104 replies to this topic

[bjwestner]

Relatively new to golfing.  Started about 7 months ago.  Very addicted which has led to me playing as much as possible and reading as much as I can to know more and to improve my game.  I would describe my putting style/stroke as SBST or as close as I can get to that.  I have more success this way in getting the face back to square than with any other method.

Now I'm hearing/reading about those out there that say this is impossible.  I think even Scotty Cameron thinks this.  Is it true that there is no such thing as SBST and everyone has some kind of arching stroke?  I'm sure that if I was geared up that my stroke is not perfect but pretty close to SBST which leads me to believe that those that are much better than me (many pro's), can do this without too many problems if that is their stroke of choice.

Can you please clear this up for me?  Thanks.....

[502 to Right]

It's fake.  All putts have some arc to them.  Some more than others.  

Attempting to achieve a pure SBST stroke is a waste of time and would be harmful to your game.

[PuttingDoctor]

BJ, you're right to a point.  A pure SBST stroke requires manipulation of the putter face to remain aimed at the target.  This is why most who believe they are SBST are actually On Plane or SBSTOP.  I won't post it again as the video I shot last week is out there to find if you use the search function on the forum.  On YouTube under ThePuttingDoctor if you can't find it.

[indyvai]

Get Dave Pelz's putting bible... it's the definitive read for SBST.  It's worthy of understanding a lot of the nuances of putting in general...

People knock the SBST methodology a lot but I have yet to hear anyone address Pelz's clarifications on the subject... especially the required face manipulation.  Pelz is dead hands, SBST, no manipulation... NASA style!

[PaulFitz]

Technically speaking, a SBST stroke would be possible if you had a putter with a 90 degree lie angle. But, using a standard putter it is not possible. I'd recommend getting an iPing cradle and testing out your stroke.

[indyvai]

PaulFitz, on 14 January 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Technically speaking, a SBST stroke would be possible if you had a putter with a 90 degree lie angle. But, using a standard putter it is not possible. I'd recommend getting an iPing cradle and testing out your stroke.

Can you explain why it's technically possible with a 90d lie angle, but not possible with a standard putter?

[PaulFitz]

indyvai, on 14 January 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

PaulFitz, on 14 January 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Technically speaking, a SBST stroke would be possible if you had a putter with a 90 degree lie angle. But, using a standard putter it is not possible. I'd recommend getting an iPing cradle and testing out your stroke.

Can you explain why it's technically possible with a 90d lie angle, but not possible with a standard putter?

It's difficult to explain via writing, but I'll try my best. Essentially what it comes down to is that if you have a putter with any lie angle that isn't 90 degrees the lie angle causes some arc to the stroke.

I also mis-spoke in the original post as the way to get to SBST with a 90 degree lie angle you would have to anchor the putter as well. I think there is a guy on the euro-tour (not sure of his name) who putts like this. basically stands straight over the ball with a very upright chest putter and has a true SBST stroke (or as close as you can get).

Hope that at least makes some kind of sense.

[502 to Right]

indyvai, on 14 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Get Dave Pelz's putting bible... it's the definitive read for SBST.  It's worthy of understanding a lot of the nuances of putting in general...

People knock the SBST methodology a lot but I have yet to hear anyone address Pelz's clarifications on the subject... especially the required face manipulation.  Pelz is dead hands, SBST, no manipulation... NASA style!

Dave Pelz has a lot to offer golf.  His theory on SBST is pure hokum though.

[MixedBag]

Even if you putt straight back and forth, doesn't the putter still swing like a pendulum on a clock (parallel with the ground)?  So really, there is an arch in the putter.   Plus, I bet if you watched your stroke in slow motion.... there would be a slight arch (even if hard to see with the naked eye).

[Tim Delgado]

502 to Right, on 14 January 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

indyvai, on 14 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Get Dave Pelz's putting bible... it's the definitive read for SBST.  It's worthy of understanding a lot of the nuances of putting in general...

People knock the SBST methodology a lot but I have yet to hear anyone address Pelz's clarifications on the subject... especially the required face manipulation.  Pelz is dead hands, SBST, no manipulation... NASA style!

Dave Pelz has a lot to offer golf.  His theory on SBST is pure hokum though.

Mr. Chambers and I are flabbergasted.......AT YOU.  lol   Pelz knows putting.  While all strokes may have some amount of arc, it is possible to keep it as close to SBST with "dead hands" and get great results.  Watch Stricker for a good example.  He's not too bad.  lol  TD

[indyvai]

502 to Right, on 14 January 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

indyvai, on 14 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Get Dave Pelz's putting bible... it's the definitive read for SBST.  It's worthy of understanding a lot of the nuances of putting in general...

