Yesterday, listening to Johnny Miller commenting on the Arnold Palmer Invitational tournament about putting, where he mused: "Perhaps putting is more an art than a science."
His tone of voice seemed to have contempt for science and preference for art. I always thought that science attempts to be universal while art is highly individual. I suspect that Miller is science ignorant and prefers that bliss.
Geoff ... what and where is the dividing line between putting science and putting art, and are they mutually exclusive ??
Is it not impossible for putting to be a science? If it was we would all have to putt the exact same way to get the same results. Since putting is an art, that is how many different people can putt many different way yet get the same results. To me science is kind of like a math problem, there is one set of numbers and one equation and one answer, with art there is no set of rules like math and/or science. It's not just Johnny Miller who says this listen every week to any of the golf braodcast whether it be the PGA, Nationwide, European Tour, LPGA etc.. commentators have always said putting is an art not a science. Well, of course it is. That is the only way to explain how Tiger can make a putt using the style he uses, and Chris DiMarco can step up right behind him and make the same putt using the style he uses and then Bernhard Langer can step up and sink the same putt using the style he uses. That's the proof right there that it is an art. If it was science only one way would work. People can try to make it a science and come up with lots of info and numbers and calculations but in reality it is not that hard or complicated and it cetainly does not need to be made that comlicated.
Now the devils advocate. The definitions of art and science are similar. If you use the word science in putting to mean a skill or technique than yes it sure is a science or knowledge through observation. Than there is no argument that is can't be a science.
I think Johnny and the other see science as more of a formula box that you can't go out of and see art as more open to any style and you most certainly can go out of the box.
In reality is you go be the definitions putting is both.
I wonder if Tiger has ever been on a putting monitor(i.e. puttlab). He reportedly can call and adjust the spin on his driver shots(when on a launch monitor) within 100rpm or so. He tinkers as much as anybody with his fullswing, but he still does the same stuff putting that his dad taught him as a kid. Even if his technique isn't perfect, he is showing that being a master of slightly imperfect technique might be just as good as constantly trying to achieve perfect technique with putting(which is interesting because he would never try to do that with his full swing).
There was a post elsewhere on this forum from someone associated with SAM puttlabs. He made some comments about Tiger's stroke. Maybe someone could pull that post over here.
Putting technique Is kind of like guitar technique. there is no right or wrong way. If you can putt it in the hole time after time all is good. If you can play your guitar and hit all of the right notes and stay in time all is good. It is very hard to knock someones technique if the end result is the desired result.
wonder what percentage of time his impact is dead square or "square enough" that the ball starts on line or close to on line enough that he makes the putt given the proper speed. He does talk about pushing/pulling putts sometimes, I guess due to the releasing talked about in that article.
I'm thrilled to see this forum taking on its own life, so let me just chip in two cents worth.
The debate of WHETHER putting is art or science is an old one, but the better question is to what extent is putting a mixture of art and science, and the best question is how does a teacher of putting best help a golfer attain the best mixture for that golfer at a given point in his development.
I like the analogy that putting is similar to playing a guitar, but I don't really believe it is "difficult" to "knock" someone's technique if they are "getting the desired results". Fist of all, a TEACHER does not KNOCK anything a golfer does -- a mere spectator or a self-important dilettante at golf (a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge) may "KNOCK" a better player to make himself appear more knowledgeable or skillful than he actually is. A teacher would "CRITIQUE" any player's technique and then carefully assess how best to help the student IMPROVE. If the student does not want to improve, that is fine, and that is not something for the teacher to decide. However, if the student does not KNOW or is not AWARE of what is POSSIBLE for improvement, the teacher has a role in showing the golfer what's possible, so that the golfer can make an intelligently informed choice as to WHETHER he wants to improve.
I would dare to say that Tiger is NOT "getting the desired results" and is not clear about the extent to which he can improve his putting. I say this because I know as a teacher and from his explanation of what he thinks is working well for him may well be "good enough for today" in terms of results, but it is not at all the best that TIGER personally could do with his putting.
As to the "computer" -- a "computer" is not inherently "science". And "getting precise data" about one's putting stroke is not really "science" either. Technology is only helpful or nor helpful to the scientist in order to learn something about how the world works. The data that the computer is displaying is "descriptive data", not unlike saying that the atom of helium is 0.00000000001 inch wide. SO WHAT?
To COMPARE one stroke pattern with another is the next level up in using technology. Yes, this usage is a wee bit more "scientific" because it is now exploring how the world works and there is a little tiny answer to the basic question posed by the very precise data. Now when one asks "SO WHAT?, the answer may be that stroke pattern A is BETEER than stroke pattern B in terms of the "mechanics", which is what the data reports a description of. This is a BABY STEP in science, folks, and not real science.
The REAL SCIENCE that a certain technology makes possible is to find out how PUTTING WORKS, and not simply the baby-step comparison of one stroke pattern against another. This is where the TEACHER is unquestionably the one the technology must be designed to help.
The teacher uses his mind to review existing data from a myriad of sources to think about (theorize about) HOW PUTTING WORKS for any given individual. Everyone will agree that delivering the putter face square thru impact is pretty important to "getting the desired results", but is that the only way or the best way? and how does a specific golfer best do the best way of "getting the desired results" or is he stuck at doing something mechanically that is less than the best way? Even with those questions, the teacher knows that there is still a MORE IMPORTANT level of assessment. SO WHAT? Even if the "mechanics" SEEM to be optimized for a given golfer in terms of MECHANICS, these mechanics may or may not be best for that golfer in terms of "getting the desired results" when putting at real holes on contoured greens.
The SAM PuttLab does not address anything inputting other than MECHANICS, and the mechanics (as everyone appears to repeat endlessly, including Tiger) is to some extent an individual matter. But mechanics alone or per se is not the same as putting. Putting involves reading the putt, aiming the putter, and COMBINING touch with stroke mechanics. These two (Touch and Stroke) are not separable, and in fact all four are not separable. The brain for human movement and skilled performance is simply not that way.
