Mike and Dana's hip turn video lesson

[mike52]

I'll put my money on Dana!

 

 

:good:

[Ezgolfer]

Wow !!

That's a heck of a challenge .

Someone needs to step up.

 

 

I am not a swing guru, but my pro always corrected my straightened right knee.So i was following the thread for that reason only .

 

It seems like lot of anger directed towards one person . Jeffman seems to be sticking to the topic and debate . The other guys are just angry in conveying there points.

[bantamben]

Oh great, wait a second this whole long thread was actually a setup to try to make some money off jeffy. In reply to jeffman mike and dana dont teach stack and tilt they teach the golf swing and use the information they have collected from various sources as well as the research applying these methods to thousands of students they have taught. So jeffman you where on the right track. A good amount of teachers and magazine articles and books have taught too make a flat shoulder turn. I know mike teaches that the shoulders should turn steeper than conventional instruction but that steeper angle is actually 90 degrees to your torso inclination at address, this is what you will see in mike's clips as well as any footage of Myself or Mac . This way on the downswing you dont have to steepen your shoulders just turn around your torso angle on the way down. Mike is also at best with the right shoes 5'8" but hits it like a giant. Tiger is 6'2" and is the shortest of the three you showed also ernie is hitting a long iron and faldo a mid iron i believe. They all play standard clubs so will most likely set up to it with more torso inclination than mike. You talked about the hips they are similar to the shoulders we believe they should turn steeper because of the straightening of the right leg and the bending of the left leg, and as you pointed out these three examples do this to some extent. The secret is that there is a balance between the right leg straightening and the left leg bending. so the center point of your hips stays relatively the same distance from the ground and stays relatively centered from face on although the right will go up and the left will go down because of the leg action. I hope that helps you understand our position. And if that bet is open to others count me in, as I will be visiting salt lake soon to visit my sister in law who is having a little future lpga player.

[JeffMann]

Bantamben

 

I actually think that I do understand Dana's position. However, I am not sure that you understand my position as to what represents a traditional golf swing. I believe that Ernie Els, Nick Faldo and Tiger Woods all have a traditional golf swing. They have a certain degree of bent-over spine at address, often in the region of 30-35 degrees. They rotate their shoulders at slightly <90 degrees to the spinal axis during the backswing, and you can see their end-backswing shoulder turn angle from the photos. They maintain a small degree of right knee flex during the backswing, and they have a traditional backswing pivot action that causes the right femoral head to move leftwards, rearwards (away from the ball-target line) and slightly upwards (depending on the degree of right leg straightening) - and this causes the right pelvis to be very slightly uptilted at the end-backswing position. If any golf instructor suggests that it is better to increase the degree of pelvic tilt and also increase the steepness of the shoulder turn, then I simply would like to understand the biomechanical advantages of that recommendation.

 

Regarding the money challenge, it only applies to Jeffy. Theoretically, he has all the advantages - i) He has an official handicap of 10, and presumably hits the ball well. I don't even have an official handicap and I supposedly cannot hit a golf ball. ii) He is young (? age in the 20s-30s) and he is presumbaly athletic and flexible, while I am 59 years old and I am not flexible or athletic. iii) He has been playing golf for many years and has been instructed by a famous golf instructor, Jim Hardy, while I only started to play golf a few years ago after I retired and I am essentially self-taught. Despite the advantages being in Jeffy's favor, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is if he is willing to accept the challenge and play against me here in Salt Lake City.

 

Although I do want to compete against you for money, I would be happy to join you for a friendly round of golf when you visit Salt Lake City (weather permitting) if you are interested.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Dana

 

When I posted the photo of Ben Hogan, you made the following statement-: "By the way the picture of Hogan you have there is not in real action, so thats a feeling picture kinda like the Badds picture. But because he is who he is. We dont question him."

 

What are you implying? Are you asserting that the posed photos doesn't represent his true swing with respect to my assertions regarding shoulder/pelvic turn angles, and downswing action?

