Looper

And on this point we'll have to agree to disagree. From a standing motion both golfers and pitchers are trying to get a ball moving forward as fast and accurately as possible. No one is throwing a ball at them, etc. So if you are so focused on some of the mechanics and not the athletics to see the similarities, well fine. I did say that the natural golf swing gets forward during (and at) impact. Just that the weight goes back on the backswing, before coming forward - - somewhat like a pitcher. And this, I contend, is the most natural way to propel something forward, generating speed and consistency. Watch Mr. Hogan from 1:10 - 1:30 and listen to the commentary. But at what costs and complications? And, I think, difficulties for the average person. I think S&T; may be a good range exercise - - to really emphasize the compression of the ball, and the ball/ground sequence. And Hogan's book does that fine without all the unnatural weight forward, spine angles moving around, butt flying up a the right time stuff. I never said that S&T; wasn't rotational - - just that there are better and simpler ways to perform a natural rotational swing. And that's one of the key problems - - the over complexity and unnaturalness of S&T.; It requires way too much mechanical contortions to get there. Hmmmmm. Lot's of people were playing some excellent golf well before S&T; if my memory serves okay. Just like any other contorted and over-hyped fad, S&T; now claims to be some new revelation under the sun. It will generate some money for it's evangelists for a time. More money for those called upon to correct it later. And then fade away. . . Which proves nothing about the S&T; instructional method, even if true. Well, sir, then please feel free not to post here again. = = = = = = = And can someone tell this newbie how a golf swing thread ended up being moved to a non-golf forum???

First: it was posted in fun, after a few beers and watching young Mr. Strasburg - - and I really wasn't expecting any responses. On a more serious note, I'm returning to serious golf after a long layoff - - only to discover, as you mentioned, this mass S&T; orgy. Waay back when I was but a young caddie and learning to play golf (in the '70's), the pro at the club (who is still a very good golfer and had some success on the Senior Tour) and I were talking about generating power and consistency in the golf swing. One of the things he admired, and even modeled after, was major league pitchers. How they rhythmically turn their weight to the right and then the left, with a strong follow through - - generating awesome power and consistency. And how this can be applied to the golf swing. If anyone wants to generate a powerful and consistent pitching movement, almost without thinking about it you will naturally rotate and weight to the back then forward. Without even worrying about "mechanics". And yes, while you don't have to worry about hitting the same piece of ground consistently with a club - - pitchers do have to consistently hit the same catchers mitt, positioned 60.5' away, with the ball. Good pitchers don't yank themselves backward then lunge forward, etc. But it is a natural rotation and weighting to the back then front. I'm new to S&T; (reading about it) but to me, this keeping the weight somewhate forward to start then increasing the forward weight throughout the motion just seems so unnatural. It must work to some extent, sure. And I tried it at the range (though I'm sure very incorrectly). And I do get the way it almost forces you to hit the ball first, then the ground, resulting in compression of the ball, etc. But wow, look at all the mechanical explanations that apparently go with learning it (the S&T;) - - the right amount of hip slide, tilting of the spine, shooting your butt up correctly, and so on. Good grief! From my experience, a nice rotational swing (somewhat like a pitcher) where you turn away from the ball and then back through it can work very well (also compressing the ball) - - and is so simple! Sure you can get over-analytical with this swing as well. But in my (long ago) experience anyway, a golf swing can be taught no more complicated than a nice pitching movement. I think if Harvey Penick read up on S&T; and how students were going crazy with this hyper-mechanical analysis he would just sadly shake his head and say "here we go again". So for those who are pursuing S&T; I wish you well. Anyway, IMHO the golf swing is much more intuitive, athletic and natural than that method. And I was reminded of this while watching Stephen Strasburg.

Imagine how much better he could be if, instead of turning his weight back then forward, he remained stacked throughout!

thin and in?

Personally, I don't think anyone here is calling you a liar. That is, many of us (at least) believe that you believe you're hitting the 4h 300 yards. However, many of also know that the physics of what you claim are essentially impossible. Consider, if this was a track & field forum instead of golf. And someone came on the board and give 100m times near - - or better than - - Usain Bolt. Would you believe the poster?? Doesn't necessarily mean he was lying - - but it sure would otherwise mean that his stop watch was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Public ranges are notorious for having wrong distance markers - - and/or unusual conditions (very hard surfaces where the ball rolls to unusual distances). You can trust the membership here: You are not hitting the 4h 300 yards.

I have a range nearby where the hitting field is all (well worn) astro-turf. You can whack a putter pretty far out there if you count all the post-roll distance.

