Tiger's Putting -- Arc or straight through? Options

[mgranato]

Redman, I'm going to jump in and see if I can help. No offense to the very knowledgeable people who are contributing, but I think that that a few people are unnecessarily complicating the concepts.

First, we all understand that the putter swings away from the ball horizontally and vertically. That is, as you take the putter away you swing it both back and up. So yes, there is both a vertical arc (the one you would see watching someone putt face on) and a horizontal arc (the one you would see standing looking down at the putterhead as you make your stroke--assuming you're not utilizing a SBST stroke).

I think the unnecessary confusion comes from some people trying to categorize the Utley "arced" putting stroke as a type of SBST stroke because some part of the putter shaft remains on a line parallel to (but inside) the target line at all times in the stroke.

I think most golfers and instructors define SBST and "arced" strokes by looking solely at what the putterhead does in the stroke. If it stays on the target line throughout the entire stroke, you've got a SBST stroke. If the putterhead moves inside the target line on both the backstroke and the throughstroke, you've got an arced stroke.

I think this is the simpler, and more commonly accepted, way to define the two strokes.

Now, to get this discussion back on topic, I'll repeat what I've said before, which is that Tiger is somewhere between the Utley "arced" stroke and SBST. He tends to take it back slightly to the inside on the backstroke, and then less so on the throughstroke. That is, to my eyes, the arc he creates on his backstroke, and the arc he creates on the throughstroke (which is hardly an arc at all), don't match up.

Patrick, I understand what you're saying, however, I think it's important to be as precise as possible when clarifying definitions. Not to make things more complicated, but to make them more clear. The common starting point when discussing putting is usually "are you a Pelz or Utley guy?". While this frames the conversation in a less complicated package, it is a gross over simplification of the varying strokes used by a large portion of golfers. I believe it is also the root of a lot of confusion, especially when you see enough Puttlab reports that let you know the vast majority of strokes look like neither extreme sides of the spectrum. You will almost never see a putter go back on the same path it comes down on, go through impact with a 0* face angle, and then go through on a mirror image of the backswing. That describes the "common" arc stroke, or not-a-Pelz stroke. Nor will you find very many putters that go back on a laser straight line, come down and through in a straight line, and have a 0* face angle the hole way. That's the "common" SBST stroke, or the not-an-Utley stroke.

Given the fact that putts are still being made, and that there are good putters that don't putt like either instructor recommends, you have to open the discussion to include more than just a Pelz or Utley group. At least 5 separate, common strokes come to mind (arcing, SBST vertical, SBST tilted, Inside-down-the-line, and an asymmetrical gravity stroke), and they all require a different set of motions/fundamentals to make them work. It dulls the discussion a bit to place the entire putting discussion, with all the different requirements/fundamentals, into just two categories. It also gives those two guys way too much credit.

[mgranato]

Do you have an opinion about which is more reliable in first making solid contact, and then getting the face square at impact?

Not really. If you have a putter that travels straight down the line for 3"-6" during the impact interval you will have a more forgiving stroke. I guess you could make a case that that might be more reliable over time. However, I don't feel that any stroke is intrinsically natural, reliable, or repeating. They're all learn motions which makes the stroke reliable on us.

Solid contact and a square face boils down to how well we perform the movement we're trying to make, and how well we setup for those movements. Again, that's all on us. I think the strokes that feature some elbow movement or wrist movement are more complicated to learn, but once learned, they all should have solid and "square" contact.

[PivotDriven]

What's an asymmetrical gravity stroke? Since its the first time I've heard of one, then it must be rare and I have to have one.

[mgranato]

Is there any way you could possibly draw a diagram showing all these planes you are talking about? I am kind of getting my mine around what you are talking about, but all these different planes being spoke of is kind of confusing me. Thanks a lot! Really good information and a really good thread!!

Better than diagrams...

Vertical plane - grab a plumb bob or some string with a small weight on the end. Hold the bob so it hangs down from the butt end of the grip. Take your address posture so that the bob hangs down directly over a straight line on the floor (grout line, hardwood seem, etc). Move the stroke back and forth so the bob traces the straight line on the floor. Move slowly to get a sense of the muscle movements required.

Tilted plane - grab a headless shaft, stick, cane, or turn the putter upside down. Take your address next to a wall so you can point the shaft along it's base. Now move the shaft back and forth while keeping it pointed at the base. Same thing, take not of how you need to move to accomplish this.