 

Let's re-consider what I stated with respect to Hogan's swing - using the same photo.

 

 

This is what I stated with respect to this photo -: "Note that he has a non-steep shoulder turn in the backswing and a horizontal pelvic turn. Note how easy it is easy for him to bring the club down on plane and from the inside - simply by turning the lower body horizontally towards the target while dropping the right shoulder and right elbow down to the right hip area. How does a steeper shoulder turn angle during the backswing improve on this move?"

 

Are you implying that Hogan didn't have a non-steep shoulder turn in the backswing and didn't really have a horizontal pelvic turn in his "real life" swing, or that he couldn't bring the club down on the correct plane, from the inside, during his downswing lower body initiating move? Here is a swing capture image from his "real life" swing (derived from the end of this

where he actually hits a golf ball).

 

 

Note that in his "real life" swing, Hogan had a relatively horizontal shoulder turn angle in the backswing, and that he rotates his pelvis horizontally in the backswing and downswing. Also, note that the effect of his downswing hip squaring action - it shallows the clubshaft angle. Hogan also brought his right elbow down to his hip area at the start of the downswing, and his right shoulder starts to move in the direction of the RSP line.

 

I can see no difference between his posed photos and his "real life" downswing photos, other than a greater amount of leftwards pelvic shift due to the dynamism of his "real life" action.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Hoganafan924 previously brought up the issue about the movement of the hands down to the ball during a traditional swing and a MORAD-style swing where the shoulder turn is steeper. He stated that I should plot the movement of the butt end of the club using my swing analyser program.

 

Here are the results for different players - Badds (old swing), Sorenstam, Garcia, Palmer and Hogan.

 

 

Note that the hand swingpath is a curvilinear path, and not a straight line path, down to impact. Palmer is the golfer with the steepest shoulder turn angle in the backswing, but he definitely doesn't have the straightest hand swingpath line. In fact, note that his hands first drop towards the ground before moving forward to the impact position (like Sorenstam, who has a steep left arm angle at the end-backswing) while Hogan's hand swingpath is more evenly (more straight line) down-forward. I think that there is an obvious biomechanical explanation for this phenomenon - Palmer's hands are relatively higher at the end-backswing position (near the shoulder turn angle line) and they have to drop down to the elbow plane line where they end up at impact. By contrast, Hogan has a more horizontal shoulder turn angle in the backswing and that gets his hands to a point slightly below the shoulder turn angle line, which is itself less far (from an angular perspective) from the elbow plane line. Therefore, during the downswing, Hogan's hands can move along a straighter line path to the impact position (at, or just below the elbow plane line). I therefore think that the "real life" evidence may contradict Hoganfan924's assertion that a steeper backswing shoulder turn angle alllows the hands to travel down to the ball along a straighter path. In fact, the opposite phenomenon may occur - the steeper the shoulder turn angle, the more curvilinear the hand swingpath, as the hands have to drop down to near the elbow plane line by impact.

 

Jeff.

[fats]

What am I missing here? JeffMann wants people to fly into Salt Lake to play that rinky dink course? LOL Since he's retired and we all know doctors aren't exactly poor, wouldn't it be much easier on everyone for JeffMann to be the one who travels? He's the one who has the point to prove so it's his obligation to travel. What do you say Doc? Maybe I can fit a "round" with you for $2,500 winner take all, as four rounds with you sounds like an earache.

[JeffMann]

Fats - you have simply missed the point. I am not out to prove that my golf swing is better than yours, or Dana's, or many other forum members.

 

My challenge was targeted primarily at Jeffy because he has has endlessly insulted with me with unsubstantiated accusations - that I cannot even hit a golf ball, and that I am too embarrassed to publish my swing video online because I can barely hit a golf ball. I eventually got fed up and challenged him to compare his swing performance to mine (particularly in terms of GIR and FIR) over a 72 hole challenge. I am not only willing to publish our scorecards (including GIR/FIR performance) online, I am also willing to post swing videos of our swings (from the competition) online.

