From pre to post test, the HU group demonstrated a significant decrease in putter speed variability (2.28 to 1.93 cm/s) relative to the HD group (2.21 to 2.34 cm/s), F(1,29) = 6.36, p =.017 (Fig. 2A). Putter speed variability was significantly less for all conditions from 1.2 m (1.75 cm/s) in comparison to the 4.0 m distance (2.63 cm/s), F(1,29) = 39.5, p <.001 (Fig. 2B). There was also a significant test by distance interaction as putter speed variability decreased from 1.2 m (1.91 to 1.58 cm/s), but slightly increased from 4.0 m (2.57 to 2.69 cm/s), F(1,29) = 4.86, p =.036 (Fig. 2B). All participants, regardless of test, gaze, or group putted significantly closer to the optimal speed from 4.0 m (-13.8 cm/s) in comparison to the optimal speed from 1.2 m distance (-18.3 cm/s), F(1,29) = 36.8, p <.001. Also, regardless of test, group, gaze, or distance the actual putter speeds were found to be significantly lower than the predicted optimal speeds. The smallest difference (-11.1 cm/s) occurred from the 4 m distance, on the post test, by the HD group employing the HU gaze, t(15) = -7.97, p <.001. ●Pelz (2000) suggested that imparting the ball with the correct speed is four times more important than the correct line. Following practice, focusing on the hole while putting yielded significantly less variability in putter head speed compared to focusing on the ball. This could be attributed to the fact that while using the head’s up technique, the participants were not forced to retain an image of the putt in memory. ●There was significantly higher putter speed variability on longer putts. This was expected since an increasing level of effort is associated with a higher level of variability in most skills. ●Amateur golfers, such as the participants in this study, tend to underestimate the speed with which to strike the ball (Pelz, 2000). This underestimation was enhanced in the present study due to the fast speed of the synthetic surface (stimp = 11.5). As the participants were not given feedback on the optimal speed, an improvement in this variable on the post test was not expected. ●The participants were able to putt closer to the optimal speed for the shorter putt. This was likely due to the ratio of the “comeback” putt length to the initial putt length, even though sinking the “comeback” putt was not part of this study. For example, hitting the ball 50 cm past the hole on a 4.0 m putt seems better than hitting it 50 cm past the hole on a 1.2 m putt. ●While demonstrating potential benefit for the average golfing population, the head’s up technique may be particularly beneficial for golfers suffering from the ‘yips’. The ‘yips’ is a condition which consists of involuntary movements such as jerks, tremors or freezing in the hands and forearms (Filmalter, 2008). The ‘yips’ are directly related to the golfer’s anticipation of impact as they watch the putter head approach the ball during the stroke. Employing the head’s up technique would remove the visual stimulus which would reduce the golfer’s ability to anticipate impact. Andrew Adamczyk and Sasho MacKenzie Andrew Adamczyk and Sasho MacKenzie Department of n Kinetics Department of Human Kinetics St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia According to PGA Tour statistics, the putting stroke accounted for approximately 40% of all strokes made during tournament rounds of golf in 2008 (“PGA Putts Per Round”, 2008; “PGA Scoring Average”, 2008). Although common knowledge when putting is to keep your head still and focus at the ball, there have been efforts to prove otherwise. Bowen (1968) concluded that there was no significant difference between gazing at the hole (HU) or gazing at the ball (HD) in terms of putting success. Pelz (2000) stated that putter head speed is four times more important than direction in determining the success of a putt. Labbs (1973) found that direction cues where more easily retained in memory than distance cues. His results showed that distance errors accounted for 60.5% of all missed putts where as only 39.5% of misses resulted from directional errors. Putter speed determines how far the ball will roll and, when using the HD method, is based on the golfer’s ability to retain an image of the putt in memory. The objective was to investigate the influence of gaze location (HU, HD) on putter speed variability and the difference in putter speed from the optimal speed. The influence of the two different gaze locations on putter speed was examined using a pre-test, training, and post-test study design. Testing consisted of having all participants (N=31) putt using both gaze techniques from both a 1.2 and 4.0 m distance. Participants were divided into two matched groups based on their pre-test putting performance to ensure similar putting skill in each group. One group practiced using the HU technique, while the second group practiced using the HD technique. Participants attended five practice sessions spread out over a four week period. During each practice session participants hit 50 putts from 1.2 m and 50 putts from 4.0 m. All putts were straight, flat putts which was confirmed with a putting robot. Putter speed was measured with an optical recording system specifically designed for the putting stroke (TOMI ® ). A 2x2x2x2 (test by group by gaze by distance) ANOVA was performed to test for any statistical significance among the independent variables. Filmalter, M., Noizet, P., Poppel, E., & Murthi, B. (2008). Motor strategies disturbances in golf: the effect of ‘Yips’ on the movement of the putterhead. In Crews D, Lutz R Science and Golf (5th Ed.), Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf (pp ). Laabs, G. J. (1973). Retention characteristics of different reproduction cues in motor short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(1), Pelz, D. (2000). Dave Pelz’s putting bible. New York: Doubleday. Tanner, K. (2001). Stimpmeter – measuring putting green speed. Retrieved February 2009, From PGA Tour 2008 Putts Per Round. (2008). Retrieved March 19, 2009 From PGA Tour 2008 Scoring Avg. (Actual). (2008). Retrieved March 19, 2009 From A putting robot was used to systematically increase putter speed starting at a level in which all putts fell short of the hole through to a speed in which all putts passed over the hole, or lipped out. In total, eight putter speeds were evaluated. For each speed increment, the orientation of the putting robot relative to the hole was adjusted by ± 2.5 cm so that 10 putts were aimed at the left side of the hole, 10 at the center, and 10 at the right side. This variability was implemented to account for directional inconsistencies in a real golfer’s stroke. A cubic spline was then fitted to the data in order to predict the putter speed which would yield the most successful putts. This process was completed for both the 1.2 m and 4.0 m putt distances separately. Optimal putter speed at impact was calculated to be 138 cm/s for putts from 4.0 m and 101 cm/s for putts from 1.2 m. The Effect of Gaze Location on Projecting the Ball with the Optimal Speed during Putting Green speed is typically measured using a Stimpmeter, which rolls a ball onto the green at a consistent speed of 1.83 m/s (Tanner, 2001). The distance the ball travels (in feet) is the speed or ‘stimp’ of the green. In lieu of a Stimpmeter, 10 putts were hit with a putter with ball speeds between 1.6 and 2.0 m/s. Ball speed was determined using a high speed camera (250 fps). The distance each ball travelled was recorded. A linear regression was performed on the data yielding an equation that allowed distance to be predicted from ball speed. Entering the ball speed generated by a Stimpmeter into the prediction equation provided an estimate of green speed. The synthetic putting surface, on which all putts were executed during the study was determined to have a stimp reading of This is considered fast by PGA standards. BA Fig.2 (A) Standard deviation of putter head speed at impact for both groups during pre test and post test. (B) Standard deviation of putter head speed at impact from both distances during pre test and post test. GREEN SPEED DISCUSSIONINTRODUCTION METHODS TOMI ® camera TOMI ® clip Golfer’s gaze is fixed on the hole during the putt Fig. 1 Head's up putting technique captured using the TOMI ® system. REFERENCES OPTIMAL PUTTER SPEED RESULTS PuttingRobot