Arc - keep the same headless shaft. This time, instead of tracing the base of the wall, trace a curve along the floor with the end of the shaft. Notice how this set of movements differs from the others.

[mgranato]

What's an asymmetrical gravity stroke? Since its the first time I've heard of one, then it must be rare and I have to have one.

Ha, it's "tour only"

[wmblake2000]

Not really. If you have a putter that travels straight down the line for 3"-6" during the impact interval you will have a more forgiving stroke. I guess you could make a case that that might be more reliable over time. However, I don't feel that any stroke is intrinsically natural, reliable, or repeating. They're all learn motions which makes the stroke reliable on us.

Solid contact and a square face boils down to how well we perform the movement we're trying to make, and how well we setup for those movements. Again, that's all on us. I think the strokes that feature some elbow movement or wrist movement are more complicated to learn, but once learned, they all should have solid and "square" contact.

Thanks. I guess I am moving in the right direction - I have been thinking that the most critical improvement I can make is to get my setup really sound so I have complete confidence in it. Thanks for your input on all of this.

Oh, one more question. Is the main difference in setup between the 3 motions about the distance from the ball? Did I read you right that there are different setups for these different moves?

This post has been edited by wmblake2000: Nov 5 2009, 12:13 AM

[KDMullins]

Well, I think it is a subtle difference, and the closer you stand to the ball, the arc will necessarily be less pronounced. I don't know this because I've always had an arc stroke and prefer flatter than standard lie angles, but I imagine SBST guys do stand closer and need more upright putters. Also, the shorter the putt, the less pronounced the arc.

That said, I believe in a SBST stroke, the shaft would come away from the PVC pipe on the backswing. There's no other way to keep the putter head on the ball line, right?

I think it’s important to note that all strokes move on an arc. The arc can be vertical, tilted, or more horizontal. SBST can be either vertical or tilted, because the putter head traces the target line straight back and straight through. Only the tilted version is concerned with moving the club on an angle that resembles the shaft angle. The PVC in the pictures constitute a tilted plane stroke trainer. If someone is interested in having a vertical plane stroke (what most consider the only form of SBST), you would not want to train on the same device. You want to have the shoulders move up and down in a vertical plane so the putterhead will move up and down in a vertical plane. The shaft angle doesn’t matter because the goal is not to move the putterhead on a tilted plane. Either way, the putter is still moving on an arc.

So many words, and yet I have no idea what you're talking about. Just kidding. I actually hear what you're saying, but I've never heard of two forms of SBST. How would you differentiate between a tilted plane SBST stroke and an arc stroke?

What I've bolded above makes no sense to me. Are you talking about arc or plane?

[mgranato]

Oh, one more question. Is the main difference in setup between the 3 motions about the distance from the ball? Did I read you right that there are different setups for these different moves?

Distance from the ball should be determined by a comfortably neutral posture, whether or not you like you eyes over the ball or just inside, and a correctly fit putter. Either stroke should be able to be made from the same distance away. However, it's important to note that the flatter the angle of a tilted plane stroke, the putter will be on the target line for a shorter amount of time. It seems the trend lately is to use putters with flatter lie angles. I think Mangum has the best way of determining what the lie angle of you putter should be.

Everyone's arm has a bend at the elbow when hanging relaxed in gravity. The upper arm from shoulder to elbow hangs plumb, but the forearm hangs at an angle. The hand hangs fairly plumb from the forearm angle. So you have plumb, angle, plumb - he calls it zig, zag, zig. The putter lie angle should match the angle of the forearm to the from the upper arm. Using myself as an example, my forearm to upper arm angle is 162*, or 18* out of plumb. That translates to a 72* lie angle (90* minus the 18*). Since gravity is the only "natural" element of putting, having a putter fit to those natural angles is far better than a one-size-fits-all lie angle - regardless of the stoke shape.

[patrickw25]

It dulls the discussion a bit to place the entire putting discussion, with all the different requirements/fundamentals, into just two categories. It also gives those two guys way too much credit.

I understand that there are more than two types of strokes. My point was that in the context of this discussion (i.e., answering the OP's question, is Tiger's stroke arced or SBST), I think we were overcomplicating things.

But that aside, since the discussion has taken us into some very in-depth analysis of putting theory, let's at least try to answer the OP's question within that framework. You've identified five types of strokes, which do you believe Tiger falls into?