 

On what basis do you state that the Arthur Hills-designed Wingpointe Golf Course at the airport is a rinky-dink golf course?

 

Jeff.

[fats]

Was/is there another course next to the airport? I agree with you, the one you showed isn't rinky dink at all.

It probably would be easier for you to go to Jeffy's area for a match as he isn't retired and is business active. I doubt if money is a barrier for you. You might play on a great course who knows?

 

Maybe both could play a match here is Atl as I'm also a pro Photographer as well as a retired touring pro who at age 71 is combining the OPS with the S&T.

I can get pics of you both.

 

The two Hogan pics are nice but are posed and he exaggerates in posed pics. I can't tell you why he did that, but it's a fact. His left shoulder was always lower than what he shows in that posed second black in white. They did a lot of "what it feels like" in those days. What you see in the old posed pics is not always truthful. In the first of those two black & whites of Hogan he has his head over and almost beyond his right leg with a very tall waist posture position. In the "real life" action shots he is bent at the waist quite a bit more with an inverted right leg and his head well inside that right leg...on the second photo the "real life" action shows clearly the left shoulder tilted down not up.

 

Then look at the ball position in those B&W pics...almost to past his left toe...from that backswing position he'd have one helluva hard time getting to contact...so, no, the posed pics are misleading to say the least.

[Kerry_Bunker]

JeffMann vs Jeffy ?

 

I am in favour of this match but with only one stipulation: When the competition is over, you cannot withhold from future back and forth

smack, errrrrrrrr ..... debate on this forum. Reading these is now part of my daily routine.

[fats]

I agree knob333...it has more viewers that the latest Big Break. LOL

[hoganfan924]

Jeffmann,

 

Once again, you've completely missed the point about one planers and two planers and the path of the butt of the club in transition and in the downswing which I posted about earlier. And once again, you've put words in my mouth. I never stated that a steeper shoulder turn angle would allow a straighter path of the butt of the club on the downswing. I stated that a steeper shoulder turn angle would allow for no change in the shoulder plane from the backswing to the downswing and that the shoulders turning 90 deg. to the spine may be simpler.

 

The butt of the club always moves in an arc in 3D space, and if your camera angle is not aligned with the plane of that arc, of course it's going to appear curvilinear!!! Think of how the edge of a hula hoop would appear depending on the angle that you are viewing it. And that's why Palmer looks more curvilinear than Baddeley or Hogan in the swings you chose, because the camera angle in those two is much closer to being in line with their downswing planes. Find a one planer where the camera is more aligned with the heel stance line and you'll see the straight path (as with the pictures of Tiger and Ernie Els you've posted ad nauseum). Plot the butt of the club prior to the top of backswing and see how it changes (or doesn't change) directions in transition. Compare to Daly (as I wrote about earlier). Study and learn.

 

I'm starting to think you intentionally twist people's words just to try and be annoying.

[ej002]

I agree knob333...it has more viewers that the latest Big Break. LOL

 

I cant believe this is still going on - but it also part of my daily routine- it is usually good for at least one laugh out loud.

 

Someone should call the Shell Wonderful World of Golf - I would love to watch this go down.

[JeffMann]

Hognafan924

 

I apologise if I misrepresented your position.

 

This is what you stated in post #83.

 

"Nonetheless, Palmer is a very interesting example as I believe it actually represents very nicely what Dana and Mike are proposing. It can be argued that the biomechanical advantage of this is that no rerouting of the hands/arms is required at the top of the backswing to downswing transition and therefore the player can simply unwind as hard and fast as they want without getting out of position (including OTT)."

 

You state that I am deliberately misrepresenting your position. How can you fairly accuse me of misrepresenting your position, when I politely asked for clarification in post #92, where I wrote-:

 

"You don't seem to have answered the question about hand re-routing. Why does a steeper one plane swing shoulder/left arm turn not to have to re-route the hands compared to a less steep one plane turn?

