The Sweetest Swing? Discuss.

[broken27]

There is a physics term "ideal mechanical advantage" which means for golf there is a golf swing that approaches a machine like characteristic(Iron Byron/Max Headspeed) resulting in maximum output for minimum input. Being human we cannot exactly duplicate these machines, however, the closer a golf swing comes to this machine, the better the result can be. IMO, Moe's single axis swing is the closest. Sure, the more talented you are, the greater are your chances of repeating a good swing or compensating for a poor one, but also, the closer you are to the machine like swing, along with being highly talented, the better the ball striking results are going to be. The conventional swing is obviously flawed because of the double axis setup that needs to become single axis at impact, and the finger grip of the right/lower hand. But, obvious too is that a lot of golfers can play extremely well this way. It is just not the most efficient way to swing a golf club.If conventional golfers were to use a single axis swing, they would be better ball strikers, however, convincing others of this is futile.

Some of you enjoy watching beautiful looking golf swings, whereas I enjoy watching golfers who can hit the ball where they need to hit it. To me it is like watching Meryll Streep and Jennifer Lopez act in a movie. The latter may be nicer to look at but the former sure gets the job done.

Way to take the fun out of a game..... Over analysis may be good for the really competitive players and near-scratch golfers, but quite frankly I could not care less about the "physics" of golf if they need graphing, charting and all kinds of formula memorization. BOOOO-RRRINGGG....

A nice looking swing is more appealing to me, because the nicer something looks, the easier it is to get motivated to pattern your own swing after it. For me, I rarely look at ANY right-handed swing for anything other than a mirror image (timing). I play lefty, so I like watching lefties. Phil, Weirsy, and even Flesch will always be more fun for me to watch than these overly-technical-looking mechanical swing motions you describe.

As for Merryll Streep vs. Jennifer Lopez.... Neither one of them can act, so who cares... The looker wins hands down. Especially since they both come across as complete intellectual vacuums...

But I do understand your overall point BCMIST. I just think there's levels of play where perspectives on this subject will vary.

Dan

[BC MIST]

If I suddenly get the urge to want to hit it 40 yards shorter, I'll give single axis a try...but for now, I'll continue to maintain rotation and keep my "inferior" double axis move.

I believe that with the increasing yardage being added to today's courses, you have to be able to drive the ball a long way. And with a single axis swing, which severely limits rotation (and thus clubhead speed), you're not going to hit the ball very far.

All you have to do is look at the PGA Tour...from the top ten money winners last year, one finished in the top-100 in driving accuracy, but all ten finished in the top-40 (i think that's the right number) of driving distance...

It's a brave new world out there, BC MIST, don't get left behind! Of course, you could always move up a tee box

Sadly, there are a lot of myths still being perpetuated about significant distance loss of those using SA swings, but I must admit that your "40 yards shorter" is one of the greatest exaggerations. While I do concede that there may a little power generated from upper body rotation your suggestion that there is a high correlation between rotation and club head speed is nonsense. The speed of your golf swing is generated primarily by the educated motion of your hands and arms and I assure you that the faster you move your hands and arms, the farther the ball is going to go. The sole purpose of your body motion is to put the body into a balanced position so that the arms/hands can straighten at the last split second before impact. While we may feel our swing through our body motion, that does not mean that that is where the speed comes from. A study of "The Golfing Machine" and other like publications will conform that.

While I admit that my club head speed is very modest by modern standards(102 to 106 mph), it is greater today than it has ever been, with my "inferior" SA swing. Add to that the fact that I will be 60 this year, and frankly, I am not displeased with that. In fact, the RCGA golf course rating system is setup based on a hypothetical scratch golfer who can reach a 475 yard hole in two, which I can still do.

While I recognize that many golfers mentality is based on PGA Tour results, perhaps golfers should pay more attention to the real world results. Golf is still a game of putting the ball where you need to put it and the only number that counts is what you scored at the end of the round and not how far you hit it. I will still make more pars and birdies from the fairway than most golfers will from the rough, when they are "40 yards" ahead.

BTW: Did you watch David Toms, a PGA TOUR pea shooter, beat everybody in the Accenture match Play Championship? He was proof that accurate ball striking will win over those who drive the ball long, most of the time. Oh, yes. One has to be able to chip and putt, too.

