Putting mechanics

[johnnymarlboro]

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?

Certainly not above criticism, but I don't think it's fair when you are misrepresenting another instructors work with inaccurate information. If you're going to point out "truths", you should at least go to the trouble of making sure they are true first.

 

[Phil Rosenbaum]

Todd. A pendulum is controlled by gravity and is constantly slowing and accelerating right? If you putted like a true pendulum then there would not be a need for a backswing. You would just drop the putter from a given height and it would hit the ground unless you did something with the rest of your body to catch the putter in motion. I hate the pendulum analogy, it is just not close to any type of putting action.
Also, touch, feel, aim and read are far more important than stroke.

 

[faux_maestro]

Todd. A pendulum is controlled by gravity and is constantly slowing and accelerating right? If you putted like a true pendulum then there would not be a need for a backswing. You would just drop the putter from a given height and it would hit the ground unless you did something with the rest of your body to catch the putter in motion. I hate the pendulum analogy, it is just not close to any type of putting action.
Also, touch, feel, aim and read are far more important than stroke.

But does touch, feel, aim and read mean anything if you can't put the ball on the line you want?

 

[Shot Limit]

But does touch, feel, aim and read mean anything if you can't put the ball on the line you want?

Time to try a different putter.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Todd. A pendulum is controlled by gravity and is constantly slowing and accelerating right? If you putted like a true pendulum then there would not be a need for a backswing. You would just drop the putter from a given height and it would hit the ground unless you did something with the rest of your body to catch the putter in motion. I hate the pendulum analogy, it is just not close to any type of putting action.
Also, touch, feel, aim and read are far more important than stroke.

Phil, It is the in-plane swing of the pendulum that is worth reproducing by the human when putting. Not neccasarily the rate of acceleration, gravitational forces, or other "force" issues. If you "hate" the analogy of a pendulum, perhaps you can cite another model which exibits a swinging "arm", in-plane, about a fixed pivot?

 

[duckjr78]

Also, touch, feel, aim and read are far more important than stroke.

This is what I was trying to say in a nutshell.

 

[faux_maestro]

Time to try a different putter.

Or a better technique to get the ball rolling where you want it.

By the way, I'm not advocating any one way to putt. It's a pet peeve of mine that putting mechanics are not as studied as the swing (seems that way to me). Putting stroke mechanics are just as important as feel, touch and green reading. You can have the speed/break relationship exactly right in your mind, but what if you can't put the ball on that line? I hate this idea that putting is some sort of "black art" and stroke mechanics don't matter much.

 

[Shot Limit]

I'm not sure where I stand on this really. I believe learning/practice/mechanics are important but it gets to a point where it's just not fun anymore and nothing feels right. I don't want to over analyze everything, sometimes less is mo betta imo. Besides, if I have touch, feel, aim and read, I'm ready to rock. Even if you have perfect mechanics, you're not gonna one putt everything.

 

[Damon Lucas]

Phil, It is the in-plane swing of the pendulum that is worth reproducing by the human when putting. Not neccasarily the rate of acceleration, gravitational forces, or other "force" issues. If you "hate" the analogy of a pendulum, perhaps you can cite another model which exibits a swinging "arm", in-plane, about a fixed pivot?

Todd,

Why do you need a model? If you have studied as extensively as you would have us all believe, you would just rely on whatever you need to make the ball start on it's intended line with appropriate pace. Most people don't need , or want, the whole package that you're selling. It is great that you have sought to acquire a wealth of knowledge. Surely the equivalent level of communication would enable you to meet the needs of the person in front of you without bombarding them with the needless peripheral, and extraneous blather?

 

[ScottRob]

1. Learn how to read greens with reasonable accuracy. Look into Aimpoint, or read Geoff Mangum's Optimal putting. I played a lot of competitive golf aiming at the apex!
2. Make sure that you use a putter that you aim well. Get fitted with an Edel putter. You will be amazed at the influence of hosels, lofts, aim lines, and head shapes on your ability to aim at a hole 6-8 feet away. I went through the fitting process and was dumbstruck. Often our putting stroke is a patch work of compensations that stem chiefly from our poor aiming ability.
3. Learn how to send the ball straight away off the putter face. I use the gate drill and a chalkline for this.
4. Roll the ball at a speed that increases the capture width of the hole

The first two are independent of stroke mechanics, three and four are in the province of diligent practice using meaningful drills.

Ben Crenshaw without a doubt has a "loop" in his putting stroke, in fact so did Bobby Locke. Both addressed the ball towards the toe, knowing that the putter would not be soled at impact. I think Homer got this bit right in 2-J-3 (or 2-J-1...it has been a while) I was fortunate enough to witness both putting strokes in person. Greg Norman also had the same pronounced "loop." He does not get enough credit for the great putter he was.

Todd, as for TW being the greatest putter EVER...might want to take that one up with Geoff Mangum...prepare to be owned.

Putting is hard because our expectations are out of wack with the complexity of the activity. The best putting tip I have ever recieved (in that it continues to work) is to keep my grip pressure constant if not "light." I also think the opposing hands on the putter deal has ruined a lot of putting strokes. I have a manzella neutral grip with my putter as well as with my full swing (with the thumbs straight down the grip.) edel putters come standard with round grips.

Good luck!

 

[BrendanC]

I don't agree that putting practice should focus away from stroke and more on aim etc. Having a solid stroke clarifies aiming and reading, and having a stroke that putts a good roll on the ball improves pace control.

All the practice you like with a bad stroke won't make you better (same as for the long game - what's the difference caused by the ball being on the ground?).

I read an interesting article which suggested that you should use your non-dominant hand to control your putting stroke (Billy Casper also). Any thoughts anyone?

Also - I think that the shortgames and putting of children are totally over-rated? (see Bob Rotella; 'I want you to putt like a kid'. Also parrotted by many other gurus, especially the mental/unable-to-actually-play-that-well gurus).

Golfers tend to forget about the bad shots - so no wonder we think we were better at putting 25 years ago! And it is a short step from there to assuming that all children are good at putting. They really aren't!

It is tiresome that any time a player under age 20 holes a putt at even a slightly aggressive pace, this "youth effect" is all the commentators can talk about. For an old guy who holes a putt at pace - it's all: "ho ho ho, his nerves won't hold for long if he keeps that up!"

Basically: confirmation bias.

 

[birly-shirly]

Phil, It is the in-plane swing of the pendulum that is worth reproducing by the human when putting. Not neccasarily the rate of acceleration, gravitational forces, or other "force" issues. If you "hate" the analogy of a pendulum, perhaps you can cite another model which exibits a swinging "arm", in-plane, about a fixed pivot?

Todd - if that's the only element of pendulum motion that you want to reproduce in a putting stroke, then I just think that it's a terrible misuse of the pendulum analogy.

I think there's a decent argument that pendulum motion is all about the "other force issues" that you just discarded. As for the "in-plane" aspect of motion, well I would still argue that a true pendulum only moves in a vertical plane. No other motion is possible if the weight is freely suspended from a fixed pivot, wouldn't you agree?

Hopefully that's a fair and scientific critique of what you've written.

I also think that there are some fairly irreconcilable differences between human anatomy and the kind of model stroke (fixed pivot, swinging arm, single lever, planar motion) that you're advocating. Utley talks at some length in his book about the compensatory movements that are necessary to mediate the kind of clubhead path you're describing with natural shoulder movement. In other words, the elbows need to fold and extend because that's easier than moving both shoulders in the same plane as the clubhead.

That's not to say that it's a bad stroke, or hard to learn or repeat - just that oversimplified models don't help, or prove the case.

Simplified models of motion and natural human movement aren't necessarily the same thing. There's nothing simpler than a straight line. But if it were a natural movement to walk in one, we'd all be tightrope walkers.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Todd,

Why do you need a model? If you have studied as extensively as you would have us all believe, you would just rely on whatever you need to make the ball start on it's intended line with appropriate pace. Most people don't need , or want, the whole package that you're selling. It is great that you have sought to acquire a wealth of knowledge. Surely the equivalent level of communication would enable you to meet the needs of the person in front of you without bombarding them with the needless peripheral, and extraneous blather?

Yeah, like I'm the ONLY pro who advocates an on-plane putting stroke
What you call "blather", I call the identification and organization of the geometry and bio-mechanics involved.

Hey, wait, doesn't Manz endorse a product called "The Sheriff"? What's going on here?

 

[ScottRob]

I don't agree that putting practice should focus away from stroke and more on aim etc. Having a solid stroke clarifies aiming and reading, and having a stroke that putts a good roll on the ball improves pace control.


I know that was not aimed at my comments, right? I had a solid stroke (I hit the sweetspot with regularity) I had serious left aim tendencies with the putter I have used for 20 years (an old school Ping Anser 2.) Consequently I developed a consistent push stroke. That combined with the fact that I did not know how to read greens very well (aimed at the apex) set me up for putting slumps. I putted OK when I was "aggressive." Obviously I had to be aiming as low as I did. Thankfully I was very solid 5ft and in, with the usual struggles on big breaking left to righters.

