Reflections on Golf Swings. Esthetics versus Functionality

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Do swing esthetics = functionality, or are they the same?

Who swung better? Lee Trevino or Gene Littler? Littler had a picture-perfect college grad swing, while Trevino had, well.... Their tournament records were something else entirely.

Your swing may look prettier than Jim Furyk's, but could you beat him head to head in a match?

Some of golf's better performers had atrocious swings. Somewhere I have a golf video put out by Nancy Lopez. Who would want it? Nancy Lopez had IMO an awful swing.

Johnny Miller is quite the analyst--now. Back when he won head to head tournaments, he had a weird swing with a follow-through straight down his back.

It is satisfying to swing pretty. I fantasize about going to the driving range, stretching out my chest muscles, puffing out my delts, and taking monster swings to the adoration of college girls and the envy of their boyfriends practicing nearby. Actually, it's happened, until they see where my ball goes. "Nice swing!" folks say, before I hit a ball.

Some of this is the professionalization of golf teaching and the fact that most pro golfers are former college golfers who had professional instruction and very few grew up on the poor side of the tracks and taught themselves golf with a single cast-off club they found thrown away.

Yes, Hogan learned golf as a preteen in the caddy-yards of Ft. Worth along with Byron Nelson, and he reworked his swing into something that is rightly or wrongly considered a model swing. Chi Chi Rodriguez developed a rather good looking swing. Seve Ballesteros. Sam Snead. All pore kids who basically taught themselves.

Others didn't change their swings. Miller Barber. Arnold Palmer. Lee Trevino. And so on.

The fact is, bad-looking swings can get good results. With consistency.

Is it that a successful golfer with a bad swing could do better if they changed, or is it a mistake to monkey around with it?

Is the golf swing an art form, in itself, quite apart from the results of hitting a golf ball? I have argued that the golf swing is a form of dance movement or gymkata. You don't have to hit a ball to practice the art.

Question: Should we have golf swing competitions that do not involve the hitting of a golf ball? In all these discussions of how a swing looks or ought to look, are we headed that way?

[sean_miller]

Question: Should we have golf swing competitions that do not involve the hitting of a golf ball? In all these discussions of how a swing

When I was playing my best golf (about a dozen years ago) I have no idea what my swing looked like, other than some people said it was too upright. Started taking lessons this spring and my instructor worked on very little - my swing feels way different but when I look at the before and after video, the changes are rather subtle.

He did mention something during the last video about changing something else to make my swing better ("more perfect" - wtf?), then he caught himself - he said it's working, don't touch it. That was reassuring. The 3 guys I played with yesterday had very different swings.There was only one swing of the 3 I'd take anything from, but his typical ball flight was not one I'd typically play (a low fade) so I didn't watch him swing too closely. They could all play though - our scores ranged from 80-84 - and the guy with the "ugliest" swing shot the 80. Go figure.

[allin]

The self developed swings were possibly not as sound technically. The fact that the person using it had develped it meant that they knew how it worked and how to fix it or modify it for special shots. Like Furyk their compensations were grooved to the point that they knew what they brought to the course a great deal of the time. The power they lost didn't matter as much in those times, since controlling your shot shape was key. Bruce Litzke comes to mind as a player who really only had one shot off the tee, but boy he almost never missed with it.

[shortstop20]

I believe players should follow the fundamentals, while still keeping the more personal traits of their swing. If that interferes with a fundamental, well then I guess they have a hard choice to make.

[uttexas]

With a few exceptions, pro golfer swings look more similar today than they did years ago. I believe, this is partly due to our improved ability to measure the physics of the golf swing and ball flight. There are efficient ways to swing the club to produce consistent results. However, the best professionals have so much physical talent/eye-hand coordination/small muscle control that they can get away with faulty mechanics (see Phil Mickelson). For the rest of us, we are better off learning the most efficient and consistent ways to hit a golf ball.

[iacas]

With a few exceptions, pro golfer swings look more similar today than they did years ago. I believe, this is partly due to our improved ability to measure the physics of the golf swing and ball flight. There are efficient ways to swing the club to produce consistent results. However, the best professionals have so much physical talent/eye-hand coordination/small muscle control that they can get away with faulty mechanics (see Phil Mickelson). For the rest of us, we are better off learning the most efficient and consistent ways to hit a golf ball.

This post x 10.

Beauty is often more a matter of tempo and balance than anything else. I could hit every position Ernie Els or Sam Snead hit but if my tempo is wonky, the swing won't look nearly as beautiful. Nick Price had an awfully pretty swing but most people don't think so because his tempo was so fast it made him look "jerky" or twitchy or whatever.

[ohiolefty]

When I look at golfers, I try and ignore the asesthetics of everything they do until the downswing...great swingers of the club do such great things in the transition to the downswing and at impact...that's what I look at. There are a lot of guys who look better hitting a shot than Furyk, or Price, or guys on the other end like Cabrera or Rory...but when you see their swing slowed down and what they have going on...it's really awesome. To be able to get the club in such a great position SO CONSISTENTLY (that's why they play on TV and we talk about it on a message board!) is awe-inspiring.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

With a few exceptions, pro golfer swings look more similar today than they did years ago. I believe, this is partly due to our improved ability to measure the physics of the golf swing and ball flight. There are efficient ways to swing the club to produce consistent results. However, the best professionals have so much physical talent/eye-hand coordination/small muscle control that they can get away with faulty mechanics (see Phil Mickelson). For the rest of us, we are better off learning the most efficient and consistent ways to hit a golf ball.

That is the party line. I am inclined to agree that there is an ideal swing, and certainly pro swings are more uniform than ever before, and I think the level of play is better than before. When I say "inclined," it should not be forgotten that this is the assumption about the validity of all modern golf teaching. Whole industries are based on that and on the premise that new models of golf equipment are better. Is it all a house of cards or not? Are we consumers being manipulated or not? We always have to ask ourselves that question. We have to challenge the assumptions.

Why is pro play better now than before? The obvious answers are better equipment and better-trained swings. Certainly those invested in the economy of golf want it that way. But that may not be true, or wholly true, or the only reason. Pro golfers are fitter than ever before. There are more golfers and golf courses, and college golf programs. We have a vast infusion of golfers from Asia. It's like any other sport: more young players, more of a base to select the cream of the crop from. Figure one golfer in 10,000 is extraordinary; the more golfers, the more extraordinary players of golf. And Iacas, what impressed me about the swing of Nick Price was the way he loops the clubhead down to a different plane on the downswing.

[rudygu]

Clearly, some swing models are technically more efficient than others. BUT, I don't believe that any one model is the most efficient for everyone...and I don't mean that based solely on physical condition or body type limitations. A golfer's swing needs to be unique while adhering as closely as possible to an efficient swing model. Some little part of our brain will make an inefficient (biomechanically speaking) movement more repeatable to us than the textbook movement. Obviously this should not be glaringly different than the ideal and ideal should always be the goal. But, at some point we have to quit the swing tinkering and work with what is most repeatable and consistent for us . The primary focus should be scoring - not a 100% textbook swing.

[tm22721]

Pretty is as pretty does. Good dynamics make good positions, not the other way around.

This is why golfers do not improve. Their trainers can mimic positions but not impart the feel of the requisite dynamics.