Dave Pelz Short Game Bible

Redzah

Reading it at the moment and i'm through 120 pages. Some great stuff on it and worth a read for any level of golfer.

His most impressive point and something I think will most lower scores is in relation to his 3x4 distance wedge system for shots between 30 and 100 yards. Basically he promotes having four wedges and using 3 different length of back swings with a full follow through each time. This gives 12 consistent distances that are easily repeatable from 30-100 yards as research has shown distance control is the key problem from 30-100 yards and not accuracy.

Anybody read this book or have any comments on it.

Myksyk

Yep read it cover to cover. Excellent read. It's the reason I have four wedges and know my full and half swings with each one.

k.p.h

Great book, but,

90% of stats are made up on the spot.
You can make any stats pretty much prove whatever you want depending on what way you spin them, especially if you are trying to sell a book.

:P

Redzah

k.p.h wrote: »

Great book, but,

90% of stats are made up on the spot.
You can make any stats pretty much prove whatever you want depending on what way you spin them, especially if you are trying to sell a book.

:P

Which 90% are you talking about k.p.h? So far the stats i have read seem logical and real but i'd like to hear what u are referring.

I understand what u mean by spinning stats to prove a theory but i don't understand why u think they are made up?

BigChap1759

Great book - the scoot'n'spin method has transformed my bunker play. As with all training take what works for you and leave what doesn't. There's a lot of sense in the book though

Kace

Redzah wrote: »

Reading it at the moment and i'm through 120 pages. Some great stuff on it and worth a read for any level of golfer.

His most impressive point and something I think will most lower scores is in relation to his 3x4 distance wedge system for shots between 30 and 100 yards. Basically he promotes having four wedges and using 3 different length of back swings with a full follow through each time. This gives 12 consistent distances that are easily repeatable from 30-100 yards as research has shown distance control is the key problem from 30-100 yards and not accuracy.

Anybody read this book or have any comments on it.

Yep - have the little stickers on my 4 wedges to boot !
Also - always putt from off the green with the flagstick in as a result of Pelz's findings.

Have the Putting Bible as well but never actually managed to get through that one cover to cover...........yet

Redzah

Kace wrote: »

Yep - have the little stickers on my 4 wedges to boot !
Also - always putt from off the green with the flagstick in as a result of Pelz's findings.

Have the Putting Bible as well but never actually managed to get through that one cover to cover...........yet

Haven't seen any putting findings. Why is his theory for putting with the flagstick in as i normally take it out as it pschologically makes me think i have a better chance of holing it.

mike12

Read it lots of good stuff in it, then read Mickelsons book his no.1 pupil and it basically contradicts everything in Peltz book.
Mike

Loire

Redzah wrote: »

Reading it at the moment and i'm through 120 pages. Some great stuff on it and worth a read for any level of golfer.

His most impressive point and something I think will most lower scores is in relation to his 3x4 distance wedge system for shots between 30 and 100 yards. Basically he promotes having four wedges and using 3 different length of back swings with a full follow through each time. This gives 12 consistent distances that are easily repeatable from 30-100 yards as research has shown distance control is the key problem from 30-100 yards and not accuracy.

Anybody read this book or have any comments on it.

Hi Redzah,

I've read most of the book (a number of years ago admittedly) and found it very good. The one thing about the piece in bold above, it doesn't really take into account variables though such as wind (strength/direction), lie (fairway/rough), temperature (Jan vs Aug) and elevation (green above you, level or below you) and these often make a big difference. Having said that though for normal shots (on the fairway to a level-ish green) it should be sopt on....I'd just be a little wary of depending too much on distances as if I hit what I thought was a good shot and it was off then I'd be questioning my own distances from then on. I used to emply a similiar technique when putting...taking the club back so far and measuring the distance so I could have a reliable putting stroke from different long distances from the length of the backwing...this worked until I played on a slow green or when putting uphill/downhill etc. I suppose what I am trying to say is that feel is to me very important when it comes to the short game.

