Golfers: Stack and Tilt?

[ethiostar]

Hi folks,

I finally started playing golf a little over 6 months ago. I've wanted to get started much earlier but it didn't happen for various reasons. Anyway, i got my first set of clubs from Walmart (Top Flite). Obviously not top of the line golf clubs but based on the reviews i have read they are pretty good for a beginner and the price range (I believe i paid around $180 for them). They came with a driver, a 3 wood, a 4th and 5th hybrid, 6I-PW and a putter. I have since bought a couple of clubs, a lob wedge and 3i, which i like a lot.

My question actually involves a book on the Stack and Tilt golf swing that came with the clubs. Since i haven't had any lessons or read any other instructional material, outside of a little bit i have read online, i have tried to learn this particular swing method. Using the instructions in this book, i have been able to hit the ball solidly and further more consistently and my aim has improved quite a bit (I don't slice nearly as much anymore). Mind you, i don't have anything else to compare it to since i haven't tried any other setup and swing method. But compared to what i was doing in the beginning, which was to just go out to the driving range and swing as hard as i can, i have seen a vast improvement.

For you golfers out there, my question to you is, have you tried this golf method? If so, what do you think about it? I have read a lot on it online so i have a fairly good idea what the critics and advocates say about it. I am more interested in what YOU have to say about it, that is if you or someone you know have tried it.

[tko112204]

When you get good SAT lets you hit your short clubs really well. When I was using it, from 8 down I flagged everything.

My problem was with longer clubs it was tough to release the clubhead in time, and I hit lazy cut fluffy things.

For a beginner I suppose it could work ok. At least until you learn more about your swing and what works for you. I would stick with it for now, just to get some consistency in your swing. Plus, it seems like its helping you hit it better right now, so that's good.

I will say this, if you stick with golf for a while and get better, I would bet you won't stick with SAT the whole time.

[Yeagermeister]

Grip it and rip it :D

[ethiostar]

When you get good SAT lets you hit your short clubs really well. When I was using it, from 8 down I flagged everything.

My problem was with longer clubs it was tough to release the clubhead in time, and I hit lazy cut fluffy things.

For a beginner I suppose it could work ok. At least until you learn more about your swing and what works for you. I would stick with it for now, just to get some consistency in your swing. Plus, it seems like its helping you hit it better right now, so that's good.

I will say this, if you stick with golf for a while and get better, I would bet you won't stick with SAT the whole time.

Thanks for your comments. As for your last comment, based on what you said earlier in your post, i assume you are talking about not using SAT for your mid and long clubs. If that is correct, what do you do differently?

Personally, it is with my driver, 3 wood and 3i that i have noticed the most positive impact.

[tko112204]

Thanks for your comments. As for your last comment, based on what you said earlier in your post, i assume you are talking about not using SAT for your mid and long clubs. If that is correct, what do you do differently?

Personally, it is with my driver, 3 wood and 3i that i have noticed the most positive impact.


It's really, really hard to have 2 golf swings, so doing something different with my long clubs than my short ones wasn't something I wanted to attempt, so I ditched the SAT for a more traditional weight transfer.

I'm not surprised you are seeing improvement from the "no theory" swing (so to speak, not trying to put you down at all) to the SAT swing. If only because it helps you to keep from swaying and losing your spine angle.

The limited weight transfer on SAT will always make it harder it to compress the ball to get maximum distance. On longer clubs I mean, because the arc of the swing is longer and needs maximum hip clearance to really work.

I do think you should stick with SAT, especially if it's working for you. I'm curious to see how it will work for someone without an ingrained swing.

[Yakuza Rich]

I've got quite a few friends that teach the S&T. The book is good if you are working on your swing with an S&T teacher. If you try to go by the book itself, you'll inevitably be doing large pieces of it wrong.

The main point of the S&T is to get your shoulders to turn at a 90* angle to the spine on the backswing and the downswing. Most golfers tend to turn the shoulders too flat on the backswing and then turn them too steep ont he downswing. Pretty much all of the pieces of the S&T swing are geared towards being able to do that (and it's easier said than done).

There are too things you should learn from the book if you're a beginner.

1) In order to compress a golf ball, you hit the ball *first*, then take a divot. Your divot should wind up being out in front of where the ball was at address.


2) The laws of ball flight. Very very important...mainly because most instructors teach the laws of ball flight incorrectly...even the great Butch Harmon.

There's some things about S&T I don't like, but overall it's actually a simple way to build and effective golf swing.





YR

[Yakuza Rich]

The limited weight transfer on SAT will always make it harder it to compress the ball to get maximum distance. On longer clubs I mean, because the arc of the swing is longer and needs maximum hip clearance to really work.

S&T swings typically have *more* hip rotation (or 'clearance') than most modern swings. Reason being is that it teaches the golfer to straighten the rear knee in the backswing. Popular golf instruction tells you to 'maintain' the rear knee flex throughout the backswing.

When the rear knee straightens, the hips rotate more (and more easily). When you keep the rear knee flexed, the hip rotation gets restricted.

It's important to note that the rear knee in the backswing should *straighten*. It should not become locked.





YR

[tko112204]

S&T swings typically have *more* hip rotation (or 'clearance') than most modern swings. Reason being is that it teaches the golfer to straighten the rear knee in the backswing. Popular golf instruction tells you to 'maintain' the rear knee flex throughout the backswing.

When the rear knee straightens, the hips rotate more (and more easily). When you keep the rear knee flexed, the hip rotation gets restricted.

It's important to note that the rear knee in the backswing should *straighten*. It should not become locked.





YR


It was hard for me to consistently keep from getting "stuck" with SAT and blocking everything with my long clubs.

You're talking rotation in the backswing, I'm talking rotation in the downswing. I think. Because with SAT I always felt like I was hitting everything with my chest and that I was turning around my legs, but not using them as much. If that makes sense.

[Yakuza Rich]

It was hard for me to consistently keep from getting "stuck" with SAT and blocking everything with my long clubs.

You're talking rotation in the backswing, I'm talking rotation in the downswing. I think. Because with SAT I always felt like I was hitting everything with my chest and that I was turning around my legs, but not using them as much. If that makes sense.

I sorta understand. The S&T wants the golfer to use their legs quite a bit in the downswing.

I really can't give away too much, but in the golf swing the knees influence what the hips do.

So...

Flexed knees = restricts hip turn

Straightened Knees = allows for more hip turn.

The feet also play a role. That's why the S&T people want the feet flared about 10* at address.

So...

Feet flared = allows for more hip turn

'Square' Feet = Less hip turn

Pigeon Toed feet = restricts hip turn.

It works the same way on the backswing and the downswing.

If you're blocking shots to the right, that means at impact your clubface is open. That's because the initial direction of the ball is 85% due to where the clubface is pointing at impact. So if a ball starts out left..the face was pointing out to the left. If it starts out to the right...the face was pointing over there.

Very important to understand that.

And like I said..the book is a good reference if you're working with a S&T instructor. If not, you'll inevitably do parts of it incorrectly and it will be difficult to work around them.








YR

[Doomsday101]

My advice, if this is a swing that you can repeat successfully time after time then do and stick with it. I have found over the years that if you can simplify your swing so that you can repeat it time after time you will bring the score down. Most of us amateur golfers do not spend enough time at the practice range so keep your swing as simple as possible.

[Yakuza Rich]

My advice is you kinda need to figure out what you want to do, first. If you want to spend time on the range, then find an instructor. If you don't, then don't get an instructor.

I have friends that play about once a week, but go to the range almost every day. Mainly because they can spend 1 hour a day on the range and it just doesn't take up that much time for them. Whereas playing is about 4-5 hours for them and they have to cut a deal with the wife to do that. So they would rather go to the range and get better and then play once a week and see their scores get better.

Of course, you need a good instructor.

I would recommend understanding how one compresses the golf ball (hit ball first, then take divot) and understand the correct laws of ball flight. From there, I would hit a lot of chip shots and pitch shots. Basically, work your way up to the full swing instead of starting right off with the full swing. Working on compressing the golf ball on those pitch shots and chip shots.

