Putting - DO NOT Accelerate Through the Ball

[billchao]

He plays the cut or the draw with putter. Who would have drawn the similiarity to the Driver and other clubs without that graph?

Huh?

[trickyputt]

The graph looks like one I have seen here:http://www.titleist.com/art-of-putting/#path-toeflow-length Billy Horschel hit a 50 foot putt yesterday. Did he take his putter back inside? In the video it looks like it wasnt pure pendulum. When faced with longer putts or fringe putting where I need putter loft to get the ball on top of the grass and rolling, my most consistent shots dont come from using a pure pendulum path. Its more like my other clubs. We have a lot of burmuda and it will drag the ball roll or the clubhead if you are in the fringe. I feel I have to close or open my stance sometimes to get in behind the ball or through the putt. This is why I raise eyebrows at the similiarities in and between swinging putters and irons and long sticks every time I come across them.

[iacas]

The graph looks like one I have seen here:http://www.titleist.com/art-of-putting/#path-toeflow-length

The graph is not showing the path of the putter head.

The vertical axis is putter head speed . The horizontal axis is time .

Billy Horschel hit a 50 foot putt yesterday. Did he take his putter back inside? In the video it looks like it wasnt pure pendulum.

This has nothing to do with taking the putter inside. I'm not advocating for a "straight back, straight through" stroke - in fact, I never teach that.

When faced with longer putts or fringe putting where I need putter loft to get the ball on top of the grass and rolling, my most consistent shots dont come from using a pure pendulum path. Its more like my other clubs. We have a lot of burmuda and it will drag the ball roll or the clubhead if you are in the fringe. I feel I have to close or open my stance sometimes to get in behind the ball or through the putt. This is why I raise eyebrows at the similiarities in and between swinging putters and irons and long sticks every time I come across them.

I'm not sure you've understood the point of this thread. We are not talking about the path of the putter at all. Did you read the first post?

[trickyputt]

I get it. Its a frequency graph like measuring hertz or cycles per second. Take away the time element that stretches it horizontally and it would look like a circle. LOL I draw the line at using an oscillascope on my putter. It would probably do me some good though. My only interest is accuracy. In the hole. I dont understand much use for any thing else, so this thread, which is discussing powering the ball is interesting as it related to overpowering or underpowering putts. Especially those Horschel style 50 foot curlers. I note he has been hitting a lot of long putts lately. Did he draw that putt to make it run? The acceleration or tempo of that power is critical to me, too much to soon and my putter face can sling open. Toe weight, stroke path and mass etc have to work together. My interest in distance control relative to path and energy has led me to observe that I can draw and slice a putt. I can see this effect around 10-15 feet or more. This all comes from a huge amount of experimenting on my part. Its fun. Its also like my other clubs. So can i get a putt to hold up against a hill the way a draw or fade can hold against the wind? My ball ends up in some crazy places to putt from. I just dont really know how to use the graph except in my swing. It describes the timing of head and energy and path converging to send my ball to the hole. Thats not just a putter.

[iacas]

I get it. Its a frequency graph like measuring hertz or cycles per second. Take away the time element that stretches it horizontally and it would look like a circle. LOL I draw the line at using an oscillascope on my putter. It would probably do me some good though.

I still don't know that you're understanding it. It wouldn't look like a circle, no. And in the real world, it looks like the graphs shown in the first post.

The graph very clearly demonstrates why it's best to hit the ball around the peak speed of your putter and why you shouldn't try to hit it while you're still accelerating the putter head. That's it.

Nobody's telling you to use an oscilloscope with your putter. It's just a way of explaining WHY I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting.

My only interest is accuracy. In the hole. I dont understand much use for any thing else, so this thread, which is discussing powering the ball is interesting as it related to overpowering or underpowering putts. Especially those Horschel style 50 foot curlers. I note he has been hitting a lot of long putts lately. Did he draw that putt to make it run?

This thread has nothing to do with "fading" or "drawing" putts. Almost nobody who is any good puts much sidespin (or, really, spin of any kind) on their putts, and I don't know why you're talking about it.

No, he didn't "draw" his putt to make it run.

The acceleration or tempo of that power is critical to me, too much to soon and my putter face can sling open. Toe weight, stroke path and mass etc have to work together. My interest in distance control relative to path and energy has led me to observe that I can draw and slice a putt. I can see this effect around 10-15 feet or more. This all comes from a huge amount of experimenting on my part. Its fun. Its also like my other clubs. So can i get a putt to hold up against a hill the way a draw or fade can hold against the wind? My ball ends up in some crazy places to putt from.

Complete bollocks. Seriously, you're not getting your ball to "hold up against the hill" by intentionally putting side spin on it. C'mon.

Please stick to the topic of the thread. It's not hitting slices and hooks with your putter.

[k-troop]

My only interest is accuracy. In the hole. I dont understand much use for any thing else, so this thread, which is discussing powering the ball is interesting as it related to overpowering or underpowering putts.