Redzah

Loire wrote: »

Hi Redzah,

I've read most of the book (a number of years ago admittedly) and found it very good. The one thing about the piece in bold above, it doesn't really take into account variables though such as wind (strength/direction), lie (fairway/rough), temperature (Jan vs Aug) and elevation (green above you, level or below you) and these often make a big difference. Having said that though for normal shots (on the fairway to a level-ish green) it should be sopt on....I'd just be a little wary of depending too much on distances as if I hit what I thought was a good shot and it was off then I'd be questioning my own distances from then on. I used to emply a similiar technique when putting...taking the club back so far and measuring the distance so I could have a reliable putting stroke from different long distances from the length of the backwing...this worked until I played on a slow green or when putting uphill/downhill etc. I suppose what I am trying to say is that feel is to me very important when it comes to the short game.

Yes i understand loire. He does mention the variables that you speak about in particular elevation and hard vs soft conditions when describing how the ball reacts on the green.

To be honest i remember being thought this by Fred Twoomey down in cork when i was on junior interpro panels (10 years ago) and he was massively into his 7:30, 9:00 and 10:30 swings and had all the panels practicing this hard. I played some of my best golf during this period and was very accurate with the wedges shooting regular underpar rounds.

I think this could be key to reaching this level again as it promotes great rhythm on the short game shots and provides confidence in distance intervals needed.

I suppose what i am saying is that these can be used extremely effectively in conjunction with other factors, example here would be a thought process;

Actual distance to pin 62 yards
Medium Elevation +7 yards
Into slight wind +4 yards

In the above case, the shot will play 73 yard I have a 10:30 sand wedge swing that goes 75 yards so i'll hit a 10:15 sand wedge shot.

It all makes perfect sense in theory and with practice it can be extremely effective as I have used this technique in my youth and the results were very good. Reading this book has refamiliarised myself with this.

irish bloke

mike12 wrote: »

Read it lots of good stuff in it, then read Mickelsons book his no.1 pupil and it basically contradicts everything in Peltz book.
Mike

Really, im Mickelson video (Secrets of the Short Game), he speaks abt Peltz quite a bit and credits him amongst other things for improving his bunker play dramatically.

Loire

Redzah wrote: »

Yes i understand loire. He does mention the variables that you speak about in particular elevation and hard vs soft conditions when describing how the ball reacts on the green.

To be honest i remember being thought this by Fred Twoomey down in cork when i was on junior interpro panels (10 years ago) and he was massively into his 7:30, 9:00 and 10:30 swings and had all the panels practicing this hard. I played some of my best golf during this period and was very accurate with the wedges shooting regular underpar rounds.

I think this could be key to reaching this level again as it promotes great rhythm on the short game shots and provides confidence in distance intervals needed.

I suppose what i am saying is that these can be used extremely effectively in conjunction with other factors, example here would be a thought process;

Actual distance to pin 62 yards
Medium Elevation +7 yards
Into slight wind +4 yards

In the above case, the shot will play 73 yard I have a 10:30 sand wedge swing that goes 75 yards so i'll hit a 10:15 sand wedge shot.

It all makes perfect sense in theory and with practice it can be extremely effective as I have used this technique in my youth and the results were very good. Reading this book has refamiliarised myself with this.

That makes sense alright - I suppose it's back to earlier discussions on how to:

1. Measure exact distances (laster / GPS)
2. Measure how far you actually hit the 3 swings with each wedge
3. Regular practice with the wedges in question to ensure that your 7.30 swing is in fact 7.30 and not 8.00

Loire.

mike12

irish bloke wrote: »

Really, im Mickelson video (Secrets of the Short Game), he speaks abt Peltz quite a bit and credits him amongst other things for improving his bunker play dramatically.

