The Overall Golf World Reflected Through the Ban on Anchored Strokes

[Fourputt]

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.

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.

[Keep It Simple]

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:

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.

No, what defines a "traditional" golf stroke, not just a golf stroke.  The argument here has nothing to do with the definition of the golf stroke but everything to do with what defines a "traditional golf stroke."  For example, is a cross handed golf stroke considered traditional?  PGA player Josh Broadaway swings the golf club cross handed, this in my opinion is not a traditional golf swing but it is not banned.  In order to figure out whether it should be banned, we need to determine what constitutes a "traditional golf swing" and I am still waiting for this to be defined.

BTW:  I am welcome to my views forever.  They do not expire in the next two years.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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:

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.

No, what defines a "traditional" golf stroke, not just a golf stroke.  The argument here has nothing to do with the definition of the golf stroke but everything to do with what defines a "traditional golf stroke."  For example, is a cross handed golf stroke considered traditional?  PGA player Josh Broadaway swings the golf club cross handed, this in my opinion is not a traditional golf swing but it is not banned.  In order to figure out whether it should be banned, we need to determine what constitutes a "traditional golf swing" and I am still waiting for this to be defined.

BTW:  I am welcome to my views forever.  They do not expire in the next two years.

Open your eyes and look.  Watch historical films and paintings.  It's pretty easy to tell for anyone with any sense at all.  Broadaway still swings the club, he doesn't pivot it.  If that doesn't satisfy you, then sorry, but you are doomed to be disappointed.

It was never necessary to define "traditional" because any rational person knew what a stroke looked like.  Now that we have people so desperate to shave a half a stroke off their handicaps by trying any weird product or method which comes along, the ruling bodies are forced to address it as a rules issue as they have done with so many equipment bastardizations.  It's a very simple concept, and it's been beaten to death already.  The change is a done deal.  Time to move on.  Three years ago there was endless agonizing over the groove change, now it's rarely even mentioned.  The same thing should apply to this.

[mvmac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keep It Simple

No, what defines a "traditional" golf stroke, not just a golf stroke.  The argument here has nothing to do with the definition of the golf stroke but everything to do with what defines a "traditional golf stroke."  For example, is a cross handed golf stroke considered traditional?  PGA player Josh Broadaway swings the golf club cross handed, this in my opinion is not a traditional golf swing but it is not banned. In order to figure out whether it should be banned, we need to determine what constitutes a "traditional golf swing" and I am still waiting for this to be defined.

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

Quote:

The Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews cited the definition of the stroke as "freely swinging the entire club" to explain their rationale for instituting a ban on anchored putting,

Quote:

The rule, which will be known as 14-1b, will go into effect beginning in 2016. Its language is unchanged from the proposed wording announced last November:

"In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either 'directly' or by use of an 'anchor point.'

"Our best judgment is that Rule 14-1b is necessary to preserve one of the important traditions and challenges of the game--that the player freely swing the entire club," he said. "The new rule upholds the essential nature of the traditional method of stroke and eliminates the possible advantage that anchoring provides, ensuring that players of all skill levels face the same challenge inherent in the game of golf."

The USGA/R&A; saw a future with a lot more long putters in it, and they didn’t like it, didn’t think it was where the game was meant to go. The bottom line is that the rule change is based on the definition of a golf stroke.

Peter Dawson:

Quote:

“We don’t feel this is a golf stroke.”

Mike Davis:

Quote:

“We cannot honestly say to you that for some players in some situations, it is not an advantage,” Davis said. “What we are really saying is when we write the playing rules, it is never about the advantages or disadvantages, or whether something is making the game easier. We are just defining the game. We are trying to get back to where the game used to be [before anchored strokes].”

[Robster 7]

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 .

[dfreuter415]

The USGA/R&A; saw a future with a lot more long putters in it, and they didn’t like it, didn’t think it was where the game was meant to go. The bottom line is that the rule change is based on the definition of a golf stroke.

I agree totally. This situation is similar to the croquet style of putting in the 1960's.

Late in his career, Sam Snead's putting was failing him and during the 1966 US PGA Championship he straddled the golf ball and decided to putt croquet style with good success. After posting good results including a top-10 finish at the 1967 US Masters, Bobby Jones and others took a dislike to the style.  When other professionals began adopting this revolutionary putting technique, its popularity began to surge. But by January 1, 1968 the putting style was outlawed and Rule 16-1e added to the rules of golf: The player must not make a stroke on the putting green from a stance astride, or with either foot touching, the line of putt or an extension of that line behind the ball. Jones and the traditionalists made their point and enacted Rule 16-1e to maintain the "integrity of golf."

Today's situation is very similar, in that, the traditionalists do not feel that the anchored putters are true to the institutions of the game. Thus the enactment of Rule14-1b: Anchoring the Club :  In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either “directly” or by use of an “anchor point.”

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.

[Robster 7]

I agree totally. This situation is similar to the croquet style of putting in the 1960's. Late in his career, Sam Snead's putting was failing him and during the 1966 US PGA Championship he straddled the golf ball and decided to putt croquet style with good success. After posting good results including a top-10 finish at the 1967 US Masters, Bobby Jones and others took a dislike to the style.  When other professionals began adopting this revolutionary putting technique, its popularity began to surge. But by January 1, 1968 the putting style was outlawed and Rule 16-1e added to the rules of golf: The player must not make a stroke on the putting green from a stance astride, or with either foot touching, the line of putt or an extension of that line behind the ball. Jones and the traditionalists made their point and enacted Rule 16-1e to maintain the "integrity of golf." Today's situation is very similar, in that, the traditionalists do not feel that the anchored putters are true to the institutions of the game. Thus the enactment of Rule14-1b: Anchoring the Club :  In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either “directly” or by use of an “anchor point.” 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.

