Anchoring putters

[jonnygrouville]

So putter anchoring banned from start of next year. They have been asking some of the pros about it during the USPGA coverage.

 

Tim Clark is one of the guys who has used the anchoring basically his whole career. Was querying why they have picked on this when technology has advanced so much elsewhere, saying he used to be ten yards behind the longest hitters and now he is fifty or sixty yards back. His point was that if you dial back anchoring, you should dial back all technology and go back to old balata golf balls and persimmon.

 

Would be nice eh?!

 

But is a good point. Not sure if they had an issue with how Leo Diegel putted...

 

 

...and whilst they might have made broom handles out of hickory, there might not have been that many hickory broom-handles.

 

The non-anchoring rule sounds slightly contrived. If it needs this amount of information around it, something seems wrong.

 

http://www.usga.org/...rule-14-1b.html

 

I like the inventiveness of it as a method and don't like the idea of the action of doing anything to a golf ball with a club to be constrained in this way. To Clark's point, it is the ball and the driver where I'd rather see the changes.

 

Regulating equipment is far easier than regulating methods, isn't it?! Can't think of anything as ambiguous is another sport. In cricket, you need to bowl with a straight arm and there are occasionally some controversial methods, likewise, the judgement involved in a leg before wicket call is pretty mad.

 

Let people anchor, let people build counter-weighted putters and use fat grips. Why not? Don't let people lash it over 300 yards down every single fairway. They did it before with the trampoline faces and Coefficients of Restitution or whatever. Would love to see them dialled back to be comparable with persimmon, graphite and laminated heads, probably as it was in the early day of metal woods.

[Kirasdad]

Completely agree. It's not like all the long, belly putter guys are winning everything. They've won a few times, just like Bernhard did back when he was clamping the putter to his arm like a man with a nervous disorder,(well I guess he did have a nervous disorder, if you count the yips). That's legal, as is apparently Kuchar's elbow lock. It all seems a bit capricious.

Now I am watching the PGA on the tube. Driver, wedge, driver, GW, driver,9 iron. Zzzzz...

Legal, but dull as dishwater.

[scomac2002]

It's not just 300 that they're lashing the ball, it's 350, 380! It's all getting a bit ridiculous. Almost all the grand old courses are now obsolete being replaced with these amusement park style layouts. I'm no fan. I'm especially no fan of the style of play where it's always aggressive; wonderful when it works, but disaster when it doesn't. Yet, when you can so easily make up for mistakes with the driver, pitch and putt on the next hole, who cares?

I liken this trend to the designated hitter in baseball. People want a spectacle, so give them plenty of 3 run home runs and forget about the subtleties of the game. Golf at the professional level has become pretty much the same thing. It's all over-the-top with contrived drama for your viewing pleasure.

[birly-shirly]

I dunno. I'm sympathetic to the idea of a rollback in driver and ball and I'd certainly love to see the pros hitting steel-shafted persimmon drivers - but I'm conscious that whilst I enjoy most of my golf at my home course using persimmon, I've not rendered all 6000 yards of it obsolete by sticking a modern big stick in my bag. Is it possible that modern, physically trained pros are just THAT long almost regardless of the equipment? It was noted during the Open that the field was hitting drive - wedge into the 18 that Jack had driven with a woody 3 wood years ago.

On the other (non-anchored) hand - playing in front of a paying gallery for a kings ransom and my place in posterity, I don't know if I'm that much more likely to hole a 5 foot slider i than I am to smash a drive 300 yards. Tell you what though, give me a handrail and I could walk a tightrope that I'd never manage to cross otherwise.

If we can't legislate against these guys driving par 4s, we can at least limit their options for holing out when they get there.

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1439766704' post='12150268']
I dunno. I'm sympathetic to the idea of a rollback in driver and ball and I'd certainly love to see the pros hitting steel-shafted persimmon drivers - but I'm conscious that whilst I enjoy most of my golf at my home course using persimmon, I've not rendered all 6000 yards of it obsolete by sticking a modern big stick in my bag. [color=#ff0000][b]Is it possible that modern, physically trained pros are just THAT long almost regardless of the equipment?[/b][/color] It was noted during the Open that the field was hitting drive - wedge into the 18 that Jack had driven with a woody 3 wood years ago.

