"Playing From a Position" à la Jim Venetos

[Vinsk]

8 hours ago, The Flush said:

This reminds me of youth baseball forums discussions about Mike Marshalls pitching technique (that he developed after he was out of MLB) and how it is the safest way to pitch to avoid Tommy John surgery, but has never produced an MLB pitcher.

This is the idea that many people miss. They come here and think we’re all bashing JV’s method. And that’s not the case. We’re saying this method places a ceiling on what level of golf can be achieved. This isn’t anecdotal as @IMAG72 stated. Our defense/argument is that not one single player as emerged at the elite level that JV criticizes using this method. Isn’t it common sense that top athletes who are making a living playing golf would come across this and use this method if it produced more power and consistency than the traditional method?

You know what JV says to this? He simply redefines power by telling his aged old story of how he was in a long drive competition and placed third but also hit all his drives but one nearly the same distance ( 340yds I think) and in the grid. The winner hit further but only got two in the grid. ‘ Who’s more powerful?’, he says.

And this story of being at the Titleist Institute of Technology and how they were amazed at his ball flight stats ( data he’s never presented.) Dare ask for it? Yeah no. In 2021 it’s hardly disingenuous to ask for some hard data and biomechanical explanations with that data as well...IF you’re going to make claims that the traditional method is all flawed and that his method is more powerful and consistent. 
 

How many rounds under par has a JV student played compared to any tour pro? How many has Jim? The very players JV criticizes can run circles around any of his students or Jim himself. Gosh...how is that?

[Vinsk]

Jim Venetos Golf Academy

No scientific basis for what you said, try again. The reason why you hit it farther by hitting up is because your swing creates too much spin. You can either make a better more shallow swing to lower spin or, do as you did, choose to hit up on driver. The problem in your swing never goes away though. Scientifically, when you hit up on the ball and have a higher trajectory, the distance your ball has to travel to keep up with me is longer so you’re wasting power and having to deal with more elements of wind, moisture, etc. Not to mention you’re making 2 different swings for irons and driver.

The above text is Jim’s response when someone suggested this isn’t true as science has shown hitting up on the ball will lead to more distance. Jim’s response is totally bogus. This is one of the reasons Jim is so annoying to deal with. He just babbles stuff and has no scientific proof of what he says then makes some snarky comment with a bs answer.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Vinsk

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Jim Venetos Golf Academy

No scientific basis for what you said, try again. The reason why you hit it farther by hitting up is because your swing creates too much spin. You can either make a better more shallow swing to lower spin or, do as you did, choose to hit up on driver. The problem in your swing never goes away though. Scientifically, when you hit up on the ball and have a higher trajectory, the distance your ball has to travel to keep up with me is longer so you’re wasting power and having to deal with more elements of wind, moisture, etc. Not to mention you’re making 2 different swings for irons and driver.

The above text is Jim’s response when someone suggested this isn’t true as science has shown hitting up on the ball will lead to more distance. Jim’s response is totally bogus. This is one of the reasons Jim is so annoying to deal with. He just babbles stuff and has no scientific proof of what he says then makes some snarky comment with a bs answer.

Bernoulli be like...

[Pretzel]

Yes, a shallow swing with no spin at all, yet a higher dynamic loft. I'd be willing to bet Jim has never used a launch monitor before, he's probably allergic to the facts they deliver.

[Vinsk]

8 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

Yes, a shallow swing with no spin at all, yet a higher dynamic loft. I'd be willing to bet Jim has never used a launch monitor before, he's probably allergic to the facts they deliver.

Yeah. That’s the main reason I bailed on him. It’s too frustrating dealing with someone who just talks and can’t back his ideologies with true science. And what he said above is utter nonsense. It’s so annoying that so many comments on that video are agreeing with him. 

[Pretzel]

I truly have no issues with the swing, and I don't think it's a bad option for golfers struggling with traditional swings or beginners who are looking for an "easier" start. It's essentially just the golf version of a baseball swing where you start with the club behind your head, then swing at the ball. It's definitely easier to grasp quickly than a normal swing, and for people with limited hip/shoulder mobility it would likely be more comfortable than a traditional swing as well.

My issues are primarily just the outlandish and outright false claims. It's like the "vaccines cause autism" mentality, but applied to golf. 

[Vinsk]

4 hours ago, Pretzel said:

My issues are primarily just the outlandish and outright false claims. It's like the "vaccines cause autism" mentality, but applied to golf. 

My thoughts too. I’m not sure why Jim felt the need to make such asinine claims rather than just promote the methodology for what it is. He obviously truly believes what he says but unfortunately he’s not open for discussion when it comes to defending these claims. 

