The main article is 100% right. I am 80, and have experienced the loss of distance with the driver.
I had a Burner senior which was quite acceptable, until I was not hitting the ball solid, and therefore was not going anywhere.
I decided to take a Fitting Sesion, and the Pro told me that I should never use a shaft for over 74-90 mph. Then he gave a Cobra M for that speed, and it was incredible.
I am hitting the ball much easier and it rolls much more than before.
MORAL
We should stop been conceited and accept that we are what we are, but also take any advantage of the new technology.
Good Luck-

Buenos Aires
Hurlingham Club
Argentna

Don,
I'm honored to say that I went through the USGA Junior golf with Deane Beman,and ,believe it or not,I actually played in several of the same tournaments as Jack . Enough Gloating.......I have finally forced myself to step down to the senior tees.Thanks for the reminder to do so.....

Well Mr. Shatley, I think maintaining an 8 handicap after only playing golf, twice per month, for 5 years with a all time low score of 70, is not bad at all. I believe I am in the top 10% of weekend golfers and, if giving my opinion is considered criticism then so be it. In your own way, you are critizincing me as well as Ken so let's not forget about the stones and the glass house concept.

One thing I do know, there are countless of teaching methods that claim to be an instant "fix it all" and this one is just another one of them.

BTW, I am 33 years old, not 60+ so I do not have a problem with flexibility.

Ben,


"As long as my weight is moving (slightly and slowly) in the right direction......)



"So to be connected through the bottom, you have to have some speed already building up. Without that centrifugal force, the weight cannot get applied to the club. Does it make sense?

Yes sir, it makes a lot of sense and it was this discovery, not different swing concepts, which took me from a 16 handicap to my present 8 several years ago.

You have made a lot of good observations in your writings but these are truly "secrets" everyone should understand and follow.

The real "secret" in golf is the understanding of how to create centrifugal force while maintainig a correct path and "gradually" doing the weight transfer. Once this is understood and practiced most every other "secrets" will seem silly.

One of the most common swing killer is a quick jump to the left side thinking this will create swing speed. I truly think that most weekend golfers really do not understand the weight shift and thus the reason why we keep spending our hard earned money in all these different swing concepts.

Please continue your input to this forum, it is very much appreciated.

Roy.

I meant to say "only leads to HIGHER scores". :)

Mrblase, I am just having a little fun. Nothing personal in fact, I truly think that if you were able to get excellent results from this type of swing then I congratulate you. I tried it and immediately got back to my more reliable swing which has kept me at a solid 8 handicap for many years. In trying the Trahan method I immediately noticed a considerable loss of distance with the driver and a tendency to swing a bit from the outside.

I think I have finally realize that the only way I can get better is to practice more which I seldom do. My main fault is to do the little adjustments while I am playing which everyone knows only lead to lower scores.

Respecfully,

Roy.

TO BEN SHATLEY,

Hold on Ben, I am not talking against the man I was named after, Mr. Ben Hogan. I simply point out that Jack accomplished things Ben Hogan did not. And Jack came out and beat Arnie as well as putting up numbers neither of them accomplished. That does not mean I am talking "junk" only facts and stats. I believe I can prove his flatter swing was not due to a double jointed thumb. It was his way of attempting to stop the club from going way past parallel and hitting him in the left shoulder. He set out to correct this by clamping down his right elbow to his side figuring that he could not overswing this way. This is shown in his two books, it hyou look at them. The problem is that this does not work for the average player. And I hav e a friend that knew Hogan and taught his overflow students. He says Hogan had a huge set of hands and forearms which allowed him to use his hands to compensate for the loss of speed caused by clamping his right elbow down. He was great. I am a great fan of his. As said, I am named after him and I have the ultimate respect for him. However, how many modern players swing like him vs. full extension of the right arm, including the elbow coming away from the body? Hogan said himself said "the secret is in the dirt." He spent many, many hours, days, weeks, months and years hitting balls his way. I am not saying this was wrong. Just that it may be difficult for beginners, seniors and women who do not have the strength Hogan had in his hands. I don't know about busting eggs or hiding behind women and children, just the first hand facts from people who knew him personally and very well for.many years. He was always willing to discuss theory and didn't mind these type of observations from his friends. I was not one, unfortunately, but he will admit as shown in his books that he had swing problems and clamping his right arm to stop his overswing was one of them, plain and simple. Now I hope that doesn't bust your egg (whatever that means) or send you behind the women and children?? Settle down man!

