Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone Podcasts

Dear Folks,  The question of a possible lawsuit filed to defeat either the ban on "anchoring" clubs when making a stroke or against any outright ban on belly and long putters doubtless is provoking a lot of nonsense presently from uneducated golfers nonetheless motivated to spout opinions. So, mostly as an antidote to confusion and gross stupidity in golf, and also because the issue has intrinsic interest, I offer the following educated analysis for the benefit of visitors to this PuttingZone Blog.  [Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are not legal advice but reporting and discussing issues of concern to golfers generally, and anyone considering a specific legal situation or taking legal action should consult a licensed attorney for advice.] There are two possible lawsuits: one by a player, and one by a maker / seller of belly or long putters.  Player Suit  1. The federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., requires an entity operating public accommodations to make reasonable modifications in its policies when necessary to afford such accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such accommodations, §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). The ADA mandates that "[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of a disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the privileges of any place of public accommodation." §12182(a).  2. In the case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001), the United States Supreme Court held the ADA prevented the Tour from applying a Rule prohibiting use of carts at Q School's final stage against Casey Martin; specifically ruling against the PGA Tour on four points, the Court held (1) that the Tour events including Q-School take place on places that are "public accommodations" and (2) that Casey Martin's leg problem preventing him from walking 18 holes was a "disability" and (3) that his request to be allowed to use a cart in the final stage of Q-School when others were not allowed was "a reasonable accommodation" the Tour was required to make and (4) that the use by Martin of a cart in the final stage of Q-School would not "fundamentally alter" the nature of" the Tour's "public accommodation" event.  3. In the case of the potential claim of a player to be allowed to use a belly putter or a long putter or to "anchor" the stroke, the same four elements would have to be established to win the ADA claim.  4. But the player would not be requesting this of the PGA Tour. He would be asking that the Rules of Golf not be applied as written against him only, and he would be suing the USGA (or the R&A) or whoever is operating the golf event. 5. The USGA is not subject to the ADA as an organization, but only to the extent it operates a golf event that takes place on a place as a "public accommodation" under the ADA. The Tour made two arguments that its events were not "public accommodations" under the ADA, and both were rejected. First, the Tour claimed it was a private club. Title 42 U. S. C. §12187 provides: "The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to private clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U. S. C. §2000a(e)) or to religious organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship." Second, the Tour argued that even if the event is held to be a "public accommodation", the only area that is public is "outside the ropes" and "inside the ropes" where Casey Martin would be is not a "public accommodation." The District Court ruled against the Tour on both arguments, holding that a "golf course" is named specifically in the ADA as a place of "public accommodation" and that the Tour in holding events is "a commercial enterprise operating in the entertainment industry for the economic benefit of its members rather than as a private club." The District Court rejected the second argument as an attempt to create enclaves in "public accommodations" where the ADA would not reach. The Tour gave up on the "private club" argument in higher appeals, but persisted in the "enclave" argument. The Tour lost its appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the case went to the Supreme Court.  6. In a related case at about the same time, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a player requesting to be allowed to use a cart in the U.S. Open, ruling in favor of the USGA on the ground that allowing one player to use a cart and compete with less fatigue than the other competitors would "fundamentally alter" the nature of the competition. Olinger v. United States Golf Assn., 205 F. 3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2000). In Martin's case, the USGA had allowed him a waiver in events that it sponsors, including the U.S. Open, but had denied Orlinger's request. The Supreme Court resolved the issues in both the Martin case and the Orlinger case by its decision in Martin.  7. In the Supreme Court the Tour switched up its argument from asserting that it was a "private enclave" to asserting that the Tour was an "entertainment or exhibition" to the public but that players were like actors and employees of the exhibition, and the ADA only protects the consuming public, not employees in this sense. The Supreme Court viewed the Tour events as both entertainment for the public and as competitions in which the players were public consumers since they were paying entry fees and competing for money, and so rejected the argument and held the Tour events were "public accommodations".  8. The USGA as the ruling authority for golf is not by that alone a "public accommodation". "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." 42 U. S. C. §12182(a). The twelve categories of places deemed "public accommodations" includes "golf courses" but do not include organizations per se, only public places like restaurants, bars, museums, stadiums, bowling alleys, and the like. The USGA is not a "place" but the ruling organization. It is only when the USGA operates a public golf event at a "place" that the ADA applies to the USGA, so that includes all the Opens and amateur championships. But when an amateur is suing the USGA to be allowed to play in a stipulated round on a golf course somewhere but the USGA does not specifically "own, lease (or lease to), or operate a place of public accommodation" for that golf event, the suing player has no claim.  9. The player might have a claim against a golf course or tournament sponsor who applies the USGA Rules (and in certain events that would be the USGA), since then the course owner or event operator would likely be deemed operating a "public accommodation", provided the public generally is entitled to access and the event is truly not a "private club" event.  10. 