Bryson DeChambeau's putting style

[goodsinger]

I know more about this adventure than anyone here. First off, the putter is not homemade. It's made in an machine shop that makes aerospace parts. The weight stated is not accurate either. Last, this style of Face-On is newer for him and should workout fine. If not, the previous style of Face-o, he performed well and could switch back to. Face-on is good for some, but for most conventional is better at the moment.

[gallas2]

$hits gone sideways.... and i don't even care if it works ... I wanna see someone coming down the stretch on the back nine on a Sunday rollin the rock with an anser 2

[bulls9999]

It's early in the season....let's see what happens when it's end of the year and he needs $$ to keep his tour card, and whether he still bets on that stroke when he is desperate to put bread in his pocket. Until then, he can experiment until to his heart's content. I can see that method for the short putts, but I don't see you getting the feel for the stroke on the long ones, it's not natural putting away from your body like that. But good luck to him in the mean time, and I hope he gets somewhere with that stroke, I like people that 'think different', keeps the world interesting.

 

I know that this guy supposedly approaches how he plays the game from a purely scientific point of view, but part of me thinks he just likes to be a bit different. Not necessarily anything wrong with that.

[Titleist 670]

Facing and looking at the hole/target when putt makes a certain amount of sense when you think about it, it's what you do in bowling/basketball etc. It's just because the croquet style is outlawed, that side saddle putt just looks awkward to me and looks hard to do consistently, although I suppose with practice you can make anything work.

 

Actually it doesn't. In bowling and basketball, you're already holding the ball, so looking at it while you shoot/throw would make zero sense.

 

When you hit a baseball, do you look at the shortstop? No, you look at the ball because you have to hit it.

 

Same goes for most people in golf - keep your head down during the putt so you make good contact with the ball. Looking at the target might work for some people, but saying it's natural by comparing it to bowling/basketball is a stretch.

[PaulGT3]

https://randyhaag.co...le-putting-101/

 

Clearly it has worked well for some very good golfers. I don't understand the name-calling here.

Its not name calling. It was his arrogant attitude in some of his interviews and some of the fluff pieces on tour broadcasts that made it seem that since he was a physics major that he was smarter than everyone else

on tour. The announcers play this up. It ticks off alot of other people who dont like being talked down to. I am an engineer with 40 years of experience and Bryson talks

like a person who hasnt finished his degree and has no experience in his field (physics). Thats the way it comes off. You dont have to be a scientist to know something is BS

[OrangeGravy]

https://randyhaag.co...le-putting-101/

 

Clearly it has worked well for some very good golfers. I don't understand the name-calling here.

Its not name calling. It was his arrogant attitude in some of his interviews and some of the fluff pieces on tour broadcasts that made it seem that since he was a physics major that he was smarter than everyone else

on tour. The announcers play this up. It ticks off alot of other people who dont like being talked down to. I am an engineer with 40 years of experience and Bryson talks

like a person who hasnt finished his degree and has no experience in his field (physics). Thats the way it comes off. You dont have to be a scientist to know something is BS

 

Are people really so insecure that the words of someone who has no bearing on their own life bothers them that much?

[Oldplayer]

Bryson ought to be the patron saint of all the hackers out there watching YouTube videos, reading advice in forums, trying every swing tip they see on Golf Channel and spending a lifetime trying to "learn" enough mismatched half-baked theories to somehow become a great golfer.

 

There ain't enough days in a lifetime to master the boring old conventional way of playing golf. Never have understood why some people think they can invent something brand new and master it instead.

I wish I could give this post 10 likes and not just one.

[Rich Douglas]

I wonder how good his lag putting is like that

 

This is a good point. I've been putting side-saddle for more than 25 years but....only on the short ones. I put one-handed with my hand behind the handle and the shaft perpendicular. (Because of the putter's lie angle, this lifts the heel, but I'm still able to get a good strike on the ball.) Facing the hole, it's just like rolling the ball. However, long puts are a problem because the putter's head leaves my field of vision--unlike conventional putting--and it's disconcerting. So I lag put conventionally and use the one-handed, side-saddle approach for short ones--within 10 feet, typically. I get a better read and alignment this way, and am more likely to hit the putt with a square blade and on the sweet spot.

