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

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354671784' post='6019597']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354671553' post='6019579']
Possible eureka moment... It could be that the rule states 'may be required' simply to allow other solutions, such as the change of the face shape in this instance. This would allow discretion and alternatives in order to enable compliance. In other words, changing the lie angle is not the only solution in such circumstances.

I think that makes sense.
[/quote]
You can apologize later.
[/quote]
For what? For showing you the mythical rule that didn't exist? The rationale I outlined above had nothing to do with you saying that the wording meant you were allowed to change the lie to make it conforming. Hopeless.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354667969' post='6019265']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354667223' post='6019215']
Equipment is legal for use based on the design. That is all the USGA ruled on when they deemed that putter to be conforming.

You can take virtually any putter and use it like a pool cue or croquet style. It doesn't make the putter illegal for use
[/quote]
That's the interesting part though. Determining a putter has been designed to be used in an upright style. Stricker uses a normal putter but holds it very upright - no problem, it wasn't designed to be used like that. A broom putter is designed to be used like that though, which makes this interesting. The consequence to making a club designed to be used like this is non-existent though - the lie angle [b]might[/b] be required to be greater... might... when, why, etc. It's a strange rule ([b]but one that nbg knew about all along).[/b]
[/quote]
He did, yes.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354671553' post='6019579']
Possible eureka moment... It could be that the rule states 'may be required' simply to allow other solutions, such as the change of the face shape in this instance. This would allow discretion and alternatives in order to enable compliance. In other words, changing the lie angle is not the only solution in such circumstances.

I think that makes sense.
[/quote]

My bet...USGA will wait until 2040 when Keegan's 2nd child beats Tiger's 4th child in the British Open at the Old Course, which will be playing approximately 8254 yds...

[spooky]

[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354672092' post='6019631']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354671553' post='6019579']
Possible eureka moment... It could be that the rule states 'may be required' simply to allow other solutions, such as the change of the face shape in this instance. This would allow discretion and alternatives in order to enable compliance. In other words, changing the lie angle is not the only solution in such circumstances.

I think that makes sense.
[/quote]

My bet...USGA will wait until 2040 when Keegan's 2nd child beats Tiger's 4th child in the British Open at the Old Course, which will be playing approximately 8254 yds...
[/quote]
You think they will move that fast?!

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354671836' post='6019605']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354671784' post='6019597']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354671553' post='6019579']
Possible eureka moment... It could be that the rule states 'may be required' simply to allow other solutions, such as the change of the face shape in this instance. This would allow discretion and alternatives in order to enable compliance. In other words, [b]changing the lie angle is not the only solution[/b] in such circumstances.

I think that makes sense.
[/quote]
You can apologize later.
[/quote]
For what? For showing you the mythical rule that didn't exist? The rationale I outlined above had nothing to do with you saying that the wording meant you were allowed to change the lie to make it conforming. Hopeless.
[/quote]
And yet now you agree that changing lie is a solution to making it conform again.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354659011' post='6018535']
[b]There is a rule that states a variation in lie angle can be required where the club is designed to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner[/b] but it is extremely vague and never seems to have been enforced for some reason. Clearly there was an intent for a pendulum motion not to have been permitted. Good points though.
[/quote]
It has never been enforced [b]because it does not exist. Period[/b]. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[b]Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354662721' post='6018827']
H*ll[b] I was aware of this rule[/b]. Just never thought anyone could possibly think it was vague or unenforceable. I was expecting something obscure and scary. this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Nice try.
[/quote]

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354672256' post='6019641']
And yet now you agree that changing lie is a solution to making it conform again.
[/quote]
My query with this was about the specific wording, as you are aware. You shouldn't try and get clever about a rule you didn't think existed.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354672710' post='6019691']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354672256' post='6019641']
And yet now you agree that changing lie is a solution to making it conform again.
[/quote]
My query with this was about the specific wording, as you are aware. You shouldn't try and get clever about a rule you didn't think existed.
[/quote]
Listen, I thought, by your statement that you were going to show us something obscure and controversial that I may have missed. I like to learn new things. Instead you you brought up the actual wording and tried to construe it as something that is weakly worded. It isn't. Did I know the actual rule existed? You bet. And I understand it, too. You didn't and your misunderstanding led me to believe you had found something new. So, kindly get off my case, admit that you did not understand the rule and we'll carry on without unecessary insults. You did not know that the rule offers a workaround for non conforming clubs that may allow them to conform. Which is why you thought the word "may" was weak, and could allow a nonconforming club to be played without penalty. It doesn't allow for anything of the sort. Unless the workaround, as dedscribed, is implemented, the club remains nonconforming and cannot be used without incurring penalty.
Do not try to salvage your reputation, please, by unnecessarily tarnishing mine.
Thank you

