Anchoring Rule basically dead

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

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.

 

The simplest way to think about it is if you did a green screen and erase everything except the putter the entire putter will still be moving when you're looking at armlock where if you do the same thing with a broomstick putter the entire club won't be moving, the point at which it is anchored will remain (relatively) stationary.

 

The confusion is why I'm a proponent of putting tangible limits on the specs of a putter and simply saying both feet have to be on one side of the ball all the other i.e. no straddling the line. Beyond that if you have a conforming putter, grip it and swing it however you want.

[Stuart_G]

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."

 

To be fair, the key missing part is "unfair". As long as everyone was allowed to do it, there was nothing unfair about it.

 

An interesting side note is that while they did site that as one of the reasons, they also specifically said that they didn't need to validate that reasoning with any hard data to prove whether there really was any advantage in the method or not. So because of that, many do not put much emphasis on it.

 

Although the difference may be subtle, what they are really saying is that anchored putting is a different type of skill than what they think should be the basis of the game.

[ClintDagger]

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."

 

To be fair, the key missing part is "unfair". As long as everyone was allowed to do it, there was nothing unfair about it.

 

An interesting side note is that while they did site that as one of the reasons, they also specifically said that they didn't need to validate that reasoning with any hard data to prove whether there really was any advantage in the method or not. So because of that, many do not put much emphasis on it.

 

Although the difference may be subtle, what they are really saying is that anchored putting is a different type of skill than what they think should be the basis of the game.

If they thought it was a “fair advantage”, why would they make a rule to ban it?

[ClintDagger]

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.

Our pro was at the PGA working the scorers tent and he said the scuttlebut from the rules guys was to expect the anchor rule to be expanded in some form or fashion in the next few years. Apparently the governing bodies don’t like some of the ambiguity and new methods that have popped up and want to take another crack at it. What you said seems to support that as well. Will be interesting to see if that happens.

[ExTrumpet]

It's gonna get to the point that the golf rules will be akin to the wildcard rules in follow-the-b****.

[Stuart_G]

To be fair, the key missing part is "unfair". As long as everyone was allowed to do it, there was nothing unfair about it.

 

An interesting side note is that while they did site that as one of the reasons, they also specifically said that they didn't need to validate that reasoning with any hard data to prove whether there really was any advantage in the method or not. So because of that, many do not put much emphasis on it.

 

Although the difference may be subtle, what they are really saying is that anchored putting is a different type of skill than what they think should be the basis of the game.

If they thought it was a "fair advantage", why would they make a rule to ban it?

 

Their answer: see the bold part above.

 

My answer: they don't like the way it looks.

[ClintDagger]

To be fair, the key missing part is "unfair". As long as everyone was allowed to do it, there was nothing unfair about it.

 

An interesting side note is that while they did site that as one of the reasons, they also specifically said that they didn't need to validate that reasoning with any hard data to prove whether there really was any advantage in the method or not. So because of that, many do not put much emphasis on it.

 

Although the difference may be subtle, what they are really saying is that anchored putting is a different type of skill than what they think should be the basis of the game.

If they thought it was a "fair advantage", why would they make a rule to ban it?

 

Their answer: see the bold part above.

 

My answer: they don't like the way it looks.

I actually agree with you that the real reason is they don’t like the way it looks. A lot of the articles written at the time basically said as much. But... If we take the USGA Prez at his word then he’s essentially saying it is an unfair advantage as you wouldn’t ban something that was a fair advantage. That’s all I’m saying.

[Stuart_G]

Sorry, don't take this the wrong way but the point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing level of (perceived) difficulty with the concept of fairness. It has nothing to do with fairness, that's a concept that represents equality, not difficulty.

[ClintDagger]

Sorry, don't take this the wrong way but the point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing level of (perceived) difficulty with the concept of fairness. It has nothing to do with fairness, that's a concept that represents equality, not difficulty.

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not saying it’s an unfair advantage. At the time anyone was free to anchor if they wanted. Therefore there’s nothing unfair about it. My point is that there is a direct quote where the USGA President says the new rule “eliminates the possible advantage” of anchoring. His words, not mine. Which makes it sounds like the basis behind the rule was to eliminate some kind of advantage that anchorers had. If you are banning something on the basis that it creates an unequal playing field then clearly you see it as an unfair advantage. That’s all I’m saying. I honestly don’t think you can read that quote any other way. He’s essentially saying that anchoring is a cheat code for putting which if one guy has a cheat code and the other doesn’t, an advantage is created. Ie, an unfair advantage.

