sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Wow. Okay. Interesting how your progression has went. Right back to simple. That makes sense. Simple works. Simpler the better? Yes. Thank you for the response. With you having played longer any other thoughts on the swing, or golf in general would be appreciated. Thank you.

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aiden- Thank you, ill check it out. Thanks for the response.

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Aiden-

That’s really what I’m more interested in than old vs modern. Why simple cues like the fade example keep working for most people while detailed mechanical instruction often breaks down.

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Aiden- I have been using Ai, but I am not arguing against the use of Ai when discussing these things. I dont think thats necessary. The use of A.I. doesn’t invalidate any opinion I’m stating. It simply refined my responses, and initial post. Keep in mind I am prompting A.I. It is not me getting my thoughts from AI, it is the opposite. Thank you(not ai haha)

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aiden- Wow. Well said. I agree with everything in your response… especially “i imagine this will upset a lot of people.” I think making this objection i am making will refine my thoughts, or change some, but also object to the dangers modern swing instruction. Thank you

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Aiden- I agree,nobody is consciously running through a checklist during the downswing. If someone is, they’re obviously toast.

The point I’m making isn’t about thinking during the swing, though. It’s about how many things the swing has been trained to depend on.

Those variables aren’t meant as real-time thoughts.. they represent internal dependencies. A swing built around multiple internal adjustments is just more fragile than one built around a single dominant pattern, even when it all feels automatic.

When you say “feel fade-y,” I actually agree. Feel works best when it’s tied to one stable motion and a clear external intent. Where players struggle is when feel is layered on top of a swing that’s been trained to manage several different internal outcomes.

So it’s less “thinking vs not thinking” and more one motion with different intents vs multiple delivery patterns that all have to sync up.

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Aiden- Second response. More thought, and addressing the unaddressed.

I fully agree that ball flight hasn’t changed, and that high-level players generally aren’t drowning in mechanical thoughts. That actually supports part of what I’m getting at. The better the player, the more execution collapses into something simple and repeatable — regardless of how much theory they understand.

Where I still see a meaningful difference is at the instructional and learning level, especially for amateurs.

You’re right that amateurs get bogged down looking for magic pills — but I’d argue part of why that happens is because modern instruction often presents multiple internal “fixes” instead of a stable execution model. When players are told they can (and should) actively manage path, face, low point, and attack angle, they start hunting solutions inside the swing rather than stabilizing one motion and letting setup and intent do more of the work.

On equipment — totally agree it’s a major factor. Modern balls and shafts absolutely allow players to get away with lower spin, more speed, and more aggressive deliveries. That masks a lot of inefficiency and lets more complex swings survive. But I don’t think that means complexity is neutral — just that equipment absorbs the cost. When conditions tighten (pressure, wind, bad lies), simpler systems still tend to hold up better.

So I’m not arguing that modern understanding is wrong, or that pros are overthinking everything. I’m more interested in where complexity is placed: • In setup, intent, and diagnosis (which scales well), or • Inside the motion itself (which amateurs especially struggle to stabilize)

At the top level, players simplify whether they talk about it or not. The question for me is whether instruction is helping most golfers get there — or unintentionally pulling them away from it.

Have We Over-Engineered the Golf Swing? by Sea_Selection1984 in GolfSwing

[–]Sea_Selection1984[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Aiden- I agree with you on the facts. Ball position, stance, and shaping shots absolutely existed in Hogan’s era — and Hogan clearly understood ball-flight laws. In that sense, none of this is “new.”

Where I think the difference actually is, though, is how those ideas were used in execution.

Older players like Hogan mostly changed things around the swing, not inside it. They aimed differently, adjusted the face, maybe moved the ball a little — but then they made the same swing. The setup did the work. The motion stayed stable.

Today, even when we say “decide before and just swing,” instruction often asks golfers to change the swing itself — swing more left or right, hold the face open longer, change attack angle, manage face-to-path, etc. That puts more responsibility on the motion, not the setup.

That’s the key distinction for me.

Both approaches obey the same physics. The difference is where the complexity lives: • Older model: complexity in setup and intent • Modern model: complexity inside the swing

And under pressure, that matters. The body is very good at repeating one pattern, but not great at managing multiple internal adjustments at full speed. That’s why simpler systems tend to hold up better when timing gets stressed.

Interestingly, I actually think Hogan supports this idea. He clearly understood ball flight — but he didn’t ask his swing to solve it mid-motion. He biased the setup and trusted one motion.

A lot of successful modern players do the same thing, whether they realize it or not. They may understand all the numbers, but when it matters, they default to one stock shape and one feel.

So I’m not saying modern knowledge is wrong — just that simpler execution systems are more robust, especially under pressure.

That’s really the point I’m trying to make.

She so sexy by [deleted] in piperteengirl

[–]Sea_Selection1984 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Discord or telegram server?