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.

Conehead, people completely dismiss that and instead claim it's against the spirit of the game. Pretty pathetic really isn't it?

If Woods was still a good putter and still winning majors I doubt we'd hear a peep out of his fat face.
Funny how he doesn't think his swearing, spitting, club throwing and general lack of grace is against the spirit of the game though.

JeffCarnage wrote:...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.

What has past usage got to do with it really? Pros were making money out of square-grooved wedges for an age but they're gone. They were making money out of hot (COR > 0.83) drivers for a while as well and they're also gone.
Scientific evidence may be hard to come by but I bet it can be done if required. It's an advantage because both widely used methods essentially remove a lot of the error in a stroke as a natural corollary of holding it solely anchored in the hands. The Scott-type really long putters anchored on the chest via the top hand are far worse IMO - they're almost a simple pendulum and given all golf swings are the function of a dual fulcrum pendulum (with all the complications of timing etc that come from such a system), I'd say it was a massive advantage to be putting like Scott now does. I have less of an issue with the belly style but the simple fact of a second, stabilising anchor removes a lot of the variability inherent in any stroke.

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.

Duh! That's always the way of change - until something's obvious, nothing gets done about it! Same in any walk of life.

super_realist wrote: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

Where's that :muppet: emoticon when you need it?!

So in 45 years it offered NO advantage at all, but suddenly it does?

Conehead wrote: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....

What does Scott's ranking have to do with anything what-so-ever?
There's no conclusive proof to say anchoring doesn't help either although I bet a suitable, controlled study could prove that it does. Someone will do it sometime I'm sure.
Scott's putting wasn't what lost him the Open so that's hardly important to this argument really.

super_realist wrote:So in 45 years it offered NO advantage at all, but suddenly it does?

No. Think again. No-one paid any attention to that advantage for 45 years.

super_realist wrote: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.

Reminds me of a Moe Norman story. Apparently, he deliberately putted off the green into a bunker at the end of a [PGA Tour?] tournament when he had a significant lead. He then splashed and holed out, and duly won - but got into trouble with the authorities (and then left the tour, heading up to Canada I think). Highly eccentric and/or autistic individual, mind you.

Probably because there isn't any.

To be fair to the governing bodies, I don't think they are saying there's a definite advantage (my interpretation is that they are concerned that what was as a method of last resort for a small number of golfers which they were willing to let go is (a) no longer used purely as a last resort and (b) noticeably widespread).

However, they might well be thinking that, or have been unduly influenced by those holding that view.

Scott's 2 foot tiddler on 16 was the start of his blow up.

I brought up Scott's strokes gained putting ranking as many seem to think anchoring is giving them an unfair advantage.

Nobody with a long putter is in the top 20 and Scott is still pretty awful at putting even with the long stick.

If all the players who used a long putter dominated the putting stats then maybe there would be an argument to be heard but yet again no stats exist.

It's been a "problem" for over 30 years yet nobody can prove how or why? Maybe that's because the proof isn't there.

Ban 460cc drivers or the modern golf ball and you wouldn't see many people complaining about there being no evidence to back up the reason.

Ban the long putter and still nobody has been able to offer up a reason why that isn't based on assumptions and opinions.

Conehead wrote: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.

This is so well put! You're right on every point raised. I feel incredibly hard done by with this ruling. I feel it's incredibly unjust, unfair, and one of these decisions that's been made because they can!

navyblueshorts wrote:

Conehead wrote: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....

What does Scott's ranking have to do with anything what-so-ever?
There's no conclusive proof to say anchoring doesn't help either although I bet a suitable, controlled study could prove that it does. Someone will do it sometime I'm sure.
Scott's putting wasn't what lost him the Open so that's hardly important to this argument really.

Someone will do it sometime! It should have been done before enforcing the rule!!

I couldn't give a flying f**k what method people use to putt or what type of putter they use, I'm not entirely sure why anybody does.
They've still got to get the ball in the whole whether you use a standard, belly, chin or brick on the end of a lampost.

No one seems to be at any advantage with any particular method. You just have to look at the putting stats to see this.

Why does anyone care what someone else uses to putt with? It doesn't affect your game or your enjoyment of the game and it doesn't appear to make the slightest bit of difference in the pro game either.

