Jump to content
IGNORED

"The Short Game Bible" by Dave Pelz


iacas
 Share

Note: This thread is 1329 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
i bought it and read it.

I'd agree with that. I took one thing from the book: the 3x4 wedge system. Three wedges, four swings with each, covers all my carry yardages from 25 yards to 115 yards pretty evenly.

I didn't pay attention to the rest of the book, but the rest of the book struck me as: Here's a unique short game shot, and here's how to play it. Repeat 25 times. I don't know about you, but I don't want to try to memorize 25 different kinds of shots. I'll stick with the Stan Utley style I've recently adopted for those.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'd agree with that. I took one thing from the book: the 3x4 wedge system. Three wedges, four swings with each, covers all my carry yardages from 25 yards to 115 yards pretty evenly.

agree with most of the above, the approach to the short game is a bit spastic, with lots of different shots all over the place. I still like the book overall. I would compare it to a good cookbook. You may not use all of the shots (recipes), but it is a great reference guide if you ever need it for the basics. I will still go back to it ever now and then in case I am have trouble with an aspect of my short game (sand shots, chipping, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It was the most expensive book I have bought in a while and I think a lot of it was too technical but the best idea in it was the 3x4 wedge system as others have mentioned as well. Personaly I think 4 wedges it too many but the clocking idea is great. Now I just need the time to practise my clocked swings more to get more accurate distances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'd agree with that. I took one thing from the book: the 3x4 wedge system. Three wedges, four swings with each, covers all my carry yardages from 25 yards to 115 yards pretty evenly.

That's pretty much my take on this book as well. Though I did find some of the discussions of how the ball will react to different types of greens, slopes, etc. interesting, it was all pretty much common sense. Really no reason to pay for this book since the 3x4 system is so universally known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


That's pretty much my take on this book as well. Though I did find some of the discussions of how the ball will react to different types of greens, slopes, etc. interesting,

I guess you guys in Tennessee are the smart ones.

I've always heard from golfers and read in Pelz's Bible that for putts, chip, or pitch shots, the ball's path is more accurate when rolling versus bouncing. But I never understood why until I read his book. Before, I used the 56° pitching wedge for all of my short game shots under 100 yards. Recently though, I've started to add in the some additional irons (from 6i up to the 56°W) on my chips in order to get the ball to roll sooner. I agree that his book may be a little long, repetitive, and technical. But committing to and adapting some of his ideas may shave off a couple strokes per round.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think one of the books' strengths is the discussion of the non-swing technical stuff like how ball loft can affect roll or bounce on clubs. Of course none of this info is any good if you don't practice or play with these things in mind. There is something in the book for everyone and I still refer to parts of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


IMHO, a common trait to all of Pelz's books is his tendency to take a good idea founded on sound scientific theory and data collection, and then pad out the discussion of said idea so that what could have been a 50 page book becomes a 350 page one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


IMHO, a common trait to all of Pelz's books is his tendency to take a good idea founded on sound scientific theory and data collection, and then pad out the discussion of said idea so that what could have been a 50 page book becomes a 350 page one.

Well said. I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well said. I agree.

+1

Fluff makes up 40% of his books. The concept of analysis of professionals, his history in NASA, blah Blah Blah. The main value is the concept of mapping out your distances based upon the backswing and 4 wedges. I have 3 wedges: PW, SW, LW. If I went with one more, I would have done a GW not the 64 degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


While I've only read selected chapters so far, I've learned a great deal from this book. I have gained tremendous confidence and feel using his pitch shot technique. Not just distance control with the clock, 3x4, etc. but simply the fundementals. I've followed his tuition on setup, ball placement, rotation, backswing, throughswing, the 'world-class finish', etc., etc and can honestly say, my pitching is immesureably better. Of course I've spent hours practicing and developing the stroke, but it has all stemmed from Pelz's book.

Sure, it's written by a scientist and is very technical and dull in parts -- but it's worked well for me.

//Anand
Link to comment
Share on other sites


As I have been re-learning the game as an adult, the inner science geek in me appreciates the physics behind the system. I understand better what I am supposed to be doing because it makes sense (to me).

The Pelz short game book has helped my game from inside 100 yards, but like anything, it takes committed practice. I'm not completely dialed in at every distance, but there are definitely some distances that I have complete confidence in, like 30, and 50 yards. But that has come from hours at the range and hundreds of balls at very specific targets. And clearly I still need more practice.

Admittedly I can be exceptionally motivated/obsessed with achieving a goal. While working on my 3/4 1/2 and 1/4 swings I was averaging at least 300 balls for each short game practice session. Good thing my local range has an "early bird all you can hit" deal.

But I can see how someone who is more of a feel player would be annoyed with how technical Pelz's writing and system is. I think it's too much book to read all at once.

Too many voices in my head vying for my attention.

Like the lessons many of us take with golf pros, nothing will come of your new knowledge unless you practice a lot. After enough work, hopefully what you have learned becomes second nature and you will overflow with confidence that you can play the shot you want, when you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I plug the book whenever I can. some people dont like it because he includes his history and spends a good amount of time explaining why you should take his advice...however...i feel what he says works. I noticed improvements in my pitching and chipping right away the next day, and i've been improving very much in my wedge play.

i highly recommend it
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I like the book a lot. It tells you techniques and basics and goes above and beyond to explain why they work or why flaws don't work. I don't believe in a 4 wedge system because the set of clubs I take depends on the course and usually I never find a course that is designed where I really need 4 wedges.

