"Playing From a Position" à la Jim Venetos

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, NoTalentLefy said:

being on a cutting edge like Venetos is

Oh boy.

Jim has been teaching for nearly 30 years, @NoTalentLefy.

[Vinsk]

41 minutes ago, NoTalentLefy said:

It’s true he can’t get the stats but at the same time being on a cutting edge like Venetos is, it might take years more before what he teaches come to fruition.

Are you being sarcastic? 🙂. It’s hardly a monumental task to obtain some TrackMan information on what you’re preaching. At least show some video with basic data provided. Nothing.

Can you imagine being an instructor and having the Titleist Institute of Technology analyze your swing and saying it’s ‘mechanically sound’ and not asking for the data? To not film it for his students? And as I’ve said before…you have a student using your method that’s a +7hcp setting records all over the place….and yet he’s totally unknown and not even showcased on his teaching website?

And like @iacas stated, it’s 30years + and hasn’t taken off yet. I think we all know why.

[klineka]

22 hours ago, NoTalentLefy said:

I still would highly recommend his method over anyone current methods. 

Based on what? Your own personal experience? 

So you're trying to tell me that you think his method will make me a better golfer than if I were to be coached by any coach that is actively coaching on the PGA Tour? 

That if I spent 1 year working day in and day out on his method that at the end of 1 year I would be a better golfer than if I were to be coached for 1 year day in and day out by someone like Cameron McCormick, Corey Lundberg, Sean Foley, Mike Bender, Mark Blackburn, etc. ?

Just trying to make sure I fully understand the point you are trying to make here.

[Big Lex]

On 7/27/2022 at 3:20 PM, Vinsk said:

What he seems to fail to address to this day is real data. I was in his program.

Just a guess, but I am thinking Jim, having come into golf before we had any actual data, simply has no answer to what he probably suspects data would show about his swing ideas. 

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Just a guess, but I am thinking Jim, having come into golf before we had any actual data, simply has no answer to what he probably suspects data would show about his swing ideas.

There's nothing stopping him from getting data now.

[boogielicious]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

There's nothing stopping him from getting data now.

Sure there is.😉

[Vinsk]

15 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Just a guess, but I am thinking Jim, having come into golf before we had any actual data, simply has no answer to what he probably suspects data would show about his swing ideas. 

 

I think it’s not just that he knows the data will show a few shortcomings with his claims, it’s that the idea itself is totally against his ideology.

Jim wants to stroll into Augusta with a T shirt and Converse tennis shoes and play a round of golf ( then say he shot 65.) Golf is for everyone damn it! 
 

TrackMan, FlightScope, that stuff is for all the misinformed tech heads who are all doing it wrong.

 

[Big Lex]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I think it’s not just that he knows the data will show a few shortcomings with his claims, it’s that the idea itself is totally against his ideology.

TrackMan, FlightScope, that stuff is for all the misinformed tech heads who are all doing it wrong.

 

Yup. Data not only often pops the balloon of confirmation bias, but is often viewed as "unnecessary" because "I can see it with my own eyes." There was a lot of this in another thread about John Erickson's views on GEARS and so forth. But it's a shame, because what if we learned something interesting or unexpected about these methods? 

[ChetlovesMer]

23 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Yup. Data not only often pops the balloon of confirmation bias, but is often viewed as "unnecessary" because "I can see it with my own eyes." There was a lot of this in another thread about John Erickson's views on GEARS and so forth. But it's a shame, because what if we learned something interesting or unexpected about these methods? 

To your point, I remember seeing a swing coach use something like the JV method as a drill. He was trying to exaggerate a remedy to a problem a student of his was having. 

Plus, as many have said here in this thread going back some 6-1/2 or 7 years now, if a golfer has some physical limitations this may be a method that gets them out on the course and I think we all agree that's great. 

I don't think anyone has ever said "You can't play golf this way". The thing that is odd about this thread is that many folks have brought up that the JV method has limitations. ... Which it does. ... But the discussion always dies there. There's no back and forth about the limitations. Just a comment to the affect of "Well, what do you expect from non-believers?" 

