Perception is everything these days. We know it's PM that hit the shots, and theoretically made all the decisions, but did Dave Pelz take a hit in public perception this week?

Thoughts....comments...

Chris,

Great point and, yes, I do believe. He's a bit over the top to begin with and while his emphasis on working more on the short game is spot on, he gets a bit carried away sometimes. He is more just a stats guy. Furthermore, anyone who puts themselves out there and places their stock in pretty much one guy can die a quick death when that guy fails to perform.

Cardo

It seems a little unclear whether or not it was PM or Pelz that suggested the NO driver strategy. I heard Phil in an interview several weeks ago suggest that if the conditions firmed up that the logical place to drive the ball was more in the 275-290 range and not 300+. I don't know if thats Pelz talking or PM. Statistics would suggest that PM would hit more fairways with a 3+ wood than a driver.



Statistics don't play golf, human beings do.

He takes good "thoughts" and kills them by just taking them 1...maybe 4...steps too far. He's a good salesman, and Phil is his best customer.

I don't think so. Isn't Pelz primarily his short game guru? Phil's short game always has been and always will be pretty solid. The guy just needs to put it in the fairway.

I don't think any less of Pelz after last week, or Phil for that matter.

Pelz suggested it, Phil went for it without Driver, gave up 30-50 yards every long par 4 and par 5 to Tiger, started cranking it a bit more to catch up, thus started spraying it a bit more. End result is poor decision from the get go.

PM just had a bad week at the US Open (may be he tried too hard since this was after all his home course and home town). Even if Pelz suggested the no driver strategy, his main area of expertise which is the short game has nothing to do with PM flopping.

If Phil let Dave Pelz (his SHORT GAME coach) talk him into taking driver out of play there than that is is own fault!! Bad decision obviously. Where was Butch on this whole decision too?

But back to the original question.....I do think his stock is dropping some. His whole 5 wedge theory is not working that well it appears to me. Phil did pull off some absolutely amazing short game shots this week regardless, but he was always doing that anyhow with just the 60* wedge!

I would have to say so. Yes, he is a short game guru, but pulling the driver for an extra wedge is a short game and coaching issue. I understand not hitting it that much, but not carrying it, just seems crazy. I truly believe we would have been looking at a different tournament if the driver was there all 4 days. I will take the one we ended up with though.

That's a pretty bold statement without any info to back it up. I'm sure DP urged phil to put 5 wedges in the bag, but I highly doubt he was the one to suggest that he pull the Driver. I'm sure phil went over all options before opting to go w/o the D.

BDLz

I like Phil a lot as a player and a person, and also because he plays Callaway (my preferred brand). But sometime, I have to agree with Phil's OWN assessment that he's an "idiot" (he said when he lost the US Open to Ogilvie). Taking the driver out of the bag qualifies Phil as an idiot - not even Tiger pulls a stunt like that. Where is Butch Harmon in all this? Seems like me like Harmon's stock should be dropping.

seeing as Phil is not very accurate with the driver, i thought it was good advise. The problem is not the advise but execution which is Phil's department. I still don't understand why he did not just get a big headed driver with more loft..11.5* and a 44.5 length shaft...wouldn't that have been more forgiving?
they both outsmarted themselves..but Pelz is not to blame

Pelz stock is down in the eyes of those who feel he is the reason for Phil's strategy & poor play this week. Phil has 2 coaches, Pelz & Harmon, I think both would have been consulted on any strategy. So could Butch Harmon's stock be down as well?

I think the responsibility is entirely Phil's, after all, he hits the shots. Just my $.02.

Harmon has no time for failed ventures..he will show up when there is bragging rights to claim

Phil's biggest problem is over analyzing the game. Too much strategy.

It may be a case of over-saturation as well. Pelz had a stretch where he was on TGC very frequently, pushing his theories at the "PGA course previews" on why all the Tour players should be carrying a 64 wedge. I think a lot of people just got sick of him, and when his star pupil employs an odd bag setup that flops (Pelz's idea? Who knows for sure, but dropping driver and 3 iron to play 5 wedges certainly sounds like a Pelz idea.), it really brings these theories into question.

I don't think it's fair to lay the blame all on Pelz though. Phil won 3 majors while Pelz was his short-game coach. Phil seemed to reign things in a bit when it came to risky shots and played the percentages more. Pelz probably played a big part in this. It certainly helped. Lately though Phil seems to be back to his risky old self. Trying silly shots like fairway wood or hybrid out of deep rough at the US Open being a prime example. Or using the high flop all the time when it isn't needed. This is Phil's doing, not Pelz.

And where was Butch in all this? When he learned of the no driver setup, hopefully he at least tried to talk some sense into Phil.

