The wonderful world of Dave Pelz

In this thread we discuss Dave Pelz's contributions to golf. Any questions we may have? How Pelz's ideas may have impacted us. Little know facts and even things we may disagree with The Grand Puba Pelz Daddy about. I'd like to establish a base-line and better parameters to frame the discussion but it's really just an open ended place for musings, thoughts, evaluations, feedback, and shared ideas.

 

Make no mistake about it Pelz has been a major contributor and influencer of how so many of us think about or understand how golf works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@DavePelz4 @ChipNRun and others please fee free to share ideas and questions.

It has been a very long time since I’ve read any of his stuff but I recall much of the information on how a ball reacts on a green, where to land balls, and ideas for measuring short game performance quite interesting and useful.

 

For me personally however, virtually every one of his ideas about tools and technique were dreadful - to the point I’d probably quit the game if forced to play that way. I’m simply not that mechanical.

 

Four specific instances. First, distance wedge idea doesn’t work for me. There are simply too many variables (lie, elevation, trajectory, desired release, wind) for me to believe I could make it work. Moreover, I want to concentrate on the target, not my backswing. Second, alignment aids and putting. I can never get past the parallax involved in lining up a ball from behind near ground level then aligning the putter from above. Third, human beings aren’t Perfy and human physiology and putter design naturally produce an arc... Finally, the vast majority of the worlds golfers could hit a muscle back 1 iron more reliably than a 64 degree wedge - and for that matter a 60 degree wedge.

 

That said, there are many ways to skin a cat and different models/feels/techniques resonate for different people. Mr. Pelz’ techniques have absolutely helped thousands of golfers make sense of the short game. His contribution to golf is undeniably enormously positive.

Actually all of the stuff you talk about is pretty easy to implement if you try it and/or practice it.

Obviously I'm a proponent of Pelz. My learning style is more math/science oriented which is why his approach has worked for me but it won't fit for many others. Went to one of his schools and it definitely helped my short game. Although my putting style is a bit less traditional and more like Nicklaus in terms of stance/alignment, the laser alignment test showed that I'm usually putting at the target. I'm a fan of some of the training aids, particularly the Truth Board.

I always appreciated his statistical approach. I think he helped pioneer a lot of the data collection we take for granted today. In his Short Game and Putting Bibles, he talks about following Pros on Tour collecting all that data by hand.

 

Interesting stat I recently saw: While pros only make about 50% of their putts from 6-ft during tournament rounds, they can make 90% or more from that same distance when practicing on the green hitting the same putt(s) over and over. Their strokes are just that repeatable!

 

I can also thank Pelz' books for calling out little things like how up-hillers tend to break more and down-hillers less or about the lumpy donut! I think he's also a strong proponent of the 17-in rule whereupon that's (often) the optimal speed for holing putts.

As for my short game, I'm a mix of Pelz, and Debbie Steinbach who wrote "Venus on the Fringe."

For putting, the two are in alignment: use a straight back, straight through (SBST) putting stroke. I had gone to SBST after finding the Venus book on my shelf, and going back to SBST two years ago. And now, Pelz confirms the idea in a video I found: [https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-avast-securebrowser&hsimp=yhs-securebrowser&hspart=avast&p=Davi+Pelz+and+putting#id=8&vid=273b4776de4c345269a8e90dfa89e29c&action=view](https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-avast-securebrowser&hsimp=yhs-securebrowser&hspart=avast&p=Davi+Pelz+and+putting#id=8&vid=273b4776de4c345269a8e90dfa89e29c&action=view "https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-avast-securebrowser&hsimp=yhs-securebrowser&hspart=avast&p=Davi+Pelz+and+putting#id=8&vid=273b4776de4c345269a8e90dfa89e29c&action=view")

Steinback, shown below, suggests the V-arm positioning for putting and chipping,

and Pelz describes this as an good alternate chipping setup called "elbows out, large wrist angle."

