Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 6012 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

Posted
My question and thread topic is chipping. I am sure many have watched the Secrets of the short game by Phil and have read the short game bible by Dave Pelz. They are polar opposites in way of technique. I have been practicing the "hinge and hold" and can not carry it only a yard or two with this technique. I will use the Pelz way for shorter chips from a good lie and will use the Phil way for longer chips and pitches. I think the angle created is so much better for chipping hinging the wrist and then holding the release but there is too much energy at times.

I have success with both methods and thought it would be an interesting discussion. I have also not read any of the Utley books so I would love to hear about his technique as well.

Brian


Posted
The first thing I ever learned about the short game was to get the ball rolling as fast possible. I have always stuck by that theory and it seems to work for me. I use a chip and run on 75% of my chips. If the shot calls for spin than I will do it but I don't ever just try to land one right by the pin and have it stop.
Driver: i15, 3 wood: G10, Hybrid: Nickent 4dx, Irons: Ping s57, Wedges: Mizuno MPT 52, 56, 60, Putter: XG #9 

Posted
You point out something I found interesting as well: Pelz and Phil's methods are completely opposite from each other. Given that Phil is such a big advocate of Pelz and that Pelz always holds up Phil as his star student, I've thought this rather odd.

Like you, I've found a hybrid seems to be working for me. For chipping, I use more of a putting stroke and address the club similar to how Pelz teaches, but for pitching I've found that Phil's "hinge and hold" works very well.

Posted
Like you, I've found a hybrid seems to be working for me. For chipping, I use more of a putting stroke and address the club similar to how Pelz teaches, but for pitching I've found that Phil's "hinge and hold" works very well.

Same here. For really short chips, I tend to use more of a putting stroke, and for anything longer than 6-7 yards, I "hinge and hold". I've tried the Utley technique for both long and short chips/pitches, but I found it harder to control.

905R 10.5* - Speeder (S) ::: 909F2 15.5* - VooDoo (S) ::: 909H 19* - VooDoo (S) ::: Vokey Spin Milled 52.08, 56.11 & 60.07
MX-25 4-P - Dynamic Gold (S300)
Studio Style Newport 2 - 33/350
Pro V1Tour V2

Posted
I know it's not the conventional wisdom but I like carrying my chips most of the way and getting it to roll out. I usually chip greenside with a open 56* and I pick a spot and watch for the roll out. For some reason, it's just the most comfortable shot for me to visualize. I also can expect the same results all the time as the open clubface makes it check and release to the right a bit. Gives me a little option to sometimes let it fight up against a hill.
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
I love Phil's method. I had lost the spin and consistency in my chips and pitches until I started using his method. Now every shot I hit has spin no matter how far it is. I still use my bump and run chipping if I don't have anything to carry but otherwise it is Phil's way for me.

And he seemed to trash the "clock" method of chipping...

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Ive got Pelz's Short Game Secret manual and it is very useful although some of the material is quite complicated and difficult to put in to practice without lot of practice.

Posted
I believe Phil's is more of a feel approach to the short game, as oppose to Pelz's approach is more mechanical?

If I am correct with that statement above, I'm far more confident/better when I feel the shots around the green. I'm not mechanical in really any approach to my game, but chipping and pitching is probably the best part of my game, and I'm far more of a feel player. I don't really care for statistics and probabilities around the greens. I know which shot is a higher % shot and when trying a flop shot can be really just flat out stupid, but I just play the shot I play and I just feel my way around from inside 100 yards.

Driver Ping G10 10.5*
Hybrids Ping G5 (3) 19* Bridgestone J36 (4) 22*
Irons Mizuno MP-57 5-PW
Wedges Srixon WG-504 52.08 Bridgestone WC Copper 56.13
Putter 33" Scotty Cameron Studio Select #2


Posted
I went to a Dave Pelz 2-day short-game school, about 3yrs ago. It was everything with 100 yards and in.

Learned putting techniques, chipping, sand/flop shots. It really helped trim down strokes around the green.

Driver: Callaway Big Bertha 10.5* 

3WD:  Callaway Big Bertha 15* / X2 Hot H4 Hybrid
Irons:  Callaway Apex 4-PW Project X 5.5 shafts

Wedges: Callaway MackDaddy 2  52/58
Putter: Odyessey Metal X Milled 1


Note: This thread is 6012 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!

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

    • My next golf trip will probably be a short one, but I’m really looking forward to it. I’m thinking of staying relatively close, picking a spot with a few solid courses and making a long weekend out of it. For me, the best golf trips are about good courses, relaxed vibes, and time away with friends.
    • 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.
×
×
  • 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.