Marcel White

I WAS WRONG! I AM SORRY IF I DISTURBED YOU! IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN! But, before explaining why I have to say that, let me post a few answers to Mr. Iacas. If you want to worry about the dimples of your ball affecting your putt, go for it. No, I don’t worry at all. I just said "Golf ball is not a sphere but we treat it as if it was." This was related to the fact that, as I said before "I know that the line is not a perfect parabola segment but I know also that parabolas provide a fair estimate". My motto is: it’s better to have a fair estimate than having no estimate at all. In other words, you "read the green" based on your experience. You see parabolas, even though no real putts even come close to having a parabolic shape. But you're just "reading the green" based on your experience. Don’t say "in other words" because you have shown no talent at all to translate my thoughts in other words. While I’m walking to the green I read it to get a big picture. When I get to the green I read the putt and try to discover 3 things: a) If it goes up or down, b) What is the fall line, to have an idea of the angle between it and the ball-hole line and c) How severe the slope is in that area of the green. This is all we need to know how wide the parabola is and where in the entire curve is the segment that is similar to the putt we are about to make. That is my fair estimate without getting advice on the green from anyone else but me. "Looks like 20 feet, 2% slope, 90 degrees to straight. Give it 22 inches right to left." Wait a moment! 2% slope? Was this a product of your experience or did you use a putting aid? Are you allowed to use your experience and I am not? Let me tell you this: the inputs you get are the inputs I get, so your method is also based in parabolas with small adjustments due to the existence of friction. You keep fighting parabolas because you just don’t know how the tables you use were built. The big difference is that to make a decision on the green I use the knowledge I have and you get advice from others. Watch my video golf putting lines in youtube and you’ll see how it works. Pardon me. It's my forum, … When I was a child I used to play football in the park with others like me and there was always a kid, that was the ball owner, who decided who will play and those who had to stay out. Thanks for reminding me those good old days. The golf ball will not roll in a parabola shape on 99.999% of greens. It’s not 99.999%, it’s 100.0%. Don’t try to say "in other words" what I already said. And I maintain that "Parabolas provide a fair estimate when we are in almost flat sloping areas of the green." . Yeah, I'm not sure what he was doing there. 57 seconds is too long. It did include his pre-shot routine AND his read. If someone else had putted in between, you wouldn't have seen about 47 of those 57 seconds. In other words, 80-90% of what he did for the second putt could be done while others are looking at or hitting their putts. When it's his turn to hit, he should be ready to hit almost right away. He also stares at his book for too long - that part should literally a second or two. I've had people ask me how I putt so well since "you don't even read your putts!" As I've said, I've "read putts" from the tees of par threes. "Looks like 20 feet, 2% slope, 90 degrees to straight. Give it 22 inches right to left." You get to the green, confirm those numbers, and the read is correct. How wonderful the final scene is. Sooner or later things like this will make me believe in miracles. How often it happens that we think we are close to the hole and when we get to the green we discover we have a 10 or 15 feet putt to make? They are, and you'd do well to stop mentioning it as if it was some sort of policy we made up just to prevent you from sharing something you sell . I've mentioned the " apex of the putt " ( two threads started on it... ) before. Perhaps nobody else mentioned it here because it's common knowledge around here, just as it's common knowledge that a ball rolling on a green will not trace a shape resembling a parabola. I believe it’s also common knowledge here that this site only welcomes "something you sell" _________________________________________________________________ Having said all that I must recognise I was wrong. Yes, I thought this was a forum to discuss ideas and it proved to be a site to promote someone’s solution for breaking putts where different opinions are not allowed. Even the name of the site where you could find the original tip that provoked this thread was removed. Not a link, not my site, just a name of a well-respected directory. However, several videos promoting a kind of tap dance on the green, in which the forum owner has a clear interest are peacefully online in this thread. I am sorry if I disturbed the quiet way things were running before. I know that discussing with those that agree with you or have to submit to your opinions is the preferred way to some people. It’s not my case. So, I quit. Of course you are the owner, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to behave as a troublemaker in charge. Keep going, be happy. I will also discard plans for my next thread: "Reading someone else’s notes on the green shouldn’t be considered getting advice?" Marcel White

