We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Visual Perception vs. Reality and putting

SeeMore Golf
Howzat said:
Curious about how you make sure you shoulders are open the exact same amount every time? I have the same question for those who forward press. Eliminating these variables are far more important to becoming a great putter than almost anything else IMO.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.

Variables mean a different stroke/roll every single time.
 
Tadashi70 said:
There are more gimmicks out there to improve your putting. I like to find my line, align the putter and hit it. Once you srat second guessing with rules and multiple looks, you will take any natural ability out of it.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.
 
Howzat said:
Curious about how you make sure you shoulders are open the exact same amount every time? I have the same question for those who forward press. Eliminating these variables are far more important to becoming a great putter than almost anything else IMO.
Click to expand...

Can I guarantee they are open the same amount? No. Just like you can't guarantee that you line up square every time or have you hands at the same height, or that your putter is perfectly vertical.

I know many people on here are fans of Seemore putters because of the RST and the belief that it helps them get consistently setup. However, even with my open stance it gives the appearance that I am properly setup. And no, it doesn't change my setup, because I have tried it with an extremely open stance. RST is a visual tool not a stance tool.

When it comes to variable, I think by getting in a stance that allows me to see the line correctly does eliminate a variable. I am not second guessing what I am actually seeing either in my direct line of sight or in my peripheral vision.
 
Tadashi70 said:
The yard stick is a gimmick that will get golfers to second guess what they see. if a put has two holes of break when you look at it, then it has two holes of break. Now add what martin talked about and all of sudden that line is gone because you are bent over and the line of site is changed. That doesn't mean the two cup break is gone, its just distorted. And that is why we pick spots in front of he ball and roll the putt over that spot. Its simple and to the point. Clouding the process will really freeze the stroke.
Click to expand...


okay lets forget the yardstick. A 2 cup break is a 2 cup break no matter the visual perception. You have acknowledged that visually that line may be distorted when you get over the putt. Based on your approach you don't believe peripheral vision has any impact to what the body does and perhaps causes some level of stroke manipulation to compensate for the distortion?

My approach is the same as yours. I find a spot to roll the ball over and roll the ball on the intended line. The difference is that I use my stance to eliminate the distortion that occurs when I move from behind the ball to beside the ball.
 
Jman said:
Nailed it.

Variables mean a different stroke/roll every single time.
Click to expand...

What are you considering to be variables based on the topic of the thread? I work hard to get everything to be consistent from putt to putt. Same posture, same ball position, same stroke, same everything. I have adjusted my setup to allow me to see the same line from behind as I do when I am beside the ball. In my mind I have eliminated a variable.

If the concern is an open stance, I would say many people would like to have the success achieved by Jack Nicklaus who used and open stance because it enabled him to see the line better. Not saying I anywhere near that skill level, but putting stances and approaches vary greatly from pro to pro and player to player.
 
cnosil said:
Can I guarantee they are open the same amount? No. Just like you can't guarantee that you line up square every time or have you hands at the same height, or that your putter is perfectly vertical.

I know many people on here are fans of Seemore putters because of the RST and the belief that it helps them get consistently setup. However, even with my open stance it gives the appearance that I am properly setup. And no, it doesn't change my setup, because I have tried it with an extremely open stance. RST is a visual tool not a stance tool.

When it comes to variable, I think by getting in a stance that allows me to see the line correctly does eliminate a variable. I am not second guessing what I am actually seeing either in my direct line of sight or in my peripheral vision.
Click to expand...

I can get pretty darn close. It took more than 8 months, including 4 months with almost daily lessons from a very good teacher. Tools like a mirror, plane board, and alignment sticks along with a ton of patience can do wonders. Getting the ball and your eyes in the same position increases your visual perception IQ greatly.

SeeMore's Putter Institute (SPi) is much more than than just the rifle scope tech (RST) on the putters. In fact RST is really just a tool to help check you are doing everything else right.

Not second guessing is huge and if it is working for you great. I just think trying to replicate Jack or any of the other greats is more than likely a bad idea for most amateurs.
 
The Triangulator showed me I was aiming right. It's hard for your brain to adjust to the proper aim.
 
