Amateur vs Pro putting stroke

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by nickolasjt

It's just interesting.... I agree and disagree on the fast greens theory..... I find it a little tougher to putt on nice fast greens, you can't put as good of a pace on a ball,, a smaller stroke for most people means a tougher time to square the putter face?

Think of it like this, to make a 5ft putt you'd used a 3 ft stroke (length most golfer use to make a 3 ft putt).  Going to be less rotation due to the shorter stroke, less room for inconsistency.  As described in this video I, pros have the LEAST amount of face rotation.

[nickolasjt]

wow,,  just after watching that video it kind of makes me want to go back to my seemore putter!,,  I didn't realize that the set up to that is so crucial!

[B-Con]

Think of it like this, to make a 5ft putt you'd used a 3 ft stroke (length most golfer use to make a 3 ft putt).  Going to be less rotation due to the shorter stroke, less room for inconsistency.  As described in this video I, pros have the LEAST amount of face rotation.

Those videos are really interesting. I didn't realize the pros have such a low amount of face rotation, and what a gap between them and the collegiate players. Really food for thought there for myself. I also didn't know there was a preferred shaft lean of a few degrees amongst the pros, as the instructor also claimed. I've fought back and forth between vertical and slightly forward. The latter feels better, but I think I've blamed some of my short putt pushing problems on it in the past.

[camper6]

Hand eye coordination is the key.

Same for everything in golf.

Some have it. Some don't.

Some have it for awhile and then lose it and have to go to the long stick.

Are the putters on the Seniors Tour as good as the putters on the Pro Tour?

I don't know.  It would make a good study.

[bunkerputt]

I have a beef with this site that I think can be easily fixed.  Why don't we start making threads called "My Putt (username)" or something like that?

[x129]

I would love to see that study. After ever major you always hear about how tough it was out there because the greens were so fast. I am guessing it is likely that the study stopped before getting to those speeds (i.e. just because increasing from 8 to 11 helps doesn't mean that going from 11 to 14 does).

I reread my post and I wanted to make it clear that I don't have a problem with Edel fitting (heck if one wasn't like 8 hours away I probably would have done it before buying my last putter). But they are not going to help someone like Tiger be a better putter. Compensations sound bad but after you spend 10k learning to play with them, it is really hard to change.

Originally Posted by iacas

The studies I've seen show that faster greens = better putting (again, allowing for a warmup or adjustment period). I can't cite them, I just remember that as the take-away from about two or three studies I've seen. Haven't seen a contradictory one.

Actually you hear about it more than you realize.

Tiger Woods aims 4 degrees right. What's he work on all the time? Releasing the toe, because he's gotta get it back to square. When he doesn't have 3 hours a day to practice that timing, what do we get? Tiger missing three footers. Four footers. Five footers.

Point is pros practice enough to ingrain their compensations. Tiger needs to time closing the face 4 degrees at impact.

Jim Furyk switches putters and wins the FedExCup. Maybe he aimed that one better. Maybe it fit better with whatever compensations he was making in his stroke.

If you (generally, not you specifically) want to rely on a putter that has compensations, I say go for it. But when you're not making putts, you've got a longer checklist of things to go through because you might not even be aiming your putter properly.

It'd be nifty to find out.

Remember, pros put 3 hours a day in on their putting (or whatever, even if it's one hour - it's about 58 minutes more than the average golfer).

[Stretch]

Those Mike Shannon videos are pure gold Mike. Thanks!

[Bananarama]

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

I have a beef with this site that I think can be easily fixed.  Why don't we start making threads called "My Putt (username)" or something like that?

It sounds like a good idea. Do it!

[Kieran123]

I have always wondered about putter rotation.

I juggle between taking my putter back on an arc, or straight back.

If I take it straight back, the 'follow through' seems to close the putter less ( rotation of the toe )....

I haven't really studied which is more successful for me.....I have always had forward shaft lean.

My putting is terrible ( averaged just under 33 putts a round last season ).