And if you do work with an instructor, I highly recommend getting a video camera to record your swing on the range. This way you can check up on yourself to make sure you are doing what your instructor is saying.

I recommend the Casio EX-FH25. It's a digital camera and video recorder in one. Think it goes for $225.







YR

[Chocolate Lab]

This is JMO... But I personally don't care for it, and feel that it's 90% a gimmick "angle" used by instructors to sell themselves.

Is there some validity to it? Sure, one can obviously play that way. Hogan had some S&T in his swing, though he obviously "dug it out of the dirt" and didn't have it sold to him.

I would much rather see a beginner learn the fundamentals that are universal to pretty much any swing method: Grip, stance, feeling the clubhead swing, etc. That doesn't say that S&T excludes those things in any way, but IMO the S&T teaching is more for advanced guys trying to fine-tune themselves.

One thing I will warn you against is mixing different swing methods. I did that when I started out many years ago and it wrecked me for a few years. As with so many things in life, there are many ways to skin a cat and they all work, but in many cases you can't mix and match between them. Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan are two of the very greatest players who ever lived, but their swings couldn't be more different.

Anyway, whatever you do, Rich is absolutely correct with the timeless golf wisdom to work on your short game first, because that determines so much of your score. Become a really good putter and chipper, and then you can shoot good scores and enjoy the game as your swing improves.

[ethiostar]

Keep 'em coming guys and thank you.

[Doomsday101]

Keep 'em coming guys and thank you.

I fully agree with their take on chipping and putting and would go as far as saying the game from 120 in is where you will lower your score.

As for the swing I don't use the stack and tilt, I learned the Hogan swing when I was 7 and have stayed with my same swing all of these years and it works for me as a 5 handicap.

I do know a couple of guys who use the stack and tilt and it work for them they are able to control the ball and keep it pretty much in the fairway.

So I will not tell you it will not work I will say there are some different swings even on the PGA but to me the key has always been keeping a swing as simple as possible to be able to repeat that same swing time after time
.

[Yakuza Rich]

This is JMO... But I personally don't care for it, and feel that it's 90% a gimmick "angle" used by instructors to sell themselves.

Part of it is. S&T is really MORAD for dummies. IMO, it's dummed down to appeal more to the masses. That's what I don't really care for.

Is there some validity to it? Sure, one can obviously play that way. Hogan had some S&T in his swing, though he obviously "dug it out of the dirt" and didn't have it sold to him.

Every golfer that's ever played on Tour has some of the pieces to the S&T swing. What S&T prefers is a 'centered' pivot, but if a golfer has a pivot where they are leaning towards the target in the backswing...they'll take that as well. That's typically the biggest difference in a classic golf swing like Hogan's versus the S&T. But the other stuff....turning the shoulders at 90* angle to the spine, Getting the hands behind the righ shoulder at the top of the swing, left knee flexed at impact, etc....Hogan had those and that's what S&T teaches.

Digging it out of the dirt is great if you can do it. But, it takes a long time to do so and many golfers try that and never figure it out. That's where teaching should help...explaining the science of the swing to the golfer and then getting the golfer to understand how to implement that into their own swing.

I would much rather see a beginner learn the fundamentals that are universal to pretty much any swing method: Grip, stance, feeling the clubhead swing, etc. That doesn't say that S&T excludes those things in any way, but IMO the S&T teaching is more for advanced guys trying to fine-tune themselves.

The problem with those fundamentals is that they are not uniform in nature. My belief is that the fundamentals of anything should be somewhat uniform in nature.

Let's take Trevno and Hogan, two of the all-time great ballstrikers. Hogan had a weak style grip. Trevino had a very strong style grip. Both had different stances (Trevino 'aim left, swing right, walk straight', Hogan would have a closed stance with the long clubs and an open stance with shorter clubs).

If Trevino had come to an instructor and was hooking the ball, most instructors that live by those 'fundamentals' would tell him to change his strong grip. But the reality is that the strong grip had little to do with it.

And you can go all across the spectrum with those 'fundamentals.' Furyk uses a double overlap grip. I've tried that on the range and to me...that grip is insane. But, it works for him. And there's a couple of good players on the Nationwide Tour who play cross-handed.

So to me, how would one define a 'good grip?'

I think golfers are better off if instruction can instead say 'okay, here's how you grip the club and because you grip it this way, it will cause this, this and that (typically) to happen in the golf swing.'

To me...and the S&T instructors I know are generally in agreement...the fundamentals of the swing are:

- Clubface Control
- Clubhead path control
- Low point control
- Effectively and Efficiently Pivoting Your Body

Obviously, 'control' can be a bit ambiguous. But, I think we can define 'control' as getting something to do what you want it to do. And there are varying levels of control. I think somebody who can control where the clubface is pointing at impact on 90% of their shots has great control. Somebody who does that a less amount of the time has lesser control.

And we can measure those with tools like Trackman and FlightScope launch monitors.

Anyway, my point is that there are so many different ways to swing the club. But, if you understand that 'this will cause that' you're likely better off because it will allow you to more quickly develop a swing of your own that works. You'll start to know your tendencies.

Although I will say...learn the correct ball flight laws (aka D-Plane). You'll quicken your learning process by multifold. I went by the old ball flight laws for 20 years and all it did was confuse me even more.





YR

[Chocolate Lab]

I'm really not sure what you are arguing here, Rich. If you ask any group of top instructors what the three or four most important fundamentals are, I guarantee you that grip will be one of the answers for all of them. Does every grip have to be identical? If there only one way to do it? Of course not. But that doesn't mean you don't need a sound way to hold the club. It's almost impossible to play good golf with a bad grip. I don't see how that point is even debatable.

And I hope you don't take this personally, because you're a really good poster who expresses himself well and I always enjoy your takes. I also enjoy this kind of discussion. But IMO your post is what drives me crazy with a lot of golf instruction these days. It's is way, *way* too technical and complicated, at least for beginners. I mean, what is "low point control"? The only one of those four points I agree with is an effective pivot. The rest of it could be useful for a technical-type thinker who already has a good understanding of his swing, but it's much more likely to tie a beginner like Ethio in knots.

I agree much more with a Manuel de la Torre or a Harvey Penick or a guy who was considered maybe the best ball striker ever, Wild Bill Mehlhorn. If a S&T teacher (or any of these overly-technical modern teachers) listened to what he teaches, they'd probably laugh. But it's unbelievably effective. If a golfer gets what these guys teach and then wants to refine things with S&T type instruction, fine. But I'd never fill the head of a beginner with these thoughts from the start. It's putting the cart before the horse.

[CowboyDan]

What's the difference between S&T and the "Natural Golf Swing" fad from 10 - 15 years ago?

[Doomsday101]

What's the difference between S&T and the "Natural Golf Swing" fad from 10 - 15 years ago?

Not much I do think for people taking up the game it gives them a basic to start from

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-instruction/2007-06/stackandtilt1_gd0706

[CowboyDan]

Not knocking it, just curious. I'm of the opinion that if it works for you, do it. I'm all about getting more people to play a game that I love.

[Doomsday101]

Not knocking it, just curious. I'm of the opinion that if it works for you, do it. I'm all about getting more people to play a game that I love.

As long as these new people know proper golf etiquette. You don't have to be a pro or even good to play quickly and without screwing around. Nothing worse then getting stuck behind a group of golfers who take 5 hours to play. I have played with people who hit worm burners and play as quickly as I do. I figure a normal round of golf should take you 3.5 to 4 hours and some places I have played they enforce that.

I was lucky as a kid my dad taught me the proper etiquette and had me learn on the driving range before he took me out with him and his friends.

[Yakuza Rich]

I'm really not sure what you are arguing here, Rich. If you ask any group of top instructors what the three or four most important fundamentals are, I guarantee you that grip will be one of the answers for all of them. Does every grip have to be identical? If there only one way to do it? Of course not. But that doesn't mean you don't need a sound way to hold the club. It's almost impossible to play good golf with a bad grip. I don't see how that point is even debatable.

It's not that grip isn't important, but I debate whether it's a fundamental.

Take somebody like Azinger who probably had the strongest style grip of anybody. How would one determine if that is a 'sound grip?' How does one determine if that is a 'good grip?'

