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

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1328574816' post='4226337']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
[quote name='cmrl1986' timestamp='1328563485' post='4224899']
Let me and me belly putters be! I highly doubt anything will come of this. Like previously stated, they have been around forever. Also, they're selling like crack right now. I'd be very surprised if the issue doesn't die before or even gets any momentum. "people are putting too good so it must be illegal" is a rediculous arguement. If they didn't allow golf to change we would still all be playing niblicks and mashie's, wait, bad reference! Point being that technology and golf go hand in hand, rules will always be there. Let the belly putter be!
[/quote]

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

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

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

Ban em!
[/quote]


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

You came up with all of that nonsense based on what I what i had to say? WOW. The idea that to be against anchored putters means that I am some anti technology purist longing for the game of yesteryear is absurd. I love technology. Anchored putters are NOT advances in technology in club design, they are changing the parameters all other clubs are designed to adhere to.

So, all of you who are chiming in with things like this "what about 460CC drivers huh, huh?" the overcoming of this objection is really easy. I will even suggest i am surprised that these arguments are being offered. Anything done in club design that has made a game easier has done so under the preimse that all other attributes of the swing are being equal. Obviously, the structure of Old Tom morris hickory swing, and players of todays swings are different because the shafts react differently to being swung. yet we still see the fundamental need to swing the club with our hands and arms the only connection to the club. No SGI iron ever attempted to remove that from the game, a belly putter explicitly does. Once again,there is legitimacy in the opinion that pinning the thing to yourself creates a condition that NO OTHER club design ever has.

I have asked and Rookie has asked. what are the reasons people use belly putters if not for the advantage of artificial stability? I saw someone said mere "comfort and preference" so with that in mind, you would then be OK with the original premise of the thread, that the length of belly putters is acceptable, but anchoring of them is not. Correct or incorrect

[vietnameeh]

i just think its funny how ... a couple wins and a couple guys switch... and all of sudden belly putters and long putters are cheating....


think about 2 years agoo.... these things were considered crutches.... now they are lethal

i mean shoot check out the golfwrxers who post.... from 2009 they say... NO WAY ILL TRY A BELLY... ITS FOR OLD GUYS

now you see guys saying ... I MAKE EVERYTHING!!!! .... ITS SOOO EASY AUTOMATICCCCC...... IT SHOULD BE BANNED



haha... the scary thing is that the R&A is pushing it... this might actually make things easier for the usga to just say ya... its banned!

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='vietnameeh' timestamp='1328576423' post='4226585']
i just think its funny how ... a couple wins and a couple guys switch... and all of sudden belly putters and long putters are cheating....


think about 2 years agoo.... these things were considered crutches.... now they are lethal

i mean shoot check out the golfwrxers who post.... from 2009 they say... NO WAY ILL TRY A BELLY... ITS FOR OLD GUYS

now you see guys saying ... I MAKE EVERYTHING!!!! .... ITS SOOO EASY AUTOMATICCCCC...... IT SHOULD BE BANNED



haha... the scary thing is that the R&A is pushing it... this might actually make things easier for the usga to just say ya... its banned!
[/quote]


The argument has been around much longer than Webb Simpson, Bill Haas, and the like. It's just gained more exposure now.

[nbg352]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328575672' post='4226465']
[quote name='indyvai' timestamp='1328575017' post='4226367']
Taking the hands out is a bit of a overstatement. You still grip the club with both hands... and it takes a different skill to perform a repetive stroke regardless. Some people find it easier... some don't.

