Dear Neville,
Glad to try to help!
This is probably the most important point that I have learned from brain research -- the setting of the backstroke length is a totally non-conscious process of integrating touch and green speed and targeting, and trying to perform this consciously is not simply a bad idea, but a harmful idea that decreses effectiveness.
Because we are so dominated by our language facility, we tend to think that unless something registers in the brain as a verbal thought, then we are not using the brain at all. And this is completely false. All "trying" is a process of analyzing and choosing and planning and monitoring at some conscious level. The parts of the brain involved in this "trying" are not necessaily the best parts for the job.
The best part of the brain for setting the backstroke length is the cerebellum. The "little brain" is a separate component of the brain that is connected through the brain stem to the cortex. Because the cerebellum is not a part of the cortex, it is not accessible to conscious experience in any form at any level of conscious awareness, verbal or otherwise. The cerebellum is chiefly concerned with movement in space, and so it has the capacity to register various body positions, coordinate body positions with balance and vision, and influence the planning and execution of motor movement in the cortex and spinal cord. The main area of influence is in the smoothness and timing of movements of the body in relation to objects or targets in space. A dancer working on the fluidity of movements in the Tango is relying heavily on the cerebellum to time the movements and to execute the movements with smoothness and precision. An orchestra conductor who moves the baton in proper tempo with the proper pattern of flowing swoops is using the cerebellum to handle timing and smoothness and precision.
The usual example of how effectively the cerebellum is capable of handling these movement aspects is the way a doctor tests the cerebellum for gross defects: the doctor tells you to make a fist and hold it rigidly in front of your face as she pulls the arm away from you telling you to resist the pulling; then she suddenly releases the arm -- the fist will either fly back at your face and then stop before smacking your nose (good cerebellum), or it will fly back at your face and smack your nose (bad cerebellum). What is involved here in the stopping of the fist is quite interesting. All human movement is performed by pairs of muscles making changes in the angles of joints -- agonist muscles to start the change and antagonist muscles to oppose the change. The motor cortex fires the agonist muscles as a result of the normally understood process of motor planning and execution, but the cerebellum separately has responsibility for the antagonist muscles and how they slow or impede or bring to a halt the action of the agonist muscles. The "resisting" the pull of the arm by the doctor is a steady set of signals firing agonist muscles to move the arm in the way opposite to the pulling, that is, at your face. When the doctor suddenly releases the arm, these cortex signals fire the arm at the face, and the the arm flies straight at the face, and the cortex's job is finished. The cortex has the simple job. Then the cerebellum kicks in (or doesn't). The cerebellum has been monitoring things all along, including the firing state of the agonist muscles and the position of the fist. As soon as the arm is released, the cerebellum is quick like a cat to react and implement a braking plan under the general instruction "don't hit yourself in the face." The quickness is part of its charm, a big part. The cerebellum then times the speed of the arm and fist at your face by a combination of starting position, muscle firing, and changing limb position, in light of the distance to your nose. It then calculates how much brakes to apply and with what timing. The cerebellum then applies the right amount of brakes at the right time and the fist stops just shot of the nose. You can see the same pattern of cortex-fired ballistic motion being braked and stopped with exquisite timing by proposing to slam both palms together in a violent loud clap, but then stop the hands just before they meet. This is the same process of cerebellar control.
To appreciate the complexity and sophistication of this, you have to recognize how precisely the cerebellum in the normal adult is able to handle the timing and the distance and the motion of the arm and hand. The cerebellum has what amounts to a regulator timer, with steady nerve pulses feeding the cerebellum a comparative clock timing to use in planning and monitoring movement. The structure of the cerebellum, with Purkinje cells and mossy fibers and climbing cells, is essentially a timing integrator for vision, balance, and movement in response to environmental (and imagined) stimuli. In putting, it is quite possible to have any tempo you want and still putt effectively, including a rather sharp stab stroke or jab stroke. Here, the braking action / control of the cerebellum shows itself clearly. In the stroke I recommend, there really isn't much braking action, as the putter is coasting to a stop at both ends of the stroke. Even, so the cerebellum is key to planning the body position of the arms and handfs and torso at the top of the backstroke, and thus guiding the cortex via cerebellar input for making the appropriately timed action of putting the putterhead back and letting it fall into impact and then lifting it into the follow-through. The cerebellum keeps the action integrated, unified, smooth, and appropriately timed and sized.
So, distance control in putting really is not a matter of learning a certain backstroke length for a certain putt length and practicing this size stroke and committing it to memory, along with other sizes, in something like a multiplication table. This approach ignores the differences in green speed fro green to green and course to course. The cerebellum integrates all the elements of touch or distance control in a non-conscious way. I personally don't use the term "natural" for this, and prefer something closer to "normal" as a way of describing how the brain usually handles all sorts of daily movements, not just sports movements. The term "natural" implies a simplicity that is just not the case, whereas "normal" implies something like "familiar" and there fore "easy" although perhaps not "simple."
Because of all this, the steady, well-learned tempo of the stroke is relied upon by the cerebellum in calculating and ordering up the appropriate backstroke length. In effect, thge cerebellum knows exactly how gravity will then accelerate the falling putter into the ball from a given backstroke starting position, how the heft or weight of the putterhead will "send" the ball with that putterhead speed at impact, how that ball "send" will react to the friction of the green and its green speed, and thus how far the ball will roll and how it will slow to a stop at a very specific location on the green. At each increasing position of backstroke, the speed of the putterhead at impact increases, and each and every backstroke length corresponds to one and only one putterhead speed at impact and thus one and only one distance of roll for that backstroke. With the tempo in mind, the cerebellum only needs the target location as the final variable to establish the backstroke length. Once the golfer targets with his steady tempo in mind, the cerebellum is good to go -- and the only thing to avoid is interfering with the backstroke or the tempo by overriding what the cerebellum decides and plans. This is really a system that everyone uses everyday for ordinary movement, and it is very reliable and can be trusted with greater assurance than trying to figure something "special" out on every different putt. Just do it! Using the conscious mind to "figure out" or "pick" a basckstroke length seems better because it is harder and appears to be a more careful way of doing things, but in reality it is too simple and unreliable in comparison to just using the "normal" way of moving and is general inferior for results.
To sum up, you are correct that an "instinctive" or "natural" way is better, but it is hardly simpler. It is more complex, but it is also easier to do and much morte reliable and effective. Every golfer will have to convince himself of this personally on the green, but for starters you can simply observe how perfectly regular gravity is in producing the same pattern of acceleration time after time by holdong a golf ball out over a floor say four feet high and drop it and watch how long it takes to hit the floor: it's EXACTLY the same EVERY TIME (no exceptions). Consistentcy in putting starts with this basic fact of nature and consistent distance control behooves the golfer to appreciate this fact and use it.
To help learn this, I would suggest the golfer try putting three balls all the same distance with one tempo (whatevcer the distance) by using a specific backstroke length. Then the golfer should pick another backstroke and repeat the three putts to the next distance. Then go back to the first backstroke length and get the same results as the first time. Then go back to the second backstroke length and reproduce the same results for distrance with all three balls. This is putting without reference to a predetermined target. Next, use targeting plus tempo, and observe the backstroke length establishinging itself non-consciously and putt three balls to the same target. Then pick a more distant target and repeat the targeting plus tempo approach for three putts. This exercise should show that the backstroke length takes care of itself solely from tempo plus targeting, once the green speed is familiar.
Let me know how I can help in Texas, if you like.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
The PuttingZone
http://puttingzone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over 45,000 visits monthly and growing strong ...