| |
Main
Date: 17 Aug 2006 16:03:48
From: Chris S
Subject: Swing Theory
|
Funny how every swing theory thread spirals out of control. Seems that none
of them can play nice for very long.
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 22:09:24
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"Chris S" <golfzlf@coxyahoo.com > a écrit dans le message de
news:pB6Fg.635$nL2.105@fed1read02...
> Funny how every swing theory thread spirals out of control. Seems that
none
> of them can play nice for very long.
>
>
Watch this one do the same in a quicky.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 22:31:33
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:09:24 -0400, "Martin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>
>"Chris S" <golfzlf@coxyahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
>news:pB6Fg.635$nL2.105@fed1read02...
>> Funny how every swing theory thread spirals out of control. Seems that
>none
>> of them can play nice for very long.
>>
>>
>
>Watch this one do the same in a quicky.
>
What are you talking about? This isn't a swing theory thread--it
started as a "trash RSG" thread and it's bound to be self fulfilling.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Kinky for Texas Gov
"Why The Hell Not"
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 20:28:28
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"Chris S" <golfzlf@coxyahoo.com > a écrit dans le message de
news:pB6Fg.635$nL2.105@fed1read02...
> Funny how every swing theory thread spirals out of control. Seems that
none
> of them can play nice for very long.
>
>
Not surprising in view of the number of revolutionary theories that pop up.
I wonder how much of it is actual bullshit. No, in fact I don't wonder at
all, I know it's all bullshit.
I once had a conversation with another player on that subject. He told me he
prefered to think that a proper swing will automatically lead to proper
contact with the ball. Alright, I said, so what happened to your ball there?
I didn't hit it properly, he said. But you made a good swing, I said. Isn't
it supposed to produce a good contact? Yeah, he said, but I didn't hit it
well.
Actually, I have had several conversations just like that with a bunch of
different people who had all kinds of different theories. None of which
withstand the test of proper contact with the ball. Or improper contact, as
it were.
I realised that everybody wanted to look good no matter the result. Swing
theories are like dance lessons. You'll look good. Don't look at the ball
though. Even those theories that make you look like an idiot, they don't
work because they are still only dance lessons. You'll look the part. Don't
look at where the ball goes.
It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to send it
somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the same if you
ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them. Even those
who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the correct
answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
Anyway, it's difficult to play nice, as you say, if only because of all the
bullshit that gets thrown in the mix. Seriously, if it sounds like bullshit,
it probably is. If it sounds too complicated, it probably is as well.
Martin Levac
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 19:00:11
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
Martin Levac wrote:
> "Chris S" <golfzlf@coxyahoo.com> a =E9crit dans le message de
> news:pB6Fg.635$nL2.105@fed1read02...
>=20
>>Funny how every swing theory thread spirals out of control. Seems that=
>=20
> none
>=20
>>of them can play nice for very long.
>>
>>
>=20
>=20
> Not surprising in view of the number of revolutionary theories that pop=
up.
> I wonder how much of it is actual bullshit. No, in fact I don't wonder =
at
> all, I know it's all bullshit.
>=20
> I once had a conversation with another player on that subject. He told =
me he
> prefered to think that a proper swing will automatically lead to proper=
> contact with the ball. Alright, I said, so what happened to your ball t=
here?
> I didn't hit it properly, he said. But you made a good swing, I said. I=
sn't
> it supposed to produce a good contact? Yeah, he said, but I didn't hit =
it
> well.
>=20
> Actually, I have had several conversations just like that with a bunch =
of
> different people who had all kinds of different theories. None of which=
> withstand the test of proper contact with the ball. Or improper contact=
, as
> it were.
>=20
> I realised that everybody wanted to look good no matter the result. Swi=
ng
> theories are like dance lessons. You'll look good. Don't look at the ba=
ll
> though. Even those theories that make you look like an idiot, they don'=
t
> work because they are still only dance lessons. You'll look the part. D=
on't
> look at where the ball goes.
>=20
> It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to se=
nd it
> somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
> purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the same i=
f you
> ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them. Even t=
hose
> who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the correct=
> answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
>=20
> Anyway, it's difficult to play nice, as you say, if only because of all=
the
> bullshit that gets thrown in the mix. Seriously, if it sounds like bull=
shit,
> it probably is. If it sounds too complicated, it probably is as well.
