| |
Main
Date: 13 Nov 2006 01:51:10
From: Dave Lee
Subject: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
I did something today on the putting green that I've never tried before.
Till now I had used all of the following practice (and/or on the course)
techniques.
1) Just focus on the ball while putting
2) Look at the target while putting
3) Look at the ball but try to follow it off the putterhead
Just for grins I started to watch the putterhead all the way back and
through the ball. I would not say that it was exactly hard to do, but it was
kind of 'uncomfortable' and weird. But it sure does give you a much better
sense of what your putterhead is doing just before/at/just after impact. I
was really surprised at how much improved my sense of the putterhead was
when I did this.
I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I sure
could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress in
relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that this
will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
FWIW.
dave
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 21:42:12
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
On Nov 12, 7:51 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
> I did something today on the putting green that I've never tried before.
Interesting experiment. I'm always tinkering with putting. I recently
tried "the claw" but just did not like the quality of contact I was
getting.
Then I went back to my normal left hand low, but used a chipping setup,
with feet close together and stance open to the hole. I figured if I
putt and chip the same way, it might help both. So far, I like it
a lot! I position the ball a little farther forward so I'm not hitting
down,
but otherwise it is the same setup for both.
The one thing I noticed, is that with an open stance, I'm not trying to
swing around my body, but rather swinging out towards the hole,
away from my body, and the clubface naturally stays squarer through
impact.
After doing it awhile, it occured to me that it was very similar to the
"side-saddle" style that Sam Snead used.
I'm still not a great putter, but it is interesting to experiment.
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 22:07:31
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
It's an interesting experiment, but it's no way to putt. The baseball
equivalent would be looking at the bat while you're trying to hit a single
to advance the runners. Or looking at the cue when you're trying to pocket
the 8-ball. Or looking at the hockey stick while trying to make a goal.
Randy
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I did something today on the putting green that I've never tried before.
> Till now I had used all of the following practice (and/or on the course)
> techniques.
>
> 1) Just focus on the ball while putting
> 2) Look at the target while putting
> 3) Look at the ball but try to follow it off the putterhead
>
> Just for grins I started to watch the putterhead all the way back and
> through the ball. I would not say that it was exactly hard to do, but it
> was
> kind of 'uncomfortable' and weird. But it sure does give you a much better
> sense of what your putterhead is doing just before/at/just after impact. I
> was really surprised at how much improved my sense of the putterhead was
> when I did this.
>
> I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> sure
> could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress in
> relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that this
> will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
>
> FWIW.
>
> dave
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 12:07:57
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:IrednZCEEpryfMrYnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> It's an interesting experiment, but it's no way to putt. The baseball
> equivalent would be looking at the bat while you're trying to hit a single
> to advance the runners. Or looking at the cue when you're trying to
pocket
> the 8-ball. Or looking at the hockey stick while trying to make a goal.
>
> Randy
>
It definitely is not a good way to 'putt for real'. Part of the purpose of
the proposed training device would be to give you backswing feedback without
forcing you to look behind you.
If this concept had value I'd think that it would have showed up on the
market years ago.
dave
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >I did something today on the putting green that I've never tried before.
> > Till now I had used all of the following practice (and/or on the course)
> > techniques.
> >
> > 1) Just focus on the ball while putting
> > 2) Look at the target while putting
> > 3) Look at the ball but try to follow it off the putterhead
> >
> > Just for grins I started to watch the putterhead all the way back and
> > through the ball. I would not say that it was exactly hard to do, but it
> > was
> > kind of 'uncomfortable' and weird. But it sure does give you a much
better
> > sense of what your putterhead is doing just before/at/just after impact.
I
> > was really surprised at how much improved my sense of the putterhead was
> > when I did this.
> >
> > I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> > sure
> > could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress
in
> > relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that
this
> > will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
> > dave
> >
> >
>
>
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:12:02
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> sure
> could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress in
> relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that this
> will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
>
> FWIW.