 

For wedges, I've followed modified Pelz routine for preparing my wedge distance matrix. I fear Pelz would be furious with me because I only use three wedges (3.5 with my 9i included). Pelz believes that four or even five wedges give players the best chance to maximize scoring opportunities. Here is my current wedge matrix:

As you can see, I have a gap between my PW (actual a split-the-difference between PW and GW) and my 9i. I resolve this by playing the PW back an inch to deloft and pick up 5 yards, or grip down the 9i a half-inch to shave yards.

(Three wedges pursues _peace of mind_; I was too indecisive with four wedges.)

 

> @DavePelz4 said:

> Obviously I'm a proponent of Pelz. My learning style is more math/science oriented which is why his approach has worked for me but it won't fit for many others. **Went to one of his schools and it definitely helped my short game. ** Although my putting style is a bit less traditional and more like Nicklaus in terms of stance/alignment, the laser alignment test showed that I'm usually putting at the target. I'm a fan of some of the training aids, particularly the Truth Board.

 

Must have been an "odd" school for HIM, what with a "Student" named Dave Pelz, and you hanging on his every breath? Hope you at least tried to look into pawning off Mrs. Pelz's Mother on him?

I like his back yard.

 

I respect his instructions and history, but I can't find deep admiration.

 

Unless he was the guy behind me learning to use a consistent ball position in my stroke, then I can only wish him well. Seems like a wonderful guy, But he might as well be Shaq, Tiger, or Phil to me. He might beat his wife while molesting his children. Or Not.

 

At the same time, he comes off as a knowledge-able professional. He might donate all his time to curing cancer in mice. I. don't. know.

 

Pelz is a far off person who I have no connection to.

 

That's why I spent so much time typing this.

@Murphy76 I'll be your friend. What's in your bag right now?

 

 

 

 

feel the shot, be the shot

Short game is about developing one's own personal feel.

 

I think Pelz is good for the mechanical type golfer.

> @Ferguson said:

> I think Pelz is good for the mechanical type golfer.

Yes, Pelz definitely uses systematic measurement for his method.

 

I prepared myself a Pelz-style wedge matrix and recheck it every spring. I don't have the time or unrestricted range use or coach help, however, to go Full Pelz.

 

For Full Pelz, Dave or his coach has a player hit 30 PW shots to, for example, a 50 yard target. After each shot, the coach tells the golfer how far the shot actually went "... 44... 53... 49... 52..." This continues until the player achieves proper stroke rhythm to launch the shot 50 yards.

So, it could take a couple of days using the Full Pelz method to work up stroke rhythm to duplicate precisely all distances in the 3 x 4 matrix. (Note: This classic matrix diagram from his 2000 _Short Game Bible_ book predates widespread use of the Gap Wedge.)

 

For my spring calibration, I use the driving range top-tier tee on a slow day. I hit my wedges from south edge to north edge. I have a half-dozen of the balls I'm playing that season. (Range balls fly shorter, in part because they have hard covers and don't grab the clubface as much as mid spin or high spin balls).

I plant my bag to mark the "hit line", and then hit six shots with each wedge from half, 3/4 and full. I laze each ball's distance back to the bag, and take the average distance (minus outliers) and plot it for that cell. I'm done in about an hour.

One thing Pelz influenced was an acceptance of science into the Tour ranks. While there were golf-infatuated engineers and scientists looking for opportunities in the golf industry before Pelz, he seems to be the one that was able to his foot in the door around Tour players. Prior to that, it seems a lot of the accepted beliefs with pros were misperceptions (feel ain’t real) or just flat wrong (like old beliefs of ball flight laws). Pelz seems to one of the first to start changing some pretty stodgy beliefs, and now it seems a pro can’t take a practice swing without a Trackman, video, and an armload of statistics at their fingertips. And as with everything, there tends to be a trickle down from the pro ranks to consumers. I don’t think it can be said that Pelz created the scientific revolution in the game, but he was certainly an influencer.

So much good discussion already thanks for the feedback guys.

 

I don't even know where to start? I guess I'll start with the negative. If you don't get what he's said. Or can't make it work for you I'm really sorry. As a rule I would say his putting bible is really really bad. And the other works are accessible if you work.

