PDA

View Full Version : What can we learn from the old boys today.



virge666
10th June 2009, 05:25 PM
Here is a Q for you all - what can we learn from the old players today. Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, those kind of guys.

Lets keep their mental game out of it. Don't really care about how mentally strong they might have been. I am talking about their swing technique.

I reckon bugger all. Mainly due to the change in golf equipment and green keeping equipment and the advent of golf being a power game. But I am open to abuse...

Thoughts....

Jarro
10th June 2009, 05:28 PM
Probably heaps.

Don't a lot of teachers (Edwin included) still draw on Hogans swing when teaching students ? Surely some of the fundamentals that Moe Norman used would be handy to know in todays game ??

Where are we going with this Virge ?????

Webster
10th June 2009, 05:32 PM
My observation would be that with the exception of Hogan and Moe Norman, they were focussed solely on getting the ball into the hole with the least strokes possible. It wasn't about the swing, it was about the score.

virge666
10th June 2009, 05:33 PM
Where are we going with this Virge ?????

Dunno, just seeing what people think.. I completely ignore the old guys, i reckon not one of them would make the PGA tour with the swing they had in the 30 and 40's.

As i said - I am completely open on this to everyone's ideas... I just think comparing players in golf is like comparing players in Tennis. It is a TOTALLY different game nowadays.

Sure there are basic fundementals... being on plane at impact for example - but that is more commonsense than anything else.

Anyway - bring on your thoughts...

Scottt
10th June 2009, 05:39 PM
If you have read Hogan's Five Lessons, Virge, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. What struck me was that in many of the things he writes, it's as if he predicted the game would mutate slightly as players got bigger and stronger.

He re-released it in the 1980s and said he wouldn't change a word of it because the principles were exactly the same then as in the 1950s. Of course ionomer covers, titanium heads and graphite shafts still weren't around in the 80s.

Having said that, even now, I know many Touring pros refer to it regularly when checking/tightening their swing.

zigwah
10th June 2009, 05:43 PM
Yeah i wonder how hogan would have went with an R9tp scotty cameron vokey wedges and the plethora of options they would now have with their swing, they still had to hit it straight they still had to putt on dodgier greens than now a days.

They also couldn't see their swings down to the very last frame,frame by frame, they didn't hav the physcologists and monitor every minute movement.

Everyone except tiger would be behind the greats if they were in this era with the equipment we have now imo

virge666
10th June 2009, 05:46 PM
If you have read Hogan's Five Lessons

Read it - have read other books about that book and have seen DVD's from other people all about that book.

The 5 lessons is a book for a very flat one plane golf swing, that takes the left hand side of the golf course out of play. it is a very agressive swing full of danger on both sides.

It is an Anti-Hookers saving grace.

Can anyone show me a swing that looks even remotely like Hogan, Jacobson, McCarron and maybe with one eye shut... Zach Johnson, but no one pronates like he did because they are not that flat on the backswing.

Back then - the hands ruled the roost. Nowadays it is all about rotation, I think Hogan and Moe was the first to really get Rotation as a major power source happening.

virge666
10th June 2009, 05:49 PM
Everyone except tiger would be behind the greats if they were in this era with the equipment we have now imo

I couldn't disagree more. There will never be another Seve B as the game no longer allows a Seve to be successful.

I reckon a bloke in the top 100 would smash almost all of the guys back then.


My observation would be that with the exception of Hogan and Moe Norman, they were focussed solely on getting the ball into the hole with the least strokes possible. It wasn't about the swing, it was about the score.

Nice one Jack. i am with you all the way.

zigwah
10th June 2009, 05:52 PM
So what puts tiger so far in front of anyone? surely Hogan,Sneed,Nicklus and Tiger would be an awsome foursome to watch all using todays technology.

virge666
10th June 2009, 05:56 PM
So what puts tiger so far in front of anyone? surely Hogan,Sneed,Nicklus and Tiger would be an awsome foursome to watch all using todays technology.

He works harder than everyone else, and he is talented.

Sneeds swing is too steep for todays balls and technology - and he would be about 200th is driving distance. Same goes for Bobby Jones.

Nicklaus is a modern player, he still hits is bloody well. Hogan is also the first of the rotators... so he and Nicklaus are in the same boat.

Scottt
10th June 2009, 06:00 PM
Virge - how far have Love III, O'Meara and Faldo's swings come since the 80s?

They are about as close as I can think of dominant players who straddled the two eras of equipment while still in their prime. Did they change much to benefit from the modern gear?

zigwah
10th June 2009, 06:02 PM
i haven't seen footage of sneed and little of jones so i'll have to believe you on that.

so what about woods v's nicklaus v's hogan all with equipment of our day and all in their prime playing today?

