Dear Jim,
Great question! Let me try to do the subject justice.
It's a pretty subtle and complex issue, really. On the one hand: the really important thing is not exactly making a stroke pattern that is symmetrical so much as it is making a forward stroke thru the impact zone that moves the putter face square and on line thru the center of the ball (probably also on a slight rising trajectory). On the other hand, while almost all golf instruction for putting talks about what the putter head should do, the teacher OUGHT to talk about HOW to move the body so that the putter head GETS moved the way it should: and to me this means "putting from the top" of the body.
With these two main points in mind, let's talk about how the two are "put together" in good putting.
A simple experiment shows how a tilted plane stroke requires precise ball position in relation to the lowest point in the stroke -- just move the ball around while making a stroke that bottoms out in the same place. The MORE TILTED the stroke plane, the more ball position variance causes the ball to roll on a line other than the intended line. The MORE VERTICAL the stroke plane, the less ball position variance causes problems, and esssentially there is no problem in a zone from the bottom of the arc to about 5-6 inches in front of this. This reason is that when the putter in a TILTED plane is moving up and inside, the positive loft on the putter and the direction the putter is aiming in relationship to the line of the putt (not the plane of the stroke) causes the ball to go off line. The same is true before the bottom of the stroke as well. (Teachers of an inside-inside arcing stroke never address the criticality of these positioning and timing issues. They seem to ignore them.) This is not true in a VERTICAL stroke plane. The meaning of this is that the golfer using a TILTED stroke plane better be careful about ball position and the exact bottoming out of the putter in the same location every single stroke, whereas the more vertical the stroke plane thru impact, the less this is a concern and the more generous the margin for error in any given stroke.
So what do you do? On the one hand, you want to encourage a straight roll on the ball with great repeatability (and this suggests the easiest, simplest, symmetrical stroke); on the other hand, you don't want simplicity and symmetry just for the heck of it, especially if it comes at a price in terms of accuracy of line and repeatability. My solution is "putting from the top" to make the putter move squarely on line thru the center of the ball in the impact zone. In terms of the body, this means that from the bottom of the stroke forward, the golfer wants to keep the shoulder frame parallel to the line of the putt, keep the pivot in the base of the neck directly above the bottom or mid-point of the stroke, and have the lead shoulder rise vertically away from the ground. This action will "take over" whatever stroke path is in progress and convert it to a straight stroke right when it is needed most -- thru the impact area.
The question at the heart of the matter is: "To what extent can the individual golfer perform this move consistently in comparison to any other way that golfer can make a stroke, including a tilted-plane, symmetrical stroke?" In other words: "What is the best stroke pattern for a specific golfer that results in the most accuracy and consistency the golfer is capable of?"
This questioning focuses attention on the assumption that a simple, symmetrical, "natural" stroke is the most accurate and consistent pattern of movement. Is it? Perhaps, but clearly the physics of this movement pattern is not the best. So is this pattern of movement the pattern that produces the best results DESPITE flawed physics? Perhaps, if the golfer has exquisite timing and setup consistency and stroke movement repetition so that the putter head always bottoms out the same place, the ball is located always in the same place, the setup is always in the same place, and the symmetry of the stroke movement is always the same. Othewrwise, the flawed physics will CERTAINLY cause a problem with great repetition, a problem that varies in magnitude with the golfer's variance from the elements that must be repeated (bottom, ball position, setup, stroke path symmetry, even tempo).
There is a great seductive appeal to the notion that simple is natural and that natural is best. In logic, these propositions are regarded as
"enthymemes" -- common beliefs that may or may not be true and logical. The trouble with most enthymemes is that the UNSTATED and ASSUMED basis for the belief is either false in fact or false in logic. Examples of enthymemes are: "men are stronger than women", "poor people are not as smart as rich people", "the most popular choice is the best", and the like. (Here's a
bibliography of the enthymeme in philosophy and rhetoric, for the scholarly minded readers.) So add to this list: "a simple stroke is best." Could be; might not be -- either in general, or for a specific golfer.
So let's focus attention to the other side of the problem: Are the costs or trade-offs TOO HIGH for consistency and accuracy in using a stroke as described in "putting from the top" thru the impact zone (in comparison to any other way of putting for a specific golfer, including the so-called simple, natural way of a symmertic stroke on a single plane)?" Admittedly, there are probably some costs for everyone in "putting from the top," but just how important are these costs in terms of consistency and accuracy? The costs differ depending upon the specific golfer, for a number of different reasons. Some golfers have body forms that make "putting from the top" awkward (i.e., big-chested, fat guys). For these guys, there is not a great deal of subtlety in upper torso movement -- not a lot of flexibility and not a lot of precise control. (Image a big fat guy getting into a Mini Cooper.) Fat guys may have great lower-body stability and balance, but little range of motion in the top that does not get generated by a whole-body rotation. Tall skinny guys also have problems, because they may be TOO flexible for their control -- too "willowy" without good balance down low. There are many other reasons for costs, including the golfer doesn't or won't understand what the body is being asked to do; resists the teaching because "someone once told him" or "he once read in a magazine somewhere" something negative about the action; etc.
