ATTENTION, READERS in the 28 EUROPEAN VAT COUNTRIES: Because of the new VAT law, you probably can't order books direct from my site now. But that's okay -- just go to my Smashwords author page. You can order PDFs (as well as all the other ebook formats) from there.
Ernest Jones is the source of most modern teaching on "swinging" a golf club as opposed to "hitting" with one. And most instructors tend to avoid his teaching, on the grounds that the classic swing uses centrifugal and centripetal force while the modern swing depends more on leverage.
But a swing by any other name is still a swing, and the two approaches do share some basics. So today I thought I'd pass on a thought from the Jones book Swing the Clubhead (originally called Swinging into Golf), which is generally considered a classic instruction text.
There's a truth in here that any golfer can benefit from learning, no matter what swing method he uses:
There are, to be sure, more ways than one to strike a ball. You can strike it by swinging the clubhead or by employing leverage. You can strike it harder with a swinging action than you can in any other way with the power at your command, and still retain reasonable control over your effort. The principle of centrifugal application of force guarantees this. But it is not likely that you will come to a realization of this of your own accord. To do so is not consistent with your past experiences. Your natural instinct is to try to turn the power on all at once. A swinging action must begin smoothly and rhythmically, and the force producing it must be applied gradually. There can be no quick jerky movement at any stage of the procedure. As soon as the movement develops this characteristic, the swinging is destroyed. Steadiness, not speed, is the keynote in beginning the application of power in a swing. Speed is developed later. [p60-61]
That last paragraph -- and particularly the last two sentences -- is something that applies to any method of swinging a club. If you want to hit the ball a long way and still keep some kind of control over its direction, you have to stay SMOOTH. And Jones describes that smoothness with the word STEADINESS.
What does that mean? It means you don't try to suddenly jerk the club from the top, where it has basically stopped in order to change direction, and accelerate from zero to 100mph all at once. You have to get the club accelerating smoothly for the first foot or so of hand and arm movement. Then and only then can you try to let it go.
Or, in the words Jones uses, "Speed is developed later."
This is no different than what Hogan said when he wrote that he wished he had three right hands to create power in his swing. He made the point that you don't try to "hit" the ball until your hands are well into the downswing and your body is in position to unleash that power with balance and control. Both classic and modern swingers have to unleash their power SMOOTHLY, whether they do it through centrifugal force or leverage.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
John mentions a number of things but there are two I want to emphasize:
He thinks about swinging his sand wedge, even with a 5-iron. (Elsewhere I've heard him say the same thing about hitting driver. It shows in his rhythm.) John says he feels that he swings at around 85%. This keeps his swing smooth.
Before John goes out to play, he doesn't practice. He just swings enough to warm up, and he's not averse to starting his round without a warmup. (When you think about swinging every club like a sand wedge, you aren't going to strain yourself early in the round!)
Take the time to listen to this short video and watch John hit a few. Try to absorb the easy rhythm of his swing and take it to the course with you. You'll probably play much better, and with a lot less effort as well.
A few days back I did a post called Hitting VS Swinging, and Dana left the following questions in the comments:
Mike, can you speak more on the swinger preference and feeling the club
pull the hands back. I've been taking lessons from a student of Manuel,
and he says 'use the hands to take the clubhead back, then swing the
entire club forward.' Also, any youtubes on good swinging motions?
That's a lot to cover in one post, but I'll see if I can at least start clearing up some of the confusion.
I'll start with the last question first. It's really hard to find videos that demonstrate a "historically accurate" swinging motion, because of Ernest Jones. As I noted in that other post, Jones adapted the original classic swing -- which was intended for use with soft hickory shafts -- to stiffer steel shafts. In doing so, he had to drop some of the original techniques that didn't transfer well.
A good example is what many modern teachers call "regripping at the top of the swing." In my copy of the Jones book Swing the Clubhead, on page 33 he specifically says that this is an error that many great golfers did unintentionally. That puts him at odds with Harry Vardon who, in his book The Complete Golfer (which is in public domain here in the US and can be found in several free digital editions at this Project Gutenberg link), not only said that the regripping was on purpose, but told how much movement there was and where to measure it! But Vardon played only hickory and Jones taught his students how to play steel. The "regrip," which really isn't a regrip because those fingers aren't gripping the club -- they actually sense the shaft tension to help you feel what the clubhead is doing -- didn't allow you to load a steel shaft properly. (Don't understand what that means? Check out this post.)
Having said that, the late Manuel de la Torre -- who I have often recommended as an alternative to Hogan for those who requested an option -- based much of his teaching on Jones, and he taught several LPGA major winners. There are some YouTubes of de la Torre, but I have posted one of an old Academy Live show below. I originally posted it at this link, but this will save you some time. Note that, as I noted in my original post, the first five minutes may sound like crazy geometric stuff, but hang in there because there's a lot of good material in this show.
Now, about that "use the hands to take the clubhead back, then swing the
entire club forward" comment. I have talked about "flinging the clubhead back" in past posts, which may have added to the confusion. I'm going to try to explain both phrases here, and then I'll call it quits for today.
Here is a video of Harry Vardon I found that illustrates the classic "flinging" motion. I've set it to start at the 1:45 mark (to give you time to close any ads that might appear) where you'll see text that says
The "slowed" view. Note how the hands move back before the head of the club.
If you watch the sequence there closely, you'll see Vardon waggle the club, place the clubhead behind the ball, forward press very slightly, and then the hands will move back noticeably before the clubhead begins to move.
Have you ever heard Gary Player talk about "striking a match" with the clubhead? This is the same movement, only on the backswing. In Player's drill, if you set the club behind the ball and then "strike the match" as you swing to your finish, you'll feel pressure in the back of your trailing wrist. When the clubhead overcomes the friction of touching the ground, it will be flung forward and the motion will feel as if the clubhead is pulling your hands forward.
"Flinging the clubhead back" is the same sort of motion, except you do it on the takeaway and it creates that pressure in the back of your LEAD wrist. When the clubhead starts to overcome the friction of the ground, it is flung backward and feels as if it is pulling your hands upward.
Then, at the change of direction at the top, the pressure will again move to the back of your trailing wrist, just as it did when you "struck the match" earlier. This feeling is caused by the clubhead lagging on the way down as your wrist cock is retained (or whatever terms you want to use to describe it). Your wrists finally start to uncock around halfway down because the increasing speed of the clubhead (acceleration!) starts catching up to the much slower speed of your hands.
In other words, your hands take the clubhead back and then you swing the entire club forward.
This doesn't mean you aren't using your lower body to drive the swing. The laws of physics DEMAND that your swing start from the ground up, both when you start your backswing and when you start your downswing. The problem comes when we start to interfere with the natural motions. Then we create exaggerated motions that overpower the natural motions our bodies are trying to do. And that causes more inconsistency, because we don't overpower the natural motions quite the same way every time. (That's part of the reason pros have to practice so much and yet they still struggle.)
I can hear your protests -- the golf swing ISN'T natural! Well, yes and no. It would be more correct to say that it isn't natural to all of us. Ever wonder why baseball players, quarterbacks and hockey players seem to be much better at the game than the rest of us?
It's all about the shoulder coil. See, most of us never learn what a natural shoulder coil USING BOTH ARMS feels like. Pick up a ball in one hand and throw it overhand. Take a look at yourself in a mirror. I bet your shoulders haven't turned more than maybe 30°, if that. Your hips barely turn at all.
But those three athletes I mentioned, they all learn to coil their shoulders while they hold one object with both hands -- the baseball player swings a bat, the quarterback uses both hands to take the ball up to shoulder height (to secure that large ball in case he gets hit), and the hockey player uses a stick. And the hockey players are typically the best of the three, simply because the hockey stick has a flat surface that they have to learn to control if they want the puck to go where they aim it. So the hockey players are much better with hand/clubface control as well as making a better shoulder coil. These are skills that work for both swingers and hitters, but they really make a swinger into a formidable opponent.
So there you have it. That's sort of a basic course on how the swinging motion works and why some folks are better at it than others. I hope it answers yours and Dana's questions. And as usual, you can drop extra questions in the comments below and I'll try to answer them.
Clyde sent me a Tweet asking about resources for hitting rather than swinging. I recommended Jimmy Ballard and Ben Hogan, and I Tweeted links to two of my own posts that were six years apart: A Relaxed Approach to Wrist Action (2011) and The Wall Slap Drill (2017). And it occurred to me that many of you might have similar questions:
Just what is the difference between hitting and swinging?
How can I tell which teachers teach which method?
And how do I choose which is best for me?
