Back to PuttingZone
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  

Left to right Vs right to left.

August 27 2009 at 8:54 AM
IDkipper  (Login IDkipper)
from IP address 137.191.240.37

Geoff,

For right handed golfers given putts of the same length and slope why are left to right putts made less frequently than right to left putts.

Is it a question of technique or a psychological problem?


    
This message has been edited by IDkipper from IP address 137.191.240.37 on Aug 27, 2009 10:09 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
75.183.6.64

Putts that Break Away from the Feet

August 28 2009, 7:48 AM 

Dear IDkipper,

The short answer is "perception" is the main problem for "left to right" putts for a right-handed golfer, but this is usually accompanied also by a "technical" problem. The "perception" issue is the oddness of tossing a ball into a bucket whose bottom is fixed to the ceiling off sideways some distance from the ceiling directly above you, as compared to tossing a ball into a bucket on the floor off to your side. The "technical" issue is that for ANY golf shot, failing to conform the clubface / putterface and setup to the slope when the ball is above the feet or below the feet results either way in losing the shot to the "downhill" side, which in putting is the "amateur" side. This technical issue would appear to be neutral for left-right breaks and right-left breaks, but it is not, and affects "arcing stroke path" golfers differently, depending upon whether the heel of the putter is "above" or "below" the ball: when the heel of the arcing-path stroke is "above" the ball (i.e., any putt that has the ball below the feet), the tendency is to lose the putt to the downhill or amateur side, whereas this is not the case for putts when the ball is above the feet.

To keep things handedness neutral, it is better to refer to breaks as "towards the feet" or "to the inside" and "away from the feet" or "to the outside." Although this might seem "overly technical", it has the purpose of clarifying the thinking and perceiving of the golfer to get rid of goofy "old wives tales" sort of myths and bring the golfer starkly to reality as it is..

In addition, the use of "uphill" and "downhill" for breaks is confusing and inaccurate: Except in rare and undesirable situations avoided by pin placement guidelines, uphill putts don't break back "downhill" towards the hole in the sense that the golfer hits the ball uphill and THEN once he ball's energy is expended at the "apex" gravity takes the ball and rolls it downhill the rest of the way "downhill" to the hole, except in the fanciful imagination of golfers who flunked high school geometry. Nor does gravity ordinarily "take" a ball in a downhill putt past the point where the energy of the putt would send it. Balls start straight away out of the setup and then either break "away" from the feet towards the fall line or "in" towards the feet towards the fall line. All balls always curl "downhill" in the sense that they curl TOWARDS the fall line, but the fall line is simply left or right of the ball and left or right of the start line of the putt, and the break is always "more" left or right off line in the direction of the fall line, whether the putt is directed uphill or downhill by the start line. In relation to a "baseline" (straight line across a slope from ball to hole), all breaking putts start away from the baseline at a target "higher uphill" than the cup and then break back towards the baseline and hence back "down" towards the cup. But "uphill" putts (any putt starting from below the 9-3 sidehill line across the clockface definesd by the 6-12 fall line thru the cup), do NOT ever break "downhill" after the energy of the putt is spent in any meaningful sense. This happens only on greens where the ball will not stay still at the end of its trip because the combination of slope and green speed is too severe and the grass cannot resist the "lean downhill" of the still ball and the ball cannot help but roll back down hill. These situations are almost always supposed to be avoided by NOT locating pin positions wherever this is the case. (Uh, right, talk to your local greenkeeper ....) On almost ALL uphill putts and downhill putts as well, once the energy of the putt is drained by the friction of the grass, the ball stops and comes to rest and does NOT get pulled along any further downhill by gravity. The grass prevents it, except in those undesirable situations as occurred with great embarrassment to the USGA setup folks at Shinnecock Hills.

Putts that break away from the feet, considered simply as a single break with slope tilted but with the same flatness all the way from ball to hole (no multiple breaks), have the following characteristics:

1. For right-handers, the fall-line (straight uphill / downhill putt thru the center of the cup) is to the right of the ball when facing the ball uphill on a line parallel to the fall line;

2. For right-handers, the ball is on the left side of the clockface -- the same side as as 9 o'clock, when the 6-12 line is the fall line uphill from 6;

3. For left-handers, the fall-line (straight uphill / downhill putt thru the center of the cup) is to the left of the ball when facing the ball uphill on a line parallel to the fall line;

4. For left-handers, the ball is on the right side of the clockface -- the same side as as 3 o'clock, when the 6-12 line is the fall line uphill from 6;

