Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5100 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!

Recommended Posts

Posted

By too far from the ball do you mean feet or body? Standing too close seems to make me feel all bunched up like I'm scraping my thigh on the downswing, but i have been at the range today, and trying to implement the turning the left hip out of the way rather than turning the right hip forward and have seen some good results, still working on it though, having the left foot flared open a little seems to help, but i looked into the right foot being open and every opinion was that it definitely shouldn't be.

Anyway what i am thinking is that the bunched up feeling was from moving toward the ball with the left hip closing up the little pocket to the ball, i think ill try standing a little closer next time i go see how it goes.


Posted

no, the right foot should be "open" as well.  this will help you turn your hips on the necessary inclined plane on the backswing, and also help you to push your hips laterally towards the target for a longer span before turning the hips open.

Colin P.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

God its a confusing sport, lol, some say one thing some another, i will try both but i guess it would take a while doing it both ways in order for me to tell which is best.

One thing that really helped today with consistency and didn't lose me any distance at all, was limiting the hip turn on the back swing, i felt more balanced after the swing and the balls were going pretty straight.

I use what would be called as a square to square swing, were as i keep the club closed as long as possible (well technically square to the plane) but most would say closed,

Scored an 89 today but all that was from a quad bogey on the first, i think simply by going the range an hitting 30 balls id knock 3 or 4 off my handicap instantly.

The clearing the hips is helpng and keeping my head back, havent really noticed any difference with the change in posture but maybe thats cus its new to me.

Will put another update of my swing tomorrow after the range, ye i play too much, lol, im well and trully addicted.


Posted


Originally Posted by DanielJTill

God its a confusing sport, lol, some say one thing some another, i will try both but i guess it would take a while doing it both ways in order for me to tell which is best.

One thing that really helped today with consistency and didn't lose me any distance at all, was limiting the hip turn on the back swing, i felt more balanced after the swing and the balls were going pretty straight.

I use what would be called as a square to square swing, were as i keep the club closed as long as possible (well technically square to the plane) but most would say closed,

Scored an 89 today but all that was from a quad bogey on the first, i think simply by going the range an hitting 30 balls id knock 3 or 4 off my handicap instantly.

The clearing the hips is helpng and keeping my head back, havent really noticed any difference with the change in posture but maybe thats cus its new to me.

Will put another update of my swing tomorrow after the range, ye i play too much, lol, im well and trully addicted.


I thought the square to square swing was debunked in the 70s as a surefire way to swing with no power or consistency, but I must be thinking of the "traditional" square to square method.

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.


Posted


Originally Posted by DanielJTill

well definateley dont agree with that as mike austin used the square to suare swing and drove 515 yds (wind assisted) at the age of 64

It works for me



Not sure what Mike Austin has to do with your swing, but it you're happy trying to do it, who am I to judge?

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.


Posted

These are my approx yardages

64* - 70 yds

60* - 85 yds

SW - 105 yds

PW - 125 - 130 yds

9i - 140 yds

8i - 150 yds

7i - 155 - 160 yds some reason dont like this club

6i - 175 yds

5i - 185 yds

4hy - 200 yds

5w - 205 yds

3 w - 220-240 yds

Dr - 250 - 270 yds

Ok so i wont break any records but as im new to the sport, and only weight a little over 140 lbs i dont think id call the swing lacking in power.

Whats your understanding of the square to square swing and why do you think its poor,i dont really wanna continue learning something that is in someway a dead end.

Thanks


Posted


Originally Posted by DanielJTill

These are my approx yardages

64* - 70 yds

60* - 85 yds

SW - 105 yds

PW - 125 - 130 yds

9i - 140 yds

8i - 150 yds

7i - 155 - 160 yds some reason dont like this club

6i - 175 yds

5i - 185 yds

4hy - 200 yds

5w - 205 yds

3 w - 220-240 yds

Dr - 250 - 270 yds

Ok so i wont break any records but as im new to the sport, and only weight a little over 140 lbs i dont think id call the swing lacking in power.

