Upper core awkwardness

[PedronNiall]

3 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

There's plenty of published papers on the objective biomechanics of the golf swing, with varying levels of peer review. What there isn't is published papers on all of this upper core vs lower core stuff, because those aren't objectively measurable metrics, they are subjective swing feels. 

 

There's an efficient swing, and then there's a billion tiny variations of that spiraling out in varying degrees of efficiency and inefficiency from there depending on the individual's independent swing feels and physical capabilities. To put it into an algebraic formula, its: swing = swing feel x physical capabilities. 

 

You can quantify the physical capabilities part and come up with more efficient variations of the swing, which is exactly what Dr. Greg Rose at TPI does. Though, to be fair his advice usually ends up with "fix those physical limitations". When they can't fix those (see their recent YT video of him creating a swing for a veteran with an artificial femur), they will create a custom swing for that person. 

 

However, the other half of that equation is a person's swing feels, and those are near as unique as fingerprints, and since they are so subjective are pretty much impossible to objectively measure for the purposes of a published paper. This half of the equation is also where there's ~5k teaching professionals in the US, because it's really freaking hard to translate and teach swing feels between individuals. Also because people are stubborn and resistant to swing feels that don't resonate with them, the average golfer's improvement of the swing is slow to glacial. 

 

Like I imagine that you can read every single one of Dr. Kwon's published papers and come out knowing only slightly more about the swing than when you started, because you don't have a rosetta stone to translate those objective findings into subjective swing feels. At least that's how it was for me, so I rely on a trusted teaching professional (Tyler Ferrell) to translate those findings into a number of swing feels and drills for me to try until something clicks/clicked. 

 

 

You missed what I was saying. I'm referring to papers on Wright's method. Yes, Mckenzie and Kwon and many others we can and have analyzed and use as a basis for discussing the swing because the physics are verified. There are no academic studies attesting to the validity of moving one thumb on one hand up and down to determine an ideal swing core. If it's valid then it can be tested and verified. Maybe my thumbs are broken but moving one while I make an okay sign with the other does not cause my hips/stance/knees to open or close when dropping down as demonstrated in the video. 

 

Yes, feel is a component and is individual, but we're talking about a basis for how someone's swing should be made that's saying it is factual and repeatable but lacks hard evidence. It certainly isn't presented as simply a feel side of the swing equation. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

Maybe my thumbs are broken

 

They're not right now, but if you keep talking truth to, uhhhhh, power…

 

 

😉 

[Simpsonia]

4 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

You missed what I was saying. I'm referring to papers on Wright's method. Yes, Mckenzie and Kwon and many others we can and have analyzed and use as a basis for discussing the swing because the physics are verified. There are no academic studies attesting to the validity of moving one thumb on one hand up and down to determine an ideal swing core. If it's valid then it can be tested and verified. Maybe my thumbs are broken but moving one while I make an okay sign with the other does not cause my hips/stance/knees to open or close when dropping down as demonstrated in the video. 

 

Yes, feel is a component and is individual, but we're talking about a basis for how someone's swing should be made that's saying it is factual and repeatable but lacks hard evidence. It certainly isn't presented as simply a feel side of the swing equation. 

 

Oh yeah, I guess I was just commenting more generally on the upper vs lower stuff. But when specifically it comes to Rinker or Wright's espousal of an old man swing that utilizes zero rotation and somehow says it's the best at anything, I basically check-out at that point. I thought the thread had moved past that nonsense back into the more general upper vs lower battle lol. 

[Nels55]

41 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Oh yeah, I guess I was just commenting more generally on the upper vs lower stuff. But when specifically it comes to Rinker or Wright's espousal of an old man swing that utilizes zero rotation and somehow says it's the best at anything, I basically check-out at that point. I thought the thread had moved past that nonsense back into the more general upper vs lower battle lol. 

Are you saying that Rinker cannot play golf at all with his extreme upper core swing?  His upper core students are learning nonsense?  You do realize that he played on tour and he claims that the 'get the hips open at impact' swing that he was taught back then held him back from achieving his potential.  He never said that the upper core swing is best for everyone.  His sister is mid core and uses a completely different swing which is a swing that he does teach for someone who measures out as mid core on the tests. 

 

Look, I don't know if these guys have re-invented the wheel but calling their work nonsense is bit cavalier is is not?

[Albatross Dreamer]

On 1/8/2025 at 12:06 PM, Nels55 said:

I am no expert on Wright balance but here are some thoughts based on what I have read over the years.

