Looking for the answer for 6 years.
Karl Higham
/ split grip. ) forever.
About 6 years ago I put up a home page about the technique. I started
to get emails from all over the world from people who thought they were
the only ones doing it or wanted putters to try it. I started making one
at first to take advantage of this windfall. Later, about a dozen came
onto the market which made it much easier for me.
Since Sam Sneads successes there has been a flood of positive
documentation for sidesaddle but only one professional that I know of
currently uses it... Butch Sheean on the senior tour... Patty's brother.
Even though is has proven to be 68% more accurate than conventional at
an Illinois University bio-mechanical study, allowed at least 5 (out of
tens of thousands who tried.) to qualify a Dave Pelz's/Compac World
Putting Championships. used by at least 6 state champions and the
European Amateur champ, chosen by Pelz in his new "Putting Bible" as the
simplest and most accurate way to putt, taught by hundreds of pros, etc,
etc, the question that has so far defied a definitive answer is: Why
then don't more touring professionals putt sidesaddle?
I am constantly asked this question and so far the best answer I can
come up with is... just like most of us... they don't have the guts. (
Some think it is not traditional so not in the best interest of the
essence of the game, but with all the gadgetry out there now I think
it's a cop-out.)
What do you think the reason is?
Dave Clary
wrote:
>Some think it is not traditional so not in the best interest of the
>essence of the game, but with all the gadgetry out there now I think
>it's a cop-out.)
>
>What do you think the reason is?
I think that IS the reason although there are certainly enough "non-traditional"
putters out there. I tried copying the style of the guy that is in Pelz's book
(and on your site) and had some great practice sessions trying it. But I guess
it's just too weird for me to take to the course (and I'm someone who uses a 52"
brook handle. Maybe I'll try it again one of these days but I'm pretty happy do
it the old perpendicular way.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary
RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd
Mike Dalecki
I think you're dead wrong, Karl. If you told those pros that they could
shave two putts off their round by wearing pink underwear that stuck out
in the back of their pants, they'd do it. Sidesaddle is no more
dorky-looking than using those long putters, or using belly putters.
And in fact, the support you cite above is at best weak support, in my
book. You've got some state champions who used it; big deal. A better
statistic might be this: How many state champions DIDN'T use it, and
still managed to be state champions? Answer: A whole lot more than
your 6.
Just because a few have used it and been successful, that doesn't mean
that it's better. The record, in fact, shows that a lot more who don't
use it are successful; what are we, then, to take from that statistic?
You say it's taught by hundreds of pros; I wonder about that. I have
never--not ever--seen someone putt side saddle. If this method is so
ubiquitous and successful, then why don't I ever see these people? Do
they stay out of the midwest? Are they concentrated in the Las Vegas
area? What?
And there's been a single Illinois University study which says it's
better. A single one. I know nothing at all about that *single* study;
has it been replicated? What were the conditions? How did they
evaluate the methods? I don't generally accept others evaluation of
research without being able to assess that research myself.
Tiger Woods, the best golfer in the world, doesn't putt side-saddle. Do
you suppose he's seen this study? Given the student of the game that he
is, AND IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, then I can't imagine he's not read
this. Yet, the best player in the world chooses to putt another way.
I'm not necessarily taking issue with whether sidesaddle is better; I'm
taking issue with what I think is very weak evidence. You present this
in a way as to suggest the debate about which is better is over. Well,
it's not. And frankly, I'd suggest there's a lot more evidence that
sidesaddle is worse, not better. What evidence? The evidence that
shows the pros, whose livelihoods depend on their putting, choose to use
another method.
Must be a reason.
Mike
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim
I do not patronize spammers. Help keep RSG clean!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"R&B"
>
> Even though is has proven to be 68% more accurate than conventional at
> an Illinois University bio-mechanical study, allowed at least 5 (out of
> tens of thousands who tried.) to qualify a Dave Pelz's/Compac World
> Putting Championships. used by at least 6 state champions and the
> European Amateur champ, chosen by Pelz in his new "Putting Bible" as the
> simplest and most accurate way to putt, taught by hundreds of pros, etc,
> etc, the question that has so far defied a definitive answer is: Why
> then don't more touring professionals putt sidesaddle?
> I am constantly asked this question and so far the best answer I can
> come up with is... just like most of us... they don't have the guts. (
> Some think it is not traditional so not in the best interest of the
> essence of the game, but with all the gadgetry out there now I think
> it's a cop-out.)
>
> What do you think the reason is?
The reason is simple. Because it's not how they learned to putt.
While it may be a more reliable method (and I have my doubts), it is not the
most NATURAL way to putt if you've spent 20-30 years of your life putting a
different way.
More importantly, it changes the OPTICS of putting. I'm frankly surprised
that Pelz would make the statement you say he's made (and I'd like to see
where he's said this). Pelz is a proponent of getting a player's eyes over
the line, and there's no way to do this if you're standing alongside the
line to one side of it with your eyes perpendicular to the target line.
Randy
Miss Anne Thrope
fell on your balding skull.
jeffc
""R&B"" <notmyema...@all.com> wrote in message
news:__87b.78$c35...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> While it may be a more reliable method (and I have my doubts), it is not
the
> most NATURAL way to putt if you've spent 20-30 years of your life putting
a
> different way.
Not a very meaningful definition of "natural". If you were going to put the
ball in the hole with your bare hands, how would you do it? When little
kids who have never putted before try putting, how do they do it?
Dave Clary
>More importantly, it changes the OPTICS of putting. I'm frankly surprised
>that Pelz would make the statement you say he's made (and I'd like to see
>where he's said this).
Pages 39-40 of his putting bible. Here's what he said (with a little editing):
"Someone else started with Snead's sidesaddle style and made a modification of
his own, which produced the best putting I've seen to this day."
(he then describes the method)
"This technique produced the most consistently best putting I've ever seen, and
it's legal but I'm certain that if someone switches to this style and starts
winning with it, the USGA will probably ban it."
glfnaz
jeffc wrote:
They watch others.
Robert Davis
More likely it's that they've invested many years and thousands of
hours learning one style (a style that's gotten them to the pro level)
and don't want to risk their paycheck on changing ... no matter how
"proven" it is.
Even in my position of having only played about 4 years, I'm
suspicious of making a major change to something that's "proven"
better. Feels like I'd just keep chasing the latest, greatest, newest
thing rather than sticking to what mostly works and just improve it.
Rob
Larry Bud
>
> "Someone else started with Snead's sidesaddle style and made a modification of
> his own, which produced the best putting I've seen to this day."
What's the modification?
Howard Brazee
On 8-Sep-2003, SAFEA...@webtv.net (Karl Higham) wrote:
> I am constantly asked this question and so far the best answer I can
> come up with is... just like most of us... they don't have the guts. (
> Some think it is not traditional so not in the best interest of the
> essence of the game, but with all the gadgetry out there now I think
> it's a cop-out.)
>
> What do you think the reason is?
Well, I play both ways with my long putter. I find that often I can do better
with the very long putts side-saddle, and I practice various shots both ways.
Side-saddle is not more accurate for me at most distances. I think this is
because with side-saddle I am aiming at my target when I make my back-swing.
With my normal grip, I am aiming my backswing instead (away from my target).
It may be that I need to concentrate on having a good accurate take-away to hit
it straight, and I can't see that when the take-away is behind me.
Tim
It looks mighty stupid. As does the claw grip, the long putter, the
belly putter.
tim
Karl Higham
Since you have never-ever seen anyone putt sidesaddle, what do you think
the odds are of that many winning championships or 6 making the finals
out of tens of thousands putting conventional in Pelz's tourney? The
best qualifying round was won by sidesaddler Buddy Bernhardt... 3 putts
better than the best pro, by the way. (Both he and his brother were
state champs and runner-up 2 years in a row.)
Seem you need to brush up on the laws of probability before your next
trip to my home town.
There are a couple of pros here in Las Vegas that teach it but I have
had numerous emails and orders from others... many of which are
overseas. So have many of the sidesaddle putter manufacturers with whom
I work with.
Most pros don't even teach much putting anyway.
The evidence is really quite compelling since it all points toward
sidesaddle and absolutely nothing has been presented (yet) for the
superiority of conventional or any other putting technique.
And yes, there must be a reason. That's why I asked the question in the
first place.
Karl Higham
source.
Karl Higham
line, just like when you line it up, so there's no need to contort your
body to accommodate this set-up. Also when you look at the target from a
conventional stance, your head is cocked sideways and gives a distorted
view of the line (parallax) and does not allow you to use your binocular
vision of both eyes for distance. Better trust what you read when you
first lined it up from behind.
Karl Higham
blade putter. Longer shafts with a more upright lie angle and mallet
type heads have improved the technique considerably more recently.
Karl Higham
those wierd techiques and not sidesaddle with a lot more evidence in
it's favor?
Mike Dalecki
>
> You have kind of answered the first part with your last part.
> Since you have never-ever seen anyone putt sidesaddle, what do you think
> the odds are of that many winning championships or 6 making the finals
> out of tens of thousands putting conventional in Pelz's tourney?
What do you think the odds are of any particular six pro football teams
winning their games this weekend?
Such statements have little meaning, Karl. A few guys won a handful of
tournaments. That doesn't validate anything, as I'm sure you
understand. If that method was so terrific, Karl, we'd see these
wonderful sidesaddle putters ascending through the pro ranks and taking
the PGA tour by storm.
We don't see them. Ergo, how good can it be?
> The
> best qualifying round was won by sidesaddler Buddy Bernhardt... 3 putts
> better than the best pro, by the way. (Both he and his brother were
> state champs and runner-up 2 years in a row.)
So he beat the best pro. How many pros? What were their handicaps?
Were they like my club pro who, during the season, often finds he
doens't have time to keep his game sharp? Right now, I believe I can
beat our pro here. Not if he's sharp, but when he only has time to play
maybe once per week, and no practice time at all, how good can he be?
I can't think of many tournaments I'd rather enter less than a putting
tournament. And BTW, I'm not a bad putter.
> Seem you need to brush up on the laws of probability before your next
> trip to my home town.
Well, I'd say you should point that at yourself. If there are all these
tremendous side saddle putters out there, then they should be dominating
quite a bit, don't you think? I sure don't see it. And while,
according to your data, 6 have won some state amateur tournament, that's
out of how many years?
No, Karl, I think it's pretty clear: There isn't enough in this method
to attract others. If it really, really worked well, you wouldn't have
to sell it. It would sell it self.
> There are a couple of pros here in Las Vegas that teach it but I have
> had numerous emails and orders from others... many of which are
> overseas. So have many of the sidesaddle putter manufacturers with whom
> I work with.
> Most pros don't even teach much putting anyway.
Can you point us to a source of this statistic?
> The evidence is really quite compelling since it all points toward
> sidesaddle and absolutely nothing has been presented (yet) for the
> superiority of conventional or any other putting technique.
I just don't get this. The evidence is anything but compelling. The
best players in the world, according to you, choose methods other than
sidesaddle. Some putt conventionally. Some putt w/ broomstick
putters. Some do belly putters.
