263 replies to this topic

[Thrillhouse]

russc, on 20 April 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Thrillhouse .You may be a fine golfer but ,you did not read my post very carefully" On this subject you are ignorant" i am and was referring specifically to your comparison of the Slicefixer swing to that of Mr Ballards and Bradleys.Prove to me that you are not by describing  the basic Slicefixer  swing  .Now is good time to start.
I stated explicitly that i did not know what Mr Ogrady teaches and did not include him in any comparison
Mr Mediate is Mr Ballard's prime student currently on the professional tours .If you do not like Mr Mediate as an example try Mr Strange ,Mr Colbert Mr Sutton,J C Snead etc.all well known students of Mr Ballard who exhibit swing characteristics very different from the Slicefixer swing.Slicefixer did mention that he had some some success with the Ballard swing ,but abandoned it for specific shortcomings.Do you know anything  about Mr Ballards ideas?I did not and do not   denigrate Mr Ballards ideas .I think that he made some  of the most significant contributions to swing theory in history.Just that much of his method is very  different from that of Slicefixer and is not" very similar".And i never brought up  anything about any commercial
Evidently you have not read much about  what  Bradley stated about  the backswing either if you think that it is similar to what Slicefixer suggests
I brought up the S+t method to show that there are parts of this  swing that are very similar  to that of Slicefixer's ,just like parts of the Slicefixer swing are similar to Bradley's and Mr Ballards ideas ,but that they are NOT VERY similar as you stated.

You know, it is too bad that you did not meet Slicefixer when you were younger.Instead of arguing with me ,you might have  been in San Antonio this weekend.

I didn't even read that jibberish, just more fanboy nonsense. Until you post your swing on here and show that you actually know ANYTHING about the golf swing im just going to assume that you don't know what you are talking about. All you do here is regurgitate someone elses ideas, the value you provide is absolutely zero because anyone with an internet connection can look up old slicefixer posts and get the same information without the pompous attitude you bring to stumbling through something you don't really understand.

Hey, lets talk about the last time "we went through this". Someone came on here and asked "why is slicefixer so popular?", I replied that it was because he used to post here, and you lost your mind, absolutely lost your mind. You kept at it because you, in your fanboy wisdom, were absolutely desperate to stick up for your hero. It was absolutely laughable, I would post a link to embarrass you further but because you have absolutely nothing of value to provide im just going to block you. That way next time you get your panties in a bunch and post something disrespectful I won't even know about it.

...

Edited by MrParr1Noid, 23 April 2012 - 10:36 PM.
Quote edited.

[russc]

bscinstnct, on 20 April 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

russc, on 20 April 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

bscinstnct, on 20 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

I have been on golfwrx for years, always looking for good info

I know slicefixer is well known and respected

I would love to hear his key idea explained in one short paragraph

Just as any solution should be able to be summarized in a simple, elegant manner

E=mc2

Windup around a  slightly tilted spine going back and unwind around a tilted spine going down ,after establishing your left pivot point over your left heel/ankle.On the downswing  there should be no manipulation by the hands or wrists  since  the the club will square up naturally as a result of your left turning pivot.

Sorry for so many words

Sweet, thank you.

I appreciate if my next 2 questions can't be simply answered but pls let me know where to get the info

1. What triggers the downswing

2. Should you feel like you are rotating or like you are making a lateral move on the downswing

#2
The downswing  consist of both a lateral component and rotational component.A golfer need to first make the lateral move first to establish the left pivot point as  described above.After this is done  a golfer can  then rotate around this left pivot point for the rest of the downswing.if you fail to make the lateral move first then you will spin out


#1.This is considerably more complicated and that is why i am answering it second. To REALLY simplify , the downswing trigger consists of really pressuring the LEFT HEEL at transition.This is a combo move which combines both the lateral and rotational move in the proper order above

[russc]

I take this to mean that you refuse to discuss my points   .You are typical of many people who start personal attacks when they have run out of arguments.Post the link instead of making idle threats

Edited by russc, 20 April 2012 - 10:36 PM.