 

For myself I've absolutely noticed that his descriptions can be convoluted off-putting and confusing in places. I tend not to care so much because I tend to find his data is good if his conclusions from the data can be challenged.

 

 

 

 

 

Pelz's Shortgame bible is a must read for analytical guys. For quick fixers sorry it's not for you.

Some many great concepts from Pelz that get "short shrift"

 

Once concept from Pelz that I believe tends to be under-discussed is his focus. He went to the PGA tour to figure out how they make money so he could figure out how to make money.

 

That I think was his number one thing more so than figuring out golf. With that in mind I am able to take his work on differently and when he creates a product that can be duplicated with a plastic drinking straw I'm not offended.

 

DP is very upfront about the average golfer being able to replicate the ideas on their own and those who have less time can buy his products if they desire.

> @halliedog said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > Obviously I'm a proponent of Pelz. My learning style is more math/science oriented which is why his approach has worked for me but it won't fit for many others. **Went to one of his schools and it definitely helped my short game. ** Although my putting style is a bit less traditional and more like Nicklaus in terms of stance/alignment, the laser alignment test showed that I'm usually putting at the target. I'm a fan of some of the training aids, particularly the Truth Board.

>

> Must have been an "odd" school for HIM, what with a "Student" named Dave Pelz, and you hanging on his every breath? Hope you at least tried to look into pawning off Mrs. Pelz's Mother on him?

 

Or is Mrs. Pelz really Mrs. Pelz?

I bought the big book a long time ago, many years later after purchasing a new mattress, it was found languishing along with many other books I hadn't missed under the bed and covered with dust. No longer have it. But I enjoyed a lot of it.

 

I think any ideas that resonate with anyone and makes that person better is great. He resonates with a lot of people. Pelz has had a lot of success, Phil used to swear by him, Tom Kite for sure.

 

He has a lot of interesting ideas, and I like that he came by them "honestly" by getting out there and doing his own work and formulating his own principles, so to speak - lots of respect for that.

 

For me, I tried the "mechanical" approach to short game and just wasn't for me. SBST is a disaster for my putting so flirted with trying it and gave up quickly once upon a time. I don't agree with his general suggestions that 64 degree wedges should be in most players' bags, that as wedges get higher lofted shaft flex should get more flexible and that players should favor more upright lies. Those things in concert to me just don't work. He also suggests less bounce as wedges get higher lofted - disagree.

 

But that's me. He has lots of thoughts that I take as more course management type things that were interesting to read, but overall the more mechanical, numbers based approach didn't take. His ideas for bag setup work for me, however, and that's how I came to favor carrying more wedges and taking something out of the top end. I'm no scientist and can only speak to how I learn and what things work and, lol, nobody is signing up to get golf advice from me.

 

Just my $.01 -

One of my favorite Pelzisms is the PEI **Pelz Error Index**

If I recall this is the concept that Pelz used to **_GUESS_** * at the dispersion patterns that players on the PGA tour had with their full swings.

After correlating his PEI to the $$$ list no discernible patterns could be found. :D

None the less this concept is still beneficial and fascinatingly enough it probably actually correlates with the Strokes gained model and Decade golf system from Brodie and Fawcett that are in vogue right now.

Clearly those models are going to help people to play better golf. Though there was a book published in 96 that I thought might do the same that didn't seem to catch on.

 

 

I sort of feel that these new scoring systems will catch on more than in the past though maybe long term golf will become more of a system of the haves and have nots? In terms of those willing to pay for the best analytics?

 

Another topic for another day I guess.

 

 

 

PEI does actually pertain to how we aim and how good we can be vs DP's guesses about tour players in 1974-1978 or whenever he put the time in.

 

7% was the best and I think 12-14% was the worst you could have and still be good. IDK it's in DP's short game Bible. 

 

Anyways an example might be if you're hitting say your 7 or 6 iron at 17% dispersion you're probably a fantastic player and can find other skills that are negatively impacting your scores. 

 

 

 

*Why guessing wasn't BAD science I don't know but I agree with DP it was useful anyways.