 

You state-: "With a steep backswing shoulder turn, as proposed by Dana (and demonstrated by Palmer), the shoulders can simply unwind around the spine, no need to change shoulder planes and drive the right shoulder down."

 

I agree that it is easier to get the right shoulder down the turned shoulder plane (RSP) line with a steeper shoulder turn angle, but that doesn't explain anything about hand re-routing.

 

You also state-: "the one planer has the option of using a loop shift to get on the "perfect" downswing plane to allow impact to occur straight down the target line."

 

What is the perfect downswing plane and what is looping, and in which direction?"

 

You didn't reply to these polite questions.

 

Then in post #99, you stated-: " The butt end of the club travels from the top on a straight line down to impact."

 

I then politely inquired yet again in post #104.

 

"Hoganfan924 - You write-: " Neither Palmer nor Hogan reroute in transition, which is what I was writing about and made very clear (that the one planer doesn't need to reroute the hands in transition - pay attention!!!). The butt end of the club travels from the top on a straight line down to impact."

 

When you state that the butt end of the club travels in a straight line from the top to impact, are you referring to the down-the-line view or the frontal view? Does it travel in a straight line throughout the whole path or only in the transition?

 

When you state that the hands do not need to be re-routed in transition, what exactly represents the transition period? Again, are you referring to the down-the-line or frontal perspective?"

 

-------------------------

 

You chose not to answer my questions, leaving yourself in a situation where I could misunderstand your position. I am not trying to deliberately misunderstand your posts. In fact, I wish that I could understand them better. Your position is still not clear to me.

 

Jeff.

[hayam]

I agree that it is easier to get the right shoulder down the turned shoulder plane (RSP) line with a steeper shoulder turn angle <~. Jeffman.

 

It seem that you Half understood . Turned shoulder plane is for the clubshaft. Like an Elbow Plane.

 

Most PGA or Classic players use Rotated shoulder turn. AND they will have to make the shoulder ON - Plane by tracing the right shoulder ( not the whole shoulder) on a straight base line ( flight line. IF you truly understand what is an ON plane rotated shoulder turn.. but it seem you got it a little confused. IF the right shoulder moves out of this Plane NO matter if its Rotated OR FLAT, OTT is created. NOTHING DIRECTLY TO DO WITH TURNED SHOULDER PLANE... wrong lines drawn ! Why the concept of Axis TILT is so important.

 

No wonder so much confusion !

 

Hope you finally get it, if Rotated shoulder turn starts steep, its "already on plane" from the start. Rotated shoulder turn is Much better than FLAT shoulder turn since the turn is perpenddicular to the spine, the HEAD will not be thrown out of position that much compared to FLAT "rotated" shoulder turn, or flat hip turn . Thats what all of us here trying to explain. How the pivot is created is totally Personal. No perfect One way for everyone.

 

For example.. HOGAN starts with a Flatter shoulder, then eventually he have to retrace his shoulder steeper to be on plane. Now He could have started with a Steeper spine angle.. But He didn't which is fine. Because it works for HIM!

[JeffMann]

hayam

 

I may well only have a half-understanding of the difference between a rotated shoulder turn and a turned shoulder plane. Unfortunately, I cannot fully understand your proferred explanations because they seem to be too sparsely presented, and seem to be incomplete. I wish you would present a far more detailed explanation that would be completely explanatory.

 

Jeff.

[hayam]

Thats why I am saying you are confused and did not understand the concept of the shoulder turn, and shoulder being on plane. Turned shoulder plane and Rotated Shoulder TURN is totally different concept with totally different application.

 

 

I will suggest that you will Try to understand WHY 90* Right Angles between the clubshaft and body , YIELD Maximum Rotary action and have the Minimal arm movements. And I think you will get closer to understanding what many of us is trying to explain to you. Look it at 3D motion , instead of 2D. And also WHY the Right shoulder need to be ON plane on the downswing. WHY the right shoulder is lower than the left .

