Hank Haney questions Bernhard Langer's Putting

[krupa]

4 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I hope these guys take the news accusations and just do whatever it takes to remove even the ghost of an impression that it's even possibly intentional.  

But they're not.  They (Langer and McCarron) are both reportedly standing by their technique:

Quote

When questioned later, Langer said that those who would question him clearly do not know what they are talking about and that he had no intent to anchor. 

and

Quote

Both Langer and McCarron not only maintain that they have no intent to anchor, they maintain that they are not anchoring.

 

[MRR]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree. They didn't want to limit the equipment. They wanted to limit the method of use.

From day one, it sounded to me like they want the equipment to just disappear, but they didn't want to be the ones to do it.  So, instead, they placed a lot of restrictions on how a long putter can be used in the hopes that players would just stop using them.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, MRR said:

From day one, it sounded to me like they want the equipment to just disappear, but they didn't want to be the ones to do it.  So, instead, they placed a lot of restrictions on how a long putter can be used in the hopes that players would just stop using them.

They put one restriction. On the stroke.

[MRR]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

They put one restriction. On the stroke.

Fine.  They placed a single restriction that forbids the stroke style that popularized the club in the first place.

IMO, that's still the same thing as trying to ban something without manning up and saying that you want to ban it.

[Mr. Desmond]

Saw a recent video, and it looks like anchoring by his thumb but it's tough to tell - the shirt is indented where his thumb seems anchored against the body, but it's tough to tell -- IMHO, if it's too close to call, then you'd want to avoid the appearance of anchoring - and cease taking the stroke in that way - get some space between club/hand and body.

Maybe they need a "space" rule - need to see air between hand and shirt. Or Bernhard needs to wear compression shirts

As to intent, his practice stroke is anchored and he admits as much. That has you wondering when pondering the putt if the practice stroke is sometimes the stroke he makes at the ball - anchored, without him realizing it because the practice stroke is so ingrained. I think he's taking a big chance, ie, a high probability of breaking the rule. That begs the question - if he knows that he did take strokes while anchored, he's got to stop it, or intention, to me, does not work.

He can say "I did not intend" but if he knows that intention or not, he does it occasionally, then I think his intent as a whole goes out the window. Intent starts to sound like an excuse to break the rule.

[ScouseJohnny]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

They put one restriction. On the stroke.

This is your field of expertise not mine, and I've never even used a broomstick or belly putter.

In your judgment, does such a putter have any real use if you can't anchor it? Is there a valid reason for choosing a broomstick or belly putter over a regular putter, knowing that you can't anchor either of them?

Quote

As to intent, his practice stroke is anchored and he admits as much.

I really don't like that at all. You're not allowed to ground a club in a bunker on a practice stroke. Why should a stroke that is also against the rules be practiced on the green?

Edited July 6, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, MRR said:

Fine.  They placed a single restriction that forbids the stroke style that popularized the club in the first place.

IMO, that's still the same thing as trying to ban something without manning up and saying that you want to ban it.

It's not. I don't agree. There's still uses for longer putters.

[ScouseJohnny]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

There's still uses for longer putters.

Excluding the retrieval of balls from the edges of water hazards, what are these uses?

I see the logic of "arm lock" putters, I think... But holding a broomstick inches from your chest and trying to putt with it sounds a hell of lot more unwieldy than just putting in the usual fashion, with a regular putter.

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Excluding the retrieval of balls from the edges of water hazards, what are these uses?

I see the logic of "arm lock" putters, I think... But holding a broomstick inches from your chest and trying to putt with it sounds a hell of lot more unwieldy than just putting in the usual fashion, with a regular putter.

The rule doesn't ban long putters. I don't think trying to justify BL is cheating by discussing how the rule should be changed is the route to go. What is at hand is I don't think the video is unclear. I think he clearly is anchoring based on the description in the rule language. It's this whole 'intent' business that's ridiculous. On a side note, BL in regards to what's being said saying, " I don't think people know what they're talking about" is quite pompous.

 

[rehmwa]

12 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Excluding the retrieval of balls from the edges of water hazards, what are these uses?

