shortgamer
New
Austin's swing does not match the models put forth in SP descriptions. His pivot and use of the shoulders on plane is perfection and it simply does not have to BE SP for that. Because the shoulders do not move perpendicular to the spine: they move WITH the spine -- on a plane not far from the angle of the spine itself, delivering the arms and hands as efficiently as is possible. Brian is right that the SP models are not the best way. And yes, about the kinesiological details: when asked about why he thought his swing description was the best possible, he bellowed "YOU CAN'T IMPROVE ON GOD!"
This did not come from an ego, but from such a comprehensive understanding of the human body AND of the physics/engineering efficiencies of levers, etc. that he simply KNEW, as you and I know that 2+2=4, that his "method" was the optimum. It didn't need proof: it was self evident to him.
I say "method" because what he did was explain and demonstrate the relationships of bones, muscles, joints, club, and geometry of swing/impact that DO align for the "most bang for the buck" for "people built golfers." His explanations put into practice by everyone will look different but will be based on each golfer's anatomy. Nothing he asked of a golfer exceeded or tested his natural range or motion or strengths: he simplified anatomical properties and lined them up logically for best results swinging golf clubs into golf balls.
The Austin swing is not taught with TGM terminology or logic.
I don't remember anything being radically different in his swing when Brian broke it down and since you learned from him may I ask if you drive the ball 300 yards? If not then maybe he was just gifted. You MA guys talk of all his power and how perfect he was so tell us, whats so different? Do all the MA students start killing the ball? My quess is probably not and maybe just maybe it was the man himself. This is not a stab at you George, I'm just intriged as to why his method has so much power and whats so different about it?