Confused

Confused

Joined: November 22nd, 2010, 12:46 am

November 22nd, 2010, 1:12 am #1

I have tried most of the SA methods, always returning to NG. Ng swing is so simple, not much to think about! IMHO Graves complicates something that is so simple to do. I tried SS, but my distance is the same with NG and my accuracy is better. I have tried the One plane swing as taught by Jeff Ritter. I find it hard to be consitent with the One Plane swing but my distance is awesome when I do connect. My preference would be the One plane swing, but I think it takes a lot of practise to perfect it. BTW, I also have tried Stack and Tilt, Perfect Connection and Trahan. I always come back to NG because of the simplicity and consistency. Any thoughts?
Quote
Like
Share

gsw
Joined: July 27th, 2000, 11:22 pm

November 22nd, 2010, 3:44 am #2

Do you play well with NG? If you are happy with the results using NG then why change? I also think that Graves complicates a simple SA motion. You said that you have tried the Trahand swing? The Trahand swing is what I am using at the present time and I think that it is very simple and works very well. Good luck with the NG swing.


Stan
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2001, 8:30 am

November 22nd, 2010, 5:23 am #3

I have tried most of the SA methods, always returning to NG. Ng swing is so simple, not much to think about! IMHO Graves complicates something that is so simple to do. I tried SS, but my distance is the same with NG and my accuracy is better. I have tried the One plane swing as taught by Jeff Ritter. I find it hard to be consitent with the One Plane swing but my distance is awesome when I do connect. My preference would be the One plane swing, but I think it takes a lot of practise to perfect it. BTW, I also have tried Stack and Tilt, Perfect Connection and Trahan. I always come back to NG because of the simplicity and consistency. Any thoughts?
Well, it kind of depends on what your goals are?

You can always post video of your swing and then you will get plenty of advice on what you need to work on!

Regards, Herbert
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2001, 7:22 pm

November 22nd, 2010, 12:53 pm #4

I have tried most of the SA methods, always returning to NG. Ng swing is so simple, not much to think about! IMHO Graves complicates something that is so simple to do. I tried SS, but my distance is the same with NG and my accuracy is better. I have tried the One plane swing as taught by Jeff Ritter. I find it hard to be consitent with the One Plane swing but my distance is awesome when I do connect. My preference would be the One plane swing, but I think it takes a lot of practise to perfect it. BTW, I also have tried Stack and Tilt, Perfect Connection and Trahan. I always come back to NG because of the simplicity and consistency. Any thoughts?
If you are happy with NG and can play good golf who cares what swing system you use. If it is good for the current level of play then you have accomplished what many golfers seek, but few find!

If you want more____________,( distance, accuracy, lower scores ) like Herbert said, you need to evaluate where you are at and up the ante, relative to your new golas. You can still keep your NG action, but fortify it with additional training and focus that emphasizes that aspect you wish to improve.

Kevin

Never quit til you have a swing you'll never forget!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 22nd, 2010, 12:46 am

November 22nd, 2010, 2:52 pm #5

I have tried most of the SA methods, always returning to NG. Ng swing is so simple, not much to think about! IMHO Graves complicates something that is so simple to do. I tried SS, but my distance is the same with NG and my accuracy is better. I have tried the One plane swing as taught by Jeff Ritter. I find it hard to be consitent with the One Plane swing but my distance is awesome when I do connect. My preference would be the One plane swing, but I think it takes a lot of practise to perfect it. BTW, I also have tried Stack and Tilt, Perfect Connection and Trahan. I always come back to NG because of the simplicity and consistency. Any thoughts?
I know that all you guys are right in that I should stick with what works for me! Even my club pro tells me the same thing. I'm 66 years old, and the road is much shorter in front of me than behind me. I guess that I am looking for that "magic bullet" that all the golf gurus offer. If there is a "magic bullet", I want to know about it so I can play the best that I can. I started this golf season out with a 13 index, dabbling with other methods has raised my index to 17. I can't post scores anymore where I live for the 2010 season, but in March of 2011 I will stick with NG and hopefully drop my index. I am retired, and play golf almost every day. I am obsessed with the game! I have had moments on the tee box where my brain was filled with so many swing thoughts, I could not swing the club. I looked like Charles Barkley!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 23rd, 2010, 1:46 am #6

Stick with what works. If you want to make NG work better take a look at Bertholy as Moe did. You'll have exercises you can work on between now and March 2011 and Bertholy had students who started older than you are now and improved considerably.

Peter
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 16th, 2005, 10:50 am

November 23rd, 2010, 1:58 am #7

I have tried most of the SA methods, always returning to NG. Ng swing is so simple, not much to think about! IMHO Graves complicates something that is so simple to do. I tried SS, but my distance is the same with NG and my accuracy is better. I have tried the One plane swing as taught by Jeff Ritter. I find it hard to be consitent with the One Plane swing but my distance is awesome when I do connect. My preference would be the One plane swing, but I think it takes a lot of practise to perfect it. BTW, I also have tried Stack and Tilt, Perfect Connection and Trahan. I always come back to NG because of the simplicity and consistency. Any thoughts?
I've thought a lot about the same things, and tried NG, GGA, and IMA. They are a lot more alike than different. They all work. What sets GGA apart is that they are much more specific, detailed, and methodical than the other two. My early reaction was the same as yours, that the complication was counterproductive. I wanted something simple and let's go play golf.

As I've gotten better, I found myself hitting a wall, bumping up against certain problems over and over again. At that point, GGA's methodical approach shed some light on things. NG and IMA instruction was lacking a level of detail that I needed to get over the hump. I think a committed, methodical person would benefit by starting with GGA from the get go. I wasn't that person when I started with SA, and NG was fine. Then IMA gave me a little more. But to get to the next level, I'm becoming that committed, methodical person. GGA methodology is helping me get there. Most people are not going to get that far into it.

If you like the simple approach, NG is great. Seriously. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Quote
Like
Share