Adoption of Anchoring Ban a Matter of Stroke Integrity, Not Advantage

Adoption of Anchoring Ban a Matter of Stroke Integrity, Not Advantage
As the Hammer Drops on Anchoring, the Misconception Remains











Chris Chaney May 21, 2013 12:49 PM




COMMENTARY | The hammer has come down on the anchor, but do
we even understand why?



Ask the biggest opposers of the inclusion of Rule 14-1b -- the Keegan Bradleys, Webb Simpsons, Tim Clarks and Carl Petterssons of the world -- why they feel the ban is unjust and they spring into advantage-speak.

"Do I think they should be banned? No, and here's why,"Simpson said last year at the PGA Championship at Kiawah Island when asked about the anchored stroke. "You take a wooden driver compared to a 460 cc titanium, and to me that's a lot bigger difference than a 35-inch putt to a 45-inch putter.

"Last year, the strokes-gained putting, nobody in the top-20 used a belly putter or a long putter. If anybody says it's an advantage, I think you've got to look at the stats and the facts."

The jury remains out on the factual side of the anchoring ban. As Simpson noted, there is no statistical evidence that points to an advantage being gained by sticking a club into your belly or sternum. The problem with their argument is that the ruling bodies proposing the ban are not disputing whether an advantage is gained by anchoring a putter.

The entire ban is based around the use of an anchor point and, thus, the legitimacy of the stroke itself.

"Throughout the 600-year history of golf, the essence of playing the game has been to grip the club with the hands and swing it freely at the ball," USGA Executive Director Mike Davis said when the ban was proposed in late November of 2012.



"The player's challenge is to control the movement of the entire club in striking the ball, and anchoring the club alters the nature of that challenge. Our conclusion is that the Rules of Golf should be amended to preserve the traditional character of the golf swing by eliminating the growing practice of anchoring the club."

The touring pros fighting the ban and the governing bodies attempting to enforce it are comparing apples to oranges. There will be no winner in the debate because they are arguing different presumptions as to why the ban would be introduced.

The question of the advantage an anchored stroke does or does not provide is a matter of personal opinion, and one that is interesting when taken into perspective.

If this anchoring stroke provides no advantage as Simpson and others have argued, then why do they use it? For guys playing for upwards of a million dollars a week, you'd think that they would use the equipment that gives them the best opportunity to win.

There is little doubt that the timing of the inquisition into the anchored stroke's legality is a matter of recent history. Incorporated into the game some 25-30 years ago, the procedure was deemed passable, almost pitied by those in power as a fading pro's last grasp at calming a balky putter.

However, with four of the six last major championship winners yielding anchored putters, purists have called for a revisiting of the putter's legality. The run of major championships won by players with anchored putters also conjures ideas that despite claims to the contrary, anchored strokes take some of the nerves out of putting.

After all, on the biggest stages in the game when the pressure is compounded the most on Sunday afternoons, players who use the so-called "cheat-sticks" are taking home more trophies than players using traditional putters.

While the ban was approved early on May 21, the debate will not die an easy death. Both the PGA of America and the PGA Tour have voiced their oppositions to the proposed ban, bringing bifurcation -- a division of two sets of rules, one for the professionals and one for amateur golfers -- into the mix.

Despite the decision to enact the ban, we must remember that this is not about the advantage the anchored putter does or does not provide -- it's about the legality and legitimacy of the stroke.

The governing bodies have decided that anchoring a stroke takes away from the integrity of the swing, not that it gives players an advantage. The argument of the latter is moot.

The next step is how and where the ban will be enforced. How will the PGA Tour and PGA of America react to the approval of 14-1b, and what affect will it have on all levels of golf?

One thing has been crystal clear in this murky pool of rules, this debate will not end today, tomorrow or a year from now. Expect to hear about anchoring the putter until the rule becomes law on January 1, 2016.

Chris Chaney is a Cincinnati, Ohio-based sportswriter. He has written for multiple outlets including WrongFairway.com, Hoopville.com, The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer and The Clermont (OH) Sun.

Follow him on Twitter @Wrong_Fairway.