|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Gateway Moderator
, Member
Joined: 9/23/2009
Posts: 70
Points: 210
Location: USA
|
I think there are about 100 different ideas floating around out there about what should be the fundamentals of the golf swing. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing the talk. It's mostly gibberish IMO. YES, we should all go back to the simple things that get us on track for better ball striking, but calling them "fundamentals" is at best plagiarizing. (At worst, laziness) Every golf swing has it's own individual nature and therefore what is most important to every player will be just as individualistic. There are, however, CONSTANTS. Club-face and path. We already talked about what you can do to manipulate the club-face (change grip, change shoulders, or change release). The path isn't much more difficult either. Maintain a steady axis and a steady radius. You do that by swinging within yourself so you don't bob up and down or side to side. You also stay relaxed during the swing and do not add any unnecessary effort to control the club. Just go to the finish.
Need A Swing Analysis?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/21/2008
Posts: 154
Points: 483
Location: Canada
|
Ringer wrote:I think there are about 100 different ideas floating around out there about what should be the fundamentals of the golf swing. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing the talk. It's mostly gibberish IMO. YES, we should all go back to the simple things that get us on track for better ball striking, but calling them "fundamentals" is at best plagiarizing. (At worst, laziness)
Every golf swing has it's own individual nature and therefore what is most important to every player will be just as individualistic.
There are, however, CONSTANTS. Club-face and path.
We already talked about what you can do to manipulate the club-face (change grip, change shoulders, or change release). The path isn't much more difficult either.
Maintain a steady axis and a steady radius. You do that by swinging within yourself so you don't bob up and down or side to side.
Why don't you try to analyze a few swings regarding these 2 main Constants ? See if your Constants translates well into help Golfers understand their swing. Post a link to the reviews to this thread, I'd like to see how your approach translates into helping the golfer. Forinstance, someone pulling it inside on the backswing could keep a constant radius, but be well below the plane. Do you think a super flat swing plane is OK ? Should you add "On plane" as a good thing to keep Constant ? Quote:You also stay relaxed during the swing and do add any unnecessary effort to control the club. Just go to the finish. I like this one.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Gateway Moderator
, Member
Joined: 9/23/2009
Posts: 70
Points: 210
Location: USA
|
That last statement should read, "You also stay relaxed during the swing and do NOT add any unnecessary effort to control the club. Just go to the finish."
Need A Swing Analysis?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Gateway Moderator
, Member
Joined: 9/23/2009
Posts: 70
Points: 210
Location: USA
|
stackandtilt wrote:Ringer wrote:I think there are about 100 different ideas floating around out there about what should be the fundamentals of the golf swing. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing the talk. It's mostly gibberish IMO. YES, we should all go back to the simple things that get us on track for better ball striking, but calling them "fundamentals" is at best plagiarizing. (At worst, laziness)
Every golf swing has it's own individual nature and therefore what is most important to every player will be just as individualistic.
There are, however, CONSTANTS. Club-face and path.
We already talked about what you can do to manipulate the club-face (change grip, change shoulders, or change release). The path isn't much more difficult either.
Maintain a steady axis and a steady radius. You do that by swinging within yourself so you don't bob up and down or side to side.
Why don't you try to analyze a few swings regarding these 2 main Constants ? See if your Constants translates well into help Golfers understand their swing. Post a link to the reviews to this thread, I'd like to see how your approach translates into helping the golfer. Forinstance, someone pulling it inside on the backswing could keep a constant radius, but be well below the plane. Do you think a super flat swing plane is OK ? Should you add "On plane" as a good thing to keep Constant ? Quote:You also stay relaxed during the swing and do add any unnecessary effort to control the club. Just go to the finish. I like this one. That is a good challenge.
Need A Swing Analysis?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/21/2008
Posts: 154
Points: 483
Location: Canada
|
Yea. My brain added the NOT automatically.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/21/2008
Posts: 154
Points: 483
Location: Canada
|
I don't think your 2 constants can translate into telling the golfer what they are doing wrong. In the end you'll have to describe what they did to pull the club off the path, etc. You've taken the focus away from the golfer and put the focus on the club. At another level, you could say that path and club face are irrelevant. If I focus on the ball, the club and the golfer are irrelevant. In this theory only two things are important: (1) location of ball compression. (2) direction of ball compression. Well, (3) amount of ball compression (determines distance).  So is my reductionist view of the golf (ball compression) valid ? Yes. Does it really help translate to the golfer what to do with the club and the body ? No.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Gateway Moderator
, Member
Joined: 9/23/2009
Posts: 70
Points: 210
Location: USA
|
stackandtilt wrote:I don't think your 2 constants can translate into telling the golfer what they are doing wrong. In the end you'll have to describe what they did to pull the club off the path, etc. You've taken the focus away from the golfer and put the focus on the club. At another level, you could say that path and club face are irrelevant. If I focus on the ball, the club and the golfer are irrelevant. In this theory only two things are important: (1) location of ball compression. (2) direction of ball compression. Well, (3) amount of ball compression (determines distance). So is my reductionist view of the golf (ball compression) valid ? Yes. Does it really help translate to the golfer what to do with the club and the body ? No. It's more of a matter of understanding what components control which of those two constants. Grip, shoulders at impact, and release determine club-face. There are several components that manage the path including those three already mentioned. However it could be stated simply that axis tilt and steady radius will translate into proper path. I'm just tired of hearing 100 different sets of "fundamentals" from 100 different people.
Need A Swing Analysis?
|
|
|
Guest |