Opinion & Analysis
Is there legal recourse against the anchored putter ban?
Barring a position reversal by the governing bodies of golf or a dramatic legal challenge to the anchoring rule, the anchored stroke will no longer be permitted at any level on Jan. 1, 2016. The anchoring ban was solidified when the PGA Tour policy board adopted Rule 14-1b, the anchoring-ban rule adopted by the United State Golf Association and Royal & Ancient Golf Club (the “USGA” and “R&A,” respectively).
While the Tour was originally one of the most vocal critics of the anchoring ban, the policy board cited the need to provide golfers of all levels with a uniform set of rules that define an acceptable golf stroke as the reason for the change of heart.
When the USGA and R&A first announced Rule 14-1b, nine golfers, including Adam Scott and Tim Clark, retained legal counsel to explore any legal avenues available to them to challenge the rule. As of this moment, it appears that none of the nine plan on taking legal action to challenge Rule 14-1b.
However, their actions do raise an interesting question: What legal recourse might be available to affected professional golfers that wish to challenge the anchoring ban?
Relevant Laws
Antitrust Law
An affected golfer’s best legal challenge to the anchoring ban would involve filing an action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act arguing that the USGA and PGA Tour have made the game of golf less competitive for golfers relying on an anchored stroke by adopting Rule 14-1b.
The Sherman Act was initially introduced by Congress to regulate anticompetitive commercial activities. However, courts have since held that non-profit, voluntary organizations that sanction and regulate professional sporting contests and tournaments, such as the PGA Tour and USGA, are subject to antitrust law in the exercise of their rule-making authority. Moreover, courts have determined that while each such sanctioning organization has the primary noncommercial purpose of promoting organized sports in an orderly fashion, the process of creating uniform rules to govern the sport could trigger the applicability of the Sherman Act if such conduct restricted interstate trade or commerce in an unreasonable manner.
The most prominent antitrust challenge to a USGA rule is the case of Gilder v. PGA Tour. In the early 1990s, Ping and a group of golfers led by Bob Gilder challenged and won a favorable settlement from the USGA and PGA Tour after Ping’s Eye 2 irons and wedges were banned for violating the USGA’s groove spacing rule. The challenging golfers refuted the USGA’s determination that the clubs were performance enhancing by providing the court and the USGA with data demonstrating that golfers using the Eye 2 clubs earned less on the PGA Tour than those who did not use the clubs. The case was ultimately settled, and the Eye 2’s were grandfathered in when the USGA revised its groove specifications. Although the case was settled, Gilder and Ping successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against the rule by the use of the empirical earnings data they presented to the district court.
While the settlement was a big win for PING and its staffers, a long-putter uses would be unwise to rely on Ping’s success in obtaining a preliminary injunction in a challenge to the anchoring ban. First, an affected golfer would have to provide empirical statistics and support that demonstrates an anchoring stroke does not provide a competitive advantage and perhaps demonstrate that an anchored stroke may lead to less success on the Tour. Secondly, even if the affected golfer was able to provide such evidence, that evidence would only get the golfer a preliminary injunction to stay the rule from going into effect until a court could decide the issue on the merits of an antitrust suit.
Even if the affected golfer obtained a preliminary injunction in his favor, it is unlikely that his challenge to Rule 14-1b would succeed on the merits. Similar to the case at hand, an equipment manufacturer challenged a United States Tennis Association (the “USTA”) rule that banned the use of “spaghetti string” rackets and stringing systems in Gunter Harz v. USTA.
The USTA supported its ban with data demonstrating that spaghetti-string rackets and stringing systems provided an unfair performance advantage to players utilizing the system and banned the use of such rackets under its rules. Ruling in favor of the USTA, the court determined that courts should give latitude to the rule-making function of a non-profit, governing body of a sporting organization and merely examine if the rule change bears a rational relationship to the goal of conducting organized competitions in an orderly fashion. In characterizing this latitude and ruling in favor of the USTA, the court explained that a court should avoid substituting its judgment for that of a highly sophisticated group focused on creating the uniform rules that govern a sport and defer to those rules created by the elected officials of that sanctioning body.
