Jim Venetos golf swing?

[oikos1]

[quote name='northgolf' timestamp='1410822474' post='10122511']
[quote name='garyt' timestamp='1410821751' post='10122439']
[quote name='garyt' timestamp='1410820160' post='10122339']
[quote name='oikos1' timestamp='1410749371' post='10118185']
To Jim V,

Very disappointed. I watched your side by side comparison of you and Mr. Jones...I had to stop before it finished.

More disappointing...You have yet to show a full driver swing of prodigious length. I asked for a driver swing early on in this thread. You provided a link to "chatter". If you were just some dude shooting the bull, so be it, I and everyone else would care less to see a swing, but you claim to be an instructor and have made claims of long drives that would be quite impressive for the technique you espouse...

Demonstrate it, please...if you don't, well, this is WRX...
[/quote]

He posted twice about this already. He DID post a driver swing a few pages back,go find it.
[/quote]

I found it for you, post #24
[/quote]

Extremely low quality video where you can't see the shaft, the club, or more than a black smear that is JV. 7Min 24 seconds for one swing (leave the sound off) from a camera angle that is totally useless - seems par for the course.
[/quote]

Yeah, I thought there would be something better in terms of video. But if that's all there is, so be it. I agree somewhat with ej002 that it's not a bad looking swing. 350 yd swing? If so, sign me up...

[eightiron]

[quote name='northgolf' timestamp='1410824611' post='10122761']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1410824295' post='10122709']
30 bucks is a good deal , how much you paying these days north?
[/quote]

I'm married, I don't have to pay $30 to get to lose all respect.
[/quote]

Lmao the triple empty !

[no where to look]

[quote name='Mozza73' timestamp='1410794112' post='10120091']
Ok, maybe stack and tilt is a bad example but surely the point is that you are not adding power to the swing by shifting weight, the weight transfer is a natural result of the turn. With Slicefixer we turn into a braced right leg, because we want to keep our spine angle this means that weight loads onto the inside of the right foot in the backswing, and as we turn through that weight transfers itself to the front foot, all we do is turn. The weight transfer hasn't added any power , rotation and physics does this.

Surely?
[/quote]

Mozza73,
I think your correct. The weight transferred in the golf swing is the movement of our arms(20-30 pounds).
It was the same for Ben Hogan and Babe Ruth. They moved from the ground up to maintain dynamic balance while the arms moved outside of their natural position at our sides.

How often have we heard Ben Hogan accused of reverse pivot. He was simply counterbalancing the weight of his arms that were sent to his right and behind.

IMO, JV is correct. Power isn't created by weight shift.
IMO, JV is wrong when he says power comes from a flexing shaft. If that was the case, then Ben Hogan had no power. He used X shafts tipped 2 inches. No flex.

A flexing shaft is a lever with multiple fulcrums and like a bullwhip, also a lever with multiple fulcrums, requires exquisite timing to work properly. Power from levers has to do with elimination of slack in power transmission....which is what Ben Hogan and Babe Ruth did better than anyone else in their sport.

[Ghost of Snead]

So the Babe and Hogan both could have placed 100% of their weight on their front leg, lifted their back leg off the ground , and hit the ball just as far? Or better yet, do you think Jamie Sadowski can hit it 430 yards from his knees with no weight transfer?

[no where to look]

[quote name='lefty57' timestamp='1410830645' post='10123401']
So the Babe and Hogan both could have placed 100% of their weight on their front leg, lifted their back leg off the ground , and hit the ball just as far? Or better yet, do you think Jamie Sadowski can hit it 430 yards from his knees with no weight transfer?
[/quote]


who said that?
your an idiot, move on.

[Ghost of Snead]

The idiots are the ones who say the swing power is the same with no weight transfer.... Or the transfer of weight is in the arms. Now you move on son...

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Dondorary' timestamp='1410822088' post='10122467']
As a SnT swinger, when I lose the feel for the backside of the circle, I do a drill similar to this swing that Mike and Andy teach. Shots are just as long, great compression. and it's gonna draw!

Cool of this instructor to stop by.
[/quote]

Right but look at the shot. I understand it's a drill and that mike is hitting a 6 iron but that's probably 30-35 yds of curve. If you're saying the swing in this thread is similar, then it's going to get a similar amount of movement...

[no where to look]

[quote name='lefty57' timestamp='1410830915' post='10123445']
The idiots are the ones who say the swing power is the same with no weight transfer.... Or the transfer of weight is in the arms. Now you move on son...
[/quote]

The golf club is less than one pound.

