Powerless again

it's not pleasant to realise that one has been wasting valuable time experimenting with numerous golf theories and methods. I'm not saying that improvement has not been found in some areas, nor that fun has not been had along the way. It's just that I now have to acknowledge that the 'secret' of golf was really in my possession at least five years ago, but I chose to go on searching and experimenting.

The secret is, as I've said before, not really a secret; it's a counter-intuitive fact about the basis of a good golf swing. The secret is powerless arms; it's as simple as that.

The natural impulse to hit the ball hard (with full shots) engages the muscles in the arms. Engaging the muscles in the arms might (I'm not sure) be great for arm wrestling, but anathema for a fluid and powerful golf swing. The problem is tense muscles are slow muscles and slow muscles do not generate clubhead speed - unless you are Arnold you know who.

This knowledge of biomechanics or whatever the technical term for this area of knowledge is, will be something that 99% of golf instructors will know about. The problem is that 99% of those instructors will not utilise this knowledge for the benefit of their students. The 'fixing' of golf swings will almost invariably focus on a myriad of other issues - grip, posture, weight transfer, swing plane, ball position, etc. etc. The concept of powerless arms and generation of power from sources other than the arms will not come into play.

Anyway, I must acknowledge that it was Mr Paul Wilson who gave me the key information about powerless arms and the golf swing in his 'swing machine golf' series of instruction all those years ago. I knew then and I know now that this method works, indeed is the only really reliable and consistent method of hitting a golf ball that does. I won't go into the method now; much of my analysis of it is there in my blog archives, mainly from 2011. I should just mention that his loose wrists and constant forward tilt ideas are also valuable components of the method.

I suspect the only reason I went away from this powerless arms / swing machine approach, apart from the misguided belief that I could do better with some other approach, was a couple of misgivings about some of Wilson's more specific instructions, which are as follows:

Wilson seemed to insist on certain positions (and the appearance of same) in the golf swing. He described where the club should be and what should happen with the knees, in particular. He did offer some alternatives in some areas, such as how to start the downswing, but all in all there was quite a bit of prescription that, in retrospect, I think put me off. What happens when these positions appear to be critical is that one loses sight of the really fundamental of this method, and that is the need to keep the arms powerless.

There were a couple of other quibbles I had with Wilson's method, for example, the failure in my personal view to explain how weight transfers to the front foot (vital in nearly all golf shots) with body rotation alone and with no body shift to the front side. I know he talks about the exchange of levers from lead arm to trail arm, but I was never entirely happy with some of this discussion. I can now accept that as the hips and torso rotate the weight does shift without any need to consciously shift to the front side, but at the time I was not so sure. By the way, with most iron shots it is necessary to make sure one doesn't stay on the back foot and try to lift the ball.

I also has some qualms at the time about his chipping ideas; using body rotation speed to control the distance of these shots. But now I can much more readily accept the principles involved - failure to use the lower body is a problem for many mid to higher handicapers. I do think the fairly prescriptive approach - specifying in some detail the amount of speed needed - was a factor in putting me off, but I can understand why he did this; mainly because he was wanting to give students some concrete and helpful information for them to work with.

Having said all this, I do think there are some other ideas about the golf set up and swing that can be helpfully incorporated with the powerless arms concept to help slightly better plays with their ball striking. The main one is probably connection. That is the value of linking the lead arm with the chest (reasonably closely) so that the body and arms turn together. This connection of the arms helps them stay powerless, reduces the chances of them dominating the swing, helps maintain a consistent swing arc and a few other things. I would also counsel golfers to re-examine the grip they are using and make sure there are no other anomalies in their set up.

However, there is so much to be gained by incorporating powerless arms into ones golf swing that any other instructions are almost superfluous. Incorporating powerless arms will actually fix some of these other issues including, for example, swing plane. As Wilson explained, the swing plane is self correcting or aligning when the arms are powerless. A lot of the worry about swinging inside out and trying to follow all the slice curing drills go out the window. Clubface alignment, which is easy to fix at set up, is the main remaining issue. And provided the wrists and hands are not consciously active during the swing, the clubface will square itself - that is, return to square - as it was at set up.

