Dave Pelz Putting Bible

[otto6457]

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.

 

But he didn't establish that Pelz's teachings as found in his books provided the key to Phil winning ANY majors, and neither have you. There has been no cause and effect presented that establishes that Phil required Pelz to win those majors. Again....Mickelson's short game has NEVER been his problem, so nothing in any of Pelz's books or any of his gadgets can be shown to have provided Mickelson with any short game assistance. If Pelz's short game bible and putting bible are the answer to Phil's winning 3 majors, the link should be pretty clear. The only thing presented is a nebulous claim of "strategy" and possibly an adding of a wedge. That hardly reflects on the validity of the Pelz books of his gadgets.

 

By the way, my Tiger comparison is exactly on point. The claim was made that Pelz is responsible in a large manner for Phil's 3 majors. I simply pointed out that Tiger doesn't use Pelz and has won 10 more majors than Phil. If Pelz is the reason Phil won 3 majors, then not-Pelz can be responsible for 13 majors by Tiger. Unless someone can provide a cause and effect link showing that Pelz's short game techniques are the reason for Mickelson's 3 majors, my counter example of non-Pelz Tiger has just as much evidence supporting it.

 

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.

 

This is not hard to understand and I fully agree with Hoganfan. The issue you keep ignoring is that the thread is about Pelz's short game and putting books. None of the stuff he supposedly provided Phil will be found in those books. Phil doesn't use Pelz's published short game or putting techniques. If Mickelson is teaching Pelz short game techniques, why are we bothering with Pelz's books? Shouldn't we be emulating Mickelson and asking what his book will say?

 

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.

 

This is completely different. Rotella is not selling books on mechanics and he is not selling endless gadgets. Nor has anyone made the unsupported claim that Rotella is the reason Mickelson has won 3 majors. A better analogy for Rotella would be that Mickelson already had the best mind in golf. but that Rotella has somehow made the best mind in golf win majors. This is the claim being made for Pelz. That Pelz's short game and putting books must be great because he took one of the best short games in golf and then with some unpublished information, made Phil a 3 time major winner. I don't think you honestly believe this is the case. Plus, the question in the thread was not about Rotella. It was about Pelz and if his books are worth the cost. Mickelson has been held up as a poster boy for Pelz and the validity of his books, but the numbers do not support the claims being made. Statistically, Mickelson is not scoring better since Pelz joined him. A much better argument could be made that Mickelson won majors when he hit the fairways and hit better approach shots. Neither of which can be credited to Pelz.

 

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.

 

That is the information the thread needs. However, I found his teachings to be the exact opposite, and trust me, I was paying attention at my 3 day Pelz school. Relying on mechanical positions with my wedges removed my feel. I still play 4 wedges, but I play to distance based upon what my eyes, hands, and yardage tell me. As I mentioned, I feel like his chipping technique is hogwash and is useful only to the rank beginner. As for my attempt at SBST, there must be manipulation of the putter to keep the face square to the target line. I cannot maintain that manipulation consistently so I was doomed to fail. The only setup that allows a true SBST stroke was way too uncomfortable and manufactured for me to adapt to, and even when I did maintain my setup, I wasn't a better putter. In college my tournament putting average was around 28 putts a round. After my time with Pelz, my average rose to an appalling 34+ putts a round. My good putting rounds were average and my bad putting rounds were horrible. My putting woes got so bad that I abandoned the State Amateur for several years. In the years since, I have gotten closer to my pre-Pelz stroke and my putting average has fallen back under 30 per round. I am still not as good as I was, but at least I don't vomit on my shoes anymore and I have returned to competitive golf.

 

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.

 

My stats are quite clear. Pelz made me a worse putter, a worse wedge player, and a very limited chipper. If Pelz works for you then you should ignore my experience and follow what makes you a better player. The only thing that matters is the number you write down on the scorecard. If Pelz helps you write smaller numbers, he is the right teacher for you. You should never believe someone if your experience contradicts what they are telling you, and that includes me.

 

He didn't help me and his published techniques are not very evident on Tour. He hawks too many expensive gadgets as solutions to problems and his clinics are huge infomercials. My personal opinion is that there are many instructors out there with better answers and without the hype.

