Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

nlk10010's Achievements



  1. That is my main objection to ALL mats. I don't think Fiberbuilt is appreciably better or worse in that regard. The above said, there are NO grass driving ranges within a reasonable distance of me (that I know of) so it was either put the clubs away for 5 months or bite the bullet. I bought a Fiberbuilt Grass Series Hourglass Pro Studio Mat and am pretty happy with it. The base is very sturdy, comprised of four interlocking rubber pieces. Not the easiest thing to break down and put together again but it needs to be heavy-duty to withstand the pressures of a golf swing. The grass strip is, well, like other grass strips, worst thing in the world if you tend to hit fat, but I sometimes try to hit off the thinner stance mat. Only issues I have is that the stance mat is relatively ill-fitting and tends to move around and the grass strip sheds, which I did not expect (and indeed was one of the reasons I chose Fiberbuilt over other brands in the first place).
  2. I actually reread my post and realized I misstated something: I don't think he's worthy of being mocked, I don't know him but he seems like a perfectly reasonable guy trying to make a living (or capitalize a bit on a hobby). What I wanted to say was that there are going to be those who find him an easy target for no reason other than how he looks, or speaks, or because of his homemade materials, and that is unfortunate. As to your experience, I've observed this kind of thing consistently (with me, at least). Try a new method, or one that you've put aside for awhile, and initially it seems to work. Keep trying it and it does indeed "slowly slip away". Why? Who knows, perhaps it's because we keep trying to improve it ("better is the enemy of good") or we experience a rough patch of a few swings and assume those only occur with a method we shouldn't be using. So we abandon it and move on. But every once in a while, even when trying a different method, I remember the lead shoulder and it helps get my weight forward a bit.
  3. Yup, still have the spiral bound manual and the CD, and certainly he's the kind of guy who's easy to mock, but for those of us who are trail-hand dominant and are arm-swingers he's got a good point. I don't know if I'd agree about being the same as MDLT's teachings, which focuses more on both of the (upper) arms, but that's just my take.
  4. What's the old saying: "Don't follow a bad shot with a stupid one". Funny, when I was in Graduate School chaos theory was the big topic in theoretical Economics (hard to find it now). High handicappers (I'd say like me but I fall into another category of "highness" altogether) often think that a bad shot is a sign they don't have their swing down so they keep searching for a good one and end up ignoring their putting and short game. Also, they might go out and play fairly well but if a video of their swing shows they're scooping or flipping or doing any of the myriad things that are not supposed to be in a "good" swing then the search for the perfect swing goes on. Of course you can (should) try to improve but if golfers like myself learned that a bad shot is NOT necessarily an indication that you're on the wrong path and need to put everything on hold while you look for the right one then we might not get so down and instead continue to work on other aspects of our game.
  5. Yup, I pay for PGA Tour Live on NBC Sports Gold and neither this nor the Fortinet can (or could) be found on Saturday and (Sunday for the latter). I have seen where PGA Tour Live SAYS it covered these tournaments all four days but it's simply not on. Yes, I know, BIG DEAL, I agree, but aside from the "principle of the thing" (I don't appreciate false advertising) sometimes I like to keep PGA tournaments on as background noise while I work.
  6. It's really difficult, because with a big swing change you're likely looking at altering multiple swing characteristics. I think it's almost impossible for most people (I KNOW it's impossible for me) to work on more than one (or maybe two, but for me, one) thing at a time. As a result, you might actually make progress ingraining one new "move" but because you're not working on the others the ball could go anywhere. Apart from making it hard to play a round you could easily think you're not "getting it" and quit. I've been told by people who know a lot more about this than I do that if you're making big swing changes better not try to do it on the course and better not pay attention to where your ball goes on the range.
  7. Amen. Although, to be fair, many well-respected instructors teach off mats (e.g. GG). If you've got a pro overseeing your swing off a mat then you stand a chance, but if you're by yourself at a range noting how beautifully your iron shots fly through the air using the mats, you're doomed.
  8. OP, this is my view. In theory (reference Hogan's "pane of glass" plane, not his swing) a one-plane swing would be addressing the ball so that the arms and clubshaft lie on that plane, a two dimensional object sitting in three-dimensional space. You would then need to keep the arms and clubshaft ON THAT PLANE throughout the swing. That, IMO, is a theoretical one-plane swing. I believe it is generally agreed that type of swing is impossible, as a poster said, even the single-plane "God" (Moe Norman) couldn't, or wouldn't, do that. He'd come a bit under the plane on the back swing, then down on the plane. There is a "single-plane" swing of Jim Hardy's, which involves two parallel planes. Roughly speaking, you address the ball on the "lower plane" then, as you move to the top of your back swing, your arms and clubshaft lie in a parallel, higher, plane. When you then swing down you're supposed to move back down to the initial plane. The latest incarnation of this swing is, I think, what Hardy calls "RIT". Regardless, that may be what you are referring to. A (Hardy) two-plane swing involves two distinct planes as well, by they aren't parallel. Again, I am open to correction, but the terms "one-plane" and "two-plane" are thrown around quite a bit, not sure people agree on the definitions.