I can just see the peevish curmudgeons moaning at the club bar because A.Hacker wins the monthly medal off a 20 handicap with a belly putter. The members request an asterisk is engraved on the trophy.

Dear o dearie me: anchoring is being banned because it does not constitute a proper golf stroke. The reason it wasn't banned thirty years ago was because the governing bodies turned a blind eye as it yielded a method to allow yippy golfers extend their enjoyment of the game. The governing bodies have now been forced to take action because they do not want to see youngsters taking up the game who, having witnessed 3 out of the last 4 majors being won by pros using this method, bypass completely the traditional method of putting.

I have experienced the yips and it is a horrible, horrible affliction but this is not the fault of the governing bodies who, I would remind you, would have been quite within their rights to have banned anchoring thirty years ago. If those of you who believe anchoring should stay, then vent your ire on the people who are really to blame viz the non-yippy Keegans, Simpsons and 14 year old asian boys of this world for, had it not been for them, I daresay the governing bodies would still be turning a blind eye.

I once read an article about VERY skilled poker players who were regular hack golfers. Evidently, most of the "cash games" (big money games where the top professionals really want to ply their trade) take place late at night. So, a lot of these guys have days off and get comp'd at some of the more elaborate courses in and around Vegas.

They play big money match play games and have only a single rule. Once you place your ball on the tee you cannot touch it with anything but your golf club until it ends up in the bottom of the cup. Can't find your ball in the woods? Start over. Dump it in the water? Start over. Mud on your ball once you're on the green. Tough sh**. Use a belly putter all you want. Go side saddle. Stymie your opponent.

I like their style.

I think this all came about because the guys with the short ones were jealous of the guys with the long ones, and got them banned. Its been like that since the dawn of man.

Conehead wrote:Scott's 2 foot tiddler on 16 was the start of his blow up.

I brought up Scott's strokes gained putting ranking as many seem to think anchoring is giving them an unfair advantage.

Nobody with a long putter is in the top 20 and Scott is still pretty awful at putting even with the long stick.

If all the players who used a long putter dominated the putting stats then maybe there would be an argument to be heard but yet again no stats exist.

It's been a "problem" for over 30 years yet nobody can prove how or why? Maybe that's because the proof isn't there.

Maybe, but everyone misses the odd tiddler under pressure.
What were Scott's stats before he took up the broom handle?
As for proof, no-one's looked at it properly. This is ridiculous in any case - the authorities say it's a 'No' so there we are. They banned Langer's initial 2-ball putter (2 balls actually stuck on the back of a putter) on the basis of a few hours putting on a carpet cf. standard putters of the time.

Conehead wrote:Ban 460cc drivers or the modern golf ball and you wouldn't see many people complaining about there being no evidence to back up the reason.

Ban the long putter and still nobody has been able to offer up a reason why that isn't based on assumptions and opinions.

That's because it easy to provide the evidence, particularly on the 460cc heads.
I'd be willing to wager that if there was a suitable Iron (Putting) Byron that accurately modeled a human, it'd provide adequate evidence that either form of long putting provides less variability and a more solid, consistent stroke. Might even be able to model it on a suitable computer platform these days.

What is it that people don't get here? The authorities that govern the sport have decreed that the game should be played with a single anchor point (the hands) and balls should be struck with a swing. It's not even like it'll cost much money to change a long putter - get it chopped down and a new grip put on it and it'll cost what? £15-£20?

If anchoring doesn't provide an advantage, then surely its proponents aren't having to give anything up when it becomes illegal, so aren't losing out? Therefore, what are they complaining about?

If this were banned on performance grounds - which as geal points out it is not - then the comparison that would need to be made would be between player who went from an unanchored technique to an anchored one. Not between Luke Donald and Adam Scott. It is the advantage the individual gets, and not the advantage of the technique compared to the best conventional putters.


I am sure we could come up with many ways to hit a golf ball, but it would be perfectly fair for the governing bodies to only allow only the stroke currently used by all, and the one the game was founded on.


