or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Reading Room › "Swing Machine Golf" by Paul Wilson
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Swing Machine Golf" by Paul Wilson

post #1 of 150
Thread Starter 

Discuss "Swing Machine Golf" by Paul Wilson here.

post #2 of 150

I purchased this book on-line in 2004. Quite simply, it teaches you to swing the club like the only perfect ball striker in the world - Iron Byron, the machine used by top manufacturers to test their golf clubs. DVDs are available too. There are 3 steps:

 

1) Take the club to the top turning your shoulders and resisting with the hips

2) Initiate downswing turning your hips to the left

3) Keep your arms as loose as wet spaghetti (i.e. powerless. Don't use them, just let the go along for the ride).


It is the 'traditional' way of swinging the club, not S&T, and for me is by far the easiest book I have read to understand and put into play immediately with excellent results. The idea of hitting the ball like a machine that always hit it perfectly really appealed to me. Paul even sends e-mails to you and answers any questions you have.

 

Prior to adopting this method I was a poor 3-handicapper (had been for over 10 years) and a miserable ball striker. Within a couple of months I was down to scratch, hitting the ball properly and regularly shooting in the high 60s. It taught me how to use my body to power my golf swing and not my arms. Perhaps this is obvious to most people but fully explained why I couldn't hit two balls in a row in the sweet spot!

 

Now, having said that, and being a bit more clued up on the golf swing, there are a number of things bothering me about his method and how it relates to the machine. Obviously, Paul Wilson had to work hard at adapting this method to humans as the machine doesn't have a back-swing (starts at the top), has only one arm (it's the left arm coming down, the right arm on the follow through) and has no weight shift...wait a minute!! That sounds very familiar doesn't it?! Strangely enough, Paul doesn't advocate no weight shift but quite the opposite, stating that the machine has only one leg and we have two and that's why we have to move off of the ball in the backswing (head goes backwards away from the target). The machine even stops swinging the club quickly a la S&T (whip effect) yet Paul talks about the club having to finish touching the back of your head. Paul also explains that torque (X factor stuff) generates power and accuracy in the swing, however the machine isn't creating any torque whatsoever. There are other little things like that make me go hmmm. I'd love to know somebody else's opinion on this as I feel that S&T swing is much closer to the machine than the Swing Machine Golf method!

I have tried S&T but found it too difficult learn on my own with only the book and videos on YouTube. Ironically, I agree with EVERYTHING S&T as it makes perfect sense, however I just can't seem to make it work on a consistent basis. I've had some incredible ball striking rounds with S&T, but too often find myself struggling with it. It's weird because I hit the ball better with S&T but just can't seem to control it and have no idea where my misses are going to go. Although I don't hit it as well with Swing Machine Golf I find my misses are more playable. After a few rounds of poor S&T, I inevitably return to Swing Machine Golf to gain some much needed confidence.

Having said that though, I feel that if I had proper instruction using S&T I would become an even better golfer as the ball striking is much more solid.

 

 


 

post #3 of 150

Pharoah,

 

I'm glad you have improved with Swing Machine Golf.  I truly appreciate all the positive feedback I have received over the years.  In reading your response I figured I would clear up a things so you can understand how the human golf swing compares to Iron Byron a little better.  I have marked your comments in blue with my comments underneath.

 

Before we get to my comments you need to first remember that the Iron Byron was modeled after the downswing of Byron Nelson (one of the best golfers of all time).  They did not pick it out of thin air.  So comparing the Iron Byron to a human golf should be quite easy. If they did not use his swing as the model I most likely would not be using it in my teaching.  That being said, my comments are below:

 

Now, having said that, and being a bit more clued up on the golf swing, there are a number of things bothering me about his method and how it relates to the machine. Obviously, Paul Wilson had to work hard at adapting this method to humans as the machine doesn't have a back-swing (starts at the top),

 

I did not work hard at all.  As I said above, Iron Byron was modeled after a real golfer.  To understand it myself, I watched Iron Byron swinging.  I did not see it as a bunch of nuts and bolts. I saw it as a golfer.  Once I saw it as a golfer I imagined I was the machine and did 3 practice swings.  I then hit a ball with this very same feeling.  When I did,  I immediately went from hitting it off the planet to incredibly straight.  It really was that simple for me.

 

In shooting my DVDs, I actually flew in the inventor of the Iron Byron, George Manning and he confirmed that the 3 elements I teach are the 3 elements found in the Iron Byron machine.

 

The Iron Byron starts at the top of the backswing because there was no need for it to do a backswing.  Remember it was used to test golf clubs and golf balls so the backswing did not matter.  I, of course, teach people how to get to the top from the set up position.

 

 

has only one arm (it's the left arm coming down, the right arm on the follow through)

 

This is true it does only have one arm and it represents the golfer's left arm coming down and through impact then it represents the golfer's right arm after impact.  If the left arm of the golfer is extended coming down and through then the right arm is extended to the 3/4 through point the diameter of the golf swing is maintained just like the swing 1 arm of the machine maintains the diameter of its swing. 