None do sidesaddle. And these are pros whose livelihoods depend on
their putting. If this is the case, then the "evidence" *is*
compelling: The pros, the best players in the world, don't think it's as
good as what they're doing.
> And yes, there must be a reason. That's why I asked the question in the
> first place.
Let me phrase it more clearly: judging by their methods, it doesn't
work as well, at least for those players.
Now you have your reason.
Howard Brazee
On 9-Sep-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
> Well, I'd say you should point that at yourself. If there are all these
> tremendous side saddle putters out there, then they should be dominating
> quite a bit, don't you think? I sure don't see it. And while,
> according to your data, 6 have won some state amateur tournament, that's
> out of how many years?
The question is - is the percentage of sidesaddle competitors who win higher
than the percentage of non-sidesaddle competitors who win?
> I just don't get this. The evidence is anything but compelling. The
> best players in the world, according to you, choose methods other than
> sidesaddle. Some putt conventionally. Some putt w/ broomstick
> putters. Some do belly putters.
>
> None do sidesaddle. And these are pros whose livelihoods depend on
> their putting. If this is the case, then the "evidence" *is*
> compelling: The pros, the best players in the world, don't think it's as
> good as what they're doing.
Admittedly, the pros tend to be somewhat conservative - it takes them a while to
switch. But sidesaddle techniques are older than metal woods, older than the
claw, older than belly putters, and older than broomstick putters.
I know why I don't putt much sidesaddle - it's because I am less accurate that
way (I explained my theory for this earlier).
The answer to his question appears to be obvious - the player's experiences
don't back up the claims.
Mike Dalecki
>
> On 9-Sep-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, I'd say you should point that at yourself. If there are all these
> > tremendous side saddle putters out there, then they should be dominating
> > quite a bit, don't you think? I sure don't see it. And while,
> > according to your data, 6 have won some state amateur tournament, that's
> > out of how many years?
>
> The question is - is the percentage of sidesaddle competitors who win higher
> than the percentage of non-sidesaddle competitors who win?
While in the abstract, this might be a useful statistic, with small
sample sizes it's not a very good one to use. We don't know over how
many years these tournaments were done. We don't know what these guys
have done lately. We don't know a great deal here, and yet that single
number of "six" is presented as if it carries great weight. It
doesn't.
Karl is acting as if the issue is settled, that sidesaddle is
demonstrably better than other forms of putting. Well, he hasn't
presented any information to demonstrate this is the case.
I'm not taking issue with whether you can see the line better from one
way or another. It would seem to be easier to see the line from behind
than from the side. I'm not arguing that. Virtually everybody I know
evaluates a putt by standing behind it, using that position to give them
the benefit of both eyes.
> > I just don't get this. The evidence is anything but compelling. The
> > best players in the world, according to you, choose methods other than
> > sidesaddle. Some putt conventionally. Some putt w/ broomstick
> > putters. Some do belly putters.
> >
> > None do sidesaddle. And these are pros whose livelihoods depend on
> > their putting. If this is the case, then the "evidence" *is*
> > compelling: The pros, the best players in the world, don't think it's as
> > good as what they're doing.
>
> Admittedly, the pros tend to be somewhat conservative - it takes them a while to
> switch. But sidesaddle techniques are older than metal woods, older than the
> claw, older than belly putters, and older than broomstick putters.
>
> I know why I don't putt much sidesaddle - it's because I am less accurate that
> way (I explained my theory for this earlier).
>
> The answer to his question appears to be obvious - the player's experiences
> don't back up the claims.
It seems that way to me as well.
Howard Brazee
On 9-Sep-2003, Rick Rider <ro.ride...@gteNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Karl,
> You really need to qoute the relevant post to which you reply. There
> is no way to gauge your response as being on the mark, or wide of it
> without the original, at least the relevant portions, to reference.
>
> I have no idea which post to which this refers.
>
> Please include the relevant posting information - at least the author
> and the portions of the post to which you are responding.
But make sure we can see some of your reply in the top 20 lines or so. When
threads get a lot of quoted material, so that people only see quoted material on
the screen, readership drops drastically. Lots of people won't scroll down
unless they have reason to believe there is something worth the effort.
bighorn_bill
People don't want to buy what you're selling? They must be stupid!
DJD
> SAFEA...@webtv.net (Karl Higham) wrote in message news:<29204-3F5...@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
>
>>As many of you know, I have been putting "sidesaddle" ( Facing the hole
>>/ split grip. ) forever.
>
> People don't want to buy what you're selling? They must be stupid!
*LOL*
Damn Bill, you cut right to the heart of the matter, don't you? :-D
--
Dan Driscoll
Member - NCGA
RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html
RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
EasyEd
SAFEA...@webtv.net (Karl Higham) wrote in message news:<29204-3F5...@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
I think that the vision issues are the KEY point(s). Sidesaddle
putting does in my opinion give you a better view of your line however
I don't believe that the stance that Sam Snead used was ever very
stable or solid especially in the wind. Also I think that conventional
putting in my opinion tends to give you a better more consistent
stroke but vision is less natural. Aesthetics are likely irrelevant.
As I've posted once before the best putter in the history of golf - 18
majors to his credit - used the best compromise between the two
methods. He stood at about a 40 to 45 degree angle to the line of the
putt and so could cock his head left and look down the line of the
putt with binocular vision when he chose to. Plus he was rock solid
over the ball all the time - even in the wind at Pebble Beach. The
main issue with putting his way is to not pull putts but if you push
your right palm at the target you won't pull them. Worked for him -
works for me.
Take Care! -Ed-
"R&B"
> That's true but from the sidesaddle stance the eyes are looking down the
> line, just like when you line it up,
That's simply not true.
Only if you were straddling the line (which is not legal) would your eyes be
looking down the line. When putting sidesaddle, you're eyes are to one side
of the line.
This is doubly problemetic for people like myself who are left-eye dominant
(but are right-handed). Our dominant eye is even farther from the line.
Addressing the ball from a conventional position, if done correctly, places
both eyes over the line.
Of course most of this is moot anyway, since nobody worth his weight in golf
tees looks at the hole when putting anyway. He looks at a spot just a few
inches or a foot from the hole.
Randy
Dave Clary
>
>That's simply not true.
>
>Only if you were straddling the line (which is not legal) would your eyes be
>looking down the line. When putting sidesaddle, you're eyes are to one side
>of the line.
Not really. Your right foot can be right next to the line and you can lean
over.
>
>This is doubly problemetic for people like myself who are left-eye dominant
>(but are right-handed). Our dominant eye is even farther from the line.
>Addressing the ball from a conventional position, if done correctly, places
>both eyes over the line.
I share the same problem and trying to gauge the line while over the ball is a
serious exercise in futility for me. I line up my putt from behind the ball and
use the mark I made with the "line-em-up" jig to point the ball to the target
line. Once I address the ball, it doesn't look like it's pointing correctly--I
just have to trust the line on the ball and try to make a good, in-line stroke.
I don't see anyone lining up putts by standing next to the ball in the address
position (except for Mickleson's caddy). But, of course, when players are doing
this, they are standing bell BEHIND the ball. This is where I think one of the
problems with sidesaddle comes in. Where do you focus your eyes during the
stroke? When I tried it for awhile, I never felt comfortable with the idea of
just looking at the hole (or a distant point on your aim line). If I don't
watch the putter head strike the ball, I have a tendency to not hit the ball
clean.
I realize that we'll in all likelihood never see this style in use on the PGA
tour. I also realize that Karl is most likely bopping into RSG to drum up a
little business. But I still find this kind of interesting given what someone
like Pelz said about this style. Makes me wonder what would happen if a good
pro gave it a real shot.
"R&B"
> Makes me wonder what would happen if a good
> pro gave it a real shot.
You won't. Here's why: Even if this method were superior for seeing the
line (and I strongly disagree that it does), it all but sacrifices feel in
the stroke and therefore, distance control. Ask any of the TOUR's top
putters and they'll tell you it's SPEED FIRST, then line. Why? Because
speed DICTATES line. You can't fight gravity, so speed is the first thing
you have to decide on. Once speed is set, then that dictates how much break
to play.
Randy
Dave Clary
>"Dave Clary" <dcl...@stx.rr.com> wrote
>
>> Makes me wonder what would happen if a good
>> pro gave it a real shot.
>
>
>You won't. Here's why: Even if this method were superior for seeing the
>line (and I strongly disagree that it does), it all but sacrifices feel in
>the stroke and therefore, distance control.
Why? What makes you say that it "all but sacrifices feel?"
"R&B"
news:577tlv88jsaflpb13...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:07:24 GMT, "\"R&B\"" <notmyema...@all.com>
wrote:
>
> >"Dave Clary" <dcl...@stx.rr.com> wrote
> >
> >> Makes me wonder what would happen if a good
> >> pro gave it a real shot.
> >
> >
> >You won't. Here's why: Even if this method were superior for seeing the
> >line (and I strongly disagree that it does), it all but sacrifices feel
in
> >the stroke and therefore, distance control.
>
> Why? What makes you say that it "all but sacrifices feel?"
For several reasons. Here are a few.
First, if you're utilizing a method similar the one Sam Snead used, you've
only got one hand on the shaft, and it would typically be down on the steel.
Second, you're not "swinging" the putter head pendulum-style. It is an
awkward, unnatural motion, pulling the putter back toward you (and to the
side), then pushing it away from you. If you can't see the inherant
drawbacks in feel of that method versus a pendulum swing, well, then you
have no feel now and maybe this method wouldn't be any worse. But your feel
will never develop much beyond what you have now. Wouldn't it make more
sense to try to learn how to develop feel the right way?
The third reason is that it takes the wrists totally out of the stroke.
Ever wonder why some players, like Fred Couples, have chosen to putt
cross-handed when close to the hole, but go back to conventional on longer
putts? It's because on longer putts, you WANT your wrists to hinge a
little. Not much, but enough to give the ball a little extra pop to get it
there. On shorter putts, it doesn't matter. But it's hard to develop feel
for distance if you don't allow your arms/wrists/hands to be loose. You
give up that advantage with the sidesaddle method, thereby foregoing one of
the most obvious methods of controlling distance in the stroke.
Bottom line: This method is not new. Sam Snead used it fifty years ago.
His videos have been widely seen by amateurs and pros alike. If it were
really superior, as the originating author of this thread (and allegedly,
Dave Pelz) have said, don't you think you'd see at least ONE PGA TOUR player
use it? I mean, they've gone to some pretty wild extremes out there to
overcome putting woes, from the broom putter to cross-handed, to the
Bernhard Langer I-don't-know-what-you-call-it overlap grip, to the belly
putter to "the claw." If you think that the mere look of it is enough to
keep TOUR players from trying it, you're dead wrong. They'll try ANYTHING
if they think it will help, and I'm sure several have tried this. The
thread's originator would have us believe that "hundreds of pros" are
teaching this. Well, where are their students? Have you ever seen one on a
golf course or on a pro tour anywhere? I haven't. Not on the PGA TOUR, not
on the over-50 circuit, not on the European/Asian/Australian/South
African/Canadian/Nationwide/Hooters Tour. Not one player.