A complete answer to the first question would require understanding the entire history of the golf swing! In fact, although I tend to draw a line between them based on the equipment, there were hitters even in the days of hickory shafts (Walter Hagen is a great example), and there have been swingers even since steel shafts became the norm (Ernie Els comes to mind). So trying to give you a complete answer -- especially in a blog post -- isn't very likely.
Still, I think I can give you enough info that you can answer that third question. So let's get on with it.
Question 1) The simplest way to define the two is in terms of the swing's length. A practical and easy-to-remember dividing line is a three-quarter swing, as defined by the position of hands on a clock face.
For a righthander, a 3/4 swing is a 10:30 swing -- that is, at the top of your backswing -- your lead arm points halfway between the 10 and the 11.
For a lefthander, a 3/4 swing is a 1:30 swing -- that is, at
the top of your backswing -- your lead arm points halfway between the 1
and the 2.
A swing shorter than that is a hitter's swing, and longer than that is a swinger's swing.
Why is that my dividing line? Because it effectively explains many of the other differences:
Hitters focus on power because it takes a lot of effort to create clubhead speed in a short time. Swingers focus on rhythm because the longer swing length allows them to speed up more gradually.
Hitters use stiffer shafts because that's the only way to control the force needed to create speed quickly. Swingers use softer shafts because the shafts load more slowly, thus they need to respond under less force.
Hitters use leverage to load the stiffer shafts. Swingers use momentum from centrifugal (and centripetal) force to load the shafts.
Hitters use less hand and wrist action because they want to focus the force on the shaft itself. Swingers use more hand and wrist action because they use motion to control the force placed on the shaft.
Hitters tend to swing flatter, as a more rotary swing creates more leverage by using the hips and legs as the primary power source. Swingers tend to swing upright, as the swing arc is bigger and makes it easier to create a big shoulder turn, which uses the momentum of the club as the primary power source. Note that both swings use both power sources, but in different ways. Sam Snead, for example, knew both swings and was a long driver regardless of which one he used.
Now there are other differences as well, and many of them are specific to certain teaching methods. But as a general rule, the motions are the same -- it's the player's mindset that makes the difference. The player's mental approach determines, for example, whether he (or she) feels the takeaway as his hands and arms pushing the club away from the ball (that's a hitter) or his hands and arms being pulled away from the ball (that's a swinger). Because steel shafts have been the norm since the late 1920s, most of us tend to think like hitters...
Which is a shame, because we now have the technology to make shafts ideally suited to the swinging motion, which is much easier on the average player's body. (Snead said the hardest thing his generation ever had to do was change from hickory to steel shafts. It took Byron Nelson to figure out the primary techniques, over a period of years during the 1930s.) As it stands, true swinging is something of a lost art these days, so it's difficult for players to really have a choice.
Question 2) You can often tell which swing an instructor teaches simply by looking at the length of the swing he teaches. But the truth is that most teachers, even those using some form of the classic swing, tend to teach a hybrid swing that doesn't use the most effective moves of the classic swing. Most classic teaching is based on a book by Ernest Jones, which wasn't published until 1935, roughly eight years after steel shafts became the standard in club manufacture.
In other words, it's actually much easier to find a "hitting" teacher than a "swinging" teacher. Your best chance of finding a "swinging" teacher is to find instructors taught by the late Jim Flick or the late Manuel de la Torre. Bob Toski, who is still alive, also teaches more of a swinging technique, as does Pete Cowen. (At least, his teachings that I'm familiar with seem to be more classic.) I'm sure there are others, but those four are perhaps the best known.
Question 3) Look at your body type and your physical attributes and limitations. These are your best guide. As a general rule, hitters tend to be stocky and less flexible while swingers tend to be thin and flexible. Many pros have back pain because they try to combine the two, creating a huge arc while creating a lot of leverage. Lower backs simply aren't built to handle that kind of stress, especially when you spend hours each day lifting cars and then more hours pumping all that added strength through your lower back on the range.
So here's what I'd recommend for you aspiring hitters out there:
The 3/4 swing puts you in a stronger position to create leverage without straining your back. Making a 90° shoulder coil is the MAXIMUM you want to create; something around 80° is safer. From that position, you can unleash almost as hard as you want without overstressing your back muscles. Just give yourself enough time to finish your backswing. While I hesitate recommending a pause like Hideki Matsuyama has, I'd rather see that than a jerky change of direction since that will hurt your back and also mess up your accuracy.
As for you slim flexible folks who also want to hit the ball, just be aware that you'll need to put in some gym work, especially for your forearms and shoulders. You'd be better to use a hybrid swing like Bubba Watson, who goes very upright and pulls down with high hands rather than around with low hands. That will put less stress on your back. Note that as hard as Bubba swings, we've not heard of him having any chronic back problems.
So there you go. I hope that gives you all some idea how to tell the two swings apart and get the kind of instruction you want. But remember that you can learn from almost any teacher, as long as you understand what kind of swing they're teaching.
I have a copy of the Ernest Jones book Swing the Clubhead, which was originally called Swinging into Golf when it came out in 1937. The book was an attempt to teach players how to swing like the classic players did, albeit while using steel-shafted clubs.
There's an interesting sequence of pictures in the book that shows Leo Diegel hitting balls while standing on only one foot. The pictures are very small and dark in the book, and I haven't been able to find copies of them on the web, but the concept is an interesting way to learn how to swing.
No doubt you've heard of the famous Jones teaching aid -- a pocket knife attached to a handkerchief. You can read a good explanation of how that works at this GolfWorx page. But the Diegel exercise might help you understand that handkerchief drill better than the drill alone will, so let me explain what Diegel did.
Diegel was right-handed, so Diegel swung while standing on his right foot (his trail foot). So you righties would stand on your right foot, while you lefties would stand on your left foot. The idea is to make a full swing, hit the ball solidly, and finish in a balanced position without your lead foot ever touching the ground. If you overuse your body, you won't be able to keep your balance and will have to put your lead foot down.
Start by hitting pitches and half-shots, then lengthen your swing as you get more confident. This will help you get your hands, arms and body in sync throughout your swing. And when you go back to your normal stance, you should be able to hit the ball longer and perhaps more accurately.
Jones says that Diegel was able to shoot in the low-70s playing this way. I assume he shot some practice rounds this way, in order to work on his rhythm and balance. It sure sounds like a lot more fun than some of the practice techniques I've seen.
It's been a couple weeks now since I did a post called
How You Squeeze the Club's Handle Matters. At the end of it I said you needed some time to digest what was in it, and that I would come back and explain what players like Rory McIlroy and Jason Day are trying to do, and why it's so hard. Of course, we've had the Tour Championship and the Ryder Cup since then, so you should have had time to think about what I wrote in that original post.
Now it's time for me to make good on my promise... and making good on it means this is a fairly long post. I'm sorry, but there's no way around it.
You may remember the photo below, which was the first of three in that post. Classic swings and modern swings focus the grip pressure on different parts of the handle, and this photo shows that difference. As I said in that post, this difference has everything to do with the equipment -- the classic swing uses soft shafts, the modern swing uses stiff shafts. And the other photos showed how this simple change affects the hinging action of the wrists during the swing.
Now let's take a look at how these changes, both in equipment and therefore grip pressure, have caused the swing to evolve. You may need to refer back to the other post because I'm not going to repeat all of that information again. But it's not hard to follow along, because this is all very logical.
And if you pay attention, you'll understand why some of the "swing advice" you often hear doesn't help you at all.
All of these changes -- equipment, grip pressure, etc. -- have a number of effects on your swing, but one in particular is important to this conversation, and that's what I'll call your spherical spine axis. Yeah, I know that's a strange term to use, but I want you to imagine a ball joint similar to the ones you have in your shoulders. Those joints allow more than just a simple back-and-forth motion, or an up-and-down motion, or even the rotational twisting motion you use when you twist open a door knob. They allow you to move in all three of those axes. You might think of them as spherical joints.
When you swing your golf club, you get movement on a variety of axes as well. We talk about maintaining your spine tilt during your swing -- that's the angle at which you lean toward the ball. But you also have a sort of pivoting motion where your hips move back and forth along your target line; that's how you create your weight shift and allow your chest to "open" a bit at the top of your backswing and finish. And then there's the rotation of your shoulders as you create your coil. In an efficient swing, the pivot point of all three are very near each other, a point that is most easily understood as being somewhere along the length of your spine.
That point is what I'm calling your spherical spine axis, which I will abbreviate as SSA for the rest of this post. And that point has moved as the golf swing has evolved.
I want you to imagine a letter T. The crossbar of it reaches between your shoulders, and the downward bar runs down your spine. Can you imagine that?
In the classic swing, your SSA is located roughly where the two bars connect -- that is, right at the base of your neck. The swinging motion used with softer shafts doesn't create as much leverage because it's way too easy to overload soft shafts. By creating a high SSA, the amount of leverage is minimized. And that high SSA is in the natural location for the classic swinging motion.
