jj9000 said:
First, it's a stupid rule to begin with. The USGA got upset when Keegan won their Tournament with a belly putter. So, they over-rotated in the face of tons of offsetting data suggesting there is no long term advantage to anchoring.
Anyway, the USGA pulled a 'USGA" and wrote the Rule in a manner that it couldn't be enforced. How? They included the word "Intentionally" in the Rule.
Regardless of whether Scott was anchoring or not, it doesn't matter. Try to prove that he or anyone else, anchors "intentionally".
Quote:
The former No. 1, who has been a critic of the anchoring ban, cited the play of Langer and McCarron as his catalysts for the switch.
"It was actually pointed out to me that this year they both recorded the best ever putting stats since stats have been kept. Both of them beat the old best," Scott said. "You know, I don't know if it's just a coincidence or if they had just a really good year, but maybe they've found the best way to putt.''
Scott suffered one of the worst campaigns of his career last season, falling 24 spots in the world rankings. Since the ban's implementation, he's ranked 129th (2016) and 89th ('17) in strokes gained: putting.
Quote:
But video evidence from the tournament does suggest Langer's stroke comes dangerously close to being anchored.
"Anybody who sees what Langer and Scott McCarron and Ian Woosnam are doing knows it's questionable," Chamblee said. "The whispers are out there. All of the players look askance whether they say it openly or not. I've talked enough of them to know -- and many have contacted me -- they all look askance at what's going on out there.
"And intent, I think there is apprehension on the governing body's part not to ruffle feathers further. When it's time to dig in, they're reluctant to do so. Their acquiescence is to pass this rule, but the only violation is the intent to break this rule."
It's this vagueness that's causing the issue, said Chamblee, citing the need for a clearer interpretation of the law.
"You have to come up with a more definitive way to enforce this rule," Chamblee said. "Basically what the USGA is saying is, 'If you can live with cheating, then fine. If you can sleep with yourself, then fine.'"
DannyDuberstein said:
this my issue with the complaining that led to the ban. If it was such an advantage, use it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
03ki11erAG said:DannyDuberstein said:
this my issue with the complaining that led to the ban. If it was such an advantage, use it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
I get that but Tiger does have a point. Adam can't putt for **** with a regular putter which is why he has to use the long one. It's an advantage for players who can't hole 5 footers. When the pressure is on it's a big advantage to take your hands out of the equation. Really good players could control it without anchoring.
All of that said the long putter doesn't bother me.
willie wonka said:03ki11erAG said:DannyDuberstein said:
this my issue with the complaining that led to the ban. If it was such an advantage, use it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
I get that but Tiger does have a point. Adam can't putt for **** with a regular putter which is why he has to use the long one. It's an advantage for players who can't hole 5 footers. When the pressure is on it's a big advantage to take your hands out of the equation. Really good players could control it without anchoring.
All of that said the long putter doesn't bother me.
This is kinda like saying, "if you can't make a 5-footer with an old Bullseye your putter ought to be illegal." Again, if it's that big of an advantage why isn't Tiger using it? Because he's a purist? No, it's because it doesn't work for him. Just like his putter and stroke doesn't work for Scott.
