Jimmy Ballard

[bluedot]

To be clear, I didn’t say that there was anything in the Ballard book or in the sessions I had with Ballard instructors about the hands and timing.

 

This was MY experience with my swing crashing and burning after 30+ years of being a 100% Ballard guy.  What I had always done just didn’t work anymore, and I couldn’t fix it or practice my way out of it like I always had.  I just couldn’t get my hands/arms synced up with the weight shift on a consistent basis anymore.  My hands had always been fast enough to let me play a consistent draw, but that turned into either a high block or a low hook.

 

Believe me, I would have MUCH preferred not to change my swing at age 67.  I still play as much competitive golf as I possibly can, and in August of 2019, I withdrew from six tournaments and didn’t play a competitive round for 4 months; in fact, I didn’t play a single hole of even casual golf for almost six weeks.  I did intensive lesson work and a TON of practice time to make the changes I needed to make.

 

Again, if you read this as a knock on Jimmy Ballard, you’re reading it wrong.  I played good golf that way for a long, long time. But FOR ME, it stopped working.  I’ve never been afraid to get worse to get better; I wasn’t when I went to the Ballard swing 30 years ago, and I wasn’t when I departed it in 2019.  
 

Just my experience.

[Ayersjj]

7 hours ago, bluedot said:

Again, if you read this as a knock on Jimmy Ballard, you’re reading it wrong.  I played good golf that way for a long, long time. But FOR ME, it stopped working

Thanks for your honesty about your own journey.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Ayersjj

[golfer07840]

8 hours ago, MoeMoe said:

The English language is a mystery, and with golf in particular it has caused confusion and error.

As for weight transfer, i understand what a lot of people mean, but it doesn't happen.

If you lift your left leg off the ground completely, you have not transferred weight to your right leg.

Your right leg is just supporting the whole weight now. The weight of the left leg is still there hanging mid air.

Whatever that left leg weighed eg: 35lbs, it's still there, it has not gone over to the right side.

All that has happened is the right side feels more pressure in holding up the weight of the whole body now.

The English language is limited. Pressure shift, yes. Actual weight transfer, no. 

Thank you. That's an excellent explanation. And that pressure is what is being taught now to use ground forces. 

 

I recall a US Open in 97, I believe, and Johnny Miller showed, from above, how far off the ball Hal Sutton moved. That, IMO, is weight shift. Hal has since said, he feels doing that is what contributed to him needing his hips replaced and also cost him distance. In fact he told ME as much (see attached). I know that angers some people in here, but it is what it is. 

 

[torbill]

13 hours ago, MoeMoe said:

The English language is a mystery, and with golf in particular it has caused confusion and error.

As for weight transfer, i understand what a lot of people mean, but it doesn't happen.

If you lift your left leg off the ground completely, you have not transferred weight to your right leg.

Your right leg is just supporting the whole weight now. The weight of the left leg is still there hanging mid air.

Whatever that left leg weighed eg: 35lbs, it's still there, it has not gone over to the right side.

All that has happened is the right side feels more pressure in holding up the weight of the whole body now.

The English language is limited. Pressure shift, yes. Actual weight transfer, no. 

 

Moe, it isn’t about the weight of your left leg.  No left leg has ever played golf.  

 

You are right, in one sense.  We do not literally *transfer* any weight from one side to the other.  We would have to chop the left leg off and glue it to the right leg to literally transfer the weight of the leg,  In golf we do not transfer weight.  We *SHIFT* weight.  So it would seem that you are a victim of your own attempt to clarify the language. 😉

Here’s what is actually happening in your example:  Let’s say that you weigh 200#.  If you stand normally your weight will create two 100# *forces* that are transferred to the ground through your feet.  The ground knows absolutely nothing about the weight of your left leg!  The ground knows only that two feet are pressing on it with a force of 100# each.  The ground reacts and pushes back with equal and opposite forces - Newton #3:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

 

Now, you lift your left leg and, as you say,  and all of your body weight goes to your right leg.  The ground is still seeing a force of 200#,  but 100# of  force *shifted* from the left foot to the right foot.  And how is it that you shifted your weight to your right leg?  You literally had to shift the center of weight of your body to the right, far enough to keep you from falling over to the left.  You will fall over if you don’t tip your spine a bit to the right, and this tipping is what shifts your center.  There can be no increase in the force on your right foot unless you shift your center to the right.

