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

[nbg352]

[i]Well, let's see. I can hold my forearms against my body while I putt, which creates exactly the same feel and stroke as if the butt of the putter was resting against my belly. I'm beginning to see the logic of this proposed ban now.....[/i]
[i]I cannot rest my forearms against my body to create any achoring if I'm using a long putter....bye bye long putter.[/i]
[i]Wait, I can use the long putter to create a perfectly legal and easy to execute side saddle stroke. Ok long putter is back in business, but I don't get the forearms thing. Legal in one stroke but not the other?[/i]
[i]I guess the ruling bodies don't like the long putter more than they don't like the belly putter.[/i]
[i]Bottom line in my book? Pandora's box has been opened. If they think Sam Snead was innovative with his croquet stroke, they ain't seen nothing yet. The inventiveness of a desperate golfer is endless. The mighty ruling bodies are in way over their heads, now.....[/i]

[highergr0und]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1354199504' post='5994491']
Are those against the ban also in favor of legalizing the Snead stroke, or pool cue style? If everyone can do it, it would be fair. There was no statistical data showing an advantage. Why aren't these "strokes" legal?

Also, regarding the USGA hate. You don't have to play by any and all of their rules. And if you truly think that many people are pissed and ready to leave golf, start your own governing body. Perhaps all the belly users will follow and you'll have a large organization. Then YOU can dictate driver size and ball distance as well. You'll solve all of golf's problems and we'll all forget the evil USGA!
[/quote]

Well, Snead all of a sudden putting out of his mind with it. The pool cue stroke? Not sure because it was so long ago. The thing is that with both of those strokes, they struck the ban as soon as possible after they appeared on the scene, not after years of allowing it.

I've debated this before, but I agree that the stroke is not natural. I do not agree that it should be banned after years of allowing it.

[wobgon]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354183486' post='5994055']
[quote name='Justin_Ellis' timestamp='1354160848' post='5993403']
[url="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"]http://www.change.or...etition_created[/url]
[/quote]
Maybe you should start another petition for them to make the hole bigger - the game's too hard.
[/quote]

I guarantee that if they tried to take something from you that you wanted to use, you would cry like a baby.

[nbg352]

And while I'm at it, I'd like to ask about the 600 year tradition and spirit that the anchored stroke seems to be violating.
How on earth does anyone in the USGA or R&A have any idea what kind of putting stroke has been used over that length of time? There is hardly any way they could know. Documentation is scarce, there are no photos until the mid 19th century and any drawings attached to any historical documentation, rare indeed.
Trust me when I tell you that if the spirit of golf intended that the putting stroke be just like the stroke used on 13 other clubs (hmmm....think they used 13 clubs way back when?) or frowned against anchoring, the rules as we knew them on Tuesday would have reflected this intention and we never would be having this debate today.

[imakaveli]

[quote name='HoosierMizuno' timestamp='1354203810' post='5994775']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1354153700' post='5992793']
Adam, Keegan and Webb

They just told you that you are losers!

Anyway,

Make no mistake

More Tiger Woods hand prints on this than a Pancake House waitresess.

Way to go Tiger!

The children would have been figuring out how to putt with an iPhone app if this line was not drawn

Across this line you will not cross!

Dude
[/quote]

how's come no one is blaming luke donald, rory, graeme, ian poulter, or the countless other pros in favor of the ban. get off tigers back. he gave his opinion just like everyone else.
[/quote]

I think mainly because if Tiger said "I like the belly putter" it wouldn't have been banned (imho)

