Putting Mats: Do They Help Improve Putting?

[MelloYello]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I disagree.

 

If you have a 6' putt that you hit one time 6'4" and the next time, 8'4", that's often a pretty different read (assuming it's not a straight putt of course).

 

There are plenty of people who have poor distance control inside of 10', and it greatly affects their reads and thus their ability to make putts. And all they seem to get is that they keep missing putts. They'll hit one a bit harder and miss it high, so they'll play less break then hit the next one softer, and it misses low. They aren't processing that the speed control is so variable (i.e. bad).

 

 

Right, so if it's straight, pace matters a bit less. Probably nobody will disagree with that.

 

 

Interested to see your data on this. I think golfers are generally better at hitting their start lines than you think. I also think golfers generally don't aim for enough break, so they push and pull putts "up" the hill, too. And often when they hit one too firmly they'll say "ah, I pushed it" or something… when really the issue was their speed didn't match their chosen line.

 

Anyway, average golfers control the putter face to about ±0.9°. It's not much. And this is on a 12-footer.

 

 

 

Speed is the most important thing in putting. Green reading may be second… if only because most people are pretty good at controlling the start lines.

 

 

Let me see if I understand you correctly. 

 

Let's imagine we're putting to a hole at 30-ft. Let's imagine we have a player who wishes to demonstrate the ability to stop the ball inside a circle of radius 3-ft around the hole. That radius equates to 10% the putt's distance (3-ft / 30-ft) so we can fairly say he has to be +/- 10% to achieve his goal (ignoring additional left/right misses for the time being). 

 

I think you're pointing out that if we try to achieve this same +/-10% margin on a shorter putt of say, 6-ft, we'd be looking for a circle of radius 7-in which is pretty tight by anyone's measure. I think your point is that even very good players can be deceived at close range by misses that appear good (2-ft past the hole, for instance) but are actually more extreme than they look and that these putts are actually missing by greater %'s than maybe players are considering? 

 

I would agree in principle with the above. Absolutely. To that end, we need to be as exacting as possible with our putting, particularly those chances we have from close range which are often the most makeable. 

 

However, it should be pointed out that the benefit of shorter putts is that the lines we will chose allow for a demonstrably greater margin WRT to speed. This also needs to be respected because here, we're just trying to end with the ball in the cup, not converge on a single, perfect combination of speed & line. So in the statistical sense, we would have to consider what is usually called "robustness to failure." We want to select a line that provides the greatest margin for imperfections in speed. This will allow us the biggest window in the parameter space of our two variables: start line & speed. 

 

Sorry for the jargon. 

 

Let me begin with something simple that we will agree on. Every putt traces a line, right? And for a putt to go in, the line must trace its way across the hole (obviously). But as every golfer knows, crossing over the hole isn't the only factor. We need something close to the right speed for that line, too.

 

Every line that traces it's way across the hole comes with an associated range of speeds at which that line will work. It's important to note that each line still has a range of acceptable speeds (i.e. not just one perfect speed). 

 

This range of acceptable speeds is a set. We can express this new set in several ways. While speed implies velocity, it's really meant as something different in golf. Velocity combined with green speeds yield distances. So we can express our set (e.g. our range of acceptable speeds) as distances a ball would roll beyond the hole from 0- to X-inches. We can thus express our set of acceptable speeds as %'s of the putt's total length. 

 

For example, let's imagine I have a 20-ft putt (240-in). Let's say I select a given line that allows me to make the putt with speeds anywhere from 20-ft to 21-ft. So my range of acceptable speed is determine by the line as being 1-ft. Following from there, 12-in / 240-in = 5%. 

 

So the acceptable range of speeds for that line is 0% - 5% above dead weight. This can be done for every putt. 

 

What's cool is determining when or where we might want to optimize for the above range. At longer distances, we might want to choose the line that allows for the biggest range. Other times, maybe not. Imagine "firming one" from 3-ft to help eliminate break and simplify the read. Is that smart, LOL? Eh....to each his own. 

