Putting mechanics

[Todd Dugan]

That's great Todd, but what if that isn't the best way for a particular person to putt? It's not the way Ben Crenshaw putted. Or Bobby Locke. Or Bobby Jones. C'mon, the list goes on and on. You could even argue that it's not how Jack putted.

There is no "perfect" way to putt simply because it is almost entirely "feel" based. There is a "weight" to the stroke that can't really be quantified.

Tell me, have you ever seen two elite dart throwers use an identical, standard motion? Won't happen. The "perfect" stroke just ain't for everyone.

Hi, Duck. In theory,why wouldn't you want your club to move ON a straight line throughout the entire stroke? Note, not OVER a straight line, ON a straight line. Only an in-plane stroke sees the club continually on a straight line. And most all of the great putters have have in-plane strokes including Jones, Nicklaus, Faxon. There are very few Lauren Roberts-type putters out there who are intentionally trying to keep the clubhead over the Target Line. I would say that nearly everybody would improve performance by making an in-plane stroke. They just need a little help with the mechanics involved and to get past the confusion of ON vs. OVER a straight line.

 

[birly-shirly]

I don't really see a great analogy between pendulum motion and putting unless:

(1) the pendulum moves in a vertical plane; and
(2) the acceleration of the putter on the downstroke is purely the result of gravity and the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy.

If those don't apply, then maybe it's a helpful metaphor or swingthought (in which case, more power to you) but it doesn't seem to me to be anything more compelling.

 

[bcoak]

Putted yesterday and rolled it great when all I thought about was constant grip pressure thru whole swing (works great for me ion full swing too) and just letting the ball get in the way.

It is hard to do, but if you can get a routine, go thru it every time, and if you stick to that routine and still miss you should not be upset b/c you stuck to the routine. Gets you away from thinking about making it. Harder said than done.

 

[Damon Lucas]

Very good points, Birly, and bcoak! Video would definitely lead someone to believe that a putting stroke operates on a straight plane. Problem is that it is a simplification that is not helpful unless you're trying to impress someone with the 'look' of your stroke. It may help novice golfers to be less disasterous with their strokes.

The putterface needs to be square or as close to square at impact, and preferably around impact. Way too much air time is given to the stroke in this respect anyway. Distance control is out in front, and for shorter putts aim is pretty big.

It sounds like you are on a decent track, bcoak, and are starting to get comfortable with what's important, and how to achieve that!

 

[Todd Dugan]

I don't really see a great analogy between pendulum motion and putting unless:

(1) the pendulum moves in a vertical plane; and
(2) the acceleration of the putter on the downstroke is purely the result of gravity and the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy.

If those don't apply, then maybe it's a helpful metaphor or swingthought (in which case, more power to you) but it doesn't seem to me to be anything more compelling.

A pendulum can't swing on an inclined plane?
Is a clock pendulum powered by gravity alone?
Can the golf stroke swing the club in-plane about a fixed axis as a clock pendulum does?

 

[fanofSnead]

I have always been a poor putter, this year I commited to the SeeMore putter and Pat O'Brien method and have never putted better. I prefer the FGP Mallett model which I got used for $60.

If anyone has any questions on this method let me know.

The only other way of putting I would reccomend is the one Todd Dugan mentioned, tracing the plane line w/ #3 PP using angle hinge. (see Brians "sherriff")

 

[birly-shirly]

A pendulum can't swing on an inclined plane?
Is a clock pendulum powered by gravity alone?
Can the golf stroke swing the club in-plane about a fixed axis as a clock pendulum does?

In my opinion:

(a) not in the real world it can't;
(b) no. But are you saying that in a putting stroke the body adds only enough power (and no more) to overcome frictional losses and replicate the gravitational acceleration of a true pendulum?
(c) no.

I strongly suspect that you'll disagree with my answers. But as I said before, if it works then great. You might just have a great putting stroke. I just think that you're over-stretching the pendulum analogy.