As far as the left arm is concerned, I apologize again for my apparent inability to communicate. I do not advocate nor was I taught to keep the left arm straight. I was only using the left arm as an example of where a "DISCONNECT" can happen in the swing. I could have chosen anywhere on the body. I was only trying to say that the best power in the swing is additive. Using the "chain link" explanation was supposed to make that point. I agree with you that both elbows must bend, obviously, to make a full swing. I don't think we have a disagreement here at all.

In regards to all the junk in my head, becoming a "danged nut case", having a perfect swing, intentionally making bad swings, and just making it work for you, etc., I just have to apologize for getting too technical. I threw out too much about the swing, allowing for this blog format, to get enough information to allow anyone to understand. I am not trying to say this is the "perfect" swing, but since we were talking theories, I offered mine. I noticed you had quite a lot of swing theory opinions which you blogged rather than using the "just make it work" analogy to explain yours. So once again, I think we have gone as far as we can with this. Clearly I cannot get you to understand this in this format. If you were to do about four easy drills, your brain would teach your body how to make this swing, automatically witnhout thinking about anything. But if just "making it happen" using "intentional bad swings" works for you, go for it. Quite frankly it sounds more like frustration over inability to grasp the concept. Especially with logic that since the major power in the swing is at the bottom half of the swing, that it follows that only half a swing is sufficient. Clearly all that happened in the first half of the swing to arrive at the last half of the swing where the power is used, does not justify saying that it is only the last half of the swing that counts. Please! I will end reading this here.

#1 3//4 is 3/4 regardless of club used. Left shoulder stops just short of chin.

#2 If you start the downswing with the left hip bump and let the club drop and swing along aim line, this should help you not come over the top.

#3. I believe that the backswing and downswing should mirror each other. The key is rhythm.

Roy,

Wow this topic has taken on a life of it own.

Just to clarify my 306 yard drive I probable hit it to about 270 and it caught the down slope of a firm fairway and rolled out the rest of the way. But on the other hand I have hit more drives out to 260-280 range since I've used Don's method than at any other time in my golf life. I can't explain it and can only continue to work on this limited turn vertical swing and enjoy the results. Other factors that might play into my improvement are a driver fitting that I had at PGA National that resulted in a new driver and shaft that fit those results and a regular exercise program.

Ben SHATLEY

With regard to Mike Austin’s record 515 yard drive please read the book “In Search of The Greatest Golf Swing“ by Philip Reed. Mike used a steel shafted persimmon-headed club and without the benefit of the hot balls that we have today to accomplish this feat. I read the book last summer and it was very entertaining and you will find that Mike Austin was an amazing “character” who was larger than life. He routinely hit drives in the 370 to 400 plus yard range his whole professional life and these facts are well documented. His technique, while not divulged in this book, is used by many of the worlds long drive champions, who learned it from Mike. Mike Austin figured out how to absolutely kill the ball. He admits that he couldn’t chip or putt or he’d be at the top of every modern day record book. It’s a great book to read and goes to prove that the more we think we know about golf the less we really know.

To J. Griffin: I'm an older but solid golfer (75 yrs., 11.6 index) working to incorporate the PPGS method. I'd like to ask three questions.
1, I understand that on the 3/4 backswing the left shoulder should point toward one"s splayed left foot. Should this be so for all clubs, i.e. driver, 5 iron, wedge, etc.?
2, Should I consciously keep my right shoulder back or closed when I start my pass through the ball? (I feel this thought keeps me from "coming over the top.)
3, As to tempo: I feel that the pace of the backswing should be more deliberate than the AFAP through-swing. Is this a correct interpretation or Don's teaching philosophy?
I would very much appreciate receiving your thoughts on these matters so I can try to continue improving.
Thanks so much, Larry

TO BEN SHATLEY:


Hey Ben,

It is too bad you have posted your last comments on this thread. I think we were just getting to the "meat" of the matter. You obviously have considerable experience from which I and many other readers would benefit. Unfortunately, this format does not give you sufficient time and space (or you don't want to post for some other reason) to fully get into your explanations, which is again too bad as they are very interesting and informative. There are several areas with which we could have a healthy conversation.

