Article on Guy Who Shot 57 - His Golf Swing

[Phil McGleno]

https://www.adamyounggolf.com/weird-swing-shoots-57/

What do yall think of that article?-@Adam Young wrote it.

[iacas]

I've been wanting to write a bit on this since you posted, but I've both not had the time and wanted to re-read to give the article a fair shake.

Adam is a big "swing your swing" guy. Now, I do agree that there's a difference between "swing your swing" (SYS) and "quick fix" or "band-aid" type instruction, and I don't think Adam is the latter. A "SYS" instructor will tell you to keep the basis of your swing, but to "work on" things more directly like:

• low point
• face angle
• path

Adam prefers external focus, random practice over block practice, and swinging your swing over mechanical changes.

---

Cristobal Del Solar (CDS) shot 57 in a recent Korn Ferry Tour event. It was on a par-70, 6200 yard course that saw a 59 shot the next day, but still… 57 is 57. The hole is still 4.25" and it's still hundreds of yards away.

Video of CDS's old swing surfaced within the days following his 57.

Now, the old swing was pretty goofy. But… from early in the downswing to impact, it's not that far off. This looks good:

In looking at CDS's OWGR rating, he was ranked as low as 900… before a dip and then a recent rise in the rankings to his current ranking of 230.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that:

• The old swing was good but not to the level he wanted.
• He saw a dip while he re-worked his swing.
• He's seeing the benefits of that now with a rise to 230, Korn Ferry Tour status, and a 57.

I think that the above satisfies Occam's Razor. I think it justifies the time it took to make a change. I think that though it's possible that something else changed to result in the rise in status and ranking, it's almost certainly the full swing work he put in.

---

It's puzzling, and a bit frustrating, that Adam spends almost the entire article downplaying it, giving reasons why maybe it wasn't the full swing work, the mechanical changes he made. I understand saying something like: "CDS made some remarkable changes. Now, we don't know if ALL of his improvement came from those changes — maybe he is just a wiser, more well rounded player who also putts better than he once did — but he deserves credit all the same."

But, we don't get that. We get, in almost every paragraph, stuff like this:

"This certainly seems to go in favor of the “change your swing” camp. However, here are a few points to contemplate."

He hasn't even spent any time talking about his swing changes, the rise in his OWGR or status (KFT), and he's giving us disclaimers.

 

2. Do we have enough data? A round of 57 is incredible – but it’s also one round. What were his strokes gained before the swing change vs after, based on SEASON-LONG data?
3. I’d also love to see launch monitor data and have a look at the standard deviations to see what (if anything) changed/improved to his impact/consistency of impact.
4. Even improvements in things like strokes-gained data can be misleading. Approach shots can be better because you’re hitting it better, but also because you’re getting better at club selection, judging the course conditions better, course management and target selection etc.

and

Now, the swing changes might be the reason (and I’d like to think they are a big contributor – I’m a golf coach so it’s in my best interests that they are). But it’s important to realize there may be many factors involved;

• simply playing on tour for longer – racking up more experience and points, doing the right things at the right time etc can improve ranking
• moving up through the ranks in the tours, going from mini tours to Korn Ferry etc – much easier to improve your ranking as you’re playing in more events with higher points available
• improvements in strategy, psychology (getting comfortable on tour, in bigger events/general tour life), short game, fitness etc.

Bottom line is, improvement in World Rankings is multifactorial. It’s easy (but myopic) to just say “his swing looks better, and that’s why he played better”.

and

An important pro swing-your-swing point is that, he was already pretty darn good with the old swing.

Deeply consider this.

and

He is very skilled at delivering the club through the impact interval with great consistency and function.

The bottom line is this – if you take a swing, even with some of the ugliest mechanics, and improve the SKILL level, you can achieve incredible results.

and

Most golf teachers are not going to talk about this, because it’s not in their best interests. But changing your swing can have some downsides.

and

We also have to remember that, for every ugly looking swing that cleans up the “look” and goes on and becomes a much better player, there are probably 10 or more who cleaned up the look and “lost it”. You just don’t hear those stories, because they’re now selling cars for a living, and not shooting 57s on Tour.

That one doesn't even make sense to me. And…

There are also the other ends of the spectrum. The Nancy Lopez’s, Ray Floyds, Jim Furyks, Eamonn D’Arcys (I could go on) of the world who didn’t make dramatic changes to their motions (in spite of how unorthodox they were) and still went on to become world-beaters.

None of them are under 50! (Including Matt Wolff would have been prudent perhaps.) And… he named four people in the last 50 years who have had success despite having a "funky" looking swing. There's more competition now. CDS maybe could have won eight majors in the 1920s and 1930s with his old swing, but couldn't crack the KFT in the 2000s with it.

There's a reason those players stand out: they are the exceptions.

---

Does Adam think that an article that spends 90-95% of the time arguing in the opposite direction of "change your swing" will quell the idea that he's generally heavily in favor of "SYS?"

But wait, there's more!

Remember – this was just one round. One absolute killer round, but also an incredible outlier of an event. If he goes on and reaches top 10 in the world, this will be a much bigger call to say the swing changes created the player. but, as of this moment, I would want to have

• More concrete evidence/data that the swing changes have created a notable improvement in shot performance
• A deeper dive into other variables, such as strategy improvements etc. to see which areas have contributed into a better world ranking
• A longer look at the player’s career

Thing is, it's not just one round. Again:

It's also that the player has KFT status when he didn't before.

Occam's Razor, man.

Adam goes on even more to list things… but man, I'm tired.

---

I've left out the one redeeming part of the article, the one part I wish to stress as a part with which I agree:

1. I’m not sure how much he had to practice to make that change, but it seems as if it took a couple of years at pro-level practice amounts (which can be well over 40 hours a week). Manage your expectations when making your own swing changes.

Yep. No issues there - swing changes take time.