Coming soon: decision on long putters

First topic message reminder :

"The day after the 2012 British Open concluded, Peter Dawson, chief executive of the Royal & Ancient, which governs the rules of golf along with the United States Golf Association, said the two organizations were going to come to a decision on the permissibility of long putters this fall.

“The subject is firmly on our radar, and we need to clarify the position as soon as possible,” Dawson said".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/sports/golf/golf-pros-line-up-to-debate-use-of-long-putters.html

Looks like this issue will finally be addressed. The tone of Dawson's comments suggest they will be banned. As mentioned on another thread, Keegan Bradley's pressure putting has been a joy to watch over the past year, is this down to the belly putter he uses? We may find out if he is forced to use a short putter.

So...as I understand it...they are NOT banning the long putter, they are banning the use of anchoring the putter to a part of the body not part of the moving stroke.

I can't believe so many people are struggling to understand that it's not the putters but the anchoring that's being banned. If someone somehow made a putter that conformed in shape and style with the rules and which meant you couldn't miss from 15 feet and in, they wouldn't ban it. They can't.

It's not about performance, it's not about the length of the club, it's about the nature of the stroke. Just imagine if you turned up for a match, and your opponent anchored his driver in his belly and somehow managed to push the club through at 200mph. Would you think that fair?

Smithers, make your mind up. First you say that there it's not to do with performance, then compare it to a driver and someone being able to swing at 200mph. Seems like it's you who doesn't get it.

Can't see how anchoring is against the spirit of the game at all. No one is cheating or gaining an advantage.

sr, it doesn't matter if it's advantageous or not. They just don't want golf going that way. Call it "spirit of the game" or whatever.

And yes, 2016 seems too late, but I guess they've conferred with the club manufacturers.

If it's the anchoring. Then really its just the belly putter being outlawed. The long putter is not anchored as far as I can see unless you have a weird indentation in your face. I saw the interviews and just cannot see the actual justification. As mentioned its not against the rules.nnever has been a rule about this. Just seems a bit pointless. As mentioned the r&a have no issues with sexism but putting a putter in your belly. That's just wrong!!

Well, there'll be a rule now. It's not the first rule change that's been retrospective. Some people are going to have to get used to it. Quite looking forward to some people wasting money challenging this in court.

beninho, the ban IS sexist. Women have more / better anchoring options than men, so this just further underlines r&a's sexist bias.

super_realist wrote:Smithers, make your mind up. First you say that there it's not to do with performance, then compare it to a driver and someone being able to swing at 200mph. Seems like it's you who doesn't get it.

Can't see how anchoring is against the spirit of the game at all. No one is cheating or gaining an advantage.

Super, a 200mph swing speed is only any good if it's also straight. Anchoring removes a variable in the stroke, even if that doesn't mean it's a perfect one. As such, it's a stroke that isn't in keeping with how the (rest of the) game's played.

Smithers, until anyone can prove that a long putter gives anyone an advantage in terms of fewer putts then I don't really care if they lie on the ground and play a snooker shot with it.

If there was such an advantage to be had, then everyone would be using one and there wouldn't be yet more fauxfence at the supposed break from tradition. No one cares about all the other stuff that is not adhered to, yet the sh!t hits the fan when someone dares to anchor a putter. It really is laughable. If you can't read a putt, get the pace and keep your head still through impact then it doesn't matter if you anchor it.



There are lots of things that aren't in keeping with the game. Focussing on an irrelevance like anchoring a putter is totally irrelevant.
Shane Lowry could anchor the driver at address probably with his massive gut. Does that give him a steadying advantage?

Preposterous.

super_realist wrote:until anyone can prove that a long putter gives anyone an advantage in terms of fewer putts then I don't really care if they lie on the ground and play a snooker shot with it.

And until you're chairman of the R&A, no-one really cares what you think.

Thank goodness I'm not that a-hole Peter Dawson.

Just goes to prove that golfers are the saddest fans in the sporting world when they get their collective knickers in a twist about a method of putting which cannot be proven to improve your putting but apparently commits the heinous crime of "being against the spirit of the game" GASP!!!!! yet will let almost all of the anti-social and unpleasant things about the game, of which there are many, pass through with barely a whimper.