Believe me, if this method were so superior, someone would be using it.
Nobody is.
And remember, the only person who ever used it was Sam Snead. Let's not
confuse one fact. Snead didn't win all of his record 81 events using this
method. He putted (and won) for many years using a conventional stroke (a
fact that many seem to have forgotten). It wasn't until much later in his
career that he went to the croquet-style method, straddling the line. After
finding success with this method, it was oulawed by the USGA. Only then did
he go to sidesaddle, fairly late in his career. Which tells you
something...even for the player most often associated with this method,
***IT WAS HIS THIRD CHOICE***. We'll never know for sure, but if I were a
betting man, I'd put my money on Snead going to the long putter, the belly
putter, the claw or some other method before resorting to this awkward
motion that defies everything natural about a golf swing, if only someone
had thought of them when he was around. But nobody had.
Besides, the sidesaddle method was merely a compromise after he was no
longer allowed to use the method he came up with (croquet style). Had he
not tried the croquet style, nobody would have ever tried sidesaddle. And
since he quit playing , nobody else has tried it. In fact, even when he was
succeeding with it, nobody else used it. You think Ben Hogan, who HATED
putting, wouldn't have been willing to try something like that? Or any one
of the other players who were cashing 2nd place (and lower) checks while
Snead was winning? You bet they would. But if it was so superior, then why
have we not seen other players using it?
Randy
Howard Brazee
On 9-Sep-2003, "\"R&B\"" <notmyema...@all.com> wrote:
> Of course most of this is moot anyway, since nobody worth his weight in golf
> tees looks at the hole when putting anyway. He looks at a spot just a few
> inches or a foot from the hole.
Are there pros who look at the ball or the club head while putting?
Howard Brazee
On 9-Sep-2003, "\"R&B\"" <notmyema...@all.com> wrote:
> You won't. Here's why: Even if this method were superior for seeing the
> line (and I strongly disagree that it does), it all but sacrifices feel in
> the stroke and therefore, distance control. Ask any of the TOUR's top
> putters and they'll tell you it's SPEED FIRST, then line. Why? Because
> speed DICTATES line. You can't fight gravity, so speed is the first thing
> you have to decide on. Once speed is set, then that dictates how much break
> to play.
I never think about speed. Of course speed dictates line, but speed is
instinctive with me. I'm not sure if I COULD pick speed. What do they do, say
for a 30' putt, the back stroke is 25"? Or the speed of the swing is
60"/second?
Karl Higham
conflicting evidence of their own ARE stupid.
I have never sold the sidesaddle idea to a stupid person.
Karl Higham
evidence that would favor conventional putting over sidesaddle.
I have done both although you seem to think that probability factors
don't work.
If maybe even 100 (which is unlikely) entrants in Pelz's tourney putted
sidesaddle against at least 100,000 conventional putters who entered
locally and 6 sidesaddlers made the finals, even the most casual
observer would find it difficult to chalk it up to luck.
Ask Dave Pelz. He makes it quite clear that sidesaddle is easier and
simpler.
Dr. Gideon Aerial of Illinois University did biomechanical and
biokinetic studies on both techniques and found that sidesaddle amounted
to over 60% improvement over conventional for these reasons:
1. 50% fewer body parts involved.
2. Ability to use the shoulder joint the way its designed... straight
forward and back.
3. Enables you to use your binocular vision for better depth perception.
4. Takes advantage of a persons natural right or left handedness.
5. Promotes a more straight forward pendulum swing that accelerates
properly and releases the putterhead down the intended line.
Sorry, but I can't use the premise that just because the pros aren't
doing it the evidence must be faulty.
Either accept the evidence that exists or provide some of your own.
I am really bored with this tactic and have come to believe that this
kind of brainlock is the answer to my original question.
Take heart though, not one pro... not even one has been able to give me
a logical reason not to putt sidesaddle. Most do not attempt to (can't)
challenge the compelling evidence. They give a lot of excuses though.
Mostly, they think it's not in the essence of the game or it's like
cheating. I think they just don't have the guts and are waiting for
another Sam Snead to break the ice AGAIN!
Most golfers will buy incredibly inaccurate premises for "high tech"?
equipment just because it's endorsed or used by a pro... and the
manufacturers just love you for it.
More astute golfers can think for themselves.
If Tiger Woods started putting with a 2X4, the lumber yards would run
out by Mon morning.
Karl Higham
Hard to keep cutting and pasting.
I wish the "respond" button would relate to the Re: I have up and am
answering.
Is there another way to do it?
Karl Higham
could watch you just once, I could fix it. Switching back and forth from
conventional could be the culprit... two totally different swing
thoughts for starters.
I think 6 out of hundreds of thousands is hardly a "small sample size".
Combined with all the other numbers, personal accomplishments and
scientific studies, the evidence is more than compelling... it speaks
volumes!
Howard Brazee
On 10-Sep-2003, SAFEA...@webtv.net (Karl Higham) wrote:
> I have never sold the sidesaddle idea to a stupid person.
Stupid people can be sold good ideas and poor ideas. And stupid people are
common. If you couldn't sell to stupid people, your sample size must be pretty
small.
DJD
You only look at the spot in front of the ball when you are aligning
yourself. Once you are set-up you look at the ball.
Looking at the putter head is a good way to see your miss. ;-)
Karl Higham
focus on the results. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I hit
everything off center when I first started looking at the hole... and it
felt really awkward. The thing that kept me going was the results in
spite of it. After looking at the hole for some time now, the off-center
hits have become fewer and fewer. The awkward feeling is also just about
gone now too.
The benefits are many. Lost the"hit" impulse entirely. Most of the
misses on lag putts come up long rather than short resulting in more
"makes". No more looking up or moving early.
The brain just can't concentrate on more than one thing at a time. Do I
try to "hit" this ball I'm looking at on the sweetspot of the putter or
try to putt the ball in the hole? You don't have to make this choice if
you just had to toss it toward the target with your hand.
Thanks for the kudos!
Karl
DJD
Resorting to personal insults now, eh Karl?
Of course, you will never admit that the evidence you are attempting to
foist off on us is somewhat less than "compelling". The fact is that
sidesaddle putting is an awkward, unnatural method that has no proven
benefit over any other putting method, despite your very questionable
claims to the contrary. You "claim" that there was a university study,
but don't provide a link. And since when did a single study prove
anything? Until it is replicated it is a theory and so far as I can
tell, it has never been replicated. For that matter, I haven't seen any
proof that the study you claim was ever actually done.
You also make a big deal about Sam Snead, but poo-ha the fact that not a
single other professional player has ever used the sidesaddle putting
method. You also seem to be ignoring Randy's very informed response
about WHY Snead switched to sidesaddle and that is wasn't his preferred
putting method. I'll go along with another poster's comments, "Pros
would putt in a pink tutu if they believed it would help them win
more.". I have no doubt many pros have tried sidesaddle, yet in the 50
years since Sam Snead used the method, not a single one has ever been
seen putting sidesaddle on the course. Now THAT'S compelling evidence.
The FACT is that you are a spammer and only reason you post here is
because you have something to sell.
Karl Higham
putts in the 15" and under category but pace on long putts suffer. I
agree. The reason is the arm swings across the body. Hard to feel pace
that way. I have found that pace improves on long putts even more than
direction with sidesaddle because it allows the shoulder joint to move
in the direction it is intended for such a task.
You wouldn't toss a ball with your hand from either the broomstick or
conventional putting stance.
Well, then again you might.
Karl Higham
Ever wonder why the USGA banned it?
Actually Sam got the last laugh and found sidesaddle superior to
croquet. Got one hand off it and the one shoulder worked better than
both pinched together. The lie angle of sidesaddle putters are only
about 80%. Just enough so that you don't have to pull the left hand over
so far and put you out of square. Affords a much better down the line
pendulum stroke than conventional that wants to swing in an arc that
goes around you body. The right hand wants to do it by itself! Causes
all kinds of problems with breakdown, inside out, outside in and poor
putterhead release.
Just do a Google search for "sidesaddle putting" Might learn enough to
give it a real look.
You might even try it before you knock it any more.
Karl Higham
Mike Dalecki
> See if you can present any kind of either scientific or even physical
> evidence that would favor conventional putting over sidesaddle.
> I have done both although you seem to think that probability factors
> don't work.
No, Karl. You're the one saying that sidesaddle is better. I am saying
your evidence is at best suspect.
It's up to YOU to provide the evidence that the prevailing approach is
wrong. After all, you're the one trying to get everyone to break with
convention.
> If maybe even 100 (which is unlikely) entrants in Pelz's tourney putted
> sidesaddle against at least 100,000 conventional putters who entered
> locally and 6 sidesaddlers made the finals, even the most casual
> observer would find it difficult to chalk it up to luck.
You see, I don't buy the premise. It's not as if you took 100 people,
randomly split them into two groups, taught group "A" to putt sidesaddle
and group "B" to putt conventionally (by excellent teachers), and then
compared the putting productivity of each.
You didn't. Why I don't tend to buy this is that I am not a bad putter
by any means. In fact, I think I'm a pretty darned good putter. I putt
conventionally. And I'd never even think to waste my time in a putting
contest. I'd rather golf.
So what you have in your "contest" may simply be people who are devoted
to putting sidesaddle, and a bunch of others who simply happened to enter.
Now I don't know this is true. But as a scientist, I'm trained to look
for alternative explanations as to why something might occur. I don't
know the conditions of the contest. I don't know the distances people
had to putt, the breaks, the type of grass used. And so to present this
"evidence" as if it has great meaning is simply your attempt to call
attention to something you want to promote.
> Ask Dave Pelz. He makes it quite clear that sidesaddle is easier and
> simpler.
He says that? Is that how he putts?
> Dr. Gideon Aerial of Illinois University did biomechanical and
> biokinetic studies on both techniques and found that sidesaddle amounted
> to over 60% improvement over conventional for these reasons:
> 1. 50% fewer body parts involved.
> 2. Ability to use the shoulder joint the way its designed... straight
> forward and back.
> 3. Enables you to use your binocular vision for better depth perception.
> 4. Takes advantage of a persons natural right or left handedness.
> 5. Promotes a more straight forward pendulum swing that accelerates
> properly and releases the putterhead down the intended line.
You've got one guy who says this, and I'm surprised you'd even be
willing to present this in print.
Which method of conventional putting did your famous doctor use? My
method is to keep the shoulders rocking, so that the shoulder joint
isn't used at all. Did he take that into account?
I don't look at the hole when I putt, so I don't see what difference
that should make. I read a putt from behind, decide what line I want it
on, and I'm virtually certain I use my "binocular" vision for that.
I can take advantage of my natural right- or left-handedness quite
easily, simply by altering my grip.
Karl, if this is all you've got, you haven't got much.
> Sorry, but I can't use the premise that just because the pros aren't
> doing it the evidence must be faulty.
I'm not surprised. After all, I'm just trying to find the best way to
golf, whereas you are focused on people accepting *your* way.
> Either accept the evidence that exists or provide some of your own.
