Using alignment to neutralize consistent non-zero path - temporary band-aid or workable strategy?

[betarhoalphadelta]

Ok, simple question. I have always hit a draw, sometimes bordering on a hook when it's off. I try to align my feet square to the target and maybe my clubface a little open hoping for a push draw. Well, if my path gets a little extra in->out and/or my face gets a little too square or even a little closed, the ball might go miles left. 

 

At the range today I was battling this miss. And I thought... Why not just align a little bit open, and with the face square to the target but open to my stance. With my natural in->out path it's basically like setting up with the intention of hitting a straight block to the right--except since I'm aligning left, right is the target. 

 

And I started hitting the ball right I wanted, with MUCH less curve. If my path or face got a little squirrely, I'd maybe still end up left, but not off the planet left. I realize if I leave the face open a little too much now it's a push fade, which could be called a "two way miss", but if I leave the face open now I get a straight block that misses right anyway, which is already a two way miss. 

 

The question is whether this is just one of those temporary bandaid solutions, or do decent level players actually do this as their standard play?

 

I realize the best thing would be to neutralize my path. But I've been playing an in->out path for 30 years. Taming it might be a long-term project. But on the course right now I miss left WAY too often, and it feels REALLY terrible to watch a ball come off the face headed straight at the pin, and then watch it drifting left fringe, left bunker, over the left bunker, and kick into the pond even left of that. I feel like in the short term, living with the path might allow me to play better golf than hoping I just get a "good swing" and the path is closer to zero. 

[mgoblue83]

It's a band aid but for a different reason than you think. I'd bet a lot of $$ that the open stance is letting you clear your body easier through the swing which is shifting your path left (more neutral). You may not have the flexibility or athleticism to clear properly from a square or closed stance.

[ferrispgm]

IMO you can play that way but I think it would be better to address why you are hitting the hook in the first place.  Opening the face at address makes it worse as you are most likely leaving the face more open and your body knows this so it shuts the face down quicker at the last minute and voila....snap hook. FYI your path may not be the actual issue.

[betarhoalphadelta]

18 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

It's a band aid but for a different reason than you think. I'd bet a lot of $$ that the open stance is letting you clear your body easier through the swing which is shifting your path left (more neutral). You may not have the flexibility or athleticism to clear properly from a square or closed stance.

 

Thanks. I don't think it's flexibility or athleticism. I don't clear as well as I could, but I think that's a technique / sequencing thing. Yeah, I'm 45 years old. But I spent my entire tweens/teens doing martial arts and I'm still WAY more flexible IMHO than most men my age. And I've always been athletic, although I was sedentary for a long time. But I've really devoted the last 2 years to getting my body back in shape and I think when it comes to core strength, overall strength, I'm in a very good place relative again to other men my age. That's included stretching to try to regain / maintain some of the flexibility that I've lost of the years. 

 

I honestly don't want to make THIS thread about me specifically, but more of a general question about this as a strategy. If you want to take a look at where I'm at personally, I posted todays swing in my own improvement thread here. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

21 minutes ago, ferrispgm said:

IMO you can play that way but I think it would be better to address why you are hitting the hook in the first place.  Opening the face at address makes it worse as you are most likely leaving the face more open and your body knows this so it shuts the face down quicker at the last minute and voila....snap hook. FYI your path may not be the actual issue.

 

That makes sense. I'm sure there might be a mental issue where I start with an open face and my brain says "OMG YOU HAVE TO SHUT IT OR YOU'LL BLOCK IT WAY RIGHT!" and so I shut it. I wonder if knowing that the face is "open" to stance but still pointed at the target will help my mental ability to not to do it? 

 

The question is more whether decent players with a consistent non-zero path use this sort of a thing to simply play better. Reportedly Trevino did this. He swung in->out but with a left alignment and a face open to stance for a push fade, if this is to be believed. But I don't know how much is urban myth or real. 

 

It's whether doing this to help me get through my rounds when I know I have an in->out path is going to make things worse, or it's going to make my path playable until I can work through the things I need to work through. 

[KD1]

My coach prescribed to me* the following protocol:

(Right handed, push draws)

1. Feet/aim line at left side of dispersion

2. Setup with the club a few degrees open for two reasons :

   2.1. low point is a few inches in front of the ball, if the face is square behind the ball then it is already closed (hook bias)

   2.2. my irons have offset (draw bias)

3. Swing a few degrees in to out

4. Club face 1/2 the path

 

*Not an elite golfer by any stretch of the imagination

 

Opening the face isnt a bandaid for my crappy swing but rather a natural adjustment to compensate for the intents and geometry in the system...

Edited July 2, 2024 by KD1

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

46 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Thanks. I don't think it's flexibility or athleticism. I don't clear as well as I could, but I think that's a technique / sequencing thing. Yeah, I'm 45 years old. But I spent my entire tweens/teens doing martial arts and I'm still WAY more flexible IMHO than most men my age. And I've always been athletic, although I was sedentary for a long time. But I've really devoted the last 2 years to getting my body back in shape and I think when it comes to core strength, overall strength, I'm in a very good place relative again to other men my age. That's included stretching to try to regain / maintain some of the flexibility that I've lost of the years. 

 

I honestly don't want to make THIS thread about me specifically, but more of a general question about this as a strategy. If you want to take a look at where I'm at personally, I posted todays swing in my own improvement thread here. 

Betarho, if it's a consistent path, why do you care?  The problem sounds like it's with your release snapping shut too quickly, no?  Why not leave the path alone (provided it's consistent---we can argue about what consistent is later, lol) and see what you can do about keeping the face within the bounds you want?

 

That said, agreeing with another poster in this thread, opening your stance is probably band-aiding an existing flaw, which if you fixed that, might help everything else?