On the opposite end of the spectrum there's Hogan with a weak style grip. How can any instructor say that both are sound grips if they are so vastly different?

I could understand the point if there are minor variances, but there are some large variances. Moe Norman gripped the club with a 10-finger grip with the grip in the palm of his right hand. Nicklaus used interlocking with the club in the palm of his hand. Snead gripped it pretty lightly...Tiger says to grip it very firmly with at least a 7 grip pressure on a scale of 1-10.

There are almost countless types of grips that great players have used over the years. Thus, I think it's more effective to look at the grip like 'if you grip it like this, this and this and this will happen' rather than call something a 'good grip' or a 'sound grip.'

Something like Hogan's grip is going to cause most people to do different things with the club than if they used Azinger's grip.

I look at it like a car. Your car has parts to it. And certain parts cause certain actions to happen. So if a golfer wants to use those parts, you try to get the other parts to match. You don't put Cadillac parts in a Mercedes.


And I hope you don't take this personally, because you're a really good poster who expresses himself well and I always enjoy your takes. I also enjoy this kind of discussion. But IMO your post is what drives me crazy with a lot of golf instruction these days. It's is way, *way* too technical and complicated, at least for beginners. I mean, what is "low point control"? The only one of those four points I agree with is an effective pivot. The rest of it could be useful for a technical-type thinker who already has a good understanding of his swing, but it's much more likely to tie a beginner like Ethio in knots.

Low Point control isn't that difficult to understand, but I used that term for the sake of brevity.

If you look at a swing from the Face On view, the clubhead moves in a circle. The 'low point' is the lowest point the clubhead travels in the downswing. Usually that's in line with where the left shoulder is (if you're a righty) or there about. It's important to understand the low point because it plays a big role on how the ball flies, where to have your ball position, fixing issues with your swing, adding distance, etc.

The S&T book talks a lot about low point (they call it 'hitting the turf with the club in same spot time after time' or something to that effect).

To me, the swing is an incredibly complex motion with so many different ways to hit the ball effectively that just makes it even more complex. So treating it as something simple is incomplete instruction and often times just confuses people more.

It's like wanting to learn calculus, but the teacher saying that they just want to teach the students how to add and subtract because it's simple.

The teacher's job is to convey the subject at hand...regardless of how simple or complex it is...so the student can understand it.

If a teacher is teaching something in a simple manner and the student cannot understand it...they are not doing a good job....just like the teacher that teaches a swing in a complex manner and the student cannot understand it.






YR

[Yakuza Rich]

As long as these new people know proper golf etiquette.

I agree. It's really bad. When I played High School golf I was one of the best junior golfers in the state of NY. And each year before the season started our HS coach had every player on the team...whether it be me or a beginner...show up to a class where he would teach us the ettiquette of the game. Things like not dragging your feet on the greens, repairing a ball mark, watch where you are swing a club, yelling fore, keeping the pace of play moving, etc.

To me, that's how it should be done...but they don't teach people like that anymore...even kids.





YR

[CowboyDan]

It's not that grip isn't important, but I debate whether it's a fundamental.

Take somebody like Azinger who probably had the strongest style grip of anybody. How would one determine if that is a 'sound grip?' How does one determine if that is a 'good grip?'

On the opposite end of the spectrum there's Hogan with a weak style grip. How can any instructor say that both are sound grips if they are so vastly different?

I could understand the point if there are minor variances, but there are some large variances. Moe Norman gripped the club with a 10-finger grip with the grip in the palm of his right hand. Nicklaus used interlocking with the club in the palm of his hand. Snead gripped it pretty lightly...Tiger says to grip it very firmly with at least a 7 grip pressure on a scale of 1-10.

There are almost countless types of grips that great players have used over the years. Thus, I think it's more effective to look at the grip like 'if you grip it like this, this and this and this will happen' rather than call something a 'good grip' or a 'sound grip.'

Something like Hogan's grip is going to cause most people to do different things with the club than if they used Azinger's grip.

I look at it like a car. Your car has parts to it. And certain parts cause certain actions to happen. So if a golfer wants to use those parts, you try to get the other parts to match. You don't put Cadillac parts in a Mercedes.




Low Point control isn't that difficult to understand, but I used that term for the sake of brevity.

If you look at a swing from the Face On view, the clubhead moves in a circle. The 'low point' is the lowest point the clubhead travels in the downswing. Usually that's in line with where the left shoulder is (if you're a righty) or there about. It's important to understand the low point because it plays a big role on how the ball flies, where to have your ball position, fixing issues with your swing, adding distance, etc.

The S&T book talks a lot about low point (they call it 'hitting the turf with the club in same spot time after time' or something to that effect).

To me, the swing is an incredibly complex motion with so many different ways to hit the ball effectively that just makes it even more complex. So treating it as something simple is incomplete instruction and often times just confuses people more.

It's like wanting to learn calculus, but the teacher saying that they just want to teach the students how to add and subtract because it's simple.

The teacher's job is to convey the subject at hand...regardless of how simple or complex it is...so the student can understand it.

If a teacher is teaching something in a simple manner and the student cannot understand it...they are not doing a good job....just like the teacher that teaches a swing in a complex manner and the student cannot understand it.






YR

I think it's important to allow for the possibility that Zinger, Trevino and Hogan are slightly better than Joe Average looking to break into the sport. I know what you're getting at, but S & T is an attempt to simplify the game so that it is easier to pick up and play. Chocolate Lab seems to be saying that teaching someone the foundation to a "proper" or traditional golf swing is just as good.
I'm of the "whatever works" school of thought.

[CowboyDan]

As long as these new people know proper golf etiquette. You don't have to be a pro or even good to play quickly and without screwing around. Nothing worse then getting stuck behind a group of golfers who take 5 hours to play. I have played with people who hit worm burners and play as quickly as I do. I figure a normal round of golf should take you 3.5 to 4 hours and some places I have played they enforce that.

I was lucky as a kid my dad taught me the proper etiquette and had me learn on the driving range before he took me out with him and his friends.

Absolutely. It's important in all sports, not just golf. The nice thing about golf is that price tends to keep that type of golfer away from the high end and private clubs. The bad thing about golf is that sometimes you have to spend big bucks to get away from that type of golfer. :laugh2:

I used to love having a 2nd shift job, because I could golf in the morning during the week, after all the seniors are done. It was the cheapest, best time ever!

[Doomsday101]

I agree. It's really bad. When I played High School golf I was one of the best junior golfers in the state of NY. And each year before the season started our HS coach had every player on the team...whether it be me or a beginner...show up to a class where he would teach us the ettiquette of the game. Things like not dragging your feet on the greens, repairing a ball mark, watch where you are swing a club, yelling fore, keeping the pace of play moving, etc.

To me, that's how it should be done...but they don't teach people like that anymore...even kids.





YR

All important things. I have been lucky that most of the people I play with have this understanding and the few who do not will soon find out as myself or others in my group will point these things out. It may be as simple as telling a guy to move as someone is putting because their shadow is in the line of the putt. My biggest pet peeve though is slow play because people are screwing around.

Seem so many people just go out buy some clubs and run out to the course and there is a lot more to this game than just hitting a white ball

[Doomsday101]

Absolutely. It's important in all sports, not just golf. The nice thing about golf is that price tends to keep that type of golfer away from the high end and private clubs. The bad thing about golf is that sometimes you have to spend big bucks to get away from that type of golfer. :laugh2:

I used to love having a 2nd shift job, because I could golf in the morning during the week, after all the seniors are done. It was the cheapest, best time ever!

Thing is I don't mind playing with bad golfers, I would rather play with those who play at my level or greater but good golfers or bad golfers how you conduct yourself on the course matters. One of the best things the USGA has done is come up with the 1st tee program for kids

[CowboyDan]

Thing is I don't mind playing with bad golfers, I would rather play with those who play at my level or greater but good golfers or bad golfers how you conduct yourself on the course matters. One of the best things the USGA has done is come up with the 1st tee program for kids

I agree. I'm not talking about bad golfers, I'm talking about golfers with poor etiquette. You don't have to be a great golfer to play better courses. Just make sure you show good etiquette and let faster players play through.

