Thoughts on Chuck Quinton's Rotary Swing?

[Goinglow59]

What do you guys on golfwrx think about Chuck Quinton's rotary swing? What are your expriences and did it improve your game?

[aimleft]

I don't believe in knocking pros. I have seen some of the information on the sight and I will say that there is better stuff that is available for free on you youtube and and other instructional books and dvds. From a swing stand point, I don't think that he is teaching anything that is much different than the current state of "pop" golf culture.

There are guys like Monte on here that offer online lessons,provide help on here, youtube videos, who I would entrust more with my time,money and golf game.

[kellygreen]

Which one? Rotary Swing or "Rotary Swing Tour"? Imo, they are BOTH good swings, but just come at things differently.

I play a body-rotation/one-plane type swing that is very similar to his original Rotary Swing (RS1). It is a very low-maintainence, high-consistency golf swing that has allowed me to play to a single-figure handicap. If you are not used to this kind of body-driven swinging/throwing motion, the learning curve can be a bit steep at first. But if you put in the work, you'll be rewarded with a very powerful accurate golf swing.

His Rotary Swing Tour (RST) swing is one that he's recently developed, and the one that his website markets the most aggressively. While he touts its efficiency and biomechanics, (which there is some truth to) it is basically a "hybird" swing that blends the use of the body core of the one-plane swing and the more vertical swing plane and arm-release of a two-plane golf swing.

1. I think he developed it because he reached a point in his own golfing life where he could no longer play with a one-plane type swing. He seems to have an attraction to extreme sports when he's not in the golf world, and I"m betting that injuries left him unable to comfortably make a one-plane type swing.

2. I experimented with the RST swing last year when I was having some shoulder problems, and feared that my one-plane swing might not age so well (I'm in my mid-40s). My opinion of it is the following:

a. Quinton does an EXCELLENT job in communicating the level of practice necessary to properly engrain a major swing change, and in breaking the process down into manageable, bite-sized drills to tear down the students faulty swing, and rebuild it properly.

b. The swing functions and feels like an aggressive two-plane swing....but is more accurate and more repeatable. So you get the higher ballflight and easier shot-making of a two plane swing, but some of the accuracy and consistency of a one-plane, body swing.

c. If you take the drills in the order he recommends, and put the necessary work in you WILL get better and develop a good swing. I went back to my original swing becase: my shoulders got better after a few months; around-the-body feel of the RS1 swing is more natural to me than the more upright plane of RST; and it was more accurate.

So for me, I found that (on days when it was really grooved) RST gave me about an extra 10 yards on my shots, but on days when my timing was off, I had more directional problems than I do with my more RS1/body-release swing. Since I'm already a pretty long hitter, I didn't feel a need to sacrifice the accuracy of my current swing for the small boost in power.

In final analysis, Quinton is clearly a good teacher, and is marketing two very good, very serviceable swing models. He is a bit of a "carnival barker" in how he goes about marketing them...and some people find that style a bit off-putting.

But I try not to let the Messenger distract me from the Message. It's hard to go wrong with either swing as long as you choose wisely. RS1 is a great long maintenance swing for players who are strong in the body core, and reasonably fit and flexible. RST is a slightly higher-maintenance, more timing-dependant swing...but is presented with more detailed instruction on how to learn it...and is more adaptable to a wider variety of body-types and fitness levels than RS1.

Hope this helps.

[DaveLeeNC]

Kelly, thanks for the well written and insightful input. Very interesting.

This is curiosity more than something that I am likely to do, but which swing (RS1 vs. RST) do you feel 'ages the best' (as in better for golfers in their 60's and beyond with no special physical issues other than age).

Thanks again.

dave

[kellygreen]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1355628630' post='6075159']
Kelly, thanks for the well written and insightful input. Very interesting.

This is curiosity more than something that I am likely to do, but which swing (RS1 vs. RST) do you feel 'ages the best' (as in better for golfers in their 60's and beyond with no special physical issues other than age).

Thanks again.

dave
[/quote]

Depends on how fit that "super senior" is.

In order for a RS1-type swing to work, the player has to have good core muscle strength and be flexible enough to rotate his shoulder to about 90* while staying bent over.

If he cannot, RST is probably the better choice.

