Dave Pelz Putting Bible

[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. '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

 

And an example of his data disproving itself is....?

[Machinegolfer]

" The most widely accepted claim currently is that the 'optimal go-by distance' for all putts is 17 inches past the hole, regardless of grass type, green speed, or putt length. (Pelz, 1983 & 1989). But the research data supposedly supporting this claim actually disproves it and establishes instead the common sense understanding that the go-by speed for optimal sinks will vary based upon these same factors. (For Pelz's actual data see Dennis, Larry, Die putts at the hole- and you're dead: New tests prove you'll make more putts hitting them harder, Golf Dig., 28(7), Jul 1977,52-55.) On greens in the 1970's, this variation data ranged from 5-10 incehs past the on good bent greens, 10-15 inches past on poor bent greens, 20-30 inches past for good bermuda geens, to 30-40 inches past on poor bermuda greens. The 'best go-by' distances in this data for bent greens averaged 12.25"; for poa annua greens, 32"; for Bermuda greens, 27.5". The Pelz 17" is not in this article, as he therin states explicitly that his data confirms that there is not one specific go-by distance that is best for different grasses and instead the optimal go-by distance will vary with the grass type and its condition." Geoff Mangum, "Optimal Putting"...not saying this book is perfect, jsut a source of information

[essasin]

I've got both Pelz putting and shortgame books. If you don't want to pay 35 for each? Then don't!! Amazon.com....buy it used. I got mine used for 15 each with shipping and selected the books in near new condition. I got both of them in about 1 week and half, the books looked brand new to me. :tongue:

[DrSchteeve]

" The most widely accepted claim currently is that the 'optimal go-by distance' for all putts is 17 inches past the hole, regardless of grass type, green speed, or putt length. (Pelz, 1983 & 1989). But the research data supposedly supporting this claim actually disproves it and establishes instead the common sense understanding that the go-by speed for optimal sinks will vary based upon these same factors. (For Pelz's actual data see Dennis, Larry, Die putts at the hole- and you're dead: New tests prove you'll make more putts hitting them harder, Golf Dig., 28(7), Jul 1977,52-55.) On greens in the 1970's, this variation data ranged from 5-10 incehs past the on good bent greens, 10-15 inches past on poor bent greens, 20-30 inches past for good bermuda geens, to 30-40 inches past on poor bermuda greens. The 'best go-by' distances in this data for bent greens averaged 12.25"; for poa annua greens, 32"; for Bermuda greens, 27.5". The Pelz 17" is not in this article, as he therin states explicitly that his data confirms that there is not one specific go-by distance that is best for different grasses and instead the optimal go-by distance will vary with the grass type and its condition." Geoff Mangum, "Optimal Putting"...not saying this book is perfect, jsut a source of information

 

Good example, though I for one would not be comfortable trying to miss by 2 1/2 to 3 feet on any green. I agree that the 17 inch past the hole recommendation is one that I am beginning to conclude just simply doesn't work for me.

[hoganfan924]

Putting bible is hit and miss. Some good stuff, some stuff I've always thought was BS or came to that conclusion after a while. Like "perfy" his putting robot "proving" things about the stroke. Well, first off, human anatomy is far more complex than his robot and people don't rotate their shoulders around a single hinged pivot point. That's just one example of what I'd consider the bad science in his book. Not so sure his ideas about the tic-tock metronome back and forth timing is correct either. I tried it and it doesn't really feel correct at all, seems to me that the backstroke tempo is too fast and jerky. His assertions in the short game bible about a "styler" finish showing a hand controlled swing is 100% wrong too. He clearly doesn't understand the "release left," aka "Cp" aka "arc of approach" release and teaches a disconnected "2 plane" type wedge swing. Screwed me up good for a month after the school.

 

However, he does make some excellent putting training aids that helped me a lot. Like the teacher clips, truthboard, elevated aimline and O balls.

 

BTW Machine, I took your advice and have Optimal Putting on order. Should be here soon! Looking forward to it.

[otto6457]

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.

 

Actually.....if you bother to check Mickelson's scoring average since 2003. You will note that he has only had one season with Pelz that was better than his last year without Pelz. In the 2007 season he managed to have a scoring average that was his worse since 1991. If there is to be a legitimate claim that Pelz has improved Mickelson's scoring, it should be obvious in his scoring average. After all, the short game is the key to scoring well.

 

http://www.databasegolf.com/players/player...amid=MickePhi01

 

If you believe Pelz has improved Mickelson's short game, possibly you can point to the mechanical changes Pelz has made to Phil's short game? Maybe the changes Pelz has made to Phil's putting stroke?

 

Pelz has made no hay with Mickelson. Phil's short game was better than practically every other player on Tour long before Pelz latched on to him. Phil's problem has NEVER been the short game and claiming Pelz made him a better short game player is just bizarre.

