Today's Tour Swing

[vmann]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359441405' post='6320253']
[quote name='crestron-guru' timestamp='1359341738' post='6312087']
[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359335140' post='6311411']
[quote name='crestron-guru' timestamp='1359332077' post='6311101']
[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359233558' post='6303887']
If these modern swings are so great why hasnt scoring come down? Just cause these new swings look pretty doesnt make them efficient. I would take Trevino's swing over anybody out there when the pessure is really on. Scott has arguably the best swing out there according to popular opinion, but his pretty action didnt stand up under the closing stretch of a major. Pretty doesnt always mean perfect. What you want is an efficient, repeatable action, not a picture perfect swing with lots of moving parts.
[/quote]

Sheeesh calm down! At the end of the day success on tour is about how great you are mentally. Trevino had it mentally, Adam folds under pressure. The older people with hack swings will never like this topic.
[/quote]I think you are over simplifying things. Missing a putt to win a major is folding under pressure, hitting hooks is a technique issue. A good swimg is one that can stand up under pressure, not produce hooks when you have beem striping it for the previous 70 holes. Tiger keeps changing his swing cause he thinks he doesnt own his swing, I think the same can be said for most modern swings. Tiger misses lots of fairways by a long way, that cant be put down to lack of talent, its poor technique. Look at this years Masters playoff between two guys with modern swings. Both missed the fairway by miles in the playoff, could you imagine Jack or Trevino or Watson or Hogan missing the fairway by that much in that situation?
[/quote]

I don't want to make anyone feel retarded..... But did you really just call bubba Watson a modern swing Hahaha... Seriously its not simplifying anything at all. It comes down to mental game. If it didn't Tom Watson would have won the British a few years back. I don't know how you can even argue this.
[/quote]
Bubba is unorthodox but he still has a modern swing in that his hands are flippy thru impact and he relies on timing. I put this modern move down to technogy. Modern equipment reduces side spin and allows players to really go at it without hitting it off the planet. If you gave these guys wound balata balls and wooden drivers they wouldnt hit a fairway, pros of old had to hit controlled fades just to stay in play. Modern players just rip it with the hands through impact, but not many of them are sure which direction the ball is going. I would take Furyks old school swing every day of the qeek if it meant having his accuracy and control.
[/quote]I have to disagree with your definition of a modern swing. Look at videos of Sam Snead. He absolutely rips through the ball with his hands. I think the main difference in a classical swing and a modern swing is more leverage vs. torque.

[mr smith]

[quote name='vmann' timestamp='1359442969' post='6320299']
[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359441405' post='6320253']
[quote name='crestron-guru' timestamp='1359341738' post='6312087']
[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359335140' post='6311411']
[quote name='crestron-guru' timestamp='1359332077' post='6311101']
[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359233558' post='6303887']
If these modern swings are so great why hasnt scoring come down? Just cause these new swings look pretty doesnt make them efficient. I would take Trevino's swing over anybody out there when the pessure is really on. Scott has arguably the best swing out there according to popular opinion, but his pretty action didnt stand up under the closing stretch of a major. Pretty doesnt always mean perfect. What you want is an efficient, repeatable action, not a picture perfect swing with lots of moving parts.
[/quote]

Sheeesh calm down! At the end of the day success on tour is about how great you are mentally. Trevino had it mentally, Adam folds under pressure. The older people with hack swings will never like this topic.
[/quote]I think you are over simplifying things. Missing a putt to win a major is folding under pressure, hitting hooks is a technique issue. A good swimg is one that can stand up under pressure, not produce hooks when you have beem striping it for the previous 70 holes. Tiger keeps changing his swing cause he thinks he doesnt own his swing, I think the same can be said for most modern swings. Tiger misses lots of fairways by a long way, that cant be put down to lack of talent, its poor technique. Look at this years Masters playoff between two guys with modern swings. Both missed the fairway by miles in the playoff, could you imagine Jack or Trevino or Watson or Hogan missing the fairway by that much in that situation?
[/quote]

I don't want to make anyone feel retarded..... But did you really just call bubba Watson a modern swing Hahaha... Seriously its not simplifying anything at all. It comes down to mental game. If it didn't Tom Watson would have won the British a few years back. I don't know how you can even argue this.
[/quote]
Bubba is unorthodox but he still has a modern swing in that his hands are flippy thru impact and he relies on timing. I put this modern move down to technogy. Modern equipment reduces side spin and allows players to really go at it without hitting it off the planet. If you gave these guys wound balata balls and wooden drivers they wouldnt hit a fairway, pros of old had to hit controlled fades just to stay in play. Modern players just rip it with the hands through impact, but not many of them are sure which direction the ball is going. I would take Furyks old school swing every day of the qeek if it meant having his accuracy and control.
[/quote]I have to disagree with your definition of a modern swing. Look at videos of Sam Snead. He absolutely rips through the ball with his hands. I think the main difference in a classical swing and a modern swing is more leverage vs. torque.
[/quote]
Never really looked at Snead, maybe Im basing my opinion on too small of a control group.

[fairways4life]

Personally, I define the "modern swing" to be one which is built almost entirely by swing coaches, Trackman, launch monitors, video studying, etc. (which would clearly not place Bubba Watson in this classification). These are the assembly line swings.

Whereas the alternative to a modern swing would be a "natural swing," one which is built simply through that person's own DNA. The swing they were born with. The motion and action that comes naturally to them. A swing that's based on feel and not on watching video or crunching numbers on a launch monitor. These are the swings that are custom-made with each part being unique to itself (opposite of the assembly line, interchangeable parts swing).

The natural swings are an endangered species as more and more players are relying on coaches and advancements in teaching technology.

[mr smith]

I agree bubba has a natural swing but I still think its a swing that has been built with modern technology. Not sure he would have been sucessful with the old equipment with that swing. IMO only a few guys out there would have been able to use the old equipment with their swing, tiger and furyk are 2 who come to mind.

[jmplautz]

[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1359313802' post='6309211']
PGA Tour average scoring has gone down, by more than a stroke since entire field records were recorded in 1980s.

1981-85: 72.08
86-90: 71.67
91-95: 71.35
96-2000: 71.32
01-05: 71.01
06-10: 70.99
11-12: 70.89
[/quote]

This is absolutely fascinating. So many different different interpretations. But only one truth. Scores, for pros, are going down.

[jmplautz]

[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1359313802' post='6309211']
PGA Tour average scoring has gone down, by more than a stroke since entire field records were recorded in 1980s.

1981-85: 72.08
86-90: 71.67
91-95: 71.35
96-2000: 71.32
01-05: 71.01
06-10: 70.99
11-12: 70.89
[/quote]

This is absolutely fascinating. So many different different interpretations. But only one truth. Scores, for pros, are going down.

[ChrizZ]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359486382' post='6323279']
I agree bubba has a natural swing but I still think its a swing that has been built with modern technology. [b]Not sure he would have been sucessful with the old equipment with that swing. IMO only a few guys out there would have been able to use the old equipment with their swing, tiger and furyk are 2 who come to mind.[/b]
[/quote]
why?

[crestron-guru]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359441405' post='6320253']
[quote name='crestron-guru' timestamp='1359341738' post='6312087']
[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359335140' post='6311411']
[quote name='crestron-guru' timestamp='1359332077' post='6311101']
[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359233558' post='6303887']
If these modern swings are so great why hasnt scoring come down? Just cause these new swings look pretty doesnt make them efficient. I would take Trevino's swing over anybody out there when the pessure is really on. Scott has arguably the best swing out there according to popular opinion, but his pretty action didnt stand up under the closing stretch of a major. Pretty doesnt always mean perfect. What you want is an efficient, repeatable action, not a picture perfect swing with lots of moving parts.
[/quote]

Sheeesh calm down! At the end of the day success on tour is about how great you are mentally. Trevino had it mentally, Adam folds under pressure. The older people with hack swings will never like this topic.
[/quote]I think you are over simplifying things. Missing a putt to win a major is folding under pressure, hitting hooks is a technique issue. A good swimg is one that can stand up under pressure, not produce hooks when you have beem striping it for the previous 70 holes. Tiger keeps changing his swing cause he thinks he doesnt own his swing, I think the same can be said for most modern swings. Tiger misses lots of fairways by a long way, that cant be put down to lack of talent, its poor technique. Look at this years Masters playoff between two guys with modern swings. Both missed the fairway by miles in the playoff, could you imagine Jack or Trevino or Watson or Hogan missing the fairway by that much in that situation?
[/quote]

I don't want to make anyone feel retarded..... But did you really just call bubba Watson a modern swing Hahaha... Seriously its not simplifying anything at all. It comes down to mental game. If it didn't Tom Watson would have won the British a few years back. I don't know how you can even argue this.
[/quote]
Bubba is unorthodox but he still has a modern swing in that his hands are flippy thru impact and he relies on timing. I put this modern move down to technogy. Modern equipment reduces side spin and allows players to really go at it without hitting it off the planet. If you gave these guys wound balata balls and wooden drivers they wouldnt hit a fairway, pros of old had to hit controlled fades just to stay in play. Modern players just rip it with the hands through impact, but not many of them are sure which direction the ball is going. I would take Furyks old school swing every day of the qeek if it meant having his accuracy and control.
[/quote]

His accuracy and control you speak of like the giant hook he hit at the us open that cost him the tourney? Yeah id rather have that any day of the "qeek" as well

[vmann]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1359486382' post='6323279']
I agree bubba has a natural swing but I still think its a swing that has been built with modern technology. Not sure he would have been sucessful with the old equipment with that swing. IMO only a few guys out there would have been able to use the old equipment with their swing, tiger and furyk are 2 who come to mind.
[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtlJ6ydWVeU
Byron Nelson, maybe the straightest hitter ever. Check out the hand action.

