Dave Pelz Putting Bible

[withdrew]

Anyone read this? Thoughts?

So I always hear about Pelz's system for short game play, he is a statistics nut, a golf nut, a physics nut, and obviously if the pros listen, we should...

Well I was in Barnes & Noble and I picked up the Dave Pelz's Putting Bible and read the first 4 chapters. It seems very well thought out, and I really liked what I saw. I'm not sure I feel like shelling out $35 bucks for it, although if the book (along with lots of practice!) produces results, then $35 is a small price to pay to have fewer three-putts.

To be honest I was really looking for his Short Game Bible, but BN didn't have it in stock. I've also heard good things about that book, and now that I have new wedges I really want to focus on that part of my game, especially greenside bunker play.

Has anyone read one or both of these? Wise investment? The resale is pretty close to MSRP so if I bought them, I could probably sell them on eBay afterward, but knowing me, I'll keep them and refer to them often.

[SadTrombone]

I'm a Pelz believer...I liked both Bibles.

 

-mini

[Xiphos]

The short game bible is awesom. If you apply his system to you game you most def. drop stokes. The putting bible should be read with caution. No one on tour putts the way he suggests. I will get a lot of heat for saying this, but straight back and straight through is wrong. It cannot be done with out tons of manuplation. Put a laser on you putter and take it back on a perfectly straigt line and see what happens, it opened my eyes.

[JKB]

I dont like Pelz ....

Think he is not a guy for me

[kkcheo]

It's a good book with a lot of information. Like all instruction books, you need to try the techniques to see if they work for you. After Pelz, I read Stan Utley's book which I found easier to read and equally as useful.

 

I have adopted Utley's methods and works for me.

 

Good luck.

 

-Keng

[EdmontonGolfer]

I'm reading the Putting Bible right now. It's full of decent information, but like others said, not every method works for each individual. He has some good info about green reading and some decent physics examples, but it's a pretty intense read and not so much to the point.

[larrybud]

So I always hear about Pelz's system for short game play, he is a statistics nut, a golf nut, a physics nut, and obviously if the pros listen, we should...

 

Well I was in Barnes & Noble and I picked up the Dave Pelz's Putting Bible and read the first 4 chapters. It seems very well thought out, and I really liked what I saw. I'm not sure I feel like shelling out $35 bucks for it, although if the book (along with lots of practice!) produces results, then $35 is a small price to pay to have fewer three-putts.

 

To be honest I was really looking for his Short Game Bible, but BN didn't have it in stock. I've also heard good things about that book, and now that I have new wedges I really want to focus on that part of my game, especially greenside bunker play.

 

Has anyone read one or both of these? Wise investment? The resale is pretty close to MSRP so if I bought them, I could probably sell them on eBay afterward, but knowing me, I'll keep them and refer to them often.

 

I have both and I'm sold on the Short Game Bible. Excellent instruction and explanations of different shots.

 

The putting bible is interesting, but IMO not as instructive, and I don't think a human can produce a true pendulum stroke, unless you have a long putter held under your chin. However, there are some good points that he tested, such as is putter head path more or less important than face angle, the effects of wind, etc.. otherwise it's kinda a written infomercial for his putting training aides.

[againstthegrain]

The Putting Bible reads like a college biology or engineering text. It's a tough read but IMHO both PB and SGB are necessary for a complete golf library. Outside of Pelz theories there is tons of info (w the scientific proof to back it up) in these books that all serious golfers should be aware of. Some of this info is available in bits and pieces in other places but these Bibles are super complete sources of info. You won't find 2 better books for helping you get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible as the 2 bibles - even if you hate Pelz.

[sandwedge]

I have read the short game bible and found the stats interesting but Stan Utley's books suited me better.

 

As far as putting styles Pelz teaches a straight back and straight through method. Utley teaches putting more on an arc. Since reading The Art of Putting I am putting the ball much better and have knocked a few strokes off my putting average.

 

Whichever you decide on stick to it and practice and I am sure it will work.

