"Playing From a Position" à la Jim Venetos

[iacas]

Because you were delivering less loft.

Weight forward and less turn can work with wedges.

[Double Mocha Man]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Because you were delivering less loft.

I might have been delivering less loft (and that makes sense with the setup) but the trajectory was the same as the other 56 degree wedge shots I was mixing in, using my usual swing.  It was just kind of puzzling... logic tells you the Venetos method should be shorter.  Then again, a wedge shot, with a shorter swing, and without much, if any weight shift or turn, would be a poor corollary. 

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Because you were delivering less loft.

Weight forward and less turn can work with wedges.

Yep, I won't know until I can use longer clubs.  In March according to my doctor and physical therapist.

[Drifty]

I’ve been 3.6 to a 9 for the past several years; depending on my work schedule.  My game has always required a lot of maintenance and time to keep in shape.  Jims videos were an aha moment for me!  Just setting up over the ball  using his system put me in that illusive position of freedom I recognized from When my game is clicking on all cylinders.  I struggle with timing/ tempo etc in that I don’t always get shifted to drive through the ball and on my target path.  This part of my game comes and goes for minutes days and weeks.  This inconsistency has led me down some real rabbit holes chasing symptoms while not recognizing root cause.  I realized after watching and listening to his thoughts that when I was playing my best I was employing his principals.  Albeit not in a manner that the casual observer would be able to observe, but yeah...  he’s spot on....  staying still, Keeping weight forward, little bit of preset in shoulders, kinda anchoring the front shoulder.  Feels like I have all the room and flexibility in the world to just swing freely without much thought.  My ball striking is sooo consistently good now and doesn’t require a ton of maintenance.  I actually get bored at the range now.  From tee to green I play like a 2 or 3....  I still putt like a 10, but golf is more fun and aside from the short game I don’t really have concerns about having good or bad days.  

[62toyou]

Your post largely reflects how I used parts of JV's method to improve my game now that I don't play 3 times weekly.  My ball flight has turned to a slight fade as a result of the changes I incorporated into JV's method (take the club back a little outside, hold the shoulders shut with a steady head position but not being afraid to let the shoulders turn a little on backswing).  For me the changes I made make the whole process seem less unnatural after years of using a swing more like the ones taught by most Pro's.  As you say, I now stand on our island hole and swing away with complete confidence.

[Russell Cameron]

Just a wee word in support of Jim Venetos from Bonny Scotland. I have a dear friend who, at 73 years of age, has behind him a whole bunch of golf lessons from some great teachers and he has never looked like doing anything but hit the ball from left to right with a huge inability to avoid reverse weight shifting. He has tried the Jim Venetos thing since October and it is almost laughable how he is hitting the ball in comparison to traditional thoughts. I NEVER thought I would see him hit a draw in my life but it is beautiful to watch him on the range hitting draw, after draw after draw. He is like a child with a new toy. On the course he reports that he is keeping the ball in play and getting better results by the week. If at his age he is doing this I don't think people should knock Jim's teaching until they give it a good try. My pal now LOOKS like a golfer for the first time in his life. Keep up the good work, Jim. And to those who are knocking your thoughts I wish they could see my pal.

[Vinsk]

This is a bit confusing to me. Based on this video it doesn’t appear that Jim understands what ‘stay behind the ball’ means in regards to conventional instruction. Nobody that I’ve ever worked with or read stated that weight stays behind the ball. Nor was it ever a contradiction of ideas to get ‘weight forward’ yet remain ‘ behind the ball.’ Can any of you swing gurus understand what Jim thinks he’s teaching here? @iacas? 

[iacas]

On 1/28/2020 at 3:05 AM, Russell Cameron said:

If at his age he is doing this I don't think people should knock Jim's teaching until they give it a good try.

I don't have to try jumping off the tenth floor of a building to know what will happen when I land.

I'm glad your friend is doing well, and at 73, he may be okay with a "reduced" swing or something. I've said that it's probably a good, simplified motion for someone who is looking to get to a certain level a bit more quickly so long as they're content not to move much beyond that level.

[Vinsk]

On 1/28/2020 at 3:05 AM, Russell Cameron said:

I don't think people should knock Jim's teaching until they give it a good try. My pal now LOOKS like a golfer for the first time in his life. Keep up the good work, Jim. And to those who are knocking your thoughts I wish they could see my pal.

Look, it’s not really ‘knocking’ his teaching. It’s just a discussion which involves some critique/analysis. I like Jim. The example you give here is fine and nobody has knocked Jim’s method for that. The problem is Jim repeatedly teaches that the conventional method is wrong yet doesn’t show any science as to why. Just opinion. He also doesn’t show any data to back his claims. When we ask for some numbers and he becomes defensive or silent you can’t expect us to just roll over and accept his ideas because he’s taught them for 25 years, USC doctors approve it and Titleist institute of technology said it was a sound swing.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Vinsk

[billchao]

16 hours ago, Vinsk said:

This is a bit confusing to me. Based on this video it doesn’t appear that Jim understands what ‘stay behind the ball’ means in regards to conventional instruction. Nobody that I’ve ever worked with or read stated that weight stays behind the ball. Nor was it ever a contradiction of ideas to get ‘weight forward’ yet remain ‘ behind the ball.’ Can any of you swing gurus understand what Jim thinks he’s teaching here? @iacas? 

I always thought staying behind the ball referred to secondary axis tilt. You want to shift forward and create axis tilt to shallow out the swing arc. It’s a dynamic movement. Pros set up with less tilt away from the target than they have at impact.

I’m not sure this can be achieved by presetting your shoulders at address. I would think most people would end up just chunking the ball if you told them to set up with their trail shoulder back and low.

