The famous Hogan “secret” was revealed in Life magazine article in 1955. This involved a cupping of the left wrist at the top of the backswing — creating the sensation of pushing the right hand towards the front. This “secret” let Hogan hit a high fade, and helped him combat the hook he so dreaded. Of course the vast majority of recreational golfers fade or slice the ball, so Hogan’s secret proved to be useless for them.

Another equally (or more) important Hogan insight revealed in Five Lessons has to do with the position of the left (front) wrist and hand at the point of impact. According to Hogan, the front arm and wrist should be leading the swing, and the front wrist bone should actually push out towards the target slightly at the point of impact and beyond. This is known as supination, and according to Hogan, “every good golfer has his left wrist in this supinating position at impact… Every poor golfer does the exact reverse. As his club comes into the ball, he starts to pronate the left wrist — to turn it so that the [left] palm will be facing down.” p. 101, Five Lessons, Fireside Edition, Simon and Schuster, 1957.

According to Hogan, good golfers all supinate their lead wrist, while poorer golfers pronate (or flip). In other words, the “poor golfer” tries to flip his hands to get the ball in the air, and in so doing adds loft to the club, loses distance, and fails to maximize the backspin imparted by striking down on the ball. The “good golfer”, on the other hand, drives down through the ball, “letting the club do the work”, and actually tends to de-loft the club slightly, and thus tends to get more distance as well as a more penetrating ball flight.

If you have studied the swing at all, this will not come as a surprise to you. On the other hand, if you haven’t read Hogan’s Five Lessons, The Modern Fundamentals of Golf, you’re missing perhaps the most important golf swing book ever published. The illustrations alone are worth studying. You should also have a look at David Leadbetter’s excellent commentary called The Fundamentals of Hogan. In a future report I will do a more extensive summary of the most important points made in both of these books.

The post Another Ben Hogan Swing “Secret” appeared first on Golf Review.

What I call the “rubber bands theory” is described by Hogan like this:
“There should be a sense of fixed jointness between the two forearms and the wrists, and it should be maintained throughout the swing.” (p. 48)

In other words, Hogan is saying you should keep your arms as close together as possible throughout the entire swing. He even advocates turning your elbows inward so that “the pockets will be facing towards the sky…not toward each other.”

Actually Hogan does not use the term “rubber bands”. This description is implied by the vivid illustrations that accompany the text.

Why Should We Keep our Arms Tucked in?

Many of us will recognize this as just another version of the old (Scottish?) tip that we “hold a hanky under the armpit as we swing and don’t let it fall out.”

According to Hogan, the reason for this is that the arms will act as one unit: “With practice, they will act the same way on swing after swing, with no variation, repeating the same action almost like a machine.”

Frankly I’m not very happy with this explanation. Our bodies act as a “unit” whether we do the rubber bands thing or not. In fact, most of us have bodies that already act quite predictably machine-like — so much so, that we find it almost impossible to get rid of our slice.

No. It’s not about turning yourself into a machine. We are machines whether we like it or not. I suggest the answer is much more fundamental than this. So fundamental, in fact, nobody I’ve read on this topic has pointed it out.

It’s All About Hand Position

The reason is really pretty simple. If you don’t keep your arms tight against your body, your hands will end up out towards the ball on the down swing, and the club head will get outside the line. This is simple mechanics. Move the hands out, and the position of the club head will change. Or, if not, something else, like the shaft angle or shoulder position will have to change in order to compensate for the hands being closer to the ball.

Surprisingly, Hogan’s book does not even discuss this as a potential swing problem. There are virtually no illustrations showing the hand position at the point of impact looking down the target line from the back (or front). David Leadbetter’s commentary on “Five Lessons’ doesn’t do any better. Leadbetter shows lots of head on (90 degree) shots, but nothing demonstrating the position of the hands relative to the body at the point of impact.

Natural Golf talks about this but…

This is pretty critical, wouldn’t you agree? In fact Natural Golf – the only serious alternative swing theory to the conventional approach taught by most golf pros – takes this very seriously.

Orthodox Natural Golf theory claims that the elimination (or at least serious reduction) of the angle between the forearms and club shaft is critical to their entire method. Orthodox theory (as originally formulated by Jack Kuykendal) claims this is because it simplifies the swing, by creating a “single axis”.

Frankly I find the “single axis” theory rather unsatisfactory (for reasons discussed elsewhere). The fact that this particular Natural Golf technique (“reducing the angle”) actually works is, I think, not open to question. In my experience it does work — especially for less experienced golfers. But that doesn’t mean we have to buy the explanation.