 

 

My point is that at closer distances, the aforementioned ranges will be larger (for a given line) than at longer distances. Speed is thus "less critical" if by critical we're saying difficult to produce within acceptable bounds. 

 

It's also important to note that break has the same effect of reducing the acceptable margin for speed. 

 

To me, this is where green-reading is key. How good are we at finding these "optimal" lines and how good are we at starting the ball on that line?

 

For most shorter putts of say, 6-ft, that have moderate amounts of break (<3" from center of cup), we don't have to be very accurate at all with speed because the acceptable range of speeds is actually quite large. I think that with these putts, it's far more likely a golfer either (1) never selects for the right line to begin with or (2) doesn't start the ball on his intended line. The test for this would be to have someone practice with a ramp (such as the Perfect Putter) with which the player can test his actual read. 

 

Btw, I'm lost as to why more players don't explicitly practice their green-reading with a ramp device. Taboo? Embarrassment? Who knows...

 

Maybe I'm wrong about the above. I don't have evidence. I just know that I don't see large variations in my putting speeds when putting to a hole that is 6-ft away. I mostly putt with dead weight so my putts don't get too far past the hole. However, circling back to your original point, am I keep all my putts within a 7" of the hole at that range on my first try? Maybe not. It's something I'll watch out for. 

 

.

Edited May 24, 2023 by MelloYello

[Ri_Redneck]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:37 AM, MelloYello said:

I don't think there's great value in something that just shows you a line, like a mat. You need something to make it difficult.

 

In theory, you should be able to line up correctly (to the visible line) 100% of the time and as alluded to above it's too easy to roll the ball into a target that's 10-ft away on a perfectly flat surface. Plus, mats are often bent or difficult to lay flat when they come rolled up. They're a headache. 

 

I recommend a basic device >> the Pelz Putting Tutor (or some knock-off). These also show a line but the device promotes the gate drill. Rolling the ball through that gate (even onto regular carpet) is all you really need to be practicing at home. What's important is starting the ball on line. Reading the green and practicing longer distance speed is something for the actual practice putting green. 

 

Good point! Especially since these can go from home to course with ease. Living in New England, I HAVE to have a way to work on my stroke and swing during the winter. It's really the only reason I have a putting mat and hitting net in the house.

 

BT

[iacas]

4 hours ago, MelloYello said:

I think you're pointing out that if we try to achieve this same +/-10% margin on a shorter putt of say, 6-ft, we'd be looking for a circle of radius 7-in which is pretty tight by anyone's measure.

 

Yep. And the read can change when you hit one six-footer 76" and the next one 100".

 

4 hours ago, MelloYello said:

However, it should be pointed out that the benefit of shorter putts is that the lines we will chose allow for a demonstrably greater margin WRT to speed. This also needs to be respected because here, we're just trying to end with the ball in the cup, not converge on a single, perfect combination of speed & line.

 

I'm saying that a good many golfers miss even short (6'-10') putts because their speed is off, and it affects the read, while you seem to be blaming their start lines much more. Most amateurs control their start lines better than they control their speed, even from shorter ranges.

[MelloYello]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Yep. And the read can change when you hit one six-footer 76" and the next one 100".

 

 

I'm saying that a good many golfers miss even short (6'-10') putts because their speed is off, and it affects the read, while you seem to be blaming their start lines much more. Most amateurs control their start lines better than they control their speed, even from shorter ranges.

 

But isn't "controlling start line" defined as starting the ball on some line that was pre-selected by the player?

 

The primary challenge for the majority of players (by my understanding) is really in selecting that line. Your point seems a little self-defeating if you're saying that players are (1) really good at hitting their lines and (2) still missing a ton of putts.

 

The data leaves us to conclude that players are largely missing because of (1) green-reading or (2) variances in speed that alter the line.

 

In determining which is more likely to affect an outcome we can ask which produces a more extreme variation. Put simply, it's the up-front read that is much more important than a subtle, 6-12" variation in speed at 6-ft on something like a 2% slope. That variation in speed isn't going to produce as much variation at the hole as we'll end up seeing in their reads. 

