104 replies to this topic

[indyvai]

spazo, on 18 January 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

I never said "roughly 90d." I said roughly perpendicular, because the spine is not straight, so any way you try to measure it will be off a little bit. The 90 degrees thing was with respect to a stroke plane that creates a clinically straight back straight through stroke per Dave Pelz.

You are missing the point on the perpendicular rotation versus parallel to target rock, though. There is only one way to rotate around your spine. There are many ways to rock, and pointing your rocking parallel to the target is not something that is exact or repeatable, at least not any more than flipping your wrists at impact.

• We're so far off point on this thread on this matter... but your assertion was that shoulder rotation is only perpendicular to the spine... now it's roughly perpendicular.  Perpendicular is 90 degrees from a reference point.  Roughly perpendicular is roughly 90d.  If your assertion was true, then either set-up is critical for an on plane stroke, or it's achieved by rocking and not rotating.
  
• By definition, pure and on plane are +/- 20d different, depending on the shaft plane.  The shaft plane is just as specific as a vertical plane, and both are exact and just as repeatable.  The difference between the 2 is that on plane strives to define a minimalist arc to increase squareness through the hitting zone.  Pure allows for errors and keeps you closer to square regardless... which is why alot of people who strive for SBST end up being somewhere between pure and OP.  I know I sway outside and inside a bit, but the end result is acceptable.

If you want to discuss further, send me a PM.  I don't want to be the geometry police anymore...

OP... if you really want to tune out the noise, read Stockon.

Edited by indyvai, 19 January 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[spazo]

Stockton*

[bargolf]

Very interesting.

I have a couple of questions maybe someone can answer for me.

1. Are we talking about sbst in two dimensions or three? Most of what I have read so far would be true in 2 dimensions but not three.

2. It has been claimed that "rocking the shoulders" is different than rotating the shoulders. So does this mean I am dominating the stroke with one shoulder rather than both. Say lower and then lift the left shoulder. Or am I moving the shoulders independently but in sync. Left down and right up at the same time?

3. I also read that the rocking shoulders could occur in many directions. If this is possible, then how is the "on plane" defined?

Added
4. Another question, are we talking about path direction or putter rotation. 2 different subjects are they not?

Edited by bargolf, 19 January 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[indyvai]

bargolf, on 19 January 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

Very interesting.

I have a couple of questions maybe someone can answer for me.

1. Are we talking about sbst in two dimensions or three? Most of what I have read so far would be true in 2 dimensions but not three.

2. It has been claimed that "rocking the shoulders" is different than rotating the shoulders. So does this mean I am dominating the stroke with one shoulder rather than both. Say lower and then lift the left shoulder. Or am I moving the shoulders independently but in sync. Left down and right up at the same time?

3. I also read that the rocking shoulders could occur in many directions. If this is possible, then how is the "on plane" defined?

Added
4. Another question, are we talking about path direction or putter rotation. 2 different subjects are they not?

Better late than never!  And thanks in advance for the shoulder dominance thing... completely forgot about that... been looking for a trigger to get rid of my forward press!

• No 2D vs 3D talk to date... I'm sure it'd be helpful.
  
• Rocking vs rotating was being discussed as far as the physiology of the spine and the human body's inability to rotate unless the motion was perpendicular to the spine.  Nothing about imagery controlling the shoulders, just the possibility of rotating or rocking them on plane whether it be a vertical plane (SBST) or shaft plane (arc).
  
• On plane is SBSTOP which would be on shaft plane.
  
• I think the OP intended it to be putter rotation...

That's my quick summary after trying to follow the thread!

[bargolf]

Indyvai

Is it possible the point of rotation is not the spine but the base of the neck?  Geoff Mangum explained this in detail in his work and depending on the players distance from the ball is correct.

In 2D sbst is easy to achieve. In 3D really hard, there is a vertical component you have to deal with unless you can make your arms longer during the stroke. SBST takes specific posture requirements, you can't just walk up and decide you are sbst. Putter path is a result not a choice.

The problem isn't whether one is possible or not. It is what fits your posture and perception. Justin Leonard would really be a bad putter with a SBST perception. Indyvai can't make it arc if he wanted to.

Can I post a picture? I have hundreds of Puttlab measurements showing a very straight path in 2D. All from very successful putters.

[indyvai]

bargolf, on 19 January 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Indyvai

Is it possible the point of rotation is not the spine but the base of the neck?  Geoff Mangum explained this in detail in his work and depending on the players distance from the ball is correct.

In 2D sbst is easy to achieve. In 3D really hard, there is a vertical component you have to deal with unless you can make your arms longer during the stroke. SBST takes specific posture requirements, you can't just walk up and decide you are sbst. Putter path is a result not a choice.

