Belly/broomstick/long putter legal, anchoring not...

[KYMAR]

[quote name='cmrl1986' timestamp='1328563485' post='4224899']
Let me and me belly putters be! I highly doubt anything will come of this. Like previously stated, they have been around forever. Also, they're selling like crack right now. I'd be very surprised if the issue doesn't die before or even gets any momentum. "people are putting too good so it must be illegal" is a rediculous arguement. If they didn't allow golf to change we would still all be playing niblicks and mashie's, wait, bad reference! Point being that technology and golf go hand in hand, rules will always be there. Let the belly putter be!
[/quote]

its ridiculous to spell ridiculous rediculous too, but that doesn't stop a good 50% of posters.

This isn't a matter of technological advancement. It's using equipment in a way that many like me argue should already be precluded under the rules. The fact that the governing bodies have let the issue go until now is the real problem. They are once again faced with having to turn back the clock on something. Just like the grooves rule.

And I would agree that "people are putting too good so they should be illegal" would be a ridiculous argument, except NO ONE is making that argument. The argument is simple, anchoring the club to your body is an effort to gain artificial stability in a stroke and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting. Now, most assuredly, someone will give the old "well they don't help or everyone would be using them" argument. My simple response to that is, first, no they wouldn't. I have never used one, i won't ever use one. and second, if there is no advantage to having the club pinned to your gut, what benefit to you derive from it? Why is anyone using a belly putter if it is not bettering performance? And explain to me how that benefit in performance comes from anything other than the anchoring of the club.

Ban em!

[TRoc9892]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
The argument is simple, anchoring the club to your body is an effort to gain artificial stability in a stroke and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting.

Ban em!
[/quote]
Well, doesn't this parallel that using Seemore putters is an effort to gain accuracy artificially and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting? Accuracy that's not deemed as an exception to the rules... or is it an exception? Pros that don't use them rely on other skills to make sure that they're square to their target.

[golfnut-2X]

i iniitally thought that since that cat is out of the bag for so long and the trend on tour is picking up fast that its too late to change. but the language recently coming from usga/r&a sound like they now want it outlawed.

its interesting that they definitiion above refers to "natural". for years you hear people teach the best stroke to take is a pure pendulum stroke. don't get any more natural than that. you don't get any more pendulum thnt a belly putter so is a belly putter more "natural" than a short stick where 95% of strokes with it are not a pure pendulum?

i have always used a short putter but in process of testing various belly putters with a plan to switch. i am a good putter with no yips. i have been trying to find ways just to remove the wrists from shorter strokes - switched to left hand low and its been great and legal.

it's funny hearing people claim that its not the way golf was meant to be played BUT you have the same exact people that switched from golf's original equipment from hickory, to persimmon (sp?), steel shaft, graphite shafts, metal woods, sand wedges with bounce, gutta purcha (sp? big change from feathery), prov1 (major distance change), 5 layered balls, 4 wedges, 460cc driver heads, hot / high cor faces, super game improvement perimeter weighted from butter knifes, hybrids, green speeds above 4 stimp, non links courses, stymies, putter heads (mallets, face balanced, high MOI, variable face materials), AND THE LIST GOES ON. seems like our purists are not so pure.

its only been recent history relative to the last few hundred years that technology allows us to mow the greens so low to get faster greens that someone from 200 years ago wouldn't recognize the putting stroke of today's short stick players and probably would call that "unnatural" to what they did. since the grass was higher and ultra slow it required a big wrist hinge to get the ball to the hole (or over an opponents ball) which is closer to a chip than today's short stick stroke.

funny how the r&a is trying to go the route of saying the anchored putter is unfair because it stablizes a player in wind / rain - never heard that one before. like everyone else i always just take a wider stance to gain stability.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
its ridiculous to spell ridiculous rediculous too, but that doesn't stop a good 50% of posters.

This isn't a matter of technological advancement. It's using equipment in a way that many like me argue should already be precluded under the rules. The fact that the governing bodies have let the issue go until now is the real problem. They are once again faced with having to turn back the clock on something. Just like the grooves rule.

