Your Putting Style: Utley or Pelz?

[easy-]

Straight back and through only makes sense if your putter shaft was was perfectly vertical (illegal). Utley's method is the go.

The one major problem - his two books must be amoung the most poorly written golf books I've come across. That said, the results once you grind through it are fantastic.

[seattlemudder]

Is it actually possible to putt straight back and through? I've never been able to do it. It seems unnatural - one would have to swing back away from one's spine angle and then do the same on the follow through. Gives me the yips just thinking about it.

I suppose if you used a belly or longer putter it might work but I think any club longer than a driver should not be legal.

[powerfade]

Is it actually possible to putt straight back and through? I've never been able to do it. It seems unnatural - one would have to swing back away from one's spine angle and then do the same on the follow through. Gives me the yips just thinking about it.

If your spine angle allows you to let your arms hang down below your shoulders then you can putt straight back and straight through. At the edges of the longer stroke your arms/wrists may cause the face to open on the backswing then close several inches past impact but the key is that the face is travelling straight through the hitting area.

It's interesting to put this swing in one of those straight metal channels to see if you truly are swinging SBST.

[iacas]

If your spine angle allows you to let your arms hang down below your shoulders then you can putt straight back and straight through.

That's really only true if your spine is horizontal, though, or you manipulate the stroke, which is what I believe the guy you responded to is getting at.

Because your spine is at an angle, the most natural path is an arc.

It's interesting to put this swing in one of those straight metal channels to see if you truly are swinging SBST.

Very, very, very few people do, and those that do probably aren't consistent about it.

See the comments I made above from Dean Thompson.

[powerfade]

That's really only true if your spine is horizontal, though, or you manipulate the stroke, which is what I believe the guy you responded to is getting at.

Which post number are you referring to (comments/Dean Thompson)?

I do not agree that your spine has to be horizontal, at least for the distance required to stroke a SBST putt. Your arms are not perpendicular to your spine. The shoulder joints allow you to lower your arms into a position that allows the hands to be below the shoulders without keeping the spine horizontal to the ground. I just stood up to my desk, took my stance and grip (cross handed in my case), with the back of my left thumb skimming the front edge of my desktop. I then took a few strokes. The back of my left thumb skims the edge back and through for about 12 inches. If I take a real long stroke, then, yes, it comes off the desk on the back and through strokes. That would be for putts in the 40 foot plus range. I retain the angle of my right wrist thoughout. There is no manipuation. I did state in one of my earlier posts that my clubface closes well past impact (I'm guessing the face is 12"-14" past impact). I assume the path may be moving to the inside as well, but by that time, the ball long gone. I still believe my path is SBST for a good 12"-16" with impact occuring near the middle. What I do find is that if I am too far from the desk, where my hands are no longer under my shoulders, I make an Utley arc, coming off the desk a few inches either side of the ball position. When my hands are under my shoulders, I can do the SBST. How many inches is the stroke going down the line with the Utley arc? Is it an inch or two or maybe 3"-4" inches? (I haven't read his book or methods). I'm sure you know Pelz' comparison to a screen door stroke where the putterhead would only be online for an instant. Obviously, this only deals with back and through, not up and down and back up. BTW, I used one of those metal channels, and I was making full putting strokes without making contact with the rails. If I had an Utley arc, I would have surely hit the heel side of the putter on the inner rail going back and forward past impact. Knowing I retain the right wrist angle, I'm not sure how I could be manipulating the stroke.

[smileykj218]

I'm with SC and SU. It feels more natural with less manipulation. The best aid I've found to help me with this style is the putting arc. Not only does it provide you the feel of inside-to-square-to-inside but it provides you with an alignment at each stage to show where the face should be pointing.

[iacas]

Which post number are you referring to (comments/Dean Thompson)?

This site has a search function that works pretty well.

http://thesandtrap.com/forum/showthr...0016&page;=2#12

I do not agree that your spine has to be horizontal, at least for the distance required to stroke a SBST putt.

It does if you want to putt simply by rotating around your spine, the simplest motion. Anything else requires much more manipulation and timing.

The point remains you may think you're putting straight back and straight through, but - if Dean Thompson is to be believed (and he is in my book) - odds are you're not.

