quote:
Originally posted by mandrin
quote:Originally posted by bpgs1
Mandrin - are you familiar with the history of "Square to Square" method created in the late sixties by Jim Flick and Dick Aultman? Golf Digest did a bunch of articles on it and it was heralded as "The New Move" that would solve every golfers woes. They were teaching it at the very first Golf Digest schools. I tried it faithfully and it ruined my game as a promising junior player. I actually quit golf at age 15 it got so bad.
was at the second MORAD school that Mac put on in 94 with a dozen other teaching professionals and at lunch one day we all got to talking about square to square and lo and behold five of us at that table had all tried it, ruined each of our games, and three of us quit for some time! And we were not alone. A few years ago Jim Flick demonstrated what a true gentleman he is by writing a letter to Golf Digest actually apologizing to the golf community for creating and advocating the method. He readily admitted it was deeply flawed. The curling under part as I recall wasnt the really bad part, it was some other stuff which I have thankfully managed to totally forget! And from what I have been reading here about how effective Brian's teaching concepts are, I doubt very much if his stuff is anything like square to square. Respectfully,
Jim Waldron
Jim,
The first book , ‘The Square-to-Square Golf Swing’, published by Dick Aultman and the Golf Digest staff of journalists, was followed by a second one, ‘Square–to-Square Golf in Pictures’, by Jim Flick. Its purpose, to try save the method as there had been difficulties in understanding and application by high handicappers.
I don’t really think S-t-S Golf so much as a method but more as an effort to teach the general accepted ideas of the pre 70 era. There is too much of a forward bend and steep back swing. It is a lead side dominant swing as most instruction of that time.
I don’t really see it to be seriously flawed. Most of the elements in these two books are still with us in golf instruction. I believe however that the ’curling under’ move of the last three fingers of the lead hand is a subtle but very valuable bit of instruction. IMO it is the same as Brian’s twist-away.
You mentioned in one post eloquently the problem of communication in golf. Probably too often a nightmare for teachers with many students. In the second book Jim Flick relates to this relative to ‘curling under’.
Jim explains that he prefers now using ‘setting the angle’ instead of ‘curling under’ since many readers interpreted it to mean such an extreme counter-clockwise turning of the hands that the right wrist actually began to crawl over the left during the takeaway and lock. Many problems as a result.