[b]And I would agree that "people are putting too good so they should be illegal" would be a ridiculous argument, except NO ONE is making that argument. [/b]The argument is simple, anchoring the club to your body is an effort to gain artificial stability in a stroke and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting. Now, most assuredly, someone will give the old "well they don't help or everyone would be using them" argument. My simple response to that is, first, no they wouldn't. I have never used one, i won't ever use one. and second, if there is no advantage to having the club pinned to your gut, what benefit to you derive from it? Why is anyone using a belly putter if it is not bettering performance? And explain to me how that benefit in performance comes from anything other than the anchoring of the club.

Ban em!
[/quote]

Do you really believe this would be an issue if Bradley hadn't won a major, Haas the FedEx Cup, etc.?

In the infamous words of Cris Carter, "C'mon man!"

[poizster]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328566385' post='4225265']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
its ridiculous to spell ridiculous rediculous too, but that doesn't stop a good 50% of posters.

This isn't a matter of technological advancement. It's using equipment in a way that many like me argue should already be precluded under the rules. The fact that the governing bodies have let the issue go until now is the real problem. They are once again faced with having to turn back the clock on something. Just like the grooves rule.

[b]And I would agree that "people are putting too good so they should be illegal" would be a ridiculous argument, except NO ONE is making that argument. [/b]The argument is simple, anchoring the club to your body is an effort to gain artificial stability in a stroke and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting. Now, most assuredly, someone will give the old "well they don't help or everyone would be using them" argument. My simple response to that is, first, no they wouldn't. I have never used one, i won't ever use one. and second, if there is no advantage to having the club pinned to your gut, what benefit to you derive from it? Why is anyone using a belly putter if it is not bettering performance? And explain to me how that benefit in performance comes from anything other than the anchoring of the club.

Ban em!
[/quote]

[b]Do you really believe this would be an issue if Bradley hadn't won a major, Haas the FedEx Cup, etc.? [/b]

In the infamous words of Cris Carter, "C'mon man!"
[/quote]

Yes. The anchoring debate was going on long before Bradley won a major.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='poizster' timestamp='1328566521' post='4225285']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1328566385' post='4225265']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
its ridiculous to spell ridiculous rediculous too, but that doesn't stop a good 50% of posters.

This isn't a matter of technological advancement. It's using equipment in a way that many like me argue should already be precluded under the rules. The fact that the governing bodies have let the issue go until now is the real problem. They are once again faced with having to turn back the clock on something. Just like the grooves rule.

[b]And I would agree that "people are putting too good so they should be illegal" would be a ridiculous argument, except NO ONE is making that argument. [/b]The argument is simple, anchoring the club to your body is an effort to gain artificial stability in a stroke and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting. Now, most assuredly, someone will give the old "well they don't help or everyone would be using them" argument. My simple response to that is, first, no they wouldn't. I have never used one, i won't ever use one. and second, if there is no advantage to having the club pinned to your gut, what benefit to you derive from it? Why is anyone using a belly putter if it is not bettering performance? And explain to me how that benefit in performance comes from anything other than the anchoring of the club.

Ban em!
[/quote]

[b]Do you really believe this would be an issue if Bradley hadn't won a major, Haas the FedEx Cup, etc.? [/b]

In the infamous words of Cris Carter, "C'mon man!"
[/quote]

Yes. The anchoring debate was going on long before Bradley won a major.
[/quote]

Sure, it was going on, but nothing was done about it. People have been using these things for decades...literally, decades.

[Peter K.]

[quote name='Splitter' timestamp='1328564578' post='4225027']
...

I don't spend enough time to look at the real reasons behind non-bifurcation. I suspect it's more financial than anything else. Golf is the only sport where you'll consistently run into people who *genuinely* believe that if they "just did this" they could play professionally. I'm sure using one set of rules helps that feeling and to some extent keeps golf going.
[/quote]

+1

I think this explanation for most golfers' resistance to bifurcation is spot on. Bifurcate, and every weekend hacker no longer feels that they are playing the same game as the pros on TV. They aren't anyway, but they currently think they are.