 

Dr. Wright was a lower core golf pro who tried to teach his swing to his students.  He figured out that the lower core body driven swing that he was teaching did not work for a lot of his students so he set out to figure out why.  He did a lot of research and came up with the core system which provides different instruction from body driven lower core to arm driven upper core.  So imho realizing that what worked for him did not work for everyone shows an intelligence that does not seem to be universal among golf pros.  Mike Adams did the same thing and came up with his own system that has similarities to Wright Balance.

 

Is Wright Balance a perfect system?  Probably not but I think that it may well be better then most.  Maybe the TPI approach is better or possibly the best approach golf instruction is to be Butch Harmon.  

Thanks for sharing. I do buy that his system might narrow down swing options someone could do best with as there's value in using someones anatomy to create better match ups. However, I'm still a bit skeptical about the methodology as a whole as a complete system.

[TheDeanAbides]

17 hours ago, virtuoso said:

There is a sincere and well meaning, but horrific misinformation apocalypse happening here and in the biomechanics thread. I'm going to have to talk to the grovelers about it. I can't have my little lambs falling prey to this......this......it's like someone took an uzi and sprayed the place down with nonsense.

We could send them to the wise old man on the ship?

[BigEx44]

On 1/7/2025 at 5:31 PM, ChrisSP said:

I'll chime in, as I have some experience with this. I'm a pretty good player. Handicap typically between 1 and +1.

 

But I do things in my swing when I'm playing well that most people don't equate with good players. I'm not very open at impact, my grip is on the weaker side, my ball position is pretty far forward, I play from a narrow stance through the bag, and I tend to early extend a bit and come out of posture at impact.

 

I've taken lessons from highly regarded instructors who tried to change these things about my swing and results never transpired no matter how much work I put into what was being asked of me.

 

I happened upon some of Larry Rinker's videos a few years ago on YouTube and saw a lot of similarities in what the Upper Core player does and what I did when playing my best, so I watched some of David Wright's stuff as well.

 

Ultimately, having been though some on-course struggles a few years ago as a result of trying to get more open at impact and what to me felt like to some radical setup changes, I went to see a certified Wright Balance instructor. I was measured and was a "9", which is the top of Upper Core scale. 1, 2 and 3 are low core, 4, 5 and 6 are mid core and 7, 8, and 9 are upper. I will say that the physical measurements are very interesting. I didn't understand everything they were doing but much of it was designed to determine where you were strongest, especially in terms of stance width, which also influenced your hips at address and grip. It was pretty complicated but also eye opening. As an example, I could stand in my golf posture using a yardstick with my feet in the middle of the 0 inch and 14 inch marks and my hips would be completely square and the instructor couldn't move me no matter how hard he pushed. At 0 and 15, my hips would be wide open and he could knock me off balance with a feather. It was pretty wild.

 

I started playing better almost immediately by getting back to what had worked for me and what would be considered traits of an upper core player. In fact, within 3 months of that lesson I finished runner up in my state golf association's senior match play event. 

 

Anyway, there's more to the core system than just how open your hips are at impact or how you grip the club or your ball position. There's some interesting physics involved as it relates to your body that I think anyone would find undeniable if they go through the testing. 

 

Personally, there are things about the upper core swing that I do find challenging. Most notable for me is the idea of pivoting around my front leg. While I tested using David Wright's system as an upper core player, if you know anything about Mike Adams' stuff, I'm also a rear post player. I'm also more of an under golfer with my trail hand where Upper Core promotes a weaker or neutral trail hand grip. That said, my swing today still incorporates many aspects of the upper core swing with a few tweaks that are more physically natural and seem to help me produce more consistent results.

 

Is Wright Balance for everyone? Probably not. But it doesn't have to be. There are plenty of ways to play decent golf. But to write it off as garbage or to surmise that the upper core swing is what a lot of crappy players do wouldn't be an accurate assessment.

 

My $0.02.

 

I'm a 9 handicap that went down to Orlando back in 2023 to be tested and get a lesson from Larry Rinker.

I was fascinated with his whole Upper vs Lower Core philosophy and suspected I was very upper core but wanted to get Larry's opinion/analysis.

Like you, I also tested out as a "9" which didn't surprise me as many previous lessons with other golf pro's had me trying to be me rotated (read "open") at impact.

I knew that, in general, I "felt" like an "arm swinger" (or at least that's the feel I need to get my arms synced up with my body)

And, also like you, I meet most of Larry's descriptors for an upper core swing except that I too don't pivot on my left leg.  I need to feel the weight shift back and through.

