| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68%
32% Comments Left About This PollShowing comments 1-15 of 15. Posted by Bud October 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm. Leave it alone - why drive more people away from the game?  Posted by sean October 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm. definitely consider it a breach of the spirit of the game. It's like using a training aid on the course; it helps some, not others, and the degree of aid varies, but it's against the spirit. Posted by G-Man October 17, 2012 at 2:55 pm. Reeling in the golf ball/driver would make a bigger impact and more positive changes to the game than banning the belly. Posted by benseattle October 17, 2012 at 9:06 am. At this point, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that anchoring makes one a "better" putter. To wit: if that were true then every single professional on every Tour in the world would be anchoring. But they aren't. Perhaps it makes a poor putter more comfortable but until the day that we see a Luke Donald, for example, NEVER miss from inside 10 feet or a Phil Mickelson roll in nearly everything from 30 feet, then you simple cannot say that anchoring creates an "advantage." If longer putters are banned, it will be solely due to the aesthetics; i.e. the powers that be simply don't like the way it LOOKS. If that's the case, then look for more ridiculous bans.... after all, have you ever seen my SWING? Posted by Chuck from Charlottesville in reply to benseattle October 17, 2012 at 11:36 am. Besides the fact that Dave Pelz has shown evidence that there is an advantage, why in the world do you think so many players have adopted anchored putting, if it doesn't make them putt better? Or do you think that anchoring can only help people with putter yips or poor touch? It's no coincidence that, as the number of players on Tour who anchor has increased, they've won 3 of the last 5 majors - their nerves affect their putting less. As others are sure to point out, we're all free to anchor. But those who care about and understand golf know that the spirit and purpose of the game are completely incompatible with any shortcut to excellence like anchoring. Rather, golf is about overcoming obstacles in order to achieve excellence - and, if that isn't possible, accepting the "rub of the green" - even if that means being a lousy putter. Posted by Scott R. in reply to benseattle October 17, 2012 at 10:27 am. Both your premise and conclusion are not valid. Dave Pelz's research indicates anchoring does help. Secondly, it's possible anchoring works better for some percentage of the population. Possibly 90% - who knows? But not every single pro would have do it to prove it benefits most players. Posted by John H October 17, 2012 at 9:04 am. It doesn't matter if it's an advantage or not - it's equally available to all players. If you think they're an advantage and don't use them then you're making a choice (a silly and sanctimonious one, IMO) and you should accept the consequences. That all pros, who make their living from this, haven't adopted them proves that they don't work for everybody. This is just childish whinging about something that doesn't matter, while the real problems with golf - too hard, too long, too expensive - continue to be ignored. Posted by Chuck from Charlottesville in reply to John H October 17, 2012 at 12:01 pm. As I wrote in response to someone else, I think those who care about and understand golf know that the spirit and purpose of the game are completely incompatible with any shortcut to excellence like anchoring. Rather, golf is about overcoming obstacles in order to achieve excellence - and, if that isn't possible, accepting the "rub of the green" of life - even if that means being a lousy putter. There's no bigger issue than preserving the original spirit of the game. The fact that other recent changes (high-tech balls, metal drivers with gigantic club heads) have also distorted the game is no reason to fail to address anchoring, because it's the most direct departure from the spirit of the game - it's not an incremental improvement in the equipment, but a fundamental change in technique. Lastly, for 400 years the game was played in the same way. All of the changes over the last 20 years (long balls, gigantic metal-headed drivers, anchored putting) have been driven by two groups of people: those who demand that the game be made easier for them, rather than play it "as it lies"; and the companies who would profit from the first group's weakness and ignorance. Posted by John H in reply to Chuck from Charlottesville October 18, 2012 at 11:27 am. Your implication that I do not understand or care about golf is incorrect and insulting. If you really think you are playing the game that they played 400 years ago, then I'm afraid I have bad news for you. You play a game that has evolved constantly. Anyone who proclaims that they are defending the "original spirit of the game" is claiming an understanding and authority that they do not have. We face real challenges in fighting the decline in participation in golf, and regressive steps like do not address that at all. It's window dressing about a trivial matter, and is typical of governing bodies that just do not have any handle on how to deal with necessary changes. Posted by DocWillie October 17, 2012 at 8:24 am. Hit with the same Scotty Cameron putter Adam Scott uses and it was like cheating. How could you be a poor lag putter with that thing? One action, pull back and through. Pure pendulum, no yips. I'm surprised most pros don't use it. And that's why it should be banned. Like Bander said, if it provides no advantage, why use it? (Heck, let me put a laser on my putter then, as it really doesn't help since you can't read a break with a straight laser, right?) Posted by Bander Abass October 17, 2012 at 7:19 am. I hear the argument from some of the players using the long putter that it provides no advantage, which begs the question - "why use it then". It ain't cosmetic, that's for sure  Posted by kenoneputt October 17, 2012 at 6:24 am. It seems silly that they are considering a rule change that will only ban anchoring, because it will have no effect on most users of long putters. And, I predict, it will create a hornet's nest of on-course arguments about whether that putter was anchored or not. Posted by Chris Stevens October 17, 2012 at 5:20 am. It's hard to see how anchored putters could alter the inherent challenge of a classic design...it's easy to see how clubs and balls could do so. The USGA and R and A are barking up the wrong tree. Posted by Chuck from Charlottesville in reply to Chris Stevens October 17, 2012 at 12:03 pm. I mentioned to someone else that I think there's no bigger issue than preserving the original spirit of the game. The fact that other recent changes (high-tech balls, metal drivers with gigantic club heads) have also distorted the game is no reason to fail to address anchoring, because it's the most direct departure from the spirit of the game - it's not an incremental improvement in the equipment, but a fundamental change in technique. Posted by Bruce Pritchard October 17, 2012 at 2:40 am. No comment,I just agree with the motion on banning it!  Add a Comment |