If at first ...

I'm now into my second week of using the Duplessis / Wilson big muscles approach to the golf swing. I will call it the DW method. And, although I'm not yet playing particularly well, I am more than ever convinced that this is the way all average (define average how you will) golfers should go.

The method fundamentally involves using the big core muscles of the body, but including the knees, hips and shoulders, to control and power the golf swing. It requires, almost as an act of faith, de-emphasising the role of the hands and wrists, which must remain powerless, mere hinges (or hingers) and holders of the golf club.

Now, some professionals will say 'well, the hands are your only point of contact with the golf club; you must educate them'. And this sounds logical. Unfortunately, or as my 3-year old grandson says 'affortunately', the hands are connected to the brain, and the brain, both consciously and unconsciously, can be quite capricious. Sometimes, our brain has second thoughts, or feels the need to make a last split second correction, which might work out well, but usually doesn't.

This capriciousness and unpredictable manipulation of the hands is the main source of the inconsistent ball striking that is characteristic of the average golfer.

There are, in my view, two solutions. The first is to hit several hundred golf balls every day for ten or so years, as the pros do, learning to control the thought processes that contribute to the golf swing. This is not an option for most people.

The second solution is to as far as possible take the hands and wrists out of the equation. That is, make them passive extensions of your arms, shoulders and body. Then, use the coiling of the upper body on the backswing and uncoiling of the whole body (starting from the ground up) on the downswing to power the golf swing.

Many teaching pros will agree with this principle of starting the downswing with the lower body. However, most do not sufficiently emphasise the importance of passive hands and the need to suppress the impulse to hit at the ball with the hands. Generally, the simple coiling and uncoiling concept (of teachers like RD and PW) ends up being complicated by all manner of technical concepts relating to weight transfer, elbow positions, wrist cock, release, etc. etc.

The result of all this theory is that most average golfers, including me, though not teachers like the aforementioned RD and PW, forget that the golf swing is, or should be, much like throwing a ball. It should involve the quite natural coiling, shifting of weight and release that is characteristic of anyone with a semblance of hand / eye coordination.

I should make an admission that this coiling and uncoiling is not quite as easy as it can sound. There is practise involved in correct alignment, maintaining good balance, timing the transition and suppressing the desire to hit at the ball, not to mention the other complication of decision making about the shot being attempted.

Finally, I should also say that I stand by my previously advocated fundamentals (don't sway, get the weight on the front foot and don't try to hit too hard), but I'm working to integrate them with the coiling and uncoiling concept discussed above. And, if at first I don't succeed ...

Think Big

I had some fun this week with my golf game - if you call having fun playing some of the worst golf of my life.

The day before my mid-week game I spent some hours reading up on and viewing videos on a particular swing theory or method which, although a departure from much of my previous thinking, sounded pretty good to me. It sounded good because it targeted slightly older guys with reduced flexibility, who had experienced a bad back or some similar injury in the past, that is, people not too different from yours truly.

So, armed with this theory, I ventured onto the course for a practice round (actually a competition, but not a serious one). The experiment lasted twelve holes, at which point I realised that this theory was such a departure from my natural game that it would take months not hours to integrate it successfully into my game.

I am not saying that particular swing theory is wrong, it might be great for some people, but the experience of that 'practice-round' reinforced for me the folly of attempting any major departure from ones natural swing style - unless it is done in small stages, incremental steps, with hours spent on the driving range. I'm sure this is obvious to most golfers; I must be a slow learner.

Having said that I would not recommend this kind of swing experimentation, I naturally went straight out and looked for another swing theory. This is what swing junkies do. And, sure enough, I found one that I like.

To be more accurate, I re-discovered and have re-evaluated an approach I had come across before - the Ross Duplessis method (I'll call it the RD method).

What I like about RD's approach is (a) it is relatively simple and straightforward, but (b) it closely resembles what I already do in my golf swing (my usual golf swing, that is).

Firstly, the set up, a stable, athletic posture, with the club leaning slightly forward and in line with the lead arm, is pretty much how I set up. Slightly more weight is placed on the front foot, something I do with all clubs except the driver (a little more 50/50 for driver).

Secondly, the RD backswing is controlled by the big muscles, the shoulders in particular, rather than the hands and arms, which remain quite passive. There is no rotation or other manipulation of the hands and arms. This is something I've thought about a bit, especially since trying Paul Wilson's 'Swing Machine Golf' approach.

Finally, and again there are some similarities in the 'big muscle' approach of Wilson and RD, the downswing is controlled by the hips, which turn towards the target with arms, hands and club following (to put it simply). RD even mentions the touching of the knees - a Wilson principle.

In summary, in my view, the RD method is very much in the 'effortless' camp. And this approach is, I think, ideal for the golfer who doesn't want to spend weeks, months and years learning a lot of complicated moves when swinging a golf club.

My three fundamentals of an easy swing, no sway and weight on the front foot, fit quite well with the RD method. The RD (and Wilson) approach seems to me to be a simple, repeatable, reliable way to play golf at a reasonable level, subject to acquiring a decent short game.

We average, time poor, golfers need a method that offers maximum return for minimum effort - both in terms of the time spent practising (on or off the course) and in relation to the completing the actual golf swing itself.

Next weekend, I'm going to think BIG, and try to keep my expectations low.