His lesson affirmed what I feel most comfortable doing with my golf swing and also has provided a filter for future instruction I might seek out.

I really like his stuff.

 

Btw, here is what I wrote up on another thread of my Larry Rinker testing experience.

 

[Simpsonia]

16 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Are you saying that Rinker cannot play golf at all with his extreme upper core swing?  His upper core students are learning nonsense?  You do realize that he played on tour and he claims that the 'get the hips open at impact' swing that he was taught back then held him back from achieving his potential.  He never said that the upper core swing is best for everyone.  His sister is mid core and uses a completely different swing which is a swing that he does teach for someone who measures out as mid core on the tests. 

 

Look, I don't know if these guys have re-invented the wheel but calling their work nonsense is bit cavalier is is not?

 

All sorts of people play all sorts of good and bad golf with all sorts of good and bad swings. What I'm saying is that a zero rotation swing like the below will never be as efficient or as consistent as a baseline stock tour pro style swing with rotation. A zero rotation swing requires a lot of compensations that some people can do, and a lot of others cannot. 

 

Now that's not to say everyone needs to get as open as DJ, nobody needs that. But, some amount of rotation is necessary for a lot of the good aspects of an efficient and consistent swing. One big aspect would be low point control with a long flat spot that creates consistency. Really good low point control requires rotation to some degree to create a long flat spot. Sure you can compensate and make do with early extension like the below, but you're sacrificing a lot to do so, and it requires a lot more timing of the hands. Your low point is going to be very V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, and will require tighter timing. 

 

Maybe the necessary compensations come more easily to those he prescribes as upper core, but my personal philosophy is to try and remove the need for compensations wherever possible. 

 

[Nels55]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

All sorts of people play all sorts of good and bad golf with all sorts of good and bad swings. What I'm saying is that a zero rotation swing like the below will never be as efficient or as consistent as a baseline stock tour pro style swing with rotation. A zero rotation swing requires a lot of compensations that some people can do, and a lot of others cannot. 

 

Now that's not to say everyone needs to get as open as DJ, nobody needs that. But, some amount of rotation is necessary for a lot of the good aspects of an efficient and consistent swing. One big aspect would be low point control with a long flat spot that creates consistency. Really good low point control requires rotation to some degree to create a long flat spot. Sure you can compensate and make do with early extension like the below, but you're sacrificing a lot to do so, and it requires a lot more timing of the hands. Your low point is going to be very V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, and will require tighter timing. 

 

Maybe the necessary compensations come more easily to those he prescribes as upper core, but my personal philosophy is to try and remove the need for compensations wherever possible. 

 

Rinker's hips do rotate they simply rotate later then most tour pros.  He has a lot of room between his arms and his body so he is not goat humping.   He also still has some spine angle.  He has shaft lean so I doubt that he has low point control problems.  That swing uses a lot of vertical gf and there is plenty of speed generated so I don't see the swing as being inefficient.  

 

Maybe you are correct in your assessment and maybe you are not.  The only way to find out would be to do some sort of controlled study of the students progress with this method vs. other methods and that's not going to happen. 

[virtuoso]

7 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

He has a lot of room between his arms and his body so he is not goat humping.   

 My pet goat saw that picture and ran off behind a bush. Took me an hour to talk him back into the yard.

[NosajNeelik]

2 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

All sorts of people play all sorts of good and bad golf with all sorts of good and bad swings. What I'm saying is that a zero rotation swing like the below will never be as efficient or as consistent as a baseline stock tour pro style swing with rotation. A zero rotation swing requires a lot of compensations that some people can do, and a lot of others cannot. 

 

Now that's not to say everyone needs to get as open as DJ, nobody needs that. But, some amount of rotation is necessary for a lot of the good aspects of an efficient and consistent swing. One big aspect would be low point control with a long flat spot that creates consistency. Really good low point control requires rotation to some degree to create a long flat spot. Sure you can compensate and make do with early extension like the below, but you're sacrificing a lot to do so, and it requires a lot more timing of the hands. Your low point is going to be very V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, and will require tighter timing. 

 

Maybe the necessary compensations come more easily to those he prescribes as upper core, but my personal philosophy is to try and remove the need for compensations wherever possible. 

 

This picture is hilarious. The post is spot on to me. This isn’t what anyone should want to achieve at impact or accept from themselves if they’re seriously trying to be a good golfer - which if you’re on this site I’m pretty sure you are. 

