Bryson DeChambeau's putting style

[TheMoneyShot]

He dumped the Edel brick for this stroke...

[new2g0lf]

Bryson wants to be known as the "Mad Scientist" which means doing everything different than others to gain attention for himself and his sponsors. Different irons, different swing, different hat, now different putter and putting stroke.

 

Ultimately he has to win or no one will care. As a pro he's struggled to reach the Top 10 and Cobra has to be nervous that they won't recoup their R&D costs for single length irons if he doesn't start winning.

[North Butte]

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.

 

He is most certainly not keeping anything simple. He is making it harder on himself by insisting on demonstrating a new and improved way of doing every single thing about golf. If he pulls it off, wins a few tournamnents, contends regularly in majors...he will look like an absolute genius. If he experiments himself right off the Tour in a year or two he's just another colorful character who didn't quite make the grade.

[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

 

 

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.

 

Totally changing your putter stroke is not just doing what works for him. If it did he would not need 7 hours per day to practice putting. How is putting side saddle any simpler than putting looking down at the ball like everyone else? How do you know what other golfer are doing? I believe all golfers do what they feel helps their game. He is just one guy following a weird path for golf. That ignores the tons of data golfers and manufacturers have learned over the years.

[Titleist 670]

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?

 

I don't think it bothers people day to day, but it's annoying if you're an engineer and have to hear about Bryson as though he is the smartest guy on the face of the earth.

 

They do this with all PGA pros. Anything these guys do outside of golf, they're somehow otherworldly at it.

 

Look no further than Tiger's workouts and being built like a linebacker. Or Dustin Johnson with dunking a basketball.

[nochct1]

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?

 

I don't think it bothers people day to day, but it's annoying if you're an engineer and have to hear about Bryson as though he is the smartest guy on the face of the earth.

 

They do this with all PGA pros. Anything these guys do outside of golf, they're somehow otherworldly at it.

 

Look no further than Tiger's workouts and being built like a linebacker. Or Dustin Johnson with dunking a basketball.

 

You forgot that Rickie was the next Travis Pastrana. And Phil also dabbles in the sciences. Kuchar is a future Olympic Ping Pong Gold Medalist.

[dan360]

I feel sorry for his girlfriend,

 

...if he knows what girls are.

[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?

 

I don't think it bothers people day to day, but it's annoying if you're an engineer and have to hear about Bryson as though he is the smartest guy on the face of the earth.

 

They do this with all PGA pros. Anything these guys do outside of golf, they're somehow otherworldly at it.

 

Look no further than Tiger's workouts and being built like a linebacker. Or Dustin Johnson with dunking a basketball.

 

Sports media and Hyperbole is nothing new and I can't stand it either, but my annoyance with it is targeted at the media and specially the announcers of an event. I couldn't care less about the athletes one way or the other

[RICKYBOBBY]

I feel sorry for his girlfriend,

 

...if he knows what girls are.

 

Pretty mature post there.

[DON SVO]

After a weekend of watching his new technique, I just don't get it. It looked like he was going to miss every putt outside 8 feet and he pretty much did. I hope he finds whatever putting nirvana he's chasing.

[Jasonic]

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?

 

I don't think it bothers people day to day, but it's annoying if you're an engineer and have to hear about Bryson as though he is the smartest guy on the face of the earth.

 

They do this with all PGA pros. Anything these guys do outside of golf, they're somehow otherworldly at it.

 

Look no further than Tiger's workouts and being built like a linebacker. Or Dustin Johnson with dunking a basketball.

 

You forgot that Rickie was the next Travis Pastrana. And Phil also dabbles in the sciences. Kuchar is a future Olympic Ping Pong Gold Medalist.

 

Jimmy Walker's space photos would make Carl Sagan proud

[ronbo]

Bryson wants to be known as the "Mad Scientist" which means doing everything different than others to gain attention for himself and his sponsors. Different irons, different swing, different hat, now different putter and putting stroke.

 

Ultimately he has to win or no one will care. As a pro he's struggled to reach the Top 10 and Cobra has to be nervous that they won't recoup their R&D costs for single length irons if he doesn't start winning.