42 U. S. C. §12102 provides, in part: "The term disability means, with respect to an individual (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual . . . ." Clearly, there was no dispute that a person who cannot walk 18 holes and who is a professional golfer is someone with a physical limitation that limits one of his major life activities. Can the same be said about a person claiming a "need" to use a belly putter or a long putter, on the one hand, or to "anchor" any club, on the other hand? That depends on the "physical or mental impairment" the player says requires use of the putters or the anchoring. Presumably, the player could claim he suffers from the "yips" and the yips are either a mental or physical impairment. That claim is medically substantiated. Another possible claim is some sort of orthopedic inability to bend over at address on the green. But he would also have to sustain the argument that the impairment limits one of his major life activities, and that would seem to be "playing USGA-Rules golf events at public accommodations." (Golfers with the yips, according to the medical literature, never complain about the problem except on the course, and never experience the problem in connection with off-course movements.) Is that one of his "major life activities"? For a typical amateur, that claim does not necessarily take wing -- playing the casual round of golf 2-3 times a month, as most amateurs do, and then playing in a tournament 2-3 times a year, with the amateur-staus restriction against acceptance of event money, substantially undercuts the claim that playing in such an amateur event is a "major life activity" for that typical amateur. The case would be stronger for an avid golfer playing 2-3 times weekly and entering 6-7 amateur tournaments annually, but even then there is a major issue whether the impairment limits the player in "one of his major life activities". A professional playing in U.S. Open competition (for men, women, or seniors) paying entry fees and playing for money would not have difficulty with this aspect of the ADA case.  11. Assuming that the player's case of the yips or other impairment amounts to a "disability" in the limiting sense, the player next would have to sustain the claim that not being exempted from the ban on belly or long putters or the ban on "anchoring" amounts to "discrimination" against him. "Discrimination" is defined in the ADA to mean "a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). In plain terms, this means that discrimination occurs unless the player is exempted from the ban by a "modification" of the rule or policy, that the modification is "necessary" to give the player full access to the event, and that the exemption does not "fundamentally alter" the nature of the golf event. Exemption from the Rule is not hard, but there is the subtle question of whether exemption actually helps the player overcome the impairment. The statute provides that the "modification" sought has to be "necessary" to afford the player full access to the event. In Martin's case, there was no question that riding in the cart overcame his inability to walk 18 holes and was therefore "necessary". Not only was the cart effective in making Martin able to play the 18 holes, but it was also the ONLY way he could have his impairment addressed, and so the cart was "necessary" in both senses as effective and as the only option. But does use of a belly or long putter or anchoring actually alleviate the impairment of the yips (or other impairment) such that the "modification" is "necessary" in either of the two senses? That would require proof.  12. Does use of a belly or long putter or anchoring the stroke overcome or substantially reduce the impairment caused by the yips in playing golf? The conventional wisdom is that players most often opt for the long or belly putter or anchoring not because of the yips, but because of problems making a conventional stroke with conventional and traditional clubs. Those players have no ADA case because they have no "disability" the ADA recognizes. But as to yips-afflicted golfers, even then the conventional wisdom is that it is not the club per se that addresses the yips but the change in the body action from the specific movement the yips afflict to another form of movement. The use of a belly or long putter MAY shift the movement to a new movement pattern, and thus help, but not necessarily. The anchoring is more often thought to address the afflicted movement, provided what gets anchored is not the club but the limb or body part that is afflicted. That also is not necessarily the case for anyone using these putters or anchoring. So there is a gap in the proof that needs filling with medical evidence to show that the belly or long putter or anchoring is necessary and effective to alleviate the impairment, since otherwise it is not any "accommodation" for the player at all. To date, there is no systematic study of this issue, and only anecdotal evidence from this or that individual without any clear establishment of the use of the special putters or anchoring actually causing alleviation of the yips. Even if there is proof that the modification sought by the player is effective to alleviate the yips, it is not necessarily the only option. Is it not possible that the player's yips can be alleviated in a manner that leaves the player using a conforming, conventional putter or a conforming, non-anchored stroke? In effect, the player might be required to prove that there is NO intervention for the yips OTHER THAN the use of a belly or long putter or an anchored stroke that alleviates his yips. It is possible that such a player with such a specific form of yips might make this case, but there are also abundant claims by others to "cure the yips" with interventions having nothing to do with the club or anchoring. One such is hypnotherapy; another is Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT); others include acupuncture, Botulinum injection, changing a right-hand grip of a right-hand yips golfer to left-hand-low grip, using a heavy putter, using a "claw" grip to tame the right hand out of the stroke, doing deep breathing exercises, taking rehabilitative training, and more. None of these require the long or belly putter or anchoring as the exclusive remedial modification. And with respect to a claimed impairment like a "back problem," this actually is advanced only in connection with "practicing putting for a lengthy period of time", and is almost never advanced as a problem making one or two putts per hole while playing a round. Afterall, the "back problem" doesn't seem to be serious enough to interfere with the 40-50 or more full swings taken in a typical round of 18 holes. So this "back problem" is not likely to be accepted as a serious "impairment" requiring use of a long or belly putter (and in any event has nothing to do with "anchoring"). 13. The more weighty question is whether allowing one player to use a putter design that others cannot use or a grip form that others cannot use would fundamentally alter the competition. The Supreme Court in the Martin case identified two ways exemption from a Rule of the game might "fundamentally alter" the nature of the event: "In theory, a modification of petitioners golf tournaments might constitute a fundamental alteration in two different ways. It might alter such an essential aspect of the game of golf that it would be unacceptable even if it affected all competitors equally; changing the diameter of the hole from three to six inches might be such a modification. Alternatively, a less significant change that has only a peripheral impact on the game itself might nevertheless give a disabled player, in addition to access to the competition as required by Title III, an advantage over others and, for that reason, fundamentally alter the character of the competition."  