I have talked about how rotation is the enemy of gravity, and for some this may seem strange, as the popular opinion is that one must rotate in the golf swing.
That opinion is wrong, mechanically-speaking, and I’ll show you an example in the extreme to illustrate the difference between a proper rotation around the supporting leg over rotating in place during a swing.
I said a couple of years ago that I would tone down my aggressive rhetoric when discussing the Modern Golf Swing and all of its madness.
I am only human however and sometimes I just can’t sugarcoat my despair about how I regularly trip over incredible golf videos and articles, and by incredible I mean, I can’t believe what I’m watching and reading.
I have continued to work on the swing model and am currently just doing speed work with the swing aid to prepare for my next swing session.
One thing I’ve noticed is that, since I came up with the stance and mechanical action for my re-made swing, I would likely swing exactly the same way whether I was making a smooth swing on the course or trying to pound the cover off the ball.
Grumpy Post Warning: I had no idea when I clicked on the following YouTube video that it would so depress me.
I mean, 10 “Amazing” golf swings, there’s got to be at least a few swings that would be mechanically-sound, right?
WRONG.
The video from Golf Digest is called The Science Behind Gordon Sargent’s Insane Swing Speed, but I’ll just call it what it is – A Recipe For Disaster.
I’ve already (long ago) pointed out that any real science that looks at the X Factor notion of Jim McLean infamy concludes that it is physically unsound and puts golfers at a higher risk of back injury, but why quibble?
Have you ever heard the concept of, “so close to being great, but one omission makes it a failing grade?”
That’s my opinion on the Golf.com article featuring Kellie Stenzel, outlining the top ten fundamentals needed for a great golf swing.
It seems someone at Golf.com woke up from a decades-long slumber to discover that Bryson DeChambeau’s prodigious power and length off the tee come from basic swing fundamentals that have been around since the days of… well, forever.
In an article I came across today, there was an expectation before I clicked on the link, from the headline, that something juicy and secret was about to be shared.
You all know my opinions on the Modern Golf Swing, the primary three being that a) it’s mechanically unsound, which is the only disqualifier one should need, b) it’s not as efficient in generating power through leverage and 3) it requires nonstop practice to maintain.
I can show you with a simple gif. moving image whence the leverage derives in the Classic Golf Swing, and why the Modern swing mechanics fall short of it.
I wrote a post a few weeks ago about how I’d been looking at Jack Nicklaus’ very vigorous and aggressive leg action and that I think it’s the way one must perform one’s leg and hip action for maximum efficiency.
In the intervening two months, I’ve been looking at the setup and the pivot itself (not the leg action, but the back swing pivot angle with regards to arms and hands going back), and while doing that, I re-affirmed the overwhelming importance of that leg and hip action.
Back in 2016, I had a swing that largely resembled John Daly’s with regards to the back swing length and top position, and I’m curious about one thing.
That thing would, could I match the club and ball speed I was generating back then with the new, rebuilt swing upon which I’ve been working the last year?
WAX Golf 