[Mike_Young]

I was talking with the fat guy from Morning Drive last night and seems there is theory the torque and technigue using core and upper body vs. the classic ground up swing is grabbing much discussion.  Seems it's so hard on the body that one has to stay in the gym and even then will have a hard time keeping such a swing past about 35 years of age.  If a guy hones a swing that can't take him into his late 30's and early 40's then he will not have a chance at the records.  Nor will he be able to compete as a Tom Watson.  I think he's on to something....guys like Bubba who lift their heel and move their head will play with much less injury...

[JMEvensky]

Somewhat in the same vein--it sure seems that for a group of golfers who spend so much time in the gym, PGAT players spend a lot of time on the DL.

Maybe longevity isn't part of their game plans. If you can catch a hot hand for a few years,the money is such that any long term plan might not matter. Plus,how many 25 year olds can plan 20 minutes in the future,much less 20 years?

[Mike_Young]

JM,
I still think for most players on the tour the real money is in making 150 cuts during their time out there.  That is what it takes to fully vest them in the retirement program and there are guys out there we rarely if ever hear of who have over 20 million in the PGATour retirement account.  The swing is becoming so athletic that some of these guys have no more playing span than a baseball player.

[JMEvensky]

JM,
I still think for most players on the tour the real money is in making 150 cuts during their time out there.  That is what it takes to fully vest them in the retirement program and there are guys out there we rarely if ever hear of who have over 20 million in the PGATour retirement account.  The swing is becoming so athletic that some of these guys have no more playing span than a baseball player.

I know the PGAT has a retirement plan that would make an actuary faint.

But I wonder how many young guys try to grab the short money with little/no regard for the benefits of just hanging around.

Agree with your baseball player analogy. But with the number of guys trying to earn cards growing almost exponentially every year,they might end up more like NFL players.

[Mike_Young]

JM,
I still think for most players on the tour the real money is in making 150 cuts during their time out there.  That is what it takes to fully vest them in the retirement program and there are guys out there we rarely if ever hear of who have over 20 million in the PGATour retirement account.  The swing is becoming so athletic that some of these guys have no more playing span than a baseball player.

Agree with your baseball player analogy. But with the number of guys trying to earn cards growing almost exponentially every year,they might end up more like NFL players.

Well that would prove the theory....right?

[Paul Gray]

All of this is no doubt very true but why knock top sport people for trying to play to their absolute optimum? Isn't it better to see guys giving it their all to the very best they can be? Would you rather see an athlete have one year running 100 metres in 9.5 seconds or ten years running it in 10.5?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mike,

Interesting topic. Part of me wants to say that old-guy swings generated a lot of power, too, and therefore required a tremendous amount of "work" in the technical / physics sense. In other words, they put just as much pressure on their backs. Golfers throughout history have struggled with back pain so perhaps the "new" swings will tip a few more in that direction. But where's the evidence? Are we just forgetting the old-swing induced back problems?

For every Tiger there's Annika Sorenstam, Fred Couples, or Jay Haas. Oh, Jack Nicklaus, too, remember? Back in the middle of his career?

EDIT: just remembered another -- Ballesteros.

[Mike_Young]

Paul,
I'm not knocking anyone.  Sure it's fun to watch.  But it's just like any other sport.  If a pitcher throws so hard that he has two or three great years and throws out  his arm, will he be in the HOF? 
You ask:   Isn't it better to see guys giving it their all to the very best they can be? Would you rather see an athlete have one year running 100 metres in 9.5 seconds or ten years running it in 10.5?   That statement doesn't make sense to me because the 10 years of 10.5 doesn't set records.  The records of the past were set by being the best over time.  I could go as far as to say that watching a guy shoot 59 is a great round....watching a guys shoot 24 under is a great 72 hole tourney....watching a guy have a month of wining three tournaments is a great month....watching a guy win five or six tournaments in a year is a great year....all of these are great feats but none of them break the records of the past...it's not a knock...
And I'm not saying there have not always been back problems....I'm saying the amount of torque being created by some players does not allow a swing to function over a long period of time.  Torque is the problem....

[David_Tepper]

Mike Y. -

To what "records of the past" are you referring?

It seems to me professional golfers, as a group, are playing at a high/competitive level for longer than they used to. Part of it is due to the equipment available and part of it is knowing that, if they keep their games and bodies in shape, there is a pot of money to be won on the senior tour.

It is dangerous to make assumptions based on the careers and golf swings of just a few players.

DT

[Mike_Young]

Mike Y. -

To what "records of the past" are you referring?

It seems to me professional golfers, as a group, are playing at a high/competitive level for longer than they used to. Part of it is due to the equipment available and part of it is knowing that, if they keep their games and bodies in shape, there is a pot of money to be won on the senior tour.

It is dangerous to make assumptions based on the careers and golf swings of just a few players.

DT

JN record mainly....