 

So basically, I am concerned about maintaining the diameter of one's swing.  In other words if you "chicken wing" it you are not copying the machine.  If at least one arm is extended throughout most of the swing you are maintaining the diameter of your swing.  Therefore you will become more consistent and you will generate more clubhead speed.

 

and has no weight shift...wait a minute!! That sounds very familiar doesn't it?!

 

You are right the machine does not have a weight shift.  It does however have a motor that represents the golfer's legs.  When you shift your weight back and forward this is helping to turn your upper body which represents the driveshaft of the machine. 

 

I actually do say that you DO NOT have to shift your weight.  You WANT to shift your weight because if you do you will be able to turn your upper body faster than if you did not use them at all.  Feel free to disagree with me here but every competitive longer driver I have every seen shifts their weight in their golf swing.  Personally, when I incorporate a weight shift I hit the ball farther too.  So I will continue to do and teach a weight shift.

 

Strangely enough, Paul doesn't advocate no weight shift but quite the opposite, stating that the machine has only one leg

and we have two and that's why we have to move off of the ball in the backswing (head goes backwards away from the target). 

 

You have misunderstood this part of the machine and my explanation.  The motor of the machine represents the golfer's legs not the legs on the machine. 

 

The machine has 1 axis (driveshaft) we have 2 which I will now explain:

 

When the machine swings it does so by turning its driveshaft.  This driveshaft turns in a perfect circle.  Our torso represents this driveshaft.  It turns too.  The difference is we have 2 legs.  If you were standing on 1 leg you would have 1 axis as you turned around.  If you turned around this leg you would create a perfect circle.  The problem is that it is very difficult to swing from 1 leg in balance so you put the other leg down.  As soon as you put your other leg on the ground you now have 2 bottoms (legs) and 1 top (torso and head) to an axis. 

 

In order to create circular rotation you need an axis to turn around.  If you start the rotation of your shoulders in a circular motion in a golf swing you will see that your head will move slightly to the right (on its own) because it is creating an axis to turn around.  Don't believe me?  Stand up > face a mirror with a club on the back of your neck > turn the club like the blades on a helicopter.  If you do you will see your head move to the right on its own 100% of the time.  If you turn the club the other way you will see your head move to the left all on its own to create a second axis to complete the rotation.  So your head will move right and left to create 2 axis to swing around.   This means a human golf swing in not a perfect circle.  Therefore humans will not be able to create a 100% repeatable golf swing.

 

The machine even stops swinging the club quickly a la S&T (whip effect) yet Paul talks about the club having to finish touching the back of your head.

 

The machine applies brake pressure long after the ball is hit to slow the club down and not snap the shaft off into the ceiling (which is what it used to do when it had no brakes).  While shooting the Iron Byron I grabbed it's arm and swung it back and forth.  In doing so I found that the clubface works from open coming down to impact, then it squares then it closes after impact.  It does not work from open to square holding this square position by swinging to the left as in S&T.  It is this unrestricted whipping action that generates the majority of clubhead speed in Iron Byron.  The rest of the power comes from the rotation of the driveshaft.  After all, it's arm has to be connected to something.

 

You do not understand my logic about the club touching the back of your head.  When the club touches the back of your head it needs to be exactly parallel to your ears.  Parallel is 90 degrees to your body (axis).  Mass swings its fastest at 90 degrees to the axis (simple physics).  If the club is touching your head you can feel if it is in this position or not.  This means you do not need a pro to tell you if it is in the correct position you can check it on your own because you can feel it touching your head. 

 

Plus, if it is parallel today and parallel 5 years from now it is in the exact same position.  In other words this position will never fall apart.  If you doubt his position just freeze frame some pros doing a full swing from the down the line view.  If you do you will see that their club does hit 90 degrees to their body at some point in the follow through.  You just have to catch the right frame.  If they are doing it and you are doing it you are copying what a pro is doing which is a good thing.

 

Paul also explains that torque (X factor stuff) generates power and accuracy in the swing, however the machine isn't creating any torque whatsoever.

 

I never said the machine did create this kind of torque.  I want golfers to base their swings on coiling and uncoiling so they can be consistent.  Torque repeats 100% of the time in life.  If you coil something up, 100% of the time it will snap back the other way.  If you coil your shoulders up then uncoil your lower body the upper body will snap back the other way even faster.  So as I said, I want the golfer to base their swing on something that is consistent instead of them just whacking at the ball with their arms. So I am basing the swing on coiling and uncoiling not just hitting with the arms.

 

There are other little things like that make me go hmmm. I'd love to know somebody else's opinion on this as I feel that S&T swing is much closer to the machine than the Swing Machine Golf method!

 

I do not see the relation ship between S&T and the Iron Byron at all. 

 

1.  As I said earlier, if you turn your shoulders in a circular motion your head will move to the right on its own.  If you keep your head dead still your shoulders will see-saw as you go back.  In the video on their site you can see the teacher push the shoulders down as the student takes the club back.  I teach a circular motion of the shoulders not a downward motion because the driveshaft of Iron Byron is turning in a circular motion.

 

2.  If in S&T you were truly swinging around one axis from keeping the weight on your left leg you would not take a divot with a S&T golf swing.  Think about it.  Iron Byron sets up to the ball in a fixed position.  If you measure the distance of the arm to the end of the club it is at ground level.  It then swings around one axis.  Because this distance is fixed and the angle of its axis never changes it does not  take a divot.

 

In a human golf swing, a divot is created because your body is tilted more to the right through impact than it was at set up.   Because of this tilt the club hits the ball first (descending) then enters the ground.  So although S&T wants your head overtop of the ball going back they want you to shift laterally on the way down which tilts the upper body to the right and the divot it taken.  In a S&T swing this spine tilt is seen through impact and in the finish position where they have the golfer leaning backwards. 

 

Again if the golfer was truly swinging around a perfect axis there would be no spine tilt at all in the golf swing. The spine would be perfectly vertical in the finish position.  So there is lateral movement in a S&T swing as well.

 

3.  Finally, they want you to swing left on the way through.  The machine allows its arm to swing freely.  Whatever it does coming down to impact is perfectly replicated on the other side.  It does not swing left as they teach so this is not what Iron Byron is doing at all.

 

 

Although I don't hit it as well with Swing Machine Golf I find my misses are more playable. After a few rounds of poor S&T, I inevitably return to Swing Machine Golf to gain some much needed confidence.

You are not alone.  I have tons of emails from people who have returned to Swing Machine Golf after trying other methods.  I think you need to understand SMG a little better.  You need to base your swing on torque and forces because they repeat 100% of the time in life.  If you do you will hit the ball better than you could ever imagine.

 

All the best,

 

Paul Wilson

Creator - Swing Machine Golf

Director - Paul Wilson Golf School Bear's Best Las Vegas

post #4 of 150
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwgolfpro View Post

1.  As I said earlier, if you turn your shoulders in a circular motion your head will move to the right on its own.  If you keep your head dead still your shoulders will see-saw as you go back.  In the video on their site you can see the teacher push the shoulders down as the student takes the club back.  I teach a circular motion of the shoulders not a downward motion because the driveshaft of Iron Byron is turning in a circular motion.

 

This doesn't make sense to me. The obvious "axis" is our spine or the area directly between our shoulders, which is inclined on a plane, and so turning our shoulders around that inclined plane will have the left shoulder moving down, back, and towards the golf ball while the right shoulder (for a righty) does the opposite - up, forward, and away.

 

There's nothing that makes your head "move to the right on its own." Your head is connected to your body not far from the place that's directly between your shoulders... a nice axis point about which we can rotate our shoulders in a circle.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwgolfpro View Post

2.  If in S&T you were truly swinging around one axis from keeping the weight on your left leg you would not take a divot with a S&T golf swing.  Think about it.  Iron Byron sets up to the ball in a fixed position.  If you measure the distance of the arm to the end of the club it is at ground level.  It then swings around one axis.  Because this distance is fixed and the angle of its axis never changes it does not  take a divot.

 

I'm not sure that makes geometric sense. The low point of the golf swing is not the center of the spine and even if it was, all I'd have to do is put the ball back of that and I could take a divot all day.

 

So we attach a golf club and swing it on a single axis. If we put the ball behind the low point (farther from the target than the low point), we can take a divot every time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwgolfpro View Post

In a human golf swing, a divot is created because your body is tilted more to the right through impact than it was at set up.   Because of this tilt the club hits the ball first (descending) then enters the ground.  So although S&T wants your head overtop of the ball going back they want you to shift laterally on the way down which tilts the upper body to the right and the divot it taken.  In a S&T swing this spine tilt is seen through impact and in the finish position where they have the golfer leaning backwards. 

 

Tilting to the right would move the low point farther back in the stance, not farther forward. Golfers are more likely to hit the ball fat or thin because the low point is too far behind the golf ball when they tip to the right.

 

The secondary axis tilt in S&T is caused from the hips being pushed forward, as the easiest way to get the low point in front of the golf ball is to have the weight forward. Combine that with a circular turning of the shoulders for consistency of that low point and you get a swing in which the upper center remains stable in space and the lower center pushes forward. This also helps to start the club ascending (which is a problem if your hips don't go forward and you tilt your upper center back - the scenario I'm describing in the paragraph before this one) so your divot isn't needlessly deep.

 

We'll agree to disagree on "the golfer leaning backwards" - I see it as being fully extended, like you would in a morning stretch - but we'll chalk it up to semantics as the spine does tilt "away" from the target (because the hips have gone forward).

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwgolfpro View Post

Again if the golfer was truly swinging around a perfect axis there would be no spine tilt at all in the golf swing. The spine would be perfectly vertical in the finish position.  So there is lateral movement in a S&T swing as well.

