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

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Mogolf417' timestamp='1328586572' post='4228069']
The claw and cross handed is to take the left hand out of the stroke.
[/quote]

But all elements of performing the stroke remain. The claw, while goofy, gives no inherent compensation for poor putting. It is designed as an attempt at fixing a flaw, but does not guarantee such compensations and does not do so effortlessly. A belly putter attempts to correct a poor putting by doing just that, artificially compensating for a poor stroke. This is what makes the argument about titanium club heads and GI irons so specious. None of that inherently eases the skill required to play the ball. The belly putter specifically enables that.

I have counted one belly putter user who acknowledges he does so because it makes putting easier due to anchoring. Every one else wants to know why i don't play a feathery in response to my position.

So Props to him, as the kids say

[Mogolf417]

Ok so I understand as long as it doesn't take away certain elements then it's ok to use but lord hell you if you take away other elements. This is my arguement where do you draw the line.

[Body_Visions]

I have seen a shorter person anchor the club while chipping with a hybrid almost out of necessity. Would that be banned too? What about anchoring the club against your forearm while chipping out from under a tree?

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Mogolf417' timestamp='1328587722' post='4228227']
Ok so I understand as long as it doesn't take away certain elements then it's ok to use but lord hell you if you take away other elements. This is my arguement where do you draw the line.
[/quote]


I cant respond to this first part, I don't know what you are asking. Where in any argument I am making am I allowing for some elements of putting to be removed, while i insist others remain? i am asking seriously.

I suppose i can offer an answer to the where is the line drawn question. it would seem, that of all questions am anchored putter proponent might have for me, this answer would be the most clear at this point.

The line is drawn at anchoring. Anchoring the club to the body is an artificial means to compensate for and lessen the effect of the variables found in a standard putting stroke, and it does so by it's nature and design. NONE of the other examples given, either GI clubs, or different putting grips in standard putters meet that criteria. Or come even close to meeting it.

[RookieBlue7]

I'm just curious how short these people are that are bellying irons, hybrids, and fairways, assuming by bellying they're actually talking about anchoring a club to one's body by sticking it in their belly. I've never seen the need for that. I've hit shots off of my knees and all kinds of awkward stances, but never had to anchor any club to my body to make a stroke. Again, if this goes through, those shots would be illegal as well.

And I, like KYMAR have counted exactly one person that has said they use a long putter (belly, broomstick, whatever) because they say anchoring the club makes it easier to make a pendulum stroke. Kudos to that poster.

[Tactical Golf]

I think the argument is flawed in certain aspects. As farmer posted, there are 2 things the belly and long putters do NOT do......they do NOT read the greens for line nor do they hit the ball the required speed.......that is done by the golfer. Where some of the mentioned tour players have improved is by having their caddy stand behind them to line them up on full shots as well as putts. I personally prefer the short putter, but have used a 48' putter off and on since 1989 due to fractured back. I have experimented with the belly but cannot roll it as accurately as my short putter due to the slightly increased arc and inconsistent ball placement. I am a teaching pro....I specialized for 20+ years in teaching putting......I putt better with a short putter.....but I see no reason to ban belly or long putters. I see no reason to ban anchoring. If you want to do that, then also ban marking your ball with a line for lining up, and ban allowing someone to stand behind you to help make sure you are lined up correctly.....these things are not natural.

It is a futile argument, and the 2 sides are never going to see each other's side.....let's play golf.

[SwingBlues]

[quote name='Headshot' timestamp='1328589117' post='4228415']
I think the argument is flawed in certain aspects. As farmer posted, there are 2 things the belly and long putters do NOT do......they do NOT read the greens for line nor do they hit the ball the required speed.......that is done by the golfer. Where some of the mentioned tour players have improved is by having their caddy stand behind them to line them up on full shots as well as putts. I personally prefer the short putter, but have used a 48' putter off and on since 1989 due to fractured back. I have experimented with the belly but cannot roll it as accurately as my short putter due to the slightly increased arc and inconsistent ball placement. I am a teaching pro....I specialized for 20+ years in teaching putting......I putt better with a short putter.....but I see no reason to ban belly or long putters. I see no reason to ban anchoring. If you want to do that, then also ban marking your ball with a line for lining up, and ban allowing someone to stand behind you to help make sure you are lined up correctly.....these things are not natural.

