Anchoring Rule basically dead

[Shilgy]

Anchoring is always going to be subjective given clothing will hide what is going on.

 

Maximum putter length 38", maximum length grip 10 inches (which has to be on the end of the shaft) and both hands must be completely on the grip. Hard to see how someone can materially exploit that as the 10" grip means that even if you are short and try to say belly anchor using the full 38" length, your hands will be in a really bad position to make a stroke with.

 

The grip will be too short for the Kuchar / Simpson method and 38" is long enough not to penalise us tall guys.

Saw grip is banned? Why?

[The Pearl]

No need to limit putter length, just ban any form of contact other than with the hands. No anchoring at chest, at belly, or even with use of the forearm. Hands only. Then it becomes a true "swing".

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

Saw grip is banned? Why?

 

You could use the saw grip with a 10" grip and keeping your hands on it - Fleetwood does

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

 

38" is long enough for anyone up to about 7ft tall

 

Anchoring IS all about the length of the putter. It is way easier to find a method that anchors or looks like it is anchored with a putter longer than 38", assuming you are more than about 4ft tall. In fact how can you use a putter that is say 43" without it looking like a goofy anchored stroke?

[sui generis]

Anchoring is always going to be subjective given clothing will hide what is going on.

 

Maximum putter length 38", maximum length grip 10 inches (which has to be on the end of the shaft) and both hands must be completely on the grip. Hard to see how someone can materially exploit that as the 10" grip means that even if you are short and try to say belly anchor using the full 38" length, your hands will be in a really bad position to make a stroke with.

 

The grip will be too short for the Kuchar / Simpson method and 38" is long enough not to penalise us tall guys.

 

The last thing we need is more rules, or more complicated rules. They just went through an extensive rules "modernization" where they wanted to simplify things by quite a bit. Why would they want to introduce something like that?

 

Because the current rules clearly aren't fit for purpose as evidenced by this thread!

 

The ruling bodies and tv golf shows are all happy. The peanut gallery isn't; let's not make up new Rules just so those who don't know what they're talking about will still not know what they're talking about.

 

It's not more complicated either. So at the moment a number of us thought Hearn was anchoring. Despite the tv coverage there is no way of telling for sure and where do you go if he says he was holding it 1/2" away from his sternum but you can't see because of a baggy shirt?

 

Unless you're the referee you're under no obligation to make a ruling.

 

With my suggestion it is simple to measure a putter length a grip length and to tell from coverage whether his hands were on the grip or for instance on the shaft.

 

Why have something subjective when you can have something simple that is measurable?

[Pleasedwith3putts]

 

The ruling bodies and tv golf shows are all happy. The peanut gallery isn't; let's not make up new Rules just so those who don't know what they're talking about will still not know what they're talking about.

 

 

What a classy post...…….

[sui generis]

The ruling bodies and tv golf shows are all happy. The peanut gallery isn't; let's not make up new Rules just so those who don't know what they're talking about will still not know what they're talking about.

 

 

What a classy post...…….

 

If the shoe fits . . . . ;)

[Pleasedwith3putts]

The ruling bodies and tv golf shows are all happy. The peanut gallery isn't; let's not make up new Rules just so those who don't know what they're talking about will still not know what they're talking about.

 

 

What a classy post...…….

 

If the shoe fits . . . . ;)

 

Rules- The following are our standards for participating in GolfWRX’s community forums. Posting here is a privilege, not a right. While these rules cover most common situations, they cannot anticipate everything. We reserve the right to take any actions we deem appropriate to ensure these forums are not disrupted or damaged in any way. We will remove members or posts that violate our rules.

 

Community Forum Posting Standards

 

1. Be considerate and respectful of each other.

[Shilgy]

Saw grip is banned? Why?

 

You could use the saw grip with a 10" grip and keeping your hands on it - Fleetwood does

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

 

38" is long enough for anyone up to about 7ft tall

 

Anchoring IS all about the length of the putter. It is way easier to find a method that anchors or looks like it is anchored with a putter longer than 38", assuming you are more than about 4ft tall. In fact how can you use a putter that is say 43" without it looking like a goofy anchored stroke?

But this is what you said. What exactly do you mean by it then? Even if these guys were anchoring both hands are completely on the grip.

 

and both hands must be completely on the grip

[johnseg]

Saw grip is banned? Why?