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354661646' post='6018747']
If it looks like the putter or club is easily operated from a greater than 80*position, it is illegal and [b]must be bent [/b]until it is no longer easy to operate in that position.
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354665207' post='6019021']
It may be possible to make it conforming again, by bending it up to 25 degrees. [b]If not, it is simply illegal to use it[/b].
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354666022' post='6019097']
the word "may" is only useful if the non-conforming club could otherwise be made to conform by bending it. Then it may be done. [b]Permission granted[/b] to make it legal, no bigee if you don't, because as it is, you can't use it.Shall is not used, because it makes it imperative. [b]This is not necessary, because the club is already deemed illegal[/b].
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354666581' post='6019157']
Ifit can be held vertically, and be used effectively, then it no longer conforms and is illegal to use. If it can conform by bending it up to 25* so that it can no longer effectively be used vertically, then it may be bent. It will then conform. [b]If it is not bent, it does not conform and cannot be used[/b].
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352']
If one can demonstrate that it is effective at 85* or 90* then it no longer conforms and cannot be used again legally, [b]unless it is bent[/b] to a point where it is no longer effective in the more upright position.
[/quote]
I simply stated that there was a rule about using a putter in a vertical or near-vertical manner and you said it was a myth and you had searched without finding it for a month. It's there for everyone to see and there was no misunderstanding.

The use of the word 'may' is [b]not[/b] giving permission to bend the club as you stated and bending is [b]not[/b] the only solution, despite you stating that it was. This has been seen from the Futura example and this is what cast light on the wording. The word 'may' appears to have been used simply to establish that it is one [b]possible[/b] way to address non-conformity but bending the club is not the only option, whereas you said it was required. The confusion in the wording is that it 'may be required' and 'by up to', along with the vagueness of saying whether or not a club can be effectively used. You also stated 'easily used' - that is not the wording and there is a difference between 'easily used' and 'effectively used'. I would be fascinated to know what criteria are used by the governing bodies to determine whether a club can or cannot be 'effectively used' in a vertical or near-vertical manner.

It is hilarious that I conclude a suitable interpretation of the rule as a result of seeing the Futura example and you then congratulate me as if you knew this all along, yet your words clearly show that your understanding of the rule that you didn't know existed was wrong, but you cannot have the good grace to admit it. Amazing.

Anyway, I'm done discussing this. I've found it both productive and hilarious. I'll let you have the last word as I know you will be desperate to do so. Enjoy.

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354655859' post='6018277']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354653875' post='6018129']
I'm sure many people felt the "timing" was wrong and the decision "arbitrary" when it came to many of these rulings, which are now just accepted because they've been around "a long time":

[url="http://www.ruleshistory.com/clubs.html"]http://www.ruleshistory.com/clubs.html[/url]
[/quote]
We have no idea whether these old decisions were considered ill timed or arbitrary in their day. We do know that the anchoring ban is both.
[/quote]


Actually we do know some of that regarding some of the decisions. You are assuming this anchoring rule is unique in that regard and it is not. An example from another poster in another thread:

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/756529-why-do-golfs-ruling-bodies-keep-making-the-game-more-difficult/page__st__90#entry6016395"]http://www.golfwrx.c...90#entry6016395[/url]

edit: And after reading the couple of pages since the post I responded to above it seems like you're just arguing from a set position and creating whatever "facts" you need to support your impressions. Next you'll tell me you actually knew about the controversies surrounding every decision ever made, but didn't think it worth mentioning when you said "we have no idea".

