irspow

AmenCorner, maybe they would disagree with me that's fine. I invite you however to go somewhere that has a quality launch monitor and watch better players strike shots for a while. You will find that the data will show a slight degree of inside-out movement through impact of a few degrees. I'm only being stubborn on this point because it hurts so many people. In-square-in leads people to attempt to strike the ball at a moment in time that is almost infinitessimal. Any error at all, and there will be because of the myriad variables that have to fall into place for that to happen, will cause an unpredictable flight pattern. I agree with you in an ideal world, but humans are not robots and shouldn't try to be.

Yes. You will have to ensure that your arms do not catch up with the center of your body until after impact. To demonstrate. swing a club straight out in front of you and watch the clubface. It is virtually impossible to close the clubface without straining your hands until after the clubhead passes the center of your body or chest if you like. Tom

Sorry for the ambiguity. I forgot that most see the poll question before reading the post. I was trying to illustrate in the original post what I meant by standardization. Thanks for those have replied so far. It has shown me that there is resistance to making the art trump the equipment. I just hope that we don't wind up with remote control balls in the future. Just kidding. Tom

It is really just basic physics. The net force in this situation is simply the delta, or change in kinetic energy of the moving club from just before impact to that just after. Since we are dealing with how much "weight" you are holding during impact. You have to break down the change in speed relative to your hands of the center of mass of the club with respect to its radial component. LOL mv^2(initial)/2 - mv^2(final)/2 = average net force or work Since v(final) is approximately the negative of v(initial) in this situation you get: mv^2 Sorry, I will try to find a scholarly article for you to read, and post it here later. Feel free to break down the vector components and make the unit transformations on your own if you like. Tom PS You beat me to this one iacas...I'm slow. The change in energy over time will give you the net average force you are looking for. That's the connection that most don't make between a static and dynamic force.

Not much straight here.

Pre shot routines are under-rated by many. They are boring and tedious to practice, but no professional that I know of has a sloppy or inconsistent one. I think people fail to realize the importance of the preshot routine beyond physical and mental consistency before the shot. I often mention that the preshot routine is more akin to self hypnosis for the best players in the world. The reality is that most poor players have horribly inconsistent routines that inevitably leads to the same inconsistency of thought and shot making also. If you do the same exact thing time after time after time it allows the conscious mind to be relaxed, confident, and quiet. There is no indecision in the mind, your shot making can become as boring as your routine. Tom

There are a lot of reasons for hitting more towards the toe of the club. The first thing that I would check if I were you would be my address position. Are you "reaching" out towards the ball at address? If you reach too far for the ball at address, I am suggesting that they should hang pretty much straight down, then you will probably struggle to get the club that far away from you near impact because of the extra "weight" of the fast moving club. It has been estimated that a 100+ mph swing will produce close to or exceed a hundred pounds of force through impact. Unless you can reach out with that much weight in your hands, I wouldn't recommend that you do so at address either. Your hands will almost always occupy a lower position approaching impact than they were while you were "reaching" at address. Obviously, there are many other things that can cause your predicament, but without seeing you set up and swing I have to go with what I see most often. Just my opinion! Tom

I agree. I use the skycaddie and absolutely love it. Just look at the screen and fire away. After playing with a few other people with rangefinders, I now avoid anyone who owns one. It went like this: Let me pull out my "laser sight 7200xr". Eons later after the kook steadied his hands enough to find his target and making sure he wasn't hitting a tree behind the green. It was time for him to carry the damn camcorder like thing back to his bag and get his club. Absolute agony. Seemed like the rangefinder guys spend more time than those who pace yardages off. I must admit that I myself tried one when they first got popular and found they were pretty useless for my game. What's the point of zapping a tree through a dog leg anyway? Now I know how far I need to hit it through the fairway into trouble...great. Then they were also useless whenever you couldn't actually see your target (or steady your hand enough to actually hit it) which is often for the courses I play. Over trees...useless, around a dogleg....useless, lay up distance...useless, etc., etc. I think I used it for three rounds...thank God for Ebay! Tom

I humbly disagree. After using a lot of video and launch monitors, the results have consistently shown that an in-to-out path is not only possible but beneficial. Now while theoretically the clubhead could not possibly pass the ball's vertical plane through impact without lunging forward is true, it does not hold up in the real world of kinetic physics. What you will see in real life is that while the arms hang straight down at address, this is not the same position that they occupy through impact. The momentum of the club gains from moving from behind the body out in front of the body during the downswing pulls the arms somewhat outwards towards the ball, away from their original vertical plane. The next question becomes, don't the hands now occupy a position slightly higher forcing one to top or thin the shot? Well no, due to the downward deflection of the shaft ( the perpendicular plane relative to what shaft flex represents ) the toe of the club angles downwards to offset the higher hand position. I know this may be a little wordy, but I am just trying to explain myself correctly. As for my qualifications, I have been teaching this game for over fifteen years, so I consider myself qualified to state my opinions formed from experience. Tom

