• Announcements

    • iacas

      Visit FlagstickRule.com   03/13/2017

      Visit the site flagstickrule.com to read about and sign a petition for the USGA/R&A regarding the one terrible rule in the proposed "modernized" rules for 2019.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
xerex250

Moe Norman's secret

8 posts in this topic

Basically, he just used less moving parts in his golf swing. He eliminated so many that he could hit 1000 balls a day without much strain or without getting even remotely tired. It's almost like he was just standing there. The single plane idea is false for this reason:

Moe never said anything about a single plane. When I heard him speak, he said the reason he put his arms all the way out there was because he was much less likely to move his arms around too much. He gave an example of this in the videos that i will post in here. He showed his arms flailing in the close body position, then said "but out here I can't!"

Another example of less moving parts is his placing the club behind the ball about a foot with his irons and about 2 feet with his woods. He said this eliminated a foot of the swing, put his left shoulder already in his turn, and he couldn't take it outside. I'm not saying this to make anyone mad, but it's the truth.

Think about it. How would you hit a ball if you arms were flailing all around and your head moving side to side? You couldn't even hit the ball! Let's say you keep your head still instead and kept your arms like we do today. How much better chance would you have of hitting the ball better, more square, and just in general hitting it to begin with?

Think before you post. Insults will NOT be posted. Any flaming and I will quit posting replies. Same with trolling or bullying. You're allowed to disagree, but do not insult other's opinions, or say that someone else is an idiot for their ideas, etc. Be nice.

In conclusion, less moving parts equals a better strike, and though you lose distance, you're dead straight. This was his secret

Videos:

Some extra info:

With less moving parts, you will also be able to control the distance of the shot better, and the direction.

Warning: you lose alot of distance. At least you're straight right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Well, I can agree with the principles. However, Moe Norman certainly owned this unique technique. I honestly don't agree with this entire system being sold as a superior and easier way to play golf. I understand Moe was a bit odd and this was possibly why his success on the PGA tour was mediocre. The fact that the vast majority of professional golfers and low handicappers have the more traditional style has to say something. I don't see Todd Graves tearing up the PGA with this amazing discovery. And an important note to remember is that this swing style isn't easy to do. Maybe starting a newbie with this method would be interesting, but trying to get people to convert to this from the traditional fundamentals seems futile at best. Just my opinion and expressing my rights under the First Amendment. Hope you don't feel offended.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

There are already a few threads dedicated to this particular topic. Having said that... Moes "secret" was that he hit a zillion balls a day and had no life outside of golf. I don't think his mechanics were perfect; just well ingrained.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Moe Norman's secret is very simple. He understood his golf swing better than any other person living or dead. His understanding of what was required to strike a golf ball "PURE" was absolute and unparalleled. Just because he didn't share his knowledge with the general public, it became common thinking that Moe was unable to explain his method. He simply wasn't going to just give away, what he alone, had the brains and determination to figure out.

The good news for all of us is that Moe did share his swing secrets with one young Canadian club pro. Greg Lavern won the lottery when Moe took him under his wing and mentored and taught him for more that a decade.

Greg recently released his book "Finish to the Sky". Do yourself a favor and pick it up. You will learn exactly what Moe taught him during their many years together. Its simply amazing stuff.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hung up on the idea that having your arms separated from the body makes it impossible for them to flail. I guarantee you that I could make my arms flail in just about every position not involving a straitjacket, provided I was trying. What exactly makes the arms "way out there" (as you say) position better than the traditional style of having them a bit closer in? What specifically does this do to make the swing more controllable? Also, how do you get your arms "way out there" without adding moving parts (which you're trying to eliminate) if you don't start in an unbalanced position with arms outstretched? Wouldn't keeping your arms at about the same length throughout the swing (in theory, this likely would be uncomfortable to do) eliminate the moving part of having a changing amount of arm extension? Sorry, but I prefer to read things that explain why something is better, instead of just saying it's better "because this one guy said so". I personally don't care if Tiger Woods or Joe Schmoe said it, it needs to have a bit of evidence as to why it works better than something else. Could you help me by clarifying why exactly this is a superior technique when data shows that distance at all levels is equally or more important (equally at PGA Tour levels of play, more important everywhere else) than accuracy after a certain point?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

flame me if you want, but i think his secret had to do with his mental condition.  he was like a savant, a Rainman for golf.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the basics of golf are accuracy and power.