As far as the different type of shots, it's a bit too much to learn at once, but you can learn them over time and it's always useful to at least know how to hit certain shots.




3JACK
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I actually stumbled upon this book when i first started playing golf 4 months ago. Coming from a tech background, I actually enjoyed the statistical information provided by the book as well as the repetitiveness of the concepts through each chapter to help reinforce the concepts.

I really immersed myself in the "3x4" wedge system and actually gone out and purchased four wedges. It may seem counter-intuitive for a newb to throw four wedges in his bag, but I think it has actually helped me to focus my energy on my short game. After four months of play (6-8 times a month) I actually am hitting a constant 101 to 105 and usually on track to break a 100 but due to nerves and being tired, I screw up on the last few holes.

The book provides good direction for all golfers, but I think the following takeaways have helped me tremendously:

1. Know the distances you hit with each club and be honest with yourself about it. I am not a long distance hitter. I hit my 9i 110 yards and increment 10 yards for each iron there after. But I know the exact distance each club goes and thats the club I play when I am far away from the cup.

2. Using the 3x4 systems helps to create 12 known distances (like having 12 more clubs in your bag) based off of the 3 constant swings and the 4 different wedges. Writing these down and marking my clubs accordingly helps me to hit the green the majority of the time when I am within 100 yards out.

There is a lot of info in this book and find myself constantly going back to reread certain concepts. Just my two cent....
Link to comment
Share on other sites


All i know is that my short game is sh-t, if i'm hitting full shots thats easy enough like full shot, pitch, flop etc. But when it comes down to putting and chipping im hopeless, i'll make a fair few putts, but i'll miss a few that i think that i should hole, with chipping now i just get out 9iron or 8iron and just bump and run constantley, its a bit better than my chipping with my 56* or 52*.

Practice, thats what i need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 1329 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!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Cost and time.   THanks..have to give it a try..just trying to get back into my set without investing $$ for the time being..TY!
    • From yesterday's round. Approach to the green was a little long, and my ball was sitting on the back fringe. Large pile of coyote shit between the hole and my ball. The putt was right to left breaking so luckily my line was maybe 2-3 feet to the right of the turd, and there wasn't much chance of rolling into it, unless I hit a terribly offline putt, or got unlucky with a deflection off a bump in the fringe (which is quite beat up where my ball came to rest).
    • You're not supposed to change your vote. 😛 The problem with that is that the "shotgun pattern" doesn't account for the putts that go in. Yes, the distributions of both get larger. Bobby should have studied probability more. A putt going toward the hole, if mis-directed, can go left or right. Both result in a miss. A putt that is missing the hole, if mis-directed, can go left or right. One may result in a make, the other is still a miss. Bumps (if large enough to deflect the ball a little over an inch or so, and if close enough to the hole for a miss to become a make) have a negative outcome 100% of the time when the ball is going in, and a positive outcome 50% of the time when the ball is going to miss. Or to put it in absolute terms, every bump on a ball that would be going in the middle has a negative outcome - it steers the ball farther away from the center of the hole, and every bump that steers the ball on a putt that's missing has a 50% chance of "helping" by steering it in the right direction. Nope. You can join Bobby Jones in the statistics/probability class. 🙂 These bumps aren't knocking the ball feet farther away. They're not tees randomly stuck in the ground. They're just bumps on a putting green. That's the kind of road you can lead yourself down when you don't just look at it logically. 😄 To the majority of you getting this one wrong… Let's make an extreme example. You have one putter that makes 80% of his putts, and another that makes 50%. The gap is 30% or 0.3 strokes (1.2 versus 1.5). You introduce enough randomness that 25% of the putts that were going to go in miss and 5% of the putts that were going to miss go in. The gap is now: 0.8 * .75 + 0.2 * .05 = 61%. 0.5 * .75 + 0.5 * .05 = 40% What was a 30% gap is now a 19% gap. The gap narrows. The good putter is punished, even though he's punished at the same "rates" as the bad putter, at a higher "value" because he hits more putts that would have gone in, while the bad putter hits more putts that could potentially only be directed in. To put it another way, there's a larger possible "negative" adjustment or change for the good putter and a larger possible "positive" adjustment or change for the bad putter. This is true in pretty much* all cases: the more luck plays a role, the less skill plays a role. * I'm a "never say never or always" kinda guy. I can't think of a time when an increase in randomness or luck also increases or at least doesn't reduce skill, but again… see the first sentence here in this asterisk.
    • Why? On 40 foot putts, they both don’t have much of a chance.  It’s the putts inside 15 feet that have the highest Separation Value.  So if a great putter makes 5 of 10 putts at 8 feet (tour average) on tour greens and he missed 1 or 2 more on crappy greens, his percentage changes more. The bad putter is missing more of those anyway, even on good greens.
    • Right. I think you could make the case that for a single longer putt (40 feet? 50 feet?) the greens would hurt a mediocre putter more and widen the gap. Because speed is such an important variable, and the mediocre putter is more likely to miss the sweet spot, hit a putt with sidespin, or do any number of things to increase the impact of imperfections on the greens. But at the end of the day, those long putts become short or mid-range putts and I think the net effect hurts the good putter more when everything is combined together.  
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. AmirReza
      AmirReza
      (34 years old)
    2. BushwoodCC
      BushwoodCC
      (55 years old)
    3. cozelos
      cozelos
      (36 years old)
    4. RollingStoppie
      RollingStoppie
      (52 years old)

×
×
  • 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...