• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Stretch

"The Reality Of Putting": New video from Geoff Mangum and Steve Elkington.

21 posts in this topic

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

whats "putting"? i drive for show, and drive for dough. theres no room for putting. lol, jk...ill check it out.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Gave this a careful second watch last night and have a couple of thoughts on it.

-- I believe most people will get their money's worth (in terms of real benefit out on the course) just from the sections on reading putts and gauging ideal delivery speed. Once you understand the fall line and learn how to see it, you really find yourself thinking "I wonder what this is going to do?" a whole lot less.



-- The conversational format -- Geoff and Elk out on the green just talking and putting -- is both a strength and a weakness. It's definitely more accessible and easier to digest than Geoff's book, Optimal Putting, but it also scatters some key stuff (like stroke mechanics) across several sections of the video, and I think many viewers may miss a few chunks that ideally need to hang together. If the video does grab you, then getting the book as a companion and in-depth reference is a no brainer.

-- I wish I could knock in 12 footers that casually.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Hmmm....looks interesting. Lord knows my putting needs help too. How long is the total video? Anybody else tried this out?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds interesting, but that's a steep price for an hour video. That's a price you'd expect on a dvd, but given the recession and say Manzella's videos are 1/3rd less, I'll just check out his YouTube videos.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I do agree with you there. If the price is a stretch, then buying the ebook for $10 and catching the YouTube videos is definitely the way to go. Relative to the $350 that a lot of folks will drop on yet another "premium" flat stick to fix their putting, though, it's a freaking bargain.

Here endeth my shilling for Mangum.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Geoff Mangum is a putting genius. I recently bought his e-book "Optimal Putting". The hard copy printed and sold out in 2008 is over $200 if you can find it. An authorized seller (by Geoff) in South Dakota sells the e-book on Ebay for $10. You can also get the e-book on Geoff's website, Puttingzone. Looking forward to seeing the video myself. Tons of free info below in his "Tips" section. One could read all day on his website about how to improve their putting. If you like what you read, maybe the video is a logical next step.

http://www.puttingzone.com/ziptips.html

Some of my favorite articles from above...

http://puttingzone.com/MyTips/bounce.html

http://puttingzone.com/MyTips/lengthlie.html


-Dan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality the price of a good putter is way more than this video. The point is, the guys at Secret in the Dirt know how to price stuff like videos and if you know about Geoff's teachings, you'll know this is a no brainer - at least he has Elk to keep him focused. Much as I love Geoff's videos on YouTube, he does go off on one and gives you ten minutes where two should have done. Geoff is obsessional about putting and probably knows more than anyone else - but he's better with a foil like Steve Elkington than alone. BTW the PDF is now free so get a copy and then dovetail it in with the DVD. http://puttingzone.com/Downloads/OptimalPutting.pdf I had to travel 150 miles to a golf pro here in the UK to do two hours of tuition in Geoff's methods (we only have one golf pro that's certified!) That's 300 miles, 5 hours of driving, and 6 gallons of gas at $10 a gallon = $60 - let alone the wear and tear on the car and me - so $35 is still a great lesson price.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for starting this thread. I used 2 ideas that I read from the link today. The first one was to line up the blade, get square, and pay attention to your neck being square and not angled off. This allows for an online gaze. The other was to really give the last 3 feet the most importance since this is where the ball really breaks the most. Good stuff!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gave this a careful second watch last night and have a couple of thoughts on it.

-- I believe most people will get their money's worth (in terms of real benefit out on the course) just from the sections on reading putts and gauging ideal delivery speed. Once you understand the fall line and learn how to see it, you really find yourself thinking "I wonder what this is going to do?" a whole lot less.

-- The conversational format -- Geoff and Elk out on the green just talking and putting -- is both a strength and a weakness. It's definitely more accessible and easier to digest than Geoff's book, Optimal Putting, but it also scatters some key stuff (like stroke mechanics) across several sections of the video, and I think many viewers may miss a few chunks that ideally need to hang together. If the video does grab you, then getting the book as a companion and in-depth reference is a no brainer.

-- I wish I could knock in 12 footers that casually.