 

In truth what anchoring did was not create an advantage for those that anchored, it eliminated the advantage of those that can effectively use a more traditional putting motion. So take Jerry Kelly who is I think top 3 in CT putting and who I think putts traditionally. His advantage over Langer using the motion BL uses isn’t near as big as it would be if Langer had to use a more traditional motion. So an advantage isn’t created, it’s actually eliminated or at least partially so.

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

Sorry, don't take this the wrong way but the point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing level of (perceived) difficulty with the concept of fairness. It has nothing to do with fairness, that's a concept that represents equality, not difficulty.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's an unfair advantage. At the time anyone was free to anchor if they wanted. Therefore there's nothing unfair about it. My point is that there is a direct quote where the USGA President says the new rule "eliminates the possible advantage" of anchoring. His words, not mine. Which makes it sounds like the basis behind the rule was to eliminate some kind of advantage that anchorers had. If you are banning something on the basis that it creates an unequal playing field then clearly you see it as an unfair advantage. That's all I'm saying. I honestly don't think you can read that quote any other way. He's essentially saying that anchoring is a cheat code for putting which if one guy has a cheat code and the other doesn't, an advantage is created. Ie, an unfair advantage.

 

In truth what anchoring did was not create an advantage for those that anchored, it eliminated the advantage of those that can effectively use a more traditional putting motion. So take Jerry Kelly who is I think top 3 in CT putting and who I think putts traditionally. His advantage over Langer using the motion BL uses isn't near as big as it would be if Langer had to use a more traditional motion. So an advantage isn't created, it's actually eliminated or at least partially so.

 

I think where that "unfair" part comes from is when they first started discussing the issue the main problem was the belly putter. A lot of college kids were starting to use belly putters and people were throwing it around that it was unfair to guys from Tiger and Phil's generation who didn't have the option to grow up putting that way. I know everyone is going to start saying that long putters and belly putters have been around forever. The argument was they weren't really available to those guys so they honed their skills with only one option.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that is the argument they were making at the time and I believe that's where any kind of quote saying it's unfair would stem from.

[Ignatius Reilly]

To be fair, the key missing part is "unfair". As long as everyone was allowed to do it, there was nothing unfair about it.

 

An interesting side note is that while they did site that as one of the reasons, they also specifically said that they didn't need to validate that reasoning with any hard data to prove whether there really was any advantage in the method or not. So because of that, many do not put much emphasis on it.

 

Although the difference may be subtle, what they are really saying is that anchored putting is a different type of skill than what they think should be the basis of the game.

If they thought it was a "fair advantage", why would they make a rule to ban it?

 

Their answer: see the bold part above.

 

My answer: they don't like the way it looks.

 

"BUT IT'S NAY GOLF"!!!! [/badscotsaccent]

 

 

 

I think where that "unfair" part comes from is when they first started discussing the issue the main problem was the belly putter. A lot of college kids were starting to use belly putters and people were throwing it around that it was unfair to guys from Tiger and Phil's generation who didn't have the option to grow up putting that way. I know everyone is going to start saying that long putters and belly putters have been around forever. The argument was they weren't really available to those guys so they honed their skills with only one option.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that is the argument they were making at the time and I believe that's where any kind of quote saying it's unfair would stem from.

 

I wonder why they didn't ban hybrids?

 

They were new once, and old guys didn't grow up with them.

 

Some say they're easier to hit than long irons, although not everyone has adopted them. For those that can hit a sweet 2i, hybrids eliminated their advantage.

 

Pretty much identical situation.

 

Have I mentioned I don't like the rule?

[nbg352]

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.

No is the correct answer. Unfair advantage was not the reason anchoring was banned......Per the USGA

[nbg352]

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

As long as the entire putter moves, as it does in both the traditional stroke and the arm lock method, there is NO anchoring. The following pictorial guide should help: https://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/photos-anchoring-rule

[rockinar]

Nobody is anchoring.

[Lodestone]

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.

Our pro was at the PGA working the scorers tent and he said the scuttlebut from the rules guys was to expect the anchor rule to be expanded in some form or fashion in the next few years. Apparently the governing bodies don't like some of the ambiguity and new methods that have popped up and want to take another crack at it. What you said seems to support that as well. Will be interesting to see if that happens.

 

or "we screwed the pooch with our last effort, but that won't stop us from making it worse".

