Jump to content
IGNORED

"Optimal Putting" (and other works) by Geoff Mangum


iacas
Note: This thread is 3115 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
Discuss "Optimal Putting" (and other works) by Geoff Mangum here.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Geoff is a wealth of putting info. Glad to see a thread here about his book. I bought the e-book recently but have yet to read it. Flipped through the pages, some 250+, and the info is quite detailed from what I can see. $10 on Ebay from an authorized seller in South Dakota. You buy it on Ebay, he sends you an email the following morning with the download. Easy as that. Geoff sells the e-book on his website, Puttingzone as well. The hard copy, printed and sold out in 2008, is $200+ if you can find it. The e-book contains all the same info of course.


For anyone not familiar with Geoff, he is considered one of the putting gurus of today. He teaches Steve Elkington among others and has traveled the world teaching. In doing so, he has formed a network of Geoff Mangum "Puttingzone" instructors world wide. Geoff also gives personal instruction and is based in Greensboro,NC.


His website is a great place to start for folks not familiar with Geoff and his "Tips" section is full of detailed information. One could read all day here about how to improve their putting.


Check it out...

http://puttingzone.com/ziptips.html


-Dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 2 weeks later...
I've heard quite a bit about this guy lately. As Dana said hes Elkingtons man as well as Sevam1. I'll definately have a look.

Meant to say Sevam1 endorses it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Steve Elkington went from like 176th in putting to 2nd in one year after working with Geoff. Amazing stuff. I just bought the $35 one hour video of them and it was impressive. Read most of the "Optimal Putting" e-book and it has tons of useful info. Some pretty deep reading on the brain functions that was not of interest to me, but most of the book was easy to sink your teeth into. I greatly enjoyed what I read in the book overall. The video download was fantastic. Just saw it and my head is spinning. There is so much to putting I have not thought of. Well, at any rate, have not devoted enough thought to. I think anyone could watch that one hour video of Geoff and Steve and learn something new. Link below for anyone interested.

http://www.therealityofputting.com/

-Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 4 years later...
I first discovered Geoff Mangum's mountains of written material on putting a couple of years ago, and have read Optimal Putting and many of the essays on his website. I have a particular interest in him because of his claim that he is a scientist, a researcher, and that his ideas are grounded in and informed by "modern neuroscience." I work in a neuroscience field and have spent the majority of my adult life in this area. Geoff has some very interesting and compelling ideas about putting. His general statement about putting in his essay "The Mechanics of Instinct" is, I believe, insightful and accurate. He contends that most contemporary putting instruction is essentially incomplete, focusing predominantly on physics and engineering. While this statement was more correct in 2000 than it is today, the general idea that putting instruction and putting theory must begin with an understanding of how humans think, perceive, and plan movements is correct and, I believe, of primary importance in any attempt to devise a method of putting instruction. But Geoff's understanding of science, of the scientific method, and of the specifics of neuroscience is flawed, causing him to draw faulty conclusions repeatedly in his writings. His writings are heavily referenced and annotated, giving them a pseudo-scientific patina, but in reality they are incompletely researched, excessively complex in their syntax, and ultimately faulty in their logic and conclusions. They portray a false notion of scientific credibility. An example would be Mangum's ideas on visual targeting. He asserts that the best way to visually register the target in putting is to suppress the vestibulo-ocular reflex and turn the head to follow the intended track of the ball, rather than to use saccadic eye movements to shift gaze from the ball to the target. He asserts that this is true, supporting his conclusion with a few references to scientific publications. But this is not really how science works. The issue of how to best fix on your target is an empirical question, and the irony is that he criticizes the work of a research scientist who collected excellent empirical data on the eye movements of golfers when putting. Reading a few articles about vision science or otherwise informing oneself about "neuroscience" does not add up to a credible or defensible conclusion about a putting method, or the sort of authority he exerts in criticizing scientific work. This pattern of criticism is a theme on his site. He derides virtually anyone else who teaches putting, as either "dilettante enthusiasts" or "well-intentioned people" who lack "even the slightest ideas about the skills of putting." This is not only harsh and presumptuous, but it is not the way scholars behave...and what he really portrays himself as is a putting scholar. But look closely at his writing: you will find many references to scientific work, some critiques of data, but virtually never _any_ actual data he has collected in his alleged scientific study of putting. Mangum's website is interesting, provocative, and has a great deal of information in one centralized location, a great service to those of us who like to read about golf and putting....but don't allow yourself to believe he is a scientist. Ultimately his system is not much different than anything else you find in golf instruction literature: the ideas of one person, passionate about what they are doing, but ultimately non-validated in the empirical sense. His essays deride the work of credible sports scientists, and are countered by pseudo-scientific assertions he "proves" with anecdotes and a variety of confirmation-bias fueled rhetoric. He claims to be informed about modern neuroscience, yet the majority of the citations on his website are in excess of a decade old. In the world of scientific inquiry, this is ancient. Geoff has a list of credentials and is recognized by many U.S. and global golf organizations as an expert or authority on putting. So clearly not all agree with my assessment. But as Geoff himself states, the scientific literacy and understanding of the golf instruction world, in general, is not particularly high. Geoff may be an authority in the eyes of some golfers, but I doubt many credible sports scientists would recognize him as an authority. Many will point to his success with Steve Elkington or other golfers or with their own game. No problem with that...I would never say he isn't an effective teacher, or that what he recommends wouldn't work for you or me or Tiger Woods. My objection is his belief that what he is doing is true and correct - and superior to other methods - from the perspective of neuroscience and how the brain works. He doesn't come close to proving this with any degree of scientific credibility. Works like "Lowest Score Wins" demonstrate that it is not difficult to use simple scientific methods and an evidence based approach to golf. Geoff Mangum, for all his verbiage to the contrary, is lacking in this endeavor.

