Geoff,

I'd like to know your thoughts on the Guerin Rife 2 Bar Putter. Is their 'roll groove' technology related to Lindsay's groove technology? Do you think the example tests in their infomercial (both the high speed video and the 'dew' test) are valid?

Thanks,

Peter

Dear Peter,

You're right, I let your question slip and I apologize. I was sort of waiting to receive a Guerin Rife (GR) putter from the Tour rep, as he said he would send me one, but it never arrived.

The idea is that the Roll Groove technology starts over-rolling even when the ball is initially airborne. The film shows this happening. The website claims "RollGroove Technology for a consistent no skid roll." This claim is not correct, as even their film shows the ball landing with some forward rolling but not enough to prevent skidding, since the lateral velocity still exceeds the rolling velocity. So the ball lands and then skids some and then just rolls.

The GR website states:

"True Forward Roll:
The precisely milled grooves slightly press into the cover of the ball gripping and lifting it out of its own depression. As a result, the Two Bar putter only needs 1 degree of loft to simulate the same launch angle as traditional lofted putters (standard is 4 degrees) without the negative effects (backspin). The end result is a ball that launches into the air with a slight forward rotation instead of backspin. This eliminates the skipping and skidding created by traditional putters, creating a more consistent and accurate roll, every time.

Conventional putter having 3 to 5 degrees of loft, hit the ball off the ground with a slight back roll. As the ball lands it skids across the putting surface before changing its back roll to forward roll. During this "skid zone" the grass grain interacts with the ball's dimpled surface and alters its direction and speed.

Guerin Rife putters have RollGroove Technologyª. At impact the narrow space between the grooves grips and carries the ball forward slightly off the putting surface. Because there is only 1 degree of loft, the ball starts its forward rotation while in the air allowing it to continue rolling with out skidding. Eliminating skid reduces the effects of grass grain for a more consistent roll."

The film in the 30-second informercial says the Guerin Rife technology imparts 1/4 roll before the ball lands.

I haven't seen the "dew" film, but I'm sure it shows a dotted-line start and then a solid roll.

So, to sum up:

1. GR says all putters launch ball into air to get it out of its own depression
2. GR says conventional putters have 4 degrees of loft
3. GR says conventional putters impart backspin on impact
4. GR says GR putters have 1 degree loft
5. GR says GR putter grooves grab the ball cover and start the ball on forward roll
6. GR says GR putters get ball out of its own depression by launching ball same as others
7. GR says GR putters give ball 1/4 forward roll in launch
8. GR says 1/4 forward roll eliminates skidding
9. GR says / implies backspin in launch causes skidding
10. GR says skidding adversely affects line of roll

In comparison with the Yes! Putter C-Groove technology, the Yes! Putter website says this:

"On any putt, on any green, a putter's impact on the golf ball often results in skidding, sliding, back spinning, and even hopping before the ball can begin rolling on the green. Even when struck on the right line, these effects are the principal causes of missed putts.

Therefore, the key to more accurate putting is to achieve forward rolling motion immediately upon striking the ball. The Yes! Golf C-Groove putter does just that, far better than any other putter in the game.

Upon impact with the golf ball, the patented concentric edges on the C-Groove putter face grip the surface of the ball and apply physical forces which simultaneously lift the ball out of its resting position and impart an over-the-top rolling action."

The Yes! Putter grooves are arched in concentric "C"s, whereas the GR grooves are straight horizontally across the face. At the 2002 World Scientific Congress on Golf, the Yes! Putter folks (Quintic and the Hurrions) presented a study of what happens in the first 500 mm (about 20 inches) of putts in terms of skid and roll. They wrote:

"The C-Groove putter designed by Swash has concentric grooves machined into its face at a 20-degree angle. Swash (2001) suggests that when the crown of the grooves strikes a golf ball, the ball is held onto the face of the putter a fraction of a second longer than is possible with a smooth-faced putter (Ôdwell timeÕ) and this helps to improve the roll characteristics of the ball. This paper reports on a set of experiments which tests the ability of the C-Groove putter to impart an early forward roll to the golf ball during the first 500 mm of a typical 20 foot straight putt."

Thirty European Tour players were tested on 20-foot putts, using their own putter and then using a C-Groove putter. The "punch line" of the study is that golfers get a little over 3/4th MORE of a single forward roll in the first foot and a half of a 20-foot putt using a C-Groove putter than they do using their own putter. In terms of skid, the C-Groove started balls off with only 80% skid versus the other putters at near 100%, and at the end of 1/2 a meter the C-Groove balls had declined in skid to 40% whereas the other putters' balls were then at 50% skid. {Both rates of decline looked consistently the same, though.]

