Aggressive Putting?

[stickner]

By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center.

 

Pelz "studies" are everything but scientific. All one has to do is look at his data collection and how he goes about "testing". He makes conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes and poorly designed test.

 

Regarding your comment: "By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center."

 

Do you have any scientific studies you can provide a reference to that explain that concept - not just for uphill putts, but for all putts?

 

Specifically studies that have significant sample sizes and well designed tests.

I don't need a scientific study to prove his comment. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of my putts over the decades are proof enough for me.

 

I would have guessed 1/2 a hole and that's just my guesstimate so Dan's number is more accurate based off of his putts, his students' putts and any putts where he was conducting personal research.

 

I will believe a Pro like my Teacher, Dan or Jim Waldren or an Am like Obes, Mitch or Drew before I'd believe some A**H*** waving around a "scientific study," lmao.

 

I've got 2 BSc's and 1 MSc in the sciences and have spent 26+ years in tge orthopedic implant marketplace so I am quite gamiliar with "scientific studies," and I have to this day NEVER seen a legit "scientic study" come out of the golf marketplace.

 

Regardless, enjoy the end of the season and year :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

We all learn in different ways and your way is not better than my my which isn't better than Dan's way.

 

Different strokes for different folks. There is no wrong way.

[stickner]

By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center.

 

Pelz "studies" are everything but scientific. All one has to do is look at his data collection and how he goes about "testing". He makes conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes and poorly designed test.

 

Regarding your comment: "By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center."

 

Do you have any scientific studies you can provide a reference to that explain that concept - not just for uphill putts, but for all putts?

 

Specifically studies that have significant sample sizes and well designed tests.

I don't need a scientific study to prove his comment. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of my putts over the decades are proof enough for me.

 

I would have guessed 1/2 a hole and that's just my guesstimate so Dan's number is more accurate based off of his putts, his students' putts and any putts where he was conducting personal research.

 

I will believe a Pro like my Teacher, Dan or Jim Waldren or an Am like Obes, Mitch or Drew before I'd believe some A**H*** waving around a "scientific study," lmao.

 

I've got 2 BSc's and 1 MSc in the sciences and have spent 26+ years in the orthopedic implant marketplace so I am quite familiar with "scientific studies," and I have to this day NEVER seen a legit "scientic study" come out of the golf marketplace.

 

The best "study" for you would be the knowledge gathered based off of your stroke, putts and experiences.

 

Regardless, enjoy the end of the season and year :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Firstly, I am in no way a Pelz disciple or major Pelz fan. I am just someone who has read some of his stuff...

 

having said that I find it quite ironical that:

• You have discredited Pelz's findings as he is "not really a scientist" and "he didn't follow a scientific approach with his research"
  
• Then in the next breath you say, and I paraphrase, "I have hit a lot of putts and I know how things work"
  

[Forged4ever]

By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center.

 

Pelz "studies" are everything but scientific. All one has to do is look at his data collection and how he goes about "testing". He makes conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes and poorly designed test.

 

Regarding your comment: "By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center."

 

Do you have any scientific studies you can provide a reference to that explain that concept - not just for uphill putts, but for all putts?

 

Specifically studies that have significant sample sizes and well designed tests.

I don't need a scientific study to prove his comment. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of my putts over the decades are proof enough for me.

 

I would have guessed 1/2 a hole and that's just my guesstimate so Dan's number is more accurate based off of his putts, his students' putts and any putts where he was conducting personal research.

 

I will believe a Pro like my Teacher, Dan or Jim Waldren or an Am like Obes, Mitch or Drew before I'd believe some A**H*** waving around a "scientific study," lmao.

 

I've got 2 BSc's and 1 MSc in the sciences and have spent 26+ years in tge orthopedic implant marketplace so I am quite gamiliar with "scientific studies," and I have to this day NEVER seen a legit "scientic study" come out of the golf marketplace.

 

Regardless, enjoy the end of the season and year :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

We all learn in different ways and your way is not better than my my which isn't better than Dan's way.

 

Different strokes for different folks. There is no wrong way.

Nor did I have I EVER said my way is the best way for anyone BUT ME.

 

Fairways & Greens,

RP

[Forged4ever]

By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center.

 

Pelz "studies" are everything but scientific. All one has to do is look at his data collection and how he goes about "testing". He makes conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes and poorly designed test.

 

Regarding your comment: "By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center."

 

Do you have any scientific studies you can provide a reference to that explain that concept - not just for uphill putts, but for all putts?

 

Specifically studies that have significant sample sizes and well designed tests.

I don't need a scientific study to prove his comment. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of my putts over the decades are proof enough for me.

 

I would have guessed 1/2 a hole and that's just my guesstimate so Dan's number is more accurate based off of his putts, his students' putts and any putts where he was conducting personal research.

 

I will believe a Pro like my Teacher, Dan or Jim Waldren or an Am like Obes, Mitch or Drew before I'd believe some A**H*** waving around a "scientific study," lmao.

 

I've got 2 BSc's and 1 MSc in the sciences and have spent 26+ years in the orthopedic implant marketplace so I am quite familiar with "scientific studies," and I have to this day NEVER seen a legit "scientic study" come out of the golf marketplace.

 

The best "study" for you would be the knowledge gathered based off of your stroke, putts and experiences.

 

Regardless, enjoy the end of the season and year :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Firstly, I am in no way a Pelz disciple or major Pelz fan. I am just someone who has read some of his stuff...

 

having said that I find it quite ironical that:

• You have discredited Pelz's findings as he is "not really a scientist" and "he didn't follow a scientific approach with his research"
  
• Then in the next breath you say, and I paraphrase, "I have hit a lot of putts and I know how things work"
  

Bro, WhereTF did you get that quote that you attribute to me in your last sentence, LMAO?????

 

You paraphrase it but put it in "quotes"?

 

What, is that from the Pelz school of research?

