A critical look at some conventional putting wisdom
Below are some conventional pearls of putting wisdom, subjected to a critical analysis.
1. Sweet Spot - the center of percussion
Conventional wisdom says that putts hit on-center (commonly referred to as the sweet spot or center of percussion) have maximum energy transfer. Putts hit on the heel of the putter only transfer 85% energy of the stroke, and putts hit on the toe transfer as little as 70% energy of the stroke. This is true for conventional putters, but not so for the Torpedo Putter. The study I commissioned on the Torpedo effect using robots, proved a dramatic enlargement of the sweet spot. This was due to a relative dampening effect. A series of robot putts were struck with the same impact velocity out of the toe, heel and sweet spot, and the results were astounding. Putts hit out of the toe or heel with the torpedo Putter went much closer to sweet spot struck putts. This translates into off center struck putts going nearly as far as they otherwise would when struck on the sweet spot. Now, I have a small confession to make, an enlarged sweet spot, as desirable as it may seem, on face value, is a bit of a false benefit; this is because golfers using the Torpedo Putter are many times less likely to strike a putt off center than with a conventional putter! This is due to the dramatic stabilizing effect the Torpedo Shaft has on the putting stroke. Golfers report that it is akin to drawing a putter back in a trough of water where they know (feel) where it is in space at all times. I support this assertion with the overwhelming evidence of golfers of all skill levels blind putting much more accurately (eyes closed) using a Torpedo Putter as compared to conventional putters.
Conventional wisdom goes into some detail about how to find the sweet spot on any given putter. This is, in my view, a classic trap of implied cause/effect that has no demonstrated bearing on whether it is desirable in putting or not (false association). After all, even the most anemic golfer can get any putt to roll any length; distance is not an inherent goal of putting. I submit that one could argue just as persuasively, that as long as a given golfer hits putts on the same spot on his or her putter, it really shouldn’t matter whether it’s a toe or heel strike? This too, however, would be an unfounded assumption. I will post some excellent articles in this section on scientific thinking. I cannot think of an industry where the lines of science and marketing are more blurred, confusing and often downright misleading, often by well-intentioned folks, many with strong science backgrounds, who have never bothered to ask the truly important questions about what really matters in golf (empirically been shown to work better than another competing method).
Talking about putters with the largest MOI (moment of inertia) translating into better putting (without setting up a condition for testing that hypothesis or any other) is like claiming to have a putter that reflects the most ultraviolet light! These kinds of “implied” benefits do nothing but muddy the waters of legitimate scientific inquiry. Sadly, untested associations and their “implied” benefits eventually seep into the collective golf consciousness when repeated often and loud enough. If I had a nickel for every golfer I’ve overheard talking about the weight of his new graphite shaft, displacement of his clubhead, interchangeable weights, aerodynamic head design, MOI, etc, etc., I’d be sunning myself on a beach somewhere instead of writing this monograph! The leaps of imagination constituting such endlessly repeated “benefits” as maximum MOI, clubhead size, specific head geometries, peripheral weighting, etc., and the implication that they automatically and irrefutably translate into better golf, are the scientific equivalent of reconstructing a TRex from a discarded chicken bone.
2. Face angle
Conventional wisdom emphasizes the importance of Blade Angle (the direction the putter face is aimed relative to the target line.) This seems to me way too obvious to point out and as such creates an overemphasis (innocent as I believe it is) on face angle at the precise instant of impact without pointing out that the putter should also arrive at the desired angle so as not to strike the ball with a glancing blow. Now I know conventional wisdom does not advocate golfers hook or slice their putts, but words mean things, and so to talk about face angle at “impact” to my mind, takes golfers attention away from the real issue, which is, how (at what angle) the putter head arrives.
It is my contention that not only should putter faces impact the ball at 90 degrees in relation to the intended target line, but that the putter head also must arrive relatively squarely. To arrive at an angle other than 90 degrees will impart side spin onto the ball and create inconsistent energy transfer, and by extension, inconsistent controllability of putt length.