On the other (non-anchored) hand - playing in front of a paying gallery for a kings ransom and my place in posterity, I don't know if I'm that much more likely to hole a 5 foot slider i than I am to smash a drive 300 yards. Tell you what though, give me a handrail and I could walk a tightrope that I'd never manage to cross otherwise.

If we can't legislate against these guys driving par 4s, we can at least limit their options for holing out when they get there.
[/quote]


It's not a popular sentiment, but the red bolded portion of your post is exactly correct. On average, pros are swinging faster than in days of yore.

Remember that Gary Player's workout regimen was thought to be odd. They all do that now.

They're also swinging with longer, lighter, clubs.

It's also worth noting.... TV exaggerates distance sometimes, and for some reason, the longest hitters stand out. That said, the PGA Tour average 5 iron is around 194 yds. For every Jason Day, Dustin Johnson, Bubba Watson, there has to be someone hitting it less than that. Or several someones, to bring the average down to 194.

And, once you equalize for lofts, you're talking about the classic 4 iron. That sounds about right.

edited to add: Jason Day's WITB is posted here on WRX. It mentions his irons are 2½° to 3° strong. His 5 iron is roughly an FG17 3 iron.

This is not uncommon among tour pros, for some reason...

[Kirasdad]

It's the ball.
It's the ball.
It's the ball.

. It's the Pro V1 that has really changed the deal...high launch low spin, equals big distance. And the ball is the only realistic hope for change anyway. There is no way that golf is going back to persimmon, hell will freeze over first, however there is a certain lobby that has influence that is urging a ball rollback. It is at least possible with land and water issues in the global climate change era.

If one wanted to imagine what golf would be like if we somehow went back to 1980...

Yes, they are in shape, and yes they could probably hit a persimmon driver perhaps 90% of what they are hitting it now, but as Higan once famously said, "golf is a game of misses". A guy like Bubba Watson puts a ss of 120 on a persimmon driver and hits it on the toe, they couldn't get TV cameras far enough left to find him. The misses on persimmon are much less playable than 460cc ti. Jordan Speith would possibly be even better in a throwback tournament with his precision and putting prowess since he's not a long hitter anyway. It's guys like Dustin Johnson and the like that would really suffer in a move to classic golf.

[stixman]

Jimmy Demaret famously quipped sometime in the 1950s,

'Long Hitters? The woods are full of them!'

[stevemcgee99]

[quote name='Kirasdad' timestamp='1439784906' post='12152504']
however there is a certain lobby that has influence that is urging a ball rollback. It is at least possible with land and water issues in the global climate change era.
[/quote]
I really hope this happens. Robots should be able to wind balls. They can make circuit boards.

I will use the 'environmental' argument for rolling back the ball (kek) and for getting clubs back to normal. We don't need - as Nicklaus has suggested - to go to 12 holes because people don't have the time for 6-hour games. We need 1950's courses with 1950's play times.

(And banning mobile devices from courses).

[scomac2002]

Anything is possible if there is a collective will. Just because the [i]cat has been out of the bag[/i] for years so-to-speak doesn't mean that the ball can't be rolled back or clubs can't be restricted further in some sense. They fussed with the groove rule for 25 years before they got that sorted (for better or for worse). They sucked their collective thumbs for over 40 years before banning anchoring (which I believe to have been one of the dumber decisions they've ever come up with!). So, I see no reason why both the ball and driver can't realistically be rolled back and it won't be the end of the world for either golf or the OEMs. They'll have a solution as soon as the ruling comes out. (The conspiracy theorist in me says that the mini driver is really a trial balloon should the USGA and R&A toy with rolling back driver head size/shaft length. )

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='Kirasdad' timestamp='1439784906' post='12152504']
It's the ball.
It's the ball.
It's the ball.

. It's the Pro V1 that has really changed the deal...high launch low spin, equals big distance. And the ball is the only realistic hope for change anyway. There is no way that golf is going back to persimmon, hell will freeze over first, however there is a certain lobby that has influence that is urging a ball rollback. It is at least possible with land and water issues in the global climate change era.