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354208053' post='5995129']
[i]Well, let's see. I can hold my forearms against my body while I putt, which creates exactly the same feel and stroke as if the butt of the putter was resting against my belly. I'm beginning to see the logic of this proposed ban now.....[/i]
[i]I cannot rest my forearms against my body to create any achoring if I'm using a long putter....bye bye long putter.[/i]
[i]Wait, I can use the long putter to create a perfectly legal and easy to execute side saddle stroke. Ok long putter is back in business, but I don't get the forearms thing. Legal in one stroke but not the other?[/i]
[i]I guess the ruling bodies don't like the long putter more than they don't like the belly putter.[/i]
[i]Bottom line in my book? Pandora's box has been opened. If they think Sam Snead was innovative with his croquet stroke, they ain't seen nothing yet. The inventiveness of a desperate golfer is endless. The mighty ruling bodies are in way over their heads, now.....[/i]
[/quote]

By 2020ish, this won't even be a blimp on the radar of golf history. And if you listened to what they said, they [i]encouraged people [/i]to be creative in coming up with alternatives that will help them calm their shaky hands and overcome the yips. Pandora's box? Come on man lol it takes your bias on the subject to conclude such things. This is Similar to the "there will be a mass exodus from golf because of this!" speak (though I am sad to see 502 right go) All crap, golf is losing players and rounds played by those who still play because it's too expensive, it take too long and our economy sucks. But I realize the whining will continue for a time. And i get that. But in time, people will look back who now have no real opinion on the matter and the only thing they will say is "can you believe they ever allowed that?"

[imakaveli]

Awesome!

 

[nbg352]

[quote name='rockinar' timestamp='1354176690' post='5993973']
[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]


They said anchoring with hands or forearm is a no-no. But you CAN anchor with your elbow.
[/quote]
Nope. Forearms against the body with a short or mid length putter is ok but not okay with a long putter. Check out pics on page one

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='Chippster' timestamp='1354157135' post='5993103']
What about really fat people who play golf? When their forearms touch their belly while over a putt: penalty!
[/quote]

Great way to tackle the obesity problem in America. Too fat? Lose weight or start getting penalty strokes Bubba!

[tembolo1284]

Awesome!

 

 

That's some funny stuff.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354208928' post='5995221']
And while I'm at it, I'd like to ask about the 600 year tradition and spirit that the anchored stroke seems to be violating.
How on earth does anyone in the USGA or R&A have any idea what kind of putting stroke has been used over that length of time? There is hardly any way they could know. Documentation is scarce, there are no photos until the mid 19th century and any drawings attached to any historical documentation, rare indeed.
Trust me when I tell you that if the spirit of golf intended that the putting stroke be just like the stroke used on 13 other clubs (hmmm....think they used 13 clubs way back when?) or frowned against anchoring, the rules as we knew them on Tuesday would have reflected this intention and we never would be having this debate today.
[/quote]

Can you point out to me the portion of the trancript where they talked about history and tradition being a determining factor in making this decision? The ruling was made to clarify what constitutes a stroke. All of these arguments about tradition and appearance are still being made, even though those weren't given much if any weight in the decision. Unless of course your bias has you all conspiracy theoried up, with the "well what they really mean is....." thing. Which makes them dispicable liars on top of poor managers of the game. Man they are just awful

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354209331' post='5995251']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354208053' post='5995129']
[i]Well, let's see. I can hold my forearms against my body while I putt, which creates exactly the same feel and stroke as if the butt of the putter was resting against my belly. I'm beginning to see the logic of this proposed ban now.....[/i]
[i]I cannot rest my forearms against my body to create any achoring if I'm using a long putter....bye bye long putter.[/i]
[i]Wait, I can use the long putter to create a perfectly legal and easy to execute side saddle stroke. Ok long putter is back in business, but I don't get the forearms thing. Legal in one stroke but not the other?[/i]
[i]I guess the ruling bodies don't like the long putter more than they don't like the belly putter.[/i]
[i]Bottom line in my book? Pandora's box has been opened. If they think Sam Snead was innovative with his croquet stroke, they ain't seen nothing yet. The inventiveness of a desperate golfer is endless. The mighty ruling bodies are in way over their heads, now.....[/i]
[/quote]

