Putting: SBST vs Arc

[iacas]

You are right on iacas. As with the full swing, there is no way you can make a "True" square to square stroke if you are standing to the side of the ball. One would have to have a between the legs stroke with a putter who's shaft enters the head at a 90 degree angle, and we all know both of those are not allowed by the rules of golf.

That's Scotty's main point, yeah. I quoted him a few years ago on the forum saying basically that same thing (in a bit more detail).

Dean's is that your spine would have to be horizontal to putt straight back since most putters rotate about their spine. He shows it in his video. I watched five or six golfers try the Z Factor at the PGA Merchandise show a year or two ago. Almost all thought they were SBST putters, so Dean says "watch this" to me and puts them in the SBST stroke. They all remarked how horrible and awkward that stroke felt, then admitted they must have been wrong when they tried various size arcs to find the one that felt best to them.

[Leftygolfer]

I am glad you are right and there is absolutely no validity to that method. Why will phil not change, because that is the way he learned how to putt and putt very well as a kid/amateur/pro. That is the reason most players use this method. Because it is what they learned and learned well. To change they would have to relearn how to putt and why would you if you are on tour? You are already a great putter.

I know my best putting days are ahead of me. I am a good putter for my skill level and I will use the putting rails next winter. If I don't make more putts next year then I was an idiot to spend a 100 bucks on some stupid aluminium rails to ingrain the SBST method. I have a hunch I will be a damn good putter next year. I keep my stats and I know how many putts I average (31) and it will go down unless I some day become a good iron player and hit more than my 8 greens a round and do not have to get up and down all the time. Then my scores will go down and I will make more birdies and have more fun.

[jorruss]

I am glad you are right and there is absolutely no validity to that method. Why will phil not change, because that is the way he learned how to putt and putt very well as a kid/amateur/pro. That is the reason most players use this method. Because it is what they learned and learned well. To change they would have to relearn how to putt and why would you if you are on tour? You are already a great putter.

There is a lot of validity to the methods that Dave Pelz teaches. If you follow his drills you will improve your putting. If anything, they will teach you to make solid contact, and that is the single most important factor that influences if you make putts or not. No matter what we do to improve our putting, and no matter how Dave Pelz manages to break it all down into scientific terms, the element of feel will always be there in putting. Some of the best putters I know don't even aim at a spot, they tell me they just "feel" the line based on how hard they want to hit it. That's why Pelz's methods are good in moderation, but not gospel. It's also why I think Phil's putting has suffered over the years. To me, it seems like since working with Pelz, Phil isn't as comfortable over the ball and he and Bones are over-reading putts. Besides, does Phil really need a short game guru?

[HSip]

I think this is where a lot of people get hung up. On a short stroke it's easy to think that the putter is taken straight back and straight through but as the stroke lengthens it takes more and more manipulation to maintain SBST. At the same time those who think that an arc stroke is manipulated have trouble realizing that on a short stroke it is almost impossible to see it as an arc stroke.

[iacas]

I am glad you are right and there is absolutely no validity to that method.

Now you're just being silly. I didn't say things like that, and I know that opinions aren't the same as facts.

To change they would have to relearn how to putt and why would you if you are on tour? You are already a great putter.

PGA Tour players change their putting styles all the time. Every field has a few people trying something new that week. Cross handed. Claws. Belly putters. Standing taller. Standing further from the ball. More wrist. Less wrist. Left hand low. And Phil is widely known to struggle with the four-footers from time to time.

This is all a matter of opinion - which can't be "right" or "wrong" - but certain facts exist, and I've shared those with you. Those facts are the inclined plane of the putter shaft and your spine angle, Dean Thompson's experience and tallies, and the refuting of what you said about the hands below the shoulders.

I know my best putting days are ahead of me.

I hope you're right. I push so much for the arc because I believe that the vast majority of people who try to putt SBST are doing themselves a dis-service. Perhaps you're in that incredibly small minority - I don't think I've ever said anything that would discount that possibility.

[ERC7.5]

A good article that was posted in a previous thread discussing this topic:

Source: http://www.pga.com/2008/instruction/putting/01/09/weeks_planetruth/index.html
Some well-known putting gurus will preach about the importance of the putting "arc." Other renowned teachers will preach "straight back and straight through." Confused? So which is it? And what does the distinction mean?

My belief is that golf is nothing more than applied physics. If you were to design an object to swing straight back and straight through, you would insert shaft that's 90 degrees to the head. The USGA's Rules of Golf state, however, that the shaft can be no greater than 80 degrees to the ground. Consider this: If you were going to swing straight back and through, you would straddle the intended line of play like croquet. The USGA, though, requires players to have both feet on the same side of the ball outlawing Sam Snead's croquet style putting. This creates a side-on game, like hitting a baseball, hitting a groundstroke in tennis or hitting a hockey puck. All swing in an arc.

My high school physics class tells me the putter whose standard lie angle is 71 degrees is not designed to swing straight back and straight through. And in my putting research, I have found that golfers who try to swing straight back and through are manipulating the putter face closed on the back swing and open on the downswing and follow through. Over time manipulations break down, causing the yips. If you want to really help your putting don't think about swinging the putter straight back and straight through but focus much more on your target line and the speed of the putt.

