Style versus Substance in the golf swing

[MiniBlueDragon]

From many articles, blog posts etc I've read many of us duffers try to attain a decent 'style' in their golf swing, sometimes above 'substance', for example they could have a bad backswing, bad downswing but then after impact they strive for a posed finish. Another example could be those that strive for a long, low Hogan-esque takeaway which gives their swing arc too much width and bad shots, yet looks nice and enables them to play reasonable golf. My question is what you personally find more important? Do you try to emulate a specific pro or look good in your swing rather than a bad-looking but effective swing? For me I'm really unsure. I recently had a golf assessment from one of my club pros and a similarity was drawn by him between my swing and Lee Westwood's swing. Personally I don't overly like Lee's swing but I realise it works for him so I'm torn between trying to adjust my swing to something that works but looks better or just sticking to what I have, and what the pro classes as "Loads of really REALLY nice pieces to your swing that will make you a fantastic golfer with a small amount of work"

[Shorty]

I will always admire a "pretty" golf swing and nice rhythm, tempio etc. But players who may think their swing resembles a certain player are almost always mistaken.

What you think you look like and what you actually do look like are two different things.

The scorecard is what matters.

As for pros trying to flatter students with comparisons - yeah - we all have a backswing and a follow through. At some point there may be some similarities, but it means nothing.

I have read posts here where people sya they are hitting wedges like Stricker or are trying to emulate Adam Scott's swing, but really they are usually having themselves on.

Work with your own swing. CXhances are most people won't even notice. They certainly won't care. They are thnking about their own game.

[sean_miller]

I had a 36 handicapper critique my swing, then backtrack and tell me "no reason to worry, because it seems to be working for you". His buddy (who's son is the assistant pro at a local club) just smirked and nodded to me in a sort of "take this BS with a grain of salt" kind of way.

[saevel25]

i could care less, some people like Rory have a beautiful swing that flows, other's like JB Holmes have a very ugly swing, yet there both working. I say what ever gets the clubhead on the ball, in a repetative way that produces the shot you want, who cares.

[RyderJ]

Jim Furyk comes to mind....not pretty by any stretch of the imagination, but by the same token, he ain't starving to make a living either.

[newtogolf]

If I can get to be /emoticons/tongue.png">

[RyderJ]

lol...

Originally Posted by newtogolf

If I can get to be <10 handicap I don't care how pretty my swing is.  Golf is a sport where lowest score wins, those concerned about style should take up synchronized swimming.

[LankyLefty]

Nothing in golf pisses me off more then people who play golf as a fashion accessory.

[uttexas]

Go for substance over style every time. Substance has objective merit, while style is subjective. For example, lots of people say Freddy Couples has a nice looking swing. However, if you really look at it, his left hand is cupped at address and at the top. He initiates his backswing by picking the club up and away from his body (instead of turning his shoulders) He gets steep very early in the backswing which gets even steeper at the top and goes way across the line then loops it back down. He sort of throws the clubhead down and behind him to initiate the downswing. When his timing is on, he hits a beautiful, high push mini fade; but when he gets it wrong he can hit an ugly push huge slice.

[GJBenn85]

Style is overrated.  I see far too many people at the range focusing on their style and yet cannot hit the ball at all.

Tommy Gainey comes to mind--his swing is terrible yet it works for him and he does fairly well.  Quite a few other pro golfers debunk the myth that proper style generates more substance.  People need to use a swing that is natural for their particular body, not something that is textbook perfect but completely unnatural.  I actually know a golf instructor that promotes this philosophy...he says he is amazed he has not been fired for encouraging a natural rhythym rather than technical perfection.

[Precis1on]

Strive to stay in balance! You tend to have both substance and style there in my opinion.

[Paradox]

I really don't care what I do as long as the end result is what I wanted.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

Style is overrated.  I see far too many people at the range focusing on their style and yet cannot hit the ball at all.

Tommy Gainey comes to mind--his swing is terrible yet it works for him and he does fairly well.  Quite a few other pro golfers debunk the myth that proper style generates more substance.  People need to use a swing that is natural for their particular body, not something that is textbook perfect but completely unnatural.  I actually know a golf instructor that promotes this philosophy...he says he is amazed he has not been fired for encouraging a natural rhythym rather than technical perfection.

Now that you've mentioned Gainey, then I have to say I think style is somewhat important. He looks like he's working way too hard to get the job done. Who hits %100 sand wedge shots every time? That sounds like an injury just waiting to happen.

[iacas]

I suppose as a golf instructor I think both are important. Substance matters more, but style informs or plays a big part in substance. But I define "style" differently, I suppose - I'm not so much looking at the overall swing as the components that make up a good swing. You can swing however you'd like if you, for example, have a flat left wrist at impact, deliver the clubhead on a reasonable plane, etc.

So I see style as "matching components" (to borrow from TGM), and so style informs function.

I think lousy swings tend to look bad simply because they're out of sync and/or out of balance. They don't have matching components and are filled with all sorts of compensations. They look herky jerky.

Style informs substance, from my perspective.

[jamo]

Substance clearly beats style, but often times style is a decent indicator of substance. Decent swings tend to look decent, crappy swings tend to look crappy.

[Lofty Lefty]

Originally Posted by saevel25

i could care less,

Sorry, I've seen this quite a few times in these fora now, and it's "I couldn't care less"

Saying you could care less has a completely different meaning! I know I'm being a knob, but that's been bugging me!

[MiniBlueDragon]

iacas has brought up an excellent point in that to a certain degree the two are correlated. I can't imagine a duffer whose swing (overall) resembles Luke Donald or Rory McIlroy will be a hideously bad golfer. They may never be a 'great' golfer but they may be 'ok' and happy with ok. I guess the initial question wasn't so much, "choose between looking great or playing great" but more on the importance of each to you. Would you be more happy with a swing that has average mechanics and allows you to score ok but which looks amazing or would you prefer a swing which wins you tournaments but which everyone looks at and says, "how he wins tourneys with that swing I'll never know" I expect some people sincerely don't care about style if they're whooping everyone but there are bound to be people who hit the ball great but don't like their swing because it feels difficult, un-natural, rushed, awkward etc or looks just plain bad on video.

[Lofty Lefty]

A secondary post....

Without using quotations, iacas has it right (as usual!). If your swing looks shit, then usually it's gonna be shit. The ultimate is repetition, and knowing your swing.

Good swings look good, basically because they are.

As for Tommy Gainey, I don't think we'll be seeing too many people teaching their kids to swing like Two-gloves.... He may well be a 1 of a kind, and that's not a terribly complimentary thing to say about a golfer's swing.