How many of you have been told to "keep your head still"? That's more of a classic swing idea. Just think about it for a minute. With your SSA so close to your head, your head isn't going to move around very much in your swing. If it does, you're moving your upper body a lot... and that means you're moving your SSA around. In a well-made classic swing, your head stays relatively quiet during the swing.
Many of you are familiar with Ernest Jones. In fact, most modern instructors believe he teaches the classic swing and they base their criticism of classic technique on his teachings. But Jones doesn't teach classic swing for soft shafts. Rather, Ernest Jones tried to adapt the classic swing to stiff shafts. It never became popular because the SSA of a classic swing is too high to create the necessary leverage for a stiff shaft.
HOW CAN I BE SURE, you ask? It's simple logic if you know golf history. The R&A was the last of the governing bodies to make steel shafts legal for competition. As I said in the other post, that happened in late 1929. The Ernest Jones book Swing the Clubhead was published in 1937, over 8 years later! There is no logical reason for him to assume his readers were still using hickory shafts.
In addition, he says in the book that he teaches a pendulum swing, and it's a fact of basic physics that pendulums do NOT use leverage. This is why the classic swing never became the dominant way to swing steel-shafted clubs -- players couldn't get them to load with a pendulum swing, so they couldn't get the distance they wanted. That's not a problem since graphite shafts came along, but it was a very real problem until then.
It took until the early 1940s for players to figure out how to load the stiffer shafts. Byron Nelson became the first to successfully do so when he realized he needed extra leg drive to create the necessary leverage. Sam Snead said the change from hickory to steel was the hardest thing the pros had to make. And each man approached the problem in his own way.
Nelson bent both knees toward the target to create load; he still wasn't particularly long but was unbelievably accurate. Snead bent the knees in opposite directions -- the infamous "Snead Squat" -- which created a greater loading on the club and gave him much more distance. And why did this work?
The increased knee action -- and this was primarily knee action, a slight downward flex with an upward push (ie, they straightened their lead knee at impact) created a bit more forward hip movement. The net effect of this action was to lower the SSA down the spine slightly. (The head moved a bit more as well. "Keep your head still" became less useful as a swing thought! At this point, teachers began to recommend a slight head movement away from the ball at impact.)
It wasn't a huge change, but it was enough to load the stiffer shafts of the time and create more distance. Even in the mid-1950s, the great player and teacher Tommy Armour recommended in his book How to Play Your Best Golf All the Time that weekend players should get softer shafts than they believed they needed. Softer shafts meant greater distance with less effort, so weekend players could focus more on making good swings than on generating distance.
I should point out that golfers using the "drop down" loading technique don't seem to have had the back problems we see nowadays. Just look at how long -- and how well -- players from that generation were able to play without debilitating back pain. Players like Tom Watson, Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer -- each with his own very distinctive swing -- rarely if ever had to withdraw from tournaments because of recurring pain.
And then Hogan showed up, focusing on the concept we now call connection. And the practical result of keeping the upper arms so close to the player's side during the downswing, in concert with his belief that you needed to focus on forward hip movement during the downswing, effectively lowered the SSA even farther down the spine, perhaps to the bottom of the rib cage. And that created a dramatic increase in lower back pressure, as you can see in the so-called "Reverse-C" finish that became common among those who copied Hogan's swing. (And rendered "keep your head still" totally useless.)
Which brings us to the modern day. With the vast amount of measuring equipment available to us, we've gone absolutely nuts trying to create the maximum amount of leverage we can... but that has created a new problem. If you're using your feet and lower body to create as much leverage as possible, you've moved the power source so far from the clubhead that it's almost impossible to control direction. That's a primary reason that you see so many new swing theories popping up. It's a search for control without losing any leverage.
The classic swing's pendulum motion made it much easier for the hands to control direction because the body, while it was moving, was relatively quiet. (Remember that the head naturally moves less during a classic swing.) But how do you increase control when the power creation system is moving the body so much more? You have two choices:
You can try to limit your lower body movement. Some players restrict their hip turn on the way back in hopes of increasing the leverage in the swing while also minimizing body movement in hopes of increasing accuracy. However, this puts a tremendous strain on your lower back. Hello, Jason Day and Michelle Wie! Does this sound familiar?
You can try to increase your strength enough that you can create leverage with your trailing hand. This is an attempt to combine some of the classic swing hand techniques with the modern leverage techniques. The problem is that you end up working against yourself to a large degree. You're combining a classic control technique (high SSA) with a modern leverage creation technique (low SSA), and that creates a lot of conflicting stresses in your back. If everything goes perfectly, you can get good results... but it takes a ridiculous amount of practice and time in the weight room. And that extra practice creates wear and tear of its own.
And many players are trying to do both at the same time. Can you say "ouch"?
Compare this approach with players like Phil Mickelson, Bubba Watson or Jim Furyk, whose swings are more like Nelson and Snead. Look at Rocco Mediate on the Champions Tour, who used to have chronic back problems until he changed his swing. For Pete's sake, look at Stacy Lewis and Ken Duke -- both of whom have had scoliosis and yet play without chronic back problems! Those last three have swings that are more like what Ernest Jones would have taught but using a modern grip. (And again, I have to point out that modern graphite gives us the option to use shafts that are more flexible but don't have the inconsistency that plagued hickory. We have a lot more swing options these days.)
I guess my point here is that copying your favorite pro isn't necessarily the easiest way to become a better golfer. Many of the pros, in pursuit of some nebulous advantage over their opponents, are trying to combine swing elements that don't naturally work together. When they can make them work, it's a constant struggle -- both from a maintenance and a durability standpoint -- to keep them working. And for many players, it's becoming a question of whether these hybrid swings are going to shorten their careers.
As a weekend player, you may have to consider whether you want to swing like your favorite pro or whether you'd rather play golf for a long time. Because I'll tell you the truth -- there are simpler ways to play this game than watching the pros might lead you to believe.
Most teachers would say that Toski is teaching a classic swing and that
the idea of "controlling the motion with the lead hand" is no longer
correct. This shows a complete lack of understanding about the
differences between a classic and a modern swing:
If you have a classic swing, it feels as if the TRAILING hand controls the swing, although both hands are working together.
If you have a modern swing, it feels as if the LEAD hand controls the swing, although both hands are working together.
Why the difference? Because of the shaft flex. The classic swing
uses a very soft shaft, so the trailing hand is the pivot hand; the
trailing hand relaxes a bit at the top of the swing to control the flex.
But the modern swing uses stiffer shafts, so the lead hand is the pivot
hand; it keeps tension on the shaft so it will be forced to flex
against the trailing hand.
If you understand what I was talking about, you'll be better able to decide if a golf tip you hear is something you can actually use. So today I'm going to explain in more detail what this means.
And yes, there will be photos at the appropriate spots.
Since I mentioned that shaft flex is important to this discussion, here's a very brief history of shafts:
Although hickory (soft) shafts were the standard, club designers were looking for something better because hickory was inconsistent. They actually experimented with steel (stiff) shafts in the late 19th Century!
It wasn't the shaft flex that made hickory shafts undesirable. Rather, it was the excess torque, the twisting motion of the clubhead during the swing (that is, the face would open and close, even if you kept your hands perfectly square). Soft modern graphite shafts don't have this problem, so a classic style of swing can work very well with modern equipment.
Steel shafts didn't catch on everywhere until the R&A finally voted to allow steel shafts in competition in late 1929. So, for a while, both types of shaft were used in competition.
It took players quite a while to figure out how to best use steel shafts because they were so stiff. Sam Snead said the switchover was the hardest thing the pros ever had to do.
Byron Nelson is generally regarded as the one to discover that stiff shafts required more leg drive to properly load the shafts, around the mid-1930s. He used downward leg drive; it was Ben Hogan who popularized the forward leg drive often taught now.
As you may have guessed, the physical change required an equally drastic change in mindset. Although a classic swing and a modern swing look mostly the same -- bear in mind that many classic swingers also used quite a bit of leg drive -- it's the way the hands function that changes how the swing actually feels to a player.
Alright, are you ready? Here's the first photo:
This is taken from a photo of Rory. The first thing you should notice is that a classic swing grip looks just the same as a modern swing grip. The change is a matter of which fingers are actually holding the club.
THE CLASSIC SWING uses SOFT SHAFTS and puts grip pressure in the thumb and index finger of the TRAIL HAND.
THE MODERN SWING uses STIFF SHAFTS and puts grip pressure in the last 3 fingers of the LEAD HAND.
As you can see, although your grip remains the same -- and it doesn't matter whether you use an overlap, interlock or baseball grip -- the two swings apply pressure at opposite ends of the grip. This creates a difference in how wrist cock -- the "hinge" of the swing -- behaves in each swing. And as a result, this has a dramatic effect on how each swing feels.
