Jump to content
Subscribe to 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

    • Day 24 (4 Dec 25) - Spent about an hour working with the new 55° wedge in the backyard.  Kept all shots to under 20yds.  Big focus - not decelerating thru downswing and keeping speed up with abbreviated backswing.  Nothing like hitting a low flighted chip with plenty of check spin and then purpose to float a pitch of similar distance.  
    • Day 114 12-4 Put some work in on backswing, moving the hips correctly, then feeling over to lead side. Didn't hit any balls was just focused on keeping flowy and moving better. I'll probably do another session tonight and add in some foam balls.
    • Didn't say anything about your understanding in my post.  Well, if you are not insisting on alignment with logic of the WHS, then no.  Try me/us. What do you want from us then?? You are not making sense. You come here and post in an open forum, question a system that is constructed with logic, without using any of your own and then give us a small window of your personal experience to support your narrative which at first sight does not makes sense.  I mean, if you are a point of swearing then I would suggest you cut your losses and humor a more gullible audience elsewhere. Good heavens.
    • I have access to far more data (including surveys and polls) than you do with your anecdotes. I mean this as plainly and literally as possible: you’ve demonstrated that you do not. They would, one way or the other.
    • Yes, but you don't live in the UK, so you have no idea what we think about it here. It's a very different mindset here, to demonstrate the fact you should consider 9 out of 10 games we play here are Stableford, whereas you you almost solely play medal. Neither is right or wrong, it's just different  I'm trying to avoid swearing here. Once again, and for the 1000th time, I understand the system, I just don't agree with it. Is there anything wrong with that? PS, I do not have the time or patience to post my results, especially as they prove nothing  That's because 99% of the posters are Yanks
×
×
  • 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.