We have been told that there will probably be a definitive ruling on the so-called “Belly Putter” by the end of the year, and, as could have been predicted, there are opinions on both sides of the issue.  I thought I’d weigh in on the issue with a perspective you may not have considered.

Inevitably, when guys begin to win with any type of new equipment, critics will emerge, either out of true concern for preserving the integrity of the game, or maybe, just maybe, because they consider it an unfaire edge.  Yes, it could be simple jealousy.

The major culprits thus far have been limited to increased distance or spin.  The “powers-that-be” felt it necessary to enforce conformity restrictions.

 
-  Distance clubs were restricted by size and composition. 
-  Wedges were confined by groove size and shape.
-  Balls were constricted by size, structure, and formulation.

 
I disagreed with all of these because I believe that to do so is to deny the advancements of technology.  The scientific community makes strides each and every day and to deny their advancements contradicts the very reason of their existence.

My point of reference is simple.   As a guy who an instructor once told that “... when you hit the ball straight, you’ve made a mistake ...” I know, all too well, that golf is a game of execution, repetition, and control.

 
Giving players all the distance on the planet does not guarantee that they can hit the ball straighter, nor shape their shot more accurately.  No set of wedges will enhance play unless the player can consistently execute since no two shots are ever the same.

So, you would think that I’d simply discount the “Belly Putter” discussion right out of hand.   Well, you’d be wrong.   I actually think that outlawing any anchored putter is a correct thing to do.  Here’s why:

The efficacy of the “Belly Putter,” or an anchored Putter is simple geometry.  It works because it removes a percentage of that execution, repetition, and control that I spoke of.  Anchoring the Putter creates a fulcrum point on which the Putter always pivots exactly the same way throughout the Round.  It matters not if the pivot point be the chin, sternum, navel, or any other anatomical point as long as it is more stable than loose arms.  The only variable is the pressure exerted in making the stroke that controls distance.  It creates as close to a pendulum as possible.

Every other club in the bag requires the player to create and maintain the pendulum effect independent of an anchor.  Putting ought to be the same.

Now, all that said, I do not see the “powers-that-be” totally eliminating the use of an anchored Putter.  I expect them to do the same thing they have done before.  I expect them to restrict it ever so slightly.
I say this because the last thing they want is to be sued and lose in the way they did with Casey Martin.  Casey would inevitably go away to a certain extent.  The increasing number of players winning with an anchored Putter, and some of them vowing to fight against banning it, means it will stay.

 
It is wrong, indeed, but so is the double-standard of still allowing Tour players to wear metal spikes.  That issue took care of itself because the shoe manufacturers supported "soft spikes," I maintain, because it meant more revenue.  Reducing the wide array of Putter styles would do the same thing.  The last thing anyone wants is an equipment war with manufacturers, or the players they pay to endorse their products like billboards.

 
A telling line from “The Right Stuff” sez it all:  “... no bucks, no Buck Rogers ...” and so, the anchored Putter will stay because it makes it makes dollars and cents to the very people who have the most to lose by it’s exclusion.