Reminds me of a customer I had back in the early 90's who wanted to produce an electric airplane. I said "That's cool." I asked him how he was going to deal with the weight of the batteries. He said no batteries, he's going to use a diesel engine. I said "huh?" He said the diesel engine would drive a generator which would run the electric motor which would turn the prop. I asked why not just have the diesel engine drive the prop? He said because his way he "GETS MORE POWER". I wish I was kidding. I told him you may get more speed or more torque, but you will get less power. Every time you convert the power to a new form you lose some due to efficiencies. He said "Nope, I'll get more power." This goes on for 45 minutes or so. I say "Look at it this way, power in equals power out, there's going to be some efficiency on each side of the equation. Therefore you lose power." After another 45 minutes he finally says to me "Look, you can use your math and your science, but my experience tells me I'll get more power." We agreed to disagree. 

Same with this thread. Look, you can use your Trackman or your GCQuad, but my experience tells me I can hit it farther. 

[GolfLug]

12 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

After another 45 minutes he finally says to me "Look, you can use your math and your science, but my experience tells me I'll get more power." We agreed to disagree. 

Interesting. What kinda experience did he have to back that? 

[ChetlovesMer]

3 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Interesting. What kinda experience did he have to back that? 

I have no idea. 

But I give the guy credit. He and I engaged in a conversation about it for close to 2 hours. Very civil. He finally decided that he'd do it his way and "prove me wrong". And I wished him luck. 

That's my issue with this thread. There's never any back and forth. Most of the conversations on this thread seem to go something like this:

• I love the JV swing. It has changed my golf life! I couldn't be happier!
  • We are happy for you. 
• Everyone should do this swing. It's better than the traditional swing.
  • Here's some reasons why it isn't. Perhaps you'd like to comment on those?
• Just trust me it's better.
  • What about these things here?
• It's better.
  • What about this?
• It's better.
  • Can you provide some proof?
• NO, I'm leaving! 

 

[Big Lex]

Another guess is that Jim _knows_ his method isn't _really_ revolutionary, and he also knows deep down that the traditional swing isn't really "flawed." But saying things like this is a great way to attract clicks to your site and views of your videos....a fact I and I suspect several other contributors to this thread can attest to 😉

So he just isn't really interested in the data, and he's just going to go on repeating his mantra in however many different ways he can conjure up, because that's what drives the interest in his site and drives sales. 

And P.S., I'll echo others who've said I have nothing against his ideas, have been tempted to try them, and can see the validity in them, to a point, as has been expressed in this thread. 

[Vinsk]

Classic Jim with absolute bs on this one. First, his story about observing the pros from in front while driving the ball machine is probably bs. And to claim he made a real comparison of pros hitting with closed shoulders and open shoulders and closed were ‘more powerful’ and ‘the ones winning the tournaments’ is unbelievable nonsense.

And his comment about some players playing from the trail side vs lead side? This guy is just a real piece of work. All talk and all nonsense.

And the putting reference? Lol. Just a mess.

@NoTalentLefy.

[ChetlovesMer]

24 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Classic Jim with absolute bs on this one. First, his story about observing the pros from in front while driving the ball machine is probably bs. And to claim he made a real comparison of pros hitting with closed shoulders and open shoulders and closed were ‘more powerful’ and ‘the ones winning the tournaments’ is unbelievable nonsense.

And his comment about some players playing from the trail side vs lead side? This guy is just a real piece of work. All talk and all nonsense.

And the putting reference? Lol. Just a mess.

@NoTalentLefy.

The putting thing was a stretch at best. But I did hear that from another guy maybe 25 years ago. He went into great detail about putting with an open stance so that you can "see" the target better. His take was something to do with our eyes being set forward like hunters and the hole is our prey and ladda ladda ladda. ... 

I will say this; I'm always curious about his driving range. Where is he? Is that his yard? It looks like he just dropped a hitting mat in the middle of the desert someplace. 