I'm pretty sure that one of your exemplars (Jack) didn't putt with the frozen left wrist that you prescribed.

Maybe all you're doing is reacting against a SBST stroke. I have a hard time envisaging how you can tell whether Jack, or Tiger, or anyone else inside the ropes who comes a little inside either side of the ball is truly on plane. And I'm not sure that it matters either. To the best of my knowledge, the Stocktons couldn't care less about planar motion, still less SBST. Dave likes a little loop. Like Damon says, making such a big deal out of path runs the risk of underplaying the importance of face alignment and touch.

 

[faux_maestro]

In my opinion:

(a) not in the real world it can't;
(b) no. But are you saying that in a putting stroke the body adds only enough power (and no more) to overcome frictional losses and replicate the gravitational acceleration of a true pendulum?
(c) no.

I strongly suspect that you'll disagree with my answers. But as I said before, if it works then great. You might just have a great putting stroke. I just think that you're over-stretching the pendulum analogy.

I'm pretty sure that one of your exemplars (Jack) didn't putt with the frozen left wrist that you prescribed.

Maybe all you're doing is reacting against a SBST stroke. I have a hard time envisaging how you can tell whether Jack, or Tiger, or anyone else inside the ropes who comes a little inside either side of the ball is truly on plane. And I'm not sure that it matters either. To the best of my knowledge, the Stocktons couldn't care less about planar motion, still less SBST. Dave likes a little loop. Like Damon says, making such a big deal out of path runs the risk of underplaying the importance of face alignment and touch.

Of course we know that face angle is more important, but is it possible that if we get a consistent path we can make adjustments in face angle just by watching the roll of the ball? If we have a zeroed out path with zero AoA, wouldn't it then be easier than a full swing to zero out the face? More factors seem to effect the flight of full shots, but with a line on the ball we can see in the first few feet if the ball is rolling end over end.

I guess I am a little more mechanical in thought in my stroke. Of course I'm better when I just freewheel but I like to train the stroke so I can trust it.

 

[Joe Duffer]

To the best of my knowledge, the Stocktons couldn't care less about planar motion, still less SBST. Dave likes a little loop.

When you say loop, are you referring to a loop similar to what Crenshaw and Mickelson employ?

 

[dbl]

An article on "piston putting", certainly an anti pendulum stroke.

This unique putting method makes long lags like tap-ins - Instruction - Golf.com

And a second article on the same method claims Nicklaus as the poster boy:

The Piston Stroke is reminiscent of the method used by Jack Nicklaus, arguably one of the best Putters in the History of Golf.
... Take a look at vintage footage of Mr. Nicklaus. Notice the position of his Back Forearm & Elbow (“bent on parallel”) and how his entire Back Arm "Moves the Stroke" Parallel Back & Through as would a Machine Like Piston!

 

[johnnymarlboro]

It's pretty crazy how bent over Jack was when he putted. Especially in the early days. I have the Wonderful World of Golf Snead vs. Nicklaus from 1963, just after his rookie season, and Jack was practically as bent over as you would be picking the ball out of the hole.

Here's a picture from the Masters website. I didn't want to post the actual picture since I'm not sure if that's allowed.
http://www.masters.com/images/pics/thumbs/t_greenprep_nicklaus_angc_83121395_030911.jpg

 

[Joe Duffer]

Can the body be too quiet during the putting motion?

 

[birly-shirly]

When you say loop, are you referring to a loop similar to what Crenshaw and Mickelson employ?

Crenshaw - yes, I think so. Mickelson? I don't know - just haven't really watched his stroke. Stockton's reasoning is that a slight loop is good insurance against getting too bound up in the mechanics of stroke path. For what it's worth - I imagine that a loop feels good to people who are intuitively into rhythm and smoothness as there's less of an abrupt change of direction.

 

[Todd Dugan]

A "loop"? You gotta be kidding me. Stockton's teaching teaching pure "opinion". And Mickelson hasn't gotten ANY better at putting.

