stoverny

The swing has been around for a while and to be honest very few people have even heard of it (no pun intended). There is nothing cult-like about it. It is just a swing that works. It is interesting how quickly you dismiss it, even as you admit you've never even heard of it or tried it. I have no interest in convincing anyone however I tend to be skeptical of people who mock/dismiss non-conventional wisdom out of hand. No hard feelings I just think you are rather quick to pass judgement considering you freely admit you don't know the swing at all.

Quote: What? Actually more weight forward and more shaft lean helps promote better and more consistent contact for me. That is the NUMBER ONE thing that has made me a better golfer. If I just swing my club and let the weight shift happen after all I am doing is timing a flip. I know that's what I used to do. It sucked for me, it was a crappy swing and I was in no way consistent or long. Why do you assume it must be a flip? I don't feel like I am flipping at all in fact my contact is more solid and pure than ever. It is a drive through the ball coming from the inside. I don't rotate my forearms at all until well after impact. In reference to the diagram posted, if you move ball position back along with weight, the line of tangency would therefore remain just ahead of the ball, wouldn't it? Why not just move the ball to a spot that allows a descending blow, from in-to-out, with the club bottoming out just after impact. It isn't that big of an adjustment since the weight shift to the back leg is not that great to begin with. And it eliminates the need to shift weight forward (at least consciously). I am not telling anyone to switch I am only saying that this method DOES work and it has basically eliminated my slice and improved my contact. It is based on the Jerry Heard Super swing, I suppose you will all label it a gimmick but I am telling you the swing works and when executed correctly I get fantastic contact with either a slight draw or laser-straight ball flight.

Quote: Real quick for everyone, yes weight forward helps us move low point forward so we can hit the ball first but is also has a big influence on path. If my weight stays back or isn't forward enough, there is a very good chance you're going to hit a weak fade/slice because the path will be across the ball. Test it out, play the ball way forward on an iron shot, like past your left toe, effectively moving the weight back, see what kind of shot you hit. That's why pre-setting the weight back and "keeping it there" won't work. That's one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. I had struggled with a weak fade/slice for a long time until I switched methods... my natural shot now is a draw. My scores were routinely in the mid-90s and are now in the mid-80s. Obviously I am not a great golfer yet (only switched methods late last year) - but my ball striking has improved immensely and the game is fun again. I am not an expert I am just pointing out my personal results. I have no beef with those who say their method is better. I can only go by my own results. There is absolutely nothing in the swing that keeps me from attacking the ball from the inside... in fact the ability to finally hit a penetrating draw is one of the main benefits. Again I think the issue may be in perception or swing thoughts. I am not moving WAY back off the ball (to use your example of putting the ball past your left toe) and then hitting while leaning backwards. I am moving my head back over my right knee at address, essentially presetting the weight shift. I do play the ball a little farther back in my stance to compensate for this, however I do not get line-drive trajectory as some earlier posters claimed would happen if you move ball position back. I then rotate around my stable back leg and head, and hit the ball from the inside with a stable lower body. The weight shifts forward after the ball is gone as part of the follow through. At least, that is how it feels. I suppose the weight may actually shifting forward AS I am swinging, without my thinking about it, due to the force of the arms and clubhead - however my swing thought is simply stay stable on the back leg and let the arms swing the club. It works, for me and for many others. I am not here to argue that my way is best, or anything else... I only chimed in because I get very good results using a method that seems (at least by his descriptions) to be quite similar to logman. Most replies to his OP were completely dismissive of the idea of minimizing weight forward, and I wanted to throw in another voice into the "okay, but it works" camp...

