180 replies to this topic

[Pepperturbo]

geesecougar2, on 06 November 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

So do you really believe that if we forced a belly-using Tour player to use a standard putter, it would have a greater effect on his chances of staying on Tour than if we forced him to use a Titleist Professional, a steel shafted Pittsburgh Persimmon, or to carry only a 56* as his highest lofted club?

A qualified "yes" to using standard putter... your other suggestions are not germane to the subject, but I wouldn't have any problems using the equipment you suggest, as I use to play that ball, and have played 18 with persimmon steel shafted drivers and learned the game with a 56 that had "V" grooves, plus my current LW has "V" grooves.  Grooves would be a better example IMO.  

"Yes", because most, if not all, users of "anchoring" went to anchoring because they struggled with the standard putter. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned Keegan struggled early on and switched for that reason.  A "professional" abides by the games rules, what ever they are.  If that means one day hitting a driver that's acceptable under the rules, and the next its COR value is too high, so its banned and he looses 20yds, so be it.  There's a reason the USGA/R&A essentially made different rulings for professionals and competing amateurs vs average Joe golfer, regarding grooves.

Edited by Pepperturbo, 07 November 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[geesecougar2]

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

A qualified "yes" to using standard putter... your other suggestions are not germane to the subject, but I wouldn't have any problems using the equipment you suggest, as I use to play that ball, and have played 18 with persimmon steel shafted drivers and learned the game with a 56 that had "V" grooves, plus my current LW has "V" grooves.  Grooves would be a better example IMO.  

"Yes", because most, if not all, users of "anchoring" went to anchoring because they struggled with the standard putter. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned Keegan struggled early on and switched for that reason.  A "professional" abides by the games rules, what ever they are.  If that means one day hitting a driver that's acceptable under the rules, and the next its COR value is too high, so its banned and he looses 20yds, so be it.  There's a reason the USGA/R&A essentially made different rulings for professionals and competing amateurs vs average Joe golfer, regarding grooves.

Of course they are germane to the subject. Your notion is that the putter is the only thing that has a "direct relationship to scoring", and thus is the most important equipment issue that we face. Well, let's do a little thought experiment:

We have four parallel universes, each exactly the same, except in each one, Keegan Bradley will be forced to play the 2013 PGA Tour season with the following equipment change (other players on Tour get to use whatever they currently use):

#1: a Titleist Professional ball
#2: a 150cc metal headed driver with a steel shaft
#3: a 56* wedge as his highest lofted wedge
#4: a standard length putter

Which Keegan will find it most difficult to maintain his current standing? Do you really think that it's #4? If you do, then quite frankly I find that intellectually dishonest.

Edited by geesecougar2, 07 November 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[jmck]

Once again, pepperturbo is not afraid to be adamantly wrong.

[rafal]

Ban it already, there are 6 threads on this issue and in each same arguments are being thrown around.  Just give us a ruling and lets move on.

[Pepperturbo]

geesecougar2, on 07 November 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

A qualified "yes" to using standard putter... your other suggestions are not germane to the subject, but I wouldn't have any problems using the equipment you suggest, as I use to play that ball, and have played 18 with persimmon steel shafted drivers and learned the game with a 56 that had "V" grooves, plus my current LW has "V" grooves.  Grooves would be a better example IMO.  

"Yes", because most, if not all, users of "anchoring" went to anchoring because they struggled with the standard putter. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned Keegan struggled early on and switched for that reason.  A "professional" abides by the games rules, what ever they are.  If that means one day hitting a driver that's acceptable under the rules, and the next its COR value is too high, so its banned and he looses 20yds, so be it.  There's a reason the USGA/R&A essentially made different rulings for professionals and competing amateurs vs average Joe golfer, regarding grooves.

Of course they are germane to the subject. Your notion is that the putter is the only thing that has a "direct relationship to scoring", and thus is the most important equipment issue that we face. Well, let's do a little thought experiment:

We have four parallel universes, each exactly the same, except in each one, Keegan Bradley will be forced to play the 2013 PGA Tour season with the following equipment change (other players on Tour get to use whatever they currently use):

#1: a Titleist Professional ball
#2: a 150cc metal headed driver with a steel shaft
#3: a 56* wedge as his highest lofted wedge
#4: a standard length putter

Which Keegan will find it most difficult to maintain his current standing? Do you really think that it's #4? If you do, then quite frankly I find that intellectually dishonest.