They say that not all golfers are idiots, but all idiots are golfers. No wonder the general public think the game is fuddy and duddy and for rich old men, because that's exactly who is in charge, and it will be reflected in SPOTY at the weekend when McIlroy doesn't even make the top three.

It does seem that the powers that be have something against getting an advantage when putting. Any other club in the bag can have all sorts of changes made that give the 'edge', but do that to a putter and everyone throws up their hands in horror.

Regarding 'anchoring', look at any old film of Gary Player from the 1960's and you will see that he, like a lot of others at the time, would 'anchor' their forearms against their body and just use the wrist movement to putt.

And S_R, in the 1960's again, croquet mallet style putters were brought out and very swiftly banned again. I couldn't blimmin well miss with them, absolutely loved them, definitely gave me and many others a very real advantage.

Opinion is clearly divided about this issue and the manner the change is being implemented, but I suspect that the rule makers have a feeling of "better late than never" (and they must know they are in a heap of trouble for letting the issue fester for so long, what with high-ranked pros having learned the game this way).

Why wait until 2016? Two obvious reasons spring to mind, but you can form your own view whether they are good reasons or not (or if there are any others) - (a) fits in with next scheduled quadrenniel update of the rules and (b) gives sufficient time for affected players to adapt. Wouldn't have thought that the Olympics had anything to do with it, and that it's just coincidental timing with golf's re-introduction at Rio.

What pattern do we expect to see emerging? I would have thought a tranche of anchor-method pros will switch over each of the off-seasons going into 2014, 2015 or 2016. Others might gradually wean themselves off - e.g. practise both, switching under tournament conditions for non-critical events (or possibly switching on different days?). Not dissimilar to pros switching putters at the moment, although a bigger adaptation. Maybe add an event or two to the schedule where particularly convenient in terms of timing/geography or whatever to do just that.

A question from me - is there a bigger picture here? Lots of people are still screaming about the ball and/or large-headed drivers. What with recent changes to wedges and now anchoring, are they perhaps setting themselves up to do more? Possibly now a bit of cat and mouse - e.g. if Titleist produce even a slightly improved ball, that might give the authorities the excuse they need to decree a roll-back.

No idea why I'm monologuing on this subject, don't have a particularly strong view nor vested interest...

If the change is to come in then 2016 seems like a compromise so that those currently using and anchored putting method have time to adapt. They probably should have been banned years ago but it is only fair to give the players warning of an upcoming change. In any case, the rules are only every updated every 3/4 years so maybe that was the next available slot to put the anchoring ban in.

As great as it is to see the anchoring technique banned does anyone else find it a pointless battle for the governing bodies to pick? Or at least the most cowardly option in the face of manufacturer pressure?

In the same week as TOC is altered to cope with the pro v1, a putting technique which supposedly offers no real advantage gets the chop from the R&A.

As mentioned on another thread by shotrock we may well see one of the most tricked up US open set up's to date at Merion. All because the combination of modern balls and clubs has gotten out of control.

Lets have a look at some players where there are stats before and after prov1.

Mickelson 270(1995), 299 (2011)
Els 274(1995), 294(2012)
Vijay 283(1995), 294(2011)

So even with age and declining ability they have gained about 20 yards.

This does not capture the increased ease of getting irons to land softly and control the ball from lies off the fairway.

I would like to bet that the prov1 has not however helped us club golfers in the same period. Handicaps remain unchanged and it seems unlikely we would gain around 10% in driving distance.

So maybe the club golfers miss hits are a little less harshly dealt with and we may see a bit more control on the greens, but if the prov1 does not help is in the same way it does the pro's would anyone really care if the ball was rolled back?

As super will always be keen to point out, scoring is all about the play within 100 yards. So why concentrate on making minimal gains with the driver and just accept a ball that does not go as far.

Think that Kucher uses the long putter, but does not anchor it to his body, so his technique might become popular.

I do not use one, but think the R&A and the PGA are a bit late with this decision had they re acted sooner, then the problem would not have as large as it is now, but I think it's the right decision they have made, and will wait for the fun to start with the Pro's and how they will all acted, any bets on a court case against the R&A and PGA???????????