The way I deal with this problem is to MINIMIZE "putting from the top" without abandoning it -- require the least that is required by the physics to get the physics flaws out of the picture, while keeping the stroke motion as simple and repeatable as possible. Einstein got this perfectly right: "Physics should be as simple as possible but not simpler." This approach gets the most out of a simple approach for repeatability while also getting the most out of "good physics" for accuracy.
One of the most damaging enthymemes in golf is: "since the putter shaft is on an angle, the stroke plane has to be on an angle too." People who back up their methods with this basic premise (e.g., Stan Utley) have an unexamined belief right at the core of everything they say. It is manifestly NOT true that since the putter shaft is at an angle, the golfer MUST move his body to make a stroke also on an angle. There is no necessary connection between the angle of the shaft and what the golfer does or should do with his body to move the putter. Another enthymeme along the same lines is: "a putting stroke is exactly the same as a full-swing stroke -- and should be performed on the same tilted plane." Again, this is a fundamental notion (actually two notions balled together) underlying teachings like those of Utley and others. The first notion (putting same as full swing) harks back pretty far in golf history (e.g., Bobby Jones and Percy Boomer, among many others), but is it valid? Not really. The putting stroke involves rolling a ball on the ground, with a minimal force and no compression of the ball and no significant aerodynamics (slice spin, hook spin, back spin) affecting the direction of flight / roll. The second notion (same swing plane for full swing and putting strokes) is also not valid. The angle that is made by the shaft is not the same from club to club -- clearly, the LIE ANGLE of a putter, wedge, and driver are all pretty different. Does that mean that the golfer's plane of movement is different for a driver (flatter) and a wedge (more upright)? Danged if I know -- I'm just a putting instructor.
What I know as a putting instructor is that there is no necessary connection between shaft angle and movement plane of the body -- I can make a perfectly vertical movement of the body holding ANY putter with any LIE angle. And so can (almost) any golfer -- just make a vertical-plane shoulder movement: position the toe of a putter close to a baseboard of a wall and MOVE IT along the baseboard so that the toe stays the same distance from the wall and the face angle does not open or close to the wall. (It really ain't that tough!) I also know that there is not a necessary connection between a shaft angle and the golfer's ability to move his body in a tilted-plane movement of the shoulders.
The unexamined belief that there IS a necessary connection between the shaft angle of the putter and the stroke plane is basically a simplistic way of generating the body's plane of motion: The golfer "looks" at the shaft angle and "tries" to move the putter back without changing the angle. The unexamined assumption here is a "straightness" between the arms and the shaft angle, so the golfer is also keeping the arms unchanged in angle to the shoulders while keeping the arms-shaft angle straight. This is not needed for motion on plane. The only thing that is needed for on-plane body motion is to move the shoulders on plane and don't use the arms separately. Then the putter will "get moved" by the body on the same plane as the shoulders, EVEN IF there is not a straight line for arms and shaft but a crook at the wrists between the two, and EVEN IF the plane of body motion is different from the angle of the shaft and different from the angle of the arms, to boot. More simply stated: one plane of motion of the shoulders results in one (and only one) plane of motion of the putter head, so long as the arms and hands are not independently used. It has nothing to do with shaft angle or arms angle.
The notion that the golfer needs to move the putter along its shaft / lie angle has the further problem: How do you decide what is a good LIE angle for a given golfer in the first place? If the belief is that the golfer's best chance of making a consistent and repeating stroke is to make a stroke plane that is the SAME as the putter shaft, then what does the instructor advise the golfer to CHOOSE as an appropriate LIE angle? (These instructors don't even recognize this as an issue, and certainly don't make a connec tion or a suggestion about LIE angle and stroke motion.)
What I say is that IF you feel the need to move your body on a stroke plane that is the same as your putter shaft (lie angle), then you probably should also get the most upright putter you can manage -- otherwise, you are increasing the bad effects of the poor physics and making ball position, setup, bottom, etc., MORE critical to accuracy and consistency.