It is a futile argument, and the 2 sides are never going to see each other's side.....let's play golf.
[/quote]

Here, here...well said

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1328588332' post='4228319']
I have seen a shorter person anchor the club while chipping with a hybrid almost out of necessity. Would that be banned too? What about anchoring the club against your forearm while chipping out from under a tree?
[/quote]

I would suggest you give them the card to your club fitter. I cant imagine you have actually seen this simply because the physics of what you are suggesting simply do not add up. a 40 inch hybrid from even the closest stance to the ball one might use to chip with is still only going to intersect the body of a person no taller than about 4 and a half feet tall above the waist line. So either that person was anchoring the club to their thigh, or you are simply trying to counter the argument with fantasy. Regardless, if that actually happened, i might suggest that person quickly get a lesson as it would seem that turning the club over and hitting it with the grip end might be about as successful as chipping with the handle wedged against your leg.

[Body_Visions]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328588806' post='4228377']
[b]I'm just curious how short these people are that are bellying irons, hybrids, and fairways, assuming by bellying they're actually talking about anchoring a club to one's body by sticking it in their belly.[/b] I've never seen the need for that. I've hit shots off of my knees and all kinds of awkward stances, but never had to anchor any club to my body to make a stroke. Again, if this goes through, those shots would be illegal as well.

And I, like KYMAR have counted exactly one person that has said they use a long putter (belly, broomstick, whatever) because they say [b]anchoring the club makes it easier to make a pendulum stroke.[/b] Kudos to that poster.
[/quote]

Maybe I play with fatter people than you, because I have seen it many times.

Peter Senior "anchored" the club to his chin and the club was all that moved. Some would call that a pendulum if the club moved straight back and straight through.

Others hold the club against their chest, (the club is not actually touching the body) and move it by rocking the shoulders which, if you try it, is not that different than making a "normal" stroke (whatever that is) that moves on an arc. Should these be looked at differently?

[KDMullins]

[quote name='Headshot' timestamp='1328589117' post='4228415']
I think the argument is flawed in certain aspects. As farmer posted, there are 2 things the belly and long putters do NOT do......they do NOT read the greens for line nor do they hit the ball the required speed.......that is done by the golfer. Where some of the mentioned tour players have improved is by having their caddy stand behind them to line them up on full shots as well as putts. I personally prefer the short putter, but have used a 48' putter off and on since 1989 due to fractured back. I have experimented with the belly but cannot roll it as accurately as my short putter due to the slightly increased arc and inconsistent ball placement. I am a teaching pro....I specialized for 20+ years in teaching putting......I putt better with a short putter.....but I see no reason to ban belly or long putters.[b] I see no reason to ban anchoring. If you want to do that, then also ban marking your ball with a line for lining up, and ban allowing someone to stand behind you to help make sure you are lined up correctly.....these things are not natural.[/b]

It is a futile argument, and the 2 sides are never going to see each other's side.....let's play golf.
[/quote]

This is where I really come down on it, too. Long putters are currently legal under the rules, so the only way this is going to change is to create a new rule or to re-interpret an existing rule. While you can style (or disguise) the argument in many different ways, what the guys that want to ban the long putters are upset about is their inherent belief that this somehow gives a dramatic advantage to one player. While that's all well and good, that rationale could be applied to nearly every aspect of the game as we know it. The entire game of golf is built on the notion that people can do all sorts of things within the rules because of the belief that it helps them: teeing off on one side of the tee versus the other, lines on golf balls to help with putting, standing behind the player to help them line up on all shots, bending clubs open, closed, upright or flat (i.e. any adjustable driver), using lead tape, using more than one wrap of grip tape, etc. These are all things that certain players use to make up for some flaw or idiosyncrasy in the game(s). You can certainly take any of the things I've listed and draw some vague distinction between that and the belly putter, but it really just doesn't hold water IMO.

