Whatever happened to Natural Golf?
Duffy McShanksalot
ever see them anymore. Maybe I'm not watching at the right time.
I don't use the Natural Golf swing.
I'm curious. Does anybody out there use their swing? Are there any touring
professionals that use it?
Eric Strulowitz
"Duffy McShanksalot" <boblik...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ckxya.19768$%_3.86...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
You are right. They seem to be much more low profile these days. I am on
their mailing list and get frequent updates about their schools and
equipment. But, I sense they are probably not doing real well. I am sure
that there are some golfers out there who have had some success with this
technique, but it has failed to meet the "hype" that was presented to us in
the infomercials.
Eric
>
>
Jack
"Eric Strulowitz" <maers...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ktxya.295$bO6.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
A new Natural Golf Infomercial is on the TGC at this very instant. 4:30
PM - 5 PM CDST.
I expect it will air on TGC for several weeks hand running.... just like all
the other miracle swing cures and gadgets. Like all quick fixes, there may
be some who actually benefit from it, but in general I don't think NG ever
quite caught on. Maybe if some tour players would embrace it, it would get
some validity and catch on. Until then, it will simply be a novelty
alternative.
C. Key
Golf Week. The article mentioned a couple of tour pros that use it. One of
them is Steve Elkington who is a "certified" instructor. I forget who the
other one was, but he was in the top 125 on tour.
"Duffy McShanksalot" <boblik...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ckxya.19768$%_3.86...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
C. Key
Golfing Machine.
"C. Key" <cq...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bae9ju$s70cf$1...@ID-142320.news.dfncis.de...
Eric Strulowitz
been
> Golf Week. The article mentioned a couple of tour pros that use it. One
of
> them is Steve Elkington who is a "certified" instructor. I forget who the
> other one was, but he was in the top 125 on tour.
>
>
organization. To my knowledge he has no association with the NG folks.
The only name Tour pro associated with NG to my knowledge is Sandy Lyle.
Unfortunately, using Natural Golf did not help him regain the top stature
he once held
Eric
Eric
Boyd Beattie
>
> I'm curious. Does anybody out there use their swing? Are there any touring
> professionals that use it?
>
>
Sandy Lyle.
--
Regards,
J. B. Beattie
The IT Shop
mailto:mail...@the-it-shop.co.uk
http://the-laptop-shop.co.uk
Michael Simmons-Smith
hot, hot chick - Christy Sweet, is that her name? Yow!
Neal Beasley
>I'm curious. Does anybody out there use their swing? Are there any touring
>professionals that use it?
>
>
There was a guy playing in the group in front of me last week that
used the NG swing. First NG swinger that I have ever seen, so I
watched him from a distance. He looked great taking practice
swings, but he topped his tee shot with driver on each of the first
3 holes. The 4th was a par 3. He at least made contact, but I
couldn't see the green and don't know what the result was. I didn't
watch him anymore after that, but it was an ugly start.
Neal B.
Richmond, VA
Dave Clary
<boblik...@msn.com> wrote:
>I used to see their infomercials every other half hour on TGC. I rarely
>ever see them anymore. Maybe I'm not watching at the right time.
They got a new one featuring Pat Summerall and Mike Ditka. I watched
parts of it while channel surfing the other day. Great endorsements
from Ron Jaworski and Ricky Williams (well known golfers, eh?). Sandy
Lyle does make an appearance in it as well.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary
Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org
RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd
jeffc
"Duffy McShanksalot" <boblik...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ckxya.19768$%_3.86...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Interestingly, I just saw a pro golfer on the AJ Golf infomercial wearing a
Natural Golf shirt! Kind of strange, I thought.
Sparky
On 20-May-2003, "Duffy McShanksalot" <boblik...@msn.com> wrote:
> I don't use the Natural Golf swing.
>
> I'm curious. Does anybody out there use their swing? Are there any
> touring
> professionals that use it?
When I took the P.A.T. one of the two people I was paired with used the
N.G. swing. He thinned a lot of shots. Needless to say he didn't pass...
me
Davidleealford
method of Moe Norman. I believe many NGolfers use the right arm for a primary
power source whereas I believe MN primarily used the left (I have him on video
saying as much). In another interview Moe talks primarily about using the right
as a hammer.
So here we have one of the all time great ball strikers, and no one knows what
the hell he did. Want to know why the golf swing is an eternal mystery? Look no
farther.
David A.
Tim
Duffy McShanksalot wrote:
> I used to see their infomercials every other half hour on TGC. I rarely
> ever see them anymore. Maybe I'm not watching at the right time.
>
> I don't use the Natural Golf swing.
That's good.
>
> I'm curious. Does anybody out there use their swing?
Hacks.
Are there any touring
> professionals that use it?
Hell no.
tim
Ben Robertson
I hate to admit it, but I once got suckered into ordering the package.
When it arrived, I found that the videos consisted mostly a lot of
talk about how great the NG swing was and how much difference it would
make in your game, with a bit of instruction on the basics. Also a
little book, a fancy package, a Leroy Neiman picture, and a
subscription to Natural Golf magazine (the damn magazines are still
coming!).