Most of Phils book was 1 wedge open it to differend degrees and swing the same way for all of them, very few if any similarities between the 2 books.
Mike

Redzah

Loire wrote: »

That makes sense alright - I suppose it's back to earlier discussions on how to:

1. Measure exact distances (laster / GPS)
2. Measure how far you actually hit the 3 swings with each wedge
3. Regular practice with the wedges in question to ensure that your 7.30 swing is in fact 7.30 and not 8.00

Loire.

Yes exactly loire with point 3 being the most important as the rhythm and consistency of both the strike and distance will only come with training your body to execute this. Pelz mentions that from watching the length of the back swing of the pros he worked with he could should the yardage without looking at the shot at all, could be some exaggeration here of course but as i said i have practiced this method in my youth and it was very effective. I just need to get to the range more often to drill this in again

mike12

Loire wrote: »

That makes sense alright - I suppose it's back to earlier discussions on how to:

1. Measure exact distances (laster / GPS)
2. Measure how far you actually hit the 3 swings with each wedge
3. Regular practice with the wedges in question to ensure that your 7.30 swing is in fact 7.30 and not 8.00

Loire.

Lazer is the answer if you want exact to the pin, it doesn't really matter if it is 8.00 as long as you are repeating it all the time and u know how far it goes with each club. The key is to have a shot from 30 yards up to 120 where u can say i know what i hit 62 yards whither thats a 3/4 SW a 1/2 PW.
The answer to 2 is that you have to get to a point where u are landing the shots in a fairly tight grouping if you can't get to a place where u are withing 3 or 4 yards of your target it makes it a bit pointless.

Redzah

mike12 wrote: »

Lazer is the answer if you want exact to the pin, it doesn't really matter if it is 8.00 as long as you are repeating it all the time and u know how far it goes with each club. The key is to have a shot from 30 yards up to 120 where u can say i know what i hit 62 yards whither thats a 3/4 SW a 1/2 PW.
The answer to 2 is that you have to get to a point where u are landing the shots in a fairly tight grouping if you can't get to a place where u are withing 3 or 4 yards of your target it makes it a bit pointless.

Yes thats true but I think Loire's point and the point of Pelz model is that 7:30 (and not 8:00) will give u a better range of distances as an 8:00 swing will be closer to the 9:00 range. Once u have the 3 swing lengths mastered, an 8:00 swing will essentially be an extension of the 7:30 in an event when the pin is slightly further (eg. 5 yards) than ur 7:30 range.

I think by saying 3/4 SW and 1/2 PW is not what Pelz is preaching. His preaches difinitive back swing lengths followed by full follow throughs using the arms of a clock. 3/4 SW or 1/2 PW is too vague and is currently what i am doing on the golf course. Pelz approach is developed to sharpen this way of thinking.

Yes exactly, it may take 100 shots of a 9:00 SW to get a consistent average of ur distance (i.e. 3 or 4 yards as u have mentioned)

Loire

mike12 wrote: »

Lazer is the answer if you want exact to the pin, it doesn't really matter if it is 8.00 as long as you are repeating it all the time and u know how far it goes with each club. The key is to have a shot from 30 yards up to 120 where u can say i know what i hit 62 yards whither thats a 3/4 SW a 1/2 PW.
The answer to 2 is that you have to get to a point where u are landing the shots in a fairly tight grouping if you can't get to a place where u are withing 3 or 4 yards of your target it makes it a bit pointless.

But if you measure you distances initially with an 8.00 swing and get a fairly precise distance, then if you don't swing at 8.00 your difference will be different and you'll get confused...start looking at your technique instead of the backswing length.. You may as well just measure distances with each wedge by hitting it easy, middle and full (which might be better altogether!).

Redzah

Loire wrote: »

But if you measure you distances initially with an 8.00 swing and get a fairly precise distance, then if you don't swing at 8.00 your difference will be different and you'll get confused...start looking at your technique instead of the backswing length.. You may as well just measure distances with each wedge by hitting it easy, middle and full (which might be better altogether!).