The C-Groove putters tested had 1 or 2 degrees of loft. The study concludes:

"The results of these experiments suggests that the C-Groove putter does induce more roll and produce less skid during the initial stages of a typical 20 foot putt when compared with other (Brand X) putters. No evidence can be offered, at the moment, as to why extra rotation is obtained. It may well be that the case suggested by Swash (2001) that the C-Groove putter allows more Ôdwell timeÕ on the ball. It is also interesting to note that the C-Groove putt takes on average longer to travel the first 500mm of a putt, but will still cover the same distance (20 feet) because it has more initial rotational energy. Experiments are in progress, using high-speed cameras (2000Hz), to investigate the actual strike of the putter with the ball."

The Yes! Putter website portrays this research as follows:

"Using the Yes! C-Groove putter creates stabilization in the rolling motion dramatically sooner than any other putter. Forward rolling motion is as much as 6 times greater with the use of the Yes! C-Groove putter versus other putters.

This result has been proven using a computer controlled putting robot and high-speed cameras. Over a 20 foot putt, the C-Groove putter was tested by an independent testing company against several putter models of the major golf companies. In all cases, the C-Groove putter dramatically outperformed the competition."

Norman Lindsay in England has studied this issue perhaps more deeply than anyone and he says flatly:

WHAT GIVES NO SPIN?

ÔDwell timeÕ
Research presented at the World Scientific Congress of Golf gives rigorous experimental proof that Ôdwell timeÕ (impact duration) obeys established physical laws. From this, itÕs known that only marginal changes in dwell time are possible (for the range of impact surfaces allowed by the Rules of Golf). The notion that some putters give longer dwell time and thereby magically impart topspin is simply wishful thinking, invented by marketing departments.

Grooves, pimples or insert materials
ItÕs frequently claimed that grooves, ridges, pimples, other surface shapes or even surface chemistry can impart topspin. As it happens, grooves assist backspin in high lofted clubs where additional surface friction is needed. In putters additional friction is redundant. Simple, direct measurements on putters show that grooves or different face materials do not contribute spin in any direction.

"Natural vibrations"
The Ònatural vibrationsÓ of a putter have been linked to the way a golf ball rolls. Again, this is just a whimsical theory, dreamt up to impress the golfing public.

As to WHAT GIVES FORWARD SPIN? Lindsay says: "vertical gear effect" and "oblique impact" and nothing else:

"Gear-effect, which relies on the putter-head weight distribution, but is also critically dependent on the way the shaft attaches to the head.

Oblique impact - the workhorse of golf shots. This shapes flight trajectory and puts backspin on the ball. Backspin is essential for distance in long shots and control in approach shots. In putters, it can be used Ôin reverseÕ to give topspin.

There are no other means of imparting topspin on a golf ball with a golf club."

The vertical gear effect, according to Lindsay, occurs when the putter head COG is low and recessed back from the face while the impact point with the ball against the putter face is higher than the putter head COG, resulting in the top half of the putter face wrapping across the top back of the ball and imparting forward spin and surely reducing backspin at the start.

Lindsay also says that line errors due to left-right misses of the sweetspot are not due to face twisting but to vertical gear effect, with mallet designs less forgiving than blade designs.

So?

Uh, where to begin....?

1. Balls launch because "dynamic" loft plus "trajectory of sweetspot of putter" aims thru the center of the ball. If the dynamic loft and the ball position cooperate to send the trajectory of the putter head sweetspot thru the center of the ball on an inclined line from low on ball thru center of ball out high on opposite side of ball, this will "launch" the ball off the ground. This is so whether there is a depression the ball sits in on the ground or not. There really isn't a depression on most greens today, and the word "depression" mischaracterizes the relevant physics by presenting the idea that the ground is like a "bowl" and the ball has to be lifted or launched up and over the rim. Actually, all that matters is whether one or two blades of grass directly in front of the bottom of the ball will cause a problem. They don't. The ball even on a somewhat shaggy green need not get airborne in order to start rolling. The rounded bottom half of the ball looks to the grass blades like a wedge, and when the ball is hit, it "wedges" up over the back of the greass and starts sliding-rolling "on top" of the grass. It never needs to leave the ground into the air. Although everyone these days "says" a ball has to be launched out of its depression, I don't believe this. Any sideways blow (purely sideways, mostly downward, mostly upward) on a ball will start it across the green. Period. As long ago as 1968 in Cochran and Stobbs' Search for the Perfect Swing, the authors described the ball "riding up" onto the top of the grass out of the "skid phase." I don't believe any launching is required for good putting, especially on today's tightly mown and manicured surfaces.

2. Conventional putters today really have about 3 degrees of loft, and manufacturers are now trending towards the minimal loft needed by the greens, with some opting to promote 0-1 degree putters.