 

Of the hips, in the downswing, yes, there's lateral movement.

 

But the spine would not be vertical at the end of the swing. Who plays golf with a purely vertical spine? Yes, if we got to play golf with the ball sitting on a tee at armpit height every time we swung, it'd be easy to turn our shoulders in a circle and finish with a vertical spine. But we play golf on a tilted plane, and our back is angled to the ground throughout the swing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwgolfpro View Post

3.  Finally, they want you to swing left on the way through.  The machine allows its arm to swing freely.  Whatever it does coming down to impact is perfectly replicated on the other side.  It does not swing left as they teach so this is not what Iron Byron is doing at all.

 

S&T wants you to swing on the circle. The only "left" we have students swing is the "left" that the club goes after low point. Until low point, the club is moving down, out, and forward. After low point, the club is still obviously moving forward, but to stay on the plane and on the circle, the club (and your hands, etc.) must also move up and in.

 

I don't plan to post again - this is a thread about your book - but I did want to pop in quickly to shed some light on the geometry, physics, and basic tenets of the S&T swing since you mentioned it (which you've done only because Phillip has mentioned it).

 

Welcome.

post #5 of 150



Hi Paul,

 

Thanks for your comments and clarifications.

 

I am not going to get into a debate about different swing theories as I do not know enough about Iron Byron (SMG) or S&T. I prefer to study the golf swing and try things out for myself and not get too bogged down in one particular method. For example, I will always swing the club SMG (arms as loose as wet spaghetti) as that has given me the best results on the course. The moment I tried the S&T method of keeping the clubface square through impact I immediately lost direction and distance. However, having said that, a lot of what I have tried with S&T works better. I've always had my concerns with a lot of the SMG theory, as per my review, and found myself agreeing with nearly all of S&T. My knowledge of both is based on reading the books on each method.

 

For e.g. not moving off the ball, swinging the club more to the inside on a circle, allowing the right knee to straighten slightly, left shoulder down etc. It is very hard to argue with the theory. Also, the S&T folks have based their theory on what professional golfers are doing and not what they say or feel they are doing. Watch the swings of the top golfers and you can see they are adopting a helluva lot of S&T moves. As far as I'm aware, Kaymer is not in the S&T camp, but if you saw him win in the Middle East a couple of weeks ago you'd bet your house he was working with Plummer & Bennett or Sean Foley! And there must be a reason why Tiger is now revamping his swing for the third time along S&T lines.

 

Anyway, one of the reasons we love this game is due to its complexity and its ability to throw up healthy discussions like this one. At the end of the day, it's what works for the player.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwgolfpro View Post

Pharoah,

 

I'm glad you have improved with Swing Machine Golf.  I truly appreciate all the positive feedback I have received over the years.  In reading your response I figured I would clear up a things so you can understand how the human golf swing compares to Iron Byron a little better.  I have marked your comments in blue with my comments underneath.

 

Before we get to my comments you need to first remember that the Iron Byron was modeled after the downswing of Byron Nelson (one of the best golfers of all time).  They did not pick it out of thin air.  So comparing the Iron Byron to a human golf should be quite easy. If they did not use his swing as the model I most likely would not be using it in my teaching.  That being said, my comments are below:

 

Now, having said that, and being a bit more clued up on the golf swing, there are a number of things bothering me about his method and how it relates to the machine. Obviously, Paul Wilson had to work hard at adapting this method to humans as the machine doesn't have a back-swing (starts at the top),

 

I did not work hard at all.  As I said above, Iron Byron was modeled after a real golfer.  To understand it myself, I watched Iron Byron swinging.  I did not see it as a bunch of nuts and bolts. I saw it as a golfer.  Once I saw it as a golfer I imagined I was the machine and did 3 practice swings.  I then hit a ball with this very same feeling.  When I did,  I immediately went from hitting it off the planet to incredibly straight.  It really was that simple for me.

 

In shooting my DVDs, I actually flew in the inventor of the Iron Byron, George Manning and he confirmed that the 3 elements I teach are the 3 elements found in the Iron Byron machine.

 

The Iron Byron starts at the top of the backswing because there was no need for it to do a backswing.  Remember it was used to test golf clubs and golf balls so the backswing did not matter.  I, of course, teach people how to get to the top from the set up position.

 

 

has only one arm (it's the left arm coming down, the right arm on the follow through)

 

This is true it does only have one arm and it represents the golfer's left arm coming down and through impact then it represents the golfer's right arm after impact.  If the left arm of the golfer is extended coming down and through then the right arm is extended to the 3/4 through point the diameter of the golf swing is maintained just like the swing 1 arm of the machine maintains the diameter of its swing. 

 

So basically, I am concerned about maintaining the diameter of one's swing.  In other words if you "chicken wing" it you are not copying the machine.  If at least one arm is extended throughout most of the swing you are maintaining the diameter of your swing.  Therefore you will become more consistent and you will generate more clubhead speed.

