Back to PuttingZone

 << Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Main

# Are These Putter Science Claims Valid?

September 13 2013 at 5:21 PM

Geoff,

I am a searcher for the best putter for me. Is what is said in this video something you can confirm as true or false?

http://www.seemore.com/institute/videos/instruction/32/59/

Thank's

Pauly P

 This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.172.2.158 on Nov 27, 2013 4:37 PM

 Respond to this message

Geoff Mangum
Owner
71.71.48.219

# SeeMore is Silly

September 14 2013, 9:21 PM

Dear Pauly,

No, what that guy is describing is simply the absence of mass in the rear of the putter head. The "bad" putter he "compares" has a completely different shape and therefore mass distribution in the putter head, specifically a center of mass that is offset from the shaft plane back a bit from the putter face and shaft. The purpose of this is to promote stability and certain characteristics of roll off the face. The SeeMore guy is ignorant about this physics.

He is also ignorant about human bodies, since the SeeMore "standard" lie angle of 70 degrees that he keeps illustrating is actually flatter than usual by most manufacturers and all of these lie angles are flatter than standard human bodies, fixed by the natural angling of the forearm hanging out of vertical -- this forearm angle is usually in the 14-18 degrees range, which translates to goofy golf-speak as a lie angle up from the ground of 90-14 = 76 degrees. So SeeMore makes an unusually unsuitable putter lie as standard for almost all humans. The SeeMore guy failed to describe whether the face stays square at, say, 73 degrees. It should if the mass is not centered back from the plane of the shaft. notice that the SeeMore guy never attempts to explain why the face stays square at ANY degree lie -- he obviously is clueless about the physics.

Comparing the "face balancing" to the face at any lie angle is just goofy. It's sort of a straw-man fake argument. There is nothing validating the way he describes the face in saying it is NOT face balancing. Those are just two different ways of talking.

When he says he is interested in the "balance" of the face at address at 70 degree lie angle (20 degrees out of vertical, not especially suited to humans), he is only appearing to describe "the proper balance" but that's not what he is actually describing. He's ignorant about that. ANY putter face that has mass equally left and right of the shaft will sit "square" to the PLANE that the shaft makes in gravity. Imagine the shaft with a plumb line dropping from the top of the handle, so the line and the shaft make a plane that is vertical in gravity. ANY putter face with equal mass left and right of this plane will sit "square" aiming perpendicularly out of this plane.

The goofy stupid false argument that since the "bad" putter does not so hang means that the SeeMore putter has some "special" design physics in it is just specious and ignorant.

SHOULD a putter NOT have recessed mass like the "bad" putter? No, it's a choice with different stroke physics. Is the SeeMore design superior? No, just different. Does the way the SeeMore putter hang mean that golfers will have better strokes? No, the golfers still have to control the putter face even of the SeeMore putter. Will the SeeMore putter face return to square by itself due to its "special physics in the design"? No, not any more than any putter with equal left-right mass off the plane of the shaft -- none of them "return" to square at all. Does the toe weight in the SeeMore design by itself re-square the putter face even if the golfer makes an unusual stroke? No, of course not. Etc.

I suppose it is necessary to point out two fundamental points of the reality of physics: First, putters "fall down" out of square in the backstroke, because something in the mass distribution in the shape "falls down" once the putting stroke lifts the putter off the support of the ground that had been preventing the falling down before that. Second, mass at the far end of a stick will have more inertia (tendency to remain either stationary or in its present velocity more than objects with less inertia), so that a "toe-heavy" or "toe-hanging" putter head design will have the following tendencies in a putting stroke: 1) at the start of the backstroke, the "toe won't go" when the heel starts back and the face closes; 2) at the top of the backstroke, the "toe won't stop" as quickly as the heel and the face pops wide open; 3) at the start of the downstroke, the "toe won't go" again when the heel starts down and the face pops even wider open; and 4) at impact the 'toe won't stop" as quickly as the heel, and the face will snap-hook closed thru impact. That's a typical Scotty Cameron putter, which is why golfers using them think they need an arcing stroke and have to bandaid this mess with a "release" of the putter head thru impact -- they just don't know what is causing what or what to do about it.

What to do about it is simply called "grip pressure" -- hold the putter handle to overcome and therefore control these physics forces. Unfortunately, stupid golf instruction to 'hold the putter as lightly as possible," like a "little girl holding a delicate bird" etc. etc., has messed up entire generations of golfers with ignorance.

Which brings up the first point above: putter heads, in addition to the inertia forces that will ruin a stroke unless managed with the golfer's grip pressure, will "fall down" in the backstroke and the face pop open from extra mass locating the total putter head center of gravity back from the face (to the rear or right of the face for a right-handed putter). That's illustrated in the SeeMore guy showing what a putter head shape with a high "moment of Inertia" design will do with the center of gravity recessed back from the face as is true in most so-called "big head" designs. That's correct enough if the golfer uses a very light or nearly no grip pressure -- such as the tee pegs in the SeeMore film INSTEAD of two hands on the handle. True enough, but the SeeMore guy doesn't know how grip pressure overcomes and controls these pretty minor physics forces that otherwise disrupt the stroke. But the idea that the SeeMore design is "special" and will "return" the putter face to square is just absolutely stupid. Nothing ever "falls up", ever, and inertia never reverses itself into anti-inertia! No putter head that opens in the backstroke will EVER resquare itself in the forward stroke, ever. No design in the known universe can accomplish that. Only a golfer can resquare a putter face. And since a golfer can also PREVENT a putter face from coming out of square, he can also make the "resquaring" job a lot easier.