Shotrock, I have often thought a simplification of the game where players dont touch the ball unless between holes would be a vast improvement.

see here; https://www.606v2.com/t14030-its-not-great-if-you-have-to-fondle-your-balls-too-often

Kwini

In 30 years we might see the banning of super long balls, if the length of time it took to ban the cheat stick is anything to go by.

Gael, If you suffer the yips it's because you're feeble minded and nothing to do with the stroke you put on the ball, sort your head out and you don't need a long putter or any fishwives tale to solve it. There is nothing complicated about putting, and it's only your head that gets in the way.

Is the flop shot within the constricts of an ethically acceptable shot?

We've a lot more shots on offer now than 50 years ago, such as the rescue from the fringe or the flop shot. Should we ban them too?

Golf is and always will be in the dark ages until it respects technology and development. I agree par is irrelevant, so what's the issue? Provide an entertaining and challenging course and who cares if the winner is -50 or +19 so long as the course provides the scope for surprise and unpredictability. Who cares how you get it in the hole. I am perfectly within my rights to play a cack handed back hander to get it out of the rough, even left handed. How is this different to an anchor point? People are being total poofters about this really tiny contribution to the game.

Super what a pile of pis* I thought you where a person who respected other people's opinion, but you seem to deem anyone who is not as perfect as you as trash. Yes some people suffer from the Yips, (Langer) springs to mind, but he is of strong character and has managed even been very successfully. Most golfers who use long handle putters have never used the short putter and therefore will have to master a new technique and I am sure ones like Langer will deal with it, as for ones like you, who are totally against change, then the road to oblivion beckons(ha ha)

Op, I think you are misunderstanding my stance on putters and putting. I don't give a jot how or what people use to putt. I'm only concerned with how well I'm putting, however you simply cannot argue that the yips aren't a mental affliction and you'll need more than a change of putter to get over them.

So yes, I'm against the change in rules in terms of banning long anchored putters because I don't see the method of putting or type if putter as being remotely important to the integrity of the game, not have I seen any evidence that it makes you take fewer putts. It also looks as if people are hiding behind the spirit if the game element. Is it against the spirit if the game when Ronnie o Sullivans plays snooker with his other hand, or if I play a shot out of the rough behind a tree with one hand, back handed?

Peoples opinion are of course personal, it just seems that on this issue people are taking something so small and insignificant to be a really big issue when for 40 years no one cared now all of sudden its as if someone has shat in their mouth.

The point being made saying an anchored shot does not constitute a golf shot. Where was this ever stated? There was no rule about this so an anchored putt is the same as any other putt and a valid shot..until 2016 anyway.

Main issue is why ban it for your everyday hacker. If someone gets more enjoyment out of the game and putts this way then let them. Isn't the game meant to be about fun? Ban it for the tours but let everyone else just play how they like.

For the vast majority golf is just a game and not a career.

Exactly Beninho part if the problem golf is not appreciated more widely is because of the way it is run by the blazer and slacks types with thousands of stupid rules.
You could write all the rules you need for the game on a page of a4, but then these old farts would be out of a job.

Breaking news - in light of suspected performance advantages, USGA and R&A are also intending to ban white headed drivers and putters. And the practice of embellishing gloves with red dots.

The point that seems to be missed with the putting stats is that players such as Scott and Langer would be joining the Baker-Finches of the golfing world if the were to stop anchoring.
They ARE gaining an advantage.
Gail has the correct answer.

Mind you it looks like it could be a bit of a mucking fuddle to administer. One example being if you use a standard putter with your elbows tucked in to your rib cage you will be anchoring.

Out of interest do any of your club members use long handled putters. I for one never see them on the courses I play.

Doon, you've got no evidence to prove that at all.

My own putting stats vary from round to round, year to year and I've been using the same putter for a about 5 years. I'll also go through periods of putting better (or worse) that at others, just as I go through periods of chipping well and chipping poorly.
It's almost impossible to measure and be able to put it down to one thing and it's totally arbitary.

Some days I can run better than others, some days my control at football will be better than others. It's a completely ridiculous thing to say that without a long putter, they couldn't putt.

Its to simplistic to say that anyone using the long putters would be unable to compete without them. They are using a valid technique which suits them. They are not gaining an advantage, they are competing within the current rules and regulations.