The readers of this forum who are enthusiastic about TECHNOLOGY do the same thing everyone in the 20th century (and now the 21st century) have been doing since science assumed the top spot in the arena of how one KNOWS HOW THE WORLD WORKS: they assume that technology IS science. It's not.
I guess that hardly anyone in the modern world has studied enough science to realize that the scientist is the one who designs the TECHNOLOGY in order to pursue certain questions about HOW THE WORLD WORKS. The scientists trained at MIT and Cal Tech don't just hop in their Volkswagens and tool on down to the local Radio Shack and buy the technology that seems like it will do the job. They INVENT IT so that the TECHNOLOGY measured what needs to be measured in the most accurate and useful way.
The nuclear research cyclotrons at FERMI Lab and CERN Switzerland are good examples of TECHNOLOGY invented and designed by nuclear scientists to learn HOW THE WORLD WORKS based upon theories that are in turn based upon the best existing data so far and the thinking of the top scientists about how to approach the problem of learning more or checking the correctness of existing understandings based upon existing data.
This is NOT what the TECHNOLOGY TOYS of golfs are all about. Yes, there has been an attempt to take stock of existing data and notions of putting in the design of various examples of TECHNOLOGICAL GIZMOS, but almost never is this attempt made by a knowledgeable putting instructor with more advanced ideas about how PUTTING WORKS and how best to approach the problem of learning more so he can best help a golfer. A knowledgeable golf instructor would design these gizmos differently. he would design the gizmos to gather data about PUTTING RESULTS and not MECHANICS, and he would design the gizmos to learn data about HOW THE BODY PRODUCES THE RESULTS, not about how the putter head moves in making apparently good mechanics data.
Applied to TIGER and the page where he mentions using "a computer" to check his mechanics, where he says that a certain stroke patterns as reported by his putter head movements "works best for him", one has to ask: how does he know it works best for him? The computer certainly doesn't report that data in terms of telling Tiger, you are sinking more putts now BECAUSE of this mechanical pattern. In fact, the computer doesn't have any way of monitoring whether any stroke would sink any putt. There is a GREAT BIG FAT ASSUMPTION AT THE HEART OF THE TECHNOLOGY THAT PERFECT MECHANICS EQUALS PERFECT PUTTING RESULTS, and there are two illogical problems with this -- First, Tiger personally says there is no such thing as PERFECT MECHANICS for everyone and second, he cannot KNOW from using the computer whether his choice between pattern A and pattern B is the BEST for him mechanically or whether there is a better pattern C out there that is better than anything he is doing.
The teacher will ask the question why does Tiger believe the "release" is important in his preferred stroke pattern for getting BETTER results than he would in the same stroke pattern or a different stroke pattern without the release? The teacher will ask this armed with a great fund of knowledge about stroke patterns and about the "cause-and-effect" consequences for putting of a release as described. Then the teacher will ask WHETHER there is a stroke pattern without the release that Tiger has not tried or is not aware of that would work better than the existing pattern. THE TECHNOLOGY STANDS MUTE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT IT IS USED INTELLIGENTLY BY THE TEACHER TO LEARN ABOUT THE TEACHER'S QUESTIONS. It is obvious that Tiger is not asking these common-sense questions about his MECHANICS as he never discusses why the release is important or how it makes his putting better. he is simply OUT OF GAS on these questions, so he is hardly in a position to know or to critique the issue. He may indeed get better results in his mechanics, defined as more frequent and consistent online impacts, but that old "SO WHAT?" question remains. Can he do better in his PUTTING (not his mechanics)? Currently, Tiger's stats are good but basically he is not better than others have already been and he has lots of room for improvement in his results. Whether he wants to improve or not is his choice, but if he does, he obviously would benefit from some help in how to figure out the best way to approach improving.
If people reading this forum truly believe that Tiger has reached his absolute pinnacle in"putting results", then you haven't learned much that I have been trying to teach, and I guess that is my fault. So let me try one more time. Tiger Woods is a very good putter but he is not even close to as good as he is capable of being. If the technology appears to tell you otherwise, I would invite you to reread the above in the hope that you will realize the very limited role technology plays in science -- well-designed technology is a tool of the scientist in learning HOW THE WORLD WORKS. Descriptive data is interesting but never the goal of science. The scientist or the teacher has to evaluate the usefulness of technology as he needs it to be suitable to learn about the SO WHAT? questions.
Re: Art plus Science, Science plus Art equals Craft
March 18 2008, 10:07 AM
People think he is the "pinnacle of putting perfection" because he is the best pressure putter on tour. He makes more putts when he has to than anybody. He already does most of what you teach great(read and aim). He is usually also great at matching his speed to his line. He may not setup like you like or aim like you like but it works for him and nobody appears to be better when it counts. Could he be better? Of course. Would the way for him to get better be through changing his mechanics/"knowing more about how putting works", maybe not. Alot of struggling golf pros "know" what they should be doing with their golf swings, but that doesn't mean they can do that when they have to.
Without ratcheting up the emotions, allow me to say that the points you make don't make sense.
You write:
"People think he is the "pinnacle of putting perfection" because he is the best pressure putter on tour. He makes more putts when he has to than anybody."
How do you know this? He appears to make more pressure putts than others on TOUR TODAY, but I venture to say you don't really know how Tiger stacks up against other golfers in history or even some golfers on today's Tour in terms of making pressure putts.
And then there is the SO WHAT? question. Even if Tiger makes MORE "pressure putts" (whatever that means to you may not be the same thing it means to me or to a reader of this discussion), that does not automatically mean he is a better putter than someone else currently on Tour or in the past. There are usually 28 or so putts per round for Tiger: only a few of these would be counted by you as "pressure" putts, so most of his putting results you are discounting in your appraisal.
Let's DEFINE and AGREE on what we mean by "better putting" and "best putting" in comparison to some defined standard (all sorts of putts and results or pressure putts only or some other standard) and to some defined group (peers on today's Tour, all golfers today, all golfers on Tour in the past and present, all golfers in history?). The debate about who is best always bogs down on these definitions (see the debates in the 1970s in the golf magazines), and people maintaining one view or the other (as you do) simply won't discuss the notion of better or best using a different meaning than the one they believe in. That's two different problems: agreement on the definition of better and best putting, and being willing to discuss better and best in terms of someone else's definition.
