Hank Haney questions Bernhard Langer's Putting

[Hardspoon]

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/bernhard-langer-sounds-fed-up-with-the-cheating-accusations-surrounding-his-putting-stroke

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/bernhard-langer-sounds-fed-up-with-the-cheating-accusations-surrounding-his-putting-stroke

Funny...his arm is absolutely anchored to his chest in the picture shown...clearly has just made a stroke too. Guess the wind must've blown his arm into his chest...no problem...he's good.

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Funny...his arm is absolutely anchored to his chest in the picture shown...clearly has just made a stroke too. Guess the wind must've blown his arm into his chest...no problem...he's good.

There isn't anything at all conclusive in that picture - you can't say he's "absolutely" anchored.

Secondly, I don't know that it would matter anyway as this is a snapshot taken after the stroke?

[MuniGrit]

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Funny...his arm is absolutely anchored to his chest in the picture shown...clearly has just made a stroke too. Guess the wind must've blown his arm into his chest...no problem...he's good.

Pure speculation. You really can't tell if he is anchored or not.

[Vinsk]

Then speculation is all that will ever be possible. There's no reasonable way to confirm anchoring. It's too delicate a movement to catch. BL used an anchoring stroke for years and years. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that at times his ingrained motion sets in. Has nothing to do with his integrity...I get it..he makes Mr. Rogers look like Hitler. But integrity doesn't make a person immune from careless mistakes. A mistake that I don't think he's even aware of because it's a motion he did for years and years. Imagine telling Furyk he's not allowed to let his shaft get vertical on the backswing. Is it unreasonable to believe that at times he would take his bs vertical yet have no idea he did? Video isn't going to capture it apparently as two I've seen are excellent yet others disagree. Imagine how close a video will have to be to capture it....then one would have to prove it was during an actual stroke in a tournament. Will never happen. So in conclusion...the rule is pointless unless a player calls himself out. Which not even the Saint BL will do because he's not even aware of it. ANCHORS AWAY! Lol! Ok...I'll quit. Agree to disagree.

[Hardspoon]

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

There's no reasonable way to confirm anchoring.

Maybe it's tough to confirm that a stroke like Langer's (arm high and tight) is anchored, but if you look at the strokes used by Scott and Simpson before the ban, they were clearly and easily discernible as anchored. And the ban eliminated them, as intended.

[Vinsk]

17 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Maybe it's tough to confirm that a stroke like Langer's (arm high and tight) is anchored, but if you look at the strokes used by Scott and Simpson before the ban, they were clearly and easily discernible as anchored. And the ban eliminated them, as intended.

Good point. I just wish the USGA had stated they did extensive reviewing of video rather than simply 'speaking with BL' to settle the matter. A video was shown here, @iacas even stated he thought BL was cheating BASED ON THE VIDEO EVIDENCE...yet changed his opinion because BL told the USGA 'no I'm not'. I doubt Erik would've changed his mind had it been Elkington we were discussing. Rules apply the same regardless of character. 'BL has a good reputation.' Yeah, so does Lexi....so what? 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Funny...his arm is absolutely anchored to his chest in the picture shown...clearly has just made a stroke too. Guess the wind must've blown his arm into his chest...no problem...he's good.

Nowhere near absolute.

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

Maybe it's tough to confirm that a stroke like Langer's (arm high and tight) is anchored, but if you look at the strokes used by Scott and Simpson before the ban, they were clearly and easily discernible as anchored. And the ban eliminated them, as intended.

Yep, that.

37 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Good point. I just wish the USGA had stated they did extensive reviewing of video rather than simply 'speaking with BL' to settle the matter. A video was shown here, @iacas even stated he thought BL was cheating BASED ON THE VIDEO EVIDENCE...yet changed his opinion because BL told the USGA 'no I'm not'. I doubt Erik would've changed his mind had it been Elkington we were discussing. Rules apply the same regardless of character. 'BL has a good reputation.' Yeah, so does Lexi....so what? 

Lexi's violation was clear. Reputation didn't matter. They didn't need to "speak" with her about it.

And all I said was "I think he's cheating." There's a gap between I "think" and I "know." If I "knew" he was cheating, that changes things.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

And all I said was "I think he's cheating." There's a gap between I "think" and I "know." If I "knew" he was cheating, that changes things.

Yes Erik that's true. Kind of throwing semantics a bit here. Like you said it's often not 100% cut and dry with just about any sport. However, if you were on the committee with the USGA and you were all analyzing the video and you stated , "It looks like his thumb is touching if not more. I think he's cheating", which is exactly what you said, then that would not be considered a vote in favor of no penalty. 