Speed is far more important than line on >90% of putts.

You're going to miss the vast majority of putts outside of 5 feet.  It doesn't matter how good you are, it's simply a fact based on the statistics of everyone who has ever putted a golf ball.  So, lets start with the assumption that in the vast majority of situations, you're going to have a second putt.  The longer that second putt is, the less likely you are to make it.

With that in mind, how long do you want that second putt to be?  The pace of your first putt will have a much greater impact on the length of your second putt than the line.  That is also statistically proven.  For the vast majority of golfers, whether putting from 10', 20', 30', or 50', the pace of the first putt is going to be the dominant factor in determining the length of the second putt.

No one is saying to ignore line.  But to say that you don't care about speed is to say you don't really understand putting.

[saevel25]

I would say the correct line is predicated on speed. A more aggressive line, the more speed the putt will need. In the end the more accurate you will need to be because you are effectively shrinking the size of the hole (increasing chances of lip outs).

In the end, knowing how to hit putts at the correct speed will help maximize the chance a ball falling in.

In the terms of hardest to learn to easiest. Distance control is probably the hardest to learn and keep consistent. For putting, the stroke is a simple move that can be repeated. Getting a ball to travel a foot past the hole from various distances is a difficult task to repeat.

As for green reading, even in Aimpoint, you can only be so accurate in the reading. Though it is very much more accurate than any other method out there. It is an easy skill to learn.

[trickyputt]

Ok sorry some scientistical guy had us running graphs on scopes that had 4 quadrants in the x/y graphing that I still see in what little mind I have left. Your way would graph a vertical line I guess. Still, its a graph of a highly specific thing. Now lets talk seriously about the hole, how some people see a cross on it where its 4 quadrants, where the lowest spot below the hole, the 6 oclock position has the bottom alignment position of said cross. The application of your power graph gets real interesting in the length of time allowed for the accuracy duration. I assume this is the sweet spot. Could you describe this sweet spot relative to the angle you have to hit going into the hole? I would think most putts enter the hole in a range of 90 degrees or one corner of that cross. For example straight in = 0, 22.5° = a little curl, 45°= more curl etc up until 90°? Just data on a graph, but curl = longer putts so I am curious. I see I am already being accused of not understanding speed so I best learn quick. I guess the slope would be the z axis. Make assumptions to keep it simple. Like its a tilted plane.

[iacas]

Ok sorry some scientistical guy had us running graphs on scopes that had 4 quadrants in the x/y graphing that I still see in what little mind I have left. Your way would graph a vertical line I guess. Still, its a graph of a highly specific thing. Now lets talk seriously about the hole, how some people see a cross on it where its 4 quadrants, where the lowest spot below the hole, the 6 oclock position has the bottom alignment position of said cross.

The application of your power graph gets real interesting in the length of time allowed for the accuracy duration. I assume this is the sweet spot.

Could you describe this sweet spot relative to the angle you have to hit going into the hole? I would think most putts enter the hole in a range of 90 degrees or one corner of that cross. For example straight in = 0, 22.5° = a little curl, 45°= more curl etc up until 90°? Just data on a graph, but curl = longer putts so I am curious. I see I am already being accused of not understanding speed so I best learn quick. I guess the slope would be the z axis. Make assumptions to keep it simple. Like its a tilted plane.

That's completely off the topic, so we'll respectfully decline to talk about that here.

If you want to talk about the line or something, please look at some of the existing threads, or start a new one if your thoughts/ideas/questions are unique.

[rehmwa]

I make a smooth stroke on longer putts, but from about 6 feet and in I accelerate through impact.  I also make a rather exaggerated follow through, because I find that helps me to avoid decelerating the putter, and helps keep the face square through impact.  However, I don't hit down at impact.  My stroke is at least in the good range of Erik's graph for the point on the arc where I contact the ball.  I just continue the stroke so that the putter "chases" the ball down the line.  I rarely miss my target line or speed on those putts.

this is a very interesting thread and I like the points and graphs Erik uses

I've been convinced that when most people are offering the "accelerate through the putt" advice, that what they are really observing is people that stab at the ball (decelerated on purpose rather than as a natural part of the last half of the pendulum).  In essence recommending an over correction to the observed issue.

I'm finding I have better control of my line and distance that one thing was to bring my ball position more forward in my stance, stop pressing, and letting the arc take care of itself.  This is more consistent with Erik's notes, but I'm just one data point and I have more issues with keeping my hands still than with the arc positioning.  But it does help nevertheless.  So I'm buying into it.

[rehmwa]

Could you describe this sweet spot relative to the angle you have to hit going into the hole?

TP - I get the idea that you are reading these graphs as a position vs time rather than speed vs time.  And the position component you are suggesting is in the wrong plane....

the graphs are head speed vs time, there's no angle or direction component to them.  So simplify your analysis by looking at it this way:

(this'll kill Erik, but if you need to read it as a visual position reference, then I suggest you pretend that it's club path visualized looking horizontally from in front of the player, not from above - at least that'll infer the velocity profile - but only for the profile that doesn't show an impact.....)