[PingG10guy]

Thrillhouse, on 20 April 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

First of all, If you don't know what O'Grady teaches then how would you have any idea if i'm ignorant or not?

Bro...while Russc got a little proud face it.  Teachings as follows...

Slicefixer/Stack n' Tilt= hit it with the pivot

Mac O'grady= not so much


Generalizing is a way to dumb things down and give the illusion to one's self that they know what is going on.  Doesn't anybody understand that everybody has a different swing, teaches different stuff, and has different flexibility, strength, etc.

Let the OP go SF.  If it doesnt work out then he should go somewhere else (after allowing proper time to get acclimated of course)

[GwrxMod]

Please post within forum rules, particularly the following:

Rules

• While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, or purposeless inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters
  
• Treat others the way you want to be treated. Mutual respect is a key component to preservation of the site's goals.

  

Thank you.

[Thrillhouse]

PingG10guy, on 20 April 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Thrillhouse, on 20 April 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

First of all, If you don't know what O'Grady teaches then how would you have any idea if i'm ignorant or not?

Bro...while Russc got a little proud face it.  Teachings as follows...

Slicefixer/Stack n' Tilt= hit it with the pivot

Mac O'grady= not so much


Generalizing is a way to dumb things down and give the illusion to one's self that they know what is going on.  Doesn't anybody understand that everybody has a different swing, teaches different stuff, and has different flexibility, strength, etc.

Let the OP go SF.  If it doesnt work out then he should go somewhere else (after allowing proper time to get acclimated of course)

Alright, lets take a step back here. This is my parting comment to the OP about trying the SF swing in my first post:

"And to the OP, if you like the method try it! You might find it is just what you are looking for like some other posters have said, or you might find its not for you. Either way thats part of the process."


As you can see i'm not criticizing or saying its a bad idea for him to try it, i'm just trying to make the point that there are a lot of ways to get it done, there isn't a be all end all, and you have to work through a lot of stuff before you figure out whats for you and what isn't thats all.


To the Mac O'Grady comment, he teaches the same release as SF (which is a big part of what he talks about), and he also teaches staying centred (which SF talks about also). There are some distinct similarities there. My point wasn't that they teach the exact same thing, my point was that they teach some similar ideas, and that these ideas are not new, they have been around for an awful long time.


"Generalizing is a way to dumb things down and give the illusion to one's self that they know what is going on.  Doesn't anybody understand that everybody has a different swing, teaches different stuff, and has different flexibility, strength, etc."

Surprisingly, NO! there are a lot of people out there who still think that there is one golf swing out there that will have everybody playing their best golf no matter what their physical attributes or limitations are. I just don't believe it to be the case, improvement is a process, you have to put the time in and you have to work through the theories to figure out for yourself what works and what doesn't.

[verderraul]

Now that the dust has settled

Out of curiosity, which current players are known as great ball strikers/iron players. I can think of of 3 on top of my head : Sergio, Hunter and Lee.....all of these are not flippers. I want to see which ones flip and yet are great ball strikers.

[Thrillhouse]

verderraul, on 20 April 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Now that the dust has settled

Out of curiosity, which current players are known as great ball strikers/iron players. I can think of of 3 on top of my head : Sergio, Hunter and Lee.....all of these are not flippers. I want to see which ones flip and yet are great ball strikers.

i dunno if flipper is the word id use, but these guys are cf and they hit it pretty good:

[Thrillhouse]

heres a couple more

[Thrillhouse]

Couple more, this ones set to some calming music!

[verderraul]

stupid question but...what is cf ?

[Thrillhouse]

verderraul, on 20 April 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

stupid question but...what is cf ?

left is cp, right is cf (im no expert on this either, im just using the term because a lot of the people here will understand it, im 94.5% sure I got it right though, if im not someone will surely correct me!)

http://advancedballs...e/hit_swing.jpg

[verderraul]

and isnt luke donald considered a "bad" long iron player ?

