Ben Hogan '55 swing analysis by Brian Manzella

Status
Not open for further replies.
No - on any given day, that's what Hogan did on these venues or could do on any course. In the 1967 Masters at the age of 54, he shot a 3rd round 66 with a 30 on the back nine while hardly being able to draw the putter away from the ball.

You've missed the point - Hogan was on a different level than anyone before or after in ball striking skill.
 
I didn't miss any point man.

I'm just trying to get my facts straight....sounded pretty amazing to me so I wanted to hear more about it. Thanks for telling me....I love to hear about Hogan.

...but do you really think that what Hogan did was an entirely innate thing and not a learned skill?
 
Just listened to this again...

Picked up on a good point I missed the first time.

In the last minute where you talked about having Axis Tilt AND swinging left at the same time.

I've been using Axis Tilt as a swing thought and I think I now may be swinging too far right.

I think this will help my hooks/draw (I want a power fade).
 
Hogan's Flexed Right Knee

Firstly, thank you Brian for your great forum and great attitude! Although I know little of TGM I am truly impressed with what you all have learned. I've enjoyed every bit of it.

I just wanted to point out the difference between the two sequences of Hogan's swing that have been posted here. There is the #1 post of yours ('55 swing) and the #5 post of Tongzilla's (the one he posted on Lynn Blake's).

There seems to be two different levels that his hips turn on. In your's his hip turn in the backswing is much more level than in the #5 post.

To me the level hip turn indicates that his right knee would remain flexed ('55 swing) in the "sit down" attitude.

In the #5 post his hips are not level (to the ground) which makes it look like his right leg has straigthened.

These two examples seem to be of different swing phases Hogan may have been going through #5 being an earlier one.

I teach an "in the barrell" type turn that when viewed from the front looks as if the right leg has gone straight, but when viewed down the line it clearly isn't. I like the '55 swing a lot better.

Thanks again and keep up the good work,
spike
 
Incidentally, since my swing per Hogan (David Lee Alford posts 'em up!" is still presumedly archieved, how about taking frames from that swing and comparing them to Mr. Hogan? Sinc MJ and many others thought this was all a big con, let's look at the frames side by side.

I hadn't practiced Hogan's swing in almost a year, and the comparison will be to Hogan at close to his career best; but I think you'll find they match up pretty closely frame by frame, esp. backswing and downswing to impact.

Now, what's the point of this? First of all, I don't claim talent. I'm not good enough to have a great natural golf swing, and frankly don't believe in it. Talent is way over rated. The point is: You, dear reader, must trust in absolute accuracy of method as YOUR great equalizer. Because when YOU get it right, YOU will get significant results. I mean REALLY significant, close to perfect.

P.S., that's what Mr. Hogan believed himself. He believed in the capability of the average dedicated golfer.
 
...and, now that I'm warming up to the subject, the same is true for Moe Norman. "He was a savant genius!", blah blah...

I mean no disrespect to Moe, in fact I HIGHLY respect him and feel a kindred spirit in his fierce independence. But who anyone can be intimitated by his "talent" is beyond me. For crying out loud, he was short and fat. Strong? Yeah, probably he had strong arms, but so do a million guys.

Look, he had a specific system. Figure out what he did and you will get similar results (add practice).

But, good luck trying to learn what Moe really did via Natural Golf. Once you understand what Moe really did, you can repeat Moe's mantra: "no strain, no struggle..." and you will know "how true, how true" !
 

rundmc

Banned
David Alford said:
...and, now that I'm warming up to the subject, the same is true for Moe Norman. "He was a savant genius!", blah blah...

I mean no disrespect to Moe, in fact I HIGHLY respect him and feel a kindred spirit in his fierce independence. But who anyone can be intimitated by his "talent" is beyond me. For crying out loud, he was short and fat. Strong? Yeah, probably he had strong arms, but so do a million guys.

Look, he had a specific system. Figure out what he did and you will get similar results (add practice).

But, good luck trying to learn what Moe really did via Natural Golf. Once you understand what Moe really did, you can repeat Moe's mantra: "no strain, no struggle..." and you will know "how true, how true" !


I like where your posts are headed David . . . Everybody has potential . . . How did you get your motion so close to Hogan's? What process did you go through? How long did it take?
 
David's back, how cool! I was just thinking at work wonder when David is going to be back. Say David, do you have any background with Mike Austin's swing, and if so what are your impressions?

Matt
 
3 right hands?

David,

After hearing that Hogan was a swinger, what, then, was his thing with 3 right hands?

spike
 
3 right hands

Sorry about that. I was getting the impression that David Alford is very passionate about Ben Hogan. That's all.

Really just wondering about what Hogan meant about wishing he had 3 right hands being a swinger.