 

You could use the saw grip with a 10" grip and keeping your hands on it - Fleetwood does

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

 

38" is long enough for anyone up to about 7ft tall

 

Anchoring IS all about the length of the putter. It is way easier to find a method that anchors or looks like it is anchored with a putter longer than 38", assuming you are more than about 4ft tall. In fact how can you use a putter that is say 43" without it looking like a goofy anchored stroke?

But this is what you said. What exactly do you mean by it then? Even if these guys were anchoring both hands are completely on the grip.

 

and both hands must be completely on the grip

I think his intent was that they cannot be on the shaft in an area that does not have a grip.

 

Even that doesn't completely work unless you limit the length of a the putter grip.

 

Way too complicated.

 

Leave the rule alone and let the guys on tour putt however they are and just keep having people call them cheaters to prevent the young'us from copying the style.

 

Just my opinion.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

Saw grip is banned? Why?

 

You could use the saw grip with a 10" grip and keeping your hands on it - Fleetwood does

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

 

38" is long enough for anyone up to about 7ft tall

 

Anchoring IS all about the length of the putter. It is way easier to find a method that anchors or looks like it is anchored with a putter longer than 38", assuming you are more than about 4ft tall. In fact how can you use a putter that is say 43" without it looking like a goofy anchored stroke?

But this is what you said. What exactly do you mean by it then? Even if these guys were anchoring both hands are completely on the grip.

 

and both hands must be completely on the grip

 

The best way is to try yourself - grab a club that is 38" long. Now I'm going to let you putt however you like as long as you have both hands on the top 10" of the grip and nowhere else.

 

If you are short enough to say belly anchor, you'll find that having your hands on the top 10" of the grip gives you no control which is why belly putter grips were 18 to 23" long.

 

I'm also not saying you have to use a 38" putter, merely that the grip has to be 10" long and you have both hands on that. So Fleetwood uses a saw grip with about a 33.5" shaft with both hands on the grip (he hovers some fingers just below but not touching the shaft - that would be my definition of completely, i.e they are not in contact with any part of the club other than the grip)

[Vindog]

Saw grip is banned? Why?

 

You could use the saw grip with a 10" grip and keeping your hands on it - Fleetwood does

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

 

38" is long enough for anyone up to about 7ft tall

 

Anchoring IS all about the length of the putter. It is way easier to find a method that anchors or looks like it is anchored with a putter longer than 38", assuming you are more than about 4ft tall. In fact how can you use a putter that is say 43" without it looking like a goofy anchored stroke?

 

I'm sorry, but none of that really solves the problem and also may possibly create an inequitable situation. Take your 5 iron which I assume is about 38 inches like most out there. Hold it like a broomstick putter in a putting stance and tell me it's not easy to make an anchored looking stroke, or even an anchored stroke.

 

Because for me, it's very easy.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

 

I'm sorry, but none of that really solves the problem and also may possibly create an inequitable situation. Take your 5 iron which I assume is about 38 inches like most out there. Hold it like a broomstick putter in a putting stance and tell me it's not easy to make an anchored looking stroke, or even an anchored stroke.

 

Because for me, it's very easy.

 

But can you control the putter with a broomhandle method ONLY being allowed to have both hands touching the end 10" of the putter. I've tried with a 38" putter I've got during the course of this thread and I can't see how you can control the putter with that stipulation, the difference between being able to grip it 10" short and say 15" is huge.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Saw grip is banned? Why?

 

You could use the saw grip with a 10" grip and keeping your hands on it - Fleetwood does

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

 

38" is long enough for anyone up to about 7ft tall

 

Anchoring IS all about the length of the putter. It is way easier to find a method that anchors or looks like it is anchored with a putter longer than 38", assuming you are more than about 4ft tall. In fact how can you use a putter that is say 43" without it looking like a goofy anchored stroke?

But this is what you said. What exactly do you mean by it then? Even if these guys were anchoring both hands are completely on the grip.

 

and both hands must be completely on the grip

 

The best way is to try yourself - grab a club that is 38" long. Now I'm going to let you putt however you like as long as you have both hands on the top 10" of the grip and nowhere else.

 

If you are short enough to say belly anchor, you'll find that having your hands on the top 10" of the grip gives you no control which is why belly putter grips were 18 to 23" long.

 

I'm also not saying you have to use a 38" putter, merely that the grip has to be 10" long and you have both hands on that. So Fleetwood uses a saw grip with about a 33.5" shaft with both hands on the grip (he hovers some fingers just below but not touching the shaft - that would be my definition of completely, i.e they are not in contact with any part of the club other than the grip)

 

I've always putted with a mostly conventional grip, except that my right index finger goes off the grip and down the shaft. Like Fleetwood's in the picture, but it's the lower hand that has the index finger extended, and that's why it goes off the grip and onto the shaft. It feels more stable to me that way.