>
Quite a lot. Dave Pelz talked a lot about how difficult it is to improve in
putting because of a lack of feedback. Just putting away on the green tells
you only where the ball goes, not why. One of the elements in building a
good pendulum stroke is focusing in on what the putter head is doing
throughout the stroke. Is it square at impact? Is it outside- in or
inside - out? Is the stroke reliably delivering the sweet spot to the ball?
Is the putter face aligned with the target? etc.
Feedback on these individual elements is a problem, particularly face
alignment (open vs. closed) and aligning on the intended target. Pelz sells
a ton of gadgets that look pricey to me. One of them that looks very
interesting is the two rails that can be adjusted to various distances from
one another with hash marks along the sides of both rails. The idea is you
practice your stroke at a given rail width until you can reliably do it
without touching either rail. Then you move it closer, etc. The hash marks
are designed to give a reference so as to make it easier to spot face
alignment problems.
I've also seen similar plastic devices with mirrors and alignment marks, but
they don't look as useful.
I'm thinking that the Pelz contraption could be built by a reasonably handy
person for not so many dollars. Now I've just got to find such a person
:-) Maybe they'll be able to build the laser putter face alignment tool he
offers as well ($$$$).
Scott
|
| | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 21:01:05
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
S McFarlane wrote:
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> > sure
> > could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress in
> > relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that this
> > will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
>
> Quite a lot. Dave Pelz talked a lot about how difficult it is to improve in
> putting because of a lack of feedback. Just putting away on the green tells
> you only where the ball goes, not why. One of the elements in building a
> good pendulum stroke is focusing in on what the putter head is doing
> throughout the stroke. Is it square at impact? Is it outside- in or
> inside - out? Is the stroke reliably delivering the sweet spot to the ball?
> Is the putter face aligned with the target? etc.
>
> Feedback on these individual elements is a problem, particularly face
> alignment (open vs. closed) and aligning on the intended target. Pelz sells
> a ton of gadgets that look pricey to me. One of them that looks very
> interesting is the two rails that can be adjusted to various distances from
> one another with hash marks along the sides of both rails. The idea is you
> practice your stroke at a given rail width until you can reliably do it
> without touching either rail. Then you move it closer, etc. The hash marks
> are designed to give a reference so as to make it easier to spot face
> alignment problems.
>
> I've also seen similar plastic devices with mirrors and alignment marks, but
> they don't look as useful.
>
> I'm thinking that the Pelz contraption could be built by a reasonably handy
> person for not so many dollars. Now I've just got to find such a person
> :-) Maybe they'll be able to build the laser putter face alignment tool he
> offers as well ($$$$).
>
> Scott
One thing I've heard other Putting 'gurus' say though is that the putter
shouldn't go straight back and straight thru, instead describing an
arc. I think it was Chris Demarco, but I can't bet on it. This tool
wouldn't help him (or anyone else that subscribes to that theory).
BTW, I'm not contradicting you, instead pointing out that I think Pelz
does far more harm than good to people (like me) who still struggle with
consistency and then try (for example) his 4 wedge/3 swing system.
He's just to good for me to take advantage of - yet ;)
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 03:26:02
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Kevin D. Timm" <kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4557DFF1.E375C2EC@comcast.net...
>
> One thing I've heard other Putting 'gurus' say though is that the putter
> shouldn't go straight back and straight thru, instead describing an
> arc. I think it was Chris Demarco, but I can't bet on it. This tool
> wouldn't help him (or anyone else that subscribes to that theory).
>
Actually, Pelz's device has adjustable legs to allow for any desired path.
In other words, the somewhat rare straight back - straight through path,
inside - square - inside, and even outside - square - outside. According to
Pelz, the path depends on the vertical relationship of the hands to the
shoulders. Pelz doesn't say that straight back - straight through is the
only way to do it; he seems to emphasize repeatibility.
> BTW, I'm not contradicting you, instead pointing out that I think Pelz
> does far more harm than good to people (like me) who still struggle with
> consistency and then try (for example) his 4 wedge/3 swing system.