[SheriffBooth]

I'll be a voice of dissent and say that I didn't like Utley's book at all. I find it much easier for my putting thought to be about keeping the face square to the line and, as Rotella suggests, focusing on a very specific target point. Now, that doesn't mean if you put a laser level on my putter face that it would be absolutely square to the target line all the time, but it is what I am thinking about with my practice strokes. And I'd point out that even Tiger says in How I Play Golf that keeping the putter face square on short to mid length putts makes sense to him, but that on longer putts he naturally opens and closes the face. There's too many variables for my liking in the Utley method.

 

But, back on topic, what folks are saying about the Putting Bible is true. It's overly technical in a lot of areas. But it's worthwhile to have for the statisitcal knowledge and the green reading sections. The Perfect Pendulum that Pelz advocates might not be the perfect putting stroke for anyone except Perfy, but the Pelz book is a valuable read. But buy iton ebay and save $20.

[Noncenx]

Anyone serious about the game has to have the Short Game Bible - this is a must read! I don't think anyone can dispute the basic ideas presented even though you might not totally embrace them. His 4 wedge system for example, but more and more people are carrying more wedges as a result of his ideas. He lays the foundation for a tremendous short game if you follow it.

 

The Putting Bible is a hard read, as someone else said it seems more of a dry textbook. It does have useful information but you have to work to keep your eyes focused. Pelz is a proponent of the straight back & forth putting stroke but the current trend (fad?) is Stan Utley's Putting Arc. I think both are equally valid but each is somewhat dependent on your putter. A face balanced putter is more suited for the Pelz pendulum stroke while Utley's putting arc is best for a toe balanced putter.

 

Personally I do better using Pelz's pendulum stroke and his thoughts about getting the ball to the hole (see this months Golf Magazine) but have improved my feel after reading Utley's book.

[SadTrombone]

Just to clarify, Pelz doesn't teach "straight back straight through". He teaches "Pure In Line Square". There's a big difference.

 

-mini

[rosskoss]

I don't know if people are aware of this but you can get a ton of golf books at your local library. I have multiple copies of the Dave Peltz Bible books in my library and I just check them out when I want to read them. There are also tons of other great golf books.

[SwingMan]

You can go to www.amazon.com and purchase them for much less --

 

In the late 90's-early oughts, Pelz was the only game in town and I read both of his books.

 

I now ignore his basic techniques. But still adhere to his advice on greenreading and how to approach a putt.

 

As to the short game bible, I again ignore his basic techniques as well as his advice to use many clubs around the green. But some of his advice on how to approach a shot as to trajectory is still good.

 

So I went throught the Pelz is King Stage.

 

The King is Dead, long live the King -- Stan Utley that is.

 

I find Utley's use one wedge for almost every kind of shot around the green much easier -- I am getting to know my 58 wedge inside and out and have selected one with a versatile grind -- it does everything well.

 

I am also using Utley's putting technique.

 

My advice -- some of Pelz is a good read but technique is dependent on who you are as a player -- try different basic techniques and go with the one that fits your style, feel and rhythm.

[Sam-Tee-Time]

I have BOTH Bibles. Here are my thoughts:

 

Short Game Bible - is more helpful IMO. The clock idea for wedge distance control works VERY well for me, as long as I practice them to groove my distances. I don't follow every tip to the exact letter, I modify many things according to my comfort level, or prior instruction/habits.

 

One thing this book helped me with is learning the differences between short chips, vs. pitching, vs. partial wedge shots. I finally learned to use these shots in different circumstances on the course.

 

I've learned many things, like where to land your shots on the green, and how dips (vs. humps) will affect your ballflight after it bounces. The SandBunker tips help tremendously, as well as (finally) learning how to pull off a cut lob shot.

 

As others suggested - you need to take what works for you, and accept/deny information as necessary. For example - I don't believe there is a need for a 64* "X" wedge, as Pelz suggests. Another example - Pelz teaches that you need to have a FULL followthru, even on short pitch/wedge shots. I don't use a full followthru on each wedge shot, I only follow through just as much (plus a little more) than my backswing.

