Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    17
  • comments
    104
  • views
    28,193

Moe Norman

Sign in to follow this  
jbishop15

4,179 views

Norman goes crazy about how the golfing world is only teaching "mechanics" when he was the dude who hit a minimum of five hundred balls a day and talked about his swing was the best one on the planet. He also didn't pick up this psychological stuff until he was well into his career, maybe even after it was over. It just reinforces the idea of Tour players as Stupid Monkeys. 

Sign in to follow this  


17 Comments


Recommended Comments

I have always dismissed Moe Norman.  He may have had the best swing or been the most accurate ball striker of all time.  Ultimately, he is a footnote to golfing history because he was an unstable person.

Share this comment


Link to comment
39 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

I have always dismissed Moe Norman.  He may have had the best swing or been the most accurate ball striker of all time.  Ultimately, he is a footnote to golfing history because he was an unstable person.

Personally, I wouldn't go that far. For me it's just the hypocrisy of the thing. Like, I'm sure he is super-confident standing over a golf ball, because he's hit thousands of them. It's real easy to believe that every shot will go straight when, you know, you've hit thousands of balls that way. 

Kuykendall is the worst of all in this video, though. Dude is 100% about teaching mechanics, just the mechanics that he can make money of off. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
40 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

It's real easy to believe that every shot will go straight when, you know, you've hit thousands of balls that way. 

I agree with this.

In Rotella's book Golf is Not a Game of Perfect, he talks about how important it is to be confident. I understand that if we're down or P.O.'d, we're not going to play as well. Just as being focused and having less swing thoughts is beneficial. But it's not a "mind over matter" thing either.

You either have a good swing or you don't.

Share this comment


Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I agree with this.

In Rotella's book Golf is Not a Game of Perfect, he talks about how important it is to be confident. I understand that if we're down or P.O.'d, we're not going to play as well. Just as being focused and having less swing thoughts is beneficial. But it's not a "mind over matter" thing either.

You either have a good swing or you don't.

Exactly. People like to point to players like Bubba Watson and Jim Furyk of examples of not needing a "good" swing to win tournaments; but the fact of the matter is, they do have good swings, because they hit all five keys. 

Tiger, too; they claim that Tiger was at his best because of his mental game. But that totally leaves out the fact that nobody has ever outworked him. Dude would practice from 6 AM to 8 PM. He worked his ass off and was in both peak physical and game-play form every single time. Him being mentally strong was as much about him knowing that he had worked the hardest than it was about some mystical mental strength. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

What I find funny about the whole Moe Norman phenomena is that he's the epitome of "stupid monkey" yet he attracts some of the worst amateur over analyzers and swing tinkers around. Them and the contrarians who seek the unconventional for sake of being unconventional.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I don't model my swing on Moe, but you can't dismiss that tour pros found his consistency impressive. He was eccentric rather than unstable - possibly on the autistic spectrum.

His massive body of experience hitting balls taught him some ways to be most efficient and repeatable with his swing and his body. He wasn't only a stupid monkey - he evolved to that point. He played around with what was considered 'orthodox' and found ideas or approaches that worked for him and then built a swing (and heavy clubs) that worked like clockwork around those intents.

Edited by natureboy

Share this comment


Link to comment
9 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I don't model my swing on Moe, but you can't dismiss that tour pros found his consistency impressive. He was eccentric rather than unstable - possibly on the autistic spectrum.

His massive body of experience hitting balls taught him some ways to be most efficient and repeatable with his swing and his body. He wasn't only a stupid monkey - he evolved to that point. He played around with what was considered 'orthodox' and found ideas or approaches that worked for him and then built a swing (and heavy clubs) that worked like clockwork around those intents.

I agree. I don't want this to come off as a dismissive towards his skills or golf career; dude was an incredible ball striker, and one of the under appreciated players of the last 100 years. 

My complaints lie more with this idea that "mechanics" are bad. Hitting a minimum of 500 balls a day, experimenting with grip & clubhead placement in the setup, and passing a clubhead over a quarter to get the feeling of dragging the club away; all of those things are mechanics. 

Golf has a large mental component, but the snake oil that people like Kuykendall sells upsets me. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Sometimes we just need to accept that something is naturally good and simply can't be replicated or taught. Cindy Crawford has great genetics. All that garbage about "how she stays beautiful" is just that, garbage. Super star body builders work very hard but it doesn't mean "you too can be ripped." Some people just have a gift and it becomes a marketing bonanza for others to think they can achieve this gift that is innate for those people and unattainable to the others. Moe Norman is in this category. He held no secret, no magic moves, nothing. He could just strike the ball very pure almost every swing. Enjoy it, take wonder....and leave it at that.

