Jump to content

bobbyclampett!!

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

bobbyclampett!!'s Achievements

204

Reputation

  1. Hmmm, that's interesting, but I don't think the back of left hand is meant to match the loft of the club or is in fact matching the loft of the club in those photos. Rather the line of the plane formed by the back of the hand is meant to be parallel to the leading edge of the club, no matter the club. I'm pretty sure that's the case, as you wouldn't see a left hand turned over the club 46 degrees for like a pitching wedge. Imagine your club face is perfectly aligned at target, so the club face is perpendicular to target line. It seems to me that, for the back of left hand to match at address, the back of the left hand would need to be straight up and down, and that you wouldn't be able to see any knuckles of your lead hand, and that you'd actually be able to see the underside of your lead hand, like the base of your thumb pad, and not the back of your left hand at all. But no one seems to teach that, and I don't think the pros are gripping it that weak with the left hand. In fact, some seem to have their left hand really kind of over the top of the grip and strong, yet the back of their left hand always seem to match the club face at the top. So are their club faces slightly open at address to match the slight tilt of the left hand that is over the grip? I think there is a simple answer to all this, but I feel really confused by this particular issue.
  2. It seems like all pros have the back of their lead hand matching the face at the top of their swing, regardless of their wrist angle. In the Twitter post below, there are all kinds of wrist angles, but the face seems to match the back of the left hand. It seems no matter what I try, my face is always closed to the back of left hand at the top. The only way I have found to match them up is to weaken my left hand grip to an extremely weak position and open my face at address. I think the face should or could be slightly open at address, and that's fine, but nothing extreme. The more concerning part for me is that I seem to have to have a really weak left hand grip, like weaker than anything I've seen recommended, to achieve the alignment mentioned at the top. Like my left hand almost has to be on the left side of the grip, not on top of it at all, and it seems even the weakest grips you see are somewhat on top of the club, if even just a little bit. But when the left hand is turned over even fractionally, and the back of the left hand is slanted to the right even just a little bit, the club face would have to match at address by being tilted that much open, right? I mean, the only way the back of the lead hand could match up with a club face that is square at address is if the back of the lead hand is straight up and down at address, which no one recommends or seems to do. And it seems like it shouldn't matter what you do during the swing that would affect that relationship, unless you are regripping the club during backswing, which I guess there is a chance I do that somewhat as I am used to playing with a face more shut to the back of my left hand. Does anyone have any idea what is going on here? How are the pros achieving this alignment? I feel like I shouldn't have to turn my left hand extremely weak to where it is on the side of the club to achieve it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. This issue wracks my brain and keeps me up at night...
  3. I'm excited to try one out. How are people feeling about this more rubbery grip vs. the grip on the Sigma 2? I think they both feel great, no real preference.
  4. Got on a good putting green and experimented with this "black and white" concept from on both right-to-lefters and left-to-righters. I get what Azinger and Burke are saying now, when you realize the white is always the side you putt from. Oddly enough, I think I was coming around to this method on my own, although I was thinking about it slightly differently, and once I experimented with "my way" (which I explain below) and the "black and white" way, I think I liked my way better, although it's very close to the same thing. Ever since listening to Dave Stockton's "Unconscious Putting," I have been practicing more green reading, pre-shot routine, visualization, stepping into the ball and getting consistently set up than I have really worked on my actual stroke. One thing I realized is that we almost always read a putt on the straight line made by the ball and hole. And then most of us, including myself, walk into the putt along that straight line, even if it is a breaking putt. I started to realize that's not helpful, and can even throw you off, because you're not walking into the putt on the line the putt travels. So you lose that line by walking in along the straight line made by ball and hole. The better approach would be to extend the line of the breaking putt back to infinity (like Azinger says) and walk into the putt along that line, not the straight line made by ball and hole. Also as Azinger says, this seems to be much more important for left-to-right putts for a left handed breaker. I always felt like, when walking in on the straight line, I never got myself open enough or aligned high enough, and that I was