The Slot!

[nickough]

The Slot!

I have had a very interesting few days 'discussing' this concept with Mark Crossfield on Youtube, sadly we disagree significantly!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQwtTdAcKsU&list=UUBMx__Jflm6xQwP6LdhHS7A

Please have a watch and feel free to discuss.

I would love to hear other people's views.

Thanks golfing world

 

[Keeno]

I like his video's and have to say this one makes sense to me. He seems to be a very "there's more than one way to skin a cat" kind of teacher.

Its about getting the club on the ball and being able to repeat it so you know your shot shape.

 

[Hunka Turf]

I like his video's and have to say this one makes sense to me. He seems to be a very "there's more than one way to skin a cat" kind of teacher.

Its about getting the club on the ball and being able to repeat it so you know your shot shape.

I agree.

Is there potentially a middle ground between the OP and crossfield? I.e. Don't seek to attain 'the slot', just sort your numbers out on a launch monitor and the slot will take care of itself?!

 

[duncan mackie]

The Slot!

I have had a very interesting few days 'discussing' this concept with Mark Crossfield on Youtube, sadly we disagree significantly!!

I would love to hear other people's views.

having sadly spent time reading and watching I can only see that you are referencing a specific position (let's call it at impact) and Mark's arguing that it's silly to consider a single path (slot) to that position for all golfers because of dynamic swing variations let alone the fact that there are even small differences in individuals positions too!

I conclude that calling it a slot is probably the biggest problem in the discussion.

 

[apj0524]

Having watch this I can see his point, and in my humble opinion each person will tend to have a different Slot to bring the Club head to impact, my I am guessing is slightly in to out as I hit a draw, but those that hit a fade will be out to in, or am i missing the point?

 

[Hacker Khan]

I watched this video a couple of days ago and thought it very interesting. I kind of agree with Mark in that as long as you are getting a repeatable good contact with the ball with a straight face then there's probably not too much need to worry about getting it in the slot.

Yes, if you have several hours to practice a day, and also if not having it in the slot is the main cause of your bad golf, then fair enough. But for the average amateur isn't it just one more thing to worry about?

 

[CMAC]

having sadly spent time reading and watching I can only see that you are referencing a specific position (let's call it at impact) and Mark's arguing that it's silly to consider a single path (slot) to that position for all golfers because of dynamic swing variations let alone the fact that there are even small differences in individuals positions too!

I conclude that calling it a slot is probably the biggest problem in the discussion.

agreed, it's more akin to a path

 

[el marko]

I'd say you're making yourself look like a right idiot.

Youre arguing with possibly the biggest ego in golf, about a ridiculous invented term that no one really cares about.

 

[Foxholer]

I've been around quite a few times with a Pro mate (yes P148) and noticed he set up differently for pretty much every shot - even several Drives.

He stated that he hardly ever hits the same shot twice in a round - except a few Drives - and rarely has the same grip, selecting it for the required shot also.

I've noticed the same thing with other Pros I've watched or been close to.

So, no 'slot' would be my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 18121]

I'd say you're making yourself look like a right idiot.

Youre arguing with possibly the biggest ego in golf, about a ridiculous invented term that no one really cares about.

yep.

 

[SocketRocket]

You will have the best chance of playing good golf if the club swings on plane approaching the ball on an inside path. If this is called the 'Slot' then so be it.

In my opinion of course.

 

[ScienceBoy]

With Mark on this one, its old terminology for a different time.

We have much better ways of explaining the same feeling and demonstrating it too!

IMO the foundation isn't changing, its just the way we see and approach it.

Stop calling it a slot and come into the modern age!

 

[the_coach]

everyone's swing with have a 'goldilocks' range of motion that will have to fall into this, their own particular goldilocks area of 3d space the clubhead is moved around in to be able to consistently find good impact conditions.

everyone's will be slightly different, but within this range of movement in their own area of 3d space, there are commonalties & rules of physics in all the various positions & angles that are formed within their motion that have to complied with in a timed sequence in order to be able to consistently arrive at those good impact conditions.

there has to be a similarities given our anatomy hasn't changed over much, we still stand to the side of the ball which is either on the ground or on a tee & the angles that the clubs have been made to sit at haven't in essence changed at all much over the last 500 years either.

 

[sev112]

Yep he's right, there cannot be one single "slot"

What I can say though, is that when I'm flushing the ball really well, it feels like the club shaft has been in a slot as it approached the ball. . He he he

 

[nickough]

Very interesting responses - thanks!

