Geoff, a couple of months ago I made a post about my putting problems and the solutions you offered seemed to have merit. However there is a major glitch in my putting that is either mental or mechanical I cannot isolate.

When I arrive at the course I usually spend a few minutes on the practice putting green warming up. No matter what hole I putt at and from any distance I can putt the ball within a 2 foot circle of the cup. From 3 feet and in I make 80%+ of the putts. On the course it's a different story. I consistently putt the ball about 3/4 of the way to the hole with an occasional putt rolling 5 to 10 feet past the cup. On 3 foot and closer putts I open the putter face on the forward stroke for some reason and no matter what I try I cannot stop opening the face. It's as if I'm trying to take something off the ball because I'm afraid I'm going to roll it too far. I don't know if this is a mental problem or a mechanical problem where I alter my stroke for course play. If I hit the green I 3 putt. If I chip on and am more than 18" from the cup I 2 putt.

What's odd about this is that I use to be a decent putter but one day several years ago my putting went south and I have never been able to get it back. No matter what I try or how much I practice there is no improvement. Any help or suggestions is appreciated.

Dear TGMTeacher,

What I'm hearing is the typical fear of going long, which is the main fear for distance control. The short version of what I have to teach that cures this is: when you stick with one tempo back and thru, it is NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TO GO LONG. Therefore, the simple cure of fearing going long is to learn this and believe it, and then don't change your timing back and thru.

How this works is: the brain relies upon your backstroke timing to select the appropriate distance back that corresponds with your forward stroke timing (accelerating pattern) so that the impact is just right for the green speed and the distance and any uphill or downhill. In the brain, for a set timing pattern back and thru, every size of backstroke corresponds to ONLY ONE impact velocity (bigger = faster impact velocity). Why would the brain instinctively pick any one particular backstroke size? Because the brain has learned what is required for that green speed, distance, and uphill or downhill change by experience and intuition. This means that the backstroke chosen by instincts "should be" just right for the impact velocity to roll the ball just to the hole, not short and not long. And in fact, so long as you appreciate the green speed, distance, and uphill / downhill change so that the intuition has good information, the brain (meaning natural, normal adult movement instincts used in everday normal life by all normal adults) ALMOST NEVER GETS IT WRONG IN SELECTING THE BACKSTROKE SIZE, AND THEREFORE THE IMPACT VELOCITY.

This is the same system of movement planning and control used to reach out to a door knob to open a door. How often are you long, so that your hand smashes painfully against the door knob? Never. People suffering from the neurological condition called "dysmetria" have overshoot or undershoot in their motions. But normal adults essentially NEVER have overshoot or undershoot in their motions.

So, why would YOU have undershoot / overshoot problems on the green? The short answer is that you are not using normal, nonconscious, instinctive processes in the stroke, but are substituting conscious processes of distance control. This happens to people who problem-solve golf skills and try to come up with "rules" for how best to do it. These rules usually are not effective because not grounded in the realities of the instinctive processes for normal movement. Since the rules don't work too well, the golfer gets lost and simply doesn't know why he has a distance control problem.

But, if you get back to the instinctive process for motion "metrics" described above, it boils down to "stick to the timing." If you stick to the timing back and the timing thru, there is no room for "conscious problem-solving", and the only process allowed to work is the instinctive process of the nonconscious brain.

So what happens when you ill-advisedly use the problem-solving conscious brain? The timing gets messed up in one of three ways: not long enough time back so the backstroke is too short and the putt is short; too long coming forward to impact so the velocity of impact is too slow and the putt is short; and / or too quick coming forward to impact so the velocity of impact is too fast and the putt is long.

The fear of going long is the main fear in putting, and this manifests itself in the first two timing changes: backstroke too short, and / or forward stroke decelerates. The ONLY timing change that corresponds to going long is speeding the forward stroke, over-accelerating, or "zipping" thru imapct.

To cure all of this, first learn and believe that the ONLY WAY it is possible to go long is to zip the forward stroke faster than the usual tempo, and that once the golfer commits to never zipping the stroke thru impact, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GO LONG. Once the golfer learns this, then he has no reason the fear going long, and can eliminate the other two timing errors.

The end result is: trust the instincts not to give you too large a backstroke or too fast an impact velocity. This is quite interesting, really, but it is just the way the brain relates the body to the external world. Fundamentally, if the brain has not learned NOT to give you too fast of a movement to an object, you would be dead, as you would have daily trouble plucking a bannana from a tree and then sticking it in your mouth. Every normal adult human brain has learned this one trick of not going too fast at an object or in a movement, as a general modus operandi of how the brain runs the body in space on earth.

