or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Instruction and Playing Tips › Kuykendall's LPG swing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kuykendall's LPG swing - Page 2

post #19 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGSZ View Post


Hi Logman,

Thanks for this info..... I see - so lever 1 is the upper arm (short) and lever 2 is the forearm plus club (very long).

In pure biomechanics terms this makes sense. From a skill-learning perspective though it feels unnatural (I tried it) and most of us want things to 'feel right'. So I guess it's just down to the individual. 

Interestingly, one of the greatest ever golfers - Harry Vardon - played with a bent left elbow.... Maybe he knew something....?

Once again, thanks for the update

Chris, absolutely right about the "unnatural feel". Kuykendall sells a contraption that imobilizes the front wrist and he says when you can hit the ball about 90% of your distance without it on you know you've got it. And he's right ,it took me weeks to even hit the ball 50 yards then it dawned on me that the front arm must bend at the elbow to get that :laggy" feel you get in trad golf. The feeling in the front arm is like this. Imagine you've got a punching bag hanging just in front of your lead shoulder. The aim is to smack it with the back of your front hand as hard as you can. So you bend the elbow back until your palm is against your rear shoulder, then using your triceps smack the bag with the back of your hand. Once you get that feeling you realize there's power in the triceps that's unused in the conventional swing. PS, I'm no sports scientist or anything.....just my observations.

post #20 of 36

Sweatpants guy is not kuykendall?

post #21 of 36
Thread Starter 

No, that's Dougie. Check out Dougs other video........it includes moon walking and dancing!!!

 

 

 

 

 

note to self ; never post a video after drinking beer

post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by logman View Post

Chris, absolutely right about the "unnatural feel". Kuykendall sells a contraption that imobilizes the front wrist and he says when you can hit the ball about 90% of your distance without it on you know you've got it. And he's right ,it took me weeks to even hit the ball 50 yards then it dawned on me that the front arm must bend at the elbow to get that :laggy" feel you get in trad golf. The feeling in the front arm is like this. Imagine you've got a punching bag hanging just in front of your lead shoulder. The aim is to smack it with the back of your front hand as hard as you can. So you bend the elbow back until your palm is against your rear shoulder, then using your triceps smack the bag with the back of your hand. Once you get that feeling you realize there's power in the triceps that's unused in the conventional swing. PS, I'm no sports scientist or anything.....just my observations.


That's very interesting.....

It might be a good idea be aware of your left elbow - it locks suddenly, which over time might cause injury....

post #23 of 36

One large step form this swing is the Moe Norman swing. Uses whole body but still employes many concepts that make it more repeatable. Moe's swing is long and powerful. Big idea is that the club shaft is on impact plane at address. Love my Moe swing (or my best efforts at it). Not an overnight fix but it IS a fix. I went from years as an 18.0 and higher to as low as 6.1 last year.

post #24 of 36
Thread Starter 

Yeah, the two swings are related. especially when you reach to the ball and your rear arm is on the same plane as the club shaft

post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyredcab View Post

One large step form this swing is the Moe Norman swing. Uses whole body but still employes many concepts that make it more repeatable. Moe's swing is long and powerful. Big idea is that the club shaft is on impact plane at address. Love my Moe swing (or my best efforts at it). Not an overnight fix but it IS a fix. I went from years as an 18.0 and higher to as low as 6.1 last year.

 

That's debatable. Haven't heard of too many people gaining yardage (or even staying quite the same) with a Moe Norman swing at the same skill level (ball striking wise - obviously they'll hit the ball farther if they were fatting and thinning the ball before with a "traditional" swing).

post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

That's debatable. Haven't heard of too many people gaining yardage (or even staying quite the same) with a Moe Norman swing at the same skill level (ball striking wise - obviously they'll hit the ball farther if they were fatting and thinning the ball before with a "traditional" swing).

 

I see the swing and it's not logical for it to generate more power for someone who already generates decent clubhead speed and makes solid contact. It might generate more power for some people, but they must have been truly awful using a conventional swing.

post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

That's debatable. Haven't heard of too many people gaining yardage (or even staying quite the same) with a Moe Norman swing at the same skill level (ball striking wise - obviously they'll hit the ball farther if they were fatting and thinning the ball before with a "traditional" swing).

