If this analogy works for anyone, consider the moment of impact in the golf swing as the moment a door swings closed.
At impact, the door has swung shut, so one must ask oneself, “from which point is the door shutting?”
I recently posted about the trailing arm as the piston producing the down swing force in an ideal golf swing, and what exactly is the trailing arm moving?
Of course, it would be the hands and club, but also the leading arm, which is where the club reaches the swing bottom:
So, the trailing is the piston powering the down swing, but there is also the leveraging action of the leading arm dropping from the top to vertical position, aided by the turning of the shoulders and the lifting of the leading shoulder.
Alright, so look again at the impact position and ask yourself where you would want your body weight to be concentrated at the moment of the down swing to impact – hint, if you were to throw something, where would you want your body weight at the moment of release?
Yes, the person in the back, you are correct – on the leading foot in order to both employ the trailing arm piston action and also to leverage the leading arm and club down using the body weight.
So, how exactly is this below anywhere near mechanically sound?
This action above is a pure example of how one swings a golf club without ever transferring the bulk of one’s weight to the leading foot.
If you want to know how utterly ridiculous it is, try this the next time you’re at the range – stand over a ball and make your back swing pivot, then lift your leading foot off the ground as you swing down and through – just don’t do it very hard, as I don’t want anyone hurting themselves, just to illustrate a point.
Absolutely not the way you should swing a club, correct?
And yet, you now have pundits on television praising the move, because they have no idea what is going on and have to invent things like “vertical lift” or “using the ground” to explain it.
I guarantee you, they don’t know why the swinger is doing it. Even the swingers don’t or they wouldn’t have to swing that way.
The reason is that for some reason, golfers are obsessed with keeping the trailing foot anchored through the down swing to the finish, when the trailing foot should play no part in the down swing once halfway down, as the bulk of the weight will or should be in the leading foot and leg.
The only way to swing that way and not snap yourself like a pretzel is to release the force by lifting the leading foot off the ground.
So, a solution (flying foot) to a problem that shouldn’t exist (anchoring the trailing foot).
The difference between yourself and the guys doing it on Tours around the world is that they’re already in the 1% of top golf talent and will outplay you and each other however they are swinging.
They’re not playing great golf because of this swing flaw, rather they’re playing great scoring golf despite this swing flaw.
Kind of how Kyle Berkshire is the reigning long drive king not because of his flying foot technique, but despite it, especially since everyone else has begun to copy the ridiculous move.
Get off your trailing foot and onto the leading foot, release the trailing foot as one does naturally when walking, running or throwing something, and that’s all she wrote!
Just as Tiger Woods, in my opinion, is one of the all-time greats of golf, but had the worst swing ever, mechanically-speaking, of all the greats.
He is an all-time great not because of the way he swung a golf club, but despite it. Of course, with all of his swing iterations, he required Ben Hogan-level dedication to hitting balls on the range and golf course when not competing in order to keep it all together.
Had he been taught a mechanically-sound Classic Golf Swing, with his talent and work ethic, he would almost certainly be in the mid-to-high 20’s in major wins or more, never having had to constantly re-tool his swing over the years to accommodate his growing laundry list of physical issues the various harmful swing models caused.
Imagine a Tiger Woods who, like Jack Nicholas, had been taught a swing that only had to be given an annual checkup and tune-up to get back to the basic model, had never suffered any significant injuries caused by swinging (Jack injured himself playing tennis once, which was his longest layoff due to any type of injury).
How many more events and majors would TW have won, especially if he were as fit at his age as Jack had been at the same age?
And how much better would these Flying Foot pros be if they actually learned proper swing mechanics?
Notice how no one pro golfer dominates the game anymore for more than a short stretch at a time when they get hot, before they kind of go away and either come back or are never really heard from again?
You can only do so much with such a massive hole in your swing technique and talent will only push you so far around the track.
Something to mull, perhaps.
WAX Golf 
I’ll be re-reading this article DJ, a lot going on here. While I do not disagree with you about Tiger winning a lot more majors had he a better mc swing, it doesn’t make him a better golfer than Jack Nicklaus. I used to play some occasional golf with Frank Thomas, the technical director at the USGA from ’74 to 2000. Of course I would pepper him with questions here and there about things such as the long putter “it’s the only time the Executive Committee disagreed with me and they have regretted it ever since”. On which ball tested as the best, he answered “I am not allowed to tell you” while holding a Titleist Balata to his cheek. Which leads me to the story of him telling Jack Nicklaus that he would have won twice as many majors if he had used a decent ball, that the MacGregor ball that he was so loyal to tested deplorably. But MacGregor sponsored him and he was Ohio country boy loyal.
