Orthodox or Not?
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Brian Manzella
Administrator
A lot of questions, answers, and weird stuff....
That's very true, EVERY one of my students swings look different. Some folks can line up their students and they look all alike.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think if you went to some country in the world, that is undeveloped, no TV, no idea of what golf is, and gave them some clubs and told them what the object of the game is, they'd wind up looking like Charlie Wie?
Let me repeat for the folks who may have missed it:
I think that model is fine for the right golfer. I think that percentage of the golf population is less than 5%.
I do not agree with lots of things they say, and even less of what their followers do. That is my right as an independent teacher and an American.
I started teaching when I was 20, and I am 49 now.
When I started teaching EVERY TEACHER in GOLF, and the busiest teacher in New Orleans—or anywhere else, Jimmy Self—taught a dead still head to everybody.
Why does anyone think Jimmy Ballard got so rich?
Fixing 20 years of dead still heads and reverse pivots. Somebody is going to be Jimmy Ballard again. Mark it down.
If you go to ANY DRIVING RANGE, all the hackers have massive reverse pivots, steep shoulders, and their heads don't move back a lick.
I thought it was the secret?
I teach lots of families. It is an absolute fact that the "DNA of the swing" exists.
Jack was influenced by the swings on the tour in the late 60's and got way too left leaning. He struggled and adjusted, and didn't have to adjust again until 1979.
Yes.
Tom Watson, Johnny Miller, Tom Weiskoff, Jack Nicklaus.
Four of the greatest players of all-time, four of the greatest ball strikers of all time.
Upright swings.
Like I've said before, go ahead and teach flat to everyone. Leave the rest to me.
#1 predictor of where low point will be—hand location pre-imapct.
At least three different swing scientists told us exactly that.
To get the hands forward enough requires a path that is not too inside-out, a right shoulder that is far enough forward, and a few other things I'd rather keep to myself.
A strong minded son of a gun by ANY measure. Don't let 2010 fool you.
I am 49. I weigh 200, at least 30 too many. My vertical jump is about a box of Titleists.
Tiger can come out to Norman playground anytime he wants, and try to cover me on the football field. You think his knees are bad now....
Jack Nicklaus was absolutely a better all-around athlete than Tiger ever thought of being. Jack played four sports in High-School. I started at Free-Safety, in the Superdome, playing what is now 5A football at 15 years old.
Tiger does look good in those custom tailored Nikes though.
Unless someone tells you not to.
Jack was longer vs. the field than Tiger, and straighter. Both were great long iron players. Jack was better with the middle-irons, Tiger with the shorter ones. Tiger has a 100 times better short game, but Jack is his equal in short putting.
I played with Persimmon. A perfect MacGregor.
JUNK compared to today's clubs. C'Mon Man.....
Everytime we agree, somebody ought to pull out a chisel.
??
That's very true, EVERY one of my students swings look different. Some folks can line up their students and they look all alike.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think if you went to some country in the world, that is undeveloped, no TV, no idea of what golf is, and gave them some clubs and told them what the object of the game is, they'd wind up looking like Charlie Wie?
Let me repeat for the folks who may have missed it:
I think that model is fine for the right golfer. I think that percentage of the golf population is less than 5%.
I do not agree with lots of things they say, and even less of what their followers do. That is my right as an independent teacher and an American.
I started teaching when I was 20, and I am 49 now.
When I started teaching EVERY TEACHER in GOLF, and the busiest teacher in New Orleans—or anywhere else, Jimmy Self—taught a dead still head to everybody.
Why does anyone think Jimmy Ballard got so rich?
Fixing 20 years of dead still heads and reverse pivots. Somebody is going to be Jimmy Ballard again. Mark it down.
If you go to ANY DRIVING RANGE, all the hackers have massive reverse pivots, steep shoulders, and their heads don't move back a lick.
I thought it was the secret?
Just my 2 eurocents. I think that we do have a golf swing "DNA", which relates to our actual DNA. My brother and father both swing similar to me and my son has these traits also. This is by no means proof, but a lot of big ideas arose out of such observations. I used to want to change my swing traits to tie it into some of the the things I liked about other swings but now I wouldn't EXchange my swing for another, whether it be Dustin, Tiger, Paul, Gmac or someone else for the simple reason it would NEVER work for ME.