 

In all possible cases of weight shift to the left or right foot the sum total of the force that the ground sees will be 200# - unless you do the weight shift quickly.  If you do it quickly enough inertial forces will come into play - Newton #2.  And the total force on the ground can be greater than 200#.   And you might hit the ball farther if you do it fast enough.  But the ball might go further into the woods if you give up some control in doing a faster shift..

 

Feel free to substitute the word pressure for weight or force.  Using the word pressure changes nothing in the discussion.  Pressure is nothing other than the force between the ground and the foot, divided by the contact area of the foot.  

  

[torbill]

22 hours ago, Nels55 said:

i have some thoughts that I will throw out there LOL.  I believe that Dr. Wright and Mike Adams are correct in that different people do better with different swing mechanics.  Both of those have systems for determining a person's best swing pattern.  The systems may not be perfect but they probably arrive at a better swing pattern for most individuals then a strict method will.  I have tried a long list of methods and all of them work for someone LOL.  Often not very well for me which happened to be the case with the Ballard seven common denominators. 

 

Over the years I have run into a lot of folks who believe in the swing system that they use to the point that they believe that it is the only correct way to swing and everyone else is wrong.  Could be Stack and Tilt or Milo Lines or Simple Swing, I could go on for a while but I will spare you!  

 

So, in the end the only disagreement I have with any staunch method golfer is when that golfer tells me that I should be using their method. 

 

Okay, that's what I think and hopefully I can bow out now and leave this thread to those who wish to discuss the details of the Seven Common Denominators.

 

Good post, I agree.  I’ve always maintained that there are a thousand ways to make money in the stock market.  (And two thousand ways to lose money.)  I think of golf swing mechanics the same way - anybody who believes that there is only one right way doesn’t understand the situation.

[torbill]

15 hours ago, bluedot said:

To be clear, I didn’t say that there was anything in the Ballard book or in the sessions I had with Ballard instructors about the hands and timing.

 

This was MY experience with my swing crashing and burning after 30+ years of being a 100% Ballard guy.  What I had always done just didn’t work anymore, and I couldn’t fix it or practice my way out of it like I always had.  I just couldn’t get my hands/arms synced up with the weight shift on a consistent basis anymore.  My hands had always been fast enough to let me play a consistent draw, but that turned into either a high block or a low hook.

 

Believe me, I would have MUCH preferred not to change my swing at age 67.  I still play as much competitive golf as I possibly can, and in August of 2019, I withdrew from six tournaments and didn’t play a competitive round for 4 months; in fact, I didn’t play a single hole of even casual golf for almost six weeks.  I did intensive lesson work and a TON of practice time to make the changes I needed to make.

 

Again, if you read this as a knock on Jimmy Ballard, you’re reading it wrong.  I played good golf that way for a long, long time. But FOR ME, it stopped working.  I’ve never been afraid to get worse to get better; I wasn’t when I went to the Ballard swing 30 years ago, and I wasn’t when I departed it in 2019.  
 

Just my experience.

 

I didn’t take your comments as negative.  Everybody should look for something more suitable if what they have isn’t working.

 

Why I asked about hands is because this is the second time I’ve encountered hands in a Ballard discussion. There was another fellow a while back, maybe on this thread maybe not can’t remember, who tried the method for a while and moved on.  And what he saw in the method was hands.  I think he spent a lot of time looking at Rocco videos.  I would have ignored his comments because I could never quite follow them.  But he was an analytical guy and he really did study the method in earnest, so there had to be something in what he was saying.  When I read your comments yesterday it was like, here we have hands again, what the heck have I missed about Ballard and hands?

 

 

 

[torbill]

23 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

Your head and torso have a lot of mass.

 

If you stand with your legs apart, you can tilt your body left and feel most of your weight over your left foot.

 

Now, stay in that posture and push down on your right foot. Your muscles are adding pressure to your right foot, but you didn’t move your weight to the right.

 

I hope that helps to understand it.

 

 

If you tilt your body to the left it puts more weight on your left foot.  Got it.

 

“Now stay in that posture and push down on your right foot.  Your muscles are adding pressure to your right foot, but you didn’t move your weight to the right.”.  Did you actually try this?  If yes, did you not notice that if you push down on your right foot you do not stay in that posture?  You actually move your body weight further to the left.  And if you keep pushing you fall over.  How does this explain anything about a golf swing?

[golfer07840]

1 hour ago, torbill said:

 

 

If you tilt your body to the left it puts more weight on your left foot.  Got it.