And, for the record, I am in favor of banning all anchored putting methods.

[PaulFitz]

This is dumb. Belly and Long putters have been around for 15+ years and they're just now going to change the rule on it?? Come on USGA!

If you look at the stats it's not like it magically makes you better. If you look at the strokes gained putting from last year there's no one in the top 10 that doesn't use a conventional putter. The top ranked Belly/Long putter is Carl Petterson and he was 23rd. It's by no means unfair. If it really made you that much better of a putter, the entire tour would have switched by now.

I would be interested in seeing how many players have switched to a belly and switched back, like Phil. I'm sure there's a pretty big number here.

[RookieBlue7]

If there's no advantage, why don't belly users just use a standard length putter? With there being zero advantage, they shouldn't have a problem going back if the anchored method is banned.

If it is, though, I'd like to see there be repercussions, such as their names removed from trophies and such.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328569355' post='4225623']
If it is, though, I'd like to see there be repercussions, such as their names removed from trophies and such.
[/quote]

Really???

[Peter K.]

Wow, Rookie, you're tough. I'm probably right up there with you regarding wanting to ban them, but I wouldn't go so far as to remove names from trophies. I admire your "all or nothing" stance, though.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='Peter K.' timestamp='1328569602' post='4225669']
Wow, Rookie, you're tough. I'm probably right up there with you regarding wanting to ban them, but I wouldn't go so far as to remove names from trophies. I admire your "all or nothing" stance, though.
[/quote]

Hey, either do it and be swift about it and kick people in the pants or do nothing. Like I said I built 3 to try and built a few for others. I don't care either way as it won't effect me. My problem is either do it or don't and be done with it. If you're gonna do it erase any trace of it too. We can do the same with grooves, etc. it's stupid to me to say "hey, you bought them now they're illegal, our bad". Either do it and kick people right in the guts or don't. Won't bother me either way, I'd just love to see the whining and complaining it'd cause because I know people that it really improved their putting a bunch and it'd give me joy to laugh and tell them better luck with their next apparatus (these are guys that buy whatever is popular to buy at the moment with no regard for if it's good for their game or not). And it'd also give me pleasure to ask the folders that rely on them why their putting sucks now with a conventional putter since their argument has always been there's no advantage. I like the chaos it'd cause.

[Socrates]

I really think that the stumbling point will be the wording of what comprises anchoring. Is it where part of the club touches anything other than the hand? What about it resting against the forearm or the entire arm? What if no part of the club touches the body and just part of the arm touches the body (i.e. a long putter where the hand touches the grip and only the forearm touches the chest? The problem is that the hands and arms are attached to the body which in effect are anchoring the putter against the body (I know that is a stretch, but just saying) and where do you stop.

I really think that there are too many sticks in the mud with narrow vision who can't stand the fact that someone has found a better mousetrap and they will do anything in their power to bring things back to the world as they see it should be. What if it was the other way around and since time began (golf time) everyone used a belly putter or long putter. Would they be trying to ban short putters since it wasn't a natural stroke?

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328570185' post='4225761']
I really think that the stumbling point will be the wording of what comprises anchoring. Is it where part of the club touches anything other than the hand? What about it resting against the forearm or the entire arm? What if no part of the club touches the body and just part of the arm touches the body (i.e. a long putter where the hand touches the grip and only the forearm touches the chest? The problem is that the hands and arms are attached to the body which in effect are anchoring the putter against the body (I know that is a stretch, but just saying) and where do you stop.

I really think that there are too many sticks in the mud with narrow vision who can't stand the fact that someone has found a better mousetrap and they will do anything in their power to bring things back to the world as they see it should be. What if it was the other way around and since time began (golf time) everyone used a belly putter or long putter. Would they be trying to ban short putters since it wasn't a natural stroke?
[/quote]
What if pigs flew? What if I fell into a bottomless pit of money and naked women? See where the hypotheticals are going.

Again, I'll ask, if there's no advantage to using either a belly or broomstick, why do people use them?