People knock the SBST methodology a lot but I have yet to hear anyone address Pelz's clarifications on the subject... especially the required face manipulation.  Pelz is dead hands, SBST, no manipulation... NASA style!

Dave Pelz has a lot to offer golf.  His theory on SBST is pure hokum though.

How is it hokum?  Please explain what is incorrect about Pelz's understanding of SBST.

[indyvai]

MixedBag, on 15 January 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Even if you putt straight back and forth, doesn't the putter still swing like a pendulum on a clock (parallel with the ground)?  So really, there is an arch in the putter.   Plus, I bet if you watched your stroke in slow motion.... there would be a slight arch (even if hard to see with the naked eye).

I call that the vertical arc, much like Pelz describes the hands under shoulders @ 90d as the vertical pendulum.

[indyvai]

PaulFitz, on 14 January 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

indyvai, on 14 January 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

PaulFitz, on 14 January 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Technically speaking, a SBST stroke would be possible if you had a putter with a 90 degree lie angle. But, using a standard putter it is not possible. I'd recommend getting an iPing cradle and testing out your stroke.

Can you explain why it's technically possible with a 90d lie angle, but not possible with a standard putter?

It's difficult to explain via writing, but I'll try my best. Essentially what it comes down to is that if you have a putter with any lie angle that isn't 90 degrees the lie angle causes some arc to the stroke.

I also mis-spoke in the original post as the way to get to SBST with a 90 degree lie angle you would have to anchor the putter as well. I think there is a guy on the euro-tour (not sure of his name) who putts like this. basically stands straight over the ball with a very upright chest putter and has a true SBST stroke (or as close as you can get).

Hope that at least makes some kind of sense.

It makes sense, but according to Pelz it's technically incorrect...

[bjwestner]

MixedBag, on 15 January 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Even if you putt straight back and forth, doesn't the putter still swing like a pendulum on a clock (parallel with the ground)? So really, there is an arch in the putter. Plus, I bet if you watched your stroke in slow motion.... there would be a slight arch (even if hard to see with the naked eye).

I bet you are right.  But, if it's close, then for all intensive purposes isn't that SBST?  If you had a device that could measure with very deep details, I'm sure that nobody would acheive this, but it would be so close or close enough that it would be considered SBST?

My understanding is that if it's close enough to being SBST (I know it would not be numerically perfect), this combined with the technology in my putter (say I'm usuing a high MOI putter), it would be close enough to perfect that the ball goes in the cup.

Something that I am not understanding about the arguments that SBST is not correct is that when you talk about a perfect pendulum, this would mean that the face of the putter would be 100% as straight as possible at impact which is caused by a perfect straight back and straight through motion.  This would mean that on a perfectly flat surface that the ball would travel perfectly straight........the cup is sized in a way where you could be off by a certain percentage whether that be with face angle or maybe it's not a perfect pendulum stroke.  Thus even with imperfect face angle, the ball can still go in the cup and it scores the same as if everything was 100% perfect SBST.  Thus if it's close enough to being SBST and the ball still goes in the cup, why are some people determined that SBST is not possible?

I understand the argument that true SBST would mean making a perfect pendulum stroke.  Are those people factoring in that the cup is bigger than the ball though?  Thus there must be some variance as it's possible to not have a perfect pendulum but one close enough in SBST that the ball still goes in the cup.  Maybe I'm wrong on this and I'm sorry for asking so many questions but I'm relatively new to golf and trying to learn as much as possible and be the best I can be.  Thanks for everyone's feedback!

[indyvai]

I am a SBST putter myself, and the only reason is because I am a linear thinker, similar to Pelz, and I just can't wrap my brain around the ability to repeat the same arc where the face opens and closes, at impacts the ball precicely when the face is on line to my target.  The arc is one method, and it works for alot of people.  Just not me.

The anti-SBST people argue that you must manipulate your hands during the stroke to keep the putter square to the target.  That's just not true if you set up and follow Pelz's putting advice.  If the hands are under the shoulders, and your hands swing on your target line, the putter will follow regardless of length or lie.  The books chock full of diagrams, etc.  If you want to get a good understanding of the SBST methodology, The Putting BIble is required reading.

As far as being perfect... nobody is.  My stroke goes a bit outside near the end of my backstroke, but corrects itself where it matters.  I refer to the SBST as perceived SBST.  Regardless of what the putter is actually doing, if you are thinking SBST and the putter comes through the impact zone square... you can't really complain that you are not perfect.  I would imagine that the comparison to peoples arcs have the same variations, just not as noticable since they are not striving for a perfect straight line.