The "evidence" that exists is pitifully weak. And there's powerful
counter-evidence to your premise.
> I am really bored with this tactic and have come to believe that this
> kind of brainlock is the answer to my original question.
Whatever. You say you won't accept my evidence, and when I critique
your "evidence" you ignore what I say.
Brainlock? Or maybe you have a bit of vested interest in it?
> Take heart though, not one pro... not even one has been able to give me
> a logical reason not to putt sidesaddle.
Have you surveyed every pro? I thought not. How many have you
surveyed, Karl? Or is this more of this shadow evidence you're offering?
I'll bet that not one pro could give you a logical reason why one
shouldn't wear red golf shoes, too.
> Most do not attempt to (can't)
> challenge the compelling evidence.
It's only "compelling" in your mind. I find it weak. Interesting how
that works out, isn't it?
> They give a lot of excuses though.
> Mostly, they think it's not in the essence of the game or it's like
> cheating. I think they just don't have the guts and are waiting for
> another Sam Snead to break the ice AGAIN!
If I thought sidesaddle would improve my putting even one putt per
round, I'd do it. I don't care what others think. I practice more than
95 percent of people at my club, perhaps more than 99%. I'm devoted
to the game, and to getting as good at it as I can.
And so there's nothing holding me back, except that I don't see any
point. Maybe there is. Maybe it *is* better. I'm just noting that
nothing you've said yet seals the deal, makes compelling in any way the
argument that sidesaddle is better.
> Most golfers will buy incredibly inaccurate premises for "high tech"?
> equipment just because it's endorsed or used by a pro... and the
> manufacturers just love you for it.
Most? Survey reference, please?
At any rate, I don't. Everything in my bag is a club I made myself.
Nobody on RSG would have an easier time making a sidesaddle putter than
I would. I've tried all sorts of crazy stuff thinking it would work
better, and a sidesaddle putter would be no weirder than anything else.
No, Karl, it's not a lack of guts. It's a lack of compelling evidence.
> More astute golfers can think for themselves.
> If Tiger Woods started putting with a 2X4, the lumber yards would run
> out by Mon morning.
Karl, when you produce some powerful evidence, you might have people
more interested. In the interim, though, there you are.
Mike
>
Mike Dalecki
> If you are not as accurate, you are doing something wrong with it. If I
> could watch you just once, I could fix it. Switching back and forth from
> conventional could be the culprit... two totally different swing
> thoughts for starters.
To whom are you referring here? Howard? This is listed as a reply to
my post.
If Howard is not as accurate, could it not simply be that sidesaddle
doesn't work as well for him?
> I think 6 out of hundreds of thousands is hardly a "small sample size".
It's tiny, and for reasons I indicated in my other post to you, not
sufficient because we don't know against whom these people competed,
what their motivations are, conditions of competition, etc.
You want to produce compelling evidence, take 100 golfers, split them
randomly into two groups have some noted putting guru teach group "A"
to putt conventionally, you teach group "B" to putt sidesaddle, then
let's see them compete against each other.
THAT would be comelling. The stuff you present is not.
> Combined with all the other numbers, personal accomplishments and
> scientific studies, the evidence is more than compelling... it speaks
> volumes!
Combined with what? It's terribly weak. It's not compelling. And the
volumes it speaks is that there's a guy who wants to promote sidesaddle
despite his unwilliness or inability to come up with some evidence that
*would* be compelling.
Mike
Howard Brazee
On 10-Sep-2003, SAFEA...@webtv.net (Karl Higham) wrote:
> Most pros seem to agree that long,
...
If you are going to use such arguments, then you need to answer the question you
asked to start this thread, the one where you rejected our answers.
Why do most pros seem to agree to not putt sidesaddle, when they have accepted
so many other non-traditional and weird looking, newer changes?
Mike Dalecki
This is as powerful an argument as any. THink about all the weird ways
that people putt: The claw grip, broomstick, belly putters. Didn't
Bernard Langer, years ago, use a grip where he clasped his left forearm
with his right hand?
Those are all weird. Sidesaddle is no weirder.
Wait a sec...I've got it! It's the name: "Sidesaddle." Sidesaddle is
how girls sit on horses, right? And who would want to putt like a girl?
And so, no male pro will ever use the sidesaddle putting style since
it evokes femininity.
Now, if you'd change the sidesaddle name to something more masculine,
like "Bicep-oriented putting," or the "modified fist-pump method," well,
I'm sure those pros would jump on board in a second.
Mike
"R&B"
news:6982-3F...@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Snead went to it because he COULDN'T PUTT. I can. I don't need this goofy
remedy. And any time you want to bring your funky-ass putting style to
Atlanta to take me on at the putting green for, say, $50 a hole, bring it
on.
I repeat what I said before (and you conveniently didn't bother to
respond) -- this method has been around for FIFTY YEARS. If it was as
superior as you claim, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE on SOME TOUR would be using it.
But alas, nobody is. There's nothing else that needs to be known about it.
Randy
"R&B"
practice strokes? They're trying to get a feel for how hard to hit the
ball, and calibrate their stroke to the speed they want to impart on the
ball.
Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:bjn9k3$i6c$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Howard Brazee
On 10-Sep-2003, Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote:
> I don't look at the hole when I putt, so I don't see what difference
> that should make. I read a putt from behind, decide what line I want it
> on, and I'm virtually certain I use my "binocular" vision for that.
What do you look at when you putt?
"R&B"
Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:bjn9ck$i35$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Mike Dalecki
The ball.
To get the distance, I'll sometimes stare at the hole from my stance
until I am satisfied that I have the distance down. Then I return my
gaze to the ball, and start the stroke.
Mike
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim
I do not patronize spammers. Help keep RSG clean!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wdyw
>I repeat what I said before (and you conveniently didn't bother to
>respond) -- this method has been around for FIFTY YEARS. If it was as
>superior as you claim, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE on SOME TOUR would be using it.
>But alas, nobody is. There's nothing else that needs to be known about it.
Nobody on any tour???? You sure????
You au-fait with all the pro tours worldwide? Have a look on the net for "Paul
Leonard" who this past weekend won the European Masters on the European Seniors
Tour. For years he had the goofiest putting style you could ever imagine
...that was based on a sidesaddle action.
Saying that, the last time I met him he was putting with a style that didn't
cause spectators to giggle.
Matt 'Big Dog' Aamold
"Karl Higham" <SAFEA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6988-3F...@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Hard to do. I'm using my webtv for RSG.
That explains alot
"R&B"
news:20030910173433...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >
> >I repeat what I said before (and you conveniently didn't bother to
> >respond) -- this method has been around for FIFTY YEARS. If it was as
> >superior as you claim, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE on SOME TOUR would be using it.
> >But alas, nobody is. There's nothing else that needs to be known about
it.
>
> Nobody on any tour???? You sure????
> You au-fait with all the pro tours worldwide? Have a look on the net for
"Paul
> Leonard" who this past weekend won the European Masters on the European
Seniors
> Tour. For years he had the goofiest putting style you could ever imagine
> ...that was based on a sidesaddle action.
Paul Leonard? A veritable hall-of-famer.
Okay, there's ONE. Out of THOUSANDS.
I rest my case.
Randy
Dave Clary
>"Dave Clary" <dcl...@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:577tlv88jsaflpb13...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:07:24 GMT, "\"R&B\"" <notmyema...@all.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >"Dave Clary" <dcl...@stx.rr.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> Makes me wonder what would happen if a good
>> >> pro gave it a real shot.
>> >
>> >
>> >You won't. Here's why: Even if this method were superior for seeing the
>> >line (and I strongly disagree that it does), it all but sacrifices feel
>in
>> >the stroke and therefore, distance control.
>>
>> Why? What makes you say that it "all but sacrifices feel?"
>
>
>For several reasons. Here are a few.
>
>First, if you're utilizing a method similar the one Sam Snead used, you've
>only got one hand on the shaft, and it would typically be down on the steel.
>Second, you're not "swinging" the putter head pendulum-style. It is an
>awkward, unnatural motion, pulling the putter back toward you (and to the
>side), then pushing it away from you.
We have a problem. If we're going to discuss the merits of a particular style
of putting, we have to be talking about the same thing. You're not. The only
thing this method has in common with Snead is that you are facing the target.
Otherwise it is entirely different. I'm sorry but you're working from a
position of ignorance on this one. The method being referred in this instance
involves using a long putter that comes up to your armpit. You secure it
underneath your shoulder with the left and simply take your right arm back and
through. It's a pure pendulum stroke and there's no reason someone couldn't
develop "feel" using this method.
>Bottom line: This method is not new. Sam Snead used it fifty years ago.
Bottom line: You're barking up the wrong tree.
>His videos have been widely seen by amateurs and pros alike. If it were
>really superior, as the originating author of this thread (and allegedly,
>Dave Pelz) have said,
Allegedly my ass! I quoted directly from his book. So you're implying that
either I falsified the quote, I can't read, or Pelz's ghost writer put something
in the book he didn't say. Go to a book store, pick up the Putting Bible, and
turn to page 39. It's all there in black and white.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary
RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd
Dave Clary
>Karl Higham wrote:
>> Ask Dave Pelz. He makes it quite clear that sidesaddle is easier and
>> simpler.
>
>He says that? Is that how he putts?
Whoa, Karl. Time to raise the bullshit flag. Pelz makes no such statement or
even implies it in my opinion. He says one person using this method produced
the best putting he's ever seen. Doesn't say it's easier or simpler. Other
people may not have any success using it. But there's no mistaking his meaning
in this quote:
"And that brings us to the simplest, easiest, most repeatable, most reliable,
and therefore the best way to putt--the pure, no-hit, pendulum stroke" And in
this instance, he's describing putting from a traditional stance.
So I believe what Pelz really says in the book is a strong argument that side
saddle (at least this particular version of it) has merit. But you do your
cause no good by putting words in Pelz's mouth.
bighorn_bill
> People who refuse accept compelling evidence and don't provide any
> conflicting evidence of their own ARE stupid.
> I have never sold the sidesaddle idea to a stupid person.
As I said...
I tried the sidesaddle technique. I don't think I've tried a
more awkward, less effective way to putt. Of course, I didn't
have one of your special sidesaddle putters, either, did I?
spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...
j
GOOD one!
Mike Dalecki <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:bjnv11$kfmnu$1...@ID-146362.news.uni-berlin.de...
Karl Higham
You name the time, place and how much you can afford to lose.
Karl Higham
I'll show you mine if you show me yours!
http://puttmagic.com/11.htm
(Bottom of page.)
Karl Higham
Karl Higham
If you can't find YOUR answer here: ...CAUTION SPAM
http://puttmagic.com
Then e-mail me: thepu...@aol.com
Kinda" pretentious huh?
CAUTION... MORE SPAM BELOW!
Karl Higham
"Anyone who putts well is a match for any opponent."
Learn the putting technique that will change the way you think about
this "Game Within a Game". Free, full size plans for a special putter
you can make yourself. http://puttmagic.com
RSG ROLL CALL: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/highamk.htm
Karl Higham
Hypothetical situation:
The conventional putting style is sidesaddle. Nobody has ever tried
standing at a right angle to the line with both hands on a shorter
putter.
