short putters

Isnt it just so nice to see pretty much everyone using short putters ...
Just looks so much better.
They seem to be coping ok too , largely.

Just one or two hold-outs, Tim Clark (currently injured) the most obvious. Not sure what will become of Timmy.
Langer and a couple more on the Champions Tour will probably anchor through the end of the year.

Still expect plenty of belly-putters around the course when our snow and ice disappear though - if it gets people out playing, that's a good thing.

we don't have anyone who uses one round my course .. never really seen them in real life ..

Quite popular here, and they undoubtedly extend the playing careers of some retirees, not to mention younger pups.

kwinigolfer wrote:Quite popular here, and they undoubtedly extend the playing careers of some retirees, not to mention younger pups.

Not sure how they can help us older folk (!) - I've never been tempted to use one but I do swear by the grippy bit I have on the end of the putter to get the ball out of the hole without bending down. Never seen a pro using one of those

Kwini

You keep suggesting Clarke will be unable to use a real putter, but other than his somewhat biased claim, where is the evidence to suggest he can't use a proper putter. If he can make a full swing he can use a bloody putter.

McLaren wrote:Kwini

You keep suggesting Clarke will be unable to use a real putter, but other than his somewhat biased claim, where is the evidence to suggest he can't use a proper putter.  If he can make a full swing he can use a bloody putter.  

It's clearly a psychological thing. Are you one of those people that think mental issues aren't real issues and mental illness isn't a real illness??

Jas

No.

Some in the golf media claim that clarke has a genetic condition which means he cannot use a real putter, but can somehow swing all the other clubs perfectly well.


PS: the yips are not yet in the DSM.

I'm not an physiologist Mac,
But Clark (where d'you get the e from?) has endured a number of physical issues. He seems to be a very good bloke and I for one hope he is able to make a transition. Injured at the moment however.

I do agree it does seem a bit odd that he can't use a "normal" putter when he can swing the rest.

But, I'm not privy to his medical records and so couldn't with any weight say he should be able to do this or that. I know my back aches a bit when I go out and practise putting but is fine with a normal stance, so it's not unreasonable to extend that someone could suffer actual pain that would affect their game.

Think he will just have to figure something out to get away from the anchoring or he will likely have to give up, which would be a shame.

Clark has said before that his wrist problem means he can't turn his palms skyward. I don't know how this affects his ability to use a putter, but it was interesting that he said the affliction actually helped him hit straighter full shots!

That sounds like a crock of scheisse. No one's palms face upwards putting, so what's he on about?

We'll have to see. He can't really chip either so perhaps his career will terminate. We'll know in six months' time.

super_realist wrote:That sounds like a crock of scheisse. No one's palms face upwards putting, so what's he on about?

Exactly. He just couldn't cope with the thought of playing without the long putter so wheeled out some sob story about his wrist issues.

Kwini wrote:He can't really chip either

I wonder if tiger has caught the same affliction?

Tim Clark needs anchored putter

Mac,
He "wheeled out" his "sob story" almost twenty years ago - why criticise him now?
I guess his mate Pettersson has also gone back to anchoring. His problem is that he's just too fat.

Perhaps Clark should go on a Para Tour if he's "disabled". Funny that if it affects him so much, that he doesn't even know the name of his "condition"

kwini

Tim clark is barely in my conscious now, never mind 20 years ago. It is clearly total crap because the classic putter grip is both palms facing each other, you don't need to supinate no matter how close the grip is to your body.

IN addition to that Mac, you are taught not to move your wrists whilst putting.
Surely, if he does have a problem gripping, he just needs to come up with a new way?

kwini

Just to be clear are you saying that clark has grounds for continuing to use an anchored putting technique, and therefore the ban should never have come to be?

No and Yes!

No. I'm not saying Clark has any grounds whatsoever for continuing to "anchor".

but,

Yes. I don't believe the ban should have come in for 2015. Anchoring should have been against the rules forever. As should oversize, big-headed drivers. But we've been down that route before.

We have, but using other 'mistakes' to justify the continuation of an abomination (anchoring) doesn't stack up for me I'm afraid.

navy,
I think both are abominations, they both reared their heads in the game during the same era, yet one is regarded as not in the spirit of the game, an abomination if you like, yet the other is completely ignored, presumably because there's no will to upset the manufacturers' apple cart, loaded with $300.00 drivers.

I don't think big headed drivers are a problem, every other sport has progressed in technology, I don't see them holding back with lace up footballs or steel bikes

Super

I almost agree with you but for the fact that the pro game influences what is demanded from course design for regular folks.

In the hands of most people the big headed drivers would not alter how long a course would need to be or how "tough"/tiger proofed it would need to be made. But the pro's are getting too long for some courses, and the regular folk now think they are too long for courses they play.

This is taking us down a boring design route that does not need to happen where total yards is a measure of how good the course is.

