Tiger's 2000 US Open Swing
- Thread starter Jim1
- Start date
- Status
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Sure. Alot of Ams head dive into it and cant get the club past them and just run into the ground. Not a usual suspect but happens enough. I wouldnt say its the only cause in these cases but one of them.
mjstrong
New
+1 from one who teaches for a living.
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
i'll tell you the one thing tiger was doing back then that he isn't doing now (besides draining putts from everywhere) was swinging a bunch more left
Much less "jump" too. Probably related. It seems with his past and recent injuries, he will have to learn how to swing more left without the jump.
dschultz6072
New
Those LD guys don't need any "ground force" when they can just use their 15 inch forearms
I agree. I think that Tiger's downswing is pointed too far to the right / underplane. If someone could make a case that Tiger is doing X and Y which forces him to head-dip (more than he should?) and swing too far to the right, I'd appreciate it. If I could grasp what X and Y are, then I might buy the notion that Tiger's head-dip is excessive.
birly-shirly
New
I'm not sure I understand the OP's argument. Is the problem that Tiger's head is in the wrong place at impact, or just that it moves?
The problem is that his head is closer (too close) to the ball at impact than it is at address, which requires compensations to adjust for the difference. If he doesn't compensate, he will either push the ball way right (which he usually does), or he will pronate and duck hook the ball way left (which he alternatively does), or he will plough right under the ball (which he sometimes does). We see the result of this head dip (being too close to the ball at impact) more with his driver than with his irons because the shorter the club, the easier it is to compensate. But it affects all of his clubs to one degree or another. Yesterday (Saturday, October 8th, 2011), Tiger was head dipping his normal 3 inches instead of more than that, and his ball striking was much improved. Tiger's ball striking would get even better if he could stop head dipping altogether (zero head dip, as in the 2000 US Open). And the easiest way to stop head dipping altogether is put the hands above the head at the top of the back swing.
Last edited:
birly-shirly
New
How do you know that his head isn't too high at address - and that he's just dropping into position for impact? Is there any reason for thinking that his upper body is too low through impact? Have you thought about what you're seeing in terms of the "pull-back, run-up and jump" and release threads on here?
Of all the good players that I grew up playing with, 2 had really pronounced head-dips on their downswing. This was the early 80s - and neither was swinging flat.
Of all the good players that I grew up playing with, 2 had really pronounced head-dips on their downswing. This was the early 80s - and neither was swinging flat.
If his head was too high (too far from the ball) at address, then the club face would not reach the ball at address. Since the club face is behind the ball at address, Tiger's head is not too high (too far from the ball) at address. Therefore, when Tiger's head dips down (becomes closer to the ball) in the forward swing, he becomes TOO CLOSE to the ball at impact.
The natural result of being TOO CLOSE to the ball at impact is either a big push to the right (we've seen this) or a big duck hook to the left (we've seen this) or the club head going under the ball (we've even seen this).
In order to send the ball where it is supposed to go when the head is TOO CLOSE to the ball at impact, compensations must be added to the swing, which increases the number of things that must be done during the swing in order to get the ball to the target. Now (metaphorically), instead of juggling three balls (which is not terribly difficult), one is juggling five balls (which is very difficult), and the opportunity for something to go wrong is increased, and therefore the percentage of bad shots goes up, and therefore the score goes up, which is what we've been seeing with Tiger during the last two years.
Tiger has been performing worse during these last two years than than he had been performing before these last two years, and the thing that he has been doing differently during these last two years that he had not been doing before these last two years is an increase in the amount that his head dips in the forward swing. Therefore, the thing that Tiger has been doing differently during these last two years (an increase in the amount that his head dips) is the reason that he has been performing differently during these last two years than the way that he performed before these last two years.
Yes, it is possible to dip in the forward swing when the hands are above the head at the top of the back swing. But it is easier to dip in the forward swing when the hands are not above the head at the top of the back swing. Since Tiger dipped less in the forward swing when his hands were above his head at the top of the back swing, it is logical to conclude that Tiger will again dip less in his forward swing if his hands are again above his head at the top of the back swing.
That is why Rocco Mediate said that if Tiger just gets the club back UP where it belongs, everything will be OK.