 

You'd ban that grip too? Because you don't like anchoring? Or... what?

[vman]

It doesn't seem like there is a problem that needs resolving as anchoring has already been addressed and banned. To argue that "it looks like they are still anchoring" is an exercise in futility.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

 

You'd ban that grip too? Because you don't like anchoring? Or... what?

 

They made a big deal about protecting the integrity of the game when the rule change came in. The fact that guys like Hearn are still using a method that makes it impossible to tell if they are staying within the rules or anchoring does not achieve the original aim.

 

I'm quite happy with the claw grip and doing my best to make suggestions that deliver an enforceable set of rules.

[sui generis]

It doesn't seem like there is a problem that needs resolving as anchoring has already been addressed and banned. To argue that "it looks like they are still anchoring" is an exercise in futility.

 

Thank you, vman. Solutions is search of a problem is indeed an exercise in futility.

 

The ruling bodies wrote a good Rule to address what they considered to be a problem. They gave the golf world plenty of time to comment and more time to adapt to R14-1b. The R&A and USGA are satisfied with the Rule. The various tours are satisfied with the Rule. It's no more difficult to police than many others.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

 

But how can anyone tell if that is anchored?

[rangersgoalie]

The ruling bodies and tv golf shows are all happy. The peanut gallery isn't; let's not make up new Rules just so those who don't know what they're talking about will still not know what they're talking about.

 

 

What a classy post...…….

 

If the shoe fits . . . . ;)

 

Rules- The following are our standards for participating in GolfWRX’s community forums. Posting here is a privilege, not a right. While these rules cover most common situations, they cannot anticipate everything. We reserve the right to take any actions we deem appropriate to ensure these forums are not disrupted or damaged in any way. We will remove members or posts that violate our rules.

 

Community Forum Posting Standards

 

1. Be considerate and respectful of each other.

 

And at this point, 97.65% of this forum is banished :)

[farmer]

Clearly, the answer is to use shock collar type technology. Anchor, zap, not anchoring, no zap. Progressive zapping power to discourage the occasional temptation.

[The Pearl]

Saw grip is banned? Why?

 

You could use the saw grip with a 10" grip and keeping your hands on it - Fleetwood does

 

Limiting the putter length is just another unnecessary rule on top of a whole bunch of unnecessary rules. The length of a putter has nothing to do with anchoring. More importantly you are limiting people that need longer putters for physical reasons.

 

38" is long enough for anyone up to about 7ft tall

 

Anchoring IS all about the length of the putter. It is way easier to find a method that anchors or looks like it is anchored with a putter longer than 38", assuming you are more than about 4ft tall. In fact how can you use a putter that is say 43" without it looking like a goofy anchored stroke?

 

Face on Putters come in options well over 38 ". For somebody that is over 6 ft tall that side saddles with back problems, they may use 43 " and up. It is very easy to tell with 100% accuracy that a face on putter is not anchoring a putter over 38" long.

 

https://www.juanputt.com/contact.php

[irvnasty]

It doesn't seem like there is a problem that needs resolving as anchoring has already been addressed and banned. To argue that "it looks like they are still anchoring" is an exercise in futility.

 

Thank you, vman. Solutions is search of a problem is indeed an exercise in futility.

 

The ruling bodies wrote a good Rule to address what they considered to be a problem. They gave the golf world plenty of time to comment and more time to adapt to R14-1b. The R&A and USGA are satisfied with the Rule. The various tours are satisfied with the Rule. It's no more difficult to police than many others.

 

I've always admired your contributions to R&E, but you seem to very consistently support the behaviors of the ruling bodies which, by nature of being groups of humans, are fallible.

 

Out of curiosity, what would you say are the three worst decisions by the ruling bodies in the last thirty years? Have they made three bad ones?

[sdandrea]

This rule seems impossible to enforce.

 

 

USGA: "Mr. Langer, we think you are anchoring "

BERNARD: "No, I'm not"

USGA: "Well, OK then"

[sui generis]

It doesn't seem like there is a problem that needs resolving as anchoring has already been addressed and banned. To argue that "it looks like they are still anchoring" is an exercise in futility.

 

Thank you, vman. Solutions is search of a problem is indeed an exercise in futility.

 

The ruling bodies wrote a good Rule to address what they considered to be a problem. They gave the golf world plenty of time to comment and more time to adapt to R14-1b. The R&A and USGA are satisfied with the Rule. The various tours are satisfied with the Rule. It's no more difficult to police than many others.