I think Cobra will do fine, I know a retailer that has pre-sold over 5 sets already, time will tell.......

[BForrester]

I have no interest in watching anything this guy does on a course. His play with the long clubs notwithstanding, everything he does is aesthetically unpleasing.

[Short Pete]

I understand what he wants to do with his full swing method, but:

 

1. Is the technique of bending over to the right and putting the left hand under the right on the putter really a superior method of keeping the putter head on path? Why is this technique superior for distance control? I have seen some of his putts at the Templeton, the longer ones were not really good in terms of speed control. I wonder how well this will adapt to differnet green speed conditions?

 

2. He finds solutions for problems he doesn't have. If he goes at it from an analytical standpoint he will have to adress the fact that his swing method produces mediocre results (at least for PGA Tour standards) in the departments that count. Not really consistent off the tee, not really long off the tee, not really stellar in approach shots, short game is mediocre at best.

 

If he doesn' get better in these departments he will not make an impact on the Tour. He doesn't make enough birdies. When he is hot his game is good for the setup of couses at US majors, but at the moment he is not exempt for those.

[QuigleyDU]

Tries so hard to act like he knows something no one else knows.

 

he is the Chip Kelly of golf. Always the smartest man in the room. A role previously held by Philly M. At least Phil had the play and wins to back him up to a degree.

[oldbergkamp]

Just wondering what Lexi thought. Seems like if you're going to experiment that you should do it when you're playing alone not with a partner. I realize this wasn't going to be a big payout but a couple of missed putts still translates to few grand either way.

 

Other than that, I don't care how he putts. If he doesn't score, he'll eventually be experimenting somewhere other than the tour, plain and simple.

[bmaas03]

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?

 

Odd question. Probably the same way that blind people can play baseball, bowl, and basketball or anything else in life. With a little help from their friends and practice (just like the rest of us).

[bluedot]

There are a lot of misconceptions and a lot of misinformation in this thread, both about DeChambeau in particular and face-on putting in general, so here goes from a pretty good conventional putter who became a face on putter 18 months ago and got significantly better:

 

1. DeChambeau putted face on a LOT as an amateur, won some large tournaments this way, and said over a year ago that when he got his Tour card he would go back to it. It isn't an experiment with him. He delayed it this long because he didn't want to contend with the extra scrutiny, and I understand that; people just completely freak out when you putt this way!

 

2. That said, I've never seen the grip he's using, and I've looked at every video and blog that I've been able to find over the last couple of years. I fiddled around with his grip Thursday morning, and just couldn't get it; it seems to me that it brings the left hand back into play at least a bit, but that could just be me. But it seems to complicate a method whose chief advantage is simplicity.

 

3. For those of you that think this is a a crazy way to putt, I'll offer two names: Pete Gogolak and Dick Fosbury. There is NO way to overstate how weird what they did looked at the time, and now nobody would placekick or high jump any other way. Pelz does indeed say that the highest grades he ever gave to any individual, tour pros included, were to an old guy who just showed up at one of his schools at lunch time one day and putted face on.

 

4. Snead putted this way for many, many years and won several times on Tour this way. He said later that Bobby Jones and Joe Dey did him a favor by outlawing croquet style straddling the line and forcing him to go sidesaddle; he got better!

 

5. There is ONE reason in sports, and ONLY one, to stand beside the ball facing the line of play instead of the target, and that's to create power thru speed thru torque and weight transfer, and none of that has anything to do with conventional putting. The only reason that YOU (yes, YOU!) putt conventionally is because everybody else does and you always have; there are literally NO advantages to conventional putting, and several HUGE disadvantages. Think of it this way: conventional putting adopts a position designed for dynamic movement and power, and then you are told to stay still AT ALL COSTS! Everything is sports that isn't about power is done facing the target, and many have been mentioned earlier in the thread. The BEST example, though, is a batter in baseball who gets the bunt sign; he squares around, and slides his top hand up the bat and essentially bunts one-handed with the bottom hand as a fulcrum.

 

6. Lag putting is NOT more difficult face on; it's easier! It takes some time to "translate" the database in your brain from conventional to face on, but controlling the distance you are rolling a ball with one hand is easier than with two hands. If you were rolling the ball instead of putting, at what distance from the hole/target would you turn sideways and sling the ball with two hands? (I'll give you a hint: NEVER!)

