Lever Golf Jack Kuykendall
DLANAZ
other end of the range were hitting it better.
David
scott
wrote:
>Has anyone tried Jack Kuykendall's latest lever swing? Results?
>
>Frank B
Frank, here is a review I did of the Lever Power Golf Swing over a
year ago. As you can see... it isn't too favorable. ;)
Enjoy.
______________________
Another of the series of installments that relates my opinion on a
particular golfing system.
Lever Power Golf Swing includes 1 teaching video (approx.
20 min. long... yes, you read that right.... 20 min.!).
1 instructional booklet to compliment the tape - approx. 30pp.
containing color bubble jet pictures extolling the virtues of the
Lever Power swing vs. the traditional golf swing. Price $40.00.
Note: training aids, clubs, schooling, etc. were also available.
Rating (1 to 10 - 10 being outstanding): 1.5
QUALITY:
The quality of the tape is marginal. The tape was shot with a
camcorder. Text and graphics enhancements were done with the
camcorder functions.
BACKGROUND:
Jack Kuykendall (JK) is back. Jack Kuykendall, self-proclaimed world
famous golf teacher with a scientific slant has gone one better than
his previous Natural Golf system. JK was the creator of the original
"Moe Norman" swing 2 years prior to meeting Mr. Norman. JK also has
an annoying voice... similar to listening to Jack Nicklaus do
commentary.
Currently, JK and another ex-Natural golf instructor (Scott Hazeldine)
share a web page at www.scigolf.com. A very strange symbiotic
relationship for two competing companies and systems.
CONTENT:
Jack Kuykendall's new video reminds me of the video he used to send
out when he was with the Natural Golf system. Very short and with
very little instructional content. JK's video is only about 20
minutes long! Most of that time is spent trying to validate his
stature as a scientific golf guru by showing you past articles that
have been written in various golf periodicals and local newpapers.
Nothing worse in my opinion than watching someone pat themselves on
the back for nearly half the video that you paid for 100% golf
instructional content.
JK has a couple of swing aids, a couple of specialized putters,
special clubs, and (of course) a new swing system. It is obvious to
me (as with the Natural Golf system) that Jack tries to get you
tantalized with the video and pamphlet and sell you the "big ticket"
items like clubs, private instruction, and swing aids. Personally,
this turns me off. However, in his defense the swing is very simple
and I'll detail it more below.
THE SYSTEM:
As I said above there isn't much to the swing. JK makes the claim
that you can become very proficient in 30 days... especially utilizing
his swing training aids <ahem>.
1) The Grip. JK departs from one of the mainstays of golf by
actually advocating 3 different grips, albeit with a good, better and
best rating. All 3 change only the right hand position. The "A" grip
is a throw back from Natural Golf. The club is held completely in the
palm with the grip following the right hands lifeline. "B" and "C"
just place the grip more in the fingers incrementally.
2) The Address. The stance is wider than the traditional swing's
address position. You do look a bit like a giraffe taking a drink of
water. Of special note too is that your feet are supposed to stay
flat on the ground from backswing to completion.
3) The Swing. Kuykendall spends a bunch of time letting the viewer
know what a physics guru he is and that he is the only one trying to
improve on a flawed swing method..... even going so far as to say
"hey, prove me wrong". JK did the same B.S. with the Natural Golf
system and proved himself wrong. Now into the swing itself.
"Traditional" golf is a two lever system. The first lever is the left
shoulder to the left wrist. The second lever is the club. JK is
maintaining the better way to "swing" the club is to increase the
length of the second lever. Therefore, with Lever Power Golf the
first lever is the left shoulder to the left elbow. The second lever
is the left elbow to the end of the club head. Essentially you bend
your left arm at the elbow 90 degrees while NOT cocking the left
wrist.
You move the right hand as "close to the right shoulder as your
anatomy will allow" while bending the left elbow 90 degrees (again do
NOT cock the wrists). This places the club shaft and left forearm in
an almost straight position. Yes, the club points roughly straight up
in the air. No forced shoulder turn, weight shift, coiled back
muscles, etc. This position is *very* back friendly. Kuykendall gets
no style points from me, but this is an intriguing concept. I was
actually very excited to see what this guy came up with and was
willing to put aside my views of his past attempts at being a golf
guru to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Your "swing" is simplicity itself. Move the right hand away from the
shoulder with the triceps muscles (the one opposing the biceps) and
through the ball. You must maintain the rigid left wrist position
since the hands will square the clubface themselves. This is an arms
only swing. Actually a triceps only swing. They had a "RealPlayer"
video clip of his swing at the www.scigolf.com web site. However, I
was unable to find much on The Lever Power Golf system while visiting
today.