Did I hear right? On Golf Channel a little while ago I could of sworn they said 26% of the players in the Open Championship were using anchoring of some sort... or was that 26 players? Either way... I don't know how much impetus of this rule change lies with Bradley, Simpson and Els... but if 26% for an Open Championship is correct... I'll bet that had the R&A huddled in Lytham's Dormy House writing new rule 14-1b even before Ernie got off the property with his Claret Jug...

"even before Ernie got off the property with his Claret Jug..."

If it hadn't been him it would have been Scott. I have been at the edge of a green where Scott was putting and it is not a pretty sight in the flesh. To see that great athletic swing and then have him produce that monstrosity on the green is just sickening.

McLaren wrote:"even before Ernie got off the property with his Claret Jug..."

If it hadn't been him it would have been Scott. I have been at the edge of a green where Scott was putting and it is not a pretty sight in the flesh. To see that great athletic swing and then have him produce that monstrosity on the green is just sickening.

There's that warped sense of reality again.

I wonder, if your demi god Nine Chins were to use one to help with his putting woes, whether you'd be quite so vociferous.

As for the Pro V1, There were also considerable advances in driver and shaft technology at the time too. It wasn't purely down to one particular type of ball especially as some of the players you mentioned wouldn't have even been using them due to sponsorship.

Wasn't the balata unfair because it produced silly amounts of spin allowing short game demons to gain an advantage?

this from Luke Donald on twitter

Luke Donald:

Yes quick call your lawyer immediately! RT @Keegan_Bradley Was there some sort of announcement today?

In fact Vijay, Els and Mickelson don't even use a Pro V1, as for club golfers, it hasn't helped us has it? Average handicaps have remained static, whilst technology has supposedly helped us hit a longer ball and with more control. Doesn't show in any stats that it makes the game easier does it?

Super

Please read my post again. That is exactly my point. The new balls (whatever brand) are not helping the normal player to lower their score, but seem to be giving great benefits to the very elite player. So courses are being changed for no reason due to a perceived advantage which does not exist outside the tours.


Another quote from twitter ( a good point from the ever sensible mr Ogilvy)

What if guys who anchor win next 4 majors & FEDEX Cup? They are now knowingly doing something that will be illegal, weird dynamic for golf.

HOw Mac? Look at the scores across Opens and other comps over the years. Haven't changed that much. ANd how much can you actually put down to a ball given the improvements in club technology, club fitting, coaching, conditioning, nutrition, mental game, shaft technology, turf condition, green advancement?

There's more money in the game these days, it's vital people get better than they were 15 years ago if they want to benefit.

If 4 majors are won by anchors next year it will be fine. It's not illegal yet.

Super

Again you miss the point. Clearly what Ogilvy is saying is that from now on - even though not yet illagal - it is implied that anchoring is no longer desired and is against the spirit of the game. Otherwise why would it have been banned?

There will be a greater stigma for those that use the technique, as those against it like Donald, Tiger and Rory can rightly question the validity of its use.

Only stigma will be from snooty people sad enough to care about something completely irrelevant.

The (poor) argument that just because there are other elements of the game/rules that need attending to (arguably) before the issue of a secondary anchor point in any swing is specious. Just because something else is (or maybe) wrong/against the spirit of the game doesn't mean this issue shouldn't be addressed now.

As for other retrospective rules issues re. clubs I give you, just off the top of my head, the COR limit of 0.83 for drivers, 460cc limit for drivers, banning of the original Tour Edition ball due to excessive spin, changes to grooves recently introduced, banning of croquet-style putting, banning of scooping/pushing/etc the ball as a valid stroke, banning of snooker-style putting etc etc etc.

Who gives a damn if it "isn't proven" to help?? Why are ~15% of current tour pros using it? Why are a stack of younger amateurs using it - it sure as scheiss isn't because of the yips.

Re. yips, back injuries etc. Tough. Injuries in other sports necessitate retirements and if you can't putt with a 'normal' style then it's probably time to ask Sky for some stupid 'expert' slot on one of their programs. Ditto the yips. As for loss of earnings?? Don't make me laugh.

super_realist wrote:Only stigma will be from snooty people sad enough to care about something completely irrelevant.