I see a lot of debate regarding this subject. There are as many different ways as players I guess. Without starting another stupid debate on the "right" way to shape shots or why other people's techniques are "wrong", I am curious as to see a kind of list of ways people think they accomplish shaping shots in steps so that others in the forum can try them out to see for themselves if one "system" works better for them than others. To provide a "list" of systems rather than start a debate I ask that others simply supply the steps that they actually take for themselves and not simply contradict others. I will, of course, provide a sample. I have used this system for a few years now and it works for ME. 1. I pick two aiming points. One the furthest point of curvature and two the final target. 2. I set up as if I were hitting a straight shot directly at the apex of curve. 3. I loosen my grip and rotate the club until the face looks directly at the final target and regrip. 4. I move my entire body and feet, or rotate everything, until the the face of the club once again faces the apex of curvature. 5. Then I just take my normal swing. Tom

My thousands of hours video taping students does indeed tell me that while their shouldn't be any lifting of the arms during the swing, most people actually do lift the club off plane. I did not state that the swing was purely rotational. When I offer advice it is given in a way that I believe people should think, not necessarily what they should do. What people feel versus what they do are usually totally different things. As for my clarification of MY definition of shaft plane. I think it was warrented given the reproaches offered here. I did not want any confusion with what I was saying and what may have been pulished somewhere else by anyone who managed to get a book deal. In no way was it directed towards any member of this forum. So I am sorry if that is what you inferred. I humbly disagree with you sir, you may lift your arms if you wish, that is your choice. I however find absolutely no benefit whatsoever in doing so. Experience has taught me that it simply necessitates a more aggressive transition move to return to the flatter plane necessary during the downswing as well as additional timing issues and stress in the arms and hands. Just my opinion and experience. We will have to agree to disagree. Tom

Yep, pretty much. I try to teach the most relaxed and efficient swing possible. No arm or hand action whatsoever. If you concentrate on only rotating your torso and do absolutely nothing with your arms or hands you will find that you will stay on what I defined as the shaft plane throughout the backswing. Then all you have to do to swing forward is to get your belly button to face the target before impact. If you can keep your hands and arms passive your plane will flatten a little more coming forward while your body stays well ahead of the clubhead creating great lag. I often use the belly button analogy as it tends to make people forget about their arms as well as whether their weight shift, hip turn, or shoulder turn dominate the downswing. In simplest terms turn your belly directly away from the target in the backswing, then point your belly directly at the target before you make contact with the ball. It will feel strange but get you great lag with very little effort. You will find that rotating your torso (actually rather at a leisurely pace) in the correct sequence will produce prodigious distance and accuracey. Remember the more you have to do during the swing the more you will mess up. Keep it simple and let science do the work for you. Tom

Later release. Or if you prefer, hands further ahead of ball before releasing the clubhead. Tom

This is how I try to explain this to my students. Get in front of a mirror and address the ground. You will see that the shaft will lie at a particular angle for any given club. This is what I refer to as the shaft plane. (Others definition may vary and I don't wish to be corrected.) Imagine that the shaft were to continue through your torso behind you. If you were to only rotate your torso and NOT lift your arms or change your original spine angle the shaft will remain along this plane throughout the entire backswing. Your swing may be more conventional but the original "shaft plane" thing should give you a good idea of how whatever swing plane you wish to refer to alters by club. Tom

That is a good spin rate assuming you have a 100mph or more swing speed, but you have to know the launch angle too. To give you an idea for someone with a 100+ mph swing, you generally want a 12 to 13 degree launch angle with between 2000 to 2500 rpm spin rate. The loft of your driver doesn't mean anything by itself. The launch angle will be the result of the loft of the club and the angle of attack combined. The spin rates and launch angles above are roughly what are going to get you maximum distance. Find out what your launch angle is with your driver because that is more important. I only say that because you can change balls to get different spin rates easily, but changing drivers like underwear can get expensive. I use a Ping Si3 with 9 degrees of loft and get between 12.8 and 13.4 degrees launch consistently. I then use high compression balls when I know the fairways are hard so the ball gets down quicker to take advantage of the big bounce. When I'm going to a nicer place that I know is well maintained I whip out the "control" balls to maximize carry. Damn I miss those old "Top-Rocks" at the end of the summer! Put a low draw on one of those babies on a hard fairway and they would scoot an extra fifty yards. Oh well. Tom