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354704330' post='6021053']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354661646' post='6018747']
If it looks like the putter or club is easily operated from a greater than 80*position, it is illegal and [b]must be bent [/b]until it is no longer easy to operate in that position.
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354665207' post='6019021']
It may be possible to make it conforming again, by bending it up to 25 degrees. [b]If not, it is simply illegal to use it[/b].
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354666022' post='6019097']
the word "may" is only useful if the non-conforming club could otherwise be made to conform by bending it. Then it may be done. [b]Permission granted[/b] to make it legal, no bigee if you don't, because as it is, you can't use it.Shall is not used, because it makes it imperative. [b]This is not necessary, because the club is already deemed illegal[/b].
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354666581' post='6019157']
Ifit can be held vertically, and be used effectively, then it no longer conforms and is illegal to use. If it can conform by bending it up to 25* so that it can no longer effectively be used vertically, then it may be bent. It will then conform. [b]If it is not bent, it does not conform and cannot be used[/b].
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352']
If one can demonstrate that it is effective at 85* or 90* then it no longer conforms and cannot be used again legally, [b]unless it is bent[/b] to a point where it is no longer effective in the more upright position.
[/quote]
I simply stated that there was a rule about using a putter in a vertical or near-vertical manner and you said it was a myth and you had searched without finding it for a month. It's there for everyone to see and there was no misunderstanding.

[b]The use of the word 'may' is not giving permission t[/b]o bend the club as you stated and bending is [b]not[/b] the only solution, despite you stating that it was. This has been seen from the Futura example and this is what cast light on the wording. The word 'may' appears to have been used simply to establish that it is one [b]possible[/b] way to address non-conformity but bending the club is not the only option, whereas you said it was required. The confusion in the wording is that it 'may be required' and 'by up to', along with the vagueness of saying whether or not a club can be effectively used. You also stated 'easily used' - that is not the wording and there is a difference between 'easily used' and 'effectively used'. I would be fascinated to know what criteria are used by the governing bodies to determine whether a club can or cannot be 'effectively used' in a vertical or near-vertical manner.

It is hilarious that I conclude a suitable interpretation of the rule as a result of seeing the Futura example and you then congratulate me as if you knew this all along, yet your words clearly show that your understanding of the rule that you didn't know existed was wrong, but you cannot have the good grace to admit it. Amazing.

Anyway, I'm done discussing this. I've found it both productive and hilarious. I'll let you have the last word as I know you will be desperate to do so. Enjoy.
[/quote]As per Oxford:
[color=#333333]
Definition of [b]may[/b][/color]
[b] modal verb (3rd singular present [b]may[/b]; past [b]might[/b] /mʌɪt/)[/b]
[list]
[*]
[b]1[/b]expressing possibility:[i]that may be true[/i][i]he [b]may well[/b] win[/i]
[*]
[url=""]used when admitting that something is so before making another, more important point:[i]they may have been old-fashioned but they were excellent teachers[/i]
[/list] [list]
[*]
[/url][b][b]2[/b]used to ask for or to give permission:[i]you may confirm my identity with your Case Officer, if you wish[/i][/b][i]may I ask a few questions?[/i]
[/list] [list]
[*]
<a name="may__7" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: content-box; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(26, 99, 171);">[b]3[/b]expressing a wish or hope:[i]may she rest in peace[/i]
[*]
[i]You love to twist words and you are not bad at it. But you do it with derision and a sense of superiority as you proceed. You have taken out of context everything I've said regarding this rule, in order to cover your own confusion. In this instance, it is my own fault for not being clear enough in my questioning of the rule. I was naive enough to think you would not try to crucify me with it. Ah, well, lesson learned, thank you. I thought you might enjoy the above definition. It fits with your assumption that I thought bending was the only solution, that I did not know that a redesign was possible . I simply used bending as an example of what may be done to have a club conform. [/i]
[/list]

[rustyputterguy]

This thread has become completely ridiculous. It's a great read. Thank you.

[tembolo1284]

haha, agree rusty.

[jnradioactive]

 

it over now, pointless debating it...

[scotee]

[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1354670698' post='6019509']
The Futura putter design had to be changed for that reason:

[url="http://www.titleist.com/news-archive/story/1280/Futura%20Long%20Putter%20Deemed%20Nonconforming.aspx"]http://www.titleist....conforming.aspx[/url]
[/quote]

So is putting non-achored with the conforming Futura with the heal off the ground in a near vertical orientation a violation?