 

7. There is ONE disadvantage to face on putting, and that is that it is VERY difficult to putt out of the fringe. Face on putters only have one degree of loft, and the ball tends to pop up and go nowhere out of even light fringe. IMO, that one disadvantage is far, far outweighed by the other advantages, and one advantage that is never mentioned is that it is much easier to strike extremely fast downhill putts softly and get them started on line with one hand instead of two.

 

I decided to give face on a try with a one-year commitment to it, based on things Randy Haag says about it. I just wanted to see if it would help me putt better, and I wasn't bad conventionally. I was as good within 6 weeks, and better by the end of two months, at which point I got rid of my rather extensive collection of conventional putters except for two nostalgia pieces. I have NO doubt that it is a better way to putt, and that most amateurs would 3 putt far less frequently if they were to adopt face on.

 

Hope that helps.

[bluedot]

And I'll add this about DeChambeau's putting in the Franklin-Templeton:

 

In addition to the fact that one tournament is so small a database of results as to be nearly meaningless, THAT tournament is especially hard to draw conclusions from. In those formats, players are putting far more aggressively than normal much of the time because their partner already has par, or is already at tap-in range, or whatever. Let's wait and see how he putts in regular Tour events, compared to how he putted last season.

 

At the end of the day, though, no matter what method of putting you use, the key to making putts is hitting it close on the approach; Mark Broadie's research has shown this beyond a doubt, and this hasn't really been a strength of DeChambeau so far. He'll have to hit it closer to make more putts, period.

 

And finally as to Brad Faxon: Faxon was very negative on the Saturday telecast about DeChambeau's putting and face on in general. To which I say, "Of course! He's Brad Freaking Faxon!" If I could putt like Faxon, I wouldn't like anything else, either. But Faxon's putting is a gift from the gods, and has little to do with rest of us.

[jimb6golf]

Pretty unconventional, but if he wishes to putt side saddle that's fine. His grip is what really annoyed me as he seems to be trying to combine side saddle with Kuchars arm lock and Langers old grab you forearm grips. Just settle on a putting stroke and get on with it. Seems like everything he does is for the show of being different - from his hat to his single length clubs, and now the putting stroke. To be honest he's kinda annoying.

[JustTheTips]

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.

 

So when I pick a target 250 yards down the fairway I should look at that because the golf club is the equivalent to the basketball (ignore the fact that I have senses tell me exactly where the basketball is)? Obviously not. You can get away with not looking at the ball when you put because the motion is slow/simplistic enough (and yeah some people hit full shots without looking at the ball cause they are blind. Doesn't make it the best way to play). The question is do you gain enough from better aim/speed perception to make up for it. Hard to say.

 

So far we haven't seen any side saddle putters (or belly putters for that matter) who are better than conventional ones on tour. Is that because of lack of triers (and the fact that good putters are unlikely to try it so you get the bunch of middle of the roaders at best) or because it isn't noticeably better. It is hard to say.

[dan360]

I feel sorry for his girlfriend,

 

...if he knows what girls are.

 

Pretty mature post there.

 

Please ask little baby Jesus for forgiveness. Thanks.

 

 

[bluedot]

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.

 

So when I pick a target 250 yards down the fairway I should look at that because the golf club is the equivalent to the basketball (ignore the fact that I have senses tell me exactly where the basketball is)? Obviously not. You can get away with not looking at the ball when you put because the motion is slow/simplistic enough (and yeah some people hit full shots without looking at the ball cause they are blind. Doesn't make it the best way to play). The question is do you gain enough from better aim/speed perception to make up for it. Hard to say.

 

So far we haven't seen any side saddle putters (or belly putters for that matter) who are better than conventional ones on tour. Is that because of lack of triers (and the fact that good putters are unlikely to try it so you get the bunch of middle of the roaders at best) or because it isn't noticeably better. It is hard to say.

 

The issue of whether to look at the hole or at the ball isn't really important in "evaluating" face on putting; that's an available option regardless of which putting style one uses. I have tried looking at the hole putting both ways; it makes a good drill for me, but I just can't get it as a way to putt in competition, even putting face on.

