iacas

🤦‍♂️

No.

Day 302 - December 12, 2018 - About 15-20 minutes of good work. A bit too much speed, but messed around a bit with the same feelings. Generally speaking I'm liking the backswing, and the transition will be a major focus this winter.

As you might suspect we really need to see a video first. And I bet you're more flexible than you realize.

@Curt, you're trolling at this point, or something. "The two greatest players in the history of the game both used the interlocking grip, not the Vardon" is not talking about whether the grip is fundamentally different than the Vardon grip as you keep saying: Nobody has claimed that which you keep saying they've claimed. If you're actually an English professor… Oh my. Good, because I don't care "how" he achieved it, only that he did. You should brush up on your golf history: Born in Atlanta, Georgia, Jones battled health issues as a young boy, and golf was prescribed to strengthen him. Encouraged by his father, "Colonel" Robert Purmedus Jones, an Atlanta lawyer, Jones loved golf from the start. He developed quickly into a child prodigy, who won his first children's tournament at the age of six at his home course at East Lake Golf Club. In 1916, Jones won his first major golf event when he claimed the inaugural Georgia Amateur Championship conducted by the Georgia State Golf Association at the Capital City Club, in Brookhaven, at age 14. His victory at this event put him in the national spotlight for the first time. The Georgia Amateur win caught the eye of the United States Golf Association which awarded Jones his first invitation to the U.S. Amateur at Merion near Philadelphia. Jones advanced to the quarterfinals in his first playing in the event. He was influenced by club professional Stewart Maiden, a native of Carnoustie, Scotland. Maiden was the professional at the Atlanta Athletic Club's East Lake Golf Club, who also trained Alexa Stirling, five years older than Jones but also a prodigy, at East Lake around the same time. Jones also received golf lessons from Willie Ogg when he was in his teenage years. "Lessons" weren't really a "thing" back then, but Jones was taught by Maiden as much as anyone was taught by someone else back then. Thing is… I don't really care. This isn't even on topic. So enough. Because he didn't have to; there weren't that many people to beat back then. No, it really couldn't. Again: I don't think you have anything more to say on the topic here, @Curt, so good, we can be done now.

None.

Point being that if you think it's 10:1, or even 5:1, then I'm voting "overrated." Get yourself an avatar there @Beastie. Thanks!

Nobody said that. The Vardon grip is not so different than the ten-finger grip that I am comfortable assigning credit to either. The three popular grip styles evolved into what they are today. Vardon, even if he truly "invented" it himself, doesn't deserve very much credit. His "invention" is a tiny change from what they were already doing. He didn't truly invent some wholly new way of doing things. The guy who thought to wrap leather around the butt end of the club deserves more credit, IMO, for inventing a "grip" then Harry Vardon.

Probably under $1M just from paying agents, caddies, taxes, travel, and hotel. And… Webb Simpson won $1.98M by winning the Players, a non-major. Regardless, again, nobody is saying they're not important. But if people over-state their importance they can be over-rated. And I think people over-state their importance. People act like one major is worth 20 regular PGA Tour wins or something. IMO, winning 20 events is a better career and indicates that you're a better golfer than winning one major. Ditto with 10. Even 5. So, I voted for "overrated." To apply your scale, winning even three regular PGA Tour events probably goes a longer way toward a comfortable retirement than winning a major.

Oy. Please answer this, @Faksakes and @layup. You're both from Alberta, Canada, and @layup is talking like he's the OP. I think most people are assuming @Faksakes and @layup are two different people. The two greatest golfers who ever lived to this point both had coaches for the vast majority of their competitive lives. Virtually everyone on the PGA Tour these days has coaches. Virtually every good junior player has coaches. I'm the first to say that opinions can't be "wrong" - only facts or statements of fact can be - but you're as close to "wrong" as an opinion can get. You're one data point. I got to a 2 without instruction. It's a silly question to ask, because unlike on The Flash on the CW, we don't have a bunch of parallel universes where we can try out "going it alone" versus "working with an instructor." What I do know is that there are a BUNCH of people here on TST who have played golf for a long time without instruction, and then finally got some good instruction and played better than ever. They were not figuring things out on their own. And I see a lot of kids who have some horrible golf swings. They're not going to "figure it out" after seeing only the basics. They absolutely need help. Your position on this is ridiculous. Yes, this. Something like 19% of all golfers ever get instruction, or 14% or something. That's an utterly ridiculous position. Also, wheeee, butterflies! Sports don't work that way. Golfers - juniors especially - don't just "figure it out." Good coaches act as a guide to that learning. It can sounds all peachy to say "let them be free on the field of play" but they'll work themselves into bad habits and have no clue how to get back out of them and onto the correct road. I see it a few hundred times a year. No, you couldn't have. And most amateurs suck. The better players across the entire spectrum are far, far more likely to have had and often still be receiving instruction. There's a direct correlation there. Guys who shoot 120 aren't often getting instruction. Those who are shooting 66 are almost certain to be receiving instruction, or have done so in the not too distant past. You'll have now way of actually knowing if your "theory" is a "success" or a failure. You're a sample size of one, without a parallel universe. When we expand the sample size to millions, better players are more likely to have received or still be receiving instruction. Sample size of one, dude. I got to a two without instruction. With good instruction I might have been a +2 at the same age. With bad instruction maybe a 10. Or a 3. Who knows? Sample size of one, no parallel universes.

Two questions: 1. Are you Tiger Woods? 2. You do realize Tiger had instructors for about 35 years right? Left to their own devices kids generally stink at golf. Most instruction is bad, I agree, but some is phenomenally good. You’re a 14? C’mon man…

Danny, importance is not what being debated. Something can be incredibly important and still overrated.

It could be both. Plus, what @klineka said… your swing speed may have increased with better technique. Or maybe longer clubs that you got during your club fitting. Etc.

You should post videos from better angles, and do that drill in the meantime, yes. You'll have a little trouble doing that drill as you swing out over and left a bit too much, so your arms almost have to shorten a bit right now

Beside the point.