If one wanted to imagine what golf would be like if we somehow went back to 1980...

Yes, they are in shape, and yes they could probably hit a persimmon driver perhaps 90% of what they are hitting it now, but as Higan once famously said, "golf is a game of misses". A guy like Bubba Watson puts a ss of 120 on a persimmon driver and hits it on the toe, they couldn't get TV cameras far enough left to find him. The misses on persimmon are much less playable than 460cc ti. Jordan Speith would possibly be even better in a throwback tournament with his precision and putting prowess since he's not a long hitter anyway. It's guys like Dustin Johnson and the like that would really suffer in a move to classic golf.
[/quote]


It's not the ball.

I've done this exercise in the past, the difference in distance for the mass switch to solid core golf balls is about 8 yards. That's all there is. Anything more than that is due to other factors, longer clubheads, chasing lower spin rates, etc.

It's certainly not the Pro V1. Let us at least give credit where it's due, not to stolen IP, LOL. The Strata, or the Bridgestone ball whose name I can't recall at the moment, were the first solid core balls. Those were where the fun started. Hell, it wasn't until Tiger won with the Tour Accuracy that guys clamored for the switch, so you could say it's the Nike ball, by that line of thinking.

The rest of it is agronomy (Snead said the modern mower was the biggest improvement), stronger players, and longer clubs; guys are playing drivers in excess of 45" now. What the older guys used are reasonably close to modern 3 woods.

Average driver swingspeed used to be around 105, now it's 113.

I've seen a post on another forum from a gentleman, who shared a piece he'd found. It was a complaint about how golf courses were being made obsolete through the length afforded by the changes in the golf ball. It was written in the early 20th century, the writer complaining about the Haskell ball.

It's not a new discussion.

[TimV]

All I can say confidently is that if the trend continues to set up courses for the 300+ yard hitter then golf will die. Regardless of claims otherwise most of us can not hit it that far. In my case not even close and I know darn well I'm not alone because I play twice a week and see what all the other average golfers can do. Honestly above average, as I see the average golfers only during the weekend.

[HoganApexBlades]

Ok, so here's a thought (as crazy as it truly is), if we don't change the ball, the clubs or the course conditions, let's just change the rules of PAR as we know it. Par 3 holes can now be up to 275 yards long, Par 4 holes can now be up to 575 yards and Par 5 holes can now be up to 750 yards long. If the course doesn't have the space to allow for such mammoth yardage increases, then make 2 of the shorter Par 4's into Par 3's, and make the 2 shorter Par 5's into Par 4's. That will change PAR from 72 to 68, 71 to 67 or 70 to 66. We don't need to allow all the great courses built since 1900 to be rendered obsolete because of the USGA's "sell-out" to the OEM's, let's make PAR a more difficult goal to achieve for the pro golfers that are of the Drive, Pitch and Putt generation. I told you it is crazy...

[jonnygrouville]

There is a snobbery element here, especially as we all, obviously, like the old kit. But I like it that so many people play golf now who might not have played in the past as it would have been too difficult without the technology.

I do not, however, like it that striking is no longer the premium it was, even in the pre-titanium days of metal woods. Have banged on about this before, but I was legitimately long using my Boom Boom or T-Zoid against Burners, Big Berthas and the like, purely because I regularly middled it. Within three years I was not as the titanium revolution happened. Would love to see this dialed back so striking was something again.

As someone has already pointed out, there will always be long-hitters like Nicklaus in his youth, and, with the right conditions, they could hit it comparable distances to today (previously, certainly in Britain, not everywhere had fairway watering). Much to Clark's point though, when this is the norm and the standard deviations are so much greater, it is losing something.

It is a good comment about the woods being full of long-drivers... and they are somehow getting a lie and getting it onto the green. Courses should be more penal.

There is a safety issue here too. The course I grew up playing is a traditional links with no room for any expansion as it is already on a small plot and is between the sea on one side, houses and roads on the other. There are a couple of drives that only the very longest hitters could go for which do bring other greens and tees into play if you are wild. With modern technology, anyone with half-decent swing-speed can have a go and, because they are not all scratch or better, it is getting dangerous. The club is having to resort to internal out of bounds (something I am not a fan of, to be honest) and significant re-designs as this is cheaper than legal costs.

[stixman]

[quote name='stixman' timestamp='1439792414' post='12152826']
Jimmy Demaret famously quipped sometime in the 1950s,

'Long Hitters? The woods are full of them!'
[/quote]

As a follow-up to that post, I originally heard the line from my home Pro, Bryon Hutchinson from Moortown GC Leeds (1929 Ryder Cup and first Alistair McKenzie layout which included the noted Gibraltar).
He claimed the line as his own as part of his teaching repartee, only later did I find out he was spoofing

[Kirasdad]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1439818070' post='12153786']
[quote name='Kirasdad' timestamp='1439784906' post='12152504']
It's the ball.
It's the ball.
It's the ball.

. It's the Pro V1 that has really changed the deal...high launch low spin, equals big distance. And the ball is the only realistic hope for change anyway. There is no way that golf is going back to persimmon, hell will freeze over first, however there is a certain lobby that has influence that is urging a ball rollback. It is at least possible with land and water issues in the global climate change era.

If one wanted to imagine what golf would be like if we somehow went back to 1980...

Yes, they are in shape, and yes they could probably hit a persimmon driver perhaps 90% of what they are hitting it now, but as Higan once famously said, "golf is a game of misses". A guy like Bubba Watson puts a ss of 120 on a persimmon driver and hits it on the toe, they couldn't get TV cameras far enough left to find him. The misses on persimmon are much less playable than 460cc ti. Jordan Speith would possibly be even better in a throwback tournament with his precision and putting prowess since he's not a long hitter anyway. It's guys like Dustin Johnson and the like that would really suffer in a move to classic golf.
[/quote]


It's not the ball.

I've done this exercise in the past, the difference in distance for the mass switch to solid core golf balls is about 8 yards. That's all there is. Anything more than that is due to other factors, longer clubheads, chasing lower spin rates, etc.

It's certainly not the Pro V1. Let us at least give credit where it's due, not to stolen IP, LOL. The Strata, or the Bridgestone ball whose name I can't recall at the moment, were the first solid core balls. Those were where the fun started. Hell, it wasn't until Tiger won with the Tour Accuracy that guys clamored for the switch, so you could say it's the Nike ball, by that line of thinking.

The rest of it is agronomy (Snead said the modern mower was the biggest improvement), stronger players, and longer clubs; guys are playing drivers in excess of 45" now. What the older guys used are reasonably close to modern 3 woods.

Average driver swingspeed used to be around 105, now it's 113.

I've seen a post on another forum from a gentleman, who shared a piece he'd found. It was a complaint about how golf courses were being made obsolete through the length afforded by the changes in the golf ball. It was written in the early 20th century, the writer complaining about the Haskell ball.

It's not a new discussion.
[/quote]

I wasn't sayimg that it was exclusively the ball. What I meant to say more clearly is two things. One being that it's not just about distance. A higher spinning ball will penalize the bomb and gouge crowd in that their misses will be, well, more of a miss, and secondly, the ball is the only place IMO, that there is any chance of meaningful change. And as per Jonny's original post, banning long and belly putters doesn't really do much of anything to address the primary issues of land and water in practical terms, and shotmaking skills in the artistic realm of things.

I certainly agree that the increase in distance is due to a wide variety of factors.

[jonnygrouville]

Yes. Easy to be accused of being a luddite and being anti-progress, but I genuinely think this is detrimental to the game and banning anchoring is not the right thing to be limiting.

I like technology. I like progress. But this just seems odd.

I don't even mind records being broken. The traditionalists in cricket are bemoaning the big heavy modern bats and boundaries being moved in making a mockery of the old records, but they need this for the game to remain relevant and popular or there is no game. Then presumably there was a conscious choice to keep wooden baseball bats at some stage. If tennis continues down the route of big-serving baseline boredom as the death-knell of serve-and-volley, I can see this sport having a good look at its equipment as well.