 

This is another example of the Pelz publicity machine at work. Mickelson wins a major and suddenly Pelz made it happen. Probably all due to Phil finally getting that putting tutor or that putting track that Pelz sold him!!

[chico713]

Pelz can really get in your head if you let him...instead of thinking about your target, you may wind up thinking about all the mechanics and processes involved...and just lock up.

 

See it..Feel it.. Do it

[mgranato]

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.

 

Actually.....if you bother to check Mickelson's scoring average since 2003. You will note that he has only had one season with Pelz that was better than his last year without Pelz. In the 2007 season he managed to have a scoring average that was his worse since 1991. If there is to be a legitimate claim that Pelz has improved Mickelson's scoring, it should be obvious in his scoring average. After all, the short game is the key to scoring well.

 

http://www.databasegolf.com/players/player...amid=MickePhi01

 

If you believe Pelz has improved Mickelson's short game, possibly you can point to the mechanical changes Pelz has made to Phil's short game? Maybe the changes Pelz has made to Phil's putting stroke?

 

Pelz has made no hay with Mickelson. Phil's short game was better than practically every other player on Tour long before Pelz latched on to him. Phil's problem has NEVER been the short game and claiming Pelz made him a better short game player is just bizarre.

 

This is another example of the Pelz publicity machine at work. Mickelson wins a major and suddenly Pelz made it happen. Probably all due to Phil finally getting that putting tutor or that putting track that Pelz sold him!!

 

Pelz has worked with 9 different Major winners, how many instructors can make that claim? Some of the best short gamers in the world (Furyk, Phil, VJ) use his advice. Because a few on a forum don't like his methods doesn't make them any less viable. Phil has worked with Pelz for a long time, but not until '03 did he decide to "really commit" (his words) to what he had to say. And Mickelson has said the VAST majority of their work together has been on the management and strategy within the short game. Putting...since '03, Mickelson has been under 29 ppr each year.

 

As far as the publicity whore claims - I just checked his wedsite, and could not find a single players named mentioned. If you don't like his stuff, or it didn't work for you, fine - but how does that equate to it not working at all. I don't recall the hordes of Pelz zealots constantly trying to discredit everything Utley teaches, or trying to minimize his influence over the major winners he's taught (how many would that be, btw?). There's lots of choices out there, find one that works FOR YOU - but it doesn't jive when you try to dismiss an instructor whose client list is second to none.

[rankoutsider]

here's my 02, for what it's worth. i have read both of the pelz books and both of the utley books. i found the utley books to be informative and very good, and the putting stroke he advocates is the best for me because it allows me to use a more relaxed swing that i pivot around my front foot.

 

pelz's method is very much "freeze the body" and try to use the arms to make a pendulum. i really don't think this work too well for most players. utley's method is more of a "use the arms, but use the body as well." i find this more fluid and much easier to take to the course. but, as Dr.Shteeve notes, Mickelson looks like he knows what he's doing with the putter, and his body is pretty still.

 

in terms of the short game stuff, again, i like the utley shots, except his bunker shot is just flat out strange. it might work for him, but i would never do it myself. i have a much more conventional "lay it open, take it back a bit outside, and slap the bottom behind the ball" shot out of the sand, and i will never change that. the big surprise for me about the utley book is that he didn't mention tempo in the shortgame once. i thought that should have been more key.

 

in every case, though, you have to find a way to incorporate some of the information you read with how you see the shot or the putt and the stroke that will allow you to get the clubhead back to where it needs to get to and through on the path and speed you think is right, you need to figure out how your body moves in these shots and what is the best system for you based on that. you can't just take one of these methods to the course-- you have to work within it for awhile and see how you might modify it, or maybe just "reword" it, to better fit your images of how a shot is carried off, or a putt is stoked. my advice would be don't try to simply "use" one method or the other, but work with both until you figure out for yourself how to hit good shots. if you can tell, after trying it, that you will never see the shot in that way, then you can't really get much out of the teaching.

 

here's a quick example. the utley pitch shot only started working for me when i realized that a good swing cue for me was to get my hands low and the club head high in the backswing. it might sound obvious that you have to do something like this, but it was the "hands low and still" as the club head rises slowly, that i had to find for myself, and once i did i started hitting really consistent pitches. i really do try to hole everything now, so i think the method is great, but it is really only "my version" of "his method" that i think is good for me.

 

best, rob

[stryper]

I consider myself a decent putter, slightly better than average.

 

I'm curious...what is average for putting these days? The Tour average is probably somewhere around 29 PPR, but what about the rest of us? Is there an average out there for handicap golfers? I've read in different forums of folks who think they can get their numbers down in the 26 range, but to me that's patently ridiculous--if the best putters in the world can't do it why does anyone else think he/she can?