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


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

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

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

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

I wouldn't have a problem if the users of long putters would admit that it gives THEIR individual person an advantage. But for them to say anchoring doesn't give them an advantage and they became a better putter just because, when I've seen what they do and noticed the change in their stroke after the switch, again doesn't hold water for me. I don't care about what the theory is behind it. Only the results. Give a poor putter a long putter and their putting improves, and that solidifies the fact for me. I've yet to see anyone that's switched to one and worked with it that hasn't improved their putting dramatically, whether a weekend hack or a tour player. And, if there's no advantage to anchoring, why does everyone that uses a long putter anchor it? There's no advantage to be had by anchoring(the common argument), so why not use it without the anchor?
[/quote]
Well, you admittedly used 'em on more than one occasion and stated that you did not see any improvement. No improvement = no advantage, wouldn't you say? And the fact that you and many others agree that there is no advantage
certainly explains why very few tour pro's or aspiring, struggling Nationwide players are using the things. Certainly, if improvement could be had by their use, we would have seen a stampede of tour pros as they rushed to switch from their Scotties and the like. But we haven't. And we won't. Because there is no advantage. Only the placeboed perception of one, by those who think they need it.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328575672' post='4226465']
I wouldn't have a problem if the users of long putters would admit that it gives THEIR individual person an advantage. But for them to say anchoring doesn't give them an advantage and they became a better putter just because, when I've seen what they do and noticed the change in their stroke after the switch, again doesn't hold water for me. I don't care about what the theory is behind it. Only the results. Give a poor putter a long putter and their putting improves, and that solidifies the fact for me. I've yet to see anyone that's switched to one and worked with it that hasn't improved their putting dramatically, whether a weekend hack or a tour player. And, if there's no advantage to anchoring, why does everyone that uses a long putter anchor it? There's no advantage to be had by anchoring(the common argument), so why not use it without the anchor?
[/quote]

There is a big difference in advantage and improvement. An advantage is objective; improvement is not.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1328577138' post='4226683']
[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328575672' post='4226465']
[quote name='indyvai' timestamp='1328575017' post='4226367']
Taking the hands out is a bit of a overstatement. You still grip the club with both hands... and it takes a different skill to perform a repetive stroke regardless. Some people find it easier... some don't.

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


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

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

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

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

I wouldn't have a problem if the users of long putters would admit that it gives THEIR individual person an advantage. But for them to say anchoring doesn't give them an advantage and they became a better putter just because, when I've seen what they do and noticed the change in their stroke after the switch, again doesn't hold water for me. I don't care about what the theory is behind it. Only the results. Give a poor putter a long putter and their putting improves, and that solidifies the fact for me. I've yet to see anyone that's switched to one and worked with it that hasn't improved their putting dramatically, whether a weekend hack or a tour player. And, if there's no advantage to anchoring, why does everyone that uses a long putter anchor it? There's no advantage to be had by anchoring(the common argument), so why not use it without the anchor?
[/quote]
Well, you admittedly used 'em on more than one occasion and stated that you did not see any improvement. No improvement = no advantage, wouldn't you say? And the fact that you and many others agree that there is no advantage
certainly explains why very few tour pro's or aspiring, struggling Nationwide players are using the things. Certainly, if improvement could be had by their use, we would have seen a stampede of tour pros as they rushed to switch from their Scotties and the like. But we haven't. And we won't. Because there is no advantage. Only the placeboed perception of one, by those who think they need it.
[/quote]

I've never had a problem getting the ball in the hole. Answer the pendulum question. Which strays from the centerlineu more easily, a steel ball connected to the fulcrum by 2 steel rods in a v-shape or one connected by 2 pieces of string? Which is easier to deviate from it's path?

I never said there was no advantage, just that there was none for me because I putt fine with either and rather than look silly using something that I didn't putt better with I use a conventional. Who'd ever heard of Bill Haas being a good putter, under pressure or otherwise, prior to his using a belly? What was Adam Scott's problem prior to the broomstick? Would you like comments from their users about the switch?

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328576360' post='4226569']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1328574816' post='4226337']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
[quote name='cmrl1986' timestamp='1328563485' post='4224899']
Let me and me belly putters be! I highly doubt anything will come of this. Like previously stated, they have been around forever. Also, they're selling like crack right now. I'd be very surprised if the issue doesn't die before or even gets any momentum. "people are putting too good so it must be illegal" is a rediculous arguement. If they didn't allow golf to change we would still all be playing niblicks and mashie's, wait, bad reference! Point being that technology and golf go hand in hand, rules will always be there. Let the belly putter be!
[/quote]

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

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

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

Ban em!
[/quote]


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

You came up with all of that nonsense based on what I what i had to say? WOW. The idea that to be against anchored putters means that I am some anti technology purist longing for the game of yesteryear is absurd. I love technology. Anchored putters are NOT advances in technology in club design, they are changing the parameters all other clubs are designed to adhere to.

