The worthlessness of golf magazines in one issue.

[TheCityGame]

This idea -- "golf magazines are worthless -- is old ground. I just thought this was a particularly egregious example of what these editors really think about our intelligence.

 

I got my Golf magazine yesterday (not Golf Digest, Golf). I don't even know why I get it. . .maybe I bought a bucket hat once and it was the magazine or a free bowl of soup.

 

Anyway. . .

 

There's a little article early on about how Brooks Koepka gets his distance and also a little write up from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book.

 

Some key points from the Koepka piece. . .

 

1) Do Less, Get More. "Brooks proves that you don't have to swing past parallel to hit it 300 yards. In fact, overswinging saps speed, because it requires extra hand and arm manipulation to square the face. <snip> You want a tight feel at the top, not a loose one."

 

2) Show some spine : "Don't just turn your shoulders, turn your entire back. If you do it without over rotating your lower body, you'll add yards fast."

 

3) The Joy Of Flex : "His knee flex is the same as at address (as at the top of back swing)"

 

4) Plant your stance : "Sure, he's about to pulverize it, but Brook's feet are flat on the ground. <snip> Hit practice balls flat-footed--you'll feel a huge difference."

 

Here's the funny part. There's a little essay in the mag from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book. What's the key point in his new book. . .lift your heel and turn a lot. Some quotes. . .

 

"In the backswing, they (great players) lift the lead heel off the ground and rotate their hips, letting the shoulders make a full, power-rich turn. This freedom of movement creates times, rhythm, speed -- the keys to power and creativity in shotmaking." (compare to 3 above)

 

"What do the great players NOT do in their backswing? Resist with the lower body."

 

Basically, he goes on like that. . .that it's bad to resist, that you get to go fully and deep and turny to give yourself time to get back, that "no matter how much torque one thinks they create with resistance, there's not enough energy release to offset the loss of turn." (compare to 2 above)

 

"Going past parallel flies in the face of today's teaching, but a long swing gives you time and space." (compare to 1 above)

 

"What not to do? Keep your left heel on the ground in the backswing." (compare to 4 above)

 

You tell me. . .a guy who doesn't know a whole lot about golf reads through those two articles. . .is that guy in a better position to go hit the range, or a worse position? I feel like these issues go way past "not helping" and directly into the territory of "hurting" your game. It's really ridiculous.

 

And, shame, because those two articles actually contain some interesting ground here for discussion, but I wonder why we can't get that. Why can't we get an article with Brandel talking to whoever wrote the points about Koepka and discuss the differences and benefits of each. Because we like one-minute sound bites and just want to flip to the equipment reviews? Good news there anyway. . .there are 7 new drivers -- and I quote -- that are longer and more forgiving than ever.

[NCHACK85]

I have had plenty of instructors and Monte does agree that lifting the heels should be a result and not a cause. What I'm saying is that if you force it to come up, you're in trouble. But if the heel comes up because let's say you have a deep hip turn, (or something of that nature) you should be fine. You just can not just force it. BC comes off really arrogant and annoying to me. I know he was a tour golfer, but was he any good? His arrogance doesn't seem to go with his credentials.

[Shipwreck]

I used to look forward to reading golf magazines and seeing what sort of new "quick fix" was out for me to try, not knowing any better. These magazines pretty much just promote doing something, having it "work" (then losing it) and seeking out an instructor to help you get back there, but does a piss poor job because not everyone can do those things.

[Hilts1969]

Well I have just read leadbetters a swing twice and practiced in my front room for days, just went to the driving range and shank,shank,top,shank etc fiddled with grip, then backswing messed around with transition, by the end I was hitting nice draw shots.

 

The only problem was it was no longer anything like the the A swing

[NoTalentLefty]

Chamblee didn't deny that players aren't getting distance without lifting the front foot. He saying it takes more of athletic type move to do it . The move he shows is the old swing most of us from the early 80s and before were using. It produces less tension. Both are acceptable. The Golf swing has options . Everyone of us should know this.

 

[ozarkshooter]

This idea -- "golf magazines are worthless -- is old ground. I just thought this was a particularly egregious example of what these editors really think about our intelligence.

 

I got my Golf magazine yesterday (not Golf Digest, Golf). I don't even know why I get it. . .maybe I bought a bucket hat once and it was the magazine or a free bowl of soup.

 

Anyway. . .

 

There's a little article early on about how Brooks Koepka gets his distance and also a little write up from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book.

 

Some key points from the Koepka piece. . .

 

1) Do Less, Get More. "Brooks proves that you don't have to swing past parallel to hit it 300 yards. In fact, overswinging saps speed, because it requires extra hand and arm manipulation to square the face. <snip> You want a tight feel at the top, not a loose one."

