Dear Mr. Mangum,

How good are you at putting?

-David

Dear David,

I'm humble, but not modest. I'm better than most players on the PGA Tour and getting better every day. At least I know what to work on and I work harder than anyone I know about! I'm usually better than my students, although some are quite good.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone
http://puttingzone.com
Golf's most advanced putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

This is an interesting question as no big name golf instructors really can quantify why they are good instructors, other than saying that their students are successful(most of which are so talented they would succeed using any teaching pro). My question for Geoff is how do you quantify how good of a putter you are based on your students and pga tour players?

Thanks!

Dear humblepie,

This question invites me to compare my instructional skill and effectiveness with peers involved professionally in teaching "putting". That's sort of a no-no, socially, but in terms of "science" (where people expect critical appraisal) it is just what the doctor ordered.

The "peers" today are Dave Pelz, Harold Swash, Mike Shannon, Stan Utley, and perhaps a few others (Todd Sones, maybe). other instructors are not putting their teaching out there on a public basis so they don't count.

The FIRST ISSUE is WHAT about putting does the instructor deal with. I deal with READING, AIMING, STROKE, and TOUCH. Others don't.

Dave Pelz talks about STROKE and what he says about the other skills is superficial and insubstantial and merely descriptive of what poor amateurs do instead of how the skill should best be done or how it actually works. For READING, he says amateurs under-read break and should not do that (duh), but he doesn't say what the amateur needs to learn so he CORRECTLY reads break. For TOUCH, he has no suggestion about how it works or how to learn it; at most he uses the old wives-tale about walking pace and personality setting your tempo, which is not scientific at all, and his claim to have proved scientifically that the optimal "go-by" speed for putts to maximize sinks on different grasses and conditions and lengths of putts is 17 inches is, frankly, something that his actual research repudiates and that no one has ever verified and that is out of date anyway because greens have changed since the 1970s. Pure bunk. For AIMING, he has nothing whatsoever. He says aim "level with the hole" at a spot that is twice as high as the apex. This is nutty.

Harold Swash is a better teacher for the STROKE than Pelz but everything he teaches is based upon his father's snooker technique for true-roll of the billiard ball with a cue stick. Whether true-roll is promoted by oddities of stroke technique, how much so, and whether this matters a "tinker's damn" are issues not examined by everyone in the "true-roll" parade (except Norman Lindsay). Basically, a little improvement in early roll is not worth the price of the manipulations and oddities of stroke dynamics recommended to get it. Swash understands robots better than Pelz and translates what he learns from robots into teaching golfers about the body better than Pelz, but I don't think he understands the body well enough and the robotics approach doesn't get down to instincts at all. For TOUCH Swash basically teaches "let it flow" with a few other more specific statements of instruction that are not bad, but this is pretty conventional really. His stroke teaching for setup and movement is a bit at war with good touch. For AIMING, he has nothing that I know about.

Stan Utley teaches a technique that an old man in Missouri showed him over 30 years ago (mid-1970s). Stan apparently does not know or care to know where the old fellow learned what he showed Stan. Stan's teaching is ONLY about the STROKE, and despite the fact that Stan talks about "feel", he has nothing to offer about how it works and how to learn or perform with TOUCH. he also has nothing to teach about AIMING and what he writes about READING is very simple and conventional and not all that helpful. I believe Stan teaches a "chip stroke" for putting that used to be taught in the 1950s-1960s era, due to the sucky greens of those days, which really required more power than today. This technique is something that improves a golfer's chipping and temporarily improves the putting, but ties the putting way too tightly to setup, ball position, and stroke timing precisions that play havoc with even Stan at least every golf season when things come unglued just enough to make the whole system a mess.

Mike Shannon teaches some things about "optical triangulation" that some optometrist friends came up with in Florida in the late 1990s. The idea is that golfers are hapless victims of their eye dominance and that the cure is setup fixes and ball position fixes to help out flawed aiming habits. So he at least deals with AIMING. People who teach optometrist professors what to teach optometry students frequently use my website to learn what to teach the professors, so I'm not simply tooting my own stuff when I comment that "optical triangulation" is just a "scientific sounding" jargon name these optometrists stuck on their putting enthusiasm, and that the term has no real foundation in optometric science and is in any event a not-too-slick approach to the issue of the golfer and eye dominance. Like Utley, the result is a fix of setup and ball position that makes stroke, setup, and ball position far too dependent upon precision that the golfer has a problem sustaining. For STROKE, he teaches an inside-square-inside stroke path. Okay, but same problem. For READING and TOUCH, I don't believe he offers anything unique or especially insightful.

