Tim Clark and the Anchoring Ban

Because an anchored putting method is no longer "a stroke". Obvious I'd have thought

It currently is a stroke actually :thup:

Has been for hundreds of years since the game was invented. A couple majors are won and they have decided to "change" the rules in 2016.
 
Only a minority of people are criminals, so why bother sending them to prison?!!!

Irrelevant

What would you say if they banned the claw grip because it helped people putt and get over the yips ?
 
It currently is a stroke actually :thup:

Has been for hundreds of years since the game was invented. A couple majors are won and they have decided to "change" the rules in 2016.

Absolutely crazy to think they copped a strop because someone won a major with a long putter. It is the stroke they have deemed as illegal from next year. If you think that, why didn't they ban hybrids when Choi won with about 5 in the bag?
 
Absolutely crazy to think they copped a strop because someone won a major with a long putter. It is the stroke they have deemed as illegal from next year. If you think that, why didn't they ban hybrids when Choi won with about 5 in the bag?

So why didnt they ban it previously until 3 people won a major using it then ? Will they continue to allow counter balance putters if more people win with thoses beyond Rose ?

And its from 2016 i believe its illegal
 
Irrelevant

What would you say if they banned the claw grip because it helped people putt and get over the yips ?

I would say if that is the ruling, then I would have to comply with it. The ruling bodies have the right to review unusual equipment or use of at any time. "Yips" is a consequence of the player and is not a recognised medical condition. "Get over it" springs to mind in this situation and to anybody else who thinks the rules don't apply to them or are in some way traumatised by not getting their own way.
 
I would say if that is the ruling, then I would have to comply with it. The ruling bodies have the right to review unusual equipment or use of at any time. "Yips" is a consequence of the player and is not a recognised medical condition. "Get over it" springs to mind in this situation and to anybody else who thinks the rules don't apply to them or are in some way traumatised by not getting their own way.

So you think the rules being re written to cover a non problem is a good thing?
 
So you think the rules being re written to cover a non problem is a good thing?

I didn't say that. I said if that were the case, then I would comply with the rules. If for some reason they deemed wearing the colour green non-conforming, then the same would apply. The rules can be written and re-written as many times as deemed necessary - until such time as anchored strokes become legal (at whatever time), then I'm afraid the non-conformists will have to think of another way to hold a putter - *hint* you might try holding it in a similar manner to the rest of the clubs in your bag.
 
Irrelevant

What would you say if they banned the claw grip because it helped people putt and get over the yips ?

I would just change to putting left hand below right, as long as they don't ban that as well! The rules don't change until 2016 anyway, so plenty of warning given. ;)
 
I would just change to putting left hand below right, as long as they don't ban that as well! The rules don't change until 2016 anyway, so plenty of warning given. ;)

If they ban anchoring what's to stop the claw grip or left below right being next?
 
Anchored strokes aren't currently illegal, hence the re write

When else have the rules been retrospectively changed ?

Some forms of anchored strokes are currently legal - others aren't. The argument is about a forthcoming rule change which (allegedly) will have an adverse effect on some players. Rules are changed and reviewed on many occasions - not just about equipment (e.g. ball size and weight, grooves and CoR of drivers) but all other rules. In other words, at some point a method of play or procedure is conforming and after review, it isn't. For the reasons outlined (you can read it yourself at the R&A website) anchored putting will cease to be conforming in the future. There is a clause currently in the rules (rule 14) which allows equipment to be used by medical exemption, but this must be transparent and proven. Tim Clark's case falls short of this, simply because the other 13 clubs in his bag do not carry the same perceived disadvantage when the ruling is applied. Remember the "level playing field" part? He either has medical condition which allows exemption, or he doesn't. I'm not a doctor, but I can see he is being rather selective about his condition - and I would think the ruling bodies would agree. Nice try Tim, but get back to work.
 
And posting with the sole intention to have a pop at me adds so much to the thread ( which appeared to have no issues until you arrived )
to quote you "have you read all the threads"

unbelievable!................you'd argue with yourself if no-one else posted
 
Absolutely crazy to think they copped a strop because someone won a major with a long putter. It is the stroke they have deemed as illegal from next year. If you think that, why didn't they ban hybrids when Choi won with about 5 in the bag?
It was YE Yang who won a major with a load hybrids
 
You can tell it's chucking it down outside.. Little arguments starting everywhere..:D Really warms the cockles to read all the petty bitchiness (myself included on the vote thread) ;)
 
to quote you "have you read all the threads"

unbelievable!................you'd argue with yourself if no-one else posted

Another one who missed the point totally - oh well
 
Top