Once again - anchoring is the subject, NOT so much the putter itself.  And, you ruin discussion by your snide intellectually dishonest remark. So, we're clear, you don't have that right over my views.. just your own.

[Jamboy72]

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

geesecougar2, on 06 November 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

So do you really believe that if we forced a belly-using Tour player to use a standard putter, it would have a greater effect on his chances of staying on Tour than if we forced him to use a Titleist Professional, a steel shafted Pittsburgh Persimmon, or to carry only a 56* as his highest lofted club?

A qualified "yes" to using standard putter... your other suggestions are not germane to the subject, but I wouldn't have any problems using the equipment you suggest, as I use to play that ball, and have played 18 with persimmon steel shafted drivers and learned the game with a 56 that had "V" grooves, plus my current LW has "V" grooves.  Grooves would be a better example IMO.  

"Yes", because most, if not all, users of "anchoring" went to anchoring because they struggled with the standard putter. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned Keegan struggled early on and switched for that reason.  A "professional" abides by the games rules, what ever they are.  If that means one day hitting a driver that's acceptable under the rules, and the next its COR value is too high, so its banned and he looses 20yds, so be it.  There's a reason the USGA/R&A essentially made different rulings for professionals and competing amateurs vs average Joe golfer, regarding grooves.

I do agree that professionals will abide by the rules, but it's not like they really have a choice in the matter - I think another part of the conversation is that people tend to generalize that most/all people who use anchoring did so because they were bad/hopeless players...this is an absolute fallacy and is intentionally misleading...if you simply said, some players (15% or less) use a method because they find more success with that method, all of a sudden it looks kind of ridiculous to the masses...

[geesecougar2]

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

geesecougar2, on 07 November 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

A qualified "yes" to using standard putter... your other suggestions are not germane to the subject, but I wouldn't have any problems using the equipment you suggest, as I use to play that ball, and have played 18 with persimmon steel shafted drivers and learned the game with a 56 that had "V" grooves, plus my current LW has "V" grooves.  Grooves would be a better example IMO.  

"Yes", because most, if not all, users of "anchoring" went to anchoring because they struggled with the standard putter. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned Keegan struggled early on and switched for that reason.  A "professional" abides by the games rules, what ever they are.  If that means one day hitting a driver that's acceptable under the rules, and the next its COR value is too high, so its banned and he looses 20yds, so be it.  There's a reason the USGA/R&A essentially made different rulings for professionals and competing amateurs vs average Joe golfer, regarding grooves.

Of course they are germane to the subject. Your notion is that the putter is the only thing that has a "direct relationship to scoring", and thus is the most important equipment issue that we face. Well, let's do a little thought experiment:

We have four parallel universes, each exactly the same, except in each one, Keegan Bradley will be forced to play the 2013 PGA Tour season with the following equipment change (other players on Tour get to use whatever they currently use):

#1: a Titleist Professional ball
#2: a 150cc metal headed driver with a steel shaft
#3: a 56* wedge as his highest lofted wedge
#4: a standard length putter

Which Keegan will find it most difficult to maintain his current standing? Do you really think that it's #4? If you do, then quite frankly I find that intellectually dishonest.

Once again - anchoring is the subject, NOT so much the putter itself.  And, you ruin discussion by your snide intellectually dishonest remark. So, we're clear, you don't have that right over my views.. just your own.

It's not snide at all. It is explicitly saying that you are knowingly moving the goalposts to suit your argument. Because I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are intelligent enough to know that there is no way #4 would present the most danger to Keegan's livelihood.

And in another example of intellectual dishonesty, you avoid answering the question by throwing out some irrelevant technicality. My (and others') contention is that the long putter (or "anchoring" if you will) is way back in the list of equipment issues that erode the standard of skill and the sustainability of pro golf or threaten the "spirit of the game". Your contention is that it is first and foremost, because it is the only thing "that has a direct relationship to scoring". I would imagine that Keegan #4 (no longer allowed to anchor) would perform well enough to stay on Tour, but Keegans 1-3 would probably finish out of the top 125.

