Mrs. Kanwars minimalist golf swing

[iacas]

I wanted to respond to this separately so that my response wasn't skipped as being more of a response to Rupert.

Originally Posted by billchao

The backswing is important in supplying power. You build it up, load it in the clubhead, then bring it back to the ball. If we could preset all our positions and just swing at the ball and have only a minimal loss of power, we'd all be playing with a no backswing swing. After all, if you can preset your shoulder turn, why not go the whole 9? Just take all of the bad moving parts of the backswing out completely.

I believe we gain three things from the backswing:

1. The ability to do a little X-Factor Stretch in transition.
2. Timing.
3. A sense of starting point and thus impact point - specifically, the length of the club and where the ground is with that length club.

Golf Magazine ran a "no backswing" swing a few years ago . It makes some sense, and we'll pause at the top of our backswings when practicing. You give up a bit of those three things above, which is fine in practice since you can isolate a downswing piece more easily, or a feeling or position at the top.

So, I just wanted to point out that there is a "no backswing" camp out there. Pay attention to step 3 in the link I added and you'll see that they try to still give you items 1 and 2 from my list.

Originally Posted by billchao

Logman, it seems like this whole thing boils down to a "feel vs real" argument. You claim you have "no wrist action at all." I'm willing to bet that if you put your swing on video, your wrists are probably doing something. The fact that you feel "no wrist action at all" is not the same as your wrists having no action at all. The captured image of the guy demonstrating the MGS says it all: the guy is clearly not doing what he thinks/is saying he is doing. In fact, to my uneducated eye, it looks like a conventional swing to me.

QFFT.

The second F is a curse word. :)

[billchao]

Originally Posted by iacas

I believe we gain three things from the backswing:

The ability to do a little X-Factor Stretch in transition.

Timing.

A sense of starting point and thus impact point - specifically, the length of the club and where the ground is with that length club.

Golf Magazine ran a "no backswing" swing a few years ago. It makes some sense, and we'll pause at the top of our backswings when practicing. You give up a bit of those three things above, which is fine in practice since you can isolate a downswing piece more easily, or a feeling or position at the top.

So, I just wanted to point out that there is a "no backswing" camp out there. Pay attention to step 3 in the link I added and you'll see that they try to still give you items 1 and 2 from my list.

Interesting read. Definitely something I've done before, as you said, in practice, to work on something else, but I've never considered playing like that.

On another note, at the risk of further derailing this topic, didn't somebody debunk that whole X-Factor thing?

Edit: Nevermind the last question, I found the answer with a quick forum search.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by billchao

On another note, at the risk of further derailing this topic, didn't somebody debunk that whole X-Factor thing?

Edit: Nevermind the last question, I found the answer with a quick forum search.

Yeah, basically: X-Factor != X-Factor Stretch.

The latter has to do with a transitional move in which the hips start down before the backswing is fully complete with the torso/shoulder turn.

[logman]

Earlier in this thread someone said something along the lines of using my wrists and LPG, my swing or something, and I said I didn't want to go on with that topic because It'l just get Erik angry and that's a bit of a drag.

And it's happened again.

Can we not have all the angst. Is it possible for me to have a point of view and Erik to have your point of view as well. It is a forum. people see things differently

Is it possible to not call me a "liar"

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by logman

Earlier in this thread someone said something along the lines of using my wrists and LPG, my swing or something, and I said I didn't want to go on with that topic because It'l just get Erik angry and that's a bit of a drag.

And it's happened again.

Can we not have all the angst. Is it possible for me to have a point of view and Erik to have your point of view as well. It is a forum. people see things differently

Is it possible to not call me a "liar"

Logman, nobody (well not me at least, and a cursory glance up above yielded no other perps either) has called you a liar.  As far as your swing and your wrists are concerned, we are simply suggesting that you don't realize how much your wrists are doing.  Erik showed you how that guy in the MSG pictures was clearly saying and demonstrating two COMPLETELY different things.

Worst case is that he opens your eyes to a few things you may not have known about your swing.

Cheers!

[jclark]

I could see introducing this to my wife as a possibility. Hey, if it gets her to make contact with the golf ball 2out of 10 times then it is way better than what she does now. I think if it helps her make contact then it will make playing that much more enjoyable. Lets face it, her, like most people are out on the course to have fun, not be the next Tiger Woods. With that being said, I think this swing is rediculous for me, but maybe not others. :)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by logman

Can we not have all the angst. Is it possible for me to have a point of view and Erik to have your point of view as well. It is a forum. people see things differently

When your point of view conflicts with the facts that are available, you can expect that to be mentioned. You can't "see" facts "differently." They're simply facts.

[logman]

My view = my view

Your view = facts

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by logman

My view = my view

Your view = facts

In this case, yeah, that's how it is. The things that Erik and others are pointing out are pretty simple to see... they aren't opinion, they are fact. For whatever reason, you don't seem to be able to see the same thing.