Personally, I don't agree with you that pressure putting is the definition to use for better or best putting. But even if I did, I would not think that watching Tiger on TV gives me enough information to COMPARE him to others on TOUR or to other pro golfers in the past or to other golfers today or in history. Clearly, you SAY he putts better under pressure than everyone, but surely you are simply echoing a common notion not really based upon factual one-on-one comparisons with other players. (This problem is in addition to the problem of agreeing on whether "pressure" means the same to Tiger as it does to Aaron Baddeley -- I maintain that Tiger feeds on "pressure" and that others are "bothered" by pressure, so I don't think you are comparing apples and apples when you use the single term "pressure" equally for all golfers.)
This sort of notion gets in the common air by television golf commentators. About 5-6 years ago, Gary McCord used to state as a matter of fact that Phil Mickelson was the best putter on Tour. The reality at the time was that Mickelson ranked 80th on Tour, so 79 out of 180+ other TOUR players were objectively BETTER than he was and Gary McCord was spouting nonsense and there were at least 79 better putters on Tour who KNEW they were putting better than Mickelson. And so did anyone who actually cared to look at the real stats. One should be very wary of accepting what TV golf commentators say about good, better, and best, because they have marching orders from their bosses to highlight the marquee players NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH, as that is what sells the tickets and gets the eyeballs to look at the ads. No TV commentator will ever say that JOE SCHMOE is a better putter than Tiger because the viewers will immediately ask WHO IS JOE SCHMOE? I HAVEN'T EVER HEARD OF HIM, SO HE MUST NOT BE A WINNER, AND THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE A MORE SKILLFUL PUTTER THAN TIGER? The TV commentators know this reaction intimately, and in case they don't know this already, the TV marketing experts explain it to them in seminars.
If you believe that Jonathan Bird is a more skillful putter than Tiger Woods, raise your hand? How about Brian Gay? or Bob Heinz? Who is better under pressure (whatever that means) -- Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Bobby Locke, Bobby Jones, or Bob Heinz? I don't have the information to say, and I've looked a lot deeper than anyone I know, so I wonder what your information really is when you make your call on this. Maybe Tiger is best, maybe not.
You also write:
"He already does most of what you teach great (read and aim)."
Well, no he doesn't, and I might know more about that specific issue than you do, because it is two part: what do I teach, and does Tiger personally do what I teach for reading and aiming. No he doesn't.
You write:
"He is usually also great at matching his speed to his line."
This seems to imply you would not suggest to Tiger as a teacher that he improve on this. "Usually" meaning what exactly? Often enough not to bother getting better? Perhaps I am not the first person to tell you that Tiger personally does not agree with you on this, and thinks he has a lot of room for improvement on matching line and speed (touch).
You write:
"He may not setup like you like or aim like you like but it works for him and nobody appears to be better when it counts. Could he be better? Of course. Would the way for him to get better be through changing his mechanics/"knowing more about how putting works", maybe not. A lot of struggling golf pros "know" what they should be doing with their golf swings, but that doesn't mean they can do that when they have to."
That's a confusing passage, don't you think? Let's sort out the separate ideas one at a time to clarify the issues here. Can Tiger get better? Yes, we both seem to agree. Then your passage implies that knowing in the abstract a better pattern and performing that pattern are not the same, and THEREFORE what a teacher might offer for improvement (an abstract pattern the teacher personally believes in or "likes" as you say) has a very strong chance of being unsuited to "a lot of" individual pros. That's not what a teacher does. A teacher or coach works to help an individual get better if he wants to get better. A teacher does not impose "his way or the highway" on a golfer. The teacher simply knows more about how a given individual does what he is doing and whether that individual can get more out of his game by doing something else that the golfer obviously has not explored yet.
The teacher or coach KNOWS MORE ABOUT WHAT THE GOLFER IS DOING THAN THE GOLFER KNOWS, given equal information between player and coach. Ask any teacher or coach. The ideal objective is to make the golfer as knowledgeable or perhaps rarely more knowledgeable than the coach, but this very seldom ends up being the case. In Tiger's case for the full swing, he is on a par with his coaches past and present at this point. Ask him and ask Hank Haney. Both have said exactly that in print.
But when it comes to putting, Tiger really has not had a coach other than his father and himself. Is his knowledge of what the possibilities are for improving with different techniques (not necessarily what I prefer to teach in the abstract) less than it could be with the help of a good putting coach? I think so, but then perhaps I see more room for improvement as a consequence of a wider knowledge of what works and why than others may bring to the issue.
In particular, I question the real value of the "release" that Tiger is describing. Where does this come from? I know, but do you? It comes from an article that Mark O'Meara wrote in the early 1980s, shortly after he started working with Hank Haney as Haney's most prominent student player. And Haney has also written about the "release" in the same way O'Meara did. And Tiger uses the term the same way O'Meara has taught him while messing about at Ilsesworth as buddies. Are you familiar with these background sources about "release" that inform what Tiger most likely really means or hopes to convey when he uses the term "release", even if the reader of his words does not get this meaning?
Mechanically, Tiger believes that putter head rotation PLUS the release he describes helps him get his mechanics data looking good. Even if that is the correct assessment of cause and effect for good mechanical data, SO WHAT? Backing up one step, IS IT the correct assessment of what causes the mechanical data to be the way it is? I don't see any reason to believe that Tiger knows whether it is or not, even if he "thinks" or "believes" this to be the case.
Tiger seems to believe that an arcing path of the sweetspot PLUS face rotation is his personally preferred mechanical pattern, and that SINCE HE DOES THIS, he NEEDS the release. He's right: his first choice CAUSES the need for the second choice. Because he rotates the face open, he MUST rotate the face back to square, and he chooses the release to help get this done, and since he uses the release, his putter face continues thru impact and beyond by closing.
