Two putt targeting principle

[bdbl]

Re: Two putt targeting principle

OMG If I based my putting on that thumbnail - or much of these recent threads - then I'm sure that Mr Hashimoto would be proud of me from beyond the grave that those miserable hours of geometry lessons had paid off at last .

Whatever happened to crouching 12 feet behind the ball, saying "hmmm that's about it" and taking your putt? I'd wager that 99% of the time 99%of club golfers would be just as accurate.

[Shorty]

Re: Two putt targeting principle

Sounds to me like you’re a gut-feel putter, bdbl. This is what Dave Pelz had to say about them (p 158 of his book):
If you just “trust it,”” go with your instinct, “go with your gut,” “trust your first read,” or “listen to your caddy,” you are a “gut-feel” putter. You’re probably trying to aim at the visible-break apex, thinking it’s the true break, and probably missing about 90 percent of your breaking putts below the hole. Most golfers are “gut-feel” putters. It’s the easiest way to putt, because it’s comfortable (it’s the way you first learned) and your subconscious keeps you from being embarrassed. Unfortunately, it’s not the best way to make putts. But that’s the way it’s been for over 400 years, and it’s likely to continue that way for another 400 if you don’t start playing more break.”

[Mox]

Re: Two putt targeting principle

I predict that this way of reading greens will become the standard method instead of visualizing an 'ideal' ball track passing through the hole using the apex putting approach.
Advantages are that it gives you nearly a direct measure of the true break instead of the visual break. Also, because of the two putt targeting principle, where the ball track would cross the target line indicates where to aim on the high side to sink the ball.

Wait ... now I'm confused.

No way does any assimilation give you the true break. You can only get that by actually rolling a ball along the target line.

Both methods are visualizations.

The only difference is the amount of factual references involved.

The Bullet method has 1 factual and indisputable element - namely the line from ball to the hole. It uses that reference line evaluate the break. From that point, however, you still visualize the break, AND - as has been pointed out earlier - the trouble is, that unless you have a completely uniform break on both sides of the hole, you'll still be off.

The Apex method doesn't have a fixed reference (apart from the definition of "apex". But it DOES on the other hand attempt to visualize the break on the actual track of the ball.

Both methods are based on visualization, and both are "flawed" in one way or the other.

That said ... Pelz has been mentioned in connection with the Bullet method. I'm not sure that this method is actually what Pelz teaches.