604 replies to this topic

[KYMAR]

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters.

No one is claiming there is an advantage for Player A who uses a long putter over player B who doesn't. There is obviously an advantage for Player A over his natural ability to putt without anchoring the putter to themselves.

[eric_b]

MtlJeff, on 16 October 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

pretty crazy to think that if Keegan and Webb don't win majors this almost certainly doesn't happen. They caused their own demise. USGA was fine with it as long as people weren't winning. Think about that for a second....

Yeah....just think, if it weren't for 2 guys winning 2 of the 4 tournaments you've been told are more important and, like mindless sheep, you drank that kool-aid....this wouldn't have happened.

Seriously, how retarded is that?  Anchored putting....i don't like it, but whatever.  Win some tournaments....meh, whatever.  Some dude wins the PGA with one....OH THE TRAVESTY....NOT ONE OF THE MAJORS!!

[Jamboy72]

Vindog, on 17 October 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Wait...so they're telling us that they are going to tell us something that they already told us they would eventually be telling us - Do I have this right?

Yes...yes you do.

Although there is some new information in that now we're told that if it happens it will be a rule change, and not an equipment conformity change.  What does this mean?  It means that an early ruling under 14-3 becomes less of a probability.  If not making an equipment change, then that only leaves unusual use of equipment, which imo, would have been ruled upon earlier if it was such unusual use.

ah yes...we are of one mind kemosabi

[mwkbmw]

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters.

No one is claiming there is an advantage for Player A who uses a long putter over player B who doesn't. There is obviously an advantage for Player A over his natural ability to putt without anchoring the putter to themselves.

Absolutely. Anchored putters, IMHO, make poor putters better. I don't think they really benefit good putters as much. I was goofing off at the local big box store the other day and putted with several different style putters, including a belly. I made a pretty decent percentage of 12 footers regardless of the putter I used. It only confirmed to me that it is the stroke that matters most. That is why I think anchoring gives an advantage to those who cannot control their stroke. Much easier to be consistent with a fixed fulcrum.

Edited by mwkbmw, 17 October 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[highergr0und]

But opinions and making putts in a big box store don't really count do they?  Is there actual tangible data that shows the statistic that anchoring increases putting ability?  If so, then ban away.  

The ruling revolves around a perception that may or may not be true.  There are a myriad of other ways to putt out there, left hand low, the claw, anchor on the forearm, double overlap, etc, etc, that are all ways for someone to control their stroke, yet none of them are being looked at as far as we know....

The problem here is that it's (potentially) a ruling made based on traditionalism above all else.  I like traditions, but it's a slippery slope.

[jackfig]

topekareal, on 17 October 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Wait...so they're telling us that they are going to tell us something that they already told us they would eventually be telling us - Do I have this right?

Correct, but this time with a little less vague specificity.

[mwkbmw]

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

But opinions and making putts in a big box store don't really count do they?  Is there actual tangible data that shows the statistic that anchoring increases putting ability?  If so, then ban away.  

The ruling revolves around a perception that may or may not be true.  There are a myriad of other ways to putt out there, left hand low, the claw, anchor on the forearm, double overlap, etc, etc, that are all ways for someone to control their stroke, yet none of them are being looked at as far as we know....

The problem here is that it's (potentially) a ruling made based on traditionalism above all else.  I like traditions, but it's a slippery slope.

None of those methods prevent the arms and hands from moving closer or further from the body during the stroke. Anchoring does.

Edit: I should clarify that I am speaking mainly about the belly putters. I have not tried the broomstick. Too foreign. Couldn't bring myself to do it.

Edited by mwkbmw, 17 October 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[Vindog]

I would rather rulings be made on some evidentiary basis also, but this is the USGA we're talking about here.

If they want to make themselves appear to be reactionary and arbitrary, then that's their call.

Either way, I'm not offended.  I think the butthurt over them all together is amusing, to be honest.

Edited by Vindog, 17 October 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[lumberman2462]

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

But opinions and making putts in a big box store don't really count do they?  Is there actual tangible data that shows the statistic that anchoring increases putting ability?  If so, then ban away.  

The ruling revolves around a perception that may or may not be true.  There are a myriad of other ways to putt out there, left hand low, the claw, anchor on the forearm, double overlap, etc, etc, that are all ways for someone to control their stroke, yet none of them are being looked at as far as we know....