I agree with finding the zero line. I try to find it on every putt. From there and from my experience i gauge were i want to start the ball off. I know that a ball will break less because of the higher speed in the beginning of the putt. So there are a few things you got to keep in mind. Also, that diagram is misleading. Example, putts 1,2,10,11 might be more horizontal depending on the break. I see a lot of players take that type of break line, and the ball ends up running way past the hole. So in theory its right, in application its based on experience. I've had some putts were i've had to putt back up the slope to take some speed off the ball for the putt to fall in at the right speed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Isn't Magnum the guy who bashes AimPoint all the time? Seems eerily similar to the AimPoint methods.  Maybe he is a convert now. Nice graphic though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I agree with finding the zero line. I try to find it on every putt. From there and from my experience i gauge were i want to start the ball off. I know that a ball will break less because of the higher speed in the beginning of the putt. So there are a few things you got to keep in mind. Also, that diagram is misleading. Example, putts 1,2,10,11 might be more horizontal depending on the break. I see a lot of players take that type of break line, and the ball ends up running way past the hole. So in theory its right, in application its based on experience. I've had some putts were i've had to putt back up the slope to take some speed off the ball for the putt to fall in at the right speed.

That's funny, I just posted about Magnum's Spider concept last night. Erik pointed out some weaknesses with the concept that seem pretty valid but nontheless it's a pretty simple method for seeing the line faster and easier and gives you confidence about your line which is HUGE imo. I think a little bit of experience and a good visual memory will help lessen the impact of the faults inherent in the method. Probably not as good as aimpoint but it's a) more or less free info b) easily accessible - I don't know of any aimpoint teachers in my area and travelling to take the course is a little outside of my golf budget both in terms of time and money.

IMHO speed is far more important * than line when it comes to maintaining a good putting average simply because you'll generally be left with an easier second putt if your line is off but speed is right, however, having faith in your line (even if it's wrong) let's you stroke the putt with a free mind absent of the nagging doubt whispering in your ear, "the line's not right, the line's not right..."

*obviously they are both important but if I had to choose a) perfect speed 100% of the time , perfect line 80% or b) perfect line 100% of the time, perfect speed 80% I would choose the former. I hate blowing putts 4"+ past the hole and I hate pansy putting them 4'+ shy. Embarrasing and usually left with a difficult second putt. Guess that's why Gimmies are so popular eh?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

The light bulb for me was never the fall line, but reading the putts in sections with the most importance being given to the last 3 feet. I know it's something that I do without knowing about it, but it just seemed to make everything easier doing it this way.

Let's keep this thread on topic to avoid the politics of putting. Lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aimpoint and Delta set those methods up as a focal point, a piece of physics, to selling a putting methodology. The trouble with selling a methodolgy is you can start contradicting yourself if you haven't done all the background work. We've all seen presenters crash and burn when faced with questions from an expert in the field - its all about the prep, not the flash stuff. Whether you agree with Geoff knocking Aimpoint or Delta really doesn't matter. Personally I think he should ignore them. Geoff is a fanatical reasearcher when it comes to putting - and if the technical analysis, the theoretical papers and thesis are out there, if anyone has written anything or videoed anything - Geoff will have seen it, tested it, and incorporated or rejected it from his system. I would suspect nobody, with the exception of perhaps Dave Pelz, has done so much work on the single subject of putting. So Geoff has done the graft. The other key difference between Geoff and the rest, is that he never really set up his putting obsession to make a load of cash. Virtually all the other putting coaches have marketing activity to promote them. I think the good stuff finds its own way to the top of the pile in the end, even if it takes years - I don't think you need a lot of marketing to get it out there - a good idea is a good idea. Geoff's website is a mess and looks like someone set it up in about 1997 at the start of online stuff and never modified it since - just adding more and more pages. In some ways that's a rather pleasing approach and smacks of a sort of "mate sending you his files" approach. You can tell a lot about Geoff from his site - it's certainly not selling to you - it's a take it or leave it site. Lastly, after all that, Geoff has worked out a way to communicate it all through just four key focal points. So its is relatively easy to learn. Let me leave you with one thought. I think the guys at 'Secret' are trying to break through all that PR stuff that surrounds the top guys and bring you what they think are the hidden gems of teaching - Geoff Mangum is one, and Paul Kopp is another. This is a high value approach for us as customers and students of golf.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Geoff has a lot of good contributions.  I bought his e-manual on putter design.  His knocking AimPoint seemed really out of character from the other stuff of his I read.  But I don't think AimPoint is a major marketing exercise either.  It has worked very well for me and it is science, which as and engineer, I like.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I just took an AimPoint course.  After seeing what it can do, I will stick with that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Yes, Aimpoint is physics / maths. The real issue I'd have is that I don't play golf courses that have uniformly inclined greens. They are all compound gradient surfaces. If putting were like the Aimpoint charts it would be dead easy.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Aimpoint is physics / maths. The real issue I'd have is that I don't play golf courses that have uniformly inclined greens. They are all compound gradient surfaces. If putting were like the Aimpoint charts it would be dead easy.