3. Any putter will impart backspin, depending on how it is used dynamically.

4. That's nice. But what matters is not "design" or "static" loft but "dynamic" loft resulting from ball position and stroke technique.

5. Lindsay says no, and Quintic says we haven't been able to prove this. The "added dwell time" from the grooves theory of Swash is explicitly rejected by Lindsay. it seems to be a matter of the weakness of the forces and the shortness of time of contact in light of the strength of the cover material.

6. See 1 above. No one ever describes the so-called "depression" they are talking about or actually studies what is happening between the bottom of the ball and this so-called depression's forward rim. I don't believe this.

7. One quarter more forward roll over 20 inches (1/2 meter) is highly likely to be very insignificant to the consistentcy of the putt for line and distance. No one actually studies whether such a difference matters.

8. The GR Putter does not "eliminate" skid, as its own film shows the ball skidding in a very pronounced way after landing from the launch. Certainly, 1/4 more forward roll in comparison to other putters in the first 20 inches is no where near sufficient to eliminate skid. Skid happens when rolling speed is less than translational speed. Skid dwindles as the rolling speed catches up to the translational speed, and by physics ALL skid always disappears when the ball's translational speed has declined to 5/7th what it was at the beginning of the skidding. CB Daish in his book The Physics of Ball Games (1972) describes a 10-meter putt as follows:

"5.01.09.05., Daish, C.B., The Physics of Ball Games, (London, English Universities Press, Ltd., 1972), , 150: In the case of a golf ball putted across a fairly large green in a 10-metre putt, an initial velocity of about 4 m/s is necessary. The coefficient of sliding friction in this case is probably about 0.4. Applying the equations shows that sliding occurs over the first third of a second while the ball travels a distance of rather less than 2 m." (see my research website).

Cochran and Stobbs state that the skid phase usually takes about 15% of the total length of a putt, which is consistent with Daish's "under 20%" figure. If a 20-foot putt (about 6 meters) starts off with a velocity of, say, only 2 m/s, that is about 80 inches per second translational velocity. To eliminate skid, the putter would have to impart about 15 revolutions per second rolling velocity before the ball lands after its launch, not the 1/4 roll. The C-Groove study shows that over the first 24 inches of a 20-foot putt, the C-Groove putter only imparts 2 revolutions. On our hyopothetical 20-foot putt with ball initial velocity at 80 inches per second, the skidding will not completely end until the ball's translational velocity slows to 5/7 * 80 = 57 inches per second translational speed. At this point the ball will have exactly ther same rolling speed, which is 57 / 5.28 inches (circumference of a golf ball) = 10.8 revolutions per second. According to the Quintic study, the C-Groove balls had rolled only 2.1 revolutions at the end of 657 mm (25.8 inches). According to the 15% rule, skid would not end on these putts before about 3 feet (36 inches), at which time the ball will be rolling about 10 rps, not under 2 rps. Clearly, the claim that skidding ends due to either the GR groove or the C-Groove is pure baloney.

9. Backspin does not cause skidding. Skidding of a ball is caused by a mismatch between translational velocity across a surface and rotational velocity. Backspin aggravates skid and prolongs skid, but does not cause it. How long skid lasts is still determined by the 5/7ths initial translational velocity rule. What actually happens is that there is a very brief moment when the backspinning ball meets the turf and the turf "kills out" the backspin. How long this takes and over what sorts of distances is not studied or known.

10. No one has ever studied or proved that skidding hurst the line of roll. besides, all putts skid SOME, and the question is really whether the little LESS skid obtained from one putter over others matters any at all. If a putter reduces total skid distance from 3 feet to 1.5 feet, so that putter A has skid from 0 to 1.5 feet declining from 100% skid to 50-50 to 0% skid / 100% roll at the end of 1.5 feet (and the ball's translational speed has dropped to 5/7ths the initial speed), whereas putter B has skid from 0 to 3 feet with the same gradual decline of skid (and the ball's translational speed has dropped to 5/7ths the initial speed), there are two main differences: Putter A's ball is subject to 1.5 feet worth of less skidding but at the weaker end of the phase (between 50-50 and 0% skid) but also has a the same speed as putter B but has 1.5 feet farther to roll to the hole. I don't really believe that anything terrible would have happened to the line of the ball from putter A if the last half of its skid phase had gone on over that part of the green between 1.5 and 3 feet from the start of the putt. The ball with less skid has more energy for rolling distance, but I that doesn't have anything to do with the line. I would like to see someone prove this.

This issue is really a quagmire of confusion from lack of precision in the problems studied. A ball that skids sooner starts rolling sooner. A ball that launches at a higher angle or that flies a longer distance before landing will skid longer and take longer to get rolling.

