Ask The Professor Archives Part 10

I've been playing golf for little over four years.  And to this day, I cannot seem to hit my drives, whether it's a one wood, or a five wood.  I seem to keep getting a fade or a slice.  I've tried just about everything to eliminate the problem, from reading instruction books, to video's, and help from friends.  Sometimes I get a few good straight shots, but not too often.  Here are a few things I've tried -- moving my hands to the right (I'm right handed), changing my stance, putting my right foot back, putting my left foot back, swinging from inside to out, weak grip, strong grip, follow through.  Could it be something simple that I'm not doing?  Any help will be appreciated.

Your story is the story of 90% of golfers around the world.  You are on the tips merry-go-round -- try this tip, then try this tip, then try this tip.  The golf magazines have learned that you are a gullible group and as long as they keep feeding you the same tips over and over again, you will keep purchasing their magazines.  Unfortunately, the brain does not learn from tips.  You can see a video or watch another golfer all you want, it will not help.  You can read any article and try to duplicate the pictures, it will not help.  You can go to the range and pounds thousands of balls, it will not help.

There are two problems.  The first one is that over 90% of the tips in golf magazines are incorrect or the least desirable mechanical method to solve the problem.  Virtually all the instructors who are listed as the best in the world are scientific morons.  The worst ones I have come across are David Leadbetter, Butch Harmon, Jim McLean, Mike Hebron and Dr. Gary Wiren.  Dr. Wiren authored the current PGA teaching book.  The PGA manual has so much incorrect science, that it is useless for golf instruction.

The second problem is trying to make a change without a proper training device.  Unfortunately, none of the devices sold by the traditional establishment work.  The golfing public is completely turned off to training devices -- as well they should be.  Over the last few years, you have had Greg Norman's secret, Kallassy's Swing Magic, Rick Smith's "The Plane Stick", Leadbetter's laser lights and many others.  They all fail miserably.

Is Jack Kuykendall the only human alive with ALL the answers?  YES!  Golf mechanics are laughably simple.  If you can count to three and move your trailing arm, you can reach your mechanical potential.  However, it will be hardest thing you will ever do to do something so simple.  First, you must take the time to understand the golf swing.  What you think you know is incorrect.  You need a membership to my Scientific Golf Magazine Web Site.  This provides scientific knowledge.  Second, you need to purchase the LPG kit.  These are training aids that do work and will allow you to become your own teacher.

One golfer named my LPG device, the device from HELL.  It forces you to swing correctly.  Your current neuronal programs HATE to swing correctly.  They will do everything they can not to change.

Now, here comes the really hard part.  It takes up to two years for long-term memory to be established.  You can create effective short-term memory patterns in as little as 30 days and play better golf than you ever imagined in as little as six months.  But, long-term memory is two years of doing the same thing correctly.  It will take you two years of using the LPG training aids at least once a week, to develop memory patterns that you never have to think about again.

If you refuse to believe science and continue to search for the quick fix, you can still enjoy the love-hate relationship and frustration that 90% of golfers have with the game.  If you want to make a lasting change and reach your potential, you have no choice but follow my instructions.

Jack

My point is, as science predicts, it takes a while for the ACTS programs to become entrenched.  From my standpoint, everything you have stated in your material has proven to be correct.  I hit a 300 yd. drive today (with one of your drivers) on a flat soft fairway with no wind,   Oh yeah, it was straight down the middle.  (I hit all but 2 fairways.)  It is as you state, I am my own coach, since all of the misinformation in the golf world can be filtered out.(It is humorous to read some of the nonsense out there) I believe your info. gives a person all of the basics to improve his ball striking to whatever level is desired.  I would like to see more on your web site about putting.

Thanks for the e-mail. Correctly applied science really does work.

Jack

Lag is correctly maintained from the top by letting the arms/hands fall into the body at a relatively slow pace (via gravity) so as not to create enough early centrifugal force to uncock or release the wrists too soon.  When the shaft is half way back down and the weight on the left side, the release process begins.   This, as is described both by McLean and Jimmy Ballard is when the right side "fires."   Only then can the hands arrive at the correct impact position past the ball as the clubhead arrives at the ball when impact occurs.

McLean and Ballard are scientific morons and do not have a clue about how clubhead speed is produced. Their advice is easily proven to incorrect. Jim McLean may be the most dangerous teacher in the world. His X and Y factor have the potential for major back problems and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with producing clubhead speed.

I have all the correct answers on my web site.  If you want to know REAL SCIENCE and a the correct explanation, you will have to become a member of my web site.

Jack

Kevin
Western NY

A dozen Slazenger golf balls are on their way to Kevin. I promised to select at least one response that disagreed with me and send out a dozen balls. So far Kevin's is typical, no one who disagrees has responded. 

Don

Jack is away for a few days.  So I'll do my best to stir the pot in his absence.

I've seen much discussion on the power output of muscles.  Cochran and Stobbs, in Search for the Perfect Swing give power as 1/8 HP per pound of muscle, without a citation.  Jorgensen uses the same output, again without a citation.  From this they conclude that the lower body has to power the golf swing.  Well the test of theory is observation.