This article is FANTASTIC and you can absolutely get better if you take it to heart. I went from being 11-12 to an 7-8 based primarily of these strategies. Certainly I played a lot and took lessons, practiced and addressed my weaknesses but this is another one of those articles/books that explicitly tells you what to do to get better.

> @JAMH03 said:>

This article is FANTASTIC and you can absolutely get better if you take it to heart.

 

 

> > While the points Pelz makes in the article are valid, this is an example of where he used bad science to illustrate his point. His premise is that he used Shotlink data on amateurs to identify issues and then offers conclusions based on that data, but in a number of places his data is highly flawed. An example is the following chart where he claims that the ratio of right misses to left misses increases with handicap. But according to his data, the scratch golfer misses right far worse than a 20 or 30 HDCP player. If one just went by his data, there seems very little correlation between index and the miss ratio, but he makes a big premise out of it.Another example where he looks at sand save percentages seems to have even more obvious issues (seen in the following table). Do we really believe that a 20 HDCP is more than 2x better at getting up and down from a close greenside bunker than a scratch player, or that a scratch player is 3x better from 20-30 yard bunker shots than from shorter 10-20 yard shots? Again, the data appears bad but he forges ahead anyway.And another example, this time with the percentage of sinking makeable putts from different distances. According to his data, a 30 handicapper is better from 10-15' than scratch, a 20 handicapper is more than 3x better from 15-20' than scratch, a 10 handicapper is a better putter overall than a scratch player, and a scratch player is more than twice as good from 20-25' than they are from 15-20'. Yet again, the data is highly suspect here. In all of these cases, there are significant parts of the data that do not pass a basic smell test to see if the data might be suspect, however Pelz goes ahead and publishes it all anyway and makes sweeping conclusions about amateur games. Now overall, I think those conclusions are correct based on broader data that we've all seen and our experiences, but for a guy who is trying to be data driven here and use that as the basis for his advice, he was very sloppy. If this were peer-reviewed science he'd be ripped a new one.

> @Clambake said:> > @JAMH03 said:> >

This article is FANTASTIC and you can absolutely get better if you take it to heart.

 

 

> > > > > > While the points Pelz makes in the article are valid, this is an example of where he used bad science to illustrate his point. His premise is that he used Shotlink data on amateurs to identify issues and then offers conclusions based on that data, but in a number of places his data is highly flawed. An example is the following chart where he claims that the ratio of right misses to left misses increases with handicap. But according to his data, the scratch golfer misses right far worse than a 20 or 30 HDCP player. If one just went by his data, there seems very little correlation between index and the miss ratio, but he makes a big premise out of it.> > > > Another example where he looks at sand save percentages seems to have even more obvious issues (seen in the following table). Do we really believe that a 20 HDCP is more than 2x better at getting up and down from a close greenside bunker than a scratch player, or that a scratch player is 3x better from 20-30 yard bunker shots than from shorter 10-20 yard shots? Again, the data appears bad but he forges ahead anyway.> > > > And another example, this time with the percentage of sinking makeable putts from different distances. According to his data, a 30 handicapper is better from 10-15' than scratch, a 20 handicapper is more than 3x better from 15-20' than scratch, a 10 handicapper is a better putter overall than a scratch player, and a scratch player is more than twice as good from 20-25' than they are from 15-20'. Yet again, the data is highly suspect here. > > > > In all of these cases, there are significant parts of the data that do not pass a basic smell test to see if the data might be suspect, however Pelz goes ahead and publishes it all anyway and makes sweeping conclusions about amateur games. Now overall, I think those conclusions are correct based on broader data that we've all seen and our experiences, but for a guy who is trying to be data driven here and use that as the basis for his advice, he was very sloppy. If this were peer-reviewed science he'd be ripped a new one. Agree!

Dave Pelz and his books are the reason why my short game was good enough as a junior golfer to have a 3 handicap while only being able to drive it 200 yards (220 on a big one). I need to review his works.

@JDCON
I do as well. Pelz's wedge swing, stuff at least.

Interestingly enough I see it over and over in GOLFWRX forums players really don't understand the power swing vs the finesse swing. I bring it up because when I was playing my best the way that I got to that form was by improving my ball striking Fairways distance and GIR more so that short game plus putting. Sure I saved some pars just not at the same rate that I had previously.