Webster
10th June 2009, 06:04 PM
Virge, you mistakenly sell the old guys short. They would, like any of the best at their chosen sport, have been able to adapt to meet the challenge of the time.

Scottt
10th June 2009, 06:06 PM
Having read how relentless Hogan was with his pursuit of perfection, his ability to overcome a horrific hook tendency and then a near fatal car accident that many said he would never walk after, I have no doubt he had the phyical talent and mental strength to succeed in any era.

Yossarian
10th June 2009, 06:20 PM
Norman stradled both eras? Good example?

Scottt
10th June 2009, 06:22 PM
I did have Norman in there, but must've deleted him. Good shout.

Yossarian
10th June 2009, 06:41 PM
It’s hard with those guys though because they were starting to age. I don't really know enough to comment helpfully so I'll just watch this thread with some interest.

PeteyD
10th June 2009, 07:25 PM
My observation would be that with the exception of Hogan and Moe Norman, they were focussed solely on getting the ball into the hole with the least strokes possible. It wasn't about the swing, it was about the score.


Food for thought. There does seem to be too much focus on the swing. Penick emphasised that the score in his books, rather than technicalities of the swing etc.

razaar
10th June 2009, 07:51 PM
This thread is in reference to a post I made answering a question by Jono about presetting the hips...so I am guessing that Virge is seeking a reason why I prefer the old guys to the present generation of teachers.
IMO there is too much empasis in todays instruction on what the tour pros do. There is no disputing that we can all learn heaps from great golfers but most of us lack in ability, experience, physical capabilities and expert training to play golf like tour players. We don't play the same game.
Modern day teaching puts way to much emphasis on the mechanics of the golf swing and very little on feel. If I have learnt nothing else during my four decades playing this crazy game, it is this - if one wants to improve his game on the course it is through feel, playing the game by feel; if one wants to improve his technique it is by mechanics on the practice ground. Bringing a mechanical approach on to the course is a recipe for disaster.
The reason I prefer the old teachers is their teachings cater for every swing type and abilities. I am not sure that is true with many of the modern teachers with their stable of tour players.

virge666
10th June 2009, 07:55 PM
Virge, you mistakenly sell the old guys short. They would, like any of the best at their chosen sport, have been able to adapt to meet the challenge of the time.

i am sure they would have... I am sure their swings would have CHANGED to meet then new demands of the both the golf course and the new equipment.

Where I struggle is people looking back at Snead's swing and Bobby Jones and saying things like "I wish I could swing like Sneed" and "Bobby Jones is my swing model"

Jono and I were chatting about this last week... he likes the old swings for their simplicity and I love the more modern swing for it's simplicity. :shock: I reckon the only thing not moving in Snead's and Jones' swing was their bowels.

I wanted to know what other people had on their minds...

Webster
10th June 2009, 07:57 PM
virge, the old guys had solid short games played with inferior tools. The score is all about the short game. Imagine how much better they would be with the modern short game tools tailored to their games.

Scottt
10th June 2009, 07:58 PM
Jono and I were chatting about this last week... he likes the old swings for their simplicity and I love the more modern swing for it's simplicity. :shock: I reckon the only thing not moving in Snead's and Jones' swing was their bowels.

Champagne Virge.

Enjoy.

virge666
10th June 2009, 08:01 PM
This thread is in reference to a post I made answering a question by Jono about presetting the hips...so I am guessing that Virge is seeking a reason why I prefer the old guys to the present generation of teachers.

Actually it is in reference to a conversation with Jono re Mike Austin.

Nice answer though - totally disagree. :)

IMHO - I find modern teaching based on a method or system. Hardy has his one and two plane, Steve Bann has his 9 swing, Leadbetter has upper vs lower, Edwin has the RSS, Butch has higher and passive hands etc etc.

I am VERY biased though - I mush prefer a rotation based swing other than a hands based swing. I like Moe and Hogan and others whose hands are passive.

Horses for courses... it is a top game that has all this.

virge666
10th June 2009, 08:08 PM
virge, the old guys had solid short games played with inferior tools. The score is all about the short game. Imagine how much better they would be with the modern short game tools tailored to their games.

I am with you all the way mate... the point I make is that using them as a model is not the best optionIMHO.

We can all copy their drive, mental strength and dicipline.. (Jones for example was amazing) but the last thing i would want to copy is a swing that was built around the keeping soft whippy shafts of the day under control.

See where I am coming from...

Webster
10th June 2009, 08:13 PM
Of course you shouldn't copy anyones swing, you should stick to your own.

I have an old book here somewhere which shows the impact positions of some of these old guys. The Gene Littler one is perfect for example. So they may have swung differently to best utilise the gear at the time, but at impact they are still all basically the same.

Minor_Threat
10th June 2009, 08:17 PM
We can learn a truckload about the old guys. How they used to shoot the scores they did with the bats and balls they were using has got me beat.

