Putting - DO NOT Accelerate Through the Ball

[Zeph]

For those that haven't seen it

Awesome! Recognition and free advertisement!

[Dave2512]

Cool just saw BC mention EB on GC.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by joe1365

Both he and Duval mentioned the piston style of Jack, and Jack was pretty good.

Duval, in my opinion, fell prey to the fact that "feel ain't real" in his segment. He "felt" like he was accelerating through the ball. Some people who we train to putt better also "feel" like they're STOPPING the putter head through impact, but in reality they'll still be accelerating… just not as much as before .

Also, I am on board with an accelerating stroke on short putts. Say, six feet or in, give or take. Outside of that, distance control becomes important (even on an eight-foot putt, you could also call it speed control - it affects how much a putt will break).

They also talked about the concept of releasing the putter head, and I'm not sure if those are compatible with the "drop" stroke.

Honestly, they're not really related. It's almost like saying the concept of gravity may not be compatible with using a microwave or something. They're just unrelated things. You can "release" the putter head (let it rotate through the arc) while accelerating, decelerating, or making a pendulum stroke. You can also fail to "release" the putter head doing any of those things too.

Frankly the science was a bit much for me.

The takeaway is that you should make a backstroke that's about as long as your follow-through (or even a tad longer). That's about it. :)

I've always thought putting was more art than science, as I have had long streaks of good putting using various styles over the years, including cross handed.

Cross-handed doesn't change what this thread's about. The "science" being used here is simply to reveal the artistry. The "artistic" putters, the good or great putters , are likely not "accelerating through the ball." Yet if you search Google for "putting accelerate" you get all sorts of results… that teach you how to accelerate through the ball, when the science shows that's NOT what the game's best putters do. They are hitting the ball around peak velocity, and then slowing down immediately after the ball is hit.

[joe1365]

Thanks for the response iacas!  I also think of guys like Casper and Palmer who were fairly wristy, and Snedeker and Price and the popping stroke - how do these fit with the science besides the consistent rhythm common to all good putters?  I understand that the science suggests the drop stroke is the best way, but is it the only way?  Or would all these strokes look similar if they were plotted on your line graphs?

[iacas]

Thanks for the response iacas!  I also think of guys like Casper and Palmer who were fairly wristy, and Snedeker and Price and the popping stroke - how do these fit with the science besides the consistent rhythm common to all good putters?

1. This thread really isn't about "rhythm." I've only ever said that most good putters have a rhythm that's consistent to them. Someone like Arnie in the day might have putted to an "80 beats/minute" rhythm while Crenshaw might be 60. But they were (let's assume those numbers are right) 80 and 60 on all their putts, long or short.
2. Casting aside the very obvious differences in stimp and how a slightly different technique may be better on greens stimping at 6 as opposed to 11 or 12, Arnie, Snedeker, Price, etc. didn't have long follow-throughs. Have a look at the two arcs below.

Both of these graphs assume that the ball magically disappears (or we'd see the dip from impact), and both fully satisfy the recommendations I've given in this thread. (Bold just for emphasis, not to "yell" or anything).

Ben Crenshaw's putting stroke might resemble the blue one, and Brandt Snedeker - with a faster tempo - may resemble the red one. A faster tempo and a shorter backswing do not necessarily mean you are accelerating through the ball . Heck, even in the blue "Crenshaw" line he's accelerating right up until impact , he just isn't accelerating after impact.

I've watched several videos of Arnie, Jack, Brandt, Price, etc. Their follow-throughs are not long. They, like their backswings, are relatively short. They are about the same length as their backswings.

I've seen some of Brandt's numbers, and graphs, too btw. They're not my property, and I don't wish to share them as they're not mine to share, but I'm comfortable saying Brandt's putting stroke is not accelerating through/after impact.

I understand that the science suggests the drop stroke is the best way, but is it the only way?  Or would all these strokes look similar if they were plotted on your line graphs?

