Your Putting Style: Utley or Pelz?

[Borf]

There is no such thing as straight-back-straight through, it just does not make since.

the putting stroke is an smaller version of the full stroke, would you consider your swing straight back straight through?
...... thats what I thought

[MrSandman]

I'm straight back and through. I used to use the Utley style, but had nightmares. Sometimes I wouldn't return the club to square (miss right) and others I would go too far in the rotation (miss left). Much less chance of error on straight back and through.

On longer putts (outside of 10 ft) I don't worry about going straight back the whole way. If my putter comes inside, so be it, I'm more concerned with distance.

[Big Lex]

[url=http://titleist.com/news/newsdetail.asp?id=463]

This is true sometimes, but is a key to understanding Pelz's ideas about putting.

The ability to make a pure, in-line, square putting stroke is dependent on the golfer's set-up position geometry. If you set up with the hands directly in line (plumb line, vertical) with the shoulders, and you putt with a rocking motion of the shoulders, the putter will move pure, in line, and the face will stay square (provided you lined it up square to begin with, of course). If your hands are "outside" a plumb line from the shoulders, the same shoulder putting motion will give an inside/square/inside path to the putter head, with the face opening/closing relative to the line. If your hands are "inside" the plumb line from the shoulders, the stroke will be oustside/square/outside, or a reverse arc. Photos of Pelz's putting robot demonstrate this clearly. So, if you don't line up with the hands directly below the shoulders, and/or you don't stroke the putt with the shoulders rocking as the pivot, yes, you would have to manipulate the wrists to maintain a square stroke. But Pelz does not recommend manipulating the wrists, he recommends working out, by trial and error, the address posture, motion, and properly fit putter to give you a pure, in-line stroke. Of course, he's not dogmatic, either...Mickelson is his student and is not a pure/in-line/square putter; yet he works with Phil to maximize his results, too. Getting all wrapped up in one method over the other is counterproductive, as obviously it's possible to putt well with either method. And, given a 100% repeating stroke and a 100% repeating set up, both methods will give identical results, obviously. But to answer the question of the poll, I believe that the pure/in-line/square method is better. Most of putting success is athletic ability, body control, and the ability to repeat a motion within very tight tolerances, so any two people will show great variation in success that can't be attributed to one specific method. However, I think the closer one gets to a pure/in-line/square stroke, the more putts he will make, all other things being equal. I believe this is so because a stroke in which the face is always square to the line minimizes or eliminates the variation in directional control of putts that is due to small variations in our ball position.

[Big Lex]

I've always felt the "straight back, straight through" approach required manipulation of the wrists to keep the putter face square to the target line. I don't like that.

How did you come to this conclusion? By looking down at the putter blade at the top of the backstroke and the finish? If so, you may have reached a mistaken conclusion due to optical effects. Again, Pelz points out the pitfalls of optical illusions many places in his books. One of the best is a photo of George Archer's putting stroke (top, impact, and finish), in which it looks like, clearly, Archer opens and closes ("screen-door", arc, etc.) the putter during his swing. Since Archer was the poster boy for the Pelz method, many people have used observations such as one makes on this photo to conclude Pelz is an idiot.

Then Pelz has another series of photos in which parallel reference gridlines are added to the surface on which Archer is putting. When photos are taken with the gridlines, it becomes obvious that the putter IS, in fact, remaining square, but just looks like it's opening and closing because of 'tricks' of visual perception, etc. I think the effect is called parallax, but I'm not sure. In any event, the only way to know for sure what your putterface is doing during the stroke is to observe it from directly above and parallel to the line of the putt. Or, use a putting sled or similar device that gives real feedback as to the face angle of the putter. The Z-factor machine can be set up to train the user to maintain a certain face angle/path, but I think there are other optical/laser devices which give actual feedback during a real, un-guided putting stroke as to the face angle during the stroke.