[KYMAR]

There is nothing vague about the distinction between using an anchored club to remove an aspect of the skill required to play the ball and using the left side of the tee box.

[Socrates]

[color="#222222"][size="1"]"It is something we have taken a fresh look at. More players are using it, both on the elite level and the recreational level. We want to be sure that we are looking at all the angles and thinking about what is in the [/size][b][size="1"]best interests both of the traditions of the game, the history of the game, and what [/size][size="2"]we[/size][size="1"] think would be good for the game."[/size][/b][/color]
[color="#222222"][size="1"]"The R&A do not like the fact that golfers can steady themselves by using a putter as a crutch in windy, rainy or cold weather," the source said. "In essence, they are steadying themselves with the putter. This was never intended under the Rules of Golf. They are using the putter for [b]something other than a traditional stroke[/b]."[/size][/color]
[color="#222222"][size="1"][b]Peter Dawson, R&A chief executive, has expressed his personal dislike of anchoring[/b]. [/size][/color]
[color="#222222"][color="#474747"]
[b][size="2"]14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At[/size][/b]
[color="#7F7F7F"][size="1"]The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.[/size][/color]
[/color][/color][color="#474747"]
[b][size="2"]14-3. Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment and Unusual Use of Equipment[/size][/b]
[color="#7F7F7F"][size="1"]The USGA reserves the right, at any time, to change the [/size][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][size="1"] relating to artificial devices, unusual [/size][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Equipment"]equipment[/url][/i][size="1"] and the [/size][b][size="2"]unusual use of[/size][/b] [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Equipment"]equipment[/url][/i][size="1"], and to make or change the interpretations relating to these [/size][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rule[/url][size="2"]s.[/size][/i][/color]
________________________
[/color][size="2"] [/size]
[size="2"][color="#222222"]There are a couple of things that stick out from the article in Golfweek. One is that the Ruling bodies seem to be putting their personal opinions out there and implying that since they think they are right, there needs to be a change in the current Rules. The other is that they seem to believe that the traditional stroke is one where the club has never been anchored to the body. One would wonder if there are examples in the past (going way back) where players putted in a manner other than what they consider traditional?[/color][/size][color="#474747"][color="#7F7F7F"][i] [/i][/color]

[/color]
[size="2"][color="#222222"]After how many years of use does it become traditional? We are talking of almost 40 years of use in the modern era and who knows of how many years it has been used prior to this. Is 40 long enough or are they going to drag us back to the days of Old Tom Morris to try and win their argument?[/color][/size]
[size="2"] [/size]
[size="2"][color="#222222"]Rule 14-3 leaves room for them to change the interpretation of 'unusual' which would seem to be the only thing that they can use in their favor in changing the use of a club since it meets the definition of a stroke and doesn't violate 14-1. They obviously can do what they like (they don't have to ask anyones opinion to invoke a Rule change), but I hope that they can get past their own personal opinions to make a proper decision (not much hope in that though).[/color][/size]

[sTmGolfer]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328588806' post='4228377']
I'm just curious how short these people are that are bellying irons, hybrids, and fairways, assuming by bellying they're actually talking about anchoring a club to one's body by sticking it in their belly. I've never seen the need for that. I've hit shots off of my knees and all kinds of awkward stances, but never had to anchor any club to my body to make a stroke. Again, if this goes through, those shots would be illegal as well.

And I, like KYMAR have counted exactly one person that has said they use a long putter (belly, broomstick, whatever) because they say anchoring the club makes it easier to make a pendulum stroke. Kudos to that poster.
[/quote]

I've tried belly and broomstick and have recently stuck with the broomstick. Putting has often been the reason I leave the golf course frustrated. Standard putters and belly putters have always left me with the same frustrations and I felt I wasn't enjoying the game as much as I should.