He says he prefers a path coming from the inside "1 degree in to out thru impact, with the putterface releasing". What does "thru impact" mean to Tiger? Does the path REMAIN ON THE 1 DEGREE IN TO OUT PATH WHILE IMPACT IS OCCURRING or does he think "impact" is an instantaneous point in time? (If the path stays 1 degree open, then his putter face better be 1 degree closed thru impact in order to roll the ball down the line or else he better have crazy aiming to begin with since the ball will not roll down the aim line. We can assume Tiger's putts roll down the aim line on the computer data, since Tiger is a smart person. Does this mean his putter face thru impact stays 1 degree closed? he doesn't say, but this would be unusual and worthy of noting, so it is doubtful in that there is no noting this.)
And what does TIGER think he means by "with the putterface releasing"? He APPEARS to mean that the putterface arcs thru impact on a continuously "closing" pattern from the top of the backstroke, thru impact (when it re-attains something like square) and beyond to the top of the follow-thru. Does Tiger think his putterface is square "thru impact"? Apparently not, based upon his description, since he says he prefers to deliver the putterface into impact on a path that is 1 degree open (aimed to the outside or the line at the target). He seems to mean that impact starts with the putter face open 1 degree and ends with the putter face closed some, perhaps to zero degrees and perhaps to 1 degree closed or more, so his putter face does not stay one orientation while impact occurs but is curling shut the whole time. How curly is his closing of the face thru impact? The rate of rotation measured by the computer can tell us if we want to know, but only if the computer defines the persistence of contact of putter face and ball, which the Sam Putlab does not do. The Puttlab defines only the initial starting location of the putter head, regardless of ball position and regardless of persistence of impact of ball and putter head, and does not in any event track where the ball actually rolls.
Will everyone agree that Tiger's description of what he is doing to achieve his preferred mechanics appears to contain some contradictions in it? Yes or no.
I read what Tiger says as seeming to mean that Tiger THINKS delivering the putterface on a rotational arcing thru impact, starting at 1 degree open at first contact with the ball, and ending up when the putter face and ball separate and impact is now over with the putterface then having "released" so it closes somewhat DURING IMPACT and the putterface continues closing after impact. Although Tiger is not at all clear to differentiate what he means by putterface orientation and change from what he means by sweetspot or putterhead PATH and PATH change, one can fairly read what he describes to mean that he THINKS the putterhead path arcs on a closing path thru impact AND that therefore the putter face orientation ALSO closes all the time during the thru-stroke and thru impact itself and beyond. This leaves ambiguous whether Tiger thinks his putter face closes out of square to his "path."
Perhaps this is what he actually wants to happen. I don't think that this is the best way to sink putts, for TIGER or really for anyone, including Stan Utley. That is mostly because of the physics of impact, but it is also common sense about how a human body moves, with what sort of margin for error in repeating certain precision movements depending upon the precision required. The stroke that Tiger appears to mean to describe is not-so-hot physics AND is not-so-hot human motion because it unnecessarily imposes precision requirements that simply make performance success more difficult to achieve and to achieve consistently and make poor performance results MORE LIKELY to occur. Ask Stan Utley, who says that he personally gets his stroke fouled up every year due to the precision of setup and stroke dynamics and timing his choices impose on his game, so he has to call on another golf coach to help him restore the required precision in his setup, ball position, stroke path, timing etc. etc. so that his choices start to produce "the desired results" once again.
An arcing stroke can be made either with the shoulders moving in a tilted plane straight-back and straight-thru with the sweetspot of the putter APPEARING IN TWO DIMENSIONS ON THE GROUND TO CURL INSIDE SQUARE INSIDE BUT ACTUALLY THE PUTTER SWEETSPOT SIMPLY STAYS THE SAME DISTANCE OUT FROM THE SURFACE OF THE TILTED PLANE AND THEREFORE THE FACE OF THIS PUTTER DOES NOT EVER COME OUT OF SQUARE TO THE TILTED PLANE. The two-dimensional path on the ground is not real and any appearance of the putter face opening or closing with respect to straight-back and straight-thru is a delusion caused by the golfer's changing perspective of the progress of the stroke back and thru and the golfer's judging the orientation of the putter face against the false 2-D curl on the ground that he expects rather than judging the putter face against the transparent / imaginary plane of air along which the sweetspot moves straight-back and straight-thru.
An arcing stroke can also be made with the forearms "rolling" the putter face open and closed OUT OF THE PLANE OF THE STROKE, or indeed with the putter face opening and closing independently of the path of the sweetspot when there IS NO PLANE OF MOTION for the sweetspot either.
Nothing that Tiger describes allows anyone to ascertain which of these patterns he is describing. And he most likely could not describe his actual pattern accurately if he tried, at least without the help of a coach. The tilted-plane shoulder stroke without independent armsiness and handsiness would necessarily imply no REAL face opening or closing and also that any "release" of the putter face not change the putter face orientation thru impact, but allow the putter head to "release" down the line in a vertical dimension without coming inside from the target line as the thru-stroke progresses. I doubt this is what Tiger is describing but I can't know for sure based upon his description. If he really has the path coming 1 degree from the inside, and the putter face matches his stroke path, then the release he describes would have to be the first time that the putter face closes out of square to the path OR he means that the release is more about the path than the putter face so his path "curls closed" thru impact even if he "starts" impact 1 degree to the outside of the target line. Who can say without more data and a correct INTERPRETING of the significance of the data?
Maybe Tiger is making a no-hands shoulder stroke on a tilted plane that falsely appears to arc and for which the putter face falsely appears to open and close. Maybe the computer can actually differentiate and accurately report whether the face of the putter opens OUT OF THE STROKE PLANE. The display on the Sam Puttlab is a curl on the ground in two dimensions only (near-far in relation to the target line established by the initial aim of the putter face and sweetspot location). There is another display that shows the vertical dimension of the path. So it is possible to show all THREE dimensions of the path, but I don't understand the SAM Puttlab to actually do this OR to compare the face angle to this 3D path to report whether the face comes out of square to the 3D path. Reporting putter face rotation ONLY in relation to a 2-D curve in the near-far dimension on the surface is ILLUSORY and NOT REAL. It is only when the putter face rotates open or closed in relation to the tilted-plane of the stroke path in three dimensions that one can KNOW whether the shoulder stroke does or does not contain any independent armsiness or handsiness that CAUSES the putter face to open or close out of the stroke path. This would generate a stroke that has a straight-back and straight-thru path in the tilted plane of the shoulder motion, but with the face opening and closing out of the stroke path.