Easy, middle and full as you mentioned above takes out all the scientific and accurate approach that Pelz preaches. His approach is to keep the rhythm constant and the follow through constant with the only variant being the length of the backswing and I agree with his methodology. A structured and disiplined approach to practicing this could be very rewarding.

Loire

Redzah wrote: »

Easy, middle and full as you mentioned above takes out all the scientific and accurate approach that Pelz preaches. His approach is to keep the rhythm constant and the follow through constant with the only variant being the length of the backswing and I agree with his methodology. A structured and disiplined approach to practicing this could be very rewarding.

I agree but how this is practiced is important too. Once the initial yardages are measured, then at the range you'd need to practice swinging to 8.00 after hitting a full drive or full iron to replicate what would happen on the course...otherwise when playing you may not be able to hit an 8.00 (unless you get multiple gos like you could at the range). Whereas hitting it easy,middle, full would resemble the decisions a golfer makes with the other clubs. With the right practice though I'd agree..Pelz' method would be better.

Whyner

Kace wrote: »

Also - always putt from off the green with the flagstick in as a result of Pelz's findings

except for uphill putts

Redzah

Whyner wrote: »

except for uphill putts

I presume you are both referring to the fact that downhill flagstick might stop the ball travelling fast on line and uphill flagstick might stop it going into the hole.

I'm not sure if this is a significant benefit and i prefer the flag to be out as it focuses my mind on holing the putt and not getting it close to the flag like other shots from off the green.

Kace i'd be interested for you to elaborate on Pelz's findings in relation to flag in from off the green.

Redzah

mike12 wrote: »

Read it lots of good stuff in it, then read Mickelsons book his no.1 pupil and it basically contradicts everything in Peltz book.
Mike

Mickleson is a current student of Pelz so he obviously agrees with some of his work

Hacker111

irish bloke wrote: »

Really, im Mickelson video (Secrets of the Short Game), he speaks abt Peltz quite a bit and credits him amongst other things for improving his bunker play dramatically.

I went to Pelz school 2 years ago...just after watching Mickelson DVD religiously for 6 months.... everything they thought contradicted Leftys DVD... I said it to the instructor on the course... Jari (I think) advised that when Lefty joined up with Pelz it was mainly for his putting (especially long distance)...they did not touch his chipping/bunker technique as it was so ingrained and (obviously) so good at that stage. Pelz felt it best to leave it alone.

BTW he credits his bunker play in DVD due to the distance of bunker shots Pelz made him practice over and over.... most commonly played average bunker shot on Tour stat (or something)

Hoppermcgrath

I'd be careful with his teachings. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but you need to put serious time into his methods for them to be grooved. This isn't always possible with work, kids etc.

Personally I was always only o.k. with my wedges playing off 5-6, but felt there was room for improvement. I bought Pelz hoping that it could help my short game, but would be the first to admit I tried to adapt what he said without putting in the long hours.

I would be very much a "feel" player (insofar as a cr*p amateur can be!) and found what he taught very much contrary to that.

To cut a long story short my short game went to the absolute dogs, with a long long spell of the duffs and skulls from 60 yards and in (serious game destroying horrors), which took a long time to get rid of, predominately by ditching Pelz!

Obviously you can't blame a book for your woes, but be careful before becoming a disciple as it is very mechanical, although it has merit especially the 3x4 system, although this is not solely a Pelz recommendation

PRAF

Redzah wrote: »

Reading it at the moment and i'm through 120 pages. Some great stuff on it and worth a read for any level of golfer.

His most impressive point and something I think will most lower scores is in relation to his 3x4 distance wedge system for shots between 30 and 100 yards. Basically he promotes having four wedges and using 3 different length of back swings with a full follow through each time. This gives 12 consistent distances that are easily repeatable from 30-100 yards as research has shown distance control is the key problem from 30-100 yards and not accuracy.

Anybody read this book or have any comments on it.

