Clubpaths, and Hogan vs. Tiger 2000

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
It may be true to some extent that the single "secret" is a big magnet but rather to very naive people.
Hogan surely had his "secrets" and the biggest of all, IMO, is to make a motion that is setup-dependent.

Cheers
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Not to try to add, but I thought it was common knowledge that Byron Nelson was a more accurate ballstriker but didnt practice as much, wasnt in a car wreck, talked to his opponents, had no secret and therefore no "mystique". So we dont have to spend useless time trying to figure out what he was doing.
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
Yes, Nelson was said to be the most accurate one in Hogan's pre-secret times (and not without reason since it is one of my favourite downswing motion of all times that's biokinetically almost perfect). His accuracy wouldn't rather have won with post-secret Hogan - too bad Nelson played on Tour only until 1946.
The sarcastic remarks are not necessary, especially feeling strange in a (supposedly) Hogan fan's mouth.

Cheers
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Dariusz J. said:
Yes, it is pre-secret. It is not odd that Hogan tried to protect his secrets (he did it many times more). The book (PG) contains only a very general info and his pre-accident swings look vastly different in many key aspects (grip, stance, CoG shifts, impact). Compare the first FO view with 1949 FO driver from competition from interactive disc of BH Collection and you will know everything.
Click to expand...

You sound very certain. You evidently didn't know that Power Golf was written and published in or after 1947, but you know that the book was illustrated with old footage, shot at Augusta, before Hogan had won his first major?

Call me naive, but I find it easier to believe that the photos from Power Golf were commissioned for the book and were contemporary. I don't have a problem with the idea that his swing or his setup might have changed between 1947 and 1949 if you've got footage that shows this - but that still doesn't make the PG swings "pre-secret".

Maybe this is an inconvenience for your theories - but that's for you to work out.
 
R

rogerdodger

New
1953 Hogan v. 1972 Nicklaus. Nicklaus wins every day.
1953 Hogan v. 2000 Woods. Woods wins every day.
Top golfers have gotten better each succeeding generation, in part by technology. This study of Hogan swing, while romantic, will not improve golfers. I spent five miserable years reading his book till it fell apart, strapping my arms to my body... Not Ben's fault, mine. Two choices, pick a swing model like Hogan and attempt to replicate it. Or, use an instructor like Brian, get on trackman, and develop your swing, not Hogan's. I know the ball sounded different coming off his clubface, he could make the ball curve at will, hit the ball out of the same divots two days in a row, dug it out of the dirt, call Mr. Dunlap, blah blah blah. Not knocking Ben, great historical figure. Adding anything to golf instruction in 2011, doubtful.
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
birly-shirly said:
You sound very certain. You evidently didn't know that Power Golf was written and published in or after 1947, but you know that the book was illustrated with old footage, shot at Augusta, before Hogan had won his first major?

Call me naive, but I find it easier to believe that the photos from Power Golf were commissioned for the book and were contemporary. I don't have a problem with the idea that his swing or his setup might have changed between 1947 and 1949 if you've got footage that shows this - but that still doesn't make the PG swings "pre-secret".

Maybe this is an inconvenience for your theories - but that's for you to work out.
Click to expand...

OMG, I just expressed my opinions based on my researches. If PG is pre- or post-secret it does not make anything wrong with my theories. Simply the PG swings that I knew almost by heart are different than these that are evidently post-secret.
I bet you did not check the comparison at all.


rogerdodger said:
Not knocking Ben, great historical figure. Adding anything to golf instruction in 2011, doubtful.
Click to expand...

Really ? Not so long ago it appeared here on this Forum that, to much surprise of some, Hogan's diagonal stance described in 5L may be used for zeroing out Trackman. Putting each of hand on the grip Hogan's way is a model for decades. CoG shift for a biped is mechanically the best in overall golf. There will be no TGM, no MORAD, no OPS, no Faldo, no McLean, no Leadbetter without Hogan.
You all will laugh when it appears that the majority of scientific discoveries here will find common groung with his motion easily. FYI, last Michael's discoveries shows why post-secret Hogan was 1000 times better than pre-secret.

Cheers
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
Why would bigger, stronger athletes want to "copy" the movements/games of smaller, weaker athletes from yester year? Kobe's not trying to follow the shot pattern of Cousy. He would severely be limiting himself. Brees isn't rehearsing the throw of Unitas. For the same reason. So why would the bigger, more powerful Woods try to emulate the smaller, much less powerful Hogan movements? If you have all the physical tools to have a "big" move/game, and still have the precision to get the ball in the hole - why would you want to swing like a little guy?

