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

[kellygreen]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354231312' post='5997247']
[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.
[/quote]

Oh they made my point.

They just failed to hammer their way into a closed mind.

[i]Can't fault them for that......[/i]

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354228599' post='5997027']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354228240' post='5997003']
[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.
[/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.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s"]www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s[/url] sure looks anchored
So much putter clutter on the web...I can't find my quote. But I did find this about Paul Runyan in 1936:

m.phillyburbs.com/lifestyle/golf/the-elusive-pot-of-golf/article_ae253716-29ae-11e2-b996-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm
I hope I typed that right.

[eric_b]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354233191' post='5997401']
[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.
[/quote]

fine....typo....style of putting they don't like looking at....happy?

aesthetic is my condensing their dumba$$ point....i read the stupid transcript in which they said that anchored putting is not provably better and that golf has been about the free swinging of the club for 600 years.....super.....but my point is that LOADS of things have changed in that 600 years but this one....yeah....that's too far dammit. Inconsistent and illogical....

Also....it's not a conspiracy theory....it's a flat out fact that the R&A doesn't have women members, that they're ripping up the old course (i love the tradition angle for anchored putting....but ripping up the old course is fine), people are leaving the game in droves and courses are closing....sure, i took liberties with saying they're distracting us from this fact on purpose....but this IS distracting us from REAL issues the game is facing.

I realize i'm not gonna change your mind....that's why arguing is a waste of time....but it doesn't the fact that the this rule change was done for non-sensical reasons and that the game is facing far larger issues that the rule makers are ignoring.

[eric_b]

Also....I love how, before this stupid announcement, the media was against anchored putting....all for a ban....now, I can get you a half dozen articles from those same guys arguing AGAINST the ban. Hell, even bonehead Chamblee is saying it's a bad idea.....and he thought they were the devil because it's just not an "athletic" move.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='gators78' timestamp='1354233046' post='5997387']
[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.
[/quote]

Keep in mind that greens are nothing like greens in the 50s and 20s.

An active pop of the wrists used to be required to putt and I consider and am amazed at how those guys got the ball in the hole. Lot of "athleticism" and even more hand-eye coordination required.

Now, these guys have greens more perfectly trimmed than a Victorias Secret model.

Good move to ban them.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354234261' post='5997471']
[url="http://www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s"]www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s[/url] sure looks anchored
So much putter clutter on the web...I can't find my quote. But I did find this about Paul Runyan in 1936:

m.phillyburbs.com/lifestyle/golf/the-elusive-pot-of-golf/article_ae253716-29ae-11e2-b996-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm
I hope I typed that right.
[/quote]

You really typed all that? I would have told me to pound sand and find the damn thing myself.

But since you offered it, i must point out.....You mean where he is quoted as saying this

[size=4][color=#333333]When pro Paul Runyan won the 1936[/color][color=#333333]Belmont Open in Boston, using a long putter[/color][color=#333333]anchored to his belly, n[/color][color=#333333]o one cared.[b] "It was an advantage I hadn't expected,” revealed Runyan. “ This system minimizes the adverse effect of nervous tension" [/b][/color][color=#333333]That can't be right. There is no advantage[/color][/size]

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354235784' post='5997589']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354234261' post='5997471']
[url="http://www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s"]www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s[/url] sure looks anchored
So much putter clutter on the web...I can't find my quote. But I did find this about Paul Runyan in 1936:

m.phillyburbs.com/lifestyle/golf/the-elusive-pot-of-golf/article_ae253716-29ae-11e2-b996-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm
I hope I typed that right.
[/quote]

You really typed all that? I would have told me to pound sand and find the damn thing myself.

But since you offered it, i must point out.....You mean where he is quoted as saying this

[size=4][color=#333333]When pro Paul Runyan won the 1936[/color][color=#333333]Belmont Open in Boston, using a long putter[/color][color=#333333]anchored to his belly, n[/color][color=#333333]o one cared.[b] "It was an advantage I hadn't expected,” revealed Runyan. “ This system minimizes the adverse effect of nervous tension" [/b][/color][color=#333333]That can't be right. There is no advantage[/color][/size]
[/quote]
Yeah well, I like you kymar and if I say something to you, I like to try to back it up. Since I failed in my quote I thought the Runyan bit to be of interest, as there is no doubt that he anchored. And yes, although I needed to find a magnifying glass to read the rest of your post, I believe there is no point in favouring a particular swing or stroke unless you think it is advantageous at least to yourself. I'm sure that the science of anchoring was in the same state of turmoil then as it is now. Advantage is in the mind of the user. Not even the USGA or R&A have been able to prove otherwise.
Now pound sand, eh? ( I always wanted to tell someone that....)