 

“Now stay in that posture and push down on your right foot.  Your muscles are adding pressure to your right foot, but you didn’t move your weight to the right.”.  Did you actually try this?  If yes, did you not notice that if you push down on your right foot you do not stay in that posture?  You actually move your body weight further to the left.  And if you keep pushing you fall over.  How does this explain anything about a golf swing?

So I guess the pressure plates are lying 🙄

[iacas]

7 hours ago, torbill said:

Now, you lift your left leg and, as you say,  and all of your body weight goes to your right leg.  The ground is still seeing a force of 200#,  but 100# of  force *shifted* from the left foot to the right foot.  And how is it that you shifted your weight to your right leg?  You literally had to shift the center of weight of your body to the right, far enough to keep you from falling over to the left.  You will fall over if you don’t tip your spine a bit to the right, and this tipping is what shifts your center.  There can be no increase in the force on your right foot unless you shift your center to the right.  

 

This is not really accurate. Not in a moving system (i.e. a golf swing).

 

I can "unweight" (pick up off the ground) my left foot without letting my center of mass move to the right, and in doing so, let it fall and move to the left. This is what many great players do to shift (or transfer) their weight forward.

 

7 hours ago, torbill said:

In all possible cases of weight shift to the left or right foot the sum total of the force that the ground sees will be 200# - unless you do the weight shift quickly.

 

That's a big and important "unless" given that the backswing is about a second long (ground forces will exceed 200 pounds then), and that the downswing is often about 0.25s.

 

Re-wording it so it's more accurate:

 

In all possible cases of weight shift to the left or right foot the sum total of the force that the ground sees will be different than 200# because the body moves relatively quickly during the golf swing.

 

Also, a person can literally stand still, not shift or transfer their weight side-to-side, and if they just raise their arms from in front of their hips to eye level, the person will register over 200# for a bit because they are raising their COG/COM slightly.

 

7 hours ago, torbill said:

Feel free to substitute the word pressure for weight or force.  Using the word pressure changes nothing in the discussion.  Pressure is nothing other than the force between the ground and the foot, divided by the contact area of the foot.

 

Pressure and force are only really equivalent to weight in a static (unmoving) system. And pressure is "force/area" so it's not really "the same" as it is another term we mildly abuse in golf because we often show the colorized pressure graphic to show where the force is specifically coming from. If you reduce it to two points (instead of over your entire foot), you can almost consider them the same… but my right foot is big and it's the sum of the areas that have pressure that represents the total force.

 

Thank you for this morning's dose of humor. I found it amusing that you were so picky about "shift" versus "transfer" and then totally botched the basic physics, and equated force with weight in a golf swing.

 

[Soloman1]

10 hours ago, torbill said:

 

 

If you tilt your body to the left it puts more weight on your left foot.  Got it.

 

“Now stay in that posture and push down on your right foot.  Your muscles are adding pressure to your right foot, but you didn’t move your weight to the right.”.  Did you actually try this?  If yes, did you not notice that if you push down on your right foot you do not stay in that posture?  You actually move your body weight further to the left.  And if you keep pushing you fall over.  How does this explain anything about a golf swing?

 

I don’t think being snarky is the best way to start a conversation. I’ll stay away from that event horizon.

 

11 hours ago, torbill said:

Feel free to substitute the word pressure for weight or force.

 

I hope others don’t take this advice.

 

If you bend at the knees and push up, like in a golf swing, you can create a ground reaction force equivalent to 150%, or more, of your body weight. Weight and force are not the same.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Soloman1

[torbill]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

 

This is not really accurate. Not in a moving system (i.e. a golf swing).

 

I can "unweight" (pick up off the ground) my left foot without letting my center of mass move to the right, and in doing so, let it fall and move to the left. This is what many great players do to shift (or transfer) their weight forward.

 

 

That's a big and important "unless" given that the backswing is about a second long (ground forces will exceed 200 pounds then), and that the downswing is often about 0.25s.

 

Re-wording it so it's more accurate:

 

In all possible cases of weight shift to the left or right foot the sum total of the force that the ground sees will be different than 200# because the body moves relatively quickly during the golf swing.

 

Also, a person can literally stand still, not shift or transfer their weight side-to-side, and if they just raise their arms from in front of their hips to eye level, the person will register over 200# for a bit because they are raising their COG/COM slightly.