 

and has no weight shift...wait a minute!! That sounds very familiar doesn't it?!

 

You are right the machine does not have a weight shift.  It does however have a motor that represents the golfer's legs.  When you shift your weight back and forward this is helping to turn your upper body which represents the driveshaft of the machine. 

 

I actually do say that you DO NOT have to shift your weight.  You WANT to shift your weight because if you do you will be able to turn your upper body faster than if you did not use them at all.  Feel free to disagree with me here but every competitive longer driver I have every seen shifts their weight in their golf swing.  Personally, when I incorporate a weight shift I hit the ball farther too.  So I will continue to do and teach a weight shift.

 

Strangely enough, Paul doesn't advocate no weight shift but quite the opposite, stating that the machine has only one leg

and we have two and that's why we have to move off of the ball in the backswing (head goes backwards away from the target). 

 

You have misunderstood this part of the machine and my explanation.  The motor of the machine represents the golfer's legs not the legs on the machine. 

 

The machine has 1 axis (driveshaft) we have 2 which I will now explain:

 

When the machine swings it does so by turning its driveshaft.  This driveshaft turns in a perfect circle.  Our torso represents this driveshaft.  It turns too.  The difference is we have 2 legs.  If you were standing on 1 leg you would have 1 axis as you turned around.  If you turned around this leg you would create a perfect circle.  The problem is that it is very difficult to swing from 1 leg in balance so you put the other leg down.  As soon as you put your other leg on the ground you now have 2 bottoms (legs) and 1 top (torso and head) to an axis. 

 

In order to create circular rotation you need an axis to turn around.  If you start the rotation of your shoulders in a circular motion in a golf swing you will see that your head will move slightly to the right (on its own) because it is creating an axis to turn around.  Don't believe me?  Stand up > face a mirror with a club on the back of your neck > turn the club like the blades on a helicopter.  If you do you will see your head move to the right on its own 100% of the time.  If you turn the club the other way you will see your head move to the left all on its own to create a second axis to complete the rotation.  So your head will move right and left to create 2 axis to swing around.   This means a human golf swing in not a perfect circle.  Therefore humans will not be able to create a 100% repeatable golf swing.

 

The machine even stops swinging the club quickly a la S&T (whip effect) yet Paul talks about the club having to finish touching the back of your head.

 

The machine applies brake pressure long after the ball is hit to slow the club down and not snap the shaft off into the ceiling (which is what it used to do when it had no brakes).  While shooting the Iron Byron I grabbed it's arm and swung it back and forth.  In doing so I found that the clubface works from open coming down to impact, then it squares then it closes after impact.  It does not work from open to square holding this square position by swinging to the left as in S&T.  It is this unrestricted whipping action that generates the majority of clubhead speed in Iron Byron.  The rest of the power comes from the rotation of the driveshaft.  After all, it's arm has to be connected to something.

 

You do not understand my logic about the club touching the back of your head.  When the club touches the back of your head it needs to be exactly parallel to your ears.  Parallel is 90 degrees to your body (axis).  Mass swings its fastest at 90 degrees to the axis (simple physics).  If the club is touching your head you can feel if it is in this position or not.  This means you do not need a pro to tell you if it is in the correct position you can check it on your own because you can feel it touching your head. 

 

Plus, if it is parallel today and parallel 5 years from now it is in the exact same position.  In other words this position will never fall apart.  If you doubt his position just freeze frame some pros doing a full swing from the down the line view.  If you do you will see that their club does hit 90 degrees to their body at some point in the follow through.  You just have to catch the right frame.  If they are doing it and you are doing it you are copying what a pro is doing which is a good thing.

 

Paul also explains that torque (X factor stuff) generates power and accuracy in the swing, however the machine isn't creating any torque whatsoever.

 

I never said the machine did create this kind of torque.  I want golfers to base their swings on coiling and uncoiling so they can be consistent.  Torque repeats 100% of the time in life.  If you coil something up, 100% of the time it will snap back the other way.  If you coil your shoulders up then uncoil your lower body the upper body will snap back the other way even faster.  So as I said, I want the golfer to base their swing on something that is consistent instead of them just whacking at the ball with their arms. So I am basing the swing on coiling and uncoiling not just hitting with the arms.

 

There are other little things like that make me go hmmm. I'd love to know somebody else's opinion on this as I feel that S&T swing is much closer to the machine than the Swing Machine Golf method!

 

I do not see the relation ship between S&T and the Iron Byron at all. 

 

1.  As I said earlier, if you turn your shoulders in a circular motion your head will move to the right on its own.  If you keep your head dead still your shoulders will see-saw as you go back.  In the video on their site you can see the teacher push the shoulders down as the student takes the club back.  I teach a circular motion of the shoulders not a downward motion because the driveshaft of Iron Byron is turning in a circular motion.