Hi, With all due respect I have to say that I don’t agree with you in some points. you take a cone and take a slice of it, at any angle First, the slice must be cut with a plane. Second, if the plane is perpendicular to the axis of the cone you get a circumference, if it is oblique you get an ellipse and only if it is parallel to just one generatrix you get a parabola. Parabolas also have an axis of symmetry, meaning that a parabolas will look identical on the other side Yes, but the same way you say "a straight line" meaning a segment of a straight line you can also say "parabola" meaning a segment of a parabola. And if you take that segment very far from the apex you have almost a piece of a straight line, if you take it close to the apex it breaks a lot and if you take a piece that crosses the apex you have a segment that starts ascending and finishes descending. and to aim at the apex of a parabolas is foolish . Yes, but I’m afraid there are no fools here because no one mentioned that before you did. I said that "This gives me an aim point because I use the concept of tangent at start." This means that my aim point is such that, with the ball, it defines a straight line that is tangent to the anticipated trajectory at the point where it starts. I could give some examples and show some pictures but references to my ebook are forbidden here. MW

Hi Fourputt, I basically agree with you in several points. Let me just add a few details: most of the curve occurring as the ball slows down Yes, as forward momentum decreases the relative importance of gravity increases. I have an animated video showing that but it would be considered promotional. We could clearly see how his putts broke by the tracks in the dew for the first 6 or 7 holes Dew increases friction and the bigger friction is the farther away we are of perfect parabola segments. Add in a double break and there is nothing even resembling a parabola If there is double break we have 2 different planes and the transition between them. Parabolas are curves that exist in planar surfaces not in this situation you mention. The only way you really get something like a parabola is if you are putting almost straight up a steep slope with the intent of having the ball come back down about the same distance, and even then it isn't a true parabola, as the ball will tend to follow straight down the fall line as gravity accelerates it down the hill . Parabolas, like straight lines, for example, are geometric concepts without a beginning and an end. When we talk about parabolas in golf putting we mean "parabola segments" that, depending on slope and the fact that the putts are uphill or downhill, are in different positions relative to the parabola’s apex. That’s the knowledge about this that is important to anticipate the shape of the ball track. (I’m) just an observer I would say an acute observer with insightful thoughts. MW

Quote: I'm pretty sure the dimples don't really affect putting... Dave Pelz says they do (pages 209-211 of my edition). Now I have a problem: Shall I trust him or shall I trust you? Quote: If the way you read greens is based on that assumption ......... ... The way I read greens isn’t based in any assumption. I read to find two things: If that putt goes up or down and how much. What is the direction of the fall line for that putt. Then, using the background that is in my head and without any external assistance, I try to anticipate the shape of the ball track for that putt. This gives me an aim point because I use the concept of tangent at start. I know that the line is not a perfect parabola segment but I know also that parabolas provide a fair estimate. There are adjustments that can be made based on green speed and how aggressive the player is. Quote: 3. I don't think it "works," if it assumes that putts break anything like a parabola I still don’t know why you joined this thread. I started it inviting people to test a tip I found in an article, written by someone else, about the role of the dominant eye in green reading. If the eyes are not the main tools you use to read greens why did you step in? Why did you suggest the use of the feet for that purpose? It was not a contest to find the best way to read putts. I was just trying to discover if other golfers find it effective or not. Your answer nr 3 shows you were a bit absent-minded when you read my first post. MW