The four things I mentioned (courtesy of Geoff Mangum' Optimal Putting) make sense. In fact, I believe knowing where to aim and how to aim frees you up to focus on a straightaway roll and appropriate pace.

I have no doubt that the mechanics of my stroke have improved. For the first time the putter head "releases" the ball has a good roll to it. My approach putting is shows the biggest improvement. As I said before my tendency was gun it by.

I may be off a bit but I think Geoff Mangum talks about explicit v. implicit understanding. Of course he does not like Aimpoint, or believes in the Edel system of fitting.

My point is that targeting, given the small margin for error, is far more important on the greens. Aiming somewhere near the starting point for that target then becomes next important, from there one potatoe...two potatoe!

 

[faux_maestro]

I don't agree that putting practice should focus away from stroke and more on aim etc. Having a solid stroke clarifies aiming and reading, and having a stroke that putts a good roll on the ball improves pace control.


I know that was not aimed at my comments, right? I had a solid stroke (I hit the sweetspot with regularity) I had serious left aim tendencies with the putter I have used for 20 years (an old school Ping Anser 2.) Consequently I developed a consistent push stroke. That combined with the fact that I did not know how to read greens very well (aimed at the apex) set me up for putting slumps. I putted OK when I was "aggressive." Obviously I had to be aiming as low as I did. Thankfully I was very solid 5ft and in, with the usual struggles on big breaking left to righters.

The four things I mentioned (courtesy of Geoff Mangum' Optimal Putting) make sense. In fact, I believe knowing where to aim and how to aim frees you up to focus on a straightaway roll and appropriate pace.

I have no doubt that the mechanics of my stroke have improved. For the first time the putter head "releases" the ball has a good roll to it. My approach putting is shows the biggest improvement. As I said before my tendency was gun it by.

I may be off a bit but I think Geoff Mangum talks about explicit v. implicit understanding. Of course he does not like Aimpoint, or believes in the Edel system of fitting.

My point is that targeting, given the small margin for error, is far more important on the greens. Aiming somewhere near the starting point for that target then becomes next important, from there one potatoe...two potatoe!

You can aim it absolutely where you want to start the ball, your read can be perfect, and if at impact you have a 2* closed face and resultant path 3* left. Is the ball going in? From what distance will this cause problems?

My point is, it's all important. Probably equally so. I'm wondering if there are any plans to include putting in project 1.68? I could see the 3D technology along with experts input could really shed some light on what really are the most mechanically sound/repeatable patterns and how to optimize the putting stroke. From what I've read about it my guess would be no but maybe I'll be surprised.

 

[Todd Dugan]

No, seriously....I just went back and watched Brian's video on The Sheriff. He's advocating virtually the same thing as me.

Putting on a plane? check
Impact at Low Point? check

So what's up with all this resistance?

 

[johnnymarlboro]

It's not what you're saying Todd, it's how you say it.

 

[Todd Dugan]

It's not what you're saying Todd, it's how you say it.

Baloney. My first post in this thread was was as plain and clear as I can put it. There was no "tone", just information. And Damon jumped all over it, with some less than flattering remarks. So, its not WHAT I say, or HOW I say it, Johnny. It's WHO is saying it. Anyone who walks in the light can clearly see that.

 

[dbl]

To be accurate, back in post 29, after your first post, * I * was the first person to take exception to your first post where you stated what you believe, which was imo, stated a bit more "authoritatively" than was warranted. Subsequently like in post 61 you state you are speaking "truths" and don't accept other people's perceptions of good stroke mechanics or aspects.

A person coming to you could well be helped, but come on, we're tying to help you get past your black and white filter of things and round off the anti-social corners.

 

[johnnymarlboro]

Has it ever occurred to you that when people constantly jump all over you when you post, that maybe it's not them, it's you? You come off as a self-righteous know-it-all. You seem unwilling to acknowledge other methods or teaching styles, instead insisting your way is THE way. If you think your way is the best, that's great, every teacher should. But that doesn't make it THE truth. You are constantly touting how much experience you have, and how much time and effort you've spent doing whatever the topic is. It's getting old Todd. You clearly are very passionate about your beliefs, and I do believe you've spent plenty of time and effort on your work. But in my opinion, you have a lot to learn about communicating effectively.