My understanding of these five types of strokes pales in comparison to yours, but based on how I think you're defining the strokes, I would categorize Tiger as (and again, my opinions are all based on visual observations, I don't have the benefit of any SAM type technology) inside-down the line.

[wmblake2000]

Oh, one more question. Is the main difference in setup between the 3 motions about the distance from the ball? Did I read you right that there are different setups for these different moves?

Distance from the ball should be determined by a comfortably neutral posture, whether or not you like you eyes over the ball or just inside, and a correctly fit putter. Either stroke should be able to be made from the same distance away. However, it's important to note that the flatter the angle of a tilted plane stroke, the putter will be on the target line for a shorter amount of time. It seems the trend lately is to use putters with flatter lie angles. I think Mangum has the best way of determining what the lie angle of you putter should be.

Everyone's arm has a bend at the elbow when hanging relaxed in gravity. The upper arm from shoulder to elbow hangs plumb, but the forearm hangs at an angle. The hand hangs fairly plumb from the forearm angle. So you have plumb, angle, plumb - he calls it zig, zag, zig. The putter lie angle should match the angle of the forearm to the from the upper arm. Using myself as an example, my forearm to upper arm angle is 162*, or 18* out of plumb. That translates to a 72* lie angle (90* minus the 18*). Since gravity is the only "natural" element of putting, having a putter fit to those natural angles is far better than a one-size-fits-all lie angle - regardless of the stoke shape.

Got it. Thanks.

[bargolf]

Oh, one more question. Is the main difference in setup between the 3 motions about the distance from the ball? Did I read you right that there are different setups for these different moves?

Distance from the ball should be determined by a comfortably neutral posture, whether or not you like you eyes over the ball or just inside, and a correctly fit putter. Either stroke should be able to be made from the same distance away. However, it's important to note that the flatter the angle of a tilted plane stroke, the putter will be on the target line for a shorter amount of time. It seems the trend lately is to use putters with flatter lie angles. I think Mangum has the best way of determining what the lie angle of you putter should be.

Everyone's arm has a bend at the elbow when hanging relaxed in gravity. The upper arm from shoulder to elbow hangs plumb, but the forearm hangs at an angle. The hand hangs fairly plumb from the forearm angle. So you have plumb, angle, plumb - he calls it zig, zag, zig. The putter lie angle should match the angle of the forearm to the from the upper arm. Using myself as an example, my forearm to upper arm angle is 162*, or 18* out of plumb. That translates to a 72* lie angle (90* minus the 18*). Since gravity is the only "natural" element of putting, having a putter fit to those natural angles is far better than a one-size-fits-all lie angle - regardless of the stoke shape.

You can manipulate the stroke for any path from the same distance away. But in order for the body mechanics to be correct if you are looking for a straighter path it will happen naturally from a closer ball position. In our pictures the set up used was forced by the arc aid. If the player was closer and the arc was taken away the putter path would have been straighter, farther away would porduce a more exagerrated arc or curved path. Yet the putter shaft still moves SBST or on plane. Without the ability to stay on plane consistent, impact is timing/hand manipulation dependant. Puttalb clearly shows the best putters stay on plane!

PS tiger does not fit the Mangnum model so I would argue whether that is the best way for him.

This post has been edited by bargolf: Nov 5 2009, 10:33 AM

[mgranato]

It dulls the discussion a bit to place the entire putting discussion, with all the different requirements/fundamentals, into just two categories. It also gives those two guys way too much credit.

I understand that there are more than two types of strokes. My point was that in the context of this discussion (i.e., answering the OP's question, is Tiger's stroke arced or SBST), I think we were overcomplicating things.

But that aside, since the discussion has taken us into some very in-depth analysis of putting theory, let's at least try to answer the OP's question within that framework. You've identified five types of strokes, which do you believe Tiger falls into?

My understanding of these five types of strokes pales in comparison to yours, but based on how I think you're defining the strokes, I would categorize Tiger as (and again, my opinions are all based on visual observations, I don't have the benefit of any SAM type technology) inside-down the line.

Bargolf noted that Tiger's stroke with the high amount of rotation puts him in a category of it's own. That said, I agree with you. As of late, he sure "looks" more IDTL.

[mgranato]

You can manipulate the stroke for any path from the same distance away. But in order for the body mechanics to be correct if you are looking for a straighter path it will happen naturally from a closer ball position. In our pictures the set up used was forced by the arc aid. If the player was closer and the arc was taken away the putter path would have been straighter, farther away would porduce a more exagerrated arc or curved path. Yet the putter shaft still moves SBST or on plane. Without the ability to stay on plane consistent, impact is timing/hand manipulation dependant. Puttalb clearly shows the best putters stay on plane!

