Snead, Hogan & Nicklaus vs Tiger, Rory Etc.

[gabh]

[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392269462' post='8657741']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392268450' post='8657685']
[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392267552' post='8657615']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392262565' post='8657163']
What if his spine is naturally a bit less S-shaped (edit: more S-shaped), why would you want him to "lay" on that PVC pipe? On the downswing, his spine would naturally return on that bit more S-shaped natural position. In fact, the spine would want to be MORE S-shaped in downswing, especially if your sequence is correct (lower spine leads, upper spine gets behind).
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean about "laying" on the pvc pipe. Re-read my post - should be done standing.

And it doesn't matter if his spine has more natural curve. He can still find a neutral spine position.

The S-shape changes quite a bit in a golf swing, so I'm just referring to the address position that OP was talking about originally.

None of this really even matters, the point I was trying to make is that OP's statement that the old players were in a more neutral/natural position that is better for the back is just not true. Now, the amount of hip flexion could certainly be an issue, as that does place more load into the back, but it has less to do with the natural curvature of the spine.
[/quote]

My opinion is it's better for the back.

I meant the PVC pipe being layed on the back and spine conforming to it.

My point is just that if one's spine isn't naturally the same as where you [b]lay the pipe[/b], the spine is stressed or tensed. During twisting in backswing and untwisting in downswing, that puts more stress or tension than necessary on the spine, specifically the discs.

The discs naturally grow based on the natural space or room in between the spinal vertebra or vertebraes. When you try to straighten it like in your lay the pile drill, of this is not your spine's natural position, the discs will be compressed on one side. When you twist and untwist during the swing, those discs will be compressed even more. This is the main cause of pains because those discs would either get ruptured or compress on nearby parts of the discs and spine, both inside and outside he spine or discs. The discs are gel like, so if it's compressed it will try to look for space. This is not to mention the tendons and muscles around it and the spine.

Again, I think this is a cause for concern and doctors should chime in or be consulted.
[/quote]

First let's be clear, laying pipe is a COMPLETELY different drill than what I was talking about above

Second, from your last post it sounds like you either didn't understand what I was talking about with finding neutral spine with the pvc pipe or you perhaps don't understand neutral spine. Neutral spine is always going to be healthier for the spine (and discs). If someone can't get into neutral spine, they are much more likely to be injured. This needs to be addressed prior to even thinking about golf....maybe this will help:

http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blog/the-myth-of-neutral-spine/
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that the "neutral" or "natural" spine tilt or S-shape for Hogan, Snead and Nicklaus is not consistent with the neutral spine with the pipe. So if they use the pipe or unnaturally (for them) try to straighten their spine more, they'll be injured or injured more, as the case may be. Their thoracic and cervical spines are more flexed than usual, much more than "modern" neutral spine posture.

[drewtaylor21]

[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392270837' post='8657817']
[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392269462' post='8657741']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392268450' post='8657685']
[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392267552' post='8657615']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392262565' post='8657163']
What if his spine is naturally a bit less S-shaped (edit: more S-shaped), why would you want him to "lay" on that PVC pipe? On the downswing, his spine would naturally return on that bit more S-shaped natural position. In fact, the spine would want to be MORE S-shaped in downswing, especially if your sequence is correct (lower spine leads, upper spine gets behind).
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean about "laying" on the pvc pipe. Re-read my post - should be done standing.

And it doesn't matter if his spine has more natural curve. He can still find a neutral spine position.

The S-shape changes quite a bit in a golf swing, so I'm just referring to the address position that OP was talking about originally.

None of this really even matters, the point I was trying to make is that OP's statement that the old players were in a more neutral/natural position that is better for the back is just not true. Now, the amount of hip flexion could certainly be an issue, as that does place more load into the back, but it has less to do with the natural curvature of the spine.
[/quote]

My opinion is it's better for the back.

I meant the PVC pipe being layed on the back and spine conforming to it.

My point is just that if one's spine isn't naturally the same as where you [b]lay the pipe[/b], the spine is stressed or tensed. During twisting in backswing and untwisting in downswing, that puts more stress or tension than necessary on the spine, specifically the discs.

The discs naturally grow based on the natural space or room in between the spinal vertebra or vertebraes. When you try to straighten it like in your lay the pile drill, of this is not your spine's natural position, the discs will be compressed on one side. When you twist and untwist during the swing, those discs will be compressed even more. This is the main cause of pains because those discs would either get ruptured or compress on nearby parts of the discs and spine, both inside and outside he spine or discs. The discs are gel like, so if it's compressed it will try to look for space. This is not to mention the tendons and muscles around it and the spine.