[KYMAR]

[quote name='eric_b' timestamp='1354235280' post='5997543']
Also....I love how, before this stupid announcement, the media was against anchored putting....all for a ban....now, I can get you a half dozen articles from those same guys arguing AGAINST the ban. Hell, even bonehead Chamblee is saying it's a bad idea.....and he thought they were the devil because it's just not an "athletic" move.
[/quote]

Now here we totally agree,. I listened to the press conference/announcement online provided by GC and after it was over they had a bunch of talking heads going over it Kratzer (sp?) and Chamblee among them. It took 3 turns of him speaking, in no brief way, before i ever even started to get the gist of what he believed. Ended up in the ultimate punt. Bifurcate. Like that's a real solution.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354236251' post='5997611']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354235784' post='5997589']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354234261' post='5997471']
[url="http://www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s"]www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s[/url] sure looks anchored
So much putter clutter on the web...I can't find my quote. But I did find this about Paul Runyan in 1936:

m.phillyburbs.com/lifestyle/golf/the-elusive-pot-of-golf/article_ae253716-29ae-11e2-b996-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm
I hope I typed that right.
[/quote]

You really typed all that? I would have told me to pound sand and find the damn thing myself.

But since you offered it, i must point out.....You mean where he is quoted as saying this

[size=4][color=#333333]When pro Paul Runyan won the 1936[/color][color=#333333]Belmont Open in Boston, using a long putter[/color][color=#333333]anchored to his belly, n[/color][color=#333333]o one cared.[b] "It was an advantage I hadn't expected,” revealed Runyan. “ This system minimizes the adverse effect of nervous tension" [/b][/color][color=#333333]That can't be right. There is no advantage[/color][/size]
[/quote]
Yeah well, I like you kymar and if I say something to you, I like to try to back it up. Since I failed in my quote I thought the Runyan bit to be of interest, as there is no doubt that he anchored. And yes, although I needed to find a magnifying glass to read the rest of your post, I believe there is no point in favouring a particular swing or stroke unless you think it is advantageous at least to yourself. I'm sure that the science of anchoring was in the same state of turmoil then as it is now. Advantage is in the mind of the user. Not even the USGA or R&A have been able to prove otherwise.
[/quote]

LOL dude i have NO IDEA why that quote came out so small originally. I wasn't trying to test anyone's eyesight i swear!

Yeah, they didn't prove that. They didn't seek to. This mans quote is rather timeless when it comes to the effect of nerves isn't it? And try as you might there is no way you can honestly determine that he was speaking of the advantage over nervous energy due to simple preference. It was an [i]advantage he didn't expect. [/i]

[spooky]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354236309' post='5997617']
[quote name='eric_b' timestamp='1354235280' post='5997543']
Also....I love how, before this stupid announcement, the media was against anchored putting....all for a ban....now, I can get you a half dozen articles from those same guys arguing AGAINST the ban. Hell, even bonehead Chamblee is saying it's a bad idea.....and he thought they were the devil because it's just not an "athletic" move.
[/quote]

Now here we totally agree,. I listened to the press conference/announcement online provided by GC and after it was over they had a bunch of talking heads going over it Kratzer (sp?) and Chamblee among them. It took 3 turns of him speaking, in no brief way, before i ever even started to get the gist of what he believed. Ended up in the ultimate punt. Bifurcate. Like that's a real solution.
[/quote]
They have to create stories these days - simply reporting doesn't provide sufficient content.

Bifurcation is wrong in my opinion.

[spooky]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354233324' post='5997411']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354231312' post='5997247']
[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.
[/quote]

Oh they made my point.

They just failed to hammer their way into a closed mind.

[i]Can't fault them for that......[/i]
[/quote]
You might be the only person who thinks that your point was made.

By the way - notice how you believe that the only reason I didn't agree with you was because my mind is closed... is your opinion ever anything other than fact?

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354236251' post='5997611']
Advantage is in the mind of the user. Not even the USGA or R&A have been able to prove otherwise.
[/quote]
A mechanical advantage is not in the mind though. It's surely the point of the technique.