 

2) Show some spine : "Don't just turn your shoulders, turn your entire back. If you do it without over rotating your lower body, you'll add yards fast."

 

3) The Joy Of Flex : "His knee flex is the same as at address (as at the top of back swing)"

 

4) Plant your stance : "Sure, he's about to pulverize it, but Brook's feet are flat on the ground. <snip> Hit practice balls flat-footed--you'll feel a huge difference."

 

Here's the funny part. There's a little essay in the mag from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book. What's the key point in his new book. . .lift your heel and turn a lot. Some quotes. . .

 

"In the backswing, they (great players) lift the lead heel off the ground and rotate their hips, letting the shoulders make a full, power-rich turn. This freedom of movement creates times, rhythm, speed -- the keys to power and creativity in shotmaking." (compare to 3 above)

 

"What do the great players NOT do in their backswing? Resist with the lower body."

 

Basically, he goes on like that. . .that it's bad to resist, that you get to go fully and deep and turny to give yourself time to get back, that "no matter how much torque one thinks they create with resistance, there's not enough energy release to offset the loss of turn." (compare to 2 above)

 

"Going past parallel flies in the face of today's teaching, but a long swing gives you time and space." (compare to 1 above)

 

"What not to do? Keep your left heel on the ground in the backswing." (compare to 4 above)

 

You tell me. . .a guy who doesn't know a whole lot about golf reads through those two articles. . .is that guy in a better position to go hit the range, or a worse position? I feel like these issues go way past "not helping" and directly into the territory of "hurting" your game. It's really ridiculous.

 

And, shame, because those two articles actually contain some interesting ground here for discussion, but I wonder why we can't get that. Why can't we get an article with Brandel talking to whoever wrote the points about Koepka and discuss the differences and benefits of each. Because we like one-minute sound bites and just want to flip to the equipment reviews? Good news there anyway. . .there are 7 new drivers -- and I quote -- that are longer and more forgiving than ever.

 

 

 

And I think this site is just as bad. It will make you dizzy if you try to follow everything.

 

 

When I first starting playing golf seriously (recreationally) 25 yrs ago, I had subscriptions to both Golf and Golf Digest. Within a year I felt my game got worse. I stopped reading the tips and got back to a decent game.

 

This is why I liked Golf World so much. Articles about the game, players and keeping up with the various tours. None of the quick fix tips, etc.

[dlygrisse]

Subscribed to the magazines for years, it was the only source of golf info you could really get, along with books, before the internet.

They have gone the way of newspapers, they are dinosaur's.

There is really no reason for them to exist any longer.

[2bGood]

The sad part is new golfers turn to magazine and the golf channel for 'lessons'. The new golfer has no clue what is relevant to them and what is not and it can really mess you up.

 

I still get golf magazine for free and will read them, but I will no even look at the instruction articles.

[Hilts1969]

This idea -- "golf magazines are worthless -- is old ground. I just thought this was a particularly egregious example of what these editors really think about our intelligence.

 

I got my Golf magazine yesterday (not Golf Digest, Golf). I don't even know why I get it. . .maybe I bought a bucket hat once and it was the magazine or a free bowl of soup.

 

Anyway. . .

 

There's a little article early on about how Brooks Koepka gets his distance and also a little write up from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book.

 

Some key points from the Koepka piece. . .

 

1) Do Less, Get More. "Brooks proves that you don't have to swing past parallel to hit it 300 yards. In fact, overswinging saps speed, because it requires extra hand and arm manipulation to square the face. <snip> You want a tight feel at the top, not a loose one."

 

2) Show some spine : "Don't just turn your shoulders, turn your entire back. If you do it without over rotating your lower body, you'll add yards fast."

 

3) The Joy Of Flex : "His knee flex is the same as at address (as at the top of back swing)"

 

4) Plant your stance : "Sure, he's about to pulverize it, but Brook's feet are flat on the ground. <snip> Hit practice balls flat-footed--you'll feel a huge difference."

 

Here's the funny part. There's a little essay in the mag from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book. What's the key point in his new book. . .lift your heel and turn a lot. Some quotes. . .

 

"In the backswing, they (great players) lift the lead heel off the ground and rotate their hips, letting the shoulders make a full, power-rich turn. This freedom of movement creates times, rhythm, speed -- the keys to power and creativity in shotmaking." (compare to 3 above)

 

"What do the great players NOT do in their backswing? Resist with the lower body."