always kind of aimed directly at the hole, always setting myself up to miss low. Once I started walking in along the line the putt was going to break, I set up much better to the line, saw the putt better, stroked the putt better, and started making a lot more putts. So I think the main differences between my approach and the "black and white" approach are 1) it's important to do for all putts, not just left to right putts (although it does seem slightly more crucial to do it on LtoR putts), and 2) you shouldn't just get into the black as far as you can and then just cross over to the white willy nilly, as that isn't any more helpful to walking in on the correct line than walking in on the straight line made by ball and hole, but rather you should read your putt, draw that line back from the ball, and walk in along that line with your eyes laser focused on the path the ball needs to take, and you will have a much better chance of lining up to the proper breaking line. But I really like that the "black and white" video got me thinking along these lines (pun intended). Thanks everyone, keep sharing stuff here! It's so helpful!
  5. I am excited to try one of these out. I picked an Anser up and waggled it around at a Scheels this weekend. From address the head looked basically identical to my Sigma 2 Anser. Only differences I noticed (again, without hitting a ball) were the black shaft and the old school grip material in the newer design shape. I liked everything about it. I don't think many have mentioned this here, so I'll ask: any noticeable difference in the shaft from Sigma 2 to 2021, either in just the looks of it, or the weight or the flex? Does it feel softer or stiffer than Sigma 2 shaft? Do people like the black shaft better than chrome?
  6. Haha, glad I wasn't the only one confused. Try as I might, my brain was not computing "black and white." For a minute I thought black was the high side of the putt, but then they flipped that around for the L to R putt. Errmmm. Your explanation makes more sense. Basically they are saying to walk into the putt from the lower side of the putt. That seems easier, and to make sense. So, overall, good share!
  7. First impressions are very favorable. I went straight to our 50 yard short game practice area with my shag bag and found the tightest lies available. It felt like cheating. No matter where I contacted the ground (as long as it wasn’t thin), these wedges just slid right into the ball with zero digging. Felt like I was nipping everything perfectly, even though I wasn’t. The wider sole and high bounce inspired confidence. I did not have the feeling that the leading edge was too far off the ground, or even off the ground at all. Seemed to sit flush, even on tight lies. I was definitely able to lay the 60 open for even higher, softer flops, even off tight lies. Chipping was also easy. So were 3/4 shots. Lots of confidence. The only drawback I can think of is they didn’t feel as “solid” on longer shots, with more of the weight around the perimeter and less weight behind the sweet spot. It was certainly more vague contact off the face. I also worry, paradoxically maybe, that the distance and spin will not be as consistent as a more traditional blade wedge, as the cavity back is designed to make off center hits go further, meaning there will likely be a bigger variation in distances. Although I’m not sure about that. The initial testing has been so good that I’m going to continue to test up against my Glide 2.0s. I will continue to keep you updated.
  8. I got some practice in yesterday with this. I definitely got better reads from the low side of the putt, looking at the green facing me, rather than from the high side, with the green sloping away from me. The reads were dramatically different sometimes, but it was always the read from the low point that was most accurate as it gave me the most information. This was true even if the low point was on the opposite side of the hole. So you all have totally helped me out, thank you! I watched the Azinger/Burke video. I don’t understand it. What side of the putt is white or black? Why is it important to move from black to white? Any help would be appreciated.
  9. Whoa, this is kind of blowing my mind. THAT’S why right to lefters are usually easier for right handed golfers? Because you can kind of see the green and line better because it’s tilted toward your eye like a book rather than away from it. I always just thought it was because of how the stroke arcs along the same kind of plane as the tilt of the green, if that makes sense. So does this mean the main benefit of reading a putt from behind the hole for break would be for downhill putts, where the “page” of the green is tilted toward you when you’re behind the hole???
  10. Ahhh, this just happened to me! I had a putt that had to go up, over, and down a big ridge, one where you need to stop it right at the top of the ridge to get it to stop anywhere near the hole. From the ball, it looked like it might break a foot left to right, mostly after the ridge. From behind the hole, it looked like it would break four feet or more left to right, like once it crested the ridge it would turn straight right and enter the hole from 9 o’clock. I trusted the behind the hole read and hit a putt perfectly on that line. The ball almost died right on top of the crest and I thought it was going to roll straight down to the right. I even yelled “Now do what you’re supposed to!” It stayed almost straight, maybe moved a foot to the right like I read from behind the ball. Perfect speed, which was really the hardest part, but left myself a three footer because of misread. That ridge looked sooo different from behind the hole than it did from behind the ball.
