• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
fantasticphil

Keeping the feel

7 posts in this topic

Hello,

Typically I start off practicing around the practice green with pitching and chipping.  Afterwards I hit about half a bucket with my full swing and notice when I go back to pitching and chipping my feel and rhythm is completely gone.  Anybody know why or how to make the transition?

Thanks!

Phil

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Work on your technique a little more as they say feel is not real but you won’t get any feel if your technique is not right. Why not try to start your practice  with a full swing and then go onto chipping/putting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point about "feel is not real", anybody have any other thoughts on it?  I admittedly buy into the concept of marketing strategies where they sell me on things like: the feel or response of a golf ball, the feel or response of an iron.  If feel is not real, then is there no real difference between an oversized cavity back and a blade?

I digress, let me re-phrase my original post. During transitions on the practice range, going from a full swing to 3/4 or less swing my tempo, arc, hand position at impact appear to be thrown off by either adrenaline, exhaustion, or something from a 90% full swing.  What would cause that?

Thanks for the response!

Phil

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by fantasticphil

Interesting point about "feel is not real", anybody have any other thoughts on it?  I admittedly buy into the concept of marketing strategies where they sell me on things like: the feel or response of a golf ball, the feel or response of an iron.  If feel is not real, then is there no real difference between an oversized cavity back and a blade?

I digress, let me re-phrase my original post. During transitions on the practice range, going from a full swing to 3/4 or less swing my tempo, arc, hand position at impact appear to be thrown off by either adrenaline, exhaustion, or something from a 90% full swing.  What would cause that?

Thanks for the response!

Phil

Not sure that is how you apply the "feel isn't real" concept.  The feel you are referring to is more like "touch."  That statement, to me at least, is talking about the relationship between what your body is doing and what you think your body is doing during your golf swing.  Different concepts.

I would recommend not blocking everything together like that.  Don't chip and pitch for 20 minutes, then hit 50 full shots for 20 minutes, then go back to chipping.  Mix it all up and change clubs a lot.  After all, that's how you play.

When I get in a groove on the range hitting 15 6-irons in a row I can sometimes look like a scratch golfer.  Sadly, on the course however, I never get the opportunity to hit 15 6-irons in a row from one spot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I see the difference, thank you for the clarification.  I will take you up on your suggestion for mixing it up more at the range.  It's fascinating how our body gets locked in on something when we repeat a specific routine.I remember when I changed my routine from 8:00am to 12:00 pm, it took a little while before my 12:00pm felt like my 8:00 am. It sounds like mixing it up could provide a better transition for taking the range practice out onto the course.

Thank you for your comments.

Phil

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Golf Digest is always repeating tips about how Seve used to actually play a few holes on the driving range, starting with a driver and moving to another club for an approach shot. He felt that varying the clubs was more realistic than hitting 15 6 irons.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I was thinking about something on those lines, varying clubs.  During my practice I spent more time bouncing from the range, to the pitching area and the chipping green then actually swinging the club.  I figured well when it comes to walking a course I sure will have that practice down.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      I really like Hideki's takeaway... Nice smooth swing.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. onthehunt526
      onthehunt526
      (29 years old)
  • Blog Entries