 

BTW, I consider myself well below average, but lately I've been making progress. For me Rotella beats Pelz every day of the week.

 

:tongue:

[otto6457]

Pelz has worked with 9 different Major winners, how many instructors can make that claim? Some of the best short gamers in the world (Furyk, Phil, VJ) use his advice. Because a few on a forum don't like his methods doesn't make them any less viable. Phil has worked with Pelz for a long time, but not until '03 did he decide to "really commit" (his words) to what he had to say. And Mickelson has said the VAST majority of their work together has been on the management and strategy within the short game. Putting...since '03, Mickelson has been under 29 ppr each year.

 

You seem have intentionally missed the point. Mickelson's scoring average is UP since being "committed" to Pelz's teaching! If he is as "committed" as you claim, then his results are even more disappointing. Now in actuality, picking a Tour pro and claiming they "use his advice" is non sequitur. Pelz has never attached his flag to anyone who was not already a star player. How hard is it to look good if you hitch your wagon to already accomplished stars? These guys have more golf talent in their thumbs than Pelz has in his entire being. Also, are you claiming that Phil is a SBST putter? Because if he is not (and I don't believe he is) then he is NOT using the Pelz putting method. If Phil is not using Pelz's method, why credit Pelz? If he is only using Pelz's "short game management" strategy", why is his scoring average up? Why toot Pelz's horn for raising Phil's scoring average?

 

As far as Pelz not listing all of his star students on his web page, why would he? You seem to know his students and what Pelz has taught them, so his publicity machine seems to be working fine. Besides, the only thing on his web page is gadgets that pros don't endorse and listings for all of his upcoming golf/vacation schools for people with too much money and too little talent. I doubt many pros are going to endorse golf clinics for anyone.

 

As far as the publicity whore claims - I just checked his wedsite, and could not find a single players named mentioned. If you don't like his stuff, or it didn't work for you, fine - but how does that equate to it not working at all. I don't recall the hordes of Pelz zealots constantly trying to discredit everything Utley teaches, or trying to minimize his influence over the major winners he's taught (how many would that be, btw?). There's lots of choices out there, find one that works FOR YOU - but it doesn't jive when you try to dismiss an instructor whose client list is second to none.

 

Again, you seem to be determined to ignore the points I made. I stated quite clearly that some of Pelz's stuff is worthwhile. As far as him being a publicity whore......perhaps you can identify where I called him a "whore". Making hyperbolic and inflammatory remarks and attributing them to me is not a very honest way to discuss the subject. I also never stated his stuff doesn't work at all. Why do you think I said such a thing? I specifically identified his 17" past the hole being outdated and wrong, and that his published and clinic-taught chipping technique is limited and inferior. As far as "Pelz zealots" constantly discrediting Utley, let them make their case. If Utley is wrong, make a case based upon what he teaches and how it's inferior. Possibly the "Pelz zealots" don't know enough to make any such criticism? This inference that Pelz's client list is "second to none" is nonsense. Tiger's short game is "second to none" and he doesn't work with Pelz. If you bother to check the PGA Tour stats you will note very few of Pelz "students" are in the top 10 in ANY area. If you want to claim Pelz improved their stats, bring em' out and lets see how his "students" are doing. A little "before and after" Pelz data would prove useful. Also, point out where Pelz's published techniques are what these "second to none Tour students" are using and that his students directly attribute his techniques as the key to their improvement. Otherwise you are just regurgitating the public image forged by Pelz to sell books and gadgets.

 

Maybe after you bring out those stats for his "Tour students", you can point to the mass of Pelz teaching aids on the practice greens of the PGA Tour stops. Possibly you have seen Phil with a putting tutor or maybe a putting track lately? Did VJ have a "teacher pointer" at some tournament?

 

Now....if you want to blow Pelz's horn for him and defend his honor, spend a little time looking at the actual stats and show us how his teachings are making a scientifically meaningful difference in the scoring of his "Tour students". Recall, Pelz is ALL about being scientific. If you don't establish Pelz's claims as being scientifically valid, you just sound like another "student" with a knee-jerk reaction to a reasonable response from someone that has first hand experience with the Pelz method and his clinics; and found them less than the best method...and has pointed out the fact that Mickelson's scoring average is UP since committing to Pelz. Possibly your over-reaction is because on you have spent too much money on gadgets and books by this same big name celebrity/author who has never played on Tour and has no idea how his methods perform first hand under tournament pressure.

 

There is the possibility that you yourself have taken a Pelz clinic or devoured his books and after doing so, you have made substantial reductions in your handicap or have used Pelz's techniques to win high level amateur tournaments, or even mini-tour or higher pro tournaments. If that is the case, then I would be very sincere when I say I would like to hear your story.