You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your DNA!
I teach lots of families. It is an absolute fact that the "DNA of the swing" exists.
Jack was influenced by the swings on the tour in the late 60's and got way too left leaning. He struggled and adjusted, and didn't have to adjust again until 1979.
Yes.
Tom Watson, Johnny Miller, Tom Weiskoff, Jack Nicklaus.
Four of the greatest players of all-time, four of the greatest ball strikers of all time.
Upright swings.
Like I've said before, go ahead and teach flat to everyone. Leave the rest to me.
#1 predictor of where low point will be—hand location pre-imapct.
At least three different swing scientists told us exactly that.
To get the hands forward enough requires a path that is not too inside-out, a right shoulder that is far enough forward, and a few other things I'd rather keep to myself.
A strong minded son of a gun by ANY measure. Don't let 2010 fool you.
How old is Tiger? 32?
I am 49. I weigh 200, at least 30 too many. My vertical jump is about a box of Titleists.
Tiger can come out to Norman playground anytime he wants, and try to cover me on the football field. You think his knees are bad now....
Jack Nicklaus was absolutely a better all-around athlete than Tiger ever thought of being. Jack played four sports in High-School. I started at Free-Safety, in the Superdome, playing what is now 5A football at 15 years old.
Tiger does look good in those custom tailored Nikes though.
Unless someone tells you not to.
Jack was longer vs. the field than Tiger, and straighter. Both were great long iron players. Jack was better with the middle-irons, Tiger with the shorter ones. Tiger has a 100 times better short game, but Jack is his equal in short putting.
I played with Persimmon. A perfect MacGregor.
JUNK compared to today's clubs. C'Mon Man.....
Everytime we agree, somebody ought to pull out a chisel.
??
lia41985
New member
Longer than Tiger and orthodox: Dustin Johnson hits a 3-iron 253 yardsProGolfTalk
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJWVLYKxKIQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJWVLYKxKIQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJWVLYKxKIQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJWVLYKxKIQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
birdie_man
New
Oh ya baby! Feel the wind!
...
Good job Brian.
Didn't read the whole thread. Not yet anyhow. We'll see.
It always has been a silly debate.
Post the pics, post the pics...
natep said:
Ooooh ya bruther.
birdie_man
New
Wrote a post...didn't like something in it...deleted it...my do-over:
Huh??
Pretty bold man...
??
As for Tiger having no self-esteem...very debatable...esp. if we are talking about his winning past. (which was only a year ago, remember...)
C'mon guys. You ain't competing on The World Stage and winning because you are an unbalanced bum.
Or at least, just how unbalanced could you be?
Something good is going on...
Or maybe one can get by well in competition with only golf-specific skills?
The point stands though...how bad could it be? (World Stage Competitor, endorser, media deal-wither, etc. etc...it is not easy...)
Huh??
Pretty bold man...
??
As for Tiger having no self-esteem...very debatable...esp. if we are talking about his winning past. (which was only a year ago, remember...)
C'mon guys. You ain't competing on The World Stage and winning because you are an unbalanced bum.
Or at least, just how unbalanced could you be?
Something good is going on...
Or maybe one can get by well in competition with only golf-specific skills?
The point stands though...how bad could it be? (World Stage Competitor, endorser, media deal-wither, etc. etc...it is not easy...)
Last edited:
birdie_man
New
Finish a little overdone. I thought the rest was not bad. I wanna bring back those pants.
Impact is results! Most important. The rest is the How.
Why Leo? Maybe you are talking about the long armswing and lifting of left heel?
I still want to see if I can make the heel lift work. Bring it back baby. (maybe)
(if it works)........(I hope though)..........(longer pivot- and Style Points
)It is tough competing. And on a very high level no less. Stressful. Not sure about insecure. That environment/dynamic could break you down pretty easy though I must presume.
Competitive, dominant people can be pretty sensitive I think. And I don't mean teary. I mean "sensING."
Good point. A possibility.
"Head in the clouds" vs. "stuck in a rut."
Can't stand when people have head in the clouds. (though neither are desirable of course) Can't see who they are stepping on.
But "the fall can be far from up there." Eek.
Interesting. Your best post by a mile b90!
I wonder if it is an inherent weakness or just a way of travelling.
