Jump to content
IGNORED

back foot at address with driver


Note: This thread is 5811 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

0  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. back foot at address

    • back foot slightly closed to target, 11 o' clock
      2
    • back foot perpendicular to targert , 12 o' clock
      33
    • back foot slightly open away from target; 1 o' clock or a little less
      35
    • back foot open away from target; more than 1' o clock
      4


Recommended Posts

I think the positioning of the back foot is a feel thing. To me having it at 12:00 feels a bit restrictive. Out toward 1:00 (between 12-1) gives me an athletic stance to make the pass. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, and I don't think I have a distance problem...

Driver: Cobra S2 9.5 Fubuki 73 Stiff | Wood: Titleist 909H 17 Aldila Voodoo Stiff | Irons: Titleist ZB 3-5, ZM 6-PW DG S300 | Wedges: Titleist Vokey SMTC 50.08, 54.11, 60.04 DG S200 | Putter: Scotty Cameron Fastback 1.5 33" | Ball: Titleist Pro V1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites


what is the purpose of letting the foot angle out from 12 o clock? how does it help the swing at all?

Greg Norman said he flared his back foot at address because he and Butch Harmon determined that it would help cut down on the lateral lower body drive that he had done to excess (where his back foot would slide toward the front foot, he would end up in a reverse C posture, and he would block shots to the right).

Nick Price said the following on page 90 of his The Swing book: "I point my left foot toward the target slightly and the right away from it. I advocate this position because it creates more balance in the swing. Although it has been fashionable in the past to keep the right foot at 90 degrees to the target line, I think that this is more restricting than helpful for many golfers. Unless you are extremely supple it is harder to make a full turn because your right foot placed in such a way will effectively block the turn. You can still build up the necessary torque or resistance in your right side by having the foot turned to the right 10 degrees." Price goes on later in the page to say: "And here's the benefit of turning the right foot out: It allows for an increase in swing width, as it makes it easier to take the club back a greater distance, to stretch back father. It is also easier to create a bigger shoulder turn this way, as long as your lower half remains stable ." Price continues: "Pointing the right foot out will not compromise lower body stability. I originally felt it might, but practice proved otherwise." "But I never would have gone ahead with this had it reduced control of lower-body stability. It did nothing of the kind." Nick Faldo writes on page 21 of his book Golf - The Winning Formula : "If you have the right foot too straight in front or even turned in a little, which was my old fault, it restricts the hip and body turn in the backswing." he goes on later in the page to say: "If you turn the right foot out excessively it is difficult to get the foot vertical, the sole of the shoe out behind you, by the end of the swing."

In my bag:

Driver: Burner TP 8.5*
Fairway metals/woods: Burner TP 13* Tour Spoon, and Burner TP 17.5*
Irons: RAC MB TP Wedges: RAC TPPutter: Spider Ball: (varies ) (Most of the time): TP Red or HX Tour/56---------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I appreciate you showing proof about this Avid Golfer. I learn golf by this philosophy: Not only do you have to tell a player what they should be doing, but you must tell them why they should do it and how it helps. You covered those nicely with the quotes.

That said, I still think a square right foot is fundamentally correct, and a turned right foot is merely an adjustment. To quote Hogan's book: "The truly fortunate golfer is the player who needs to make the smallest number of adjustments."
Link to comment
Share on other sites


That said, I still think a square right foot is fundamentally correct, and a turned right foot is merely an adjustment. To quote Hogan's book: "The truly fortunate golfer is the player who needs to make the smallest number of adjustments."

I don't view the foot flare as a

fundamental in the golf swing. Like I mentioned in post 3 of the thread there are tour pros who have advocated and used both square and flared feet successfully over long periods of time, so its my view that it is of little consequence which a player uses. Like previously noted if a player has a specific fault that they are trying to guard against or compensate for then one may function better than the other.

In my bag:

Driver: Burner TP 8.5*
Fairway metals/woods: Burner TP 13* Tour Spoon, and Burner TP 17.5*
Irons: RAC MB TP Wedges: RAC TPPutter: Spider Ball: (varies ) (Most of the time): TP Red or HX Tour/56---------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 3 weeks later...
I open both front foot and back foot at address, not much, just enough to allow me more coil on the backswing and then more turn on the follow through. Especially as we all get older, the easier it is for us to turn, the longer we can maintain our power and more than likely, ease some of our little aches and pains after a round.