 

I openly state anything that I post are my thoughts, views and opinions and I don't parade around blowing smoke up peoples' a** trying to make what is basically Pelz's OPINION as anything more than that.

 

As I said, I would give Dan, Obes or Mitch much more credibilty than Pelz.

 

This is just me and how I think, for better or worse.

 

Hey, whatever helps ya put the ball in the hole.

 

However you were spot on on what statement~

 

I have made a lot of putts and I do(did) know how things work, FOR ME.....

 

You win, I'm a dick :)

 

As an aside, adorable avatar!!

 

Very nicely Played!!

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond

 

All the Best,

RP

[stickner]

By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center.

 

Pelz "studies" are everything but scientific. All one has to do is look at his data collection and how he goes about "testing". He makes conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes and poorly designed test.

 

Regarding your comment: "By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center."

 

Do you have any scientific studies you can provide a reference to that explain that concept - not just for uphill putts, but for all putts?

 

Specifically studies that have significant sample sizes and well designed tests.

I don't need a scientific study to prove his comment. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of my putts over the decades are proof enough for me.

 

I would have guessed 1/2 a hole and that's just my guesstimate so Dan's number is more accurate based off of his putts, his students' putts and any putts where he was conducting personal research.

 

I will believe a Pro like my Teacher, Dan or Jim Waldren or an Am like Obes, Mitch or Drew before I'd believe some A**H*** waving around a "scientific study," lmao.

 

I've got 2 BSc's and 1 MSc in the sciences and have spent 26+ years in the orthopedic implant marketplace so I am quite familiar with "scientific studies," and I have to this day NEVER seen a legit "scientic study" come out of the golf marketplace.

 

The best "study" for you would be the knowledge gathered based off of your stroke, putts and experiences.

 

Regardless, enjoy the end of the season and year :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Firstly, I am in no way a Pelz disciple or major Pelz fan. I am just someone who has read some of his stuff...

 

having said that I find it quite ironical that:

• You have discredited Pelz's findings as he is "not really a scientist" and "he didn't follow a scientific approach with his research"
  
• Then in the next breath you say, and I paraphrase, "I have hit a lot of putts and I know how things work"
  

Bro, WhereTF did you get that quote that you attribute to me in your last sentence, LMAO?????

 

You paraphrase it but put it in "quotes"?

 

What, is that from the Pelz school of research?

 

I openly state anything that I post are my thoughts, views and opinions and I don't parade around blowing smoke up peoples' a** trying to make what is basically Pelz's OPINION as anything more than that.

 

As I said, I would give Dan, Obes or Mitch mych more credibilty than him.

 

Hey, whatever helps ya put the ball in the hole.

 

However you were spot on on what statement~

 

I have made a lot of putts and I do(did) know how things work, FOR ME.....

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond

 

All the Best,

RP

 

You are quite the friendly chap. Must be a hoot to play a round with.

 

Cheers.

[Forged4ever]

Regarding your comment: "By having the ball roll out 2' past the hole on a uphill slow putt you shrink the effective width by 2/3rd. You essentially must hit the hole dead center."

 

Do you have any scientific studies you can provide a reference to that explain that concept - not just for uphill putts, but for all putts?

 

Specifically studies that have significant sample sizes and well designed tests.

I don't need a scientific study to prove his comment. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of my putts over the decades are proof enough for me.

 

I would have guessed 1/2 a hole and that's just my guesstimate so Dan's number is more accurate based off of his putts, his students' putts and any putts where he was conducting personal research.

 

I will believe a Pro like my Teacher, Dan or Jim Waldren or an Am like Obes, Mitch or Drew before I'd believe some A**H*** waving around a "scientific study," lmao.

 

I've got 2 BSc's and 1 MSc in the sciences and have spent 26+ years in the orthopedic implant marketplace so I am quite familiar with "scientific studies," and I have to this day NEVER seen a legit "scientic study" come out of the golf marketplace.

 

The best "study" for you would be the knowledge gathered based off of your stroke, putts and experiences.

 

Regardless, enjoy the end of the season and year :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Firstly, I am in no way a Pelz disciple or major Pelz fan. I am just someone who has read some of his stuff...

 

having said that I find it quite ironical that:

• You have discredited Pelz's findings as he is "not really a scientist" and "he didn't follow a scientific approach with his research"
  
• Then in the next breath you say, and I paraphrase, "I have hit a lot of putts and I know how things work"
  

Bro, WhereTF did you get that quote that you attribute to me in your last sentence, LMAO?????

 

You paraphrase it but put it in "quotes"?

 

What, is that from the Pelz school of research?

 

I openly state anything that I post are my thoughts, views and opinions and I don't parade around blowing smoke up peoples' a** trying to make what is basically Pelz's OPINION as anything more than that.

 

As I said, I would give Dan, Obes or Mitch mych more credibilty than him.

 

Hey, whatever helps ya put the ball in the hole.

 

However you were spot on on what statement~

 

I have made a lot of putts and I do(did) know how things work, FOR ME.....

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond

 

All the Best,

RP

 

You are quite the friendly chap. Must be a hoot to play a round with.

 

Cheers.

Oh, I'm a gem, lol

 

I'm like a little kid with a new toy like with this new emoji app Maddie downloaded for me.

 

A hospital bed, dilaudid and wayyyyy too much time on my hands are also contributing factors :)

 

In all seriousness, the Very Best to you, your Better Half & your Little One!!

 

Regards,

Richard

[LittleLeftToRight]

The whole "be aggressive" putting thing ranks right up there with "keep your head down!"

 

It is just plain ol' physics and common sense. The ball won't drop if it is going too fast. Personally I want the ball to drop whenever it hits the hole. That means I prefer to hit putts that would go past the hole 6" to a foot if they don't go in. On long putts I just want the ball to die around the hole.

 

I always crack up when someone lips one out and stares at the ball then complains that they "can't believe it didn't go in!" I believe it. Stop trying to slam the ball in the back of the cup from 6 feet...

