Scotty Cameron on Center- and Heel-Shafted Putters

[nykfan4life]

Inside-square-inside may seem more natural. Although, with putting, where the slightest "detour" off midline will cause the ball to veer off. Inside to square to inside is more prone to tangential forces

your not starting from the inside.

You start like a square to square putt, with the putter square to the ball. Then you move inside, square, and inside. To me it feels much more natural, ive always been taught square to square, but when it just do not manipulate my arms at all and move them back and forth, it creates this putt, and it feels much more natural to me. Looking at my putter in the avatar, it is cut off before the curve. Heh heh, it looks like a straight shafted putter like scotty was talking aobut

[erikpmort]

alright so these two putting schools of thought stuff has been my homework this week. I bought a dave peltz book- but i also want a book that argues for the inside square inside method--

does scotty or anyone have a book out on this method so i can learn about both methods ?

thanks

[iacas]

alright so these two putting schools of thought stuff has been my homework this week. I bought a dave peltz book- but i also want a book that argues for the inside square inside method--

http://thesandtrap.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14235

[erikpmort]

i have been working on my arc stroke this week-- i really like it--

i totally understand now how you actually move your wrists LESS when using the arc stroke and use your big back muscles to move the putter more--

went to my local shop tonight and played with all the scottys.

went in with the mindset i would love the squareback-- really liked it but turns out i liked the newport 2.7 the best-

worried tho as Erik you shared that scotty says most people eventually go to a quarter hang model-- i am also pretty cool with a 2.6--- so how do i know which is best for me? i'm currently using a yes! natalie center shafted. funny that the ones i like are not quarter hang.. the only reason i like the 2.6 and 2.7 is the smooth shaft lines-- i don't really like the notchy zig zags of the other quarter hang models. I know I know, silly preferences.

mmm they sure felt nice. would love to try them on the real greens!

Erik

[iacas]

worried tho as Erik you shared that scotty says most people eventually go to a quarter hang model-- i am also pretty cool with a 2.6--- so how do i know which is best for me?

If you start putts to the left, you probably need a bit more toe hang. If you pull putts, probably a bit less.

But beyond that, putting is such a personal thing, I can't really say.

[granitegolf]

I use the squarback # 1 which is a "nearly face balanced putter" I also use a inside, square, inside stroke. It just feels better to me. Anyone see a technical problem with using a face balanced putter with this type of stroke?

[Hokie2k5]

I've never read Pelz's putting books just browsed through the "Putting Bible" but I would think a true square to square stroke is basically impossible. Wouldn't your body have to be bent at a 90 degree angle in order to make a perfect pendulum stroke? I would think the putter arc would have to go inside (even if it's just slightly) with a square-to-square stroke.

I feel like I try and find a spot in the middle, square to square doesn't feel right to me and I struggle with shorter putts (especially with a decell) and push putts with the arc'ed putting stroke.

I need to pick up an Utley book and read up on his ideas.

[granitegolf]

[QUOTE
worried tho as Erik you shared that scotty says most people eventually go to a quarter hang model-- i am also pretty cool with a 2.6--- so how do i know which is best for me? i'm currently using a yes! natalie center shafted. funny that the ones i like are not quarter hang.. the only reason i like the 2.6 and 2.7 is the smooth shaft lines-- i don't really like the notchy zig zags of the other quarter hang models. I know I know, silly preferences.

mmm they sure felt nice. would love to try them on the real greens!

Erik[/QUOTE]

As Erik pointed out the shaft is still at an angle. if you are getting straight role(use a line around the ball and if you can keep if from wobbling) you know you are square at impact. I too prefer the straighter lines of the 2.7 and the squareback #1 and with an Inside,square, Inside stroke I can easily get a square face at impact. The key for me was the grip. I went to the Utley grip with a bit stronger right hand.

[granitegolf]

i have been working on my arc stroke this week-- i really like it--

As Erik pointed out the shaft is still at an angle. if you are getting straight role(use a line around the ball and if you can keep if from wobbling) you know you are square at impact. I too prefer the straighter lines of the 2.7 and the squareback #1 and with an Inside,square, Inside stroke I can easily get a square face at impact. The key for me was the grip. I went to the Utley grip with a bit stronger right hand.

[Nocklaus]

On 2006-08-23 at 7:58 PM, iacas said:

Well, I told you I'd ask Scotty what he thought, and here are his thoughts. Bear in mind he is mostly talking about the Detour, but this pertains to all putters, too. His definition of "heel shafted" and "center-shafted" is a bit more precise than our own.

In other words, all of our definitions of heel-shafted and center-shafted aren't quite precise enough - the Red X or Detour aren't heel-shafted versions and the Red X 2 and Detour 2 aren't center-shafted.

And, in the end, it's not the insertion point of the shaft that makes the inside-square-inside stroke the "best" stroke, but rather the simple fact that the shaft is not vertical. That 71° lie angle is what creates the arc. Here's my own example... Imagine a toe-shafted putter. You wouldn't swing it on an outside-square-outside arc - you'd still swing it inside-square-inside because of the lie angle. Face balance is another thing entirely. I reviewed the GM2-HM from Never Compromise, a "heel-shafted" (in our less precise definition) mallet. It didn't have any toe-hang.

The GM2-HM is not a heelshafted putter, as the shaft points to the center of the head. Only if the shaft is straight, you can call it heelshafted

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Nocklaus said:

The GM2-HM is not a heelshafted putter, as the shaft points to the center of the head. Only if the shaft is straight, you can call it heelshafted

Depends on your definition. The shaft still enters at the heel. The projection of the main part of the shaft is near the center.

Also, the post you quoted is about 11 years old.