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

[KYMAR]

[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354225800' post='5996797']


It's it also reasonable that then no one really cared because it didn't make any difference and they had the wisdom to see that? Maybe the omission is in fact more important than the inclusion...
[/quote]

LOOL topekareal for someone so insistent on facts and data you're awfully quick to dismiss this as "maybe an omission". I thought you hated pure speculation?

[Socrates]

On both Diegel videos I posted, it's quite clear that the butt of the club is moving and is not attached to his body and that his hands and forearms are freely swinging and not attached to his torso either. Is he "close to anchoring?" Sure, he's "close" but he's not anchoring in the only video evidence that I can find. Just as if with the new rule you used a long putter and held your forearm 1/2" away from your chest - close but not anchoring. If you think he anchored, provide some video evidence that he did.

 

So then what did Casper do.

 

Boy the USGA just loves throwing their champs under the bus.

There must have been a shortage of shirt material in those years. Snappy outfit for a sausage.

[SheriffBooth]

The Ghost of Diegel is going to come back to haunt you guys for besmirching his name. Who he haunts will depend on whether he was or was not anchoring and whether he is or is not proud of the fact.

[nbg352]

[quote name='SheriffBooth' timestamp='1354226743' post='5996879']
The Ghost of Diegel is going to come back to haunt you guys for besmirching his name. Who he haunts will depend on whether he was or was not anchoring and whether he is or is not proud of the fact.
[/quote]
I don't think he cares. Apparently his fellow competitors openly laughed at his putting stroke, yet he persevered.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354210345' post='5995343']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354209632' post='5995289']


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]

The problem goes even deeper than trying to surmise the intentions of golf's mythical "forefathers".

It's an grossly inaccurate rendition of golf's history. Especially on the putting greens.

Arnold Palmer

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzvPuLLQlZ8[/media]

Bobby Jones

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnYXZ79nKKY[/media]


No anchored strokes here....move along.....Pffft....

[A.G.Blade]

fools; it doesn't matter the past. to be by the rules, its the zipper law; once a precedence is set, well, it's across the board. done deal

[hoganfan924]

You are correct, Kellygreen - no anchored strokes there either! Keep looking!

[SheriffBooth]

To me, putting is a game within the game. The idea of trying to apply the "essence" or "traditional character" of golf to putting is an absurd exercise and this new rule is wrongheaded.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354226369' post='5996841']


LOOL topekareal for someone so insistent on facts and data you're awfully quick to dismiss this as "maybe an omission". I thought you hated pure speculation?
[/quote]
Oh my friend, you haven't read my posts clearly enough then...I don't mind speculation when the stakes are low...I don't mind subjectivity when we're deciding what to order for lunch or who your favorite Victoria's Secret model is...

[spooky]

Palmer and Jones? Seriously?

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354222868' post='5996511']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354222538' post='5996479']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354222267' post='5996453']
This film is from 1940, two years after diegel's retirement. History tends to indicate that [b]his two PGA championships in '28 and '29 were influenced by an anchored putting stroke,[/b] which went on to become "Diegeling" which was not anchored but was awfully close to it.
[/quote]
So not anchored then, just to be clear?
[/quote]
anchored.
[/quote]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354226368' post='5996839']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354225934' post='5996809']
Ngb, i don't understand. help me here. In the one thing you wrote, you specifically said "Diegling is not anchoring, but pretty close to it". Did you write that, or did you take that from somewhere else?
[/quote]
My exact words:
This film is from 1940, two years after diegel's retirement. History tends to indicate that his two PGA championships in '28 and '29 were influenced by an anchored putting stroke, which went on to become "Diegeling" which was not anchored but was awfully close to it.
I used the word tends because there are differing descriptions, as was common in that time.
[/quote]
You stated that as a quote and then said that you used the word 'tends' - was it a quote or just something you wrote from a memory of something somewhere? Just curious - makes no difference whether he did or didn't anchor (although I think not).

[scotee]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354216827' post='5995949']
I have no problem with the ruling. I have a problem with the date of implementation. I think it should HAVE STARTED JAN.1 1982
[/quote]

Fixed it

[kellygreen]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354227545' post='5996955']
You are correct, Kellygreen - no anchored strokes there either! Keep looking!
[/quote]

I think you need to look again.

Palmer and Jones were not anchoring the butt of the club against their bodies, but they were both using their legs as a platform to rest their hands and guide their strokes.

