Todd Sones at PGA Show
- Thread starter Docklands
- Start date
- Status
silvercreek
New
any suggestions for shortening putters?
Docklands: I left a post on Geoff Mangum's putting website www.puttingzone.com about the Sones method and here is a cut and paste of the reply.
Author Reply
Geoff Mangum
Sones' Armsy Stroke Style February 5 2004, 7:21 AM
Sure.
Todd Sones is a very good teacher and an excellent writer. His book, Lights Out Putting, is one of the best-written books in golf instruction I've seen. My review is on the Books page of my website.
That said, he teaches a style of putting that I don't fully agree with. Sones teaches that the arms ought to move somewhat independently of the shoulders going back and then thru. By this, he means that the arms move farther than the shoulder rock would take them going back and then thru. The idea, I believe, is that this body action is more "natural." He also teaches that the stroke path follows an arc shape inside going back, square thru impact, and inside going forward. On this point, I believe he just misunderstands the nature of the body movement involved -- it only "looks" like the putter travels on this path seen from a certain perspective, when in actuality the putter moves in a plane of motion and stays square to this plane path and to the putt line at all points (or could and ought to with good technique).
I've previously written in detail on what Sones says about the shoulder stroke. See "Sones' Criticism of the Shoulder Stroke".
I've also written about Sones on setup. See "Sones and Distance from Ball at Setup".
Sones has recently stated that he agrees with Stan Utley about the character of the stroke path, and this presumably means he also thinks the stroke movement should follow Utley's arcing / forearm rotation pattern, too. This is a result of confusion about how the putter is moved by the body and what sort of putter head motion results. Neither Sones nor Utley seem to understand that a tilted plane for shoulder motion moves the putter head in the same tilted plane (regardless of hand position), and the face of the putter stays square to the plane at all times (so long as there is no manipulation of the putter face by hands, wrists, or arms turning off square); whatever line of intersection between the plane of shoulder motion and the ground, the putter face ALSO stays square to that line at all times, too; if the shoulders are square to the putt line, and the plane of shoulder motion intersects the ground in a line that is the same as or parallels the putt line, then the putter face stays square at all times to both the putt line and the stroke path. Sones and Utley both seem to believe that the putter does not "naturally" stay square to the putt line, and stays square to only the stroke path in a "natural" way and the stroke path returns the putter face to square on the putt line "naturally."
All this talk about the "natural" stroke is tosh and balderdash. The putting stroke needs to be somewhat artificial to make it better than it is when merely "natural." If the objective is pressure-proof simplicity, then ask yourself which is more simple:
1. An arcing stroke that sends the putter off the putt line in some unknowable way by virtue of forearm rotation and independent arm action and then resquares it for the one instant of impact (Utley also adds a highly lofted 6-degree putter face, a forward press to remove 2 degrees of this loft, and a hands-ahead descending blow thru impact, while Sones adds a pronounced separation of lead arm from the side in the follow-thru, and both necessarily place a lot of importance on ball position in stance to match the instantaneous momemnt of square putter face), or
2. A straight stroke that is made by moving the lead shoulder down at the balls of the foot and then back to level and then straight upward with no manipulation of any sort with ball position in stance hardly mattering.
Another point is that, really, Sones does not teach what Utley teaches. Sones in his book teaches that the stroke path needs to stay straight for a substantial time going back and then going forward, even if at the extremes of the stroke the path comes inside. This is in line with what David leadbetter and many, many teaching pros say, but is at conflict with what Utley teaches and with Sones' recent remarks agreeing with Utley. I believe that Sones has some further sorting out to do about all this.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Author Reply
Geoff Mangum
Sones' Armsy Stroke Style February 5 2004, 7:21 AM
Sure.
Todd Sones is a very good teacher and an excellent writer. His book, Lights Out Putting, is one of the best-written books in golf instruction I've seen. My review is on the Books page of my website.
That said, he teaches a style of putting that I don't fully agree with. Sones teaches that the arms ought to move somewhat independently of the shoulders going back and then thru. By this, he means that the arms move farther than the shoulder rock would take them going back and then thru. The idea, I believe, is that this body action is more "natural." He also teaches that the stroke path follows an arc shape inside going back, square thru impact, and inside going forward. On this point, I believe he just misunderstands the nature of the body movement involved -- it only "looks" like the putter travels on this path seen from a certain perspective, when in actuality the putter moves in a plane of motion and stays square to this plane path and to the putt line at all points (or could and ought to with good technique).
I've previously written in detail on what Sones says about the shoulder stroke. See "Sones' Criticism of the Shoulder Stroke".
I've also written about Sones on setup. See "Sones and Distance from Ball at Setup".
Sones has recently stated that he agrees with Stan Utley about the character of the stroke path, and this presumably means he also thinks the stroke movement should follow Utley's arcing / forearm rotation pattern, too. This is a result of confusion about how the putter is moved by the body and what sort of putter head motion results. Neither Sones nor Utley seem to understand that a tilted plane for shoulder motion moves the putter head in the same tilted plane (regardless of hand position), and the face of the putter stays square to the plane at all times (so long as there is no manipulation of the putter face by hands, wrists, or arms turning off square); whatever line of intersection between the plane of shoulder motion and the ground, the putter face ALSO stays square to that line at all times, too; if the shoulders are square to the putt line, and the plane of shoulder motion intersects the ground in a line that is the same as or parallels the putt line, then the putter face stays square at all times to both the putt line and the stroke path. Sones and Utley both seem to believe that the putter does not "naturally" stay square to the putt line, and stays square to only the stroke path in a "natural" way and the stroke path returns the putter face to square on the putt line "naturally."