So, in comparison, I would suggest to golfers that my teaching is COMPREHENSIVE and that this makes a whale of a difference in the effectiveness of what I teach in comparison. If you can't know where your putter aims, you can't have a straight stroke. If you don't know how to explain the movement that makes the ball roll where the putter face aims, you aren't teaching a straight stroke. If you can't connect the timing patterns of touch with the timing patterns of the stroke, you are teaching "slice and dice" stroke without teaching touch or teaching touch without teaching stroke. If you can't explain and teach touch, then you are not an effective teacher for the most vital aspect of putting.

The SECOND ISSUE would be, given what aspects the teacher actually deals with, how effective is he with student performance as the measure?

Pelz has been teaching since 1974 and had no Tour success at all for his putting instruction. he claims to teach Mickelson how to putt, but I don't really think that is the case. Mickelson learned from Crenshaw and Jackie Burke Jr. most of what he believes in, and in any event, he has a great big problem with short putts and he is not a good reader of putts. pelz claims to have worked with many Tour pros, but I question the degree of coaching that is actually involved and whether these players actually believe in his technique.

Utley's claimed successes are Jay Haas, Craig Stadler, Peter Jacobson, Pat Bates, and Jeff Sluman (according to his website). What this amounts to is a listing of the NEWS MEDIA that said these are his successes, but if you ask the golfers individually you get a very different picture. Haas says that, yes, Utley helped him overcome a slump, but did so almost entirely by helping Haas stop trying different techniques and settle down to "only one concept" (i.e., the putting stroke is a miniature golf swing). Fixing a slump and making great improvement are two different animals. Utley personally says he cannot help Peter Jaconbson's putting, as he has tried for a few years without any real improvement. Jacobson has always been a very poor putter by Tour standards and remains so today -- just look mover his career stats. Craig Stadler benefited from the chipping lessons and won, but later wrote a short-game book in which he recommended a putting stroke completely other than the stroke Utley teaches. Jeff Sluman took a phone lesson from Utley while in New Orleans in 2004 (I think), and then missed 5 of 6 cuts and dropped it altogether and went back to something simple. Pat Bates took one lesson from Utley but doesn't apply what he learned and didn't even recall the lesson when asked about it in 2004. Utley gets tons of attention from players, but how effective is his technique really?

Harold Swash has been teaching since the 1970s. In that time, his top student for years has been Padraig Harrington. Swash introduced Harrington to the soccer biomechanics expert Paul Hurrion, and Paul and Harold made a DVD together. Hurrion then edged Swash out of the picture with Harrington, Harrington won the British Open, and suddenly Swash's work is credited to Hurrion. I would not want to be part of that particular dance. Swash has also taught Philip Price and David Howell and some other European players.

Mike Shannon claims to have taught 80+ pro players. If he teaches Jonathan Byrd, then he has done a very nice job, or else Jonathan Byrd is just a very good putter regardless of any coaching! Other than that, I don't know of anyone who has done remarkably well based upon his putting instruction. Perhaps they are out there.

In my own case, what I claim is that my teaching is DIFFERENT and BETTER because comprehensive and integrated with human instincts for perception and movement based upon combining hard-core neuroscience with effective putting lore. I also claim to have studied putting lore in greater depth and breadth than anyone else. These are the results I get with students:

1 lesson, 1 major for a first-ever Tour win within two months of the lesson by helping improve a pro's putting from not good to excellent;

1 lesson, 2 rounds the next two days of 24 total putts both days for a Tour pro;

I lesson, 4 strokes fewer the next day with the putter for a Tour pro;

1 amateur with a stroke average of 75 after two lessons shoots a personal-best course-record 63 and finishes that year in the NCAA finals 8th best in the nation;