Most NBA players have a 3 foot vertical jump, and often they are holding, and even moving the ball from one hand to the other which takes upper body assistance out of the jump.  How much power is required?

Assume a weight of 220 pounds.
E = M(ass) X g X H(eight of leap) Mass is weight divided by g, thus g divides out of the equation giving -
E = 220 lbs X 3 feet = 660 foot pounds.
HP = 550 foot pounds / second. The time for the leap is about 3 video frames or .1 second.
HP = 660/.1/550 = 12 HP

About half the weight of a well conditioned male is muscle; in this case that's 110 pounds.  Approximately half of that is in the lower body and since agonists equal antagonists a pro basketball player has ~ 27.5 pounds of muscle to develop 12 HP.  That's .44 HP per pound, which is 3.5 times 1/8 HP per pound. To determine if this is estimate is reasonable, I found tests of college football players' vertical leaps and the results showed they generate as much as 10,000 watts which is over 13 HP, however they are using upper body movement.

How about a golf example.  I used videos of Jack swinging where he obtained 100 mph club head speed, and estimated that he is generating 2.5 HP.  Jack can obtain 100 mph clubhead speed while seated on a stool.  Modeling Jack's arms as 2 frustums of right circular cones, and using the weight of water to estimate weight, his arms weigh 9 pounds each.  About 33% of that is blood and bone, leaving 6 pounds of muscle in each arm. Agonists, not quite in the case of arms, equal antagonists, so I used 7 pounds.   2.5 HP / 7 pounds = .36 HP per pound.  Which is about 3 times 1/8 HP per pound.

Yeah but, you left out the shoulders.  Other than cut Jack up (which some of you would go for) I am not sure how to estimate their weight and their contribution.  Why?  One of Jack's speed building exercises, while kneeling, is to swing -- bash -- a driver from a horizontal "back stroke" position into a cushion on the ground on the opposite side.  There is no upper body movement and his club head speed is still about 100 mph.  But go ahead and add another pound, his output is still 2.5 greater than 1/8 HP per pound of muscle.

So where does this leave us?  Cochran and Stubbs based their conclusions on a faulty assumption?  Jorgensen used the same assumption and fell into the same trap?  What happened to peer review?  Or the lower body does contribute via "tele-kinetics."  Or my reasoning and arithmetic is all wrong?  Or Jack doesn't have the muscle power to make the NBA?  (Since he's 5' 11" and over 60, he'd agree.)  Or ?

What's the point -- to have some fun.  Isn't that what golf is about!  I have several dozen Slazenger Tour-Calibre balls left from a contest we ran a year ago.  Send me have your comments and I'll pick the ones I like, post them and send you a dozen balls.  Remember this for fun; you don't have to agree with me.  And I'll be sure to "like" at least one response that knocks holes in my analysis.  I'm not thin skinned.

Send me your views and conclusions.  I don't want Jack needling me for lack of response!
Send them to dhorton@scigolf.com

Have fun!

Don

It is getting old, practicing what Scott says to do all week and then go out and playing like a beginner on Saturday.

It would surprise me if you are doing what Scott says to do.  Not because you are not trying, but because of how the brain learns.  You cannot learn Scott's, or any other method, by watching a video and TRYING to duplicate it.  The brain does not make effective mechanical golf motion changes that way.  [Immediate feedback is necessary, which Scott's exercises provide.]

I have endorsed that single axis is the way to go but have yet to be able to produce it for a period of time.  Getting laughs now.

Single-Axis only provides mechanical advantages over the Two-Axis system.  It still requires that you understand what you need to do and use training aids to make the changes.

For the past three years I have practiced what Scott says on his videos and broken them down and slow motioned them while viewing them.   You name it I have tried it.

Again, I know you think you are doing what Scott teaches.  However, with a video of your swing, I would be able to show that your body is far too active and rotates at the wrong times during the stroke.

Forgive my complaining but I need some ideas of how to make it happen soon.

First, you need a membership to my Science Web Site - $60.  This provides knowledge.  Second, you need the LPG training aids -- $275.  These aids force you to swing correctly.  One user called the LPG "the Device From Hell."  It forces you to make a correct motion.  Your current neuronal patterns will do everything they can NOT to make the change.

I feel like at the 6/100's of a second area that I am just slinging the club through the impact zone or throwing the club through with the right arm after the elbow gets down in front of the hip.

I have not seen Scott's videos.  However, I would really be surprised if he is asking you to get your right elbow in front of your right hip.  This is a guarantee of failure.  No Golfer, who is good ball striker, does that move. Ben Hogan absolutely did not do that move -- he only thought he did.   Jim McLean's revision of this is a disaster.

Every week I try something different.

That is is another major problem.   Short term memory is good for 2 days to a week.  It takes up to 2 years to put into long term memory.  If you do not do the same thing at least twice a week, you NEVER have a chance to change your neuronal patterns.  You have the same long term memory patterns you started with 3 years ago.  The only change in your short term memory is the one you made this week.  All the others do not exist in your brain.

I should be getting close, after 3 years of daily practice.

You do not have 3 years of practice on the system.   You have one week of practice 36 times.

