"Playing From a Position" à la Jim Venetos

[Robos]

12 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

No. That’s not what I meant to show. I’m saying @iacas and many others on this site don’t just throw claim out there and that’s that. There’s reasoning to it and discussion along with some data showing results. You stated earlier he was ‘biased’ being an instructor. He’s not. Well, he’s biased to facts, data and science. If you say ‘you’re wrong’ you better have factual reasons to base your arguments. Jim doesn’t. 
 

My point from early on was this: We already have the conventional swing style producing the highest level golf. We have people making money ( some a living)  off long drives and they hit up on the ball. If Jim is going to claim the conventional teachings are wrong and his is better, it’s his responsibility to prove this. If he’s going to say one can achieve pro level golf with his swing, that’s his responsibility to prove. It’s not @iacas’s or any other instructor’s responsibility to prove it isn’t. There aren’t tour level golfers with this swing. None. Or at least Jim hasn’t shown any. And there is no data showing the numbers that this swing is every bit if not more powerful than the conventional swing method. Again, that’s Jim’s responsibility to prove.

Reading through @iacas posts I openly change my opinion to he’s definitely not biased. 

I don’t see how it’s possible to have further distance with the JV swing, and I doubt he or anyone made any such claims. With testing I suspect you won’t see any measurable distance lost. By measurable I mean you’ll notice it on the course.
 

I say this because I and many others who’ve tried the swing haven’t noticed any distance lost. If you’re making claims otherwise then I suspect (not proven) you’re missing a variable in an extremely complex equation. It’s also possible you’re not missing a variable and the explanation of no distance lost is purely from a non-optimal traditional swing.

It would be nice to have an explanation for all the JV swing distance anecdotes, but we  lack data and nobody is willing to run the tests, even including JV himself.

[ncates00]

1 hour ago, Robos said:

The question is how much distance is lost with a properly executed JV swing vs a properly executed traditional swing. 
 

A scratch golfer who’s interested in the results would be willing to test. They could become competent enough with the JV swing in probably a few hours - maybe even in 1hr.
 

Unless paid, I agree 100% no scratch golfer  will try the JV system beyond curiosity of the test results.

You're completely dodging.  Again, a scratch player is already a good player.  How would we know that the results are from the JV method or from the ability of the player?  It's quite possible that the scratch golfer, despite the JV method, could still see good results simply because he is already a good player.  You're making a faulty assumption by thinking you can isolate the method from the ability of the player.  See the Tiger Woods analogy above.

Get some good JV players to post their swings, scorecards, and data off a reliable launch monitor.  Perhaps even point to a tour player that uses the method.  We'll wait.

[Robos]

5 minutes ago, Robos said:

Reading through @iacas posts I openly change my opinion to he’s definitely not biased. 

I don’t see how it’s possible to have further distance with the JV swing, and I doubt he or anyone made any such claims. With testing I suspect you won’t see any measurable distance lost. By measurable I mean you’ll notice it on the course.
 

I say this because I and many others who’ve tried the swing haven’t noticed any distance lost. If you’re making claims otherwise then I suspect (not proven) you’re missing a variable in an extremely complex equation. It’s also possible you’re not missing a variable and the explanation of no distance lost is purely from a non-optimal traditional swing.

It would be nice to have an explanation for all the JV swing distance anecdotes, but we  lack data and nobody is willing to run the tests, even including JV himself.

Want to say the same thing, but differently.

If distance was lost with the JV swing you would have an abundance of people coming forward with statements like distance was lost but they made a tradeoff for simplicity. However, rather than an abundance we have a dearth. Instead you have people like me saying no distance is lost, but have other complaints like shot alignment is goofy, or some of his concepts are too difficult like single swing thought process. I have a lot of complaints with the swing, but distance is not one.

[boogielicious]

36 minutes ago, Robos said:

Want to say the same thing, but differently.

If distance was lost with the JV swing you would have an abundance of people coming forward with statements like distance was lost but they made a tradeoff for simplicity. However, rather than an abundance we have a dearth. Instead you have people like me saying no distance is lost, but have other complaints like shot alignment is goofy, or some of his concepts are too difficult like single swing thought process. I have a lot of complaints with the swing, but distance is not one.

The JV method looks to me like a drill I have done call the "Pre-set Weight" drill. It works to get you to shift your weight forward during the downswing. I did this a few years ago when I had that issue. But I do recall that it really limited the length of the backswing and the rotation of the hips. It also was uncomfortable to do for very long. I cannot see making it my normal swing.

It was a good drill for that one issue and I don't have weight forward issues anymore. In fact, I almost have too much weight going forward. My swing path became very in to out and hooks were common.

You need to rotate your hips and torso to get your arms moving faster and get your path in the right place. They all work in unison. Working independently can create other issues.. I am working on that now with my instructor.