[Pleasedwith3putts]

We know those for whom the Rule is clear and working . . . those who administer and enforce the Rules and those who play golf on TV.

 

And we know those for whom it's not clear . . . those who merely watch golf on TV.

 

Our pro was at the PGA working the scorers tent and he said the scuttlebut from the rules guys was to expect the anchor rule to be expanded in some form or fashion in the next few years. Apparently the governing bodies don't like some of the ambiguity and new methods that have popped up and want to take another crack at it. What you said seems to support that as well. Will be interesting to see if that happens.

 

So a summary of the entire thread right here

[Stuart_G]

Sorry, don't take this the wrong way but the point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing level of (perceived) difficulty with the concept of fairness. It has nothing to do with fairness, that's a concept that represents equality, not difficulty.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's an unfair advantage.

 

Considering how many times you specifically used the phrase "unfair advantage", and considering that I was very clear about MY only point of contention was the use of "unfair", if there was any misunderstanding, I think there was a bit of justification for it.

[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.

 

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.

 

Not that the Tour would be able to do anything about it, but those players would have more than this offseason to work on it, I'd think. That is interesting, though.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

OMG when is this thread going to be "basically dead?"

 

[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.

 

Not that the Tour would be able to do anything about it, but those players would have more than this offseason to work on it, I'd think. That is interesting, though.

 

The tour can do whatever they want. They choose to play by USGA Rules. There's nothing stopping them, other than tradition, from imposing a ban.

[ClintDagger]

Sorry, don't take this the wrong way but the point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing level of (perceived) difficulty with the concept of fairness. It has nothing to do with fairness, that's a concept that represents equality, not difficulty.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's an unfair advantage.

 

Considering how many times you specifically used the phrase "unfair advantage", and considering that I was very clear about MY only point of contention was the use of "unfair", if there was any misunderstanding, I think there was a bit of justification for it.

I was merely asking that *if* the rule was enacted to eliminate an “advantage” as the quote from the USGA president said it was, then isn’t it natural to conclude that the USGA considered it an “unfair” advantage? I understand your point about protecting the skill / challenge of the game and the quote also touched on that. But what about specifically the part where an “advantage” is referenced? I see those two statements as referring to two different aspects of the game. One being maintaining the integrity of the skill of the game, and the other being maintaining the integrity of competition.

 

So no I was never confused and I was never stating that I consider it an unfair advantage. I was asking for an interpretation of the competitive aspect of the quote as it relates to eliminating an advantage. You are free not to answer it if you don’t want to. Ha.

[ClintDagger]

We know those for whom the Rule is clear and working . . . those who administer and enforce the Rules and those who play golf on TV.

 

And we know those for whom it's not clear . . . those who merely watch golf on TV.

 

Our pro was at the PGA working the scorers tent and he said the scuttlebut from the rules guys was to expect the anchor rule to be expanded in some form or fashion in the next few years. Apparently the governing bodies don't like some of the ambiguity and new methods that have popped up and want to take another crack at it. What you said seems to support that as well. Will be interesting to see if that happens.

 

So a summary of the entire thread right here

It may be a decade before we really know how they feel about the current rule. They could change, tweak, or even eliminate it in the next ten years or they may do nothing. Only the decision makers in the governing bodies truly know what the plan is. And there are political and PR aspects to all of this which makes predicting what will happen all the more difficult. My guess is that they will watch it and if they are fine with the overall trend they may do nothing rather than kick the hornets nest again. If a trend occurs that indicates some of these motions are becoming prevalent then they may do something. Who knows.

[Stuart_G]

I was merely asking that *if* the rule was enacted to eliminate an "advantage" as the quote from the USGA president said it was, then isn't it natural to conclude that the USGA considered it an "unfair" advantage?

 

No, it's not natural and the same question I have been answering. As long as it's an option open to everyone, it has zero effect on the integrity of the competition. An inherent part of the competition is a player choosing what ball, what clubs, what grip or type of stroke, etc.. to use in general or for any given shot.

[sixtysevensixtyseven]

I was merely asking that *if* the rule was enacted to eliminate an "advantage" as the quote from the USGA president said it was, then isn't it natural to conclude that the USGA considered it an "unfair" advantage?

 

No, it's not natural and the same question I have been answering. As long as it's an option open to everyone, it has zero effect on the integrity of the competition. An inherent part of the competition is a player choosing what ball, what clubs, what grip or type of stroke, etc.. to use in general or for any given shot.