Do you see what “eliminating the angle” amounts to? It is advocating that we get our arms away from our body, not keep them in tight like Hogan claims. In other words, it is an anti-rubber bands theory! It is telling us: Do NOT hold your arms in tight to your body. Get them stretched out! Picture Moe Norman.

Let me hazard a guess as to why this actually works…

As I mentioned above, I think the success of Natural Golf (at least when people first try it) is beyond dispute. The reason, I suggest, has little to do with how many “axes” you’re working with. Rather, it is because keeping your hands in takes discipline and effort. The more “natural” inclination is to get them out away from the body — to throw them at the ball. So why not give nature a hand by setting up with them already extended out. Doesn’t that make getting outside the line on the downswing just that much more difficult?

Yes it does. And hence, voila! we have the Natural Golf cure for the slice!

For those of us who set up in the traditional way – with an obvious angle between forearms and the club shaft – this makes it clear how fundamental Hogan’s Rubber Bands are. If we are not able to “hold the angle” (by keeping arms and hands in tight to our bodies) on the way down, we will almost inevitably come at the ball “from the outside” at the point of impact.

This also has a bearing on the “power move”

Most traditional theorists* often claim that the “power move” is that last part of the swing before impact when you go from cocked wrists to impact – the “snap” at the bottom. Analysts love to show slo-mo videos of pros like Sergio Garcia who are able to “hold their wrist cock” well below the parallel position, and then snap their hands at the ball with awesome force in that split second just before the club contacts the ball.

Executing this move correctly from a traditional setup position is almost impossible if you don’t apply Hogan’s Rubber Bands. In fact, practicing this move in slow motion can be very revealing. It will show you how your hands, arms, hips and legs must work together to allow you to approach the ball properly from the inside.

* Some exceptions to the “hold the wrist cock for as long as possible” rule include Dalton McCrary of “Straight Shooting Golf” fame, and Jack Nicklaus, at least as he presents his swing in his 70s videos.

The post What’s So Important About Hogan’s Rubber Bands? appeared first on Golf Review.

Well, yes… and no.

By the age of 10 Tiger Woods was already a national phenomenon, having appeared on national television at age 3 and winning the Junior World Championship by the time he was 8. So when Earl
Woods went looking for a coach to take his son “to the next level”, everyone he talked to recommended John Anselmo.

Why? Over many years of teaching in Southern California, Anselmo had established a reputation as an outstanding teacher of young golfers. His approach was simple and “natural” focusing on common sense down to earth images and explanations rather than “scientific” or textbook theory. He emphasized insight and imagination, rather than the quest for perfect mechanics.

This sort of emphasis puts the “natural” teacher in a kind of dilemma. It is the reason teachers like Anselmo don’t get credit for the accomplishments of their students. If they are not introducing any serious adjustments, how can they take credit for any success that might follow? Didn’t it just take place “naturally”?

Personally I think this contrast between mechanical and intuitive teaching is usually overstated. Who are these mechanics-oriented teachers? Butch Harmon? David Leadbetter? Harvey Penick? Jim Mclean? Not according to them. Virtually every well-known teacher says “I don’t try to confuse a student with lots of theory. I don’t change something just because it doesn’t conform to the mechanical model. I don’t tinker with something that isn’t broken.”

On the other hand, we expect teachers to actually do something. And most of us are impressed when they confidently tell us what they are going to do. That usually translates into swing mechanics, preoccupation with the take away, position at the top, sing path, and so on, and so on.

The irony is that Anselmo is not as “natural” as he claims. For instance, it is simply not true that Anselmo did not make major adjustments to Tiger’s swing. He goes to some length describing how he had Tiger change from a classic flat-planed, around-the-body, hook-waiting-to-happen-at-any-minute “natural” swing, to a more Nicklaus-like upright swing. Anselmo was following Ben Hogan, and says as much (page 13). Note the accompanying picture of Anselmo’s own position at the top of the swing, and how much Hogan influence there is in it.

The most interesting parts of the book are where he contrasts “the Anselmo way” with “the conventional way” of executing shots like a draw, or a power fade. What is striking about these comparisons is how much simpler “the Anselmo way” sounds. Again Anselmo has much in common with Nicklaus. As Nicklaus says in the video Golf My Way “to hit a fade all I do is open the club face slightly, and aim left of the target”. This is virtually identical to what Anselmo says: “Aim the clubface at your target, and your feet, knees, hips and shoulders left of it.” (p.51). What could be simpler than that?

