logman

Ha ha, but seriously, you move your weight from 50/50 to 90/10 to avoid grounding your club 4 inches behind the ball??? If I set up in a neutral 50/50 weight balance with the ball at mid position, swingback slowly to the top and swing through without transfering another 40% of my weight to my front foot......then I'm going to fat it....no not just fat it but go underground??? why wouldn't I just move the ball back in my stance and set up the same ball/body/low point relationship without having to worry about the complications of my weight moving all over the place???

What's the point of weight forward. I mean what does it bring to the golf swing. It's obviously not imperative to striking the ball well. I mean if your balanced and can swing the stick well why is it advantageous to move our weight from say 50/50 to 90/10. I know if I swing the club in a traditional swing my body wants to move over my front foot....a little but not the 90/10 stuff that I see here alot. And it's not like it doesn't have it's downsides. I know from my swing that timing can be an issue, and control of the swing lowpoint moves forward as well. I just had a look at James H and Dave Wedlick doing a demo of the S/T weight forward and noticed that Dave said that as the weight is shifting forward the belt buckle is moving up. Isn't the weight forward movement something that could be removed from the amateurs swing to make it simpler. PS this isn't a 5SK thing it is intended as a general golf swing thing. PPS can we not do a "we should do it because pros do it thing"? I want to know what the strong move forward brings to the table in terms of a weekend golfer.

Couldn't agree more. And if your happy to accept that you cant determine whether your putt is a 2.5 degree or 4 degree and your stimp can vary between holes etc etc then Physics just becomes Physicsy. I'm not invoking the old garbage in garbage out thing cause that's way to blunt and in accurate. But you get my point?

Sorry to Crap on about this but give bending your lead arm a go. As soon as you bend the elbow your back will love it. There are virtually no downsides to this.......oh, apart from better accuracy, more swing speed and a better back . Give it a go.

I thought you got more spin from a shallower swing arc not a steep one.

200 yards off a Tee or of the fairway? If your looking for a tee club consider a 460 cc driver....in a high loft version. I've got a 20 degree driver thats a real fairway finder. I've got it on about a 5 wood shaft and its great for long par 3's as well. But strickly a Tee club

I think thats my point, They're not one and the same. One of them was based on 3D digitally mapped greens the other is based on the non scientific "educated" guesses of the operator of the putting stick. There two different things. Also Mangum is a formidable critic. His expertise is well respected.......yeah?

But Erik, wasn't AimpointTV the start of the Aimpoint green reading phenomenon, and as I saw it Aimpoint green reading hitched a ride on the credibility of Aimpoint TV. Even though, as you said the greens used in Aimpoint TV were "mapped to the millimeter".....whereas the Aimpoint green reading system is just an estimation on all inputs of putting. AimpointTV seems to be scientific whereas Aimpoint green reading is less so. Go to http://puttingzone.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/aimpoint-as-poor-science.html You know what I mean there I think, but anyway

Come on man, just 1 beer for the road!!

There were some stats that Lucius Wooding posted here about pros stats. If my memory is correct there was one stat saying that from 150 meters there was a success rate of 60 % or something. Someone could set me straight there. Just seems very underwhelming.

Seems to be the way things go here. .....and then another new member is insulted and never shows up again

No don't get me wrong I'll (virtually) do anything to save a shot, Hell I went to side saddle putting because I thought it was a better system. And I've checked out everything that I can about Aimpoint , the vids, the tutorials, the charts etc. But.......Aimpoint is an educated guess, because the inputs are good guesses. I mean the stimp is 8,but is it on the green you're putting on? or is the slope 2 or 2.5 initially but then becomes a 1. The grain is against me. Blah blah. I use the green walking technique, but the rest is just good guessing......there's not much science to it really apart from a deduction based on a good guess. And the stuff you see on telly with the ball following that line is awesone and spooky but its hardly the basis for aimpoint green reading. One's been mapped the green reading stuff hasn't. Mind you It's very seductive, I mean the idea that you can use science to be a gun putter is very alluring. It fits very nicely with the mindset that alot of golfers have, ykow, the analytical folks.