If what I say is true, then why do so many golfers use putters with lie angles around 18-20 degrees? Is there something "natural" that makes this a preferred lie angle? My answer (no) is twofold:
First, putter lie angles are what they are as a default from history and manufacturing / marketing convenience and from the Rules of Golf trying to keep golf equipment and technique distinct from other games like croquet. The putter originally was just another club at the end of a sequence -- shorter and less lofted than the others, but a step down in the same sequence. At around the beginning of the 20th century, putters were a lot shorter, as this part of the game grew more distinct from the rest of the game. Also at this time, the croquet issue popped up with center-shafted puttres (Schenecktady putter), and hence the Rule of Golf requiring putters to have a "minimum" of 10 degrees in the shaft angle and the later ban on standing "astride" the line of the putt when making a putting stroke. Why 10 degrees instead of 11 or 15 etc.? No good answer.
Second, there is a common "natural" situation in golfers' bodies that generates a more-or-less "natural" setup, but this "natural" setup is flawed and is the source of continual error in putting, not something to cling to because it is common. The situation is the combination of "natural" gaze angle and the body's comfort in bending -- this usually result in a flatter lie angle than advisable. The human body has a "default" gaze position of downward about 30 degrees from the direction parallel to the surface. This is because of walking and watching the ground about 2-4 steps ahead of where the person is moving. The human body has evolved an adaptation for this in the angle that the inner ear mechanism rests inside the head in the three planes of space: the "floor" plane is tilted back-side about 30 degrees so it is level to the surface only when the head bends slightly down about 30 degrees. There is also a "default" gaze position slightly downward, a "resting" position of gaze. This combination of inner ear and resting gaze sets the eyes in a resting position facing the ground 2-4 steps ahead. These basic human factors are taken into account in setting the ergonomics of computer-screen tilts towards where the head ends up from considerations of back support and forearm-wrists angles to the keyboard. On the putting green, however, this gaze angle causes problems of targeting when the head is turned to run the sight along a line sideways at address. That's why it is so necessary to REPEAT the standard advice to "get the eyes over the ball" all the time to every new generation of golfers (even though the correct advice is: "aim the eyeballs straight out of the face when standing beside the ball regardless of whether the eyeballs are above the ball or slightly inside the ball"). Bad gaze and "unnatural" bends in the back and upper neck have a tendency to force the ball farther out from the feet than otherwise, and this flattens the lie of the putter for these so-so golfers.
So, the lies that are common in golf are not calculated to help the golfer target well from beside the ball or to make a good stroke. Golfers need to get away from what is common and focus on what is best for their putting individually.
This brings us back to the costs of getting a "normal" (i.e., not too good) golfer "putting from the top" thru the impact zone. The more the golfer clears the upper arms from the upper chest while they suspend vertically from the shoulder sockets, and the more the rotational action is located low in the spine, the easier it is to move the shoulders in a vertical plane back and thru. Especially thru. But even if the golfer is not comfortable in this bend, and feels a need to stand more upright, thus promoting a default tendency to arc the putter more inside-inside, this golfer can still get the lead shoulder headed more vertical than otherwise thru the impact zone. This is "putting from the top" -- holding the base of the neck still in the middle of the stroke as the lead shoulder moves vertically away from the ground thru the impact area. This is not a BIG move at all, just a precise one, and it is over very quickly. Thereafter, if the golfer sustains this movement (although he doesn't have to, as the putt is pretty much ver after 4-6 inches), there is a definite feeling of extension and stretching, and there may be head bobbing a little back also (which doesn't matter so long as the base of the neck is still in space). But if you focus solely on what the body does from the bottom of the stroke going forward 5-6 inches, it is simple and easy: just hold still in the neck as the shoulders rock up in tempo with the lead shoulder moving vertically away from the ground. This action "casts" the putter head square and online thru the center of the ball all the way thru the impact area. That's not much costs -- it's just a question of whether the golfer KNOWS WHAT TO DO!