If your argument were that "anchoring at least presents a rule change possibility that would be practical enough to actually implement, so why not start there," that would at least be a respectable, intellectually honest position.

Edited by geesecougar2, 07 November 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Pepperturbo]

topekareal, on 07 November 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

geesecougar2, on 06 November 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 06 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Subjectivity is negative.  Why, because everyone has an opinion and too many people don't care to find a resolution verses opting to believe they are right.  Also, lets not get too literal, ignore intent and forget each piece of equipment contributes a percentage towards the score.  What that percentage is varies widely, based upon skill.

I didn't say there was no impact.  I said, neither actually improves or has a direct relationship to scoring; but if you think they do, we'll have to disagree.  No matter how far I hit driver, it's never got the ball near the cup or in the hole.  Hybrids don't mean anything to me either, as I use long irons, including 2 iron.

It always comes down to the wedge game inside of 60yds to get the ball close, and the putting stroke that gets the ball in the hole to score.

So do you really believe that if we forced a belly-using Tour player to use a standard putter, it would have a greater effect on his chances of staying on Tour than if we forced him to use a Titleist Professional, a steel shafted Pittsburgh Persimmon, or to carry only a 56* as his highest lofted club?

A qualified "yes" to using standard putter... your other suggestions are not germane to the subject, but I wouldn't have any problems using the equipment you suggest, as I use to play that ball, and have played 18 with persimmon steel shafted drivers and learned the game with a 56 that had "V" grooves, plus my current LW has "V" grooves.  Grooves would be a better example IMO.  

"Yes", because most, if not all, users of "anchoring" went to anchoring because they struggled with the standard putter. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned Keegan struggled early on and switched for that reason.  A "professional" abides by the games rules, what ever they are.  If that means one day hitting a driver that's acceptable under the rules, and the next its COR value is too high, so its banned and he looses 20yds, so be it.  There's a reason the USGA/R&A essentially made different rulings for professionals and competing amateurs vs average Joe golfer, regarding grooves.

I do agree that professionals will abide by the rules, but it's not like they really have a choice in the matter - I think another part of the conversation is that people tend to generalize that most/all people who use anchoring did so because they were bad/hopeless players...this is an absolute fallacy and is intentionally misleading...if you simply said, some players (15% or less) use a method because they find more success with that method, all of a sudden it looks kind of ridiculous to the masses...

Your first line suggests rule book choices????  Like buying different OEM Drivers.  Imagine multiple rule books... pick and choose would be a joke, and probable cause for professional tours to collapse IMO.

Lets be real about anchoring too.  NO youngsters bothered with that style when it first showed up.  FACT: it was associated with old guy issues.  "Fallacy and intentionally misleading" those words suggest my words are some how influential.  Sorry friend, its my opinion, and I am not going to change it, nor do not waffle.  Also, lets not inject words like "bad or hopeless" into the discussion as if I used them, and you respond to them.  Those are your words, and suggesting how I should state a view implies political correctness, which I do not subscribe to either.  So, there ya have it...

Anchoring is a crutch for a weakness of sorts.  That's my view... do I really care how the USGA/R&A might rule on it..NO!  But, that said, I will not relinquish my thoughts on the subject.  What I find interesting is people (except for Scott) who choose to use anchoring are not strong enough to acknowledge it shores up a weakness.  Maybe if that were the case, some people, including me, might take a different line of thought.

Langer jumped at the broomstick fourteen years back, as did a few others on tour and they were razzed big time for it.  By Langers own words, when he encountered it, he was with Sam Torrance (who uses one) on the putting green.  He said at the time, his putting was OK.  We do NOT know why young guns like Keegan or Webb hit the tour using anchoring, but they have reasons.  We do know Scott and Els, have had serious putting problems.  Scott might not be around today if it weren't for anchoring.  He's all but admitted that.  By the way, I suspect the usage percentage is considerably less than 15%...

[Sean2]

Scott used his long putter for a two club length drop. For that reason alone it should be banned. THAT is definitely an advantage over those who don't have a long putter.