How many inches is the stroke going down the line with the Utley arc? Is it an inch or two or maybe 3"-4" inches? (I haven't read his book or methods).

Technically, an arc stroke has no straight part. And as I've said elsewhere, the diameter of the arc is so large that any small segment of that arc could easily be thought to be "straight."

In the end, I really don't care how you putt, and I have no way of verifying that you putt the way you think you do. But I believe what Dean's said and the numbers of people he's seen with his device.

[jowlar]

My interpretation of Utley's method is not simply an arc stroke. Utley's arc is created by a manipulation of the arms. Pelz's stroke is created by rocking the shoulders with no manipulation of the hands or arms. I use Pelz's method of dead hands, dead arms but it does not create a SBST stroke it moves in a arc. I guess I am a Utlelz or perhaps a Pelley style putter.

[seattlemudder]

My interpretation of Utley's method is not simply an arc stroke. Utley's arc is created by a manipulation of the arms.

I don't think Utley's method requires manipulation of the arms. IMO it is much more natural and requires less manipulation. I also think Utley is right in that every swing rotates around one's spine. This includes putting.

[CPHoya]

I have a strong suspicion that every single one of you who has said "on short putts I'm SBST" is completely wrong, and probably even knows it.

You seem SBST on 5 footers to 15 footers because your swing (hopefully) isn't very long. On your longer putts, the ones where you realize that you do putt with an arc, you're just extending your natural stroke. You putt with an arc because the human body cannot move SBST without flicking the wrists or rolling the arms, and you putt with an arc on all of your putts.

The only exception to that is those of you who, like I did for a long time trying to putt SBST: (a) cut a lot of putts instead of pushing them; (b) fix this only to start pushing because your arc on the backswing doesn't get corrected on the followthrough, which you quite rightly think is straight (you've used your arms or hands to fight the face to straight after contact, mangling your putter path); and then (c) run into someone who tells you you're insane for trying to move in such a ridiculous manner. I hope I'm that person for at least one of you.

Also, you know that jumping sensation you get with the putter head when you try to swing SBST? The one where the head swings outside? That's partly because you're using an offset putter (like a Newport 2) and partly because you're fighting your natural arc. Utley has been right about this for a long time, and Pelz has become revered partly because though his book advocates SBST, he allows his players to approximate by narrowing their arc. That's the same as working on a shallow backswing - it's still natural, but more controlled.

Good putting, everyone!

[mkrolewski]

I believe Pelz method is straight back and forward for the putter head. Swinging your hands in pendullum motion means the putter head is also travelling in the similar parallel plane.


Using the putting track eg two parallel rails about the same width as the putter (1/8 inch larger), one can (with practice) swing the putter head back 18" from center and forward with the face perpendicular to the track. Obviously the club face is raising at the endpoints.

Pelz is modelling this after a mechanical putter, which is incrediably consistent. A human can replicate these motions easily. The swing is simple and easy to repeat, even when tired or excited. Distance and pace back determines length of putt on a given surface.

There is that whole analysis about the difference of the face versus the path of the club head not being along the desired putting line. I believe Pelz stated, that the club face not being square to the path causes less damage than the swing path being not true. You can miss the putt in either case, but the error is less. The Utley method ( I have not read it) sounds to have the possibility of the club to be travelling in or out at impact is mis-executed. The Pelz method means that the putter face will be travelling the correct line even if the contact is early or late.

In addition, the stroke seems a bit complex from the others descriptions. I have enough difficulties with a pendullum swing. Typically, I try to pick a new putting line mid stroke.

Pelz is my method.

[iacas]

I believe Pelz method is straight back and forward for the putter head. Swinging your hands in pendullum motion means the putter head is also travelling in the similar parallel plane.

I think the problem with Dave Pelz's little robot is that it rocks the shoulders perfectly horizontally, which is not easy or perhaps even possible for a normal human being. "Perfy" - I think that's what he's called it - doesn't rotate around his spine, but rather in a plane perfectly vertical.

And that's the problem.

[nykfan4life]

I think we are all forgetting that the 'screen door' method is not necessarily the utley method. the arc is just one point of a method that preaches other things(shorter stroke, etc). I use an arc stroke but don't really follow all of utley's rules

[powerfade]

This site has a search function that works pretty well.