5. In both cases of left-handers or right-handers, the ball is "below the feet";

6. In both cases of left-handers or right-handers, the ball breaks "away from the feet";

7. In both cases of left-handers or right-handers, the heel of the putter is to the inside of the stroke path and the toe of the putter is to the outside of the stroke path;

8. In both cases of left-handers or right-handers, an arcing inside-inside stroke path causes conflict with the uphill of the slope and the heel of the putter unless the golfer "conforms to the slope" with the putter face and posture at setup;

9. In both cases of left-handers or right-handers, a putt that breaks "away from the feet" entails the perception of a ball's curving "up" as it breaks towards the hole (either going uphill or downhill doesn't matter, as the ball breaks "up" any time it breaks away from the feet), with "up" being "towards the top half of the visual field";

PERCEPTION ISSUE

The brain and body respond differently to the world in the lower half of the visual field and to the upper half of the visual field. The "lower visual field" means whatever in the external world outside the skull is "below" the direction the eyes are aimed, and the "upper visual field" means whatever in the external world outside the skull is "above" the direction the eyes are aimed (in relation to the vertical axis of the body).

Space1gazedirection.GIF

Basically, the body lives upright on earth in gravity, so everything that usually matters is "below" the height of the eyes and the direction the eyes aim out of the skull in the "lower visual field", because the surface of the earth is below the height of the eyes when standing upright. Human's have a "resting state" of the eyes in the skull that aims the eyes slightly downward out of the face, and their necks also typically have a "resting state" forward bend that aims the face a little towards the ground as well. In general, humans are concerned much more about the possibility of a snake lying in the savannah grass 3-4 strides ahead than about a vulture swirling 100 feet overhead. Humans chronically "look" with eyes down and face bent slightly earthward about 3-4 steps ahead along the path. This tilted orientation of the head and eyes eventually over the eons of evolution ALSO tilted the inner ear organs that sense when the head is "upright" in gravity or which way the head is moving with respect to gravity and inertia. These organs are called the "otoliths" and the "semicircular canals" (one set of three canals each on each side of the skull):

innerear.jpg

These "semicircular canals" have three planes defined by three semicircles for each organ, and there are organs in both the left and right sides of the skull for each ear. These three canals are called the "anterior" or "superior" canal, the "posterior" canal, and the "horizontal" canal. They are mutually at right angles (90 degrees) to each other like a "floor", a left-right "wall" and a front-back "wall". The horizontal canal is the floor, the anterior / superior canal is the left-right wall that runs from ear to ear inside the skull, and the posterior canal is the wall that runs front-to-back from back of skull to face inside the skull. The peculiar feature is that the "floor" is not level in gravity, but is tilted up and back on the front nearly 20-30 degrees off horizontal. (See C. Santina et al., Orientation of Human Semicircular Canals Measured by Three-Dimensional Multiplanar CT Reconstruction, JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Volume 6, Number 3 / September, 2005, 191-206.)

innerearplanes.gif

[See "B" and "E" above for orientation of the "horizontal" canal tilted up and back.]

The "resting state" tilt of the head and eyes is the same characteristic posture and line of sight attended in the ergonomics used to design the screen angles of desktop computers, to avoid neck strain and workers' compensation claims and days out sick and poor performance and discomfort at the desk. (See, e.g., Ankrum, D.R. (1999). Visual Ergonomics in the Office Guidelines. Occupational Health & Safety. 68, 7, 64-74; Ankrum, D.R., Viewing Angle And Distance In Computer Workstations, Ergonomics at Whttp://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle.htm.)

That means the floor of the semicircular canals is not "usually" level in gravity unless the human is tilting the head downward the opposite tilt (down and forward on the front, leaning the forehead closer to the ground than otherwise) -- that is, unless the human is "facing" the ground about 5-6 steps ahead. Combined with a slight downward "resting state" of the eyes, the human is chronically "looking at" the path he walks about 3-4 steps ahead -- time enough to spot a sleeping poisonous snake in the leaves and stop and go around it, just outside of the striking range of the snake. Police officers have a similar "danger space" rule in that when confronting a potentially dangerous person, the person is kept at least three steps away from the officer so the officer has time to react to any aggressive lunge for his weapon. So, the human is oriented naturally to the "lower visual field" -- either what is straight where he usually looks or closer in than that.

