ModelGolf?

[studatnu]

www.modelgolf.com

 

Anyone try this out? Looks like its a swing trainer.....?

[Sam-Tee-Time]

I have. It's all fancy PC software, that "superimposes" your swing on top of the "model" golfer. I enjoyed it - it really showed how your swing compares to a professional golfer's swing and body movements.

 

The result for me was showing that I needed MUCH more weight transfer towards the target. I'm not convinced it's the BEST teaching methodology, but it was interesting.

[studatnu]

I have.  It's all fancy PC software, that "superimposes" your swing on top of the "model" golfer.  I enjoyed it - it really showed how your swing compares to a professional golfer's swing and body movements.

 

The result for me was showing that I needed MUCH more weight transfer towards the target.  I'm not convinced it's the BEST teaching methodology, but it was interesting.

48134[/snapback]

 

I was curious if anyone else tried it, I'm interested in it and am going to get myself "stick figured" tomorrow. I'll fill you guys in after my experience.

[Bombn]

It’s a great system if you have a fairly conventional swing. If your swing is bizarre or you don’t like to really change things, it probably won’t work.

 

I found their system to be extremely helpful because it removes a lot of opinionated aspects of the golf swing.

 

I was a student back when it started as CompuSport Golf Academy. Compusport filed bankruptcy and the main investor and Dr. Mann (who started it all) took the technology and created ModelGolf.

 

The office for ModelGolf is located in Las Vegas and you can have lessons from the real guys in Primm Nevada (about 1 hour south of Las Vegas). The head pro’s website is www.bestgolflesson.com .

 

I cant recommend Dr. Mann’s book “Swing Like a Pro” enough. Absolutely a great a book and next to Hogan’s book, it’s the next best book in my opinion.

[dmgcal]

I discovered the book five years ago at a bookstore and been using it as a reference ever since. The author, Ralph Mann based his model(reminds me of the Silver Surfer from the comics) from the swing of tour pro's. From this, it dispelled a lot of myths and wrong theories that i always thought never made sense to me. For example, on the set up, every magazine i've read said the shoulders should be parallel of the target, but from Mann's studies, its actually should be slightly open. Because his theories are based on the actual swings of pro's and his know how of biomechanics, his theories on the swing are very convincing.

 

Besides his book, i highly recommend the CD-rom and his swing saver cd. His CD-rom gets even more detailed and in depth than his book. Fine details like for example, your weight should wind up on the right heal on the take away. Details that i've never seen addressed before.

 

As far as teaching facilities, i highly recommend their pro in Phoenix, Dave Shaver. He has his cameras mounted in a fix set up position, so that when you look at your video, your image looks true. I went to a facility in L.A. and they had their cameras too close that your image didn't match the trueness of the model.

 

Finally, I have to say i agree with the previous post. If you do not have a conventional swing, for example an Allan Doyle swing, this probably won't help you. But other than that, its a great reference for the modern swing.

[jeffy]

I always liked their research; they had a good artcle on putting that appeared in a golf magazine but I don't think I ever saw it published in book form. It dispelled alot of myths also.

 

The one question I now have about the ModelGolf method is whether it takes into account Jim Hardy's concept of the one and two-plane swings. I doubt that it does. In that case, they would have smooshed together one and two-plane swings, which might create some flaws in the model. Anyone ever discuss this with the ModelGolf guys?

 

Jeff

[ted_b]

I always liked their research; they had a good artcle on putting that appeared in a golf magazine but I don't think I ever saw it published in book form. It dispelled alot of myths also.

 

The one question I now have about the ModelGolf method is whether it takes into account Jim Hardy's concept of the one and two-plane swings. I doubt that it does. In that case, they would have smooshed together one and two-plane swings, which might create some flaws in the model. Anyone ever discuss this with the ModelGolf guys?

 

Jeff

50644[/snapback]

 

I was thinking the exact same thing. I borrowed the Mann book from the library the other day (based on recommendations here). I lover his setup guides, etc, and have only gotten as far as the backswing. But I have Hardy's book on order, and really embrace the idea that there are two types of swings out there. Can anyone who's absorbed the book better than I tell whether his Pro model is a one planer, two planer or a dreaded combo? His scientific data gathering methodology points to a tendency to make a combo, in that he used the best pieces of a sample of 150 touring pros for his complete swing.