The equipment these days is basically like cheating..

virge666
10th June 2009, 08:19 PM
The Gene Littler one is perfect for example.

What a perfect example !!

Check out the leg action and finish position. Not something we see from anyone today. Gene looks pretty close to Jones.

Walter Hagan would be another, though he hit it everywhere and then got up and down out of a phone booth.

Where did you get footage of Gene ?

(hang on found some...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXCHxUPEaUI

virge666
10th June 2009, 08:20 PM
We can learn a truckload about the old guys.

Everyone says that . . . and I mean everyone.

What can we learn ? How can we learn it ?


How they used to shoot the scores they did with the bats and balls they were using has got me beat.

There was very short rough, the greens weren't stimping at 13 and the course was a lot shorter.

Peter
10th June 2009, 08:29 PM
I wanted to know what other people had on their minds...
Usually this:

http://cdn.chickipedia.com/www/images/7/7b/Melissa_Theuriau_1_623.jpg

Yossarian
10th June 2009, 08:35 PM
She is bangin!

LarryLong
10th June 2009, 08:37 PM
Here is a Q for you all - what can we learn from the old players today. Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, those kind of guys.

Berets can be stylish?

razaar
10th June 2009, 08:40 PM
This is a very short list of fundamentals taught by the old guys (from memory & freezing in Canberra) -

a mind set and a pre-shot routine that creates a precise awareness of the target and protects against mechanical thoughts interferring with swinging the golf club.
a grip pressure that is sensitive to the position of the clubface and speed of the clubhead throughout the swing
posture and setup that permit the body to respond freely, smoothly, and in balance
correct aim and body alignment
the club swinging in balance with the target line
a consistant spine angle throughout the swing
good rhythm, smooth tempo
a sequence of moves based on the philosophy of trying to make the clubhead put the ball in the target area.
This is 1960's stuff.

henno
10th June 2009, 08:41 PM
She is bangin!

There are some "bangin'" pics of her floating around the web. I am sure google images will help.

Minor_Threat
10th June 2009, 08:42 PM
Everyone says that . . . and I mean everyone.

What can we learn ? How can we learn it ?



There was very short rough, the greens weren't stimping at 13 and the course was a lot shorter.Even though this may be true, the equipment the guys are using today trumps any of the above.. (We won't mention the archaic green keeping methods they used back in those days either.. ;) )

There is no real secret, these guys were the pick of the bunch for their era, just like every other era. Only difference now is that golf is played by many more people and probability will give you a larger number of talented golfers.

Although I cannot find any sources, it is well known that guys like Nicklaus, Player, Palmer etc have said straight out the game is much easier with todays equipment.

Jono
10th June 2009, 08:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDn_2_kvmBE

I'd take Snead's swing any day. 2:31 shows stable head.

From what I've read, Snead could hit the ball a long way if he wanted to.

Jono
10th June 2009, 08:51 PM
Virge, what do you think of Colin Montgomery's swing?

Scottt
10th June 2009, 09:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDn_2_kvmBE

I'd take Snead's swing any day. 2:31 shows stable head.

Teacher: And if we freeze it there, you'll see his head isn't moving.
Student: But it's frozen, nothing is moving...
Teacher: Shut-up [throws chalk]

virge666
10th June 2009, 09:13 PM
Virge, what do you think of Colin Montgomery's swing?


I see a guy maintaining width in his swing by arching the crap out of his back. ie: the old "Reverse C". I prefer Hogan and his method of maintain width by rotating the club around his body. As you know - i don't like down and out...

But watch the FANTASTIC way that Snead maintains his levels - there is not up and down just BAM with the legs, also take note of the Right shoulder driving down and out. Classic old school.

But I do love Melissa Theuriau - she is my final golf club grip.

virge666
10th June 2009, 09:20 PM
This is a very short list of fundamentals taught by the old guys (from memory & freezing in Canberra) -This is 1960's stuff.

yeah - it is bloody cold ... I was in Taralga last week... FAAARRRRKK !!!

That list is all well and good, but i can show you a stack golfers that did and does not have that from both era's.

I guess it seems to be coming down to the leg action. The upper body action is pretty similar, but the lower body from the old days is just chalk and cheese.

I think it is the timing required from the old days . . . the modern swing seems to be less based on hands and legs.

razaar
10th June 2009, 09:27 PM
yeah - it is bloody cold ... I was in Taralga last week... FAAARRRRKK !!!

That list is all well and good, but i can show you a stack golfers that did and does not have that from both era's.

I guess it seems to be coming down to the leg action. The upper body action is pretty similar, but the lower body from the old days is just chalk and cheese.