Quote: I started with Manuel De la Torre's method of just swinging the clubhead and while this works for some people, I almost always ended up hanging back and hitting tops/fats/thins or, if I got really lucky, a big a** slice. Well to quote an earlier poster, "Doing something badly doesn't make it a bad idea, it just means you're doing it badly." Again I think it is more a matter of different styles work for different people. Obviously many many people have succeeded using the precepts of De la Torre, Ernest Jones, Knudson, etc. Many also succeed with SnT, Foley, 5SK, etc... However I think there is also a faulty tendency to assume that anything that is not the current fashion is "wrong". Stack and Tilt itself has run into this criticism especially when it first came out. In my swing I start with the weight back, with the head stable over the rear leg. I rotate around that stable rear leg and strike the ball with both feet on the ground. Weight shifts forward AFTER the ball is gone, reacting to the weight of the clubhead. I get great contact/distance/trajectory. Is it possible I could hit it even further by incorporating more forward weight shift into the swing? Yes, but perhaps at the cost of less consistent contact. I hit the ball flush with this method and my distance is more than adequate. Just as the founders of SnT would say, I am interested in the swing that gives me the best combination of power and consistency, not just one or the other. Since my weight is pre-set back, there is no lower body movement going back - just a turning of the shoulders. This eliminates the tendency to sway or get outside the rear foot on the backswing. Also helps keep the head steady. It is just like swinging an axe or hammer. The legs stabilize the upper body. I do not think power in the golf swing comes primarily from weight shift or compression of the ball. It comes from rotation. That is where club head speed is generated. You can rotate very fast around a stable rear leg without a big shift of weight forward. Like I said it works for me. It may not work for others but that does not make it "wrong". Lots of players spend their entire golf life trying to master the swing and never get out of the 90s, because they are stuck in a single thought pattern of what is the "correct" way. It is good to be open-minded.

Quote: The point isn't just to get 90% of your weight forward in any which way and somehow that's going to make you hit it like a pro. If that's what you're getting out of this then you've completely missed the boat. That is not what I've gotten out of this and that's not what I said. What I said is that the emphasis on the lower body and weight transfer makes the game needlessly difficult because it gets a lot pf players thinking about the swing in the wrong way. The weight will shift forward on it's own if you forget about it and just swing the club. Quote: Doing something badly doesn't make it a bad idea, it just means you're doing it badly. I am sure you are right, but a better question is why so many players are doing it badly. I would argue it's because a) it is difficult and/or b) they are thinking too much about it. Quote: I 'step into' my shot in tennis. certainly forward weight transfer. agree that when it's right, it doesn't take any thought Right, same as you step into a throw when throwing a baseball, etc. But you are not thinking about it because the body does it automatically. I think golf instruction focuses too much on the weight transfer to the detriment of many players who would be better off forgetting about it. Let's say you had a regular carpenter's hammer, and were trying to hammer a nail straight into a wall, right at the bottom near the floor. You would unconsciously set your weight to be stable and allow you to swing the hammer as to hit the nail. There would be weight shift, but nothing conscious. Same if you had an axe and were chopping down the base of a tree. The "modern swing" as it is taught nowadays focuses almost exclusively on lower-body rotation and weight shift and I think that has made the game harder not easier for a lot of players.

Well I am going to chime in here since it sounds like I am the only one who uses a swing similar to logmans. I think the main difference re:weight shift is one of emphasis. Obviously when you swing a weighted club, there is a weight transfer forward. However many players struggle with this aspect by actively trying to shift the weight as they swing. They are told this is how you generate power, "compress the ball", etc. They get so focused on this weight shift that it screws up their swing, because they are not reacting naturally the way they would if they were throwing a ball, swinging an axe to cut down a tree, etc. Many I do think would actually perform better, if they took their focus away from the lower half of their body altogether, and just used it as a stabilizer, letting the weight shift naturally in reaction to the weight of the club. This is what we do when swinging a sledge hammer... we don't focus on weight shift, our body automatically shifts in reaction to the hammer's weight. An analogy I would use is swinging a tennis racket. Clearly there is a weight shift as the body winds around however at impact the weight is NOT 90% on the front side. In fact many players actually hit off the back foot and generate tons of power. My point is that the weight shift occurs in reaction to swinging the racket, and the shift forward usually happens after the ball is gone. There is no thought during the tennis swing to "get your weight forward" to generate power. I can tell you that the weight shift is much more difficult, for many more recreational golfers, than most good golfers think. It is one of those things that can seem easy to someone who can do it, but very difficult for someone who can't. Perhaps when you golf with some high handicappers at your local muni, you think it they just took lessons, learned the proper pivot and weight shift, they would get better. I see them and think, if they would just stop fruitlessly trying to shift back and forwards, and started with their weight pre-set back, and let the weight of the swinging clubhead dictate their lower body movements... they would probably start enjoying the game of golf a lot more. The way the pros swing is probably the most ideal way to generate the most distance, best compression, trajectory, etc. However I have to laugh when people talk about 100-yard 7-irons. It seems arrogant to me because if they really believe you can't get any distance while minimizing weight shift, or that every shot must be a fat scoop shot that takes up a big chunk of turf... it shows they clearly have never given any serious consideration to anything outside the mainstream of golf instruction.