[FLOG4]

Why is it that a putter can't have a 90 degree shaft placement?  Why is straddling the line of a putt illegal ever since Sam Snead endeavored to go that route?  Why is it that long putters seem all the rage now?  Why is it many pure golf afficienado's are calling for the illegalization of the long putter?  The pure back and thru of an online putt stroke is the best methodology.  It's pure and it imparts the precise overspin rotation.  You can quote any study results you want....There's a reason why 90 degrees isn't allowed.  It almost mandates a pure stroke at that set up. Straddling the line again creates substantial advantage to a pure back and thru on line stroke.  Long putters create that same pure back and thru stroke.  Analysis to improper aim, compensation, superb hand eye coordination become secondary discussions vs execution of a pure straight back and thru stroke.  Many individuals putt very well with improper techniques...Best example was Billy Mayfair. He continuously cut across his putts, yet he was a very good putter for quite a while.  But the reasons why the R&A; and the USGA have made illegal the devises I mention previously is because they make it too damn easy to putt.  The closer you come to the edge of that illegalization the easier the putt stroke is and the better the outcomes. JMHO

[iacas]

Originally Posted by x129

I would love to see that study. After ever major you always hear about how tough it was out there because the greens were so fast. I am guessing it is likely that the study stopped before getting to those speeds (i.e. just because increasing from 8 to 11 helps doesn't mean that going from 11 to 14 does).

Sure. BTW, the Tour average putting greens aren't as fast as people think, and even Augusta National isn't as fast as people think. They're just very sloped. Oakmont? Not as fast as people think. Royal Melbourne? Not as fast as it appeared. Just lots of slope.

Originally Posted by x129

But they are not going to help someone like Tiger be a better putter. Compensations sound bad but after you spend 10k learning to play with them, it is really hard to change.

I disagree.

Fit a guy - Dave's dad, actually - a few weeks ago. His stroke adjusted to his new putter in about 90 minutes. He used to do the opposite of Tiger Woods - aim left and shove the crap out of the putt - and he was really good at it. After 90 minutes of work he said he's now a better putter, particularly on the short ones.

Removing "timing" from things like putting is always a good thing. Tiger hasn't putted well lately. He only putts well when his timing is superb. We were spoiled with how superb it was for a long stretch of time. But every time he goes through swing changes his putting falls off.

Originally Posted by FLOG4

Why is it that a putter can't have a 90 degree shaft placement?  Why is straddling the line of a putt illegal ever since Sam Snead endeavored to go that route?  Why is it that long putters seem all the rage now?  Why is it many pure golf afficienado's are calling for the illegalization of the long putter?  The pure back and thru of an online putt stroke is the best methodology.  It's pure and it imparts the precise overspin rotation.  You can quote any study results you want....There's a reason why 90 degrees isn't allowed.  It almost mandates a pure stroke at that set up. Straddling the line again creates substantial advantage to a pure back and thru on line stroke.  Long putters create that same pure back and thru stroke.  Analysis to improper aim, compensation, superb hand eye coordination become secondary discussions vs execution of a pure straight back and thru stroke.  Many individuals putt very well with improper techniques...Best example was Billy Mayfair. He continuously cut across his putts, yet he was a very good putter for quite a while.  But the reasons why the R&A; and the USGA have made illegal the devises I mention previously is because they make it too damn easy to putt.  The closer you come to the edge of that illegalization the easier the putt stroke is and the better the outcomes. JMHO

What is your point exactly? None of the world's best putters employ a "pure back and thru stroke." They all arc. The face opens and closes on all of them.

90 doesn't exist because it's illegal, yep.

[FLOG4]

What is your point exactly? None of the world's best putters employ a "pure back and thru stroke." They all arc. The face opens and closes on all of them.

90 doesn't exist because it's illegal, yep.

Why is 90 degrees illegal?  My point is it is illegal because allowing it makes the putting stroke easier and more efficient.  What's your opinion on that?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by nickolasjt

It's just interesting.... I agree and disagree on the fast greens theory..... I find it a little tougher to putt on nice fast greens, you can't put as good of a pace on a ball,, a smaller stroke for most people means a tougher time to square the putter face?

Fast greens are great to putt on if they are relatively flat.

The problem is that when you have a decent amount of break, to hit the ball high enough to take the break , gravity takes over and the ball is going very fast when it gets to the hole.

If you want to hit it harder to take break out you'd better have good alignment. This is why we see guys like Mickelson hitting it 4 feet past the hole from 3 feet.

If you have a good stroke, you will make tons of straight 10 footers on fast greens and 3 and 4 footers are much easier too. But the greens have to be true.

