Dear James,
What a marvelous question! Let me just jump in and start -- nothing very exact here.
Big ideas that continue to survive:
1. Brain and Body
Putting instruction was dominated between 1985 and 2000 by notions derived mainly from robotics and engineering and physics, when all along they should have been derived from the way the brain and body work for targeting and stroke movement in light of certain realities from physics. A robotics approach to the human body is cute and smells of technology, but it is basically a wrongheaded approach. This robotics approach is being transformed in the 21st century to a brain-body approach. There is a lot of misguided trash from the old approach that has to be cleared away before golfers can appreciate the greater importance of knowing how the brain and body work for putting.
On the other hand, the initial forays into giving better definition to how the brain and body work in putting -- while interesting -- have followed two main paths that don't hold a lot of promise for generating effective and sound techniques: 1. the New Age model, and 2. the Lab Rat model. The New Age model is exemplified by Joseph Parent and Zen Golf. The Lab Rat model is exemplified by Debbie Crews and her EEG hats. These two main paths often get jumbled together in a not-so-great cocktail, as in certain forms of "subconcious" training offered by NLP practitioners and golf psychologists using hypnosis. The people in the Lab Rat camp, interestingly, are more apt to mix in New Age stuff when their "science" points up something that seems interesting but their ideas on what to do about it have no real "science" to back them up. Hence, Debbie Crews says her EEG studies show that "stress" makes golfers choke on the green when they don't have "balance" in the brain activation patterns between the two hemispheres. Perhaps that is sort of correct -- her science really only proves that bad college golfers have brain activation patterns that don't look the same as better college golfers during putting, but doesn't prove a thing about cause and effect, stress, or what "balancing" the hemispheres' activation patterns might have to do with anything, or how to balance the hemisphere even if that is the best cause-and-effect effort to address the problem. So, she leaves science behind and starts talking in vague jargon about neurofeedback, balance boards, and the like, even though there is no science at all being done to test the efficacy of these approaches to improving putting. In neuroscience, there really is no such thing as the "subconscious" -- there are non-conscious brain processes for specific aspects of function. Talking about "patterns" of EEG waves is NOT a good way to understand what specific brain processes are doing or how they are interacting during the performance of a sports skill. When you hear terms like "balanced hemispheres," you are getting pseudoscience. It may well be that what is important in golf putting happens to "look" balanced in an EEG pattern, but the "theory" behind this sort of "science" is that if you can simply make the desired "pattern" show up in the brain at the right time, you attain optimal performance. Essentially, this approach is just throwing darts in the dark.
In contrast, the better approach is that of James Austin, in his book Zen and the Brain. Austin is a neuroscientist and practicing zen meditator who has written a very detailed investigation of the neurophysiological basis for zen meditative brain states, which usually leads to "breathing" practices as the common nexus for understanding zen in terms of western science. Another good approach is that of Christian Marquardt and his Science and Motion PuttLab system. Christian is a neuroscientist who investigates the movements involved in putting with a specially designed ultrasonic monitor (the PuttLab). There is quite a bit more to putting than the movement, but his studies at least point up the relationship between "brain strategies" for performing the task of the stroke and the accuracy and consistency of the stroke -- some strategies are a lot better than others, and some strategies are especially prone to problems. This is all headed in the right direction -- a better "science" of how to apply neuroscience to the action in putting. I want to help shape the direction this new approach takes over the first half of the 21st century so that it gets established on sound footing and generates effective techniques without a lot of wasted effort and rickety footbridges to cross on dead-end paths.
2. Tempo
Tempo is the basis for distance control, accuracy of stroke form, and reading putts. This is really my elaboration on the basic notion in putting lore that "distance is more important than line" (Jack Nicklaus and many others). I think that my addition to the lore is the connection between tempo and distance control via the cerebellum timing and motor planning system for a nonconscious backstroke based on targeting and sense of green speed; the relationship between tempo and motor control for stroke accuracy from the constant timing aspects of every stroke; the relationship between tempo and hand-eye coordination based on the "speed limit" of the visual processes and the visuomotor feedback timing requirements; the stability and constancy of a gravity tempo versus a voluntary human tempo; the techniques for teaching and learning a gravity-based tempo; the relationship between tempo and the "core putt" as a technique to appreciate green speed and to tune your stroke to the green; the techniques for handling psychological interference with the nonconscious tempo-governed stroke, and a few other issues. Tempo is at least one-third of all putting skill, and probably over 50 percent of stroke skill for distance and line (along with biomechanics).