[logman]

Originally Posted by jclark

I could see introducing this to my wife as a possibility. Hey, if it gets her to make contact with the golf ball 2out of 10 times then it is way better than what she does now. I think if it helps her make contact then it will make playing that much more enjoyable. Lets face it, her, like most people are out on the course to have fun, not be the next Tiger Woods. With that being said, I think this swing is rediculous for me, but maybe not others. :)

Couldn't agree more, golfers need to be realistic in their ideas about how good a golfer they really are. I'm sure there are thousands of players out there that could benifit from playing the mgs  type swing(with wrist cock OR without).

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by logman

Couldn't agree more, golfers need to be realistic in their ideas about how good a golfer they really are.

Why?  (Other than to avoid ridicule on websites like this for saying things like "I'm going to be a tour pro, I know it, even though I'm a 15 handicap right now and can only hit the ball 220 yards.")

The "unrealistic" approach would have you practicing and practicing and taking lessons and busting your butt to get to scratch or better even though the possibility might be remote.  Maybe that 16 guy only gets to 14, or maybe he gets to 6, or maybe he is that one in a million and he does get to scratch.  Who's to say if he doesn't try?

Why, exactly, do people "need" to be realistic?

Have you ever read Bob Rotella's "Golf Is Not A Game Of Perfect?"  In one of the first chapters of the book he mentions his favorite type of students ... the guy who's 47 years old and is a 10 handicap or worse and tells him his goal is to play on the Senior Tour when he turns 50.  The guy who has goals - however unrealistic - is a guy he can work with.  (Not so much, the "realistic" guy who doesn't want to get better.)

[jclark]

Why?  (Other than to avoid ridicule on websites like this for saying things like "I'm going to be a tour pro, I know it, even though I'm a 15 handicap right now and can only hit the ball 220 yards.") The "unrealistic" approach would have you practicing and practicing and taking lessons and busting your butt to get to scratch or better even though the possibility might be remote.  Maybe that 16 guy only gets to 14, or maybe he gets to 6, or maybe he is that one in a million and he does get to scratch.  Who's to say if he doesn't try? Why, exactly, do people "need" to be realistic? Have you ever read Bob Rotella's "Golf Is Not A Game Of Perfect?"  In one of the first chapters of the book he mentions his favorite type of students ... the guy who's 47 years old and is a 10 handicap or worse and tells him his goal is to play on the Senior Tour when he turns 50.  The guy who has goals - however unrealistic - is a guy he can work with.  (Not so much, the "realistic" guy who doesn't want to get better.)

I agree. If I'm gonna be a bear, then why not be a grizzly. I have set high goals for myself because I want to be as competitive as I can. I want to be the best I can at anything I do. But, some people don't play a sport to be the best or improve as much as possible, some are not the competitive "A-type" personalities. some people play for the enjoyment or social aspect of it.

[jclark]

Also, being realistic doesn't mean you are selling yourself short or you don't care about improvement. I have found that setting realistic goals are easier to achieve thus providing smaller victories and better motivation to drive on toward your ultimate goal. Having the "all or nothing" mentality usually leaves the average joe with nothing.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by jclark

Also, being realistic doesn't mean you are selling yourself short or you don't care about improvement. I have found that setting realistic goals are easier to achieve thus providing smaller victories and better motivation to drive on toward your ultimate goal. Having the "all or nothing" mentality usually leaves the average joe with nothing.

Yes, but being "unrealistic" by having lofty goals is not an "all or nothing" mentality.  It doesn't mean that you ever have to give up and quit if you don't reach said goals.  It's just being ambitious.  And the beauty of golf is you never have to retire from it, you can play til you can't walk.  So I can be 80 years old, a 7 handicap, and still "working" my way towards scratch.  I never "need" to set realistic goals.

Of course, there is always the Peter Lefleur mentality :)  [From "Dodgeball: The Movie]

Kate Veatch : I'm curious, is it strictly apathy, or do you really not have a goal in life?
Peter La Fleur : I found that if you have a goal, that you might not reach it. But if you don't have one, then you are never disappointed. And I gotta tell ya... it feels phenomenal.
Kate Veatch : Well I guess that makes sense, in a really sad way.

[Golfingdad]

Furthermore, having unrealistic goals and having realistic goals are not two mutually exclusive things.  I certainly have "becoming scratch" and "shooting under par - again ;)" as long term "unrealistic" goals.  But that does not preclude me from having shorter term goals of just becoming a more consistent ball striker, getting the handicap into the mid single digits, stull like that.

Logman's logic would have me saying, "well, since I know the chances of becoming scratch are virtually nil, I might as well scrap that idea, quit working towards it, and try radical new swing that I have no confidence in because the creators don't even know how to describe what they are doing."