I think it is the timing required from the old days . . . the modern swing seems to be less based on hands and legs.
That is pretty observant Virge, the old timers used the feet and knees to change direction; the modern guys (not all) use the hips and torso.

virge666
10th June 2009, 09:30 PM
That is pretty observant Virge, the old timers used the feet and knees to change direction; the modern guys (not all) use the hips and torso.


Agreed, also note the way modern guys maintain their width on the downswing.

Old lads - snap the left leg to get more width.
New lads cast from the top of the back swing with a hip bump.

The first way works well with soft golf balls (steep)... the latter works better with harder balls. (shallow)

IMHO - equipment and the greater need for accuracy caused this...

razaar
10th June 2009, 09:39 PM
Agreed, also note the way modern guys maintain their width on the downswing.

Old lads - snap the left leg to get more width.
New lads cast from the top of the back swing with a hip bump.

The first way works well with soft golf balls (steep)... the latter works better with harder balls. (shallow)

IMHO - equipment and the greater need for accuracy caused this...
Maybe...I think there was a move to achieve a tighter coil which required quieter legs.

Veefore
11th June 2009, 02:25 PM
Sneeds swing is too steep for todays balls and technology - and he would be about 200th is driving distance. Same goes for Bobby Jones.

Nicklaus is a modern player, he still hits is bloody well. Hogan is also the first of the rotators... so he and Nicklaus are in the same boat.

I think that the players of the past could teach us how to play golf instead of golfswing.

I see so many young players out there trying to perfect the swing against whatever the latest "theoretically perfect" style is, only to get hammered in a match by some old bloke with a dodgy back and a gay fade who can make the ball go where he wants it to.

If you saw the new Division 1 Pennant captain at my club on the driving range at a public course you would expect him to be a 90's or 100's shooter. Instead he gets it around good enough to play off a 2-3 handicap and is rarely beaten in matchplay.

I found it interesting that Pelz's research showed that todays players don't hit the ball any closer to the hole than the players of the past did. And due to the inadequacies of the equipment those players were hitting 5 irons where today's players are hitting wedges.
Even today, according to Pelz's figures and comparisons with Shotlink there is nobody playing who is more accurate from 150y than Lee Trevino was.

As for Sam Snead, he was LOOOOOONG in his day. He was the John Daly or the Bubba Watson of his era. If he played today he would be top 20 at worst in driving distance. As for steep, Scott Hoch's swing is steeper and as recent as a couple of years ago he was one of the best ballstrikers on the tour.

The game is different at the Pro level today. Now it is bomb and gouge whereas back then it was finesse and controlling the ball, something that very few of today's bomb and gouge players even consider.

Yossarian
11th June 2009, 02:30 PM
Don't know if this is a valid point, but Tiger has played mostly with blades, a steel shafted driver? Smaller driver heads ect. Blade style putter. I guess his wedges are
'better'
Is the change in ball technology the biggest difference in making the swing changes we are seeing?

Minor_Threat
11th June 2009, 02:44 PM
I think that the players of the past could teach us how to play golf instead of golfswing.

I see so many young players out there trying to perfect the swing against whatever the latest "theoretically perfect" style is, only to get hammered in a match by some old bloke with a dodgy back and a gay fade who can make the ball go where he wants it to.

If you saw the new Division 1 Pennant captain at my club on the driving range at a public course you would expect him to be a 90's or 100's shooter. Instead he gets it around good enough to play off a 2-3 handicap and is rarely beaten in matchplay.

I found it interesting that Pelz's research showed that todays players don't hit the ball any closer to the hole than the players of the past did. And due to the inadequacies of the equipment those players were hitting 5 irons where today's players are hitting wedges.
Even today, according to Pelz's figures and comparisons with Shotlink there is nobody playing who is more accurate from 150y than Lee Trevino was.

As for Sam Snead, he was LOOOOOONG in his day. He was the John Daly or the Bubba Watson of his era. If he played today he would be top 20 at worst in driving distance. As for steep, Scott Hoch's swing is steeper and as recent as a couple of years ago he was one of the best ballstrikers on the tour.

The game is different at the Pro level today. Now it is bomb and gouge whereas back then it was finesse and controlling the ball, something that very few of today's bomb and gouge players even consider.Totally agree..

Great post!

Ferrins
11th June 2009, 02:54 PM
The core of the issue is about developing a repetitive swing that repeats itself under pressure. These great golfers of the past proved their ability to do this. In todays arena they would be as competitve as anyone else. They are Tour proven. I played a game of tennis against Ken Rosewall and in the warm-up and the 1st set he never missed a shot. He would of hit 30 shots with in a few inchs of the lines. Different sport but same unmistakable mastery of the game that champions have.

virge666
11th June 2009, 04:46 PM
I think that the players of the past could teach us how to play golf instead of golf swing.

This is not the arguement... I am talking swing patterns vs today. Don't care about the mental side or procedure and discipline.

But anyway - you are stating the obvious.


