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

[spooky]

I'll do my bist but it's nit oosy.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354584534' post='6014629']
I'll do my bist but it's nit oosy.
[/quote]
Yeah, english as a second language can be tough
(just kidding)

[Socrates]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354585027' post='6014659']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354584534' post='6014629']
I'll do my bist but it's nit oosy.
[/quote]
Yeah, english as a second language can be tough
(just kidding)
[/quote]
Says the man who can't spell Horseshoe.

[rockinar]

Too bad all you guys were no irate when the USGA screwed ALL OF YOU with the new grooves.

[spooky]

Did they?

[Dire Wolf]

So that's the last resort complaint? The "timing" of the ruling?

I'm 99.9% sure NO timing would've been acceptable to some people. If citing suspected past instances of "anchoring" is the chief defense for allowing it forever, then what business does the USGA and R&A have existing at all as a ruling body? Everything that has been done should continue to be allowed, right? No need for rules revisions or equipment conformity standards. Some arbirtrary cut-off period is all we need where no new rules can be made, and everything will be fine!

Come on. The bottom line is most of you don't like the "timing" because it affects you or someone you like negatively. The only "timing" you would have been OK with is some period in the past before you cared about this issue.

[kellygreen]

I think this sums up the pro crutch I mean pro anchoring crowds stance...

 

A pinnacle of hypocrisy.

There wouldn't be a ban without a bunch of selfish brats wailing, "Mommy, he won't do it rii-iight!'

 

Well played. :fan_1:

[Dire Wolf]

Is there any evidence that "selfish brats" caused the ruling from the USGA/R&A? Because there's plenty of evidence of crying about the ruling itself.

[legitimategolf]

This rule is tearing us apart!

[Vindog]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354633301' post='6016579']
Is there any evidence that "selfish brats" caused the ruling from the USGA/R&A? Because there's plenty of evidence of crying about the ruling itself.
[/quote]

And if you search the forums you will find plenty of evidence of crying from the "Anti" camp.

Also if you search google you will find that the ruling bodies took notes from similar crybaby tour players and the multitude of letters from average joes. So there's that.

e'rybody be cryin' up in here

[BenSnead]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354582444' post='6014423']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354582370' post='6014415']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354581708' post='6014371']
Of course they didn't...
[/quote]
But, they did have golfers anchoring putters to their bodies, way back then, right spooky? Paul Runyan and [b]Leo Diegel [/b]come to mind.....
[/quote]
I'm sure you have a relevant point to make?

And seriously? Diegel? Again? You can't keep putting that out there as if it is a fact when the only evidence seen shows that he didn't anchor...
[/quote]
You don't think there is intentional contact betwen his hand and body in the picture posted?

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354633301' post='6016579']
Is there any evidence that "selfish brats" caused the ruling from the USGA/R&A?
[/quote]
There is no evidence for any [b]other [/b]reason for this debacle.

[spooky]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354636426' post='6016781']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354582444' post='6014423']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354582370' post='6014415']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354581708' post='6014371']
Of course they didn't...
[/quote]
But, they did have golfers anchoring putters to their bodies, way back then, right spooky? Paul Runyan and [b]Leo Diegel [/b]come to mind.....
[/quote]
I'm sure you have a relevant point to make?

And seriously? Diegel? Again? You can't keep putting that out there as if it is a fact when the only evidence seen shows that he didn't anchor...
[/quote]
You don't think there is intentional contact betwen his hand and body in the picture posted?
[/quote]
A still picture can be easily misinterpreted - far more informative was the video that was posted.

[nbg352]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1354598169' post='6015615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354585027' post='6014659']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354584534' post='6014629']
I'll do my bist but it's nit oosy.
[/quote]
Yeah, english as a second language can be tough
(just kidding)
[/quote]
Says the man who can't spell Horseshoe.
[/quote]
I can't? I can. I can't type.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354638051' post='6016891']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354636426' post='6016781']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354582444' post='6014423']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354582370' post='6014415']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354581708' post='6014371']
Of course they didn't...
[/quote]
But, they did have golfers anchoring putters to their bodies, way back then, right spooky? Paul Runyan and [b]Leo Diegel [/b]come to mind.....
[/quote]
I'm sure you have a relevant point to make?