[iacas]

If you set up with the hands directly in line (plumb line, vertical) with the shoulders, and you putt with a rocking motion of the shoulders, the putter will move pure, in line, and the face will stay square (provided you lined it up square to begin with, of course).

I don't think that's right at all, no. I'll see what I can do about encoding some video from the Z Factor which shows what "body geometry" you need to putt square to square. Basically, you've gotta get your neck horizontal so your shoulders can rock back and forth.

My hands are directly beneath my shoulders when I putt, or even perhaps a tad to the inside.

So, if you don't line up with the hands directly below the shoulders, and/or you don't stroke the putt with the shoulders rocking as the pivot, yes, you would have to manipulate the wrists to maintain a square stroke.

I don't think it has anything to do with the hands. If you rotate around your spine, you're going to create an arc unless your spine is (at the point of rotation between your arm sockets) is horizontal to the ground. Only then will your stroke be "square to square."

With the rotation point in any other orientation, manipulation of the hands/wrists will occur.

But Pelz does not recommend manipulating the wrists, he recommends working out, by trial and error, the address posture, motion, and properly fit putter to give you a pure, in-line stroke.

The impression I get is that Pelz doesn't even push his putting stroke much anymore because he's realized it's not quite correct. Most of his articles lately are about getting the line right, or other short-game type articles. He rarely talks about putter path anymore, and even Phil putts inside-square-inside.

Getting all wrapped up in one method over the other is counterproductive, as obviously it's possible to putt well with either method.

The numbers don't seem to back a square-to-square putting stroke, though. Only two professional golfers Dean's ever worked with (of the hundreds) have a square-to-square stroke for short- and mid-length putts (longer than that and he says everyone arcs).

How did you come to this conclusion?

By trying to putt square to square. By talking with people - putting professionals. It's not like I'm saying something bizarre - Scotty Cameron says it. A lot of people say it.

By looking down at the putter blade at the top of the backstroke and the finish?

No. Several ways: by trying to putt against a flat surface. By using a pattern on the ground (a carpet). By looking at the face angle relative to the hole four feet away. Not due to "optical effects."

Plus, you seem to have forgotten that I've just recently reviewed a tool (the Z Factor) that can quite easily guide me in a square-to-square stroke. There's no "optical effect" there.

In any event, the

Exactly - which is where my eyes are...?

Since you know I've used the Z Factor (you comment on it later), I remain puzzled as to why you'd question whether I've been misled by optical effects. Odds are, JP, that you don't even putt square to square. You might think that you do, but you probably have an arc stroke. Unless you hunch way over to putt, that is. Dean's said a lot of people think they putt square to square, but give them the S2S stroke on the Z Factor and they'll quickly say "blech." Here's one of the videos I'm referring to (66 MB, and it won't be done uploading when I post this but should be up within about 10-15 minutes): http://erik.thesandtrap.com/videos/zfactor.mp4 There are a few more videos that are illuminating on the video as well and I'll try to encode those too.

[Big Lex]

I never said you were being tricked by optical illusions, I merely _asked_ if you had considered this.

I don't think I putt PILS...I tried to at one time, but to be honest, I don't really care that much about putting mechanics any more.

As for the Z-factor guy, and Scotty Cameron, or whomever else you reference on the subject, and their determinations about putting mechanics, I haven't read them and am not trying to refute anything they claim. I'm just stating what I believe is fact from Pelz's writing.

I read Pelz's stuff extensively early in my golf days and have kept up with what he's read through the years. His comments about set up determining putter path are correct and well-defended in his writings, with photographs of his putting mannequin as well as actual people putting. Many things have to be correct to produce a PILS stroke with no manipulation of the hands, but it's possible. In addition to the hands having to be plumb with the shoulders, the shoulders must also be on a parallel plane to the line, and must rock/move only in that plane.

The spine doesn't have to be on any specific orientation to be able to produce an in-line/on-plane motion of the shoulders. Why would it be? The arms and shoulders can be held in any plane relative to the spine, and they can be rotated around its axis on a wide variety of planes.

