It's official: USGA, R&A propose anchor ban

[KYMAR]

[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354154932' post='5992911']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354154686' post='5992885']
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354154441' post='5992865']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354151203' post='5992575']
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354147324' post='5992231']
I would like someone who is pro-ban to explain to me why it has taken decades and a reversal of a previous ruling for the R&A/USGA to figure out that anchoring is against the "spirit of the rules." Careful, I am not a fool.
[/quote]

I was under the impression that they had ruled the equipment as not being illegal - I hadn't ever heard them rule that anchoring was ok. I don't see a reversal of a previous decision.
[/quote]

Then that would be another instance of their failure to properly address the issue in a timely fashion. They just punted it down the road further, while more and more golfers, thinking that the ruling bodies had made their decision, began to use this legal method of putting. And now it seems a threshold of "popularity" has been reached which changes everything, including decades of precedent (set by the ruling bodies themselves). There is no new insight today that they didn't have years ago when the method first was used. If anchoring is a problem today it was a problem decades ago. The USGA/R&A have failed miserably in handling this issue, and now are compounding this failure by unfairly disadvantaging rules abiding golfers who use this method.
[/quote]
But I thought there was never an unfair advantage, so how could this decision unfairly disadvantage anyone?
[/quote]

Um, because it's two separate instances of "fairness" - Having a club/technique which is available to everyone is inherently fair...there is nothing unfair about this...however, taking away this technique without any element of reason and done solely for the sake of appearance is, in some people's estimation, quite unfair...
[/quote]

You still going on about this "for the sake of appearance" nonsense? Did you see the press conference? Did you read the transcript? Who made mention of this "how it looks" stuff? That's right, nobody. But you can't just abandon your ongoing narrative all of the sudden, even in the face of the facts. What did they say was the over riding factor in making this decision? That its about what constitutes a stroke. If they wanted to do away with appearances, why isn't this an equipment ban? Why are Belly and long putters still legal for play? Are you suggesting that there is some obvious difference in appearance between someone anchoring and not anchoring a belly length putter? That has to be your argument if you insist on harping away in this manner. And it's utterly ridiculous at this point. You now have their reasons. speculation time is over. I enjoy the debate, I appreciate your point of view as an anchored putter user and i encourage you to speak your mind. But if you are going to criticize the decision, at least do it on the basis on which they actually made the decision not the hunch you have about it all.

[smoky25]

[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1354154354' post='5992847']
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354147324' post='5992231']
I would like someone who is pro-ban to explain to me why it has taken decades and a reversal of a previous ruling for the R&A/USGA to figure out that anchoring is against the "spirit of the rules." Careful, I am not a fool.
[/quote]

Just my opinion, but thinking that any sports ruling bodies make decisions based purely on some sort of an objective criteria is perhaps just a [i]bit[/i] foolish?. [i]All [/i]of them (no matter what the sport) invariably make decisions based on the current state of evolution of their sports. It didn't take them "decades. For quite a long time virtually no one used long putters. In just the past few years, it seems that there has been an explosion of them ... though really, mostly amongst the pros ... about 1/3 of the PGA Tour uses them, but on regular public courses, I'd say its more like one out of every 15 or 20.

Thing is, sports are, at the end of the day, merely a form of entertainment, nothing more than movies or music. All ruling bodies have, as their primary interest, the development of the popularity (and [i]fans[/i]) of their sport. So as social attitudes and tactics and equipment changes, they have to walk a fine line between allowing and facilitating the changes that will make the game more exciting for fans, while making certain that they keep the sport within it's "traditional" look and feel.

Let me try to be more succinct, the primary goal of rules changes is virtually [i]never[/i] to please the fanatics of the sport (that generally have a universally predictable response: "We hate it, and who are you old fogeys?!" ... this argument here vastly pales in comparison to changes in other sports ... for instance, I remember when the DH rule hit baseball - for purists, it was very nearly blasphemy ... but for the average fan? Well, turns out most of them liked to see scoring, and groaned whenever a pitcher came to the plate - usually to bunt).

Point is, to the average golf fan (that may watch the majors, and a couple of other tourneys a year when they're stuck home watching the kids, but isn't really [i]into[/i] golf), and to the average weekender that plays just a few times a year, the long anchored putters really do look somehow funny, they just don't [i]feel[/i] right. They just do. No, it is not rational. But nothing in any form of entertainment is rational ("Gangnam Style" is the most downloaded YouTube music video in history, seriously?).

