"The Putting Bible" by Dave Pelz

[iacas]

Originally Posted by minitour

When you talk over my head all I hear is "blah-de-blah-de-blah-blah".

If your back is horizontal, specifically the part between your shoulder blades, you can swing a putter SBST without manipulation. In virtually every other situation it requires manipulation.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by iacas

If your back is horizontal, specifically the part between your shoulder blades, you can swing a putter SBST without manipulation. In virtually every other situation it requires manipulation.

How much fun does this look like?

[Stretch]

For whom?

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

How much fun does this look like?

Originally Posted by iacas

If your back is horizontal, specifically the part between your shoulder blades, you can swing a putter SBST without manipulation. In virtually every other situation it requires manipulation.

Obviously not what Erik is talking about, like he said, shoulder blades, top of the spine horizontal

[Ernest Jones]

For whom? ;-)

:-D [quote name="mvmac" url="/t/15731/the-putting-bible-by-dave-pelz/0_100#post_850477"] Obviously not what Erik is talking about, like he said, shoulder blades, top of the spine horizontal [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/76158/] [/URL] [/quote] I was joking. :-)

[minitour]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

When you talk over my head all I hear is "blah-de-blah-de-blah-blah".

If your back is horizontal, specifically the part between your shoulder blades, you can swing a putter SBST without manipulation. In virtually every other situation it requires manipulation.

Thank you.  That makes much more sense.

Now, you're going to argue that in spite of Pelz' (a former NASA scientist) research and evidence (and don't forget Perfy!) to the contrary?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by minitour

Thank you.  That makes much more sense.

Now, you're going to argue that in spite of Pelz' (a former NASA scientist) research and evidence (and don't forget Perfy!) to the contrary?

It's not like it would be a very long argument - he's wrong. If you turn anything on a tilted plane (i.e. a plane that's not vertical), the putter head will move in an arc.

It's telling that Phil Mickelson (pretty much his only student) doesn't even putt SBST. Basic geometry, basic anatomy.

P.S. Pelz has a four-year degree in the sciences (physics). I've got two.

[boil3rmak3r]

If your back is horizontal, specifically the part between your shoulder blades, you can swing a putter SBST without manipulation. In virtually every other situation it requires manipulation.

I think most manipulate the putter when they make a stroke. Consider a 40' uphiller that needs to be struck hard just to get the ball to the hole. If a putter locks his arms to his body and simply rotated his shoulders perpendicular to his spine angle (assuming they aren't bent horizontally to the ground), the path of that putter would move on a fairly big arc (a bigger arc than I've ever seen someone have). So I'm not sure how valid your argument is. I believe we already manipulate how our shoulders are rotating. How many tour players have you seen putting while standing fairly erect? Some do. If they simply rotated their shoulders around their spine angle, their strokes would look horrible. If that's true, why not try to make your shoulder turn one that tries to achieve sbst?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

If that's true, why not try to make your shoulder turn one that tries to achieve sbst?

Go for it. Report back. :) Simply put, you're overstating how many manipulations are needed to putt with a non-horizontal shoulder area.

I don't know to what end this discussion is going. Virtually nobody in the world putts SBST on putts over 15 feet (strokes shorter than that are sometimes difficult to tell if they arc or not). The simple anatomy and geometry seem to explain why that's the case. We have both empirical and theoretical evidence as to why SBST doesn't "work" out "in the wild."

How much of an angle do you see here? I'm standing up pretty tall, yet that part of my back is roughly 25° or so from horizontal:

That's going to create a relatively "steep" shoulder turn and plane angle, and thus a relatively shallow arc (as seen on the right).

[minitour]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

Thank you.  That makes much more sense.

Now, you're going to argue that in spite of Pelz' (a former NASA scientist) research and evidence (and don't forget Perfy!) to the contrary?

It's not like it would be a very long argument - he's wrong. If you turn anything on a tilted plane (i.e. a plane that's not vertical), the putter head will move in an arc.

It's telling that Phil Mickelson (pretty much his only student) doesn't even putt SBST. Basic geometry, basic anatomy.

P.S. Pelz has a four-year degree in the sciences (physics). I've got two.

You're going to ignore "Perfy" demonstrating the method?

In addition to the piles of evidence Pelz accumulated over his years of studying, measuring and testing the theory.