Y'all.......strap a green laser pointer to the shaft of your putter and notice how natural, repeatable,and pure it is to keep the laser pointing to a straight line on the ground. When that straight line parallels the Intended Start Line AND impact is at Low Point, then the clubhead will be traveling directly at the Intended Start Line at impact. The clubface is set vertical to the plane, sqaure to the Intended Start Line at address and will return naturally back to that position at impact AS LONG AS you don't do something to disrupt that, namely independednt left wrist rotation (pronation/supination). It's that simple.

 

[otto6457]

Can the body be too quiet during the putting motion?

Yep....I was. I was too static with no flow to my stroke. Brian loosened me up so much I felt like a rag doll in a gale. But when he showed me a video , I looked pretty normal.

 

[birly-shirly]

Todd - from your description, I think it follows that the plane you're describing encompasses the shaft at address. Yes?

And, does the stroke you're advocating differ from what Stan Utley teaches?

I take it you're not knocking "opinion". Surely, as a teacher, you'd agree that (expert) opinion is often of more practical value than pure science.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Todd - from your description, I think it follows that the plane you're describing encompasses the shaft at address. Yes?

And, does the stroke you're advocating differ from what Stan Utley teaches?

I take it you're not knocking "opinion". Surely, as a teacher, you'd agree that (expert) opinion is often of more practical value than pure science.

Hi, Birly. Stan does promote an "on plane" stroke. Yet he also advocates hitting "down, impact before Low Point. I wonder if he knows that the the "true path" is rightward before Low Point. He also advocates moving the clubhead much more than the hands. He does this himself with wrist hinge but doesn't cover that important mechanical component at all in his book. Stan's great. I just don't think he has a strong understanding the geometry and mechanics of the in-plane stroke that he himself advocates.

Stockton, on the other hand, teaches a collection of "tips". Almost no science. Mostly opinion. Personally, I take pride in not giving any information in my lessons that is not proven science.

 

[gmbtempe]

Hi, Birly. Stan does promote an "on plane" stroke. Yet he also advocates hitting "down, impact before Low Point. I wonder if he knows that the the "true path" is rightward before Low Point. He also advocates moving the clubhead much more than the hands. He does this himself with wrist hinge but doesn't cover that important mechanical component at all in his book. Stan's great. I just don't think he has a strong understanding the geometry and mechanics of the in-plane stroke that he himself advocates.

Stockton, on the other hand, teaches a collection of "tips". Almost no science. Mostly opinion. Personally, I take pride in not giving any information in my lessons that is not proven science.

I think of Stockton more as a mental coach rather then getting to caught up in the mechanics of the stroke.

ball forward, open stance-forward press, grip in fingers..........does he have much more than that?

I like his stuff about routine much better.

 

[johnnymarlboro]

Todd, if you want to talk about techniques you advocate, I think that is wonderful as there are plenty of other instructors on here who do the same. But you really ought to leave trashing other instructors, especially tour proven ones, out of it. Particularly when you're wrong about them. Utley specifically talks in his book about gripping the club a certain way so you don't actively use wrist hinge, and instead use a slight bending and straightening of the elbow. Pages 41 and 42 if you want specifics. He doesn't go into those details you mention, because he wants his book to be accessible and simple for the average person to understand. THAT is why he's a good teacher.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Todd, if you want to talk about techniques you advocate, I think that is wonderful as there are plenty of other instructors on here who do the same. But you really ought to leave trashing other instructors, especially tour proven ones, out of it. Especially when you're wrong about them. Utley specifically talks in his book about gripping the club a certain way so you don't actively use wrist hinge, and instead use a slight bending and straightening of the elbow. Pages 41 and 42 if you want specifics. He doesn't go into those details you mention, because he wants his book to be accessible and simple for the average person to understand. THAT is why he's a good teacher.

I'm not trashing anybody. I'm just pointing out truths. I would welcome anybody, including peers, to make a fair and scientific critique of anything that I've written. What, are we supposed to be above criticism as instructors?