The problem here is that it's (potentially) a ruling made based on traditionalism above all else.  I like traditions, but it's a slippery slope.

I agree.  I play with a group of about 15-20 players that are all pretty decent.  6-8 of them use belly putters and I've never believed that it's helped any of them that much.  One guy was a great putter before he switched to the belly and he's still a great putter.  The rest.....they're ok, but certainly not holing every putt they look at.

[jnradioactive]

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters.

No one is claiming there is an advantage for Player A who uses a long putter over player B who doesn't. There is obviously an advantage for Player A over his natural ability to putt without anchoring the putter to themselves.

+ a million,

I cant understand how people have such a hard time grasping this simple concept... Ernie Els with a long putter is better than Ernie Els without a long putter. Ernie Els without a long putter probably wouldn't have the 2012 open. same goes for Bradley and Simpson...

[Vindog]

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

+ a million,

I cant understand how people have such a hard time grasping this simple concept... Ernie Els with a long putter is better than Ernie Els without a long putter. Ernie Els without a long putter probably wouldn't have the 2012 open. same goes for Bradley and Simpson...

How many times can you bring this up and be proven wrong?

You need some new material.  Seriously

[KYMAR]

What "data" is needed beyond the obvious nature of the differences between an anchored stroke and a non-anchored stroke? The idea that you can compare X number of Anchored players to X number of non-anchored players and come up with a statistic is a flawed notion. If there were data to mine, it would be comparing a players puttinng before and after going to an anchored putter. I am not sure there are enough examples of that to make any findings meaningful.

Every single one of the other examples you gave, Left hand low, the claw, double overlap do nothing to eliminate any requirement of making a stroke. Anchoring, in any form, clearly seeks to eliminate the skill required to do so. If i gave you a rifle and target and told you to shoot from a standing position and then shoot while resting the barrel on a fence, do you think you would see quicker improvement doing the latter? of course you would. Removing the need to keep a steady hand is clearly cheating. NOT necessarily cheating your opponent, but cheating your own lack of ability.

Edited by KYMAR, 17 October 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[jnradioactive]

Vindog, on 17 October 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

+ a million,

I cant understand how people have such a hard time grasping this simple concept... Ernie Els with a long putter is better than Ernie Els without a long putter. Ernie Els without a long putter probably wouldn't have the 2012 open. same goes for Bradley and Simpson...

How many times can you bring this up and be proven wrong?

You need some new material.  Seriously

Proven wrong??? what data, what facts have proven me wrong?

[Will Par]

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters.

No one is claiming there is an advantage for Player A who uses a long putter over player B who doesn't. There is obviously an advantage for Player A over his natural ability to putt without anchoring the putter to themselves.

Go to the PGA Tour Stats page for Adam Scott.  Look up his strokes gained putting stat.  For 2009 it was minus .888.  For 2010 it was minus .746.  Then just prior to the 2011 Masters he went to the long putter.  For 2011 his stroke gained putting stat was minus .172 and for 2012 it is now minus .204.  He is still losing over a stroke per round to a great putters like Luke Donald and Brandt Snedeker, but he improved over a half stroke per round over the way he was putting in 2009 and 2010.  This is clearly one example of a player who improved his putting significantly by changing to a long putter.

[jnradioactive]

KYMAR, on 17 October 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

What "data" is needed beyond the obvious nature of the differences between an anchored stroke and a non-anchored stroke? The idea that you can compare X number of Anchored players to X number of non-anchored players and come up with a statistic is a flawed notion. If there were data to mine, it would be comparing a players puttinng before and after going to an anchored putter. I am not sure there are enough examples of that to make any findings meaningful.

Every single one of the other examples you gave, Left hand low, the claw, double overlap do nothing to eliminate any requirement of making a stroke. Anchoring, in any form, clearly seeks to eliminate the skill required to do so. If i gave you a rifle and target and told you to shoot from a standing position and then shoot while resting the barrel on a fence, do you think you would see quicker improvement doing the latter? of course you would. Removing the need to keep a steady hand is clearly cheating. NOT necessarily cheating your opponent, but cheating your own lack of ability.

Better yet just shoot the rifle without BRACING it against your shoulder and again while BRACING it against the shoulder. that would simulate a two point connection vs. a 3 point connection

[Vindog]

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Proven wrong??? what data, what facts have proven me wrong?

If we're going to go that route....

