The Evolution of Putting...

[m d g]

I am watching Shell's Wonderful World of Golf...a match between Chi Chi Rodriguez, Gay Brewer, and Arnold Palmer in Puerto Rico in 1969.

 

All three players use all wrists when putting. They all have hunched shoulders and stand very close to the ball. None of them rock their shoulders at all...their shoulders don't move.

 

Because of his wristy motion, all three 'pop' the ball, kind of like Snedaker.

 

I know the greens weren't as fast back then, but are slow greens the only reason for this putting style?

 

It seemed to work for three very good palyers.

 

Btw, Chi Chi might be pound-for-pound one of the longest hitters in golf. He was driving it close to 300 yards and weighed nothing : )

[iBanesto]

The best of all time.

 

 

 

[MattyO1984]

A big part of it is equipment.

 

Those old putters were all but butter knifes. If you were to try and put a stroke on it like we do now, there is no chance that you would be a competent putter with it, it needed the involvement of the wrists and the “pop” that came with it to get the ball rolling. The advent of the likes of the PING Anser and everything that has come since has taken that away. The mass behind the ball is so much greater than it once was.

 

If you ever have the chance to take out an old hickory shafted putter you’ll see what I mean. I did it a few years ago. We golfed as part of my stag (bachelor) weekend at St Andrews and my friends rid me of my driver and my putter in place of relics from the 1930’s and the only way to put with the putter was to hinge the wrists and hit it.

[iBanesto]

24 minutes ago, MattyO1984 said:

A big part of it is equipment.

 

Those old putters were all but butter knifes. If you were to try and put a stroke on it like we do now, there is no chance that you would be a competent putter with it, it needed the involvement of the wrists and the “pop” that came with it to get the ball rolling. The advent of the likes of the PING Anser and everything that has come since has taken that away. The mass behind the ball is so much greater than it once was.

 

If you ever have the chance to take out an old hickory shafted putter you’ll see what I mean. I did it a few years ago. We golfed as part of my stag (bachelor) weekend at St Andrews and my friends rid me of my driver and my putter in place of relics from the 1930’s and the only way to put with the putter was to hinge the wrists and hit it.

 

Great explanation.

 

In conjunction with the slow greens as the OP mentioned would mean a wristy pop is required to get the ball rolling.

[kmay__]

3 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

A big part of it is equipment.

 

Those old putters were all but butter knifes. If you were to try and put a stroke on it like we do now, there is no chance that you would be a competent putter with it, it needed the involvement of the wrists and the “pop” that came with it to get the ball rolling. The advent of the likes of the PING Anser and everything that has come since has taken that away. The mass behind the ball is so much greater than it once was.

 

If you ever have the chance to take out an old hickory shafted putter you’ll see what I mean. I did it a few years ago. We golfed as part of my stag (bachelor) weekend at St Andrews and my friends rid me of my driver and my putter in place of relics from the 1930’s and the only way to put with the putter was to hinge the wrists and hit it.

 

Wouldn't a cavity design putter like the Anser actually have less mass behind the ball? Since all the mass is moved to the toe and heel areas of the putter? An 8802 is around 335 grams, the original anser was like under 320 right. 

[MattyO1984]

1 hour ago, kmay__ said:

 

Wouldn't a cavity design putter like the Anser actually have less mass behind the ball? Since all the mass is moved to the toe and heel areas of the putter? An 8802 is around 335 grams, the original anser was like under 320 right. 

 

Mass was perhaps the wrong choice of word, I dunno maybe I should have said size, I’m not sure.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

Mass was perhaps the wrong choice of word, I dunno maybe I should have said size, I’m not sure.

Actually usable mass is probably the correct concept.  A bullseye has the sweet spot of a pin head.  The Anser sweet spot is a good bit larger making it's mass more usable.  The MOI of modern putters is substantially larger than the old blade style putters. 

[ThinkingPlus]

The wristy stroke with the ball well forward of center added more pop (as already mentioned) to the stroke and effective loft at impact.  The loft was important to overcome the furry and bumpy grass getting the ball up out of the depression it was sitting in for a truer roll.  Old school, stimp 7 Bermuda requires a poppy ball forward hit up on it approach.

[Bubbtubbs]

18 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The wristy stroke with the ball well forward of center added more pop (as already mentioned) to the stroke and effective loft at impact.  The loft was important to overcome the furry and bumpy grass getting the ball up out of the depression it was sitting in for a truer roll.  Old school, stimp 7 Bermuda requires a poppy ball forward hit up on it approach.

I still play my ball well forward of center when putting, though not as far forward as that picture - probably more like long iron ball position.

 

[kmay__]

^ so less to do with equipment and more to do with conditions, that I get. Cause you can putt old school still and pop it up like that with a new putter, and take an old one and put a more modern style of stroke on it. But if it was about getting the ball to jump and hop before it started rolling due to longer and rougher grass that makes sense. 

[m d g]

7 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

A big part of it is equipment.