Share this comment


Link to comment
14 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Sometimes we just need to accept that something is naturally good and simply can't be replicated or taught. Cindy Crawford has great genetics. All that garbage about "how she stays beautiful" is just that, garbage. Super star body builders work very hard but it doesn't mean "you too can be ripped." Some people just have a gift and it becomes a marketing bonanza for others to think they can achieve this gift that is innate for those people and unattainable to the others. Moe Norman is in this category. He held no secret, no magic moves, nothing. He could just strike the ball very pure almost every swing. Enjoy it, take wonder....and leave it at that.

I agree that Moe had innate talent (possibly one of the most significant was detailed focus related to his autistic makeup). Even though his approach is unlikely to be 'magical', that doesn't mean his mechanics and approach are meaningless either. His approach created a pretty simple swing mechanically (and possibly on 'feels') that may have been essential to its repeating consistency.

This series of videos from a PGA summit presentation is a bit more balanced in looking at his approach to the golf swing:

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

People don't seem to get that Moe's swing was pretty darn normal for the bulk of his life up until he was getting pretty old. He was talked into the thicker grips, and the more palmy grip, for example. Later in life. His swing when he was trying to play the PGA Tour (a little) was pretty typical of everyone else's swing.

Share this comment


Link to comment
19 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Sometimes we just need to accept that something is naturally good and simply can't be replicated or taught. Cindy Crawford has great genetics. All that garbage about "how she stays beautiful" is just that, garbage. Super star body builders work very hard but it doesn't mean "you too can be ripped." Some people just have a gift and it becomes a marketing bonanza for others to think they can achieve this gift that is innate for those people and unattainable to the others. Moe Norman is in this category. He held no secret, no magic moves, nothing. He could just strike the ball very pure almost every swing. Enjoy it, take wonder....and leave it at that.

I agree that some people have more effective genetics, but I don't agree that it's innate. I don't believe in the concept of talent, or that someone was born to do something. I fall into the camp of 'anything is possible'. 

There's too many variables that go into being good at something for me to believe in talent. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
24 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

There's too many variables that go into being good at something for me to believe in talent. 

This isn't the thread for it, but… you're dead freaking wrong. Some people are more athletically inclined than others.

There are many topics available on this.

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 minutes ago, iacas said:

This isn't the thread for it, but… you're dead freaking wrong. Some people are more athletically inclined than others.

There are many topics available on this.

I don't call natural athleticism 'talent', though. I'm talking about the innate stuff that people call talent. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
15 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

I don't call natural athleticism 'talent', though. I'm talking about the innate stuff that people call talent. 

Post in one of the topics on this if you'd like, because I still disagree.

Share this comment


Link to comment
22 hours ago, iacas said:

People don't seem to get that Moe's swing was pretty darn normal for the bulk of his life up until he was getting pretty old. He was talked into the thicker grips, and the more palmy grip, for example. Later in life. His swing when he was trying to play the PGA Tour (a little) was pretty typical of everyone else's swing.

I partly agree that he made changes. But his basic setup and swing were pretty different from what was and still is 'orthodox'. Early footage is grainy, but I still see a palmier right hand than a 'typical' fingers grip and this impact pic clearly shows he had the high hands and extended arms (shaft pointing to chest) at address / through impact early on.

 

moe10.gif

Share this comment


Link to comment

I don't think so. I'm basing this off:

This doesn't look like a palmy right-hand grip to me:

Moe.thumb.jpg.53ba4a17f37da08636185b67aa

There's still a pretty good angle between the shaft and his forearm, and his left hand isn't palmy. The right frame just shows how typical his follow-through looked. You can see a little bit of the "Natural Swing Moe" in that one, but it's closer to a "conventional" swing for the time.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Blog Entries