If you have flexibility limitations, a shorter backswing can really help. Players like Tony Finau and John Rahm have short backswings generate a ton of power.

 

[Vinsk]

25 minutes ago, Robos said:

Want to say the same thing, but differently.

If distance was lost with the JV swing you would have an abundance of people coming forward with statements like distance was lost but they made a tradeoff for simplicity. However, rather than an abundance we have a dearth. Instead you have people like me saying no distance is lost, but have other complaints like shot alignment is goofy, or some of his concepts are too difficult like single swing thought process. I have a lot of complaints with the swing, but distance is not one.

Here’s what I think in this issue: You and I and probably many, many others aren’t seeing a distance loss because our ‘conventional’ swings suck. With the JV method I arrive at impact with an in to out path and a SF much closer to 1.5 pretty damn consistently. According to my Mevo I was anywhere from 5-7 mph slower on SS with the JV swing but my strike was simply better. My conventional swing, which is lousy, would usually be out to in and steep. So even when I flushed it, it would be a slight fade and a large divot. JV swing was a much shallower divot and slightly in to out with a higher SF (smash factor). 
 
If @iacas or any other sound golfer were  to do the JV they would, I believe, lose some speed on their swing yet their strike quality would remain the same thus...no point. With the JV swing there’s no question for me I’m able to produce quality strikes much more consistently than the conventional method. And by conventional I’m really saying I make a weight shift and try to arrive at impact with my hips and shoulders open to the target line. My strikes are simply poorer.

The video about hitting up JV states [ conventional method has you start balanced at 50/50 ( not really) and that’s wrong. One side is the dominating side, the left. The right only plays a supporting role so why start with it having 50% involvement from the start? He says ‘ How can you hit through your lead side if you’re told to clear your lead side at impact? With the JV method you’re lead side remains steady and therefore you hit through it like you’re supposed to. Now I can’t explain how this is wrong. But from that statement I don’t think Jim is accurately understanding the physics/mechanics of how pros ‘post up’ on their lead side. I dunno...but I think is the type of stuff Jim needs to explain better and show some numbers to make his argument.

5 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

But I do recall that it really limited the length of the backswing and the rotation of the hips. It also was uncomfortable to do for very long.

If you’re square at address yes. But with the JV swing you set up pivoted with your shoulders closed. Then you’re set to just swing the club back with hips staying still. It’s actually not uncomfortable or tiring at all. I’m doing it while my back isn’t 100% and it’s going well. But I believe that it may not be too much of a ceiling limit for me as it would be for a great ball striker. But I’m still curious how Jim generates 118mph swing speed. It’s almost comical in his video he’s hitting driver saying ‘ no loss in power with no weight shift...yet he’s hitting into a net.

[Rippy_72]

There is no way anyone, unless they are Jamie Sadlowski, is going to generate 120 mph driver club speed with the hips immobilized like that.  It just looks like the next logical regression to stack and tilt, in my opinion.  Maybe  a good way to deliver the club to the ball squarely for newbies coming to the game late.  I'd like to see a video of a driver with club and ball speed and launch conditions.

[Robos]

23 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

 
If @iacas or any other sound golfer were  to do the JV they would, I believe, lose some speed on their swing 

Maybe? If so by how much? 2%, 20%? Are the complex traditional golf movements justified? This is what I find interesting.

I agree on all your other points. I’m astonished JV doesn’t have data published to back his claims, as I agree with everyone that this isn’t an exercise we should be doing, instead data should simply speak for itself and he should provide it.

[Vinsk]

5 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

There is no way anyone, unless they are Jamie Sadlowski, is going to generate 120 mph driver club speed with the hips immobilized like that.  It just looks like the next logical regression to stack and tilt, in my opinion.  Maybe  a good way to deliver the club to the ball squarely for newbies coming to the game late.  I'd like to see a video of a driver with club and ball speed and launch conditions.

Well the hips are only immobilized during the backswing. 

[Keep It Simple]

2 hours ago, Robos said:

I say this because I and many others who’ve tried the swing haven’t noticed any distance lost. If you’re making claims otherwise then I suspect (not proven) you’re missing a variable in an extremely complex equation. It’s also possible you’re not missing a variable and the explanation of no distance lost is purely from a non-optimal traditional swing.

I had mentioned in a previous post you can determine this yourself so easily.   Get a swing speed radar or go to a golf place that has one you can use.  Take full swings without hitting a ball with both your traditional swing and the JV swing.  

Ultimately the ceiling of a swings distance capability is club head speed.

[DaveP043]

22 minutes ago, Robos said:

Maybe? If so by how much? 2%, 20%? Are the complex traditional golf movements justified? This is what I find interesting.

I agree on all your other points. I’m astonished JV doesn’t have data published to back his claims, as I agree with everyone that this isn’t an exercise we should be doing, instead data should simply speak for itself and he should provide it.

