Minimalist Golf Swing

[Innercity Mini]

I'm going to join this conversation, mostly out of boredom.

Where in the world do you get stance 45 degrees closed ala Hogan? When did Hogan do that?

He didn't lift his left heel, either.

Also, helicopters can't fly as fast as planes. So yea, I guess if you're saying the MGSS is like a helicopter and the conventional swing is like a plane, then yes, apt analogy.

1) 45 degrees Bill is the approximate angle of the shoulders after the arm drops into the slot

2) I never said he lifted his heel but he does start his downswing with his lower body/left heel and

3) I was alluding to appearances  of helicopters vs. airplanes in their capability of flight -appearances (not real thought) seem to be what many are satisfied with in this thread.

A variety of Youtube videos on Ben Hogan will allow you to observe the angle of his shoulders and his planting of the left heel.

[billchao]

1) 45 degrees Bill is the approximate angle of the shoulders after the arm drops into the slot

That seems like an oddly arbitrary point to preset one's address position. If you want to hit it like Hogan, by not preset your shoulders 25 degrees open, ala his impact position? [quote name="Innercity Mini" url="/t/72863/minimalist-golf-swing/30#post_1018474"]2) I never said he lifted his heel but he does start his downswing with his lower body/left heel and A variety of Youtube videos on Ben Hogan will allow you to observe the angle of his shoulders and his planting of the left heel. [/quote]Planting implies it was lifted at some point. You don't plant something that never left the ground, because it's already planted. Anyway, you can't take still frames of dynamic positions and make them static positions and expect to arrive at the same result. There were forces at work in Hogan's swing that allowed him to get in those positions, and it's those forces that made his swing work. [quote name="Innercity Mini" url="/t/72863/minimalist-golf-swing/30#post_1018474"]3) I was alluding to appearances  of helicopters vs. airplanes in their capability of flight -appearances (not real thought) seem to be what many are satisfied with in this thread. [/quote]Sure, they both fly. A rowboat and a speedboat both float. Guess which one I'll be racing in. I don't think anybody is criticizing the look of the swing, but its lack of function. The swing doesn't generate speed or power. I've seen plenty of ugly swings hit the ball a ton, and this ain't one of them.

[Innercity Mini]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

These are going to be short responses, but you're making some pretty goofy claims @Innercity Mini .

Yeah, you too can have a swing that looks like this:

Most people will lose a lot of clubhead speed doing this.

I do not believe that you achieve the positions listed above and get the yardages you've indicated.

You've removed levers (bending the wrists) and decreased the length of the arc by eliminating a lot of the torso turn.

Please tell me you've not just alleged "racism" as the reason people are discussing/disputing this swing as valid for them (fairly able-bodied golfers)?

It was started with the comment "Whaddya think?" So I disagree that it seems to have been started "to abuse the MGSS without any respect…". I've asked you a few questions, and you have been unable to answer them. You've simply cheerleaded and ignored the questions, problems, and issues.

Threads here are to DISCUSS. You seem unwilling or unable to discuss anything, mirroring my experiences with Kiran herself on the Facebook.

That's not happening in any sort of scale.

Something must pass a reasonable burden of proof, common sense, and basic physics before I'm willing to give it "a fair trial."

This thread's going nowhere fast.

Hi iacas-let me offer you a discussion since nothing else I've submitted, videos, golf articles, personal testimonials etc. seem to reach your "burden of proof."

Dr, Jim Suttie has validated Kinwar's MGSS in the following video-

You assume that she has shortened her swing and club head arc-you can never prove this since SHE HAS LENGTHENED HER SWING BY KEEPING HER THUMBS HORIZONTAL. At worst, she has the same arc as a traditional swing ( depending on how it is measured) but has increased the time her hands are in the hitting area-conserving power and guaranteeing ball compression since the "Angle of Approach" (A golf Machine term) is so dependable in her method.