JP Bouffard

"I cut a little driver in there." -- Jim Murray

Driver: Titleist 915 D3, ACCRA Shaft 9.5*.
3W: Callaway XR,
3,4 Hybrid: Taylor Made RBZ Rescue Tour, Oban shaft.
Irons: 5-GW: Mizuno JPX800, Aerotech Steelfiber 95 shafts, S flex.
Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM5 56 degree, M grind
Putter: Edel Custom Pixel Insert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I first discovered Geoff Mangum's mountains of written material on putting a couple of years ago, and have read Optimal Putting and many of the essays on his website. I have a particular interest in him because of his claim that he is a scientist, a researcher, and that his ideas are grounded in and informed by "modern neuroscience." I work in a neuroscience field and have spent the majority of my adult life in this area. Geoff has some very interesting and compelling ideas about putting. His general statement about putting in his essay "The Mechanics of Instinct" is, I believe, insightful and accurate. He contends that most contemporary putting instruction is essentially incomplete, focusing predominantly on physics and engineering. While this statement was more correct in 2000 than it is today, the general idea that putting instruction and putting theory must begin with an understanding of how humans think, perceive, and plan movements is correct and, I believe, of primary importance in any attempt to devise a method of putting instruction. But Geoff's understanding of science, of the scientific method, and of the specifics of neuroscience is flawed, causing him to draw faulty conclusions repeatedly in his writings. His writings are heavily referenced and annotated, giving them a pseudo-scientific patina, but in reality they are incompletely researched, excessively complex in their syntax, and ultimately faulty in their logic and conclusions. They portray a false notion of scientific credibility. An example would be Mangum's ideas on visual targeting. He asserts that the best way to visually register the target in putting is to suppress the vestibulo-ocular reflex and turn the head to follow the intended track of the ball, rather than to use saccadic eye movements to shift gaze from the ball to the target. He asserts that this is true, supporting his conclusion with a few references to scientific publications. But this is not really how science works. The issue of how to best fix on your target is an empirical question, and the irony is that he criticizes the work of a research scientist who collected excellent empirical data on the eye movements of golfers when putting. Reading a few articles about vision science or otherwise informing oneself about "neuroscience" does not add up to a credible or defensible conclusion about a putting method, or the sort of authority he exerts in criticizing scientific work. This pattern of criticism is a theme on his site. He derides virtually anyone else who teaches putting, as either "dilettante enthusiasts" or "well-intentioned people" who lack "even the slightest ideas about the skills of putting." This is not only harsh and presumptuous, but it is not the way scholars behave...and what he really portrays himself as is a putting scholar. But look closely at his writing: you will find many references to scientific work, some critiques of data, but virtually never _any_ actual data he has collected in his alleged scientific study of putting. Mangum's website is interesting, provocative, and has a great deal of information in one centralized location, a great service to those of us who like to read about golf and putting....but don't allow yourself to believe he is a scientist. Ultimately his system is not much different than anything else you find in golf instruction literature: the ideas of one person, passionate about what they are doing, but ultimately non-validated in the empirical sense. His essays deride the work of credible sports scientists, and are countered by pseudo-scientific assertions he "proves" with anecdotes and a variety of confirmation-bias fueled rhetoric. He claims to be informed about modern neuroscience, yet the majority of the citations on his website are in excess of a decade old. In the world of scientific inquiry, this is ancient. Geoff has a list of credentials and is recognized by many U.S. and global golf organizations as an expert or authority on putting. So clearly not all agree with my assessment. But as Geoff himself states, the scientific literacy and understanding of the golf instruction world, in general, is not particularly high. Geoff may be an authority in the eyes of some golfers, but I doubt many credible sports scientists would recognize him as an authority. Many will point to his success with Steve Elkington or other golfers or with their own game. No problem with that...I would never say he isn't an effective teacher, or that what he recommends wouldn't work for you or me or Tiger Woods. My objection is his belief that what he is doing is true and correct - and superior to other methods - from the perspective of neuroscience and how the brain works. He doesn't come close to proving this with any degree of scientific credibility. Works like "Lowest Score Wins" demonstrate that it is not difficult to use simple scientific methods and an evidence based approach to golf. Geoff Mangum, for all his verbiage to the contrary, is lacking in this endeavor.

