Jump to content
IGNORED

Wow!! John Gulbis..the next Harmon, Haney...or dare I say Ledbetter!


Note: This thread is 4190 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

0  

  1. 1. John Gulbis...Natalie's Dad...your take?

    • Butch doesn't have nothin' on this guy
      0
    • not bad..sound fundamentals...excellent coach
      2
    • Dude, be a manager or "mangler", ride it out get some coin
      6
    • far out man...
      10


Recommended Posts

There is no perfect swing, and no swing is exactly the same. Natalie's swing is fine. Her putting needs some work.

Not true, it is her inconsistent ball striking that is her problem. In 2009, She was 8th overall on the LPGA in putts per GIR and 12th in total putts per round. That's a combo that not many matched.

Seriously think about this. It is not just about "repeating" the same swing. Repeating the same swing would only really be worthwhile if the swing is...functional enough to hit shots, 1) with a predictable pattern and 2) far enough to play a typical course.

Exactly. I think when people make the comment about a repeating swing, what they are really trying to say is a swing that consistently squares the clubface at impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is still a hack. If Furyk had a solid swing, he would have won significantly more. He is a tremendous athlete (like Natalie), that is held back by his swing. There is no way on this planet he should be 122 in GIR (2007) considering his physique and mental attitude.

Jim Furyk's physique........hah?

His mental game is amazing yes, but to comment on his physique like it is anything special is laughable. Fact is his swing works for him. If he switched to the robo golfer swing that many of the younger golfers nowadays have Id doubt hed be as successful. It doesnt do those players very well does it? Many of the greatest golfers of all time dont have swings that are taught nowadays. They all had their own intricacies. Tiger is probably the only one that has what many would call a "technically" perfect swing. There are obviously aspects of the others that are amazing but you dont see teaching pros teaching Lee Trevino's big block to the right even though he was one of the best ball strikers of all time.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 4190 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • I would expect a high quality player to be around the green in regulation and get up and down a lot. I would qualify my statement by saying that someone playing off a low handicap, scratchish, like yourself,  would most probably typically be shooting low to mid 70s most of the time with more than 50% GIR. That is not remarkable for high calibre players. But for someone to shoot 90 and have 11 GIRs, the rest of their game is clearly not there for 73. So, @reidsouis incorrrect in saying that 73 "should" be the score. Regarding the game of the person in question, I am not assuming that there is a quality short game in operation - there is clearly horrendous putting going on.    
    • Faster probably. No it isn’t. 50% of your time is a bad idea but I will get 9 GIR and shoot 70. 11 and 73 is pretty common.
    • @Shindig  - I totally agree with you. If someone is having 40 putts per round and chunks and skulls chips half the time, they need to solve those problems. But 50% of time NEGLECTING driving and iron play is no way to improve your golf long term. Just spend time working on those elements. The fact that a lot of high handicappers waste shots around the green does not mean that everyone has to "work on their  short game" half the time. And, as you said, 11 GIR is an indicator of 11 GIR, not much else a lot of the time. Throw in a couple of OBs, and balls in penalty areas and trees and you can expect a score anywhere between mid 70s and probably mid to high 80s, depending on the course. Not to mention are those GIRs really GIRs  - is it just 5 and 6 that were "close enough"? To say that 11 GIRs SHOULD  result in 73 is complete nonsense. My brother once had  a round of 75 with no one putts.  He rarely breaks 80. One stat does not imply a score, no matter how you interpret it.
    • Day 158.  This morning I hit a dozen full shots (usual routine and place) with my 6-iron.   This afternoon, I began work on quarantine day 12 (trail arm throwing) -- without actually throwing the club.  Still, I can feel how this is different, and I'm going to go back and forth with this and full swing for a bit.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. ercxi
      ercxi
      (33 years old)
    2. Garea51
      Garea51
      (70 years old)
    3. iamwardicus
      iamwardicus
      (37 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...