But you discover this "better?" technique and attempt to convince them.
What reasons could you give to support your claim at this moment?
Do you have any scientific evidence or studies?
Do you have logical physical evidence for it allowing you to be more
accurate and be able to explain why... better direction, pace, etc.?
Should be easy for you self proclaimed scientific types.
I'm a high school dropout myself but I am not blind, have a reasonable
ability to evaluate facts and understand the basic laws of physics and
probabilities and have presented an argument with enough merit to have
changed the way at least 12,000 golfers putt today. (Not counting
visitors who make or use their own putter from the free plans and
directions on my site... have no way of knowing.) There are at least a
dozen other sidesaddle putter makers who all probably do more sales than
I.
(Much of my evidence has come from them.)
Let's see if you can present an argument for the way you like to putt
that is as compelling as mine when the roles are reversed.
CAUTION...SPAM BELOW
"R&B"
"Dave Clary" wrote
>
> We have a problem. If we're going to discuss the merits of a particular
style
> of putting, we have to be talking about the same thing. You're not. The
only
> thing this method has in common with Snead is that you are facing the
target.
> Otherwise it is entirely different.
Maybe. The discussion was about sidesaddle putting. If there's another
version of sidesaddle putting than the one Snead made famous, I'm not aware
of it, and I've never seen it.
> I'm sorry but you're working from a position of ignorance on this one.
Maybe. But that doesn't change what I've said elsewhere -- that if this
method is so superior, as some in this newsgroup (who, frankly, have no
standing in the industry to make such a ridiculous claim) have claimed,
then why have NONE -- not ONE -- of the world's top players gone to it?
It's one thing to allege that they might choose to use one brand of
equipment over another (endorsement money), but if you think for two seconds
that any player wouldn't switch to an unconventional method of putting if he
found it to be more reliable, then you're wrong. He'd switch in a
heartbeat.
> The method being referred in this instance involves using a long putter
> that comes up to your armpit. You secure it underneath your shoulder
> with the left and simply take your right arm back and through. It's a
pure
> pendulum stroke and there's no reason someone couldn't
> develop "feel" using this method.
If you say so.
> >Bottom line: This method is not new. Sam Snead used it fifty years ago.
>
> Bottom line: You're barking up the wrong tree.
Woof!
> >His videos have been widely seen by amateurs and pros alike. If it were
> >really superior, as the originating author of this thread (and allegedly,
> >Dave Pelz) have said,
>
> Allegedly my ass! I quoted directly from his book. So you're implying
that
> either I falsified the quote, I can't read, or Pelz's ghost writer put
something
> in the book he didn't say.
Calm down. Take a deep breath. Pour yourself a glass of cool ice tea
(preferably caffeine free).
I say again what I've said before. If this method is so superior, and if,
as you say, Dave Pelz is a proponent of it, it's not like Mr. Pelz doesn't
have a lot of pros' ear. Indeed, he does. Many on the world's pro circuits
go to him for advice on the short game. Yet we see none of his students
using it. I wonder why is that? Either he's not as sold on it (and
therefore doesn't advocate it to his students as strongly as one might
assume), or his students have found the method to be inferior to, or at
least not superior to the method they presently use.
I'll say it again -- if none of the world's best players use this method,
why should any of the rest of us assume it to be a "superior" method?
I'll even grant you (even without seeing the method) that for some, it might
be a viable last-ditch way to salvage an otherwise horrible putting game.
So might putting with your eyes closed. So might putting left-handed be.
So might putting while standing on your head. But if not a single player
known to be among the world's best has gone to it (and believe me, they
would if they found it to be better) -- despite the fact that the world's #1
short game authority, Dave Pelz, advocates it -- what does that say about
the method?
Maybe that it's not "superior" at all, but rather is just another in an
endless array of alternative methods of putting that some lost souls might
be open to trying if nothing else works.
"R&B"
method from the git-go.
Randy
"Karl Higham" wrote ...
> OK! Not going to find MY answer here.
> If you can't find YOUR answer here: ...CAUTION SPAM
> http://spammagic.com
> Then e-mail me: thesp...@aol.com
> Kinda" pretentious huh?
>
> Karl Higham
Scooter
\"R&B\" wrote:
>
> And I foolishly participated in it. At least I took exception with the
> method from the git-go.
>
> Randy
Where's your usual signature? :-)
Ulrich Mayring
>
> If maybe even 100 (which is unlikely) entrants in Pelz's tourney putted
> sidesaddle against at least 100,000 conventional putters who entered
> locally and 6 sidesaddlers made the finals, even the most casual
> observer would find it difficult to chalk it up to luck.
Absolutely. But that does not lead to any kind of conclusion by itself.
First, you must define what your thesis is. You can't just say "my
theory is that sidesaddle is better than conventional putting". Many
questions arise from such an informal statement:
Better for what? For winning a Pelz tourney? For winning the US Open?
For lowering my handicap, no matter how high or low it currently is?
Your evidence clearly suggests that there is a strong correlation
between making the finals of a Pelz tourney and putting sidesaddle. But
that's all.
It does not suggest in any way that I personally (or whoever else) would
actually benefit from putting sidesaddle.
It does not even suggest that putting sidesaddle will give someone a
better chance of making the finals of a Pelz tourney. Perhaps champion
putters, who putt sidesaddle, are much more likely to compete in a Pelz
tourney, whereas champion putters, who putt conventional, don't really
dig Pelz and his tourney. So the conventional putters sent their second
tier competitors.
Ulrich
Mike Dalecki
>
> Maybe this will get you thinking for real.
I think very well, Karl. And for real.
How about *this* challenge for you: Why not try very hard to look at
the responses you received from a number of people, think about them,
and then realize why your "evidence" is convincing to almost no one?
And if you can't understand them, ask for help.
I teach research methodology in college. One of the things we focus on
in that class is how to evaluate evidence, how you decide if something
is supported by evidence or not. We look at a criterion of causality
called "nonspuriousness," which is a fancy way of saying that there is
not more than one explanation for some causal relationship you observe.
For instance, you make claims as to your "evidence." I point out
reasons why it may not be the way you think it is. Your job, as a
putative researcher interested in generating support for your point of
view, is to refute those reasons. You haven't done so.
I've applied the very things I teach to the "evidence" you've supplied
us. You simply fall short of providing anything close to a convincing
argument that your favorite method is better than what people are
using. I'm sorry about that, Karl, but that's the way it is. If you
were to present these arguments in my class, as part of a project, you'd
fail.
You act, Karl, as if the fact that we don't accept your "evidence" means
we're not thinking. That is most decidely not the case. In fact, I
gave you an evaluation of your "evidence" for free, one that you'd pay a
lot of money in tuition to get if you went to college. You choose not
to think about what I'm telling you.
That's your right, of course. But if you really want people to accept
your premises, you're just going to have to get some strong evidence to
support them. You don't have that.
Mike
Mike Dalecki
Thank you, Ulrich. You said it much better than I did. Mine didn't get
through. Perhaps yours will.
Mike
--
Dave Clary
>Maybe. The discussion was about sidesaddle putting. If there's another
>version of sidesaddle putting than the one Snead made famous, I'm not aware
>of it, and I've never seen it.
Well that enforces my point that you were uninformed when it came to discussing
the stroke Pelz had good things to say about. I jumped in when you doubted the
statement about Pelz. The stroke I described is the one that Pelz is referring
to--not Sam Snead's awkward looking thing. I assumed that's what Karl was
referring to since he brought up Pelz. I don't know if he advocates putting
like Snead or not. So yea, there was a disconnect. But I would still challenge
your statement that it would be impossible to develop "feel" even if you used
Snead's stroke. But it's not something that can be proved one way or another so
it's pointless to beat that around any more.
>
>I'll say it again -- if none of the world's best players use this method,
>why should any of the rest of us assume it to be a "superior" method?
>
Save that for Karl. All I said was that if Pelz says that stroke produced the
best putting he's ever seen, then it would be interesting to see what a pro
could do with it. That's it. I didn't claim it was superior. I even berated
Karl a little later in the thread for claiming Pelz said it was the easiest or
something like that.
I agree, as you said in another thread, we're just playing into a spammer's hand
so I'm out of this one.
Scooter
Rick Rider wrote:
> Signatures are universally (in usenet) not considered spam.
Yeah, I know that's the convention and I suppose it's not actual spam
when it's attached to a real post. On the other hand, some signatures
can be pretty blatant ads and for some reason that's ok in a
non-commercial newgroup. I understand the difference between a post
whose sole purpose is to drum up business and another whose secondary
purpose is to drum up business, but it still seems odd to me that the
latter is "universally" acceptable.
Anyway I was mostly just chain-yanking (that's why the smiley was there)
since his signature ads were conspicuously missing in his post about
someone else's spam.
> It is the
> post itself that has to stand the test. Sidesaddle Karl cannot stand
> the test. His post was meant to drum up business right from the start.
I agree, SS Karl is definitely a spammer. Even he finally admitted it.
>
> By the way, check my sig, it says a lot.
I like it!
>
> Rick
Karl Higham
How many scientist were involved in building the Titanic?
Real life is full of outdated, misunderstood, irrational and even
ridiculous beliefs. (the Dilbert Principal)
And most will continue until someone shakes the tree.
Even without ANY conclusive trial statistics, the pure logic of one
theory over another should carry more weight than just what everybody
else thinks or does.
At least, in this case, the more logical theory contains quite a lot of
supportive facts that would lead one to choose it over the one with
neither logic or any supportive facts... with the exception, of course:
"Well everybody else does it that way... it must therefore be the best
way."
The best way would be to prove it to yourself. If you putt better that
way, it shouldn't matter what the pros do or how my conclusions look to
you... unless you just don't want to look different from the other guys.
Nothing more embarrassing than pulling some magic bullet out of your bag
and you can't putt worth a damn.
Even with a real magic bullet, it's hard to focus under that kind of
pressure.
Sidesaddle is so different from conventional that sometimes it takes a
commitment to stick to it until you loose the baggage you carry over
from the old way. Some have no trouble at all while others need time to
practice it a while.
Once it becomes an accepted part of your game and you try conventional
again, the difference is striking! Same with looking at the hole
instead of the ball from either position.
Karl Higham
At least I am able to contribute something to my argument.
Karl Higham
repeat in track shoes. Which race would have the fastest times?
In my Pelz tourney comparison, these few who qualified had the track
shoes.
We all know that there are very few people who putt sidesaddle.
I have no way of knowing how many tried to qualify from all over the
world. First locally, then district, then divisional and finally the
trip to Florida. Tens of thousands I would guess. I would also guess
that there was a higher percentage of sidesaddler entrants than there is
in golfers overall since most of us are better putters than the overall
to begin with... that should carry some weight by itself if true.
That said, the number of sidesaddlers making the finals and one being
the top qualifier at the finals (beating the best pro qualifier by 3
putts.) compared to the total entrants is astounding and stands by
itself as a reasonable testament.
It was enough for Pelz to agree.
He's a scientist too... a NASA engineer.
