Feeling pretty dam stupid

[softconsult]

So sometime early last year I abandoned the Stan Utley putting method and went back to pendulum putting. I bought this Taylormade Spider putter on e-Bay and putted pretty well for the rest of the year.

Now I have been studying Mangum, and I like his ideas. So I need this putter to be more upright. I have been operating under the assumption that the lie angle was standard at 71 degrees. I go to Dick's and, luckily, the guy behind the golf desk is older and has years of club building experience. Got it situated in the Mitchell machine. What is the lie angle?
65 degrees!! I never thought to have it checked. So it bent nicely, but I just cant believe I'm that stupid.

 

[dominicscaife]

Everyone makes mistakes...

65 or 71 degree's ... you thought you were putting well with it not to need a change so it should be interesting to see if you improve at all now it's 'technically correct'.

Side note... Taylor Made putters work really well for me... I also love Mangum's pendulum stroke principles and do the same...

I'm curious about what your new lie angle, height and weight is after you've bent it?
Is it the big spider or the mini spider?
Center shafted or heel shafted?

Cut down on golf forum time due to business committments so I am curious what Mangum's recommending... since I'm a one forum man these days

 

[birdie_man]

I'm not sure I get it Steve. Was it supposed to be 65? You putted pretty good with it anyway, you said.

What of Mangum's ideas are you trying to put into play?

 

[softconsult]

What I like about the guy is that he is like Brian's "Baloney" , but on steriods. Encyclopedic is the word.
Gave Aimpoint's Mark Sweeney a book written in the early 80's that discusses the same topics. Mangum diagrees with Aimpoint because the formulas can't capture the speed of the putt. He hugely disagrees with Pelz on the role it past the hole 17 inches thing.

Here it is relative to the putter fitting for his method.

1. If you simply bend over and let your arms hang down, for most people, you lower hand will be almost to the end of the grip on a 35 inch putter. He believes that for a pendulum stroke a putter that is too long causes you to bend your elbows, which introduces subtle tension. Putters are too long. He cautions to go slow on the trimming, as you can always go shorter. I tipped it 1 1/4 inches.

2. Eyes directly over the ball. I have followed the eyes inside the line rule for ever.
He talks a lot about facing the line with your face, versus your eyes. Very interesting stuff.

3. Lie angles too flat, as opposed to Utley's lie angles too upright. Both can be correct. Utley preaches arc (gated), Mangum pendulum not gated.

We went to 74 degrees. It looks like it is soled perfectly now. Specifically, the putter is a Taylormade "Itsy Bitsy Spider", Plumbers Neck, 35 inches long and factory Lie angle 70 degrees, factory loft 2.5 degrees,Iomic grip. Measured lie/loft prior to bending 65 / 4. After bending 74 / 4. Weights are factory standard, but I have the heavier ones and may experiment again. They were too heavy at 35 inches. Swingweight was somewhere around E5, now D5.


As always, we shall see as the season progresses. I play about 60 times a year on a rotating schedule of 24 different courses. Our league software, which I wrote, captures scores and number of putts so I can compare actual data year to year.

 

[mgranato]

In golf, if this is what makes you feel less-than-smart - you are miles ahead of the competition.

I usually get that "stupid" feeling a couple times a 9.

 

[softconsult]

Ain't that the truth!

 

[ScottRob]

I am still chewing on Optimal Putting 2 years after purchasing the e-book version. I have benefited the most in reading putts. I always work on 1 of the 4 skills he lists as the keys to optimal putting. I used to HATE putting. I did not undestand the apex v. aimpoint deal. These days with a better understanding of how to read putts I am starting to enjoy putting practice and working out the puzzle that each putt presents when playing.

I am struggling to find a putter that sits nice and flat i.e. does not have a significant curve to the sole. Mangum beleives this to be a key feature of a good putter, especially in aiming. I also adopted the "two pistols" which has the effect of leveling the shoulders.

Mangum's bibliography is longer than most putting book out there! There are not too many people willing to do the kind of research he has done.

 

[softconsult]

I also detest practicing putting. Last year I practiced short game for many, many hours. This year I intend, emphasis on intend, to practice putting. Might even go so far as to put up some string.