Let's start with the classic swing:
Since the classic swing actually grips the swing with the thumb and forefinger of the trail hand, the cocking (or hinging) of the club happens at that end of the grip. The club is actually held by the thumb and fingers of the trail hand AND the thumb and forefinger of the lead hand. Meanwhile, the last 3 fingers of the lead hand allow the butt end of the club to move slightly upward at the top of the backswing, then they apply a bit of light downward pressure to load the shaft during the downswing. This has two effects:
It allows the player to prevent overflexing of the shaft, which makes consistent impact more difficult.
It also increases the player's ability to "feel the clubhead" because the head movement is transmitted quite clearly down the softer shaft into the 3 relaxed lead hand fingers. I can verify this from my own practice.
You might think this would make it hard to keep a firm grip on the club, but it's just the opposite. Harry Vardon described the grip as being vise-like, and I can confirm that it takes very little grip pressure to lock the club in place. The relaxed grip in the final 3 fingers does NOT result in "regripping" on the way down, simply because those fingers weren't gripping the club to begin with!
And because the club actually cocks (or hinges) at the "thumb end" of the trail hand, it feels as if the trail hand is actually controlling where the clubface is pointing at impact. In reality, both hands are controlling it but you feel the main pressure in your trail hand.
Now let's look at the modern swing:
Whoa! Things changed up pretty quickly there! The hinge now moves all the way to the butt end of the club, while the trailing hand creates a lever fulcrum -- felt as a slight upward push -- as the club starts down. This is a power move designed to force that stiffer shaft to load. (In comparision, the soft shaft doesn't need us to make it load. Rather, we're trying to stop it from loading too much.) As a result of this, it feels as if the lead hand is controlling where the clubface points at impact -- although, again, both hands are doing it.
To get that fulcrum action during your downswing, you don't actually push up on the shaft. That upward motion is caused by the extra leg action. Your trail hand is just trying to hold its position relative to your lead hand, because otherwise the extra downforce could hurt your lead wrist badly. As a result, it feels as if you're pushing upward.
That's enough for today, I think. Take some time to digest this before we go any further. I think you'll find it helps clear up a lot of confusion about what you're trying to do when you swing.
And it's important to understand this post before you can understand what players like Jason Day and Rory McIlroy are doing... why it takes so much practice, so much time in the gym, and why it often makes their backs hurt. Again, we'll talk about that later.
Toski says modern golf has adopted teaching methods that make it too hard to learn a natural swing, and he has the science to prove it. Then he gives you some ways to practice that will help you swing better by utilizing that science. I want to quote a short section of the article -- and this is a very short section, because this is a very thorough article -- that catches some of the mindset he's teaching:
We believe in
simplicity. We have a saying that describes our method in one sentence:
"If the club is OK, your swing is OK!" If your hands move and function
properly, your swing will be effective because the clubface mirrors the
hands. This is a simple concept that's true for any problem that might
arise in the swing.
When
most golfers practice these days, they have no plan for how they're
trying to improve. For example, control in a golf swing does not begin
by making full-motion, full-speed driver swings, as we see so many
golfers doing on the practice tee. At high speeds, the brain performs
only what it already knows, so no change or improvement is taking place.
This type of careless practice simply ingrains the problems you're
having.
Remember
this phrase: An ounce of touch is worth a ton of brawn. Developing
control over the club should start with the simple swings on and around
the greens. You must crawl before you walk and then possibly run.
Beginning with small swings will help you feel the momentum of the club.
Learn to associate the swing with an ease of movement and flexibility, a
simple flow back and through. Start with a balanced grip, the club in
your fingers and your grip pressure light. As an overall thought,
control the motion with the lead hand; the brain will direct the
trailing hand to support the lead hand implicitly.
Let me point out three important thoughts just from this short section:
If your hands move and function
properly, your swing will be effective because the clubface mirrors the
hands. This is why Bubba Watson is so accurate despite weird stances and awkward-looking swings. He knows where the clubface is pointed because he concentrates on getting his hands to face his target.
For example, control in a golf swing does not begin
by making full-motion, full-speed driver swings, as we see so many
golfers doing on the practice tee. At high speeds, the brain performs
only what it already knows, so no change or improvement is taking place. (The emphasis is mine.) That's self-explanatory, don't you think?
As an overall thought,
control the motion with the lead hand; the brain will direct the
trailing hand to support the lead hand implicitly. This whole paragraph is loaded with solid teaching! But what I want to point out is something that is often missed in Toski's teaching.
Most teachers would say that Toski is teaching a classic swing and that the idea of "controlling the motion with the lead hand" is no longer correct. This shows a complete lack of understanding about the differences between a classic and a modern swing:
If you have a classic swing, it feels as if the TRAILING hand controls the swing, although both hands are working together.
If you have a modern swing, it feels as if the LEAD hand controls the swing, although both hands are working together.
Why the difference? Because of the shaft flex. The classic swing uses a very soft shaft, so the trailing hand is the pivot hand; the trailing hand relaxes a bit at the top of the swing to control the flex. But the modern swing uses stiffer shafts, so the lead hand is the pivot hand; it keeps tension on the shaft so it will be forced to flex against the trailing hand.
Don't worry if that seems confusing, because you don't need to understand it to use your hands the way Toski is recommending. (Almost all of you are using a modern swing. I speak from experience here. If you were using a classic swing, you'd know it!)
Like I said, I'll be writing more about this in the coming days but Toski is someone whose teaching you should at least consider listening to. He's around 90 years old now, but he used to be a professional golfer. How good was he? Well, remember how Byron Nelson won a record 18 tournaments in 1945? Toski won four of the ones he didn't win that year.
That's a guy who knows what he's talking about. Read the article.
Note that he's creating that lower body stability by bowing his legs a bit. That's not essential but it's a good way to learn how to turn your shoulders without excess leg movement. In swings this short, you don't need much lower body movement to create speed at impact. Also note that his knees DO move, but that's it -- they move, they don't drive. That's a key difference between proper use and overuse of the legs.
That second key is a classic swing technique -- most good short game players use classic technique in the short game because it makes it easier to get feel and control. Note that Sieckmann emphasizes that you have to start your downswing SLOWLY; speed happens late in the swing and is greatest JUST AFTER you've hit the ball. Also, as long as your shoulders continue to turn into your finish, you won't flip the clubhead with your forearms.
Creating clubhead speed in a short game swing should NOT take a lot of effort. If you're grunting when you hit a pitch shot, you're just trying way too hard!
I noticed that, based on the number of hits it got, a lot of you were interested in the post I did on that unusual "quirk" in Cristie Kerr and Inbee Park's swings. (We could add Steve Stricker to that group, as well as a number of other players who use variations of their method.) And I think your interest is a good thing because, to paraphrase an old saying, "one swing does NOT fit all."
So, for the next couple of days I'm going to try and teach those of you who are interested what you need to know in order to make a swing like this your own. It's really not that hard but it does require you to know some things that instructors don't often talk about on TV or in books.
In my original post I wrote that learning this swing is "as much a mental adjustment as a physical one." Tomorrow we'll look at how the physical adjustments work but today I'll focus on those mental adjustments. And understanding these mental adjustments will probably help improve your existing swing as well, no matter what it looks like.
The more I study the differences between classic swings and modern swings, the more I realize that the differences are caused by THE SHAFTS. The classic swing developed around soft but inconsistent shafts, the modern swing around consistent but stiff shafts. The classic swing fell out of favor not because it was an inferior swing but because the equipment was inferior. Without going into a lot of detail -- I can do that later if you guys tell me you need it -- the fact is that now we have soft shafts that are as consistent as stiff shafts, so these days we have a choice.
However, these days we also have a new problem: Modern golf has become brainlocked because of an obsession with Hogan and Trackman. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying Hogan or Trackman are evil! But Hogan's technique demands stiff shafts, so Trackman studies focus on stiff shaft performance, so no one takes soft shaft technique seriously anymore -- even though Hogan's technique hasn't created a huge number of major winners.
To see what I mean, look at this Wikipedia list of golf's major winners. You'll see that very few of the multiple major winners have followed Hogan's lead -- which, if Hogan's approach was really that much more superior, you'd see more multiple winners who use Hogan's approach. After all, Hogan's techniques are nearly 60 years old now, which is plenty of time for them to have demonstrated their dominance.
Instead, just going down through the 5-time winners, the only ones that would likely fall in that category are Tiger (for his later majors under Haney), Hogan (of course), and perhaps Gary Player and Nick Faldo. If one player has had more influence than any other on major winners, it would appear to be either Bobby Jones or Sam Snead... and both originally played soft shafts, which affected Snead's technique even after he changed to steel.