Karl Higham
think that complaining about spam and changing my website URL and email
address (Seems illegal to me... anybody know?) will somehow make me
throw in the towel, you're dead wrong. Simply gives me another shot at
the ones that are not shooting themselves in the foot.
It's thepu...@aol.com
The URL is below... Just fo you!
Mike Dalecki
>
> How about some evidence to support conventional over sidesaddle.
> At least I am able to contribute something to my argument.
I gave you a powerful argument: If yours was such a great method, and
given that the pros haven't been dissuaded from trying lots of other
weird methods like belly putters, broomstick putters, claw grips, and
the like, there's no plausible reason they don't use it other
than...it's not better.
I tried it. I didn't have success with it. Not one of the top 200 pros
use it. Ergo, it's not as good as what they do. Pretty simple, Karl,
pretty simple. And pretty damning evidence that sidesaddle is not as
good as various forms of conventional.
Meanwhile, Karl, it is not lost on me that you ignored the commentary I
made. It takes two to have a conversation, and it's apparent that
you're only interested in hearing how you're right. If you're going to
ignore what I say only to repeat yourself ("Speak louder! The natives
are not hearing you!), then there's not much to discuss.
And that makes your arguments look all the more shrill and incomplete.
Do you think that others who might perhaps be persuaded to try your
style are missing the fact that you do not deal with the commentary
others make, like me? I'll bet they're not.
Mike
--
Bobby Knight
Higham) wrote:
>Spam or not, I have given you guy's something to think about. I you
>think that complaining about spam and changing my website URL and email
>address (Seems illegal to me... anybody know?) will somehow make me
>throw in the towel, you're dead wrong. Simply gives me another shot at
>the ones that are not shooting themselves in the foot.
>It's thepu!
>
>Karl Higham
>"Anyone who putts well is a match for any opponent."
>Learn the putting technique that will change the way you think about
>this "Game Within a Game". Free, full size plans for a special putter
>you can make yourself. http://put
I pass...as most others do.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
EasyEd
As a real scientist I dislike pseudo-science so thought I'd wade in.
FIRST...
Karl - I looked through your website found the reference to the work
of Dr. Gideon B Ariel who you say on RSG did the research on
sidesaddle putting at Illinois and inside your own website you say
Indiana. I looked up Dr. Ariel and found him at sportscience.org.
There they list many of his publications and the places he's worked.
In the places he's worked area of the website he's never been to
either Indiana or Illinois. In the publications the only work on golf
listed is his work on the golf swing that appeared in Golf Magazine in
1978. This caused me some concern so I went to both the U of Indiana
and U of Illinois websites and did searches on Ariel and got nothing!
If this study on sidesaddle putting actually exists I suggest you post
it as a link or better yet a pdf or something so everyone can make
their own assessment of the work. Right now as far as I can tell it
doesn't even exist. It may be in the "gray" science literature but if
so you should be able to at least reference it somehow. Otherwise we
are supposed to take your word for it and given that Dr Ariel has
apparently never been to Indiana or Illinois that's pretty hard to do.
SECOND - You wrote...
SAFEA...@webtv.net (Karl Higham) wrote in message news:<10807-3F...@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> How many scientist were involved in building the Titanic?
>
> Real life is full of outdated, misunderstood, irrational and even
> ridiculous beliefs. (the Dilbert Principal)
> And most will continue until someone shakes the tree.
NO doubt about this - always question - always!
>
> Even without ANY conclusive trial statistics, the pure logic of one
> theory over another should carry more weight than just what everybody
> else thinks or does.
In principle I agree BUT any completely honest salesman or scientist
should point out the weaknesses in what he/she is selling. The
implication of what you say is that sidsaddle putting has no
weaknesses - I don't believe it. I see no discussion of the issues of
balance and eyes not over the ball - both in my mind weaknesses of the
method. The issues of a smoother pendulum and binocular vision
apparently, in your opinion, and likely others that use the method,
far outweigh the negatives. I see no evidence of this. So...
>
> At least, in this case, the more logical theory contains quite a lot of
> supportive facts that would lead one to choose it over the one with
> neither logic or any supportive facts... with the exception, of course:
> "Well everybody else does it that way... it must therefore be the best
> way."
>
> The best way would be to prove it to yourself. If you putt better that
> way, it shouldn't matter what the pros do or how my conclusions look to
> you... unless you just don't want to look different from the other guys.
> Nothing more embarrassing than pulling some magic bullet out of your bag
> and you can't putt worth a damn.
> Even with a real magic bullet, it's hard to focus under that kind of
> pressure.
I agree - try it and see but don't try to cram it down anyone's
throat!
>
> Sidesaddle is so different from conventional that sometimes it takes a
> commitment to stick to it until you loose the baggage you carry over
> from the old way. Some have no trouble at all while others need time to
> practice it a while.
>
> Once it becomes an accepted part of your game and you try conventional
> again, the difference is striking! Same with looking at the hole
> instead of the ball from either position.
Hole versus ball. In 10 pin bowling some look at the pins some look at
a particular arrow or board. Both work but looking at a particular
arrow is generally considered to be superior. It's a more precise
target and takes into account lane conditions much better than trying
to feel your way to the pocket throwing a hook ball while looking at
the pins. If you throw a very straight ball pin bowling works well. A
golf green doesn't give you the option of curving versus straight - if
there is a slope you have to curve the ball hence spot putting
prevails.
THIRD...
Mike Dalecki wrote...
>I teach research methodology in college. One of the things we focus
on
>in that class is how to evaluate evidence, how you decide if
something
>is supported by evidence or not. We look at a criterion of causality
>called "nonspuriousness," which is a fancy way of saying that there
is
>not more than one explanation for some causal relationship you
observe.
>For instance, you make claims as to your "evidence." I point out
>reasons why it may not be the way you think it is. Your job, as a
>putative researcher interested in generating support for your point
of
>view, is to refute those reasons. You haven't done so.
nonspuriousness... causal relationship??? I don't see this as a
correlation issue or a causal relationship issue in the vein of Sewall
Wright's classic work on Path Analysis or Joreskog's or Bentler's work
on structural equation modeling.
This is plain old mundane boring ANalysisOfVAriance (which is - I know
- a special case of regression which usually involves some aspects of
correlation or partial correlation). The issue here is fundamental
Type I versus Type II errors. Type I is acceptance of a false
hypothesis and Type II is rejection of a true hypothesis. Most
research protects against type I errors. With reference to Karl's
sidesaddle is superior theory. The null hypothesis is - Is there
another method of putting that is better? Karl claims that Ariel's
research (that we've never seen) rejects the null hypothesis hence
sidesaddle putting is superior. But it is only one study the
methodology of which we've had no opportunity to evaluate - but given
Ariel's apparent reputation I assume it was likely well done - IF the
methodolgy was acceptable with respect to the question being asked -
which putting method is better? Ariel studies biomechanics and so may
not have even approached this issue from an ANOVA perspective. I don't
know and we've not seen the study. Nevertheless RSG wants to see more
scientific evidence - evidence that apparently doesn't exist. Saying
that the fact that conventional putting prevails in the real world
supports the idea that sidesaddle putting is bogus IS bogus. This
brings Type II errors (rejection of a true hypothesis) into the
picture - maybe Karl is right it may be superior but only carefully
designed experiments that fully consider both Type I and Type II error
rates can answer this question. In this case the Type II error
consideration may be more important than Type I.
Anyway in science theories can never be proven only disproven - and
even disproven is debatable if one allows probabilities into the
picture - particularly if the theory involves random elements (we'll
not go here now although it could be argued that random chance does
play a role in the conduct of the mechanics of a golf swing).
>I've applied the very things I teach to the "evidence" you've
supplied
>us. You simply fall short of providing anything close to a
convincing
>argument that your favorite method is better than what people are
>using. I'm sorry about that, Karl, but that's the way it is. If you
>were to present these arguments in my class, as part of a project,
you'd
>fail.
Unless Karl can "produce" Ariel's study for inspection and I can see
that the methodology used is appropriate to the question asked I agree
with your assessment although I wouldn't give him an F- cause I've
seen worse. If however the study exists and is appropriate I might
give Karl a D cause at least there would be a study supporting his
position. Karl would have received a better grade if he had discussed
the weaknesses inherent in assuming that sidesaddle putting is
superior on the basis of one study. In any case I'd recommend Karl
sign up for courses in advertising and marketing
Take Care! -Ed-
"R&B"
news:3F60E5FE...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> \"R&B\" wrote:
> >
> > And I foolishly participated in it. At least I took exception with the
> > method from the git-go.
> >
> > Randy
>
> Where's your usual signature? :-)
We've been around this again and again. The subject of whether information
contained in sigs is or isn't spam has been discussed literally THOUSANDS of
times over the years here in RSG. Furthermore, you can check any online
resource on this. Sigs in Usenet articles are not considered spam. It is
the overall content of the post that's the measure of whether or not the
post is spam. That's why I snipped Karl's sig from my post pointing out
that this thread has been spam. I don't consider what he puts in his sig
spam (but evidently, you do, since his sig is similar in mine as far as
containing a link to his website where he markets stuff). But clearly, the
subject matter of this thread is spam, as it has been intended from the very
beginning to generate talk about this method of putting, which he just so
happens to be offering putters for. What a fucking coincidence. In fact,
this is spam of the worst kind -- stealth spam, as some have called it -- in
that it appears to be content, then lo' and behold, the author pulls the rug
out from under everyone to reveal his true intentions.
Now, since you requested it, here's my sig. Let it be noted here that to
date I have never once initated or participated in a thread for the sole
purpose of drumming up business. The same cannot be said for Karl.
Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
>
> >
"R&B"
finally came clean and revealed his reason for promoting this style of
putting. He's SELLING putters that are designed specifically for this
method.
And we were duped into discussing it with him.
Spam of the worst possible kind -- stealth spam.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, as I've stated in a parallel universe
elswhere in this thread, that if the method were so damn good, then SOMEONE
among all the world's best players would be using it. But alas, no one is.
And none of the world's best players would come within 100 yards of one of
his crappy putters, either.
Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
"Mike Dalecki" <mi...@dalecki.net> wrote in message
news:3F622269...@dalecki.net...
"R&B"
> How about some evidence to support conventional over sidesaddle.
> At least I am able to contribute something to my argument.
Setting aside for a moment that you're just another webtv LOSER, and a
stealth spammer at that, I'll offer up some evidence that conventional is a
superior method than sidesaddle.
1. The one player in history who became known for using a sidesaddle method
(whether or not it's the exact method you're advocating) chose it only as
his THIRD choice. He went to it as a last-ditch effort to save his career.
If he'd been able to putt the way he was taught (and the way everyone else
putts), he would have stuck with it.
2. Every top-ranked player in the world is using some derivative of
conventional putting. That is to say that they all putt with their feet
essentially parallel to the target line (or slightly open to it). We must
assume that they're aware of this other method, since they're all very aware
of Dave Pelz, and many of the top players in the world are his students. So
one of two things has happened...
Either...