How much do your arms weigh? any clue?

What other weight moves, bright boy?

[ej002]

JV is living proof of the lower body lie

[Ghost of Snead]

If you don't transfer your weight from the back to front foot, you are correct Einstein. I suppose you think a baseball pitcher doesn't transfer his weight either, right ?

[verderraul]

[quote name='garyt' timestamp='1410220357' post='10086425']
[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ6h8RP-JeM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ6h8RP-JeM[/url]



Anybody try this swing? Definitely different and intriguing.
[/quote]

This is as good as Ebola virus.

[pinhigh27]

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCmM2QK75vo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCmM2QK75vo[/url]
Just looks really flippy to me.

[no where to look]

[quote name='lefty57' timestamp='1410832958' post='10123783']
If you don't transfer your weight from the back to front foot, you are correct Einstein. I suppose you think a baseball pitcher doesn't transfer his weight either, right ?
[/quote]

The weight that is 'transferred'
is the weight of the arms

our body moves involuntarily to maintain our balance, while the weight of our arms moves.

JV's point is that this weight transfer and subsequent body movement is not the source of power in the golf swing.
Rotation is source of power. No different than the internal combustion engine.

rotation, engages levers that operate most efficiently when slack is eliminated.

[tembolo1284]

I wonder if this technique requires a more upright lie. Like Dalton McCrary's straight shootin' golf.

[Ghost of Snead]

Very few here would dispute that rotation when combined with the proper weight transfer will produce the most power. How can this be true with Venetos' swing when there is little or no rotation until after impact?

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='lefty57' timestamp='1410874255' post='10125573']
Very few here would dispute that rotation when combined with the proper weight transfer will produce the most power. How can this be true with Venetos' swing when there is little or no rotation until after impact?
[/quote]

I still want to see the long drive swing and one of him hitting a high fade with a long iron!

[Sabanator]

To all the skeptics and naysayers about this guy's swing, how about taking a few moments of your time and test it out? I stated earlier ITT that range rat at our course uses this swing and he can smash it much further than I. I've tried it myself and I didn't have any trouble picking it up. Mostly hit straight shots and at about the same distances of my usual swing.

Being relatively new to this forum, I can now see why the some of the other swing gurus probably no longer post here. State an opinion and then deal with all the bulls**t that follows.

Lucky for us all that Monte has the patience of Job and sticks around this place.

[northgolf]

Why not try it? I tell you why: swingcrack is dangerous. Just say no.

[bph7]

[quote name='Sabanator' timestamp='1410875146' post='10125673']
To all the skeptics and naysayers about this guy's swing, how about taking a few moments of your time and test it out? I stated earlier ITT that range rat at our course uses this swing and he can smash it much further than I. I've tried it myself and I didn't have any trouble picking it up. Mostly hit straight shots and at about the same distances of my usual swing.

Being relatively new to this forum, I can now see why the some of the other swing gurus probably no longer post here. State an opinion and then deal with all the bulls**t that follows.

Lucky for us all that Monte has the patience of Job and sticks around this place.
[/quote]

Not everyone in this forum is interested in trying every new method or concept that they see in every thread. In fact, the people that do that almost never improve. As for this thread, as Monte said earlier we make jokes sometimes. This is going to get joked about, get over it, if it improves your game then just get better with it and have fun, no one is stopping you. As for Jim, he did avoid legitimate questions. Since you are new, I will say why its important to question the "pros" that show up on here with their own methods: historically, lots of people who have no idea what they are doing do this and will hurt many people's games. I'm not saying Jim is one of them necessarily, but its worthwhile to see how they respond to legitimate questions. Trust me, if you look around the internet long enough, everyone will have a monthly program that will change your game. Guess what, lots of them don't.

[tembolo1284]

Does anyone have any footage of this sexy man's long drive swing?

What about him hitting a high fade with a long iron?

[Noke]

I tried it for a few shots last night on the course, as I had it all to myself.

Def a draw, but less than I had expected. Distance was a bit less than my normal swing. Contact was good and I kept my lower body static.

Anywho, not a swing for me as I felt the pre-set was over-stretching my left hip (which is where my back pain resides), but was fun to try. Would change an out to in path in a hurry.

To my eyes JV still has a slight weight shift even more to his left side, albeit a restricted one.

[caeleric]

preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410881155' post='10126129']
preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Because iron byron is a robot? Human beings don't work that way.

Sir you need more bacon in your diet to get you thinking clearly!