 

2.  If in S&T you were truly swinging around one axis from keeping the weight on your left leg you would not take a divot with a S&T golf swing.  Think about it.  Iron Byron sets up to the ball in a fixed position.  If you measure the distance of the arm to the end of the club it is at ground level.  It then swings around one axis.  Because this distance is fixed and the angle of its axis never changes it does not  take a divot.

 

In a human golf swing, a divot is created because your body is tilted more to the right through impact than it was at set up.   Because of this tilt the club hits the ball first (descending) then enters the ground.  So although S&T wants your head overtop of the ball going back they want you to shift laterally on the way down which tilts the upper body to the right and the divot it taken.  In a S&T swing this spine tilt is seen through impact and in the finish position where they have the golfer leaning backwards. 

 

Again if the golfer was truly swinging around a perfect axis there would be no spine tilt at all in the golf swing. The spine would be perfectly vertical in the finish position.  So there is lateral movement in a S&T swing as well.

 

3.  Finally, they want you to swing left on the way through.  The machine allows its arm to swing freely.  Whatever it does coming down to impact is perfectly replicated on the other side.  It does not swing left as they teach so this is not what Iron Byron is doing at all.

 

 

Although I don't hit it as well with Swing Machine Golf I find my misses are more playable. After a few rounds of poor S&T, I inevitably return to Swing Machine Golf to gain some much needed confidence.
 

You are not alone.  I have tons of emails from people who have returned to Swing Machine Golf after trying other methods.  I think you need to understand SMG a little better.  You need to base your swing on torque and forces because they repeat 100% of the time in life.  If you do you will hit the ball better than you could ever imagine.

 

All the best,

 

Paul Wilson

Creator - Swing Machine Golf

Director - Paul Wilson Golf School Bear's Best Las Vegas

post #6 of 150

Am I missing something here, or what?

The "Iron Byron" is a machine. I seriously doubt it was based on any one golfer's swing unless that golfer had no legs, no right arm, no torso, etc.

I would assume that the name "Byron" was thought about because of Byron Nelson's repetitive swing characteristics, but more likely it was used because the two words rhyme (somewhat). Sounds catchier than "Iron Sam" or "Iron Ben" doesn't it.

Does Wilson really think they deconstructed someone's swing to produce a machine that swings in a perfect circle in a perfect plane every time? This is a testing device, nothing more.

The fact that someone like Wilson would try to extrapolate this mechanical movement to humans shows how desperate he is to break into the lucrative world of selling nonsense to the unsuspecting. I do applaud his zeal, but this is right up there with the AJ Bonar's of the marketing world. I guess they will never stop coming.

To anyone who thinks this idea is new, I have news for you, this was a method that was touted in the early 1990's in the Philadelphia area. It was a teaching method that was begun in a retail golf chain. Exactly the same theory with the "Iron Byron" as the model. It died a quick death; I understand that this is also not the first "go around" with this concept for Wilson either.

post #7 of 150

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by urodoc View Post

Am I missing something here, or what?

The "Iron Byron" is a machine. I seriously doubt it was based on any one golfer's swing unless that golfer had no legs, no right arm, no torso, etc.

I would assume that the name "Byron" was thought about because of Byron Nelson's repetitive swing characteristics, but more likely it was used because the two words rhyme (somewhat). Sounds catchier than "Iron Sam" or "Iron Ben" doesn't it.

Does Wilson really think they deconstructed someone's swing to produce a machine that swings in a perfect circle in a perfect plane every time? This is a testing device, nothing more.

The fact that someone like Wilson would try to extrapolate this mechanical movement to humans shows how desperate he is to break into the lucrative world of selling nonsense to the unsuspecting. I do applaud his zeal, but this is right up there with the AJ Bonar's of the marketing world. I guess they will never stop coming.

To anyone who thinks this idea is new, I have news for you, this was a method that was touted in the early 1990's in the Philadelphia area. It was a teaching method that was begun in a retail golf chain. Exactly the same theory with the "Iron Byron" as the model. It died a quick death; I understand that this is also not the first "go around" with this concept for Wilson either.


Paul includes an interview with the inventor of the Iron Byron on his DVDs. There is no doubt it was based on Byron Nelson's swing. Obviously, when building the machine they didn't need to make it look like a human being to be effective.

 

As I said in my review, Paul had to fill in the gaps in order to sell his method to the golfing world. It is one of the reasons I only applied 50% of it. But that 50% worked wonders, there is no doubt about that. I recommend everyone that reads this to give the loose as wet spaghetti arms a go on the range. I guarantee you'll hit the ball better and further than ever before. Trying to artificially create lag, maintaining the flying wedge etc. simply slows the clubhead down through impact producing blocks (at least for me). It's the one part of S&T I'm struggling with as the rest all makes sense.

 

 

post #8 of 150

Thanks for the reply, Pharaoh.