So, all of you who are chiming in with things like this "what about 460CC drivers huh, huh?" the overcoming of this objection is really easy. I will even suggest i am surprised that these arguments are being offered. Anything done in club design that has made a game easier has done so under the preimse that all other attributes of the swing are being equal. Obviously, the structure of Old Tom morris hickory swing, and players of todays swings are different because the shafts react differently to being swung. yet we still see the fundamental need to swing the club with our hands and arms the only connection to the club. No SGI iron ever attempted to remove that from the game, a belly putter explicitly does. Once again,there is legitimacy in the opinion that pinning the thing to yourself creates a condition that NO OTHER club design ever has.

I have asked and Rookie has asked. what are the reasons people use belly putters if not for the advantage of artificial stability? I saw someone said mere "comfort and preference" so with that in mind, you would then be OK with the original premise of the thread, that the length of belly putters is acceptable, but anchoring of them is not. Correct or incorrect
[/quote]
Everything that has changed in golf has altered the dynamics of every aspect of the game. Why is it okay to make a technical change which allows a golfer to break 100 for the first time in his life, but not okay to make a physical change that might just allow for the same thing?
Change is just that. Change. The evolution of golf will continue. Scores will drop. Life goes on.
BTW I am just beginning to use a belly putter after 30 years with a traditional putter. I think I will continue to use it, because my brain appears to understand the body inspired putting stroke better than it does a hands and shoulder inspired stroke.
Sort of the same way my brain has embraced S & T after having struggled for 30 years with Square to Square.
One last thought. What I wrote was not nonsense. That you saw it that way saddens me. Deeply.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328576360' post='4226569']
[b]I have asked and Rookie has asked. what are the reasons people use belly putters if not for the advantage of artificial stability? [/b]I saw someone said mere "comfort and preference" so with that in mind, you would then be OK with the original premise of the thread, that the length of belly putters is acceptable, but anchoring of them is not. Correct or incorrect
[/quote]

Because they putt better with them. That's no secret. Just like some guys hit more fairways with 44" drivers; some like 440cc driver heads, some 460. I get back to the difference between advantage and improvement. I don't see belly or broom stick putters providing an objective advantage. If they did, everybody would have already switched. A long putter was first used on Tour in 1986. Everybody's had nearly 30 years to make the change.

Rather than an advantage, which implies something nefarious, the proponents of a rule change seem to be upset that SOME people notice an improvement with the long putter, i.e. a subjective improvement. If you don't want players to make equipment changes and modifications to play better, then everybody should have to play the same clubs, same ball, same lofts, lie angles, same wedge set up, etc.

[indyvai]

Those who are strongly for the ban should pay more attention to their golf game and not the guy in the foursome"cheating" with the long putter.

If pros aren't publicly complaining that their paychecks are suffering because people are cheating... we as amateurs should leave the issue to those who are fiscally hurt by the trend...

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1328578175' post='4226825']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328576360' post='4226569']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1328574816' post='4226337']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328564614' post='4225039']
[quote name='cmrl1986' timestamp='1328563485' post='4224899']
Let me and me belly putters be! I highly doubt anything will come of this. Like previously stated, they have been around forever. Also, they're selling like crack right now. I'd be very surprised if the issue doesn't die before or even gets any momentum. "people are putting too good so it must be illegal" is a rediculous arguement. If they didn't allow golf to change we would still all be playing niblicks and mashie's, wait, bad reference! Point being that technology and golf go hand in hand, rules will always be there. Let the belly putter be!
[/quote]

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

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

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

Ban em!
[/quote]


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

You came up with all of that nonsense based on what I what i had to say? WOW. The idea that to be against anchored putters means that I am some anti technology purist longing for the game of yesteryear is absurd. I love technology. Anchored putters are NOT advances in technology in club design, they are changing the parameters all other clubs are designed to adhere to.

So, all of you who are chiming in with things like this "what about 460CC drivers huh, huh?" the overcoming of this objection is really easy. I will even suggest i am surprised that these arguments are being offered. Anything done in club design that has made a game easier has done so under the preimse that all other attributes of the swing are being equal. Obviously, the structure of Old Tom morris hickory swing, and players of todays swings are different because the shafts react differently to being swung. yet we still see the fundamental need to swing the club with our hands and arms the only connection to the club. No SGI iron ever attempted to remove that from the game, a belly putter explicitly does. Once again,there is legitimacy in the opinion that pinning the thing to yourself creates a condition that NO OTHER club design ever has.

