Very interesting (stupid) therory about golf and sports in general

[Andru]

Apparently we all missed it. Must have been buried in all the Tiger tributes in your posts .
Anyway, I don't really care who is No. 1 of all time. To me, all that's clear at this point is that Jack and Tiger are probably 1 and 2 of all time. They are unquestionably both the best of their eras. I'd put Hogan, Snead and Jones up there too for their eras, but that's just me. And I'm an admitted Ben Hogan freak .

Judging form the stat I posted for BC.

Between 1946 to 1953, Hogan won 9 of the 16 majors he played

I'd say Hogan makes a strong case.

[1972Apex]

Judging form the stat I posted for BC.

Between 1946 to 1953, Hogan won 9 of the 16 majors he played

I'd say Hogan makes a strong case.

I saw that, and appreciated it .
Plus the last one he won crippled after a major car accident. Hogan was an awesome golfer and a fierce competitor. Guaranteed he would have never been intimidated by Tiger Woods.

[spackler]

Debating about who's the best ever is just debating for debating's sake, no matter what sport or field. Thotho's stats prof is just trying to engage people in his class and the rest of us are just golfers going a bit stir crazy in February. I think the only way you can compare different eras is by how they performed against their respective competition, because conditions are only equal within each era. Yeah Tiger hits it fairly wild off the tee, but his GIR is waaaayyyy up there, and his scoring avg is obviously top over the past bunch of years. It's a different game now than it was in the 50s or 70s for Hogan and Nicklaus. Length is a more important factor now than then. Hitting fairways was more important then than now. Who's to say Hogan wouldn't be killing it with today's equipment, sacrificing fairways for scoring? Who's to say Tiger wouldn't be moderating his swing in favour of fairways if he played in the 50s? The fact is all of these guys would be stars in any era, given the same set of conditions. Clearly Arnie was the guy in the late 50s early 60s. Clearly Jack was the guy in the late 60s and 70s. Clearly Tiger is the guy of the late 90s and 2000s. No one can argue their respective dominance of their contemporaries. As for arguing who's better, well, like I said, it's February in Ottawa.

[mberube]

Here are two quotes from John Jacobs, an old golf teacher, Hank haney’s mentor, that analyses ball flights rather then golf swings.

"Mentally, Jack was the strongest guy I've ever seen," he says, "but he won almost despite his swing. He was a good striker as an amateur, but as a pro I wouldn't walk across the street to watch Jack hit the ball. The actual strike wasn't that good."
By the mid-'60s, Nicklaus came to personify a syndrome that Jacobs labeled "rocking and blocking." In his effort to take the club back straight on the target line for as long as possible, rather than on a more natural, slightly inside path, Nicklaus' shoulders would tilt ("rock") more than turn. The move put the club in an extremely upright position, with the clubface shut. From there, Nicklaus was forced to drive his legs hard to create room for his downswing, causing him to chronically drop the club underneath the correct plane on an inside-out path ("block"), rather than along the target line.
"After Jack became the best, I saw more high push-fades than ever," says Jacobs. "That shot was less than one in 50 when I was a boy, because people had a more correct, rotary action."
Nicklaus eventually lessened his rock-and-block tendency by standing more upright at address--allowing a more correct shoulder turn--and went on to play his best golf in the early '70s. But Jacobs saw a deleterious effect on instruction, as teaching manuals and instruction articles encouraged an upright takeaway and driving the legs. "People were taught to do everything but hit the ball," says Jacobs. "I think for about 20 years, golf was taught terribly."

"Tiger presents as fine a swing model as any era has ever had. Right now it appears to me he is emphasizing big-muscle repetition and consistency. I don't know this, but I suspect that he believes what he is doing with Hank will be easier to repeat than what he did when he was playing so well around 2000. Not so much better as easier to repeat."

[Andru]

I saw that, and appreciated it .
Plus the last one he won crippled after a major car accident. Hogan was an awesome golfer and a fierce competitor. Guaranteed he would have never been intimidated by Tiger Woods.

I'm starting to respect Hogan more and more. Now about his competition....... Just kidding man.

[1972Apex]

I'm starting to respect Hogan more and more. Now about his competition....... Just kidding man.

LOL! I'm just kidding too. As spackler said... it's February in Ottawa .