[DrSchteeve]

He didn't help me and his published techniques are not very evident on Tour. He hawks too many expensive gadgets as solutions to problems and his clinics are huge infomercials. My personal opinion is that there are many instructors out there with better answers and without the hype.

 

Quite honestly, you sound like a cult member who finally came to his senses, but still carry around a lot of anger and resentment. Most of us recognize that there are some good things Pelz teaches, along with a whole lot of hooey. Most of us recognize that we have to pick and choose what any teacher tells us. You are absolutely right about the gadgets and informercials (give him some credit: he gets people to PAY hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend those infomercials!?).

[hoganfan924]

I definitely agree with Otto that the Pelz chipping technique is just terrible as a basic technique for a good player. Maybe OK as a special technique when you want to hit a low runner out of a terrible lie, but that's about it. I think his wedge 3X4 system is good, just not the "one size fits all" wedge swing that they teach.

 

Back to putting: Pelz training aids are great, I have teacher clips, truthboard and O balls. All excellent. Pelz' insight into how we read greens is good. His 3 day school was a complete waste of time for putting, it was more like a one day infomercial to sell his training aids rather than teaching better green reading or putting skills (unless you're a beginner or completely clueless about putting). Some of his "reasearch" I find highly suspect, some is good. So very hit or miss and if you can't tell what's good and what's not, you're going to be in for a frustrating experience, especially for the more advanced player.

[mgranato]

Here are some examples of what the two of them have worked on that IS covered in his books.

 

PUTTING, WEDGES, MANAGEMENT:

"Now, meeting Mickelson in Palm Springs, just after Smith's visit, and right after New Year's, their relationship grew more serious. Pelz lectured Mickelson on the science of green reading, with the specific aim of improving his success on left-to-right putts. But the bulk of their work focused on Phil's wedge play. Pelz put him through the same battery of tests he devised for his first students (among them Tom Kite) and diagnosed his weaknesses from inside 130 yards. Mickelson adopted Pelz's system of abbreviated swings, each corresponding to a point on an imaginary clockface, that with 3 wedges, produced a set of twelve go-to distances. Mickelson became so fond of the clockface system that it crept into the rest of his bag. For example, Phil and his caddie, Jim McKay were soon referring to a three-quarter (or nine-o'clock) 9-iron as a "Pelz nine."

 

The course-management aspect of the session had Pelz stressing the value of high-percentage shots around the greens. Going for the green in two, Pelz advised him, wasn't always the best move, especially if there was trouble in play. He showed him statistics that proved good wedge players could, on the average, score just as low by laying up as they could by flailing at every par-five green. "I don't care if you never make another eagle for the rest of your career," Pelz told him, "if you eliminate the possibility of making ten or fifteen double bogeys every year." "The Scorecard Always Lies: A Year Behind the Scenes on the PGA Tour"

 

 

 

"Dave Pelz was flabbergasted when one of the world's most accomplished golfers approached him about providing instruction on the short game.

 

"I said, 'You've got to be kidding. You're already the best. Why do you want me?' " Pelz recalls.

 

Phil Mickelson told Pelz he wanted to shave one-quarter stroke per round off his average 18-hole score.

 

Since Pelz joined Team Mickelson in late 2003, the left-hander has not only accomplished his goal, but won three majors.

 

"We got about a stroke off his average the first year, a half stroke the second year and a little less than half a stroke the third year," Pelz says.

 

On this day, Pelz was justifiably giddy. Less than 24 hours earlier, his star pupil blew away the field in the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am. During the national telecast, Mickelson credited Pelz with correcting a flaw in his putting stroke." L.A. Times 4/9/07

 

 

"But give Mickelson credit for recognizing that he had to go beyond swing changes. His reputation for being a short-game wizard was highly overrated. His array of flop shots was dazzling, but there was a woeful lack of consistency from 150 yards in.

 

"He's a great touch putter, but his short putts weren't that good, and his lag putts weren't that good either," Pelz said. "He needed to sharpen up the `easy' shot, the little chips."

 

Their work was intense. A typical session could last as long as 10 hours.