Sorry if I was one of those people you mentioned. The fact of the matter is that you can swing the club any way you like. There is no perfect way to do so and anyone who insists otherwise hasn't noticed that a lot of unorthodox methods have produced extraordinary results throughout golf's history. If you are that concerned about the pain in your back, you should ask the pro if he can accommodate your current posture. If he is a good teacher he will be able to do so, though you will probably get his explanation as to why he doesn't recommend it. Again, instructors use what they know has worked for others for the most part. If he truly understands the physics of the swing he should be able to grant your request to use your current address posture. If you asked me if you could swing like you are standing in your photo I would grant that you could. I would have to tailor a swing just for you and I could. I couldn't guarantee that it would be as efficient as the "model", but definitely something that would work. You might even end up hurting your back worse because the torque involved in the golf swing would no longer be along a straight spine. People forget that until relatively recently, golf instruction did not exist in the form that it does today. Most just figured it out for themselves. Many did it quite well in fact. As an instructor I have to admit that the average golfer hasn't gotten any better at all since the instruction boom began. We merely are supposed to speed up the learning process and eliminate a lot of trial and error. Granted there has been a decent amount of scientific study done recently to help us out. If you have to do it your way, by all means go ahead. Take what you want from the current wisdom and throw out what you don't. Then after you have consistent results with your swing, good or bad, go see a pro just to tweak you for what specifically you want to achieve. Tom

Yeah, the lower back does feel the strain when you start keeping it straight and aren't used to it. If he is an instructor with a decent amount of experience you probably should just do what he recommends. Many different pros will tell you a lot of different, even seemingly contradictory, advice if you ask around. In the end, you have to accept that he most likely has had enough experience teaching people to know what works and what doesn't. This doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he is talking about, just that his approach and methodology is different from someone else. Instructors, and I am one myself, have to rely on what they have found successful in teaching others in the past. It sounds to me from what you have said that he is on the right track with you. If someone comes to me struggling with consistency it is almost always related to poor pre-shot things such as grip, stance, and alignment. A consistently bad ball flight for example is much easier to fix. They are already consistent, so a simple swing fix can usually be implemented with an alteration of technique or a new swing thought. Consistency is the key to great golf and it usually relies on a very precise set-up or preshot routine. Don't worry, you're not alone. All golfers hate to change things that they normally do. It feels unnatural and takes time. Nearly all people struggle while learning something new and will actually perform worse than they did before getting "fixed". This is natural also. I can say that if you make the changes he wants for a while in a few months what feels natural to you now will be very awkward by then. You will look back at the way you curve your back now and wonder how in the world you ever swung a golf club like that. Bottom line, he's a PGA pro for a reason, give what he says an honest sustained effort and you will be rewarded. From the picture though, which is not like seeing you in real life, your back is a little hunched over and your legs do appear rather rigid and open to the target. On the plus side, I love the way your arms hang straight down, I cringe when I see people reaching for the ball. Tom

Tiger wasn't even close. Putts per GIR 28.93, rank 48th Scrambling 61%, rank 20th Sand Saves 52%, rank 67th Tom

Sadly, looking at the stats tells me that it is none other than Tim Clark. After the 2007 season was over. Scrambling: He ranked 4th at 63.6% Putt per GIR: He ranked 1st at 27.88 Sand saves: He ranked 1st at 65.33% Tom

Point taken iacas. I bow lowly and retreat. Forgive me. Tom

Sorry to have offended anyone I was just offering my opinion. The original poster of this thread can take it or leave it. First, with all due respect to Hardy, he does NOT own the definitions of swing types. Instructors, yes I am a golf pro, who have been using video for quite some time now have noticed the two general different types of swing for a long time now. I was only pointing out the obvious and Jack seemed a good example. His back swing was on a very different plane than that of his downswing. That's all. My "murky waters" have proven to help thousands of golfers and I am proud of that fact. So even though some may tend to disagree with some of my wording, my history and experience with others are what I use as a guide in how I offer advice. As for the deceleration and inside-out issues raised, I did not in any way advocate slowing down through impact. I was using an analogy to throwing an object and it was obviously taken out of context. Perhaps reading carefully what was written could help to clarify what was meant. I stand by using a slightly inside-out swing path for the standard shot for the recreational golfer. Not only because it tends to produce a very slight draw for those who use it for their bread-and-butter shots, but because the major bane of the average golfer is usually a weak slice which cannot be produced by such a swing path. I have absolutely no idea what cavity-back clubs have to do with anything other than they are generally used as a crutch for poor technique. Again, sorry to have offended anyone, I was just offering what I have found to be beneficial advice in my profession of helping others enjoy this game more. Tom -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Love golf, live golf."