[HateTheHighDraw]

Ive taken a look at his system and he has many sound theories and information particularly regarding the set up but overall it seemed a bit overcomplicated. A lot of videos throwing a lot of information at you, and its up to you to figure out what applies to your swing. The same could be said many of the other online golf systems/methods, though.

[Eag1e]

One of the guys that I pass a lot of my knowledge to (not that I'm a guru, but probably more capable than the majority of "instructors") at my home course makes use of rotaryswing. Every time he starts telling me about something he's doing based on it, my thoughts are:

1) This is *so* needlessly technical.
and/or
2) This is just flat out silly.

The first one is significant because until about 3 months ago I was one of the most technical players you'd probably ever fine. All about positions and stuff to me. And yet what he says comes across as very overly technical [i]to me[/i]. That is [i]not[/i] a good sign. He calls it "rotary swing" but half of what seems to be relevant to the swing according to the guy at my course is keeping one's back to the target as long as possible, hitting with a relatively square body, and throwing the arms at the ball right at impact... sounds like a misleading title to me, in that case.

[DaveLeeNC]

My index bounces around mostly in the 5-7 range with occasional dips down in the 4's (or 3's a couple times). I tend to be a technical kind of guy, but several years ago I abandoned this and simply went with the concept of 'my swing is my swing and my goal is to learn to manage that swing'. Note that I am a practice hound and in a good week I will play twice and practice 4 times.

I guess that maybe I made a little bit of progress that way in that I am now headed to age 64 and my index is on average as low as it has ever been since I returned to golf at age 53. But I was/am frustrated because my practice sessions ended up mostly 'chasing good ball contact' because I had nothing else to provide feedback and no other goals. I did work very hard on trying to be sure that I never went outside my 'core set of stuff' when I tried to fix whatever ailed me at the time. I would judge that this core set of stuff tends to match my limited understanding of the Rotary Swing, hence my interest.

But I will admit that while Chuck is very articulate, and I agree with him on his general perspective of learning, IMHO his stuff is

1) Really technical and detailed - beyond what ever I think is optimum for even a guy like me

2) He seems to have 2 swings and 2 websites and it is hard to tell what is what

But that has attracted my interest when my instincts are to avoid anything that 'feels like a single system'.

dave

[inpresX]

I was reading one of his articles:

http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php

I thought it was interesting that he lists his stats right along with Tiger and Adam Scott. Later he comments on Bubba's swing:

"While Bubba's numbers are ideal for hitting the ball as far as humanly possible, he is hitting the equivalent of a "flyer" off his driver on every shot. Flyer's happen all the time from the rough on iron shots. It happens when grass gets trapped between the clubface and the ball and the spin is greatly reduced. This leads to shots that "knuckle" in the air and go much further than normal with obviously less control."

"For a long drive, this is perfect. Bubba is also much more at the mercy of the wind with such a tremendously high launch angle and ball flight, so this will also decrease his accuracy. All of these factors completely disregard his swing technique which can obviously also cause him to lose accuracy."

I kinda don't buy those comments. If you play in wind, less spin obviously gives you more control. And Bubba's swing technique is accurate enough that he is on the PGA tour.

[SunkTheBirdie]

[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1355715335' post='6079245']
I kinda don't buy those comments. If you play in wind, less spin obviously gives you more control. And Bubba's swing technique is accurate enough that he is on the PGA tour. [/quote]
Conclusion: Only Bubba Watson should be allowed to swing like Bubba Watson.

[inpresX]

Sure but saying that his swing technique causes him to lose accuracy is an incorrect statement.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1355715335' post='6079245']
I was reading one of his articles:

[url="http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php"]http://www.rotaryswi...nch-monitor.php[/url]

I thought it was interesting that he lists his stats right along with Tiger and Adam Scott. Later he comments on Bubba's swing:

"While Bubba's numbers are ideal for hitting the ball as far as humanly possible, he is hitting the equivalent of a "flyer" off his driver on every shot. Flyer's happen all the time from the rough on iron shots. It happens when grass gets trapped between the clubface and the ball and the spin is greatly reduced. This leads to shots that "knuckle" in the air and go much further than normal with obviously less control."

"For a long drive, this is perfect. Bubba is also much more at the mercy of the wind with such a tremendously high launch angle and ball flight, so this will also decrease his accuracy. All of these factors completely disregard his swing technique which can obviously also cause him to lose accuracy."

