Anchoring Rule basically dead

[Pleasedwith3putts]

"In adopting Rule 14-1b, the USGA and The R&A have concluded that freely swinging the

entire club is integral to maintaining the traditions of the game and preserving golf as an

enjoyable game of skill and challenge.

 

That's an interesting quote you have highlighted. So even if guys are adept at holding the top hand in a firm position a fraction away from the body, I don't see how one could conclude that the entire club is freely swinging as the butt is remaining in a static position and just rotating a small amount. For the entire club to swing freely, all of it has to appreciably move away from the address position during the stroke. If the butt is held by whatever method in a fixed position, this will not be achieved as you are essentially creating a rotation point near the top of the shaft that does not swing at all, the putter is merely rotating around that fixed point.

 

Appreciate this is just the "mission statement" but it doesn't sit well with what was then drafted as 14-1b and been well debated here.

 

You deliberately omitted the second sentence in the USGA statement. :swoon:

 

The second and third sentences are supplemental to what is clearly the primary statement of purpose. They don't say the intention is that you don't have to freely swing the club as long as your hands are an imperceptible fraction "away" from the body. Likewise the last sentence reinforces the players challenge is to control the movement of the entire club.

 

If this statement is what they wanted, they haven't got it :stop:

[sui generis]

"In adopting Rule 14-1b, the USGA and The R&A have concluded that freely swinging the

entire club is integral to maintaining the traditions of the game and preserving golf as an

enjoyable game of skill and challenge.

 

That's an interesting quote you have highlighted. So even if guys are adept at holding the top hand in a firm position a fraction away from the body, I don't see how one could conclude that the entire club is freely swinging as the butt is remaining in a static position and just rotating a small amount. For the entire club to swing freely, all of it has to appreciably move away from the address position during the stroke. If the butt is held by whatever method in a fixed position, this will not be achieved as you are essentially creating a rotation point near the top of the shaft that does not swing at all, the putter is merely rotating around that fixed point.

 

Appreciate this is just the "mission statement" but it doesn't sit well with what was then drafted as 14-1b and been well debated here.

 

You deliberately omitted the second sentence in the USGA statement. :swoon:

 

The second and third sentences are supplemental to what is clearly the primary statement of purpose. They don't say the intention is that you don't have to freely swing the club as long as your hands are an imperceptible fraction "away" from the body. Likewise the last sentence reinforces the players challenge is to control the movement of the entire club.

 

If this statement is what they wanted, they haven't got it :stop:

 

The ruling bodies understand the Rule, as do the national, regional and state golf associations and their referees all over the world. The professional golf tour players and their referees understand the Rule.

 

Then there's you.

 

AMF

[Pleasedwith3putts]

 

The ruling bodies understand the Rule, as do the national, regional and state golf associations and their referees all over the world. The professional golf tour players and their referees understand the Rule.

 

Then there's you.

 

AMF

 

There you go again. The minute someone points out that the rule is flawed and clearly not achieving what is clearly stated as the objective for setting that rule you start getting all defensive and throwing insults.

 

NGFY

[Ignatius Reilly]

Given that the ruling bodies found nothing wrong with anchoring for several decades, their explanation of what is "integral" to the game has a strong scent of "we're just making this up".

 

But once they made up their reasons, they've been good enough at the ruling based on it.

 

If I'd been in charge, I would have made up a better story in the first place, then made a simpler rule banning whatever it was.

[Shilgy]

"In adopting Rule 14-1b, the USGA and The R&A have concluded that freely swinging the

entire club is integral to maintaining the traditions of the game and preserving golf as an

enjoyable game of skill and challenge.

 

That's an interesting quote you have highlighted. So even if guys are adept at holding the top hand in a firm position a fraction away from the body, I don't see how one could conclude that the entire club is freely swinging as the butt is remaining in a static position and just rotating a small amount. For the entire club to swing freely, all of it has to appreciably move away from the address position during the stroke. If the butt is held by whatever method in a fixed position, this will not be achieved as you are essentially creating a rotation point near the top of the shaft that does not swing at all, the putter is merely rotating around that fixed point.

