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

[Lostball]

[quote]I don't know about lostball in particular, but your general point is valid and it adds fuel to the fire I feel is coming. Cheaters will cheat and non cheaters will be accused. Yikes! [/quote]

I don't cheat, unless you call mulligans and gimmes in casual play among friends cheating. I used to play in small but serious money games and was disliked by some because I was a stickler for the rules. But now my friends and I only play for fun. We abide by the rules at least as much as most groups - we don't improve our lie, don't ignore penalties, etc. But we recognize that this rule would change the way we play, and not for the better, so we have chosen to ignore it if and when it goes into effect. That would only be for the games we play among ourselves - any tournament play or matches would be different. In casual play I suppose no one on this board uses gimmes or mulligans. Give me a break.

I just think this rule is a poorly conceived, poorly thought out idea that is an end around to the real concern, which is long putters. Anchoring has been around for decades. All of a sudden it is evil? Only because of the use of long putters. So just ban long putters and stop trying to beat around the bush, or better yet just drop the whole thing.

[bobsuruncle]

am all for the change in rules ...

[Body_Visions]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355146655' post='6045591']
[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1355088077' post='6042961']
I have an idea. Since the belly is what caused all the raucous anyway, just ban them. The rule could state that anchoring is only allowed above the sternum. The arguments against anchoring always seem to be about the belly anyway. The argument against the long putter always seems to be it doesn't look right, but is never about it's effectiveness.
[/quote]
[b]They coud've just said only the hands can touch the club.[/b]
That would have been a simple, principled rule that happened to leave 99% of broomhandlers alone and ban Kuchar style.
Instead they had to create two clauses with explanantions and exceptions in order to penalize exactly what they don't like and leave alone exactly what they think is tolerable.
[/quote]

That could work as well, I guess. I use a long putter, and barely, if at all, touch my chest. Sometimes, I might lightly hold my shirt. But my stroke is a shoulders only stroke like 99.9999% of tour players make. There is [b]no [/b]anchor point with the club swinging like a pendulum. This is what irritates me the most about the rule.

[Vindog]

[quote name='Yeeeeebuddy' timestamp='1355282561' post='6054669']More like I don't wont to look like a tool on the greens, I don't care how much it might help. Even if u guaranteed me I would 3 putt half as often i wouldn't switch.
[/quote]

Look out! We got a tough guy!!!

[Flykixz23]

It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!

[Yeeeeebuddy]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1355342654' post='6058073']
[quote name='Yeeeeebuddy' timestamp='1355282561' post='6054669']More like I don't wont to look like a tool on the greens, I don't care how much it might help. Even if u guaranteed me I would 3 putt half as often i wouldn't switch.
[/quote]

Look out! We got a tough guy!!!
[/quote] Haha maybe tool was a bit harsh, how about I don't wanna look like Tim Clarke.

[pingman1]

[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?!
[/quote]

It's not just 'us'.
For 20 years I had people tell me to give up the long putter because it was inferior; none of the good putters used it.
Now in just a few years it has flip-flopped to where I'm supposedly 'cheating' using this clearly unfair advantage.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355403803' post='6061599']
[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.
[/quote]

In the poll thread 53%(221 people) are against the ban. No way there are that many 'anchorers'
Anybody who doesn't start with an absolute and arbitrary conviction that anchoring is 'wrong' can see real problems with this.

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355406285' post='6061753']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355403803' post='6061599']
[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.
[/quote]

In the poll thread 53%(221 people) are against the ban. No way there are that many 'anchorers'
Anybody who doesn't start with an absolute and arbitrary conviction that anchoring is 'wrong' can see real problems with this.
[/quote]

Well that's an assumption, followed by a false generalization as much as the statement that all pro-anchor people use the method, isn't it?

Why do you anchor people keep using the word "arbitrary" to dismiss criticism of the method? Do you think that just calling all rebuttals "arbitrary" makes your case better or more legitimate? All you're doing is showing people that you're not listening, and that you have a "conviction" that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just pulling things out of thin air when they are not.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355407292' post='6061831']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355406285' post='6061753']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355403803' post='6061599']
[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.
[/quote]

In the poll thread 53%(221 people) are against the ban. No way there are that many 'anchorers'
Anybody who doesn't start with an absolute and arbitrary conviction that anchoring is 'wrong' can see real problems with this.
[/quote]

Well that's an assumption, followed by a false generalization as much as the statement that all pro-anchor people use the method, isn't it?