 

Basically, he goes on like that. . .that it's bad to resist, that you get to go fully and deep and turny to give yourself time to get back, that "no matter how much torque one thinks they create with resistance, there's not enough energy release to offset the loss of turn." (compare to 2 above)

 

"Going past parallel flies in the face of today's teaching, but a long swing gives you time and space." (compare to 1 above)

 

"What not to do? Keep your left heel on the ground in the backswing." (compare to 4 above)

 

You tell me. . .a guy who doesn't know a whole lot about golf reads through those two articles. . .is that guy in a better position to go hit the range, or a worse position? I feel like these issues go way past "not helping" and directly into the territory of "hurting" your game. It's really ridiculous.

 

And, shame, because those two articles actually contain some interesting ground here for discussion, but I wonder why we can't get that. Why can't we get an article with Brandel talking to whoever wrote the points about Koepka and discuss the differences and benefits of each. Because we like one-minute sound bites and just want to flip to the equipment reviews? Good news there anyway. . .there are 7 new drivers -- and I quote -- that are longer and more forgiving than ever.

 

 

 

And I think this site is just as bad. It will make you dizzy if you try to follow everything.

 

 

When I first starting playing golf seriously (recreationally) 25 yrs ago, I had subscriptions to both Golf and Golf Digest. Within a year I felt my game got worse. I stopped reading the tips and got back to a decent game.

 

This is why I liked Golf World so much. Articles about the game, players and keeping up with the various tours. None of the quick fix tips, etc.

 

I think the problem is if your game goes off unless you know what is wrong and don't have the money to keep getting lessons tips become hard to ignore, I have lost count of the times a move has convinced me that I have it figured, I found one today, history tells me it won't last but it Keeps me going back to the course

[TheCityGame]

A golf magazine gets me through a month on the can. I read them start to finish, but I don't even try to get something out of them.

 

The difference between them and this site is that at least there can be some back-and-forth here.

 

Personally, I think we need more "meta-talk" if you will. . .what does it mean that we can have completely different ways of swinging? What can we learn from that?

 

When you REALLY think about golf fundamentals -- like what is true of EVERY good golf swing -- it's a pretty small list. It's like, "Grip it with both hands. Stand on both feet. Practice." You can find a counter example to almost everything else.

[mikpga]

Golf magazine instruction articles are simply a platform for somebody (current player, former player, or instructor) to display what/how they approach a certain topic (that's typically swing related). As you are well aware, you will ALWAYS run into conflicting messages. They WILL NOT help golfers in the long term, perhaps short term for a few. The biggest advantage from "golf publications/magazines" is you get plenty of information/advice on how to combat erectile dysfunction.

[gpngolf]

Nothing new here - The Golf Mags are loaded with tips and instructional information that are not worthy for long-term digestion. Is the internet (including this site and other sites) any better? The only solution, if you can, is lessons and practice, practice, and practice.

[tdk8180]

Thanks for breaking this down. The lesson here, which isnt stated and too deeply rooted in reality for publication, is that there are different ways to get it done. The reader has to be smart enough to figure that part out, not smart enough to understand what the writers are actually telling them. At that point, you can "learn" from a golf magazine.

[Timanator]

It amazes me how many people still get printed media(News papers, paychecks, W2 forms....)

[CrabDaddy]

A golf magazine gets me through a month on the can. I read them start to finish, but I don't even try to get something out of them.

 

The difference between them and this site is that at least there can be some back-and-forth here.

 

Personally, I think we need more "meta-talk" if you will. . .what does it mean that we can have completely different ways of swinging? What can we learn from that?

 

When you REALLY think about golf fundamentals -- like what is true of EVERY good golf swing -- it's a pretty small list. It's like, "Grip it with both hands. Stand on both feet. Practice." You can find a counter example to almost everything else.

Your "meta-talk" reference got me thinking. Perhaps what these magazines should take on are case studies of amatuer golfers. Readers can video their swing to see if they fit the profile being discussed. At least there would be some context to a given piece of advice, and hopefully, the teacher writing the article would elaborate on the other parts of the swing that are affected when making the change. As discussed ad nauseum, 'one size fits all' tips don't work, and I'm sure most of their readers have figured that out - there are too many sources of information out there to present info the same way they have for the past 20-30+ years. It would be a shame for printed magazines to die off. I know it's a generational thing, but I enjoy leafing through pages much more than scrolling down a computer/phone screen.

[JW223]

A golf magazine gets me through a month on the can. I read them start to finish, but I don't even try to get something out of them.

 

The difference between them and this site is that at least there can be some back-and-forth here.

 

Personally, I think we need more "meta-talk" if you will. . .what does it mean that we can have completely different ways of swinging? What can we learn from that?

