TryingtoPlay

Well, I am certainly not being obtuse. It just makes little sense when considered fairly. Furthermore, why would it apply only when comparing winners of major championships? Certainly, it must not. How about a great player who one major championship in the 70's as compared to a very strong player today, who has not. Kevin Kisner>Tom Weiskopf? Or how about one of my favorite players, who I would love to see win a major championship, but to this point has two top-ten finishes in majors, Kevin Na. Kevin Na>Tom Weiskopf? You are right that Tiger set out to achieve what Nicklaus had achieved, particularly as to scoring, faster and earlier than Jack had. He used Nicklaus as a benchmark in this way. That doesn't change the fact that the most prized possession was Nicklaus' major championship record and that his ultimate goal in golf was to break it. He said so many times. It was certainly an absolutely extraordinary goal to set, but it was always the ultimate and final objective for him.

The point pertaining to Nicklaus' comments in his autobiography though was simply that his comments there do not actually mean what some here seem to be proclaiming that they do. As for the quality of the field, I simply just do not accept your conclusions, as I briefly covered in my first comment above. I also do not accept that Nicklaus "moved the goalposts" as to what would lead to someone being characterized as the greatest player in the history of the game. Nicklaus has freely admitted that he is not universally viewed as such by everyone and that some would choose Woods, Hogan, Hagen, Sarazen, Vardon or Jones ahead of him. Also, Tiger set out from early childhood to try to break Nicklaus' records in the game, amatuer, professional and cumulative and of these records, from day one, the most prized was always Nicklaus' major championship record of eighteen professional major championships. So, I am not sure exactly where you are going with that. Maybe you could clarify?

I would also say that I think that several of Jack's statements in his autobiography have been used in a misleading fashion here. It is true that Nicklaus stated in his autobiography, published in 1996, that the fields at the time were superior overall to the fields which he had played in, whether in the 60's or the 70's. I would say that this was probably, on the whole, true. However, he also stated, on numerous occasions, in the early to mid 2000's that the fields were somewhat weaker then they had been in the past, which I also agree with. In the 2010's, especially as the decade has progressed, he has been very positive about the overall quality of the competition at the highest level of the game, saying that the quality of the fields right now are as good as they have ever been and are possibly the best that they have ever been. I think that this is very clearly the case, as well. So, Nicklaus' comments in his autobiography should not be understood to substantiate the notion that the competition continuously and indefinitely improves, or anything like that. That would not be easy to square with the full breadth of his comments over the years.

The competition argument is really overblown, to be frank. We often hear people say that it is true that Jack played with other historic great players, but the depth of the field, top to bottom, was simply substantially weaker over his career than during Tiger's career. This is often said as a means of countering the argument as to Jack's absolutely unbelievable level of consistent competitiveness in major championships, therefore diluting, in relative terms, his records as to top-two, top-three, top-five and top-ten finishes in major championships. The problem is that this argument makes little sense because these other historic great players, the greatest of the greats, who we refer to here, Watson, Trevino, Player, Palmer, Casper, e.t.c. have records in major championships which look nothing like Jack's. If the competition issue was a substantial factor, as we are sometimes told, we should expect to see far higher rates of top-ten finishes for these players, as well, relative to the greatest players of later generations. Yet, that is not what we find, at all. Take Lee Trevino, for instance and compare his top-ten finishes in major championships to Ernie Els, or to Phil Mickelson. For visual purposes, a good way to do this is to look at them side by side, at the bottom of their respective Wikipedia pages. So, such was obviously not the factor in play here. The simple reason is that there were many great players in the 60's and 70's, many of who won one or two major championship ls over their careers, as is the case today. Jack is simply an outlier.

How I setup now is probably symptomatic of the lessons that I took as a kid in which my posture was criticized for slumping over the ball. I did notice that in the videos that I posted my weight seemed to be distributed more on my heels. I don't remember exactly what I was working on that day that was inducing that, but that is not really common for me.

I included a link to my swing on Vimeo.

I've been Playing Golf: Off and on for my entire life My current handicap index or average score is: Unfathomable My typical ball flight is: Left to right, although I also hook. The shot I hate or the "miss" I'm trying to reduce/eliminate is: The top, the slice, the hook, the duff, E.t.c. E.t.c. E.t.c. Videos:

Yeah, I was trying to work on it but I was really struggling. I brought my Dad along to that session so as to try to help me but we really were not able to get much of anything going. Due to the weather where I live and also due to his disappointment in how terrible I am (although he won't admit that openly) he told me that I should essentially quit playing until at least next Spring. It is all really pretty discouraging.

It is an incredible honor any of the four, but I had to list them I think that it would be: The United States Open The Open Championship The PGA Championship The Masters ....in that order.