The problem isn't whether one is possible or not. It is what fits your posture and perception. Justin Leonard would really be a bad putter with a SBST perception. Indyvai can't make it arc if he wanted to.

Can I post a picture? I have hundreds of Puttlab measurements showing a very straight path in 2D. All from very successful putters.

Post away!

The rotation point only comes into play when deterrents of SBST claim it's impossible and the human body can't physiologically execute what Pelz describes in his book.  Simple arms under the shoulders, vertical pendulum... putter stays square SBST.

I'm extremely interested in the vertical component, because my linear thinking just defines the result of a vertical pendulum as a vertical arc that accounts for the putter face "closing" to the ground on the backstroke, but staying square to the target line...

[bargolf]

indyvai, on 19 January 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

bargolf, on 19 January 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Indyvai

Is it possible the point of rotation is not the spine but the base of the neck?  Geoff Mangum explained this in detail in his work and depending on the players distance from the ball is correct.

In 2D sbst is easy to achieve. In 3D really hard, there is a vertical component you have to deal with unless you can make your arms longer during the stroke. SBST takes specific posture requirements, you can't just walk up and decide you are sbst. Putter path is a result not a choice.

The problem isn't whether one is possible or not. It is what fits your posture and perception. Justin Leonard would really be a bad putter with a SBST perception. Indyvai can't make it arc if he wanted to.

Can I post a picture? I have hundreds of Puttlab measurements showing a very straight path in 2D. All from very successful putters.

Post away!

The rotation point only comes into play when deterrents of SBST claim it's impossible and the human body can't physiologically execute what Pelz describes in his book.  Simple arms under the shoulders, vertical pendulum... putter stays square SBST.

I'm extremely interested in the vertical component, because my linear thinking just defines the result of a vertical pendulum as a vertical arc that accounts for the putter face "closing" to the ground on the backstroke, but staying square to the target line...

I think what catches most people in this discussion is the assumption that the putter shaft defines the plane of the stroke. It doesn't, it is only a component of the whole mechanism. If the HANDS are under the shoulders and the shoulders rotate or move on a vertical plane, the putter HEAD will move on a vertical plane that visually looks SBST. The only influence of an arc is as the putter comes up on the backswing and up past the apex of the arc on the forward swing. The drawing represents a model of the mechanical requirements of the sbst method.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by bargolf, 20 January 2013 - 07:27 AM.

[bargolf]

and that model will produce a path when measured in 2 dimensions will look like this.......


Maybe the discussion isn't about what is possible, but what is the appropriate arc plane for your posture and perception.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by bargolf, 20 January 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[spazo]

bargolf, on 20 January 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

indyvai, on 19 January 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

bargolf, on 19 January 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Indyvai

Is it possible the point of rotation is not the spine but the base of the neck?  Geoff Mangum explained this in detail in his work and depending on the players distance from the ball is correct.

In 2D sbst is easy to achieve. In 3D really hard, there is a vertical component you have to deal with unless you can make your arms longer during the stroke. SBST takes specific posture requirements, you can't just walk up and decide you are sbst. Putter path is a result not a choice.

The problem isn't whether one is possible or not. It is what fits your posture and perception. Justin Leonard would really be a bad putter with a SBST perception. Indyvai can't make it arc if he wanted to.

Can I post a picture? I have hundreds of Puttlab measurements showing a very straight path in 2D. All from very successful putters.

Post away!

The rotation point only comes into play when deterrents of SBST claim it's impossible and the human body can't physiologically execute what Pelz describes in his book.  Simple arms under the shoulders, vertical pendulum... putter stays square SBST.

I'm extremely interested in the vertical component, because my linear thinking just defines the result of a vertical pendulum as a vertical arc that accounts for the putter face "closing" to the ground on the backstroke, but staying square to the target line...

I think what catches most people in this discussion is the assumption that the putter shaft defines the plane of the stroke. It doesn't, it is only a component of the whole mechanism. If the HANDS are under the shoulders and the shoulders rotate or move on a vertical plane, the putter HEAD will move on a vertical plane that visually looks SBST. The only influence of an arc is as the putter comes up on the backswing and up past the apex of the arc on the forward swing. The drawing represents a model of the mechanical requirements of the sbst method.

Bruce, I love having your input here. Between you and Putting Doctor, there is a wealth of knowledge in this thread.

While geometrically it is possible to putt SBST, I don't see a way that it's phyiscally (or, maybe more appropriately, physiologically) possible. Here are two points of contention between indyvai and me.

