The wonderful world of Dave Pelz

[JAMH03]

@"Ignatius Reilly" :D

 

Some interesting Pelz discussion here. I'm a big fan but I tried to be very realistic about some of the difficulties myself and others have had as well.

[JAMH03]

> @JAMH03 said:>

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.

 

 

 

> > E.T. @vietnameeh take any advice from someone not as good as you with a huge grain of salt! That said for some reason something about this article seemed to fit some of the things you were saying and doing when you were playing well and as you plan the next steps. Not even sure what aspect applies to you aside from the where to miss aspect, (Mark Broadie before Strokes gained) how to plan your tee shots and maybe the idea of having a plan to mitigate consistently problematic choices. That last sentence was awkward but what I mean is I know you're smart so see if you can find something in that article that fits you. LOL

[vietnameeh]

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

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.

 

 

 

> > > > > > E.T. @vietnameeh take any advice from someone not as good as you with a huge grain of salt! > > That said for some reason something about this article seemed to fit some of the things you were saying and doing when you were playing well and as you plan the next steps. > > Not even sure what aspect applies to you aside from the where to miss aspect, (Mark Broadie before Strokes gained) how to plan your tee shots and maybe the idea of having a plan to mitigate consistently problematic choices. > > That last sentence was awkward but what I mean is I know you're smart so see if you can find something in that article that fits you. LOL > > AWESOME! Thank You!

[GungHoGolf]

> @MelloYello said:

> I can also thank Pelz' books for calling out little things like how up-hillers tend to break more and down-hillers less

 

Did Pelz really say that? Aimpoint Express teaches the opposite. Uphillers roll faster and therefore break less, downhillers roll slower and therefore break more.

 

 

[JAMH03]

> @GungHoGolf said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > I can also thank Pelz' books for calling out little things like how up-hillers tend to break more and down-hillers less

>

> Did Pelz really say that? Aimpoint Express teaches the opposite. Uphillers roll faster and therefore break less, downhillers roll slower and therefore break more.

>

>

 

Probs simply got it reversed.

 

A really interesting "factoid" not sure if I got it from D. Pelz or not but I think that he mentioned that speed is 300% more important than line on downhillers since I've followed that I've putted much better on downhillers.

 

[JAMH03]

> @JAMH03 said:>

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.

 

 

 

> > @hacker49 this article has some solid suggestions for you well worth a shot. Also there is some really good swing/play advice on the breaking 80 threads that would apply to you as well. Enjoy

[gentles]

My big issue with the clock system is I’ve never played with a truly great wedge player (+ handicap level) who uses it religiously. A 9:00 swing with a 46* wedge is going to be coming in like a rocket with hardly any spin and won’t be any use unless you are playing on very soft greens or have a ton of green. A 1030 swing with a 58 might carry the same, but other than that is a completely different shot. I’ve also never seen a tour player come to a full finish with every wedge shot.

 

Carry distance is one of a number of variables which make a good shot, including landing angle and spin rate, margin for error of strike (eg using bounce), all of which I don’t recall reading about in the short game bible

 

All good wedge players I’ve played with (and have watched on tv and live) use a 58/60 for almost every distance wedge shot inside 80 yards and use some other method (other than backswings length) to control speed. I’m sure there are exceptions to this but I’m only going on what I’ve seen and heard

 

When throwing a ball, do you ever think about how far back you wind your arm up, or just how fast to move your arm for the specified distance?

 

SBST is biomechanically inferior, and you hardly hear anyone advocating that these days, and less than 1% (my guess) of top putters consciously tryi keep the putter on that path.

 

This thread shows that everyone’s experience is different, but for me, other than playing more break on my putts not many concepts from the bibles has stood the test of time. I do think they paved the way for SG type analysis we see today though!

[Pete O'Tube]

I bought Peltz's book on putting. Some interesting facts and ideas, but it was basically a 30 page pamphlet packed into 200 pages! There was an awful lot of repetition.

[baudi]

the '17 inches past the hole' rule past the hole was a bit off. It is a range: Shorter for faster greens and longer for slower greens. Still the idea behind is good (if the player wants the ball to give energy to pass the hole).

[Lefty_3Jack]

> @MountainGoat said:

> I like his back yard.

>

>

 

Did he make all his money from golf or did he do something before golf?