The semicircular canals are all about balance and equilibrium in gravity and whether the head "seems" tilted top-of-head-left or top-of-head-right or top-of-head-forward/downward or top-of-head-backward/upward from the ground. This "vestibular" organ feeds straight to the cerebellum and combines with vision and body proprioception to coordinate movement of the body in the external realm of the planet and its gravity. Accordingly, the "visual fields" are intimately integrated with the inner ear and also feed straight into the cerebellum. Vision, balance, and body are coordinated in the cerebellum for movement in gravity. The realm of the world that is "below" the direction the eyes are looking sends parallel and straight beams of light reflected from objects in the world into the back "bowl" inside the eyeballs onto the "top half" of the inside of the bowl. The world "above" the line of sight sends the sight onto the "lower half" of the inside of the bowl at the back of the eyeball. This inner bowl is lined with a sheet of nerves in a retina, and then the excitations of all of these nerves are carried via the bundle of optic nerves out of the back of the eyeball into the brain to parts of the brain where this upper/lower spacing of the objects in the world is preserved, or mapped topologically. Punch line: the upper and lower worlds are sent to DIFFERENT parts of the brain, and the lower visual field is the "normal" one that most seminally concerns humans, and the upper visual field is sort of like a forgotten stepmother, largely ignored until provoked.

All this means that it is "not normal" for an inanimate moving object to move on a curve by itself from the lower visual field into the upper visual field. It violates our sense of physics in gravity, where every inanimate object moves by itself ONLY "down" and in a "straight line". Sure, when a ball rolls on a surface, it looks "normal" for a ball to curl "from uphill to downhill" as it does (or seems to do) on a putt that breaks in towards the feet and starting with the ball "above" the feet. Visually, this curve breaks "lower" in the visual field as the curve progresses. Since a putt that breaks "away" from the feet towards the upper visual field is not "normal", humans have a difficulty imagining the action and imagining making the action happen with a stroke.

The "solution" for this is to develop a skill of not looking at the ground as if the golfer were simply facing off into the environment when standing upright, but instead to regard the surface below the face as it actually is -- a "tilted floor" where things rolling along the "floor" will indeed curl away from the feet if the tilt is that direction. This skill is essentially a more direct and meaningful engagement with the actual situation of the space involved in the putt than is usually the case. Humans are set on "default" 90% or more of the time, and this is simply not good enough when playing golf and putting on the space of a contoured surface of the green.

TECHNICAL ISSUE

The second issue is that golfers habitually default to setting up their posture in gravity, even when standing on a sloped or tilted surface. This is another "default" failure to engage with the contoured surface of the green as it really is for any given putt. Combined with an inside-inside stroke path, this creates a conflict with the heel and the uphill slope to the inside, where the greater the arcing inside in the backstroke, the more the heel will tend to "dig into" the green. Unmindful golfers respond to this reality by changing the stroke path in the opposite direction to avoid the conflict, and this results in an outside-outside stroke path that tends to knock the ball "downhill" away from the feet. This dynamic / conflict between heel and hill does not occur when the break curls "towards" the feet ( a right-left break for a right-hander or a left-right break for a left-hander). In that case, with the ball "above the feet", the conflict is between the toe and the hill, and this leads to a bit of stroke modification that curls the stroke even more inside-inside than otherwise, and this sends balls "higher" away from the feet to begin with than usual. Since golfers typically under-read all putts anyway (for other reasons), the putt that breaks in towards the feet gets a better start than the putt that breaks out away from the feet.

The solution for this is to ALWAYS flatten the sole of the putter onto WHATEVER surface contour presents itself at the ball, and then to CONFORM the setup of the body posture to the waiting putter handle without respect to gravity and the usual default orientation of the body in gravity. Once the body conforms to a "ball below the feet" setup, the head and inner ear will be leaning more downward than usual and this will "bother" the sense of balance and equilibrium and force a different postural control set of muscles to stay steady (weight onto the balls of the feet and toes rather than heels, tighter calves, tighter core, etc.) The golfer's skill is to "ignore" this disequilibrium and adjust to it.

My thought is that all strokes must move the putter sole so that the sole "lifts off the runway" of the surface of the green with straight and level flight so that both wheels of the landing gear separate from the surface at takeoff at the exact same moment. That's great so long as the green surface is "flat and level" like the tarmac at LA International, but of course green surfaces for almost ALL putts are "flat but tilted / sloped" for purposes of setup. Because of that, I imagine the "runway" really is the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, and the tilts of the deck due to the rolling seas is simply something the pilot has to engage and live with when taking off -- the two wheels STILL have to come up off the deck at the same moment with straight and (relatively) level (to the deck) flight at takeoff. So, imagining the stroke action in this metaphorical manner to organize the body posture and action, it helps to ignore the fact that the body is out of kilter in gravity and simply regard the "deck" of the flat-but-tilted green surface AS IF it were "flat and level". This neutralizes the tendency to avoid the heel-hill conflict with a stroke path that sends the ball downhill away from the feet -- putts seem to start more uphill, but this is illusory, as they are really just starting off straight where intended sideways out of the setup as they would on a flat and level surface.