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='scotee' timestamp='1354738328' post='6023491']
[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1354670698' post='6019509']
The Futura putter design had to be changed for that reason:

[url="http://www.titleist.com/news-archive/story/1280/Futura%20Long%20Putter%20Deemed%20Nonconforming.aspx"]http://www.titleist....conforming.aspx[/url]
[/quote]

So is putting non-achored with the conforming Futura with the heal off the ground in a near vertical orientation a violation?
[/quote]

No

[inpresX]

If you use the putter at 90 degrees, they will force you to bend your putter. But if you use it at 89.99 degrees then you're ok.

Wait 90 degrees relative to?

[BenSnead]

[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1354745604' post='6024079']
If you use the putter at 90 degrees, they will force you to bend your putter. But if you use it at 89.99 degrees then you're ok.

Wait 90 degrees relative to?
[/quote]
NO. Think about it reworded the other way around.
Perfectly legal to swing at 90* so long as your putter looks at least 10* heel up while you do it.

[spooky]

Not really - the old Futura had a sole that appeared to be designed to help make a vertical stroke - the replacement had that changed. The difficulty is in judgement of the club being designed to be used effectively in a vertical or near-vertical manner. Not necessarily the way it is used but the way it is designed to be used, which may not be the same thing. I found the Torrance picture interesting - curved sole to enable the club to sit at a wide range of lie angles and long shaft to enable a vertical or near-vertical stroke. Not sure how that would have differed from the Futura in principle.

[BenSnead]

Seems like a rule that says 'no' but bends over waiting to be violated.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354748882' post='6024343']
Not really - the old Futura had a sole that appeared to be designed to help make a vertical stroke - the replacement had that changed. The difficulty is in judgement of the club being designed to be used effectively in a vertical or near-vertical manner. Not necessarily the way it is used but the way it is designed to be used, which may not be the same thing. I found the Torrance picture interesting - curved sole to enable the club to sit at a wide range of lie angles and long shaft to enable a vertical or near-vertical stroke. Not sure how that would have differed from the Futura in principle.
[/quote]

The rule is vague because of the "near vertical" terminology. The 80 deg. lie angle by most normal people would be considered "near vertical," but since it is permissible, it obviously isn't per the USGA. So there is some point between 80 deg and 90 deg. that has to be the tipping point to being "near vertical." This is obviously purely subjective on the part of the USGA, so they've decided (per the Futura example) that if the sole of the club makes it easy to hold in a vertical position, even with an 80 deg. lie angle, then it is non-conforming.

Just speculating, but my guess is that the putter that Torrence is using was simply designed to the 80 deg. lie angle limit and not submitted to the R&A or USGA for conformity or it was a previously conforming head design that was reshafted for long putter use but not re-certified. IMO, it is not substantially different than the original Futura example bases only on the photo provided or at best it toes the line of the regulation.

[inpresX]

Gary McCord has been a supporter of face on putting:

 

 

I think the reason the shaft is not completely vertical in this shot is to keep the USGA happy. This technique is MUCH more effective when you hang the putter vertically by its own weight.

 

Link to the original article:

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2011-01/fun-issue-gary-mccord-putting

[hoganfan924]

I once saw McCord throw his (short) putter into a garbage can as he was walking off a green. His putting woes are well know so it's no surprise that he'd try just about anything.

[mark m]

1. The hinge
2. The guide
3. The speed
4. Am I in "Scottsdale!(?)"
5. The fugly putter
6. The fugly shoes

[spooky]

[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1354751683' post='6024555']
Gary McCord has been a supporter of face on putting:

I think the reason the shaft is not completely vertical in this shot is to keep the USGA happy. This technique is MUCH more effective when you hang the putter vertically by its own weight.

Link to the original article:
[url="http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2011-01/fun-issue-gary-mccord-putting"]http://www.golfdiges...-mccord-putting[/url]
[/quote]
The rule we were discussing was created with the express intent of not enabling a vertical or near-vertical stroke. There's something rotten about trying to find ways around rules when you are fully aware of their intent. Like a lawyer getting a criminal off the hook on a technicality - clever, but somewhat distasteful.

[Mudguard]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354756365' post='6024833']
There's something rotten about trying to find ways around rules when you are fully aware of their intent. Like a lawyer getting a criminal off the hook on a technicality - clever, but somewhat distasteful.
[/quote]
Clearly you haven't spent $600 buying a belly putter lately. One fundamental to this rule change is unlike drivers at 460cc there weren't suddenly a whole lot of drivers that were suddenly illegal because they were 470cc. Most mainstream drivers were still under that size.
I realise they have not banned [i]belly or broom [/i]putters per se. But they've banned the manner in which they were designed to be used. So essentially making them obsolete without upsetting the OEMs.

