So what IS going on with the "modern" golf swing?

[coachwalls]

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert. I'm a mid 80's player thinking out loud and looking for educated opinions. I also think to much.

I've been watching lots of video of the younger players on tour and in college. All most all of these swings seem to be very similar. Yes they look different if you look at the "positions" during the swing. The one thing that makes them similar in my opinion is how dynamic they are.

I know there has been lots of discussion on this forum about things like pivot, snapping the chain, the run up and jump (never did figure this out). My question is how are these kids learning to do this?

This is all very interesting to me because the way I see it the young players that are playing well right now learned to play this way 10 to 15 years BEFORE anything that is being taught right now. This just baffles me. We have access to more information, more technology, more GOLF knowledge than at any other time in the HISTORY of golf instruction.

And yet the most talented players in the world right now learned their swing before any of the things listed above were available. What gives? How did these guys learn to swing this way? How do you teach someone to swing this way?

What makes the "modern" golf swing what it is?

 

[jdish]

Talent.

I believe that natural talent and a little bit of instruction is what shapes the pros. I see many young golfers and college golfers at my range who have had limited instruction, but have great swings and can play. They were taught a few basics along the way, but got themselves the rest of the way. Not to say that instruction isn't important for most of us, but I think the truly elite get there mostly on their own and find their own swings so to speak.

 

[wulsy]

I think it was the rejection of instruction which caused these swings.

Golf instruction after the Leadbetter era starte to decline (mid 90s) had such a bad reputaion that many folks started to realise the dangers of coaching in golf. Ask anyone who was a young player at that time if their coaches helped them or messed them up. I would reckon with a ratio of 100:1.

And it's not much better these days.

 

[spmurph]

Talent.

I believe that natural talent and a little bit of instruction is what shapes the pros.

There is no such thing as natural talent. Start 'em early enough, have 'em practice enough, sprinkle in the right conditions, and a Rory or Tiger is bound to spring up.

 

[ms1170]

There is no such thing as natural talent. Start 'em early enough, have 'em practice enough, sprinkle in the right conditions, and a Rory or Tiger is bound to spring up.

You don't think Frank Sinatra had a natural talent for singing, Sandy Koufax had a natural talent for pitching or Carl Lewis for running? (definitely not singing for Carl.)

 

[Jared Willerson]

I am not a fan of the "talent" argument either. I think it is a mix of personality, physical ability, work ethic and other conditions that either allow or force someone to succeed.

The book, "The Talent Code" has been very enlightening in this regard.

 

[spmurph]

You don't think Frank Sinatra had a natural talent for singing, Sandy Koufax had a natural talent for pitching or Carl Lewis for running? (definitely not singing for Carl.)

No, I don't.

 

[coachwalls]

I think it was the rejection of instruction which caused these swings.

Golf instruction after the Leadbetter era starte to decline (mid 90s) had such a bad reputaion that many folks started to realise the dangers of coaching in golf. Ask anyone who was a young player at that time if their coaches helped them or messed them up. I would reckon with a ratio of 100:1.

And it's not much better these days.

I would agree completely about coaching with a few exceptions. There are very few cookie cutter swings left on tour or in the elite levels of college golf. These young kids learn to load it up and hit the heck out of the ball. How did they learn this?

I guess my motives for posting this are a little selfish.

I have 3 children that are under the age of 14 and all of them are interested in golf to a certain extent. My son, the youngest of the three, has the most "natural" athletic ability of the three. They are all athletes, one is a track star and starting point guard, one is a gifted gymnast. But my son can play any sport and play it very well for a kid as young as he is. He can hit a baseball pitched out of a machine from either side of the plate (started doing this when he was four), he can play basketball, he swims like a fish, has body control off a diving board, and can hit a golf ball farther than his two older siblings.

All that said, I don't believe that natural talent is going to guarantee his success in any sport he chooses to play especially golf.

I'm really curious how the players of today learned to have such dynamic pivots, hit the ball miles and miles, and have a reasonable amount of accuracy. There is no way they learned to do it with ultralight kids clubs that are sold today. I can see that with all of my kids. I also don't think they did it with cut down adult clubs, a hope, and a prayer.

So what gives? Is there a start them right pattern?

 

[Hayes9801]

Several points to ponder here....

Nancy Hogshead was an Olympic gold medal swimmer. She told me one time that in her very first race as a child, before she had even had formal swim lessons, her parents entered her in a swim meet and she set a Florida state record for 10 and unders and she was only 4 or 5. I may have the ages wrong, but the point is that she had a natural talent for swimming. After that she worked and trained like a maniac to make the most of her talent, but the talent was there.

When Tiger came out on tour people asked him how he could hit the ball so far. He replied that you might as well ask Nolan Ryan how he could throw 95 mph fast balls until he was in his late 40's. They don't know. They just can. If people could train to pitch 95mph fastballs for 40 years and earn millions per year, don't you think more than one person would do it?

At an age when my daughter could barely hold a toy baseball, the kid across the street could throw one across the yard. At the same time, she could say hundreds of words and he was barely past mama/dada.

Talents and natural abilities exist. Some people hone them and make the most of them. Some don't.