>=20
>=20
> Martin Levac
>=20
>=20
very very close to the holy grail...every lesson, every swing tip, every =
book I've ever read, every swing thought gleaned from RSG, have all had=20
the same result for me...they've screwed up my golf swing. The fact is:=20
if you swing the club back on the proper plane, then swing it back=20
through the ball on the same plane...ball go far
works for me...when I remember :)
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 01:19:06
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com > a écrit dans le message de
news:xa9Fg.436$yB3.106@newsfe02.lga...
Martin Levac wrote:
> "Chris S" <golfzlf@coxyahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:pB6Fg.635$nL2.105@fed1read02...
<cut >
> very very close to the holy grail...every lesson, every swing tip, every
> book I've ever read, every swing thought gleaned from RSG, have all had
> the same result for me...they've screwed up my golf swing. The fact is:
> if you swing the club back on the proper plane, then swing it back
> through the ball on the same plane...ball go far
>
> works for me...when I remember :)
>
>
>
long&left, that post is the most common consequence of all that bullshit.
Don't take it personally, you are not alone. Far from it.
The emphasis is on distance. They sell you clubs that are longer and have
less loft for the number stamped on them. They know you will not use the
longer ones appropriately. In fact, they count on it. Then they tell you
that most can't use those properly so they made other clubs that can replace
those, they call them hybrids. Try them, you'll think it's like cheating.
Buy them, it's all good. But wait, it's not over yet. Since the clubs you
now have are all longer, you have a distance gap below 150 or something like
that. They have wedges. Four of them. Buy them, they're good for you.
They're not done yet. Remember the emphasis is on distance. A longer club
means more of that. They sell you a longer driver. Good. Now you can send
that ball in the bush farther than ever with that driver. It's not over yet.
Now that you have all those super clubs that are better than last year's
model (which were better than last year's models and so forth), you need
lessons. Not just any kind of lessons, you need lessons to teach you how to
obtain more distance. Forget about how to hit the ball, the focus is on how
to swing that club to produce more clubhead speed. Yeah, that's it, clubhead
speed. That's all that matters.
Do this, do that: Ball go far.
Bullshit.
That's what they want you to believe when in fact the actual equation for
all those lessons and equipment is do this, do that: More clubhead speed.
Here's the ultimate bullshit scheme. More clubhead speed does not equal ball
go farther UNLESS clubhead strikes ball properly. They always omit that last
part to confuse you and it works, you are hooked on "ball go far". They are
saying this: More clubhead speed equals more distance REGARDLESS of how
clubhead strikes ball. That's what they are saying because they always omit
the last part, the important part, the one that truly matters. The part
where you can't go wrong at any clubhead speed. Once you realise what's
going on, the scheme doesn't work anymore. It can't work anymore.
Let's put it another way. If instead of all the bullshit, they told you
this: Regardless of clubhead speed, the ball will go where you want if you
make proper contact with the ball. You'd soon learn that to make proper
contact with the ball, all you need is practice and more practice. Wait, are
you one of those that are convinced that practice can be bad for some really
nonsensical reason? Well, are you practicing hitting a tree with an axe or
are you practicing sending a ball to a target using a club? I think you know
which one is always good to become better at golf. Practice makes permanent?
Bullshit again. Here's a hint, the pros practice more frequently and for
longer sessions than anybody else. Why would they practice more and more if
what they do practice has already been made permanent by previous practice?
If it's permanent, it ain't gonna be more permanent than that. It makes no
sense. Practice makes perfect, it always did and always will.
Unless you want to have a reason to not practice? Well then, believe the
bullshit cuz it's for your own good. You don't need the practice, you're
good enough. Yeah, that's it, you're good enough. Seriously, you don't need
a reason, neither do I. If you don't want to do something, don't. Who cares.
I said the emphasis is on distance, I lied. The emphasis is on the short
game. Actually, I didn't lie. Because the emphasis is on distance and not
accuracy, the short game will take a greater part of golf quite naturally.
It shouldn't. If you are accurate, you don't need to focus on the short
game. Don't tell me the short game includes putting, that's another lie to
confuse you even more. The short game is always used in the context of
recovery, not actual game plan. As far as I know, recovery doesn't include
putting. It used to be that we called it simply recovery, now we call it the
short game because recovery is always short. It also helps the bullshit
cause.
