Joined: June 22nd, 2012, 5:25 pm
similar to the one Pelz has. what i am hoping to do is to calibrate the distances given on my indoor training device (puttist.com) to those at my home course.

this way, when i'm putting at home i can work on both speed and line.

here's a pic of the device:

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am
You can't calibrate the puttist unless you know what impact velocity the puttist assumes to be correct for the ball at the impact barrier.

And, Pelz's True Roller is grossly too large to use on the puttist's short span.

Geoff

Joined: October 14th, 2012, 1:48 am
similar to the one Pelz has. what i am hoping to do is to calibrate the distances given on my indoor training device (puttist.com) to those at my home course.

this way, when i'm putting at home i can work on both speed and line.

here's a pic of the device:

I am going to make one and here is how I am going to do it

1) Duplicate the approximate height to a 6"4" persons waist as I determine that it is not critical to be identical to that in the photo just close.

2) Duplicate the approximate angle to vertical as I determine that it is not critical to be identical just close

3) Make loose and highly movable 2 rear pointy legs to keep launch chute level on a slope by variable leg positions. Probably a very large hole for a much smaller bolt passing through the 2 legs and a tight hole through the chute.

4) make the chute: sizing the material so that the inner radius will allow free rolling of the ball. 1 7/8 to 2 should work fine. I conclude it is not critical just so it works. I will take a golf ball to the store and make my selection at that time.

The radius to transition from the gravity speed producer to the green transition APPEARS to be the tricky part but should be accomplished quite nicely with a long sweep PVC plumbing elbow. Either plastic plumbing or electrical conduit should work just fine. A heat gun can soften the plastic should a slight bend adjustment be needed.

Once assembled and glued I will cut the PVC in half length wise like cutting a banana. A perfect and pretty cut should not be necessary but an appropriate file can be used to make it pretty. If there is a bump at the joint some epoxy filler should smooth it out.

I will then mark the chute with magic marker at various heights with numbers to make a speed repeat easier.

USE: I will make my best guess aim line stroke with my putter and then compare to my home made True Roller as follows:

I can try a launch aim line like I used for my putter and a random speed number to see if the speed is correct (17" PAST THE HOLE) Speed is produced by what ever number system I put on the chute with magic marker to repeat later

Adjust the launch aim line and speed number a few times until both 17" past the hole is achieved along with the correct initial launch aim line. The final launch aim line adjustment then dropping the ball in the hole which just previously barely missed ending 17 past the hole.

I will then have learned the correct aim line for a 17" past the hole putt. As I understand it this is the entire purpose of the True Roller: To show the golfer the real aim line for a 17" past the hole speed putt compared to what the golfer wrongly thought was correct.

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am
Dear JonRobert2,

You shouldn't copy Pelz's gizmo, as there are a few funnies in his design, and you should also not use Pelz's 17" distance by the hole, because he is not being truthful about his research on the go-by data. There is no such thing as scientific proof that 17" past the hole is the optimal go-by distance, and Pelz's statement that there is is not what he personally proved with his own data and he knows that what he says is not scientific. You are the only one in the room who thinks the 17" claim is scientific. It's dishonest science.

Instead, just make a useful ramp for putting. The only features that matter are 1) the maximum available drop height that will handle various real green distances; 2) the smoothness of the ball action down and off the ramp; 3) the smoothness of the transition from bottom of ramp onto surface of green; and 4) the mechanical stability of the mechanism while in use. The optional features might be inexpensive, portable, easy to set up and use, and rust-resistant.