 

I've always admired your contributions to R&E, but you seem to very consistently support the behaviors of the ruling bodies which, by nature of being groups of humans, are fallible.

 

Out of curiosity, what would you say are the three worst decisions by the ruling bodies in the last thirty years? Have they made three bad ones?

 

The R&A and USGA Rules Committees and the Joint Rules Committee are comprised of the best of the brightest. I know a few of the members a little. I also know most of the USGA Rules people at Far Hills and find them brilliant, down-to-earth, practical and above reproach (no "blue blazers" at all). That said, they may be constrained by some corporate politics. The OEMs are powerful as are the vested interests of the self-appointed "guardians of the game" such as Augusta National.

 

I can't point to any meaningful Rules errors by the ruling bodies. (And, who would I be to criticize past decisions?) From my perspective as a Rules nerd, I am confident that they will continue to simplify the Rules. The Rules Modernization project set to launch on January 1, is in my opinion, about ten years late and doesn't go far enough.

 

But, let's look at the positive changes for 2019. Treating loose impediments the same all over the golf course is long overdue and simplifying and expanding the red stake penalty areas is a very player friendly improvement. The trend toward not penalizing accidental movement of a ball in play is good. I'm not sure that the Local Rule for lost balls and ball out of bounds is simple enough. And the out-of-the-bunker relief for an unplayable in the bunker isn't good enough yet.

 

I've been in the Rules world for awhile in two different state and regional golf associations and am a senior rules official in my region these days. I referee about eight months of the year, doing regional championships, USGA qualifiers, state high school events and some D1 invitationals. I see them all, men and women and boys and girls in both match play and stroke play. My favorite work, however, is with the AJGA. We're in good hands there!

[sui generis]

This rule seems impossible to enforce.

 

 

USGA: "Mr. Langer, we think you are anchoring "

BERNARD: "No, I'm not"

USGA: "Well, OK then"

 

Golf relies heavily on the integrity of the players.

[ClintDagger]

This rule seems impossible to enforce.

 

 

USGA: "Mr. Langer, we think you are anchoring "

BERNARD: "No, I'm not"

USGA: "Well, OK then"

 

Golf relies heavily on the integrity of the players.

I think that was true once upon a time but that standard is now applied unevenly. I’ve seen too many guys get dinged for causing their ball to move when they say they weren’t the cause (the DJ rule). I know that one is going to change but it’s a good of example of the USGA basically saying to hell with integrity we are going to call what we think we see.

 

[sdandrea]

This rule seems impossible to enforce.

 

 

USGA: "Mr. Langer, we think you are anchoring "

BERNARD: "No, I'm not"

USGA: "Well, OK then"

 

Golf relies heavily on the integrity of the players.

 

I know. My real point is that Langer insists he is in compliance yet many say he is cheating. I, for one, believe him.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

This rule seems impossible to enforce.

 

 

USGA: "Mr. Langer, we think you are anchoring "

BERNARD: "No, I'm not"

USGA: "Well, OK then"

 

Golf relies heavily on the integrity of the players.

 

Yes it does, but it is not just the integrity of the player in the spotlight, it is from other players integrity in protecting the field and the rules officials who are able to review video footage as needed to make sure the rules are applied correctly.

 

The point a number of us have made in this thread is taking the photo I posted of Hearn as an example, how can you definitively determine if he is anchoring or not? I would guess if you took 100 people off the street and asked if they thought either his left hand or forearm was in contact with his sternum then 90+% would say yes from that photo given the way the shirt material is being forced back by the forearm. The fact that it looks like he is anchoring against the rules is not good for the game, regardless whether he is or not, as try explaining that to emerging junior golfers.

 

If I was a playing partner asking you to make a ruling, I'm sensing you are just asking Hearn and taking his word. If it were a moving ball or frankly any other rules infraction I can think of then decent video footage is going to allow you to determine what happened. Thinking of the thread on Dahmen calling out Kang, it was one players word against the other and no relevant footage, so Kangs version was accepted by the referee but had video evidence been available, that would have been used and we would have avoided a 25 page WRX thread!. At least Langer seeks to take an anchored practice swing and then to visibly move his top hand away from the body before starting the stroke to demonstrate some separation.

 

In this case the fact that he is wearing a shirt makes it impossible to be definitive either way (despite it looking pretty clear he is anchoring), as all you have to go on is whether you think his shirt material changes position and even if it doesn't then the tightness of cut comes into play. So to my mind this is an outlier of a rule in which the officials are only ever going to take the players word for it which is never a good place to be with any rule.

[sdandrea]

This rule seems impossible to enforce.

 

 

USGA: "Mr. Langer, we think you are anchoring "

BERNARD: "No, I'm not"

USGA: "Well, OK then"

 

Golf relies heavily on the integrity of the players.

 

Yes it does, but it is not just the integrity of the player in the spotlight, it is from other players integrity in protecting the field and the rules officials who are able to review video footage as needed to make sure the rules are applied correctly.

 

The point a number of us have made in this thread is taking the photo I posted of Hearn as an example, how can you definitively determine if he is anchoring or not? I would guess if you took 100 people off the street and asked if they thought either his left hand or forearm was in contact with his sternum then 90+% would say yes from that photo given the way the shirt material is being forced back by the forearm. The fact that it looks like he is anchoring against the rules is not good for the game, regardless whether he is or not, as try explaining that to emerging junior golfers.

 

If I was a playing partner asking you to make a ruling, I'm sensing you are just asking Hearn and taking his word. If it were a moving ball or frankly any other rules infraction I can think of then decent video footage is going to allow you to determine what happened. Thinking of the thread on Dahmen calling out Kang, it was one players word against the other and no relevant footage, so Kangs version was accepted by the referee but had video evidence been available, that would have been used and we would have avoided a 25 page WRX thread!. At least Langer seeks to take an anchored practice swing and then to visibly move his top hand away from the body before starting the stroke to demonstrate some separation.

 

In this case the fact that he is wearing a shirt makes it impossible to be definitive either way (despite it looking pretty clear he is anchoring), as all you have to go on is whether you think his shirt material changes position and even if it doesn't then the tightness of cut comes into play. So to my mind this is an outlier of a rule in which the officials are only ever going to take the players word for it which is never a good place to be with any rule.

 

Thank you. Well stated.

[Lodestone]

This rule seems impossible to enforce.

 

 

USGA: "Mr. Langer, we think you are anchoring "

BERNARD: "No, I'm not"

USGA: "Well, OK then"

 

Golf relies heavily on the integrity of the players.

 

Yes it does, but it is not just the integrity of the player in the spotlight, it is from other players integrity in protecting the field and the rules officials who are able to review video footage as needed to make sure the rules are applied correctly.

 

The point a number of us have made in this thread is taking the photo I posted of Hearn as an example, how can you definitively determine if he is anchoring or not? I would guess if you took 100 people off the street and asked if they thought either his left hand or forearm was in contact with his sternum then 90+% would say yes from that photo given the way the shirt material is being forced back by the forearm. The fact that it looks like he is anchoring against the rules is not good for the game, regardless whether he is or not, as try explaining that to emerging junior golfers.

 

If I was a playing partner asking you to make a ruling, I'm sensing you are just asking Hearn and taking his word. If it were a moving ball or frankly any other rules infraction I can think of then decent video footage is going to allow you to determine what happened. Thinking of the thread on Dahmen calling out Kang, it was one players word against the other and no relevant footage, so Kangs version was accepted by the referee but had video evidence been available, that would have been used and we would have avoided a 25 page WRX thread!. At least Langer seeks to take an anchored practice swing and then to visibly move his top hand away from the body before starting the stroke to demonstrate some separation.

 

In this case the fact that he is wearing a shirt makes it impossible to be definitive either way (despite it looking pretty clear he is anchoring), as all you have to go on is whether you think his shirt material changes position and even if it doesn't then the tightness of cut comes into play. So to my mind this is an outlier of a rule in which the officials are only ever going to take the players word for it which is never a good place to be with any rule.

 

In the photo, the ball is on its way, the "stroke" is finished. Who cares if his forearm may or may not be touching his shirt, or pressed against his chest? One reason you can't tell, in this picture is because it is a still photograph, taken after the stroke may be considered completed.

 

If I were a fellow competitor, worried about "protecting the field", I would understand that the rule, as written, defines anchoring as being an "intentional" act of anchoring of the club. Once I understand that, I don't have to worry about "the spirit" of the rule. If I was really worried about it I could ask the player in question if he is "intentionally" anchoring the putter. If he says "no", end of discussion, and I can resume trying to get my own ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes.

[Lodestone]

Some of these concerns remind me of an old guy I played with about 10 years ago, who called the pro shop on his cell phone to inform the pro that there were "kids wearing their hats backwards", about 5 fairways over.