Oh come on! As usual, when on the losing side of an argument, you resort to simply taking the urine out of those that might not agree with your point of view. Some things are immutable in the World and this appears to be one of them!

McLaren wrote:Clearly what Ogilvy is saying is that from now on - even though not yet illagal - it is implied that anchoring is no longer desired and is against the spirit of the game. Otherwise why would it have been banned?

I see the point, but this isn't a big deal for me. Anchoring remains legal until 2016, so players can use it or not until then as far as I'm concerned. I'd understand why others feel differently given changes of this significance don't often occur in golf, but I view this in a similar way to F1's year-on-year spec requirements/bans. [And no, I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison, just an approximate analogy]

Not really, just seems the game of golf is putting a stickng plaster of a festering gash.

Festering gash ...

Filthy mind Diggers.

navyblueshorts wrote:Well, there'll be a rule now. It's not the first rule change that's been retrospective. Some people are going to have to get used to it. Quite looking forward to some people wasting money challenging this in court.

I'm not sure about it being a waste of money. For 30 years or more the R and A and USA have been happy for people such as Torrance, Vijay, Tim Clark, Rocco Mediate (during the 90's) and others to earn a living by using a perfectly legitimate method for putting. What was the problem with it? There wasn't one. They weren't winning majors with long putters, so there was no problem. The problem has come because people have started to win majors with long putters. I can assure you that pressure from McIlroy, Harrington, Woods, etc... has prompted this change.

The implementation of the the new rule, after happily letting people use these putters to win and earn money for decades, seems pretty weak. I haven't heard a logical explanation yet. I haven't seen any scientific evidence to suggest it's easier, or an advantage. I've heard terms such as 'anchoring', but no one can give me a reason why that's wrong! As for people who say that it's not a 'stroke', that's absolute nonsense, and clutching at straws.

I think the boys who'll challenge in court will have a decent case.

I really dont see how they can have any kind of case in court Jeff. Rules change in sport constantly, they benefit some and not others.
The govening bodies of the sports have the right to run the game as they see fit, its not a democracy. If people dont like it then all thats left to them as far as I can see is change or leave.

Diggers wrote:I really dont see how they can have any kind of case in court Jeff. Rules change in sport constantly, they benefit some and not others.
The govening bodies of the sports have the right to run the game as they see fit, its not a democracy. If people dont like it then all thats left to them as far as I can see is change or leave.

Not entirely true about them being able to run the game how they want....

"commissioner's can't just arbitrarily change/make rulings, but instead, must prove that there is a nexus between the rule and the game and a need for the rule."

I understand the need to change rules. A good example is the swimming suits. It was quicker to swim in one of the suits, than it was to swim naked! That's craziness. However, my issue is that I can't see an advantage here. Or more to the point, I haven't heard a valid or sound argument for banning the styles of putting.

I think you can look at F1 as an example, they are forever changing rules that one team has been using to its advantage.
Its not like it doesnt already say in the rules you should not anchor a club..its just that its been ignored. Anyway as usual its all good news for the lawyers.

pedro wrote:beninho, the ban IS sexist. Women have more / better anchoring options than men, so this just further underlines r&a's sexist bias.

More anchoring options ? Are you comparing 2 bosoms with 1 beer belly ?! Actually you don't see many long putters on LPGA so don't think this ruling will have much effect on the ladies.

If Webb Simpson and Keegan Bradley did not exist that neither would this new ruling.

Over 100 Majors have been contested with long putters/belly putters and anchoring being perfectly legal.

Suddenley a couple of Majors are won by using long/belly putters and less than 2 years later they are banned.

30 years - no majors - no problems or outcrys

2 years - 3 majors - big outcry and now banned

Talk about a complete knee jerk reaction. It could be another 20 years until someone wins again with a long putter.

As Mickleson said, to let something be legal for over 30 years and then take it away because a few people have had success with it just seems mean spirited and wrong.

I hear McIlroy's curly hair is being banned now, just in case it gives him an advantage over others, and is against the spirit of the game

Conehead wrote:If Webb Simpson and Keegan Bradley did not exist that neither would this new ruling.

Over 100 Majors have been contested with long putters/belly putters and anchoring being perfectly legal.

Suddenley a couple of Majors are won by using long/belly putters and less than 2 years later they are banned.

