The anchoring debate is an interesting topic.  It seems people are either all for the ban or 100% against the ban.  Webb Simpson tweeted out earlier today this: '2 guys in the top 45 in strokes gained putting category (PGA Tour's most accurate putting stat) use a belly putter or long putter.'

You can argue statistical data all day long on both sides of the anchor ban fence and make great arguments both ways. The above stat thrown out by Webb makes one believe anchor putting has no profound advantage over the short putter. Based off this one piece of data you would be hard pressed to argue against that.

My position on the anchor ban comes from a different angle. In my opinion the question that needs to be addressed is this:
Does anchor putting allow a professional to 'compete' at the highest level?  

As with any individual statement or opinion there is gray area. The gray area in my statement is the word 'compete.'(notice I said at the highest level) How do you define compete? I define compete at the PGA Tour level as the ability to secure your card year in and year out.

If a golfer truly has the yips and they switch from a short putter to an anchor styled putter and the yips are cured this is an advantage. I can't speak for any of the current tour players who anchor on whether they are 'yippers' or not...my guess is they aren't. If they aren't yippers then it's impossible to argue that any of them are gaining an advantage by using the anchored putting style.

A recent conversation with Larry Mowry helped reinforce my above statement. He recently played in the Liberty Mutual Legends Demaret Division using the belly putter and had a severe case of the yips. In his words, "the worst putting of my life." He switched to a 47" long putter and no yips. In my opinion this is an advantage.

I think Bernhard Langer would be a great study regarding this topic. If he was forced to use a 'normal' putter would he be 'competitive' on the Champions Tour? Nobody knows the answer but it sure is fun to debate!!