Another solution is to play at off times, as I was saying I used to do with my 2nd shift job. Sometimes it's just not an option though.

[Doomsday101]

I agree. I'm not talking about bad golfers, I'm talking about golfers with poor etiquette. You don't have to be a great golfer to play better courses. Just make sure you show good etiquette and let faster players play through.

Another solution is to play at off times, as I was saying I used to do with my 2nd shift job. Sometimes it's just not an option though.

Where I play I have a standing tee time in which my group is the 1st one off the tee box. It takes us about 3.5 hours to play. Works out great for me because during football season I'm home before the college games kickoff.

When I'm on vacation I try to play 4 rds during that week but still tend to get out early. I'll be going to Arz in a couple of weeks and have tee times at 2 very nice courses both at 7:00 am.

[CowboyDan]

Where I play I have a standing tee time in which my group is the 1st one off the tee box. It takes us about 3.5 hours to play. Works out great for me because during football season I'm home before the college games kickoff.

When I'm on vacation I try to play 4 rds during that week but still tend to get out early. I'll be going to Arz in a couple of weeks and have tee times at 2 very nice courses both at 7:00 am.

That's the way to do it! That's a great way to beat the crowds and the heat. I'm jealous man, I'm not a morning person......my golf game struggles before 10am.

[Doomsday101]

That's the way to do it! That's a great way to beat the crowds and the heat. I'm jealous man, I'm not a morning person......my golf game struggles before 10am.

I'm not a morning person myself, I pick up my dad (we have been playing together since I was 7) and will not say 2 words as we are heading out to the course as I'm still half asleep. Once I get there I get off by myself hit a few balls to loosen up then over to the chipping and putting green were I'll spend most of my time before we tee off. As much as I hate getting up early like that it pays off in the end in terms of heat and slow play so it is worth to me to do it.

[Doomsday101]

ethiostar, which ever swing you choose to go with just try to stay away from the delay and tilt swing. :laugh2:

60EPi4eYHSE&feature

[Yakuza Rich]

I think it's important to allow for the possibility that Zinger, Trevino and Hogan are slightly better than Joe Average looking to break into the sport. I know what you're getting at, but S & T is an attempt to simplify the game so that it is easier to pick up and play. Chocolate Lab seems to be saying that teaching someone the foundation to a "proper" or traditional golf swing is just as good.
I'm of the "whatever works" school of thought.

My thought is that Zinger, Trevino and Hogan all had to start the game at some point and developed those grips starting out or over time of working on the game and figuring out what worked best.

Zinger in fact was a lousy golfer. He went to Brevard Community College and saw an instructor and told him he was dedicated to becoming a Tour professional and the instructor liked him and told him to not change his grip (most instructors would've told him to change the grip) and just work on some things. Then he became great, almost overnight, transferred to Florida State and the rest is history.

I'm from the 'whatever works' school of thought as well. I think that good instruction helps the student figure out what works in less time.

I just think that a 'good grip' is so vague and it will leave out too many great golfers who didn't have that 'good grip.' Personally, I pay special attention to my grip quite often. I employ a strong grip about like Trevino's. There's just some things that are important to that grip that I get a bit sloppy with so I have to pay attention to it. But, I also know what that strong grip will cause the club to do...both good and bad. And I just implemented this grip a year ago. Before then I used a grip similar to the ones you see in golf books and it took me 20 years to realize that it was to my detriment...even if it was a 'textbook good grip.'

The swing is all about getting the ball to fly with power, accuracy and consistency. There are no judges holding up scorecards after each swing. That's why I don't see a 'good grip' as a fundamental because the grip doesn't actually hit the ball...the club does and one way or another, one has to figure out how to get the club to move a certain way so it will hit the ball with power, accuracy and consistency.





YR

[CowboyDan]

I just knew Charles would make it into this thread! :laugh2:
When I first read the thread title, I thought that's what it was about.

[CowboyDan]

My thought is that Zinger, Trevino and Hogan all had to start the game at some point and developed those grips starting out or over time of working on the game and figuring out what worked best.

Zinger in fact was a lousy golfer. He went to Brevard Community College and saw an instructor and told him he was dedicated to becoming a Tour professional and the instructor liked him and told him to not change his grip (most instructors would've told him to change the grip) and just work on some things. Then he became great, almost overnight, transferred to Florida State and the rest is history.

I'm from the 'whatever works' school of thought as well. I think that good instruction helps the student figure out what works in less time.

I just think that a 'good grip' is so vague and it will leave out too many great golfers who didn't have that 'good grip.' Personally, I pay special attention to my grip quite often. I employ a strong grip about like Trevino's. There's just some things that are important to that grip that I get a bit sloppy with so I have to pay attention to it. But, I also know what that strong grip will cause the club to do...both good and bad. And I just implemented this grip a year ago. Before then I used a grip similar to the ones you see in golf books and it took me 20 years to realize that it was to my detriment...even if it was a 'textbook good grip.'

The swing is all about getting the ball to fly with power, accuracy and consistency. There are no judges holding up scorecards after each swing. That's why I don't see a 'good grip' as a fundamental because the grip doesn't actually hit the ball...the club does and one way or another, one has to figure out how to get the club to move a certain way so it will hit the ball with power, accuracy and consistency.





YR

Well put. Points taken.

[Doomsday101]

I just knew Charles would make it into this thread! :laugh2:
When I first read the thread title, I thought that's what it was about.

frankly I feel for sorry for him. It is mental block that causes it. You would figure of man of his athletic talent would be able to over come it but he can't.

He loves the game but the game does not love him. :laugh2:

[Doomsday101]

My thought is that Zinger, Trevino and Hogan all had to start the game at some point and developed those grips starting out or over time of working on the game and figuring out what worked best.

Zinger in fact was a lousy golfer. He went to Brevard Community College and saw an instructor and told him he was dedicated to becoming a Tour professional and the instructor liked him and told him to not change his grip (most instructors would've told him to change the grip) and just work on some things. Then he became great, almost overnight, transferred to Florida State and the rest is history.

I'm from the 'whatever works' school of thought as well. I think that good instruction helps the student figure out what works in less time.

I just think that a 'good grip' is so vague and it will leave out too many great golfers who didn't have that 'good grip.' Personally, I pay special attention to my grip quite often. I employ a strong grip about like Trevino's. There's just some things that are important to that grip that I get a bit sloppy with so I have to pay attention to it. But, I also know what that strong grip will cause the club to do...both good and bad. And I just implemented this grip a year ago. Before then I used a grip similar to the ones you see in golf books and it took me 20 years to realize that it was to my detriment...even if it was a 'textbook good grip.'

The swing is all about getting the ball to fly with power, accuracy and consistency. There are no judges holding up scorecards after each swing. That's why I don't see a 'good grip' as a fundamental because the grip doesn't actually hit the ball...the club does and one way or another, one has to figure out how to get the club to move a certain way so it will hit the ball with power, accuracy and consistency.





YR

Just out of curiosity what grip do you use? Myself I like the overlapping grip, I just can't get comfortable with the interlocking grip

[CowboyDan]

frankly I feel for sorry for him. It is mental block that causes it. You would figure of man of his athletic talent would be able to over come it but he can't.

He loves the game but the game does not love him. :laugh2:
Me too. It was painful to watch him on The Haney Project. I just don't get it.....at all. But like any golfer should, laugh at him. :)

[Doomsday101]

Me too. It was painful to watch him on The Haney Project. I just don't get it.....at all. But like any golfer should, laugh at him. :)

You can't help but laugh, I have never seen anything like it before. :laugh2:

[Yakuza Rich]

That's the way to do it! That's a great way to beat the crowds and the heat. I'm jealous man, I'm not a morning person......my golf game struggles before 10am.

I do it a bit differently in FLA. I schedule a tee time around 2pm or so because by then there's nobody on the course and my dad and I can play 18 in about 2.5 hours. We're in a cart, so it doesn't get too hot. If we play in the morning, that's when everybody plays and it's a 4 hour round.