It is highly unlikely that an affected golfer will succeed by filing an antitrust action to challenge the anchoring ban. Similar to the USTA in the Gunter Harz case, the USGA and R&A can argue that they have decisive rule-making authority and that it is reasonable for them to further define what is an acceptable stroke. The PGA Tour would argue that it is reasonable to abide by those rules for uniformity. For these reasons, a court hearing an antitrust challenge to the rule banning the anchored stroke will most likely defer to the USGA and R&A rather than substitute its own judgment on the issue.
Americans with Disabilities Act
In a narrower challenge, if the affected golfer utilizes a belly putter for the same reason as Fred Couples, who uses the belly putter because it puts less stress on his chronically bad lower back, he may see PGA Tour v. Casey Martin as a window to continue using an anchored stroke under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”). The ADA protects individuals with recognized disabilities who are not provided with a reasonable accommodation by an employer; or are denied equal access to a public facility, services or goods on the basis of a person’s recognized disability.
In PGA Tour v. Casey Martin, a golfer with an ADA recognized disability, Casey Martin, requested that the Tour make a reasonable modification to its “walking rule” during tournaments and filed suit under the ADA when the Tour refused. The Supreme Court ruled that Martin may use a golf cart in Tour events and that to deny his request was a violation of the ADA. The Court reached this conclusion by determining: (1) that a golf course used for a PGA Tour event was a place of public accommodation; and (2) that allowing Martin to use a cart would not fundamentally alter the game of golf because walking is not an essential aspect of the game of golf.
Despite what appears to be a glimmer of hope from the Martin case, it unlikely that an affected golfer with a recognized disability would succeed in challenging Rule 14-1b under the ADA. Casey Martin succeeded in his challenge due to a liberal definition of a place of public accommodation and because the Court determined that walking was not a fundamental aspect of the game of golf. However, a stroke is an essential aspect of the game of golf and Rule 14-1b is an intended modification of this rule. Thus, allowing a golfer with a recognized disability to use an anchored stroke would fundamentally alter the game such that the USGA and R&A would have to modify its definition of a stroke.
Furthermore, an affected golfer could not challenge Rule 14-1b as a disabled employee of the PGA Tour seeking a reasonable accommodation because professional golfers are not PGA employees by definition. In Martin, the Court found that since professional golfers make their own schedules, sign their own endorsement deals and act in their own self interest, they are considered independent contractors rather than employees of the PGA Tour.
Ironically, the freedom of being an independent contractor hurts a professional golfer here. In instances where a professional sport is unionized, the player’s union must approve any major change to the rules and the power to bring legal action under employment law. However, independent contractor status provides individual golfers with little leverage to dispute a rule change. Therefore, a golfer with a recognized disability is highly unlikely to succeed in a suit filed under the ADA to challenge Rule 14-1b.
Conclusion
The current legal landscape and the legal barriers presented by the deferential nature of the courts for rule-making bodies like the USGA and R&A make it clear that Adam Scott and the other golfers currently dependent on the anchored stroke will have to master a new stroke with the long putter or return to using a standard length putter to conform with Rule 14-1b in the near future. Just how much the rule will affect the earnings and rankings of these golfers is yet to be seen.
Furthermore, it will be interesting if the anchoring ban will create a push for a PGA Tour players union to better position players to challenge a rule change in the future. Only time will establish the true fallout of the anchoring ban.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Lai Kai
Dec 10, 2015 at 2:41 am
Short statured golfers will have a problem using standard putters to meet Rule 14-1b, because the top of the putter handle will inevitably touch his/her belly so where do these golfers stand due to Rule 14-1b. Will these golfers be considered as anchoring?
Greg Hapac
Nov 22, 2013 at 10:20 am
It all comes down to one thing, the UGGA found it necessary to come up with a solution for a problem that didn’t exist.
Roelof
Sep 3, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Graphite shafts! Now there is something that gives a huge advantage and should have never been allowed.