I kinda don't buy those comments. If you play in wind, less spin obviously gives you more control. And Bubba's swing technique is accurate enough that he is on the PGA tour.
[/quote]

Where he was ranked 135th in driving accuracy, and only hit about 58% of fairways. Fifty-eight percent where he is likely playing less-than-driver on many holes.

Quinton's right on this one. Spin is CONTROL. Which is why a football pass that doesn't spiral will have a difficult time reaching its intended target....and the knuckleball in baseball is so unpredictable that it is one of the most difficult pitches to throw consistently, catch or hit successfully.

Backspin on a golf ball (along with the dimples) provides the necessary lift that allows the ball to get into the air and travel the distance that it does. Sidespin provides the control necessary to curve the ball. That is why golf instructors have traditionally told players to tee off with 3 woods and 2-iron/5-woods if they have difficulty controlling their drivers. The greater loft on these clubs impart more backspin, and help to neutralize the impact of any sidepin from mis-hits. The shorter shafts also increase the likelihood of a square strike...which gives less sidespin.

Spin is only a problem if it is applied in an uncontrolled fashion, and in the wrong situations. Spin in windy conditions simply increases the lift force which causes balls to balloon into the wind, and lose their stability in crosswinds.

But the smart player looks to OPTIMIZE spin, not eliminate it. There is a point where you reduce spin so much that you are hitting (essentially) a knuckleball. A ball with so little spin that (like a wobbly football pass or a knuckleball pitch) the golfer has difficulty controlling the ball even in still conditions, and the ball has difficulty holding its line...even in still conditions.

Bubba Watson's spin rates are so low that they've essentially reached that point. While his high launch angle allows him to get a LOT more distance out of his drives than one would normally see in a player with a ball speed in the mid-180s....it also makes him a VERY wild driver of the ball on days when is timing is off. When he's liable to hit the ball off-the-planet.

The birdie he made on that last playoff hole in the Masters shows why he's so successful on tour. Like Mickelson, he's become a master of the recovery shot, so he's able to minimize (most days) the impact of his wild tee shots.

[glabill]

I was that guy that tried every new tip that came my way in order to 'find something that worked' for any given round of golf. I made the decision to become a member of Chuck Quinton's RST a couple of reasons.

1) If you know anything about body control, it is immediately obvious that Chuck has put in the work to understand how to use your body to create a golf swing and he has figured out how to break down what the lower/upper body should be doing (all the way down to what your fingers should be doing).

2) convenient (hundreds of videos available online) and expert instruction for the price. I can get a lesson with video swing analysis by an expert, from the convenience of my home, instead of having to go to the course for an appointment with the pro who can maybe fit me in some time next month and good luck if the weather cooperates.

There may be other instructors out there that follow Chuck Quinton's model of making golf swing instruction available online, but I haven't found one.

Bear in mind that I am still in the early stages of changing my swing to the RST method, but there is no doubt in my mind that my game/swing will only get better from here.

[drudixon]

From what I've seen, it's a bit overly technical. Just say at this point put elbow here....

[Low Draw]

I have viewed a lot of his instructional videos. He does offer some good instructional insight but I found it better to take the parts I liked from his instruction and adapt it to my swing.

[sprcoop]

I have looked at a lot of Chuck's videos and even subscribed for a couple months (pretty cheap) to look at the premium videos. I never submitted my swing for eval because it would just be too embarrassing. I think some of his drills and theories have helped my swing.

He seems to advocate "[color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]float[/background][/color] load" but I am probably just misunderstanding the term as it appears to be a no no. "The Mad Bomber" posted a video in this thread [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/935466-the-secret-to-creating-releasing-lag/page__st__90__p__8209030__hl__+float#entry8209030"]http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/935466-the-secret-to-creating-releasing-lag/page__st__90__p__8209030__hl__+float#entry8209030[/url] that appeared to be the same concept but I am probably mistaken. Is what Sergio Garcia does considered "foat loading"?

I have incorporated Chuck's method (what appeared to be float load to me) and it was a good feel, Created what I thought was a proper amount of lag, solid ball contact, ball flight, shallow AOA, forward shaft lean at impact, less effort, good accuracy and increased distance. I have yet to actually take it to the course though. Buck, buck, buck, BUCKAW!!! (Chicken sounds).