I have asked and Rookie has asked. what are the reasons people use belly putters if not for the advantage of artificial stability? I saw someone said mere "comfort and preference" so with that in mind, you would then be OK with the original premise of the thread, that the length of belly putters is acceptable, but anchoring of them is not. Correct or incorrect
[/quote]
Everything that has changed in golf has altered the dynamics of every aspect of the game. Why is it okay to make a technical change which allows a golfer to break 100 for the first time in his life, but not okay to make a physical change that might just allow for the same thing?
Change is just that. Change. The evolution of golf will continue. Scores will drop. Life goes on.
BTW I am just beginning to use a belly putter after 30 years with a traditional putter. I think I will continue to use it, because my brain appears to understand the body inspired putting stroke better than it does a hands and shoulder inspired stroke.
Sort of the same way my brain has embraced S & T after having struggled for 30 years with Square to Square.
One last thought. What I wrote was not nonsense. That you saw it that way saddens me. Deeply.
[/quote]

The "nonsense" comment was related to the idea that I must be against GI clubs of all ilk if i am against Anchored putters. I apologize for the harshness of that comment.

Again, we just disagree that this is simply not a matter of technology getting better. That, i am all in favor of. This is not a "Physical change" in putting stroke separate from equipment. Any difference in the physical act of putting the ball is done because the putter being used requires that physical change. And it does so by removing an element of skill required.
No putting stroke is "inspired", It is executed. By shoulders, arms and hands. Pinning the thing to your body eliminates much of the difficulty and eliminates the skill in keeping all three of these parts working in unison. I am a decent putter, i was once a very good putter back in the day. But I am older, maybe my eyes are going a little bit now, i dunno. I will keep practicing and see if i can't get back to being really good again. But not with an anchored putter.

[Shambles]

Would it help is we think about the thought and spirit behind the original choice of " conforming and non conforming " as the words chosen to describe the clubs allowed or dis allowed in Golf ?


Shambles

[TRoc9892]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328576360' post='4226569']
You came up with all of that nonsense based on what I what i had to say? WOW. The idea that to be against anchored putters means that I am some anti technology purist longing for the game of yesteryear is absurd. I love technology. Anchored putters are NOT advances in technology in club design, they are changing the parameters all other clubs are designed to adhere to.

So, all of you who are chiming in with things like this "what about 460CC drivers huh, huh?" the overcoming of this objection is really easy. I will even suggest i am surprised that these arguments are being offered. Anything done in club design that has made a game easier has done so under the preimse that all other attributes of the swing are being equal. Obviously, the structure of Old Tom morris hickory swing, and players of todays swings are different because the shafts react differently to being swung. yet we still see the fundamental need to swing the club with our hands and arms the only connection to the club. No SGI iron ever attempted to remove that from the game, a belly putter explicitly does. Once again,there is legitimacy in the opinion that pinning the thing to yourself creates a condition that NO OTHER club design ever has.

I have asked and Rookie has asked. what are the reasons people use belly putters if not for the advantage of artificial stability? I saw someone said mere "comfort and preference" so with that in mind, you would then be OK with the original premise of the thread, that the length of belly putters is acceptable, but anchoring of them is not. Correct or incorrect
[/quote]
I understand what you're saying. But then you'd also believe that whether or not anchoring improves or hinders the ability to make an unsupported stroke, it should be banned as it's intended for the user to not have to use only the hands and the arms.

[Mogolf417]

I suppose I will put my two cents in. The idea of changing the rule I think could end in a major lawsuit. The long/belly putters have been around for nearly 30 years and now with more exposure or young players using them could be grounds for a lawsuit.

The natural arguement is funny because to me the most unnatural act in putting is the claw so I guess it will be banned next.

I hope they try it and get locked into lawsuits over the change so the ruling bodies have to explain themselves.

