Matt Wolff - textbook swing

[Backsticks]

Matt Wolff swing. Very impressive results. Textbook swing - but what text book?
Further evidence that teaching pros really havent a clue what really makes a good swing, I think. This guy is in the best 0.00001% golfers in the world, yet for the teaching 'orthodoxy' he is doing it all wrong and really shouldnt be connecting with the ball at all, much less able to contend and beat the best in the world. Like Johnson, Furyk, DeChambeau, et all, who dont swing correctly, it shows that so much of teaching is really only dealing with the cosmetics of what the majority of good players look like, and that teachers really dont know what is at the core of hitting a golfball well and consistently. They are really little further on than were they preaching that you have to wear a Nike shirt in a particular shade of red, because thats what Tiger has worn every Sunday he has won a trophy.

 

[Dibby]

I imagine what you will find is that on a launch monitor like a trackman, Wolff's impact is not that different from most other longer hitting pros.

I've said it in other posts many times before, but golf is way behind other sports when it comes to acceptance of sports science. I expect (hope) that one day teaching will move to be based on problem-solving to achieve a result (impact conditions), rather than methods or positions, but right now that's a way off except for a handful of teaching pros out there.

 

[garyinderry]

https://www.instagram.com/tv/BzoWB1Gga14/?igshid=7k84a5xcso5b



Here is his coach explaining how he hits the ball so good and why does certain things.

Everyone has kinks in their own swing DNA. Its out how to work around them or get the most out of them that makes a player hit the ball well.

Think.

Westwood bent left arm
Jordan weak left hand and chicken wing
DJ super shut at top
Zach Johnson super strong grip

And the list goes on.

 

[garyinderry]

 

[bobmac]

Matt Wolff swing. Very impressive results. Textbook swing - but what text book?
Further evidence that teaching pros really havent a clue what really makes a good swing, I think. This guy is in the best 0.00001% golfers in the world, yet for the teaching 'orthodoxy' he is doing it all wrong and really shouldnt be connecting with the ball at all, much less able to contend and beat the best in the world. Like Johnson, Furyk, DeChambeau, et all, who dont swing correctly, it shows that so much of teaching is really only dealing with the cosmetics of what the majority of good players look like, and that teachers really dont know what is at the core of hitting a golfball well and consistently. They are really little further on than were they preaching that you have to wear a Nike shirt in a particular shade of red, because thats what Tiger has worn every Sunday he has won a trophy.

Wow.
PGA pros do not teach A SWING, they deal with the 5 laws and how they affect the impact position.
If the impact position is good in relation to the 5 laws, nothing else matters.

 

[Orikoru]

View attachment 27689

Never heard of those three but they do all look very similar.

I certainly agree that there is no conventional one-size-fits-all golf swing. I believe in finding your own natural golf swing and tweaking it to get the best out of that.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I believe in finding your own natural golf swing and tweaking it to get the best out of that.

...and do you think you’ll ever find one that works for you?

 

[Orikoru]

...and do you think you’ll ever find one that works for you?

Doing well at the moment thanks, yeah.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Doing well at the moment thanks, yeah.

Really?
Don’t you think that a pro could help get you down from a shot a hole?

 

[DeanoMK]

yet for the teaching 'orthodoxy' he is doing it all wrong and really shouldnt be connecting with the ball at all

The ball doesn't care where the club is in the backswing, the only thing that matters is the split seconds when the face hits the ball and his is in a world class position, that is all.

 

[Orikoru]

Really?
Don’t you think that a pro could help get you down from a shot a hole?

Been cut 3 shots in two weeks now so I'm fine for now thanks.

 

[Tiger man]

Just because he has a funky backswing does not mean all amateurs crap swings are now the right way to play he has an unorthodox backswing but quickly gets the downswing in a more orthodox position. Works for him, but much easier for 99% of people to get in that downswing position from a more textbook backswing.

 

[Yant]

Matt Wolff swing. Very impressive results. Textbook swing - but what text book?
Further evidence that teaching pros really havent a clue what really makes a good swing, I think. This guy is in the best 0.00001% golfers in the world, yet for the teaching 'orthodoxy' he is doing it all wrong and really shouldnt be connecting with the ball at all, much less able to contend and beat the best in the world. Like Johnson, Furyk, DeChambeau, et all, who dont swing correctly, it shows that so much of teaching is really only dealing with the cosmetics of what the majority of good players look like, and that teachers really dont know what is at the core of hitting a golfball well and consistently. They are really little further on than were they preaching that you have to wear a Nike shirt in a particular shade of red, because thats what Tiger has worn every Sunday he has won a trophy.

Which teaching pros are you referring to who are saying he is doing it all wrong? I think most teaching pros would tell you that, in the examples you have listed (johnson, Furyk, DeChambeau, Wolff) although the backswing may be unorthodox, eventually they will all return to a similar position on the way back to the ball.

 

[Backsticks]

The ball doesn't care where the club is in the backswing, the only thing that matters is the split seconds when the face hits the ball and his is in a world class position, that is all.

Exactly. And it can be done so many ways. Showing that pros and teachers, persevering with a teaching a particular image of a swing, that if executed, will deliver the club head on the right trajectory and speed and acceleration to the ball, really dont know what they are doing. They are just teaching the aping of the superficial aspects of some successful golfers. And are none the wise that the rest of us on what really is at the core of a successful swing.