[jclark]

Yes, but being "unrealistic" by having lofty goals is not an "all or nothing" mentality.  It doesn't mean that you ever have to give up and quit if you don't reach said goals.  It's just being ambitious.  And the beauty of golf is you never have to retire from it, you can play til you can't walk.  So I can be 80 years old, a 7 handicap, and still "working" my way towards scratch.  I never "need" to set realistic goals. Of course, there is always the Peter Lefleur mentality :)  [From "Dodgeball: The Movie] [URL=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0852132/] [COLOR=0000FF]Kate Veatch[/COLOR] [/URL]: I'm curious, is it strictly apathy, or do you really not have a goal in life? [URL=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000681/][COLOR=0000FF]Peter La Fleur[/COLOR][/URL] : I found that if you have a goal, that you might not reach it. But if you don't have one, then you are never disappointed. And I gotta tell ya... it feels phenomenal. [URL=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0852132/][COLOR=0000FF]Kate Veatch[/COLOR][/URL] : Well I guess that makes sense, in a really sad way.

Lol. Nice :)

[logman]

Guys, I meant that Clarky's misses might do better with the MGS . But generally speaking I think people need to be realistic in their golfing abilities and such like.

How many threads do we see here and on other sites of guys with 15 handicaps trying to play with blade clubs

how many threads on "how can I build more lag into my swing" do we see. Lag is the way to make power in the conventional golf swing. It's the thing that makes pro golfers make ridiculous ball speeds. It's the "missing link" that makes the ball go "ouch".........and it introduces all sorts of issues into the swing. Strength,timing, accuracy etc etc If you don't have a good amount of sporting ability, strength, time(to practice) etc then you're asking alot of amateur golfers to play with this swing style.

How many threads about hitting the ball 300 yards or so? just like their heroes on the telly.

I'm not saying dont try and hit the ball as best and as long as you can, I'm saying dont waste your range time on distance ....spend it on accuracy

Just to keep the movie references going ........".Mans gotta know his limitations"

What I'd really like to see is a discussion of what swing style suits which person. I think one of the first questions a golf teacher should ask is," how much time are you going to commit to this?" and if the answer is once a week and half a dozen games a year then the coach should say. Ya know, maybe we should try MGS. The likelyhood is that the swing would be easier to learn, easier to remember, easier to maintain and possibly result in a game that's more enjoyable.

Or in another case, so you've got a bad back are you going to learn the traditional golf swing? Probably not. Maybe Kuykendalls E2E swing would suit you better

I just object to the automatic prescription of the current traditional swing as the "only swing", irrespective of ability, time, age, etc

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by logman

Guys, I meant that Clarky's misses might do better with the MGS . But generally speaking I think people need to be realistic in their golfing abilities and such like.

How many threads do we see here and on other sites of guys with 15 handicaps trying to play with blade clubs

how many threads on "how can I build more lag into my swing" do we see. Lag is the way to make power in the conventional golf swing. It's the thing that makes pro golfers make ridiculous ball speeds. It's the "missing link" that makes the ball go "ouch".........and it introduces all sorts of issues into the swing. Strength,timing, accuracy etc etc If you don't have a good amount of sporting ability, strength, time(to practice) etc then you're asking alot of amateur golfers to play with this swing style.

How many threads about hitting the ball 300 yards or so? just like their heroes on the telly.

I'm not saying dont try and hit the ball as best and as long as you can, I'm saying dont waste your range time on distance ....spend it on accuracy

Just to keep the movie references going ........".Mans gotta know his limitations"

What I'd really like to see is a discussion of what swing style suits which person. I think one of the first questions a golf teacher should ask is," how much time are you going to commit to this?" and if the answer is once a week and half a dozen games a year then the coach should say. Ya know, maybe we should try MGS. The likelyhood is that the swing would be easier to learn, easier to remember, easier to maintain and possibly result in a game that's more enjoyable.

Or in another case, so you've got a bad back are you going to learn the traditional golf swing? Probably not. Maybe Kuykendalls E2E swing would suit you better

I just object to the automatic prescription of the current traditional swing as the "only swing", irrespective of ability, time, age, etc

I'd be OK with this if the coach also put in the disclaimer that if they chose the MGS swing they would potentially be limiting their progress.  My wife is in a similar position as Clarks ... she wants to not embarrass herself each time she plays, but she doesn't hardly ever play, so if something like MGS would be what you claim it to be (easy to learn, easy to maintain, etc) then, yeah, it could have some validity.  [I was about to edit my second sentence, but instead I'll leave it and the pathetic grammar in place for the amusement of all!]

P.S.  What is Kuykendall "E2E" swing?  I ask because there is a teacher at the range I always go to (I go to the range, NOT the teacher ;)) who teaches something he calls an "L2L" swing and I wonder if they bear any resemblance.

P.P.S.  Go ahead, make my day.  (Just making sure you know I know where you're coming from)