Back to PuttingZone
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  

3 inch Sure Putt Cups

February 5 2003 at 10:50 AM
  (Login puttmagic)
from IP address 172.168.22.120

Geoff,

I wrote something that appeared on our website about the 3-inch Sure Putt Cup as a training aid [http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/equipment/31448.asp]. I will do more, although I'm not sure exactly when. However, I am hatching a plan -- something special.

The argument I hear against the 3-inch cup is this: You quickly learn to die the ball in the cup, because a putt with speed will lip-out 90 percent of the time. Most skilled players, though, don't want to get gentle putts, especially from short distances. So they are reluctant to practice too much with the small cup.

Does this make sense?

Jim Achenbach
Golfweek

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(Login puttmagic)
172.168.22.120

Not Really

February 5 2003, 10:58 AM 

Dear Jim,

The short answer is: "not really." The long answer is:

That's actually a complex issue. The notion that makes most skilled players reluctant to practice with the 3-inch hole is based on longstanding advice such as "accelerate through impact," "take the break out," "don't baby the short ones," "ram in the short putts," and similar old saws. Without getting argumentative, these old saws are addressing only one aspect (speed) of short putts, and the larger issue of targeting is probably more important in short putting. The 3-inch cup certainly trains targeting skills for short putts, and can also be used to extend a golfers "makeable" range out considerably.

The fear that such practice will "hurt" short-putting speed control is pretty bogus, as it is based on an antiquated robotics- or computer-programming notion of motor skills development that says if you practice something, that's what you will do when you play. Really, golf skills like putting are composed of a collection of elements, like timing, targeting, and physical coordination. Skills are developed by mastering and integrating these elements. One can freely practice elements in isolation, so long as one also knows how to integrate the elements for the full-fledged execution of the skill. It's not really hard, and there's no cause for fear.

While it's true you don't want to "baby" short putts, the advice to "accelerate through impact" is not actually taught in the PGA Tour Manual of Golf, by Michael Corcoran and PGA Tour Productions. Instead, the best advice is to allow the putter to accelerate naturally, without hit or voluntary muscle powering. Ben Crenshaw has said that it took him several decades to learn that the putterhead moves itself. The tempo of an excellent putter like Loren Roberts is very close to the natural free-fall tempo of the putter itself swinging freely as a pendulum, which is usually about 60-65 beats per minute, or one full stroke fall in one second, and certainly not the 75-85 beats per minute "whacking" stroke taught by some putting gurus.

Similarly, the advice of Dave Pelz to always hit putts so that if the ball misses the cup it will roll an average of 17 inches past the hole is not sound. Pelz's actual data is reported only in Golf Digest for July 1977, pages 50-52, in Larry Dennis' article "Die Your Putts at the Hole and You're Dead." Pelz there reports the results of his True-Roller experiments to ascertain the optimal go-by speed on ten different greens on the east coast, including bent and bermuda greens. The general conclusion Pelz drew then is that there is NOT any one optimal go-by speed, and that the speed that maximizes sinks depends upon the grass type and the current playing condition. This, of course, was not news to skilled players.

The actual results went something like this: optimal go-by on bent greens in tournament condition, 5-10 inches; bent in poor condition, 10-20 inches; bermuda in tournament condition, 15 to 24 inches; bermuda in poor condition, 20-40 inches. Six years later in a 1983 article and nine years later in 1986 in his book Putt Like the Pros, Pelz had reversed his conclusion without any further experimentation to claim that all putts on all greens should be hit aggressively so that if the ball missed the cup, it would roll 17 inches past the hole. In effect, he "made up" a "bentmuda" green and just picked a number somewhere in the middle of the results from ten different greens.

The real issue is ball speed at the lip, not go-by roll on a specific surface type and condition. The physics of drop-speed has been addressed in four solid studies that I'm aware of, and they all agree that 9 revolutions per second at the lip is the upper speed limit for even a center-cut putt, and that as the lip-speed declines, a larger percentage of the hole's capture profile becomes available, so the effective target widens from the center-cut line one-dimple wide out to about 3.5 inches wide at 3 revolutions per second, and wider still at 2 revolutions per second. The go-by that results with misses will depend upon your drop speed and the green. Faster greens will have longer comebacks for the same drop speed.

