Snead, Hogan & Nicklaus vs Tiger, Rory Etc.

[gabh]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1392854916' post='8704893']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392826030' post='8701761']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392824872' post='8701609']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392822912' post='8701405']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392784438' post='8699629']
No. He hits it 300-ish when it matters or needed. Accurate too.
[/quote]

So can everyone else . He's 150+ in driving distance while being that all for a reason. It's incredibly easy to generate speed with that height... So when we have someone that tall hitting it that short, there's a problem. A 6' 4" tour player should be able to crank it up a whole lot more than 300...
[/quote]

Still want an explanation why using elbow plane is shorter. Like Hogan who IMO perfected it.
[/quote]

That's not my argument, you said kuchar isn't short, which he definitely is.
[/quote]

Guys...use the search function. It was either iteachgolf, Lake, or Dana Dhalquist. I was told along with the rest of the internet that all things being equal on the same player TSP will allow for more distance vs elbow plane. When one of those guys says something like that then you kinda take their word for it. It was posted around 2009-2010 I believe.

I never said elbow plane is short in general. gabh called TSP on Mike Austin a fault. I stated that TSP allows for more distance. If Hogan played with todays equipment he would need to be steeper to hit the ball far especially if he tried to hit "power fades" as most of the internet thinks he did. Do some reading. Right now you just seem like some early EP Hogan fanboys. CP cuts in the modern game=not optimal with modern equipment in terms of distance.
[/quote]

Only 2 things wrong eightiron? You're too nice, he's got all the things wrong in his other posts I can't count them anymore. What happens when you blindly follow (not saying what's followed is wrong), and you still don't understand, you misunderstand stuff.

Hogan don't need to be steeper, he just would need more loft. What he's going to have less ease now is curving the ball. That's it. There are many equipment snow that gives higher spin, higher lofts, to offset the low spin balls for shallow AoAs. Geez...almost everybody wants to shallow their AoA and you're talking about aiming for steep AoA?

Hogan can hit everything, it's just that his fade became hook-proof later due to changes (post accident, secret, etc.). And you don't know why. Yes he hit power fades, it's just that it's not a CP cut like you know. As eight pointed out, it's a draw swing using gear effect.

All things equal, use of elbow plane is farther because you can use every possible power source, everything. Unlike TSP with no passing elbow plane, you have less rotational power both from the 2 hinges that matters, and good luck using thrust power (I mean you can, but good luck). A person using TSP as a necessity will hit 25% shorter just due to fear of digging the ground (you know, the standing up part, the raised shoulder part, the active pitch and snap release part, manufacturing part, etc.)

A person using elbow plane properly (with matching elements) will hit it as long using TSP only if he's super strong or super fast in the arms, and that is if he can be consistent nailing the sweetspot.

[gabh]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1392883188' post='8707379']
[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1392876336' post='8707195']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1392873548' post='8707057']
2 things wrong , 1st is hogan wasn't a co model esp with longer clubs , and 2nd you can hit cp draws , guys like dahlquist can't even hit elbow plane and whine about cp being too crashy because they can't get on the elbow plane quick / early enough , you have need to go higher up the food chain
[/quote]
1 thing wrong. I never commented on hogans model. Just said hed hit it further on tsp vs an eep fade with modern stuff.

Higher up the food chain? Lol did dana steal your sweater?
[/quote]

Says who? What scientific basis are you claiming this as fact? Hogan jacked his clubs to fade it with a draw swing . Tsp requires less #3 which is less roll , more roll of 3 on the elbow adds speed to the wrists uncocking ( that was from the bazanzella scientists)
[/quote]

Lol, you're cruel

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='Forged_Irons' timestamp='1392856650' post='8705069']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392233408' post='8653561']
One of the things I see most often in today's or the modern swing is something you never saw in the [i]"old"[/i] days.

If you want just one example of why the modern conventional golf swing is so hard on the lower back, you just have to compare stances of the greatest swingers against the best golfers today.

Sam Snead and Jack Nicklaus were the longest players on Tour in their particular day, or very close to the longest for a long time, and yet they didn't break down.

[attachment=2066269:classic address stances dtl.jpg]


Now, you look at the modern players, breaking down all the time, even when they're supposed to be fitter and stronger. And it isn't that they're swinging harder - who swung harder and hit it further than Nicklaus and Snead? Greg Norman as well - long hitter, who swung harder than Norman?

Here is the address position of the modern conventional golf swing below:

[attachment=2066267:modern address stances.jpg]

Rory looks as if he's trying to strangle a cobra.


