If You Use Ballard Swing Methods How Can You Get Longer

[Texsport]

slicefixer

 

I couldn't wait to try your suggestions so I hit about 100 balls at lunch.

 

You're about to convince me of the merits of a more rotary action.

 

PM sent.

 

Texsport

[Texsport]

For the benefit of others who have been involved in this discussion, slicefixer's suggestions worked for me almost majically, after only 3 swings!!

 

He's all over the mechanics of Ballard's method and how to improve it!!

 

A giant thanks to slicefixer for being interested and nice enough to help an old hacker!!!

 

Texsport

[WriterRay]

Hi, all

 

This business of swinging a golf club in a manner that is both connected AND rotary intrigues me to no end. And when I think of whose action best encompasses these elements, I think of Nick Price. In fact, when I read the paragraph below by El Slicefixer (we were high school teammates in Texas, so I know how much he loves teaching, and seeing pure shots rocket off student's clubheads), it brought Price immediately to mind.

 

>>I just found a better way to swing the club for ME that allowed ME to eliminate moving parts that were unnecessary and gave me a more consistent game.....along with the ability to move the ball both ways and vary the trajectory.......simply changed my set-up to a more "natural" tilt and TURNED into my right side......right pivot point stayed solid as a rock and I turned INTO it.......then as I'd eliminated so much lateral movement I wasn't required to move so much laterally to get to my left pivot point and my head could simply remain "quiet" behind the ball........MUCH more "rotary".......more consistent for ME<<.

 

Today was 60* in South Carolina, so I went to the range and bought 150 practice balls. My goal was to groove a "turn into my right side without sliding" move, and to slightly shorten and "tighten" my action. (Though a solid 3 handicap, I too have been plagued for years with pulls, especially with short irons. I'd experimented with Sutton's type of swing, but found I hit too many thin shots). Price's swing was the one I kept in mind today...his slight "drop it inside" move and crisp, rotational release. It took a while, but by the time I'd hit 50 balls and they lay still on dormant bermuda, I had "felt" something new. The next ten balls (with an 8-iron) left the ground at an altogether new angle, slightly right of the purple flag and drawing back. "Wow," I thought, "this rotational stuff works."

 

I moved on to a long iron (actually a Mizuno Fli-Hi, shortened a half inch and bent to 19.5 degrees; it's my

"2 1/2 iron"). Of course not all shots were struck crisply, but the average was better, and that soft-landing slider or "ten-foot fade" was a lot easier to hit, much less "handsy."

 

All this brings me to a question (Slicefixer...take a shot if you like): If this "Price-like" move is a good example of "rotary + connection," and this type action is so consistent, why has so much teaching theory nudged us towards "one-plane" swings (which to me feels mechanical)?? I mean, Price definitely re-routes the club, doesn't he? Anyway, observing/emulating his action (not tempo), seems to have helped me tighten things, eliminate my own excess moving parts.

 

Congrats on your own success, Texsport. Hope I haven't strayed too far from the Ballard-centric topic of this thread..

 

Thanks in advance,

WriterRay

[Texsport]

WriterRay

 

I sent slicefixer a PM yesterday describing my recent experiences with his swing suggestions that are virtually identically to yours. I'm getting a higher trajectory with a slight draw falling to the left, instead of flat bullets with a pull or hook mixed in.

The rotary swing with Ballard connection worked so well with draws, I was almost afraid to try fades and punch shots, but amazingly, the swing worked better for these shots also!

The feeling of being inside the ball was very pronounced and confidence building.

 

Freaky!!

 

Texsport

[slicefixer]

Rayzor,

 

As you know (I think) the two players I've studied the most are Hogan and Price. They are BY FAR the 2 best ballstrikers I ever personally witnessed strike a golf ball......with Moe Norman/Trevino tied for 3rd. Hogan and Price's golf swings are VERY different until the shaft/club gets into the impact zone.....then they are practically identical.

 

Anyway, I think this will answer your inquiry......

