Dave Pelz Putting Bible

[againstthegrain]

One might disagree with 17" past the hole but the objective, scientific proof is in the PB.

 

 

Pelz has plenty of data from from the PGA and LPGA tour in both the PB and the SGB.

[SwingMan]

One might disagree with 17" past the hole but the objective, scientific proof is in the PB.

 

 

Pelz has plenty of data from from the PGA and LPGA tour in both the PB and the SGB.

 

Not many people disagree with it -- but there are exceptions to every general rule -- I'd rather face a straight uphill 17 inch putt than a severe downhill slider of the same length.

 

Think about it and after you've wiped the sweat from your brow, get back to us.

[againstthegrain]

Your original post indicated you would be happy leaving your uphill putt short w ZERO chance of going in....think about that and get back to us.

[SwingMan]

Your original post indicated you would be happy leaving your uphill putt short w ZERO chance of going in....think about that and get back to us.

 

 

Actually, and I'll be nice, you misread my initial post. The quote was " 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."

 

Meaning I'd like it to go in, but I am not going to over-charge a hill with a tricky, severe downhiller as my next putt.

 

I was making a point that only fools or young disciples do verbatim what someone else tells them to do without thinking first -- a general rule always has exceptions.

 

Here is the thought process on the putt- "I want to leave this putt so I am 17 inches past the hole (general rule). But crap, if I do," as I walk past the hole and survey what I'll have if I have a 17 inch downhill slider, " then there is a good chance that my downhiller, if missed, may slip off the green. So, instead of being 17 inches past the hole as my target distance, I'll put it a couple of inches past or maybe just at the hole (exception to the general rule) - if it goes in - great. If it doesn't, I might be a little short or only an inch or two past the hole. I'd rather be careful than have a four putt. Discretion is the better part of valor."

 

 

 

Or you can do what Pelz always says.

 

And suffer for it. :)

 

I'd rather pick and choose. And I think Dave would tell you to do the same.

 

But I'm just an old guy -- so ignore me.

[leviner13]

Hey man if you can't make a putt 17 inches there is a problem. Hey all me and againstthegrain are saying is Dave Pelz has scientific evidence to his research. Dave Pelz is not a feel player, and i think feel players are way to streaky, and do not have a solid foundation to their games. Some days you have it and some days you don't, that is no way to be consistent. Think about this, that is like going to a baker at the store, and asking him to bake you a cake. And he does not have a recipe, but simply throws in random ingredents and hopes for the best to come out. Golf does not work that way, you have to have a complete understanding and solid foundation to what you are doing. Honestly, i think a ton of PGA players are leaving alot on the table, by not haveing a complete understanding of putting. Honestly, if there was something about putting i didn't know, i would want to know. Same thing with these players that still have long irons in there bags, those things are liabilities. Also, you should have 4 wedges in your bag, including a 64 degree wedge, with low amount of bounce.

[SwingMan]

Hey man if you can't make a putt 17 inches there is a problem. Hey all me and againstthegrain are saying is Dave Pelz has scientific evidence to his research. Dave Pelz is not a feel player, and i think feel players are way to streaky, and do not have a solid foundation to their games. Some days you have it and some days you don't, that is no way to be consistent. Think about this, that is like going to a baker at the store, and asking him to bake you a cake. And he does not have a recipe, but simply throws in random ingredents and hopes for the best to come out. Golf does not work that way, you have to have a complete understanding and solid foundation to what you are doing. Honestly, i think a ton of PGA players are leaving alot on the table, by not haveing a complete understanding of putting. Honestly, if there was something about putting i didn't know, i would want to know. Same thing with these players that still have long irons in there bags, those things are liabilities. Also, you should have 4 wedges in your bag, including a 64 degree wedge, with low amount of bounce.

 

 

I tried to be nice by taking the time to write down the thought process in my post above -- evidently you haven't putted on super slick sloped greens facing a 17 inch slider where if you miss the ball will go off the edge of the green. I believe Doug Sanders lost a British Open on such a putt and it wasn't downhill - just a slider.

 

You guys must be young -- Pelz has a lot of good stuff -- but use your head -- there are exceptions to every rule -- I've even seen Pelz say that on one of his many promotions of himself. I read his books as soon as they came out -- many years ago. I was also a brainwashed devotee -- and insisted Pelz is always right -- just like you guys are doing.

 

Fortunately, I was open to other points of view.

 

If you want to insist on absolutes and slam me with his Bible -- fine -- you can believe everything he has to say.