[farmer]

I admit, I use a belly putter because I make a better stroke with it. I've tried a long putter, did not make a better stroke with it and found it nearly impossible to use in the wind. While the belly putter has improved my stroke, it has not improved my green reading or made speed control automatic. Those are still learned skills. Why not ban rangefinders? They take away from the skill needed to accurately judge distance and are also anchored to the body.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='Mogolf417' timestamp='1328584579' post='4227789']
I suppose I will put my two cents in. The idea of changing the rule I think could end in a major lawsuit. The long/belly putters have been around for nearly 30 years and now with more exposure or young players using them could be grounds for a lawsuit.

The natural arguement is funny because to me the most unnatural act in putting is the claw so I guess it will be banned next.

I hope they try it and get locked into lawsuits over the change so the ruling bodies have to explain themselves.
[/quote]


How, they're not banning the equipment, just ruling on the manner in which it can be used. There are no legal grounds there.

[goplutus]

On one hand, the USGA is promoting tee it forward and Jack Nicklaus is pushing holes the size of buckets. Here, they are attempting to make the game harder with little benifit. The core of the game is making a stoke with a stick to put the ball in the hole. Creative ways of doing this should be encouraged. If not for breakthroguhs like this, we wouldnt have the forward pass or the jumpshot.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1328584585' post='4227791']
I admit, I use a belly putter because I make a better stroke with it. I've tried a long putter, did not make a better stroke with it and found it nearly impossible to use in the wind. While the belly putter has improved my stroke, it has not improved my green reading or made speed control automatic. Those are still learned skills. Why not ban rangefinders? They take away from the skill needed to accurately judge distance and are also anchored to the body.
[/quote]


How does a rangefinder improve the golf swing? Or one's ability to hit a ball to a specific number? Find me a golfer that says he can hit a specific shot exactly 150 yards 10 times in a row and I'll show you a liar.

[Mogolf417]

To me the grounds are simple I dont see them coming from the equipment manufactures but players. Seems to me they are singling out certain players and taking away their certain talents from making money. IE Keegan or Webb taking lawsuit versus USGA and I am sure certain companies would help with legal costs.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='TRoc9892' timestamp='1328583401' post='4227613']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328576360' post='4226569']
You came up with all of that nonsense based on what I what i had to say? WOW. The idea that to be against anchored putters means that I am some anti technology purist longing for the game of yesteryear is absurd. I love technology. Anchored putters are NOT advances in technology in club design, they are changing the parameters all other clubs are designed to adhere to.

So, all of you who are chiming in with things like this "what about 460CC drivers huh, huh?" the overcoming of this objection is really easy. I will even suggest i am surprised that these arguments are being offered. Anything done in club design that has made a game easier has done so under the preimse that all other attributes of the swing are being equal. Obviously, the structure of Old Tom morris hickory swing, and players of todays swings are different because the shafts react differently to being swung. yet we still see the fundamental need to swing the club with our hands and arms the only connection to the club. No SGI iron ever attempted to remove that from the game, a belly putter explicitly does. Once again,there is legitimacy in the opinion that pinning the thing to yourself creates a condition that NO OTHER club design ever has.

I have asked and Rookie has asked. what are the reasons people use belly putters if not for the advantage of artificial stability? I saw someone said mere "comfort and preference" so with that in mind, you would then be OK with the original premise of the thread, that the length of belly putters is acceptable, but anchoring of them is not. Correct or incorrect
[/quote]
I understand what you're saying. But then you'd also believe that whether or not anchoring improves or hinders the ability to make an unsupported stroke, it should be banned as it's intended for the user to not have to use only the hands and the arms.
[/quote]

Hmmm, im not sure if i get what you are asking, do you mean should the belly putter[i] length[/i] be banned, regardless of anchoring? No, i don't care about that so much. In fact Angel Cabrera putt with a putter that was belly length but did not anchor it. (did he even win the masters that way? seems like it but i could be wrong about that) The issue for me is the artifice which is required. It seems so basic to me, that a putting stroke requires certain abilities, some mental and some physical. Anchored putters clearly remove some of the variables in those elements.

[golfnut-2X]

great debate. curious to hear from the definitive side of "banning" this...


Are you using any of the radical equipment changes since the founding of golf below? If so do you find it hypocritical to say this change is not golf but all the changes below are good for golf? What are the rational differences for this putter / putting style that clearly articilate this change is BAD but all these other radical game changes are GOOD?