And seriously? Diegel? Again? You can't keep putting that out there as if it is a fact when the only evidence seen shows that he didn't anchor...
[/quote]
You don't think there is intentional contact betwen his hand and body in the picture posted?
[/quote]
A still picture can be easily misinterpreted - far more informative was the video that was posted.
[/quote]
If the hand is in contact at address it doesn't matter what else happens.

[spooky]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354640505' post='6017063']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354638051' post='6016891']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354636426' post='6016781']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354582444' post='6014423']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354582370' post='6014415']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354581708' post='6014371']
Of course they didn't...
[/quote]
But, they did have golfers anchoring putters to their bodies, way back then, right spooky? Paul Runyan and [b]Leo Diegel [/b]come to mind.....
[/quote]
I'm sure you have a relevant point to make?

And seriously? Diegel? Again? You can't keep putting that out there as if it is a fact when the only evidence seen shows that he didn't anchor...
[/quote]
You don't think there is intentional contact betwen his hand and body in the picture posted?
[/quote]
A still picture can be easily misinterpreted - far more informative was the video that was posted.
[/quote]
If the hand is in contact at address it doesn't matter what else happens.
[/quote]
If a picture shows me at address looking down the fairway it doesn't mean that I swung the club like that. A still picture doesn't prove anything. The funny thing is that even if he did anchor it wouldn't really add anything to the discussion.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354640830' post='6017091']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354640505' post='6017063']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354638051' post='6016891']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354636426' post='6016781']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354582444' post='6014423']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354582370' post='6014415']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354581708' post='6014371']
Of course they didn't...
[/quote]
But, they did have golfers anchoring putters to their bodies, way back then, right spooky? Paul Runyan and [b]Leo Diegel [/b]come to mind.....
[/quote]
I'm sure you have a relevant point to make?

And seriously? Diegel? Again? You can't keep putting that out there as if it is a fact when the only evidence seen shows that he didn't anchor...
[/quote]
You don't think there is intentional contact betwen his hand and body in the picture posted?
[/quote]
A still picture can be easily misinterpreted - far more informative was the video that was posted.
[/quote]
If the hand is in contact at address it doesn't matter what else happens.
[/quote]
If a picture shows me at address looking down the fairway it doesn't mean that I swung the club like that. A still picture doesn't prove anything. The funny thing is that even if he did anchor it wouldn't really add anything to the discussion.
[/quote]
No it merely detracts from your point of view. and points out just how arbitrary this ban is, since the photos clearly show anchoring has been accepted at all levels for nearly 80 years, that we are aware of..

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354636800' post='6016803']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354633301' post='6016579']
Is there any evidence that "selfish brats" caused the ruling from the USGA/R&A?
[/quote]
There is no evidence for any [b]other [/b]reason for this debacle.
[/quote]

Not the point and not what I asked.

There is [b]no[/b] evidence that "selfish brats" are responsible for this rule. Is there?

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354641524' post='6017141']
No it merely detracts from your point of view. and points out just how arbitrary this ban is, since the photos clearly show anchoring has been accepted at all levels for nearly 80 years, that we are aware of..
[/quote]
I don't see that it detracts from my point of view at all and I don't think anchoring was ever particularly liked. An article from many years ago described such a technique as not becoming of a gentleman, so it was frowned on pretty much from the beginning. I feel the same way about it - don't try to find ways around the difficulty - seek to overcome the inherent difficulty of the game by practice and perseverance.

I always felt that the broom was a club intended to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner and thus this breached an existing rule. I also viewed a belly putter (which I believe has a greater advantage) as a practice aid and that it should therefore not have been allowed on the course. Viewing this as an equipment issue would never have worked and it was mentioned quite some time ago that coming up with the correct wording was the tricky part, therefore the only option was to go for the stroke and anchoring of the butt.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354643598' post='6017331']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354636800' post='6016803']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354633301' post='6016579']
Is there any evidence that "selfish brats" caused the ruling from the USGA/R&A?
[/quote]
There is no evidence for any [b]other [/b]reason for this debacle.
[/quote]

Not the point and not what I asked.