Nice explanation...at first I was thinking it was the slow greens. If I played at a muni with those slow, bumpy '69 greens I'd be kind of mad. But this kind of makes sense...

 

I have always heard Bobby Locke (is that him iBanesto?) was the greatest putter ever. There are a lot of videos of people (Gary Player among them) explaining how he hooked his putts. Really odd to watch but he must have made a lot of them.

 

Next time I go out I am going to bring an older putter and fool around with this...the results can't be any worse than they are now : )

[jobin]

No doubt the quality of golf balls available 100 yrs ago, in addition to the club and the furry greens, may have made a difference.

 

Of course, yrs ago wooden putters were the only ones available.  Eventually putting-cleeks  and iron putters came into wide usage and back then it took some real skill to 

'play a stymie' and the thin bladed iron head plus the wristy technique may have helped lift the ball over the offender. 

[m d g]

1 hour ago, jobin said:

No doubt the quality of golf balls available 100 yrs ago, in addition to the club and the furry greens, may have made a difference.

I was referring to a match on TV in 1969 : )

[jobin]

The Evolution of putting did not begin in 1969.  Sure, balls of 1969 were not gutties or feathers but in that era information did not come easily as now to remote regions. 

 

Putters of Scotland and England were highly influenced by Willie Park, Jr and others along about 1895 and after. 

Park was known as among the very best putters and even today I use his vision of the thumbtack in exact middle of the ball and strike that. 

 

Park writes "The ball should be smartly tapped with the putter, the stroke being played entirely from the wrists...Care should be taken to see that the putter is drawn straight back in the line of play, and brought forward in making the stroke in the same direction...(The Game of Golf. W. Park Jnr. 1896)

 

It may be that 'straight back and straight thru' line is more easily accomplished with the wristy technique rather than rocking the shoulders.

 

I have read that Gary Player bemoaned the fact that during his day the 'left hand low' style was unknown or he certainly would have taken it up.   Evolution works thru the environment and the players.

[Dr. Block]

Great points on here. An interesting read. I think it was the grass myself. The greens of that era were closer to the tee boxes on a nice course today. You had to pop the ball to get it above the grass and traveling with any sort of predictability. 

[m d g]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Great points on here. An interesting read. I think it was the grass myself. The greens of that era were closer to the tee boxes on a nice course today. You had to pop the ball to get it above the grass and traveling with any sort of predictability. 

The greens in the WWOG show that I saw looked reaaaaaally slow and very bumpy.

There was another Shell WWOG episode from the '60s (I think) at Pebble Beach. The conditions looked like an average muni course...not great.

[Dr. Block]

3 hours ago, m d g said:

The greens in the WWOG show that I saw looked reaaaaaally slow and very bumpy.

There was another Shell WWOG episode from the '60s (I think) at Pebble Beach. The conditions looked like an average muni course...not great.

I love to watch the Shell's matches. They always pop up on the Golf Channel this time of year.

 

I share your opinion on the differing conditions. Agronomy was different then and varied from course to course.  Today, save for some of the differences in grass types, the courses are very uniform at the highest level. Today's pros should all make a lot of putts, they have no excuse not to. 

 

Another observation on the old matches and pro's is that they had a much more stylish nonchalance in their approach to the game. They didn't appear to obsess much over the minutiae. They grabbed a club and got on with it. That seemed to carry over to the green as well. They had a look and knocked that putt along. I love that about the golf of old. 

Edited November 30, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Ferguson]

20 different people will give you 20 different takes on putting.   I think it's the most important part of the game.  

 

I love putting - strongest part of my game.

[smashdn]

Google search "calamity jane putter" and take a look.  I can't see how you have as much mass with it compared to a modern putter nor could get much out of it without a wristy stroke.

 

I won't say that the old guys were better putters, but I will say that putting was way more of a stroke compared to today's putting, especially on the bikini waxed, flawless greens the PGA guys putt on.  They just get it rolling on the right line with the right speed.  It seems a lot less likely that you get bad mechanics involved than the old jabbing style of putting.

[Valtiel]

I had actually been wondering this myself, thank @ThinkingPlus and @MattyO1984 for the solid info. 

I remember watching the 1965 SWWOG Hogan vs. Snead and thinking about this. Not only how the strokes were different, but why on earth it looked like Snead was intentionally hitting the ball way out on the toe of the putter:
 

 

[bladehunter]

I’ve never seen a shoulder rocker who was a great putter. Some are good. But all the greats use some hands.  

[Christosterone]

It’s all about green speeds and putter evolution...

I learned to play golf watching bobby Jones “how I play golf” and “how to break 90”...

You can buy the set on dvd from Amazon for nothing these days...

 

best golf instruction on earth imho...granted the bunker and putting tips don’t apply so much today

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

On 11/27/2020 at 1:02 AM, MattyO1984 said:

A big part of it is equipment.