Who would want the 100 metre record to be the same for decades? Day has just recorded the lowest total for a major, and I think Spieth has had the lowest aggregate for all four in the same year. Brilliant. Both incredible efforts.

Then without the titanium revolution, would we have Woods? Or McIlroy? Or the popularity it needs to make it the game we love?

[SteveNZ]

[quote name='Kirasdad' timestamp='1439784906' post='12152504']

I wasn't sayimg that it was exclusively the ball. What I meant to say more clearly is two things. One being that it's not just about distance. A higher spinning ball will penalize the bomb and gouge crowd in that their misses will be, well, more of a miss, and secondly, the ball is the only place IMO, that there is any chance of meaningful change. And as per Jonny's original post, banning long and belly putters doesn't really do much of anything to address the primary issues of land and water in practical terms, and shotmaking skills in the artistic realm of things.

I certainly agree that the increase in distance is due to a wide variety of factors.
[/quote]

I think you have to say that equipment is foremost amongst those factors. Sure, players are stronger and in better shape and mowers are better etc and so on, but give today's gear to a 60s Nicklaus or a Snead at his peak and they would hit it absolute miles.

[scomac2002]

What makes the game is the players, the personalities, not the tools that they use. That is simply a by-product of the industrialization of golf which has become a bit of a self-feeding beast.

What makes the game popular isn't necessarily the professional game, but the benefits of being a participant. Is it social? Is it affordable? Can it be played in a reasonable amount of time? And lastly, is it enjoyable? What the average person needs is equipment that makes the game easier to play. On that point the industry has delivered over the years, but the fundamental design of that hasn't changed all that much since the Anser putter, Eye2/845 irons, Big Bertha/Burner metal woods and the TM Rescue.

What has gone on since that time is as much about creating a sustainable demand which is pretty much the MO of consumer capitalism. Give the OEMs a different target to shoot for and they'll figure out a way, but right now distance sells and it appears to be relatively easy to deliver on (if you believe the advertising).

[VivaTerlingua]

Very well said, Scomac.

Is an MLB game more "baseball" than a group of 10-year-olds in a pick up game? It's not even close in my mind..........

Is a big tournament more "golf" than a social outing of buddies, male and/or female, playing after work? Not to me......

Now that I think about it, has any sport begun as a full-fledged professional event? Or do we just pervert it from its pure origin?


To me - I really don't care what the guys on tour shoot. I'll watch them, yes, because they're very good at what they do. Are they playing the same game I do? Not really. I guess you could say they're distant relatives, but that's about it.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='jonnygrouville' timestamp='1439845336' post='12156644']
Yes. Easy to be accused of being a luddite and being anti-progress, but I genuinely think this is detrimental to the game and banning anchoring is not the right thing to be limiting.

I like technology. I like progress. But this just seems odd.

I don't even mind records being broken. The traditionalists in cricket are bemoaning the big heavy modern bats and boundaries being moved in making a mockery of the old records, but they need this for the game to remain relevant and popular or there is no game. Then presumably there was a conscious choice to keep wooden baseball bats at some stage. If tennis continues down the route of big-serving baseline boredom as the death-knell of serve-and-volley, I can see this sport having a good look at its equipment as well.

Who would want the 100 metre record to be the same for decades? Day has just recorded the lowest total for a major, and I think Spieth has had the lowest aggregate for all four in the same year. Brilliant. Both incredible efforts.

Then without the titanium revolution, would we have Woods? Or McIlroy? Or the popularity it needs to make it the game we love?
[/quote]

Tennis actually confronted this over 10 years ago. Wimbledon quietly rolled back the ball, and I believe reseeded their courts to provide a higher-bouncing, slower surface. Maybe it's easier to reach a consensus in tennis where players are hitting the ball at each other, rather than into the distance.

I still don't really see how the roll back of drivers and/or balls links to the anchoring ban. I feel somewhat sorry for anyone whose nerves get the better of them on the greens, but then putting remains something of a leveller - and I am confused by anyone who deplores the bomb and gouge MO, but who opposes the anchoring ban. The new rule can only make putting harder - and by extension, improve the chances of shorter hitters to develop a game that can compete with those who can blitz the ball off the tee but putt with the subtlety of a grenade launcher.