Daish further notes:

"time when true rolling starts, t= 2/7 x V/mu.g, where V=initial velocity off putter and mu= coefficient of friction; the velocity of the ball when true rolling begins, v= 5/7 x V; 149: the spin rate of the ball when true rolling begins, omega= 5/7 x V/a, where a= radius of the ball; distance ball has traveled when true rolling begins, s= 12/49 x V(sq)/mu.g. 150: Since the skid distance s is proportional to square of the initial velocity V, the skid is relatively much shorter at small initial velocities."

This last point is something that I personally have observed: a putt with "less percusiveness" than usual will a) not launch in the air, b) enagage the friction of the green sooner to stop any backspin and start forward rolling, c) have a short and sweet skid phase, d) be eaiser to shorten even further with some forward roll at the start, and e) preserve its energy for covering distance in the gracefulness of the long rolling phase rather than spending its wastefully in the abrupt violence of the skid phase.

You can impart some forward spin with any putter by making an "oblique impact", which is a blow of the slab of the putter across the top quadrant of the ball. This is what Harold Swash teaches. I believe you don't have to do that to get forward roll, and can simply direct the slab of the putter face on a trajectory that misses the sweetspot of the ball and transit just above the sweetspot, entering (say) one dimple below the back equator and exiting two dimples higher than the front equator. This happens when the golfer delivers the putter on a rising trajectory with about 5 degrees of dynamic loft. Any 3-degree lofted putter will do so long as the ball is played forward so the dynamic loft is about 5 degrees at impact. Combined with a low-percussion stroke, you get all the benefit with none of the effort.

So, yes, the GR groove follows in the footsteps of the C-Groove, but neither putter appears to be getting a REAL benefit from this, and Lindsay even says this feature does not cause the forward rolling. The subject of HOW TO GET MORE FORWARD ROLLING SOONER WITH LESS SKID AND WHETHER IT MATTERS A HOOT is not really known at this point.

For my money, the back-of-the-envelope common sense says don't worry about it. Just don't launch your balls into the air and don't pop your balls off the putter face. Putt smoothly and straight and don't sweat it.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.

This type of comprehensive explanation was just what I wanted to see. You may want to post it at your site as there were some others that were interested. While I'd sworn off infomercial explanations the GR infomercial and the dew test were nearly enough to have me purchase.

You mention a less percussive impact. Is this solely accomplisehd with a smoother stroke oris there more to it?

Peter
Single-Axis Golf Forum

Peter as you know this was a relatively short answer to your question. His site is amazing.

Geoff Mangum seems to have done as much or more research on putting as Pelz. His site,the PuttingZone has so many articles and opinions on putting that one might never play golf again if you attemped to read all that is there. His replies to questions from members in his forum make our Bonar threads seem meager.

A very good read in this cold (its global warming) winter.

http://puttingzone.com/
http://www.network54.com/Forum/52812/

His thoughts on the "Spider", The Zero Break Line and "Putting like you are on an Aircraft Carrier are different from any ideas I have ever read.

Thomas
Single-Axis Golf Forum

Well Geoff ... here we go again analyzing whether favorably rigged testing will satisfy the neurotic needs of golfers based on the 'feeel' of impact they perceive through their hands.

Perhaps you should develop a 'relevancy factor' for all these putting technological marvels in the hands of people who don't practice their putting and depend on the magic of science to save them from their inadequacies. Let me arbitrarily apply a 1% relevancy factor to these putter grooves .. and that's being generous ... :-D

Based on your many extensive explanations, I conclude that putting is not solely the relationship between the putter head and the ball during brief impact, but it is more a method or technique that must be mastered to acheive consistent results using any putter design out there ... even a $14.88 WalMart putter ... after all putters are no more than poking popping tools.

Speculative question Geoff: Do you think that if golfers of yore used one of those costly 'studio' putters instead of the one's they had, would they have had better results?

Dear sammy,

Excellent question! my short answer is "perhaps in a few rare cases of modern putter designs, but even then there are trade-offs of what the newer technology might cost in terms of good technique."

Let me explain that a bit. Consider a Scotty Cameron "Futura" putter in the hands of Bobby Jones (ugh!).

The Futura would offer better MOI and inertial properties, but at a cost in terms of aiming the putter and changing technique to stroke it more like it demands. These changes in technique that come with the technology as specifically embodied in one putter model are probably more hurtful than the technology is beneficial.

It would be nice to hand Bobby Jones a putter design incorporating good physics in terms of MOI and inertia and dwell time and loft and etc etc. etc., but which does not look different from his Calamity Jane and which does not require alterations in his personal stroke technique -- unless of course there is a putting coach at his elbow who is trying to IMPROVE his technique and the technology is assisting that effort and not warring with it.

This is the interface between technology and technique and the human moving in the stroke that putter manufacturers are always taking stabs at, without the full benefit of a well-reasoned approach to worst-bad-good-better-best technique in light of the human body and movement and targeting processes. Hence, "hands ahead" putters, "two-ball" and "three-ball" putters, "toe-flow" putters and all of them are just "stabs" at this relationship, and the marketing team takes it from there. It would be immensely better if a truly knowledgable putting COACH were involved in the design of putters, and not just "technologists" who add their gimmicks from this physics or that "optics" and the like. I don't really know of ANY putter that is made (or has EVER been made) by a real putting coach with the exception of the putters of Harold Swash. Dave Pelz's "three-ball" putter was an "optics" gimmick that was not original with him.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.

...a blow of the slab of the putter across the top quadrant of the ball. This is what Harold Swash teaches"

Jeoff i would be careful about the comments you make here about what other teachers teach, you are not right here.

I would also choose wisely the sources you use on the internet to try and put together seemingly factual posts in this forum.

You view on groove technology would appear to less than complimentary...however you openly courted a prominant groove manufacturer last year to become a figure head for that company.

Your enthusiasm geoff is great,...just dont get too carried away.

Kipling,

I'm not sure what troubles you, but you are just not correct about what Harold Swash has personally written to decsribe the sort of impact he teaches. Here is the quote from Harold:

"Thirdly, contact with the ball must be with a slight upstroke. This not to suggest a pendulum action. I mean an upstroke when contact is a tangential strike. It is achieved by pivoting the shoulders and having the hands presses forward so the clubface is delofted at impact. This must occur only two inches beyond the bottom of the arc of the stroke. Only then will a correct strike plane on the ball be achieved."

The theory behind this is Harold's view of snooker, or pool: "My father was a very serious snooker player -- Americans would call it pool. Even though he never played golf, he was able to explain to me how a forward, topspin roll creates accuracy on the greens, and how it can be achieved. The sooner this is understood, the sooner one will putt better."

In pool, a no-backspin, no-skid roll of the cue ball is achieved by striking the ball above the equator 7/10th of the way from bottom to top, with a level blow of the cue stick (see CB Daish). Swash's "tangential strike" with a delofted putter face across the top of the ball on a rise is what he says is the golfing version of this snooker topspin blow. See his article: Match Play: Does Harold Swash hold the secret to the perfect putt?, The Golfer (2002), 45-47.

I'm not here to please someone's notions of what their technology does but to examine what it really does and talk with golfers about it openly and honestly. I'm careful to be honest and careful about my facts. Do you think I have something wrong or in error? If so, you're welcome to explain it to me.

And by the way, when you do, please (as you say to me) "choose wisely the sources you use on the internet to try and put together seemingly factual posts in this forum."

I'm willing at any time to express views, hear views, share views, and revise views, as appropriate. I just don't take too kindly to vague assertions that I am wrong without any statements of fact backing it up.

If I'm wrong, show me the facts and I'll change my views.

Thanks for appreciating the enthusiasm, by the way.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.

If you spoke to Harold or ever worked with him you would actually understand it is not a blow across the top quadrant of the ball, that would drive the ball into the ground.

His dad when he was younger was a good snooker player and gave him an insight into spin/ball roll that provoked further thinking . However your suggestion is almost implying that Harold would want the stroke to resemble the plane of strike of the cuing action when imparting top spin. Which would be hit the ball above centre on pretty much a horizontal plane through impact. Snooker is a different game with different conditions to putting. The firmer surface of the table allows a blow above the equator.

The hands forward that Harold does suggets will deloft the putter a fraction to counter the fact the hitting the ball on the upstroke adds loft dynamically. Harold would want the sweetspot of the putter to meet the sweetspot of the ball, this is important. It is delofted at address but not necessarily delofted at impact (loft relative to the vertical).

The blow is not on the top half of the ball, definatley,...but thats what you said.

There is often stuff out there on the net that is a misrepresenation of people beliefs.

If i want to try and represent somebody or something i would try and get as close to the true source as possible so as not to misrepresent.

I do honestly think you have misrepresented somebody, and their beliefs, in this case

Dear Kipling,

I don't doubt the honesty of your belief, and so I won't state that you "misrepresent" what Harold teaches, or that you don't really "understand" what Harold actually does. There may well be plenty of room between what Harold says, what you understand, what Harold actually does, what I think, and what I say -- lots of slips betwixt lips and cups!

So let's not use emotionally and judgmentally laden language. Instead, let's just talk about what is happening.

I have in fact talked with Harold several times. He personally spoke to me about his "tangential strike" technique at the 2004 PGA Merchandise Show. I have also watched his video, Championship Putting, and studied his DVD The harold Swash Guide to Putting. I have again studied the film of his personally demonstrating his "Third Fundamental," the tangential strike, on his DVD. This is what I see, and anyone who cares to can check what I say to describe it:

When Harold describes his "tangential strike" in the "Third Fundamental" section of his DVD chapter entitled "The Art and Science of Putting", he illustrates the nature of the plane of the putter face in relation to the ball as it moves thru impact. he first shows the sort of "upward strike" he is NOT describing, and uses a gesture that has the plane of the right palm sweeping up thru impact with the palm's plane tilted back (lofted) to the back of the ball. In contrast, he then illustrates the character of his "tangential" impact by sweeping his hand thru the impact area with the plane of the palm at best vertical to the back of the ball and seemingly a bit delofted, with a rising across the back of the ball.

Then when Harold sets up to make the stroke he describes, with the camera looking face-on, he sets the hands well ahead of the ball, with his hands positioned very near his left trousers pocket and the shaft substantially angled top-forward. The ball is positioned two inches ahead of the bottom of the stroke arc; the putter face is not at the bottom of the stroke arc but 0.5" behind the back of the ball. In addition, the putter face is slightly offset from the shaft by the hosel curve, and this also promotes a hands-ahead, delofted-face impact dynamic. This setup clearly "delofts" the putter at address.

When Harold then makes the stroke, his left hand leads the (offset) putter head across the ball with the shaft leaning substanially top-targetward, delivering the plane of the putter face still delofted to the back of the ball, with his lead shoulder then "lifting" the putter face upward across the back of the ball as it continues forward and upward.

In a high-speed film also on the DVD, at 4000 fps, the close-up of the putter face impacting the ball appears to me to be delofted and impacting the ball slightly above the equator, with the mass of the putter head in its delofted orientation moving as a whole on a slight rising up and forward in a slight "scraping" across the top quadrant of the back of the ball.

Now, regardless of how you or me or anyone else might describe this, I am simply honestly observing and reporting what I see and checking it against the language Harold uses when he describes this.

One reason I am sticking to my guns here is that it is GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to make contact on the bottom half of the back of a ball (below the equator) when the plane of the putter face is either vertical or delofted in any degree. If the angle of the shaft is tilted forward, the hands lead the putter head thru impact, the putter head is offset back behind the shaft line, the putter face will be delofted when it contacts the back of the ball. This is what Harold illustrates with his hand gestures, with his stroke, and with his high-speed film.

Although this photo doesn't really have a good perspective, the DVD shows all this pretty clearly.



Here is a picture illustrating how one student of Harold's illustrates the hands-ahead setup:



And here is a depiction of the presentation of the grooves to the back of the ball showing how the "tangential strike" moves across the top of the ball:



I'm glad you are making an effort to discuss what really happens, but I think I am correct, and so invite you to study what Harold says, shows, and publishes. Perhaps you will see what I am talking about.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.

Geoff,

Hogan said you had to do certain stuff in the swing,....but he never did it himself. I watched a great critique of Hogan's book versus the Hogan Swing bu Jim McLean. Jim highlighted several point that i fail to remember....


This is not to say Harold does things one way and then teaches another....but you get my point...it easy for things to get misinterpretated.

I've been fortunate in my lifetime to have spent many more hours than yourself, in the company of Harold. In fact you could say i have spent nearly my whole lifetime benefiting from his advise and in a position to appreciate his philosophy and methodology as a putting coach.

It is through that experience that i am able to state that the facts you stated were a misrepresentation.

I did not state either you could hit the ball below the equator with a vertical or de lofted putter face. Your previous comments suggets that.

I have stated previously a clearer picture of what Harolds philosophy and the reasoning of a forward hand start position. The hands are encouraged to start ahead as naturally as you hit the ball on the upostoke putter loft will increase dynamically. The ball needs to be hit on the upstroke so the sweetspot of the ball can meet sweetpsot to the putter ( equator of the ball).


To draw from videos of shadowing hand actions etc isnt accurate enough. Great teachers will often over emphasise the point to get the message across.

The picture you show? How do you know that is student of Harolds? If it was how do you know Harold would be happy with the student progress?

Geoff if you want to PM me at psycheforgolf@hotmail.com i'll be more than happy to dicuss this more in a private domain.

Thanks

Dear Kipling,

This phrase bothers me somewhat: "It is through that experience that i am able to state that the facts you stated were a misrepresentation." The word "misrepresentation" means different things to different people, and is often taken to mean a deliberately false presentation of something known to be otherwise. (That is how the term is used technically in the law.) You may well not mean the word in this sense, and probably mean something more in the spirit of "mistakenly present."

I hope that is what you mean. BUT, if you mean someone is "mistaken" about what Harold teaches, then whose fault is that? You suggest that Harold "teaches" something other than what he publishes. That may well be the case. Unfortunately, he has published his teaching in an article and in a DVD.

I believe you when you say you know better what Harold teaches in person than I do, and that in person Harold does not teach a delofted putter face impacting upward across the top quadrant of the back of the ball, but instead teaches and intends to make a blow in which the putter face is vertical without any loft and impacts the ball spot on the equator. However, you apparently do not suggest that the words and images that Harold uses in his article and in his DVD clearly suggest something other than what he teaches in person.

It seems to me that you may not have looked at Harold's DVD for the "Third Fundamental." Because you do not trust the picture of the golfer showing what he thinks is Harold's setup, and because I cannot share the DVD images directly, let me show you my "tracing" of the image of Harold illustrating his setup on the DVD.



Harold explains in clear words on the DVD that the sternum is 2" behind the ball position and that the sternum is the pivot for his shoulder stroke. He plays the hands ahead. After tracing the above picture, and using the 10" grip as the metric, I measured how far ahead his hands are from the sternum line as well as how far the hands are ahead of the back of the ball, and the top of the putter handle is at least 2" if not 3" ahead of the back of the ball, and 4-5" ahead of the vertical line of the sternum. The putter hosel also adds another 1/4" of hands ahead. But let's just use 2". For a 35" putter, the trigonometry is unquestionably clear that putting the hands 2" ahead (actually, shifting the top of the handle 2" targetward) will lean the shaft at a 3.3 degree angle and will deloft the putter face by 3.3 degrees. Yes! Putters come in 2 degrees loft or 3 degrees loft, according to Paul Hurrion's paper in the World Scientific Congress on Golf about the C-Grooves, so I assume Harold is using a 2-3 degree lofted putter in the DVD. Assume the putter has 3 degrees. His hands-ahead setup will position the putter face behind the ball with 0.3 degrees of negative loft, at least.

If he starts his backstroke with the putter following a pendular stroke arc, the putter face will get further delofted over the first 2" of the backstroke. If his pivot is 54" off the ground, as is mine, then this first 2" of backstroke removes another 2.1 degrees of loft. So, once the putter face is moved back to the vertical line of the sternum / pivot 2" back from the ball, the face has negative 2.3 degrees.

As Harold describes his stroke, he makes crystal clear on the DVD that the forward stroke arc must bottom out right beneath the pivot at the top of his sternum. That is, the putter head starts rising towards the back of the ball 2" back from the back equator of the ball. As we just saw above, the putter at this point has about negative 2.3 degrees. If Harold means that the stroke bottoms out when the putter face reaches the point on the ground directly beneath his pivot, then at this time the putter face will start to gain loft for 2" more of stroke before impacting the ball. The loft that the putter will gain is exactly 2.1 degrees -- the same that was removed in the backstroke back to the midline. So at impact, the putter face will be ever so slightly delofted with negative loft.

And this is a tracing of an image of Harold at impact, and his image has a vertical line at the back of the ball against which the plane of the putter face is clearly delofted.



The above image shows the combined effect of the "gradually rising trajectory" of the putter head at the end of the shaft in a pendular stroke arc with the slight addition of 0.5 degrees of dynamic loft over the final 0.5" to impact (the putter to the right).



The above second drawing has the two putters in the first drawing lowered so the center of the putters are clearly below the equator of the ball. But this drawing shows the controlling geometry of ANY delofting of the plane of the putter face cannot possibly contact the back of the ball anywhere OTHER THAN ABOVE THE EQUATOR. This is a brutal reality of the universe and geometry, and not simply my opinion.

If a putter face has ANY delofting when it reaches the back of the ball, the only part of the putter face that can POSSIBLY contact the ball BELOW the equator is the top "corner" of the putter face (the leading top edge of the putter face). As the 'room" below the equator of a ball is only 0.84 inches and every putter face is at least one full inch from top to bottom, the proximity of the ground PREVENTS even this odd sort of "contact" between a delofted putter and the bottom half of the ball.

You tell me that Harold teaches delivering the putter face to the equator of the ball (this is not really the ball's "sweetspot" -- that is the center of the ball). There is ONLY one way physically to have aputter face contact the equator of a ball, and that is to have the putter face presented to the back of the ball with exactly ZERO loft. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to contact the equator of a ball with the plane of the putter face if the putter face is even the slightest off vertical. If this vertical putter face at impact is what Harold intends to teach, he does not show this or explain this on his DVD, and instead shows impacting the ball with a delofted putter.

