Golfers Are Consistent - A Golfer's Good and Bad Swings Look the Same and Are Repeatable

[Tennessee]

Truth is, if you took a video of Jim Furyk or Bubba Watson without the ball in the video, most would say they both must suck.  Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.  That is why after taking video of myself to analyze my swing, and spending about three months in the tank trying to "fix" things, I ended up in a simulator with a pro telling me simply what I was doing wrong.  His eyes were much quicker and more effective than any camera.

I cannot swing like the pros.  I accept that.  All I want to do as a senior golfer is put the ball 200-220 down the middle and have a decent approach shot close to or on the green.  Pitching and putting are mostly mind games to me, but it is that first few hundred yards where I want to keep it on the short stuff.

[No Mulligans]

Truth is, if you took a video of Jim Furyk or Bubba Watson without the ball in the video, most would say they both must suck.

Furyk for instance... It seems to me he has all of these characteristics that are common among the best golfers (from 5SK).  People that have all of these definitely do not suck

• Key #1 - Steady Head (image 1, the horizontal line was on the bill of his cap and the vertical dissected his head at setup, his head stayed steady throughout)
• Key #2 - Weight Forward (image 1)
• Key #3 - Inline Impact (image 1)
• Key #4 - Diagonal Sweetspot Path (image 2)
• Key #5 - Clubface Control (no image necessary for this one, we all know he does)

[Lihu]

Truth is, if you took a video of Jim Furyk or Bubba Watson without the ball in the video, most would say they both must suck.  Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.  That is why after taking video of myself to analyze my swing, and spending about three months in the tank trying to "fix" things, I ended up in a simulator with a pro telling me simply what I was doing wrong.  His eyes were much quicker and more effective than any camera.

I cannot swing like the pros.  I accept that.  All I want to do as a senior golfer is put the ball 200-220 down the middle and have a decent approach shot close to or on the green.  Pitching and putting are mostly mind games to me, but it is that first few hundred yards where I want to keep it on the short stuff.

His swing doesn't look like it sucks at all, just something I wouldn't attempt myself. Also, I believe Erik once mentioned that Bubba has all 5 keys.

Well, at least we agree that pitching and in is a mind game.

[mchepp]

Truth is, if you took a video of Jim Furyk or Bubba Watson without the ball in the video, most would say they both must suck.

Who are most of these people you speak of? Both swings are outstanding.

[Tennessee]

The analysis is great, but before you all condemn me,  remember that I said "if the video was taken without seeing the ball".  And I did say that both swings were not poor - quite the opposite, they are both well grooved swings.  They obviously are both top shelf pros, for years now.

But let me ask this:

Can you name me one top 100 swing coach, starting out with a fairly new golfer, or even a fairly aged amateur, who would endorse and/or install the huge S loop that is in Furyk's backswing?  Or would they try to get you to take it out?

Would any top 100 teacher endorse the over the top swing of Watson in an amateur?  Or would they try to get you to do more of a traditional swing, and eliminate the huge slice that often accompanies Watson's ball flight?

My experience, after filming myself, was to see an over the top swing much like Watson's.  Not his power, obviously, nor control, but I did have his fade and slice.  When I tried to correct it, I could not do it by myself.  The pro I visited in the simulator made the minor adjustments to my stance, arms and body turn which brought the club down on the backswing just enough to eliminate my slice, and add distance to my shots.  As a matter of fact, I now for the first time in my life have a baby draw on command as my usual shot, and if I want the cut, I simply let the club rise back to the top a bit, and there it is, like magic.  I used to do a lot of grip changing, and hooding or opening the face, but not anymore.  My only remaining problem is sometimes I have too much draw or pull - I have to watch out how much I drop that backswing.

Both Furyk and Watson outstanding professionals who have grooved wonderful swings that work for them.  But my point was simply...I do not know of one teacher who would try to have any student emulate those swings, unless they came to that teacher with them intact, grooved, and hitting the ball very well before the first lesson.

Dat's all I was sayin'!!

[iacas]

But let me ask this:

Can you name me one top 100 swing coach, starting out with a fairly new golfer, or even a fairly aged amateur, who would endorse and/or install the huge S loop that is in Furyk's backswing?  Or would they try to get you to take it out?

That's beside the point.

Their swings, like the swings of basically everyone else, are pretty consistent swing to swing.

Check out this thread: .

Would any top 100 teacher endorse the over the top swing of Watson in an amateur?  Or would they try to get you to do more of a traditional swing, and eliminate the huge slice that often accompanies Watson's ball flight?

Watson's slice isn't "huge." By PGA Tour standards, yes. By average golfer standards, no. And he's not "over the top."

[mvmac]

Watson's slice isn't "huge." By PGA Tour standards, yes. By average golfer standards, no. And he's not "over the top."

This is a little OT but yeah Bubba never comes over the top. He swings out on every ball. He cuts it because he aims his body 20 yards right. When he draws it he basically just sets up square to a little open.

[Tennessee]

Well, after only one day on this wonderful site, it has become totally apparent to me that after 58 years of playing golf, and being a scratch player through most of my 20's, at the tender age of 65 I obviously don't know a doggone thing about this sport, and should just stay off this wonderful outlet of complete knowledge of golf.

I bow to all your complete and absolute intelligence.

[No Mulligans]

Well, after only one day on this wonderful site, it has become totally apparent to me that after 58 years of playing golf, and being a scratch player through most of my 20's, at the tender age of 65 I obviously don't know a doggone thing about this sport, and should just stay off this wonderful outlet of complete knowledge of golf.