The *claimed* benefits of this swing. Distance, unparalleled
accuracy, virtually no back strain, and a naturally repeatable swing.
I'm an engineer and know that while on paper the concept of a longer
lever can't be disputed, as soon as you apply these theories to the
human body (i.e. biomechanics) "paper theory" becomes a whole other
matter. You can't model the shoulder as a simple hinge. ;)
Here are the innate problems as I see them. While you have a longer
lever, can you apply enough speed to that lever system to have an
effective shot? My answer is an emphatic NO. In fact, the only way I
could get any (not embarassing) distance was to try to kill the ball.
This was especially apparent with the mid to long irons/driver. The
shot patterns were extremely high. I was very skeptical when I saw JK
hit most of his shots with his left wrist bracing device on. All of
his shots were hit off of a mat as well. That folks, is bullsh*t. I
can take the worst digger in the world that can't hit a ball without
hitting it 4" fat and put them on a mat and they look decent. The
camera didn't have the quality to pick up the shots from behind,
however the ones I did see lacked distance and were pulled badly half
the time.
Who could benefit from this system? Seniors lacking distance already
and unable to make a full turn (read: one foot already in the grave).
I can't wait to get my money back on this turkey. ;)
Any questions, comments, etc. let 'em fly.
Scott
DLANAZ
enthusiasm. Unfortunately, his ball striking would only impress beginning
golfers. So if he can't do it well, how do his students expect to fare?
David
David Laville
wrote:
>Has anyone tried Jack Kuykendall's latest lever swing? Results?
You may want to wait. He'll probably have have a newer and better one
in a year or two since this one isn't selling too well.
Steve
I have seen Jack Kuykendall using the Lever Power Golf in
person, I was impressed. His new Impact golf clubs are
awesome yet not priced any higher than the leading clubs
being sold today. Jack is a great instructor although you
have to go to Arizona to take lessons from him or to Texas
where he has a Lever Power Golf Certified Instructor.
This engineer (Scott) sounds like he has an axe to grind
probably from his short comings of not being able to play
golf using Lever Power Golf. It's probably too simple for
him as I know from experience that some engineers think
they know it all and are good at making things seem
difficult. I used to make the engineers look bad where I
worked by re-writing their programs to make the programs a
lot better than they could do and I didn't even have a
colledge background.
I will say that I don't think you will see a tour pro using
Lever Power Golf as a whole although I didn't think that
you would see a touring pro using Natural golf, some are so
who knows?
One thing for sure anyone that comes up with something
different than conventional golf will always be put down by
closed minded people.
Steve
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
scott
>Whysomething,
>
>I have seen Jack Kuykendall using the Lever Power Golf in
>person, I was impressed. His new Impact golf clubs are
>awesome yet not priced any higher than the leading clubs
>being sold today. Jack is a great instructor although you
>have to go to Arizona to take lessons from him or to Texas
>where he has a Lever Power Golf Certified Instructor.
>
>This engineer (Scott) sounds like he has an axe to grind
>probably from his short comings of not being able to play
>golf using Lever Power Golf.
No, Steve. I don't have any axes to grind, nor any shortcomings
regarding playing traditional golf or with the Lever Power Golf swing.
>It's probably too simple for
>him as I know from experience that some engineers think
>they know it all and are good at making things seem
>difficult. I used to make the engineers look bad where I
>worked by re-writing their programs to make the programs a
>lot better than they could do and I didn't even have a
>colledge background.
I'm sure the engineers you worked with just quaked in their loafers as
you showed them up with your non-colledge (sic) prowess. The only
points I'll grant you here is that you said *some* engineers.
Actually, I would go so far as to say *most* engineers.
Unfortunately, Steve, you are speaking to an engineer who saw the
short comings of poor communication skills, lack of real world
applications while learning many engineering disciplines, etc.
>I will say that I don't think you will see a tour pro using
>Lever Power Golf as a whole although I didn't think that
>you would see a touring pro using Natural golf, some are so
>who knows?
Tour Pro using Natural Golf? Now?!? Don't think so, but then again I
couldn't tell you who is number 192 on the money list.
>One thing for sure anyone that comes up with something
>different than conventional golf will always be put down by
>closed minded people.
How am I closed minded? Because you say so?!? Try disputing what
I've written about the system. Tell me what you thought of the
booklet, tape, and the content of each and explain where you think I'm
wrong. Only then can you have some DISCUSSION/DEBATE about Lever
Power Golf and JK. If you aren't prepared to do that, all you are
doing is saying, "I saw Jack hit some balls. He is great. His clubs
are neat too."