So this notion that the "essence" of golf is a free swinging club is ahistorical nonense.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354227833' post='5996979']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354222868' post='5996511']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354222538' post='5996479']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354222267' post='5996453']
This film is from 1940, two years after diegel's retirement. History tends to indicate that [b]his two PGA championships in '28 and '29 were influenced by an anchored putting stroke,[/b] which went on to become "Diegeling" which was not anchored but was awfully close to it.
[/quote]
So not anchored then, just to be clear?
[/quote]
anchored.
[/quote]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354226368' post='5996839']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354225934' post='5996809']
Ngb, i don't understand. help me here. In the one thing you wrote, you specifically said "Diegling is not anchoring, but pretty close to it". Did you write that, or did you take that from somewhere else?
[/quote]
My exact words:
This film is from 1940, two years after diegel's retirement. History tends to indicate that his two PGA championships in '28 and '29 were influenced by an anchored putting stroke, which went on to become "Diegeling" which was not anchored but was awfully close to it.
I used the word tends because there are differing descriptions, as was common in that time.
[/quote]
You stated that as a quote and then said that you used the word 'tends' - was it a quote or just something you wrote from a memory of something somewhere? Just curious - makes no difference whether he did or didn't anchor (although I think not).
[/quote]
I responded from a quote and later included the quote. From what I could see, Diegeling itself was not anchoring, but that he anchored in the '20's and '30's. But there is controversy. Some say he did, others make no mention of it. So, not conclusive, I guess.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354228152' post='5997001']


I think you need to look again.

Palmer and Jones were not anchoring the butt of the club against their bodies, but they were both using their legs as a platform to rest their hands and guide their strokes.

So this notion that the "essence" of golf is a free swinging club is ahistorical nonense.
[/quote]

Brushing your hands across your pant leg when making a stroke would not be considered anchoring under the proposed rule.

[nbg352]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354228152' post='5997001']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354227545' post='5996955']
You are correct, Kellygreen - no anchored strokes there either! Keep looking!
[/quote]

I think you need to look again.

Palmer and Jones were not anchoring the butt of the club against their bodies, but they were both using their legs as a platform to rest their hands and guide their strokes.

So this notion that the "essence" of golf is a free swinging club is ahistorical nonense.
[/quote]
Yeah, both those strokes are now illegal, from what I understand. Both attach the hands / forearms to their thighs.

[spooky]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354228152' post='5997001']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354227545' post='5996955']
You are correct, Kellygreen - no anchored strokes there either! Keep looking!
[/quote]

I think you need to look again.

Palmer and Jones were not anchoring the butt of the club against their bodies, but they were both using their legs as a platform to rest their hands and guide their strokes.

So this notion that the "essence" of golf is a free swinging club is ahistorical nonense.
[/quote]
Discussed extensively previously and not anchoring. To even try to say that golf has not historically been about freely swinging a club is bizarre.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354228240' post='5997003']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354227833' post='5996979']

You stated that as a quote and then said that you used the word 'tends' - was it a quote or just something you wrote from a memory of something somewhere? Just curious - makes no difference whether he did or didn't anchor (although I think not).
[/quote]
I responded from a quote and later included the quote. From what I could see, Diegeling itself was not anchoring, but that he anchored in the '20's and '30's. But there is controversy. Some say he did, others make no mention of it. So, not conclusive, I guess.
[/quote]

And all I would ask for is your source for where some said he did anchor it. Either a sourced quote or a video of him anchoring that would contradict the video of him we have not anchoring. I am not asking as a way to challenge. I am genuinely interested in this now. As a matter of historical fact because i have never once challenged the 80 year history claims. if you are telling me it's out there, and you have read it, I have no reason to not believe you ngb. I am just interested as an aside to all of this.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354228249' post='5997005']


Brushing your hands across your pant leg when making a stroke would not be considered anchoring under the proposed rule.
[/quote]

I realize that. The point of the pictures was to undermine the basis---the assertions regarding the "essence of the game"---that the USGA is using to justfiy the rule change.

Showing just how arbitrary it really is.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='highergr0und' timestamp='1354221406' post='5996397']


If that is indeed the case, why does it not appear one time in the entire article the USGA released? You talk a lot about random facts and suiting your own desires, but here you're adding a fact completely out of thin air. They talk a good bit about preserving the traditional putting stroke and even straight up admit that they let it go on because they thought it was only for players who had no other alternatives, [b]but they never once mention that it lessens the amount of skill the game requires.[/b]
[/quote]

From the transcript of the announcement. Dawson, in his opening comments when making the announcements.

"[color=#000000][size=3] Our objective is to preserve the skill and challenge, which is such a key element of the game of golf."[/size][/color]

[pingman1]

If it cannot be determined if Diegel was anchoring or not, how will it be determined now after some armchair quarterback calls in and says a player was anchoring? The player says "no I wasn't, my hands were at least 1/8" away from my chest.

[jons1]

all about nothing. most people that use long putters do it for their backs, and there's no data that proves you make more putts putting this way for a very simple reason, there are several variables required to make a putt, and starting the ball on your intended line is only 1 (which is what anchoring is suppose to help improve marginally in theory). This year, having so many winners use them, and so many people in fields using them, just was more than they could take I guess.

[spooky]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354228660' post='5997029']
The point of the pictures was to undermine the basis---the assertions regarding the "essence of the game"---that the USGA is using to justfiy the rule change.

Showing just how arbitrary it really is.
[/quote]
I would suggest that the 'pictures' failed to make the point that you hoped they would make.

[pingman1]

Did anybody see Mike Davis on the Morning Drive in 2011 (a year ago), he said that they didn't feel there was an issue with anchoring? Man, has he changed his tune!