[Vinsk]

In the comments section on one of Jim’s videos he states his best student is +7 handicap. Lol. He’s really something else.

[Darkfrog]

On 10/28/2021 at 4:50 AM, Vinsk said:

he states his best student is +7 handicap

This isn’t my area of expertise at all, but isn’t that like a tour level golfer?

[Vinsk]

10 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

This isn’t my area of expertise at all, but isn’t that like a tour level golfer?

That’s high for the average tour hcp. I think +5.4 was avg. in 2020. But of course Jim won’t give any more details. I’m damn sure that +7 wasn’t built from tour course layouts, if  it’s even true at all.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Vinsk

[Bonvivant]

Just catching up on this thread. Amazing that there were 2 people that wrote novelas and one response after with no response since. Don't want to accuse @Jim Venetosof anything, but it looks like both could be him trying to defend himself by proxy. IP conformation?

[Vinsk]

19 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Just catching up on this thread. Amazing that there were 2 people that wrote novelas and one response after with no response since. Don't want to accuse @Jim Venetosof anything, but it looks like both could be him trying to defend himself by proxy. IP conformation?

I doubt it. Jim doesn’t defend himself. He just makes snarky comments and says he knows he’s right we’re all wrong.  I mean come on, he seriously says tour pros are inconsistent. Yet the bottom ranked pro could run circles around him or any of his students. You’ll never get numbers or graphs or anything that counts as data other than anecdotes. Jim bails immediately if he’s confronted at all. 

[Bonvivant]

28 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Jim doesn’t defend himself

He may not put on that he defends himself, but maybe all the abuse drew him out for a couple of defenses? I bet if we looked through his TY comments we might see the same names used here for defense.

[Bonvivant]

I looked through his YT comments and it appears that they are hand picked. A sign of a conman in the modern era...silencing all criticism.

[Vinsk]

He’s an odd character. Most of his stuff is years old. And as said before,  I was a member of his school and his comments are complete bs regarding what’s available there. There’s no current ongoing dialogue nor are there videos of him hitting driver with any useful insight. There’s one slow motion with driver. One.

A few times someone has posted comments about his flawed view on hitting down with the driver yielding more distance. He responds simply saying ‘ your science is wrong.’ 
 

His basic tactic is this: if you’re a mid to high handicapper he just makes condescending comments like ‘ how’s that working out for you?’ Or ‘Shouldn’t you be practicing rather than arguing here?’  But if he realizes he’s debating with a skilled golfer and/or knowledgeable instructor he just says how long he’s been making people better golfers then leaves the conversation.

He’ll never come here and even dare debate mechanics with Erik. He realized quickly he can’t produce any facts so made one of his snarky comments about not debating with someone who won’t even try his swing…lol. 
 

He’s got his little bubble and he’ll stay there. And he’s happy just like that. I’m sure we’ll see his +7 hcp student on tour any day now.😉

Edited October 31, 2021 by Vinsk

[ToddW]

So I didn't have on my bingo card that I would be defending Jim Venetos and his method, but I would like to relay my experience and my thoughts on this.  I played from age 13 to 35, laid off and played tennis for 20 years, and picked golf back up and just love it again. So obviously, whatever I remember them teaching back in the late 70s and 80s is much different from what they teach now.  I tried Jim's system, and subscribed to his online academy, I just found it difficult getting Jim what he wanted as far as videos, the right shots, right perspectives (having to film myself, I am not very good at it and found it frustrating etc.,) and he wanted to start out and look only at very beginner drills, and I sent a couple of full swings in, and the response I got (as someone else stated using the term "snarky") I would say curt or impatient, it just got to be a hassle, and I kind of felt like I don't have 3 months for you to wait to look at my full swing, when I can go pay someone local and we can work on the full swing right away (does not mean I don't learn practice drills, he just gets to see how I swing the club, and right or wrong, if I am the one paying and that is what I am looking for . . . ).  So after a couple of months, parted ways.

But I still mess with it, as I did yesterday. The traditional swing for me is very difficult.  You have multiple geometries you have to work with, while rotating your body, and with upper and lower doing different things, swing your arms, setting your wrists, there are a lot of opportunities to bail out of a good swing.  

Said it before, say it again, its no fun if you are stymied every time you come off the tee, its a lot more fun if you can hit where you have a shot to the green.  

Venetos system will allow you to do that.  I hit my three wood and Driver yesterday, and once you get comfortable with it, you can really swing out on this.  I hit just as far as when I hit my best drives in a conventional swing, but the thing is, I have more confidence when hitting with this system on my drivers, woods, hybrids.  And there is more consistency. 