(A.) Mr. Pelz, the man you say is so high on this method, hasn't thought
enough of the method to try to persuade his students to switch to it (which
means even he doesn't consider it a truly superior method),
or
(B.) He's tried to persuade them and they've found it to be a less reliable
method than the one they're presently using.
3. If standing facing the target were such a superior method, then someone
would have tried to figure out a way to make a full swing using that
alignment. But alas, all golf shots are made with the feet in an
essentially parallel-to-the-target-line position, and that's how everyone's
optics are oriented for golf. We're all used to making shots in that
fashion.
Again, I return to the argument I've made from the beginning in this thread,
which you've conveniently avoided responding to. The simple fact is, of the
Top 500 players in the world, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM is using this method.
Given the high profile of Mr. Dave Pelz, we must assume that many of those
players have heard of this method, and probably many of them have tried
it...and dismissed it. Yet they're open to almost any other unconventional
method, from belly putters to long wands to left-hand-low to The Claw, etc.,
etc.
I spent about 5 years as a professional bowler many years ago. I learned
that there's a reason why the pros use a certain type of equipment and why
they adhere to certain fundamentals. The reason? BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE
RELIABLE than other types of equipment or methods.
What most people don't realize is how razor-thin the difference is between
the guys who are making every cut each week and the guys who are struggling
to keep their card on the PGA TOUR (and other tours around the world). The
talent at that level is so much higher than any of us can truly appreciate.
Therefore, the margin for error is much thinner. One missed putt each day
and your stroke average is a full stroke higher, and you're slamming your
trunk on Friday afternoon and making a beeline for the airport instead of
staying over to try to win the golf tournament.
Make no mistake -- if there were a method out there, regardless of how
unconventional it might seem, that would give a player an advantage over his
competitors, most players would be all over it.
The simple truth is, you have advanced the wacky notion that this method is
superior to a fundamentally-sound conventional putting stroke for one reason
and one reason only -- because you sell putters that are designed for this
idiotic stroke.
And we all know what that makes you. A spammer of the worst kind -- a
STEALTH SPAMMER. I will be shocked if you sucker anyone in this group into
buying anything from you.
Mike Dalecki
<snip>
> THIRD...
> Mike Dalecki wrote...
>
> >I teach research methodology in college. One of the things we focus
> on
> >in that class is how to evaluate evidence, how you decide if
> something
> >is supported by evidence or not. We look at a criterion of causality
> >called "nonspuriousness," which is a fancy way of saying that there
> is
> >not more than one explanation for some causal relationship you
> observe.
> >For instance, you make claims as to your "evidence." I point out
> >reasons why it may not be the way you think it is. Your job, as a
> >putative researcher interested in generating support for your point
> of
> >view, is to refute those reasons. You haven't done so.
>
> nonspuriousness... causal relationship???
Sure. The two variables are type of putting style and results.
One causes a better result than the other.
> I don't see this as a
> correlation issue or a causal relationship issue in the vein of Sewall
> Wright's classic work on Path Analysis or Joreskog's or Bentler's work
> on structural equation modeling.
I don't either.
> This is plain old mundane boring ANalysisOfVAriance (which is - I know
> - a special case of regression which usually involves some aspects of
> correlation or partial correlation).
Actually, I don't take it that far. If there are plausible alternative
explanations which also account for the results observed, you cannot
know with any degree of great confidence which causes the final result.
Example: You think you have a new drug which prevents cancer. You get
500 rats from the rat supply warehouse company, dividing them randomly
into two groups. Each group is treated exactly the same (same cedar
chips, same food, air, light, water, etc.). The only difference between
them is the treatment group is given an injection of the new cancer
drug, the other group a placebo.
At the end of the study, the treatment group is found to have a 9
percent incidence of cancer. The control group is found to have a 39
percent incidence of cancer.
Why the difference? Because only one factor was allowed to vary between
the two groups, it must be that factor which is responsible for the
difference.
Now, suppose that in the lab where these rats were kept, the control
group happened to be next to windows where the sun shone in all day
long, and the windows were open to admit fresh air to all the rats. The
control group rats were in the sun; the treatment group rats were not.
Given that new set of conditions, what's the reason for the difference
between the two groups in terms of cancer incidence? Is it the drug, or
the sun? You can't separate the two (BTW, Ed, this fits nicely into
your AOV thing below, which I'm sure you know, but I'll save us both the
agony of talking about it :).
Ergo, you have two explanations for the cancer: the new drug, and the
sun. Which is it? You can't separate the two, therefore, you have an
alternative explanation for the differences observed.
This is where I'm coming from with this. Karl, for instance, argues
strongly about his Pelz results indicating the superiority of his
method, but he doesn't explain the conditions of the competition, nor is
there any indication that the very best conventional putters took on the
sidesaddlers. Thus, we have an alternative explanation for the
results: it may be that the sidesaddlers won not because they were
better (though they were better than the conventional putters there),
but because their competition wasn't representative of the best in
conventional putting. And that's what Karl's implying--that his way is
better, period.
> The issue here is fundamental
> Type I versus Type II errors. Type I is acceptance of a false
> hypothesis and Type II is rejection of a true hypothesis. Most
> research protects against type I errors.
Type II error: Very hard to specify. Sometimes not at all. :)
> With reference to Karl's
> sidesaddle is superior theory.
?? I don't understand.
> The null hypothesis is - Is there
> another method of putting that is better? Karl claims that Ariel's
> research (that we've never seen) rejects the null hypothesis hence
> sidesaddle putting is superior. But it is only one study the
> methodology of which we've had no opportunity to evaluate - but given
> Ariel's apparent reputation I assume it was likely well done - IF the
> methodolgy was acceptable with respect to the question being asked -
> which putting method is better?
And we don't know that, do we?
> Ariel studies biomechanics and so may
> not have even approached this issue from an ANOVA perspective.
Well, I don't think you need anova to do it. It's just alternative
explanations. Given the right data, it's a simple t-test (a form of
AOV, I know).
> I don't
> know and we've not seen the study. Nevertheless RSG wants to see more
> scientific evidence - evidence that apparently doesn't exist. Saying
> that the fact that conventional putting prevails in the real world
> supports the idea that sidesaddle putting is bogus IS bogus.
Ah, we part ways here. I don't think it's bogus, but I don't find any
evidence of any quality to suggest it's better than the conventional
method(s), whichever you may like.
Karl's initial argument was this: We have known for 6 years this is
better, why doesn't anyone of note use it? While not the same as a
direct scientific study, the examination of how many use it, IF YOU
GRANT KARL'S ARGUMENT, suggests that, well, it's not that good a method.
The pros use all sorts of weird methods--broomstick, belly,
claw--because, apparently, those methods work better. It flies in the
face of this evidence that they'd have evaluated sidesaddle, found it
better, then set it aside to use inferior methods.
The only way I can think that Karl's argument would make sense is if
those 200 pros at the top of the list didn't know sidesaddle existed.
> This
> brings Type II errors (rejection of a true hypothesis) into the
> picture - maybe Karl is right it may be superior but only carefully
> designed experiments that fully consider both Type I and Type II error
> rates can answer this question. In this case the Type II error
> consideration may be more important than Type I.
Perhaps so. It wouldn't be hard to design an experiment to test this,
but it might well be hard to bring it off.
> Anyway in science theories can never be proven only disproven
Just did this very thing in class today. :)
> - and
> even disproven is debatable if one allows probabilities into the
> picture - particularly if the theory involves random elements (we'll
> not go here now although it could be argued that random chance does
> play a role in the conduct of the mechanics of a golf swing).
Yep.
> >I've applied the very things I teach to the "evidence" you've
> supplied
> >us. You simply fall short of providing anything close to a
> convincing
> >argument that your favorite method is better than what people are
> >using. I'm sorry about that, Karl, but that's the way it is. If you
> >were to present these arguments in my class, as part of a project,
> you'd
> >fail.
>
> Unless Karl can "produce" Ariel's study for inspection and I can see
> that the methodology used is appropriate to the question asked I agree
> with your assessment although I wouldn't give him an F- cause I've
> seen worse.
I'm presuming that I would have taught him (as I tried to do on RSG) and
then he still proceeded as he did. :)
F.
And I agree--I've seen worse. But it's just a worse degree of F.
> If however the study exists and is appropriate I might
> give Karl a D cause at least there would be a study supporting his
> position. Karl would have received a better grade if he had discussed
> the weaknesses inherent in assuming that sidesaddle putting is
> superior on the basis of one study. In any case I'd recommend Karl
> sign up for courses in advertising and marketing
His statements are strong; thus, I expect the evidence to be strong.
Ed, you or I would couch any conclusions we might make in the honesty of
science: "The evidence suggests this..." or something like that. We
would never make absolute statements precisely because we know that
there is always the possibility of error.
In Karl's mind, there is no such possibility.
As a result: F
But then, I've always been known as a tough grader. :)
> Take Care! -Ed-
You too!
Mike
PS: Fun to talk about this stuff! And BTW, I have data that Rich
Bednarski entered on the top 200 players on the PGA tour last year,
stuff on putting, GIR, FIR, scrambling, driving distance, and so on.
I've analyzed it using regression, had a couple interactions and
nonlinear terms in there, and I have the results.
I haven't posted the results because I want to write it up right. That
means identifying the qualifiers in the interpretation of the results.
I'm sure you'd take the same approach. But that's the difference
between psuedo-science, and real science.
Mike Dalecki
>
> By now, Mike, I'm sure you've read the part of this thread where Karl
> finally came clean and revealed his reason for promoting this style of
> putting. He's SELLING putters that are designed specifically for this
> method.
>
> And we were duped into discussing it with him.
>
> Spam of the worst possible kind -- stealth spam.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with you, as I've stated in a parallel universe
> elswhere in this thread, that if the method were so damn good, then SOMEONE
> among all the world's best players would be using it. But alas, no one is.
>
> And none of the world's best players would come within 100 yards of one of
> his crappy putters, either.
>
> Randy
The one thing that came out of it that's good is that people now know
the basis of his beliefs. I can't believe that anyone reading the
entire thread would be predisposed to try it. By that I mean dedicate a
couple months to it, sinking thousands of putts, to see if it truly
works better.
Better to consider how the world's best do it, and wonder if in fact
they might know something we don't.
Mike
Dave Clary
>
>Either...
>
>(A.) Mr. Pelz, the man you say is so high on this method, hasn't thought
>enough of the method to try to persuade his students to switch to it (which
>means even he doesn't consider it a truly superior method),
>
>or
>
>(B.) He's tried to persuade them and they've found it to be a less reliable
>method than the one they're presently using.
It's definitely A! In the Putting Bible he says the traditional pendulum swing
is what he teaches to most of his students. He didn't say all so there's some
wiggle room. But I would bet that the exceptions would be people who allow the
blade to open and shut a little rather than the pure in-lne stroke that Pelz
prefers. He also says some good things about using the long putter, but from a
traditional stance. Again, his only reference to side saddle his he saw on
amateur have a lights out day--one time.
>And we all know what that makes you. A spammer of the worst kind -- a
>STEALTH SPAMMER. I will be shocked if you sucker anyone in this group into
>buying anything from you.