Another problem with Pelz's data is that it is stale and now largely irrelevant, especially to Tour players. His experiments were conducted in the mid-1970s, over a quarter century ago, and his "theory" for why there is a minimum go-by speed was mostly that the roll of the ball is knocked off line by footprints and spike marks and a lumpy-donough pattern of footprints at the hole unless there is sufficient momentum to keep the roll on line. Momentum is mass time velocity, and the only way to manage the momentum of a rolling ball is to manage the velocity. But this thinking was largely derivative of Cochran and Stobbs' 1968 plea for reduced foot-traffic at the cup (one-retrieval per foursome suggestion) and the "Volcano" at the hole described by Golf Digest in 1970. The problem is that the late 1970s and early 1980s saw the widespread adoption of tri-plex Toro mowers and improved green construction, agronomy, and maintenance technology. The result has been constant rotation of hole locations to disperse foot traffic, better grass that tolerates closer cutting and packing, daily tri-plex cutting and rolling (the mowers effectively pack the turf), and better irrigation practices for the USGA-style perched water-table greens. So, in general, greens are faster, more uniformly contoured, and consistent. In addition, the spikeless movement is strongly supported by greenskeepers and top venues. All of which means that the average Joe Sixpack golfer certainly needs to get the bloomin' ball to the hole, but the better golfer is not well served by the "go-by" approach or the 17-inch "rule" in partricular.

The recent study by Werner and Grieg in their book How Golf Clubs Really Work and How to Optimize Their Design looked at this issue, and their data made them specifically reject Pelz's 17-inch rule. Even though they adhered to the go-by approach, their data showed that the optimal go-by distance depends up grass type and condition (no surprise there), but also with skill level and length of putt. Generally, higher handicap golfers need to send the ball a little further past the hole than lower handicap golfers. The scatter pattern (leaves) for 98%+ of 10-foot putts for scratch golfers (roughly) looks like an ellipse 10 inches to either side at the hole extending from about 20 inches short to 20 inches long. [In Pelz's Putting Bible, he prints a photo of pro "leaves" that are grouped behind the hole at an average of about 8-10 inches past (and none as far as 17 inches past, which happens to be 4 hole widths, so it is easily measured from the photo itself with its built-in scale of the hole image), but he apparently doesn't recognize the conflict with his teaching.] In contrast, the Werner and Grieg data for a 30-handicap golfer shows a scatter pattern also about 10 inches to either side at the hole extending from 40 inches short to 40 inches long (p. 140). Looking at 40 footers, the scatter patterns enlarge in a scaled way by a factor of 4.8. Scratch pattern: 48 inches (4 feet) to either side of the hole and 96 inches short to 96 inches long (8 feet). 30-handicap pattern: 48 inches (4 feet) to either side of the hole and 192 inches short to 192 inches long (16 feet). Expressed as a percentage of the length of the putt, scratch golfers at 10 feet have a pattern of error 1/12th wide and 2/12th short or long; 30-handicap golfers have a scatter pattern 1/12th wide and 4/12th short or long. At 30 feet, the pattern worsens to scratch misses 1/10th wide and 2/10th short or long and 30-handicap misses 1/10th wide and 4/10th short or long (p. 141).

For optimal go-by speeds to maximize sinks, they conclude that a scratch golfer should aim 7 inches past for level 5-foot putts on Stimp 9 greens, 13 inches past on 20-footers, and 7 inches past for 40-footers; 30-handicap golfers should aim 12 inches past for level 5-footers on Stimp 9 greens, 14 inches on 10-footers, and 3 inches short on 40-footers. For Stimp 12 greens, a scratch golfer should aim 13 inches past on a 10-footer, 16 inches past on a 20-footer, 13 inches past on a 30-footer, and 10 inches past on a 40-footer; a 30-handicap golfer should aim 17 inches past on a 10-footer, 11 past on a 20-footer, 4 inches past on a 30-footer, and 2 inches short on a 40-footer (p. 144).

In my experience, the key is consistent delivery of ball speed at the lip, regardless of green surface speed. (It's called "touch," and pros work to adjust their touch to new greens every week.) Phil Rodgers long ago noted that top-level putters always deliver the ball to the hole at the same drop-speed regardless of the green or the length of the putt. Mine is 2 revolutions per second. This speed is more than adequate to overcome any "volcano" effect that might be there (despite modern practices), makes about 80% of the hole available for capture, and minimizes comeback distances pretty reasonably for any speed green.