[BC MIST]

Here are ... quotes from John Jacobs, an old golf teacher, Hank haney’s mentor, that analyses ball flights rather then golf swings. "People were taught to do everything but hit the ball," says Jacobs. "I think for about 20 years, golf was taught terribly."

And what makes anyone think that golf instruction has improved since Jacobs made that comment? If equipment is so wonderful these days then why is the average score only fractionally lower than it was years ago. In the US, why are as many people leaving the game as are taking it up?

Golf instruction has not yet fully recovered from the Nicklaus upright swing days, however, there are more efficient swings on Tour today and similar fundamentals being taught by a few, relatively unknown instructors. Haney is moving Tiger in the right direction. In fact, if you check page 98, right picture, in "Tiger's New Swing," by Haney, you will see Tiger is very close to the most efficient downswing position. Overall, however, it's the lousy instruction concepts that keep golfers' scores up. What a shame!!

[mberube]

And what makes anyone think that golf instruction has improved since Jacobs made that comment? If equipment is so wonderful these days then why is the average score only fractionally lower than it was years ago. In the US, why are as many people leaving the game as are taking it up?

Golf instruction has not yet fully recovered from the Nicklaus upright swing days, however, there are more efficient swings on Tour today and similar fundamentals being taught by a few, relatively unknown instructors. Haney is moving Tiger in the right direction. In fact, if you check page 98, right picture, in "Tiger's New Swing," by Haney, you will see Tiger is very close to the most efficient downswing position. Overall, however, it's the lousy instruction concepts that keep golfers' scores up. What a shame!!

Mainly cause back in those days, the reverse C was the way to go. A lot has changed since technology analysis has taken over. What they thought was good then is obsolete today.

[dbleber]

Golf instruction has not yet fully recovered from the Nicklaus upright swing days, however, there are more efficient swings on Tour today and similar fundamentals being taught by a few, relatively unknown instructors. Haney is moving Tiger in the right direction. In fact, if you check page 98, right picture, in "Tiger's New Swing," by Haney, you will see Tiger is very close to the most efficient downswing position. Overall, however, it's the lousy instruction concepts that keep golfers' scores up. What a shame!!

What I find funny about instruction and golf in general is how people can talk in absolutes. There is no doubt in my mind that you are very knowledgeable with regards to a certain form of the golf swing, far more then myself, but I haven't seen two identical swings or golfers yet. There are parts of the swing that are the same and it is what allows people to be either good or bad but at the same time there are different ways and theories to get there. I just think it is a little short sighted and a bit ignorant to completely discredit one teaching method from another unless you have tried all of them and have documented the results. Even then those results will only be good for you and may have no affect on another golfers swing. I am guilty of this as well. I play with my father in law a lot and I find myself telling him to try things that work well for my swing. It just doesn't seem to work well for him and truth be told I am in not in the position to be giving advise that I have received for my own swing to others in hopes it will fit their swing. Just MO but I think it makes sense?

[1972Apex]

Just MO but I think it makes sense?

You make perfect sense to me.

[Andru]

What I find funny about instruction and golf in general is how people can talk in absolutes. There is no doubt in my mind that you are very knowledgeable with regards to a certain form of the golf swing, far more then myself, but I haven't seen two identical swings or golfers yet. There are parts of the swing that are the same and it is what allows people to be either good or bad but at the same time there are different ways and theories to get there. I just think it is a little short sighted and a bit ignorant to completely discredit one teaching method from another unless you have tried all of them and have documented the results. Even then those results will only be good for you and may have no affect on another golfers swing. I am guilty of this as well. I play with my father in law a lot and I find myself telling him to try things that work well for my swing. It just doesn't seem to work well for him and truth be told I am in not in the position to be giving advise that I have received for my own swing to others in hopes it will fit their swing. Just MO but I think it makes sense?

I use to think the same way you do. But I have to admit I've been converted a little. There are some things in the golf swing that can't be done any better. As long as your human and you don't have any obvious physical disadvantages. Achieving that position BC always posts. where that shaft is covering the forearm on the downswing is very effective. The contact you make on the ball is so crisp.

I've often thought what if Moe Norman had learned how to deal with his demons and played on the pga tour. What if he had success. Would we be emulating his ten finger grip? His single axis motion? Would the avg joe be able to play better golf quicker? Who knows.

