Sure.
Jack Kuykendall is a pretty solid scientist and he at least recognizes the primacy of the brain in learning and controlling putting. I'm not convinced he appreciates targeting neuroscience as well as he could, and I disagree with his dominant-hand stroke theory, but I like his notions of the amygdala / fear system (to the extent he elaborates on the topic).
Let me simply go through his main points (quoting his summary of these points) and state my position:
o Moving an object at a target is primarily a forward motion. [Agree]
o The fingers are used for gripping. [Agree, but so what?]
o The palm of the dominant hand is used for direction. [Disagree]
o Putting is a dominant hand activity. [Disagree]
o The highest probability of making an object move at a target is when using the dominant hand. [Disagree]
o All motions are controlled by the subconscious mind. [Agree that the subconscious is VERY important in motions, but don't like the form of this statement]
o The subconscious is a non-communicating dictator - the conscious mind can never know what the subconscious is doing. [Agree that the brain has many processes that are not accessible to conscious awareness, and that some VERY important processes like those of the cerebellum are not in communication with conscious awareness, but it is possible to be aware of how these processes actually work and know whether what your conscious mind is contributing (or not) to those non-conscious processes is helping or hurting]
o A pendulum motion has a lower probability of producing the desired results. [Disagree, although not sure what K. means by "pendulum motion"]
o The optimum method of making straight-line motion is with a forward stroke only. [Disagree since the optimal character of the method depends upon ALL contributing stages]
o Immediate over spin provides optimum distance and direction control. [Disagree mildly, mostly based on the physics of overspin in putting]
o A right arm piston action allows humans to produce straight-line motion. [Probably true enough, but it's not the only way or the optimnal way]
o The closer to the hole, the higher the probability of sinking the putt. Outside of three feet, distance control should be the primary goal. [Disagree because there is no real conflict between a goal of sinking a putt that is normally too long for you and good lagging]
I'm not quite sure how deeply to get into this discussion. Let me confine myself to the dominant hand. Kuykendall does not really explain his basis in neuroscience for his theory that dominant-hand control with a piston stroke is the optimal method for putting. The issue has a neuroscience component and a biomechanics component.
Neuroscience of hand dominance. Kuykendall is right that the dominant hand has more neurons in the motor cortex. It also has more neurons in the somatosensory cortex, where hand position is tracked for purposes of movement planning. He seems to assume that this means the dominant hand is "therefore better" at movement precision in a putting stroke. To me, this issue is hardly resolved so easily. The fact that a body part has more neurons in the somatosensory and motor cortex just means that it is habitually used more and has a wider repetoire of possible movements. This is not necessarily a good thing in putting, where the actual movement is ALWAYS THE SAME in terms of direction. It is not true that the golfer's task in making the stroke is to roll the ball AT the target; instead, the golfer should first AIM the putterface at the target and then just roll the ball straight away from the putterface. If the setup is adopted after the putterface is aimed and is arranged squarely to the direction the putterface is aimed, then the task for the golfer becomes to "putt straight" -- every single time. In this context, the fact that the dominant hand has more potential movements is NOT a good thing, but a source of error, because ALL but one of those movements is incorrect.
Considering the dominant hand in terms of the neuroscience of distance control, Kuykendall uses the familiar analogy of tossing a ball. I've studied tossing a ball extensively, from the point of view of biomechanics and neuroscience. The trick to tossing a ball is gauging the amplitude (size / length) of the tossing action, and then timing the release of the ball by the fingers. The release is easy: the ball is always released BEFORE the hand reaches the level of the elbow (the same as it is in bowling). [One reason bowlers crouch low to the ground in their throw / release posture is to get the elbow closer to the lane surface.] The "send" or "throw" of the release action is really a matter of the tempo of the toss' arm swing. That's because the cerebellum handles the meshing of tempo with stroke amplitude by preplanning how to move the arm from top of backstroke to release point so that the accelerating motion covers the length of the stroke in the right total time. This whole motion is a movement of the tossing ARM from shoulder out to fingertips, and is NOT a movement of the hand. In terms of distance control, with a very little practice, you ought to be able to swing the non-dominant arm and release the ball with good timing so that a toss by the non-dominant arm works just as well as one by the dominant arm. It's really just a matter of counting and letting the non-conscious brain handle the motion with good timing.
