Equipment Question

[birly-shirly]

But you could guess the same about practicing putting with a small hole, and you'll get your feelings hurt if you ask a real putting expert about that.

Ouch!

That's the noise of Dave Pelz hearing that he's not a real putting expert.

For some reason, the thing that people don't really want to talk about in equipment generally, or blades/CBs particularly, is the psychology of your choice. I guess people are maybe worried that they'll sound shallow if they fess up to playing a set of clubs for purely emotional reasons.

But I think it's interesting to contrast Pelz and Bob Rotella on this sort of thing.

Pelz is all about feedback and learning. Putter clips and smaller holes give you immediate feedback on any stroke errors and enhanced learning, or so he thinks at any rate. He also seems to quite like backweighted, high MOI, face-balanced putters and is big on clubfitting. But he also makes an argument in terms very similar to Richie3jack's that using a high-MOI putter can let your stroke get sloppy and that you have to guard against this. In spite of this though, he seems to prefer the more forgiving putter designs.

Bob Rotella on the other hand couldn't give a monkeys whether your putter is fitted, weighted or balanced, so long as you like it. He also wants you to practice actually holing putts, and to that end wants the majority of your putting practice to be done at close range - less than 6 feet away. Make it easy to succeed, not difficult. I think Rotella would want you using whatever putter holes the most putts in practice, because that's going to build your confidence and be more valuable than any learning feedback about why you miss. Then again, I'm sure that if you're standing over an old bullseye and telling yourself - "Damn right I'm a playa wit this old stick" - he'd be cool with that.

If 2 guys with as much distance between them as Pelz and Rotella can't even make up their own minds whether a club design that maximises feedback or forgiveness is the way to go - I'm inclined to think that it doesn't really matter.

Supporting, if not explicitly agreeing with this, Theodore (D-Plane) Jorgensen felt that, in engineering terms, the physical differences between blades and perimeter weighted irons weren't worth worrying about.

Go figure, and play what you like.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I haven't read Pelz's stuff in awhile. Last I heard he liked face balanced putters.

Using the smaller hole analogy isn't a good one when it comes to blades because a smaller hole doesn't test your timing, hand-eye coordination and overall precision in your swing. Hitting blades which test all of that and force the golfer to control the clubface, clubpath and low point does.





3JACK

 

[birly-shirly]

I haven't read Pelz's stuff in awhile. Last I heard he liked face balanced putters.

Using the smaller hole analogy isn't a good one when it comes to blades because a smaller hole doesn't test your timing, hand-eye coordination and overall precision in your swing. Hitting blades which test all of that and force the golfer to control the clubface, clubpath and low point does.

3JACK

I think you're right - isn't the two-ball (which is a Pelz design) face balanced? He also says he likes the forgiveness of heel and toe weighting in his Putting Bible.

The small hole analogy was originally Brian's. I think it works as an analogy - especially if you rely on timing, hand-eye co-ordination and overall precision to square your putter blade at impact.

 

[Richie3Jack]

The small hole analogy was originally Brian's. I think it works as an analogy - especially if you rely on timing, hand-eye co-ordination and overall precision to square your putter blade at impact.

I see it possibly working with aim and making your feel like the hole is bigger than it actually is. But actually stroking the putt and hitting the putt square in the sweetspot, I see no correlation between the two. With a 2-iron blade and swing that on the range, I see and know plenty of correlation between doing that and improving your timing and hand-eye coordination.




3JACK

 

[duckjr78]

I see it possibly working with aim and making your feel like the hole is bigger than it actually is. But actually stroking the putt and hitting the putt square in the sweetspot, I see no correlation between the two. With a 2-iron blade and swing that on the range, I see and know plenty of correlation between doing that and improving your timing and hand-eye coordination.




3JACK

It would seem to me that what you are saying is that while I'm learning to control the clubface, I should suck it up and play the blades. Making the penalty for flipping/not squaring the clubface as obvious as possible should accelerate my learning curve. Am I correct?

 

[ej20]

I think this theory of using MB's to improve your swing is a contentious one.

Does anyone believe Roger Federer would have a better forehand if he played with a wooden raquet?

 

[birly-shirly]

I see it possibly working with aim and making your feel like the hole is bigger than it actually is. But actually stroking the putt and hitting the putt square in the sweetspot, I see no correlation between the two. With a 2-iron blade and swing that on the range, I see and know plenty of correlation between doing that and improving your timing and hand-eye coordination.




3JACK

You don't think squaring the putter at impact and making precise contact on the sweetspot is an issue of timing and co-ordination?

 

[mgranato]

Ouch!

That's the noise of Dave Pelz hearing that he's not a real putting expert.

For some reason, the thing that people don't really want to talk about in equipment generally, or blades/CBs particularly, is the psychology of your choice. I guess people are maybe worried that they'll sound shallow if they fess up to playing a set of clubs for purely emotional reasons.

But I think it's interesting to contrast Pelz and Bob Rotella on this sort of thing.

