The Perfect Swing

[BCrosby]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324128504578348441614652074-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email

The above article by John Paul Newport on Sean Foley is fascinating. If you, like me, think the golf swing is an intractable puzzle that you can't resist trying to solve, you gotta read John Paul.

I was struck by the following from the article:

"Foley is a big believer in statistical analysis, especially the type of in-depth, multivariable analysis that academics are beginning to crank out using the detailed ShotLink data that the Tour records for every shot in every tournament. He consults frequently with Mark Broadie, the Columbia Business School professor who perfected the "strokes gained putting" statistic that the Tour adopted last year for measuring players' relative skills on the greens. Broadie has created a similar way of measuring the contribution to scoring success of all the other strokes, too. Broadie and Foley both believe that the key differentiating factor between a great player and a good one is their prowess with long approach shots, from 150 to 250 yards. So that's where Foley and Rose spend most of their practice time."

As I recall, that is very close to the conclusion of Cochran and Stobbs some 40 years ago in their book 'In Search of the Perfect Swing'. At the level of PGA tour players, the difference maker is the ability to hit long irons.

Two thoughts. First, a nod should have been given to Cochran and Stobbs in the WSJ article.

Second, the above conclusion has consequences for gca and golf generally. If long/medium iron play separates the boys from the men, the choices are stark if you care about a competitive Tour on which the cream will continue to rise to the top: either build 8000 yard courses or roll-back the ball. Those are the only two ways to make the pros hit medium and long iron approaches.

Bob     

 

[Will Lozier]

Bob,

VERY interesting!  I'll go back and have a look at the article and at Cochran and Stobbs' writings.  Puzzled though that "long" approaches would be anything shorter than 180-190 yards these days though after watching Tiger and Bubba hit 9-irons from 171 yesterday!  Something HAS to be done!

I'll also send you an article my brother, the CFO of a charter school system, wrote about the SGP stat that he suggested could be used to improve education if translated effectively.  It was very technical but made you think about our educational system and how improvements have been traditionally measured.

Cheers

PS - still need to get together...Lovett's soccer season is in full swing again this week coming back from spring break and, as soon as it is over, I'll let you know.  Or, let me know if you are interested in coming to a match - http://www.lovett.org/athletics/teampage.aspx?TeamID=530 - and perhaps we can meet afterwards.

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting indeed, Bob, on many fronts. Thanks for posting/linking.

Random thoughts:

1 - Intuitively we already knew what the modern analysis/statistics are now telling us; that's why Jack Nicklaus' 1 iron at Pebble Beach's 17th, and the 1 iron at Baltusrol's 18th were all the proof we needed that JN was the greatest golfer of his generation.

2 - The range being discussed (and in the Foley-Rose relationship, worked on) struck me as peculiar,, i.e. "approach shots from 150-250 yards. Really? Do the low end and the high end of that scale have anything in common? A nine iron and a 2 iron/5 wood?

3 - The game is too multifaceted and complex to make such analysis/predictions anything more than a peg for a teacher/guru to hang his hat on. Sure, long iron play is a factor -- but does it "lead to" or is it "a characteristic of" the great player? Is it essential/necessary or merely accidental/descriptive?  At his very best and most successful, TW was indeed an excellent long iron player -- but he also just happened to chip and putt extraordinarily well and drive it longer than anyone else and with a goodly amount of accuracy. Carving out one stat -- long iron play -- seems, well, reductionist.    


Anyway, thanks

Peter

[jeffwarne]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324128504578348441614652074-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email

The above article by John Paul Newport on Sean Foley is fascinating. If you, like me, think the golf swing is an intractable puzzle that you can't resist trying to solve, you gotta read John Paul.

I was struck by the following from the article:

"Foley is a big believer in statistical analysis, especially the type of in-depth, multivariable analysis that academics are beginning to crank out using the detailed ShotLink data that the Tour records for every shot in every tournament. He consults frequently with Mark Broadie, the Columbia Business School professor who perfected the "strokes gained putting" statistic that the Tour adopted last year for measuring players' relative skills on the greens. Broadie has created a similar way of measuring the contribution to scoring success of all the other strokes, too. Broadie and Foley both believe that the key differentiating factor between a great player and a good one is their prowess with long approach shots, from 150 to 250 yards. So that's where Foley and Rose spend most of their practice time."

As I recall, that is very close to the conclusion of Cochran and Stobbs some 40 years ago in their book 'In Search of the Perfect Swing'. At the level of PGA tour players, the difference maker is the ability to hit long irons.

Two thoughts. First, a nod should have been given to Cochran and Stobbs in the WSJ article.