The "uniform greens" response is trotted out all the time, but the simple truth is that AimPoint works really well. If the green changes enough over the length of your putt, you can break the putt up into segments. AimPoint itself - the physics - is perfect, and we can get awfully darn close to really accurate reads all the time in ten seconds. That's a win in my book, and a clear winner over "look at the fall line at the hole" or the spider method or any other method out there.

Now, then, AimPoint isn't really the topic here, so please, back to the topic (which is conveniently also the thread title).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • Iron Game Suffers when Driver Going Well
      For high handicappers myself included, this is typical.   I think it is b/c we don't have the same swing for irons and longer clubs.  If we get them both right in the same round, it is probably by pure luck or coincidence.  Grin and bear, and enjoy the journey.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      The topic title is the question who is the greatest golfer, the poll is the question who was the best. Two different things in my opinion. There's no doubt to me Tiger was a better golfer. How could he not? Spieth, McIlroy, Day but even guys like Wiesberger, Luiten and Donaldson play better golf than Jack. The game evolved so much over the years, and got so much more professional. If Jack would have been around in this era he would benefit from all that as well and be a better golfer than he was (and probably top those guys I just mentioned). But who was the greatest. How do you measure that (can you)? Tiger was dominant in a stronger field, winning more titles than you can count. Jack was the first of a kind, winning the biggest titles (majors) over an enourmous span and having the most of them. Isn't it mostly a matter of personal who you find 'greater'? For me Johan Cruyff is the greatest Dutch football player of time, but I have no doubt that Dennis Bergkamp and Arjen Robben were/are better because the game evolved. 
    • Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)
      Obvisously... she took his case about a month ago. On one hand I hope Avery is guilty as hell, on the other hand it would be an amazing story and twist if turns out to be set up and she can prove that. I think that chance is less than 1%, but still..... Possibly, good point. Should be quite some blood though since they found 'drops', meaning it was dripping from (in this theory) his glove. Exactly my point. I don't think the blood was freely flowing, because than there should be a lot more blood in the car. They found blood consisting with bloody hair. Seems to me, and I know I'm not an expert, that she was already dead when she was in the car, because that would explain the little amount of blood found (no pumping of the heart, no flow of blood) and the place it was found (in the back). One can easily argue that he killed in the garage, moved her to the car, and only then got the plan to burn her instead and moved her again; to the pit. But the 'problem' is that that's not what the DA said what happenend. In my opinion that blood in the car contradicts the story (or truth) he wants us and the jury to believe, and contradicts also with the story of Dassey which is the only thing that links Dassey to the case: his own words. That doesn't mean Avery is innocent, but it might raise some doubt. The DA should stick with the facts, not filling in the blanks with guessing. If he can't prove exact chronologically he shouldn't state it as 'fact'.   Absolutely. I'm not convinced in anything, not in my opinion, not in yours, not at all in the people who made the documentary. Also not a fan of conspiracy theory's. I don't think the murder was planted on him, but I do think some mistakes were made by the justice system. Mistakes that possibly should have lead to his and maybe even more Dassey's release, even though there's a big chance he did it. That's for me perhaps the most interesting part in this case and in the discussion. If we want a justice system where the chance is close to 0% that we convict someone innocent, and the prosecution and police need to follow the rules, it means sometimes the guilty walk free. I think everything they found on the compount while Manitowoc detectives were present should have been excluded. I think the DNA on the blood of the bullet should have been excluded. I think the 'confession' of Dassey should have been excluded. I think Dassey should have given at least a new trial, but that was denied by the same judge which handled his initial case (?!).
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      A long time ago, by Tiger's own admission,  said a golfer's career is measured by "majors won" . So if Woody does not break Jack's major record, then according to Woody, his career will be second to Jack's. Now Jack has said that he expects (expected) Woody to break his major record. So Jack is saying he expects Woody will have the better career.  These are the only two guys who would know who had the best career.   Neither one is going to be the GOAT. They will just be a GOTE. 
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Nope, you blindly worship Jack.  It is obvious that you have not read much, if any, of the thread.  But hey, you saw Jack.  In person, yet.  So what.  I did too.  I saw him win his last USGA championship at Cherry Hills.  I saw Tiger play as well - although in person I only saw practice rounds.  So what.  That does not make my assessment of their respective careers more or less credible.  Geee, I never saw Hogan play so I guess we cannot count him in the discussion.   You think Jack was better.  That is fine.  You are entitled to your opinion.  Just don't spoil it with specious reasons or arguments.  Because those we will slice apart like one of Klinger's salamis.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries