Tim Clark and anchoring

First topic message reminder :

Is anyone else struggling to understand Tim Clark's case against the banning of anchoring?

http://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/tim-clark-speaks-softly-makes-forceful-points-when-discussing-anchor-ban

If you look as his putting style in the following video, I don't understand why he can't putt the same way but without anchoring. I could understand him having more of a problem swinging a golf club which does require a certain amount of turning in of the forearms and wrists but I just to get the problem with the putting.

It certainly has stopped him accruing the thick end of $23m in career earnings!

http://www.titleist.com/my-game/videos/152/goals.aspx

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:I wasn't really listening to the windbag Gael

kwinigolfer wrote:gael, Grumpy,
Not sure what you think the PGA Tour has actually done.
At this stage all they've said is that the USGA/R&A invited comments and the PGA Tour have provided theirs - nothing more, nothing less.
They certainly haven't said they wouldn't abide by the anchoring ban . . . .

Oh ... I ... certainly understand that and I believe they will capitulate but I still think it's a massive own goal because a lot of punters will assume from this announcement that they will not adhere to the ban in 2016. Look at the hornet's nest that's already been stirred up in less than 24 hours most of it coming down against the pga tour's announcement.

As for the PGA of America ... it maybe big in America but it means nothing over here other than the fact we know it's a body which (dis)organises a major and which represents professional interests via teaching the game and, oh yes, selling equipment!

super_realist wrote:

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:I wasn't really listening to the windbag Gael

Damn you s_r, I was hoping no-one would pick up on that!

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:If the PGA tour are arguing there is no advantage to using the anchoring method then why worry if it is banned?

Just the same to say why not allow people to use it.

It's a bit like the existence of God, there is no proof at all there is one, and there is no proof that anchoring improves your putting.

From randa's FAQs on anchoring ...

We believe that the essential nature of the traditional golf stroke involves the player freely swinging the club with both the club and the gripping hands being held away from the body. The player’s challenge is to direct and control the movement of the entire club in making the stroke. Anchoring the club removes the player’s need to do so by providing extra support and stability for the stroke, as if one end of the club were physically attached to the body. Our conclusion is that it would be in the best interests of the game for the Rules of Golf to reinforce the free-swinging nature of the stroke and to prohibit the practice of anchoring the club.

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status/Anchoring/Anchoring-FAQs.aspx

It's not about stats.

I really can't see the issue. I couldn't care less how a person "swings" a club. There are much more important things in golf to be get girdles in a twist about.

Putting, anchoring or not is not a technically advanced skill, a nearly dead pensioner could putt as well as a top tour pro.

It's probably the least important issue in golf right now but people are making it out to be like an Armstrong like scandal.

s_r ... if putting is so easy then why do beginners have such a big problem with it. There is nothing easy about judging line and length.

Gael, I said the mechanical/technical aspects of it are not difficult.

It's just practice, EVERYONE can and should be a good or at least average putter. It isn't a difficult TECHNICAL PROCESS.

super_realist wrote:I really can't see the issue....

And therein lies your problem.

I'll ask again. Why does anyone care?

I don't care as such, but then I don't make my living from the game so it's likely to be less emotive for me.

I think the "powers that be" should write this one off - the ship sailed a long time ago, but they should learn a lesson on how to govern and not make the same mistake again.

I'm interested as an observer who has sympathy for both sides of the argument (but probably on balance support the ban).

I'm also interested in terms of precedent for any future changes (e.g. oversized driver heads, hybrid clubs and ball distance are sometimes cited as examples of "Why target anchoring alone?").

Reasonable point Bob but I don't think they should back down. I also think the specious argument that "they should have banned it 30 years ago" is almost laughable. With you all the way on the governance - USGA/R&A should come down like a sledge hammer on the OEMs re. kit development in future.

Sky

Why target anchoring alone? Who says they are?