YR

[Yakuza Rich]

Just out of curiosity what grip do you use? Myself I like the overlapping grip, I just can't get comfortable with the interlocking grip

Overlapping.

My first year playing as a kid I used an interlocking and it was by accident. I was taught overlapping, but mistook it for an interlocking grip. Then I went to overlapping throughout my junior and collegiate golf years. Took 8 years off from the game and when I got back into the game, 1 day I was practicing and got a blister on my hand, so I tried the interlocking again and it worked well. So, all of 2009 I used interlocking.

However, I switched back to overlapping because I think it offers better control of the clubhead.

I tried Furyk's double overlapping grip on the range once and the club went flying about 30 yards. :)





YR

[Doomsday101]

I do it a bit differently in FLA. I schedule a tee time around 2pm or so because by then there's nobody on the course and my dad and I can play 18 in about 2.5 hours. We're in a cart, so it doesn't get too hot. If we play in the morning, that's when everybody plays and it's a 4 hour round.





YR

very nice courses there, When I was in Orlando I got a chance to play at ChampionsGate Golf Club. Very nice course

[Doomsday101]

Overlapping.

My first year playing as a kid I used an interlocking and it was by accident. I was taught overlapping, but mistook it for an interlocking grip. Then I went to overlapping throughout my junior and collegiate golf years. Took 8 years off from the game and when I got back into the game, 1 day I was practicing and got a blister on my hand, so I tried the interlocking again and it worked well. So, all of 2009 I used interlocking.

However, I switched back to overlapping because I think it offers better control of the clubhead.

I tried Furyk's double overlapping grip on the range once and the club went flying about 30 yards. :)




YR

When I 1st picked up a club as kid I used the interlocking but changed to the overlapping and have used it ever since. My grandfather he was a very good golfer but used a baseball grip. I tried it and just have no feel for that grip.

[Chocolate Lab]

To me, the swing is an incredibly complex motion with so many different ways to hit the ball effectively that just makes it even more complex. So treating it as something simple is incomplete instruction and often times just confuses people more.

It's like wanting to learn calculus, but the teacher saying that they just want to teach the students how to add and subtract because it's simple.

I totally disagree with this. Sure, you can make break almost any human athletic movement into its component parts and talk about how complex it is, but that doesn't mean it's useful to the athlete to think in those terms. And the acclaimed teachers I cited earlier agree with me. :)

But I agree that some of this (or a lot of this) depends on the personality of the student. A John Daly could never function well thinking of the swing as a hundred component mechanical parts, while a Nick Faldo almost requires that. I still submit that a beginner is more likely to have his brain tied in knots when he starts thinking of how complex it all is before he's even really learned how to play. He first needs to learn how to hold the club, how to stand to the ball, and how to get the clubhead swinging... Then he can start mechanically fine tuning.

Again, look up Bobby Shave and Wild Bill Mehlhorn. Well, you won't like it because it's not that Faldo-Bobby Clampitt mechanical way of looking at things. :) But Hogan and Snead said Mehlhorn was maybe the best ballstriker they ever saw, and he is vehemently anti-mechanical thought.

One reason I'm posting in this thread is because Mr. Shave insists that we're making the game and the swing too complicated... And I think he's 100% correct.

BTW, funny you mention Azinger... I'm a huge fan of his teacher, John Redman. Like you said, his method just happened to mesh with Azinger's naturally strong grip. If he'd happened to have had a weak grip, Redman would've changed him, or Azinger would've found another teacher. But that story is pretty amazing of how Zinger couldn't break 80 two days in a row and then went on to become great. It all started with Redman's incredibly *simple* swing. ;)

[Doomsday101]

http://www.sedonagolfresort.com/sites/courses/custom2.asp?id=998&page=57233

http://www.oakcreekcountryclub.com/golf/proto/oakcreekcountryclub/

Here are the 2 courses Sedona, AZ I will be playing. Really looking forward to it

[Yakuza Rich]

very nice courses there, When I was in Orlando I got a chance to play at ChampionsGate Golf Club. Very nice course

You should try Shingle Creek. Right next to Sea World. Primo golf there. Also, if you can make the trip out there...try World Woods Pine Barrens Course. Good of value of golf as you will find and it's ranked #83 in the world.




YR

[Doomsday101]

You should try Shingle Creek. Right next to Sea World. Primo golf there. Also, if you can make the trip out there...try World Woods Pine Barrens Course. Good of value of golf as you will find and it's ranked #83 in the world.




YR

I may have to get back out there and try these course. Every year I take 1 week of vacation with my dad and we play golf. Over the last 10 years we have worked our way up the east coast. Last year I played up in New York and played liberty national. I have had the pleasure of playing many nice courses on the east coast. This coming trip will be my 1st in Arz.

[Yakuza Rich]

I'm not a fan of Faldo's mechanics. There's a reason why hit it so short. I know plenty about Bill Melhorn and guys like Paul Bertholy and Ernest Jones.

It's not thinking about the swing in a mechanical way that gets golfers. It's usually that they have the factual parts of the mechanics incorrect and they don't know how to use feel to learn the golf swing.

For instance, I supposedly have an instructor who is 'mechanical.' Currently we are working on some things in my backswing because they are causing some problems at impact. So we go over what's happening mechanically, then we go over me actually swinging the club correctly. Lastly, we try to work together to develop a feel for me swinging the club correctly.

The end result is in order to not over-swing, I just feel like that once my thumbs point straight at the sky...i stop my swing.

That's it. That's all. I'll do some check ups on video to see how I'm progressing, but we've figured out the feel that works for *me* and now we are trying to ingrain it.

On the flip side, a guy like Melhorne will tell the golfer what to feel in hopes their mechanics will get better.

But the problem with that is what feels worked for Bill Melhorne may not work for me. And the feel I use may not work for you. Which the feel you may use may not work for Joe Schmoe. And so on and so forth.

I think some unskilled teachers who do understand the mechanics don't understand that you have to take those mechanics and then get the student to understand how to develop their own personal feel for them.

Like I said, I don't personally use the S&T, but I have friends who teach it and my friends that teach all work to get their students to develop their own feels that work for them. But, if I go and read other golf instruction books, it's usually filled with 'this feel works for me and it should work for you' type of instruction.






3JACK

[Doomsday101]

I'm not a fan of Faldo's mechanics. There's a reason why hit it so short. I know plenty about Bill Melhorn and guys like Paul Bertholy and Ernest Jones.

It's not thinking about the swing in a mechanical way that gets golfers. It's usually that they have the factual parts of the mechanics incorrect and they don't know how to use feel to learn the golf swing.

For instance, I supposedly have an instructor who is 'mechanical.' Currently we are working on some things in my backswing because they are causing some problems at impact. So we go over what's happening mechanically, then we go over me actually swinging the club correctly. Lastly, we try to work together to develop a feel for me swinging the club correctly.

The end result is in order to not over-swing, I just feel like that once my thumbs point straight at the sky...i stop my swing.

That's it. That's all. I'll do some check ups on video to see how I'm progressing, but we've figured out the feel that works for *me* and now we are trying to ingrain it.

On the flip side, a guy like Melhorne will tell the golfer what to feel in hopes their mechanics will get better.

But the problem with that is what feels worked for Bill Melhorne may not work for me. And the feel I use may not work for you. Which the feel you may use may not work for Joe Schmoe. And so on and so forth.

I think some unskilled teachers who do understand the mechanics don't understand that you have to take those mechanics and then get the student to understand how to develop their own personal feel for them.

Like I said, I don't personally use the S&T, but I have friends who teach it and my friends that teach all work to get their students to develop their own feels that work for them. But, if I go and read other golf instruction books, it's usually filled with 'this feel works for me and it should work for you' type of instruction.






3JACK

There is a lot of truth in that. Myself I have never had an instructor I do video tape my swing and now and then have to make subtle adjustments. Even in High school our golf coach was not a golfer he was just an adult that had to be present, heck I drove myself to most of the tournament even those out of town. It is amazing how little the swing can be off and how big of a difference it can make.