That reminds me, regardless of clubhead speed, the ball will go where you
want if you make proper contact with the ball. I should add that regardless
of the club you're using, that statement will always be true.
Back to the longer clubs they sell you. You've heard and I've heard them say
frequently that most amateurs don't hit their longer clubs much farther than
their 5i or 6i for that matter. I agree, 10 yards out of 150 is not much
different indeed. But wait, isn't that the average difference between clubs
for most amateurs? Yet, they try to convince you that you must buy hybrids
to replace your longer irons because you can't hit them for shit. Wait, if
you're the average amateur, you can't hit anything for shit. I don't
exagerate here, they always say if you're an average amateur, you must not
aim for the pin, instead aim for the center of the green. Even on those big
ass tournament course greens. Especially on those big ass tournament greens.
They may be big ass but they are also slick fast.
Again, long&left, don't take it personally, you're not alone.
Martin Levac
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 22:26:07
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:00:11 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:
>very very close to the holy grail...every lesson, every swing tip, every
>book I've ever read, every swing thought gleaned from RSG, have all had
>the same result for me...they've screwed up my golf swing. The fact is:
>if you swing the club back on the proper plane, then swing it back
>through the ball on the same plane...ball go far
>
>works for me...when I remember :)
You only need three things to hit a ball effectively;
1) a straight plane line - you need to swing on a flat plane, not a
curved or bent one.
2) hinge action - you need to make some type of motion with the
clubface through impact.
3) lag pressure - you need to be apply some type of force to the club
to swing it forward.
This is essentially how Iron Byron swings the club; The rotor keeps
it on plane, the worm gears give it clubface rotation and the
pneumatics are the force that drive it forward.
How many post tell you how to swing the club on plane? How many tell
you how to make a clubface motion through impact? How many tell you
how to apply force to the club to swing it forward? The problems are
lack of information and bad information.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 00:52:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:28:28 -0400, "Martin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to send it
>somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
>purpose.
It's nice to be able to concentrate on hitting the ball squarely. That
means I have the other parts on automatic, and the results are good.
But if I'm lunging or hitting over the top, or dipping or whatever,
the best I will do is adjust.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 00:02:14
From:
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
Howard, how long have you been playing golf. Don't answer, but I would
assume
that you have been playing long enough to know that the key to a
satisfactory golf
swing is a swing back and through with a smooth tempo - on plane,
without all the didos you mentioned.
Coming over the top is an indication that you are trying to kill the
ball, it is already dead, just move it down the fairway before it starts
stinking.:--)
The reason I responded as I did is because you seem to have habitual
tendencies that are counter to a good striking practice, and you are too
good of a sport to be subjected to them.
>mho
>v fe
>"a t t i t u d e =A0i s =A0e v e r y t h i n g"
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 00:51:17
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:28:28 -0400, "Martin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to send it
>somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
>purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the same if you
>ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them. Even those
>who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the correct
>answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
I'll bite, what is the purpose of the golf swing?
Than I'll have a follow up.................
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 23:50:57
From:
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
simple, the purpose of the golf swing is to propel the ball forward.
>mho
>v fe
>"a t t i t u d e =A0i s =A0e v e r y t h i n g"
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 22:11:21
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > a écrit dans le message de
news:uk3ae2tqq4ckiutrduhu8rveb2a48bn4eq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:28:28 -0400, "Martin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to send
it
> >somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
> >purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the same if
you
> >ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them. Even
those
> >who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the correct
> >answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
>
> I'll bite, what is the purpose of the golf swing?
>
> Than I'll have a follow up.................
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
Far from me the thought of preventing you from finding out on your own.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 06:24:53
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: should I swing or Hit ?
|
David Laville wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:58:22 -0400, "Otto"
> <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >If you want to play the game into your later years, I would recommend
> >learning how to swing the club.
>
> So you think twisting and turning has less stress and trauma on the
> body than just straighten the right arm?
I think there's some validity to his point but it's more related to
decreasing strength as we get older. There's less "muscular force"
available for hitting as we age and swinging may be a better option.
