A good looking swing, or a swing that works.

[MonteScheinblum]

I know I kind of asked this once before, but I am intrigued by this both personally and professionally. I went through this dilemma and ended up on the wring side.

 

It seems like an easy question. Do I want a swing that looks good, or do I want one that feels athletic and good to me and hits the ball solid, no matter what it looks like?

 

We are seeing a resurgence of homemade swings on the Tour and fewer manufactured swings like CH III.

 

However, I see all of these contrived perfect looking moves on the range, followed by the proverbial "scratch" finish and pose.

 

It seems to me that people are more interested in being Fernando Llamas. "It's better to look good than to feel good."

 

I know the theory is you want both and having a perfect move gives hope that you will hit it better.

 

What is important to you and why?

[misterlau]

If you have a swing that works AND looks good, more power to you.
But if you have a beautiful swing that doesn't work, then what do you really have?

[freshprince99]

the best swings are the ones that repeat, period. im sure tom weiskopf's ballflight was more desireable than billy caspers hook, but which one won 51 times?

[thekru]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297703418' post='2976318']
I know I kind of asked this once before, but I am intrigued by this both personally and professionally. I went through this dilemma and ended up on the wring side.

It seems like an easy question. Do I want a swing that looks good, or do I want one that feels athletic and good to me and hits the ball solid, no matter what it looks like?

We are seeing a resurgence of homemade swings on the Tour and fewer manufactured swings like CH III.

However, I see all of these contrived perfect looking moves on the range, followed by the proverbial "scratch" finish and pose.

It seems to me that people are more interested in being Fernando Llamas. "It's better to look good than to feel good."

I know the theory is you want both and having a perfect move gives hope that you will hit it better.

What is important to you and why?
[/quote]

I personally don't care what my swing looks like. If my scorecard number is low I'm happy. I find the game more enjoyable when my ball striking is real good along with a low score, and nothing is more frustrating then hitting the ball great and scoring lousy. I think the 'average' player is more impressed with tempo than technique.

[Twoironblade]

[quote name='freshprince99' timestamp='1297705929' post='2976462']
the best swings are the ones that repeat, period. im sure tom weiskopf's ballflight was more desireable than billy caspers hook, but which one won 51 times?
[/quote]

Everyone has their "own" swing including the top pros from today. It's easy to pick out the extreme examples of Furyk, Gainey, etc., but even the more classic swings are still easy to identify with an individual player.

Without a doubt, a swing that works no matter what it looks like is the way to go.

[golfsavvy]

One man's Sam Snead is another man's Corey Pavin. I'll take them both on my Ryder Cup team.

[PreppySlapCut]

Maybe I'm very different in this regard, Monte, but to me, the beauty of a swing is determined entirely by ball flight and repeatability. Trevino, Lehman, Joe Durant, guys like that may not have what some consider to be "aesthetically pleasing" swings, but I find them gorgeous. It could be the competitive am in me talking, but when you watch most of the best Mid-Ams in the country, who need to compete at high levels even though they don't get to beat balls and play every day, have extended layoffs, etc; they all have idiosyncratic timing based moves that are designed to do one thing: repeat. Nathan Smith, Kevin Marsh, or if you spend any time in the Met a guy by the name of Brian Komline; theres that little hitch, or that little pause and re-route...never quick, never rushed. To me there's something to that. Rhythm in this game can mean everything, and although to some these swings might be "ugly," I couldn't disagree more.

[MonteScheinblum]

[quote name='PreppySlapCut' timestamp='1297709198' post='2976639']
Maybe I'm very different in this regard, Monte, but to me, the beauty of a swing is determined entirely by ball flight and repeatability. Trevino, Lehman, Joe Durant, guys like that may not have what some consider to be "aesthetically pleasing" swings, but I find them gorgeous. It could be the competitive am in me talking, but when you watch most of the best Mid-Ams in the country, who need to compete at high levels even though they don't get to beat balls and play every day, have extended layoffs, etc; they all have idiosyncratic timing based moves that are designed to do one thing: repeat. Nathan Smith, Kevin Marsh, or if you spend any time in the Met a guy by the name of Brian Komline; theres that little hitch, or that little pause and re-route...never quick, never rushed. To me there's something to that. Rhythm in this game can mean everything, and although to some these swings might be "ugly," I couldn't disagree more.
[/quote]

I love all the answers, it gives me hope.