Pelz is all about feedback and learning. Putter clips and smaller holes give you immediate feedback on any stroke errors and enhanced learning, or so he thinks at any rate. He also seems to quite like backweighted, high MOI, face-balanced putters and is big on clubfitting. But he also makes an argument in terms very similar to Richie3jack's that using a high-MOI putter can let your stroke get sloppy and that you have to guard against this. In spite of this though, he seems to prefer the more forgiving putter designs.

Bob Rotella on the other hand couldn't give a monkeys whether your putter is fitted, weighted or balanced, so long as you like it. He also wants you to practice actually holing putts, and to that end wants the majority of your putting practice to be done at close range - less than 6 feet away. Make it easy to succeed, not difficult. I think Rotella would want you using whatever putter holes the most putts in practice, because that's going to build your confidence and be more valuable than any learning feedback about why you miss. Then again, I'm sure that if you're standing over an old bullseye and telling yourself - "Damn right I'm a playa wit this old stick" - he'd be cool with that.

If 2 guys with as much distance between them as Pelz and Rotella can't even make up their own minds whether a club design that maximises feedback or forgiveness is the way to go - I'm inclined to think that it doesn't really matter.

Supporting, if not explicitly agreeing with this, Theodore (D-Plane) Jorgensen felt that, in engineering terms, the physical differences between blades and perimeter weighted irons weren't worth worrying about.

Go figure, and play what you like.

I think you may be assigning blame where it doesn’t belong. I could be wrong, but I don't think he’s ever advocated a “small hole” or specific type of putter. The “small hole” and larger-putting-ball ideas of learning are someone else’s. He used to have a device called the Truth Board that had the option of narrowing the hole on a 3’ putt, but the intent there is for face angle precision not for the confidence of putting to a small hole. He personally putts with a 2 ball, but states that a player should putt with whatever putter works best for them – the design or weighting makes no difference. He even suggests a test in his book for this. He was the one that proved to Phil that he putted better with his current style than with that nasty looking (my opinion ) Cameron “face balanced” Futura he used to putt with. There are plenty of things to pick at Pelz with, but small holes and faced balanced putters aren’t 2 of them.

Slightly off topic - a putter that hangs from 3:00-9:00 (what’s commonly called faced balanced) is still a toe hanging putter and not face balanced. Face balanced putters hang vertical from 12:00-6:00. Not many of them around, but they are the true “neutral” weighted putters.

 

[TeddyIrons]

I think this theory of using MB's to improve your swing is a contentious one.

Does anyone believe Roger Federer would have a better forehand if he played with a wooden raquet?

It is reported that Roger Federer uses a tennis racquet with a particularly small sweet spot.

 

[birly-shirly]

I wasn't meaning to criticise Pelz at all. Sorry if that didn't come across clearly. I just think it's interesting that he seems to be torn between the value of feedback and forgiveness. You're absolutely right that I was thinking of the Truth Board - but a narrower hole is still a smaller hole, right? And you're right, that it's about narrowing the margin for error in practice rather than building confidence.

If there's a fundamental difference between Pelz and Rotella, I'd say it's that Pelz believes that confidence is the result of precision, and that feedback builds precision. Rotella, I think, believes almost the reverse - that precision is the result of a confident and reactive attitude and stroke.

I also don't think Pelz has got anything to apologise for with regard to face-balanced putters. I'm not so sure of the theory that face-balanced putters work for a SBST stroke and that toe-hanging putters work best with a swinging gate style stroke - but I haven't heard that theory attributed to Pelz.

 

[vjsinger]

It is reported that Roger Federer uses a tennis racquet with a particularly small sweet spot.

IMO, as I said before, Rich has a very valid point. I equate this topic to what I know best, music. Musicians do this all the time, we just call it something different..Practicing extremes. We take an etude, sonata, concerto..whatever, and practice it slowly at first, ingraining the proper style, rhythm, accuracy of pitch, getting the notes etc., then we speed it up. We don't just stop there, that is, we don't stop at the performance tempo. We play it faster, we play it louder, or softer, or higher, or lower, depending on the passage and our goals for that section that we're practicing. We stretch the boundaries and then it makes the gig tempo, or range, or whatever seem that much easier when under the gun. The feeling of, "I've played that section faster than what I have to today", really helps the psychy. So, I say again..practicing with hard to hit clubs, blades in this case, or Martin's Tour Striker, or whatever fancies you, is always a good idea.

 

[savydan]

How about some names of current Tour players who play some sort of cavity backs and say wholeheartedly they practice with blades?

Do Marines "sleep with their rifles" and then go into battle with something else?

Why play mind games with yourself? When the heat is on, do you want feel that I'm good, but not that good?

Pick the equipment that gives you the most confidence the ball is going to go where you want it to go. Save the psycho games for someone else.

 

[vjsinger]

Why do we practice? I'll answer, To improve. Better yet, to improve long term, that is always improving infinitum. If I, or anyone else believes that their practice routine, or pratice methods makes them better long term, and better yet, it actually does. Why would I change it? If my methods of practice help me PERFORM better, with MORE confidence and the method of practice I speak of has been tested..well...