By 2020ish, this won't even be a blimp on the radar of golf history. And if you listened to what they said, they [i]encouraged people [/i]to be creative in coming up with alternatives that will help them calm their shaky hands and overcome the yips. Pandora's box? Come on man lol it takes your bias on the subject to conclude such things. This is Similar to the "there will be a mass exodus from golf because of this!" speak (though I am sad to see 502 right go) All crap, golf is losing players and rounds played by those who still play because it's too expensive, it take too long and our economy sucks.[b] But I realize the whining will continue for a time.[/b] And i get that. But in time, people will look back who now have no real opinion on the matter and the only thing they will say is "can you believe they ever allowed that?"
[/quote]
And others will continue to gloat?
I'm not whining. I don't have the yips. I just think the ruling is fundamentally wrong. Period.
We will see how golf is affected. I think that the area of putting could be turbulent for many years. II don't think the game will lose players and I don't think the game will be diminished. The USGA and R&A are damaged goods. Making such an arbitrary ruling is costly.I fully expected that my no proof argument would be blown sky high. It wasn't. This decision only proved something else I've been saying all along. It was banned because they don't like it.
Inventiveness and creativity have been given carte blanche. It will be interesting.....

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354209632' post='5995289']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354208928' post='5995221']
And while I'm at it, I'd like to ask about the 600 year tradition and spirit that the anchored stroke seems to be violating.
How on earth does anyone in the USGA or R&A have any idea what kind of putting stroke has been used over that length of time? There is hardly any way they could know. Documentation is scarce, there are no photos until the mid 19th century and any drawings attached to any historical documentation, rare indeed.
Trust me when I tell you that if the spirit of golf intended that the putting stroke be just like the stroke used on 13 other clubs (hmmm....think they used 13 clubs way back when?) or frowned against anchoring, the rules as we knew them on Tuesday would have reflected this intention and we never would be having this debate today.
[/quote]

Can you point out to me the portion of the trancript where they talked about history and tradition being a determining factor in making this decision? The ruling was made to clarify what constitutes a stroke. All of these arguments about tradition and appearance are still being made, even though those weren't given much if any weight in the decision. Unless of course your bias has you all conspiracy theoried up, with the "well what they really mean is....." thing. Which makes them dispicable liars on top of poor managers of the game. Man they are just awful
[/quote]
Right here:
[color="#000000"]“Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball,” said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis. “The player’s challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.”[/color]
Like I said, How could they possibly know what went through the minds of golf's forefathers. Simple. They can't and don't. This is about them and what they do not or do like.

[imakaveli]

It's just me or they are trying to find an excuse to justify this ban?

[KYMAR]

Just because you and like minded people call the ruling arbitrary, doesn't make it so. i would counter by saying that it was the only ruling that could have been made. That they had a legitimate concern that anchoring the club diminishes the skill requirement that golf demands. That they took a long time and looked at every repercussion from making it and did it anyway. I look at it like they sought and got input from many sources I look at it more like they did this regardless of the backlash and full on doom's day sad face people like Dave Pelz and apparently Tom Lehman. They aren't in the business of making people happy, they are in the business of doing what's best for the game. As Davis said [i]for the future [/i]So you can stay on your soapbox and make statement after statement about how ridiculous it is that they did this for traditions sake even though, that is not their reason. And if you would admit to believing them liars, them you have to also believe it's just a cover story. And therefore a conspiracy. And then you have to come up with something reasonable as to how a cover story that is received as poorly by some as their [i]real reason[/i] would have been, makes any damn sense at all. You think they have opened Pandora's box, I think you are stuck it nbg352's labyrinth.