The reason I spent so much time on this is because soft shaft technique requires a different mental focus than stiff shaft technique. "Softies" tend to focus on hand and arm movement while "Stiffies" focus on lower body movement. And this focus difference has a huge effect on how we swing the club.
Why is this true? It's all about loading the shaft. Soft shafts loaded easily, so players focused on controlling how much they loaded with their hands and arms. But it takes a lot more force to load a stiff shaft, so players had to create more power during their swing... and hands and arms alone just aren't strong enough to do that.
So -- and this is the important mental point -- "Stiffies" (like Hogan) built their games on developing power to load the shaft, which then had to be converted to clubhead speed. But "Softies" didn't have to worry about loading the shaft, so they simply focused on speed. If you follow that line of development out, the "Softies" ultimately end up with a simpler swing since they only have to worry about one thing... but the difference in focus makes the swing feel different.
Which brings us to Cristie and Inbee's (and other similar players') swings. Although everybody is using their whole body to make their swing, and while the fundamentals they use are all basically the same, what they actually THINK ABOUT during their swings can be very different. So if you want to swing more like Cristie or Inbee, you'll probably have to focus differently than you do now.
Let me flash you back to some recent posts I've done, featuring thoughts from some very different players at different points in time.
From What Bobby Jones Said About Slow-Motion Video: "...But even slow-motion pictures need interpretation. The one great difficulty from the standpoint of the average golfer has been in separating the consciously controlled movements from those that are purely instinctive."
From Jeff Flagg on Hitting It Long: "IN TRUTH, MY HIPS LEAD THE DOWNSWING. But I don't think about that. They just do. Do you think pitchers, quarterbacks or javelin throwers think about clearing their hips before they throw? Their arms dictate all of that motion subconsciously." (Remember, Flagg was the 2014 REMAX Long Drive Champ.)
From Why Shoulder Turn Is Important: "If we just get our shoulders fully coiled at the top of our backswings, then starting the downswing with our lower bodies is the most natural thing in the world. A full shoulder coil stretches the muscles of your torso, and that tension causes you to shift your weight back and then drive your legs forward to start your downswing."
All of these posts -- and I could find a dozen more if I needed to -- tell us how mental focus during the swing creates the proper fundamentals.
If you want to try a swing more like Cristie or Inbee's, you'll still end up using your whole body -- which includes your hips and legs, of course -- but you'll have to start thinking more about your hands and arms.
To build on what Jones was saying about slo-mo video, you tend to EXAGGERATE what you focus on. When you focus on your hips and legs, you tend to exaggerate the movements -- and since those movements affect your balance and stability, focusing on those movements results in more inconsistent contact. When you try to consciously control movements that should happen subconsciously, you overdo them and get results you didn't plan on.
When you try to swing like Cristie and Inbee -- and Stricks and all those other players -- you'll need to focus more on your hands and arms, which (as Flagg said) is what you naturally do when you play other sports. Using your hands and arms this way is so natural to you that you focus less on movements and more on TARGETS, and that helps you keep it all in balance.
Tomorrow I'll give you some help learning the physical side of swinging like they do. It's really not hard once you understand what you're trying to do.
Originally I planned to use some actual video of Seve from YouTube for this post but I wasn't happy with the quality of what I found. At least, not for what I wanted to cover today.
And then here's Martin Hall with an "extra credit" video from School of Golf.
The first thing you should notice is that Seve wasn't rigid in his setup, regardless of whether he was making a full swing or a short swing. (He did stand fairly still when he putted, but most putter strokes are so short that you won't move much anyway.) Seve was very relaxed and allowed his knees to move more than most players. That's part of how he got short shots to land softly and managed to curve his full shots more easily. His whole body moves, not just certain parts of it.
Second, Johnny notes that Seve's backswing was always the same -- it was the followthrough that he changed to create shots. Seve was a little wild at times because he was maneuvering the ball by changing the club face during his downswing, not because his backswing was inconsistent. If his backswing was constantly changing, he wouldn't have been able to keep the ball on the course!
Finally, both Johnny and Martin note how much Seve was using his hands and arms to create shots; his lower body moved in response to how he moved his hands and arms, not the other way around. This is how Bubba does it as well; he decides what he wants the club face to do and how his hands and arms should move to get that result. Then he focuses on swinging that way and he lets his subconscious mind take care of sequencing the rest of his body.
This is more of a "reactive" way to swing, the same way we play tennis or baseball or anything else -- we focus on the ball and what we want our hands to do with it, not on what our feet and legs are doing. This is the "natural" way to swing a golf club, and consequently it's the way we can best "feel" when we make a good swing.
All of this is more of a classic swing mindset than a modern swing mindset. It's based on motion and target, not on positions and angles. Although it sounds a bit strange at first, it's really easier once you stop thinking of a golf swing as being different from any other sort of swing. And if you'd like to become a bit more Seve-like in your game, this is the starting point.
This is interesting... both Golf Magazine and Golf Digest chose to do articles about Phil Mickelson's swing, focusing on his driver. What makes it really interesting is that each magazine focused on a different section of Phil's swing!
They talk about his relaxed setup, wide takeaway, and extension through the ball at impact -- all aspects commonly associated with a classic swing. Phil creates his club head speed with the length of his swing and his relaxed, balanced action.
His swing sometimes gets too long, with the club shaft pointed down toward the ground.
His hands and the shaft get too close to his shoulder as he changes directions, which creates a lot of wrist cock but makes it harder to square the club face.
Johnny also has a video in the post that talks about Phil's game, as well as how he would fix these problems.
Putting the two together, you end up with a long relaxed driver swing that stops a bit short of parallel at the top and keeps the hands away from the trailing shoulder during the change of direction and start of the downswing. And yes, it's much easier to keep your hands "as far away from your shoulders at the top as practical" if you make a long relaxed swing. It seems that Butch is always trying to get Phil to shorten his swing just a bit... and when he does, he always drives it much better.
These two articles give you a pretty thorough look at both the good and the bad of Phil's driving. If you take a little time to read them and study the photos (and in Johnny's case, watch the video), you just might find something you can use to help improve your own driving.
But there's one simple thing that none of the analysts or instructors ever tell you about Angel's swing... and I'm going to show it to you now. Here's a slo-mo video that's also included in that post:
No doubt you've heard that Angel was a caddie and learned how to swing in the caddie yard of a course in Argentina. In fact, the note on one of the swing sequence photos says: "Angel Cabrera is the last of the true caddie-yard players, his swing a
rough-hewn, self-invented action steered mainly by instinct and desire."
I'm going to show you something that is typical of many caddie swings, something that goes against much of what you've been told.
I want you to look at the video -- click on that little square in the lower right hand corner so you can see it full screen -- and watch Angel's change of direction. No doubt you've been told that you need to create as much separation as possible during your downswing. Separation means that your hips start turning toward the target long before your arms start the club on the downswing.
Look at Angel's swing, folks. There's hardly any separation at all!
Angel has more of a classic swing, built off his ability to feel the clubhead at the top of his backswing. He swings it back, feels when it slows down and is just about to stop and change direction, and then he starts down. His lower body starts his downswing -- it HAS to, that's just how physics works -- but he doesn't TRY to create separation. He just lets his body turn the way that feels most natural to him. For some people, that move DOES create more separation... but it doesn't for Angel.
And that lack of separation doesn't seem to hurt him any. At 6'1" tall he tends to hit a lot of 300-yard drives.
The classic swing is Angel Cabrera's real "secret." I often call it a "gravity swing." It's the basic technique once taught by Ernest Jones and now taught primarily by Manuel de la Torre. Teachers generally teach it using a weight on a string... but in the caddie yard, Angel learned it by mimicking the swings of the players he caddied for. It's the most natural way for most people to swing.
That is, unless they've been taught that the modern swing is the only way to swing. Then they focus on moving their lower body instead of swinging the club. Isn't Angel lucky that he had to figure it out for himself?
I have a book called Bobby Jones on Golf. It's a collection of instructional articles he wrote for various newspapers during the 1930s. One of those articles (on page 19) starts out like this:
One day when my father and I were playing together, he was driving last from the back of a very long tee. With a swing that could only be described as labored, he bashed the head of his driver into the turf so that the ball popped almost straight up, and dropped just in front of the teeing ground. As we started forward, he called to me, "Come back here a minute." Then, with as graceful a swing as I could imagine, he clipped a dandelion from the grass. Glaring at me, he said in a strangely challenging tone, "Now what's the matter with that swing?" "Nothing," I said, "why don't you use it sometime?"
I love that story, primarily because I think it's a familiar one for most of us. How often have we made a practice swing -- or two, or three -- with such superb technique that we could almost hear angels sing, only to follow it up with a wretched lash at the ball that sent it only God knows where?