There is a bit of a parallel when considering using Hardy's "one-plane"
swing. He cautions that it's best used by those with the flexibility
to make a full turn, and with the upper body strength to power the
swing. I'm fine now but 20 years from now when I'm playing my daily
game on a course in Thailand, I may have to be content with lifting my
arms and trying to swing through the ball.
Dave
Googlin'
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 22:26:16
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:11:21 -0400, "Martin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>> I'll bite, what is the purpose of the golf swing?
>>
>> Than I'll have a follow up.................
>Far from me the thought of preventing you from finding out on your own.
I know what the purpose it, in fact it has 3 purposes not 1. So the
truth is even you didn't know the answer.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 01:32:37
From: GaryC_47
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:NM7Fg.13595$%d4.143638@weber.videotron.net...
>
snip
>
> It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to
send it
> somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
> purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the
same if you
> ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them.
Even those
> who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the
correct
> answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
>
The purpose of the golf swing is to consistently deliver a square
clubface, on
an incline, with maximum velocity, thru the ball to the target.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 04:45:11
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"GaryC_47" <garyc_47@myrealbox.ca > a écrit dans le message de
news:GocFg.29378$XQ1.345998@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:NM7Fg.13595$%d4.143638@weber.videotron.net...
> >
> snip
>
> >
> > It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to
> send it
> > somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
> > purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the
> same if you
> > ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them.
> Even those
> > who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the
> correct
> > answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
> >
>
> The purpose of the golf swing is to consistently deliver a square
> clubface, on
> an incline, with maximum velocity, thru the ball to the target.
>
>
"With maximum velocity" isn't a requirement. It is possible to swing to
produce less than maximum velocity and still fulfil the purpose. Look at
chipping, for example. The purpose is the same yet the velocity doesn't need
to be "maximum", it must be precise though. You answer is misleading and
incorrect to boot. What incline are you refering to? I'm just messing with
you, your answer is still incorrect though. It is lacking a fundamental
detail that makes it all happen. In fact, it is possible to do exactly as
you outlined and still make improper contact with the ball. You disagree?
Perhaps you take that small yet so important detail for granted?
Do you know Leslie King?
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 07:54:23
From: GaryC_47
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:u2fFg.24606$%d4.258402@weber.videotron.net...
>
> "GaryC_47" <garyc_47@myrealbox.ca> a écrit dans le message de
> news:GocFg.29378$XQ1.345998@wagner.videotron.net...
> >
> > "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:NM7Fg.13595$%d4.143638@weber.videotron.net...
> > >
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the
ball to
> > send it
> > > somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about
the
> > > purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the
> > same if you
> > > ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them.
> > Even those
> > > who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the
> > correct
> > > answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
> > >
> >
> > The purpose of the golf swing is to consistently deliver a square
> > clubface, on
> > an incline, with maximum velocity, thru the ball to the target.
> >
> >
>
> "With maximum velocity" isn't a requirement. It is possible to swing
to
> produce less than maximum velocity and still fulfil the purpose.
Look at
> chipping, for example. The purpose is the same yet the velocity
doesn't need
> to be "maximum", it must be precise though. You answer is misleading
and
> incorrect to boot. What incline are you refering to? I'm just
messing with
> you, your answer is still incorrect though. It is lacking a
fundamental
> detail that makes it all happen. In fact, it is possible to do
exactly as
> you outlined and still make improper contact with the ball. You
disagree?
> Perhaps you take that small yet so important detail for granted?
>
> Do you know Leslie King?
>
>
Your style is boorish and confrontational.
Since you didn't specify, I assumed you were referring to the full
swing hence the
reference to velocity. You asked for the "purpose" of the golf swing.
I can't think
of anything else to say that wouldn't be verbose, define the result,
or define the "how
to" of the swing. Of course you have to perform the swing correctly
to achieve the
desired result.
I know Leslie King and agree with 90% of his swing philosophy. Do you
know
Mike Adams? Mike has taken the simplicity of the King swing and
applied it to different
body types in his LAWS book and teaching. Reading the King tuition
series at
golfpro-online is like taking a lesson with Adams.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 22:26:25
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:45:11 -0400, "Martin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>"With maximum velocity" isn't a requirement. It is possible to swing to
>produce less than maximum velocity and still fulfil the purpose. Look at
>chipping, for example. The purpose is the same yet the velocity doesn't need
>to be "maximum", it must be precise though. You answer is misleading and
>incorrect to boot. What incline are you refering to? I'm just messing with
>you, your answer is still incorrect though. It is lacking a fundamental
>detail that makes it all happen. In fact, it is possible to do exactly as
>you outlined and still make improper contact with the ball. You disagree?
