Laws of the golfswing

[Axel_WIngert]

In his book Mike Adams describes three different kinds of players who should swing differently. In his classification I would be an arc player (tall, flexible, long arms). As an arc player my hands have to be high above the shoulder at the top and the club across the line.

Doesn't the crossing make me swing to the right. What do you think about the LAWS model in general?


Axel

 

[ragman]

"LAWS" is JUNK...

Strong - Hit
Quick - Swing
Both - do Both

The club should actually 'cross the line' slightly with the longer clubs (driver)...and 'laid off' a little with the shorter clubs (9-iron)...BUT, the aim is to TRY and get it to point parallel to the BASE (target) line --- DONT point it at the target! That would have the same effect as having your stance line pointing at the target at setup. (Faulty) ---- for MOST people.

 

[6bee1dee]

The LAWS book is based on TGM principals, width is a hitter; Arc a swinger and Leverage a combo. The book is flawed because it doesn't address in depth, just a brief but interesting chapter in the back, combinations of the three types that almost every golfer is. Seems like a book 2 was needed but never written. It’s the combination of swing types that would work. Daley is a combo of width and arc.. Jack was width and leverage.

My two problems are the stereo types, such as fatguys must be width, NOT.
Arnie is a width, Jacobson is a width. Daley is more arc than width.

Learn better TGM approaches.

Crossing the line is no biggie. Everyone thinks the perfect swing is performed by an Arc player, and everyone tries to have high hands. Maybe you shouldn't. Age brings them down eventually. If your hands are up high, according to LAWS - they must start the downswing so they can catch up to the hip slide and turn.

 

[Martee]

You really need to take the tests to profile your major strenght then go from there.

It is based on TGM.

It does give a start into developing your own swing.

It is far from complete, though if you do study the entire book you will find most of the components and variations.

Its intent to get golfers to develop their own swing, not try and fit into one mold.

It is IMO very poorly written, difficult to read. But it does not contain one, two or three swing methods, it contains many far more than other 'How to books'.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Terrible book.