Note:  I just take exception to anyone who claims that SBST is not legitimate unless they have read Pelz and have something factual to bring to the table.

Edited by indyvai, 15 January 2013 - 09:51 AM.

[nosil]

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Note:  I just take exception to anyone who claims that SBST is not legitimate unless they have read Pelz and have something factual to bring to the table.

I have read Pelz and he provides lots of theories, but never produces the data that back his theories.   I think there are numerous examples that show why SBST is not really possible without some manipulation.  In my opinion manipulation leads to inefficiency and difficulty repeating the stroke.   Take a look at the training aids that have the putter rest on a bar.  The bar is straight, but when the putter moves back along this plane,  the head of the putter move inside the target line. Because of this, the putter head does not move SBST.   Also the putter head does not open and close,  ideally it remains perpendicular to the path.  The amount of arc is driven by your posture.  If you bend over a lot,  the arc will appear to be more SBST.  The more you stand vertical,  the more the path will arc.   Additionally if your shoulders are open or closed,  the arc will shift and may appear more SBST on either side of the ball.  An open stance will be more down the line on the back swing and a closed stance will appear more down the line after the ball is hit.

I think there are lots of videos that show that SBST really isn't possible.

[indyvai]

nosil, on 15 January 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Note:  I just take exception to anyone who claims that SBST is not legitimate unless they have read Pelz and have something factual to bring to the table.

I have read Pelz and he provides lots of theories, but never produces the data that back his theories.   I think there are numerous examples that show why SBST is not really possible without some manipulation.  In my opinion manipulation leads to inefficiency and difficulty repeating the stroke.   Take a look at the training aids that have the putter rest on a bar.  The bar is straight, but when the putter moves back along this plane,  the head of the putter move inside the target line. Because of this, the putter head does not move SBST.   Also the putter head does not open and close,  ideally it remains perpendicular to the path.  The amount of arc is driven by your posture.  If you bend over a lot,  the arc will appear to be more SBST.  The more you stand vertical,  the more the path will arc.   Additionally if your shoulders are open or closed,  the arc will shift and may appear more SBST on either side of the ball.  An open stance will be more down the line on the back swing and a closed stance will appear more down the line after the ball is hit.

I think there are lots of videos that show that SBST really isn't possible.

Someone's gotta provide one of these numerous examples that shoes that SBST isn't possible.

I honestly don't follow your explanation with the bar except maybe you're thinking of SBST literally and not the vertical pendulum that is the SBST stroke.  The putter head moves vertically along the target line, the fact is that it's straight back along the target line... not literally straight back.

There are quite a few people on here whom I expected to chime in more... give me an H?

[Tim Delgado]

nosil, on 15 January 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Note:  I just take exception to anyone who claims that SBST is not legitimate unless they have read Pelz and have something factual to bring to the table.

I have read Pelz and he provides lots of theories, but never produces the data that back his theories.   I think there are numerous examples that show why SBST is not really possible without some manipulation.  In my opinion manipulation leads to inefficiency and difficulty repeating the stroke.   Take a look at the training aids that have the putter rest on a bar.  The bar is straight, but when the putter moves back along this plane,  the head of the putter move inside the target line. Because of this, the putter head does not move SBST.   Also the putter head does not open and close,  ideally it remains perpendicular to the path.  The amount of arc is driven by your posture.  If you bend over a lot,  the arc will appear to be more SBST.  The more you stand vertical,  the more the path will arc.   Additionally if your shoulders are open or closed,  the arc will shift and may appear more SBST on either side of the ball.  An open stance will be more down the line on the back swing and a closed stance will appear more down the line after the ball is hit.

I think there are lots of videos that show that SBST really isn't possible.

Obviously, a 100%, absolute, SBST stroke is not what really happens with this stroke.  But as IndyVai correctly points out, if you use the proper technique and stance, you can get pretty close and minimize the arc (that IMO is MUCH harder to maintain consistency with).  Just take a look at Stricker's stance and stroke.  Of course there is a little bit of arc, but NOTHING like the amount of arc that the Utley-stroke guys use.......and it is my opinion that those guys don't have as consistent a stroke as Stricker.  This approach flat-out works.  It may not be for everyone, but it is relatively simple to learn for people that are struggling with using the traditional open-face, close-face approach with a blade-style putter, and I have seen firsthand some HUGE and immediate improvement from friends that took my advice (given only when they asked), went to a centershaft & face-balanced mallet, and changed their stroke to a more upright, SBST style.  It absolutely works, just ask Pelz!  lol    TD

Edited by Tim Delgado, 16 January 2013 - 02:53 AM.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

Why do you care what "arc" or not your putter follows reative to some particular vantage point? You're out there to put a good roll on the ball on the proper line with the proper pace. If you are watching the putter path you're not playing golf, are you?

