Short game and putting matrix

[Jimmy76]

Any info on release dates of The Short Game Matrix and The Putting Matrix? I love SD and its helped but these two would complete the set and really get those last few strokes off. Since work and family has slowed down some I think its time for another lesson with Brian, but these videos would be great until then.
Thanks
Jim

 

[pm4610]

Bump...I'm so looking forward to the Short Game and Putting Matrix! Brian, any ETA on this...Sept, October, sooner?

Thanks,
p

 

[jenhaoyen]

yes!

 

[thefuture37]

the putting matrix should have bobby locke's hook style on one extreme and billy mayfair's cut style on the other.

on a serious note, what is the manzella approach to teaching green reading?

 

[lia41985]

I can't wait to have exposure to the Manzella Putting Matrix. I respect Damon Lucas and David Orr tremendously for their views on putting. Both of them seem to be very influenced by the work of Geoff Mangum. Honestly, though, for me the Mangum stuff is too hard to understand. I can't wait for a sound explanation of putting with the "child like" element that Brian is able to impart with his teachings.

 

[pm4610]

lia41985,
I agree! I'm dying for any Brian Manzella putting video. I have The Sheriff and that has helped a lot! However, I feel as though there a few things that Brian could help with.

p

 

[Damon Lucas]

lia,
1. Roll the ball at a speed THAT, if it hits the hole, it has a good chance of falling in, EVERYTIME;
2. Putt the ball away from your setup such that it starts on your intended line;
3. Aim the putter where you intend the ball to start, and position the body to support that;
4. Understand some, or all, of the factors that help you best predict the only line into the hole using (1).

 

[thefuture37]

lia,
1. Roll the ball at a speed THAT, if it hits the hole, it has a good chance of falling in, EVERYTIME;
2. Putt the ball away from your setup such that it starts on your intended line;
3. Aim the putter where you intend the ball to start, and position the body to support that;
4. Understand some, or all, of the factors that help you best predict the only line into the hole using (1).

I doubt his problem was understanding the objectives, it was more likely how to accomplish them. IMO Mangum is way too technical. Without an instructor, most people would be MUCH better off spending whatever time they were planning on reading Mangum's material simply trying to figure things out for themselves on the practice green.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I honestly don't know if you can teach someone how to read greens. I mean i can help students with some things they may not think about WHEN they are reading greens, but other than that...i'm not sure it's possible

 

[puttmad]

lia,
1. Roll the ball at a speed THAT, if it hits the hole, it has a good chance of falling in, EVERYTIME;
./QUOTE]

Damon,
That is fine in theory , but not (for the average player) at all possible in practice...
For the ball to fall in, first it has to reach the hole....and falling short on putts is one of the biggest flaws of most golfers....

Secondly, the biggest deviation in break seems to occur in the last 12-18 inches of roll (at dead-weight speed)....i.e. you will need to make the hardest part of the break calculation EVERY putt......

I think it is far better (for the avarage golfer).. to
1) Make sure you at least reach the hole on the highest percentage of putts you can, and:
2) Hit the putt at a speed that eliminates the need to make that "final 12-18 inch" calculation as much as possible..

OK, so you are going to lip out a few, but overall that vast majority of your putt at least have a chance as they are never short...plus which, the read will be slightly easier...

Jim,
Re Green reading...there are a couple of good books out there, solely dedicated to it (but only a couple - try Vector Putting by Templeton)..but the thing with green reading is that it improves as you improve your distance control.....green reading consistently is impossible to achieve before you can reasonably control the weight of the putt....

 

[Damon Lucas]

Damon,
That is fine in theory , but not (for the average player) at all possible in practice...
For the ball to fall in, first it has to reach the hole....and falling short on putts is one of the biggest flaws of most golfers....

Where did I say you should leave the putt short of the hole? I don't recommend that at all, and have never said that.