3. Minimalism
The common idea that simpler is better survives pretty well, but the question stays open whether simpler is best. The direction of development has been steadily towards more and more simple grip, setup, biomechanics, and motion, and more and more "cut and dried" planning of the putt and aiming the putter and stroke. Ultimately, I suppose this is headed towards a total zen sort of "aim and fire", in a ritualized and minimalist manner that is behavior rather than thought. (I think of zen archery as in ritualized Kyudo.) Psychological issues seem to be dissipating over time. This general aspect also promotes a preference for "plain Jane" putter designs, with minimalist intrusion from the designers and their sometimes idiosyncratic visual aesthetics and physics (Scotty Cameron's "toe flow" and the like, weird looking shapes and colors like Frank Thomas' "froggy" design, etc.).
4. Perspective on "What Fish to Fry"
One of the best ideas I have found is in Werner and Grieg's book, How Golf Clubs Really Work and How to Optimize Their Performance. In their study of putter design features, their sole criterion was whether the feature helps the golfer save strokes. In the course of studying this, they found that many of the design features mattered only a very little, and essentially could be completely ignored in favor of the golfer focusing on "bigger fish to fry." Correct aiming and stroke and distance control were found to be much, much more important to scoring than a design feature that promised, for example, an improvement in the quality of the roll of the ball, a "wider sweetspot", and the like. The only design feature that seemed to matter on a level with these bigger fish was the alignment visual aids on the putter head. This reality-check on putter "science and technology" is occasionally recognized by the top designers, putter makers, and putter marketers. Scotty Cameron, fo instance, once answered Davis Love III's question "Does the putter design really matter?" by admitting, "No, not really. Just tell me what you like in the look of the putter, and I'll build you a pretty putter." On the PGA Tour, equipment representatives inside the ropes offering putters to the players so their marketers can boost sales, acknowledge that in order to stay competitive and attract continuing interest from the 200+ pool of players they see week in and week out throughout the year, the manufacturer has to keep coming up with "new and improved" putters. Consequently, the "next big thing" in putters is usually just a tweaking of the same old designs, with a new color treatment, or adjustable weights, and the like. True, meaningful innovations that help out with the "bigger fish" issues in putting are not very common, and indeed may not survive in the market even if they are serious improvements.
Prominent lore that seems to fall by the wayside:
1. Accelerate thru the ball
Well, duh? No one wants to "decelerate" thru the ball, except perhaps a "rap" or "pop" putter. The key issue is how best to deliver the right putter head speed at impact to promote accuracy and consistency for line and distance. Rap and pop putters accomplish this their way, but in general average golfers just don't have a good handle on making a stroke. There is a perpetual war in golf lore between the idea that the putter head moves itself versus the idea that the golfer has to avoid decelerating into impact at all costs. This battle is really just confusion brought about by the difficulty of learning how to let the putter head move itself combined with the low level of skill in making a stroke of the vast majority of golf consumers. Since the magazines and the Golf Channel necessarily cater to the consumers, these sources (and repositories) of golf lore keep spinning out the "accelerate" lore, while at a higher level of the game, the appropriate lore is to "let the putter head do the work." The PGA Tour Handbook of Golf, Ben Crenshaw, Loren Roberts, and many of the older golfers reside in this camp. In fact, if you employ a shoulder stroke with the "triangle" kept intact and without grip pressure changes during the stroke and while adhering to your established tempo, there is NO ISSUE AT ALL of decelerating into impact, and there is also NO ISSUE AT ALL of left-wrist breakdown.
2. Short backstroke avoids problems of path and face control
Many examples of older lore advise a shortened backstroke to promote "accelerating" thru the ball and also to avoid problems that are supposedly more likely with a longer backstroke ("more chance for problems"). In my experience, this is a false notion of how motor control is best managed. The MAIN way to avoid problems in the putter path or face angle is to 1. keep the pivot of the system from wandering about during the stroke, and 2. DO NOTHING other than start the putter gently back as far as the nonconscious instincts want it to go in your tempo. By focusing on the steadiness and stillness of the pivot of the stroke (at the base of the neck where the clavicle joins the shoulders to the sternum), the path and face issues resolve themselves. At that point, anything you do with the hands and arms is highly likely to mess up the stroke. So, if "accelerate" thru impact is not a necessary concern, then that isolates the issue of path and face "control." In my view the best way to manage path and face is by "pivot management" of "putting from the top" with a basic muscle tone to keep the shape of the setup of arms and hands stable but otherwise totally uninvolved in the stroke. With this approach, a square setup and "stupid" biomechanics of starting the backstroke with a push of the whole system from the lead shoulder down and back, gently in tempo, is about all the golfer needs to worry about. After that, it's hold still and do nothing but patiently wait for the putter head to fall back online and square at the bottom of the stroke, after which the stillness of the pivot mandates that the putter gently rises up past the bottom of the stroke into the back of the ball. So long as the shoulder frame moves "with" the putter head (instead of pulling the putter head) up and thru in a manner that leaves the pivot still-but-rotating-in-place, and the lead shoulder does not pull back to the inside, there are no putter path or face problems. It's all down to setup and starting the backstroke.