In some ways I'm with Gael here. Let the pros make themselves a laughing stock. I'd like to see how the OEMs deal with an amateur game which won't allow anchoring. See how many cheat sticks they sell then.

gaelgowfer wrote:

super_realist wrote:

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:I wasn't really listening to the windbag Gael

Damn you s_r, I was hoping no-one would pick up on that!

Oops

Navy, We keep hearing about the OEM's, but it's the law/method in which a club is used, not the club that is the issue. You could anchor a standard putter if you were of Lowry proportions, shall we ban them? Perhaps you should have a limit on body mass/fat percentage, or waist/belly ratio before allowing pro's to compete?

I know two guys who use longer putters, none of them anchor.

As for it being a cheat stick, you'd have to prove it provides an advantage first, no one has yet.
Shouldn't it be called a "different" stick?

I'd prefer if the likes of the old farts in the R&A spent their time finding better venues to hold their major championships on, rather than boring, dreary venues like TOC and Hoylake. I'm fast coming to the conclusion the The Open is the worst/least entertaining of the Majors.

Bob_the_Job wrote:I don't care as such, but then I don't make my living from the game so it's likely to be less emotive for me.

I think the "powers that be" should write this one off - the ship sailed a long time ago, but they should learn a lesson on how to govern and not make the same mistake again.

From the randa link above ...

Our mission is to revise the Rules of Golf only when there is a need to respond to changed circumstances and when it becomes clear what the specific nature of that revision should be. In the past, an underlying factor in the balance of considerations on this issue was that use of the anchored longer putter was at a very low level and not anticipated to move into the mainstream of the game. Those circumstances have now greatly changed. With the recent upsurge in the use of anchored strokes at all levels of the game, we have concluded that a Rules change is necessary to preserve the inherent nature and challenge of the golf stroke, and that this can be accomplished while enabling players to continue to use their longer putters and their individual playing styles.

If a change in the Rules of Golf is needed to protect and enhance the long-term character and interests of the game, the fact that it may require alteration of existing playing practices cannot prevent us from doing what is necessary and responsible. The governing bodies review and revise the Rules of Golf every four years precisely so that the Rules can be adapted as appropriate in response to developments within the game. By definition, changes to the playing Rules may affect how a golfer plays the game, and the need to adapt to those evolving Rules is inherent in the game.

We understand that there are those who believe that long putters should have been banned long ago and others who believe that anchoring should have been banned as soon as the belly putter emerged 10-12 years ago – just as there are those who believe that no action was or is needed in either respect. Even though used infrequently until very recently, the anchored stroke with longer putters has been an ongoing and highly controversial issue with many differing viewpoints. The fact that no action was taken on anchoring at an earlier time did not reflect a determination or assurance that no future Rule would be considered.

Assessing and modifying the Rules of Golf necessarily involves considerations of both past and future. In this context, we are identifying the essential nature of a golf stroke throughout the centuries since the game began: the player uses the hands and arms to make a free swing of the club at the ball. The fact that anchoring began to emerge toward the end of the last century does not mean that it has become a part of the traditions of the game.

I recommend everyone read the FAQs. They pretty much cover all points raised on this issue.

navyblueshorts wrote:Sky

Why target anchoring alone? Who says they are?

Not sure if what I said was misunderstood - this particular proposed rule change only affects anchoring, but have heard / read comments against the ban questioning why pick on this and not other changes. My general point though is that I suspect the governing bodies are also testing the water as to what might happen if they are minded to go for an even more controversial roll back at some point (having started with grooves a few years ago), which is where I might become directly affected and therefore more interested. [Still unlikely to be bothered though given I wouldn't even call myself an average standard player]

The fact that no action was taken on anchoring at an earlier time did not reflect a determination or assurance that no future Rule would be considered.

So doing nothing doesn't mean you might not do something in the future? Well duh.. brilliant. The only thing that would have prevented them from doing something the future would be to have already done it!

I don't give a stuff how determined they were at the time and I'm not denying their right to change rules at anytime. The issue for me is in letting it fester and have an entire generation grow up using it, they've made it exponentially harder to implement a ban now, created much more furore and made themselves look a bit inept. That's not really an opinion it's a self evident fact - without lots of people using it, there would be much less opposition to banning it.