[Ezgolfer]

Optimal putting is an excellent easy to read book. I like his putting stroke. Pelz 's book was too much of a jargon. Give some time magnum is going to be in the same league .

Optimal putting + pure pendulum putter = some exciting time for my putting .

[Machinegolfer]

Putting bible is hit and miss. Some good stuff, some stuff I've always thought was BS or came to that conclusion after a while. Like "perfy" his putting robot "proving" things about the stroke. Well, first off, human anatomy is far more complex than his robot and people don't rotate their shoulders around a single hinged pivot point. That's just one example of what I'd consider the bad science in his book. Not so sure his ideas about the tic-tock metronome back and forth timing is correct either. I tried it and it doesn't really feel correct at all, seems to me that the backstroke tempo is too fast and jerky. His assertions in the short game bible about a "styler" finish showing a hand controlled swing is 100% wrong too. He clearly doesn't understand the "release left," aka "Cp" aka "arc of approach" release and teaches a disconnected "2 plane" type wedge swing. Screwed me up good for a month after the school.

 

However, he does make some excellent putting training aids that helped me a lot. Like the teacher clips, truthboard, elevated aimline and O balls.

 

BTW Machine, I took your advice and have Optimal Putting on order. Should be here soon! Looking forward to it.

 

just so you and I are clear, i'm not saying what Geoff has written is ALL 100% correct, cz I know better....but a better book to learn from, there is none at the moment, and much information can be learned from this!!! smart move hogan :tongue:

[Lumpy_22]

Wow, after the response, somehow I decided that although my stroke is far from perfect, and I'm trying to lower my putts per round by 3, I think there are many factors... I will still finish reading the book, but I don't think I'll try the PILS stroke. I spent 20 minutes to day just set up, look at target, ball, then go, and yes I missed putts but 48 out of 50 from 6 feet is fine.

 

I do notice now that I stopped expecting putts to fall. I'm missing the high side on the break and still making a good portoin that do miss. So I'll keep Rotella tapes in my head, and as has been said, see it, feel it, can it...

 

I guess I'm digging to get those last 5 strokes off, and I know it's mental, short game and better decision making process. If I was 5 feet closer to the hole on my shots into the green, I'm sure I'd make 1 or 2 per round more just right there..........

 

Still diggin..........

[DrSchteeve]

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.

 

Actually.....if you bother to check Mickelson's scoring average since 2003. You will note that he has only had one season with Pelz that was better than his last year without Pelz. In the 2007 season he managed to have a scoring average that was his worse since 1991. If there is to be a legitimate claim that Pelz has improved Mickelson's scoring, it should be obvious in his scoring average. After all, the short game is the key to scoring well.

 

http://www.databasegolf.com/players/player...amid=MickePhi01

 

If you believe Pelz has improved Mickelson's short game, possibly you can point to the mechanical changes Pelz has made to Phil's short game? Maybe the changes Pelz has made to Phil's putting stroke?

 

Pelz has made no hay with Mickelson. Phil's short game was better than practically every other player on Tour long before Pelz latched on to him. Phil's problem has NEVER been the short game and claiming Pelz made him a better short game player is just bizarre.

 

This is another example of the Pelz publicity machine at work. Mickelson wins a major and suddenly Pelz made it happen. Probably all due to Phil finally getting that putting tutor or that putting track that Pelz sold him!!

 

Since you obviously don't like words being put in your mouth, neither do I. I never said Pelz improved Mickelson's short game, I simply pointed out that Mickelson went from 0 majors in 10+ years on the tour to multiple majors after beginning to work with Pelz. If Pelz made a difference with Phil, it may have been more subtle than a direct and simple improvement in his short game. What Phil obviously needed in order to win a major was to get rid of the "Gamblin Phil" persona and stick to the conservative shot strategy that wins majors. I think Pelz may have influenced Phil in that regard, but I certainly don't know that.

 

One highly visible change Pelz made with Phil was on the number and type of wedges used depending on the course and conditions.

[DrSchteeve]

I've always used the inexpensive approach as far as Pelz goes. Bought his books used on Amazon, bought a few of the less expensive aids on eBay (putting clips, impact tape). Biggest purchase was the Truthboard (also on eBay) which I do like and is a fun gadget - my kids like to putter (pun intended) around with it.

 

I can't imagine spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to go to a Pelz school, when I suspect that most (90+ %) of what is taught is available for next to nothing in his books.

[mgranato]

So much to address, but I've got little interest in trying to sway your opinions. When you make statements like this: "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." There really isn't much of a serious discussion to be had. Unless you worked Pelz himself, and/or take no responsibility for your own game, I'm not sure how you can pin your woes on him.

 

About your "smoking gun" claim of Mickelson's scoring average - In 2003 he ranked 26th @ 70.25. In 2004 he ranked 4th @ 69.16. In 2005 he ranked 5th @ 69.39. In 2006 he ranked 6th @ 69.5. In 2007 he ranked 5th @ 69.46.