Does it matter Mac if par is irrelevant? If it is, then courses simply need to narrow fairways and grow rough up in landing areas in order to force course management.
It's not really a design issue as it can be removed post event.

It's not just advanced technology, it's extended swing arc, etc, etc.

I don't see us making cricket wickets 25 yards long because bowlers are taller and more athletic, and I don't see footballs changing size.

The advanced technology in most sports is within the athlete themselves, bigger, faster, stronger. Don't see why golf can't be the same unless it's to bring 72-hole par at TOC down to 254.

No, but we make footballs that are easier to kick and control, that are more aerodynamic and which travel through the air quicker, bikes that are quicker, have bigger wheels, are lighter,  We've seen power in cars go up etc etc, swimsuits are more hydrodynamic, running shoes are lighter, tennis rackets more controllable, surfaces more forgiving and predictable etc. All these contribute to making the sport different to what it was 20 years ago, before you compare athletes of different ages.

Nothing stays the same, and I think it's a bit naive to expect or want it to. Sport evolves.

I don't see how larger clubheads, make for increased swing arc.

But longer clubs do.

Anyway, I'm working with Roger Federer on an extension to his racket, think it will give him the edge he needs in playing Rafa. Not much good in serving, but he can flip a switch while a point is progressing, releasing an extension and his extra reach/height will be the ingredient to take him to the title at Roland Garros.

LadyPutt wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Quite popular here, and they undoubtedly extend the playing careers of some retirees, not to mention younger pups.

Not sure how they can help us older folk (!) - I've never been tempted to use one but I do swear by the grippy bit I have on the end of the putter to get the ball out of the hole without bending down. Never seen a pro using one of those

Tiger needs one of those to pick the ball up, he can't rely on his playing partners for ever.

super_realist wrote:I don't think big headed drivers are a problem, every other sport has progressed in technology, I don't see them holding back with lace up footballs or steel bikes

I can think of two contrasting examples...

Tennis, like golf, has seen new materials used for racquets. Imagine using a wooden racquet?

Cricket on the other hand has kept the wooden bat sacrosanct, and quickly moved to prevent aluminium bats.

Maybe we should all go back to hickory and persimmon?

raycastleunited wrote:

super_realist wrote:I don't think big headed drivers are a problem, every other sport has progressed in technology, I don't see them holding back with lace up footballs or steel bikes

I can think of two contrasting examples...

Tennis, like golf, has seen new materials used for racquets. Imagine using a wooden racquet?

Cricket on the other hand has kept the wooden bat sacrosanct, and quickly moved to prevent aluminium bats.

Maybe we should all go back to hickory and persimmon?

Possibly why cricket is so boring. I'll bet the materials, methods of construction, length, grip, additives, glue, thickness, shape has changed a bit over time though.
My cricket bat I had as a child is nothing like the modern cricket bat other than it was made of wood.

kwinigolfer wrote:navy,
I think both are abominations, they both reared their heads in the game during the same era, yet one is regarded as not in the spirit of the game, an abomination if you like, yet the other is completely ignored, presumably because there's no will to upset the manufacturers' apple cart, loaded with $300.00 drivers.

But it wasn't completely ignored was it? Just arrested at 460cc. I'd also much rather the larger headed drivers than anchoring, which is completely changing the principle of swinging a club, whatever club that is.
Personally (and I suspect we're on the same page), I don't think the golfing authorities are remotely quick enough on the draw re. the tech in the game. You've got them all now doing for fairway woods/hybrids, what was done with drivers (i.e. trying to push CoR to the limit) and TM doing the same with irons for Heaven's sake. How can it be that difficult to say "Nope. That's far enough everyone."?

kwinigolfer wrote:But longer clubs do.

Anyway, I'm working with Roger Federer on an extension to his racket, think it will give him the edge he needs in playing Rafa. Not much good in serving, but he can flip a switch while a point is progressing, releasing an extension and his extra reach/height will be the ingredient to take him to the title at Roland Garros.

I thought the 48" limit has been in place for ages? In any case, if amateurs think longer = better, that explains a lot of the seriously deluded (and scheiss) players I've seen over the last few years.

Cricket bats are a lot bigger (thicker) and heavier than they used to be.

navy,
No quarrel, just that it's a shame in my opinion to see sportsmen's livelihoods threatened due to the whims of bureaucrats who've been asleep at their respective switches.

The Mayor of Toco, Texas, certainly started something when he began using a 55 inch driver (a foot longer than normal at the time) on the Senior Tour! The long putter was around at least a decade or two before that.

Kwini

We got laws on gay marriage wrong, should we not have bothered to fight got equal marriage rights?


Could you expand on "livelihoods damaged"?

If anchoring is improving someones ability to putt then that is damaging the earnings of everyone else?

What's "gay marriage" (hate that expression) got to do with short putters?