Edited January 10 by NosajNeelik

[johnrobison]

NM Bad idea

Edited January 10 by johnrobison
removed

[virtuoso]

8 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

NM Bad idea

Must have been a beauty.

[iacas]

 

I keep waiting for Ashton Kutcher to post.

[Nels55]

5 hours ago, NosajNeelik said:

This picture is hilarious. The post is spot on to me. This isn’t what anyone should want to achieve at impact or accept from themselves if they’re seriously trying to be a good golfer - which if you’re on this site I’m pretty sure you are. 

Well, the problem that I see with your statement is that Rinker is a good golfer.  Maybe you believe you could beat him in a match?

[NosajNeelik]

15 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Well, the problem that I see with your statement is that Rinker is a good golfer.  Maybe you believe you could beat him in a match?

Well, the problem that I see with your statement is that you want everyone to believe in this “core” theory. I don’t. 
 

That’s great the Rinker is a good golfer. He’s a professional teacher. He better be since he’s teaching this garbage so would be pretty embarrassing for him if he couldn’t time up that hump motion to put a score together while telling people this is ok. 

 

i personally will keep going with my instructor and moving toward what I want my swing to be. 

Edited January 11 by NosajNeelik

[Nels55]

12 minutes ago, NosajNeelik said:

Well, the problem that I see with your statement is that you want everyone to believe in this “core” theory. I don’t. 
 

That’s great the Rinker is a good golfer. He’s a professional teacher. He better be since he’s teaching this garbage so would be pretty embarrassing for him if he couldn’t time up that hump motion to put a score together while telling people this is ok. 

 

i personally will keep going with my instructor and moving toward what I want my swing to be. 

LOL I don't believe in the core theory nor do I care if anyone else believes in it.  You said that no one who is serious about golf would swing like Rinker.  I am pointing out that Rinker is serious about golf and he can play.  He swings the way that he swings because he has proven to himself that it works better than the swing that he tried to use when he played on tour.

 

You may be swinging in the way that best matches your capabilities and you may not be.  You might have a much easier time of it if you went to Wright certified teacher learned the swing for the core that you test as.  Or maybe you are right and your teacher is teaching you the one best way for you to swing.  I don't know. 

 

At the end of the day I like talking about stuff like this and I appreciate a rational discussion.  What I see here is outright dismissal of a proffesionals life work with vitriol.

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

LOL I don't believe in the core theory nor do I care if anyone else believes in it.  You said that no one who is serious about golf would swing like Rinker.  I am pointing out that Rinker is serious about golf and he can play.  He swings the way that he swings because he has proven to himself that it works better than the swing that he tried to use when he played on tour.

 

You may be swinging in the way that best matches your capabilities and you may not be.  You might have a much easier time of it if you went to Wright certified teacher learned the swing for the core that you test as.  Or maybe you are right and your teacher is teaching you the one best way for you to swing.  I don't know. 

 

At the end of the day I like talking about stuff like this and I appreciate a rational discussion.  What I see here is outright dismissal of a proffesionals life work with vitriol.

 

I don't see the point in discussing it simply for the sake of it, all the more when you're going to go to bat for it the way you have in this thread. You don't present it from anything resembling an objective place going by most of your replies and you say others can't judge it until we see a controlled study which is patently not true. We have physics and reasonable models of efficient swings and efficient movement of the body to know that what's being done is inefficient. We know that while an efficient swing isn't natural, what's being done with the Wright method and Rinker's take on it is even less intuitive and more complex. There's zero other than the assurances of those who back the method that sliding a thumb up and down your trail hand while you Oompa Loompa tells anything reasonable about a person's optimal swing.

 

Nothing about this thread serves to help golfers looking for a clear path to swing improvement or to further understanding of swing fundamentals.

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

Or maybe you are right and your teacher is teaching you the one best way for you to swing.  I don't know. 

I would hope the teacher is teaching him a swing that works for him, that’s what good coaches do. They work within the capabilities of a golfer and get them to use proper mechanics within those capabilities.

 

[NosajNeelik]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

LOL I don't believe in the core theory nor do I care if anyone else believes in it.  You said that no one who is serious about golf would swing like Rinker.  I am pointing out that Rinker is serious about golf and he can play.  He swings the way that he swings because he has proven to himself that it works better than the swing that he tried to use when he played on tour.