Stated another way...if the triangle of shoulders/grip is perpendicular to the ground, with all 3 points in the same perpendicular plane, as long as you move the triangle parallel to the line, the putter will remain in-line and square.

I know you'll disagree, but until someone shows Pelz's explanations/photos on the subject and finds the error or proves there's something wrong with the logic, I'll continue to believe it's true.

And by the way, having one's eyes over the line does not prevent parallax illusions, or whatever they're called, when looking at a putter blade. The explanation is long, and I'm not smart enough to explain it well, but when your eyes rotate in order to look at the putter blade in different locations, the look of "square" changes. What I was referring to was an overhead photograph, which can be viewed by our eyes in 2 dimensions, to eliminate the illusions.

[Big Lex]

The numbers don't seem to back a square-to-square putting stroke, though. Only two professional golfers Dean's ever worked with (of the hundreds) have a square-to-square stroke for short- and mid-length putts (longer than that and he says everyone arcs).

That's because all the guys who putt square to square have figured out the correct way to putt, and don't need no stinking Z-factor.

Interesting. Did he say who the two guys are who putt square to square? The problem I have with this debate is that I don't understand why there is even a debate. It makes no difference how you want to putt, as long as you can repeat it. And certainly, even for a die-hard arc-er, you'd agree that you'd want your arc to be as close to a straight line as possible, right? So isn't it really a funny argument about the degree (no pun intended) of a fundamental, rather than the fundamental itself? If someone wants to argue that it's easier or simpler to use an arc stroke, fine, go ahead. My argument is simply that it's not a zero-sum problem; the fact that someone finds the arc stroke easier doesn't prove that it's impossible or unnatural or wrong to try to putt with a PILS stroke.

[iacas]

The spine doesn't have to be on any specific orientation to be able to produce an in-line/on-plane motion of the shoulders. Why would it be?

JP, perhaps you should watch the video.

Furthermore, the hands don't have to be plumb in line with the shoulders and hands inside the shoulders don't mean the putter moves out-square-in.

The arms and shoulders can be held in any plane relative to the spine, and they can be rotated around its axis on a wide variety of planes.

But that's the thing: as the plane is tilted, it creates an arc. Since the radius from the point of rotation to the putter face is a constant, any inclined plane is going to create an arc when it's projected downward... just as with the full swing.

Stated another way...if the triangle of shoulders/grip is perpendicular to the ground, with all 3 points in the same perpendicular plane, as long as you move the triangle parallel to the line, the putter will remain in-line and square.

That's not true unless the plane of rotation is also perpendicular to the ground. Watch the video - Dean has to hunch over to get his putter to move back square.

I can take a triangle perpendicular to the ground, rotate it on an inclined plane, and it'll produce an arc. Again, the putter is a constant distance away from the rotation point (ideally midway along the one side of the triangle), so any incline will result in an arc. Obviously not just up and down (which happens on any plane except parallel to the ground, and nobody's gonna putt that way. But come to think of it, putting parallel is a perfect way to describe it. If you swung your putter perfectly horizontal to the ground, you'd create an arc. If you swing perfectly perpendicular, you create no arc. Thus, as you approach perpendicular with your plane of rotation, the arc approaches zero. Thus, any non-perpendicular plane produces an arc of some kind.

I know you'll disagree, but until someone shows Pelz's explanations/photos on the subject and finds the error or proves there's something wrong with the logic, I'll continue to believe it's true.

How about you show the explanations/photos?

And by the way, having one's eyes over the line does not prevent parallax illusions, or whatever they're called, when looking at a putter blade. The explanation is long, and I'm not smart enough to explain it well, but when your eyes rotate in order to look at the putter blade in different locations, the look of "square" changes. What I was referring to was an overhead photograph, which can be viewed by our eyes in 2 dimensions, to eliminate the illusions.