Gallileo first discovered that the physics of a ramp, ignoring friction and wind resistance, depends SOLELY upon the height of the ball at its release. The velocity of the ball at any point rolling down the ramp, including at the bottom of the ramp, is only dependent upon the height of the release. That means forget making one that is waist high; instead, make one based on the maximum height you will actually need to read real putts on real greens. And on that issue, you should consider how big a putt you will try to get a handle on. Unless the slope is pretty mild and the green speed not crazy, you will find that trying to understand putts outside about 30 feet on serious slope and green speed is an endeavor that is fraught with problems that outstrip the precise use of your technology. The ability to replicate "exact" ball speeds off the ramp in this case is a lot tougher than you suppose, due to tiny variations that cumulate and matter bigger and bigger the longer the putt and the more serious the slope and green speed. And besides, no one really wants to hear precise mathematical suggestions about how a 35-foot putt "must" be played to sink it, as the reality is that only perhaps 1 in 10 of these putts actually get sunk on the PGA Tour, and those are sunk in a variety of "firing solutions" for touch and read and aim and stroke. So I would suggest you don't need to get much higher than the height that rolls balls 30-40 feet across a level stretch of a Stimp 10' green speed. That's not much higher than 3 feet high.

For the transition at the bottom, all you need is a mild angle with a long ramp and then a smoothing-out radiusing to transition from a flat ramp angling into the surface to a ramp that curls at the bottom onto the flatness. The length of the ramp is the trick. And the lower the total height of the mechanism, the less steep the angle has to be (another reason not to make a really tall ramp).

The other aspect of physics to know about and watch is how the ramp and the ball fit together: Is the ramp a flat surface without side rails? If so, what keeps the ball headed on line as it comes down the ramp? So, the ramp needs sides that guide and keep the ball headed straight. The first pattern is a flat ramp with vertical edges along the sides, like guardrails on a highway. That option is not great as the ball might wander from side to side down the ramp, confusing how much energy you thought you gave the ball by selecting the release height. This back and forth action throws energy out of the ball and reduces the speed you thought it would have at the bottom of the ramp, the same way the Shuttle upon re-entery of Earth's atmosphere is going too fast to land and then sash-says with swooping moves left and right to cast off the excess speed.

A better option is to make a V-shape ramp. The original USGA Stimpmeter has a V-shape on the interior angle of 145 degrees. This shape fits to the bottom of the ball so that a) the distance from one edge to the other is then 0.5"; b) the actual bottom of the ball does not reach any of the ramp; and c) the two points of ball-ramp friction reduce the ball speed down the ramp a little bit in comparison to a flat ramp but this doesn't matter because all that's required is using the V-shape ramp at the proper height.

The V-shape, however, is trickier to make the smooth off-ramp transition.

Sooooooo .... make the flat-ramp-with-vertical-edges so that the edges angle in at the ball 17.5 degrees with the innermost edge of each side-piece separated by 0.5", and then you have BOTH ramps at the same design. You probably can;t do this with basic materials from the DIY hardware store.

Even IF you make an acceptable ball roller and give it your own creative name, you apparently don't know exactly how to use it to learn things. So let me help you out.

The first thing you don't seem to understand is that the roller does not match what happens when you putt. You idea that if you just get the ramp height figured out, then that aim of the ramp is the SAME aim you should point your putter is FALSE. Pelz is not aware of the physics here, so he misleads people and doesn't know anything about this issue.

Putters cause hopping and skidding off the putter face. Ramps might cause a little hopping, but the ramp basically gets the ball rolling good before it contacts the green surface so any skidding is minimal. The putter-induced hopping and skidding reduces the energy of the putt and slows down the initial velocity of the ball off the putter face quite a bit. Skidding alone typically cuts the ball's total roll distance by 10-20% of the length of the putt or the distance the ball would roll without skidding. Eh, this means that ramps send balls quite a bit further than putting strokes that generate identical starting velocities off the putter face or off the bottom of the ramp.

And this dynamic also affects the break. The skidding section of a putt has MORE friction than usual for the green speed. This reduces the break. On the other hand, the hopping means that whenever the ball is off the ground in the air, there can be no breaking of the ball, so hopping reduces break. This messes up the correlation between the aiming of the ramp and the aiming of the putter face.

Another incorrect assumption about using the ramp to learn and explain things is the idea that any golfer actually putts where the putter face is aimed. The fact is that about 90% of real golfers do NOT stroke the ball the same direction the putter face aims, but of course you not being a putting instructor would not be aware of this fact. I guess it's natural to think that just because a person has two eyeball that are open, that person is therefore not blind. However, in golf, almost all golfers are "blind" when it comes to thinking they are sending the ball where the face aims: they don't. It's too hard for them to notice the error while it's too easy for them to believe they are as good as anybody else. No one seems to acknowledge that almost all golfers don't putt where they aim the putter face. The reason is fairly obvious to any serious putting INSTRUCTOR: nearly all golfers suck at reading and aiming putters, so their strokes are constantly trying to fix aim that isn't getting the job done. The stroke almost NEVER goes where the putter face aims.