You assume she will lose power and speed but she does not-your assertions being only assertions and not proof are actually refuted by Dr. Suttie in this Golf.com article and research http://www.golf.com/instruction/no-backswing-swing

Kiran herself says as much in her original research shown here and on her blog:

Her blog, which is free, is filled with all sorts of "proofs" based on physics and bio-mechanical research http://minimalistgolfswingblog.com/anatomy-of-the-golf-swing/

I have ignored several of your questions about "weight shift, " since you refused to answer my question about the similarities between Hogan's five lessons and her research.  Hogan keeps his left arm going up his chest, close to the chest as does Kiran. Hogan skips a stone from a tilted shallow right side as does Kiran (she calls it an underhanded clap). Hogan initiates his downswing with a planted left heel as his left knee is drawn in on the back-swing while Kiran pre-sets the left side for this return the moment she pre-tilts-anyone who tries the pre-tilt will discover the weight posted forward. Kiran calls the swing a slap but like Hogan, she starts with a feel of a lower body pull which she says in several of her videos. Like Hogan, Kiran's swing encourages the right ear to tilt at the right shoulder through impact guaranteeing a sweeping motion fpr most shots.

She has not eliminated the torso turn but pre-set it. She passes any burden of proof, common sense standard or research demands a reasonable person could require. She did not answer you personally so you start a thread to bash her? You and your followers talk about how "goofy" or strange her swing looks-you mention looks often-which is where I got the racist code from-she is a woman of color with an unusual looking swing.

You doubt I can drive the ball 250-so I will publish some medical verifications of my injuries and have a friend film me at the range hitting the net with a driver with range balls and with a new sleeve of any ball you name-just one sleeve since I work for a living! And then you will claim you do not have enough proof to try her swing. Right?

At least this guy was honest about his prejudice!

[Innercity Mini]

Bill please see my latest post as an answer to your stuff.

[MS256]

I have a question about this swing. What's the deal with looking around behind him for a while before he hits the ball and is it part of the swing or is it for some kind of drill for practice?

Other than that (which looks ridiculous) this one looks like a decent enough swing. Probably not something we'll see on Tour but good enough to get around the golf course.

I can't say the same for most of the other videos I watched where it looked like they might be able to hit a driver 100 yards if they were lucky.

[billchao]

Bill please see my latest post as an answer to your stuff.

C'mon dude, multi-quote. It's not hard, I'm doing it on my phone. [quote name="Innercity Mini" url="/t/72863/minimalist-golf-swing/30#post_1018491"]Dr, Jim Suttie has validated Kinwar's MGSS in the following video- [/quote]I usually take some screenshots and draw lines on stuff when I do these kinds of things, but that requires being on my laptop and a certain amount of work, which I can't nor have the inclination to do. I'm just going to make these comments: The guy had the same exact A4 position with the MGS as he did with his conventional swing. So she preset him in a different position, but his body produced the same movements it's always been used to. He hit the ball the same exact way he always had. I love the side by side before and after comparison. Yup, definitely looks different. Especially when you consider they're stills of slightly different moments in the swing.

[iacas]

Since you still can't answer some of the very basic questions, my responses are going to be even shorter.

IACAS, let me try to answer some of your questions by pointing out Dr, Suttie's "No Back Swing Swing" in which no distance is lost and accuracy is maintained as mentioned in the Golf.com link above.

I'm not interested in discussing that. That was a fairly traditional swing where the player simply started at the top of the backswing - then made a traditional downswing.

When you say "removed levers" I'll say that the horizontal thumbs from an unbent pair of wrists actually lengthen the lever and widen the golf-swing arc.

Longer levers are moved more slowly. This swing has removed accumulators 2 and 3. They're responsible for a GOOD bit of power. So too is the added torso turn.

In addition, the energy normally used in the arm drop into the slot, is conserved and the timing for the strike enhanced as the right side of an MGSS swing stays "in tilt" throughout the swing.