 

Those old putters were all but butter knifes. If you were to try and put a stroke on it like we do now, there is no chance that you would be a competent putter with it, it needed the involvement of the wrists and the “pop” that came with it to get the ball rolling. The advent of the likes of the PING Anser and everything that has come since has taken that away. The mass behind the ball is so much greater than it once was.

 

If you ever have the chance to take out an old hickory shafted putter you’ll see what I mean. I did it a few years ago. We golfed as part of my stag (bachelor) weekend at St Andrews and my friends rid me of my driver and my putter in place of relics from the 1930’s and the only way to put with the putter was to hinge the wrists and hit it.

 

Also the very fuzzy greens required a bit more of a hit to the stroke to get enough energy to get it to the hole. 

[m d g]

One more observation re: old-school strokes/strategy...

 

Whenever a player was off the green, even by six or seven feet, and there was no tall grass between them and the flag, they pulled the putter.

 

Today, Rory is in the fringe 6 inches away from the regular green surface and he goes for the wedge.

 

In fact, in the match I saw, Brewer putted out of a bunker with a shallow lip. Made par : )

[James the Hogan Fan]

On 11/30/2020 at 7:51 PM, Dr. Block said:

I love to watch the Shell's matches. They always pop up on the Golf Channel this time of year.

 

I share your opinion on the differing conditions. Agronomy was different then and varied from course to course.  Today, save for some of the differences in grass types, the courses are very uniform at the highest level. Today's pros should all make a lot of putts, they have no excuse not to. 

 

Another observation on the old matches and pro's is that they had a much more stylish nonchalance in their approach to the game. They didn't appear to obsess much over the minutiae. They grabbed a club and got on with it. That seemed to carry over to the green as well. They had a look and knocked that putt along. I love that about the golf of old. 

 

I always assumed the nonchalance was because (for putting), the green was shaggy enough that making a putt was less about the millimeter perfect line and speed and more about throwing the ball at the hole and giving it a chance. I'm not saying they weren't trying to make 10 footers, but what good is it studying every inch of break if a tuft of grass here or there could ruin everything, how long do you stare down a putt on a punched green, for instance? Also slower greens allow you to hit the ball harder through initial break knowing the ball will still stop reasonably close to the hole.

 

On the subject of the butter knife blade putters, it is certainly possible to use the modern pendulum style  with them. I do it whenever I play. 

 

After watching a ton of classic golf today, it looks like Arnie was very wristy, Jack was more modern. Most players seemed to have some kind of wrist c0ck in the backswing and a hinge-and-hold kind of stroke where they bring the bent wrists through the ball. Very different from the robotic pendulums of today.

Edited December 1, 2020 by James the Hogan Fan

[3whacker]

one other factor that has not been brought up is the change from the balata ball to a surlyn covered ball to a two piece ball and now a multi piece ball with a composite cover, which brought about different materials  being used, including inserts, face balancing and now oversized grips

[QuigleyDU]

18 hours ago, James the Hogan Fan said:

 

I always assumed the nonchalance was because (for putting), the green was shaggy enough that making a putt was less about the millimeter perfect line and speed and more about throwing the ball at the hole and giving it a chance. I'm not saying they weren't trying to make 10 footers, but what good is it studying every inch of break if a tuft of grass here or there could ruin everything, how long do you stare down a putt on a punched green, for instance? Also slower greens allow you to hit the ball harder through initial break knowing the ball will still stop reasonably close to the hole.

 

On the subject of the butter knife blade putters, it is certainly possible to use the modern pendulum style  with them. I do it whenever I play. 

 

After watching a ton of classic golf today, it looks like Arnie was very wristy, Jack was more modern. Most players seemed to have some kind of wrist c0ck in the backswing and a hinge-and-hold kind of stroke where they bring the bent wrists through the ball. Very different from the robotic pendulums of today.

I agree with you.. 

 

It is more a result of greens being imperfect and slower overall. 

[Shilgy]

On 12/1/2020 at 10:02 PM, 3whacker said:

one other factor that has not been brought up is the change from the balata ball to a surlyn covered ball to a two piece ball and now a multi piece ball with a composite cover, which brought about different materials  being used, including inserts, face balancing and now oversized grips

I don’t recall the pros, or most amateurs for that matter, ever using Surlyn or two piece balls.

[ThinkingPlus]

11 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I don’t recall the pros, or most amateurs for that matter, ever using Surlyn or two piece balls.

Folks play Surlyn only under duress (i.e. cost).

[grm24]

6 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I don’t recall the pros, or most amateurs for that matter, ever using Surlyn or two piece balls.

Corey Pavin at one time used a 2 piece surlyn Titleist HP2 Tour on tour. There were other players on tour that used 2 piece golf balls on tour in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. Not everybody played a balata covered ball back then. Before the USGA created the one ball condition of competition local rule for a single round players back then would switch between balata and surlyn/rubber covered balls on certain holes especially if they needed a bit more distance off the tee on certain holes.

 

Then there was John Huston. Played the 2 piece surlyn covered Maxfli XS Tour and set a PGA Tour scoring record with it in 1998.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by grm24