I told you Dave Pelz's claim that the optimal go-by of 17" is not based on any science and in fact is contrary to Pelz's own research data, and you respond that you would rather credit Dave Pelz's pedigree? You don't make any sense and you seem lacking in basic logic. I'm trying not to be personal in these statements, but it is a challenge.
A reasonable person would say at best, "Really? Tell me more," or at worst, "You must be lying." But you don't even say that.
Let's assume you concluded that I'm a liar in saying this about Dave Pelz, and you reject what I say on that logical basis. Then my response, quite logically, would be either, "You got me," if I am in fact a liar, or "Kiss my patutee, bub", in the event that I'm telling the truth. Or I could simply react neutrally, since I fully expect you and most people to lack basic logic, and instead to proceed on the basis of whatever belief or attitude to murky facts makes you feel fine about the way you think and feel without logic. (See Michael Gazzaniga, the dean of modern neuroscience, concerning his conclusion about whether the brain is logical or merely makes up attitudes that plausibly defend the status quo -- guess which).
So, to proceed with dismantling your delusions about Pelz, have a gander at this and get back to me:
Dennis, Larry, Die putts at the hole -- and you're dead: New tests prove you'll make more putts hitting them harder, Golf Dig. 28(7), Jul 1977, 52-55 Pelz, Pres. of Preceptor Golf Ltd.; 53: "A green is not a billiard table." Pelz's true-roller putting data for 17-inch rule from eastern seaboard courses at various latitudes w/ bent & bermuda and all putts were 12-foot putts: COURSE [grass, condition], Best Speed Dist. Past Hole--Best % [Dying Speed %]: WESTCHESTER CC, RYE, NY [bent, freshly mowed, early am]: 5-20"--95% [40%] [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon: 15-20"--[60%]; SEDGEFIELD CC, GREENSBORO, NC [bent, early am]: 10-15"--75% [20%] [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon, 40"--50%; PINEHURST, NC [bent mixed w/ poa ann., freshly mowed]: 24"--70% [10%]; CONGRESSIONAL CC, WASHINGTON, DC [bent, immediately after 1976 PGA Championship]: 12-15"--95% [50%]; COLUMBIA CC, CHEVY CHASE [bent]: 15"--90% [30%]; BELLE HAVEN CC, ALEXANDRIA, VA [poa ann., spring]: 40"--[30%]; SAME [bent, Fall, September]: 20"--65% [--]; INVERRARY CC, LAUDERHILL, FL [bermuda]: 20-30"--70% [0%]; LONG BOAT KEY, SARASOTA, FL [bermuda]: 30"--75% [10%]; 54: going faster, putts begin to lip out, but "The dropoff is not as great on the bent greens, however, because more of those putts have a tendency to hit dead center in the back of the cup and stay in." Pelz: Florida golfers should 63 be better than Northern golfers because they hit the ball harder; Nicklaus did not win a Florida tournament until 9th yr on tour; "Julius Boros, who grew up on the bent grass greens of Connecticut, was on the tour for 17 years before he won in Florida." [See also George Archer's comments in his Stroke that Won the Masters article and Ray Floyd, From 60 Yards In, for similar although varying comments.] 54: "You will make fewer putts on a poorer quality green, and even to make your best percentage you must hit the ball harder than on a good green."
