Tiger questions (not bashings)

[GaryRead]

Tiger looks very laid off to me compared to days gone by, and drawing from my basic knowledge on the swing, I would say this is caused by rotating his left arm wedge, or more technically supinating his right arm and pronating his left to a large degree whilst swinging into the backswing.

Now if you have rotated from address to the backswing, surely that needs to rotate back to hit any kind of consistent shot? So is it reasonable to suggest that it needs to get back by the rotation of the left arm wedge with the pivot (torso) by literally turning to get that wedge rotating back to the ball. perhaps you could manipulate the wrists but This might be difficult given the strong inertia forces at play and the timing required, ring any bells?

so.... If tiger wants to keep the laid of position, fine, just make sure you rotate the wedge BACK with the pivot by turning into the ball, and as a direct result, opening the shoulders ala Mahan.

If tiger had an action that made him less laid of or stopped him from rotating the left arm wedge into the backswing, then would he need to be open at impact? is openness at impact a result of rotating the 'rotated; wedge back to square at impact?

 

[Richie3Jack]

Tiger looks very laid off to me compared to days gone by, and drawing from my basic knowledge on the swing, I would say this is caused by rotating his left arm wedge, or more technically supinating his right arm and pronating his left to a large degree whilst swinging into the backswing.

He doesn't look nearly as laid off as he was the last few years under Haney.

His driver backswing looks like it's aligned to me. The 3-wood video looked laid off. But the irons look pretty much aligned to me. So maybe he was trying to hit a cut with the 3-wood or it was one bad swing or whatever.







3JACK

 

[fronesis]

He doesn't look nearly as laid off as he was the last few years under Haney.
3JACK

That's what I see too. I think the backswing Tiger is making now puts him in a position to hit a lot of really good shots.

I still think the problem is that Foley wants him to swing more left from there, and Tiger's instincts still tell him to swing right. This is why you see some really great, all over the flag, shots, and some wide misses. I'm not a Foley fan, but I think the Foley bashing is out of control in some quarters, especially since Tiger hasn't really played in a year. I think if Tiger starts to trust the swing-left pattern Foley is teaching him, and gets some confidence in it...watch out.

But I'm in the minority in terms of opinions on Tiger. He's one of the greatest golfers we've ever seen play, and he's not that old at all (especially with today's equipment). If Scott Verplank can come that close to a major win at 47, I think people who say "Tiger will never win another major" are just yelling because it feels good to yell. Tiger could not win a major for the next 5 years, and I'd still not bet against him. If Steve Stricker can come back the way he did and win the tournaments he's won in his 40s, then why does it make sense to bet against Tiger winning a lot more tournaments (and some majors). Of course, all bets are off if he has another serious injury.

 

[faux_maestro]

A lot of good points being made. I agree with Ritchie about not being as laid off lately, but when he is watch out it going to be ugly. I actually like the look of a lot of the backswings he's making now but I just feel he could have accomplished a lot more a lot faster with just a few tweaks from what he was doing before. Looks to me like he's having trouble figuring out just how to get back to the ball consistently. Like fronesis said, if he figures out one or two things watch out.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Like fronesis said, if he figures out one or two things watch out.

IMO, I am afraid he won't figure things out easily because he and his coach are clueless (yes, clueless !) as regards being pro or contra biophysics. How one can be so dumb not to see that the swing should be rebuilt from the ground up ? that arms are last in the queue to react in the motion ? Foley's teaching is a joke, unfortunately. He's trying to teach his pupil the way one would teach how to learn machine or PC typewriting when neither biophysics of the whole motion matters nor there is any coordination between main body and upper distal parts required. It's so simple. Woods is obviously less intelligent than many of you think then.

Cheers

 

[Kevin Shields]

As Im sure others are thinking, rather than say that it is so simple, can you explain how you would fix him?

 

[Dariusz J.]

As Im sure others are thinking, rather than say that it is so simple, can you explain how you would fix him?

I say it is so simple to look for errors in macroscale, not to fix a guy full of queer compensations who's dying to be another Hogan.
I'd analyze what macroscale mistakes all his former teachers did and then I'd start with turning his swing into a setup dependent motion where there is a chain of subsequent biophysical events and see what happens. If it goes in a proper direction I'd recommend him a good microscale teacher to work with him further.

Cheers

 

[Kevin Shields]

Thats fair enough

 

[Todd Dugan]

I'd get him to adjust his distance from the ball at address until his torso does not elevate until AFTER impact..........like he used to do..............back when he was dominating. He could even keep all that silly fixed head, hands on the circle, overly descending Attack Angle and reduced Spinloft, "compression", low ball flight, and other Stack N Tilt elements.