I don't wish to hijack the thread into a long Moe Norman distance debate. I'll simply say that I gained distance when I converted to swing like Moe. If you have a good or very good conventional swing, you may not see any improvement. But, in very large part because of the Moe Norman swing, I make better contact more often, release the club better, can practice more (little to no strain on my lower back) and I understand the key positions for a good swing and how to maximize my lower body driving into the ball. Executed correctly, the Moe Norman swing looks like a simple move that generates surprising power and speed.

 

I'm not the longest hitter out there (especially out there in internet golf forum land) but I am much longer at age 53 than I was from age 18-40 with a conventional swing. And I am as long or longer as nearly everyone I play with. More importantly for me, my handicap is respectable and my game is relatively consistent. I've worked on this swing for about 10 years, so distance comparisons are difficult. I'm older, less flexible, yet now work out with weights... and equipment is much better than it was even ten years ago (and mine fits my intended swing). So the fact that I'm longer now than I was with a conventional swing is likely due to the fact that my ball striking is dramatically improved.

 

I will say that the ten finger grip and more stationary lower body aspects of the Kuykendall swing limit speed and power. Those are NOT part of Moe's swing.

post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyredcab View Post

I'm not the longest hitter out there (especially out there in internet golf forum land) but I am much longer at age 53 than I was from age 18-40 with a conventional swing...

 

... and balata balls, and smaller, heavier drivers... etc. A lot has changed since 2000 and before, as you go on to mention.

post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyredcab View Post

I don't wish to hijack the thread into a long Moe Norman distance debate. I'll simply say that I gained distance when I converted to swing like Moe. If you have a good or very good conventional swing, you may not see any improvement. But, in very large part because of the Moe Norman swing, I make better contact more often, release the club better, can practice more (little to no strain on my lower back) and I understand the key positions for a good swing and how to maximize my lower body driving into the ball. Executed correctly, the Moe Norman swing looks like a simple move that generates surprising power and speed.

 

I'm not the longest hitter out there (especially out there in internet golf forum land) but I am much longer at age 53 than I was from age 18-40 with a conventional swing. And I am as long or longer as nearly everyone I play with. More importantly for me, my handicap is respectable and my game is relatively consistent. I've worked on this swing for about 10 years, so distance comparisons are difficult. I'm older, less flexible, yet now work out with weights... and equipment is much better than it was even ten years ago (and mine fits my intended swing). So the fact that I'm longer now than I was with a conventional swing is likely due to the fact that my ball striking is dramatically improved.

 

I will say that the ten finger grip and more stationary lower body aspects of the Kuykendall swing limit speed and power. Those are NOT part of Moe's swing.

 

What specifically has made you longer. It is doubtful that it is an increase in clubead speed, as the swing does not generally promote that (specifically over a more traditional model). As Iacas said, was it an improvement in ball/turf contact - or was it a better clubface/path relationship (did you stop slicing it for example).  

post #30 of 36
Seems to me like the long right arm and stiff wrist presets a casting position, which I suppose would help the ballstriking of those who cast.
post #31 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post

Seems to me like the long right arm and stiff wrist presets a casting position, which I suppose would help the ballstriking of those who cast.

I'm not really sure how to answer this. But I think that "casting" is an integral and powerful part of the LPG swing. Though alot of the terms used by conventional swingers just don't apply to LPG. Terms like "flipping" are not applicable because the hinge in the front arm is at the elbow with the wrist staying locked. Or "chicken winging". C.W has to happen in a swing with a baseball grip....but it seems unimportant in LPG. Casting, the same. Casting is part of LPG. You cast your hands back and down to get power. All I can say is it's different from the conventional swing.

post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by logman View Post

I'm not really sure how to answer this. But I think that "casting" is an integral and powerful part of the LPG swing. Though alot of the terms used by conventional swingers just don't apply to LPG. Terms like "flipping" are not applicable because the hinge in the front arm is at the elbow with the wrist staying locked. Or "chicken winging". C.W has to happen in a swing with a baseball grip....but it seems unimportant in LPG. Casting, the same. Casting is part of LPG. You cast your hands back and down to get power. All I can say is it's different from the conventional swing.

