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

[Puddin]

I havent read every post, hope I'm not duplicating efforts here. I wonder how much revenue is at stake if the putters are banned. Will the manufacturers still produce them after 2016? I agree with the proposal by the way.

[golfin2]

Great move. HUGE amounts of juniors have been using the belly putters and anchoring. The entire game was going to change.

This will prevent that. Perfect timing by the USGA.

I really don't want to watch pro golf with a bunch of men with their putter stuffed into their belly.

This will separate the players again.

[TRoc9892]

Woah there. It was more a suggestion coming from a similar position. I was in the same boat. Can't strengthen my core because of scoliosis. I was just passing on what my sport's specialized doctor, who mshills went to duke I believe, told me. lol I can see i plucked a nerve there Medic.

Thank you. Wasn't forcing my omnicient views onto others.

I could though.

[animalgolfs]

I hate this decsion..... You used this method for twenty years, now reached age for senior tournaments and NOW I have to change? This was well thought out

[mwkbmw]

[quote name='RetiredMedic029' timestamp='1354119935' post='5989761']
[quote name='TRoc9892' timestamp='1354119691' post='5989733']
[quote name='Floratine' timestamp='1354118004' post='5989535']
I'll admit that I'm more than a little pissed. Like some of you I didn't change to a long putter because I couldn't putt, I switched because I have a bad back and couldn't practice. Bending over to practice with a short putter killed my lower back and the long putter and even belly, my belly putter is too long for me which allows me to bend over less, relieved the pressure in my lower back. This allowed me to practice putting which in turn allowed me to make more putts, practice allowed me to not the putter!

Now I know they didn't ban them completely so I can use but not anchor. However, I'm not a tour pro who has 14 hours a day to practice a new stroke. This was far and away my best putting year and I've been using the long putter for 5 years, so I guess 5 years from now I'll see success with the new method. Utterly retarded by the USGA.
[/quote]
[color=#0000FF][i][b]Is there something that makes your back completely unable to practice putter for longer amounts of time[/b][/i]?[/color] Because that completely unnaturaly position of the normal putting stance hurts everyone's back. Instead of just concluding that you can't putt normally, strengthen your back. Do excercises or stretches.
[/quote]


Who in the F... do you think you are telling people with physical limitations to do anything , you should keep you smart a** comments to yourself
[/quote]

I think he asked a perfectly valid question. Most people, especially those with any age on them, experience discomfort or pain when practicing puting for a significant amount of time when using a standard length putter. I would imagine that if a person could not execute a putting stroke with a standard length putter, then surely their back could not tolerate the violent motion we know as the golf swing.

[bunter101]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1354120248' post='5989795']
[quote name='RetiredMedic029' timestamp='1354119935' post='5989761']
[quote name='TRoc9892' timestamp='1354119691' post='5989733']
[quote name='Floratine' timestamp='1354118004' post='5989535']
I'll admit that I'm more than a little pissed. Like some of you I didn't change to a long putter because I couldn't putt, I switched because I have a bad back and couldn't practice. Bending over to practice with a short putter killed my lower back and the long putter and even belly, my belly putter is too long for me which allows me to bend over less, relieved the pressure in my lower back. This allowed me to practice putting which in turn allowed me to make more putts, practice allowed me to not the putter!

Now I know they didn't ban them completely so I can use but not anchor. However, I'm not a tour pro who has 14 hours a day to practice a new stroke. This was far and away my best putting year and I've been using the long putter for 5 years, so I guess 5 years from now I'll see success with the new method. Utterly retarded by the USGA.
[/quote]
Is there something that makes your back completely unable to practice putter for longer amounts of time? Because that completely unnaturaly position of the normal putting stance hurts everyone's back. Instead of just concluding that you can't putt normally, strengthen your back. Do excercises or stretches.
[/quote]


Who in the F... do you think you are telling people with physical limitations to do anything , you should keep you smart a** comments to yourself
[/quote]
I was going to more diplomatic than that, but that'll do.
[/quote]

You mean you didn't want to be FAMG

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TURI6iDdbac"]https://www.youtube....h?v=TURI6iDdbac[/url]

[johnnypro]

If people would just calm down, take a step back and try to look at this whole sting objectively.......
is anchoring in the sprit of "making a stroke?"
Something tells me it's not.
Just my opinion but I'm all for the ban.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354120463' post='5989811']
ANY? as in Any and all? I doubt that, unless you had one on order, and it was yours, and you just called and cancelled it. I will ask this, we have known this ruling was coming for months? Who the hell ordered a belly putter thinking they could continue to anchor it and are caught off guard by all of this? And of those people who were somehow unaware the ruling was coming, you think they were proactive or in the know enough to make that call 2 hours later? I am not saying this won't hurt sales, it clearly will and as a pro business minded person that is the one hesitation i have, but people will still use them, and buy them. There may be an immediate decline, and it will pick up by spring.
[/quote]
There was enough uncertainty that they could have done nothing. There were some on order with Ping subject to revision and they will be revised out of the order. A belly or long putter will be almost unsellable now unless it is way below cost.

