Having your cake and eating it too: Turn & Body Drive

Having your cake and eating it too: Turn & Body Drive

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

August 10th, 2009, 12:48 pm #1

I'm surprised how much advocacy there is here for increased turn and lower leg drive. Here is my take on the matter.

There is a swing method or style continuum (line) with say Jim Furyk on one end and Moe on the other. Ignore Furyk's idiosyncratic loop and focus on his setup and body drive. No matter where you are on that style line, your setup and swing have to match. If you combine Furyk's setup and Moe's swing, or Moe's setup and Furyk's swing, you won't be able to keep the ball on the planet without some horrendous compensations.

Obviously the vast majority of golf swings are somewhere in the middle ground. Even still, if you are going to set up like Moe but swing in the middle ground style, you are going to have to do something major to keep the ball in play, at least on longer clubs in the bag. There is a reason that CG swings do not have an SA setup. Just as everything matches up in a good SA setup and swing, so it does in CG.

If you are just talking about becoming more flexible and/or strong, that might be different. But if you are talking about changing the fundamental moves and power sources of the SA swing, good luck if you insist on sticking with the SA setup.

You want more turn and body drive? You'd better migrate to a more CG setup. That's certainly been my experience.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 10th, 2009, 6:07 pm #2

Video of Moe clearly shows significant turn and the lower body initiating the swing. I don't think any of the commentary here takes either of those beyone what Moe actually exhibited.

Peter
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 11th, 2009, 3:23 am #3

I'm surprised how much advocacy there is here for increased turn and lower leg drive. Here is my take on the matter.

There is a swing method or style continuum (line) with say Jim Furyk on one end and Moe on the other. Ignore Furyk's idiosyncratic loop and focus on his setup and body drive. No matter where you are on that style line, your setup and swing have to match. If you combine Furyk's setup and Moe's swing, or Moe's setup and Furyk's swing, you won't be able to keep the ball on the planet without some horrendous compensations.

Obviously the vast majority of golf swings are somewhere in the middle ground. Even still, if you are going to set up like Moe but swing in the middle ground style, you are going to have to do something major to keep the ball in play, at least on longer clubs in the bag. There is a reason that CG swings do not have an SA setup. Just as everything matches up in a good SA setup and swing, so it does in CG.

If you are just talking about becoming more flexible and/or strong, that might be different. But if you are talking about changing the fundamental moves and power sources of the SA swing, good luck if you insist on sticking with the SA setup.

You want more turn and body drive? You'd better migrate to a more CG setup. That's certainly been my experience.





Old Moe isn't as flexible as the early years, but he still gets lead shoulder back behind the ball...just like DJ Trahan . Love those fourth and fifth frames. He is driving the lower body and his shoulders and arms haven't moved. This is my favorite Moe sequence.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 22nd, 2004, 9:58 pm

August 11th, 2009, 11:38 am #4

Sets up with his lead shoulder behind the ball! He doesn't
have to move it there. Then on the downswing he brings it
dead even with the ball.
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 11th, 2009, 12:05 pm #5






Old Moe isn't as flexible as the early years, but he still gets lead shoulder back behind the ball...just like DJ Trahan . Love those fourth and fifth frames. He is driving the lower body and his shoulders and arms haven't moved. This is my favorite Moe sequence.
Because my posts are moderated, I do not have edit privileges. I would have liked to do so in this case.

The legs do provide power and there is body turn. But as has been said by many SA instructors, the arms are in charge. The lower body is the supporting cast. Anyone who tries to consciously drive the SA swing with the lower body is asking for problems, IMO.

I guess I was reading too much into some thoughts that were posted here.

Quote
Like
Share

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

August 12th, 2009, 8:56 am #6

While SA instructors can teach what they will, there are statements by Moe in intervies on video that are not supportive of your contention as far as his swing was concerned.

Peter
Quote
Like
Share

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

August 12th, 2009, 12:58 pm #7

Sets up with his lead shoulder behind the ball! He doesn't
have to move it there. Then on the downswing he brings it
dead even with the ball.
He actually sets up with a tilt of his spine away from the target, which has his lead shoulder slightly behind the ball at address. He also starts with his head back

But he does make a turn ( Oy Vey! ):

Last edited by mcirishman57 on August 12th, 2009, 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 25th, 2001, 3:34 pm

August 17th, 2009, 2:58 am #8

I'm surprised how much advocacy there is here for increased turn and lower leg drive. Here is my take on the matter.

There is a swing method or style continuum (line) with say Jim Furyk on one end and Moe on the other. Ignore Furyk's idiosyncratic loop and focus on his setup and body drive. No matter where you are on that style line, your setup and swing have to match. If you combine Furyk's setup and Moe's swing, or Moe's setup and Furyk's swing, you won't be able to keep the ball on the planet without some horrendous compensations.

Obviously the vast majority of golf swings are somewhere in the middle ground. Even still, if you are going to set up like Moe but swing in the middle ground style, you are going to have to do something major to keep the ball in play, at least on longer clubs in the bag. There is a reason that CG swings do not have an SA setup. Just as everything matches up in a good SA setup and swing, so it does in CG.

If you are just talking about becoming more flexible and/or strong, that might be different. But if you are talking about changing the fundamental moves and power sources of the SA swing, good luck if you insist on sticking with the SA setup.

You want more turn and body drive? You'd better migrate to a more CG setup. That's certainly been my experience.
Look (compare against the background) at the pics or video (forum or youtube) from setup to actual impact.

On full swings all good ball strikers move the lead knee/hip toward the target, usually 6" inches or the width of their leading thigh.

Setup is just a comfort/conditioning/training issue. Impact is what counts.

Two PGA pros have stated that a no backswing swing is good.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 22nd, 2004, 9:58 pm

August 17th, 2009, 12:45 pm #9

He actually sets up with a tilt of his spine away from the target, which has his lead shoulder slightly behind the ball at address. He also starts with his head back

But he does make a turn ( Oy Vey! ):

Half right means half wrong and I don't see any
evidence of the half wrong part.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 14th, 2007, 1:46 pm

August 17th, 2009, 1:48 pm #10

Look (compare against the background) at the pics or video (forum or youtube) from setup to actual impact.

On full swings all good ball strikers move the lead knee/hip toward the target, usually 6" inches or the width of their leading thigh.

Setup is just a comfort/conditioning/training issue. Impact is what counts.

Two PGA pros have stated that a no backswing swing is good.
All?

The concern I have with this statement is that a few golfers who are struggling may read this statement, assume it is a "golden nugget" of truth, and try to implement this type of move. The golfers who are athletically "challenged" like me would put in a lot of time trying to master this amount of shift. And the result would be a lot of fat/thin shots. In the end, we would just get discouraged and more confused.

D. Trahan says "...the lateral shift/bump, being 1 2 inches and not more." I know he is not the final word on golf. But, he has a different opinion and therefore, the 6" is not universal.
Quote
Like
Share