Driver: TaylorMade r7 460 / 11.5 degrees
Irons: Titleist 822 OS (4, 5, 6)  Titleist 962 (7, 8, 9, P, G)
Putter: Tear Drop
Ball: Precept Laddie
Wedges: Golfsmith Snake Eyes 56 degrees / 60 degrees

18 Hole Low:  67   /  9 Hole Low:  31

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I used to do the squre foot thing but i found it put an uncomfortable amount of pressure on the inside of both knees, and caused me to snap at the ball from the top with my upperbody instead of swinging with everything intact. I opened up slightly and it has been much more comfortable for me.
THE WEAPONS CACHE..

Titleist 909 D2 9.5 Degree Driver| Titleist 906f4 13.5 degree 3-Wood | Titleist 909 17 & 21 degree hybrid | Titleist AP2 irons
Titleist Vokey Wedges - 52 & 58 | Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport 2 Putter | ProV1 Ball
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've ultimately migrated into a slightly flared right foot as well; it seemed to add a tiny bit more pop and I do think it allows me to lengthen the swing a little bit. Additionally, the poster who mentioned the additional strain on the inside of his knees from the 90º right foot position had the same problem I did. The flared foot does feel more athletic.

Still, this is a matter of comfort and taste, not a question of fundamental superiority.
In the bag 8/12/09:
R9 w/ 63g S Fubuki | 909F2 13.5º | 909H 19º | MP-67 w/ Project X 5.5, 3-PW | Spin Milled 52â¢04, 56â¢08, 60â¢04 | BC1, 35" | Tour One | uPro

