Putting Question: "Pro-side" vs. Amateur Side

[JustPlainWill]

At the end of the day (or maybe at the end of the round) this argument doesn't matter, but I am trying to learn how to play, manage, and strategize the game in the "right" way. Please help me to understand the difference between a good putt and a bad putt depending upon its position either in front or in back of the cup.

Specifically, I have been working real hard of late on my short game and especially my putting. The "work" is beginning to reap dividends and the goal of breaking 90 by the end of the season seems not unrealistic. (I think anyway). However as I read and practice, I find myself reading articles and books by Dave Pelz and some other short game gurus. Obviously they know a lot more than I do. One of Pelz's theories is that in putting that you should aim to miss putts about 17" or less past the hole. The guru's state that the remaining (2nd) putts are more or less "gimme's" and that when you miss you want to miss on the pro side of the cup (i.e. 17" or so zone past the cup) rather than miss on the amateur side of the cup---i.e. somewhere in front of the cup.

I understand that if you miss in the front your putt has NO chance of falling in the cup. However, it seems to me that a putt that lands say 17" to 24" in front of the cup is still a good putt and maybe more "makeable" than one that lands in Pelz's "pro" zone especially of the remaining putt is uphill. I have found that when I miss putts that land in Pelz's pro-zone that about 75% of the time, I am left with a downhill putt---less makeable for me anyway than an uphill putt.

So until you guys and gals convince me with your replies that I am wrong, I contend that a putt missed in front of the cup but within 24" is still a good putt. I know that I am a relative golf rookie, but am I so wrong about this????

[PA PLAYA]

In the end, a missed putt is a missed putt.

But a couple of things to consider:

(1) Putts that are short of the hole never go in.
(2) Putts that run 2 feet past the hole (a)at least had one of the two elements needed to make the putt -- enough pace and (b)offer you a read on the break for the second putt as the first putt rolls past the hole.

On breaking putts, the most significant part of the break to be considered is near the cup, because that's usually when the ball is traveling slowest and reacts most actively to the break. Obviously there are some putts where a majority of the break happens early, but I always start my read from the cup back to the ball for this very reason.

I also understand you point of view. I'd much rather have a putt fall one foot short of the hole than a putt that blew by the hole 5 feet.

When Pelz offered his opinion on the matter, I think he did so with the understanding that the golfer has the means to leave his approach putt to within makeable range for the second putt should the approach putt miss. Keep in mind that the people he typically works with are guys who have obviously incredible touch on the greens. His advice might not be well suited for everyone.

[Bigvivec]

I'll tell you one thing...

Putts missed on the pro side (high side) are generally due to too much speed...I will still shoot high (never up never in) but am mindful of the potential for a big comebacker...

[Darth Fader]

I always aim to miss on the high side,a underhit putt is never going to go in,also if the ball passes the hole watch the line of it for the return putt.

[straightshooter]

Originally Posted by JustPlainWill

So until you guys and gals convince me with your replies that I am wrong, I contend that a putt missed in front of the cup but within 24" is still a good putt. I know that I am a relative golf rookie, but am I so wrong about this????

I don't have much to add, except that you might be overly concerned with the quality of a previous putt, or the ease of a future putt. I have been putting well recently, focusing on the current putt only. I don't need too many thoughts cluttering my attempts.

[Bulls9999]

One thing I've done to help with putting speed, or maintain consistency in speed, is try to hit the ball without lofting the putter face, moving my hands forward with the putter face, not breaking the wrists. I starting tinkering with this after seeing some videos with high speed cameras positioned to the side of a putter striking a ball, and it was amazing how when hit with a putter either with loft, or in a manner that it is generating loft (with breaking wrists, hitting the ball on the way up from the bottom of a pendulum swing), a golf ball can litterally be propelled forward without even touching the ground and the difference is with a delofted putter stroke in which you don't impart loft to the ball, the ball starts 'rolling' from the start as opposed to skipping over the surface....the difference between the two is a more consistent speed/distance with the latter. I've done about 3-4 things that I feel impact my putting, but this is one of them....it works for me .