 

Ted

[unomizuno]

Fine details like for example, your weight should wind up on the right heel on the take away.  Details that i've never seen addressed before.

 

 

49791[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks for the tip...I needed that! :drinks:

[slicefixer]

"Model Golf" has flaws throughout their research........but the most obvious is WHY would you study such a great number of professional golfers methods when in actual fact only a small percentage are truly great ball strikers? IF you were doing a book on putting would you study ALL professional golfers putting methods......even those whose putting is the ONLY weakness in their games.....or would you study the methods of the truly GREAT putters???

 

It would seem to make the most sense to study the swings of acknowledged great ball strikers.....golfers/ball strikers who, either through statistics or in the case of Hogan/Snead/Nelson their peers opinions, players that are/where most adept in the art of ball striking.......

 

Model Golf has morphed/blended a wide variety of golf swings into ONE concept swing, which, BTW, is a great swing, but is NOT the absolute best technique for EVERY golfer in order to strike a golf ball with both distance and accuracy.......

 

MANY things influence the BEST method of swinging a golf club for each individual.....athleticism, health, flexability, age, discipline, desire, passion, etc. etc. etc....... Model Golf is a very interesting theory and it certainly can benefit the appropriate golfer at the appropriate time......but its NOT the gold standard of golf instruction.......its just another very interesting theory with a great deal of validity and some very interesting conclusions......

[ted_b]

Slicefixer,

I am very interested in your perspective on this. I am 51, decent shape, play to about a 10-11 but have a homegrown swing that is full of flaws and getting worse, not better.....but clearly not anywhere close to being as flexible as the Pro model. I signed up for ModelGolf mainly because I live in N. Ohio where there is not a plethora of great teachers (short season and most committed to private clubs). Moreover, the nearest ModelGolf teaching facility (1.5 hr drive) has a very nice indoor facility that may help me throughout the winter. Anyway, if you were me what would you do? (I know...move!).

 

The static info I've so far input into the ModelGolf system has produced very interesting initial results (I'm standing too close to ball, my stance is too narrow, my clubs should be an addtl 2 degrees flat...even though Ping and Callaway say I should be another 1-2 degrees upright!!).

 

The Hardy perspective would have a difficult time calling the ModelGolf swing a pure one or two planer, cuz Modelgolf recommends a strong grip and a wider slightly open stance, but most of the other two plane criteria.

 

Anyway, a bit confused about maiking huge investments into ModelGolf, but it seems to be my best alternative right now.

[slicefixer]

Ok....lets see......IMOP most of these "types" of golf teaching set ups.....Model Golf, Bogart Golf (Dallas), etc. are simply using video/computers and their research to elicit the "wow" factor from golfers in an attempt to "hook" them for a fairly expensive "package" of lessons.........You must understand that the average "instructor" at these facilities has lil' or no idea about how to swing a golf club beyond the "method" that they are using........result: Some people will benefit tremendously if the swing they walked into the door with on day one fits closely to the perameters established within the Model Golf method......Some people will gain some additional knowledge and might benefit to some extent.......MANY will leave confused/lost and in the "search mode".......

 

This is what I believe.......(IF you'll create a winter improvement plan based on this you'll improve tremendously)

 

To create/build a fundamentally sound golf swing a player MUST be fundamentally sound at address......grip/posture/alignment/stance/ball position.......with GRIP and POSTURE the 2 most important of these fundamentals, BY FAR........Now, please understand that there is NO proper number of knuckles/strength of grip, just a perameter of 2 - 4 knuckles to work within (grey area).......same for posture.......etc. etc. etc......there are NO exacts within these fundamentals.....just a "grey area" that would be considered correct........It all depends on the individual and their swing tendencies, body build, flexibility, etc.