[BC MIST]

What I find funny about instruction and golf in general is how people can talk in absolutes. ... I just think it is a little short sighted and a bit ignorant to completely discredit one teaching method from another unless you have tried all of them and have documented the results.

Two quick analogies:

1. Your car is getting 15 mpg. Your tires are too soft. You drive at 80 mph. You leave rubber when you accelerate. You have never tuned up your car. Obviously, your car is not running efficiently and when you inflate the tires to the correct pressure, tune it up and fix the timing, slow down and accelerate smoothly, your mileage will go up significantly. Why do this? Maximum output with minimum input. It’s called in physics, “Ideal Mechanical Advantage”

2. There is a golfer on this forum who has suggested several times that to find the best driver, one should get fitted on a launch monitor. Getting the proper launch angle, with less spin, proper flex, “kick” point, length, loft and all that stuff, will allow the golfer to have the best performing, most efficient club. These parameters are all science/physics. If the science is right, you get maximum output with minimum input, or “Ideal Mechanical Advantage.” Do you agree with both scenarios?

Similar to the above, the golf swing is science/physics. There is inertia(centrifugal force), centripetal force, gravitational force, conservation of angular momentum, rotational forces, mass, acceleration, force vectors, a huge number of levers, approximately 17 of them, and the list goes on and on and on. You know with absolute certainty, that most golfers have inefficient swings. They slice, they hook, they top, they shank, they hit short and so on. They have minimum output with maximum input. Contrast these golfers with those who hit the ball STRAIGHT and far. Ben Hogan and Moe Norman were probably the best ball strikers ever. Why? Their golf swings, from a physics or geometric point of view, were efficient. Maximum output with minimum input. Ideal Mechanical Advantage.” Over many years I have “studied” the swings of superior ball strikers and have observed that they do several things the same. Their swings are “flat.” ie., the left arm is parallel to their shoulder plane at the top, when observed from the down the line. The right forearm points more vertically than horizontally. When the downswing starts their arms/hands DO NOT MOVE OUT first, but they move BACK, DOWN and OUT. Their club shaft coincides with their right forearm when the hands get below hip high. Through impact, their right wrist stays BENT or FLEXED backwards.

I have played in hundreds of tournaments over the years and with many very, consistent ball strikers, from mini Tour players to Canadian champions and they have the same characteristics that I just listed. Now, it is still possible to play superior golf with an inefficient swing. Golfers with upright swings fall into this category. Jack Nicklaus, Jim Furyk and locally, Kevin Haime, have very upright, off plane swings. What these three possess that we mortals do not, is superior minds and athletic ability. They can compensate for the fault of the off plane swing and get the club into a position where they hit excellent golf shots. However, their timing must be perfect, and because they have a “genetic timing barrier,” their brain’s innate ability to control their muscles, joints etc., that is superior to most, they play well. Each of us has our own genetic timing barrier and because we do not have superior ability, it is better to develop a geometrically correct, efficient swing, where timing is not as important.

Now, 95% of golf instruction is based on what the superior golfers do. They are the ones with inefficient swings but superior compensatory ability. Does it not make sense to develop a superior swing, when you have mortal or average ability? This what I advocate and with the use of the Internet and extensive reading and analysis, I have discovered that there are a few instructors who have looked at the swing motion from a scientific perspective and have developed their teachings based on what is most efficient-maximum output with minimum input-ideal mechanical advantage. Mark Evershed’s “The Golf Solution,” John Dunnigan’s ‘The Secret to the Golf Swing,” and TGM, The Golfing Machine, are the ones that teach an efficient swing.

The irony of your comment is that while I know you believe in the science of launch monitor fitting, you don’t believe in the science of an efficient golf swing motion and call someone who does, “ignorant” and “short sighted.” Even more ironic are those who are unwilling to consider that maybe, just maybe, there is a MOST efficient way to swing the club. Their short sightedness and ignorance is keeping them from becoming as good as they can be. How sad!