My impression of the whole thing was that it was an attempt to sucker
you into ordering more NG stuff, or enrolling into one of the NG
schools. PLUS you just HAVE to have special clubs designed especially
for the NG swing.
All in all, a major rip-off, IMHO.
Jack
It's kind of like a "bait and switch" scam. They get you to buy their
package, which is really just a commercial for one of their schools and
their "special clubs". If NG was so good, the pros would be picking up on
the idea. But you notice.... THEY ARE NOT!
Plus, it's not even that much like the way Moe Norman swings, and that's who
it's supposed to be modeled after. Definitely, NG is nothing but a come-on
to the poor struggling hackers that are looking to buy a golf swing. And to
that end, I guess it is successful---- not to the hackers, but good for
those that are selling the package.
Seems a good golf swing still requires a lot of hard work and the
application of tried and true basic fundamentals. (Don't seem to be any
shortcuts in this game)
"Ben Robertson" <ben.ro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:54983449.03052...@posting.google.com...
Dave Clary
<slic...@AVOIDSPAMpeople.com> wrote:
>their "special clubs". If NG was so good, the pros would be picking up on
>the idea. But you notice.... THEY ARE NOT!
Whether you like NG or not, that is a bogus argument. The NG claim is
that the multiple axis swing is difficult and harder to learn to do
well. The pros are the best in the world--they are the ones that have
learned to do it well and do it for a living. They don't need to find
another way. Don't get me wrong--this is not an endorsement for NG,
but the fact that the pros don't use it doesn't mean much to the
weekend hacker just trying to find the fairway.
>
>Plus, it's not even that much like the way Moe Norman swings, and that's who
>it's supposed to be modeled after.
That appears to be a fact. If you go to www.scigolf.com and read up
on Scott Hazeldine (or Hazeltine), he goes into some depth on how the
swing taught by NG is NOT what Norman used in his prime.
Davidleealford
on Scott Hazeldine (or Hazeltine), he goes into some depth on how the
swing taught by NG is NOT what Norman used in his prime.
>>
No he doesn't.
Give me 10 minutes with Moe and I'll get to the bottom of everything. The
problem is most interviewers don't know what to ask and are chicken sh*t to ask
tough follow up questions to clarify vague answers.
At anyrate, Moe has a million dollar downswing and Scott Hazeldine isn't even
close to Moe there.
This fall, I may go looking for Moe.
David A.
David Sneddon
Then you will have to look around Kitchener, ON. to find him. He hangs
out at a couple of area golf clubs.
Since, hopefully, your arm and back will be better by then, fancy a
match??? I'm sure Pat Inglis and I could give you a game.
--
David
===========================================
Hi-Tech Turf - Synthetic Turf Applications
RSG Roll Call
http://rec-sport-golf.com/members?rollcall=sneddond
email: dsneddon AT cogeco DOT ca
===========================================
Puttster
"Dave Clary" <dcl...@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ak0ocv094rg8hhlpf...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2003 19:21:01 GMT, "Jack"
> <slic...@AVOIDSPAMpeople.com> wrote:
>
> >their "special clubs". If NG was so good, the pros would be picking up
on
> >the idea. But you notice.... THEY ARE NOT!
>
> Whether you like NG or not, that is a bogus argument. The NG claim is
> that the multiple axis swing is difficult and harder to learn to do
> well. The pros are the best in the world--they are the ones that have
> learned to do it well and do it for a living. They don't need to find
> another way. Don't get me wrong--this is not an endorsement for NG,
> but the fact that the pros don't use it doesn't mean much to the
> weekend hacker just trying to find the fairway.
Agreed.
By that logic if you have been trying to copy Tiger's swing for years and
still can't break 90 you should assume Tiger's swing sucks.
Dave Clary
wrote:
><< That appears to be a fact. If you go to www.scigolf.com and read up
>on Scott Hazeldine (or Hazeltine), he goes into some depth on how the
>swing taught by NG is NOT what Norman used in his prime.
> >>
>
>No he doesn't.
Yes he does-did you even bother going to the site?
>
>Give me 10 minutes with Moe and I'll get to the bottom of everything. The
>problem is most interviewers don't know what to ask and are chicken sh*t to ask
>tough follow up questions to clarify vague answers.
Yeah, right!
>
>At anyrate, Moe has a million dollar downswing and Scott Hazeldine isn't even
>close to Moe there.
You have totally missed the point of my post. Hazeltine says he had a
great swing when he was setting course records and playing great golf.
He has animations taken from films that show it wasn't the swing he
uses now. Hazeltine teaches a swing that's closer to old Moe than
what NG teaches. You can disagree with everything he says but your
initial "no he doesn't" is bullshit.
Davidleealford
>on Scott Hazeldine (or Hazeltine), he goes into some depth on how the
>swing taught by NG is NOT what Norman used in his prime.
> >>
>
>No he doesn't.