[spooky]

[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1354208892' post='5995219']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354183486' post='5994055']
[quote name='Justin_Ellis' timestamp='1354160848' post='5993403']
[url="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"]http://www.change.or...etition_created[/url]
[/quote]
Maybe you should start another petition for them to make the hole bigger - the game's too hard.
[/quote]

I guarantee that if they tried to take something from you that you wanted to use, you would cry like a baby.
[/quote]
Of course I would. You're funny.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354183143' post='5994045']
[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354155711' post='5992993']
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...
[/quote]
No, it is not all about appearance - it's about having to define what a stroke should be. To me it was always about grabbing the club with both hands and swinging it - now we have had to get a definition to stop people trying to get around the inherent difficulty - shame it was necessary. That's why many used to feel it was cheating - people were finding a way around the inherent difficulty instead of trying to overcome that difficulty by ability and practice. Not illegal according to the rules but... slightly distasteful. I'd love to see where they ever said that anchoring the club was fine - I think you are confusing the previous decision on a piece of equipment being legal according to the rules in place at the time (such pieces of equipment still being legal).

No, I'm not confusing it at all...there are a host of articles in Golf World and other publications (as well as the transcript from yesterday) which state this directly...they reviewed the issue several times before and the authorities at the ruling bodies said it was just fine...this is part of the reason it makes this "proposal" so asinine - You can certainly choose to believe that it is about a stroke and defining what a stroke is...but, then you're taking the USGA and R&A at face value, which imo, is giving them far too much credit...and you're then ignoring the myriad inconsistencies in their statements...
[quote name='smoky25' timestamp='1354156201' post='5993023']
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.
[/quote]
We had that argument ages ago - now it is a moot point. Many tried to argue (and no doubt will still try) that there was actually no advantage to the technique.

[quote name='bobfoster' timestamp='1354159312' post='5993293']
(amazing how quickly this got boring).
[/quote]
Yeah bob, why did you do that? :p

[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354162890' post='5993547']
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!
[/quote]
The fact that the butt of the putter isn't kept in one place is not clear? You really cannot see the difference between an anchored stroke and Kuchar's method? Perhaps it wouldn't suit your argument to do so.
[/quote]

There are differences, but they are subtle at best....yes, anchoring a putter to your forearm doesn't provide a single fixed location for the butt of the club (btw, anchoring it to your chest doesn't do this either as the butt of the club can still move slightly off it's intended location...but I guess that might be splitting hairs...) but you can't tell me with a straight face that the purists and those appealing to the "spirit of the game" really think that the Kuchar method is a "free swing"

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354210345' post='5995343']
Right here:
"Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball,” said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis.
[/quote]
You might be onto something - clearly Davis is talking utter nonsense! Maybe he has confused it with another sport?

[spooky]

[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354211217' post='5995441']
There are differences, but they are subtle at best....yes, anchoring a putter to your forearm doesn't provide a single fixed location for the butt of the club (btw, anchoring it to your chest doesn't do this either as the butt of the club can still move slightly off it's intended location...but I guess that might be splitting hairs...) but you can't tell me with a straight face that the purists and those appealing to the "spirit of the game" really think that the Kuchar method is a "free swing"
[/quote]
I would say more than subtle - Kuchar makes no attempt to make the butt of the club into a fixed pivot point. A line has to be drawn somewhere and I think they have got it right with this decision.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354210345' post='5995343']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354209632' post='5995289']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354208928' post='5995221']
And while I'm at it, I'd like to ask about the 600 year tradition and spirit that the anchored stroke seems to be violating.
How on earth does anyone in the USGA or R&A have any idea what kind of putting stroke has been used over that length of time? There is hardly any way they could know. Documentation is scarce, there are no photos until the mid 19th century and any drawings attached to any historical documentation, rare indeed.
Trust me when I tell you that if the spirit of golf intended that the putting stroke be just like the stroke used on 13 other clubs (hmmm....think they used 13 clubs way back when?) or frowned against anchoring, the rules as we knew them on Tuesday would have reflected this intention and we never would be having this debate today.
[/quote]