30 years - no majors - no problems or outcrys

2 years - 3 majors - big outcry and now banned

Talk about a complete knee jerk reaction. It could be another 20 years until someone wins again with a long putter.

As Mickleson said, to let something be legal for over 30 years and then take it away because a few people have had success with it just seems mean spirited and wrong.

The debate about long putters didnt start 2 years ago, far from it. Even on here I can remember posts going back 6-7 years, some people have always believed they should never have been tolerated in the first place (and the fact they were tolerated doesnt mean they werent illegal in terms of the rules of the game).
It would be interesting to see what the result would be if all tour members around the world were allowed a vote on the subject.

Don't be silly Diggers, Golf at governing body level is not a democracy.

I actually said that very thing earlier Super.
I wasnt suggesting the poll should decide the rule change (or rather enforcement/detailed definition rather than change), just that it would be good to garner opinion from those who will be professionally and financially affected.

Diggers, Does it state in the rules at the moment that you cannot anchor a club? I am no expert on any of the rules at all!

Other sports have changed rules, Though i do not see this as being the same as F1. F1 effects the design of the vehicle, nothing about how it is played/competed. Which is still driving. Maybe similar the when football introduced no backpass rule, or cricket with the bouncer limit. But these where for the benefit of the sport as a whole. I do not see how banning belly putters benefits the sport as a whole. In fact wont it just put off people that do use these putters on a regular basis when just playing golf.

What's next? Banning cradle grips, left hand below right. Right finger down etc?

Next they'll be saying you can't just kick the ball back out onto the fairway if you end up behind a pesky tree!



What?

Bob_the_Job wrote:Next they'll be saying you can't just kick the ball back out onto the fairway if you end up behind a pesky tree!

No that's fine Bob, as long as you don't "anchor" the leather wedge....

Conehead - I think you are exactly right. I also think that when so many young players are starting their competitive careers (including many juniors), the powers that be were startled into action.

What would be the ruling if someone had three shots to win a tournament and potted the ball like a snooker player from six inches into the hole?

Could a player also grip 3 inches above the ahead using a conventional stroke?

super_realist wrote:What would be the ruling if someone had three shots to win a tournament and potted the ball like a snooker player from six inches into the hole?

Could a player also grip 3 inches above the ahead using a conventional stroke?

Two shot penalty (Rule 14.1 and see also 14.1/2) and (I think) replay the stroke in the first case.

The second case could also be considered a push shot so same again... although it's less clear in that case (Robert Garrigus used to have a putter nearly that short!)

So they'd need a four shot lead. Not sure how it could be considered a push shot though. A snooker shot isn't.

Brilliant. I'd do it.

What I don't get as well is when people say anchoring was a threat to the game?

Adam Scott is something like 140th in the strokes gained putting stat. Nobody in the top 20 of putting stats uses a long putter.

There hasn't been a single shred of conclusive evidence that PROVES that anchoring the putter helps. Woods, Donald,McILroy et al can all talk about how they "think" it isn't fair and helps the nerves but they are subjective opinions based on nothing resembling an actual fact.

Keegan,Els,Scott,Webb Simpson - none of them can compare with Luke Donalds record inside 3 feet. Scott blew up at The Open when the pressure started coming and he was using a long putter.

Does anchoring help read the line of the putt, the speed, the break?

I almost feel like because the majority of golfers use short putters they have almost bullied their opinion into the national conscious and made most believe that in someway this advantage (that nobody can prove) actually does exisit.

This whole incident will be a foot note in 20 -30 years time and everyone will have moved on but it still doesn't sit right with me that a bandwagon can gather speed so quickly and get a rule changed inside 2 years of the first person winning a Major with a long putter.

super_realist wrote:...Not sure how it could be considered a push shot though. A snooker shot isn't.

Brilliant. I'd do it.

See 14.1/2 ...

14-1/2 Striking Ball with Billiard-Type Motion

Q A player holed a short putt by squatting behind the ball (but not on an extension of the line of putt behind the ball) and striking the ball with the bottom of the clubhead, using a motion similar to that used in playing a shot in billiards or shuffleboard. Was the player in breach of Rule 14-1?

A Yes. Such a manner of moving the ball constitutes a push in golf.