Let's review the Pelz's own research data:
Bent greens in "good" condition:
WESTCHESTER CC, RYE, NY [bent, freshly mowed, early am]: 5-20"--95% [40%]
SEDGEFIELD CC, GREENSBORO, NC [bent, early am]: 10-15"--75% [20%]
PINEHURST, NC [bent mixed w/ poa ann., freshly mowed]: 24"--70% [10%]
CONGRESSIONAL CC, WASHINGTON, DC [bent, immediately after 1976 PGA Championship]: 12-15"--95% [50%]
COLUMBIA CC, CHEVY CHASE [bent]: 15"--90% [30%]
5-20" (12.5" avg.), 10-15" (12.5" avg.), 24", 12-15" (13.5" avg.), 15" = Average "good" bent: 15.5"
Bent greens in "poor" condition:
WESTCHESTER CC, RYE, NY [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon: 15-20"--[60%]
SEDGEFIELD CC, GREENSBORO, NC [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon, 40"--50%
15-20" (17.5" avg.), 40" = Average "poor" bent: 28.75"
Bermuda greens in "good" condition:
INVERRARY CC, LAUDERHILL, FL [bermuda]: 20-30"--70% [0%]
LONG BOAT KEY, SARASOTA, FL [bermuda]: 30"--75% [10%]
20-30" (25" avg.), 30" = Average "good" Bermuda: 27.5"
Poa greens in Spring "slow" condition:
BELLE HAVEN CC, ALEXANDRIA, VA [poa ann., spring]: 40"--[30%]
Average "slow" Spring Poa: 40"
ALL GREENS and CONDITIONS:
Bent "good": 15"
Bent "poor": 28.75"
Bermuda "good": 27.5"
Poa "slow": 40"
Overall Average: 27.8"
Overall bent average: 21.9"
Overall Average ignoring Poa greens: 23.75"
NO Bermuda green has 17" as the number. "Good" Bermuda in 1977 was about a foot past 17".
NO Bent green data supports a claim of 17" either, as the "good" data is short of 17" and the "poor" data is a foot past 17". Even "averaging" good and poor bent, the average is NOT 17" but about 30% further (5" further).
In the Dennis article, Pelz is quoted personally stating that there is not one specific go-by distance that is optimal or that maximizes the number of sinks that applies to all grass types and conditions, and that instead the go-by distance that maximizes sinks depends in each case on the grass type and its condition. Guess what? This was already well known in golf before Pelz ever started his research project, so all his efforts proved only something that everyone already knew. This didn't advance Pelz's personal claim to "scientific discovery" in golf. Six years later in 1983 he began to "claim" for the first time, in Golf MAGAZINE (the rival of Golf DIGEST), that "he had scientifically proved that 17" is the optimal go-by distance for all grass types and all conditions.
Pelz, Dave Putting: Hit your putts hard: My research proves that the best putts are those struck with enough force to carry them about 17 inches past the hole Golf Mag. 25(8), Aug 1983, 32
Then another three years later in his book Putt Like the Pros (1986), Pelz drew a chart with the bottom horizontal axis for go-by distances from 0" past the hole to 40" past the hole and on the vertical axis was the percentage of putts sunk at the various go-by distances: His supposed curve of "data points" rose from left to a peak at 17" and then declined to the right of this. Pelz has NO DATA that proves this, and he has said so in 1977 in Golf Digest.
Pelz repeats this "claim" that he has "scientifically proved" the 17" optimal go-by about every two years or so since 1986, in Golf Magazine, and his books, and in various places where he wants to appear "scientific." He never cites his original research. And ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT HIS CLAIM NEVER WAS TRUE IN 1977, he repeats his claim after 1980 when the old greens changed dramatically to much better and faster surfaces even in public golf courses operated by municipalities, where his entire bogus rationale for putting with this "firm" go-by speed of footprints and "lumpy donuts" at the cup and shaggy grasses not tightly mowed no longer applies, and even his 1977 research accurately reported in Golf Digest is "stale" and meaningless since 1980. And yet Pelz is so bent to further his claim to scientific discovery that he STILL repeats the 17" rule as if nothing changed about the greens everywhere across the world of golf in 1980. That's not only an indicator that he's lacking in science, but he must take golfers as especially credulous. In fact, in his 2000 Putting Bible, he frankly states that golfers are too uneducated to appreciate the "correct physics" of the proper optimal ball delivery speed across the hole, so he has to explain the "touch" as a "go-by" speed that dumb golfers can comprehend. Look it up if you think I'm lying.
Ignorantly repeating the 17" claim even after 1980 includes the 1983 article in Golf magazine when he first stated his claim, so he was ignorant to do that even the first time he made the false claim. Then he repeated this ignorance in 1986 in his first book, when he simply "drew" data he knew was not what his research showed in 1977. He of course repeats this in his 2000 Putting Bible, and here's his bogus claim in 2006: Dave Pelz, All My Secrets: Insights from 30 years, Golf Magazine (Aug 2006): 116-128 -- "You must find a way to roll putts 17 inches past the hole (when they miss). Research proves that putts have a greater chance of finding the cup (regardless of putt length) when the ball rolls at this speed."
He's repeated the same false claim many other times as well.