I'm a fan of it. I particularly like his approach to chipping and bunker play. Once you learn the techniques, they require very little maintenance. The technique for pitching and distance wedges are good too but I need to regularly practice these to dial them in.

Hoppermcgrath

Hoppermcgrath wrote: »

I'd be careful with his teachings. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but you need to put serious time into his methods for them to be grooved. This isn't always possible with work, kids etc.

Personally I was always only o.k. with my wedges playing off 5-6, but felt there was room for improvement. I bought Pelz hoping that it could help my short game, but would be the first to admit I tried to adapt what he said without putting in the long hours.

I would be very much a "feel" player (insofar as a cr*p amateur can be!) and found what he taught very much contrary to that.

To cut a long story short my short game went to the absolute dogs, with a long long spell of the duffs and skulls from 60 yards and in (serious game destroying horrors), which took a long time to get rid of, predominately by ditching Pelz!

Obviously you can't blame a book for your woes, but be careful before becoming a disciple as it is very mechanical, although it has merit especially the 3x4 system, although this is not solely a Pelz recommendation

By the way said book available for low, low price together with it's equally dust gathering brother "The Putting Bible"

irish bloke

Hoppermcgrath wrote: »

I'd be careful with his teachings. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but you need to put serious time into his methods for them to be grooved. This isn't always possible with work, kids etc.

Personally I was always only o.k. with my wedges playing off 5-6, but felt there was room for improvement. I bought Pelz hoping that it could help my short game, but would be the first to admit I tried to adapt what he said without putting in the long hours.

I would be very much a "feel" player (insofar as a cr*p amateur can be!) and found what he taught very much contrary to that.

To cut a long story short my short game went to the absolute dogs, with a long long spell of the duffs and skulls from 60 yards and in (serious game destroying horrors), which took a long time to get rid of, predominately by ditching Pelz!

Obviously you can't blame a book for your woes, but be careful before becoming a disciple as it is very mechanical, although it has merit especially the 3x4 system, although this is not solely a Pelz recommendation

For me, I have it and am gonna steer away from reading it. Have the Mickelson method someway ingrained in myself and dont want to clutter my thoughts with another teaching.

As some have mentioned here its a different method, so will leave it where it is for now.

Kace

Redzah wrote: »

I presume you are both referring to the fact that downhill flagstick might stop the ball travelling fast on line and uphill flagstick might stop it going into the hole.

I'm not sure if this is a significant benefit and i prefer the flag to be out as it focuses my mind on holing the putt and not getting it close to the flag like other shots from off the green.

Kace i'd be interested for you to elaborate on Pelz's findings in relation to flag in from off the green.

I thought it was in the Short Game Bible book (just took a look at the Putting Bible but couldn't find it there). Basically Pelz set up his swing robot to hit hundreds of shots at different speeds and at different parts of a hole with and without the flagstick in. He found that a higher percentage of putts stayed in the hole when the pin was left in - I can't remember the exact figure but think it was at least 10-20% more.

Worked nicely for me at the weekend on an uphill putt. I don't recall that it said that it didn't apply equally to uphill putts.

k.p.h

Hoppermcgrath wrote: »

I'd be careful with his teachings. I think a lot of what he says has merit, but you need to put serious time into his methods for them to be grooved. This isn't always possible with work, kids etc.

Personally I was always only o.k. with my wedges playing off 5-6, but felt there was room for improvement. I bought Pelz hoping that it could help my short game, but would be the first to admit I tried to adapt what he said without putting in the long hours.

I would be very much a "feel" player (insofar as a cr*p amateur can be!) and found what he taught very much contrary to that.

To cut a long story short my short game went to the absolute dogs, with a long long spell of the duffs and skulls from 60 yards and in (serious game destroying horrors), which took a long time to get rid of, predominately by ditching Pelz!

Obviously you can't blame a book for your woes, but be careful before becoming a disciple as it is very mechanical, although it has merit especially the 3x4 system, although this is not solely a Pelz recommendation

Actually all his methods have become quite outdated, and TBH Mickelsons were never really a defined set of methods before he released a DVD, and that was just a money spinner too.

