Swingers v's Winners

Many threads are appearing on many forums about golfers not fulfilling their potential, others about how certain players just have the desire to win at all costs.

This also links in nicely with what happened on Sky sports last night during the WM Pheonix Open, where Tony Johnstone and Denis Pugh were ridiculing Tommy "2Gloves" Gainey for his "dig it out style swing" saying it's beyond technique, cannot see how it can be taught or how he can have a coach to help with such a flwaed action even having a go at it during slow mo camera footage. Rob Lee stepped in to his Credit and told them "hang on I feel your being unfair on him here after all would you tell Jim Furyk, US Open, TC and FedEx Champion he swing doesnt work" So Fair P lay to Rob Lee.

however this got me thinking about the old debate again, functional v fashionable, Winners v's Wannabe's etc.

Els great swinger, 3 majors, many wins around the world, but he has been questioned on other threads for under achieving, Furyk, ugly functional and a winner.
Stricker (my personal favourite) Good tempo solid swinger something like only 12 tours wins (yet i read recently his no hinge swinge is the most consistent repeatable action on tour and a good one for any player to learn) But still wanting for a Major.
Jack Nicklaus upright not pretty yet arguably the greatest golfer ever.
Adam Scott Text book full of promise, won a TPC but not a great deal else

So I want to discuss, what you think makes a winner is it purely a state of mind?
Who do you think is the next winner and why and can the likes if Stricker, Scott et al take their game to the next level

Oh and should sky make light of people swings just because they don't like the look of them

The 'best' golfer is quite simply the one that completes 18 (36, 72) holes in the fewest number of strokes. The old saying 'it's not how, it's how many' is absolutely true.

Mav my swing has been likened to Zola Bud a few times and I will not go and have it changed by anyone, as I reckon my game will go backwards faster than an Italian tank. I'm impatient and haven't got the time to learn a classic swing. It works for me and each season gets better, so I'm sticking with it.

Winners in any walk of life are not always the people you expect. In golf there are many examples recently of players with unique swings that can make it work for them, and would be impossible to copy. This upsets some of the pundits & purists but tough. Bubba is a breath of fresh air and enjoy watching him as much as Tiger (When he had a game) Even though he has a tendancy to cry when he wins, he does actually win and has a winning mentality. Last week when being chased by big Phil many would have crumbled going down the last, but he held on easily. He hits it a mile and moves the ball left or right through the air further than anybody else. his set up on the tee is 40-yards right of target and his swing is whacky, but it works. Phil plays the game unlike the masses too and nobody can say he doesn't win. Tiger for all his problems has a swing unique to him and he is the ultimate (Was) grinder to ensure victory. The likes of Ernie and Rory are liquid gold to watch and pure poetry, and as you say Ernie was a prodigous winner, but not been the same since his operation, but I would say that given a chance he would close it out. Rory blew the field away late last year in the states and played some of the best golf ever seen. I think Rory is capable of doing that time and time again, but will worry about his temprament when being chased close. I don't believe he's won when this happens, he relys on his talent pulling away from the pack to close it out.

Tommy 2-gloves is another type of ugly hitter, but it works for him and he's had a fantastic Pheonix and will be in the top 5 without doubt, once the event is finished. he's won a couple on the Champions tour so must be something about him. Luke is another pure swinger, but struggles to win. he had a great 2010 in the states and won a few million dollars, but blew up many times to finish in the top 3 when he had chance after chance of closing out. Same with Casey but I put some of that down to his injury problems which caused him to be out of the game for a while, but seems to be getting in the groove again.

Westwood has a unique swing and so does kaymer and both are winners. I believe a winning, focused mentality is much more benificial than a pretty swing and belive that Harringtons mentality was why he won his majors, not his swing.

Just one other point on this, as i think it's valid. I believe that if technology hadn't have improved equipment, that people like me would not have played golf. I've tried using some of the old clubs and couldn't get the ball airborne. I think you needed to swing 'correctly' to make proper contact, so many players new to the game would not be able to play/compete unless they had a 'correct' swing.

Lee Trevino! What a player but not the perfect "looks good on the monitor" golf swing. He could and did hit wherever it needed to go. There's always more than one way - most footballers could not and wouldn't even try to kick the ball like Beckham, but few could ever do it better!
The bit between the ears is very important and I feel sometimes people hide behind the swing change/perfection rather than focussing on the competition. Faldo is probably the exception that proves rule, in that he perfected his swing but was the ultimate competitor. Maybe add Langer who would have got it into the hole with a shovel to get around his putting problems.

Fascinating topic so far!

I never considered myself a swing-snob (with a swing like mine, I can't afford to be picky), yet I've realised that maybe I am, given that I never get much enjoyment out of watching the likes of Jim Furyk or (last weekend at least) Tommy 2-gloves.

I als really struggle to appreciate left handers on TV - it just looks so wrong to me and I honestly can't distinguish between a good and bad swing when it comes to left-handers. I guess my brain just can't comprehend it.

Having said all that I agree with the others that "if it works, don't fix it". It hasn't hurt Furyk and it looks like it isn't hurting 2-gloves; I'm sure they don't lose sleep at night over the fact I don't like watching them

Davie Not much to moderate is there I agree about your left hander point, but saying that and I think you'll agree, watching Phil wind it up is a bit special. According to scientific research (Not mine) left handed players in sports like cricket, baseball, golf etc have a slight advantage. They use a part of the brain that sends signals quicker?? many left handed cricket players have been mentioned as being awesome to watch due to grace and timing (Gower for example) I can't think of other left-hookers in golf, but suspect a faster signal wouldn't help unless they were in control of the timing.