I have a short video clip about the impossibility of going too long by NOT zipping the thrustroke posted on the Videoclips page of my website, in the series with Lucky Kusuma Chandra (the third from the left of the four clips).

As the human brain learns to adapt to earth by trial and error during the growing up experience, the brain first overshoots to make sure the object is reached with the least doubt, and later learns to reach the right distance only. Timing comes to fruition in this latter learning process. People with less movement competencies, due to less trial and error experiences, tend not to be great putters for distance control. Children and women novice golfers, broadly / stereotypically speaking, have less movement timing competencies incorporated into the functioning brain than do youthfully athletic males now matured into young adulthood (late teens, early twenties). Women and children novice golfers almost always overshoot their putts grossly, whereas youthful male golfers have pretty good touch unless messed up by some half-baked golf instructor, and more "wizened" golfers usually suffer from undershoot due to overly cautious conscious "rules" about how to control distance. Getting women and children up to an acceptable competence level without discarding instinctive processes and getting mature males back to a more instinctive sort of competence instead of wrongheaded conscious controls is what it's all about.

Even if you learn that the brain will not give you too big of a backstroke or too fast of an impact velocity, this alone won't get rid of your being short. You will still "curtail" the size of the backstroke by cutting it short instead of letting it continue to reach its instinctive fullness. And whenever the backstroke gets larger than your conscious brain thinks is correct, you will decelerate the forward stroke. So to work on this second stage of the problem (once the fear of going long is sorted), the answer once again is "just don't change the timing back or the timing thru."

How do you do that? First, select a timing to use in the backstroke and a timing in the thru-stroke, and then learn this timing back and thru so it is known physically. When you can breathe the timings or count the timings in the same pacing, then it's time to experiment to see the instincts in action.

For example, set up on a putt of some length, appreciate the green speed, the distance, and any uphill / downhill change, and then count the backstroke and don't stop moving until the backstroke COUNT is completed. Just swing the putter back from the address position and let it coast to its own stop so that the stop coincides with the end of the count. Then make the down-and-thru stroke so that the timing is right, and not arriving at impact either early or late. This "experiment" should convince your conscious mind to butt out -- the instincts know how to do the backstroke-thrustroke a lot more accurately for "touch."

I teach a "one potato" backstroke timing, with the downstroke-to-impact timing being one half of this. The timing I use is based on the natural accelerating swing of the putter from top of backstroke to top of thrustroke, which is always the same regardless of the size of the backstroke. (Small strokes accelerate for only a short time to impact, and so have a "slow" impact velocity, whereas long backstrokes accelerate for a longer time and so reach impact with a faster peak velocity -- the brain knows exactly how fast each backstroke will result in what impact velocity, and each backstroke length corresponds to one and only one impact velocity.)

To learn the timing, just swing the putter naturally without hurry like a baby elephant might swing his trunk back and forth across the grass, lazily and playfully. The brain does not really conceive of the backstroke as starting from a dead stop at the bottom of the swing at address, and instead conceives of the backstroke as just the swinging back and thru, starting from the top of the followthru and swinging backwards. This swing takes "one potato" and so does a backstroke that starts from a dead stop at the bottom of the stroke. That's because the brain has an internal sense of the swinging back and forth, and the backstroke that starts from a dead stop "catches up and matches" this back and forth swinging.

So, try this: at address facing a putt, set the putter back inside from the ball a bit and then make a forward stroke at the hole that you think is about right. Then from whatever top-of-followthru position that results, just let the putter start swinging back and forth several times, from top of followthru to top of backstroke, back and forth under the putter's own steam letting the putter head do the work (as they say). Once this swinging pattern is going, step forward and let the ball get in the way, without changing the timing or size of the swinging. You should see that the ball rolls just the right distance. This is because the normal instincts are very, very good at selecting the impact velocity for your putter and ball that results in just the right roll distance for the given / appreciated green speed, distance, and uphill or downhill change, and (from this impact velocity working backwards) at choosing the backstroke size, and (working still backwards from the backstroke size) at setting the "blast off" force of the initial takeaway "catch-up-to-the-internal-instinctive-back-and-forth-swinging" that is all the golfer actually "does" when he pulls the trigger on a putt.