They were not really worth addressing when there were only a handful on tour, but as they have dramatically grown in numbers, they popped up on the radar screen. If I'm the USGA looking at the vast golf audience (a huge number of casual fans, and a very tiny number of fanatics), well, a significant number of casual fans very likely do not care at all, another (significant number) think they look weird and just somehow don't feel right, and the vast majority of weekenders do not play them. This is almost a no-brainer.

So then, I did not answer your question ... "... explain to me why it has taken decades and a reversal of a previous ruling for the R&A/USGA to figure out that anchoring is against the spirit of the rules ..." ... because I do not think it is the right question. [b]They simply did it for the same reason all sports ruling bodies do things ... because on the whole it is going make [i]far[/i] more fans happy than unhappy.[/b]

It is easy, on WRX, to forget what a hotbed of fanatics this is ... to forget that sometimes that makes us very far from the norm (in our tastes in equipment, numbers of rounds per year, and number of tournaments we watch). [b]The USGA concerns itself with the 25 million or so people that played this year (many of them only a round or two), and the 50 million that watched golf this year (many who may have only seen a tourney or two, and don't even play).[/b]

Note: This is rather a heated conversation here - please don't be snarky ... . I'm not excusing or justifying or trying to argue for their decision, just trying to come up with what I think is the likely explanation for it. (I, personally, have no skin in the game ... I never have and never will use a long putter, but have also never cared if anyone else did).
[/quote]

You make some assumptions highlighted above in your comment that I don't think you can back up. Do you think the basic rules of golf (e.g. the stroke) should be determined or influenced by popularity? I think I understand why they are making the rule change now, and it doesn't jibe with them being competent, fair-minded arbiters of the rules of golf.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354155326' post='5992955']
[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354154932' post='5992911']
Um, because it's two separate instances of "fairness" - Having a club/technique which is available to everyone is inherently fair...there is nothing unfair about this...however, taking away this technique without any element of reason and done solely for the sake of appearance is, in some people's estimation, quite unfair...
[/quote]
Solely for the sake of appearance? The short putter is available to everyone - totally fair and a nice level playing field.

Bradley has taken it far better than some here.
[/quote]

Yep, it's all about appearance...don't have to read into it that much to figure that out...the unfair part is the how/why they're taking away something they've already said was just fine...not the type of putter they'll use going forward...

[Scaldy]

I was at the local Golf MEGA store and they were already joking about putting all their long/belly putters on clearance. I think what is inflaming this debate is the USGA's timing. Some are saying the timing was good but really this should have happened a year ago. It's[u][b] cruel [/b][/u]to have all of this interest in a putter only to have it removed once the adopters have committed to it.

[bobfoster]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354155671' post='5992989']

You still going on about this "for the sake of appearance" nonsense? Did you see the press conference? Did you read the transcript? Who made mention of this "how it looks" stuff? Thats right, nobody. But you can't just abandon your ongoing narrative all of the sudden, even in the face of the facts. What did they say was the over riding factor in making the this decision? That its about what constitutes a stroke. if they wanted to do away with appearances, why isn't this an equipment ban? Why are Belly and long putters still legal for play? Are you suggesting that there is some obvious difference in appearance between someone anchoring and not anchoring a belly length putter? That has to be your argument if you insist on harping away in this manner. And it's utterly ridiculous at this point. You now have their reasons. speculation time is over. I enjoy the debate, I appreciate your point of view as an anchored putter user and i encourage you to speak your mind. But if you are going to criticize the decision, at least do it on the basis on which they actually made the decision not the hunch you have about it all.
[/quote]

Hey Kymar ... I actually just made a long argument that a lot of it was, indeed, about how things looked (please do not just dismiss it out of hand, look above on this page).

All ruling sports bodies give press conferences ... but thinking those press conferences, and the reasons given, are 100% the factual truth (and not carefully written political statements done by trained publicists) is a bit contrary to reason, no?

[smoky25]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354154686' post='5992885']
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354154441' post='5992865']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354151203' post='5992575']
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354147324' post='5992231']
I would like someone who is pro-ban to explain to me why it has taken decades and a reversal of a previous ruling for the R&A/USGA to figure out that anchoring is against the "spirit of the rules." Careful, I am not a fool.
[/quote]

I was under the impression that they had ruled the equipment as not being illegal - I hadn't ever heard them rule that anchoring was ok. I don't see a reversal of a previous decision.
[/quote]

