Tim Clark and anchoring

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

I don't understand it but that's probably as it's not actually given in the article and his fellow pros aren't speaking. If he was making the point about rotation of arms/wrists etc then it's pretty much hogwash I would think given what you rightly say gael re. swinging a club.

Had to laugh at the comments of Lucas Glover. Gee whizz Lucas, you don't mean he actually paid his own way to the meeting? Holy smoke! Have to respect that multi-millionaire for being able to do that .

navyblue ... re the swinging of a golf club, I would certainly like him to explain how he can do that but not swing a putter unless it's anchored, particularly given he advocates using his shoulders to make a putting stroke.

If indeed more pros are becoming more sympathetic to his cause then I would have to wonder if they're looking to a time when their hands might not be so steady and the availability of an anchored putting method might come in quite handy ... or am I just being too cynical?

Are there paralympic golf events?

I don't mean to sound harsh but what other sports change rules to accommodate people with disabilities?

It is not even like he has a serious condition, so he should just get on with using a normal putting stroke. In any case he must be using some forearm rotation before impact or he would be flicking at the ball or leaving the clubface open. Neither of which allow you to win the Players.

Mac - we've hosted a blind golfers event, and a pals dad played his last one armed golfers comp aged 90. I am sure there are many more examples.

I guess Tim clarke will have to set up forearm rotation issue golf.

I really can't believe people have so much difficulty putting.

News just in - a negotiated settlement involving UN has resulted in agreement to increase the size of the hole. As yet no indication as to how big it will be, or indeed if all countries will opt for the same size.

I've always thought it would be a great idea if all greens were constructed like great big funnels with the hole at the bottom. All you'd have to do is hit the green and the ball would find its way into the cup! We'd no longer need a putter at all. Anyone see any disadvantages???

golfermartin wrote:I've always thought it would be a great idea if all greens were constructed like great big funnels with the hole at the bottom. All you'd have to do is hit the green and the ball would find its way into the cup! We'd no longer need a putter at all. Anyone see any disadvantages???

Might be the answer to the increasingly irksome slow play these days if nothing else.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the powers-that-be don't seem to have the you-know-whats to take on the equipment issue directly, they have resorted to "how it's used" instead?

How it's used is precisely the reason though, you can anchor a standard putter if you were fat enough.

YOu could still put a stroke on a 5 foot putter.

Very true ... (got a good laugh out of the mental image)

My point is lots of folks will be "busy" wrestling this issue to the ground, while the ball and clubs continue to make some of the classic courses obsolete for the professional. I suspect a lot are tired of my Merion commentary ... but just wait and see how much of the course will play like a pitch and putt.

Ach, who cares about clubs/balls. No one is saying new football boots, skis, racing cars, tennis rackets, balls etc are ruining those sports.
I think people are simply looking for an excuse because they have rose tinted glasses on. THe problem isn't so much the game but the dreadful coverage, which makes it look boring.

1. Equipment manufacturers will through natural competition increase the distance a ball goes with better design, up to a point when it will become either technically or economically impossible to go futher within the regulations. If that theoretical limit means a high percentage of courses are overpowered, then the regulations should be dialed back accordingly. I would imagine the easiest way to do this is actually the ball - afterall it is more of a low cost consumable item so the impact to club golfers would be lower.

2. Players will through natural competition strive to find ways to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of shots. There are already rules about how the clubs should be used, and they are changed from time to time to cope with a use of the club that wasn't originally envisaged. However this is always going to be more subjective - what was originally envisaged and by whom? Where was it written down and if was written down why wasn't it enforced. For me the issue with anchoring was left to fester too long. I suspect that the "powers that be" originally thought it was a crutch for golfers who had lost their putting mojo, and would be a temporary fad. Allowing that latitude just delayed the inevitable.

Not sure about other sports but Wee weeing around with tennis balls was a mistake (IMO) and F1 is pathetic. As for golf kit, drivers I can just about accept being messed around with but they need to clamp down on fairway woods/hybrids/irons CoR now, not in 10 years time.

Bob_the_Job wrote:1. Equipment manufacturers will through natural competition increase the distance a ball goes with better design, up to a point when it will become either technically or economically impossible to go futher within the regulations. If that theoretical limit means a high percentage of courses are overpowered, then the regulations should be dialed back accordingly. I would imagine the easiest way to do this is actually the ball - afterall it is more of a low cost consumable item so the impact to club golfers would be lower.

2. Players will through natural competition strive to find ways to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of shots. There are already rules about how the clubs should be used, and they are changed from time to time to cope with a use of the club that wasn't originally envisaged. However this is always going to be more subjective - what was originally envisaged and by whom? Where was it written down and if was written down why wasn't it enforced. For me the issue with anchoring was left to fester too long. I suspect that the "powers that be" originally thought it was a crutch for golfers who had lost their putting mojo, and would be a temporary fad. Allowing that latitude just delayed the inevitable.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. If they're worried about the ball going too far, all they need to do is grow rough across the fairways from 280 to 350+ yards.

SmithersJones wrote:I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. If they're worried about the ball going too far, all they need to do is grow rough across the fairways from 280 to 350+ yards.

Yup. That would work!

SmithersJones wrote:I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. If they're worried about the ball going too far, all they need to do is grow rough across the fairways from 280 to 350+ yards.