[MountainGoat]

> @"Lefty Light HItter" said:

> Did he make all his money from golf or did he do something before golf?

NASA engineer.

 

[JAMH03]

For what it's worth I'm not mad and I'm a DP fan not a DP apologist I certainly have my qualms as well.

 

Once again so much is lost in translation and it seems to show up again and again. Yes the 18 inches past the hole rule is "off" but I'm not sure that's exactly what he said.

 

It was probably more like he said on putts of X length on greens of Y speed with this much of a lumpy donut as a general rule... more putts went in at this speed by my testing.

 

Same thing with the clock swings... Tom Kite, Payne Stewart Phil Mickelson and others have adopted DP's system but it doesn't LOOK the same because they are experts. DP was explaining how to own the distances what the backbone of the method was not what the finished product looked like.

 

So many of us get tripped up on our interpretations of DP's explanations vs just using what makes sense for us to utilize.

[gentles]

> @JAMH03 said:

> For what it's worth I'm not mad and I'm a DP fan not a DP apologist I certainly have my qualms as well.

>

> Once again so much is lost in translation and it seems to show up again and again. Yes the 18 inches past the hole rule is "off" but I'm not sure that's exactly what he said.

>

> It was probably more like he said on putts of X length on greens of Y speed with this much of a lumpy donut as a general rule... more putts went in at this speed by my testing.

>

> Same thing with the clock swings... Tom Kite, Payne Stewart Phil Mickelson and others have adopted DP's system but it doesn't LOOK the same because they are experts. DP was explaining how to own the distances what the backbone of the method was not what the finished product looked like.

>

> So many of us get tripped up on our interpretations of DP's explanations vs just using what makes sense for us to utilize.

 

I don’t get it - his book specifically describes that you use length of backswing to control distance...and the students he has taught don’t follow that method in practice? If the “finished product” doesn’t match what is described then how is it still valid?

 

Phil uses a 60 for every shot inside 80 yards...I’d love to be proven wrong but I’d be very surprised if a single tour pro uses anything less than a 54 for shots inside 80 yards. This “one club for all distances” method is the opposite of the “3 swings with every club” approach.

 

 

[David C]

I put off buying the SGB and PB for years. I was a ‘feel’ player and just ‘did it’. This is nearly 20 years ago now.

 

However I’m an analytical man and eventually ran out of ideas. Chipping as taught to me back then was overly simplistic and one dimensional. Pitching was all about feeling different power.

 

One day I bit the bullet and bought both books. The thing that amazed me was the attention he gave to translating his concepts into reality and realistic practice exercises. I felt it was like ‘here’s what works, here’s why, here’s what to do’. He lays out a path you can follow on its own. I would laugh at those people - I call them ‘morons’ who baulk at something because it looks complicated. Especially here I felt Mr Pelz have practical ways to implement his books. ‘I’m a feel olayer’. I read his books as being all about feel, ultimately. See it, feel it, do it. What could be more practical and straightforward than that?!??

 

Now, time has moved on. Take what Pelz calls pitching or what is called ‘chipping’ or ‘short game’ in the U.K. People trend towards more stable lower bodies these days. And instead of following Pelz and changing the wedge to change the amount of bounce to suit the lie on different shots, to avoid the fat and thin shot, now ‘use’ (I call it ‘allow’) the bounce, and allow for hitting it fat, rather than try to eliminate hitting it fat (just as one example). Modern - and dare I say pre-Pelz ‘distance wedges’, what we in the U.K. call ‘pitching’ are about hitting super low, draw shots that bite on the second bounce and closer to his low wedge shot but with less hand action.

 

And hand action - Pelz seems to be about eliminating wristiness whilst himself rolling the club a lot, as opposed to the modern hand action which is more ‘vertical’ with less rolling. Same with bunker shots, his method is antiquated, you see less players aiming way left (even if I personally wonder that side-spinning a ball always left to right towards the pin is more predictable than a face that might be open or shut and always missing left or right of the pin... again, the technology [ball] is vastly different to when Pelz wrote his books).

 

None of which is surprising as these books are 20-25 years old meaning they are 30+ years old and the technology is different and game is different. However some things I think stand the test of time - rhythm, pace, cadence, under-reading break, routine, ritual, converting to ‘feel’.

[David C]

.