1 middle-age casual amateur with a handicap of 10 after 2 lessons becomes scratch within two months and defeats a Wake Forest College team golfer for his club championship;

1 top amateur after 1 lesson plays a former Ryder Cup venue and fires a career-best 64 and turns pro and finishes third his first event and wins his eighth event and finishes third on the money list as a rookie;

2 lessons for a teenage junior player who has studied with Hank Haney for three years, who then fires a career-best 63 to open the Junior Orange Bowl Invitational and follows that with a 67 to cake-walk to victory; and the next month fires a career-best 62 to open the Tasmanian Open en route to victory;

1 lesson to a mini-tour player who shot a career-best, corse-record, event-best, tour-best 62 the next morning to win his event going away;

1 lesson to a middle-age casual but avid golfer who within the week took his pals to the woodshed with five birdies on the back side;

1 lesson to a mini-tour player who within the week had a putting round of only 23 putts;

2 lessons to a mini-tour player who then won three events within two months;

etc.

As it happens, I don't have a lot of time available to pursue PGA Tour players, but I know they come to my website to read and consider. In fact, some top teachers appear to "borrow" my ideas and start teaching them as if they were techniques they had come up with. My successes have been instantaneous and repetitive, not after a couple of decades of poking about teaching this person and then that person waiting for something to click.

If you really want to "compare and contrast" teachers, you will have to learn what all the teachers say on specific issues before you can do that. The best way to see what I teach in an organized manner is to read my new book. The eBook download is the cheapest way to get it. In my (educated) but not-too-humble opinion, you will find more specific and better teachings about how to perform putting at the highest level in my work than in any other source in golf. If you really disagree with this, then by all means educate me! and let's talk about it.

I don't care who teaches you putting or whether I get the credit, but it does matter that you not kid yourself about the content and effectiveness of what you accept as good or even the best teaching. Learning something new implies recognizing the boundaries of your current knowledge but is still dependent upon a critical intelligence in the learning process for expanding the boundaries. Most people are not familiar with the concept of getting familiar with the point where they no longer know what they are talking about, and then using that as the starting point for learning new things. To the contrary, almost ALL people are delusional about whether they know enough about their sports performance ability and are happy to think that whatever they know is sufficient and therefore there must not be too much they could really learn that is new and beneficial. This is definitely moreso the case for people who consider themselves good golfers, in comparison to people who aren't vested in this mindset and the "blinkering" delusions that come with it.

When you take a cold-eyed look at putting instruction, what typically passes for good is not even close to "complete". If you want a lot of "slice and dice" about the putting stroke, that's what is commonly accepted as good so have at it. Personally, it is obvious to me that this is not evenb close to what a good putting instructor needs to be able to teach. What do you believe about putting instructors?

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

Thanks for the very thorough review of other top putting instructors. I wasn't very clear in my question though. The real question was, how do you quantify how good of a putter that you are, compared to how good of a putter that your students/pga tour pros are(based on your statement that you are a better putter than most of your students/pga tour pros)? Sorry about the confusion.

Thanks again!

Dear humblepie,

I personally don't enjoy this discussion at all, but ...

First of all, I personally work a lot harder, and smarter, and for a longer time (years-wise) than the VAST majority of PGA Tour pros. I've studied the PGA Tour pros up close for decades and am very familiar with what they do for practice and what they are working on. In general, they don't know much about how to practice touch or targeting. When I teach a PGA Tour player, he really is not familiar with what I am saying but then he observes how it works and then sinks a lot of putts he would not ordinarily sink. That tells me he performs better when he tries what I do all the time, and I'm definitely better at that.

Second, I don't make as many mistakes as my students, especially whether for touch or read or aim. Knowing what works keeps you consistent in comparison to others, and CONSISTENCY ALWAYS WINS IN THE END. If I had to choose between spectacular accuracy with so-so consistency and spectacular consistency with so-so accuracy, I have no doubt which choice would most dishearten golfers who think they are great putters, as scoring is more about consistency than it is about accuracy.

Third, I have better skills for sinking putts outside the usual ranges. When I count sinks from 10 feet and out, my numbers are higher than my students.

Fourth, I play competitions with my students and usually win.

