Dear Bob,
The Mel Siff "Magic Putter" papers are a little difficult to find, so here is the URL:
http://www.sportsci.com/sportsci/wildman/index.html
The paper on neuromuscular control (Neuromuscular Basis of Putting,
http://www.sportsci.com/sportsci/wildman/putt7.html) basically says that simpler is less complicated and therefore less susceptible to error. Beyond that, it is not sophisticated at all, and reads like a lot of sports science drivel about how the brain controls the body. There is no appreciation of the relationship between the perceptual processes of targeting and the stroke movement planning and execution processes at the neural level, and the paper simply sticks to kinesiology or muscle action. When you get right down to it, the writers of the paper don't really know what muscles are involved, in what sequence, for what purpose, and in what motion pattern. For example, the optimal stroke is even simpler than they imagine, as the downstroke is NOT a voluntary activation of muscle at all, but is a relaxing of the upper torso's position at the top of the backstroke to allow the shoulder frame to drop back from tilted attitude to level.
The study of the putter (Biomechanical Analysis of a New Putting Style,
http://www.sportsci.com/sportsci/wildman/putt1.html) is something I've been working on for about a year now. The paper is difficult to understand because it has poor graphics and descriptions of the appartus involved and the protocol for the comparison of two putting styles. Apparently, the new putter is used with one arm-hand facing forward like sidesaddle. The theory is that this style, versus a traditional putting stroke side-on, involves less body movement (joint change) and is therefore less susceptible to error. The comparison seems to be with a "usual" putting style that is propably not too good. However, the authors don't really study the $64,000 question, which is -- is it or isn't it less error-prone? They don't know, and the question really involves a host of issues the authors are not familiar with, mostly targeting issues. So what if the movement has less range of motion? Do you putt BETTER using it? Over what range of putt lengths? What skill level of golfers benefit from the technique, if any?
The same technique is involved with The One putter by the Swedes (my pals) (
http://www.scientificgolfers.com), and by the Down-the-Line putter developed here in Greensboro by Tony Piparo (story, June 2003,
http://www.interdyne.com/home/June2003/majorplayers-Inventors.htm). I'm involved in testing the DTL putter for both biomechanics and effectiveness with targeting. So far the results are pretty mixed in comparison to a traditional targeting and stroking pattern, but there is some suggestion this technique may help on short putts and may be superior altogether to traditional long putting technique and to belly putting. We'll see. I don't doubt that the face-forward technique can help so-so amateurs on short putts, but then there is a lot of room for improvement in these golfers and practically ANY putting instruction has a good placebo effect in raising their performance on a short-term basis.
There is a pretty good Putting Primer,
http://www.sportsci.com/sportsci/wildman/putt5.html, so far as it goes in a conventional way, but it accepts conventionality without critical intelligence. From a biomechanical point of view, the authors simply accept that the putter path gates inside going back and through, which is not necessarily the case. There is also a poor discussion of distance control. Otherwise, it's okay, and even surprisingly nice for sports scientists to have written it.
I won't admit that I haven't seen this Mel Siff / Gideon Ariel stuff before until I research my own records.
Thanks for posing the issue.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
The PuttingZone
http://puttingzone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over 45,000 visits mothly and growing strong ...