 

Once you've guys have been on internet sites for a while or become more mature -- maybe you'll accept that people don't always accept your views or those of whom you are apostles.

 

As I said, there are exceptions to every general rule -- accept that and you're on your way to maturity.

 

As to everyone having a 64 wedge, you've got to be kidding, right? Another Pelz thing -- if it works for you, fine. But don't say "you should have 4 wedges in your bag, including a 64." Tried it, got the T shirt, it's not in the bag.

[MrParr1Noid]

Hey man if you can't make a putt 17 inches there is a problem. Hey all me and againstthegrain are saying is Dave Pelz has scientific evidence to his research.

 

How many golfers in here have not missed a 17 inch putt?? And scientific evidence?? :)

 

It seems to me like a couple of you guys aren't allowing anyone elses opinions on this subject, and just because someone has written a book doesn't mean they know anymore than anyone else about the subject of putting. ;)

[Lumpy_22]

I'm a 5 handicap. I'm seriously looking to improve my short game to get to the next level.

Currently I'm reading the Putting Bible, and yes although it reads like a textbook, I'm encouraged. It offeres satistical data, and input that makes sense. Do I agree it's the best way for everyone no..

I do agree that the faceangle at impact is probally more important. I 've taken strokes outside to inside and hit some very solid putts.. What I want is the ability to make 2 more putts a round and bring my misses 25% closer....this should result in my two more makes a round. Go from 30-34 putts per to 28-30 hopefully.

With this improve my proxiamty to the hole on approach shots by 25%, which I am working on with my instructor, so help me make another putt or two...

Combine all of this with a better attitude and mental focus, and that's what I need to get to the next level...

The thing I don't understand with Utley's method (correct me if I am wrong, I haven't read his book, but I should to understand both sides better)..
if I putt square to open to square to closed, dose this not mean I have to time my stroke evrytime correctly.. This would bring a third element into play besides line and speed of putt.. I know speed of putt and stroke timing are similar but I may have the right length or putt but my tempos quick or slow and I've missed..

I may be interpeting this wrong, and I AM open to other thoughts. I know the greatest knowledge comes from plenty of sources to get an overall imformed opinion. I have read Utley's book and can't really offer a fair opinion until I do so....

I still would like some feedback regarding the putting bible though..

I like the set lines, shoulders, hands.. and noticed my right side sometimes wants to dominate slightly forcing my left forearm to be inside the line of my right...

Any thoughts........

[SwingMan]

[quote name='Lumpy_22' post='890401' date='Jan 30 2008, 02:06 AM']Currently I'm reading the Putting Bible

I do agree that the faceangle at impact is probally more important.

The thing I don't understand with Utley's method (correct me if I am wrong, I haven't read his book, but I should to understand both sides better)

if I putt square to open to square to closed, dose this not mean I have to time my stroke evrytime correctly.. This would bring a third element into play besides line and speed of putt.. I know speed of putt and stroke timing are similar but I may have the right length or putt but my tempos quick or slow and I've missed..

I like the set lines, shoulders, hands.. and noticed my right side sometimes wants to dominate slightly forcing my left forearm to be inside the line of my right...

Any thoughts........[/quote]

1. face angle square at impact -- get a SeeMore or fine an old mFGP as a training aid -- their RST system will help you keep your hands and wrists quiet.

2. Pelz -- the book is good for reading putts and greens - forget the SBST - plus all of that bending over will kill your back eventually.

3. Utley -- no, it's not about timing -- it's about staying square to the arc. Utley promotes a traditional gated arc stroke in a non-traditional way. It's an active arc. Not the easiest stroke to emulate unless Stan is with you giving you a lesson.


4. Right hand in the way? -- see my thread on Pat O'Brien, Zach Johnson's instructor. He has a grip which is set up so the left hand doesn't break down, the left hand dominates the grip and the right hand is along for the ride. He also has a DVD for sale on the SeeMore sight if you're interested. He technique is all about grip, posture, stance, feeling the clubhead, softening the lines and remaining relaxed -- not many moving parts. It's Utley-like in that Pat promotes a more upright stance, a slightly longer putter - maybe .5 inches longer with your eyes slightly inside the ball and you maintaining a wide arc through the stroke. What is important is that like Utley, Pat has your shoulders move around you like a full swing instead of rocking, which to me is a more natural movement.

5. Traditional arc - eyes over ball, rock shoulders - get a putting arc.

good luck.

[birdie_man]

Man.......

 

However you putt you should just be tracing a straight plane line.

 

i.e.