Thanks MiniBlueDragon, your questions are very interesting. Parabolas are theoretical lines that only exist in flat surfaces (planes). This excludes crowns and saddles. Friction makes it impossible for any object to follow a perfect parabola. But, understanding parabolas and how to work with them is the key when the hole is in the middle of an almost flat sloping zone which, unlike crowns and saddles, is a very common situation. We don’t need perfect shapes to use some theory. Golf ball is not a sphere but we treat it as if it was. And if we have a green that is flat and level we consider that the ball will follow a straight line but we know it won’t be a perfect straight line. Thanks to you also, Iacas, for the opportunity to say this: I started the thread with no idea of selling anything. I didn’t invent the tip of the "shooting sports instructor", just discovered it. Go to ********, it’s there. I tested it and invited others to do the same because if it works I’d be glad to share. I don’t feel humiliated if I have to squat down and look from both sides to read my putts because I see all the time, on TV, Tour Pros doing the same. MW

Thanks for your contributions. 1 st Quoting Greg Norman is very impressive but doesn’t explain why his system is not very popular on PGA Tour. Does anyone now do what he says? 2 nd I wrote my thread to all those who need to read putts from both sides with the dominant eye wide open. If someone is blessed with the ability to do it with the feet, please ignore my thread. 3 rd I just invited people to test that tip I got from someone else and that seems to work. If it proves to be good I just want to share. 4 th My approach to breaking putts is based on the understanding of the behaviour of the ball on sloping greens and shapes of the ball tracks (parabolas). I don’t need to carry a book in my pocket to make a putt. 5 th Being so assertive about typos and grammar errors seems to reflect the idea that US English is the only English on the planet. But if there are some, I regret and apologise. MW

It's hard to believe you wrote that. I was addressing "all those who seriously read greens before putting" and never seen a golf pro reading greens with feet.

Thanks for your question. I tried to be concise but perhaps I tried too much and the result wasn’t clear enough. Golfers who read putts usually observe from behind the hole and also from behind the ball. This tip says that for right eye dominant players, putts that roll from left to right should be read from the opposite side of the hole. Putts that break from right to left should be read from behind the ball or, as I said, the dominant eye needs to be on the uphill side of the break while reading. This is very important when break is small, both readings seem to conflict and whatever the decision you make your brain is not 100% committed while you putt.

Hi all! I write about breaking putts and putting lines and I try to check everything relevant that is published concerning my niche. Recently a golfer that claims to be also "a shooting sports instructor" posted an article about the dominant’s eye role in green reading and said that " the dominant eye needs to be on the uphill side of the break", that is, sometimes reading from behind the ball and others from behind the hole. I never heard that and don’t understand why it could be true but I tested the concept and it seems to work fine. I invite all those who seriously read greens before putting to also test this tip and give feedback because if it proves to be true, it’s a gem that has to be shared. Marcel White

Address and then move the putter head up, just a little bit, before you start the backswing. Marcel White

Quote: What is Tiger doing here? The discussion is about long putters, not long putts. MW

Quote: There are Reeso putters 54" long. Marcel White

Hi everybody! This is my first post and I’ll try not to start with a "whiff", or "fresh air" as Europeans say. I read all the previous posts and with all due respect to all of you that know more about golf than I do, I think that this discussion is not about new technology, materials or design. Not even about back pain, yips, or stuff like that. This is about golf authorities decision, triggered by long putters, to spin off the "putting unit" by means of a different set of rules that created a new game: Putting. This new game is now separated from the rest of golf. Limits for club length are different for both games. Golf swing for putting is hardly acceptable under classic golf standards. It’s also unclear if long putts are allowed to determine a club length for purpose of relief under the rules. And I’m sure more changes will come. Just imagine that a tall strong guy (cylinder, 6.5 ft, 200 lbs.) decides to tee the ball and use a long putter to make a "putt" 400 yds long. After that you’ll see a new rule: putter usage restricted to the green area. To me, if the putters are anchored to players' bodies during the stroke this has to be considered as using a putting aid . No more, no less! It’s hard to believe that the same ruling body that allowed long putters, changed the grooves shape to avoid golf to become too easy. Perhaps golf is being ruled by a bunch of lousy putters. Marcel White