 

Appreciate this is just the "mission statement" but it doesn't sit well with what was then drafted as 14-1b and been well debated here.

 

You deliberately omitted the second sentence in the USGA statement. :swoon:

 

The second and third sentences are supplemental to what is clearly the primary statement of purpose. They don't say the intention is that you don't have to freely swing the club as long as your hands are an imperceptible fraction "away" from the body. Likewise the last sentence reinforces the players challenge is to control the movement of the entire club.

 

If this statement is what they wanted, they haven't got it :stop:

If I'm reading you correctly you think an entirely wristy stroke where the butt end does not change position would/should be illegal? It would be as static as the top hand not moving long putter not anchored stroke is.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

If I'm reading you correctly you think an entirely wristy stroke where the butt end does not change position would/should be illegal? It would be as static as the top hand not moving long putter not anchored stroke is.

 

Go try it you simply can't keep the butt or frankly any part of the club still making a wristy (but playable) stroke as the wrist joints don't work that way. I also can't think of anyone that has vaguely resembled putting that way either, even if double jointed!.

 

But do you think that the broom method by Hearn etc is freely swinging the entire club as the point I've raised is whether what's happening in practice delivers the reasons given by the USGA / R&A for introducing the new rule.

[Shilgy]

If I'm reading you correctly you think an entirely wristy stroke where the butt end does not change position would/should be illegal? It would be as static as the top hand not moving long putter not anchored stroke is.

 

Go try it you simply can't keep the butt or frankly any part of the club still making a wristy (but playable) stroke as the wrist joints don't work that way. I also can't think of anyone that has vaguely resembled putting that way either, even if double jointed!.

 

But do you think that the broom method by Hearn etc is freely swinging the entire club as the point I've raised is whether what's happening in practice delivers the reasons given by the USGA / R&A for introducing the new rule.

Read the rule. Please. Freely swinging means not anchored. And it is not anchored in the pros that keep getting slandered. It does not mean you cannot attempt to hold one end in place. Which they do.

[Short Pete]

What is so difficult to understand??? If you don't press a part of the putter or your forearm (the rule describes it clearly) against your body to create a stabilizing point you are not anchoring it. You can hold your broomstick by not moving the left hand and let it work as a pendulum if you don't anchor the left arm to the body. This doesn't work too well because the putter is supposed to have a lie angle of 80 degrees or less, therefore a straight pendulum move is hard to achieve. That's the same with the sidesaddle move. If you use a broomstick putter the way the rules demand it (I do) the club swings freely, because there is no anchoring point. You can use a 35" putter, hold it in two fingers with your left hand and use it as a pendulum by pushing it with the right hand. Perfectly legal, but doesn't work. Same with the long putters.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

What is so difficult to understand??? If you don't press a part of the putter or your forearm (the rule describes it clearly) against your body to create a stabilizing point you are not anchoring it. You can hold your broomstick by not moving the left hand and let it work as a pendulum if you don't anchor the left arm to the body. This doesn't work too well because the putter is supposed to have a lie angle of 80 degrees or less, therefore a straight pendulum move is hard to achieve. That's the same with the sidesaddle move. If you use a broomstick putter the way the rules demand it (I do) the club swings freely, because there is no anchoring point. You can use a 35" putter, hold it in two fingers with your left hand and use it as a pendulum by pushing it with the right hand. Perfectly legal, but doesn't work. Same with the long putters.