There are also some interesting insights into Tiger’s swing “secrets” — although Tiger’s swing is obviously not a very well kept secret. And interesting descriptions of some of the imaginative shots for which Tiger has become famous — you know, the punch shots, winding draws around trees, and those 200 yard fairway bunker shots.

But all in all this book is less notable for its insights into Tiger Woods, than it is for its descriptions of the teaching methods and swing techniques of John Anselmo. If a guy like Tiger could be subjected to the “simple” approach for 350 or so lessons and come out of it even more proficient than when he went in, that’s good enough for me.

The post A-Game Golf appeared first on Golf Review.

Dave Pelz’s Short Game Bible

The fact is that this book can make a difference to any golfer’s short game if they take the time to read, understand, and apply it. That is why a multi-part study of the book is worth doing. This study will contain summaries and commententary on Pelz’s main theories and observations. It will be published in short segments over the course of the next month or so, and then compiled as a complete downloadable report.

Who is Dave Pelz?

Pelz started playing golf when he was about 7, and although — according to his own telling of the story — he was not an outstanding player, he was well above average. He was good enough to earn a 4 year golf scholarship to Indiana University.

While at Indiana he studied physics and he played golf. His golfing experience in college was not particularly promising. He had the privilege of playing against Jack Nicklaus more than 20 times, and was beaten every time. This in itself does not make him a loser, but it didn’t inspire a whole lot of confidence either, and so he decided not to pursue a golfing career when he got out.

When he graduated he used his degree in physics to get a job with NASA doing “space research” and he set golf aside while he got on with his life. Eventually he drifted back to competitive golf, playing in local tournaments, and dabbling in club design on the side.

At one of these regional tournaments some local businessmen noticed how well he was putting with a putter of his own design, and convinced him to start a business designing clubs and teaching aids. Pelz’s own description of the early years of his golf business are sketchy. It is not really clear what he was doing except watching lots of golf, and losing lots of money.

Whatever he was doing, by his own admission his business was not very successful in the early years and he regularly considered quitting the business altogether.

“The Day That Changed My Life”

In retrospect Pelz attributes his lack of early success to a lack of focus — a failure to understand what the game of golf is really about. The event that opened his eyes to his need for a different perspective on the game was a match between Gay Brewer — a previous winner of the Master’s — and another fine looking young golfer who Pelz is considerate enough not to name. Brewer’s opponent had a beautiful swing that was text book perfect and which contrasted sharply with Brewer’s own unorthodox swing. But Brewer beat his opponent by four strokes that day.

Pelz couldn’t believe it. Here we had an inversion of the conventional wisdom. The guy with the mechanically perfect and supposedly predictable swing gets beaten by the guy with the
unorthodox, erratic looking swing that looked like it had been cobbled together in the back yard.

This was the beginning of Pelz’s quest for a deeper understanding of the game. Ironically in spite of this “eureka moment” Pelz does not end up endorsing non-conventionality. In fact his eventual conclusions are even more conventional — at least more mechanical and more analytical — than virtually any other leading teacher past or present.

What is unconventional about Pelz is his insistence that scoring takes place from 100 yards in — as a result of proficiency in the short game. No major swing theorist had ever focused exclusively on the short game. Throughout the history of the game every major teacher has emphasized the analysis and mastery of the full swing. But Pelz looked at the “facts” and concluded that the short game — pitching, chipping, and putting — is what seperated winners from losers.

Go to any driving range and watch for a while. You can’t help but come away thinking that Pelz is right. If golfers would use even 25% of the energy spent hacking balls to learn how to pitch, chip, and putt, they could make a much bigger impact on their scores than trying to hit their drives an extra five yards.

This is not really a new thought. Golfers have been talking about “the short game” since golf was invented. But as we will see in the upcoming segments of this study, Pelz focused on the short game in ways that had never been done before.

The post A Study of Dave Peltz’s Short Game Bible – Introduction appeared first on Golf Review.

As Pelz describes it in his book, this assumption was given a major jolt the day he watched Gay Brewer soundly beat another golfer who had a much prettier looking swing. This eventually led him to formulate a completely different attitude towards improving one’s golf game — a more “scientific” attitude.

The first thing Pelz questioned was the assumption that perfecting one’s swing technique will have the most significant impact on one’s scores. He was not questioning the importance of technique or consistency. Rather, he was addressing the question “What makes the biggest difference to a golfer’s score?” Or to put it another way,  “How can a golfer improve his or her scoring performance?”