[b]I will adamantly admit that the broomstick is the style of putter I feel I can make the best stroke with and have no qualms saying that is because I can anchor the club[/b]. I will, however, say that is not the only or even the primary reason I switched. It boiled down to comfort for me. I prefer the broomstick because I feel more comfortable standing more upright and because I feel I can see the line better. Putting has never been such an enjoyable part of the game for me until I switched to the broomstick. I definitely did not feel that way with the belly putter. It never felt natural and never felt comfortable.

I understand people's debates on both sides of the argument. For me, what my decision to use the broomstick came down was pure comfort. Even though the belly was anchored, it felt strange, foreign, and no different than a standard length putter. At the end of the day, you have to feel comfortable with a putter in your hands, regardless of how you use the putter. For me that happens to be a long putter.

[Maximilian]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328569355' post='4225623']
these are guys that buy whatever is popular to buy at the moment with no regard for if it's good for their game or not[/quote]
[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328569355' post='4225623']
Like I said I built 3 to try and built a few for others.
[/quote]
So basically you are slamming people just like yourself? I got a belly putter recently because logically they do make sense to me. So far I can't say that it has helped me, but I'm hoping it eventually will, but for now, I putt better with a short putter. But you guys have never heard anyone say they use them because they help their game? Really? You must not watch golf then. I think every single pro that uses one has said in interviews that they use it because it helps their putting. I don't see the problem with that though. They are legal for everyone, not just for some! Some people use a stack and tilt swing too, because it helps them, so what?

Am I out of line thinking that you are just pissed cause it helps some people, but you yourself can't benefit from using one? No fair, no fair!

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328569355' post='4225623']
I'd like to see there be repercussions, such as their names removed from trophies and such.
[/quote]
If you really do mean that, then that's the silliest thing I've read on this forum. Again, they are legal, people who have won with them have not broken the rules! The rues in golf change every year, in that case you should remove all names from every trophy because people won those tournaments playing with different rules then today.

If they do ban them, I agree that there is a grey zone with anchoring against the arm, like Kuchar did last year. Probably easier to just say that the putter should be the shortest club in the bag (which I do know has been discussed as one alternative amongst the rule makers).

[Dave D]

I cant see a problem with them until its proven they actuslly are cheating. Isnt it widely agreed putting is 90% mental? Until people are winning every tournament i cant see how they can ban it. When Bradley won the PGA it wasnt his putting that did it i dont think his putting stats were in the top 5?

[RookieBlue7]

If anchoring makes zero difference when using these types of putters, why is there no one using a long putter without anchoring it? Why can't one be as effective without artificially stabilizing the putter?

[KevCarter]

I use a 50" putter because of my back. The only way I can think to use it without anchoring, will be side saddle ala Sam Snead. That will certainly be more golf like...

[RookieBlue7]

Use it like a broom maybe? Stand to the side, use the same motion but don't anchor it. Problem is, it takes away the effectiveness to remove the ability to anchor, which is what the debate is about.

[indyvai]

I tried to read every post... but I don't recall anyone saying that anchoring isn't important for long putters. You can technically use a short 40" belly without anchoring, but above that it's impossible. So the anchoring issue is essentially killing the long putter... not just modifying usage.

And yes... anchoring the putter clearly helps some people make a better and more consistent stroke. It's also quite natural to some, and uncomfortable for others.

I enjoy the long putter because I can shut off that part of my brain associated with my personal putting history. All I have to focus on is line and distance... since I grip the long putter slightly different every time. On some days where all I want to do is play golf... it helps me enjoy my round. Isn't that what recreational golf is about?

[hebron1427]

having read through this debate, it's amazing to see how it has exploded since the OP.

Here's what I guess I'm not getting. I don't understand why it really matters. A belly putter might be an advantage. Let's just say that it is: so what? I play an X flex shaft, and if you made me play with an R flex shaft, the game would be very difficult for me. Why should I have to give up my X flex shaft just because it makes the game easier for me? There are plenty of other things in my bag that, if you chagned them, i would have a hard time. Take away my golf shoes, my golf glove, the stand on my bag, my graphite shaft, my pro-v1x, my interlock grip, my wooden golf tees, my titanium driver--and i'll just quit the game because it wont be fun. There are numerous people here who have said that anchoring putters helps them. There are almost as many (me included) that actually putt worse with an anchored putter. If the debate were reversed, and the USGA were thinking about banning non-anchored putters because somehow the game were more difficult with a belly putter (as it appears to be for me), I would say the same thing: so what? What does it matter that it's an advantage, if everyone can enjoy that advantage if they choose?