GSark
Sep 1, 2013 at 7:01 pm
I think everyone is missing the point. The point is that the USGA and R&A allowed it for over twenty-five years. Now you have a case where guys have put tens of thousands of hours of practice in with the long putter, and you want to take all that away. Now guys like Tim Clark and Bernhard Langher must abandon 25+ years of work, start over and go compete at the highest level. Yeah, that’s fair.
I wonder how people would feel if the USGA put a ban on graphite shafts in regular, womens and A flex? What about a ban on the “two ball” and the “craz-e” and every putter that looks like a carving of a bugs head.
I’m so tired of people who have 460cc titanium faced, graphite shafted drivers, hybrid irons, 3-piece golf balls and bugs head putters talking about “the purity of the game.” Get real.
PMonty
Dec 15, 2013 at 11:07 am
GStark. I couldn’t have said it better. Probably the one area they should be concerned with is the golf ball, especially for the professionals, who are making the courses obsolete with their length.
Leftright
Aug 30, 2013 at 8:27 am
The Court reached this conclusion by determining: (1) that a golf course used for a PGA Tour event was a place of public accommodation; and (2) that allowing Martin to use a cart would not fundamentally alter the game of golf because walking is not an essential aspect of the game of golf.
The courts are right on number 2 but wrong on number 1. A PGA tour event is not a public accommodation. That said I think the right ruling was made in Casey Martin’s case.
As far as long putters go and I have “never” used one, I don’t care whether it is illegal or not. The PGA, USGA and R&A screwed up by not addressing this 25 years ago. It was allowed to continue and an unfair advantage has not been proven during this time or everyone would be using this method. They use anchoring as an important word but what is anchoring. I anchor the iron grip to my hand when I swing by gripping it. The ball is anchored to the tee, under their opinion golfers should have to hit off the grass all the time. I know it sounds foolish but this whole thing is foolish if you ask me.
GSark
Sep 1, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Best post here.
mortyjeff
Aug 29, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Hats off to the USGA for brilliant approach to eliminating anchoring while reducing exposure from a litigation standpoint. The whole solicitation for comment period was a nice way for the USGA to receive “depositions” from supporters of anchoring; thus allowing them to analyze the risk associated with the rules change. How does one sue for damages if there are not damages to sue for? Anchoring remains as a permitted method of putting until the end of 2015. Only in 2016, when a player cannot deploy an anchored method can such player begin to determine damages.
Opa
Aug 27, 2013 at 12:01 pm
The issue is the demonization of Democracy. The governing bodies of any sport should be allowed to set rules for its “games” and the players who want to make money in it should have to be forced to conform to it. Unfortunately there are too many “special interest” groups supposedly looking after the lesser common man that get in the way of how things are already being done, by usurping the laws and crying foul.
Golf is such a sad sport in this way to allow the game to not have any real power over its own rules, the rules that now seem to be negotiable when entities like the ADA gets involved to ruin it for everybody else.
I don’t see anybody from the ADA or any other organizations going after the NFL or NHL to have its players remove the helmets and pads, because in the end, the helmets and pads are not necessary to the game.
Nor is anybody going after the NBA to lower the position of the nets, because, after all, the net doesn’t have to be at that height!
and so it goes……. people like Casey Martin makes me sick to my stomach.
David Cameron
Aug 27, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Casey Martin has a reasonable right to glean an income from playing professional golf. No accommodation was made regarding the actual golf, rather the walk. No one is advocating that any accommodation be made for anyone regarding the striking of the ball or putting, rather…..how you get to the ball. In an absurd case, Casey martin could have a “sedan chair” built ala Cleopatra of Ancient Egypt fame and have 4 guys carry him around. That would be perfectly “legal” in tournament golf without a variance.
Silly but legal.
Casey is a great guy…..nothing there merits being sick.
Have we had enough of the USGA yet?