  • Posts

    • Played in our club championship this past weekend.  Shot 89 both days from silver tees.  Not that great but an ok tournament score for me and better than I did last year. Played Tuesday and shot 83 off silver which was net 70, so 2 under my cap.  Played combo's Wednesday and had my best round in years with an 80, net 65 and got my first eagle since relocating after retiring.  Also got 3 birdies in the same round.  Played again Friday and shot 84, net 72 with a couple of birdies.  Leaving the driver out of the bag for the last few rounds has certainly helped in the penalty department.  I recently replaced my 3W and the new shaft in it is so stable I feel I can trust it so much more.  Have ordered a new driver shaft with a similar spec but slightly lighter than 3W shaft, so hopefully will be able to have a similar stability with the driver and a few extra yards in the fairway.
    • Find them quite tricky. Hit them like an iron or flatter like a wood? Also my G400 hybrid has no swing weight which helps swing speed but makes me nervous. Also it just dont have a good feeling to it. Proper Woods are so fun to hit. 
    • noticed that myself, never seen him do that half takeback like JT before in his routine... then today at Wyndham, wasn't doing it.  His fidgeting does seem to have gotten worse the last couple years, at least he's not grabbing the towel 10,000 times anymore 😂.   Curious what someone else with far more knowledge on the golf swing thinks though of the commentators remark today, I believe it was Trevor Immelman and Aaron Oberholser who both agreed that if he just switched to playing a cut off the tee, it would solve a lot of his issues.
    • This is a really deep question, possibly with no right answer. I think that usage and accuracy of equipment are the main components in deciding what you want, and price just follows suit. I kind of divide it into three categories: toy (not accurate or not simulators), recreational sim (more accurate, but comes with limitations on certain data and isn't as accurate as the final category), and professional sim. The toy category is comprised of sub 500 dollar options (the measuring device itself) that measure a couple of things. The OptiShot line is the prime example. It only measures the club going over an array of infrared sensors (2 lines of sensors). It can track face angle, speed (kind of), and perceived strike location based on which sensors are triggered at what time. It doesn't even require the use of a ball to get its data, so it can be quite inaccurate. The other options here would be Mevo or SC300, though neither of these truly offer sim capabilities but are more accurate than an OptiShot as they use ball data. The rec sims only have 2 that I can think of. The Mevo+ and the SkyTrak. They operate in very different ways, with the Mevo+ operating on radar and measuring mostly the ball for the first part of flight, and the SkyTrak operating on optics measuring the point of impact, both ball and club. These are both fairly robust devices for the price (probably around 3k each for a full sim) but both have drawbacks and it could be argued over which is better. From my small knowledge about launch monitors it seems that for indoor simulation the optic driven devices excel, but outdoors radar is king, i.e. SkyTrak for indoors and Mevo+ for outdoors. On to the big dogs, the professional sims. Once again there are really two choices at the moment, and like the previous category, one is radar driven where the other is optic driven. Trackman is the premium radar system available and comes in just under 20k USD on price. Big bucks for big performance. The GCQuad (or GC2+HMT) is king for optical launch monitors and can be had for around 12k USD, but with the putting analysis and head monitoring add on, it also comes in just under 20k. Same thing here, gotta pay to play. These prices don't include the bay (mat/projector/screen) so you can really spec them as you please. The GC2 without the HMT upgrade kind of splits the difference between recreational and professional launch monitors, and the price follows suit. A certified preowned unit can be had for around 5500 USD. It really does split the difference in the optical category, being a big step up from a SkyTrak, but comes up short to the GCQuad or if you were to add the HMT unit. I know this is a lot of info, although it's just the basics when it comes to launch monitors/sims. For the actual question: If I had a room with a tall enough ceiling in my house, I would probably go for the SkyTrak at first. One of the biggest reasons is that it has compatibility with "The Golf Club 2019" which is a video game that I have on home computer. That package comes at an up-charge, but between the official courses designed by the game developer, and the many recreated courses done by fans (even has Augusta in there), there are something like 180,000 courses to play. That's a big draw for me.  There is something to be said for course packages/subscriptions and which best fits your interest/needs. I might grow tired of the SkyTrak, or find it lacking in accuracy at some point and then it would be a GCQuad for me. Snce it would be indoors only, I would prefer an optical system.  There is plenty of info online, and plenty of reviews to go along with them. I have only used the GC2s that are in my local golf galaxy, so I don't experience with most of these, but this is most of the info I have gathered. I hope this helps in some way, and if you have any questions, I can try to answer them.
    • View this round on GAME GOLF  
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Cantankerish
      Cantankerish
      (46 years old)
    2. Dimes44
      Dimes44
      (37 years old)
    3. Donald Belcher
      Donald Belcher
      (84 years old)
    4. jimnm
      jimnm
      (41 years old)
    5. Zachase715
      Zachase715
      (28 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...