Secondly, my distance control 'theory' is predicated on humans' instinctive ability to relate to a target. Similiar to how one tosses a ball to someone within proximity and mostly tosses that ball into that person's hands, not short, and definitely not 18 , 17, or 12 inches past, one can and should treat putting in the same way with the hole representing the person's hands.

Secondly, the biggest deviation in break seems to occur in the last 12-18 inches of roll (at dead-weight speed)....i.e. you will need to make the hardest part of the break calculation EVERY putt......

I think it is far better (for the avarage golfer).. to
1) Make sure you at least reach the hole on the highest percentage of putts you can, and:
2) Hit the putt at a speed that eliminates the need to make that "final 12-18 inch" calculation as much as possible..

Now why don't you produce a scintilla of evidence as to why 12-18 inches is a good number?

OK, so you are going to lip out a few, but overall that vast majority of your putt at least have a chance as they are never short...plus which, the read will be slightly easier...

Jim,
Re Green reading...there are a couple of good books out there, solely dedicated to it (but only a couple - try Vector Putting by Templeton)

You criticize me from a simplicity standpoint, and then throw up Templeton??? Why don't you stir it up a bit more?

..but the thing with green reading is that it improves as you improve your distance control.....green reading consistently is impossible to achieve before you can reasonably control the weight of the putt....[/QUOTE]

 

[thefuture37]

Secondly, my distance control 'theory' is predicated on humans' instinctive ability to relate to a target. Similiar to how one tosses a ball to someone within proximity and mostly tosses that ball into that person's hands, not short, and definitely not 18 , 17, or 12 inches past, one can and should treat putting in the same way with the hole representing the person's hands.[/B]

This is a weak argument. Sure most people can approximate how far and where to throw a ball to someone near them. But the accuracy and precision needed to do such a thing is not close to the same level needed to hole putts. Furthermore, how often has the hole moved around to catch your putt, like anyone would move their hand to catch even the shortest distance ball thrown at them. There are so many variables in putting between the simple look and throw analogy, that it really isn't useful(i.e. the fraction of the time you have 100% solid contact).

A better "throwing" approximation of putting would be throwing ringers in horseshoes(and I can't think of anyone that thinks humans have a instinctive ability to throw ringers).

 

[Bigwill]

This is a weak argument. Sure most people can approximate how far and where to throw a ball to someone near them. But the accuracy and precision needed to do such a thing is not close to the same level needed to hole putts. Furthermore, how often has the hole moved around to catch your putt, like anyone would move their hand to catch even the shortest distance ball thrown at them. There are so many variables in putting between the simple look and throw analogy, that it really isn't useful(i.e. the fraction of the time you have 100% solid contact).

A better "throwing" approximation of putting would be throwing ringers in horseshoes(and I can't think of anyone that thinks humans have a instinctive ability to throw ringers).

I think it depends on the individual. For me, at least, the throwing (or rolling) the ball analogy works really well. If you're someone with decent feel, and no major stroke issues, then the clubface almost becomes your hand; you see where you want the ball to go, and you just roll it. My putting and short game has allowed me to have more up-and-downs and more birdies than I've had in all the previous years combined, literally. Now, I'm nobody's Pavin, Tiger, or Phil in the short game, and I'm not a good player. But I know that when I focus on mechanics or stroke length for distance control, I'm dead. It takes a lot more practice to be good doing it that way for me. My hands are my best asset on the course, and I play better when I think less, and feel more.

I haven't been on a practice green this year, other than a few strokes before two of my rounds, and I haven't done any work on stroke or short game mechanics. For people with decent hands, and good spatial abilities, I think that there's some merit in being less mechanical and more "see it, stroke it".

 

[Damon Lucas]

This is a weak argument. Sure most people can approximate how far and where to throw a ball to someone near them. But the accuracy and precision needed to do such a thing is not close to the same level needed to hole putts. Furthermore, how often has the hole moved around to catch your putt, like anyone would move their hand to catch even the shortest distance ball thrown at them. There are so many variables in putting between the simple look and throw analogy, that it really isn't useful(i.e. the fraction of the time you have 100% solid contact).