[Pepperturbo]

geesecougar2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

geesecougar2, on 07 November 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

A qualified "yes" to using standard putter... your other suggestions are not germane to the subject, but I wouldn't have any problems using the equipment you suggest, as I use to play that ball, and have played 18 with persimmon steel shafted drivers and learned the game with a 56 that had "V" grooves, plus my current LW has "V" grooves.  Grooves would be a better example IMO.  

"Yes", because most, if not all, users of "anchoring" went to anchoring because they struggled with the standard putter. I wouldn't be surprised if we learned Keegan struggled early on and switched for that reason.  A "professional" abides by the games rules, what ever they are.  If that means one day hitting a driver that's acceptable under the rules, and the next its COR value is too high, so its banned and he looses 20yds, so be it.  There's a reason the USGA/R&A essentially made different rulings for professionals and competing amateurs vs average Joe golfer, regarding grooves.

Of course they are germane to the subject. Your notion is that the putter is the only thing that has a "direct relationship to scoring", and thus is the most important equipment issue that we face. Well, let's do a little thought experiment:

We have four parallel universes, each exactly the same, except in each one, Keegan Bradley will be forced to play the 2013 PGA Tour season with the following equipment change (other players on Tour get to use whatever they currently use):

#1: a Titleist Professional ball
#2: a 150cc metal headed driver with a steel shaft
#3: a 56* wedge as his highest lofted wedge
#4: a standard length putter

Which Keegan will find it most difficult to maintain his current standing? Do you really think that it's #4? If you do, then quite frankly I find that intellectually dishonest.

Once again - anchoring is the subject, NOT so much the putter itself.  And, you ruin discussion by your snide intellectually dishonest remark. So, we're clear, you don't have that right over my views.. just your own.

It's not snide at all. It is explicitly saying that you are knowingly moving the goalposts to suit your argument. Because I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are intelligent enough to know that there is no way #4 would present the most danger to Keegan's livelihood.

And in another example of intellectual dishonesty, you avoid answering the question by throwing out some irrelevant technicality. My (and others') contention is that the long putter (or "anchoring" if you will) is way back in the list of equipment issues that erode the standard of skill and the sustainability of pro golf or threaten the "spirit of the game". Your contention is that it is first and foremost, because it is the only thing "that has a direct relationship to scoring". I would imagine that Keegan #4 (no longer allowed to anchor) would perform well enough to stay on Tour, but Keegans 1-3 would probably finish out of the top 125.

If your argument were that "anchoring at least presents a rule change possibility that would be practical enough to actually implement, so why not start there," that would at least be a respectable, intellectually honest position.

There are no goal posts except for what the USGA/R&A decide, and what the majority of tour and amateur golfers believe.  I just so happen to believe if a vote was taken of tour pros, they would ban anchoring...  PS I shouldn't have to say this, where do you get off thinking some how you decide what is intellectually honest????  All you should be doing is sharing your view of the subject; which would be nice.  So far all your worried about is the validity of my views on the subject, which is NOT going to change because you want to argue over them.  Isn't this fun...

[geesecougar2]

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

There are no goal posts except for what the USGA/R&A decide, and what the majority of tour and amateur golfers believe.  I just so happen to believe if a vote was taken of tour pros, they would ban anchoring...  PS I shouldn't have to say this, where do you get off thinking some how you decide what is intellectually honest????  All you should be doing is sharing your view of the subject; which would be nice.  So far all your worried about is the validity of my views on the subject, which is NOT going to change because you want to argue over them.  Isn't this fun...

No, all I'm worried about is how you can reason that a Keegan forced to use a balata ball, or forced to use a 150cc steel shafted driver, or forced to ditch the lob wedge, would all perform better on Tour than a Keegan forced not to anchor.

And I'm sorry but "Since I am an awesome golfer who could hit every fairway even with a 150cc steel shafted driver, hit it long enough to hit the same number of greens even with a balata, and chip everything close even with only a 56, obviously anchoring is the key" is not a good answer.

But since you continue to dodge the question, I am wondering aloud why that is. And my guess is intellectual dishonesty.