Why do you anchor people keep using the word "arbitrary" to dismiss criticism of the method? Do you think that just calling all rebuttals "arbitrary" makes your case better or more legitimate? All you're doing is showing people that you're not listening, and that you have a "conviction" that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just pulling things out of thin air when they are not.
[/quote]

Empirical evidence for advantage: no good data. A quick look at stats shows negative advantage. Best putters are conventional.

Analysis of stroke: Mostly incorrect on the pro-anchor side. 'Fulcrum' and 'pivot' as constant talking points in spite of the fact that very few of the relevant pros use the anchor point as a fulcrum. Idiotic extremes of saying anchoring eliminates nerves or ensures on-line stroke, etc.

What is a non-arbitrary excuse for the ban? The proposed rule itself show that it takes multiple clauses and explanations just to try to identify what anchoring IS.

The ban is actually doubly-arbitrary. We already had the neccesarily arbitrary decisions that anchored strokes are acceptable golf.

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355410109' post='6062017']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355407292' post='6061831']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355406285' post='6061753']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355403803' post='6061599']
[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.
[/quote]

In the poll thread 53%(221 people) are against the ban. No way there are that many 'anchorers'
Anybody who doesn't start with an absolute and arbitrary conviction that anchoring is 'wrong' can see real problems with this.
[/quote]

Well that's an assumption, followed by a false generalization as much as the statement that all pro-anchor people use the method, isn't it?

Why do you anchor people keep using the word "arbitrary" to dismiss criticism of the method? Do you think that just calling all rebuttals "arbitrary" makes your case better or more legitimate? All you're doing is showing people that you're not listening, and that you have a "conviction" that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just pulling things out of thin air when they are not.
[/quote]

Empirical evidence for advantage: no good data. A quick look at stats shows negative advantage. Best putters are conventional.

Analysis of stroke: Mostly incorrect on the pro-anchor side. 'Fulcrum' and 'pivot' as constant talking points in spite of the fact that very few of the relevant pros use the anchor point as a fulcrum. Idiotic extremes of saying anchoring eliminates nerves or ensures on-line stroke, etc.

What is a non-arbitrary excuse for the ban? The proposed rule itself show that it takes multiple clauses and explanations just to try to identify what anchoring IS.

The ban is actually doubly-arbitrary. We already had the neccesarily arbitrary decisions that anchored strokes are acceptable golf.
[/quote]

Let's see if you can find anything in the 31 pages of this thread, plus any other threads people felt the need to start.

[Vindog]

I don't use an anchored putter either, but am against the proposed ban. But either way..It's done (or will be done), so what else are we gonna do?

[quote name='Yeeeeebuddy' timestamp='1355373537' post='6060721']Haha maybe tool was a bit harsh, how about I don't wanna look like Tim Clarke.
[/quote]

Still don't believe you. I'm sorry. If you were in Tim's position, and had a chance to win the richest tournament in Golf, you would be worried about appearances?

I'm calling BS broseph.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355410505' post='6062037']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355410109' post='6062017']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355407292' post='6061831']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355406285' post='6061753']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355403803' post='6061599']
[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.
[/quote]

In the poll thread 53%(221 people) are against the ban. No way there are that many 'anchorers'
Anybody who doesn't start with an absolute and arbitrary conviction that anchoring is 'wrong' can see real problems with this.
[/quote]

Well that's an assumption, followed by a false generalization as much as the statement that all pro-anchor people use the method, isn't it?

Why do you anchor people keep using the word "arbitrary" to dismiss criticism of the method? Do you think that just calling all rebuttals "arbitrary" makes your case better or more legitimate? All you're doing is showing people that you're not listening, and that you have a "conviction" that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just pulling things out of thin air when they are not.
[/quote]

Empirical evidence for advantage: no good data. A quick look at stats shows negative advantage. Best putters are conventional.

Analysis of stroke: Mostly incorrect on the pro-anchor side. 'Fulcrum' and 'pivot' as constant talking points in spite of the fact that very few of the relevant pros use the anchor point as a fulcrum. Idiotic extremes of saying anchoring eliminates nerves or ensures on-line stroke, etc.

