Twitter: GeoffShac
  • The 1997 Masters: My Story
    The 1997 Masters: My Story
    by Tiger Woods
  • The First Major: The Inside Story of the 2016 Ryder Cup
    The First Major: The Inside Story of the 2016 Ryder Cup
    by John Feinstein
  • Tommy's Honor: The Story of Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris, Golf's Founding Father and Son
    Tommy's Honor: The Story of Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris, Golf's Founding Father and Son
    by Kevin Cook
  • Playing Through: Modern Golf's Most Iconic Players and Moments
    Playing Through: Modern Golf's Most Iconic Players and Moments
    by Jim Moriarty
  • His Ownself: A Semi-Memoir (Anchor Sports)
    His Ownself: A Semi-Memoir (Anchor Sports)
    by Dan Jenkins
  • The Captain Myth: The Ryder Cup and Sport's Great Leadership Delusion
    The Captain Myth: The Ryder Cup and Sport's Great Leadership Delusion
    by Richard Gillis
  • The Ryder Cup: Golf's Grandest Event – A Complete History
    The Ryder Cup: Golf's Grandest Event – A Complete History
    by Martin Davis
  • Harvey Penick: The Life and Wisdom of the Man Who Wrote the Book on Golf
    Harvey Penick: The Life and Wisdom of the Man Who Wrote the Book on Golf
    by Kevin Robbins
  • Grounds for Golf: The History and Fundamentals of Golf Course Design
    Grounds for Golf: The History and Fundamentals of Golf Course Design
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Art of Golf Design
    The Art of Golf Design
    by Michael Miller, Geoff Shackelford
  • The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back
    The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • Lines of Charm: Brilliant and Irreverent Quotes, Notes, and Anecdotes from Golf's Golden Age Architects
    Lines of Charm: Brilliant and Irreverent Quotes, Notes, and Anecdotes from Golf's Golden Age Architects
    Sports Media Group
  • Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club
    Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Golden Age of Golf Design
    The Golden Age of Golf Design
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • Masters of the Links: Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design
    Masters of the Links: Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design
    Sleeping Bear Press
  • The Good Doctor Returns: A Novel
    The Good Doctor Returns: A Novel
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Captain: George C. Thomas Jr. and His Golf Architecture
    The Captain: George C. Thomas Jr. and His Golf Architecture
    by Geoff Shackelford
« “Mr. Poulter Plays Match Play" | Main | Bubba Still Has Chance To Win At Format That Is "Not Golf To Me" »

3rd Annual Golf Channel State Of The Game Highlights

In a bold move toward sustainability, the Golf Channel abandoned 2012's Southwestern pottery motif and 2011's bocce balls, instead buying up the stock of a local succulent nursery for the third annual "State of Tiger's Game" discussion. With concise chats about Rory's problematic equipment change and Tiger's quest to catch Jack, the discussion moved to the hot button topics of anchoring and bifurcation.

Photo: Mike MooreThe governing bodies might want to bottle some of this transcript. Dan Hicks asked Johnny Miller and he made a totally different case than he did in this week's conference call. This time, he confirmed that anchoring is in indeed an advantage for some:

There's no doubt about how The PGA of America feels about this.  My question to you, Johnny:  Is there any kind of scenario that you can envision, the USGA backing off this stance?  It would be pretty remarkable if they did.  It do you see anything like that happening?

JOHNNY MILLER:  Well, it's going to be awkward for them if the TOUR decides to allow it, isn't it.  It's going to be really awkward.

The belly putter and the anchored putter, does really three things for a player.  The upper hand keeps the face from opening, twisting.  Also with it anchored, it keeps you from going like that and pushing it and like that and pulling it.  And then anchoring here gives you a perfect swing plane.

So it actually does three things for you, that when your putter is normal like this, you can do all three things wrong, and when you're anchored, it eliminates those three.  So if a kid starts really young and he's got a lot of talent like a Rory or a Tiger, it probably is an advantage.

But in the spirit of game, I was the first guy to win with a putter up the arm, which is going to be legal if they keep it the way it is now.  I did feel like it was not in the spirit of the game.  I felt like I was sort of ‑‑ I probably shouldn't have been doing it even though it was legal.  And these guys are even anchoring, and I used to just put it up the arm.