I am in principal in favour of the anchor ban and support the stance that the swing should be free and not make use of a fixed hinge point.

However, if it stops the enjoyment of the game by the many normal every day players using one, many of them might simply pack up if they genuinely believe they would yip everything otherwise. I now don't think golf can afford to lose them.

That leaves me having changed my mind on the proposed anchoring ban even though I totally agree with the free swing basis for the game. Bloody golf.

gael,
Not sure why you dismiss the PGA Of America; they are a major force in the country that fuels much of golf's health, and no idea why you would disparage the PGA Championship, let alone its other properties, including the US end of the Ryder Cup.
Silence from other parts of the World, incl O'Grady, is deafening.

Regardless, as I've suggested before, it looks like there's something else at play here - professionals vs amateurs, gentlemen vs players in cricketing terms.

Why there was apparently no consultation, debate between the various interested parties ages ago before the USGA and randa took a unilateral step is completely beyond any rational thinking.

And then there's the manufacturers' lobby . . . .

I don't think anyone would complain if the USGA and R & A ran their own tournaments to their own set of rules; more logically they'd get around the table and come up with a resolution that all could agree with.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

The fact that no action was taken on anchoring at an earlier time did not reflect a determination or assurance that no future Rule would be considered.

So doing nothing doesn't mean you might not do something in the future? Well duh.. brilliant. The only thing that would have prevented them from doing something the future would be to have already done it!

I don't give a stuff how determined they were at the time and I'm not denying their right to change rules at anytime. The issue for me is in letting it fester and have an entire generation grow up using it, they've made it exponentially harder to implement a ban now, created much more furore and made themselves look a bit inept. That's not really an opinion it's a self evident fact - without lots of people using it, there would be much less opposition to banning it.

"... an entire generation ...".

You didn't read the eFFingAQs, did you?

kwinigolfer wrote:gael,
Not sure why you dismiss the PGA Of America; they are a major force in the country that fuels much of golf's health, and no idea why you would disparage the PGA Championship, let alone its other properties, including the US end of the Ryder Cup.
Silence from other parts of the World, incl O'Grady, is deafening.

Regardless, as I've suggested before, it looks like there's something else at play here - professionals vs amateurs, gentlemen vs players in cricketing terms.

Why there was apparently no consultation, debate between the various interested parties ages ago before the USGA and randa took a unilateral step is completely beyond any rational thinking.

And then there's the manufacturers' lobby . . . .

I don't think anyone would complain if the USGA and R & A ran their own tournaments to their own set of rules; more logically they'd get around the table and come up with a resolution that all could agree with.

To quote TW ... "it is what it is". When folk over here think american professional golf, they don't think PGA of America, they think ... pga tour. I doubt many golfers in ROW are even aware what the PGA of America's function in the game is. Indeed, if you were to ask yer average golfer to name the four majors, they would in all likelihood come up with the following ... The Open run by the R&A, The US Open run by the USGA, The Masters run by Augusta National and The PGA run by ... the USPGA.

You could be onto something re the professionals v amateurs thingy. I'm getting the distinct impression the american professional game would like to ditch the amateurs and make their own decisions on which rules should apply to their tour. They should be careful what they wish for. If nothing else, the governing bodies provide a firewall between them and the manufacturers. Who knows what kind of game the pros will end up playing after ditching the amateur "lobby".

As for the apparent lack of consultation, there may well have been discussions about this and other things affecting the game today between the various golf organisations. Quite apart from that, this is not the first time these putters have been called into question by the governing bodies. So, until it is decreed otherwise, the R&A and USGA are still recognised as arbiters of the game. I therefore don't see why they should have to defer to anyone else in so far as taking unilateral decisions are concerned.

As for "getting around the table" seems to me the decision has already been taken if the USGA's immediate response to the Finchem's announcement to oppose the ban is anything to go by.