[Andru]

Some of you enjoy watching beautiful looking golf swings, whereas I enjoy watching golfers who can hit the ball where they need to hit it. To me it is like watching Meryll Streep and Jennifer Lopez act in a movie. The latter may be nicer to look at but the former sure gets the job done.

We agree here BC_MIST. Somewhere in all this madness people forget that golf is about getting the ball in the hole. I think Moe Swing is beautiful because

1) It was so efficient.
2) It went exactly where he wanted it to go.
3) He built it himself. He owned his game 365 days a year.

As far as distance goes. I'm sure a strong Single axis golfer can get it out there. If you're using the right driver combo and flushing it consistently you must be able to knock it out there 250-275. If you're strong 280-290. The equipment is so good now.

[Sakuraba]

Who is the pga tour player they call "ATM"? because of his consistant high place finishes?His swing was profiled in the march issue of golf magazine. It looked awfully pure to me.

[mberube]

Way to take the fun out of a game..... Over analysis may be good for the really competitive players and near-scratch golfers, but quite frankly I could not care less about the "physics" of golf if they need graphing, charting and all kinds of formula memorization. BOOOO-RRRINGGG....

A nice looking swing is more appealing to me, because the nicer something looks, the easier it is to get motivated to pattern your own swing after it. For me, I rarely look at ANY right-handed swing for anything other than a mirror image (timing). I play lefty, so I like watching lefties. Phil, Weirsy, and even Flesch will always be more fun for me to watch than these overly-technical-looking mechanical swing motions you describe.

As for Merryll Streep vs. Jennifer Lopez.... Neither one of them can act, so who cares... The looker wins hands down. Especially since they both come across as complete intellectual vacuums...

But I do understand your overall point BCMIST. I just think there's levels of play where perspectives on this subject will vary.

Dan

It may be boring to some but the beauty of watching a well manicured swing is knowing why it is so beautiful. To some tempo is beauty and other it’s mechanics. I prefer both. A classic swing like Hogan, Els, Love…..

Tempo and rhythm makes the swing look good for the average amateur that has little or no knowledge of the golf swing. Mix tempo, rhythm and great mechanics and you get a long lasting phenomenal tour player like Tiger(old version), Hogan, Els….

[broken27]

It may be boring to some but the beauty of watching a well manicured swing is knowing why it is so beautiful. To some tempo is beauty and other it’s mechanics. I prefer both. A classic swing like Hogan, Els, Love…..

Tempo and rhythm makes the swing look good for the average amateur that has little or no knowledge of the golf swing. Mix tempo, rhythm and great mechanics and you get a long lasting phenomenal tour player like Tiger(old version), Hogan, Els….

Like I said above, I believe one's playing ability may very well evolve their appreciation of the finer technical points of a golf swing. But for me, a weekend duffer, focusing on axis x and pole y, and rotation angle z and all that makes a fun game very much like a calculus assignment.

Of course, if there was major money on the line, I'd study that stuff up so fast it'd leave burn marks on the pages of the instruction book.

Dan

[mberube]

BTW: Did you watch David Toms, a PGA TOUR pea shooter, beat everybody in the Accenture match Play Championship? He was proof that accurate ball striking will win over those who drive the ball long, most of the time. Oh, yes. One has to be able to chip and putt, too.

I disagree here. He did beat everybody at the Accenture match Play Championship but not cause he was always in the fairway. It was his approach shots and putting that gave him the win. He is 69th in driving distance on tour so he is not considered short.

Every tournament pgatour.com features the long drivers versus the straight hitters and the long drivers always have the better average on the leaderboard.

If you look at the top 10 money leader on tour, most of them are long hitter.

[mberube]

Like I said above, I believe one's playing ability may very well evolve their appreciation of the finer technical points of a golf swing. But for me, a weekend duffer, focusing on axis x and pole y, and rotation angle z and all that makes a fun game very much like a calculus assignment.

Of course, if there was major money on the line, I'd study that stuff up so fast it'd leave burn marks on the pages of the instruction book.

Dan

Calculus is fun!

[broken27]

Calculus is fun!

Okay, then trade me your Dome membership for my calculus texts this summer....

