Where's the Beef? Governing Bodies Don't Show Statistical Proof Backing Anchoring Ban

Where's the Beef? Governing Bodies Don't Show Statistical Proof Backing Anchoring Ban











Ryan Ballengee May 21, 2013 11:16 AM


COMMENTARY | I support the anchoring ban. I don't support the lack of data to support the rationale of it.



The USGA and R&A, golf's governing bodies, simultaneously announced Tuesday they would move forward with a ban of the anchored stroke they proposed in November 2012. A new rule, known as Rule 14-1b, will be enacted starting Jan. 1, 2016, barring any player
from anchoring a golf club directly against the body or by creating a pivot point attached to the body.





It's the right thing to do.



Anchoring offers a decided advantage on the greens as compared to the traditional style of putting. Any player -- though admittedly a small sample size of the broader number I've played with over the years -- that I've teed it up with that anchors has admitted as much. Players who anchor their putter tend to pace their putts better and have more confidence to swing the putter freely (which is ironic) on shorter putts.



What has informed my opinion, however, is not what should inform a far-reaching decision made by the game's governing bodies. Their decision should be backed by longitudinal studies with statistical data that suggest proof of the advantage most traditionalists claim the anchored stroke offers. It isn't.



On Tuesday, USGA president Glen Nager said data was and is irrelevant to the discussion. The governing bodies were very coy to enact this ban as a playing rule, not an equipment rule.



Playing rules are not subject to the statistical sandbox the governing bodies have created for equipment manufacturers. Golf equipment can only be so long, hit the ball so far, transfer so much energy and so forth. Statistics, albeit a dubious set of them, guided the decision to adopt new regulations on grooves in 2008.



Playing rules, instead, are dictated by the idea of passing the smell test of what is golf. It's the game's equivalent of constitutional law. The USGA and R&A are the Supreme Court. They have their guiding document, the Rules of Golf, and create new playing rules -- amendments -- when they interpret a need to amend and clarify what that document says. That's a cop-out.



The governing bodies should have proposed this ban armed with data that could silence critics that claim there's no true advantage in anchoring the putter, or any club. It would have made the PGA Tour and PGA of America look foolish in opposing a ban that will level the playing field. It would have made Webb Simpson's protestations look goofy.



Here's some data, courtesy of writer Matt Cooper, that helps the case of the governing bodies. Look at the case of Adam Scott.



The Masters champion began using the broomstick he wields now at the 2011 WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship. He has since played 42 stroke-play events with the long putter. In that span, he averages 29.3 putts per round. In the 42 events before the switch? Scott took 30.6 putts. In a four-round tournament, that's five strokes. Five.



In professional golf, five strokes is a lot. It makes a cut. It wins a tournament. It wins a major. Five strokes at Augusta? Angel Cabrera has a third major if Adam Scott doesn't save a handful of shots.



But that's just one guy. The governing bodies had to pursue long-term statistical data to garner broad-base support for this decision. They didn't, probably because it would take too long and cost too much money. Naysayers, however, will put on their tin-foil hats and claim there is no supporting data.



Webb Simpson, the reigning U.S. Open champion and one of the most vocal defenders of the anchored stroke, has been using the long putter for more than half his life, long before his PGA Tour days. No one could study Guan Tianlang, the 14-year-old Chinese amateur who made history by making the cut at the Masters in April, because he has anchored the putter from the beginning.



Speaking of the Masters, Augusta National has not definitively weighed in on the anchoring ban. They are ade facto governing body and, at this point, a proverbial kingmaker on this rule. The USGA and R&A, representing two majors, obviously support the ban. The PGA of America does not. Neither does the PGA Tour which, while it does not have a major, runs every non-major tournament of significance. Does the Masters support the ban?



Four of the last six majors have been won by players using the anchored stroke. Three of those four winners took their first major title using that stroke. That was enough for the governing bodies to examine and now implement a ban of the putting stroke they used to achieve major glory. That, however, is not enough to convince the 26 million golfing Americans to coalesce around this ban. And that might lead to bifurcation of the Rules of Golf, which is a consequence the USGA and R&A don't want.



Ryan Ballengee is a Washington, D.C.-based golf writer. His work has appeared on multiple digital outlets, including NBC Sports and Golf Channel. Follow him on Twitter @RyanBallengee.