pellmell
That's your opinion which doesn't make it correct. I wouldn't get caught up with semantics whether to call unconventional swings 'methods'. I'm using that term. You can use unconventional, non traditional or whatever.
Makes no difference to me. A method indicates that there are some protocols that help the golfer get the desired results. That's a good thing IMO.
Some would consider Jim Furyk's swing unconventional. He stands very close to the ball and takes it back very steep with a flying elbow and then he loops it back inside while externally rotating his right arm in the down swing to shallow it out and makes it work. Anyone teaching that swing? He certainly makes compensations. Bubba's swing is unconventional, but he makes it work even with his dancing footwork. Anyone teaching that swing.
If someone were to teach Furyk's swing they'd need some protocols to help the golfer achieve the desired results. One would be stand close to the ball. Next take the club up steeply with a disconnected flying right elbow. Then externally rotate your right arm as you start your down swing. Eccentric enough for you? We can call it the Furyk method. 😉
Is Don Trahan's Peak Performance swing eccentric? He goes against the now taught rotational 'conventional' PGA manual swing. Tell me Miller Barbers swing was conventional.
I don't see where John Hensby, Bill Phillips, Matt Gray or the other Matt are making compensations. I'm not interested getting into a pissing contest with someone with a closed mind regarding unconventional golf swings.
After all the title of the thread is Non-Traditional Golf Swing Discussion. CL tries to eliminate the ball from going way left. Who cares if it's unconventional. If it works for some that's great. But to ignorantly spout off and make an all encompassing statement that any swing with eccentricities is bad, is foolish IMO.
The PGA Tour has been and is still full of eccentricities.