45 replies to this topic

[dtowngolf]

I feel that this is proposal is something that will affect the game for the worse as times goes on. What will happens if a player in the last major (PGA Championship) before the ban in a few years wins with an anchored putter? It will make the win seem less important to certain spectators. Opinions on this?

[highergr0und]

Imagine if you've spent the last xx years perfecting the way you do your job, and then your boss comes over to you and says you have to radically change what you do or lose everything.....  You would probably want a phase in time as well.

Honestly, most guys will probably change before the ban.  The USGA has their fingers crossed that no other long putters win tourneys, but the alternative would be a massive lawsuit.  The phase in period coincides with their scheduled rule changes as well, so technically they aren't doing anything but telling players ahead of time as a favor.

The real travesty will be when/if guys start winning with arm locks or other crazy, non traditional styles that the USGA has deemed legal.  They're a bunch of idiots

Edited by highergr0und, 22 January 2013 - 09:26 AM.

[Jim Clark]

When's the next rules change cycle, 2016? They should have made the change now, or at most one year from now. Some veteran players were/are using anchored putters but said they should be banned (Ernie and Colin to name a couple). Some players have benefited greatly with anchoring (Scott, Bradley, and Langer to name a few), they'll just have to learn how to putt like most of us.

[Joey76]

If the long putter is seen as an aid then why aren't/weren't gloves seens as the same.

Edited by Joey76, 22 January 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[ragweed10]

Joey76, on 22 January 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

If the long putter is scene as an aid then why aren't/weren't gloves seens as the same.

Gloves are not considered as an aid because you still have to swing the club, but with the long putter the USGA does not feel like you still swing the club because it is anchored to the body.

[Air Jordan]

I can understand why people want the rule changed now, but I don't discount Keegan's (or anyone else's) win with a long putter. They were playing within the rules when they won and it shouldn't be viewed any different than a winner with a "normal" putting stroke. Makes no difference to me. It will all work itself out.

These guys play because they have a passion for the game, not because they want attention or need approval from spectators or the media. Sure, there are times when these guys get heckled a bit, but really, who doesn't? I have a feeling these guys will be just as proud of their wins regardless of when this rule becomes effective.

[Joey76]

I dont understand the argument that 3 of the last 5 major winners won with the long putter. (something along those lines)


What that effectively says is "its OK while you dont win but as soon as you win we will change it"

For the record I dont use one but lingering back problems make practising very difficult. I was thinking of trying one until I heard about this....

[Jamboy72]

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

[nbg352]

I really don't believe it matters when the ban is instituted. Until it is, anchoring is LEGAL. Anyone who uses the stroke and wins any tourney with it, including a major, is doing it LEGALLY. The only people who think that winning with a LEGAL stroke is actually cheating, really have a very narrow view of things. As such, their opinions are unimportant and will not affect the reputation of the winners,nor will it lessen the importance of the victory. After all, it was done LEGALLY, according to those who really matter; the PGA Tour, the USGA, the R&A and fellow competitors in the tournaments.

Edited by nbg352, 22 January 2013 - 05:07 PM.

[OldGolfer87]

If you receive Golf magazine , in the latest issue there is a article by Brandel Chamblee on this very subject , he makes very legitimate points for no amateur ban on anchoring , i tend to agree with him  , a amateur ban on anchoring just make zero sense at all , it just hurts our game that believe it or not 99% of people on this site no little to no chance for playing professional golf for a living so all this does is makes a difficult game more difficult , i equate this to making players who struggle for every yard they get go back to 1970 golf balls and persimmon which is just stupid silly ..period ..

[baseballfrk8998]

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

I would disagree with #1. It's about having the club anchored. The rest I can agree with.

[Jamboy72]

baseballfrk8998, on 22 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

I would disagree with #1. It's about having the club anchored. The rest I can agree with.

Right and if it were a performance issue...there would be statistics....and if it were a club issue (like with the grooves) they'd deem it non-conforming...so what's left...appearance... it simply doesn't "look like" a golf stroke...you are correct that it deals with the club being anchored....but it's because of how it looks being anchored...which for my money is rooted in perception

[Sean2]

I agree that a couple of years is too long. I don't quite understand that.

[Chief Illiniwek]

It doesn't need to be immediate. If you play by the current rules and win, no one with intelligence should discount it. I mean, do people discount wins made with square grooves before the ban? No.

baseballfrk8998, on 22 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

I would disagree with #1. It's about having the club anchored. The rest I can agree with.