PS tiger does not fit the Mangnum model so I would argue whether that is the best way for him.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think you are speaking more in terms of “degrees of”. My comments were from the point of can you comfortably make a non-manipulative variety of strokes from a neutral distance from the ball. I vote yes. Now, as you pointed out, from a closer distance (say a lie angle of 72*), the strokes will tend to have more subtle curves than they would from a flatter lie and farther distance stance.

You also made another comment worth noting, “In our pictures the set up used was forced by the arc aid.” IMO, these one-sized-fits-all arc aids should not be forcing the golfer’s setup. That’s ken to the tail wagging the dog. If you’re after a tilted plane stroke, staying on plane is big, but I think the plane angle should be customized to the player – not the player to the angle. Manzella’s “The Sheriff” would be a good example of a tilted plane trainer that it fully adjustable for different plane angles.

No argument from me concerning Tiger fitting to another model. Mentioning Mangum’s lie angle deal was to offer an alternative of customization to the “standard”.

[wmblake2000]

You can manipulate the stroke for any path from the same distance away. But in order for the body mechanics to be correct if you are looking for a straighter path it will happen naturally from a closer ball position. In our pictures the set up used was forced by the arc aid. If the player was closer and the arc was taken away the putter path would have been straighter, farther away would porduce a more exagerrated arc or curved path. Yet the putter shaft still moves SBST or on plane. Without the ability to stay on plane consistent, impact is timing/hand manipulation dependant. Puttalb clearly shows the best putters stay on plane!

How is this "plane" defined - the head staying on the original shaft plane, always pointing to the ball-target line? Oh wait, you defined this - the shaft moves SBST... How best to practice this?

[mgranato]

So many words, and yet I have no idea what you're talking about. Just kidding. I actually hear what you're saying, but I've never heard of two forms of SBST. How would you differentiate between a tilted plane SBST stroke and an arc stroke?

What I've bolded above makes no sense to me. Are you talking about arc or plane?

My wife says that ALL the time!

Tilted - you only move the putter in a straight line. If a laser pointed straight out of the bottom of the shaft (on the same angle as the shaft), the laser would always stay pointing at the putt/target line. Or parallel to the putt/target line if the shaft doesn't point through the sweet spot. It still moves in a dead straight line.

Arc - with the same putter/laser rig, the laser would trace a curve on the ground inside of the putt/target line. The laser would only touch the putt/target line at the very apex of it's curve at or behind the ball. The farther you stand away from the ball, the more pronounced the curve will be.

As far as every stroke having an arc, think in terms of smiles as the shape the putterhead makes as it swings back and forth. The vertical stroke would produce a smile shape that is 90* to the ground directly above the target line. The tiltled stroke would produce a smile that angles towards the golfer. An arc would produce a smile that is nearly flat on the ground.

[bargolf]

In the picture I posted. If you take the head off the putter and place a laser pointer in the shaft.

The dot does NOT follow the arc. It moves on a straight line.

It is extemely difficult to describe a three dimensional motion in two dimensions. My reason for posting is that too many players do not understand how the body makes the putter arc.

[bargolf]

We used the arc as a reference to the putter movement. Not as a promotion for the arc.

Using the shape of the path to build a stroke is reverse engineering. From an instruction or improvement point of view you are much better off using your best set up and living with the resulting path. Much simpler.

This post has been edited by bargolf: Nov 5 2009, 01:50 PM

[patrickw25]

It is extemely difficult to describe a three dimensional motion in two dimensions.

That may be the best thing anyone's said yet. Very true.

[wmblake2000]

In the picture I posted. If you take the head off the putter and place a laser pointer in the shaft.

The dot does NOT follow the arc. It moves on a straight line.

It is extemely difficult to describe a three dimensional motion in two dimensions. My reason for posting is that too many players do not understand how the body makes the putter arc.

Now I am confused. It's not important because...

Using the shape of the path to build a stroke is reverse engineering. From an instruction or improvement point of view you are much better off using your best set up and living with the resulting path. Much simpler.

This is the core of what I had been concluding before this thread started....

[patrickw25]

In the picture I posted. If you take the head off the putter and place a laser pointer in the shaft.

The dot does NOT follow the arc. It moves on a straight line.