 

It's difficult to understand why I have to keep repeating a simple point. Bryson will tell you it's a matter of fact that the entire club does NOT swing freely if one end of the putter is fixed in the same position and just pivots through whatever means. Feel free to defend your method as legal, if it is clear that your hand is not braced against your body then it is, BUT that's only because the rule itself does NOT reflect the stated objective for introducing the rule which is the point I keep making. I personally feel for all the guys that used a belly putter as they've been really hard done by the way this has turned out. And I will repeat again, I don't care if everyone putts with some goofy method or not, just either scrap the rule and go back to where we were before, or write and police the rule so it delivers a proper stroke which would not allow your method.

[Stuart_G]

The only "matter of fact" here is that you have a different definition of "freely swinging" than the ruling bodies. There is no "universal truth" in what it does or should mean. The rules meets their stated definition and objectives. The only "problem" is that it just doesn't meet yours.

[OldTomMorris]

How longer before the anchor rules are changed to include the resting/locking the putter handle against the forearm?

[Pleasedwith3putts]

The only "matter of fact" here is that you have a different definition of "freely swinging" than the ruling bodies. There is no "universal truth" in what it does or should mean. The rules meets their stated definition and objectives. The only "problem" is that it just doesn't meet yours.

 

Sure they are choosing to interpret "freely swinging the entire club" in a different way to me and they make and administer the rules... if they tell you the World is flat you can choose to agree with that too

[Stuart_G]

The only "matter of fact" here is that you have a different definition of "freely swinging" than the ruling bodies. There is no "universal truth" in what it does or should mean. The rules meets their stated definition and objectives. The only "problem" is that it just doesn't meet yours.

 

Sure they are choosing to interpret "freely swinging the entire club" in a different way to me and they make and administer the rules... if they tell you the World is flat you can choose to agree with that too

 

Or I could choose to believe your opinion that the world is a cube if you said so. But my comment had nothing to do with my choice or the factual nature of their choice. It was about the factual nature of your choice and beliefs. And BTW, attacks against other's interpretations doesn't provide any support that yours is any better.

[Pleasedwith3putts]

 

Or I could choose to believe your opinion that the world is a cube if you said so. But my comment had nothing to do with my choice or the factual nature of their choice. It was about the factual nature of your choice and beliefs. And BTW, attacks against other's interpretations doesn't provide any support that yours is any better.

 

But you clearly said the rules meet their stated objective and definition....

 

Maybe turn this thread into a poll now???. I'm far from the only one in this whole thread that has expressed the opinion that the current rule is not reflective of the reasons given and not written in a way that is effective in allowing it to be policed. It is not just my belief, there is a collective here that seems to get forgotten.

[Lagavulin62]

I predict this thread will never end.

[Stuart_G]

Or I could choose to believe your opinion that the world is a cube if you said so. But my comment had nothing to do with my choice or the factual nature of their choice. It was about the factual nature of your choice and beliefs. And BTW, attacks against other's interpretations doesn't provide any support that yours is any better.

 

But you clearly said the rules meet their stated objective and definition....

 

Maybe turn this thread into a poll now???. I'm far from the only one in this whole thread that has expressed the opinion that the current rule is not reflective of the reasons given and not written in a way that is effective in allowing it to be policed. It is not just my belief, there is a collective here that seems to get forgotten.

 

Yes I did, because it does. They specify what influence the swing should be free from. That was the whole point of the second (and third) sentence.

 

The difference of opinions are grouped by what each individual thinks the stroke should be free from. And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion of what the rule should be - as long as they realize it's just that, their opinion. No pole about that is going to clarify anything. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue that there is only one possible meaning to the first sentence in their statement - which has no basis in reality (and certainly not in physics).

 

In fact, from the standpoint of physics, even the traditional stroke is far from free swinging. The only truly unqualified "freely swinging" movement is motion like that of a pendulum. Pull it back and let it go with NO forces applied anywhere else during the swing other than maintaining the pivot point in one location. That's what "freely" means - free from any forces and outside influences. But good luck getting anyone to believe that's what the stroke should be.

 

How well it can be policed is a completely separate matter (that's already been beat to death) and purely a diversion from the point we are discussing now.

[rockinar]

People arguing about two guys anchoring and cheating, who are neither anchoring or cheating. This thread is rich.

[rangersgoalie]

Rule was talked about and change

One group said nobody will use the long putters if you cannot anchor

 

Some said in some ways, the long putter works very well, not anchored

 

A few tour players said they were trying it unanchored, and were called cheaters. Or chided that it would never work

 

It didn’t look right, and the rule was done badly. Would have been better to leave it than what we have.

 

The new rules in ‘19are going to be interesting. The usga has been a bit of a dumpster fire lately, from all sides, and this could either sink or right the ship

[Vindog]

Rule was talked about and change

One group said nobody will use the long putters if you cannot anchor

 

Some said in some ways, the long putter works very well, not anchored

 

A few tour players said they were trying it unanchored, and were called cheaters. Or chided that it would never work

 

It didn’t look right, and the rule was done badly. Would have been better to leave it than what we have.

 

The new rules in ‘19are going to be interesting. The usga has been a bit of a dumpster fire lately, from all sides, and this could either sink or right the ship

 

Can't say I like all of the changes but I do like some. Then again, who likes all of any rules? I find it interesting that modifying R14-1b was left out. They're happy with it, apparently, and don't seem too bothered.

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

Rule was talked about and change

One group said nobody will use the long putters if you cannot anchor

 

Some said in some ways, the long putter works very well, not anchored

 

A few tour players said they were trying it unanchored, and were called cheaters. Or chided that it would never work

 

It didn’t look right, and the rule was done badly. Would have been better to leave it than what we have.

 

The new rules in ‘19are going to be interesting. The usga has been a bit of a dumpster fire lately, from all sides, and this could either sink or right the ship

 

Can't say I like all of the changes but I do like some. Then again, who likes all of any rules? I find it interesting that modifying R14-1b was left out. They're happy with it, apparently, and don't seem too bothered.

 

One of the guys on my college team caddies for one of the armlock players and he got notified last week that they could be looking at changes. Nothing official but they gave him a heads up that he may want to explore alternatives this offseason. That came from the PGA Tour, not the USGA.

[jacobEDGE]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

[sui generis]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2013/05/usga-ra-announce-final-approval-of-rule-141b-prohibiting-anchored-strokes-21474856132.html

[Shilgy]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

What is the difference in the actual stroke of an armlock putter and a Mickelson type large forward press and hold? If Phil had a longer putter it would be an armlock but the strokes and putter movement are identical.

[jacobEDGE]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

https://www.usga.org...1474856132.html

 

Gotcha.

 

So, from a non-golf rules standpoint, it is anchored to the forearm...but they wrote that into the rules to allow it.

[ExTrumpet]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

https://www.usga.org...1474856132.html

 

"David Rickman, Executive Director of Rules and Equipment Standards at The R&A, said: “This Rule change addresses the future and not the past. Everyone who has used an anchored stroke in the past, or who does so between now and January 1, 2016, will have played entirely within the Rules and their achievements will in no way be diminished.”

 

 

The rule is implemented because it was viewed as giving an unfair advantage, no? If this is the case, how can their achievements not be diminished? And if they are not diminished, why implement the rule to begin with?

 

Do away with the rule. It's being violated anyway and nobody is being called out except on here and Twitter. Golf suits are doing nothing but making excuses and reasoning why the offenders are not offending.

[sui generis]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

https://www.usga.org...1474856132.html

 

"David Rickman, Executive Director of Rules and Equipment Standards at The R&A, said: “This Rule change addresses the future and not the past. Everyone who has used an anchored stroke in the past, or who does so between now and January 1, 2016, will have played entirely within the Rules and their achievements will in no way be diminished.”

 

 

The rule is implemented because it was viewed as giving an unfair advantage, no? If this is the case, how can their achievements not be diminished? And if they are not diminished, why implement the rule to begin with?

