Bear in mind that there is a difference between the standard Classic Golf Swing and what I call the optimal Classic Golf Swing, and there will be two obvious differences between the two – the grip and the footwork.
Many people who play golf either pay little heed or none at all to the crucial element of footwork.
I hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable New Year – but I’ve just watched a Youtube video from a channel that purports to be about “Athletic Motion” in the golf swing – and all they’re doing is superimposing a modern pro swing model onto a screen and comparing it to the struggling student’s action.
At this point, I switched the video off in disgust and said aloud to no one but myself, “Golf is the ONLY sport…!!!”
It’s certain that this will be WAX Golf’s last post of 2023 and I thought I’d return to one of my pet peeves.
I don’t think I’ll ever be able to convince the world at large that the Flying Foot Syndrome is a swing flaw and not an aid – it goes back so far that I even found evidence of it going back to the Bing Crosby event days.
Greg Norman is considered to have been the greatest driver ever using a persimmon club and his slide from dominance actually came as a consequence of the introduction of larger, metal-headed clubs which allowed lesser drivers to equal him in accuracy and distance because they were more forgiving.
Just as Lord Byron Nelson replied more or less when asked how much modern equipment would have helped him, “Not at all – I struck the ball with the sweet spot, so more forgiving clubs wouldn’t have improved my game,” this would apply in part to Norman as well.
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.
Here’s something neat that I’ve recently worked out about the Nicklaus head turn before he began his back pivot – it wasn’t a shift, just a turn.
If you already knew that, here’s the catch – it wasn’t to “get his head out of the way of the shoulder turn” as people have stated in their analysis – it was simply that his final setup component was to put his head where it was supposed to be at impact.
I made mention of Jack’s grip a little while back and that I was still looking into it, and I believe I have just figured out what made him so powerful and yet so accurate simultaneously.
Take a look at his 1963 grip at a time where he was becoming dominant – he won six events that year and the only year in which he won more events was in 1973, video of which I’m trying to hunt down to look at his stance and grip for a comparison.
I should perhaps at the outset of this posting provide a caveat of sorts – when I say that Jack Nicklaus’ swing model was the closest I’ve seen to the optimal Classic Golf Swing, I mean a certain version.
His swing changed over the years with regards to his setup and sometimes it was not even a good one, let alone close to optimal – yes, even the Golden Bear strayed away from his principles at times, by his own admission.
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?
WAX Golf 