You are making the assertion, thus the burden of proof is on you to provide facts for your findings.  Let's start there.

Edited by Vindog, 17 October 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[highergr0und]

The claw, left hand low, and other alternative grips all compensate for a defect in the putting stroke, just like anchoring.

[highergr0und]

Vindog, on 17 October 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Proven wrong??? what data, what facts have proven me wrong?

If we're going to go that route....

You are making the assertion, thus the burden of proof is on you to provide facts for your findings.  Let's start there.

The only reason Els won the open is because another guy with a long putter faded down the stretch.

Edited by highergr0und, 17 October 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[KYMAR]

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

The claw, left hand low, and other alternative grips all compensate for a defect in the putting stroke, just like anchoring.

That is 100% false. Anchoring seeks to eliminate the need for a skill set. These other compensations seek only to make those skill sets repeatable and comfortable. Be honest with yourself and the distinction between creating an artificial fulcrum point and placing the left hand low is clear. Same with the claw, same with any alternative, non-anchored grip.

[jnradioactive]

Vindog, on 17 October 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Proven wrong??? what data, what facts have proven me wrong?

If we're going to go that route....

You are making the assertion, thus the burden of proof is on you to provide facts for your findings.  Let's start there.

Weak dog very weak...

[will227457]

highergr0und, on 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I still haven't seen the data that shows there is a clear cut advantage derived from the use of long putters.

This

Is it really an advantage? and if it is why is not every tour pro using one?

[Jamboy72]

Vindog, on 17 October 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Proven wrong??? what data, what facts have proven me wrong?

If we're going to go that route....

You are making the assertion, thus the burden of proof is on you to provide facts for your findings.  Let's start there.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that both a long/belly putter and the method we defined as "anchoring" are both currently legal and have been so for decades. If there is a change to be made which makes either the equipment or method (in this case it looks to be a method) against a rule, the burden of proof would be on the party trying to change the rule....and I know many people claim "In my opinion...." or "it's so obvious....."  well, okay...but if that's the case, where are some facts beyond those which are so obvious and the myriad analogies...all of which are examples, but none of which are proof???

[Jamboy72]

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Vindog, on 17 October 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Proven wrong??? what data, what facts have proven me wrong?

If we're going to go that route....

You are making the assertion, thus the burden of proof is on you to provide facts for your findings.  Let's start there.

Weak dog very weak...

These statements are generally reserved for those who are short on facts.

[FLOGMR]

This horse has been beaten to death so many times now....we are not even beating the horse anymore...not even the the bloody spot where the horse used to be.....now we are just beating the ground to prove the unprovable........The powers that be will make, or not make, whatever rule they see fit....the rest of us will live with it.

This crap is worse than the Salem Witch Hunt.

[KYMAR]

FLOGMR, on 17 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

This horse has been beaten to death so many times now....we are not even beating the horse anymore...not even the the bloody spot where the horse used to be.....now we are just beating the ground to prove the unprovable........The powers that be will make, or not make, whatever rule they see fit....the rest of us will live with it.

This crap is worse than the Salem Witch Hunt.

LOL people are dying over this?

[Vindog]

jnradioactive, on 17 October 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Weak dog very weak...

Without getting into a pissing match...

We both know that there are other reasons that those in question won the majors they won.  Anchored putting putters part of those?  Maybe, but neither of us can qualify as to how much, if at all.

So we'll just leave it at that.

[smackygolf]

I hate to say I told you so, but....

The manufacturers have been notified. Like I posted weeks ago.

[Jamboy72]

I guess the hard part is you haven't really told us anything of substance...other than that they've been notified of something...which really leaves more questions than anything...

[Vindog]

And, if what we're hearing is true, and it would be a stroke rule change and not a conformity change, then why would they have to notify the OEMs in the first place, if the clubs would still be conforming.


Not that I don't believe you...

[KYMAR]

Vindog, on 17 October 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

And, if what we're hearing is true, and it would be a stroke rule change and not a conformity change, then why would they have to notify the OEMs in the first place, if the clubs would still be conforming.


Not that I don't believe you...

Come on VIn, It's obvious that a great number of anchoring players will abandon that style putter once it's deemed their intended use is no longer legal under the rules. It's clear to see a correlating drop in demand for them. I am sure the OEM's have a great interest in knowing that.

Edited by KYMAR, 17 October 2012 - 01:13 PM.