14. First, does allowing use of a non-traditional putter design concern such an essential aspect of the game as to be unacceptable to call it golf when a player used such a putter or anchoring? At first blush, that's doubtful, so the player would appear likely to win that argument -- NOT a fundamental alteration to allow the non-traditional putter or anchoring. However, it is possible that the Court could say otherwise, and many golfers would indeed share the opinion, so one never knows how the argument would be received. There is, however, a stronger form of this argument. Unlike the Martin case, where use of carts was widespread in golf generally, and the Tour was simply arguing its authority to ban them in Q-School and in PGA Tour events, while allowing them in Senior Tour and Nike Tour events and in early stages of Q-School, the issue here is really about the authority of the Rules authority to specify what equipment is allowed for actually playing golf in the making of strokes. In other words, once the Rules authorities says that in ALL competitions everywhere and always, NO player can use a belly or long putter and must use only clubs that conform to the specifications it has set, and cannot use anchoring, but must only make strokes that conform to the Rules that apply equally always to everyone, and there are never any exceptions, may a player with a physical impairment that would be alleviated by use of the non-conforming belly or long putter or non-conforming anchoring have the right under the ADA to compel the Rules authority to allow him to use a non-conforming club or non-conforming stroke? Does allowing that "fundamentally alter" the nature of golf? There is a strong argument that it does, simply because what the impaired golfer is asking to be allowed to play just is not "golf." The Rules define the nature of the game in the equipment specifications and in the allowable stroke rules. This defines "golf". Exempting any player from those rules, for any reason, means the player would not be playing "golf". In this sense, the allowance of non-conforming clubs or non-conforming strokes is the equivalent of changing the size of the hole by judicial fiat. Yes, that fundamentally alters the nature of the game, because the game is "essentially" defined by these Rules of equipment and strokes. In the Martin case, the Court rejected the argument that "fatigue" was an essential aspect of golf. Here, the question is whether using allowable clubs and strokes is part of the essence of the game. That question seems more likely to be answered in the affirmative than the one posed in the Martin case. 15. Second, if allowing one player with the yips or other impairment to use a non-traditional design or stroke is deemed not to be an essential change, does it nonetheless give that player "an advantage over others" that fundamentally alters the competition? If the player has difficulty documenting that the long or belly putter or anchoring actually alleviates the impairment, the Rules authority will surely have a steeper hill to climb proving that the use affords that player "an advantage over others." The player is likely to prevail on this argument that use of the special putter or anchoring does NOT fundamentally alter the nature of the competition. Everyone who espouses the idea that belly and long putters and anchoring don't help that much are making the argument that helps a lawsuit to stop the Rule from applying to a player with the yips. In the Martin case, the Tour argued that exempting Martin from the fatigue of walking 18 holes that all other competitors had to endure gave him an unfair advantage, but the Court held that the "fatigue" the Tour claimed was proved by physiologists to be insignificant. So the claimed advantage in a suit about the putter or anchoring will likely be shot down immediately simply by quoting the widely held belief in golf that "It's not the arrow, but the Indian" to the effect that putters don't give significant advantages. (Obviously, putter makers don't want to admit this, but they don't have any proof to the contrary, and the only scientific study of the claimed benefits of putter designs says the manufacturers' claims of benefit are utterly insignificant and don't matter to score (Werner and Grieg, How Golf Clubs Really Work and How to Optimize Their Design.)) Moreover, no company making and selling belly or long putters (such as SeeMore) has ever claimed any expertise about the yips or about what putter designs might have to offer to address the yips phenomenon. These companies simply follow a transitory trend in golf following a noted success of some player using a belly putter or long putter and the ensuing media puffing that makes the belly or long putter a trendy, popular item. The companies follow the wind, wherever the market interest blows them, and certainly are not conducting medically-relevant R&D simply to help a few golfers suffering the yips. So no manufacturer can credibly claim that its long or belly putter design evolved in response to medical expertise to address and alleviate the yips and therefore has proof that the design gives any advantage. Likewise, there is not any scientific evidence that anchoring alleviates the yips. The well-known example of Bernard Langer clasping his right hand against his left forearm, also pinning the putter handle against his forearm (i.e., "anchoring"), appears to have served him well in "controlling" his specific form of the yips, but there was never any scientific probing of his yips and his mechanical prevention of the movement disorder disrupting his stroke. And there is clearly no proof he thereby gained a superior level of performance over other competitors. The Decisions under the Rules already prohibit any "artificial device" being use as a mechanical control of the stroke, such as strapping the putter handle to the forearm underneath a watch band. Anchoring the handle or hand against the body is mainly to "eliminate a degree of freedom" for any golfer making a stroke and therefore make good strokes easier for players struggling with conventional putting. The usual claim is that "anchoring" benefits any golfer precisely because it "eliminates a degree of freedom" from the conventional style, but there is never any accompanying proof that this "eliminating a degree of freedom" causes better results and lower scores compared to what other competitors can accomplish without this. So, the player would not lose on the ground that any putter design or anchoring gives the player an advantage.  Club Maker / Seller Suit  16. These lawsuits against the USGA never end in victory for the club maker, since courts recognize the authority of a sport to establish it own terms for equipment specifications. The only case that ever came close was the claim of Ping about the u-groove clubs that once were not illegal and then were allowed to be made and sold but then were ruled illegal. In that case, an out-of-court settlement ended the case with a grandfathering in of the existing u-groove clubs already made but future clubs to be made only with v-grooves, and Ping agreeing not to make any more u-groove clubs. But that small scent of club-maker positive outcome has unduly encouraged other club makes to have hope where on the merits of the claim, there really is not much hope.  17. The maker /seller of long or belly putters would most likely not be allowed to stand in the shoes of a yips-afflicted golfer and assert that players' claim under the ADA, but would have to assert some independent claim on its own behalf.  