Anyone?

spike
 
spike

was just having some fun, I know what you meant since David A. has shared a bunch of good insight on Hogan. Just an article that addressed Lead's thoughts on his interpretation.

wuz gonana direct you to my avatar to the gents for what he meant by his three right hand men!
 
rundmc, I won't bore everyone here with my efforts but it almost killed me, but I think I succeeded because I was literally willing to risk everything (including my health) to succeed at all costs. Which is why when my work is published you will be able to trust it.

When I was completely healthy and a lot younger, I had a crappy swing. The contrast is like night and day. That is proof positive to me that knowledge is the determing factor. Too many people blame themselves (and in a way they do this by putting Hogan, Moe Norman, etc on pedestals). I've posted on this before, and some people insist on saying Hogan hand forearms of steel, etc. etc.

I'm working for the average dedicated golfer...and there is hope. That hope is accuracy of method. You don't need to know a ton of stuff, but what you do need to know must be dead accurate. & I think I could have developed Hogan's swing in pretty much one day or less if I had that accurate info. way back then.

I'm now traveling and have to go for now...I'll be working fulltime on bringing some of the swing projects to fruition this fall and early next year.

Best regards,
David Alford
 
David:I like your insights: "If I had had that accurate info way back then..." - YOU NAILED IT. Dead accurate info. Not mysteriously intuitive talent (alone). It is a major theme I subscribe to and preach myself.
 
Was it Hogan's sharp hip turn that allowed his shoulder turn takeaway to keep his head relatively motionless ( I know it rotated to the right some)?
 
David Alford said:
I'm working for the average dedicated golfer...and there is hope...& I think I could have developed Hogan's swing in pretty much one day or less if I had that accurate info. way back then.

that, my cyberfriend, is your talent way beyond the average golfer. the average Joe, takes a mound of time and commitment to swing like hogan, let alone adjusting to any new swing pattern. Goodness, Hogan's hands, going from a left pronated position at the top to a supinated post impact movement, is certainly not the easiest to achieve,,,and I've been trying for more than a day or two with a ton of info at my fingertips!...:)

But, if you can help the average to achieve it much quicker, I look forward to hearing more.

Joe.
 
One of the pitfalls of learning golf is the effort to do things "while moving." To make my point, in teaching piano in my former life, I would NOT want a pupil to "make music" with a new piece. I would ask him, "Can you play THAT ONE NOTE--JUST THAT NOTE?" The response was "Well, of course I can!" with an unspoken "do you think I'm an idiot or something?" But what the pupil is overlooking with this presumption IS THE FACT THAT THE PIECE IS MADE UP OF A SERIES OF DISCRETE, SPECIFIC THINGS. So learning the music MUST BE done with respect for what really the pupil does: like a motion picture - there IS no motion: the picture is made up of 35 cels per second! Each one correct, in perfect focus, and with unmistakable details.

So in a golf lesson if I tell a pupil AT THIS TOP OF SWING YOU NEED TO BE HERE: hands like this, club here, left arm here, "STOP AND LOOK AND ACTUALLY PUT YOUR HAND THERE!," I am giving him specific information that OF SOMETHING HE CAN DO IMMEDIATELY. There is no need to "try" AND LEAST OF ALL TO ALLOW HIM TO SWING IN HIS NORMAL PATTERN WHERE HE TAKES HIS HANDS SOMEWHERE ELSE and hence gets a conflicted message where "trying" to do one thing while doing another is impossible!

SO yes, it IS possible to "get things right" immediately; it is presumptuous to expect to flow them all perfectly smoothly at once, BUT THEY CAN BE CORRECTLY INSTALLED at the outset.

So the problem with the pianist is trying to make music before he knows the notes - and in the process fails to address those things he needs to install correctly; he may in the process fake a lot of the piece, but it would be far from well played if he didn't FOCUS ON THE RIGHT NOTE AND FINGER ONE AT A TIME and get them handled.

IT IS NOT HARD to address single details: it is fussy. And I don't mean to reduce the golf swing to positions, but to provide essentials. For example, without worrying a lot about HOW to get from address to top-of-swing, and allowing the body to work out an easy comfortable way to do it that with a little guidance builds into it the loading that is required, one can expect the golfer himself to get the club up there without microscopically managing each millimeter along his backswing arc.

A credit card over the phone can involve 28 separate details before the transaction can "take": 16 digits on the card, 4 digits for the exp date, three for the code no. on the back, and 5 for the zip code. NOT A ONE OF THE DIGITS IS HARD OR EASY; IT IS SIMPLY A DISCRETE NUMBER. So it is fussy, not hard, to get it right and effect a transaction.

This is, I think, what David intuits and states.

I promise you no successful pianist plays a concert piece nearly flawlessly without specifying the fingers and the thousands !!! of notes needed from page one to page 120 (the Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto). FLowing the notes together comes AFTER the notes are identified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top