"Playing From a Position" à la Jim Venetos

[Vinsk]

4 hours ago, RussUK said:

Where you suprised with the amount of power the swing had with it being essentially all arms?

I’m a believer in the arms being responsible for a lot of swing speed, but yes. It feels a lot less ‘movement’ was able to generate good power. However I began to think that my actual SS wasn’t really improving. It was the quality of strike. My conventional swing can be all over the face with an in to out and out to in path ( more likely out to in). With this swing I was almost always in to out and near the middle of the club face. So I think I was just hitting better shots. Again, JV would never provide any data from himself nor any students showing increases in SS. 
I don’t have a problem with having a 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 swing. It’s the ‘10’ different that seemed ridiculous to me. I’ll never use a 4i to hit the ball 20yds.

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, RussUK said:

If i need to hit it 100yds i'll hit a 56 wedge full rather than a 5 9 iron or whatever, having 10 swings per club over compliactes it for many people imo.

The problem with hitting wedges their full distance is that any slight change in dynamic loft has a bigger effect on the flight than a lower lofted club. 

There are times when I try to hit a full SW and it just has higher variance in the distance outcomes. I can club up two twice and just hit a 70% shot way more consistent. The more you do it, the more you get good at it. 

[Vinsk]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The problem with hitting wedges their full distance is that any slight change in dynamic loft has a bigger effect on the flight than a lower lofted club. 

There are times when I try to hit a full SW and it just has higher variance in the distance outcomes. I can club up two twice and just hit a 70% shot way more consistent. The more you do it, the more you get good at it. 

I agree. It’s the mid to long irons I don’t think having 10 different swings is necessary and actually useless. JV has yardage cards that literally show 10 different yardages for every club except putter. Punch shots from trouble are a different animal. But I’m not, ever, going to hit a 3i from the fairway when I’m 110yds out. 
This is pure speculation on my part but I think JV knows his method is really best for short irons and really advocates the ‘bump and run.’ Very little attention is given to the long game. I appreciate his dedication but he needs to support his claims with data, actual proof. ‘Stillness creates power because you’re swinging in a circle.’ Ok, show this on a system like the AMG guys have. Show us that this technique can produce powerful swings. If he’s  going to charge people for his instruction I think he owes at least that.

[RussUK]

22 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The problem with hitting wedges their full distance is that any slight change in dynamic loft has a bigger effect on the flight than a lower lofted club. 

There are times when I try to hit a full SW and it just has higher variance in the distance outcomes. I can club up two twice and just hit a 70% shot way more consistent. The more you do it, the more you get good at it. 

I agree with with half/quarter wedge shots but the whole 10 different shots per club is excesive to say the least.

 

[Missouri Swede]

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I’ll never use a 4i to hit the ball 20yds.

But that’s about the only useful distance I have for my 4i: punching low under branches to just get me safely into the fairway!

[pganapathy]

I could never play from a position.  In virtually any sport I play, I struggle to generate speed from a static position, and find that dynamic motion (the takeaway) is a necessity for me to play well (cricket, tennis, table tennis, badminton).  In my dragging motions (hockey for example) I am able to compensate but it ain't easy.  Overall, I would prefer the complete swing rather than hit from a position.

That being said, I might experiment with on the range one day and see if I am able to hit accurately enough to offset the almost certain loss of power I feel will accompany the swing.

[RussUK]

15 hours ago, pganapathy said:

I could never play from a position.  In virtually any sport I play, I struggle to generate speed from a static position, and find that dynamic motion (the takeaway) is a necessity for me to play well (cricket, tennis, table tennis, badminton).  In my dragging motions (hockey for example) I am able to compensate but it ain't easy.  Overall, I would prefer the complete swing rather than hit from a position.

That being said, I might experiment with on the range one day and see if I am able to hit accurately enough to offset the almost certain loss of power I feel will accompany the swing.

I've always found it easier to play sports when the ball is moving as well. I used to play volleyball for school as well as squash and football (proper footie, not that American one where you carry the ball ). I dont know why but i always found it easier to hit or kick the ball well.

With golf where the ball isn't moving and I'm pretty much static i always found it tough to make good contact. I'm hoping the JV swing not only protects my kidneys but helps me be consistent.