Edited by geesecougar2, 07 November 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[jmck]

Sean2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Scott used his long putter for a two club length drop. For that reason alone it should be banned. THAT is definitely an advantage over those who don't have a long putter.

It's the same lenght as a driver, give or take an inch or three.  Not a convincing argument there.

Pepper:  give it up man.  You've had your argument picked apart over and over and over again.  The long putter's been around for decades.  If there was a definite univerasl advantage to it, everyone would've switched--just like everyone switched from balata and persimmon to the modern ball and driver.  Couldn't be simpler.

[Sean2]

jmck, on 07 November 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Sean2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Scott used his long putter for a two club length drop. For that reason alone it should be banned. THAT is definitely an advantage over those who don't have a long putter.

It's the same lenght as a driver, give or take an inch or three.  Not a convincing argument there.

Pepper:  give it up man.  You've had your argument picked apart over and over and over again.  The long putter's been around for decades.  If there was a definite univerasl advantage to it, everyone would've switched--just like everyone switched from balata and persimmon to the modern ball and driver.  Couldn't be simpler.

Okay...

[Pepperturbo]

geesecougar2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

There are no goal posts except for what the USGA/R&A decide, and what the majority of tour and amateur golfers believe.  I just so happen to believe if a vote was taken of tour pros, they would ban anchoring...  PS I shouldn't have to say this, where do you get off thinking some how you decide what is intellectually honest????  All you should be doing is sharing your view of the subject; which would be nice.  So far all your worried about is the validity of my views on the subject, which is NOT going to change because you want to argue over them.  Isn't this fun...

No, all I'm worried about is how you can reason that a Keegan forced to use a balata ball, or forced to use a 150cc steel shafted driver, or forced to ditch the lob wedge, would all perform better on Tour than a Keegan forced not to anchor.

And I'm sorry but "Since I am an awesome golfer who could hit every fairway even with a 150cc steel shafted driver, hit it long enough to hit the same number of greens even with a balata, and chip everything close even with only a 56, obviously anchoring is the key" is not a good answer.

But since you continue to dodge the question, I am wondering aloud why that is. And my guess is intellectual dishonesty.

Since you chose to posture your post in a sarcastic manner, without sharing your perspective on the actual subject, you're not worth any more of my time.

[Pepperturbo]

jmck, on 07 November 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Sean2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Scott used his long putter for a two club length drop. For that reason alone it should be banned. THAT is definitely an advantage over those who don't have a long putter.

It's the same lenght as a driver, give or take an inch or three.  Not a convincing argument there.

Pepper:  give it up man.  You've had your argument picked apart over and over and over again.  The long putter's been around for decades.  If there was a definite univerasl advantage to it, everyone would've switched--just like everyone switched from balata and persimmon to the modern ball and driver.  Couldn't be simpler.

The sad part is those that think they are intellectually picking my view apart, do nothing more then focus on my view, and exaggerate their opinion.   You're right, that couldn't be simpler, except there are even simple minds.

Edited by Pepperturbo, 07 November 2012 - 06:25 PM.

[geesecougar2]

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

geesecougar2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

And I'm sorry but "Since I am an awesome golfer who could hit every fairway even with a 150cc steel shafted driver, hit it long enough to hit the same number of greens even with a balata, and chip everything close even with only a 56, obviously anchoring is the key" is not a good answer.

Since you chose to posture your post in a sarcastic manner, without sharing your perspective on the actual subject, you're not worth any more of my time.

There is dignity in admitting when you are wrong.

Edited by geesecougar2, 07 November 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[RJ11]

Are guys using the Longer Sticks making every putt?

Don't see any issue with the stroke or long putters. I've tried both a long and belly. Didn't like either. However its a confidence thing with the players.

[Fromthetrees]

vegas005, on 06 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

The gray hairs have nothing better to do. They missed the boat on drivers, the golf ball, 60+++ degree wedges, and hybrids. Gotta fix something...must be that long putter, which I say again has no statistical advantage over any other legal form of putting.

You're absolutely right!  This has been my biggest complaint/argument for this whole debate.  Show me the data that says if you "anchor" your putter to your body, you're instantly a better putter compared to not anchoring! The "old gray hairs" needed something to do because they missed the boat on the golf ball, driver and wedges - i don't think they missed the boat; i feel these things have improved the game of golf just like the long/belly putter.  I don't use a long putter, but I truly believe you ban them you alienate a large portion of players from this great game.