Yes he does-did you even bother going to the site?
Yes. I saw a video clip of him and MN, not much else.
I don't see any details on how MN's swing is not what is taught by NG.
>
>Give me 10 minutes with Moe and I'll get to the bottom of everything. The
>problem is most interviewers don't know what to ask and are chicken sh*t to
ask
>tough follow up questions to clarify vague answers.
Yeah, right!
Yes, right! I just need the answers to several questions.
David A.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Davidleealford
even
> close to Moe there.
>
> This fall, I may go looking for Moe.
>
> David A.
Then you will have to look around Kitchener, ON. to find him. He hangs
out at a couple of area golf clubs.
Since, hopefully, your arm and back will be better by then, fancy a
match??? I'm sure Pat Inglis and I could give you a game.>>
I don't play anymore, but I'd love to hit balls for Moe if I am healthy.
However, that's not how I'd approach him and I would consider it rude to come
on like a gunslinger. I'd like to interview him for posterity.
Here you have one of the most accurate ball strikers and no one seems to know
what he did. Why? Because people don't know how to ask questions and/or don't
know what questions to ask. I shouldn't even get started on this, it really is
disturbing that we don't know exactly what he did much beyond his grip and
setup. I've read a lot about what Moe is supposed to have done - and a lot of
it is contradictory. I don't think we really know.
If I am in Vermont visiting my brother, I may come up and try to find Moe.
David A.
=
David Sneddon
> I don't play anymore, but I'd love to hit balls for Moe if I am healthy.
> However, that's not how I'd approach him and I would consider it rude to come
> on like a gunslinger. I'd like to interview him for posterity.
Moe is a pretty shy character, I seriously doubt if he would watch you
hit balls in a demonstration, but you never know. Probably run away if
you tried to interview him too - he doesn't like strangers.
> Here you have one of the most accurate ball strikers and no one seems to know
> what he did. Why? Because people don't know how to ask questions and/or don't
> know what questions to ask. I shouldn't even get started on this, it really is
> disturbing that we don't know exactly what he did much beyond his grip and
> setup. I've read a lot about what Moe is supposed to have done - and a lot of
> it is contradictory. I don't think we really know.
>
> If I am in Vermont visiting my brother, I may come up and try to find Moe.
Some of the guys in the Kitchener/Waterloo area run into him at a couple
of clubs up that way - you'll have more luck tracking him down in that area.
Jack
> <slic...@AVOIDSPAMpeople.com> wrote:
>
> >their "special clubs". If NG was so good, the pros would be picking up
on
> >the idea. But you notice.... THEY ARE NOT!
>
> Whether you like NG or not, that is a bogus argument.
<<<stuff snipped>>>
Well, I still think it IS a reasonable argument. If NG was that good for
amateur, struggling hackers, it would have to exhibit some merits that would
appeal to better players (and pros) as well. You don't get one without the
other. A swing method that supposedly is easier to implement, maintain and
produces longer straighter shot patterns would NOT be overlooked by those
who are trying to make a living at the game (or are trying to migrate from
low single-digits HC to zero or plus).
Real technology and innovative concepts cannot hide from the rationale golf
community, and only be seen by the gullible.
Davidleealford
Moe is a pretty shy character, I seriously doubt if he would watch you
hit balls in a demonstration, but you never know. Probably run away if
you tried to interview him too - he doesn't like strangers. >>
I know. I certainly would NOT approach him directly; it would have to be thru
an intermediary.
David A.
Dave Clary
<slic...@AVOIDSPAMpeople.com> wrote:
>
>
>Well, I still think it IS a reasonable argument. If NG was that good for
>amateur, struggling hackers, it would have to exhibit some merits that would
>appeal to better players (and pros) as well. You don't get one without the
>other. A swing method that supposedly is easier to implement, maintain and
>produces longer straighter shot patterns would NOT be overlooked by those
>who are trying to make a living at the game (or are trying to migrate from
>low single-digits HC to zero or plus).
I still disagree but I'm too far from my Jesuit-taught logic course to
point out the fallacy of your reasoning. :-)
georgeb
people that play this method as well. I play with about 10 of them on
a regular basis and 2 of these guys play to a single digit handicap.
One of these guys is even the club champion of his golf course and
qualifies for regional tournaments quite frequently. I personally
play a 16 handicap, have been playing for about 2 years and making
very good progress. We also have some people on our group that are
high handicappers and are struggling with the game, but you will find
that also to be true for "conventional" golf.
Relating to your comment about Pro's playing Natural Golf, you are
correct that most don't. If you are a pro on the PGA Tour, why on
earth would you want to change a swing you've been using for most
likely a good portion of your life to start all over again with a new
method? Doens't make much sense does it. Does this mean the method
doesn't work? Of course not. The method is described as an easier
way to play golf and for those of use using it...it surely is.