 

The caveat here is that I'm talking about single digit indexes that I play with and not 20-handicaps. So many of the putts I'm talking about are pretty good efforts that for some reason did not go in. 

 

Speaking from my own experience. When I miss a 6-footer on the edge, I would agree that it's usually not a terrible stroke but rather a slight mis-read on my part. Give me a 2nd shot at it and I'll probably be able to adjust the read and make the putt. Super common. 

 

I think the point we can agree on is that green reading is really, really hard because the margin for holing a putt is often very small and we only get 1 chance at it. 

 

But I still disagree with your take on how speed affects line on reasonable slopes at short distances. I've researched that myself on practice greens with ramps and whatnot on different slope %s and simply do not agree that the data would back up your point. But that's getting into the weeds. 

[Binson]

On 5/23/2023 at 11:40 AM, MelloYello said:

 

Well, from what I could gather you were suggesting that speed is critical in putting. 

 

Here's one of your quotes: "Putting pace is much more important than starting line." 

 

While that's often true in the case of long putts where we have to demonstrate distance control or in the case of extreme break where we have to demonstrate the ability to match speed to line (what I would call "touch"), no one would agree that speed is all that hard to master on short putts that are relatively straight--which also happen to be the putts that are most makeable.

 

If we're look at holing a straight 5-footer and you're going to tell me that pace is more important than start line I'd disagree. Most golfers who routinely miss that 5-footer (even ones with slight break) are doing so because they cannot roll their putts perfectly straight time after time or because they're misreading what little break is there or because they're pushing/pulling their putts. Speed is hardly the issue for these, which are some of the most common of putts. 

 

It's also true in that example that putts hit with 5'-7' pace will have no problem going in meaning the margin for error with speed is gigantic relative to the tight margin we have for line.  

 

That's my experience. Speed is important....when it's important. 

 

And since this whole topic is about putting mats which are usually no more than 6'-10' in length, we're mostly talking about short putts with minimal break. 

 

So while I agree with you that speed is important to putting, I think focusing too much on speed where it's not important is unhelpful. 

 

 

 

.

First off, I appreciate the response and discussion.  

 

I think we're more aligned than you may think but differ on what we count as "longer" putts. Some stats that I think offer good perspective.

 

PGA Tour one-putt percentage by distance:

3ft - 96%

5ft - 77%

8ft - 50%

10ft - 40%

 

So, when it's 5ft +, us mere mortals do still have to consider making sure we leave it within 3ft on a come-backer to avoid 3 putts.  Even the Pros miss those ~1/4 times.  Speed is more important for anything outside of 3 ft. 

 

This also is exacerbated whenever there is even a bit of break.  Your speed determines the line.  And, it determines how much of the hole is receptive to capturing the ball.  If pace is too quick, your start line could be perfect and it would still be off-line.  Plus, it would be more susceptible to lip-outs with a smaller margin for error.    

 

There's a lot more to go into, but I'll bring it back to the original topic - if the Perfect Putting mat is a good one.  Maybe it works for you and if so, that's great.  But it makes me ram in putts (whether it's within 5 ft or further), and it robs me of attaining a feel for where the ball comes to rest for a given stroke.  Given the importance of being able to deliver the appropriate pace, it was harmful to my putting.  

 

Even if you are someone who believes line is more important than pace, the elevated hole is unnecessary and robbing you of being able to gauge distance better.  If you're really really off on start line, there are still other, better ways to rectify than a putting mat with an elevated return that do not harm your ability to judge pace. 

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

The primary challenge for the majority of players (by my understanding) is really in selecting that line.

 

They have trouble selecting that line because they have poor speed control from even 8' or so.

 

Golfers often blame their start lines when they miss a putt, occasionally they blame their read, but since a putt is the right combination of speed and line… they're constantly guessing at the line given their inability to control the speed well enough.

 

33 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

But I still disagree with your take on how speed affects line on reasonable slopes at short distances. I've researched that myself on practice greens with ramps and whatnot on different slope %s and simply do not agree that the data would back up your point. But that's getting into the weeds. 