7* on my current 52* wedge But I'm considering buying new irons and with the loft of that "P" club (the possible new one) and my current wedges I need to make sure I've got the right mix of wedges going forward. Just trying to better understand my options.

Perhaps - - but I was also interested in this question for theoretical/understanding issues as well.

That makes sense. Thanks, just what I was looking for.

Under no definitions of the word is this a joke: - - -

I always carry my bag - - and enjoy golf the most when I can walk and carry my bag. In general I'm a "minimalist" when it comes to golf. I always tried to keep my swing simple. And I'm happiest when I can simply hit my shot, pick up my bag, go find my ball, and then hit my next shot. No need to worry about any kind of cart. I hate courses where the distance from one green to the next tee is so long that you have to rent a cart. For me, a big part of golf is the nice walk outside - - carrying my "backpack". (And I'm over 50.) Much more relaxing and I really think it's when I play my best golf. This is the way I learned to play, and it's the way I enjoy it best. And I hope to be able to carry my bag for a loooong time to come. . .

I'm not advocating "going back" - - it's way to late for that. But I do think the game would be better had they prevented the pro's from using metal woods in the first place - - like MLB did with the bats. Amateurs could then decide: use woods and try to be/mimic/compare oneself to the pro's, or use the latest game improvement technology - - just like what happens in baseball now. Today, it makes no sense to use wooden woods, no more so than hickory shafts or featheries. There would be nothing "purist" about this since no rules stipulate so. If, for historical reasons, someone wants to use old-style equipment now - - well that's something different altogether (mashie niblick for fun?). No, the wooden wood is indeed dead. And I would be very surprised if persimmon drivers hit modern balls just as well/far as modern metal drivers since my understanding is that the new balls have been specifically optimized for the new drivers. But if true tests demonstrate this, then it must be so - - and maybe the ball is the "problem". Anyway, I'm not trying to take a Luddite position here - - just missing some of the (at least perceived) artistry that came with the old style wooden woods and a 400 yard par 4 being a challenging hole, and not so much this smash and wedge game that I now see on TV (even if it has been slightly mitigated by groove specs). And maybe I'm just an older guy reminiscing a bit too much. . .

And I suppose Major League Baseball could have done the same thing with aluminum bats. But I stil think there is something to be said for natural wood. It's a balancing act, to be sure, and I'm not advocating mandating hickory shafts and featheries. But at some point I think the technology should be "naturally" limited - - instead of just technical specs. I was watching a Nationwide Tour event the other day, and guys were routinely smashing drives well past 300 yds, and some much, much farther. For me, anyway, it actually was not that interesting to watch.

If I wanted a 55* wedge would there be any advantage to either: bending a 54* up - or - bending a 56* down? FWIW I use a standard lie and medium bounce (~7*). tia

Right. Weekenders can use whatever they want. But I would think the major Opens plus the Tour should have put in some type of rule like this. So, just like with baseball, if you want to play in the "big leagues" learn how to use wood. Otherwise, fire away with whatever you want, or whatever your local league determines.

I'm getting back into the game in a serious way after a looooooong layoff (raising children, demanding job, etc.). I was a caddie for many years, for pretty much all of the '70's, and played a lot of golf then too. So here's what I'm thinking - - as I look at all the new equipment, get back into watching TV golf, reading golf forums, and so on. Like major league baseball, the golf authorities should have established that woods must be made of. . . . . .wood. That is, for a club over a certain volume, it must be made of wood. Sure, blasting the ball with giant metal trampolines can be fun - - but I really think it has taken something away from the game. Now they're trying to reign things in with the groove dimension rules, but that seems so trivial. IMHO the pro's, at least, should still be playing with Toney Penna and Power Built persimmon drivers - - this would have kept both the artistry and the courses in play and resulted in much more interesting and historically pleasing golf. Anyway, that's my $0.02. And I suppose now I'm off to get me a giant metal grapefruit on the end of a graphite stick to see how far I too can bash those little white things. . .

Ha! Just what I was thinking (But disco dancing with the right girl was certainly more than okay ) And for the record, I almost touched Stevie Nicks. . .

Kids are now mostly launched (youngest is 19) - - so I want to get back into the game in a serious way. Used to play a lot as a kid (I was a caddie). Need to see what I can do now.

Was a caddie as a kid where I learned to play golf (hence my screen name). Developed a flat caddie swing - - which I still have 40 years later. Many years in business consulting. Now running a start-up in financial services. I've lurked a bit here - - looks like a good community. Don't know what my index is at this point - - I'm just getting back into the game after a loooooong layoff. Used to play a lot. Hoping to do so again (now that the kids are, at least semi-, launched). Cheers to everyone here!