The DEFINITIVE S&T video...........

[JustOne]

Hobbit, I'd like to know... if you had to pay for your son to have golf lessons would you take him to (and part with your hard earned cash) the pro who teaches some wobbly looking swing and indeed wants him to swing the club up vertically like Furyk?

 

[Hobbit]

There's some irony in that if you consider that you just wrote 3 paragraphs slating a swing option. S&T is a swing option. Because the golf swing isn't perfect does S&T become a non-viable option worth constant dismissal? Yes we could all swing like Furyk but then golf WOULD be a game of perfect as we'd have no choice. A perfect game is what has been taught for 50yrs as there really weren't any other choices available we all basically got taught (indeed brainwashed?) the one way, but now we DO have other swing styles available surely that fits with your concept, perfectly.

I'm not quite sure where in 3 paragraphs, or previous posts, I've slated S&T as an option. What I have said is that it isn't the only option. The irony is I recommended S&T to a guy on another forum last night because he has too much lateral movement. I like the way S&T quietens the lower body and see it as an ideal option for someone who dances a jig on their backswing. I think you've missed my point entirely in that i'm a proponent of whatever produces the right results... "now we do have other swing styles available surely that fits with your concept, perfectly." It would appear we do actually agree...

Would I take my son to a pro that teaches Jim Furyk's swing? As he's already a pro with a fairly full teaching diary I don't think he needs my help. And, again, I think you've missed my point about Furyk's swing, my point being it doesn't have to conform to a perfect anything providing the results are what the individual wants, i.e. a low score.

"There's hearing and there's listening," and maybe you need to reread my previous posts and "listen" to what's in them. I've never slated S&T, only suggested time and again that S&T isn't the only option. And in para 3 I do list S&T as an option.

"There's none so blind as those who will not see."

 

[JustOne]

Maybe I'm just not seeing/understanding your reference to Furyk's swing Hobbit, or the reference to the perfect swing. I know there's more than one way to skin a cat but the other options are more messy and get blood all over the sink.

I'd still like to know (and let's pretend for a moment that your son IS looking for a golf coach ) whether you'd take your son to a golf pro who taught a swing that looked like a box of frogs?

 

[Hobbit]

Maybe I'm just not seeing/understanding your reference to Furyk's swing Hobbit, or the reference to the perfect swing. I know there's more than one way to skin a cat but the other options are more messy and get blood all over the sink.

I'd still like to know (and let's pretend for a moment that your son IS looking for a golf coach ) whether you'd take your son to a golf pro who taught a swing that looked like a box of frogs?

I think where we fundamentally disagree is I don't think the other swings are messy and involve blood all over the sink. Look at all the different pro's picking up £millions with the various swings that are out there. The mere fact they are consistently picking up money is a good indication that their swing produces the goods. Furyk is an extreme that proves the point that there is "more than one way to skin a cat." Is there a perfect swing out there? I don't think there is but there are a few swings that consistently produce the goods.

Would I take my son to a coach that taught a Furyk-esque swing, even knowing that its possible to be a multi-millionaire off it? No, definitely not. Its too quirky and has too many moving parts for me to trust it. It requires exceptionally good timing to get all those moving parts in the right place at the right time. Having the timing/tempo is a little different than having the swing. Compare Nick Price's blur to Ernie Els lazy swing... anyway, timing and tempo is for another thread on another day.