It seems that moe norman definitely had the accuracy part nailed down, which is quite spectacular in its own way.

Jamie Sadlowski or someone longhitter like him probably favours the other side of the equation so to speak.

As a beginner though, it boggles my mind to think how the longhiters are able to strike the ball so well... so well hit balls.

Some of the more accurate long driver competitors... the're hitting actually 9/10 balls into the grid. I just watched today some old videos about bobby wilson in senior division long drive 2009 event... That oldie, was really bombing it, and accurately too into the grid! I think he would have been in the fairway/semirough at a real golf course...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My swing is similar to Mo Norman's, and he inspired me to change everything. Before I had a very "wrist-rotaty" swing, and I felt like I was trying to flip the clubhead through the ball and time it perfectly.

I think having your arms super straight and rigid at address is not the point, and not really what Mo did. The point is to address the ball in pretty much the same  arm position as impact so that it's just a back and through motion.

About 2 months ago I switched to the "Mo Norman grip" with your back hand under the club holding it in the lifeline. I like it for a few reasons. 1For one, I am able to eliminate all the wrist rotation movement. That was really causing me to spray the ball all over, and even my good shots were a few feet left or right at best. With this grip it's much easier to have the clubface square at impact, hence straight shots for me - not just straighter in general, but way fewer "really bad misses".

Another reason I like it is because of how it affects the way your wrists bend. Many vardon grip players have a real scoopy motion at the bottom of the swing. Among other things, this can really increase the chance of hitting thin.With the Mo grip I find it really hard to "over release" the hinge on the downswing so my hand never fall into the bad behind-the-ball position.

Another thing that has helped me is swinging "at the target". In Mo's videos he makes fun of other golfers, "When they are swinging where to their clubs end up? Around their backs. I want the ball to go to the target,I swing at the target. They swing around the golf course. Their club swing points right into the trees. So where does their ball go? Rightinto the trees!" When my follow through is finished I try to have my chest hands and clubhead all in a line pointing at the target, and well, a whole lot of the time it goes to the target!