I see so many young players out there trying to perfect the swing against whatever the latest "theoretically perfect" style is, only to get hammered in a match by some old bloke with a dodgy back and a gay fade who can make the ball go where he wants it to.

This is just a good player vs a bad player. We all have seen them everywhere and through out time.


If you saw the new Division 1 Pennant captain at my club on the driving range at a public course you would expect him to be a 90's or 100's shooter. Instead he gets it around good enough to play off a 2-3 handicap and is rarely beaten in matchplay.

Anyone who plays off 2 or 3 is going to be rarely beaten in match play



I found it interesting that Pelz's research showed that todays players don't hit the ball any closer to the hole than the players of the past did.
Even today, according to Pelz's figures and comparisons with Shotlink there is nobody playing who is more accurate from 150y than Lee Trevino was.


They didn't tuck the pins away like they do today and the greens didn't stimp at 13 and 14. This is just evolution of the game. if I took a top 50 player back in time with todays equipment - he would dominate the golf courses of the day. This is a dumb statistic and it stating the bloody obvious. Watch the pros after some rain has hit a golf course...


As for Sam Snead, he was LOOOOOONG in his day. He was the John Daly or the Bubba Watson of his era. If he played today he would be top 20 at worst in driving distance. As for steep, Scott Hoch's swing is steeper and as recent as a couple of years ago he was one of the best ballstrikers on the tour.

This is more like it - NOT with todays equipment !!

YES, he would have adjusted, YES he would have changed his swing. BUT YOU WOULDN'T USE HIS OLD SWING AS A MODEL FOR THE CURRENT GAME.

And Scott Hoch is as short as - i just checked and he is 40th on the pensioners tour . . .



The game is different at the Pro level today. Now it is bomb and gouge whereas back then it was finesse and controlling the ball, something that very few of today's bomb and gouge players even consider.

And the reason why people have done this is because it works...

markTHEblake
11th June 2009, 06:51 PM
YES, he would have adjusted, YES he would have changed his swing.

Actually if Sam Snead was playing today, he wouldn't have changed his swing to adapt, cos he would have developed his swing, style, and practice/training regimen according to the golf of the day from the beginning.

Likewise put Tiger in the early 1900's and he still would have been Tiger,but probably smoked, had a gut, and a very wristy loose swing.

But I get what you are saying.

I was able to watch Paul Runyon and Von Nida give a clinic, and fair dinkum Runyon was a rank chopper. I know he was the shortest hitter of all time but strike me pink his swing was terrible, He makes golfer69 (frog in a blender) look like Steve Elkington.

The Von however had an awesome modern solid golf swing. When i think about how he hit it, now reminds me of watching Pampling.

I dont think you can learn anything from those old golfers, the ball is too different now. If you hit our ball with their clubs it would be like hitting rocks.

Thats why you will never again see a Paul Runyon win a major

Yossarian
11th June 2009, 06:54 PM
So I was right about the ball? :)

virge666
11th June 2009, 08:58 PM
I dont think you can learn anything from those old golfers, the ball is too different now. If you hit our ball with their clubs it would be like hitting rocks.


yeah - that is what i am sort of getting at. You have to admire their skill, tenacity and drive... but trying to hit the ball like these guys would be like Roger Federa trying hitting a tennis ball like Ken Rosewell.

Veefore
12th June 2009, 09:51 AM
Yep, I have gone and deleted the whole post. My reply to Virge was written in rush when I should have been working and wasn't completely thought through. I forgot why I stopped commenting in swing theory threads a couple of years ago. At least I remember why now.

PeteyD
12th June 2009, 05:48 PM
Too many words make my head hurt. We trained Virge!

zigwah
12th June 2009, 09:36 PM
Lets get it on like Donkey Kong!!!

markTHEblake
12th June 2009, 10:01 PM
This statistic PROVES that today’s players are LESS accurate than the players of the 70's and 80's. Even with wet greens, FROM THE SAME DISTANCE they are NOT hitting the ball more accurately than the players of the past. It doesn’t matter if the greens stimp at 13 or 14 or if the pins are tucked away. Closer is always going to be closer. That is a FACT.

I understood what Virge said., If todays players are not aiming at the Pin as much as before, because of green speed and more difficult pin positions, then the accuracy claim you are making doesn't stack up because it is based on flawed data.

Veefore
13th June 2009, 03:44 PM
I understood what Virge said., If todays players are not aiming at the Pin as much as before, because of green speed and more difficult pin positions, then the accuracy claim you are making doesn't stack up because it is based on flawed data.