Consistent tempo and thus consistent aiming and touch or distance control results in the most sinks in a round, and this means the tempo should stay the same even on short putts. What really results in "babying" short putts is a failure to use the established, well-honed tempo. The failure comes about from fear of the distance, and the thought that the normal tempo is too strong. Paradoxically, the advice to "ram it in" is a band-aid approach to overcoming this failure as a matter of habit. Equally paradoxically, the REAL fix is to address the fear, not paper it over. I've watched juniors putting from five feet and they ALWAYS miss long, and miss a lot. But if you make them attempt to stop the ball right on the lip so that it doesn't fall in, they magically cannot prevent the ball from sinking. I've converted juniors who miss 7 or 10 5-footers long to juniors who sink 8 or 10 5-footers (or better) INSTANTLY by getting them to target the precise distance of the roll by trying to stop the ball on the lip. An easy bet with a collegiate golf team member is to challenge him to stop merely 4 of 10 balls on 10-foot putts within 6 inches short of the lip. The result is many more balls sink than stop in the 6-inch region in front of the lip (around 3-5 sinks), and they can never get four balls to stop there (usually 1-2 tops). [Greg Norman also teaches this to his son.] I don't teach "confidence" as an end in itself, but as a by-product of competence in knowing what works, you sure don't have "fear" of your tempo. In this sense, I agree that "confidence" or "boldness" (meaning an absence of fear or self-doubt about your skill) tends to help short putting, but really only because you don't "quit" your tempo in the stroke.

The bottom line on short putt speed is stick to your tempo, because that's where your "touch" lives every putt. Speed control is a false issue for short putts.

The targeting precision required for short putts is greater than most people suppose. When a golfer wants to "ram it in," he is trying to cure a targeting problem with brute force, effectively ignoring the break that he either can't quite imagine clearly and accurately or can't get the speed right for. This, to me, is a flawed targeting process. I believe that clearly seeing the actual path across actual blades of grass in a short putt, plus seeing the exact point on the lip the ball needs to cross over, is fundamentally more important that speed control on short putts. This targeting precision is based upon a well-learned sense of "touch" and imagining the energy of the ball's roll changing as it nears the lip. With this dynamic "movie" of the speed in mind (derived from your normal tempo and touch), one and only one break and path and entry point are required or allowed. One tempo, one speed, one path. When that combination is imagined, the setup of the putterface to the ball takes care of the start-line and the stroke movement for a square stroke through the ball down the line. The touch takes care of the break. So, just use normal tempo and make a straight stroke based on the putterface alignment and setup to the putterface orientation.

This approach is a lot simpler and also promotes sound skill development over time. If you baby the putt be coming off tempo, you miss -- so you learn not to come out of tempo. If you don't imagine the energy and path accurately, but still "commit to the line" and make a square straight stroke, you miss -- so you learn not to get casual in targeting short putts. You get progressively better at short putts because you are in a procedure for learning that has only one direction -- better.

Short putts have other issues as well, especially downhill putts and putts breaking away from the golfers feet. But that's separate. I like Jack Nicklaus' approach to uphill/downhill short putts: gentle going down, rough and ready going up. In fact, gravity assists downhill putts find the final straight line into the cup, whereas uphill putts can be like putting along the top of an inverted bowl, and can send the ball off the start-line. So speed helps going uphill against gravity. Downhill, gravity can help, too fast can certainly hurt, but babying the putt can also let the brakes in the grass get too much purchase too early and this either stops the ball short or sends it curling too low. Either way -- up or down -- babying is a sin.

Summing up, the 3-inch cup trains targeting precision. If you don't have accurate touch, you won't be too successful with it from ANY distance, but if you have consistent drop-speed (from consistent tempo and targeting), then the 3-inch cup is no different than putting to a tee or a coke can or Fuzzy Zoeller's putting peg training aid. The only reason for doing a drill with SHORT putts to the 3-inch cup is the reality that not many golfer will sink many putts outside 4 or 5 feet because they have poor touch to begin with and thus can't target well enough for the smaller target size. Golfers with mediocre skill would get too frustrated missing all their practice putts. A highly-skilled golfer, however, doesn't care about misses, and in practice is more concerned with this or that aspect of technique, and just looks to the results of the putt for relevant feedback about speed and roll and line and stopping point. In this sense, a good putter will putt to the 3-inch cup from 10 or 15 feet away and get good training in targeting and touch and even extend his "makeable" range. All length putts look alike and all present the same problem -- managing the roll speed and path of the ball over the final inches into the cup.

To integrate elements of precision and touch into your putting, it always comes down to carefully foreseeing the roll (path plus energy) of the ball over that last piece of the path into the cup, regardless of the length of the putt. The 3-inch cup helps precision targeting, and precision targeting with a consistent tempo gives touch precision. It's not really about the length of the putt. Walter Travis's practice regime started at 2 feet out from a 3-inch hole and ended at 10 feet out. I have found that once you get precision touch, you get the ability to micromanage the stopping point of the ball even on very long putts. One drill I teach is to set a tee peg upside down and roll the ball to it so the ball touches the peg but does not knock it over. On the practice green, you can set the peg on the lip and do the same, from a wide range of distances. So, having this "touch" competence certainly allows you to feel in control if you "fear" something about the distance or speed of the putt surface might cause problems -- you know how to adjust to the challenge, keeping your tempo.