 

The RED line you draw at the top of the swing of the shoulder turn is useless. try to see where the right shoulder traces from top of the swing to impact, then you are getting somewhere.

 

I don't think anybody would understand all these if they don't try and APPLY. Sorry I could not be clearer, you need to search and find out.

 

 

EDIT : STUDY this by Brian Manzella. He explains most of the thing about shoulder turn.

 

Maybe if you understand all this, the argument will be more complete.

[JeffMann]

Hayam

 

I didn't learm anything new from that Manzella Episode 7 lesson.

 

I understand that the TSP is just a line, and that one rotates the shoulder around-down towards the ball along a curvilinear path as Manzella demonstrates - with the axis tilt being considered in the degree of shoulder rotation equation so that the clubshaft remains on plane.

 

I already have traced the line of the right shoulder from the end-backswing to impact. I know exactly how it moves down to impact. It moves down and then forwards along a curvilinear arc and it only lines up with the TSP line in the later downswing/early followthrough when the right shoulder moves under the chin. You are not teaching me anything I didn't know.

 

In this photo of Sergio Garcia, you can see that his right shoulder moves down the TSP line - but the line is a two-dimensional representation, and obviously the right shoulder doesn't move along the two-dimensional line in the early downswing. It only "appears" to move along that line when the right shoulder is in the same plane as that line (late downswing/early followthrough).

 

 

In my paper on the downswing , I attempted to express the movement of the right shoulder as being along a cuvilinear arc, that is nearly at right angles to the bent-over spine, by using this photo tracing the movement of the right shoulder down to impact.

 

 

Jeff.

[hayam]

Wrong line drawn.

 

For example, Drawing that line on sergio = Useless. You need his full motion. AND the correct video ANGLE. AND sorry you dont draw the line that way.

 

AND why are you drawing a curve on BADD? Its NOT a PLANE. ALL turning motion is curved. But where is that hidden PLANE? Or you trying to tell me that there is people with a Straight shoulder turn?.... Plane is FLAT 3D wise. No point showing Path ..

 

SO....still incorrect.

TSP ... WRONG again. THATS not for the shoulder ,,, for the shaft !!..Sorry but your terms is INCORRECT . 3rd time I am saying

 

your still confused .

 

EASIEST to draw is GRANT WAITE on V1 academy. Or best videos u can get from v1 academy. See his swing... check out how quiet his head and his spine angle ... I think Extraordinary.

 

 

Do you know what you are doing.? Cause I don't think Mr. Brian Manzella is not going to be too happy knowing that his audience is misinformed ...Not a matter of learning New things. , you didnt get the Old things right.

[Czajker]

Everything is far more relative than most of this debate presents. Shoulder plane angels are inversly proportionate to spine angle or "bending" towards the ball - the taller you stand, the flatter your shoulder plane. Further, you absolutely need to know what ball flight any player wants to produce before commenting on anything - take Hogan - everything he did on the course was to eliminate the left side of the course from play. I've only seen pictures of Hogan from the 50s and they are all designed to hit fades.

 

I'm seeing a lot of tour player pictures being passed around with shots from the top, transition, then to some point close to impact and all I see are great athletes using superior eye-hand coordination and timing to release the club with their fit, powerful hands and arms, because they can. I suppose it's appropriate to study footage of what these people are capable of, but it isn't going to make Mrs. Havenkamp a better ball striker, nor anyone else who can't get into those positions.

 

Everything in the golf swing begins at set-up. Like loading a gun. The biomechanical theory of relating plane angles on curvilinear angular momentum inside one plane stack and tilted hip check thrust shake it up baby twist and shout golf swing has been written by Allistar Cochran and John Stobbs in "The Search for the Perfect Swing." You want kineseolgy and leverage studies, read up, but that stuff just isn't for me, nor any of the golfers I've taught in the past 10 years.