[bph7]

[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410881155' post='10126129']
preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Let's be clear about something: JV came on here, said his left side anchor whatever was MORE powerful than anything else. When asked to elaborate or if he really meant that, he started backtracking and said stuff about how his method hits it more solidly etc, but he still wouldn't be totally clear about what he meant. Then he pretty much left.

As I have said, and others have somewhat concurred with, this would probably improve lots of OTT hackers who are just hopelessly steep/OTT by building in the necessary compensations. However, it will not be as powerful and would probably be limiting the potential of lots of decent players. I'm not sure why JV got all upset about the OTT hacker thing anyway, the vast majority of golfers are OTT hackers, so if his method would help that group, that means it would help the vast majority of golfers.

[ej002]

[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410881155' post='10126129']
preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.
[/quote]

It is not dynamic.

[Noke]

[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1410881863' post='10126191']
[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410881155' post='10126129']
preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Let's be clear about something: JV came on here, said his left side anchor whatever was MORE powerful than anything else. When asked to elaborate or if he really meant that, he started backtracking and said stuff about how his method hits it more solidly etc, but he still wouldn't be totally clear about what he meant. Then he pretty much left.

As I have said, and others have somewhat concurred with, this would probably improve lots of OTT hackers who are just hopelessly steep/OTT by building in the necessary compensations. However, it will not be as powerful and would probably be limiting the potential of lots of decent players. I'm not sure why JV got all upset about the OTT hacker thing anyway, the vast majority of golfers are OTT hackers, so if his method would help that group, that means it would help the vast majority of golfers.
[/quote]

He came on here after someone else posted his swing ideas.

His definition of more powerful is different than yours. I would tend to agree with your definition (of pure swing speed?), but I can see where he is coming from and understand how he may think he has answered the question regarding power in his swing vs the conventional swing.

Would be nice if he posted some real evidence to back up his claims, though.

[northgolf]

^^^ You can prove anything if you change the definitions to suit your bias.

[caeleric]

[quote name='ej002' timestamp='1410882803' post='10126253']
[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410881155' post='10126129']
preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.
[/quote]

It is not dynamic.
[/quote]

i could say the same thing about someone like hideki matsuyama, or ernie els, or vijay singh, all of whom have a very pronounced pause at the top before transitioning into the downswing. or maybe i'm misunderstanding your point.

[caeleric]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1410881402' post='10126151']
[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410881155' post='10126129']
preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Because iron byron is a robot? Human beings don't work that way.

Sir you need more bacon in your diet to get you thinking clearly!
[/quote]


mmmmmm. bacon. i've recently started cooking bacon like [url="http://www.thekitchn.com/tip-for-perfect-bacon-add-a-little-water-to-the-pan-191595"]this.[/url] significantly less mess, and bacon comes out much better than just throwing it into a hot pan. but i digress.

but what about the robot is different than we are? and if it's that different, why is it an acceptable standard for testing clubs? why not build something that more approximates a more "human" swing, if iron byron isn't apples to apples? again, i'm just genuinely trying to understand.

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410958643' post='10131485']
[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1410881402' post='10126151']
[quote name='caeleric' timestamp='1410881155' post='10126129']
preface: i still don't like jv's swing and would never try it.

BUT, he brings up iron byron. i have always thought of iron byron as a way to support target-side biased swings like foley, snt, bender, etc. no weight shift off the ball for iron byron, and that's how a lot of empirical testing is done on golf clubs, right? so, i guess my question is why are we pounding jv for advocating no weight shift when iron byron doesn't shift either? no agenda in this question, just genuinely curious.
[/quote]

Because iron byron is a robot? Human beings don't work that way.

Sir you need more bacon in your diet to get you thinking clearly!
[/quote]


mmmmmm. bacon. i've recently started cooking bacon like [url="http://www.thekitchn.com/tip-for-perfect-bacon-add-a-little-water-to-the-pan-191595"]this.[/url] significantly less mess, and bacon comes out much better than just throwing it into a hot pan. but i digress.

but what about the robot is different than we are? and if it's that different, why is it an acceptable standard for testing clubs? why not build something that more approximates a more "human" swing, if iron byron isn't apples to apples? again, i'm just genuinely trying to understand.
[/quote]

I'd say if we could make ourselves more consistent by being more robotic we would. Wouldn't help our feel though. But to test out clubs
it's nice to hit the ball replicating the exact same conditions time after time. After the iron byron robot tests are satisfactory I'd think the companies get golfers of all handicaps to hit the clubs to make sure the feel and what they originally saw in iron byron testing is successful.