Then that would be another instance of their failure to properly address the issue in a timely fashion. They just punted it down the road further, while more and more golfers, thinking that the ruling bodies had made their decision, began to use this legal method of putting. And now it seems a threshold of "popularity" has been reached which changes everything, including decades of precedent (set by the ruling bodies themselves). There is no new insight today that they didn't have years ago when the method first was used. If anchoring is a problem today it was a problem decades ago. The USGA/R&A have failed miserably in handling this issue, and now are compounding this failure by unfairly disadvantaging rules abiding golfers who use this method.
[/quote]
But I thought there was never an unfair advantage, so how could this decision unfairly disadvantage anyone?
[/quote]

It is not an unfair advantage because it is a legal method available for use by any golfer who chooses to try it. Some golfers putt well with it, others don't. Ergo, no [b]unfair[/b] advantage. Those golfers who have tried this legal method and feel it is the best method for them are being disadvantaged because they are being singled out for using a legal method that works for them and that is also available to their competitors who [b]freely[/b] choose not to use it.

[bobfoster]

[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354155704' post='5992991']

You make some assumptions highlighted above in your comment that I don't think you can back up. Do you think the basic rules of golf (e.g. the stroke) should be determined or influenced by popularity? I think I understand why they are making the rule change now, and it doesn't jibe with them being competent, fair-minded arbiters of the rules of golf.
[/quote]

Actually, the USGA's stated mission is not to be "competent, fair-minded arbiters of the rules of golf" ... it is this (from the mission page on their website): "Based on a shared love and respect for golf, we preserve its past, foster its future, and champion its best interests for everyone who enjoys the game."

Of [i]course[/i] it takes popularity into account.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354155671' post='5992989']
[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354154932' post='5992911']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354154686' post='5992885']
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354154441' post='5992865']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354151203' post='5992575']
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354147324' post='5992231']
I would like someone who is pro-ban to explain to me why it has taken decades and a reversal of a previous ruling for the R&A/USGA to figure out that anchoring is against the "spirit of the rules." Careful, I am not a fool.
[/quote]

I was under the impression that they had ruled the equipment as not being illegal - I hadn't ever heard them rule that anchoring was ok. I don't see a reversal of a previous decision.
[/quote]

Then that would be another instance of their failure to properly address the issue in a timely fashion. They just punted it down the road further, while more and more golfers, thinking that the ruling bodies had made their decision, began to use this legal method of putting. And now it seems a threshold of "popularity" has been reached which changes everything, including decades of precedent (set by the ruling bodies themselves). There is no new insight today that they didn't have years ago when the method first was used. If anchoring is a problem today it was a problem decades ago. The USGA/R&A have failed miserably in handling this issue, and now are compounding this failure by unfairly disadvantaging rules abiding golfers who use this method.
[/quote]
But I thought there was never an unfair advantage, so how could this decision unfairly disadvantage anyone?
[/quote]

Um, because it's two separate instances of "fairness" - Having a club/technique which is available to everyone is inherently fair...there is nothing unfair about this...however, taking away this technique without any element of reason and done solely for the sake of appearance is, in some people's estimation, quite unfair...
[/quote]

You still going on about this "for the sake of appearance" nonsense? Did you see the press conference? Did you read the transcript? Who made mention of this "how it looks" stuff? That's right, nobody. But you can't just abandon your ongoing narrative all of the sudden, even in the face of the facts. What did they say was the over riding factor in making this decision? That its about what constitutes a stroke. If they wanted to do away with appearances, why isn't this an equipment ban? Why are Belly and long putters still legal for play? Are you suggesting that there is some obvious difference in appearance between someone anchoring and not anchoring a belly length putter? That has to be your argument if you insist on harping away in this manner. And it's utterly ridiculous at this point. You now have their reasons. speculation time is over. I enjoy the debate, I appreciate your point of view as an anchored putter user and i encourage you to speak your mind. But if you are going to criticize the decision, at least do it on the basis on which they actually made the decision not the hunch you have about it all.
[/quote]
Um...when did this ever become about facts??? Clearly, this entire conversation has never been about facts - had it been about facts, the issue wouldn't even exist..
Yes, I did listen to the entire thing....and read the transcript...I also took the extra 28 seconds to read between the lines - It's not a hunch...if you listened to many of the talking heads on the varied radio shows, player interviews, etc. you'd notice many of them said the exact same thing I'm saying here...so I don't think it's much of a reach...The fact they want to allow the Kuchar method, but get rid of the standard belly and Adam Scott methods only serves to further the idea that there's specific strokes which they like less than the others...what's really bothersome and, imo, utterly ridiculous are those who are actually buying the whole "spirit of the game" "it's the way it was meant to be played" nonsense...

[Chippster]

What about really fat people who play golf? When their forearms touch their belly while over a putt: penalty!