 

Once you've established sound fundamentals the player has to learn to swing the clubhead from the left arm @ 9:00 to the right arm @ 3:00......using the body in the correct manner with the arms sychonized to the body and with the clubhead/hands reacting to the body turn......

This teaches the player what it "feels" like through the most important area of the golf swing....."The impact zone"......

 

Once the player can successfully hit 30 - 40 L wedges/SW's using the 1/2 swing which was built with sound fundamentals it is lil' more than having them learn to turn a lil' more in the backswing which will give them a lil' more to unwind during the downswing......say 3/4 swing.......then on to the full swing......whallah.......3 - 6 months or so later they NOW have a fundamentally sound "motion" in which the arms/hands/club are sychronized to the body turn and they should now be able to actually go play golf with some success........break 90 for instance......once they ingrain a fundamentally sound short game they are now in the low to mid 80's.......then with continued "tweaking" of the golf swing and improvements in short game/course management they can break 80........then 75......etc. I 100% BELIEVE that ANY person with average athletic ability can be taught a "championship caliber" golf swing in 2 years from scratch.......I've seen this occur throughout my 20 + years of teaching our great game.......

 

However, the average person does NOT have the patience/passion/discipline to properly construct a sound golf swing........they want it RIGHT NOW......and there is NO such "animal".......

 

I have seen athletically talented people (especially if they played baseball/tennis) build a great swing in a year or in some cases slightly less.....but, such a person is fairly rare and they too MUST have the correct "mindset"/attitude or they too will fail and become frustrated by their inability to play what looks to be such a simple game......result: they either quit playing or go on the "search" for the quick fix/lesson/technique and bounce around from teacher to teacher, method to method, book to book, etc. etc. etc.......like the proverbial dog chasin' its tail......going nowhere.........

 

I've been though ALL of this, both as a player and as a teacher, so I KNOW what I'm talkin' about here......"do as I say and NOT as I did"..:drinks:

 

If you'll make SURE that your fundamentally sound........work on hitting short wedges no more than 50 yards until you can flight the ball consistently with a consistent divot pattern/spin, etc. you'll find that by simply adjusting your set up for the club your preparing to play that your ENTIRE game improves exponentially.......

 

You see, the "motion" required to strike a 40 yard L wedge properly is the EXACT same motion required to strike a driver properly....the ONLY differences are in the set up.....ie. weight distribution/ball position/spine tilt, etc. which are necessitated to allow the golf ball to be struck at the proper point in the clubheads downswing arc and on the correct path and angle of approach........it sounds fairly complicated, but it isn't......you simply set up the club in the manner in which it was designed to be struck......driver: slightly on the upswing......wedge: on the downswing......mid/long irons: at the bottom of the swing arc, etc.

 

The MOST important thing is to firmly establish sound fundamentals and a fundamentally sound motion from hip height to hip height at the very beginning.......then the student/player is going to be off to a great start in developing a great golf swing........however, most people simply want to knock hell from a driver and aren't willing to work on the simplest things such as grip/posture, etc. They go spend $$$$'s on a set of clubs......buy a 12 pack......."grab" the club any ole' way.......and "swing" as hard as they can........THIS "method" is BY FAR the most common........ :clapping: ......and is the primary reason that the average handicap of all AMERICAN golfers as a whole hasn't dropped and will not drop until the AMERICAN golfer changes his/her mindset.....

 

Asian golfers have a 180deg different mindset and thats the reason you see so many Asian golfers who are very accomplished golfers.......but that is another story for another post......

[unomizuno]

I have to agree with you completely and feel like I should testify! :rolleyes:

 

My evolution as a golfer with an ever improving golf swing has been a slow process of learning one thing at a time. Of course there's a lot of back and forth trying to hone fundamentals little by little along with the main focus...having three of four swingthoughts at a time by the fifth or sixth hole was too common.

 

I've spent months focusing on one piece takeaway. Then another few months on bringing the elbow in close during the downswing...etc...all guided by a great 'feel' instructor.

 

Throughout, I've rarely felt comfortable and confident. Only recently, after 5 years and six lessons and tens of thousands of practice swings in the garage, I feel able to trust the swing and am REALLY learning how to relax. I thought I'd never get there.