Hmmm.... perhaps that is how you have to write to the general populace
to get them to understand something.
Listen, Steve. Re-read my review. I gave JK more than the benefit of
the doubt. His *system* falls apart for a number of reasons. I was
"intrigued". I write these reviews (especially for fringe golf
systems) to help people make an informed decision on how they will
spend their money. The average golfer that toys around too much with
bizarre fundamentals may not recover for months from some of the slick
infomercial crap that is out there. *I* do this because I enjoy golf
knowledge... even bad golf knowledge. Besides, I didn't say lock JK
in some dungeon. Instead, let JK see the light of day and keep
inventing because he hasn't found something to supplant the
traditional system yet.
Scott
>Steve
Steve
First of all I'd like to say we need engineers although
some engineers need to research more by listening to others
that may be in the know of a subject more than they are
before coming to a hasty conclusion.
You've made an unqualified golf review of Jack Kuykendall's
golf methods. I can see that you didn't research very good
before you blasted Jack Kuykendall's past and present golf
methods. I for one wouldn't take any stock in your so
called reviews. It is easy to find testimonials of people
that have success with Lever Power Golf and also easy to
find the names of Natural Golf touring pros.
I did notice that you did cover bases to make sure I saw
your reply by E-mailing me, I wasn't surprised.
scott
>Scott,
>
>First of all I'd like to say we need engineers although
>some engineers need to research more by listening to others
>that may be in the know of a subject more than they are
>before coming to a hasty conclusion.
What on Earth are you basing the above on and how is me being an
engineer even germain to this discussion? Of course we need
engineers. We also need firemen, police, and some real unnecessary
evils like lawyers, realtors, and golf course rangers. Oh, if your
point was that I didn't do any research and didn't listen to what you
had to say.... that is your *opinion* and I'll point out that you
STILL haven't given me any points refuting what I gave in my
"opinionated" review.
>You've made an unqualified golf review of Jack Kuykendall's
>golf methods.
How is that? Do I have to spend time with the master JK himself to
satisfy you. It should be enough that I paid for both the Natural
Golf turkey and the Lever Power Golf video. I never said there wasn't
merit. JK makes some bold statements and does not back them up...
sorry to burst your obviously superiour analytical mind-formed bubble.
>I can see that you didn't research very good
>before you blasted Jack Kuykendall's past and present golf
>methods.
Again, what are you basing that accusation on. Did some engineer
steal your girlfriend in another lifetime or something?!?
>I for one wouldn't take any stock in your so
>called reviews. It is easy to find testimonials of people
>that have success with Lever Power Golf and also easy to
>find the names of Natural Golf touring pros.
Testimonials. Heh. Those are opinions too, buddy. Please, provide
me with the Natural Golf touring pros that are out there now on tour.
Hell, even the flipping Buy.com or other satellite tours. I'd also
like to talk to those people that have success with the Lever Power
Golf system. My guess is that some people order the system and many,
many (read: all) don't stick with it. I purchased and gave a review
on Natural Golf (when JK was the man) and I also purchased the Lever
Golf System and gave my review. Have you done the same? I doubt it,
but then again you haven't told me anything concrete except.... "I
don't think you are right." Stay out of debating Steve, you are
starting to look a bit witless.
>I did notice that you did cover bases to make sure I saw
>your reply by E-mailing me, I wasn't surprised.
Yes, because I wanted to generate some debate or discussion by making
sure you didn't take some shot at me and then disappear. You did it
again, Steve. You attacked me because... well, I don't rightly know.
Give me something substantial or order the system and do your own
review. You can refute me opinions all you want... just don't be
surprised if I challenge you with more than "You don't know what
you're talking about. I'll bet you are some self-important nobody
that cleans up the documentation written by Tibetan programmers on
llama feeding." <shaking head>
>Steve
Scott
Steve
I feel sorry for the company that you worked as an engineer
for. You were probably one of those engineers that spent
all their time in the office playing computer games while
others did the work. I'm not about to do your work for you
and I can see that you don't want to have a good debate,
all you want to do is argue and cut someone down to try to
make you look good. Well looking good, your not.
David Laville
>You've made an unqualified golf review of Jack Kuykendall's
>golf methods.
Scott has made very qualified reviews of Kuykendalls methods as well
as other methods.
>I can see that you didn't research very good
>before you blasted Jack Kuykendall's past and present golf
>methods.