[verderraul]

i am definitely cp lol

[Thrillhouse]

verderraul, on 20 April 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

and isnt luke donald considered a "bad" long iron player ?

not sure, I haven't heard that, some people say he isn't a great driver of the ball. A lot of people rave about his iron play though, plus whatever he was doing was good enough to get to number one in the world so it can't be all that bad!

[Fort Worth Pro]

Adam Scott was much more cf under butch and is moving toward a cp pattern. The club is much more left through impact than it used to be. Freddie has never hit it really straight or controlled his trajectory. His pivot also shredded his back fwiw.

To the discussion... Ballard and slicefixer have connection in common and that is about it. Since mac wont publish Unless someone has worked with Mac how can you compare the two unless you want to talk Plummer and bennett?? S&T and slice have some similarities but in no way could you call them VERY similar.

I would put my record and swing up against most here along with my teaching so call me out if you want.

The short answer as to why The swing is easier to time isbecause the face is rotating slower as compared to the path, which is relatively neutral, and the face is not being manipulated to close or remain square.  The body can wind up in a very natural bio mechanically sound manner and then unwind as a reaction to the backswing. Since gravity is the most consistent force in the world we can count on it to square the face and not timing the release of the hands.

I too have played both ways and will debate to the grave that a CF release is an acceptable and yet inferior way to release the club

[Jim Waldron]

I teach a rotary, body-release type swing to about 95% of my students, and to all my beginners. It is the easiest to learn from a purely coordination of the body parts standpoint, that point is simply irrefutable. I have had a few beginners who have hit the ball almost as well as the average club pro after a three day intensive "boot camp" golf swing school. Fewer moving parts, especially the crucial upper arms part of the body, means easier to time and stay in balance. Less clubface rate of closure also means better clubface control, and also easier to time, and much more accurate. More center-face contact more often means more distance for the average amateur.

CF and CP releases that Mac coined are extreme examples to make the point more clear, most tour pros are in fact somewhere in the middle  between those two extreme release types, including Louis O, Adam S and Rory. Extreme upper arm connection that is maintained long after impact and a large arm to chest angle will cause an extreme CP release ala Hogan. Letting momentum pull the upper arms off the chest during release and impact (or just a micro-second after is much more effective) and less arm to chest angle will cause a more CF release. CF has the disadvantage of raising the shaft plane angle to a steeper plane, requiring a stand-up move or a slight left elbow chicken wing to not hit it fat. And it can easily lead to big pushes or compensatory pulls and/or snmap hooks. Too much CP can lead to big slices or big OTT pulls if the golfer has not mastered proper pivot sequencing for the forward swing, eg starting Transition with early shoulder girdle un-winding.

CF release is much more "natural" and in fact probably close to 100% of amateur golfers in the 12 handicap and higher range already suffer from a Fatal Flaw of way too much CF release, ie the Hit Impulse, since they literally use the muscles in the upper arms to throw the arms off the chest, in the right triceps to cast the right arm angle away too early, and the wrist muscles to throw the clubhead away.  A lot of really bad golf shots is the inevitable result. So encouraging an average golfer to use a CF release can be dangerous advice for that golfer if he or she has that kind of problem in their golf swing.

But the real Rule is that every golfer must search long and hard to find a method that works for him or her, there are NO absolutes in this game. Once you find it, believe in it and stick to it, no matter what anyone posting on a golf swing forum recommends.

[Thrillhouse]

Fort Worth Pro, on 21 April 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Adam Scott was much more cf under butch and is moving toward a cp pattern. The club is much more left through impact than it used to be. Freddie has never hit it really straight or controlled his trajectory. His pivot also shredded his back fwiw.