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354236409' post='5997623']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354236251' post='5997611']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354235784' post='5997589']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354234261' post='5997471']
[url="http://www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s"]www.masterworksgolf.com/products/leo-diegel-putting-c-1920s[/url] sure looks anchored
So much putter clutter on the web...I can't find my quote. But I did find this about Paul Runyan in 1936:

m.phillyburbs.com/lifestyle/golf/the-elusive-pot-of-golf/article_ae253716-29ae-11e2-b996-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm
I hope I typed that right.
[/quote]

You really typed all that? I would have told me to pound sand and find the damn thing myself.

But since you offered it, i must point out.....You mean where he is quoted as saying this

[size=4][color=#333333]When pro Paul Runyan won the 1936[/color][color=#333333]Belmont Open in Boston, using a long putter[/color][color=#333333]anchored to his belly, n[/color][color=#333333]o one cared.[b] "It was an advantage I hadn't expected,” revealed Runyan. “ This system minimizes the adverse effect of nervous tension" [/b][/color][color=#333333]That can't be right. There is no advantage[/color][/size]
[/quote]
Yeah well, I like you kymar and if I say something to you, I like to try to back it up. Since I failed in my quote I thought the Runyan bit to be of interest, as there is no doubt that he anchored. And yes, although I needed to find a magnifying glass to read the rest of your post, I believe there is no point in favouring a particular swing or stroke unless you think it is advantageous at least to yourself. I'm sure that the science of anchoring was in the same state of turmoil then as it is now. Advantage is in the mind of the user. Not even the USGA or R&A have been able to prove otherwise.
[/quote]

LOL dude i have NO IDEA why that quote came out so small originally. I wasn't trying to test anyone's eyesight i swear!

Yeah, they didn't prove that. They didn't seek to. This mans quote is rather timeless when it comes to the effect of nerves isn't it? And try as you might there is no way you can honestly determine that he was speaking of the advantage over nervous energy due to simple preference. It was an [i]advantage he didn't expect. [/i]
[/quote]
In all honesty, I think they discovered that there is no advantage yet decided that it should be banned anyway, simply because they don't believe it mirrors or projects the look of a swing. I think that trying to drag in 600 years of tradition, when clearly the only tradition is one of constant change, was extremely weak and simply strengthened my feeling that they were indeed, really and truly banning it because some folks in a position of power do not like the look of it.
I have no dog in this fight, unless integrity is to be considered a dog. Then, yes I have a dog in this fight. This ban, if enacted will have been done without integrity.
Don't sweat the type. A little humour was needed anyway. I'm glad we had this little talk....

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354236844' post='5997663']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354236251' post='5997611']
Advantage is in the mind of the user. Not even the USGA or R&A have been able to prove otherwise.
[/quote]
A mechanical advantage is not in the mind though. It's surely the point of the technique.
[/quote]
Mechanical denotes machinery. If we were all Iron Byron, with fixed joints, no brain or nervous system, I'd agree with you. But, it ain't that simple. We are taliking about human beings with muscles, achy back, emotional angst, a fear of 2 foot putts, etcetera.Iron Byron can create the same swing every single time. We just do our best to try to accomplish the same thing. More often than not, we fail. A long putter wins an open while another falters and loses the same event. If there is a mechanical advantage, it does not show up in any current statistics. If it did, the USGA would have been cramming them down our throats. No, if there is an advantage it is self created. And that can be more powerful than any mechanical advantage.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354236624' post='5997641']

You might be the only person who thinks that your point was made.

By the way - notice how you believe that the only reason I didn't agree with you was because my mind is closed... is your opinion ever anything other than fact?
[/quote]

Hardly, since two other posters in this thread are arguing the same point right alongside me.

No, I believe your mind is closed by watching how you defend your point of view...which bascially boils down to one dogmatic, unsubstantiated assertion after another. "[i]I'm right because I'm right[/i]."