Bingo, my thoughts about him exactly. He has a tendancy to overthink things. Funny thing is, Tiger can do the same thing, ala British Open, and because of much better execution, he is looked upon as a master strategist.

I think Dave has pretty much brainwashed Phil over shortgame. He is emphasizing 6 wedges or something? NO That is really not necessary for Phil. I think Dave needs to realize that there's more to golf than short game and wedges.

Personally I think what needs to happen is Phil needs people around him who actually disagree and stop being yes-men. If he came up with the driver idea you need Bones/Harmon/Pelz to say Phil thats the worst idea I've ever heard. That may be a slight exaggeration, but the truth is if he started hitting it short and crooked (which he did) then he'd place a TON of pressure on that short game. He played the whole 5-wedge idea into his bag, and then just lost his marbles by making a 9 on 13.

DP is not a short game guru. He is just a short game statistician. He provides numbers to screw up players head.

He'd probably told Phil that stats show that his 3 wood chances of keeping it on the short grass outweighs the chances of his driver by blah, blah, blah percent, no chance of getting up and down if ball driven into 10 inch liquid fertilizer rough(proven wrong by tiger) and the idiot being Phil covincedly agreed. IF Phil would have won, the first thing DP would mention is his stupid statistics is the main factor that help him win.
I hope someone out there is able to point out to Phil he should just play and not try to turn himself into a robot. Oh, and get rid of Pelz too. I'm sure he can get a decent job in the Callaway R & D department analysing as much statistics he wants to.

Stats are for Baseball geeks not golf.

Pelz was so scared of the last cut of rough at TP that he was wetting his pants. "It's dangerous, it's going to get players hurt, blah blah blah" he was complaining about it every time I saw him on the Golf Channel. This may have had something to do with encouraging Phil to take the driver out of his bag, not that it helped in that regard.

He did suggested the No Driver. If you TIVO'd the whole tournament, do yourself a favor and rewind back to post first round interviews.

Look, as someone mentioned above, Pelz advocating no driver was based on data that Phil hit more fairways with a 3 wood, but after Tiger starting bombing driver, Phil tried to keep up and started spraying shots. If you take out 13 on Saturday, phil is +2, with a shot. I think the blame is Phil"s, not Pelz.

the biggest number phil made was due to his mis hit 64 degree wedge, a few times
i honestly dont see why he needs that many wedges, hes a magician who could still compete even if he only carried a sand wedge

Do you think this was the first time Phil has seen Tiger "bomb" the golf ball...he knew damn well how far Tiger hit it and I seriously doubt that made him over-swing or whatever your hinting at. To answer the OP's question, Yes. If Dave Pelz really suggested to take out a driver on a 7600 yard golf course then yea he deserves the critics. Bottom line is Phil has some serious issues with his golf swing and its all pretty damn obvious when you slow it down.

I think you are on the right track here..

Pelz's stock went down with me a long time ago when I attended his short game school, it is all about stats and a mechanical approach to the short game. How far do you hit each wedge from a certain length backswing, put tape on each wedge with the yardage.... not for me... I am a feel player and I think Phil's short game is suffering from this mechanical approach.

Now it is Pelz's 64 degree wedge theory... god... I picked up a Hippo 64 for $34 to try (almost looks like my CG12's) If you like to hit the ball inconsistenly high...no... VERY high with little distance control... get one of these. It is especially useful for sliding the clubface under the ball in the rough without moving it... Phil showed us another of it's capabilities on number 13 Saturday... Can't wait until Pelz starts touting the 90 degree wedge...

Why is it I could see Pelz advocating a 13 wedge and a putter strategy.

Phil, walk... no RUN away from this guy. He is ruining your short game and putting bad ideas in your head.

A quick note, I live in the UK, and Butch was working with Sky sports as a commentator. In his defense, when his fellow commentators asked him about Phil's no driver strategy, and he seemed to feel it was a mistake not to have it in the bag as well, so I dont think you can fault Butch in this case.

And yet Rocco didn't even carry a 60* wedge

Dave Pelz who??????????

I'm not certain who his stock would drop with.

Really? There's around 30 million Americans that play golf (at least once a year). Some subset of them watch golf during the majors. A smaller subset watch golf every week. There's a very small group of people that are really into golf ... playing weekly, watching perpetually, and knowing the nuances of coaches and players. Most of them are members of GolfWRX ... ... just saying, its easy to forget how fanatic our little community is here. On WRX, this thread can be posted ("Has Dave Pelz stock taken a dive?") ... and pretty much everyone knows exactly what the thread is about - the no driver/5 wedge decision Phil made.

However, ask that question to a random number of foursomes on the average muni, and the most common reply would probably be "Who the hell is Dave Pelz?".

