square to square or inside to square

[tembolo381]

was just curious what you guys out there thought.

for the putting stroke...do you believe the putterface should remain square throughout the stroke...or should the face swing on an arc and naturally open then come back to square...then close again.


don't want you guys to think too much about it or it'll drive you nuts...has happened to me already.

[LarryK]

This is one of the biggest cans of (golf) worms you can open. People have debated this one for years.

I try to do straight back and straight through. Seems simplest for all but the very longest putts whereupon it seems harder not to emulate a short-iron swing.

[chingali]

I've always worked on square to square, I've seen plenty of people putt great using both methods but square to square is just more natural (or learned so long ago that it feels natural) for me.

[Just Blaze]

Square to square. Like a pendulum.

[iacas]

I'll take Scotty Cameron's word (as well as his science), as well as a quick study of the world's best putters of all time, and put in an arcing motion - inside/square/inside.

As Scotty Cameron said, the only time you should putt square to square is croquet style, and that's illegal.

Yes, this has been debated here - at length - before. Look up my Detour putter review for more. Or just read this thread .

[pelsh]

Zach Johnson putts Square to Square.
Vaughn Taylor putts Square to Square.
Phil Mickelson putts Inside to Square to Inside.
Tiger Woods putts Inside to Square to Inside.

All 4 of them are really established putters.

I putt Square to Square. I can't do the latter. Maybe it's because I'm a right hander with a left dominate eye.... maybe its because the moon is in line with the farthest star of the Milky Way. Who knows?

Try them both, and see what works best for you. Like many things in golf, there is no right or wrong. Whatever gets the ball in the hole more often!

[iacas]

Zach Johnson putts Square to Square.

I'm not saying "wrong," because I don't have video at my finger tips, but based on what I've got in my memory, I'd say I disagree. The image on the front page of seemore.com would imply that the face of Zach's putter closes through impact.

[allin]

Zach Johnson's ball position does seem to be unusually far back in his stance.

For what its worth what I feel and what video of my putting show are different things. It feels to me as if I am going straight back and through. Video shows my putter moves slightly inside on the back stroke and back to square at contact.

[Toad]

I am an arc guy...thats how I learned. Having read all the benefits of square through...it just feels wonkily (yes...that IS a scientific term) to me. =)

[iacas]

I am an arc guy...thats how I learned. Having read all the benefits of square through...it just feels wonkily (yes...that IS a scientific term) to me. =)

I've yet to see an advantage to the square to square (or "straight back, straight through") method. What are they supposed to be? Perhaps they're subjective, because words like "better" in "better alignment" are subjective. What's better? I'm more consistent with my alignment and the starting path of the ball when I putt in an arc.

I don't see much science behind "square to square" - but it's there on the arc method.

[Toad]

I've yet to see an advantage to the square to square (or "straight back, straight through") method. What are they supposed to be? Perhaps they're subjective, because words like "better" in "better alignment" are subjective. What's better? I'm more consistent with my alignment and the starting path of the ball when I putt in an arc.

Well I am generally a fan of Pelz. I generally agree with MOST of his thoughts and teachings. Just speaking in loose terms...my intrepretations and as such subject to me not fully understanding what I read...Pelz is a Square to Square guy. In just a few brief words...according to him...Sq. to Sq. leaves less room for error. If the putter face is square all the way...you cant hit a put offline. Pelz is a scientific minded person. His thoughts I think are sound, in that if you were to talk about the 'geometry of putting' sq. to sq. makes a hell of alot of sense.

I personally see what he is saying...and if I were to build a machine to putt...it would maintain a square angle throughout the stroke. Thing is though...I am not a machine. Sq. to Sq. feels unnatural to me...and in that statement..."Feel" is the key. Putting is all about 'feel'. I have seen a few Sq. to Sq. guys...and hey...if you can putt like that...and it 'feels' right...then I am all for it. Its arguably a more sound scientific approach than I use in my arc.

[Fourputt]

Like everything else with putting, if it works for you, then go with it. For me, the arc requires the same variable as does the full swing. You have to have good timing to square the clubhead back up at impact. Any variance in the stroke and it's not going to happen.

It feels to me that there are fewer moving parts in the square method. And that happens to work well for my setup and stance, which is similar to Nicklaus', although not as crouched over as Jack is. I'm a fairly good putter, and I've always used the square method. I've tried out the arc on the practice green, but never could hit a putt where I was aiming.

This is the literal meaning of the adage "different strokes for different folks".