Flexibility is no problem.   All adivice you can give will be tried out.

Before changing to LPG or continuing with Scott's Single-Axis method, take a private lesson with Scott or me, or one of my certified instructors.  You have too many incorrect patterns in your brain. You need to start with seeing and feeling correct.

Jack

I would never have considered arguing with Pete Rose about the baseball swing when I came up to the majors as a rookie, and I consider you to be of that caliber from what I've read.  I'm the type that just wants to know how to make the swing work and repeat consistently.   I don't mind putting in the work just as long as there is a reward of satisfaction at the end.   I took up golf about 20 yrs. ago during my major league career.   I have always been able to become at least respectable at almost anything I have ever set my mind to do in the past, except for this crazy game.   If I could ever break 90 consistently, I would probably quit!   Ha ha.   This game has a way of consuming you, I love it.   I have taken your "only necessary move" to the range with my CG clubs and have experienced unbelievable results.   That has encouraged me to order several of your clubs to practice with and also will be sending you my NG set, so you can burn them.

The metal is too difficult to burn.   I break them in half and throw them in the dumpster.   This is to make sure no one ever has to experience one of their clubs if they are not conned into them.

At the range I'm hitting the ball straight about 60% of the time, with authority, something I seldom experience.   The remainder are either pushed or pulled (some severely hooked.

I haven't read or I've overlooked information on "cause and effect" in the LPG swing (troubleshooting). Would you be kind enough to review some of the reasons for the push and pull, so I can improve on these faults?

Pushed shots are from not rotating the forearms.  Severe hooks are caused by the breaking down of the left wrist at impact.

To make any lasting improvement, you will need the LPG training kit.   This is necessary to change your neuronal patterns.  The LPG aids cures both hooks and pushes.

The golf swing and the baseball swing are similar in that, things happen so fast that most of the time faults are hard to detect.

All motion is controlled by the subconscious.  It is a non-communicating dictator.   There are only sensations or feelings in mechanical motion.  There is NEVER any feedback to the conscious mind about the what is actually happening.

I agree 100% with your thoughts about a tour player's ability to tell others how they do what they do.  After years of practice and repetition they just react and do it.

It's nice to have someone like yourself that has put in the time to understand the science, so people like myself, that have experienced mostly frustration, can now enjoy the game.   Look forward to the arrival of your clubs and hope to have the pleasure of meeting you one day.   Thanks again!

The last thing anyone learning golf should do is listen to the best players in the world and their coaches.  Neither the player or the coaches have clue as to what actually happens.  Their coaches are scientific morons.

Jack

I am next going to try the baseball grip with the left thumb wrapped around the shaft.   Any good ideas for small hands and the Impact grip without too much separation of hands?  I would hate to give up on these size grips as I really like them.

Because of TRADITIONAL DOGMA about oversized grips, it is necessary to show how someone with a small hand can effectively use my SINGLE-AXIS system.

This is 6 year old Jordan Singer.  He has NO problem with the largest grip on the market.

If your hands are larger than Jordan's, you will NOT have a problem with my grips.

Jack

He credits Moe Norman, as well as other legends in his teachings.   Wondering what your thoughts are on Mark's material...

The original method that Mark taught was supposed to be similar to Moe's.   It was a traditional swing.   It had nothing to do with Single-axis or a stable body.   I have not seen anything he might have changed to.   However, I would be surprised if it resembled Moe Norman or Single-Axis.

Jack

Isn't your two lever system the same that has been taught by Jimmy Ballard for several years?  Your swing even looks like Ballard's instructional video.

It is 100% opposite of Jimmy Ballard's the Dog Wags the Tail system.   He gives the body 100% credit for the production of power and believes in centrifugal force.  Nothing I teach is similar in any fashion to his.

Jack

You state that the first move on the downswing is putting the clubhead backwards and away from the target (in addition to the sitting down motion).  When I do it, I feel that the clubhead feels "heavier" as I continue swinging downwards with my upper arms.  Does "heavier" means more "force", ergo, more power in hitting the ball?

It is hard to translate feel into science.  There is a resistance by the clubhead at the start of the downstroke. This is probably what you describe as the clubhead feels heavy.  However, this resistance is with any type of swing. The heavier feel does not relate to power.  The correct motion produces the power.

Another question; what muscle or groups of muscles actually contracts first to start the downswing?

Since you are member of the site, go to the Anatomy Section and read the following information:
1. The muscles that create speed

Jack

My question to you is how can I get away from fading the ball with my driver, or 3 wood?   Sometimes it's straight, but most of the time I have this annoying fade.   Here's what I tried, so far with no luck, rotating my hands more to the right, teeing the ball higher off my front foot, moving my right foot back slightly, slowing my back swing, keeping my head behind the ball, closing the club face more, etc., etc.  Nothing seems to work, I cannot even get a draw, which I would love.   Hoping you may give me something else I can try.  I'm about a 14 handicap.

Unfortunately, you are on the TIPS merry-go-round.   Over 30 percent of the articles in golf magazines are how to cure the slice.   They have been writing them for the last 100 years.   Virtually none of them work.   If you were member of my site, you would be able to see how over 45 of the top 50 slice cures actually cause a slice.