Norman said he'd hit it 360. Not sure how true. But I would say it's pretty safe to say he'd swing it 120+ with a modern driver.
Bust 130? Pretty damn close, or yes.
Anyone have figures on any swing speed numbers for Jack in or close to his prime?
Maybe true...but Jack was decent. Coulda practiced up that short game more I'm sure...
Not to make excuses. But it would seem to be true.
Brian Manzella said:
Defense: "Ya well they must be doing it wrong."
...
Interestingly no one is defending reverse pivots right now in this thread.
Defense: "Ya well you guys will just gang up it is not worth it."
Response: "You are stooooopid!!"
No really though anyone should say what they think. I for one will try to be fair. Not real soft though.
wulsy said:
Brian Manzella said:
Very interesting. Thanks wuls and Brian.
Is it physical? Or mental? Learned? All?
Brian said:
It ain't in Pop instruction that's for sure.
Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory: They (They) want to keep us struggling.
They also dumb, unseeking...and instead selling market niches...
They (They) gonna get hit by a MACK truck! (not O'Grady)
Or at least gonna have to finally get with it.
guess said:
Hilarious.
Last edited:
aaron_lohan
New
Top class athletes are very insecure this is what drives their excessive perfectionism and obsessiveness to improve. Normal well balanced people don't have these traits, normal people wouldn't be out there on the range at 7am the next day after winning a major working on their swing like Tiger does. Normal people just aren't that obsessed with anything in their lives.
Not to mention the huge ego that top class athletes have to possess in order to get to the top of their sport. I never said Tiger had low self esteem or was mentally weak, I would imagine his self esteem can fluctuate greatly.
Question for Brian - weren't the swings of Nicklaus etc very much responsible for the average hackers slicing and reverse pivot problems in the 70s and 80s?? Ie trying to copy the superstars of the day was actually very difficult for those of average or under average flexibility and hand eye co-ordination. By Jack's own admission his swing in the 60s (my fav swing of all time btw) worked because he was upright AND deep (meaning a good shoulder turn etc). As he aged he got too upright and was effectively a rock and block swing poster boy but with exceptional hand eye. In fact all the swings that have been shown on the thread are by athletes with supreme hand eye which i believe skews the data somewhat. I think these players could have been great with any swing method. It is how effectively you could teach average joes how to swing like these fellas that would be a real test of upright and off the ball swings (which i guess is what you are doing!).
My own experience has been that when i was younger i copied Nicklaus as much as i could and i did hit the ball a long way and also have a very bad back as a result. As i have become a bit more centered (but still move off the ball a touch) and a bit flatter, my striking and consistency has improved greatly, perhaps with a loss of distance but not enough to worry me.
For the record i do not personally like the some of the modern methods for what that is worth and am very much in line with your thinking on getting behind the ball (like in almost every other athletic ball sport motion)
My own experience has been that when i was younger i copied Nicklaus as much as i could and i did hit the ball a long way and also have a very bad back as a result. As i have become a bit more centered (but still move off the ball a touch) and a bit flatter, my striking and consistency has improved greatly, perhaps with a loss of distance but not enough to worry me.
For the record i do not personally like the some of the modern methods for what that is worth and am very much in line with your thinking on getting behind the ball (like in almost every other athletic ball sport motion)
self-mastery
New
nwb beat me to it!
'Orthodox' swings have a poor record with Joe Average. The average golfer can't perform or better yet MAINTAIN a Nicklaus style golf swing.
I use a big syrupy old school swing with my longer clubs, and a much quieter centered pivot pattern with my shorter clubs.
'Orthodox' swings have a poor record with Joe Average. The average golfer can't perform or better yet MAINTAIN a Nicklaus style golf swing.
I use a big syrupy old school swing with my longer clubs, and a much quieter centered pivot pattern with my shorter clubs.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Orthodox golf teachers have a poor record with Joe Average.
They don't fix the face first of the slicer.
ANY MODEL will have a bad record with "Joe Average" if you teach it verbatim to them all.
Get it???
Brian Manzella
Administrator
I learned nearly everything I know about the golfswing from Skip Malek, a wonderful teacher from Pittsburgh and former teacher of the year in the Carolinas. The first thing he always looked at was "clubface" both during the swing and at impact. The body does a whole lot of compensating for poor clubface. That being said, it didn't appear to the naked eye that any of his student's had similar looking swings, just good ball flights.