If you care about matching your putter to your stroke (assuming you can repeat some semblance of the same stroke each time) then go find someone who can watch, video, measure or otherwise evaluate your aim and stroke with various putters.

You can't reason from first principles about this or that "impossible" or "possible" putter path and then divine which putter you need from abstract thoughts. It's a waste of time and effort and a distraction unless you're planning to write a book.

Worry about the things you can control, not arbitrary diagrams and measurements that aren't no part of nothing.

[spazo]

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I just can't wrap my brain around the ability to repeat the same arc where the face opens and closes, at impacts the ball precicely when the face is on line to my target.

so do you keep your driver face square to the fairway at all times? keep your iron face square to the green at all times? why is it such a foreign concept to an SBST player? you do it on every other shot in all of golf besides a putt.

[PuttingDoctor]

I think we should all just admit that the SBST stroke is misunderstood almost as much as the arc stroke is.  IF you are using a no hands stroke and have a setup that is neutral you should actually see a SBST stroke that is On Plane relative to the shaft angle of the putter.

Here it is.... on a rail.
https://www.youtube....h?v=Dq0IPAKStLE

[indyvai]

spazo, on 16 January 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I just can't wrap my brain around the ability to repeat the same arc where the face opens and closes, at impacts the ball precicely when the face is on line to my target.

so do you keep your driver face square to the fairway at all times? keep your iron face square to the green at all times? why is it such a foreign concept to an SBST player? you do it on every other shot in all of golf besides a putt.

Great analogy!  The margin of error that is acceptable on the green is a lot different from the tee or from the fairway.

Do you turn your back to the target or rotate your hips when you putt?

[spazo]

indyvai, on 16 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

spazo, on 16 January 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I just can't wrap my brain around the ability to repeat the same arc where the face opens and closes, at impacts the ball precicely when the face is on line to my target.

so do you keep your driver face square to the fairway at all times? keep your iron face square to the green at all times? why is it such a foreign concept to an SBST player? you do it on every other shot in all of golf besides a putt.

Great analogy!  The margin of error that is acceptable on the green is a lot different from the tee or from the fairway.

Do you turn your back to the target or rotate your hips when you putt?

re margin of error, you're right. based on the photos from the post below, the margin is much larger than from the tee. 1 degree of face angle difference on a driver equates to 20 yards of sidespin, and a driver is travelling much more quickly than a putter, making it much harder to time.

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

It makes sense, but according to Pelz it's technically incorrect... Pelz PB_77.jpg

re rotating hips etc, no, i dont when putting. it's not necessary because i'm not trying to generate power on my putts. however, that was never the question. you said you can't wrap your brain around trying to time the impact with a square face. if that's the case, how do you handle every other shot in golf besides a putt?

[bjwestner]

indyvai, on 16 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

spazo, on 16 January 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I just can't wrap my brain around the ability to repeat the same arc where the face opens and closes, at impacts the ball precicely when the face is on line to my target.

so do you keep your driver face square to the fairway at all times? keep your iron face square to the green at all times? why is it such a foreign concept to an SBST player? you do it on every other shot in all of golf besides a putt.

Great analogy! The margin of error that is acceptable on the green is a lot different from the tee or from the fairway. Do you turn your back to the target or rotate your hips when you putt?

This is exactly what I mean.  It seems that those that say it's impossible are married to the idea that it has to be absolutely technically perfect.  I would agree with those people that say it's impossible if, and only IF, the cup was only large enough so the ball could go in.  A golf ball is 1.68 inches I believe?  But the hole is bigger than that, thus there is room for variance or imperfections.  So long as the putt still goes in the hole (meaning that the variance in an acceptable range for the putt to be straight enough to still go in the cup), that is all that matters and SBST is possible then, or so it seems to me.

[spazo]

bjwestner, on 16 January 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

indyvai, on 16 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

spazo, on 16 January 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

indyvai, on 15 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I just can't wrap my brain around the ability to repeat the same arc where the face opens and closes, at impacts the ball precicely when the face is on line to my target.

so do you keep your driver face square to the fairway at all times? keep your iron face square to the green at all times? why is it such a foreign concept to an SBST player? you do it on every other shot in all of golf besides a putt.