None of the young guys on the PGA or ET use anything like as defined a method a either, they all use different wedge techniques with the main aspect being getting the club on plane (obvious), they all use different chipping/pitching techniques too, with Mickelsons hinge and hold hardly being used at all because it's so difficult to become consistent with.

If you don't believe me the golf in on TV all weekend all you have to do is watch, some guys hinge, some release,some forward press and some keep the bounce down. There is a huge variation, using the bounce and returning the club to it's address position is really trending with the tour players at the moment but by no means is it the all encompassing.

Redzah

k.p.h wrote: »

Actually all his methods have become quite outdated, and TBH Mickelsons were never really a defined set of methods before he released a DVD, and that was just a money spinner too.

None of the young guys on the PGA or ET use anything like as defined a method a either, they all use different wedge techniques with the main aspect being getting the club on plane (obvious), they all use different chipping/pitching techniques too, with Mickelsons hinge and hold hardly being used at all because it's so difficult to become consistent with.

If you don't believe me the golf in on TV all weekend all you have to do is watch, some guys hinge, some release,some forward press and some keep the bounce down. There is a huge variation, using the bounce and returning the club to it's address position is really trending with the tour players at the moment but by no means is it the all encompassing.

Getting the club on plane is the least of my worries when it comes to the short game, its the easiest part. Major concern for me and should be for most in the short game is getting the distance correct.

Using the bounce to me means just not digging and not having a stabbed follow through. Am i missing something on this?

InTheRough

I've always found Dave Pelz instruction on the short game great but very mechanical, his putting bible is better i.e. ball balancing, the golden eight and correction for left or right breaking putts.

I found this a while back.
http://www.golf.com/instruction/pelz-vault

BigChap1759

Thanks for that - interesting read.

Pelz is a bit marmite I suppose but there is no doubt that a lot of what he says about the game is true and, for players who don't have a lot of natural feel, his methods can definitely bring more consiatancy to the short game(and putting).

Redzah

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Thanks for that - interesting read.

Pelz is a bit marmite I suppose but there is no doubt that a lot of what he says about the game is true and, for players who don't have a lot of natural feel, his methods can definitely bring more consiatancy to the short game(and putting).

See the thing is I am very much a feel player (I had to be as I grew up playing a lot of links golf), but as a feel player I believe that I could benefit most from a structured approach to wedge distances i.e. add some structure to my current feel approach.

This has worked well in the past for me and if I get the time to put in the hours, i'm hoping that this will sharpen my game. I think his approach to wedge distances i.e. his 3x4 system is by far the most intriguing thing in the book (currently on page 172) with other points he raises being somewhat on the basic/obvious side

PRAF

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Thanks for that - interesting read.

Pelz is a bit marmite I suppose but there is no doubt that a lot of what he says about the game is true and, for players who don't have a lot of natural feel, his methods can definitely bring more consiatancy to the short game(and putting).

Agree with you. Someone like Sevy would have run 100 miles away had Dave Pelz tried to bamboozle him with his methods. His approach is not for everyone. For the natural golfer, the 'artists' around the greens, the 'feel players' etc they are probably already good enough that they don't need to learn his method. However, they could probably still benefit from his approch to practice, his approach to measuring your abilities in order to identify your weaknesses etc.

However, I have found his methods to be a great help to my short game. I like the fact that his methods are based on scientific research rather than 'feel' or 'artistry'.

I heard that Mark O'Meara once visited one of his schools and insisted that Pelz was wrong about bunker play. Pelz says you just use your normal wedge swing but change the setup (forward in stance, open the clubface etc.). O'Meara agreed on setup but also insisted that he had a special 'bunker swing' which involved keeping the club open through impact and not turning over his hands or rotating his forearms. The Pelz instructors took a video of his bunker swing. Guess what, he did turn over his hands, rotate his forearms and his bunker swing was 100% the same as his wedge swing. Often what a player thinks he is doing is not what he is doing. That's why pro's don't always make good teachers. I would take the Mickelson hinge and hold approach with a large grain of salt.

