Time to re think Pelz

[dave.]

He gets a lot of stick, but Mickleson has stuck by him, so he must have something about him. Mickleson is THE most gifted player on tour imho, pure natural talent, yet he must get something out of the simple robotic logical methods Pelz uses. Plus who has got his putting going again? Stockton or Pelz? Working with such a natural talent they have worked on technique and the changes to stance, the high right arm etc, are working wonders, his pace yesterday was superb, what an incredible putter of the ball.

Maybe I, and others, have been to quick to dismiss Pelz as a snake oil flogger, maybe he does really know his stuff

Its sad that Tiger aint around, reckon Phil, Poulter, McIlroy, Kaymer, and maybe two others would have given him a big go this year. Micklesons year this one, but let me have a bet with anyone, Poulter, McIlroy and Kaymer all in worlds top 5 by year end

 

[Clugnut]

Totally agreed, Dave. Phil needs to hook up with someone that makes the most out of his natural skill, instead of turning him into a robot. I think he would be less consistent, but when he is on and flowing, he would be unbeatable. Also, agreed that McIlroy and Kaymer will be at least be top 10 by years end. Question that needs to be asked though, will Tiger remain at number 1? I think his ego is too big not to come back and try to keep the top spot.

 

[BigJim13]

I bought the Pelz Short game bible and had to put it away. I couldn't read it, I coudln't digest it and worst of all it got into my head for awhile and messed me up pretty bad-to the point I was hitting a putter from 30 yds off the green when I could to avoid pulling a wedge out of the bag. He has his fans but I will never be one.

 

[FATC1TY]

I have the same book Jim, and I didn't mind it.. Of course, I didn't take it word for word. I used a few techniques, and I found that my pitching was less consistent, so I stayed the same, but used some of the hand/pivot that he teaches and it helped.

If anything, I got the most from his bunker play and chipping. Although, I don't always use the same bunker work he talks about. He doesn't like to fly the face wide open.. I do. I feel "free" when I know it's going out high and soft, and takes away my worst sand shot, which is a clean pick/thin.

He is very robot like, and wants to simplify things and keep it consistent, which is where I see people liking his teaching.

 

[Bignose]

Even if you don't care for the instructional side of Pelz's books, there is still a wealth of useful information in there. The putting book is full of information about grass grains, types of grass, etc. The Pelz book is full of good information about greens above your feet, below your feet, hills and the like. I think that we all know the information on some level, but at the same time, we rarely truly think about it. His book is also backed up with actual experiments to try to support his ideas. Almost no other books do this -- most of the time the author asks to believe that he is right because he thinks he is right, or is famous enough, or some other fluffy reason. For example, Pelz thinks that chipping square to the target line is better then the Tom Watson method of cutting chips. So, Pelz setup his robot to hit the same number of chips straight and the same number of chips with an open clubface, recorded all the locations where the chips ended up, and found that the dispersion of the square chip motion is less than the dispersion of the cut chip motion. I do strongly feel that each person has to figure out what motion is best for themselves -- Watson obviously has had a fine, fine career cutting his chip shots -- but I am impressed that Pelz bothered to actually set up an experiment to show that one method can be a little more consistent than another. This is rare today, not just in golf, but in a lot of life.

All that said, I think that it would be very interesting if we could compare where Mickleson would be if he had a short game instructor who was the opposite of Pelz, someone like a Stan Utley, that is much more about feel and mastery of 1 club than carrying 7 wedges and perfecting the clock-face swings.

 

[295yards]

I have the same book Jim, and I didn't mind it.. Of course, I didn't take it word for word. I used a few techniques, and I found that my pitching was less consistent, so I stayed the same, but used some of the hand/pivot that he teaches and it helped.

If anything, I got the most from his bunker play and chipping. Although, I don't always use the same bunker work he talks about. He doesn't like to fly the face wide open.. I do. I feel "free" when I know it's going out high and soft, and takes away my worst sand shot, which is a clean pick/thin.

He is very robot like, and wants to simplify things and keep it consistent, which is where I see people liking his teaching.

I hear alot of bad talk of Pelz.

I got the short game finesse swing book and it litterally transformed my short game.

Of course, I never followed the book too seriously. I took it as a general short game swing theory, swing back with the lower body powering the shot and the hands naturally uncock and square up for good distance control.

I never adopted the four wedges though. All my shots inside 100 yards are with my 60*

 

[FATC1TY]

I really, really jive with Stan Utley's book.. I think I understand his way of trying to simplify everything almost down to... dare I say.. "robotic" functions. He's a feel type of player, but intends to teach that same set up, and motion, and then throws in the differences of each shot and technique to try.

But thats the magic of teachers... You have to find something that fits your bill. I'm a feel player for sure, so that extra bit of assistance it making everything work right, helps.

 

[cypressperch]

I do not care much for Pelz. Take the idea that a perfect putt is one that goes 17 inches past the hole if it misses. Is that true on a fast or slow green? Downhill, uphill, side hill putts? Why would anyone want to bother with such an idea? Are there times when it might be better to die the ball into the cup?

Then I remember the video where he is showing how to hit shots that skim across the water, and he is serious! If only Vanderveld had thought of that.

I am not saying that he might not know some stuff. Hey, the guy worked for NASA. Actually, that is why I am suspicious of Pelz. I think he played his NASA background as a way to make people think he really knew something others didn't. Like putt it 17 inches past. How precise is that? The man is a space scientist for pete's sake. Now go out and buy his books and the entire line of wedges. Especially the 64* wedge.

CP