 

[footwedge]

I say it is so simple to look for errors in macroscale, not to fix a guy full of queer compensations who's dying to be another Hogan.
I'd analyze what macroscale mistakes all his former teachers did and then I'd start with turning his swing into a setup dependent motion where there is a chain of subsequent biophysical events and see what happens. If it goes in a proper direction I'd recommend him a good microscale teacher to work with him further.

Cheers

Past Hogan, next. Describe in detail the setup dependent motion and how that will produce the proper chain of biophysical events that specfically relate to Tiger. Also what is a microscale teacher, and what are biophysical events in relation to the biomechanics of the golf swing are there differences? Cheers.

 

[footwedge]

IMO, I am afraid he won't figure things out easily because he and his coach are clueless (yes, clueless !) as regards being pro or contra biophysics. How one can be so dumb not to see that the swing should be rebuilt from the ground up ? that arms are last in the queue to react in the motion ? Foley's teaching is a joke, unfortunately. He's trying to teach his pupil the way one would teach how to learn machine or PC typewriting when neither biophysics of the whole motion matters nor there is any coordination between main body and upper distal parts required. It's so simple. Woods is obviously less intelligent than many of you think then.

Cheers

The thread says no bashing, apparently you missed that , it was in macroscale not microscale so it was obvious to see. Cheers.

 

[ej20]

I agree.How can a macro guy miss such a macro detail?

 

[footwedge]

I agree.How can a macro guy miss such a macro detail?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Maybe my English understanding is not good enough, but for me 'bashing' is just an unfair criticism aimed at discredit one's work just like saying "one is clueless" without specifying why. I explained clearily my point. If the subtitle is "only positive remarks please" I wouldn't take part in the thread while having nothing such to say.
If I understood wrongly - then I do apologize.

Cheers

 

[footwedge]

Maybe my English understanding is not good enough, but for me 'bashing' is just an unfair criticism aimed at discredit one's work just like saying "one is clueless" without specifying why. I explained clearily my point. If the subtitle is "only positive remarks please" I wouldn't take part in the thread while having nothing such to say.
If I understood wrongly - then I do apologize.

Cheers

Just tell us your detailed fix for Tiger's swing problem, leave out all the disparaging remarks and get to the point.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Just tell us your detailed fix for Tiger's swing problem, leave out all the disparaging remarks and get to the point.

It was your idea to change the topic to 'bashing' so I explained politely my point of view on the matter, isn't it, shadow ?

To what point I should get ? Wasn't I clear enough with what I said here ? Should I steal the thread even more because you say so ? If you're interested in my theories...or better said, if you are interested in discrediting my theories (which I do not doubt in...LOL) - just set a new thread or even better, go to my site and my forum.

Cheers

 

[footwedge]

The point is just what you said it's bashing if you don't offer an explanation, you trash Foley and Tiger but fail to provide no real explanation for the swing solution that you claim is simple so answer the questions below.

Describe in detail the setup dependent motion and how that will produce the proper chain of biophysical events that specfically relate to Tiger. Also what is a microscale teacher, and what are biophysical events in relation to the biomechanics of the golf swing are there differences? Cheers.

 

[dbl]

I'd prefer less personal entanglement footwedge than you are making with Darius. Please let it be.

It's a true statement for anyone to say that a particular swing is less than optimal, whether saying in general or specific ways. But demanding "micro" explanations seems out of line. It's easy for me to read that Darius thinks that the current TW swing is not good biomechanically.

Perhaps if you politely requested an explanation, then we could see if he wanted to answer, which of course he is free not to do.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I'd prefer less personal entanglement footwedge than you are making with Darius. Please let it be.

It's a true statement for anyone to say that a particular swing is less than optimal, whether saying in general or specific ways. But demanding "micro" explanations seems out of line. It's easy for me to read that Darius thinks that the current TW swing is not good biomechanically.

Perhaps if you politely requested an explanation, then we could see if he wanted to answer, which of course he is free not to do.

Thank you very much for your wise understanding of the situation. It is not really any slightest problem for me to explain macroscale details and errors of Harmon/Haney/Foley + suggest macroscale advices for Woods's motion if anyone interested but I don't think it will be in the spirit of this site and standards that that Brian demands. Having said this, though, I never ever let be unfairly attacked in ad hominem way and will respond always.

If everyone feels better I'll delete all my posts in this thread on command.

Cheers

 

[faux_maestro]

It's always the same few people on these forums that just RUIN threads. Get a life.