I think the game is bigger than all of this.  The game is bigger, either way it goes the game is bigger.

Which I believe translates to, it should be banned and the game will move right along. Sir Nick?

SIR NICK FALDO:  That's what I thought and you go back to history and it's called a golf swing, it's not called a golf hinge, or you know, so I agree with all of that.

And I thought the R&A wrote it up really well.  I thought, how are we going to get this clear to us, and in 20 words they basically said you could not anchor it or hinge it.  I thought they did a great job on that.

Now as time has gone by in these couple of weeks or couple of months, and we look at what's been happening over the last ‑‑ guys have been using this for 30 years.  And then Keegan Bradley then Tweets the picture I then saw from the clubhouse at Riviera of a gentleman back in about 1929 with the thing anchored there (indicating touching upper chest).  So, wow.

I would like us to stick with the true traditions of the game, because it's called a golf swing and that is part of the uniqueness and the skill of this game.  But I can fully see that ‑‑ how, you know, as we are saying, youngsters come out of college and they put this ‑‑ they see it in the pro shop and off they go, they have never tried anything else.

Now I may have softened a little bit.  The one I do look at is this, fellas, it looks you ugly to me, it doesn't look like a golf swing, we are going like this.  It doesn't look like a golf swing at all.

So if they are going to soften a little bit, maybe the belly ‑‑ then that's a compromise, and I don't think we are ever in this game to compromise the rules.

So we'll put Nick down as supporting the ban, too.

Brandel Chamblee...

People that say the USGA didn't present a good enough case to say that it was, in fact, an aid.  All you need to do is look at before and after of Orville Moody, who was, God bless him, a great ball‑striker and a marvelous guy, but maybe the worst the putter that ever played golf for a living.  And then he led the Champions Tour in putting.

All you need to do is look at Adam Scott's history at Augusta National.  He never averaged under 28 putts until he put the long putter in the bag, and he did; and he finished second.  He played in 40 majors without a long putter and he's had four Top‑10s.  And he's played in eight since he put the long putter in the bag, and he's had four Top 10s since then and two second place finishes.

And just even look further at who switches to it.  Nobody is switching from a long putter to go from good to great.  They are looking at it to go from horrible to average.

So I think the USGA if they needed to go further, they could hire an engineer, to build, to Johnny's point, to build something with multiple hinges to sort of duplicate how complicated it is with all those multiple hinges versus just one hinge.  It is far easier.  It should not be allowed at the professional level.

Won't it be awkard if the PGA Tour goes against the ban and you have three top commentators so vocally and eloquently calling out the anchoring method?

I wasn't sure where Nobilo stood to be honest, but here's what he said:

So I think most people agree, that this was wrong 30 or 40 years ago; that they should have done something about it and they didn't.  So here we are 2013, and we have an opportunity, especially the professionals of today, to be remembered for more than guys just playing in this great age where they are playing for a lot of money.  They can be remembered, their legacy can be:  They put the game back on track.

Then the discussion turned to bifurcation of the rules and Dan Hicks tried his best to figure out where Johnny and Nick stood, but the man can only do so much...

What are your feelings on two separate groups of rules for amateurs and professionals now?

SIR NICK FALDO:  I agree with Frank.  If somebody came down from space and looked and said, this is our ‑‑ and we presented this is our game of golf, and we have got this amazing history we go back from 1860 from when the first Open Championship was played and Tom Morris and all those boys and where we are now.  I think we are all so proud of our game and would like to be the custodians and look after it and pass it on in the spirit of how it really was, not spirit is not the right word; in the way it was deemed to be played.

DAN HICKS:  So we go by the same rules?

SIR NICK FALDO:  I would have thought so.

We had a really good case for ‑‑ with Gary McCord and Peter Kostis a couple weeks ago, and Finchie and David Feherty, and they were all very much leading their case.

It's a mess.  The bottom line is it's a mess.  They have got themselves in a real mess of a situation.

DAN HICKS:  Johnny, what about you on bifurcation?  It's a sensitive, very sensitive subject.

JOHNNY MILLER:  Sort of like changing the Constitution, one state, like Texas or something, you know.

