[Dave]

RookieBlue7, on 08 February 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

He averaged .3 putts per hole less at the Masters alone, roughly, by your admission. In an 18 hole round, that's 5.4 strokes (roughly). Over the course of a tournament, that's 21.6 strokes at the Masters alone that he saved. Where does that put him finishing, adding the 21.6 strokes he saved? Missing the cut and making nothing. As it stands, he won $706k. That's a nice hefty sum of money.

You can't use that as a stat. Putting is feel thing, even pros don't putt the same from week to week. Yet alone year to year at the same course. You really think he would have shot 20+ shots worse using a normal putter.

I don't agree, they've been around for decades. Just because a few pros go out win a handful of events in 1 year they want to change the rules.

Then to throw another spanner in the works, how do define anchoring if they ban it. Does it have to have pressure? If I sit on my belt buckle is that anchoring?

[RoverRick]

LONG PUTTERS: THE STATS

Belly putters have been creeping into the mainstream for awhile, but victories by young players, Keegan Bradley, 25, in the HP Byron Nelson Championship and the PGA Championship and Simpson, 26, in the Wyndham Championship (and now the Deutsche Bank) have escalated their use.

Have they made them great putters? Bradley was 101st in total putting prior to the Deutsche Bank Championship. At the distances at which an anchored putter is supposed to provide the greatest advantage, he was 50th inside five feet and 144th from five to 10 feet.

Simpson was 41st in total putting and 76th inside five feet and 67th inside five to 10 feet.

Meanwhile, Adam Scott, a convert to the long putter, ranked 122nd in total putting, 181st inside five feet and 22nd from five to 10 feet.

Scott's re-emergence as a world-class player has largely been attributed to the long putter. In fact his comeback was in full flower while he was still using the short putter. He won the Australian Open late in 2009, then won the Valero Texas Open in 2010 using a short putter. In the latter tournament, he made 52 straight putts inside five feet, his only miss coming when he had a cushion on the 72nd hole.

Conclusion: Belly or long putters might have made them better putters, but they haven't made them great putters.


Copied from Golf Digest online September 2011

[Tyk]

Yeah, the numbers simply aren't there to back up your claims RB7. Again (and again, and again) if using the long putter were truly easier and provided an advantage, then every single pro would use one. There's $millions at stake for them, they can't afford to give up any advantage, much less one as serious as you are implying.

Put up the numbers that bear out your opinions. This is MyGolfSpy, we want to see the data!

[CCGolf]

I look forward to hearing what the "experts" at the R&A and USGA define as anchoring. I "anchor" my elbows to my trunk sometimes. Would that then be banned? Bottom line is that as with the COR ruling and the groove ruling, public opinion will have NO influence on this decision which will leave some disappointed and others happy.

[RookieBlue7]

Tyk, on 08 February 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Yeah, the numbers simply aren't there to back up your claims RB7. Again (and again, and again) if using the long putter were truly easier and provided an advantage, then every single pro would use one. There's $millions at stake for them, they can't afford to give up any advantage, much less one as serious as you are implying.

Put up the numbers that bear out your opinions. This is MyGolfSpy, we want to see the data!

Like I said in a previous post, which you evidently didn't read. The anchored putter isn't going to fix poor green reading or speed control. But it allows a repeatable stroke, removing the skill of syncing the hands, arms, and shoulders, and creates a fulcrum point for which the putter swings around. Last I checked, there's no data for green reading or speed. There's also not a stat that checks for the person hitting their intended line. Regardless, the anchored putter does allow one to significantly, and more easily get the ball on their intended line. If that intended line is the wrong line, no putter is going to fix that. But hitting that intended line, which is what the anchored putter fixes by removing the synchronization aspects of the swing.

And again, there are players out there on tour that won't switch, even if they putt better with it because they're traditionalists. Tiger Woods is one such player, and he's said as much (though he did pick someone's up to make fun of them on a practice green with. Besides that, SAM Lab data has proved that his Scotty is an improper fit for him, yet he won a ton of tournaments with it, even though the offset is improper and he's on a closing arc with it). There is a laundry list of players I can name that do much the same, and will never switch to an anchored putter because of the fact that they're traditionalists. Besides that fact, the players that putt well aren't going to see any benefits, because of the fact that they don't have a problem with stroke path. Again, this has been proven.

I'm done with the debate because everyone wants to argue the merits yet no one will concede the fact that the anchored putter does fix path problems, regardless if more putts are made or not (because there are more keys than a proper path through the ball to making putts).