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.

[meenman]

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.

There are a ton of amatuers that use the long putter and a good percentage of those will in 2016, whether it is the guy who doesnt care about rules or the guy like me that will pull the club 1/4 inch off of my chest

[Robster 7]

There are a ton of amatuers that use the long putter and a good percentage of those will in 2016, whether it is the guy who doesnt care about rules or the guy like me that will pull the club 1/4 inch off of my chest

A ton? Really? What percentage at your club?

[iacas]

There are a ton of amatuers that use the long putter and a good percentage of those will in 2016, whether it is the guy who doesnt care about rules or the guy like me that will pull the club 1/4 inch off of my chest

There might literally be a ton of amat eu rs, but that's only 2000 pounds worth of amateurs. I still believe the figure is in the low to mid single digits in terms of percentage. That's not a significant portion IMO. You'd probably have to get to 20% before I'd call it a "ton" or "significant number."

[meenman]

A ton? Really? What percentage at your club?

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.

[Fourputt]

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.

I doubt that this change will have any effect at all on growing the game.  The numbers of players who start out with a long putter is in a range approaching zero, so all this really means is that newer players will continue to play and progress with a standard putter.  It will eliminate the temptation for them to try switching to a long putter, only to find out that they putt just as poorly with that as they do with the short one because the real problem is that they have never bothered to practice, or to learn how to read a green.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Your basis for this is likely unfounded. They gave reasons why it was banned and "looks" wasn't among them.

Of course looks wasn't a reason, because they would look foolish if they said that. But it's the precise reason, as in "it's not a traditional stroke," that anchoring was banned. The authorities just came up with a lot of reasons that don't hold water to avoid saying so.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Your basis for this is likely unfounded. They gave reasons why it was banned and "looks" wasn't among them.

Of course looks wasn't a reason, because they would look foolish if they said that. But it's the precise reason, as in "it's not a traditional stroke," that anchoring was banned. The authorities just came up with a lot of reasons that don't hold water to avoid saying so.

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.

[The Recreational Golfer]

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'm not trying to re-open the debate. I am saying that anchoring didn't seem to be an official problem until professionals who anchor started winning major championships. That doesn't have anything to with the golf I play, or the golf that my 40 million recreational companions play. The authorities could easily have bifurcated the rule, but chose not to. We have baseball and softball, tackle football and touch football, we can have two kinds of golf.

One thing that is "for the good of the game" is to make it easier for the millions of golfers who aren't very good and just want to have fun, and also for the thousands of golfers who have physical limitations that make bending over to putt difficult or painful. Golf is a recreational sport. It belongs to the ~40 million amateurs who play it for recreation, and not the the relative handful who play it for a living.

To the point they made, which you brought up about skill and challenge, so does using a driver with which you can hit the ball all over the clubface and still get something out of the shot, as opposed to the dime-sized sweet spot on a wooden driver that you had better hit or else. So do golf balls that are aerodynamically tuned. So do putters (of "traditional" style) that are structurally balanced to make it easier to keep them square and on line. So does using Gene Sarazen's sand wedge instead of the pitching wedge to get out of a bunker.

If they don't ban those, why did they ban the anchored stroke? Because it looks funny. The same reason the croquet putting was banned. Bobby Jones had a hissy fit because he thought it didn't look like golf, and that was that. Add on because professionals who anchor were winning too many major championships, and there you have it.

Believe me, hitting the ball straight is still a challenge. Chipping close is still a challenge. I tried anchoring for a while, and all it did was give me a different challenge.

[iacas]

I'm not trying to re-open the debate. I am saying that anchoring didn't seem to be an official problem until professionals who anchor started winning major championships. That doesn't have anything to with the golf I play, or the golf that my 40 million recreational companions play. The authorities could easily have bifurcated the rule, but chose not to. We have baseball and softball, tackle football and touch football, we can have two kinds of golf.

Yes, because they saw a trend forming, and decided to nip it in the bud (or at least the sapling) stage.

And "can" and "should" are two very different things. Besides, people already play the "golf equivalent" of "touch football."

One thing that is "for the good of the game" is to make it easier for the millions of golfers who aren't very good and just want to have fun, and also for the thousands of golfers who have physical limitations that make bending over to putt difficult or painful. Golf is a recreational sport. It belongs to the ~40 million amateurs who play it for recreation, and not the the relative handful who play it for a living.

a) You still bend over to putt with a belly putter, and you can also stand more upright and putt without anchoring (see also: Ray Floyd).

b) How does anchoring "makes it easier to have fun"?

You're just trotting out all the old lines, huh?

To the point they made, which you brought up about skill and challenge, so does using a driver with which you can hit the ball all over the clubface and still get something out of the shot, as opposed to the dime-sized sweet spot on a wooden driver that you had better hit or else. So do golf balls that are aerodynamically tuned. So do putters (of "traditional" style) that are structurally balanced to make it easier to keep them square and on line. So does using Gene Sarazen's sand wedge instead of the pitching wedge to get out of a bunker.

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.

If they don't ban those, why did they ban the anchored stroke? Because it looks funny.

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

[Robster 7]

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 :)

[meenman]

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 :)

It makes it easy when paired in tourneys where we are randomly paired. They just tell the others to look for the young guy wearing Loudmouths. (Only 2 people are allowed to wear them at my club - I am the white tee guy and there is one that plays the senior tees)