Would anyone really care if they saw someone using a long putter even after 2016?

super_realist wrote:Gael, If you suffer the yips it's because you're feeble minded and nothing to do with the stroke you put on the ball, sort your head out and you don't need a long putter or any fishwives tale to solve it. There is nothing complicated about putting, and it's only your head that gets in the way.

I see your comprehension skills haven't improved.

I did have the yips but have been 'in remission' for 13 years. I have never used a broom handle or belly putter (not sure if they (bellies) were even around then). Besides which, have you ever noticed the range of equipment available to females?

Fortunately, I found salvation within a year by turning around and putting left-handed. Indeed, my long putting has been the better for it ... perhaps there's something in this eye thing after all.

I seem to recall you once claiming to be a category one player (which I still am ... by the way). Most of the golfers I know who've ever suffered from the yips were low h'cappers. If it happens to you and it could well do, particularly if you compete often over a variety of courses with differing green speeds and, nothwithstanding wind-ups, then please be my guest to choke on the words I've highlighted.

I imagine it's about what feels comfortable rather than giving an advantage.

I could drive from Aberdeen to Edinburgh in a Smart car if I wanted, but it would be more comfortable in a bigger car. Doesn't make me a better driver, but I'm more comfortable.

Would anyone complain after 2016 if they saw someone using one? Of course they would. This is golf. The game where the spectators are so sad that they phone in when a grain of sand moves behind the ball in a bunker or if a ball isn't replaced millimetrically perfect. I'm sure if you use one in a club after 2016 you'd probably be taken aside and "advised" about it's use.

super_realist wrote:...We've a lot more shots on offer now than 50 years ago, such as the rescue from the fringe or the flop shot. Should we ban them too?...

Yet another specious argument. The flop shot has been playable for decades - it's not new and neither does it require special kit and/or a non-standard grip. Talking of grips, get one .

beninho wrote:The point being made saying an anchored shot does not constitute a golf shot. Where was this ever stated? There was no rule about this so an anchored putt is the same as any other putt and a valid shot..until 2016 anyway.

Main issue is why ban it for your everyday hacker. If someone gets more enjoyment out of the game and putts this way then let them. Isn't the game meant to be about fun? Ban it for the tours but let everyone else just play how they like.

For the vast majority golf is just a game and not a career.

This is nonsense I'm afraid. It's stated now. In addition, what the Hell does enjoyment have to do with it? Really? By your logic, if I do anything that makes the game more enjoyable for me, that's OK. By all means play to your own rules in a bounce game with mates - it won't be golf but at least you'll be having fun.

beninho wrote:...They are not gaining an advantage, they are competing within the current rules and regulations.

Not for long.

beninho wrote:Would anyone really care if they saw someone using a long putter even after 2016?

If I saw someone after 2016, in a comp, using an anchored stroke, I'd dob them in. Same as any other infringement.

gaelgowfer wrote:

super_realist wrote:Gael, If you suffer the yips it's because you're feeble minded and nothing to do with the stroke you put on the ball, sort your head out and you don't need a long putter or any fishwives tale to solve it. There is nothing complicated about putting, and it's only your head that gets in the way.

I see your comprehension skills haven't improved.

I did have the yips but have been 'in remission' for 13 years. I have never used a broom handle or belly putter (not sure if they (bellies) were even around then). Besides which, have you ever noticed the range of equipment available to females?

Fortunately, I found salvation within a year by turning around and putting left-handed. Indeed, my long putting has been the better for it ... perhaps there's something in this eye thing after all.

I seem to recall you once claiming to be a category one player (which I still am ... by the way). Most of the golfers I know who've ever suffered from the yips were low h'cappers. If it happens to you and it could well do, particularly if you compete often over a variety of courses with differing green speeds and, nothwithstanding wind-ups, then please be my guest to choke on the words I've highlighted.

Gael, I do sometimes wonder if your braincells have ever been counted in double figures. Why on earth would there be a requirement to have female specific putters? There is nothing masculine about the putter which makes them suitable for men only.

And what I mean by the yips related to a feeble mind is that it is a totally psychologically induced condition, so if you can "get" the yips you can also lose them by using the power of your mind rather than blaming your putter and looking for a quick fix, of which putting left handed is certainly a drastic solution.