In further proof his claim is total nonsense, in his 2000 Putting Bible Dave rather ignorantly posts proof of the OPPOSITE of his claim by comparing two photographs of "pro" go-by putts as "good" versus "amateur" go-by putts as "bad". The pro putts all cluster closely behind the hole. The amateur putts all cluster further behind the hole. How far are the amateur putts? It's perfectly easy to measure, in the same way the CIA looks at satellite photographs of missile carriers in Cuba and concludes that they are as long as the Soviet missile launchers in photographs of the Soviet Union satellite reconnaissance: the image in the photos of the hole is KNOWN to be 4.25" in diameter, so using the image of the hole as a "ruler", one determines that the "amateur" putts are all centered FOUR HOLE IMAGES past the back of the actual hole, and 4 times 4.25" = 17". So Pelz is saying without even being aware of it in his Putting Bible that the amateur go-by distance of 17" is BAD and that pros don't do that, but have go-by distances well less than half that. Okay ... Are you going to believe Dave Pelz or believe your lying eyes?
Moreover, the hallmark of "good science" is that other scientists can duplicate the data. Of course, no one has ever duplicated Pelz's claim, and the reason is there is NO SCIENCE PROOF of Pelz's claim. Two scientists trained as engineers tried to duplicate Pelz's science, and pronounced his claim as false because the science does not result in his "supposed" data. That's about as BAD as science ever gets -- fabricating data so that uneducated people falsely believe that the person makes scientific discoveries. Pelz has NO SUCH SCIENCE and he personally KNOWS THIS and yet he tells gullible people like you that he does have the data. Okay, put up or shut up -- just show the data. Oh, that's right, he has already published his data, and it does NOT back up his claim at all. Look it up if you think I'm lying: Werner and Grieg, How Golf Club Really Work and How to Optimize Their Design (2002). Therefore .... Hello JonRobert2! Any "logic" banging around in there?
Pelz's own research proves the exact opposite of what he told you and you claim to believe. So you need to read what Pelz's actual research says, and ask yourself why he never cites his own data when he repeats the "claim" that 17" is the optimal go-by distance, or even gives data details from his research. Pelz has been asked personally and directly about the data reported to be his in this 1977 Golf Digest article and whether this data is true and his claim of 17" proof is false or whether the early 1977 data is incorrect and his science bad and he has later different data that he has never made public. He refused to answer. In the Putting Bible, he side-steps the question and repeats his claim that he has proved scientifically that 17" is the best go-by distance to maximize sinks on all grass types in all conditions; then, quite enigmatically (i.e., non-sensically) states immediately following this bald claim that "this is just an average". But of course, there is no such thing in 1977 as an "average Bent-muda" grass, so this defensive rear-guard statement is total baloney from the baloney factory.
But of course, you don't seem too logical, so whatever facts I might parade before you won't change your "mind". I know this is the high likelihood based upon your response so far, PLUS the neuroscience research that says human minds are not logical but emotional and the emotional brain creates "plausible-sounding" thoughts (not "reasons") that fend off unwelcome or uncomfortable or unpleasant alternatives to the vested status quo. Got that? I'm calling you "a typical human," and not calling you a "dumb-ass" or anything rude like that.
In any event, please don't repeat nonsense on this forum without confronting the unpleasant facts straight up. If you read this article, and disagree that Pelz says what he says there, or think he has offered some explanation that satisfies you that his 17" claim is not simply something he says to make you think he is a scientist who has "discovered" something, by all means feel welcome to spout off whatever strikes you as defensible discourse. Otherwise, please don't pollute the forum with pitiable nonsense, unless of course you just can't help it. But please try.
As a golfer who just wants to learn how to putt, it more than a little disturbs me to be lied to, and especially when the lie comes cloaked in a claim of science. It is nearly as disturbing to have a fellow golfer one is attempting to help insinuate to me that I am a liar while claiming that the obviously bogus science must be true because the propounder of the baloney is on TV and someone posted a Wikipedia to his eternal scientific soul! Golden calves, mate .... You've been warned about hanging around in Sodom and Gomorrah with people like that.
The sign on the welcome mat at the door to this forum says: "Please wipe your feet before entering." 'Nuff said, if you're old enough to read.
Putting Coach and Theorist