As an atheist, thanking God seems ridiculous to me also... however I honestly think for very Christian types it is more a form of humility. They are saying "I did it with God's help" rather than "God wanted me to win". I just pretend they are thanking their coach/caddie or someone like that, who may have actually helped them win. In either case the message is that I had help and it wasn't "all me".

swing with a driver should feel exactly the same as an iron, only difference is in the setup. I think if you are consciously trying to do something different (to hit the ball on the up, for instance) that may be your problem. Ball position and setup takes care of all that.

This happens to me also... the difference between my solid shots and the occasional bad one, is embarrassingly large. For me it seems to be one of 3 things: a) I start focusing too much on mechanics during the swing, leading to tension; b) lack of focus at address, where I actually "don't feel right" just before I take the club back, but rather than step off and reset, I go ahead and start the swing anyway; and c) too much tension at address. So all 3 are pretty much variations on being too tense and not focused, which will cause a bad shot every time. I am trying to work more of a waggle into my routine, as well as a tiny bump forward to get the backswing motion started in a more fluid manner. Also minimizing swing thoughts to just one simple one such as "smooth takeaway" etc., to try and get mechanical thoughts out of my mind and get the swing flowing freely.

In all honesty I think tuffluck sort of derailed this thread (no offense intended to him). The OP stated he had been playing for over 10 years and was still stuck in the mid-90s. Obviously he is doing something wrong. Now he could go take lessons, and that may help him. Or it may not. I've seen it both ways. Depends on both teacher and student. If the teacher is old-school and tries to instill a traditional weight-back/weight-forward swing, they may not help the OP... IF the weight shift is what gives him all the problems in the first place. Which for many struggling golfers is exactly the problem. He could however try a swing that minimizes that aspect of the swing. I have done so with a lot of success and no loss in distance. That is not to say that a mechanically perfect "traditional" swing might not produce better results if executed perfectly. (Not saying that is necessarily true either, only that it is possible.) However... I play golf to have fun, it's not my job. If I can hit the ball solidly and straight, I am having a good time. I would recommend the OP investigate some of these alternatives. There are some like S&T; that keep weight forward. There are others that pre-set the weight back and eliminate the shifting backwards on the backswing. Either one may help. As for tuffluck I am sure you can play around 90 and hit the ball solid most (not all) of the time. However the OP is not breaking 90 and my guess is he is not hitting the ball solidly all that often either.

I just fail to see how someone can have no issues with ball-striking, yet be consistently in the mid-90s. You'd have to skull every chip across the green or 4-putt every hole. I think it is going about things backwards to take putting/chipping lessons when in the mid-20s handicap. A player needs to have a reliable full swing before they can progress to the 80s and lower. I just don't think the ranks of the 20+ handicappers are filled with awesome ball strikers who just need a few putting lessons. I would argue that if you have been playing that long and still in the 90s, it is your approach to the swing itself that needs to change. As I mentioned there are lots of alternative single-axis type swings that help minimize the most troubling aspects of the swing and can help make the game less frustrating. Lessons will not help if the instructor rigidly sticks to a method that the player simply cannot master consistently. I know plenty of guys who have spent thousands on lessons over many years and they are barely better than when they started.