 

I've studied it, too, and found that even good golfers and decent putters are not as good at controlling speed as you seem to think. You said "no one would agree that speed is all that hard to master on short putts" and I said I disagree. It doesn't matter much on straight putts — I've never argued that — but on putts with break, speed begins to matter more and more the more break there is and/or the longer the putt.

 

The best putters I know control their speed very, very well. It's the foundation, and the most important skill, of putting's three skills.

 

I've run hundreds of players through my random ladder/box drill, for example, and if they can control speed to 6" or so… they'd all pass the first or second time through. That's rare.

 

A conflict or an unclear picture of speed leads to confusion and/or conflict, leading to more misses that may seem like they're line based or read based, but the root cause is still poor speed control.

[SollyinGA]

I have that Practice Putting Matt that the OP mentions. I don’t use it a lot, but I will work on it if I feel I’m missing putts that I usually make.

 

The aim lines help me set up correctly to get my putting stroke grooved. Once I have me setup and stroke back, I can roll them in very consistently. Once I’m at that point, I put it away until I struggle again.

 

It’s worth the price in my opinion.

[MelloYello]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

 

They have trouble selecting that line because they have poor speed control from even 8' or so.

 

Golfers often blame their start lines when they miss a putt, occasionally they blame their read, but since a putt is the right combination of speed and line… they're constantly guessing at the line given their inability to control the speed well enough.

 

 

I've studied it, too, and found that even good golfers and decent putters are not as good at controlling speed as you seem to think. You said "no one would agree that speed is all that hard to master on short putts" and I said I disagree. It doesn't matter much on straight putts — I've never argued that — but on putts with break, speed begins to matter more and more the more break there is and/or the longer the putt.

 

The best putters I know control their speed very, very well. It's the foundation, and the most important skill, of putting's three skills.

 

I've run hundreds of players through my random ladder/box drill, for example, and if they can control speed to 6" or so… they'd all pass the first or second time through. That's rare.

 

A conflict or an unclear picture of speed leads to confusion and/or conflict, leading to more misses that may seem like they're line based or read based, but the root cause is still poor speed control.

 

I'm curious what amount of speed control you'd deem acceptable. 

 

I've always defaulted to the notion of drawing a circle of radius 10% of the putt's length and from there tried to get the highest % of putts I can into that size circle.

 

>> My ideal would be getting 90% of putts ending within 10% the intended distance. 

 

For instance I just rolled 10 balls from 4-ft and 9 got into a circle of 4-in radius. I then rolled 10 balls from 6-ft and got all 10 into a circle of radius 6-in. I then tried from 9-ft and got 8 balls in a circle of 9-in radius. 

 

At what point would you say a player is good enough with X% of putts stopping inside a circle of radius Y% the putt's length? 

 

The reason I default to 10% of a putts length is that in my experience I see very little (if any) change in the ball's line with that level of variation in speed. In short, a putt hit 72" is not going to vary in path much from a putt struck slightly harder, say 80" in length so long as the slope% is reasonable (which it usually is around a hole). 

 

What I'm expressing here is that if someone can achieve this ability to get a large % of their putts inside a circle of radius 10% the putt's length, then speed simply isn't going to be the reason they're missing putts. 

 

But what level of precision would you prefer to see in a dedicated student before you said, yeah, we probably need to work more on green reading? I ask because (to me) the above level of distance control is pretty easy to achieve regardless of who you are with a little work on stroke and some daily practice rolling the ball whereas I think break is something literally everyone sees differently. 

 

. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by MelloYello

[iacas]

6 hours ago, MelloYello said:

I've always defaulted to the notion of drawing a circle of radius 10% of the putt's length and from there tried to get the highest % of putts I can into that size circle.

 

And if people could do that pretty well, they wouldn't fail at my random ladder drill game as often as they do.

 

10% is a bit high, but it's easy math, so I often tell students the same thing. Good putters are lower.

 

6 hours ago, MelloYello said:

For instance I just rolled 10 balls from 4-ft and 9 got into a circle of 4-in radius. I then rolled 10 balls from 6-ft and got all 10 into a circle of radius 6-in. I then tried from 9-ft and got 8 balls in a circle of 9-in radius.