[scooter67]

[i]One thing missed is all the Pga Professionals that have any(long or belly putters) sitting in his shop. The USGA should help them. They are stuck with these putters now. How would you like to have 5 or 10 sitting in your shop.[/i]

[KDMullins]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354119978' post='5989767']
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1354119768' post='5989751']
There are two things that are a dead solid guarantee to happen on Dec. 1st.

1.) All those guys who have been growing a cheesy moustache the last 30 days will be forced to shave them off and,

2.) Courier services worldwide will be visiting every retailer and pro shop to pick up all those Return to Vendor packages full of belly and long putters.

It's got to be a bad day for OEM's and the CSR's today.
[/quote]

1.) And THANK GOD for that

2.) Now THIS is a Knee jerk reaction. People will still use the putters.
[/quote]

Maybe pros that have unlimited time to practice, but I don't see recreational golfers using them any more. Granted, I haven't tried a long putter held away from my body (unanchored), but it seems like it would take a tremendous amount of practice to become adept at, and I can't imagine putting that way in the wind. The surface area of the club is so much greater...seems like it could be next to impossible on a tough British Open-type day.

I thought Mike Davis' dimissal of the notion that people may not use the putters any more or trying to convince the listeners that this was a very narrow rule was silly frankly. If he thought pounding his fist on the table or whatever he was doing to make that noise (and his point) was going to help, it didn't.

[scooter67]

[quote name='scooter67' timestamp='1354121090' post='5989883']
[i]One thing missed is all the Pga Professionals that have any(long or belly putters) sitting in his shop. The USGA should help them. They are stuck with these putters now. How would you like to have 5 or 10 sitting in your shop.[/i]
[/quote]

[hogans71]

[quote name='golfin2' timestamp='1354120548' post='5989821']
Great move. HUGE amounts of juniors have been using the belly putters and anchoring. The entire game was going to change.

This will prevent that. Perfect timing by the USGA.

I really don't want to watch pro golf with a bunch of men with their putter stuffed into their belly.

This will separate the players again.
[/quote]

I don't necessarily have an issue with the ruling but the timing being "perfect"?

Laughable at best...

[KYMAR]

I have a very mild form of something calledScheuermanns Disease which basically means my vertebrae in my spine are misalligned and grew funny. (You get pure science from me kids) People with severe cases are often disfigured and in terrible pain their whole lives, There are many activities that cause me a great deal of pain, Putting is certainly among them. But, so is driving a car, sitting on the wrong kind of chair or couch, sleeping funny can wreck me for days. So I am not at all unsympathetic to those who struggle with back ailments and have that as their reason for going to a long putter. But it seems to me the news is good on that front. They are still legal to use.

[golfinbrad]

[quote name='Puddin' timestamp='1354120513' post='5989815']
I havent read every post, hope I'm not duplicating efforts here. I wonder how much revenue is at stake if the putters are banned. Will the manufacturers still produce them after 2016? I agree with the proposal by the way.
[/quote]

Putter weren't banned. They just cannot be anchored.

[Rockminer]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354117999' post='5989533']

[b]1.You just said you thought one thread about the subject was enough. Are you backtracking off of that[/b]? I was actually posting in the long thread as it was locked, a little annoyed but that thread concerned a ruling was coming.[b]2.[/b][b] Now we have the ruling, i can see the case for making a new thread concerning the fact that, hey, the rule has now been announced. Start fresh.[b] 3.[/b][/b] [b]I am unconcerned who starts that thread and am thankful that redundant threads are locked in short order.[/b] I have read the "rory to Nike" thread quite a bit, but can't remember the members name who started it. And in that case, since he was universally panned as a screwball troll at first, he actually deserves credit. To me, Zak is simply consolidating the issue. Not sure how he could possibly seek credit for this, i don't think he played a part in the rule making.
[/quote]

First off let me say that I appreciate your response, I have always liked your posts and I have absolutely nothing against you. I will try to answer your questions;

1. What I meant was that I believed that 1 thread would be good. I didn't say it has to be that way. IMO the threads that we're locked had little to do with the actual ruling. Now that a ruling has been made, I feel that the threads would have fallen off without the need to lock them by the originator of this thread.