Again, I think this is a cause for concern and doctors should chime in or be consulted.
[/quote]

First let's be clear, laying pipe is a COMPLETELY different drill than what I was talking about above

Second, from your last post it sounds like you either didn't understand what I was talking about with finding neutral spine with the pvc pipe or you perhaps don't understand neutral spine. Neutral spine is always going to be healthier for the spine (and discs). If someone can't get into neutral spine, they are much more likely to be injured. This needs to be addressed prior to even thinking about golf....maybe this will help:

[url="http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blog/the-myth-of-neutral-spine/"]http://robertsontrai...-neutral-spine/[/url]
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that the "neutral" or "natural" spine tilt or S-shape for Hogan, Snead and Nicklaus is not consistent with the neutral spine with the pipe. So if they use the pipe or unnaturally (for them) try to straighten their spine more, they'll be injured or injured more, as the case may be. Their thoracic and cervical spines are more flexed than usual, much more than "modern" neutral spine posture.
[/quote]

Ah ok I see what you're saying now. I agree that they don't fit the neutral spine mold at address due to more thoracic flexion (cervical and lumbar spine are still naturally extended in all 3), but what makes you think that kept them relatively injured? A serious thoracic spine injury is very rare....If anything, I still think the degree of hip flexion is the only place you could make an argument for the "old" swing being easier on the body.

[PingG10guy]

[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392263425' post='8657241']
Thoracic too if the shoulder gets behind as it should be because that means right side bend kicks in, so thoracic needs to flex bit more.
[/quote]

...Now you are talking about hunching the thoracic in the downswing to give the appearance of shallowing out and fake a position on camera from DTL. Cary Shoen strikes again.

[gabh]

[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392275994' post='8658001']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392270837' post='8657817']
[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392269462' post='8657741']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392268450' post='8657685']
[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392267552' post='8657615']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392262565' post='8657163']
What if his spine is naturally a bit less S-shaped (edit: more S-shaped), why would you want him to "lay" on that PVC pipe? On the downswing, his spine would naturally return on that bit more S-shaped natural position. In fact, the spine would want to be MORE S-shaped in downswing, especially if your sequence is correct (lower spine leads, upper spine gets behind).
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean about "laying" on the pvc pipe. Re-read my post - should be done standing.

And it doesn't matter if his spine has more natural curve. He can still find a neutral spine position.

The S-shape changes quite a bit in a golf swing, so I'm just referring to the address position that OP was talking about originally.

None of this really even matters, the point I was trying to make is that OP's statement that the old players were in a more neutral/natural position that is better for the back is just not true. Now, the amount of hip flexion could certainly be an issue, as that does place more load into the back, but it has less to do with the natural curvature of the spine.
[/quote]

My opinion is it's better for the back.

I meant the PVC pipe being layed on the back and spine conforming to it.

My point is just that if one's spine isn't naturally the same as where you [b]lay the pipe[/b], the spine is stressed or tensed. During twisting in backswing and untwisting in downswing, that puts more stress or tension than necessary on the spine, specifically the discs.

The discs naturally grow based on the natural space or room in between the spinal vertebra or vertebraes. When you try to straighten it like in your lay the pile drill, of this is not your spine's natural position, the discs will be compressed on one side. When you twist and untwist during the swing, those discs will be compressed even more. This is the main cause of pains because those discs would either get ruptured or compress on nearby parts of the discs and spine, both inside and outside he spine or discs. The discs are gel like, so if it's compressed it will try to look for space. This is not to mention the tendons and muscles around it and the spine.

Again, I think this is a cause for concern and doctors should chime in or be consulted.
[/quote]

First let's be clear, laying pipe is a COMPLETELY different drill than what I was talking about above

Second, from your last post it sounds like you either didn't understand what I was talking about with finding neutral spine with the pvc pipe or you perhaps don't understand neutral spine. Neutral spine is always going to be healthier for the spine (and discs). If someone can't get into neutral spine, they are much more likely to be injured. This needs to be addressed prior to even thinking about golf....maybe this will help:

[url="http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blog/the-myth-of-neutral-spine/"]http://robertsontrai...-neutral-spine/[/url]
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that the "neutral" or "natural" spine tilt or S-shape for Hogan, Snead and Nicklaus is not consistent with the neutral spine with the pipe. So if they use the pipe or unnaturally (for them) try to straighten their spine more, they'll be injured or injured more, as the case may be. Their thoracic and cervical spines are more flexed than usual, much more than "modern" neutral spine posture.
[/quote]

Ah ok I see what you're saying now. I agree that they don't fit the neutral spine mold at address due to more thoracic flexion (cervical and lumbar spine are still naturally extended in all 3), but what makes you think that kept them relatively injured? A serious thoracic spine injury is very rare....If anything, I still think the degree of hip flexion is the only place you could make an argument for the "old" swing being easier on the body.
[/quote]

Less thoracic flexion needs more tailbone release, so you're forced to sorta like early extend or early hump the goat too early too much. That would seriously compress your discs on lumbar spine up to the tailbone. Whereas more thoracic flexion means a more horizontal turn of hips will do, such as Hogan and Nicklaus; even just extending your left side or left hip will do, such as Snead and Nelson. These chaps never had serious lower back injuries. Nicklaus' injury is not due to his hip turn, it's due to his unnecessary or overly tilted lumbar at post impact and finish. Hogan, Snead and Nelson stood up as soon as they've hit the ball. Jack didn't, and I wonder why.

[gabh]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1392278362' post='8658047']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392263425' post='8657241']
Thoracic too if the shoulder gets behind as it should be because that means right side bend kicks in, so thoracic needs to flex bit more.
[/quote]

...Now you are talking about hunching the thoracic in the downswing to give the appearance of shallowing out and fake a position on camera from DTL. Cary Shoen strikes again.
[/quote]

Relax PingG10. It's perfectly fine with me if you disagree with me. Lighten up.