Alex
Sep 6, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Golf? Exclusionary? Nooooo
James
Aug 27, 2013 at 3:40 am
The issue is that we will only see the effect once the rule come into play. Adam might have been 50th in putting at the masters same with Ernie at the open, fact is if you remove the anchored stroke from both who are great ball strikers and Adan turns out to be no 1 in ball striking but end up no 60 in putting missing a few key puts due to the mental and physical advantage for him using the long putter, after many years of struggling with the conventional stroke, then both them and the others who succeeded in majors would not have won. The Angel would have won the masters in 2013. So the issue is not in the putting stats only. We see week in and out how the best ball strikers don’t win due to putting. This is the one area of the game where we need a level playing field more than any other aspect. TW in his prime would win tournaments scrambling as he was the best chipper and putter the game has seen for a long time. Why don’t we give the short hitters a 20 yard advantage from the T purely because the struggle with hitting long drives? The anchored stroke should never have been allowed, it is an evel that crept into the game and has tarnished the image of fair play. These golfers must suck up and cope with their problems. If they can’t make a living as golfers because they struggle with putting, let them find a job. I would love to play pro golf for all the money but I am not a good enough putter. So I have a job and fight my putting daemons Nona Saturday.
steff
Aug 27, 2013 at 10:50 am
Wow I really dissagree with you!
First of all you have to compare an anchored stroke with an non-anchored stroke from scratch i.e If an anchored stroke produces better putters than non anchored putters.
Because of different putting strokes suits different people it is not fair to base your oppinion on if someone is better with a belly putter than a normal putter.
I mean to say that a putting style is superior and gives the player an advantage you actually have to base it on facts. Not compaird to yourself as a putter with a normal style.
Tiger Woods for example says he cant putt with an anchored putter. Well than it doesnt suit him. But it suits some people who putt better with it. Just because you putt better with it doesnt mean its an advantage compaird to a short putter. Get the difference?
But based on all the facts i´ve seen an anchored putter does not give the player an unfair advantage. It is just a different style of putting. And the worlds best golfers still putt with a short putter.
PMonty
Dec 15, 2013 at 11:13 am
Are there any pros on the tour who use the anchored putting style, in the top ten of putting stats on tour?
Billy
Aug 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm
Besides this year, Adam Scotts putting has remained lackluster with the long stick (he’s 53rd in putting this year). Many other pro’s have seen similar results. Kuchar seems to have benefited most by his arm lock style but thats not being banned. I have a feeling most pros using the long/belly putter will probably go to this method or adopt a counter balanced putter in.
In the end, the pros will find a new method and then that will be the governing bodies next target. It just seems to me that the R&A and USGA are trying to show they are still relevant, much like a District Manager showing up to say there’s a new policy that is completely useless. This same nonsense happened with the groove rules (twice) and have now been proven irrelevant both times. The pros are hitting their approach shots closer on average now with u-grooves, despite all the evidence the USGA/R&A fabricated to show the huge advantage they offered. So what’s next? No grooves?
Maybe next time the USGA and R&A can look at rolling back the players. Maybe institute a handicap system where if your in the top 50 in driving you can’t have a driver or a 3 wood over 43 inches and under 13 degrees or you have to use practice whiffle balls. Top 50 putters lose their putter and have to blade wedges to putt. Top 50 Scramblers/bunker players lose their wedges. Top 50 in each iron category say good bye to your irons. If you’re tops in all those categories you get a shovel, baseball bat, and a broom stick. I bet they still find a way to shoot something near par.
Why not focus on increasing the number of golfers, instead of trying to find new ways to alienate portions of our base.
Chris Downing
Aug 26, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Its a game where the governing rules are set by the authorities of the game. If you don’t like those rules – find another game. Simple.
(They should have never allowed the use of long putters in the first place, then none of this argy bargy would have happened. Long putters are obviously not in the spirit of the game as it has always been played.)
Peter Alford
Aug 26, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Chris-
You point is very valid–there is need to have a governing body that provides a uniform set of rules for the game of golf. Without such a governing body, the game we love would be a mess.
However, to your aside: I wonder if you find titanium drivers, cavity back irons, steel and graphite shafts and golf ball advancements to be in the “spirit of the game” as well? While a belly putter requires an anchored stroke (and thus changes the definition of a “stroke”), I believe 460cc drivers were not what was envisioned when the rules of golf were established either.