[David in FL]

I watched five or six golfers try the Z Factor at the PGA Merchandise show a year or two ago. Almost all thought they were SBST putters, so Dean says "watch this" to me and puts them in the SBST stroke. They all remarked how horrible and awkward that stroke felt, then admitted they must have been wrong when they tried various size arcs to find the one that felt best to them.

Fair point. Never having been tested, I could easily be

feeling as if I'm SBST when in fact there's an arc in the stroke of which I'm unaware. Since I tend to be more of a feel player, that wouldn't surprise me, nor would it necessarily bother me.

[Leftygolfer]

I am not positive I am right or wrong. It as all option. I respect others options and points of view. I will update the site when I have visual proof of how I actually putt. For me, I know I rock my shoulders up and down and try to have the putter stay as square as possible. I try to have my hands directly under my shoulders and not manipulate my hands. I have my days when I putt great and days when I can't seem to do anything well on the greens. All I can do is work at it. I think I will read Stan Utley's book and study that method as well. I have studied and read pelz's book, believe it is possible to have the straight back and straight through without it being awkward. When I am playing, I think about nothing. All I think about is getting started on the line I want and the speed I want with a perfect strike. I will work hard on my putting as long as I play and to me, it seems like the easiest way to start the ball consistantly on the right line with a pure strike. And that is all it really is about in the end.

[DaveLeeNC]

A good article that was posted in a previous thread discussing this topic:

Re: " If you were to design an object to swing straight back and straight through, you would insert shaft that's 90 degrees to the head. "

That is just plain wrong. Take a door off its hinges and rotate the door 90 degrees so that the hinges are on top and the door opens like a "doggie door". Now draw a putter on that door with a shaft angle of 45 degrees and swing the door open and shut. That putter is SBST - heck, cut out the putter (with the 45 degree shaft angle) and keep it in the hinges. It is SBST. The motion of the putter face is controlled by the orientation of the axis of rotation, not the shaft angle. If you can CONSISTENTLY rock your shoulders up/down you can put SBST without manipulation. I'm not aware of anyone who has taken a serious look at which is more repeatable (SBST vs. not SBST) and which generates the largest ball error for whatever motion error is inherent in the stroke. I find it somewhat surprising that no one has attacked this relatively manageable analytical problem (that I have seen anyway). In my estimation SBST has a major advantage because it should be less sensitive to variations in where in the stroke the ball is struck (vs a more pronounced arcing stroke). Face angle at impact is much more important than path. However SBST is probably less natural than an arc'ing stroke, so even if my 'estimation' is correct it still might not come out on top. I do find it interesting that (to SBST critics) you are only SBST if your stroke is perfectly SBST. That standard would pretty much guarantee that, by definition, nobody will EVER be SBST. Find your arc and use it - if it is pretty close to SBST then so be it. I changed from SBST'ish to an arc for 8 weeks (a lot of practice in that time). I just couldn't get comfortable with it (not that this proves anything). My arc is close to SBST (for putts inside 20' anyway) and my success is mostly driven by my ability to keep my damned hands QUIET !! dave

[iacas]

Now draw a putter on that door with a shaft angle of 45 degrees and swing the door open and shut. That putter is SBST - heck, cut out the putter (with the 45 degree shaft angle) and keep it in the hinges. It is SBST.

That's the theory, indeed. Of course, that requires people to be as consistent as a hinge.

The motion of the putter face is controlled by the orientation of the axis of rotation, not the shaft angle. If you can CONSISTENTLY rock your shoulders up/down you can put SBST without manipulation.

That's the thing - roughly 99.9% of people (just taking Dean Thompson's numbers) can't. If that were the better way to putt, I think more PGA Tour players would putt that way.

Again, I don't disagree with the theory - if you can move your shoulders perfectly up and down, you can putt SBST. But moving your shoulders when your spine's at a completely different angle doesn't seem to be anything people can consistently do. It's like a "shrug your shoulders" move more than "rocking" per se.

I'm not aware of anyone who has taken a serious look at which is more repeatable (SBST vs. not SBST) and which generates the largest ball error for whatever motion error is inherent in the stroke. I find it somewhat surprising that no one has attacked this relatively manageable analytical problem (that I have seen anyway).

Because it still makes sense. If you were to design a putter that you were going to swing straight back and straight through, the most logical way would be just as they said: 90° shaft, putt between the legs. Since the shaft is angled and your spine is angled, the vast majority of pros putt arc style for the repeatability.

Dave Pelz has his little "Perfy" mechanical putter guy, but again that stroke involves more of a "shrug" of the shoulders rather than true "rocking" - rotating about the spine.

In my estimation SBST has a major advantage because it should be less sensitive to variations in where in the stroke the ball is struck (vs a more pronounced arcing stroke). Face angle at impact is much more important than path. However SBST is probably less natural than an arc'ing stroke, so even if my 'estimation' is correct it still might not come out on top.