As far as defining anchoring, there have been several places where it would be defined. There have also been several alternate proposals made, such as making the rule read that the putter can be no longer than the shortest club in the bag.

[GolfSpy T]

I've sat this thread out the last couple of days, but have watched it carefully. Now I think it's time to hop back in.

First I want to say that I'm personally a little bit disappointed in the tone this thread has taken on. I'm not singling anyone out, but some of the replies have taken on an unnecessary aggression, and have come dangerously close to personal attacks and insults. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand, or that they're an idiot. It just means they disagree; that they have a different perspective. I'm all for continued disagreement, but lets do it politely. If you want to crap all over people because their opinion is different from yours, there are other golf forums where you can do that.

As to the topic itself, here are my thoughts:

• As has been discussed...ultimately this is a waste of time for both the USGA and RA. Instead of running around looking for an excuse to amend or change the rules yet again, they should be focused on growing the game. One could argue that belly putters have made the game more enjoyable for some, and if that is indeed the case, given the statistical evidence to suggest that they don't actually reduce the number of strokes taken on the green, well...that should be all the information the two governing bodies need to leave it alone.
• So Tiger Woods has weighed in...great. Also, he's probably one of the last guys on tour who should get a vote (but nice that he's been talking it over with the R&A for the last couple of years). Apart from winning more than anyone else, the guy has done nothing for the game itself. He plays half as much as just about anybody else on tour, and there are very few pros who are less fan friendly. If the R&A wants advice on which chain of all-night diners has the easiest waitresses, Tiger is their guy. For everything else...I'd sooner listen to Ben Crane's take on improving pace of play.
• Defining, and enforcing what constitutes anchoring is a fool's folly, and I can assure you nothing good will come of it. As has been pointed out, with long putters, the hand is anchored to the chest, not the putter. Can you anchor by association? If so, how is that different from a guy who anchors his elbows with a conventional putter? If anchoring isn't cheating now (and the rules say it's not), why should it be cheating next year. Matt Kuchar, I believe it's him anyway, effectively anchors his putter to the length of his forearm...it's a stroke not possible with a conventional putter. Regulating the stroke is rubbish.
• If you want to argue that it's a crutch for bad putters, than we need to start looking at banning all crutches (and their are a lot of them). Let's start with movable weight drivers that allow golfers to turn their fades into draws. Steel shafts which offer consistency over hickory. Titanium for those who didn't hit persimmon far enough. Graphite for those guys who didn't swing steel fast enough. The list goes on and on, and while some of these are absurd examples, I would argue banning a certain type of putting stroke is equally as absurd.
• All the back and forth in the world doesn't change the fact that the statistics don't support the notion that belly putters significantly improve putting. Sure, you can pluck examples (Adam Scott) at the Masters, but I'd be willing to be you could just as easily find an example of when Adam Scott putted better with a short putter than his belly. We all have good days (good weeks too) and bad, but ultimately the equipment we choose is based largely on how we think it performs, not how it actually does.
• As a guy who has used belly putters on and off for the last several years, I can tell you (at least based on my own experience), performance improvements are not absolute. Belly putters simply represent a different compromise. I can't speak for everyone, but for me personally...with a belly putter I feel much more comfortable on shorter putts (lets say inside 8 feet). From 8 to about 30 feet, it's a push, I'm happy with either putter. Get outside 30 feet , where distance control becomes a larger concern, and quite frankly, I find shorter putters have the advantage, and I think many would agree with me.
• The USGA's biggest fear in the world appears to be the nasty "B" word (bifurcation). I'll save my rants about how out of touch the USGA is if they don't think golfers haven't bifurcated all over their ridiculous rule book for another day, but here's the reality...within the last year some putter manufacturers have reported selling 10X belly putters over standard putters. These aren't pros...these are going into the bags of guys who have to pay for their clubs. Unlike wedges which wear out over time, putters have a near infinite life span. Are you seriously going to tell amateur golfers that they can no longer use the $200 putter they just bought? Do you use the same asinine strategy the USGA used with wedges. Pros stop using them now...amateurs get them until 2018?

Belly putters have been legal and in use for years, and now we're going to get our knickers in a twist because they've grown in popularity. Nonsense.