[KYMAR]

[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1354155993' post='5993009']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354155671' post='5992989']
You still going on about this "for the sake of appearance" nonsense? Did you see the press conference? Did you read the transcript? Who made mention of this "how it looks" stuff? Thats right, nobody. But you can't just abandon your ongoing narrative all of the sudden, even in the face of the facts. What did they say was the over riding factor in making the this decision? That its about what constitutes a stroke. if they wanted to do away with appearances, why isn't this an equipment ban? Why are Belly and long putters still legal for play? Are you suggesting that there is some obvious difference in appearance between someone anchoring and not anchoring a belly length putter? That has to be your argument if you insist on harping away in this manner. And it's utterly ridiculous at this point. You now have their reasons. speculation time is over. I enjoy the debate, I appreciate your point of view as an anchored putter user and i encourage you to speak your mind. But if you are going to criticize the decision, at least do it on the basis on which they actually made the decision not the hunch you have about it all.
[/quote]

Hey Kymar ... I actually just made a long argument that a lot of it was, indeed, about how things looked (please do not just dismiss it out of hand, look above on this page).

All ruling sports bodies give press conferences ... but thinking those press conferences, and the reasons given, are 100% the factual truth (and not carefully written political statements done by trained publicists) is a bit contrary to reason, no?
[/quote]

So what you're saying is, it [i]really really really [/i]is just about how it looks. But they are what, too scared or intimidated to admit it? And if that is the case. Then they are just chicken S*** liars? And again, how does someone using a non anchored long putter "look" any better than an anchored one? If it was about appearance, wouldn't the equipment be banned? Wouldn't Kuchar's style of putting be banned, just on how it looks?.The facts belie the notion in it's entirety.

They said they believe the stroke should be made freely and with a connection only with the hands. Numerous times. I realize that reasoning may not be enough to convince everyone that it was the right decision, and I don't mind debating the merits of that. Everyone ask yourselves objectively which makes more sense.

They have reasons and articulated them the best they could. They are sound, reasoned but also controversial and arguable. They are prepared for controversy, but believe what they believe about what should constitute a stroke and, as the care taker of the game, made the ruling based on that determination.
OR
They just don't like long putters. they hate the way keegan looks with that thing jammed in his gut and decided on that basis to simply make this rule then seek to come up with another reason that sounds better and then stumbled into this whole "what makes a stroke" argument and decided to merely use that as cover for their real issue of appearance?

Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?

[TexasAg]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

My guess is that not banning the equipment itself helps fend off a lawsuit from the manufacturers. The golf equipment market that declined something like 30% over the past decade.and you better believe that the manufacturers are not happy about the USGA and R&A effectively shutting down a new product category that provides an opportunity to sell an additional putter to golfers.

[bobfoster]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1354155993' post='5993009']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354155671' post='5992989']
You still going on about this "for the sake of appearance" nonsense? Did you see the press conference? Did you read the transcript? Who made mention of this "how it looks" stuff? Thats right, nobody. But you can't just abandon your ongoing narrative all of the sudden, even in the face of the facts. What did they say was the over riding factor in making the this decision? That its about what constitutes a stroke. if they wanted to do away with appearances, why isn't this an equipment ban? Why are Belly and long putters still legal for play? Are you suggesting that there is some obvious difference in appearance between someone anchoring and not anchoring a belly length putter? That has to be your argument if you insist on harping away in this manner. And it's utterly ridiculous at this point. You now have their reasons. speculation time is over. I enjoy the debate, I appreciate your point of view as an anchored putter user and i encourage you to speak your mind. But if you are going to criticize the decision, at least do it on the basis on which they actually made the decision not the hunch you have about it all.
[/quote]

Hey Kymar ... I actually just made a long argument that a lot of it was, indeed, about how things looked (please do not just dismiss it out of hand, look above on this page).

All ruling sports bodies give press conferences ... but thinking those press conferences, and the reasons given, are 100% the factual truth (and not carefully written political statements done by trained publicists) is a bit contrary to reason, no?
[/quote]

So what you're saying is, it [i]really really really [/i]is just about how it looks. But they are what, too scared or intimidated to admit it? And if that is the case. Then they are just chicken S*** liars? And again, how does someone using a non anchored long putter "look" any better than an anchored one? If it was about appearance, wouldn't the equipment be banned? Wouldn't Kuchar's style of putting be banned, just on how it looks?.The facts belie the notion in it's entirety.

They said they believe the stroke should be made freely and with a connection only with the hands. Numerous times. I realize that reasoning may not be enough to convince everyone that it was the right decision, and I don't mind debating the merits of that. Everyone ask yourselves objectively which makes more sense.