Second, the above conclusion has consequences for gca and golf generally. If long/medium iron play separates the boys from the men, the choices are stark if you care about a competitive Tour on which the cream will continue to rise to the top: either build 8000 yard courses or roll-back the ball. Those are the only two ways to make the pros hit medium and long iron approaches.

Bob     

 

Bob,
Given the dearth of second shots on tour over 150 yards, you'd think the better ballstrikers/longer hitters would speak more often about a rollback, as it would seem to favor them.
And it wasn't that long ago that 250 yards wasn't considered an approach shot

As it is, it appears to me that the player with adequate length (just about everybody given 46 year old not know for length Stricker FLYING it on 16 at Doral yesterday) need merely focus on the wedges and putting as those are the shots most often played.

"In Search for the Perfect Swing" is/was a fascinating read.

[BCrosby]

Will -

I'd love to get together. BTW, my daughter's boyfriend was the captain of Lovett's state championship soccer team several years ago. I have attended many a Lovett soccer game.

Peter -

I think the long iron thing is more than a tag line in an instructor's pitch. There has been a fair amount of research, dating back to Cochran and Stobbs, about aspects of the game that, if you can do them well, they give you a disproportionate advantage against the field. The ability to hit long irons seems to have always stood out in that regard. It makes intuitive sense to me. It is the hardest shot to hit, ergo, it is the biggest difference maker.

As noted, however, as far as the pros hit it these days long approaches to par 4's have largely disappeared. So the effectiveness of its parsing function has been reduced over the last couple of decades.

Jeff -

Agreed. Nobody is short, everyone hits wedge approaches. But the ability to hit long irons can still make a difference on par 3's and 5's. Tiger's play on the long par 3's at Doral yesterday is a good example. Those were big-boy shots. Wow. I suspect that is what Foley is talking about re: Rose's improvement.

The take home here is that long par 4's on the Tour don't count as long unless they are 520 yards or more.

Bob     

[Ed Brzezowski]

I would love to see what Sean O'Hair thinks of this article. I guess while this approach may, well does, work with some it turned poor Sean into an over thinking golfer.

I wonder as the game gets more technical in it's teaching are we losing the old days of "feel". Should the swing be reduced to a mathmatical formula? We all known the human body is capable of tremendous things, but can it be programmed to repeat a swing?
Is that the ideal we all strive for?

[RJ_Daley]

Don't they say one of the most accurate long iron players of all time was "Pipeline" Moe Norman?  If that is so, was his swing near perfect?

Isn't the perfect golf swing the one that is practiced effectively, and incessantly, is repeatable in its form by that particular player, and the one that statistically results in the closest to the pin over a large sampling of time and tournaments... no matter what the stylistic and mechanical individualities of the activity?

[Garland Bayley]

8000 yards is too short. To get the equivalent of Venturi at Congressional, you have to have 8500 yards.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Simply stunning article witha guy who really gets the true meaning of coaching.
He understands that it is the blend of teaching and learning that creates the optimal results.
It is not just what he says but how that information is then translated by the student and applid by the student.
Sean has gone way beyond the noraml realm of teachers, he not only spouts off the research of Erickson, Sayed at all, but really understands it as well...brilliant article.

[Bob_Huntley]

I think that Cochrane and Dobbs is the definitive book on the swing but how do we account for Ed Furgol, Calvin Peete and of course windmill Eamon Darcy? To me the perfect swing belongs to Fred Couples, fluid and languid with power to spare.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

Didn't Trevino (or somebody else  ) say it best:  only God can hit a one iron?

Back in the day we all thought the driver was hardest to control, but modern design has made it the easiest club to hit consistently.  With hybrids, which even the top players use these days, what's the biggest test?  A four iron?

[Tom Kelly]

Didn't Trevino (or somebody else  ) say it best:  only God can hit a one iron?
With hybrids, which even the top players use these days, what's the biggest test?  A four iron?

That was my first thought too. It relates back to the Geoff Ogilvy article on another thread not so long ago where he was talking about how everyone on tour can hit the long, high and soft landing approach now which wasn't the case 20 years ago and that often helped separate the best from the rest back then.

Overall though it's a really interesting article, I would love to read more on the subject.

I think the mid-long irons are one of the main factors why Tiger has been so good over the years. Watching him hit long irons on the range next to other guys, he stands out by a mile. The ball flight control and distance control when he's on his game is astonishing. The only guy that comes close in terms of ball striking that I have seen personally is Adam Scott.

[Garland Bayley]

Didn't Trevino (or somebody else  ) say it best:  only God can hit a one iron?

Back in the day we all thought the driver was hardest to control, but modern design has made it the easiest club to hit consistently.  With hybrids, which even the top players use these days, what's the biggest test?  A four iron?