[FLOG4]

If I were to buy into the logic that a stroke required for a 3ft putt is better than a stroke for a 5 ft putt, predicated on the theory that faster green speeds allow a 3ft stroke for a 5 ft putt......That's total BS.  Yes if every putt was dead straight you might make that arguement and win....But Why does the USGA cut the greens of their Championships so they roll as fast as possible? Because they want all the players to score really well and have an easy day of putting? NOT.  The faster the green speed the more difficult the putting. Case closed. Any arguement contrary to that is awash in self promotion.  When you watch the very best players get intimidated on greens, its never because they are slower? A lip out on a 14 stimped green putt can roll ridiculously far, while a lip out on a slower putt will remain by the hole.

[saevel25]

I would say its true with the green types and how fast they are.

Less of a putter stroke means less distance for error in the stroke. If the green is 20% faster, and that relates to 20% (not sure if its 1:1, just makeing a point) shorter swing length, then thats 20% less distance you have to make a swing mistake.

I would also probably say, practice time. These pro's do this for a living, they practice long hours, multitudes more than we do. They have a feel on how they line up, and how to make putts with there stroke. They practice a stroke that will be the same 99% of the time. That leads to the ability to control distance on any distance of putts. now you take us, who tinker with your putting all the time, because we can't make them. We play on greens that are not perfect, that are slower. We can't lag putt because we cant make solid contact, so we don't know if the ball ended up short because we healed or toed the putt, or we actually left it short.

The best thing any of us can do is, find a way to line up consistantly to the target line we want. Get a stroke that you do not change ever other round, and you can hit the center of the clubface. These two things will improve putting greatly because they are required to gain feel.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

On tour quality greens 5 footers are more like 3 footers.

Sorry, I have to stick to my original statement. When I say "Tour Quality", I am talking 10-12s that are firm, not 14s which is just off the chart. Certainly, no one putts well at Augusta when you are above the hole or putting over a dead elephant, that is not my point.  My point is that the average muni, probably 6-7, or even my course which plays to 9-10, can't compare to perfectly manicured 11-12s.  On those greens the putts hold their lines better and the stroke is smaller which means less margin for error.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by FLOG4

If I were to buy into the logic that a stroke required for a 3ft putt is better than a stroke for a 5 ft putt, predicated on the theory that faster green speeds allow a 3ft stroke for a 5 ft putt......That's total BS.

In what way? We see it all the time. It's logically simple. If you need to send the ball (making up a number) 4 MPH to make the ball roll five feet on a fast green and 3 feet on a slow green, that stroke will be the same if you're a half-decent putter.

Originally Posted by FLOG4

Yes if every putt was dead straight you might make that arguement and win....But Why does the USGA cut the greens of their Championships so they roll as fast as possible?

Because the margin of error shrinks in terms of distance control and because putts break more on faster greens.

Here are the facts:

• At slow green speeds, long putts become easier. You can put the ball anywhere on the green - above the flag in spots you can't expect to make putts from on faster greens - and have a pretty easy two-putt.
• At fast green speeds, shorter putts become easier to make, because the ball requires less speed, and thus a smaller stroke, and is less likely to be knocked offline by a surface flaw.

Those are the facts of the studies conducted, and they line up with my own experiences. The studies say you see less birdie putts made from, say, 15 feet on slower greens than you do on faster greens.

Originally Posted by FLOG4

The faster the green speed the more difficult the putting. Case closed. Any arguement contrary to that is awash in self promotion.

It is because you say so? C'mon, that's weak. There are plenty of reasons why faster greens (to a point) seem to be true. Some have been mentioned.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Sorry, I have to stick to my original statement. When I say "Tour Quality", I am talking 10-12s that are firm, not 14s which is just off the chart. Certainly, no one putts well at Augusta when you are above the hole or putting over a dead elephant, that is not my point.  My point is that the average muni, probably 6-7, or even my course which plays to 9-10, can't compare to perfectly manicured 11-12s.  On those greens the putts hold their lines better and the stroke is smaller which means less margin for error.

Yep.

[Gifted Golfer]

If you ask a PGA teacher this question you will probably get many different answers. One thing that you might hear often is that having a pre-shot routine is a distinguishing factor between pros and ams. Professionals are consistent, this is one reason they are professional - their green time yields consistently good results. Having a pre-shot routine is one of the most important elements of establishing that kind of skill. It's the cornerstone for getting those "professional" results when you tee off!