that this ban on anchoring flies in the face of what's gone before or tradition.

How would 'putting' from close in not be better if you could lie down behind the ball and hole out as if using a pool cue? Not allowed though is it? What about putting 'croquet' style? Pretty sure Snead tried that before it was likewise banned.

That statement is nothing short of racist.

My statement is about as ridiculous as the statement I was replying to.

No, it's much worse than that I'm afraid.

[Keep It Simple]

Talk about twisting reality to fit your world view.  We are talking about the traditional golf stroke.  Period.  The traditional golf stroke is not anchored.  Period.  You feel that just because someone invented a new stroke after 300 years of tradition that it should simply be accepted without regard to the real traditional stroke.  All you are doing is twisting the facts to suit your argument - and rewriting the definition of the word "tradition".  That just won't fly.  Not with most of us here, and certainly not with the ruling bodies.

Huh??  How.  Just what is your definition of "racist"?

Ok, so what is your definition of traditional golf stroke?  I am interested to hear it.

[thatdudeAl]

I would have to say I agree with your views regarding this issue. Clearly, any sports alteration in the rulebook or on the field is going to stir up some debate, and I too believe that the belly putter says a lot about the golf world as a whole. Just like any other sport, the game should be played as fair as possible with no advantage for either side and I think this anchored stroke is conflicting with the principles of the game. Golf is a game of tradition and I ultimately agree with the ban on the stroke mainly because it is an unconventional method and offers players an unfair advantage, regardless of how minor this advantage is. It just doesn't seem reasonable for any player to have even the slightest upper hand.

[Shorty]

Pardon?

Which players are given this advantage? All players may currently use this stroke.

Is there a list of players who are not permitted to do it? Of course there isn't.

It has nothing to do with advantage.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keep It Simple

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Talk about twisting reality to fit your world view.  We are talking about the traditional golf stroke .  Period.  The traditional golf stroke is not anchored.  Period.  You feel that just because someone invented a new stroke after 300 years of tradition that it should simply be accepted without regard to the real traditional stroke.  All you are doing is twisting the facts to suit your argument - and rewriting the definition of the word "tradition".  That just won't fly.  Not with most of us here, and certainly not with the ruling bodies.

Huh??  How.  Just what is your definition of "racist"?

Ok, so what is your definition of traditional golf stroke?  I am interested to hear it.

Do you want the current definition, or the revised version to go into effect in 2016?  Both are pertinent to this discussion.   Currently it is:

Quote:

Stroke

A “ stroke ’’ is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball, but if a player checks his downswing voluntarily before the clubhead reaches the ball he has not made a stroke .

You are still welcome to your views for the next two years.  After that the definition will include some language defining the stroke as being a free swing with no anchored pivot point.

[saevel25]

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.