 

The analogy to bowling and free throw shooting is much more about precision than it is about vision, though the vision part is important. Stand at the free throw line facing the line of play instead of the basket, and shoot across your body with two hands on the ball; I don't think you will find it effective. Same with bowling, same with throwing darts, etc. And there's a reason a batter squares around and slides his top hand up the bat instead of trying to bunt from a normal batting stance and grip. I'll say it again: the ONLY times in sports that we adopt a position facing the line of play instead of the target is when we want to create power thru speed, and speed thru torque and weight shift. Putting is literally the ONLY precision activity in all of sports that adopts that position, and then on top of that, requires staying as still as possible. It makes zero sense.

 

As to not having seen elite face on putters on Tour, you won't until a kid comes along who has done it always. Pro careers are very short, the margins are incredibly small, and the incentives NOT to make changes that will take a year or so to ingrain are huge, so the only guys you'll see trying something different will be guys who are struggling. In the case of something like face on putting, there is an extra incentive not to change because people just freak out when they see it. David Cook "warns" about that in his video, but I wasn't really prepared for it, I must say. And DeChambeau has referred to it as well. (I have a theory about why that is, but that's another story...)

 

But I'll offer this again: Pete Gogolak was absolutely a revolutionary figure in football, as was Dick Fosbury in high jumping. What they did had never been seen before, and they were both widely derided in the early days of their careers. But now, half a century later, any coach who tried to teach straight on place kicking or either the scissors or western roll as high jump techniques would be laughed out of the business after they were fired. That change comes slowly doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing, and golf is arguably the most traditional of all sports.

 

I putted conventionally for 50 years. I read every book on the subject, tried every type of putter and every putting grip, took lessons, and practiced like few people that I know. And I wasn't bad at all. But I'm here to tell you that rolling a ball with one hand instead of two, and facing the target while you do it, is a superior way to putt. It isn't a magic trick, and it takes time to implement for sure. But it's more effective, easier to maintain, and easier to fix. It's just a better way to putt a golf ball.

[Short Pete]

I understand the advantages you describe here. Moving the sidesaddle putter with the palm in the direction of the hole while standing face-on makes perfect sense to me, at least theoretically. I haven't thought about trying it, so I won't rule it out. But the grip that Mr. Dechambeau uses takes this advantage away. The only sport I know where the forward move is made with the palm of the hand not facing the target is the throw in Boule/Petanque. It makes sense there, because the applied backspin in the Boule toss prevents the ball from rolling too far after landing. The Dechambeau grip makes absolutely no sense to me, but obviously he knows something we all don't. Time will tell if it works out well, but if he doesn't hit more approaches close to the flagstick he won't get his birdie rate up. Everything he does is aimed at simplifying his movements, this grip doesn't do that.

 

Oh, and his putter doesn't seem to have the required 10 degrees of shaft angle the USGA rules require, but maybe we just don't see it on TV.

[Noke]

I understand the advantages you describe here. Moving the sidesaddle putter with the palm in the direction of the hole while standing face-on makes perfect sense to me, at least theoretically. I haven't thought about trying it, so I won't rule it out. But the grip that Mr. Dechambeau uses takes this advantage away. The only sport I know where the forward move is made with the palm of the hand not facing the target is the throw in Boule/Petanque. It makes sense there, because the applied backspin in the Boule toss prevents the ball from rolling too far after landing. The Dechambeau grip makes absolutely no sense to me, but obviously he knows something we all don't. Time will tell if it works out well, but if he doesn't hit more approaches close to the flagstick he won't get his birdie rate up. Everything he does is aimed at simplifying his movements, this grip doesn't do that.

 

Oh, and his putter doesn't seem to have the required 10 degrees of shaft angle the USGA rules require, but maybe we just don't see it on TV.

 

As a side-saddler I'm with ya on DeChambeau's grip. Doesn't make sense to me either, from a simplicity standpoint.

 

I'm a little surprised by Faxon's reaction. From what I've seen he stresses an 'instinctual' approach to putting, and side-saddle feels as natural to me as tossing a ball into a hole.