For example, when you speak of "square to square" I hope you are not referring to that long lost instructional method which Golf Digest adopted as their “official teaching method” in the mid-60s. I believe it was the failed (by their own admission) assumption that a player must "curl under" the last three fingers of the left hand in order to arrive at a straight left wrist and left arm at the top. I think it was Bob Toskey and Jim Flick that came to those false assumptions. They retracted their assumptions later, after it cost me (and probably many others) months of lost time. But the cupping of the left wrist to bring the club to parallel is not the same as making a full turn (90 degrees or more). Sure you can get the club to parallel, but you still lose movement and power by restricting the backswing. I would really like your explanation further on the ability to hit the ball further with a less than full turn. Whether 90 degrees or 120 degrees, the more of a turn, the more power you can put behind the ball, everything else being equal. In a restricted backswing not only do you lose more movement you can add to the kinetic energy in the swing, but you do not allow your latisimus dorsey (sp?) muscles in the back to stretch and then spring back. This is a source of generating tremendous power. Of course, to accomplish this you must have the proper tension relationships in the swing and there is a way to accomplish this, as is present in the effortless power of many top PGA players, including Freddie Couples.

Certainly a full turn is not necessary to get the club to parallel. I agree with that, but less than a full turn, even getting the club to parallel will not give the power you would achieve with a full turn added to those cupped wrists. John Daly in the best example of this I can think of. This is why his club is way beyond parallel. He has added the cupped wrist to the full turn, thereby increasing his power by putting more factors into play. If you can control all of this, it will give more distance. I would love to see any top money-winning PGA pro with a less than full (90 degree at least) turn. They don’t exist, thus illustrating my point.

I think we are on the same page when you addressed the issue of getting the player’s full weight “behind the ball.” Again, however, I am not sure I am communicating what I mean by that. It is not a POSITION issue. It is a CONNECTION issue. If you do not allow all the movement from the ground to the club head add up in the swing by staying connected, then any disconnect will mean loss of any of the kinetic energy potentially built up by all the moving body parts on the other side of the disconnect from the ball. In other words, if your left elbow (for right-handed players) gives out and breaks down during the swing (changes/bends during the swing) there is huge potential for loss of CONNECTION and therefore loss of power. If you picture each body part as a link in a chain, all I am saying is that any time the chain gets loose and does not remain taut, power is lost.

Regarding Jack Nicklaus, I am sure you are familiar with Jack Grout's assistant holding Jack's head while Jack would swing the club (many people think it was Mr. Grout that did this but it was not, just ask Jack) you know that they were trying to teach Jack to keep his head still. This is different than Jimmy Ballard's teachings. Jimmy Ballard would have allowed Jack's head to rotate on the axis of his cervical (neck) vertebrae, while insuring that the cervical vertebrae were not moving except to rotate. You see the heads of many of the top PGA players rotating on their cervical axis and moving back in their backswings as a direct result. The cervical vertebrae are the correct axis for the swing. Just watch Jack's swing (in his earlier days especially as opposed to now). He even has a slight "hunch" (for lack of a better term) in his back just below his cervical vertebrae. It is a slight bend in his back below the cervical vertebrae, noticeable at address especially, around which he swings his left arm. As a result, he had the modern vertical swing, but as a result was accused of the "flying right elbow, which everyone said was wrong just because Hogan said so. Of course Jack didn’t help when his explanation was that it just “felt good to me, but (he) wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to others. This was in fact, one of the sources of his power and ability to hit those towering high shots that landed softly on the greens. I don’t know if he couldn’t or wouldn’t give up this secret at the time. But he was copied and Hogan was proven, over time, to have lost that argument.