What do you mean we Kemo-sabe'? The driver is by far the hardest for me to control. Same with my 8 handicap playing partner, who regularly hits 2, or 3 iron off the tee.
Three iron, four iron, no problem.
With vanishing loft disease, some modern three irons are the same as old one irons.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

The Cochran and Dobbs certainly was at the time the gold standard.
But with the advent of improved force plate technology and the use of integrated 3d high speed film, some of their findings need updating.
The single biigest chnage has been the relative importance of the ground force in creation of power and that during impact the g force increase created by the ground/leg drive and this as the source of the majority of the power in the swing.
Modern swings have gone to lower limbs as the primary source of power, whcih was less evident 40/50 years ago.

[Bob_Huntley]

The Cochran and Dobbs certainly was at the time the gold standard.
But with the advent of improved force plate technology and the use of integrated 3d high speed film, some of their findings need updating.
The single biigest chnage has been the relative importance of the ground force in creation of power and that during impact the g force increase created by the ground/leg drive and this as the source of the majority of the power in the swing.
Modern swings have gone to lower limbs as the primary source of power, whcih was less evident 40/50 years ago.

Michael,

Go back fifty years and get some photos of Sam Snead, the squat was always part of his power.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

Didn't Trevino (or somebody else  ) say it best:  only God can hit a one iron?

Back in the day we all thought the driver was hardest to control, but modern design has made it the easiest club to hit consistently.  With hybrids, which even the top players use these days, what's the biggest test?  A four iron?

What do you mean we Kemo-sabe'? The driver is by far the hardest for me to control. Same with my 8 handicap playing partner, who regularly hits 2, or 3 iron off the tee.
Three iron, four iron, no problem.
With vanishing loft disease, some modern three irons are the same as old one irons.

It's been discussed and agreed here, by consensus at least, that modern design driver design has made it the easiest club to hit in the bag these days.

Some molly dookers do have a problem.   

[Garland Bayley]

Didn't Trevino (or somebody else  ) say it best:  only God can hit a one iron?

Back in the day we all thought the driver was hardest to control, but modern design has made it the easiest club to hit consistently.  With hybrids, which even the top players use these days, what's the biggest test?  A four iron?

What do you mean we Kemo-sabe'? The driver is by far the hardest for me to control. Same with my 8 handicap playing partner, who regularly hits 2, or 3 iron off the tee.
Three iron, four iron, no problem.
With vanishing loft disease, some modern three irons are the same as old one irons.

It's been discussed and agreed here, by consensus at least, that modern design driver design has made it the easiest club to hit in the bag these days.

Some molly dookers do have a problem.   

A very high percentage of people here are NOT average golfers. Many of these sticks claim the driver has become the easiest club to hit in the bag (I think their memory may be lacking ). Hardly a definitive result. The average guys I play with seldom find the fairway with their driver. I only use driver on 7 holes on my home course, and still get into lots of trouble with it.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

The Cochran and Dobbs certainly was at the time the gold standard.
But with the advent of improved force plate technology and the use of integrated 3d high speed film, some of their findings need updating.
The single biigest chnage has been the relative importance of the ground force in creation of power and that during impact the g force increase created by the ground/leg drive and this as the source of the majority of the power in the swing.
Modern swings have gone to lower limbs as the primary source of power, whcih was less evident 40/50 years ago.

Michael,

Go back fifty years and get some photos of Sam Snead, the squat was always part of his power.

Bob

Michael-

There is a lot of great new information out now based on new technology, there is no doubt. However there is also a lot of information that is being communicated as "new" when these idea's have been talked about and understood for many years.

"Low Point" and "Swing Direction" are two terms that are being used in a current method, and being taught as almost revolutionary ideas. In reality it's not.

Hogan wrote about all this in 5 Lessons.

Mr. Huntley brings up Snead and his famous "squat"-- Jim McLean has explained this as "body compression".

The idea of "lower limbs" being used more in the swing in the modern swing--you're right, it just started with Harry Vardon!

Check out the Venturi Analysis. Great frame by frame photo's of some of the greats--

Vardon, Barnes, Jones, Nelson, Hogan, Snead, Trevino, Palmer.

A lot of Golf pro's trying to complicate the game, and not for the betterment of the game.

There is a reason Ernest Jones lesson book was booked for weeks despite the fact he  taught indoors in the the middle of New York City....

[Bob_Huntley]

Shea.

Is there anything new in golf instruction that is not a regurgitiation of what has come before?

Bob

[Lou_Duran]

There is a reason Ernest Jones lesson book was booked for weeks despite the fact he  taught indoors in the the middle of New York City....

Population density and weather?