Could the PGA tour not banning anchoring be the beginning of the end for anchoring. People on Tour use it. But people wanting to get on tour would not. So as these aspiring pros learn the game they play without anchoring, and therefore when in the big league should carry the same putting stroke. The existing players using anchoring will gradually leave the tour to be replaced by non-anchor putters!

Maybe anyway...

gael,
I get a dose of common sense most Monday mornings by listening to Paul Azinger's podcast on the GolfWorld website.
He continues to be proud that he's the first player to win on the PGA Tour while "anchoring", other long putter users like Miller and Mediate presumably didn't stick the thing in their chest.

Anyway, his take is that why shouldn't guys anchor if it thinks it'll improve their game - his contention being that everyone gets advantage from a long, big-headed driver so the USGA/R&A won't touch that, but only a small minority anchor so they're selectively attacking that whilst leaving clubs and balls out of control.

I don't know that anyone flat out comes out and says they're for anchoring, just don't ban it now that I've been allowed/encouraged to do it since I were a wee lad.

Actually think ban_bam is close to the answer: ban anchoring as soon as possible, immediately from the two Opens if they so wish, but grandfather those in who currently use them. As ban suggests, it'll phase out pretty quickly all except for Bradley/Simpson dinosaurs.

If people in Golf don't know who the PGA Of America is they should go back to primary school and do some homework . . . . . . .


PS; I think the firewall was breached a decade or two ago . . . . . .

kwini ... re the firewall, presumably you're referring to the Ping fiasco?

I think the governing bodies are in a much better situation now to fight off litigation. It may not be practicable to outlaw springy drivers but I'm still hopeful that a rolled back ball is doable and I believe it will happen.

As a former yipper you might think I'd be all for retaining anchoring and I think the governing bodies would probably have continued to have turned a blind eye (they may yet do this) to yippers and those with dodgy backs but when I see young men with steady hands and unfettered backs then I'm afraid I regard those belly putters as nothing less than a training aid.

Of course had you read randa's FAQs, you'd have realised that the reason the governing bodies are only acting now is because the belly putter is fast becoming a mainstream method of putting courtesy of Messrs. Bradley, Simpson et al. And, don't forget, anchoring is sometimes used thru' the green as well as on it.

I'd ban anchoring tomorrow if I could but if grandfathering means Messrs. Bradley & Keegan get to putt this way for their entire career then ... no, niet, nein!

R&A and USGA changed the rules on drivers (trampoline effect) and grooves during the last 2 rules reviews. Now it's putters, and quite right too. I think the argument about ams using them is spurious. I have seen very few ams, including in County, Regional and National events use anchored putters, and certainly nowhere near the number of pros! Nor is the putter really a manufacturer issue. I am not aware of a single putter head designed exclusively for long putters, and if they are relying on the length of shaft for extra income, I doubt that is going to work. We all probably already have more putters than any other single piece of kit, bar balls!

Slow play cannot be influenced by the rules bodies, other than in their tournaments, and through existing statements in the rules, but if the professional bodies are really interested in the future of the game they could do something about it tomorrow! In fact make that today!

The ball is more difficult because of the manufacturers, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some changes proposed before too long. After all the manufacturers also have the interests of the game at heart, don't they?

gael, puligny,
I don't disagree with anything in either of your positions except the way the authorities (for and against, pro and am) are going about this.

I'm certainly far less interested in what they say in FAQ's than what the history is, and the cat came out the bag back in the eighties when Sarge Moody was winning the USGA's very own Senior Open with a long putter and Harold The Horse Henning was doing his "European hand wave" on his way to Senior wins, with long putters, perhaps not anchored but writing on the wall. More recently Bernhard Langer has won the R&A's Open anchoring all the way and with scarcely a peep of disapproval.

Meanwhile Rocky Thompson, the long-forgotten Mayor of Toco Texas, started using a long driver and thence started using a jumbo head. Once again the horse was bolting out the yard with nary a suggestion of locking the door.