>
> He's just to good for me to take advantage of - yet ;)
Me too. I haven't really seen his short game bible, etc. I've only got
"Putt Like the Pros". At least in that book, his approach to putting is
very common sense stuff and not the sort of thing that only a player could
make use of. The stuff I've seen on wedge play (Golf Magazine, for example)
contradicts what I've read elsewhere. On the surface, it appears to presume
that the player has a lot of time to devote to practice. If you don't have
that, a better path to consistency seems to be: pick a wedge to use around
the green, and get used to how it behaves at various distances with respect
to carry - roll; use stance modifications to alter the trajectory as needed.
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 06:37:48
From: JJK
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Kevin D. Timm" wrote:
> > One thing I've heard other Putting 'gurus' say though is that the putter
> > shouldn't go straight back and straight thru, instead describing an
> > arc. I think it was Chris Demarco, but I can't bet on it. This tool
> > wouldn't help him (or anyone else that subscribes to that theory).
"S McFarlane" wrote:
> Actually, Pelz's device has adjustable legs to allow for any desired path.
> In other words, the somewhat rare straight back - straight through path,
> inside - square - inside, and even outside - square - outside. According
to
> Pelz, the path depends on the vertical relationship of the hands to the
> shoulders. Pelz doesn't say that straight back - straight through is the
> only way to do it; he seems to emphasize repeatibility.
<snip >
Stan Utley ("The Art of Putting") shows how to use a low-cost thin metal
yardstick as a putting aid (i.e., gently bend the stick on edge into a
curve, tacked at a few points w/some tees in the ground). Of course, if you
have to spend money, he will sell you a device that will do the same thing.
http://www.stanutleygolf.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 11:13:59
From: videotron
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Kevin D. Timm" <kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4557DFF1.E375C2EC@comcast.net...
>S McFarlane wrote:
>>
>
> One thing I've heard other Putting 'gurus' say though is that the putter
> shouldn't go straight back and straight thru, instead describing an
> arc. I think it was Chris Demarco, but I can't bet on it. This tool
> wouldn't help him (or anyone else that subscribes to that theory).
>
Mike Adams teaches that the stroke shape and ball position depend on
the type of putter. i.e. let the natural swing characteristic of the putter
determine how it should be stroked. Hold the putter handle between the
thumb and forefinger and let it swing like a pendulum.
With a toe weighted putter, which has a tendency to swing in an arc,
position
the ball foreward, opposite the front armpit, and use an inside to inside
swing.
With a face balanced putter, which has a tendency to swing straight back and
forth,
center the ball, below the eyes, and use the straight back and through
swing.
Utley's system won't work with a face balanced putter.
Match the stroke to the putter.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 11:38:32
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Kevin D. Timm" <kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4557DFF1.E375C2EC@comcast.net...
> S McFarlane wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> > news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
>
> One thing I've heard other Putting 'gurus' say though is that the putter
> shouldn't go straight back and straight thru, instead describing an
> arc. I think it was Chris Demarco, but I can't bet on it. This tool
> wouldn't help him (or anyone else that subscribes to that theory).
>
> BTW, I'm not contradicting you, instead pointing out that I think Pelz
> does far more harm than good to people (like me) who still struggle with
> consistency and then try (for example) his 4 wedge/3 swing system.
>
> He's just to good for me to take advantage of - yet ;)
You can do it either way. For me straight back/straight thru works best for
shorter putts.
dave
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:36:42
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote in message
news:SvQ5h.1262$Jd3.990@trnddc07...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> > sure
> > could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress
in
> > relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that
this
> > will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
>
> Quite a lot. Dave Pelz talked a lot about how difficult it is to improve
in
> putting because of a lack of feedback. Just putting away on the green
tells
> you only where the ball goes, not why. One of the elements in building a
> good pendulum stroke is focusing in on what the putter head is doing
> throughout the stroke. Is it square at impact? Is it outside- in or
> inside - out? Is the stroke reliably delivering the sweet spot to the
ball?
> Is the putter face aligned with the target? etc.