My opinions are just that...my opinions. But I make a habit of trying to base those opinions on the reasonable, dispassionate assessment of objective facts. I have no problems with you arguing against my opinions. I have a real problem when you start arguing against facts, because they do not support what you wish to believe.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354237969' post='5997751']

Mechanical denotes machinery. If we were all Iron Byron, with fixed joints, no brain or nervous system, I'd agree with you. But, it ain't that simple. We are taliking about human beings with muscles, achy back, emotional angst, a fear of 2 foot putts, etcetera.Iron Byron can create the same swing every single time. We just do our best to try to accomplish the same thing. More often than not, we fail. A long putter wins an open while another falters and loses the same event. If there is a mechanical advantage, it does not show up in any current statistics. If it did, the USGA would have been cramming them down our throats. No, if there is an advantage it is self created. And that can be more powerful than any mechanical advantage.
[/quote]
I understand your point, although as an aside I think the belly putter has a greater mechanical advantage than the broom. Given all the moving parts (degrees of freedom) it is clear that removal of some must create a mechanical advantage and this is what anchoring does. The mechanical simplification and resulting advantage is most evident on the shorter putts - confidence in these putts spreads through to all parts of your game. The example about The Open could instead have been that two players were able to compete for the championship who would not in all probability have been able to do so without anchoring the club.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354238625' post='5997797']

I understand your point, although as an aside I think the belly putter has a greater mechanical advantage than the broom. Given all the moving parts (degrees of freedom) it is clear that removal of some must create a mechanical advantage and this is what anchoring does. The mechanical simplification and resulting advantage is most evident on the shorter putts - confidence in these putts spreads through to all parts of your game. The example about The Open could instead have been that[b] two players were able to compete for the championship who would not in all probability have been able to do so without anchoring the club.[/b]
[/quote]
I guess we will know the answer to that one, soon enough, eh?

[spooky]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354227121' post='5996921']
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

Bobby Jones

No anchored strokes here....move along.....Pffft....
[/quote]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354238279' post='5997771']


Hardly, since two other posters in this thread are arguing the same point right alongside me.

No, I believe your mind is closed by watching how you defend your point of view...which bascially boils down to one dogmatic, unsubstantiated assertion after another. "[i]I'm right because I'm right[/i]."

My opinions are just that...my opinions. But I make a habit of trying to base those opinions on the reasonable, dispassionate assessment of objective facts. I have no problems with you arguing against my opinions. I have a real problem when you start arguing against facts, because they do not support what you wish to believe.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.
[/quote]
You tried to say they anchored and then backtracked when you got called out on it. I haven't seen anyone agreeing with you on this.

You then say that your opinions are just opinions and add that I am arguing against [your] facts. There is an alarming scarcity of logic.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354239147' post='5997831']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354238625' post='5997797']

I understand your point, although as an aside I think the belly putter has a greater mechanical advantage than the broom. Given all the moving parts (degrees of freedom) it is clear that removal of some must create a mechanical advantage and this is what anchoring does. The mechanical simplification and resulting advantage is most evident on the shorter putts - confidence in these putts spreads through to all parts of your game. The example about The Open could instead have been that[b] two players were able to compete for the championship who would not in all probability have been able to do so without anchoring the club.[/b]
[/quote]
I guess we will know the answer to that one, soon enough, eh?
[/quote]


I don't think we will ever be able to learn much from Ernie. That tournament was a career capper for him and let's face it he is an awful putter now for the most part, even with anchoring.

Now, serious question. I can't visualize Adam's motion, is is top hand or forearm in violation of this rule? It seems to me that he would have a much easier time adjusting his hands away from his body and making his current putter work for him than Carl Pederson will have getting rid of the belly. (the putter I mean, not the few extra LB's)

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354239147' post='5997831']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354238625' post='5997797']
I understand your point, although as an aside I think the belly putter has a greater mechanical advantage than the broom. Given all the moving parts (degrees of freedom) it is clear that removal of some must create a mechanical advantage and this is what anchoring does. The mechanical simplification and resulting advantage is most evident on the shorter putts - confidence in these putts spreads through to all parts of your game. The example about The Open could instead have been that[b] two players were able to compete for the championship who would not in all probability have been able to do so without anchoring the club.[/b]
[/quote]
I guess we will know the answer to that one, soon enough, eh?
[/quote]
Absolutely - it should be interesting to say the least, although 3 years is a long time to wait if they stick with anchoring. I'm more interested in how Simpson, Bradley, etc, respond to the challenge. I'm developing a sneaking admiration for Bradley and I have a feeling he'll find a way.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354239414' post='5997847']
You tried to say they anchored and then backtracked when you got called out on it. I haven't seen anyone agreeing with you on this.

You then say that your opinions are just opinions and add that I am arguing against [your] facts. There is an alarming scarcity of logic.
[/quote]

I define "anchoring" in a FUNCTIONAL sense (reducing/eliminating free motion of the arms) rather than in the VISUAL sense as the USGA does.