I think Kuykendall here fails to follow-through on his belief that the subconscious controls movement. The belief that the dominant hand is best for putting really traces back to the fact that we are MORE CONSCIOUS of what the right hand is doing or trying to do than we are of the non-dominant hand. For me, this is the PROBLEM in more senses than one.
Actually, in the context of "how do we best make a straight stroke," the non-dominant hand is better for guidance, and neither hand has any role in power generation. The non-dominant hand relates to the non-dominant hempisphere in both the somatosensory and motor cortex, and in that same hemisphere's parietal lobe. Targeting in general of relations between the body and locations or objects in space is handled mostly in the non-dominant hemisphere's parietal lobe. In taking stock of the body position and using this to relate to the target in space, the brain's somatosensory cortex feeds the parietal lobe the necessary information. This parietal spatial analysis or synthesis is forwarded to the frontal lobe, where it is used to prepare a battle plan for motion, and then this plan is sent in to the somatosensory cortex and the motor cortex. There, the battle plan is used to "prime" neurons that are predisposed to move in the correct pattern, to vest them with a greater chance of controlling the actual movement execution. In the motor cortex for the hand and fingers, for example, there are neurons that are "tuned" and waiting to move in certain directions, and whether these directions end up being the neurons that dominate the actual movement pattern depends mostly on how the battle plan vests these or competing neurons with potency. Those neurons that are tuned to go the direction the battle plan calls for are basically given a louder voice on the trading floor of the motor cortex. Hence, targeting actually determines movement in this fashion. The more competition there is for a movement direction, the less certain the outcome.
All of this targeting-to-movement process works better for drawing a straight line with the non-dominant hand than it does with the dominant hand pushing out at a target. For my approach, the trick is to draw a straight line at your feet so the ball rolls straight away from the putterface, and not to move any body part at a target. The non-dominant hand is just plain better at this than the dominant hand. Heck, because the non-dominant hand is controlled by the "spatial awareness" hemisphere directly, the non-dominant hand is probably better at moving out to a target as well. I have found that the non-dominant hand is better in placing and aiming the putterface than the dominant hand, and also that I can putt very well left handed although I am VERY right-hand dominant. We are much more conscious of the dominant hand and even feel we can communicate with it in a verbal sense, and in comparison the non-dominant hand seems "mute" and unresponsive to the sort of "internal talk" controls we are accustomed to. However, since most of the important targeting processes are non-conscious, the "talk control" system of the conscious mind is really playing above its head! The seemingly "mute" non-dominant hand is actually more responsive to targeting body-knowledge. Again, it comes down to getting the dominant hand and the conscious "talk control" system to get out of the way and let the idiot savant of the non-dominant hand save the day with a perfect stroke.
Training part of the body for a specific repeating motion (like making the same straight stroke over and over) strengthens those "straight" neurons as well as the whole neurons involved in the pattern (e.g., setup feelings, the look of the ball at your feet, the weight of the putter, etc.). One can very well train the "blunter" neurons of the shoulder to move in a straight way, and I think better than one can train the hand, since there is less competitive "noise" in the system to begin with.
The problem with the dominant hand is SHUTTING OUT the bad movement neurons from influencing the action. When control is given to the hand for both power and direction (as Kuykendall seems to do), the powering action confuses and overrides the guiding action. That's probably why Kuykendall really advocates a "piston pushing" of the dominant hand. This sort of body action is not really a hand action at all, but a limb action in which the angle of the wrist is set and the powering and guiding is all handled at the level of the shoulder and upper arm. Kuykendall does not appear to appreciate how this "piston action" takes the dominant hand out of the process. There is still a sense in which the golfer is moving the hand at a target, but he is not doing this by moving the hand -- he is doing this by moving the elbow-forearm-hand assembly as a unit with the shoulder and upper arm. The joints that are changed in this action are the shoulder and the elbow. Hand action requires changing the wrist joint or the finger joints. Moreover, this "piston" action can be accomplished without any joint changes in the shoulder or elbow if the movement of the limb is done by moving the shoulderframe as a unit.
When Kuykendall describes the stroke action, he writes:
"The stroke is a right arm piston motion. Piston the right elbow and keep the palm of the dominant hand moving toward the intended line of roll during the entire putting stroke. The left forearm, wrist and hand should be thought of as a one-piece rod that never flexes. The right elbow making a piston action performs the stroke. The shoulders react to the motion. The left shoulder will move upward and the right shoulder will move downward as the right arm straightens."