[chrismikayla]

The whole "be aggressive" putting thing ranks right up there with "keep your head down!"

 

It is just plain ol' physics and common sense. The ball won't drop if it is going too fast. Personally I want the ball to drop whenever it hits the hole. That means I prefer to hit putts that would go past the hole 6" to a foot if they don't go in. On long putts I just want the ball to die around the hole.

 

I always crack up when someone lips one out and stares at the ball then complains that they "can't believe it didn't go in!" I believe it. Stop trying to slam the ball in the back of the cup from 6 feet...

 

Not what op was about it was about not leaving putts a foot short. Thanks for your opinion anyway. Man some of you guys are a tough crowd LOL.

[FAbb]

Irregardless of what the ideal capture speed is, you're on to something, OP.

 

I certainly think there's a distance range where you absolutely have to be "aggressive" with your putts. I've really been failing at this lately, but for me is ~20ft. I don't want to leave a single putt short when I'm inside 20 feet. That doesn't mean I want to ram them all 3ft by, but I want to at least get them all to the hole. When I'm getting everything to the hole inside 20ft, I make a ton more putts, without really bringing more 3-putts into play.

 

Outside that, or maybe on particularly tricky downhill putts in that range, I'll be more content just lagging it as close as possible, whether it be short, long, or at the hole.

 

The only way you get better at achieving the distance control is to practice it. Go hit a lot of putts, and do drills to emphasize getting the ball to the hole, but not smashing it too far by.

[dg_1983]

If your missing 3/4 foot 2nd putts - are you telling me the problem was your first putt?

 

Try to hole most putts, you cant hole it if its not reached the cup, the closer you miss it beyond the hole the easier the putt back will be. Your attitude might depend on your level of putting, in my mind there are 3 levels in putting;

 

Avoiding 3 putting;

Mostly 2 putting;

Making putts;

 

Avoiding 3 putts and mostly 2 putting will try to miss it as close as possible, short or long, left or right - just close.

 

Making putts - miss has to be beyond the hole.

 

There are times that might call for a lag but that depends on the putt and your score. A tricky slick down hiller might be a go for or a lag depending on your score or in match play opponents score!

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Running it a few feet by gives you less of a chance to make it by effectively shrinking the hole. Proper speed gives you the best chance at making any putt.

 

Running it a few feet by gives you NO to make it as you're effectively missing the hole, yes?

 

Meaning that if you hit the hole with enough speed to roll it a few feet by you shrink the hole and decrease chance of making putts. Go troll somewhere else.

 

At a greater speed, while you're shortening the hole north to south, aren't you also widening it east to west as the ball is less likely to go off line (assuming, theoretically, the line was correct in the first place)? And, if that's the case, is the best approach always the same, or does it vary depending on the putt (uphill, downhill, yuge break, etc.)?

 

 

[Obee]

Running it a few feet by gives you less of a chance to make it by effectively shrinking the hole. Proper speed gives you the best chance at making any putt.

 

Running it a few feet by gives you NO to make it as you're effectively missing the hole, yes?

 

Meaning that if you hit the hole with enough speed to roll it a few feet by you shrink the hole and decrease chance of making putts. Go troll somewhere else.

 

At a greater speed, while you're shortening the hole north to south, aren't you also widening it east to west as the ball is less likely to go off line (assuming, theoretically, the line was correct in the first place)? And, if that's the case, is the best approach always the same, or does it vary depending on the putt (uphill, downhill, yuge break, etc.)?

 

Yes, which is why most top putters I have encountered over the years hit their short putts quite firmly.

[iteachgolf]

Running it a few feet by gives you less of a chance to make it by effectively shrinking the hole. Proper speed gives you the best chance at making any putt.

 

Running it a few feet by gives you NO to make it as you're effectively missing the hole, yes?

 

Meaning that if you hit the hole with enough speed to roll it a few feet by you shrink the hole and decrease chance of making putts. Go troll somewhere else.

 

At a greater speed, while you're shortening the hole north to south, aren't you also widening it east to west as the ball is less likely to go off line (assuming, theoretically, the line was correct in the first place)? And, if that's the case, is the best approach always the same, or does it vary depending on the putt (uphill, downhill, yuge break, etc.)?

 

There a reason optimal speed is barely creeping in the front edge. Optimal speed will roll past the hole, just not a few feet past the hole in most cases. As already stated the amount the ball will roll out past the hole depends on speed of greens and the slope. But the ball should hit the hole at the same speed. It should swish without hitting the back of the hole.

[RichieHunt]

If memory serves me correct, i believe all of Pelz's research indicates that 17 or 18 inches past the hole is the ideal speed to maximize your chances of making putts.

 

A few problems with that:

 

17" (or 18") past the cup is not a speed. It's a distance. Speed is distance traveled over time.

 

Secondly, the research that Pelz did was found to be very unscientific and false.

 

If you were to measure the speed, it comes down to about 2-3 revolutions per second according to experts. And that translates to roughly 12" past the cup if you're measuring the distance. However, it depends on the speed of the putt. Slower putts either due to slow green speed and/or uphill putts...that 2-3 revolutions will put it only about 6" (or even less) past the cup. Faster green speeds (i.e. fast stimp and/or downhill putts) will see the that optimal speed go further past the cup.

 

If the putt goes in the cut at an optimal speed of 2-3 revs/second, it should hit the back plastic of the cup. If it hits the back dirt, then you have hit the putt faster than that optimal speed. And if you land in the middle of the cup or shorter...then the speed was slower than optimal.

 

The other issue is that if you speak to neurologists they will tell you that the worst thing you could do is aim for a spot behind the cup. The visual is to actually visualize the proper speed of the ball going into the cup. It's really more like if I was throwing a ball to you. I wouldn't try to find a spot behind your (or in front of you), my natural instinct would tell me how hard to throw the ball to you. The same goes with putting

 

A lot of this has to do with understanding the concept of the speed of a putt. A slower putt (be it a slow stimp and/or uphill putt) will take shorter in *time* for the ball to get to the hole. So, if you're missing putts short and not hitting them firm enough usually means that in your visualization you have to speed up the time. Instead of seeing a putt taking something like 4 seconds, it may need to take 3.5 seconds and you'll start to get the speed better.