Bob,

Outside of science and technology, there is very little "new".  We were all young whippersnappers once, full of ourselves and convinced of our unique perspectives.  For most, life has a way of jolting us back into the reality that in a world of nearly 7 billion people, we are special to relative few- family, friends, some associates.

The best teacher I ever hand was Bobby Morris, a contemporary and friend of Ben Hogan.  He communicated in simple terms, working with the swing that was "natural" to you- the one you "brung".

Tiger apparently can handle the sophistication and detail of his current teacher.  I tried the whole swing approach for a couple of years with a local, well-known instructor.  After a couple thousand in lesson fees and countless hours working with teaching aids and drills, I went from a 0-2 to a 4-5+.  I still haven't recovered, though I am thinking more of what Bobby taught me in the early '80s, good grip, good aim, good posture, and use the big muscles (full shoulder turn keeping the hands out going back, initiate the downswing with the hips and legs).  Every once in a while, a shot comes off just like I remember.    

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Bob and M Shea,
i agree alot of old stuff is still very relevant, but what has defiantely changed second to tracman and 3d analysis is the quantative measures of that Snead Squat etc..and that has been emphasised by the likes of the good new breed of teachers.
Swing speeds as a whole in the new generation are faster, partially due to equipment but also the empahsis on big muscle group usage dominating the swing.
Wjilst I agree Hogan said nearly it all in 5 lessons, even well into the sevelties the majority of players were flipping the club through impact, trying to create speed.
You hardly see that anymore, it is all rotation of the trunk driven by the legs.
It may not be anything new to some degree just now we can evaluate the force locations better.

[Dave McCollum]

I read this article and took is as confirmation of an argument I’ve used in the 19th hole for years.  Tiger is the best player today because he is the best mid to long iron player in the game.  He hits 3 woods on long par 4’s and 5’s to get the ball in the fairway because he knows he can hit it close from over 200 yards.  I haven’t looked at the stats but I bet they will back up this observation.  He still has to make the putts, but closer is always better.

[Tom_Doak]

Broadie has created a similar way of measuring the contribution to scoring success of all the other strokes, too. Broadie and Foley both believe that the key differentiating factor between a great player and a good one is their prowess with long approach shots, from 150 to 250 yards. So that's where Foley and Rose spend most of their practice time.

As a conscientious objector to equipment technology, I spent many years without any of the newfangled clubs in my bag, but last summer I broke down and bought a new driver and 5-wood.

The modern 5-wood is just ridiculously easy to hit compared to anything that used to be in my 20-year-old club set.  The other day at Streamsong, playing second shots after my wife's tee shots, I hit the 5-wood from 200-230 yards out on the 4th, 8th, 12th and 17th holes [third shot on the 17th], and knocked all but the last comfortably onto the greens.

I was always a better than average long iron player, but never that good to consistently hit greens from 200+.  That has always been the mystique of Hogan's one-iron at Merion, or the one-iron that Nicklaus carried for years ... the ability to hit such a long club for accuracy was something that the other players were in awe of.  And, now that technology has leveled the playing field for the ability to hit driver, it's the long irons that separate the men from the boys -- when and if they ever have to hit any of them. 

[M. Shea Sweeney]

There is a reason Ernest Jones lesson book was booked for weeks despite the fact he  taught indoors in the the middle of New York City....

Population density and weather?
 

Mr. Duran-

You would think it would be easy to create a lucrative golf instruction business in NYC, but its not. Mainly in this day in age because you need to teach a lot of lessons to afford the rent. Ernest Jones taught a simple method and charged more than anyone in town.



"Swing speeds as a whole in the new generation are faster, partially due to equipment but also the empahsis on big muscle group usage dominating the swing.
Wjilst I agree Hogan said nearly it all in 5 lessons, even well into the sevelties the majority of players were flipping the club through impact, trying to create speed.
You hardly see that anymore, it is all rotation of the trunk driven by the legs.
It may not be anything new to some degree just now we can evaluate the force locations better"

Michael-

The problem with golf instruction is many teachers and players have no idea what is really going on in the golf swing. What we don't see from the 70's is the reverse C finish, however you will see a lot of hand action in the current top 50 players in the world. It's just fact.

That's not saying their body isn't working in unison or close to unison with the club, however hardly any swing like Zach Johnson. Zach Johnson has a ton of lower and upper center rotation because he plays with a super strong grip and clubface.

There is no doubt new technologies which measure body motion are speeding up the learning process and helping golfers. It's just quantifying motion that Claude Harmon could see with one eye.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

We will just have to agree to disagree on the hand action in the current top 50 players..most have very little.
There are  still some "handsy" players in there but not many..no harm no foul though..after all this site is all about opinions....