2. I agree, I feel that the locked threads we're discussing up to the ruling, not [b]the[/b] ruling. The threads would have gone where every other thread goes when something better comes along. You said that you we're trying to post when it was locked. I'm assuming you had something to say on the subject. Now you would have to bring it in here, out of context, or pm. All because someone decided to lock something that was not germain to the actual ruling.

3. Redundant threads are one thing, but locking threads that discussed up to a ruling IMO are not redundant to the actual ruling.

My point is there was no need to lock those threads. They would have gone away in due time.

Your reference to the Rory to nike is another example. He could have easily givin credit to the member who broke it. He decided to link his thread. I will agree with you that the member was berated pretty hard, but IMO he should have been givin credit, even more, after it was know he was right.( which happened before Zak wrote his article). Just saying that I see a pattern forming with him.

Others have posted in this thread agreeing with me so I know i'm not the only one who sees this. I wasn't saying he was taking credit for the ruling, just credit for the thread, considering he locked everything that had to do with the subject.

[scooter67]

How about big grips? There will be a move in this area that will help stablize the putter. I said it first. I also think weighting of the putter can also help.

[Crab Daddy]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354119345' post='5989685']
[quote name='Crab Daddy' timestamp='1354118742' post='5989611']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354115865' post='5989337']
Dawson on bifurcation (Paraphrased) "The rule regards how a stroke is made. Its fundamental to the way the game is played. If there is ever the case for bifurcation, This is not it"
[/quote]

I don't buy this logic. Any time you can distiguish between two parties, you can hand them each a different set of rules. It is a fundamentally legitimate way to play the game until 2016, then it's not? If it is fundamental to the way the game is played, then it has been that way all along. But, this is not a retroactive decision.
[/quote]

What's not to buy? If you consider their arguments in total its hard to argue the logic regarding bifurcation., you can certainly argue the rule itself but they are claiming that the golf swing or stroke should be freely made with the club connection made with only the hands. That is the reason for the rule change going forward. If that is the view,, that the stroke is comprised of certain things, and devoid of others, then it is in fact fundamental. Not fundamental from a historical or "tradition of the game" perspective. but as a clarification of what skill is required to play the actual game. With that as a base, isn't their idea that bifurcation on this issue is unacceptable more common sense than anything else? Should ams be allowed to put straddling the line? Billiard style? How about just kick the ball out of the tall stuff when needed? I HATE the idea of bifurcation, but there are some rules i am open to it. but if this decision is rooted in the philosophy that this is a fundamental way to play the game, then it should in fact cover all levels of play. High school football players can't make a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage, Soccer players can't pick up the ball and run with it, these are examples that seem trite and too easy because they regard long established rules of the game. But at some point, those rules were new. In 10 years, this will barely be a footnote in the history of the game.
[/quote]

There are differences in the rules between HS, college and pro football, basketball, lacrosse, etc... Most of the differences are not fundamental. 'Fundamental' suggests that an aspect of play is one of the building blocks of the game. Don't give me the foot wedge scenario, because playing the ball where it lies would certainly qualify as part of the game's foundation. Whether or not 'how the club is held' is a fundamental is debatable, hence the copious number of pages devoted to this topic. I fully understand the argument against anchoring and could have agreed with it being a fundamental part of the game if it had not taken until now to figure that out.
In the larger sense of bifurcation, it is because it exists in so many other sports, that I see it as making sense for golf. If football players adjust to different rules between Pop Warner, HS, college, and pro - a 10 year window - why do the non-fundamental rules (driver head size, ball compression, etc...) need to be the same for highly competetive professionals in their 20's as retired folks out for a casual round? Obviously, the casual golfer does not have to abide by any of the rules, but if he wants to play in any kind of handicapped event, then he does - the same rules that apply to the guys shooting 62 on 7400 yd courses.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Rockminer' timestamp='1354121549' post='5989935']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354117999' post='5989533']
[b]1.You just said you thought one thread about the subject was enough. Are you backtracking off of that[/b]? I was actually posting in the long thread as it was locked, a little annoyed but that thread concerned a ruling was coming.[b]2.[/b][b] Now we have the ruling, i can see the case for making a new thread concerning the fact that, hey, the rule has now been announced. Start fresh.[b] 3.[/b][/b] [b]I am unconcerned who starts that thread and am thankful that redundant threads are locked in short order.[/b] I have read the "rory to Nike" thread quite a bit, but can't remember the members name who started it. And in that case, since he was universally panned as a screwball troll at first, he actually deserves credit. To me, Zak is simply consolidating the issue. Not sure how he could possibly seek credit for this, i don't think he played a part in the rule making.
[/quote]

