CalBoomer

The "Rotary Swing" is just Iron Byron transferred to a person. The basic concept is rotation around the spinal axis, facilitated by slightly more forward spinal tilt at address as opposed to too upright a posture; using the large trunk muscles to initiate the swing unifies the takeaway and widens the swing path. An added bonus is that improves contact consistency. I had never hear of Rotary Swing. I just tried to model myself after Iron Byron and dropped my handicap 5 strokes. And it is NOT stack and tilt. I keep my head well behind the ball at all times.

Sorry about the terminology here. I personally consider the pull-draws and pull-fades as mis-hits from an out-in swing path. The push-draw, straight, and push-fade hit with an in-out swing path are basically the same shot for someone at my skill level, which is why my target line is down the middle of the fairway. On any given shot, I might end up with any one of the three. Some days, I just get more of one than the other and so I just adjust my aim for that fact. When I try to adjust my club face at address, it only seems to aggravate the less good shots. Given how small a change in face angle it takes (maybe only a few degrees) to go from a fade to a draw, how do you teach people consistency?

For the exact same launch conditions, they should be the same. However, for the very same club, the launch conditions can't be the same. For the push fade, the club face will be slightly open, increasing the launch angle. For the push draw, the club face will be slightly more closed, lessening the launch angle. At least as long as we're talking about a professional fade and not a slice.

Great video. As a physics geek, I loved it. Most clear demonstration of these principles I've ever seen.Until I figured this out for myself, I could never hit both irons and driver well at the same time. It was always one or the other. Anyone who questions how to position the ball in their stance for driving (hitting slightly up) vs irons (hitting slightly down), should be made to watch this video until they get it.

All of this talk about which shot, fade or draw, stops quicker and runs out less really does not address one of the main reasons that the fade is a preferable shot in critical situations under pressure. When a fade is properly hit, the club face contacts the ball too early in the swing for the wrists to roll and close the club face. A draw is just more sensitive to wrist action than is the fade. It was not just Trevino, but also Hogan and Nicklaus who preferred the fade in situations where accuracy and control were critical, especially with the longer clubs. Of course, for a high short wedge shot, it probably makes little difference.

That may be true if you are hitting a highly lofted club. I doubt that it is true for mid-long irons. And it certainly isn't true for the driver.

Sorry, no. What you have described is how to hit a slice. The professional fade is hit with the standard in-out swing path. Set up with an open stance aimed left, the ball a little bit back from normal, the club face slightly open, and hit it with a in-out swing. The ball will go straight if the club face is square (to the target line) at impact or will move slightly right if the club face is a bit open (to the target line) at contact. The very best pros do not always hit draws or always hit fades. They hit what is best for the situation. In general, a fade will go slightly higher and stop quicker than a draw. Another generalization is that, even for a pro, a fade is a little bit less likely to go awry than a draw in critical situations under pressure.

When many people try to hit the ball too hard, they initiate the downswing prematurely with their shoulders and arms rather than letting them follow the initial rotation of the lower body. For backswing and downswing, the upper body should always passively follow the lower body. This was a basic tenet of Ben Hogan's, whom we all know had a pretty good swing.

My thought is to start rotating my lower torso, which is I suspect what others are referring to as "firing" their hips. Ben Hogan claimed that lower body rotation should always precede upper body or shoulder/arm rotation. So starting a downswing with any thoughts about the shoulders is a big non-no, which is likely to get the hands too far ahead and the club face closed.

I use the Trevino method for hitting a power fade: open club face, shoulder line open to the target line, in-out swing, and keep my plane relatively flat. The results can be dead straight push,slight push draw, or slight push fade but no uncontrollable hook. The resultant distance is 240-270, but then I'm 67 years old and can't execute a full turn.

That was never a good bet. Right now, I wouldn't even bet on him tying Nicklaus. At their best, Nicklaus and Tiger were at a clearly higher level than their competitors in their ability to put four good rounds together, which is what it takes to win any tournament, let alone a major. Tiger is intermittently very good but no longer at that higher level, and his competitors are multiplying and getting better, any one of whom could have a hot weekend. Tiger would have to match Mickelson's total life achievement (four majors) just to tie Nicklaus. I just do not think that is going to happen. And, as I write this, Tiger has just dropped out of the Player's Championship after nine holes, allegedly because of a variety of physical ailments. And, as final kicker, could you ever imagine Ben Hogan or Jack Nicklaus going to someone like Sean Foley to rebuild their swings? Didn't think so.

Absolutely no argument that the putt that dies at the hole sees the biggest hole and has the greatest chance of going in. However, if my 10 foot putt has a standard deviation of +/- 1 foot from the 10 foot range and I am trying for 10 feet exactly, then approximately half of my putts will fall short of the hole, whatever its theoretical "size." So, irrespective of "hole size" at various speeds, I should be aiming for 11 feet, just to make sure all my putts at least have a chance of going in. And I suspect it would require a reasonably good amateur to be able to meet the +/- 1 foot standard at 10 feet, especially if it were tested on sequentially different greens with no chance to "groove" the stroke.This is a purely statistical analysis of the "never up, never in" adage. Having said all that, I certainly agree that it makes no sense to try to ram in short putts.

With no video, this is just a shot in the dark. Many people swing with their natural plane coming through their shoulder line. If your right should is slightly lower, it may give you a slightly flatter plane. But flattening your plane is the cure for a slice not a hook. So, who knows?

Interesting, and I do think it makes sense. When you throw a ball, you swing your arm with an accelerating motion. And a gentle underhand toss should have only mild acceleration, which is what you want with a putt--as discussed endlessly above. I am always looking for good mental images of physical acts I'm trying to perform. I think you have come upon a very good one.

Regarding face angle, I think that modern putters have given us a lot of help in that regard, but not to suggest that it is easy. I do think, and have read in a lot of places (no references) that distance control is even harder. And that is my personal experience. With regard to acceleration and backswing. I try to keep my putter swing such that it has constant gradual acceleration. So the longer the backswing, the longer the period of acceleration, and the faster the putter head is moving when it contacts the ball. An analogy would be a full swing vs half swing with a regular club. If the acceleration is relatively constant, the club head is moving faster at contact with the full swing than the half swing because of the longer time of acceleration. The real trick in putting is creating a putter stroke that does indeed have constant gentle acceleraton irrespective of the length of backswing used. Having said all that, I think some people try to use a backswing of similar length and "adjust" the acceleration, which in non-physics parlance is like jabbing the ball. I think that is much harder to reproduce consistently for different distances.