DAN HICKS:  Other sports have different rules, there's the aluminum bats in college baseball.

SIR NICK FALDO:  Same shaft, same swing.

DAN HICKS:  Isn't that something special about the game of golf, that you compete with somebody, share a USGA handicap and then go about it in kind of the same fashion.  You think you're kind of playing with a professional in the same kind of level.

SIR NICK FALDO:  A good old Pro‑Am.  You have one guy doing this and an amateur can't do that.

DAN HICKS:  That's the mess you're talking about.

JOHNNY MILLER:  What about the majors?  You have The PGA of America saying, we would like to be able to do whatever you want with the long putter, and the USGA and R&A decide not to do it, you are playing majors and ‑‑

SIR NICK FALDO:  The amateur, can all do whatever he likes, and then professional do whatever he likes, and the amateur has to play by the rules.  And that means men then the major would have to overrule it, say, because we are open to amateurs and professionals.  Well, we are going to have to make our own ruling for the week.

Okay, well back to the coherence world, Brandel makes his case.

People say that the best thing about golf is it's governed by one set of rules.  That's an opinion.  It's not a fact.

The fact is that golf is flat.  Growth is flat.  The fact is that golf is too expensive, takes too long.  It's too elitist and it's too complicated.  If in one foul swoop, if you add bifurcation at the professional level, you could roll golf equipment back and you could roll the core back, the Coefficient of Restitution.  You could roll it back and you could disallow the anchored putter.

You could allow all those things at the amateur level.  You could shrink golf courses back to two decades ago.  You make golf cheaper, you make it faster, and I promise you, nobody quits golf because two different sets of rules govern it.

Nobilo then dared to suggest the topic no one wants to touch, that the equipment manufacturers have not made the game more accessible or affordable, so why should bifurcation change that?

It basically supports the theory that we have let manufacturers take the game to a different level.  That's the thing.  Manufacturers used to make incredible equipment.  I think the late Carlson Simon (ph) did a great job for the average player to bring the price of equipment down and make sure the average amateur was fitted like the best pro but it's just taken off to a new level.

That's why it has become more expensive but personally I believe that's more of a public golf discussion; that we should have more public golf courses but that's totally different.

Maybe we'll get to that next year! I'm sparing my readers of the Vijay discussion. Because I'm a nice guy.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (31)

Hicks kept it moving, and it was not all TW, or I would have nver go thu FFing it start to finish.

I'll tell you about the VJ--- it was said that Finchem would have been all over it if someone showed up to play wearing shorts. Pretty well sums up the PGAT- all style and no substance--or in this case no substance penalty.
The state of the game?

These guys apparently don't know the difference between the PGA of America and the PGA Tour.

Seems odd.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterLiberty Apples
For those of you keeping score at home:

- today we like Johnny.
- today Johnny is eloquent.

Tomorrow, that's for another time ;0)

This really is getting interesting!

I mean there's no doubt that Finchem is going to come out on Sunday and say "we will not play that rule"...right? Then what?

Today is the 23rd, when will the USGA and R&A respond?

The According to the R&A website "anyone wishing to submit comments or suggestions is encouraged to do so by 28 February, 2013 (and) the R&A anticipates taking final action on the proposed Rule in spring 2013."

That's pretty open ended...
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterDTF
It's interesting that the Pro-Am was mentioned and Hicks seemed to use it to reference the "mess" we'd have with two sets of rules. But the Pro-Am illustrates perfectly that we do not play the same game. Pros play back, amateurs forward. (Enough right there.) On most Wednesdays the rough is reasonably tough and amateurs learn they aren't capable of playing their "usual game" out of it. Pros play a one-ball rule, amateurs can load up the Pinnacle any hole they want. If the amateurs were able to use a slightly hotter ball and a longer, anchored putter they'd still need strokes. Using baseball as an analogy, recreational golf is softball, even for most single-digit players. Or put another way, do major league players and Little Leaguers not play the same sport? They do. They just don't play the same game.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterBif
"late Carlson Simon (ph)"

I was having a little trouble figuring out whether this was Carly Simon or Karsten Solheim, but I googled Carly and she's still alive so it must be Karsten. But, like Carly, I haven't got time for the pain in worrying about this group of pundits.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterRickABQ
Wow. Politicians look positively clear and articulate next to those guys. What a lot of waffling. You'd need a seance to figure out what it all meant.

