Science is not a Swing!

[SteveT]

I'd be interested to know what you think a ' scientific' golf tip might look like.

Also, like others, you seem to suggest that the 'new scientific' info is contrary to previous info, like it is an either / or thing. Seems to me that it is actually validating a lot of what was already being done.

Out-toss, going normal, pulling in, low and ascending hands coupling point path, D-plane solutions .... those are scientific-based golf tips and information. They originated from studies done by scientists-engineers who scientifically analyzed the golf swing.... and their science is now being applied practically.

And if you understand or at least appreciate mandrin's differential equations and related diagrams and graphs, you may be able to glean out a scientific golf tip or two. I can.

And yes, the 'new scientific' info is sweeping away TGM and will challenge all other golfswing methods to provide an objective scientific proof that they are legitimate and not just somebody's anecdotal observations and beliefs. Just look how Trackman incorporating the D-plane algorithm has shaken the foundations of the old schools of golf... and now even 3-D analysis. What's next??!!!

We are on the cusp of great changes to the way the golf swing is understood and taught... and Brian & associates are on the forefront of that revolution with their Project 1.68!!

Luddites will cling, like hurt children, to their old dark ages thinking and crying that if it was good enough for Hogan/Homer it's all you need to know!!! Soon there will be a lot of roadkill in the golf teaching trade ... believe it.

 

[dschultz6072]

Do golfers really need something like this?

 

[SteveT]

Do golfers really need something like this?

Only those who want to swing like Hogan, because that golfswing Control System gizmo was likely inspired and patented in the Hogan era of golf.

Nowadays golfers have been liberated from that kind of mechanistic Hogan-era thinking .... and we are being liberated by True Science.

 

[grahler]

Hogan was very scientific in his application of ideas about how to continue the evolution of his own swing. Why all the hate?
Also in response to this threads first post an instructor could be invaluable in terms of putting a person on the right path but it is up to each individual to ingrain whatever they choose to ingrain into their golf swing/game regardless of if it was their idea or Ben Hogans or whomevers.
The work is the work no matter whose ideas they are man. There's nothing revolutionary in that.
Improving in golf is hard work.

 

[dschultz6072]

I've got a question. Please don't take this the wrong way! All of the people on tour who were considered as mechanical thinkers and driven by the science of the golf swing, the tinkerers I'd call them...what happened/is happening to them? Not to mention the ones who were kind of spoon fed some "scientific" information about the golf swing by their coaches and forced to tinker until they achieved some sort of perfection.

Everyone should know who I mean. One of them currently works for CBS.

Conversely, you have the people who could and will still play well into old age. The "home made" bunch who never cared much for mechanical thinking outside a few fundamentals. The ones who could still hit the ball 285+ on the senior tour and give us 3 a side.

 

[SteveT]

Hogan was very scientific in his application of ideas about how to continue the evolution of his own swing. Why all the hate?

No hate here personally for Hogan, and in fact I admire what he and writer Herbert Warren Wind were able to put together in 5 Lessons.

If Hogan were alive today, I bet he would junk much of his 5 Lessons and espouse the new sciences defining the golfswing. What is annoying is people who are mired in the past and can't seem to emerge from their archaic attitudes of living in the comfortable past. Science makes people uncomfortable because it takes thinking and thinking can hurt.

Even Hogan comments on his take on science with this found on page 37-38 of 5 Lessons:

"Golf also seems to bring out the scientist in the person. He soon discovers that unless he goes about observing and testing with an orderly method, he is simply complicating his problems. .... How I wish I had known what I know today when I was a youngster just starting out!"

Hogan's 5 Lessons was essentially a "Golf My Way" book based on his personal anecdotal experiences with his own golfswing. Attempting to emulate it now that we have new, superior scientific knowledge about the golfswing is questionable. The attraction to Hogan's 5 Lessons lies, I believe, with the simplicity of the writing and the historical reputation of the golfer. I suppose with enough trial and error and error and error practice one can cobble together a workable homemade golfswing from 5 Lessons... why even Tiger did it ... but he started from the age of 2 ...!!!!

 

[grahler]

People in todays world have been conditioned to think anything NEW is automatically better. This is a function of marketing ad campaigns.
The true fundamentals of the golf swing have not changed in the last fifty years Steve.

 

[dschultz6072]

Even Hogan comments on his take on science with this found on page 37-38 of 5 Lessons:

"Golf also seems to bring out the scientist in the person. He soon discovers that unless he goes about observing and testing with an orderly method, he is simply complicating his problems. .... How I wish I had known what I know today when I was a youngster just starting out!"

I think you're searching far too deeply into that statement.

As far as attempting to emulate Hogan, who the hell thinks that's the right way to go about things? Oh...well anyway. Hogan is not me and Hogan is not you and Hogan is not anyone else BUT Hogan. What IS stupid is people trying to achieve a certain "look" because their "model" i.e. Hogan does the same. The nonsense idea of studying the kinematics and staring at pictures like a 3 year old waiting for that a-ha moment.