To the discussion... Ballard and slicefixer have connection in common and that is about it. Since mac wont publish Unless someone has worked with Mac how can you compare the two unless you want to talk Plummer and bennett?? S&T and slice have some similarities but in no way could you call them VERY similar.

I would put my record and swing up against most here along with my teaching so call me out if you want.

The short answer as to why The swing is easier to time isbecause the face is rotating slower as compared to the path, which is relatively neutral, and the face is not being manipulated to close or remain square.  The body can wind up in a very natural bio mechanically sound manner and then unwind as a reaction to the backswing. Since gravity is the most consistent force in the world we can count on it to square the face and not timing the release of the hands.

I too have played both ways and will debate to the grave that a CF release is an acceptable and yet inferior way to release the club

Whatever Adam Scott is doing now im sure is great, I was just posting examples and he was one of them. FWIW he hit the ball pretty well and played some really nice golf with Butch and his CF release. As far as Freddy goes, the dude was just on the first page on the leaderboard at the Masters in his 50"s! Plus he has won a major, 14 tour events, and is still winning on the champions tour, im not saying you have to teach whatever he or anyone else is doing, but to say that he hits it bad isnt really true.

To the discussion, Slicefixer talked about working with Ballard in his interview on youtube and they have similar elements to their method, slicefixer teaches the same release O"Grady prescribes and they both talk about staying centred, and again, there are several elements to S and T that are VERY similar (the release is exactly the same, thats VERY similar). I don't know why people are so worked up about this, these ideas have been around for years, nobody owns them.

I get it, you went through the process and you figured out that it worked for you. You figured out how to teach it to your students and it works for many of them. Thats all fine and good, I don't have any problem with that. For the record not once did I criticize this method, so you guys can stop defending it, there is nothing to defend it against, I just don't understand why everything has to be so hostile.

Honestly it was this sort of thing with the S and T guys that drove me from the instruction section the first time around. It shouldn't be about being RIGHT and discrediting anything that doesn't coincide with your method as WRONG. It should be about sharing information in a respectful manner.

[verderraul]

Jim,

+1

"Less clubface rate of closure also means better clubface control, and  also easier to time, and much more accurate. More center-face contact  more often means more distance for the average amateur. "

[kellygreen]

Thrillhouse, on 20 April 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

verderraul, on 20 April 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Now that the dust has settled

Out of curiosity, which current players are known as great ball strikers/iron players. I can think of of 3 on top of my head : Sergio, Hunter and Lee.....all of these are not flippers. I want to see which ones flip and yet are great ball strikers.

i dunno if flipper is the word id use, but these guys are cf and they hit it pretty good:

1. The first player looks like Adam Scott, and he is using a body release.

2. Fred Couples was known as a power player, not a great ball striker like Nick Faldo or Nick Price.

[kellygreen]

Thrillhouse, on 20 April 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Couple more, this ones set to some calming music!

1. Charl Schwartzel??  Again not known as a ball striker.

2. Luke Donald. Yes he is a consistent ball striker and iron player, but is also a player with almost super humanly smooth and consistent rhythm and tempo. Once again highlighting the disadvantage of this type of release.

[PingG10guy]

Thrillhouse, on 20 April 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Alright, lets take a step back here.

The last part of what I said wasnt directed at you.  But I agree with every part of your response.

The Mac O'grady stuff is crazy though.  Radius locks, eye tilts, arm pressure points, feet pressure points, losing flexion in the rear leg(most of the SF camp I see doesnt).  Ive read almost all of the old SF threads; he said he learned a lot from Mac's older vid in the 80's.  As a whole package though in present day they dont seem like similar instructors to me.

[Fort Worth Pro]

What's really funny is how different Ballard and s&t are and somehow the sf swing is teaching the same as both. figure that out.