[bluedot]

I understand the advantages you describe here. Moving the sidesaddle putter with the palm in the direction of the hole while standing face-on makes perfect sense to me, at least theoretically. I haven't thought about trying it, so I won't rule it out. But the grip that Mr. Dechambeau uses takes this advantage away. The only sport I know where the forward move is made with the palm of the hand not facing the target is the throw in Boule/Petanque. It makes sense there, because the applied backspin in the Boule toss prevents the ball from rolling too far after landing. The Dechambeau grip makes absolutely no sense to me, but obviously he knows something we all don't. Time will tell if it works out well, but if he doesn't hit more approaches close to the flagstick he won't get his birdie rate up. Everything he does is aimed at simplifying his movements, this grip doesn't do that.

 

Oh, and his putter doesn't seem to have the required 10 degrees of shaft angle the USGA rules require, but maybe we just don't see it on TV.

 

As a side-saddler I'm with ya on DeChambeau's grip. Doesn't make sense to me either, from a simplicity standpoint.

 

I'm a little surprised by Faxon's reaction. From what I've seen he stresses an 'instinctual' approach to putting, and side-saddle feels as natural to me as tossing a ball into a hole.

 

I agree on the DeChambeau grip. I'm REALLY resistant to the "That feels weird!" syndrome/reaction when making a change to something new, but I can't quite figure out the logic of the palm-away thing. I've kind of evolved to using the pencil grip on short putts because it is 100% straight back/straight thru, and I use the palm grip with the index finger down the shaft on putts that I have to hit harder. I can't figure out where the palm-away grip fits in, really.

 

I also find the putter itself interesting; I'd love to see one up close. I couldn't grip my right forearm with my left hand without moving the putter to a completely upright position, and that took the inside of my putter well off of the ground, which really reduces the available hitting area. But it didn't look like the inside of his putter was off the ground at all, so I don't know what's going on there. I'm 100% sure that the putter has the required lie angle, but it's really hard to see it on TV.

[Titleist 670]

I putted conventionally for 50 years. I read every book on the subject, tried every type of putter and every putting grip, took lessons, and practiced like few people that I know. And I wasn't bad at all. But I'm here to tell you that rolling a ball with one hand instead of two, and facing the target while you do it, is a superior way to putt. It isn't a magic trick, and it takes time to implement for sure. But it's more effective, easier to maintain, and easier to fix. It's just a better way to putt a golf ball.

 

Just because it worked for you, does not mean it's universally superior.

 

If it is, I expect to see Bryson absolutely dominating every PGA putting statistic in the coming years, since he has experience with it and pro talent.

 

If it is a method that is so superior to traditional putting as high jumping and kicking was to track and football, nobody will stand a chance putting conventionally.

[JustTheTips]

I putted conventionally for 50 years. I read every book on the subject, tried every type of putter and every putting grip, took lessons, and practiced like few people that I know. And I wasn't bad at all. But I'm here to tell you that rolling a ball with one hand instead of two, and facing the target while you do it, is a superior way to putt. It isn't a magic trick, and it takes time to implement for sure. But it's more effective, easier to maintain, and easier to fix. It's just a better way to putt a golf ball.

 

Just because it worked for you, does not mean it's universally superior.

 

If it is, I expect to see Bryson absolutely dominating every PGA putting statistic in the coming years, since he has experience with it and pro talent.

 

If it is a method that is so superior to traditional putting as high jumping and kicking was to track and football, nobody will stand a chance putting conventionally.

 

Well it is also possible that it is just enough better for Byrson to stay on tour. For example going from -.5 strokes to +.5 would be huge improvement but woldn't make him a dominant putter. Now when Jason Day/Jordan switches and goes from from being the best putter out there to cutting 1 more stroke/round off their score, everyone would switch:). That is what the Fosbury flop when it made you by far the best in the world. And it should be pointed out that it took and equipment change to make the fop possible. Jumping onto you back when landing in a sand pit was going to be career limiting.

 

It is basically back to the broomstick discussions from several years back. Numerous people said it was better/easier. At the PGA level though, the best putters never used it. If that was because the best didn't switch or because the technique had limits (what you gained on short puts, you lost of lag puts) is debatable.