Originally Posted by straightshooter

I don't have much to add, except that you might be overly concerned with the quality of a previous putt, or the ease of a future putt. I have been putting well recently, focusing on the current putt only. I don't need too many thoughts cluttering my attempts.

[JimSomebody]

I'm a little confused by the terms in this thread. In my lingo, a putt that misses on the "pro side" is one that goes past the hole on the high side of the break, and a putt that misses on the "amateur side" is one that goes by the hole on the low side of the break. Putts that don't get to the hole are simply short.

Like you, Will, I'd prefer a 2-foot uphill putt to a 2-foot downhill putt. But on the greens I play, it's only occasionally the case that the tilt of the green is so severe that if I go 2 feet past the hole, I'll be left with a scary downhiller for my next putt. What's more commonly the case for me is that I'll leave the first putt short. So I've been trying to get the ball to the hole. (Aiming for the back of the cup, not the front lip of the cup, sometimes helps me.) If it misses and goes long by 18", for me that was a good effort. Whether it misses on the pro side or the amateur side (as I use the terms) is academic; a miss is a miss. However, if after a few holes, I see that I've been missing consistently on one side (assuming I rolled the ball on my intended line), that tells me something about the reads I've been making that day, and I can adjust.

Good luck, Will! I'm confident you'll break 90 this year. Be sure to tell us when you do!

[PA PLAYA]

However, if after a few holes, I see that I've been missing consistently on one side (assuming I rolled the ball on my intended line), that tells me something about the reads I've been making that day, and I can adjust.

Simple and effective strategy.

I've never really cared to make a science out of putting, and I think that the less complicated our thoughts are, the easier it becomes to adjust.

Good advice!

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by JustPlainWill

At the end of the day (or maybe at the end of the round) this argument doesn't matter, but I am trying to learn how to play, manage, and strategize the game in the "right" way. Please help me to understand the difference between a good putt and a bad putt.

I understand that if you miss in the front your putt has NO chance of falling in the cup.

First off, let me say that I think Pelz is the perfect golf academic - if you can't do, teach. His theories to me are worth a hill of beans.

A putt that misses short doesn't go in, but neither does a putt that misses long. Some guys like to be aggressive and ram the ball at the hole, other guys like to die it in the hole. If you take the latter approach, you'll come up short more often; if you take the former, you'll oftentimes wind up with a lot more than Big Dave's coveted 17 inches coming back.

Do yourself a favor and read Bob Rotella's "Golf is Not a Game of Perfect," and use Pelz' "Putting Bible" to balance out any really unlevel furniture you may have.

[JustPlainWill]

First of all, THANKS guys for ALL of the words of wisdom and advice. Collectively, the members of this site have more practical golf knowledge than any of the golf gurus, IMHO. But I digress...

I am not criticizing Pelz but I think that mr3856a is correct. I have purchased two of Pelz's books and they are exhaustive in their approach to both putting and the short game. He really does take an academic appraoch to everything, but after having spent 15 years at NASA as a scientist in the Gemini-Appollo era, what elese would we expect. Seems like over the past three years, I have purchased every golf book on the market. (Yeah, its a bit obsessive, I guess...but I really like the game and am trying to be the best that I can be-----and besides I am really focused on breaking 90 by season's end.) Anyway, of the two dominant theories on putting Pelx vs. Utley (straight back stroke vs. arc stroke), I tend to agree more with Stan Utley. No real prejudice against Pelz, its just that Utley has actually played on the Tour and won a few tournaments ---unlike Pelz. And besides, Utley's book is a lot shorter!


