Dave Pelz

[Grass Roots Tour]

Anyone read Dave Pelz's book? Does anyone have success or failure with his techniques?

I have the book but can honestly say .. never opened it. I think its starting to show as well. I played on Sunday at my home c ... well almost ashamed to say, course. I was 1 over with two holes left. I hit a great 4iron on the 178 yard par 3 17th dead into the wind. Sure enough it doesn't hold the green. So I'm 2' off the back and I fail to get up and down.
I go to the par 5 18th and hit 3wood down the middle followed by another 3wood to 90 yards. Hit a smooth gap wedge which lands 2' right of the stick bounces 3' in the air and bounds into the back bunker. Now I find myself shortsided (as the pin was in the back) and sitting in 6" deep sand. It takes me 4 to get down and I post 76.
Now having said that, 76 in Sundays' miserable weather was decent to say the least. But 18 is a birdie hole and I made double. Plus I failed to get up and down from 2' off of 17. :nono:
This needs fixed ... fast!

[Mule56]

[QUOTE=Grass Roots Tour]Anyone read Dave Pelz's book? Does anyone have success or failure with his techniques?
QUOTE]
GRT,
I picked up the Short Game Bible and the Putting Bible in the winter of 2003. Spent most of the early part of 2004 pouring over the books and working the teachings. At the end of the 2003 season I was a 15. At the end of 2004 I was a 9. Not much else changed in my game except my short game.
Case in point, on Sunday I hit the green on a 178 yard par three, and bounce off the back into a green depression. Lobwedge on the green and in the hole. Since reading Dave's book I have hit more greens in reg, chipped more shots in or close enough to 1 putt, and made more long putts (or at least got them to tap in range) then I have ever had the thought I could. I've also holed out on two shots from about 75 yards and 40 yards. Best investment I have ever made outside of lesson. Based on my start this year I'm expecting my index to drop a couple of more points.
Mule

[pudubny]

Thats a great endorsement Mule. I watch his programs on The Golf Channel whenever they are on. I have never read his books though. I just might try that.
good luck.

[Shadow]

There is certainly nothing wrong with the fundamentals that Pelz teaches, particularly his square to square putting stroke. However, considering that the Putting Bible is 400 pages long and I assume that the Short Game Bible is the same, is the short game and putting so complicated that it takes 800 pages to teach us the few necessary fundamentals?

If someone could teach us how to chip low and to pitch high consistently, and doing this is really simple, our short games would improve immensely. Center of face contact is most important in putting so stick a .25" square piece of plastic on the putter with two sided tape and hit putts until they don't squirt off line. Proper path is less so, but important, too, so use two 2 X 4's and putt until you don't scrape the toe/heel on the wood. Sure, there are some other helpful things to learn, however, while the contents of these books are interesting, they tend to fill our minds with too many thoughts (paralysis by analysis) and that leads to sub-standard performances.

IMO, Pelz's books epitomizes what is wrong with golf swing instruction in that it is too complicated. No golf stroke is that difficult to learn. Gosh, in putting just get your hands under your shoulders, eyes over the target line and stay still, and the putts will start to fall.

Having said all of this, if you can discern the necessary from the unnecessary, the books will help.

[el tigre]

There is certainly nothing wrong with the fundamentals that Pelz teaches, particularly his square to square putting stroke. However, considering that the Putting Bible is 400 pages long and I assume that the Short Game Bible is the same, is the short game and putting so complicated that it takes 800 pages to teach us the few necessary fundamentals? Well, I've read both books and there is certainly merit in what you say, especially with regard to the Putting Bible. It is WAYYY longer than it needs to be - Pelz was a scientist and he tends to over-analyse things to death.

The Short-Game Bible is a much better read. First of all, he's not just talking about one kind of shot - there's good stuff on basic chipping, pitching, bunker play, knockdowns, flop shots, bump-and-runs, bellied wedges, uneven lies, wedge selection, etc. All the variety and creativity that is part of the short game is in the book. It could probably still lose a 100 pages, but when it was written the short-game was not considered that important by amateurs so he spends a few chapters explaining why it is. So, definately worth reading IMHO.

But Grass Roots Tour wanted it fixed fast (don't we all). The book won't do that. Book a few sessions with a golf pro that is totally devoted to the short-game. Nothing but chipping, pitching and bunkers.

[pudubny]

[QUOTE=Shadow]There is certainly nothing wrong with the fundamentals that Pelz teaches, particularly his square to square putting stroke.

Oddly enough amoung professionals, this is a large area of dispute. The square to square putting stroke that Pelz advocates is being seriously questioned by other teachers and players.
The hinged door stroke is becoming more a more popular method amoung better players. The putter actually opens a bit in the backstroke and closes on the follow through, the effect of a swinging door. You see tools like the Putting Arc recommended for this method.
I originally heard it was not a good method for amateurs but the advocates would challenge that now.
Stan Utley, widely considered the best short game player today is a big advocate of this method as is Tiger and Faxon. Jay Haas credits Utley for vastly improving his short game.
I find myself the square to square method is ackward, particularly if the ball is above you feet on a sloped green. I must say I changed to hinged and improved my putting, especially my feel for laging.
Overall it's good that we have more than one opinion on how to do things. The problem with many instructors today, in my opinion is that they try to fit everyone into the same swing, regardless of body type or tendencies. But if you look at the best players in the world, very few of the swings look the same. The only thing they have in common is the clubhead position at contact.
I know a few teachers that would rip Vijay's swing. Lower body is too active, lifts his left foot, hips over rotate, not square to target at address. Ya, that guy is in real trouble out there, somebody should fix that swing.
Everyone is teaching the same swing which clearly will not work for everyone and they wonder why amatuers get frustrated.
Their, now that's a rant.
Pud.

[Mule56]

There is certainly nothing wrong with the fundamentals that Pelz teaches, particularly his square to square putting stroke. However, considering that the Putting Bible is 400 pages long and I assume that the Short Game Bible is the same, is the short game and putting so complicated that it takes 800 pages to teach us the few necessary fundamentals?

IMO, Pelz's books epitomizes what is wrong with golf swing instruction in that it is too complicated. No golf stroke is that difficult to learn. Gosh, in putting just get your hands under your shoulders, eyes over the target line and stay still, and the putts will start to fall.

Having said all of this, if you can discern the necessary from the unnecessary, the books will help. I hear this from a lot of people and I do understand the concern. Dave spends a lot of pages explaining the science of why it works. I always tell people would you want your car mechanic working on your car knowing that he studied the Cole's notes of car maintenance.
I found that reading the why it work (the first 400 pages) helped me to believe the theory was valid. That put me to the mental side of if I do this and practise it will work. Knowing when you step up to the shot, you have a chance is a big difference. Even if you don't pull it off 100% of the time. And when you don't pull it off, knowing the mechanical mistake you made not only helps to correct it, but it erases the doubt of "I can't do this".
After that, if you removed all the pictures and charts, the real instructional is probably only about a 100 pages.
Mule