FWIW I don't really call this a "drop" stroke. Again, that would eliminate someone like Brandt Snedeker, perhaps. I'm simply calling it a stroke that doesn't accelerate through/after impact. That is easier to do when you take a longer backswing (plus, you have more time to make micro-adjustments, and you have a wider "flat spot" of fairly consistent speed - see this post for more on that ), but not an absolute requirement.

The graphs above answer your second question, I guess.

[natureboy]

Appreciate the info in the OP and thread. Have been working on the free fall feel with positive results.

I noticed that the feel of the automatic 'wrist load' that Erik mentions due to double pendulum might dovetail with Stan Utley's observation about delofting (wrist bow) - little to no bow on short putts, some bow on mid range putts, considerable bow on long putts.

I also have a science geek clarification question. This is not a critique of the no acceleration advice. That said, I wondered if the equal length back and through pendulum stroke is a precise or a useful 'what works' estimate (i.e. did you measure and what were the results)? The reason I ask is that a freely swinging pendulum has an equal downstroke and upstroke, but with a golf ball there is a transfer of momentum from putter head to ball (shown in the impact velocity graph in original post). I would expect this drop in velocity to shorten the through stroke. Is it so negligible that a non-accelerated through / up stroke does not get shortened relative to the backstroke, or is it measureable?

Maybe the equal length happens on the practice stroke for the correct 'feel' and it shortens up just a touch in the 'real' stroke where the ball just gets in the way of the pendulum?

[natureboy]

Also some folks mentioned difficulty with forward ball position and right eye dominance.

Brandt Snedeker gave a tip about this that I found helpful. Basically tilt the head to the left along the target line) so that you are looking at the ball with the right eye & the nose is out of the way. Since one eye is already looking down the target line, I also found it helped with my tendency to follow the ball too early (before impact).

[iacas]

I noticed that the feel of the automatic 'wrist load' that Erik mentions due to double pendulum might dovetail with Stan Utley's observation about delofting (wrist bow) - little to no bow on short putts, some bow on mid range putts, considerable bow on long putts.

It does. It's been awhile since I've read Utley's stuff. My recollection is that he wants the wrist motion to be done a little more… "intentionally" for lack of a better word right now. I prefer it to be more of a "passive" addition - soft wrists that allow for a little "float load" type situation.

Somewhat tough to describe in text; relatively easy to teach and demonstrate. Got a text from a student a few hours after his lesson the other day…

I also have a science geek clarification question. This is not a critique of the no acceleration advice. That said, I wondered if the equal length back and through pendulum stroke is a precise or a useful 'what works' estimate (i.e. did you measure and what were the results)? The reason I ask is that a freely swinging pendulum has an equal downstroke and upstroke, but with a golf ball there is a transfer of momentum from putter head to ball (shown in the impact velocity graph in original post). I would expect this drop in velocity to shorten the through stroke. Is it so negligible that a non-accelerated through / up stroke does not get shortened relative to the backstroke, or is it measureable?

Well, let me say this. The point of the thread is to dispel the myth that you want to be accelerating through impact (or, of course, decelerating a bunch). You want to hit the putt in the "flat spot" of your putter head speed.

Some people have shorter follow-throughs as you point out because the downswing is not impeded by the ball. I've seen a bunch of Crenshaw strokes where this is the case. Loren Roberts too. But it's also possible to have a really good acceleration profile with a longer through stroke than backswing.

Here's a really old graph of mine ( original link ).

I'll quote myself from then:

There's virtually no acceleration into the ball (positive or negative [which would be "deceleration"]). If anything I tended to have a teeny tiny bit of acceleration, which I fixed by moving the ball about an inch farther forward in my stance.

The shaft flex even on a ten-foot putt slows the shaft down, then it kicks forward a bit (it's still decelerating, but it gets close to steady speed).

My follow-through is still longer (it's better now, too), but you can see how I let the putter "coast" out a lot more on the downswing.