The yips will never ever happen to me, because I putt with total freedom and although I'm a low handicapper (shall I boast like you about it? as if it is something rare and amazing that puts you above others on a pedastal? ) I've long since learned there are more important things in life than worrying about a number which means nothing to anyone. Also I have 9 courses at my immediate disposal in relation to where I'm a member, so yes, I do play and compete over a lot of different putting surfaces.

Hilarious that you bring up being a Cat 1 player, though it must be preposterously easy off the ladies tees and probably very easy when Mr Gael and his magic pencil are marking your score.

super_realist wrote:Would anyone complain after 2016 if they saw someone using one? Of course they would. This is golf. The game where the spectators are so sad that they phone in when a grain of sand moves behind the ball in a bunker or if a ball isn't replaced millimetrically perfect. I'm sure if you use one in a club after 2016 you'd probably be taken aside and "advised" about it's use.

Damned right they should report it to the player at the time if possible and thereafter to the Club (assuming the offender doesn't DQ themselves) if it's in a comp. Your 'grain of sand' analogy is getting silly.

Did I mention anything about it being a comp Navy?

SR, I'm guessing Gael was complaining about the lack of equipment available to ladies in retailers in general and even most mens putters would need to be shortened or adjusted to suit the average woman.

Anyway, long putters are not banned from 2016 it the types of method in which they are used. As long as the end of the grip, or hand, or forearm, is not anchored then they can be used.

Grumpy, the majority of putters are too long for most people, regardless of gender. Usually they are 35", but there's nothing expensive or difficult about cutting one down. My current one is about 32 1/3rd inches. You can't buy one off the shelf like that.
I haven't had a single putter that's not required a bit of shortening. So it's a bit pathetic for Gael to bemoan the lack of female specific putters for not being able to get over the yips when they usually don't suit a man straight off the shelf either.

Yips is a mental condition, not an equipment one.

This is what Jas stated in an earlier post and I think it sums it up nicely as why long putters should be banned

"Consider this...if you go to putt out, you lift the flag out and tap in. If the
flag isn't touching the ground, no penalty. If it is it's a penalty stroke, why? because you are deemed to be getting help by using the flagstick to assist you anchor/stabilize yourself. A bit of a nonsense perhaps but where do you draw the line? ...and the whole issue with the belly putter is...it's ANCHORED to a stable part of the body to help stabilize the stroke, why should it be allowed when other methods of stabilizing yourself are not??."

Mr Navyblueshorts, you mention "what the Hell does enjoyment have to do with it?" Is the reason you play golf not for enjoyment? Do you not enjoy playing the game? I am assuming you are not a professional, so do not play for an income. So i would assume you play because you enjoy it?

You mention you would tell on anyone you saw using an anchored putting technique in a competition, but same as Mr Super Realist, i did not mention competitions. The vast majority of golfers, i would say, do not compete in competitions. Why should these people who just enjoy the game, why should they be penalised because of a handful of professional players?

Matt Kuchar has been told his putting stroke is fine, he uses a long putter and holds the shaft against his inner forearm. states that because he controls both ends of the club he is fine.

Holding it against his arm, is this not anchoring still?

beninho wrote:Matt Kuchar has been told his putting stroke is fine, he uses a long putter and holds the shaft against his inner forearm. states that because he controls both ends of the club he is fine.

Holding it against his arm, is this not anchoring still?

It's not achored in that the butt end moves laterally in space as he swings his arms rather then pivoting about a fixed fulcrum. I can see why they make the distinction for that style.

In regard of the ban on achoring, I personally I find it interesting that lots of people are saying "It's no advantage, so don't ban it"...well if it's not providing you an advantage, then why are you doing it.. That said, the powers that be have royally balls'd the handling of this up by waiting so long.

I guess the people use the anchoring technique because they find it better suited to them. When they found this out, it was fine and fully above board. Nothing wrong with people that use this technique, though there will be in 2016.

I had not really looked at Kuchars technique, but its good to see that some different ways of putting can stay!