I wouldn't wish the yips on anyone else but a few posts in here make me feel that I would quite happily see it spread.

I genuinely don't know what to do. I have an armlock putter ordered. Two belly putters that can't be used. I might try McCord's method. This is after four years of using a belly putter and my putts have finally got below 1.8 now.

[spooky]

[quote name='Mudguard' timestamp='1354777705' post='6026187']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354756365' post='6024833']
There's something rotten about trying to find ways around rules when you are fully aware of their intent. Like a lawyer getting a criminal off the hook on a technicality - clever, but somewhat distasteful.
[/quote]
Clearly you haven't spent $600 buying a belly putter lately. One fundamental to this rule change is unlike drivers at 460cc there weren't suddenly a whole lot of drivers that were suddenly illegal because they were 470cc. Most mainstream drivers were still under that size.
I realise they have not banned [i]belly or broom [/i]putters per se. But they've banned the manner in which they were designed to be used. So essentially making them obsolete without upsetting the OEMs.

I wouldn't wish the yips on anyone else but a few posts in here make me feel that I would quite happily see it spread.

I genuinely don't know what to do. I have an armlock putter ordered. Two belly putters that can't be used. I might try McCord's method. This is after four years of using a belly putter and my putts have finally got below 1.8 now.
[/quote]
Don't take this personally, but surely 1.8 is not your real level of ability then? According to some on here you can create [b]exactly[/b] the same stroke just by using a short putter with your arms braced against your body. Is that not your experience?

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='Mudguard' timestamp='1354777705' post='6026187']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354756365' post='6024833']
There's something rotten about trying to find ways around rules when you are fully aware of their intent. Like a lawyer getting a criminal off the hook on a technicality - clever, but somewhat distasteful.
[/quote]
Clearly you haven't spent $600 buying a belly putter lately. One fundamental to this rule change is unlike drivers at 460cc there weren't suddenly a whole lot of drivers that were suddenly illegal because they were 470cc. Most mainstream drivers were still under that size.
I realise they have not banned [i]belly or broom [/i]putters per se. But they've banned the manner in which they were designed to be used. So essentially making them obsolete without upsetting the OEMs.

I wouldn't wish the yips on anyone else but a few posts in here make me feel that I would quite happily see it spread.

I genuinely don't know what to do. I have an armlock putter ordered. Two belly putters that can't be used. I might try McCord's method. This is after four years of using a belly putter and my putts have finally got below 1.8 now.
[/quote]

As someone said, it's not the USGA's job to ensure profitability for retailers or manage the resale value of clubs for golfers. Their job is to be golf's governing body in this country, which includes making rules.

I've had bad, long cases of the yips and I cured them with determination and practice with the short putter. I have no sympathy for anyone unwilling to do the same, and who thinks he's entitled to "buy a game" with a piece of equipment, which is what this is REALLY all about.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354797041' post='6026483']


I've had bad, long cases of the yips and I cured them with determination and practice with the short putter. I have no sympathy for anyone unwilling to do the same, and who thinks he's entitled to "buy a game" with a piece of equipment, which is what this is REALLY all about.
[/quote]

Wonderful point.
These guys like Els,Singh,Langer,Kite and Snead who just wouldn't put any work into their game are disgusting.
What would they have ever accomplished without 'cheater sticks'?

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354799827' post='6026607']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1354797041' post='6026483']
I've had bad, long cases of the yips and I cured them with determination and practice with the short putter. I have no sympathy for anyone unwilling to do the same, and who thinks he's entitled to "buy a game" with a piece of equipment, which is what this is REALLY all about.
[/quote]

Wonderful point.
These guys like Els,Singh,Langer,Kite and Snead who just wouldn't put any work into their game are disgusting.
What would they have ever accomplished without 'cheater sticks'?
[/quote]

Are you seriously trying to say that the yips don't happen to players who are good at everything else?

How about we flip your sarcasm on its ear and take the more realistic approach that these players who worked so hard on the other aspects of their game should be able to apply the same determination to fixing their putting without resorting to specialized equipment made for a bannable method, especially if some schmoe off the street can do the same?