 

 

Slow and steady...at least for old guys with family and day jobs.

 

:hi:

[slicefixer]

I agree with slicefixer,  I earlier didn't want to add to much info because I didn't want to take away from someone's first impression.  There are also many other parts and how they use the system I don't agree with.

The software can be abused and misleading to sell big packages of lessons by someone who just wants to make "a buck" and not a difference in your game.

 

At the PGA Show Demo Day two years ago I  got onto the system after taking my measurements and took a swing.  My swing was almost perfect to the my model except for a small part in my set-up.  The guy told me he never saw anyone that close to the model on the first swing.

I wonder if they tell that to everyone?

54549[/snapback]

 

I'm NOT saying that they are ALL alike, but, in my experience methods like "Model Golf"/"Golftec"/"Bogart Golf" are in it for the cash flow......NOT that they don't have some very good instructors.....they DO.....but I TRULY believe that the primary goal is to "wow" the student with stats/video, etc. and hook them into a long term lesson series.....

 

I'm NOT saying that some golfers won't improve.......some tremendously........what I am saying is that IMOP most golfers will leave confused and thinking about WAAAAAAAAY to much theory/stats/positions/angles.....in other words, "alphabet golf"......"gotta' hit THIS position BEFORE I can go on to THIS position....and then THIS position....etc. etc. etc........

 

I do KNOW that ALL good teachers are able to communicate the golf swing in a way that the student completely understands and doesn't confuse them........keep it simple.........LOTS of guy's/girl's got the "manual" memorized, but, have NO idea how to really TEACH the golf swing..........IMOP of course.....:drinks:

[ted_b]

I always liked their research; they had a good artcle on putting that appeared in a golf magazine but I don't think I ever saw it published in book form. It dispelled alot of myths also.

 

The one question I now have about the ModelGolf method is whether it takes into account Jim Hardy's concept of the one and two-plane swings. I doubt that it does. In that case, they would have smooshed together one and two-plane swings, which might create some flaws in the model. Anyone ever discuss this with the ModelGolf guys?

 

Jeff

50644[/snapback]

 

Yes, and the response is below. First, I have to say that initially the folks at ModelGolf were unresponsive and basically nonexistent, even after I joined their program. However, after an email later they bent over backwards for me and treated me well, very professional and apologetic for the lack of response earlier. I'm still not sure if the program and swing methodolgy is for me, but the concepts are clear, concise and easy to follow.

 

Here is ModelGolf's response to my Hardy and one-plane/two-plane question:

"As you see in the book, our research indicates a no-plane swing, but rather a swing path. The common method any of the teachers that communicate a one-plane swing is to draw a line on the video from the back view typically through the shaft at setup. The common method of the two-plane teachers is to draw a line through the shaft at setup and a line from the hosel or ball through the shoulders or neck at setup. We would challenge anyone to show us video that was shot in a scientific manner, not just from any angle near the back view, that shows a golf swing on one single plane or on two planes. The two plane method falls apart very quickly, because you have to get from one plane to the other at some point. The one plane method falls apart quickly while looking at video, because the club would have to travel to an impossible-to-reach position in the backswing. We really cringe when we hear TV commentary/analysis or articles talk about swing plane(s) when the camera is just plopped down somewhere behind the golfer. The ModelGolf swing path terminology is closer to the two-plane method, but doesn’t adhere to that loosely-based definition. Keep in mind that we filmed the tour players using consistent camera positions (we had them hit from a specific location that the cameras were centered around) – this is a requirement in any legitimate biomechanics study. The information presented in the book, our software, and in the website is based on acquiring the movement patterns using a scientific method – it’s definitely not Ralph (Mann)’s opinion."

 

Their biggest "variances" from the Hardy two-plane description that I can see at a glance are:

* they recommend a modern neutral to strong grip (Hardy recommends this for one-plane; neutral to weak for two-plane)

* they recommend a splayed left foot at address, 20-25 degrees (again, Hardy recommends this for one-plane, to create coil resistance, and recommends perpendicular to target for two-plane)

* they recommend a transition timing that is more like the one-plane Hardy description of hips going toward target (counterclockwise) as backswing continues to final finish (clockwise), but then combine it with the transition mechanics of Hardy's two plane (hips shift laterally left)

 

Many might not consider these variations minor, especially the setup ones.