Can you point out to me the portion of the trancript where they talked about history and tradition being a determining factor in making this decision? The ruling was made to clarify what constitutes a stroke. All of these arguments about tradition and appearance are still being made, even though those weren't given much if any weight in the decision. Unless of course your bias has you all conspiracy theoried up, with the "well what they really mean is....." thing. Which makes them dispicable liars on top of poor managers of the game. Man they are just awful
[/quote]
Right here:
[color=#000000]“Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball,” said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis. “The player’s challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.”[/color]
Like I said, How could they possibly know what went through the minds of golf's forefathers. Simple. They can't and don't. This is about them and what they do not or do like.
[/quote]

Of course they use the games history as a source and to be informed. It's never something to be ignored in any ruling. But contextually most of that quote is related to the future. .listen to the whole of the argument and 99 % of it is about the future of the game. You find the crux of the matter in this [color="#000000"]“The player’s challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge." As far as I am concerned, nothing else is at issue, not 80 years or even 600 years. To point out the historical significance of the ruling doesn't make the ruling a bad one. Plus, you want them to prove that for the vast majority of the history of the game, the stroke or swing has been made in an unachored way? You don't need data to show that either! that's how golf is played despite the occasional outlier. It's the right ruling, it's the way the game should be played going forward, anchoring the putter to steady your hands and make golf easier is an easy thing to disallow. By any rationale in my view. As I said if they had just come out and said "we don't like it" that would have been fine with me. [/color]

[FairwaysToHeaven]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354211757' post='5995479']
[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354211217' post='5995441']
There are differences, but they are subtle at best....yes, anchoring a putter to your forearm doesn't provide a single fixed location for the butt of the club (btw, anchoring it to your chest doesn't do this either as the butt of the club can still move slightly off it's intended location...but I guess that might be splitting hairs...) but you can't tell me with a straight face that the purists and those appealing to the "spirit of the game" really think that the Kuchar method is a "free swing"
[/quote]
I would say more than subtle - Kuchar makes no attempt to make the butt of the club into a fixed pivot point. A line has to be drawn somewhere and I think they have got it right with this decision.
[/quote]

i'd agree. i hate the idea of allowing anchoring in putting but have no problem with kuchar's method

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354211887' post='5995499']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354210345' post='5995343']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354209632' post='5995289']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354208928' post='5995221']
And while I'm at it, I'd like to ask about the 600 year tradition and spirit that the anchored stroke seems to be violating.
How on earth does anyone in the USGA or R&A have any idea what kind of putting stroke has been used over that length of time? There is hardly any way they could know. Documentation is scarce, there are no photos until the mid 19th century and any drawings attached to any historical documentation, rare indeed.
Trust me when I tell you that if the spirit of golf intended that the putting stroke be just like the stroke used on 13 other clubs (hmmm....think they used 13 clubs way back when?) or frowned against anchoring, the rules as we knew them on Tuesday would have reflected this intention and we never would be having this debate today.
[/quote]

Can you point out to me the portion of the trancript where they talked about history and tradition being a determining factor in making this decision? The ruling was made to clarify what constitutes a stroke. All of these arguments about tradition and appearance are still being made, even though those weren't given much if any weight in the decision. Unless of course your bias has you all conspiracy theoried up, with the "well what they really mean is....." thing. Which makes them dispicable liars on top of poor managers of the game. Man they are just awful
[/quote]
Right here:
[color=#000000]“Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball,” said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis. “The player’s challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club.”[/color]
Like I said, How could they possibly know what went through the minds of golf's forefathers. Simple. They can't and don't. This is about them and what they do not or do like.
[/quote]