A better "throwing" approximation of putting would be throwing ringers in horseshoes(and I can't think of anyone that thinks humans have a instinctive ability to throw ringers).

Continue on, future.....

Provide some substance to your argument. Maybe even some `science, or logic.

Remember that I was talking about distance control, which is one factor that goes into making putts.

So go on, what is useful? Why is your example better? What are you trying to say is going to be a more accurate means of putting accurately and precisely?

 

[tongzilla]

I have two question for Brian Manzella Golf Academy Instructors. Using the BMGA taught puting stroke, should the follow through length of the stroke be less than, equal, or longer than the length of the backstroke? Second, should the tempo of the stroke feel like the putter is accelerating through impact, or it should feel like a constant speed, or should it feel like a little "punch"?

 

[lookingtolearn]

I have two question for Brian Manzella Golf Academy Instructors. Using the BMGA taught puting stroke, should the follow through length of the stroke be less than, equal, or longer than the length of the backstroke? Second, should the tempo of the stroke feel like the putter is accelerating through impact, or it should feel like a constant speed, or should it feel like a little "punch"?

Here ya go Leo:

Back and through

 

[Damon Lucas]

I have two question for Brian Manzella Golf Academy Instructors. Using the BMGA taught puting stroke, should the follow through length of the stroke be less than, equal, or longer than the length of the backstroke? Second, should the tempo of the stroke feel like the putter is accelerating through impact, or it should feel like a constant speed, or should it feel like a little "punch"?

Leo,

I think this is what separates Brian especially, the other BM instructors, and hopefully myself.

We try to treat everybody on a case by case basis, period.

In our own way, in a forum format, we can argue optimal, superior, better, best all we like, but at the end of the day it is about getting the job done.

With respect to your question, it will 'feel' different for different putts, of different lengths, on different greens, with differing slopes. Otherwise, the link posted immediately above is fairly concise.

 

[puttmad]

Where did I say you should leave the putt short of the hole? I don't recommend that at all, and have never said that.

Damon, you said "1. Roll the ball at a speed THAT, if it hits the hole, it has a good chance of falling in, EVERYTIME;"

Correct me if I am wrong here, but a putt that "falls in, EVERYTIME" has only just barely reached the hole......and most amateurs will leave it short if they try it...

Secondly, my distance control 'theory' is predicated on humans' instinctive ability to relate to a target. Similiar to how one tosses a ball to someone within proximity and mostly tosses that ball into that person's hands, not short, and definitely not 18 , 17, or 12 inches past, one can and should treat putting in the same way with the hole representing the person's hands.

Sorry Damon, that argument doesn't hold up any more..

When you throw a ball to someone, you ALWAYS throw it "overweight"....for example, if they didn't catch it, they would be turning around to chase it....
Also as has already been stated, the catcher nearly always has to move their hand/arm somewhat to make the catch, so throwing is very much less precise than putting...

Ref:
"Secondly, my distance control 'theory' is predicated on humans' instinctive ability to relate to a target. "...

That's fine if you have both eyes on the target, but after address it doesn't apply as you are now 90 degrees off that position....

Ref:
"Now why don't you produce a scintilla of evidence as to why 12-18 inches is a good number?"....

Damon, surely you watch your putts when you play?....

How many times do you see the ball end up directly behind the hole, i.e it has done a 90 degree turn in the last 6-8 inches of travel.......why take the chance?.....

 

[puttmad]

Jim,
Re Green reading...there are a couple of good books out there, solely dedicated to it (but only a couple - try Vector Putting by Templeton)

You criticize me from a simplicity standpoint, and then throw up Templeton??? Why don't you stir it up a bit more?

[/QUOTE]

Damon, that bit was addressed to Jim....

 

[Damon Lucas]

Damon, that bit was addressed to Jim....[/QUOTE]


So it is ok if you get technical? Or direct someone towards a more technical text?