As I've said above, I'm for right side bend by way of turning the hips or left side or hip extension while keeping the head still.

[Sean2]

[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392267649' post='8657625']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1392264004' post='8657303']
I thought you put a club along your back, tilted over the ball, and your back/shaft stayed in contact. Now you are telling me that is not so? You guys...stink. ;-)
[/quote]

Just certain parts of the spine (sacral and thoracic). There should be space between the club and body at the lumbar and cervical spine segments (at address).
[/quote]

Thanks Drew. I was curious about the top of the back though. It looks like the previous generation was a bit "hunched" over.

[TB07]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1392278362' post='8658047']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392263425' post='8657241']
Thoracic too if the shoulder gets behind as it should be because that means right side bend kicks in, so thoracic needs to flex bit more.
[/quote]

...Now you are talking about hunching the thoracic in the downswing to give the appearance of shallowing out and fake a position on camera from DTL. Cary Shoen strikes again.
[/quote]

Why would the thoracic have to go in flexion?

[DJ Watts]

I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be

Peace,

DJ Watts

[Fort Worth Pro]

[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392310383' post='8659847']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research
[/quote]

Hi Fort Worth Pro:

I started out studying Moe Norman's and Ben Hogan's swings back in '05 to see if what they were doing was actually "perfect" in the mechanical sense, and from there, I went back to zero and looked at videos of swings back to Bobby Jones' era, up to the modern period. Plus, of course, I did my own personal research as a former [i](and pretty successful)[/i] amateur athlete who didn't struggle to pick up any athletic motion until someone tried to teach me the golf swing according to conventional methods back in the mid-90's.

From there, I began to simply look at motion and how the body moves outside of golf. The essence of my research has been, the simplest motion to learn and maintain that delivers the optimal combination of power and accuracy.

The modern swing is just not that for the average person. Even the pros have to work at it all day, how is the average person ever going to hope to master this method?

Best,

DJ Watts

[Fort Worth Pro]

[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392310952' post='8659929']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392310383' post='8659847']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research
[/quote]

Hi Fort Worth Pro:

I started out studying Moe Norman's and Ben Hogan's swings back in '05 to see if what they were doing was actually "perfect" in the mechanical sense, and from there, I went back to zero and looked at videos of swings back to Bobby Jones' era, up to the modern period. Plus, of course, I did my own personal research as a former [i](and pretty successful)[/i] amateur athlete who didn't struggle to pick up any athletic motion until someone tried to teach me the golf swing according to conventional methods back in the mid-90's.

From there, I began to simply look at motion and how the body moves outside of golf. The essence of my research has been, the simplest motion to learn and maintain that delivers the optimal combination of power and accuracy.

The modern swing is just not that for the average person. Even the pros have to work at it all day, how is the average person ever going to hope to master this method?

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

So by research you mean, watching videos and hitting balls? No AMA, force or pressure plates, trackman? No measuring hundreds of golfers and drawing conclusions?

[gabh]

[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392312666' post='8660133']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392310952' post='8659929']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392310383' post='8659847']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research
[/quote]

Hi Fort Worth Pro:

I started out studying Moe Norman's and Ben Hogan's swings back in '05 to see if what they were doing was actually "perfect" in the mechanical sense, and from there, I went back to zero and looked at videos of swings back to Bobby Jones' era, up to the modern period. Plus, of course, I did my own personal research as a former [i](and pretty successful)[/i] amateur athlete who didn't struggle to pick up any athletic motion until someone tried to teach me the golf swing according to conventional methods back in the mid-90's.

From there, I began to simply look at motion and how the body moves outside of golf. The essence of my research has been, the simplest motion to learn and maintain that delivers the optimal combination of power and accuracy.

The modern swing is just not that for the average person. Even the pros have to work at it all day, how is the average person ever going to hope to master this method?

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

So by research you mean, watching videos and hitting balls? No AMA, force or pressure plates, trackman? No measuring hundreds of golfers and drawing conclusions?
[/quote]

FWPro, you prefer a less flexioned thoracic?

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392312666' post='8660133']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392310952' post='8659929']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392310383' post='8659847']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research
[/quote]

Hi Fort Worth Pro:

I started out studying Moe Norman's and Ben Hogan's swings back in '05 to see if what they were doing was actually "perfect" in the mechanical sense, and from there, I went back to zero and looked at videos of swings back to Bobby Jones' era, up to the modern period. Plus, of course, I did my own personal research as a former [i](and pretty successful)[/i] amateur athlete who didn't struggle to pick up any athletic motion until someone tried to teach me the golf swing according to conventional methods back in the mid-90's.

From there, I began to simply look at motion and how the body moves outside of golf. The essence of my research has been, the simplest motion to learn and maintain that delivers the optimal combination of power and accuracy.

The modern swing is just not that for the average person. Even the pros have to work at it all day, how is the average person ever going to hope to master this method?

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

So by research you mean, watching videos and hitting balls? No AMA, force or pressure plates, trackman? No measuring hundreds of golfers and drawing conclusions?
[/quote]


My friend, if you want "scientific" research, I imagine there is a metric tonne of it out there if you that's what you're going to go by. I have always gone by looking at what the best in a field did, and comparing form and positions. I did that in all sports in which I participated, and would have studied Michael Jordan's jumping form over what a scientist said about jumping.