 

 

 

 

RH

 

Do you have any scientific studies you can provide as reference so I can learn more about what you have written? Specifically scientific studies that found pelz's work to be bunk as well as studies that explain in more detail what you have written about. Thanks!

 

Also - perhaps I am just not understanding but a ball that rolls 3 revolutions, regardless of speed of the green, will travel the same distance won't it?

 

I should have credited Geoff Mangum for this although I believe he had cited other studies on the subject.

 

I could be wrong, but I remember hearing a story of Pelz presenting this at an MIT conference and explaining how he found it and it got laughed out of the room.

 

But, this is something I noticed long ago before Geoff explained it...take a fairly steep uphill putt and mark 17" past the cup an try to putt to that distance past the cup. You will see that the speed is way too fast for that putt. And combine that with slower stimp speeds, it is even worse. The ball comes to an immediate halt on a putt like that. When it comes to speed/touch on the greens with amateurs, they really struggle with the concept of the time it takes for the ball to get to the hole and how the speed varies thru a putt.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Running it a few feet by gives you less of a chance to make it by effectively shrinking the hole. Proper speed gives you the best chance at making any putt.

 

Running it a few feet by gives you NO to make it as you're effectively missing the hole, yes?

 

Meaning that if you hit the hole with enough speed to roll it a few feet by you shrink the hole and decrease chance of making putts. Go troll somewhere else.

 

At a greater speed, while you're shortening the hole north to south, aren't you also widening it east to west as the ball is less likely to go off line (assuming, theoretically, the line was correct in the first place)? And, if that's the case, is the best approach always the same, or does it vary depending on the putt (uphill, downhill, yuge break, etc.)?

 

There a reason optimal speed is barely creeping in the front edge. Optimal speed will roll past the hole, just not a few feet past the hole in most cases. As already stated the amount the ball will roll out past the hole depends on speed of greens and the slope. But the ball should hit the hole at the same speed. It should swish without hitting the back of the hole.

 

If optimal speed rolls the ball just past the hole, why wouldn't it hit the back of hole, then?

[iteachgolf]

 

Running it a few feet by gives you NO to make it as you're effectively missing the hole, yes?

 

Meaning that if you hit the hole with enough speed to roll it a few feet by you shrink the hole and decrease chance of making putts. Go troll somewhere else.

 

At a greater speed, while you're shortening the hole north to south, aren't you also widening it east to west as the ball is less likely to go off line (assuming, theoretically, the line was correct in the first place)? And, if that's the case, is the best approach always the same, or does it vary depending on the putt (uphill, downhill, yuge break, etc.)?

 

There a reason optimal speed is barely creeping in the front edge. Optimal speed will roll past the hole, just not a few feet past the hole in most cases. As already stated the amount the ball will roll out past the hole depends on speed of greens and the slope. But the ball should hit the hole at the same speed. It should swish without hitting the back of the hole.

 

If optimal speed rolls the ball just past the hole, why wouldn't it hit the back of hole, then?

 

Because gravity? A ball that will roll 12" past the hole on a flat green running 9-10 on stimp will not not hit the back of the hole (dirt above cup liner) and "swish" hitting the bottom rear part of the cup liner.

 

To hit the back of the hole the ball will roll 3' by easily and more on fast greens/downhill putts.

[KILLEDBYASHANKEDWEDGE]

Aggressive putting is 10-1 green to range ratio

[stickner]

I should have credited Geoff Mangum for this although I believe he had cited other studies on the subject.

 

I could be wrong, but I remember hearing a story of Pelz presenting this at an MIT conference and explaining how he found it and it got laughed out of the room.

 

But, this is something I noticed long ago before Geoff explained it...take a fairly steep uphill putt and mark 17" past the cup an try to putt to that distance past the cup. You will see that the speed is way too fast for that putt. And combine that with slower stimp speeds, it is even worse. The ball comes to an immediate halt on a putt like that. When it comes to speed/touch on the greens with amateurs, they really struggle with the concept of the time it takes for the ball to get to the hole and how the speed varies thru a putt.

 

 

RH

 

A few comments:

• I am in no way a Pelz disciple or major Pelz fan
  
• I know that Pelz has spent considerable time and effort trying to quantify putting
  
• You have indicated the findings of Pelz was not achieved through scientific methods and is not correct
  
• I have asked you to provide some bonafide research
  
• You mentioned you heard someone that knew someone that had a friend that was at a bar that said he heard people laughed at Pelz when he presented at MIT (Yes I embellished this for effect)
  
• You mentioned another teacher with which I am not familiar
  
• I keep hearing that on extreme uphill putts especially on slow greens hitting the ball at a speed that will carry it 17 inches past the cup is way too fast
  
  • Extreme uphill putts are the exception not the norm
    
  • I have no idea how many people play on really slow greens but I don't
    
  • I also think that I might have an "extreme" uphill putt every 3rd or 4th round
    

I went to Geoff Mangum's website and it looks like it was developed circa 1997. I know that shouldn't matter one damn bit but the first impression was less than appealing. With regards to slow greens, here is something directly from his site:

 

With respect to your comments and Dan's comments on slow greens here is what the guy you quoted as your source has to say:

 

"A slow green stops more abruptly and lasts only about 1 second, but even so since the phase begins at a ball speed of around 4.5 rps, the ball still covers as much as 24" in the "decayed" rollout phase. On slow greens, delivering the ball to the front lip just before or at the time of "decay" onset is usually a pretty good choice"

 

Read all about it here:

http://www.puttingzone.com/capture.html

 

 

So according to Mr. Mangum, on a slow green, delivering the ball to the hole at a speed that is just at or just before the beginning of the decayed rollout phase is a good choice. According to Mr. Mangum, on a slow green, once the ball enters the decayed rollout phase it will cover as much as 24 additional inches of distance.