And isn't a big part of the internal conflict, the fact that television broadcasters are dependent on their sponsors, and their sponsors have an interest in equipment rules? Not to mention that many of the commentators are paid spokesmen for equipment manufacturers.

And Johnny, for what it's worth, wasn't making much more sense in this case than in other cases. He looked a bit like a gargoyle, hunched into a crouch next to Sir Nick.

Geoff Shackelford is making 1000% more sense than any of those guys, and he is doing it daily.

The panel actually did a lot better with their discussion of Vijay than they did with equipment. And that actually doesn't surprise me.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterChuck
It's amazing how inarticulate these men who now make their living from talking are. Only Mr Chamblee is able to make a point clearly and logically in proper sentences. Whether you agree or not is a different matter - at least you know what the man said and espouses.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered Commenterfourputter
Someone ought to get in touch with Azinger and tell him the benefits of decaf. He's on a Twitter rant, moaning about the debt and the sequester. He must be vomiting the latest from The Toilet, aka Fox News. Pathetic.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterLiberty Apples
just because the PGA is not going to support this rule, in the context of a "comment period" does not necessarily mean that should this rule be established they will refuse to go along with it and create their own rule. at this point they are expressing an opinion and hoping to influence the ultimate decision, which is completely rational. to take the next step, to me would be a pr disaster.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterBrianS
What really jumped out at me was after Brandel became technical in bringing up C.O.R. -- Co-efficient of Restitution -- Johnny jumped right in and quickly explained how the pro's can take advantage of the spring effect in drivers while amateurs and their slower club speed cannot. The punchline from Miller? "Get rid of the spring effect! I don't have a (equipment) contract. Get rid of it!"

Which brings up another horse that the USGA allowed to quickly gallop out of the barn unnoticed. Until it was too late.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterBenSeattle
The folks who want to keep anchored putting as a legal part of the game are fond of saying that there's no competitive advantage; that if it made putting simple and foolproof, everybody would do it, and the pros who utilize anchored putting methods would dominate. They say there's not data, and no scientific/statistical evidence that anchored putting offers an "advantage."

But then, we hear that anchored putting is critical to some players (recreational players as well as elite players) being able to play at all. That players need anchored putting, or they'll quit the game.

Which is it? Is anchored putting advantageous, or not? Does it make putting easier, or not? Does it make putting easier for some people? If the answer is, "It makes putting easier for some people," is that an acceptable answer for this debate?
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterChuck
You do not have to play with every club in your bag. Can I put a 7 foot club in my bag to use only for drops? I feel cheated now when someone uses their "broom stick" for a drop. Is their a limit?
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterJJ
<< You do not have to play with every club in your bag. Can I put a 7 foot club in my bag to use only for drops? I feel cheated now when someone uses their "broom stick" for a drop. Is their a limit? >>

Seriously? You have a 46 inch driver. Your opponent uses a 50 inch broomstick putter. On that once-a-round drop both you and he take, you're actually saying that his 4-inch difference is an ADVANTAGE that makes you feel "cheated?"

And anytime I play against a guy who's so convinced that he'll be dropping enough times in a round that he NEEDS that 7-foot "club," I'll take that match any day. 1) He's at a disadvantage with only 13 clubs and 2) he's so wild that he knows he'll be dropping from trouble all day. Line'em up!
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterBenSeattle
Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that these transcripts often contain errors that make it obvious the transcriber doesn't know much about golf. Particularly common with the press conference transcripts.

COR, not "core"
Karsten Solheim, not "Carlson Simon"

Can't they sort this out? I can do the transcripts for them if they send me the audio.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterDan
I wasn't sure if "foul swoop" was comedy, but now I'm going with your explanation, transcript error.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterLudell Hogwaller
I understand Tim Clark gave an impassioned speech to the Tour's Player Advisory committee earlier this week on how he has to use a long putter due to the wrist condition he was born with that doesn't allow the palms to turn face up. Reports are crediting him with helping to sway those on the PAC that might have been indifferent toward recommending opposition of the proposed anchoring ban.