But no, we're not going to do anything to stand up against everybody, we'll just implement a change which will affect the few, very selectively as you can anchor against an arm.

I'm a lousy putter and have never used anything longer than normal, but am well aware that about half of the reason is I'm a poor greens reader; just as most bent grass players find they are when putting on Bermuda, for instance.
Sounds like there are far more amateur anchorers in the States than in Europe which is probably why there is so much more rhetoric here than there.

The notion that manufacturers have the interests of the game at heart is a bit idealistic don't you think? Their interest is in making the game more accessible to more players generating more revenue and hopefully profitability. At last, a significant %age more rounds were played in the US last year than in the previous year, reversing a decade-long trend.
Is it fanciful to suggest that part of the growth fueled more expenditure on new equipment, putters to the fore?

Meanwhile, I'm keeping my persimmon woods (true) in my bag, the USGA is bound to outlaw metal woods soon, don't you think?

(If tournaments threw the rule book at slow play there'd be a change in behaviour almost overnight and that would eventually filter down to muni level.)

Anyway, I don't think anyone wants an adversarial brouhaha, time to get round the table and I'd be perfectly happy with a resolution that eventually led to the ban of anchoring. And long putters, long drivers, big-headed drivers, and anyone constitutionally incapable of playing 18 holes in 3 1/2 hours per twosome, four hours per foursome or fivesome or sixsome.

Kwini, I am sure we all want the same things really. The issue with putters is it is no longer, in the pro game, and apparently college ams in USA an obvious minority. The numbers are growing alarmingly. I know the R&A and USGA consulted about a change approx 10 years ago, but were dissuaded on the basis that it was simply adding a few years to the golfing lives of senior pros. The proposal this time round would not have been sprung on the other bodies, and they would have been aware of the earlier discussions.

I gather Keegan Bradley tweeted a photo from the clubhouse at Riviera showing a long putter from the 1930's. so rare they had it in a museum!

I have to say on pace of play, I play a number of EGU and County (seniors) events. There's no slow play in those, and you are warned on the first tee about the consequences should there be any! It works! Those responsible for events can sort that out, if they have a will to do so?

Ad yes my comment about manufacturers was tongue in cheek. Just demonstrates the difficulty of making changes to the ball. I gather the change from feathery to gutta perch was controversial in its day!

puligny

Still surprised we haven't heard anything from the European Tour Players or O'Grady given the comment period is expiring.

Interesting times ahead . . . . . .

Kwini, agree re Euro Tour. There are indications that they had expressed views pro a change during the consultation prior to the R&A USGA announcement, but I have seen nothing during the post announcement final consultation.

Interestingly there is a reference to distance in the Q&A with a comment that it is under review/analysis. Hey ho

Ah ha ...so, puligny spotted my deliberate mistake then? Bleedin' senior moment. I really meant that the governing bodies missed the boat on yon bigheaded 460cc drivers rather than that of the springy variety.

I seem to recall Keegan Bradley saying he respected the governing bodies and would comply with any change in the rules regarding anchoring. Has he changed his mind?

kwini ... I'm not at all interested in the senior pro game so I'm not qualified to comment on Moody but I do know that Langer has struggled with the yips for a very long time and the perception back then was that broom handles (the belly putter didn't come along until much, much later) were very much viewed as a medicinal aid and nothing more than that ergo not a threat to the very essence of the how the game should be played and I think the PGA Tour and PGA of America are being very selective when it comes to remembering the history of anchoring.

Yips = Mental Fragility.

Historically, it seems that no "really good" professional putters go this route, it mostly being used as disaster relief. See Orville Moody

But then, some younger guns (notably major winners Simpson and Bradley) have only putted that way. Worse, it's a method being picked up by more and more young, aspiring competitive golfers.

I say "worse" since it's what I think the governing bodies feel and why I really think they want to ban anchoring.

super_realist wrote:Navy, We keep hearing about the OEM's, but it's the law/method in which a club is used, not the club that is the issue. You could anchor a standard putter if you were of Lowry proportions, shall we ban them? Perhaps you should have a limit on body mass/fat percentage, or waist/belly ratio before allowing pro's to compete?