Loire

PRAF wrote: »

Agree with you. Someone like Sevy would have run 100 miles away had Dave Pelz tried to bamboozle him with his methods. His approach is not for everyone. For the natural golfer, the 'artists' around the greens, the 'feel players' etc they are probably already good enough that they don't need to learn his method. However, they could probably still benefit from his approch to practice, his approach to measuring your abilities in order to identify your weaknesses etc.

However, I have found his methods to be a great help to my short game. I like the fact that his methods are based on scientific research rather than 'feel' or 'artistry'.

.

I think around the green you could be right, but for those 40 - 80 yarders then I think Pelz method even for those players you refer to would be better IMO

Redzah

Loire wrote: »

I think around the green you could be right, but for those 40 - 80 yarders then I think Pelz method even for those players you refer to would be better IMO

Ya I agree. The 7:30 swing is difficult to master as it needs training to have such a short backswing and a full follow through but the 9:00 and 10:30 are great and promote a great rhythm. Just need plenty of time on the range to perfect.

Loire

Redzah wrote: »

Ya I agree. The 7:30 swing is difficult to master as it needs training to have such a short backswing and a full follow through but the 9:00 and 10:30 are great and promote a great rhythm. Just need plenty of time on the range to perfect.

Would you really need someone with you also though to ensure you're actually going back the required distances (kinda hard to hit the ball looking back at your backswing length!)?

irish bloke

Can I ask has he ever changed a "feel" pro around to his mechanical method and has it worked?

I think there was an interesting point made a few posts ago back about this method not working for a "feel" player as it ended up making a mess of his game altogether.

My point is, is this method more geared towards the guy starting out, learning the game so to speak, as opposed to a low handicapper or scratch player trying to sharpen up.

Redzah

Loire wrote: »

Would you really need someone with you also though to ensure you're actually going back the required distances (kinda hard to hit the ball looking back at your backswing length!)?

Ya somebody there with you would be helpful but practice without a ball in front of a full length mirror at home would help train your body for this length backswing

Redzah

irish bloke wrote: »

Can I ask has he ever changed a "feel" pro around to his mechanical method and has it worked?

I think there was an interesting point made a few posts ago back about this method not working for a "feel" player as it ended up making a mess of his game altogether.

My point is, is this method more geared towards the guy starting out, learning the game so to speak, as opposed to a low handicapper or scratch player trying to sharpen up.

As I said a few posts back I was taught this method when I was younger while I was already a low handicapper and it resulted in the best scoring period of my career. Its only as I am reading this book that I realise that it was Pelz's idea and then i realised that I have not practiced or adopted this method in years. The penny dropped and now i just need to get some good range time in with this method.

Tom Kite reaped huge benefits from the Pelz methods and his short game was phenonomal.

irish bloke

Redzah wrote: »

As I said a few posts back I was taught this method when I was younger while I was already a low handicapper and it resulted in the best scoring period of my career. Its only as I am reading this book that I realise that it was Pelz's idea and then i realised that I have not practiced or adopted this method in years. The penny dropped and now i just need to get some good range time in with this method.

Tom Kite reaped huge benefits from the Pelz methods and his short game was phenonomal.

Your on to a winner so aren't you!!!

Loire

Redzah wrote: »

Ya somebody there with you would be helpful but practice without a ball in front of a full length mirror at home would help train your body for this length backswing

or a club :D

Redzah

irish bloke wrote: »

Your on to a winner so aren't you!!!

Hopefully. You could be too irish bloke if u practiced this method or did u just read the Pelz book so that you could comment on a boards forum about how its technical and not suited to feel players and more for beginners etc.

