Golfers: Stack and Tilt?

[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:

[youtube]60EPi4eYHSE&feature[/youtube]

 

[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