>
> Feedback on these individual elements is a problem, particularly face
> alignment (open vs. closed) and aligning on the intended target. Pelz
sells
> a ton of gadgets that look pricey to me. One of them that looks very
> interesting is the two rails that can be adjusted to various distances
from
> one another with hash marks along the sides of both rails. The idea is
you
> practice your stroke at a given rail width until you can reliably do it
> without touching either rail. Then you move it closer, etc. The hash
marks
> are designed to give a reference so as to make it easier to spot face
> alignment problems.
>
> I've also seen similar plastic devices with mirrors and alignment marks,
but
> they don't look as useful.
>
> I'm thinking that the Pelz contraption could be built by a reasonably
handy
> person for not so many dollars. Now I've just got to find such a person
> :-) Maybe they'll be able to build the laser putter face alignment tool
he
> offers as well ($$$$).
>
> Scott
>
>
A device that I would like could (I think) be easily built. It would be a
light/straight rod of some kind that sticks out of the putterface at 90
degrees (maybe 12-18"). You could then practice putting keeping this rod
always pointing toward the target. Those little laser devices that I think
I've seen advertised (not the $500 laser/mirror aiming thing that Pelz
sellz) would be a reasonable alternative.
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 05:04:24
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:_SQ5h.6342$ig4.2033@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> A device that I would like could (I think) be easily built. It would be a
> light/straight rod of some kind that sticks out of the putterface at 90
> degrees (maybe 12-18"). You could then practice putting keeping this rod
> always pointing toward the target. Those little laser devices that I think
> I've seen advertised (not the $500 laser/mirror aiming thing that Pelz
> sellz) would be a reasonable alternative.
>
That's an interesting idea. However, it doesn't really replace the the
laser devices. What you describe would give feedback on what the face angle
is doing during the stroke, and it sounds like it might have a lot of
potential. It certainly sounds better than the hash marks on Pelz's device.
By the way, the rod would have to be elevated a bit above the putterface so
that it doesn't strike the ground during the backstroke.
But I believe the laser devices are more aimed at giving feedback on
accuracy of alignment. There's almost always a difference between what our
mind tells us we're aiming at while setting up and what we are in fact
doing. That's what the laser systems are designed to give us feedback on.
Once we are aligned properly, it becomes a question of maintaining that
correct alignment through impact.
That's where you're idea comes in, IMO. It sounds like you have the
beginnings of a decent training aid. Now you just have to get your name
associated with the likes of Leadbetter so you can market it! :-)
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 11:42:56
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote in message
news:s1T5h.289$5F2.141@trnddc04...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:_SQ5h.6342$ig4.2033@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> That's where you're idea comes in, IMO. It sounds like you have the
> beginnings of a decent training aid. Now you just have to get your name
> associated with the likes of Leadbetter so you can market it! :-)
>
> Scott
>
>
ALL RIGHT - sounds like I have already spammed this group and nobody noticed
it :-)
dave (www.BuyMyPuttingMiracleCure.com)
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 08:38:39
From: Thomas Prufer
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:04:24 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
>But I believe the laser devices are more aimed at giving feedback on
>accuracy of alignment. There's almost always a difference between what our
>mind tells us we're aiming at while setting up and what we are in fact
>doing. That's what the laser systems are designed to give us feedback on.
>Once we are aligned properly, it becomes a question of maintaining that
>correct alignment through impact.
Search this group, on groups.google, for "The Jedi Putting Master"....
Thomas Prufer
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 11:48:51
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Thomas Prufer" <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid > wrote in message
news:u68gl21oq7jus7vuks20l9qckrfc6fn81b@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:04:24 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com> wrote:
>
> >But I believe the laser devices are more aimed at giving feedback on
> >accuracy of alignment. There's almost always a difference between what
our
> >mind tells us we're aiming at while setting up and what we are in fact
> >doing. That's what the laser systems are designed to give us feedback
on.
> >Once we are aligned properly, it becomes a question of maintaining that
> >correct alignment through impact.
>
> Search this group, on groups.google, for "The Jedi Putting Master"....
>
>
> Thomas Prufer
That sounds like something that I posted a long while back. I used one of
those carpenter's levels designed to throw a straight laser line on the
wall. I hung it vertically from a ceiling light fixture so it threw a
straight line across the floor. I then practiced putting keeping my putter
centered in this line.
