There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Eracer]

This from Dave Pelz, Mr. Scientific Method, while discussing the differences between Tiger's and Phil's approach to the short game.

What a hoser...

[Fitzpatrick]

I think the worst part about Pelz on "Live From..." was his theory that the edge of the cup (the actual cup, about 1" below the surface of the green, not the edge of the hole) kept Tiger's putt on 18 from dropping.

The putt didn't drop. It doesn't matter how it didn't drop. It just didn't drop. Move on.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Fitzpatrick

I think the worst part about Pelz on "Live From..." was his theory that the edge of the cup (the actual cup, about 1" below the surface of the green, not the edge of the hole) kept Tiger's putt on 18 from dropping.

The putt didn't drop. It doesn't matter how it didn't drop. It just didn't drop. Move on.

He also said "there might have been a piece of gravel stuck to the ball".

Brilliant - simply brilliant...

[ezra76]

Somehow I doubt Tiger missed a piece of gravel on the ball. The putt was moving too fast and caught the lip, bottom line. He blew it straight in when the putt was the type to drop in the side door from the otherside with the perfect speed.

Phil does have an incredible short game but mine is more like Tiger's method. Even short irons I hit more like Tiger. I like the 3/4 low flight shots and chip with a closed faced 50* wedge mostly. Nothing more than a putt that flys a short distance to a spot before it starts.

I have tried flying chips with my 58* though when there is a large ridge or the pin is sitting a little shelf with success. I'll go with him on that one, in that case it's easier to fly than judge speed and line to roll it there. In those situations I'm just looking for a level putt of 8ft. or less.

[warbirdlover]

It looked like the putt was perfect and then "speeded up" about a foot from the cup, causing the rimout. I think he putted that about as good as anyone possibly could.

[The Salt Vampire]

Originally Posted by ezra76

Phil does have an incredible short game but mine is more like Tiger's method.

You must have a helluva short game.

Hank Haney was talking about Tiger's short game recently and indicated he uses anything from 7-iron to lob wedge plus the 3-wood and uses FOUR DIFFERENT GRIPS, depending on the shot, lie, pin position, hardness of green.... He did not go into detail other than saying interlock, overlap, ten finger and reverse overlap.

In fairness to Pelz they opened with a question about why Tiger's short game is better than Phil's. Phil is his star pupil and he seemed a bit surprised. He also said Phil prefers to use loft to get the ball close and Tiger uses spin.

The problem I have with Pelz is that he all about science, but the short game is mostly all about feel. No?

[ezra76]

Originally Posted by The Salt Vampire

You must have a helluva short game.

Hank Haney was talking about Tiger's short game recently and indicated he uses anything from 7-iron to lob wedge plus the 3-wood and uses FOUR DIFFERENT GRIPS, depending on the shot, lie, pin position, hardness of green.... He did not go into detail other than saying interlock, overlap, ten finger and reverse overlap.

In fairness to Pelz they opened with a question about why Tiger's short game is better than Phil's. Phil is his star pupil and he seemed a bit surprised. He also said Phil prefers to use loft to get the ball close and Tiger uses spin.

The problem I have with Pelz is that he all about science, but the short game is mostly all about feel. No?

Certainly no comparison but mine ain't too shabby for my cap. Easily my best attribute.

I guess what I'm trying to say is basically Phils short game is not the one a beginner should look to replicate. You'll make a lot of triples from what should have been a chip and putt for par trying to fly the ball to the hole with a half swing, open faced 60* wedge from 3 yds. off the green.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by The Salt Vampire

The problem I have with Pelz is that he all about science, but the short game is mostly all about feel. No?

That's my original point. Pelz is all about "scientific testing proves that there is only one correct way to play any short game shot". In the interview he talked about how the two players have equally valid - if different - approaches to shots around the green.

[MCDavis]

Isn't Dave's name spelled "Putz"?? I always thought so...

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by MCDavis

Isn't Dave's name spelled "Putz"?? I always thought so...

Haha - yeah, that's about right. Thing is, he has some really valid points. I play bunker shots according to his method, and I like the results.

[Bignose]

Originally Posted by Eracer

That's my original point. Pelz is all about "scientific testing proves that there is only one correct way to play any short game shot". In the interview he talked about how the two players have equally valid - if different - approaches to shots around the green.

I don't think anywhere in his books he says that there is "only one correct" way to do things. No scientist would make such a definitive statement. What he was looking for was the easiest way to do things. One of the studies I remember from the book is whether or not you should cut your chip shots (Tom Watson was the master at this). So he studied how a straight chipped shot and a cut chipped shot dispersed, and the cut ones spread over a much wider area, so the conclusion is that cutting your chip shots probably hurts the average golfers more than it helps. He didn't say it was wrong -- again you really can't say anything Watson did was wrong -- but it was harder to control. And for the average golfer, easier to control is probably going to save strokes over harder to control.

I think another fair analogy would be Jim Furyk's "octopus falling out a tree" swing. Would you teach anyone, ever, to swing like he does? No, because it would be significantly more difficult to play the game well. But, it works for him, and that is all that matters. When you are teaching someone something new, or something they aren't very good at, you don't teach them the difficult techniques first, you teach them the easiest ones. And that is what Pelz was doing in his book, looking for the easiest techniques to teach so that success would come a lot sooner.

[Adam Pettman]

Originally Posted by Bignose

"octopus falling out a tree" swing.

I laughed out loud when I read this, this is the best descrition of his swing ever written.

[Bignose]

RE: "octopus falling out a tree", I wish I could say it was mine, but it was made by one of the TV commentators a while back now. David Feherty, I believe.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Bignose

RE: "octopus falling out a tree", I wish I could say it was mine, but it was made by one of the TV commentators a while back now. David Feherty, I believe.

It was Feherty. He also said it "looked like a man trying to kill a snake in a phone booth". I don't know which is better....

Bignose - Pelz uses statistics to determine the most effective method for minimizing score for each shot within 100 yards. He analyses the results of different methods for each shot and presents the most statistically successful method as the "correct method". He does not say "this method works best for some players, and this method works best for others". He says "this method works best for the statistical mean".

So for him to say that "Tiger's method works best for Tiger" and "Phil's method works best for Phil", is self-serving and self-contradictory.

That's all I'm saying.

[Bignose]

I don't have the book here since I am traveling right now, but I don't seem to remember it being worded that strongly. Oh well. I'm not a super big fan of his writing, so I don't feel a super overwhleming need to defend him. I will say just one more thing, here, and that is that every author who writes a book or article thinks that their method is the best. There have been precious few that acknowledge that there is more than one way to skin a cat -- Harvey Pennick in his Little Red Book comes to mind, and Jim Hardy in this Plane Truth books becuase he says that both his one-plane and two-plane methods work. Though I am sure that in both books there are many things that both authors are pretty rigid on. Stan Utley in his short game books tells you that his sand shot method is much better than the traditional method -- he calls the traditional method the "safe" method. Every author feels his method is suprior; that's a lot of the drive to write about it in the first place.