[KYMAR]

[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1354231001' post='5997231']
If it cannot be determined if Diegel was anchoring or not, how will it be determined now after some armchair quarterback calls in and says a player was anchoring? The player says "no I wasn't, my hands were at least 1/8" away from my chest.
[/quote]

I am not sure how we can't determine what diegel was doing. We have one piece of video that clearly shows he isn't and some statements made by unknown people quoted in unknown places, that he may have tended to anchor. Or not.

But beyond all that, it's the same type of enforcement that goes into any ruling that's not immediately knowable. They check the video all the time when available. Beside, if you watch the video the USGA has put out, the definitions of anchored and non are readily distinguishable by simple appearance. That's not to say that someone on a broadcast may not come to the edge of the line, but it's like what that justice said about porn. I know it when i see it.

[jons1]

[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1354231394' post='5997255']
Did anybody see Mike Davis on the Morning Drive in 2011 (a year ago), he said that they didn't feel there was an issue with anchoring? Man, has he changed his tune!
[/quote]

it's proof that their decision is emotional and based on perception and fear of the unknown than any kind of statistical data regarding a stroke and increasing it's effectiveness.

[eric_b]

This is so stupid I don't even know where to start.

A rule based purely on aesthetics....admitted by the rule makers themselves no less! No evidence that this is a better way to putt....then why ban them?!?!? Cause of 600 years of tradition....or some other nonsense. Ok....hybrids, graphite shafts, multi layer rubber core urethane covered balls, titanium drivers, perimeter weighting, etc.....i guess those were around 600 years ago huh?

This is BS, pure and simple. It's the USGA and R&A blowing smoke cause they want attention and they're pissy that guys won their tournaments with putters they don't like.....and why don't like they them? Cause they're afraid of change....pure and simple. Pathetic, childish fear...just sad.

Meanwhile, the game is hemoraging players, courses are closing left, right and centre (especially in the US), they're ripping up the Old course and the R&A still doesn't have a woman amongst its membership.....yeah, but anchoring is the problem. Great strategy guys.....distract us from the real issues you're not capable of handling.....well, I guess the woman in the R&A thing can be dealt with....but 600 years of tradition have to be protected i guess....there's a convenient excuse for being a sexist pig.

This whole thing smacks of hypocrisy, inconsistency and flat out stupidity.

P.S. Sorry, got in the thread late....didn't read it all....I apologize to anyone if i'm just echoing you.

[gators78]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354228343' post='5997011']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354228152' post='5997001']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354227545' post='5996955']
You are correct, Kellygreen - no anchored strokes there either! Keep looking!
[/quote]

I think you need to look again.

Palmer and Jones were not anchoring the butt of the club against their bodies, but they were both using their legs as a platform to rest their hands and guide their strokes.

So this notion that the "essence" of golf is a free swinging club is ahistorical nonense.
[/quote]
Yeah, both those strokes are now illegal, from what I understand. Both attach the hands / forearms to their thighs.
[/quote]

They stated specifically on TGC last night that the "Casper" method of resting the hands on the thighs is now illegal.

[spooky]

[quote name='eric_b' timestamp='1354232794' post='5997367']
Cause they're afraid of change....pure and simple.

and the R&A still doesn't have a woman amongst its membership.....
[/quote]

Rather than being afraid of change they have made a change.

As for not having a woman member... it's really hard to care.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='eric_b' timestamp='1354232794' post='5997367']
This is so stupid I don't even know where to start.

A rule based purely on aesthetics....admitted by the rule makers themselves no less! No evidence that this is a better way to putt....then why ban them?!?!? Cause of 600 years of tradition....or some other nonsense. Ok....hybrids, graphite shafts, multi layer rubber core urethane covered balls, titanium drivers, perimeter weighting, etc.....i guess those were around 600 years ago huh?

This is BS, pure and simple. It's the USGA and R&A blowing smoke cause they want attention and they're pissy that guys won their tournaments with putters they don't like.....and why don't like they them? Cause they're afraid of change....pure and simple. Pathetic, childish fear...just sad.

Meanwhile, the game is hemoraging players, courses are closing left, right and centre (especially in the US), they're ripping up the Old course and the R&A still doesn't have a woman amongst its membership.....yeah, but anchoring is the problem. Great strategy guys.....distract us from the real issues you're not capable of handling.....well, I guess the woman in the R&A thing can be dealt with....but 600 years of tradition have to be protected i guess....there's a convenient excuse for being a sexist pig.

This whole thing smacks of hypocrisy, inconsistency and flat out stupidity.

P.S. Sorry, got in the thread late....didn't read it all....I apologize to anyone if i'm just echoing you.
[/quote]

They did it for asthetics? For how they look? That is nonsense. Go look at the video of allowed strokes with long putters. Does that look better, or really any different, than what people are doing now?

maybe read the transcript and they reasons they gave. If you stand by all of this then, then you have to add liars, deceivers and conspiracy masterminds. All of what you just wrote eric is based on what you think they did, not what they said they did. And if you think that they are liars then come up with a reasonable explanation for why they would lie about it at all. What would make them decide "we need to get rid of these because of the way they look but come up with a different reason for doing so to tell the people:" and then, in the midst of this vast conspiracy to defraud the golfing public, do nothing to eliminate the equipment you say they don't like looking at.