I think this raises an essential concern for the future: who gets to define these terms? How can the game of golf better represent the interests of the entire field (amateurs, professional players, equipment manufacturers, etc.)? I think the PGA, USGA and R&A have a lot of questions to answer between this equipment issue and the developing lawsuit by Vijay Singh regarding PEDs and the possible need for a players union to better represent player interests.
AndyT
Mar 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm
If a few pros do not like the rules of golf they are free to create their own game and set their own rules. They can call it ProGolf or whatever. Where I fall out with them is when they claim the right to make the rules for millions of players worldwide based on what is best for them.
David
Aug 28, 2013 at 11:11 am
Let’s keep the game and get new authorities in charge.
GSark
Sep 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Do you use a titanium driver? A 3 piece ball? graphite shafts? Do you have a handicap? A hybrid club? Does your putter have an insert or look like a bugs head? Do you play golf courses from where they were meant to be played, or do you move up? If you answered yes to any of these questions your a hypocrite and should not speak about the “spirit of the game.”
Sam
Aug 26, 2013 at 4:09 pm
I used a belly putter for 5 years before the USGA announced the ban. And I have to say, anchoring helped me tremendously with not breaking my wrist, especially under pressure situations at men’s club tournaments. But I switched back to standard length putter the minute they announced the ban because I did not want to invest a single minute on something that I can’t use 2.5 years from now.
I sucked at the beginning with my old putter, then I re-gripped it with the fat grip and that helped tremendously. I had kept my belly putter handy just in case. But after trying the Fat grip for a while, I decided to cut down my belly putter and made it standard length (a taylormade ghost).
I believe all professional and amateurs alike can adapt, it just takes hard work and finding something in your stroke that causes the breakdown and work on fixing it. In my case I found the fat grip to be tremendously helpful in forcing me not to break my wrist. No wonder a lot of good putters like Michelson, Furyk, KJ Choi, Sergio and others are using that grip.
I hope the USGA doesn’t ban that next!!!!
David Cameron
Aug 26, 2013 at 7:20 pm
I do not think that the USGA will go after the larger putter grip.. Those have been around for 50 years under differing guise.
I think that as the day approaches, they will include “any secondary interaction with the grip or the shaft for the purpose of altering the fundamental requirement of the golfers grasp of the club” to eliminate the Matt Kuchar variation and the old Bernhard Langer method.
rob
Aug 26, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Anchoring has been around at least that long. I watched the highlights of the 1966 Open Championship and Phil Rodgers used a belly putter. Also in 1924 Leo Diegel did something similar.
Alex
Sep 6, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Bingo.
It makes just as much sense to go after oversize grips because they aren’t all the same as the small ones.
In fact, why doesn’t the USGA just make an approved set of clubs and everyone has to play the same ones.
Then the “competitive advantage” would be gone.
bert
Oct 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Don’t be so sure. Long Putters have been around longer than 50 years.
Seb D
Sep 4, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Hum…. I have to address this…
Amigo, you have the Yips.
That’s why you were helped by the long putter… cause it takes the right hand off the equation (where the yips likes to surface), and that’s also why the fat grip helps… not cause you suddenly found the right stroke path, but simply because you put less pressure on a bigger grip, therefore in situations with slightly higher amount of pressure, you grip it lighter and therefore miss it less, but you miss it. And you know that.
I have the yips, and it’s an ugly B****
Didn’t know what making more than 30 putt was like, and it hit me… But the worst part about it, it’s not that it hits you at any given time. It’s the fact that having the yips in your putting stroke, will make you doubt your ability to make putts, which will put a hell of a lot of pressure on your short game (cause deep inside you know that knocking it close is the only way to come out of this chin-up), and since you doubt your shortgame, you know you have to hit a lot of greens. Too much pressure on your swing —–> Failure
What I’m trying to say to you… is that this rule will take away the pleasure that people have struggled so hard to get back, and now that it’s in their bag, we want to take it away from them. This ain’t a sermon, because I will follow the rule and suck it up… but taking the risk of going back to the short, unimpressive, rigid, little stick it is supposed to be, and making it the only club I don’t want to touch in my bag. Tho I’m not worried, because I know what our brands have in stock to address our case, hot bread.