Not flawed data, but if players really are aiming away from the pin more than they did in years past then maybe flawed hypothesis on my part. I have yet to speak to a player or see an interview with a player who says they do. Commentators say it all the time but I rarely listen to the "strategies" that they claim the players are using because they are wrong more often than right. Nicklaus was one of the masters of playing away from the pin to avoid trouble because he knew he was relatively weak from bunkers but rarely if ever failed to two putt no matter how far from the hole he was.

kwantfm
13th June 2009, 05:09 PM
Got in late on this thread. Snead was too steep???

kwantfm
13th June 2009, 05:10 PM
Virge mentioned it before but I think the real inflection point and the development of the modern swing came with the widespread use of steel shafts. There is a massive difference between Bobby Jones and Hogan/Nelson/Snead.

Bruce
13th June 2009, 05:48 PM
This thread has now become useful and I have learned something from the old boys.

I want a hat like Sam Snead's.

Webster
13th June 2009, 06:25 PM
Most of the old guys wore their pants a touch too high.

zigwah
13th June 2009, 09:49 PM
Of course you shouldn't copy anyones swing, you should stick to your own.

I have an old book here somewhere which shows the impact positions of some of these old guys. The Gene Littler one is perfect for example. So they may have swung differently to best utilise the gear at the time, but at impact they are still all basically the same.

Since being on this forum, i have read a lot of things and been told a lot of things some good :mrgreen: some not so complimentry :cry:.

But what i have learned that the most important part of the golf swing is the hands and clubface at impact?

So taking this into consideration i think all of the greats, across all of the eras would adapt, their enviroment.

They would all still have amazing hand eye co-ordination and the ability to adapt to the eviroment they had.

Saying this in answer to virges question what can we learn from the old golfers, I think we can a do learn a massive amount from the old golfers especially at a young age when we are first learning to swing a golf club.

Such changes such as the way we take the golf club away at the start of the back swing, as i understand it with the hickory shaft you had to take your hands away first before the club head? And if this is the case im pretty sure imo, all of the great golfers would have been able to adapt to anything they had to learn.

You could really only answer this by having them all in this era as young golfers and then we could see what we could learn from the old fellas?

zigwah
13th June 2009, 09:51 PM
Of course you shouldn't copy anyones swing, you should stick to your own.

I have an old book here somewhere which shows the impact positions of some of these old guys. The Gene Littler one is perfect for example. So they may have swung differently to best utilise the gear at the time, but at impact they are still all basically the same.

Since being on this forum, i have read a lot of things and been told a lot of things some good :mrgreen: some not so complimentry :cry:.

But what i have learned that the most important part of the golf swing is the hands and clubface at impact?

So taking this into consideration i think all of the greats, across all of the eras would adapt, their enviroment.

They would all still have amazing hand eye co-ordination and the ability to adapt to the eviroment they had.

Saying this in answer to virges question what can we learn from the old golfers, I think we can a do learn a massive amount from the old golfers especially at a young age when we are first learning to swing a golf club.

Such changes such as the way we take the golf club away at the start of the back swing, as i understand it with the hickory shaft you had to take your hands away first before the club head? And if this is the case im pretty sure imo, all of the great golfers would have been able to adapt to anything they had to learn.

You could really only answer this by having them all in this era as young golfers and then we could see what we could learn from the old fellas?

On another note when are they gonna make some cool golf clothes? and shoes?

virge666
14th June 2009, 08:15 AM
Not flawed data, but if players really are aiming away from the pin more than they did in years past then maybe flawed hypothesis on my part.

It ain't flawed data, it is just just data from a different game of a different era.

The balls are way harder and way lower spin then they use to be.
The greens are a lot faster and have the same slope as they use to be
The greens are WAY WAY WAY WAY harder than they use to be.
The rough is WAY higher than it use to be.

Even though they change the courses quickly, they have not caught up with the equipment.

The only way to protect courses like Royal Melbourne, The Open courses in the UK and places like Colonial in the USA is to hide/tuck the pins in silly positions. With so much money up for grabs each week - the risk and reward just doesn't add up.

So instead of the old days of sticking it close for a 10 footer over bumpy, spiky, long grass greens. We have players trying to give themselves chances from 20-25 feet on perfectly manicured greens.

That is why the statistic is a flawed one.

---

Lastly, as I have said in 8 posts now - ignore their drive, tenacity and skill - all good athletes in any sport have that. The question I have is why would you use a swing model of the 40's and 50's for the modern game when technically the modern game is very different.

LarryLong
14th June 2009, 08:37 AM
The only reason I could think of for high handicappers looking for improvement would be to choose the swing that is more consistent. Do today's players swing differently because the equipment allows them to? Did the old blokes have a swing that improved the chances of hitting the centre of the club because they had to? I don't know, but if that was the case it would be a pretty good argument for a chopper with no chance of ever hitting it like Tiger taking up a swing from yesteryear.