I understand the idea of keeping the game of golf to be the game of golf and not something else. But this debate fundamentally boils down to whether you think it's within the definition of "golf" to use an anchored club. The argument can't be won by pointing to whether it's technology or not, because there have been numerous advances in technology over the history of the game--we don't hit our cleeks off of sand piles any more. The question is: is this just a different way of doing what's always been done, or is this something new altogether? and, if it's something new altogether, is it still within what should be considered "golf?"

for my money, i just don't see it as being that big of an issue. I'm more in the "it's a different way of doing the same thing" category. It might be an advantage for some people--probably is--to make a consistent stroke with a belly putter, but that shouldn't matter in the calculus of whether it should be allowed because, as i stated, there are numerous things you could change about my current set that would make it more difficult for me to play. the belly putter isn't going to read the putt, feel the speed of the green, understand how grain influences the roll, or decipher how much break to play on a hill. the skill is still required to be good at putting. just because someone has done something that's a little different doesn't mean it's wrong.

[KevCarter]

It's all academic anyway. I don't believe the rule will be changed. Just my opinion...

[gators78]

Ban it for all I care, I'll just putt side saddle with my belly and have a better view of my line.

Nothing is going to happen until there is factual evidence you can putt better with one, which Pelz, Filmalter and others have researched and can't find any advantage.

[golfnut-2X]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328585553' post='4227909']
[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.
[/quote]


so it sounds like the core of the argument is that it seems to remove some skill from putting? on lag putts it actually is harder skill to get the distance compared to a short stick where you get to use your wrists. short putts opposite.


some other examples of technology that removed the skill of specific shots but were not banned...

sand wedges - weren't around when the game got started and certainly not part of the original thoughts on equipment. clearly changes how we swing from sand and makes the skill a whole lot easier using bounce versus no bounce. this technology changed how we swing the club in sand and removes some skill.


hybrids - weren't around when the game started. clearly removes the skill of hitting the 1, 2, and 3 irons. started similar way, some people started using because it didn't require as much skill or precisino and now most of the tour is using hybrids.


perimeter weight / game improvement irons - wow do these remove the skill from hitting pure shots with precise swings especially for longer irons. alot of the tour guys are no longer using pure blades in their long irons since these require less skill.

mallets / high moi putters - same story. i have used blade like putter for a while but when you switch to a heavier mallet or putter with very high moi head its almost like cheating compared to using putters from 50 years ago especially on long lags if you don't get the sweet spot exact.

460cc driver heads with super hot faces / adjustable weights / super high MOI / with multi layered juiced up balls - clearly changed how we swing and how we play (target / shaping less important than grip it wrip it and hit it country mile). removed a lot of skill from hitting a very tiny driver head precisely otherwise no distance and no high MOI to cover up the damage.


all examples on how technology removed the skill from golf and changed how we play the game but are allowed. it just seems hypocritical.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='golfnut-2X' timestamp='1328628565' post='4230213']
[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328585553' post='4227909']
[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.
[/quote]


so it sounds like the core of the argument is that it seems to remove some skill from putting? on lag putts it actually is harder skill to get the distance compared to a short stick where you get to use your wrists. short putts opposite.


some other examples of technology that removed the skill of specific shots but were not banned...

sand wedges - weren't around when the game got started and certainly not part of the original thoughts on equipment. clearly changes how we swing from sand and makes the skill a whole lot easier using bounce versus no bounce. this technology changed how we swing the club in sand and removes some skill.


hybrids - weren't around when the game started. clearly removes the skill of hitting the 1, 2, and 3 irons. started similar way, some people started using because it didn't require as much skill or precisino and now most of the tour is using hybrids.


perimeter weight / game improvement irons - wow do these remove the skill from hitting pure shots with precise swings especially for longer irons. alot of the tour guys are no longer using pure blades in their long irons since these require less skill.

mallets / high moi putters - same story. i have used blade like putter for a while but when you switch to a heavier mallet or putter with very high moi head its almost like cheating compared to using putters from 50 years ago especially on long lags if you don't get the sweet spot exact.