 

Several points were covered, but two stand out. Pelz convinced Mickelson to take a three-fourths swing with his short clubs. He was wasting energy and shots with full-swing wedges.

 

"Let's say the most you can bench press is 200 pounds," Pelz explained. "The bar will be wobbling, and you won't be able to control it. But if you do 150 pounds, you'll be able to control it much better. That's what we were trying to get at with Phil."

 

The end result is that Mickelson now knows his distances and, Pelz said, "he has added a whole bunch of shots."

 

The other change was paramount. Pelz and Smith had to convince Mickelson to change his approach.

 

The gambling style wasn't working. Mickelson was a victim of his own talent. He thought he could make the impossible shot every time. The end result, of course, was no major titles.

 

Pelz works with statistics. He likes to play the percentages. Ultimately, Mickelson bought in.

 

"Phil moved from what he could do theoretically with his best shot to what he, statistically, should do," Pelz said. "Over a period of time, he has come to believe it's better for him to play the percentages. There may be times you might lose a stroke, but overall your score is going to be lower. Isn't that what they pay you for?"

 

"It shows that it's always possible to improve," Pelz said. "Nobody is too good with their wedges or putter. I've never heard anyone say they're making too many putts. If you see a guy as good as Phil get better, the same thing can happen to you." Golftoday.co.uk

 

BTW, the scoring averages you keep mentioning are not the same as those used to determine the Vardon Trophy winner - that award uses the adjusted average, which is what I listed a few posts back, which disproves your claim that his average has not shown improvement.

[otto6457]

Here are some examples of what the two of them have worked on that IS covered in his books.

 

<SNIPPED ARTICLE>

 

I accept your claim that Mickelson has used some of Pelz's teachings to improve his thinking and attempt to be more consistent. However, the claims Pelz makes that Mickelson scoring average has gotten better since his arrival is NOT supported by the data. His scoring average has only improved one season since Pelz arrived in late 2003 for the 2004 season. Phil's scoring average pre-Pelz in 2003 was 67.58. His best with Pelz was 2005 with a 66.58. All others are higher than his 2003 scoring average. I understand that Phil believes in Pelz, but the numbers don't lie. If Mickelson feels like Pelz helps him, then that is all that matters to Phil. This quoting of a Pelz article still ignores the fact that Phil was a very good short game player prior to Pelz's arrival. No matter of Pelz's opinion to the contrary, Phils scrambling stats were always near the top of the Tour and his putting was always statistically good. You don't win on Tour without being a great putter. Shaving a quarter of a stroke off of Phil's scoring average per round is a notable achievement, but believing that only Pelz could accomplish such a thing is not evidenced. Anyone that could have gotten Phil to stop going for everything could have accomplished such a goal. The article admits that Rick Smith had said the same thing.

 

BTW, the scoring averages you keep mentioning are not the same as those used to determine the Vardon Trophy winner - that award uses the adjusted average, which is what I listed a few posts back, which disproves your claim that his average has not shown improvement.

 

I never claimed that my posted link was the numbers used to calculate the Vardon Trophy. I used the link solely to provide his scoring average numbers. My comment on the Vardon Trophy was in response to a claim by another poster that scoring average was a silly stat. His scoring average is still a legitimate standard to judge his ability to score. His adjusted average does not diminish or invalidate the facts nor does your submission disprove my supported claim.

 

Now....are we done here yet, or are you going to continue to berate me for disliking Pelz and his hype? I already admitted that Pelz has some worthwhile stuff. I also specifically identified why I don't use much of his methodology. I have no doubt that Mickelson likes Pelz and finds him helpful. What I still disagree with is the claim that Pelz made Phil a major winner. I still believe Pelz is mostly hype, his gadgets overblown and over-priced, as are his schools. I strongly feel there is better instruction elsewhere from instructors that are just as valid and not nearly as costly.

 

As I said repeatedly....if you find Pelz helpful, use him. If you want to provide the thread with evidence that Pelz methodology works for you, then spend some more time explaining why and how it works for you. The thread was started as a search for opinions on his short game and putting books. Propping up Pelz's reputation with Mickelson does not answer the question of the worth of the two books in question.