What is a non-arbitrary excuse for the ban? The proposed rule itself show that it takes multiple clauses and explanations just to try to identify what anchoring IS.

The ban is actually doubly-arbitrary. We already had the neccesarily arbitrary decisions that anchored strokes are acceptable golf.
[/quote]

Let's see if you can find anything in the 31 pages of this thread, plus any other threads people felt the need to start.
[/quote]

Nah, you were right when you said that 'we' call them all arbitray. Because they all have been.

Regulating length because courses are being obsoleted would be non-arbirary.

A major performance difference that changed the nature of the game significantly and measurably would be non-arbitrary.

The real reason that the usga/ra have more or less admiitted to is the real possibility of belly putters becoming more prevalant than short putters.
So what?

[nbg352]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355407292' post='6061831']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355406285' post='6061753']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355403803' post='6061599']
[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.
[/quote]

In the poll thread 53%(221 people) are against the ban. No way there are that many 'anchorers'
Anybody who doesn't start with an absolute and arbitrary conviction that anchoring is 'wrong' can see real problems with this.
[/quote]

Well that's an assumption, followed by a false generalization as much as the statement that all pro-anchor people use the method, isn't it?

[b]Why do you anchor people [/b]keep using the word "arbitrary" to dismiss criticism of the method? Do you think that just calling all rebuttals "arbitrary" makes your case better or more legitimate? [b]All you're doing is showing people that you're not listening[/b], and that you have a "conviction" that [b]anyone who doesn't agree with you is just pulling things out of thin air [/b]when they are not.
[/quote]
Why do those in favour of the ban treat those against the ban with derision and an air of superior intelligence? Use of the word arbitrary is self evident. If you do not know it's definition, then please feel free to look it up.The word describes the manner in which the decision was reached, not to dismiss criticism. And the reason that so many who are against the ban do not make use of any anchoring, is that they are against any body making large decisions in an arbitrary fashion. They feel that there should be a concrete, proven reason for making such a decision. We have listened to all of your arguments in favor of a ban and all we've asked for in return is evidence. Since neither those in favour, nor the ruling bodies have even attempted a show of evidence, then yes, we think you are pulling your argument out of thin air and thus any decision to ban anchoring is an arbitrary one.

[avrag]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355403803' post='6061599']
[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1355403460' post='6061585']
[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

I don't agree with the ban and I don't use the anchor method!
[/quote]

That's one.
[/quote]

Make that two.
Edit: Just read Vindog's post #904.
Three.

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1354490426' post='6009227']
I use a 33" putter with a 6 o'clock toe hang. I tried belly and long putters just to see what it is like and I could not see them helping in any way. And I do think they look ridiculous in the hands of golfers who are younger than, let's say, 60 years. They might even be detrimental to the image of professional golf with TV audiences, but frankly, I think that players like Kevin Stadler are more detrimental than long putters.
My gripe is with the fact that after decades, the ruling bodies just now find out that all of a sudden they think it is necessary to define a proper stroke, and they do so with a poor wording of the proposed new rule, which also has an impact on other playing situations than putting. It is so poor, that they don't even manage to let the rule speak for itself, but have to add examples and pictures, which, as I have mentioned before, is always a sign for extremely poor lawmaking. And I see that simply from a lawmaking perspective, which was my profession for a long time, before I became a judge, who now often has to deal with poorly worded laws.
I never considered long and belly putters a big deal or a danger to the game as we know it, at least much less so than the modern ball or driver technology. This is why I see a lot of hypocrisy in the road the R&A and the USGA have taken and why I don't like it.
[/quote]

[Dire Wolf]

I say again, just because you say something is "arbitrary" in a negative sense doesn't mean it is, or that there are no justifications for it. It only seems that way when someone has fingers in ears, and hands over eyes.

[b] [i]ar·bi·trar·y [/i][/b]

[i]/ˈärbiˌtrerē/[/i]
[i]Adjective[/i][list]
[*][i]Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[/i]
[*][i](of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.[/i]
[/list]
It doesn't matter which definition you choose, it still doesn't apply. It is not random, there are reasons given by people here and the USGA, and the action is not unrestrained and autocratic (otherwise the interviews with players would never have happened).