Edited by Fromthetrees, 07 November 2012 - 09:05 PM.

[mark m]

Another post with a poll currently shows 60% against anchoring. Some of you guys are a little over the top in defending it. Numerous rules have been changed/adjusted over the years. Why all the venom?

Does anchoring help those with nerves issues (twitchy/jabby/yippie/etc)? I think there is no doubt.

Are nerves an intregal part of the game? Clearly some of the past greats of the game think they matter and help to separate the wheat from the chaff. Others here obviously and strenuously disagree.

I have never heard that the USGA has as a purpose the goal of making the game "easier to play." If they wanted to do that, all they had to do was increase the hole size. It's not an easy game. Also consider that for every action there is a reaction - adjustments to courses (at a great cost) have been made as a reaction to the equipment.

From what I recall, USGA goals are to grow the game while maintaining it's history and traditions. I appreciate the job they do in all areas - and those areas are numerous. Take a good look at the usga.org website. They aren't perfect, but they have made progress in creating a consensus the past 10 years or so.

Clearly the lawsuit loss to Ping many years ago opened the door for huge technological improvements in clubs and balls during the 90's. Thank goodness limits were put into place - otherwise we would be in a much worse position right now.

As far as the "grey hairs" comments go - understand that many grey hairs are owners of the equipment companies that sold you the clubs you like so much. They must be the good guys because they are trying to "help" you? (Nevermind that handicaps haven't shown any meaningful improvements in years.)

We have have had a whole generation grow up using these modern 460cc drivers and other clubs. Because of the time that has passed, players feel like they have a "right" to use these clubs. It makes it very hard to roll things back. I do think it looks funny to see young men using the long putters - but I am OK with whatever they decide. If I wasn't I would write them and let them know about it.

[bscinstnct]

You can't raise the young uns to be belly putters

That would be the end of the United States.

Even France would see how lame we are and invade us

[Snufles]

geesecougar2, on 06 November 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

TheDarkOne, on 06 November 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

TheDarkOne just can't stand for anythign to be happening in golf and him not be part of the story. No shock to see him try to interject himself here.

Another classically unbiased, down the middle post from you about Tiger.

Fixed it

[Vindog]

mark m, on 07 November 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Another post with a poll currently shows 60% against anchoring. Some of you guys are a little over the top in defending it. Numerous rules have been changed/adjusted over the years. Why all the venom?

It was a pretty good post, yet are you implying that I should not defend my opinion because the majority says otherwise?

Edited by Vindog, 08 November 2012 - 07:56 AM.

[mark m]

No, I am not implying that. I hope we can have a civil debate. All too often here, debates on the issues get ugly (and locked). People have differing views. The rules aren't decided by a vote. But I do believe that all views will be considered. If you really want to have an impact - write to he USGA and/or R & A. if they get flooded with mail that opposes a rule change - that could have a real impact.

[exquisitechip]

I understand why people hate this ban but the nitwit logic that some of you people attempt to rationalize it with is just pathetic. Adam Scott included. IMO.

[Jamboy72]

I'd be interested to hear more about this "nitwit logic" of which you speak....

[shepdog]

If you want to use a long putter I don't care, just don't anchor your hand or the putter to your body. There is an advantage, especially on short putts. I have had the yips for some years on short putts, so I built a belly putter. It takes my hands out of the stroke somewhat and definitely helps keep the putter on line. It is hard to get used to on longer putts as far as judging speed because it does take the hands out of the equation, but the putts start on the line I am aiming at. Short putts are almost automatic anymore and it is not because I have improved my technique. I'm not sure that it is necessary to ban it for casual golfers because it may make the game more enjoyable, but take anchoring clubs out of the equation for amateur and pro competitions. If you can't putt without anchoring then you don't deserve to get paid to play the game. Find something else to do for a living, like the rest of us who can't putt.
The longer putter only sees the light of day when I take it to the range to putz around with, it never goes to the course.That would be unfair to my friends. I hit the ball longer and straighter than they do with all my clubs and my short game is better, but they are generally better putters, so I will continue to be known to them as "3 putt shepherd" to keep things fair and give them a sliver of hope at beating me someday.