So do us all a favor and don't teach what you think you are learning unless you understand what you are doing and how to interpret what it means.

What you will learn from using the ramp is a) that touch matters and you lack skill with your body to do the touch the same as the ramp does from one height; b) the slower delivery speed at the hole that results in the ball stopping somewhere within 0 to 24" behind the hole always results in a higher line for read than you thought was correct but now you don't know why and also don't know how to read the correct line to begin with just using your body and senses out on the course; and c) the aiming of the ramp and the aiming of the putter face is a "sort of same" kind of deal.

Once you go through all that, you will want to contact me again to learn how to read putts yourself and how to perform consistent touch delivery speed. The ramp won't do anything for you except convince you how poorly everyone reads putts lacking skill to do it right.

The really BAD idea about using the ramp is that "just using the ramp to see what the right read is will teach me how to read putts on the course." That's typical error by Pelz not knowing how skills learning is done.

Reading putts starts with touch, and the ramp doesn't teach anything at all about how to perform touch with your body. Read that sentence again.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com

Joined: October 14th, 2012, 1:48 am
similar to the one Pelz has. what i am hoping to do is to calibrate the distances given on my indoor training device (puttist.com) to those at my home course.

this way, when i'm putting at home i can work on both speed and line.

here's a pic of the device:

I think I will believe Dave Pelz his pedigree is not even a questionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Pelz

I read Dave Pelz Putting Bible and decided to make a True roller since I could not find one for sale. I think it can help to EASILY see the line of a putt ending up past then hole 17 ( 17reflects the amount of energy required to get over the lumpy donut hump around the hole)

So I made one out of 2 plastic electrical conduit in less than 1 hour. I tried it. I was going to upload a video but Youtube is freezing up.

I observed a variation in ball paths so I am wondering if it is from the lousy practice balls I was using or because the ball may have been wobbling side to side in the 2 inch pipe as it descended. Since it was so easy to make I will make one out of 1 ½ inch conduit. Then the ball will ride on the two sides after I slice the pipe in half lengthwise with a saber saw. I will have to use a file to make it more uniform for the ball to ride on. I expect that one to take less than an hour also.

I will also replace the wood legs with some ½ PVC legs (I wasnt thinking to buy it when I bought the ramp; PVC)

I needed almost the entire height of this first model so I will make the next one a bit steeper. I just marked off every 2 inches with magic marker and labeled with letters.

The green I tried it on was rather flat because a couple of fellows were using the sloped green Maybe the next model will be tried on the sloped green.

Geoff Mangum
Geoff Mangum
Dear jonRobert2,

I told you Dave Pelz's claim that the optimal go-by of 17" is not based on any science and in fact is contrary to Pelz's own research data, and you respond that you would rather credit Dave Pelz's pedigree? You don't make any sense and you seem lacking in basic logic. I'm trying not to be personal in these statements, but it is a challenge.

A reasonable person would say at best, "Really? Tell me more," or at worst, "You must be lying." But you don't even say that.

Let's assume you concluded that I'm a liar in saying this about Dave Pelz, and you reject what I say on that logical basis. Then my response, quite logically, would be either, "You got me," if I am in fact a liar, or "Kiss my patutee, bub", in the event that I'm telling the truth. Or I could simply react neutrally, since I fully expect you and most people to lack basic logic, and instead to proceed on the basis of whatever belief or attitude to murky facts makes you feel fine about the way you think and feel without logic. (See Michael Gazzaniga, the dean of modern neuroscience, concerning his conclusion about whether the brain is logical or merely makes up attitudes that plausibly defend the status quo -- guess which).