[jeffy]

I always liked their research; they had a good artcle on putting that appeared in a golf magazine but I don't think I ever saw it published in book form. It dispelled alot of myths also.

 

The one question I now have about the ModelGolf method is whether it takes into account Jim Hardy's concept of the one and two-plane swings. I doubt that it does. In that case, they would have smooshed together one and two-plane swings, which might create some flaws in the model. Anyone ever discuss this with the ModelGolf guys?

 

Jeff

50644[/snapback]

 

Yes, and the response is below. First, I have to say that initially the folks at ModelGolf were unresponsive and basically nonexistent, even after I joined their program. However, after an email later they bent over backwards for me and treated me well, very professional and apologetic for the lack of response earlier. I'm still not sure if the program and swing methodolgy is for me, but the concepts are clear, concise and easy to follow.

 

Here is ModelGolf's response to my Hardy and one-plane/two-plane question:

"As you see in the book, our research indicates a no-plane swing, but rather a swing path. The common method any of the teachers that communicate a one-plane swing is to draw a line on the video from the back view typically through the shaft at setup. The common method of the two-plane teachers is to draw a line through the shaft at setup and a line from the hosel or ball through the shoulders or neck at setup. We would challenge anyone to show us video that was shot in a scientific manner, not just from any angle near the back view, that shows a golf swing on one single plane or on two planes. The two plane method falls apart very quickly, because you have to get from one plane to the other at some point. The one plane method falls apart quickly while looking at video, because the club would have to travel to an impossible-to-reach position in the backswing. We really cringe when we hear TV commentary/analysis or articles talk about swing plane(s) when the camera is just plopped down somewhere behind the golfer. The ModelGolf swing path terminology is closer to the two-plane method, but doesn’t adhere to that loosely-based definition. Keep in mind that we filmed the tour players using consistent camera positions (we had them hit from a specific location that the cameras were centered around) – this is a requirement in any legitimate biomechanics study. The information presented in the book, our software, and in the website is based on acquiring the movement patterns using a scientific method – it’s definitely not Ralph (Mann)’s opinion."

 

Their biggest "variances" from the Hardy two-plane description that I can see at a glance are:

* they recommend a modern neutral to strong grip (Hardy recommends this for one-plane; neutral to weak for two-plane)

* they recommend a splayed left foot at address, 20-25 degrees (again, Hardy recommends this for one-plane, to create coil resistance, and recommends perpendicular to target for two-plane)

* they recommend a transition timing that is more like the one-plane Hardy description of hips going toward target (counterclockwise) as backswing continues to final finish (clockwise), but then combine it with the transition mechanics of Hardy's two plane (hips shift laterally left)

 

Many might not consider these variations minor, especially the setup ones.

59597[/snapback]

 

Interesting; they either have no clue what Hardy's definitions really mean (for example, he does not want or expect one-plane golfers to swing just on the shaft plane), which I doubt, or they are being disingenuous in order to dismiss Hardy and promote their own method. As I suspected, they just smooshed together a bunch of different swings.

 

It is no surprise, though, to hear that the model is more 2P: Nicklaus got everyone swinging upright for a couple of decades and that is no doubt reflected in the model. But as slicefixer put it: why look at an amalgram of tour pros (I most certainly do not want to swing like Brad Faxon or Craig Parry)? Hogan, Snead and Mickey Wright, for example, are the consensus picks for the best ballstrikers. Not surprisingly, their swings have alot in common. Why not "model" those swings?

[slicefixer]

I always liked their research; they had a good artcle on putting that appeared in a golf magazine but I don't think I ever saw it published in book form. It dispelled alot of myths also.

 

The one question I now have about the ModelGolf method is whether it takes into account Jim Hardy's concept of the one and two-plane swings. I doubt that it does. In that case, they would have smooshed together one and two-plane swings, which might create some flaws in the model. Anyone ever discuss this with the ModelGolf guys?