[ram01002]

Such a tough thing to draw a line in the sand on - - - the USGA lost control over the game long ago with manufacturers dictating everything. Tough to take away one crutch (anchored putter), without taking away other crutches (golf ball that doesn't spin and goes forever, high cor woods, funky high moi putters, etc).

The engineers on the manufacturer's payroll are a lot smarter and light years ahead of the USGA testing staff . . . just follow the money. I can promise you that TaylorMade is paying its lead engineer a lot more than the USGA is paying its equipment staff.

[TRoc9892]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328569355' post='4225623']
If there's no advantage, why don't belly users just use a standard length putter? With there being zero advantage, they shouldn't have a problem going back if the anchored method is banned.
[/quote]
Because it's an alternative. In golf there will always be an alternative. It's for comfort and preference. The same reason a taller person is allowed to use a putter suggested for a shorter person. Same goes with putter weight.

Edit: excuse me *is allowed to use a putter length suggested...*

[ram01002]

btw - - I played 2 weeks ago in 45* weather, wind, and rain. On the first hole I had a 5 footer with my 49" inch broom putter. I was cold, jumpy, and hadn't hit a single putt on the practice green. You'd better believe I used the putter as a brace against the elements (exactly what the R&A is unhappy with). I putted great all day. I'm new to the long putter, and love it . . . . . but to be honest, there is no way in hell it should be legal!

[Socrates]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328570412' post='4225793']
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328570185' post='4225761']
I really think that the stumbling point will be the wording of what comprises anchoring. Is it where part of the club touches anything other than the hand? What about it resting against the forearm or the entire arm? What if no part of the club touches the body and just part of the arm touches the body (i.e. a long putter where the hand touches the grip and only the forearm touches the chest? The problem is that the hands and arms are attached to the body which in effect are anchoring the putter against the body (I know that is a stretch, but just saying) and where do you stop.

I really think that there are too many sticks in the mud with narrow vision who can't stand the fact that someone has found a better mousetrap and they will do anything in their power to bring things back to the world as they see it should be. What if it was the other way around and since time began (golf time) everyone used a belly putter or long putter. Would they be trying to ban short putters since it wasn't a natural stroke?
[/quote]
What if pigs flew? What if I fell into a bottomless pit of money and naked women? See where the hypotheticals are going.

Again, I'll ask, if there's no advantage to using either a belly or broomstick, why do people use them?
[/quote]
If pigs flew you would pay more for bacon and if you fell into a bottomless pit of money with naked women I would call you a Senator.

It still comes down to a few people who claim to be representing the world of golf and wanting to make the Rules as they see fit because it doesn't fit into their notion as to how they interpret something that was written before they were born and likely poorly worded at that time.

[RookieBlue7]

So if one used a belly or long putter and didn't anchor it, they'd make just as many putts with it as they do with it anchored?

[indyvai]

The idea of taking names off trophies is more ridiculous than pigs flying.

I use both a broomstick and a conventional length flatstick. I personally wouldn't care if the longs got banned... but it would be as pathetic as the groove rule change. If you are a great putter with a conventional putter, the switch to a belly would hurt you. That's why everyone doesn't switch. If it ain't broke... don't fix it!

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='indyvai' timestamp='1328573326' post='4226147']
The idea of taking names off trophies is more ridiculous than pigs flying.

I use both a broomstick and a conventional length flatstick. I personally wouldn't care if the longs got banned... but it would be as pathetic as the groove rule change. If you are a great putter with a conventional putter, the switch to a belly would hurt you. That's why everyone doesn't switch. If it ain't broke... don't fix it!
[/quote]


So if you're not a great putter then what does a switch to a belly or long putter do, since it hurts you if you are a good putter.

[indyvai]

If you are not a good putter and you switch... hopefully it helps... or you won't switch for long.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='TRoc9892' timestamp='1328566112' post='4225237']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
The argument is simple, anchoring the club to your body is an effort to gain artificial stability in a stroke and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting.