[Jmikecpa]

I saw Tiger's comment for the press event yesterday and think that he may be onto something with the idea that the putter has to be shorter than the shortest club in your bag. This would eliminate the anchor or no anchor debate since it is nearly impossible to anchor a putter that short unless you use the method that Bernhard Langer used in the 90's before his switch to the long putter. The only thing that may be an issue is for guys like Tim Clark that are unable to putt with a short putter since he cannot rotate his arms in order to putt conventionally.

One thought would be to have two sets of rules....one for amateurs and one for professionals. Just about every sport has this distinction, most notably baseball since the pros are really the only level that use wooden bats. I understand that golf has never been that way and I also get the marketing side since OEMs sell what the pros are using (How many Sabertooth belly putters did you see before Bradley won the PGA?). The USGA and R&A are trying to grow the game and then are going to pass a rule that will in turn cause the game to contract based just on the number of players that use long putters for health reasons. I have said before that I have used a broom handle putter for many years and I currently use a traditional putter and have no intention of switching at this moment. I would just like to know that when I am in my sixties and still want to play golf that the broom handle option will still be there......too many years of football have taken a toll on my back and legs.

[RookieBlue7]

T, they're not telling them they can't use the $200 putter that they just bought. That's the thing. The $200, $10,000, or $10 putter they just bought will still be legal. The method in which it can be used is all that is being talked about.

I'm not attacking anyone, as I know you were taking a shot at me. Historically, and in product discussion, teaching discussion, etc who have long putters (belly and broomstick) been targeted at? Poor putters. Who on the PGA Tour has turned to them? Again, poor putters. That's why I keep saying that's who they're aimed at. That's not aggression, that's from persons that teach it, who discuss it in the golf media, and what the manufacturers have aimed their product at.

The point I'm trying to make in this is that they're not going to tell anyone that they can't use the product. That's never been the discussion from my behalf, not what the USGA and R&A are discussing. The only point they're discussing is the methodology in which the putter can be used.

As far as the groove roll back, driver resizing, shaft technology, etc. None of those technological advancements have fundamentally changed the way the club is swung.

I've asked time and time again and have yet to get an answer from anyone to the question. Why does the putter need to be anchored to be effective? Why does the putter have to be anchored to even be used? How does anchoring alleviate the disability factor that is brought up at times? Is the disability not related to posture? Does not anchoring change the manner in which the putter will be used in regards to posture? How does anchoring a putter alleviate back, knee, joint, whatever pain?

Again, no one will say why anchoring makes the putter either usable or not usable. Is it a prerequisite to use this type of putter that it MUST be anchored?

[Jmikecpa]

RookieBlue7, on 08 February 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

T, they're not telling them they can't use the $200 putter that they just bought. That's the thing. The $200, $10,000, or $10 putter they just bought will still be legal. The method in which it can be used is all that is being talked about.

I'm not attacking anyone, as I know you were taking a shot at me. Historically, and in product discussion, teaching discussion, etc who have long putters (belly and broomstick) been targeted at? Poor putters. Who on the PGA Tour has turned to them? Again, poor putters. That's why I keep saying that's who they're aimed at. That's not aggression, that's from persons that teach it, who discuss it in the golf media, and what the manufacturers have aimed their product at.

The point I'm trying to make in this is that they're not going to tell anyone that they can't use the product. That's never been the discussion from my behalf, not what the USGA and R&A are discussing. The only point they're discussing is the methodology in which the putter can be used.

As far as the groove roll back, driver resizing, shaft technology, etc. None of those technological advancements have fundamentally changed the way the club is swung.

I've asked time and time again and have yet to get an answer from anyone to the question. Why does the putter need to be anchored to be effective? Why does the putter have to be anchored to even be used? How does anchoring alleviate the disability factor that is brought up at times? Is the disability not related to posture? Does not anchoring change the manner in which the putter will be used in regards to posture? How does anchoring a putter alleviate back, knee, joint, whatever pain?

Again, no one will say why anchoring makes the putter either usable or not usable. Is it a prerequisite to use this type of putter that it MUST be anchored?

I don't think that it is a prerequisite as Matt Kuchar used essentially a belly putter for all of last season and did not have it anchored to his belly. I believe the Angel Cabrera did something similar when he won the US Open a few years back when he used almost a 40" putter without anchoring it to his body. Just for the hell of it last night I was rolling some putts in my basement with the long putter and keeping my left hand about four inches away from my sternum and it was no different for me than if I had my hand in tight to my body. Was not the most comfortable of putting styles, but it would work if that was my only means of playing the game.