 

Jeff

50644[/snapback]

 

Yes, and the response is below. First, I have to say that initially the folks at ModelGolf were unresponsive and basically nonexistent, even after I joined their program. However, after an email later they bent over backwards for me and treated me well, very professional and apologetic for the lack of response earlier. I'm still not sure if the program and swing methodolgy is for me, but the concepts are clear, concise and easy to follow.

 

Here is ModelGolf's response to my Hardy and one-plane/two-plane question:

"As you see in the book, our research indicates a no-plane swing, but rather a swing path. The common method any of the teachers that communicate a one-plane swing is to draw a line on the video from the back view typically through the shaft at setup. The common method of the two-plane teachers is to draw a line through the shaft at setup and a line from the hosel or ball through the shoulders or neck at setup. We would challenge anyone to show us video that was shot in a scientific manner, not just from any angle near the back view, that shows a golf swing on one single plane or on two planes. The two plane method falls apart very quickly, because you have to get from one plane to the other at some point. The one plane method falls apart quickly while looking at video, because the club would have to travel to an impossible-to-reach position in the backswing. We really cringe when we hear TV commentary/analysis or articles talk about swing plane(s) when the camera is just plopped down somewhere behind the golfer. The ModelGolf swing path terminology is closer to the two-plane method, but doesn’t adhere to that loosely-based definition. Keep in mind that we filmed the tour players using consistent camera positions (we had them hit from a specific location that the cameras were centered around) – this is a requirement in any legitimate biomechanics study. The information presented in the book, our software, and in the website is based on acquiring the movement patterns using a scientific method – it’s definitely not Ralph (Mann)’s opinion."

 

Their biggest "variances" from the Hardy two-plane description that I can see at a glance are:

* they recommend a modern neutral to strong grip (Hardy recommends this for one-plane; neutral to weak for two-plane)

* they recommend a splayed left foot at address, 20-25 degrees (again, Hardy recommends this for one-plane, to create coil resistance, and recommends perpendicular to target for two-plane)

* they recommend a transition timing that is more like the one-plane Hardy description of hips going toward target (counterclockwise) as backswing continues to final finish (clockwise), but then combine it with the transition mechanics of Hardy's two plane (hips shift laterally left)

 

Many might not consider these variations minor, especially the setup ones.

59597[/snapback]

 

Interesting; they either have no clue what Hardy's definitions really mean (for example, he does not want or expect one-plane golfers to swing just on the shaft plane), which I doubt, or they are being disingenuous in order to dismiss Hardy and promote their own method. As I suspected, they just smooshed together a bunch of different swings.

 

It is no surprise, though, to hear that the model is more 2P: Nicklaus got everyone swinging upright for a couple of decades and that is no doubt reflected in the model. But as slicefixer put it: why look at an amalgram of tour pros (I most certainly do not want to swing like Brad Faxon or Craig Parry)? Hogan, Snead and Mickey Wright, for example, are the consensus picks for the best ballstrikers. Not surprisingly, their swings have alot in common. Why not "model" those swings?

59649[/snapback]

 

 

Yep, they invalidate their "data" when they include players who are NOT good ballstrikers......or include ballstrikers who were good ballstrikers with a "handsy-hickory" shafted Jim "Flip" golfswing but who couldn't compete on today's tour with the same swing.......

 

The shotmaking "demands" on today's tour players FAR exceed what was demanded of them just 20 years ago......much less 30,40,50 + years ago.....don't believe what you hear about how much better the players "worked" the ball in the old days......nor believe all the BS about how the ball "has made the game easier".......