Okay, I closed one eye. Still looks the same.

And the Z Factor eliminates any and all "optical illusions" and forces a square-to-square putt. From anything approaching a normal putting stance, it requires wrist/hand manipulation. Again, almost nobody putts square to square. I believe it's because the manipulation is not easily reproduced because almost nobody wants to putt with their rotation point horizontal to the ground (see again the video).

That's because all the guys who putt square to square have figured out the correct way to putt, and don't need no stinking Z-factor.

Hardy har.

The problem I have with this debate is that I don't understand why there is even a debate.

Because you respond, and then I respond. Hence, a debate.

If you're asking instead why I'm replying to your posts, it's because I believe they may cause harm. I believe that clearing up common misconceptions is a good thing, and I believe the S2S stroke is a common misconception. If there's something out there that is the "wrong" thing for 99+% of people to do, why not debate it? Why not educate people? So while you may not wish to participate, others no doubt have improved upon their knowledge by reading this kind of thread (whether it's this one or similar ones).

It makes no difference how you want to putt, as long as you can repeat it.

True, but my contention is that the S2S stroke requires wrist/hand manipulation, and is, as such, a much more difficult stroke to repeat.

And certainly, even for a die-hard arc-er, you'd agree that you'd want your arc to be as close to a straight line as possible, right?

No. Why would I want my arc to be a straight line? That feels odd. I use the 70° arc on the Z Factor.

If someone wants to argue that it's easier or simpler to use an arc stroke, fine, go ahead.

That's what I've been saying... It's easier to repeat for the vast majority of golfers, and a simpler stroke to master and practice. Unless you want to bend over or putt between your legs croquet-style (illegal, of course), S2S is not "easier" or "simpler" for most people.

And I've never said S2S is "impossible."

[Big Lex]

I don't think that's right at all, no. I don't think it has anything to do with the hands. If you rotate around your spine, you're going to create an arc unless your spine is (at the point of rotation between your arm sockets) is horizontal to the ground. Only then will your stroke be "square to square."

What you argue here would be true if there were a rigid, fixed anatomic relationship set up between the spine and the shoulders, and in putting you moved the shoulders only by a rotational movement of the spine.

Neither condition exists anatomically. Maybe people think they putt by rotating their spine, and there is probably some axial rotation of the spine involved in many putting strokes. It's a very nice mental image by which to guide the stroke. But the shoulders aren't tied directly or rigidly to the spine, and so you physically cannot make a putting stroke by simply rotating the spine. The mental thought of "rotating the spine" may be there, but when the muscles attempt to carry it out, they are moving the shoulders/arms/hands independently, to some degree, of the spine. What's closer to the truth of what happens is that when you move your hands/arms triangle however you do in your putting stroke, you cause your spine to rotate to some degree. You can simplify it by just considering the shoulders/hands triangle, which always lies in some single, flat plane. As long as that plane is normal to the ground, and the triangle remains in that plane during the putting stroke, the face will remain square. It doesn't require any manipulation of the hands to do so. At least, I've seen no evidence, nor do I know anything about anatomy that suggests this wouldn't be true.

[Big Lex]

JP, perhaps you should watch the video. Furthermore, the hands don't have to be plumb in line with the shoulders and hands inside the shoulders don't mean the putter moves out-square-in.

Perhaps you should look at the photos in Pelz's book. I'll send you the reference info if you're interested. The relationships you say don't exist do in fact exist, in certain circumstances.

But that's the thing: as the plane is tilted, it creates an arc. Since the radius from the point of rotation to the putter face is a constant, any inclined plane is going to create an arc when it's projected downward... just as with the full swing.

The plane isn't tilted. The shoulder/hands (S/H) triangle can swing perpendicular to the ground with a wide variety of spine orientations at address. The S/H triangle can be held perpendicular to the ground, and moved in that plane, whether that triangle is perpendicular to the spine, at a 30 degree angle to the spine, or a 60 degree angle. There are no fixed, rigid articulations between the shoulders and the spine.

