Rotary Swingers: Not good from rough?

[RolandofGilead]

I've heard Johnny Miller (and others probably, but he's the loudest) mention that both yesterday's (Hogan, Trevino) and today's (Mahan, Kuchar, now Woods) rotation-based swingers have more trouble hitting the ball from the rough than more upright swingers (Nicklaus). They relate this to (among other things) a more shallow downswing which forces the clubhead through more grass before striking the ball, compared to a steeper downswing where less grass is taken on the inside before impact. I have been learning and self-teaching myself a rotary swing based mostly on the Slicefixer and Hogan threads on this site and have noticed that my iron game from imperfect lies is a weakness. I know the simple answer is to hit more fairways, but can anyone else comment on this? Is this commentary legit? Does anyone have any solutions or advice?

[dfw1500]

This is complete BS......as if you alter your weight distribution at address and get the weight over the left side more at address this creates a steeper angle of attack and also allows you to set the club steeper....what these guys don't realize is that you simply alter the angles at address and this alters the dynamics of the swing.....therefore if you have more weight forwards the spine moves that way and you trap the ball/hit down more......to hit up and have a shallow angle of attack the weight moves to the right which alters the axis tilt which therefore alters the impact alignments and dynamics.

This will feel like the same swing yet the dynamics will change/alter based on the statics...you simply "dial" it in at address and the swing will alter based on the fact that the spine and weight have changed hence the plane/angle of attack etc will alter.

Thanks Dan

[MonteScheinblum]

[quote name='Roland of Gilead' timestamp='1314642732' post='3527799']
I've heard Johnny Miller (and others probably, but he's the loudest) mention that both yesterday's (Hogan, Trevino) and today's (Mahan, Kuchar, now Woods) rotation-based swingers have more trouble hitting the ball from the rough than more upright swingers (Nicklaus). They relate this to (among other things) a more shallow downswing which forces the clubhead through more grass before striking the ball, compared to a steeper downswing where less grass is taken on the inside before impact. I have been learning and self-teaching myself a rotary swing based mostly on the Slicefixer and Hogan threads on this site and have noticed that my iron game from imperfect lies is a weakness. I know the simple answer is to hit more fairways, but can anyone else comment on this? Is this commentary legit? Does anyone have any solutions or advice?
[/quote]

When it comes to Johnny Miller, I agree with Paul Azinger.

[oldpalchamp]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1314643506' post='3527836']
[quote name='Roland of Gilead' timestamp='1314642732' post='3527799']
I've heard Johnny Miller (and others probably, but he's the loudest) mention that both yesterday's (Hogan, Trevino) and today's (Mahan, Kuchar, now Woods) rotation-based swingers have more trouble hitting the ball from the rough than more upright swingers (Nicklaus). They relate this to (among other things) a more shallow downswing which forces the clubhead through more grass before striking the ball, compared to a steeper downswing where less grass is taken on the inside before impact. I have been learning and self-teaching myself a rotary swing based mostly on the Slicefixer and Hogan threads on this site and have noticed that my iron game from imperfect lies is a weakness. I know the simple answer is to hit more fairways, but can anyone else comment on this? Is this commentary legit? Does anyone have any solutions or advice?
[/quote]

When it comes to Johnny Miller, I agree with Paul Azinger.
[/quote]

Great one Monte! I don't particularly care for Azinger, but he nailed that one!

[RolandofGilead]

[quote name='dfw1500' timestamp='1314643355' post='3527822']
This is complete BS......as if you alter your weight distribution at address and get the weight over the left side more at address this creates a steeper angle of attack and also allows you to set the club steeper....what these guys don't realize is that you simply alter the angles at address and this alters the dynamics of the swing.....therefore if you have more weight forwards the spine moves that way and you trap the ball/hit down more......to hit up and have a shallow angle of attack the weight moves to the right which alters the axis tilt which therefore alters the impact alignments and dynamics.

This will feel like the same swing yet the dynamics will change/alter based on the statics...you simply "dial" it in at address and the swing will alter based on the fact that the spine and weight have changed hence the plane/angle of attack etc will alter.

Thanks Dan
[/quote]

Thanks, makes perfect sense. The whirlwind that is my swing change is settling down and I think this will help and feel pretty natural.

[Lefthook]

I don't know what Paul Azinger said about Johnny Miller. But I do know that if the swing plane is 100 Horizontal the clubhead will be buried in the rough from address to finish. And if the swing plane is 100% vertical the contact time with the rough will be minimized. Of course no one is abs vertical or abs horizontal. There are degrees here. But steeper will give less rough interaction.