As for the back pain I play with several older gentlemen that have back issues that use the broom stick since the act of constantly bending at the waist puts too much strain on their lower back that they become uncomfortable and would thus have to play less. I could not tell you if a belly putter makes this any better since I have not used one for any extended period of time but with the broom stick just being able to stay more upright takes a lot of the pressure off of your back.

[GolfSpy T]

RookieBlue7, on 08 February 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

T, they're not telling them they can't use the $200 putter that they just bought. That's the thing. The $200, $10,000, or $10 putter they just bought will still be legal. The method in which it can be used is all that is being talked about.

I'm not attacking anyone, as I know you were taking a shot at me. Historically, and in product discussion, teaching discussion, etc who have long putters (belly and broomstick) been targeted at? Poor putters. Who on the PGA Tour has turned to them? Again, poor putters. That's why I keep saying that's who they're aimed at. That's not aggression, that's from persons that teach it, who discuss it in the golf media, and what the manufacturers have aimed their product at.

The point I'm trying to make in this is that they're not going to tell anyone that they can't use the product. That's never been the discussion from my behalf, not what the USGA and R&A are discussing. The only point they're discussing is the methodology in which the putter can be used.

As far as the groove roll back, driver resizing, shaft technology, etc. None of those technological advancements have fundamentally changed the way the club is swung.

I've asked time and time again and have yet to get an answer from anyone to the question. Why does the putter need to be anchored to be effective? Why does the putter have to be anchored to even be used? How does anchoring alleviate the disability factor that is brought up at times? Is the disability not related to posture? Does not anchoring change the manner in which the putter will be used in regards to posture? How does anchoring a putter alleviate back, knee, joint, whatever pain?

Again, no one will say why anchoring makes the putter either usable or not usable. Is it a prerequisite to use this type of putter that it MUST be anchored?

I would simply ask, fundamentally, why does it matter how a club is swung. As far as I know, there's know current rule that makes a distinction between how different clubs in the bag can be swung. And while I realize any anchoring rule would be all-encompassing, would anybody be bent out of shape if I chose to anchor my driver...you know, to keep my swing on plane.

How long before someone decides James Lepp's saucer pass swing provides an unfair advantage around the greens (I know...it's not anchoring)? Point is, there are about 100 other things the USGA and R&A could be focusing on that would actually improve (and grow the game). Wasting time on how a club should be held (again, where the numbers suggest there is no actual advantage gained) is silly.

As for the impact on equipment purchases...you can spin it anyway you want, but I don't think you'd find many who would seriously argue that belly putters aren't designed to be anchored to the belly. Telling a guy he can't use his club as designed, might be worse than telling him he can't use it all.

The distinction between Belly Putters and long putters is an important one. I would maintain that with long putters, the hand is anchored to the body, not the club. Creating a definition of "anchoring" that tippy toes around the subtleties of it is difficult...and you'll have to deal with guys phoning in even more penalties (why does the PGA even answer the phone?).

The only way to do it would be the Tiger way, but then you'll end up with decisions for the rule to deal with situations like player breaks his putter, can he then putt with a hybrid, or must he use a wedge because anything else would exceed the length limitations.

At the end of the day, there's no statistical evidence to support the perception that people putt better with belly putters (and it's certainly not a universal truth). It's just not anything I think is worth pursuing.

[RookieBlue7]

GolfSpy T, on 08 February 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

I would simply ask, fundamentally, why does it matter how a club is swung. As far as I know, there's know current rule that makes a distinction between how different clubs in the bag can be swung. And while I realize any anchoring rule would be all-encompassing, would anybody be bent out of shape if I chose to anchor my driver...you know, to keep my swing on plane.

How long before someone decides James Lepp's saucer pass swing provides an unfair advantage around the greens (I know...it's not anchoring)? Point is, there are about 100 other things the USGA and R&A could be focusing on that would actually improve (and grow the game). Wasting time on how a club should be held (again, where the numbers suggest there is no actual advantage gained) is silly.

As for the impact on equipment purchases...you can spin it anyway you want, but I don't think you'd find many who would seriously argue that belly putters aren't designed to be anchored to the belly. Telling a guy he can't use his club as designed, might be worse than telling him he can't use it all.

The distinction between Belly Putters and long putters is an important one. I would maintain that with long putters, the hand is anchored to the body, not the club. Creating a definition of "anchoring" that tippy toes around the subtleties of it is difficult...and you'll have to deal with guys phoning in even more penalties (why does the PGA even answer the phone?).