It is extemely difficult to describe a three dimensional motion in two dimensions. My reason for posting is that too many players do not understand how the body makes the putter arc.

Now I am confused. It's not important because...

I'm going to try to help. If only I had a way to illustrate in pictures, this would be a snap.

Ok, so imagine you're standing over a putt looking down at your ball. You would agree that the grip is closer to your body than the putterhead, right? That's just the nature of the approx. 71 degree angle that the putter is on. This is an important concept: as you move up the puttershaft from the ground to your hands, you move increasingly inside the target line.

At this point, the distance from your hands to the ground, following a line down the puttershaft, is approx. 35".

Now, if you were to make an "on plane" putting stroke (or one that was made utilizing Utley's Learning Curve or the pvc pipe device pictured earlier in this thread) at the top of your backstroke, the putterhead is now, say, 6" off the ground. So at this point, the distance from your hands to the ground, following a line down the puttershaft, is approx. 41". So the putterhead is now inside the target line, because it has moved away from the ground and up the 71 degree angled line created by the puttershaft.

BUT (and here is what the laser beam would illustrate) if at that point you could magically extend the length of your putter so that the putterhead touched the ground, it would touch the ground exactly on the target line.

So the point is that the "arc" to the inside created by an on-plane stroke is one that occurs as a function of the angle created by the puttershaft, and not by any manipulation of the hands to the inside of the target line.

Did that make sense? Or did I just confuse things more?

This post has been edited by patrickw25: Nov 5 2009, 10:54 PM

[wmblake2000]

In the picture I posted. If you take the head off the putter and place a laser pointer in the shaft.

The dot does NOT follow the arc. It moves on a straight line.

It is extemely difficult to describe a three dimensional motion in two dimensions. My reason for posting is that too many players do not understand how the body makes the putter arc.

Now I am confused. It's not important because...

I'm going to try to help. If only I had a way to illustrate in pictures, this would be a snap.

Ok, so imagine you're standing over a putt looking down at your ball. You would agree that the grip is closer to your body than the putterhead, right? That's just the nature of the approx. 71 degree angle that the putter is on. This is an important concept: as you move up the puttershaft from the ground to your hands, you move increasingly inside the target line.

At this point, the distance from your hands to the ground, following a line down the puttershaft, is approx. 35".

Now, if you were to make an "on plane" putting stroke (or one that was made utilizing Utley's Learning Curve or the pvc pipe device pictured earlier in this thread) at the top of your backstroke, the putterhead is now, say, 6" off the ground. So at this point, the distance from your hands to the ground, following a line down the puttershaft, is approx. 41". So the putterhead is now inside the target line, because it has moved away from the ground and up the 71 degree angled line created by the puttershaft.

BUT (and here is what the laser beam would illustrate) if at that point you could magically extend the length of your putter so that the putterhead touched the ground, it would touch the ground exactly on the target line.

So the point is that the "arc" to the inside created by an on-plane stroke is one that occurs as a function of the angle created by the puttershaft, and not by any manipulation of the hands to the inside of the target line. The hands actually move SBST.

Did that make sense? Or did I just confuse things more?

First of all, this conversation is very fun to me, and thanks for it!

Here's the analogy I draw - I do strive to do the same thing with a full swing - the head of course arcs inside, and I have used a thing with a laser pointer, trying to keep the laser on the ball-target line.

However, the illustration that led to this conversation shows the hands or arms following a straight line back - the guide. That's different from the full swing.

Here's another way to it - the "circle" we're talking about is one that tilts at 71* - the lie angle. That gets the head to arc inside and I understand how the laser points to the ball-target line. But in both models (the circle with a center, or the swing) the arms/hands don't move in a straight line.

Ah, hell, nevermind. I swear, I am going to build something with PVC this weekend to look at this. It's official: I am nuts.

[lars]

does this image help?

on the left image the y, z and A planes are all the same and that is the DTL view. as you move back on the angled plane you appear to come inside the y plane.

the right image gives a 3d view of the plane relationships.

This post has been edited by lars: Nov 5 2009, 08:43 PM

Attached File(s)

 planes.JPG ( 105.02K ) Number of downloads: 2

 

[PivotDriven]

What's an asymmetrical gravity stroke? Since its the first time I've heard of one, then it must be rare and I have to have one.

Ha, it's "tour only"

I get it. Since it's "tour only", I need to come up with an extra $200 - like on the FSFT forum.