Anywho, I didn’t mean to address your message with the intention of dissing your opinion in any way shape or form.. but I do feel obligated to let you know that the yips thing you’re going through won’t be cured till you can admit to yourself you have what probably 2 thirds of golfers have without knowing… And on a finale note, I do believe that too big of putter grips are as much of a help as anything else…
Phil is the biggest feel player we know, has a 64° in his bag, and a fat grip on his putter. I’m even willing to risk it and say that if you take the top 20 in the world at putts per round… there will be more players with oversized putter grips, or counterbalanced grips than players with belly or long putters….
Anyways, sorry for the novel. Big fan of this site, loving the good reads.
Best,
SD
JohnS
Aug 26, 2013 at 2:50 pm
I am 71 years old and have been using an anchored putter for about 25 years. First it was because of the yips and now, as for Fred Couples, because of a bad back. I know I am not alone. As I see it, I and others like me are merely “collateral damage” and have never been taken seriously, or even considered, as this rules change was discussed and made. I cannot understand why special cases cannot be handled by “conditions of competition.” This could handle both anchoring and the ball issue. It is guys like me who pay for and support the game. I am very disappointed and would be happy to join in a class action suit if that were possible.
david
Aug 26, 2013 at 6:11 pm
You can still use a long putter to help you with your back issues. You just won’t be able to anchor it anymore. Anchoring the putter doesn’t save your back.
david
Aug 26, 2013 at 2:44 pm
What’s next, he will sue so he can drive on the left side of the road? Get over it already.
David Cameron
Aug 26, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Who put the USGA in charge of golf rules and regulations for the United States?
I will continue to play(on occasion) my father’s 1966 Haig Ultra irons(conforming groove or not).
The USGA purports to “love the game”…..I do not agree. Changing the ball has been and will always be the easiest method for “reeling” the tournament professional back to only 300 yard drives. To not have a “professional” ball is foolish. To eliminate players who use a belly/long putter is exclusionary in nature. Why they continue to tamper with “clubs” and not the disposable ball, they will have to explain that. Tennis has different balls, so should golf. I do not even think that 14 clubs should be a rule…..bring what you want and enjoy the game.
GSark
Sep 1, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Here,Here!!!
AndyT
Mar 21, 2014 at 3:54 pm
I think you mean Hear Hear
AndyT
Mar 21, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Who put USGA in charge? The golf clubs of the USA. As for R&A they were setting rules before golf was even heard of in USA.
Marc
Aug 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm
I do not like anchored or long putters primarily for aesthetics. I believe anchoring can be advantageous, especially when nerves get the best of you.
steff
Aug 27, 2013 at 4:07 am
I disagree. Nerves can get the best of you with a long putter too!
I has not been discussed here, but I think it is a disadvantage on long putts with a long putter. I struggle a lot with putts over 12 yards! A lot easier with a short putter!
john daniell
Aug 26, 2013 at 11:59 am
It is quite obvious that there is a distinct advantage when using a long putter. I have to wonder if the likes of Adam Scott would have won a major without being able to anchor one end of the putter to his chest. I’m sure the majority of golfers support the banning of long putters. Tiger Woods suggestion that the putter be no longer than the shortest club in your bag makes a lot of sense.
Why wait over 2 years to ban them?
John D.
Jim McManus
Aug 26, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Adam was actually 50th at the masters in putting, however he was 1st in greens in regulation. To same is true of Ernie El’s win at last years British Open. The only “obvious” thing that can be learned is that ball striking is more important than putting
john daniell
Aug 28, 2013 at 10:39 am
Whatever is said on this forum is just an opinion and of course there will be many different ones. Who is to say that one opinion is better than the other. However, those players that adopted the long putters did so because they must have thought it would benefit their game otherwise why would they have changed. To make putters a standard length seems to be a reasonable requirement…but that is only my opinion.
