Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

"The Short Game Bible" by Dave Pelz


Recommended Posts

Posted
On ‎02‎/‎26‎/‎2012 at 6:37 PM, Wingover718 said:

I was a little suprised to see Pelz book get torn apart on here. I felt like I learned a great deal from the book. I liked the technical discussion and approach to each of the various shots. Having never taken a bunker lesson I got a great deal from his scoot and slide discussion. I can't say I use each of the shots discussed regularly, but it was easy to discern the meat and potatoes and the stuff to skim through. I still use the 3 x 4 method though I do find the 9 o'clock position is always my best shot so I often rely upon those distances and put the differences. Having only had a limited amount of instruction prior to reading the book I thought it was well worth the thirty something bucks. Thats way cheaper than most lessons. And unlike thoughts from a lesson I have the book on my shelf to go back to for reference on days when I can't play, but wish I was.

Read a couple of pages this morning, the section which discusses club sets being sold and in his opinion the male ego driving those configurations. At my handicap, (and I'm probably in the cohort  of hackers that buy these sets) I tend to agree with industry's  lack of emphasis on the short game. IMHO golf is not Taylor Made's next M!/M2

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 10 months later...
Posted

Just finished reading TSGB for the second time. Really like the comments around having a better chance to improve scoring by reducing the bad shots/poor rather than increasing birdies. 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 6 years later...
Posted

I've read the Short Game Bible once fully and I'm on my 2nd read now.

Everyone in here seems to think that the beginning was fluff, but I disagree.

I think it was really interesting hearing how important wedge game is, and being able to get inside 2-10 feet due to the putt conversion chart. In his analysis he said that with irons you want to worry more about direction (left or right) and with wedges you worry more about distance control, since direction is easier to attain with a wedge.

Basically saying if you want to get good at golf, hit your irons straighter and control your distances with your wedges better.

I also thought him talking about error dispersion was extremely interesting also, essentially the way this works is due to percentages.

He said if you took the best ball striker he measured (Lee Trevino), and Lee hit a 4 iron from 200 yards that had a low error percentage of 5% (That's going to be a 10 yard error, (10 yards from flag)).

Due to the putting conversion chart, every foot inside of 10 feet, the chance of making the putt go up considerably, but every putt outside of 10-11 ft, the chance of making the putt is roughly the same.

So 10 yards = 30 feet.

Lee has a 30 foot putt.

Now if you take another player, who Lee is playing against, and they have a 10% error margin. So they hit that same 200 yard 4 iron to 20 yards, so 20 x 3 = 60 feet.

Basically both Lee and the player he's playing against will likely walk off with a par.

Now, where this gets interesting is the closer you get to the hole, the more these percentages matter.

If you hit a wedge from 50 yards with a 7% error margin, that leaves you with a 3.5 yard putt (10.5 feet), if you hit a wedge from 50 yards with a 10% error margin that leaves you with 15 feet.

Now to explain the other 3 images I've attached,

Basically hitting up uphill into the green = More roll out


Down hill into a green = Less roll out

Landing the ball on a downward or uphill slope, the trajectory the ball bounces off the slope is double the slop angle.

Landing the ball in dips = allow high margin for error, because of the way the ball bounces off the dip.

Landing the ball on a hump = very low margin for error, due to how the ball bounces off the slope. Downward slopes get their slope doubled, so the ball shoots hard off the down slope. The uphill slope will make the ball come up way short.

I've also used this dip theory a lot, if I have a tough green to work with, I'll sometimes target landing in a dip because they're forgiving.

Then of course, with Pelz there's the 3x4 wedge system (7:30, 9:00, 10:30) which we all know (and personally I really like it, helps a lot with my distances control.

firefox_yBxZp2twBm.png

firefox_bQ7E7qorTF.png

firefox_1afcHf9vsX.png

firefox_ZnG0yY8S9x.png

  • Thumbs Up 1

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • 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.