You are correct that their are no short cuts on the game. Everyone I
know that plays NG struggled with it at one point or another (after
all, it is golf )so I do think people should NOT be given the
impression that it is a miracle swing. You have to work hard at it
just like a conventional swing if you want to be good. The one thing
I can tell you is that it is an easier swing to maintain after you
learn it. At least it was for me.
"Jack" <slic...@AVOIDSPAMpeople.com> wrote in message news:<xkQya.215300$pa5.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Davidleealford
> application of tried and true basic fundamentals. (Don't seem to be any
> shortcuts in this game)
> >>
100% accurate knowledge is the shortcut. I feel so strongly about this I will
offer this thought experiment: if I knew what Moe knows about his swing, I bet
using his swing model I could hit the ball nearly as good as him not within 10
years, not within 10 months, but within 10 minutes. Ditto for others...not
everyone, but I think it is all "accessible".
I'm sorry, I just don't think Moe Norman is a savant or a genius, as so many
people like to surrender to. I think he worked out a very specific formula and
the formula works.
Please read this closely: I give him full credit for exactly that, and it's not
easy because most golf swing systems are seriously flawed. 99% of stuff doesn't
work that well.
But I don't think Moe is a genius, and I doubt he is that much stronger or more
coordinated than many thousands of duffers.
Bottom line, specific working knowledge is the shortcut. Of course, you have to
add a lot of hard work, to win the tournaments he has, etc. etc. but to hit the
ball as well, it potentially could happen very quick.
David A.
Davidleealford
would blame the so called "knowledge".
David A.
Troy
touted by golf professionals. After I injured my wirst playing golf, one of
the first things I did was to go to a golf pro. I had never seen a pro
before, but had read a lot of golf books and tried to emulate what I saw as
a traditional golf swing. I was playing off 18 at the time and would have
been a lot better if I had practiced my short game, which was terrible.
After seeing my first golf pro, he taught me a "new age" golf swing, which
turned me into an extremely mechanical wreck on the golf course. Numerous
lessons and literally thousands of golf balls later, my swing was the worst
it had been. When I joined a new club, I went to see a respected pro who
taught a more traditional golf swing. After two lessons and about three
trips to the driving range, I actually felt like I was starting to get a
real golf swing again. He left the course shortly after and I was then
forced to go see his replacement, who then told me to forget everything I
had been taught so I could learn the "new age" golf swing (again). After
five lessons with him (and lots of golf balls hit) I am back where I stared
again. I got annoyed on the course over the weekend and tried to revert to
the swing the "traditional" pro had taught me. I immediately hit my best
shots of the day.
I have taken the swing motions he taught me back to the range and am
suddenly feeling confident again.
Wonder why I am starting to hate the "new age" golf teachers???
Troy
"Davidleealford" <davidle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030523013516...@mb-m26.aol.com...
georgeb
I also don't believe Moe Norman is a Genius or Savant, but I also
would not give that title to other golfers such as Tiger Woods or Jack
Nickulaus. I do think they are great athletes, but I would not go as
far as giving them the title of "genius".
I am also sure that you could hit the ball fairly quickly after
learning the method. The method does work and conventional golf
buddies of mine that try it for "shits and giggles" can hit the ball
just as well and with the same distance. This itself should prove
that the system works. Of course, nothing works for everybody...
To your other comment about Moe Norman not being much stronger or
coordinated than thousands of others duffers, I disagree. I doubt
thousands of duffers can achieve what Moe Norman achieved. Also, of
course hard work leads to good ball striking (as you have mentioned)
the difference is the consistency and can you do it under extreme
pressure. Anybody can hit some good shots, but what separates Moe
Norman from the rest of us, is that he is a lot more consistent that
we are.
Career Achievements
1955 Canadian Amateur Champion
1956 Canadian Amateur Champion
1957 Runner-Up Low Canadian Open
1958 Canadian Open
1958 Ontario Open Champion
1963 Saskatchewan Open Champion
1963 Ontario Open Champion
1964 CPGA Miller Trophy Champion
1965 Manitoba Open Champion
1965 Runner-UP Canadian Professional Golfers Championship
1966 Canadian Professional Golfers Champion
1966 Alberta Open
1966 Manitoba Open Champion
1966 Quebec Open Champion
1967 Manitoba Open Champion
1968 Saskatchewan Open Champion
1971 Alberta Open Champion
1971 World Cup National Team
1974 Canadian Professional Golfers Champion
1976 Alberta Open Champion
1980 Canadian Professional Golfers Association
1980 Canadian Senior Championship
1981 Canadian Senior Championship
1982 Canadian Senior Championship
1983 Canadian Senior Championship
1984 Canadian Senior Championship
1985 Canadian Senior Championship
1987 Canadian Senior Championship
*Set 33 course records, 17 hole in ones, 8 on the fly. 4 double eagles
*Inducted into the Canadian Hall of Fame 1995.
Howard Brazee
On 23-May-2003, jorge_...@bmc.com (georgeb) wrote:
> I also don't believe Moe Norman is a Genius or Savant, but I also
> would not give that title to other golfers such as Tiger Woods or Jack
> Nickulaus. I do think they are great athletes, but I would not go as
> far as giving them the title of "genius".