Phil's game would suck if he went through the Tiger change syndrome, so if it works leave it and pick up the cheques

Davie that's exactly what I'm getting at, there's some real good response on here so far but as you say are we swing snobs, that's my point really, as I was watching sky sports and how they were talking about tommy 2 gloves, also because I played with a guy who had an unorthodox swing that day and he was slating Gaineys swing despite his own action looking like something from an orang-utan cage.

It seems that many more amateurs in my experience will slate an unorhthodox action they see a pro using as it doesn't in their minds suit what the pro game is about. When in all seriousness the only thing that matters I delivering the club face to the ball the same way every time. I think most amateurs can learn more from a Gainey or Furyk than most other swings I don't mean copy the swing I mean that what can be learnt is swings are unique to the individual wielding the club and that its repetition of the action that matters instead of trying to perfect a tiger like modern day athletic swing, swing with your natural action and let a PGA pro just make the tweaks required to ensure repetition and a square club face.

That said if anyone was looking to take up the game and asked who would be a good person to look at and learn from on tour the swing I'd recommend every time Steve Stricker

Im spending my entire time obsessing about my swing mechanics - have to say ive nearly lost the love for golf due to it. As was said above - its the bit between the ears thats matters - thinking your way around a golf course. I seem to have a soft fade on every iron these days with my new sticks - try to hit the draw because its the 'right' shot to hit - is it? No its not - a soft fade always wins.

Golf is about getting it around the course - now to take that thinking back to the range and relax

I'd be willing to bet (if I was a betting man that is!) on the fact that all the players we can think of who don't have that 'classic' swing, but win none the less, have one particular thing in common - they themselves KNOW their swing inside-out. They understand it. It's all their own work as it were. I'm not a big fan of swing coaches; they can be a help but at the end of the day, YOU need to understand your swing, how it's built and how it influences ball flight.

I know I'd settle for a consistant and repeatable swing even if it DID look like I was killing rattlesnakes

puligny wrote:Lee Trevino! What a player but not the perfect "looks good on the monitor" golf swing. He could and did hit wherever it needed to go. There's always more than one way - most footballers could not and wouldn't even try to kick the ball like Beckham, but few could ever do it better!
The bit between the ears is very important and I feel sometimes people hide behind the swing change/perfection rather than focussing on the competition. Faldo is probably the exception that proves rule, in that he perfected his swing but was the ultimate competitor. Maybe add Langer who would have got it into the hole with a shovel to get around his putting problems.

Puligny:
Spot on with Trevino, a style all of his own, but really effective. Very strong mentally, much like Seve - his reverse C-shape swash-buckling follow-through wouldn't be taught by todays gurus and mentors because it puts a lot of pressure on the lower spine (which certainly affected Seve's longevity in the game) but it worked for him.

drive4show wrote:The 'best' golfer is quite simply the one that completes 18 (36, 72) holes in the fewest number of strokes. The old saying 'it's not how, it's how many' is absolutely true.

Absolutely! Couldn't have put it better myself.

LadyPutt wrote:

drive4show wrote:The 'best' golfer is quite simply the one that completes 18 (36, 72) holes in the fewest number of strokes. The old saying 'it's not how, it's how many' is absolutely true.

Absolutely! Couldn't have put it better myself.

And the award for the most obvious statement goes to...

The question really is, what makes or helps a golfer have fewer strokes than all the rest on a given day. Golf is really 3 sports in 1 - the long game, the short game and putting. Additionally, it requires an ability to master your own nerves like few other sports, and a tactical brain. Swing certainly has an impact on the long game, but is less of an issue in the short game where it's more about feel and often invention, rather than pure power mechanics. The player who gets the most out of all areas of the game, who stays calm and adopts the right tactics will probably win.

Oh. I think I just won my own award :lol:

What separates the multiple major winners and winners of 70+ tournaments during their lifetime boils down to one word 'yougorrawanna' - you look at all the greats throughout Sporting history, not just golf and they all have this in abundance! Because if you haven't got enough 'yougorrawanna' you won't put the practice in, you won't learn from your mistakes, you won't go that little bit extra to ensure you win more often than anyone else, no matter what the course and conditions. Someone once said 'the greatest single enemy of a fantastic career is a very good career' and I just wonder if too many golfers are too comfortable to push that little bit harder

The basic swing mechanics need to be there, as becoming a good golfer requires repetition. What it looks like doesn't really matter, as long as you know that the swing is going to repeat on a regular basis, and you therefore know where the ball is going to go more often than not.

As you get more advanced in the game, and find yourself in a position to win professional tournaments, then it all comes down to mental strength. The swing is already there, and the only thing that will force the swing to break down is pressure and nerves. Those that can control them win majors... those that can't, don't.

Someone with a really bad swing can become a champion... Someone with no bottle will never be a champion, regardless of how flawless their swing might be when the pressure is off.

I think Marcus sums up what I was trying to say too. We all seem agreed that it matters not how pretty a swing is as long as the clubface is in the right position at impact; but the more classic swings are designed to do that with much more regularity. There will always be exceptions, but I would say that the likes of Tommy two-gloves must have amazing hand-eye coordination to even hit the ball with that swing!

Surely, the more unorthadox the swing, the greater the chance of it breaking down especially under pressure

Davie wrote:I think Marcus sums up what I was trying to say too. We all seem agreed that it matters not how pretty a swing is as long as the clubface is in the right position at impact; but the more classic swings are designed to do that with much more regularity. There will always be exceptions, but I would say that the likes of Tommy two-gloves must have amazing hand-eye coordination to even hit the ball with that swing!

Surely, the more unorthadox the swing, the greater the chance of it breaking down especially under pressure

It is well documented that Jim Furyks father/coach/someone related to his swing tried to change his swing to something more orthodox at one point. The result was horrible. It looked pretty but the results were a complete nightmare.

Personally it doesn't matter as long as the ball goes at the flag.