[Rich Douglas]

It's the flavor of the month. He'll be on to something different here shortly...

 

But there's no basis for this. As far as I can see, the two distinctive aspects of his game before this were his one-length iron and his Moe Norman swing. He's never wavered from these things. Now comes side-saddle putting. There's nothing to indicate he'll drop it. I'm not saying he'll stay with it, but he hasn't been one for flighty changes.

 

Bryson is challenging conventional thinking in many ways. Golf has always evolved. Steel shafts. Graphite shafts. Titanium heads. Perimeter weighting. Solid-core balls. Performance shoes, Performance clothing. Fitness. Nutrition. Eliminating the 'reverse C.' High MOI putters. Counter-balancing. High COR drivers. High COR irons. Now comes one-length iron sets.

 

Next up: return to shorter drivers. All the benefits of huge heads and graphite shafts without the inaccuracy of the longer shaft design.

[Rich Douglas]

 

But equal length irons are a "fad" and "gimmick" and it's been done before. He's not ahead of the curve or doing anything that hasn't already been done.

 

What was done before is far and away from what is being done now by Wishon and Cleveland. Because of improvements in materials and technology--and our understanding of things--we're seeing irons that are not only single-length, but are also built around the same lie angle, static weight, and swingweight. The only variable from club-to-club is the loft. Gaps are maintained by differences in loft and--in the case of Wishon, anyway--clubhead design. Lower-numbered clubs have a high COR; higher-numbered clubs are softer. This enables Wishon to build a 4-iron's performance into a 36.5" club (8-iron length).

[North Butte]

 

But equal length irons are a "fad" and "gimmick" and it's been done before. He's not ahead of the curve or doing anything that hasn't already been done.

 

What was done before is far and away from what is being done now by Wishon and Cleveland. Because of improvements in materials and technology--and our understanding of things--we're seeing irons that are not only single-length, but are also built around the same lie angle, static weight, and swingweight. The only variable from club-to-club is the loft. Gaps are maintained by differences in loft and--in the case of Wishon, anyway--clubhead design. Lower-numbered clubs have a high COR; higher-numbered clubs are softer. This enables Wishon to build a 4-iron's performance into a 36.5" club (8-iron length).

 

Not a single thing you describe could not have been done with 1980's club components. The lie angle or weight of an iron head is not "technology", I mean c'mon.

 

Nobody built sets of clubheads to single length specs 10 or 20 or 50 years ago because nobody wanted to buy them. And in five years from now nobody will be making them because the fad will have passed.

 

Unless of course Bryson wins a major but he needs to work on his game to do that, not spend his time dreaming up new funky putting strokes that require yet another one-off special club.

[Rich Douglas]

 

 

2. He appears to have the putter shaft straight up and down (90* angle). I know the putter must be 10* off of 90* (lie angle 80*), so he puts the putter up on the toe to compensate. If this putter is designed (haven't been able to see close up photos) to have no loft and be used this way, then isn't that illegal in the rules? From what I've read on the putter club rules, you can use it that way, but it can't be 'designed to be used' that way.

 

No. The club must have at least 10 degrees of lie angle. Thus, it cannot exceed 80 degrees. But the player isn't limited in how he uses it. Holding the club in a way that creates zero lie--perpendicular--isn't illegal.

[Rich Douglas]

Convention wisdom? Nonsense. Conventional wisdom once held that the gutty was the best ball, until the Haskell came along. Metal woods were all the rage at driving ranges nationwide, and were thus laughed at--until they proved superior. Players used wound balata balls with liquid centers exclusively, sneering at sold-core balls (like the Top Flite), until someone came along and made a tour version. Compression? Real men hit high compression balls...until a guy on the Hooters tour began playing the Precept Lady. Now, low compression is the way to go. Remember the Bullseye putter? Hah! Knowledge of MOI killed that thing. Long putters? The USGA was fine with them when they looked like crutches for yippy old guys, but when young pros started using them--and winning--out they went. (Technically, anchoring was banned, but those putters were effective because of anchoring.)