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?genius
1 a plural genii : an attendant spirit of a person or place b plural usually
genii : a person who influences another for good or bad
2 : a strong leaning or inclination : PENCHANT
3 a : a peculiar, distinctive, or identifying character or spirit b : the
associations and traditions of a place c : a personification or embodiment
especially of a quality or condition
4 plural usually genii : SPIRIT, JINNI
5 plural usually geniuses a : a single strongly marked capacity or aptitude <had
a genius for getting along with boys -- Mary Ross> b : extraordinary
intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity c : a person
endowed with transcendent mental superiority; especially : a person with a very
high intelligence quotient
Interesting - based upon "genii".
Davidleealford
touted by golf professionals. >>
I don't blame you. But Moe Norman is an old guy and his system is not really
"new age". I think his system is valid. I think Natural Golf and other "new age
swings" have departed from what MN actually did.
A perfect example is Jack Kuykendall. I went up to Phoenix to see Jack's
seminar. There we were with his assistant instructor and the first thing I
noticed was a guy way down at the other end of the range using a traditional
swing that had not written a book and who did not charge for admission and he
was hitting the ball better than JK. However, JK did hit a few impressively
perfect shots. I'm sure that is what keeps JK enthusiastic about his system. Or
is it the $$$?
One of the reasons I made the effort to see him, was because he had actually
met and observed Moe Norman. I have a video of Moe hitting balls and it looks
to me like he is spraying the ball. Ball flight goes left a little, then right
a little. Moe says it has been 8 yrs. since he hit one out of the fairway.
Three shots later, he hooks one badly. After he hits some fine shots, some one
asks why he doesn't hit the tee, and Moe says "I came here to hit the ball not
the tee!". A lot has been made out of the fact his swing is so perfect he
doesn't even clip the tee. Very next shot, the tee is knocked out of the video
frame.
However, Moe is also seen hitting driver off the turf, not easy. He usually
makes great impact, as you can tell by the sound of his shots. But is he
perfect? No.
Perfection is really, really han other words, less than a 30 yd. dispersal
with driver. Very good, given his age, especially if there are no really wild
shots.
If a NG instructor can do that or anyone else, I would say they can walk the
talk and I will listen to them with an open mind.
btw, other people have told me they saw MN in person and contrary to the video
I saw, virtually every shot was pipeline perfect. He has also proven his system
over decades by the scores he has shot.
I just don't think NG = Moe Norman's swing, because it has been basterdized by
people such as Fox who totally changed what he was preaching to jump on the
bandwagon.
David A.
Larry
>Jack - I play natural golf and personally know of at least 30 other
>people that play this method as well. I play with about 10 of them on
>a regular basis and 2 of these guys play to a single digit handicap.
>One of these guys is even the club champion of his golf course and
>qualifies for regional tournaments quite frequently. I personally
>play a 16 handicap, have been playing for about 2 years and making
>very good progress. We also have some people on our group that are
>high handicappers and are struggling with the game, but you will find
>that also to be true for "conventional" golf.
>
>Relating to your comment about Pro's playing Natural Golf, you are
>correct that most don't. If you are a pro on the PGA Tour, why on
>earth would you want to change a swing you've been using for most
>likely a good portion of your life to start all over again with a new
>method? Doens't make much sense does it. Does this mean the method
>doesn't work? Of course not. The method is described as an easier
>way to play golf and for those of use using it...it surely is.
>
>You are correct that their are no short cuts on the game. Everyone I
>know that plays NG struggled with it at one point or another (after
>all, it is golf )so I do think people should NOT be given the
>impression that it is a miracle swing. You have to work hard at it
>just like a conventional swing if you want to be good. The one thing
>I can tell you is that it is an easier swing to maintain after you
>learn it. At least it was for me.
My club has a young athletic guy who took up "natural golf" 2 years
ago. He plays and/or practices daily, apparently he can get every
afternoon off work.
He is still pathetic! He looks like he is setting up to use a
grubbing hoe. I doubt he can break 110. It is just sad to watch him
on the range or golf course. What a waste! That guy would be
shooting low to mid 80's now except for natural golf. He got screwed.
Their idol, Moe Norman, doesn't swing anything like these guys. He
uses a 10 finger grip, but his turn and setup are vintage Faldo. He
doesn't play natural golf, he doesn't use the club like a garden hoe--
and as a consequence he can play.
Larry
Larry
wrote:
>Personally, I am now hesitant to try any of the "new" swings that are being
>touted by golf professionals. After I injured my wirst playing golf, one of
>the first things I did was to go to a golf pro. I had never seen a pro
>before, but had read a lot of golf books and tried to emulate what I saw as
>a traditional golf swing. I was playing off 18 at the time and would have
>been a lot better if I had practiced my short game, which was terrible.