 

Mr Mangum is advocating on a slow putt that the ball hit the front lip with a speed that will take it up to 24 inches past the cup.

 

What am I missing here? You said 17 inches is too far - especially on slow greens.

 

The expert you referenced said on slow green to hit the front lip at a speed that will carry the ball up to 24 inches past the hole is "usually a pretty good choice"

[iteachgolf]

Virtually nobody in golf is doing bonafide peer reviewed research that would stand up to scientific research paper standards. Plenty have done test and a bunch of the top guys have come to nearly identical conclusions. Your looking for/demanding something that simply doesn't exist.

 

Who is taking extremely uphill or extremely slow? I'm talking 3-4% uphill putts on greens rolling 8-9 on the stimp. Which occurs very often and is about the average speed of most greens across the country. Far more golf course have greens running at 7 than 11-12. Unless you play flat greens you experience slopes in the 3-4% range and likely have played plenty of courses in the 8 stimp range

[KILLEDBYASHANKEDWEDGE]

If all y'all, and me too, were putting instead of typing everything would be in the cup.

[stickner]

Virtually nobody in golf is doing bonafide peer reviewed research that would stand up to scientific research paper standards. Plenty have done test and a bunch of the top guys have come to nearly identical conclusions. Your looking for/demanding something that simply doesn't exist.

 

Who is taking extremely uphill or extremely slow? I'm talking 3-4% uphill putts on greens rolling 8-9 on the stimp. Which occurs very often and is about the average speed of most greens across the country. Far more golf course have greens running at 7 than 11-12. Unless you play flat greens you experience slopes in the 3-4% range and likely have played plenty of courses in the 8 stimp range

 

All I am saying is that:

• I mentioned Pelz said a good rule is to hit the ball with a speed that will take it 17 inches past the hole
  
• Both you and Richiehunt indicated on a slow green that is way too fast
  
• RichieHunt provided his reference on this topic to be Geoff Mangum
  
• On Geoff's website he indicated that a slow putt should be traveling at least at a speed that will take it up to 24 inches past the cup
  

[Shilgy]

If all y'all, and me too, were putting instead of typing everything would be in the cup.

I was about to type the same. Get off the keyboard and on the green. Find what ball speed on the green works best for you. Some players are more aggressive than others. So practice... Uphill downhill sidehill fast green slow green. And learning to be able to take what you practiced to the course is really all that matters.

[iteachgolf]

Virtually nobody in golf is doing bonafide peer reviewed research that would stand up to scientific research paper standards. Plenty have done test and a bunch of the top guys have come to nearly identical conclusions. Your looking for/demanding something that simply doesn't exist.

 

Who is taking extremely uphill or extremely slow? I'm talking 3-4% uphill putts on greens rolling 8-9 on the stimp. Which occurs very often and is about the average speed of most greens across the country. Far more golf course have greens running at 7 than 11-12. Unless you play flat greens you experience slopes in the 3-4% range and likely have played plenty of courses in the 8 stimp range

 

All I am saying is that:

• I mentioned Pelz said a good rule is to hit the ball with a speed that will take it 17 inches past the hole
  
• Both you and Richiehunt indicated on a slow green that is way too fast
  
• RichieHunt provided his reference on this topic to be Geoff Mangum
  
• On Geoff's website he indicated that a slow putt should be traveling at least at a speed that will take it up to 24 inches past the cup
  

 

1. As the speed of the ball crossing the hole increases, the Effective Cup Width decreases. Another term that has been used is Capture Speed. These are based on a fixed green speed on a flat putt with average speed greens.

 

– If you die the ball into the hole – Effective Cup Width is 4.25 inches (the full hole);

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 1 foot past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 2.6 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 3 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 1.4 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 5 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 0.5 inches.

 

 

17" is good rule of thumb on slightly faster than average greens on a flat putt or a downhill putt on normal greens. But at a muni on an uphill putt it's too hard. And downhill at Augusta it's probably slightly too slow. What's so hard to understand that on different speed putts that distance past the hole should vary. I've never once thought about how far the ball should roll past the hole. You learn what good capture speed looks like when it hits the hole (doesn't hit back of the hole) and then simply try to roll it at that speed on your intended line trying to make every putt. Some will be too hard a nd some will be too soft but intending and practicing proper capture speed gives you the biggest margin of error and highest likelihood of making putts. Good speed control comes from your eyes and know what good speed looks like and being able to visualize it on different surfaces and slopes.

[stickner]

Virtually nobody in golf is doing bonafide peer reviewed research that would stand up to scientific research paper standards. Plenty have done test and a bunch of the top guys have come to nearly identical conclusions. Your looking for/demanding something that simply doesn't exist.

 

Who is taking extremely uphill or extremely slow? I'm talking 3-4% uphill putts on greens rolling 8-9 on the stimp. Which occurs very often and is about the average speed of most greens across the country. Far more golf course have greens running at 7 than 11-12. Unless you play flat greens you experience slopes in the 3-4% range and likely have played plenty of courses in the 8 stimp range

 

All I am saying is that:

• I mentioned Pelz said a good rule is to hit the ball with a speed that will take it 17 inches past the hole
  
• Both you and Richiehunt indicated on a slow green that is way too fast
  
• RichieHunt provided his reference on this topic to be Geoff Mangum
  
• On Geoff's website he indicated that a slow putt should be traveling at least at a speed that will take it up to 24 inches past the cup
  

 

1. As the speed of the ball crossing the hole increases, the Effective Cup Width decreases. Another term that has been used is Capture Speed. These are based on a fixed green speed on a flat putt with average speed greens.

 

– If you die the ball into the hole – Effective Cup Width is 4.25 inches (the full hole);

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 1 foot past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 2.6 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 3 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 1.4 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 5 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 0.5 inches.

