I'm a Lumberjack and I'm ok...

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ekennedy

New
I apologize in advance of my question, but I've had 6-7 cups of coffee today...

I was watching the Sean Foley interview on TGC and I got to thinking about a comment he made and whether or not it would be considered "junk science."

He mentioned that "the ball is not moving, so why should he..." as a reference to keeping the head perfectly still during the swing. This is one of those factoids that S&T guys throw out there as an accepted principle as opposed to a preference. So...I looked up at the television and I saw an ESPN clip of the Outdoor Games or some other ridiculous non-sport and I saw a professional lumberjack chopping into a makeshift tree. He was giving it everything he had and although the tree appeared not to be moving, he certainly was. His upper body moved up and away from the tree on his backswing, leaned down and in on his downswing and then rotated into the wood. It was reminiscent of Jamie Sadlowski hitting a golf ball. I get the whole "the ball is not moving, so why should I" IF the ball is on the ground, but is it in fact, more efficient and powerful to hit a ball on a tee by keeping the head more stationary.

Oh, and I'm a big fan of the Lumberjack song. Thoughts?
 
R

Ringer

New
ekennedy said:
I apologize in advance of my question, but I've had 6-7 cups of coffee today...

I was watching the Sean Foley interview on TGC and I got to thinking about a comment he made and whether or not it would be considered "junk science."

He mentioned that "the ball is not moving, so why should he..." as a reference to keeping the head perfectly still during the swing. This is one of those factoids that S&T guys throw out there as an accepted principle as opposed to a preference. So...I looked up at the television and I saw an ESPN clip of the Outdoor Games or some other ridiculous non-sport and I saw a professional lumberjack chopping into a makeshift tree. He was giving it everything he had and although the tree appeared not to be moving, he certainly was. His upper body moved up and away from the tree on his backswing, leaned down and in on his downswing and then rotated into the wood. It was reminiscent of Jamie Sadlowski hitting a golf ball. I get the whole "the ball is not moving, so why should I" IF the ball is on the ground, but is it in fact, more efficient and powerful to hit a ball on a tee by keeping the head more stationary.

Oh, and I'm a big fan of the Lumberjack song. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Don't look at me.... I sleep all night and I work all day.
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
ekennedy said:
He mentioned that "the ball is not moving, so why should he..." as a reference to keeping the head perfectly still during the swing.
Click to expand...

This is a very silly assumption. It is a biomechanical necessity that the head moves (shouldn't stay in a fixed position) in every possible rotary motion, even if one stands erect, not mentioning one in a bend-over posture. Foley should study basic anatomy before he goes with such nonsenses and understand basics. Or at least study best ballstrikers' motions, it's mpre pleasant and easier ;)

Cheers
 
M

mb6606

New
Somewhere in golf there is a trade off between the power of the lumberjack and the precision of a diamond cutter.
 
Frans@France

Frans@France

New
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zey8567bcg?fs=1&hl=nl_NL"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zey8567bcg?fs=1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
N

niblick1

New
If Sean Foley really is a truth-seeker, as Brian believes, he'll eventually ditch the whole steady head lean left remnants as something he teaches, and just goes with what works and makes his students better. It's the one aspect of Tiger's new pre-swing drills that looks goofy and leaks into his swing and makes him look less golf-like at times, while everything else he's doing now looks like an upgrade.

But how it is that you one day wake up and tell someone, say the former number one player in the world, not to worry about whether your head moves after months of working on a steady head is another matter. I admire the teachers who have the guts to just say, "I was wrong" and do what works. But easier to do that in theory than in fact.

I spend a lot of time on the range. It is clear from watching current teachers, quasi-teachers, and 18 handicappers who read Golf Digest and think they are qualified to teach all the beginners on the range that the current pop view of the world is that the two most important things to do in the golf swing are 1) retaining your address spine angle to impact and 2) not letting your head move in your swing. I recently watched an amateur "teacher" give a very attractive and athletic young woman a "lesson" on keeping her head still throughout the swing -- beyond painful (attractive and athletic young women golfers seem to attract the Golf Digest driving range "pros" for some strange reason...).

So, how did it ever get to be that the "common wisdom" of the day became spine angle retention (do we blame Kostis's Swingvision descriptions for this nugget?) and steady head (I know S&T promotes, but I think this is a much more widespread phenomenon)? (follow the shoe! no, follow the gourd! no, follow the shoe!)
 
Last edited:
S

softconsult

New
Remember the Nicklaus instruction tidbit where Jack Grout grabbed young Jack's hair to hold his head still?

You read it, believe it and try to do it. I think Jack later said that this never actually happened.
 
W

Walt

New
He really did have to hit balls with someone holding his hair. It is in his book. The revised and updated version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top