You are not alone, Justin. Many students are under the same impression. In fact, I personally have been characterized by an Authorized Instructor on another site as one who teaches only the two Basic Patterns. This, of course, is his own limited view and not actual fact.
I thought I remember you saying that 12-1 and 12-2 were optimal patterns. Or are you just saying that those are the ideal starting points, and from there comes customization?
I guess another way of looking at it would be: if I achieve a pattern that is identical to 12-1, are there any modifications that would make that pattern more accurate/powerful/consistent?
I thought I remember you saying that 12-1 and 12-2 were optimal patterns. Or are you just saying that those are the ideal starting points, and from there comes customization?
I guess another way of looking at it would be: if I achieve a pattern that is identical to 12-1, are there any modifications that would make that pattern more accurate/powerful/consistent?
I have written in the past that Homer Kelley felt that these Patterns were indeed optimal and should be customized only as Power demands and Psychological Preferences dictate. I have much I want to share on this subject with our members -- including several direct quotes from Homer himself -- and will do so soon in Yoda's Corner.
Normally, of the three adjectives you used -- more powerful/accurate/consistent -- only the first (more powerful) differentiates the Master's Customized Pattern. And the key here is Maximum Power (6-B-1/2/3/4-A) and Maximum Trigger Delay (6-B-1/2/3/4-C). However, that Power addition comes with the price tag of your other two concerns: Accuracy and Consistency.
I remember the 2004 TOUR Championship in Atlanta. In a field of only thirty players, Tiger Woods finished second. But, in Driving Accuracy, he finished 30th. That's right. Dead last. Am I saying we should feel sorry for Tiger? Please.
I am saying only that there is a price tag for length.
I have written in the past that Homer Kelley felt that these Patterns were indeed optimal and were to be customized only as Power demands and Psychological Preferences dictated. I have much I want to share on this subject with our members -- including several direct quotes from Homer himself -- and will do so soon in Yoda's Corner.
Normally, of the three adjectives you used -- more powerful/accurate/consistent -- only the first (more powerful) differentiates the Master's Customized Pattern. And the key here is Maximum Power (6-B-1/2/3/4-A) and Maximum Trigger Delay (6-B-1/2/3/4-C). However, that Power addition comes with the price tag of your other two concerns: Accuracy and Consistency.
I remember the 2004 TOUR Championship in Atlanta. In a field of only thirty players, Tiger Woods finished second. But, in Driving Accuracy, he finished 30th. That's right. Dead last. Am I saying we should feel sorry for Tiger? Please.
I am saying only that there is a price tag for length.
What a price tag!!!
Yeah, a beautiful babe, millions of dollars and one of the top athletes in the world!!! Hmmmmmm...
It's Tiger's Par 5 record that seperates him from the rest of field.
DG
Last edited by Delaware Golf : 12-12-2005 at 07:29 AM.
Yeah, a beautiful babe, millions of dollars and one of the top athletes in the world!!! Hmmmmmm...
Even the great Tiger Woods is not exempt from the Power-Control trade-off. He would hit more fairways if he rev'ed back and hit it shorter. But he has made a conscious decision not to do so and, in fact, has built his Game around that decision. For example, the special grooves on his wedges cause the Ball to spin too much off the short grass of the fairway, but they enable him to control the Ball far better from his most usual landing area, the long grass of the rough.
And no one would argue that, at least in his case, the decision to forego greater accuracy in exchange for greater distance is wrong. As you have pointed out, the 'spoils of war' are evident.
I too have found that length off the tee offsets accuracy problems. The country club that I worked at this summer had 27 holes, with each combo of 18 totaling about 6700 yards from the back tees. Even on an off day with the driver, I found myself so far down the hole it wasn't a big problem. As long as you didn't crank it too deep into the trees there was usually an open line to the hole. I personally would rather be 110 yards out from the rough instead of 150 out from the fairway.
Especially when you're playing from "country club rough" (where I hear about it in the golf shop if Mr. and Mrs. Smith think it's too penal), the advantage is definitely to have power instead of perfect accuracy. Bomb it, find it, wedge it onto the green.
In light of watching the Hull/Blake video that just went up I'd like to revisit this "end vs top" discussion. Lynn and Jeff talk about the almost imperceptible difference in distance that can be achieved with a properly executed Acquired Motion versus a Total Motion swing. Seems like VJ talked about that in one of his vids as well.
If that's the case, is the added motion of going to End versus Top on the backswing for a Swinger advantageous?
Thanks,
CG
Last edited by cometgolfer : 10-10-2006 at 10:39 PM.
In light of watching the Hull/Blake video that just went up I'd like to revisit this "end vs top" discussion. Lynn and Jeff talk about the almost imperceptible difference in distance that can be achieved with a properly executed Basic Motion versus a Total Motion swing. Seems like VJ talked about that in one of his vids as well.
If that's the case, is the added motion of going to End versus Top on the backswing for a Swinger advantageous?
Thanks,
CG
I've been experimenting with this at the range after watching the videos. Applying the same lag pressure, the difference between my punch and when I go to the top is at most 1 club (depending on ball position and trajectory). For me, there is no discernable distance difference between end vs. top; if anything I hit it consistently purer, straighter, further and with better trajectory and sizzle when I stop at the top.
Linear Mode