>After seeing my first golf pro, he taught me a "new age" golf swing, which
>turned me into an extremely mechanical wreck on the golf course. Numerous
>lessons and literally thousands of golf balls later, my swing was the worst
>it had been. When I joined a new club, I went to see a respected pro who
>taught a more traditional golf swing. After two lessons and about three
>trips to the driving range, I actually felt like I was starting to get a
>real golf swing again. He left the course shortly after and I was then
>forced to go see his replacement, who then told me to forget everything I
>had been taught so I could learn the "new age" golf swing (again). After
>five lessons with him (and lots of golf balls hit) I am back where I stared
>again. I got annoyed on the course over the weekend and tried to revert to
>the swing the "traditional" pro had taught me. I immediately hit my best
>shots of the day.
>I have taken the swing motions he taught me back to the range and am
>suddenly feeling confident again.
>Wonder why I am starting to hate the "new age" golf teachers???
New age is B.S. There is only one "age" and that is traditional PGA
Certified professional instruction-- which is how every one of the
guys you see on tour used and will someday teach. You lost months or
years because you didn't go to a PGA pro.
Larry
Larry
wrote:
><< Personally, I am now hesitant to try any of the "new" swings that are being
>touted by golf professionals. >>
>
>I don't blame you. But Moe Norman is an old guy and his system is not really
>"new age". I think his system is valid. I think Natural Golf and other "new age
>swings" have departed from what MN actually did.
I saw Moe Norman on "The Golf Channel." His demonstration was
impressive, but his swing is classic Faldo. He just stands there and
turns, wide stance, almost no weight shift. He is NOT using the golf
club like a garden hoe, which is what "natural golf" looks like. His
swing is just that, a real "swing" from a very full shoulder turn and
most certainly not arms only leverage like "natural golf" promises.
Moe Norman has a classic standard golf swing--albeit with a 10 finger
grip.
Larry
Davidleealford
<< To your other comment about Moe Norman not being much stronger or
coordinated than thousands of others duffers, I disagree.>>
Keep in mind their are millions of duffers. There are thousands with excellent
strength and coordination.
See my point now?
>>I doubt
thousands of duffers can achieve what Moe Norman achieved. >>
I agree 100%, but they had the potential to.
David A.
Davidleealford
<<However, Moe is also seen hitting driver off the turf, not easy. He usually
makes great impact, as you can tell by the sound of his shots. But is he
perfect? No.
Perfection is really, really han other words, less than a 30 yd. dispersal
with driver. >>
I sometime wonder if I made the typo or whether it is a digital glitch. Anyway,
I meant to say:
But is he perfect? No. Perfection is really, really hard. He's doing pretty
well with less than 30 yd. dispersal with driver.
David A.
Davidleealford
impressive, but his swing is classic Faldo. >>
Well, that I can't agree with. The dissimilarities are greater than the
similarities. I don't think one person out of 100 who observed their swings
would say they swung alike.
David A.
Davidleealford
swing is just that, a real "swing" from a very full shoulder turn and
most certainly not arms only leverage like "natural golf" promises. >>
OK, I will agree with you there. And Moe uses his lower body quite a lot, he
just doesn't twist the hips as much. It is most certainly not just an arm
swing. This fact has screwed up a lot of people who took the NG rhetoric
literally.
David A.
Larry
wrote:
Yep, that's the difference between his swing and NG-- and the primary
similarity between Moe and Faldo. Moe like Faldo takes a wide stance,
keeps both heels down, and turns from the waist up. Very powerful
coiling in place, no sway and arm swing with almost no hand leverage.
That accounts for his uncanny accuracy-- ability to hit driver off
tight lies. Faldo. (and the way I try to swing also!)
Larry
georgeb
I haven't seen Nick Faldo swing, but unless he swings single axis,
there is no way that his swing would resemble Moe Norman. MN is a
single axis swinger which means that at address, he will stand with
his arms stretched out towards the ball forming a single axis.
Basically, stretch out your arms in front of you holding the golf
club, bring your arms down a bit ( without bending them ) and then
bend down from your waist until the club head reaches the floor. This
is Moe Normans position at set-up and something advocated by Natural
Golf.
Moe Norman's shouder turn is about 90 degrees ( lead shoulder ) and 45
degrees ( trail shoulder ) which is not a full turn compared to
conventional golf. The last comment is that Moe and Natural golf
refer to the swing as an arms generated swing, but the body supports
the arms or vice versa and the body is used during the swing. Before
Moe swings down he has this "sit down move" as the body slides forward
while the arms are swinging towards the target. At impact Moe is
facing the ball as opposed to firing his hips the way conventional
golfers swing. Here is a link where you can see his motion.
Enjoy..
http://www.megspace.com/sports/moetown/videos/moe_new_swing_down_line.html
From this clip you will see how much he is stretched out towards the
ball. This is what is meant by Single Axis.
georgeb
It's refreshing to read your messages as you have your opinion on NG,
but as opposed to others, you seem approach it with an open mind and
logic. :)
A few comments on your post.
When did you see JK? If it's recent then you probably saw his new
swing method called Lever Power Golf as opposed to Natural Golf.
