Long Swing..........Long Career

[Night train]

Interesting comments by Phil in his press conference. His encouragement to young players to be smooth and not violent with their swings. I happen to believe he's right, as much as Jason Day, Tiger, and others are impressive with their power, it's hard on the body.........it's not a swing for a lifetime. Sam Snead is probably the greatest example of a fluid powerful swing. Interesting listening them discuss it on Live from the Masters.

 

I know Brandel is not liked by many..........but I think he's right on this.

[Christosterone]

Here are a few examples off the top of my head(all were long, tempo/timing moves):

 

Jack Nicklaus(reverse c)

Colin Montgomerie(reverse c)

Vijay Singh(reverse c)

Phil Mickelson(70s themed hip sway)

Tom Watson(reverse c)

Sam Snead

Julius Boros

Johnny Miller(reverse c)

Byron Nelson(retired at 35 and Tom Watson said he was near tour level in the 1970s)

Ben Hogan

Bobby Jones(he and Lord Byron were whipping hogan/demaret in matches long into their 50s)

Ben Crenshaw

Greg Norman(reverse c)

 

But a lot of it is luck too....Daly and Couples have long, languid moves and have been plagued by injuries...

 

-Christosterone

[Loki]

I know Brandel is not liked by many..........but I think he's right on this.

 

He's right a lot more often than the other blowhards in the media. A lot more...

[RRFireblade]

Interesting comments by Phil in his press conference. His encouragement to young players to be smooth and not violent with their swings. I happen to believe he's right, as much as Jason Day, Tiger, and others are impressive with their power, it's hard on the body.........it's not a swing for a lifetime. Sam Snead is probably the greatest example of a fluid powerful swing. Interesting listening them discuss it on Live from the Masters.

 

I know Brandel is not liked by many..........but I think he's right on this.

 

I think a smooth fluid tempo is likely the primary factor.

 

I think starting with a lot of length allows more latitude for aging before great losses of distance.

[Titleist 670]

I always thought Tiger's swing was way more fluid than people gave him credit for.

 

He would go after it every now and again.

 

His swing looks much stiffer to me now.

[2bGood]

Here are a few examples off the top of my head(all were long, tempo/timing moves):

 

Jack Nicklaus(reverse c)

Colin Montgomerie(reverse c)

Vijay Singh(reverse c)

Phil Mickelson(70s themed hip sway)

Tom Watson(reverse c)

Sam Snead

Julius Boros

Johnny Miller(reverse c)

Byron Nelson(retired at 35 and Tom Watson said he was near tour level in the 1970s)

Ben Hogan

Bobby Jones(he and Lord Byron were whipping hogan/demaret in matches long into their 50s)

Ben Crenshaw

Greg Norman(reverse c)

 

But a lot of it is luck too....Daly and Couples have long, languid moves and have been plagued by injuries...

 

-Christosterone

 

I was thinking about the same list - with Couples as the example of a guy with about as long and smooth as swing as you can get that unfortunately had bad injuries. Some would say his shoulder turn is the cause.

 

Not sure Daly's injuries can be totally blamed on golf. He has not exactly taken great care of himself.

 

Anyhow despite a few outliers the concept makes sense.

[Michael C.]

I had an instructor tell me once that Couples back problems possibly stem from his head moving towards the target at the top of his backswing causing his back to arch and putting stress on his lower back. True or not? Idk.

 

It does seem that longer swings tend to last and the shorter swing players are more prone to injury, in general. My theory is it may have something to do with the change of direction. Longer swings seem to build speed and the shorter swings have a more abrupt change of direction.

 

However, the shorter swings seem to be more efficient.

 

So, who knows. OP's theory makes sense to me.

[Sbarnold]

I know Phil is an expert in many areas but I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison between pickers (e.g. Watson) and diggers (e.g. Sergio). As the old adage goes. 1,000 practice swings and you're feeling o.k. Hit 1,000 balls and you're in pain for days.

 

After all is said and done, I'd still wager that genes play a bigger role than swing length and/or impact angle.

[playa]

I know Brandel is not liked by many..........but I think he's right on this.

 

He's right a lot more often than the other blowhards in the media. A lot more...

If you throw out enough opinions you have to occasionally get one right.