Ban em!
[/quote]
Well, doesn't this[b] parallel [/b]that using Seemore putters is an effort to gain accuracy artificially and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting? Accuracy that's not deemed as an exception to the rules... or is it an exception? Pros that don't use them rely on other skills to make sure that they're square to their target.
[/quote]

This is what inevitably happens in this debate. Comparisons are drawn and given equality where there is none. Seemore (and really all alignment putters), use an alignment aid designed to help the golfer stroke the ball on the intended line. However there is skill in keeping that alignment far beyond what an anchored putter demands.The very moment the putter is moved in the backstroke, the best alignment aid is rendered meaningless. using that putter still requires the skill that a belly putter seeks to remove from the equation. With an anchored putter, the golfer [i]never loses the advantage [/i]of artificial stability throughout the stroke. from the time the stroke is engaged, until the stroke is complete. There is no debating this.

Some intellectual honesty from belly putter users would be refreshing. Not even being able to admit that the belly putter gives the advantage[i] it is designed [/i]to give is an embarrassment to the whole cause.

[RookieBlue7]

And there it is, the belly is supposed to help a bad putter putt better, no indy? Why is that? My guess is the fact that anchoring takes the hands out of the equation, which is one of the big problems people struggle with that are poor putters, too much hands in the putting stroke.

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
[quote name='cmrl1986' timestamp='1328563485' post='4224899']
Let me and me belly putters be! I highly doubt anything will come of this. Like previously stated, they have been around forever. Also, they're selling like crack right now. I'd be very surprised if the issue doesn't die before or even gets any momentum. "people are putting too good so it must be illegal" is a rediculous arguement. If they didn't allow golf to change we would still all be playing niblicks and mashie's, wait, bad reference! Point being that technology and golf go hand in hand, rules will always be there. Let the belly putter be!
[/quote]

its ridiculous to spell ridiculous rediculous too, but that doesn't stop a good 50% of posters.

This isn't a matter of technological advancement. It's using equipment in a way that many like me argue should already be precluded under the rules. The fact that the governing bodies have let the issue go until now is the real problem. They are once again faced with having to turn back the clock on something. Just like the grooves rule.

And I would agree that "people are putting too good so they should be illegal" would be a ridiculous argument, except NO ONE is making that argument. The argument is simple, anchoring the club to your body is an effort to gain artificial stability in a stroke and eliminates a large part of the skill of putting. Now, most assuredly, someone will give the old "well they don't help or everyone would be using them" argument. My simple response to that is, first, no they wouldn't. I have never used one, i won't ever use one. and second, if there is no advantage to having the club pinned to your gut, what benefit to you derive from it? Why is anyone using a belly putter if it is not bettering performance? And explain to me how that benefit in performance comes from anything other than the anchoring of the club.

Ban em!
[/quote]


Based on that argument, it would seem that we should all be forced to use a hammer head on a stick or something that is equally difficult for all to use efficiently. A particular Northwestern putter comes to mind. It shoul;d do quite nicely.
Evolution occurs in all that is life and golf has no way of escaping it. To my way of thinking, a belly putter is the equivelant to a SGI club. And I don't hear anything more than a haughty sniff from purists who are forced to consider their use. GI, SGI, modern golf balls, graphite shafts and oversized metal heads on woods that are no longer woods have all been reluctantly and slowly accepted by all of us who have witnessed golf's amazing evolution over the last 3 decades.
So excuse me if I insist that all who sniff haughtily about this newer generation of putter must show me nothing but hickory and gutta percha in their canvas bags before I pay that sniff any heed at all.

[indyvai]

Taking the hands out is a bit of a overstatement. You still grip the club with both hands... and it takes a different skill to perform a repetive stroke regardless. Some people find it easier... some don't.

So draw bias drivers should be banned because they make poor drivers better just by equipment change alone?

[NEOhio]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328574227' post='4226267']
And there it is, the belly is supposed to help a bad putter putt better, no indy? Why is that? My guess is the fact that anchoring takes the hands out of the equation, which is one of the big problems people struggle with that are poor putters, too much hands in the putting stroke.
[/quote]


Played today, and the guy I was paired with uses a 49" anchored at his chest. He told me that using the long putter is all about just moving the putter w/ his right hand. (right-handed player) no rocking the shoulders, etc. He said by having it anchored at chest level only allows the putter to swing straight back, straight through. The guy putted very well with it.
That being said....Ban them. I've never tried one and have no plans to start.