I bet I don't even have to say what it is. But it's the leaning over and rigid-backed posture of the modern set-up.

People aren't meant to swing that way.

Peace,

DJ Watts
[/quote]
Many humans get some back trouble after age 40, golfer or not. If you do play golf and you try to bend forward from the hip sockets and keep a straight back you have just moved your center of gravity forward (rather than having it "centered" for lack of a better term) which definitely strains the back. Why are we always told to lift with our legs? It's so our center of gravity doesn't move too far forward and we strain the lower back.
Old timers simply took a comfortable athletic posture with their weight mostly over their legs. Ironically they were more efficient and accurate as a result because bending over disconnects the arms from the rest of the body and causes too much independent arm action.
Hogan is rumored to have said that he felt like he could squeeze a dime between his buttocks. Try that bending over. Your proctologist knows you can't!
[/quote]

"Hogan is rumored to have said that he felt like he could squeeze a dime between his buttocks. Try that bending over. Your proctologist knows you can't"

lol, I'll take your word for it (or your proctologist's) on that one, but it sound's about right!

Best,

DJ Watts

[DJ Watts]

Friends,

 

I posted a thread about Henrik Stenson's swing angle and mentioned as well his address stance, which side-tracked the whole swing angle aspect of his swing.

 

In that thread, I showed a couple of lateral views of Tiger's address stance back when he was winning majors. They're more relevant to this thread, since this thread is actually about the stance.

 

Tiger in 2007 & 2009 (the 2009 pic was in the Jan 2010 issue of Golf Digest, so I assume it was taken sometime in 2009)

 

 

Sean Foley shows a stance as well, which he says is for hitting a draw in Golf Digest back in 2012:

 

 

Actually, you could hit any shape shot with this stance (more erect, relaxed upper spine, arms hanging slightly extended past vertical), the draw comes from how you change the path and face of the club through impact related to the target line. Hogan stood upright and hit a fade, so did Nicklaus.

 

It is possible that Foley advocates a stance more like what he's doing above and Tiger is simply disregarding this (he's known for picking and choosing what his coach says he should do) for his more squatting stance.

 

Regardless, Tiger and most players today are not standing the way Foley demonstrates above.

 

Fascinating...

 

Best,

 

DJ Watts

 

I still don't agree with Foley's balance and shift methodology, but this stance above (as far as viewed laterally) is far better for hitting any type of shot than the bend-over position you see in the standard modern address position.

[pinhigh27]

Friends,

 

I posted a thread about Henrik Stenson's swing angle and mentioned as well his address stance, which side-tracked the whole swing angle aspect of his swing.

 

In that thread, I showed a couple of lateral views of Tiger's address stance back when he was winning majors. They're more relevant to this thread, since this thread is actually about the stance.

 

Tiger in 2007 & 2009 (the 2009 pic was in the Jan 2010 issue of Golf Digest, so I assume it was taken sometime in 2009)

 

 

Sean Foley shows a stance as well, which he says is for hitting a draw in Golf Digest back in 2012:

 

 

Actually, you could hit any shape shot with this stance (more erect, relaxed upper spine, arms hanging slightly extended past vertical), the draw comes from how you change the path and face of the club through impact related to the target line. Hogan stood upright and hit a fade, so did Nicklaus.

 

It is possible that Foley advocates a stance more like what he's doing above and Tiger is simply disregarding this (he's known for picking and choosing what his coach says he should do) for his more squatting stance.

 

Regardless, Tiger and most players today are not standing the way Foley demonstrates above.

 

Fascinating...

 

Best,

 

DJ Watts

 

I still don't agree with Foley's balance and shift methodology, but this stance above (as far as viewed laterally) is far better for hitting any type of shot than the bend-over position you see in the standard modern address position.

 

Those pictures are all so close... Youre comparing different angles , yet they seem to be nearly the exact same position to me though.

[ej002]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1392883188' post='8707379']

Says who? What scientific basis are you claiming this as fact? Hogan jacked his clubs to fade it with a draw swing . Tsp requires less #3 which is less roll , more roll of 3 on the elbow adds speed to the wrists uncocking ( that was from the bazanzella scientists)
[/quote]

Don't think there is any data supporting the TSP is longer theory. It is just a theory / observation. Did Manzella put out any data/science behind his findings?

