On the lack of statistical evidence that an anchored stroke is an advantage: "The playing rules are not based on statistical studies; they are based on judgments that define the game and its intended challenges. One of those challenges is to control the entire club, and anchoring alters that challenge.
What bozo wrote this stuff --What contradictory junk. The challenge is altered? How so when the stats say it isn't? Because somebody says so?
"Moreover, the issue is not whether anchoring provides a statistically demonstrable advantage to the average player, or on every stroke or in every circumstance. What matters here is whether, by diminishing obstacles inherent in the traditional stroke, anchoring may advantage some players at other times. Statistics are not necessary to resolve that issue."
This one is hilarious. Stats prove that there is no advantage but stats aren't neccessary because obstacles have been diminished and therefore the stats lie.
• On few using an anchored stroke: "Many golfers believe that anchoring is not a proper way to play the game and have not anchored for that reason. Also, the trend over two decades is toward remarkably increasing use -- a particularly worrisome trend now that beginners and juniors are being taught anchored strokes."
Many golfers believe it's not the way to play the game / remarkably increasing use is the trend. Well which is it? Sounds like a typical old farts argument. It ain't the way we did it so it's wrong. I don't care what the stats say or about the popularity of it. I just want it to be just like it was. What a ridiculous argument especially in golf where absolutely nothing is the same as it was. Not the courses, the balls, the equipment, the training, etc to the enth degree.
|