460cc driver heads with super hot faces / adjustable weights / super high MOI / with multi layered juiced up balls - clearly changed how we swing and how we play (target / shaping less important than grip it wrip it and hit it country mile). removed a lot of skill from hitting a very tiny driver head precisely otherwise no distance and no high MOI to cover up the damage.


all examples on how technology removed the skill from golf and changed how we play the game but are allowed. it just seems hypocritical.
[/quote]

How did any of your examples change the way the stroke is performed? They didn't, the clubs connection to the body still remains via the hands, coupled with movement of the arms and shoulders and a balancing act. Long putters remove that skill from the equation.

Do you swing a 460 driver differently than you do a 220cc one? The same can be said about every other technological advancement listed. None changed the fundamental manner in which the club is swung.

[nbg352]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328588806' post='4228377']
I'm just curious how short these people are that are bellying irons, hybrids, and fairways, assuming by bellying they're actually talking about anchoring a club to one's body by sticking it in their belly. I've never seen the need for that. I've hit shots off of my knees and all kinds of awkward stances, but never had to anchor any club to my body to make a stroke. Again, if this goes through, those shots would be illegal as well.

And I, like KYMAR have counted exactly one person that has said they use a long putter (belly, broomstick, whatever) because they say anchoring the club makes it easier to make a pendulum stroke. Kudos to that poster.
[/quote]


My, it only takes one person to validate such narrow thinking? If I had said what you were looking for, it would not have been the truth. What I stated as my reason for using a belly putter? That's the truth. I do not believe it creates a simpler pendulum motion. I am not, nor have I ever been a SBST putter. I always create arc. So pendulum, spendulum, it's just not in the equation.
And I apologize in advance for the narrow thinking thing. I just couldn't come up with a politically correct alternative.

[RookieBlue7]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1328630410' post='4230385']
[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328588806' post='4228377']
I'm just curious how short these people are that are bellying irons, hybrids, and fairways, assuming by bellying they're actually talking about anchoring a club to one's body by sticking it in their belly. I've never seen the need for that. I've hit shots off of my knees and all kinds of awkward stances, but never had to anchor any club to my body to make a stroke. Again, if this goes through, those shots would be illegal as well.

And I, like KYMAR have counted exactly one person that has said they use a long putter (belly, broomstick, whatever) because they say anchoring the club makes it easier to make a pendulum stroke. Kudos to that poster.
[/quote]


My, it only takes one person to validate such narrow thinking? If I had said what you were looking for, it would not have been the truth. What I stated as my reason for using a belly putter? That's the truth. I do not believe it creates a simpler pendulum motion. I am not, nor have I ever been a SBST putter. I always create arc. So pendulum, spendulum, it's just not in the equation.
And I apologize in advance for the narrow thinking thing. I just couldn't come up with a politically correct alternative.
[/quote]

Just saying one person admitted to why they anchor. Why do you need to anchor the putter? Why can you not use it without anchoring it? What is the reason you anchor?

[TDS]

If it was truly and advantage wouldn't all the Pro's use them ?

[nbg352]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328632251' post='4230573']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1328630410' post='4230385']
[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1328588806' post='4228377']
I'm just curious how short these people are that are bellying irons, hybrids, and fairways, assuming by bellying they're actually talking about anchoring a club to one's body by sticking it in their belly. I've never seen the need for that. I've hit shots off of my knees and all kinds of awkward stances, but never had to anchor any club to my body to make a stroke. Again, if this goes through, those shots would be illegal as well.