[Vinsk]

13 minutes ago, billchao said:

I always thought staying behind the ball referred to secondary axis tilt. You want to shift forward and create axis tilt to shallow out the swing arc. It’s a dynamic movement. Pros set up with less tilt away from the target than they have at impact.

I’m not sure this can be achieved by presetting your shoulders at address. I would think most people would end up just chunking the ball if you told them to set up with their trail shoulder back and low.

Yes. And this is why I think Jim isn’t interpreting what ‘behind the ball’ means. Rather odd for a former division I golfer who’s spent his life in golf instruction. I’m dabbling again with this because it’s less strenuous on my back and I’m desperate to swing a club. I can agree when he says in many of his videos the conventional method is ‘too hard’ as I’m grossly untalented. But I haven’t been convinced on why it’s wrong and doesn’t coincide with the human body as he argues on so many videos.

[billchao]

53 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Yes. And this is why I think Jim isn’t interpreting what ‘behind the ball’ means. Rather odd for a former division I golfer who’s spent his life in golf instruction. I’m dabbling again with this because it’s less strenuous on my back and I’m desperate to swing a club. I can agree when he says in many of his videos the conventional method is ‘too hard’ as I’m grossly untalented. But I haven’t been convinced on why it’s wrong and doesn’t coincide with the human body as he argues on so many videos.

I would think part of it is because he’s trying to promote his method. Much harder to sell something to someone by saying, “You’re not athletic, do this instead,” versus, “This is the biometrically correct way to do it.”

[Vinsk]

11 minutes ago, billchao said:

I would think part of it is because he’s trying to promote his method. Much harder to sell something to someone by saying, “You’re not athletic, do this instead,” versus, “This is the biometrically correct way to do it.”

I can see that. Just seems odd that he would even try to engage in a discussion with swing gurus knowing he can get called out. I really wish he would’ve posted data on his swing. I don’t see how he generates 118mph with this method. Hell I’d like to see you swing this way and see what you generate. It is pretty remarkable how still he stays (lower body) on the back swing.

[Robos]

Wanted to chime in as a 2yr non-graduated JVA student... for my skill level this swing prevented me from giving up the game. I lost no power at all and gained repeatability. Lots of anecdotes like mine, so the swing should be encouraged towards the right audience.

However, the debate is if it’s a tour quality swing - I don’t know the answer and am curious. What I’d like to see is one of the skeptics learn the swing, post a video, and let’s discuss results.

I suspect you’ll hit the ball the same distance despite lower arm speed since power comes from lag and club flex.

[Robos]

On 1/30/2020 at 10:51 AM, Vinsk said:

I can see that. Just seems odd that he would even try to engage in a discussion with swing gurus knowing he can get called out. I really wish he would’ve posted data on his swing. I don’t see how he generates 118mph with this method. Hell I’d like to see you swing this way and see what you generate. It is pretty remarkable how still he stays (lower body) on the back swing.

Not sure why his numbers would be found overly interesting. It would be more interesting to see your JV swing numbers compared to a traditional swing.

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, Robos said:

However, the debate is if it’s a tour quality swing - I don’t know the answer and am curious. What I’d like to see is one of the skeptics learn the swing, post a video, and let’s discuss results.

Can you point out one current tour player with this swing? I don’t think anyone is arguing that you can’t play golf following this method. But to reach your full potential, some are saying this swing has its limits.

[Robos]

27 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Can you point out one current tour player with this swing? I don’t think anyone is arguing that you can’t play golf following this method. But to reach your full potential, some are saying this swing has its limits.

The swing doesn’t have enough traction (yet?) to see tour players using it, and if there was we wouldn’t be debating this.

Is it a tour quality swing? I’d like to know. Who here can test?

When you say people will be unable to reach their potential with the JV swing... potential would need quantified.

There is an aspect of distance, which there is debate around but no anecdotal evidence that suggest distance will be lost, but instead the opposite exists.

Assuming some distance is lost, the trade off will be for accuracy. It’s a very viable tour strategy to trade distance for accuracy.

Again, I’m interested to see someone test this swing and show some metrics with a swing video. 

 

 

[boogielicious]

32 minutes ago, Robos said:

There is an aspect of distance, which there is debate around but no anecdotal evidence that suggest distance will be lost, but instead the opposite exists.

Assuming some distance is lost, the trade off will be for accuracy. It’s a very viable tour strategy to trade distance for accuracy.

Show us where it is more accurate than other swing methods. We haven’t seen any data presented at all. I believe that has been asked for several times. But he nor any of his devotees have presented any data with respect to speed or accuracy.

It is not up to us to try it and become proficient at it to prove to you that it works. If you want to sell the method, then present real data. That is what all other proven swing methods, patterns and philosophies have to do. It is not up to us to do the work for you.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Robos said:

Lots of anecdotes like mine, so the swing should be encouraged towards the right audience.

We have said this. This swing can get someone to "competent" pretty quickly, and if they're content to get there a bit quicker and stay there, cool.

4 hours ago, Robos said:

However, the debate is if it’s a tour quality swing - I don’t know the answer and am curious.

I don't believe it is. It will not generate the power/speed needed.

4 hours ago, Robos said:

What I’d like to see is one of the skeptics learn the swing, post a video, and let’s discuss results.

Again, we don't need to "learn" the swing in order to state things which are somewhat obvious about it.

4 hours ago, Robos said:

I suspect you’ll hit the ball the same distance despite lower arm speed since power comes from lag and club flex.

I don't. You're losing a good source of speed by not turning back as far.

33 minutes ago, Robos said:

The swing doesn’t have enough traction (yet?) to see tour players using it, and if there was we wouldn’t be debating this.

The swing will never have "enough traction" to see Tour players using it.

Look, again, I'm glad you've enjoyed playing golf with this swing. I'm truly happy for you.

But it has some obvious limitations.