For me it is easy to figure out what adjustments I need to make since I have had the same swing for 40 years. I would say though the most important things I have learned over the years is better course management during a round. I will say much of the things I have learned from pros is based on visual for whatever reason I am able to learn by watching them than being told verbally. I learned the flop shot of Mickleson by studying film and now I have become very good with that shot. No doubt it took practice but the fundamentals of the shot was done by just watching

[Yakuza Rich]

I get accused of 'being mechanical' because I use a video tape in almost every range session. But, that couldn't be further from the truth. I use it for maybe a handful of swings. I use it early on to check the progress of what I'm working on. If I'm showing no progress as to what I've been working on, there's no reason for me to get a lesson because I'm simply not doing what we went over in the last lesson. Only if I go a little while without making any progress...then it's time for a lesson to go over where I'm going wrong. Other than that, I can use the camera to say 'okay, you're not doing it like you're supposed to...let's go back to what we worked on last time.' Then I'll work a bit, film another swing and usually I'll see the progression.

The other part of using a camera is so I don't fall back into any old habits or create something new that is no good. I know that if I can get those things corrected as soon as they start...the better off I am. It beats letting them slide for awhile and then trying to get them out of your swing later on.

Essentially, I use video to make the best use out of the limited practice time I have.

Also, a feel that works for me generally tends to 'wear off.' I may get that feel to work for me for a day, a week, a month, a year, etc. But eventually, it's probably going to wear off. So the camera is there to tell me if my feels are working or not. And if they are not...go back and figure out the mechanics and then try to figure out a new feel that works.


It's also important to understand that the feel usually isn't real. I think that screws up a ton of higher handicappers. They think what they feel is really happening in their swing, when more often than not what they feel is nowhere near what they are doing. You can use that to your advantage, you just need to understand that concept first. That's one thing I don't like about Del Torre's teaching...he believes you shouldn't try to feel an exagerrated motion because you'll wind up performing that exagerrated motion. But, I find that to be hogwash. I could tell you stories of some great golfers who used the feel of an exagerrated motion and never came close to actually implementing that exagerrated motion.







YR

[Chocolate Lab]

Hmm. I've read Shave and Mehlhorn's book and watched DVDs of his personal instruction on the practice tee from the 60s, and I never saw Mehlhorn tell people what they should feel. He even says that everyone will swing a little differently because everyone is built differently.

And I disagree that thinking about things in a mechanical way doesn't hurt golfers. It's hurt me and it's hurt tons of players a lot better than me.

Anyway... Ethio, if your S&T book works for you, keep it up.

[Yakuza Rich]

It should feel as though you move nothing else but your arms when you hit a golf ball. Although your legs are carrying your body out of the way at all times. On the backswing as well as the downswing. - Mehlorn 'Golf Secrets Exposed'

The palm of the hand and the face of the club, assuming the face of the club has no loft to it at all, would be exactly the same hitting a golf ball. That goes for a short shot or a long one…that is so natural, particularly if you associate clapping your hands. Now, hold your hands down in front of you, palms meeting each other about the same position you would taking hold of a golf club. Now clap those hands. - Mehlorn (the clapping of the hands is a prescribed feel/visualization)

That’s the only time that you will actually feel a rolling of the forearm or a supinating or a pronating action. When you put your hands together and get in that same position on either side you never feel an semblance of a pronating or a supinating action. You only feel it when you take one hand from one side of the clap and meet the palm on the other side.


It's not that prescribing a feel can never work. But I think it's problematic because people tend to feel things differently and one can probably better own it if they develop their own feel that works for them rather than trying to use a feel prescribed by an instructor.









YR

[Doomsday101]

It should feel as though you move nothing else but your arms when you hit a golf ball. Although your legs are carrying your body out of the way at all times. On the backswing as well as the downswing. - Mehlorn 'Golf Secrets Exposed'

The palm of the hand and the face of the club, assuming the face of the club has no loft to it at all, would be exactly the same hitting a golf ball. That goes for a short shot or a long one…that is so natural, particularly if you associate clapping your hands. Now, hold your hands down in front of you, palms meeting each other about the same position you would taking hold of a golf club. Now clap those hands. - Mehlorn (the clapping of the hands is a prescribed feel/visualization)

That’s the only time that you will actually feel a rolling of the forearm or a supinating or a pronating action. When you put your hands together and get in that same position on either side you never feel an semblance of a pronating or a supinating action. You only feel it when you take one hand from one side of the clap and meet the palm on the other side.


It's not that prescribing a feel can never work. But I think it's problematic because people tend to feel things differently and one can probably better own it if they develop their own feel that works for them rather than trying to use a feel prescribed by an instructor.









YR

I notice for me tempo is a big part of my swing and the part I will at times struggle with as I tend to speed the swing up which in turn will cause me to shorten the back swing. When I'm on tempo the back swing becomes full and my blance going through the ball is perfect. this is one of my main objectives when I hit balls before a round.

[Yakuza Rich]

And I disagree that thinking about things in a mechanical way doesn't hurt golfers. It's hurt me and it's hurt tons of players a lot better than me.

I don't think at the *basic* level that's the case.

I think it has to do with the instructor teaching the mechanics and teaching them inaccurately or they understand the mechanics, but they have no idea how to teach them to the student so they can understand them.

For instance, Butch Harmon in his book has laws of ball flight wrong. He still disputes this despite world class engineers and physics experts and professors saying differently. And he still disputes this despite measuring devices saying that he is indeed wrong.

But, if he goes out and teaches some mechanics to the swing and it's based off those incorrect ball flight laws...the golfer could very well get worse because the information he's using is incorrect.

So is 'teaching mechanics' wrong or is the teacher who is teaching the incorrect mechanics wrong?

I prefer to think the teacher is wrong.

For instance, a snap hook is caused because the clubface is way too closed at impact. You can have a perfectly, dead square to the target path...but if your clubface is dead close, you will hit a snap hook. There is no way around it...it's physics. It's a *fact*.

However, Harmon in his book says that if you snap hook it, it's because you 'came over the top' and the path was going left. And that the ball starts to the left because of the path (it doesn't, it starts left because that's where the face is pointing).

So, let's say you hit a snap hook. But the reality is that your clubface was dead closed and your path was actually *perfect*. In Harmon's case, he would teach you to swing out to rightfield more because he does not accurately understand the ball flight.

The problem with this is that by swinging more out to the right...you're *more likely* to hit a hook now. If he had understood the ball flight laws accurately, he would fix the closed clubface...not the path.

So is 'teaching mechanics' wrong or is it that Butch is wrong because he happens to have those mechanics wrong.

Stuff like that has happened to me and literally drove me to quit the game because so many instructors, particularly the top instructors (some of whom I've gone to for lessons before) had no clue about why the ball flies like it does and thus, gave me the wrong remedy for my problems.

That to me is the hardest part for people who want to get better, getting a teacher who accurately presents information. Of course, I don't believe any teacher is going to be 100% accurate all of the time, but some of the basics...facts of life stuff...like the ball flight laws are pretty important.





YR

[Doomsday101]

I don't think at the *basic* level that's the case.

I think it has to do with the instructor teaching the mechanics and teaching them inaccurately or they understand the mechanics, but they have no idea how to teach them to the student so they can understand them.

For instance, Butch Harmon in his book has laws of ball flight wrong. He still disputes this despite world class engineers and physics experts and professors saying differently. And he still disputes this despite measuring devices saying that he is indeed wrong.

But, if he goes out and teaches some mechanics to the swing and it's based off those incorrect ball flight laws...the golfer could very well get worse because the information he's using is incorrect.

So is 'teaching mechanics' wrong or is the teacher who is teaching the incorrect mechanics wrong?

I prefer to think the teacher is wrong.

For instance, a snap hook is caused because the clubface is way too closed at impact. You can have a perfectly, dead square to the target path...but if your clubface is dead close, you will hit a snap hook. There is no way around it...it's physics. It's a *fact*.

However, Harmon in his book says that if you snap hook it, it's because you 'came over the top' and the path was going left. And that the ball starts to the left because of the path (it doesn't, it starts left because that's where the face is pointing).

So, let's say you hit a snap hook. But the reality is that your clubface was dead closed and your path was actually *perfect*. In Harmon's case, he would teach you to swing out to rightfield more because he does not accurately understand the ball flight.