Bob_the_Job wrote:

beninho wrote:Matt Kuchar has been told his putting stroke is fine, he uses a long putter and holds the shaft against his inner forearm. states that because he controls both ends of the club he is fine.

Holding it against his arm, is this not anchoring still?

It's not achored in that the butt end moves laterally in space as he swings his arms rather then pivoting about a fixed fulcrum. I can see why they make the distinction for that style.

In regard of the ban on achoring, I personally I find it interesting that lots of people are saying "It's no advantage, so don't ban it"...well if it's not providing you an advantage, then why are you doing it.. That said, the powers that be have royally balls'd the handling of this up by waiting so long.

You could also ask if it's such an advantage why isn't everyone using it, instead of only a minority of players.

Take a 3 wood instead of a driver , play a chip and run with a 7 iron instead of a flop shot with a 60 degree wedge,hit a hybrid rather than a low iron and finally use a long putter rather than a shorter one.

The point I'm trying to make is It's not like every golfer out there is using identical clubs, swings and techniques. The players (at the moment) have a huge choice of different styles and clubs at their disposal and the belly/long putter just happens to be one of the options that some players have chosen to use. As SR states if it's such an advantage the long putter would be in everyone's bag.

Still nobody has provided stats to back up the so called advantage as well which surely says something about the "facts" regarding anchoring and it's advantage.

Gael, I do sometimes wonder if your braincells have ever been counted in double figures. Why on earth would there be a requirement to have female specific putters? There is nothing masculine about the putter which makes them suitable for men only.

Oh dear, you just can't help yourself can you super_dunce?

And what I mean by the yips related to a feeble mind is that it is a totally psychologically induced condition, so if you can "get" the yips you can also lose them by using the power of your mind rather than blaming your putter and looking for a quick fix, of which putting left handed is certainly a drastic solution.

Growing evidence to support the yips are caused by a neuromuscular condition rather than a pyschological one. It certainly wasn't willpower that put my yips into remission. That was entirely down to me making a physical change to the way I putted. Had it been pyschological, I doubt the fix would have been so quick ... indeed, in my case, instantaneous.

The yips will never ever happen to me, because I putt with total freedom and although I'm a low handicapper (shall I boast like you about it? as if it is something rare and amazing that puts you above others on a pedastal? I've long since learned there are more important things in life than worrying about a number which means nothing to anyone. Also I have 9 courses at my immediate disposal in relation to where I'm a member, so yes, I do play and compete over a lot of different putting surfaces.

I seem to recall you saying your goal was to get down to 3 but when I subsequently asked you sometime later as to whether or not you had yet achieved this, you didn't respond. Still, given this ...

I've long since learned there are more important things in life than worrying about a number ...

... I'm guessing you didn't!

Incidentally, for me to have known you (claimed to have) a low h'cap then you must have "boasted" about this yourself on some previous occasion.

Hilarious that you bring up being a Cat 1 player, though it must be preposterously easy off the ladies tees ...

I could lecture you on comparative differentials but since you seem unable to understand even the most basic english, twould be way over whatever passes for a brain in your case.

USGA and R&A To Limit Golf Ball Distance

(November 26, 2037 - FAR HILLS, NJ)

In a joint announcement, the USGA and R&A have released new technical specifications to limit the distance of golf balls. "We've been watching this distance situation closely for the last 25 years and now the evidence clearly indicates the golf ball is traveling too far", said former PGA Tour Commissioner and new USGA Executive Director, Joe Ogilvie.

When asked if Keegan Bradley Jr's hole-in-one on the 762 yard par-5 7th hole at this past summers PGA Championship had any bearing on the decision, Ogivlie indicated, "Absolutely Not".

"What caught our attention was our observations at this year's USGA Junior Amateur, where over 30 of the youngsters were using the Atomic V1 golf ball. When this ball first came on the market we weren't concerned because only players who couldn't hit a drive 400 yards were using it. But now, after seeing juniors who routinely hit their drives 500 plus yards going to the ball, we knew we had a problem."

- - - -

In an unrelated development, R&A Chief Executive, Ian Poulter reassured the media that combining St Andrews 17th and 18th holes into a "long-ish" par-4 was just a minor tweek of the Old Course and thus "Nothing to be concerned about really".