Dear Chris,
Thanks for the words of encouragement!
Remember, there are two different sorts of gating strokes -- the one that is really a tilted but single-plane shoulder action with no arms or hands and the style taught by Stan Utley in which the the arms and hands rotate back and thru independently of the shoulder frame.
I don't recommend the second style. The first style has been around a long, long time and was popularized by Geore Low in the 1950s into the 1980s.
The tilted-plane shoulder stroke is what confuses people, because everyone seems to think it is a gating stroke when in fact it is straight. That is, the putter face stays on one line at all times and the face stays square to both the line of the putt and to the line of the stroke path. The only reason people think this stroke "gates" is by watching the shadow of the putter face on the ground (as cast by a high-noon sun shining straight down). The shadow appears to gate, but that is only because of two things: 1) the putter rises going back from the ball and going forward past impact, and 2) the plane in which the putter rises is tilted back off vertical. The more the plane of motion is tilted, the greater the shadow appears to gate (the more radiused the path of the shadow).
PRINCIPLES
Using this information about the geometry of the stroke, how would we go about identifying the best characteristics for a training aid? Let's identify some principles for all training aids and then apply them.
1. PHYSICS: The aid should promote sound physics for putter-ball and ball-green impact.
2. LEARNING: The aid should efffectively and efficiently promote pressure-proof learning of how the proper motion is made.
3. ADJUSTABLE: The aid should be able to accommodate any specific adjustments the proper motion requires for you individually.
4. NON-DISTRACTING: The aid should entail the least distracting and irrelevant perceptual and movement cues possible.
5. EASY: The aid should be easy to use in different settings.
These will do for now.
1. SOUND PHYSICS
You have chosen to pursue the gating stroke. The fundamental soundness of this style for promoting good impact physics is not at the top of my list, mainly because of the abbreviated timing of squareness in the gating path and the fact that the loft of the putter works with slightly mis-timed impacts to impart clockwise (slice) spin when vertical spin or roll is all that is desired. That's the consideration under no. 1 above, but let's move to no. 2.
2. SOUND LEARNING
Efficient learning is learning that uses the least effort to attain the skill. Aids that promote something that requires fine-tuning apart from the aid are not efficient. Aids that require substantial translation in play are not as efficient as they could be. Aids that do not dove-tail with other skills (e.g., setup, aiming) are not efficient.
Effective learning is learning that is focused on only one aspect of putting, but without damaging or detracting from other aspects. Effective learning is learning that sticks and is easily reproduced.
Pressure-proof learning is simple to perform, based on a generous dosage of implicit learning, untroubled by the resurgence of old habits, and inculcated under real-life pressure contexts or a close simulation.
The different stroke training aids like the Putting Arc, True Plane Trainer, and others have significant differences in this category. The Putting Arc scores well for simplicity and implicit learning, but does not scores as well for translating to the course and for individual adjustability.
The Putting Arc, Putting Dragon, InPutt and True Plane Trainer are pretty close in the sort of "feedback" they generate for the golfer. Each relies upon the kinesthetic and proprioceptive "feel" of the stroke motion. You don't really gain anything in terms of feedback by watching the stroke or by trying to engrain a certain hand-eye coordination, and I'm sure this is a source of confusion because all golfers seem to expect this to be the route and the goal of stroke training. In my view, the feedback is not sufficiently identified or amplified for optimal benefit, and potential confusing use of the aids for irrelevant and harmful hand-eye coordination feedback is not guarded against effectively. And really the punishment or reward of these devices is a very muted sort -- the feedback is almost entirely seeing the ball go where the device is aimed, when it should probably be more about registering the body motion that moves the putter correctly. On this score, the InPutt with its face-squaring fork tines does the best job.
The Putting Dragon has an added feature in that it incorporates a raised string line above the tilted plane. This allows dove-tailed training of use of square setup and head-eyes positioning and use of the gaze with the stroke motion training.
The InPutt has the added feature of the fork tines off the heel of the putter that keep the face of the putter square at all times in relation to the plane of motion (and hence to the line of the putt as well), whereas with all other training planes, the putter heel is in contact with the surface but the face can open of close easily without being noticed how the hands or arms are getting involved in a bad way.
3. ADJUSTABLE
The main aspect that requires adjustment to fit the individual is the angle of tilt of the plane of motion. The Putting Arc comes in a standard shape that incorporates one and only one tilt in a one-size-fits-all approach; a specifically tailored shape can be special ordered but the process for identifying the individual shape is not described. The website comments: "There are only a few thousandths of an inch difference in ideal shape of The Putting Arc for a 5'4" golfer and a 6'2" golfer (assuming a typical putting stance)." The "ellipse" of the stroke plane is tilted off vertical and the rising of the putter back and thru on this tilted plane establishes the shape of the Putting Arc's curvature as looking straight down. I believe the tilt in the standard model is about 18 degrees off vertical.
The True Plane Trainer comes with two tilts -- 12 degrees and 18 degrees. This device has a clear plexiglass plane on which is painted the "smile" shape of the trajectory of the putter rising up going back and rising up going forward of the ball. The fact that the plane is adjustable is good, but it is not really adjustable enough. There is no reason the aid could not be completely adjustable to any tilt angle off vertical the golfer wanted. And the red "smile" path is based on a one-size-fits-all approach, since different sized golfers with different setups and putters will have differently shaped "smiles".
The Putting Dragon comes with admirable complete adjustability within a range from vertical to about 20+ degrees off vertical by means of wing nuts. The InPutt comes with a preset tilt angle.