I don't really think it's strategy or course management that is the problem for most golfers stuck in the 90s. For most that I've seen, it is ball-striking plain and simple. Yes they may have lousy short games also, but for the most part I see too many completely wasted shots... fat, duffs, shanks, lost balls, etc. If a player has a reasonably reliable full swing, they will start working on the short game. Until then, the short game always seems secondary. In my humble opinion I think that for many golfers, the weight shift/pivot is very difficult to learn. That is the heart of the problem. It is one of those things that seems easy to those who can do it, and incredibly difficult to those who can't. That is not to say it cannot be learned with enough effort and practice - only that it is difficult and often frustrating because occasionally perfect shots are followed up with complete mishits. I would advise the OP (if ball-striking is in fact his problem which I suspect it is), to start focusing on an approach that minimizes the #1 problem which is usually the weight shift/pivot. That would mean something like Stack and Tilt, but there are other alternative methods out there that minimize movement and lead to more consistent striking of the golf ball. And yes instruction can help but I think instruction in a method that will make ball striking easier would make more sense if you have been stuck in the 90s for so long.

Regarding anterior/posterior tilt... Are you advocating actively "adding" a little posterior tilt to the pelvis at setup? Or simply to avoid adding too much anterior tilt?

Could also be an issue with posture. I find I tend to top shots when I am too hunched over... on the way down my body unconsciously rises up to avoid hitting fat, and result is a topped or thin shot. Percy Boomer talked a lot about being "braced upwards". In other words even though you are tilted down at the hips to address the ball, and your feet are solid into the ground... you should feel an opposing brace in your shoulders going upwards. This keeps the posture from dipping. Ball position may play a factor but in my experience posture is a much more likely cause. If your posture is correct you will be able to bottom out your swing the same every time while keeping the swing arc at its maximum.

First of all to the OP I think there is nothing all that strange about a half-swing going almost as far as a full swing... many new players tend to equate distance with a bigger backswing and it's not always so. You are probably making more solid contact with the half-swing which is why it is going almost as far. Also, at some point a longer backswing can actually cost distance because your swing loses connection with the body, balance gets out of whack, etc. I would continue to work at the range using half-swings until you feel like you have confidence in it. Then very gradually increase from say 8-4 to 9-3 to 10-2 (imagining a clock face with 9 being halfway back and 3 being halfway forward). Distance comes from solid contact/compression and using your body core to power the shot. Work on the half-swings and you will realize you don't need a big swing to hit the ball far.

I agree regarding Phil's health issues. Add to the fact that most of the recent tournaments have been in VERY hot weather and I think it takes it's toll. I don't think it is just his driving, or going for low-percentage shots though. Even his short game has been off, which is very unusual. Really his whole game/rhythm/demeanor is off which makes me think health issues might play a part. He might get his form back this season, but I think Phil might need a break. I'd look for him to come back strong next year but I don't expect much out of him this week or in the Fedex playoffs.

I golf as a single most of the time and usually get paired up by the starter. I have had extremely good luck in that most people I've been paired with gave been very nice. I did get paired with one obscenity-spouting club-thrower, that wasn't the most fun 4.5 hours I've ever spent... but that was the exception not the rule. Very rarely get the course to myself but I love it when I do, especially late afternoon/evening. You can just stop, look around, and hear nothing but birds, the breeze, etc. It's peaceful.

Ha place holders might be a little harsh, but if nothing else it does show how boring 99% of the pro golfers are. Take Bubba out of the Travelers mix and it's a total snooze-fest.

I seriously doubt Webb Simpson's experience will be anything like Bubba's. There is a rather large disparity in charisma/popularity/fame factor between the 2.