 

The point is that conventional wisdom often serves to bind creativity. GolfWRX discussion boards bring this out in droves with all the sneering, ignorant comments about change. I'm not saying BDC is right with this, but I AM saying it's worth a really good look. In the meantime, I'll keep seeing the GolfWRX discussion board snobs out on the course, hitting their muscle-back blades and missing greens left, right, and short, all the while blabbering on about their beautiful irons and the shot they tried to hit. It's okay; I'm on the green waiting for you.

[North Butte]

 

 

2. He appears to have the putter shaft straight up and down (90* angle). I know the putter must be 10* off of 90* (lie angle 80*), so he puts the putter up on the toe to compensate. If this putter is designed (haven't been able to see close up photos) to have no loft and be used this way, then isn't that illegal in the rules? From what I've read on the putter club rules, you can use it that way, but it can't be 'designed to be used' that way.

 

No. The club must have at least 10 degrees of lie angle. Thus, it cannot exceed 80 degrees. But the player isn't limited in how he uses it. Holding the club in a way that creates zero lie--perpendicular--isn't illegal.

 

Correcti. Also the sole of the club may not have "rocker" shape which is shaped specifically to accommodate a toe-down method of addressing the ball.

[Sun Devil]

BD is innovative and not afraid to try other methods. But he hasn't broke into the sub 100 world rankings. Once he reaches the top 50 .... then his methods might have more credibility.

[brentflog]

Convention wisdom? Nonsense. Conventional wisdom once held that the gutty was the best ball, until the Haskell came along. Metal woods were all the rage at driving ranges nationwide, and were thus laughed at--until they proved superior. Players used wound balata balls with liquid centers exclusively, sneering at sold-core balls (like the Top Flite), until someone came along and made a tour version. Compression? Real men hit high compression balls...until a guy on the Hooters tour began playing the Precept Lady. Now, low compression is the way to go. Remember the Bullseye putter? Hah! Knowledge of MOI killed that thing. Long putters? The USGA was fine with them when they looked like crutches for yippy old guys, but when young pros started using them--and winning--out they went. (Technically, anchoring was banned, but those putters were effective because of anchoring.)

 

The point is that conventional wisdom often serves to bind creativity. GolfWRX discussion boards bring this out in droves with all the sneering, ignorant comments about change. I'm not saying BDC is right with this, but I AM saying it's worth a really good look. In the meantime, I'll keep seeing the GolfWRX discussion board snobs out on the course, hitting their muscle-back blades and missing greens left, right, and short, all the while blabbering on about their beautiful irons and the shot they tried to hit. It's okay; I'm on the green waiting for you.

 

Perfectly said.

[augustgolf]

 

But equal length irons are a "fad" and "gimmick" and it's been done before. He's not ahead of the curve or doing anything that hasn't already been done.

 

What was done before is far and away from what is being done now by Wishon and Cleveland. Because of improvements in materials and technology--and our understanding of things--we're seeing irons that are not only single-length, but are also built around the same lie angle, static weight, and swingweight. The only variable from club-to-club is the loft. Gaps are maintained by differences in loft and--in the case of Wishon, anyway--clubhead design. Lower-numbered clubs have a high COR; higher-numbered clubs are softer. This enables Wishon to build a 4-iron's performance into a 36.5" club (8-iron length).

 

Not a single thing you describe could not have been done with 1980's club components. The lie angle or weight of an iron head is not "technology", I mean c'mon.

 

Nobody built sets of clubheads to single length specs 10 or 20 or 50 years ago because nobody wanted to buy them. And in five years from now nobody will be making them because the fad will have passed.

 

Unless of course Bryson wins a major but he needs to work on his game to do that, not spend his time dreaming up new funky putting strokes that require yet another one-off special club.

 

Can't say I hate to disagree with you...but you are aware that Tommy Armour built single length irons in the early 90's?

 

Over 25 years ago....hmmmm

 

And they weren't the first

[North Butte]

 

But equal length irons are a "fad" and "gimmick" and it's been done before. He's not ahead of the curve or doing anything that hasn't already been done.

 

What was done before is far and away from what is being done now by Wishon and Cleveland. Because of improvements in materials and technology--and our understanding of things--we're seeing irons that are not only single-length, but are also built around the same lie angle, static weight, and swingweight. The only variable from club-to-club is the loft. Gaps are maintained by differences in loft and--in the case of Wishon, anyway--clubhead design. Lower-numbered clubs have a high COR; higher-numbered clubs are softer. This enables Wishon to build a 4-iron's performance into a 36.5" club (8-iron length).