[bluedot]

I putted conventionally for 50 years. I read every book on the subject, tried every type of putter and every putting grip, took lessons, and practiced like few people that I know. And I wasn't bad at all. But I'm here to tell you that rolling a ball with one hand instead of two, and facing the target while you do it, is a superior way to putt. It isn't a magic trick, and it takes time to implement for sure. But it's more effective, easier to maintain, and easier to fix. It's just a better way to putt a golf ball.

 

Just because it worked for you, does not mean it's universally superior.

 

If it is, I expect to see Bryson absolutely dominating every PGA putting statistic in the coming years, since he has experience with it and pro talent.

 

If it is a method that is so superior to traditional putting as high jumping and kicking was to track and football, nobody will stand a chance putting conventionally.

 

I think you've overcooked what I said by quite a bit. I absolutely did NOT claim that the impact on golf would be comparable to the impact Gogolak had on kicking or that Fosbury had on the high jump. My point was that just because something is visually different and new(ish) doesn't mean that it can't be a better way to do things.

 

And the big benefits of face on putting aren't going to be on Tour anyway. The guys on Tour are already superior putters, and truly excel in the single biggest putting stat, which is three putt avoidance. Nobody is going to make lots of 25' putts; there are too many imperfections and subtle undulations on the surface of a green for that to happen, even on the perfect greens on which Tour events are played. Mark Broadie's research has shown pretty conclusively that the key to scoring is hitting it close and avoiding 3 putts, and the pros already do that; their speed control is stunningly good. If DeChambeau is going to move up the money list, it's going to be because he starts hitting it closer on approach shots, much more than improvements he is likely to make in putting.

 

But amateurs are another story entirely. So here's what I've found after 18 months and approx. 225 rounds putting face on. (I'm a stats freak, and I've tracked every round I play for more than 20 years now, so I'm not guessing at this.) My really good days aren't any better than they were when I putted conventionally; I'm still going to have 27 or 28 putts on a very good putting day. What's better are my AVERAGE days, and what's WAY better are my bad days. It's just a lot easier to control speed putting one handed, and it's also a lot easier to hit the ball squarely and on the line that you've picked when you are facing the hole and bringing the club straight back and straight thru. It's just easier...

 

I'll say this again: Putting is literally the ONLY precision movement in all of sports that is performed two-handed from a position facing the line of play instead of one-handed facing the target. The ONLY one. There is no good reason for that, and I don't have a doubt in the world that most AMATEURS would benefit, given focused and frequent practice, by putting face on. The worse their putting conventionally, the greater the benefit; the better their putting conventionally, the smaller the benefit. But there would be benefits; I believe that.

 

You don't have to agree with any of this. But I'd urge you to remember that my database for putting conventionally is pretty big, probably quite a bit bigger than your database about putting face on.

[Rich Douglas]

For years tour players resisted changing out wound balls. For years tour players resisted metal woods, high-MOI putters, perimeter-weighted irons, and many other changes. Why? Not because these weren't good improvements. Rather, many of them would require the player to re-think and adjust to them. Remember, these people are at the peak--the peak of their games and the peak of THE game. The time and effort it would take to re-tool could result in a real loss. Look at what happened to Ian Baker-Finch. After he won The Open he decided to get longer off the tee. He went from being one of the best in the world to a guy who couldn't break 90.

 

To the best players in the world, it isn't worth the work and the risk. But you? But me? We all have lots and lots of potential for improvement. A change to a better piece of equipment, swing key, or putting style might bring about instant (or near-instant) improvement.

 

I'm 57 years old and hit it as far as I ever did. Why? Well, equipment has a lot to do with that. But so does technique. I swing the club better than I ever did. In fact, I'm kind of amazed I could score at all with the clubs and swing I used to use!

 

No, examining the behavior and choices of professionals isn't going to tell you much. Any of them could take circa-1970 equipment and empty our wallets with it. They change slowly--even BCD has been toying with this for years. And, in many cases, they simply don't need to change at all. They're often more focused on playing better with what they have, not making radical changes. (Says the guy with Sterling irons who puts the short ones one-handed and face-on.)