I don't teach any "dropping into the slot." You could quickly discover that by searching this site.

POWER IS INCREASED INTO THE BALL AND OVERALL!  and the "Angle of Approach" of the club- face guarantees ball compression.

You realize that you're not actually providing proof for any of this? So my counter-argument, in the format you've chosen: Power is decreased into the ball.

Compression (which is really deformation) is basically spin loft. By swinging out and having the handle relatively far back, spin loft is increased, and deformation is decreased.

You said something about not using the left side (still working on the multi-quote function) right? But as soon as I tilt to my right side, my left leg is entirely activated and feels powerful.

I don't know what you're talking about. Thing is, I'm not sure you do either… I do not care about your "feels."

I keep/raise my left arm CLOSE to my chest (ala Hogan), after the pre-turn of about 45 degrees

Hogan - and virtually all good golfers - turn their torso/shoulders at least twice as much as that.

Do you deny these commonalities still?

Did you look at the photos of Hogan and Kiran?

I'm sorry but as a Golf-Machine guy, I just assume you could see all that I see with the Hogan similarities.

There are very few similarities. Hogan used all four accumulators, and additionally used a lot more torso turn, and used his hips to slide forward aggressively on the downswing (and to turn back on the backswing).

That's a lot more NOT in common that matters.

And I'm not a "Golf-Machine" guy. I understand quite a bit of TGM… but the world of golf has moved on beyond the 1960s.

I also had hoped you would have the same generous spirit that all my TGM instructors share-every swing is good if it helps a student enjoy the game since TGM describes hundreds of valid swings!

I've said several times that if you like it, great. But this particular variation is not for a significant portion of golfers, IMO.

You keep saying Kiran has not replied to you but why should she?

I haven't said that. I've said you have not been able to reply to the questions I've asked, and I've said that I've seen and participated in discussions with Kiran on The Facebook, and it's not been impressive…

She frankly has more credentials regarding swing mechanics than MANY but you still don't feel you should give her system a try?

Absolutely not.

You may never have read "The Golf Machine."

It's called The Golfing Machine, and I'm partners with one of the guys who edited Homer's notes to publish one of the editions, and the former head of instruction for The Golfing Machine. http://purestrike5sk.com/instructors.php

I'm pretty familiar with it…

But to say I haven't offered a discussion is simply wrong and un-true!

I'm exaggerating slightly, but you've basically just said things as if they're true. You haven't answered questions. You've said things like "it's more powerful!" with no proof at all. Many of your "beliefs" contradict physics, biomechanics, and observable and/or measurable features of other golfers (particularly Hogan).

I'd like this to be a friendly discussion-the videos, testimonials, and freely published research provided should aid the discussion.  As I said before, intellectual curiosity should be encouraged here esp. when people are injured (do you need to see my right knee after surgery or herniated discs x-rays) and report success with a method.

Tomorrow, I am attempting to drive my car :dance: and if I can, I'm going to the driving range! WOOHOO

Telling you where and how you're wrong is not "unfriendly." It's discussion.

1) 45 degrees Bill is the approximate angle of the shoulders after the arm drops into the slot

And what about the speed generated from 100° to 45° in the backswing?

Plus, please demonstrate Hogan "dropping into the slot"? Seems to me he pretty much just stayed in the slot.

BTW, the right-side image shows Hogan's torso at about 45°.

You assume that she has shortened her swing and club head arc-you can never prove this since SHE HAS LENGTHENED HER SWING BY KEEPING HER THUMBS HORIZONTAL. At worst, she has the same arc as a traditional swing ( depending on how it is measured) but has increased the time her hands are in the hitting area-conserving power and guaranteeing ball compression since the "Angle of Approach" (A golf Machine term) is so dependable in her method.

Uhm, no. Sorry, but I'm done wasting my time on this.

No. Her swing is not longer or "just as long." That's so wrong I'm starting to think we're all being punked.