  11. Haha. I have never understood how plumb bobbing works and have never really tried. To me the best read to trust is the one standing over the ball. I just think your eyes and body/feet process so much information standing over the actual putt and the best way to putt is to athletically respond to what your body is feeling and seeing, like you do in other sports. There’s nothing worse than reading the putt from all these different methods and then standing over it and seeing/feeling/intuiting something different than what you’ve read before stepping into it and then trying to decide whether to trust what you read before vs. what you’re feeling standing over it. Almost always a recipe for disaster.
  12. This makes a lot of sense to me. I like looking at the putt from the low side. And it makes me think maybe the info that’s throwing me off when looking from the opposite side is the more pronounced visual of what the green is doing AFTER the putt, which, as you say, doesn’t matter to trying to make the putt. I think this, like everything else in golf, differs from person to person. I’ve felt this is my most successful green/putt reading technique: 1) Look at entire green while standing up and walking around from many angles to get the overall sense of the green contours with my eyes and feet/body (general slope, high points and low points, inflection or transition points, drainage areas). 2) Read the green with my eyes (not necessarily the putt yet) while crouching down behind the ball to see the info from #1 but from a lower perspective online with the putt. 3) (This probably gives me the best read of how the putt will break) Stand over the putt like I’m going to hit it, and see what my eyes, feet, and body tell me. I do this at the ball and at several places along the putt if it’s a long one or a multiple breaker. This is almost always my most accurate read and I try to trust it over all others. 4) Walk about halfway along the low side to get an idea of elevation change and total distance. 5) I used to sometimes go behind the hole to see from opposite side, but, as I said to start the thread, that often confused me or seemed to contradict much of the info gathered above. So now if I do something by the hole maybe I’ll do it from the low side to see what is going on right at the hole, or if I do go from opposite side, I won’t do it for break but overall distance and elevation change like 4. I don’t do this for every putt, just those that are more difficult to read and usually longer putts. If I feel very confident in the break I might not do any of the above. Just step in and can it. I know you may be thinking this may take a ton of time but I try to do most of it while my partners are playing, and I can actually move through the steps pretty quickly. Ideally I’d be pretty much ready to stroke the ball as soon as it’s my turn, but it depends on who is where on the greens. Plus I like to play competitive golf and putting is so crucial and this can be hugely helpful, if not to get the read exactly right, to slow down, get laser focused on the image of the precise putt you want to hit, and do your best to produce it. I average about 30 putts per round. Would love to get that down to about 27. edit: just looked up tour average, which is 29, with the best at 27.4 (although they do hit more greens than me). Still, I know I can make one or two more per round than I am right more, even with the stats being what they are.
  13. Hmmm. I think I like this… More information from the ball side of the hole. I will try it out.
  14. Thanks for the replies. Seems like a common refrain. I think I’ll stop reading from behind the hole for break, but maybe walk up there and get the view from behind the hole just to get a better overall perspective and for things like total distance and elevation gain. I wonder why the “break” information from the other side of the hole is so problematic? Shouldn’t it just basically confirm what we see from the ball side? What is going on here? (Haven’t watched the video shared yet).
  15. Seems like whenever I really misread a putt it’s when I get some conflicting info from the opposite side of the hole. Anyone else have this happen? On hard to read putts, I will sometimes see a putt as breaking significantly more from the opposite side or even in a DIFFERENT direction than I see from the ball side of the hole, and almost always my read from the ball side is a better or closer read. But then again I see most pros read putts from the opposite side. I do feel like, and I think I’ve read this somewhere, that reading from the opposite side can give you a better sense of the overall length of the putt, but it really seems to throw me off in terms of break. Am I doing something wrong? What do you all do? What are you looking for from opposite side of hole?
×
×
  • Create New...