Chamblee on McIlroy's perfect "fundamentals"

[Lifter]

Is Brandel right? Are these truly the "fundamentals"?

Rory McIlroy's swing is similar to Sam Snead's - Tours & News - Golf.com

Plane Truth: Rory McIlroy's swing is similar to Sam Snead's
By Brandel Chamblee
Published: June 22, 2011

Rory McIlroy’s swing -- a combination of perfect positions, tempo and balance -- makes comparisons with the great Sam Snead inevitable. Meanwhile, McIlroy’s surrounded by technique-addicted golfers who have been stack-and-tilted, golf-machined and one-planed to death. Rory (below) is dismissed as a natural by those who think that the swing should be more complicated. Teachers who preach a series of static positions over a fluid motion and scoff at the word fundamentals are the root of the problem. Until 30 years ago golf was taught by former Tour players who talked about grip and grip pressure, stance, posture, ball position, tempo, rhythm and the waggle. These are the fundamentals. Recently I read a blog by a teacher who said that I was reaching when I used the word fundamentals, to which I say he is reaching if he doesn’t.

What makes Rory’s swing perfect is not the positions he hits, but an approach that allows him to achieve those positions. His posture is relaxed and poised for athletic movement. By comparison, his fellow competitors look as if they are trying to achieve prescribed angles at address and straining to do so. Rory’s grip is perfect, but the lack of tension is the best element, because it allows him to hinge the club perfectly and unhinge it properly.

Some will use his swing as a model and show their students the positions he gets in and make it a goal to copy the original, but the genius of Rory’s swing is its simplicity. Simplicity that’s born out of fundamentals, which sadly are considered antiquated in today’s world.

 

[Todd Dugan]

EVERY aspect of technique is "fundamental" to the stroke. Educated teachers are aware of the RANGE within which great ball-strikers exhibit for each specific area of technique.

But the REAL fundamentals refer to the collision. Path, Clubface, and impact location.

 

[Brian Manzella]

I hear what he is saying....but....

You could have ALL OF THOSE "fundamental" things, and you maybe couldn't bust a grape, or know where the grape what going.

30 years ago????

Hell, five years ago nobody understood ball-flight!

I hate positions too, btw, Brandel.

The "former tour players" thing though, is beyond weak.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I've grown tired of Brandel. He contradicts himself almost on a monthly basis and it's easy to poke holes in his argument. I'll say this...I think that 'fundamentals' should be uniform in nature. And throughout the decades the great ballstrikers did not have uniform grip, grip pressure, stance, posture, ball position, tempo, rhythm and the waggle. And the waggle as a 'swing fundamental' doesn't even pass the laugh test.




3JACK

 

[Mike O]

Golf Swing Theory

Certainly alot of valid points to Brandel's article i.e. focus on positions, contorted positions, exaggerated positions, etc. However, to imply that the things to focus on - grip, stance, ball location, tempo, rhythm - and those alone will produce a great swing - is woefully short. The KISS approach never solved the problem of poor golf for us mere mortals - hey if you win a world junior event when you are 9, and are good enough at 15 to have your Dad and a few friends put down a bet that you'll win the British Open by 2014 - then sure - focusing on simple things like grip, stance, tempo - it maybe all you need. In fact, to stay out of the way of inherent talent - is probably a great idea. However, if you are not inherently gifted at a young age with "golfing talent" then the answer isn't to go back 30 years and never try to learn more information in order to play better golf, stay with the fundamentals and magically you"ll be really good. At the same time, I'll acknowledge that while the effort to learn, apply new theory and knowledge is the only way to make progress - it doesn't always hit the right mark and there is a lot of attached garbage along the road to new and better information.

 

[Jared Willerson]

Brandel has been reading too much praise of himself lately in all the golf rags. I am afraid he has become somewhat of a caricature. Sad. At one time I thought he had potential.

