Ugh, Peter Kostis (Paul Casey)

[natp0wers]

Casey cant swing like he wants to right now because of that rib injury last year...

[Leftygolfer]

Really??? How far did he hit that driver?? 350 and dead straight.

I like his swing and I know his foot action isn't orthodox. All it shows me is there is more to golf than being in the perfect position. I find it humorous to talk about how bad there swings are yet they do it for a living. Phil has one thirty something times and Paul Casey has (I don't know how many events he has won worldwide) and to say "all their swings are just terrible" is just silly. If you can find the center of the club everytime I think that is a pretty good swing. Look at the champions tour. They would beat anyone on this forum and they have some funky swings. The only thing the ball knows is how the club hits it, how fast, what angle, and how much energy is transferred to it. I would rather have a goofy move I can repeat than a move that is more normal that I am less consistant with. Being able to play is about knowing where the ball is going to go and being able to do it most of the time.

[david_wedzik]

Really??? How far did he hit that driver?? 350 and dead straight.

I don't know that anyone is saying these swings are terrible (I'm certainly not). In fact, you are correct that there is much more good than bad and the record speaks for itself. You won't get an argument from me there in any way. The real point from my end was simply to say that "just because a tour player does it" doesn't make it the best or most efficient way to do it. This is important, because as we all watch golf on TV there is a lot of information being tossed around...not all of it stuff we should be implementing in our own games.

Dave

[jamo]

I don't know that anyone is saying these swings are terrible (I'm certainly not). In fact, you are correct that there is much more good than bad and the record speaks for itself. You won't get an argument from me there in any way. The real point from my end was simply to say that "just because a tour player does it" doesn't make it the best or most efficient way to do it. This is important, because as we all watch golf on TV there is a lot of information being tossed around...not all of it stuff we should be implementing in our own games.

This is something I do agree with. I don't do these things in my swing, and I'll bet if Kostis was asked about it, he would say that he would get the foot thing out of Casey's swing if he could, and if Casey wanted to. I'd also bet that if you ask Mike and Andy, they don't like what Clark does with his foot, but they acknowledge the fact that his swing gets a lot out of his smaller body. I don't think too many people put much stock into what Kostis and guys like that say about people's swings. They like to praise them for good things, and generally leave out the bad ones.

They didn't praise him for that, no.

I never said they praised that move, I said they "praised him." My point was that I would still say that Casey and Clark have pretty good swings, even with this move. Mike and Andy seemed to look beyond Clark's weird foot move, and onto the rest of his swing.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally posted by Colin007: "it looked to me like paul casey was hitting pulls. is that what i was seeing?"

I think his baseline shot is a pull-fade, like the Stack & Tilt's is a push-draw.

[Keep It Simple]

For Paul Casey, sure. For someone trying to learn the golf swing, no, it's not about Paul Casey's results. Phil's #2 or #3. You don't see people copying his swing - and with good reason.

I don't think amateurs should be trying to copy the swing of any tour professional especially since tour professionals don't even copy the swings of other tour professionals.

I believe every golfer has unique natural tendencies influencing body movement during their golf swing. A natural tendency tends (pardon the pun) to be more repeatable than a movement which requires learning and practice. Therefore a player should embrace natural tendencies that do not replace or impede the execution of a true fundamental. Much like this Paul Casey example there are many other cases of tour players favoring the presence of a natural tendency over a biomechanically superior movement. Repeatability trumps efficiency and a few extra yards of distance.

[mc0388]

These are the types of threads that I don't understand. Paul Casey's swing is unique along with countless other top ranking professionals. Yet, 'their' particular swings are incorrect in form? Maybe it is there ability to understand what 'their' bodies are capable of doing and having the sense and skills to take advantage of it. Just think, if everyone was taught the same 1 swing, how boring golf would be, ugh...

I agree there are some fundamentals that are universal, but lets swing with some personality.

Sorry for the IMO speech, but C'mon Paul's a stud.

[iacas]

I don't think amateurs should be trying to copy the swing of any tour professional especially since tour professionals don't even copy the swings of other tour professionals.