Who is "anchoring" damaging unfairly? It was fairly and squarely within the laws of the game - if not, why didn't anyone put a stop to it back in the eighties when they started to become fairly common among pros, especially Seniors?
Many more egregious violations of the spirit of fair play in tournament golf than anchoring that no-one will ever do anything about, the worst being golfers deliberately hitting into areas such as grandstands for a free drop when they know they don't have the skill to hit the green and missing it is penal.

I don't like anchoring, you don't like anchoring. I'm just saying it never should've been permitted in the first place, and nor should several other things, not excluding Donald Trump having anything to do with Championship Golf/courses.

The whole anchored putter farce was a bit of a red herring to me.

I haven't seen any evidence that there was a statistical improvement, attributed to putting which resulted in a disproportionate number of "anchorers" winning tournaments

I don't get this comparison between long putters and long drivers. A long putter with anchoring is clearly against the spirit of the game and the traditional idea of a golf stroke. Croquet style putting was banned for the same reason. But a 45" or 55" driver is essentially the same club; Ok 55" will go much further but is also exponentially harder to hit. The difference between a 300 yard drive on the fairway and a 400 yard drive into the next county is far more than 100 yards.

May be a very valid point to discuss but not in the same sentence as a short putter with a true putting style and a cheat stick with a contrived anchor point. Apples and oranges

What about non anchored long putters? That's a different stroke from what is deemed conventional but is legal.
Why doesn't the likes of the Poison Dwarf Clark just learn to use his long putter without anchoring? He's still allowed to do that, so I'm not sure why he's complaining.

You'll be banning cross-handed play next . . . . .

There's so much in sport that's "against the spirit of the game", even in golf, that I just don't see why everyone gets such a hard-on about anchoring.

But I've never done it, never not walked in cricket, never dived in football, and never deliberately whacked the ball into the stands to get a better lie.

More apples and oranges

super_realist wrote:No, but we make footballs that are easier to kick and control, that are more aerodynamic and which travel through the air quicker, bikes that are quicker, have bigger wheels, are lighter,  We've seen power in cars go up etc etc, swimsuits are more hydrodynamic, running shoes are lighter, tennis rackets more controllable, surfaces more forgiving and predictable etc. All these contribute to making the sport different to what it was 20 years ago, before you compare athletes of different ages.

Nothing stays the same, and I think it's a bit naive to expect or want it to. Sport evolves.

I don't see how larger clubheads, make for increased swing arc.

I disagree Super. In the sports you mention above, what your opponent does, directly affects how you play. In golf, and some other sports, it doesn't matter (except mentally) what an opponent does. You will still hit the same shot whatever the other player does. That's why I said in anothr post that you are not strictly playing other golfers, you are playing to see who is the best playing a particular course. So the course matters. What you use to play the course matters because it will affect how you play.
Just to give an example of how they have had to change technology backwards because of improvements to athletes skill, conditioning, fitness etc, think of javelin throwers. Athletics has had to redesign the javelin because they were throwing it beyond the infield. (They might have to again, if not already). I suspect there have been other enforced changes to equipment in other sports to cater for hunan improvement. My view is, change the golf ball. My opinion.

I don't really see what difference that makes. Who cares whether you are playing the course or directly against opposition. Either way, sport benefits from improvements in technology. Who is to say what level of technology was/is the best for golf?

Neither preclude technology from advancing. If people are worried about it making golf "too easy " for professionals then make the rough thicker, fairways narrower and make the pins tougher for tournament play and put a premium on accuracy.

I'd be interested to see what the average PGA winning score is from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's. I bet the difference isn't that great despite huge advances in technology and golfers.

It's all relative, and I couldn't care less about tournament scores by and large. Who wins, wins regardless of the technology or toughness of the course.

super_realist wrote:I'd be interested to see what the average PGA winning score is from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's. I bet the difference isn't that great despite huge advances in technology and golfers.

I expect they will be the same. But between now and then, courses have changed to counteract the improvement in technology and golfers by becoming longer. There is a limit to how long you can extend some golf courses.

Adjusting courses to make fairways narrower might work. In some cases it might not be possible to make the changes you suggest. You have said that there are only limited pin positions at TOC.
I'm just saying that to bring back some golf courses that have been taken off the Tournament list, because they are "too short", and to stop courses having to create 500 yard par 4's - adjust the ball.

400 yard pars 4s are quite long enough for me even with the current balls and equipment!

I think that the improvement of the golfer is a big difference.
Put a modern day big hitting golfer with 1970's equipment on a 1970's course and I think there would be a big difference between them and the unprofessional fatty that were "pro" during that era.

If courses were that easy now with modern technology, then there wouldn't be such a massive gap between those challenging, and those who miss the cut and prop up the field.

Adjust the ball in the professional game. But not for your casual player. Adjust anything you want for the professionals, but the normal golfer should be able to use whatever he wants (within reason). The game needs to be enjoyable for anyone to play.

was it at a recent US Open, when they had an old club that was used to drive a green by some old pro, probably a very good one. And the current players took it on, but very few if any made it.