 

Which again goes back to set some parameters of what the specs can be on a club, make people stand with both feet on one side of the ball or the other, and let people figure out how best to get the ball in the hole in the fewest amount of shots.

[farmer]

I agree with Stuart. It was appearance, not advantage or even the perception of advantage.

[Stuart_G]

I was merely asking that *if* the rule was enacted to eliminate an "advantage" as the quote from the USGA president said it was, then isn't it natural to conclude that the USGA considered it an "unfair" advantage?

 

No, it's not natural and the same question I have been answering. As long as it's an option open to everyone, it has zero effect on the integrity of the competition. An inherent part of the competition is a player choosing what ball, what clubs, what grip or type of stroke, etc.. to use in general or for any given shot.

 

Which again goes back to set some parameters of what the specs can be on a club, make people stand with both feet on one side of the ball or the other, and let people figure out how best to get the ball in the hole in the fewest amount of shots.

 

Well, it doesn't go back to any particular restriction on the club specs (not that we need to go there again :-). And really doesn't imply anything at all about how the restriction should be turned into a rule.

 

But I fully agree with that general philosophy of let the player figure out the best way for them to hit the ball with the club and get it in the hole.

 

 

I agree with Stuart. It was appearance, not advantage or even the perception of advantage.

 

I think you mean "alleged" advantage :taunt:

[Lodestone]

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.

 

The simplest way to think about it is if you did a green screen and erase everything except the putter the entire putter will still be moving when you're looking at armlock where if you do the same thing with a broomstick putter the entire club won't be moving, the point at which it is anchored will remain (relatively) stationary.

 

The confusion is why I'm a proponent of putting tangible limits on the specs of a putter and simply saying both feet have to be on one side of the ball all the other i.e. no straddling the line. Beyond that if you have a conforming putter, grip it and swing it however you want.

 

I remember when I first saw long putters there was a technique whereby the butt end was held against the chin, and the putter was swung like a pendulum around the point of the butt end, and the chin did not move. I think it is illustrated in the USGA's little page illustrating what is and what isn't considered anchoring.

Going back to your description, that would definitely qualify, however, Adam Scott rocks his shoulders a bit, even with his old, admittedly "anchored" stroke, and consequently, the butt end does translate laterally some. So now we have to quantify that and say "well, it moves some, but not enough to make us happy"...

 

Now go back to some of the early Arnie videos and look at that stroke...and those of others from the era, and there is very little, almost zero movement of the butt end, just a very wristy pop. Look at Tommy Bolt at 8:19 of this video. There is no follow through of the hands, just a wrist flick around the butt end.

 

To me, those old wristy putting strokes don't resemble a "swinging of the club" any more than Adam Scott's stroke he used to win the Masters.

 

No one will convince me that the basic problem wasn't "how it looks", despite their unwavering unwillingness to admit it.

[rockinar]

Still nobody anchoring......

[CheckJV]

I was merely asking that *if* the rule was enacted to eliminate an "advantage" as the quote from the USGA president said it was, then isn't it natural to conclude that the USGA considered it an "unfair" advantage?

 

No, it's not natural and the same question I have been answering. As long as it's an option open to everyone, it has zero effect on the integrity of the competition. An inherent part of the competition is a player choosing what ball, what clubs, what grip or type of stroke, etc.. to use in general or for any given shot.

 

Which again goes back to set some parameters of what the specs can be on a club, make people stand with both feet on one side of the ball or the other, and let people figure out how best to get the ball in the hole in the fewest amount of shots.

 

Well, it doesn't go back to any particular restriction on the club specs (not that we need to go there again :-). And really doesn't imply anything at all about how the restriction should be turned into a rule.

 

But I fully agree with that general philosophy of let the player figure out the best way for them to hit the ball with the club and get it in the hole.

 

 

I agree with Stuart. It was appearance, not advantage or even the perception of advantage.

 

I think you mean "alleged" advantage :taunt:

 

This is why they used the word “possible” advantage.... they knew there was no advantage to the anchored stoke, the data was there and they ignored it on purpose so it would not be the focus of the rule. They instead chose the spirit of the game argument as a diversion. There is no way they could have declared it an absolute advantage because they would have been called out.

[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.

 

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.

 

Not that the Tour would be able to do anything about it, but those players would have more than this offseason to work on it, I'd think. That is interesting, though.

 

The tour can do whatever they want. They choose to play by USGA Rules. There's nothing stopping them, other than tradition, from imposing a ban.

 

I don't think you are correct in that.