Looks like an angry mob is gathering!

have no idea how to read a green?? You don't mean that do you? I mean....it looks to me like it's going to break to the right by about a foot ...then flatten out, and roll down hill. Aimpoint.... schmaimpoint...

Thanks Solarbear, I think I get what you mean about the wrist cock at impact .....you mean the bottom wrist, I think??? And yeah about the weight on the front leg. I don't know much about S/T but I think I understand that those guys set up with weight over their front leg. I've tried changing ball position and getting my weight forward and it goes fine, and really the elbow bending/stiff top wrist part of the swing can be grafted onto any set up pretty much. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that if you keep your top wrist stiff and hinge at the elbow the golf swing becomes very mechanical and logical. Most guys that do the LPG swing seem to report better accuracy and if I'm at the range hitting balls and my accuracy is a bit off I know that if I put the wrist brace back on and immobilize it my accuracy returns. My big problem is getting my bloody tempo under control. Maybe I'll do a bit more experimenting with getting my weight forward.

That's funny stretch, cause as I watched ts256's video I thought of your swing. Not a big power swing , but an educated,controlled swing. Ms 256.......and what the **** is that!!! From now on I'll call you Jeffrey Hi Jeff, Have a look at stretches swings.......do what stretch does.

Can you refute my claim? mmm, I didn't think so.

Thanks Erny....I wasn't paying attention. The traditional golf swing is hard to learn, hard to maintain, and hard to correct. I'm convinced that the swing method promoted here and by most of the teachers on the planet is the wrong swing for most golfers. There!

Great idea Mr. Des

Just a thing on iron fittings. With irons you're shooting at a target. You're not trying to maximise your distance. So rollout is your enemy, you don't want to land your 8 iron on the green just to see it skip into the back bunker. So the least rollout/ the better.

Mate, get rid of both of them and get some new shiny shit

Bit harsh!, I don't get that Gdaddy is arrogant at all. Lessons can be great, the OP could have a crazy grip that could be fixed easily or a bad swing path or bad tempo. I reckon any half decent teacher could fix those things pretty quick. I reckon guys that are shooting in the mid 90's suffer from course management, overhitting, and club problems. Example one: how many mid/high guys do you see that dont line up where they're going to hit the ball. This can be fixed by just puting a tee behind the ball in the line that you want to hit it. Example two: how many guys pin their ears back and try to hit a 300 yard drive? Example three:How many guys, when faced with a shot of 150 yards pull out the stick that on their best swing, with a following hurricane, on a downhill slope will probably get to 150???This one drives me nuts, it's like self sabotage or something. I've pointed out to a few high handicappers that there is no difference in being off the green at the back .....to being off the green at the front. It's like a some guys think that there is a 100 meter cliff just at the back of every green. Anyway I'm crapping on now, I'm on my second home brew after a 2 under 30 at my local.........Now THAT'S arrogant

Interesting L/W, 3 woods are a real relic I reckon. They're only use is as a 2nd shot on a par 5s .....when you're trying to get a birdie. If you're not trying to birdie then you'd use the 3or 4 hybrid to lay up for a pitching wedge. The basis of the 3 wood seems to me to be part of a theory that says you have to carry a club that corresponds to a certain distance. Even though the idea of carrying a club that is so specialized it only gets used twice or three times a round isn't enough. It really is only of any use to big hitters anyway. I mean, if your a guy who drives the ball 200 to 240 yards with the driver, whats the point of carrying a 3 wood? Lets say you tee off on a par5 and hit it 240 yards, there's no way you're going to hit your 3 wood off the deck another 240 plus yards to get you're cheap birdie. A 3,4,5 hybrid would be the better stick to use then get a good pitching wedge in to the green. Amateur golfers need to analyze their games a bit more. Club selection is another example where amateurs should not look to pros as a model of how to play their game.

Are g25 using the titanium insert on the face like the k15? It seems to make sense to move the weight out to the edges.

Tally golf training aid. THE BEST