Of course they use the games history as a source and to be informed. It's never something to be ignored in any ruling. But contextually most of that quote is related to the future. .listen to the whole of the argument and 99 % of it is about the future of the game. You find the crux of the matter in this [color=#000000]“The player’s challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge." As far as I am concerned, nothing else is at issue, not 80 years or even 600 years. To point out the historical significance of the ruling doesn't make the ruling a bad one. Plus, you want them to prove that for the vast majority of the history of the game, the stroke or swing has been made in an unachored way? You don't need data to show that either! that's how golf is played despite the occasional outlier. It's the right ruling, it's the way the game should be played going forward, anchoring the putter to steady your hands and make golf easier is an easy thing to disallow. By any rationale in my view. As I said if they had just come out and said "we don't like it" that would have been fine with me. [/color]
[/quote]
It's clear that the best we can expect here is to agree to disagree. We both believe our opinions to be the correct one. Truth be known, there is probably validity in each. Neither of us can see that just now. No different than a right wing politician butting heads with his left wing counterpart. All part of the natural process.Those who read our repartee will come to their own conclusions, I guess

[matt_included]

What would happen if instead of the USGA and R&A altering to rules of golf for the average player, the PGA proposed a ban across the board at the professional level in-lue of an anchoring clarification for the rules of golf? Essentially meaning that the PGA / Professional Golf will ban anchored putting if the USGA and R&A do not...

In my mind, this would discourage juniors and elite amateurs from using an anchored stroke. And therefore allow area golf associations to make a determination as to its application for tournament rules and regulations. Similar to how the current groove-rule is enforced on a local, state, and national level for amateurs.

Any thoughts?

Sorry if this has already been mentioned…

[nbg352]

[quote name='HeftyLefty' timestamp='1354213292' post='5995613']
What would happen if instead of the USGA and R&A altering to rules of golf for the average player, the PGA proposed a ban across the board at the professional level in-lue of an anchoring clarification for the rules of golf? Essentially meaning that the PGA / Professional Golf will ban anchored putting if the USGA and R&A do not...

In my mind, this would discourage juniors and elite amateurs from using an anchored stroke. And therefore allow area golf associations to make a determination as to its application for tournament rules and regulations. Similar to how the current groove-rule is enforced on a local, state, and national level for amateurs.

Any thoughts?

Sorry if this has already been mentioned…
[/quote]
No bifurcation because they wish to ensure the complete eradication of anchoring the putter. They do not want it left open for use at any level. They want it dead.

[KYMAR]

Or the non cynical view, and the view expressed by Dawson, was that because this rule is expressly about what defines a golf stroke, it should be enforced equally for all players. Hed specifically said that there are areas where bifurcation of the rules may make some sense, but this is not it. I obviously agree. But I also won't really care if I am out with my buddy Rob and his then 65 year old dad in 2017 and he rolls his belly putter. Just like I didn't care when he showed up with that illegal callaway driver several year ago. Won't cause me a bit of angst. Unless there is money, or a title of any kind on the line, I don't care what guys use I am playing with in a casual round. And i don't make them re-tee if we feel their lost ball is probably OB.

[matt_included]

Truth be told...I'm in favor of the clarification / ruling. But, I understand that some recreational golfers might be jilted and continue to use an anchored stroke; thus breaking the rules of golf and deeming them un-fit for an offical handicap or even tournament play at the club level. I guess I'd like to see those golfers continue to enjoy the game at their level, which in my mind includes holding a valid handicap and playing in some local/club tournaments. In my mind, this could be potentially be acheived through a PGA or "professional golf" ban without involving the USGA or R&A. I think it would acheive the desired effects of the rules change from the USGA's standpoint in that it would discourage its use throughout junior golf and the highest levels of the amateur game.

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354214234' post='5995689']
Or the non cynical view, and the view expressed by Dawson, was that because this rule is expressly about what defines a golf stroke, it should be enforced equally for all players. Hed specifically said that there are areas where bifurcation of the rules may make some sense, but this is not it. I obviously agree. But I also won't really care if I am out with my buddy Rob and his then 65 year old dad in 2017 and he rolls his belly putter. Just like I didn't care when he showed up with that illegal callaway driver several year ago. Won't cause me a bit of angst. Unless there is money, or a title of any kind on the line, I don't care what guys use I am playing with in a casual round. And i don't make them re-tee if we feel their lost ball is probably OB.
[/quote]
I can't believe you think I'm cynical......

