Pelz Bibles

[g-funk13]

I got Pelz's Short Game Bible and loved it. That book opened up the world of shots inside 100 yds to me. I refer to it regularly.

HOWEVER, I just picked up the Putting Bible , and after 30 min of reading I am ready to put it away forever.

My first problem is that he was marketing his putting tools in the first chapter. My second is that he mentioned twice in the first 2 chapters that Tiger's putting needs improvement, while holding up Mickelson up as a positive example. I like both players and their game, but that sure seems like, "my student is better" favoritism.

I just get this feeling like it might be a chash in off the excellent Short Game Bible , with more BS and less goods.

Any thoughts?

[CPHoya]

You're not going to find too many Putting Bible fans here, I don't think, because after numerous repeated threads it appears that most people here tend to believe that Pelz is simply totally wrong in Putting Bible.

I won't get into it any more than that.

For what it's worth, I think Short Game Bible is infinitely more valuable than Putting Bible.

[joshtpa]

I agree with you. I thought the putting bible made less sense than any other putting thing I have ever read. It also seemed a little like an infomercial.

[BASHERBAKER69]

I got Pelz's

I actually prefer Phil's technique to Tigers although no one can doubt that Tiger holds more putts. Phil is too aggressive and gets yippy under pressure, something that Tiger hardly does.

[Neil]

I worked at the pelz putting technique for quite some time and found it ackward.

Recently I bought a 'Yes True Putt' putting rail with helps create an 'inside to square to inside stroke' (like Tiger's). I've not been using it long but it feels better to me.

I agree however that the Short Game Bible is a superb book.

[drewman02ths]

I have just started stan utley's putting book. It is only 100 pages and I have made it through half of it. All you need to cover is grip, alignment, and swing so I don't think you need a book longer than his. I worked on the grip all night and I am excited to try out the new mechanics tonight after work. Has anyone else read it. So far I am very pleased with it. He turned sergio into the players champion so hopefully he will help my game too.

PS Gfunk I am from louisville too. Anyone else on here from louisville?

[Harold]

The copyright date in my book is 2000 so the comments are likely 8+ years old. I think for understanding some of the non-swing science in putting it's a great book. I also believe that putting is entirely an individual thing and if you get results with a split claw grip balancing on one foot with a zig zag swing than ignore Pelz' advice.

[rogerhuang]

+1.

No argument here. I still can't believe how many pages the Putting Bible has, yet it has so little to really say (vs the Short Game Bible). I thought I was the only one who felt this way about the Putting Bible. Glad to see that I'm not.

I got Pelz's

[g-funk13]

Thanks guys.

[MrSandman]

Short Game Bible is a GREAT book that I recommend to everybody.

Putting Bible, well, I haven't made it too far in that book, and I don't think I ever will. Was not a fan of the few chapters I read.

[iacas]

You're not going to find too many Putting Bible fans here, I don't think, because after numerous repeated threads it appears that most people here tend to believe that Pelz is simply totally wrong in Putting Bible.

Indeed. I believe fiercely (that's what CP's getting at

) that the Pelz "square to square" method is a horrible, horrible way to putt for 99% of golfers. I think that even Dave Pelz has realized that. Most everything he talks about in regards to putting lately is "non-stroke-related" stuff, like "amateurs don't read enough break" or things like that, and even then, he doesn't talk about putting much, but seems to focus more on short-game stuff. I found it silly that he would compare Phil to Tiger, as Phil uses a very obvious arc stroke, not a square-to-square stroke, just like Tiger.

I got Pelz's

I recommend the Short Game Bible to a lot of people, but primarily for the whole "wedge system" thing. Mine's a 3x4 - 3 wedges, 4 swing lengths.

That's all I got out of the short game book, but it was plenty. I prefer Stan Utley's approach to the short game: it's simpler (three basic shots) and you don't have to memorize a bunch of stuff for various types of shots. If I have a shot that doesn't fit one of the "Utley Three," I go by feel - and I developed a lot of that feel hitting wedges around my back yard when I was younger. Oddly, I don't really care for the "wristier" approach Stan Utley takes to putting. So my short game and putting is: Wedge Game: Pelz Short Game (chip, pitch, bunker): Utley Putting: Shoulder rock, non-moving wrists, arc stroke (definitely not Pelz, but not quite Utley either with the non-moving wrists).

[rogerhuang]

+1. Well said!

Indeed. I believe fiercely (that's what CP's getting at