Of course, all this is just another reason NOT to think an inside-inside stroke is such a hot deal for you. And by the same token, all the weird little bandaids people come up with for these putts that break away from the feet are just that: bandaids COVERING a wound, and not CURING a wound. If you use bandaids, you are basically saying you cannot or don't want to bother addressing the real problem.

In summary, engage with the reality of the surface slope as a matter of perceptual skill and as a matter of technical skill, and leave the "default" behaviors to the hacks.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Offering Free Podcast Tips for Putting Every Friday on GolfSmarterTips.com.

The best putting instruction book in golf history is now available for purchase in hardback or as an immediate ebook download: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (2008, 282-pages)

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

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

Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

LogoBox300x288.jpg

 
 Respond to this message   
IDkipper
(Login IDkipper)
137.191.240.37

Re: Putts that Break Away from the Feet

August 28 2009, 11:48 AM 

Comprehensive answer!

Thanks!!

 
 Respond to this message   
sammy
(no login)
65.95.163.237

But what if ......

August 28 2009, 6:21 PM 

Playing casually with a friend, he proclaimed: "I can't read which way the ball will break!!" I looked at his putt and there were two complex breaks ... a break one way and then a lateral counter-break ... a real exercise in topographical physics..!!!

I told him to just putt straight for the hole and to make sure he had enough speed on the ball to get it safely past the hole. He did and the putt missed by mere inches but went on by several feet ... about 3 feet and it was about a 20 foot putt.

Geoff ... was this good advice for a recreational golfer ... to take all the breaks out with speed?? A pro golfer would have no excuse for misreading such an indeterminate putt, but a recreational golfer can be flummoxed and just going at it is all he can do. Agree ... disagree???

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
75.183.6.64

All Putts Go as Far as the Fall Line, Only

September 1 2009, 4:05 PM 

Dear sammy,

All putts should either go in the hole "nicely" or stop on or just after crossing the fall line thru the cup. Then any remaining putts will be pretty straight. Leaves that come down to the cup and stop on the high side on the fall line are short, straight tap-ins. Putts that run lowside but then stop on or shortly after crossing the fall line are pretty straight uphill putts. Both of these leaves (close straight downhill tap-in or a bit longish straight uphill putt) are considerably BETTER than anything that runs a substantial distance across the fall line.

Assuming the putt is not really pretty much uphill or downhill but has substantial sideways break in it, a "hot" putt that races past the fall line on the high side OR the low side will leave a rather serious break coming back, and not simply a too-log putt coming back. Sidehill putts are the worst sort. Both uphill and downhill putts are easier than sidehill putts. Long uphill and even downhill putts are easier than shorter sidehill putts also.

Taking the break out is not really a good plan unless you approach the issue deliberatively. First, golfers who decide the break is too much and they are going to "take" break out don't stop to consider exactly what the break is to begin with, but they need to do this. Only by coming to grips with the actual break that one faces with the usual touch or delivery speed is one then in a position to compare that versus something else (Plan A versus Plan B). Is the Plan A break even outside of the hole to begin with? If so, what is the golfer trying to accomplish by "taking" SOME break out? Also, the golfer needs to recognize how much break is involved in Plan A, and then compare what is required in terms of EXTRA SPEED to "take THE break" out -- not just SOME break. What is the golfer seeking to accomplish if he changes to a faster speed solely to take SOME break out but still attempting a putt with the start line aimed outside the rim? Once the golfer sees HO MUCH break there is that has to be taken out of the Plan A putt, and therefore HOW MUCH EXTRA SPEED will be required, then he for the first time ever is in a position to compare the risks and benefits of Plan A versus Plan B.

The risk-benefit analysis goes like this:

With the required extra speed in Plan B, does the golfer have a better chance or a worse chance of sinking the putt without causing a three-putt?

This translates into the following:

1. Is the Plan B speed something the golfer can execute, or is it too unfamiliar, and hence likely to cause mis-execution?

2. Is Plan B's speed going to shrink the effective width of the hole as a target too severely, especially if the back rim is tilted downhill away from the entry line of the putt?

3. Is Plan B's required speed going to cause too great a risk of a three-putt in case the ball misses the hole?

With these considerations in mind, it is fairly easy to conclude that not many putts are suitable for taking the break out. The knee-jerk notion that "taking break out" is good to go for nearly all putts is just a dumb approach that ignores reality.

Looking at putts of different sorts of break, they get categorized according to whether the slope and surface speed is steep and fast (or not), the starting position of the ball regarding the fall line orientation, and the distance of the ball from the hole.