To me, this is the most telling thing.  He's trying to "sell" his instruction, sell his swing, with generalities and claims, but with no data.  I feel pretty certain that if he COULD produce data that would help his marketing, he would have done it already.  The absence of real data suggests, at least to me, that proper data wouldn't help him.  I can certainly believe that this "simplified" swing can help many players have more consistent contact.  I find it really difficult to believe that this swing doesn't limit the top-end potential for most players, simply because it eliminates some of the sources of swing speed used in more complicated but traditional swing mechanics.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Robos said:

The question is how much distance is lost with a properly executed JV swing vs a properly executed traditional swing.

No, that's your question.

Like I've said, I don't have to question it, just like I don't have to walk off a cliff to know that gravity will make that a one-time experiment.

2 hours ago, Robos said:

A scratch golfer who’s interested in the results would be willing to test. They could become competent enough with the JV swing in probably a few hours - maybe even in 1hr.

Why do I know the JV golf swing will lose distance? Because you're removing a lever and a speed-producing part with the torso rotation.

This will be simplified a little bit, but the JV golf swing generates speed by moving (effectively) two things: the lead arm across the chest and the wrist-shaft angle - hinging/unhinging (or "lag").

The "traditional" swing (as if there is only just "one" type of swing) retains those two levers - the lead arm across the chest and the "lag" - and adds another: the rotation of the lead shoulder back and around. It doesn't move super fast in linear MPH, but it moves very fast rotationally, and acts as a moving platform against which the lead arm can act.

A baseball player can throw a baseball 90 MPH from a mound, but put that mound on a flatbed rail car and make the train travel at 60 MPH, and he can throw the ball 150 MPH.

The torso rotation isn't the dominant speed generator in the golf swing - that is still the arms - but there is no doubt that it adds speed to the clubhead.

I don't have to walk off a cliff to know that gravity is going to make it a one-time deal.

2 hours ago, Robos said:

I’m just disagreeing that you’ll lose distance with the JV swing. I haven’t personally seen it happen; I haven’t heard any n=1 anecdotes that it happens, but I’m interested in seeing data to show it does happen.

I have. I've made swings in a JV style swing. Someone above linked to my "pre-set drill" and it's pretty similar to the JV swing. I lose about 10% of my distance and would lose more except I tend to have far more than optimal shaft lean when I do this and so the ball launches about two clubs lower.

1 hour ago, Robos said:

With testing I suspect you won’t see any measurable distance lost. By measurable I mean you’ll notice it on the course.

The "why" is above.

Now, if you were a "bad" golfer who flipped, had poor contact, etc. then you could see a "similar" distance with a swing that made it a bit easier to have good contact (or even, as with me, lower launch angles due to "too much" shaft lean). But that doesn't mean your swing speed is actually higher, or that you haven't put a "ceiling" on your improvement that's lower than your ceiling with a "traditional" swing.

1 hour ago, Robos said:

If distance was lost with the JV swing you would have an abundance of people coming forward with statements like distance was lost but they made a tradeoff for simplicity.

That's not accurate. There might not be an "abundant" number for a bunch of reasons, including the possibility that JV probably doesn't have that many students. That they have better things to do, that they moved on… whatever. Lots of reasons why there might not be an "abundance of people."

45 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

The JV method looks to me like a drill I have done call the "Pre-set Weight" drill. It works to get you to shift your weight forward during the downswing. I did this a few years ago when I had that issue. But I do recall that it really limited the length of the backswing and the rotation of the hips. It also was uncomfortable to do for very long. I cannot see making it my normal swing.

It's very similar, yes.

45 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

If you have flexibility limitations, a shorter backswing can really help. Players like Tony Finau and John Rahm have short backswings generate a ton of power.

They do. They also… turn their shoulders quite a bit.

Jamie Sadlowski can hit a driver 300 yards from his knees (even though he still gets to turn his torso a little bit)… what he can't do is hit it as far as he can letting his hips and torso fully rotate:

41 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

According to my Mevo I was anywhere from 5-7 mph slower on SS with the JV swing but my strike was simply better.

There you go. An example of someone who has a lower ceiling.

9 minutes ago, Robos said:

I agree on all your other points. I’m astonished JV doesn’t have data published to back his claims, as I agree with everyone that this isn’t an exercise we should be doing, instead data should simply speak for itself and he should provide it.

I suspect he hasn't published anything because it would show what science says it would show: a decrease in swing speed.

[Robos]

34 minutes ago, iacas said:I have. I've made swings in a JV style swing. Someone above linked to my "pre-set drill" and it's pretty similar to the JV swing. I lose about 10% of my distance 

 

 

Thanks - this is close to what I was looking for - about 10%. Given there are variables at play about 10% sounds reasonable.