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='Lefthook' timestamp='1314676589' post='3529181']
I don't know what Paul Azinger said about Johnny Miller. But I do know that if the swing plane is 100 Horizontal the clubhead will be buried in the rough from address to finish. And if the swing plane is 100% vertical the contact time with the rough will be minimized. Of course no one is abs vertical or abs horizontal. There are degrees here. But steeper will give less rough interaction.
[/quote]


haha left, that's deep stuff.

[Lefthook]

[russc1597187869]

But Hogan and Trevino got into the rough much less frequently because of their controlled ball striking.

[Lefthook]

[quote name='russc' timestamp='1316215340' post='3569186']
But Hogan and Trevino got into the rough much less frequently because of their controlled ball striking.
[/quote]

You may be right but I would like to see the statistics on that one.

[whatshannenin]

Which is why good players who are "method" or not, still make changes or variances in grip, setup, posture, weight, ball position to account for situations....like shots from the rough. Johnny was one of the best at creating a swing for shots, so was Seve, Snead, Hogan, Jack, Tiger. They all do it/did it. You can't make the exact same swing for every single lie, just like you can't make the same chipping action for every chip or bunker action for every bunker shot. The only time the stroke is exactly the same with setup lie and stance is putting.

[eqman]

I don`t know of any decent player that doesn't adjust their swing when you have ton of grass behind the ball, no matter what type of swing you have. Any vertical swing will have less adjustment to make than a more shallow swing. in the rough.

I don`t discount anything the Pros say, Johnny was one of the best iron players in golf when he was playing. He knows what he`s talking about.

[DoctorLoomis]

[quote name='MERCBENZ' timestamp='1316295799' post='3570738']
I don`t know of any decent player that doesn't adjust their swing when you have ton of grass behind the ball, no matter what type of swing you have. Any vertical swing will have less adjustment to make than a more shallow swing. in the rough.

I don`t discount anything the Pros say, Johnny was one of the best iron players in golf when he was playing. [b][u]He knows what he`s talking about[/u][/b].
[/quote]


Not to be argumentative, but oftentimes Miller does NOT know what he is talking about. On more than one occasion he has said things that are silly...if not absolutely absurd. Things that are mathematically and scientifically impossible. He was a world class golfer....I will never argue that. However that does not make him understand the physics behind the collision of a golf ball and golf club.

[grahler]

Understanding the physics behind the collisionof a golf ball and golf club does not make one able to hit good iron shots from heavy rough.
Not to be argumentative.

[DoctorLoomis]

[quote name='grahler' timestamp='1316327542' post='3571427']
Understanding the physics behind the collisionof a golf ball and golf club does not make one able to hit good iron shots from heavy rough.
Not to be argumentative.
[/quote]


I would rather have the information than not have the information. My post never said anything about hitting a shot from the rough. It was simply to point out the irrefutable fact that Miller sometimes says things that are scientifically dead wrong. Nothing more.

[DoctorLoomis]

[quote name='grahler' timestamp='1316327542' post='3571427']
Understanding the physics behind the collisionof a golf ball and golf club does not make one able to hit good iron shots from heavy rough.
Not to be argumentative.
[/quote]


Grahler, respectfully, I would wager that if the entire golfing population did understand the truth behind the collision of the ball and club, the average golfer in this country would be able to consistently break approximately 95.....which as of today the average golfer cannot....all shots counted.

[grahler]

Understanding your 'truth' about the collision physics does nothing for the practice habits and coordination levels of the average golfer man.

Golf is a sport executing well in golf is really more like art than like sitting idle while your brain performs calculations.

The use of the body properly in a coordinated fashion is a different level of consciousness when compared to your left brain logical robotic boring understanding and explanation.

Conscious thought about collision physics would do nothing for the average golfer.

[cbrian]

I hate that argument. Look, d plane, physics, geometry of a circle, whatever... is paramount in most people getting better...it just is. Just because a teacher knows the degrees doesn't mean that is how he communicates it to his students. People like yourself always make this argument about making it more complicated than it should be, but whats complicated about move the ball back in your stance to hit a bigger draw, don't aim at the tree, etc?

[grahler]

What I am saying is simply that left brain conscious analysis has nothing to do with execution. Of course some folks enjoy intellectually understanding but understanding is maybe 25% of the battle-I can know that I should not come over the top for example but that knowledge in itself has nothing to do with my ability to attack from the inside thats my only point.
I never said anything about overcomplicating things.

The point is conscious thoughts dictating movement is not the best way to execute. Athletic movements are not best dictated by the same mode of thought one would use to perform physics calculations.

I will not be made into a straw man.