So how does this fit in with a simple, symmetrical stroke pattern? Here, my "tether ball" stroke provides the answer. The backstroke form doesn't much matter, so long as the backstroke promotes good "putting from the top" thru the impact zone. The two things that hurt this in the backstroke are 1. going away across the line of the putt in the takeaway (sets up a loop that requires an un-looping), and 2. lifting the putter rather than sending it back rising on its "natural" upward arcing (that is, keep the "triangle" fully extended as at address when the arms were hanging naturally so that the rising arc of the backstroke in a vertical sense stays big). When these two points are observed, the whole stroke action in the body acts likke a "tether ball" with the putter head being the volley-ball on a rope, the arms and hands being the rope, and the base of the neck being the point on top of the pole where the rope is nailed to the pole. More usefully, imagine a tether-ball pole that is not vertical but that is tilted a little, with the ball and rope suspended vertically down. This image more-or-less represents the physics of the arms and putter "triangle" suspended naturally in the putting setup. The putting backstroke is such that: 1. the volley-ball / putter head does not cross the line of the putt, but either stays on the line or comes inside, and 2. the suspension of the volley-ball / putter head in gravity is maintained in the backstroke so that the rope / triangle does not get loose or buckle or flop -- the putter head stays at the end of its arc and there is no "lifting" the putter with hands or elbows. If the golfer does this in the backstroke, "putting from the top" couldn't be simpler or easier ("as simple as possible but not simpler"). That's because keeping the top of the pole / pivot at base of neck stationary REQUIRES the putter head to re-square itself heading back to the bottom of the stroke all by itself. Then the golfer just finsihes the stroke off vertically, or a little more vertically, etc., depending upon the golfer's capability to learn and perform.
The image of the rope nailed to the top of the pole is not quite accurate in terms of the body. It is more a flat piece of metal hanging on a nail with the rope hanging off the bottom of the flat piece and the flat piece moving in the plane of its flatness. Another image is of a ring on a nail, with the rope hanging off the bottom of the ring. Both of these images imply a built-in directionality for the backstroke and the downstroke. Sort of. But there is something similar in the body's shoulder frame structure that "returns" the downstroke mostly retracing the backstroke "naturally" more than the image of a rope nailed to the top of the pole. This image implies a tilted backstroke of the ball-on-rope would "return" the ball straight beneath the top of the pole starting from the ball's inner-most point at the top of the backstroke -- sort of a half loop going back with an in-close straight line coming forward. If this happened, starting the putter head sweetspot behind the ball would end up delivering the putter square but on a parallel inside line impacting the ball with the toe. To the extent the human body has more of this "ring" or "flat piece" built in to the shoulder frame anatomy, this dropping inward of the putter head on the forward stroke is lessened if not eliminated.
What does all this mean in terms of a training aid like the iPutt? The surface of the training aid "supports" the putter head out there and "prevents" the putter head from falling inwards in the forward stroke. This is fine so long as the support is MINIMAL, and this will be true the more upright the surface is. Otherwise, with more tilt in the surface, there is more "support" against the putter dropping inward. Take the aid's support away, and there is a problem in what movement pattern the golfer has learned.
So, every golfer should try to use the stroke plane in its most vertical orientation with the least "supprt" of the putter heel against the aid's surface. AND use the aid without a mindless devotion to symmetry for its own sake. Focus instead on what is a good body action thru the impact zone in the neck and lead shoulder, regardless of the training aid's implicit and seductive offer of "support" beyond the impact zone. Forget that -- just get the backstroke done so it most helps "putting from the top" when the putter head re-squares itself. Put the putter back gently without lifting, hold still in the neck, relax to let the putter and arms and hands drop in gravity, wait patiently for the putter to re-square at the bottom as it gathers speed downward, and then finish the stroke with accurate vertical-ish action in a smooth preservation of the tempo that casts the putter head square and online thru the center of the ball on a slight rising.
This is complicated because most golfers will not bring a properly fitted putter to the train ing aid, and so will start with a lie angle that is not optimal. They will also come to the training aid with the enthymemes operative and without good training in what instead to know and count on in the making of the stroke.
The cut-to-the-chase advice, without trying to cure all golfers' putting problems at once, is to say: set the training aid at whatever lie angle you have for your putter, move the putter back on this same plane, try not to rely upon the deceptive "support" of the training aid's surface too much, and then relax and drop the hands and let the putter head, arms, and hands fall as a unit more-or-less retracing the backstroke to the bottom of the stroke and then finish the stroke off with a smooth upward action thru the ball and a little past while keeping the neck centered. Plan B is more advanced: get the golfer to separate the making of the body motion from the shaft angle of the putter and use a more sophisticated approach to body movement (a more internal, less tool-oriented manner of movement). Then the golfer will attempt to make a vertical-ish body motion and simply observe that the putter head will reflect this shoulder plane, so he can make the training aid more vertical EVEN if it is more vertical than the lie angle of his putter. There is a point where the attempt to get vertical reaches diminishing returns for most but not all golfers.
It would probably be a good idea for the golfer to alternate making strokes along a baseboard with making strokes on the stroke-plane training aid to try to "settle in" to some equilibrium of comfort and verticality.
Other than this, the advice is to come see me about putter fitting and stroke setup, and then after that we can set the training aid angle as close to vertical as we can get, given the golfer's body and other factors.
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.