The designers of the computer technology frankly made a choice to display the 2D data because it was expedient to do so (quicker and cheaper) and because it would appeal to a lower common denominator in the golfer market, and perhaps a bit because they did not know the significance in terms of body motion when they made the choice. That's usually the trouble with technology designs -- not the best choices for teaching and learning how the body makes the results.
The armsy / handsy pattern in which the forearms roll the putter face open going back and then closed from the top of the backstroke to return to square precisely and only at impact and then thru impact and beyond to continue closing can accompany a shoulder stroke on a single plane of motion that has the sweetspot in 3D moving straight back and straight thru OR can accompany a stroke motion in which there is not a single plane of shoulderframe motion but the two shoulders move in a complex pattern of down movement plus back movement that does not trace a single plane. When Stan Utley says he wants only HORIZONTAL turning of the shoulderframe, this is still describing a single plane of motion, and in order for the putter face to STAY square to this stroke path, there must be NO armsiness or handsiness and no forearm rolling. Since he teaches forearm rolling, he also teaches a putter face that does NOT stay square to the stroke path in 3D, even though he says he teaches a stroke in which the putter face stays square to the path. Error.
Assuming that Tiger means he is trying to describe the same sort of "rotation" that Utley teaches, both of them at best are confused about the 3D reality of the matter. The golfer's body does not trace an arc in 2D on the ground and does not TRY or DESIRE or even truly PERCEIVE the putter face opening or closing or staying square in reference to this 2D curl on the ground, and the "computer" does not sort this out completely either.
So, bottom line, I see no reason so far based upon the description or the computer's apparent information or what I know about putting that convinces me that Tiger accurately knows what is happening in his stroke, knows how and why, or knows exactly what role if any the so-called "release" plays in this pattern to help or hurt his putting. I also do not see any real basis from the available information, including computer mechanics data, that tells me whether Tiger is getting the "desired results" or whether he could attain "better results, not simply his currently accepted results" by changing his technique in the direction of better, sounder physics and more optimal body motion and cause-and-effect for better results.
Do I have a more accurate and sounder understanding of what is currently happening in Tiger's stroke than he does and why, in terms of the body making a motion in three dimensions of space and a fourth dimension of time, notwithstanding his data from a computer? Yes, frankly, I believe I do, or else I would certainly not presume to have any capability to help him get better if he wants to improve. To the extent that he has information known only to him about what his body is doing, I openly profess to know what this information means to his results in ways better than he apparently does based upon what he describes when he tries to describe what he believes he does.
This is not really uncommon for golfers and indeed golf teachers. Stan Utley for example has been filmed by PGA teachers who wanted to check and make sure he was actually doing with his body what he described and taught others to do. No, he was not and has been told so directly and shown the film that makes this point. Utley has since added (amended) his description of what he actually does to say that he now recalls he has a certain "feeling" he forgot to mention earlier. he describes "soft right elbow" in the backstroke and "soft left elbow in the thru-stroke". What does that mean? The expression "soft hands thru impact" functionally means "don't use them, so there is not tightening of grip pressure, no activation of muscles above the pre-established muscle tone". If that is what Utley means by "soft elbows," then he is really describing and thereby teaching: "DON'T ROLL THE FOREARMS, ESPECIALLY THRU THE CRITICAL IMPACT AREA." Okay, that makes sense, since he in fact is a good putter with good results and is an honest person. But it is frankly VERY INCONSISTENT with his signature teaching about the need to roll the forearms in the stroke. That means he does not really understand in a cause-and-effect way what is happening in his own stroke.
Perhaps we simply are confusing a dilettante with a putting coach. No dilettante should presume to know enough to help Tiger. But a putting coach knows that he MUST know more than the player knows or else he cannot presume to help the player. The job of the coach is not only TO KNOW MORE THAN THE PLAYER KNOWS HIMSELF ABOUT WHAT THE PLAYER IS DOING (OR UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION BETTER) AND WHY AND WHETHER THAT IS GOOD, BETTER, OR BEST FOR THAT PLAYER, but also TO KNOW WHAT POTENTIAL PITFALLS TO AVOID IN ATTEMPTING TO HELP THAT ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN DECREMENT OF PERFORMANCE LEVEL IN PURSUIT OF GETTING BETTER (although there is naturally to be expected some temporary decrement during the transition from good to better). In other words, the real coach KNOWS better than the player both what the player is doing and why and how best to help the player really improve if the player wants that.
Otherwise, the "coach" needs to drop the pretense of coaching expertise.
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.
Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.
This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.28.252.135 on Mar 19, 2008 7:10 AM This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.28.252.135 on Mar 19, 2008 7:07 AM
"(This problem is in addition to the problem of agreeing on whether "pressure" means the same to Tiger as it does to Aaron Baddeley -- I maintain that Tiger feeds on "pressure" and that others are "bothered" by pressure, so I don't think you are comparing apples and apples when you use the single term "pressure" equally for all golfers.)"
Pressure does mean the same thing in every situation. Its having to make a putt when you absolutely need it. Saying that pressure is different for different players because some can handle it and others can't is nonsense. What makes Tiger the best pressure putter is his ability to putt to his best ability EVEN WHEN THE PRESSURE IS ON. Baddeley, as good a putter as he may be in normal conditions, couldn't even handle the pressure of the 1st green of the final round of the US Open last year with Tiger. My point is that being a great putter when the pressure isn't on doesn't mean that much if you can't do the same when the heat is on. It is comparing apples to apples with pressure. The comparison of apples to oranges is how someone like Tiger handles pressure compared to someone like Badds. Its the same situation, they just perform differently.