[Pepperturbo]

shepdog, on 08 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

If you want to use a long putter I don't care, just don't anchor your hand or the putter to your body. There is an advantage, especially on short putts. I have had the yips for some years on short putts, so I built a belly putter. It takes my hands out of the stroke somewhat and definitely helps keep the putter on line. It is hard to get used to on longer putts as far as judging speed because it does take the hands out of the equation, but the putts start on the line I am aiming at. Short putts are almost automatic anymore and it is not because I have improved my technique. I'm not sure that it is necessary to ban it for casual golfers because it may make the game more enjoyable, but take anchoring clubs out of the equation for amateur and pro competitions. If you can't putt without anchoring then you don't deserve to get paid to play the game. Find something else to do for a living, like the rest of us who can't putt.
The longer putter only sees the light of day when I take it to the range to putz around with, it never goes to the course.That would be unfair to my friends. I hit the ball longer and straighter than they do with all my clubs and my short game is better, but they are generally better putters, so I will continue to be known to them as "3 putt shepherd" to keep things fair and give them a sliver of hope at beating me someday.

+1

Thank you for being up front about your putting issues.

[pingman1]

shepdog, on 08 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

If you want to use a long putter I don't care, just don't anchor your hand or the putter to your body. There is an advantage, especially on short putts. I have had the yips for some years on short putts, so I built a belly putter. It takes my hands out of the stroke somewhat and definitely helps keep the putter on line. It is hard to get used to on longer putts as far as judging speed because it does take the hands out of the equation, but the putts start on the line I am aiming at. Short putts are almost automatic anymore and it is not because I have improved my technique. I'm not sure that it is necessary to ban it for casual golfers because it may make the game more enjoyable, but take anchoring clubs out of the equation for amateur and pro competitions. If you can't putt without anchoring then you don't deserve to get paid to play the game. Find something else to do for a living, like the rest of us who can't putt.
The longer putter only sees the light of day when I take it to the range to putz around with, it never goes to the course.That would be unfair to my friends. I hit the ball longer and straighter than they do with all my clubs and my short game is better, but they are generally better putters, so I will continue to be known to them as "3 putt shepherd" to keep things fair and give them a sliver of hope at beating me someday.

Why is it unfair to your friends? Right now it is legal to anchor, besides, your friends can get the same putter if they want.

[kellygreen]

geesecougar2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on 07 November 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

There are no goal posts except for what the USGA/R&A decide, and what the majority of tour and amateur golfers believe.  I just so happen to believe if a vote was taken of tour pros, they would ban anchoring...  PS I shouldn't have to say this, where do you get off thinking some how you decide what is intellectually honest????  All you should be doing is sharing your view of the subject; which would be nice.  So far all your worried about is the validity of my views on the subject, which is NOT going to change because you want to argue over them.  Isn't this fun...

No, all I'm worried about is how you can reason that a Keegan forced to use a balata ball, or forced to use a 150cc steel shafted driver, or forced to ditch the lob wedge, would all perform better on Tour than a Keegan forced not to anchor.

And I'm sorry but "Since I am an awesome golfer who could hit every fairway even with a 150cc steel shafted driver, hit it long enough to hit the same number of greens even with a balata, and chip everything close even with only a 56, obviously anchoring is the key" is not a good answer.

But since you continue to dodge the question, I am wondering aloud why that is. And my guess is intellectual dishonesty.

Naah...

Your just exposing the rationalizations against the long putter for what they are.

Baseless rationalizations trying to cover up for what is a objection that is driven by nothing but emotion.

[kellygreen]

topekareal, on 08 November 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

I'd be interested to hear more about this "nitwit logic" of which you speak....

It think he's referring to the efforts to present what are purely emotional objections to the belly putter as if they were somehow objective, principled arguments.

My favorite bit being those who insist that it gives "unfair advantage", despite.

1. Not being able to present a single shred of objective evidence that it does.

2. The fact that every player is free to use the long putter and technique...and yet many people (myself included) feel that they putt BETTER with a short putter.