You assume she will lose power and speed but she does not

Yes she does. And I'm not assuming anything. You're leaning far too heavily on the Dr. Suttie thing.

http://www.golf.com/instruction/no-backswing-swing

This looks nothing like Kiran's swing. It is a traditional swing just stopped at the top of the backswing:

I have ignored several of your questions about "weight shift, " since you refused to answer my question about the similarities between Hogan's five lessons and her research.

Bull. I answered them by saying there are no real similarities. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the things you claim. You've not done this. You just make statements.

And then use that to justify not answering legitimate questions about things Kiran clearly gets wrong .

Hogan keeps his left arm going up his chest, close to the chest as does Kiran.

I disagree, unless you're talking about "the left arm going up his chest" like every other golfer with the traditional golf swing.

Also, that's the fourth accumulator.

Hogan skips a stone from a tilted shallow right side as does Kiran (she calls it an underhanded clap).

Pitch elbow? Yawn.

Hogan didn't swing 10° out to the right. Hogan turned his torso more than 45°. Hogan moved his hips toward the target. Hogan had far more shaft lean.

The list of things Hogan did differently than Kiran is much, much larger than the list of things that they do the same… and I'm being generous by including "they grip the same end of the golf club" in the list of similarities.

Hogan skips a stone from a tilted shallow right side as does Kiran (she calls it an underhanded clap). Hogan initiates his downswing with a planted left heel as his left knee is drawn in on the back-swing while Kiran pre-sets the left side for this return the moment she pre-tilts-anyone who tries the pre-tilt will discover the weight posted forward.

Hmmmm… Yep, look the same to me…

She has not eliminated the torso turn but pre-set it.

She's eliminated a lot of it. 45° ≠ 100°.

She passes any burden of proof

No she doesn't. You clearly haven't seen her posts in certain groups on the Facebook. Dude, please quit while you're behind… Just enjoy that you can play golf, and stop trying to be Kiran's publicist.

She did not answer you personally so you start a thread to bash her?

a) I've talked with her directly on several occasions.

b) I didn't start this thread.

Please stop getting basic facts wrong.

You and your followers talk about how "goofy" or strange her swing looks-you mention looks often-which is where I got the racist code from-she is a woman of color with an unusual looking swing.

Sorry, but "goofy" is a perfectly appropriate word for this:

You doubt I can drive the ball 250-so I will publish some medical verifications of my injuries and have a friend film me at the range hitting the net with a driver with range balls and with a new sleeve of any ball you name-just one sleeve since I work for a living! And then you will claim you do not have enough proof to try her swing. Right?

Post a My Swing thread. Show us the TrackMan/FlightScope numbers too.

Here's the deal, man.

I'm done responding to this. I'm done talking about this. I'm open-minded, constantly questioning things, and happy to have my beliefs and ideas questioned as well. That's how I've gotten to be a pretty darn good instructor.

But I'm also a person with a background in the sciences. I'm also a person who has talked with Kiran, seen her interactions with others on the Facebook. I've also got eyes, and I can look at picture of someone and compare it to Ben Hogan and notice that they look almost nothing alike .

You don't want me to "bash" this swing (which I don't believe I've done)? You've got your wish. I'm done. I'm out.

But, since I'm walking away from the conversation, you won't talk to me either, okay? I'm hanging up the phone, walking away. You will respect that. You're free to keep posting your claims… but you will not quote me, cite me, or in any way attempt to draw me back in. Whether it's "fair" or not, I've learned that unless I make this distinction, people will often continue to try to bait me and then say "Oh, nothing to say?" and declare victory.

So, that's the way it's gonna go. You can continue to post, just leave me out of it entirely. Capiche?

Thanks.

[saevel25]

No worries- I felt equally frustrated by your random types of "evidence" or "proof." I have no desire to engage you in this topic. Your friends who continue to attack this method without trying it, based only on how things "look" reveal only their fear of the unknown and lack of intellectual honesty, imho.