 

Again......I have experience with Pelz. I submitted my experience. I provided data that remains un-refuted on Mickelson's scoring average. I really don't see why you keep holding up this torch for Pelz. Are you getting a kick-back on more gadgets for this vigorous defense of Pelz?

[LucF]

I read both bibles twice, as well as his "Damage Control" book. I like Pelz's approach to the game.

 

SHORT GAME

This is his best book, in my opinion. His short game system works for me, so much so that I sometimes feel it gives me an unfair advantage over my playing partners. I don't see how feeling is lost at all when one uses Pelz's system. Implementing the system, however, takes alot of time. I like practicing as much as playing, so it wasn't a problem for me. Also, once you get addicted to knowing/playing exact yardage within 100 yards, it become hard to play without a rangefinder.

 

Some of the most interesting parts of the book I thought were all the discussions on specialty shots. I don't know of any book that discusses them more thoroughly. For example, he explains why we should play more to the right when the ball is above our feet than we should play left when the ball is below our feet.

 

PUTTING

As for Pelz's famous 17 inches, he states in the book that it's an average and that more than the slope of the green, the type of grass is the most important factor affecting that value. He says he's measured optimal "miss" distances from 5 to 36 inches.

 

I think Pelz's distinction between aimline and the ball-track's apex is fundamental, because many people confuse the two -- even teachers. A good example is the "2008 Golf Instruction Manual" published by GolfTips. On page 63, Rick Sessinghaus, a PGA professional, says : "The X ball is the apex of my putt's break and, hence, where I'm aimed [...]".

 

One thing I never understood though, is how Pelz determines that we should aim 3 times higher than the visible break. Never figured how he got arrived at a factor of 3.

 

I enjoyed Pelz's discussion of all the parameters that affect putts, as well as his section on why plumb-bobing doesn't work.

 

One thing I found irritating in the Putting Bible were the constant reminders that Pelz Golf just happens to sell the training aid he's discussing. I made all the ones I wanted myself.

 

DAMAGE CONTROL

Good book, but not as important as the 2 Bibles. This time Pelz suggests ways to make the training aids yourself (relief).

 

While it's surely true that every player gets varying amounts of usable knowledge from different authors, I think there is lots of stuff in Pelz's books that absolutely every golfer should know.

[withdrew]

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.

 

I couldn't let that one go.

[beachgrovejunior]

Pelz lost even more of my respect yesterday on the golf channel on the show where he talks about amateurs short games and has the testing, he preached on and on about how many putts ended up below the hole. This was on a putt with about 4 feet of break, and common sense would have you die it at the hole, due to the fact that people tryed to let it die at the hole and it still rolled a foot low after it reached the hole.

 

He then went on to say how people need to read more break and hit it HARDER. seems all pelz cares about is making that one extra putt instead of actually being able to score, sometimes you gotta take the 2 putt

[golfguy97]

Otto, in a past post, you said that no big tour guys other than Phil work with Pelz... I guess you weren't watching when Tom Kite used PELZ METHODS to win the US OPEN in 1992. If you watch Kite's Playing Lessons, he specifically states that he uses the Pelz 3X4 clock method, and that it directly contributed to his win at Pebble.

[patj]

I like pelz and his theories. As far as the straight back straight through stroke, pelz says this is only if the hands are directly below the hands. If hands are outside of shoulders then you get an arced stroke like justin leonard and if the hands are inside the shoulders you get an arc like Fuzzy zoeller. I used the putting track last year a lot and after using it a lot shot in the sixties twice which I had never done before. As far as helping phil, I don't know. But he could definately help a lot of amateurs. Even if you don't believe in the straight back and through stroke, it is a lot better than what most amateurs are using.

[hoganfan924]

I like pelz and his theories. As far as the straight back straight through stroke, pelz says this is only if the hands are directly below the hands. If hands are outside of shoulders then you get an arced stroke like justin leonard and if the hands are inside the shoulders you get an arc like Fuzzy zoeller.