And neither did you. Kuykendalls started a club company in the 80's
called Rite Way Golf that was distributed through Amway. The company
was a flop and he dissapeared for a few years. In the early 90's he
pops up again, this time as a golf swing guru with his latest
discovery, Natural Golf. He ripped the swing off from Moe Norman and
the "Natural Golf" name from Peter Croker who was teaching his own
method in Austrailia. To properly use his Natural Golf swing you had
to have Natural Golf clubs that were nothing more than the clubs from
his failed club company. When he was bought out and lost control of
Natural Golf he started Lever Power Golf and to no surprise you need
his new Lever Power clubs. This is all consistent with his claim "the
real money is made through clubs".
> I for one wouldn't take any stock in your so
>called reviews.
Who cares, most of us do.
>It is easy to find testimonials of people
>that have success with Lever Power Golf
Like all those 120+ shooters who now claim they can keep the ball
inside the range?
>and also easy to
>find the names of Natural Golf touring pros.
Name 3.
David Laville
>Scott,
>
>I feel sorry for the company that you worked as an engineer
>for. You were probably one of those engineers that spent
>all their time in the office playing computer games while
>others did the work. I'm not about to do your work for you
>and I can see that you don't want to have a good debate,
If you want to have good debate why have you personally slammed Scott
and his profession since the start of this thread?
>all you want to do is argue and cut someone down to try to
>make you look good.
Allow me to quote your opening sentences;
"I feel sorry for the company that you worked as an engineer
for. You were probably one of those engineers that spent
all their time in the office playing computer games while
others did the work."
Who is cutting who down, hmmmmmm?
>Well looking good, your not.
From where I'm sitting he's looking darn good, you're the one who
looks like a jackass. My bet is you're a regular in the single axis
forums, if not you should be, you fit the intellect.
scott
>Scott,
>
>I feel sorry for the company that you worked as an engineer
>for. You were probably one of those engineers that spent
>all their time in the office playing computer games while
>others did the work. I'm not about to do your work for you
>and I can see that you don't want to have a good debate,
>all you want to do is argue and cut someone down to try to
>make you look good. Well looking good, your not.
>
>Steve
I have no more to say to you, Steverino. Mr Laville said it all very
well so there is no reason to re-iterate (hint: that means for me to
restate my views). I saw the AOL sig and thought I'd give you the
benefit of the doubt... my mistake.
Here's a multiple choice for our r.s.g. listeners. Steve is:
A) Still stinging about the custom clubs he purchased from JK.
B) In therapy for all of the ribbing he takes when making ungainly
swings in front of strangers on the course and cards 110.
C) Made himself blind because "trithebest" is some homemade sour mash
that is actually part wood alcohol.
Hmmm.... I'm voting for "D" - all of the above.
Scott (Who actually is quite good looking, IMHO) ;)
Bobby Knight
>
> Scott,
>
> I feel sorry for the company that you worked as an engineer
> for. You were probably one of those engineers that spent
> all their time in the office playing computer games while
> others did the work. I'm not about to do your work for you
> and I can see that you don't want to have a good debate,
> all you want to do is argue and cut someone down to try to
> make you look good. Well looking good, your not.
One look at the photos on the scigolf site is enough for me. This is
just another "infomercial" golf product that will attract the easily
led. Scott was dead on with his review, and his assessments. The swing
I saw was that of an amateur, and I've seen many who looked awful and
hit the ball great. But to teach it? Not for me, or anyone who has
ever seen the greats play. THAT is what is tried and true.
Personalizing this has only made you look bad. The LeverGolf system
does it on its own.
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
DLANAZ
everyone's day with a massive confrontation with the teacher in front of his
disciples. Or maybe they were spies, like me, lol. Well, I wasn't exactly a
spy, I paid an entrance fee and was open minded.
I will say JK's club are interesting, one of his training devices is quite
clever and well made (the aid to keep the hands from breaking down with
pitches, etc.). I don't believe in training devices as a rule, but this one
could help beginners. Personally, I think JK should devote his attention to
this, because the lever golf swing isn't going anywhere, IMO.
Back to the main point, Scott's review was accurate. I guarantee you, JK picks
and chooses his better shots to include in his videos, because about 1/2 of his
shots are scuffy. And the shots he makes good contact with are still erratic.
I'm talking 50-75 yd. variance with his driver, left right, left right...
David
scott
>I've taken JK's class, and had to bite my tongue to keep from ruining
>everyone's day with a massive confrontation with the teacher in front of his
>disciples. Or maybe they were spies, like me, lol. Well, I wasn't exactly a
>spy, I paid an entrance fee and was open minded.
>
>I will say JK's club are interesting,
I agree with this. The heads are very rounded which putts the CG
(center of gravity) above the ball. Much like my Mizuno SW. The
result is a more piercing trajectory. There was a club company some
years ago that made very rounded irons... I believe they were called
Fox Bat irons.
Scott