Whats your understanding of the square to square swing and why do you think its poor,i dont really wanna continue learning something that is in someway a dead end.

Thanks



I don't know anything about Mike Austin as he wasn't the orignal author (I could be wrong - there might be more than one square to square method as I mentioned earlier) but the original book was on a list of worst methods of all time. I can't cite the source of the list, but they outlined why it doesn't really work as it was presented. Based on your yardages, I strongly suspect you are working with a different method. Those distances are very respectable in fact!

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.


Posted

Ye there really isn't that much info on it, however those i have read and videos I've seen say that its a much easier way of swinging as if you don't roll the forearms on the way back u don't on the way down giving more consistency, the bad things I've read are basically saying hat no matter what u do the club has to open at some point and therefore its not square to square, however i would say so what if that's true for me by keeping the club more square on the way back for longer i get back to square a lot sooner in the downswing, and it had reduced my spray angle, on the downside when i first started it i was hooking quite bad as i was still rolling the forearms to try and square the face, unintentionally closing it.

I'd say one of the main things i need to work on a lil more is my short game, that's why i recently bought the 64 and it has helped some but still getting used to it.

Do you play often yourself whats your handicap and how long you been playing for?


Posted

square to the path would imply that at P2, your clubface is roughly matching the angle of your spine in relation to the ground, not pointing straight up ("toe up").  by extension, on the follow thru, or when the shaft is parallel to the ground again after impact, the face should be again matching the spine angle (hate that term but i think you know what im referring to ...).

Colin P.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted


Originally Posted by DanielJTill

Ye there really isn't that much info on it, however those i have read and videos I've seen say that its a much easier way of swinging as if you don't roll the forearms on the way back u don't on the way down giving more consistency, the bad things I've read are basically saying hat no matter what u do the club has to open at some point and therefore its not square to square, however i would say so what if that's true for me by keeping the club more square on the way back for longer i get back to square a lot sooner in the downswing, and it had reduced my spray angle, on the downside when i first started it i was hooking quite bad as i was still rolling the forearms to try and square the face, unintentionally closing it.

I'd say one of the main things i need to work on a lil more is my short game, that's why i recently bought the 64 and it has helped some but still getting used to it.

Do you play often yourself whats your handicap and how long you been playing for?


Whenever I've seen video of someone using the s2s method, their swing looks anything but natural. It's a manipulation of the clubhead from start to finish and I don't see how that could result in any more consistent contact.

I don't play as often as some guys on this forum, but I've played enough over the years to get around in ~ 80 most rounds (rarely shoot <79 and haven't shot > 87 in a couple years)

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.


Posted


Originally Posted by DanielJTill

Heres a good link to look at http://hardhittinggolfer.com/mikeaustininstruction.php



The best part of that link is comparing the instructor video at the start to Mike Austin's skeleton suit swing in section 4. I know what I see, but then again, I'm not an instructor.

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.


Posted

I see what your saying but then i also think that it could be that the s2 swing is not as aesthetically pleasing and not necessarily unnatural, as it's simply a turn around a plane keeping the face perpendicular to it at least for the bottom half of the swing back to shaft parallel. Another link about discussion of a square face for longer into the back-swing http://thesandtrap.com/t/31893/clubface-square-to-the-plane


Posted

Wow,i'm really impressed JetFan1983 at how much time you put into helping somebody,thats great pointers your handing out. DanielJTill i would definitely take heed of what JetFan1983

is advising you about your shoulder angle.

aeroburner tp 10.5 stiff
superfast tp 2.0 3 wood stiff
Halo 25 and taylormade tp 19 degree hybrids
miura cb 202 and wedge
tp 52* wedge, tp 56* taylormade spider mallet putter


Note: This thread is 5100 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

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

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • 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.