He handles the pressure better because he has solid mechanics(even if not optimal), but more importantly he has an incredibly strong mind. His mental game allows him to focus and play shots to the best of his ability, presumably because he knows that thats what gives him the best chance to win. This is from your article:
"Technically, Woods' stroke is "okay" and gets the job done of rolling his ball where he aims it. Now he has added better pace control on a consistent basis. But probably more than that, he reads putts very well in the range of 12' and out and then marries the read to his touch and his commitment to start line. It may not seem too dramatic, but apparently doing this consistently takes a lot of guts that other players just don't have."
Same thing I am saying.
From "Learning vs Praising"
"He's good at clutch putting because his approach to golf engenders the right sort of brain states for really effective targeting and movement processes, and not only can other folk learn how this happens so they too can do it, but Tiger personally can benefit and get better than he currently is by knowing more about it in non-jargon language. Some aspects of this Tiger "gets" and can explain (such as the desireability of using "soft focus" or jargony stuff like that, of staying "in the moment," of keeping to the time pattern of his routine, and so forth), but a great deal of it he does not understand and doesn't really have the time to try to figure out. Real knowledge is never a threat to your current "highly satisfying level of competence", but is rather an enhacement and a complement to what works that makes technique even better and more consistently excellent. Everyone needs to get better, even Tiger, and he's well aware of this and says so all the time."
Not sure how you know what "brain states" Tiger is in when he plays, but thats fine. Whether or not he knows or needs to know the specific current scientific view on being in the zone is another issue. If you know how to get into it, you don't need to analyze how you did it.
From "Ask Tiger..."
"Also, the notion that the "great putter" makes the putts "when they count" is so much nonsense. ALL PUTTS COUNT and ALL STROKES COUNT THE SAME."
This boils down to theory vs reality. In theory, all strokes from a golf tournament count as 1. In reality, the putt to win the tournament counts more for player A then the putt to finish T18 for player B. If they truly counted the same, the "pressure" felt by both players would be equal. The "greatest putter in the world" may be holing 40 footers routinely on a practice green somewhere, but thats only interesting to theorists, not people who watch Tiger hole 25 footers to win tournaments(twice this year in 4 tournaments so far).
As for the Badds article in which you attribute his poor putting rounds to not understanding the background of putting(presumably you attribute his good putting rounds to the chance that his mechanics hold up for some unknown reason). Badds is obviously a very good putter. But that day, the pressure was killing him, on his full swing and his putting. He talked about the speeds of the greens being different from hole to hole. He wasn't going to say he putted poorly because he was choking.
What it comes down to with Tiger is his mental toughness. It is what makes him great.
So you and I are starting to agree on a number of points! let's isolate the difference(s) and get deeper into the issue(s) that remain(s). Saying a player "handles pressure" better than others doesn't tell me HOW or WHY.
To me, the main issue that remains is not so much that pressure putts are more common when the win is on the line (for Tiger, he often wins by 3-6 strokes, so he doesn't have as many pressure putts as players trying to win their first or third event or trying to beat Tiger), as it is understanding "why" Tiger has mental toughness BETTER than other competitors.
I think that MOST of the putts that Tiger holes under "pressure" (i.e., end of event to win) are when Tiger is OVERTAKING or CATCHING UP and passing someone who has been leading for a while. Sure, he has a few putts where he is in a playoff and "stays alive" or "win" with his putt (the contests against Bob May and Jim Furyk come to mind, as well as the third US Amateur win against Steve Scott). Tiger's typical mindset (according to his many interviews) is to put himself in contention on Saturday and then shoot his needed score to win on Sunday.
The reason the "pressure" builds at the end of the last round is because the golfer has run out of holes in which to accomplish his winning score. Tiger usually knows on the first tee box what score he will need to shoot in order to take the silver home. This means to me that a very prominent component of Tiger's "mental toughness" that is not as strong in others is to play the first hole with the last hole already in mind. Like Jack Nicklaus, Tiger starts the Sunday round with a definite game plan and sees the whole round from the beginning and plays every hole and every stroke to win.
When these Sunday rounds come down to one putt to tie or to win, Tiger usually has TWO PUTTS to stay alive and will win if he happens to sink the first try. Quite a few of the so-called "pressure putts" that Tiger is credited with are actually "close out" putts where he would still be alive if he missed but two-putted.
And when the putts are under "pressure" to "stay alive" and keep the possibility of earning the W, Tiger is great at not choking then as well.
Is Tiger basically "choke proof"? Yes, I think he probably is. "Why" is he that way and his competitors are not is the big question.
Contrary to what golf psychs think about this, usually attributing success to "confidence" or "self-efficacy", I think that "mental toughness" is more about why you play in competition to begin with. Tiger is basically a "predator" in competition. Tiger does not fear losing: he just has heart for the win the way a predator has a heart for the kill.
Facing a 40 foot putt at age 46 on the last hole of the Masters in 1986, what do you suppose Jack Nicklaus was experiencing mentally? Based on what I've read from him about how he plays golf, I'm very sure it was a simple mindset: "I have to sink this putt to win, so let's get on with sinking this putt." The mindset of a lesser competitor would be along these lines: "my god, can you believe I'm putting to win the Masters with everyone watching? Please don't let me choke on this four-footer! That would be horrible."
Yes, part of "handling pressure" is being there before, but everyone at the PGA Tour level has really been under "pressure" plenty of times in order to learn how to handle it, so I don't believe that the difference between Tiger and others on Tour is that he "has been there more often" and this bean-counting of exposure to "pressure" is what makes him "tougher". The others COULD be sufficiently tough under "pressure" TODAY if they were more like a "predator" in competition.
When Tiger misses the mark, he takes as much positive out of it as he can, but he doesn't really get down on himself for "losing". He knows there are more opportunities coming up in a week or two or three.