So...functionally...those putting strokes ARE anchored and are NOT the "free swinging" strokes that the USGA keeps trying assert that they are. But since no communication is possible unless words share commonly agreed upon definitions....I accomodated your wish to use the USGA's defintion of "anchoring", while still showing that their rationalization of the ban was a baseless argument, and a misreading of golf history.

As for your last point.... Really? Really??

Then I'm afraid that you have a very fuzzy understanding of what a "fact" is...and what constitutes "logic".

Here's the bottomline. There is no "free swing" of the clubs with the arms in the putting stroke of either Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan. In each case the player were resting their arms against their legs in an effort to LIMIT the free motion of their arms, and the club...and thus find greater consistency.

There is no FUNCTIONAL difference between a stroke that seeks stability by resting the butt of the club against the belly, agianst the chest...or holds the clubs in the hands, and then rests the arms aginst the legs or locks the arms tightly against the trunk. The only differences between them are VISUAL...because the ultimate goal that is trying to be achieved is the same:

Using the body to control the stroke more than the arms and wrists.

That is not an opinion...that common goal is a FACT.

...and indisputable one.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354239705' post='5997863']

Absolutely - it should be interesting to say the least, although 3 years is a long time to wait if they stick with anchoring. I'm more interested in how Simpson, Bradley, etc, respond to the challenge. I'm developing a sneaking admiration for Bradley and I have a feeling he'll find a way.
[/quote]
My gut tells me it won't wait three years for the pros' I'll give it 4 months.

[spooky]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354240040' post='5997889']
I define "anchoring" in a FUNCTIONAL sense (reducing/eliminating free motion of the arms) rather than in the VISUAL sense as the USGA does.
[/quote]
In another thread you tell me that I can't define terms the way I want.... Logic?

The USGA have defined it quite clearly.

[Socrates]

It's not even an official event and Bradley is already talking about feeling the target on his back. Twitter must be killing them. Wouldn't be surprised to see most of them trying to putt with a short putter in Hawaii.

Any bets about whether Tianlang Guan shows up at The Masters with his belly putter?

[Awsi Dooger]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354239676' post='5997859']
Now, serious question. I can't visualize Adam's motion, is is top hand or forearm in violation of this rule? It seems to me that he would have a much easier time adjusting his hands away from his body and making his current putter work for him than Carl Pederson will have getting rid of the belly. (the putter I mean, not the few extra LB's) [/quote]

Carl Pettersson uses the long putter, not the belly putter.

A mistake like that, yet I'm supposed to believe the ban crowd has actually studied this thing, as opposed to emotional convenient conclusions...

Adam Scott anchors the butt of the grip high on his chest. His left thump may be anchored also, although it's difficult to tell. His forearm is not anchored.

[Socrates]

I'd get that thump removed.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1354242394' post='5998053']


Carl Pettersson uses the long putter, not the belly putter.

A mistake like that, yet I'm supposed to believe the ban crowd has actually studied this thing, as opposed to emotional convenient conclusions...

Adam Scott anchors the butt of the grip high on his chest. His left thump may be anchored also, although it's difficult to tell. His forearm is not anchored.
[/quote]

Dear everyone. I rescind my call for the banning of the anchored stroke. I have contacted Mike Davis and explained that because i believed Carl used a belly and not a long, all of the advice i offered him on making this decision is now null and void. He said, and I quote "OH, Ok then nevermind,. Shew! Man it's a good thing we put that 3 month window thing in there huh? You wanna play Madden on Playstation later?......"

[wobgon]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354225726' post='5996787']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354225313' post='5996743']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354224781' post='5996709']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354223333' post='5996557']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354222636' post='5996493']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354222267' post='5996453']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354221358' post='5996391']
[quote name='pga43' timestamp='1354219216' post='5996179']
Anchoring is not all that new. Photo from the 1920's. (I would credit the photographer but no clue who he/she is).


Greg
[/quote]

The golfer is Leo Diegel. He didn't anchor, just held his hands close to his chest. You can see a video of his putting stroke at the 9:58 mark here:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8RqZ_S64VA[/media]
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

So it's not anchoring but close to it, and you willingly put forth that here in support of actual anchoring?