No, no, no. Karl is no stealth spammer. There was no doubt from the first post
why he is here. A stealth spammer is the guy who says "hey, I found this great
website" when it's actually his own site. The bastards I can't stand. At least
with Karl, you know what you're dealing with.
Eliyahu Rooff
>
>
> Example: You think you have a new drug which prevents cancer. You get
> 500 rats from the rat supply warehouse company, dividing them randomly
> into two groups. Each group is treated exactly the same (same cedar
> chips, same food, air, light, water, etc.). The only difference between
> them is the treatment group is given an injection of the new cancer
> drug, the other group a placebo.
>
> At the end of the study, the treatment group is found to have a 9
> percent incidence of cancer. The control group is found to have a 39
> percent incidence of cancer.
>
> Why the difference? Because only one factor was allowed to vary between
> the two groups, it must be that factor which is responsible for the
> difference.
>
> Now, suppose that in the lab where these rats were kept, the control
> group happened to be next to windows where the sun shone in all day
> long, and the windows were open to admit fresh air to all the rats. The
> control group rats were in the sun; the treatment group rats were not.
>
> Given that new set of conditions, what's the reason for the difference
> between the two groups in terms of cancer incidence? Is it the drug, or
> the sun? You can't separate the two (BTW, Ed, this fits nicely into
> your AOV thing below, which I'm sure you know, but I'll save us both the
> agony of talking about it :).
>
> Ergo, you have two explanations for the cancer: the new drug, and the
> sun. Which is it? You can't separate the two, therefore, you have an
> alternative explanation for the differences observed.
>
possibility that the new drug did the trick, but only in combination with
the sunlight, and that it wouldn't have worked had the rats been in the
shade. Failing to consider synergistic effects has resulted in many
non-replicable experiments simply because an unnoticed, but vital, aspect
wasn't recorded or duplicated.
More on topic, I'm inclined to believe that the "secret" to putting
technique doesn't exist simply because people don't just come in one
standardized model. So simple a thing as variations in the fast-twitch vs.
slow-twitch muscle ratio from one person to the next could easily mean that
the technique which works for one won't work for the other. And that's only
one variable out of many.
Eliyahu
Mike Dalecki
Only the control-group rats were in the sun. :)
> Failing to consider synergistic effects has resulted in many
> non-replicable experiments simply because an unnoticed, but vital, aspect
> wasn't recorded or duplicated.
>
> More on topic, I'm inclined to believe that the "secret" to putting
> technique doesn't exist simply because people don't just come in one
> standardized model. So simple a thing as variations in the fast-twitch vs.
> slow-twitch muscle ratio from one person to the next could easily mean that
> the technique which works for one won't work for the other. And that's only
> one variable out of many.
As I've seen my index drop from the mid teens to its most recent 7.3,
I've had occasion to wonder what thing or things are most responsible
for the improvement.
And you know what? Virtually everything I thought was important when I
was a 16 handicap turned out not to be all that important after all.
I used to think there was a "the way" to do it, a "secret," as per what
you indicate above. There just isn't, at least not for me.
I used to be very focused on the technical kinds of things that people
discuss here, thinking that in one of the discussions there would be
"the secret" that would suddenly cause my swing to improve, my scores to
drop.
Well, there never was for me.
And so, when I see people focusing on things like a specific detail in
putting, as if that is going to be the difference between being a poor
putter and a great putter, I just kind of cringe. Those never--not
once--worked for me. What did? Practicing. I've hit probably 3000
practice putts in the last 16 months or so. Maybe even closer to 5000.
In doing that, I figured out some things that made me more or less
consistent. And when I start missing, I almost always know where to
look first to try to correct it.
In other words, like you say above, I figured out how to do it *my way.*
Mike
Karl Higham
something wrong with it. HMMM! that guy sure makes a lot of putts that
way though... boy is he lucky!
I have been a deuce shooter for most of my bowling career. 5 sanctioned
300's, numerous 800's and 3 1000's for 4.
I neither spot nor pin bowl... I "area" bowl to the ball's "grab or
hook-up" point for the given lane condition.
Equipment and styles change as much as golf. Except for one thing... YOU
STAND AND DELIVER FACING THE TARGET WITH ONE HAND... Sound familiar?
Karl Higham
The only thing I think of when I see a post from you is, "What a loser.
Having to resort to posting unwelcomed spam in a usenet newsgroup that
could have been a real boon for him if he'd thought things through."
And then, "If he'd thought things through he would not have posted here
with such an obvious spam attempt. Since he couldn't think that far, and
since his arguments are so weak, and since he hasn't refuted any, not
one, of the legigimate criticisms of his method, why bother with
anything he says?"
Indeed.
There has been only one criticism offered so far... that of no (actually
there are a few... Butch Sheean... Patty's brother, Mike Baty and a
couple of others on lesser tours I've been told.) pros doing it... So
not actually true and absolutely NOT legitimate!
Karl
I'm still wating for legitimate case supporting conventional over
sidesaddle that includes at least one factor that shows how the
technique itself is easier to execute an easier and more effective
stroke than sidesaddle.
You think that complaining about spam and changing my website URL and
email address (Seems illegal to me... anybody know?)
not illegal in quoting a post at all.
But you misquoted them by changing them to suit your
interest!
Karl
will somehow make me
throw in the towel, you're dead wrong.
Simply shows how dense you really are.
Simply gives me another shot at
the ones that are not shooting themselves in the foot. It's (snipped
address)
The URL is below... Just for you!
Go away
Plonk!
Dear Plonk..
See ya' around
Karl
********
Let me first point out that it is impossible to post on RSG with even an
on topic subject if you have a website about golf.
You flamers are compulsively obsessed with even the hint of it. My
motivation for posting is not to sell to RSG'ers. It's obvious that the
responses here are not about to do that, nor has it from my previous
posts over the years. But rather to help me answer a simple question
that didn't turn out so simple after all.
FYI: The majority of my sales come from people having seen someone else
putting well using sidesaddle. Many others are people who have
evaluated the evidence presented on my site and concluded it stands
alone enough not to wait for everybody else or pros to use it. Still
more come from current sidesaddlers who want to take advantage of the
improvements in heads and shafting techniques I have discovered over the
years. I would be the "loser" you claim if I depended on the more vocal
but less rational RSG'ers for sales. They provide instead, a longer
list of absurd objections that help confirm to more astute golfers that
the brainlocked prefer to stay uniformed anf will resort to the most
mindless excuses to keep from having to make such a radical change in
their putting.
There is much more to the story about why I am convinced about the
effectiveness of sidesaddle if the studies, trials and probability
examples are not enough for the eggheads who seem to have allowed their
right brain hemisphere to push the left one right out their ear.
A FEW EXAMPLES:
A "then" Buy.com professional called to order a putter but before it
arrived played a round with his local pro and shot a course record 61
with 22 putts using only his conventional putter... SIDESADDLE.
A frustrated putter called to order a putter claiming "I'll try
anything". A week later he called to order 3 more for the rest of his
scrambles team for a tournament to be held the following week. He
called me from the clubhouse even before the awards ceremonies where
they were awarded 1st place with a margin of 5 strokes.
A "then" 49 year old leftie, Mike Baty wins the Stockton City and San
Juaquin county amateur championships in one month (one round is a 62
with 21 sidesaddle putts. Turns 50 and attempts to qualify for the
senior tour but misses by 1 shot. Misses the senior open by only 1 shot
later that year. Mike, incidentally played a lot with Scott Macarron who
had quit the tour because of his putting. Mike was using a long STX
putter. Although he didn't get him to go all the way to sidesaddle,
Scott adopted the tall, split grip, broomstick style with the same basic
STX head he uses today to be one of the top money winners on tour.
Sidesaddler Randy Hague has won the California amateur and golfer of the
year numerous times but despite the urging of friends and family refuses
to turn pro.
Just last week, a customer called who went to Pelz's school and was
helped and encouraged with his choice of the sidesaddle technique.
Almost daily I get emails and phone calls from excited, newbies that go
on to distraction with putt by putt replays of their latest "lights out"
round and disbelieving responses from their playing partners... most
claiming it's illegal.
Got that one again from the head pro... of all people... at a new golf
course here in Vegas just yesterday.
Just another case of the word not getting home.
The list goes on but I think you get the idea.
I hardly need RSG's blessing to continue my crusade. Just need to check
in once in a while to rattle your cages again and to continue my search
for intelligent life in the golf community. I have found enough to keep
up the fight and improve my lifestyle.
I have considered making a few calls to some sidesaddlers for
reinforcement on RSG but, as yet I have not gotten any negative
responses valid or bothersome enough to need additional support.
But go ahead and challenge me if you want to hear it over and over again
from
a substantial number in my camp.
If I had the time, reason or desire to do that, I could launch a virtual
sidesaddle bomb on RSG.
Karl
The sidesaddle spammer.
Scooter
\"R&B\" wrote:
>
> "Scooter" <scoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F60E5FE...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > \"R&B\" wrote:
> > >
> > > And I foolishly participated in it. At least I took exception with the
> > > method from the git-go.
> > >
> > > Randy
> >
> > Where's your usual signature? :-)
>
> We've been around this again and again. The subject of whether information
> contained in sigs is or isn't spam has been discussed literally THOUSANDS of
> times over the years here in RSG. Furthermore, you can check any online
> resource on this. Sigs in Usenet articles are not considered spam. It is
> the overall content of the post that's the measure of whether or not the
> post is spam. That's why I snipped Karl's sig from my post pointing out
> that this thread has been spam. I don't consider what he puts in his sig
> spam (but evidently, you do, since his sig is similar in mine as far as
> containing a link to his website where he markets stuff).
Wrong. I did not accuse you of being a spammer.
But clearly, the
> subject matter of this thread is spam, as it has been intended from the very
> beginning to generate talk about this method of putting, which he just so
> happens to be offering putters for. What a fucking coincidence. In fact,
> this is spam of the worst kind -- stealth spam, as some have called it -- in
> that it appears to be content, then lo' and behold, the author pulls the rug
> out from under everyone to reveal his true intentions.
>
> Now, since you requested it, here's my sig. Let it be noted here that to
> date I have never once initated or participated in a thread for the sole
> purpose of drumming up business. The same cannot be said for Karl.
I do see the difference between the commercial ads in the signature of
your golf discussion posts and Karl's where the whole post is an ad. As
I said before I was mostly just poking fun at you for omitting them from
your post where you correctly identified Karl's posts as spam. I'm
guessing it was intentional so you wouldn't have to have this
discussion.
Karl Higham
website as I pointed out in my original post.
I am asking for help with a golf related website. Why should that be off
limits?
You don't have to buy anything from me... use your own putter or make
one from the free instruction manual download I provided.
Sure, I want people to switch to sidesaddle putting. I do sell putters
from the exposure. I have made it quite clear that you can putt this way
from the information I have provided without paying me a nickel.
I have omitted my sig on most of my posts anyway... but not this one.
Karl Higham
"Anyone who putts well is a match for any opponent."
Learn the putting technique that will change the way you think about
this "Game Within a Game". Free, full size plans for a special putter