You are assuming there is some sort of center of rotation, and there does not have to be any such center. We aren't put together that way anatomically. We can swing that way - from a rotational center - if we want to, but we don't have to. At least for the relatively short strokes in putting. The fact that the putter has a lie angle and lies farther from the spine doesn't mean that the putter head always moves in an inclined plane determined by some point on the spine and the putter head. Actually all that matters is the plane the putter grip is moving in. To that end, if the shoulders and hands remain fixed, and they move in a plane normal/perpendicular to the ground, the grip and head have no choice but to do the same thing. Thinking of putting as a stroke with a center of rotation is a mental image, but it is not a requirement of a putting stroke. It isn't even reality, not entirely, anyway. People who think they are moving their bodies in this way are not doing so because of any anatomical/mechanical imperative.

[iacas]

JP, I find your contention that if the hands are beneath the shoulders, a square-to-square arc is a given to be fairly silly. I've explained it already by pointing out that an arc is natural for any non-perpendicular putter with a constant radius, but now let me try to refute it in a different way:



The thickest line is the spine/neck. The two middle lines are the arms. The thin line is the putter shaft.

In A, the hands are beneath the spine. The putter's path will indeed be square to square.

In C, the hands are again beneath the rotation point in the spine. The putter will arc.

In B, the hands are well outside the rotation point in the spine... yet the putter will still travel square to square.

Why are A and B square to square strokes, while C will produce an arc?

P.S. The hands and putter are the same in A and C. And if you watch the video I posted, Dean starts talking about all of this stuff about 2:26 in in the "Posture" section.

P.P.S. Here's another video you should find interesting. Watch starting at 2:48. Go through to about 4:00.

[Big Lex]

Thanks for the pictures, and I watched the first video, but sorry they don't prove anything.

Of course if you choose to putt by intentionally moving your shoulders in a plane perpendicular to your spine, what you illustrate and what Dean whoever says will be true.

The point is, that particular stroke is not an imperative in putting. You can move the triangle of your shoulders/hands in a plane perpendicular to the ground without there being a 90 degree relationship of this plane to the shoulders. We are not rigidly jointed.

If you can't see that, I don't really know how to explain it in a forum post, but I'll try.

Imagine a tennis ball on a string, the top of the string anchored to a pole. the pole can be a right angle (upside down L shape), or can be a straight pole stuck in the ground 30 degrees from horizontal ( slash "/" orientation), or anything in between. No matter how the pole is oriented, you can still swing the tennis ball in any plane you want. You can pull it back so it swings directly perpendicular to the ground with either orientation of the pole. You can also swing it around the pole parallel to the ground, if you want, with either orientation of the pole.

The "joint" between the tennis ball/string and the pole can move in any orientation.

Our arms and shoulders can move in any orientation relative to our spine. Some are easier and more natural than others, perhaps. But there is no imperative that shoulders move perpendicualr to the spine in a putting stroke.

The explanations you offer for your line drawings are correct only if the axis of rotation is 100% axial for the lines A-C. This is not an imperative in a putting stroke. The lines representing the arms can move in almost any orientation relative to the A-C lines in a human being.

[iacas]

What you argue here would be true if there were a rigid, fixed anatomic relationship set up between the spine and the shoulders, and in putting you moved the shoulders only by a rotational movement of the spine.

Except that's how I - and most people - actually putt.

And isn't it a bit odd that someone who's trying to use a robot to suggest we putt a certain way is now claiming that no "rigid, fixed" relationship exists? That's all the robot's got.

What's closer to the truth

JP, at this point, this is a big "sez you" that I simply do not agree with. If you want to putt primarily by sliding your shoulder blades up and down or whatever method you're professing, go on ahead. As you noted, this discussion isn't going to change your opinion, apparently.