So, to proceed with dismantling your delusions about Pelz, have a gander at this and get back to me:

Dennis, Larry, Die putts at the hole -- and you're dead: New tests prove you'll make more putts hitting them harder, Golf Dig. 28(7), Jul 1977, 52-55 Pelz, Pres. of Preceptor Golf Ltd.; 53: "A green is not a billiard table." Pelz's true-roller putting data for 17-inch rule from eastern seaboard courses at various latitudes w/ bent & bermuda and all putts were 12-foot putts: COURSE [grass, condition], Best Speed Dist. Past Hole--Best % [Dying Speed %]: WESTCHESTER CC, RYE, NY [bent, freshly mowed, early am]: 5-20"--95% [40%] [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon: 15-20"--[60%]; SEDGEFIELD CC, GREENSBORO, NC [bent, early am]: 10-15"--75% [20%] [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon, 40"--50%; PINEHURST, NC [bent mixed w/ poa ann., freshly mowed]: 24"--70% [10%]; CONGRESSIONAL CC, WASHINGTON, DC [bent, immediately after 1976 PGA Championship]: 12-15"--95% [50%]; COLUMBIA CC, CHEVY CHASE [bent]: 15"--90% [30%]; BELLE HAVEN CC, ALEXANDRIA, VA [poa ann., spring]: 40"--[30%]; SAME [bent, Fall, September]: 20"--65% [--]; INVERRARY CC, LAUDERHILL, FL [bermuda]: 20-30"--70% [0%]; LONG BOAT KEY, SARASOTA, FL [bermuda]: 30"--75% [10%]; 54: going faster, putts begin to lip out, but "The dropoff is not as great on the bent greens, however, because more of those putts have a tendency to hit dead center in the back of the cup and stay in." Pelz: Florida golfers should 63 be better than Northern golfers because they hit the ball harder; Nicklaus did not win a Florida tournament until 9th yr on tour; "Julius Boros, who grew up on the bent grass greens of Connecticut, was on the tour for 17 years before he won in Florida." [See also George Archer's comments in his Stroke that Won the Masters article and Ray Floyd, From 60 Yards In, for similar although varying comments.] 54: "You will make fewer putts on a poorer quality green, and even to make your best percentage you must hit the ball harder than on a good green."

Let's review the Pelz's own research data:

Bent greens in "good" condition:

WESTCHESTER CC, RYE, NY [bent, freshly mowed, early am]: 5-20"--95% [40%]
SEDGEFIELD CC, GREENSBORO, NC [bent, early am]: 10-15"--75% [20%]
PINEHURST, NC [bent mixed w/ poa ann., freshly mowed]: 24"--70% [10%]
CONGRESSIONAL CC, WASHINGTON, DC [bent, immediately after 1976 PGA Championship]: 12-15"--95% [50%]
COLUMBIA CC, CHEVY CHASE [bent]: 15"--90% [30%]

5-20" (12.5" avg.), 10-15" (12.5" avg.), 24", 12-15" (13.5" avg.), 15" = Average "good" bent: 15.5"

Bent greens in "poor" condition:

WESTCHESTER CC, RYE, NY [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon: 15-20"--[60%]
SEDGEFIELD CC, GREENSBORO, NC [bec. of footprints, ie, late afternoon, 40"--50%

15-20" (17.5" avg.), 40" = Average "poor" bent: 28.75"

Bermuda greens in "good" condition:

INVERRARY CC, LAUDERHILL, FL [bermuda]: 20-30"--70% [0%]
LONG BOAT KEY, SARASOTA, FL [bermuda]: 30"--75% [10%]

20-30" (25" avg.), 30" = Average "good" Bermuda: 27.5"

Poa greens in Spring "slow" condition:

BELLE HAVEN CC, ALEXANDRIA, VA [poa ann., spring]: 40"--[30%]

Average "slow" Spring Poa: 40"

ALL GREENS and CONDITIONS:

Bent "good": 15"
Bent "poor": 28.75"
Bermuda "good": 27.5"
Poa "slow": 40"

Overall Average: 27.8"
Overall bent average: 21.9"
Overall Average ignoring Poa greens: 23.75"

NO Bermuda green has 17" as the number. "Good" Bermuda in 1977 was about a foot past 17".