 

When I work with a new "good player" student (who has a good fundamentals and a fundamentally sound "pivot") for the 1st time one of the most important things I do is to determine what type of "transitional move" they've ingrained in their current swing. The transition is where the rubber meets the road in a good players golf swings........backswing errors are corrected.......the arms/club work in a particular manner that is necessary for that player to get them in a sound position/angles in the downswing.......stored energy is "re-routed" back towards the golf ball.......etc. In fact, the "timing" of a particular good players golf swing is almost always "in" the "transition"......change the transition and you change the timing/feel of the whole swing.

 

Every transition is a combination of both lateral and rotary movement. Players who have more upright backswings (2 plane ) can use a transition dominated by lateral movement to shallow BOTH the arms and club into a position exactly like that of a quote, "1 planer," and then allow everything to rotate through the ball and release together. Lateral motion in the transition shallows both the arms and the club..... so the club/arms must be in a more vertical position at the top so that they can be re-routed in the transition into the perfect "rotational" delivery position. (Furyk, Ryan Moore, Price immediately come to mind)

 

A person who has a more rotation dominated transition would need a much more rounded (1plane) backswing with the clubshaft slightly laid off and the face square to slightly open. This IS a must as a transition dominated by rotary movement will open the shoulders/upper body much quicker and the arms will work OVER their original path........basically the arms work "over"/steeper and the clubhead/shaft (if properly positioned as described) works "shallower".......This is/was Hogan's/Moe Norman's/O'Grady's/Knudson's move.........

 

VERY few players have their arms working up and down on the same path/arc....very, very few ...and IMOP this type of "arm action" is harder to time........driving and shallowing the arms is a GREAT timing mechanism and rotating the core with lil' lateral motion and working the arms OVER is a great timing mechanism.........but they both have HIGHLY different prerequisites in the backswing that are necessary for the particular transition movements to work..........but either way will work perfectly IF the backswing prerequisites are met and the appropriate transition is utilized to get the club into the proper position to be delivered from the proper angles via the rotation of the core through the impact zone and into the throughswing and finish.......

 

With BOTH swings the club/shaft ends up on a very similar plane and is delivered in much the same way.....by "rotation".......the "connection" your referring too is what I call "synchronization".....same thing.....arms work WITH the "core"......together......"synchronized"......

 

So, if a new good player student has a transition dominated by lateral movement then I'll/we'll go with a more "Pricelike" approach......IF the players transition is more rotary then I'll/we'll use a more "Hoganlike" model..........By my using this approach of utiilizing the players already ingrained personal "transitional" move any changes we decide to make in his/her swing will be ingrained MUCH more quickly and easily......in some cases almost instantly.......rather than taking months/years of "grinding" away trying to reprogram an entirely different golf swing that feels very foreign to the player.......

 

I've found that IF I can figure out a way for the good player to keep his current transition sequencing then we're both WAAAAAY better off........MUCH easier on both of us!

 

So thats what I try to ALWAYS do with all good players......utilize THEIR transition to get the club/arms into a position so that I can teach them what it feels like to square the club "naturally"......."let" the club release WITH the rotating core..........has worked really well for good players who come to me wanting to get more rotational/less handsy/armsy.......

[kmcg858585]

Personally I find the Ballard method the easiet to create consistent contact, and have never hit balls straighter and had more confidence in my swing with less thoughts and effort. It may be that I'm a former high levelbaseball player, which I suppose lends itself to the Ballard method. Personally I no problem hitting it as high and long as with a more rotational swing, if anything I hit the ball higer with ballard's teaching. In terms of distance with the driver, I think the Ballard method really allows one to use explosive muscles, upper and lower body. So to me it is a method that allows one to really pick up some distance by getting into great physical condition. This approach may make more sense since I'm a college player and at a physical stage that I an do this. But if you look at Annika Sorenstam, a ballard-esque swinger, you can see how much length she has put on via hard workouts. So I feel like the best method to gain distance is to turn yourself into an "athlete" with good strength, flexibility, muscle recruitment patterns, and explosiveness. Hope this helps a bit....