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.

I really agree with this post and often do the same thing. Why? Well, when you are on the range, it is easy to "groove" the swing for a particular club. On the course, you are almost always switching clubs from shot to shot. And the swings for a driver, long fairway iron, and medium pitch are just not the same; so you loose that sense of groove that you have on the range. Having said that, I also agree with all who have said that there is just more "pressure" on the course. Just ask Rory McIlroy or Dustin Johnson what pressure can do to even the best golf game.

Two suggestions. The first is to remember that the driving range is study hall, the course is exam time. Wise people never take an exam without first studying. The second is to pretend on the range that you are on the course. So hit the driver firstt. Assess how you did, and then pick an iron for your "fairway" shot. Assess how you did. Then hit an "approach" pitch or chip. Assess how you did. After a couple of repetitions of such make-believe "holes," you'll have some idea of how you might do on the course.

Nothing surprising in what you say. However, the very bottom line is scoring, and that requires consistency. Even at the highest levels of golf, if a pro absolutely has to have accuracy, he is unlikely to be trying also for maximum distance. If, however, with diligent practice you can increase your distance and maintain consistency, well why not?

Before you throw Dave Pelz under the bus, here are a few other things to consider. Pelz, although a NASA engineer in a former life, did not not use theoretical calculations to come up with his "17 inch" rule. He used his mechanical robot putter at different settings. That was also how he determined that a putt is more likely to go in with the pin in left rather than taken out. There is an old saying that goes: "One of the tragedies of science is the slaying of a beautiful theory by ugly facts." As noted above, the lumpy donut, ball wobble, and never up never in are also factors to be accounted for. Since any physical act, like putt distance, follows Gaussian distribution and has a standard deviation (both plus and minus), one might expect that some distance must be added to the theoretical "falling" distance to increase the likelihood that the ball gets to the hole (ie, never up never in). So, if you take this theoretical consideration into account, and add some distance to that predicted above, Pelz's experimental data may not be so far off.

The multiple replies clearly indicate that not everybody uses the same ball position. A reasonable constant is that the ball is slightly more forward as clubs get longer. My set-up routine always starts with stance and ball position. Consistent ball striking requires such precision that I do not see how anyone could ignore somthing so important.

I don't use it, but Haney's book tremendously improved my game by causing me to concentrate on and correct my swing plane. I use a large mirror to help with the feel of a correct plane. See no reason why this device would not be helpful.

The simple fact is that putting is hard, and good distance control is the hardest part of the physical act (as opposed to reading the line). Using the length of the backswing to control distance is only reliable if the forward stroke accelerates at a uniform rate and then decelerates just before or after the ball is struck (like a pendulum would). And all of these things become more critical the longer the putt is. These criteria are not easy to achieve. When I practice before a round, I spend almost all of my putting time working purely on distance control and the tempo or rhythm that it requires. Trying to gauge distance by jabbing the ball has simply never worked for me.

Let me try to re-phrase all of this once more, since I think we are all describing the same thing somewhat differently. In physics, a true pendulum swinging from a point accelerates (from the force of gravity) until it reaches its lowest point and then begins to decelerate (again from the force of gravity) as it rises from the low point. So as Zeph said, there is no acceleration after impact--if the ball is right at the low point. If the ball is ever so slightly beyond the low point, the putter would be decelerating (although minusculely so) before impact, as Eric has stated. The problem is that the putting stroke--involving the putter, arms, and shoulders--is not a true pendulum because there is always some real muscle input, not just the force of gravity. What the very best putters likely do is to have the muscle effort go "dead" at just the right time so that the motion simulates a pendulum even though it is really not.

Hard to understand exactly what you mean here. If one hits the ball at a "maximum speed," the putter must have been accelerating to get to the maximum speed. And indeed the physics of a pendulum are such that the head of the pendulum accelerates as it is swinging down (due to the force of gravity) and reaches maximum speed at the nadir. Are you trying to say that one shouldn't use extra force to further accelerate the putter head beyond that of the basic pendulum motion?

Try to make your swing plane slightly flatter. Bottoming the driver frequently is the result of too vertical a swing plane.