John Jacobs on Process

[Lifter]

I thought I'd briefly describe how John Jacobs thought about the ideal way to improve golf swings and see whether people on the forum agree with him.

Right now, you shouldn't be working on six different swing changes. Instead, you should only be working on one or two particular changes to your swing. If your impacts are too steep, you need one or two shallowing moves. If your impacts are too shallow, you need one or two steepening moves.

If your impacts are neutral (zeroed out?), then to hit the ball longer and straighter you have to add one steepening and one shallowing move. The trick is finding which two particular moves help you the most at this particular moment. And you'll know they help you a lot by observing ballflight, TrackMan, video, etc.

If those two moves result in better ballflight, then you'll incorporate them. Eventually, you will have mastered them so well that you can add another shallowing move and another steepening move that make your ballflight even better! Plus, you'll have made huge strides toward making your swing resemble "optimal." Rinse, wash, repeat.

Do you guys agree that this is the way the general process is supposed to work? Or do you think it should ideally work some other way?

 

[Erik_K]

Jim Hardy also has a book that basically delivers the same advice. He looks at the flight of the ball (or common faults) and then prescribes shallowing or steepening elements that fix the problem. Overall I like the approach because you are looking at the results and trying to come up with a mix of moves that eliminates the root of the problem.

John's advice about working on just 1-2 things at a time is very solid. Nowadays we are bombarded with just so much information that is all too easy to get carried away on the course. The student may be dead before the club reaches hip height if he/she is trying to remember 5-6 swing tips all at the same time. But maybe one swing thought related to the problem in question is manageable.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Jim Hardy was a disciple of Jacobs. All Jacobs disciples recite his theories verbatim. Good stuff.

 

[Lifter]

Jim Hardy was a disciple of Jacobs. All Jacobs disciples recite his theories verbatim. Good stuff.

It's interesting to me that so many famous instructors (including Butch Harmon and Hank Haney) were heavily influenced by Jacobs. Yet I've heard virtually none of them describing the process the way I just did above.

I'm genuinely curious why that is.

 

[tongzilla]

It's interesting to me that so many famous instructors (including Butch Harmon and Hank Haney) were heavily influenced by Jacobs. Yet I've heard virtually none of them describing the process the way I just did above.

I'm genuinely curious why that is.

To differentiate themselves in the market?

 

[Lifter]

To differentiate themselves in the market?

I dunno. Seems to me that if an instructor explained himself more in terms of steep / shallow, that would help his business rather than hurt it. It's great if certain swing changes help a student. But it's much more powerful if the student understands why the instructor's medicine is helping.

 

[coach]

Before Jim Hardy fully developed his theory of the one and two-plane swing, he developed his theory of "width at the bottom", for want of a better term. Its primary application is for swing correction. In his theory, Jim has categorized how every swing element either adds or subtracts width at the bottom of the swing. The goal is to make sure that these elements are equally balanced (since they tend to offset each other) so neutral impact is achieved. In general, swing elements that tend to make the club shallower at impact add "width", while elements that make impact steeper subtract "width" or make the bottom "narrower".

Some swing elements' effect on steepness or width are obvious: weight on the front foot "steepens" impact, on the back foot "widens" or "shallows" impact; spine tilt away from the target "widens", spine tilt toward the target "steepens"; more bend at the waist "steepens", more upright posture "widens"; a flat arm swing "shallows" or "widens", a vertical arm swing "steepens" or "narrows"; downcocking the wrists "steepens", casting "widens" or "shallows"; swinging in-to-out "shallows", swinging out-to-in "steepens".

Less obvious are how some of the elements of the arms, hands and wrist effect width. In general, an open or opening club face shallows or widens the bottom, a closed or closing club face steepens. Accordingly, a weak grip, a cupped left wrist at the top and "blocking" forearms (i.e., resisting rotation) are all "shallowing"; in contrast, a strong grip, a bowed left wrist at the top and rotating the forearms counterclockwise in the downswing are "steepening".

 

[Lifter]

And if you don't believe that strengthening the grip is "steepening," just strengthen you grip more and notice how much deeper the divots you make are!

 

[Kevin Shields]

It's interesting to me that so many famous instructors (including Butch Harmon and Hank Haney) were heavily influenced by Jacobs. Yet I've heard virtually none of them describing the process the way I just did above.

I'm genuinely curious why that is.

I'm sure you haven't read or heard everything every one of them has said or written

 

[Kevin Shields]

Before Jim Hardy fully developed his theory of the one and two-plane swing, he developed his theory of "width at the bottom", for want of a better term. Its primary application is for swing correction. In his theory, Jim has categorized how every swing element either adds or subtracts width at the bottom of the swing. The goal is to make sure that these elements are equally balanced (since they tend to offset each other) so neutral impact is achieved. In general, swing elements that tend to make the club shallower at impact add "width", while elements that make impact steeper subtract "width" or make the bottom "narrower".

Some swing elements' effect on steepness or width are obvious: weight on the front foot "steepens" impact, on the back foot "widens" or "shallows" impact; spine tilt away from the target "widens", spine tilt toward the target "steepens"; more bend at the waist "steepens", more upright posture "widens"; a flat arm swing "shallows" or "widens", a vertical arm swing "steepens" or "narrows"; downcocking the wrists "steepens", casting "widens" or "shallows"; swinging in-to-out "shallows", swinging out-to-in "steepens".

Less obvious are how some of the elements of the arms, hands and wrist effect width. In general, an open or opening club face shallows or widens the bottom, a closed or closing club face steepens. Accordingly, a weak grip, a cupped left wrist at the top and "blocking" forearms (i.e., resisting rotation) are all "shallowing"; in contrast, a strong grip, a bowed left wrist at the top and rotating the forearms counterclockwise in the downswing are "steepening".