And fifth, I'm not impressed by fame or ego or wealth or social status and I frankly couldn't care less whether someone credits my personal skills or not, which gives me a big psychological boost over golfers who need the approbation of others. Misses don't bother my sense of self and successes are expected as routine without undue celebratory excess.

So, I "quantify" this by watching and counting and comparing.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

It would be nice to be able to quantify putting ability and measure improvement by use of a standard exam--then let the numbers speak for themselves...I am sure you could create such a standard test -or already have-
It might include the four key elements in your excellent book and figure ways to measure each of these Critical To Quality factors..
Maybe you could come up with a standard testing green with variable green speed and tilting controls ???

Dear Jer,

That's an excellent idea, and yes I have created a system for quantifying putting skills, both on the practice green and in play.

With just two pieces of data for every putt, the golfer can derive nearly innumerable statistical "looks" at his skills. I have designed a Putting Stats Card to fill out on each tee box after putting with these 2 pieces of data for each putt: the straight-line distance of the ball from the hole, and the relative clock position of the ball to the 6-12 orientation of the fall-line thru the cup (e.g., 4 o'clock putt from 25' for 1st putt; 11:30 o'clock from 2' for next and final putt).

This capture nearly all the essential features: long-short, high-low, left-right, uphill-downhill, total putts, putts per GIR, 1-putt holes, 2-putt holes, etc., birdie putts, par save putts, and on and on.

On the practice green, I have elaborate testing protocols to quantify the golfer's performance of the separate skills of reading, aiming, stroke and touch, before during and after lessons, and strictly for diagnostic purposes as well.

Combined, these two systems generate lots of "facts" about the putting skills in a meaningful way and at an appropriate and useful level of precision, in my opinion better than the very expensive computer systems out there focusing only on stroke mechanics with overly-precise and not-necessarily-seminal parameters that are being measured.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

Harold Swash claims to have one putted every green in a round twice. Obviously there are ways to skew this(miss greens on purpose and then chip it close), but even still this is an impressive accomplishment. Do you play full rounds often? What is your average total putts and putts per GIR?

Thanks for the opportunity to dig a hole. Pass.

Geoff Mangum

Do you want to make a point ???

Churchill said of someone else--he is a humble man and for good reason--Dear Humble pie Do you want to make a point ???

I think Swash said he had 19 putts in a round twice. Could be wrong. Not too bad anyway!

Allan

Geoff...

I will give credit where credit is due...Geoff Mangum, David Edel, Campbell Univeristy PGM Putting Research, and several of my clients on the PGA, Nationwide, Champions, Hooters,LPGA, and Futures Tours have taught me all I know...And like Geoff< learning and getting better everyday


The vast majority of what I know about Touch and Green Reading comes directly from Geoff's Teachings and I always credit him for that...BTW ..I am extremely grateful and indebted to him for that


My putter knowledge and fitting expertise comes from David Edel...He really knows how to configure a putter that is best fit for you!!!


Our 14 different research studies on putting here at CU...have taught me a lot about what people do!!!The fun is figuring out the why!


I've become a better putter because of the named above...because during my playing career..."I sucked!"


Geoff is a very fine putter and if you look beyond his technique( longer stroke than most are accustomed to viewing)...you can appreciate it's beauty


Thanks Geoff for making me a beter putter and a better putting instructor!!!


David Orr

I think one of the issues all coaches face, is if your not a great player, how can you teach/coach others who are? I have found in all sports that it is rarely the great player who makes the good manager/coach. Its the ones who have to work/study/prepare smarter and harder and use all techniques available not just raw talent, that become the great coaches. All sports not just golf.

Allan

Hi Geoff,
I have asked on a couple of occasions for you to show us your putting stroke as analysed by the SAM Puttlab or the Tomi System. It seems like you have dodged providing this information and I must conclude that it is because you cannot provide proof that you can do a stroke according to your theories. You have already stated that you have done many tests on the SAM system so why can't or why won't you provide your profiles? I can only assume that you can't show that you do a stroke that goes straight back and through, that you can't do a stroke where the face stays square to the path and where the face stays square to the target.
ps How dumb is Shaun Micheel if he gets one lesson from you then goes out and wins the US PGA and then doesn't come back to you?