I practiced again on Tuesday, but I simply could not stop slicing the ball. It was as bad as it has ever been. The slice just creeps back in. I cannot seem to vanquish it with any permanence. I can eliminate it for a while, but it will it just always ends up rearing its head. It was demoralizing because I hit the ball as badly on Tuesday as I have ever hit the ball. It was completely hopeless. I hope that your game is coming along.

We are in agreement on the laws. I just don't understand your use of tge phrade "away" from the path. Away from the path relative to what? It is all relative to the clubface. If you come-out-to in by 2°, we don't know what that ball is going to do in the air. If the clubface is 4° closed, that ball is going to start approximately 4° left and it is going to draw in the air. Obviously, if the face is 0° to the target, then it will start approximately straight and it will fade in the air.

Yes, based on the differential between the face and the path. The point is that the ball is slicing due to the differential between the face and the path, not solely because of the path. In fact, in that scenario, the path is zeroed to the target. Movement in the air is hence just as much about the face as it is the path. The face predominantly dictates the initial direction of launch and the differential between the face and the path dictates movement in the air. My initial post was poorly written. I should have said that I see the opposite being just as true.

I know that the old ball flight laws are incorrect. What do you mean by "curves away from the path." In the scenario that I listed above the path is square to the target and the face is 6° open. In that scenario, the ball will start well right of the target and it will slice. Again, that is a push slice, not just a push. It is differential that matters.

Again, with a path that is 0 degrees to the target and a face that is 6 degrees open, that ball is going to start on the line of the face and it is going to slice. That is a fact. So, it depends on exactly what you mean.

Yes, I was listing what the old ball flight laws told us.

Very cool. I am using my set of Callaway X-18 (CB) Steel Cast irons GW-4i. My SW is Callaway X-12 which is a 54° club as compared to the X-18 SW which is around 56°. The difference in loft between my GW and SW is hence too small. I also would like to get a used copy of the X-18 3i because I am improving in long iron play more than I am with Hybrid. I also have two other sets of irons, one of which are PowerBilt irons from the 1990's which I can always switch to if I ever choose to do so.

Simply put, the face angle is the predominant determinant of the initial direction of launch and the differential between the face and the path dictate movement in the air. Remember that a path that is square to the target and an open clubface will result in a push slice/fade. That is a slice, not just a push.

By the way, what clubs do you use? Just wondering.

I practiced for about two and a half hours today. After an early rut where my swing felt profoundly off, which I was able to fix within a few minutes, I began to hit my irons fairly well. I wouldn't say that I was consistent but I am working on it. When hitting my Hybrid I began to hit a chronic hook which I was largely unable to correct today. The positive news is that the swing was generally as good as my swing has ever been. I like where my grip is, I was keeping my right arm inside, keeping my right leg firm, keeping my left arm fairly straight, rotating well with good clubhead speed and rolling my weight over to my left side through the ball. I was still hooking the ball, but that is very good news I think for a lifelong slicer. I have taken a few critical steps towards being a better player. Overall, I think that I am on the right track. Yes, I am a Dolphins fan. They unfortunately have some serious problems as a team right now.

That is actually not how I understand the new ball flight laws. If you swing in to out and the face is square to the path then you will still push the ball.

I have looked at D-Plane before but when I did I honestly did not really understand it. I am going to go through the shots and see if I am understanding this correctly. If I am understanding correctly then the traditional (old) ball flight laws would incorrectly tell us that: 1. An out to in swing with the club face open relative to the path would induce a pull-fade/pull-slice. 2. An out to in swing with the clubface square relative to the path would induce a pull. 3. An out to in swing with the club face closed relative to the path would induce a pull-draw/pull-hook. 4. A straight path would an open clubface relative to the path would induce a straight fade/straight slice. 5. A straight path and straight clubface would induce a straight shot. 6. A straight path and a closed clubface relative to the path would induce a straight draw/straight hook. 7. An in to out path with an open clubface relative to the path would induce a push fade/push slice. 8 An in to out path with a square clubface relative to the path would induce a push. 9. An in to out path with a closed clubface relative to the path would induce a push draw/push hook.

I always hear the adage that the clubhead dictates the direction of launch while the path dictates movement in the air. Studying the ball flight laws I must admit that I am seeing the opposite in the characteristics of ball flight, namely that path dictates direction of launch and clubhead position relative to path dictates movement in the air. I need some clarification on the ball laws and how each interaction induces each ball flight. Thank you

That is good to hear. As you are rebuilding your swing I would suspect that you are going to go through some significant growing pains in the future. You are probably going to have some very poor practice sessions/playing rounds amongst the process. It is not the easiest thing to do. I commend you on doing what you feel is right though. I very much respect your decisiveness and your commitment. Nice win for the Bucs on MNF, by the way. Great win for you guys on the road and in the division, not to mention over the defending Conference champions.

I am sure that you will. Have you been able to practice recently?