Body Anchored Putter: USGA and R&A Putter Ban in Effect
Those who follow the doings of the golf equipment industry with interest are aware that on May 21, 2013 the USGA and the R&A officially announced their decision to ban the anchoring of putters to the body during the execution of the putting stroke. The decision was made despite publicly stated opposition to the ban by the PGA of America and the PGA Tour. The decision to ban body anchored putting was also made in the absence of any facts which prove the use of a body anchored putter automatically enables a golfer to make more putts or replace the skill required to play the game.
Body anchored putters have been in play for more than 30 years. Up until 2011 you could count the number of tournaments on one hand that were won by playing professionals using such putters. Of the 700 or so tournaments played on the PGA Tour between the appearance of body anchored putting and 2011, fewer than 1% were won by pros using a body anchored putter. If one wants to say using a particular type of putter automatically results in better putting, the previous statistic could be used to say that the pros who used body anchored putters were at a distinct disadvantage. After all, over 99% of all the tournaments won between the introduction of body anchored putting and 2011 were won by pros using a conventional putter.
But in 2011 and 2012, 11 tournaments were won by pros using a body anchored putter. Did this all of a sudden prove that the use of a body anchored putter brought an automatic improvement in putting? Perhaps the USGA thought so. On the other hand, the reason for the sudden increase in wins by pros using the Belly or Broomstick style putters is more likely explained by the fact that a much greater number of more pros chose to use this type of a putter so the percentage of their wins simply increased because of more players in each tournament using a body anchored putter.
Even as the number of tour players using a body anchored putter increased, far more tournaments have been won by pros using a conventional putter. So after 30 years of use of these putters, why did the USGA all of a sudden decide they needed to define that the putting stroke has to be executed with the grip end of the putter free from the torso of the body? After all, the game has been played for 500 yrs without any need to define how one should swing a club. Could it be that among the small number of individuals who decide what the rules of the game will be, a majority simply felt the body anchored putters “look bad” and represent in their opinion a break from one of the traditions of the game?
Rules that relate either directly or indirectly to golf clubs need to be made on the basis of whether the equipment automatically replaces the skill required to play the game for all golfers. Golf balls most definitely can be made so they can be hit significantly farther so we do need to have restrictions in place for the ball. Driver faces could be made so they allow each golfer to automatically achieve a 3-4% increase in distance, so putting a limit on the COR of the face is a justifiable act.
But a body anchored putter in no way allows every golfer to make more putts. It is simply a different type of putter. Just like there are golfers who hit the ball better with a 44” driver vs one of 46”, or golfers who gain more on center hit consistency from a D4 swingweight than D1, or a golfer who hits the ball better with this shaft vs that one, or any other use of different FIT clubs, there are simply some golfers who feel they putt better with a body anchored putter while there are many more who do not.
At the risk of being labeled an anti-traditionalist, with my 40+ yrs of experience in golf equipment research and design, the recent USGA decision to ban the anchoring of the putter to the body is a capricious and arbitrary decision made on the basis of emotion rather than science and statistics. Thanks USGA, you now have another poor decision to add to your previous rulings to change scorelines, and to restrict the size and length of golf clubs which will do nothing to help the game and will prevent a certain number of golfers from enjoying the game as much as they did before the restriction.
Tom
I seem to be alone here in supporting the ban but I would have no objections in allowing anchored putting (or other equipment/methods)if there were medical reasons). However, none of my golfing colleagues believe anchored putting should be allowed and I am assured that of 260+ in the Scottish Boys Amateur none used anchored putting. It might be that those this side of the Atlantic place a higher value on tradition and the roots of golf. Given their time again I suspect the regulators would have banned anchored putting at its embryo stage. They might also have banned metal heads… Read more »
Tom, I too am amazed that the rules were changed because of a few tour players. The fact that all tour members have had a chance to change if they chose to, and that the likes of Ernie and Adam did so and it helped their game, and they won majors probably gave some of the rules committee a case of sour grapes. The fact that a few recent generations of golfers decided early on that an anchored putter worked best for them as they learned and honed their skills in college and into the pros (Keegan and Web), probably… Read more »
I also think the ban is unwarranted and likely is being made on the basis of ‘tradition’ and aesthetics. I don’t think that ‘tournaments won’ is a useful metric either way in the discussion. So many other factors come into play over a 72-hole event where some golfers anchor their putter and some don’t. I also don’t think that comparing the putting stats of an individual golfer with a traditional grip vs an anchored grip is relevant either. As Tom indicates, that’s just fitting. Any golfer will see performance increase or decrease as they change their ball, the shaft length,… Read more »
IAN Thanks for your comments. This week I also read that Tom Watson is against the USGA’s ban of anchoring too – which surprised me a little given he has always been pretty much a staunch traditionalist. His comment was that something that has been approved for 30 yrs without any controversy should remain so. And the pres of the PGA of America (the club pros) also made another statement of opposition to the ban this week. Doubt they’ll have any effect because with the Masters Cmte now agreeing with the USGA and R&A, that would mean they have 3… Read more »
Hi Tom I’m not sure I agree with everything you have said here. The rules of golf do make comment on aspects of the swing eg definition 14.1 The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned. Croquet style putting was also stopped and pretty quickly too if I remember correctly. Doubtless there are further examples. The anchored technique is pretty obviously different from the conventional swing so it could readily be argued that it falls into the same pot as the unconventional methods just mentioned. Allowing anchored… Read more »
SANDY Most golfers who have never used a body anchored putter tend to make the assumption that just because the end of the putter is anchored to the body, it allows one to automatically make more putts. Until golfers who have never used a body anchor putter try one for more than a few putts, they cannot know that this method of putting has its own list of difficulties to have to master to be able to putt well. The vast majority of golfers cannot even come close to putting half as well with a body anchored putter as they… Read more »
Tom It does not surprise me to see you weigh in on the anchored putter ban. I agree with you 100%. The decision is not based on any evidence that the technique provides an advantage. There were powerful voices for and against. But those voices were calling out opinions, nothing more. It is not a recreational golfer friendly decision. There are already too many players leaving the game, or declining to enter the game because it is too hard. I guess we get our chance to vent, then to move on. Those guys have the authority to make the rules,… Read more »
DAle: You’re absolutely dead on in saying this was not a recreational golfer friendly decision. Nor was it a tour player friendly decision. To force some of the pros into going back to a conventional putter could with some of them be the difference between making money and losing their tour card. And in reality, one pro choosing a belly over a conventional putter is a FITTING decision, the same as if the USGA forced a tour player to give up his cavity back irons to have to play with a muscleback iron, because the cavity backs offer more forgiveness… Read more »