Good. That's part of the point I'd hoped to make here. Paul Casey being up on the toes is something you typically see in a lot of amateurs and, instead of pointing out that Paul Casey can get away with it but you probably can't, Peter Kostis ignores it and plunges ahead. He - and other commentators - often forget who their audience is. Or they seem unaware of the power a slow-motion replay of a pro's swing can have on the average golfer.

Much like this Paul Casey example there are many other cases of tour players favoring the presence of a natural tendency over a biomechanically superior movement. Repeatability trumps efficiency and a few extra yards of distance.

It seems likely we're going to have to agree to disagree, but nah, I don't buy that. You can do "what's natural" to a point, but that point may leave you struggling to break 90 or 80 or par. After that, you need to do things that aren't natural, things that don't normally occur to you, and you need to MAKE them natural.

The golf swing itself is an entirely unnatural act. If you took the "natural" instincts of people, it wouldn't produce a golf swing. We see what's "natural" to people all the time - their weight stays back, the come over the top, they slice the ball and hit it fat... I think Ben Hogan said it well: if you take every natural instinct you have and do the opposite, you'll probably have a really good golf swing (paraphrased). If Paul Casey saw that video he'd probably admit he didn't want to do that. And if Peter Kostis had more time, he'd probably eventually tell the people watching and listening that he isn't particularly fond of that move and that amateur golfers shouldn't really do it either.

Yet, 'their' particular swings are incorrect in form?

if we don't identify what's incorrect, how can we identify what's correct? Heck, why do any swing analysis of anyone? Pros are not above critiquing, and they're certainly not above studying. Studying includes the good aspects along with the bad.

[Keep It Simple]

It seems likely we're going to have to agree to disagree, but nah, I don't buy that. You can do "what's natural" to a point, but that point may leave you struggling to break 90 or 80 or par. After that, you need to do things that aren't natural, things that don't normally occur to you, and you need to MAKE them natural.

I stated "a player should embrace natural tendencies that

do not replace or impede the execution of a true fundamental ." And I agree true fundamentals are NOT naturally occuring and need to be learned. Fred Couples provides an example supporting both our points. Where does one begin pointing out his natural tendencies? But these days he is addressing them (probably wants to extend his time playing on the champions tour).

[iacas]

I stated "a player should embrace natural tendencies that

This will come off as rude, but I don't intend it to be such... but it's late and I can't think of a way to put it in a way that it won't come off that way... which isn't how I mean it.

I feel like you're just making a generic catch-all statement with no specific application to this discussion. "You should do what comes naturally so long as it doesn't impede progress." No kidding... but what value does that add? Particularly since you probably have no idea what Paul Casey's natural tendencies are. Are they to spin out so much that your heels come off the ground? For all you know, he learned to do that at some point.

[Shanks A Million]

I will tell you that the ranks of teaching professionals and mini tours are littered with absolutely beautiful swings. I have a friend who just turned 50, and is going to be playing on the Champions tour soon. His swing is almost obscene, ugly, too long, handsy... But he just crushes the ball right down the center, and he chips and putts like he owns the course. He plays well better than scratch, and his swing looks like a 20 handicapper. What about Craig Parry? He won at Doral by holing a 7 iron on the last hole. His swing is just dreadfully ugly. But he gets it done.

These guys aren't on tour for their swings, they're on tour because they can get, as Moe Norman says, "this dumb guy onto that dumb guy, and hit it into that dumb guy." There's no style points given on tour, and the swing analysis is not intended as a teaching tool, it's an analysis of a golf swing. Students should not try to copy anyone's golf swing, because everyone is unique. I could try to copy Casey's swing, but it would never work, my body is totally different from his. My shoulders are much larger, my neck is shorter, and my body is much less flexible. To attempt to copy anyone's swing would be a mistake.

So really, everyone in this thread is correct, David Wedzik put it best in his post.

So, basically, my belief is that if you want to learn the game, learn what works for you. Get the fundamentals down, and then find what works best for you. If you have a unique move, and it doesn't impede your swing, then do it. I have a unique move in my swing, my left arm never fully straightens. This is part nature, and part choice. I have rheumatoid arthritis, so it's hard for me to straighten it fully, and even if I do, the impact of the club on the ground is extremely discomforting. So, I keep it slightly bent throughout the swing. My head is forced by nature to turn back when my shoulders turn. This is because my shoulders are tall, and my neck short. I don't mind it, it means my head moves at the top of my swing. Again, not huge, but necessary. If I don't do it, I can't get a full turn.