First off let me say that I appreciate your response, I have always liked your posts and I have absolutely nothing against you. I will try to answer your questions;

1. What I meant was that I believed that 1 thread would be good. I didn't say it has to be that way. IMO the threads that we're locked had little to do with the actual ruling. Now that a ruling has been made, I feel that the threads would have fallen off without the need to lock them by the originator of this thread.

2. I agree, I feel that the locked threads we're discussing up to the ruling, not [b]the[/b] ruling. The threads would have gone where every other thread goes when something better comes along. You said that you we're trying to post when it was locked. I'm assuming you had something to say on the subject. Now you would have to bring it in here, out of context, or pm. All because someone decided to lock something that was not germain to the actual ruling.

3. Redundant threads are one thing, but locking threads that discussed up to a ruling IMO are not redundant to the actual ruling.

My point is there was no need to lock those threads. They would have gone away in due time.

Your reference to the Rory to nike is another example. He could have easily givin credit to the member who broke it. He decided to link his thread. I will agree with you that the member was berated pretty hard, but IMO he should have been givin credit, even more, after it was know he was right.( which happened before Zak wrote his article). Just saying that I see a pattern forming with him.

Others have posted in this thread agreeing with me so I know i'm not the only one who sees this. I wasn't saying he was taking credit for the ruling, just credit for the thread, considering he locked everything that had to do with the subject.
[/quote]

I am now confused, was the original "rory to nike thread" locked after The article was written? If that's the case then i agree with you, that's a shameful act. But if he just linked his article in a post, i have no problem with that.

[SheriffBooth]

When did broomsticks start showing up on the Senior Tour? The early 80's?

Good to know that it only takes the USGA watchdog 30 years to recognize a threat to the "essence" of the golf swing.

[highergr0und]

I feel sorry for anyone who has used the belly putter or long putter for a long time perfecting their stroke under a perfectly legal course of action. Making decisions like this just shows how out of touch the USGA is

[MileHighClub]

Me no care either way, but aren't there more important issues out there?

[Openwater22]

[quote name='b0geyman' timestamp='1354114767' post='5989227']
Fellow USGA members: any support for a mass resignation unless they rescind this proposal? Let's pick a date.

And for the record I do not use an anchored putting stroke
[/quote]

I resigned when they butchered the groove ruling, but I'll spend the 30 bucks or whatever to rejoin so I can resign again to be part of a protest.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Crab Daddy' timestamp='1354121714' post='5989949']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354119345' post='5989685']
[quote name='Crab Daddy' timestamp='1354118742' post='5989611']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354115865' post='5989337']
Dawson on bifurcation (Paraphrased) "The rule regards how a stroke is made. Its fundamental to the way the game is played. If there is ever the case for bifurcation, This is not it"
[/quote]

I don't buy this logic. Any time you can distiguish between two parties, you can hand them each a different set of rules. It is a fundamentally legitimate way to play the game until 2016, then it's not? If it is fundamental to the way the game is played, then it has been that way all along. But, this is not a retroactive decision.
[/quote]

What's not to buy? If you consider their arguments in total its hard to argue the logic regarding bifurcation., you can certainly argue the rule itself but they are claiming that the golf swing or stroke should be freely made with the club connection made with only the hands. That is the reason for the rule change going forward. If that is the view,, that the stroke is comprised of certain things, and devoid of others, then it is in fact fundamental. Not fundamental from a historical or "tradition of the game" perspective. but as a clarification of what skill is required to play the actual game. With that as a base, isn't their idea that bifurcation on this issue is unacceptable more common sense than anything else? Should ams be allowed to put straddling the line? Billiard style? How about just kick the ball out of the tall stuff when needed? I HATE the idea of bifurcation, but there are some rules i am open to it. but if this decision is rooted in the philosophy that this is a fundamental way to play the game, then it should in fact cover all levels of play. High school football players can't make a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage, Soccer players can't pick up the ball and run with it, these are examples that seem trite and too easy because they regard long established rules of the game. But at some point, those rules were new. In 10 years, this will barely be a footnote in the history of the game.
[/quote]