Howzat said:
I can get pretty darn close. It took more than 8 months, including 4 months with almost daily lessons from a very good teacher. Tools like a mirror, plane board, and alignment sticks along with a ton of patience can do wonders. Getting the ball and your eyes in the same position increases your visual perception IQ greatly.

SeeMore's Putter Institute (SPi) is much more than than just the rifle scope tech (RST) on the putters. In fact RST is really just a tool to help check you are doing everything else right.

Not second guessing is huge and if it is working for you great. I just think trying to replicate Jack or any of the other greats is more than likely a bad idea for most amateurs.
Click to expand...


I personally am not trying to replicate any player, my stroke is individual to me and I agree that replicating players is a bad idea. The point with Jack wasn't that I putt like him but that people can get in a consistent setup even it they aren't square to the target line. If you really want to be technical following the SPi approach is just replicating someone's approach. Just like the approach that I follow. Yours fits you into a standard, while mine lets me make choices and understand the impact of those choices.

Glad that the hard work is paying off for you, but just like you I have spent considerable time to make sure my stance fits my vision and that I can get in my stance consistently and I have worked with an instructor to do that. Even with an open stance I can use mirrors, plane boards, and alignments sticks to check my setup. I have even done work on a SAM Puttlab to measure the consistency of my stroke.

There are lots of approaches to putting and ultimately you have to do what you can to get the ball into the hole. Fitting for vision is just another option that people can use to improve their putting and eliminate variables that cause you to miss.
 
If it works for you, then great. Keep it going.
 
cnosil said:
I personally am not trying to replicate any player, my stroke is individual to me and I agree that replicating players is a bad idea. The point with Jack wasn't that I putt like him but that people can get in a consistent setup even it they aren't square to the target line. If you really want to be technical following the SPi approach is just replicating someone's approach. Just like the approach that I follow. Yours fits you into a standard, while mine lets me make choices and understand the impact of those choices.

Glad that the hard work is paying off for you, but just like you I have spent considerable time to make sure my stance fits my vision and that I can get in my stance consistently and I have worked with an instructor to do that. Even with an open stance I can use mirrors, plane boards, and alignments sticks to check my setup. I have even done work on a SAM Puttlab to measure the consistency of my stroke.

There are lots of approaches to putting and ultimately you have to do what you can to get the ball into the hole. Fitting for vision is just another option that people can use to improve their putting and eliminate variables that cause you to miss.
Click to expand...

In the end, I think we are likely doing more things alike than different. For me, not being square to the target would add several variables and force me to manipulate my natural swing path, causing all sorts of issues. I think it is more important to keep those things square vs. changing your stance to fit the eye. Getting instruction and a proper fitting can get the ball in the correct position for your eyes without opening or closing your stance.
 
cnosil said:
I personally am not trying to replicate any player, my stroke is individual to me and I agree that replicating players is a bad idea. The point with Jack wasn't that I putt like him but that people can get in a consistent setup even it they aren't square to the target line. If you really want to be technical following the SPi approach is just replicating someone's approach. Just like the approach that I follow. Yours fits you into a standard, while mine lets me make choices and understand the impact of those choices.

Glad that the hard work is paying off for you, but just like you I have spent considerable time to make sure my stance fits my vision and that I can get in my stance consistently and I have worked with an instructor to do that. Even with an open stance I can use mirrors, plane boards, and alignments sticks to check my setup. I have even done work on a SAM Puttlab to measure the consistency of my stroke.

There are lots of approaches to putting and ultimately you have to do what you can to get the ball into the hole. Fitting for vision is just another option that people can use to improve their putting and eliminate variables that cause you to miss.
Click to expand...


Howzat said:
In the end, I think we are likely doing more things alike than different. For me, not being square to the target would add several variables and force me to manipulate my natural swing path, causing all sorts of issues. I think it is more important to keep those things square vs. changing your stance to fit the eye. Getting instruction and a proper fitting can get the ball in the correct position for your eyes without opening or closing your stance.
Click to expand...


cnosil you make some good points. I think what Howzat & other guys with SPi experience are saying is that the SPi training tends to eliminate more variables and gives you a few more reference points to check yourself to make sure things aren't changing over time. I know that it's really easy for even world-class putters to get a little "off" in their setup & swing, and they can't figure out what's different compared to when they were making everything.

SPi is certainly not a magic bullet or a panacea for curing all putting ailments. I just think it's the best way for most people to be much more consistent in the long run.