I bow to all your complete and absolute intelligence.

A forum is not a place where everyone agrees, that would be boring.  I've seen experts on this site not agreeing many times, it goes with the territory.

I certainly can't read any disrespect in any of the responses you received.  Just a discussion backed up with examples and analysis.  That's what it's all about.

All friendly except for this sarcastic comment: " at the tender age of 65 I obviously don't know a doggone thing about this sport, and should just stay off this wonderful outlet of complete knowledge of golf.

I bow to all your complete and absolute intelligence."

[newtogolf]

Well, after only one day on this wonderful site, it has become totally apparent to me that after 58 years of playing golf, and being a scratch player through most of my 20's, at the tender age of 65 I obviously don't know a doggone thing about this sport, and should just stay off this wonderful outlet of complete knowledge of golf.

I bow to all your complete and absolute intelligence.

Erik created the thread to discuss how all of our swings are pretty consistent and therefore contrary to popular belief we don't have "good" or "bad" swings, not to debate who's swing looks good or bad.  Much of what you posted was off topic as it delved into critiquing professionals swings whom you thought looked bad.

[mvmac]

Well, after only one day on this wonderful site, it has become totally apparent to me that after 58 years of playing golf, and being a scratch player through most of my 20's, at the tender age of 65 I obviously don't know a doggone thing about this sport, and should just stay off this wonderful outlet of complete knowledge of golf.

I bow to all your complete and absolute intelligence.

Or you could take it as an opportunity to learn a couple things. Even tour players seek out knowledge and are open to learning new things.

[iacas]

Well, after only one day on this wonderful site, it has become totally apparent to me that after 58 years of playing golf, and being a scratch player through most of my 20's, at the tender age of 65 I obviously don't know a doggone thing about this sport, and should just stay off this wonderful outlet of complete knowledge of golf.

I bow to all your complete and absolute intelligence.

Well, @Tennessee , that's a disappointing response.

The others said it above, but we strive to encourage discussion here, not just rote agreement. If you want to continue to discuss your side of things, please do (though probably not in this thread as it's off topic here). I teach the game for a living (well, part of my living), and I train other instructors as well. I like little more than to discuss the golf swing.

But again, please, a different thread. Thank you in advance.

[dkolo]

Well, after only one day on this wonderful site, it has become totally apparent to me that after 58 years of playing golf, and being a scratch player through most of my 20's, at the tender age of 65 I obviously don't know a doggone thing about this sport, and should just stay off this wonderful outlet of complete knowledge of golf. I bow to all your complete and absolute intelligence.

This boils down to a "I'm taking my ball and going home" pout. You mentioned Furyk's and Bubba's idiosyncrasies as being things no one would teach and you're right. But that doesn't mean they need to be changed. If a student comes to an instructor with these unusual mechanics and they make sense to the student and aren't causing problems or holding the guy back, only a bad instructor would change them. It's a difference between being ideal and being functional and understanding how to identify and categorize swing parts correctly as such. As for the pro who sees faster than a camera, I mean, you have to understand why that's crazy talk. Other than being physically impossible, it doesn't afford the student the ability to see what the pro is seeing. Teaching around the numbers on a simulator is awesome because it focuses on functionality of movements. Having a camera as well is good for helping the student understand things better and for the instructor to see things he just can't see in real time. An instructor can see some things with the naked eye, but there's limits on it.

[DrvFrShow]

Bubba has a swing no one would ever teach. Key 1 isn't there. And it's all over the place, but it's grooved and consistent as hell for him. Stacy Lewis has a swing no one would ever teach either - it's a two post swing, but she has it groove with procedural memory and can nail it time and time again, so no coach is going to change it especially with the way she's winning money right now. Sam Snead had a swing no instructor would ever teach today, yet I'm sure if he were in his 20s and showed up and nailed ball after ball without any problems I doubt a coach would start reworking it.

But we're not these people. We're not showing up at the coach's facility and impressing the hell out of them and asking them to help us tweak a little something to keep us winning money. We're showing up because we're having trouble hitting the damned ball. And that's where we have to find a good instructor who understands biomechanics and can help us get the job done without hurting ourselves.

[iacas]

Bubba has a swing no one would ever teach. Key 1 isn't there. And it's all over the place, but it's grooved and consistent as hell for him.

Not sure I agree…

Stacy Lewis has a swing no one would ever teach either - it's a two post swing, but she has it groove with procedural memory and can nail it time and time again, so no coach is going to change it especially with the way she's winning money right now. Sam Snead had a swing no instructor would ever teach today, yet I'm sure if he were in his 20s and showed up and nailed ball after ball without any problems I doubt a coach would start reworking it.

I disagree with both of those (and Mac O'Grady has a lot of Snead as the basis for some of his models).

And why wouldn't you teach this swing? Looks pretty good to me. :) (Not on topic, so it's rhetorical.)

I do think we should go back to the topic in this thread.

[DrvFrShow]

So what you're saying about steady head is not so steady. And i know OT, but this is a dialogue here, and I need clarification.

[saevel25]

So what you're saying about steady head is not so steady. And i know OT, but this is a dialogue here, and I need clarification.

The key word is steady. Not still, not immobile, steady. There is some leeway with this key.

[DrvFrShow]

not to be picky, but steady is defined as firmly fixed, supported, or balanced; not shaking or moving. Perhaps we need a different word in the golf vocabulary?