 

[Lifter]

I'm with 3Jack. Brandel's an ass. And I think Snead's swing was a hell of a lot more preferable than McIlroy's swing.

 

[Jared Willerson]

I believe this is why ex tour pros make such bad golf swing analysts. For Brandel and any other tour pro or top amateur who has been good at golf since they were 9...they probably didn't have to worry about much

However, the majority of golfers take up the game later, in college or after and there is a whole different way people learn from when they were a kid to when they are an adult.

To be honest, this is the thing I feel like is missing the most in current golf instruction. How does one teach an ADULT to do something? It is far different than teaching a child, and is why most instructors do not connect with their older students. Let's face it, none of them really had to worry about it, they were good at age 12 and don't understand why someone just can't "do it like I showed you". I liken it to learning a language as a kid vs. an adult. An adult can master a new language but it will hardly ever be as fluent and accent free as someone who learned a new language as a kid.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I think it's dangerous when one doesn't know much about the golf swing, regardless of when they get good. I started at the age of 11, I think I had hit scratch by the time I was 16. But up until I was 18...I had 3 lessons and those 3 lessons were cursory lessons at best. The only reason why I started taking lessons at 18 was due to me struggling and when I tried to go back to the old 'tried and true' things that usually got me out of my funk....they didn't work this time. Tried and tried and tried. Worked harder than any of my high school or college teammates...but, still couldn't get it to work. I can say that I *literally* put blood, sweat and tears on the range.

And I tried just about all of it. And I had *plenty* of teachers who just taught the grip, grip pressure, stance, posture...yadda yadda yadda...and none of it worked.

I didn't even know what swing plane was until I read '5 Lessons' at the age of 18.

I think the same thing has happened to guys like Phil. They were 'naturals' and just did things with ease. But once they got in trouble and working on the 'fundamentals' didn't solve the problem, they needed to get help. But, the difficulty then becomes 'who to trust' and 'who really knows the golf swing.'

Well, if you don't know jack squat about the workings of the golf swing, than picking an instructor that can improve you is pot luck.

It's not that many of us don't believe in the fundamentals...it's that our definition of the fundamentals of the golf swing are much different than Brandel's. Supposedly, we are just supposed to believe that Brandel is right because he says so.

Well, no thanks.

And Rory's 'perfect posture' sure looks a lot different from Snead's posture at address.






3JACK

 

[Virtuoso]

I would agree with Chamblee that some modern teachers' methods have gone pear-shaped....but for different reasons.

My take would be that the "stable center" crowd started the swing center left and backed it up on the downswing, thereby reducing angular momentum, reducing the effective transfer of energy to the club, and reducing beyond an acceptable level the dynamic loft of the club....especially the 5-iron through Driver.

And thus, the lean left, restricted arm swing, and back-up the spinning shoulder types will struggle with modern day tour length golf courses.

The fact that they don't look as "fluid" is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is a mistaken underlying assumption about how our anatomy creates rotational speed....and the futile chase of the "compression" myth.

 

[bcoak]

I think he is right on. Look at the younger pros who are experiencing success and they all have their own golf swing. Haas, Bubba, Rory, Johnson, Watney

 

[Lifter]

I think he is right on. Look at the younger pros who are experiencing success and they all have their own golf swing. Haas, Bubba, Rory, Johnson, Watney

What "fundamentals" do the golfers you cite share?

 

[kc8kir]

I believe this is why ex tour pros make such bad golf swing analysts. For Brandel and any other tour pro or top amateur who has been good at golf since they were 9...they probably didn't have to worry about much

However, the majority of golfers take up the game later, in college or after and there is a whole different way people learn from when they were a kid to when they are an adult.

To be honest, this is the thing I feel like is missing the most in current golf instruction. How does one teach an ADULT to do something? It is far different than teaching a child, and is why most instructors do not connect with their older students. Let's face it, none of them really had to worry about it, they were good at age 12 and don't understand why someone just can't "do it like I showed you". I liken it to learning a language as a kid vs. an adult. An adult can master a new language but it will hardly ever be as fluent and accent free as someone who learned a new language as a kid.