The most intriguing concept to me is the idea that if you put down a club three rolls of the ball in back of the hole, and simply trust your swing, then your mind/body will prevent you from going past the club. He has a detailed explanation, but that's the concept.

 

[birdie_man]

What does GM say on speed/distance past the hole on misses?

It must depend on the person too, and probably also conditions, is what comes to my mind.

 

[softconsult]

Gist of it is that if your putt goes maximum 3 rolls past the hole, then you are golden and have a high percentage comeback putt. Furthermore, the chances of the putt falling far enough into the cup are decreased if the ball rolls over the hole too fast.

 

[birly-shirly]

Is 3 rolls past the hole a "huge disagreement" with Pelz? I make 3 rolls of a ball to be 3.14 x 1.68 x 3 = 15.8 inches.

Pelz says 17" is optimal for the ball to fall in the cup and not be diverted by surface irregularities - although I think he says that the precise figure varies with the situation but that 17" is a good approximation for learning touch. He accepts that from a certain distance, your focus should shift from trying to hole the putt to leaving it stone dead. Personally, I think that the poorer a putter you are, the more and the shorter are the putts that you ought to be trying to lag to the hole rather than roll them past.

 

[softconsult]

GM is not saying 3 rolls past is optimal holeing speed, he is saying if you can stop the ball within 3 rolls you have a high percentage come back putt. He thinks the 17" rule for optimal speed is laughable. Not sure we should chat up competitor sites too much here.

 

[birly-shirly]

I didn't really see the commercial conflict when we're talking about putting specialists.

Also, my understanding of where Brian wants the forum to go is that we can discuss conclusions, facts or theories, so long as we don't get into tribal slanging matches. I don't think we're going to go there, are we Steve?

If anything, I think this is an example of manufactured dissent. What struck me is the similarity between 17" and 3 rolls of the ball. And to compare apples with apples, you need to factor in that Pelz is talking ONLY about the optimal pace to allow a putt to drop. He's not interested in the one back, but if you can consistently roll the ball to 17" past you're not going to miss many. It all depends on how consistent your distance control is.

Personally, I see no reason to doubt the 17" rule. But personally, until I stop 3 putting, I think my smarter strategy is to lag most of my putts, aim for a shorter roll-past, and accept that I'm going to be short and dead-centre now and again. If and when my touch improves, I'll probably practice a slightly more aggressive strategy. My understanding of Pelz is that the 17" rule is a necessary simplification. He believes that touch and distance control are instinctive and that you need to groove a feel for rolling the ball a consistent distance from your target. Physics might dictate varying delivery speeds for different greens, slopes etc - but this is difficult to practice and ingrain.

Maybe I'm missing some piece of GM's thinking. I'm going largely on what you're written here by way of summary.

 

[wulsy]

Some of these gurus crack me up. They've got an answer and a statistic to back up every answer and statistic. To be honest after I found out that Pelz was seriously misguided, I just went back to trying to hit the ball into the hole. Like I did when I was a kid. And I holed a lot of putts when I was a kid. Used to open the face on the backswing and close it on the throughswing. Everyone said my putting action was a joke, mainly because I'd just putted them off the course and they couldn't handle it. The I started listening to the experts - and guess what - yes I got the mini-yips. BTW, once a yipper always a yipper, so be careful!!!

 

[mgranato]

GM is not saying 3 rolls past is optimal holeing speed, he is saying if you can stop the ball within 3 rolls you have a high percentage come back putt. He thinks the 17" rule for optimal speed is laughable. Not sure we should chat up competitor sites too much here.

Help me understand this...

If the ball goes by the hole 3 revolutions (15.8"), that is considered good. Doesn't that also mean that is the correct holing speed? Since we don't putt to miss, but a miss should be 15.8" past when it doesn't go in - that tells me that that same speed is the correct holing speed. So, if 15.8" (3 revs) is the correct/serious miss distance (or speed), than why is 17" (3.5 revs) the laughable distance (or speed)?

Can you tell, from the putters perspective, when the ball makes 3 complete revolutions?