If I walk to a shot, and have a 6 iron in my hands on the 72nd hole and I know I've hit that shot thousands of times in practice with equipment that is MORE difficult to hit and the club I have in my hands at that instance is EASIER to hit, to me that gives me a positive outlook on the upcoming shot and a reason not to be scared of that shot. Who cares what "mental games" you play, if they work.

 

[rogerdodger]

This thread is unlikely to have a definitive answer. Practice wise, the only iron I have used that has helped my game is the tour striker. I grew up with blades, love the look, feel and everything about them. I worked at a golf shop in 1982 and gave up my Ram tour grind blades for Ping Eye2 irons, which came out that year. I hit them better, a club farther and higher. Band-aid, absolutely. I then bought a set of Hogan Edge forged in 1992 and played them for ten years. Went to TaylorMade forged rac's which were incredible. I now play with Ping rapture japan models that have reduced offset. I play once a week, hit balls once a week maybe. I need the forgiveness, it may not help my swing, but a good shot is still a good shot. I know I will get tempted and buy a set of Miura's or other forged blades, will play one time with them, lose money on a bet and be back to Pings. However, I also put with an 8802 putter and cannot putt as well consistently with anything else, so it is not just a sweetspot issue with the putter. In any event, rather than a set of blades to practice with, I say get a tour striker, it really has helped my iron game.

 

[Richie3Jack]

How about some names of current Tour players who play some sort of cavity backs and say wholeheartedly they practice with blades?

It's a good question, but who knows the answer. I'd be willing to bet there are some who do it, but probably most that do not.

But also remember that they play golf for a living and can beat balls for hours on end every single day. Most amateurs don't have that luxury and could use ways to get more out of their limited amount of practice time.

And I don't feel it's a psychological game, but more of a testing your motor skills game. I subscribe to hitting it with your pivot and the D-Plane, but whether I like it or not, there is always going to be some timing and hand-eye coordination involved with hitting the golf ball. So my feeling is why not sharpen that up while I work on the mechanics as well? And not by coincidence, in order for me to stripe a Apex PC 2-iron with a super stiff shaft off the ground, my mechanics had better be pretty precise as well.









3JACK

 

[mgranato]

I wasn't meaning to criticise Pelz at all. Sorry if that didn't come across clearly. I just think it's interesting that he seems to be torn between the value of feedback and forgiveness. You're absolutely right that I was thinking of the Truth Board - but a narrower hole is still a smaller hole, right? And you're right, that it's about narrowing the margin for error in practice rather than building confidence.

If there's a fundamental difference between Pelz and Rotella, I'd say it's that Pelz believes that confidence is the result of precision, and that feedback builds precision. Rotella, I think, believes almost the reverse - that precision is the result of a confident and reactive attitude and stroke.

I also don't think Pelz has got anything to apologise for with regard to face-balanced putters. I'm not so sure of the theory that face-balanced putters work for a SBST stroke and that toe-hanging putters work best with a swinging gate style stroke - but I haven't heard that theory attributed to Pelz.

Interesting synopsis in your second paragraph - very chicken or egg. I haven't read Rotella in a while, but that's an interesting take. To even muddy the waters more, I heard this week on XM, a popular instructor say that he would advise against practicing much from 6' and in. His reasoning was that from that distance the expectation of making the putt is high, so missing them is actually a knock on your confidence. Isn't golf a knock on our confidence?

I'm with you on the putter fitting a stroke shape theory - junk.

 

[savydan]

It's a good question, but who knows the answer. I'd be willing to bet there are some who do it, but probably most that do not.

But also remember that they play golf for a living and can beat balls for hours on end every single day. Most amateurs don't have that luxury and could use ways to get more out of their limited amount of practice time.

And I don't feel it's a psychological game, but more of a testing your motor skills game. I subscribe to hitting it with your pivot and the D-Plane, but whether I like it or not, there is always going to be some timing and hand-eye coordination involved with hitting the golf ball. So my feeling is why not sharpen that up while I work on the mechanics as well? And not by coincidence, in order for me to stripe a Apex PC 2-iron with a super stiff shaft off the ground, my mechanics had better be pretty precise as well.


3JACK

You're probably the idea candidate for that. Plus HC and an amateur. You'll sharpen the skill without a confidence issue.

 

[dbl]

Just wanted to make the joke that Richie (and other's) are saying blades are the true "game improvement" iron.

 

[Richie3Jack]

This past week I've gotten to the point when I go to the range now, the first club I start hitting is my Apex PC 2-iron which has a shaft that's probably close to a X200 or X300.

I look at it this way. I believe not only can it sharpen my precision in my golf swing and lead to better ballstriking....but, you're not supposed to get up out of your and start striping a blade 2-iron off the turf. So, if I do start hitting good shots, then that's a confidence booster. But if I hit terrible shots...well, that's what is supposed to happen and I'll just need some more time to work the kinks out.





3JACK

 

[junkilo]

Haven't been by the forums in a while but just came to a similar conclusion as Brian.

Its early in the season for me, I'm around 15 hcp, and hit alot of stuff thin. I realised that there wasn't a better game improvement cavity back that was made in America than the G15 . Coming from Ping BeNi ISIs, the diff on thin shots alone was worth it too.