Unfortunately, JK and Natural Golf had a falling out a few years ago
and he is no longer affiliated with the company in anyway. Kind of
sad really since if it wasn't for him, Moe Norman and the single axis
method would have probably never received the attention it has
received now. If you ask me...he got the short end of the stick.
I do know that NG does not teach the exact Moe Norman swing although
they are close to it, but I know that it has been changed over the
years. Not sure if it was because the students could not effectively
learn all the parts of the swing or was it due to the instructors not
being able to teach all the moves correctly. Whatever it is, I know
it is not the exact Moe Norman swing, but it is still pretty close to
it. I am not sure if you can expand on what specifically you believe
NG is teaching differently?
davidle...@aol.com (Davidleealford) wrote in message news:<20030523111227...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
Matt "Big Dog" Aamold
all the weight stays on the front foot
"georgeb" <jorge_...@bmc.com> wrote in message
news:cb6623a3.03052...@posting.google.com...
georgeb
A friend of mine went to take conventional golf lessons not too long
ago and attended a golf class with about 10 other students. He said 3
of the students had played conventional golf for over 20 years ( one
had played for over 30 years ) and they all sucked. So playing
conventional golf does not necessarily equate to lower scores
otherwise these guys would be scratch golfers right? These guys also
don't look like their idol Tiger Woods, so as a consequence they can't
play and he can.
I play golf every week in different courses and I regulary see hacks
that play conventional golf. So by your theory then I could assume
that conventional golf makes for a poor golfer right? I of course
don't think that since there are many successful golfers who play
conventional golf as there are successful golfers that play Natural
Golf. A lot of it has to do with each person's ability and how much
they put into the game to improve. Some people just don't have the
coordination to be good at golf regardless of the method they use.
All I am saying is that there are various levels of success with each
method and you would change your tune if you played with some of the
guys I play with.
Larry <La...@delmardata.com> wrote in message news:<1sescvcmlg7uaibqi...@4ax.com>...
Davidleealford
<< It's refreshing to read your messages as you have your opinion on NG,
but as opposed to others, you seem approach it with an open mind and
logic. :)
Stay tuned, I may propose the ultimate test in golf swing logic...more later.
>When did you see JK? If it's recent then you probably saw his new
swing method called Lever Power Golf as opposed to Natural Golf.
About 5 yrs. ago. He showed me both methods. I tried them very briefly (one
hr.) and of course was wild. But I don't think I was doing was Moe does so I
have reserved judgement on making a conclusion. More later...
>Unfortunately, JK and Natural Golf had a falling out a few years ago
and he is no longer affiliated with the company in anyway. Kind of
sad really since if it wasn't for him, Moe Norman and the single axis
method would have probably never received the attention it has
received now. If you ask me...he got the short end of the stick.
Yes, he said as much. He said he couldn't spend the $$$ to fight the NG people.
However, he did not demonstrate what I would call great or very good ball
striking with Moe's swing model, so I wonder how well he really knew it. It
seemed to me he may have just met Moe briefly and latched on to it because it
was in line with some of his own original thinking.
>>I do know that NG does not teach the exact Moe Norman swing although
they are close to it, but I know that it has been changed over the
years. Not sure if it was because the students could not effectively
learn all the parts of the swing or was it due to the instructors not
being able to teach all the moves correctly. Whatever it is, I know
it is not the exact Moe Norman swing, but it is still pretty close to
it. I am not sure if you can expand on what specifically you believe
NG is teaching differently?
Hard to answer. NG is a moving target and they seem to be teaching differently
things at different times.
David A.
Larry Bud
news:cb6623a3.03052...@posting.google.com:
> Larry:
>
> A friend of mine went to take conventional golf lessons not too long
> ago and attended a golf class with about 10 other students. He said 3
> of the students had played conventional golf for over 20 years ( one
> had played for over 30 years ) and they all sucked. So playing
> conventional golf does not necessarily equate to lower scores
> otherwise these guys would be scratch golfers right? These guys also
> don't look like their idol Tiger Woods, so as a consequence they can't
> play and he can.
>
> I play golf every week in different courses and I regulary see hacks
> that play conventional golf. So by your theory then I could assume
> that conventional golf makes for a poor golfer right?
No, that's an incorrect assumption. You're assuming the hacks playing by
conventional golf were *taught* how to play conventional golf.
On the same note, ONLY those who play by the Natural Golf method were
specifically *taught*.
For a fair comparison, compare those who have been TAUGHT the
conventional swing and those who were taught the NG method.
Puttster
> On Thu, 22 May 2003 11:54:39 GMT, "Jack"
> <slic...@AVOIDSPAMpeople.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Well, I still think it IS a reasonable argument. If NG was that good for
> >amateur, struggling hackers, it would have to exhibit some merits that would
> >appeal to better players (and pros) as well. You don't get one without the
> >other. A swing method that supposedly is easier to implement, maintain and
> >produces longer straighter shot patterns would NOT be overlooked by those
> >who are trying to make a living at the game (or are trying to migrate from
> >low single-digits HC to zero or plus).