Dan

[sensfan63]

Sadly, there are a lot of myths still being perpetuated about significant distance loss of those using SA swings, but I must admit that your "40 yards shorter" is one of the greatest exaggerations. While I do concede that there may a little power generated from upper body rotation your suggestion that there is a high correlation between rotation and club head speed is nonsense. The speed of your golf swing is generated primarily by the educated motion of your hands and arms and I assure you that the faster you move your hands and arms, the farther the ball is going to go. The sole purpose of your body motion is to put the body into a balanced position so that the arms/hands can straighten at the last split second before impact. While we may feel our swing through our body motion, that does not mean that that is where the speed comes from. A study of "The Golfing Machine" and other like publications will conform that.

While I admit that my club head speed is very modest by modern standards(102 to 106 mph), it is greater today than it has ever been, with my "inferior" SA swing. Add to that the fact that I will be 60 this year, and frankly, I am not displeased with that. In fact, the RCGA golf course rating system is setup based on a hypothetical scratch golfer who can reach a 475 yard hole in two, which I can still do.

While I recognize that many golfers mentality is based on PGA Tour results, perhaps golfers should pay more attention to the real world results. Golf is still a game of putting the ball where you need to put it and the only number that counts is what you scored at the end of the round and not how far you hit it. I will still make more pars and birdies from the fairway than most golfers will from the rough, when they are "40 yards" ahead.

BTW: Did you watch David Toms, a PGA TOUR pea shooter, beat everybody in the Accenture match Play Championship? He was proof that accurate ball striking will win over those who drive the ball long, most of the time. Oh, yes. One has to be able to chip and putt, too.

To respond to your last statement about David Toms being a "Pea Shooter" is very far from the truth, he is ranked 69th on tour in distance with over 200 players on the that stat list, for goodness sakes he's tied with Retief Goosen. Are you saying he's a PS?

To respond to you about the golf swing, rotation is not just of the upper body, thats a given, it's rotation of the forearms matching upper body turn and proper coil of the lower body creating torque. Now thats length and accuracy. The club stays in front of you allowing you to truly release the club, there's no "hold onto" motion like in Natural Golf, thats why 90% of the misses are left because you have not created any forearm rotation. It's like hitting a 100 yard bump and run with your driver. Anyway, if Natural Golf if truly a beneficial form of teaching where are the really good players who have followed that method? They are nowhere, not even on the map, not in the top 500 in the world in professional or amateur golf. I can see how Natural Golf could help some high handicap golfers make some full swing chip shots to help them keep the ball in play, but as far as compressing the golf ball, no chance. Your only chance in Natural Golf to compress the ball would be if it was a Gutta Percha!!

[Golfpeasant]

Anyway, if Natural Golf if truly a beneficial form of teaching where are the really good players who have followed that method? They are nowhere, not even on the map, not in the top 500 in the world in professional or amateur golf.

I'm not a natural golfer, but this is not a valid argument.

If you're young and talented, and go out, chances are you're going to be taught a NON natural golf method. By the time you research other options (like natural golf), you've probably ingrained your swing. Hardly worth re-designing your swing if you're PGA level.

I've looked at natural golf, thought about it, and just didn't want to re-invest my time.

The only way to find out is if we clone Tiger Woods, teach him both methods, and have him compete against himself.

[broken27]

I gotta say I agree with Sensfan. Golfpeasant, while your point is valid to an extent, one would have to imagine that what is being taught is affected by what is deemed effective. Trendy only goes so far. Eventually at one point, natural golf would have taken over since it has been in existence long enough. At least you'd expect to hear more about it from other sources than BCMIST. There should be at least one or two notable players who endorse it, and yet there don't really seem to be (not to suggest BCMIST isn't notable, but Ottawa's a small town...)

Anyways, I'm intrigued by this natural golf stuff, just because I like messing around with new swing ideas. I have not been able to find much in the way of "condensed" information about it just to get an oveview.

BCMIST? Anything you'd recommend as reading? Know of any online video site I could maybe go to where one could visually compare natural golf to "unnatural" golf?

Thanks,
Dan

[mberube]

Okay, then trade me your Dome membership for my calculus texts this summer....

Dan

Not a problem cause I am an inactive member this year so it’s not worth anything.

[BC MIST]

To respond to your last statement about David Toms being a "Pea Shooter" is very far from the truth, he is ranked 69th on tour in distance with over 200 players on the that stat list, for goodness sakes he's tied with Retief Goosen. Are you saying he's a PS?