Wow...what's that all about? I thought you cared about all us hacks!?

I think we might be splitting hairs here. If my SBST stroke is really an arc, it's virtually undetectable - maybe 1/16th to 1/8th of an inch over 2 feet of putterhead movement. I know the Utley arc is way more pronounced. For scientific proof, I asked my daughter to look at the putter from straight-on near ground level. I asked my other daughter to watch my hands and wrists for any bending or twisting. I putted over a long ruler for reference. I showed her an arc putt (which I thought was very uncomfortable). She saw the inside arc. I then showed her my SBST putt. She could not see an arc. She said it was pretty straight. (She also asked me why would anyone putt with the arc. It looks harder to hit the ball straight. I thought that was funny). My other daughter said that my hands and wrists did not bend or twist. Hey, that's good enough for me!

[EXMAX]

Unfortunately neither of these guys actually do what they say and neither do their students.
The big problem is that we are all built and move differently, we see things differently too, have a different awareness of time and aim
The stroke is also not symmetrical.
Face angle at impact will determine the resultant putt far more than the path

[powerfade]

...Technically, an arc stroke has no straight part. And as I've said elsewhere, the diameter of the arc is so large that any small segment of that arc could easily be thought to be "straight."

...Face angle at impact will determine the resultant putt far more than the path

I completely agree with EXMAX's statement about face angle (Pelz explains this as well). I'm sure we can get everyone to agree that a square face at impact will get your putt started in a straight line.

But more on path... I need something explained to me. As iacas stated, an arc has no straight part. I also understand an arc can be so big to where a small section could be considered straight. The Thompson machine, and other arc swing aids, defintely show an arc that has no straight line. The putter arc is not big enough to contain a small section of straightness. If you do not hit the ball in the exact dead center of the arc in relation to your swing center, how do you avoid pushing or pulling your putts? Like a full shot, that definitely has an arc, most shots either have a draw or fade spin. If you hit a dead straight shot with the ball positioned either forward or back of your swing center (not stance), that can be considered a mis-hit.

[CPHoya]

You're correct that hitting too early or late will push or pull the putt, but by taking the hands out of the putt you're theoretically left with only two variables: speed of club and squareness at impact, so it's significantly less complicated than a full swing. For those of us who believe - or more accurately, feel - that Pelz's system is impossible without hand movement, this sounds desirable. For those of you who think - or feel - that the Pelz system works, the arc system is not any more desirable because it's not any simpler.

Also, as is true with a wedge or iron or hybrid or wood, there is a "window" where contact will produce a reasonably straight shot even if it is not perfect. This is part of the reason putts from within six feet are more makeable than putts from within 15 - there is more room for a small path imperfection to create a miss (just like there is more room to make a bad read) on a longer putt. And it's also the same reason misses with your pitching wedge aren't - usually ;) - 20 yards right of target, like they can be with your driver.

Think of your 7-iron swing. At some point the club is square to your target, but you can hit "good" shots without timing that perfectly. It's the same deal, it just stays on the ground.

[seattlemudder]

I need something explained to me. As iacas stated, an arc has no straight part. I also understand an arc can be so big to where a small section could be considered straight. The Thompson machine, and other arc swing aids, defintely show an arc that has no straight line. The putter arc is not big enough to contain a small section of straightness. If you do not hit the ball in the exact dead center of the arc in relation to your swing center, how do you avoid pushing or pulling your putts?

This same explanation would have to be rendered for someone that thinks they putt straight back, straight through. There's the arc + the manipulation to try to move the putter path in a straight back straight through manner = more manipulation than the arc method. More moving parts => more chances of variation => more inconsistency.

I think we have two basic discussions. One is focusing on putting from a physiological aspect, i.e. the science of the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of humans as they putt or the science of putting. The other discussion revolves around what we do to try to manipulate the putter head through our imperfect movements as we try to putt. From a physiological point of view, one must agree with Iacas that when we putt, our spine is not horizontal, therefore, physiologically speaking, we cannot putt straight back straight through even if one thinks one does. Generally, the shoulders will rotate around the spine - this is something that, physiologically, we cannot get away from.