edteergolf

Just my opinion, but it would be hard to be very shallow with the amount of rear shoulder internal rotation you display. This seems to force you to lean back making it difficult to get to the ball or to get any pressure back to the lead side. Difficult to control the golf ball this way. Steep(not over) may not be wrong for you.

Hitting five from around the green. No other choice. Not to mention I would deserve the score after making a horrible decision at my second shot. That said, there is no way in hell that I'm hitting the second ball without calling it a provisional.

Except for driver and fairway woods, my fittings haven't changed in the last six years. When I get new clubs which means I have built them myself, I expect them to have uniform yardage gaps, predictable flight trajectory, predictable curvature, similar feels (swing), and gravy if they go longer & or straighter. I understand that they will feel different and if they fly as good or better I don't care what they feel or look like. How I test: I use a GCQuad to confirm dispersion, launch, distance gaps, & off distance performance. I also confirm lie angles with a marker. Once done I confirm their performance on the course and make any adjustments as needed. I also check my loft/lies 2-3 times per year. I have zero expectation that the clubs will make me play better. If I can control them and they are predictable, then the scoring is all on me.

I never said I lost distance. I said that is possible to be fit into a club that would maximize distance but compromise accuracy. The opposite would also be true. Quality fittings find the best mix of both but not the maximums of either.

We are not saying the same thing. I'm saying there is a setup that I can hit further than I do know but it would be less accurate. I have absolutely given up distance to be more accurate. Reaching maximum accuracy and maximum distance is not accomplished in fittings.

Poorly positioned clubs are one of the few reasons higher handicap golfers don't improve.

Not every fitting is to optimize distance. I can assure you that there is an equipment setup that would allow me to hit it further. My fitting is optimized for sufficient precision with enough distance.

I'm not so sure about that. Faster speed with a poor or mismatched pattern will not go well.

This is why that working a bit on speed also tends to correlate to improved accuracy. There is a point of diminishing return.

Counter movements. One segment continues back (torso & arms) while the lower body is moving forward (linear, rotations/torque, & vertical) creating stored and released energy.

You aren't in second grade, you can write a more meaningful rebuttal. Am I wrong?

Smart people have discovered this well before BD. He isn't the first person to ask questions.

This topic is the vary reason, why mid to high handicap golfers remain so. This stuff has been figured out all ready. I'm all for exploration and challenging the status quo but so much has been done already that most players would dramatically improve if they just stuck to a plan. Neither the plan or technique need to be all that correct to develop a pattern that can used to improve score.

He doesn't stop at all. His lower body is doing something during the so called pause. The eyes are deceiving.

He sets wrists, lift arms and rotates is a back swing. Players use three forces to develop speed, and if they don't use them well they need time which equates to a longer back swing. Go view a shot put and a Scottish Games Shot put and discover why the difference in distance produced.

However, if it worked it would be employed by very good golfers. Success and failure leave clues. That said, based on how far you need to hit it to play with your partners, it is possible it could work. Golf swings require dynamics to move the club with some speed. Measure rather than guess.

Decent book. Actually provides a path for improvement and it does not imply that improving is a quick fix. I throw in a few that at first glance aren't about golf but definitely apply. The Four Agreements - Don Miguel Ruiz The Obstacle is the Way - Ryan Holiday The Dichotomy of Leadership - Jocko Wilink

I hover everything. Swing speed goes slightly up and centered impact increases. It is less comfortable around the green and with the putter but comfort is just an excuse you use when you don't want to do something.

This is a great topic and agree with everything. I do want to make one point, players are in complete control of the time and 'pain' faced when making a swing change. Training the correct way as opposed to as the way we want, can and will greatly reduce the time/pain endured to make a change. Expectation management, the correct system and procedure to change, and player discipline all contribute to the experience of development. After providing a plan, I often hear, "That sounds so hard." Which is harder, enduring frustration and a sense of being lost or following a prescribed plan executed with persistence and perseverance? Furthermore, once you learn how to 'change' a player must always incorporate the system into their maintenance plan. We have all experienced assembling something for your home. How often are we plagued with horrible instructions that cause frustration, anger, and often damage to what we just bought. However, what a great experience it is to have organized packaging, crystal clear instructions, pictures, & online support! How often have we just followed the great plan or chose to go our own way because we know better? Success leaves clues. So does failure.

I am in now way picking on you or making any judgments, but your comments illuminate a couple of struggles so many players endure. One, compartmentalization of all parts of the game and giving life to inanimate objects. Saying I felt better about my long irons as apposed to, I hit/controlled my long irons well. You did the work, not the club. Second, riding the daily emotions of the game which is exhausting! This tells me that a player has the 'have it' or 'don't have it' syndrome. We need to recognize the ongoing journey that endures the the good and bad times equally well while continually moving the need toward our goals. This is thriving! The same is seen in successful business and relationships. A marriage isn't a bad marriage because of an argument any more than it is a great marriage due to a good day. Our attention needs to be on today while our vision needs to see the big picture. The ebbs and flows of golf are normal, predictable, and should be expected. We literally should have almost zero emotional response to the good days or the bad.

As a golfer: what do you want from an instructor or coach? What makes you say, I paid for and received exactly what was expected? What is missing that you wished was always included?

Eliminating variables that have no place and exploiting ones that do is a great strategy. This still doesn't solve a shot that you don't want to see or the magnitude of the miss. I believe my players have some bias built in that makes on shot easier than the other. Let's identify the root cause of the big or costly miss that also improves the desired shot. That effort should produce a predictable start line, shape, and distance with adequate precision for the task. You still have something to solve but it isn't the ability to play both ways. I ask my college team to have a stock shape, reduced shape, normal trajectory, sightly lower trajectory, & a head high trajectory. There are some distance requirements but they aren't relevant when controlling and overly curving golf ball.

Then why due a vast majority of professionals play a certain shape or a less than normal shape on all holes regardless of the layout of the hole?

What is your something to write home about? I've tamed my miss of a massive hook.

What does your 5* theory have to do with the amount of fairways you hit. In your original post, you said you had two good days of driving and one less than good. I took your statement to mean that you find it unacceptable to hit fewer fairways with a driver that was to improve the bell curve. I'm asking you to look at the 'consistency' a PGA Tour player achieves day to day, therefore the actual number of fairways is not relevant. They display a large range of volatility, therefore so should you. As an example, the same would hold true for scoring. Professional players have a season scoring range between 12-18 shots (I believe the average is 16 shots) during a given year. (65 low round & 83 high round) Therefore, if your low round is 85, your high round is likely between 97-103 or slightly higher since we are not as good as professional golfers. Recognizing patterns of the best players is precisely the reason some players are better than others and the same holds true at all levels of the game. Some are smarter about the game due to nature or nurture. If a player has poor expectations, they tend to get frustrated easily over the normal variability of the game. Want to guess whether the hardheaded or open minded players tend to be better? BTW, your 5* theory works in a sterile world, however, it doesn't really work in a practical sense. The reason is that great drivers on tour range between starting their golf ball 3* left or right of their target line and use curvature to maintain a predictable cone. On tour the cones are about 50 yards wide with equal balls left and right of a centered target. The players who aren't as good still average roughly 50 yards but have greater dispersion on the outliers. Most amateur golfers also have roughly a 50 yard wide cone but often display outliers that are further off line. That said, the reason why tour players are more successful is they know how to target or place that cone in play and amateurs do not. Amateurs tend to place only half of the cone in a receptive area and pros tend to place the entire cone in receptive area. Studying shotlink data provides clues how the best play and can be useful in helping amateur golfers of all levels become more successful at the game.