18. The likely claim would be some sort of fairness claim that prior USGA approval of the seller's long or belly putter precludes or "estops" the USGA from changing its mind and later banning the designs by changing the definition of what clubs are allowed in a way that excludes these long or belly putter designs as non-conforming. This eliminates any seller from bringing suit who had not previously obtained USGA approval and was currently marketing the designs. But even as to those selling pre-approved belly and long putters, the claim essentially means that those making money from the game of golf have gained by thee prior design approvals the right to prevent the USGA from altering the rules and equipment in the game until all sellers stop marketing belly or long putters. The more reasonable view, and therefore the more likely outcome in a lawsuit, is that the USGA maintains its authority to alter the club rules, since everyone recognized before that this authority existed and could be used (as indeed shown in the Ping case), and the likely development is that the USGA would give sufficient lead time before applying the change so that the business cycle could run its natural course to sell off existing inventory and change over to different product designs that conform. The end result is not that any company cannot continue to make money from golf, but that the company would have to allow the current designs to play out and start making money in a different product line. Against that, a seller who still claims a "right" to sell belly or long putters notwithstanding the Rule-maker's decision is taking an obstinate position, based either upon its admitted inability to shift to a conforming product line or upon simple intransigent refusal to yield to the rule-making authority of the USGA. Either way, that is not a sympathy-garnering position.  That's pretty much the analysis. How such a case would actually come out is anyone's guess, and depends upon the caliber of the lawyering, the judges, the claimant, the evidence, and any other number of wildcard factors. But the above analytical skeleton maps the tracks the main lines of argument that any such case would have to follow. Make of it what you will as fair-minded "judge".  For my personal view of the player lawsuit, I think the USGA argument that allowing use of clubs or strokes that are not part of the game's definition would fundamentally alter the nature of the event by affecting its essential nature is pretty strong (point #14), and the player's argument that a long or belly putter or anchoring amounts to a "necessary modification" that alleviates the yips is weak (point #12,) and the player's claim that the impairment amounts to a "disability" limiting the player's "major life activity" would be problem for a casual amateur even if not as much a problem for an avid amateur or no problem at all for a professional in one of the the US Open competitions (point #10). But otherwise, a yips-afflicted amateur or professional golfer could bring suit if denied exemption from a Rule banning use of the long or belly putter or anchoring, against whoever operates the event as a "public accommodation". But sustaining all four elements of the ADA case is not likely.  Cheers!  Geoff Mangum  Putting Coach and Theorist  PuttingZone.com  Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

Severiano Ballesteros Sota and "Ritmos" Bobby Jones in the 1930s wrote that "Timing is the most important skill in golf, and yet no one teaches it." Seve Ballesteros was a great putter, one of the best, and he simply used "ritmos" as his "technique", but he wasn't the greatest explainer of how that might be an accurate and consistent way to putt. No one in golf history has ever taught how "touch" works. It's timing. Here's how it works: THE BRAIN, THE WORLD, THE BODY The human brain "times" the body motion to comport with the objective requirements of the world. In order to do that consistently and accurately, the brain uses "tempo" and "rhythm". "Tempo" is the conductor waving his arms in the air to indicate the quickness or slowness with which the orchestra should play the sheet music. A metronome is set to one particular tempo by adjusting the length of the rod and bob. One length, one tempo. "Rhythm" on the other hand is what the drummer does when he plays all quarter notes on the sheet so that all notes of the same sort are "equal duration", whatever the "tempo". Four quarter notes are always played "bang bang bang bang" or "pop pop pop pop", whether the playing is short and quick or slow and leisurely. But the brain does not use just "any old" tempo and rhythm. There is a "wheelhouse" tempo in each body and also a "wheelhouse" rhythm, and neither of these has anything to do with the personality and preference of the golfer. The world uses the golfer's body to INSTALL the tempo and the rhythmic pattern in the brain, and the brain is designed in evolution expressly for the purpose of accepting and recording what the world does TO the body, over what the body does to the world. And these timing aspects are very similar from golfer to golfer, insofar as each adult body is pretty much similar in size and proportionality and mass distribution. Ask any clothing manufacturer what are the most numerous sizes sold for shirts and pants. Certain sizes are FAR more numerous than other "outlier" sizes -- it's just the demographics and anthropometrics of our species. THE WORLD TRAINS THE BRAIN, THE BRAIN LEARNS THE WORLD FOR SAFETY AND SUCCESS The LENGTH or SIZE that swings with only one second tempo is a meter stick, 100 cm or 39.37 inches in length. The adult human arm is not far off this length. Consequently, when the EARTH BALL moves the arms, adults typically experience a tempo that is close to a 1-second tempo in the natural swinging of the arms. The adult human leg is also not far off this meter-stick length. And not surprisingly, adults typically experience a gait tempo of nearly one second per stride when walking in a casual manner. Studies show that the speed of walking depends upon the stride length (which depends generally on stature or height), BUT that given a specific height and stride length and speed, the step FREQUENCY tends to be about the same for adults, regardless of preferred speed or stature. The expression "Speed / Squareroot(Gravity acceleration x Height)" is pretty constant for a wide variety of adult sizes and speeds. (R. Alexander, Stride length and speed for adults, children, and fossil hominids, Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 63(1) (Jan. 1984): 23-27.) The usual step frequency correlates with the pendular action of the limbs and centers on 2 steps per second, for a gait frequency of 1 Hz. (J. Bertram, Constrained optimization in human walking: cost minimization and gait plasticity, J. Exper. Biol. 208 (2005): 979-991.) The rule for pedestrian crosswalks is that people walk at about 3.5 feet/second and the crosswalk lights are set to a "slow" walker at 3.0 feet/second (e.g., 10 seconds to cross a 30-foot wide crosswalk). (J. LaPlante and T. Kaeser, A history of pedestrian signal walking speed assumptions, 3rd Urban Street Symposium, Seattle WA (June 24-27, 2007).) When height is factored out ("normalized"), the usual walking