Or a minefield.... "Well you can play it as it lies in there, or call it unplayable and drop back here - they're your legs"

Seriously though I'm personally not keen on the idea of the rough - I wouldn't want to see drivers die off because of that. For me a Par 5 should be a good dig with a driver, a fairway wood or long iron, then a short iron or a pitch. The bulk of the courses that are going to be around for the next twenty years are already built, so making the ball not go as far for the same amount of engery transfered seems more logical to me than cultivating hazards that make a driver unsuable.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. If they're worried about the ball going too far, all they need to do is grow rough across the fairways from 280 to 350+ yards.

Yup. That would work!

If by "work" you mean create the most boring architecture ever seen.

How is it boring? If we're talking about classic old courses, it would mean they play the way they were designed. Are you suggesting classic old courses are boring?

smithers, in no way were classic courses designed to play with a cross hazard in the driving zone.

In the driving zone? How long ago do you suppose 280 was classed as in the driving zone? And since when is rough a hazard?

Just to be clear. Are you really suggesting it would be a good idea to split holes in two with a strip of rough across the fairway from the 280 to 300 yard mark?

If a hole no longer plays as it was designed, and can be overpowered, then yes. Why not?

Golf does not get easier because you can hit the ball farther off the tee.
The further you can hit a ball, the more difficult it is to keep straight.
If the rankings were:

1: Garrigus,
2: Quiros
3. Dustin Johnson
4. John Daly

then i might believe you , but they arent

I don't necessarily think it's a problem, but while people are talking about changing the ball in order to reign in the distances then this is an easier, cheaper solution.

Super. All things equal, length gives you an advantage. But I agree it's harder to keep it in the fairway then. But that doesn't discard my first argument.

There's talk the pga tour might bring in the ban before 2014. Makes sense really.

gaelgowfer wrote:There's talk the pga tour might bring in the ban before 2014. Makes sense really.

Definitely. But I think they'd need to clear it with the manufacturers. Don't know what they say.

I see reports today suggesting Timmy has won this argument within the PGA Tour? Anyone heard more?

I see reports today suggesting Timmy has won this argument within the PGA Tour? Anyone heard more?

Any chance of you elaborating on this puligny?

Here's one link to this subject ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/europeantour/9890445/Golf-set-for-showdown-over-proposed-ban-on-long-putters.html

Up to recently, I thought the majority of pga tour players were in support of the ban. What's changed? Sponsors applying pressure to players or wee Timmy protecting a couple of his marquee players or .... both?!

Manufacturers more like . . . . .

We've been mentioning for a while now that this wasn't a done deal.

Well kwini ... Mark King has certainly been indulging himself in a bit of sabre-rattling of late.

Now that the governing bodies have finally done something about this, I really can't see how they could back off now, can you?

Conversely, I can't now see the players backing off - even the most rabidly anti-anchoring have started obfuscating and the four parties concerned (more if you include other Tours as well as the PGA Tour) need to start to get together.
Remember, PGA Of America was first out of the gate on this, and most unequivocal.
Special interests staking out their positions.
Nothing from Billy Payne yet; he'll likely consult Condi and will resolve by invading Iraq.

Seems to me if the pros don't eventually capitulate ... and one has to remember the rule won't become effective until 2016 ... then we're going to end up with two sets of rules for it surely won't stop at anchoring.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it's the punters who keep the manufacturers in business but it will be the punters who will be playing the governing bodies rules.

Just as well the USGA has a nice pot of cash stashed away!

As expected Finchem has announced the Tour's opposition to the proposed ban. This was already communicated to the ruling bodies rather than flexing his muscles.

Hey Grumpy, what about those stats he quoted? What an idiot.

Apparently 13 out 15 on the players ctte voted to oppose the ban.

I wasn't really listening to the windbag Gael so I didn't catch his bs. I did hear the one about the almost all the committee voting against. You have to wonder whether it was put to a vote of the whole membership or is it just a small, vocal percentage against the ban.

It's the Players Advisory Committee (think that's what it's called), but it's definitely not just made up of anchorers. A motley crew in fact.

For what it's worth I think the pga tour (who cares what the pga of america thinks) has scored a massive own goal.

Going to be very interesting to see how the fans treat the anchorers henceforth.

Grumpy, up to the last 24 hours or so, the word was that the vast majority of pga tour players supported the ban.

I thought there was an about turn by the pros but not quite sure what caused it.

Not sure who said it but I thought I heard someone say in today's tv coverage that every player out there had used a long putter at one point or another!

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 . . . . .
And, remember, the PGA Of America voted something like 65% against the ban. To me they're the most important constituency of all.

Still be interested to hear what the European Tour has to say, if indeed that have anything to say.

Much twisting of the knickers, but there's a long way to go.

Grumps - the "every player out there" has used/practiced with a long putter came down Finchem's sleeve. But I certainly don't doubt it.

Kwini,

I thought initially the majority of the PGA Tour pros were for, or ambivalent towards, the ban and then their viewpoint changed.

I don't think they have done anything yet other than voice their opposition to the proposed ban, which is what I stated in my first comment this afternoon. There's still plenty of time for comments to be made to both the R&A and USGA. There's a lot more life left in this situation.

You think Faxon or Donald has messed around with a long putter? Westwood probably should...

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

I know Faxon and Westwood have and sure I've heard Donald talking about test-driving one.

Mac,
That's like saying if there is no advantage to slow play, let's encourage everyone to dawdle.

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.

I have better things to do on a golf course than worry how someone chooses to putt so I Couldn't care less if they get on the ground and putt with a snooker cue.