But I've seen enough putter swing data (you know, when they put those little things on people and measure their swing in 3D) to know that the overwhelmingly major factor in putting is a rotation about the spine... just as it is with a normal, full swing. You're saying exactly what I said I disliked about S2S - that it requires manipultion of the hands/wrists and other things. I don't want to be "slumping" or "sliding" my shoulders and twist my wrists. I can't do that consistently.

You can simplify it by just considering the shoulders/hands triangle, which always lies in some single, flat plane. As long as that plane is normal to the ground, and the triangle remains in that plane during the putting stroke, the face will remain square. It doesn't require any manipulation of the hands to do so.

This is why I said I had to manipulate the hands. To putt rotationally around your spine, you DO have to manipulate the hands to keep the putter face square. You also have to slide a little ("shoulder slump"?) to try to keep the putter on the line and to prevent it from arcing inside.

It's not a move that I - or most - find natural, easy, or repeatable.

Perhaps you should look at the photos in Pelz's book.

I have his short game bible. I have no interest in seeing his putting bible. I've re-created "Perfy" in my little stick drawings and refuted what you had to say about the hands being plumb with the shoulders (for a rotational putting move).

The plane isn't tilted.

If you want to compensate for having a tilted spine by slumping your shoulders or doing whatever, no, I agree it's not. People do not putt that way, though. I think you're wrong about the anatomical relationship. I think people do putt around their spines - the good, consistent putters anyway. I've seen video of Brad Faxon's putting stroke (and the putting strokes of several other Titleist players) that backs that belief up. Dean's experience does as well.

And common sense tells me rotating about something is an easier move to make than a bunch of shoulder slumping and arm manipulation, particularly when the full swing is largely about rotation, too. When you learn to play pool, they teach you not to drop your shoulder through impact, but rather to simply hinge your elbow. The natural tendency is to try to drop the elbow and hit "straight through" the ball, but it turns out that locking the shoulder and simply hinging the elbow - rotating about a fixed point - is the best, most consistent, and in the end easiest (to repeat) stroke you can make. That argument is on a different plane, but some of the elements are unique. Slumping the shoulders is far less consistent than rotating about an axis. No, your spine isn't as rigid as your elbow, but you can get pretty close to a purely rotational putting motion.

The shoulder/hands (S/H) triangle can swing perpendicular to the ground with a wide variety of spine orientations at address.

Yeah, by slumping or sliding shoulders. So, I'm glad we can agree now.

The S/H triangle can be held perpendicular to the ground, and moved in that plane, whether that triangle is perpendicular to the spine, at a 30 degree angle to the spine, or a 60 degree angle. There are no fixed, rigid articulations between the shoulders and the spine.

It's pretty rigid. You can slump your shoulders up and down, but that's about it. Again, if you want to putt by slumping your shoulders, go right ahead. I think that for most people, it's a bad, bad way to putt.

You are assuming there is some sort of center of rotation, and there does not have to be any such center. We aren't put together that way anatomically.

Sure we are. We even have bones in there (ribs, sternum, clavicle, shoulder blade) that help us to keep our shoulders and thus our arm sockets in roughly the same spots when we want them to. It's not like our shoulders have tremendous mobility. They pretty much stay where we ask them to.

About the only thing we can do is slump our shoulders up and down, and move them a little forward and backward. Again, if you want to putt by doing all of that, go on ahead. But that's far from "simple" or "repeatable" to me. I'll stick with keeping my stroke primarily a rotational one about my spine. If doing that (and putting with an arc stroke) is good enough for some of the game's best putters, it's good enough for me.

The fact that the putter has a lie angle and lies farther from the spine doesn't mean that the putter head always moves in an inclined plane determined by some point on the spine and the putter head. Actually all that matters is the plane the putter grip is moving in.

I never said it did. And now that I know you're a "shoulder slumping putter" and not a "rotate about the spine" putter, quite frankly, this discussion has lost its purpose.

