In large measure due to your great work, my interest in putting has now risen to above that of any other aspect of the game.

Now I am going to ask my first question of you. Today, a friend told me that the two-ball putter was designed by its originator in such a way that optimal use is facilitated by NOT paying attention to the first ball behind the face. In other words, one must line up the ball itself with the second ball near the tail of the putter. The first ball means nothing.

So I started to experiment with the idea of putting a bit more focus on the "second " ball. It resulted in accomplishing the "wiater's tray" position on the thru swing that I have been searching for. Also, this allowed me to put my putter handle over my sternum ( I have the long putter) with my hands behind the ball and feel comfortable about it.

What do you think about the designer's idea in regard to alignment, stroke, etc. ?

Keep up the great work, man. You are allowing me to become a peaceful putter - like in the phrase - a peace that supasses all understanding - can you dig it?

Dear PEP,

As a student of TS Eliot and as a person aware that Ash Wednesday just occurred (Feb. 26), I can dig it.

I would love to know more about the source of your friend's understanding about the designer's intention to have the golfer pay attention to the second ball on the two-ball putter. Personally, I have pretty good reasons to doubt that the designer had any such intention, and has no theoretical understanding of why such a focus may help.

The history of this type of putter design suggests that the actual originator of the idea was someone back around 1974. The Callaway / Odyssey two-ball putter is simply a slightly modified copy of the earlier Pelz three-ball putter from the 1980s. Pelz claims his design is based on visual science of some sort, but he has never said what sort or talked about it. His putter was deemed illegal. The Odyssey two-ball skirts around the Pelz design problem.

Frank Thomas discusses the relation between the Two-ball design and the ealier Pelz design here in this Q&A in Golf Digest:

"Q: Back in the 1980's someone built a putter with either two or three half golf balls mounted in line in back of the face with a look similar to the new Odessey 2-ball. I think D.A. Weibring and several others used it on tour for a while. That putter was declared illegal by the USGA (I think). What makes the Odessey 2-ball putter legal compared to that one? -- John Putman"

"A: John,
The three ball putter, introduced by David Pelz Research in the mid 1980s, came in two versions. The one with a small face and a large flexible wing at the back was declared non-conforming because the distance from the toe to heel was considerably less than the distance from the front to the back (see Appendix II Rule 4b. Dimensions.) The other version, with a large rigid face, conformed and it was grand-fathered after the rules change in 1984. The Odyssey putter does not have balls but flat discs and as a consequence would not be treated the same as the facsimile of golf balls (see Appendix II Rule 4a. Plain in Shape in the Rules of Golf.) For an in-depth explanation of the interpretation you need to go directly to the USGA, but this information may be confidential."

Equipment Extra - Frank Thomas discusses the earlier Pelz putter and USGA rulings, GolfDigest.com, 24 Jan 2003.

As it happens, it appears someone ELSE entirely designed a two-ball putter even before Pelz, and I recall seeing an ad for one in a golf magazine from about 1973 or 1974. So, in reality, I believe that the real designer just had one of those ideas and stuck golf balls on the back of a putter, and later we end up with the Callaway two-ball with stupendous claims about how it is a deliberate design.

If your friend has some info I can chase down, I'd love to find out I'm wrong about this.

Regardless of the intention or lack thereof of the two-ball designer, I'm not surprised that using this putter that way seems to help. Focusing on the second ball does not so much move focus off the putter's front ball as it takes focus off "hitting" the real ball. This removal of focus from hitting the ball also makes the interior feeling of the stroke movement paramount, and tends to "blind" the golfer away from using the eyes during the stroke. Those are just the two sorts of foucs (interior feel of the stroke and parking vision while the stroke takes place) that facilitate making an accurate stroke, with the pivot still and the lead-side shoulder lifting accurately with dead hands towards a "waiter's tray" end position.

Eyes are the enemy when it comes time to pull the trigger on a putt. You should find that with just a modicum of effort, you can aim the putter face and settle into your setup and then just close your eyes and putt blind with wonderful accuracy.

It's really about managing your body and if focusing on the second ball helps, that's fine. But remember, having a putter that visually attracts your attention in the first place is not a good idea. The two-ball, even used as you describe, definitely attracts the eyes first, even if you then can park vision on the second ball for the stroke. Personally, I'd rather have a "plain-jane" putter that does just what it is supposed to do, and let me get down to the brass tacks of managing the body for an accurate stroke movement.

Thanks for the kind words, and I hope you ask many questions going forward and contribute many ideas.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone
http://puttingzone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.

Over 595,000 visits and growing strong ...

518 Woodlawn Ave
Greensboro NC 27401
336.230.0612 home
336.402.1602 cell

Dear Geoff,

I will ask my friend today if I see him at the course. about more info regrading the designer's intention.

Very interesting that you would mention putting with one's eyes closed- up to about one month ago, i did exactly that - 2 to 3 hours a day for 2 months or so. It was difficult to get used to "eyedea" of keeping them open on the course. Most of the time couldn't do it. Then started to practice with them open and this carried over to the course.

I certainly understand what you ae saying about the putter attracting the eyes unprofitably.

There is, however, something compelling and useful for me about rehearsing the stroke in slow motion and especially the "waiter's tray" finish sensing seeing that putter head in that place.
With the two ball it looks to me like the space shuttle - that is, it cues an imaginative part of my mind- in a way, not unlike how many of your pearls seem very image and hence, imaginatively based.

On the other hand, I have learned a lot from you in terms of grounding my putting in the sensory realm - the stuff about how the neck swivels and thereby one is given direct access bodily to distance and speed is absolutely righton and fantastic.

My impression is that golfers on the whole are not very imaginative people- i am not talking about the professional who I believe uses his or her imagination, but the ball beaters who have never learned to practice. In the martial arts, the japnese word for practice is "to reflect upon the past!" This reflection is a potent aspect of the imagination. Sometimes this is done in golf simply by studying the shot till the very end, then allowing the visual image to flow into a sense of rest. Resting between shots leads very naturally to reflecting in an activity that is so emotinally laden as striking a golf ball. Like the silnece between the notes that are struck in music- the rests in golf make the golfer in my mind. Theory - perhaps, but if one tries to rest betwen the shots, there is some transformation into experience of that mere idea.

More concretely now, I am thinking about what has happened in one area of my game -I have found that my short iron play around the green has improved immensely since I allow myself a choice about how to play the shot. I come up with at least two alternatives, sometimes more follow and then choose the 'best."

Would there be somethingl like that involved in putting? I believe that there is and it is done quite unconsciously. We feel that we would just confuse ourselves by consciously seeing two ways (or more) to the hole, but this is nonsense. It empowers us to have a choice. And of course, the very notion of speed implies a multitude of ways to hit the putt into the hole - though I agree that there might be only one door to the actual hole itself.

So what do you think about that? i know it has worked for me with the chipping and pitching - what about the putting? Have you tried this? Does having a choice work for putting as well?

thanks,
pep