Your problem is traditional mechanics and a traditional (incorrect) understanding of the golf stroke.   My suggestions are to become a member of my web site, and then to purchase the LPG kit and Sponges.  These allow you to reprogram your neuronal circuits and become your own teacher.

There are no short cuts and no TIP will ever help you.   You can choose correct science or you can continue to fail with the TIPS merry-go-round.

Jack

How important is the back swing

The only reason for a backstroke is to get to the correct position at the top.  The golf stroke starts from a correct position at the top.

By the way I go through your science page weekly and I always pick something up.  I am not a certified instructor of any kind but I am in search for the truth as you definitely show.

Golf science is very straight forward.   Nothing past first quarter 101 sciences.

I work at a sporting goods store part time.  Once in awhile I will help at the golf department, my customers are amazed at how much I know about the physics and club design, to include the correct motion.

Once you have read and understand my site, you are more knowledgeable than anyone in golf who does not have access to my site.

Even a couple of PGA teaching pro's come in once in awhile and chat with me.   They always ask if I am a certified golf pro, and I tell them I do not need to be a certified golf pro.   I tell them its all based on science and physics and almost all teachers teach based on perception.   They get ripped and walk out all upset.  But guess what? they keep on coming back.

They will never admit they are wrong, or non-optimum.   But they would like to know the truth.

I finally told them about your science page - now we are great friends.   Can you figure that one?   Of course I give you all the credit for making the info available and believe me the yearly fee is a small price to pay.   Thanks again and keep up the great work .

O, YES!   They can receive knowledge and not have to let the PGA know that most of the PGA manual is incorrect.

Jack

Please comment on the necessitty of keeping the head back behind the ball during impact - advantages when you do, and what happens when if you don't.

The body is a stabilizer.  The trailing arm produces most of the clubhead speed.  If your head (and therefore your body) stays back, you achieve maximum clubhead speed with the least mechanical motion.  If your head moves forward (and therefore the body is moving forward), you must have a ball position and coordination that accommodates for the additional unnecessary motion.  Every time you drive left and rotate your hips, you are adding Quantum leaps of difficulty in hitting a golf ball long and straight.

It can be done.   Jim Furyk is a perfect example of the worst effective mechanics in golf.   His body and grip are in the most disadvantaged positions possible at every position during the swing.   Because he makes the only necessary motion with his right arm, from shoulder height in the downstroke to impact, he is still able to play with the best in the world.   It is however, as difficult as it can get.

Jack

Did you know that if you go to www.golfbykuykendall.com, that it brings you to a Natural Golf link?  Interesting yes?

That was a web site I used a long time ago.   When I changed to a different site name, I did not renew the domain name.  An individual renewed the site and Natural Golf advertises on it.  They are a despicable and unethical company

I started my Single-Axis discovery with a company called Right Way Golf in 1988.  Amway marketed the system and it was a marginal success.  As with all inventions, refinements make them better.  It was useful to close Right Way Golf and reopen with a more descriptive name of my invention.   I called it Natural Golf.  In January of 1995, I allowed a group of investors into the company.  By September they found a LEGAL method to take over the company.nbsp; They immediately changed the clubs and the teaching method.  They have been a disgrace to my discovery since the take over.

For over six year (1996 to 2002) they sold a system called a "Lifetime of Better Golf" by Peter Fox.  This was a strong left hand (guarantees a hook), stance too wide, and hands too high method of pushing at the ball with NO forearm rotation.  It was a miserable failure for anyone who actually performed the method.  Their "Lifetime of Better Golf" lasted for six years.

The grips they used until recently did not conform to USGA rule.  They put false patent markings on their clubs (they used my patent -- assigned to Natural Golf before they took over -- on several different clubheads).  The patent does not apply to any Natural Golf designed clubs.

Natural Golf's advertising can easily be shown to be false and misleading.  In my opinion, they have no integrity.  For this reason alone, I do not know why anyone would want to do business with them.

Kuykendall Golf Swing Mechanics
· Science based -- www.kuykendallgolf.com -- covers physics, anatomy, kinesiology, neuroscience, fitness and nutrition.
· Proven results -- greatest improvements in the history of the game.
· Scientifically designed training aids and clubs that do not allow for failure.

Natural Golf Swing Mechanics
· Who ever is in charge at the time mechanics.  They have changed their method of teaching numerous time to try to get results.
· Poorly designed clubs -- some of the worst on the market.  I allow a trade in on them for my clubs.  They are such a poor design that I break them in half and throw them away.
· The claims regarding improvement by using the mechanics taught by their literature and videos are false.  If a golfer improves, it will always be in-spite-of, not because-of, anything being taught by the Natural Golf Corporation.

Jack

I was not able to understand from your description exactly why the Vardon overlapping grip can cause such an adverse effect. It is vital we readers who are a little hard to convince be convinced over precisely this point.  This is where, with your excellent scientific approach, you could make gains in my confidence that what you say is true.  I simply don't see all the planes caused by the Vardon grip.

This is why you need to become a member and see all the science.