I believe golf is an ATHLETIC sport. This minimalist swing is NOT athletic at all.

I AM 100% SURE THAT I WOULD PLAY WORSE GOLF WITH THAT SWING THAN MY CURRENT SWING!

I know I know, you'll say, "But you didn't even try". Here's the thing, I don't want to spend the time to F-UP my swing to even try this. I feel like if I tried this out, I would need to spend 2 years to undo the damage it would do. I got a good feel for where my swing is at, and what my swing can accomplish. I feel I would be loosing too much to my game to even try that swing. As someone who has spent a lot of time working my swing to make it better, I also feel like I would have wasted all my time if I tried this out.

So sorry, no go for me.

[Phil McGleno]

I tried it and gave it a serious hour on the range.-Lost 150 yards with my driver, and kept hitting the ball fat with my irons.-There.

[CarlSpackler]

I didn't think there was a swing that looked sillier than Barkley's. I was wrong.

[MS256]

Well shoot. I was hoping he would answer my question about why they turn their head like that before they swing.

Off topic story.

It does remind me of the time a friend of mine (and pretty good golfer) was told that he needed to make sure his heels were aligned instead of his toes.

He started looking around behind himself in an effort to see down his heel line.

The first time his wife saw him do that she was sitting in the cart with my wife and she said "What in the heck is he looking at his butt for?"

[Innercity Mini]

Well shoot. I was hoping he would answer my question about why they turn their head like that before they swing.

Off topic story.

It does remind me of the time a friend of mine (and pretty good golfer) was told that he needed to make sure his heels were aligned instead of his toes.

He started looking around behind himself in an effort to see down his heel line.

The first time his wife saw him do that she was sitting in the cart with my wife and she said "What in the heck is he looking at his butt for?"

They turn their head to see a pint behind or to the side depending on the amount of shoulder turn wanted for the shot. O n some shots, there is only a head tilt for me to hit a power-fade and when more of a draw is desired, there is more shoulder turn pre-set.

[Innercity Mini]

I didn't think there was a swing that looked sillier than Barkley's. I was wrong.

I like that "slouching Tiger" reference! and Barkley would benefit from this.

[MS256]

They turn their head to see a pint behind or to the side depending on the amount of shoulder turn wanted for the shot. O n some shots, there is only a head tilt for me to hit a power-fade and when more of a draw is desired, there is more shoulder turn pre-set.

So he's looking at a point on the ground somewhere back there? Can he not just use that last swing he made without that?

I can somewhat understand pre-turning the shoulders or hips but I don't get the looking way back behind himself part.

Was there a part of the swing you found worked better than anticipated? Worse? How far is your normal drive? What was the hardest part of the swing to perform? Look, if I had started a thread, those would be just some of the issues I would explore to encourage people to give it a chance and treat the  originator of the swing with respect.

In my own use of the swing, I simply stand tall with the ball in the middle of my feet together, left hand on the club. I look to my side, lightly connect the club with my right hand as I tilt my ear to back shoulder.I lift my arm up my chest ( trying to keep thumbs horizontal-it takes practice) and plant my left heel to initiate the downswing. Anyway you tried it to some extent and you have some valid opinion! Congrats!

I'm also not seeing any "thumbs horizontal". If anything the thumbs stay pretty much perpendicular to the ground most of the swing.

[Innercity Mini]

I tried it and gave it a serious hour on the range.-Lost 150 yards with my driver, and kept hitting the ball fat with my irons.-There.

Was there a part of the swing you found worked better than anticipated? Worse? How far is your normal drive? What was the hardest part of the swing to perform? Look, if I had started a thread, those would be just some of the issues I would explore to encourage people to give it a chance and treat the  originator of the swing with respect.

