Non-Traditional Golf Swing Discussion

scotts33 · 2018-09-08T18:16:05+00:00

Since, there seems some interest in non-traditional methods of the golf swing. Here are 3 that I have tried or used. There are more but these three I feel...

garyt1957

rsvman Interesting,Sparks also mentions the dance de golf. Wonder who came up with it first?

ptjn1201

I remember seeing Sparks' videos on the dance first, though that doesn't mean he was the pioneer. Since they talk of Danse du Golf, I'd assume it started with a Frenchman.

garyt1957

ptjn1201 I'm thinking Sparks got smart and brought the concept to the English speaking market. Seems like the other guy is likely the originator.

rsvman

sdandrea1 I was going to warn people to ignore the pants and look at the swing ideas, but I decided that most people would find a way past it.
Guess I was wrong, lol.

DonM

fatshot I didn’t lose or gain distance.

ptjn1201

Maybe you need the pants

rsvman

garyt1957 I think so, too.

The French guy adds the thing with the swing path device, which I think is interesting. Especially for a beginner, seeing that orange/red stick pointing way right of the target teaches them right away to not come over the top. It grooves an in-to-out swing right off the bat. I think it's pretty genius, really.

Sneakylong

Larry Rinker advocates measuring golfers to see if they are an upper core, mid core or a lower core golfer. Then there are things you work on to fit your natural swing type. 75 percent of golfers he's measured are upper core.

For example upper core golfers tend to have an earlier release and the least rotated thru impact. Mid core has a little later release an more rotation and lower core has the most rotation thru impact and the latest release.

A Dr. Wright came up with these measurements and basically golfers fall into a number. 1,2,3 low core, 4,5,6 mid core and 7,8,9 upper core.

Anyway, I listen to Rinker on PGA radio and his theory makes sense. He tells stories when he was on Tour (now knowing he's upper core) trying to get more rotated thru impact and having more forward shaft lean / later release. Basically fighting a losing battle going against his natural swing.

rsvman

Sneakylong I'd guess that a traditional teacher would say that he is merely pointing out how much most golfers fail to reproduce a "good swing." The "low-core" swing would be ideal, they would say. Most people don't have an ideal swing.

Some people's swing are pretty darned good, but not ideal. These Rinker calls "mid-core." Some people's swing are really suboptimal (actually most people's swings are really suboptimal). These Rinker calls "high-core."

What's the counter-argument?

pellmell

Sneakylong All I see is bad swings. This is a classic example of the blind leading the blind.

kelco9

Sneakylong This is an interesting post in that I think it points to a need for tailoring instruction to a person's body and natural tendencies. We tend to think that there is a one-size-fits all approach, and that is the swing swung by the pros. As is being discussed in this thread, that's not the right thinking.

I have a friend who has a really strong, solid build, with a lot of upper body strength and very little flexibility (and, from what I have seen, very little sense of rhythm or gracefulness -- think "bull in a China shop). He played pretty good golf with an entirely arms-driven swing, moving his hips VERY little, and noticeably pausing at the top of his swing before firing his hands. Not exactly elegant or graceful, but it was effective.

When my friend started struggling with his game and went for a couple of lessons, the pro immediately identified the problem as not rotating enough and not getting the club to parallel at the top. He started having my friend work on this, along with trying to create more tempo and rhythm. These are all good things, but I don't think they are right for him, and his struggles only deepened. The pro's response was "Just keep working at it." I think that's completely wrong, particularly for people who don't tend to practice much (which is most people). I suggested that my friend look at Trahan's swing because it is arms-driven, which matches up with his build and natural tendencies. Early indications suggest this is the way to go, but we'll see.

Bigborgel

Only alt-swing I have ever tried was Don Trahan's Peak Performance GS. Today, I only use it for my driver swing, and it works well. I found that with hybrids and irons, it makes me steep, and I hit a lot of fat shots. My iron swing is now a blend of the PPGS and a regular rotary.

garyt1957

Bigborgel Interesting because most people love the trahan swing for irons but can't make it work for driver.

kelco9

Bigborgel Interesting. I used Don's swing for a couple of years and really had good success with it. However, my experience was the opposite of yours. My success was with all the irons, but I couldn't swing a driver with it to save my life. In fact, I think it was because I had to use the rotary swing with the driver that I slowly migrated back to using it with all my clubs.

Sneakylong

rsvman

First, I'm not advocating this method. I'm just passing along the info. The counter argument is this Dr. Wright has come up with a measurement and some of it is also a static (little movement) measurement and that tells you which category you fall into. There's YouTube videos of Dr. Wright showing these measurements.

Rinker's data shows most golfers fall into the upper core category. Meaning you most likely will benefit doing what Rinker says works best for upper core swingers with an early release / less rotated.

Most golfers release falls in a spectrum between early and mid. The late release / more rotated thru impact like Dustin Johnson are the smallest number.

He never says one is better than the other. He says the mid core has what people call the prettiest swing. But the best looking swing on video isn't necessarily the best swing if it doesn't work for you .

Also, if you fall in between you can pick one over the other. So, let's say you're a 6. You could use the recommendations for a mid core player or an upper core player.

Look, I give these guys credit who challenge the conventional wisdom that everyone should look like Adam Scott. The conventional swing has been a failure IMO. Sometimes it's a good thing to think out of the box.

In Rinker's case (he played on the PGA Tour) he tried the cookie cutter conventional wisdom swing trying to get a late release / more rotated thru impact and he struggled.

I've always believed a teacher should look at your swing and have the knowledge to come up with recommendations that would work the best for each individual.

Let me take the early release issue most hackers (including myself) have. Your release is inherent in your swing DNA. It's extremely difficult to change it. If you ask a golfer with a natural later release and ask them how they do it they won't be able to tell you.

They're not intentionally holding any angles or anything they can pass on. They do it naturally. They may have a feel, but as we know feel is very much an individual thing.

Anyway, that's the counter argument. ☺

Weirfan

I often get comments that my swing looks very much like Ben Hogans 😉 ROTF......in fact KChacker made such a comment in our match at Verrado Saturday......orr perhaps I am mis remembering ...lol. In all seriousness, use what works and is comfortable for you....I recall Lowpost42 once describing my game as the 7 capper with the 20 capper swing.....

I am in agreement with Tinker on this one, two main flaws for most ams are casting and reverse pivot, both are very simple fixes with minimal work.

rsvman

Weirfan I'm your opposite. I'm the 12-13 handicapper with the 2-capper swing. I often get comments about how great my swing looks. Sadly, I'm still a 12-13 'capper, But I look good doing it!

sdandrea1

Back to reality today with a normal (for me) 82.

8 pars and 10 bogies. Much harder course (P.B. Dye) but the Sparks method has really helped my ball striking. If I can play pain-free and hit these old Eye 2s, this is for me!

mikeintopeka

Sneakylong I've always believed a teacher should look at your swing and have the knowledge to come up with recommendations that would work the best for each individual.

I've always believed that too and tell newbies to the game to seek out an instructor like this after they begin making consistent contact. That way, the instructor can 'tweek' the swing to bring more distance and control. The other side is the pro that infers everything is all wrong and you need to start over beginning with the grip, stance, pivot, etc. Many of these type of pros have been to a PGA Marketing 101 class and set up the student for a series of many lessons IMO.

rsvman

Sneakylong Thanks!

Sneakylong

http://www.channellockgolfswing.com/

In case anyone is interested here's the new website for Channel Lock.

garyt1957

Sneakylong Wow, didn't know he had a website. He must really thik he's on to something. I'll have to give it another look. Whe I tried it whe he first came out with it, I foud it really hard on the back.

garyt1957

Just watched the first 5 minutes of the overview and the similarities to Venetos is pretty glaring. He's Venetos with a little movement. Already saw someting i did wrong when I first tried it.

Sneakylong

garyt1957

The website is brand new. Both CL and Venetos both have closed shoulders which is key for me. CL seems easier for me. One thing people could do wrong is suck the club too inside which if you watch JH it's how he demonstrates the swing. But in practice he doesn't do that.

Phillips says you don't need to manufacture the back swing with trying to hit positions. Just swing back along your closed shoulder line. If you notice both JH and Philipps have short flat backswings and both hit a natural draw before CL.

I'm giving it a try because my shoulders open up and go left too soon. I don't care about hitting draw. Straight is fine with me. I was worried the ball flight would be too low, but was surprised that it wasn't. I always played my wedges back in my stance, so CL does seem that foreign in that regard.

In any method there has to be some flexibility. I did it for the first time on Monday and I found I couldn't play the ball as far back as they advocate. I found it worked better not as far back as off the big toe. My wider stance may be why. JH does say you don't have to play the ball that far back with the driver.

Anyway, I'm going to use it again tomorrow and see what happens. Also, Bill Phillips quit CL three times and Matt Gray quit once. But that was when CL was still evolving and JH hadn't finalized the protocols and they were overdoing some of the protocols. Here's a video with Phillips showing the pitfalls when first learning CL.

« Previous Page Next Page »