I believe you have another website up, not related to Scigolf, where in polite, but harsh terms you depict the new owners of Natural Golf in a negative way.  I am in 100% sympathy with you.  I hope they go bankrupt for having stolen and misused your intellectual property.  Still, the "tone" of this site, shall we say, with visuals reminding one of posters advertising big top circus events, well, it gives the unfortunate impression that your methods are a combination of smoke, mirrors and snake oil, is very off-putting.   It is the main reason I cannot, although I'm impressed, join your website.

I provide scientific and factual information. I have not written the site for approval or disapproval. If showing that most of the traditional instructors are scientific morons is too negative for you, then you will have to remain misinformed about the golf swing. I have NO intention of changing my method of presentation.   (By the way, I have always said the takeover of my company was legal, however, I have questioned their integrity.)

I'm sure you understand what I mean. You've simply got to find someone to put together a professional looking website for you (with no intrusive banner ads and auto-loading spam bots) if you want to attract a wide range of golfers.

I have no banner ads and auto-loading spam bots.  And, no, I do not understand what you mean.   I have very few complaints from my members.

And you absolutely can't pass judgment on competitors, no matter how detestable.  You lose credibility by taking this approach.

On the contrary, that is what science does.   It shows the false beliefs of the established and traditional authority figures.  They call me every name in the book and I don't see anyone telling them not to.   You sound like a Demoncrat defending the human garbage called the Clinton's and those who never find fault with Sadam Hussein.

Lastly, in relation to the book on 'natural golf', you quote sections of the book to show changes made by the new managment to your original material. Thank you for working so hard for average golfers.   Why are you restricted in having the "original book republished, surely the book has entered the public domain by now?  Putting this book back on the market would earn you a lot of money.  I would buy it, whereas I would not pay money to have access to content on a website.

Thank you for working so hard for average golfers.

Again, you have not done your homework. Golf instruction books have very few sales and make very little money for the authors.  The Internet allows me to reach millions of golfers with current and updated information for a simple fee.

Jack

I have a question about the optimal contact point when swinging a golf club. For this question's sake, lets say the left arm and the golf club are one straight line lever, or near so, at ball contact.   If so, isn't the optimal contact point the tip of the shaft vs. the sweet point of the club head which is typically about 1 to 1.5 inches offset from the swingpath of the shaft,

No! If you had 3,4,5, 6, or even 10 levers aligned in many different directions, the center of gravity of the whole system would be where you would hit the ball.

and if the rules allowed would not the ideal club have its center and sweet spot at the shaft tip?

Yes! Many trick shot performers have a shaft, chain and ball attached in line. This would greatly simplify hitting the sweet spot and eliminate hosel shanking.

Now assuming that I don't have some big swing flaw (Ha Ha), the reason I ask is that I have noticed that with my golf swing I tend to strike toward the heel of the club even when choking down the shaft to in effect change its lie. This problem gets worse as I go toward my long irons. However, seemed to have solved it when during set up, I place the sweet spot of the club head forward the ball and then during my swing focus on where the heel/shaft tip was during my setup vs. where I want to strike the ball. Any thoughts?

During any golf swing, there is an outward inertia of the club mass and extension of a few inches. There is flexing of the shaft toward the ground from around 1" with a short iron to several inches with a driver.   All of these mechanical changes during a swing must be compensated for. Tour players raise up and fall away from the ball (straightening of the left leg and raising of the spine). Single axis players set the club slightly inside the ball (allows for the arm extension from the clubheads inertia).

Jack

I just purchased new Thomas irons with an extra inch on the length of all of the shafts. I also have a Titlist 975J Driver with a 46" shaft.   Question: Would buying the grips be beneficial?

Yes. You need the heavier and larger grips for LPG, a standard size grip will twist.

Would I still need a one inch extension to the irons?  (I am saving up for a set of your irons but that will have to wait for awhile.)

Yes. You are not changing the length of the club. You are making the shaft longer to accommodate a two hand grip. Your right hand will remain in the same position. The left hand moves up. You are not changing the effective playing length.

Jack

I have a question on Sammy Sosa's corked bat. Do you have any related science work that would show whether a corked baseball bat would be an advantage?

I don't personally, but corked bats have been demonstrated to be advantageous. For example, Sammy Sosa said he used the corked bat in batting practice to entertain the fans.

Also could a baseball bat be better optimized using MOI science with weighted tape on butt end, etc.?

Yes.   I worked out the numbers when I helped Ozzie Smith, in 1989, increase his batting average by close to 40 points. However, I have not done anything with the knowledge.

Jack

I heard you had a tape of Moe's early swing. Do you ever plan to sell a tape of his early swing? Not necessarily for instruction, but many of us single-plane swingers would love to just have a copy for interest sake,  i.e. I have tapes of Hogan, Sneed, Bobby Jones, etc. and would love to see Moe's swing when he was in his prime.

Sorry, but to my knowledge no one has a copy of his earlier swings.

Jack

What is your opinion of the hinged golf club training aid endorsed by Davis Love? I think it's called Medicus.

It is a useless training aid. It does not allow a golfer to duplicate an optimum golf stroke.