I also don't think that there's statistical support for the idea that long hitters are clumsy ballstrikers. John Daly was the longest driver with wood, and remained so with oversized titanium. I've always felt that the reliably longest drivers had to be very good ballstrikers. You can duff a ball straight, and you can duff it stiff to the pin, but no-one ever duffs it a long way - except perhaps with a wedge...

What's more, I think the researcher and stats guy Mark Broadie showed that, on average, longer drivers are actually hitting the ball within a narrower angular dispersion than shorter hitters. In other words, they miss fairways because the ball goes so far and any deviation is magnified, not because they have any less control over their clubhead path and face angle.

Lastly, look up the pgatour stats for smash factor - which is one measure of solidness of strike. The field is so tightly packed it's ridiculous, and if Justin Rose is in the lower reaches of the ranking, I think that the stat is probably measuring driver spin as much as solid striking. Basically, I think that stat tells us that everyone out there is hitting it very consistently out of the middle.

[TimV]

"[color=#282828]I am confused by anyone who deplores the bomb and gouge MO, but who opposes the anchoring ban. The new rule can only make putting harder - and by extension, improve the chances of shorter hitters to develop a game that can compete with those who can blitz the ball off the tee but putt with the subtlety of a grenade launcher."[/color]
[color=#282828]I respectfully disagree. If long [/color][color=#282828]putters were an automatic advantage everyone would have used them. I believe they do all hit 460cc volume (or close) drivers though, don't they?[/color]

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='jonnygrouville' timestamp='1439845336' post='12156644']
Yes. Easy to be accused of being a luddite and being anti-progress, but I genuinely think this is detrimental to the game and banning anchoring is not the right thing to be limiting.

I like technology. I like progress. But this just seems odd.

I don't even mind records being broken. The traditionalists in cricket are bemoaning the big heavy modern bats and boundaries being moved in making a mockery of the old records, but they need this for the game to remain relevant and popular or there is no game. Then presumably there was a conscious choice to keep wooden baseball bats at some stage. If tennis continues down the route of big-serving baseline boredom as the death-knell of serve-and-volley, I can see this sport having a good look at its equipment as well.

Who would want the 100 metre record to be the same for decades? Day has just recorded the lowest total for a major, and I think Spieth has had the lowest aggregate for all four in the same year. Brilliant. Both incredible efforts.

Then without the titanium revolution, would we have Woods? Or McIlroy? Or the popularity it needs to make it the game we love?
[/quote]


I completely believe that, had drivers stayed no larger than 300cc, Tiger would have already 18+ majors. The bigger drivers have given everyone else more than he's gotten from them.

Along those lines, Tiger's third US Amateur win... in the late going, there's a par 5 with the bunker in the fairway. Tiger carried it with his Cobra Deep Face and wound ball. Per my memory, it was stated as a 300 yd carry by Johnny Miller. There weren't many others doing that sort of thing at the time.

[NRJyzr]

I've got multiple posts in this thread, and I realized I haven't said a thing about the actual topic. LOL at me

So here goes nothing... I think the anchored putter ban is mind numblingly stupid. It's a knee jerk reaction to a non existent problem.

Much like the groove rule.

[stevemcgee99]

[quote name='scomac2002' timestamp='1439812153' post='12153290']
(The conspiracy theorist in me says that the mini driver is really a trial balloon should the USGA and R&A toy with rolling back driver head size/shaft length.
[/quote]
I think you're right. At the least, it's the manufacturers dipping their toe in the water on the smaller, old-school club thing. They read these posts.

Remember, Nike felt the need to run that anti-luddite campaign last year.

[quote name='jonnygrouville' timestamp='1439845336' post='12156644']
they need this for the game to remain relevant and popular or there is no game.
[/quote]

I don't think a great game will fall out of favor. But the manufacturers will sell less, and some will shut their doors.