Now stop complaining and hit your friggin putt already...

[nbg352]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355420799' post='6063017']
I say again, just because you say something is "arbitrary" in a negative sense doesn't mean it is, or that there are no justifications for it. It only seems that way when someone has fingers in ears, and hands over eyes.

[b] [i]ar·bi·trar·y [/i][/b]

[i]/ˈärbiˌtrerē/[/i]
[i]Adjective[/i][list]
[*][i]Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[/i]
[*][i](of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.[/i]
[/list]
It doesn't matter which definition you choose, it still doesn't apply. It is not random, there are reasons given by people here and the USGA, and the action is not unrestrained and autocratic (otherwise the interviews with players would never have happened).

Now stop complaining and hit your friggin putt already...
[/quote]

Well, the personal whim definition works well, I think. Banning a stroke because one doesn't like it, certainly is a decision based on whim. Arbitrary is not a positive word, so I guess the onlt way to use it is in a negative sense.
I'll putt when I'm ready....tryin" to figger out how to non-anchor this broomstick of mine.....

[Dire Wolf]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1355422016' post='6063141']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355420799' post='6063017']
I say again, just because you say something is "arbitrary" in a negative sense doesn't mean it is, or that there are no justifications for it. It only seems that way when someone has fingers in ears, and hands over eyes.

[b] [i]ar·bi·trar·y [/i][/b]

[i]/ˈärbiˌtrerē/[/i]
[i]Adjective[/i][list]
[*][i]Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[/i]
[*][i](of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.[/i]
[/list]
It doesn't matter which definition you choose, it still doesn't apply. It is not random, there are reasons given by people here and the USGA, and the action is not unrestrained and autocratic (otherwise the interviews with players would never have happened).

Now stop complaining and hit your friggin putt already...
[/quote]

Well, the personal whim definition works well, I think. Banning a stroke because one doesn't like it, certainly is a decision based on whim. Arbitrary is not a positive word, so I guess the onlt way to use it is in a negative sense.
I'll putt when I'm ready....tryin" to figger out how to non-anchor this broomstick of mine.....
[/quote]


It's not based on personal whim, either. It may seem like that to people who disagree or don't understand, but whose "whim" are we talking about? And it's not really just something that was pulled out of thin air on the spur of the moment, which would make it a whim. It's a decision by a governing body, not a personal whim.

People disagree with it and don't understand it, so to them it seems UNFAIR and UNJUSTIFIED, which is what they probably mean when they say "arbitrary". We can argue the fairness and justification, but it is clearly not "arbitrary", and that's important to note because saying it IS arbitrary removes all possibilities that it could be fair and justified.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355420799' post='6063017']
I say again, just because you say something is "arbitrary" in a negative sense doesn't mean it is, or that there are no justifications for it. It only seems that way when someone has fingers in ears, and hands over eyes.

[b] [i]ar·bi·trar·y [/i][/b]

[i]/ˈärbiˌtrerē/[/i]
[i]Adjective[/i][list]
[*][i]Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[/i]
[*][i](of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.[/i]
[/list]
It doesn't matter which definition you choose, it still doesn't apply. It is not random, there are reasons given by people here and the USGA, and the action is not unrestrained and autocratic (otherwise the interviews with players would never have happened).

Now stop complaining and hit your friggin putt already...
[/quote]

Detailing and compounding personal whims is not making a reasoned decision.

I've seen plenty of pretending to listen then making an autocratic decision in corporations.
Does anybody on either side believe the comment period is not a sham?

[nbg352]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355423161' post='6063271']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1355422016' post='6063141']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355420799' post='6063017']
I say again, just because you say something is "arbitrary" in a negative sense doesn't mean it is, or that there are no justifications for it. It only seems that way when someone has fingers in ears, and hands over eyes.

[b] [i]ar·bi·trar·y [/i][/b]

[i]/ˈärbiˌtrerē/[/i]
[i]Adjective[/i][list]
[*][i]Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[/i]
[*][i](of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.[/i]
[/list]
It doesn't matter which definition you choose, it still doesn't apply. It is not random, there are reasons given by people here and the USGA, and the action is not unrestrained and autocratic (otherwise the interviews with players would never have happened).

