Feeling pretty dam stupid

[mgranato]

"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.

Nope, you said it, I saw it!

So, you’re saying you don’t subscribe to the whole “well at least I gave it a chance (as the ball blazes 9’ past the hole)?” The idea that the hole gets smaller as the ball rolls faster is not considered enough, IMO.

I've read both GM's and DP's books a couple times, and as far as what happens as the ball is approaching the hole to just past the hole, I find the themes pretty similar. I just prefer to think in distance/inches over revolutions (I think Birly and I live in a 2D world).

 

[softconsult]

I just prefer to think in distance/inches over revolutions (I think Birly and I live in a 2D world).

I agree with you. I went back and looked at the video. He's saying that a roll is approximately a hand length.
He's not advocating counting rolls (tough to picture doing that). Three hand lengths is inside the leather. Four is still OK.
Five is potential 3 putt territory.

 

[Jwat]

GM has changed my putting for good. For someone who was avg 41 putts per round and now down to 33 his info is worth reading. Especially his free youtube videos. He does knock Pelz pretty good in his forum, but for good reason. He wants to take the mechanical out of putting and employ your natural hand/eye coordination. For most of us that is a pretty good upgrade.

 

[birly-shirly]

GM has changed my putting for good. For someone who was avg 41 putts per round and now down to 33 his info is worth reading. Especially his free youtube videos. He does knock Pelz pretty good in his forum, but for good reason. He wants to take the mechanical out of putting and employ your natural hand/eye coordination. For most of us that is a pretty good upgrade.

Sounds good. I know more about Pelz than about GM, and I'm very selective about what I take from Pelz. But I've worked hard over the winter on training sweetspot contact but no other mechanical aspects of the stroke. I think that training intuitive hand-eye co-ordination is key and that getting hung-up on stroke mechanics is an easy way to mess yourself up.

I'm trying to be cautious in my enthusiasm until I have more rounds under my belt - but on my one outing so far this year I managed to do what I've struggled to do for the last few years and I combined a decent number of GiRs with statistically average putting. Any more of that and I'll be well pleased - and DP will get a large part of the credit.

 

[Jwat]

Sounds good. I know more about Pelz than about GM, and I'm very selective about what I take from Pelz. But I've worked hard over the winter on training sweetspot contact but no other mechanical aspects of the stroke. I think that training intuitive hand-eye co-ordination is key and that getting hung-up on stroke mechanics is an easy way to mess yourself up.

I'm trying to be cautious in my enthusiasm until I have more rounds under my belt - but on my one outing so far this year I managed to do what I've struggled to do for the last few years and I combined a decent number of GiRs with statistically average putting. Any more of that and I'll be well pleased - and DP will get a large part of the credit.

I love to hear about improvements in putting. At my course I see so many people go hit balls on the range and then just drive straight over to the 1st tee. Putting is the key to lowering anyone's scores.

As far as Pelz is concerned, his statistical analysis just doesn't work for me and never has. Maybe I am a bit bias now since my putting has improved so drastically with Mangum. His views and outlooks reminds me every bit of the way Manzella and the instructors view the golf swing. In his forum he has gone back and disproved his original theories and his terminology is always evolving.

Not to directly pick on Pelz, but what has changed in his theory since the 70's? If it is nothing, than most of the guys on the forum would be reluctant to follow. Having said that, I am all for what works for you as an individual.

 

[softconsult]

The thing I like most about GM is that when he disagrees with something espoused by another putting instructor, take Pelz' putter clips for example. Instead of just saying they are useless, he explains it by referencing science. I can't remember the specifics, but it had to do with learning theory of some sort. Granted, reading his responses requires some focus as they are often long and very detailed. Fascinating.

 

[Jwat]

I agree totally Steve. I think sometimes he could explain in a little simpler terms, but then he wouldn't be backing up his thoughts with science. Even if I only get 20% of what he is saying, it seems to me that his 20% is still better for me than the other putting guru's except for Stockton. I really like alot of his technique and so does Mangum.

 

[birly-shirly]

The thing I like most about GM is that when he disagrees with something espoused by another putting instructor, take Pelz' putter clips for example. Instead of just saying they are useless, he explains it by referencing science. I can't remember the specifics, but it had to do with learning theory of some sort. Granted, reading his responses requires some focus as they are often long and very detailed. Fascinating.

I'd be really curious to hear anyone's objections to putter clips.

 

[softconsult]

Birly, I PM'd the link. What's pretty ironic is that GM has Teacher Clips for sale on his site, and then pooh-poohs them in the link I'm sending you.

 

[savydan]

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!

So a ball rolling 5 revs per second could never drop??

 

[softconsult]

I don't have the e-book, but those rps and capture widths are just illustrating that in order to go in, the ball must drop past it's equator. As speed increases balls will hit the edges of the hole and not drop. The faster the roll the more the putt has to be center cut in order to drop. 5 rps within a 1.5" strip down the center will drop. GM has formulas to prove this concept. Maybe ScottRob will clarify.

 

[savydan]

A 1.68 ball can't drop in a 1.5 effective width unless you have a goofy definition of effective width.

 

[sharkey35]

YouTube - One Best Delivery Speed for Touch from Physics

Maybe this will help the discussion.

 

[cmartingolf]

I like GM's stuff. I bought his video with Elk and enjoyed it. He paints some pictures that have helped me with line, speed and touch. Very simple and enlightening stuff.

Yes, a ball with 5 revs per second can certainly drop!

I'm pretty aggressive on shorties, because I KNOW I can hit a quarter from inside three feet 99.9% of the time. Of course, the only time I can't is if I talk myself out of it. As the putts get longer, I try and use more of the hole and the revs go down.

 

[ScottRob]

You can jam 'em in all day long. However, the effective width of the hole diminishes as the delivery speed increases. Of course, this is the old debate about dieing putts v. never up never in. I'm not a good representative of GM's research. I am relatively new to it, and I am still chewing on his stuff. The e-book is worth perusing.

Like Brian and a small cabbal of others GM cites credible sources and does not pull this stuff out his butt. He seems like a very serious man! I like him.