Perhaps the problem is your practice swing rather than your "real" swing.
Does your practice swing really resemble the swing you intend to hit the ball with? For too many players, the answer is NO.
You swing much slower. It's much easier to make a good swing when you don't swing hard.
You make a different kind of swing. Many players make a classic-style practice swing when their normal swing is more modern. (I wrote about the differences between the two last week. The first of those three posts is here.)
You didn't have a target in mind. Any swing is a good swing when it doesn't matter where it goes.
You didn't practice from the same lie. While you don't want to swing too close to the real ball and unintentionally move it, you want -- as much as is possible -- the same thick or thin lie, the same ground slope, the same obstacles in the way for your practice swing.
A practice swing isn't just about getting loose before you hit your shot, it's a rehearsal of your shot. Take a moment and visualize the shot you intend to make, then make a practice swing that will create that shot. Your practice swing should be as much about your mental preparation for the shot as it is about your physical preparation. Don't waste your practice swing!
Today let's look at a few golf swings and see if we can tell whether each swing is more of a classic swing or a modern swing. We'll use the criteria I mentioned in the last two blog posts as guidelines to help us. The reason we want to learn how to do this is so we don't waste time trying to copy players who don't swing the same way we do... or so we can find the best players to copy if we want to make changes.
Remember, the key thing we're looking for here is separation -- the hips getting ahead of the shoulders at the start of the downswing. The more a player is influenced by the modern swing, the bigger that separation will be; the more a player is influenced by the classic swing, the smaller that separation will be. Sometimes you can see it from any angle but sometimes it's clearer from one angle than another.
Before we start analyzing swings, I want you to see a true classic swing in action. This is the great Henry Cotton, way back in 1934 when he won the first of his three Open Championships. Cotton believed that the hands swung the golf club and that it was necessary to "educate the hands" if you really wanted to be successful. I read somewhere that Cotton was able to hit one-handed shots nearly 200 yards; I finally found this newpaper article on Cotton's training techniques that confirmed it. (It's in the fourth column of the scan.)
What I want you to see is how much the lower body can move with a classic swing. The legs aren't held as motionless as is typical in a modern swing, and the hips don't create a large separation from the shoulders. In fact, it looks as if the shoulders and hips start the downswing at almost the same time. And the upper body doesn't tilt backwards away from the target as much as in a modern swing. You can see why I say it's much easier on the back.
Now that you have a decent idea what a classic swing looks like -- you don't see the pure original version on Tour much these days -- we have something we can compare to our more contemporary players.
Let's start with the Machine, Annika Sorenstam. You can see her move clearly from almost any angle:
This is a classic-style swing. See how smooth her swing looks? There's a fair amount of knee movement, even though her stance is fairly narrow -- most modern swings use wider stances and less knee movement -- and her hips and shoulders seem to move together. Since Annika learned her game in Sweden and instructors in Europe seem more likely to teach a classic-style swing, that's not surprising.
By comparison, here's Tiger at the Honda Classic earlier this year. You can see the difference almost immediately, but the first slo-mo at :24 shows it very clearly:
This is a more modern swing. When Tiger reaches the top of his backswing and starts down (at the :28 mark) you can clearly see his hips and legs pushing toward the target before his shoulders start to turn at all. With some players, this move will look almost as if the hips jump forward before the shoulders move. Tiger's teacher Sean Foley teaches the modern swing but Tiger was using modern technique the very first time we saw him.
Here are a couple of interesting ones -- Ken Duke and Stacy Lewis. I wanted to look at these because both of these players have fought scoliosis, the back disease that causes a curved spine. Check out these slo-mo videos -- Ken's shows two views while Stacy's shows one:
Now these two players are interesting because... well, at first glance it looks to me like both players use classic-style swings. They have relatively narrow stances, even with woods, and their shoulders and hips don't show much separation. In addition, Ken's teacher Bob Toski is well-known for teaching classic technique. Yet I found video where Ken and Toski clearly seem to be working with modern technique (the error Toski describes at the beginning is the characteristic twisting action of an over-the-top swing, not classic technique):
while Stacy and her instructor are clearly working to minimize the separation, a more classic technique:
You can see that both players keep their shoulders and hips working together pretty closely. But Ken is clearly trying to be more modern -- he keeps his legs very quiet during his backswing and gets that little "hip jump" I mentioned to start his downswing, but with such a narrow stance it's apparently not big enough to bother his back -- while Stacy is clearly trying to be more classic. There's a lot of leg movement during her swing but if you look at the slo-mo near the end of that last video (right at the :55 mark) you'll see that there's no hip bump to indicate that she wants to create separation; rather, her shoulders and hips are turning almost in unison while her legs move her whole body slightly toward the target. (That's how she gets her weight shift.)
And while watching the Swinging Skirts event this week, I've noticed that Stacy's stance with the driver seems narrower than it is in that last video. But this video is around 16 months old, so Stacy could have gone to a narrower stance through the whole bag. It might explain why she's picked up some extra yardage off the tee in the last year -- less effort spent moving her body means more effort put into swinging the club.
Although Sergio Garcia occasionally gets help from Pete Cowen, who teaches what I call a "power classic" swing, there's no question that Sergio's dad taught him a modern move. Look at how fast his hips start moving but how slow his shoulders are to follow!
Sergio has a lot more leg movement during his backswing than many modern swingers, but I don't think he could get that huge shoulder turn or massive downcock in his wrists any other way.
And finally, let's take a look at Jack Nicklaus. This video shows Jack hitting a number of shots with different clubs, from wedge up to driver. While Jack's leg action is very classic, with a lot of knee movement, his basic action is modern. Unlike the Stacy Lewis footage above, Jack's legs are moving only his hips, not his entire torso. In fact, as the clubs get longer, the separation gets noticeably bigger:
Hopefully this gives you an idea how you can identify what type of swing a player is working with. And why is this important? Because some of the techniques that work for Annika wouldn't work so well for Sergio, and vice versa. Modern and classic swings share most of the same fundamentals, but that separation move makes each swing feel and behave a little differently.
So if you're a classic swinger trying to copy Sergio, you're going to make things harder on yourself than they really need to be. Learn to tell the difference and save yourself some grief.
In yesterday's post I looked at why we're starting to see more classic-style swings succeed on Tour. Today I want to focus on what really differentiates a classic-style swing from a modern-style swing, and tomorrow we'll look at some swing videos and see how to tell which is which. I'll warn you upfront that this is a long post, but there's a whole lot of important stuff in it that I haven't seen anywhere else.
As I wrote yesterday, "There's a whole spectrum of swings with the classic swing at one end,
the modern swing at the other, and various permutations in-between." That's why I'm using the terms classic-style and modern-style more than just classic and modern. But it's helpful to know what the "pure" versions are... and what they aren't.
At their simplest, pure classic swings are arm-powered and pure modern swings are leg-powered. That means that the primary power source in the classic swing is your arms, and the primary power source in the modern swing is your legs... but that can be misleading.
Although I've said it numerous times on this blog, I need to repeat it here: ALL swings are started with your lower body. It is physically impossible to start a swing -- ANY swing -- with your arms. Without explaining the physics yet again, your feet have to grip the ground (create friction) and your legs have to brace themselves (so they can use that friction to push against the ground) in order to start your upper body and arms swinging the club in the downswing. In essence, your lower body pulls your upper body into your downswing.
And just for clarity, an over-the-top swing is also started by your legs. It's just that your legs -- especially your trailing leg -- create the friction by pushing UP rather than around. That shoves your trailing shoulder up and out as your upper body starts the downswing.
The difference between classic leg drive and modern leg drive is one of degree. In the modern swing, it's a forceful purposeful push of the legs; in the classic swing, the legs just respond naturally, without conscious thought, to the effort of trying to swing the arms. Some teachers will describe leg action in the classic swing as "your legs simply move beneath you." But again, this can be somewhat misleading.
Because the pure modern swing tries to minimize hip turn on the backswing and the pure classic swing encourages a free hip turn on the backswing, a classic swing may actually have more leg movement than a modern swing although the legs aren't driving very hard at all. And let's add some more confusion about what the arms do as well -- most classic swing instructors really want you to minimize arm tension while Ben Hogan, the man who virtually invented the prototypical modern swing, said he wished he had three right hands when he hit the ball!
And once you begin considering all the possible variations of these two types of swings... how are you supposed to know what any given player is trying to do? Each of these swings, classic and modern, has a very different feel. Is there nothing in a player's swing that tells us whether the swing is more classic or more modern?
It took me a long time to sort it out, but yes, there IS a way to tell. That key movement is what we callseparation.
SO WHAT IS SEPARATION?