Best shut up now.

Thanks for the question.

--
Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor

The PuttingZone.com
http://puttingzone.com
The Future of Putting Now -
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over 35,000 page visits each month and growing strong...

518 Woodlawn Ave
Greensboro NC USA 27401
336.230.0612 home
336.402.1602 cell

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

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login puttmagic)
172.171.126.47

3 Subtle Points

February 8 2003, 5:59 AM 

Jim,

Sorry to run on. I ought to mention three brief considerations to help alleviate confusion in this area.

First, there is a sense in which accelerating through impact, although not really a good idea, is an anti-quit measure in a novel sense. Because of the biomechanics of the shoulderframe, if you turn the shoulderframe to place the putterhead poised at the top of the backstroke, a relaxation of the midriff muscles allows a free-fall downstroke. However, unlike a true pendulum which gathers enough momentum and speed going down to rise almost an equal distance on the follow-through, the human body is too massive for the putter to carry through symmetrically. Once the stroke reaches bottom, it starts to die rapidly. A REAL free-fall-only stroke looks like a stab stroke and dies out shortly after impact. So a golfer needs to continue the stroke movement action by voluntarily raising the lead shoulder to bring the stroke fully into a natural follow-through that matches the movement pattern coming down (gradual acceleration down matched by gradual deceleration going through and up.) This is really done with the gut moving the lead shoulder, but golfers who accelerate through impact sort of accomplish the same thing with hands and arms activation. The basic idea is not really to avoid quitting in the stroke; rather, it is to make sure you finish the stroke. This is mostly about what happens AFTER impact. The trick is to match the tempo of the follow-through to what you use coming down.

Second, an accelerated stroke is a way to make the stroke straighter. It's sort of a "hurry-up-and-hit-it-straight-before-you-tinker-with-the-line" deal. The motor cortex handles "ballistic" muscle firings only in the normal agonist-antagonist muscle pairings. And the direction of the stroke is formulated in the pre-motor cortex as something like a "battle-plan" and then forwarded to juice up the correct muscle controller in the motor cortex. Hand-eye coordination is either ballistic-only or ballistic-plus-corrective. The corrective aspect involves the antagonist muscles for fine-tuning the stroke path and speed, and this entails a heavy contribution from the eyes and the cerebellum. Golfers who are worried about the line or are unclear about it tend to forget about fine control during the stroke and simply fire to get it over with. Many of these golfers convince themselves that accelerating through impact is good because it is a speed issue, when it is really an issue about making a square stroke.

Third, when the amplitude of the backstroke is too short for the shoulder turn to get a good bead of the body's changing state and intended goal state, there is an understandable uneasiness about control for line and speed. The faster the green, the more this crops up. The two traditional responses are 1) shorten the backstroke and accelerate through, and 2) tighten your hold and the tension generally in your body so the control of the short stroke can be slow but sure. The shorter backstroke is a deliberate interference with tempo. The established tempo automatically and non-consciously sets the amplitude of the stroke. Shortening the backstroke throws the brain for a little loop and forces a faster tempo. This seems to be a forced "acceleration," but it is more of a frustrated natural stroke "going off" in an attempt to salvage what was good distance control before the backstroke got chopped. The deal with added tension is that most golfer do not distinguish between added "tonic" tension and increased tension due to speeding up the putterhead. So the need for greater tension to control a small stroke easily leads many golfers to default to an accelerating stroke. It is preferable in this situation to simply increase the muscle tone in the so-called "triangle" BUT maintain the same smooth tempo back and through.

So, the issue is complex and easily clouded. Many, many golfers are at a skill level where accelerating through the ball is a net positive, but not the best putters.

--
Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor

The PuttingZone.com
http://puttingzone.com
The Future of Putting Now -
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over 35,000 page visits each month and growing strong...

518 Woodlawn Ave
Greensboro NC USA 27401
336.230.0612 home
336.402.1602 cell

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


 
 Respond to this message   

(Login bussguy38)
12.220.137.100

Putting Peg

February 12 2003, 1:54 PM 

This is where The Putting Peg and Putting Pod would come in handy!

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - 3 inch Sure Putt Cups
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  
Back to PuttingZone