pace for adults centers on 1 Hz. Male sleeve lengths range (age 40, US population) from 34" (5th percentile) to 38.5" (95th percentile), with the actual "reach" from shoulder to wrist ranging from about 27" to 32". Therefore, since the EARTH BALL swings a 39.37" meter stick in precisely 1 second, the same EARTH BALL "naturally" swings the adult male arm is a little less than 1 second. (NASA, Man-Systems Integration Standards, vol. 1 sec. 3, Anthropometry and Biomechanics, Fig. 3.3.1.3-1 (12 of 12) Anthropomteric Dimensional Data for American Male (dimensions 67 and 772).) This natural "tempo" is served up to the recording brain hundreds of times each waking day by the casual swinging of the arm, regardless of the size of the arm swing. Both the legs and the arms in daily experience get TIMED by the EARTH BALL physics and trained relentlessly to something very close to 1 Hz timing by casual reactions. In the neuroscience of the European Space Agency, Alain Berthoz in 1999 demonstrated that the human brain has deeply embedded inside it this "gravity" timing for falling objects. The rate of falling is effectively "hardwired" in the brain by the brain's recording the physics of the EARTH BALL. (A. Berthoz, The Brain's Sense of Movement (Harvard Univ. Press, 2000).) The same sort of recording process occurs for pendular motion with the legs and arms. The brain in effect is "hardwired" to know the tempo of the arms and legs in a "wheelhouse" tempo that was installed by the repeating experience of the world. Why fight it? It's the tempo that never changes and doesn't require learning or practicing. So how does this work in putting for so-called "touch"? PERCEPTION LIMITS ACTION, ACTION SHAPES PERCEPTION Basically, the awareness of the safe and acceptable limits of the space for motion use the tempo to "size" the backstroke, which in itself sets the power or force level of the stroke. If you're careful not to blow the putt long past the hole, the brain instinctively and effortlessly sets the backstroke size without any need to run the problem thru the thinking mind, and also without troubling the mind for permission to use a specific backstroke. Indeed, the MIND doesn't know much about it, compared to the mute body and brain, which have been "hardwired" to get the motion just right merely from paying attention to the space for the careful motion that does not go too long. Careful? Yes, "touch" is a direct result of being attentive and careful. That's because the brain cannot afford to allow spastic over-shooting of the limbs in space, as this is very dangerous and may cause injury and pain to the body (and brain) by colliding violently with objects in space. The brain always moves carefully "to" and not usually "thru" objects in space. The spastic person swats the water glass off the table when reaching for it, or reaches for a door knob and fails because he broke his thumb against the door knob. Failure WITH pain and injury is always much more important to avoid than success is important to attain, or failure short is important to avoid. Safety first, or there will be NO motion. A brain that evolved according to any other rule would not survive in evolution. Carefulness "sizes" the backstroke? Yes, a tempo is the same regardless of the size of the swing of the particular stick. Short swings and long swings of the same stick, according to the EARTH BALL tempo and physics, all take exactly the one same time, every time. The adult arm, for example, held away from the side and then dropped to strike the thigh, takes about 1/2 second regardless of how many inches away from the thigh the arm and hand are suspended before dropping down at the thigh. So why would the backstroke gain a size limit? What changes when the arm and hand are held closer or farther from the thigh before dropping is the velocity of the hand at impact against the thigh. A short backstroke strikes the thigh with low velocity, and always the same velocity if started from the same distance. A long backstroke strikes the thigh faster (and harder), and always with the same velocity (and force) so long as started into the drop from the same distance off the thigh. Hence, backstroke SIZE combines with tempo to cause one and only one velocity of impact and force or impact. Size = Force. This size = This force (only and always), provided the tempo is stable. The EARTH BALL tempo is extremely stable. To wrap it up, "touch" then uses everyday "wheelhouse" tempo and attention and carefulness about not going long in the space with the motion to size the backstroke and hence limit the force for safety and for success. Both. SEVE AND RITMOS: BOTH LINE AND DISTANCE FROM TIMING Now, we come to Seve and "ritmos" or rhythm. The golfer is the drummer and pays heed to the EARTH BALL conductor's tempo. That means that the backstroke is ONE-HALF of the rhythm, and a rhythm is a proportionality between the back and the thru. Because the timing of the stroke is just a single pattern, the first half of the tempo's total time is the backstroke. The backstroke is half of the rhythmic swing. This means that the brain "sets" the backstroke size using half the tempo and half the rhythm. Once set, the golfer has to "complete the deal" by sticking to the timing in the thru-stroke. The backstroke loads the correct force, but the timing of the thru-stroke spends or uses the force. Unless the thru-stroke timing matches "whatever timing the backstroke used according to one half of the tempo", the putt runs short (a slower thru-stroke than the backstroke) or long (a quicker thru-stroke than the backstroke). The rhythm is always right when you pay attention and are careful not to blow past the target. If the rhythm were not safe and successful, your brain is unsuitable for survival. And yet, here you are, so what other proof do you require to believe that the brian's got your back and keeps you safe against over-shoot when you "trust" the usual tempo and rhythm? With careful intentionality in space and the usual tempo, the rhythm is NEVER short or long, and the backstroke will NEVER be allowed to get too powerful a size. The limit on the backstroke size guards against getting 105% force at impact, but the stopping of the backstroke by the instinctive brain (not the mind) does not happen earlier than very close to 100%. Otherwise, the golfer would be dead from being short all the time when he tries to place food in his mouth. Short is never good, but too long is downright dangerous! So much for "ritmos", right? Wrong. In addition to force and distance control for "touch", the rhythm of the careful golfer with the usual tempo is ALSO what CAUSES straight strokes. Rhythm is a "what-is-where-when" deal. Te essential key to striking the ball exactly where the putter face aims at address is to KNOW when the putter face re-occupies the address location in the forward swing. That is like wanting to KNOW WHEN will the pendulum re-occupy the position in the swing when the rod is perpendicular to the floor and the pendulum bob is closest to the floor at the bottom of the swing. That's easy: each half second once the pendulum at the top of its stroke starts down. Every time. In putting, the golfer rolling balls straight where aimed with good touch needs to do nothing if he has good rhythm except start the stroke back into the usual tempo with a confident full-bodied swing. The brain and body