Last edited:
birly-shirly
New
Sorry Jim. I'm not a huge fan of either reductionist arguments, or arguments by analogy. I am however a big fan of Byron Nelson, if you know what I mean
Sorry Jim. I'm not a huge fan of either reductionist arguments, or arguments by analogy. I am however a big fan of Byron Nelson, if you know what I mean
Byron Nelson:
I DIDN'T DIP my knees on the downswing quite the way people thought I did. High-speed films show IT WAS JUST AN ILLUSION. AFTER IMPACT, I tried to keep the club moving as low to the ground as possible. To do that I definitely dipped my knees. But THAT HAPPENED AFTER I HIT THE BALL, NOT BEFORE. (linked below)
Byron Nelson: a voice of experience on handling the wind, tinkering with your swing, and why cows and chickens are different | Golf Digest | Find Articles
The better player, on the other hand, stays down through the hitting area much longer with his body by keeping his knees flexed, his left side leading and his head back. The right side comes down and under instead of up and around, and the club head trajectory is as low as possible, FOLLOWING THE BALL AS IT GOES THROUGH THE SHOT. THAT LITTLE DIP they talked about IN MY SWING happened because MY KNEES WERE staying flexed and MOVING LATERALLY FARTHER THAN USUAL. (linked below)
50 Greatest Golfers of All Time : AND WHAT THEY TAUGHT US - page 5 | Golf Digest
Jim:
If you examine the Nelson videos, you’ll see that what he did was similar to what Gulbis and Creamer do (see message #4 in this thread), as Nelson himself explained. It is true that he did dip a little prior to impact. But the EXAGGERATED dip occurred AFTER the ball was gone, as he tried to keep the club head traveling along the flight path as long as possible AFTER impact. The Lee Trevino videos that I’ve been watching show the same thing in Trevino’s swing. There’s a little dip before impact, which continues into a BIG dip AFTER impact, as he tries to keep the club head traveling along the flight path as long as possible AFTER impact.
No, I have no such record, as I am not a golf instructor.
Do I need credentials to notice the difference between how Tiger swung the club before the last two years and how he has been swinging it during the last two years? The difference is obvious to anyone who has observed his swing before and during the last two years. What's the difference? The difference is the exaggerated dip in the forward swing that he did NOT have prior to the last two years.
Do you honestly think that the swing defect that has caused Tiger to have no idea where the ball is going during the last two years is not the exaggerated dip? Do you think that this obvious observation is not valid simply because I am not a golf instructor? That's like saying that because I'm not a truck driver, I'm not qualified to warn a guy driving a car that the truck next to him is about to back into him. Since when does someone need special credentials to call attention to something that is obvious?
If you need credentials, what about Chamblee and Miller? They think that Tiger's problem during the last two years has been the exaggerated dip in Tiger's forward swing. Do their credentials validate that observation? Apparently not, because that observation has been dismissed by some in this thread as meaningless.
What about Foley? He obviously thinks that Tiger's problem during the last two years has been the exaggerated dip in Tiger's forward swing, because the first images of Foley with Tiger showed either Foley or his assistant holding the grip end of a golf club against Tiger's head as Tiger hit golf balls in an effort to help Tiger stop dipping. Do Foley's credentials validate that observation? Apparently not, as that observation has been dismissed by some in this thread as meaningless.
About six weeks after Tiger's implosion at Firestone in 2010, I watched Tiger competing in a tournament (I don''t remember the name of it), and I saw Tiger's hands higher at the top of the back swing, and I saw Tiger not dipping much at all in the forward swing, and I saw Tiger performing the way he used to perform before the last two years, and I saw Tiger finish high on the leader board, which led me to conclude that apparently the exaggerated dip in Tiger's forward swing was in fact Tiger's problem, and that apparently having higher hands at the top of the back swing did in fact at least contribute to solving that problem. Does the fact that I am not a golf instructor make all of those observations simply disappear?
Rocco Mediate apparently reached the same conclusion, because he said that if Tiger just gets the club back UP where it belongs, then all of his problems will be solved. Does Rocco's credentials validate that observation? Apparently not, as that observation has been dismissed by some in this thread as meaningless.
I saw about a 3 inch dip prior to impact in all of those videos (within that video). The continuation and exaggeration of the dip AFTER impact is most obvious in the second video. The camera moves in the fifth video, which makes it look like he is dipping more than he really is.
What about the converse of that? One has to be careful not to dismiss causation as mere correlation. Sometimes a person can be so focused on something small and subtle (maybe something that the person was just recently learning or studying) that the person overlooks what is glaringly obvious.
- Status