People like the SeeMore guy are just completely ignorant about basic physics and how that works in putter design and the use of these designs in the stroke, and how the human has the job of appreciating the weirdness in the putter and controlling it. The best putter design has the least weirdness that taxes the human to control. A good putter design for golfer X is one that happens to work well with golfer X's stroke motion and muscle tone without much awareness of the golfer's action or choosing good from bad action for improvement. A better putter design is one that works well with a better stroke motion and muscle tone that is sound in physics and with know-how about what is causing good or bad strokes, as this is not only simple, understood, and easily repeatable, but it also avoids the streakiness that ruins golfers by the hundreds on Tour every year when their "special" putting goes off for two or three weeks at a time.

SeeMore is especially studded with silliness. Pat O'Brien recently commented on Zach Johnson's putting by saying that the "putter design" does the goodness in the putting and all Zach has to do is "allow it." This is completely stupid, people. "The stroke just happens," said OBrien. "Zach allows it to happen. The putter is designed to swing (perfectly) on a plane."

So, why does Zach say this about his putting being off for weeks before the BMW?:

"I putted phenomenal [THIS week]," Johnson said. "I've been hitting it good, and I have not putted like that in weeks. Its nice having everything come together."

http://golfweek.com/news/2013/sep/16/5-things-zach-wins-championship-field-set-more/

Obviously (SARCASM), Zach must not have been allowing his SeeMore putter to work correctly for weeks and weeks! Well, I guess that might be down to poor putting instruction as to how to "allow the putter" to do the strokes for Zach, or perhaps Zach just can't "get it".

Never listen to people selling putters who do not also KNOW how to teach putting and also KNOW real physics -- even if they pretend to be golfers or golf teachers. Golfers don't know any science and putter selling golfers are inherently suspect if not outright untrustworthy. You will only get sales hype that is goofy science claiming to be real science that doesn't matter to how the tool is used with skill.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com

 This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 71.71.48.219 on Sep 18, 2013 9:21 AM

 Respond to this message
Pauly P
90.225.60.9

# Help in choosing putter

September 15 2013, 3:47 PM

Geoff,

I rate myself as a good putter but want to become better, a great putter. Reading on this forum about your studies, seeing your youtube movies, buying your video with Elk and also taking putting lessons from my Swedish pro Javier Nigard I think I am on the right track.

But now, instead of a putter choosing me I want to choose a putter. I have always preferred a flater lie than standard, my current putter is a customized Edel with a lie of 68 degrees. Working on my posture with Javier I am lifting the heel to play more upright. Question one: Will lifting the heel (like Stricker) affect the putters mass so it performs less consistent?

Question two: If I now want to buy a new putter that suits my new better posture, is my thinking of an 32 inch (today 33 inch), face balanced and at a lie angle of 76 degrees to prefer? And if so, where to find one and which brand to choose. Most putters at store are 35 inch and if I buy a 35 inch and shorten it to 32 it will affect the head weight, right?

Thank´s for a great forum!

/Pauly P

 This message has been edited by PaulyPau from IP address 90.225.60.9 on Sep 15, 2013 4:31 PM

 Respond to this message
Keith Behrens
68.183.133.99

# Take a look at Yar

September 15 2013, 4:50 PM
 Pauly, I am fan of Geoff's and of the information that he has passed along in his videos, book and on this form. I purchased Yar putter and along with Jeff's information my putting has improved dramatically. I would suggest taking a look at Yar putters and going as far as calling Dr. Vanderbilt. She was a tremendous help in going to the fitting process for the Putter she also explained the benefits of the Putter clearly. Best of luck, Keith PS - don't be put off by the looks of the putter
 Respond to this message

Geoff Mangum
Owner
24.172.2.158

# Too-Flat Lies Harm Strokes

November 27 2013, 4:35 PM
 Respond to this message
sammy
184.147.223.241

# FYI.....

November 28 2013, 1:40 PM
 Geoff.... The putter designers are not "dumb" because they know what tweaks the market, and it's glitz for gearheads. They are in the game for the money, and not to provide a simple basic putter design. They know that colorful face inserts, highly machined faces, wings, faux-balls, fangs, colorful graphic designs, annual model changes, pro endorsements will sell sell sell the toys for boys. Just admit it, Geoff, most who "play" golf are not serious about the game and only participate for the magical toys and socializing. So don't sound like a curmudgeon who is mired in intellect. Also please don't accuse me of "misanthropy" when my assessment is a lot more realistic than yours.
 Respond to this message

Geoff Mangum
Owner
64.134.188.134

# Putting a Twist on It Without Helping

November 29 2013, 6:52 PM

Dear sammy,

The effort here is to help golfers, not get the accusations correct. The only legitimate purpose of criticizing the way golf culture in the persons of putter designers, training aid makers, media, and the like take such an insubstantial approach to what they call helping is to HELP GOLFERS, not put golfers down.

The distinction is between condemning golfers generally (you) versus condemning an approach by those purporting to be teachers, guides, leaders of golfers (equipment and training aid designers and manufacturing companies, golf professional organizations, golf media, and the like) (which is what I'm talking about).

My criticism is against those claiming more than they offer because they are not really serious in the effort, since they obviously don't start with the SKILL before making STUFF and teaching STUFF that supposedly helps but actually doesn't pass the laugh test of common sense. It's HELPFUL to golfers to get this straight, even if it comes across a bit "tough-lovish". It's not at all negativity for negativity's sake.

I leave all that to you, since you don't seem to be trying to help.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com

 This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 66.255.115.74 on Nov 30, 2013 8:04 AM

 Respond to this message

 << Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Main
 Find more forums on Golf Create your own forum at Network54