So as I said back in 2009, even though my follow-through was much longer than my backswing, I was still not positively accelerating at impact. I've always been very good at controlling my speed. It's not a coincidence.

Though it's typically true that people who are accelerating through the ball have a much longer follow-through than those who are hitting it "in the flat spot," my graph proves it to not always be the case. My graph also demonstrates something else: IIRC, I was probably trying to "accelerate through the ball" like I'd heard from so many people, yet I was a good to great putter with very good distance control, so practically, I taught myself to hit the ball around the flat spot of my acceleration profile. Then I "carried" the putter head through to a longer finish.

Put another way, because our muscles are playing an active role (it's literally not just the weight of the putter or a true pendulum - see here for more on that ), we could "carry" the putter head out all the way around our shoulders, but still achieve the goal of hitting the putt during the "flat spot" of the putting acceleration arc.

So length of strokes on either side of the ball are only really the first clue to let us know what's going on, and not necessarily a terribly reliable one.

One of my favorite drills for quickly sharing the feeling is to force people to make a three-foot backswing, yet only putt the ball ten feet. That quickly teaches what the opposite extreme feels like, because they're currently too close to the extreme of adding too much "muscle power" in making a stroke that's still accelerating. It teaches them to let the putter do a LOT more of the work. (It's just a drill, done two or three times, to awaken the person's senses or awareness.)

[Lihu]

I'm going to have to get on this putting machine next time I'm in Erie.

[natureboy]

Okay. Thansk for the clarification.

The 3 foot backswing - 10 foot putt drill sounds a little bit like the 'long lazy' flop shot pitch out of rough. Is it a similar feel or different?

[Jeremie Boop]

I will add this, and it's in the vein of helping people, not to point anything "bad" out: of the 12 people (virtually all of whom have read this thread) I tested on the SAM PuttLab on Saturday, roughly two had "good" acceleration profiles. Some had quite a LARGE jump in speed after impact.

As much as you may feel that you're making a good length backswing, it's probably still too short. Try this: make a three-foot backswing but only try to hit the ball eight feet. That feeling of "slowing down" gravity is almost the feeling you'll need to have when you make a swing. Most of you are still "hitting" and accelerating at and then after the golf ball/impact.

I loved the SAM PuttLab. That has to be the coolest thing ever. I would highly recommend it to everyone.

Wish I had gotten to do that, though I did get a signed LSW out of the deal. It is amazing how much more consistent distance control is with putting when you really focus on the pendulum feeling.

[Slice of Life]

Never thought I'd see calculus based physics applied to golf. :)

[CarlSpackler]

Never thought I'd see calculus based physics applied to golf. :)

I can't believe there isn't more of it.

[Slice of Life]

I can't believe there isn't more of it.

I mean, I know how much it is actually applied...I just never thought I'd get involved enough, and care enough to see graphs related to it. :)

[trickyputt]

The real problem is that I read stuff like this, go into a golf store, and boom. Now I have another putter.

[Slice of Life]

The real problem is that I read stuff like this, go into a golf store, and boom. Now I have another putter.

You have GAS.

Gear Acquisition Syndrome. There is no known cure. I'm sorry.

[trickyputt]

[QUOTE name="trickyputt" url="/t/74295/putting-do-not-accelerate-through-the-ball/216#post_1052464"] The real problem is that I read stuff like this, go into a golf store, and boom. Now I have another putter.[/QUOTE] You have GAS.  Gear Acquisition Syndrome. There is no known cure. I'm sorry.

Thank you. This obviously explains the new RTX 2.0s.

[Polyester]

I think that the best part in this kind of putting is that you can measure how long backswing you need to make to clear certain flat distances.

For example if I make a 10 cm backswing and "let it go" the ball will travel about 1m on a flat surface.

This way I can get few repeatable distances and estimating putts on an actual green becomes a bit easier