On the tour you’ll easily see 10% differences in driver distances between players. Furyk averages 275 while Bubba is 312 - that’s over 10%. Distance is important, but other aspects are important too which Is how Furyk competes. Given the data I don’t think distance is the limiting factor of why we don’t see the JV swing on tour.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Robos said:

Thanks - this is close to what I was looking for - about 10%. Given there are variables at play about 10% sounds reasonable.

It's closer to 15% if we control for dynamic loft, because the "pre-set drill" doesn't really let me hit anything longer than about a 6I and get the ball up in the air enough to control landing angle well enough, etc.

As I wrote, a good chunk of the distance that would be lost (beyond the 10%) is due to the "more than optimal" amount of lag or shaft lean.

5 minutes ago, Robos said:

On the tour you’ll easily see 10% differences in driver distances between players. Furyk averages 275 while Bubba is 312 - that’s over 10%. Distance is important, but other aspects are important too which Is how Furyk competes. Given the data I don’t think distance is the limiting factor of why we don’t see the JV swing on tour.

There's a difference between one player giving up yardage to another player and giving up yardage to himself. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if Jim Furyk gave up 10%, he'd plummet down the OWGR pretty quickly.

You're continuing to rationalize here, but you're really not saying anything differently now than what has already been said: the JV swing can get someone to a level of "competency" a bit quicker, but it has a lower ceiling.

[Robos]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's closer to 15% if we control for dynamic loft, because the "pre-set drill" doesn't really let me hit anything longer than about a 6I and get the ball up in the air enough to control landing angle well enough, etc.

As I wrote, a good chunk of the distance that would be lost (beyond the 10%) is due to the "more than optimal" amount of lag or shaft lean.

There's a difference between one player giving up yardage to another player and giving up yardage to himself. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if Jim Furyk gave up 10%, he'd plummet down the OWGR pretty quickly.

You're continuing to rationalize here, but you're really not saying anything differently now than what has already been said: the JV swing can get someone to a level of "competency" a bit quicker, but it has a lower ceiling.

Sure, maybe for you it would be -15%, but you could probably gain 5% with a properly executed JV swing - so whatever, -10% sounds fair and falls in line with the traditional vs JV swing speeds mentioned earlier with an 8mph decrease.

As someone who just likes to play and limitations are more around practice time than technique, no way could anyone convince me to deal with the time commitment of practicing the traditional swing to gain 10% on my distances. My practice time has more value spent on chipping/putting. 

So yeah, I think we agree on things.

[Vinsk]

18 minutes ago, Robos said:

Sure, maybe for you it would be -15%, but you could probably gain 5% with a properly executed JV swing - so whatever, -10% sounds fair and falls in line with the traditional vs JV swing speeds mentioned earlier with an 8mph decrease.

As someone who just likes to play and limitations are more around practice time than technique, no way could anyone convince me to deal with the time commitment of practicing the traditional swing to gain 10% on my distances. My practice time has more value spent on chipping/putting. 

So yeah, I think we agree on things.

[Keep It Simple]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

There's a difference between one player giving up yardage to another player and giving up yardage to himself. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if Jim Furyk gave up 10%, he'd plummet down the OWGR pretty quickly.

Good point.   And a lot of the top tour players are already "restricting" their swings for accuracy.  My assumption would be they started with hitting the ball as far as they could and then dialled it down or made changes until they found the optimum distance/accuracy ratio.  No need to restrict the swing further.

Guys like Jim Furyk and Matt Kuchar given their size and athleticism can hit the ball farther than they do during tournaments.  Kuchar's swing speed is 5 mph slower than the tour average with his driver and there is no way he can't turn that up if he wanted to.  Bryson Dechambeau has 2 driver swings, one with 113 mph swing speed (calls it the fairway finder) and the other (calls it "the crank") over 120.  

[billchao]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Here’s what I think in this issue: You and I and probably many, many others aren’t seeing a distance loss because our ‘conventional’ swings suck.

This is where I believe a lot of the misunderstanding of the potential of this method comes from. People who switch to this method struggle with a conventional swing. They’re not seeing much difference in distance on the course because they weren’t getting the most out of their conventional swing in the first place.

The difference in measured swing speed is a better indicator of the ceiling of this swing, which you have done but few others have, I’m sure.

[iacas]

42 minutes ago, Robos said:

As someone who just likes to play and limitations are more around practice time than technique, no way could anyone convince me to deal with the time commitment of practicing the traditional swing to gain 10% on my distances. My practice time has more value spent on chipping/putting.

• 10% is huge.
• Many don't "struggle" with the traditional swing like you seem to have, or they might struggle almost as much with the JV swing AND lose distance.
• Don't spend that much of your time on chipping/putting.

Distance matters more to the average golfer than the PGA Tour player.