 

The reason I default to 10% of a putts length is that in my experience I see very little (if any) change in the ball's line with that level of variation in speed.

 

Okay, you're good at your speed control. So am I. Most people aren't.

 

6 hours ago, MelloYello said:

But what level of precision would you prefer to see in a dedicated student before you said, yeah, we probably need to work more on green reading?

 

I don't do that. They can work on two things at once. And we talk about how they can miss a putt (or hit a "bad" putt that finishes too far from the hole on putts you can't expect to make very often) from various factors, including:

• poor distance control
• poor read
• poor aim/start line
• randomness of the green

[rchang72]

I find my speed control on 3-6 feet putts my worst time. Most rounds I start blowing them past the hole and then later start short arming them. I have a Wellputt mat. @iacas what is good way to help with that?

[MelloYello]

On 5/25/2023 at 9:35 AM, Binson said:

First off, I appreciate the response and discussion.  

 

I think we're more aligned than you may think but differ on what we count as "longer" putts. Some stats that I think offer good perspective.

 

PGA Tour one-putt percentage by distance:

3ft - 96%

5ft - 77%

8ft - 50%

10ft - 40%

 

So, when it's 5ft +, us mere mortals do still have to consider making sure we leave it within 3ft on a come-backer to avoid 3 putts.  Even the Pros miss those ~1/4 times.  Speed is more important for anything outside of 3 ft. 

 

This also is exacerbated whenever there is even a bit of break.  Your speed determines the line.  And, it determines how much of the hole is receptive to capturing the ball.  If pace is too quick, your start line could be perfect and it would still be off-line.  Plus, it would be more susceptible to lip-outs with a smaller margin for error.    

 

There's a lot more to go into, but I'll bring it back to the original topic - if the Perfect Putting mat is a good one.  Maybe it works for you and if so, that's great.  But it makes me ram in putts (whether it's within 5 ft or further), and it robs me of attaining a feel for where the ball comes to rest for a given stroke.  Given the importance of being able to deliver the appropriate pace, it was harmful to my putting.  

 

Even if you are someone who believes line is more important than pace, the elevated hole is unnecessary and robbing you of being able to gauge distance better.  If you're really really off on start line, there are still other, better ways to rectify than a putting mat with an elevated return that do not harm your ability to judge pace. 

 

Just FYI, I do not use a putting mat of any sort. I advocate for devices like the Dave Pelz Putting Tutor which I use on carpet at home. For other practice, I use my club's practice green which is only 5 minutes away from my home. 

 

I made reference to the "Perfect Putter" earlier which is a ramp device you'll occasionally see pro's like JT use. It's way overpriced ($300) but it's handy at times.

 

I would agree with your point in general but I would disagree that good players (single digit indexes) are missing short putts inside 10-ft by wide margins. 

 

Maybe some of us are talking about bad putters and some of us aren't? To me, the "speed is key" argument often seems to be oriented towards golfers who lack touch. To that end, I don't think yelling at them about outcomes is as good as asking "why is controlling speed so hard for you?" to which the answer is usually something in their stroke like wrist breakdown / acceleration. 

 

.

Edited May 26, 2023 by MelloYello

[MelloYello]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

 

And if people could do that pretty well, they wouldn't fail at my random ladder drill game as often as they do.

 

10% is a bit high, but it's easy math, so I often tell students the same thing. Good putters are lower.

 

 

Okay, you're good at your speed control. So am I. Most people aren't.

 

 

I don't do that. They can work on two things at once. And we talk about how they can miss a putt (or hit a "bad" putt that finishes too far from the hole on putts you can't expect to make very often) from various factors, including:

• poor distance control
• poor read
• poor aim/start line
• randomness of the green

 

Yeah, so it's kind of what I suspected. I think you're speaking from the experience of a golf coach who works with a range of indexes and I'm used to seeing avid golfers at a private club who (regardless of index) have been playing golf for several decades and generally don't miss terribly. 