They have reasons and articulated them the best they could. They are sound, reasoned but also controversial and arguable. They are prepared for controversy, but believe what they believe about what should constitute a stroke and, as the care taker of the game, made the ruling based on that determination.
OR
They just don't like long putters. they hate the way keegan looks with that thing jammed in his gut and decided on that basis to simply make this rule then seek to come up with another reason that sounds better and then stumbled into this whole "what makes a stroke" argument and decided to merely use that as cover for their real issue of appearance?

Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

Well, okay, that "either/or" is kinda ridiculous, no? When things are framed so (obviously) one-sided, it is really not worth arguing about (I'm watching the same thing right now in politics, either you accept everything Obama wants, OR you hate poor people).

If you think what I was trying to say has no merit, I'm fine with you dismissing it. I really don't have skin in this game (and it seems like you do).

I will assert that anyone who thinks the rules body of [i]any[/i] sport makes decisions with [i]no[/i] regards to popularity, and how things look and feel ... simply does not understand what sport is.

But I've said my last piece here. Been too busy with work lately to get on WRX, but couldn't resist popping in when this decision came down. But really, noting new has been said since the 4th page or so - including what I wrote ... ... (amazing how quickly this got boring).

Ta.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='TexasAg' timestamp='1354158744' post='5993253']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

My guess is that not banning the equipment itself helps fend off a lawsuit from the manufacturers. The golf equipment market that declined something like 30% over the past decade.and you better believe that the manufacturers are not happy about the USGA and R&A effectively shutting down a new product category that provides an opportunity to sell an additional putter to golfers.
[/quote]

So this is a multi-level conspiracy? Even your answer fails to answer the question based on the premise that this rule was made not for the reasons given, but only because of how it looks? And what about their history makes you think the USGA or R&A are afraid to be sued? and fight a battle with an OEM? The very fact that they left the equipment alone tells us how it looks is not the issue. Because how it looks, isn't going to change all that much.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1354155993' post='5993009']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354155671' post='5992989']
You still going on about this "for the sake of appearance" nonsense? Did you see the press conference? Did you read the transcript? Who made mention of this "how it looks" stuff? Thats right, nobody. But you can't just abandon your ongoing narrative all of the sudden, even in the face of the facts. What did they say was the over riding factor in making the this decision? That its about what constitutes a stroke. if they wanted to do away with appearances, why isn't this an equipment ban? Why are Belly and long putters still legal for play? Are you suggesting that there is some obvious difference in appearance between someone anchoring and not anchoring a belly length putter? That has to be your argument if you insist on harping away in this manner. And it's utterly ridiculous at this point. You now have their reasons. speculation time is over. I enjoy the debate, I appreciate your point of view as an anchored putter user and i encourage you to speak your mind. But if you are going to criticize the decision, at least do it on the basis on which they actually made the decision not the hunch you have about it all.
[/quote]

Hey Kymar ... I actually just made a long argument that a lot of it was, indeed, about how things looked (please do not just dismiss it out of hand, look above on this page).

All ruling sports bodies give press conferences ... but thinking those press conferences, and the reasons given, are 100% the factual truth (and not carefully written political statements done by trained publicists) is a bit contrary to reason, no?
[/quote]

So what you're saying is, it [i]really really really [/i]is just about how it looks. But they are what, too scared or intimidated to admit it? And if that is the case. Then they are just chicken S*** liars? And again, how does someone using a non anchored long putter "look" any better than an anchored one? If it was about appearance, wouldn't the equipment be banned? Wouldn't Kuchar's style of putting be banned, just on how it looks?.The facts belie the notion in it's entirety.

They said they believe the stroke should be made freely and with a connection only with the hands. Numerous times. I realize that reasoning may not be enough to convince everyone that it was the right decision, and I don't mind debating the merits of that. Everyone ask yourselves objectively which makes more sense.

They have reasons and articulated them the best they could. They are sound, reasoned but also controversial and arguable. They are prepared for controversy, but believe what they believe about what should constitute a stroke and, as the care taker of the game, made the ruling based on that determination.
OR
They just don't like long putters. they hate the way keegan looks with that thing jammed in his gut and decided on that basis to simply make this rule then seek to come up with another reason that sounds better and then stumbled into this whole "what makes a stroke" argument and decided to merely use that as cover for their real issue of appearance?

Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

At the end of the day, yes, I think it is largely about how this stroke looks...and right now, this is the best they could do...it's a whole bunch of window dressing...Also, there are probably some people who think they didn't go far enough with this "proposal"...but at the very least, they're taking steps to get rid of game of this evil...
That being said, there is no way on God's green earth I'll ever know what the USGA is thinking...I'm not sure even they know what they're thinking...how they allow the kuchar method, but not other methods, is again, well beyond my ability to reason...I actually don't find their reasoning very compelling...I find it short sighted and if this is their "sound and reasoned" approach, I find that bothersome and lacking...

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354159507' post='5993315']
[quote name='TexasAg' timestamp='1354158744' post='5993253']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

My guess is that not banning the equipment itself helps fend off a lawsuit from the manufacturers. The golf equipment market that declined something like 30% over the past decade.and you better believe that the manufacturers are not happy about the USGA and R&A effectively shutting down a new product category that provides an opportunity to sell an additional putter to golfers.
[/quote]

So this is a multi-level conspiracy? Even your answer fails to answer the question based on the premise that this rule was made not for the reasons given, but only because of how it looks? And what about their history makes you think the USGA or R&A are afraid to be sued? and fight a battle with an OEM? The very fact that they left the equipment alone tells us how it looks is not the issue. Because how it looks, isn't going to change all that much.
[/quote]

That's making a rather large assumption that all "anchorers" are going to use a stroke which most nearly resembles their current stroke...I'm not sure how we know that already...

[KYMAR]

[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1354159312' post='5993293']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1354155993' post='5993009']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354155671' post='5992989']
You still going on about this "for the sake of appearance" nonsense? Did you see the press conference? Did you read the transcript? Who made mention of this "how it looks" stuff? Thats right, nobody. But you can't just abandon your ongoing narrative all of the sudden, even in the face of the facts. What did they say was the over riding factor in making the this decision? That its about what constitutes a stroke. if they wanted to do away with appearances, why isn't this an equipment ban? Why are Belly and long putters still legal for play? Are you suggesting that there is some obvious difference in appearance between someone anchoring and not anchoring a belly length putter? That has to be your argument if you insist on harping away in this manner. And it's utterly ridiculous at this point. You now have their reasons. speculation time is over. I enjoy the debate, I appreciate your point of view as an anchored putter user and i encourage you to speak your mind. But if you are going to criticize the decision, at least do it on the basis on which they actually made the decision not the hunch you have about it all.
[/quote]

Hey Kymar ... I actually just made a long argument that a lot of it was, indeed, about how things looked (please do not just dismiss it out of hand, look above on this page).

All ruling sports bodies give press conferences ... but thinking those press conferences, and the reasons given, are 100% the factual truth (and not carefully written political statements done by trained publicists) is a bit contrary to reason, no?
[/quote]

So what you're saying is, it [i]really really really [/i]is just about how it looks. But they are what, too scared or intimidated to admit it? And if that is the case. Then they are just chicken S*** liars? And again, how does someone using a non anchored long putter "look" any better than an anchored one? If it was about appearance, wouldn't the equipment be banned? Wouldn't Kuchar's style of putting be banned, just on how it looks?.The facts belie the notion in it's entirety.

They said they believe the stroke should be made freely and with a connection only with the hands. Numerous times. I realize that reasoning may not be enough to convince everyone that it was the right decision, and I don't mind debating the merits of that. Everyone ask yourselves objectively which makes more sense.

They have reasons and articulated them the best they could. They are sound, reasoned but also controversial and arguable. They are prepared for controversy, but believe what they believe about what should constitute a stroke and, as the care taker of the game, made the ruling based on that determination.
OR
They just don't like long putters. they hate the way keegan looks with that thing jammed in his gut and decided on that basis to simply make this rule then seek to come up with another reason that sounds better and then stumbled into this whole "what makes a stroke" argument and decided to merely use that as cover for their real issue of appearance?

Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

Well, okay, that "either/or" is kinda ridiculous, no? When things are framed so (obviously) one-sided, it is really not worth arguing about (I'm watching the same thing right now in politics, either you accept everything Obama wants, OR you hate poor people).

If you think what I was trying to say has no merit, I'm fine with you dismissing it. I really don't have skin in this game (and it seems like you do).

I will assert that anyone who thinks the rules body of [i]any[/i] sport makes decisions with [i]no[/i] regards to popularity, and how things look and feel ... simply does not understand what sport is.

But I've said my last piece here. Been too busy with work lately to get on WRX, but couldn't resist popping in when this decision came down. But really, noting new has been said since the 4th page or so - including what I wrote ... ... (amazing how quickly this got boring).