At this stage of my game development (3 years), I tend to aim so that the golf ball will end up in center of the green on my approach shots and oftentimes, depending upon the size of the green, I have a long lag putt, say 20 to 25 feet. As such, I tend to putt in such away that the ball "dies" in the cup. (I also tend to make one or two "backdoor" putts each round in which the ball kind of falls backwards in the cup from just in the back on a uphill putt.) Anyway, I think that for now, I am just going to try to learn how to read greens better and to just get the close as possible on the downhill side of the cup and to maybe try to get the ball a little closer to the hole on my approach shot.

Thanks again, ALL for the advice.

---Will

[OnePutt]

As has been stated here before. a putt that comes up short has NO chance of going in. So it would be foolish to try to hit the ball JUST to the hole, as we all know that on average you will come up short half of the time. This is why Pelz says to try to hit the ball 17" past the hole. This way on average, your ball will at least get to the hole and have a chance of falling in. With his method, a short putt should just reach the hole, and a long putt will still be inside 3 feet at most. And unless you're that good with your approach shots that you always leave yourself an uphill putt, your second putt could be either an uphill putt or a downhill putt if you go past the cup. Or it could be neither. If your first putt is a downhill putt and you leave it short, you now have another downhill putt, NOT good. In this case, it might be much better to hit the first putt a little long, and have an uphill second putt. I've never been one to worry too much about a 2 foot downhill putt, not any worse than a 2 foot uphill putt in my book.

[bignose]

While I think that Pelz does have a fair amount of good information, the 17" inch rule is just silly. Pelz himself actually knew that at first -- one of his very first articles back in the '70s talks about how the optimal distance past the hole varies from 6" to 24", depending on the current conditions. I.e. how fast the green is, the slope the hole is cut on, etc.

You can't actually talk about distance beyond the hole, you have to talk about the speed at which the ball arrives at the hole. Specifically, you want the speed to be such that gravity has enough time to pull more than half the ball below the lip of the hole before the ball hits the back wall.

And, there are a lot of factors to consider -- the slower the ball's velocity, the wider the effective width of the cup is. I.e. if the ball is tracking at the very dead center of the cup, it can be rolling as fast a 8 revolutions per second (rps). But it has to be dead center, because at that speed, the ball needs the entire 4 1/4 inches of the cup for gravity to pull at least half the ball below the lip before it hits the back of the cup. In this case, the effective width of the cup is about the width of one dimple of the ball -- because if the ball is to the right or left of center by more than one dimple width there is practically no chance the ball will fall in the cup.

If the ball is moving slower, 7 rps, the effective width is greater, about one quarter inch to either side of the center line. 6 rps = a target one inch wide. 5 rps = a target 1.5 inches wide. 4 rps = a target 2 inches wide. 3 rps = a target 2.5 inches wide. 2 rps = a target 3 inches wide. 1 rps = a target 3.5 inches wide. And, of course, the limit of 0+ (a teeny tiny bit more than 0) the target is the full 4.25 inches wide.

There are three competing considerations: 1) the need to reach the hole, 2) the need to preserve a wide target and 3) the need to minimize the comeback length

The first consideration obviously likes higher speeds, and the last 2 obviously like slower speeds. 2 to 3 ball revolutions per second seem to be about the best compromise between all the considerations.

And at a speed of 2 to 3 ball revolutions per second at the hole, how far the ball rolls past the hole is completely and totally a function of that day's green speed and conditions. There is no one-size-fits-all distance past the cup that is perfect.

It is a catchy number, and it is easier to know that ball went 17 inches past the hole than it passed the hole going 2 1/2 revolutions per second, but nevertheless, it isn't right in every single case.

p.s. to give credit where credit is due, most of that analysis is in Geoff Mangum's book Optimal Putting -- which I highly recommend.

[Bulls9999]

I swear there's a series of videos with links stored on Youtube from a guy, some putting guru (self-proclaimed perhaps?) that goes over various facets of putting...it was a poor quality video as you could hear the wind blowing in the microphone....but he was talking and demonstrating exactly that... that a fast rolling ball with roll over the edge of the hole or slightly slower, lip out, whereas a slower ball will fall into the hole. It really demonstrated what you're talking about. It felt good reinforcement to me because I'm a lag putter and my ball is going slow around the hole.