Btw... Jim is correct above

[HawkeyeDan]

This debate has been interesting, but one thing I kept found myself asking while reading through everyone's posts are is this:  What's the best way to choose which method to follow, without a fair amount of time and trial and error?  Its somewhat personal to me, as I fit that mid to high handi group, and although I know I can always practice short game to shave strokes (and I do) I haven't played the game long enough to know what method fits me best.  I have played golf for about 3 years, and although I don't think I suck by any means, I could really improve my ball striking by a lot.  

So I am a taller golfer (6'2") who is fairly athletic (played college hockey and rec basketball) who is fairly flexible and has decent timing.  I am willing to commit to becoming a better ball striker.  I have enough ingrained habits to hit it decently, but not enough that a change would be really difficult to do.  I figure I could eventually figure out any method ultimately - I am kind of good at nothing and bad at nothing so nothing is really highlighted or defaulted.

I know this is somewhat rhetorical, but which fits me best?  I have seen 2 different PGA pros and both think I should do something different.  

Personally - how did you decide which method to follow?

[bmellisen]

Not trying to be condescending here, but i find it hilarious when a pros swing is cited as poor ballstriking. I am pretty sure charle schwartzel is a pretty good ballstriker. Hawkeye, if i am remembering my floor hockey allstar days, a hockey slapshot is a body pivot driven type of swing, so that might be an easier transition for you. But you are right it is hard to decide what way to go. A lot of good instructors teaching many good ideas.

[russc]

Jim Waldron, on 21 April 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

I teach a rotary, body-release type swing to about 95% of my students, and to all my beginners. It is the easiest to learn from a purely coordination of the body parts standpoint, that point is simply irrefutable. I have had a few beginners who have hit the ball almost as well as the average club pro after a three day intensive "boot camp" golf swing school. Fewer moving parts, especially the crucial upper arms part of the body, means easier to time and stay in balance. Less clubface rate of closure also means better clubface control, and also easier to time, and much more accurate. More center-face contact more often means more distance for the average amateur.

CF and CP releases that Mac coined are extreme examples to make the point more clear, most tour pros are in fact somewhere in the middle  between those two extreme release types, including Louis O, Adam S and Rory. Extreme upper arm connection that is maintained long after impact and a large arm to chest angle will cause an extreme CP release ala Hogan. Letting momentum pull the upper arms off the chest during release and impact (or just a micro-second after is much more effective) and less arm to chest angle will cause a more CF release. CF has the disadvantage of raising the shaft plane angle to a steeper plane, requiring a stand-up move or a slight left elbow chicken wing to not hit it fat. And it can easily lead to big pushes or compensatory pulls and/or snmap hooks. Too much CP can lead to big slices or big OTT pulls if the golfer has not mastered proper pivot sequencing for the forward swing, eg starting Transition with early shoulder girdle un-winding.

CF release is much more "natural" and in fact probably close to 100% of amateur golfers in the 12 handicap and higher range already suffer from a Fatal Flaw of way too much CF release, ie the Hit Impulse, since they literally use the muscles in the upper arms to throw the arms off the chest, in the right triceps to cast the right arm angle away too early, and the wrist muscles to throw the clubhead away.  A lot of really bad golf shots is the inevitable result. So encouraging an average golfer to use a CF release can be dangerous advice for that golfer if he or she has that kind of problem in their golf swing.

But the real Rule is that every golfer must search long and hard to find a method that works for him or her, there are NO absolutes in this game. Once you find it, believe in it and stick to it, no matter what anyone posting on a golf swing forum recommends.

Jim
Another perceptive post.Too bad that you do not post more frequently.

[tofur99]

Adam scott actually has good body rotation through impact, club is working around low and in front of the body, he just kind of relaxes his wrists post impact.

I agree with bmellisen hawkeye, if you played hockey then the big muscle, passive release type swing will probably be more natural for you.

Edited by tofur99, 21 April 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[russc]

bmellisen, on 21 April 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Not trying to be condescending here, but i find it hilarious when a pros swing is cited as poor ballstriking. I am pretty sure charle schwartzel is a pretty good ballstriker. Hawkeye, if i am remembering my floor hockey allstar days, a hockey slapshot is a body pivot driven type of swing, so that might be an easier transition for you. But you are right it is hard to decide what way to go. A lot of good instructors teaching many good ideas.