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


if you are still using the feathery and handmade wood clubs and still symie your oppoents in your matches then I would say you have an argument and you are a purist. if you are using the radical game changes above then its hard not to sound hypocritical.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='golfnut-2X' timestamp='1328585138' post='4227867']
great debate. curious to hear from the definitive side of "banning" this...


Are you using any of the radical equipment changes since the founding of golf below? If so do you find it hypocritical to say this change is not golf but all the changes below are good for golf? What are the rational differences for this putter / putting style that clearly articilate this change is BAD but all these other radical game changes are GOOD?

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


if you are still using the feathery and handmade wood clubs and still symie your oppoents in your matches then I would say you have an argument and you are a purist. if you are using the radical game changes above then its hard not to sound hypocritical.
[/quote]

Fundamentally flawed argument. Why? You don't understand what the ban is for. It's not to ban the clubs. They don't care about the clubs, only the manner in which they're used. They care about the fact that the club is anchored to one's body to improve the pendulum motion and remove the skill of syncing one's hands, arms and shoulders. They don't care if you use the putters, only that you don't anchor them. That's the point. Not one single technological advancement you listed improved or alters the manner in which equipment is used, not the manner in which the club is attached to the body, nor the manner in which the swing takes place. The long putters change the manner in which the stroke is made by removing a skill variable. That's what the rule aimed at [b]anchoring[/b] and anchoring alone are aimed at. They don't care about the clubs, and you'll still be able to use them, you just won't be able to cram them in your sternum or your gut and use them. That's all they're removing, the ability to anchor and alter the stroke.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='golfnut-2X' timestamp='1328585138' post='4227867']
great debate. curious to hear from the definitive side of "banning" this...


Are you using any of the radical equipment changes since the founding of golf below? If so do you find it hypocritical to say this change is not golf but all the changes below are good for golf? What are the rational differences for this putter / putting style that clearly articilate this change is BAD but all these other radical game changes are GOOD?

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


if you are still using the feathery and handmade wood clubs and still symie your oppoents in your matches then I would say you have an argument and you are a purist. if you are using the radical game changes above then its hard not to sound hypocritical.
[/quote]

Again, these examples are apples and oranges comparisons. I have already addressed the distinction between game improvement technology and anchoring a club to ones body. It is a vast difference and requires no hypocrisy to arrive at the conclusion I have.

EDIT: See post 61

EDIT#2: As one of the chief "ban em" proponents, I have never made mention of how the "game should be played" argument.

[goplutus]

Its silly to regulate how a club is used. Getting the ball in the hole sometimes requires you flip over a wedge or belly a fairway wood. Would that kind of shot be banned?

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328585750' post='4227939']
[quote name='golfnut-2X' timestamp='1328585138' post='4227867']
great debate. curious to hear from the definitive side of "banning" this...


Are you using any of the radical equipment changes since the founding of golf below? If so do you find it hypocritical to say this change is not golf but all the changes below are good for golf? What are the rational differences for this putter / putting style that clearly articilate this change is BAD but all these other radical game changes are GOOD?

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


if you are still using the feathery and handmade wood clubs and still symie your oppoents in your matches then I would say you have an argument and you are a purist. if you are using the radical game changes above then its hard not to sound hypocritical.
[/quote]

Again, these examples are apples and oranges comparisons. I have already addressed the distinction between game improvement technology and anchoring a club to ones body. It is a vast difference and requires no hypocrisy to arrive at the conclusion I have.
[/quote]


Not to mention the clubs will be legal, they're just regulating the manner in which it's permissible to use them. They don't want them anchored, other than that, you can use them, unless I misunderstood everything that has been said or written on the article. Remove the ability to anchor the putter, and you remove the advantages of it. That's the whole point I was making and I believe you're making as well.

[UngiftedGolfer]

My biggest problem with "anchoring" the long putter is that it seems to me that it would almost automatically eliminate a few swing flaws that a lot of people struggle with, flippy hands, rotating hands and sway during the stroke. It seems to me that while anchoring the club to your body you would be better able to make a more stable stroke and not have to worry so much about the hands. I may be wrong about that as I've never used a long putter, but that is what it seems to me when I see people using them.