I know two guys who use longer putters, none of them anchor.

As for it being a cheat stick, you'd have to prove it provides an advantage first, no one has yet.
Shouldn't it be called a "different" stick?

I'd prefer if the likes of the old farts in the R&A spent their time finding better venues to hold their major championships on, rather than boring, dreary venues like TOC and Hoylake. I'm fast coming to the conclusion the The Open is the worst/least entertaining of the Majors.

Umm, duh! I know it's the stroke that's being proposed as illegal but how many broom handles do you think the OEMs will sell if it's illegal for them to be used in amateur golf?
No-one has to provide any proof or stats to suggest anchoring is an advantage. Personally, I think it's axiomatic it's a help although I accept it would take time to master. Good putters don't use them but I fail to see why those who're pants and/or can't get over the yips should be able to get out of it so easily.

Banning anchoring won't stop people using them over here, no way. They might not be able to use them in competition but c'est la vie, screw the competition will be most amateurs' reaction.

Anyway, this seems to be the Telegraph's take on the European Tour's likely reaction:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/europeantour/9893361/European-Tour-likely-to-back-RandA-and-go-against-American-players-on-belly-putter-ban.html


Looking forward to something official.

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:Navy, We keep hearing about the OEM's, but it's the law/method in which a club is used, not the club that is the issue. You could anchor a standard putter if you were of Lowry proportions, shall we ban them? Perhaps you should have a limit on body mass/fat percentage, or waist/belly ratio before allowing pro's to compete?

I know two guys who use longer putters, none of them anchor.

As for it being a cheat stick, you'd have to prove it provides an advantage first, no one has yet.
Shouldn't it be called a "different" stick?

I'd prefer if the likes of the old farts in the R&A spent their time finding better venues to hold their major championships on, rather than boring, dreary venues like TOC and Hoylake. I'm fast coming to the conclusion the The Open is the worst/least entertaining of the Majors.

Umm, duh! I know it's the stroke that's being proposed as illegal but how many broom handles do you think the OEMs will sell if it's illegal for them to be used in amateur golf?
No-one has to provide any proof or stats to suggest anchoring is an advantage. Personally, I think it's axiomatic it's a help although I accept it would take time to master. Good putters don't use them but I fail to see why those who're pants and/or can't get over the yips should be able to get out of it so easily.

Well if the people who use them but don't anchor them, then probably quite a few. Having said that, I think it's pathetic that people decide to use those types of putters when they should just man up and get over the yips. A bad workman will always blame their tools.

We have a guy that has a broomy chipper (horrible chipmaster head on a chest length putter shaft) at our place. (Before you get to the next line I assure you this is true.)

Is it the thin end of the wedge? ( ) Could that spread without the proposed rule change?

Is the wording of the anchoring rules published anywhere?

Mac

From the R and A website:

"The proposed change would re-label current Rule 14-1 as Rule 14-1a, and establish Rule 14-1b as described below:

14-1b Anchoring the Club

In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either “directly” or by use of an “anchor point”.

Note 1: The club is anchored “directly” when the player intentionally holds the club or a gripping hand in contact with any part of his body, except that the player may hold the club or a gripping hand against a hand or forearm.

Note 2: An “anchor point” exists when the player intentionally holds a forearm in contact with any part of his body to establish a gripping hand as a stable point around which the other hand may swing the club."

Can a comparison to the time the back-pass rule that was brought into football? I am pretty sure the keepers of the time weren't too happy about the new rule change but they just had to get on with it.

Good for the R & A.

(But also hope they take up Super's suggestion of finding some additional venues for the Open Championship!)

Shotrock wrote:Good for the R & A.

(But also hope they take up Super's suggestion of finding some additional venues for the Open Championship!)