And "history tends to indicate" really? I can only imagine your outrage had that been verbatim from yesterdays presser as to why it should be banned. Are these the types of [i]facts[/i] you guys are seeking?
[/quote]
What part of what I typed do you not understand? He anchored. History says he anchored. History is also a little unsure, which is why I used the word tends. Instead of attacking why don't you do what I did and just look it up?
Quote: 1924: Diegel develops a putting stance which involves a bent elbows out stance with the butt of the putter at his belly button." End quote.
[/quote]

I am not the one with a failure to understand here. He developed a stance with his elbows out and the "butt of the putter [i]at his belly button" [/i]well that sounds like a stroke that will be legal going forward! Plus, we have VIDEO OF THE GUY PUTTING! Video In which you can see there is no anchoring taking place! My God is this the "80 year old history" of anchoring? This guy? Unbelievable
[/quote]
Jeez, kymar. The film is from 1940. Diegel was retired. By all accounts available at the time, he anchored in the '20's and '30's.
Why are you getting all worked up about the possibility that he anchored? I'm sure he wasn't the first, either, throughout golf's 600 year history.
[/quote]

responding to both you and Wobgon here, How am I not to be at least a little shocked at this? it's a bit of a revelation when we hear from anchorers how this dates back 80 years only to find out that, what I assume is your best reference to this, is it's just as likely to have never anchored his putter. I love it. "80 years! It;s been around for 80 YEARS and now you want to ban it USGA IS STUPID!: then the only video anyone can find tells a very different tale and the very same people ask me why it's a big deal if he anchored the putter or not. This is part of the case you are making, not me,
[/quote]
Im making no such case. I have never had a belly putter in my hands. My only reason for the question was that in my opinion, the desision made has nothing to do with what happened 80 years ago. No diff. if it has been used for 20 years or 100 years.

[nbg352]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354243375' post='5998129']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1354242394' post='5998053']
Carl Pettersson uses the long putter, not the belly putter.

A mistake like that, yet I'm supposed to believe the ban crowd has actually studied this thing, as opposed to emotional convenient conclusions...

Adam Scott anchors the butt of the grip high on his chest. His left thump may be anchored also, although it's difficult to tell. His forearm is not anchored.
[/quote]

Dear everyone. I rescind my call for the banning of the anchored stroke. I have contacted Mike Davis and explained that because i believed Carl used a belly and not a long, all of the advice i offered him on making this decision is now null and void. He said, and I quote "OH, Ok then nevermind,. Shew! Man it's a good thing we put that 3 month window thing in there huh? You wanna play Madden on Playstation later?......"
[/quote]
Dear Kymar,
Whew! I'm sure glad that's over. I had no idea you were so skilled in the fine art of influence peddling. Perhaps, if I pm you with my bosses phone number( there are some guys on here I don't think I'd trust having that....) You could get me that huge raise I deserve? And maybe mention the Christmas bonus while you're at it?
I would be forever in your debt.
Thanks a millon in advance,
your best friend,

Warren

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354250584' post='5998557']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354243375' post='5998129']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1354242394' post='5998053']
Carl Pettersson uses the long putter, not the belly putter.

A mistake like that, yet I'm supposed to believe the ban crowd has actually studied this thing, as opposed to emotional convenient conclusions...

Adam Scott anchors the butt of the grip high on his chest. His left thump may be anchored also, although it's difficult to tell. His forearm is not anchored.
[/quote]

Dear everyone. I rescind my call for the banning of the anchored stroke. I have contacted Mike Davis and explained that because i believed Carl used a belly and not a long, all of the advice i offered him on making this decision is now null and void. He said, and I quote "OH, Ok then nevermind,. Shew! Man it's a good thing we put that 3 month window thing in there huh? You wanna play Madden on Playstation later?......"
[/quote]
Dear Kymar,
Whew! I'm sure glad that's over. I had no idea you were so skilled in the fine art of influence peddling. Perhaps, if I pm you with my bosses phone number( there are some guys on here I don't think I'd trust having that....) You could get me that huge raise I deserve? And maybe mention the Christmas bonus while you're at it?
I would be forever in your debt.
Thanks a millon in advance,
your best friend,

Warren
[/quote]

raises and Christmas bonuses? For you? Look man I realize It may seem like it, ya know because I have power to end this whole anchored putter ban nonsense. But honestly, I don't think even I can make that happen. BUT! I have good news I know a guy who can help, I will send him your way!

[attachment=1436223:ed.jpg]