1. Look at the line defining the axis of shoulder rotation. It is parallel to the ground. I have consistently stated that SBST would be possible IF your shoudlers could rotate around the spine in an angle that was parallel with the ground. This is what is clearly shown. What indyvai has retorted is that it is possible to rotate your shoulders in a vertical plane even if your spine is not parallel to the ground. I have stated it is theoretically possible (but practically impossible because of item 2 below), but it is no more repeatable than putting with some other type of mechanical correction such as timing wrists or weight shifts.

2. The stick figure is a perfectly fine representation but it lacks the physiology of a human being. Where is the stick figure's stomache, chest, forarms, and other things that "get in the way" when a person is not swinging around his or her body? If a person were actually to try and rotate in this plane, so many things are in the way that the person's arms would run into the person's sides, unless, of course, the person addressed the ball with his or her elbows pointed out away from the body. To date, I haven't seen anyone putt that way. The only way to accomplish this is by shifting weight, bending the back, extending the arms, or otherwise "correcting" to get the putter to move straight.

While your SAM lab results show it's possible to make a straight stroke, they do not show the user's stroke or if he/she has any corrective action. Moreover, as Putting Doctor has pointed out previously in this forum, many pros do not have a truly "shoulders only" stroke. Many of those that do not are nonetheless exceptional putters and are capable of repeating a timed stroke to near perfect success.

I would love to see DTL and front facing videos of one of these putters to see exactly how he/she is accomplishing this motion.

[nords21]

Hi
It took me a second to catch on to SBST, anyway.... I'm a putting teacher, and fitter and have won a lot of golf tournaments.  As you grow as a golfer your stroke will most likely have less arc. Phil Arc's the heck out of it, the question is (is that better) the answer is absolutely not, the better stroke is one that repeats. With putters available from complete toe hang to face balance - get some help fitting the right style for your stroke type. Use your natural instinctive stroke. You will most likely never stroke it the exact same day after day let alone hole after hole, putting is not a perfect science...and it is tricky enough without mucking up your mind with external thoughts.  Do your thinking prior to stroking it.  I do my visuals, get the feel , set up with a routine, (imperative you learn one , including aim) and just pull the trigger. If you play for 40 years and get a slightly more SBST stroke good for you, does not mean much in the real world. Hope that helps.

amchamp

[bargolf]

Personally, I try not to deal in perfection. Nor do I have a favorite method. Just wanted to point out that from a PERCEPTUAL point of view sbst is possible and can be very effective. Where the trouble comes is when we try to lump all players and methods into one set of rules. Everybody eyes over or everybody using shoulder strokes.

As to pure shoulder strokes, I see them all the time and for those I know who use them we look to eliminate any other moving parts. I am dead set against multiple sources of motion or combination strokes.

I don't have any video of the example that I have permission to share, but I can assure you my example is not a manipulated stroke. One of the advantages of a straight path with a directional bias is that it allows the player to hold the face square to the target line over a longer period of time. But it only works wihen you have a directional bias. If you try to match target line to stroke path( the only way I have found to do that is to use a dramatically closed stance) you are forced to use the manipulation spazo speaks to. The downside of this method is that it creates the dreaded cut stroke which so many have deemed a disaster. Why is something that has been so successful a bad thing? I guess that question would trigger a side spin argument. But if I use Doc's rule for getting a forward rotation on the ball, more rise than dynamic loft by .7 degrees, which i agree to be true as well, then how do I get sidespin with a ball rotating forward? We spent hours with the player sampled. Using the diagrammed posture, and the measured path we put a line on the ball and almost always got the line moving end over end immediately off the putter. with a putter head up to 3 degrees open to the path of the putter but just a fraction open to the target line.

As to what is better? It is all opinion. I have spent years analyzing methods using PuttLab. Which method matches you perception and can you repeat it. As Glen and i have discussed forever. I believe consistency beats perceived proficiency every time.

Sorry for the long post.

Edited by bargolf, 21 January 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[spazo]

do you find that the directional bias in sbst is often out to in?

[bjwestner]

Thanks so much for the great information Bargolf!  For a while after I started this thread, I think I was more confused than I was before I started it!  I think that I understand now though.....A lot of this stuff is way over my head as I do not have the experience that many out there do since I just started golfing 7 months ago.  If I try to implement too much of this advice I find that my stroke falls apart because it becomes too mechanical.  I've taken bits and pieces of the great feedback that people have offered and put it to good use.  Yesterday I had only 31 putts in my round of golf and considering it was in cold/windy conditions, I am very pleased.

SBST seems the easiest method to me as a newcomer and also the method that I feel most comfortable with.  I do believe it's very possible and I have just been focusing on keeping the putter face itself as straight and even as possible.  Once I start trying to mess around with my shoulders and stuff during my stroke my focus is not on the putter face and that does not lead to a good result.