 

 

17" is good rule of thumb on slightly faster than average greens on a flat putt or a downhill putt on normal greens. But at a muni on an uphill putt it's too hard. And downhill at Augusta it's probably slightly too slow. What's so hard to understand that on different speed putts that distance past the hole should vary. I've never once thought about how far the ball should roll past the hole. You learn what good capture speed looks like when it hits the hole (doesn't hit back of the hole) and then simply try to roll it at that speed on your intended line trying to make every putt. Some will be too hard a nd some will be too soft but intending and practicing proper capture speed gives you the biggest margin of error and highest likelihood of making putts. Good speed control comes from your eyes and know what good speed looks like and being able to visualize it on different surfaces and slopes.

 

Mr. Magnum (and his pages and pages of Physics references) disagrees with you.

 

from Magnum's site:

http://www.puttingzo...stechnique.html

 

 

Since the decay phase usually lasts about 1 second, a ball rolling 2 revolutions per second that misses will run about 10-12 inches past the hole, and a ball rolling 4 revolutions per second will stop about 2 feet past the hole. Either of these speeds is sufficient to overcome most surface irregularities, allow enough time for the ball to drop before reaching the back lip, allow for lower back lips, and avoid long comeback putts.

 

On the other hand, putting to a cup that lies in a slope uphill, so the ball is slowing while also running uphill, calls for more speed. You have a higher backstop for the back lip and the decay phase is quickened by the uphill, so the ball will really come to a quick stop without much worries about the comeback. In order to take care of surface irregularities, then, the ball needs some extra juice in this situation - but only in this situation.

 

 

 

Summary:

Magnum's bottom line is that the ball should hit the hole with a speed that would take it 10-24 inches past the hole.

 

Unless you are putting uphill, then you need more speed.

 

 

What is quite interesting and ironic is that if you split the difference between Magnum's optimal range of speed, you end up with 17 inches, which is what Pelz says.

[iteachgolf]

Virtually nobody in golf is doing bonafide peer reviewed research that would stand up to scientific research paper standards. Plenty have done test and a bunch of the top guys have come to nearly identical conclusions. Your looking for/demanding something that simply doesn't exist.

 

Who is taking extremely uphill or extremely slow? I'm talking 3-4% uphill putts on greens rolling 8-9 on the stimp. Which occurs very often and is about the average speed of most greens across the country. Far more golf course have greens running at 7 than 11-12. Unless you play flat greens you experience slopes in the 3-4% range and likely have played plenty of courses in the 8 stimp range

 

All I am saying is that:

• I mentioned Pelz said a good rule is to hit the ball with a speed that will take it 17 inches past the hole
  
• Both you and Richiehunt indicated on a slow green that is way too fast
  
• RichieHunt provided his reference on this topic to be Geoff Mangum
  
• On Geoff's website he indicated that a slow putt should be traveling at least at a speed that will take it up to 24 inches past the cup
  

 

1. As the speed of the ball crossing the hole increases, the Effective Cup Width decreases. Another term that has been used is Capture Speed. These are based on a fixed green speed on a flat putt with average speed greens.

 

– If you die the ball into the hole – Effective Cup Width is 4.25 inches (the full hole);

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 1 foot past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 2.6 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 3 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 1.4 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 5 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 0.5 inches.

 

 

17" is good rule of thumb on slightly faster than average greens on a flat putt or a downhill putt on normal greens. But at a muni on an uphill putt it's too hard. And downhill at Augusta it's probably slightly too slow. What's so hard to understand that on different speed putts that distance past the hole should vary. I've never once thought about how far the ball should roll past the hole. You learn what good capture speed looks like when it hits the hole (doesn't hit back of the hole) and then simply try to roll it at that speed on your intended line trying to make every putt. Some will be too hard a nd some will be too soft but intending and practicing proper capture speed gives you the biggest margin of error and highest likelihood of making putts. Good speed control comes from your eyes and know what good speed looks like and being able to visualize it on different surfaces and slopes.

 

Mr. Magnum (and his pages and pages of Physics references) disagrees with you.

 

from Magnum's site:

http://www.puttingzo...stechnique.html

 

 

Since the decay phase usually lasts about 1 second, a ball rolling 2 revolutions per second that misses will run about 10-12 inches past the hole, and a ball rolling 4 revolutions per second will stop about 2 feet past the hole. Either of these speeds is sufficient to overcome most surface irregularities, allow enough time for the ball to drop before reaching the back lip, allow for lower back lips, and avoid long comeback putts.

 

On the other hand, putting to a cup that lies in a slope uphill, so the ball is slowing while also running uphill, calls for more speed. You have a higher backstop for the back lip and the decay phase is quickened by the uphill, so the ball will really come to a quick stop without much worries about the comeback. In order to take care of surface irregularities, then, the ball needs some extra juice in this situation - but only in this situation.

 

 

 

Summary:

Magnum's bottom line is that the ball should hit the hole with a speed that would take it 10-24 inches past the hole.

 

Unless you are putting uphill, then you need more speed.

 

 

What is quite interesting and ironic is that if you split the difference between Magnum's optimal range of speed, you end up with 17 inches, which is what Pelz says.

 

Could care less what he says. Of course an uphill putt will need to be hit harder but that doesn't mean the ball shoulder enter the hole going faster.

 

And he's obviously using a controlled green speed because a ball traveling on different greens will have a different rate of decay. The rate of decay on a green running 14 at Oakmont and the rate of decay on a muni running 6 isn't close to the same. So a ball entering the hole at the same rate will roll of different distances based on conditions. Which aren't constant in reality. Funny thing is he says this applies on an uphill putt but not on a green running half the speed. An uphill putt at Oakmont is still a lot faster than a flat putt at many munis. And the rate of decay is WAY faster on the muni. Meaning the ball will roll out a shorter distance past the hole.