Jack

Jack, can you clarify something for me?   According to physics, if the middle of the clubface hits the very back of the ball squarely will the ball fly straight?

Only if the path and face are the same at separation.  Hooks and slices can hit the middle of the clubface and the back of the ball squarely.

What will happen if the middle of the clubface hits the inside back of the ball or the outside back of the ball?

All depends on path and face at impact and separation.

Also , you say that the clubhead path must travel inside-out 10 degrees and hit the back of the ball to hit a straight shot, so my question is how many degrees off must the club head travel to produce a crooked shot?

If you swing inside to out at 10 degrees, the path and face will be the same with no sides spins at separation of the ball from the clubhead.   It will be a greater number for hooks and slices.

What would happen if the clubhead hit the ball squarely but traveled on an outside to in path of 10 degrees?

I don't know quantitatively.  I've never tried the experiment.

Jack

but the rest of my irons are low and don't vary much in distance from my 7 iron. Realizing you can't see my swing can you give me any advice?

I don't need to see your swing to cure you problem. You are on the TIPS merry-go-round. If you went to different traditional sources, you would get a different answer or TIP from each one of them. Unfortunately, none of the TIPS will work. If you want to understand the golf stroke and cure any problem you will ever have, you need to join my web site. This provides you with scientific knowledge to understand the golf mechanics.

Jack

There seems to be a few people wanting to try the "simple" optimization of all club heads being the same weight, all shafts being the same length and just varying the loft.

Physics shows this to be incorrect. Tommy Armour Golf proved it with their EQUAL clubs. It is better for those people who want a simple optimization to be burned, and then let the word out, than to try to convince them that physics is correct.

Rather than try and make a set you can get a feel for what a club like that would be like cheaply ($75 - $130) by trying one of the all-in-one clubs on the market. Once they do I am sure they will prefer your scientific optimizations to the simple ones. Let them prove it to themselves without wasting a lot of money and they will thank you.

This is too logical for golfers. They want the quick fix and the magic secret.

Jack

Anyway, I think you are on the right track and am enjoying following the course of events. Please, just stay off icy sidewalks!!!!!!!

Thanks for taking the time to write a thought provoking e-mail.

Jack

I am left handed in most things except I switch hit in baseball and shoot a hockey puck right handed. I also golf right handed. I don't want to switch to golfing left handed. Are there any changes or modifications I need to make if I'm left hand dominant but stick to golfing righty?

Unfortunately, there is not enough scientific information on left handed people or golfers to offer any scientific advice. Most left handed golfers I have encountered are a lot like you. They do different sports differently. I find most left handers are ambidextrous. If you have been playing right handed for more than two years, I would recommend that continue that way.

Jack

On shots from 30yds or 60yds do you still turn your hands over like on the full swing.

I do when I want the ball to have average height and roll forward when it hits the green. When I want highest backspin, I use the standard sand shot and hit down crisply on the ball. This shot has virtually no forearm rotation.

Jack

Why do you and Scott, who both base your swing theories on 'science,' have such a distinct difference in how the club is released?

Scott bases his science on information he has received as he understands it.  I base mine on physics, anatomy, kinesiology and neuroscience with references to the sources.

Scott encourages/insists a breakdown in the left wrist position through impact with no rotation of the forearms.

Would you show me where Scott say this.  It is incorrect.   Anyone who hits golf shots with high clubhead speed rotates his forearms through impact.

Jack, you insist on a firm back of wrist position with rotation being an absolute?

Correct.

With both you guys hanging your 'hats' on facts and physics laws that are absolute -- surely you can't be both right or are there more than one correct and scientific way(s) to swing a club.

That is false.  Physics demands that there be an ideal mechanical advantage method.

This leaves your ranting about all these scientific morons (such as Leadbetter, Maclean, etc.) a bit lame.

Bullshit.  They are scientific morons.   Neither of them has a scientific clue about what happens in golf stroke.  They are so ignorant that they believe in centrifugal force.

Even your theory has evolved over time -- has the science or laws you use to back up your stuff changed or just 'reinterpreted' to suit your current beliefs?

Would send examples of where I have changed?  I have taken my Single-Axis discovery to a higher level when I discovered Lever-Power-Golf.  But the basics of Single-Axis have not changed.

I do enjoy your theories which seemed to make sense until I read some of Scott's beliefs.

I issue a challenge to disprove any of my theories.   If you can, I will give you credit for disproving them. Scott is doing a traditional version or Moe Norman version of my Single-Axis discovery.   There will be differences.

Scott dismisses this as being a difference of opinion and you both love and respect each other so please don't be dismissive in explaining this difference -- what's really going on?

Scott teaches an effective method of Single-Axis -- A Moe Norman version.   I teach Lever-Power-Golf -- an optimum scientific version.

Jack

I am converting to LPG.  I'm joining your website and recently ordered the LPG kit from Jesse Mercado.   I plan to take lessons from him very soon.

The ABC-golf-method is a disaster system. You can grip the left hand like a baseball bat but the right hand must be in the lifeline of the palm. If you grip the right hand like a baseball bat, you have worst 2-axis system possible.