The REALLY interesting case study about "predator" players in Tour golf is Greg Norman's 1996 Masters. Can you imagine Tiger Woods starting Sunday at the Masters with a six-stroke lead allowing himself to leak oil on more than one or two holes, the way Norman leaked oil all day? Maybe Norman always retained a little sense of needing to prove he was worthy to all who watched this wunderkind from Down Under. Tiger left that mild note of needing the approval of others far behind when he was no older than ten or eleven years old playing in nationally prominent junior events like the Future Masters. He has always been there to win, pure and simple, doing whatever it takes to end his round one or more strokes better than everyone in the field.
The tiger that chases the prey but misses does not somehow lose his need to eat or lose his hunger. And I believe that Tiger Woods has learned a little trick that makes him even more dangerous: no matter how many times he wins and feeds on success, Tiger has learned how to generate "instant hunger" and to embrace the need for a "W" every time he plays. Frankly, he's addicted to winning, which to him is "beating everyone who shows up". I doubt that Tiger would cut his mother Tida any slack even in a friendly game of putt-putt.
With Tiger facing the really big "pressure putt" to either "stay alive" or "close out the opponent", I'm pretty confident that Tiger's mental response is something along these lines: "OKAY!! Let's do this. The crowd will really enjoy it if I sink this monster putt and steal this event from my opponent (or force a playoff, or continue the playoff to another hole). And I really really really want to "notch this W" now that I'm this close, so let's get this done! Don't give the opponent anymore chances to pull a rabbit out of his hat. Close the deal with this one putt. There's nothing like teeing it up on Thursday against the best 150 players in the world and emerging (again) on Sunday afternoon having beaten them all." His background thoughts might sound like this "pianissimo accompaniment": "Hey, even if this curling 35-footer lips out and I miss this "W", I will be really really really pissed at myself for not making a better bunker shot back on the 15th hole when I needed a par-save, but I will also cool off fairly shortly and get right back to being hungry for the next W."
Is that how Stewart Cink was thinking in his 8 and 7 loss to Tiger in the WGC? Not hardly.
A predator doesn't ask himself WHETHER he should be the victor: he just needs to win. A predator IS a predator because he is stronger, faster, and has sharper teeth than the prey -- that's true. And so the predator never fears getting hurt by the prey -- he just attacks for the kill. Tiger has known for decades that his skills for golf are more numerous and sharper than his competition, and this is what disheartens the competition when Tiger beats them. They say things like: "It's frustrating because he is just that good on every hole. He never backs off and he almost never makes a mistake!"
Perhaps this analogy is apt: almost all players on Tour look at a win as a foot race to the finish line, where they are watching and comparing themselves every step along the race to those nearby, whereas Tiger simply makes sure he's near the front coming down the stretch and then focuses on the one or two players still in the running and makes sure he beats them too, since he has already beaten all the rest at this point. The usual player just wants to get to the finish line first, but Tiger not only wants to get to the finish line first -- he wants to beat everyone else in the race.
If this is a reasonably accurate understanding of what separates Tiger from the field, then perhaps this is WHY Tiger responds better under pressure. Or is most of the WHY. At a deeper level, there is the question of what makes Tiger that way as a person? I think it is partly his upbringing that addicted him to competition and winning, and partly his respect for his parents in that upbringing.
If you want to live your life in a way that makes you proud of yourself at the end of the line, doing what is right according to how your parents raised you for values is probably the dominant factor in whether you are getting there or heading that way. For Tiger, he knows golf is a game and not the most important activity on earth, but he just enjoys winning and wants to use that to do something more important than golf. This sort of attitude or mindset (playing golf for beyond-golf noble reasons in life) has the side-benefit of neutralizing any acidic "guilt" that might otherwise linger around about being the sort of person who merely plays a game for millions of dollars while genocide rages in Rwanda or Darfur or kids get drawn into street gangs instead of colleges.
Visionary English poet William Blake (1757Ð1827) wrote:
The Tyger
Tyger! Tyger! Burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?
And what shoulder, and what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? And what dread feet?
What the hammer? What the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
To respond to your questions:
1. what do you see as the physical strengths of his technique?
The phrase "physical strengths" is not quite what I think about in connection with technique. Technique is from the Greek word "tekne" meaning "art" or probably more to the point "craft". Modern neuroscience teaches that performance according to craft is a seamless integration of perception into movement in a total action. Sensation, attention / intention, and awareness / cognition / emotion all influence the action in the first phase. Physical state, habits, and skills influence the action in the second phase.
Tiger Woods has excellent sensory equipment in terms of somatosensory awareness, balance, and vision (after his Lasik surgery). He clearly has superlative attentional focus and intentionality in general, and appears to lock in on the relevant cues for good putting (surface contour, visualization skills, etc.). He seems to know when to think and when not to think and also has good control of his emotions so that emotion is channelled to operate in positive ways rather than in detrimental ways.
His physical state includes his general development and his specific condition and arousal level on the given green. he appears to be healthy, fit, well developed, and not overly developed. His posture and balance is excellent. His golfing habits for putting are expressed in his routine and his setup and stroke: these are pretty good, but not quite optimal and a bit too idiosyncratic. His skills for reading, aiming, stroke and touch are, in order, about 90%, 80%, 95%, and 80% what they could be.
2. what do you see as the weaknesses?
Tiger's main weakness appears to be a degree of over-controlling his timing. His timing seems a bit at war with his desire for controlled force, which is a carry-over from his full-swing habits to the green. In my view, Tiger's full-swing problems can be discussed profitably in terms of the timing variance due to excessive violence. When killing his drives, he tightens up a little too much, and this throws his timing off, and balls fire off line to varying degrees. A similar problem shows up on the greens, when Tiger appears to "lock down" on his technique. This sacrifices his form and timing a little, and his form and touch are hurt to a degree.