[Vinsk]

I think JV oversimplifies the swing in regards to errors. He stares there are only two areas to address based on your error. If your ball flight  is off it’s your position, your shoulders. If your contact is off it’s your weight. I know beyond any doubt there were times I had all my weight forward and still hit the ball fat. There were also times I kept my shoulders closed and still shanked it. There is still plenty of room and movement to be done to cause errors I believe. And although it’s true I hit really nice draws with 7i and down...once I got to 6i and longer the nice shots became scarce. Just couldn’t get any good distance from the longer irons. Drives were nice draws but I think the distance I gained was as I said before, better path and better contact with the face. But still nothing to write home about.

[mrushing268]

I have been swinging a club for over 4 decades and tried all sorts of methods. Many have worked well for a while. That's not to say they would not be good in the long run just that I was unable to sustain the changes and eventually fell pray to what felt right! Swing harder! I have read many here talk about Jim's method eliminating the ability to hit it long. Talking about how removing the shoulder and hip turn would affect club head speed/distance. A favorite of one is putting a "ceiling" on what we could achieve. Well many things put a ceiling on what we could achieve. Like limited practice time. We are not all pros and do not all have the athletic ability of Rory...comparisons to him for the sake of this conversation are not fair or even logical. There is another teaching pro here contradicting most of Jim's method. So if I go with him I will play like Rory? Jim's method allows more people to find the "sweet spot" with a proper path more often...simple as that! If you want to claim distance has nothing to do with path and sweet spot you are mistaken. If you think a big turn is the only way to distance watch some of the trick shots taken from chairs or on someone's knees. I haven't tried Jim's method but I can see some logic in it. Will it make you out drive Rory? Probably not but neither will lessons from anyone here. Will it lead to lower scores? Perhaps, I am willing to try!

[mrushing268]

On 9/19/2019 at 1:04 PM, iacas said:

Not true at all, @TRUCKER. If something works for you, and you're not trying to play golf at a higher level than what you're achieving now, nobody's ever really had a problem with that.

But when talking about the swing, and claims made by some people, then you're talking more swing theory, more "how it applies to everyone," etc. That's where discussions about limitations, false claims, etc. become relevant.

Just like this:

If you want to employ a swing that has some built-in limitations (whether by choice or some physical necessity or something), great. Just say that, and then why would you care about what others are saying when they're discussing the "theory" side of things?

I never saw "how it applies to everyone" used in referencing his swing but did see Jim's reference to our body limitations & structure. That would seemingly apply to nearly all. Still, in the way Jim used his reference it made sense. And if you think the swing that is taught by most teaching pros doesn't have built in limitations for most, then we should all be scratch golfers.

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, mrushing268 said:

I never saw "how it applies to everyone" used in referencing his swing but did see Jim's reference to our body limitations & structure. That would seemingly apply to nearly all. Still, in the way Jim used his reference it made sense. And if you think the swing that is taught by most teaching pros doesn't have built in limitations for most, then we should all be scratch golfers.

This doesn't make sense on a few levels. First, I said "how it applies to everyone" in terms of how "swing theory" discussions generally work. Then your last sentence is just completely bogus: even if we did determine the single best way for anyone to swing a club (or even the single best individual way for that specific person), it would still take a bunch of work to become scratch, if it was even possible (most 60 year olds can improve, but are unlikely to ever get to scratch).

The "Jim Venetos" swing is limited, particularly in the distance/speed it can produce.

[Vinsk]

On 12/26/2019 at 8:16 PM, mrushing268 said:

Jim used his reference it made sense. A

It shouldn’t stop there. That’s the problem. He doesn’t prove his theory at all. He says how the Titleist Institute of Technology or whatever has ‘told me my method is sound biomechanically.’ WTF does that mean? Show us the numbers!

 

On 12/26/2019 at 8:49 PM, iacas said:

The "Jim Venetos" swing is limited, particularly in the distance/speed it can produce.

And nothing other than Jim’s words have disproven this. @mrushing268 don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous that Jim doesn’t put up any data, show any published results from research or these Titleist guys to show what he’s teaching? Especially being that he asks for money for his program.

All over YouTube  people comment about seeing his ‘driver swing’ and/swing speed. He always just says ‘sign up and you’ll get all that.’ No you don’t. He’s got one slow motion swing of him hitting a driver. No stats at all are presented. And if you question him he just diverts to the whole ‘ I know what’s true and don’t need to prove it to anyone.’ Well, yeah you do. Especially if you’re asking for money.