 

Do away with the rule. It's being violated anyway and nobody is being called out except on here and Twitter. Golf suits are doing nothing but making excuses and reasoning why the offenders are not offending.

 

The short answer is "No."

 

Where have the ruling bodies explained R14-1b as a cure for an "unfair advantage?"

[ExTrumpet]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

https://www.usga.org...1474856132.html

 

"David Rickman, Executive Director of Rules and Equipment Standards at The R&A, said: “This Rule change addresses the future and not the past. Everyone who has used an anchored stroke in the past, or who does so between now and January 1, 2016, will have played entirely within the Rules and their achievements will in no way be diminished.”

 

 

The rule is implemented because it was viewed as giving an unfair advantage, no? If this is the case, how can their achievements not be diminished? And if they are not diminished, why implement the rule to begin with?

 

Do away with the rule. It's being violated anyway and nobody is being called out except on here and Twitter. Golf suits are doing nothing but making excuses and reasoning why the offenders are not offending.

 

The short answer is "No."

 

Where have the ruling bodies explained R14-1b as a cure for an "unfair advantage?"

 

The ban is the cure for an "unfair advantage." Otherwise the ban would not have occurred.

[sui generis]

I simply don't understand how the club being anchored to your forearm isn't considered anchoring. "Armlock", please.

https://www.usga.org...1474856132.html

 

"David Rickman, Executive Director of Rules and Equipment Standards at The R&A, said: “This Rule change addresses the future and not the past. Everyone who has used an anchored stroke in the past, or who does so between now and January 1, 2016, will have played entirely within the Rules and their achievements will in no way be diminished.”

 

 

The rule is implemented because it was viewed as giving an unfair advantage, no? If this is the case, how can their achievements not be diminished? And if they are not diminished, why implement the rule to begin with?

 

Do away with the rule. It's being violated anyway and nobody is being called out except on here and Twitter. Golf suits are doing nothing but making excuses and reasoning why the offenders are not offending.

 

The short answer is "No."

 

Where have the ruling bodies explained R14-1b as a cure for an "unfair advantage?"

 

The ban is the cure for an "unfair advantage." Otherwise the ban would not have occurred.

 

You're putting words into their mouths.

[King_Slender]

The rule is implemented because it was viewed as giving an unfair advantage, no? If this is the case, how can their achievements not be diminished? And if they are not diminished, why implement the rule to begin with?

 

Do away with the rule. It's being violated anyway and nobody is being called out except on here and Twitter. Golf suits are doing nothing but making excuses and reasoning why the offenders are not offending.

 

You're putting words into their mouths.

 

Actually, those are the word they used

 

https://www.golfdige...nchored-putting

 

USGA President Glen D. Nager called the decision "necessary."

"Our best judgment is that Rule 14-1b is necessary to preserve one of the important traditions and challenges of the game--that the player freely swing the entire club," he said. "The new rule upholds the essential nature of the traditional method of stroke and eliminates the possible advantage that anchoring provides, ensuring that players of all skill levels face the same challenge inherent in the game of golf."

[sui generis]

The rule is implemented because it was viewed as giving an unfair advantage, no? If this is the case, how can their achievements not be diminished? And if they are not diminished, why implement the rule to begin with?

 

Do away with the rule. It's being violated anyway and nobody is being called out except on here and Twitter. Golf suits are doing nothing but making excuses and reasoning why the offenders are not offending.

 

You're putting words into their mouths.

 

Actually, those are the word they used

 

https://www.golfdige...nchored-putting

 

USGA President Glen D. Nager called the decision "necessary."

"Our best judgment is that Rule 14-1b is necessary to preserve one of the important traditions and challenges of the game--that the player freely swing the entire club," he said. "The new rule upholds the essential nature of the traditional method of stroke and eliminates the possible advantage that anchoring provides, ensuring that players of all skill levels face the same challenge inherent in the game of golf."

 

Thanks for the link.