I would love to see a person (a fairly athletic person) with no golf experience take Chuck's system, start at the beginning going through all the drills not moving to the next until the current drill was perfect. Just to see what kind of swing, power and consistency could be produced.

I wish I had the discipline to do that fixing the veritable buffet of swing faults I currently enjoy.

I love Chuck's swing and would love to have it. He claims a + handicap and 300+ yard drives. If that is all true (I'm sure it is) I want to grow up and be just like Chuck!

[Dave D]

I liked his takeaway thought of all I need to do is move the right shoulder blade 2 inches in towards the spine. Simplifies the takeaway immensely

[sprcoop]

[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1385753492' post='8225578']
I liked his takeaway thought of all I need to do is move the right shoulder blade 2 inches in towards the spine. Simplifies the takeaway immensely
[/quote]

I incorporated that takeaway and soon after was told my backswing was reminiscent of David Toms. Who knows what happens after that to create such horrible results.

[Dave D]

[quote name='sprcoop' timestamp='1385759341' post='8225864']
[quote name='davekzg' timestamp='1385753492' post='8225578']
I liked his takeaway thought of all I need to do is move the right shoulder blade 2 inches in towards the spine. Simplifies the takeaway immensely
[/quote]

I incorporated that takeaway and soon after was told my backswing was reminiscent of David Toms. Who knows what happens after that to create such horrible results.
[/quote]
Hahaha

[golow]

Excellent instructional website for paid member .... So many videos. They consistently overlap although they are in sequence. Two Swingfix type lessons per year. Simple and helpful ... A bit more robotic and superficial than I like so ITeach is my main man.

I've heard the only other web based instruction that compares is Evershed.

If you like step by step simple instruction and lots of self validation by explaining biomechanics this is a great way to go.

Is is not for everyone of course.

golow(TM)

[Arsey51]

I've watched and listened to Chuck since about 2009. I bought his book and was a member of the RS (what he now calls RS1) website for quite a while.

My thoughts are these:

1) His swing theories seem sound, and he can explain exactly what he wants you to do to get closer to his model.

2) He has ALWAYS over-sold his methods. The earlier comment about him being a "carnival barker" was accurate from my estimation, and he and Clay Ballard devote a great deal of video time 'selling' their swing model by telling you what's wrong with the swings of touring professionals. After a very long time as a member of his website, I got turned off by all the hard-selling.

I wouldn't be afraid to give his methods a try, but be prepared for the packaging that comes with it.

[MaccaRayDudley]

I think Chuck offers a good product. It's professionally produced, complete, we'll organized and logical. He has a good knowledge of his subject. He explains "what to do" and "how to do it". The later is missing from a lot of golf instruction whether it be in printed or other forms of media. He certainly makes a good job of marketing his site, which may put some people off, but really there's no harm in that since he's in business after all. Its some of the best and most complete instruction material I've seen. I'd recommend it.

[MaccaRayDudley]

I don't think I have ever come across a more comprehensive or better presented golf instruction system. In most forms of instruction or education you will often find teachers who have an In depth knowledge of their subject, but they often don't have the organizational or communication skills to transfer their knowledge effectively to the student. The effort Chuck has invested into this program is obvious. It's well organized, presented in a logical sequence and the information is sound and well explained. Chuck deserves a lot of credit. I don't think it's accurate or fair to say that there is comparable (or better) free information on YouTube. "Point the camera and talk" videos on YouTube are typically much less focused and are not complete or comprehensive. Rotary swing takes a lot of effort and therefore won't appeal to everyone, but it is an excellent product.

[High Plains Driver]

We get it. You like Quinton. Please stop bumping 6 month old threads with replies to yourself.

[Jigga]

I think it's one of the better online resources out there. I've been impressed by it. The way the instructors explain things have made sense to me. They aren't uncovering anything radical, but for whatever reason their methodology has resonated with me. I've probably been watching their videos for about 8 months, and I've been able to make the swing changes that I've been trying to make for years.