Using the driving distance statistics for 2005, IMO, represents too small a sample to make your point statistically valid. Rather, using the stats for an entire year makes more sense, so for 2004, Toms was 117th averaging 285 yards, while Hank Keuhne was 1st at 314 yards, a difference of 29 yards, proving that by Tour standards, Toms is a pea shooter. Does it also not prove that distance means squat? What has Hank Keuhne won lately?

On one hand you seem to have some knowledge of at least one of the SA swings, however, when you make the “40 yards shorter” statement, you prove otherwise. Would you explain what your experience is using an SA swing, from whom you took lessons or were you self taught, club modifications you made to accomodate the right hand palm grip, length of time you used the swing? Or is it all just opinion? Are you aware that Natural Golf is only one of the SA techniques and one that I would not recommend. Are you aware of IMA, BGG, LPG, and the Graves brothers who teach Moe Norman’s swing? Using an SA swing has not made me superior golfer by any means, but it has made me a better ball striker and did so after only 4 months of indoor practice. I never lost any distance proving your “40 yards shorter” point invalid. It has allowed me to stay competitive in local OVGA, QGA(qualifying for Tunis, Kent, Q. Amateur) tournaments, RCGA Seniors Championship, even as I age. There were not too many “60” year olds playing in the Tunis last year and I strongly believe that if I was still using a conventional swing, that I would now be playing from the senior tees. An SA swing cannot be learned overnight. Like any swing technique it takes an open mind, time, hard work practicing the correct motion, and proper knowledge.

Like you I was once brainwashed into thinking that power in the golf swing came from the body, from rotation, from Jim MacLeans “X” factor, and all that stuff. This kind of “knowledge” came from perception and feelings and became the basis of teaching. However, further research opened my mind significantly. Sure, there is rotation in any golf swing, and yes, it is the basis of a little club head speed. However, most of the speed comes from the arms, specifically the right arm. Just imagine hitting a golf ball with your right elbow and your right wrist in cast. All the rotation in the world won’t get you more than 100 yards.

The club stays in front of you allowing you to truly release the club, there's no "hold onto" motion like in Natural Golf, thats why 90% of the misses are left because you have not created any forearm rotation
I am confused by this statement. You seem to be saying that 90% of NG misses go left because there is no forearm rotation. If you had more forearm rotation, you would go left to left to left. What do you mean by the club staying in front of you? In the swing of a long, straight hitter the club comes into the ball from behind you,
http://www.golfbetterproductions.com...asp?drillID=10 (lots of rotation here, eh?)
makes contact, and then goes immediately around your body, "behind" you again. It does not go "down the line." You also want to release the club and by that I take it you want the forearms rotated. Doing the opposite, trying to keep the right wrist bent and the left wrist flat, allows to you hit the ball as hard as you can, without hooking and achieve maximum distance. So, if you think the opposite to what you now think, you will be closer to the truth.

When NG first came out there were some comments from the naysayers asking where are all the SA golfers on Tour. With just a little in depth thinking the answer to this question can easily be determined. Let me just say the it takes 25 years to become an overnight success and, at what age did Tiger begin to play golf?

Judging by your responses, I recognize that your mind is made up about a lot of things and I don’t disrespect your opinions, however, from a golfer who has experienced SA first hand, I just know that I am living and breathing proof that your facts are wrong. It would be interesting to have a discussion with you about your swing technique perceptions, after you have watched Mark Evershed’s “Knowledge Video.” The video did not change my mind, but just confirmed that what I was thinking, was correct.

[BC MIST]

I gotta say I agree with Sensfan. Golfpeasant, while your point is valid to an extent, one would have to imagine that what is being taught is affected by what is deemed effective. Trendy only goes so far. Eventually at one point, natural golf would have taken over since it has been in existence long enough. At least you'd expect to hear more about it from other sources than BCMIST. There should be at least one or two notable players who endorse it, and yet there don't really seem to be (not to suggest BCMIST isn't notable, but Ottawa's a small town...)

Anyways, I'm intrigued by this natural golf stuff, just because I like messing around with new swing ideas. I have not been able to find much in the way of "condensed" information about it just to get an oveview.

BCMIST? Anything you'd recommend as reading? Know of any online video site I could maybe go to where one could visually compare natural golf to "unnatural" golf?

