How important is the Golf Swing to playing good golf?
- Thread starter rundmc
- Start date
- Status
Flatleftwrist
New
The purpose of the swing is to apply a force to the ball which moves it from stationary position A to position B. The better the force, the fewer strokes may be needed to get the ball into the hole and hence a lower score.
The problem most Golfers have is generating a large enough force to make the ball travel far and to target.
Some Golfers are adept at generating and applying smaller forces being evident in that their pitching, chipping and putting may be at a scratch level of play.
Some Golfers are adept at generating and applying a large force being evident in their ability to make the ball travel far and on target.
Very few Golfers can generate and apply large and small forces equally well.
Most People are unable to generate a large force or apply a small one.
The Hinge action of a Circular motion on an Inclined Plane is about applying the force. The Three Imperatives are about applying the force effectively and consistently. The rest of the Book is about generating the force.
Homer Kelly said good Golf is power Golf and as the Three Imperatives improve so will your accuracy. He also said that "No amount of Muscular Effort.....".
It's how "effective" your swing is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I wonder which is more difficult to teach? Applying or Generating?
I have 3 DVD's on my desk. "Advanced Power Techniques" (McHatton), "Distance and Maximum Power" (McHatton), and "4 Keys to Maximize Your Power" (McHatton).
The problem most Golfers have is generating a large enough force to make the ball travel far and to target.
Some Golfers are adept at generating and applying smaller forces being evident in that their pitching, chipping and putting may be at a scratch level of play.
Some Golfers are adept at generating and applying a large force being evident in their ability to make the ball travel far and on target.
Very few Golfers can generate and apply large and small forces equally well.
Most People are unable to generate a large force or apply a small one.
The Hinge action of a Circular motion on an Inclined Plane is about applying the force. The Three Imperatives are about applying the force effectively and consistently. The rest of the Book is about generating the force.
Homer Kelly said good Golf is power Golf and as the Three Imperatives improve so will your accuracy. He also said that "No amount of Muscular Effort.....".
It's how "effective" your swing is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I wonder which is more difficult to teach? Applying or Generating?
I have 3 DVD's on my desk. "Advanced Power Techniques" (McHatton), "Distance and Maximum Power" (McHatton), and "4 Keys to Maximize Your Power" (McHatton).
Last edited:
FLW, I disagree with your divvying up longball prowess and shortgame prowess, because I don't think you have defined what counts as long ball prowess. You have indicated only that longball skills provide the advantage of reducing the strokes that are needed. For instance, if you are saying such prowess is only exhibited by reaching par 5's in two, then I think you are elminating a large groups of people, scratch golfers, who have decent length and good shortgame skills. To focus on the 0.5% that average 280 and up is one thing, but not the only way to assess good golf.
I would say good longball skills where the fairway is hit and allows for a decent GIR rate, and where drives average of 210-240, can yield a scratch golfer. I'm not sure how these people would fit into your split, but it sounds to me like they have "quality" and "skill" in both areas of concern (long and short game).
I would say good longball skills where the fairway is hit and allows for a decent GIR rate, and where drives average of 210-240, can yield a scratch golfer. I'm not sure how these people would fit into your split, but it sounds to me like they have "quality" and "skill" in both areas of concern (long and short game).
Last edited:
Flatleftwrist
New
dbl said:
I agree with you. There are a few Scratch Golfers that average 230 off the tee. On an average Golf Course, the difference between a PGA player and a scratch Golfer is about 15 strokes per round.
Flatleftwrist
New
dbl said:
No. The "Short" scratch golfer has great long iron and Driver skills. He just doesn't have distance. Effort for effort, the short scratch golfer may be even more exceptional than a professional player. He's the one that may use 90% effort and focus on every shot. That's remarkable self control and skill. The Long hitter by comparison (especially PGA) only uses a perceived 75% effort on any given full shot from the fairway and many use only 80% off the tee.
I've played with guys that hit a 48 degree wedge 150 Yards at 75% effort. At 100% they're less accurate but reach out to 170 yards (my five iron at 85%). I know one guy that drives the ball 300 yards at 80% effort. He looks as though he's standing still. He plays once or twice a week in the spring and summer. The remarkable ability to generate that much clubhead speed with such little effort allows many players to stay within themselves while competing. I don't think that this ability is simply learned.
Look at any sports professional. Take MLB Pitchers. If you practiced from now until the rest of your life; would you be able to throw a 100mph fast ball? Kick a 50 yard field goal? Run 100 yrds in under 10 seconds? 25 foot Long jump? Certainly people that have demonstrated these abilities have dedicated a great part of their lives developing that skill level, but they also had potential to reach. How many of us has the potential to hit a 300 yard drive at 80% perceived effort? Any one of us can muscle it out there at 240, but that doesn't win in the long run. It's great for a class B Club Champ.
No matter how many golf books you read or lessons you take, you can only live up to the potential you have. I Also think that only a small few of us ever reach our potential.