There is [b]no[/b] evidence that "selfish brats" are responsible for this rule. Is there?
[/quote]
Sorry you got lost in the inference.
0% non spoiled brat = 100% spoiled brat.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354644808' post='6017427']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354641524' post='6017141']
No it merely detracts from your point of view. and points out just how arbitrary this ban is, since the photos clearly show anchoring has been accepted at all levels for nearly 80 years, that we are aware of..
[/quote]
I don't see that it detracts from my point of view at all and I don't think anchoring was ever particularly liked.[b] An article from many years ago described such a technique as not becoming of a gentleman[/b], so it was frowned on pretty much from the beginning. I feel the same way about it - don't try to find ways around the difficulty - seek to overcome the inherent difficulty of the game by practice and perseverance.

I always felt that the broom was a club intended to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner and thus this breached an existing rule. I also viewed a belly putter (which I believe has a greater advantage) as a practice aid and that it should therefore not have been allowed on the course. Viewing this as an equipment issue would never have worked and it was mentioned quite some time ago that coming up with the correct wording was the tricky part, therefore the only option was to go for the stroke and anchoring of the butt.
[/quote]
I'd love to read this article. Perhaps you can point us to it? I'm sure it will show us what is always most popularly shown. For some reason the opposed shout louder and more vehemently about a topic than those not opposed and thus it is the opinion most widely publicised. But I would love to see it. The broom was meant to be used upright, but not breach the 80* rule.
The belly putter was designed as a putter to be used in competition, not as a training aid.
None of this matters, of course. It's not about equipment. It's all about the new and improved yet arbitrary definition of a golf stroke. Which meshes nicely with your skewed historical sense of the same.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354640830' post='6017091']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354640505' post='6017063']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354638051' post='6016891']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354636426' post='6016781']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354582444' post='6014423']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354582370' post='6014415']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354581708' post='6014371']
Of course they didn't...
[/quote]
But, they did have golfers anchoring putters to their bodies, way back then, right spooky? Paul Runyan and [b]Leo Diegel [/b]come to mind.....
[/quote]
I'm sure you have a relevant point to make?

And seriously? Diegel? Again? You can't keep putting that out there as if it is a fact when the only evidence seen shows that he didn't anchor...
[/quote]
You don't think there is intentional contact betwen his hand and body in the picture posted?
[/quote]
A still picture can be easily misinterpreted - far more informative was the video that was posted.
[/quote]
If the hand is in contact at address it doesn't matter what else happens.
[/quote]
If a picture shows me at address looking down the fairway it doesn't mean that I swung the club like that. A still picture doesn't prove anything. The funny thing is that even if he did anchor it wouldn't really add anything to the discussion.
[/quote]
I finally dug through and found the video.
It does look like he contacts the shirt but probably not the body.
That's going to be a mess under the new rule.
The video is not really a normal putt though, it's a trick shot over a stymie!!!

[Dire Wolf]

I suppose the anchoring people complaining about "arbitrary" definitions of golf strokes have always taken issue with the other definitions and rulings regarding what is and isn't a stroke?

[nbg352]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354646190' post='6017565']
I suppose the anchoring people complaining about "arbitrary" definitions of golf strokes have always taken issue with the other definitions and rulings regarding what is and isn't a stroke?
[/quote]
I don't think that statement is relevant. The stroke rules until this recent ban, have been in place a very long time. Were they decided arbitrarily? We don't know. But this new one was and it is it we take issue with.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354645790' post='6017527']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354644808' post='6017427']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354641524' post='6017141']
No it merely detracts from your point of view. and points out just how arbitrary this ban is, since the photos clearly show anchoring has been accepted at all levels for nearly 80 years, that we are aware of..
[/quote]
I don't see that it detracts from my point of view at all and I don't think anchoring was ever particularly liked.[b] An article from many years ago described such a technique as not becoming of a gentleman[/b], so it was frowned on pretty much from the beginning. I feel the same way about it - don't try to find ways around the difficulty - seek to overcome the inherent difficulty of the game by practice and perseverance.