I promise you - there are already enough clubs existing on the face of the earth for everyone who wants to play to have at least two sets. We shouldn't be worried about keeping manufacturers in business. Golf is not a job program for engineers and marketers.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='TimV' timestamp='1439857124' post='12157816']
"[color=#282828]I am confused by anyone who deplores the bomb and gouge MO, but who opposes the anchoring ban. The new rule can only make putting harder - and by extension, improve the chances of shorter hitters to develop a game that can compete with those who can blitz the ball off the tee but putt with the subtlety of a grenade launcher."[/color]
[color=#282828]I respectfully disagree. If long [/color][color=#282828]putters were an automatic advantage everyone would have used them. I believe they do all hit 460cc volume (or close) drivers though, don't they?[/color]
[/quote]

Yes - large drivers are pretty much universal, I doubt whether anyone on tour anywhere is using anything smaller than 400cc.But I don't understand what that proves with respect to putting. My point is just that putting can be a great leveller, and an opportunity to compete for guys who didn't win the fast-twitch genetic lottery but who can nail 5 and 6 footers under pressure. That to me seems like a worthwhile principle - and more attractive than a mechanical solution that prevents someone from self-destructing when they get near the hole.

I'm not sure the anchoring rule would have been my priority if I was king for a day - but I have no great issues with it being brought in, not least because I don't think I've ever seen one in the wild. On the courses I play, they're rarer than persimmon drivers.

On the issue of driving distance, I don't know that I've seen anyone who wants a technological rollback ever define what would be an acceptable distance. That seems trivial - and lots of people would be content (self included) to see a return to solid-headed drivers. But for anyone whose concern is that older courses are being rendered obsolete, then ultimately you have to put a number on how far you're prepared to let someone drive the ball. And that means a progressive and continuing rollback as golfers continue to get stronger and more aggressive.

To look for a very rough and ready estimate of likely "human factors" in increased driving distance - I had a quick look at athletics records. I looked at a couple of track races from the '64 Olympics (representative of Jack Nicklaus' heyday as a bomber) and 2012.

In the 2 cases I looked at, the gold medal times in '64 would have failed to qualify for the 2012 finals.

On the other hand, JB Holmes is currently ranked 10th on tour for clubhead speed at 120mph. Which means I think that young Jack would have had a good shot at being top ten in 2015 for clubhead speed, even swinging a short, heavy, steel shafted Tommy Armour against the rest of the field swinging lightweight 45" drivers.

That suggests to me that clubhead speed on tour has probably not risen disproportionately to athletic performance in other sports. Which means the driver is not the problem.

Which leaves the ball - but if NRJyzr's argument is correct that rising driving distance is a factor of increased clubhead speed, then it's NOT the ball.

Which leaves the player.

[Nuggets]

Its the player, look at Watson he is proportionate from wood to titanuim even with age

Look at the iron distances, Tiger uses traditional lofts and murders the ball

Look at the body build, muscles on these guys are bigger, they spend more time practicing and finding ways to make them swing faster

Yes clubs have helped that but if you roll it back for the PGA then you have to roll it back for the average Joe, I personally would prefer to still be using U grooves, the V grooves I've got now compared to the U grooved wedges I had when I stopped playing don't spin as well even with the same ball

Compare Norman to Woods, two players who both hit irons a long way....or even Rory, its not just pure talent its a trimmer build, more golf specific gym routines and practice to increase speed. Look at the posts on here "how can I swing faster, increase SS, hit it harder, further" its the new mentality. You wont stop it and if you roll something back then people will either quit and find a new sport or complain about it so much it changes back!

A steel faced 3W is the same as an older model driver essentially, pre titanium......I'd dare say off the tee I could hit the 3W the same distance.
The added distance then comes from a larger sweet spot on the titanium driver, more optimal weight distribution for spin/launch and the longer shafts but most importantly the fact that its no longer a golfer behind the club on tour.....its a "tour athlete" and thats what companies are calling their players now.

These "athletes" have a different mentality now and you have to factor that in. Give Rory an old Wilson Tour Block and I bet he'll still hit that further than the average tour pro back in the day

[scomac2002]

You can't limit distance per se directly. All you can do is limit specs that will have an impact on the potential distance the ball can be hit.