[Body_Visions]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328569355' post='4225623']
If there's no advantage, why don't belly users just use a standard length putter? With there being zero advantage, they shouldn't have a problem going back if the anchored method is banned.

If it is, though, I'd like to see there be repercussions, such as their names removed from trophies and such.
[/quote]


I use a mallet, you use an Anser style putter. Is either one better? No, it comes down to which you prefer.

If the anchor were that much better, every single player on tour would be using it. This should end the argument and ban.



If you are going to remove names from trophies, you better do it for performance enhancing drugs as well. Ole' Jack would be safe for sure then.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='indyvai' timestamp='1328575017' post='4226367']
Taking the hands out is a bit of a overstatement. You still grip the club with both hands... and it takes a different skill to perform a repetive stroke regardless. Some people find it easier... some don't.

So draw bias drivers should be banned because they make poor drivers better just by equipment change alone?
[/quote]


In physics, what is a more stable platform for a pendulum? I'll put it more bluntly, what will swing back and forth more accurately, a steel ball suspended on a rod or a steel ball suspended by a string? Which one takes more effort to get off course? The same principle can be applied to a belly putter or long putter. You're anchored to the fulcrum instead of being willy nilly and having free range of motion along every axis.

What are belly putters designed to do? Are they not designed to quiet the hands? Are they not designed to eliminate the hands from the stroke and make the putter swing back and through on a straighter path.

I have no problem with belly putters, could care less either way. I tried them mainly because I had access to the grips and have 10-15 putter heads lying around at any given time to tinker with. I didn't see any advantage for me, but I've never struggled with putting either. But, to say that a person that doesn't struggle with putting won't have an advantage because it eliminates the most common mistake people make and that's rotating their hands through impact doesn't hold water for me. Why? Because I've seen players on tour play before and after switching and saw how much their putting improved and took notice that with the long putters their stroke wasn't forced.

Adam Scott is one such example. I've attended the Masters every year, save one, for the last 11-12 years. Before he switched, he couldn't putt at Augusta to save his life. He flipped his hands at impact and it caused him to hood the face or to fight that urge and leave it open pushing and pulling putts. I was there the year he went to the broomstick as well. Guess what? That move was GONE, and he putted the eyes out of it all week.

I wouldn't have a problem if the users of long putters would admit that it gives THEIR individual person an advantage. But for them to say anchoring doesn't give them an advantage and they became a better putter just because, when I've seen what they do and noticed the change in their stroke after the switch, again doesn't hold water for me. I don't care about what the theory is behind it. Only the results. Give a poor putter a long putter and their putting improves, and that solidifies the fact for me. I've yet to see anyone that's switched to one and worked with it that hasn't improved their putting dramatically, whether a weekend hack or a tour player. And, if there's no advantage to anchoring, why does everyone that uses a long putter anchor it? There's no advantage to be had by anchoring(the common argument), so why not use it without the anchor?

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1328575227' post='4226397']
[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328569355' post='4225623']
If there's no advantage, why don't belly users just use a standard length putter? With there being zero advantage, they shouldn't have a problem going back if the anchored method is banned.

If it is, though, I'd like to see there be repercussions, such as their names removed from trophies and such.
[/quote]


I use a mallet, you use an Anser style putter. Is either one better? No, it comes down to which you prefer.

If the anchor were that much better, every single player on tour would be using it. This should end the argument and ban.



If you are going to remove names from trophies, you better do it for performance enhancing drugs as well. Ole' Jack would be safe for sure then.
[/quote]

Can you prove indefinitely that Tiger is using performance enhancing drugs(we know who your veiled attempt at this is taking a pot shot at)? If so, there's a team of lawyers that I'm sure would line up at your door to take the case. As it stands, it's slander.

And who said it was better? It's always been said by anyone on either side of the argument that a good putter isn't going to benefit from an anchored putter. But the inverse is that it can make a bad putter a better putter.