From my simpleton pov, when I give the putt enough speed to finish between 1'-2' past the hole (on a miss), I've done all I need to do from a speed/touch perspective. I don't fist pump when it goes 3 revolutions and stops, nor do I embarrassingly giggle when it goes 3.53 revolutions. As long as it goes by the hole with enough authority to stop and not have to worry about the next one, I think that's good speed/distance.

Is that a bad way of thinking about optimal speed?

 

[softconsult]

Yes, in order to really understand GM's approach, you really need to read his book or buy his DVD, or read some of his forum posts. The posts are amazingly detailed, and very logically thought out. I have both of DP's books and took them as definitive until discovering GM.

 

[birly-shirly]

Some of these gurus crack me up. They've got an answer and a statistic to back up every answer and statistic. To be honest after I found out that Pelz was seriously misguided, I just went back to trying to hit the ball into the hole. Like I did when I was a kid. And I holed a lot of putts when I was a kid. Used to open the face on the backswing and close it on the throughswing. Everyone said my putting action was a joke, mainly because I'd just putted them off the course and they couldn't handle it. The I started listening to the experts - and guess what - yes I got the mini-yips. BTW, once a yipper always a yipper, so be careful!!!

Just for the avoidance of doubt - I make a clear distinction between Pelz' research into how the ball behaves once it's left the club, and his theories on how to make an optimal stroke. My guess is that so too do many of the elite players that he works with. I don't know how many of them have SBST putting strokes, or Finesse Grips, or World Class Finishes...

However, I don't think one necessarily invalidates the other.

 

[birly-shirly]

Help me understand this...

If the ball goes by the hole 3 revolutions (15.8"), that is considered good. Doesn't that also mean that is the correct holing speed? Since we don't putt to miss, but a miss should be 15.8" past when it doesn't go in - that tells me that that same speed is the correct holing speed. So, if 15.8" (3 revs) is the correct/serious miss distance (or speed), than why is 17" (3.5 revs) the laughable distance (or speed)?

Can you tell, from the putters perspective, when the ball makes 3 complete revolutions?

From my simpleton pov, when I give the putt enough speed to finish between 1'-2' past the hole (on a miss), I've done all I need to do from a speed/touch perspective. I don't fist pump when it goes 3 revolutions and stops, nor do I embarrassingly giggle when it goes 3.53 revolutions. As long as it goes by the hole with enough authority to stop and not have to worry about the next one, I think that's good speed/distance.

Is that a bad way of thinking about optimal speed?

That would be my understanding too. Which does indeed place you at risk of simpletonism.

 

[softconsult]

"Is that a bad way of thinking about optimal speed"

This is the danger of someone, in this case me, trying to explain in a few sentences, what someone else has taken paragraphs or pages to explain.

I think your optimal speed description is pretty close to GM's. His concept is that 3 rolls past represents your safe zone. He believes we all have built in rhythm and tempo that will handle the speed of the putt more easily if we have the mental image of a line 3 rolls past the hole.
He is not saying to roll it 3 rolls past the hole. He spends time discussing what is obvious after you hear it. The slower the ball is rolling as it encounters the hole, the more chance it will be able to drop down enough to stay in the hole. As putts deviate from the centerline of the hole, the speed becomes more important. Explains it with physics. He also concedes that there are many ways to make a putt and it is critical to weigh your options.

 

[ScottRob]

Ya, you gotta read the e-book. What I took away from the speed is the importance of delivery speed and the influence it has on the effective width of the hole.

if the ball reaches the hole at 8rps (Arnie on roids) the effective capture width of the hole is no wider than a ball dimple wide
7rps - 11/4 inch wide
6rps - 1 inch
5 rps - 1.5 inches
4 rps - 2 inches
3 rps - 2.5 inches
2 rps - 3.0 inches
1 rps - 3.5 inches
0+- 4.25 inches

I think GM concedes that 0+ has some problems, and that 2-3 rps is a good trade off for general purposes.

I think Damon is an expert on what GM teaches. I can tell you one thing it is the most extensive treatment of putting...EVER. Another thing I like about it is the extensive bibliography. GM gives credit to his sources. If you have a golf library, Optimal Putting should be in it. also GM is not dogmatic about what manner of stroke you want to employ, although he has strong preferences. I run from dogmatic methodologists!