3. Loft
Scotty Cameron and others keep saying that the putter needs 3-4 degrees of loft. I disagree. The dynamic loft that gets the ball up out of its "very minor" cup of grass and rolling well without excessive bounding, bouncing, or backspin does not requires that the putter face be lofted 3-4 degrees. Most putter designs by their loft promote a hands-ahead stroke style that is less than optimal, and used with telling effect requires the golfer to "de-loft" the putter with a hands-ahead technique. Instead of this, the golfer needs more than anything to relate to the middle of the body, so that his setup, putter and stroke dynamics give him the same well-defined bottom of the stroke time after time. The loft that is required only gets decided AFTER this technique is settled, and then in light of the usual green surfaces played. With this neutral "putt the bottom of the stroke" approach to setup and dynamics, the ball is played a little forward of the bottom, so every stroke comes preloaded with sufficient dynamic loft to get the ball up and running on almost all modern greens, without extra help (read "intereference") by the designer. Moreover, there is good science to indicate that the least loft you can use is the best for reducing bounding, bouncing, and backspin.
4. It's not the arrow, it's the Indian
Sometimes, not all that infrequently, it's the arrow -- most of the time, it's both.
5. Pros know best
The magazines and TGC cater to the consumers. The consumers have a herd instinct to run in the direction of whatever seems to work for any pro on TV that week. Hence, the idea is constantly promoted that the pros know best because the pros putt the best. This is the main marketing idea behind Dave Pelz's book title, Putt Like the Pros. This is also the simplistic idea behind the vast majority of sports "science" in golf, from the Tour "model" swing, the Tour "tempo," tips from Tour players, academic "science studies" using an "expert model" (usually just college kids with a decent handicap), and the like. While it is true that ON AVERAGE the pros as a group have better skills than the vast majority of all other golfers on the planet, it is NOT true that all pros have the same skill, that all pros have the same technique, that the best pros are as good as any golfer can get, or that some non-pros are not better than any pros. This is acutely the case with putting, where pros arrive at their level with lots of homemade technique and little formal golf education about how to putt. Chad Campbell has had the same odd grip since age 14 and no coach or instructor has ever changed it, and he's only about 150th on Tour in putting. Vijay Singh has little putting instruction and usually ranks only about 120th on Tour (well down in the bottom half). Tiger Woods relies almost totally on his father for putting technique. When Butch Harmon was initially hired, he was specifically precluded from working with Tiger on putting (just as well, too). Tiger had encountered the best coaches and instructors that money could buy for over seven years on Tour before he accidentally discvered he was left-eye dominant at a gunnery school lark with the US Army at Ft Bragg, NC. Jim Furyk once told me he had never had a putting lesson or even read books on putting technique. Sergio Garcia obviously needs help putting. Loren Roberts grew up in California getting beat on the practice putting green every day by an amateur friend, and Roberts says he expects the friend can still beat him. Ben Crenshaw learned his idiosyncratic putting technique as a small child, and has writted in Golf Magazine that he does not recommend his technique to normal golfers. Most of what appears under the names of specific pros in the magazines (and even their own books) is just a "churning" of pre-existing bits and pieces of putting lore. And besides, the pros are notorious for constantly changing their technique and their putters from week to week. The truth is that almost all pros could significantly improve their scoring averages with better technique than they currently employ. This being the case, other golfer need to be a bit wary of the so-called "expert model" for putting. There isn't one -- there are only smart choices.