Dear Johnny,

Sorry to have ignored your requests, but I was trying to resurrect my data for you. What happened is that I helped the PuttLab folks a lot in 2004 with introducing their technology to the US and advising them how best to get and keep an edge on the competition and in 2005 they fronted me a machine so I could help them more in the fixing of their parameters and in learning how to teach with the machine. I used it for about a year off and on and then it broke. The PuttLab folks sent me new software to try to fix it but apparently the broken thing was a hardwire matter. The deeper the PuttLab folks got mired in trying to market their existing technology, the less they were interested in following my advice about reducing the price and shaping the parameters for teaching and using the PuttLab more for teaching and learning how the body works instead of how the putter head moves. They declined to replace the machine itself, so I haven't used a PuttLab for any purpose since about 2006.

Incidentally, while I used the PuttLab, I found it very difficult to teach with. The setup took too long and the unit didn't work outside in any sort of gusty conditions, and the students were immaturely fascinated with what I call "chasing the parameters" rather than learning HOW TO MOVE. The PuttLab also detracts from the integrated learning of touch, aim and reading as unified skills, in the usual "slice and dice" approach of conventional golf instruction.

The PuttLab does not work on an Apple / Mac computer, and I use a Mac. So whenever I used the PuttLab during that time, I had to connect it to a Toshiba PC running the Windows operating system. After the PuttLab broke, all the data was on the Toshiba laptop and I could review it. Then my daughter's computer broke and I loaned her the Toshiba. Then the Windows OS attracted lots of viruses and the Toshiba died and could not be resurrected. All the PuttLab data is now unrecoverable so far as I can tell. I still have the Toshiba, if you want to try to fix it.

I'm glad to see the underlying motive for your wanting to see this data, as you previously haven't revealed that. Apparently you think I teach a straight-back and straight-thru stroke ("I can only assume that you can't show that you do a stroke that goes straight back and through, that you can't do a stroke where the face stays square to the path and where the face stays square to the target."). In fact, I teach that people who believe the stroke is symmetrical in a two-dimensional sense are quite ignorant about the stroke in three dimensions or even four. If you read my so-called "theories", you would not be among this group.

As to the other points you make, what I have actually taught is that IF you insisted upon thinking about the stroke geometry pattern in only two dimensions, like Dave Pelz for example, then thinking correctly about the body action in three or four dimensions is the easiest and surest way to learn how to perform with the body so that the putter head most closely follows this dumbed-down two-dimensional path. In other words, IF you want to teach how to do what some teachers claim you MUST do with the putter head, then those teachers better learn how the body makes the putter head move that way so they can teach it, as in general these teachers don't understand the body action that results in certain path patterns. People who think about the stroke ONLY in two dimensions don't, for example, know what "opening" of the putter face means in terms of a path in three dimensions, and certainly don't understand what body action corresponds to this or how to move with this corresponding body action.

As to your remark about Shaun Micheel, I assume you are not ignorant about his medical difficulties in the year immediately following his PGA Championship win. The assumption that he and I have not been in contact since then or recently is false, as well.

I'm glad you appear to have a hobby horse you believe in riding about the stroke -- that the putter head moves inside-square-inside on an arc and opens and closes in relation to this (2-D) arc on the ground. (This "hobby horse" is a metaphor from Lawrence Sterne's Tristram Shandy, by the way, meaning "see how far you get on your hobby horse".) Would you like to learn about the stroke patterns used by BETTER golfers in terms of three dimensions and in terms of the body action responsible for moving the putter head? Or would you like to learn about the body action required to make that sort of 2-D stroke happen? If so, you've come to the right place, as neither PuttLab nor the 2-D teachers seem to know about anything other than what passes today on Tour for the average stroke pattern, and don't really understand this pattern or these patterns in terms of cause-and-effect for the body movements that correspond to the putter head "data."

Data allows teachers to talk "about" putting, but does not help the teachers teach HOW TO PUTT. And "data" does not indicate GOOD patterns of putter head movement versus BAD / LESS GOOD, and hardly indicates BEST. Technology has no historical knowledge and no critical intelligence and no cause-and-effect understanding. Let us hope you do not believe otherwise!

