Anchors Away

There's news, of sorts, on the anchoring front. Remember, you were warned.

Per Shackelford, The PGA of America is asking the USGA to amend its recent Rule 14 1-b, which banned anchored putters after January 1, 2016.  The PGA of America, or perhaps more accurately its President, Ted Bishop, is seeking a longer period for amateurs to adjust. Their press release contains the requisite sob stories of ball beaters driven to tears, likely to give up the game if they're unable to sign for a 93, as opposed to a 97.

Now I'm not nearly as unsympathetic as the above sounds, and I'm fully prepared to stipulate that the USGA and R&A had their head in the sand for far too long.  If anchoring the putter against one's body is an advantage, it was logically no less so ten years ago.  

That said, we all live in the real world and understand that the importance of the issue to the game's rules makers may have seemed less urgent when it was used mostly by the round belly set.  It would have been far better to deal with it early, since taking action after majors have been won by anchorers makes the powers that be seem churlish and vindictive.

However, the fundamental question remains is it an advantage and is it in conflict with the understanding of a stroke under the rules of golf.  I think it is, and agreed with the joint USGA/R&A action, though recognizing that it inevitably created an unfair situation for those that had adopted such a mode of putting in perfectly good faith.

It was the result of this unprecedented situation that lead the governing bodies to delay enactment until January 1, 2016.  This was the one aspect of their action with which I disagreed, believing that it puts players at the professional level in an untenable situation.  If Keegan Bradly, to take one example, wins a second major with his putter anchored into his belly doesn't that beg for a Roger Maris-type asterisk?

I could see the logic of a delay, not that I gave it much thought, at the amateur level, though bifurcation has become a four-letter word to the equipment manufacturers.  But what, pray tell, is accomplished by delaying Joe Bag-of-Donuts' day of reckoning another two years?  He's already had more than two years to prepare (actually more, given the extended comment period) to come to grips with it.  Is there anything that can be accomplished in four years but not two?  Do we therefore conclude that Ted Bishop is just playing to the cameras, which has always been my default assumption?