In my own use of the swing, I simply stand tall with the ball in the middle of my feet together, left hand on the club. I look to my side, lightly connect the club with my right hand as I tilt my ear to back shoulder.I lift my arm up my chest ( trying to keep thumbs horizontal-it takes practice) and plant my left heel to initiate the downswing. Anyway you tried it to some extent and you have some valid opinion! Congrats!

[Innercity Mini]

So he's looking at a point on the ground somewhere back there? Can he not just use that last swing he made without that?

I can somewhat understand pre-turning the shoulders or hips but I don't get the looking way back behind himself part.

Most of this is so new that none of us have practiced it enough to trust a previous swing. My short-cut and basic swing is to set-up and drop my right ear to my right shoulder. That produces a very strong straight ball or power fade. On some holes I turn more for the draw or line the shoulders open to hit a fade/controlled slice.  The right ear tilt really allows me to extend my arms through impact and gives me great power and extension!

Cheers!

[Innercity Mini]

That seems like an oddly arbitrary point to preset one's address position. If you want to hit it like Hogan, by not preset your shoulders 25 degrees open, ala his impact position?

Planting implies it was lifted at some point. You don't plant something that never left the ground, because it's already planted.

Anyway, you can't take still frames of dynamic positions and make them static positions and expect to arrive at the same result. There were forces at work in Hogan's swing that allowed him to get in those positions, and it's those forces that made his swing work.

Sure, they both fly. A rowboat and a speedboat both float. Guess which one I'll be racing in.

I don't think anybody is criticizing the look of the swing, but its lack of function. The swing doesn't generate speed or power. I've seen plenty of ugly swings hit the ball a ton, and this ain't one of them.

I believe golf is an ATHLETIC sport. This minimalist swing is NOT athletic at all.

I AM 100% SURE THAT I WOULD PLAY WORSE GOLF WITH THAT SWING THAN MY CURRENT SWING!

I know I know, you'll say, "But you didn't even try". Here's the thing, I don't want to spend the time to F-UP my swing to even try this. I feel like if I tried this out, I would need to spend 2 years to undo the damage it would do. I got a good feel for where my swing is at, and what my swing can accomplish. I feel I would be loosing too much to my game to even try that swing. As someone who has spent a lot of time working my swing to make it better, I also feel like I would have wasted all my time if I tried this out.

So sorry, no go for me.

I spent three years with Gary Edwin's Right-sided Swing and it did nothing as my physical condition worsened. This swing really helps me "turn back the clock," with greater power and precision. If you ever want to try it,  I'd say it is worth an afternoon on the range.

[acerimusdux]

On the Jim Suttie study I linked to, one key difference there was that they had a pump move to start the downswing, which likely increased power.

However, I also think there are flaws there in that study. They only had 29 golfers in the study, which is really only enough to give valid results for the group as a whole, not for subgroups. But they don't really give any results for the group as a whole. Instead everything is broken down by handicap, without saying what the sample was for each subgroup. I also notice that even the single digit handicappers in that sample only had an average carry with their 5-iron of 130 yards. So I also suspect it may not be a representative sample of single digit handicappers. Finally, while the study shows only a small loss of distance, it also shows minimal gains in accuracy either that I can see.

Now it may be that there are real gains for some golfers who practice this for some time (rather than learn it and take a few swings right away). But I suspect this is still mainly for people who don't already have a good swing. It seems like it might be especially useful as a kind of drill for golfers who haven't yet learned to make good consistent contact (simplifying everything else helps to focus more on impact).

Even looking at the Kinwar videos though, it seems none of her students who are actually good golfers really even use the whole swing; most of them seem to still be using a normal wrist hinge rather than going verticle with the club at the top like she does. And in the Hooters tour players video posted above, she only had the players increase the right side tilt, they didn't do anything else that she teaches. So this is essentially a video on the benefit of having and maintaining good secondary tilt.

Finally, as for the biomechanically correct swing, it seems to me there was a guy named Mike Austin, with a degree in mechanical engineering and a doctorate in kinesiology, who did that years ago and managed to generate a little more power with his version.