The other question I always have is just how many pair of Chuck Taylors does he have? And does he play his actual rounds of golf in Chuck Taylors? 

[klineka]

50 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Classic Jim with absolute bs on this one. First, his story about observing the pros from in front while driving the ball machine is probably bs. And to claim he made a real comparison of pros hitting with closed shoulders and open shoulders and closed were ‘more powerful’ and ‘the ones winning the tournaments’ is unbelievable nonsense.

And his comment about some players playing from the trail side vs lead side? This guy is just a real piece of work. All talk and all nonsense.

And the putting reference? Lol. Just a mess.

@NoTalentLefy.

The comments on that video are an echo chamber to him. Yuck.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, ChetlovesMer said:

The other question I always have is just how many pair of Chuck Taylors does he have? And does he play his actual rounds of golf in Chuck Taylors? 

I don't play in Chuck Taylors, but when I was in Colorado and the weather was dry I'd play pretty often in just a pair of Puma running/tennis shoes that were my general purpose everyday shoes. When I was in Virginia I quickly learned the grass never dries out enough there for the full fabric construction to not end up soaked after even just a few holes, but for golf in arid desert climates they work just fine. Kept me from swinging out of my shoes since doing so would mean spinning out since I had no spikes and only a minimal tread pattern, even shot the best round of my life (a 63) while wearing them.

That's about the only thing I can't find fault with in that video anyways.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Pretzel

[Big Lex]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Classic Jim with absolute bs on this one.

Snake oil salesman.

I stopped about half way through...I could see him actually doing that, meaning taking the range picker thing out while the pros were hitting so he could watch their swings. But the claim that he could see which ones were hitting with "closed" versus "open" positions? That's nonsense. How does he know where they were aiming? How did he verify and measure HIS location and the orientation of his line of site to the player? The player could be way open to the start line of his shot at impact, but depending on where you are standing, he could look closed. 

This "formula" for selling a book or a teaching method or a website subscription is sooooo old, tired, and, thankfully, finally being replaced by something better. The basic idea is to hook the customer emotionally, and then reel them in. By formula, I mean some guy tells a story - anecdotes - usually involving some professional golfer they worked with, or watched alot, or taught, or whatever, makes some comment about how this particular pro used the teacher's method (or showed them something that helped the teacher make their "discovery"), and then punctuates it with descriptions of the beautiful, powerful, perfect, majestic shots hit by the pro. It's often salted with some nonsense, not-provable assertions like "he keeps the clubface square longer" or "this ensures you are controlling the swing with the lead side" or "this allows you to truly COMPRESS the golf ball." 

Here's the truth: Every touring pro hits it great. This probably boils down to common denominators of 1) lots of athletic talent, 2) years of dedication and practice, and 3) least importantly, the player's individual adaptations of swing "fundamentals." 

The snake oil is the fairy tale that if you just knew this one secret, if you just could teach yourself this one, easy-to-understand fundamental, that ONLY the salesman has figured out, you will be able to hit it like Don January (or Ben Hogan, or Moe Norman, etc.). 

The sad fact is, most of us have a ceiling far, far below what the snake oil salesman is selling you. Promises like these are empty. We can certainly all become very competent golfers I believe, given we put in the time, but it doesn't come through taking snake oil. I am not qualified to comment on what it DOES take for someone of average ability to become a very good golfer, because I haven't achieved that. But I am pretty darn sure it involves alot of simple, boring, tedious things like dedicated practice, and adherence to valid, evidence-based and data-driven fundamentals of the swing...the modern approach. 

Great examples of what I would call the new, modern style of golf "theory" is, well, ideas like Athletic Motion Golf and Erik's/Dave W's teaching. Evidence-based ideas, practical, with thoughtful recommendations as to application of the ideas and how to learn them. Much less grandiose, less theatrical, and less hucksterism and carney-ism.  

Ok done soap-boxing (for now 😉 )

Edited January 11, 2023 by Big Lex

[colin007]

If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that he can wear the hell out of a pair of slim fit pantalones, damn do they look good on him for an old man or what?