All the best DJ, enjoy the heck out of your blog.
Geoff
Hi Geoff!
Thanks for the kind words, sir.
I actually agree with you that TW is not or was not better than Jack. Nicholas had no one to chase after he surpassed Bobby Jones in major victories and was more interested in fishing than playing golf for most of his career, yet won more majors than even TW who lived breathed and ate practice.
Jack also won all of those events and majors playing against opponents who also had mechanically sound swing models. He played against other greats who didn’t fold like beach chairs when he arrived on the 1st tee.
And he did it all in his spare time, with an inferior golf ball to boot.
I stand by my assertion than TW would have won many more majors with a swing model that was mechanically sound and didn’t require round the clock practice , but at the same time, how many more would JN have won with more dedication to playing, with a number to chase AND with the best equipment he could play?
I only bring up TW because what cost him majors was the manner in which he swung a golf club, while Jack is the all time major winner who barely practiced and fished more than he played.
Jack, in my opinion, was better!
DJ
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2009/11/25/looking-back-macgregors-golf-balls/
While the evidence looks fairly convincing that Jack played an inferior ball, looking at the golf ball from another dynamic, one that would not have been picked up by Iron Byron, Jack may have worked that ball and it’s idiosyncrasies to his advantage. Ben Hogan and others in the day, used to carry a ball ring to check for the perfect roundness of the golf ball. As from the up to 15 yard dispersion seen in Iron Byron shots with the MacGregor ball, clearly those balls weren’t round. But is that irregularitiy a hindering defect? American football is played with a no roundness ball and kickers, punters and quarterbacks have no problem getting the ball to their required distant destination with extreme accuracy and more so than if they had to lob a round ball of similar size!
for instance, in a tee shot, couldn’t Jack place the ball on the tee like a field goal kicker hit the ball going end over end with great distance and accuracy which he did. For fairway shots, could he not have hit tight spirals like a qb or punter to deliver the ball in great accuracy to the pin which he did! And for putting, couldn’t the unique egg shape iof the ball give it a dual gyroscopic effect and stability minimizing the ball’s tendency to break and allow for putts to go in the hole with high frequency which they did!
I say we shouldn’t be saying Jack could have won a few more majors but he used the MacGregor ball to an advantage to win a few that he might not of.
Fair points, Chief – however my opinion on JN vs TW hinges on several factors.
Nicklaus was winning majors before they were even considered “majors.” For example, the Western Open was once considered a major tournament in the 60’s, and even when they became majors, Nicklaus had no one to chase after he surpassed Bobby Jones.
TW set out with Nicklaus’ majors total taped to his bedroom wall, and he still fell short of 18. He had a number to go after and didn’t reach it. Nicklaus was winning majors between fishing trips.
Also, Jack had 19 runner-up finishes. Tiger had 7.
That’s 3 more majors, 12 more runner up finishes and 37 top 2 finishes to Tiger’s 22.
Statistically, research on winners on Tour shows that Jack’s era was as competitive as Tiger’s was.
Add to this the fact that Jack barely worked on his swing while Tiger broke his body on the altar of the modern swing and over-work… as a player and champion, Jack is above Tiger in my humble opinion.
The balls they used may or may not have given one an advantage and maybe/maybe not a disadvantage for the other… the above numbers to me suggest that Tiger won about as many majors as he could have, perhaps more than he should have, while Jack likely underachieved (19 runners up!) and probably should have won more.
Just my own opinion.
Hello DJ. Kyle Berkshire and lots of others with the flying foot syndrome have a square stance. How much of the flying could be alleviated with a flared stance as it seems the flying is a natural reaction of the foot to get into a proper finish position? Thank you for your research.
Hi Chief!
Been a while, hoping you & the Mrs are doing well.
Great question, by the way. I’ve looked at the issue of the flare angle with the Flying Footers.
My research however has determined that a proper down swing action doesn’t require much if any flare in the leading foot.
When I was myself swinging with too much rotation on the downswing, I found that even with a flared leading foot, there was still twisting stress on the leading leg.
So, it’s kind of a yes and no – the Flying Footers have square-ish leading feet, but the bulk of the flying comes from the twisting force and the anchored trailing leg. So even with a flared foot, that anchored trailing leg necessitates the release of the leading foot.
If you look at Dunaway’s swing, he had a very squared leading foot comparatively, but didn’t have a Flying Foot because he wasn’t rotating in the downswing and what rotation that did occur post-impact was alleviated by the step-around finish.