 

I think my perspective is that players will figure out speed quite naturally with practice so long as they get their technique in order. To me, that doesn't warrant going around telling everyone it's the most important aspect of putting. 

 

To me, the most important implies that which is hardest to achieve through practice, not necessarily that which is most absent among poor or non-practicing golfers. 

 

Totally understandable. I appreciate the discussion. I'll definitely incorporate what you've talked about. I agree that speed is important. Maybe I don't suck as much as I feel like I do, LOL. 

 

.

Edited May 26, 2023 by MelloYello

[me05501]

12 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

Maybe some of us are talking about bad putters and some of us aren't? To me, the "speed is key" argument often seems to be oriented towards golfers who lack touch. To that end, I don't think yelling at them about outcomes is as good as asking "why is controlling speed so hard for you?" to which the answer is usually something in their stroke like wrist breakdown / acceleration. 

 

 

 

Speed control issues are pretty obvious when we see a player leaving the ball halfway to the hole or blowing it 10' past. We've all seen that player who seemingly can't seem to make the neural connections between what they see on the ground and what they put into their stroke. 

 

It's far less obvious when someone has a minor speed control issue because our tendency is to blame the read or the rub of the green or a push/pull through the stroke. I think that makes speed control hard to diagnose in someone who is actually doing a lot of things correctly. 

[MelloYello]

In my experience of watching great putters, they definitely have good speed control. 

 

But how did they get that? IMHO, it doesn't come from direct practice, rather it's something that comes out having done a bunch of other things and having spent many hours on the putting green.

 

Show me someone who works on stance, alignment, grip, posture, stroke, face control, eye position, head movement, lower body movement, start line and who can be found for at least 30 minutes a day on the practice green extending their technical drills into games and creative practice and I'll show you someone whose speed control is going to be excellent without ever having to explicitly work on it. 

 

In short, I don't believe attacking speed as a thing unto itself is a great idea because I don't agree it can be addressed directly. I believe it's something that's "unlocked" over time, which the brains controls almost instinctively. The best putters I know have an instinct for speed because they're so familiar with the act of putting. 

 

If you put in the time on the putting green doing all the other things checking your setup, your path, your roll, your green-reading and your ability to deliver under pressure via some fun game, speed will come quite naturally. 

 

That's why I don't harp on speed. It isn't that it's not "important." I'm just not going to call something important which you should earn freely along the way through actual practice. 

 

Show me someone who has issues with speed and I'll show you someone who is either (1) not practicing and/or (2) has mechanical issues going on in their stroke (usually excess acceleration) stopping them from developing a mental link with how much energy they're putting into the ball. 

 

IMHO, it's not hard at all to develop a good sense of speed if your technique is solid and you're actually practicing. So to me, it's not "critical" to the avid golfer. Critical would be something you don't freely get out of having good technique and practicing a lot. For instance, you could be an avid golfer with a great swing who practices everyday but still be lousy from bunkers because you don't explicitly practice your sand game. 

 

To me, speed is not like that. 

 

.

Edited May 26, 2023 by MelloYello

[iacas]

11 hours ago, rchang72 said:

I find my speed control on 3-6 feet putts my worst time. Most rounds I start blowing them past the hole and then later start short arming them. I have a Wellputt mat. @iacas what is good way to help with that?

 

First, I'd evaluate whether it's a stroke issue or what… lotta short (slow) backswings with too much acceleration. Then… come up with some drills and games that challenge you to do just that.

 

@MelloYello, this isn't productive. I typed all this up below, but you're saying things that contradict other things you say. I'd type up a list, but I've already spent too much time on this, and it's going nowhere.

 

Cheers.

 

Spoiler

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

Yeah, so it's kind of what I suspected. I think you're speaking from the experience of a golf coach who works with a range of indexes and I'm used to seeing avid golfers at a private club who (regardless of index) have been playing golf for several decades and generally don't miss terribly.

 

Uhhhhh, of course. "Most of the really good putters I see have great distance control." I mean, duh, right? This conversation wasn't about people who already have great distance control. If it was, I missed that somewhere.