 

No matter WHAT you are doing with the clubface. (i.e. "let it open/close" vs. "hold it more closed throughout")

 

Just trace a straight plane line. ("keep the 'laser' pointed to the target line")

 

BTW one other thing that may be related is how steep or flat you turn your shoulders when you putt.

 

I have found the most success with steeper though there may be some who are the opposite.

 

In the end the ball just has to go in the hole. Mechanics are important but there is more than one way I know that much.

[pocketfulladoubles]

The Shot Game Bible is great, the Putting Bible not so much. I think putting style is just way too personal and feel based to put it in a formula. There are good things he covers, but take it with a grain of salt. The Short Game Bible is very useful however. I believe he also has a book called Damage Control which "should" be a very useful one indeed.

[otto6457]

Pelz destroyed my putting stroke. I was a good putter in college....took a Pelz clinic and let them convince me that SBST was the best way to putt. Spent 2 years trying to make it work. Took another 2 years to flush that crap out of my system.

 

17" by the hole is perfectly silly. 2 revs/sec holing speed is a much more scientifically valid theory. Pelz exists to sell gadgets....period. If you have ever been to one of his clinics you know that you spent half of the time being led through the almost endless infomercials for his equipment. Every session is built around some piece of equipment that IS the session. Alignment aids, putting tracks, and putting tutors are everywhere. There is not another person in the world pushing this much crap. None of the other short game specialists in golf are using any of his ideas. Utley, O'Brien, and Orr don't recommend ANY of his methods. His chipping technique is severely limited and playing the ball that far back is just nonsense.

 

There is some useful info in his books if you are willing to wade through them, but on the whole there is way too much emphasis on mechanics and not nearly enough on creativity and feel. Perfy the robot is a perfect analogy for Pelz. Make it mechanical and insist that mechanical is better. If anyone believes Pelz has made Mickelson a better player I have some ocean front property in New Mexico you will be interested in.

[Machinegolfer]

Does anyone actually KNOOOOW how Pelz came up with 17 inches past the hole? Does anyone actually knooow what he did at Nasa?

[EasyDDI]

I tend to agree. I have not attended any clinic of Mr Pelz but I felt very frustrated when I read his putting bible that he was constantly referring to some training aids that he invented and where for sales in golfshops. Some of the theory is interesting but it felt like some kind of promotional book to sell gizmos. Very annoying. The book is now simply collecting dust on a bookshelf.

[againstthegrain]

Pelz destroyed my putting stroke. I was a good putter in college....took a Pelz clinic and let them convince me that SBST was the best way to putt. Spent 2 years trying to make it work. Took another 2 years to flush that crap out of my system.

 

17" by the hole is perfectly silly. 2 revs/sec holing speed is a much more scientifically valid theory. Pelz exists to sell gadgets....period. If you have ever been to one of his clinics you know that you spent half of the time being led through the almost endless infomercials for his equipment. Every session is built around some piece of equipment that IS the session. Alignment aids, putting tracks, and putting tutors are everywhere. There is not another person in the world pushing this much crap. None of the other short game specialists in golf are using any of his ideas. Utley, O'Brien, and Orr don't recommend ANY of his methods. His chipping technique is severely limited and playing the ball that far back is just nonsense.

 

There is some useful info in his books if you are willing to wade through them, but on the whole there is way too much emphasis on mechanics and not nearly enough on creativity and feel. Perfy the robot is a perfect analogy for Pelz. Make it mechanical and insist that mechanical is better. If anyone believes Pelz has made Mickelson a better player I have some ocean front property in New Mexico you will be interested in.

 

Where did this theory come from? And why is 17" past the hole silly?

[Machinegolfer]

Never thought you'd ask!! 17" past the hole was an AVERAGE of putts rolled past the hole on different green speeds/ types of greens in the mid 70's...ranging from everything to seveal inches up to 30 inches past the hole...he took the avergages of all these and came up with 17"...in actuality..you have to look at the PHYSICS of putting to understand how it trule works...how to maximize capture width giving you the best chance to make any given putt!!!...think about it...p.s Geoff Mangum's "Optimal Putting"...check it out

[SwingMan]

Don't remember how Dave came up with the 17 inches past the hole but I believe the theory is that there is a "donut" effect around the hole where the ground is a bit muddled. If your distance objective is 17 inches past the hole on a miss, then this donut effect is limited, along with the effect of grain, and you'll get a better roll nearer the hole.

[Machinegolfer]

Now your targeting an area rather then the hole...does that make sense to you...cz I don't get it :tongue:

[SwingMan]

Now your targeting an area rather then the hole...does that make sense to you...cz I don't get it :tongue:

 

It does make sense when you think of it. If you had a perfectly straight putt without slope, then the hole might be your target.