The thing is, the long putter is the only club that you can legally do that with as far as I know (not that it would be really functional with any other club). But, what about a grip with your hand impression molded into it so you always had the perfect grip, which is one of the biggest factors in a lot of bad swings (noted by every great teacher and every great player, that the swing starts with the grip - where your hands are the ONLY part of your body that connect you to the club).

Part of golf is being in control of your body during the swing. I think that goes for the putting stroke too. Maybe the "anchored" putter should be a training aid, like those gadgets that attach to your club and your arm that help you feel what a correct club hinge is. Just my .02

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='goplutus' timestamp='1328585856' post='4227955']
Its silly to regulate how a club is used. Getting the ball in the hole sometimes requires you flip over a wedge or belly a fairway wood. Would that kind of shot be banned?
[/quote]

If you're anchoring a fairway wood, yes. You're not changing how a club is swung by flipping it over. You're changing the technique by anchoring it. Again, the equipment will be legal, the manner in which it can be used regulated.

[Mogolf417]

We all read the same article and understand they are not banning the clubs. Get over it you keep asking pro belly people to come up with a new arguement how about you answer our question.

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE ON NATURAL? Is the claw grip natural heck is cross handed natural. That is where the muddy waters come into play.

[TRoc9892]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328585092' post='4227859']
[quote name='TRoc9892' timestamp='1328583401' post='4227613']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1328576360' post='4226569']
You came up with all of that nonsense based on what I what i had to say? WOW. The idea that to be against anchored putters means that I am some anti technology purist longing for the game of yesteryear is absurd. I love technology. Anchored putters are NOT advances in technology in club design, they are changing the parameters all other clubs are designed to adhere to.

So, all of you who are chiming in with things like this "what about 460CC drivers huh, huh?" the overcoming of this objection is really easy. I will even suggest i am surprised that these arguments are being offered. Anything done in club design that has made a game easier has done so under the preimse that all other attributes of the swing are being equal. Obviously, the structure of Old Tom morris hickory swing, and players of todays swings are different because the shafts react differently to being swung. yet we still see the fundamental need to swing the club with our hands and arms the only connection to the club. No SGI iron ever attempted to remove that from the game, a belly putter explicitly does. Once again,there is legitimacy in the opinion that pinning the thing to yourself creates a condition that NO OTHER club design ever has.

I have asked and Rookie has asked. what are the reasons people use belly putters if not for the advantage of artificial stability? I saw someone said mere "comfort and preference" so with that in mind, you would then be OK with the original premise of the thread, that the length of belly putters is acceptable, but anchoring of them is not. Correct or incorrect
[/quote]
I understand what you're saying. But then you'd also believe that whether or not anchoring improves or hinders the ability to make an unsupported stroke, it should be banned as it's intended for the user to not have to use only the hands and the arms.
[/quote]

Hmmm, im not sure if i get what you are asking, do you mean should the belly putter[i] length[/i] be banned, regardless of anchoring? No, i don't care about that so much. In fact Angel Cabrera putt with a putter that was belly length but did not anchor it. (did he even win the masters that way? seems like it but i could be wrong about that) The issue for me is the artifice which is required. It seems so basic to me, that a putting stroke requires certain abilities, some mental and some physical. Anchored putters clearly remove some of the variables in those elements.
[/quote]
Yea I get it. But don't agree. Or I agree but don't agree. I just really don't like this argument so I don't plan on posting much more. It may remove some sort of variables or whatever but I don't think that the advantage is significant. I tried em but didn't like them very much. It's hard for me to explain but I really don't care what other golfers use. I can see if Keegan Bradley averaged 24 putts a round then I'd reconsider. I guess even one stroke is unfair but I don't think it even gives one stroke.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='Mogolf417' timestamp='1328586110' post='4227997']
We all read the same article and understand they are not banning the clubs. Get over it you keep asking pro belly people to come up with a new arguement how about you answer our question.

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE ON NATURAL? Is the claw grip natural heck is cross handed natural. That is where the muddy waters come into play.
[/quote]


Does the claw alter the manner in which the club is swung? Does the claw remove the variable of syncing up the hands, shoulders and arms? No. The long putters do. Simple.

Try putting with a belly or broomstick without it anchored. Bet you money your putting with that putter gets worse than with it anchored.

[Mogolf417]

The claw and cross handed is to take the left hand out of the stroke.