Despite my swing being dreadfully ugly, many of my basics are close to sound. My shoulders point about 9" behind the ball at the top of the backswing. The club is wide, and away from my body. My weight actually stays forward throughout most of the swing. I do this because I used to have a terrible time with sliding back, and because it's easier for me to control all my weight that way (I weigh 260 lbs, when I started back up at this game, I was nearly 300... Now I'm dropping faster than ever. Thanks golf!). My hips begin to slide forward as I reach the top of my backswing, this helps me lag the club properly.

For me, it's a give and take. I work on changing one fault at a time. When it's ingrained, I move on to the next. But so long as the top of my backswing is mostly shoulder turn, and limited arms and hands, I'm a happy camper. You can see here the body does most of the work, and the hips have just begun to move forward to start the downswing.

[Tiger Spuds]

Erik has a good point though about the likes of Kostis almost having a responsibility to point out what an amateur should and shouldn't copy when they show swingvision clips.95% of the watching audience are going to be amatuer (and mediocre) golfers.Kostis should at least point out that certain moves, such as Casey's heel move, shouldn't be copied by amatuers.That's all he has say.

[B Keller]

I don't think amateurs should be trying to copy the swing of any tour professional especially since tour professionals don't even copy the swings of other tour professionals.

Good. That's part of the point I'd hoped to make here. Paul Casey being up on the toes is something you typically see in a lot of amateurs and, instead of pointing out that Paul Casey can get away with it but you probably can't, Peter Kostis ignores it and plunges ahead. He - and other commentators - often forget who their audience is. Or they seem unaware of the power a slow-motion replay of a pro's swing can have on the average golfer.

This is one of the three main reasons I am quitting GolfTec.

[Fatphil]

if we don't identify what's incorrect, how can we identify what's correct? Heck, why do any swing analysis of anyone? Pros are not above critiquing, and they're certainly not above studying. Studying includes the good aspects along with the bad.

I read once that Johnny Miller catches heat for his analysis'. Apparently the pros (and wives) are quite sensitive about this stuff. From what I read the pros get really pissed if a commentator disses them. This messes up their access to the pro or in the case of Kostis, Casey is his student (ie his boss) so Kostis needed to be extra diplomatic..I think Kostis was put in a difficult position..they probably should have had Faldo or McCord do the analysis.

[Tiger Spuds]

From what I read the pros get really pissed if a commentator disses them. This messes up their access to the pro or in the case of Kostis, Casey is his student (ie his boss) so Kostis needed to be extra diplomatic..I think Kostis was put in a difficult position..they probably should have had Faldo or McCord do the analysis.

But surely, being his coach, he'd be allowed more leeway to point out things that Paul needs to work on than Faldo et al would?They're probably discussing exactly the same things while they're working together anyway, so I can't see why Casey would be offended by his coach pointing out a flaw in his swing on air.When Tiger was working with Butch Harmon, Butch used to point out his flaws all the time on air.If someone like Tiger didn't mind I can't see a relatively laid back bloke like Casey minding either.

[Fatphil]

But surely, being his coach, he'd be allowed more leeway to point out things that Paul needs to work on than Faldo et al would?.If someone like Tiger didn't mind I can't see a relatively laid back bloke like Casey minding either.

I agree,,,seems childish....I remember that drive posted #1. He hit what Faldo called a horrible shot,,,a big slice for a pro...Kostis didn't say a word about where the ball ended up. Casey does seem like a great kid,,,so maybe it's an ego issue for Kostis that his students swing is a reflection on his teaching. this website is cool as we can discuss this stuff without worrying about the politics.

[colin007]

Sorry for the IMO speech, but C'mon Paul's a stud.

yeah, hes a good looking guy. so what? :)

[Tiger Spuds]

maybe it's an ego issue for Kostis that his students swing is a reflection on his teaching.

True, quite likely.