[golfsavvy]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297709648' post='2976670']
[quote name='PreppySlapCut' timestamp='1297709198' post='2976639']
Maybe I'm very different in this regard, Monte, but to me, the beauty of a swing is determined entirely by ball flight and repeatability. Trevino, Lehman, Joe Durant, guys like that may not have what some consider to be "aesthetically pleasing" swings, but I find them gorgeous. It could be the competitive am in me talking, but when you watch most of the best Mid-Ams in the country, who need to compete at high levels even though they don't get to beat balls and play every day, have extended layoffs, etc; they all have idiosyncratic timing based moves that are designed to do one thing: repeat. Nathan Smith, Kevin Marsh, or if you spend any time in the Met a guy by the name of Brian Komline; theres that little hitch, or that little pause and re-route...never quick, never rushed. To me there's something to that. Rhythm in this game can mean everything, and although to some these swings might be "ugly," I couldn't disagree more.
[/quote]

I love all the answers, it gives me hope.
[/quote]

What are you hoping for?

[JOEGOLFWRX]

what if your swing that works feels ugly, ...do you fix the swing, or fix the head ?

[PreppySlapCut]

[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1297709858' post='2976681']
what if your swing that works feels ugly, ...do you fix the swing, or fix the head ?
[/quote]
If you're talking "feel," does it feel like it looks ugly? Or does the move itself feel awkward? Two different things in my eyes. For instance, I knew the way I used to swing was aesthetically unpleasant (think Kuchar blended with Kevin Sutherland), but it felt comfortable, impact felt great, etc. But if that move had felt uncomfortable, it never would have repeated.

If it works but feels awkward, then I would just do it more until it feels comfortable.

[swbyps]

I see this a lot with kids in baseball and softball. The swing can be beautiful but bat never touches ball. In those sports however, the target is moving. In my experience, its not often that you see someone with a technically sound fundamental golf swing and they cant hit the ball well..and look good. The way I see it...if you cant hit the golf ball well, then you dont have a good swing no matter how it looks.

[JOEGOLFWRX]

i change patterns a lot, the best stuff probably looks the best on the outside but feels sort of disassociated, cant put my finger on it, maybe its all in the head, lol.

[PreppySlapCut]

[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1297711550' post='2976769']
i change patterns a lot, the best stuff probably looks the best on the outside but feels sort of disassociated, cant put my finger on it, maybe its all in the head, lol.
[/quote]
Well the more you ingrain it the less disassociated it will feel. PICK A PATTERN AND STICK WITH IT! lol.

[MonteScheinblum]

[quote name='golfsavvy' timestamp='1297709774' post='2976676']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297709648' post='2976670']
[quote name='PreppySlapCut' timestamp='1297709198' post='2976639']
Maybe I'm very different in this regard, Monte, but to me, the beauty of a swing is determined entirely by ball flight and repeatability. Trevino, Lehman, Joe Durant, guys like that may not have what some consider to be "aesthetically pleasing" swings, but I find them gorgeous. It could be the competitive am in me talking, but when you watch most of the best Mid-Ams in the country, who need to compete at high levels even though they don't get to beat balls and play every day, have extended layoffs, etc; they all have idiosyncratic timing based moves that are designed to do one thing: repeat. Nathan Smith, Kevin Marsh, or if you spend any time in the Met a guy by the name of Brian Komline; theres that little hitch, or that little pause and re-route...never quick, never rushed. To me there's something to that. Rhythm in this game can mean everything, and although to some these swings might be "ugly," I couldn't disagree more.
[/quote]

I love all the answers, it gives me hope.
[/quote]

What are you hoping for?
[/quote]

More fun and 4 hour rounds for everyone...LOL.

[HappyGolf]

I'd hit it backwards if i could shoot under par every time i tee it up! I think ultimately it's better to have a swing that is more 'conventional' though, whatever that is!

I'd take Kaymers swing tomorrow if it was offered... and that ain't ugly.

[hbgpagolfpro]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297709648' post='2976670']
[quote name='PreppySlapCut' timestamp='1297709198' post='2976639']
Maybe I'm very different in this regard, Monte, but to me, the beauty of a swing is determined entirely by ball flight and repeatability. Trevino, Lehman, Joe Durant, guys like that may not have what some consider to be "aesthetically pleasing" swings, but I find them gorgeous. It could be the competitive am in me talking, but when you watch most of the best Mid-Ams in the country, who need to compete at high levels even though they don't get to beat balls and play every day, have extended layoffs, etc; they all have idiosyncratic timing based moves that are designed to do one thing: repeat. Nathan Smith, Kevin Marsh, or if you spend any time in the Met a guy by the name of Brian Komline; theres that little hitch, or that little pause and re-route...never quick, never rushed. To me there's something to that. Rhythm in this game can mean everything, and although to some these swings might be "ugly," I couldn't disagree more.
[/quote]

I love all the answers, it gives me hope.
[/quote]


Hope for what? You have a pretty darn good swing Monte!