Jack

I've been seeing the infomercial, "AJ Reveals the TRUTH about Golf", alot lately.  Have you or any of your clients reviewed this secret to the truth?

I have not seen his videos. Based on what is written about his teaching on golf forums, he is another Charlatan. According to what I have read, he teaches no mechanics other than be natural and focus on your hands and rolling your forearms.

Numerous people have try to teach just be natural and they have all failed.

Jack

There seems to be so much trash going around about the SA and LPG swings on many of the golf forums.

Unfortunately, you are right. There is too much of it on the forums I have seen. That is the reason I don't want any of work of mine on them.

Has Golf Digest done any articles?

No, and neither has Golf Magazine. They market TIPS. They have no interest in a system that is different from their dogma.

There are no schools or clinics in the Midwest, why?

I don't actively recruit teachers. If someone want to spend the time to get certified as a teacher, I work with him. The numbers are growing. Maybe there will be someone in your area in the near future.

I would like to see creditable source that says this is a good swing.

What do you call creditable? What is being taught by Golf Digest, Golf Magazine or the Golf Channel teachers have produced an average score of 97 for the last 100 years. Is this what you mean by creditable? I can ABSOLUTELY guarantee you that will never see any of the above say it works. As an example, Bob Toski said Moe was a freak with a freak swing.

The more I see the more I get confused.

That is why I have a science web site that provides scientific proof that I am correct. No other teacher can make this claim. I can prove that all of them are non-optimum and that most of them don't have a clue about what happens in a golf swing. Become a member, gain knowledge and you won't be "confused."

I'm like to try it but I don't know.

I'll bet you have tried just about everything ever written and because you're asking the above questions, you have failed to improve. Science does not allow failure and I neither does LPG.

Jack

How do the new lever power system and clubs differ from your original natural golf system and clubs?

The Lever-Power-Golf system virtually removes the tension from the back and shoulders and provides greater clubhead speed and accuracy over my original Natural Golf clubs and method. The current Natural Golf is a disgrace to my discoveries in both their clubs and the changes to my teachings.

The new Max-Impact clubs are superior to any clubs that have been on the market. Take a look at the clubs in the Scigolf Store for the physics. The original Natural Golf clubs, that I designed, had a center of gravity that was too high. It made it too difficult to get the ball airborne with the longer clubs.

Jack

Like many new, and perhaps even veteran golfers, I freeze up when I must hit across a water hazard. Often I'm successful, but when I don't clear the hazard on my first shot, it can be a disaster.

Unfortunately, FEAR rules. Fear cuts off all mechanical circuits and you will always fail. You have no choice but to keep trying and learn how to get task focused and not result focused. If you are tasked focused, you cannot be in the FEAR mode. Greg Norman would have loved to have had a method of defeating the FEAR mode in his collapse at the Masters. He and his caddy knew all the psychological dogma for defeating the FEAR mode - NONE WORKED.

What if a golfer cannot clear the hazard with successive tries? Is there some penalty one can accept to bypass the water?

Many year ago, Golf Digest had a contest with the nation's 4 worst avid golfers. On the water hole at the Tour Championship, one of them hit numerous balls into the water and then putted around the walking path to get on. He had a very high score on that hole.

Or is one doomed to unload his entire cache of balls into the water until he finally succeeds?

If you cannot learn to get task focused, the answer is yes. Save one ball for putting around the water hazard.

Jack

Do you believe the common practice of tip trimming shafts (for woods and irons; graphite and steel shafts) and using stiffer shafts for wedges is a good thing (i.e., makes scientific sense)?

NO! Why would you want your clubs to feel different? There is only one scientifically correct way to balance golf clubs. It is discussed in many patents and in Jorgenson's book, The Physics of Golf.

With respect to your MaxImpact (optimized) clubs, do you do any tip trimming at all, or use different shafts for wedges?

We tip and butt trim to the correct flex and length for each player. We use the same shaft for all clubs.

Should the same type shaft with same bend point (low, mid or high) be used on all club shafts in a set of irons? ...woods?

Bend point has virtually no effect. It is less than 3/4" (about half way up the shaft) for a low to high flex point. Just changing the flex accomplishes the same task.

What should guide a person as to which type of bend point he needs?

Nothing. Forget it.

With respect to a standard set of your optimized MaxImpact clubs, do I correctly understand these points:
1) length for irons is incremented about 0.8inches per club (what about the woods)?

NO. The formulas tell what the length of each club will be.

2) backweighting is achieved primarily with the grip, and maybe some weight placed inside the shaft butt;

NO. There is no backweighting. The weight on the shaft balances the club for 1st and 2nd moment of inertia.

3) all other required shaft weighting is done externally using the POWER ring.

The power ring is the 1st and 2nd moment of inertia balancing.

Jack

Since we aren't using the left hand except to hold on to the club, i.e., no wrist action, why is it necessary to grip the club in the conventional manner, across the fingers? Why can't you grip it with a putting grip in the lifeline thru the palm? After all the reason we grip it that way for putting is to lock or keep the left wrist out of the stroke.

The right hands function is to apply pressure against the grip with the grip in line with the right forearm. This is best accomplished in lifeline of the right hand.