We can all sign our names, right? Not very much to think about when signing our names. But give us a chance to do it 100 times in a row and how many of those signatures will be EXACTLY the same? If we worked on signing our name the EXACT same way in order to do it 100 times in a row, then we might get closer to actually doing it. So in a way this practice thing that you kind of try to push aside is pretty important, is it not?

I don't even know where the hell I'm going with my statements any more. You're bugging the hell out of me.

 

[SteveT]

People in todays world have been conditioned to think anything NEW is automatically better. This is a function of marketing ad campaigns.
The true fundamentals of the golf swing have not changed in the last fifty years Steve.

You can't defend that position, unless you are mired in the past and refuse to learn. R.I.P.

 

[SteveT]

I think you're searching far too deeply into that statement.
........................................
I don't even know where the hell I'm going with my statements any more. You're bugging the hell out of me.

I think you got discombobulated somewhere between your first and last statements. Keep trying ...

 

[grahler]

And you cannot attack it except for ad hominem and nonsense

 

[grahler]

Steve, the fundamental motions involved in the golf swing have remained the same for decades. There's not a lot new about the movements man. You don't have to reinvent the wheel in order to drive a car.
I have to ask lol are you for real?You are creepy.

 

[TeeAce]

Timing and rhythm. Timing and rhythm. Timing and rhythm.

There is the element of athleticism that people just can't wrap their head around. You can't teach someone to hit it further (read BETTER) than their body is capable of. Once you reach that plateau, you get stronger until you can. The people who think Snead or Jones or Couples or Hogan or Vijay or anyone else you'd just die to be able to hit the ball like were/are not physically strong (read stronger than YOU) and athletically inclined are out of their minds.

If science were the only case, you wouldn't have these cats on tour or the LDA hitting the gym. They'd be studying.

Why don't you see connection with that and science?

Or maybe we should ask people how they define science here? For me Trackman or Flightscope is about 5% of that.

 

[SteveT]

To reiterate my opening thesis: Science is not a Swing.... because science is only true knowledge and the question remains how to transform that true knowledge into a working golf swing.

Science does not involve emotional feelings about the golfswing that many think is 'feel'. Science is a truthful examination of the golf swing and how it can be made to work optimally.

I look forward to Project 1.68 as the vanguard of providing the average golfer with playable instruction based on the most current scientific knowledge about the golf swing.

 

[drewyallop]

Every word of the original post might be true, or cobblers, and it's still irrelevant to the enjoyment I get out of the game.

Everyone is always droning on about how the standard of the average golfer hasn't improved in something like 100 years. Nobody ever seems to comment on how golf, unlike sky-diving or inter-continental swimming or Moto GP, is a great sport to be crap at.

I'll continue to learn what I can about the game, and I'll practice with what time I can spare. Intellectually, I KNOW that this is not likely to transform my game. That's OK though. I enjoy being out there, and I enjoy what little knowledge I have. Don't tell me that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - because nobody's getting hurt here.

I enjoy feeling like I've experimented or learned or applied something new, and I enjoy the illusions stoked by every good shot that chance allows me to hit.

If, heaven forbid, I had to get better at golf in order to feed my family - then obviously I'd feel differently about the learning process. But the fact is - I probably enjoy pissing about at this on my own more than I'd enjoy doing as I'm told by a proper expert and being twice the player that I currently am. Everything relative, innit?

A gem birly.

It is very easy to let golf define your self-worth. I have seen successful, clever people call themselves idiots because of a bad shot. I have seen people set aside rules in order to win a hole. I have seen people get surly and sulky in the midst of a bad round. I know people who do not record bad rounds to keep their handicap low.

I no longer keep score. After a couple of holes I let the opponents set my cap. I don't track yardages, GIR, putts. Once the round is over it is forgotten.

If I can cream a couple of shots in a round and make a pressure putt I am content. For me golf success is improvement. As long as things are getting better I am happy.

It is a beautiful, complex and profoundly difficult game. Love it.

 

[footwedge]

Funny I guess Hogan and all those home made swings of other greats must be defying the science or are they in compliance with the science?

Maybe there's room for individual styles that still adhere to the "new scienctific discoveries" about the swing of golfers. If they comply with science can they not be used as models to emulate if one so desires.

 

[drewyallop]

We have seen what a small dose of scientific mumbo-jumbo has done on this fine forum; it has created a schism between the "feel" types and the "analytical" types... the old champions supporters and the pure science buffs who question old knowledge and are seeking better solutions to their swing problems.


Begging the question - again Steve. You do it too much.

 

[willgolfer]

I look forward to Project 1.68 as the vanguard of providing the average golfer with playable instruction based on the most current scientific knowledge about the golf swing.

You keep saying this over and over again, even before you went on your little hiatus. It's seems almost fanatical in a mocking sort of way.

 

[footwedge]

Here's someting to think about, where did the scientist's get their information about the golfswing? Did they not get it from studying golfers?

What if they all decided to use Hogan's swing as the model or Moe Norman would their findings be any different? Would Hogan and Moe be doing something to make the scientists re-evaluate their findings?