Page 1 of 3 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    18

    Default John Jacobs, Tom Watson and a Clubface Pull

    I read some critical comments about John Jacobs in a Jim Hardy review on this site.

    I worked for Jacobs for a while early 90's; watched him teach a lot, did 8-10 schools with him. He knows clubface pulls (swing plane aimed to the right) - I can think of three that I saw him fix. In fact, he told me of a lesson, once, that he [u]wouldn't give Tom Watson (it was before a Ryder Cup and Jacobs was the English captain).

    He later told Watson that he put his chubface down 'too strong' at address (that is with too little loft on the clubface (his hands too far in front of the ball.) This made him 'see' his swing as more upright and 'straight' up and down than it should have been - it gave him a lot of power but prone to wildness with the driver although good with the wedges. And (you are right) a lot of pull hooks even though he swung up to the right. His club would the shallow out too much in the downswing (the clubhead too far behind his hands), too flat compared to his original plane angle with his arms too far out.

    Jacobs correction (he gave it Watson 6 months later and he won right away) was to set the clubface at address back more OPEN, with the club resting more on the bounce. From here, turn back flat and sling the clubface under the ball. This then led to shots that stayed to far right - which then forced Watson to have to rotate his arms back to square the clubface to complete his arc. The result: lower straighter shots.

    This is truly good instruction - I'm not sure, though, that it would be how I would do it - but it accomplished many things; not to mention a victory. Jacobs used the problem ball flight (the high righters and low pulls) that Watson got, changed something at address (the clubface) and this then pushed Watson to have to fix his real error (a swing that was too upright where the arms didn't rotate enough).

    Thinking back, I would say that John Jacobs knows a lot about the clubface. He always said it was the [u]most important thing to get right in teaching. He would walk past someone hitting on the line (not watching him) and say "I bet that one went high and right". It took me a long time to figure it out but he used the sound of the hit as a big indicator of what happened at impact. He could tell (and anyone can, once they try) if someone had too little loft, too much, open, closed just by the sound of the club hitting the ball and the ground it. The sound of someone hitting with too little loft is quite sharp (imagine the sound of a sharp edge cutting the ground whereas with too much loft or too open gives a dull thud as it bounces across the turf.

    But even though Jacobs talked about the clubface all the time it was the relationship between the clubface and the swing plane that he used to create a change.

    So, it is acceptable to make comments that are negative if they are based on facts. And it seems the writers have very little understanding of what others do, think and know. But in this case they were not; and they might have been hurtful to those impacted.

    Obviously, Jacobs didn't become what he did using Homer Kelley's book. But he was/is a really effective instructor of anyone (absolute chopper to tour players)who needs quick help. But what's wrong with that ? Just because it wasn't invented here doesn't mean it's no good.



  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    What's wrong with Jacobs is what he writes in his book, "Practical Golf". He believes and teaches that the arms should drop independently of the shoulders and immediately in the downswing. In TGM terms, this is a dumping of accumulator #4 as soon as possible. He states that all pros do this and that this characterizes good golf swings. This is nothing more than the old bogus slicing cure of swinging the arms down into the ball from the inside, from behind closed shoulders.

  3. #3
    Steve Khatib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    744

    Default

    Mizuno Joe is correct, but he is not the only teacher to fall for this illusion. They just dont get axis tilt and the power package/pivot relationship.
    It's nice to be in the know!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    .
    Posts
    172

    Default

    quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

    What's wrong with Jacobs is what he writes in his book, "Practical Golf". He believes and teaches that the arms should drop independently of the shoulders and immediately in the downswing. In TGM terms, this is a dumping of accumulator #4 as soon as possible. He states that all pros do this and that this characterizes good golf swings. This is nothing more than the old bogus slicing cure of swinging the arms down into the ball from the inside, from behind closed shoulders.
    This is a great question.
    Does the arms move independently of body on downswing?
    G.S.E.B.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    18

    Default

    I thought "The Golfing Machine" allowed for every possible variation and stroke choice ? So, if that's Jacobs choice would "the BOOK" not allow it ?

    Let's build a house of many colours, where there is a room for all.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Yes, it's allowed, but it has accumulator #4 throwaway. Not all patterns are effective in compressing the ball.

  7. #7
    Senior Member tongzilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    2,387

    Default

    quote:Originally posted by ian d m

    I thought "The Golfing Machine" allowed for every possible variation and stroke choice ? So, if that's Jacobs choice would "the BOOK" not allow it ?

    Let's build a house of many colours, where there is a room for all.
    Homer even said that you can choose to use Clubhead Throwaway!

    Does that mean you're going to make that part of your basic pattern?

    Uh...no...
    Leo

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca, USA.
    Posts
    219

    Default

    No #4 throwaway with Bart Bryant! Are you guys seeing the Tour Championship?
    That dude has a phenomenal move..that is, the release is a mechanical phenomenon.
    Want to learn what a great pivot, wrist conditions, and plane look like? Watch Bart.
    Furthermore, I wonder if Jacobs thought Trevino had his clubface too closed. Thummmmppp.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    14,793

    Default

    John Jacobs was a very good teacher of golf.

    But HE DID influnence the BOGUS "Ball Flight Laws" that Gary Wiren and The Toski Flick combo promoted to the DETRIMENT of golf and golfers everywhere.

    All patterns can be classified in TGM, but I don't know how many time I have to say it: "This site is about MY Teaching and teaching and learning in general."

    PERIOD.

    The Golfing Machine is a TOOL, a great tool, just like video. It happens to be a tool that has help me shape what I teach, with a basis in science.

    That's all.
    "All you have is the HUB PATH and the force and torque you apply to the club—that's the whole swing."

    Brian Manzella is Golf Digest's 37th ranked teacher in the USA and is a three time Golf Magazine Top 100 Instructor.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Its obviously your forum but you have chosen to make it public. This means certain laws govern what is said; these laws though aren't necessarily ones that you control. So, writing something derrogatory on here might be fun and may seem to advance your cause, much like a whisper behind your hand to someone at a coffee shop. But the laws that govern something written in a public forum are not sympathetic to something that might be untrue or damaging.


Page 1 of 3 12 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12