In addition, Tiger's thinking about his form, relying or even clinging to his notion of the so-called "release" in his stroke, injects an unnecessary layer of cognition about good versus bad strokes right at the wrongest time possible in the stroke. He undoubtedly believes that his notions of a good release versus a bad release or a failure top release the stroke thru impact makes a big difference in his putting, but watching him carefully on film seems to indicate that his good strokes have "no" release in the sense that nothing in his body action occurs when his "release" supposedly occurs. There does not appear to be any change at all in his right wrist thru impact, even though Tiger says he is releasing the stroke thru impact with his right hand. Perhaps Tiger has a heightened sense of the movement of his hand as a whole thru impact, but this is not the same as "using" the hand to release the stroke / putter. This signals to me that he believes he is responsible for the goodness of the "release" at a specific moment in time, but in fact is not, and what he thinks is a release is actually just the form he set in motion at a time quite earlier than the time thru impact. In other words, I believe Tiger's internal verbal understanding of what he calls a "release" is just something he wants to believe so he can keep doing it since he believes in it, and is not something accurate about his body control of the stroke thru impact.
3. what are his opportunities for improvement ?
Tiger probably could use more knowledge about the relationship of stroke timing to ordinary body-action timing; could use some education about timing and touch; and could use some education about touch and reading putts as that also relates to touch for executing putts according to the reads. He would likely benefit as well from a paradigm approach to "types" of putts to increase his competence levels for standard putting problems.
4, what do see threatening in the future if he continues to make these mistakes?
Not much. The other players on Tour are falling farther behind Tiger even without the above improvements, and they are not likely to catch up. So long as Tiger can stay at his current level of both ballstriking and putting competence, there really isn't a lot of hope for anyone else to stand on the stage of golf history until well after Tiger ceases playing competitive golf. One guy winning 25-40% or more of the events he chooses to play, versus some guy who manages to win 1-3 times a year out of 20 starts? No comparison. I think Tiger can maintain his separation from the entire field over the next ten to fifteen years without too much trouble, so long as he continues to enjoy the competition.
In other words, when the goal is to defeat the competition that shows up as opposed to playing the game better than any golfer in history, Tiger's current putting skills clearly are enough to beat the folks who show up. He may not get all he is capable of getting out of his game without certain refinements in his putting, but there does not seem to be a big catastrophe in his greens play looming, as such has befallen the putting of Arnold Palmer, Johnny Miller, and any number of golfing greats from too-heavy a reliance upon "talent" as opposed to a mindful application of fundamentals. Tiger strikes me as a person who respects fundamentals as the best way to keep in the mix and get in position to use the "heroics" of this or that spectacular shot or putt. So I believe he understands fundamentals pretty well and knows a lot about coaching himself in terms of cause-and-effect. There is more to learn, but this basic approach will insulate him from a significant falling-off of his relative superiority on the greens.
Thanks again for your detailed response ---
Lets your readers see how much we can learn from you if we ask the right question
I thought you would enjoy this one--
“In each human heart are a tiger, a pig, an ass and a nightingale. Diversity of character is due to their unequal activity.”
Ambrose Bierce quotes (American Writer, Journalist and Editor, 1842-1914
You have misunderstood the content of my post. It almost seem like you are inferring that I am a Tiger hater or that I think his putting is not very good. Neither idea is even close to correct. If you re-read Geoff's extensive post you will note why I commented on Tiger's "streakiness". Tiger had four 3-putts at Doral. Geoff described "why" he feels like sort of "streak" likely occurs.
The idea that I think Tiger has just been on a "streak" the last ten years is ludicrous. I just found Geoff's response concerning Tiger's putting and the inevitable highs and lows of his stroke to be quite timely.
Do you disagree with my analysis or are you convinced that Tiger can't get better at putting?
Obviously Tiger has become a fabulous putter....He always seeking to improve(That's the only reason I became an admirer, when I found out through a mutual friend how Tiger truly pursues the game)...He even tells you, the "sports fan" or "golf affecianado", in his interviews week to week..."I had good speed this week" or "I had trouble with adjusting to the greens"..."My touch just wasn't there!" But the major difference between Doral and Bayhill was his "Delivery Speed"...The consitency of his Delivery Speed more specifically!!!At Bayhill his ball would deliver at comfortable and agreeable delivery speed estimated between 2-4 rev/sec ( 1 rev = Approx. 5 1/4") at the front lip)...Doral different story...High # of lipouts reducing capture width due to increased delivery speed.
Now the question is: "Did he change his delivery speed on purpose? or by accident? I would believe the former due to his perhaps frustration on the surfaces that week without perhaps understanding fully hole/ interaction physics....This I'd have to ask him...when the opportunity would arise!!!
The difference between my opinion and most is I have the experiences and credentials that comes from actually being inside the ropes...where most "yahoos" do not!!! I watch and work with some of the best players in the world and yet I'm still learning from one of the best putting coaches in the world...Geoff Mangum...So IMO opinion Geoff is more than qualified to give an "expert analysis" of anyone including those that play at the highest levels....That includes "The Man" as he is referred to by many!!!
Obviously Tiger has become a fabulous putter....He always seeking to improve(That's the only reason I became an admirer, when I found out through a mutual friend how Tiger truly pursues the game)...He even tells you, the "sports fan" or "golf affecianado", in his interviews week to week..."I had good speed this week" or "I had trouble with adjusting to the greens"..."My touch just wasn't there!" But the major difference between Doral and Bayhill was his "Delivery Speed"...The consitency of his Delivery Speed more specifically!!!At Bayhill his ball would deliver at comfortable and agreeable delivery speed estimated between 2-4 rev/sec ( 1 rev = Approx. 5 1/4") at the front lip)...Doral different story...High # of lipouts reducing capture width due to increased delivery speed.
Now the question is: "Did he change his delivery speed on purpose? or by accident? I would believe the former due to his perhaps frustration on the surfaces that week without perhaps understanding fully hole/ interaction physics....This I'd have to ask him...when the opportunity would arise!!!
The difference between my opinion and most is I have the experiences and credentials that comes from actually being inside the ropes...where most "yahoos" do not!!! I watch and work with some of the best players in the world and yet I'm still learning from one of the best putting coaches in the world...Geoff Mangum...So IMO ... Geoff is more than qualified to give an "expert analysis" of anyone including those that play at the highest levels....That includes "The Man" as he is referred to by many!!!