[spider]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1392883188' post='8707379']
[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1392876336' post='8707195']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1392873548' post='8707057']
2 things wrong , 1st is hogan wasn't a co model esp with longer clubs , and 2nd you can hit cp draws , guys like dahlquist can't even hit elbow plane and whine about cp being too crashy because they can't get on the elbow plane quick / early enough , you have need to go higher up the food chain
[/quote]
1 thing wrong. I never commented on hogans model. Just said hed hit it further on tsp vs an eep fade with modern stuff.

Higher up the food chain? Lol did dana steal your sweater?
[/quote]

Says who? What scientific basis are you claiming this as fact? Hogan jacked his clubs to fade it with a draw swing . Tsp requires less #3 which is less roll , more roll of 3 on the elbow adds speed to the wrists uncocking ( that was from the bazanzella scientists)
[/quote]

Going up higher on the food chain to you Eightiron. Grant Waite and Dana both said to me they had issues performing a cp swing. At least Grant said something along the lines of...really took someone with extraordinary abilities like Mac to go cp. To be fair Dana may have said cp is tougher to teach to most not that he was unable. Both of them seem to advocate a more "inline/online" swing. not sure the exact term. Again I am sure this all has to do with #3 that my pea brain will never comprehend. Someday someone will do a video showing what it is not trying to decipher through the written word.

[PingG10guy]

[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392905875' post='8708241']
They're more relevant to this thread, since this thread is actually about the stance.
[/quote]

I apologize for derailing your thread. I'll start another based on what we were talking about since its way off topic here. good luck!

[dana dahlquist]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1392934562' post='8711041']
[quote name='DJ Watts' timestamp='1392905875' post='8708241']
They're more relevant to this thread, since this thread is actually about the stance.
[/quote]

I apologize for derailing your thread. I'll start another based on what we were talking about since its way off topic here. good luck!
[/quote]
[attachment=2170123:IMG_12461.PNG][attachment=2170125:IMG_12471.PNG]

[dana dahlquist]

CP is only delt if you got the speed to do it. Otherwise bag it. CP alignments can work fine as long as you cheat it on the AOA. I have two players that are CP. Daniel Im and Robert Rock both are over 115mph with the driver avg. Its better stated that you just need effective mo-arm

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='dana dahlquist' timestamp='1397232928' post='9068669']
CP is only delt if you got the speed to do it. Otherwise bag it. CP alignments can work fine as long as you cheat it on the AOA. I have two players that are CP. Daniel Im and Robert Rock both are over 115mph with the driver avg. Its better stated that you just need effective mo-arm
[/quote]

Dana can you explain that post a bit please? All I understood were words like 'is' and 'only' and 'on'.

[chrisgilly09]

Let's see:

-Close foot stance to shallow AOA

-Get clubhead/sweetspot below handpath from 4.1-5ish to establish #3 and ability to use L arm roll/pivot to square face. (shift hands out and shallow shaft in layman's terms)

See 20min Como/Mackenzie vid on YT

[ej002]

[quote name='chrisgilly09' timestamp='1397243675' post='9069645']
Let's see:

-Close foot stance to shallow AOA

-Get clubhead/sweetspot below handpath from 4.1-5ish to establish #3 and ability to use L arm roll/pivot to square face. (shift hands out and shallow shaft in layman's terms)

[b]See 20min Como/Mackenzie vid on Y[/b]T
[/quote]

Post a link or it didn't happen!

[PingG10guy]

[quote name='chrisgilly09' timestamp='1397243675' post='9069645']
Let's see:

-Close foot stance to shallow AOA

-Get clubhead/sweetspot below handpath from 4.1-5ish to establish #3 and ability to use L arm roll/pivot to square face. (shift hands out and shallow shaft in layman's terms)

See 20min Como/Mackenzie vid on YT
[/quote]

They used handpath as a platform to make a generalization. I know u didnt say it...but this is far from an end all be all.

And you forgot to mention losing PA2 before having a go at 3

[dana dahlquist]

[quote name='chrisgilly09' timestamp='1397243675' post='9069645']
Let's see:

-Close foot stance to shallow AOA

-Get clubhead/sweetspot below handpath from 4.1-5ish to establish #3 and ability to use L arm roll/pivot to square face. (shift hands out and shallow shaft in layman's terms)

See 20min Como/Mackenzie vid on YT
[/quote]very good chris! Basiclly Mac was 100% right on the mo-arm movements. minus max trigger delay...
look at guys like Charl Peterson who draws everything.

[dana dahlquist]

problem with baseline shifts is the effect that #3 really does not cordinate out very well. Lots of right aim guys have that issue

[pinhigh27]

I need to read up on my TGM stuff....