Now stop complaining and hit your friggin putt already...
[/quote]

Well, the personal whim definition works well, I think. Banning a stroke because one doesn't like it, certainly is a decision based on whim. Arbitrary is not a positive word, so I guess the onlt way to use it is in a negative sense.
I'll putt when I'm ready....tryin" to figger out how to non-anchor this broomstick of mine.....
[/quote]


It's not based on personal whim, either. It may seem like that to people who disagree or don't understand, but whose "whim" are we talking about? And it's not really just something that was pulled out of thin air on the spur of the moment, which would make it a whim. It's a decision by a governing body, not a personal whim.

People disagree with it and don't understand it, so to them it seems UNFAIR and UNJUSTIFIED, which is what they probably mean when they say "arbitrary". We can argue the fairness and justification, but it is clearly not "arbitrary", and that's important to note because saying it IS arbitrary removes all possibilities that it could be fair and justified.
[/quote]
A justified ban would be one that is based upon evidence or proof. This ban is in effect in spite of the admission that in fact, no evidence exists.
A fair ban? I don't think there is such a thing in this case. Because anchoring has been legal for so long, banning it adversely affects too many golfers at all levels and ages.
Because the decision to ban was made on behalf of a ruling body, based upon dislike, by one or two people within that ruling body, makes it personal and based upon whim, rather than fact.

Whim: A sudden desire or change of mind.especially one that is unusual or unexplained.

In this instance we have a decision, made rather quickly, unusual in that it was taking away a sroke that has been legal in one form or another for a very long time and it was done without benefit of a better reason than we don't like it, effectively making it unexplained. If that isn't arbitrary, nothing is.
I'm just going to use a short putter and anchor my forearms to the body. Feels pretty much the same as a belly putter stroke, to me.......

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355420799' post='6063017']
I say again, just because you say something is "arbitrary" in a negative sense doesn't mean it is, or that there are no justifications for it. It only seems that way when someone has fingers in ears, and hands over eyes.

[b] [i]ar·bi·trar·y [/i][/b]

[i]/ˈärbiˌtrerē/[/i]
[i]Adjective[/i][list]
[*][i]Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[/i]
[*][i](of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.[/i]
[/list]
It doesn't matter which definition you choose, it still doesn't apply. It is not random, there are reasons given by people here and the USGA, and the action is not unrestrained and autocratic (otherwise the interviews with players would never have happened).

Now stop complaining and hit your friggin putt already...
[/quote]

Actually this ruling by the USGA is the [i]quintessential [/i](sorry had to throw that one in there since we're reached the point of duelling dictionaries) arbitrary decision.

1. They have provided no objective evidence that an "anchored" stroke provides any sort of advantage or fundamentally reduces the challenge of putting. When called on it, supporters of the ban just keep "jumping up and down" and asserting that there is one. As if simply repeating it often enough, and forcefully enough will somehow make it true.

2. They have provided no objective evidence that the anchored stroke is a fundamental deviation from other unconventional putting styles used in the history of the game. In fact, those opposed to the ban have show substantial evidence to the contrary. Yet the USGA, tries to rationalize this decision by offering up an inaccurate, highly-biased rendition of golf history...one claiming special knowledge of the intentions of the game's forefathers.

IOW, its all smoke-and-mirrors. Blow away the smoke, and knock down the mirrors and all you are left with are two arbitrary reasons for the ban:

a. WE DON'T LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE PUT THIS WAY....even though we can't give a reason why that withstands any objective scrutiny.

b. WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE IT GO AWAY...SO WE WILL.

Arbitrary.

Authoritarian.

About as textbook an example of the abuse of power as one will ever come across.

[Body_Visions]

[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355363137' post='6059841']
It's amazing so many people who do not agree with the ban but they are all the ones who use the anchor method! Also funny how they all put better and I love how they say it makes no difference!?! Then why not go conventional!?!
[/quote]

It's amazing to me how so many people for the ban don't use the method. If it is indeed cheating, why not just use it and score better?

As I have said many times, it is an alternative method, no different than left hand low, claw, etc., that might make some putt better. And if it were automatic, every single person that is playing for a living, would be doing it.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1355427516' post='6063711']
It's amazing to me how so many people for the ban don't use the method. If it is indeed cheating, why not just use it and score better?