It seems to be pretty obvious that comments about pro's ball striking abilities is made relative to other touring pros  and not in comparison to average golfers.Even the worst touring pro would be an awesome ball striker by most amateur standards.

Edited by russc, 21 April 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[kellygreen]

bmellisen, on 21 April 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Not trying to be condescending here, but i find it hilarious when a pros swing is cited as poor ballstriking. I am pretty sure charle schwartzel is a pretty good ballstriker. Hawkeye, if i am remembering my floor hockey allstar days, a hockey slapshot is a body pivot driven type of swing, so that might be an easier transition for you. But you are right it is hard to decide what way to go. A lot of good instructors teaching many good ideas.

There are differences in talent level and skill level.  Even among elite amateurs and pros.

I had the good fortune to play against Ken Griffey Jr. when I was a college player, and I have NO shame in admitting that he (even back then) was a "Man among Boys"...and I was one of the "boys" in comparison to the future HOFer.  Even though I was a player who probably had enough talent myself to reach AAA or journeyman status in the majors.  To this day, he is STILL one of the most natural, purest, power-hitters I've ever seen play.

My point is not to say that Charl Schwartzel is a "poor ballstriker".  No Masters Champion is.  But I think he would be the first to admit that he is NOT known as one of the top players in terms of ball-striking consistency among his peers.  Currently he is tied for 107th on Tour in Ballstriking.   Which is a combination of the players ranking in terms of Total Driving (52nd) and GIR (148th).

Whereas the top of this stat category is PACKED with one-plane/body release players. (Mahan, Oosthuizen, Woods, Rose, Westwood)

So, actually, the rolling-release type swing is a more "natural" move for me.  Because draws upon a lot of the skills I used as a baseball player.  The problem is that baseball doesn't require the same degree of precision that golf does.   As a hitter, all I had to do was hit the ball somewhere in a couple of acres where no one could get to before it hit the ground, or I reached base. While I was a very talented hitter in baseball, I found that I couldn't play quality golf that way.  (Probably because I lack the small muscle coordination to make such a swing work at a high level in golf).

But with a body release swing, I'm able to draw upon other baseball strengths and skills which makes me a long hitter.  Even in my mid-40s.

[Thrillhouse]

@kellygreen

nick faldo and nick price who you described as "great ball strikers" in your criticism of couples were both about as CF as you can get in the prime of their careers and still are. adam scott clearly rolls the face over post impact, all tour players regardless of release type rotate their body through the shot which regardless of release will move the club left post impact, so to say its a "body release" doesnt dispute the fact that he is cf in that video. yes, donald has nice rhythm, i dont know how that disputes that whatever he does in his swing is working though.

heres the problem though, when people say things like "charl schwartzel? again not known as a ball striker" we dont even have a conversation anymore, hes one of the best ballstrikers on the planet.

im going to go back to the cult comment on page one. when we get into multiple postings that say "any tour player who swings the club in a manner other than what the messiah prescribes sucks. it doesnt matter how many majors and tournaments hes won, it doesnt matter that hes hit 65 percent of his GIR 20 years in a row, he sucks"  there really isnt anything left to talk about. this whole thing has absolutely 100% become a cult. look at this thread, anyone who agrees with the cult is praised with "+1!" "thats bang on, youre so knowledgable!" yet anyone who suggests that there might be another way to get it done other than what the messiah prescribes is belittled and ridiculed.

since there isnt an actual conversation to be had here other than the blind sheep following of the cult there really is no point in continuing. i just hope you remember this 2 years from now when you are arguing that the next shiny new toy in swing instruction is the greatest thing ever and the only way to get it done. ill still be doing the same thing i am now, kool aid free of course.