[tylerdurden]

that got interesting..

serious question for someone smarter than me, is this using PA3/on the elbow plane?

[url="http://youtu.be/oG0GZQyHoJE"]http://youtu.be/oG0GZQyHoJE[/url]

[tylerdurden]

[url="http://youtu.be/xROyow4Hmxw"]http://youtu.be/xROyow4Hmxw[/url]

love this angle

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='tylerdurden' timestamp='1397270814' post='9072317']
[media=]http://youtu.be/xROyow4Hmxw[/media]

love this angle
[/quote]

Why? I feel like the first is a much better angle for evaluating that swing

[chrisgilly09]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1397261673' post='9071333']
[quote name='chrisgilly09' timestamp='1397243675' post='9069645']
Let's see:

-Close foot stance to shallow AOA

-Get clubhead/sweetspot below handpath from 4.1-5ish to establish #3 and ability to use L arm roll/pivot to square face. (shift hands out and shallow shaft in layman's terms)

See 20min Como/Mackenzie vid on YT
[/quote]

They used handpath as a platform to make a generalization. I know u didnt say it...but this is far from an end all be all.

And you forgot to mention losing PA2 before having a go at 3
[/quote]

Except as Dana pointed out, Mac didn't always get rid of it. Look, this is delving into the theoretical; I understand that for the masses it's not the most practical. But it's known that Phil liked to keep more #2 than most, strong grip won't need to roll much

Would love to hear why it's not so black and white, I like to learn

[PingG10guy]

[quote name='chrisgilly09' timestamp='1397280438' post='9073049']
[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1397261673' post='9071333']
[quote name='chrisgilly09' timestamp='1397243675' post='9069645']
Let's see:

-Close foot stance to shallow AOA

-Get clubhead/sweetspot below handpath from 4.1-5ish to establish #3 and ability to use L arm roll/pivot to square face. (shift hands out and shallow shaft in layman's terms)

See 20min Como/Mackenzie vid on YT
[/quote]

They used handpath as a platform to make a generalization. I know u didnt say it...but this is far from an end all be all.

And you forgot to mention losing PA2 before having a go at 3
[/quote]

Except as Dana pointed out, Mac didn't always get rid of it. Look, this is delving into the theoretical; I understand that for the masses it's not the most practical. But it's known that Phil liked to keep more #2 than most, strong grip won't need to roll much

Would love to hear why it's not so black and white, I like to learn
[/quote]

Me too. I had a bad release sequence for a long time but there were a lot of contributing factors. If you setup wrong and make a bad backswing then you cant even have a conversation about sweetspot under hands path. Its a pipe dream. I guess thats my beef with the vid.

I dont even know what "mo-arm" means lol

[ronstelten]

There are a lot of good thoughts in this discussion. I would like to add another point of view.

Modern equipment, the longer,lighter, bigger driver of today and a golf ball that is designed to fly straight and not curve has changed the golf swing. The players of today build their swing hitting the ball harder and harder and harder.

In the days of wood, steel drivers and a ball with a spin rate like nothing today, control was a paramount part of every players swing. Golfers may have wanted to swing harder and faster but the equipment limited how often they could do it.

Another point, Ben Hogan hit a lot of balls, Jack Nicklaus hit a lot of balls. How many balls did they hit when they were 16 to 20 years old? Tiger, Rory, and so many of the golfers of today were ball hitting machines at an early age. Hitting so many balls when the body is still growing and changing has to have an effect.

[PingG10guy]

[quote name='ronstelten' timestamp='1397309801' post='9073957']
There are a lot of good thoughts in this discussion. I would like to add another point of view.

Modern equipment, the longer,lighter, bigger driver of today and a golf ball that is designed to fly straight and not curve has changed the golf swing. The players of today build their swing hitting the ball harder and harder and harder.

In the days of wood, steel drivers and a ball with a spin rate like nothing today, control was a paramount part of every players swing. Golfers may have wanted to swing harder and faster but the equipment limited how often they could do it.

Another point, Ben Hogan hit a lot of balls, Jack Nicklaus hit a lot of balls. How many balls did they hit when they were 16 to 20 years old? Tiger, Rory, and so many of the golfers of today were ball hitting machines at an early age. Hitting so many balls when the body is still growing and changing has to have an effect.
[/quote]

...nice assumptions and generalizations. You must be dj watts brother

[jons1]

jack separated himself from the field with long drives and high controlled iron shots (when the rest of the field was playing a lower draw or fighting a hook following hogan as their model). there's a great reason why he won so many majors, and placed second in a ridiculous number of them as well. these days, you can't separate yourself that way because people carry hybrids and frankenirons that launch the ball high. if Jack was competing today, he'd have a harder time dominating because of the equipment and ball.

