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?
You’ll all remember my dive into Jack Nicklaus’ stance and grip in recent times, and if someone were to ask me right this moment what the “optimal setup” to which I referred yesterday, I’d say, “It’s Jack Nicklaus’ 1963’s stance, adjusted for width.”
I’ve been going over the 3 swing models performed from the same setup, and other than the head cock in Nicklaus’ picture below, this is how I’m setting, with perhaps a slightly stronger right hand grip.
It never ceases to amaze me how the modern media do backflips over anything a modern player does, as if today’s best player is the greatest ever.
Here’s yet another point, where Tiger Woods apparently is a god because when he was at his best, he didn’t take divots with his irons.
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.
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.
I got a fresh look at Bryson DeChambeau’s driver swing from the weekend when he drove a 384 yard Par 4 green, and it looks pretty good, form-wise, compared to what he’s been doing before when I’d have a look.
I don’t know if there was a stiff following breeze (there is a good breeze and I doubt it was against, but it could have been a cross-wind) or if it was significantly downhill, but 384 in any conditions is a pretty good pop!
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?
Harvey Penick was indeed a great golf instructor, but the “Magic Move” in his book and the one discussed in the below video clip is nothing more than proper basic swing mechanics.
I say this because there is actually nothing magic about the move being discussed, as you can be a horrific over-the-top swinger and still be performing the move, and you’d struggle to understand why it’s called a “magic move” at all.
WAX Golf 