What I noticed once I did my SPi training is that over the span of a month or two, my eyes got "retrained" to see the line & correct alignment much better. On long and breaking putts, I prefer to line up the line marked on the ball with the initial line that I want to start the putt, and after that's set up I trust that line & align myself up to that. The SPi training makes it so much easier for me to get my putter face absolutely square to that initial path line - and to return it square at impact. And now I don't feel hardly any sense of "I don't trust this initial read...better readjust over the ball" thoughts creeping in.

Great thread BTW!
 
Not to throw a variable into the whole discussion but... for me its not that my visual perception changes when I get over the ball, its what I feel under my feet. If I view a putt breaking a certain amount and then when I take my stance I feel more/less break, I will make an adjustment (usually backing off the putt and taking another look).

Part of my routine for putts between 10 and 20 feet is to take a putting stance at the break near my line and get a feel for it. Once I gather my information, I choose a spot from behind the ball and fire away.
 
cnosil said:
okay lets forget the yardstick. A 2 cup break is a 2 cup break no matter the visual perception. You have acknowledged that visually that line may be distorted when you get over the putt. Based on your approach you don't believe peripheral vision has any impact to what the body does and perhaps causes some level of stroke manipulation to compensate for the distortion?

My approach is the same as yours. I find a spot to roll the ball over and roll the ball on the intended line. The difference is that I use my stance to eliminate the distortion that occurs when I move from behind the ball to beside the ball.
Click to expand...
I roll my ball on the line I picked while looking over the break. I don't get over the ball and rethink my line. Once I have my line, i set up sqaure to that line.
 
Tadashi70 said:
I roll my ball on the line I picked while looking over the break. I don't get over the ball and rethink my line. Once I have my line, i set up sqaure to that line.
Click to expand...



This is what I do. Exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I found the responses interesting. Most people don't either know or care about the distortion/visual change that may occur when they move to the side to take their stance. To adjust, the overwhelming approach is to just focus on the spot they picked in front of the ball.

A large part of the discussion turned to "variables" associated with a neutral setup versus a setup built to correct visual perception. Not sure why people think I am dealing with more variables by taking a stance that corrects the distortion.

Ignoring putter choice we hear about best grip, best posture, best setup, use the left arm to stroke your putt (Dave Stockton), shoulders driven strokes(Pelz), arms with no shoulders strokes (Stan Utley), Right Arm driven stroke (Tiger Woods), arcing stroke, SBST, inside down the line, the list goes on and on. People must make a lot of choices when it comes to putting.

The ultimate question for any player is do I blindly commit myself to a method, do I learn details about a single method and commit to the method, or do I study the choices and make decisions that best fit me. I would lean toward the later options since it will help troubleshoot the occasional struggles that occur over time.
 
Resurrecting an old thread. At the beginning of the thread I discussed adjusting posture to correctly see the line and using a yardstick to help get in the correct posture. While some considered it a gimmick, I thought I would add a video that I watched; it has Justin Rose discussing the use of a stick to help adjust his posture to see the correct line while standing over the ball.

http://www.golf.com/video/instruction-justin-rose-my-keys-better-putting
 
Tadashi70 said:
I roll my ball on the line I picked while looking over the break. I don't get over the ball and rethink my line. Once I have my line, i set up sqaure to that line.
Click to expand...

I think that is the biggest thing I work on in practice. Getting my toe line parallel with my intended line. It lets me swing the putter without "fighting" to get back to the line or binding up on either end of the swing.

I think the plethora of teachers has brought about too many things to clutter up the golfers mind about putting. A properly fitted putter, a good attitude, putting down all the mechanical books, and practising will get you farther than all the reading you could ever do on mechanics.
 
I think my biggest struggle with putting is not trusting my initial read from behind the ball. Often times I will bend down behind the ball, line up my ball, approach the ball, line up my putter, look down and feel like it's aimed to far left of my target. I feel like I putt better when I check from behind for break and distance and then line up over the ball, it takes out that second guessing. Never bothered to get hard numbers to see if I make more by attempting to trust the line from behind or not checking for the line until I'm over the ball.

Will have to keep track the next time I go to the practice green and see if I can't get some numbers to see which way produces more consistent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top