With respect to helping kids learn golf, if you look around the internet you'll find more than one site that blames modern ultra light, upright equipment for the lack of accuracy in the modern game. The top players can all bash the ball 300+ yards, but they hit very few fairways. I got my daughter a set of Hogan Princess irons off ebay for 30 bucks. She doesn't know it, but she's learning how to swing the club with her body (not slap at it with her hands) and hit the sweetspot. You might try something similar for your son.

 

[coachwalls]

Talents and natural abilities exist. Some people hone them and make the most of them. Some don't.

I've been a teacher and coach in multiple sports for about 14 years. I see kids all the time that are "natural" athletes. I guess what I've noticed is what separates the really outstanding players in any sport from the so-so players is a combination of great athletic ability and passion for the sport they are playing. This combination of ability and passion drives them to work harder at the sport they love and consequently get better at it than most of their peers.

Does this passion and athletic ability transfer to golf? Or does it take knowledgeable instruction to get them to that next level?

Kids and golf equipment is something I would like to hear more about. I would really like to know what the Manzella academy guys think about this subject. I can't afford to buy new clubs every year but I want to put my kids into equipment that will help them develop as players (as much as they want to develop that is) and not equipment that will hinder their development.

I talked to a club builder early this year about clubs for my daughter. He handed me a few graphite shafted women's irons and told me to cut them down to fit her. Will that work?

 

[Richie3Jack]

Personally, the thing that impresses me the least when watching Tour players and elite amateurs is swing mechanics. My feeling on the talent argument is that there is some hand-eye coordination and timing involved. That is something I would consider to be 'talent.' But on the flip side, I think that the more you work at it, the better your hand-eye coordination and timing becomes. So it's a mix of talent and hard work to better develop that talent.

From a mechanics standpoint, I'm a believer that the modern equipment has really hurt modern golf swings. In the old days of Palmer, Snead and Hogan...they had the toughest golf ball to hit straight, the toughest irons to hit flush and the toughest woods to hit consistently, accurately and powerfully. So they had to figure out how to develop a swing that would allow them to hit those clubs and those golf balls well.

With today's equipment, it's allowed (IMO) a lot of crappy swings to hit the ball well enough to play on an elite level. Particularly if the swing is very much geared towards power, but very flawed from an accuracy and consistency standpoint. And I think a lot of modern instruction since the 90's has been geared towards those swing because it's perceived that those swings work.

Sometimes it's a case of a player who develops a very timing and hand-eye coordination based swing because of the equipment they grew up playing. Other times it's a case of a player who develops a very timing and hand-eye coordination based swing because of the instruction they've received.

Where the PGA Tour players really impress me, swing-wise, is their ability to make a method teacher's swing 'work.' That method teacher's swing may not really fit them that well and they could probably hit it better with a different pattern, but they can go from say a Jimmy Ballard swing to a Jim Flick swing to a Butch Harmon swing and most of them would probably hit it just as good and that's well enough for them to play at a world class level.

That's something I certainly could not do. I could probably make some of them work, but there would certainly be a very noticeable drop off in my play with certain methods.

Another thing is that if I played with cavity backs, I know my game would suffer a little bit. Reason being is that I can hit blades and mis-hit it by a pretty good amount and still have a decent shot. But where they really help me is when I don't hit it flush I get that feedback that my swing was off a bit. The PGA Tour players are more acutely aware of when their swing is off and they are better at repeating their swing.

This may come off as negative, but I actually do think that they do have some great talent and I am actually impressed by that (and jealous).








3JACK

 

[coachwalls]

From a mechanics standpoint, I'm a believer that the modern equipment has really hurt modern golf swings. In the old days of Palmer, Snead and Hogan...they had the toughest golf ball to hit straight, the toughest irons to hit flush and the toughest woods to hit consistently, accurately and powerfully. So they had to figure out how to develop a swing that would allow them to hit those clubs and those golf balls well.

With today's equipment, it's allowed (IMO) a lot of crappy swings to hit the ball well enough to play on an elite level. Particularly if the swing is very much geared towards power, but very flawed from an accuracy and consistency standpoint. And I think a lot of modern instruction since the 90's has been geared towards those swing because it's perceived that those swings work.

I think you kind of contradict yourself here. I'm not trying to be argumentative but don't you think golf swings have always been built around the tools that were available? Hickory shafts required one type of swing, old school forged blades required a swing built around accuracy, and modern equipment requires (allows is probably a better word) a swing built for power.

I kind of equate what has happened to the game of golf to what happened to tennis when light weight oversize rackets came on the seen.

Where the PGA Tour players really impress me, swing-wise, is their ability to make a method teacher's swing 'work.' That method teacher's swing may not really fit them that well and they could probably hit it better with a different pattern, but they can go from say a Jimmy Ballard swing to a Jim Flick swing to a Butch Harmon swing and most of them would probably hit it just as good and that's well enough for them to play at a world class level.

That's something I certainly could not do. I could probably make some of them work, but there would certainly be a very noticeable drop off in my play with certain methods.