My gripe with Mark was the fact that he dismissed 'the slot' and missed an opportunty to talk about (optimal) shaft plane and give a positive input toward a 'pro like' swing through shaft/hand plane. He dismissed 'the slot' (as a concept) completely - 'there isn't a slot, there is no slot, there...is...NO...slot' Mmmmm? Then he gave wholly poor images of 'other' slots - that were wrong.

Every consistent Tour Pro hits the 'slot' just before impact - the moment where the shaft plane is in line (or very close!) to the right forearm. This position is the Holy Grail of impact - in terms of SWING PLANE. Swing plane is where SO many amateurs fail in the swing and the shaft is too steep.
Mark 'mimics' a steep (wrong!) shaft plane as an image of Monty!! Wrong! Monty's 'slot' is nothing like that!

Compare his input with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E6Mu6Y556s

Does anyone feel more informed about what the slot is with this input? And if they do....where does that put Marks input??

This is what he should have referenced. He should have given cognisance to the presence of the term ' the slot' and used it to back up good SWING PLANE.

Just to clarify, I didn't say 'that different players don't have different slots'. 85% of players have the over the top 'slot' that Mark intimated Monty has. Mark didn't reference the 'optimal slot' or 'plane' for consistent striking - as Jim does. He just denied it exists 3 times. But the slot does exist as a reference to optimal swing plane prior to impact!

Understandably, this is quite an advanced concept - because it can only be related through imagery, but, with all the best intentions and no offence to any members, to properly understand this concept you have to be aware of how your own swing looks from the 'down the target line' view - i.e. film yourself and then analyse it to give you an idea of where your shaft plane is. Not how you 'feel' you are striking the ball.
Only with this knowledge can you start to see how close or how far away your positions are from the pros. Is it steep as Jim shows (or Mark tries to have you believe Monty's is!).

Further analysis of this 'slot' position of the Pro swings shows that they all achieve the optimal slot (as Jim Maclean shows - regardless of loop in, loop out or one plane swing!) just before impact. The shaft PLANE remains the same regardless of whether they are playing a fade or a draw!



Please add more comments, but DO watch Jim McLean's video to help 'explain' what I expected of Mark in his vid.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

He could have stopped that video after saying...

"I don't know, there isn't a slot, there's no slot, there is no slot".

There really isn't anything else to say on the matter

 

[Hacker Khan]

everyone's swing with have a 'goldilocks' range of motion that will have to fall into this, their own particular goldilocks area of 3d space the clubhead is moved around in to be able to consistently find good impact conditions.

everyone's will be slightly different, but within this range of movement in their own area of 3d space, there are commonalties & rules of physics in all the various positions & angles that are formed within their motion that have to complied with in a timed sequence in order to be able to consistently arrive at those good impact conditions.

there has to be a similarities given our anatomy hasn't changed over much, we still stand to the side of the ball which is either on the ground or on a tee & the angles that the clubs have been made to sit at haven't in essence changed at all much over the last 500 years either.

Jeez, not another swing thought

 

[nickough]

With Mark on this one, its old terminology for a different time.

We have much better ways of explaining the same feeling and demonstrating it too!

IMO the foundation isn't changing, its just the way we see and approach it.

Stop calling it a slot and come into the modern age!

The principles of good swing plane haven't changed since Old Tom and Hogan! All the launch monitors in the world can't change that.

I've never defended the name The Slot - it's a US term and it sounds sh##t - however, I can't watch a PGA Pro give such a dismissive answer to such an important concept!
If the Golf Guru was more like Jim Mclean, he may have 20 world wide Golf Academies and have the title 'coach to multiple major winners' on his CV.

 

[Hunka Turf]

Nick if you lined up 100 teaching pros you'd probably get 100 different definitions of 'the slot'.

Can I ask why this is an issue you feel so strongly about?

 

[Hacker Khan]

The principles of good swing plane haven't changed since Old Tom and Hogan! All the launch monitors in the world can't change that.

I've never defended the name The Slot - it's a US term and it sounds sh##t - however, I can't watch a PGA Pro give such a dismissive answer to such an important concept!
If the Golf Guru was more like Jim Mclean, he may have 20 world wide Golf Academies and have the title 'coach to multiple major winners' on his CV.

Perhaps that's the point. Mark Crossfield in his videos is trying to help amateurs enjoy their game and do the best with their swing, not teach them to be multiple major winners by ensuring your swing hits all the correct positions. As in the real world most amateurs will not be bale to do that.