Back to my original question/point: You have some sort of scientific evidence that the method causes back pains/issues, or is this like those (myself included for the longest time - until I tried it) that thought S&T; would destroy your back?

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by minitour

You're going to ignore "Perfy" demonstrating the method?

In addition to the piles of evidence Pelz accumulated over his years of studying, measuring and testing the theory.

Originally Posted by iacas

It's not like it would be a very long argument - he's wrong. If you turn anything on a tilted plane (i.e. a plane that's not vertical), the putter head will move in an arc.

It's telling that Phil Mickelson (pretty much his only student) doesn't even putt SBST. Basic geometry, basic anatomy.

P.S. Pelz has a four-year degree in the sciences (physics). I've got two.

Minitour, can't tell if you're joking or not but Erik is 100% correct, this isn't an opinion, just the way it is.

I can see in "theory", how a straight back and straight through might sound the most simple but it's actually the most difficult. When golfers try to make a “straight back straight through” stroke, they are trying to keep the face square to and along the target line at all times in the stroke. This would mean closing the face on the backstroke (to keep the face pointing at the target) and then opening it on the downstroke into the follow through.  You would also have to move it "off plane" so the clubhead can trace a straight line.  In order to accomplish this,would have to constantly be changing the alignments in the wrists, elbows, and shoulders throughout the entire motion.  This stroke is a highly erratic stroke and you start to screw up your face to path relationship as well as the dynamic loft of the putter.

Pelz can do all the research he wants, he's wrong, anyone that designs a golf club can tell you that as well as the leading putting gurus in the world.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

You're going to ignore "Perfy" demonstrating the method?

In addition to the piles of evidence Pelz accumulated over his years of studying, measuring and testing the theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

It's not like it would be a very long argument - he's wrong. If you turn anything on a tilted plane (i.e. a plane that's not vertical), the putter head will move in an arc.

It's telling that Phil Mickelson (pretty much his only student) doesn't even putt SBST. Basic geometry, basic anatomy.

P.S. Pelz has a four-year degree in the sciences (physics). I've got two.

Minitour, can't tell if you're joking or not but Erik is 100% correct, this isn't an opinion, just the way it is.

I can see in "theory", how a straight back and straight through might sound the most simple but it's actually the most difficult. When golfers try to make a “straight back straight through” stroke, they are trying to keep the face square to and along the target line at all times in the stroke. This would mean closing the face on the backstroke (to keep the face pointing at the target) and then opening it on the downstroke into the follow through.  You would also have to move it "off plane" so the clubhead can trace a straight line.  In order to accomplish this,would have to constantly be changing the alignments in the wrists, elbows, and shoulders throughout the entire motion.  This stroke is a highly erratic stroke and you start to screw up your face to path relationship as well as the dynamic loft of the putter.

Pelz can do all the research he wants, he's wrong, anyone that designs a golf club can tell you that as well as the leading putting gurus in the world.

Okay so Pelz is wrong.

....and Perfy just manipulated the putter to make it work?

And I'd still like to know how it would give you "back problems".  Anybody?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by minitour

You're going to ignore "Perfy" demonstrating the method?

No. See below. I thought you were joking. The flaws with Perfy struck me as somewhat obvious - you can put an axle in any orientation you want. Pelz chose to put it in vertically.

Originally Posted by minitour

In addition to the piles of evidence Pelz accumulated over his years of studying, measuring and testing the theory.

I've never seen a compelling piece of "evidence" why someone should putt SBST, including EVERY PGA Tour player not putting SBST.

Originally Posted by minitour

Back to my original question/point: You have some sort of scientific evidence that the method causes back pains/issues, or is this like those (myself included for the longest time - until I tried it) that thought S&T; would destroy your back?

Please quote better, or make clearer to whom you're talking, as neither Mike nor I said that.

Originally Posted by mvmac

I can see in "theory", how a straight back and straight through might sound the most simple but it's actually the most difficult. When golfers try to make a “straight back straight through” stroke, they are trying to keep the face square to and along the target line at all times in the stroke. This would mean closing the face on the backstroke (to keep the face pointing at the target) and then opening it on the downstroke into the follow through.  You would also have to move it "off plane" so the clubhead can trace a straight line.  In order to accomplish this,would have to constantly be changing the alignments in the wrists, elbows, and shoulders throughout the entire motion.  This stroke is a highly erratic stroke and you start to screw up your face to path relationship as well as the dynamic loft of the putter.