My research has been empirical, and that's how most people learn. I don't see many scientists teaching the golf swing.

What you take from my "research" is up to you, whether you reject it outright or give it a thought. Either way, it helps me teach people how to hit the ball longer and straighter than they could before.

Although I did work with a PGA of America pro who confirmed that everything I told him was validated by his work on Trackman, but I didn't really care. The ball goes where it goes and you can tell what you did by watching it. Once you know a little about human motion or have some athletic experience, the rest is not very far a road to travel.

Best,

DJ Watts

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392281898' post='8658107']

Less thoracic flexion needs more tailbone release, so you're forced to sorta like early extend or early hump the goat too early too much. That would seriously compress your discs on lumbar spine up to the tailbone. Whereas more thoracic flexion means a more horizontal turn of hips will do, such as Hogan and Nicklaus; even just extending your left side or left hip will do, such as Snead and Nelson. These chaps never had serious lower back injuries. Nicklaus' injury is not due to his hip turn, it's due to his unnecessary or overly tilted lumbar at post impact and finish. Hogan, Snead and Nelson stood up as soon as they've hit the ball. Jack didn't, and I wonder why.
[/quote]

You have no way of knowing what caused Jack Nicklaus' hip injury.

[Fort Worth Pro]

[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392314413' post='8660377']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392312666' post='8660133']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392310952' post='8659929']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392310383' post='8659847']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research
[/quote]

Hi Fort Worth Pro:

I started out studying Moe Norman's and Ben Hogan's swings back in '05 to see if what they were doing was actually "perfect" in the mechanical sense, and from there, I went back to zero and looked at videos of swings back to Bobby Jones' era, up to the modern period. Plus, of course, I did my own personal research as a former [i](and pretty successful)[/i] amateur athlete who didn't struggle to pick up any athletic motion until someone tried to teach me the golf swing according to conventional methods back in the mid-90's.

From there, I began to simply look at motion and how the body moves outside of golf. The essence of my research has been, the simplest motion to learn and maintain that delivers the optimal combination of power and accuracy.

The modern swing is just not that for the average person. Even the pros have to work at it all day, how is the average person ever going to hope to master this method?

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

So by research you mean, watching videos and hitting balls? No AMA, force or pressure plates, trackman? No measuring hundreds of golfers and drawing conclusions?
[/quote]

FWPro, you prefer a less flexioned thoracic?
[/quote]

I do prefer a slightly less thoracic but like it rounded more than a lot of the younger guys. Adam Scott now versus Adam Scott a few years ago looks much better and much freer.

[Fort Worth Pro]

[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392315558' post='8660533']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392312666' post='8660133']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392310952' post='8659929']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392310383' post='8659847']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research
[/quote]

Hi Fort Worth Pro:

I started out studying Moe Norman's and Ben Hogan's swings back in '05 to see if what they were doing was actually "perfect" in the mechanical sense, and from there, I went back to zero and looked at videos of swings back to Bobby Jones' era, up to the modern period. Plus, of course, I did my own personal research as a former [i](and pretty successful)[/i] amateur athlete who didn't struggle to pick up any athletic motion until someone tried to teach me the golf swing according to conventional methods back in the mid-90's.

From there, I began to simply look at motion and how the body moves outside of golf. The essence of my research has been, the simplest motion to learn and maintain that delivers the optimal combination of power and accuracy.

The modern swing is just not that for the average person. Even the pros have to work at it all day, how is the average person ever going to hope to master this method?

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

So by research you mean, watching videos and hitting balls? No AMA, force or pressure plates, trackman? No measuring hundreds of golfers and drawing conclusions?
[/quote]


My friend, if you want "scientific" research, I imagine there is a metric tonne of it out there if you that's what you're going to go by. I have always gone by looking at what the best in a field did, and comparing form and positions. I did that in all sports in which I participated, and would have studied Michael Jordan's jumping form over what a scientist said about jumping.

My research has been empirical, and that's how most people learn. I don't see many scientists teaching the golf swing.

What you take from my "research" is up to you, whether you reject it outright or give it a thought. Either way, it helps me teach people how to hit the ball longer and straighter than they could before.

Although I did work with a PGA of America pro who confirmed that everything I told him was validated by his work on Trackman, but I didn't really care. The ball goes where it goes and you can tell what you did by watching it. Once you know a little about human motion or have some athletic experience, the rest is not very far a road to travel.

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Without the measurements all you can do is make an educated guess based on video. You can not know for sure what is going on or what the root cause of the problem is.

[drewtaylor21]

[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392281898' post='8658107']

Less thoracic flexion needs more tailbone release, so you're forced to sorta like early extend or early hump the goat too early too much. That would seriously compress your discs on lumbar spine up to the tailbone. Whereas more thoracic flexion means a more horizontal turn of hips will do, such as Hogan and Nicklaus; even just extending your left side or left hip will do, such as Snead and Nelson. These chaps never had serious lower back injuries. Nicklaus' injury is not due to his hip turn, it's due to his unnecessary or overly tilted lumbar at post impact and finish. Hogan, Snead and Nelson stood up as soon as they've hit the ball. Jack didn't, and I wonder why.
[/quote]

Sorry but I think you are making things up here....less thoracic flexion means you have to early extend? No, it's the other way around! The more you flex the spine at any point compared to address, the less room there is for the hands to come in to the ball. This causes the hips to early extend so that the club doesn't crash into the ground a foot fat.

