"Playing From a Position" à la Jim Venetos

[Robos]

13 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

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.

The swing has less movements, thus less variables, so by definition it’s simpler and more repeatable than a traditional swing. This means consistency.

I can’t prove this to you because I’m not very good at golf, and I’m definitely not good with the traditional swing. 

Since the JV swing is a far simpler swing than a traditional swing, it would be easy for any scratch golfer to learn and show some videos with metrics. 

I’m not interested in selling the swing. I am interested in knowing if it’s a swing that’s tour quality - only because I have two young kids interested in golf and may teach them it versus traditional lessons.

 

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, Robos said:

I am interested in knowing if it’s a swing that’s tour quality - only because I have two young kids interested in golf and may teach them it versus traditional lessons.

If it was tour quality, it would be on the tour. From what it have seen, it don’t think it would be any more accurate than other swings. A 3/4 length backswing would produce at least the same power and be as accurate.

I would not teach this method to my kid either.

[Robos]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

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

...snip

But it has some obvious limitations.

That’s the debate right - do you need all of those extra movements to generate the same distance?

take a look at 

skip to around 6:50 in - lpga pro has less arm speed but generates more head speed because of lag. You can move your arms slower and hit the ball further. There are other variables too - like optimal shaft flex not discussed in this video (or anywhere.)

We’re speculating, it would be interesting to see some A/B comparisons with data/videos.

Jim can’t provide a good A/B comparison because we need to see results of a scratch golfer who uses the traditional swing vs the JV swing. Who cares what club head speed he can generate, it would be good to know now much more/less speed is generated with the different swings.

 

[Vinsk]

6 minutes ago, Robos said:

We’re speculating, it would be interesting to see some A/B comparisons with data/videos.

Well that’s what I said. Jim has said he generates 118mph SS with this method. He says he hits his 9i 150yds. Jim is not a specimen of supreme athleticism so I’d like to see these numbers confirmed. I too would like to see a pro golfer hit this swing correctly and compare it to his regular swing with a monitor.

Look, I signed up for JV method and paid for one on one video lessons/analysis. This method is so far what @iacas has said it is. That isn’t a slam at all. It’s a critical analysis which by the way Jim gets quite snarky when questioned about. He refuses to provide any scientific data and resorts to things like ‘ I know the truth..you should find out for yourself’ ‘ try my method’ Talk and more talk.

He stated he’s been teaching this method for 25 years so no, it’s not going to go tour wide. 
I like Jim. He’s a good guy and this method is what it is. But if he’s going to make claims that the conventional swing/instruction is wrong..or that his SS is 118mph with no weight shift then he needs to put that to science and not faith.

[Robos]

50 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

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

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

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

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.

I replied to this but don’t see my response. I’ll try again and apologize if a duplicate.

You can have less arm speed and get more power. So the question is if all of the extra movements are needed to get the same power? N=1 anecdotal evidence so far suggests that extra movements aren’t needed. I haven’t seen, or heard anecdotes contrary. Some evidence would be good.

5 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Well that’s what I said. Jim has said he generates 118mph SS with this method. He says he hits his 9i 150yds. Jim is not a specimen of supreme athleticism so I’d like to see these numbers confirmed. I too would like to see a pro golfer hit this swing correctly and compare it to his regular swing with a monitor.

Look, I signed up for JV method and paid for one on one video lessons/analysis. This method is so far what @iacas has said it is. That isn’t a slam at all. It’s a critical analysis which by the way Jim gets quite snarky when questioned about. He refuses to provide any scientific data and resorts to things like ‘ I know the truth..you should find out for yourself’ ‘ try my method’ Talk and more talk.

He stated he’s been teaching this method for 25 years so no, it’s not going to go tour wide. 
I like Jim. He’s a good guy and this method is what it is. But if he’s going to make claims that the conventional swing/instruction is wrong..or that his SS is 118mph with no weight shift then he needs to put that to science and not faith.

So Jim isn’t interested in providing data, which is fine. We don’t need him for this level of analysis. We just need a scratch golfer to run the test for us.

It sounds like we have plenty of pro golfers in this thread, someone should be willing to test it - hopefully.

[iacas]

39 minutes ago, Robos said:

We’re speculating…

Let's be clear here… I'm not speculating.

19 minutes ago, Robos said:

I haven’t seen, or heard anecdotes contrary. Some evidence would be good.

You can find the evidence if you search for it, and I'm not sure why I should spend my time trying to convince you. If you'd like to find the evidence for yourself, be our guest.

[Robos]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Let's be clear here… I'm not speculating.