3. Feel
Another endlessly repeated “putting essential” of my old friend conventional wisdom, is the perplexing insistence of a light grip pressure while putting. Now given the fact that off center struck putts only go a fraction of the distance of sweet spot struck putts, I can see why my old friend insists on golfers striking each and every putt on the sweet spot, a tall order indeed! Mr. Conventional will tell you that a light grip on the putter is preferred so that the weight of the putter head can be felt? Why do we want to feel anything? I’m not trying to be facetious; I’m simply pointing out how much of conventional wisdom assumes without feeling obligated to explain why. Mr. Conventional will usually go on to tell you whatever grip pressure you choose to use, must remain constant throughout the putting stroke.
This is another untested/undefined assertion. In the old days when most folks writs putted, there must have been wild fluctuations in grip pressure as a simple by product of the technique itself (generating the forces necessary to propel the putter head through the ball). You don’t have to be a physicist to realize that the lighter the grip, the shorter the putt will travel should you be unlucky enough to strike the putt off center (out of the sweet spot). The Torpedo Putter largely renders any discussion of grip pressure mute. This is due to the mass of the Torpedo overcoming the pernicious effects of grip pressure fluctuations. In fact, Mr. Conventional will tell you that a lighter grip will hit the ball the shortest distance, he will even tell you to hit a slick downhill putt off the toe to take some of the energy out of the putt. No such luck with the Torpedo. The Torpedo is the great equalizer. In fact, there is some pretty strong evidence piling up in favor of the view that “yip” putting really is nothing more than a last minute fluctuation (increase) in grip pressure pre-impact. This last minute squeezing or strangulation of the grip on a Torpedo putt does not have the pernicious effects it clearly has with conventional putters (the ball goes roughly the same distance with light and firm grips alike).
4. Posture
There is also endless debate about posture/alignment and related stroke paths that each posture/alignment style tend to promote. I do not believe that advocating one address over another is productive unless one has a clearly defined, rational preference. I personally take an applied, functional approach to the stance. Simply put, I tell golfers that a stance, posture and grip most likely to guarantee the putter face arriving at impact 90 degrees in relation to the target line is best. In practical terms this translates into an open stance, as open stances promote the shoulders swinging down the target line, especially on longer putts requiring longer strokes.
If you don’t believe me, try this simple experiment. Place a golf ball in your right hand and hit a putt one handed (left hand). During the stroke allow your right hand to swing back (parallel to the shaft), then right at impact, release the ball from your right hand (as if you were lawn bowling). The released ball should travel in the same general direction just behind struck putt. Now repeat the experiment with a square stance; if you replicate it faithfully, again releasing the ball from your right hand right at impact; this should result in the balls crossing paths (for right handed golfers the bowled ball will go left of the intended target line). This simple test shows how a square stance promotes too much horizontal shoulder rotation. Thus, putting posture, in my view, should mimic a bowling motion insofar as the shoulders should work in consort (parallel) down the target line as much as possible.
5. Tempo
One of the more ridiculous tips I hear repeatedly is the use of metronomes to entrain the stroke. Metronomes are designed to keep even time (a metronome is really just an adjustable clock). The notion that a putting stroke should follow the laws of oscillating pendulums if beyond preposterous. Why on earth would/should a golfer be expected to lift a putter (push it back) at the same speed it falls, especially from a dead stop! Pendulums obey very predictable laws because they are levers driven by the constant acceleration of gravity rotating about a fixed axis. Contrast this with the human body (biomechanically worlds away from a grandfather clock) starting a putting stroke from a dead stop! Everyone knows that the full golf swing, regardless of how quick or slow the tempo, takes much more time on the backswing as the downswing. Imagine a backswing having the same velocity and the downswing. Not only is it physically impossible, it doesn’t have the benefit of gravity for acceleration let alone coiled muscles!
© Timothy Winey
A Small Introduction to Critical Thinking for Graduate Students (PDF)
Scientific Teaching - Using Research and Reason in Education (PDF)
Folklore, Scientific Research, and Educational Practice (PDF)