Hcp: 5.9
Trend: 5.2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 5811 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • Iacas- Can you please post all the data behind field strengths? Thank you very much!
    • New 3W is pretty good  I hit a good drive actually but straight into a headwind so it left me far enough back from the trees to attempt something stupid. So naturally, with a new 3W in the bag, I wanted to see what it could do. Hit a high draw directly over the trees and couldn't see where it ended up from the fairway, but I knew I hit it well. I doubt that's the optimal play for scoring well in the long run but it felt good to do.
    • I'm sure you've read this, but I just have to post it, here, again, for everyone who hasn't. It changed my thinking forever and irrevocably on this exact topic:  "We don't say "the golfers are more talented" today. We say "there are more talented golfers today." "More" meaning they are far more numerous, not more talented. Talent is random. Only a small percentage of people win the talent lottery --- for world class golf, way less than 1%. And there's no telling whether the most talented player of any period, including this one, was more talented than Jack, or Jones, or Vardon. It's absolutely unknowable. What IS knowable, though, is that the base population is larger, so whatever percentage of people are born with golf talent, there are a lot more of them today than there were 50 years ago. What is knowable is that training and coaching is vastly improved. Hogan had to, in his words, "dig his swing out of the dirt" by hitting millions of golf balls. Today, they have radar and laser and the Minolta super duper high speed swing cam, and they know exactly how every little swing tweak affects their spin rate and launch angle and apex height -- stuff nobody had any clue about in Jack's day. So 50 years ago, if you had 100 guys born with golf talent take up golf, maybe 30 of them would find their optimal swing. Today, it's probably over 90. What is knowable is that the huge purses, and the fact that Tiger was the world's richest and most famous athlete, and not just the world #1 golfer, is making golf the first choice of more young athletes, rather than just the guys who couldn't make the "real" sports teams in school. So if you had 100 guys born with multi-sport talent 50 years ago, most of them played golf for fun, if at all. Today, a lot more of them concentrate on golf as their main sport. And what is knowable is that travel is much faster and cheaper now, so almost every world class player shows up for almost every major and WGC, and for many of the regular PGA events. 50 years ago, the second or third best player in, say, Australia, often didn't even play in the British Open, let alone a PGA event. So all the PGA events, and three of the four majors, had only a handful of international players, and the fourth major had only a handful of Americans. None of that is speculation. It is a verifiable fact that there are over twice as many people in the world today than there were 50 years ago. It's a verifiable fact that the purses today are hundreds of times as high as they were 50 years ago --- Tony Lema got about $4200 for winning the 1964 Open; today, it's about $3.5 million. It's a verifiable fact that virtually all the world top 100 play every major they are eligible for, instead of only a handful playing any events that require overseas travel. It's not knowable exactly how all of that combines, but a good indication is the number of entries in the US Open. To enter the US Open requires both top 1% talent for the game, and a serious commitment to it. There were about 2400 entrants per year 50 years ago. This century, it's consistently over 9000, well over three times as many. It's true that, mostly because of the time and expense, the number of duffers recreational players has declined, but they never had any influence on field strength, anyway. High school kids on the golf team still play all they want, for free. What do you have to counter that? Nothing but your belief that there were half a dozen golf phenoms all at the same time in the 60's, and none today, now that Tiger's past his prime. You're entitled to that opinion, but what facts do you have to back it up? Only the number of majors they won. But how many majors would Phil have won if the fields were like they were 50 years ago? Mickelson finished second in the US Open to Goosen in 2004, to Ogilvy in 2006, and to Rose last year. 50 years ago, odds are that none of those guys would have even tried to qualify for the US Open, since it required shutting down their schedule for a minimum of three weeks to travel to the US for sectional qualifying, with no guarantee that they would make it into the actual tournament. Michael Campbell, who beat Tiger with some amazing putting down the stretch in 2005, said that he would not have entered that year if the USGA hadn't established overseas qualifying sites, so he didn't have to travel to enter. How would Phil look next to Arnie with those three US Opens? Eight majors, and a career Grand Slam. And how would Tiger look if Michael Campbell, Trevor Immelman, Angel Cabrera, and YE Yang had stayed home, like most international players did in the Jack era? I'll make it even simpler for you, since you follow women's golf. How much better would the US women look today, if there were no Asians on tour? Or even just no Koreans? Well, it looks like you're going to crow about the lack of current talent every time a guy backs into a win for the foreseeable future, but come on. The Valero was a 40-point tournament, which makes it one of the weakest regular PGA events, barely above the John Deere Classic. And the tournament committee knows that most top players don't like to play right before a major, so they try to attract the few who do by making it as close to major conditions as possible, to help them fine tune their games. A weak field facing a tough setup is not a recipe for low scores, but you still insist on taking one bad week and comparing it to the majors of your hazy memory, even though you seem to have forgotten epic collapses by the likes of Arnie, who managed to lose a seven shot lead over the last 9 holes of the 1966 US Open. And who knows how often something like that happened in a low-rent event? I don't know if Tiger was more talented than Jack, or even Trevino. All I know is that there are many solid reasons to believe that in order to win a tournament, he had to beat around three times as many talented golfers, even in most of the regular tour events he's won, as Jack did in a major --- especially the Open, where Jack only had to beat as few as 8 other Americans, at a time when probably 60-70 of the world top 100 were Americans.  I don't say it's true by definition, as you claimed, but I say it's the way to bet, based on facts and logic."  
    • Shot 50/41 today. I didn't hit the ball particularly well but not as poorly as the score would indicate. I just happened to hit it in some really punishing places that wound up taking one or two strokes just to hit back into play. The undergrowth and the fescue are really growing in at the course. Lipped out and burned a few edges on putts, too. I always say when I miss putts by that small a margin that they're eventually going to drop as long as I don't deviate from the process and that's exactly what started happening on the back 9. I ended up making a couple of mid-length putts. Five over on the back included a triple bogey on 17.
    • Birdied the par 5 #14 at Quail Brook GC. Hit a high draw 3W just short of the green on my second shot, chipped just right of the back right flag to about 12' and made the putt. It's starting to look like I'm going to get at least 20 rounds at Quail Brook for it to qualify as my home course but I've been adding the birdies there to my away composite for so long that I don't feel like separating it all now. So the away composite will simply be an aggregate of all my birdie holes for the year.
×
×
  • 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...