RayPlan

The world needs a channel like "Average Motion Golf" where they compare golf movements to everyday actions that people do with thinking. "Elite" moves like reaching up and adjusting the rear view mirror in the car, looking over their shoulder to back up, or putting on a seatbelt. You could probably get most of the golf swing movements just from things people do every day in their car.

This video is bunk: Average Joes just don't have the mobility of elite pro golfers! And besides, they're too stupid to understand such incredibly complex ideas as "lower your arms." Better to give them simple, concrete terms like "create space"

First time looking at face on while working on the new program. I'll need to get more acquainted with the look of the reference point and the gateway from this angle so I can gain a better 3D mental model. Watching yourself on video and becoming very familiar with the details of your own tendencies is critical. You have to be able to self assess and self critique. Look at this bad move, for example: I've rolled onto the outside of my right foot, and look at the disruption it causes in transition. I need to keep my right shift from getting too far over my right ankle, or this will keep happening.

You heard it here first, folks, Valtiel has spent a lifetime as a junior golfer! I knew something was fishy, but he's now confirmed that he's some kind of perpetual child prodigy!

Seguto is Top 10 in the rankings that actually matter

Glad to see someone finally starting to talk about Air Reaction Forces (ARF). The "whoosh" is so underappreciated in the mainstream instruction space.

Can confirm, I never learned how to throw properly (baseball or football) as a kid, so even though I can physically throw both kinds of ball, it's not very far. When I would try to throw harder/farther, it would feel awkward or even painful, due to bad mechanics. I've probably learned more about throwing mechanics through the lens of golf instruction comparing the swing to a throwing motion.

Good point, thanks.

Work continues on releasing the pelvis, and proper sequencing overall. I need to keep my right shoulder lower coming into impact.

I had to look up shoulder flexion. This? (line drawing of me in my standard golf attire)

What exactly do you mean by "digger"? Are you taking extremely deep divots, or what?

I can do that without increasing adduction

otherwise known as "dark voodoo"

They're bunking amateurs' widespread tendency to swing their arms across their body in the downswing. And bunking the misconception that shaft lean involves getting the hands across the body. I don't think they're taking aim at any instruction styles here, just the sort of incorrect movements people make (or try to make) based on their misunderstandings, which is largely based on the illusions created by 2D video.

1st session working on releasing the pelvis in the follow-through. The purpose here is to give my body a destination after the P7.5 reference point. I'm finishing high and allowing my pelvis to be fully extended and open toward the target, with a neutral spine angle. For a cohesive movement, I have to know how to feel the destination and build the motion piece by piece. Backswing form and the P6 position was somewhat secondary in this first iteration of this practice. Once I've got the destination down, I can reverse engineer what I need to do to get there from the P6 gateway.

Good video. I like the way AMG breaks down the different pieces of the swing. This is essentially the flaw I'm working on right now, throwing my arms at the ball instead of getting my arms into the funnel then turning through impact. It's a hard pattern to break because the body tries to "help" by throwing the arms out to the ball, intentions be damned. That's why it takes so many reps to break, because of the unconscious movements that show up once there's a ball in the way.

I've gotten a little off in my practice schedule in the last week, having been sick on Tuesday and Wednesday. P6 continues to be a problem because I've lost focus on the P7.5 reference point, and my overall follow through is working incorrectly because I'm keeping my pelvis back. I need to release the pelvis through the finish, then work backwards from there. These two videos below show where I've diverted from the path. I have to know where I'm going to be able work out how to get there. Here, I was working on ditching a shoulder shrug I tend to get in the backswing. Here, I was working on pelvis movement, with a focus on where my tailbone was pointing in the backswing and downswing. Nothing necessarily wrong with working on these things, but they're also not necessarily what I should be doing right now. Overall, I need to finish more upright, not staying in right bend for so long. To do that, I need more reps on the reference point reversal drill from upthread. Work continues.

Haven't played yet this year

That could be true for a lot of pro golfers, but that says nothing about why the instruction was bad. It's also very difficult to prove or disprove, unless, for example, someone suffers an injury that has an obvious link to a specific move that was part of their instruction. OR, maybe Larry's making a self-serving rationalization about why things didn't work out the way he hoped. This is the sort of thing people think and say all the time in life. This isn't a knock against him personally, everyone has regrets about things they could have done differently. Conveniently, it's impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that this weird system would have helped him in the past, so he can just say it without any risk. No it doesn't. No one thinks of swinging a hammer in this way. You use a hammer to hit nails. Doing it well means applying a significant force in a precise manner, over and over. You can do it in an inefficient way and still successfully fasten things together, but with a lot of bent nails, bruised thumbs, and maybe a sore elbow. Both systems rely on accepting a basic premise (that there are specific body archetypes that can be matched with different golf swing styles) that's pretty questionable on its face. The idea that someone can take something as incredibly diverse as human body composition and functionality, and break it down into a small number of discrete categories for how to swing a golf club is very hard to believe. Especially when the claim is that most people fit into this specific category (upper core) that just so happens to encompass the most common swing flaws that bad golfers have. It doesn't pass the smell test. Seems unlikely. The biggest problem I have with this stuff is that carries the assumption that golfers and the golf swing are somehow special. They're not. It's just a game of skill that requires some movements that are unintuitive to a lot of people.

inquire at the pro shop

golf is like a Zen koan, and you are an enlightened master

that's kinda bunk though too, because you have to be a good student to be your own instructor

Also, I joked about getitdaily's posture (bunk, and whatnot), but he's also a very good player

This is all a bunch of pseudoscientific bunk. You could separate the golf swing into endless taxonomies and find some things that correlate with each other enough to create something like this. It's such an obvious sales trick to say "oh, most of us are actually this thing, but everyone tries to make you do this other thing instead!" In other words, pay us and we'll give you the real secrets that work for people like you! Great way to confuse yourself if you try to combine the specifics of this with non-proprietary understandings of the golf swing.

Get too rambunctious with that and you're liable to give yourself a real shiner!