A golf swing is a pretty hard manouvre to pull off, and sometimes I wonder if people get too caught up in trying to emulate a person with incredible co-ordination and oodles of practice who can time a million tiny movements into a great result.

virge666
14th June 2009, 10:36 AM
The only reason I could think of for high handicappers looking for improvement would be to choose the swing that is more consistent. Do today's players swing differently because the equipment allows them to?

Good question mate and it is like VeeFore's comment and Raz comment about the legs.

I dunno - maybe changing direction on the downswing with the legs is easier than the torso for most players . . .

dap
4th August 2009, 12:26 PM
Here is a Q for you all - what can we learn from the old players today. Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, those kind of guys.

Lets keep their mental game out of it. Don't really care about how mentally strong they might have been. I am talking about their swing technique.

I reckon bugger all. Mainly due to the change in golf equipment and green keeping equipment and the advent of golf being a power game. But I am open to abuse...

Thoughts....
Hi guys and gals,my first post.

The difference between the greats and us is they used more pivot.Pivot controlled hands if you will.

There is an element of both pivot and arm swing in every golf stroke.The great players plus most of the touring pros and gifted amateurs use a greater ratio of pivot.

Most amateurs including a lot of low markers have a greater ratio of arm swing.

razaar
4th August 2009, 09:50 PM
Good question mate and it is like VeeFore's comment and Raz comment about the legs.

I dunno - maybe changing direction on the downswing with the legs is easier than the torso for most players . . .
Changing direction with the feet & knees is the most efficient way to break the inertia of the backswing without distrupting posture and hip angle on normal full shots. It takes so little effort to do when done properly. Watching Tom Watson's swing in the Open Championship is a great example of using the feet & knees. He didn't appear to put much effort into keeping up with the younger guys and his swing hasn't changed since he first played in a pro event in 1968 (Western Open at Olympia Fields paired with Jack Nicklaus).

dwayne
5th August 2009, 08:44 PM
have to disagree Ray, Watson's swing has changed heaps since he first started. He was actually coached by Leadbetter for a period of time.

Google - Tom Watson's Secret to the Golf Swing

and you will see a You Tube video of him explaining the changes he made.

henno
5th August 2009, 08:47 PM
His triumphant return! :-)

adlo
5th August 2009, 08:49 PM
http://pictureisunrelated.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/picture-unrelated.jpg

Yossarian
5th August 2009, 08:50 PM
I've learned from an old pro that the pro v is a far superior ball to anything else.

Iain
5th August 2009, 09:25 PM
You're back....

PeteyD
6th August 2009, 04:55 AM
It's an imposter. Go the panda.

razaar
6th August 2009, 06:05 AM
have to disagree Ray, Watson's swing has changed heaps since he first started. He was actually coached by Leadbetter for a period of time.

Google - Tom Watson's Secret to the Golf Swing

and you will see a You Tube video of him explaining the changes he made.
That conflicks with what he told me - yes mate, I asked him on the 15th tee at Olympia Fields in 2003 during a practice day if he had changed his swing since 1968. He said it was basically the same swing. The next day he shot a 65 to lead the US Open if I recall correctly.

Scottt
6th August 2009, 06:08 AM
9 days, Shorne. I suggest you savour them...

sms316
6th August 2009, 06:09 AM
Leave me out of this.

I am Switzerland.

zigwah
6th August 2009, 12:22 PM
If i could swing it like some of the old blokes, Hogan, Sneed, Nicklus and heaps of others i would be more than happy. :)

sms316
6th August 2009, 02:36 PM
If i could swing it like some of the old blokes, Hogan, Sneed, Nicklus and heaps of others i would be more than happy. :)

Good on ya Ziggy. Gave me a good laugh. You reminded me of this epic post!


Just cause you ****s can't play golf any good and wouldn't know how to read a ****ing greens at all. If you didnt know here is some info for you try hard golfers, some of the best golfers around are greenkeepers or former greenkeepers so if you don't play off a handicap of below 2 I wouldn't open your mouth if I was you. I have played on, worked on and even helped build most of the best courses around the world, which you ****s would just dream about seeing.
As far as greenkeeper can't spell you ****ing cares, Can you want a be golfer operator a grader / dozer / backhoe / excavator / bobcat doing final trim shaping work of championship golf courses within a 1mm of final level?
I get called every day offering me jobs on building new golf courses!! I've lost count of the number of time Greg Normal and Jack Nicolas have personally called me and even Tiger Woods has called me a few time offering me jobs on this new golf course he is building. I don't care a **** about golf any more. So until you ****ing ****s got something worth saying shut the **** up.

jaybam
6th August 2009, 02:45 PM
yes that was gold want it :)

adlo
6th August 2009, 02:56 PM
One of the all time great posts, mentioning a few of the all time greats in Normal and Nicolas. Where is sti83, I miss him, I need him to do a few things on the new golf course I am building.

razaar
31st May 2011, 11:04 AM
Do you still think the same way about the old guys , Virge?