“What is scary is that the misinformation appears solidly stored in a locked steel and concrete vault so that it might as well be invisible. Even when it fleetingly becomes visible, it can't get past the ill-formed mental constructs that are bound by the repetition of history. Result: anything new or different gets missed or discounted. It's almost as if golfers, as a group, have a fixation on preserving the "same old thing," as if anything that doesn't fit the past mold has no place in the present. There is a principle of perception that says "We keep on seeing what we always saw." Carey Mumford

Many golfers have asked me for help with their swings. When I video their swings, show them where they are, through pictures of the pros, show them where they need to be and then suggest what they have to do to get there, if they don’t hit the ball better in the first couple of swings, they silently dismiss what I have said. Most are like this. They don’t want to change and learn. When I encounter someone whose mind is open, I find it very exciting and they often see enough progress to continue trying to progress. Enclosed below are a couple of shots of a golfer’s before swing, and his FIRST swing after a suggestion was made. Before he was a chronic duck hooker. After, he hit the ball straight or with a little, desired fade. He accomplished this in less than 60 minutes. While he is not quite yet in the ideal position, you can see just how close he is, and perhaps WHY he got better, immediately.

I respect your right to have an opinion and having you call me ignorant and short sighted does not bother me as I believe those words are chosen because you, and many other name golfers/teachers don’t yet understand the differences between commonly accepted teaching practices and those that teach efficient swings. And, as long as you/they “keep on seeing what you always saw,” golfers won’t improve very much. If you really believe in the science of the golf club, then I respectfully suggest that you look into learning about the science of the golf swing. Doing so opened my once, very closed mind.

[dH]

***Applause*** Well written! from personal experience when I started going fltter I started hitting further and straighter.

[dbleber]

I was awaiting the BC Blast! The funny thing about everything you have said is that it confirms everything I said before. Maybe ignorant wasn't the right word. It could be arrogance or you could be one of those super smart people that just can't see anything outside their own box. Who knows?

[QUOTE=BC MIST]
2. There is a golfer on this forum who has suggested several times that to find the best driver, one should get fitted on a launch monitor. Getting the proper launch angle, with less spin, proper flex, “kick” point, length, loft and all that stuff, will allow the golfer to have the best performing, most efficient club. These parameters are all science/physics. If the science is right, you get maximum output with minimum input, or “Ideal Mechanical Advantage.” Do you agree with both scenarios?[QUOTE]

I wonder who that golfer is? I believe in the launch monitor system and the science of club making very much, but at the same time I have and never would discredit the fitting of an experienced custom club fitter who uses outside ball flight instead of technology. Both can achieve the same goal through different methods.

The irony of your comment is that while I know you believe in the science of launch monitor fitting, you don’t believe in the science of an efficient golf swing motion and call someone who does, “ignorant” and “short sighted.” Even more ironic are those who are unwilling to consider that maybe; just maybe, there is a MOST efficient way to swing the club. Their short sightedness and ignorance is keeping them from becoming as good as they can be. How sad!

The funny thing is that I agree with your theories and I myself have changed my swing from a very vertical upright swing that counted on timing, to a more flat single axisish swing. If I were to ask for someone’s help with my own swing from this forum, you would be one of the first people on my list because I do believe you understand the golf swing more then the average player. On the other hand and my whole point of this is, I don't think that because I have had success changing my swing that those changes are the be all end all. I also don't believe that there is one swing or teaching method or that all of those who do not convert should be burned at the stake for there insane beliefs. I guess my whole point wasn't to call you short sighted and ignorant as a person but more in general with your strong feelings against anything that differs from what you believe in. It's just something that seems to go hand in hand with gaining more knowledge about golf, everybody just seems to think that their way is the only way and any who oppose are wrong. Just go into a certain store here in Ottawa who deals in golf supplies and custom fitting. Have a chat with a certain older employee and you will hear all about his theories of fitting, swing and equipment. You will also be bombarded with how they are the only place to get fitted or take lesson because every other club maker or instructor in the city has it wrong. There are no absolutes in life. I can even prove to you how 1 + 1 can equal zero, but most people will go through life always believing that 1+1 must always equal 2. Now that's sad!

[Andru]

[QUOTE=dbleber]I was awaiting the BC Blast! The funny thing about everything you have said is that it confirms everything I said before. Maybe ignorant wasn't the right word. It could be arrogance or you could be one of those super smart people that just can't see anything outside their own box. Who knows?

[QUOTE=BC MIST]
2. There is a golfer on this forum who has suggested several times that to find the best driver, one should get fitted on a launch monitor. Getting the proper launch angle, with less spin, proper flex, “kick” point, length, loft and all that stuff, will allow the golfer to have the best performing, most efficient club. These parameters are all science/physics. If the science is right, you get maximum output with minimum input, or “Ideal Mechanical Advantage.” Do you agree with both scenarios?

I wonder who that golfer is? I believe in the launch monitor system and the science of club making very much, but at the same time I have and never would discredit the fitting of an experienced custom club fitter who uses outside ball flight instead of technology. Both can achieve the same goal through different methods.



The funny thing is that I agree with your theories and I myself have changed my swing from a very vertical upright swing that counted on timing, to a more flat single axisish swing. If I were to ask for someone’s help with my own swing from this forum, you would be one of the first people on my list because I do believe you understand the golf swing more then the average player. On the other hand and my whole point of this is, I don't think that because I have had success changing my swing that those changes are the be all end all. I also don't believe that there is one swing or teaching method or that all of those who do not convert should be burned at the stake for there insane beliefs. I guess my whole point wasn't to call you short sighted and ignorant as a person but more in general with your strong feelings against anything that differs from what you believe in. It's just something that seems to go hand in hand with gaining more knowledge about golf, everybody just seems to think that their way is the only way and any who oppose are wrong. Just go into a certain store here in Ottawa who deals in golf supplies and custom fitting. Have a chat with a certain older employee and you will hear all about his theories of fitting, swing and equipment. You will also be bombarded with how they are the only place to get fitted or take lesson because every other club maker or instructor in the city has it wrong. There are no absolutes in life. I can even prove to you how 1 + 1 can equal zero, but most people will go through life always believing that 1+1 must always equal 2. Now that's sad!

Dude 1 + 1 = 2.

[dbleber]

10101101
+00010101

Are you sure?
Add this together and tell me what you get? I know that their are some smart fellers on here so it shouldn't take long to get the right answer. jvincent, you should know this?

[Golfpeasant]

Wow.

You know what, you're all correct. And you will all always be correct. Til the day you die. Then none of you will be correct. Sorry, thems the rules.

[dbleber]

Or this may prove my point;

01
+01
10

This actually does equal 2 but in a different way then must of us of been taut. Which proves that you can reach the same goal by taking two different paths.

[dH]

01 + 01 has always been 02 to me...

[spackler]

Just because you've learned to do something a different way, even if you learned to do it well, doesn't mean you're doing it the most efficient way. You can be happy with your results, and continue to do things that way successfully, but it doesn't mean that you're doing it the most efficient way.

[mberube]

Many golfers have asked me for help with their swings. When I video their swings, show them where they are, through pictures of the pros, show them where they need to be and then suggest what they have to do to get there, if they don’t hit the ball better in the first couple of swings, they silently dismiss what I have said. Most are like this. They don’t want to change and learn. When I encounter someone whose mind is open, I find it very exciting and they often see enough progress to continue trying to progress. Enclosed below are a couple of shots of a golfer’s before swing, and his FIRST swing after a suggestion was made. Before he was a chronic duck hooker. After, he hit the ball straight or with a little, desired fade. He accomplished this in less than 60 minutes. While he is not quite yet in the ideal position, you can see just how close he is, and perhaps WHY he got better, immediately.

Lyle,

The drill that the player’s performing in the images you posted, is it the “Swing the club over the spot 12 inches inside path at approximately 20 degrees’ ? I that right?

I’ve done that drill a long time and I have a question for you. In result of this drill it seems that my club path is too much inside-out. My club comes in to the ball at about 6 degrees with an open face. My timing is off so I stay open at impact and push-fade the ball or compensate too much and push-hook the ball.

I would be interested in knowing your point of view on how to fix this. Should I come in the ball in less of an in-to-out swing.

I have swing data that I can send you if you like to fiddle around with the information. I have a software that analyses swing paths and face angles pre-impact, impact and post impact positions.

PS : Sorry, I don’t want to hijack this thread. Send me a PM if your interested in helping. I could also post in « instructions » if members are interested in BC’s analysis.

Thanks
Mike

[BC MIST]

10101101 + 00010101 = 11000010 Do I win a prize?

I was awaiting the BC Blast!

C'mon. I was fairly diplomatic.

The funny thing is that I agree with your theories and I myself have changed my swing from a very vertical upright swing that counted on timing, to a more flat single axisish swing.

I just realized that you may be assuming that I am talking about a single axis swing. I am not. In fact, I am referring solely to a conventional swing where the golfer has the highest probability of coming into the ball on the proper plane. IMO, the SA swing is better, but only if the on plane position is achieved. When I converted to SA 10 years ago, I was convinced that it was the SA fundamentals that made me a better ball striker. While they have helped, I now realize that it was the on plane positions both at the top and coming down that have probably helped me the most.

I also don't believe that there is one swing or teaching method or that all of those who do not convert should be burned at the stake for there insane beliefs.

It is OK for you to not believe that there is one swing that is best, but I do. That swing is based solely on physics - IMA. The closer we humans can come to that swing the better we will hit it. You have proven it yourself by indicating that you have flattened your swing and rely less on timing. This is great as your swing planes both back and down are now closer to what is scientifically advantageous. We are both doing or have done the same thing, and my ball striking is the better for it and I assume yours is, as well. I have mentioned this before but most GREAT players have done the same thing, and have become even greater. Nicklaus, Faldo, Hogan, Norman, both Greg and Moe, and Tiger, are just a few who have flattened their swings as we have, and improved their already superior games.

Any instructor whose method guides his students to swing towards the IMA positions, is commendable. He may use different words and means to achieve the proper positioning, but if the net result is this efficient swing, then the scores will plummet. The problem is that instructors are still teaching swings that are too upright and then teach, drive the legs, turn the hips, swing down the line and all this BS, to compensate for their initial mistake. Keeps them in beer money, though and most golfers from being the best they can be.
Last comment: I think that we really are on the same page.

[Andru]

10101101
+00010101

Are you sure?
Add this together and tell me what you get? I know that their are some smart fellers on here so it should take long to get the right answer. jvincent, you should know this?

Neither of those binary numbers represnts a dec 1.

So it's not actually 1 + 1.

This is:

0001 + 0001 = 0010

Therefore: 1 + 1 = 2. and it always will.

But I do understand your thought process. Like I said I'm on your side to a certain extent.

[dbleber]

01 + 01 has always been 02 to me...

01 + 01 doesn't equal 2 directly, it equals 00000010, which does equal 2 and that's my point. To different methods with the same result, the actual math is not really the point.

[dbleber]

Neither of those binary numbers represnts a dec 1.

So it's not actually 1 + 1.

This is:

0001 + 0001 = 0010

Therefore: 1 + 1 = 2. and it always will.

But I do understand your thought process. Like I said I'm on your side to a certain extent.

You have it right, the point was the thought process and to get the correct answer who have to add 1 + 1 to get zero (and then of course carry the 1 to the left).

[dbleber]

10101101 + 00010101 = 11000010 Do I win a prize?

C'mon. I was fairly diplomatic.

Last comment: I think that we really are on the same page.

I agree very diplomatic. I do enjoy and argree with most of your post regarding swing mechanics bit my point had nothing really to do with golf but more about completely rejecting an idea because it doesn't fit your own. That's it for me though I thnk I have hi-jacked this thread enough! But we are on the same page, we just open the book differently.

["Richard"]

BC mist -

"That swing is based solely on physics - IMA."

Can you tell me more about this swing? Or did I miss it already in the thread? Id like to see if my golf instructor is teaching me this method

[BC MIST]

BC mist -
"That swing is based solely on physics - IMA."
Can you tell me more about this swing? Or did I miss it already in the thread? Id like to see if my golf instructor is teaching me this method

What I meant was that there HAS to be a swing motion, based on geometry, that will result in longer, straighter shots, and where the golfer does not have to learn compensations. I mentioned three sources previously and would add Mac O'Grady's MORAD project. I believe that the positioning that I have described before on this forum, too frequently some think, is more geometrically correct, simple to perform and yields better ball striking, I have no absolute proof, as I have neither the means nor the ability to get it.

The IMA I refer to above means ideal mechanical advantage, that perfect swing motion that gives maximum output(long and straight) for minimum input, versus Ideal Mechanical Advantage which is a single axis method taught by Scott Hazeltine. His method is similar to a conventional swing but with a palm grip and a single axis setup at address. Again, I am NOT referring to this latter IMA at all.

If I ever find that perfect method, if I have not already, I will pass it on. For a price.