Dave Pelz - Damage Control Book

[Pa Jayhawk]

Thought I would do a slight review of this book. By slight in Pelz terms, I could likely write six thousand words in an effort to say what could otherwise be said in one sentence.

This book has a little useful information, but really doesn't stretch the bounds of common sense by too much.

O.K, now for the Pelz version. I have actually been a fan of Pelz and all of his technical intricacies, however in this book he just went to far and I honestly believe it is not on the shelves because if the average reader could probably tell from skimming through it in 15 minutes in a book store, may be able to gain all they can out of the book. Let's just say that one of my favorite books, Five Fundamentals by Hogan was about 125 page long. Based on useful information in the book, I would bargain to guess that Pelz could condense his just over 300 pages down to about 60 and still mention any information that holds value, and all of the diagrams in the process. If Pelz rewrote Five Fundamentals in accordance with the nature of this book, it would likely exceed 1200 pages. It took 60 pages just to really into the meat of the book. He then gives very accurate ideas and accounts for what he believes to be the aspects of damage control. However most of these are just kinda common sense to anyone who ever plays out of bad lies. He gives an entire rating scale and examples on what he calls "Hand Fire", explaining something that about any golfer would know. Then to explain how it fits, it simple seems to indicate that when this value gets to a certain degree, it should trigger another thing called "Red Flags" Problem is, this is nothing a scrambling golfer that already tries to recover does not already know. Which leaves you with the conclusions that outside of mastering some of the shots, he seems to now be trying to play sports psychologist to get you to use this information. If I want sports Psychology, Rotella is a much better option. In the same sense that if Rotella (which will be my next book) trys to tell me that the curvature of the head based on studies in physics can be broken down into 3 fields... He is going to lose my attention. This book took me over a month to read it seemed like, and by the time he constipated my memory with the same thing over, and over, and over again, I had forgot the initial formulas he mentioned on how to approach the shot. For which he likely knew this would happen, because he spent another 50 page summarizing them.

Don't get me wrong, there is some useful information, but you need the jaws of life to try and pry it out. For those who already find Pelz to be long winded and to technical, this book may serve as the end all cure for insomnia. Unlike the short game bible, which I have read a couple times already, it is unlikely I will ever do more with this book other than cross reference some of the finer points. Actually the most useful info I likely found was how to build a practice rock out of can insulation. Had the whole book been about things like that, it would have been a hit with me. To be honest, this book may likely benefit a newer golfer, but most of the philosophy seems to be common knowledge for anyone like myself who already has played on courses where I find trouble. Even the explanation of how to do most of the shots and how they would react are second nature from experience. While I am not saying there may not be a legitimate audience out there, I doubt this book would even make in in my top 20% of books read. To me it seems to be more of an effort at sport psychology, and IMO there are far better Sports Psychologists already out there. As someone with a bit of psychology experience, I can say that having someone as technical as Pelz trying to explain Sports Psychology, would be the equivalent of having Forrest Gump explain the nature of satellite reconstruction. Where many of his readers, and those interested in the subject line, just want it to end.

edit 1 - ... if nothing else, at least this likely gives light to now knowing how some of the people who read my posts must feel. But in defense, they should be thankful they didn't first pay for the information.

[SilverUberXeno]

The end-all cure for insomnia. Haha. Well done.

[Bignose]

Thanks for the review, Pa

That is what my suspicions were about the book from the excerpts on Pelz's website. It is good to get it straight from someone who has actually read it.

Not that a book full of common sense things is necessarily a bad read. Raymond Floyd's Elements of Scoring I think is probably pretty similar. That book can be boiled down to a phrase or two, also: "When on the course, play your game, whatever that is today -- the range is where you work on improving" and "don't take stupid chances"

But, Floyd's book was still and enjoyable read, unlike what is sounds like Pelz's was, because it is good to read these things. Sometimes common sense isn't all that common.

[twofast2s]

i think pelz is too mechanical where as utley is too much of feel. i think if you can understand both pelz's putting/short game bible and utley's art of putting/short game, you have really good sense around the green.

i'm more of a feel player, so even though i can relate to pelz's methods, i tend to putt, chip, pitch, swing, with whatever's comfortable at the time. i lose some consistancy in a way, but no thinning or chunking delicate shots at least b/c i'm pretty relaxed.

[Rockford35]

Pelz...

R35

[Slingblade61]

I could likely write six thousand words in an effort to say what could otherwise be said in one sentence.

PA, you have never been able to say anything in only one sentence.

[The Salt Vampire]

I really liked Pelz's first book, "Putt Like the Pros". It was thin, gave some great info about green conditions and getting the ball inside 8 feet. Everything else is too long-winded and really dull. I don't need to see an entire study, just tell me the results.

What does it say when Pelz promotes the square-to-square stroke, but his star pupil (Mickelson) uses an arc stroke? I think Phil keeps him around for his course setup observations.

[Pa Jayhawk]

Thanks for the review, Pa

That is what my suspicions were about the book from the excerpts on Pelz's website. It is good to get it straight from someone who has actually read it.

Not that a book full of common sense things is necessarily a bad read.

I would bargain to guess that this book would be very useful for a beginner, or someone who in the past has been so terrified of playing out of a bad lie, that they would simply take a drop. Probably someone like my wife, who rarely misses a fairway, and when she finds herself in a lie like this she usually just has no experience or concept on what to do as it is just out of her realm of being in good lies 99% of the time. She plays golf for the fun, and could really care less about the science behind the game. The problem is, that same person likely would not have the patience for Pelz in reading the book for the same reason, and would likely have given up before the first 30 pages and just said "I'll take my chances, or take the penalty". In the same sense that they don't have the patience to really practice shots like that, and hearing it from Pelz that they should is not likely going to change matters.

I probably would have liked the book for when we moved up here to our current home course, although after having played on this course for over 5 years, what is mentioned in this book is just second nature to someone that finds this trouble on a regular basis. ... and the rest is really just common sense on listening to your head and not your ego to find your way out.

PA, you have never been able to say anything in only one sentence.

Sure I can, I even did with "This book has a little useful information, but really doesn't stretch the bounds of common sense by too much." I just had a hard time leaving it at that without :deadhorse:

I really liked Pelz's first book, "Putt Like the Pros". It was thin, gave some great info about green conditions and getting the ball inside 8 feet. Everything else is too long-winded and really dull. I don't need to see an entire study, just tell me the results.

What does it say when Pelz promotes the square-to-square stroke, but his star pupil (Mickelson) uses an arc stroke? I think Phil keeps him around for his course setup observations.

Had he simply taken the last 50 pages, and maybe another 10-20 to explain the rest, it probably would have been much more effective IMO