 

"Actually.....if you bother to check Mickelson's scoring average since 2003. You will note that he has only had one season with Pelz that was better than his last year without Pelz. In the 2007 season he managed to have a scoring average that was his worse since 1991. If there is to be a legitimate claim that Pelz has improved Mickelson's scoring, it should be obvious in his scoring average. After all, the short game is the key to scoring well."

 

His first full year as a pro wasn't until 1993. I think he scoring average has been in the 70's 5 times. "Last year without Pelz" was a 69.58 average. Combine that with his scoring averages from above and that makes EVERY point/"fact" in your above quote patently wrong.

[withdrew]

I think it needs to be treated like any other book you read. You take away some aspects that work, and you dismiss others that don't.

 

Amateurs (that's me) tend to come up short while putting. I don't know the "hard evidence" or statistics that would support that (that's why I bought the book) but in MY experience, I find that to be pretty accurate.

 

Putts left short have ZERO chance of going in the hole. That is a fact. Putts that make it to the hole HAVE A CHANCE. Don't ask me for percentages, I don't know the math, but it doesn't take a scientist to come to that conclusion. The Green Bay Packers have ZERO chance of winning the Superbowl. Why? Because they came up one game short. The New York Giants have A CHANCE. I don't know the odds, but they have more of a chance than the Packers, right?

 

So- if my putts usually come up short (which they used to do MUCH more frequently) I would be better served increasing the power or length of my stroke and using enough force to get the ball past the hole, while still aiming for the cup.

 

If you guys want to nit-pick exceptions to the rule, that's fine with me. Like I said, I'm not a Pelz drone and I use my own judgement coupled with some of his theories. If anyone takes everything literally, that's your own problem. Again, it doesn't take a genius to know you shouldn't aim for 17" past the cup on a short downhill putt with an 5 inch drop in elevation.

 

I'm glad this thread came back.

[otto6457]

Since you obviously don't like words being put in your mouth, neither do I. I never said Pelz improved Mickelson's short game, I simply pointed out that Mickelson went from 0 majors in 10+ years on the tour to multiple majors after beginning to work with Pelz. If Pelz made a difference with Phil, it may have been more subtle than a direct and simple improvement in his short game. What Phil obviously needed in order to win a major was to get rid of the "Gamblin Phil" persona and stick to the conservative shot strategy that wins majors. I think Pelz may have influenced Phil in that regard, but I certainly don't know that.

 

One highly visible change Pelz made with Phil was on the number and type of wedges used depending on the course and conditions.

 

 

So, what you are saying is that Pelz didn't improved Mickelson's short game but that he provided Phil with some information that he doesn't share in his books? If that is the case...again...why endore the Pelz books or his published techniques? What value are you claiming he offers if his best stuff is not available to the public?

 

There really isn't much of a serious discussion to be had. Unless you worked Pelz himself, and/or take no responsibility for your own game, I'm not sure how you can pin your woes on him.

 

I did work with Pelz himself. Claiming that I didn't take responsibility for my game is a bit presumptuous of you don't you think? I putted worse after my time with Pelz. I putted better before my time with Pelz, and I now putt better using a different stroke than the Pelz method. I can certainly pin my putting woes on Pelz.

 

His first full year as a pro wasn't until 1993. I think he scoring average has been in the 70's 5 times. "Last year without Pelz" was a 69.58 average. Combine that with his scoring averages from above and that makes EVERY point/"fact" in your above quote patently wrong.

 

You obviously did not read my link. Mickelson has played on Tour since 1988. He was still a teenager when he played in his first two seasons. His first full time season was 1992 when he played 17 events. Now, in his last season without Pelz,(2003) his scoring average was 67.48. His scoring average in 1992 was 65.14. Since 2003 his scoring average is 69.63, 66.58, 68.17, and 70.39. His scoring average since Pelz has only been better ONE year than he was in 1992. So, IN FACT, my POINT is still correct.

 

Again, why are you defending Pelz's honor here? I see you didn't provide any rebuttal to my claims, nor have you offered yourself as any barometer of Pelz's teaching and methodology. If you like Pelz's books and his gadgets just say so. I really don't care. However, if you are going to make claims that I have provided incorrect information, or that I am somehow not taking responsibility for my game, you need to step up and establish those claims. Attacking me because you like Pelz is not the same as defending Pelz and I would appreciate you remembering that fact.

[rankoutsider]

Putts left short have ZERO chance of going in the hole. That is a fact. Putts that make it to the hole HAVE A CHANCE. Don't ask me for percentages, I don't know the math, but it doesn't take a scientist to come to that conclusion. The Green Bay Packers have ZERO chance of winning the Superbowl. Why? Because they came up one game short. The New York Giants have A CHANCE. I don't know the odds, but they have more of a chance than the Packers, right?