[jons1]

[quote name='jmplautz' timestamp='1359488693' post='6323601']
[quote name='Golfnutgalen' timestamp='1359313802' post='6309211']
PGA Tour average scoring has gone down, by more than a stroke since entire field records were recorded in 1980s.

1981-85: 72.08
86-90: 71.67
91-95: 71.35
96-2000: 71.32
01-05: 71.01
06-10: 70.99
11-12: 70.89
[/quote]

This is absolutely fascinating. So many different different interpretations. But only one truth. Scores, for pros, are going down.
[/quote]


When you consider Byron Nelson in 1945 had a scoring average of 68.33, I think it shatters this myth that players are getting better because of anything other than talent. Also, just like all bell curves, one Tiger Woods has thrown the average off. Consider the following:

[b]Lowest Adjusted Scoring Averages[/b] [b]1988-2012[/b]
[b]1) 67.65 – Tiger Woods, 2008[/b]
[b]2) 67.79 – Tiger Woods, 2000[/b]
[b]3) 67.79 – Tiger Woods, 2007[/b]
[b]4) 68.05 – Tiger Woods, 2009[/b]
[b]5) 68.11 – Tiger Woods, 2006[/b]
[b]6) 68.41 – Tiger Woods, 2003[/b]
[b]7) 68.43 – Tiger Woods, 1999[/b]
[b]8) 68.56 – Tiger Woods, 2002[/b]
9) 68.65 – Vijay Singh, 2003
[b]10) 68.66 – Tiger Woods, 2005[/b]
[b]11) 68.81 – Tiger Woods, 2001[/b]
11) 68.81 – Greg Norman, 1994
13) 68.84 – Vijay Singh, 2004
14) 68.86 – Jim Furyk, 2006
14) 68.86 – Luke Donald, 2011
16) 68.87 - Rory McIlroy, 2012
17) 68.90 – Greg Norman, 1993
[b]17) 68.90 - Tiger Woods, 2012[/b]
18) 68.95 – Adam Scott, 2006
19) 68.97 – Mike Weir, 2003
20) 68.98 – Ernie Els, 2004
20) 68.98 – Nick Price, 1997
21) 68.99 – Ernie Els, 2003
[b]22) 69.04 – Tiger Woods, 2004 [/b]
22) 69.04 – Vijay Singh, 2005
24) 69.06 – Greg Norman, 1995
24) 69.06 – Davis Love III, 2000
26) 69.10 – Jim Furyk, 2003
[b]26) 69.10 – Tiger Woods, 1997[/b]
26) 69.10 – Greg Norman, 1990
29) 69.11 – Nick Price, 1993
30) 69.12 – Sergio Garcia, 2008
31)69.13 – Sergio Garcia, 2001
31) 69.13 – David Duval, 1998
33) 69.16 – Phil Mickelson, 2004
33) 69.16 – Greg Norman, 1997
35)69.17 – Phil Mickelson, 2008
35) 69.17 – Luke Donald, 2006
35) 69.17 – David Duval, 1999
38) 69.20 – Retief Goosen, 2003
[b]39) 69.21 – Tiger Woods, 1998 [/b]
39) 69.21 – Phil Mickelson, 2001
41) 69.21 – Vijay Singh, 2001
42) 69.25 – Phil Mickelson, 2000
43) 69.25 – Webb Simpson, 2011
45) 69.27 – Jim Furyk, 2005
46) 69.28 – Fred Couples, 1994
46) 69.28 – Padraig Harrington, 2008
46) 69.28 – Anthony Kim, 2008
49) 69.29 – Steve Stricker, 2009
49)69.29 – Ernie Els, 2007


Which, btw, for all the Tiger haters out there, clearly he's had a stretch of play like no other golfer in history.

[Stylez]

My opinion I dont think you can compare any previous generations athlete with a present one in any sport. Now what determines a generation is another debate. X amount of years or technology advancements, course/arenas/atmospheres/training ect.... I think the only proper statement one can make about one particular player/team in any sport is they were the best of their time. Again what time equals is whatever is set for that discussion based on above. Do I think the best lineman of the 60s at 6'2 260lbs can do what a lineman at 6'7 360lbs can do today? No. Do I think Gordie or Orr can be the best today? No. Sure their intelligence would help them adjust in a lot of ways but remember, taking them as they were compared to a modern athlete in his world with the same level of intelligence level, there would not be much of a contest in the long haul. Not taking away from what others have accomplished but things will always evolve. There will always be a once in a 50-100 year athletes ahead of their time but even down the line when we are gone, taking that person will be replaced. And in the end, with all the training, diet, analysis, shrinks, ect... it all comes down to execution in their present environment. And it never has to be pretty, it just has to be executed. A goal is a goal. I win is a win. A championship is a championship. Opinions don't matter, it's a fact. Every one of them enters the event/game on the same playing field. Ball is in their court. Pretty only counts with your college buddies and what girl you woke up next to. Well she may of been pretty at some point during the night for some ;-)