Another aspect is whether the aid accommodates a good range of stroke amplitudes. If you wanted to practice a slow tempo with a largish backstroke, is there something in the aid that prevents this or makes it difficult? In the Putting Arc, the height of the curved surface and the total length of the aid seems a little short to me, and the experience of using effort to make sure the putter heel does not come up above the aid confines its usefulness to short putting practice. In my experience, learning a movement pattern is separate from learning the bigness of the motion or the fastness of the motion, but learning the skill in a total way requires being able to practice or try out the stroke pattern at different speeds and in different sizes. In comparison, the True Plane Trainer has a much higher plane. Even so, it could be longer. The Putting Dragon's plane is no higher than the Putting Arc plastic version, and the size of the stroke is confined between two support struts at either end. The InPutt is a high plane but the shortest of the group.
4. DISTRACTION
All aids come off about the same in terms of distractability and are very implicit. But I do not care for the way the Putting Arc encourages watching the putter face "apparently" open and close, as this tends to encourage the golfer to focus on moving the putter head in a specific manner than on moving the body. You don't really move the putter head in either aid -- you move your body. The Putting Arc would seem to encourage unnecessary armsiness or handsiness in the stroke, while this is not an issue with the True Plane Trainer, the Putting Dragon, or the InPutt.
The fact that the putter heel rides along a supporting plane surface is an issue of distraction and irrelevance. There is no heel support on the course, and the supprt can artificially mask flaws in the movement during training. To this extent, a simple stroke track offers an advantage.
5. EASE
In terms of ease of use, the Putting Arc wins -- just lay it on the ground. The small plastic version requires some anchoring, but the huge wooden version does not (and is longer and higher too). The True Plane Trainer requires anchoring outdoors, but indoors comes setup on a platform. Even though the True Plane Trainer can be used indoors, it requires reconfiguring the plane supports, so switching from outside to inside takes a relatively simple step. Aiming the True Plane Trainer is harder than aiming the Putting Arc, since it requires un-anchoring the support brackets to change the aim. The Putting Dragon comes as a self-contained platform that requires no anchoring, is easily adjsuted for aim, and works just the same indoors or out, but is a bit cumbersome for transporting without taking it apart or re-assembling it. the InPutt is very simple, stands well without anchoring, and is the same indoors or out.
Based on this functional analysis, I think the True Plane Trainer, Putting Dragon, and InPutt do a better job training the movement than does the Putting Arc, but all aids really come up a little short in terms of adjustability for angle or size of stroke, ease of setup indoors or out, and distraction with irrelevant and masking cues.
A CHEAP ALTERNATIVE
A simple raised string line functions as well or better as the above aids in training an arcing stroke along a tilted plane. Just stretch two strings between two sticks or stakes stuck in the green, so the strings runs straight for 5-10 feet or more and the lower string is raised above the ground 8-10 inches or so with the upper string another 4-5 inches higher. If you stick the stakes into the gound at the the same tilted angle, the two strings define a tilted plane. If you position the shaft of the putter against the strings from beneath (far side of shaft away from your feet touching the strings) and then make a tilted-plane stroke along tyhe proper tilt, the shaft will remain in contact with the strings. The strings will slip down the shaft as the putter rises going back or going forward past the ball, but the contact will remain unbroken. Keeping the contact requires not allowing the hands or arms to rotate going back or thru. It is a very simple action. And the strings do not artificially support the putter and therefore mask stroke flaws. The height of the lower string above the ground allows for an aid with an effective plane much higher than that of the Putting Arc or the others, and the length of the strings allows for any sort of stroke size desired.
You could also place the putter shaft on top of the two strings and make strokes, making sure that the putter shaft does not depress the strings out of their line.
Indoors, you would need some sort of support for the end stakes to set and hold the angle of tilt.
About the only thing this approach misses is the face-squaring fork of the InPutt.
TILT ANGLE
The strings allow training ANY tilt angle, and in a sense that is not good. You want to train the same tilt angle. The issue is how do you decide what angle to use. The answer is to use the same angle as the lie of your putter for your stroke motion. Just stick the end stakes into the green on the same tilt as the shaft of the putter when properly and flatly soled on the green.
A good putter fitting usually results in a putter lie angle that points the shaft of the putter pretty much up along the line of your forearms into the center of your shoulder frame, where the pivot is located. If you move your shoulders in the same plane as your putting setup "triangle" -- shoulder frame, arms and hands, and putter -- the tilt of this triangle is pretty much the same as the lie of the putter and the angle off vertical of a well-spled or flattened putter. And it means the plane of shoulder motion is pretty much moving back and forth perpendicularly with respect to the line of the putter shaft. The sense is that the line angle of the back as a whole up to the shoulder frame stays steady in space although rotating, with the lead shoulder seeming to move out down the line of the shaft to the putter head going back from the ball with the action reversing coming forward. The orinetation of the forearms and hands to the shoulder frame and torso stays constant, as there is no independent arm action apart from the shoulders.
This approach selects one and only one tilt angle for the motion, and this angle is the "orthogonal" angle in relation to back and shoulders and shoulders and putter shaft. The trick is to maintain the alignment of the neck from base to bottom of head or even top of head in the same unchanging direction as the shoulders work around this axis of the base of the neck and/or around the unchanging line of the back.
If you want some positive reward feedback, there are some things you can do with the string, but I have to save that for patenting.
So, the bottom line is that you want a training aid that promotes good learning and is adjustable for use by you. On this functional analysis, a simple 2-string line comes off pretty well in comparison to the commercial training aids.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over 825,000 visits and growing strong ...
518 Woodlawn Ave
Greensboro NC 27401
336.230.0612 home