That's about the same thing I've typed a few times (perhaps better stated or more succinctly stated). QFT.

Originally Posted by minitour

....and Perfy just manipulated the putter to make it work?

I could build a mechanical device that swings the putter on whatever angle I wanted to swing it on. Perfy's axle was oriented vertically, so he swung SBST. Since Perfy was just a robot, he could have easily oriented the axle to be on whatever angle he wanted and if he aligned the face at setup, Perfy would be just as good putting with an arc stroke as with the SBST method.

Originally Posted by minitour

And I'd still like to know how it would give you "back problems".  Anybody?

I don't know. I never said that.

[boil3rmak3r]

Originally Posted by iacas

P.S. Pelz has a four-year degree in the sciences (physics). I've got two.

I don't have one or even two physics degrees, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I am a novice when it comes to all this technical putting stuff, so I am just trying to learn as much as I can.  To be honest, I read this book and have had great success in going back to a short putter.  I'm not sure I've developed a sbst stroke, but I do know that I have never conciously manipulated my putter with my hands.

I'm curious what others think about one of the drills in the book.  It's the one where you take your putting stance inside a door frame.  You place an alignment rod across your shoulders and make the rod only an inch or so away from the wall on either side of the door frame.  From that position, make a shoulder turn as if you were putting.  His theory is that if you can keep either end of the alignment rod from hitting the wall, you are keeping your shoulders square to the line and, therefore, the path and putter face will also stay square.  When I do this with a putter, it seems to work without manipulation from the hands...

[minitour]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Unless you're using a very, very short putter (See Robert Garrigus) and crave back problems, I believe Pelz SBST requires manipulation with your hands to maintain SBST.

Originally Posted by minitour

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Unless you're using a very, very short putter (See Robert Garrigus) and crave back problems, I believe Pelz SBST requires manipulation with your hands to maintain SBST.

Is this based on science, or is this like everyone (myself included) who thought that S&T; would cause massive back problems?

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

Is this based on science, or is this like everyone (myself included) who thought that S&T; would cause massive back problems?

Just a basic understanding of the plane of rotation. You could go SBST with your upper back horizontal to the ground.

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

Back to my original question/point: You have some sort of scientific evidence that the method causes back pains/issues, or is this like those (myself included for the longest time - until I tried it) that thought S&T; would destroy your back?

Please quote better, or make clearer to whom you're talking, as neither Mike nor I said that.

It was my first question...which you responded to.  And then we got off of that topic and actually discussed the "PILS" stroke (Pelz' term, not mine - Pure In Line Square).  I want to know where the "back problems" discussion started.

To be clear,I could care not whether you put with an anchored putter, "sbst"/"PILZ", or with some kind of arc.  Just keep the pace moving...that's all I ask of fellow-golfers.

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

I'm curious what others think about one of the drills in the book.  It's the one where you take your putting stance inside a door frame.  You place an alignment rod across your shoulders and make the rod only an inch or so away from the wall on either side of the door frame.  From that position, make a shoulder turn as if you were putting.  His theory is that if you can keep either end of the alignment rod from hitting the wall, you are keeping your shoulders square to the line and, therefore, the path and putter face will also stay square.  When I do this with a putter, it seems to work without manipulation from the hands...

Seemed to work for me all through junior golf (when I played, and putted my best).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by minitour

It was my first question...which you responded to.

No, sorry - I never responded to the "back problems" stuff. Mr. Desmond did. I did not. I responded to the "science" part and ignored the back problems stuff (both in putting and your full swing misconceptions).

[minitour]

So...ANYBODY...

Back problems!?  And not just some anecdotal "Oh my father's brother's cousin's league manager's friend's nephew's former roommate had back problems after putting with the Pelz method" either.  I want hard facts.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by minitour

So...ANYBODY...

Back problems!?  And not just some anecdotal "Oh my father's brother's cousin's league manager's friend's nephew's former roommate had back problems after putting with the Pelz method" either.  I want hard facts.

Ask Ray Floyd

One reason he uses/used a 36 inch putter.

I guess one can throw common sense out the window ... think about it. When you get older, most people don't want their back bending like that ... but I'll let you young pups learn your lessons the hard way...