Besides, wasn't Hogan's vertical posture due to his car accident and the injuries he sustained there? It was the only way he could swing at that point.

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392318249' post='8660937']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392315558' post='8660533']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392312666' post='8660133']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392310952' post='8659929']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392310383' post='8659847']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392299871' post='8658681']
I've heard two arguments against the old address position: The modern equipment forces changes, and the old guys wouldn't have been able to hit today's ball with a swing from that position.

Both are incorrect.

What does this address position look like with modern equipment? Virtually the same. It's not the equipment that changed the swing, it's the instruction that changed the swing for the worse.

After 8 years of swing research, this address position was the one I found to be optimal for both power and accuracy. I'm hitting a 7.5 degree RBZ Tour with X-stiff shaft, regular length, and I can drive it over 350 yards but usually play at 310-320 on the course - unless I'm hitting a par-5 or trying to drive a short par-4.

[b]Scoliolis Alert[/b]: What looks like a super-closed stance is my personal adjustment for a spine deformity that has my thighs, hips and shoulders open when I stand with my feet parallel to the target line. By dropping my right foot back and angling it slightly, I get a square address position and I swing like anyone else. On this clip, I'm using the two mounds at the end of the range as my [i]"fairway."[/i] To see where I'm aiming, you must always ignore my foot angle and look at my shoulders/hips.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8CAcJtimY&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

I gotta ask...what research are you doing? Ease share what and how you did your research
[/quote]

Hi Fort Worth Pro:

I started out studying Moe Norman's and Ben Hogan's swings back in '05 to see if what they were doing was actually "perfect" in the mechanical sense, and from there, I went back to zero and looked at videos of swings back to Bobby Jones' era, up to the modern period. Plus, of course, I did my own personal research as a former [i](and pretty successful)[/i] amateur athlete who didn't struggle to pick up any athletic motion until someone tried to teach me the golf swing according to conventional methods back in the mid-90's.

From there, I began to simply look at motion and how the body moves outside of golf. The essence of my research has been, the simplest motion to learn and maintain that delivers the optimal combination of power and accuracy.

The modern swing is just not that for the average person. Even the pros have to work at it all day, how is the average person ever going to hope to master this method?

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

So by research you mean, watching videos and hitting balls? No AMA, force or pressure plates, trackman? No measuring hundreds of golfers and drawing conclusions?
[/quote]


My friend, if you want "scientific" research, I imagine there is a metric tonne of it out there if you that's what you're going to go by. I have always gone by looking at what the best in a field did, and comparing form and positions. I did that in all sports in which I participated, and would have studied Michael Jordan's jumping form over what a scientist said about jumping.

My research has been empirical, and that's how most people learn. I don't see many scientists teaching the golf swing.

What you take from my "research" is up to you, whether you reject it outright or give it a thought. Either way, it helps me teach people how to hit the ball longer and straighter than they could before.

Although I did work with a PGA of America pro who confirmed that everything I told him was validated by his work on Trackman, but I didn't really care. The ball goes where it goes and you can tell what you did by watching it. Once you know a little about human motion or have some athletic experience, the rest is not very far a road to travel.

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Without the measurements all you can do is make an educated guess based on video. You can not know for sure what is going on or what the root cause of the problem is.
[/quote]

FWP: There are many ways to skin a cat. [i]My [/i]way led to my being able to drive a ball up to 350 yards [i](and that's not fairway run, I don't get to play those courses, I drive on shaggy fairways)[/i] and swing all day without fear of injury. And that's with a spine deformity. [i]That's[/i] why I started my research - I was not hitting the ball as well with conventional golf theory as I felt I should be able to, and so I studied the swing.

If you're trying to convince[b][i] other people [/i][/b] to disregard me, with your comments, then I can understand that. But you're certainly not going to convince [b][i]me[/i][/b] that I didn't do proper research with the results I've produced for myself and others I help.

People can read both our comments and decide for themselves, I imagine. All I do is observe and relate my findings. Over a period of time, patterns emerge.

At the end of the day, I'm very happy with my research and my swing and I'd like to see people improve their own, if I'm permitted to offer my thoughts. That's all I'm saying.

I've enjoyed our conversation however.

Best,

DJ Watts

[Fort Worth Pro]

[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392318844' post='8661039']


FWP: There are many ways to skin a cat. [i]My [/i]way led to my being able to drive a ball up to 350 yards [i](and that's not fairway run, I don't get to play those courses, I drive on shaggy fairways)[/i] and swing all day without fear of injury. And that's with a spine deformity. [i]That's[/i] why I started my research - I was not hitting the ball as well with conventional golf theory as I felt I should be able to, and so I studied the swing.

If you're trying to convince[b][i] other people [/i][/b] to disregard me, with your comments, then I can understand that. But you're certainly not going to convince [b][i]me[/i][/b] that I didn't do proper research with the results I've produced for myself and others I help.

People can read both our comments and decide for themselves, I imagine. All I do is observe and relate my findings. Over a period of time, patterns emerge.