Everything I've read about Mangum leads me to believe he's a bit of a prick. Perfect pairing for Elk, who is, by all accounts, a world class douche bag. Aimpoint pretty much renders all of Mangum's work as obsolete. So much more accurate and it's based in real science not pseudo science.

Yours in earnest, Jason.
Call me Ernest, or EJ or Ernie.

PSA - "If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

My Whackin' Sticks: :cleveland: 330cc 2003 Launcher 10.5*  :tmade: RBZ HL 3w  :nickent: 3DX DC 3H, 3DX RC 4H  :callaway: X-22 5-AW  :nike:SV tour 56* SW :mizuno: MP-T11 60* LW :bridgestone: customized TD-03 putter :tmade:Penta TP3   :aimpoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yes Aimpoint is a great contrast to Geoff Mangum's work. It is science based. It began, as the scientific method proscribes, with a question. In this case the question was "how can I draw a line on a video screen which accurately predicts the path of a putt?" The result of that process lead to a method for selecting targets for putting, The method is readily taught and understood, and is easily subject to validation by empirical observations. In contrast, read Geoff's articles on targeting. You will find pages and pages of discussion of brain function, brain evolution, anatomy, physiology, etc. Ultimately, he describes a mathematical formula for estimating target location on the fall line based on putt length and percent slope. it is very similar in concept to Aimpoint, but more difficult to execute, less clearly explained and defined, and buried in paragraphs of perhaps interesting yet irrelevant facts. And even though they reach very similar conceptual conclusions, my guess is that somewhere Geoff has probably criticized Aimpoint for somehow not being "informed by modern neuroscience."

JP Bouffard

"I cut a little driver in there." -- Jim Murray

Driver: Titleist 915 D3, ACCRA Shaft 9.5*.
3W: Callaway XR,
3,4 Hybrid: Taylor Made RBZ Rescue Tour, Oban shaft.
Irons: 5-GW: Mizuno JPX800, Aerotech Steelfiber 95 shafts, S flex.
Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM5 56 degree, M grind
Putter: Edel Custom Pixel Insert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3115 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...