The lesson of all this is you are using a problem-solving conscious approach to distance control that sucks and you need instead to use a nonconscious instinctive process. But it is easier said than done because you don't fully know how grasping the conscious mind is to keep control. (Fear prompts the conscious mind to hold onto control more tightly, and NOT having the conscious mind in control fuels the fear, so it is a vicious cycle that perpetuates itself.) The experiments I've created are designed to convince the conscious mind that simple counting is a lot more accurate and effective than the various bogus strategies tried out by the conscious mind. So relax, chill out, putt boldly with nonconscious instinct without fear arising from the supposed lack of control, since the nonconscious mind is just as much in control of the putting stroke as it is in control of reaching for a door knob every day of your life. It's only timing.

When you count the backstroke, and the swing starts and "catches up and matches" the natural full swing, the putter initially blast off backwards but then coasts to a stop the same way the natural full swing does. The conscious mind does not like this coasting to a stop, and prefers to "put" the putter back to a specific distance the conscious mind chooses. The instincts pick the size of the stroke (by calibrating the "blast off" backwards in the takeaway's initiation) but don't tell the conscious mind anything about it. This means that "trying" to get the size of the backstroke "just right" is wrongheaded, as is "wondering whether the backstroke is correct," "judging the size of the backstroke", and "worrying that the backstroke is too long or short." The conscious mind is NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW, CARE, OR BE INVOLVED AT ALL. Just count and swing the putter back to match up to the internal model of the instintively swinging, playful stroke and that's it.

If the backstroke is allowed to coast to a top-of-backstroke position that matches up to the internal sense of the full swing arcing back and forth, then this is the "load" that corresponds to one and only one impact velocity. The experiment has to be to allow this instinctive selection of the backstroke to show you what it can do, and that means don't change the downstroke timing. If you want to find out what impact velocity the instincts have chosen by the size of the backstroke, you have to ALLOW the backstroke size to accelerate with the pre-stroke intended timing or you'll never find out. (So stay "smooth" in the forward stroke -- no "hit" impulse, no jerking, no powering, no muscling the stroke forward -- just patience and witnessing and waiting to see what happens.)

The downstroke timing is always one-half of the full swinging from side to side, so that is one-half of the backstroke count "one potato". So long as the putter impacts the ball on this downstroke-to-impact count, all is well and the distance is right. Early impact is too long, and late impact is too short. Any change in the downstroke-to-impact timing pattern will add or substract to the "load" chosen by the instincts, and the putt will then be long or short of the intended distance.

I have created a "bob white" whistle that corresponds to the backstroke timing (long drawn-out and low-pitch "bob" whistle) and the one-half timing to impact (short, sharp-pitched "white" whistle) illustrated in this short video clip:



So, learn a timing and stick to it and quit using the conscious mind and its fearful half-baked strategies that suck.

Cheers!

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

Visit the new PuttingZone Blog for podcasts of putting tips:
Site PuttingZone Blog
RSS XML Subscription

Let me add this to the mix:

On short putts, the instinctive, easy-going stroke timing often generates a backstroke that really IS too big for the occasion, and this causes real fear of hitting the ball too fast at the hole. The fear is not really warranted IF the body doesn't have a problem leaving the stroke alone coming forward. Unfortunately, there is a mis-match between the bigness of the smallest instinctive stroke and the smallness of the strokes appropriate for short putts within a certain range and on certain green speeds.

The problem comes up because the human body requires a certain minimum size stroke before the instinctive timing that is deeply learned as taught by the constant teacher gravity. Gravity teaches a timing that is casual and easy-going for the scale of human bodies and typical motions in and around "personal space". A simple underhanded toss of a ball to a friend standing within twenty feet has a nice leisurely tempo back and thru -- no jerkiness or violence in it. And this same tempo handle a wide range of distances without timing change simply by increasing or decreasing the SIZE of the arm swing in the toss. But if the person stands too close, and "invades our space", this usual timing starts to change by getting faster, with the stroke sizes staying longish. There is a resistance in the body to the stroke SIZE getting beneath a certain minimum.

The reason for this is found in the usual size of the human body and the characteristic responsiveness of the "body position / movement sensors" at joints and in muscles that tell us where and how body arts are moving relative to one another. These sensors are normally set for "everyday" motions that predominately operate in a unhurried pace within interpersonal space (recahing distance). In the case of a shoulder stroke, the tissues and muscles and joints that actually move have sensors that are not set at too "fine" a level. The upper torso as a whole is not usually involved significantly until the movement extends to the outer borders and beyond of the usual interpesonal space. (If you compare a small stroking / rocking action of the shoulders with a similar stroking of the index finger in space you should see that the sense of precision in the timing is a lot clearer in the finger waving; the timing of the shoulder motion doesn't reach a similar level of precision unless the rocking attains a certain size.) Very roughly speaking, a shoulder stroke does not have really precise timing unless and until the size of the stroke carries the putter head back past the rear foot, and strokes smaller than this raise a red flag in the emotions about smoothness and timing control.

The practical answer to this problem is to IGNORE timing for putts within a certain "close" range. Just worry about the line and straightness of the stroke, and let the distance take care of itself using whatever timing pattern you like that rolls the ball up to the lip with the right arrival speed that does not overwhelm the break you're playing or the opening of the cup. What constitutes a "close" range putt varies with green speed and whether and to what extent the putt is uphill or downhill. But in the typical case of a reasonably level putt on an "average" green speed (say, 9.5' on the Stimpmeter), the "close" range requiring strokes that stay between the feet starts somewhere around 5-6 feet for most people. (That's part of the reason why putting performance nosedives from 90% sinks to merely 50% sinks -- a 40% dropoff -- over this mysterious 3-foot range.)

You get a "gut feeling" that the usual, casual, drag-ass gravity tempo is about to generate a stroke that is just too big for the putt (distance and surface speed and uphill / downhill change). The body sensors for smoothly controlling and "feeling" the stroke warn you in advance that they aren't going to be engaged by the right-size small stroke and a too-big stroke is all that will enagge them. If you get this gut feeling, then you are too close for the usual tempo, so forget about timing and just focus on straight and true putting with "whatever" timing. The stroke will speed up with more body tension at the helm. The added tension of the quicker stroke reaches down to the body sensors and helps them get back in the "stay smooth" business. Distance control at this range is not the problem. Staying "smooth" back and thru is always the problem, as this relates to both distance and straightness of stroke.

"Whatever" (quicker) timing while "staying smooth" works great on all but really slick putts (slick surfaces or fast downhill putts). There is usually not too great a danger of the faster timing blowing the putt thru the break or flying over the opening of the hole. But sometimes this danger looms due to the combination of faster stroke and too-slick of a putt.

The slicker the green speed, the longer out this "close" range extends AND the more important it becomes not to overwhelm the chosen break with too much speed, so you are basically free to do "whatever" on slow greens but not all that free to "cut loose with whatever" pace on slick greens. On slick greens, you can use "whatever" pace of stroke that you like SO LONG AS you don't rush the ball thru the break you've read and intend to play. On slow greens, this "hitting short putts thru the break" is a lot less likely and so not all that often a concern. The step-up in stroke timing (and tension to make such a stroke with clearly defined, pronounced starting-stopping at either end) occurs within certain limits, and this step-up is almost always comfortably adaptable to slow greens without worry, but not so comfortably workable on slick greens.

The opposite, twin danger of hitting thru the break is "babying" the slick putt. When the golfer is too focused on NOT blowing the putt thru the break on slick putts, the tendency is to "baby" the putt and leave it short. This looks pretty bad when you leave a two-foot putt short! Again, the remedy is "stay smooth" on short putts, anyway, anyhow, while appreciating the subtlety of the break and putt energy. Just smoothly pour the putt along the break deep down inside the cup to stay!

Bottom line: use a quicker stroke on shortish putts without sweating the timing of the stroke at all -- "whatever" timing is fine -- just don't overwhelm the break on slick putts or err the other direction by "babying" the putt. Stay smooth on short putts.

Cheers!

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

Visit the new PuttingZone Blog for podcasts of putting tips:
Site PuttingZone Blog
RSS XML Subscription

Geoff,

The basis for the "pendulum" putting stroke is to maintain the same timing ("one-potato","two-potato", "Bob", "White") while varying the putting stroke length to accomplish putts of different lengths. The backswing time is by definition, twice the downswing to impact time. A "pendulum" putt dictates using the same tempo for all putts: long, medium, and short. To suggest that just for short putts, a faster tempo should be used or, that tempo really doesn't matter is misleading.

Since Tiger is always a subject for criticism, let's look at his tempo, again. On long putts, medium putts, and short putts, as well as very short putts, his tempo is always the same (112 bpm) .53 sec backswing/.26 sec downswing to impact. During the Deutchebank, Tiger missed many putts, however, his tempo was consistent. On a 6 foot putt, Tiger may only take the putter back 3 inches. The same is true for Phil Mickelson (112bpm). Their fast tempo allows for a short stroke. The vast majority of PGA Tour Professionals putt with tempos from 90 bpm to 112 bpm. Aaron Baddeley putts with a tempo of 128 bpm!

Apparently, for some reason, you have decided that the very slow gravity stroke is OK for longer putts, but is awkward for short putts, so it is now OK to putt with a faster stroke just for short putts?

Consistency is the name of the game in golf. Keeping your putting stroke timing constant for ALL putts is the preferred concept to be taught.

Dean

Dear Dean,

"Misleading"? "Apparently for some reason"? If you're going to respond, then please don't misstate my arguments and positions and statements in a distorted way before attempting to turn them against me.

But first let's define "a reason", shall we. A "reason" is commonly understood to mean an "explanation", hopefully of how or why something is the way it is, or works the way it works, in simple terms that indicate cause and effect relationships.

You simply cite your time measurements and then suggest without stating supporting reasons that other golfers should do the same as these "model" pro golfers as seen on tv.

In contrast, I offered a rather detailed explanation based on physics, neuroscience, biomechanics, and golf lore history as to why the tempo is based on a gravity tempo, what that tempo is, how it affects distance control in terms of size of stroke and impact velocity, and whether and to what extent and for what reason(s) it is advisable for individual golfers to vary off that base tempo. I also offered a detailed constellation of reasons based on physics, neuroscience, and biomechanics why this tempo may be (and is) awkward in certain situations. To dismiss what I've written as if it were "apparently" based on "some (unarticulated and probably poorly thought-out) reason" is a bit disingenuous of you if you read my previous posts. I understand classical rhetoric pretty well, and know the tricks of "sophistical argument" (i.e., "specious, unsound, misleading" discourse), but this doesn't even rise to that level of sophistication.

And I assume by your use of the term "misleading" you really mean not that I am "deceiving" golfers or even that I am merely leading golfers down the wrong path (a somewhat unusual and special sense of the word it is very unlikely you intended), but intended instead to say that I am "confusing" golfers. At least I hope you weren't so catty as to say I was "deceiving" anyone. That is a brand of "attack against the person" that is not permitted.

At the very best, if I understand what you are trying to articulate, you are saying (I suppose, as you aren't too clear in stating it) that if I am suggesting a faster tempo works better for short putts, then I ought to agree with you that all golfers ought to putt with a fast tempo like Tiger. I don't regard that as a reason, but just a position without a reason. At most, you are using the reason that a faster tempo for both long and short putts would be "better" because more consistent. Your actual sentence is: "Keeping your putting stroke timing constant for ALL putts is the preferred concept to be taught." "Preferred" by you and others perhaps, but so what -- that's not a reason or much of one at any rate. That's only a "position." I already know your position: "Putt with a fast tempo like a lot of the PGA Tour players use." Why?

Let me try to state reasons you might have wished to state, so we can at least be clear about what the heck a "reason" actually looks like. A reason is not "implied" or "understood" -- it is either articulated and embodied in specific words or it does not exist (or at least has not been brought to the surface for examination, which is effectively the same thing).

Here's a reason: "Golfers should always putt with the same tempo because it is less likely to cause a problem on different length putts, since the golfer will always be using only one tempo, and one tempo is repeated more accurately more often than would be the case with more than one tempo. Because golfers will have difficulty using a slower tempo (used for long putts) on short putts, then these golfers should not use a slower tempo on long putts but should use the same faster tempo on long putts that they use on short putts."

I assume that is more or less the "reason" you were attempting to articulate, so let me respond to that.

I disagree, for the following "reasons":

First, I don't really say use a specific tempo for putts within the too-short range; I say "don't worry about tempo at all" with the caveat that you aren't allowed to blow the ball thru the break or baby the putt and instead need to stay 'smooth" in the character of the motion regardless of what tempo shows up. I am still saying "putt with instinct" although in my view there is a categorical difference between these too-short putts and other, longer putts based on human physiology and neuroscience and physics (want to explain again what the difference is?). This is not something that I "now" (suddenly and inconsistently) change or flip-flop about as your post suggests, but is what I have been saying for a number of years.

Second, the players you cite as exemplars of great putting just ain't. They are better than amateurs and better than most other pros on Tour today, but that's about it. Other than that relative ranking of performance, these guys have very real flaws in their putting, the most common of which is they don't have a good approach to "how touch works" for long or short putts so that they have excellent touch consistently. Ask Tiger. Ask Aaron Baddeley what the heck happened on Sunday at the US Open this year. This is not a "criticism" (your word) in the sense of "bad-mouthing" but is simply being honest and frank about where things stand in objective reality. If you don't do that as a coach, you have no hope of helping a player (pro or amateur) get better. (You can ignore objective reality if you simply are a "fan.") I have never seen anything you say that amounts to a claim that you understand "touch" or have any idea how it actually works in the human body, so I'm a little curious why you think you know what tempo is all about. It's not about "tempo" in and of itself -- it's about sinking putts, which is more about the "right touch" for a given putt, and only in a background way about "tempo".

Third, your "reason" that one tempo is better than two or more different tempos because easier to repeat is an example of "slice and dice" golf instruction. The golfer is not really concerned with the tempo nearly as much as he is concerned with sinking the putt -- agreed? In your approach, the tempo always has to be the same in a mechanical way, and I view this as a misplaced emphasis and lack of perspective on the whole enterprise. I agree that the tempo "usually" will be identical from putt to putt, except I have personally examined tempo and too-short putts for a number of years now in a rather lengthy empirical investigation that so far as I know NO ONE ON TOUR has engaged in or has any views about at all. If your response is (as I anticipate from what you have said before) that top pros use the same tempo on long and short putts "because" they want to be more consistent and they know they aren't as consistent if they use more than one tempo, my response is I don't agree that these are the facts. I think top pros use one tempo on long and too-short putts because they are afraid not to (herd instinct) and really have no particular reason or understanding about whether using different tempos on long or too-short putts is a good thing, a bad thing, or an indifferent thing -- never having really investigated the issue personally. Most pros usually try to "take some break out" on short putts, and that means they change tempo. Any one who delves into the way pro golfers "reason" about when and how and whether to "take the break out" of specific short putts will come away knowing for certain what "confusion" and "vagueness" mean. All you have to do is recall the zillions of times Ken Venturi (not a good putter) blathered on when doing television commentary about "don't give away the hole," "ramming in the short ones", and "taking the break out" willy-nilly for all different sorts of putts without rhyme or reason. That's why sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and the pros don't really know why it doesn't work as planned, or else they wouldn't have missed as a result of trying to take the break out in a way not especially effective for the specific putt. They just haven't really thought about it too closely to sort out the different kinds of short putts and the combinations of green speed and uphill / downhill conditions that matter for WHETHER AND EXACTLY TO WHAT EXTENT AND HOW the pro should "take some break out" on a specific putt.

Fourth, I have never really said that golfer's should use only one tempo and that the only acceptable or workable or optimal tempo is a slow, gravity-only tempo. What I have said is that touch can work with a wide range of tempos from gravity-only upward and faster and that the brain needs to know what tempo you plan on using in advance of the putt. It's just a matter of being aware of what you are planning to do on any given putt. Golfers are perfectly capable of varying the tempo of their putts, and do it all the time. In fact, I have been teaching for years that there are five factors for touch (ball, putter, green speed, tempo, and targeting), and that ordinarily the only factor in play from putt to putt is "targeting" but that sometimes as in uphill / downhill putts it is useful to "adjust" one's sense of green speed (uphill is "slower" than usual, and downhill is "faster" than usual) as a way to engage intuitive processes to handle the otherwise complicated physics of translating elevation change into lateral distance across the green and impact velocity change. AND I also teach that on rare occasion the golfer can also adjust his tempo to handle certain slick, downhill putts, substituting a lock-step, slow motion "even ... even" stroke for the usual naturally-swinging tempo, also as a means for preserving an instinctive approach to astutely managing the impact velocity without conscious involvement.