This post has been edited by hydrodaddy: Nov 5 2009, 10:04 PM

[rocketrod]

What is amazing about all this is I remeber buying a putting training aim more than 10 years ago from David Leadbetter, that to be honest is still the most complete I have seem. It featured an elivated guide that was placed inside the ball and you rested the shaft on that was adjustable as it was flixible and you could change its shape with tees. You could practice all types of strokes on it depending on the setting.

First:- If you left this guide completly flat you made an arc(Inside, Square; Inside); Just like bargolf's PVC pipe. So lets draw this as ___.

Second:- If you left the back and middle flat but curved the front up you got (Inside, Square, Straight) So lets draw this as \__

Third:- If you then raised the back side into a curve you got (Straight back, Square, Straigth Through). So lets draw that as \_/.

This was a long time ago and shows, although most hate him; how far ahead of his time Leadbetter was.

Tought to draw what I mean but what I am says is for a Straight back, Straight through stroke where the sweetspot of the putter stays on the target line Bargolf's PVC Guid would have to be curved up both on the backswing and the follow through.

I have the aid at work so will try and post the name.

[wmblake2000]

Anyone know if Tiger putts on an arc or he goes back on an arc and then straight down the line? Thanks!

I was at a golf show this morning and Momentus Golf has this inside then down the line putting device. There is an arc going back, then it is straight going forward. I have NO idea how to think about this - but it is the device that reflects your question...

[wmblake2000]

Anyone know if Tiger putts on an arc or he goes back on an arc and then straight down the line? Thanks!

After all this long and detailed conversation, I stumbled onto this Momentus device yesterday that trains an inside-down the line stroke. And of course, they claim this is Tiger's stroke.

That's it. All my hair has now officially been pulled out.

[rony]

No I live in Marbella Southern Spain. Near Valderrama.

I can tell you that we are in the dark ages over here in the putting department. There are so many cool instructors over there I would love to learn from as I do believe you can learn to improve your putting. I am like a kid with his face pressed against a candy store.

Do you know Rickard Strongert by any chance?

[AC168]

Yes ... they claim that this is Tiger's stroke, but watching him some more this week at HSBC with the good camera angles, it looks like he goes back in an arc (sort of SBST if the imaginary line were there), but then after he hits it, it is a smaller arc.

[Texsport]

I've observed that Tiger's stroke is on a very slight arc (much less of an arc than Utley advocates) with a lot of face rotation. Sort of like Utley's face rotation combined with a much more straight back and through stroke.

In Tiger's book, he says that when his stroke gets off, it's usually because he lets the putter get too far to the inside on the takeaway. He recounts a story of how (at the 1997 Masters I think) he was doing this and he worked with Butch taking the putter straight back and this got him off on his hot putting for the week.

Utley doesn't advocate a large arc.

When you read his stuff, that is the impression you get, but when you actually try his "Learning Curve" training aid, you get a different perspective.

Because the putting stroke is relatively short in length, the arc is very small.

Most players who try Utley's method get it wrong, by jerking the putter inside way too much on the backswing.

The comment attributed to Tiger Woods about his stroke getting off when he gets the putter too much inside is exactly what an Utley advocate might say----and most Utley learners actually do.

Texsport

This post has been edited by Texsport: Nov 8 2009, 08:34 AM

[patrickw25]

I've observed that Tiger's stroke is on a very slight arc (much less of an arc than Utley advocates) with a lot of face rotation. Sort of like Utley's face rotation combined with a much more straight back and through stroke.

In Tiger's book, he says that when his stroke gets off, it's usually because he lets the putter get too far to the inside on the takeaway. He recounts a story of how (at the 1997 Masters I think) he was doing this and he worked with Butch taking the putter straight back and this got him off on his hot putting for the week.

Utley doesn't advocate a large arc.

When you read his stuff, that is the impression you get, but when you actually try his "Learning Curve" training aid, you get a different perspective.

Because the putting stroke is relatively short in length, the arc is very small.

Most players who try Utley's method get it wrong, by jerking the putter inside way too much on the backswing.

The comment attributed to Tiger Woods about his stroke getting off when he gets the putter too much inside is exactly what an Utley advocate might say----and most Utley learners actually do.

Texsport

Yes, I've noticed that there is a disconnect between the dramatic arc pictured (and described) in "The Art of Putting" and the slight arc that the Learning Curve teaches.

[bargolf]

Take a conventional putting arc and tilt it to the right. What would type of stroke would you get?

Inside to down the line as the putter comes up.