NO Bent green data supports a claim of 17" either, as the "good" data is short of 17" and the "poor" data is a foot past 17". Even "averaging" good and poor bent, the average is NOT 17" but about 30% further (5" further).

In the Dennis article, Pelz is quoted personally stating that there is not one specific go-by distance that is optimal or that maximizes the number of sinks that applies to all grass types and conditions, and that instead the go-by distance that maximizes sinks depends in each case on the grass type and its condition. Guess what? This was already well known in golf before Pelz ever started his research project, so all his efforts proved only something that everyone already knew. This didn't advance Pelz's personal claim to "scientific discovery" in golf. Six years later in 1983 he began to "claim" for the first time, in Golf MAGAZINE (the rival of Golf DIGEST), that "he had scientifically proved that 17" is the optimal go-by distance for all grass types and all conditions.

Pelz, Dave Putting: Hit your putts hard: My research proves that the best putts are those struck with enough force to carry them about 17 inches past the hole Golf Mag. 25(8), Aug 1983, 32

Then another three years later in his book Putt Like the Pros (1986), Pelz drew a chart with the bottom horizontal axis for go-by distances from 0" past the hole to 40" past the hole and on the vertical axis was the percentage of putts sunk at the various go-by distances: His supposed curve of "data points" rose from left to a peak at 17" and then declined to the right of this. Pelz has NO DATA that proves this, and he has said so in 1977 in Golf Digest.

Pelz repeats this "claim" that he has "scientifically proved" the 17" optimal go-by about every two years or so since 1986, in Golf Magazine, and his books, and in various places where he wants to appear "scientific." He never cites his original research. And ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT HIS CLAIM NEVER WAS TRUE IN 1977, he repeats his claim after 1980 when the old greens changed dramatically to much better and faster surfaces even in public golf courses operated by municipalities, where his entire bogus rationale for putting with this "firm" go-by speed of footprints and "lumpy donuts" at the cup and shaggy grasses not tightly mowed no longer applies, and even his 1977 research accurately reported in Golf Digest is "stale" and meaningless since 1980. And yet Pelz is so bent to further his claim to scientific discovery that he STILL repeats the 17" rule as if nothing changed about the greens everywhere across the world of golf in 1980. That's not only an indicator that he's lacking in science, but he must take golfers as especially credulous. In fact, in his 2000 Putting Bible, he frankly states that golfers are too uneducated to appreciate the "correct physics" of the proper optimal ball delivery speed across the hole, so he has to explain the "touch" as a "go-by" speed that dumb golfers can comprehend. Look it up if you think I'm lying.

Ignorantly repeating the 17" claim even after 1980 includes the 1983 article in Golf magazine when he first stated his claim, so he was ignorant to do that even the first time he made the false claim. Then he repeated this ignorance in 1986 in his first book, when he simply "drew" data he knew was not what his research showed in 1977. He of course repeats this in his 2000 Putting Bible, and here's his bogus claim in 2006: Dave Pelz, All My Secrets: Insights from 30 years, Golf Magazine (Aug 2006): 116-128 -- "You must find a way to roll putts 17 inches past the hole (when they miss). Research proves that putts have a greater chance of finding the cup (regardless of putt length) when the ball rolls at this speed." He's repeated the same false claim many other times as well.

In further proof his claim is total nonsense, in his 2000 Putting Bible Dave rather ignorantly posts proof of the OPPOSITE of his claim by comparing two photographs of "pro" go-by putts as "good" versus "amateur" go-by putts as "bad". The pro putts all cluster closely behind the hole. The amateur putts all cluster further behind the hole. How far are the amateur putts? It's perfectly easy to measure, in the same way the CIA looks at satellite photographs of missile carriers in Cuba and concludes that they are as long as the Soviet missile launchers in photographs of the Soviet Union satellite reconnaissance: the image in the photos of the hole is KNOWN to be 4.25" in diameter, so using the image of the hole as a "ruler", one determines that the "amateur" putts are all centered FOUR HOLE IMAGES past the back of the actual hole, and 4 times 4.25" = 17". So Pelz is saying without even being aware of it in his Putting Bible that the amateur go-by distance of 17" is BAD and that pros don't do that, but have go-by distances well less than half that. Okay ... Are you going to believe Dave Pelz or believe your lying eyes?