Originally Posted by bignose

While I think that Pelz does have a fair amount of good information, the 17" inch rule is just silly. Pelz himself actually knew that at first -- one of his very first articles back in the '70s talks about how the optimal distance past the hole varies from 6" to 24", depending on the current conditions. I.e. how fast the green is, the slope the hole is cut on, etc.

You can't actually talk about distance beyond the hole, you have to talk about the speed at which the ball arrives at the hole. Specifically, you want the speed to be such that gravity has enough time to pull more than half the ball below the lip of the hole before the ball hits the back wall.

And, there are a lot of factors to consider -- the slower the ball's velocity, the wider the effective width of the cup is. I.e. if the ball is tracking at the very dead center of the cup, it can be rolling as fast a 8 revolutions per second (rps). But it has to be dead center, because at that speed, the ball needs the entire 4 1/4 inches of the cup for gravity to pull at least half the ball below the lip before it hits the back of the cup. In this case, the effective width of the cup is about the width of one dimple of the ball -- because if the ball is to the right or left of center by more than one dimple width there is practically no chance the ball will fall in the cup.

If the ball is moving slower, 7 rps, the effective width is greater, about one quarter inch to either side of the center line. 6 rps = a target one inch wide. 5 rps = a target 1.5 inches wide. 4 rps = a target 2 inches wide. 3 rps = a target 2.5 inches wide. 2 rps = a target 3 inches wide. 1 rps = a target 3.5 inches wide. And, of course, the limit of 0+ (a teeny tiny bit more than 0) the target is the full 4.25 inches wide.

There are three competing considerations: 1) the need to reach the hole, 2) the need to preserve a wide target and 3) the need to minimize the comeback length

The first consideration obviously likes higher speeds, and the last 2 obviously like slower speeds. 2 to 3 ball revolutions per second seem to be about the best compromise between all the considerations.

And at a speed of 2 to 3 ball revolutions per second at the hole, how far the ball rolls past the hole is completely and totally a function of that day's green speed and conditions. There is no one-size-fits-all distance past the cup that is perfect.

It is a catchy number, and it is easier to know that ball went 17 inches past the hole than it passed the hole going 2 1/2 revolutions per second, but nevertheless, it isn't right in every single case.

p.s. to give credit where credit is due, most of that analysis is in Geoff Mangum's book Optimal Putting -- which I highly recommend.

[bignose]

Bulls, that's probably Geoff Mangum. He runs the Putting Zone webpage.

He does look like a crazy ol' kook, but the man knows his putting. I have never putted as well as I have since reading his book -- and I've only had time to really read half of it. It goes into a lot more stuff than the average person is probably looking for -- including discussions on how the brain interprets the visual inputs it gets about the the ground from eyes, and how the brain interprets the feel in the muscles. If you want to skip all that, you can go right to what Geoff considers the Optimal stroke, but I personally like to know why he considers it the best, so I read all the neurological stuff at the beginning of the book. That's probably why I haven't finished the book yet!

But, I can still say, having only read half of it to date, it is without the only putting book of it's kind on the market today. Pelz likes the bombard you with lots of charts and graphs, and his idea basically comes down to "now practice this putting stroke 100,000 until you get it". Lots of other putting books are the author telling you about their personal method -- which they of course think is best -- but they rarely talk about why it is the best, and even more rarely intelligently why.

That's where Mangum's book is different. He tells you why he thinks his method is the best, and can actually cite a bunch of science to back up his claims. He also isn't anywhere nearly as regimental as someone like Pelz is. Mangum wants us all to rely on our instincts, which if you have lived on Earth for more than 6 months, you have. We all have because he all know how gravity works, at least on an intuitive level.