Short distance putts differ depending upon whether the slope and green speed for the distance allows enough break to develop before the hole swallows the ball. Translation: hardly NO putt inside 2 feet has time enough to break outside the hole on any green and normal pin position in the world of golf. On the other hand, from that close in, the golfer can add speed with impunity, but not because he needs to do so.

Downhill putts all have the far rim tilted lower away from the incoming ball, so that means the hole tolerates LESS speed than normal, and EXTRA SPEED is especially problematic, so not much extra speed can be tolerated on "downhill" slopes unless the slope is very mild (or the grass speed very slow). Translation: forget taking the break out on all downhill putts -- Stimp 9+ greens and any substantial slope cause too great a risk unless the ball is so close the golfer couldn't miss at any speed.

Sidehill putts have MAXIMUM BREAK and so require MAXIMUM EXTRA SPEED to take ALL the break out and get the start line aimed inside the hole. Translation: except on short putts, and on especially MILD slopes, taking break out on sidehill putts is seldom a good idea, as it unduly shrinks the hole and adds to the danger of a three-putt.

Uphill putts that are reasonably close don't often require taking break out, since the target and start line is already inside the cup to begin with. Adding speed to an uphill putt may be done for OTHER REASONS (make sure you don't leave it short, get past some nerves, etc.), but taking break out is not usually one of them. On some breaks from the 8 and 4 o'clock positions, with some length to them and some slope and green speed, when the aim line in Plan A is outside the cup to start with, it may well be advisable to take the this break out and reorient the aim line inside the cup, since the extra speed is not dangerous when the back rim is tilted higher as an added backstop and the putt will not race far past the hole if it misses but will die out shortly as the uphill drains the energy.

Long putts with the start line outside the cup can get very problematic for taking break out, since the touch / speed control tends to degrade a bit with distance and the amount of break to take out can be a bit too much requiring too much extra speed. Generally speaking, the whole idea of taking break out fizzles after about 6-8 feet.

BOTTOM LINE: The notion of taking break out is addictive but also deleterious to one's health unless done with careful consideration of the risks and benefits. When one consider each sort of putt this way, few emerge as strong candidates for extra speed. Adding speed on very short putts and some uphill putts may be okay for other reasons, but taking break out in and of itself seldom makes much sense unless there is break to take out without the cost of too much speed to get that done.

So why do golfers want to take break out? I think they don't know how touch works and what is required. One of the things required for good touch is a strong sense of where the ball MUST stop because you controlled the energy of the roll. This is tantamount to visualizing not only the delivery speed over the rim into the cup ("nicely deep and safe") but the barrier beyond which you do not intend to allow the ball to roll in case of a miss. The fall line is always something that has to be reached in the imaginary straight putt along the start line, but not something that can safely be overwhelmed with speed except in very rare situations. So the fall line acts like a ready-to-hand barrier, or at least a line not to cross with excess speed, for all Plan A putts. Golfers who do not have this sense of "control of the roll" are on the lookout for something that will help, and that is basically the back wall of the cup. The fall line as a destination is imaginary, but the dirt and cup liner "over there down inside that hole" are REAL, so golfers tend to latch onto the back of the cup like a drowning person will latch onto anything that happens to float nearby. My advice is grow a better imagination about space and control of the roll in that space, and be careful grabbing for things that float.

So, no, I don't agree that amateurs are better served sorting out their confusion with added power. I teach every day "don't ever try to solve problems in putting with power". That is nearly always disastrous. If the read is "iffy", golfers try to "take the break out" with added power. If the aim is "iffy", golfers try to fix the issue with power. If the golfer aims too low, he will have no option but to try to salvage the situation by adding power. Adding power to fix poor skills is the great enabler of crappy putting. This is just the sort of things that keeps an amateur from ever getting better.

My advice is to follow the creek out of the wilderness. Get a straight stroke with a stable tempo and rhythm and then LEARN TO READ AND AIM with that ever-constant stroke and touch. With this approach, one very, very seldom wants or needs to add power, and even if he does, he has a much better handle on how much power to add and how to do that in comparison to the usual Plan A putt. The Plan A putt is ALWAYS the same, afterall -- the same setup, the same stroke motion, the same timing pattern, the same solid and square online impact, the same rolling of the ball sideways out of the setup -- and that is a very well-known basis for playing variations under appropriate circumstances.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Offering Free Podcast Tips for Putting Every Friday on GolfSmarterTips.com.

The best putting instruction book in golf history is now available for purchase in hardback or as an immediate ebook download: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (2008, 282-pages)

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

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

Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

LogoBox300x288.jpg

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Left to right Vs right to left.
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  
Back to PuttingZone