 

Those that speak that BS REFUSE to acknowlege that the golf courses are NOW 600/700/800 yards longer.......the rough is now 2 - 3 time as deep on average and MUCH more uniform.....the fairways are now 1/2 as wide......the greens the "old guy's" played on "stimped," on a good course, maybe 8....9 tops......now we've got green speeds approaching 13 -14.......greens, that in most cases were basically ovals with some humps surrounded by bunkers that are shallow by today's standards.......a 6' deep bunker was VERY deep in the "old" days........now 6' is about average on a championship layout with some sporting bunkers........10', 12', up to 20' deep.......modern greens tend to be 3 or 4 small greens in ONE that require you to hit to a green area that in many cases may not be more then 8 yards or so deep.......from front to back.......trouble to trouble.......otherwise you hit a "commercial" iron shot to 30' and very well might 3 putt......

 

I'd study Mickey Wright, Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Moe Norman, Trevino, Price, etc......ALL of whom had COMPLETE control over the golf ball in their primes and can/could play the game at the highest levels NO matter the course set-up OR Era......(or as complete a control as is humanly possible..... ) When you throw in the Ron Streck's, Ed Fiori's, Leonard Thompson's, Phil Blackmar's, of the golf world (good "players," very good at times, but, NOT great ballstrikers), etc. etc. etc....you radically "skew" your data......invalidate it in my eye's......but that's just my opinion and others no doubt will disagree 100%.....

[dmgcal]

One or two swings out of over a 100 pro swings doesn't invalidate an average. What makes a statistical data accurate is a large sample size from a given definition. Model Golf took a large sample size (over a hundred) and they defined their definition (modern touring pros). If you want to know how modern touring pros swing the golf club, Model Golf can help you.

 

What's great about them is their CD-Rom. Its a very well written, well illustrated, easy to understand golf swing reference that I've found. I stressed the word REFERENCE. The CD-Rom medium is by far more superior than a book because a cd-rom can illustrate the dynamics of a swing as opposed to multiple illustrated stills in a book.

 

There is no such thing as a gold standard out there. Even Hardy's theory of different planes have flaws. You just have to find what works for you.

 

You don't have to join Model Golf's lesson program and spend lots of money. Just buy their CD-Rom. If you want to learn how modern touring pros swing, this is a great reference for you outside of getting a expensive golf coach.

 

One last thing. As a weekend, single digit handicapper, to me if you are a modern tour player, you are a ball striker worthy enough for me to emulate.

[slicefixer]

Sir, I won't argue your point.......as that is your opinion....but I happen to believe that ModelGolf is a convoluted hodge-podge of statistical data thats been formulated to make what they claim is the "tour swing"........ and in my opinion its more of a "marketing" device (and a brilliant one at that) designed to sell DVD's, Cd's, books, lessons, etc.......THAT is MY opinion......which my opinion and a quarter won't even dial a pay phone anymore...

 

The main problem with ModelGolf is this......there are basically TWO ways to release/square a golf club at impact.....

 

There is what I call the "old school"/Classic golf swing that is based on the technique that was necessary to sqaure a clubhead shafted with a hickory shaft....ie. hands and arms......and..... the "Modern"/Big Muscle golf swing which is based on a steel shaft, which due to the inherent lack of torque of steel (1.8 - 2.2degrees) can be squared WITHOUT manipulation by the hands/arms.......These two methods share VERY little in common.......

 

I call it "modern" vs. "old school"......The Golf Machine calls it "pushing vs. pulling", Jim Hardy calls it "one plane" vs. "two plane".....etc. For example, Mr. Hardy's teachings, while very good, can be misleading IF the person reading the book doesn't understand that there are MANY successful and great ballstrikers who have "2 plane" backswings, but, reroute the clubs/arms (or both) in the transition and then have, as Jim Hardy describes it, "1 plane downswings".......as a matter of fact, there are a TON of them.........

 

Either way there are DISTINCT differences between the two methods........what IS ESSENTIAL in one method is DISASTEROUS in the other.....when you take data of both "types" of golfers (and the many different "variations" of each) and throw it all in together you convolute the data and end up with a bunch of conclusions that are full of errors......IMOP

 

Its also my opinion that IF you TRULY desire to know HOW the finest ball strikers in the MODERN history of the game swing a golf club to achieve superior results......both in the opinions of their peers as in Hogan/Snead/Wrights case or with imperical data from many years of tour statistics as in the case of Nick Price, etc....... then you should study THOSE swings and NOT "dilute" your data with golf swings that DO NOT produce the best results on a consistent basis.......find the "comon denominators" of GREAT ballstrikers.......