 

Not a single thing you describe could not have been done with 1980's club components. The lie angle or weight of an iron head is not "technology", I mean c'mon.

 

Nobody built sets of clubheads to single length specs 10 or 20 or 50 years ago because nobody wanted to buy them. And in five years from now nobody will be making them because the fad will have passed.

 

Unless of course Bryson wins a major but he needs to work on his game to do that, not spend his time dreaming up new funky putting strokes that require yet another one-off special club.

 

Can't say I hate to disagree with you...but you are aware that Tommy Armour built single length irons in the early 90's?

 

Over 25 years ago....hmmmm

 

And they weren't the first

 

Not disagreeing. Same point I'm making. It's an idea that pops up from time to time. Never gets any traction. It's not new "technology" just the latest time an old idea showed up.

 

There is obviously no advantage to building clubs that way or it would have taken over the game.

 

Sand wedge with a flange. Once it was used to some notoriety it took over the game. Everybody makes wedges that way because it works better.

 

Solid core golf balls. As soon as they had their info tail flash of usage on Tour the wound ball wen obsolete quickly. It's a better way to make a golf ball.

 

Graphite shafts for drivers took a while for the quality to be acceptable then they took off. Metal "woods", same thing. Just works better so everyone uses them.

 

The single length thing had been around forever with no widespread adoption. At the point a Tour player using them is cute and quirky, odds are it won't be a game changer the third or fourth time around don't you think?

[Soloman1]

But equal length irons are a "fad" and "gimmick" and it's been done before. He's not ahead of the curve or doing anything that hasn't already been done.

 

What was done before is far and away from what is being done now by Wishon and Cleveland. Because of improvements in materials and technology--and our understanding of things--we're seeing irons that are not only single-length, but are also built around the same lie angle, static weight, and swingweight. The only variable from club-to-club is the loft. Gaps are maintained by differences in loft and--in the case of Wishon, anyway--clubhead design. Lower-numbered clubs have a high COR; higher-numbered clubs are softer. This enables Wishon to build a 4-iron's performance into a 36.5" club (8-iron length).

 

Not a single thing you describe could not have been done with 1980's club components. The lie angle or weight of an iron head is not "technology", I mean c'mon.

 

Nobody built sets of clubheads to single length specs 10 or 20 or 50 years ago because nobody wanted to buy them. And in five years from now nobody will be making them because the fad will have passed.

 

Unless of course Bryson wins a major but he needs to work on his game to do that, not spend his time dreaming up new funky putting strokes that require yet another one-off special club.

 

Can't say I hate to disagree with you...but you are aware that Tommy Armour built single length irons in the early 90's?

 

Over 25 years ago....hmmmm

 

And they weren't the first

 

His clubs are nothing like Tommy Armour SQL's, which were made in the 1980's, of other iterations of single-length clubs.

 

SQL's and others didn't have constant weight or MOI, and that's a big difference.

 

People don't know what they want. They moan about cookie cutter player personalities, then whine about someone who plays the game his own way.

[North Butte]

What I'd love to see is a player who revolutionizes the game by playing fast. That would be a game changer there.

[4jag]

He says it actually helps his distance control which I find odd - but to each his own.

[PJ72]

But equal length irons are a "fad" and "gimmick" and it's been done before. He's not ahead of the curve or doing anything that hasn't already been done.

 

What was done before is far and away from what is being done now by Wishon and Cleveland. Because of improvements in materials and technology--and our understanding of things--we're seeing irons that are not only single-length, but are also built around the same lie angle, static weight, and swingweight. The only variable from club-to-club is the loft. Gaps are maintained by differences in loft and--in the case of Wishon, anyway--clubhead design. Lower-numbered clubs have a high COR; higher-numbered clubs are softer. This enables Wishon to build a 4-iron's performance into a 36.5" club (8-iron length).

 

Not a single thing you describe could not have been done with 1980's club components. The lie angle or weight of an iron head is not "technology", I mean c'mon.

 

Nobody built sets of clubheads to single length specs 10 or 20 or 50 years ago because nobody wanted to buy them. And in five years from now nobody will be making them because the fad will have passed.