I do feel like sometimes on my driver I come through on an out-to-in path that puts sort of an unwanted fade on the ball, but it's nowhere near as bad as when I wasn't using this grip.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • There are several statements that I disagree with which I feel are important to discuss: All golf balls do not go about the same distance.  A low compression, 2-piece Surlyn covered model will launch higher and with less spin than a 5-piece, high compression urethane covered model which will result in a noticeable difference in distance off the tee.  Dean even stated in another answer "The soft golf ball market has taken off due to the lower spinning balls means players can be longer in distance." Regarding balls for different swing speeds and compression:  3) Bridgestone (and I think Callaway) has come out with tour caliber balls for players who swing under 105mph. Is it possible to design a tour caliber ball for a specific segment of swing speed or is this just mostly a marketing thing?  DEAN: The whole swing speed story to me is one of the most over-rated stories in golf. Companies force or teach golfers to play low compression balls so their low swing speed can compress the ball. The problem with this is that low compression balls have the lowest spin in all shots, so they are pushing players to play a ball with no performance at all… and when you need that spin around the green, it's not there…            I almost don't know where to start on this one.  The concept of designing golf balls based on swing speeds doesn't teach or force players to use a low compression ball...it's about using a ball that has the appropriate compression for your swing speed.  Some players will have better results with a higher compression ball, others will have better results with a lower compression.  Keep in mind, there is a difference between "lower compression" and "low compression".  Most of the urethane tour balls have a compression rating somewhere between the mid 70s to mid 90s.  Tour models like the Chrome Soft, B330-RX and B330-RXS are in the mid 60s, which is lower.  Balls like the Supersoft and e6 are in the upper 30s and 40s, which is considered low.  Dean's statement that "low compression balls have the lowest spin on all shots" is somewhere between a little misleading and flat-out wrong.  It's true that a lower compression ball will spin less (and launch higher) than a firmer ball on full shots.  But on short game shots around the green, the ball is not compressed.  On pitch shots, chip shots, and greenside bunker shots for example,    the only part of the ball that is being activated is the cover. Notice on this chart that the lowest compression ball is very close to the highest spinning, and the lowest spinning ball has almost the same compression rating!  The point is, compression has little to no affect on short game shots...the cover is the main factor.  All 4 of these models have a urethane cover, but the two that provide the most spin have softer covers.  To put this in context, the chart below was a test Golf Digest did in 2015 which shows the performance on a partial wedge shot (I think it was 40 yds) with most of the balls on the market at the time The different colors represented the price point.  These results don't match the first chart I posted exactly which can happen when player testing (this one shows the B330 has higher spin than the RXS). Is there a difference between the lower spinning "red dots" and the highest spinning?  Sure.  There should be though.  Golf balls are designed to have different types of performance for different types of players.  The B330-RX has the lowest spin among the red dot models, but that doesn't mean it's lacking in performance...it spins exactly how the ball designers intended it to, because not everyone wants/needs maximum spin.  Notice the e7...this is a high compression ball very comparable to the B330, but has very different spin characteristics. So again, higher compression doesn't mean higher spin around the green and lower compression doesn't necessarily mean low spin.  About the only thing that I could agree with Dean's comment on would be that all the ultra-low compression balls are Surlyn covered models designed for distance, so it's true that these balls have low spin on all shots and will not offer the same level of performance around the greens, but again, that has more to do with the cover than the compression.  The fact is, there are lower compression balls that perform at the highest level. The B330-RXS is the same type of ball as the Pro V1 in many respects, and performs just as well as, or even better for many players, so I'm surprised by his comments that fitting for swing speed is over-rated and lower compression balls have no performance.  That's like saying getting fit for the correct shaft flex is over-rated, and softer flex shafts don't perform as well as stiffer shafts!  Does anyone consider the Dynamic Gold S-300 to be a lower performing shaft than the Dynamic Gold X-100?  No, of course not. They are designed to do the same thing, but because some players don't swing as fast as others the softer flex will give them better results, just like the B330-RXS is the equal to the B330-S, but will fit players who don't swing as hard better. I'm also not on-board with the opinion that fitting with a driver is a "mistake" and when testing to choose a ball based on 100 yds and in.  I'm not saying that short game performance isn't important, but wow...to claim that testing with a driver is a mistake is ridiculous.  I'll make a simple point on this...anyone can hit good wedge shots with a Pro V1 or B330 or Z-Star.  Fast swingers, slower swingers, high handicappers, low handicappers...it doesn't matter, they can all get good results on wedge shots.  Does that mean that's the ball they should play, and it will work equally as well for the other aspects too?  No.  A wedge can mask any issues in performance because of the loft and backspin, but the driver exaggerates issues.  The same players who hit respectable wedge shots with various tour balls might struggle to keep shots in play or lose potential distance. And before anyone tries to use the old "the driver is used 14 times a round, but half of the shots are inside of 100 yds" argument...save it.  If you play a high spin ball and you're struggling to hit the fairway with your tee shots, that ball will not help you save shots around the green.  Too much spin for players who can't control it is worse than a lower spinning model. Sorry Dean...not trying to blast you or anything, just putting in my two cents.  Ok, maybe more like four cents!
    • So......Is this your point @Jack Watson?
    • https://thesandtrap.com/b/clubs/titleist_716_ap1_review My review for the site is above. I've been using them since writing this review. Excellent clubs. One watch out is with short game shots with the PW and GW. They will go a bit farther than a corresponding chip or pitch with the equivalent wedge. The ball feels like it jumps off the face with good contact. So be careful with that.
    • Thanks for all the comments. I realize change is always hard but single length, lie and weight make so much sense to me. I am going to build a set of Value Golf clubs and see what happens. As improve I may go back to normal but who knows.  I think it will be better for learning the overall game. Which in my opinion and observance needs a lot of help. In my other hobbies that required learned skills it was easy to find groups to help you with the skills and drills to improve them. Businesses that the hobby supported held seminars and workshops covering all aspects. Trying to find help, other than paid lessons, is impossible, at least in my area. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Golfgirl10543
      Golfgirl10543
      (43 years old)
    2. jkettman
      jkettman
      (28 years old)
    3. old man1953
      old man1953
      (64 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon