Lefty Slice

[Colby]

Dan,


I had always had a bad over the top motion, and had tried a number of drills to correct it. One thing that I had really noticed was the direction and cut of my divots. I always try to practice on grass to see what they looked like. My problem, and this may not be yours, was that I was getting too far back and off plane. The ONLY way I could get back to the ball was to start with a shoulder move to get the club back on-line, which caused an outside-in swing path.

My typical ball flight was a pull-fade. The ball would start left of the target-line (I'm a righty) and fade to the right of target line. If the wind was blowing left to right, it turned into more of a slice, and if the clubface was a bit closed, it was a hard pull left.

I tried to fix this through various drills, but it took a visit to a pro to finally work it out. It still creeps in, but my divots are pretty straight and my ball flight is much better. Now I'm working on the inside-out path to get some draw

[BC MIST]

I tried to fix this through various drills, but it took a visit to a pro to finally work it out. It still creeps in, but my divots are pretty straight and my ball flight is much better. Now I'm working on the inside-out path to get some draw

It takes one day to learn how to make an inside path and 20 years to perfect it.

[Andru]

This is in no way a knock on anyone, Everyone has posted some sound advice. I just came across this on golf magazone's website it's a question and answer with David Feherty......Enjoy

Normally when the clubhead strikes the ball, where should my waist/legs be? Facing the ball or already turning towards the target? What about my hands -- in front or behind the ball?
-- Mark, Marietta, GA

Good God Mark, your swing must look like a strand of DNA! When the clubhead strikes the ball, it would be preferable if your waist and legs were still below your manly breasts, and at no time should your hands leave your wrists. However, your feet may occasionally disconnect from your ankles, but this is normal, and should be expected from time to time. It worries me that you don't seem to give a monkey's fart where your tongue is during this aberration. Where do you usually have it, molars, incisors, canine? Just have a lash at it, my boy, you're thinking way too much.

[broken27]

This is in no way a knock on anyone, Everyone has posted some sound advice. I just came across this on golf magazone's website it's a question and answer with David Feherty......Enjoy

Normally when the clubhead strikes the ball, where should my waist/legs be? Facing the ball or already turning towards the target? What about my hands -- in front or behind the ball?
-- Mark, Marietta, GA

Good God Mark, your swing must look like a strand of DNA! When the clubhead strikes the ball, it would be preferable if your waist and legs were still below your manly breasts, and at no time should your hands leave your wrists. However, your feet may occasionally disconnect from your ankles, but this is normal, and should be expected from time to time. It worries me that you don't seem to give a monkey's fart where your tongue is during this aberration. Where do you usually have it, molars, incisors, canine? Just have a lash at it, my boy, you're thinking way too much.

That is freaking classic.....

Duly noted.... Just getting some free advice where I can.....

Dan

[Andru]

That is freaking classic.....

Duly noted.... Just getting some free advice where I can.....

Dan

Like I said it wasn't knock on anyone, I just thought it was funny. Golfers can sound pretty nutty sometimes. That most definitely includes me.

[broken27]

Like I said it wasn't knock on anyone, I just thought it was funny. Golfers can sound pretty nutty sometimes. That most definitely includes me.

No offense taken.... I'm just trying to get as much "free advice" as possible before I hit golf balls. I know there's stuff I need to work on, but without figuring out WHY the symptoms are there, I have nothing to go on. Lessons are just not in my budget plan at the moment, with two 18-month olds at home and me playing "stay-at-home dad"....

Hehehe...

Still laughing at that "joke"...

Dan

[Deep Woods]

Like I said it wasn't knock on anyone, I just thought it was funny. Golfers can sound pretty nutty sometimes. That most definitely includes me.

This is NOT a knock back Andru, as I think you come from that hit-it camp, which does NOT work for me. My game improved DRASTICALLY when I learned how to come at the ball from the inside, so I was trying to help broken.

[Andru]

This is NOT a knock back Andru, as I think you come from that hit-it camp, which does NOT work for me. My game improved DRASTICALLY when I learned how to come at the ball from the inside, so I was trying to help broken.

Everyone does it their own way. I find I have to vehemently defend the notion of learning golf on your own because it comes under siege eveytime it's mentioned, I figure things would get dull if someone doesn't offer something opposite to accepted norm.

I'm not arguing the idea of "from the INSIDE" isn't the right way. It can be for some, Others can make a great living hitting other the top. I debate the notion that the way to teach everyone to do this, is to break the swing down into positions and learn those positions. To me, it feels like teaching a person to use hammar by showing them where to put they're elbow and how to align their vision so they can accurately hit the head of the nail. Some people want to be showed where to put their elbow when using a hammar some don't. To each his own. It's not bad advice to explore other options when you're struggling with your game. That's all I'm trying to saying.

[Deep Woods]

Others can make a great living hitting other the top.

I agree that to each is own, especially the speed at which you can learn. I used to hit over the top, and THE ONLY way it went straight was to time an open face perfectly with contact...thats a lot harder than sending the club as straight down the line as possible.

Sure, you'll hit some nails, but even carpenters learn how to hit the nail consistently the same way.

I think you probably have some hand-eye, but that (1) isn't most of us, and (2) disappears with age. Sergio, who had some swing mechanic problems, has since retailored his swing, because he new his timing had to be perfect in his old swing.

But yes, if you can learn a CONSISTENT swing that produces the results you WANT, then it doesnt matter how you do it...I just can't help with that.

[Andru]

Sure, you'll hit some nails, but even carpenters learn how to hit the nail consistently the same way.

No one puts them on video and analyzes their hammar swing.

I think you probably have some hand-eye, but that (1) isn't most of us, and (2) disappears with age. Sergio, who had some swing mechanic problems, has since retailored his swing, because he new his timing had to be perfect in his old swing.

Actually that's incorrect. You're big muscle ability goes long before your hand eye. ( of course if you develop a sickness that prevents your brain from operating correctly this is inaccurate ) That's why you can learn to play piano at age 60. Seniors lose their flexibility and the big muscle ability like running and jumping long before they lose their fine motor skills.

And most of the seniors I play with and I play with many because I play during weekdays alot. They don't have full shoulder turns and flexible hips. they rely on hand eye coordination.

Watch the Champions tour. Dana Quigley, Allan Doyle, Jim Thorpe. Short handsy swings.

If you really want to be like the pros learn the way THEY did. Start by going to the practice range and learn how to chip and putt. Learning how they learned as kids. Learn how to get the ball in the hole develop the hand-eye coordination to hit those little chip and pitch shots.

Kids don't come over the top adults do.

Kids get it. You take the club head and hit the back of the ball in that ->> direction. That's why they learn so fast the goal is simple.

BTW are we talking about training a pro to shoot in the 60's or an amateur that wants to go out and shoot in the 80's and have a few pops and smoke a cigar with their friends?

[BC MIST]

Playing golf well is nothing more than mathematical probability.

What is the probability of hitting a good shot by coming "OVER THE TOP?"

What is the probability of hitting a good shot by hitting "FROM THE INSIDE?"

The answer is obvious.

A good golf swing is not a natural motion, therefore, one must learn some mechanics to achieve an inside path. The difference between an adult swing and a child's swing is that the child does not think of the mechanics while swinging, while the adult who reads Golf Digest or who listens to a Saturday morning radio golf show, thinks he has to think about what he read or heard while swinging.

When discussing with a local pro, years ago, what to think about while swinging, he asked me what I thought about when I was running(former marathon runner), and I said, "Anything I want."
"Do you think about how you run? he asked.
"Of course not," I answered. (Dumb question)
"Then why would you think about how you swing while playing? he came back with.

Learn the correct mechanics while practicing. Use a "CLEAR KEY" while playing.

[Deep Woods]

If you really want to be like the pros learn the way THEY did. Start by going to the practice range and learn how to chip and putt.

Totally agree.

If were training someone to shoot in the 60 or 80s? No, a question was posed about inside to out, and I was trying to help explain it.

[Andru]

Playing golf well is nothing more than mathematical probability.

What is the probability of hitting a good shot by coming "OVER THE TOP?"

What is the probability of hitting a good shot by hitting "FROM THE INSIDE?"

The answer is obvious.

It's obvious if you're not Bruce Leitske, Craig Perry or Mark Calcavechia.

I don't think anyone is debating this. The answer is how do you teach someone to hit from the inside? Do you teach them "swing mechanics" or do you set up a scenerio where a person can do this without being taught mechanics or better yet thinking about them.

I think the answer is:

Self evident. I couldn't resist. "We'll go with sprint!" Just in case!

[Andru]

Totally agree.

If were training someone to shoot in the 60 or 80s? No, a question was posed about inside to out, and I was trying to help explain it.

I thought your explanation was great.

I wasn't posing the question to you personally. I was asking generally. Does an amateur learn better with mechanics or other means. Just sharing ideas that's all.

[Deep Woods]

I was asking generally. Does an amateur learn better with mechanics or other means.

Ok, fair enough...here's the answer. When teaching somebody anything, the method you should ALWAYS use IS:

- the method that suits THAT person the best.

Sounds flippant, but everyone learns differently, which I think is BOTH your point and my point from the start.

[Andru]

Ok, fair enough...here's the answer. When teaching somebody anything, the method you should ALWAYS use IS:

- the method that suits THAT person the best.

Sounds flippant, but everyone learns differently, which I think is BOTH your point and my point from the start.

Agreed. Next Topic

[Deep Woods]

Agreed. Next Topic

Turnips! Useful or just fun to say?

[BC MIST]

It's obvious if you're not Bruce Leitske, Craig Perry or Mark Calcavechia.
I don't think anyone is debating this. The answer is how do you teach someone to hit from the inside? Do you teach them "swing mechanics" or do you set up a scenerio where a person can do this without being taught mechanics or better yet thinking about them.I think the answer is: Self evident. I couldn't resist. "We'll go with sprint!" Just in case!

I know that some people learn differently and instructors teach differently as exemplified by a mechanical David Leadbetter or a feel/image techer like Harvey Penick was. Regardless, a good golf swing is physics - levers, fulcrums, acceleration, rotation, etc., and unless you develop sound mechanics/fundamentals, then progress will be inhibited. If you are happy being an over the top slicer, puller, hooker, so be it. The truth still is that anyone will have a better chance of improving by developing an inside appraoch.

Sure, there are exceptions, and those mentioned above are. Another reality though, is that if anyone one of us had swings like Lietske, Parry and Calc, we probably would not break 100. Why are they so good? Because these guys are superior athletes, physically and mentally, and have perfected compensations for their poor mechanics/fundamentals. You must also understand players like Lietske who take the club back flat and on the inside, ie., below plane, and loop it back, are not NECESSARILY over the top. Lee Trevino and Ben Hogan faded the ball, and yet both of them looped the club behind them and approached the ball from the inside.

Tiger Woods is the best player in the world by far, but has many swing faults,(that should raise the heart rate of some), and if he ever corrected them he would win every tournament. He also does not get "stuck" as has been described. It also helps to be fearless, which is his greatest skill. He and Jack Nicklaus are similar. Great minds and bodies. Ordinary swings.

Just imagine Tiger's body and mind with a Luke Donald, inside path, swing. Priceless.

I still say that regardless of how one learns it, and regardless of what the golfer thinks about while swinging, he/she will become a better player faster, by learning an inside path to the ball. And it's easy.

"But, to develop a fine a golf swing, man must work." Moe Norman.

[Andru]

These guys break 100 because they know how to aim. Also they know they're coming over the top and develop their timing, equipment, etc. To maximize this move.

They also limit the amount they pull the ball. Probably a little less offline than your average duffer.

I didn't know "swing faults" contributed to missing 5 foot putts.

Anyway. As far as "Swing Faults" If you're comparing Tiger Woods to one of those mechanical swing machines that they use to test clubs. He's littered with them. I don't know about you but I'm not a machine and I'm never going to be one.

Trying to attain robot efficiency this is futile.

I like Luke Donald he has a nice move to watch. It's even slower in person. but Luke Donald and Tiger woods are two very different people. They're different in height, Weight, Flexibilty, Strength, Line of vision to the ball, speed. Tiger Woods as Luke Donald swing the way they do because it's best for THEM. How can you ask Tiger or anyone to swing like Luke Donald or ask anyone to swing like Fred Couples.

They ratio of the length of they're arms to body is different. If you were creating a machine to swing a golf club and all of the parts were different sizes. They wouldn't look the same. They would be different. The levers, fulcroms and optimum acceleration points would be different.

Humans are the same. There's an optimum way to do everything. Running, Walking, Jumping, throwing. Rogers Clemens Chucks the ball with has body and legs, Randy Johnson uses the leverage in his arm because it's sooo long. They both hurl the ball at 95 MPH.

When you're dealing with radically different variables. Things will be different. I've left out a bunch. Strength in individual muscles vary. Have you seen Craig Parry's forwarms and shoulders. That's probably why he swings over the top. The ratio of his upper body strength to his lower body strength is different than say. Jack Nicklaus. Who had tons of leg power and his golf swing was a result of this.

[broken27]

Explain Charles Howell III. I still can't figure out what he's doing to get the distance he gets...

Dan

[BC MIST]

Explain Charles Howell III. I still can't figure out what he's doing to get the distance he gets...Dan

He swings from the inside. and on plane making his swing more efficient than some others. The scientists out there would call it "Ideal Mechanical Advantage."

Another explanation is that in the same way that some people can jump higher, run faster and throw farther, some golfers have the inate ability to move their arms faster. CHIII is one of them and so is Tiger. They have a higher ratio of TYPE IIx fast twitch muscle fibers and therefore can move their arms from the top to impact faster than most of we mortals can. CHIII has also developed the delay of the unhinging of the power angles, wrist and right forearm, until the last split second. Physical size has little to do with how far one can hit the ball. Ben Hogan was 130 pounds and could hit the ball 300 yards with dinasaur equipment. When swinging his driver, if Tiger would get body into the same position that he does when swinging a 9 iron, he would hit it farther and straighter because the right arm would straighten at the right time and on the correct plane for his physical size.

If power came from the legs, then Jack Nicklaus should have been able to hit the ball twice as far as CHIII because his legs are twice as big. Or, if power came solely because of the size of the arms, them Craig Parry would outdrive CHIII by 600 yards because his arms are three times as big. In fact CP would outdrive all Tour players because of the size of his arms. But alas, he does not.

The only thing that counts is speed. How fast can you swing the club. Leg size, forearm size, height are very minimal contributors to this speed. Fast twitch muscle fibers are.

If any one has a few TYPE IIx's to spare, I 'll trade you an SMT 455 Deep Bore with an SK Fiber shaft for them.

[Andru]

Explain Charles Howell III. I still can't figure out what he's doing to get the distance he gets...

Dan

I need to get a life but hear me out on this. I've been thinking about this.

This purtains to any any PGA pro. They hit the ball farther then you're average joe because they know how to use the club head. Pros and good scratch golfers transfer the energy from their bodies into the clubhead more efficiently than "AVG JOE". While they probably hit the center of the clubface more often and this is part of it. They also get the clubhead moving much faster.

Tiger's shoulder turn and coil and blah, blah is the reason he hits it farther than you're avg Pro or scratch Golfer. But Tiger can probably hit his driver with a 1/2 swing farther than most amateurs. No full shoulder turn and very little coil. I always come back to guys like dana quigley and allan doyle on the serior circuit. They know something. And it isn't big shoulder turns and X-Factors.

Chares Howell. It's hist lag has waits till the last millisecond before releasing all of his energy into the clubhead. Go to golfDigest.com and look at his swing sequence. Watch the clubhead not his body it will tell you eveything you need to know.

[broken27]

He swings from the inside. and on plane making his swing more efficient than some others. The scientists out there would call it "Ideal Mechanical Advantage."

Another explanation is that in the same way that some people can jump higher, run faster and throw farther, some golfers have the inate ability to move their arms faster. CHIII is one of them and so is Tiger. They have a higher ratio of TYPE IIx fast twitch muscle fibers and therefore can move their arms from the top to impact faster than most of we mortals can. CHIII has also developed the delay of the unhinging of the power angles, wrist and right forearm, until the last split second. Physical size has little to do with how far one can hit the ball. Ben Hogan was 130 pounds and could hit the ball 300 yards with dinasaur equipment. When swinging his driver, if Tiger would get body into the same position that he does when swinging a 9 iron, he would hit it farther and straighter because the right arm would straighten at the right time and on the correct plane for his physical size.

If power came from the legs, then Jack Nicklaus should have been able to hit the ball twice as far as CHIII because his legs are twice as big. Or, if power came solely because of the size of the arms, them Craig Parry would outdrive CHIII by 600 yards because his arms are three times as big. In fact CP would outdrive all Tour players because of the size of his arms. But alas, he does not.

The only thing that counts is speed. How fast can you swing the club. Leg size, forearm size, height are very minimal contributors to this speed. Fast twitch muscle fibers are.

If any one has a few TYPE IIx's to spare, I 'll trade you an SMT 455 Deep Bore with an SK Fiber shaft for them.

Seems right to me. I know that pure size has little to do with hitting distance. Myself, I am about 30lbs lighter than my regular playing partner, but generally outdrive him by about 20 yards.

I would have imagined height being of importance though. Thinking in terms of clubhead speed, I'd imagine a longer club (for the taller golfer) would have more momentum through the swing, so (all other things being equal), you'd generate more head-speed.

But this is why I ask the stupid questions, because I don't know the answers. I'm entirely convinced that I really did quite well at golf for someone who has no idea how it works. Inate athletic ability can only take you so far though. Now it's time to refine stuff....

Dan

[Andru]

BCMIST Nonsense.

I never ever ever said that craig parry should hit i farther than howell because his forearms are bigger. I said Craig Parry's shoulder and forearm strength and it's ratio to his leg strength may and I'm saying MAY be the reason he swings over the TOP.

Jack has said on many occasions his power started in his leg drive. That's not from me it's from The Golden Bear himself.

Again and I need to say this twice because it's not sinking in. Jack and Jack alone gets his power from his legs, CH3 gets his from his speed. Ernie Els gets his from his length and leverage.

Everything points to what I'm saying. They're all different. They Swing different and the rusults are the same. You can't explain it with your one size fits all theory.

I'll go back to my original analogy. Clemens and Randy Johnson. One generates ball speed with his legs. Both use the mechanical advantage to it's fullest. Randy Johnson through physics should out do clemens. He does not. Roger can harnest energy from his legs and transfer it into his arm.

CH3 hits it far because he has found the best mechanical Advantage for HIS body type, HIS size and HIS strength. Which is exactly the point I'm making. Thanks for verifying it.

[broken27]

BCMIST Nonsense.

I never ever ever said that craig parry should hit i farther than howell because his forearms are bigger. I said Craig Parry's shoulder and forearm strength and it's ratio to his leg strength may and I'm saying MAY be the reason he swings over the TOP.

Jack has said on many occasions his power started in his leg drive. That's not from me it's from The Golden Bear himself.

Again and I need to say this twice because it's not sinking in. Jack and Jack alone gets his power from his legs, CH3 gets his from his speed. Ernie Els gets his from his length and leverage.

Everything points to what I'm saying. They're all different. They Swing different and the rusults are the same. You can't explain it with your one size fits all theory.

I'll go back to my original analogy. Clemens and Randy Johnson. One generates ball speed with his legs. Both use the mechanical advantage to it's fullest. Randy Johnson through physics should out do clemens. He does not. Roger can harnest energy from his legs and transfer it into his arm.

CH3 hits it far because he has found the best mechanical Advantage for HIS body type, HIS size and HIS strength. Which is exactly the point I'm making. Thanks for verifying it.

I don't think BC MIST was addressing your point with the description of CH3. I asked a specific question about that, and got the answer. You are both basically making the same point with reference to "ideal swing".

As for Clemens/Johnson, I think Johnson has at least 5 MPH on Clemens. I agree that the source of power is different, though.

Dan

[Andru]

I don't think BC MIST was addressing your point with the description of CH3. I asked a specific question about that, and got the answer. You are both basically making the same point with reference to "ideal swing".

As for Clemens/Johnson, I think Johnson has at least 5 MPH on Clemens. I agree that the source of power is different, though.

Dan

Well you have to compare them both in their hayday. Clemens in his prime was as fast as Randy. I should have made that clear.

BCMIST made and inaccurate reference to my point about strength and where the power comes from for individual golfers. That's what I objected to.

You were right leverage( height ) is a huge mechanical advantage for some. That's why Ernie Can swing so slow and still generate a lot of clubhead speed not arm speed big difference.