[iacas]

On 7/28/2017 at 10:00 AM, Vinsk said:

Yes Erik that's true. Kind of throwing semantics a bit here. Like you said it's often not 100% cut and dry with just about any sport. However, if you were on the committee with the USGA and you were all analyzing the video and you stated , "It looks like his thumb is touching if not more. I think he's cheating", which is exactly what you said, then that would not be considered a vote in favor of no penalty. 

Don't talk about use of "semantics" and then say stuff like "if you were on the committee with the USGA…"

I'm not. That's beyond semantics, which matter somewhat.

[David in FL]

I absolutely understand the difference between the anchoring ban and what people incorrectly think is a ban on the long putter itself, but all this leads me to wonder, why not, in addition to prohibiting anchoring, also simply institute a maximum length rule for the putter?  

[MuniGrit]

In the meantime when people are claiming he is cheating like it is 100 percent a fact, Langer just ANCHORED down his 10th major. It is pure speculation to say he is anchoring or not. Thumb touching a shirt is not enough to claim he is anchoring.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I absolutely understand the difference between the anchoring ban and what people incorrectly think is a ban on the long putter itself, but all this leads me to wonder, why not, in addition to prohibiting anchoring, also simply institute a maximum length rule for the putter?  

Asked and answered several times already, with multiple reasons.

Ultimately the USGA wanted to ban the practice, not the equipment.

---

Here's a video @NCGolfer and I shot the other day before winning (and losing) our scramble…

 

[Vinsk]

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

Don't talk about use of "semantics" and then say stuff like "if you were on the committee with the USGA…"

I'm not. That's beyond semantics, which matter somewhat.

Erik you are a distinguished golf professional and one of the most intelligent in the business.  The entire topic is that many others have questioned whether anchoring is taking place including tour players, instructors and commentators. Your conclusion after observing video evidence was that you thought he was cheating. I've read nothing that indicates the USGA did any investigating other than having Bernhard just say he's not anchoring. I'm beating this dead horse I realize that. I just don't think the issue was definitely resolved by any means.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Vinsk

[Vinsk]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Asked and answered several times already, with multiple reasons.

Ultimately the USGA wanted to ban the practice, not the equipment.

---

Here's a video @NCGolfer and I shot the other day before winning (and losing) our scramble…

 

Great vid...which confirms...the rule is entirely dependent on player accountability. It is impossible to make a ruling of anchoring. BL may anchor carelessly...which is completely possible....but nothing can be done about it. Had Lexi been asked if she improperly marked her ball and no video was available she would've received no penalty. Not maliciously but I don't think she even realized she did what she did. Same here ....BL isn't cheating on purpose....but it will never be confirmed.

[iacas]

41 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Erik you are a distinguished golf professional and one of the most intelligent in the business.  The entire topic is that many others have questioned whether anchoring is taking place including tour players, instructors and commentators. Your conclusion after observing video evidence was that you thought he was cheating.

As plainly as I can say it, I changed my mind after the USGA and PGA Tour talked with him. The video is not conclusive. It swayed me one way, the "investigation" as little as it was swayed me back.

23 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Had Lexi been asked if she improperly marked her ball and no video was available she would've received no penalty.

Wrong. A fellow player, caddies, spectators, etc. could have provided testimony that would be considered.

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

As plainly as I can say it, I changed my mind after the USGA and PGA Tour talked with him. The video is not conclusive.

Wrong.

No it isn't. Somebody SAW that Lexi had improperly marked her ball. Visual confirmation is simply not possible when it comes to anchoring. I can no longer question if a player is anchoring, it's too delicate a maneuver to tell if their hand is touching their shirt only or their body. Lexi's error was noticeable by the human eye (anchoring isn't) Lexi's error was noticeable on video replay (anchoring isn't). Lexi didn't call the penalty on herself right? So why was there a penalty? Right. It was visualized. Will never be the case with anchoring. 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

No it isn't. Somebody SAW that Lexi had improperly marked her ball. Visual confirmation is simply not possible when it comes to anchoring. I can no longer question if a player is anchoring, it's too delicate a maneuver to tell if their hand is touching their shirt only or their body. Lexi's error was noticeable by the human eye (anchoring isn't) Lexi's error was noticeable on video replay (anchoring isn't). Lexi didn't call the penalty on herself right? So why was there a penalty? Right. It was visualized. Will never be the case with anchoring. 

You're wrong.

If players, spectators, etc. went to a rules official and said a guy clearly anchored while making a stroke they would take that into consideration. The player doesn't just get to deny it and move on.

Anchoring can be seen with the naked eye. It's incorrect to say never. Dave was intentionally playing it close to the edge in all strokes.