  9. Yes, my real point is that I have found (emphasis on the I) that unless I rotate my pelvis and drag the arms around I will hang back, fat it and/or manipulate the club. Whatever the specific reason, I end up not being able to hit a 7-iron more than, say, 120 yards and suffer from all sorts of inconsistencies. I looked towards Grave, or Junge, or whomever, hoping that their approach would allow me to play reasonable golf without requiring that the hip/torso drive the swing. They didn't, all the ones I tried either explicitly or implicitly require that same rotation. They may or may not emphasize it, but it's there. Perhaps Venetos doesn't, perhaps Larry Rinker's upper-core swing doesn't, I don't know. So I've committed myself to a method that emphasizes you learn the rotation, so far my arthritic back hasn't bothered me as much as it's just made that rotation extremely difficult to achieve. It's a work in progress. But no method I've tried to date allowed me to avoid making pelvis rotation the main objective in the downswing. Probably has to do with the fact I took up golf for real late in life and am used to using my arms and shoulders to swing. At this point I can't unlearn that.
  10. Yes, absolutely, but just be aware of one thing: Even with Junge, you have to "drive" the swing with body rotation. Kirk explicitly says, in at least one of his videos, that issues arise if you try to swing with the arms. Lag is created with loose wrists as the torso reverses turn. Certainly Junge's approach where you can stand as far from the ball as is comfortable, don't have to keep the trail foot down and aren't required to swing around a bent lead knee (the three main differences from the Graves swing) can be body friendly, but that depends on the individual. It's just that the pivot-driven approach, where you are required to separate the hips/pelvis from the torso, is integral to Kirk's methodology.
  11. IMO, Jim Hardy's single-plane (the predecessor to his RIT) is not the same as Graves' (or Junge's). They have some commonality in that the idea is to limit arm rotation to minimize the reliance on timing to get the face square (or almost square) at impact, but the setup of the Graves swing is quite different. It requires you to stand farther from the ball than "normal" and to move down towards the ball in the downswing. You also are required to keep your trail foot down through impact. I think that's why many people think it would be hard on the back, I tried it and while I had some issues striking the ball the swing did not bother my back (which is pretty bad, I'm 71 and have had an arthritic back for quite a while). Junge modifies the stance to allow you to stand closer to the ball and doesn't require you keep your trail foot down. Really, whether a particular swing will be tough on your back is very hard to figure, I guess you have to try it. If you are looking for a different way to swing it's worth a try, at the very least it does increase the chances the club head will be square at impact, but (and this is where I miscalculated) if you can't separate your torso from your pelvis and rotate your hips first then you will still have trouble. I know people who have had success with Paul Wilson's method, it also requires you to rotate but is claimed to be less stressful on the back. I don't particularly like his style but the idea of the body driving the swing (as opposed to the arms) is pretty widespread.
  12. The idea of placing the ball way forward in the stance (actually, I've seen it as far forward as target-side of the lead foot) is a drill for all sorts of swings that has been around a long time. It was designed to encourage getting the golfer's weight forward, one of my instructors tried it with me a while back, didn't work (but that's another story). In the context of the SP swing I don't think that's its primary purpose. It seems to be a consequence of setting up in an impact position (hips open), then rotating back for address. I think Moe once said it was simply a way to get a "head start" on the backswing. The term "hip bump" is, again, really more a SP swing thing, but if it helps you (whatever swing you're using) then that's great.
  13. Milo Lines and, to some extent, Sam Goulden teach the same thing, I think the idea is there is no release when you're first learning the swing (i.e. drilling it). It's a "rigid motion" (my term). Later of course there is a release as otherwise you wouldn't hit the ball very far. It's good for people (like me) who can't avoid using their arms and hands to hit "at" the ball and as a result have poor sequencing.
  14. I would look at the Square-to-Square swing or even better Milo Lines. Certainly GG qualifies as well. As johnrobison says, it's a rotation away, not towards, the ball. But of course your instructor is in the best position to explain how he (she) wants you to turn, pivot-driven swing methodologies vary. And again, it's NOT that you don't use your arms, it's about your primary intention in the downswing. Just internet advice from a layman.
  15. That's why some say it is not a good idea to change your swing while you play. It's a process (as you say), you're training your body to move in a different way and it will be difficult. Practice either with balls (foam or otherwise) into a net or at the range. DON'T WORRY WHERE THE BALL GOES. For now. Hit whatever positions you're supposed to hit, slowly, get the move ingrained (like martial artists). Foremost, you have to have confidence that you WILL make progress in changing how your body moves. It will take a while, however. Whether it's the RIGHT swing, well, that another thing. That's my feeling right now. Tomorrow, well, like the weather, you never know......
  • Create New...