Keeping the palm in constant orientation eliminates wrist action, so this is NOT a stroke controlled by the dominant hand itself, but by moving the dominant hand at the end of the limb by moving the limb. Kuykendall specifically wants the elbow of the dominant arm to change (i.e., straighten). He is not clear about whether the arm pit should change at the shoulder joint. His statement that the shoulders "react" to the elbow-foream motion implies he wants the golfer to "think of" moving the forearm by straightening the elbow and extending the forearm in a "piston" action. This means, neurologically, that he wants the golfer to register the location of the dominant arm's elbow and and the fixed palm at the business end of it, and plan a sticking out of the elbow. This conscious planning recruits neural activation in the elbow neurons and in the muscles responsible for changing the elbow angle in the upper and lower arm on either side of the elbow, both in the somatosensory cortex and the motor cortex -- NOT those neurons of the dominant hand. Of course, the neurons for the hand are used in a limited way to sense the hand's location and keep it's shape with tonic muscle tension and assess where the limb motion will send it in relation to the body and the target, but these neurons are not the "moving" neurons that need directional sorting.
I especially disagree with Kuykendall's theory insofar as it involves powering the stroke. He uses the training horseshoe-like device to preset backstroke lengths and correlates so many inches of stroke with so many feet of putt length. This is conventional and incorrect. What matters in the physics of distance control is putterhead speed and mass at impact plus green speed (assuming square, solid impact). The golfer has no influence on his putter's putterhead mass or the green speed, and must only recognize and be familiar with these variables. Then the issue of distance control resolves itself solely to the issue of how best (reliably, accurately, and consistently, with the least trouble), generate the appropriate putterhead speed at impact called for by the specific putt.
The idea that a set stroke length for a set putt length is the best way to do this is incorrect. As Kuykendall otherwhere recognizes, in the ball toss the golfer does not watch the length of the stroke. Similarly, in the putting stroke, the non-conscious mind handles the size of the stroke. It can only do this reliably and accurately and consistently, however, when the tempo is stabilized and predictable and well-learned. (The brain can handle putting well with a variety of tempos, from a jab stroke to a flowing stroke, but it insists that you stick to the SAME tempo all the time.) The non-conscious brain, mostly the cerebellum, relies upon the fixed tempo to simulate motion and predict its effects and therefore to plan and execute the appropriate motion. The only ingredient the brain needs for the setting of a specific putt length is TARGETING of the distance -- that is, relating the body's present posture and position to the target in space in terms of making the upcoming stroke with appropriate putterhead speed at impact. In the pattern of motion of the stroke, the stroke starts at the top of the backstroke at zero speed and accelerates in some fashion or at some rate into impact, reaching its putterhead speed at impact. To do this consistently, the pattern of acceleration needs to be consistent so the brain can simulate the putterhead speed at impact consistently for a given backstroke length. Over time, the brain learns that WITH THIS ACCELERATION PATTERN and WITH THIS BACKSTROKE LENGTH, the putterhead spedd that always results produces a given putt distance of roll on the same green speed. The key is having the same tempo plus a consistent pattern of acceleration into impact. Once this is gained, the brain can set the backstroke length non-consciously with great precision in the resulting distance control. So what's a good acceleration pattern?
There are basically two patterns to choose from: a) voluntary muscle activation to produce acceleration in a consistent way, or b) just let gravity handle the downstroke. I have learned over millions of putts that gravity is better and more reliable and exact at this task than I can ever be on a voluntary "trying to get the pattern right" basis. Ben Crenshaw commented that it took him a couple of decades before he finally understood that the putter moves itself into impact. Hence, in my view, there is NO voluntary muscle action that propels the putterhead into impact in a specific repeating pattern of acceleration, and instead gravity's "Ole Reliable" pattern does the job beautifully. Not only does gravity provide the acceleration pattern -- it also provides the pendulum tempo as well (always the same without effort).
Using the gravity acceleration pattern, the brain has all it needs -- a recognition of putterhead mass, ball mass, green speed, target location with reference to the body, stable gravity acceleration pattern in a stable gravity tempo -- to set the backstroke for the putt's length thoughtlessly and exactly. If you must have some conscious thgought, it ought to be something plain and natural like "roll the ball all the way into the hole."