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

32 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

That makes sense. I'm sure there might be a mental issue where I start with an open face and my brain says "OMG YOU HAVE TO SHUT IT OR YOU'LL BLOCK IT WAY RIGHT!" and so I shut it. I wonder if knowing that the face is "open" to stance but still pointed at the target will help my mental ability to not to do it? 

 

The question is more whether decent players with a consistent non-zero path use this sort of a thing to simply play better. Reportedly Trevino did this. He swung in->out but with a left alignment and a face open to stance for a push fade, if this is to be believed. But I don't know how much is urban myth or real. 

 

It's whether doing this to help me get through my rounds when I know I have an in->out path is going to make things worse, or it's going to make my path playable until I can work through the things I need to work through. 

May not even be a visual thing.  The club just feels different with a degree of closed faced vs open when I hold it in the air to align with my left hand (left-handed golfer who plays right.)  Like the weight distribution is just wrong.  (This was a problem with the 425 Max I have.  I feel the weights way out there on the head.  Makes me a decent pistol shot, I guess.)

[mgoblue83]

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Thanks. I don't think it's flexibility or athleticism. I don't clear as well as I could, but I think that's a technique / sequencing thing. Yeah, I'm 45 years old. But I spent my entire tweens/teens doing martial arts and I'm still WAY more flexible IMHO than most men my age. And I've always been athletic, although I was sedentary for a long time. But I've really devoted the last 2 years to getting my body back in shape and I think when it comes to core strength, overall strength, I'm in a very good place relative again to other men my age. That's included stretching to try to regain / maintain some of the flexibility that I've lost of the years. 

 

I honestly don't want to make THIS thread about me specifically, but more of a general question about this as a strategy. If you want to take a look at where I'm at personally, I posted today’s oswing in my own improvement thread here. 

No worries man. If it’s not an athleticism thing then you might have a swing flaw that prevents you from clearing properly and an open stance can help.

 

Many great players have played with an open stance and some were even draw pattern players with that stance.

 

Personally my swing speed increases 4-5mph with an open stance because it’s so much easier to clear and release. I don’t play with it because the miss becomes a huge pull draw that won’t stay on the property but it’s definitely easier to swing fast with it.

Edited July 3, 2024 by mgoblue83

[JAMH03]

I see a lot of good stuff in your swing. I think you could benefit a titch by altering your set-up your arms don't seem to hang like I'd expect, you don't seem to swing out to the right like I'd expect a righty to and you're not using your hips and a** like you could. Take care of those 3 things and I expect you could be single digits SOON. 

Absolutely time to take a lesson it could unlock exactly what you're looking for you've done a lot of work to get here. @betarhoalphadelta way to go!

[Ri_Redneck]

We've all seen the diagrams showing how our stance should be adjusted for different clubs. The thing that is NOT mentioned is that everyone's starting point is not the same. Some are more closed or open than others. What the OP did was absolutely fine. It's not a band-aid, it's an adjustment. Why fight your natural swing in an attempt to adjust your path. It's MUCH easier and consistent to just adjust your stance so you present the club on the desired path with your normal swing.

 

BT

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Ri_Redneck said:

We've all seen the diagrams showing how our stance should be adjusted for different clubs.

 

Hmmmmmmm.

 

I mean, that was one certain guy's way to do it.

[Ri_Redneck]

Yes, Hogan was best known for it because he used a "progressive" ball position. The ball position, in relation to his feet, moved rearward as the club got shorter. This changes the balls position in the swing arc requiring adjustments to apply the desired path to the ball. I am simply suggesting that the same practice CAN be used for those whose path is not perfectly aligned with their stance. Obviously, there are other ways of correcting the issue, I was just throwing one out there.

 

BT

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Ri_Redneck

[rsballer10]

I think within reason, changes to stance and alignment shouldn't be seen as a band-aid. The alignment must fit the swing mechanics, so it then becomes a question of are the mechanics solid enough to be repeatable?

[Wardonation]

On 7/2/2024 at 3:07 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

Ok, simple question. I have always hit a draw, sometimes bordering on a hook when it's off. I try to align my feet square to the target and maybe my clubface a little open hoping for a push draw. Well, if my path gets a little extra in->out and/or my face gets a little too square or even a little closed, the ball might go miles left. 

 

At the range today I was battling this miss. And I thought... Why not just align a little bit open, and with the face square to the target but open to my stance. With my natural in->out path it's basically like setting up with the intention of hitting a straight block to the right--except since I'm aligning left, right is the target. 

 

And I started hitting the ball right I wanted, with MUCH less curve. If my path or face got a little squirrely, I'd maybe still end up left, but not off the planet left. I realize if I leave the face open a little too much now it's a push fade, which could be called a "two way miss", but if I leave the face open now I get a straight block that misses right anyway, which is already a two way miss. 

 

The question is whether this is just one of those temporary bandaid solutions, or do decent level players actually do this as their standard play?

 

I realize the best thing would be to neutralize my path. But I've been playing an in->out path for 30 years. Taming it might be a long-term project. But on the course right now I miss left WAY too often, and it feels REALLY terrible to watch a ball come off the face headed straight at the pin, and then watch it drifting left fringe, left bunker, over the left bunker, and kick into the pond even left of that. I feel like in the short term, living with the path might allow me to play better golf than hoping I just get a "good swing" and the path is closer to zero. 

I did this for a PNGA MID AM years ago and won the sucker. I do not do it anymore but think I should try it again lol... Rahm sets up way open... I know just focus on finishing left on my follow through.

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Ri_Redneck said:

I am simply suggesting that the same practice CAN be used for those whose path is not perfectly aligned with their stance.

 

My main point in posting that was that you said should. Now it's "can." I'm fine with "can." I don't agree with "should."