At the end of the day, I'm very happy with my research and my swing and I'd like to see people improve their own, if I'm permitted to offer my thoughts. That's all I'm saying.

I've enjoyed our conversation however.

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Dj, I am fine with you relaying anecdoctly what works for you but find it disingenuous to call it research. There are many people doing real scientific research and using that word is very loaded with meaning.

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392320872' post='8661279']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392318844' post='8661039']
FWP: There are many ways to skin a cat. [i]My [/i]way led to my being able to drive a ball up to 350 yards [i](and that's not fairway run, I don't get to play those courses, I drive on shaggy fairways)[/i] and swing all day without fear of injury. And that's with a spine deformity. [i]That's[/i] why I started my research - I was not hitting the ball as well with conventional golf theory as I felt I should be able to, and so I studied the swing.

If you're trying to convince[b][i] other people [/i][/b] to disregard me, with your comments, then I can understand that. But you're certainly not going to convince [b][i]me[/i][/b] that I didn't do proper research with the results I've produced for myself and others I help.

People can read both our comments and decide for themselves, I imagine. All I do is observe and relate my findings. Over a period of time, patterns emerge.

At the end of the day, I'm very happy with my research and my swing and I'd like to see people improve their own, if I'm permitted to offer my thoughts. That's all I'm saying.

I've enjoyed our conversation however.

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Dj, I am fine with you relaying anecdoctly what works for you but find it disingenuous to call it research. There are many people doing real scientific research and using that word is very loaded with meaning.
[/quote]

Fort Worth Pro, I'd suggest you stick to playing golf and not teaching others the meanings of words, to be honest. From [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research"]wiki[/url]:

[i]The primary purposes of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research"]basic research[/url] (as opposed to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_research"]applied research[/url]) are [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentation"]documentation[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28observation%29"]discovery[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_%28philosophy%29"]interpretation[/url], or the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_development"]research and development[/url] (R&D) of methods and systems for the advancement of human [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge"]knowledge[/url]. Approaches to research depend on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology"]epistemologies[/url], which vary considerably both within and between humanities and sciences. There are several forms of research: scientific, humanities, artistic, economic, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research"]social[/url], business, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_research"]marketing[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practitioner_research"]practitioner research[/url], etc.[/i]

There are many types of research, and mine was one of them. I hit balls for eight years on the range and on the golf course. I've studied video of both my swing and others, including today's and yesterday's greats. For years. I documented my findings in daily blogging and video postings with my written observations.

I've told you already that [i]"scientific"[/i] research is only one kind, and if it concludes that you'd swing a golf club in any other manner than another implement, I'd be surprised. Unfortunately, today's [i]"scientific"[/i] research starts with a [b][i]flawed premise[/i][/b] - you have to start the swing from the modern address convention - and researches the [b][i][u]best way[/u] to swing from a [u]bad position[/u][/i][/b].

[i]That[/i] research doesn't do anyone but chiropractors any good.

You ignore the others to make your argument. You're entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts. I'll bid you good day.

DJ Watts

[PJ72]

[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392235743' post='8653865']
[quote name='dtrance' timestamp='1392235139' post='8653777']
The former greats definitely look slouchy by todays standards. Is it really better for your back to slouch at address? Conversely are the injuries to modern players really caused by "better" posture? Personally I feel more active and athletic with my core engaged and my back relatively straight. I don't think you see any modern athlete, golf or otherwise with bad posture.

I think to some degree equipment has changed the way golfers look at address, clubs are longer and more upright. Snead, Hogan and Nicklaus would have a different look at address if they were fitted with modern equipment.
[/quote]

I would disagree, if the clubs are more upright, so much more reason to stand more upright than bent over - I'm 6'1" and use a 45" driver, and I stand more like Snead/Hogan/Nicklaus looking down the line. 44 years old, I can swing at over 120 mph and have never had a back or neck injury.

The reason the straight back is bad is because it puts all the stress and load of the down swing onto the lower back. With a natural shape to the back, the load is borne more in the area of the back between the neck and where the armpits are.

Respectfully,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Is the difference down to one plane and two plane swings? Jack was a two planer, so he will stand more upright. The modern swingers are nearly all one planers. I think the older generation were more of a 50/50 split.

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='PJ72' timestamp='1392321793' post='8661391']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392235743' post='8653865']
[quote name='dtrance' timestamp='1392235139' post='8653777']
The former greats definitely look slouchy by todays standards. Is it really better for your back to slouch at address? Conversely are the injuries to modern players really caused by "better" posture? Personally I feel more active and athletic with my core engaged and my back relatively straight. I don't think you see any modern athlete, golf or otherwise with bad posture.

I think to some degree equipment has changed the way golfers look at address, clubs are longer and more upright. Snead, Hogan and Nicklaus would have a different look at address if they were fitted with modern equipment.
[/quote]

I would disagree, if the clubs are more upright, so much more reason to stand more upright than bent over - I'm 6'1" and use a 45" driver, and I stand more like Snead/Hogan/Nicklaus looking down the line. 44 years old, I can swing at over 120 mph and have never had a back or neck injury.

The reason the straight back is bad is because it puts all the stress and load of the down swing onto the lower back. With a natural shape to the back, the load is borne more in the area of the back between the neck and where the armpits are.