Ta.
[/quote]

Bob it's not that i am dismissing your entire argument. I don't disagree that whats said at a press conference isn't always the total truth. But in this example the argued "secret real reason" behind this doe not make sense, Because if their real motivation was how these pieces of equipment look, then would have done away with the equipment. I am all for arguing the merit based on the reasons given. Or the fact that so much time has gone by, or that retailers and equipment companies will lose out. There are plenty of legit reasons to be against this rule. But this "appearance" argument simply isn't one of them.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354159769' post='5993337']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354159507' post='5993315']
[quote name='TexasAg' timestamp='1354158744' post='5993253']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

My guess is that not banning the equipment itself helps fend off a lawsuit from the manufacturers. The golf equipment market that declined something like 30% over the past decade.and you better believe that the manufacturers are not happy about the USGA and R&A effectively shutting down a new product category that provides an opportunity to sell an additional putter to golfers.
[/quote]

So this is a multi-level conspiracy? Even your answer fails to answer the question based on the premise that this rule was made not for the reasons given, but only because of how it looks? And what about their history makes you think the USGA or R&A are afraid to be sued? and fight a battle with an OEM? The very fact that they left the equipment alone tells us how it looks is not the issue. Because how it looks, isn't going to change all that much.
[/quote]

That's making a rather large assumption that all "anchorers" are going to use a stroke which most nearly resembles their current stroke...I'm not sure how we know that already...
[/quote]

This thread alone is full of people who have said they will use long putters still, minus anchoring. You are stating its all about appearance, so even if say, 50% of people just abandon it and go to a standard length putter, that's still a whole lot of "lookin' bad" out there no?

[Justin_Ellis]

http://www.change.org/petitions/usga-stop-the-rule-change-banning-belly-and-long-putters?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

[pjcallen]

Golf is dying a slow death in terms of rounds played and the financial health of golf courses is at a low. So in order to lose another 5 to 10% of the golfers the USGA throws out a putting method that has been going on for years. What a bad decision by the folks that are supposed to protect the game. What were they thinking. This is a big fail!

[jons1]

Nothing i didn't expect and heard through the grapevine some time ago.

You can still use long putters in a way that helps improve your ability to stroke the ball. All in all, it was bound to happen. There are a lot of great players that are concerned this means their careers are over. Not over to the point of being driven out of the game, but winning a major for the 40+... maybe an issue.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='pjcallen' timestamp='1354161236' post='5993433']
Golf is dying a slow death in terms of rounds played and the financial health of golf courses is at a low.[b] So in order to lose another 5 to 10% of the golfers[/b] the USGA throws out a putting method that has been going on for years. What a bad decision by the folks that are supposed to protect the game. What were they thinking. This is a big fail!
[/quote]

Source?

[307golf]

[quote]They said they believe the stroke should be made freely and with a connection only with the hands. Numerous times.[/quote]

Yet they allowed the putter to be anchored to a part of the body other than the hands...

[felchone]

Is change such a bad thing?? The game today hardly resembles the game, Jones, Hogan, or even Palmer played. Equipment has had an irrevocable impact on the game. One could also argue that so has course maintenance. Putting strokes today look very different than the strokes used 50 yrs ago due to the way greens are now maintained and the equipment used.

In my view, all that has transpired here, is a bunch of self-important stuffed shirts decided to rule against a way of getting the ball in the hole that made the game more enjoyable and thus more attractive to a lot of players. If everyone used belly putters, would that be such a bad thing? If you don't like them, don't use one.

This decision is made with the elite very few in mind and has absolutely nothing to do with the well-being of the game.

Now, I know there has been comments made about if you want to anchor a putter and you're playing with friends then go ahead and anchor, but let's not forget an important part of golf....ego. It's the same reason we use blades over gi irons, and pay premium $$$$ for TP and tour models. Most golfers aren't going to want to anchor and be subject to criticism.

[307golf]

KYMAR;

You're starting to look desperate. bobfoster has offered a very valid argument that you have yet to poke any holes in yet you are lashing out for data on a decision that is less than a day old. Obviously it's mostly speculation at this point. Some speculation is just better and more reasonable.

We'll see how it will play out.