The only way to do it would be the Tiger way, but then you'll end up with decisions for the rule to deal with situations like player breaks his putter, can he then putt with a hybrid, or must he use a wedge because anything else would exceed the length limitations.

At the end of the day, there's no statistical evidence to support the perception that people putt better with belly putters (and it's certainly not a universal truth). It's just not anything I think is worth pursuing.

I believe the PGA passed something last year in which you can no longer phone in rules infractions. I may be wrong but I remember reading something about it.

[Jmikecpa]

RookieBlue7, on 08 February 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

I believe the PGA passed something last year in which you can no longer phone in rules infractions. I may be wrong but I remember reading something about it.

They can still call them in, they just do not get a DQ anymore after they sign their card.

http://www.pga.com/n...-cases-trial-tv

[RookieBlue7]

Jmikecpa, on 08 February 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

They can still call them in, they just do not get a DQ anymore after they sign their card.

http://www.pga.com/n...-cases-trial-tv

I knew there was something with it lol

[R.P. Jacobs II]

I'm sittting here thinking, do I really want to jump into the middle of this, though there are a point that I would like to bring up, that is worth getting beat up over, if that's the way it goes..I've got broad shoulders...lol...First, like T, I've followed this thread from RB7's first post & it's tone has definitely taken a turn..It brings to mind T's post "Cost vs. Value(parts 1&2)"..Different players, same tone..The great thing about this site is that if you look @ the comments across the whole site, you run the gamut, from pros to chops, the extremely articulate to those that can't put a sentence together with Speelcheck Pro & from youngsters to the seniors...There's room for everybody but MOST importantly, everybody feels comfortable adding their thoughts, even the softest spoken & meekest..Regardless of the medium, the stronger personalities will emerge..If you fall in this category, that's fine, I can see some names that I would say, @ least in this setting(medium), fall into this category..I would also say that it is your responsibility to use your personality to allow differing opinions to be heard, even if they fly in the face of common sense, if the person is sincere in their views..I'm also talking about going after another strong personality, because when the quiet ones see this, do you think that they want to jump into the the discussion?..I know 1st hand an individual like I'm describing who posts on this site & what he like most & talks to others about is the fact that he can post his opinion & he's treated in a civil manner..This means alot to him..It's guys like him that we have a responsibilty to make feel as though they can dissagree, & not be made to feel as though they are idiots..It's guys like him that contribute($$) to and grow this site..We are talking about a game here & we supposedly come to this site to relax, not to prove our manhood or intelectual superiority..Nuff said...Fairways & Greens 4ever...

[R.P. Jacobs II]

R.P. Jacobs II, on 08 February 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

I'm sittting here thinking, do I really want to jump into the middle of this, though there are a point that I would like to bring up, that is worth getting beat up over, if that's the way it goes..I've got broad shoulders...lol...First, like T, I've followed this thread from RB7's first post & it's tone has definitely taken a turn..It brings to mind T's post "Cost vs. Value(parts 1&2)"..Different players, same tone..The great thing about this site is that if you look @ the comments across the whole site, you run the gamut, from pros to chops, the extremely articulate to those that can't put a sentence together with Speelcheck Pro & from youngsters to the seniors...There's room for everybody but MOST importantly, everybody feels comfortable adding their thoughts, even the softest spoken & meekest..Regardless of the medium, the stronger personalities will emerge..If you fall in this category, that's fine, I can see some names that I would say, @ least in this setting(medium), fall into this category..I would also say that it is your responsibility to use your personality to allow differing opinions to be heard, even if they fly in the face of common sense, if the person is sincere in their views..I'm also talking about going after another strong personality, because when the quiet ones see this, do you think that they want to jump into the the discussion?..I know 1st hand an individual like I'm describing who posts on this site & what he like most & talks to others about is the fact that he can post his opinion & he's treated in a civil manner..This means alot to him..It's guys like him that we have a responsibilty to make feel as though they can dissagree, & not be made to feel as though they are idiots..It's guys like him that contribute($$) to and grow this site..We are talking about a game here & we supposedly come to this site to relax, not to prove our manhood or intelectual superiority..Nuff said...Fairways & Greens 4ever...

I'm one of the ones who's hard pressed to function even with Spellcheck Pro..Excuse my use of are instead of is in the first sentence...Thanx..