 

But Pelz talks about imagining your line like it is on rails -- your target line -- where you aim the face of the putter, may be outside of the hole on a breaking putt.

 

On an uphill and severely breaking putt, you'd aim the face of the putter outside of the hole and your target speed would be past the hole.

 

Of course, your goal is to put the ball in the hole -- but the process may entail aiming the putter outside of the hole and thinking of speed beyond (or before) the hole - in order to get that ball in the cup.

[withdrew]

I have the books, haven't read them cover to cover, but aiming to an area around the cup DOES make sense.

 

For a 15-20 foot putt, realistically, you're looking to get it to tap-in distance. If it goes in, great, but the main objective is to have a manageable putt when you miss. The percentages are against you, most likely you are going to miss.

 

If statistics show that the majority of amateurs come up short, then it's not really rocket science that these same amateurs should use the force necessary to get the ball PAST the cup, (17" past according to Pelz) because the chances increase exponentially of the putt going in.

[Machinegolfer]

Now your targeting an area rather then the hole...does that make sense to you...cz I don't get it :tongue:

 

It does make sense when you think of it. If you had a perfectly straight putt without slope, then the hole might be your target.

 

But Pelz talks about imagining your line like it is on rails -- your target line -- where you aim the face of the putter, may be outside of the hole on a breaking putt.

 

On an uphill and severely breaking putt, you'd aim the face of the putter outside of the hole and your target speed would be past the hole.

 

Of course, your goal is to put the ball in the hole -- but the process may entail aiming the putter outside of the hole and thinking of speed beyond (or before) the hole - in order to get that ball in the cup.

 

Once again, all this is "theoretical" in order to understand how to become a better putter, its incredibly important to understand how the human brain functions. How to optimize putting the ball in the hole..I agree with you on a sloping putt you would not aim the putter face directly at the hole...this is a difference subject then rolling it into a 3 foot circle...Our brain's were designed with insticts that have evolved over many generations of a lifetime...to allow the subconcious to take over, to "become minimalists" is of great importance in golf. While putting, the brain becomes most efficient while its only targeting one thing...Ultimately you want the ball to go in the hole, so id suggest you target the hole...Ask a world class archer to descreibe to you how they became world class....where do you think their mind's at?

[Machinegolfer]

I have the books, haven't read them cover to cover, but aiming to an area around the cup DOES make sense.

 

For a 15-20 foot putt, realistically, you're looking to get it to tap-in distance. If it goes in, great, but the main objective is to have a manageable putt when you miss. The percentages are against you, most likely you are going to miss.

 

If statistics show that the majority of amateurs come up short, then it's not really rocket science that these same amateurs should use the force necessary to get the ball PAST the cup, (17" past according to Pelz) because the chances increase exponentially of the putt going in.

 

the difference between great putters and poor putters, i belive Dr. Bob said it best "The light is always green" great putters are trying to make the putt regardless of whether they are 5 feet or 50 feet away...The more precise they are with targeting, the more locked in they get with targeting and targeting for touch...the lesser the comeback putt...

[withdrew]

I have the books, haven't read them cover to cover, but aiming to an area around the cup DOES make sense.

 

For a 15-20 foot putt, realistically, you're looking to get it to tap-in distance. If it goes in, great, but the main objective is to have a manageable putt when you miss. The percentages are against you, most likely you are going to miss.

 

If statistics show that the majority of amateurs come up short, then it's not really rocket science that these same amateurs should use the force necessary to get the ball PAST the cup, (17" past according to Pelz) because the chances increase exponentially of the putt going in.

 

the difference between great putters and poor putters, i belive Dr. Bob said it best "The light is always green" great putters are trying to make the putt regardless of whether they are 5 feet or 50 feet away...The more precise they are with targeting, the more locked in they get with targeting and targeting for touch...the lesser the comeback putt...

Pros are always looking to sink the putt. Amateurs are different.

 

A similar argument can be made for laying up vs. going for the green. If the light is always green, just go for it, regardless of your ability or the percentages against you.

 

I'm not a Pelz disciple by any means, but lag-putting is what separates guys who shoot 100s and 90's.

[Machinegolfer]

I have the books, haven't read them cover to cover, but aiming to an area around the cup DOES make sense.

 

For a 15-20 foot putt, realistically, you're looking to get it to tap-in distance. If it goes in, great, but the main objective is to have a manageable putt when you miss. The percentages are against you, most likely you are going to miss.