[DoctorLoomis]

[quote name='cbrian' timestamp='1316372770' post='3572032']
I hate that argument. Look, d plane, physics, geometry of a circle, whatever... is paramount in most people getting better...it just is. Just because a teacher knows the degrees doesn't mean that is how he communicates it to his students. People like yourself always make this argument about making it more complicated than it should be, but whats complicated about move the ball back in your stance to hit a bigger draw, don't aim at the tree, etc?
[/quote]


Cbrian, you can lead em to water but you can't make em drink. Some people absolutely will not see.

[grahler]

Ancillary point-if what you guys are saying is true Albert Einstein would have been winning everything. IT's all about execution in the end. Analysis is just that-analysis-and it often leads to PARALYSIS.

[cbrian]

[quote name='grahler' timestamp='1316376183' post='3572124']
What I am saying is simply that left brain conscious analysis has nothing to do with execution. Of course some folks enjoy intellectually understanding but understanding is maybe 25% of the battle-I can know that I should not come over the top for example but that knowledge in itself has nothing to do with my ability to attack from the inside thats my only point.
I never said anything about overcomplicating things.

The point is conscious thoughts dictating movement is not the best way to execute. Athletic movements are not best dictated by the same mode of thought one would use to perform physics calculations.

I will not be made into a straw man.
[/quote]
Well thats not what Jo was talking about anyways. Hes not saying if you know that 4* out with 2* open clubface produces an on target push draw that you will automatically do that every time... or at all. Hes just saying its important to know the clubface doesn't need to be, and can't be, closed to the target to hit an on target draw. Pretty important stuff imo.

[DoctorLoomis]

[quote name='grahler' timestamp='1316377770' post='3572165']
Ancillary point[b][u]-if what you guys are saying is true Albert Einstein would have been winning everything.[/u][/b] IT's all about execution in the end. Analysis is just that-analysis-and it often leads to PARALYSIS.
[/quote]


The above statement is absurd. No one has ever remotely implied that being a physics genius will make you win the Masters. However, if I had a choice between having knowledge versus not having knowledge...I don't care if it is ditch digging....I want the knowledge. If you disagree with that then oh well. Finally, I'll bet you that if Albert played golf he wouldve broken 95....and he would have said Johnny Miller doesn't know what he is talking about either.

[trapsmv15]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1316200596' post='3568703']
[quote name='Lefthook' timestamp='1314676589' post='3529181']
I don't know what Paul Azinger said about Johnny Miller. But I do know that if the swing plane is 100 Horizontal the clubhead will be buried in the rough from address to finish. And if the swing plane is 100% vertical the contact time with the rough will be minimized. Of course no one is abs vertical or abs horizontal. There are degrees here. But steeper will give less rough interaction.
[/quote]


haha left, that's deep stuff.
[/quote]
I see what you did there...

[grahler]

Obviously if you have a very flat/shallow swing-you have to adjust more than someone who has a steeper angle on a stock shot. Could lead to a higher potential for a mishit ball.

Of course I agree about the knowledge no one ever remotely implied knowledge is not valuable-only that in itself it cannot hit a golf ball.

I cannot calculate my way out of the rough-I must know on a very different level what it takes to execute a swing that will work.

The execution side is more art than science.

It's funny to hear the golf scientists wonder how an "ignorant fool" like Johnny Miller could possibly know what he's talking about they are probably amazed he could shape a shot without knowing the physics equations behind impact d-plane etc.

The knowledge Miller has is far deeper than the scientific calculations determining d-plane vectors etc.

Miller was one of the best ever it seems arrogant to claim he "doesn't know what he's talking about."

LOL how many times have scientists equalled his scoring in major championship golf?

ROFL

[DoctorLoomis]

Grahler, you have your opinions and I respect them. That being said I shall now retire from this thread. Have a wonderful Sunday........

[grahler]

Enjoy your Sunday sir. I also respect your knowledge.

[grahler]

Enjoy your Sunday sir. I also respect your knowledge.

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='trapsmv15' timestamp='1316379208' post='3572195']
[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1316200596' post='3568703']
[quote name='Lefthook' timestamp='1314676589' post='3529181']
I don't know what Paul Azinger said about Johnny Miller. But I do know that if the swing plane is 100 Horizontal the clubhead will be buried in the rough from address to finish. And if the swing plane is 100% vertical the contact time with the rough will be minimized. Of course no one is abs vertical or abs horizontal. There are degrees here. But steeper will give less rough interaction.
[/quote]


haha left, that's deep stuff.
[/quote]
I see what you did there...
[/quote]


Took a fellow NYer to get it seems like