The problem with this is that by swinging more out to the right...you're *more likely* to hit a hook now. If he had understood the ball flight laws accurately, he would fix the closed clubface...not the path.

So is 'teaching mechanics' wrong or is it that Butch is wrong because he happens to have those mechanics wrong.

Stuff like that has happened to me and literally drove me to quit the game because so many instructors, particularly the top instructors (some of whom I've gone to for lessons before) had no clue about why the ball flies like it does and thus, gave me the wrong remedy for my problems.

That to me is the hardest part for people who want to get better, getting a teacher who accurately presents information. Of course, I don't believe any teacher is going to be 100% accurate all of the time, but some of the basics...facts of life stuff...like the ball flight laws are pretty important.





YR

I do agree that Harmon is incorrect. I can use the same swing over and over yet if I toe the club face in using the same swing I'll put a draw or hook on the ball and if I leave the club face a bit open using the same swing I'll fade the ball.

[Doomsday101]

wZbvM9whMxM&feature

[ethiostar]

Thanks guys! This is very educational for me.

A few things i should mention....

-I am one of those people who will read up on everything i can get my hands on and talk to everyone/anyone with an expertise when i get into a new hobby (I am a researcher by trade as well). I want to understand the very basics/fundamentals of whatever it is i am attempting to learn. I also want to know the variations that exist in how to accomplish the particular task. I don't do it until it becomes a chore or tiresome but IMO, in the long-term, that gives me the tools i need to process a lot of information and have the ability to become creative in what i am involved in. I mention this to say that i don't mind getting a bit technical in the beginning and getting divergent opinions, i actually prefer it. The learning process is what is fun and exciting for me.

-I particularly liked the advice about working on my short game early on. In fact after going to the driving range for a couple of months and hitting the ball with my driver and 3 wood exclusively, i started devoting 75% of my time on my mid and short clubs. I have been starting with my 60 degree wedge and working my way up. As a result i have been able to be a lot more accurate with my short game. Toward the end of my time at the driving range, i dedicate about 30 minutes to work on my Charles Barkley swing ;)

-Another great advice i received (about a week ago) was from an old man who worked at the driving range. He watched me for a little while and told me to slow down my back swing. I tried it and it made a lot of difference. He also told me to try the overlapping grip but when i tried it it felt awkward and unnatural to me so I went back to a baseball grip. However, i think I did notice that the overlapping grip packed a bit more power. Maybe i will try it a bit more and see if i can get over the newness of it.

-On a side note, I have played disc-golf for almost 2 decades now and there are a lot of similarities, obviously, including etiquette. Although i don't know all the rules for golf yet most seem common sense to me. It's a matter of being considerate to those who are also trying to enjoy themselves.

-Yakuza, i read up on the D-plane concept a little bit and, although the document i found online was a bit too technical, it made a lot of sense and did a good job of explaining the basic principles of ball flight. I can't begin to understand the physics behind it but i really don't need to. Thanks for pointing it out.

-Please keep the conversation going, this is wonderful.

-Maybe we can talk about the best advice you've ever received.

[CowboyDan]

One of the best peices of advice I've ever received was from Anika Sorenstam (well, not directly.....it was something she said on a show)....she said she only swings with 75% of her full power. This was an eye-opener for me, who at the time was a young, ego driven, grip it and rip it type of golfer. I tried to kill ever ball I hit. When I heard her say this, for whatever reason, it really hit home with me. I started trying it and the results were concrete and immediate. I actually started hitting the ball longer and straighter and could play better deeper into the round, because I wasn't exhausting myself with my crazy over-swinging. Seems like a simple concept, right? But as you said about your backswing, most golfers go too quick, especially when they're starting out and are trying to find their correct tempo.

[Yakuza Rich]

I play to a +2.4 handicap at the moment and every day I practice I probably take 1/2 swings on 1/2 the balls I hit on the range. It's a great way to learn. I would also recommend hitting a lot of 3-irons (if you carry a 3-iron). Mainly because that will help make your swing more precise. Put it this way, if you can hit a 3-iron really well, odds are you will be able to hit the rest of your irons very well.

As far as 'D-Plane' goes....D-Plane stands for 'Descriptive Plane.' A term coined by Dr. Theodore Jorgenson, a physicist at Nebraska, in his book 'The Physics of Golf.'

D-Plane is another way of saying 'the laws of ball flight.'

In the golf swing at impact, we have 2 things going on

1. The face angle at impact (where the clubface is pointing at impact)

2. The direction the clubHEAD is traveling thru impact (aka the path).

The ball flight has two facets to it as well

A. The initial direction the ball goes in.

B. The curve it has (hook/draw or slice/fade or straight).

So...what we are trying to figure out it what causes the initial direction and what causes the curvature.

Initial Direction - Initial direction is about 85% due to where the clubface is pointing at impact. So, if the ball starts left, the face is pointing to the left. If it goes to the right initially, the face was pointing out to the right. The other 15% is due to the path.

So, let's say you have a clubface pointing at the target (0.0*). And we have a path going 10* out to the right of the target (also known as an 'inside-to-out') path. The ball's initial direction would start out about 1.5* right of the target (because 1.5* is 15% of that 10* path out to the right).



CURVATURE - is dependent upon where the path is going with relation to the face. If the path is further out to the right of where the face is pointing...that will impart hook spin.

If the path is going left of where the face is pointing at impact, that will impart fade spin (provided you are a right handed golfer)

So, let's say our clubface is going 5* right of the target. But our path is going 10* right of the target. That will mean that the path is going further out to the right than where the face is pointing. So, this ball will start out to the right initially (push) and hook because of the path.


That's the basics of D-Plane. It's great to know because like I said, something like a duck hook means that your clubface is dead closed at impact and you just need to fix the face.

There's more to D-Plane, but understanding the basics is the best place to start and then once you fully understand that...you can move onto understanding other valuable stuff. If you have any questions, just ask.





YR

[ethiostar]

So, I stoped by a small golf shop close to my house to see what they have and I ended up buying a used Ping Eye 2 3-iron black dot. I'm going to take that sucker with me next time I go to the driving range and test it out.

[Doomsday101]

So, I stoped by a small golf shop close to my house to see what they have and I ended up buying a used Ping Eye 2 3-iron black dot. I'm going to take that sucker with me next time I go to the driving range and test it out.

I have not had a 3 iron in my bag for years. Nothing wrong with it but I just find the utility clubs are easier to hit. Heck even more pros are going to the hybrids. I was skeptical myself until I tried one out.

http://www.golfsmith.com/ps/display/?page=ps_buyersguide_hybrids

[Yakuza Rich]

My bag setup is:

Driver (9.5*), 3-wood (15*), 3-hybrid (20*), 3-PW, SW (56*) and LW (60*), putter

Hybrids can be a great club to have in your bag to *game*. Good out of the rough, fairway and the tee. I use a 20* hybrid with a 21* 3-iron because I hit the hybrid further, particularly off the tee. I hit my 3-iron about 220-225 yards, my 3-hybrid about 235-240 and my 3-wood about 250-255 yards (off the tee I can sometimes hit it 275).

The problem with hybrids is if you plan on getting better and developing a better swing, they won't help much to practice with on the range because they are so easy to get up in the air. So I think if one can find an old 3-iron for like $10-$20 and go on the range and practice with it and hit it well, it's a great training tool because it will teach the golfer so many different important facets of the golf swing.

Put it this way, if a golfer can hit a 3-iron really well, they will probably be able to hit every other iron in their bag. But if they can hit a hybrid really well, then that usually doesn't mean they'll be able to hit the other clubs well.

So, practice with a 3-iron, play with the hybrids.

I actually have an old Hogan Apex PC 2-iron with a super duper stiff and heavy shaft in it. When I hit it well, it takes off like a rocket. But, tough to hit it consistently well. When I'm doing that on the range, often times I go on the course and not mis-hit an iron shot all round long.