[pinehurst]

I think it would be really hard to prove what swing method lasts and what doesn't. In the case of Tiger, who is to say exactly how he was injured? Was it his swing, or weights, or something else? Jack swung the club equally as hard as Jason Day and he played pretty decent into his 60's. The guys who seem to have longevity are guys who were really good when they were young, and stayed good later in life as well. By virtue of their good play when they were in their prime, they had more opportunities to compete as they got older. Long hitters seem to remain competitive longer because, despite giving up a few yards, they are still long enough. Others like Gary Player and Langer just kept themselves in great shape. The long fluid type swing was popular in the 70's and 80's, so we are seeing those guys now at an older age, but that doesn't prove their methods are better, just that they are still around. Snead was an iron man and kept his flexibility for a long time. My personal opinion is that the upright, arc type swingers, who can use gravity to their advantage, will last the longest. Great putters never go out of style either.

[fowlerscousin]

meh pure bro science

[Sun Devil]

I think equipment (read: shafts) has something to do with the longish, rhythmic swings of the past vs. some of the short, quick swings we have now. A long. languid swing would seemly impart less stress on the joints. But a short swing would not over tax or over stretch the joints. Short answer: I don't know.

[JustTheTips]

meh pure bro science

 

Pretty much. Go back to 1970-1980 and classify every golfer on tour as a long, medium or short swing and then tell us what their injury history has been over the past 45 years. The number of golfers that have survived without major injuries is really low.

 

The other question of course is what is the tradeoff. What if a longer back swing lengthens your career, but you are worse(shorter, less accurate, less consistant) with it. Does adding 5 years after 40 make up for winning 5 or 6 less events in your prime?

[upanddown52]

Actually, the point of PM's statement and I believe the OP's point was not to determine a right or wrong, but whether it is worth thinking about the impact of various approaches over the long haul.

 

Certainly there could be trade-offs about efficiency, effectiveness and results in the short term. But that is only one factor in the discussion. Many an NFL player or other professional athletes have made similar choices, knowingly or not.

 

But golf is a game you should expect and hope to play throughout your life. I would love to see more info and theory on this. At age 52, I happen to agree with Phil.

[Man_O_War]

interesting because there is nothing fluid about Mickelson's swing over the years... lot of moving parts and violent lashes. He's just lucky he is supple..or his career would have been over 20 years ago.

[millerlitenice]

Maybe look at Senior Tour/Champions tour for answers? Swings that last are the swings that last..we should check back in 20 years and see where we stand on it maybe?

[redfirebird08]

Ernie Els has a smoother swing than Mickelson and yet Ernie has had more injuries than Phil. Good tempo sure doesn't hurt, but good luck is even better.

[Nard_S]

I am really glad that someone of Phil's stature spoke to this issue. Group think has been frowning on long (and upright) swings for many years. And yet some of the most durable players, Watson and Snead for example went deep into their careers with it. No doubt in my mind that Phil will too.

 

Early Tiger may have had the best long swing ever and to see it morph into the S&T horror show it became should be a cautionary tale to many of of his peers.

 

At 53, my swing hero is Watson. It's long, upright and uptempo. The guy still strikes it pure and he does it without a reverse C finish (he made a change in the 1980's). I humbly try to emulate, but I hit plenty long and do it without ever coming close to serious injury. I hope others can always say the same.

[BearQ]

I am really glad that someone of Phil's stature spoke to this issue. Group think has been frowning on long (and upright) swings for many years. And yet some of the most durable players, Watson and Snead for example went deep into their careers with it. No doubt in my mind that Phil will too.

 

Early Tiger may have had the best long swing ever and to see it morph into the S&T horror show it became should be a cautionary tale to many of of his peers.

 

At 53, my swing hero is Watson. It's long, upright and uptempo. The guy still strikes it pure and he does it without a reverse C finish (he made a change in the 1980's). I humbly try to emulate, but I hit plenty long and do it without ever coming close to serious injury. I hope others can always say the same.

 

+1. I'm 26, but been a fan of Tom Watson very early on in my pre-teens because of all the old reruns on GC of his Open titles. The short game magic intrigued me. When he almost won the Open again in '09, I did tons of viewing/research on his action. His swing was actually better after 50 than it was beforehand. Amazing.

 

One of the videos I find myself watching when my game is off his the one posted below Purest, clean, picked strikes. I do believe being a picker is better long term on your elbows/wrists and joints in general.