|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 27, 2011 13:03:11 GMT -5
I have read here, and other places like Manzella's and WRX that the keep it simple stupid and the golf swing is a natural athletic motion, like baseball, is the best way to approach the golf swing.
I cannot agree with that thinking. Its that very thinking that hundreds of very basic golf swing books have been written with very little advancement in teaching. I must have read 10 books the past couple months written between 1950 and 1990 and all of them pretty much read the same, grip, alignment, swing the club up, swing it at the target, just stay out of the way. Strong grip if you want to hook it, weak grip if you want to slice it. Blah blah blah.
I guess I would say if its such a natural motion why is it so hard?
For example, I am a pretty good athlete for a big guy, played 3 sports in high school and was very good at stick and ball games, was good enough to get a college football scholarship, bowl 200 games regularly, play high level pool but playing good golf has been very difficult, it certainly does not fit my natural ability to play other sports.
I have run the gambit on the "natural" swing teachers, and I will say that they helped me go from my slice it off the planet 280 swing to a swing that I could at least play with. Still though there was a limit to what they were teaching me.
It was not until meeting TGM based teachers (I include Jeff in that mix) that some of these "natural" movements were explained and why they were not working for me. The fact that if you mix this component with this one it can be oil and water. The non working "natural" has been somewhat explained.
Bottom line, while the golf swing is an athletic motion I certainly cannot call it a natural motion.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 27, 2011 13:35:05 GMT -5
The golf swing can be a natural motion.
I think that what complicates the issue is the fact that a golfer has two arms/hands, which he can use in a non-synergistic pull-push scenario. Also, he can use the arms independent of the torso, which can also complicate matters.
However, look at how natural Annika Sorenstam swings.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 27, 2011 14:18:36 GMT -5
Yes it "looks" natural because she is probably the greatest female golfer in history. Certainly making back and forth swinging of the club is natural for most, but the right impact conditions just don't happen because of this "natural" swing. There are way to many complicating factors that screw it up, if there were not there would be a lot of single digit players, where I think that number resides around 5% of golfers, maybe less.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 27, 2011 15:22:53 GMT -5
Greg,
I agree that there are many complicating factors why golfers screw up a natural swing action eg. trying to perform a CP-release action where one swings out-to-in relative to the body/stance line by adopting a stance that is closed to the HSP.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by aimsmithgolf on Feb 27, 2011 16:44:50 GMT -5
Greg,
Despite the difficulty of the golf swing, it is primarily a natural action. The golf swing itself only makes up around 50% overall of the playing of the game itself. So there are many other factors involved in playing scratch golf.
How did golfers learn the swing before high speed cameras and video? By copying a swing. They copied an action, a fluid movement. Instructors taught by demonstration. Do you think it ever occurred to them to break down the swing into parts and study it segment by segment in static form? Indeed most all great golfers learned that way including Tiger Woods, who watched his father demonstrate in front of him starting at around 2 years old.
Most golfers today are learning the game BACKWARDS. They are learning positions, which without the essential factor of swinging, is almost useless. Now this does not mean that what we are doing here on these forums with swing position analysis is wasted time. They are very valuable indeed ONCE a golfer has a swing to control! Unfortunately most of the members of these forums don't.
The easiest and fastest way to learn golf is by instinct and by copying. Unfortunately when we grow older we lose this imitative ability. There are exceptions but most of your great golfers started around 10 to 12 years old.
I'll have more to say on this and other similar topics in March.
Rand
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 27, 2011 18:38:20 GMT -5
Greg, I agree that there are many complicating factors why golfers screw up a natural swing action eg. trying to perform a CP-release action where one swings out-to-in relative to the body/stance line by adopting a stance that is closed to the HSP. Jeff. Like this guy?
|
|
|
Post by teeitup on Feb 27, 2011 18:38:48 GMT -5
Greg, I agree that there are many complicating factors why golfers screw up a natural swing action eg. trying to perform a CP-release action where one swings out-to-in relative to the body/stance line by adopting a stance that is closed to the HSP. Jeff. There are many "natural ways" to swing a club, they may look different and some may not look fluid and smooth to the eye, there is no one natural swing action, i'll take the one that works for me and could care less if it looks "natural". If it's a cp release that's out to in relative to my stance and i hit it like i want that's my "natural swing" for me. Did Moe Norman look natural? and the funny thing is they patterned a method from his swing called... you guessed it Natural Golf, how ironic, how about Jim Furyk? Pretty is as pretty does.