I always felt that the broom was a club intended to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner and thus this breached an existing rule. I also viewed a belly putter (which I believe has a greater advantage) as a practice aid and that it should therefore not have been allowed on the course. Viewing this as an equipment issue would never have worked and it was mentioned quite some time ago that coming up with the correct wording was the tricky part, therefore the only option was to go for the stroke and anchoring of the butt.
[/quote]
I'd love to read this article. Perhaps you can point us to it? The broom was meant to be used upright, but not breach the 80* rule.
The belly putter was designed as a putter to be used in competition, not as a training aid.
None of this matters, of course. It's not about equipment. It's all about the new and improved yet arbitrary definition of a golf stroke. Which meshes nicely with your skewed historical sense of the same.
[/quote]
I'll see if I can find it - it's out there somewhere!

Interesting that the original patent stated the purpose as "to significantly reduce the difficulty of putting accurately". Those against anchoring clearly feel that the invention failed in it's primary purpose. Whilst it appears to have been designed as a club to make putting easier I can only remember it being used as a training aid for a very long time. The patent for a body pivot putter was issued in 1965 - when was the first tour use of the club? Azinger in 1999? If so that would be 34 years after the body pivot putter patent was issued and it was an accident for him as it was a short person's long putter that he used if my understanding is correct. Also only 13 years ago - not very long ago at all. If you know more then please share - it makes no difference but it's interesting.

There's nothing arbitrary about describing a stroke as being to grab the club with both hands and swing it freely.

Edit: Seen some mention of Phil Rodgers but the belly putter doesn't particularly seen to have taken off until fairly recently.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354647289' post='6017645']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354645790' post='6017527']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354644808' post='6017427']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354641524' post='6017141']
No it merely detracts from your point of view. and points out just how arbitrary this ban is, since the photos clearly show anchoring has been accepted at all levels for nearly 80 years, that we are aware of..
[/quote]
I don't see that it detracts from my point of view at all and I don't think anchoring was ever particularly liked.[b] An article from many years ago described such a technique as not becoming of a gentleman[/b], so it was frowned on pretty much from the beginning. I feel the same way about it - don't try to find ways around the difficulty - seek to overcome the inherent difficulty of the game by practice and perseverance.

I always felt that the broom was a club intended to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner and thus this breached an existing rule. I also viewed a belly putter (which I believe has a greater advantage) as a practice aid and that it should therefore not have been allowed on the course. Viewing this as an equipment issue would never have worked and it was mentioned quite some time ago that coming up with the correct wording was the tricky part, therefore the only option was to go for the stroke and anchoring of the butt.
[/quote]
I'd love to read this article. Perhaps you can point us to it? The broom was meant to be used upright, but not breach the 80* rule.
The belly putter was designed as a putter to be used in competition, not as a training aid.
None of this matters, of course. It's not about equipment. It's all about the new and improved yet arbitrary definition of a golf stroke. Which meshes nicely with your skewed historical sense of the same.
[/quote]
I'll see if I can find it - it's out there somewhere!

Interesting that the original patent stated the purpose as "[b]to significantly reduce the difficulty of putting accurately[/b]". Those against anchoring clearly feel that the invention failed in it's primary purpose. Whilst it appears to have been designed as a club to make putting easier I can only remember it being used as a training aid for a very long time. The patent for a body pivot putter was issued in 1965 - when was the first tour use of the club? Azinger in 1999? If so that would be 34 years after the body pivot putter patent was issued and it was an accident for him as it was a short person's long putter that he used if my understanding is correct. Also only 13 years ago - not very long ago at all. If you know more then please share - it makes no difference but it's interesting.

There's nothing arbitrary about describing a stroke as being to grab the club with both hands and swing it freely.
[/quote]
Many patent drugs were sold promising miracles, too.But often, they were baseless and ummmmm....patently untrue.
Phil Rogers used a patented belly in the '60s. Paul Runyan anchored a short putter in the '30's, but it was of his own design. The patented putter was popularized by Azinger. He was definitely not the first to anchor a shorter putter.
The broomstick was not introduced until the early '80's when it was first used by Johnny Miller.There is no evidence that it was developed as a training aid, nor is there evidence refuting that idea.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354648700' post='6017759']
Many patent drugs were sold promising miracles, too.But often, they were baseless and ummmmm....patently untrue.
Phil Rogers used a patented belly in the '60s. Paul Runyan anchored a short putter in the '30's, but it was of his own design. The patented putter was popularized by Azinger. He was definitely not the first to anchor a shorter putter.
The broomstick was not introduced until the early '80's when it was first used by Johnny Miller.There is no evidence that it was developed as a training aid, nor is there evidence refuting that idea.
[/quote]
I had the belly putter down as a practice aid for some reason - certainly that was the first time I saw one - can't remember when though. Regardless of the drug patent references, I would say that the invention absolutely did achieve it's stated goal.