And this is exactly what the high-speed photography shows -- a very slightly delofted putter face rising up and initially contacting the ball just ABOVE the equator.

I have to insist that I am not making any mistake about how this setup works geometrically. The loft relationship and the character of the stroke arc make things this way. One who disagrees with this geometry will have to take it up with Euclid, not me.

Any "mistake" here is the discrepancy between the teaching on the DVD and what was actually intended but either not understood or not communicated.

If the intention is as you say to deliver the putter face vertical to the equator of the ball, then this is the way to understand how that is done:

At address, deloft the putter until exactly ALL design loft is removed and the putter face sits behind the ball 2" ahead of the bottom of the stroke arc with zero loft, then make a pendular stroke that bottoms out in the middle 2" back from the ball. This putter face will meet the ball with zero loft and make contact with the ball on the equator, and will be rising along a curve upward with a then-existing trajectory that is 2.1 degrees upward off level. In order to remove 2 degrees of loft from a 35" putter, the top of the handle will be leaned 1.2" closer to the target. To remove 3 degrees of loft, the same putter's top will be leaned 1.8" targetward.

This setup can be used with a no-manipulation stroke that has a pendular stroke arc beneath the top of the sternum, playing the ball 2" ahead of this, to get the effect you describe as Harold's teaching. Both the angle of leaning of the shaft, the distance the top of the putter is ahead of vertical / sternum's pivot, and the ball position are all critical in this stroke in order to get this effect.

You can also get the identical effect by using a putter with 2.1 degrees of negative loft on the face, setting up neutral with no hands-ahead leaning of the putter at address, and position the ball 2" ahead of the bottom of the stroke, and then make a no-manipulations pendular stroke. The putter face will be rising on the same trajectory into the back of the ball at the equator and the plane of the face will be vertical at impact.

Other than these two geometries, it is NOT POSSIBLE to deliver a vertical putter face to the equator of the back of the ball positioned 2" ahead of the bottom of a pendular arc without manipulation.

It IS possible, though, to get this effect by playing the ball 2" ahead of the bottom with a 2-degree putter, with or without hands ahead, but the forward stroke will necessarily include a manipulation. The usual manipulation to get this effect is to "level out" the trajectory of the putter head thru the impact area whenever the face plane reaches zero loft and then keep the face at zero going forward thru impact -- roughly, from the bottom beneath the top of the sternum thru another 3-4 inches, which includes all contact with the ball starting at 2" in front of the bottom. The golfer's body will have a subtle "opening out" of the lead elbow as the lead shoulder rises, the net effect of which is to leave the putter head low at the same elevation thru impact (i.e., a level trajectory).

Now, if Harold does not want to contact the ball on the top quadrant, then he is required by geometry to present the putter face to the back of the ball with SOME dynamic (positive) loft that impacts the ball below the equator or else present the putter face to the ball with zero loft by the setup, putter design and stroke described or resort to a manipulation like the one just described.

This creates the BIG PUZZLE of why Harold would position the hands ahead if he wants positive loft in the putter face at impact? If he wants ZERO loft at impact, then he either should design a putter with 2.1 degrees negative loft (for golfers with top of sternum 54 inches above the ground) and play the ball 2" ahead of the bottom, or deloft exactly all of the putter's design loft and play the ball ahead of the pivot by however much leaning of the shaft that takes, or use a zero-degree putter and play the back of the ball exactly at the bottom of the arc.

I think the real problem here is that Harold does not specifically attempt to understand or explain exactly HOW MUCH the putter handle should be played forward of the back of the ball in order to get his envisioned impact dynamic (vertical putter face rising slightly thru impact). He just puts his hands well forward without discussing any details for technique. it is the EXTENT to which the hands-ahead meshes with the design loft of the putter that matters in the sort of stroke dynamic Harold seems to want to teach, but this is not discussed at all.

If you had not used the word "misrepresent" with reference to Harold's teaching, implying that I am not accurately describing what shows on the DVD, I would have left this issue alone long ago. As it is, I will rely on standard principles of geometry and comment without fear of contradicition that the DVD in fact shows a delofted putter face impacting the ball on the top quadrant while slightly rising. This may not be what Harold intended to say or teach, but his hands-ahead delofting of the putter and his high-speed camera photos and his image of the putter face at impact delofted in reference to a vertical line he draws for the viewer at the back of the ball ALL show me that the DVD does not describe what you say Harold really teaches.

While I like and respect Harold as a person and as a teacher, there seems to be a mistake here in his thinking about the geometry of impact. Perhaps our discussion will somehow end in Harold's clarifying what he thinks and says about the "tangential impact" he teaches.

That's fine, but it's not my "misrepresentation" or even my "mistake."

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.