I see the logic of "arm lock" putters, I think... But holding a broomstick inches from your chest and trying to putt with it sounds a hell of lot more unwieldy than just putting in the usual fashion, with a regular putter.

Tom Kite notes he prefers non-anchoring a long putter over anchoring a long putter.  Interesting.

In general I'd agree with you about retrieving balls from a distance (though there's a tool for that already).  But the exceptions to that are pretty apparent up front. I'd think old people with bad backs would prefer a long putter to minimize bending over.  Even if they putt worse.  I could come up with other reasons too probably.

As for performance reasons to actually 'select' a long putter??  Putting is so goofy and so individualistic, I don't think I'd dare to speak for the entire golf population.  "It just works better for me" is plenty good enough if someone tells me why they chose one piece of equipment over another.

Edited July 6, 2017 by rehmwa

[mvmac]

On 7/4/2017 at 4:57 PM, iacas said:

Pretty ballsy to keep putting that way if that's true.

Yes it is. Langer would do himself a lot of good if he just cut his putter down a couple inches.

It seems that he might not fully understand the ruling with how he's using his left forearm.

[Vinsk]

25 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Yes it is. Langer would do himself a lot of good if he just cut his putter down a couple inches.

It seems that he might not fully understand the ruling with how he's using his left forearm.

True, which of course is completely his own fault. I do not understand why in the world that 'intent' language was used on this rule. So many infractions occur where there was no intent. Why should this be any different? Carelessness has often caused penalty strokes. Why not here?

[MrDC]

The style of putting just doesn't work if you don't "anchor" the lead arm in some way, and that's why players are bitching and they should put a stop to it, if we need telescopes to prove the move is illegal it's a bad rule, fix this with clarity, fix it with putter compliance rules.

Edited July 6, 2017 by MrDC

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

True, which of course is completely his own fault. I do not understand why in the world that 'intent' language was used on this rule. So many infractions occur where there was no intent. Why should this be any different? Carelessness has often caused penalty strokes. Why not here?

Because they didn't want to penalize a player if they accidentally brush their body on a follow through or something.

But BL has done it enough times it's not accidental anymore.

[Vinsk]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Because they didn't want to penalize a player if they accidentally brush their body on a follow through or something.

But BL has done it enough times it's not accidental anymore.

Well, ok. But if a player drops his coin accidentally and it hits his ball and moves it, is that not a penalty? Just seems there are  simple mistakes a player can make resulting in a penalty yet this one is 'lenient'?

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Well, ok. But if a player drops his coin accidentally and it hits his ball and moves it, is that not a penalty? Just seems there are  simple mistakes a player can make resulting in a penalty yet this one is 'lenient'?

Not anymore, no.

http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/2017-local-rule/new-local-rule.html

[MRR]

1 minute ago, Vinsk said:

Well, ok. But if a player drops his coin accidentally and it hits his ball and moves it, is that not a penalty? Just seems there are  simple mistakes a player can make resulting in a penalty yet this one is 'lenient'?

The difference, at least to me, is the potential benefit.

Putter; Intentionally using it with an illegal swing, provides the player with a benefit of more accurate putts.  It is difficult to accidentally putt incorrectly if one continues to practice it correctly*.

Dropping a coin; Intentionally doing that is not going to help the player out in a statistically significant way.

To the left, "dropping a coin" has a very obvious visual result.  As did that other player who put the ball down about 1/2" away.  Intent is of no consequence when the result is objective.  Having a get out of jail free card for saying "unintentional" does make this rule more lenient.

*This is my big problem with BL's excuses.  If you have to swing legally in five seconds, why would practice with an illegal swing right now.  It's priming your body to do it the illegal way.

 

EDIT: I see that iacas has show the "coin" rule is not a rule any more.  The gist of my argument stands, though.  One can accidentally ground a club in a trap.  That's a penalty where intent has no bearing.

[krupa]

30 minutes ago, MRR said:

One can accidentally ground a club in a trap.  That's a penalty where intent has no bearing.

Give it time.  When a top professional does this and loses a major because of it, they'll change the rule for that too.