 

Putting Bible - this book is not as good as the Short Game Bible. It preaches straight back/thru strokes, which I don't like - I prefer a more open/square/closed "Stan Utley" type of stroke.

 

But - it teaches a lot of good drills, and practice methods to develop a sound stroke. If you're a "feel" player - this book is NOT for you.

 

I wish this book taught a little more on green reading, but it did have an interesting section about WHY many putts miss on the low side. Fundamentally your "visual break" is very differnet than the "actual break". Learning to recognize this helps me sink more breaking putts.

 

The best part of this book is the DRILLS. It has good setup/technique drills, as well as good drills to use on the putting green.

 

Summary - Most "feel" guys will hate these books. I'm a scientific person, and want to learn repeatable, correct techniques that will work on a consistent basis. For this reason - I believe in these books, but I make sure to extract the information that works for me, and adapt some of the teachings to my personal preference.

 

I hope that helps. I would recommend these books, but ONLY for someone that's more interested in a scientific/methodical approach to the game. Feel players - look elsewhere.

[MWL]

Just to clarify, Pelz doesn't teach "straight back straight through". He teaches "Pure In Line Square". There's a big difference.

 

-mini

 

if you see any of his training aids eg the rail its straight, so it is straight back straight through. As one of the observant posters earlier pointed out if you attach a laser pointer to the shaft if you take the putter back in a straight line the laser will burn an outside to square to outside path as the putter rises in the backswing and again in the thru swing because the shaft is on an angle. So this is clearly not the best way to swing a putter in motion. Having said that I know a lot of people who take the putter back abruptly to the inside and would burn a path to the inside of the target line. For these people they would need to feel more straight back and straight thru. But on topic I think both books are worth reading for sure. I have the Ben Crenshaw putting video have watched it several times.. and on it he says he tries to take it straight back and straight thru on short putts but not long ones.. so just goes to show... can you imagine trying to put a "pils" stroke on a 40 footer.. probably miss the ball..

[adkima00]

I don't know if people are aware of this but you can get a ton of golf books at your local library. I have multiple copies of the Dave Peltz Bible books in my library and I just check them out when I want to read them. There are also tons of other great golf books.

 

+1. The copy that I have in front of me is from my local library. I'm about 1/3 of the way through the book and can't wait to get to the range to start to document the 3 wedges that I have. I have the short game bible. As an aside, I have a video that Ben Crenshaw made about putting. That's my putting bible...

 

Matt

[RunOfTheDill]

I really want the short game bible but don't want to pay for it. Anyone just want to help a fellow cheap poor golfer out and sell it to me for a few bucks less then ebay?

[SwingMan]

I really want the short game bible but don't want to pay for it. Anyone just want to help a fellow cheap poor golfer out and sell it to me for a few bucks less then ebay?

 

Saw it on amazon for $16.73 and shipping.

[RunOfTheDill]

I was hoping to find a member that has read it and would pass it on for 10?

[leviner13]

Haveing face rotation is like giving strokes away. Everyone spends all their time working the stroke path. Such as the putting arc and Stan Utley's swinging the putter on the plane. Dave Pelz clearly states that path is only 17% of starting the ball on the correct line. Having the putter face square at impact is the the post important part. If you wanna be a good putter, you have to learn to read the right amount of break and get the ball past the hole. Golfers can only see about 1/3 of the actual amount of break. Once they are stroking the putt your body makes corrections either by either pushing or pulling the putt. Buy a Dave Pelz putting tutor to make sure you are starting the putt on line, and some putter clips to make pure your hitting the middle of the face and the sky is the limit to how well you can putt.