Another thing is that if I played with cavity backs, I know my game would suffer a little bit. Reason being is that I can hit blades and mis-hit it by a pretty good amount and still have a decent shot. But where they really help me is when I don't hit it flush I get that feedback that my swing was off a bit. The PGA Tour players are more acutely aware of when their swing is off and they are better at repeating their swing.

This may come off as negative, but I actually do think that they do have some great talent and I am actually impressed by that (and jealous).






3JACK

I think the reason good players can switch from one method to another is because they keep the elements of their swing that makes them dynamic. They may make changes but they power their swings the same way.

And your thoughts didn't come off as negative at all to me.

 

[self-mastery]

I believe in talent --- I just spent an entire day at a junior golf event, and it's quite obvious that certain people just GET things. Good information and work ethic can make up for a deficit of talent. Talent is also a bit overrated...

About the modern swing:

It sucks! I prefer the young fat Jack type of old school leverage swing. These young dudes aren't even pumping out big power out of these modern swings. They all basically just muscle the club around in an inefficient manner.... I can't even watch golf without cringing at what they call the golf swing. Somehow we are suppose to think the occasional 330 yard drive is BIG POWA, not in my world. If that's golf, I'm not playing it!

Where are all the prophesied new school players averaging 350 yards?

No Lochoa so so boring...

 

[Lifter]

When I read words like "dynamic" repeated a lot, I get confused. What does that really mean?

 

[coachwalls]

When I read words like "dynamic" repeated a lot, I get confused. What does that really mean?

Not trying to be a smart arse but I found this and I think it sums up dynamic as it relates to the golf swing better than I could.

As an adj.
Of or relating to energy or to objects in motion.
As a noun
An interactive system or process, especially one involving competing or conflicting forces

And I really like this
from Greek dunamikos, powerful

 

[dbl]

In this thread
http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...-defines-limited-pivot-undynamic-pivot-2.html

Lindsey said

Best to use examples I think. Couples, Daly, Snead, Hogan, Mickelson, Nicklaus, Watson, Singh are full motion max participation moves in my opinion. On the other hand, Maggert, Funk, Allen Doyle all have great moves, but are limited and prevent them accessing full power- again in my opinion.

Just some examples that come to mind

Fowler and Lovemark also mentioned as dynamic.

 

[Lifter]

Not trying to be a smart arse but I found this and I think it sums up dynamic as it relates to the golf swing better than I could.

As an adj.
Of or relating to energy or to objects in motion.
As a noun
An interactive system or process, especially one involving competing or conflicting forces

And I really like this
from Greek dunamikos, powerful

Thanks coachwalls. I guess one example of "dynamic" is the torso turning counterclockwise while the arms are still turning clockwise at the end of the backswing, no? What are some other examples?

 

[kc8kir]

Ugh! Jibberish Definitions and Pop Golf Jargon!

I have to agree here that the term "dynamic" is very difficult to define. Bends the shaft or not? Retains lag pressure or not? Utilizes right and left arm active participation or not? What are the conditions and how do you measure them in scientific means?

This kinda stuff in golf drives me crazy, because you have so many "loose" terms. Coming from engineering, that's just unacceptable. Something either exists or it doesn't. If it exists, it exists in quantifiable measures. These terms that pop golf instruction manages to conjure up are really garbage when put through scientific scrutiny. Communicating an idea with adjectives / adverbs is one thing... but taking those terms to yes/no extremes is unacceptable.

Take the term "connected" swing for example. I can't stand that one. Show me a golfer that has a "disconnected" left arm in the swing... a truly disconnected left arm... I'm talking their left arm isn't even attached to the shoulder socket. Been waiting to see that for some time so I can finally say "ah, I get it now... that's what non-connected would be... now I have it...". If someone finds one, please let me know!

Here's a fun, albiet incomplete definition though that I'm sure a few of you will enjoy..

Dynamic Swing - (noun) a functional swing that does not work with hinged trainer clubs.

Frankly however, I bet if you ask the scientists, the real scientists that is, they will explain their concept of a dynamic movement in terms of efficiency of kinematic sequencing. Not a bad approach by any means, but strictly speaking however, from an engineering standpoint, the term dynamics and movement are redundant. Dynamics is the study of forces and moments on objects in motion... hence all swings are "dynamic"!Some just create better results (alignment, speed, acceleration, etc) than others (for various reasons).

We are chasing a ghost trying to define "dynamic"... and I certainly don't think falling into the "let's analyze some video examples" is the way to go. If anything, it's a step backwards to the 2D line drawing danger zone.

 

[dbl]

KC8, I agree about the vagueness of terms. "Connected" to me comes from Ballard, and he wanted a certain body and arm interaction....so I'm not too dispirited about that one.

And, as an engineering thought experience, consider a person who is in a body cast from the waist down, and then just performed an arm swing...would you accept that as "disconnected"? In that vain, there might be more than one kind of "disconnectedness" - the body cast kind and various maladies which would be fairly normal looking swings but that Ballard would judge as disconnected.

 

[dschultz6072]

My limited understanding leads me to believe "dynamic" is what they call it when you lift your head, drop your head, change your spine angle, let your left arm bend, move off the ball, take it past parallel, snap your legs, or any combination of those, and still hit the ball like a champ.