[jeffwarne]

The "modern swing" is not the problem, depending of course what your interpretation of a "modern swing" is.
Being a wannabe Army ranger and worrying about how you look in a super tight shiny Nike shirt might be.

The reverse C of Nicklaus era put tremendous strain on many a back and led to MANY short careers-or an alteration of technique to prolong the career and/or improve ballstriking.
Players such as Bernhard Langer and eventually Tom Watson in fact worked away from that era swing (reverse C) to one involving less lateral leg drive to one more of covering the ball with the right shoulder, which I consider a modern swing. (even though Hogan and many others were using such a motion more than a half century ago)

Methods such as stack and tilt may well cause injury but the jury is still out on that one

[RJ_Daley]

When Louis Oosthuizen won The Open, the big guy and all the other talking heads on TGC, including Chamblee were saying it was one of the most pure golf swings that would last that they had seen.  Here is a good evaluation of his swing and back problem.  Is Louis's a 'modern golf swing' or a classic one?  Ask the big guy....  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4mwDPChxDM

[Jason Thurman]

Jeff Warne nailed it, and that's without even mentioning all the hip strain that came from the lateral motion in the more traditional swing. I'm not aware of a multiple major winner prior to 1980 who still has his original left hip.

Also, since when do the "records of the past" in golf matter? This isn't baseball. I don't think Hogan took a lot of criticism for failing to get to 11. Did anyone talk about the number 12 when Jack Nicklaus won at Canterbury? The number 18 only matters to anyone because Tiger told everybody it mattered to him and the media then jumped on board. Historically, records in golf are mostly arbitrary and so heavily influenced by era that they're basically irrelevant unless you're a TV station looking for ratings bolstered by mouth-breathers.

[BCrosby]

Another vote for Jeff's take. The move to the 'modern', more rotational swing was all about the back problems caused by the Grout/Nicklaus 'knee slide, lean behind the ball at impact' swing.

Hogan and Snead are the models for the 'modern' swing. Jim Hardy (Sean Foley and D. Ledbetter to a lesser extent) are explicit about that. I don't recall that either Hogan or Snead had physical problems caused by their swings.

I think the culprit is not swing mechanics, but weight lifting. People get stronger and add yardage, lift more, add even more yardage and the beat goes on...until at some point more muscle mass makes a player more susceptible to injury. The rotation in a golf swing is a delicate balance of forces. At some point building muscle mass and fine-tuning your body (a state, as my wife reminds me, that is for me a far off dream) becomes counterproductive, if not actually harmful.

Bob 

   

 

[Terry Lavin]

Superficial, if plausible, theory essentially based on the non-medical analysis of one player's recent medical travails. In other words, it's great grist for chat rooms and Morning Drive gabfests.

[Mike_Young]

OK, Jeff explains it better than I do but we are saying the same thing....the torque and speed of the modern player will not let him play as long and there will be more injuries....

[Terry Lavin]

Let me just gently say that Jack was never particularly fit. Had he taken better care of the Bear, he may have won even more.

[JMEvensky]

Let me just gently say that Jack was never particularly fit. Had he taken better care of the Bear, he may have won even more.

Maybe JN was fit for golf and it's TW, et al who aren't.

[Terry Lavin]

I don't think Jack and fitness belong in the same sentence. Fatness, maybe. But you guys may be onto something. I don't have a swollen, distended and hopeless belly. I'm just keeping it real for my "Reverse C" golf swing. Heck I get all the exercise I need as pallbearer for my buddies who work out.

Back later. I'm going after the meatballs on the stove.

[Jim Nugent]

Let me just gently say that Jack was never particularly fit. Had he taken better care of the Bear, he may have won even more.

Is that really true?  I thought Jack lost a great deal of weight, maybe in the early 1970s.  He also played fewer events each year than the other guys, which helped keep his mind and body fresher. 

In high school Jack was an outstanding athlete, a star in at least three sports IIRC. 

The story used to be that Jack didn't practice much as a pro.  I used to think 'whoa, imagine what he would have done if he'd simply played more.'  Now I wonder if maybe Jack didn't follow the approach that got the most out of his game for him. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

I think there has always been a tendency in golf to look at the present top player and copy what he is doing plus a bit more for good measure. If a player has a good set up and reasonably natural swing then there is no reason why he should not play a good long game well into his 50s. Yes, he might lose a few yards but going from 290 average to 280 is not going to hurt to much.

The working out in the gym really started with Faldo and he noticed after a season he had over done it and toned it down somewhat. What did Faldo in the end was mental not the body. Indeed, with the exception of Hogan, whose eyesight gave out on him I think it has been a mental rather bodily failing that has ended player's career in the majors.

The modern, super aggressive swing is IMO due to Mr. Woods and has led to the breakdown of his body to the point where he can no longer dominate as he used to but is still capable of winning on the PGA Tour. With the majors I think he has mental problems though and this will prevent him from catching Jack.

Jon

I suspect that we will see many players trying to keep fit from a flexibility and stamina point of view in the future and not power build.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()