Remember what I said earlier? ALL swings are started with your lower body.That means that your lower body gets a little ahead of your upper body at the start of your downswing. (And your upper body catches up by the time you hit the ball.)
Separation is what we call that little "head start" your lower body gets at the start of the downswing. All swings (except over-the-top swings) have some separation in them because ALL swings are started with your lower body. The difference is that classic swings only have a little separation while modern swings can have quite a lot.
Again, for clarity, over-the-top swings don't use your legs properly. In a proper swing, the lower body PULLS the upper body toward the ball. An over-the-top swing PUSHES the upper body upward so the upper body actually gets ahead of the lower body.
Maybe this will help you understand: Try taking your address position and make sure both knees are flexed. From that position turn your shoulders 90 degrees, like they are at the top of your backswing. Now push up (straighten your knees) and try to turn your shoulders as if you were making a downswing.
Here's what will probably happen: Your trailing knee will straighten out while your lead knee stays bent and your lead foot ends up on its toes. Your hips will barely turn at all but your trailing shoulder will get most of the way to the "ball." That's an over-the-top move -- very bad for golf.
I can hear you saying, "Yes, yes, I understand. Modern swings create more separation than classic swings. I get it." NO YOU DON'T! That little difference represents two dramatically different ways of creating club head speed in a golf swing! And that is the key to understanding how the two differ.
In a pure classic swing, the separation is small and the upper body catches up to the lower body quickly. The purpose of the separation is simply to get the upper body moving. Club head speed (which is our goal with any swing) is created by the swinging motion of the arms. Although the analogy isn't exactly accurate, you can think of the club as a pendulum that gains extra speed from the arms.
In a pure modern swing, the separation is large and it takes most of the downswing for the upper body to catch up with the lower body. The separation itself is how power is generated; club head speed is created by closing the separation. The club is no longer a pendulum (a single large lever) but the end of a whip (effectively, a whole chain of tiny levers).
The classic swing and the modern swing represent two entirely different methods of creating club head speed, which is why instructors have traditionally said that you couldn't combine the two methods. But the truth is merely that you can't do both at once, and it takes a tremendous amount of strength to even attempt to use both of them in sequence -- something that was unimaginable not that long ago. Bear in mind that weight training was discouraged until Tiger began handing players their butts on a plate -- a plate being what weightlifters call those round metal donuts you put on a barbell to make them heavier!
Each method has its downside. While the pure classic swing is perhaps the simplest way to get good results (at least, now that we don't have to deal with the problems hickory itself created), it requires really good timing at the change of direction to create substantial power. And while the pure modern swing doesn't require quite so much timing to create power, it does require a lot of strength and coordination to deliver that power accurately to the ball. For example, when Tiger says he "got stuck," what he means is that his lower body moved too fast and created more separation than his upper body could catch up with.
And I'll add another problem I see with excessive separation. Although I can't prove it, I find it interesting that we have very few records of chronic back problems among golfers during "the age of hickory" while it seems that almost every modern player suffers from them. I'm not saying that classic swingers never have back problems. However, it does seem that the more separation we try to create, the more stress we put on our backs. Since our hips have to move ever farther ahead of our shoulders to create ever more separation in the modern swing, we end up twisting our backs at odd angles while we put even more force on them.
Because the "pure" versions of both swings each have their own problems, it's no surprise that inventive instructors have been creating new combinations of the two in hopes of minimizing the problems. That's what good instructors do. For example, my books Stop Coming Over-the-Top and HIT IT HARD! both teach what are basically modern swings BUT with the separation reduced to minimize the amount of coordination and strength required for good results as well as minimizing stress on your back. Those are things I felt were vital for weekend players who don't have a lot of time to practice and who can't risk having a bad back put them out of work.
Many of your favorite players will sacrifice anything to get 20 more yards or to hit 10% more greens in regulation. Others make sacrifices to minimize back pain just so they can play. Some want swings that don't require much practice because they want to spend their time doing more charity work. For these and a dozen other reasons, instructors create new swings specifically tailored to those players... and some of those swings find popularity with a number of other players as well. That leads to a large number of hybrid swings for us to sort through.
But at least we have some clues...
SO HOW WILL WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
Tomorrow we'll look at some swing video and I'll show you how I sort them out. For now I'll just give you some of the criteria we'll use:
The amount of separation in the swing: Separation creates some telltale clues that I'll point out when we look at the video.
The player's swing coach: As I mentioned yesterday, players generally go to coaches who specialize in the type of swing they already have.
Nationality: This isn't a given, of course, but it's amazing how many of the classic swing coaches trained in Europe and how many of the modern swing coaches trained in America. Could it be an Old World mentality versus Ben Hogan's American-made swing? I don't know but it seems to be a real phenomenon.
Common problems: For example, Tiger's frequent "getting stuck" problem is a pretty clear indicator that he's using a modern swing.
Plus there are some other less-common clues. I'll show you tomorrow.
Weekend players are always picking up tips from different sources. Some of those tips work, some don't. The reason is simple: While all swings are built on the same basics, some swings put more emphasis on one basic than another. And these differences generally show up in the full swing. Ironically, most teachers teach the same basic short game techniques. (That's a good thing to know, don't you think?)
A good example of this is the difference between the classic swing and the modern swing. I've been talking more about the differences lately, both because I've been experimenting with the differences on my own swing and because we're starting to see a greater variety of swing techniques among the pros. I started thinking, "Wouldn't it be helpful if we could tell what kind of swing each player was using at a glance? Then we'd have a better idea which players swing more like each of us does and would know who we might want to copy."
Well, it's not quite that easy. You see, different instructors have their own "swing blends," just like grocery stores have different coffee blends. But we can make some generalizations that might help us avoid wasted attempts to copy swings that aren't really like ours.
Hence, I'm going to do a post or two that might help you get a better handle on how to recognize what the best players are doing... and whether what they do is something you might want to try.
THE MOST BASIC DIFFERENCE
Shafts are at the root of swing evolution. In your golf swing, shafts act somewhat like springs. When you change direction at the top of your backswing, you cause them to bend or flex; we call that "loading the shaft." Then the shaft unloads when you hit the ball and adds its stored-up energy to the strike. If you use shafts that are too stiff, you can't load them enough to help you; but if you use shafts that are too weak, you won't be able to control the shot.
The classic swing was developed back in the days of hickory shafts. Hickory was extremely flexible and you had to be careful how you loaded the shaft. If you put too much force on it when you changed direction at the top of your backswing, it would flex too much. This is why the great Walter Hagen was so wild off the tee. If you look at footage of his swing, it looks as if the shaft bends 90 degrees on the way down. And if you read Tommy Armour's book How to Play Your Best Golf All the Time, which teaches a classic swing using steel-shafted clubs, you'll find that he recommends getting shafts that are more flexible than you think you need.
The modern swing developed along with steel shafts. Steel shafts actually needed more force applied if they were going to load properly. Sam Snead once said that going from hickory to steel was the hardest thing he ever did. The key to making the change was how you used your legs. Byron Nelson figured it out first; compare his swing to other players of the time and you'll see him using his knees a lot more. Eventually Ben Hogan codified this new method as a hip movement driven by the legs.
The classic swing continued to be used long after hickory shafts became museum pieces. Certain well-known teachers focused on classic techniques -- for example, the late Jim Flick, who worked with Jack Nicklaus after his childhood teacher Jack Grout died; Bob Toski, who often taught with Flick and who is probably best known right now as Ken Duke's teacher; and Manuel de la Torre, who taught 2-time LPGA major champions Carol Mann and Sherri Steinhauer. But the modern swing was considered the way to go -- after all, who could argue with HOGAN??? -- and so it dominated most teaching over the last few decades.
So why are we starting to see more successful players who use classic techniques? I think you can blame Frank Thomas, the former Technical Director of the USGA and the inventor of the graphite shaft. For all practical purposes, graphite is synthetic hickory. It has all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks of wooden shafts. It can be tailored to a specific player's needs with far more control than steel can. Once again the classic swing has become not only a practical way to swing but, in some cases, a preferable way to swing.
As a result, the classic swing is making a comeback in professional circles. You could make a good argument that the best teachers in the world are Butch Harmon, Sean Foley, and Pete Cowen. Of these, Cowen (who once taught Lee Westwood and still teaches Henrik Stenson, Graeme McDowell, and Louis Oosthuizen among others) teaches a classic-style swing; Foley (who teaches Tiger Woods, Hunter Mahan, and Justin Rose among others) teaches a modern-style swing; and Harmon works with whatever style his student happens to use already. (As a side note, Cowen rarely shows up in "Top100 Teachers" lists because they focus on American instructors. Cowen is based in Europe.)