[KYMAR]

[quote name='HeftyLefty' timestamp='1354214736' post='5995727']
[quote]
No bifurcation because they wish to ensure the complete eradication of anchoring the putter. They do not want it left open for use at any level. They want it dead.
[/quote]

Truth be told...I'm in favor of the clarification / ruling. But, I understand that some recreational golfers might be jilted and continue to use an anchored stroke; thus breaking the rules of golf and deeming them un-fit for an offical handicap or even tournament play at the club level. I guess I'd like to see those golfers continue to enjoy the game at their level, which in my mind includes holding a valid handicap and playing in some local/club tournaments. In my mind, this could be potentially be acheived through a PGA or "professional golf" ban without involving the USGA or R&A. I think it would acheive the desired effects of the rules change from the USGA's standpoint in that it would discourage its use throughout junior golf and the highest levels of the amateur game.
[/quote]

It doesn't achieve what the USGA wants though. It wants an anchored stroke to not be part of the game of golf anymore. They stated plainly, they believe anchoring, with ANY club, is contrary to the skill requirement needed to play the game. They have agreed and decided that a golf stroke does not and should not include anchoring and based on that, there is no way to separate between pros and ams. What about High level ams? Guys who compete in national and state events should they be allowed to anchor?

[highergr0und]

But why now, why in 2012 are they making this ruling? That's the whole issue. Done. Finished. You simply cannot literally write in the rule books, via the guide to clubs here, that something is legal, then wait until someone gets good at it and take it away.

It would be akin to walking into an engineering office and removing all computers/calculators used to calculate the equations. The old guy in the corner who still uses his slide rule has always thought computers were dumb, but all the new guys who grew up in the computer age never even bothered learning the slide rule because they had a computer. Finally, there's the group who could use the slide rule, but they chose to use the computer because it's easier.

Now the old guy's happy because he's gains the most and is the sharpest. The group who used to use the slide rule suck it up and go back to it. The group that has never used it has to learn a whole new art in order to maintain a career and not get fired.

[matt_included]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354215513' post='5995813']
[quote name='HeftyLefty' timestamp='1354214736' post='5995727']
[quote]
No bifurcation because they wish to ensure the complete eradication of anchoring the putter. They do not want it left open for use at any level. They want it dead.
[/quote]

Truth be told...I'm in favor of the clarification / ruling. But, I understand that some recreational golfers might be jilted and continue to use an anchored stroke; thus breaking the rules of golf and deeming them un-fit for an offical handicap or even tournament play at the club level. I guess I'd like to see those golfers continue to enjoy the game at their level, which in my mind includes holding a valid handicap and playing in some local/club tournaments. In my mind, this could be potentially be acheived through a PGA or "professional golf" ban without involving the USGA or R&A. I think it would acheive the desired effects of the rules change from the USGA's standpoint in that it would discourage its use throughout junior golf and the highest levels of the amateur game.
[/quote]

It doesn't achieve what the USGA wants though. It wants an anchored stroke to not be part of the game of golf anymore. They stated plainly, they believe anchoring, with ANY club, is contrary to the skill requirement needed to play the game. They have agreed and decided that a golf stroke does not and should not include anchoring and based on that, there is no way to separate between pros and ams. What about High level ams? Guys who compete in national and state events should they be allowed to anchor?
[/quote]

I totally agree with you KYMAR. Too many fine lines to draw when it comes bifurication. I guess my proposal was more of a "keep everybody happy" stab at a potential compromise, but let's be honest that will never happen. I do believe that the proposed rules change or clarification of what a "stroke" is, is in the best interest of the game (long term).

But, in my proposed scenario, it would be up to the area golf associations to adopt the ban. Similar to how the current enforcement of the new groove rule is structured until its effective date. So, high level competitions would certainly adopt the ban, which in turn would discourage young, talented players from using the anchored stroke.