Anyway, 500-600 years of the game trumps the relatively recent popularisation of anchoring and it is particularly disturbing to have seen 14-year old players using them.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354649050' post='6017793']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354648700' post='6017759']
Many patent drugs were sold promising miracles, too.But often, they were baseless and ummmmm....patently untrue.
Phil Rogers used a patented belly in the '60s. Paul Runyan anchored a short putter in the '30's, but it was of his own design. The patented putter was popularized by Azinger. He was definitely not the first to anchor a shorter putter.
The broomstick was not introduced until the early '80's when it was first used by Johnny Miller.There is no evidence that it was developed as a training aid, nor is there evidence refuting that idea.
[/quote]
I had the belly putter down as a practice aid for some reason - certainly that was the first time I saw one - can't remember when though. Regardless of the drug patent references, I would say that the invention absolutely did achieve it's stated goal.

Anyway, 500-600 years of the game trumps the relatively recent popularisation of anchoring and it is particularly disturbing to have seen 14-year old players using them.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, there is no video and little documentation from long long ago. But, I do not think it unreasonable to think that the yips existed, even then. Where there are yips, there is tinkering. Where there is tinkering, who knows? Perhaps anchoring is far older a practice than many would care to believe. I would not discount the notion.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354649588' post='6017823']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354649050' post='6017793']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354648700' post='6017759']
Many patent drugs were sold promising miracles, too.But often, they were baseless and ummmmm....patently untrue.
Phil Rogers used a patented belly in the '60s. Paul Runyan anchored a short putter in the '30's, but it was of his own design. The patented putter was popularized by Azinger. He was definitely not the first to anchor a shorter putter.
The broomstick was not introduced until the early '80's when it was first used by Johnny Miller.There is no evidence that it was developed as a training aid, nor is there evidence refuting that idea.
[/quote]
I had the belly putter down as a practice aid for some reason - certainly that was the first time I saw one - can't remember when though. Regardless of the drug patent references, I would say that the invention absolutely did achieve it's stated goal.

Anyway, 500-600 years of the game trumps the relatively recent popularisation of anchoring and it is particularly disturbing to have seen 14-year old players using them.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, there is no video and little documentation from long long ago. But, I do not think it unreasonable to think that the yips existed, even then. Where there are yips, there is tinkering. Where there is tinkering, who knows? Perhaps anchoring is far older a practice than many would care to believe. I would not discount the notion.
[/quote]
Absolutely possible and perhaps even likely. It's still not conduct becoming a gentleman though.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354649050' post='6017793']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354648700' post='6017759']
Many patent drugs were sold promising miracles, too.But often, they were baseless and ummmmm....patently untrue.
Phil Rogers used a patented belly in the '60s. Paul Runyan anchored a short putter in the '30's, but it was of his own design. The patented putter was popularized by Azinger. He was definitely not the first to anchor a shorter putter.
The broomstick was not introduced until the early '80's when it was first used by Johnny Miller.There is no evidence that it was developed as a training aid, nor is there evidence refuting that idea.
[/quote]
I had the belly putter down as a practice aid for some reason - certainly that was the first time I saw one - can't remember when though. Regardless of the drug patent references, I would say that the invention absolutely did achieve it's stated goal.

Anyway, 500-600 years of the game trumps the relatively recent popularisation of anchoring and it is particularly disturbing to have seen 14-year old players using them.
[/quote]

I know Eyeline golf had a belly type extension you could use as a training aid, but that was fairly recent...don't forget Berhard Langer, Sam Torrence and other who all used anchored strokes in the 1980s...I don't understand why it would be disturbing to see anyone using an anchored stroke...is it a visual thing? Or do you think they're gaining an unfair advantage? Or do you simply not like it?? All answers are fine, just wondering...