I don't want to belabor a point, but what does it mean that it was "based" on Byron Nelson's swing? Did Byron Nelson swing in a perfect circle and was he on the exact same plane everytime? Of course not, this is a machine not a person. Even if it did look like a person, it would not swing like one. If I wanted to build a machine to hit golf balls the same every time I would not even look at a human swing because of the inherent inconsistancies. No matter how you, Wilson,  or the originator want to romanticize it the machine has nothing to do with any one person's swing.

My point in this blog is to point out the inanities in this type of golf "instruction"nothing more.

I am curious, thought, you claim to be a "0.0" handicap (I guess that is the same as "0"), why would anyone with your level of ability, if you are telling the truth, be involved with trying to learn swing mechanics from someone who ostensibly can't play any better than you?

If you're that good, why not hire a coach, or just practice your short game?

post #9 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by urodoc View Post

Thanks for the reply, Pharaoh.

I don't want to belabor a point, but what does it mean that it was "based" on Byron Nelson's swing? Did Byron Nelson swing in a perfect circle and was he on the exact same plane everytime? Of course not, this is a machine not a person. Even if it did look like a person, it would not swing like one. If I wanted to build a machine to hit golf balls the same every time I would not even look at a human swing because of the inherent inconsistancies. No matter how you, Wilson,  or the originator want to romanticize it the machine has nothing to do with any one person's swing.

My point in this blog is to point out the inanities in this type of golf "instruction"nothing more.

I am curious, thought, you claim to be a "0.0" handicap (I guess that is the same as "0"), why would anyone with your level of ability, if you are telling the truth, be involved with trying to learn swing mechanics from someone who ostensibly can't play any better than you?

If you're that good, why not hire a coach, or just practice your short game?


No problem. I'm glad that somebody else has jumped in here to give me their opinion, as it seems as if I'm the only one familiar with this method of teaching the golf swing.

 

I don't want to get into the details of it being based on Byron Nelson's swing as I suggest you go to Paul's website and download the interview with George Manning, the inventor of Iron Byron. He explains exactly how he came up with his machine by studying the swings of the best players back in 60s and determined that Byron Nelson had the best swing. It is pointless for you to deny this as the inventor explains how he came up with the machine while working at True Temper. Paul then built his swing theory around this perfect machine. Although his method is not perfect as I've explained above, I think he did a very good job. There are worse ways to swing the club out there!

 

I am 0 handicap as I am a professional golfer and golf instructor. Obviously, the machine CANNOT play better than me as it can't move, however it hits the ball way better than me. EVERY swing is perfect, it never misses a shot. This is what attracted me to the method. This is what I am aspiring to. Why would I want to base my swing on Tiger, Jack or Fred when I can base it on something that hits every shot perfectly? It's swing mechanics are perfect. You need to read my review again to understand why I bought the book. I got down to better scratch THANKS to the Swing Machine as I was a poor 3 handicapper before I started applying some of its theory.

 


 

 

post #10 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh View Post....... as it seems as if I'm the only one familiar with this method of teaching the golf swing.

 

 


Actually, I just stumbled across this thread, and I am pretty familiar with the PW curriculum.

 

I think one needs to see the drills and the method of teaching Paul utilizes before commending it or critiquing it.  The 'Swing Machine Golf' phrase may indeed be catchy marketing, but IMHO the beauty of Paul's program is his ability to take a pretty conventional golf swing and minimize the complexities of it into a very simple-to-understand concept.  I care less about the inane argument of whether or not a machine's swing can be copied, and whether or not that machine was in fact copied from Byron Nelson than I care about the solidness of the fundamentals being taught (and the effectiveness of getting those fundamentals 'across' to the student).  In that respect, Paul is top-notch.  His lessons and drills are simple, concise, and very well explained.  Rarely, does one go over 8 minutes.  Most are under 5.  So inside of ten minutes, you have something concrete to work on.  Critical is the fact I've yet to see him teach anything that really conflicts any of the basics many others are teaching/preaching.  When I slo-mo the PGA touring Pros on TV, it's rare that I see anything that strays much from what Paul teaches.  He's simply easier to understand and is vastly more effective at getting those concept(s) across than most.    

 

It's early in the season here in the North, but I've been able to take these concepts to the driving range a couple times and can see immediate improvement.  I was able to get five holes in the other day before dark and was one-over.  For me, the typical bogey golfer, that was a very exciting and encouraging result for the first time out of the box.  For the first time in almost 40 years of playing this game, I truly feel like I'm swinging from the hips and torso rather than the arms.  It's quite liberating.  Ball striking was outstanding, even on the flooded mush slop we're forced to play on here early in the spring.

 

There were two huge fundamentals that I was able to 'get' from Paul that no other teacher has been able to get across to me.  The true feeling of starting the downswing with the hips - thus executing a proper weight shift.  And tempo.  In under ten minutes, that tempo video completely transformed me from hitting with my arms to swinging from the inside-out (hips-torso-arms-hands......not necessarily swing path).  Or as Pharaoh puts it, "loose as wet spaghetti arms."  I don't feel quite THAT loose, but I'm hitting the ball farther, with less conscious 'arm effort' than ever before.