 

IF I was going to study putting I would study the methods of the worlds best putters.......NOT dilute the data with statistical data regarding putting techniques of successful professional golfers who are NOT statistically or otherwise good putters......just doesn't make sense to me.........

 

Anymore than I would include data regarding the hitting techniques of baseball players who career batting averages hovered near the "Mendoza line" in a study of proper baseball hitting technique........IF I wanted to study, publish, and then teach baseball players how to hit a baseball properly I would study Rod Carew, A-Rod, Don Mattingly, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Micky Mantle, George Brett, etc. etc. etc........analyze/study and see if I could locate "common denominators" between them, etc.

 

NOW, if ModelGolf and its CD/book/instruction help YOUR game more power to you......that IS what is most important to you. I personally don't care if a person who loves golf benefits from standing on one leg, grips the club cross handed, aims 50 yards left/right of target, etc. etc. etc....IF that allows them to play the game to a level that satisfies them AND allows them to enjoy our great game then FANTASTIC!

 

However, for ANYONE to say that ModelGolf is THE "tour swing" is simply not correct......it might be a compilation of statistical data of "averages" based on Sport Tech Swing Simulator data (or some similar machine)......but its certainly NOT the "Tour Swing" as advertised.....at least in my opinion......

[jeffy]

Slicefixer has said it all: music students don't study an "average" of published works, they study the greats. ModelGolf was a good starting point but it has fallen way behind in incorporating current knowledge of the golf swing. Hardy has broken the swing down into "one-plane" and "two-plane" groupings, but as slicefixer pointed out, there are great ballstrikers who are one-planers with a flying right elbow that look two-plane at the top (Daly, Furyk, Couples); there are also two-planers that look one-plane at the top (Greg Norman, Curtis Strange). ModelGolf would vastly improve their product (and arguably advance the knowledge of the swing) if they grouped players into these obvious categories (though some, like the Golfing Machine types, would argue that there are many more), and verify the common denominators within these groups. Also, with the huge amount of performance data available from ShotLink, it should now be possible to statistically correlate swing "traits" with shotmaking performance. Now that would be a product worth paying for!

[dmgcal]

I have.  It's all fancy PC software, that "superimposes" your swing on top of the "model" golfer.  I enjoyed it - it really showed how your swing compares to a professional golfer's swing and body movements.

 

The result for me was showing that I needed MUCH more weight transfer towards the target.  I'm not convinced it's the BEST teaching methodology, but it was interesting.

48134[/snapback]

 

I was curious if anyone else tried it, I'm interested in it and am going to get myself "stick figured" tomorrow. I'll fill you guys in after my experience.

48203[/snapback]

 

 

Studatnu, just curious, how did your session go??

[studatnu]

It actually went really well. I've started playing about 2 years ago and been compensating for many flaws in my swing and when I matched up to the model you could see right off the bat that things were not looking good. Just a list of things:

 

1. standing too close to the ball

2. not turning my shoulders fully

3. my weight wasn't on my back heel during my upswing

4. I was cocking my wrists too early on the back swing

5. going past club vertical

6. Overswining

7. knees not bent

8. I wasn't turning my hips AT ALL

9. Casting and not properly releasing.

10. arms where too low at the top of my back swing

 

Since my first lesson I've had many others and been working on getting these fundamentals down. Things are getting there and I've notice some improvment on distances and controll on the simulator and driving range (when its decent outside). Its working for me but for someone with more experience, I don't know if this would be helpful.

[Freddy-X]

If you learned golf as a kid, then you probably did not use/ need any golf book.

I have learned skiing, X-Country skating, fencing, etc. without any book.

However, I only started golf after university. Apparently I got hooked on studying from books.
Moreover, I have tried multiple golfpro teachers - being no use at all. I learned hitting simply from a buddy.
Hitting is quite effective, but not so easy for the driver ...

So, for changing from hitting to swinging for me the book 'Swing like a Pro' was about the most useful book.