 

 

Pressure and force are only really equivalent to weight in a static (unmoving) system. And pressure is "force/area" so it's not really "the same" as it is another term we mildly abuse in golf because we often show the colorized pressure graphic to show where the force is specifically coming from. If you reduce it to two points (instead of over your entire foot), you can almost consider them the same… but my right foot is big and it's the sum of the areas that have pressure that represents the total force.

 

Thank you for this morning's dose of humor. I found it amusing that you were so picky about "shift" versus "transfer" and then totally botched the basic physics, and equated force with weight in a golf swing.

 

 

I provided a correct static analysis of exactly what was presented by the poster, no more no less - a static system.    

 

I also noted that dynamic/inertial forces come into play, Newton #2.  So I totally agree with you that there are dynamic forces in a real golf swing, and big ones - that’s what it’s all about - after all we don’t hit a golf ball by standing there.  My comments have about the claim that the forces are coming into play without any weight shift.

 

One thing I’ve done is to sit and watch the swings of the pros on TV.  These folks have pretty well optimized the amount of force they can get and still be in good control, so their sort of tempo is maybe be something that I should think about for my swing if I want to get better.  They seem to be at about one second from the time they start the club moving until impact.  And even players like Ernie Els, Mr. Slow & Smooth, about one second - amazing, I would have never guessed by looking at him. I think I went back and looked at Jack videos and as I recall he was also at about one second.

 

Then there are players like Rahm and Tony.  They are faster than a speeding bullet, so much faster that I can’t even approximate it by watching TV.  And they are getting tremendous dynamic force effects with an incredibly fast change in direction.

 

What does this mean for me (which is what I care about most) and many amateurs?  Rahm and Tony can do what they do with their tempo because they have incredible strength.  The strength of youth is a ship that sailed for me a long time ago and I never had anything like that to begin with.  But I do find that if I reduce my time from my typical of about a second and a quarter to about a second I seem to still be able to swing in control, and I do pick up swing speed.

 

Some people who have recently posted here seem to believe that dynamic swing forces are foreign or somehow incompatible to Ballard’s swing principles.  That’s false.

[torbill]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

 

I don’t think being snarky is the best way to start a conversation. I’ll stay away from that event horizon.

 

 

I hope others don’t take this advice.

 

If you bend at the knees and push up, like in a golf swing, you can create a ground reaction force equivalent to 150%, or more, of your body weight. Weight and force are not the same.

 

 

 

We’ve always had civilized discussion in this thread.  You took my comments as being more snarky than what I intended but it’s true that it was late at night and I was impatient with another example that I don’t think applies to the golf swing.  Perception is reality, and I sincerely apologize.

 

So let’s go to your current example and find some common ground.  I agree with it and think it’s an excellent analogy to the dynamic forces that come into play in a golf swing.  And I think it’s far more than 150%, depending on how it’s done.  Go check out “JJ Watt box jump” on youtube.  300#.  61” vertical jump.  Incredible.

 

JJ Watt could have jumped very high by statically loading all of his energy into a deep knee squat, then jumping.  But he didn’t do that.  He dynamically crouched and began to apply reversing force before he was even down, early change of direction.  We can get good distance in a golf swing by statically loading our backswing, then swinging.  The Japanese fellow who’s name escapes me at the moment pauses at the top, which puts him into a pretty static position from which he starts down.  If he would JJ Watt his swing he would probably hit it even farther.  (No doubt he doesn’t worry about such things as he’s hitting it 300++.)

 

 

[Soloman1]

3 minutes ago, torbill said:

Perception is reality, and I sincerely apologize.

 

Apology accepted. Kudos.

 

Yes, I used 150% (or more) as a low end for recreational players. Elite players and better athletes can be much more.

 

The three forces in and after transition are first lateral, then rotational then vertical, as I think everyone knows by now.

 

Some elite players use very little verticals. Think Dustin Johnson, he’s mostly rotational. Some use more verticals. Think Justin Thomas, he uses a lot of vertical.

 

There are movement and grip patterns that match better to emphasizing each force.

 

Ballard is about using laterals more, in ground forces and body movement. Curtis Strange would not likely have been as successful using a different pattern.

 

Such is golf.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, torbill said:

I provided a correct static analysis of exactly what was presented by the poster, no more no less - a static system.

 

As you know, the golf swing is not a static system. So I'm not sure I see what the point of all that was, particularly if you want to deny him the "transfer" idea and the "shift" idea (both of which imply that you are not talking about a static system).

 

Since you kind of ignored the rest of what I had to say about your post… I'll ignore the rest of your response, as it's not really related to what I wrote in my post.

[Ayersjj]

⛳️

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Ayersjj
🔥💀

[torbill]

20 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

Apology accepted. Kudos.

 

Yes, I used 150% (or more) as a low end for recreational players. Elite players and better athletes can be much more.

 

The three forces in and after transition are first lateral, then rotational then vertical, as I think everyone knows by now.

 

Some elite players use very little verticals. Think Dustin Johnson, he’s mostly rotational. Some use more verticals. Think Justin Thomas, he uses a lot of vertical.

 

There are movement and grip patterns that match better to emphasizing each force.

 

Ballard is about using laterals more, in ground forces and body movement. Curtis Strange would not likely have been as successful using a different pattern.

 

Such is golf.

 

Yes to all.  Regarding using laterals more, that would have depended on the player.  Strange is a 3-sigma variant on lateral moves, lol - not typical.  I think that Strange was exactly as you indicate - his personal application of the principles to his body, his demeanor, his whatever was probably the only way he could have done it.

 

Ballard wants coiling of all the weight into the back leg and putting 100% of it on the other side at the finish  If weight shift involves a certain amount of lateral movement, so be it, but it isn’t prescribed - weight shift is what’s prescribed.

 

Ballard’s lineage goes back to Hogan, via Sam Byrd.  Everything that Ballard ever taught was centered on his study of Hogan’s swing and what came to him from Hogan via Byrd.  So Hogan would be a better model, and Hogan didn’t move off the ball much.  And we can also reference the major champions who worked with Ballard at one time or another - Miller, Seve, Lyle, Player, Sutton, probably others that don’t come to mind.  None of these players ever moved off the ball like Strange (or Mediate for that matter).  

 

A good example is Player.  Player has been so committed to Ballard principles that he and Jim Colbert ran a golf school for years - still might be going for all I know - that used Ballard’s name and principles.  Here’s a piece on Player’s swing, and we can see that he gets loaded up but he has never moved much off the ball:

 

 

[golftech]

Let me clarify this since I have significant experience working with not only Ballard, but his mentor Sam Byrd.  Ballard liked to instruct through feels.  He was the best I’ve seen in finding the right individual feel to change a student’s swing quickly.  I once saw him teach a top 10 PGA Tour player and a beginner side by side in a school.  By the end of day both had made significant progress, but their feels were very different.  
 

This means even an inch of literal movement might feel like a foot when initially introduced.  Without constant instruction swing feels can be over cooked (and often were with some of his students).  Sam Byrd made it clear to me that the movements were subtle as you reach advanced levels of swing mechanics.  Find old videos of Sam Byrd, one of the best motions I’ve witnessed in person.  His precision even into early 70’s was impressive.

[SandPiper]

On 5/19/2023 at 4:55 PM, golftech said:

Let me clarify this since I have significant experience working with not only Ballard, but his mentor Sam Byrd.  Ballard liked to instruct through feels.  He was the best I’ve seen in finding the right individual feel to change a student’s swing quickly.  I once saw him teach a top 10 PGA Tour player and a beginner side by side in a school.  By the end of day both had made significant progress, but their feels were very different.  
 

This means even an inch of literal movement might feel like a foot when initially introduced.  Without constant instruction swing feels can be over cooked (and often were with some of his students).  Sam Byrd made it clear to me that the movements were subtle as you reach advanced levels of swing mechanics.  Find old videos of Sam Byrd, one of the best motions I’ve witnessed in person.  His precision even into early 70’s was impressive.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by SandPiper

[garyt]

On 4/27/2023 at 7:53 AM, iacas said:

Not entirely sure what I stepped in here… I'm just talking about weight and pressure. I realize it's the Jimmy Ballard thread, so I'll take one more stab at it and may eject after that, as there seems to be a lot of "belief without a basis in fact" going on here.

 

 

An inch is enough to shift his weight more than you seem to think. Go stand on a pair of bathroom scales and move your body to the right 1.4 to 2". (Rory's pelvis goes back about 1.4", his chest about 2"). Heck, just moving your arms from centered to back can shift weight quite a bit. A noticeable amount.

 

 

Yeah, I never said they did, so I think you read me as being on the wrong side of this… The way I understand it, neither you nor @torbill have it right here. You both seem to have a nebulous view of what goes on with respect to weight and pressure.