+1

Nailed it with this one.

I took up golf after college. Even though as a kid I swung at whiffle balls every once and a while (I was a fantastic flipper at age 8... lol... but couldn't hit a real ball to save my life), I really was a total novice 4 years ago. My learning has been entirely different than just "mimic the positions" that a child can go through. It makes sense as well. I wouldn't teach piano to an adult like I would a child. A child you teach by imitation... an adult you teach through "illumination" ie... an adult will always question the logic, the reasoning, behind the instruction. Children don't care... they are much more reactionary and eager to earn praise. An adult won't care if he does it right once, if he then flubs the next one. A kid however can ride that enthusiasm for hours just having done it correctly one time (their memory of "good experiences" being much stronger than an adult propensity towards "bad experiences").

This is exactly why I find it so hard to find a quality instructor. Most either spout off Golf Digest, want you to imitate them, or can't explain anything worth a darn to get you to actually make the motion on your own. Either that, or they can't explain the ball flight...

So glad I found this site... I probably would have given up last year without it.

 

[bcoak]

What "fundamentals" do the golfers you cite share?

Much more natural and flowing. Charles Howell 3 compared to these guys is vastly different.

 

[Lifter]

Much more natural and flowing. Charles Howell 3 compared to these guys is vastly different.

Eureka! If I make a natural and flowing golf swing, then I'll shoot in the 70's every time! Why didn't I think of that before?

 

[Virtuoso]

Eureka! If I make a natural and flowing golf swing, then I'll shoot in the 70's every time! Why didn't I think of that before?

"I'm picking up your sarcasm..."

Tommy Boy

 

[grus]

It is easy to sit behind a desk and say I like Rorys swing, stack and tilt is no good etc. The reality is you can have a student with a good grip, posture and ball position that can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside. I wonder what Brandel would do if this "perfect fundamental" student was hitting low hooks? Let me guess "if you had better tempo you wouldn't hit a hook". Also most of the tour players who use S&T and one plane swings have had better careers than Brandel.

 

[birdie_man]

Brandel is smart enough, or at least well spoken enough but I think he's paid to have big opinions. He fills that role anyway. Bunch of em like that on Tgc & they all over the map, which is no surprise in this media. The word fundamentals gets tossed around a lot, & this time is not much different.

fundamental
[fuhn-duh-men-tl]

1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
5. a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade.

Rory has a pretty swing. More importantly it works. There is something to be said about smoothness & timing in function. Not everyone's gonna look like that though. I knew they'd do this. You don't hear the masses gushing over aesthetic beauty as "fundamental" w Palmer, Nicklaus, Price, Hogan, Player, Trevino, Moe Norman. It ain't a strength w them as it is w Rory.

I still want to work on it more, but I relate more to those other guys than Rory. He don't have to work on it though, & never has, I would bet.

 

[drewyallop]

Let's face it, none of them really had to worry about it, they were good at age 12 and don't understand why someone just can't "do it like I showed you".

The main reason that most club pros don't teach effectively, in my view.

Brings up an interesting question though. What was it in Brian Manzella's development and character that makes him so effective? Humility, intelligence, work ethic (the "10k hours"), insatiable curiosity, iconoclastic, struggled early learning golf? All, none, more?

Drew

 

[dbl]

Personally I think he was good early on, but then he "blew up" what he knew when he went to see Ben Doyle, and that experience of "re-learning" golf swing parts and pieces made him approach the swing more like an adult newbie.

The next development I think was...When he came to think about people doing the wrong things due to misinformation and misapplication, he focused more on getting them to do the right thing. And with Trackman, now he can focus even more tightly on the core parts that matter (impact) and just work to help the golfer get to good impact with hopefully some repeatable ease.