Maybe it's just me but I seem to putt better when I just focus on the putter face and "dumbing things down" a bit.  Thanks again for your great feedback!

[bargolf]

spazo - In a conventional setup lead hand high, the common pattern is the one I displayed. The mechanical reasons cna get complicated to explain, but if the ball is forward of center with the posture diagrammed without manipulation the stroke with have a bias to the left. One of the reasons is in order to get the shoulders in a position to move on a vertical plane they become level and with any ball position forward of center you have to bend at angle from the hips to get your hands over the ball. So with the spine bent at an angle and the forearms parallel to the target line the path goes left. All of this assumes the lead hand higher than the rear hand. This all changes when you go lead hand low.

bjwestner - I would suggest to make it simple let the putter swing based on your posture and DON'T JUDGE IT based on path shape. There are strengths and weaknesses in any method. The are varying degrees fo sbst as well as thousands of combinations of arcing strokes. focusing on the face is the easiest way. But there are dangers in that as well. Forced rotation for one.

[bargolf]

spazo, on 20 January 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

bargolf, on 20 January 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

indyvai, on 19 January 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

bargolf, on 19 January 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Indyvai

Is it possible the point of rotation is not the spine but the base of the neck?  Geoff Mangum explained this in detail in his work and depending on the players distance from the ball is correct.

In 2D sbst is easy to achieve. In 3D really hard, there is a vertical component you have to deal with unless you can make your arms longer during the stroke. SBST takes specific posture requirements, you can't just walk up and decide you are sbst. Putter path is a result not a choice.

The problem isn't whether one is possible or not. It is what fits your posture and perception. Justin Leonard would really be a bad putter with a SBST perception. Indyvai can't make it arc if he wanted to.

Can I post a picture? I have hundreds of Puttlab measurements showing a very straight path in 2D. All from very successful putters.

Post away!

The rotation point only comes into play when deterrents of SBST claim it's impossible and the human body can't physiologically execute what Pelz describes in his book.  Simple arms under the shoulders, vertical pendulum... putter stays square SBST.

I'm extremely interested in the vertical component, because my linear thinking just defines the result of a vertical pendulum as a vertical arc that accounts for the putter face "closing" to the ground on the backstroke, but staying square to the target line...

I think what catches most people in this discussion is the assumption that the putter shaft defines the plane of the stroke. It doesn't, it is only a component of the whole mechanism. If the HANDS are under the shoulders and the shoulders rotate or move on a vertical plane, the putter HEAD will move on a vertical plane that visually looks SBST. The only influence of an arc is as the putter comes up on the backswing and up past the apex of the arc on the forward swing. The drawing represents a model of the mechanical requirements of the sbst method.

Bruce, I love having your input here. Between you and Putting Doctor, there is a wealth of knowledge in this thread.

While geometrically it is possible to putt SBST, I don't see a way that it's phyiscally (or, maybe more appropriately, physiologically) possible. Here are two points of contention between indyvai and me.

1. Look at the line defining the axis of shoulder rotation. It is parallel to the ground. I have consistently stated that SBST would be possible IF your shoudlers could rotate around the spine in an angle that was parallel with the ground. This is what is clearly shown. What indyvai has retorted is that it is possible to rotate your shoulders in a vertical plane even if your spine is not parallel to the ground. I have stated it is theoretically possible (but practically impossible because of item 2 below), but it is no more repeatable than putting with some other type of mechanical correction such as timing wrists or weight shifts.

2. The stick figure is a perfectly fine representation but it lacks the physiology of a human being. Where is the stick figure's stomache, chest, forarms, and other things that "get in the way" when a person is not swinging around his or her body? If a person were actually to try and rotate in this plane, so many things are in the way that the person's arms would run into the person's sides, unless, of course, the person addressed the ball with his or her elbows pointed out away from the body. To date, I haven't seen anyone putt that way. The only way to accomplish this is by shifting weight, bending the back, extending the arms, or otherwise "correcting" to get the putter to move straight.

While your SAM lab results show it's possible to make a straight stroke, they do not show the user's stroke or if he/she has any corrective action. Moreover, as Putting Doctor has pointed out previously in this forum, many pros do not have a truly "shoulders only" stroke. Many of those that do not are nonetheless exceptional putters and are capable of repeating a timed stroke to near perfect success.

I would love to see DTL and front facing videos of one of these putters to see exactly how he/she is accomplishing this motion.

It is my opinion that the posture I have diagrammed is the most reliable setup fro a vertical plane. However, I can stand very close to the ball with an upright putter and swinging arms only swing the putter on the same vertical plane. I can also replicate it from a by dropping and lifting one side, compressing and then lifting the left shoulder or the right but not using both..

Edited by bargolf, 21 January 2013 - 01:19 PM.