I prefer to read a golf instruction book to learn and improve my game, not to read it and say 'nah, its not for me i'm a feel player and this is all technical stuff so its of no use to me'

BigChap1759

PRAF wrote: »

Agree with you. Someone like Sevy would have run 100 miles away had Dave Pelz tried to bamboozle him with his methods. His approach is not for everyone. For the natural golfer, the 'artists' around the greens, the 'feel players' etc they are probably already good enough that they don't need to learn his method. However, they could probably still benefit from his approch to practice, his approach to measuring your abilities in order to identify your weaknesses etc.

However, I have found his methods to be a great help to my short game. I like the fact that his methods are based on scientific research rather than 'feel' or 'artistry'.

I heard that Mark O'Meara once visited one of his schools and insisted that Pelz was wrong about bunker play. Pelz says you just use your normal wedge swing but change the setup (forward in stance, open the clubface etc.). O'Meara agreed on setup but also insisted that he had a special 'bunker swing' which involved keeping the club open through impact and not turning over his hands or rotating his forearms. The Pelz instructors took a video of his bunker swing. Guess what, he did turn over his hands, rotate his forearms and his bunker swing was 100% the same as his wedge swing. Often what a player thinks he is doing is not what he is doing. That's why pro's don't always make good teachers. I would take the Mickelson hinge and hold approach with a large grain of salt.

This isn't strictly true - you do not use a normal wedge swing - both his sand method and clockface wedge method are based on a swing Pelz calls "the finesse swing" - this is a swing where your body turns with the arms so there is no coil generated - using the weight of the club and the length of the backswing to provide consistancy.

PRAF

irish bloke wrote: »

Can I ask has he ever changed a "feel" pro around to his mechanical method and has it worked?

I think there was an interesting point made a few posts ago back about this method not working for a "feel" player as it ended up making a mess of his game altogether.

My point is, is this method more geared towards the guy starting out, learning the game so to speak, as opposed to a low handicapper or scratch player trying to sharpen up.

I think he was worked at various points with pros like Monty, Vijay, Elkington, Tom Kite and Lee Janzen. The main reason he isn't working with more of them is that Mickelson has signed him up to an exclusive contract (and reportedly pays him millions per year for the privilege). Funnily enough, as someone else has pointed out, Mickelson ignores his methods and mainly uses him for preparation, practice, strategy and mental approach.

Big Phil is one of these short game virtuosos that is so good with his own apporoach that he doesn't need to learn a more mechanical method. It just wouldn't suit his game.

irish bloke

Redzah wrote: »

Hopefully. You could be too irish bloke if u practiced this method or did u just read the Pelz book so that you could comment on a boards forum about how its technical and not suited to feel players and more for beginners etc.

I prefer to read a golf instruction book to learn and improve my game, not to read it and say 'nah, its not for me i'm a feel player and this is all technical stuff so its of no use to me'

Im gonna resist, coz I know the way this goes. There are 300 post threads to prove it;)....

Redzah

irish bloke wrote: »

Im gonna resist, coz I know the way this goes. There are 300 post threads to prove it;)....

Haha, go on Irish Bloke I dare you

Seriously though, I don't buy this whole feel arguement. What Pelz teaches is a pragmatic approach to a feel based concept that is the short game. Feel is still very important in this but he adopts a pragmatic and statistical approach to merge with the feel based game.

irish bloke

Redzah wrote: »

Haha, go on Irish Bloke I dare you

Seriously though, I don't buy this whole feel arguement. What Pelz teaches is a pragmatic approach to a feel based concept that is the short game. Feel is still very important in this but he adopts a pragmatic and statistical approach to merge with the feel based game.

Dont tempt me..:D

No look, I have no issues with a statistical approach and in fact would encourage it.

I haven't read the pelz book (as I also already said;)) but the question I was asking was; is this method a good idea for an established feel player to be adopting when it is so mechanical by all accounts (not specifically referring your good self, but establisher players in general).

There was a good example by a "feel" low handicapper earlier back and its experiences like that which I feel shouldn't be discounted.