6. Putting is individual
The usual lore is "whetever works best for you is best." The implication is that every golfer is different, and therefore every stroke technique is different also. That's sort of a truism, with the same potential for misguidance that a stereotypical attitude or prejudice possesses. While it is true that everyone is different, it is NOT true that everyone has a different number of eyes, arms, hands, legs, etc., or that the basic way the brain and body functions in the world is "significantly" different. Every golfer has two eyes, two arms, two hands, two legs, one putter, one ball, one green, and one hole. And all golfers live on the same planet, in the same gravitational field governed by the same laws of physics. And everyone's brain works pretty much the same way when it comes to vision and movement. Every baby crawls the same way. Every drunk eventually falls down the same way. Golfers would perform a lot better on the green if golf instruction stopped giving them permission to try weird stuff.
And the usual justifications for weirdness is either personality, body shape, or odd personal habits. Pelz and other advise a tempo based on personality and body shape -- tall people have different tempos than short people, peple with "fast" personalities have different tempos than "calm" people. This is rubish. Nick price is the poster boy for a fast swing and a quick personality, and the assumption is that he putts with a tempo that suits his personality. Not true. David Leadbetter is quoted this month in Golf International stating that Nick's putting is slow-tempoed, and is completely different in timing than his full swing. The other poster boy for a quick stroke is Lanny Wadkins, a golfer no one points to as a great performer on the greens. While it is true that body size affects tempo, just as the length of the rod on a metronome affects tempo, this is a relatively minor difference over the range of human adult body sizes. But peronality and odd habits are not the friend of the golfer in putting. Indeed, relying upon these aspects of the individual to build putting skills is building on sand, as the personality and odd habits are the open invitation for emotional nd physiological flux to rule the day. Not a good idea.
There are some common realities that must be respected for all golfers (the physics of a straight putt, the physics of break, the physics of ball capture in the hole, etc.), and their are some standard patterns of targeting and movement that need to be respected (use of the neck to teach the body locations in space for action, the relationship between perception and movement, the modularity of pereptual and movement processes in the brain, the mechanisms that interefere with optimal targeting and movement processes, etc.).
Ultimately, all great putters in history do exactly the same thing when and where it matters, for both targeting and stroke. They all read the putt accurately and they all stroke the ball straight with good touch as a matter of program. The more you look under the hood to find out the "how" that is in common, the more in common one finds between golfers who putt well, and the less significant the surface details that are labeled as "individual." There's not really much that is individual in putting, or that needs to be, and almost all technique that is individual that appears to work is simply an odd way of getting done something basic that could be done more simply with a common technique. The "claw" grip, for example, is just a way for some golfers to get a repeating shoulder stroke by reducing the influence of the right hand and forcing control onto the left side and the shoulder frame. They could have a good shoulder stroke without the claw grip if they were properly taught. The real sense of the sentiment "whatever works best for you is best" lies in the fact that some golfers, for whatever reason, simple don't know how or can't putt their best without some odd patches for technique -- kind of a "chewing gum and bailing wire" approach that shouldn't be needed for almost any normal golfer.
Niggling worries that remain
1. Different technique for short putts
Perhaps a different stroke technique is required for short putts. There are unique challenges to short putting that seem to upset the technique used for longer putts. This may be entirely psychological, and not technical at all. My belief is that the more the technical is understood in terms of the brain and body moving the putter with good physics, the less psychological approaches are needed. So perhaps short putting is just a case of inadequate appreciation for the technical challenges, or the failure to see the psychological issues in technical terms and deal with them as such. So far, short putts are mainly a challenge for speed control or touch, which ought to strike most people as counter-intuitive and contrary to existing thinking. If that is correct, then the technical problem may be simply that short putts don't engage a large enough movement for ordinary touch controls to function properly.
2. Belly putters are simpler
If the idea that simpler is better remains important, then the question of whether the belly putter is a better tool for all golfers has to be addressed straight up. In line with my thought that pivot management is the MAIN thing, belly putters look pretty good. But then there is the issue of putter path and distance control. Belly putters are not so hot on longer putts, and the arcing / gating shape of the putter path makes ball position too critical (whereas with a conventional putter and a good thru-stroke lifting of the putter with a fixed pivot, the putter "casts" squarely down the line and ball psition is rendered largely irrelevant). For this reason, I think the belly putter may be best for some golfers on mostly short-putt occasions, but not in general the best tool for all golfers. Besides, it may get outlawed.
I could go on, but these seem to be the main points.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone
<
http://puttingzone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over 1,200,000 visits and growing strong ...
518 Woodlawn Ave
Greensboro NC 27401
336.790.8176 home
336.340.9079 cell