Fifth, as to too-short putts, I am saying that even this pre-awareness of the tempo doesn't much matter if you stay "smooth" in the back and thru of the stroke. Why? Because if you stay "smooth" the brain still relates the size of the backstroke with the pacing of the thrustroke to calibrate the impact velocity instinctively, and the brain is simply not going to get so fast in the tempo that it is dangerous or even especially noticeable. The whole point is that a too-short putt creates a physical problem for ALL golfers based on the way their bodies are sized and putt together as a neurological system for movement, and when this crops up, you don't want to spotlight the problem, and instead want to alleviate the problem. Forgetting about using the usual, large, slow gravity-tuned tempo on short putts is just a way NOT to be dogmatic, and to prefer practical, unfettered, instinctive putting. "Rules" are the problem. When I describe an instinctive gravity-based tempo, I am simply explaining how the body has evolved to move on earth as a fundamental level -- a background level that is ever-present and that conditions what is possible and what is likely to work. It also happens to be true that there are OTHER reasons not to get too far off this base tempo -- the utterly perfect consistency of the thrustroke timing not being up to the golfer, for example. If there is a biomechanical "reason" why this relationship between backstroke size and no-golfer-gravity-always-does-it-perfectly downstroke, then it is simply prudent to take objective stock of that and see what is necessary in stead. The least thing is the best thing, and in this case I suggest that the least thing for the golfer is to "forget the tempo" on too-short putts because it is not a problem to do so so long as you stay smooth in the movement (that is, coordinated in the back and thru).

Sixth, if as you claim these Tour pros actually represent the "best model" available for how to handle short putts (obviously, they aren't as good as they could be -- agreed? -- so this claim is not particularly compelling based on what we see on tv), then their tempo on too-short putts ought to serve them well on the longer putts. But it doesn't really, does it, or why would Tiger Woods blow a tournament with 4-5 three putts? The main problem as I see it with using a faster tempo is on loss of touch for a wide range of usual-length and long-range putts. I have consistently said you CAN have good touch with a fast tempo, but that you will suffer in terms of consistency. This is exactly what we see. Some days Tiger is fabulous with his long-range touch, and some days he frankly doesn't know how to handle the greens and three-putts. He says this, not me -- I just pay attention to what he says. It's VERY obvious that neither Tiger, his caddy Steve Williams, nor his swing coach Hank Haney, or indeed anyone on earth he has sought out for advice thus far with his ample bankroll has so far suggested a solution to his "touch" inconsistency other than "keep working on it somehow and hope for improvement." This tells me that "all the King's horses and all the King's men" don't understand "touch" at a fundamental level, and that means they will REMAIN INCONSISTENT unless they just luckily happen into a pattern that is the right pattern without understanding what that pattern is and also IF they never then get out of that pattern knowingly or otherwise. That's pretty unlikely, don't you think, as it hasn't happened yet for Tiger in over a quater century (25 years) of playing golf. I believe based on nearly two decades of focused attention on this issue that a quick tempo makes consistent distance control more difficult than a relaxed tempo more closely in tune with the resonant tempo of human-body-in-gravity. I watch all the truly great putters "slow down" in comparison to their lesser-skilled competitors, and I take that as consistent with my personal empirical experiences c0omparing fast and slow tempos and how they affect distance and line control and thinking about what the differences are in terms of perceptual and movement processes of the normal human brain. So the repeating problems that today's top pros have with "touch" when using these "faster" tempos is consistent with my personal experience and with the historical pattern -- their tempo isn't the best they could be using, and they could do quite a bit better with both long and short putts if they actually knew more about how touch and tempo relate to one another for effective, smart putting one putt at a time.

Seventh, I don't accept that you know what constitutes "consistent" use of one specific tempo by an individual pro from measuring putts on television. Have you broken down your data in terms of long-putt tempos and short-putt tempos and success or failure each putt over a very wide variety and an extensive sample of that pros' putting, to the point that you can state without significant doubt that these pros don't change tempo on certain putts? Personally, without meaning any offense, I don't believe you have.

And finally eighth, I gather that from your "reason" as I have articulated it, you would be satisfied if Tour pros used a "slow" tempo on both long and short putts, instead of the 113 bpm or other "fast" tempo, since then they would be just as consistent as you could hope.

Basically, I think your reasoning, what there is of it, is superficial and mechanical and not based on an understanding of touch or tempo and how they relate to one another in the way the human body acts with nonconscious instincts for touch. Just repeating that we should follow the example of Tour players because they're as good as it gets does not at all strike me as persuasive, or reasonable, or even sensible, given their problems with touch. Their "consistency" (if there is such a thing) does not appear to be working out all that well. I keep hearing from you that golfers should putt "like" the pros, as if that's as high a level of performance as it gets. I think we should all do a lot better than today's pros, including the pros.

Cheers!

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

Visit the new PuttingZone Blog for podcasts of putting tips:
Site PuttingZone Blog
RSS XML Subscription