Repeatability question...

[TN94z]

My cousin and I were having a conversation today about good swings. He said that a repeatable swing is the key to going low. While I somewhat agreed with him, I also pointed out that a repeatably "bad" swing does not necessarily mean you can shoot low.

We brought up a friend that plays with us who is probably a -20. For a little information on him, he aims about 50 yards to the left of his target because he pulls his shots to the left and they end up a big banana ball that ends on the right side of the fairway or rough. His longest drive may be about 200-210 yards. This is because of an over the top swing amongst other flaws.

My cousin thinks that because his swing is repeatable that if his short game got better he could be a par shooter and I disagree with him. While I think that a repeatable swing is needed, I think it needs to be a repeatable fundamentally sound swing....maybe I'm wrong.

What are your opinions on this? And this is meant as no disrespect to any higher handicap player. It is just a discussion mainly about repeatability.

[shades9323]

My cousin and I were having a conversation today about good swings. He said that a repeatable swing is the key to going low. While I somewhat agreed with him, I also pointed out that a repeatably "bad" swing does not necessarily mean you can shoot low.

Par shooter, no. Single digits, yeah.

[iacas]

Said it before and I'll say it again: virtually everyone has a repeatable swing. The duffer, the PGA Tour pro, they're almost all equally repeatable. Fat and thin shots only exist due to incredibly small differences you have a hard time seeing even at high speeds.

Repeatability is nothing to strive for at all.

[TN94z]

Said it before and I'll say it again: virtually everyone has a repeatable swing. The duffer, the PGA Tour pro, they're almost all equally repeatable. Fat and thin shots only exist due to incredibly small differences you have a hard time seeing even at high speeds.

That is exactly my train of thought.

[kafka01]

My cousin thinks that because his swing is repeatable that if his short game got better he could be a par shooter and I disagree with him..

He might have a repeatable swing that produces a banana slice most of the time, but what about all the other shot variants that this kind of swing can produce (fatsies, the occasinal straight one, a pull....) . Not even Phil´s shortgame is helping him out in this spot. Another thing is, some holes just cant be played that way in regulation - impossible, because you put it into places that completly block you out for your next shot, and since even the best players cant get up&down; 100% no way he could shoot par.

Another thing - a slicer is always short, and has to hit way more club then the "straight" or "drawing" player - thus he increases his error rate automatically, the more club he has to hit. If you put up two 20 hcpers and the one hits 20 shots with a 5iron and the other 20 with a 8iron - guess who stiffs it more often.

[TN94z]

He is driving me crazy!! He just will not understand. He is trying to tell me that our friend who lines up 50 yards left, swings over the top, and comes outside in can get good at impact. I just don't agree. He keeps bringing up Thorpe and Furyk but what I keep trying to explain to him is that they get their swing on plane and are correct at impact. He just doesn't seem to get it. He is a HUGE believer in the short game, which I am too, but a short game only will not get you too scratch.

[double_j]

Agree with the above that swing repeatability isn't the key factor but will add that predicability is what you really want.

In your example above, I wouldn't say that your buddy couldn't be a par player because he hits a slice. I'd say that he couldn't be a par player because (I'm assuming) he can't really figure out where his ball will end up with any kind of certainty. Now if he could hit that same slice over and over again and have a pretty good idea of where each shot will end up, par wouldn't be out of the question (provided that he played a course that gave him the room to hit the slice without getting into trouble).

That said, I also agree with your notion that a technically sound swing is needed to consistently shoot par or around par. It tends to be a bit more reliable and won't break down as drastically (or as much) as somebody's 'homemade' swing on a bad day (re: the Sunday performances of Dustin J. vs. Louis O.).

[TN94z]

Agree with the above that swing repeatability isn't the key factor but will add that predicability is what you really want.

His slice pretty much does the same thing every time. Distances will vary. But with that kind of swing, because of the flaws going on, you get that occassional shot that is a dead pull and you are already lined up 50 yards left, etc..Not to mention that it leaves you way back and you must hit a longer club now because you don't have distance with the slice. Add that to the fact that the longer clubs are harder to hit and get in the air than say a PW, and you just won't get any consistency. Then you have put all of the pressure on your short game to get up and down and we all know that won't happen every time. IMO, with a swing like that (even with a great short game) there will be more bogies that birdies, and that won't make for a par round. I can see someone doing it at a course that was tailor made for that kind of swing with no OB and was wide open....maybe you could do it then. But that is not the case.

[zeg]

I'd think you could get to bogey or slightly better, but I think it'd be hard to truly shoot scratch with that sort of shot shape. On side open holes or holes that the shape naturally matches he'll be fine if he plays most shots with a consistent large slice. However, there'll be a few tight holes and a few holes that dogleg the wrong way, and it's going to be hard for him to adjust to those. Plus, as you say, his miss will probably be a disastrously bad shot. On balance, he could get better than most golfers, but I think he'd hit a wall before he got anywhere near scratch.

I've seen some guys with nasty swings who I believe could play at or near scratch, but they're nasty swings that give straight or near-straight shots. Yeah, they get some bad shots because of the timing/workarounds required to make up for the poor mechanics, but if you can shoot it straight you can pick up enough strokes when you're on to have a few bogeys.

[Zeph]

Predictability is more important. Like Iacas said, everyone swing pretty much the same way every time, with variations in where the club face is aimed at impact. That is how you can hit a pull hook one shot and pull slice the next.

Predictability is what we aim for, to have a swing that we can trust the outcome of. If he aims 50 yards left and slice one on the green, the chances of this happening again are very slim. A low handicapper knows what ball flight to expect from his swing, and can be more accuarate.

Making a change in the swing takes time, and effort.

[walk18]

What's the slicer gonna do on a tight dogleg left, or even a narrow straight hole with trees left that won't allow him to start the ball left? Your friend is wrong.

[TN94z]

What's the slicer gonna do on a tight dogleg left, or even a narrow straight hole with trees left that won't allow him to start the ball left? Your friend is wrong.

Exactly. I don't understand why he is stuck on this. He understands the swing. Maybe it is just him trying to justify the fact that he has hit a plateau and doesn't want to work at getting any better. I don't know. I told him that if what he was saying is true, then there would be big slicers on the PGA tour and there would be a ton more scratch players around. He just keeps saying "if he gets a great short game, if he hits the ball this way or that..." My response has been "if nuts and buts were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry christmas." It tears him up...that is something my dad used to tell me all the time.