I - and most good putters - putt by rotating about our spines, producing an arc stroke. You do not. So be it.

To that end, if the shoulders and hands remain fixed, and they move in a plane normal/perpendicular to the ground, the grip and head have no choice but to do the same thing.

As my drawings indicate. And yet they still refute your earlier claim about where the hands MUST be in order to putt. They can be anywhere they want if you putt rotationally about your spine, and quite frankly, if you're going to create your own vertical plane anyway, they can be wherever they want with your shoulder slumping stroke, too.

Thanks for the pictures, and I watched the first video, but sorry they don't prove anything.

Only to those unwilling to learn, JP...

Of course if you choose to putt by intentionally moving your shoulders in a plane perpendicular to your spine, what you illustrate and what Dean whoever says will be true.

"Dean whoever" has helped more PGA Tour pros putt than Dave Pelz. JP, show a little respect wouldja?

The point is, that particular stroke is not an imperative in putting.

I never said it was. However, that's how most good putters putt. If you want to putt by shoulder slumping (and I'm only using that terminology because I can't think of a better word for it), go ahead.

Our arms and shoulders can move in any orientation relative to our spine. Some are easier and more natural than others, perhaps. But there is no imperative that shoulders move perpendicualr to the spine in a putting stroke.

Again, never said there was an "imperative." However, to be a good putter, there almost seems to be an imperative that you putt by rotating about your spine. Since I'm now just repeating myself, well, that about ends that.

If you want to discuss this further, please create another thread. This one's getting a bit dense.

[NM Golf]

I have little to offer on the "scientific" side of this argument. What I can offer is my personal struggle with the Pelz method. In fact, when this thread first started I votes S2S. I struggle at best with my putting. I have tried all types of putters, all different lengths, all different grips, and I read everything Pelz put out about how to putt. Nothing worked. It was not until the end of last year that I finally tossed all that out and decided to go with what came naturally.

S2S is not a natural movement, at least not for me. Naturally I open the face slightly then come back to square at impact the it closes. Immediately I saw improvement with distance control. I had to work with my ball position a touch but my direction is coming around now as well. Last Saturday had to be one of the best putting rounds I have ever had.

I am a firm believer in being as non-mechanical as possible in all aspects of the golf swing. It seems odd to me now, looking back, that I was so mechanical with my putting stroke.

So, again all I can say is the same thing Erik said in an earlier post. It is much easier to correctly repeat a natural motion than it is to repeat something entirely mechanical like the S2S putting style.

[Dr._chip_in]

Definately Utley. My stroke is like Bobby Locke's, well inside and rounded with a closed face. I don't know why, but the ball comes off the sweetest when I putt that way.

[OHS1Golfer]

i think if you swing the putter with the correct balance and tempo like your supposed to then it is open-square-closed. so stan utley =)

[watrboy4]

I actually have been working very hard on the straight back and straight through putting stroke and it has helped me. Whether or not it is the best or not I have no idea. Use what works for you is the philosophy I use.

The last few years I actually putted a lot like Billy Mayfair. I was too lazy to fix it, and I became so used to it, that I actually putted pretty well using it. It was very ugly for my playing partners to watch and they always had comments. Plus I couldn't read the greens based on what someone elses ball did because of the odd stroke.

[mruseless]

Maybe it's just me, but think many people claim straight back-straight through and don't realize they are on somewhat of an arc.

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.

I agree with these two statements...

I have struggled with both methods of putting, and finally came to realize that, at least for me, the actual path of the putter and angle of the face doesn't matter as much as what I think I'm doing. Or better stated, what I imagine myself to be doing. For me, if I try too hard to keep the putter going pils, or going arc, it ends up in manipulation of the putterhead. Now I focus on making a smooth stroke, while keeping my arms and hands out of it, and just let the putter go where it wants. Seems to be working, since my putting has gotten more consistent.