Hogan was accepted as the golf guru at the time because of his books after his success, especially after the 1947 accident. I do not agree with Mr. Hogan. I have much respect for him (rest his soul) and I am even named after him (my middle name). But anyone that attempts to swing with their right elbow tucked into their side (i.e. the drill holding the towel or club cover under the right armpit without dropping it) can't get enough power. (Imagine a baseball picture throwing a ball from this position.) Hogan got away with it because he had a very powerful set of hands and forearms that he would use to put a tremendous slap into the ball. Most of us, especially senior men and most women do not have the strength to do this. Hogan did. Byron Nelson and Jack Nicklaus taught all of us a better way. And they all had full backswing turns. I will agree that Lord Byron Nelson was the "father" of the modern swing (with the flying elbow and all) but Jack was certainly the epitome of it. Jack brought this swing to the forefront, beating Hogan with it and setting all those records, which Mr. Nelson did not.

There are three moves in golf that you never heard spoken of and which are absolutely necessary to achieving the power necessary in the modern swing. The “first release” which involves tension relationships, which are, in part, the connection issue we spoke of earlier, but needs much further discussion. If you watch closely a video of Jack’s swing, you will see him tighten up his forearms at address, just before starting his backswing. This is to ensure a “one-piece takeaway.

Then Jack “heaves: or throws up his arms and the club onto the vertical axis around his neck. This “heave” is brief, but powerful. It sends the club and arms to about 11:00 on its own momentum. Jack, in his book “Golf My Way” said he knows in the first foot of his backswing if he had made a good swing or not. This tells volumes. It is a peek into the insight of the “heave” and how important it is in the swing.

Then, and what the cameras do not show is that at about 8:30 in the backswing (picturing a clock with Jack’s head at 12:00 and his feet at 6:00) he “releases” all the tension he created in firming up his arms at address. There is no further muscle or upper body move in his swing after releasing the tension at 8:30 in his backswing. The “heave” sends the club up to about 11:00 on its own. This swing works on the first law of physics which says when an object starts in motion it tends to stay in motion until or unless acted upon by another force. This is why jack’s swing was superior. It is based on the laws of physics which govern motion.

Next, with all the tension released from his upper body, he completes his backswing with his shoulder turn all from the momentum of the “heave.” Then he shifts his weight forward, stretching his back muscles creating more kinetic energy. But again, there is no attempt to hit the ball or swing with the upper body after the 8:30 position in the “heave.” The upper body acts like the tip of the bullwhip the rest of his swing.

The other move is the “counterfall” which is getting the body to the edge of the “safety envelope” to allow the body to easily pivot and generate tremendous power with an easy turning of the hips, while preventing hitting the ball “fat” or the ground behind the ball. I do have some agreement with Surge on his hip “bump.” But getting to the edge of the “safety envelope” is a dynamic move that Jack and Freddie make and is necessary to hit it like them. Most of us “counterfall” in some way or we would hit it fat. I am referring, in part only, to the offset of the weight of the club and arms swinging in front of the body. But understanding how else the “counterfall” works and using it to create power is essential if you want to hit it like Freddie or Jack.

To demonstrate how the counterfall gets you to the edge of your safety envelope, picture a 55 gallon drum filled with water and trying to move it while it lays flat. It would be pretty hard to move. Now put the same barrel on its edge and see how it is to move (roll). This is an example of getting to the edge of your safety envelope.

Now, if you can use the counter fall to deflect your forward motion into a “fall” back, away from the ball (at a vector of about 70 degrees), you can get to the edge of your safety envelope where you free up your body to allow it to move (easily like the barrel on its edge) and create rotational power. We as humans, have very few muscles that allow us to turn. We are built for power up and down, mostly. So the ability to understand and use the counterfall to create rotational power is essential if you want to hit is like Jack or Freddie. You could literally hit balls forever from a position of being flat footed, knees bowed out as Surge recommends and never hit a ball like Freddie or Jack because that is not what they are doing. Using the counterfall to offset the arms swinging in front of the body gives the “net effect” of balance. It also creates rotational power in the swing, which is essential to effortless distance.

So in conclusion and I will conclude with this unless asked questions, I just want to give the readers the benefit of what has worked so well for me. There are some secrets to effortless power and the above gives a glimpse into them. Of course, there is so much more needed to learn this that it is impossible in this format. But there are drills that will teach these moves to you as easily as you learned to walk or ride a bike. I hope this helps at least some of you. Good luck and stay tension free.

Ken Genz