[ronstelten]

[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1397310107' post='9073979']
[quote name='ronstelten' timestamp='1397309801' post='9073957']
There are a lot of good thoughts in this discussion. I would like to add another point of view.

Modern equipment, the longer,lighter, bigger driver of today and a golf ball that is designed to fly straight and not curve has changed the golf swing. The players of today build their swing hitting the ball harder and harder and harder.

In the days of wood, steel drivers and a ball with a spin rate like nothing today, control was a paramount part of every players swing. Golfers may have wanted to swing harder and faster but the equipment limited how often they could do it.

Another point, Ben Hogan hit a lot of balls, Jack Nicklaus hit a lot of balls. How many balls did they hit when they were 16 to 20 years old? Tiger, Rory, and so many of the golfers of today were ball hitting machines at an early age. Hitting so many balls when the body is still growing and changing has to have an effect.
[/quote]

...nice assumptions and generalizations. You must be dj watts brother


[/quote]

[ronstelten]

[quote name='ronstelten' timestamp='1397317454' post='9074447']
[quote name='PingG10guy' timestamp='1397310107' post='9073979']
[quote name='ronstelten' timestamp='1397309801' post='9073957']
There are a lot of good thoughts in this discussion. I would like to add another point of view.

Modern equipment, the longer,lighter, bigger driver of today and a golf ball that is designed to fly straight and not curve has changed the golf swing. The players of today build their swing hitting the ball harder and harder and harder.

In the days of wood, steel drivers and a ball with a spin rate like nothing today, control was a paramount part of every players swing. Golfers may have wanted to swing harder and faster but the equipment limited how often they could do it.

Another point, Ben Hogan hit a lot of balls, Jack Nicklaus hit a lot of balls. How many balls did they hit when they were 16 to 20 years old? Tiger, Rory, and so many of the golfers of today were ball hitting machines at an early age. Hitting so many balls when the body is still growing and changing has to have an effect.
[/quote]

...nice assumptions and generalizations. You must be dj watts brother

Who is dj watts?



[/quote]
[/quote]

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1397314337' post='9074241']
jack separated himself from the field with long drives and high controlled iron shots (when the rest of the field was playing a lower draw or fighting a hook following hogan as their model). there's a great reason why he won so many majors, and placed second in a ridiculous number of them as well. these days, you can't separate yourself that way because people carry hybrids and frankenirons that launch the ball high. if Jack was competing today, he'd have a harder time dominating because of the equipment and ball.
[/quote]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1397314337' post='9074241']
jack separated himself from the field with long drives and high controlled iron shots (when the rest of the field was playing a lower draw or fighting a hook following hogan as their model). there's a great reason why he won so many majors, and placed second in a ridiculous number of them as well. these days, you can't separate yourself that way because people carry hybrids and frankenirons that launch the ball high. if Jack was competing today, he'd have a harder time dominating because of the equipment and ball.
[/quote]

And just the fact that he competition is higher. This is why there aren't the "second tier " of those 5-10 big names that everyone talks about from the past. Those guys can't exist when the competition is like it is today because anyone can win, not just 10 guys every week.

[RBImGuy]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1397318665' post='9074535']


And just the fact that he competition is higher. This is why there aren't the "second tier " of those 5-10 big names that everyone talks about from the past. Those guys can't exist when the competition is like it is today because anyone can win, not just 10 guys every week.
[/quote]

short memory?
one guy won pretty much everything not long ago before he went into drugs and swing crack.
Annika won 7 tournaments a year for 10 years recently also.
The main reason is these guys isnt good enough atm to win more consistently.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='RBImGuy' timestamp='1397320917' post='9074663']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1397318665' post='9074535']
And just the fact that he competition is higher. This is why there aren't the "second tier " of those 5-10 big names that everyone talks about from the past. Those guys can't exist when the competition is like it is today because anyone can win, not just 10 guys every week.
[/quote]

short memory?
one guy won pretty much everything not long ago before he went into drugs and swing crack.
Annika won 7 tournaments a year for 10 years recently also.
The main reason is these guys isnt good enough atm to win more consistently.
[/quote]

Because he was that good relative to everyone. People have caught back up again, and now he doesn't. Nothing gets less competitive over time. Especially the pride of old men. 50 years from now, there will be someone that makes Tiger looks like a joke. Just a fact of life.