 

But I jumped in here in the middle of something, so maybe I'm wrong and things you've said before clarify… or maybe you've both shifted to some extreme ends of the argument or something. I don't know.

 

 

I don't know what video you watched, but it definitely doesn't say that. It says the opposite of "no weight shift, no pressure shift." Sometimes in a big red rectangle at the bottom of the screen:

 

 

 

There is a difference. Often by increasing pressure on the left, you move the weight to the right.

 

Weight and pressure are not the same.

 

(Pros shift weight and pressure, but they're not synonyms at all. That's why we have some guys measuring GRF more than 2x their mass.)

 

 

Rory has really good flexibility (his shoulder turn is > 120° yet his face barely turns back — he's part owl, I think), but plenty of people can swing "like" Rory if you're asking people to:

• Shift a little right to start the backswing.
• Spiral up from there.
• Keep the right elbow pretty wide (65-69° of bend at the top).
• Fall from the top pretty early to get forward.

Almost everyone can mimic Rory's pressure and weight shift stuff, especially, because there's nothing all that special about them. Scott Cowx has a pattern based on old Rory and I know of several people who are "in" that pattern.

 

 

Good luck with that. I think turning is a lot faster than shifting weight a bunch, and more precise. Some shifting is good. Ballard level shifting… there's a reason it's passé.

 

I'm out on any "destroying the body" stuff. Rocco Mediate was a big Ballard guy… plenty of back issues. Thing is, you don't have the first clue why someone's back goes out or whatever. No golf swing that performs at a high level is "great" for your body, and people get injured in all walks of life doing all kinds of things. Genetics, that particular person's form, etc. all play a role. Tying it to the golf swing they use (when it's pretty easy to find counter-examples) is folly.

In fairness, back issues are what took Rocco to Ballard. He had them before ballard and has said Ballard eliminated them

[upanddown]

Is Jimmy still teaching?  Any pros around that still teach his method?

[SandPiper]

12 hours ago, upanddown said:

Any pros around that still teach his method?

 
i do 

[orr444]

You can still jimmy for a 4 hour session. Also Rick Richardson is in Fla a Ballard guy.

[torbill]

On 7/17/2023 at 7:35 PM, SandPiper said:

 
i do 

 

Based on your posts here a while back I’ll bet that you’re a great teaching resource for Ballard principles.

 

 

[SandPiper]

On 5/19/2023 at 4:55 PM, golftech said:

This means even an inch of literal movement might feel like a foot when initially introduced.  Without constant instruction swing feels can be over cooked (and often were with some of his students).

If u watch Jimmy on golf channel he says you should not even think of a lateral move. Rather “if the shoulders are on plane it automatically goes into the brace of the right foot”

 

His words not mine 

[torbill]

9 hours ago, SandPiper said:

If u watch Jimmy on golf channel he says you should not even think of a lateral move. Rather “if the shoulders are on plane it automatically goes into the brace of the right foot”

 

His words not mine 

 

Exactly.

 

https://www.golflink.com/tipsvideos/video.aspx?v=25734

 

So, how do you teach getting the correct feel of this - in other words, not swaying and not reverse-pivoting.  It’s not an easy thing for me to get right.

Edited July 24, 2023 by torbill

[KNOWMOREDOUBLES]

37 minutes ago, torbill said:

 

Exactly.

 

https://www.golflink.com/tipsvideos/video.aspx?v=25734

 

So, how do you teach getting the correct feel of this - in other words, not swaying and not reverse-pivoting.  It’s not an easy thing for me to get right.

Your shoulders are at a slight tilted plane (more so for SW vs. driver).  If you maintain that plane as you turn away, you should get some pressure on the inside of your right foot (for a RH golfer), while keeping your head steady.   You see a lot of the tour players have a slight dip in their back swings.  That is how it is done I believe.  They just get back to their lead side quicker than most of us.

Edited July 24, 2023 by KNOWMOREDOUBLES

[SandPiper]

On 4/28/2023 at 8:18 AM, bluedot said:

To be clear, I didn’t say that there was anything in the Ballard book or in the sessions I had with Ballard instructors about the hands and timing.

 

This was MY experience with my swing crashing and burning after 30+ years of being a 100% Ballard guy.  What I had always done just didn’t work anymore, and I couldn’t fix it or practice my way out of it like I always had.  I just couldn’t get my hands/arms synced up with the weight shift on a consistent basis anymore.  My hands had always been fast enough to let me play a consistent draw, but that turned into either a high block or a low hook.