I would also disagree with #3. Side saddle putting and pool cue method are both illegal, yet no statistical evidence shows they are advantageous. Why aren't anchoring fans also lobbying to putt pool cue method as well? Anchoring fans have some good arguments, but #3 isn't one of them IMO.

[baseballfrk8998]

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

baseballfrk8998, on 22 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

I would disagree with #1. It's about having the club anchored. The rest I can agree with.

Right and if it were a performance issue...there would be statistics....and if it were a club issue (like with the grooves) they'd deem it non-conforming...so what's left...appearance... it simply doesn't "look like" a golf stroke...you are correct that it deals with the club being anchored....but it's because of how it looks being anchored...which for my money is rooted in perception

It's because it's anchored.

[nbg352]

Chief Illiniwek, on 22 January 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

It doesn't need to be immediate. If you play by the current rules and win, no one with intelligence should discount it. I mean, do people discount wins made with square grooves before the ban? No.

baseballfrk8998, on 22 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

I would disagree with #1. It's about having the club anchored. The rest I can agree with.

I would also disagree with #3. Side saddle putting and pool cue method are both illegal, yet no statistical evidence shows they are advantageous. Why aren't anchoring fans also lobbying to putt pool cue method as well? Anchoring fans have some good arguments, but #3 isn't one of them IMO.

Side saddle is perfectly legal. Perhaps you are thinking of croquet style, which straddles the putting line? If so, you are right. Croquet style putting is illegal.

[Chief Illiniwek]

Correct that's what I meant, Snead style. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jamboy72]

Chief Illiniwek, on 22 January 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

It doesn't need to be immediate. If you play by the current rules and win, no one with intelligence should discount it. I mean, do people discount wins made with square grooves before the ban? No.

baseballfrk8998, on 22 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

I would disagree with #1. It's about having the club anchored. The rest I can agree with.

I would also disagree with #3. Side saddle putting and pool cue method are both illegal, yet no statistical evidence shows they are advantageous. Why aren't anchoring fans also lobbying to putt pool cue method as well? Anchoring fans have some good arguments, but #3 isn't one of them IMO.

Probably because those strokes were outlawed quite a bit ago and no one currently uses either one.....if they were allowed for decades upon decades and as a knee-jerk reaction a ruling body deemed them "illegal" there would probably be a similar response...If the method is statistically better/worse than another method, I'd still like to see some information...until then, I think point #3 is quite valid

[Jamboy72]

baseballfrk8998, on 22 January 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

baseballfrk8998, on 22 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

topekareal, on 22 January 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It's not a sham....it's not a mockery....it's most certainly a shamockery...

I've posted on this topic quite a bit, but let me summarize why the ban is ridiculous:

1) It is only about perception...and nothing more...it is only about how something looks

2) The decision sets a bad precedent (and adds to the long line of poorly informed decisions) made by the ruling bodies. See: groove rule, etc.

3) Speaking statistically, the method isn't any better or any worse than any other method...

I could go on and on....

I would disagree with #1. It's about having the club anchored. The rest I can agree with.

Right and if it were a performance issue...there would be statistics....and if it were a club issue (like with the grooves) they'd deem it non-conforming...so what's left...appearance... it simply doesn't "look like" a golf stroke...you are correct that it deals with the club being anchored....but it's because of how it looks being anchored...which for my money is rooted in perception

It's because it's anchored.

and.....it's not that simple my friend....if it were, we would have had this conversation decades ago...wait a minute, they did...and they deemed anchoring legal...so it's not that simple...

[Trock]

Does anybody see any reason why the USGA would drop this rule change?  The only reason I can think of is if the PGA tour players revolt in some manner and I don't really see that happening.  I'm interested in hearing what the tour players have to say after their meeting today with Mike Davis.

[MrElculver2424]

Yes, I agree it should either take effect very soon or never.

2016 is too long of a waiting period. The players using anchored putters should have the rest of the 2013 season to convert to a non-anchored stroke and be ready to go at the start of the 2014 season.

I really don't understand why it's not taking effect until 2016. I know that's when the next rule set is released, but they should still be able to change rules in between those 4 year periods.

[atlanta golfer]

Never will be just fine with me.