 

You may be swinging in the way that best matches your capabilities and you may not be.  You might have a much easier time of it if you went to Wright certified teacher learned the swing for the core that you test as.  Or maybe you are right and your teacher is teaching you the one best way for you to swing.  I don't know. 

 

At the end of the day I like talking about stuff like this and I appreciate a rational discussion.  What I see here is outright dismissal of a proffesionals life work with vitriol.

A little dramatic but yea I am dismissing someone that wants to teach that impact position. It’s ridiculous. And you asking me as well if I want to play against him because I feel that way is absurd and nowhere near a “rational discussion” that you want. 

Edited January 11 by NosajNeelik

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

I don't see the point in discussing it simply for the sake of it, all the more when you're going to go to bat for it the way you have in this thread. You don't present it from anything resembling an objective place going by most of your replies and you say others can't judge it until we see a controlled study which is patently not true. We have physics and reasonable models of efficient swings and efficient movement of the body to know that what's being done is inefficient. We know that while an efficient swing isn't natural, what's being done with the Wright method and Rinker's take on it is even less intuitive and more complex. There's zero other than the assurances of those who back the method that sliding a thumb up and down your trail hand while you Oompa Loompa tells anything reasonable about a person's optimal swing.

 

Nothing about this thread serves to help golfers looking for a clear path to swing improvement or to further understanding of swing fundamentals.

 

Okay, the physics of the matter are that Rinker delivers the clubhead with speed, power and accuracy.  If you put him on force plates I bet his profile would be fine.  If you golfed with him I don't believe that you would notice anything about his swing other then he hits it really well.  He simply does not rotate his hips open until after impact.  Maybe that is not such a terrible thing. 

 

Here are some references to someone a lot more knowledgeable about the subject than I am:

 

[RayPlan]

On 1/8/2025 at 3:24 PM, virtuoso said:

 

When I first saw this picture, I thought it had been edited to make his upper body appear larger for emphasis or something. 

 

That doesn't seem to be the case. He just has no butt. 

 

Is this whole core theory just a reflection of relative body proportions and muscle distribution? 

 

Always skip leg day -> upper core

Balanced upper and lower body -> mid core

Thick legs and butt -> lower core

 

 

[virtuoso]

22 minutes ago, RayPlan said:

When I first saw this picture, I thought it had been edited to make his upper body appear larger for emphasis or something. 

 

That doesn't seem to be the case. He just has no butt. 

 

Is this whole core theory just a reflection of relative body proportions and muscle distribution? 

 

Always skip leg day -> upper core

Balanced upper and lower body -> mid core

Thick legs and butt -> lower core

 

 

I think it’s more of a matter of: this is how your swing already is so keep doing that. 
 

Having said that, if I have a guy that is older, bad back, no flexibility, and he’s trying to get open at impact while staying in his posture….and he can’t do it, so swipes across the ball….I would tell him to quit trying that. I would tell him to stay closed, stand up, dump the arms, twist the handle, and hit a little baby draw…..because that’s the only way he is capable of putting decent numbers on the ball. But I wouldn’t send him to Q School.

 

The reason to do that is because it’s all he can do. Rinker and Wright will tell you it’s the actual ideal way…..which is just stupid.

 

The super villain genius behind that teaching method is that you really don’t have to try to get people to change anything. Every lesson and clinic is a smashing success before they even begin.

[RayPlan]

5 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

I think it’s more of a matter of: this is how your swing already is so keep doing that. 
 

Having said that, if I have a guy that is older, bad back, no flexibility, and he’s trying to get open at impact while staying in his posture….and he can’t do it, so swipes across the ball….I would tell him to quit trying that. I would tell him to stay closed, stand up, dump the arms, twist the handle, and hit a little baby draw…..because that’s the only way he is capable of putting decent numbers on the ball. But I wouldn’t send him to Q School.

 

The reason to do that is because it’s all he can do. Rinker and Wright will tell you it’s the actual ideal way…..which is just stupid.

 

The super villain genius behind that teaching method is that you really don’t have to try to get people to change anything. Every lesson and clinic is a smashing success before they even begin.

Ah, the picture is becoming clearer.

 

And I suppose another super vilIain genius aspect is to charge a bunch of money to do a battery of tests and measurements which wind up concluding that what you're doing is just a function of your core type, so no need to change. 

[virtuoso]

22 minutes ago, RayPlan said:

Ah, the picture is becoming clearer.

 

And I suppose another super vilIain genius aspect is to charge a bunch of money to do a battery of tests and measurements which wind up concluding that what you're doing is just a function of your core type, so no need to change. 

