I only need to hear one person say "I play more now that I can anchor the putter and get past the yips" to understand the anchoring ban is misguided. And as Ian says, the anchoring ban comes from the camp that sees conforming to their norms as protecting their game. This is the same camp that decries cargo shorts and denim, to tell the working class they aren't welcome, to be blunt.
Put me in the camp that says "Spread the word, golf is meant to be fun.". Deal from there and you can't be far wrong.
But what about the argument that there are other things that would get people to participate more? Some guys would play more if they made more birdies and eagles, let's make all par 3s par 4s, 4s 5s and 5s 6s, and look at how many more birdies and eagles everyone is making and how many more people start shooting under par! Those of us who played before the change will always know in the back of our minds it is all a sham, but perhaps after a few decades we'd get used to it and some of us would resist if the USGA tried to take it back. Those who grew up under that system would resist much more, imagining a future in which they never again break par.
If we try to tilt the rules towards increasing participation there are a lot of changes we might make, both the silly (like the above) and those that could change the basic character of the game, like making OB and lost balls distance only penalties (or lateral hazards) or making "winter rules" the law of the land so no one ever has to play out of a divot or bare spot ever again. The only difference between allowing that and anchoring is the latter has been allowed for a couple decades and some people got used to it.
If anchoring had been specifically banned but winter rules had been formalized under the USGA/R&A rules in the mid 80s and they were looking to change that rule, I can well imagine some golfers claiming that change would cause them to participate less, imagining all those times over the years they've saved themselves from an awful fate by rolling the ball over from some guy's attempt to wedge down to China into a perfect lie.
If the rules are to take maximization of participation in account, the USGA might as well stop all research into rolling back the ball, because if people are worried anchoring will reduce participation in a material way, imagine what taking away a lot of people's 300 yard drives would do?
Doug,
Thanks for playing out some of the changes we would make in the rules when dealing from the point of making it more fun. Most of the time I play, even in modest league play, but certainly in recreational play, if a shot is known to be OB or lost we play a provisional, but if the ball should be findable but is not, we usually drop from around where it should be. It's a pace of play thing.
With the kids we'll sometimes let them improve a lie, since playing from under trees and shrubs is not productive.
I personally draw the line on Winter Rules, which is a pox on the game, but I understand why it is so popular. My club excuses away our low maintenance budget by playing winter rules through the season. At least it's acknowledged, I guess.
What's different about all of these rule bendings and the equipment rules violations, and now this pseudo equipment ruling, is that these cheats are n't mutually agreed to and mutually beneficial to all of the players. If we agree to play lost balls as stroke only, later should I lose a ball, I expect to be granted that courtesy. If we agree to winter rules, I expect to improve my lie when I see fit, as I expect you to.
But, if you show up with an illegal driver, anchoring your putts, and non-conforming balls, unless I've invested in illegal armaments, bending the rules provides only unilateral benefits, and that's not fair.