Though maybe like you previously my game had been based on sound short game techniques, principals and good old block practice. Ultimately when I was nearly my best I ended up being frustrated because I wasn't hitting my pitches or chips as solidly as I believed I could.

I had a very repeatable chunk and run chip and my distance wedges were not so hot. I was sort of in-between chipping and pitching at times.

When I revisited Pelz's techniques I didn't put the work in and got worse results. Compared to the cleaner contact that I'd had before. Even though my scores weren't then as good. Not long after that I tried to adopt Stan Utley's short game techniques and quickly became handsy and got worse.

Now some time later I'm realizing that I would've just been better off grinding a little harder with either Pelz's system or Utley's pivot rather than let both fall to the wayside.

To answer a few of the posters above discussing how mechanical DP's descriptions are I agree entirely.

 

Though that hasn't bothered me as much as I tended to focus on players who can execute the shots in ways that aren't stiff and stilted like maybe I would or how DP may describe. So many players of the 90's took Pelz's classes many I especially enjoyed watching play short game shots.  Vijay Singh, Lee Janzen, Payne Stewart, Phil Mickelson and others. They seemed to be able to execute DP's distance wedge shots under the gun as well.

There is a great one here and an interesting

  with Stan Utley Which I thinks shows how similar SU's and TK's methods really are.

 

 

His ideas on reading the initial line of the putt were eye opening for me. I read his putting bible and that is the one thing that stuck. he did some really nice research and analysis that were ground breaking. He basically invented the modern lob wedge.

His ideas on the SBST stroke to me are ill-conceived. As well as his wedge technique. His idea of using a 64* wedge is a cruel joke for 99.9% of the people who try it.

 

Dave seems like a good guy, can't fault him, he made a lot of money being the first big time short game guru.

 

Just my 2 cents.

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> ... He has a lot of interesting ideas, and I like that he came by them "honestly" by getting out there and doing his own work and formulating his own principles, so to speak - lots of respect for that.

> **SBST is a disaster for my putting** so flirted with trying it and gave up quickly once upon a time.

I went back to SBST about 18 months ago, and find it works for me. One secret Pelz doesn't discuss - for SBST you need to release the rear shoulder under on follow-through to maintain pendulum motion and keep the clubhead online.

> I don't agree with his general suggestions that 64 degree wedges should be in most players' bags, ...

I own a 64° Cle CG14 wedge, mainly because I assembled a collection of all the model's lofts. I tried to hit it a couple of times, just too different. I finally found a 60° I can hit, but three-quarters (Pelz 9 o'clock) swing is the most I like to try - just too unstable on full swing. As noted earlier, I only carry three wedges - 48, 54, and 60 - so Pelz might throw me out of happy hour at any of his schools.

> He also suggests less bounce as wedges get higher lofted - disagree.

This may be one reason why the guru on another golf blog is so anti-Pelz.

> I'm _no scientist_ and can only speak to how I learn and what things work and, lol, nobody is signing up to get golf advice from me.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You systematically worked your way through the Pelz system, kept what worked and discarded the rest. Good job!

I read the short game book years ago. I had the time to practice and using his method my hdcp went from a 5 to a 1. The key is having the time to practice it and keep the same rhythm. I thought it was great.

I then rushed out and bought the putting bible expecting to be a plus shortly thereafter. Reading the book was akin to trying to eat sand for me. It was too much for me.

Now (without the time to practice) I only refer back to two things. One is the miss percentage of the pros by percentage with each club. This helps me accept my misses and stay positive knowing pros miss too, which we rarely see on tv.

And also the difference in make percentage between pool tables, 6AM fresh greens, and 7PM greens that have been played on. Knowing my chances go from roughly 95% to 30% because of inevitable imperfections caused by prior traffic, I can try to focus on the roll and not the result. Which has also helped my mental acceptance of misses.

Good replies so far in this discussion.

I think the putting Bible is really really bad and I don't recommend it to anyone. Not that I disagree with the findings at all.