Thanks,
Dan

I have a number of videos of the various SA techniques but everyone of them is now in the hands of other interested golfers. Otherwise, I would arrange to have you look at them. I do not like what Natural Golf has done to their technique since it first hit came out. All of their original instructors have left, mainly because they were moving too far from the swing of Moe Norman.

There are a few sites with some information, however, as they are iin business, they all want you to but their videos. But take a look.

www.big-grip.com/ (Easiest to learn)

www.swinglikemoe.com/ (best instruction)

www.scigolf.com (interesting, but)

www.naturalgolf.com (save your money)

The best forum for SA golfers is the Single Axis Forum www.network54.com/Forum/72052

If and when I get my tapes back, I will let you know and if you are still interested at that time, you can have a look.

[Andru]

I disagree here. He did beat everybody at the Accenture match Play Championship but not cause he was always in the fairway. It was his approach shots and putting that gave him the win. He is 69th in driving distance on tour so he is not considered short.

Every tournament pgatour.com features the long drivers versus the straight hitters and the long drivers always have the better average on the leaderboard.

If you look at the top 10 money leader on tour, most of them are long hitter.

BTW David Toms. Hit those precise approach shots from the fairway. it rained so much in LA that they didn't cut the rough for a week. and it was thick and sticky. So Toms being in the fairway was not the whole reason, but a major part of his success. He's not sticking a 5 wood from 5 inch rough.

You're last statement about the long vs. accurate is true in some events. It largely depends on the rough.

[Andru]

To respond to your last statement about David Toms being a "Pea Shooter" is very far from the truth, he is ranked 69th on tour in distance with over 200 players on the that stat list, for goodness sakes he's tied with Retief Goosen. Are you saying he's a PS?

To respond to you about the golf swing, rotation is not just of the upper body, thats a given, it's rotation of the forearms matching upper body turn and proper coil of the lower body creating torque. Now thats length and accuracy. The club stays in front of you allowing you to truly release the club, there's no "hold onto" motion like in Natural Golf, thats why 90% of the misses are left because you have not created any forearm rotation. It's like hitting a 100 yard bump and run with your driver. Anyway, if Natural Golf if truly a beneficial form of teaching where are the really good players who have followed that method? They are nowhere, not even on the map, not in the top 500 in the world in professional or amateur golf. I can see how Natural Golf could help some high handicap golfers make some full swing chip shots to help them keep the ball in play, but as far as compressing the golf ball, no chance. Your only chance in Natural Golf to compress the ball would be if it was a Gutta Percha!!

There is a difference between natural golf and Single AXIS swings. The two should not be confused. I've already commited to this, If I'm not carding less than a 2 handicap this summer. I'm going to a single axis swing. It's also easier on your body. I'm not looking forward to hip surgery when I hit 60.

They've been teaching the same golf swing for 40 years. Everything sport evolves. Hockey , tennis, baseball, soccer, basketball etc. Even sports as primal as sprinting. The techniques have changed.

Golf has a way for hanging on to old techniques. Evetually things will change. I believe you'll begin to see a trend toward flatter SA swings. It's happening now. The equation is simple. Simplfy the move and you'lll be able to repeat it more often. The palm grip may take more time to adapt. If Brad Faxon could hit it as straight as Moe Norman he'd be a star. If Moe Norman could have putt like Brad Faxon we would have never heard of Jack, Arnold or Gary. Just kidding.

[mberube]

BTW David Toms. Hit those precise approach shots from the fairway. it rained so much in LA that they didn't cut the rough for a week. and it was thick and sticky. So Toms being in the fairway was not the whole reason, but a major part of his success. He's not sticking a 5 wood from 5 inch rough.

You're last statement about the long vs. accurate is true in some events. It largely depends on the rough.

Top world ranking:

Long hitters:

VJ 1st – 27th in driving distance
Tiger 2nd –3 in driving
Els 3rd – 9th in driving
Phil 4th – 11th in driving
Goosen 5th – 38th in driving last year
Garcia 6th – 18th in driving
Adam Scott 7th – 30th last year in driving

If that is not compelling, enough I don’t know what is.

[BC MIST]

Top world ranking:

Long hitters:

VJ 1st – 27th in driving distance
Tiger 2nd –3 in driving
Els 3rd – 9th in driving
Phil 4th – 11th in driving
Goosen 5th – 38th in driving last year
Garcia 6th – 18th in driving
Adam Scott 7th – 30th last year in driving

If that is not compelling, enough I don’t know what is.