I like Tim Clark a lot, and know he's built his career on Tour around the long putter. However I have to ask: If he's able to grip and freely swing a wedge, how is it that he's somehow incapable of putting without anchoring? Maybe there's a simple answer - I honestly have no idea and can't seem to figure it out.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered CommenterPJ
Chuck gets to the core of the issue, imo. If anchoring were so advantageous, why is there a professional golfer--anywhere in the world--NOT anchoring? These guys are playing for millions. Most professionals are toiling on mini tours trying to support a wife and kid(s). There'd be no rational reason not to.
02.23.2013 | Unregistered Commenterjgw
Chuck, I have a scratch player in my family who has used a long putter for a couple years. I recently had a long talk with him about it.

He says that if they ban his method he will stop playing in tournaments-including his member-guest. His explanation is that he HATES the feeling he gets over short, tournament putts with a short putter. He never really missed many of them, but the emotional stress makes playing no fun. Since he started using the broomstick, his index has shown no change... so it's hard to show that he's putting better.

We've talked about it enough that I'm pretty sure he'll follow through with giving up formal competition. The real decision will be the rest of his golf. He never, ever plays without some kind of game going on, so unless his buddies let him use the long putter he'll be using a short one. Making those putts for a few bucks might not cause the stress to rise above the comfort level, however.

02.23.2013 | Unregistered Commenterkenoneputt
I/m against the ban.
But wouldn't this be simple to simply make it a condition of competition rule?

The USGA could impose the rule in its' tournaments

The PGA TOUR could say no.

Clubs, tournaments, local/state organizations could use/not use. Done

Too simple, and it would still allow those who love to belittle tour pros plenty of ammo
02.23.2013 | Unregistered Commenternon profit winner
Player: There's no advantage to a longer or belly putter.

Reporter: So why can't you go to a regular putter.

Player: Because I can't putt with it.

02.24.2013 | Unregistered CommenterStanley Thompson
I have a hard time believing that Tim Clark can swing all the golf clubs but yet somehow can't execute a putting stroke with a proper putter.

Clark and the rest ought to be damn thankful they were allowed to get away with using those things as long as they did.

But instead, they want more.
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commenterfyg
From what I have read the USGA/R&A had considered a ban on long/anchored putters a few times in the past 30 years...but due to them being seen as a crutch or last resort (and not a preferred method of putting), decided against a ban. But as things have changed where players prefer to putt this is easy to see the change in philosophy.

If the PGA tour is worried about taking away their members ability to perform...would they also resist any attempts at reducing the ball? After all it, that would have a much bigger effect on the ability for certain players to excel.
02.24.2013 | Unregistered CommenterSteve
I call BS on Clark, and K1P, Sorry, but I hope the door doesn't whack him in the butt s he goes.

ROG changes ave drastically had effects on players bread and butter for years...what of the player who relied on he stymie? As I long ago said, what of the Crenshaw grip bring outlawed....what of ll those penalty strokes for a ball moving on the green, which is now no penalty...are lawsuits lining up over lost income from these changes?

Rules change, rules that have been in use for decades. When Bobby Jons played, the god of so many for some reason I don't get, he could use as many clubs as he wanted, no limit...I want that back...I wat 17 clubs in my bag.... waaaaaa! (fake crying for effect)

To Clark I say show me...who the F has their palms facing forward wen putting? I t wasn't an impassioned speech--it was a buch of bullshit.he should be a politician, because the reporters and apparently the othr pros just takwe him at his word, and don't even bother with the facts...... and if I am wrong, I humbly apologize.

As with EVERYTHING I say online, i never say anythng I would not say to the person's face. I do not hide behind anonimity if someone want to call me out face to face,
I have no problem with that.

Sorry for the usual typos, much to the delight of KLG
Nobilo: More public golf courses? Really? The ones today don't get enough play, so there is no need to build more.
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commentersteve pike
All this talk about bifurcation and the "same rules" for professionals and amateurs (average players) doesn't make sense. Most average players don't play by the Rules of Golf anyway. For example, when they pick up a six-inch putt instead of holing out or hitting two balls off the tee, they'ev broken the rules. So who cares about how the putt?