You can find the evidence if you search for it, and I'm not sure why I should spend my time trying to convince you. If you'd like to find the evidence for yourself, be our guest.

No offense here, but you appear to be a golf instructor. The game of golf generates tremendous revenue from arguably an overly complicated swing. I expect considerable bias from golf instructors. 
 

Again, data is king which we lack on both sides. I did provide some evidence that arm speed != distance. Plus all the anecdotes that also support it.

[billchao]

54 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

If it was tour quality, it would be on the tour.

That’s the crux, isn’t it? It’s not on tour. To my knowledge, there has never been a high level golfer that has used a swing similar to this and there have been all sorts of “non-traditional” swings over the years. If it’s the best way to swing the golf club base on biometrics, somebody in the annals of history would surely have stumbled on it.

The modern golf swing is a result of many years of evolution. People don’t simply do it that way because of tradition - they do it because these particular movements produce the desired results necessary to compete at the highest level. 

[iacas]

@Robos:

🤦‍♂️

You're adding nothing here.

Again, glad you enjoy the swing. I believe, for reasons based in biomechanics, physics, and simple science, that the swing has an artificial limit or ceiling.

But I'm glad you like it.

[Robos]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Robos:

🤦‍♂️

You're adding nothing here.

Again, glad you enjoy the swing. I believe, for reasons based in biomechanics, physics, and simple science, that the swing has an artificial limit or ceiling.

But I'm glad you like it.

Agree that I’m adding nothing. I’m just an unbiased bystander interested in the truth.

I don’t know enough about the physics of the golf swing to comment - and I’m guessing you don’t either. However, any good science experiment has a hypothesis, control group, and treatment set.

Your claims are unscientific, and at worst biased with a pile of dogma.

[Robos]

18 minutes ago, billchao said:

That’s the crux, isn’t it? It’s not on tour. To my knowledge, there has never been a high level golfer that has used a swing similar to this and there have been all sorts of “non-traditional” swings over the years. If it’s the best way to swing the golf club base on biometrics, somebody in the annals of history would surely have stumbled on it.

The modern golf swing is a result of many years of evolution. People don’t simply do it that way because of tradition - they do it because these particular movements produce the desired results necessary to compete at the highest level. 

The swing has definitely evolved, but that comes at the cost of complexity. The traditional swing is incredibly complex and the best in the world have trouble repeating results. 
 

So the question needs to be asked - is the complex traditional swing justified? It’s a swing passed down through the generations starting from when they played with wooden shafts. My guess is technology improved to the point where It’s less about complex movements trying to get every ounce of power from the human body and more about lag and optimal shaft flex with an incredibly repeatable swing.

 

 

[billchao]

23 minutes ago, Robos said:

I don’t know enough about the physics of the golf swing to comment

Then I suggest you actually listen to someone who has dedicated his life to studying the golf swing instead of slinging mud at him and making assumptions.

@iacas has stated numerous times in this thread that the method is a perfectly viable way to play golf albeit with limitations. I’m not sure you’ve correctly identified the person of bias, here.

[Robos]

5 minutes ago, billchao said:

Then I suggest you actually listen to someone who has dedicated his life to studying the golf swing instead of slinging mud at him and making assumptions.

@iacas has stated numerous times in this thread that the method is a perfectly viable way to play golf albeit with limitations. I’m not sure you’ve correctly identified the person of bias, here.

Hope I’m not being interpreted as slinging mud - my agenda isn’t to do that.

I’m simply pointing out @iacas statements aren’t based on science, instead just his (likely biased) opinion. So let’s not pretend otherwise regardless of someone years of experience or supposed understanding of golf physics. Those claims mean nothing.

I don’t really care if 25% distance is lost with a properly executed JV swing vs traditional. I am simply curious if that is the case. I remain unconvinced that any distance will be lost, but again nobody here has any evidence either way, which is a bummer.

 

I’d like to state my position differently by asking questions.

Does the JV swing result in distance lost, if so by what percentage?

Is the JV swing as repeatable as claimed?

These are not tough questions to answer provided someone competent with the traditional swing is willing to learn the JV swing and run some tests.

I’d do it in an instant, but I’m not competent with the traditional swing, nor good enough with the JV swing to graduate his academy.

[boogielicious]

7 minutes ago, Robos said:

I don’t really care if 25% distance is lost with a properly executed JV swing

Then spend the next twenty years doing experiments, gathering data and report back to us. Your routine is getting tiring. All of Erik’s knowledge is based on data and experience as is that of the many other instructors that he works with and exchanges ideas and data.

