Was Mike Austin the ONE who understood the golf swing the most?

with degrees in mechanical engineering and Kinesiology his detailed description of the swing is a breath of fresh air,. Bobby Jones was similar but Mike Austin captures the swing from the little phalanges in the hands all the way to the toes without making it impossible to learn.

I would imagine most of today's teachers, are way short of advanced degrees and struggle to describe very complicated moves. There is a difference between teaching and competing obviously or Austin would have won some big ones. He did not..apparently due to putting issues...

I am sure he's been covered many times here, but no one comes close in my honest opinion and i have been a student of the game for decades.

I don't know that it matters who knows the most as much as who can help you understand golf enough to actually get better at it. You can give the same explanation to 20 people, three will get it, one will get it totally wrong, and the other sixteen will sit there staring blankly into space. What I'm trying to say is that having knowledge and imparting that knowledge in a useful way are two different things. The latter is more dependent on the student and the teacher's understanding of that student, while the former need only understand the subject.

Anyway...I've enjoyed a lot of YouTube stuff on Austin. I have found this video particularly helpful in resolving some if my current struggles - https://youtu.be/6P07iigbOvE

well said and very true

Anytime someone claims they are taking advantage of gravity to produce speed then they are immediately excluded from the conversation about who knows the most about the golf swing. Seems like he knew a great deal given the technological limitations they had at the time.

While I"m not a fan of anyone who claims to have a swing system he does have some good stuff. I will slightly disagree though with the presumption that if someone has a degree in kinesiology then they know what they are talking about. In my experience there is a big difference between book smarts and knowing how things work when put into play. The two best out there imo, and its different for everyone, are Monte and Dan. I have been following a guy on IG that seems pretty good as well and his name on there is shkeengolf.

understanding the swing, doing the swing, and teaching the swing aren't as related as we would like to think.

Well said @scooterhd2

Very true... Austin was a great hitter but not a great teacher. He was 87 when I met him, his right arm was totally paralyzed and his right leg was 70% paralyzed due to a stroke he had at 79.

Gravity has very little effect on clubhead speed. However, I believe knowing that fact is nearly useless for anyone trying to learn the golf swing. It becomes kind of a "gotcha" "I know more than you" game on the internet when it's brought up. Countless great players from the past talk about a gravity move from the top of the swing. They were technically wrong. I personally could not care less if the explanation of the swing from a person who has dedicated their life to their craft wouldn't hold up in a physics class.

If the OP is the same poster, there was an epic thread started by him a few years ago on another DB about this topic. The writing style is similar. It quickly degenerated into much posturing and puffing about who knew what. Luckily it diasappeared after a few months.

I do love the sound of that old big Bertha and wound ball :)

Runners run faster with forward lean, versus running completely upright, allowing gravity to pull the runner more horizontally forward, almost a controlled fall, which is more efficient because less energy is being used.

It's certainly true of the start, but after about 15 to 20 meters, the maintenance of speed is kept by application of force into the ground, which accounts for more speed than falling forward. So, after the start, any forward lean is used to accommodate mechanics, not gravity. (At least, that's what I gather from Peter Weyand's material.)

Shawn Clement talks bout the weight of the clubs and arms and working with that mass..... that's a refernece to gravity even if not mentioned. Also makes sense to work with the speed gravity helps move that mass vs the feeling to over exert and over swing.... specially on 3/4 swings

Shawn Clement talks about a lot of obscure things, that doesn't mean they are true/correct.

Yeah but I liked it... specially the awareness of the weight of the arms and clubs that your working with

Gotta love it

I’d say it matters if someone is trying to claim they have a physics background and using that for credibility.

If he didn't mention gravity, could he have been referring to inertia, momentum instead?

I am sure Austin knew his stuff. What gets overlooked by too many, and yes it was mentioned a bit in this thread, is all that matters from an instructor is “ do you get better “? Personally I don’t care if the instructions are provably correct or incorrect. If he or she can give me the manual to reach my best golf I am all in. It’s like the D plane and the “new” ball flight laws from a few years ago. Threads were full of internet know it alls crowing how they were more knowledgeable than a Butch or Jack. But whatever the process is if it works it is golden in sports. The true test of a great teacher in golf is to spot the students faults...know if the student is physically capable of performing the ideal move....know how to communicate the correct movement to correct those faults.....provide feedback for progress of the student.

For instance I often read posts saying they see the early extension in a swing and need to fix that. A really good instructor like a Monte will indent if you and fix the underlying issue that caused the early extension.

Beat me to it. If you are claiming he knows the swing because of his engineering background and knows “the most ever” then you better be technically correct.

Like I said earlier it really doesn’t matter to me personally. Mike Austin seemed to have a few screws loose. I’m sure he made all sorts of wild claims. I don’t follow Mike Austin’s swing philosophy, but I don’t doubt that he had tremendous knowledge. I don’t believe his knowledge should be discounted because he didn’t have everything scientifically correct when he was teaching 30 years ago. “Knowing the most ever” about the golf swing is kind of a silly claim to make and I’m not defending that. That wasn’t my point.

I'm afraid physics says that as long as the runner does not actually fall down gravity does not bring any work (energy).

Shawn recognizes that he rather should be speaking of momentum and inertia, so the "mass" instead of "weight" and no reference to gravity. Still good advice for many though (for clarity of the message I suspect momentum and inertia wouldn't mean much to a good fraction of his pupils).

there isn't one video I have seen that captures all about Austin's thoughts. One has to see most of his body of work. been fortunate to see a ton of material off youtube. Hence my conclusion.

One thing i really appreciate is his concern for injury. How not to tear your back up.. and the method was how Bobby Jones and early Hogan et al pivoted. Compare that to modern teachers who do not have a clue on how the body functions via joints and muscles and it is why there are so many with back injuries....rotate hard...rotate your hips... i think his advanced degrees helped him explain accurately.. jeez..mechanical engineering and Kinesiology should lol

Of which "modern" instructors do you speak when you say they don't have a clue as to how the body functions ? Certainly, you must realize there are multiple reasons for back injuries in golfers.

I should rephrase that.. exaggeration

Gravity discussions can quickly get into the weeds. Lagpressure on ABS had a great description of a car accelerating downhill with the clutch engaged, and popping the clutch at the bottom of the hill to go up the other side. Discounting anyone with a belief that gravity cannot be an assist attribute within a mechanical process is standing on pretty solid ground.

Other than that, Austin is a good one to listen to for those wanting an efficient swing.

Can someone provide a source detailing the impressive academic background of Dr. Austin that the OP alluded to?

A quick google search revealed - summary, highly unlikely. Mike Austin: The Myth, The Legend (Part 1) - Hit It Longer