I watched him work with KJ Choi before KJ had even made it on the Tour. First thing they worked on? Clubface.
I once told a guy that I learned from Skip and he said, "Yeah, he was a big 'clubface' guy" like it was a bad thing.
I watched him work with KJ Choi before KJ had even made it on the Tour. First thing they worked on? Clubface.
I once told a guy that I learned from Skip and he said, "Yeah, he was a big 'clubface' guy" like it was a bad thing.
bcoak
New
And who taught him?That's as orthodox as Blue Bell Vanilla.
rogerdodger
New
Don't know, but if it was his Dad, I always liked his swing.
bcoak
New
Bill Harmon.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
He did a great job, don't you think?
Svenster
New
“It was simple, I believe in athletic golf swings. The kind that get weight off of the front foot on the backswing, and use the movement back into and out of the ground for power.
I believe in the extra power from shoulder movement—as opposed to back movement—which is easier to create with more upright and free arm swing golf swings.”
Eureka!!
While I have no clue if Project 1.68 will be ‘upright swing-centric’ or not, I must say that what Brian says above is something that’s been in the back of my mind ever since I drifted away from my “natural” more upright swing and started down the “one plane/on plane” path, thanks mainly to reading both of Jim Hardy’s one plane/two plane books and believing him when he recommended the one plane methodology as preferable for most golfers. I won’t get into his rationale but it did seem to make sense (at the time) and obviously there’s a lot of great “one-planers” or flat swingers out there (e.g. Kuchar, Zack Johnson and Stricker) so he wasn’t all wet.
But for me, trying to ‘one-plane/flat’ swing just didn’t feel right. I had some (sporadic) success with it but always felt that I had no power and that there was no way I could improve because there was no way my body turn of back and shoulders (with arms “passively” following the same plane) was going to miraculously get faster to add speed to my swing.
I also found that I was consciously swinging more upright (i.e. natural for me) as I hit my shorter clubs because that seemed to be the only way I could even envision hitting the ball with any semblance of accuracy. Swinging ‘around my body’ for shorter shots just didn’t seem right to me, so there I was, “one planing” on drives and longer shots gradually morphing into a “two-planer” the closer I got to the green. Not a good way to “groove a repeatable swing”, no doubt.
So, once the weather gets better I’ll be at the range swinging more upright, which for me feels much more natural. Of course I’ll have to work on a lot of other things but I’m stoked and believe that I’m finally on the right track and off the wrong one (for me).
Thanks, Brian.
I believe in the extra power from shoulder movement—as opposed to back movement—which is easier to create with more upright and free arm swing golf swings.”
Eureka!!
While I have no clue if Project 1.68 will be ‘upright swing-centric’ or not, I must say that what Brian says above is something that’s been in the back of my mind ever since I drifted away from my “natural” more upright swing and started down the “one plane/on plane” path, thanks mainly to reading both of Jim Hardy’s one plane/two plane books and believing him when he recommended the one plane methodology as preferable for most golfers. I won’t get into his rationale but it did seem to make sense (at the time) and obviously there’s a lot of great “one-planers” or flat swingers out there (e.g. Kuchar, Zack Johnson and Stricker) so he wasn’t all wet.
But for me, trying to ‘one-plane/flat’ swing just didn’t feel right. I had some (sporadic) success with it but always felt that I had no power and that there was no way I could improve because there was no way my body turn of back and shoulders (with arms “passively” following the same plane) was going to miraculously get faster to add speed to my swing.
I also found that I was consciously swinging more upright (i.e. natural for me) as I hit my shorter clubs because that seemed to be the only way I could even envision hitting the ball with any semblance of accuracy. Swinging ‘around my body’ for shorter shots just didn’t seem right to me, so there I was, “one planing” on drives and longer shots gradually morphing into a “two-planer” the closer I got to the green. Not a good way to “groove a repeatable swing”, no doubt.
So, once the weather gets better I’ll be at the range swinging more upright, which for me feels much more natural. Of course I’ll have to work on a lot of other things but I’m stoked and believe that I’m finally on the right track and off the wrong one (for me).
Thanks, Brian.
- Status