"I think I get red-flagged by the the USGA because I'm always trying to walk that fine line."

I'm not sure if this is an appeal to the putter collectors and a way to get attention, but PGATour.com's Mike McCallister talks to Scotty Cameron about his putters and gets these two interesting quotes:

"I think I get red-flagged by the the USGA because I'm always trying to walk that fine line. I think if you're to buy my products, you want me to be on the edge, you want me to be barely legal. But if I'm well within the zone, then it's like we're not stretching the limits enough."

And...

"People say there's no arc in the putter stroke. Well, is there an arc in a golf swing? Of course there is. ... There is an arc in the putter stroke. I wish there wasn't. But there is -- it comes from the lie angle of the shaft. The USGA says its must be at least 10 percent, not straight up and down. With that angle, there must be an arc. ... I wish we could putt between our legs, 90 degrees, square to square. But the USGA says we can't putt between our legs, so I design putters to fit those arcs so that it becomes almost effortless for the putter."

Comments

[THE La Habra Post Card Company (aka THE LHPCC)]

The Tortured Artist Known As Scotty Cameron....

Interviewer: "Scotty.....Please tell me about Scotty...."

Scotty Cameron: "Well, Scotty Cameron is a intense individual who tries his best to make the very best arcless putter money can buy. I want that putter to be the best putter money can buy....I aspire to be Scotty Cameron.....I am Scotty Cameron......."

Interviewer: "Scotty, what's it like being Scotty....":

Scotty Cameron: "Well, being Scotty is a hard job. I spend countless hours designing the putter, building the putter, perfecting the putter. I have to. I'm Scotty Cameron...."

Interviewer: "Thank you being Scotty Cameron. Thank you"

Scotty Cameron: "And thanks to you too. May you all name your first born, Scotty....Thank you."

[Tighthead]

I really like my old Ping Anser. Any chance of a Cameron version of the Anser? That would rule.

[BillV]

Tighthead, there are plenty of Scotty versions of the Anser, that's where he's made his fortune. Made his first on in his own studio and then the Newport was the first at Titleist.

YES! builds a nice one called the Callie that you might like, too.

Remember: Good putters can putt with a croquet mallet. Or a quart bottle of doctor Pepper.

[Philip]

BillV, knowing Tighthead's posts, I am sure he knows of what you speak and is making the point that Cameron's "genius" is derivative. As everybody probably knows, Tiger Woods has been quoted as saying he really likes his Cameron putter because it reminds him so much of the Ping Anser he grew up with. And Stan Utley says essentially the same thing.

[BillV chanelling Roberto Vincenzo]

What a stupid I am.

[Tighthead]

BillV - were I as clever as I wish, my point would have been clearer.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

To get back to the actual quoted topics, I think the arc stroke is THE stroke. Jack may have putted somewhat square-to-square with shorter putts, but nearly everyone on the PGA Tour putts with an arc stroke (open face, close face, whatever you want to call it).

Dean Thompson, who sells the Z Factor, will tell you this as well. He's tested something like a few hundred pro golfers, and I think he told me about two of them putt square to square, and they all do for longer putts.

Dave Pelz is the primary "square to square" pusher, and his prize pupil Phil is very much an arc putter. Has anyone else noticed how much less Pelz has emphasized his thoughts on putting in recent years? I think he's basically admitting defeat - the arc stroke is the way to go.

Square to square requires manipulation of the wrists or, as Dean will demonstrate, a spine angle that's horizontal between the shoulder blades.

[Kevin]

The Double Twisty is something that Karsten S would never have thought of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIGJNlBK9t4&feature=related

[cmoore]

What does he mean that he is "red-flagged" by the USGA? He cannot have any designs rejected since all but perhaps one (the Detour, which sits on golf shop displays longer than cans of spam sit on grocery shelves) are derivative of designs that have been around for 30+ years.

P.S. - I will never buy another SC putter (used the RedX2 for several years) after watching that ridiculous collector's video with the even more ridiculously named Double Twisty.

[86general]

Most people putt with an arc stroke.

But obviously, a square/in-line stroke would be better, all other things being equal.

This topic gets debated often, and neither side ever budges, but Pelz has shown that one can putt with a pure, in-line, square stroke without what Erik calls "manipulation" of the hands, wrists, etc.

That's not saying that everyone who putts square-in-line doesn't manipulate the hands, it's just saying it isn't required to execute the stroke. Pelz has demonstrated this over and over, with mechanical putting devices, with humans, with photography from every angle, and with extensive visual aids to prove his assertions, but people still look at him and say "that's wrong."

What is often accepted as refutation for Pelz's elaborate displays of evidence are statements like Cameron's, in the vein of "there's an arc in the full swing, so there must be one in the putting stroke."

Alrighty then, I guess that settles it.

I've read almost all of Pelz's books, and most of his magazine pieces. He has never said a golfer "must" try to putt with a square stroke. He has endorsed the putting strokes and styles of many tour pros, acknowledging that many, if not most, putt with an arc. He also talks extensively on ALL the ingredients of good putting, including green reading, alignment, hitting the sweet spot, speed of putts, etc.

He gets pigeon holed, sometimes, as being a nerdy/crank/engineer who's fixated on the square stroke path, but that's just not true. The fact that he never tried to change Mickelson's stroke path is just a statement of his overall knowledge of putting, rather than any admission that a square stroke is "wrong."

The main points about the square stroke, that I think Pelz would agree with, are that a) it's possible to execute in a simple manner, just like an arc stroke, and b) all other things being equal, it's probably a better stroke in terms of accuracy.

Is it THE only way to putt? Of course not? Is it wrong to putt another way? No. Does the fact that most people putt on an arc invalidate the physical advantages of a square stroke? Definitely not.

I'm a mediocre recreational golfer and so take my comments for the pixels they're displayed on, but I believe Dave Pelz has contributed more to teaching and understanding golf than any other person in the last 50 years.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Oh, JP, you'll learn some day.

If square to square were as easy as you like to suggest - and as "easy" as Pelz (used to like) likes to suggest - more pros would putt that way. After all, their livelihood depends on it, and yet almost none putt that way, yet we see claw grips, belly putters, and all manner of methods and implements - almost none of which are square to square.

If square to square were the better method, "all other things being equal" or not, more pros would putt that way.

It isn't.

Go ahead and respond all you want, JP; those simple facts won't change, and I'm quick to tire of talking about Dave Pelz.

[ron van rootselaar]

Scotty's putters are extremely well built. Do they match up with the putting stroke? Lot of hype.