So Pelz really only has any stock amongst a couple of small groups of people - golf fanatics, and the players themselves. So far as the fanatics go, Pelz's stock may have dropped a bit. I'm sure its widely believed that he at least influenced Phil's decision, and may have been the one that pushed for it.

Among the Tour players themselves ... I doubt he's taken a hit at all. Those guys all know who Pelz is, and what his focus is. He's a stats-driven strategist, with an extreme short game emphasis. A lot of pros have hired him when they want to work on their wedges. A lot will hire him in the future. I suspect its highly unlikely any of them would now decide not to hire him simply because of Phil's decision.

In fact, probably a lot of pros are really questioning Phil's decision ... (really ... to play with no driver on the longest US Open track in history seems like a completely daft idea). But they'd probably all say that the blame rests with Phil. Coaches can suggest a hundred different things ... but ultimately it is the player that makes the decision as to which suggestions to follow.

My opinion ... the idea might have made sense on paper ... but only a little sense. Phil is a magician with wedges, and really, if there's anyone on tour that doesn't need five wedges, its him. Wedges are clubs that permit dozens of different kinds of shots, especially if you can actually get them ground specifically for the course you're playing. PM can probably do more with one wedge than most of us can do with a bagful. I simply refuse to believe that the (small) added advantage of a fifth wedge is worth giving up a driver for.

The driver argument has been beat to death in another thread.

This would never have happened if Phil had hit it straight.

Maybe we should be asking the same question about Harmon

wait a second, where did Phil finish in the tournament last uh no wait he made the cut wait he finished what like 59th uhhhhhhhhh noooooooooo

He finished T18th well unless there was only 19 players in the tournament thats pretty good.

Nope I think its premature to send Phil or any of his coaches out to pasture.

Phil had a bad week with the tee shot made a 9 on one hole and finished what six back. Yep he is making all the wrong decisions.

Seriously the more I think about this the funnier it gets.

Has Pelz stock taken a dive?

God I hope so.

everyone rips on pelz what about Butch?

Phil was hitting really crooked and it has nothing to do with the short game!

I personally just don't believe in Pelz's theory that you need so many wedges. My PW is 49* and I carry a 55* SW. For many years I had this setup. I got to the point where I would only hit the SW out of the sand. Any shot 100 and in was with the PW. Golf is a feel game, because rarely is a distance perfect with any club. If you can't take a little off a wedge from 50-60 and get it relatively close then you don't need a different you need practice.

now its Butch's fault that Phil cant swing the way Butch wants him to... we can go around and around with this game but in then end its still Phil's responsibility and no one else...

has Pelz taken a dive... no those who love him still will love him... those who hate him this only gives us i mean them more reason to hate him...

Maybe we should blame Callaway for not making a driver that Phil can hit.

Just kidding.

I think the blame lies solely with Phil. He made the decision, plain and simple. Regardless of what his coaches, caddy or anyone tells him he still has to execute the shot with a club that he feels is the most appropriate.

The only thing that changed by using 3-wood instead of driver was that he was further away from the hole, but most of the time he still wasn't in the fairway. Personally I think it was the wrong decision, but it was his.

I don`t think so. A good short game is very important to Phil, Tiger, you and I, and everyone else! Just ask Tiger! Most of Tiger`s wins are because of his great short game [along w/ his other surperior assests]!! Both Phil and Tiger rank very low in 'driving accuracy' and it was Phil`s errant tee shots that put him out of contention in the US Open and not his short game! Phil put all those wedges in his bag w/ the thought of being in the fairway w/ his tee shots! And you can`t blame Butch Harmon for that either--Phil is swinging the club and at this point in his life he should know how to hit more fairways IMO. His 3 Major victories came w/ good ball striking as well as a great short game. Augusta`s rough may not be that penal--I was there last year and it looked pretty 'tame' to me, but I was also at the `05 PGA at Baltusrol and not only was it extremely hot all 4 days, the rough there was thicker than it was at Torrey Pines this week w/ not much forgiveness at all! I`m sure you can research and compare Phil`s driving accuracy stats from this US Open to his `05 PGA win at Baltusrol and i`m willing to bet his driving accuracy at the `05 PGA was much higher/better than at this year`s US Open! I did check the USGA`s US Open stats on Friday and Phil was below 43% in driving accuracy for his first 2 days at Torrey Pines. That isn`t too good at all esp at the highest level where Phil 'lives'! If he could hit more fairways he would win more IMO! And Tiger too--how good would Tiger be if he hit 60-75% of the fairways?!? Nobodly would ever beat him!

It seems that Phil wasn't hitting fairways with or without his driver. Pelz can't swing the club for him too.

Last time I (yes me) played Torrey from the tips about 6 months ago, I hit more fairways with my driver than Phil did with that tricked up 3 wood.... He could beat me with my 9 year olds clubs... but...