I use a long putter. I don't have a problem with the decision other than I believe that it's inconsistent. Anchoring the putter grip against the forearm is absolutely not "made freely and with a connection only with the hands". Other than the inconsistency, I think it was likely important for the USGA and R&A to make this decision. Data or no data, it doesn't look like a golf swing.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354160790' post='5993399']
[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354159769' post='5993337']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354159507' post='5993315']
[quote name='TexasAg' timestamp='1354158744' post='5993253']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354157331' post='5993119']
Why would they bother with such a charade AND KEEP THE EQUIPMENT LEGAL if how it looks is the problem?
[/quote]

My guess is that not banning the equipment itself helps fend off a lawsuit from the manufacturers. The golf equipment market that declined something like 30% over the past decade.and you better believe that the manufacturers are not happy about the USGA and R&A effectively shutting down a new product category that provides an opportunity to sell an additional putter to golfers.
[/quote]

So this is a multi-level conspiracy? Even your answer fails to answer the question based on the premise that this rule was made not for the reasons given, but only because of how it looks? And what about their history makes you think the USGA or R&A are afraid to be sued? and fight a battle with an OEM? The very fact that they left the equipment alone tells us how it looks is not the issue. Because how it looks, isn't going to change all that much.
[/quote]

That's making a rather large assumption that all "anchorers" are going to use a stroke which most nearly resembles their current stroke...I'm not sure how we know that already...
[/quote]

This thread alone is full of people who have said they will use long putters still, minus anchoring. You are stating its all about appearance, so even if say, 50% of people just abandon it and go to a standard length putter, that's still a whole lot of "lookin' bad" out there no?
[/quote]

Yes, it certainly would be...but that would also be 50% less "ugly" than there is currently...and my best guess, is that they absolutely know that in implementing this rule change, fewer people will be using long putters and "in the best interest of the future of the game" that number will become less and less as we move forward...to get rid of the equipment (you keep asking why they didn't go this route if it was only about appearance) entirely would be much, much tougher to do given the subjective nature of the "proposal"...so this is a bit of a circumvented way to get rid of some of the equipment which they despise, all the while, not requiring any proof or evidence...

[307golf]

Why does the USGA or R&A have a responsibility to make the game more enjoyable?

Does the governing body of basketball lower the rim to make the game more enjoyable for short fat guys who can't jump? The long putters were a bit of a loophole. It's pretty obvious to me, even though I have used and won a fair number of tournaments using one.

The point is that we shouldn't have to dumb down the game in order to make it enjoyable.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='307golf' timestamp='1354161486' post='5993455']
[quote]They said they believe the stroke should be made freely and with a connection only with the hands. Numerous times.[/quote]

Yet they allowed the putter to be anchored to a part of the body other than the hands...
[/quote]

Are you referencing the Kuchar grip? The distinction is clear. Just by looking at what he does, it's not even close to the same thing as anchoring the putter to the body. They rightly said that in kuchars case, the whole of the putter is still moving and is swung freely. There is no fulcrum point created. You may not like it, but that is what they banned.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354162189' post='5993507']
[quote name='307golf' timestamp='1354161486' post='5993455']
[quote]They said they believe the stroke should be made freely and with a connection only with the hands. Numerous times.[/quote]

Yet they allowed the putter to be anchored to a part of the body other than the hands...
[/quote]

Are you referencing the Kuchar grip? The distinction is clear. Just by looking at what he does, it's not even close to the same thing as anchoring the putter to the body. They rightly said that in kuchars case, the whole of the putter is still moving and is swung freely. There is no fulcrum point created. You may not like it, but that is what they banned.
[/quote]
How on earth is the whole of the putter doing anything when a significant portion of it is fixed to the forearm?...in a clear effort to create additional stability...the whole putter is not subject to a free swing...I know the USGA is making a distinction here, but it surely isn't clear to me...perhaps not a fulcrum point, but how this isn't anchoring or at the very least something other than a "free swing" is a bit of a mystery to me...I'm sure Kuchar is quite happy...might be getting a lot of phone calls for tutorials!

[Crab Daddy]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1354145206' post='5992091']
older players who want to use long putters for health reasons still can, just don't anchor them...again no real issue there IMO. If your hands shake over a putt maybe you shouldn't be a great golfer. I mean if your hands shake while shooting a free throw in basketball, you are just bad at free throws, simple as that
[/quote]

Or you could use a different method, like Jerry West?

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='pjcallen' timestamp='1354161236' post='5993433']
Golf is dying a slow death in terms of rounds played and the financial health of golf courses is at a low. So in order to lose another 5 to 10% of the golfers the USGA throws out a putting method that has been going on for years. What a bad decision by the folks that are supposed to protect the game. What were they thinking. This is a big fail!
[/quote]

Go to any range

Watch all the new golfers

Avoid the short game and putting practice area

Head to the stall

Pull out their driver

And start swinging from their heels

Putting is the last thing the annual influx of new golfers/buyers is thinking of.