And I, like KYMAR have counted exactly one person that has said they use a long putter (belly, broomstick, whatever) because they say anchoring the club makes it easier to make a pendulum stroke. Kudos to that poster.
[/quote]


My, it only takes one person to validate such narrow thinking? If I had said what you were looking for, it would not have been the truth. What I stated as my reason for using a belly putter? That's the truth. I do not believe it creates a simpler pendulum motion. I am not, nor have I ever been a SBST putter. I always create arc. So pendulum, spendulum, it's just not in the equation.
And I apologize in advance for the narrow thinking thing. I just couldn't come up with a politically correct alternative.
[/quote]

Just saying one person admitted to why they anchor. Why do you need to anchor the putter? Why can you not use it without anchoring it? What is the reason you anchor?
[/quote]
Sigh....If you really cared to know, you would read my posts in their entirety. All of them. I am perfectly clear in why I use a belly putter. Your constant questioning of me will not net you the answer you are looking for. You already have all the validation you need from that one other poster, don't you?

[powerfade_maller]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328591210' post='4228645']
[color="#222222"][size="1"]"It is something we have taken a fresh look at. More players are using it, both on the elite level and the recreational level. We want to be sure that we are looking at all the angles and thinking about what is in the [/size][b][size="1"]best interests both of the traditions of the game, the history of the game, and what [/size][size="2"]we[/size][size="1"] think would be good for the game."[/size][/b][/color]
[color="#222222"][size="1"]"The R&A do not like the fact that golfers can steady themselves by using a putter as a crutch in windy, rainy or cold weather," the source said. "In essence, they are steadying themselves with the putter. This was never intended under the Rules of Golf. They are using the putter for [b]something other than a traditional stroke[/b]."[/size][/color]
[color="#222222"][size="1"][b]Peter Dawson, R&A chief executive, has expressed his personal dislike of anchoring[/b]. [/size][/color]
[color="#222222"][color="#474747"]
[b][size="2"]14-1. Ball to be Fairly Struck At[/size][/b]
[color="#7F7F7F"][size="1"]The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.[/size][/color]
[/color][/color][color="#474747"]
[b][size="2"]14-3. Artificial Devices, Unusual Equipment and Unusual Use of Equipment[/size][/b]
[color="#7F7F7F"][size="1"]The USGA reserves the right, at any time, to change the [/size][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rules[/url][/i][size="1"] relating to artificial devices, unusual [/size][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Equipment"]equipment[/url][/i][size="1"] and the [/size][b][size="2"]unusual use of[/size][/b] [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Equipment"]equipment[/url][/i][size="1"], and to make or change the interpretations relating to these [/size][i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Rule-Or-Rules"]Rule[/url][size="2"]s.[/size][/i][/color]
________________________
[/color]
[size="2"][color="#222222"]There are a couple of things that stick out from the article in Golfweek. One is that the Ruling bodies seem to be putting their personal opinions out there and implying that since they think they are right, there needs to be a change in the current Rules. The other is that they seem to believe that the traditional stroke is one where the club has never been anchored to the body. One would wonder if there are examples in the past (going way back) where players putted in a manner other than what they consider traditional?[/color][/size][color="#474747"][color="#7F7F7F"][i] [/i][/color]

[/color]
[size="2"][color="#222222"]After how many years of use does it become traditional? We are talking of almost 40 years of use in the modern era and who knows of how many years it has been used prior to this. Is 40 long enough or are they going to drag us back to the days of Old Tom Morris to try and win their argument?[/color][/size]

[size="2"][color="#222222"]Rule 14-3 leaves room for them to change the interpretation of 'unusual' which would seem to be the only thing that they can use in their favor in changing the use of a club since it meets the definition of a stroke and doesn't violate 14-1. They obviously can do what they like (they don't have to ask anyones opinion to invoke a Rule change), but I hope that they can get past their own personal opinions to make a proper decision (not much hope in that though).[/color][/size]
[/quote]

Look at pictures of Bobby Jones putting with Calamity Jane. Sure looks like he has it anchored on his left hip socket.

[indyvai]

Even anchored, the fundamental stroke is the same...