My device finally broke (drove a car across it in the garage) and I never
replaced it. But it could be used for putting drills in this manner.
dave
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 13:59:29
From: Thomas Prufer
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:48:51 GMT, "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com >
wrote:
>That sounds like something that I posted a long while back. I used one of
>those carpenter's levels designed to throw a straight laser line on the
>wall. I hung it vertically from a ceiling light fixture so it threw a
>straight line across the floor. I then practiced putting keeping my putter
>centered in this line.
Yup, that was you -- I checked just now...
Someone else here had a drill where you putt over a metal yardstick, with the
yardstick laying flat, and the ball "teed" at the hole. The idea is to putt the
ball along the entire length of the yardstick.
Thomas Prufer
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 10:53:31
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I did something today on the putting green that I've never tried before.
> Till now I had used all of the following practice (and/or on the course)
> techniques.
>
> 1) Just focus on the ball while putting
> 2) Look at the target while putting
> 3) Look at the ball but try to follow it off the putterhead
>
> Just for grins I started to watch the putterhead all the way back and
> through the ball. I would not say that it was exactly hard to do, but it
> was
> kind of 'uncomfortable' and weird. But it sure does give you a much
> better
> sense of what your putterhead is doing just before/at/just after impact.
> I
> was really surprised at how much improved my sense of the putterhead was
> when I did this.
>
> I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> sure
> could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress
> in
> relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that
> this
> will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
>
> FWIW.
>
> dave
>
Open a wardrobe door, square, with a full length
mirror on it and putt from about 6' towards the
mirror watching the clubhead in the mirror. I find
this a tremendous help in improving control over
the clubhead path and the smoothness and tempo
of the stroke.
Alan
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 11:40:47
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:zuOdnVpzk7I708XYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >I did something today on the putting green that I've never tried before.
> > Till now I had used all of the following practice (and/or on the course)
> > techniques.
> >
> > 1) Just focus on the ball while putting
> > 2) Look at the target while putting
> > 3) Look at the ball but try to follow it off the putterhead
> >
> > Just for grins I started to watch the putterhead all the way back and
> > through the ball. I would not say that it was exactly hard to do, but it
> > was
> > kind of 'uncomfortable' and weird. But it sure does give you a much
> > better
> > sense of what your putterhead is doing just before/at/just after impact.
> > I
> > was really surprised at how much improved my sense of the putterhead was
> > when I did this.
> >
> > I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> > sure
> > could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress
> > in
> > relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that
> > this
> > will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
> > dave
> >
> Open a wardrobe door, square, with a full length
> mirror on it and putt from about 6' towards the
> mirror watching the clubhead in the mirror. I find
> this a tremendous help in improving control over
> the clubhead path and the smoothness and tempo
> of the stroke.
>
> Alan
>
>
I've done something similar on occasion - it is helpful (would love to have
it on the course).
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 06:54:13
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
I use two hands for short putts and one hand for putts over about 6 or 8
feet. It is because on a short putt the very small amount of exertion
required for the distance induces me to stop moving my hand and to allow the
releasing putter to strike the ball, more so than on a longer putt. THIS
allows my right forearm to pronate ever so slightly as it naturally does,
which of course induces pulled putts and misses. Longer putts do not
release as early so that issue doesn't affect them. Therefore using two
hands turned outward (both palms "uinder" the grip) for short putts
eliminates that reason for missing short ones.
Now I can only blame my carelessness in aiming.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 12:11:42
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message
news:z1Z5h.19185$GU5.17787@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> I use two hands for short putts and one hand for putts over about 6 or 8
> feet. It is because on a short putt the very small amount of exertion
> required for the distance induces me to stop moving my hand and to allow
the
> releasing putter to strike the ball, more so than on a longer putt. THIS
> allows my right forearm to pronate ever so slightly as it naturally does,
> which of course induces pulled putts and misses. Longer putts do not
> release as early so that issue doesn't affect them. Therefore using two
> hands turned outward (both palms "uinder" the grip) for short putts
> eliminates that reason for missing short ones.
>
> Now I can only blame my carelessness in aiming.