Honestly I think Tiger is hitting the ball great for the most part, but I can't see him dominating the way he used to. He will continue to be one of the top players, may win another major or 2, but the days of him outclassing everyone else are over. If you look at his stats, there has been a rather large dropoff in some key categories. In terms of driving distance, he's lost about 15 yards since his prime. Now much of that might be due to using a lot of shorter clubs off the tee in order to increase his fairway percentage (and his accuracy has improved quite a bit). But length is clearly no longer an advantage for Tiger against the field. But a bigger dropoff has been in his birdie or better percentage on Par 4s and especially Par 5s. In 2006 he led the tour in both categories (21.79% on Par 4s, 57.14% on Par 5s). So far in 2012, he is ranked 97th on Par 4s (14.45%) and 32nd on Par 5s (46.09%). Tiger used to eat the longer holes for lunch. Nowadays he is decidedly average. I think a large part of this is his shorter length off the tee. He is a great iron player but he is leaving himself very long approach shots and that makes getting birdies/eagles tough. Tiger has always been an erratic driver of the ball but I think his new cautious approach off the tee is hurting him. He dominated by outplaying everyone else on the long Par4s and Par 5s. You can't do that hitting 3-irons off the tee.

This is a good example of why you can make a lot of money betting ABT to win a major (anybody but Tiger). Tiger's odds are almost always WAY out of whack compared to everyone else in the field, simply because of his name recognition and the fact that golf does not generate a lot of betting interest generally. As for who SHOULD be the favorite... I'd say Westwood if I had to pick a single name - but he and Rory at 12-1 are also ludicrously overpriced. The big names almost always are.

I agree it is really getting horrible. Maybe they should make golf tournaments alcohol-free zones. I just don't understand why for a certain small number of people, every social outing is an excuse to get drunk. Do the fans at the Euro events not drink as much? Because I just don't hear this type of nonsense when I watch the European tour on tv. Although I laughed at the "nice layup" guy too. :)

This type of mathematical illiteracy is pretty standard these days, unfortunately. I'd be surprised if the CBS guys (who I like) didn't say the same thing had they been covering it. The craziest thing was how NBC/ESPN was practically signing Tiger's name to the trophy after round 2 (and anyone who watched both rounds could see Tiger didn't play nearly as well on Friday as he did on Thursday).

After watching (almost) all of this tournament, I'd have to say it wasn't all that enjoyable to watch. Perhaps that's because I was pulling for Tiger/G-Mac/Westwood. Webb Simpson is a good player and perhaps a nice guy, but oh so dull. Same with Furyk. But on a more objective level I didn't find the course all that fun. I understand it's supposed to be difficult. I don't want to see 20-under. Here were my issues as a casual golf fan: -I want to see players hit their driver once in a while. Course required way too many irons/hybrids off the tee. Love the Tiger stinger but it gets a little old watching guys lay up to 220 on a Par-4, then hit their 2nd shot into a bunker. -Way too many chips that were essentially hacking it out of weeds because the rough was so ridiculous. That kind of rough puts way too much emphasis on luck when chipping. -Related to the above, the rough on the fairways was so long that, again, too much luck was involved. It all depended on how the ball happened to sit up (or not). As Johnny Miller never got bored of pointing out. Overall I think the course made luck too big a factor in general. I saw players hit the same shot into a green on the same day - one would skip forward and roll off the back, another would stop well short of the hole. It didn't seem to reward good shot-making because even the players didn't know where the ball would go once it hit. Also it just seemed like TOO much bunker play. Honestly I enjoy a well-done bunker shot but it seemed like every shot around the green was a blast from a bunker. Probably because so many of the approach shots were from that ridiculous rough. Finally, ESPN/NBC's coverage was awful. Chris Berman doing golf is just a joke. Johnny Miller knows his stuff but is not enjoyable to listen to at all. Dour and grumpy. I wonder if anyone has a count of how many times he used the phrase "breaks towards Lake Merced". CBS does an immeasurably better job covering golf.

Yeah Westwood and Tiger are probably striking the ball better than anyone else right now. I really hate Westwood's swing though... effective but ugly