Where I have trouble, and I genuinely would like to hear some discussion, and not just trashing Jim, is when it came to my mid irons and short irons, I had trouble lining the shots up, and tended to hook them.  I don't know why its so weird that way, but when I was hitting my three wood it was just straight off the practice tee, I had no problem hitting it straight, tight draw like he says.

But with a 5 iron, that is off center of the tee, its hard for me at least, to line up, because your feet are not parallel to the target. And its a draw.  So you have to aim just to the right of the landing spot, which is no big deal, but it was just always hard for me. I think a little better instruction could have resolved that, and I asked Jim about that a few times, and really got no answer.  Also, it was not easy for me to make that setup, then figure out where the middle of my swing was for short irons, and then the distance I should be standing.  Driver much more easy, because you just take your lead foot parallel to the target, and place the  ball off the inside heel of the lead foot. 

And this may be a weakness in it, instead of having your swing path centered in the middle of your body, it very much is centered on that lead shoulder, and angled towards the inside out, angled out to the right side, so that when if you were to hit the ball on that track, you get a push, and I have seen a lot of people complain about that.

Jim would just say that you would draw the ball and it would take care of that, but it never did for me on short irons, or if it did, too much draw.  Jim also said that you need to maintain your shoulders as set during address not open them up.  I disagree with him there, because I think you have to open your shoulders up to keep from hitting a push.  That is basically what I am doing on my long clubs. 

I have even thought about hitting drivers woods hybrids with Jim's system, and from 5 iron down, conventional, because I dont have as much trouble there. 

As far as why no one is using Jim's system on the tour. the young players on tour are at least 20-25 years old, I don't think he had an online presence till about 10 years ago. Also, tour players are not going to switch what they have been doing the last 20-25 years ago if they are already at that level.

Finally, and I wondered this myself, will his system take you only so far?  If you are recreational player, if this system gets you in the 70s, it will probably do that where a conventional wont. They say you are at your peak performance after about 3 years playing golf.  Very low percentage that don't shoot bogey golf. So what do I care that I am not hitting from the pro tees?

When people talk about it wont get you to a certain level, so that you can swing like Rory, newsflash, you're not going to swing like Rory anyway.  Or Dustin. Or Tiger.  So if you think you are cutting yourself off from some opportunity, statistics will bear it is highly unlikely that you are.

A good fair question is, whether your junior that shows promise should follow this route? I don't know, I can't answer that.  I don't know that anyone can until we see a student Jim has trained from a young age to college.  

I would like to meet Jim someday.  Bright guy, enjoyable to listen to.  

[iacas]

On 3/2/2022 at 11:23 AM, ToddW said:

They say you are at your peak performance after about 3 years playing golf.

If you don't take lessons. I have a number of players playing their peak golf after 10, 20, 30 years.

I'm playing my best golf 25 years after I first started playing.

[Vinsk]

On 3/2/2022 at 11:23 AM, ToddW said:

As far as why no one is using Jim's system on the tour. the young players on tour are at least 20-25 years old, I don't think he had an online presence till about 10 years ago. Also, tour players are not going to switch what they have been doing the last 20-25 years ago if they are already at that

Jim has been teaching this method for almost 40 years. He’s also claimed to have a student with a +7 hcp. And get this: Jim claims many pros use his method because the hit the ball ‘with their lead side.’ Seriously? I guess Jim honestly believes he’s the creator of that ? Come on.

 

On 3/2/2022 at 11:23 AM, ToddW said:

Jim also said that you need to maintain your shoulders as set during address not open them up.  I disagree with him there, because I think you have to open your shoulders up to keep from hitting a push. 

No. Your face is closed to your path. This will draw the ball. Your shoulders are closed and you keep them closed giving an inside to out path with the face closed to that path. If your face is square to your inside out  path, then you will hit a push. 

 

On 3/2/2022 at 11:23 AM, ToddW said:

I asked Jim about that a few times, and really got no answer. 

He’ll just tell you to sign up for his school. If you’re in his school, as you were, he’ll just have you hit 9i bump and run shots excessively. Did you notice there’s no good content on driver or long irons there?

 

As I said before, I don’t have beef with this method….for what it really is. An easier way to hit some nice shots and enjoy the game a bit more if you’re athletically challenged. What is utter nonsense is Jim’s claims that pros are inconsistent because the traditional method is flawed. Seriously? Jim’s disingenuous argument is his simply changing what consistent means. He does the same thing with power.
Jim also still believes the short game is where strokes are saved. He also states that hitting up with the driver is wrong. Again, Jim doesn’t stay up with today’s technology or research. He doesn’t use any monitors nor does he back anything he says with data.
His claim to fame is having gone to the Titleist Institute of Technology and being told his method is ‘ biomechanically sound.’ Of course he’s never produced any data from this visit, and never will.