 

This is one thing Pelz is wrong about. where the hands are relative to the shoulders has nothing to do with whether you make a SBST or gated stroke. It is the plane that the shoulders move on that determines this. He came to his conclusions using "perfy" his putting robot that only allows its "one arm" to move based on the angle of the top pivot which isn't at all like the human shoulder structure. You can move your shoulders completely independent of their angle relative to the spine. If you rock your shoulders perfectly up and down on a vertical plane (you can do this standing straight up or bent over 90 deg. or any angle in between), and you arms maintain their triangle with the shoulders, with passive hands, the hands will move on a SBST path. When Pelz did his "perfy" study, he changed the angle of the pivot relative to the ground to "proove" his theory about hand placement. Bad "research" based on a very poor facsimile of a person.

If you maintain the triangle formed between your arms and shoulders and you have a gated stroke, you are not moving your shoulders on a vertical plane, you are allowing them to rotate some relative to the ground.

 

Alot of Pelz' stuff is good, particularly many of his training aids, but the more I study, the more "holes" and errors I find in some of his ideas.

[otto6457]

Otto, in a past post, you said that no big tour guys other than Phil work with Pelz... I guess you weren't watching when Tom Kite used PELZ METHODS to win the US OPEN in 1992. If you watch Kite's Playing Lessons, he specifically states that he uses the Pelz 3X4 clock method, and that it directly contributed to his win at Pebble.

 

 

And?

 

Have you noticed Tom Kite leading even the Champions Tour in scoring or scrambling? Pointing to what Kite did in 1992, in ONE tournament, or even ONE season, has absolutely nothing to do with the questions at the beginning of the thread. This sort of nattering has nothing to do with the issue. I can just as easily point to ALL of the majors won by non-Pelz players and make the supportable claim that Pelz players have lost 50 times as many majors as non-Pelz players. Come on folks....use a little logic.

 

Again folks........If you love Pelz and think his poop don't stink, by all means, use it. Spread it all over your game. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out,......Pelz is not the beginning nor the end of the short game story. Nor are his players leading the important stats on ANY tour. His books, gadgets, and schools are over-hyped, and over priced.

 

This desire by the Pelz devotes' to polish his hype is growing quite tiresome and is not based upon verifiable results or statistics.

 

Please, unless you have some specific and quantifiable aspects of YOUR experience with Pelz and his methods, let this sad little opus die a quiet death.

[hurricanewarning]

Go to http://odysseygolf.com/putting/puttingtips.htm and click on Phil's take "on eyes over the ball or behind the ball"....His take doesn't sound very Pelz like AT ALL!! So I think Phil has his own theory of what a putting stroke should be like, which is very different to Pelz' theory.

[alfie]

Pelz's short game bible is A WHOLE lot better than the putting bible. If u need to choose between one or the other, go w/the short game (boat load more information in terms of stance, technique & sorts... the putting bible seems to be one long drab of babbling information...)

[Ezgolfer]

Pelz clowns were in my town this weekend . I am glad i did not waste my money.

My buddy who is a +1, was highly disappointed on being a very monotonous and beginner's course .

[Bomb500Plus!]

I have both bibles from Pelz. Honestly, the putting bible is mostly common-sense. If Pelz wasn't so set on being super-technical and long-winded, he could've made it into a 50 page paperback.

[FlyFish]

I noticed that much of the information in the Putting Bible was already written by Tom Watson and Nick Seitz in his "Getting Up and Down" book (written in 1982). When reading the Putting Bible, Pelz makes a lot of the info sound like a revelation when in fact it was already common knowledge.

[MLogodin]

does anyone have a spreadsheet of the putting bible drills, like one guy made up for the short game bible???

[alfie]

I had both books (sold them a few yrs. ago) and was overwheeled with tooooo much information. The short game book is the better of the two. Also, you can get them alot cheaper buying them used at Amazon.com

[countach711]

I love the Short Game bible and I got his earlier "How to Putt like the Pros" which I beleive came out before his putting Bible. From everything I've read, I will just stick to it as it helped my putting tremendously and it probably has all i need or want to know. Also have his "Damage Control" and 'How to hit the 10 most feared Shots" or something. Both have good info but very repetetive and wordy, could have been much shorter.