 

Unless of course Bryson wins a major but he needs to work on his game to do that, not spend his time dreaming up new funky putting strokes that require yet another one-off special club.

 

Can't say I hate to disagree with you...but you are aware that Tommy Armour built single length irons in the early 90's?

 

Over 25 years ago....hmmmm

 

And they weren't the first

 

His clubs are nothing like Tommy Armour SQL's, which were made in the 1980's, of other iterations of single-length clubs.

 

SQL's and others didn't have constant weight or MOI, and that's a big difference.

 

People don't know what they want. They moan about cookie cutter player personalities, then whine about someone who plays the game his own way.

 

Yes, and that's precisely the technology that has improved them to the point that a tour pro is using them. I'm not sure if this is the first time that has happened but it has given the clubs more exposure than they've ever had. It could take off, but I think most people don't like stepping outside 'the box', and prefer to stay with the rest of sheep without questioning anything.

[The Pearl]

Facing and looking at the hole/target when putt makes a certain amount of sense when you think about it, it's what you do in bowling/basketball etc. It's just because the croquet style is outlawed, that side saddle putt just looks awkward to me and looks hard to do consistently, although I suppose with practice you can make anything work.

 

Actually it doesn't. In bowling and basketball, you're already holding the ball, so looking at it while you shoot/throw would make zero sense.

 

When you hit a baseball, do you look at the shortstop? No, you look at the ball because you have to hit it.

 

Same goes for most people in golf - keep your head down during the putt so you make good contact with the ball. Looking at the target might work for some people, but saying it's natural by comparing it to bowling/basketball is a stretch.

 

You are confusing the ball and the target. In basketball and bowling, the ball is not the target. The hoop and the pins are, thus you look at the target. In baseball, the ball IS the target, thus you look at the ball. In side-saddle putting, the target is the hole or the spot on the line or by the hole that you are aiming at. In side-saddle putting, the PUTTER is equivalent to the basketball and the bowling ball. You swing the PUTTER, you shoot the basketball, and you roll the bowling ball at the target.

[Noke]

I'm not a BD fan due to his overt religiosity. However, his methods are interesting if nothing else, and golf needs more 'interesting', not less.

 

I have been putting side-saddle for almost 10 years. From a biomechanical point of view I do think it's superior, but I'm not sure it automatically translates to better putting. For me the aspect of it that I enjoy the most is how fun it makes putting the ball. I feel like I can let go of mechanical thinking and just toss the ball to the hole. I look at the hole while I make my stroke.

 

Regarding SL irons, the new iterations of the idea are different, especially the Wishons. Using varying COR faces to help achieve proper gapping is a new technological idea, one that couldn't have been done in irons 25 years ago. So while the SL idea has been around for a long time the Wishons at least are a better and updated version. Not sure about the Cobras.

[TheGeekGolfer]

2. He appears to have the putter shaft straight up and down (90* angle). I know the putter must be 10* off of 90* (lie angle 80*), so he puts the putter up on the toe to compensate. If this putter is designed (haven't been able to see close up photos) to have no loft and be used this way, then isn't that illegal in the rules? From what I've read on the putter club rules, you can use it that way, but it can't be 'designed to be used' that way.

 

No. The club must have at least 10 degrees of lie angle. Thus, it cannot exceed 80 degrees. But the player isn't limited in how he uses it. Holding the club in a way that creates zero lie--perpendicular--isn't illegal.

Just for clarification, most (from what I see) putter manufacturers list the lie angle as usually 70* or 71*, thus 20* or 19* from verticle.

 

Also, here is the rule I am referring to in my previous post. What I am saying is that this putter is designed specifically for him (from what I've read) and this is how he putts with it, therefore, it is DESIGNED to be used in a vertical or near 90* orientation, thus by USGA rules, is non-conforming.

 

From USGA website on allowable putter design...