|
|
|
Post by teeitup on Feb 27, 2011 18:40:41 GMT -5
Greg, I agree that there are many complicating factors why golfers screw up a natural swing action eg. trying to perform a CP-release action where one swings out-to-in relative to the body/stance line by adopting a stance that is closed to the HSP. Jeff. Like this guy? That's funny cause i was going to mention Sam S. as well. Gee i wonder what his action was...lol.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 27, 2011 18:52:21 GMT -5
Despite the difficulty of the golf swing, it is primarily a natural action. The golf swing itself only makes up around 50% overall of the playing of the game itself. So there are many other factors involved in playing scratch golf. Of course there are, if my short game is on I can shoot in the 70's left handed. Pitching is not too difficult and putting is probably the easiest part of the game. Anyone who practices either should be relatively good at it despite their athletic ability. Greg, Despite the difficulty of the golf swing, it is primarily a natural action. The golf swing itself only makes up around 50% overall of the playing of the game itself. So there are many other factors involved in playing scratch golf. How did golfers learn the swing before high speed cameras and video? By copying a swing. They copied an action, a fluid movement. Instructors taught by demonstration. Do you think it ever occurred to them to break down the swing into parts and study it segment by segment in static form? Hogan sure did break it down into static form, he wrote his book with lots of static pictures of positions, so you have to be talking pre-1957? I don't kneed a camera to look at different positions a player is in during the swing, I might need them to take a few swings though to look at different positions. I do think high speed camera's have helped instructors teach and people learn the golf swing. First lesson I ever had was an old guy with no camera, his comment on my 30 yard slice"man you go at it pretty hard, we got t get you to take it back slow and slow down on the through swing. Guy was a 30 year pro, this was 1995 or so. My second lesson was a guy with a camera, he put me up next to Faldo, showed my reverse pivot so I could "see" the error, mentally since I "saw" the mistake my own athleticism fixed the error in one lesson. The easiest and fastest way to learn golf is by instinct and by copying. Unfortunately when we grow older we lose this imitative ability. There are exceptions but most of your great golfers started around 10 to 12 years old. When I was about 16 or so I used to hit balls with my friends dad who was a mini tour player, I tried copying him to no avail. Guy was good, still hold the course record of 62 at Greyhawk. He would not give teaching advice though, not sure why. Anyway, he was 5-7 with a very upright swing, wrong person I guess for me to copy. Looking forward to your project, I read everything and digest.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 27, 2011 18:56:23 GMT -5
Teeitup,
Just another point,
I have no idea what stance line has to do with baseline tracing as TGM calls it, in fact TGM creates many different configurations a player could use.
Good thing Trevino did not stick to the HSP created by his open stance line.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 27, 2011 19:09:02 GMT -5
Greg,
I don't believe that Sam Snead stood with his pelvis/chest/shoulders significantly closed to his HSP.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 27, 2011 19:17:26 GMT -5
Greg, I don't believe that Sam Snead stood with his pelvis/chest/shoulders significantly closed to his HSP. Jeff. Neither does Mac, who does that is a good player? 5 degrees is the number I have heard in Morad. I would say though Trevino was 20 degrees open, maybe more, same with couples.
|
|
|
Post by teeitup on Feb 27, 2011 19:37:54 GMT -5
Teeitup, Just another point, I have no idea what stance line has to do with baseline tracing as TGM calls it, in fact TGM creates many different configurations a player could use. Good thing Trevino did not stick to the HSP created by his open stance line. I agree 100% and i like what Moe N. said, do what suits you , no 2 people swing the same. The hard part is finding what suits you.
|
|
|
Post by natep on Feb 27, 2011 21:46:45 GMT -5
I like the baseball analogy for golf, but I think the golf swing is more like pitching than batting.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 27, 2011 22:18:34 GMT -5
I put this together, thought it was a cool swing.
|
|