Great analogy! The margin of error that is acceptable on the green is a lot different from the tee or from the fairway. Do you turn your back to the target or rotate your hips when you putt?

This is exactly what I mean.  It seems that those that say it's impossible are married to the idea that it has to be absolutely technically perfect.  I would agree with those people that say it's impossible if, and only IF, the cup was only large enough so the ball could go in.  A golf ball is 1.68 inches I believe?  But the hole is bigger than that, thus there is room for variance or imperfections.  So long as the putt still goes in the hole (meaning that the variance in an acceptable range for the putt to be straight enough to still go in the cup), that is all that matters and SBST is possible then, or so it seems to me.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's an argument about the margins. It’s an argument as to the purpose. SBST putters will tell you that it's easier to do than rotating the face because they don't have to think about timing. But if there is some manipulation to make it occur, then it's timing too. If it's possible to do without manipulation (even with marginal variance, as you say), then there would be no advantage to putting any other way. The argument is that what is being put forward is not a technically accurate description of what's occurring. There is literally only one way to putt with nothing but shoulder motion, and that's the way Putting Doctor says. Anything else (a hard arc stroke or a SBST) is not possible without some sort of manipulation. Maybe not necessarily manipulation of the hands. It could be a weight shift, moving elbows, or moving hips. This isn't an argument about the margins. If it requires manipulation to achieve, then it's not better than an arc stroke. It might work better for you, but it's not inherently better.

[indyvai]

[quote name='spazo' timestamp='1358355329' post='6239745']
[quote name='bjwestner' timestamp='1358354731' post='6239667']
[quote name='indyvai' timestamp='1358352185' post='6239363'] [quote name='spazo' timestamp='1358351714' post='6239305'] [quote name='indyvai' timestamp='1358261414' post='6231903'] I just can't wrap my brain around the ability to repeat the same arc where the face opens and closes, at impacts the ball precicely when the face is on line to my target. [/quote] so do you keep your driver face square to the fairway at all times? keep your iron face square to the green at all times? why is it such a foreign concept to an SBST player? you do it on every other shot in all of golf besides a putt. [/quote] Great analogy! The margin of error that is acceptable on the green is a lot different from the tee or from the fairway. Do you turn your back to the target or rotate your hips when you putt? [/quote]

This is exactly what I mean.  It seems that those that say it's impossible are married to the idea that it has to be absolutely technically perfect.  I would agree with those people that say it's impossible if, and only IF, the cup was only large enough so the ball could go in.  A golf ball is 1.68 inches I believe?  But the hole is bigger than that, thus there is room for variance or imperfections.  So long as the putt still goes in the hole (meaning that the variance in an acceptable range for the putt to be straight enough to still go in the cup), that is all that matters and SBST is possible then, or so it seems to me.
[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's an argument about the margins. It’s an argument as to the purpose. SBST putters will tell you that it's easier to do than rotating the face because they don't have to think about timing. But if there is some manipulation to make it occur, then it's timing too. If it's possible to do without manipulation (even with marginal variance, as you say), then there would be no advantage to putting any other way. The argument is that what is being put forward is not a technically accurate description of what's occurring. There is literally only one way to putt with nothing but shoulder motion, and that's the way Putting Doctor says. Anything else (a hard arc stroke or a SBST) is not possible without some sort of manipulation. Maybe not necessarily manipulation of the hands. It could be a weight shift, moving elbows, or moving hips. This isn't an argument about the margins. If it requires manipulation to achieve, then it's not better than an arc stroke. It might work better for you, but it's not inherently better.
[/quote]

Where is the manipulation in the Pelz explanation/ description of SBST?

And this thread is about whether or not SBST is a real putting method, not what method is better.  I agree with the doc that SBST is greatly misunderstood... and I'm finding that many people who've read Pelz's putting bible don't understand the geometry of the concept.  The geometry is simple enough as a concept, and nobody seems to give any evidence to the contrary.

[jackn]

PaulFitz, on 14 January 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Technically speaking, a SBST stroke would be possible if you had a putter with a 90 degree lie angle. But, using a standard putter it is not possible. I'd recommend getting an iPing cradle and testing out your stroke.

Does the cradle work for iphone 5?

Cheers

j

[spazo]

Indy via, let's try it this way. do you agree that the stroke that the putting doctor has shown us requires no manipulation?

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

Thank heavens Homer Kelly never wrote a book called The Putting Machine.

[indyvai]

spazo, on 16 January 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Indy via, let's try it this way. do you agree that the stroke that the putting doctor has shown us requires no manipulation?

Yes...