>
> I still disagree but I'm too far from my Jesuit-taught logic course to
> point out the fallacy of your reasoning. :-)
> Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Wake up, Mr. Clary!
If A-flex shafts are truly good for seniors, why don't they appeal to
the pros as well? Why is "picturing your finish" a good swing thought
for amateurs? Pros don't think that. Why? Why? My Clary, Why?
Fr. Puttster
Larry
>Larry:
>
>A friend of mine went to take conventional golf lessons not too long
>ago and attended a golf class with about 10 other students. He said 3
>of the students had played conventional golf for over 20 years ( one
>had played for over 30 years ) and they all sucked. So playing
>conventional golf does not necessarily equate to lower scores
>otherwise these guys would be scratch golfers right? These guys also
>don't look like their idol Tiger Woods, so as a consequence they can't
>play and he can.
>
>I play golf every week in different courses and I regulary see hacks
>that play conventional golf. So by your theory then I could assume
>that conventional golf makes for a poor golfer right? I of course
>don't think that since there are many successful golfers who play
>conventional golf as there are successful golfers that play Natural
>Golf. A lot of it has to do with each person's ability and how much
>they put into the game to improve. Some people just don't have the
>coordination to be good at golf regardless of the method they use.
>
>All I am saying is that there are various levels of success with each
>method and you would change your tune if you played with some of the
>guys I play with.
As in darts, horseshoes, tennis, swimming, and dozens of other sports,
the champions have developed a "right" way to do it. They
experimented and they found what works best and fastest. They wrote
books and they give lessons. In golf, the best are PGA pros. Of
course the ball can be propeled toward the hole differently, but the
best and most consistent way is the way the champions do it.
In golf we should try to learn the basic fundamentals of grip, stance,
takeway and then practice until we can repeat a standard swing and get
off the tee and down the fairway without playing the tree line or OB.
Then we need to work on our short game or we will still lose every
bet, ha.
Larry
Dave Clary
>
>Wake up, Mr. Clary!
>If A-flex shafts are truly good for seniors, why don't they appeal to
>the pros as well? Why is "picturing your finish" a good swing thought
>for amateurs? Pros don't think that. Why? Why? My Clary, Why?
>Fr. Puttster
LOL!! My real grief came from the Dominican nuns in grammar school.
Dave Clary
wrote:
>books and they give lessons. In golf, the best are PGA pros. Of
>course the ball can be propeled toward the hole differently, but the
>best and most consistent way is the way the champions do it.
DAmn straight, Larry. That is right on. This was clearly shown by
the data collected by Ralph Mann resulting in Swing Like a Pro. Of
course, it shows that the most common ball position for the pros is
forward of center which blows the hell out your "hit a two iron off
your back foot" advice.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary
Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org
RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd
P.S. Can someone get this hook out of my mouth--I'm powerless to
resist.
georgeb
Okay fair enough. I have 2 friends of mine that have played golf for
over 5 years and have both taken lessons. I play better than both of
them and have been playing for approximately 3 years. We both have
taken lessons. What does that tell you? Probably nothing... On the
other hand, there are people that play CG and play much better than
me. Again that probably tells you nothing.
As I had mentioned on my other email, I play with 2 single digit
handicapers that play NG and consistantly shoot in the low 70's.
According to your email, I should compare them to someone that has
been taught CG by a PGA Pro. Okay, I am sure there are people here
that shoot in the 70's that have been taught by a PGA pro. Again,
this proves nothing. Both methods obviously yield positive and not so
positive results depending on the person using the method. A lot of
it will depend on the person's athletic ability and dedication to
improving their game.
What if I told you that some people that play Natural Golf tried to
play CG for many years, took lessons, bought training aids, and
finally came to natural golf after not being successful? For those
people going to a PGA pro did nothing for them.
One last thing that I wanted to clarify about my comments about the
conventional golf hackers. By no means am I implying that NG is
better than CG. I just wanted to explain that there are hackers
regardless of the method they use and whether or not they take
professional instruction. Some people learn slower then others and
have different athlectic capabilites.
Troy
of our friends see the same pro and swears by the new style of swing he
teaches. Just does not work for me...
Troy
"Larry" <La...@delmardata.com> wrote in message
news:bcfscvo2ijtc7fdnn...@4ax.com...
georgeb
whole lot of sense. What I don't agree with is that you should stick
to 1 method regardless of success or failure and how much time you
spend on the game. I can paste stories here of folks that tried
everything in conventional golf, spent a ton of money in lessons,
years trying to learn the conventional way, and just couldn't do it.
Are we to say that someone should continue to play a certain style of
golf that just doesn't fit them, because the pro's do it? I am not a
pro and neither are most people that play golf, so the emphasis should
be on our game and our own skills. By the way...you are 100% correct
on the short game. That is where the money is at ;)
Davidleealford
is fully accessible.
I knew all along I couldn't do my book until I took on Moe Norman's swing. The
time approaches.
David A.