Bending the plane line will interupt the ball's "end over end" roll. You can't hook or slice a putt because of ball speed. There is not enough there to put slice or hook spin on the ball.
Pics 3 and 4 are the geometry of the circle for the shoulder only and the arm only stroke. This geometric reason is why we don't need to mix the two.
There is so much information on putting out there. Most of the information mixes pics 3 and 4. Somewhere along the way I heard the statement, "I may change the shape of my stroke, but it will be because of geometrical reasons only." That is a profoundly brilliant statement.
An understanding of how "YOU" stand over the ball when putting makes a HUGE difference. The Arc of attack on the ball is dramatically different when you place the ball in different places in relation to low point. The stroke (shoulder only or arm only) produce dramatically different low points. So an understanding of how you walk into the ball- 3-F-5 ADDRESS ROUTINE cannot be overlooked for precision putting. Carefully examine where the ball is in relation to your low point. My personal teaching preference is AT or JUST IN FRONT of low point. This should be practiced dilligently with mirrors and "look, look, look..." A player doesn't have to pay $200 an hour for instruction if they will just "look" sometimes.
Avoid the feet at all costs. Player after player comes in and there sternum or head is not in the middle of their stance. Always monitor the balls positioning to the chest area. Never, ever the feet.
Beware of mixing the the arm only and shoulder only strokes. Not because I say so...because the geometry is different. Just look at the difference in low point in the two strokes. Now think about your putter's loft and the effects of skid on the ball when putting. There is a definitive correlation between switching ball positioning and switching putters because of the arc of attack differences.
Look,look,look at pic 3 and 4. Do you know what stroke you are using? Do you know where your ball positioning is? Do you know the loft of your putter? Answer these questions and we all will stop needing "new" information and begin building "precision" alignments.
Very very informative... Where was this last year as I burned up the course with my 38 putt average...
I discovered over the holidays that my Ball Position was INCORRECT cause I was using the feet and my ball position was not consistent resulting in that wonderful average.
Who would be a good tour player or two... that we can watch and study for a good Routine, i.e., to establish ball position, low point relationship, etc.?
Understand that low point is three dimensional. The club is moving down and out and forward-Once there the club will move up and in and forward. When the ball is placed at or just in front of low point it will not lead to a push because #3 traces a straight base line. If your mind sees the arc of approach and separation and begins to believe this is what #3 is doing then you are in trouble. Don't confuse the two.
As far as the down vs up stuff.....just look at the pics. The shaft should not be laying back too much, nor should it be leaning forward to much. I like an equivalency of FLW in putting, this will have the shaft perpendicular to lean forward. So...I feel it is imperative to hit down on the putt (in your mind) while at the same time have the ball at or just in front of lowpoint so that you do not beat it into the ground. There are alternatives to this procedure.....Just one man's opinion.
Loft? It goes back to your mechanics. Mallet putters with large MOIs tend to have no loft because the center of gravity is so far away and down from the face. If it had much loft on it you would be "chipping". Anser types should employ a minimum of 5 degrees loft in my mind. The shaft of the plumber neck type putters tend to lean forward naturally.
So loft is an issue of putter design in many ways.
Take a look again at the two pictures showing the 'centers' - the left shoulder, and the base of neck/top of spine.
Notice that these are both from a face on perspective, with all lines running parallel (feet, knees, hips, shoulders).
Can you imagine a way in which BOTH of these sets of pictures would be true, depending on your point of view?
This is one of the reasons I personally love the putting setups of Ben Crenshaw and Greg Norman.
They set their feet about 45 degrees 'open' and close together.
They stand fairly tall, arms hanging with the 'shoulder line' square to the intended target. Left arm in line with the shaft.
When you look at them 'face on' (perpendicular to their shoulder line) - you will see one of the two perspectives VJ posted.
When you look at them 'foot on' (perpendicular to their foot line) - you will see the other perspective VJ has posted.
Both views can be seen - depending on your perspective.
Note that this open foot line is beneficial in two important ways. 1) it will help you get your eyes 'on plane' and 2) it will help you feel the right hand 'underhanded' toss motion.
You have the option of using a shoulder powered stroke, or a right arm powered stroke from this setup.
The caveat of course is that special attention must be paid to your shoulder alignment - something that is true for all shots, but made more difficult by the open foot line.
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
The light bulb just went on with regard to a couple of things, so thank you. I work closely with Geoff Mangum, but it is extremely beneficial to get your(and others) perspective on tilted plane approaches, and the understanding gleaned therein.
Is there one 'dynamic' loft we should be striving for?
Ed,
I'm interested as to how the eyes will be more on plane because of an open stance. I understand that there is some argument with lead eye dominance.
The light bulb just went on with regard to a couple of things, so thank you. I work closely with Geoff Mangum, but it is extremely beneficial to get your(and others) perspective on tilted plane approaches, and the understanding gleaned therein.
Is there one 'dynamic' loft we should be striving for?
Ed,
I'm interested as to how the eyes will be more on plane because of an open stance. I understand that there is some argument with lead eye dominance.
I can only speak for my own experience on the eye alignment, however I find that when I stand in a traditional 'square' alignment, my eyeline tends to tilt out to the right by about 45 degrees. I am 'very' left eye dominant, which as you point out, could be a key reason for this. Also, I think the open alginment helps you see distances better, because you can use more of a 'both eye' view during your routine. Snead putted with a side saddle approach in part because of this benefit (and of course, the 'straight on' stroke you can use). I'll leave the technical bits to those that know more about vision however.
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
Linear Mode