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

I think my perspective is that players will figure out speed quite naturally with practice so long as they get their technique in order. To me, that doesn't warrant going around telling everyone it's the most important aspect of putting.

 

I don't think we're going to agree. We're not gonna agree. You're coming from a point where a player already has or automatically gets gifted good speed control.

 

Speed control (distance control) is the most important aspect of putting. Everything else stems from it. Even at the Tour level, some guys will have other things (face, reading) that they work on… but in general, speed is still a big deal there. It gets a lot of attention.

 

"So long as they get their technique in order" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Couldn't I simply say that about anything?: "Players will figure out how to start the ball online quite naturally with practice so long as they get their technique in order."

 

I'm a good putter… largely because I hit putts the distance I'm trying to hit them almost all the time. Thus, my reads can be based on my ability to control the speed. When I miss putts, it's generally a slight mis-read or a slightly bad start line (or randomness, of course, but I mean when I know I missed a putt due to an error), but that's only because I've done the work  to nail down the most important part: speed. Good speed control and half-decent read and start line control means I rarely three-putt.

 

And I almost never practice putting.

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

To me, the most important implies that which is hardest to achieve through practice, not necessarily that which is most absent among poor or non-practicing golfers..

 

But… that's not what "most important" means. That's what "difficult" means, or something else. Read, Bead (start line), Speed. Those are the three skills great putters have. Speed is king in that list.

 

I also might disagree (though I haven't thought about it much): distance control in putting might be the most difficult thing to master, too.

 

It's misleading to say "assuming you have great speed, it's more important for you to work on start lines or green reading." (paraphrasing). Of course, because you're assuming that the speed is locked in to 6-10% or whatever.

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

But how did they get that? IMHO, it doesn't come from direct practice

 

???? It often does come from directly practicing speed. Like I said, there's only three things in putting that are common to the game's best putters: read, bead, and speed. If you're not working directly on one of those three things… you're wasting your time.

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

Show me someone who works on stance, alignment, grip, posture, stroke, face control, eye position, head movement, lower body movement, start line and who can be found for at least 30 minutes a day on the practice green extending their technical drills into games and creative practice and I'll show you someone whose speed control is going to be excellent without ever having to explicitly work on it..

 

Wow. Not asking for much there eh? 😉

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

In short, I don't believe attacking speed as a thing unto itself is a great idea because I don't agree it can be addressed directly..

 

It absolutely can be. A player's putting acceleration profile, rhythm, etc. all directly attack speed control.

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

I believe it's something that's "unlocked" over time, which the brains controls almost instinctively. The best putters I know have an instinct for speed because they're so familiar with the act of putting.

 

Nah. It can be taught (and worked on directly).

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

If you put in the time on the putting green doing all the other things checking your setup, your path, your roll, your green-reading and your ability to deliver under pressure via some fun game, speed will come quite naturally.

 

Who has that kind of time? Not a recreational golfer. I can directly show them things that help them better control speed.

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

Show me someone who has issues with speed and I'll show you someone who is either (1) not practicing and/or (2) has mechanical issues going on in their stroke (usually excess acceleration) stopping them from developing a mental link with how much energy they're putting into the ball.

 

By working on the acceleration profile… you're directly working on their ability to control speed!

 

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

IMHO, it's not hard at all to develop a good sense of speed if your technique is solid and you're actually practicing.

 

Oy.

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by iacas

[RoyalTroon]

8 hours ago, MelloYello said:

 In short, I don't believe attacking speed as a thing unto itself is a great idea because I don't agree it can be addressed directly. I believe it's something that's "unlocked" over time, which the brains controls almost instinctively. The best putters I know have an instinct for speed because they're so familiar with the act of putting. 

 

Show me someone who has issues with speed and I'll show you someone who is either (1) not practicing and/or (2) has mechanical issues going on in their stroke (usually excess acceleration) stopping them from developing a mental link with how much energy they're putting into the ball. 

 

 

Very nice MY, as are many of your other comments.  