 

Bruce Lee said a student is like a container and that the instructor must be like water, so it can fit into any container that wants to hold it. He also said this about styles:

 

"To reach the masses, some sort of big organization (whether) domestic and foreign branch affiliation, is not necessary. To reach the growing number of students, some sort of pre-conformed set must be established as standards for the branch to follow. As a result all members will be conditioned according to the prescribed system. Many will probably end up as a prisoner of a systematized drill.

 

"Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.

 

"To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.

 

"This statement expresses my feelings perfectly: 'In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess.'"

 

Golf balls can only fly nine ways through the air (and on the ground I suppose) - once you understand which movements cause which flight, and can communicate that to students in as many ways possible, you will receive total enlightenment.

 

More interesting these days is not the subject of what to teach but how to learn. Fact is, no matter what anyone teaches, the average player is not improving, despite equipment that is, er, technically superior in every way to that just 5 years ago. Isn't it time we start addressing how to help people learn better?

[JeffMann]

Hayam - you are obviously misunderstanding me.

 

The yellow line that I drew in Sergio's first image is the TSP line drawn from the ball to the right shoulder (as seen from the DTL view). The second yellow line drawn in the second image is his shoulder turn angle at a single moment in time from a certain DTL perspective. It is a two-dimensional representation and it cannot exactly reflect the three-dimensional movement of his right shoulder's downswing movements. However, the fact that the two seperate yellow lines are in exactly the same postion gives one an impression that Sergio's right shoulder is moving along the TSP line at that single moment in time.

 

In the image of Badds, I used the V1 Home Swing Analyser's spine tool to trace his right shoulder movements and the spline tool created the curvilinear arc path. Again, it is limited by the fact that this photo is a two-dimensional perspective of a three-dimensional right shoulder movement, and it is only meant to convey an impression. It cannot possibly be accurately reflective of a movement that is three-dimensional.

 

I may not be using the term TSP correctly in a purist sense, but I believe that the fundamenal message of the photos is accurately representative of reality.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Czajker

 

I have a great deal of sympathy for your perspective.

 

You write-: "More interesting these days is not the subject of what to teach but how to learn. Fact is, no matter what anyone teaches, the average player is not improving, despite equipment that is, er, technically superior in every way to that just 5 years ago. Isn't it time we start addressing how to help people learn better?"

 

Why is the avergae player not improving? There are a number of possibilities - i) he is not learning the correct stylistic techniques because of poor instruction or poor understanding; ii) his adopted stylistic techniques are fundamentally flawed from a biomechanical perspective; and/or iii) the sytlistic techniques are inappropriate for his body or athletic capacity. These three possibilities can occur concurrently to varying degrees, so I am not surprised that the average player is not improving. Focusing on the problem of "how to learn and not on what to teach" is as incomplete an approach as focusing on a "what to teach and not on how to learn" approach.

 

Jeff.

[dana dahlquist]

This is the perfect example of golf terms standardization. Therefore, you read TSP, one person thinks this, and the other thinks that. It needs to be simple and uncomplicated in it use and how it is portrayed. Another note I believe that we are trying to look for absolutes in a sport were there is none. The closest thing we can do is look for symmetry of the swing and keep it as close to this as possible. Yellow Book and Morad are the basis of this.

 

In the picture of Badds that Jeffmann posted, you can see how and why it was not working with the driver.

[JeffMann]

Dana - you wrote-: "Another note I believe that we are trying to look for absolutes in a sport were there is none. The closest thing we can do is look for symmetry of the swing and keep it as close to this as possible."

 

I think that you partially correct. It is not so much that I am looking for a single absolute best way of swinging a golf club, but that I express myself stylistic in sentences/phrases/terms that are too absolutist. It makes my writing appear far more rigid/absolutist than my underlying intentions (which is is to accurately convey the potential biomechanical symmetry/simplicty of the golf swing). That's why so very few golfers can actually learm something useful from my website review papers - they have to be able to perceive the fundamental biomechanical principles that underly my complex/turgid prose-explanations.