limit how far back the putter will swing the same way a ceiling limits how far a ball gets tossed to "touch" the ceiling. The space and the intentionality to go "to" and not "thru" the space is what limits the backstroke size and force. A diffident backstroke won't work, as that won't fully load the force at the 100% level. And any mistake in the rhythm so that the forward stroke timing doesn't mirror the backstroke loading timing will cause long or short results. Load and go. TEACHING HOW THE NATURAL BODY ALREADY HAS GREAT TOUCH So how do you teach "touch"? First, the golfer witnesses a demonstration of the setting of the limit to the backstroke size and force, by being careful not to go too long past the target. Then the golfer tests this personally -- jumps up and down on that plank to see if he can crack it, or not. Once the limiting of the backstroke is accepted as a literal, physical, daily, non-conscious property of the body and brain as hardwired by experience of the planet, the MIND begins to relent in its desire to control the force of the putt and relinquishes control to the music of the golfer moving with the tempo of the world. The golfer is the drummer with rhythm, and only needs to follow the conductor's tempo. The world itself and the body jointly comprise the "wheelhouse" conductor with the always-the-same tempo. About 25 years ago, a friend of mine (Steve Rey) was practicing putting on the European PGA Tour with various training aids scattered about and Seve Ballesteros walked up and commented: "Steve, you don't need any of that stuff for excellent putting. You only need ritmos." Instant improvement in results, from that day to this. ANYONE who has a modicum of experience on golf greens already has embedded in their brains and body a deep and detailed physics knowledge of great touch. All that is required is attentiveness to the space and reliance upon the usual tempo and rhythm of the world. Intend a good result for distance, pay attention, and join the music of the world -- a backstroke results from the body's know-how, and if the rhythm is right, the distance is right. It's normal, not special at all. Thanks, Seve. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist PuttingZone.com Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction, combining the best of golf lore with modern physics, anatomy, and the neuroscience of perception and movement processes on the green for optimal and instinctive performance of the four skills of putting: reading, aiming, stroking, and controlling distance and pace. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

PuttingZone Video with Steve Elkington Released The PuttingZone's premiere video is now OUT! Entitled "The Reality of Putting -- Geoff Mangum with Steve Elkington", is an hour-long presentation of the main teachings developed over the past 20 years in the PuttingZone for brain-based instinctive putting skills of reading, aiming, stroking, and controlling distance and speed. Combining the best of golf lore from a comprehensive 100-year survey with modern physics, anatomy, biomechanics, motor learning science, measurement and training technologies, PLUS the NEW neuroscience of brain-body processes for perception and movement in the relevant tasks of putting skills, the PuttingZone program is far and away the ONLY complete and integrated system for putting skills ever developed. Filmed at the historic Champions Golf Club owned and operated by Masters legend Jackie Burke Jr., the video is offered as an immediate download from the independent website TheRealityofPutting.com. The purchase price of $35 (payable online) gives access to the video in either a 668 MB Quick-Time .mp4 file or a larger 1.3 GB Windows Media Player .wmv file, along with an introductory PDF that gives a 10-page rundown of the skills content and reproduces the video figures and photos. Don't miss out on the most advanced and effective putting instruction available. Recent successes by players trained in the PuttingZone techniques include the British Amateur, the US Amateur (and 3 of the 4 semifinalists), a sweep of all top three positions in the World Amateur Ranking, both number-1 ranked Division I male and female players, the Western Open, Porters Cup, North and South, and others. This is different. Download your copy of the best putting instruction in the history of golf and take your game to the next level. Visit TheRealityofPutting.com for details and ordering. And it makes a great gift for the holidays if you know a friend who could use the help! Cheers! The PuttingZone Team and Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

Since my last blog post on the use of the "artificial device" AimPoint Charts during competition, promoters of the charts have supplied me with a copy of a letter from USGA Equipment / Science Director Dick Rugge stating that the charts "conform to the Rules of Golf." Here in this link is a pdf copy of the letter. The letter does not otherwise analyze which Rule governs or why the Rules lead to the conclusion of conformity, but is issued pursuant to the manufacturer's procedure for submission of "artificial devices" and "equipment" per Rule 14-3. Basically, the letter is a standard form letter. Is that the final word? I wouldn't think so or hope so, because the letter is a "form letter" approving use of an "artificial device" that offers to read putts in competition and under the existing Rules is clearly not correct unless the USGA has gone completely off the rails and opened the door to playing golf in a very lifeless, spiritless way, and has backed up on its brand new agreement with the Royal and Ancient not to allow use of "artificial devices" for such purposes in the game of golf. What really appears to underlie the issuance of this letter is a bit of inattention to the threat to the game from emerging technology, a bit of fat-finger typing in application of the Rules, a bit of USGA Administrative confusion, and a somewhat indigestible bigger bit of the PGA Tour's tolerance for edge-getting practices as the tail wagging the dog of golf in the USGA's Rules. Misapplication of the Rules as Written First, the approval of an artificial device for putt reading during competition (and for handicapping purposes) is clearly wrong under the Rules. Rule 14-3 bans use of any "artificial device" unless previously approved by the USGA as something whose use has been "traditionally accepted" in golf. A "yardage book" is an "artificial device" as stated in Decision 14-3/5 ("such a booklet is an artificial device."). The language was put in after the USGA yielded to the Tour's practice of using "yardage books" when playing for lots of cash. Amateurs wanted to follow the pros, courses started marking sprinkler heads and offering their own yardage books, and the USGA relented. The practice wasn't really "traditionally accepted", but was "expediently tolerated for the sake of the pros" and then crept in the back door of the Rules. Even so, the Rules carefully limit the informational assistance in the "artificial device" of yardage books and similar aids to readily available, shot-making neutral information about distance relations on the course. An "artificial device" that suggests how to play a putt by processing information about slope direction and steepness, green speed, ball distance and position, and ball speed control with elaborate