I have to concur with what I have read so far...a swing that results in solid ball flight and is repeatable is really all that matters.

[JOEGOLFWRX]

[quote name='PreppySlapCut' timestamp='1297713575' post='2976884']
[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1297711550' post='2976769']
i change patterns a lot, the best stuff probably looks the best on the outside but feels sort of disassociated, cant put my finger on it, maybe its all in the head, lol.
[/quote]
Well the more you ingrain it the less disassociated it will feel. [b]PICK A PATTERN AND STICK WITH IT[/b]! lol.
[/quote]

lol, that makes sense alright.

[mikpga]

One that produces results under pressure...

[aliikane]

No 2 swings are alike. It doesn't matter what your swing looks like, perfect or homemade as long as you hit the ball well. A good technical swing does increase your chances of hitting the ball better. I think it may be harder to make a homemade swing work but can be just as good. I think the key is having a repeatable swing that you don't think about and you are on auto-pilot.

[scottcuban]

I went to an instructor a few years ago who is a relatively well known guy. We were working on a few things that felt sort of awkward but helped me to hit the ball better. On video it looked OK, not great but not bad either. I told him how the "feels" were awkward and uncomfortable and he explained that in time, these feelings will be more natural and comfortable. I said it was funny how my old motion felt more athletic and this new motion felt forced. He smiled and said to look at the monitor. What I saw was my old motion and it looked terrible. A little herky-jerky and not athletic at all. I got very steep and stood up in the downswing after a big tilt in the back swing. He was correct when he told me that the newer motions would be more natural in time. They have become very comfortable and my handicap has dropped significantly since then. A little patience and faith in the teacher's words served me well.

That was worth the price of the lesson right there and it was the first time I experienced "feel" vs. "real". Over time, he and I have talked a lot of golf theory and instruction. One thing he told me was to try and forget asthetics and worry about ball flight. One of his lower handicap students was steadily improving and striping the ball. His swimg looked very good but the student didn't like the way he looked in the finish. This instructor could not convince him that it didn't matter, so long as he was getting the results with his ball striking. The student even went so far as to say he didn't care if it made a difference in his ballstriking, he wanted to finish more like Greg Norman. Unreal...

I always laugh when I think of this as I would have been very happy to have that student's 3 hcp and his "less than perfect" finish.

[golfsavvy]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297715594' post='2976967']
[quote name='golfsavvy' timestamp='1297709774' post='2976676']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297709648' post='2976670']
[quote name='PreppySlapCut' timestamp='1297709198' post='2976639']
Maybe I'm very different in this regard, Monte, but to me, the beauty of a swing is determined entirely by ball flight and repeatability. Trevino, Lehman, Joe Durant, guys like that may not have what some consider to be "aesthetically pleasing" swings, but I find them gorgeous. It could be the competitive am in me talking, but when you watch most of the best Mid-Ams in the country, who need to compete at high levels even though they don't get to beat balls and play every day, have extended layoffs, etc; they all have idiosyncratic timing based moves that are designed to do one thing: repeat. Nathan Smith, Kevin Marsh, or if you spend any time in the Met a guy by the name of Brian Komline; theres that little hitch, or that little pause and re-route...never quick, never rushed. To me there's something to that. Rhythm in this game can mean everything, and although to some these swings might be "ugly," I couldn't disagree more.
[/quote]

I love all the answers, it gives me hope.
[/quote]

What are you hoping for?
[/quote]

More fun and 4 hour rounds for everyone...LOL.
[/quote]

Good luck with that. When I worked in Wisconsin we used to get off work at 7 - ish. Our mantra was Quantity over Quality. It wasn't about how well you played, it was about how many holes could you play before dark. Put me in the Lanny Wadkins speed category -- always played better when I played faster. BTW, 4 hrs is too slow by at least 30 - 60 minutes, but it's a worthy goal. 3 of the 'worst' things to happen to the pace of play were the 'Nicklaus Intensity' (sorry Jack), the pre-shot routine, and something called the Zone. (Ah, someone will hate me for the Nicklaus thing.)

[ironcat]

I will be honest...

When I get my swing to a point where I like it aesthetically - I am almost guaranteed to play well. Without a doubt, getting my swing to a point that suits my eye gives me trust & confidence in my swing and [u][b]for me[/b][/u], that equals good scores.

So there is a significant correlation between what my swing looks like and what it plays like.

I would go so far as to say most instructiors would benefit from understanding this relationship between confidence in a swing & good results - even if it is all in the student's head.

[DavePelz4]

[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1297716611' post='2977035']
One that produces results under pressure...




[/quote]

+1000...does anything else really matter?