Bingo, Mi Amigo.

 

To be fair, I don’t think it’s actually a grift. I think they sincerely believe it. But sincerity alone is insufficient.

Edited January 11 by virtuoso

[MK7Golf21]

20 hours ago, NosajNeelik said:

This picture is hilarious. The post is spot on to me. This isn’t what anyone should want to achieve at impact or accept from themselves if they’re seriously trying to be a good golfer - which if you’re on this site I’m pretty sure you are. 

that impact screenshot has been posted around this site for years. One of the weirdest impact positions I’ve seen. 

[PedronNiall]

9 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Okay, the physics of the matter are that Rinker delivers the clubhead with speed, power and accuracy.

 

And barring actual flexibility or biomechanical issues with his body he'd impart even more speed and power in a delivery that's been proven more efficient. There's no reason he couldn't be just as accurate with any repeated motion he's accustomed to, including a better one.

 

9 hours ago, Nels55 said:

If you put him on force plates I bet his profile would be fine.

 

And his profile would be even better with a more efficient swing. Again, barring some physical reason for needing to maintain the posture and positions he uses there's no reason any other golfer should be pursuing them over what's proven to be more effective and more easily repeatable.

 

 

9 hours ago, Nels55 said:

If you golfed with him I don't believe that you would notice anything about his swing other then he hits it really well.

 

And barring a lack of physical ability to do so, I would notice anyone with his same build who had the same talent and same amount of time to practice hitting it even better if they weren't stuck on such a method.

 

9 hours ago, Nels55 said:

He simply does not rotate his hips open until after impact.

 

There is a lot more at odds with what is seen in an efficient swing going on that just him not rotating his hips open until after impact.

 

As always, if real, repeatable data comes out showing his method is best I won't have a leg to stand on and will be happy to eat crow. In fact, I'll have no choice, because it will make the rounds and others in the know will have to admit its validity and will share the science that makes it work. Until and unless that happens I'm not here for anecdotes and glad handing. Anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole is free to, but they should be aware that there is nothing showing it is founded on anything valid nor is there a stable of high level golfers proving day in and day out that it has merit and it shouldn't be presented as such.

 

I also notice we're steering clear of the thumb rubbing and dancing to find one's core. Guess that one's pretty difficult to go to bat for.

[iacas]

@Nels55, man, you've been around here long enough to know "but this one guy does x and y" doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Also, Larry is 67 and NOT playing high level golf. His swing did NOT look like this when he was playing PGA Tour golf.

 

 

Videos like that are disingenuous at best. It's "almost impossible" to clear your hips and swing more in to out? No, it's not.

 

31 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

also notice we're steering clear of the thumb rubbing and dancing to find one's core. Guess that one's pretty difficult to go to bat for.

 

Yep.

[MonteScheinblum]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

@Nels55, man, you've been around here long enough to know "but this one guy does x and y" doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Also, Larry is 67 and NOT playing high level golf. His swing did NOT look like this when he was playing PGA Tour golf.

 

 

Videos like that are disingenuous at best. It's "almost impossible" to clear your hips and swing more in to out? No, it's not.

 

 

Yep.

I’ve had extensive discussions with Dr. Wright over the years.

 

I've seen his research.  It’s not about completely different golf swings.  
 

It’s about knowing what your core with gravitate toward.

 

Uppers will gravitate toward weaker grips and less rotation.  Lowers will tend to have stronger grips and more rotation.

 

Uppers will tend to react better to upper body centric advice and lowers to lower.

 

Most tour players are mids.  Most people are uppers.

 

My theory is most tour players being mids shows you can tell them anything and they will make it work.  So even if they got poor instruction, they survived.

 

I also believe most of the people who are the passive arms works bandwagon at a cult level are lowers.  

I have been accused of teaching an arm driven swing, which is hilarious, because i go with what people will hear and often that’s a lower body idea. 
 

 

[Nels55]

14 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

 

I've seen his research.  It’s not about completely different golf swings

I was thinking that Dustin Johnson's swing is completely different then Larry Rinker's.  Thinking further though I can see that perhaps they are simply on opposite ends of the same spectrum so to speak.  Unified swing theory!

19 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

 

I have been accused of teaching an arm driven swing, which is hilarious, because i go with what people will hear and often that’s a lower body idea

Based on my experience with a couple of video lessons and the clinic I can verify that you don't teach an arm swing.  My observation is that you teach a golf swing.