Greens in reguation:
VJ 2nd
Phil M 10th
Tiger 47th

Putts Per GIR
Tiger 2nd
Ernie 9th
VJ 37th
Phil M 43 a whopping 3/100th between 2nd and 43 rd.

There is still no doubt that driving the ball long AND straight is advantageous, however, if you don't have a short game you don't win, whether you are a PGA Tour player or amateurs like all of us. We can play with the numbers all we want, but who wins driving long and putting poorly?

Look at your own games.
If you strike it well and chip/putt poorly, can you score low? I can't.
If you strike it poorly and chip/putt well, can you score well. Yes.
Now, if you strike it well and putt well, what happens? Course/Personal record!!

Another reality: Proportionally, everyone is driving the ball longer, from Tour pros to Granpa Jones, so in effect, nothing has changed. You score when your short game is good. Simple.

"Keep it in the short grass."
"Fairways and Greens." I wonder these mean???

This season, keep track of (1) your scores, (2) length of each drive, (3) the number of feet of putts you actually make during a round. Now, calculate statistical correlations between (a) driving distance and score, versus (b) feet of putts made and score, and then tell the world how important driving is.

BC Mist - 2,
Sphere Hunter - 1
Anomaly - 1

[Andru]

Top world ranking:

Long hitters:

VJ 1st – 27th in driving distance
Tiger 2nd –3 in driving
Els 3rd – 9th in driving
Phil 4th – 11th in driving
Goosen 5th – 38th in driving last year
Garcia 6th – 18th in driving
Adam Scott 7th – 30th last year in driving

If that is not compelling, enough I don’t know what is.

I think you're missing my point. Check that I KNOW you're missing my point. I'm not debating whether overall Driving accuracy stats are less or more important in general.

In this last world match play David Toms executed fine approach shots because he was in the fairway. The point I was making is the more hazardous the rough is, the more important driving accuracy becomes. in this last tournament specifically, The wet conditions and thick rough made accuracy a premium over distance. In other cases you can get away with smashing it in the rough. As the stats you posted illustrates.

[Golfpeasant]

Trendy only goes so far. Eventually at one point, natural golf would have taken over since it has been in existence long enough.

Heres where we differ. Trend is more powerful than practicallity.

VHS vs BETA (BETA remains the industry standard, higher quality)

concrete vs Asphalt (Concrete is a proven longer laster substance for road construction, $ for $)

Gasoline vs alternative fuels

Paris Hilton, enough said.

[mberube]

Look at your own games.
If you strike it well and chip/putt poorly, can you score low? I can't.
If you strike it poorly and chip/putt well, can you score well. Yes.
Now, if you strike it well and putt well, what happens? Course/Personal record!!

I understand what you are saying but take Corey Paven for instance. Give him 53 yards longer of the tee. Is he now one of the top players in the world?

Subtract 53 yards of Tigers total driving distance average. Is he still one of the top players in the world?

The fact is the courses are getting longer every year make it more and more difficult for the shorter players to get the job done. Granted that you MUST have an all rounded game to succeed on tour but the players that are always in the winning circle are long.

You can be as long as you want but if you don’t have a short game or no putting your not even on tour. Same goes for short players. If you have a long iron or a wood on all mid to long par 4’s you wont make many birdies.

If you are fairly accurate, longer is better. At least that’s what my wife says.

[BC MIST]

I understand what you are saying but take Corey Paven for instance. Give him 53 yards longer of the tee. Is he now one of the top players in the world? Subtract 53 yards of Tigers total driving distance average. Is he still one of the top players in the world? Split the difference and give Pavin 26.5 yards and take 26.5 from Tiger, and my answer would be Yes and Yes. If Pavin is still on Tour and winning money, he I still one of the best in the world. And even if Tiger only hit it 260( my powder puff length, he would still be at the top because at 260 he is in the fairway, 9.5 times out of 10, and he can still get it close with a 7 iron versus his normal wedge.

The fact is the courses are getting longer every year make it more and more difficult for the shorter players to get the job done. Granted that you MUST have an all rounded game to succeed on tour but the players that are always in the winning circle are long. If the courses are getting longer in proportion to how much longer the players are hitting the ball, then it does not matter. However, if architects are making couses longer relative to how far only the longest players hit it, then length becomes more important, and IMO, too important.