 

I wish I could agree with this. I think the Giants have the same statistical likelihood of winning the Superbowl as do the Packers, Seahawks, Dolphins, and the Bills.

 

So- if my putts usually come up short (which they used to do MUCH more frequently) I would be better served increasing the power or length of my stroke and using enough force to get the ball past the hole, while still aiming for the cup.

 

This is why putting can be so difficult. You might not need to increase the power of the stroke at all. You might have a stroke that's long enough or powerful enough to make it, but you might have a flinch in the stroke that causes you to pull or push or choke off putts that are a certain length (say, over 8 ft., but not 7 ft.) or you might have a slight bodily move that means that you don't have a solid impact position from 10ft. Neither Pelz nor Utley talk about anything like this: they both say "Here is the stroke, there is the hole, make it." If that could really work in the world both books would be fabulous and about 6 people in the world would bother to play golf.

 

I will say, though, that Lumpy has made what I would say is a good decision to abandon the pils stroke. It is too "outside" to square, but has a tendency to become outside to inside for a lot of players. Alot of this discussion is off topic, though, since eventhough Mickelson has a good pendulum, as I said, he so obviously brings the putter inside on the backswing that it isn't even worth talking about Mickelson as an exemplar of the Pelz system. It just isn't there guys. I think he has definitely helped Mickelson win, but it has nothing to do with the stroke, which Phil hasn't changed since his days as a college player. In fact, when you see them together at a practice round, it is always about bail out areas, contour of the greens, drainage patterns around the green and hole, etc.-- never about putting per se.

 

rank

[mgranato]

"Defending Pelz's honor" - what the heck does that mean, or have to do with how someone plays golf.

 

It's a bit naive to think that what a teacher has in their books is the ONLY thing they teach to the best players in the world. Mickelson's opinion is the only one that matter as to whether he's being helped or not.

 

Allowing a putting lesson (from anyone) to negatively affect your putting for 4 years is on YOU, that's what I meant by not taking responsability. It shouldn't take 2 years to learn a new way to make the simplest swing in golf work. After a much shorter time, the onus is on the player to reevaluate if things aren't heading in the right direction. But it is funny how you blame Pelz for 4 years of bad putting, but yet give him no credit for 4 years with 10 wins and 3 majors with Mickelson.

 

My experience with Pelz. I've read his books and been to his one day clinic. I use the Putting Tutor and the O-balls on occasion (which, btw, both work for any stroke shape). My index is +1.9. I apply what works for MY swing and leave what doesn't. I don't say a prayer to him when I get up and down, nor do I blame him when I miss a short putt. No one but me gets the blame for deciding who, or by how much, someone influences my game.

 

We're all HACKS. And I think it's funny when a guy who's worked with that many Hall of Famers is deemed to not know what he's talking about. In a game where perfect is non-existent, is he overrated because he's not helped EVERY SINGLE person whose picked any of his material?

[otto6457]

"Defending Pelz's honor" - what the heck does that mean, or have to do with how someone plays golf.

 

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? It is quite clear from your responses to me that you have taken on the burden of supporting Pelz's methodology and techniques. If you feel there is no "honor" in defending his stuff, why bother to do so?

 

It's a bit naive to think that what a teacher has in their books is the ONLY thing they teach to the best players in the world. Mickelson's opinion is the only one that matter as to whether he's being helped or not.

 

But that position evades the facts in evidence and also weakens your stance. Phil's scoring average has NOT improved with Pelz as his guru. (except for one season) If, as you claim, Pelz's methodology is productive and his teachings are what we should adopt as scientifically valid ideas, then making the claim that Mickelson has improved under Pelz does not follow from the evidence. Do you simply take people's word for it that what they are selling you is factually correct? This is your position if you claim Pelz must be great because Mickelson's opinion of him is positive.

 

Allowing a putting lesson (from anyone) to negatively affect your putting for 4 years is on YOU, that's what I meant by not taking responsability. It shouldn't take 2 years to learn a new way to make the simplest swing in golf work. After a much shorter time, the onus is on the player to reevaluate if things aren't heading in the right direction. But it is funny how you blame Pelz for 4 years of bad putting, but yet give him no credit for 4 years with 10 wins and 3 majors with Mickelson.

 

So, in your expert opinion, I committed myself for too long to Pelz's methodology? Well exactly how long SHOULD I have committed to making his stroke work? Obviously, my responsibility was to chuck the teachings of the great Pelz within.....oh I don't know 3 days? Maybe 3 months is enough? Why don't you tell the folks reading this thread exactly how long would have been "responsible" of me? I spent a LOT of money with Mr. Pelz and I personally like him. I gave his methodology a fair shake and I have no reason to believe I was not "responsible" by committing to his teachings for the long haul.