So, with this relaxed non-action for the acceleration, the putting stroke is not only thoughtless, but effortless as well. The smoothness of this sort of stroke is only matched by its accuracy for distance control.
In my pattern, the stroke has three phases -- put the putterhead back to the top of the backstroke at the appropriate length for a gravity free-fall; relax and let gravity handle the returning of the shoulder frame back to level with a free-fall smooth acceleration into impact with gravity's own tempo; and then "ride" the falling putter up past impact by keeping the shoulder frame headed upward with the same tempo. Only the first and last stages involved voluntary, conscious muscle action, while the actual business part of the stroke from top of backstroke to impact is literally effortless and smooth and always repeats the same way.
So, I believe Kuykendall has an internal inconsistency here about powering the stroke, where he is trying to use a conscious planning of the stroke length when he ought to be using a non-conscious instinctive system. I just don't see that he comprehends how the non-conscious system for distance control actually works. It's a common misunderstanding.
With regard to his statements about true roll or overspin, this traces back to a misapplication of billiard physics to golf putting. It is quite possible to eliminate skid in billiards with a level blow of the cue through the top quadrant of the cue ball 5/7th the way up the ball from the bottom. But this sort of blow does not happen in putting, where the golfer is armed with a slab rather than a pointed stick. Harold Swash advocates a "tangential" blow of the putterface on the upper quadrant of the ball while also having the putterhead rising through impact as it traverses from space occupied by the ball. This approximates a billiard "no-skid" blow, and reduces backspin and skid, but doesn't rteally eliminate skid or even impart true topspin. (If a ball really started with topspin, it would "skid" in reverse, like a hotrod "peeling out" with a "wheelie.")
The real question is whether an effort to approximate a billiard no-skid blow with the putter on the ball is worth the effort or necessary for "optimal distance control," as Kuykendall claims. Not really. What is needed is a "consistent physics" of impact of whatever sort. Then distance control will be fine. What the overspin talk is all about is keeping the skid phase from resulting in getting the ball knocked off line or otherwise experiencing irregular and variable energy over the total putt length from putt to putt. Wasted energy, per se, is not necessary bad for distance control so long as the resulting energy is consistent. That's why a rap putter can have good distance control. What "overspin" or reduced skid really counts for is preserving or conserving energy. A reduced-skid putt rolls farther than otherwise, but this does not necessarily mean the distance control is there putt after putt. That takes consistent impact dynamics from putt to putt so a given stroke imparts a reliable measure of "send" to the ball with a predictable reaction with the surface. It's nice to have reduced skid, but what's the cost? If it takes a weird or difficult motion in terms of biomechanics and the neruology of learning and planning and executing the motion, then it seems this cost injects a high-risk of variation from putt to putt. Personally, the benefit doesn't seem to me all that great, so I have bigger fish to fry than going for so-called "rue roll." Plain-Jane impact physics with the putter naturally rising slightly past the bottom of the stroke into impact serves perfectly well without any "cost" at all. I'd rather concern myself with face angle and stroke path -- which are much more important and consequential than any benefit from reducing skid a little with questionable gain to the results.
With regard to his statements about the amygdala and the hippocampus, they are fine as far as they go, but the subject is considerably more complex and involved. For more details, you can read my paper on the neurophysiology of the "yips" here:
http://www.puttingzone.com/Dystonia/yipsstudy.html.
I want to be clear that my departure from Kuykendall's theories should not be taken to mean I do not think his theories wouldn't work well with amateurs at a certain skill level or that even a pro would not find his method serviceable enough (Jack Nicklaus did). His method is probablyt better than most because it tends to reduce the role of the dominant hand itself in favor of a dominant arm. What I am really saying is that I disagree with the proposition that the dominant-hand piston stroke is the optimal method for putting, for the reasons set out above. I just don't think Kuykendall has the neuroscience cleared up enough to support his method as optimal. The physics is pretty straightforward (square putterhead moving squarely and solidly through the ball at the target.) Without going through all the details about why I think neuroscience better supports my approach, let me just refer you to my other writings.
Thanks for the challenge!
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
The PuttingZone.com
http://puttingzone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over 45,000 visits monthly and growing strong ...