As I have said many times, it is an alternative method, no different than left hand low, claw, etc., that might make some putt better. And if it were automatic, every single person that is playing for a living, would be doing it.
[/quote]

Because some people don't deal with [i]change [/i]or [i]newness[/i] very well.

So rather than adapting to the change, they'd rather force everyone else to do what keeps them within their personal comfort zone.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1355422016' post='6063141']tryin" to figger out how to non-anchor this broomstick of mine.....
[/quote]

Experiment with face on. I'm getting an awesome conistent straight stroke but still struggling with how to line up.

[BenSnead]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355426592' post='6063615']
[quote name='Dire Wolf' timestamp='1355420799' post='6063017']
I say again, just because you say something is "arbitrary" in a negative sense doesn't mean it is, or that there are no justifications for it. It only seems that way when someone has fingers in ears, and hands over eyes.

[b] [i]ar·bi·trar·y [/i][/b]

[i]/ˈärbiˌtrerē/[/i]
[i]Adjective[/i][list]
[*][i]Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[/i]
[*][i](of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.[/i]
[/list]
It doesn't matter which definition you choose, it still doesn't apply. It is not random, there are reasons given by people here and the USGA, and the action is not unrestrained and autocratic (otherwise the interviews with players would never have happened).

Now stop complaining and hit your friggin putt already...
[/quote]

Actually this ruling by the USGA is the [i]quintessential [/i](sorry had to throw that one in there since we're reached the point of duelling dictionaries) arbitrary decision.

1. They have provided no objective evidence that an "anchored" stroke provides any sort of advantage or fundamentally reduces the challenge of putting. When called on it, supporters of the ban just keep "jumping up and down" and asserting that there is one. As if simply repeating it often enough, and forcefully enough will somehow make it true.

2. They have provided no objective evidence that the anchored stroke is a fundamental deviation from other unconventional putting styles used in the history of the game. In fact, those opposed to the ban have show substantial evidence to the contrary. Yet the USGA, tries to rationalize this decision by offering up an inaccurate, highly-biased rendition of golf history...one claiming special knowledge of the intentions of the game's forefathers.

IOW, its all smoke-and-mirrors. Blow away the smoke, and knock down the mirrors and all you are left with are two arbitrary reasons for the ban:

a. WE DON'T LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE PUT THIS WAY....even though we can't give a reason why that withstands any objective scrutiny.

b. WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE IT GO AWAY...SO WE WILL.

Arbitrary.

Authoritarian.

About as textbook an example of the abuse of power as one will ever come across.
[/quote]
I agree but I also think they mange to really believe that forcing in exactly what they want is the same thing as acting in the best interest of the game.

[nbg352]

[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1355428839' post='6063841']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1355422016' post='6063141']tryin" to figger out how to non-anchor this broomstick of mine.....
[/quote]

Experiment with face on. I'm getting an awesome conistent straight stroke but still struggling with how to line up.
[/quote]
Kidding, there. I use a 32" putter that I intend to use with my forearms against my body. I really like how it feels. I've tried face on or side saddle and I must say that as a righty, it works much better left handed for some reason. But, I don't think even I like the look of the set up, so I probably won't seriously work it into my game.
Try setting up with the ball ahead of and just outside the lead foot.

[tembolo1284]

Can you stroke the putt in the air? While you are jumping over the line and are right above it? This is as close to the old croquet stroke as i've been able to get.

[Body_Visions]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355428012' post='6063757']
[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1355427516' post='6063711']
It's amazing to me how so many people for the ban don't use the method. If it is indeed cheating, why not just use it and score better?

As I have said many times, it is an alternative method, no different than left hand low, claw, etc., that might make some putt better. And if it were automatic, every single person that is playing for a living, would be doing it.
[/quote]

Because some people don't deal with [i]change [/i]or [i]newness[/i] very well.

So rather than adapting to the change, they'd rather force everyone else to do what keeps them within their personal comfort zone.
[/quote]

Yeah, that has been part of my argument all along. They are not automatic, and require much practice for most to get. For instance, had Els dedicated the time he spent getting used to the belly, to his other putter, he might have been fine with it. I am not picking on Els, nor do I want to get into a discussion about his putting in recent years, just stating a possibility.