There are differences in the rules between HS, college and pro football, basketball, lacrosse, etc... Most of the differences are not fundamental. 'Fundamental' suggests that an aspect of play is one of the building blocks of the game. Don't give me the foot wedge scenario, because playing the ball where it lies would certainly qualify as part of the game's foundation. Whether or not how the club is held is a fundamental is debatable, hence the copious number of pages devoted to this topic. I fully understand the argument against anchoring and could have agreed with it being a fundamental part of the game if it had not taken until now to figure that out.
In the larger sense of bifurcation, it is because exists in so many other sports, that I see it as making sense for golf. If football players adjust to different rules between Pop Warner, HS, college, and pro - a 10 year window - why do the non-fundamental rules (driver head size, ball compression, etc...) need to be the same for highly competetive professionals in their 20's as retired folks out for a casual round? Obviously, the casual golfer does not have to abide by any of the rules, but if he wants to play in any kind of handicapped event, then he does - the same rules as the guys shooting 62 on 7400 yd courses.
[/quote]

All totally understandable positions and yes, the foot wedge thing was poorly thought out and irrelevant to the conversation. I was just trying to illustrate it in absurdity. I think we agree that the bottom line issue in all of this is what they tried to clarify. What constitutes a golf stroke? Clearly the lines are divided fairly evenly right now as far as the rule goes. But i believe in time that many who don't use an anchored putter but are sort of casually against the ban will look back on this and agree that it is in fact reasonable and fundamental to define a stroke as one made freely with just the hand/club connection.

[golfin2]

Sooo happy that USGA and RA are in charge and not complainers on the internet. GREAT JOB USGA RA!!!!

[jasonnj1978]

My honest unbiased thoughts on this:

Most of the guys will adapt and still be great putters like Keegan and Webb. I'd say goodbye though to Tim Clark and possibly Carl Peterson.

Tim Clark has some kind of weird birth defect that prohibits him from rotating his palms towards the sky so using any other style of putting other than what he's using now is all but physically impossible for him.

Question: Do you think manufacturers will make belly length putters with a ton of loft so players can use them with Matt Kuchar's style?

[Rockminer]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1354121832' post='5989969']

I am now confused, was the original "rory to nike thread" locked after The article was written? If that's the case then i agree with you, that's a shameful act. But if he just linked his article in a post, i have no problem with that.
[/quote]

Without looking, I don't think the thread was locked. ( I may be wrong ) I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he would have linked the original thread if it had not had as much flaming going on. Still doesn't change my mind about this thread. He could have let this thread evolve on it's own merritt, considering the threads he nuked aren't exactly like for like.

[mwkbmw]

[quote name='jasonnj1978' timestamp='1354122567' post='5990053']
My honest unbiased thoughts on this:

Most of the guys will adapt and still be great putters like Keegan and Webb. I'd say goodbye though to Tim Clark and possibly Carl Peterson.

Tim Clark has some kind of weird birth defect that prohibits him from [b]rotating his palms towards the sky [/b]so using any other style of putting other than what he's using now is all but physically impossible for him.

Question: Do you think manufacturers will make belly length putters with a ton of loft so players can use them with Matt Kuchar's style?
[/quote]

I'll bet that probably helps in the full swing. Not sure why you would even want to do that in a putting stroke.

[wick_dawg]

I don't see why this is a big deal. This proposed ruling doesn't affect 90% of average everyday golfers.

Most people are like me... I play golf for fun. I'm don't play professionally or play in any serious tournaments. Any tournaments I play in are company tournaments and they don't care if you carry 20 clubs in your bag or use a driver with a .860 COR.

If I want to use an anchored putter in 2017, then I'll do it. Who cares?

I still use wedges with the old grooves too. Again... who cares? How is this hurting anyone?

[Openwater22]

[quote name='GIR LOL' timestamp='1354119071' post='5989655']
If I hear one more recreational golfer saying they are "quitting the game because I can't play a normal putter due to back problems" I'm going to lose it. No one at your local course or country club is going to stop you from using your "illegal" putter. Chill out.
[/quote]

You're missing the point. Most players insist on playing by the rules, all the rules, regardless of whether they are playing a US Open qualifier or a Saturday morning skins game at the local muni.

[Ajit]

Not an expert on this matter by any stretch but wasn't the precedent for this set when Sam Snead's through the legs style of putting was banned?