and abstruse physics calculations is barred by the plain meaning of language throughout the Rules. The offered information goes far beyond the distance measurements allowed in a yardage book to suggest the number of inches above the hole to aim the putter for the break, using calculations no human can perform on the course. While it's true that the suggested read is based upon assumptions and that general physics formulae don't exactly get all the details of reality accounted for and that other products may well offer better suggestions, the problem is in allowing ANYONE other than the player (his caddie or partner included) to make ANY suggestion about how a shot or stroke should be played during a round that counts for competition or handicapping. Golf is "you're away", not "y'all are away." Such language bars handheld GPS devices that feature more than distance, and a device that is capable of measuring like a range finder or computing matters related to how to play a shot are strictly banned, whether a golfer uses them or not. Similarly, although the Rules have "sort of" tolerated laser range finders to the extent of permitting their use IF a local committee so decides, the Rules nonetheless explicitly

For this week's podcast, LISTEN now (audio, 10 min, 32 secs.). This short podcast tip on the Putter Fitting -- Computers vs Coaches aired on Golf Smarter Tips.com Friday, 5 December 2008. "Hello, Dave." "I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that." The putting podcast is now available for free on the Golf Smarter Tips website and also is archived on the PuttingZone and in the iTunes podcast "store" (also a FREE download). Anyone wishing to pose a question for response on the Golf Smarter Tips.com "Fridays Free" program, please use the "Ask the Experts" link on the Golf Smarter Tips.com website. If your question is chosen for the air, you will receive a FREE gift from me, such as a free copy of the new book Optimal Putting, a free "PuttingZone" logo shirt, sweater, wind breaker or the like in your specified size, a "PuttingZone Preferred" training aid, or similar gift as Thanks! To subscribe to the Golf Smarter Tips podcasts on iTunes, click here. To subscribe to this PuttingZone podcast for delivery into your email, click here. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone PuttingZone Clinics PuttingZone Blog & Podcasts Flatstick Forum PuttingZone Channel on YouTube PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery Add a widget with all my podcasts to your website with automatic updating. Golf's best putting instruction book: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (published 2008, 282-pages, $34.95 hardcover with free shipping [NB: The hardcover is TEMPORARILY OUT OF STOCK but the ebook is available], $15.95 ebook download -- click this link for details and to order your copy today). Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not. Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

For this week's podcast, LISTEN now (audio, 11 min, 54 secs.). This short podcast tip on the Selecting a Putter aired on Golf Smarter Tips.com Friday, 28 November 2008. The putting podcast is now available for free on the Golf Smarter Tips website and also is archived on the PuttingZone and in the iTunes podcast "store" (also a FREE download). Anyone wishing to pose a question for response on the Golf Smarter Tips.com "Fridays Free" program, please use the "Ask the Experts" link on the Golf Smarter Tips.com website. If your question is chosen for the air, you will receive a FREE gift from me, such as a free copy of the new book Optimal Putting, a free "PuttingZone" logo shirt, sweater, wind breaker or the like in your specified size, a "PuttingZone Preferred" training aid, or similar gift as Thanks! To subscribe to the Golf Smarter Tips podcasts on iTunes, click here. To subscribe to this PuttingZone podcast for delivery into your email, click here. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone PuttingZone Clinics PuttingZone Blog & Podcasts Flatstick Forum PuttingZone Channel on YouTube PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery Add a widget with all my podcasts to your website with automatic updating. Golf's best putting instruction book: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (published 2008, 282-pages, $34.95 hardcover with free shipping [NB: The hardcover is TEMPORARILY OUT OF STOCK but the ebook is available], $15.95 ebook download -- click this link for details and to order your copy today). Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not. Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

For this week's podcast, LISTEN now (audio, 11 min, 56 secs.). This short podcast tip on the Optimum Putter Lie aired on Golf Smarter Tips.com Friday, 07 November 2008. Mitchell Golf Putter Bending Machine The putting podcast is now available for free on the Golf Smarter Tips website and also is archived on the PuttingZone and in the iTunes podcast "store" (also a FREE download). Anyone wishing to pose a question for response on the Golf Smarter Tips.com "Fridays Free" program, please use the "Ask the Experts" link on the Golf Smarter Tips.com website. If your question is chosen for the air, you will receive a FREE gift from me, such as a free copy of the new book Optimal Putting, a free "PuttingZone" logo shirt, sweater, wind breaker or the like in your specified size, a "PuttingZone Preferred" training aid, or similar gift as Thanks! To subscribe to the Golf Smarter Tips podcasts on iTunes, click here. To subscribe to this PuttingZone podcast for delivery into your email, click here. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone PuttingZone Clinics PuttingZone Blog & Podcasts Flatstick Forum PuttingZone Channel on YouTube PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery Add a widget with all my podcasts to your website with automatic updating. Golf's best putting instruction book: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (published 2008, 282-pages, $34.95 hardcover with free shipping, $15.95 ebook download -- click this link for details and to order your copy today). Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not. Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

For this week's podcast, LISTEN now (audio, 13 min, 55 secs.). This short podcast tip on the What Does it Take: The Learning Curve for PuttingZone Skills aired on Golf Smarter Tips.com Friday, 14 November 2008. COMMON NOTION OF LEARNING CURVE (smooth steady progress that planes off): HALF-HUMOROUS NOTION OF LEARNING CURVE AS MANY MISTAKES AND LUCKY ACCIDENTS (but showing progress): MORE REASONABLE VIEW (if a bit too straight and regular -- really should be a jump up at the very start and then a dipping and then a "takeoff" and then another plateau, a crisis of faith, a resurgence followed by incremental and small but steady progress, and then another plateau busted thru by virtue of specific-skill work and goal setting to get another "takeoff" etc. etc. with a generous sprinkling of mistakes and luck all along the way.) Sports performance Learning Curve with Plateaus We think our progress at acquiring as skill is linear with time but in fact it is made up of a series of improvements interspersed with periods of minimal improvement, the plateau. If we do not know about plateau, it can be very demotivating to the learner (and the coach). The putting podcast is now available for free on the Golf Smarter Tips website and also is archived on the PuttingZone and in the iTunes podcast "store" (also a FREE download). Anyone wishing to pose a question for response on the Golf Smarter Tips.com "Fridays Free" program, please use the "Ask the Experts" link on the Golf Smarter Tips.com website. If your question is chosen for the air, you will receive a FREE gift from me, such as a free copy of the new book Optimal Putting, a free "PuttingZone" logo shirt, sweater, wind breaker or the like in your specified size, a "PuttingZone Preferred" training aid, or similar gift as Thanks! To subscribe to the Golf Smarter Tips podcasts on iTunes, click here. To subscribe to this PuttingZone podcast for delivery into your email, click here. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone PuttingZone Clinics PuttingZone Blog & Podcasts Flatstick Forum PuttingZone Channel on YouTube PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery Add a widget with all my podcasts to your website with automatic updating. Golf's best putting instruction book: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (published 2008, 282-pages, $34.95 hardcover with free shipping, $15.95 ebook download -- click this link for details and to order your copy today). Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not. Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

For this week's podcast, LISTEN now (audio, 14 min, 06 secs.). @@@ Voting October 23 - November 6: These Golf Smarter Tips podcasts have been nominated among the top 10 best podcasts for the "People's Choice" and "Sports" Categories -- vote for us as NUMBER 1 by visiting this link (PodcastAwards.com) between October 23 and November 6!! Vote in both categories by ticking the box, and you may vote again each 24 hours. You may be asked by email to verify your vote. Thanks for the support. @@@ This short podcast tip on the A Putting Preround Warmup Routine aired on Golf Smarter Tips.com Friday, 31 October 2008. The "Putting Clock", Miami 1905 (US Library of Congress) The putting podcast is now available for free on the Golf Smarter Tips website and also is archived on the PuttingZone and in the iTunes podcast "store" (also a FREE download). Anyone wishing to pose a question for response on the Golf Smarter Tips.com "Fridays Free" program, please use the "Ask the Experts" link on the Golf Smarter Tips.com website. If your question is chosen for the air, you will receive a FREE gift from me, such as a free copy of the new book Optimal Putting, a free "PuttingZone" logo shirt, sweater, wind breaker or the like in your specified size, a "PuttingZone Preferred" training aid, or similar gift as Thanks! To subscribe to the Golf Smarter Tips podcasts on iTunes, click here. To subscribe to this PuttingZone podcast for delivery into your email, click here. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone PuttingZone Clinics PuttingZone Blog & Podcasts Flatstick Forum PuttingZone Channel on YouTube PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery Add a widget with all my podcasts to your website with automatic updating. Golf's best putting instruction book: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (published 2008, 282-pages, $34.95 hardcover with free shipping, $15.95 ebook download -- click this link for details and to order your copy today). Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not. Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

For this week's podcast, LISTEN now (audio, 8 min, 46 secs.). @@@ Voting October 23 - November 6: These Golf Smarter Tips podcasts have been nominated among the top 10 best podcasts for the "People's Choice" and "Sports" Categories -- vote for us as NUMBER 1 by visiting this link (PodcastAwards.com) between October 23 and November 6!! Thanks for the support. @@@ This short podcast tip on the A Smooth Putting Backstroke aired on Golf Smarter Tips.com Friday, 17 October 2008. The putting podcast is now available for free on the Golf Smarter Tips website and also is archived on the PuttingZone and in the iTunes podcast "store" (also a FREE download). Anyone wishing to pose a question for response on the Golf Smarter Tips.com "Fridays Free" program, please use the "Ask the Experts" link on the Golf Smarter Tips.com website. If your question is chosen for the air, you will receive a FREE gift from me, such as a free copy of the new book Optimal Putting, a free "PuttingZone" logo shirt, sweater, wind breaker or the like in your specified size, a "PuttingZone Preferred" training aid, or similar gift as Thanks! To subscribe to the Golf Smarter Tips podcasts on iTunes, click here. To subscribe to this PuttingZone podcast for delivery into your email, click here. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone PuttingZone Clinics PuttingZone Blog & Podcasts Flatstick Forum PuttingZone Channel on YouTube PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery Add a widget with all my podcasts to your website with automatic updating. Golf's best putting instruction book: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (published 2008, 282-pages, $34.95 hardcover with free shipping, $15.95 ebook download -- click this link for details and to order your copy today). Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not. Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

For this week's podcast, LISTEN now (audio, 11 min, 30 secs.). @@@ Voting October 23 - November 6: These Golf Smarter Tips podcasts have been nominated among the top 10 best podcasts for the "People's Choice" and "Sports" Categories -- vote for us as NUMBER 1 by visiting this link (PodcastAwards.com) between October 23 and November 6!! Thanks for the support. @@@ This short podcast tip on the Eye Dominance in Putting aired on Golf Smarter Tips.com Friday, 17 October 2008. Eye Dominance Test The putting podcast is now available for free on the Golf Smarter Tips website and also is archived on the PuttingZone and in the iTunes podcast "store" (also a FREE download). Anyone wishing to pose a question for response on the Golf Smarter Tips.com "Fridays Free" program, please use the "Ask the Experts" link on the Golf Smarter Tips.com website. If your question is chosen for the air, you will receive a FREE gift from me, such as a free copy of the new book Optimal Putting, a free "PuttingZone" logo shirt, sweater, wind breaker or the like in your specified size, a "PuttingZone Preferred" training aid, or similar gift as Thanks! To subscribe to the Golf Smarter Tips podcasts on iTunes, click here. To subscribe to this PuttingZone podcast for delivery into your email, click here. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone PuttingZone Clinics PuttingZone Blog & Podcasts Flatstick Forum PuttingZone Channel on YouTube PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery Add a widget with all my podcasts to your website with automatic updating. Golf's best putting instruction book: Optimal Putting: Brain Science, Instincts, and the Four Skills of Putting (published 2008, 282-pages, $34.95 hardcover with free shipping, $15.95 ebook download -- click this link for details and to order your copy today). Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not. Over 2.5 million visits -- 200,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default