The folks who "dodge" issues in putting are those who lack an understanding of how the body makes strokes in putting. All the technology in the world won't help unless the technology is designed to get at this and designed for learning and teaching this and used by an instructor who knows good from bad and cause and effect and can explain how the specific student best gets from bad to better in an effective and permanent way. Just watch their language: as soon as the "jargon" appears, which is self-referential special definitions of words or phrases having only the meaning the speaker credits them with instead of the common meaning available at large ("P3", "touch", "feel is in the fingers", "sensorimotor trace", etc. etc.), you should know that the speaker lacks real understanding. The current PuttLab jargon is "rotational acceleration" and "stroke signature". The current teacher jargon is "arc", "PILS", "open", "closed", "feel", "feedback", "grooving the move", "soft elbows", and the like.

By the way, I assume you are not someone who considers yourself to be a knowledgeable putting instructor. That tells me that your beliefs about the putting path are derived from hearing these notions from others. Do you think these sources have adequately explained to you the body action that produces the stroke pattern? Do you think these sources are correct when they start describing the rival stroke pattern and the body action that corresponds to that? I don't. For example, the claim that a person making a straight-back, straight-thru stroke with a shoulder stroke MUST be manipulating the putter face in order to keep it square to the path is simply ignorant about human biomechanics. In a shoulder stroke, the putter face will stay square to the path ONLY IF YOU DON'T MANIPULATE IT. If you use an armsy stroke instead, in which the shoulders and elbows lack coordination (maintaining the same relationship throughout as established at the start) going back and then coming thru, do you have any idea how much or why the elbows (and forearms and wrists and hands) come out of coordination with the shoulder action and what it means for path and face and how to manage this for straight strokes on a consistent basis? This sort of knowledge is not in the teachings of your sources, because I've looked carefully for it.

Sorry for the delay responding.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

my point(which was made a while ago so this isn't in response to what Geoff last wrote) was asking whether or not Geoff plays golf much. I know alot of swing coaches don't actually play many rounds a year, thats why I think its impressive that Swash takes his techniques to the battle field and sees if they work between all the other kinds of shots in golf. I'm sure everyone here has had days on the driving range where they hit great shot after great shot, but then can't repeat this on the course. So I was asking Geoff whether he putts the same when he is only hitting one or two putts in a row(during a round) compared to putting on the practice green.

On a side note, in Geoff's last response he talks about the stroke being described in 3 or 4 dimensions. What is the fourth dimension? I am only familiar with X, Y, and Z.

Oh sure, I play as often as possible. Before last year, I was playing quite a bit, but not as much as 1990-2000. During those years I played nearly every day somewhere, and was a scratch golfer for several years. Now I'm probably not as low as a single digit player, but then again I was out of action for the past year altogether for medical reasons (now resolved). I've just started hitting balls again yesterday when I was in Pinehurst.

I'm not sure you really mean that Harold Swash "takes his techniques to the battle field and sees if they work between all the other kinds of shots in golf", as you say, since he is now in his late 70s. As I understand it, the times he had 18-putt rounds was two or three decades ago. Perhaps I am wrong about that. What I do, which I trust you will find is a somewhat sophisticated idea, is match putting instruction to a golfer's current game by tracking how many greens he hits and how closely, and how he does from near the green in pitching and sand shots and trouble shots, to pin down the sorts of putts he really faces, rather than just teaching putting in the abstract. Since the goal is always to help the golfer's scoring, the coach needs to point out ways to improve scoring in addition to putting and also to come to grips with actual putting tasks faced. These sorts of putts change with skill level. I've never seen an approach like that with Harold Swash or other putting instructors, although Pelz apparently does some of this.

The fourth dimension, of course, is time -- three of space and one of time.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

During your time of frequent play, you surely kept stats on your putting. What were your putts per round/GIR and other putting stats for that time?

Dear humblepie,

This thread is pretty stupid, don't you think? What is Butch Harmon's handicap? How far does David Leadbetter hit his 7 iron? I hit mine 190-200 yards straight as a pin, if I choose.

I don't want to appear to "dodge" any question, but at the same time I want a little credit for even answering questions like this, since I've never seen anyone else in the teaching business respond to your sort of question.