 

I don't see basketball players leaving their free throws halfway short...lol.    Athletes will find the way, but truth be told the way actually finds them if they are out of their way, which is the way to find the way.    It's a propulsion game with a stroke hors d'oeuvre.     

 

 

[DCCarpenter]

21 hours ago, MelloYello said:

Just FYI, I do not use a putting mat of any sort. I advocate for devices like the Dave Pelz Putting Tutor which I use on carpet at home. For other practice, I use my club's practice green which is only 5 minutes away from my home. 

 

Do you hit through the putting tutor to a jar or object ? Approximately how long of a putt typically?

 

I bought the putting tutor last week and have zero issue hitting through it without hitting the balls, as in out of the box first 10 tries clear and don't think I've hit them a single time since. Yet I'm a very poor putter, trying to see how I can use this device to improve.

[MelloYello]

On 5/27/2023 at 7:10 AM, DCCarpenter said:

 

Do you hit through the putting tutor to a jar or object ? Approximately how long of a putt typically?

 

I bought the putting tutor last week and have zero issue hitting through it without hitting the balls, as in out of the box first 10 tries clear and don't think I've hit them a single time since. Yet I'm a very poor putter, trying to see how I can use this device to improve.

 

I found I could easily get through the gate if I wasn't trying to hit the putt a certain distance. It was harder when I forced myself to hit it longer & shorter of my "default" which seemed to be about 10-12 feet.

 

So first, definitely try all sorts of distances and yeah, use an objective if that helps. I sometimes will but not normally. I'll pick a spot on the carpet or green and try to hit to that to challenge myself with distance. Remember, you want to be thinking speed during your actual putting, right? 

 

Secondly, you can always replace the (relatively small) ball bearings that come with the Tutor with slightly larger balls if you want to make the gate as tight as physically possible. I agree it's not super tight with the stock balls. Keep that in mind if you feel it's too forgiving. 

 

Third, start using the Tutor out on an actual green where there's noticeable break. Players often find it difficult to start the ball on line on breaking putts. 

 

Four, if you legitimately find that it never becomes hard in any circumstance to pass the test that's a good sign and you should consider yourself a good putter in terms of starting the ball on line. Turn your attention to the other elements of putting such as green reading and speed control. Nothing wrong with knowing your strengths and weaknesses.

 

.

Edited May 29, 2023 by MelloYello

[Sp4zRX]

On 5/25/2023 at 9:35 AM, Binson said:

PGA Tour one-putt percentage by distance:

3ft - 96%

5ft - 77%

8ft - 50%

10ft - 40%

 

So, when it's 5ft +, us mere mortals do still have to consider making sure we leave it within 3ft on a come-backer to avoid 3 putts.  Even the Pros miss those ~1/4 times.  Speed is more important for anything outside of 3 ft. 

 

This might be a little off topic but I have been speculating on these pro stats vs amateurs lately. Keep in mind, I have no data to back up my claims, I am only speculating. 
 

It would seem that when the Pros are faced with a 5-10ft putt, it is often their first putt. 
 

Amateurs are often looking at 5-10ft putts as a second putt. 
 

The difference being that when the Ams miss their first putt, leaving it outside 4ft, the ball will often miss on the low side leaving them a somewhat straight uphill putt. The Pros however, are facing these putts from an approach shot making the breaks more random and challenging. 
 

It would be interesting to see stats on putting ranges based on 1st and 2nd putts. 

[ShortGolfer]

I live in New England where I have a long off season.

 

I found a putting mat and mirror very useful this past winter for practicing a consistent setup routine.

One of the benefits of doing the same thing over and over again is that I learn to do it very quickly as well, improving my pace of play.

 

 

[dfeldss]

On 5/22/2023 at 4:09 PM, dfeldss said:

This post just inspired me to buy a mat and a mirror and gates. I will report back in about a month 

 

Played my first couple rounds over the weekend since getting my mat and alignment mirror. Putted better than i have in a long time. 

 

It's very freeing to know I'm going to hit the ball right where i'm aimed. Made a few setup tweaks and have been hitting great putts. Great investment so far