Sharpshooting putting practice is a revolutionary concept based on the practice used by sharpshooters. When a shooter, in competition, wants to hit the bull’s eye of a target for example at 50 m. with the least number of shots, he first aims at the bull’s eye of the circular target. The first bullet will hit below the bull’s eye. He then notes in which ring area of the circular target that the bullet hits (there are typically 5 ring areas). For his second shot, he takes aim to hit the same ring area, but on the high side. The trajectory for this shot is then expected to hit the bull’s eye.
Variation of bullet speed as it leaves his gun, is not a primary concern for the shooter, whereas the putter wants to control the speed at which he hits the ball. The speed should be controlled such that when the ball approaches the hole, it has the best chance of dropping into the hole (which is not too slow, or too fast). Speed control at the hole can be translated into distance control beyond it---such as targeting 17 inches beyond the hole which is just right using Pelz’s optimum criterion. The first putt, then, is aimed at the hole and hit with a speed to target say 17 inches beyond the hole. The point, directly below the hole, where the ball passes is observed. This is called the -Break point. The excess distance the ball travels beyond the -Break point is also observed. Assuming that this distance is acceptable, then the second putt is aimed at the +Break point above the hole and hit with the same speed as the first putt. The ball for the second putt is expected to drop into the hole.
I believe, that the sharpshooter routine gives a golfer the simplest and best practice routine for sinking putts on a sloped green. The principal advantage of this routine is that it gives the player a unique experience in directly observing excellent estimates for the +Break distance. And it’s just through such learning experiences, I believe, that confidence is built to enable golfers to sink the ball on their first putt.
The ball dynamics of the two putt routine has been simulated and verified on the computer. This putting simulation also verified that the two putt routine, with no changes, works as well for multiple sloped greens. The routine was recently tested and verified on a practice putting green at a golf course. Special equipment included in the test was (1) a ‘True-roller’ type ball launcher, and (2) a Break Line Ruler that was constructed to aid in observing the two ball conditions at the target hole on the first putt and in setting of a +Break Point Identifier (mounted on the Ruler) for the second putt.

Dear Carden,

I like your points about sharpshooting and putting. The analogy strikes me as valid.

However, I have a few minor quibbles. First, Pelz is absolutely wrong about the 17 inchesa he repeatedly claims he has "proved" scientifically to be the optimum speed at the hole. The only reserach he ever bases this on was done in 1976-1977 and reported on in the July 1977 issue of Golf Digest, [Larry Dennis, Die your Putts at the Hole and You're Dead," Golf Dig. Jul. 1977, pp 52-55]. Anyone who reads this article will readily see that Pelz is falsifying his research when in his 1986 book Putt Like the Pros he claims this research proves the 17-inch rule. The 1977 research report explicitly concludes there is NOT anyone optimal go-by speed, and that the speed varies with grass type (bent or bermuda) and condition (tournament quality or shaggy, tracked-up late afternoon club play). The range for bent is 5-12 inches in good condition and 10-20 inches in poor condition. The range for bermuda is 15-30 inches in good condition and 20-40 inches in poor condition. In every case, the optimum speed is a RANGE and not one speed. Pelz basically made up the number 17 for his book because it was sexier. His 1977 research simply confirmed what pros had already been saying for decades.

Second, your first-shot and then adjust higher approach is soemthing I also have written about, but in golf on the course you only have one stroke to get it right. Consequently, you have to IMAGINE the first putt to see how much adjustment uphill is required. And then there is the issue of how you adjust. Once you see how far below the hole the ball passes (at acceptable speed), this does not simply yield an "aim spot" that much higher above the hole - although it is actually almost that. What is necessary si to see the whole shape of the putt path that ran below the hole and pivot this shape intact as if it were hinged at the ball, raising the whole path uphill until the curve of the putt intersects with the hole. The actual aim spot is really that point where the straight startline of the putt first curves downhill, and if this point along the starline is projected straight until it is beside the hole, it will be WAY farther uphill than you suggest.

I hope you will contribute much more in the future, so we can all get focused.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
The PuttingZone
http://puttingzone.com
The Future of Putting Now.

Hello Geoff,
I‚ve enclosed a picture representing two putts to a
putting target. It shows the aim lines and ball tracks.
As this shows the ball tracks start in the direction of
the aim line. This is a physical property that‚s valid
no matter what the initial aim direction is. So if the
aim line is pointing uphill, the ball starts out in the
uphill direction. If the aim line is pointing downhill,
the ball starts out in the downhill direction.. Which
direction the ball deviates from the aim direction, I
think, can be best seen by imagining a clock face area
with the hole as its center. Assume that the straight
down hill direction runs from 12-6 o‚clock. Now, for
all balls with tracks terminating at the hole and
initiated on the clocks edge on the right side will
deviate to the left and all balls initiated on the left
side will deviate to the right. Since the picture
enclosed shows left deviations, this implies that the
ball‚s initial clock position is anywhere between 12
and 6 o‚clock. Furthermore for all positions with
aimlines directed to the hole will point downhill for
12-3 o‚clock positions and uphill for 3-6 o‚clock
positions. The direction at 3 o‚clock position points
neither uphill or downhill.

You stated: "What is necessary is to see the whole
shape of the putt path that ran below the hole and
pivot this shape intact as if it were hinged at the
ball, raising the whole path uphill until the curve of
the putt intersects with the hole." It‚s interesting to
compare in the picture the aim line and ball track pair
for the two putts. Rotation of the patterns is apparent
about the hole position as you describe.

Gordon

Dear Gordon,

Thanks for the very interesting response and illustration. (I can't get the figure posted, though.) The figure captures the situation very well. If you compare the point of greatest deviation of the path from the straight line to the target (which is the "break-point" along the path), you will readily see that this length/distance of divergence is much shorter than the distance from the center of the target to the pivoted end-point of the path's startline off to the side of the target. In your figure, the breakpoint is located about halfway along the putt's curve, and is that point where the path stops heading uphill and begins heading downhill. The startline that points well to the right of the target's center is in effect "tangent" to the earliest curvature of the actual putt path, right at the ball. The tangent at the breakpoint itself is parallel to the straight line to the target. The angular difference between these two tangents is the desired orientation of the putterface and stroke direction. A completely different angle would be a line aimed from the ball to the breakpoint itself, and this angle would be between the angle made by the startline and the straight line.

Consequently, it is quite incorrect to advise people to aim at the breakpoint. A putterface orientation to the breakpoint seriously underestimates the actual curvature a successful putt will require. While it is always good to note the breakpoint on the ground, it is misleading if the golfer thinks of this as an aim point.

A good cure for this situation is to envision the curve of the actual successful putt running backwards from the hole to the ball. Sweeping along this curve back to the ball ends up establishing the startline direction as the eyes come closer on the curve to the ball. The trick is to hold fast to the implied startline as it manifests itself in this backward sweep along the curve. It's almost always higher than one is willing to believe at first blush.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
The PuttingZone.com