I wouldn't hold your breath SR, the words R&A and Old Farts are interchangeable. Although, probably a good idea to hold your breath around them.

super_realist wrote:I wouldn't hold your breath SR, the words R&A and Old Farts are interchangeable. Although, probably a good idea to hold your breath around them.

Very good!

gaelgowfer wrote:

"... an entire generation ...".

You didn't read the eFFingAQs, did you?

Roll your eyes all you want, I'm not rolling them back if you lose them.

I did read the FAQ but I'm not sure what you're getting at. My point was that leaving it so long to address this issue has made it much harder to address and made them look like jubblies? Are you really disputing this or have I missed your point entirely?

Weirdly enough the FAQ doesn't have a "why are you making yourself look like jubblies" question but then he who owns the website gets to edit the website.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:

"... an entire generation ...".

You didn't read the eFFingAQs, did you?

Roll your eyes all you want, I'm not rolling them back if you lose them.

I did read the FAQ but I'm not sure what you're getting at. My point was that leaving it so long to address this issue has made it much harder to address and made them look like jubblies? Are you really disputing this or have I missed your point entirely?

Weirdly enough the FAQ doesn't have a "why are you making yourself look like jubblies" question but then he who owns the website gets to edit the website.

Bob ... dear, rightly or wrongly the governing bodies turned a blind eye and probably would have continued to have done so had long putters and particularly belly putters not crossed over into the mainstream. Up to when the proposed ban was announced, rightly or wrongly, nothing was done for the best possible reasons. It's inappropriate for you to use the benefit of hindsight to try prove your point. Incidentally, if you've been following recent media coverage then you would have seen that the pga tour and the pga of america are very quickly becoming isolated. Jubblies or not, the ban will go ahead and the aforemention whiny organisitions will capitulate.

gaelgowfer wrote:
Bob ... dear, rightly or wrongly the governing bodies turned a blind eye and probably would have continued to have done so had long putters and particularly belly putters not crossed over into the mainstream. Up to when the proposed ban was announced, rightly or wrongly, nothing was done for the best possible reasons. It's inappropriate for you to use the benefit of hindsight to try prove your point. Incidentally, if you've been following recent media coverage then you would have seen that the pga tour and the pga of america are very quickly becoming isolated. Jubblies or not, the ban will go ahead and the aforemention whiny organisitions will capitulate.

Haha being patronising rather than logical or even answering the question - a classic tactic.

I think one thing even the mighty professionals seem to forget is that anchoring the putter absolutely does not provide a competitive advantage if everyone is allowed to do it.

Now whether or not it's a legit "swing" is another matter altogether.

Good point about the competitive edge, Sr. Don;t think it helps read greens either.

The USGA has issued their statement following the comment period. Including this:
"We will continue to review and evaluate the feedback that we have received. As we have throughout this proces, we will continue to confer with the R&A in our work to reach a final resolution in this matter."
Wouldn't it be nice if they continued "to confer with" the Pro Tours and PGA Of America?
They sound more like Sepp Blatter every day.

The European Tour has just confirmed they back the ban on anchoring.

If you think the ban on anchoring is a 100% done deal, which I've always disputed, catch a load of this:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/report-bishop-criticizes-all-male-policy-anchor-ban/

Peter Dawson comes across as such an unlikeable, arrogant sod.

Nothing like a bit of personal animosity to stir the pot.

So: Who has the higher moral ground:

Anchorers?

or:

Male only golf clubs??

Peter Dawson should only pick fights he can win in.

Yet again the R & A is confused with the Royal & Ancient Golf Club. They were separated in 2004. Carter, not unexpected nor unusual for him, did it on the BBC the other day and now Bishop.

The R & A is an organisation, the Royal & Ancient a golf club. Only one is a single sex club of which there are many in St Andrews including female ones too. All of these single sex clubs are run by their members for their members. If those members decide they don't want members of the opposite sex then that is their prerogative. Whilst Dawson is most likely a member of the Royal & Ancient that should not preclude him and the USGA from trying to decide what they think is in the best interests of the game.