PeteyD
31st May 2011, 12:41 PM
Did you bring this up just so we called all read sti's classic post again?

Flavzz
31st May 2011, 12:47 PM
Id forgotten about that post. What a ripper.

Daves
31st May 2011, 12:58 PM
dap didn't hang around for long!?

razaar
31st May 2011, 02:12 PM
Did you bring this up just so we called all read sti's classic post again?

I miss zig and sti - the good old days.:cry:

:lol:

virge666
1st June 2011, 09:09 AM
Do you still think the same way about the old guys , Virge?

Still a bit torn - but starting to come around. I still think equipment has tempered it. Liking some of the stuff post steel shafts.

I was thinking about this thread last week . . . nice timing.


Did you bring this up just so we called all read sti's classic post again?

I hope so.


I miss zig and sti - the good old days.:cry:

:lol:

me too - he is still on the other forum but way more subdued. i would like to see the same rant on ISG just for shits and giggles.

razaar
1st June 2011, 09:51 AM
Virge

The thing I have found about the old players' writings, prior to & including Bobby Locke, is they are very upfront about what they did and thought. Once prize money started approaching obscene amounts, you would have to ask the question "why would he give out closely held secrets, which may give him an edge over his rivals, in a publication". The answer is - he wouldn't. Just keep dishing out the usual generic stuff in different words and a personal spin then count the revenue from sales.

virge666
1st June 2011, 12:20 PM
Virge

The thing I have found about the old players' writings, prior to & including Bobby Locke, is they are very upfront about what they did and thought. Once prize money started approaching obscene amounts, you would have to ask the question "why would he give out closely held secrets, which may give him an edge over his rivals, in a publication". The answer is - he wouldn't. Just keep dishing out the usual generic stuff in different words and a personal spin then count the revenue from sales.

Honestly . . . I really dont think there are THAT many ways to swing the club.

What I do see if 20,000 ways to teach and describe it, and whilst one method may focus on a particular movement and gloss over another part, this other part may be the focus of another teacher's fundemental. Edwin focus' on posture, TGM focus' on educated hands, Butch Harmon focus' on width and radius, Leadbetter focus' on infomercials...

But all of them really teach that same sort of swing with slight differences depending on what their pattern's perceived "thing" is.

I would love someone to really go through it all and find out the REAL fundementals, cause grip stance and alignment are not it... and a couple of the ball laws are wrong as well.

As for swing pattern... you have the pivot pulling the hands through... or you have the arms kick-starting or loading the pivot pulling the hands through... I honestly reckon hitting and swinging is a crock of shit... as soon as your arms get in front of your pivot . . . you are rooted in both distance and accuracy...

Thoughts ?

Yossarian
1st June 2011, 02:42 PM
, Leadbetter focus' on infomercials...

LOL!

PeteyD
1st June 2011, 03:39 PM
Honestly . . . I really dont think there are THAT many ways to swing the club.


Thoughts ?

My cat's breath smells like cat food.



Oh and, as far as instruction goes, I get confused and tend to switch off if it gets technical (TGM, Ray's long posts etc). The stuff I have understood over the last few years has been Harvey Penicks stuff, Some of Mike Maves stuff, some of the stuff in Gerry's book and Virge's midnight lessons at the champs.

virge666
1st June 2011, 05:17 PM
... and Virge's midnight lessons at the champs.

I teach way better when i can only just stand up...

razaar
1st June 2011, 06:05 PM
Actually I think the way to go is to understand our own swing and learn to recognize the feeling when we hit it pretty good so we can repeat it. The old guys watched each other like hawks and if they saw something that made sense to them in anothers swing, they would incorporate that into their swing. Such is the nature of golf. I like to watch the USLPGA tour events. The women have to be almost technically correct to survive on the tour. Still no matter how good one's swing mechanics are, it can all turn to shit with an abstract thought i.e. I'd better not three putt this; Do'in good haven't hooked once today; I never drive well on this hole etc.

sms316
1st June 2011, 07:10 PM
The new breed can learn a lot from the old guys in regards to having a harem of sluts in every port and actually keeping it quiet.

Sydney Hacker
2nd June 2011, 07:37 AM
The old guys didn't have every Tom, Dick & Harry carrying around mobiles and dozens of media following their every step as well. Tiger must long for the "good old days".

razaar
12th June 2011, 09:54 AM
All the old guys had an ample hip turn which gave them a free body pivot. This led to a free body pivot on the through swing allowing the arms to be relaxed as they delivered the power. All the power hitters of the first half of the 20th century, made an effort to keep the right arm extended for as long as possible into the backswing with the right elbow kept close to the left elbow. Put these three things to gether - free body pivot, relaxed arms and the involuntary bend of the right elbow - and power shouldn't be an issue.