Yes, I used the terms "classic-style" and "modern-style" in the last paragraph. I'll come back to that in a minute. But first, I'll just say that if a player works with an instructor known particularly for teaching the classic or the modern swing, it's reasonable to expect that instructor's students to use the same techniques. (Duh!) So that's one key you can use to help you sort things out.
But, as I said earlier, not all swings are the same "flavor." Just as not all modern swing instructors teach exactly the same thing -- there's Hogan's two-plane swing, Hardy's one-plane swing, and Bennett & Plummer's Stack and Tilt, to name a few -- not all classic swing instructors teach exactly the same swing. There's a whole spectrum of swings with the classic swing at one end, the modern swing at the other, and various permutations in-between! So how do you recognize when you're looking at a classic swing and when you're looking at a modern swing?
Tomorrow I'll show you the keys I look for when I'm "sorting swings." It's really not that difficult when you know what you're looking for.
In the second post in this series I looked at how a connected modern swing built on a knowledge of how your body works eliminates the need to twist your forearms in the modern golf swing. (As a quick summary, the rotation of your lead shoulder while connected takes care of all the motion necessary to get your club face on plane, and does it pretty much automatically.) But it creates an even simpler motion in a classic-style swing, and that's what we're looking at today.
I say a 'classic-style swing' instead of just a classic swing because there are a number of swing variations being taught these days, both classic-style and modern-style. Some of these variations are starting to blur the differences between the two and, in my opinion, are better than either of the originals. Many of the old swing thoughts that clearly belonged to one original swing type or the other are not so clear anymore.
Let's look at the originals and then how they've evolved.
The original classic swing developed during the age of hickory, back when shafts couldn't take much stress before they flexed out of control. I think that's why two-plane swings originally developed -- the looping action at the top minimized the stress during the change of direction. Too much leg action created even more stress, so the focus was on the arm action -- the legs were often described as just "moving beneath" the player, as supports rather than power sources. Because of this, players often turned their hips a lot on the backswing.
The club was swung back and up, then looped down and around to create a path from the inside. (Typical swing thought: Pull down and ring the bell.) In order to make room for this inside path, the hips needed to move toward the target. (Typical swing thought: Slide your hips forward.) To facilitate a free-swinging arm action, the arms remained unconnected and players often didn't think much about proper leg action -- which often resulted in an over-the-top swing.
The classic swing evolved a bit when steel shafts took over, eliminating much of the looping at the top. Colin Montgomerie is a good example of that classic swing. There's not a lot of worry about bracing his trailing knee, and all of his hip action and arm swing look very loose and relaxed compared to the modern swing. The classic swing is typically an upright swing, with the hands carried very high.
In contrast, the original modern swing -- also a two-plane swing -- developed after steel shafts took over. Hogan's new connection technique was the real revolution here and, since the legs became the main power source and the arms were clearly the weakest link in the chain (hence connection, to help brace them), it lent itself to making a flatter swing.
At the top of the backswing, the legs drove hard toward the target and loaded the shaft. This motion dropped the hands to a lower inside plane but, since now the legs had to start the turn as well as get the hips out of the way of the inside path, the swing required a more complex lower body movement. (Typical swing thought: Bump and turn.) The trailing leg had to be braced in order to start the downswing with a forceful move, and the hands went around rather than up and down. Ben Hogan is the original, of course.
For a long time instructors said you couldn't combine techniques from these two swings. But once people believe that something can't be done, it generally doesn't take long before someone figures out how to do it. Various versions of what we now call the one-plane swing were born.
And connection was the key. You see, with the upper arms connected to the chest during the downswing, the hips no longer got in the way. Now the hips only needed to move enough to create a good weight shift. And because of that, instructors found lots of new ways to blend the two swing methods. For just a couple of examples:
Teachers like Jimmy Ballard continued to focus on the leg action but added enough arm power to keep the back straighter. This not only created a more natural throwing motion (remember my own swing thoughts about throwing Frisbees™ and hitting tennis backhands) but relieved some of the back stress caused by all that hip sliding and twisting. Like the original modern swing, this one is flatter and much more around.
Likewise, teachers like Pete Cowen continued to focus on the arm action but added more leg drive to create more club head speed. Like the original classic swing, this one is much more upright and therefore more up and down. This is the one I want to focus on.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of you are using some combination of the two already without being aware of it. If you're having a lot of trouble with your swing, that could be the reason -- a bad combination of classic and modern swing techniques. The fact is, most instructors don't tell you which method they're using -- some of them may not even know themselves, they just know their swing method works. Unless you've taken lessons from a single teacher, you could have patched together some bits and pieces that weren't meant to be patched. (The method I use in Stop Coming Over-the-Top and in any of my posts that don't say differently is similar to what Jimmy Ballard does -- primarily leg driven, but with a straighter back. I think I've mentioned that before.)
As a side note, it seems to me that the classic style is more common among the European and Asian players while the modern style is more common among American and Australian players. There are certainly exceptions -- for example, Stacy Lewis appears to have more of a classic swing while Graeme McDowell is more modern -- but overall that seems to be the case.
Anyway, for the rest of this post we're going to focus on the connected classic swing. All swings have an 'up and down' component and an 'around' component. For the time being we're going to ignore the 'around' part of the connected classic swing and focus on the 'up and down' part.
In yesterday's post I included a video of Steven Bann demonstrating that you don't have to twist your forearms to get your hands 'on plane' at the top of your backswing. I summed up the connected move this way:
From your address position, with your hands basically in front of your
belly button, your straight lead arm rotates at your shoulder and rolls
up the side of your chest where your lead tricep touches it. At the same
time, your trailing elbow bends and guides your lead arm so your lead
hand finishes just outside and above your trailing shoulder.
So on the way up your hands travel at an angle from in front of your belly button to above and outside your trailing shoulder. (Of course, in an actual swing you'd be turning your shoulders around at the same time. Your hands would reach the top of your backswing when you finished coiling your shoulders.) Your trailing arm disconnects briefly at the top so you can get more height.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just pull our hands straight back down to our address position in order to hit the ball? In this new connected classic swing, WE CAN!
Why couldn't we do it in the modern swing? It's because all the leg drive forces us to focus on the 'around' part of the swing. The swing is flatter so the hands don't move downward as much... and even then they're pulled down by the leg action.
In contrast, a classic swing is focused on the 'up and down' motion in the swing. Therefore, we can do more than just let our hands drop. Instead, we can actively straighten our arms to get them back down to the address position! As our connected lead arm rolls back down the side of our chest on the downswing, we just pull our trailing arm down so it reconnects... and then we straighten the elbow of our now-connected trailing arm. As our shoulders return to our address position, our hands also return to their address position almost automatically.
And to get to our finish, we just let our lead elbow bend as our shoulders continue to turn toward the target. Our trailing arm, now straight, mirrors what our lead arm did on the backswing. Our hands finish above and just outside our lead shoulder.
In other words, our arms and hands -- when viewed without our shoulders turning -- basically move in a giant V shape in front of our torso. A very simple motion indeed, as shown in the following diagram. (For you lefties out there, the sequence is A-C-A-B where C becomes the top of the backswing and B becomes the top of the finish. Except for the labels, things didn't change enough to warrant two diagrams.)
Yeah, I know -- this is a very different way of thinking about arm motion during your swing. And you have to understand that this description is specific to a connected classic swing -- it doesn't necessarily describe how the motion feels during a modern swing, for example, because of the dropping action that starts a modern swing's downswing.
I discovered this while changing my own modern swing to a more classic one, and it takes a little effort to get your mind around it. But it didn't take me long -- we're talking a matter of weeks here. And now my swing thought as I start down is simply to straighten my arms and hit the ball. You can really feel the lead arm rolling down into position!
When I first started experimenting with a classic swing, my biggest problem was finding the bottom of my swing because my trailing hand was uncocking too soon. (The classic swing is more upright, so the swing is longer.) This V-shape swing concept helped me get it straightened out.
If you want to experiment with it, I'd advise starting with slow half swings and move to slow full swings. Once you get there, the timing is extremely easy to get because the swing rhythm isn't complex -- just up and back, down and around.
But no matter whether you use a classic swing or a modern one -- an arm-powered one or a leg-powered swing -- you've got to stop twisting your forearms if you want to become more consistent in your game. Staying connected -- and letting that connection control the rotation at your lead shoulder -- is the path to more fairways and greens.
But a swing by any other name is still a swing, and the two approaches do share some basics. So today I thought I'd pass on a thought from the Jones book Swing the Clubhead (originally called Swinging into Golf), which is generally considered a classic instruction text.
I have a copy of the Ernest Jones book Swing the Clubhead, which was originally called Swinging into Golf when it came out in 1937. The book was an attempt to teach players how to swing like the classic players did, albeit while using steel-shafted clubs.