If this has devolved into just ball striking (whatever that means), then it seems as silly to criticize Woods for not being Hogan like as it does to criticize Hogan for not being Woods like. Woods could probably scale down to Hogan’s precision (depending on which stories you want to believe), but Hogan could not scale up to Woods’ power.
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
mgranato said:
Why would bigger, stronger athletes want to "copy" the movements/games of smaller, weaker athletes from yester year? Kobe's not trying to follow the shot pattern of Cousy. He would severely be limiting himself. Brees isn't rehearsing the throw of Unitas. For the same reason. So why would the bigger, more powerful Woods try to emulate the smaller, much less powerful Hogan movements? If you have all the physical tools to have a "big" move/game, and still have the precision to get the ball in the hole - why would you want to swing like a little guy?

If this has devolved into just ball striking (whatever that means), then it seems as silly to criticize Woods for not being Hogan like as it does to criticize Hogan for not being Woods like. Woods could probably scale down to Hogan’s precision (depending on which stories you want to believe), but Hogan could not scale up to Woods’ power.
Click to expand...

It's about biomechanical macroscale that is being governed via anatomy and physics that is the same for everyone (provided the proportions are not odd) and, therefore, universal, and not about copying moves in microscale.
Do you want me to believe that e.g. scientific discoveries of this site aren't universal ?

Cheers
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
The scientific discoveries are just that, discoveries. They aren't inventions. And as stated earlier, the greats have been doing them whether they were aware of it or not. So if they already had the club moving correctly, the difference has to be in the body, right? My contention is that the body movements aren't universal. Nor should they be. I'm pretty sure that Woods is letting his anatomy and physics govern his movements. You don't think they are optimal because they aren't like Hogan - your model. That's flawed. Why isn't Hogan optimal because he isn't like Woods - someone else's model.
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
mgranato said:
The scientific discoveries are just that, discoveries. They aren't inventions. And as stated earlier, the greats have been doing them whether they were aware of it or not. So if they already had the club moving correctly, the difference has to be in the body, right? My contention is that the body movements aren't universal. Nor should they be. I'm pretty sure that Woods is letting his anatomy and physics govern his movements. You don't think they are optimal because they aren't like Hogan - your model. That's flawed. Why isn't Hogan optimal because he isn't like Woods - someone else's model.
Click to expand...

Naaah. I think that Woods's motions aren't optimal for a human and, thus, not allowing him to use his potential in the field of repeatability and consistency. Not because they are different than Hogan (who is not my model as explained before) but because they are different from being biokinetically soundest. It's simple and really it does not need to be complicated by such divagations.

Cheers
 
L

Lifter

New
Couldn't we make a distinction between athleticism and technique? Something like this?

Tiger Woods in 2000: Extraordinary athlete; good technique

Ben Hogan in 1953: Good athlete; extraordinary technique​
 
E

ej20

New
Dariusz J. said:
Naaah. I think that Woods's motions aren't optimal for a human and, thus, not allowing him to use his potential in the field of repeatability and consistency. Not because they are different than Hogan (who is not my model as explained before) but because they are different from being biokinetically soundest. It's simple and really it does not need to be complicated by such divagations.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Then who is your model...you know the player that you think is biokinetically ideal for repeatability...the player that best represents your theories.There must be one if it's not Hogan.
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
ej20 said:
Then who is your model...you know the player that you think is biokinetically ideal for repeatability...the player that best represents your theories.There must be one if it's not Hogan.
Click to expand...

There is no single real model. The optimum is stricte theoretic but, of course, post-secret Hogan is the closest real to the abstract model.

Lifter said:
Couldn't we make a distinction between athleticism and technique? Something like this?

Tiger Woods in 2000: Extraordinary athlete; good technique

Ben Hogan in 1953: Good athlete; extraordinary technique​
Click to expand...

I kind of like it as well.

Cheers
 
E

ej20

New
Dariusz J. said:
There is no single real model. The optimum is stricte theoretic but, of course, post-secret Hogan is the closest real to the abstract model.



I kind of like it as well.

Cheers
Click to expand...

If there is no single real model,how do you know it's optimal?It's got to be based on a real player to get real results otherwise it's just another theory.

So Hogan comes closest to your model,perhaps 99.9%? but he's not the model.That's really splitting hairs don't you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top