YR

[Doomsday101]

I was using a GPS for a while but I have to say this range finder blows away the GPS, it is highly accurate and has made a big difference.

http://www.golfsmith.com/products/294272/Bushnell/Tour_V2_Laser_Rangefinder_with_Pinseeker_Technolog y

[Doomsday101]

My bag setup is:

Driver (9.5*), 3-wood (15*), 3-hybrid (20*), 3-PW, SW (56*) and LW (60*), putter

Hybrids can be a great club to have in your bag to *game*. Good out of the rough, fairway and the tee. I use a 20* hybrid with a 21* 3-iron because I hit the hybrid further, particularly off the tee. I hit my 3-iron about 220-225 yards, my 3-hybrid about 235-240 and my 3-wood about 250-255 yards (off the tee I can sometimes hit it 275).

The problem with hybrids is if you plan on getting better and developing a better swing, they won't help much to practice with on the range because they are so easy to get up in the air. So I think if one can find an old 3-iron for like $10-$20 and go on the range and practice with it and hit it well, it's a great training tool because it will teach the golfer so many different important facets of the golf swing.

Put it this way, if a golfer can hit a 3-iron really well, they will probably be able to hit every other iron in their bag. But if they can hit a hybrid really well, then that usually doesn't mean they'll be able to hit the other clubs well.

So, practice with a 3-iron, play with the hybrids.

I actually have an old Hogan Apex PC 2-iron with a super duper stiff and heavy shaft in it. When I hit it well, it takes off like a rocket. But, tough to hit it consistently well. When I'm doing that on the range, often times I go on the course and not mis-hit an iron shot all round long.







YR

Good advice. I played with a 3 iron for years heck even had a 1 Iron in my bag but as new technology came I just found these clubs worked better for me. Today I carry a Driver, 3W, 5W, hybrid, 4 through PW. I also use a 54 and 60 degree wedge.

[Yakuza Rich]

Good advice. I played with a 3 iron for years heck even had a 1 Iron in my bag but as new technology came I just found these clubs worked better for me. Today I carry a Driver, 3W, 5W, hybrid, 4 through PW. I also use a 54 and 60 degree wedge.

I haven't been fitted for clubs in a long time, so I kinda just go with what's affordable off of eBay and play with them. Part of it I've also got about 14 different sets of irons because I enjoy switching them up because it keeps things from being montonous.

I've been doing quite a bit of statistical research lately and the #1 part of the game that correlates to adjusted stroke average on the PGA Tour is proximity to the cup from 175-225 yards out. Essentially, that's where those guys lose all of their strokes because if you miss the green from that distance, golfers usually miss it quite a bit and it's tough to get up and down. And if you really miss it badly you can make double bogey or worse (or you can hit the green, be 50 feet away and 3-putt for bogey).

Upon investigating this I looked at the top PGA Tour players from that distance over the years and typically found that those players carry a bag of:

Driver
3-wood
2-hybrid or 5-wood (18*)
3-PW
SW
LW

You really don't see those players carrying a gap wedge or anything like that. In fact, not many PGA Tour players do.

So for them, it's much more important to keep the yardage gaps between the longer clubs pretty tight and they'll just figure out the yardages with their wedges.






3JACK

[Doomsday101]

I haven't been fitted for clubs in a long time, so I kinda just go with what's affordable off of eBay and play with them. Part of it I've also got about 14 different sets of irons because I enjoy switching them up because it keeps things from being montonous.

I've been doing quite a bit of statistical research lately and the #1 part of the game that correlates to adjusted stroke average on the PGA Tour is proximity to the cup from 175-225 yards out. Essentially, that's where those guys lose all of their strokes because if you miss the green from that distance, golfers usually miss it quite a bit and it's tough to get up and down. And if you really miss it badly you can make double bogey or worse (or you can hit the green, be 50 feet away and 3-putt for bogey).

Upon investigating this I looked at the top PGA Tour players from that distance over the years and typically found that those players carry a bag of:

Driver
3-wood
2-hybrid or 5-wood (18*)
3-PW
SW
LW

You really don't see those players carrying a gap wedge or anything like that. In fact, not many PGA Tour players do.

So for them, it's much more important to keep the yardage gaps between the longer clubs pretty tight and they'll just figure out the yardages with their wedges.






3JACK

Yet Mickleson will carry up to 3 wedges in his bag. Dustin Johnson has 4 different wedges in his bag. Thing about this game there are many option that fit certain players. I found that there are many on the PGA who will carry multipule wedges.

Tiger's Driver
• Nike VR Tour 8.5

Fairway Woods
• Nike VR Pro 3 Wood prototype (15 degrees)
• Nike SQ II 5 Wood (19 degrees)
*Tiger will put his 5 Wood or 2 Iron in the bag depending upon the course setup and conditions

Irons
• Nike VR Pro Blades

Wedges
• Nike 56 degree VR SW
• Nike 60 degree VR LW

[Yakuza Rich]

The majority of golfers on the PGA Tour do not carry more than a PW, SW and LW.

Not saying that none do, but the vast majority don't.

The reason is simple...any shot that can be hit with a gap wedge can be hit pretty darn well with a SW. But if you're 238 yards away and you only have a 3-wood which you hit well past that and a 3-iron which you hit short of that...it's a big problem and you can lose a ton of strokes. Plus, on the Tour they can get those types of shots about 4 times a round because of the long par-3's and par-4's. Those shots...if executed poorly can lead to bogeys or worse so they can't recover.

I carry a hybrid over a 2-iron because it's much better from the rough. Sometimes you get those tough lies on a par-5 and you can't hit them with a 3-wood or a 2-iron. A 3-iron is a little better, but you lose quite a bit of distance. I've contemplated the 5-wood, too although I'm not sure why it would be better than a hybrid other than maybe liking the looks a bit better






YR

[Doomsday101]

The majority of golfers on the PGA Tour do not carry more than a PW, SW and LW.

Not saying that none do, but the vast majority don't.

The reason is simple...any shot that can be hit with a gap wedge can be hit pretty darn well with a SW. But if you're 238 yards away and you only have a 3-wood which you hit well past that and a 3-iron which you hit short of that...it's a big problem and you can lose a ton of strokes. Plus, on the Tour they can get those types of shots about 4 times a round because of the long par-3's and par-4's. Those shots...if executed poorly can lead to bogeys or worse so they can't recover.

I carry a hybrid over a 2-iron because it's much better from the rough. Sometimes you get those tough lies on a par-5 and you can't hit them with a 3-wood or a 2-iron. A 3-iron is a little better, but you lose quite a bit of distance. I've contemplated the 5-wood, too although I'm not sure why it would be better than a hybrid other than maybe liking the looks a bit better






YR

It is not about how many do or don't the ones who do do so for a reason. Quite frankly there can be vast differances from one event to another in what clubs a guy has in his bag.

Bubba Watson
Zurich Classic, PGA Tour
Driver: Ping G15 (7.5 degrees, Grafalloy Bi-Matrix prototype shaft)
Fairway Wood: Ping G15 5-wood (17 degrees, True Temper Project X8A1 shaft)
Irons (3-PW): Ping S59 (True Temper Dynamic Gold X100 shafts)
Wedges: Ping Tour-W (52 and 56 degrees), Ping Tour-S Rustique TS (64 degrees)

Lee Westwood
Ballantine's Championship, European Tour
Driver: Ping G10 (9 degrees, Aldila NV VooDoo XNVS shaft)
Fairway Woods: Ping i15 3-wood (15.5 degrees) and Ping Rapture V2 5-wood (18.5 degrees, Aldila NV 75 shaft)
Irons (3-PW): Ping i10 (Ping JZ Stiff shafts)
Wedges: Ping Tour-W (54 and 58 degrees)

Ted Potter Jr.
South Georgia Classic, Nationwide Tour
Driver: Cleveland Launcher DST Tour (9.5 degrees, Aldila RIP 60 shaft)
Fairway Wood: Cleveland Launcher Comp 3-wood (15 degrees, Aldila VooDoo XVS7 shaft)
Hybrid: Cleveland Launcher (20.5 degrees, Aldila VooDoo XVS9 shaft)
Irons (4-PW): Cleveland CG1 Tour
Wedges: Cleveland CG14 (52, 56 and 60 degrees)


Any of these guys at the next event may change up what they will do.