>
>
Interesting in that I tend to do the opposite. On short putts I sometimes
use a modified claw grip such that only my right index finger (plus LH, of
course) touches the grip. It is basically a LH (lead hand) stroke only that
I used to use just for drills and sometimes use on the course as well.
I find this less effective on longer putts.
dave
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 17:41:14
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:2iZ5h.5772$l25.5354@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com> wrote in message
> news:z1Z5h.19185$GU5.17787@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> I use two hands for short putts and one hand for putts over about 6 or 8
>> feet. It is because on a short putt the very small amount of exertion
>> required for the distance induces me to stop moving my hand and to allow
> the
>> releasing putter to strike the ball, more so than on a longer putt. THIS
>> allows my right forearm to pronate ever so slightly as it naturally does,
>> which of course induces pulled putts and misses. Longer putts do not
>> release as early so that issue doesn't affect them. Therefore using two
>> hands turned outward (both palms "uinder" the grip) for short putts
>> eliminates that reason for missing short ones.
>>
>> Now I can only blame my carelessness in aiming.
>>
>>
> Interesting in that I tend to do the opposite. On short putts I sometimes
> use a modified claw grip such that only my right index finger (plus LH, of
> course) touches the grip. It is basically a LH (lead hand) stroke only
> that
> I used to use just for drills and sometimes use on the course as well.
>
> I find this less effective on longer putts.
>
> dave
>
>
Same idea in that the club is held so it can't change face direction --it's
that right hand rotation that kills the short ones for me with that hand
alone.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 09:52:24
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > I'm not sure that there were any putting epiphanies out of this, but I
> > sure
> > could tell when my clubhead was closed at impact and made some progress in
> > relating this to how things feel when that happens. I'm guessing that this
> > will be somewhat helpful in avoiding this down the road.
> >
> > FWIW.
> >
>
> Quite a lot. Dave Pelz talked a lot about how difficult it is to improve in
> putting because of a lack of feedback. Just putting away on the green tells
> you only where the ball goes, not why. One of the elements in building a
> good pendulum stroke is focusing in on what the putter head is doing
> throughout the stroke. Is it square at impact? Is it outside- in or
> inside - out? Is the stroke reliably delivering the sweet spot to the ball?
> Is the putter face aligned with the target? etc.
>
> Feedback on these individual elements is a problem, particularly face
> alignment (open vs. closed) and aligning on the intended target. ...
A huge issue in this regard is the putter design itself. I use a blade
putter
with a reasonably thick section of metal where it contacts the ball. It
provides,
easily, to my hands, a feedback on how hard I hit the ball, whether the
face
was open or closed at impact, etc.
I've tried newer 'modern' putters. But they all have thin metal strips,
or inserts
in the ball contact zone DESIGNED to make the contact with the ball
feel more crisp. This impedes normal tactile feedback. Your hands and
fingers
will be more useful if the vibrational frequencies are lower - 40 Hz
and lower. The
thin insert crisp contact makes it ring much higher, and destroys
tactile
feedback.
The lack of knowledge of clubface open/closed is mainly caused by
heel-toe
weighting which minimizes the rotational torque from the ball when you
strike it. As a result, your hands feel less rotational torque, and you
get less
feedback.
The evolution of the putter in the last 30 years, starting with the
Ping, has
worked against everything we know about tactile feedback and its
usefulness
in putting.
I'm gonna keep my blade putter, might even work on making one with
even better feedback.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 20:25:36
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163785944.627631.137900@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The lack of knowledge of clubface open/closed is mainly caused by
> heel-toe
> weighting which minimizes the rotational torque from the ball when you
> strike it. As a result, your hands feel less rotational torque, and you
> get less
> feedback.
>
>
All this makes sense (including the snipped bit about inserts), but in the
case of torque reduction, I think it makes for worse feedback but better
putting. For practice, there's no feedback like impact tape.
I'm not sure that you can get adequate feedback on face angle from any
putter just by virtue of it's design. The error required to cause a missed
20 foot putt is just too dang small to differentiate between a good stroke
and one that caused a missed putt (< 0.5 degree at 20' !).