1 - peak speed is at the apex of the arc

2 - acceleration and velocity do have a vector component in the v vs t space (acc is just the tangential vector of the graph - no kidding)

3 - the impact is close to an impulse type of behavior - so there's a step function in the graph (vel) after contact (conservation of momentum and all that).

4 - but, the slope of the graph does NOT have to have a step function even though it can - there's an optimum where the slope stays the same before and after.....this maths out, but it's also intuitively obvious

if the acceleration (the slope of the graph) is the same (or close enough) just prior and after the impulse, then the impact will be smoother - this really should help keep the face of the club on line better than if the club feels a change in the acceleration......so double benefit - more consistent energy transfer to the putter make distance control more repeatable, start and ending acc conditions being equal minimizes non-useful energy transfer (it has to go somewhere) that could also twist....a balanced Acceleration prior and after the contact has to be on the decel side of the curve, but close to the apex.  The data confirms....

i.e., he's just showing a concept where the energy from the delta in velocity is working on the ball, while the delta in acceleration is minimize as much as possible.  delta v is much more controllable than delta a.....it's just minimizing outside variation from a hard to control variable.  no kidding it should provide better repeatability in general.

I'm not saying a good putter can't work around it, but for someone like me, it's worth playing with.  OVER analysis aside, in practice, I can just muck with my ball position while keeping my stroke constant to check it out.

[natureboy]

I have been working on this on the carpet. Is a possible correct approach to add a slight amount of acceleration on the downstroke with the shoulders - enough to passively form a slight L wrist bow with soft hands and then decelerate enough through the hitting area to allow the club to release (L wrist straightens back out), but with a short follow through?

Caveat is that with a short stroke the acceleration from shoulders is tiny / insignificant with very little L wrist bow. More is formed with longer strokes / backswings.

[Crazycanuck44]

Well I tried it and it by far the best putting I've done in yrs. :-D thanks Erik and everyone else who has helped.

[iacas]

I have been working on this on the carpet. Is a possible correct approach to add a slight amount of acceleration on the downstroke with the shoulders - enough to passively form a slight L wrist bow with soft hands and then decelerate enough through the hitting area to allow the club to release (L wrist straightens back out), but with a short follow through?

Caveat is that with a short stroke the acceleration from shoulders is tiny / insignificant with very little L wrist bow. More is formed with longer strokes / backswings.

I prefer a little bit of what I believe you are describing - a bit of a "float load" feel where the wrists are not locked in place. I don't think the putting stroke is purely shoulders and wrists of course - the elbows move a little bit as well. In order of contribution, I would suggest shoulders*, elbows, wrists, with the latter being almost completely passive.

* Shoulders means the torso, because while your shoulders likely move a little, your torso rotates too. It's not simply a "shoulder shrug" that moves the shoulders.

[natureboy]

I prefer a little bit of what I believe you are describing - a bit of a "float load" feel where the wrists are not locked in place. I don't think the putting stroke is purely shoulders and wrists of course - the elbows move a little bit as well. In order of contribution, I would suggest shoulders*, elbows, wrists, with the latter being almost completely passive.

* Shoulders means the torso, because while your shoulders likely move a little, your torso rotates too. It's not simply a "shoulder shrug" that moves the shoulders.

Is that what 'float load' is? Good to know. The visual that I try to apply in full swing & pitches is Hogan's reversal of direction where it looks like his 'soft' wrists absorb the momentum of the club on the backswing as his lower body starts forward.

For the putting stroke it would be the feel of the L shoulder starting forward (rather than lower body) while the club is still travelling back which 'float loads' the L wrist. I don't feel much in the R elbow - maybe a tiny bit as the putter head comes through the ball & releases. Would probably feel it more on long putts.

Seem right?

[iacas]

Is that what 'float load' is? Good to know.

Well, I'm kind of borrowing the concept from the full swing, but basically the putter head continues back as the handle starts forward. Very tiny amounts in the putting stroke.

The visual that I try to apply in full swing & pitches is Hogan's reversal of direction where it looks like his 'soft' wrists absorb the momentum of the club on the backswing as his lower body starts forward.

Pretty much.

[natureboy]

I prefer a little bit of what I believe you are describing - a bit of a "float load" feel where the wrists are not locked in place. I don't think the putting stroke is purely shoulders and wrists of course - the elbows move a little bit as well. In order of contribution, I would suggest shoulders*, elbows, wrists, with the latter being almost completely passive.

* Shoulders means the torso, because while your shoulders likely move a little, your torso rotates too. It's not simply a "shoulder shrug" that moves the shoulders.

Yes, I meant a full torso rock from just above the hips (thoracic & up), not isolated shoulders.

[dchoye]

IMO one of the worst tips I got in putting. Was "releasing" the putter. I know that might mean different for different folks but that thought lead me to over accelerate and miss putts I think "release" is better term to use for the full swing