Agree with everything, have put a lot of it into my teaching, have seen it work on numerous students by several different teachers. Ultimately, it's limited by simplicity by omission IMO. If it wasn't, Hardy would still be on top of the mountain.

 

[DCgolf]

Kevin could you explain simplicity by omission. Thx

 

[Kevin Shields]

Well, regarding the "Plane Truth" book, lumping swings into two categories was a huge mistake for the long term. It sold a lot of books but ultimately important details that were omitted for the sake of simplicity was its undoing ultimately. Obviously, there's nothing to disagree with regarding matching + and - to find the right amount of turf. That's been a huge part of my development as a teacher and learner.

 

[DCgolf]

Yes of course we have discussed this at length. We are all oriented to the craft of golf instruction by different people and schools of thought. I have always considered myself fortunate that mine was John.

 

[Lifter]

Here's a question for you, Kevin: is "zeroing out" a more-sophisticated version of "neutralizing" impact?

 

[Kevin Shields]

Here's a question for you, Kevin: is "zeroing out" a more-sophisticated version of "neutralizing" impact?

No. Neutralizing impact is purely contact with the ball/turf. Zeroing out is path and face for a straight shot.

 

[DCgolf]

Right I can lay sod over it and zero it out. And I can hit a massive slice with neutral impact.

 

[Lifter]

No. Neutralizing impact is purely contact with the ball/turf. Zeroing out is path and face for a straight shot.

Hey, what do you know. That's the first time I've ever been wrong!

 

[bryan@nobackswing.com]

Before Jim Hardy fully developed his theory of the one and two-plane swing, he developed his theory of "width at the bottom", for want of a better term. Its primary application is for swing correction. In his theory, Jim has categorized how every swing element either adds or subtracts width at the bottom of the swing. The goal is to make sure that these elements are equally balanced (since they tend to offset each other) so neutral impact is achieved. In general, swing elements that tend to make the club shallower at impact add "width", while elements that make impact steeper subtract "width" or make the bottom "narrower".

Some swing elements' effect on steepness or width are obvious: weight on the front foot "steepens" impact, on the back foot "widens" or "shallows" impact; spine tilt away from the target "widens", spine tilt toward the target "steepens"; more bend at the waist "steepens", more upright posture "widens"; a flat arm swing "shallows" or "widens", a vertical arm swing "steepens" or "narrows"; downcocking the wrists "steepens", casting "widens" or "shallows"; swinging in-to-out "shallows", swinging out-to-in "steepens".

Less obvious are how some of the elements of the arms, hands and wrist effect width. In general, an open or opening club face shallows or widens the bottom, a closed or closing club face steepens. Accordingly, a weak grip, a cupped left wrist at the top and "blocking" forearms (i.e., resisting rotation) are all "shallowing"; in contrast, a strong grip, a bowed left wrist at the top and rotating the forearms counterclockwise in the downswing are "steepening".

excellent stuff, reminiscent of a lot of ideas Trevino talked about in Groove Your Golf Swing My Way.

 

[Bigwill]

Before Jim Hardy fully developed his theory of the one and two-plane swing, he developed his theory of "width at the bottom", for want of a better term. Its primary application is for swing correction. In his theory, Jim has categorized how every swing element either adds or subtracts width at the bottom of the swing. The goal is to make sure that these elements are equally balanced (since they tend to offset each other) so neutral impact is achieved. In general, swing elements that tend to make the club shallower at impact add "width", while elements that make impact steeper subtract "width" or make the bottom "narrower".

Some swing elements' effect on steepness or width are obvious: weight on the front foot "steepens" impact, on the back foot "widens" or "shallows" impact; spine tilt away from the target "widens", spine tilt toward the target "steepens"; more bend at the waist "steepens", more upright posture "widens"; a flat arm swing "shallows" or "widens", a vertical arm swing "steepens" or "narrows"; downcocking the wrists "steepens", casting "widens" or "shallows"; swinging in-to-out "shallows", swinging out-to-in "steepens".

Less obvious are how some of the elements of the arms, hands and wrist effect width. In general, an open or opening club face shallows or widens the bottom, a closed or closing club face steepens. Accordingly, a weak grip, a cupped left wrist at the top and "blocking" forearms (i.e., resisting rotation) are all "shallowing"; in contrast, a strong grip, a bowed left wrist at the top and rotating the forearms counterclockwise in the downswing are "steepening".

Interesting stuff. Do certain elements work better at offsetting each other than other elements, I wonder?

It's funny; this kinda helps explain why certain things work better for me than others.

 

[birly-shirly]

I thought I'd briefly describe how John Jacobs thought about the ideal way to improve golf swings and see whether people on the forum agree with him.

Right now, you shouldn't be working on six different swing changes. Instead, you should only be working on one or two particular changes to your swing. If your impacts are too steep, you need one or two shallowing moves. If your impacts are too shallow, you need one or two steepening moves.

If your impacts are neutral (zeroed out?), then to hit the ball longer and straighter you have to add one steepening and one shallowing move. The trick is finding which two particular moves help you the most at this particular moment. And you'll know they help you a lot by observing ballflight, TrackMan, video, etc.

If those two moves result in better ballflight, then you'll incorporate them. Eventually, you will have mastered them so well that you can add another shallowing move and another steepening move that make your ballflight even better! Plus, you'll have made huge strides toward making your swing resemble "optimal." Rinse, wash, repeat.

Do you guys agree that this is the way the general process is supposed to work? Or do you think it should ideally work some other way?

Where does this come from? I'd be curious to read it.

I might have guessed Hardy or Haney (who both worked with JJ, I believe), but the emphasis on steep and shallow doesn't sound very Jacobs to me.