|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 2, 2013 14:00:47 GMT -5
See this Jeffy-forum thread discussion between Lifter and Jeffy. jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?545-Tush-Line/page2Jeffy stated-: " I really don't pay attention to steep and shallow. Maybe I should, but I don't. If it works for you, great. But don't expect me to engage in any discussion of "steep and shallow". I just tune it out." That's a big change from about 5 years ago when Jeffy was a Jim Hardy OPS/2PS acolyte. I am glad to see that Jeffy now believes that it is useless to think in terms of shallowing and steepening moves. I recently read Jim Hardy's latest book on the subject, and I think that it is a non-useful book that I would never recommend to any developing golfer. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 4, 2013 18:21:14 GMT -5
I don't think it is "useless". I continue to think it is an effective way to "band aid" poor impact (what Hardy calls "swing correction"), if the teacher knows enough. What Hardy found writing his book is that effectively applying the "shallow/steep" method requires a lot more knowledge than he realized. So, rather than write an encyclopedia (which would have been the correct approach), he dumbed it way down. I was very disappointed by his effort and think Hardy is well on his way out as an influential instructor.
For "swing building", I don't think about steep/shallow because I usually try to incorporate complete "bundles" of micro moves. The only possible exception arises when I'm working on moves that open the clubface, like lateral bend or right shoulder external rotation. Then I have to be sure to compensate for the opening with some early supination or I'll wind up flipping to get the face square.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 8, 2013 20:44:51 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote the following in response to Lifter in that Jeffy-forum thread-: My view is that the player should have a very specific swing model in mind, with a detailed set of blueprints clearly established. Range sessions should be devoted to bringing the actual swing more in-line with the model. There should be no need for any "sifting through the toolbox": the deviations from the model should be clear from video analysis and miss tendency, and the necessary fixes obvious from the blueprints. Then, work on the needed changes, in order of priority if need be. Just searching for one or two fixes that "work" during that particular session makes no sense to me. If you've only made two changes and you need 20, why would you expect the two random fixes to "work" the next day or the day after? And, when those fixes stop "working", then what, particularly if they came from different sets of blueprints? Do you discard one or both or try to hang onto them? No thank you!"
I can sympathize with Jeffy's position that one should hold a swing model in mind, and make many changes simultaneously in order to realize that swing model in actuality. If a golfer simply adds a single/random move to his golf swing when he really needs a large number of moves, why should he expect his golf swing to improve? How can one rationally expect single changes to have a positive effect?
Consider another situation - cwdlaw223 once stated that he is a great believer in using a TM device to get path/face/AoA readings. However, he also stated that he cannot hit the ball straight because he is aware that he has an OTT move action and a pro-flipping action. He also stated that he didn't want to change those features of his swing. Imagine a situation where he decides to learn to hit the ball straight, but he doesn't want to change his OTT and pro-flipping swing tendencies. How can he introduce a single swing change that will be beneficial if he doesn't have a "very specific swing model, with a detailed set of blueprints", in mind that will allow him to hit the ball straight?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Jan 8, 2013 21:18:02 GMT -5
Jeff said "How can one rationally expect single changes to have a positive effect?"
I think this is nonsense, sometimes there might only be one piece wrong that needs correction to get a player hitting the ball where they want.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 8, 2013 21:33:56 GMT -5
I agree - if there is only one missing piece in the puzzle.
However, my premise (and presumably Jeffy's) was that a golfer really needed to introduce multiple changes to achieve a specific mental swing model that he has in mind. Then the question becomes - how to evaluate the potential benefit of a single swing change.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Jan 8, 2013 21:48:53 GMT -5
Jeff said "How can one rationally expect single changes to have a positive effect?" I think this is nonsense, sometimes there might only be one piece wrong that needs correction to get a player hitting the ball where they want.[/size] That's the objective of the Jim Hardy "plus/minus" system Band-Aid approach. Doesn't work worth a damn for swing building.
|
|