 

If the overall design of a putter is such that the player can achieve a "vertical-pendulum" style stroke (i.e., putt effectively with the shaft in a vertical or near-vertical position), it would be ruled contrary to Appendix II, 1d, even if the shaft angle does satisfy the 10-degree Rule when the putter is in its "normal address position." The shaft angle on such a putter could be required to be increased to as much as 25 degrees. In assessing whether a putter can be used effectively in a "vertical-pendulum" style manner, the combination of the following features should be considered:

• length of shaft
  
• position of shaft attachment to head
  
• angle of shaft in toe-to-heel plane and front-to-back plane
  
• shape and weight distribution of head
  
• curvature and shape of sole
  
• intent of the design
  

Even though each of these putter features, when considered separately, could conform to the Rules, the combination of the features might lead to a decision that the putter does not conform.

[Titleist 670]

Facing and looking at the hole/target when putt makes a certain amount of sense when you think about it, it's what you do in bowling/basketball etc. It's just because the croquet style is outlawed, that side saddle putt just looks awkward to me and looks hard to do consistently, although I suppose with practice you can make anything work.

 

Actually it doesn't. In bowling and basketball, you're already holding the ball, so looking at it while you shoot/throw would make zero sense.

 

When you hit a baseball, do you look at the shortstop? No, you look at the ball because you have to hit it.

 

Same goes for most people in golf - keep your head down during the putt so you make good contact with the ball. Looking at the target might work for some people, but saying it's natural by comparing it to bowling/basketball is a stretch.

 

You are confusing the ball and the target. In basketball and bowling, the ball is not the target. The hoop and the pins are, thus you look at the target. In baseball, the ball IS the target, thus you look at the ball. In side-saddle putting, the target is the hole or the spot on the line or by the hole that you are aiming at. In side-saddle putting, the PUTTER is equivalent to the basketball and the bowling ball. You swing the PUTTER, you shoot the basketball, and you roll the bowling ball at the target.

 

You swing the putter, but you are hitting the ball - just like you swing a bat in baseball. By your logic, you would look down the fairway when swinging a driver, because the fairway is the target.

 

In putting, you are still hitting the ball - it's at a target, but you still have to hit it.

 

I understand that in side-saddle putting, it's different, but the analogy was to putting in general being just like bowling or basketball, which it's not.

[The Pearl]

Facing and looking at the hole/target when putt makes a certain amount of sense when you think about it, it's what you do in bowling/basketball etc. It's just because the croquet style is outlawed, that side saddle putt just looks awkward to me and looks hard to do consistently, although I suppose with practice you can make anything work.

 

Actually it doesn't. In bowling and basketball, you're already holding the ball, so looking at it while you shoot/throw would make zero sense.

 

When you hit a baseball, do you look at the shortstop? No, you look at the ball because you have to hit it.

 

Same goes for most people in golf - keep your head down during the putt so you make good contact with the ball. Looking at the target might work for some people, but saying it's natural by comparing it to bowling/basketball is a stretch.

 

You are confusing the ball and the target. In basketball and bowling, the ball is not the target. The hoop and the pins are, thus you look at the target. In baseball, the ball IS the target, thus you look at the ball. In side-saddle putting, the target is the hole or the spot on the line or by the hole that you are aiming at. In side-saddle putting, the PUTTER is equivalent to the basketball and the bowling ball. You swing the PUTTER, you shoot the basketball, and you roll the bowling ball at the target.

 

You swing the putter, but you are hitting the ball - just like you swing a bat in baseball. By your logic, you would look down the fairway when swinging a driver, because the fairway is the target.

 

In putting, you are still hitting the ball - it's at a target, but you still have to hit it.

 

I understand that in side-saddle putting, it's different, but the analogy was to putting in general being just like bowling or basketball, which it's not.

 

How do you explain the fact that blind people can play golf?

[maverick]

He just seems to want to do things different than anyone else. I think he should had finished his degree. Not one of the top putters in recent history used this style of putting. If he spent 7 hours per day putting like everyone else he probably would get as good or better than side saddle. JMHO

[rockinar]

When you go bowling do you throw the ball sideways? Nooo. Not sure why putting is any different. It should be face on just like bowling.

[rockinar]

He just seems to want to do things different than anyone else. I think he should had finished his degree. Not one of the top putters in recent history used this style of putting. If he spent 7 hours per day putting like everyone else he probably would get as good or better than side saddle. JMHO

 

 

He wants to do things simple as possible and do what works for him, not what works for others. Too bad all golfers don't do this.