>Perhaps you take that small yet so important detail for granted?
>
>Do you know Leslie King?
Oh, so that's it. You read a golf book and now you're a swing guru.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 09:02:34
From:
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
David Laville wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:28:28 -0400, "Martin Levac"
> <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >It seems they all forgot the part where we had to strike the ball to send it
> >somewhere. They all focus on technique so much they forget about the
> >purpose. It makes people so confused that nobody will answer the same if you
> >ask them what is the purpose of the golf swing. Go on, ask them. Even those
> >who appear to know what they're talking about will not know the correct
> >answer. Even professional players will get it wrong.
>
> I'll bite, what is the purpose of the golf swing?
>
> Than I'll have a follow up.................
>
To move the ball as close to the intended target as possible.
-PA
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 07:29:16
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
long&left wrote:
>
> very very close to the holy grail...every lesson, every swing tip, every
> book I've ever read, every swing thought gleaned from RSG, have all had
> the same result for me...they've screwed up my golf swing. ....snip rest.....
Same here. I'd probably be on the PGA Tour if I'd never had a golf
lesson following the ones where I was shown how to take a stance, grip
the club and make the basic swing!
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 06:31:23
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
Martin Levac wrote:
<snip 88 lines >
So what exactly is your point (in 25 words or less)?
Dave
Googlin'
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 21:46:09
From: Chris S
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
"Chris S" <golfzlf@coxyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:pB6Fg.635$nL2.105@fed1read02...
> Funny how every swing theory thread spirals out of control. Seems that
> none of them can play nice for very long.
>
My point has been made.
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 15:46:02
From:
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
David Laville wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:00:11 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >very very close to the holy grail...every lesson, every swing tip, every
> >book I've ever read, every swing thought gleaned from RSG, have all had
> >the same result for me...they've screwed up my golf swing. The fact is:
> >if you swing the club back on the proper plane, then swing it back
> >through the ball on the same plane...ball go far
> >
> >works for me...when I remember :)
>
> You only need three things to hit a ball effectively;
>
> 1) a straight plane line - you need to swing on a flat plane, not a
> curved or bent one.
Jim Furyk is right out then. His swing is not even close to a flat
plane.
He gets about halfway back and then reaches for the sky with his
hands.
To hit a ball effectively you need a repeating swing.
There is more than one way to do it.
Some ways to do it are easier to learn than others.
Iron Byron reflects one man's impression of the things essential
in a repeating swing. With light and stiff enough equipment, though,
a good athlete can play great golf with a swing that never would
have made the pro tour 40 years ago.
With Jim Furyk as prime evidence.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 23:39:27
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Swing Theory
|
On 18 Aug 2006 15:46:02 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>> 1) a straight plane line - you need to swing on a flat plane, not a
>> curved or bent one.
>
>Jim Furyk is right out then. His swing is not even close to a flat
>plane.
>He gets about halfway back and then reaches for the sky with his
>hands.
But the plane he's swinging on is still flat. What you are talking
about with Furyk is a plane shift. He starts it back on the address
plane and than shifts to a more upright plane. It's quite common and
used by the majority of players. A flat plane does not describe
shifting from one plane to another.
>To hit a ball effectively you need a repeating swing.
And what does this repeating swing consist of? Does it need a motion?
Does it need force to swing the club?
>
>There is more than one way to do it.
There is over a million ways to swing the club but every swing needs
the same thing, such as force against the shaft, plane of motion, etc.
>Some ways to do it are easier to learn than others.
Agreed but most golfers I see take the difficult route.
>Iron Byron reflects one man's impression of the things essential
>in a repeating swing. With light and stiff enough equipment, though,
>a good athlete can play great golf with a swing that never would
>have made the pro tour 40 years ago.
What do you consider essential to a repeating swing that should be
modeled in a mechanism such as Iron Byron? Also, what changed
mechanically in the swing that allows players to use clubs today they
couldn't 40 years ago?
>With Jim Furyk as prime evidence.
You failed to present any evidence except misunderstanding of what the
swing plane is.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
|