 

When you REALLY think about golf fundamentals -- like what is true of EVERY good golf swing -- it's a pretty small list. It's like, "Grip it with both hands. Stand on both feet. Practice." You can find a counter example to almost everything else.

Your "meta-talk" reference got me thinking. Perhaps what these magazines should take on are case studies of amatuer golfers. Readers can video their swing to see if they fit the profile being discussed. At least there would be some context to a given piece of advice, and hopefully, the teacher writing the article would elaborate on the other parts of the swing that are affected when making the change. As discussed ad nauseum, 'one size fits all' tips don't work, and I'm sure most of their readers have figured that out - there are too many sources of information out there to present info the same way they have for the past 20-30+ years. It would be a shame for printed magazines to die off. I know it's a generational thing, but I enjoy leafing through pages much more than scrolling down a computer/phone screen.

 

This is a big deal. I lot of the articles begin by describing ball flight and not swing flaw. We all know that there are a lot of ways to swing that will result in a slice or a hook. There needs to be a better way of matching the advice to the relevant audience. That said, readers probably need to take more responsibility for knowing their swing. But they don't, so that is why the instructors have to fix ball flight. And around and around we go.

[mike_dmt]

I like to have reading material in the "library" as well.

 

Between different car mags, I'll occasionally pick up a golf magazine, and 100% of the time I regret it. I understand there have to be ads, but there simply too many, not to mention the focus on ED...

 

And the instruction segments are pretty much useless. Especially anything by Hank Haney. Have you seen his recent commercials on Golf Channel? They are as bad, or honestly, worse, than the KickX balls, or that Alien looking wedge.

 

Back to printed media though.... I think it's still somewhat relevant. I'm not a geezer yet, but sometimes, I still like to have the printed page to touch. It's something tangible, I guess.

 

For me though, if I was to really read a golf magazine, it would have to be in the style of the Surfers Journal. More stories and experiences than ads and instruction. We all like to hear about a golf trip. Not a shot by shot re-cap, of course, but the fun and experiences (shenanigans) that go on in between the shots.

[Llcoolj11]

This idea -- "golf magazines are worthless -- is old ground. I just thought this was a particularly egregious example of what these editors really think about our intelligence.

 

I got my Golf magazine yesterday (not Golf Digest, Golf). I don't even know why I get it. . .maybe I bought a bucket hat once and it was the magazine or a free bowl of soup.

 

Anyway. . .

 

There's a little article early on about how Brooks Koepka gets his distance and also a little write up from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book.

 

Some key points from the Koepka piece. . .

 

1) Do Less, Get More. "Brooks proves that you don't have to swing past parallel to hit it 300 yards. In fact, overswinging saps speed, because it requires extra hand and arm manipulation to square the face. <snip> You want a tight feel at the top, not a loose one."

 

2) Show some spine : "Don't just turn your shoulders, turn your entire back. If you do it without over rotating your lower body, you'll add yards fast."

 

3) The Joy Of Flex : "His knee flex is the same as at address (as at the top of back swing)"

 

4) Plant your stance : "Sure, he's about to pulverize it, but Brook's feet are flat on the ground. <snip> Hit practice balls flat-footed--you'll feel a huge difference."

 

Here's the funny part. There's a little essay in the mag from Brandel Chamblee promoting his new book. What's the key point in his new book. . .lift your heel and turn a lot. Some quotes. . .

 

"In the backswing, they (great players) lift the lead heel off the ground and rotate their hips, letting the shoulders make a full, power-rich turn. This freedom of movement creates times, rhythm, speed -- the keys to power and creativity in shotmaking." (compare to 3 above)

 

"What do the great players NOT do in their backswing? Resist with the lower body."

 

Basically, he goes on like that. . .that it's bad to resist, that you get to go fully and deep and turny to give yourself time to get back, that "no matter how much torque one thinks they create with resistance, there's not enough energy release to offset the loss of turn." (compare to 2 above)

 

"Going past parallel flies in the face of today's teaching, but a long swing gives you time and space." (compare to 1 above)

 

"What not to do? Keep your left heel on the ground in the backswing." (compare to 4 above)

 

You tell me. . .a guy who doesn't know a whole lot about golf reads through those two articles. . .is that guy in a better position to go hit the range, or a worse position? I feel like these issues go way past "not helping" and directly into the territory of "hurting" your game. It's really ridiculous.

 

And, shame, because those two articles actually contain some interesting ground here for discussion, but I wonder why we can't get that. Why can't we get an article with Brandel talking to whoever wrote the points about Koepka and discuss the differences and benefits of each. Because we like one-minute sound bites and just want to flip to the equipment reviews? Good news there anyway. . .there are 7 new drivers -- and I quote -- that are longer and more forgiving than ever.