John D.
john daniell
Sep 2, 2013 at 10:25 am
The old adage that you drive for show and put for dough still holds true. If you can’t put, the best ball striking in the world isn’t going to a win tournaments. Ball striking is beside the point as is some other items brought into the equation. When Nick Faldo asked Adam Scott if he would switch to a short putter before the ban takes place, he replied he would continue to the very end. Ernie Ells said he would defend the use of long putters with “every fibre of my body”…I guess Ernie realizes the advantages. Roll on 2016!
John D.
Alex
Sep 6, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Fitting that after given some data that shows how ridiculous this ban is, the argument resorts back to some old cliche that is irrelevant.
Fact is, no one had any measurable advantage and it was a knee-jerk reaction.
Just be honest about it, it’d be easier to deal with if they just said, “We don’t like it” versus trying to come up with some ridiculous argument that isn’t factual at all.
Nick
Aug 26, 2013 at 1:09 pm
This horse has been thoroughly beaten, but I am skeptical that the long putter offers a distinct advantage. There is certainly no data to support it. I understand the theory that it minimizes wrist break and forearm rotation, but I think the more important effect is the change in form seems to appeal to those who struggle with a short putter. To date, the best putters presenetly on tour (Tiger, Snedeker, Stricker, etc) use a short putter. Scott is a winner because of his superlative ball striking, not his putting. He putts well enough to win but he often wins in-spite of his putting, not because of it. Scott still misses lots of short puts (such as his crushing 18th hole performance in the 2012 open championship)that are supposed to be in the long putters wheelhouse. Web Simpson, Keegan Bradley, Ernie Ells, and Carl Peterson have played well recently, but I would hardly consider them top tier putters either. Their use has increased as the stigma has faded, but it hasn’t taken off like large head drivers, hybrids, etc because unlike those technologies (which aren’t banned) the long putter isn’t objectively better than the short putter.
Jim McManus
Aug 26, 2013 at 1:30 pm
I would agree Nick. Mike Davis of the USGA has been very careful throughout this process to avoid using terms like competitive advantage, and has focused his comments on the stroke itself. His counterpart at the R&A however has been very vocal in stating that it makes putting easier despite the lack of actual evidence. If they have to go to court over this, Peter Dawsons comments could be damaging
DB
Aug 26, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Nick is spot on. The best putters in the world use a short putter. Have you used a long or belly putter John? As someone that has used them all and still puts with a short putter I would be the first to attest that it doesn’t matter what it is putting is hard. It’s a style of putting that someone doesn’t like might as well ban the claw grip Kuchar’s style along with good ole Hubert Green because apparently he had a distinct advantage over everyone else the way he putted.
Louis
Aug 26, 2013 at 4:24 pm
It’s an advantage to those players that can’t use a short o standard length putter, however, have you realized that the best putters on tour don’t use long sticks?
My putting is not that great but I score by achieving greens in regulations. In my bag there is a 35″ mallet putter.
GSark
Sep 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm
I think a mallet putter offers you a competitive advantage, otherwise you wouldn’t use it.
gxDD
Aug 30, 2013 at 4:04 pm
50th in putting overall means nothing. What did he rank inside 10ft, 7ft, 6ft, 4ft… that’s what matters, and that’s where the long putter helps the most.
I have to wonder if… Keegan Bradley, Web Simpson, and Adam Scott would be anywhere near where they are now with out the long putters. It IS obvious there is a distinct advantage to the anchoring. Part of the purity of the game is how you control your wrists in the swing. Tons of books have been written on this fundamental. Using clubs that allow you to avoid wrist movement should be illegal.
FYI… loved this article. I would side with Freddy, or others in an ADA position, just like I did with Casey Martin. I’ve always viewed the long putter as an alternative for golfers with Bad Backs… nothing wrong with that.
John Russell
Aug 26, 2013 at 11:34 am
Surely the answer is simple , take your game and ply your trade where the USGA & the R & A rules do not apply if you do not want to play by their rules .
Courtney
Aug 26, 2013 at 10:17 am
As it should be. The ruling bodies of a sport are supposed to be able to regulate themselves without the government interfering – unless, of course the sport is actually breaking a law.