In the place of the normal preoccupation with swing technique came an almost complete focus on results. He stopped looking at the swing and started looking at where the balls were landing. And we’re not just talking about a relatively superficial interest in things like “fairways hit”, or “greens in regulation”.

He went far beyond simple stuff like that. Dave Pelz the scientist formulated a concept he called PEI — Percentage Error Index — and for three years he tracked and recorded and analyzed the actual shots of a large number of touring pros. This was the data he would eventually use to draw his most important conclusions.

PEI — Percentage Error Index

The PEI concept is deceptively simple. Every week at some PGA tour event Dave Pelz — the “big fat guy” with the clip board — would follow a particular group of pros around charting their shots. For each shot he would make a calculated guess as to precisely where it was supposed to land. Then he would run up to where the ball had landed and note how far from the intended target point it had actually landed.

For instance, on a 150 yard shot if the ball landed 10 yards from the target point that was a 6.7% error. The PEI was calculated by dividing the distance from the intended target — the amount of “error” — by the total distance the shot was supposed to travel — in this case, 150 yards. This gave Pelz an objective measure of a golfer’s accuracy with every club.

Pelz’s objective was to watch a player hit every club at least a few hundred times. He discovered that analyzing shots this way revealed surprisingly consistent results for every player he followed. As he says, “When I compute an average from more than 1,000 shots, I consider the PEI an absolute indication of the player’s skill with that club.” (14). In other words, if he watched enough shots he could arrive at an objective evaluation — a PEI — of a player’s skill with every club in his bag — from driver to putter.

He kept this up for about three years, creating a personal database unlike any that had ever been compiled before.

What Did the Data Tell Him?

Eventually Pelz started to arrive at some conclusions from all this data. Here are some of his more significant observations:

1. For any given player from driver down to 9 iron the PEI for all clubs was the same within about 1%. In other words a player who had a 7% PEI with his driver was very likely to have a very similar PEI with all his clubs down to and including his 9 iron. This is what he calls the full swing PEI.

2. Every player studied had a significantly higher PEI with the wedges as opposed to driver – 9 iron. The difference ranged from twice to four times as high. In other words, every player studied was less accurate with their wedges. This is what he calls the finesse swing PEI.

3. When correlated against winnings there was no correlation at all between full swing PEI and money won. (p.22) Tour players are all such consistently good strikers of the ball (all within 5.5% and 9.5% PEI) that you simply cannot say “This guy wins more because he hits better full shots.”

4. There was only a weak correlation between putting PEI and money winnings. “…the best putters were not the highest money winners.”(p.23)

5. There was a strong correlation between short game PEI and money winnings. “Up and down, all along the money list, there was a strong and meaningful correlation between how well players hit their short-game shots and how much money they won on Tour.” (p.23)

Taking the Data One Step Further

One obvious conclusion from all of this is that the importance of the short game is generally underestimated. Pelz’s data clearly showed that the most significant contributor to winning was how accurate a golfer was with his wedges. It was more important than the length of his drives or the accuracy of his irons. And it was even more important than how well he putted. Of course, Pelz was aware that the ratios that held for touring pros might not hold for amateurs.

Ever the good scientist, Pelz dug deeper into his data to try to explain this. Fortunately when he was following all those players around with his clipboard he was not only measuring how far their shots were missing their targets, but also where in relation to the target all those shots were landing. His data told him for every shot whether it was long or short, left or right.

When he charted this information he found a very interesting correlation. Players almost always missed with their full swings left or right. Their distances were amazingly consistent. A 5 iron that missed by 10 yards normally missed either left or right.

But when it came to the “finesse swing” — the wedge shots — the misses were usually long or short. In other words most players were able to hit their wedges quite straight. But they were not able to control the distance as accurately as with their full swings.

Why is This Important?

In his mountain of data Pelz had what he needed to explain why accuracy with the wedges is so important. It boils down to this: the closer a player can put his ball to the hole, the greater chance he has of making the putt. For the pros, if they could get it within six feet they had a 50% chance of making the putt. And the easiest way to get it closer is by learning how to hit your wedges more accurately.

In other words, of all the things a golfer can do to improve his or her game — at least a golfer with the consistency of a touring pro — learning how to hit the wedges closer to the hole will have the greatest impact on the score. As he says, “If you want to score, the most important ‘game’ to improve is your short game.” (31)

According to Pelz the problem of controlling wedge distances had never been addressed in a systematic way. He was going to change that. It became his mission in life to give golfers a “system” that would allow them to consistently hit their wedges predictable distances.

The post Why Dave Pelz Concentrates on the Short Game appeared first on Golf Review.