 

[Backsticks]

Which teaching pros are you referring to who are saying he is doing it all wrong? I think most teaching pros would tell you that, in the examples you have listed (johnson, Furyk, DeChambeau, Wolff) although the backswing may be unorthodox, eventually they will all return to a similar position on the way back to the ball.

All of them. There is no mystery about what is required as the club hits the ball. Its how to achieve that, that is the challenge. A sprint coach does not coach his athlete by imparting wisdon like "the way to win your race is to break the finish line with your chest ahead of the others". Pros set out to teach how to get the club head on the right path and dynamic as it contacts the ball, not how it should be when its there. And promote a model, that Wolff, amongst others, totally contradicts, leaving their model or theory, baseless.

 

[Dibby]

All of them. There is no mystery about what is required as the club hits the ball. Its how to achieve that, that is the challenge. A sprint coach does not coach his athlete by imparting wisdon like "the way to win your race is to break the finish line with your chest ahead of the others". Pros set out to teach how to get the club head on the right path and dynamic as it contacts the ball, not how it should be when its there. And promote a model, that Wolff, amongst others, totally contradicts, leaving their model or theory, baseless.

Well that should at least be "all of them" -1 then, because my pro actually showed me a video of Wolff last year, with a suggestion that we will see more stuff like this in the future as teaching golf becomes more outcome-based than process-based.

 

[Grant85]

Matt Wolff swing. Very impressive results. Textbook swing - but what text book?
Further evidence that teaching pros really havent a clue what really makes a good swing, I think. This guy is in the best 0.00001% golfers in the world, yet for the teaching 'orthodoxy' he is doing it all wrong and really shouldnt be connecting with the ball at all, much less able to contend and beat the best in the world. Like Johnson, Furyk, DeChambeau, et all, who dont swing correctly, it shows that so much of teaching is really only dealing with the cosmetics of what the majority of good players look like, and that teachers really dont know what is at the core of hitting a golfball well and consistently. They are really little further on than were they preaching that you have to wear a Nike shirt in a particular shade of red, because thats what Tiger has worn every Sunday he has won a trophy.

I think this is a bit harsh on the teaching fraternity.

For a lot of teaching pros who are trying to get folks with limited ability and who don't practice much to improve their games, a teach by numbers approach is what works best.

My experience with golf coaches has been good and they have improved my game when I've had a series of lessons and followed their instruction.

However, if someone turned up at a local range, booked in for a 60 minute lesson and swung the club like Matt Wolff and sent it 300 yards plus up the middle... I imagine any experienced golf coach would take a minute to discuss what he was looking to achieve with his swing before suggesting making any changes.

In the case of Wolff, he is coached by George Gankas who has obviously supported his unorthodox swing and honed an elite golfer within a few years.
Dustin Johnson is coached by Butch Harmon and Claude Harmon - two great coaches who will no doubt adopt the teach by numbers approach if working with amateurs at their academy.
Bryson is also coached by a conventional golf coach (college guy I think) as well. i.e. he doesn't just do his own thing.

 

[Yant]

All of them. There is no mystery about what is required as the club hits the ball. Its how to achieve that, that is the challenge. A sprint coach does not coach his athlete by imparting wisdon like "the way to win your race is to break the finish line with your chest ahead of the others". Pros set out to teach how to get the club head on the right path and dynamic as it contacts the ball, not how it should be when its there. And promote a model, that Wolff, amongst others, totally contradicts, leaving their model or theory, baseless.

Sorry but i do not agree. All of them do not say he is doing it all wrong. Far from it.

Having said that, a pro isn't going to tutor you to swing it that way. Why would they?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Basically you need to swing in such a way that you hit the ball properly.

If there is a textbook swing, it's aim is to get you in positions, throughout the swing, which lead to the best impact position.
If you get out of position at one point you will need to change something else, at another point in the swing in order to get back into position, hence re-routing the swing on the down swing, or various different hand positions into impact, etc

SO a pro's job is to either get you to change the "flaw" in your swing, or, change something else, to get you back into position.

Wolff does certain things which are different meaning he has to alter other things to get it right. I certainly wouldn't say he does it wrong, but I wouldn't go to a pro who advocated doing it that way. There's too much that can wrong for someone who isn't hyper flexible, strong and supple.

 

[Backsticks]

Well that should at least be "all of them" -1 then, because my pro actually showed me a video of Wolff last year, with a suggestion that we will see more stuff like this in the future as teaching golf becomes more outcome-based than process-based.

Thats just playing with words though. The process determines the outcome. No one seems to understand the process to achieve the desired outcome in golf. A particular process is taught - sometimes with good results, sometimes without. And then completely wrong, processes, such as Wolff that contradict the general doctrine, produce results that are just as good or better than the orthodox. Which really does question the teaching.

I think this is a bit harsh on the teaching fraternity.
For a lot of teaching pros who are trying to get folks with limited ability and who don't practice much to improve their games, a teach by numbers approach is what works best.

I would agree with this. For the beginner, picking up a club in the early stages, some pointers are useful. But they are very quickly, in a matter of months if they put some time and thought into it, at the same level as the pro - he doesnt really know any better why he hits the ball well, and his student doesnt. Its at this point, that the professional golf teaching body fails, and only presents an illusion that they understand the golf swing.