I think the part at the end sums up how I feel - in the real world, the SBST isn't as repeatable. That "shrugging" motion isn't as consistent, and since the arc requires no real manipulation (if your spine stays still, the putter will return to the address position), it's more consistent in the real world.

Again, the theory of SBST is fine, but the number of putters who putt arc style as if their living depended on it (because it does) is somewhat damning evidence against consistency.

[DaveLeeNC]

Re: SBST vs. arc

There is an interesting trade-off here.

The most critical 'geometrical' parameter of good directional control in putting is control of face angle. Arc Putting, BY DESIGN, has the face pointed 'correctly' at only a single instant in the entire stroke. This may well be the 'best' putting stroke (if there is such a thing), but it is far from the obvious best choice.

SBST putting is just not as natural as arc putting. This may well be the 'best' putting stroke (if there is such a thing), but it is far from the obvious best choice.

I personally believe that it will vary from golfer to golfer. I didn't start there but I ended up (unintentionally) with a pretty short putter (32") that I choke up on a good inch or two. At 5' 10" this means that I am relatively 'bent over' at putting address and a pretty verticle shoulder hinge is not hard for me. This is what is now natural to me. But that is me (and while I didn't start there and I AM THERE now).

I still think that this trade-off could be analyzed - don't know why Pelz has never done it.

dave

[iacas]

The most critical 'geometrical' parameter of good directional control in putting is control of face angle. Arc Putting, BY DESIGN, has the face pointed 'correctly' at only a single instant in the entire stroke. This may well be the 'best' putting stroke (if there is such a thing), but it is far from the obvious best choice.

Again, though I get what you're saying, I disagree with the connotation... I think the face is pointed "correctly" throughout the entire arc stroke. When you swing your 7-iron back to parallel (on the takeaway), "correct" isn't with the blade pointing at the target, but pointing down and well to the right.

We'll have to agree to disagree on what's "best" or "most widely used" or "easiest." I'm confident in my choice, and it's used by the vast majority of the best players in the world.

[Brakkus]

Arc putting as it requires no manipulation.Take it back then through and with a little practice you can easily find the contact point where the head is square.

Using tennis here as an analogy,the circle created by the swing plane of a forehand is much tighter than a golf stroke.The raquet head starts well behind your body and ends up alongside your left waist if you are right handed.
I had no trouble hitting a shot straight down the line.Allow the body to find the shot for a straight line putt.It's not that complicated.

[whip_it_out]

I really would like to know the difference between the two. I feel like i move the club SBST, but the face of the putter opens and shuts, is this an arced stroke? Or does an arc stroke mean the putter travels along an arced line. I am trying to figure out which is better for me but i feel like the consistency of the arc is tough. Any thoughts would be great.

I have never seen anyone EVER have a true SBST stroke, so chances are I doubt you have one, or want one. IF you set up to the ball, and just rotate your shoulders, the putter will move along a natural, smooth arc. I really don't believe straight back staright through strokes are natural, or even necessary.

[Leftygolfer]

I have been thinking about this more and more. I have gone back and forth very in favor of the SBST putting style. I am not so sure the more I think about it. The only person I can think that truely does is Dave Pelz and he does it well.

But I am not sure if I have the time to train my body in two different ways. That is what is required to be a true SBST. You have to putt entirely different than you swing. That seems very hard.

I think for most people the feeling of SBST is good because the arch is so slight that it feels that way.

I thought I was a SBST and I am not. I am very close but on anything over 15 feet I see my putter open and close very slightly.

So I guess I will have to really think about this before making a comitment to really working on it either way.

[ugottabjoshinme]

How do face balanced putters vs toe heavy putters fit into this? Obviously the toe heavy putter will move on an arc easier than it will on a straight line. Will a face balanced putter work with an arc putting style?

[DaveLeeNC]

That's the theory, indeed. Of course, that requires people to be as consistent as a hinge.

I have been thinking about this more and more. I have gone back and forth very in favor of the SBST putting style. I am not so sure the more I think about it. The only person I can think that truely does is Dave Pelz and he does it well.

IMHO, most good 'modern' putting strokes are "square to the arc". Without arm and/or hand manipulation, the putter face stays square to the arc defined by the rotation of the shoulders. And this includes SBST ala' Dave Pelz.

SBST has the advantage of being more square to the target line throughout the stroke vs. other arc's. But it probably isn't the most natural arc to choose (certainly a downside to the SBST choice). You will never (nor will anyone ever) be perfectly SBST (just like no one will ever perfectly duplicate any arc that they choose). Even though I am a SBST'ish putter, I think that folks get over-focused on achieving the un-achieveable (perfect SBST or perfect any other arc for that matter). If your arc isn't all over the place and you can stay free of manipulation (and hence stay square to your arc) you should be able to putt well. Or at least your poor putting would not be due to a stroke issue. dave

[iacas]

This goes a long way towards explaining why an arc makes sense.

We swing a lot more like the second example than the third example. The first example, well, it's just there as a bookend. Nobody does that. I hope not, anyway: