Dear Ed,
The reason Pelz's 17-inch "rule" is bogus science is because of his data and his original conclusions in 1977. His statements about a 17-inch rule started some 6 years later in 1983 and have never been based on any data or research. His 1977 data proves rather clearly what golfers have known for years before Pelz came along. That is-- the distance past the hole that results in the most sinks on a given green depends on the grass type and condition / green speed. There is NOT one best distance past the hole -- never has been. Pelz actually proved this again in 1977 and SAID SO in Golf Digest, July 1977, pages 52-55, in an article on his research by Larry Dennis, entitled "Die Your Putts at the Hole and You're Dead." I could give you the data and the quotes, but it basically shows:
on Bent greens in tournament condition, 5" to 10" past is optimal
on Bent greens in poor condition, 10" to 15" past is optimal
**********
on Bermuda greens in tournament condition, 15" to 24" is optimal
on Bermuda greens in poor condition, 20" to 40" past is optimal
he states expolicitly that his 1977 research proves that there is NOT any one optimal go-by speed.
These are Pelz's data and conclusions from his only research. He never mentions this data, reports it, cites it, or tells people about it since 1977 and has repeated his 17-inch "rule" and claimed his research "scientifically proves" it based on this same data. When he makes this claim he simply draws a grapgh and puts a curve on it with a peak at 17 inches, and represents this as his data. His actual data consists of ten different greens tested up and down the east coast under different conditions, so his reported graph is really just a "make-believe" amalgam of data he made up.
I have pointed all this out to Pelz with exact quotes on his website's discussion forum several years ago and he has never responded. In his 2000 book, the Putting Bible, he repeats his claim that his research scientifically proves the 17-inch rule, but he also then says in a sidebar to remember that the 17-inch rule is just an "average." I suppose this is his fashion of responding to people who have read his 1977 research by trying to have it both ways. There is no such thing as an "average" "BentMuda" green, so this average talk is pure bull.
In their recent study entitled How Golf Clubs are Made and How to Make them Really Work, Werner and Grieg (engineers and clubmakers) devote half the book to putting science. Among topics studied is optimal speed. They also conclude, like everyone else including Pelz, that optimal speed varies with green type and condition, and go further and state that their data shows the optimal speed also varies with handicap or skill level. They then specifically single out Pelz's so-called "17-inch Rule" and state that his claims are not supported by their data.
And finally, the reason Pelz now gives to explain why his Rule is the way it is -- he says this is due to bumpy, foot-traffic laden greens with the holes surrounded by "lumpy donoughts." Before Pelz, Golf Digest described "volcanos" around the hole in the early 1970s, and Cochran and Stobbs in their 1968 book Search for the Perfect Swing described foot traffic around the hole from short putts and foursomes retrieving balls. But this was all before modern triplex mowers and greens construction, agronomy, and maintenance practices seriously reduced these problems. Todays greens are mowed daily with machines that effectively roll and pack and even out the turf, more players and courses are "spikeless," pin placements are rotated usually daily to prevent foot traffic buildup around one location, and greens are just built to keep a better surface. In other words, pelz's claims are very stale and outdated by over a quarter century of significant changes in greens surfaces.
So, I consider Pelz's statements a little more than harmful to good putting and the reputation of science as a way to get to the truth about what works in golf.
Now, as to your specific issue of getting the ball all the way to the hole.
First, how frequently does the ball stop short? Is it more than 1/2 the time for all your putts?
Second, you state that the ball stops 2" short and sometimes as much as 15" short, but how long of a putt are you talking about? A percentage of the total putt length is a better measure of distance control, so on a 30' (360") putt leaving a ball 15" short is a distance error of only 4%. On a 10' putt, 4% is about 5". So missing a 30' putt by 15" is not bad. On a 10' putt, leaving it 2" short is only 1% error.
If you actually count your sinks from 10' and your putts that go by the hole at least some, I would bet that less than 1/3rd of the putts are short. Frustrating, but not that big a deal. Tell me if this is underestimating your putts that are short.
Of course, we all want no putts short. Assuming that you just have a problem of being short that won't seem to get better, I can make a few suggestions.
First, do you have a very good idea of the green speed? If you use a "core putt" to send a ball away from a hole, you should not have any question of distance control coming back at that same hole -- another "core putt."
Second, are you targeting all the way along to the hole, getting a sense of "from here to there" and not just a sense of "over there" at the target?
Third, are you tight on the follow-thru stroke? If your muscle tension curtails your follow-thru, you will invariably be short. The rule is "tight is short." This sometimes accompanies a shortish stroke back and thru (short on both sides of the ball) -- sort of a jab stroke. Jab strokes fall short a lot.
Fourth, is your tempo always the same so you can time any stroke of whatever length and all strokes take the same time? If not, your brain has problems getting the distance right? A quickish tempo can make your putts stop short.
Fifth, if your problem really shows up on 15 footers and longer, then that may be a disbeleif that your tempo is adequate to get the ball all the way to the hole. By far, most golfers do not belive that a smooth stroke with a nice even tempo will be enough "hit" or "send" to roll a ball that far. They react on these longish putts with arm tension and a stabbing stroke to "hit" the ball harder. But "tight is short" so even these putts stop short. Most of these golfers figure this out partly, and see the shortness, so then they overreact and blow these putts past the hole. Perhaps you just have refused to overreact like other golfers and just got stuck with a disbelief and a stabbing tight stroke.
Let me know if any of this is ringing true in your case, so we can get to the bottom better.
In the meantime, practice rolling putts with an even tempo and believe you can get such a stroke to send a ball 20 feet or more all the way to the hole. As soon as you can get me some more info, we'll go further along.
--
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
The PuttingZone.com
http://puttingzone.com
The Future of Putting Now -
Elite instruction from the World's most comprehensive resource.
Over 30,000 page visits each month and growing strong...
518 Woodlawn Ave
Greensboro NC USA 27401
336.230.0612 home
336.402.1602 cell
336-574-2324 fax
geoff@puttingzone.com
Join the PZ for the free Newsletter, Tips, and Updates: just send me an email with "yes" or "ok" or "subscribe" or "sure" etc. in the subject or body and I'll add you. Or, go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PuttingZone/join