Moreover, the hallmark of "good science" is that other scientists can duplicate the data. Of course, no one has ever duplicated Pelz's claim, and the reason is there is NO SCIENCE PROOF of Pelz's claim. Two scientists trained as engineers tried to duplicate Pelz's science, and pronounced his claim as false because the science does not result in his "supposed" data. That's about as BAD as science ever gets -- fabricating data so that uneducated people falsely believe that the person makes scientific discoveries. Pelz has NO SUCH SCIENCE and he personally KNOWS THIS and yet he tells gullible people like you that he does have the data. Okay, put up or shut up -- just show the data. Oh, that's right, he has already published his data, and it does NOT back up his claim at all. Look it up if you think I'm lying: Werner and Grieg, How Golf Club Really Work and How to Optimize Their Design (2002). Therefore .... Hello JonRobert2! Any "logic" banging around in there?

Pelz's own research proves the exact opposite of what he told you and you claim to believe. So you need to read what Pelz's actual research says, and ask yourself why he never cites his own data when he repeats the "claim" that 17" is the optimal go-by distance, or even gives data details from his research. Pelz has been asked personally and directly about the data reported to be his in this 1977 Golf Digest article and whether this data is true and his claim of 17" proof is false or whether the early 1977 data is incorrect and his science bad and he has later different data that he has never made public. He refused to answer. In the Putting Bible, he side-steps the question and repeats his claim that he has proved scientifically that 17" is the best go-by distance to maximize sinks on all grass types in all conditions; then, quite enigmatically (i.e., non-sensically) states immediately following this bald claim that "this is just an average". But of course, there is no such thing in 1977 as an "average Bent-muda" grass, so this defensive rear-guard statement is total baloney from the baloney factory.

But of course, you don't seem too logical, so whatever facts I might parade before you won't change your "mind". I know this is the high likelihood based upon your response so far, PLUS the neuroscience research that says human minds are not logical but emotional and the emotional brain creates "plausible-sounding" thoughts (not "reasons") that fend off unwelcome or uncomfortable or unpleasant alternatives to the vested status quo. Got that? I'm calling you "a typical human," and not calling you a "dumb-ass" or anything rude like that.

In any event, please don't repeat nonsense on this forum without confronting the unpleasant facts straight up. If you read this article, and disagree that Pelz says what he says there, or think he has offered some explanation that satisfies you that his 17" claim is not simply something he says to make you think he is a scientist who has "discovered" something, by all means feel welcome to spout off whatever strikes you as defensible discourse. Otherwise, please don't pollute the forum with pitiable nonsense, unless of course you just can't help it. But please try.

As a golfer who just wants to learn how to putt, it more than a little disturbs me to be lied to, and especially when the lie comes cloaked in a claim of science. It is nearly as disturbing to have a fellow golfer one is attempting to help insinuate to me that I am a liar while claiming that the obviously bogus science must be true because the propounder of the baloney is on TV and someone posted a Wikipedia to his eternal scientific soul! Golden calves, mate .... You've been warned about hanging around in Sodom and Gomorrah with people like that.

The sign on the welcome mat at the door to this forum says: "Please wipe your feet before entering." 'Nuff said, if you're old enough to read.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
PuttingZone.com

Joined: February 25th, 2016, 11:33 pm
similar to the one Pelz has. what i am hoping to do is to calibrate the distances given on my indoor training device (puttist.com) to those at my home course.

this way, when i'm putting at home i can work on both speed and line.

here's a pic of the device:

Check out the new Sweet Roll by Eyeline Golf. It's everything you want in a device that's easy to carry, affordable, accurate, and reliable. It even doubles as a stimp meter.

sammy
sammy
It's just another golfing toy that will not duplicate on the greens because once it's removed you will regress to your old habits and posture.... unless you practice with it at home for at least 90 days to ingrain the changes... and even then once you are under stress the old habits will reemerge. Sorry.