I'm returning to powerless arms as my key to the golf swing because it gave me my first real improvement boost about five years ago. I'm now hoping that together with the other knowledge I've gained during those years, making sure I maintain powerless arms will give me another kick start on the road to a lower handicap.

If at first

Finally, some continuity with my full swing - the connected swing. Very happy with the overall results, although my irons were generally poor in the last round, which cost me several strokes.

My new chipping technique - simple, shallow, leading left arm - is working well. I'm much more consistent, if not all that great.

Putting, my nemesis, has benefited from a return to basics. That is, a simple reverse overlap grip, nothing fancy in the stroke, just thinking rhythm and good contact. I'd guess at about 33 putts, but haven't counted, and with no 3-putts that I can recall.

I'm content at the moment to go with what I've got. Success will only come with fewer major errors and some better (let the club do the work) iron play. I know I can hit decent irons, and while on some days it doesn't happen, if at first ...

Short and sweet

Driving the ball well - when I don't try to steer the ball. Fairway woods and irons are so so. Chipping getting better, now that I've adopted a super simple method with a shallower swing path, hands leading slightly and using some body turn to control the power.

The problem area of putting remains. In my last round (technically 37 putts) I got very careless with my ball contact on the long putts and left myself too many metre putts, most of which I missed. I can't blame the short putting, although I did not pop the putts the way I had planned to do, but I can blame my distance control, green reading and particularly the inconsistency of my ball to putterface contact.

Next game, I need to continue to swing with my newish connected swing, let the clubs do the work, continue to trust my chipping method and find something with my putter.

For long putts, I need to be more mindful of the final metre or so of the roll. I also need to make sure I make a decisive stroke and hit the ball in the centre of the putterface.

For short putts, I need to keep the backswing short and pop the putts with a bit of authority, keeping the blade square.

I've toyed with changing putters - maybe the thick grip I'm using is no good - but I think the issue is much more about the stroke I'm putting on the ball.

Keeping calm about the short ones is also critical - so that short can be sweet.

But wait, there's more

Most recently, I've started to actually believe something I should have been sure about and conceded years ago - everyone must develop their own golf swing.

Different builds, different fitness levels, different mind-sets, not to mention different ambitions for our standard of golf mean that there is no 'one size fits all' in golf. Instructors who preach a certain approach are doing so, often in good faith, from their own experience based on what works for them. Sometimes they are merely fixing a 'problem' in someone's swing, but again the solution will be from their own experience, their own method for solving that problem or, quite often, the usual supposedly tried and true solution to that problem.

The reality is that these set methods and the multiplicity of quick fixes don't have a significant long-term benefits. Most players, no matter what level, will gravitate sooner or later to their own comfort level - the swing that feels most natural to them. I wouldn't go so far as to agree with the interesting Canadian instructor (not Shawn) who has a life goal of debunking the bio-mechanical approach to golf instruction, but there is a lot to question about a lot of golf teaching.

My own experience over the past ten years is that there is no one method - that is not your own - that will work for YOU. Of course, your own method may not be working for you either. The answer is not, obviously, to adopt someone else's method that still won't work. What is the answer?

The best I can come up with at the moment is that there are three objectives in hitting a golf ball that can and need to be addressed - really only three - namely, to hit the ball reasonably straight to one's target, hit the ball reasonably far so that the target can be reached and repeat these actions consistently. It's a simple as that.

Firstly, straightness is primarily achieved by squaring the clubface (most importantly) with the club approaching the ball on a reasonably effective path. There are an infinite number of ways of achieving this.

Secondly, as we all know, distance is achieved by generating clubhead speed - appropriate to the club being used and the target in question. Again, this can be achieved in many ways - and the most effective method has been argued about for generations.

Finally, consistency, probably the holy grail for many average golfers, is perhaps the most elusive and frustrating aspect of this great but difficult game. I think there are some ideas that can help with consistency, at least in some cases and for those who actually care.

I'll address these three objectives and my suggestions for how to approach them in my next post. So, yep, there's more.