All this talk about the "natural" stroke is tosh and balderdash. The putting stroke needs to be somewhat artificial to make it better than it is when merely "natural." If the objective is pressure-proof simplicity, then ask yourself which is more simple:
1. An arcing stroke that sends the putter off the putt line in some unknowable way by virtue of forearm rotation and independent arm action and then resquares it for the one instant of impact (Utley also adds a highly lofted 6-degree putter face, a forward press to remove 2 degrees of this loft, and a hands-ahead descending blow thru impact, while Sones adds a pronounced separation of lead arm from the side in the follow-thru, and both necessarily place a lot of importance on ball position in stance to match the instantaneous momemnt of square putter face), or
2. A straight stroke that is made by moving the lead shoulder down at the balls of the foot and then back to level and then straight upward with no manipulation of any sort with ball position in stance hardly mattering.
Another point is that, really, Sones does not teach what Utley teaches. Sones in his book teaches that the stroke path needs to stay straight for a substantial time going back and then going forward, even if at the extremes of the stroke the path comes inside. This is in line with what David leadbetter and many, many teaching pros say, but is at conflict with what Utley teaches and with Sones' recent remarks agreeing with Utley. I believe that Sones has some further sorting out to do about all this.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
While it's late to jump on here with a post, I don't believe Mangum's notion that the talk of a natural stroke is "balderdash"--that is, at least in terms of the feel of the stroke. A stroke that feels artificial and tenses you up--however closely it mimics the textbook shoulder stroke--will not be effective on the course. That's why, I believe, some players are having success with Utley's and Sones's "incorrect" techniques. The techniques feel more natural, and the putter is working better for that individual player even if it is just on line for that one moment.
I'm guessing that a lot of what feels natural has to do with differences in anatomies. One player is long-legged and short waisted, another is the other way around. One player has broader, more muscled shoulders and upper back. Another player has longer muscles. One player's wrists are stronger than another's. One player's fingers are shorter--and so on. I'm fishing a bit here, but
I'm a player who is simply more comfortable (at 5'10") with a 34 1/2"
or 35" putter than one that is shorter; and I'm guessing it's a result of the way I'm built. I know I putt better with the elbows bent more than they are with shorter putters. I have friends whose experience is just the opposite.
I'm guessing that a lot of what feels natural has to do with differences in anatomies. One player is long-legged and short waisted, another is the other way around. One player has broader, more muscled shoulders and upper back. Another player has longer muscles. One player's wrists are stronger than another's. One player's fingers are shorter--and so on. I'm fishing a bit here, but
I'm a player who is simply more comfortable (at 5'10") with a 34 1/2"
or 35" putter than one that is shorter; and I'm guessing it's a result of the way I'm built. I know I putt better with the elbows bent more than they are with shorter putters. I have friends whose experience is just the opposite.
If the putt sinks inthe least number of tries, stay with it. I agree with Magnum, I have been reading his site for years, the notion of natural is silly in golf. Nothing is more "natural" then the hit impluse, coming over the top and slicing the ball. Teachers make a great living on our natural ablility. Why is the putting stroke is all of a sudden natural? If it works use it. I feel no artification manipulation of my hands or arms when I go straight back and straight in. It is neither contrieved nor "natural," but for others to imply that it is, is bladerdash. Just practiced with straight lines, back and forth.
ALl these new weird putters are designed for SBSI. And I strongly feel that must people use a putter that is too long for them because that is what is sold off the racks. This is a case where shorter is better.
I don't hit long iron approach shots very well and until Brian's never slice again article had problems on and off the Tee, but putting is something I enjoy and do well. When I found the correct length, the stroke fell in place.
If you find the new natural stroke works, don't stop, play with it. But stop implying we SBSI guys are wrong.
Lee Trevino, it was said, kept the driver face square, and in the hitting zone longer than most.....unorthodox swing...
Is there some balance between using the arc stroke in putting and yet keeping the putter face square longer in the impact zone rather than just for a short segment at just a particular ball placement.....?
Is there some balance between using the arc stroke in putting and yet keeping the putter face square longer in the impact zone rather than just for a short segment at just a particular ball placement.....?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
LEE TREVINO and MOE NORMAN, maybe the two BEST ball strikers of all time (with Hogan up there also) are, as many good players and teacher are, FULL OF IT!
LEE and MOE both said they 'keep the club square and on line" and the thruth is:
They SWUNG LEFT and ROTATED THE FACE CLOSED M O R E than anyone else (which is part of their success)!
Now on Stones...He never impressed me any with his articles.
I have taught an on-plane putting stroke for years.
LEE and MOE both said they 'keep the club square and on line" and the thruth is:
They SWUNG LEFT and ROTATED THE FACE CLOSED M O R E than anyone else (which is part of their success)!
Now on Stones...He never impressed me any with his articles.
I have taught an on-plane putting stroke for years.
- Status