 

If statistics show that the majority of amateurs come up short, then it's not really rocket science that these same amateurs should use the force necessary to get the ball PAST the cup, (17" past according to Pelz) because the chances increase exponentially of the putt going in.

 

the difference between great putters and poor putters, i belive Dr. Bob said it best "The light is always green" great putters are trying to make the putt regardless of whether they are 5 feet or 50 feet away...The more precise they are with targeting, the more locked in they get with targeting and targeting for touch...the lesser the comeback putt...

Pros are always looking to sink the putt. Amateurs are different.

 

A similar argument can be made for laying up vs. going for the green. If the light is always green, just go for it, regardless of your ability or the percentages against you.

 

I'm not a Pelz disciple by any means, but lag-putting is what separates guys who shoot 100s and 90's.

 

Not even close to the same scenario's...your under the assumption the "going for a putt" is playing with some sort of " added aggression" re-read carefully, I said targeting for aim AND TOUCH... golf is a game of precision...how good do you want to be?

[SwingMan]

Now your targeting an area rather then the hole...does that make sense to you...cz I don't get it :tongue:

 

It does make sense when you think of it. If you had a perfectly straight putt without slope, then the hole might be your target.

 

But Pelz talks about imagining your line like it is on rails -- your target line -- where you aim the face of the putter, may be outside of the hole on a breaking putt.

 

On an uphill and severely breaking putt, you'd aim the face of the putter outside of the hole and your target speed would be past the hole.

 

Of course, your goal is to put the ball in the hole -- but the process may entail aiming the putter outside of the hole and thinking of speed beyond (or before) the hole - in order to get that ball in the cup.

 

Once again, all this is "theoretical" in order to understand how to become a better putter, its incredibly important to understand how the human brain functions. How to optimize putting the ball in the hole..I agree with you on a sloping putt you would not aim the putter face directly at the hole...this is a difference subject then rolling it into a 3 foot circle...Our brain's were designed with insticts that have evolved over many generations of a lifetime...to allow the subconcious to take over, to "become minimalists" is of great importance in golf. While putting, the brain becomes most efficient while its only targeting one thing...Ultimately you want the ball to go in the hole, so id suggest you target the hole...Ask a world class archer to descreibe to you how they became world class....where do you think their mind's at?

 

As I am going through my routine from the back of the ball, I imagine/see my line/rail, the ball traveling along that rail and dropping into the hole. When the putter is square to my line at address, I'm just thinking speed of the putt as I take my 2 looks.

[Machinegolfer]

you my man, are one smart cookie.... very similar to how i would putt as well

[withdrew]

Our putting strategies differ. I consider myself a decent putter, slightly better than average. Perhaps my strategy is off and I'm just lucky. We can leave it at that.

[Machinegolfer]

Whatever works for you , including standing on your head, go for it...as far as pelz is concerned he's guessing at best...

[DrSchteeve]

Whatever works for you , including standing on your head, go for it...as far as pelz is concerned he's guessing at best...

 

The main points that Pelz makes are based on the data he collected over many years of following tour pro's around, not exactly guessing... A good example is his advice to leave the pin in: he points out that the statistics say the chances to make the putt or chip from the fringe are better, whether it is Perfy the robot or a tour pro....

 

I think there is a huge amount of very interesting, and helpful, factual information in both Bible's. There is also a lot of salesmanship for his products (yes, way too much) and some areas where he gets almost goofy with his recommendations.

 

As for Pelz and Mickelson: #majors for Mickelson before Pelz = 0, #after Pelz = 3 (and we're talking right after Pelz - Mickelson began working with Pelz in the fall of '03, won his first major in the Masters '04). 'Nuff said.

[Machinegolfer]

Whatever works for you , including standing on your head, go for it...as far as pelz is concerned he's guessing at best...

 

The main points that Pelz makes are based on the data he collected over many years of following tour pro's around, not exactly guessing... A good example is his advice to leave the pin in: he points out that the statistics say the chances to make the putt or chip from the fringe are better, whether it is Perfy the robot or a tour pro....

 

I think there is a huge amount of very interesting, and helpful, factual information in both Bible's. There is also a lot of salesmanship for his products (yes, way too much) and some areas where he gets almost goofy with his recommendations.

 

As for Pelz and Mickelson: #majors for Mickelson before Pelz = 0, #after Pelz = 3. 'Nuff said.

 

 

Please, teachers dont win tournaments, players win tournaments....his "data" disproves itself...I'm not saying all of his stuff is bad...but hes got alot of smoke and mirrors going on, and alot of missing pieces