[SwingMan]

Haveing face rotation is like giving strokes away. Everyone spends all their time working the stroke path. Such as the putting arc and Stan Utley's swinging the putter on the plane. Dave Pelz clearly states that path is only 17% of starting the ball on the correct line. Having the putter face square at impact is the the post important part. If you wanna be a good putter, you have to learn to read the right amount of break and get the ball past the hole. Golfers can only see about 1/3 of the actual amount of break. Once they are stroking the putt your body makes corrections either by either pushing or pulling the putt. Buy a Dave Pelz putting tutor to make sure you are starting the putt on line, and some putter clips to make pure your hitting the middle of the face and the sky is the limit to how well you can putt.

 

 

Spoken like a true Pelz Devotee.

 

Don't worry -- The Truck with the Intervention Team will arrive soon. ;)

[tokyokish]

My thought on the PB is that if your are serious about improving your game, it is a very good place to start.

There are a lot of well thought out, well explained theories about the putting stroke, break line, etc. that I feel can only help. Personally, it has helped me read puts at least 10% to 15% better. It may not sound like much but that is about 2 more putts per round that go in, not to mention all the rest that end up closer while having some chance of falling.

That being said, I would say that after reading it twice, I actively use about 25% of the book (specifically reading the break and starting the putt online). I still think you would have to read the whole book to see all theories in context and the common threads that run through them. If you look at one of his theories out of context, it can seem bizarre/quirky, as some wrx's have knowingly (and unknowingly) pointed out earlier in this thread.

And as always, at the end of the day you can have all the knowledge in the world, but it will never allow you to overcome your talent and skill level, it will just help you max out what you've got.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

[victor2000]

Haveing face rotation is like giving strokes away. Everyone spends all their time working the stroke path. Such as the putting arc and Stan Utley's swinging the putter on the plane. Dave Pelz clearly states that path is only 17% of starting the ball on the correct line. Having the putter face square at impact is the the post important part. If you wanna be a good putter, you have to learn to read the right amount of break and get the ball past the hole. Golfers can only see about 1/3 of the actual amount of break. Once they are stroking the putt your body makes corrections either by either pushing or pulling the putt. Buy a Dave Pelz putting tutor to make sure you are starting the putt on line, and some putter clips to make pure your hitting the middle of the face and the sky is the limit to how well you can putt.

 

 

Spoken like a true Pelz Devotee.

 

Don't worry -- The Truck with the Intervention Team will arrive soon. :)

 

Are you saying that starting the ball on the correct line and consistent speed (getting the ball past the hole) is not important?

[SwingMan]

Haveing face rotation is like giving strokes away. Everyone spends all their time working the stroke path. Such as the putting arc and Stan Utley's swinging the putter on the plane. Dave Pelz clearly states that path is only 17% of starting the ball on the correct line. Having the putter face square at impact is the the post important part. If you wanna be a good putter, you have to learn to read the right amount of break and get the ball past the hole. Golfers can only see about 1/3 of the actual amount of break. Once they are stroking the putt your body makes corrections either by either pushing or pulling the putt. Buy a Dave Pelz putting tutor to make sure you are starting the putt on line, and some putter clips to make pure your hitting the middle of the face and the sky is the limit to how well you can putt.

 

 

Spoken like a true Pelz Devotee.

 

Don't worry -- The Truck with the Intervention Team will arrive soon. :)

 

Are you saying that starting the ball on the correct line and consistent speed (getting the ball past the hole) is not important?

 

No -- I'm saying that I like you avatar... ;)

 

There are many items in the Pelz Grab Bag that are very good -- other than the stroke.

 

But it's only the really high hcs that only see 1/3 of the break....

[leviner13]

Actually that is not true that high hcs only see 1/3 of the break most everyone that plays golf. The problem is that you see the apex of the putt the spot you think you have to roll the all over. Put people say a specif point, but do not putt toward it. Your body makes compintaions, to get the ball there such as pushing and pulling. Also, people can not see the graviational pull on the ball as it starts rollling. And as the ball slows down toward the roll the putt will break more due to lack of speed. Most good players will make 9/10 putts from 3 feet, so why not get it 3 feet past the hole. Most people come up 3-6 feet short on lag putts, which means you have 6 feet to the hole, an also an additional 3 feet past the hole, meaning your leaving the putt 9 feet short. I would love for someone to start a Pelz only thread. The guy honestly is really smart, he put people on the moon he can teach you to putt.