 

If he wants to argue surface irregularities I can argue capture width. A ball hit hard enough to roll 2' by or MORE as he's advising shrinks the hole by more than 70%. I'll take the over 3" wider hole and deal with a ball that might bounce off line, but still more likely to go in, than ramming it into a hole that is effectively less than an 1" margin of error. The 70+% wider hole will yield more makes than "surface irregularities" will cost you compared to having to hit a putt absolutely perfect in order to make it just to limit those irregularities.

[stickner]

Virtually nobody in golf is doing bonafide peer reviewed research that would stand up to scientific research paper standards. Plenty have done test and a bunch of the top guys have come to nearly identical conclusions. Your looking for/demanding something that simply doesn't exist.

 

Who is taking extremely uphill or extremely slow? I'm talking 3-4% uphill putts on greens rolling 8-9 on the stimp. Which occurs very often and is about the average speed of most greens across the country. Far more golf course have greens running at 7 than 11-12. Unless you play flat greens you experience slopes in the 3-4% range and likely have played plenty of courses in the 8 stimp range

 

All I am saying is that:

• I mentioned Pelz said a good rule is to hit the ball with a speed that will take it 17 inches past the hole
  
• Both you and Richiehunt indicated on a slow green that is way too fast
  
• RichieHunt provided his reference on this topic to be Geoff Mangum
  
• On Geoff's website he indicated that a slow putt should be traveling at least at a speed that will take it up to 24 inches past the cup
  

 

1. As the speed of the ball crossing the hole increases, the Effective Cup Width decreases. Another term that has been used is Capture Speed. These are based on a fixed green speed on a flat putt with average speed greens.

 

– If you die the ball into the hole – Effective Cup Width is 4.25 inches (the full hole);

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 1 foot past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 2.6 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 3 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 1.4 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 5 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 0.5 inches.

 

 

17" is good rule of thumb on slightly faster than average greens on a flat putt or a downhill putt on normal greens. But at a muni on an uphill putt it's too hard. And downhill at Augusta it's probably slightly too slow. What's so hard to understand that on different speed putts that distance past the hole should vary. I've never once thought about how far the ball should roll past the hole. You learn what good capture speed looks like when it hits the hole (doesn't hit back of the hole) and then simply try to roll it at that speed on your intended line trying to make every putt. Some will be too hard a nd some will be too soft but intending and practicing proper capture speed gives you the biggest margin of error and highest likelihood of making putts. Good speed control comes from your eyes and know what good speed looks like and being able to visualize it on different surfaces and slopes.

 

Mr. Magnum (and his pages and pages of Physics references) disagrees with you.

 

from Magnum's site:

http://www.puttingzo...stechnique.html

 

 

Since the decay phase usually lasts about 1 second, a ball rolling 2 revolutions per second that misses will run about 10-12 inches past the hole, and a ball rolling 4 revolutions per second will stop about 2 feet past the hole. Either of these speeds is sufficient to overcome most surface irregularities, allow enough time for the ball to drop before reaching the back lip, allow for lower back lips, and avoid long comeback putts.

 

On the other hand, putting to a cup that lies in a slope uphill, so the ball is slowing while also running uphill, calls for more speed. You have a higher backstop for the back lip and the decay phase is quickened by the uphill, so the ball will really come to a quick stop without much worries about the comeback. In order to take care of surface irregularities, then, the ball needs some extra juice in this situation - but only in this situation.

 

 

 

Summary:

Magnum's bottom line is that the ball should hit the hole with a speed that would take it 10-24 inches past the hole.

 

Unless you are putting uphill, then you need more speed.

 

 

What is quite interesting and ironic is that if you split the difference between Magnum's optimal range of speed, you end up with 17 inches, which is what Pelz says.

 

Could care less what he says. Of course an uphill putt will need to be hit harder but that doesn't mean the ball shoulder enter the hole going faster.

 

And he's obviously using a controlled green speed because a ball traveling on different greens will have a different rate of decay. The rate of decay on a green running 14 at Oakmont and the rate of decay on a muni running 6 isn't close to the same. So a ball entering the hole at the same rate will roll of different distances based on conditions. Which aren't constant in reality. Funny thing is he says this applies on an uphill putt but not on a green running half the speed. An uphill putt at Oakmont is still a lot faster than a flat putt at many munis. And the rate of decay is WAY faster on the muni. Meaning the ball will roll out a shorter distance past the hole.

 

If he wants to argue surface irregularities I can argue capture width. A ball hit hard enough to roll 2' by or MORE as he's advising shrinks the hole by more than 70%. I'll take the over 3" wider hole and deal with a ball that might bounce off line, but still more likely to go in, than ramming it into a hole that is effectively less than an 1" margin of error. The 70+% wider hole will yield more makes than "surface irregularities" will cost you compared to having to hit a putt absolutely perfect in order to make it just to limit those irregularities.

 

Let me know when your controlled physics-based study is available. Until then your thoughts are similar to the "old ball flight laws"...

 

Seemingly correct until eventually proven wrong by fact-based science.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

The problem I have, as a hacker whose only practice putting is on the rug in his bonus room, is that I have to rely on memory and attitude. (Perhaps, I should've included luck, but that's probably not something I can directly interface with, yes?)

[iteachgolf]

 

All I am saying is that:

• I mentioned Pelz said a good rule is to hit the ball with a speed that will take it 17 inches past the hole
  
• Both you and Richiehunt indicated on a slow green that is way too fast
  
• RichieHunt provided his reference on this topic to be Geoff Mangum
  
• On Geoff's website he indicated that a slow putt should be traveling at least at a speed that will take it up to 24 inches past the cup
  

 

1. As the speed of the ball crossing the hole increases, the Effective Cup Width decreases. Another term that has been used is Capture Speed. These are based on a fixed green speed on a flat putt with average speed greens.