Last edited:
birdie_man
New
Perfect Impact said:
Wieskopf? Better swing than Woods????
???
tongzilla said:
It depends on the cousre and how it sets up. On your average modern members course, the scratch golfer probably actually averages about 75 or so and the pga tour pro could probably average about 67. You can only go so low. It's really interesting to play a "non-competitive" round with a pga player (or nationwide or mini-tour player for that matter - the skill gap really isn't that huge). Many of them don't actually look much more impressive that a solid scratch golfer. They might only shoot a 70 or 72.
But get them in a pressure packed tournament situation on a course so severe that the scratch player shoots an 85 and the PGA player still shoots a 70.
Last edited:
Perfect Impact
New
Weiskopf swing was better than JN. About Woods' swing: jury still out: his back won't take many years of that; as contrasted with Austin, whose pivot was stress-free and who was murdering the ball until his stroke in his 80s.
mrodock
New
Perfect Impact,
Mike Austin's swing was not "stress free." That is such a ridiculous notion. First, his impact position is bad on the back, in the sequence posted on this site he has a huge amount of axis tilt. Second, most swings put about 7 times the body weight in compression on the spine in a driver swing. Are you suggesting that Mike Austin's swing caused 0 compression on his spine? Perhaps his swing caused less compression than Woods as an example, but it wasn't without stress! Just because Austin could swing well into his 80's does not mean it was because of his swing. Some "World's Strongest Men" are without much back pain whereas the couch potato that does not tax his back through movement may have a ton of back pain. I think it's sad when someone profits off someone's swing and just wants to throw compliments at it, this seems to compromise the integrity of the study.
Matt
Mike Austin's swing was not "stress free." That is such a ridiculous notion. First, his impact position is bad on the back, in the sequence posted on this site he has a huge amount of axis tilt. Second, most swings put about 7 times the body weight in compression on the spine in a driver swing. Are you suggesting that Mike Austin's swing caused 0 compression on his spine? Perhaps his swing caused less compression than Woods as an example, but it wasn't without stress! Just because Austin could swing well into his 80's does not mean it was because of his swing. Some "World's Strongest Men" are without much back pain whereas the couch potato that does not tax his back through movement may have a ton of back pain. I think it's sad when someone profits off someone's swing and just wants to throw compliments at it, this seems to compromise the integrity of the study.
Matt
Perfect Impact
New
Matt: we disagree. Do you mean stress to include all exertion? Of course there was fierce exertion: but anatomically efficient and natural, not X type torsion.
Couples, Woods, and other golfers famous and otherwise suffering back pain from golf are not couch potatoes.
Shall we assume you have never read or viewed a detailed instruction of the MA swing? That is the usual situation of nay-say commentators.
If a man who was hitting the ball over 300 yards in his 80s, 400 yards as a younger man, routinely, was doing it with bad mechanics anatomically speaking without damage, he is a medical miracle.
just my opinion. And I have studied his swing in great detail and retold it in my own words and pics.
Couples, Woods, and other golfers famous and otherwise suffering back pain from golf are not couch potatoes.
Shall we assume you have never read or viewed a detailed instruction of the MA swing? That is the usual situation of nay-say commentators.
If a man who was hitting the ball over 300 yards in his 80s, 400 yards as a younger man, routinely, was doing it with bad mechanics anatomically speaking without damage, he is a medical miracle.
just my opinion. And I have studied his swing in great detail and retold it in my own words and pics.
mrodock
New
I am talking about spinal compression as stress.
Comparing couch potatoes and world's strongest man competitors is simply a means to suggesting that what a person puts their back through does not indicate whether they will have back problems. I'm not saying Fred is a couch potato or Bubba Watson is a "world's strongest man" competitor.
I know quite a bit more about biomechanics than how Mike Austin's swing is instructed. I have read a book on his swing. Quite frankly, I think the biomechanics is much more important to understanding than what people think Mike Austin did.
Matt
Comparing couch potatoes and world's strongest man competitors is simply a means to suggesting that what a person puts their back through does not indicate whether they will have back problems. I'm not saying Fred is a couch potato or Bubba Watson is a "world's strongest man" competitor.
I know quite a bit more about biomechanics than how Mike Austin's swing is instructed. I have read a book on his swing. Quite frankly, I think the biomechanics is much more important to understanding than what people think Mike Austin did.
Matt
Flatleftwrist said:
I agree .
Yes there are limitations we have. I'm not sure I have driven past 270 and am averaging less. I do question whether "proper mechanics" and "efficiency" and swinging at that 90%+ level (mutter, mutter) that I can get 300 yard drives. Time will tell. Those other fellows you mentioned (300 yds at 80%) have a distinct advantage, no doubt.
Burner said:
Very true, for ANY evaluation on a personal level.
...Although I might add that a score for a given round can still be affected by the vagaries of nature (wind, rain, turf condition) and dame fortune herself.
- Status