 

And again you toss up Mickelson's wins with Pelz as if you can establish how many wins Mickelson would have had without Pelz. So, how many wins would Mickelson have missed had Pelz not given him this "secret information" that is not in any of his books? How many wins is Pelz and his gadgets going to get credit for? As I have pointed out repeatedly, your assertions of Pelz's success with Mickelson is not supported by Phil's scoring average since Pelz has been on board.

 

My experience with Pelz. I've read his books and been to his one day clinic. I use the Putting Tutor and the O-balls on occasion (which, btw, both work for any stroke shape). My index is +1.9. I apply what works for MY swing and leave what doesn't. I don't say a prayer to him when I get up and down, nor do I blame him when I miss a short putt. No one but me gets the blame for deciding who, or by how much, someone influences my game.

 

But this paragraph goes against your position. If Pelz is not making any significant contribution to your game, why are you bringing me to task for pointing out facts. If you disregard much of what Pelz teaches, why spend the energy attacking me and the facts I have provided? Since you are a plus handicap player, you obviously play a solid game of golf. How much of Pelz methodology do you use? Are you chipping with Pelz techniques? Are you a SBST putter? Do you remove your feel from your wedges and just clock your swing? Has any of the Pelz methodology or gadgets made a provable difference in your scoring average? If so, provide us with the details. This thread began with a request for opinions about Pelz and his books and your information may very well be some of the most valid.

 

We're all HACKS. And I think it's funny when a guy who's worked with that many Hall of Famers is deemed to not know what he's talking about. In a game where perfect is non-existent, is he overrated because he's not helped EVERY SINGLE person whose picked any of his material?

 

Wait a minute...there you go again. I have never said Pelz doesn't know what he is talking about. I specifically mentioned that there is some good information in Pelz's books. I specifically identified where he is wrong and I supported my assertions of Phil's scoring average with a link. As I pointed out before, claiming that Pelz has worked with "Hall of Famers" has nothing to do with the information in his books or in his published techniques. Unless you can establish that these "Hall of Famers" are using his published methodology, then his books do not reflect the reality of what he teaches to these "Hall of Famers". My claim to his being "over rated" is reflected in the stats of his "Hall of Famers" I will also submit that he is over rated in his methodology if his techniques don't make a verifiable difference in the scoring average of every day players. If you have such evidence to the contrary, it would be helpful if you could submit it.

 

Now, unless you have some specific data of your personal improvement with Pelz's methodology or gadgets, or have some specific data from Pelz's Tour players that indicate that they are using his books as a guide, and the data that reflects the verifiable improvement of these players from pre-Pelz to post-Pelz, I really don't see our conversation going much further.

 

I wish you well in your game.

[xiaoxiong]

Now, unless you have some specific data of your personal improvement with Pelz's methodology or gadgets, or have some specific data from Pelz's Tour players that indicate that they are using his books as a guide, and the data that reflects the verifiable improvement of these players from pre-Pelz to post-Pelz, I really don't see our conversation going much further.

 

Well said!!! Let us see some pre-Pelz and post-Pelz data!! :tongue:

[DrSchteeve]

Give me a break. First of all, trotting out overall scoring average as THE statistic that matters is silly. As with most statistics, you can pick and choose statistics to support or fail to support just about anything you want. Did Mickelson's wrist injury in '07 affect his scoring average? Uh, I think so. As for statistics, I already gave you the one that matters the most to Tiger, and probably to Phil: major wins. Eat that statistic. Pre-Pelz: 0 Post-Pelz: 3 (and counting).

[hoganfan924]

Some more fuel for the fire:

 

2 years ago I attended a Pelz short game school and both instructors there very clearly and unequivocally stated that "Pelz did not teach Phil how to putt or make any short game shots." And that "Dave Pelz has learned more from Phil about short game shots than vice versa." Where Pelz has helped him is in how to prepare for a tournament, how to practice, how to break down a golf course and strategize. Which IMO, is far more important that "teaching" an already great short game artist how to make better quality shots or putts. Also keep in mind that the person who introduced Phil to the "100 consecutive 3 footers a day drill" was Jackie Burke. The first time Phil tried it, he missed the 4th one.

[sheldonjhacker]

nobody uses Pelz anymore-except for Phil. arc is most used on tour for sure...see Utley. both of the Pelz "Bibles" will only add more confusion to both the short game and putting.

 

keep it simple. Watson's "getting up and down" is all you'll ever need.

[otto6457]

Give me a break. First of all, trotting out overall scoring average as THE statistic that matters is silly. As with most statistics, you can pick and choose statistics to support or fail to support just about anything you want. Did Mickelson's wrist injury in '07 affect his scoring average? Uh, I think so. As for statistics, I already gave you the one that matters the most to Tiger, and probably to Phil: major wins. Eat that statistic. Pre-Pelz: 0 Post-Pelz: 3 (and counting).

 

 

Oh good gosh! You certainly haven't thought this through very well.

 

If overall scoring average is silly, then I guess the Vardon Trophy is silly? Obviously, who wants to lower their scoring average? How silly of the worlds professional golfers to be concerned with their scoring average!! If you think scoring average is silly, trot out the stat you use to compare your game to par. Maybe you have a stat that isn't silly?

 

Of course Mickelson's '07' wrist injury hampered his scoring, but what about the other years? Phil's scoring average has only been better ONCE post-Pelz compared to his pre-Pelz scoring average, since his first full year on tour. In fact, his 1992 season was his best ever. What about the facts? Don't they matter?

 

Now on to your nonsensical idea that Pelz has made Phil a major winner.

 

Let's look at this with reality in mind:

 

Tiger: Major wins = 13. Pelz's contribution = 0 Using your logic, Pelz's input has nothing to do with the ability to win majors and the best he has done is to help the No. 2 player in the world achieve 10 FEWER majors than the No 1 player. Not very impressive.

 

Eat THAT statistic!

 

Not only that, Phil was a MAJOR short game talent before he hired Pelz. Phil was a fantastic short game player long before Pelz. Phil has forgotten more short game shots than Pelz has ever thought about. Phil made himself a short game magician and Pelz had nothing to do with it. So....why are you tooting Pelz's horn? Are you truly convinced that Phil's short game was insufficient to win a major? Come on!! It wasn't Phil's short game that let him down. It was only his short game that saved his wild driving and his lackluster iron play.

 

Now if you want to really play this silly game, show us how many majors Phil would have won had he NEVER worked with Pelz. Point out the shots that Mickelson couldn't play BEFORE Pelz. And explain how those shots won him those 3 majors. Point out the methods Pelz teaches in his books that Phil has used to replace his previous methods.

 

Again...I am honestly perplexed by this idolizing of Pelz. His stuff is fine, but far from the holy grail. The man has never played professional golf and has made his name peddling gadgets and over-priced schools. If you think his methodology is so great, post up your personal pre-Pelz and post-Pelz scoring averages. Tell us about your game and where Pelz techniques have revolutionized your game. Or....if you think his stable of Tour players are using his published techniques, post up the stats that place his players at the top of the short game categories. Instead of asking me to "eat statistics" that you don't understand, try contributing some real data that will educate the readers and that will provide valid comparisons of Pelz's methods to others.

 

Has this been enough "break" for you?

[mgranato]

Man, your buyers remorse has really gotten you a tad irrational. The good doctor gave your the pre/post comparison that you keep asking for (0 majors vs. 3), but you brush it off as insignificant. Your Pelz-less Tiger analogy is way out there, and again has nothing to do with anything.

 

Hoganfan was dead on - when you work with someone who has a short game like Mickelson's, the teacher is the one doing most of the learning, and Pelz as said so MANY times. They changed his approach and preparation, and whatever it was, it has obviously worked - why is that so hard to comprehend.

 

I'm sorry if you want stats or something in writing that "explains" the benefit a player feels from working with instructor X, but not everything is statable. If Mickelson would have gone to Rotella instead of Pelz, and then won 3 majors, would you be asking for stats to prove Rotella's contribution? On their level, an idea, a fresh approach, or a different thought process is enough to make the difference. Their are intangibles in golf just like in every other sport that can't be put in a stat column.

 

I should have been more clear about my own experiences. I use the 3 X 4 system, actually I carry 5 wedges so it's a 5 X 3 system. (It's funny how you equate that with a lack of feel - if you were paying attention in your lessons, you know that touch and feel are continually talked about and expressed as a necessary to even a descent short game. Why is the concept of mechanics coupled with feel so foreign - it's not an either-or proposition.) I putt SBST. I hovered around a 4 handicap before trying what Pelz teaches. I always thought the SBST stroke made the most sense, but learning some of the better setup elements has made it easier for me. The wedge game has been my biggest improvement. Used to only rely on feel, but now I've got a basis to which I can apply the feel.

 

I'm glad your putting has returned and even improved, BUT what stats can you provide to prove that Pelz hurt your putting and that your current state is better than before? And if you can provide some stats, why should I blindly believe the word of one man? I'm normally very trusting, but some guy named otto6457 has taught me to challenge everything, and believe no one, LOL. Seriously, glad you got it all straightened out and hope your current plan gets rid of those last couple strokes.

[FlyFish]

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.

 

You don't need to buy the putter clips - you can just use rubber bands.

[beachgrovejunior]

Geez some of these guys have been drinking too much Pelz Kool-aid, The short game discussions are turning out like the full swing ones