[highergr0und]

I'll take whatever gets the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes..... I will admit that ego, desire to have a pretty swing, and staring down at a fine looking club got the better of me for a little while, but now with a little smiling baby to go home to every day, I'll take thick toplines and a swing that gets me through a round with as few mistakes as possible.

The best two golfers I know have swings that would make a lot of coaches shudder. One has a pause about 3-4 inches behind the ball, kind of like he starts the club back with his hands to that point, then moves his body to get it moving again. He played some mini tour stuff and after a few years off is getting back in golfing shape. The other has one of the longest swings I've ever seen, I swear the clubhead gets back to about his waist on his front side on the backswing, but he hammers the snot out of the ball, rarely missing a shot. He plays to about a +1 and mainly does high end scrambles for his golfing money.

[m5power]

Golf doesn't put food on the table so I'll take a pretty swing as long as it doesn't affect the scores that much. Id rather have a pretty swing and be a 2 hcp vs a fugly swing and be a 1. On the other hand I'd rather be ugly and be on tour vs a pretty weekend warrior.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297709648' post='2976670']
I love all the answers, it gives me hope.
[/quote]

You expected more "good looking swing" votes, huh? :)

When I was watching Tommy Two-Gloves a couple weeks ago, I thought it was a thing to behold. I'm not half the golfer as the rest of you folks....so if I could swing and play like him, I'd be tickled to death.

[hbgpagolfpro]

[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1297716611' post='2977035']
One that produces results under pressure...
[/quote]

I would venture to guess that most of the teaching pros here have experienced some success under some kind of pressure with their own swings at some time. Maybe not to the level of a PGA Tour pro, but at some level.

[keygolf]

[quote name='mikpga' timestamp='1297716611' post='2977035']
One that produces results under pressure...
[/quote]
[quote]
I would venture to guess that most of the teaching pros here have experienced some success under some kind of pressure with their own swings at some time. Maybe not to the level of a PGA Tour pro, but at some level.
[/quote]

The "pressure" issue is "reality associated" and affects everyone the same way, since it is a universal and innate fixture. All the others are legitimate, but they are based on personal perception and as varied as the individual. Even the pro level is not exempt from pressure, unless you can find someone who never faltered "under the gun." I have not seen it happen in the fifty years I've watched pros and played with them. Pressure will alter even the best manicured swing you can find, and that will leave the player asking "what the h*&^ happened?"

I know that's likely not where this thread was headed, so apologies for the interrupt. I guess I'm just weary of absoprtion with mechanical issues when there is no such thing as an action that is not preceded by a thought and followed by a result, good or bad. So if the mind likes it, go for it. If not, go back to the drawing board.

[MonteScheinblum]

[quote name='golfsavvy' timestamp='1297718021' post='2977126']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297715594' post='2976967']
[quote name='golfsavvy' timestamp='1297709774' post='2976676']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1297709648' post='2976670']
[quote name='PreppySlapCut' timestamp='1297709198' post='2976639']
Maybe I'm very different in this regard, Monte, but to me, the beauty of a swing is determined entirely by ball flight and repeatability. Trevino, Lehman, Joe Durant, guys like that may not have what some consider to be "aesthetically pleasing" swings, but I find them gorgeous. It could be the competitive am in me talking, but when you watch most of the best Mid-Ams in the country, who need to compete at high levels even though they don't get to beat balls and play every day, have extended layoffs, etc; they all have idiosyncratic timing based moves that are designed to do one thing: repeat. Nathan Smith, Kevin Marsh, or if you spend any time in the Met a guy by the name of Brian Komline; theres that little hitch, or that little pause and re-route...never quick, never rushed. To me there's something to that. Rhythm in this game can mean everything, and although to some these swings might be "ugly," I couldn't disagree more.
[/quote]

I love all the answers, it gives me hope.
[/quote]

What are you hoping for?
[/quote]

More fun and 4 hour rounds for everyone...LOL.
[/quote]

Good luck with that. When I worked in Wisconsin we used to get off work at 7 - ish. Our mantra was Quantity over Quality. It wasn't about how well you played, it was about how many holes could you play before dark. Put me in the Lanny Wadkins speed category -- always played better when I played faster. BTW, 4 hrs is too slow by at least 30 - 60 minutes, but it's a worthy goal. 3 of the 'worst' things to happen to the pace of play were the 'Nicklaus Intensity' (sorry Jack), the pre-shot routine, and something called the Zone. (Ah, someone will hate me for the Nicklaus thing.)
[/quote]

You and I agree on all points.

In junior golf in the 80's we played 4-somes, college scholarships were on the line, we carried our bags and there would be a fist fight if the round took over 3:30 or 3:45.

We once pantsed a guy and threw him in the women's locker room when he held up play for the field.