[Jpriley46]

I know this post is a older one, but I felt the need to share my experience. I joined rotaryswing back in 2011. Long story short, I went from a 20+ handicap to a 10! Pretty good right? I still struggle particularly in the downswing and I couldn't help but feel that there are some critical details missing in Chucks descriptions of each "move". After 4 years I finally did some research, and my instincts were correct. It turns out that there was someone else involved in the birth of the "rotaryswing tour" model. I don't need to bore you with the details, if you're interested there is a lot of information you can find by googling chuck quinton and go to the "ripoff report" claim. She is mentioned briefly in the early videos and poof; gone. I found her new website this weekend and signed up. Within minutes of watching her videos I immediately realized who the brains of the operation was: she was. The gaps that I felt were missing were filled instantly! Light bulbs are going off left and right. My downswing struggles were explained and now fixed.

I really believe that this style of swing is the right way for me to swing; it's easy on the back which has troubled me my whole life. And while I really got a lot out of the rotary swing website, now that I know the thought originator has a site, I'm in her camp. She gets really into the scientific details of why it works and how it works. Chuck simply can't do that because it's not his knowledge. Now that I have listened to both of them, that point is so glaringly obvious.

Lastly, I'm not a shill so I'm not posting any of her information, but you can find it pretty easily. I'm embarrassed that it took me so long. Armed with the greater detail I feel I can now go from a 10 (where I've been stuck for a year) to a scratch golfer.

[4pillars]

Alison Thietje http://www.m2mgolf.com/

I think she builds up the back swing OK, but I found her explanation of the knee movement to get the hip turn on the downswing really confusing and difficult to do.

I agree it adds to the detail on RST but I don't think it can stand on its own.

[Jpriley46]

[quote name='4pillars' timestamp='1433700029' post='11706284']
Alison Thietje http://www.m2mgolf.com/

I think she builds up the back swing OK, but I found her explanation of the knee movement to get the hip turn on the downswing really confusing and difficult to do.

I agree it adds to the detail on RST but I don't think it can stand on its own.
[/quote]

I agree. I guess it just depends on what your personal struggle is in the swing. For me, the "straightening of the knee" to clear the hips drastically improved if not 100% removed my over the top move in the downswing. If I take Chuck literally in his description, I end up standing up out of my posture.

[zoots]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355751142' post='6080203']
[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1355715335' post='6079245']
I was reading one of his articles:

[url="http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php"]http://www.rotaryswi...nch-monitor.php[/url]

I thought it was interesting that he lists his stats right along with Tiger and Adam Scott. Later he comments on Bubba's swing:

"While Bubba's numbers are ideal for hitting the ball as far as humanly possible, he is hitting the equivalent of a "flyer" off his driver on every shot. Flyer's happen all the time from the rough on iron shots. It happens when grass gets trapped between the clubface and the ball and the spin is greatly reduced. This leads to shots that "knuckle" in the air and go much further than normal with obviously less control."

"For a long drive, this is perfect. Bubba is also much more at the mercy of the wind with such a tremendously high launch angle and ball flight, so this will also decrease his accuracy. All of these factors completely disregard his swing technique which can obviously also cause him to lose accuracy."

I kinda don't buy those comments. If you play in wind, less spin obviously gives you more control. And Bubba's swing technique is accurate enough that he is on the PGA tour.
[/quote]

Where he was ranked 135th in driving accuracy, and only hit about 58% of fairways. Fifty-eight percent where he is likely playing less-than-driver on many holes.

Quinton's right on this one. Spin is CONTROL. Which is why a football pass that doesn't spiral will have a difficult time reaching its intended target....and the knuckleball in baseball is so unpredictable that it is one of the most difficult pitches to throw consistently, catch or hit successfully.

Backspin on a golf ball (along with the dimples) provides the necessary lift that allows the ball to get into the air and travel the distance that it does. Sidespin provides the control necessary to curve the ball. That is why golf instructors have traditionally told players to tee off with 3 woods and 2-iron/5-woods if they have difficulty controlling their drivers. The greater loft on these clubs impart more backspin, and help to neutralize the impact of any sidepin from mis-hits. The shorter shafts also increase the likelihood of a square strike...which gives less sidespin.

Spin is only a problem if it is applied in an uncontrolled fashion, and in the wrong situations. Spin in windy conditions simply increases the lift force which causes balls to balloon into the wind, and lose their stability in crosswinds.

But the smart player looks to OPTIMIZE spin, not eliminate it. There is a point where you reduce spin so much that you are hitting (essentially) a knuckleball. A ball with so little spin that (like a wobbly football pass or a knuckleball pitch) the golfer has difficulty controlling the ball even in still conditions, and the ball has difficulty holding its line...even in still conditions.