 

Jeff.

[hayam]

Jeffman,

 

That is a much better explanation. But still.

 

Unfortunately, if it touches that TSP at that moment of time, its not a plane. And like the clubshaft. The shoulder can SHIFT planes but "always on plane"... Think about that.

 

and in many cases. You may trace a Bend base line.. A Distorted Plane.

 

IDEALLY , Straight shoulder plane. as little shift to the shoulder plane.

 

They MAY use the TSP. but MAY NOT.

[Czajker]

Why sympathy? Am I a lost and wayward soul? It's just golf. It's a parallel-aligned sport that can be played by employing an infinitessimal amount of actions and motions to create an equal amount of outcomes. To be on a quest for perfect swing mechanics and technique is more about the travel and discovery along the way. Sort of like life - it isn't the destination but the roads you take...

 

This way is better than that. Swing like this, not that. He's wrong, I'm right. Read this book but that guy's book is rubbish.

Sounds amazingly similar to what people of different religions say, right before they shoot each other in the name of whichever supremity they promote. Golf instruction has become a sick twisted stew of plagarism, misquotes, and marketing spewing from the pulpits of elitist wannabesomebodies who swear their way is the way. Tiger has gone through, what 3, teachers now? Hasn't he won with 3 swings, 3 types of mechanics, 3 body types? He doesn't have better mechanics than everyone else, he has a better understanding of what he can and can't do and what needs or doesn't need to be done. Oh, yeah, and he's part bionic or something too.

 

Our industry needs players - players new to the game and players to stay playing the game. If you or anyone else wants to help that industry, we need to help people learn better. You can't simply look at a student and say, "Well gosh, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. How about you sod off and go try fishing?" It's our job as instructors to help people play better and it's on us when students don't understand or succeed.

 

Willie Nelson built his own golf course. Has 12 holes or something like that. He made a 13 on one of them and when asked about how tough the hole was, how he fought and fought to complete the 121 yard hole in 13 strokes, Willie responded, "What are you talking about? I birdied that sunofagun - par's 14 today." Try telling him his shoulders are too steep or too flat and that he doesn't understand what's wrong with his biomechanic everything. He'll look at you and say, "See that stuff over there? We can smoke it and talk about my swing later."

[dana dahlquist]

Jeffmann,

 

OK I get were your comming from. Find the best way to swing it. I answer it as simple as I can then. Find a swing that has little or no shift at all in it. Find a swing that is very good at hitting long irons and your on your way.

[rok78]

Find a swing that has little or no shift at all in it. Find a swing that is very good at hitting long irons and your on your way.

 

 

You should copyright that and put it on a T-shirt. Summarizes what a GOOD theory does. I knew I practice with a 4 iron for a reason.

[JeffMann]

Jeffmann,

 

OK I get were your comming from. Find the best way to swing it. I answer it as simple as I can then. Find a swing that has little or no shift at all in it. Find a swing that is very good at hitting long irons and your on your way.

 

Dana - I have found a good prototype that fits your criteria of a swing that is simple and has little shift, and that is good for hitting long and short irons - and it's Badds swiing (old and new). That's why I use him as a role model in my website review.

 

Jeff.

[hoganfan924]

Jeffmann,

 

OK I get were your comming from. Find the best way to swing it. I answer it as simple as I can then. Find a swing that has little or no shift at all in it. Find a swing that is very good at hitting long irons and your on your way.

 

Dana - I have found a good prototype that fits your criteria of a swing that is simple and has little shift, and that is good for hitting long and short irons - and it's Badds swiing (old and new). That's why I use him as a role model in my website review.

 

Jeff.

 

Am I the only one getting a chuckle out the the irony of this post?

 

Jeffmann,

 

Baddeley is the poster boy for stack and tilt, which is a variation of the MORAD swing that Dana & Mike teach, and also advocates a steep hip and shoulder turn.

 

Hello....McFly!!