[againstthegrain]

3' feet past the hole is too fast to allow the greatest percentage of putts to be made. The PB on average greens says(and proves scientifically btw) the correct speed is 17" past the hole. For faster greens it's going to be a little longer, for slower a little shorter.

 

A lag putt that comes up 18" short is incorrect(too slow) by about 3' if you want the highest % of making the putt.

[SwingMan]

Actually that is not true that high hcs only see 1/3 of the break most everyone that plays golf. The problem is that you see the apex of the putt the spot you think you have to roll the all over. Put people say a specif point, but do not putt toward it. Your body makes compintaions, to get the ball there such as pushing and pulling. Also, people can not see the graviational pull on the ball as it starts rollling. And as the ball slows down toward the roll the putt will break more due to lack of speed. Most good players will make 9/10 putts from 3 feet, so why not get it 3 feet past the hole. Most people come up 3-6 feet short on lag putts, which means you have 6 feet to the hole, an also an additional 3 feet past the hole, meaning your leaving the putt 9 feet short. I would love for someone to start a Pelz only thread. The guy honestly is really smart, he put people on the moon he can teach you to putt.

 

 

What you're telling me is that you're quoting Pelz almost verbatim and that people don't read the putt to break at all....... My friends are high cappers, they do read some break. Their thing is a bad method of putting -- they pop the ball, their tempo is crap, the don't take the putter back enough on long putts -- that has nothing to do with break.

 

What Pelz needs to do is collect data on people that have a decent stroke and then make his measurements on green reading

 

And Pelzie's thing is 17 inches past the hole, not 3 feet past.

[leviner13]

ya i know it is 17 inches, but i play with alot of different players and they all afraid to hit the ball past the hole. Most golfers have a fear of seeing the ball roll past the hole on chips, or even on full shots. Most golfers come up short more than long. What i am saying is 3 feet past is not bad because so many people hit the putt short, and 3 feet is ok because you will make 9/10 putts from 3 feet. What i am saying is you have no bussiness leaving a putt short. I know if you start ramming it, will have a higher prcentage of lip outs. You see tiger or phil when they are putting well the ball jumps in the hole. A perfect example was tiger at the PGA the other week he made alot of nice putts. His speed was so good the balls had a good pace and he putted well that week. And about aiming it has alot to do with your flow lines. Your putter face, eyes, shoulders, hips, knees, and feet all pointing on your intended aim line, or starting line. Thats why people do not play the true amount of break, with the optimum speed of 17 inches past the hole.

[SwingMan]

ya i know it is 17 inches, but i play with alot of different players and they all afraid to hit the ball past the hole. Most golfers have a fear of seeing the ball roll past the hole on chips, or even on full shots. Most golfers come up short more than long. What i am saying is 3 feet past is not bad because so many people hit the putt short, and 3 feet is ok because you will make 9/10 putts from 3 feet. What i am saying is you have no bussiness leaving a putt short. I know if you start ramming it, will have a higher prcentage of lip outs. You see tiger or phil when they are putting well the ball jumps in the hole. A perfect example was tiger at the PGA the other week he made alot of nice putts. His speed was so good the balls had a good pace and he putted well that week. And about aiming it has alot to do with your flow lines. Your putter face, eyes, shoulders, hips, knees, and feet all pointing on your intended aim line, or starting line. Thats why people do not play the true amount of break, with the optimum speed of 17 inches past the hole.

 

 

But -- I disagree with Pelz on some things on running the ball 17 inches past -- when I have a putt with a severe uphill slope, if it doesn't go in, I'd rather leave it a tad short -- even at 17 inches, a severe downhiller with some break will make you crap in your pants as you're standing over it.

 

Can you say off the green?