"Putting Out of Your Mind" vs. "Putting Bible"

[TheCityGame]

Rotella vs. Pelz

Anyone read these two books?

I just finished "Putting Out of Your Mind" by Bob Rotella and I found it very interesting. I've taken some of his ideas to the course once, and the practice green for about 90 minutes. I putted well at the course, but I was aces on the putting green after really trying some of his ideas, and I'm looking forward to getting back to the course. I would say that I already naturally incorporated many of the things he talks about in the book so it was right up my alley (For instance, I'm completely delusional about my putting ability. I think I'm great even though there's no evidence of that and I will completely forget or explain away my bad putts).

On the other hand, I went through Pelz's book last year, and man, especially after reading Rotella's book, Pelz seems like a lunatic. . .lines on your putter, lines on your ball, impact tape, LASERS, putter bumpers, swing path guides, putting "boards". All of that in an effort, I guess, to create a perfect stroke, dead center hit, on a line that you're supposed to be able to perfectly choose for a putt hit with a speed that will take it X inches past the hole. I liked reading the Pelz book; I like how he thinks, but I never did ANYTHING he talked about doing in that book.

Anyone have success stories with either of these methods? Have anything to add about these books?

My stroke feels smoother when the stroke becomes about "rolling the ball into the hole" (Rotella, paraphrased) instead of "make perfect contact along a perfect line" (Pelz, paraphrased).

[juststeve]

I've read all the Pe;z books and while I don't care for the methods he teaches, too mechanical for me, I think his analysis of data is invaluable.

Steve

[Asics10]

Rotella's book is fantastic, no mechanics, just mental. Pelz is all mechanical.

[lookma_nobackswing]

[quote name='juststeve' timestamp='1330014409' post='4358459']
I've read all the Pe;z books and while I don't care for the methods he teaches, too mechanical for me, I think his analysis of data is invaluable.

Steve
[/quote]

agreed, the data analysis is the best part of the pelz stuff. i've referred back to the putting bible numerous times over the years.

both books are good and valuable. just extract what you need for your game.

[DFinch]

I relate way more to Rotella than I do with Pelz. I'm coming out of a very mechanical period of experimentation and practice that ran the gambit of putters and methods, getting away from the feel approach I used when I was at my peak.

I went from a very open stance that felt natural to me and allowed me to see the line and visualize the the putt to a square stance like everyone else seems to use. I started focusing on an intermediate spot to putt over, etc., etc.

With putters, I went from a Newport 2 to a TM Maranello to a B60 to a 2-ball to a Teron to a Tour #1 to a belly extension on the Tour #1 and back to the Tour #1. Pretty much full circle when it comes to "alignment" putters and mechanical technique.

Prior to the Newport 2 I was at the peak of my game and my putting. It's why I rewarded myself with a Cameron. Prior to that I was using an old Arnold Palmer Original ("8802") with an open stance and no mechanical thoughts.

This week I put an Oddyssey #8 in the bag and went back to the stance I used in the good old days. No alignment lines. All feel. We'll see how the season goes.

The funny and schizophrenic thing is when I was rolling the #8 and every other putter in the shop trying to decide if I was really going back to that style of putter, it ended up a choice between it and a Dart...about as polar opposite as you can get.

[golfnut-2X]

read both. i don't think they should be compared to each other. one takes a scientific approach to short game mechanics and the other is focused on the mental game. both have made invaluable contributions in their respective areas.

[lookma_nobackswing]

the idea of "practicing with feedback" is another big one i got from pelz. practice your putting stroke indoors on a 100% flat lie with alignment aids until you groove a rock-solid stroke. i kind of chuckle sometimes at my friends (and my old self) who would buy a new putter because they "made everything" with it at the golf store.


also impact spray at the range. knowing exactly where on the clubface you hit that ball is very important information.

[golfnut-2X]

i don't subscribe to everything pelz promotes but a lot of ideas have been very good for golf. the key is to mix his scientific approach to mechanics for practice / feedback with feel when we play - best of both worlds.

1) 17 inches past the hole optimal speed

2) clock back swing for having 3-4 different known measured distances for each wedge

3) putter face more important than path

4) putting aids

* teacher clips

* truth board

5) putting routine

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='golfnut-2X' timestamp='1330023176' post='4359597']
read both. i don't think they should be compared to each other. one takes a scientific approach to short game mechanics and the other is focused on the mental game. both have made invaluable contributions in their respective areas.
[/quote]

I completely agree with the above.

dave

[nitram]

So do I Dave. They're as different as daylight and dark.

[danattherock]

Yep, apples and oranges.


One of my favorite putting books is "The Putting Prescription" by Dr Craig Farnsworth (or similar name).


Enjoying Stan Utley's putting book as well.


They all have something to offer. Some more than others of course.



-Dan

[upanddown]

Neither... I think Todd Sones has the best putting instruction.

[TheCityGame]

it's obvious they take different approaches, but does anyone else think they "get in each other's way", though?

They're not compatible. As I read that Rotella book, I pictured him going through the Pelz book and ripping pages out like Robin Williams in "Dead Poets Society". " don't just tear out that page, tear out the entire introduction. I want it gone, history. Leave nothing of it."

For instance, yesterday you heard Tiger say, "I was fighting the blocks all day. I'm taking it back shut. I need to make that toe move. I should be able to fix it in about a day."

Not to speak for Rotella, but he'd call that "crazy talk", right? When you're trying to "make that toe move", it sounds you've lost it. Tiger knows how to hit a putt square, on the sweet spot. He's just being VERY analytical about it. Seems like Dr. Bob would tell him, "see that hole that's 5 feet away from you? Roll a ball into it." At some point Tiger was doing that.

Now, he's experimenting with his grip, with his equipment. I bet Pelz would love to get him a laser and a swing path trainer and make sure he didn't "touch the rails". That might "make that toe move", but I bet he wouldn't be making any more putts.

[JustTheTips]

I like to be analytical on the practice green and then just play on the course which I would consider a combo of both. Obviously I do practice where I drop balls and just try to sink them but I also do a lot of analytical work where I am anal about checking aim, setup position, ball contact and the rest. What I don't want to be is on the course trying to decide if I have 55% or 60% of my weight on my front foot and thinking about how to aim the putter head. I am analytical in practice so on the course it is all thinking about speed and path with zero swing thoughts.
[quote name='TheCityGame' timestamp='1330095485' post='4366059']
it's obvious they take different approaches, but does anyone else think they "get in each other's way", though?

They're not compatible. As I read that Rotella book, I pictured him going through the Pelz book and ripping pages out like Robin Williams in "Dead Poets Society". " don't just tear out that page, tear out the entire introduction. I want it gone, history. Leave nothing of it."

For instance, yesterday you heard Tiger say, "I was fighting the blocks all day. I'm taking it back shut. I need to make that toe move. I should be able to fix it in about a day."

Not to speak for Rotella, but he'd call that "crazy talk", right? When you're trying to "make that toe move", it sounds you've lost it. Tiger knows how to hit a putt square, on the sweet spot. He's just being VERY analytical about it. Seems like Dr. Bob would tell him, "see that hole that's 5 feet away from you? Roll a ball into it." At some point Tiger was doing that.

Now, he's experimenting with his grip, with his equipment. I bet Pelz would love to get him a laser and a swing path trainer and make sure he didn't "touch the rails". That might "make that toe move", but I bet he wouldn't be making any more putts.
[/quote]

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='TheCityGame' timestamp='1330095485' post='4366059']
it's obvious they take different approaches, but does anyone else think they "get in each other's way", though?

They're not compatible. As I read that Rotella book, I pictured him going through the Pelz book and ripping pages out like Robin Williams in "Dead Poets Society". " don't just tear out that page, tear out the entire introduction. I want it gone, history. Leave nothing of it."

For instance, yesterday you heard Tiger say, "I was fighting the blocks all day. I'm taking it back shut. I need to make that toe move. I should be able to fix it in about a day."

Not to speak for Rotella, but he'd call that "crazy talk", right? When you're trying to "make that toe move", it sounds you've lost it. Tiger knows how to hit a putt square, on the sweet spot. He's just being VERY analytical about it. Seems like Dr. Bob would tell him, "see that hole that's 5 feet away from you? Roll a ball into it." At some point Tiger was doing that.

Now, he's experimenting with his grip, with his equipment. I bet Pelz would love to get him a laser and a swing path trainer and make sure he didn't "touch the rails". That might "make that toe move", but I bet he wouldn't be making any more putts.
[/quote]

IMHO, they (Pelz vs. Rotella) address very different aspects of the (putting) game. The technical stuff (ala' Pelz) is hardly irrelevant. OTOH, Rotella has pretty much nothing to say about the technical aspect of putting (or anything else).

They address very different elements - and both matter (IMHO).

dave

[golfnut-2X]

try to imrpove via scientific approach / mechanics in offseason but playing focus on target, shape, feel. prehaps take more pelz for working mechanics offline but leverage rotella for using the mind optimially to play. Some things i suscribe to all don't putt balls to a hole unless you are making them. he said which i believe most of those practice puts you see people stroke on the putting green before a match from > 10ft away are just reinforcing the brain on seeing another miss. Found speed control to tees / fring on green works great and no negative image of missing. Then focus close on ladders and circle drills where you will make most of the them and then finish with a 2 foot circle drill so the last thing you walk off the green with is seeing a lot of different putts drop in the hole. I do think it helps mentally.