Respectfully,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Is the difference down to one plane and two plane swings? Jack was a two planer, so he will stand more upright. The modern swingers are nearly all one planers. I think the older generation were more of a 50/50 split.
[/quote]

Hi PJ72: I have two different planes on my swing, the back swing being lower and flatter than the down swing plane. The reason for that is that I start my pivot with the lower body, then the upper body follows, and the down swing is the same - I lead with the hip and leg action.

The bent-over position of the modern swing interferes with proper hip pivot action, which is why you never saw it before the modern age. You wouldn't swing an axe or baseball bat bent over like that, either. If you find a rare case, that's the exception that proves the rule.

If you reverse-engineer the swing, you will find the optimal impact position for any swing method, whatever it's called [i](did that)[/i], then you'll find the position at the top of the back swing from which to deliver the club into that impact position [i](did that too)[/i], and from there, you can see if your address position will allow you to get to that top with a simple hip pivot and raising of the arms behind you.

My last swing study involved looking at the motion when you simply swing a stick. A club is a stick with a striking portion at its end. When I looked at how I'd swing a stick, combined with the years of studying and swinging myself, I ended up with the swing I have currently as seen in this thread.

Notice how you don't need a million instructions to swing an axe right back to where you want start your swing to strike the tree? If you've ever done it, you just swing. Most of your thought is in the down swing. The back swing and starting position - merely paths to the moment we all strive for - swinging to and through impact.

At the end of the day, [i]you're[/i] swinging the club, and how [i]you[/i] best do it without hurting yourself and with the greatest chance of repetition is the way to do it.

Best,

DJ Watts

[drewtaylor21]

[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392322595' post='8661459']

Hi PJ72: I have two different planes on my swing, the back swing being lower and flatter than the down swing plane. The reason for that is that I start my pivot with the lower body, then the upper body follows, and the down swing is the same - I lead with the hip and leg action.

The bent-over position of the modern swing interferes with proper hip pivot action, which is why you never saw it before the modern age. You wouldn't swing an axe or baseball bat bent over like that, either. If you find a rare case, that's the exception that proves the rule.

If you reverse-engineer the swing, you will find the optimal impact position for any swing method, whatever it's called [i](did that)[/i], then you'll find the position at the top of the back swing from which to deliver the club into that impact position [i](did that too)[/i], and from there, you can see if your address position will allow you to get to that top with a simple hip pivot and raising of the arms behind you.

My last swing study involved looking at the motion when you simply swing a stick. A club is a stick with a striking portion at its end. When I looked at how I'd swing a stick, combined with the years of studying and swinging myself, I ended up with the swing I have currently as seen in this thread.

Notice how you don't need a million instructions to swing an axe right back to where you want start your swing to strike the tree? If you've ever done it, you just swing. Most of your thought is in the down swing. The back swing and starting position - merely paths to the moment we all strive for - swinging to and through impact.

At the end of the day, [i]you're[/i] swinging the club, and how [i]you[/i] best do it without hurting yourself and with the greatest chance of repetition is the way to do it.

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Hey DJ,

A couple thoughts here...first off, I like the approach you are taking according to this last post. Reverse engineering the golf swing from impact seems like a good idea, providing you start with a good impact position. It does seem to simplify things, which I appreciate! Can I ask whose swings you pay most attention to for your studies? I taught myself how to play by watching videos as well, so this idea is one that certainly resonates with me. Impact and the frames leading into impact have always been the most telling for me, both in my own swing and observing those I wanted to emulate.

Second, I have a slight bone to pick about your baseball and axe swinging analogies....I think we can all agree that those similar rotational swings are happening on a much more horizontal plane compared to the golf swing. The "target" is usually around waist high, not at the feet as it is with the game of golf. If you take the same axe/baseball swing, then hinge at the hip to address a golf ball, don't you think the swing idea remains the same? I guess I don't see how this changes the hip pivot that you mention.

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='drewtaylor21' timestamp='1392330509' post='8662429']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392322595' post='8661459']
Hi PJ72: I have two different planes on my swing, the back swing being lower and flatter than the down swing plane. The reason for that is that I start my pivot with the lower body, then the upper body follows, and the down swing is the same - I lead with the hip and leg action.

The bent-over position of the modern swing interferes with proper hip pivot action, which is why you never saw it before the modern age. You wouldn't swing an axe or baseball bat bent over like that, either. If you find a rare case, that's the exception that proves the rule.

If you reverse-engineer the swing, you will find the optimal impact position for any swing method, whatever it's called [i](did that)[/i], then you'll find the position at the top of the back swing from which to deliver the club into that impact position [i](did that too)[/i], and from there, you can see if your address position will allow you to get to that top with a simple hip pivot and raising of the arms behind you.

My last swing study involved looking at the motion when you simply swing a stick. A club is a stick with a striking portion at its end. When I looked at how I'd swing a stick, combined with the years of studying and swinging myself, I ended up with the swing I have currently as seen in this thread.

Notice how you don't need a million instructions to swing an axe right back to where you want start your swing to strike the tree? If you've ever done it, you just swing. Most of your thought is in the down swing. The back swing and starting position - merely paths to the moment we all strive for - swinging to and through impact.

At the end of the day, [i]you're[/i] swinging the club, and how [i]you[/i] best do it without hurting yourself and with the greatest chance of repetition is the way to do it.