[DaveLeeNC]

I believe that the "PGA Tour" is meeting with Mike Davis this evening (1/22) and then among themselves to discuss specifically implementing this change earlier than 2016 simply to quiet the controversy (WRT the Tour).

dave

ps. No one that I know of ever thought that the anchored stroke was better. Some just think it is wrong just like throwing the ball off the tee is not statistically effective, but it is wrong.

Edited by DaveLeeNC, 22 January 2013 - 07:10 PM.

[smoky25]

Well they waited decades to rule that it was illegal. What's another 3 years? Of course it only took them 1.5 years to put the croquet ban into effect, but that was back when the USGA had brains and balls.

[SodFather]

Honestly I wish the rule took effect yesterday, mainly so everybody would stop talking about it. It is not a golf stroke, never has been, never will be. The only part of your body that should ever touch the club is your hands. Anything contrary is not golf. I'm sick of pros like Keegan saying if they were an advantage everyone would use them. If they weren't an advantage nobody would use them. If the new rule means some pros won't be able to make it on tour, too bad. Putting is a skill that separates pros form amateurs and if they can't put conventional maybe they shouldn't be pros. Just my 2 cents.

[nbg352]

lawnbarber, on 22 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Honestly I wish the rule took effect yesterday, mainly so everybody would stop talking about it. It is not a golf stroke, never has been, never will be. The only part of your body that should ever touch the club is your hands. Anything contrary is not golf. I'm sick of pros like Keegan saying if they were an advantage everyone would use them. If they weren't an advantage nobody would use them. If the new rule means some pros won't be able to make it on tour, too bad. Putting is a skill that separates pros form amateurs and if they can't put conventional maybe they shouldn't be pros. Just my 2 cents.

The USGA and the R&A have never been able to show any evidence that an advantage exists. The reason? There is no evidence available, anywhere, to support this idea. So,instead of the long putter or any stroke, they are banning anchoring, . Why? Because just like you, they just don't like it.

[SodFather]

And tell me how they are supposed to measure the benefits? The reason they have presented any evidence is because there is no way to measure it, not because the advantage doesn't exist. Why have pros such as Adam and Ernie switched to the long putter, why are pros like Keegan having a hissy fit about losing them? Duh! Because they give them an advantage. Even if it is only taking nerves out of the equation, wouldn't that be equivalent to beta-blockers? Nerves are a part of the game, pros being able to handle them is what makes them pros. Don't get me wrong, I am talking about the professional game. I couldn't care less what you use with your Friday foursome.

[nbg352]

lawnbarber, on 22 January 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

And tell me how they are supposed to measure the benefits? The reason they have presented any evidence is because there is no way to measure it, not because the advantage doesn't exist. Why have pros such as Adam and Ernie switched to the long putter, why are pros like Keegan having a hissy fit about losing them? Duh! Because they give them an advantage. Even if it is only taking nerves out of the equation, wouldn't that be equivalent to beta-blockers? Nerves are a part of the game, pros being able to handle them is what makes them pros. Don't get me wrong, I am talking about the professional game. I couldn't care less what you use with your Friday foursome.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get your hackles up, bud. There are many threads on this already. Many of them suggest that if evidence exists, there are ways of measuring. So have a look at those threads, ok? I'm really tired of arguing about this.

[dlamb83]

I think long putters are fine. To each there own. I know if I was Keegan,I would complain too. He has practiced to be a good putter,just like anyone else has,that doesn't use a long/anchor putter. He puts in just as much time as the next pro. He is comfortable with his equipment. Why should he,or anyone using long/anchor putter have to change,when there is no merit for the change. The top putters are not guys that use long putters. Look at the 3 winners this year. All used normal putters. If there was an advantage as some think,then long/anchor putters would be winning every time. They don't,and haven't. So I see not merit to make them illegal. There is no advantage to the guys using them.\

If you look at the stats for this year I do not see anyone that uses a long/anchor putter in the top 15. Maybe not in the top 20. Just saying,if they are giving guys an advantage,I'd think they would be higher in rankings.

http://espn.go.com/g...e/type/expanded

This article is interesting. Look at paragraph 8. Seems to show some proof.

http://www.nj.com/go...es_amend_r.html

Edited by dlamb83, 22 January 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[SodFather]

Sorry guys, didn't mean to come off as a ******. Been at home all day sick with a head cold watching golf channel and sick of the media beating this to death. Just want to see some golf, not listen to chamblee and nobilo and everyone else debate this. That is one thing I'm afraid of if this goes into effect in 2016, 3 more years of hearing about this.