 

To each his own, but don't knock the program if you haven't seen it.  It's actually pretty fundamentally sound IMHO.


Edited by NEOHMark - 3/14/11 at 11:56am
post #11 of 150

I totally agree with you Mark. The moment I start played badly I know exactly what I've started doing, initiating my downswing with my arms. I immediately start pulling my irons, slicing my woods and losing a lot of distance. The faster I turn my hips to start my downswing and the looser I keep my arms the better I hit the ball. It really is that simple.

 

Thanks for chipping in with your comments, I was beginning to think I was the only one that purchased his book and DVDs!

post #12 of 150

I have been playing for only around 3 years but it has been up and down. I've read tons of books, watched as my son got better and better as I got worse. About a few months ago, I saw Paul Wilson's videos online. What he said made a lot of sense to me. What I like is that he explains things very clearly and when I go to the range, I DO see the problems he mentions all over the place!

 

I slowly tried his ideas but I never got it. I never believed that I was using too much arm and was trying to brute force swing the club. I tried to relax, to loosen up. I tried to shift my weight; friends tried to help me. Nothing worked. I got worse and even tried some weird swings that I purchased online. Some of them made me straighten my legs, try to time my wrists on impact and a ton of other unnatural things.

 

I did know about using the lower body but no one around me could really explain it clearly, much less show it to me. It was frustrating. I knew the jr. golfers did it, because you can clearly see that they are not strong, yet they can hit pretty far and they clearly do use their lower body. 

 

To make a long story short, I really decided to do the steps to try Paul's swing and I finally got it. When I execute it like he says, it is effortless and the ball goes straight. It's hard to believe, but it really does work. It's not going to fix my short game or my putting, but I'm looking forward to the next round of golf I tell you.

 

 

post #13 of 150

Just to follow up. I used the swingmachinegolf method and hit incredible shots. I just wish some of you could see how crooked I used to hit the ball before trying this method. Left, right, slice etc.... On good days I might develop a pull or hook that I would work with on the course... At least I wasn't slicing.

I know this sounds like a commercial, but this swing really works for me. If you just let the lower body start and do the turning and don't let the arms get in the way (keep them loose), it is hard to hit crooked shots. Now the bad habits did creep back in - trying to use the arms too much, but I was aware of it, and once I caught it and adhered to the lower body method, the shots became straight again. 

The best part is that it is truly effortless when you do it right. What I want to do is test it on someone around here, because right now it seems like a miracle.

post #14 of 150

miracles come and miracles go...

 

I'd like to hear from you in a month and see if the eureka moment stands the test of time. I hope it does, I am far too familiar with the feeling of "GETTING IT" only to fall back to "what the hell am I doing wrong?????"

post #15 of 150

I agree Ernest. I am still working at it. What is happening now is I really see how bad lots of parts of my golf is (by video). I have not gotten much increased clubhead speed, but so far, I am still hitting very, very straight. Bad habits still try to creep in a lot. This swing still seems to be working, but we will see this weekend. It takes a lot of effort to not try and smash at the ball. A LOT of effort!

 

As someone said above, the biggest improvement if you try Paul's swing is proper weight shift. I hardly hit behind the ball now. It still happens, but much, much less. The ball goes a lot straighter too. We will see how it lasts. At least the swing is not a weird one like some of the others I have tried.

post #16 of 150

WARNING!! Careful with this method as the loose as wet spaghetti arms can quickly turn into a nasty casting move. I've just come out of a slump due to loosening my arms too much and releasing the club too early in the downswing. I was hitting some of the ugliest pull-hooks and weak fades you'll ever see. I started working on improving my lag last week and overnight started hitting the ball much better.

post #17 of 150

I'm finding the videos to be very helpful for myself.  Keep in mind that I'm a 13 handicap and have been doing some things very wrong for over 20 years.  Just recently have I decided to learn to swing the club properly.

 

Some things that the videos have helped me immensely with are the grip (I was far too snug and aligned way off), my takeaway, my alignment, head posititon etc..

 

I like the way that he breaks down each element.  It may not be perfect but it certainly is helpful and I cannot afford a professional instructor.

 

My ball striking is 100% better than it has ever been and I'm just getting started with the videos.  My goal is to get to single digit handicap by the end of the season and I'm well on my way.

 

YMMV!

post #18 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh View Post

WARNING!! Careful with this method as the loose as wet spaghetti arms can quickly turn into a nasty casting move. I've just come out of a slump due to loosening my arms too much and releasing the club too early in the downswing. I was hitting some of the ugliest pull-hooks and weak fades you'll ever see. I started working on improving my lag last week and overnight started hitting the ball much better.


I love Swing Machine Golf! You're right about the casting, if you combine Swing Machine Golf with just 2 aids, such as the Tour Striker Pro and the Pure Ball Striker, it's quite possible to hit every fairways and greens. a3_biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Reading Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Reading Room › "Swing Machine Golf" by Paul Wilson