Bubba Watson's spin rates are so low that they've essentially reached that point. While his high launch angle allows him to get a LOT more distance out of his drives than one would normally see in a player with a ball speed in the mid-180s....it also makes him a VERY wild driver of the ball on days when is timing is off. When he's liable to hit the ball off-the-planet.

The birdie he made on that last playoff hole in the Masters shows why he's so successful on tour. Like Mickelson, he's become a master of the recovery shot, so he's able to minimize (most days) the impact of his wild tee shots.
[/quote]




Who cares? Bubba would wipe Quinton any day of the week. That's what matters. Any instructor who disparages a multiple tour and major winners can spew as much golf jargon as they want. Quinton would kill to have Bubbas' talent, or any successful tour pro, for that matter.

[Jpriley46]

[quote name='zoots' timestamp='1433703162' post='11706470']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355751142' post='6080203']
[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1355715335' post='6079245']
I was reading one of his articles:

[url="http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php"]http://www.rotaryswi...nch-monitor.php[/url]

I thought it was interesting that he lists his stats right along with Tiger and Adam Scott. Later he comments on Bubba's swing:

"While Bubba's numbers are ideal for hitting the ball as far as humanly possible, he is hitting the equivalent of a "flyer" off his driver on every shot. Flyer's happen all the time from the rough on iron shots. It happens when grass gets trapped between the clubface and the ball and the spin is greatly reduced. This leads to shots that "knuckle" in the air and go much further than normal with obviously less control."

"For a long drive, this is perfect. Bubba is also much more at the mercy of the wind with such a tremendously high launch angle and ball flight, so this will also decrease his accuracy. All of these factors completely disregard his swing technique which can obviously also cause him to lose accuracy."

I kinda don't buy those comments. If you play in wind, less spin obviously gives you more control. And Bubba's swing technique is accurate enough that he is on the PGA tour.
[/quote]

Where he was ranked 135th in driving accuracy, and only hit about 58% of fairways. Fifty-eight percent where he is likely playing less-than-driver on many holes.

Quinton's right on this one. Spin is CONTROL. Which is why a football pass that doesn't spiral will have a difficult time reaching its intended target....and the knuckleball in baseball is so unpredictable that it is one of the most difficult pitches to throw consistently, catch or hit successfully.

Backspin on a golf ball (along with the dimples) provides the necessary lift that allows the ball to get into the air and travel the distance that it does. Sidespin provides the control necessary to curve the ball. That is why golf instructors have traditionally told players to tee off with 3 woods and 2-iron/5-woods if they have difficulty controlling their drivers. The greater loft on these clubs impart more backspin, and help to neutralize the impact of any sidepin from mis-hits. The shorter shafts also increase the likelihood of a square strike...which gives less sidespin.

Spin is only a problem if it is applied in an uncontrolled fashion, and in the wrong situations. Spin in windy conditions simply increases the lift force which causes balls to balloon into the wind, and lose their stability in crosswinds.

But the smart player looks to OPTIMIZE spin, not eliminate it. There is a point where you reduce spin so much that you are hitting (essentially) a knuckleball. A ball with so little spin that (like a wobbly football pass or a knuckleball pitch) the golfer has difficulty controlling the ball even in still conditions, and the ball has difficulty holding its line...even in still conditions.

Bubba Watson's spin rates are so low that they've essentially reached that point. While his high launch angle allows him to get a LOT more distance out of his drives than one would normally see in a player with a ball speed in the mid-180s....it also makes him a VERY wild driver of the ball on days when is timing is off. When he's liable to hit the ball off-the-planet.

The birdie he made on that last playoff hole in the Masters shows why he's so successful on tour. Like Mickelson, he's become a master of the recovery shot, so he's able to minimize (most days) the impact of his wild tee shots.
[/quote]




Who cares? Bubba would wipe Quinton any day of the week. That's what matters. Any instructor who disparages a multiple tour and major winners can spew as much golf jargon as they want. Quinton would kill to have Bubbas' talent, or any successful tour pro, for that matter.
[/quote]

In fairness, he isn't disparaging anyone. The whole rotaryswing process is based on biomechanic principles of movement. He is saying that this isn't a good way for the common golfer to try and swing. Professionals have the time to build in the compensations for biomechanic swing flaws.