[iacas]

To others reading this, let me re-iterate two things:

• If you enjoy playing golf with this swing, or a similar swing, cool. More power to you - these "simplified" swings can get you a bit further ahead a bit more quickly than learning a "traditional" swing with a few more moving parts. I think that comes at the cost of a lower overall ceiling, but if you just want to get to playing "decent" golf relatively quickly, and don't ever care to play "good" or "great" golf, this type of thing can be a good way to go.
• @Vinsk likes a lot of what I teach, and a lot of what I have to say, but on this topic in particular, he's also paid and done the Venetos swing. He isn't speaking from guesses or conjecture: he's lived it, paid for it (the content), read up on it, watched the videos, etc. I'm only able to speak about this from theory, @Vinsk can speak about it "for real."

[Vinsk]

@mrushing268...Yeah I’m glad @iacas re-iterated that. Have you been to the JV website and gone through the program? I’ll give credit where it’s due and can attest to what Erik said regarding a quicker and probably easier way to play some decent golf is true with this method.

I also understand JV would probably say I didn’t master the ‘stillness’ and that’s why my longer irons weren’t producing for me. But it’s also discouraging, and warranted I believe to become skeptical once you go through the website. 30 years of teaching this and as you can see there are limited members and when I joined most of the posts were from months to years old.

People aren’t sticking to this method for a reason. Community responses on the website are scarce if nonexistent. And although this doesn’t reflect directly on his method, it’s rather frustrating to see him and some of his dedicated followers continue to preach the short game and putting being the key to low scores in golf.

I like and believe in what this site and @iacas teach because it’s supported with research, data, videos as well as direct discussion and welcoming of debate. None of this is true with JV. That’s why I bailed on it.

[billchao]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I also understand JV would probably say I didn’t master the ‘stillness’ and that’s why my longer irons weren’t producing for me.

You weren't launching your mid irons high enough when we played together; it's not surprising the long irons weren't doing anything for you.

That's the problem with a swing that is designed to play a pull draw and ultimately why it has a low ceiling.

[Vinsk]

7 minutes ago, billchao said:

You weren't launching your mid irons high enough when we played together; it's not surprising the long irons weren't doing anything for you.

That's the problem with a swing that is designed to play a pull draw and ultimately why it has a low ceiling.

I don’t think it’s designed for a pull draw. His method does make it quite simple to adjust height as you just move the ball forward/backward in your stance. Either way I just seemed to struggle getting any swing speed that was sufficient for 3i-5i. And maybe it’s my gross lack of talent.

But this to me would be an easy thing to ‘prove.’ I wish JV would just put a monitor down and do his swing and show us what speeds/distances he’s getting. Hell I’d like to see you do it as I know you swing fast. But then I’d wonder if you’re moving more than Jim does. But it would at least be of some interest to see a known good golfer like @iacas or @mvmac who could probably do the swing right and see what numbers they’d get. Aside from JV the only other people I saw videos of were high handicap golfers or those with some disability. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

But this to me would be an easy thing to ‘prove.’ I wish JV would just put a monitor down and do his swing and show us what speeds/distances he’s getting. Hell I’d like to see you do it as I know you swing fast. But then I’d wonder if you’re moving more than Jim does. But it would at least be of some interest to see a known good golfer like @iacas or @mvmac who could probably do the swing right and see what numbers they’d get. Aside from JV the only other people I saw videos of were high handicap golfers or those with some disability. 

Given:

You could probably get 70-85% of the speed from a full swing.

But that 15% would be important. 260 yards off the tee becomes 220 (if you can generate 85%).

[Double Mocha Man]

Okay, so this is weird.  Since I am only allowed to putt and hit wedges (torn tendons in my elbow) I thought I'd give the Jim Venetos method a try this morning at the range.  Strong grip, closed stance, lot's of weight on left side.  Arm swing.  Well, using my 56 degree wedge and the same pace and power of swing, but only with the arms, I was getting a good click, solid strikes... and 10 extra yards!  Same trajectory, same bite.  The proof would be in iron shots and especially with the driver.   With good mending I should be able to try that in March.  Truly not believing it'll work but I am open-minded.