If you are fairly accurate, longer is better. At least that’s what my wife says.
This is one time you better keep it in the short grass.

[Sakuraba]

Who is the pga tour player they call "ATM"? because of his consistant high place finishes?His swing was profiled in the march issue of golf magazine. It looked awfully pure to me.

To get it back on topic and answer my own question its Scott Hoch. Sweet swing.

[BC MIST]

To get it back on topic and answer my own question its Scott Hoch. Sweet swing.

Smooth swing, yes. Just copy his upright swing plane and see how good you get.

[cheeze]

Hello Everybody. This is my first post here and I have enjoyed reading everyone’s opinion. This is just my 2 cents on the subject.

No one on tour will ever use a single axis swing because they do not need to. They hit the ball in the square on the clubface 95 percent of the time and do not need to simplify their swings for better contact. For the average weekend golfer a single axis swing would only be beneficial for a golfer who struggles with consistent ball striking. A solid shot at 80 mph will go further than a 100 mph mi. If your goal is to hit more fairways a SA swing will be fine, but if your goal is competitive golf you must learn to generate high clubhead speed and then practice untill you wear out the grooves in the middle of your clubs. Moe Norman wasn't a good ball striker just because of his SA swing. It was the blood he shed on his grips that did it.



Cheeze



P.S. My top 5 favorite swings:

1. Goosen

2. Els

3. Love III

4. Couples

5. Woods

[BC MIST]

No one on tour will ever use a single axis swing because they do not need to. They hit the ball in the square on the clubface 95 percent of the time and do not need to simplify their swings for better contact. For the average weekend golfer a single axis swing would only be beneficial for a golfer who struggles with consistent ball striking. A solid shot at 80 mph will go further than a 100 mph mi. If your goal is to hit more fairways a SA swing will be fine, but if your goal is competitive golf you must learn to generate high clubhead speed and then practice untill you wear out the grooves in the middle of your clubs. Moe Norman wasn't a good ball striker just because of his SA swing. It was the blood he shed on his grips that did it.

Welcome to the lion's den.

No one on tour will ever use a single axis swing because they do not need to.
In time, I would like to see you eat these words. Jerry Foltz - Nationwide Tour, Ken Martin - Canadian Tour, Sandy Lyle, Masters Champion - European and PGA Tours

They hit the ball in the square on the clubface 95 percent of the time and do not need to simplify their swings for better contact. Do you realize that you have just endorsed a swing motion that will enable golfer to make better contact? It will do this for anyone, PGA Tour pro or weekend player.

For the average weekend golfer a single axis swing would only be beneficial for a golfer who struggles with consistent ball striking. Nonsense.

If your goal is to hit more fairways a SA swing will be fine, but if your goal is competitive golf you must learn to generate high clubhead speed The inference that an SA swing does not generate high club head speed is also nonsense. A golfer able to generate high club head speed with a traditional swing will be able to duplicate the club head speed with an SA swing.

Moe Norman wasn't a good ball striker just because of his SA swing. It was the blood he shed on his grips that did it. Moe was a good ball striker primarily because of his God given talent, and secondly because of his unique swing. Had he had a conventional swing, IMO, you would never had heard of him.

When you have a moment, would you explain the experience you have had with an SA swing, which has resulted in your making the above statements? Or are they just opinions based on hearsay, or is it heresy?

[Kilroy]

Ya know, this was supposed to be about "the seetest swing" and has turned into a SA argument.

I would love to read a post without a following post by BCMist explaining why EVERY player mentiond sucks because they are not Moe Norman.

Please let's get back to the topic, if you want to debate the benefits of the SA swing start a new thread instead of hijacking this thread.

[mberube]

If you are fairly accurate, longer is better. At least that’s what my wife says.
This is one time you better keep it in the short grass.

I was comparing both cause they have similar short games but their long games are completely different, 53Yards difference on average off the tee. That is quite an amazing difference. There is also an amazing difference in world rankings. Length is what is missing in Corey’s game form him to be in the top 15 in the world if not top 5.

[sensfan63]

My fault (half of it anyway) for the threadjack...

Back to "sweetest swing" discussion...