There seems to have been a big jump in the last couple of years in how far these guys are hitting the ball. It's not the players that have changed, it's something about either the driver or the ball. The governing bodies really do need to do something about this otherwise we are faced with a long drive competition attached to a putting contest.

Bifurcation of the rules was talked about a lot during the anchoring ban debates. This is probably where this should be headed with the current rules applicable to club golfers, but limits on both the driver and the ball for high level sanctioned amateur and professional tour events. It works in baseball and it gives the PGA and R&A an out for the bollocks of a decision on the anchoring ban.

With respect to some hard numbers, a limit on compression and spin would get the job done with the ball -- I'm not an engineer so I don't know what those figures would need to be. As for the driving club, there would be a limit on volume, weight and shaft length proportional to the player. CT could be rolled back as well if that is deemed to be the overriding factor in the current distance boom. I say driving club because I don't want to create a loophole where the strong 3W or 2W becomes the pros driver of choice because it can be legally hotter.

Sure there will be a hew and cry from the OEMs purportedly on behalf of the masses, but if people thought about it for a minute they would realize that it wouldn't be so bad. I already hit my Cobra AMP 3W almost as far as I hit my modern titanium driver. There has been many a round that I hit the 3W as my tee club when I was spraying the driver around so as to have a half a chance at posting a half decent score. Shoot, when I learned this game, the 3W was the tee club I used (going all the way back to my Spalding Executive!)

[ballneverlistens]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1439859420' post='12158130']
I've got multiple posts in this thread, and I realized I haven't said a thing about the actual topic. LOL at me

So here goes nothing... I think the anchored putter ban is mind numblingly stupid. It's a knee jerk reaction to a non existent problem.

Much like the groove rule.
[/quote]

Agreed. And what if more golfers adopt Kuchar's method (bracing the grip against the inner left arm)? Will that eventually be outlawed? Just silly, IMO.

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='scomac2002' timestamp='1439898593' post='12160102']
There seems to have been a big jump in the last couple of years in how far these guys are hitting the ball.[/quote]


Fortunately, we can measure that. I dug through the PGA Tour driving stats for every even numbered year (arbitrary choice) from 2004-2014, copied the data for every player listed into Excel and did a simple Total Distance / Total Drives calculation.

And here's what I got:

2004 - 285.26
2006 - 287.37
2008 - 285.77
2010 - 285.46
2012 - 287.96
2014 - 287.69

As you can see, it's been pretty flat for ten years now.

What this suggests to me is any number of a few things... TV only showing the long hitters. TV exaggerating the distances (from those with whom I've interacted who've walked the course, this is definitely in play). And maybe a certain amount of alarmism, no offense intended to anyone.

The only real improvement in the last few years is the creation of driver, fairway wood, and hybrid clubheads that produce lower spin, which is a boon to the higher swingspeed player, of course. But, as we can see, the numbers are flat for the last ten years, so it can't be doing all THAT much.

I dug up my 1999 vs 2002 spreadsheet to verify, and the distance difference is even less than I remembered. What I did for that was compare driving distance stats for 1999, when virtually everyone was using a wound ball, to 2002, which should have been the first full season virtually everyone was using a solid core ball. Only numbers from those who participated in both years were used for comparison.

The difference was 5.5 yards. (FWIW, 273.44 in 1999, 279.0 in 2002)

In the late 90s, the average driver club length was under 44½". It's now pretty close to 45". Let's use an added half inch for the sake of convenience. Per Hireko (former Dynacraft), that is worth 1.8% of clubhead speed. Using the 113 mph avg driver swingspeed, we could say that's about 2 mph greater than 15 years ago. At 2.5 yds per mph, that's 5 yards.

So, from 1999, we've gone from 273 yds in 1999 to 288 yds in 2014. Of that, 5-6 yards is solid core ball. 5 more yards for the added half inch of club length. Which leaves us with 5 yards for other factors.

I'm sorry, I just don't see that as worth any excitement.

[Nuggets]

Apart from the faster swing speeds it doesn't help that the fairways are faster and harder than links greens!