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 03:51:07
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
I don't get what feedback is wanted with a putter. Putting is the
one part of the game where hitting the ball square and in the middle
is easy. Especially if I don't look up until a second or two after I
hit the ball, what's there to feel from a blade?
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Nov 2006 04:30:46
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:ep0tl2pf235dmba342r3412vr7gctcg9t1@4ax.com...
>I don't get what feedback is wanted with a putter. Putting is the
> one part of the game where hitting the ball square and in the middle
> is easy. Especially if I don't look up until a second or two after I
> hit the ball, what's there to feel from a blade?
You might be surprised about how easy it is to hit the ball square and on
the sweet spot. The thing is, in putting very small deviations from perfect
contact perfectly square can mean the difference between success and
failure. This isn't the case with the long game. I would be surprised if
your face is aligned within a half a degree from dead on target at impact
with a high percentage success rate. At 20 feet, that alone will cause you
to miss the putt. It won't cause you to miss the green from 150 yards.
The feedback issue involves improving your percentages for square impact
through repetitive practice. The amount of deviation that is significant in
terms of results is not significant in terms of you knowing whether you did
it right or not. You need feedback for that...
Scott
|
| | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 20:24:59
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163785944.627631.137900@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> S McFarlane wrote:
> > "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> > news:icQ5h.5640$0r.4777@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >
snip
>
> A huge issue in this regard is the putter design itself. I use a blade
> putter
> with a reasonably thick section of metal where it contacts the ball. It
> provides,
> easily, to my hands, a feedback on how hard I hit the ball, whether the
> face
> was open or closed at impact, etc.
>
> I've tried newer 'modern' putters. But they all have thin metal strips,
> or inserts
> in the ball contact zone DESIGNED to make the contact with the ball
> feel more crisp. This impedes normal tactile feedback. Your hands and
> fingers
> will be more useful if the vibrational frequencies are lower - 40 Hz
> and lower. The
> thin insert crisp contact makes it ring much higher, and destroys
> tactile
> feedback.
>
> The lack of knowledge of clubface open/closed is mainly caused by
> heel-toe
> weighting which minimizes the rotational torque from the ball when you
> strike it. As a result, your hands feel less rotational torque, and you
> get less
> feedback.
>
> The evolution of the putter in the last 30 years, starting with the
> Ping, has
> worked against everything we know about tactile feedback and its
> usefulness
> in putting.
>
> I'm gonna keep my blade putter, might even work on making one with
> even better feedback.
>
> -PA
>
Interesting perspective. I just don't like lighter putters as I can't tell
where the head is mid-stroke. But I will admit that impact feedback is much
reduced. I have no idea how this trade-off actually plays off to my
advantage (or disadvantage).
dave
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 09:58:04
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
And Dave wonders why he never gets invited to parties.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 11:52:31
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> I don't get what feedback is wanted with a putter. Putting is the
> one part of the game where hitting the ball square and in the middle
> is easy. Especially if I don't look up until a second or two after I
> hit the ball, what's there to feel from a blade?
Well, suppose you want to hit a ball with a certain force.
You can learn to estimate from putter velocity.
Or you can learn to create a feeling of force on the hands.
I find the latter DRAMATICALLY easier. But it is very
difficult with many new putters. I tried to switch to a new
Odyssey 2-ball, but I couldn't get any feel with it in my
hands, and my putting responded to practice much more
slowly than with my old blade.
-PA
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2006 11:49:40
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: An Interesting Putting Experiment
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote :
> > The lack of knowledge of clubface open/closed is mainly caused by
> > heel-toe
> > weighting which minimizes the rotational torque from the ball when you
> > strike it. As a result, your hands feel less rotational torque, and you
> > get less
> > feedback.
> All this makes sense (including the snipped bit about inserts), but in the
> case of torque reduction, I think it makes for worse feedback but better
> putting. For practice, there's no feedback like impact tape.
No, your hands can receive instantaneous feedback.
Impact tape is delayed.
There is a HUGE difference in the learning process depending on how
long
the feedback occurs after the action.
-PA
|
|