My theory on his poor driving is that the "3 wood" (really an 11.5 driver w/44" shaft) was pretty hard to hit... he tried to create a dual use club and didn't pull it off.... I could not imagine being able to hit that combination very well....

The question is WHY did he do it? For better accuracy off the tee? or to make room for the infamous 64 degree wedge hyped by Pelz.

From what I am able to acertain, it was more to work in the wedge than for accuracy...

As I said earlier, I believe Phil is a "feel" player with his short game that is not compatible with Pelz's mechanical/statistical approach. To me, Pelz should know this and back away from Phil and not push his "one short game fits all" approach on him.

I too am a "feel" player and after attending his short game school found Pelz's approach just screws me up...

I think everyone should use 13 wedges and a putter that looks like a wedge. NOT.

I think Pelz plays to Phil's wedge ego. Phil likes when people tell him hes good at something. If Rocco can play with a 56 as his highest lofted wedge, why cant Phil the wedge Maestro?

Its a simple situation of Phil practices what hes good at, and doesn't practice what hes bad at. Just like the rest of us.

I think I must be one of a very few that took interest in the Pelz Short Game Bible. Sure, it reads like a technical manual, but that appeals to the engineering side of my brain.

Everyone wants to blame this on Pelz, but I didn't see Phil's wedges failing him. His wedge game was still strong, as you would expect from Mickelson.

Phil needs to find the fairway off the tee, and that's the realm and fault of Butch Harmon. Place blame where it need to be placed.

My only problem with Pelz is the excess number of wedges.
He stresses the clock system for distance control and then adds even more wedges...surely these guys are good enough to adapt swings to variuos yardages without needing 5 of them.
I carry only three and still ahve at least two choices of shot for any distance from 125 down to 34..
I just dont get the need for that many wedges....and before anybody pipes up "you dont play tour qulaity set up courses" sorry but I do.

In this case, I think they have put to much imprtance on the short game. I don't care how good you are with a wedge, 5 is to many. I agree with some of the above, PM let Pelz influence the rest of his game. He made way for 5th wedge by taking out the driver? I mean, does he think he is the 10 handicapper from the NBC contest? Phil seems to look a little to deep for an advantage in techology and club changes, you look at his bag and he has 2 hybrids, 4 wedges, no driver or 6 iron.....I mean, this can only complicate things. The only thing Tiger changes in his bag is the 2-iron or 3-wood. Everything else is the same.

I'm not sure why Phil didn't explore the FT-i as opposed to his normal FT-5, but we'll never know. That surely could have helped him hit 4-8 more fairways (1-2 per round).

As far as his explosion, that was hard to watch. He puts so much pressure on himself to hit the magic shot, and each miss made it worse, and thus more critical (in his mind) to hit it super-tight.

Another poster made a good point. Phil finished top 20, so it's not like he missed the cut or something. Let's see this for what it was...a bad week on the course, not necessarily strategically.

I am not a Pelz Kool-Aid guy, but I have read both of his books, and think they are well laid out and full of fact. Whether you employ his strategy or not, you can't argue with facts and with physics. Give me a guy who knows the distance to a pin and who knows how far he hits a wedge at 9:00 position vs. a guy who looks at a pin and feels like its a sand wedge "at about 80%" every time. His books have helped me, but I am an analyst, and like to have all the info.

If Pelz could guarantee a top 20 in the US Open for all his students, his stock would skyrocket, not fall. Keep this in perspective.

I think after his performance over the season the verdict is still out on him.

I am think about using a 3 wood and carrying 9 wedges. I think Dave Pelz stock did go down. Hank Haney's keeps going up.

Why blame Pelz? How about the 38 yr old guy who has 3 majors? That's the guy who should get the blame. He's the decision maker, not the coach. He needs to take responsibility for his actions and he should be judged accordingly. Blaming Pelz is a cop out. He's a coach. That's it.

As for his clock teaching, he teaches it because players have no feel for the distance and need something to hang on to. I've never read his book or gone to his clinic, but I've read him in the golf mags and found him to be useful. Its what you do with that knowledge.

I think the point is some are mechanics, for which the Pelz clock approach is nirvana... others are "feel" players like me... the clock thing completely screws me up...

I think Phil is a "feel" player too the clock thing does not work for him thus the 3 64 degree wedge misses at #13 Saturday which cost him a chance...

Here why I blame Pelz, as the teacher he has the responsibility to understand that what he is teaching Phil isn't working and to back off... Phil is too nice of guy to fire him a la Tiger and Butch..

Pelz needs to be like Harmon with Daly and fire his student... otherwise the mad scientist and the nutty professor are going to drag each other down....