And remember, the USGA/R&A proposal doesn't ban belly putters and long putters, it bans the anchoring of the putters against a player's body. I don't think the USGA did a good job in presenting that difference.
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commentersteve pike
Would love to turn the anchoring debate in to a political discussion (without anger)
I am very conservative, did not vote for Bush or McCain though.

I'm against the anchoring ban. I'm against bifurcation. I would be for an across the board roll back in distance

Care to discuss without turning it violent?
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commenternon profit winner
Digger, call bs on what? That my relative was a 1 with the short putter and still is with the long one? Or what he's going to give up tournament golf if he can't us the long one?
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commenterkenoneputt
Call BS on Tim
Played with him. Because of his condition, he has to force his elbows and arms into an awkward
position to make a swing. At times, he hits it sideways. His swing is made with a lot of tension at address.
When he gets in synch, he hits it stupid accurate though.
The awkward set up he must make, has also help create a few serious injuries due to the stress of his motion.

Walk a mile
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commenternon profit winner
I wonder what Ed Furgol would have thought of this.
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commenterfyg
Steve Pike says,"All this talk about bifurcation and the 'same rules' for professionals and amateurs (average players) doesn't make sense. Most average players don't play by the Rules of Golf anyway."

And that is why I am mystified by the notion that the Rules of Golf need to be contorted for recreational players who merely wink at the rules.

Let's keep the Rules of Golf a serious proposition for those who play the game seriously.

Why worry about complicated rules appendices, bifurcation, etc., for people who don't putt out, and who don't care (and sometimes don't even know) about the most basic rules like stroke-and-distance for a lost ball? People who want to play casually, and who aren't already following the Rules ought not to be telling the USGA about how to go about the task of rule-making.

If we were really concerned about the game of golf being too hard and too imposing for recreational players, we could do much more to make golf courses easier, shorter, faster, easier to walk (more exercise, less cart fees) and most of all cheaper. But instead, we keep worrying about a game dominated by expensive high-technology equipment, longer courses with GPS-equipped golf carts, etc.

Steve, I think most recreational golfers really do like the idea of one set of rules, so that they can think about playing the same game as the elite players at the highest level. And so that is why it is important to make the game sensible for those elite players. Recreational players can take or leave those rules, and that's okay. It's what they've been doing all along.

Now, I realize that this viewpoint runs counter in principle to my proposal for a "reverse bifurcation" as to anchored putting. (My proposal to ban anchored putting now, in junior competitions and expanding the ban up through competitive amateur ranks in subsequent years and finally to the professional ranks in future years. And in so doing, eliminate any future "reliance" on anchored putting.) My compromise -- and it is very much of a compromise -- is a temporary complication in the rules. But it avoids most of the argument against the anchoring ban (some tour players saying that their incomes in millions of dollars are dependent on a previously-legal mathod), giving the USGA time to figure out how to apply the rule in lower-level competitions, and giving the tour professionals time to find an alternative game plan. And we will have, in a relatively short space of time, freed ourselves from a generation of golfers who rely on anchored putting.
02.24.2013 | Unregistered CommenterChuck
I play in local tourneys and men's club. I have played events with the one ball rule and others without it. Bifurcation already exists with the grooves on clubs with more than 24 degrees of loft. I own a conforming set of Mizuno irons and non conforming Titleist 704's. In the 70's a player could compete with a smaller ball at the Open Championship or a larger ball. The discussion on anchoring doesn't prevent players from using longer clubs to putt, it simply clarifies the clubs can't be anchored. Tim Clark merely has to move the club away from his sternum and follow the new stroke instruction guide and he is on his way to a golf stroke when he putts. Yips are a terrible thing to have and I would stop competing if I tried and could not cure them. But the example above with the player who has anxiety over putting with a short putter perfectly demonstrates that anchoring is an aid that for some is necessary. The problem is that the ruling bodies only worried about it when majors started being won by players using this method. So they have tried to parse the fine lines between the subjective and the objective with this clarification. It is hypocritical that they now worry about this subject when the golf ball and club technology has evolved virtually unchecked in the last 20 years under their watch.
02.24.2013 | Unregistered Commentermunihack

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.