I believe you answered my thought pretty well. I think of casting as a preemptive straightening (or "release" of the wrist angle, if you will) of the right arm. Since, in LPG, the right arm is straight at address, the only way to hit the ball IMO is to have a straight right arm at impact, thereby "casting" in the conventional sense. So what I'm saying is that people who struggle with casting with a conventional swing might find it easier to strike the ball at the sweet spot of the club this way.

 

However, I do agree with previous posts that the increase in distance would be related to better contact as opposed to increased swing speed. As with any arm-focused or arm-oriented swing, all the power comes from the biceps and triceps, muscles most adults are familiar with (and have developed over a lifetime of) working. As a guy who swings a hammer all day, I can certainly relate, but it's certainly not a swing pattern I'd teach any young children.

post #33 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post

I believe you answered my thought pretty well. I think of casting as a preemptive straightening (or "release" of the wrist angle, if you will) of the right arm. Since, in LPG, the right arm is straight at address, the only way to hit the ball IMO is to have a straight right arm at impact, thereby "casting" in the conventional sense. So what I'm saying is that people who struggle with casting with a conventional swing might find it easier to strike the ball at the sweet spot of the club this way.

 

However, I do agree with previous posts that the increase in distance would be related to better contact as opposed to increased swing speed. As with any arm-focused or arm-oriented swing, all the power comes from the biceps and triceps, muscles most adults are familiar with (and have developed over a lifetime of) working. As a guy who swings a hammer all day, I can certainly relate, but it's certainly not a swing pattern I'd teach any young children.

Don't know about my swing speed change over traditional swings. I do know that I'm hitting the driver better and better. I'm definitely hitting my approach shots from positions that I've never been before on my home course. I drove through the green on the 12th, a 260 meter par 4. I've NEVER played my second shot from the back of that green in 20 years of playing at that course. BTW I'm a 54 year old geezer, with a dodgy back. 

post #34 of 36

Is anyone having a hard time getting onto Kuykendall's web site?

I emailed him for a user name and password, (which he sent), but when I tried signing in on one of his websites, couldn't do it.

Got a reply that his page couldn't be brought up.

post #35 of 36

It may not be orthodox in may persons eyes. But that's because of the nature of humans to always critique and challenge things, which is good, but over used.

Criticism is useless unless the criticism provides a resolution to the issue being critiqued. Or so say psychologists and psychiatrists.

If it, or anything, gives you or others a better end shot result, there is no reason, absolutely no reason for them to not use it.

Period.

Does it work?

For some it does it seems.

For those that said they didn't like it, I saw no comment on it 'not working for them'.

They just didn't like it. Could have been an ego issue, other players making fun of them, who knows?

But if it works for someone, it's a no brainer that they should do it.

 

I'm old and broken. Never tried this but will next time I go out to the range and on my next round of golf. Then I'll know if it works for me. Not someone else, but for me.

 

The greatest times I have had playing golf is playing with my old sticks and my broken body and playing stroke for stroke with some younger guy with a thousand dollar set of clubs and top shelf clothing.

 

Just goes to show you, what you may look like playing golf (clothes, clubs and your swing) are of no real concern.
Your score is.

post #36 of 36

This swing actually looks like the Harry Vardon swing.  I have used it now for 2 years and can play with no back pain.  I am 64 and have played in the past as low as a 3 handicap.  I was a chiropractor for 30 years and when I retired started playing lots of golf.  The rotation of a conventional swing was causing severe back problems.  I started with natural golf but ended up with lever power golf.  It works and I can still carry my drives 230 yards.  The main thing is I can't really go after the ball hard.  It is just a simple repeatable motion.  I enjoy golf more than ever with no pain.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Instruction and Playing Tips
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Instruction and Playing Tips › Kuykendall's LPG swing