 

– If you die the ball into the hole – Effective Cup Width is 4.25 inches (the full hole);

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 1 foot past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 2.6 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 3 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 1.4 inches;

 

– If you putt with a speed so the ball can go 5 feet past the hole – Effective Cup Width is 0.5 inches.

 

 

17" is good rule of thumb on slightly faster than average greens on a flat putt or a downhill putt on normal greens. But at a muni on an uphill putt it's too hard. And downhill at Augusta it's probably slightly too slow. What's so hard to understand that on different speed putts that distance past the hole should vary. I've never once thought about how far the ball should roll past the hole. You learn what good capture speed looks like when it hits the hole (doesn't hit back of the hole) and then simply try to roll it at that speed on your intended line trying to make every putt. Some will be too hard a nd some will be too soft but intending and practicing proper capture speed gives you the biggest margin of error and highest likelihood of making putts. Good speed control comes from your eyes and know what good speed looks like and being able to visualize it on different surfaces and slopes.

 

Mr. Magnum (and his pages and pages of Physics references) disagrees with you.

 

from Magnum's site:

http://www.puttingzo...stechnique.html

 

 

Since the decay phase usually lasts about 1 second, a ball rolling 2 revolutions per second that misses will run about 10-12 inches past the hole, and a ball rolling 4 revolutions per second will stop about 2 feet past the hole. Either of these speeds is sufficient to overcome most surface irregularities, allow enough time for the ball to drop before reaching the back lip, allow for lower back lips, and avoid long comeback putts.

 

On the other hand, putting to a cup that lies in a slope uphill, so the ball is slowing while also running uphill, calls for more speed. You have a higher backstop for the back lip and the decay phase is quickened by the uphill, so the ball will really come to a quick stop without much worries about the comeback. In order to take care of surface irregularities, then, the ball needs some extra juice in this situation - but only in this situation.

 

 

 

Summary:

Magnum's bottom line is that the ball should hit the hole with a speed that would take it 10-24 inches past the hole.

 

Unless you are putting uphill, then you need more speed.

 

 

What is quite interesting and ironic is that if you split the difference between Magnum's optimal range of speed, you end up with 17 inches, which is what Pelz says.

 

Could care less what he says. Of course an uphill putt will need to be hit harder but that doesn't mean the ball shoulder enter the hole going faster.

 

And he's obviously using a controlled green speed because a ball traveling on different greens will have a different rate of decay. The rate of decay on a green running 14 at Oakmont and the rate of decay on a muni running 6 isn't close to the same. So a ball entering the hole at the same rate will roll of different distances based on conditions. Which aren't constant in reality. Funny thing is he says this applies on an uphill putt but not on a green running half the speed. An uphill putt at Oakmont is still a lot faster than a flat putt at many munis. And the rate of decay is WAY faster on the muni. Meaning the ball will roll out a shorter distance past the hole.

 

If he wants to argue surface irregularities I can argue capture width. A ball hit hard enough to roll 2' by or MORE as he's advising shrinks the hole by more than 70%. I'll take the over 3" wider hole and deal with a ball that might bounce off line, but still more likely to go in, than ramming it into a hole that is effectively less than an 1" margin of error. The 70+% wider hole will yield more makes than "surface irregularities" will cost you compared to having to hit a putt absolutely perfect in order to make it just to limit those irregularities.

 

Let me know when your controlled physics-based study is available. Until then your thoughts are similar to the "old ball flight laws"...

 

Seemingly correct until eventually proven wrong by fact-based science.

 

Haha you're hilarious. How am I proven wrong? And I know plenty of physics. Geoff said exactly what I did but worded it differently. He admits uphill putts are slower and have a quicker rate of decay. Meaning a putt rolling at 2RPS would NOT roll 1' past the hole on an uphill putt. Guess what? 2RPS will only roll 1' past the hole on ONE specific green speed. On a green rolling at 6 on the stimp meter it'd roll 7-8" past the hole and on a green running 14 itd run about 18" past the hole. Those are two very different distances for a ball traveling at the same 2RPS. He is saying you need to hit it harder on slower putts due to more surface irregularities while neglecting the fact that it shrinks the hole by 70%. So yes more speed would make it roll smoother but smoother would still make fewer putts due to a 70% smaller margin of error. If a robot is putting and you could ensure a perfect putt, sure hit it harder. The 70% smaller hole is a non issue for a robot. It's a MASSIVE issue for humans in the real world and harder will result in a lot of balls the lip out vs lip in.

 

My comments are 100% based on facts and physics. I just draw different opinions on those facts.

 

Geoffs reasoning is that ams don't have enough touch to control a capture speed of 6-12" without leaving some short. So his optimal distance past the hole is based on NEVER leaving on short and trying to factor in skill of most putters. Even he admits top putters can control a pace of 12" past the hole on fast greens which would result in shortest putt 0" past the hole and longest one 24" past the hole and none short. But his ideal is based on never leaving one short, but he's doing it at the expense of lipping out some putts (which is same result as leaving it short) and longer come backers. I'm of the opinion that everyone will miss some short and rather miss a few short while having putts lip in and having shorter come backers. Like I said before 17" is a good rule of thumb on slightly faster than average greens (9-10). On slower greens I'd use more like 12" and on really fast greens is expect more like 24". And I'm bet Geoff wouldn't think I'm too off on those. We'd just disagree about ramming uphill putts to compensate for ground irregularities

[crust]

Hey Dan,

I don't know what is meant by "surface irregularities", but I have trouble with greens with a lot of grain. As the ball slows, the grain grabs it and turns it.

I have had some success with simply being firmer on the putt. How do you approach such greens?

[iteachgolf]

Hey Dan,

I don't know what is meant by "surface irregularities", but I have trouble with greens with a lot of grain. As the ball slows, the grain grabs it and turns it.

I have had some success with simply being firmer on the putt. How do you approach such greens?

 

Play the grain. Understand the direction it's going and how it affects things. I grew up on a muni with slow, bumpy, and grainy Bermuda greens. Good greens practically seem like cheating.