You’ve provided nothing to this thread other than downplaying his experience while pretending to be a naive bystander. Please stop.

[billchao]

11 minutes ago, Robos said:

Hope I’m not being interpreted as slinging mud - my agenda isn’t to do that.

You’re not doing a very good job of conveying this:

51 minutes ago, Robos said:

and I’m guessing you don’t either

 

51 minutes ago, Robos said:

Your claims are unscientific, and at worst biased with a pile of dogma.

---

11 minutes ago, Robos said:

I’m simply pointing out @iacas statements aren’t based on science, instead just his (likely biased) opinion.

His opinions are based on science and understanding of the golf swing. You don’t know anything about him and you’re dismissing his position based on that.

15 minutes ago, Robos said:

I don’t really care if 25% distance is lost with a properly executed JV swing vs traditional. I am simply curious if that is the case. I remain unconvinced that any distance will be lost, but again nobody here has any evidence either way, which is a bummer.

You don’t need to design an experiment to test the difference between this method and the traditional method because understanding golf swing theory answers those questions. If a guy does X, the result is Y. If a swing lacks X, then it will likely not produce Y as a result.

[iacas]

59 minutes ago, Robos said:

Agree that I’m adding nothing. I’m just an unbiased bystander interested in the truth.

Really?

I'm not getting into the nitty gritty here, but a few statements deserved a response:

59 minutes ago, Robos said:

I don’t know enough about the physics of the golf swing to comment - and I’m guessing you don’t either.

I do. I have a heavy background in the sciences, and I've demonstrated for a decade that I understand these things.

59 minutes ago, Robos said:

However, any good science experiment has a hypothesis, control group, and treatment set.

You don't need to conduct an experiment specifically when other experiments have already been conducted.

You may as well be saying "Well, you don't actually know what will happen if you walk off the end of a 500-foot-tall cliff, so try that and get back to us." Some things are "knowable" without having to conduct THAT specific experiment.

I don't have to conduct an experiment to know that foregoing what the swing JV teaches is going to result in a less powerful swing. I've conducted a bunch of experiments of this type, in multi-million dollar labs with some of the best folks in the golf industry. I know what the science is, the biomechanics, the physics.

45 minutes ago, Robos said:

The swing has definitely evolved, but that comes at the cost of complexity. The traditional swing is incredibly complex and the best in the world have trouble repeating results.

And yet none of them are employing the Jim Venetos swing, despite it being around for 25 years. Hell, even S&T was on Tour for a few years.

45 minutes ago, Robos said:

So the question needs to be asked - is the complex traditional swing justified?

Some people can get through life with a car that doesn't go above 55. For others, they need more.

19 minutes ago, Robos said:

I’m simply pointing out @iacas statements aren’t based on science…

The hell they're not.

---

Now, @Robos, here are the rules for you going forth:

• It is on YOU to prove whatever you want to try to prove. We are under no obligation to do so, because the data is available and this stuff has already been borne out. Jim has failed to do anything of this sort.
• You will refrain from speaking about things you do not know or understand, which includes any and all guessing about my background, history, or the "biases" I may or may not have. You don't know me at all.
• You will respect the fact that we've been courteous to this point and return to being courteous yourself.

I have said the JV swing is a perfectly good way to get up to speed a bit more quickly. I've also said that, because of the limitations, it's not going to be everyone's "peak" swing; that it has a ceiling.

[Keep It Simple]

I think you can test the power of the swing yourself.  Swing using JV's method without hitting a ball (to make it easier) recording your club head speed with a swing speed radar and see how it compares with other swing methods.

[Robos]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

The hell they're not.

You have a hypothesis, that’s it. You suspect distance will be lost, but you have no data to substantiate it. You can’t tell me how much distance is lost. 
 

Reasonably speaking, the JV swing starts in a pre-loaded position, with the hands dropping which promotes optimal shaft flex and lag. Pro golfers with a traditional swing can hit the ball well enough to have optimal lag and shaft flex combined with using some extra muscles to get more distance than the JV swing can provide. 
 

Totally reasonable to conclude that. What we don’t know is if those extra muscles give an extra 2% or 20%.
 

Then factor in the consistency of a simple vs complex swing. Pros aren’t terribly consistent (the traditional swing is hard!) and arguably many pros would benefit from a more repeatable swing.

I’ll agree on one thing, if JV wants to promote his swing beyond the weekend warrior he’ll need data. I however am convinced through my own experiments that if I lost any distance I can’t measure it on the course, and suspect it would be the same for pros.