Sorry to have offended anyone I was just offering my opinion. The original poster of this thread can take it or leave it. First, with all due respect to Hardy, he does NOT own the definitions of swing types. Instructors, yes I am a golf pro, who have been using video for quite some time now have noticed the two general different types of swing for a long time now. I was only pointing out the obvious and Jack seemed a good example. His back swing was on a very different plane than that of his downswing. That's all. My "murky waters" have proven to help thousands of golfers and I am proud of that fact. So even though some may tend to disagree with some of my wording, my history and experience with others are what I use as a guide in how I offer advice. As for the deceleration and inside-out issues raised, I did not in any way advocate slowing down through impact. I was using an analogy to throwing an object and it was obviously taken out of context. Perhaps reading carefully what was written could help to clarify what was meant. I stand by using a slightly inside-out swing path for the standard shot for the recreational golfer. Not only because it tends to produce a very slight draw for those who use it for their bread-and-butter shots, but because the major bane of the average golfer is usually a weak slice which cannot be produced by such a swing path. I have absolutely no idea what cavity-back clubs have to do with anything other than they are generally used as a crutch for poor technique. Again, sorry to have offended anyone, I was just offering what I have found to be beneficial advice in my profession of helping others enjoy this game more. Tom

Generally, most of their tournaments play between 6500 and 7200 yards. That is usually what the blues will give at most decent courses. Blacks at some of the "member" courses if you know what I mean. Tom

A discussion in another thread led me to post this poll. There have been billions of dollars wasted by the average golfer on the never-ending series of technological "breakthroughs" in golf equipment over the years. Even so, the average handicap has not budged at all in over forty years. Have we not seen enough of this corporate garbage by now to admit that golf is suffering from the equipment manufacturers false promises made to the masses. Wouldn't it be much wiser for most to spend their money on actual lessons or even more greens fees to improve their game? It just seems obvious that such a large investment could be redirected towards something that would actually improve the game of golf for most people. I would question also the extent to which equipment destroys the nature of the game itself. We shouldn't have to question whether the best player won or his equipment selection allowed him to trump someone with more talent. No other major sport allows such wide-spread variance among equipment to enter into the winning equation. Can you imagine boxing where one fighter had gloves 6 ounces heavier than his opponent? How about an outfielder in baseball with a two foot wide glove? If we want to make the game easier, why even bother playing at all? If you want to sink more three-pointers in basketball just make the rim three foot in diameter instead of practicing. I don't understand the desire to make special tools for each individual so that they can somehow overcome their flaws. It seems much more reasonable and respectable to standardize equipment very tightly like every other major sport has done. Let the absolute talent of the individual given a specific set of implements decide how well he performs. I am not implying that the equipment "advances" over the decades has really made that much of an impact in golf, but merely pointing out how deceitfully these advances have been used to lure the average golfer into a never ending search in the wrong direction towards improvement. Jack and Arnie could bust three hundred yard drives with persimmons occasionally when needed. I think it would be reasonable for a standard as follows: 1. Every one should play with the same number of clubs. (Current) 2. The lofts of every given club should be the same. (ex. all PW have say 50 degrees) 3. The length of shafts of every given club should be the same. (ex. all Drivers be 45" in length) 4. A specific shaft used for all golf clubs. (ex. same flex, linear weight, kick-point, etc., etc., etc.) 5. Only one approved ball design. (ex. same weight, diameter, compression, blah, blah, blah) I might be off base with this poll, but I am very interested in what everyone thinks. Tom

I love the LPGA! These women are very good. Like others have mentioned their tempos are great to watch and emulate. Sadly, most golfers just don't get what should be the biggest lesson learned by watching them. These women demonstrate how to play scratch golf without being long. (Not including those like Laura Davies of course who absolutely pound the ball.) And yes, they are much more pleasurable to look at than some fat middle-aged white guy with man boobs. Besides, in my humble opinion, Annika Sorenstam is the most dominant golfer of all time. I know I'll get ripped for that one. I just think that she was that much more advanced than her peers at the top of her game. She shot a 59 for heaven's sake! She may be two generation ahead of her contemporaries while say Tiger may be only one. Tom