I actually haven't worried too much about convincing people I know what I'm talking about with stats from my own performance. I suppose that I've had a number of rounds around par with about 42+ full shots and 30+ or so putts, and occasional rounds of sub-30 total putts. I believe I hit about 50% of the greens in regulation, but how many putts per GIR is not a figure I have firmly in mind for my game. My short game has been improving quite a bit the more I learn about touch for putting, so this confuses the issue since total putts has been declining somewhat while putts per GIR may or may not have been declining significantly during the same recent times. I really haven't been working on my game nearly as much as trying to help others score lower for at least the past 10 years. Quite often when I play, even on the same course, I go around one hole at a time and am not especially aware of where I am in the round. I mostly spend my time learning things. For example, today, I was experimenting with something like a "weight shift" with thumb pressure during the back- and thru-stroke of the putt, to see whether it would help keep the stroke online.

No more of this, please.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

You are obviously a good golfer if your handicap has ever been around scratch. So if you were hitting about half the greens in regulation and were averaging around 30 putts per round, I just don't see how you can say that you are a better putter than most pga tour players. There are 157 tour players averaging less than 30 putts per round this year. Since you are a good player, its not like you are hitting your approach shots 50 feet from the hole. Accordingly, when you miss greens, you are chipping it relatively close, again not 50 feet from the hole. Len Mattice is averaging 51% GIR this year. His putts per round average is 28.2. I have no doubt that you are a very good putter and have more putting knowledge than anybody in golf, but just as Butch Harmon and David Leadbetter(as you pointed out) probably aren't + handicaps, your superior knowledge doesn't necessarily mean you are better putters than most of the pga pros.

Of course you get credit for answering these questions. Harmon and Leadbetter don't have forums because they don't want to answer the tough questions.

Geoff,

What do you mean by the statement: "How far does David Leadbetter hit his 7 iron? I hit mine 190-200 yards straight as a pin, if I choose."
Do you mean you can hit a 7-iron 200 yards if you choose? Or do you mean you could "state" that you hit a 7 iron 200 yards "if you choose"?

dean

Dear humblepie,

If you don't understand something, then why do you make comments as if you do?

When you hit ONLY 50% GIRs, that means you are hitting greens from BFE, as the saying goes -- something like 170-200 yards out, compared to Tour pros hitting approach shots from 100-150 yards out. That means, contrary to your understanding, that my first putts are LONGER than most Tour players by quite a bit. And you will notice that I said I wasn't too hot with short-game shots around the green (although getting better!). That also means that my first putts for par save are quite a bit LONGER than Tour pros. So for me to be around 28-30 putts per round is actually indicative of very good long putting skills and at least Tour-quality putting inside 10 feet. If Len Mattiace has a good short game and sticks his off-but-near-the-green shots close to the pin, he can generate a low total putts stat.

In fact, people who claim low total putts always get there by a) missing greens in regulation with a pretty good short game, b) chipping in on a few holes, c) playing greens that aren't that tough, and d) shooting a really bad score for their usual game. Stan Utley holds the 9-hole record for fewest putts at 6, but he got that record in Canada by missing most greens and had a few chip-ins (3), and also missed the cut!

If you want to compare apples and apples, give me all of the putts faced in a round by a Tour pro and lets see who comes away with fewer total putts.

By the way, Len Mattiace blew a Masters playoff against Mike Weir with an atrocious approach putt. He needed a two-putt to stay alive but blew his approach putt 15-20 feet by the hole and three-putted to lose. This was the 109th time in a week he had putted the greens of Augusta National, with something like his 180th-200th putt. I use this example nearly every day to teach people how important it is to understand how touch actually works, since one benefit of this is learning how it is physically impossible to go too long when you appreciate green speed and stick to your timing. I'm very confident that if Len Mattiace had asked me to teach him that, he would not have blown that putt, and I certainly would not.

To dean: I mean I routinely hit my 7-iron 190-200 yards, whenever I want to, but that's too much fun and power for when I'm really trying to be accurate, so I back down often to 150-160 with an 80% swing.

This I mean literally: What Part of "Last Post on This Thread" Don't You Understand? This is the last post for this thread.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.