Best,

DJ Watts
[/quote]

Hey DJ,

A couple thoughts here...first off, I like the approach you are taking according to this last post. Reverse engineering the golf swing from impact seems like a good idea, providing you start with a good impact position. It does seem to simplify things, which I appreciate! Can I ask whose swings you pay most attention to for your studies? I taught myself how to play by watching videos as well, so this idea is one that certainly resonates with me. Impact and the frames leading into impact have always been the most telling for me, both in my own swing and observing those I wanted to emulate.

Second, I have a slight bone to pick about your baseball and axe swinging analogies....I think we can all agree that those similar rotational swings are happening on a much more horizontal plane compared to the golf swing. The "target" is usually around waist high, not at the feet as it is with the game of golf. If you take the same axe/baseball swing, then hinge at the hip to address a golf ball, don't you think the swing idea remains the same? I guess I don't see how this changes the hip pivot that you mention.
[/quote]

Hi Drew!

Let me jump right in and address your bone of contention - I have in fact had experience swinging both an axe and a sledge-hammer on the same rough plane as the golf swing. I sledged in stakes at ground level on that angle and broke down cinder block walls in construction work, so I know how I would swing there - in the same motion taking into account the difference in implements. I've chopped down a few trees at ground level as well. In those motions, I'd have wider than golf stance, I'd slide my right hand down the shaft to create extension and then leverage the axe/sledge back and up with a right-back motion of the right hip (my golf swing pivot action), and I'd reverse the motion keeping a steady C7 all the while and leverage the implement back down, releasing my force into the object while letting the shaft glide through my right hand. In the down swing pivot, I'd "lean" back and to the right to counter the swing-weight. Same body motion and angle as the golf swing.

I've played baseball (in my youth) and it didn't take me long to imagine taking a low pitch opposite my left foot and "golfing" it out to center field. Same motion and angle but for the grip, really. If you look at Mark McGwire's swing, that's a release through the ball, not a stiff-wristed heave. McGwire released beautifully through the ball, and if you look at his low-ball homers, he didn't lunge down or lean left or "hold on," he pivoted and released the bat down and through the zone, leaning back and away from the location of the strike.

If you put an imaginary hoop around your ribs just below your elbows and imagine turning that hoop back to the right and then forward to the left in a golf swing, you'll quickly get the "lean-back" aspect of pivoting with a head that stays back and somethings even drops back to the right with a very fluid and balanced pivot.

The positions of the arms and hands, the angle of the spine with pelvic stilt/leg bend will always change with implements and weight, but the core motion follows the same principles.

I studied videos of most of the greats from Bobby Jones to Nelson, Snead and Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Billy Casper, Tom Watson, Fred Couples (I always studied the power hitters and straight hitters of all lengths because the optimal swing has to be both powerful and accurate, as with a freely thrown knife), Singh, Moe Norman, George Knudson, Gred Norman to name a few, then to the modern age and Tiger, Els, Duval, Daly... you look at a lot of swings.

I also studied the relatively un-known Mike Austin, who was the mentor of Mike Dunaway, father of modern long drive and inspiration to Art Sellinger. Looked at Sadlowski, all the past long drive champions, in fact. Mike Austin had developed a theory of the mechanically-perfect golf swing with which I agree, as it matches my "swing a stick" theory almost exactly.

I could swing a baseball bat very well when I came to golf in my mid-20's, so when I made the connection and proved to myself that the golf swing is essentially the same [i]motion[/i], the only thing I really "figured out" in the end was that the swing [i]motion[/i] in golf is within us all and the simpler and closer to our other swing motions, the better.

Thanks for the chat, have a good one!

DJ Watts

[PingG10guy]

I wish I could unsee your swing. And unparticipate in this thread.

[chrisgilly09]

Couldn't be bothered reading this whole thing, but agree in principle with slumped shoulders, less anterior tilt.

How the heck do you see the ball otherwise?

[DJ Watts]

With irons - same concept. It is even easier a concept because of the heavier feel to the heads, and a pivot is effortless with the classic posture. The club virtually swings itself. This is a clip with an 8 iron.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twB5lIQ63-4&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Again, because I have scoliolis and a helical twist to my lower spine, you must disregard my foot line angle, which is simply an adjustment to square my hips and shoulders at address. Otherwise, the swing is what you would expect with a classic posture, long and straight ball flight.

[lastmacuser]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1392348131' post='8664591']
I wish I could unsee your swing. And unparticipate in this thread.
[/quote]

Funniest thing I've read in weeks.

[Jobu]

[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392320872' post='8661279']


Dj, I am fine with you relaying anecdoctly what works for you but find it disingenuous to call it research. There are many people doing real scientific research and using that word is very loaded with meaning.
[/quote]

Science is a social tool. That's why it's a school subject.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Jobu' timestamp='1392398490' post='8667845']
[quote name='Fort Worth Pro' timestamp='1392320872' post='8661279']
Dj, I am fine with you relaying anecdoctly what works for you but find it disingenuous to call it research. There are many people doing real scientific research and using that word is very loaded with meaning.
[/quote]

Science is a social tool. That's why it's a school subject.
[/quote]

Someone claiming to be an expert *should* be held to a higher standard of research than say, a high-school student, doing a "research" paper.