Dear Kermit,
I ran the profile of Mike Shannon for several months (May into August) and then replaced the piece with a profile of Dave Curry and Jeff Lindner. When I did so, I did not keep an archive copy.
But... the profile basically described how Mike Shannon relies upon what he calls "optical triangulation" to determine a golfer's ball position so that the ball goes where the golfer wants it to go. Phrases like "optical triangulation" are jargon, and do not have a fixed and definite meaning apart from the meaning assigned to them. The meaning assigned to the phrase "optical triangulation" is very unclear and so it is difficult if not impossible to assess whether Mike's use of this approach makes any sense at all from the point of view of visual and targeting neuroscience.
The trouble I have is that Mike also promotes a gating stroke path that is different for every golfer. This in turn means that adjusting the ball position to make the putt go where the golfer thinks he is aiming is a dicey, problematic game. If the golfer's stroke changes, the ball position is bad. If the golfer's targeting changes, the ball position is bad. If the golfer's stroke or targeting is inconsistent, the gating path makes the ball position bad. The basic flaw in this approach seems to be in the failure to teach the golfer how to overcome targeting flaws in his unique "optical triangulation," whatever that is, and instead trying to adjust ball position for a golfer with flawed targeting. The whole problem is how to get consistency AND accuracy, not accuracy at the expense of consistency.
My profile was prompted by a meeting with Mike at the Wachovia Championship in May 2004 and also by an article in Travel & Leisure Golf Magazine for May 2004. The article is "Is your aim true?", pages 117-119.
The gist of the article is that eye dominance and far-sightedness or near-sightedness combine for "optical triangulation" looking down in the setup at a point that may or may not be the same as where the nose aims at the ground. Mike says the ball needs to be wherever the "optical triangulation" ends up in order for the aim to be accurate. (By "accurate" I think he means that the ball goes where the golfer thinks it should based on his targeting perceptions. When I say "accurate," I mean that the putter face aims truly at the target, is perceived to do so, and the ball is rolled straight the way the putter face is aimed.) He asks the golfer to aim at a board and then uses a laser to see whether the aim is off left or right. He then moves the ball backward or forward of center. It's unclear whether then the golfer justs putts until the ball position adjustments make the putts hit the center of the target or whether Mike asks the golfers to aim again with the new ball position and checks the aim with a laser until the aim starts hitting the center of the board. So far as I can tell, it is the former -- the golfer aims bad but putts true.
For right-handed golfers with optical triangulation right of the nose, he moves the ball out of the center of the feet back in the stance towards the rear foot.
I find this pretty odd when combined with a gating stroke. The only way a golfer with the ball back in his putting stance can use a gating stroke to send the ball accurately straight away is by twisting the body setup out of square to closed (or by hand manipulations at impact). So this method must result in putts not really going straight out of the setup. That's the same as accepting a targeting flaw and making the stroke flawed to the matching extent.
In my approach, the golfer is taught how to assess where the putter face is actually aimed and also taught a stroke that reliably rolls the ball straight the way the putter face is aimed. It's not really about visual accuity (near-sightedness or far-sightedness), or even about eye dominance -- it's about the relationship of the eyes to the skull and the way the skull is turned to look from ball to target. So in my approach, ball position is the same for all golfers, and the important part of the stroke is also -- the ball rolls straight the way the putter face is aimed.
It seems to me that if Mike's research shows targeting flaws, he ought to address correcting the flaws first. I personally haven't had access to his research, and I don't doubt for a second that poorly trained golfers have targeting misperceptions, but I'm not convinced that Mike's research has uncovered either the cause OR the cure.
The article announces a forthcoming book entitled the Art and Science of Perfect Putting to be published "later this year," and I will definitely suspend judgment until I learn more. I have lots of questions about this approach, and lots of doubts, but also lots of interest in what sort of research he has in hand. Hopefully, the book will clear up these matters for good or ill.
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