 

Believe me, I would have MUCH preferred not to change my swing at age 67.  I still play as much competitive golf as I possibly can, and in August of 2019, I withdrew from six tournaments and didn’t play a competitive round for 4 months; in fact, I didn’t play a single hole of even casual golf for almost six weeks.  I did intensive lesson work and a TON of practice time to make the changes I needed to make.

 

Again, if you read this as a knock on Jimmy Ballard, you’re reading it wrong.  I played good golf that way for a long, long time. But FOR ME, it stopped working.  I’ve never been afraid to get worse to get better; I wasn’t when I went to the Ballard swing 30 years ago, and I wasn’t when I departed it in 2019.  
 

Just my experience.

“The hands” This is why so many leave Ballard method. They try to do it with their hands. Ask Jimmy why Curtis never won after leaving his tutelage.

Edited July 28, 2023 by SandPiper

[bluedot]

7 hours ago, SandPiper said:

“The hands” This is why so many leave Ballard method. They try to do it with their hands. Ask Jimmy why Curtis never won after leaving his tutelage.

You are misunderstanding what I wrote.  
 

What I couldn’t do anymore was successfully make a weight shift (or coil, if you want to use Ballard’s terminology), and then get fully to my left side. When I didn’t get the timing right, which happened more and more because I was losing speed as I aged, my hands weren’t fast enough anymore “save” a bad swing.

 

I’ll say it again; I played good and injury free golf using Ballard’s book and principles, and working with Ballard instructors for a long, long time, and the process of making a change  wasn’t easy or pleasant.  It’s an athletic way to swing a golf club, and as a former college tennis player it just felt natural to me from Day One.

 

But I’m not the athlete at 71 that I was at 31, and the loss of strength and speed despite consistently working out and practicing was a killer.  Now, 3.5 years after making the change, my index is half of what I was when in pulled the plug on my old swing.  My good days aren’t any better, but my bad days are far, far better than what they had become.

 

If anyone wants to read this as a knock on Ballard, I can’t help that, but I don’t think it’s accurate. There are different ways to swing a golf club, and different teaching methods.  That what works best might change as we age isn’t shocking, at least to me.

[SandPiper]

13 hours ago, bluedot said:

You are misunderstanding what I wrote.  
 

What I couldn’t do anymore was successfully make a weight shift (or coil, if you want to use Ballard’s terminology), and then get fully to my left side. When I didn’t get the timing right, which happened more and more because I was losing speed as I aged, my hands weren’t fast enough anymore “save” a bad swing.

 

I’ll say it again; I played good and injury free golf using Ballard’s book and principles, and working with Ballard instructors for a long, long time, and the process of making a change  wasn’t easy or pleasant.  It’s an athletic way to swing a golf club, and as a former college tennis player it just felt natural to me from Day One.

 

But I’m not the athlete at 71 that I was at 31, and the loss of strength and speed despite consistently working out and practicing was a killer.  Now, 3.5 years after making the change, my index is half of what I was when in pulled the plug on my old swing.  My good days aren’t any better, but my bad days are far, far better than what they had become.

 

If anyone wants to read this as a knock on Ballard, I can’t help that, but I don’t think it’s accurate. There are different ways to swing a golf club, and different teaching methods.  That what works best might change as we age isn’t shocking, at least to me.

We all have our reasons to stick it out with a method of swinging a golf club.
 

Rocco has come bak to Ballard  fundamentals and seems more excited than ever this past month. I think he approaching 61 hits it 280 yards.  Look at his record under Rick Smith and you’ll see dismal results. 

Edited July 29, 2023 by SandPiper

[SandPiper]

On 4/28/2023 at 1:44 PM, golfer07840 said:

Thank you. That's an excellent explanation. And that pressure is what is being taught now to use ground forces. 

 

I recall a US Open in 97, I believe, and Johnny Miller showed, from above, how far off the ball Hal Sutton moved. That, IMO, is weight shift. Hal has since said, he feels doing that is what contributed to him needing his hips replaced and also cost him distance. In fact he told ME as much (see attached). I know that angers some people in here, but it is what it is. 

 

I find that ironic that Sutton assumes Ballards shift i to the right leg would cause hip replacement injuries. The truth is Horgan his college coach in Golf Digest critiques showed Sutton twisting and rotating the arms. I would argue the twisting causes injury NOT a lateral shift unless you are one legged.