The left hands function is to hold on and allow the right hand to rotate very hard over the left. This is best accomplished when the left hand grips the club like a baseball bat. A lifeline grip of the left hand is too weak to support the rotation.

Jack

Does any power in the golf swing come from cocking of the wrists , that is from the thumbs breaking directly upwards?

Nothing in this plane over 15 to 30 degrees. This is to allow the right wrist to cock fully. This type of wrist cock is 90 degrees to direction of the swing plane. They are just motions that must be recovered from.

Traditional' instruction (such as Leadbetter, Haney, etc.) tell us that by creating this angle and then maintaining this action deep into the downswing (late hit) adds effortless power to the swing.

They are scientific morons and have not got a clue about where power or anything else that produces a simple and powerful mechanical motion comes from. If you take a lesson from either of them and improve it will be in-spite-of and not because-of their instruction.

It appears in most stop frame photos that there actually is a lot of right wrist hinging, breaking of the wrist backwards, and then a releasing of this angle near impact (from when the club is about parallel to the ground).

This is one of power sources. The uncocking of the three right arm levers. I explain the 9 lever model and detail on my web site and show exactly (and I do mean exactly) how power is produced in all golfers. There are no hitters. There are no swingers. There are no left side pullers. There is one and only one way power is produced in all (and do mean all) golf strokes.

In your LPG system there appears to be little or no left wrist cocking (elbow bending yes) -- is there any right wrist hinging or does creation of any of these angles play no part in creating power in the swing?

Left wrist hinging produces virtually none and it is restricted completely when training. It will cock a little during the stroke, but you want to keep it to no more than 30 degrees. The right wrist cocks as much as possible. It is one of the major power sources.

That would just leave rotation of the forearms but there does appear to be a collection of a lot more angle than just those established at address.

The power in the golf stroke comes from making the POWER MOVE at the start of the downstroke. Once the POWER MOVE is initiated, the straightening of the right arm levers and the rotation of the forearms supply the power. These simple, scientific mechanical motions are explained on my web site.

Jack

I know the "better" swings will not necessarily correlate with Tour ranking, because short game and control of the "fear" factor are most likely determinative there. Thanks for your enlightening views-- I truly appreciate them. Your answer will help me turn off the sound on the next golf telecast-- always a welcome relief. Thanks again. Also, I realize that there is probably no swing on tour which you really like--I'm just interested in your ranking.

Before providing the list, I need to use science to explain the process to success.

First, you must have clubs that fit.
Second, you must achieve a mechanical motion that works.
Third, you must conquer the FEAR mode. FEAR RULES!

Two best of all times:

1. Moe Norman
2. Lee Trevino

Best currently Playing:

1. Sergio Garcia : Best downstroke motion
2. Tom Lehman: Single-Axis, Great Sit-down, Feet on ground at impact
3. Freddie Couples: Single-Axis, All arms, Great Tempo

Worst currently Playing:

1. Jim Fuyrk: Mechanics are worst than any amateur I have ever seen. He makes the only necessary motion with his right arm while having his body in the most disadvantaged position possible. That is why he can succeed on tour. NOTE: I would not attempt to change his swing. It would require the formation of neuronal patterns of a beginner.

Average-Tour-Swing-Mechanics that an amateur would have trouble breaking 100.

1. Tiger Woods: When was the last time you heard him say he had his A-Game mechanics during all four days of a tournament. If the best player in the world, who has practiced hours a day since he was 6 months old, can't keep this Average-Tour-Swing-Mechanics together for four day in a row, WHAT CHANCE DOES AN AMATEUR HAVE?

Tiger is the best player in the world because he has the best short game of any player to ever play the game and he had conquered the FEAR MODE before he was a teenager. Tiger only plays his best when there is the perceived challenge of a major.

Jack

I have a problem with my swing where I have too much hand and arm action in my downswing so I end up at impact with my hips and shoulders square to the target but I hit a lot of hooks and pushes. How do I prevent my arms from outracing my body?

There is no such thing as your arms outracing your body. Your body is in perfect position at impact. Your problem is swinging inside out and breaking down your left wrist at impact. You would not be asking this question if you were a member of my web site. You would have become your own teacher and cured the problem on you on.

Who do you think has the best swing mechanics on tour?

There are no players on tour with optimum swing mechanics. They all have extremely complex and unnecessary motions. They play good golf inspite-of their mechanics not because-of them. If weekend playing amateurs had tour mechanics, their scores would around 100.

Which do you need for good golf type ii a or type ii b fast twitch muscles?

Type IIx fast twitch muscles in your arms and shoulders and type IIa strength muscle in your legs. You want sprinter arms and weight lifter legs. The base needs to support the power.

Jack

I purchased the LPG kit and sponges several years ago. Now don't cringe, but I'm still swinging fairly "conventional." But much of what you teach...single axis grip, sit down move to start down, lower body as a stabilizer...have found their way into my swing, with nothing but improvement.

As long as you play single-axis and do the mechanics you mentioned, you have to improve. LPG just makes it even easier.

My question regards the swing path and sponges. You believe strongly the the proper plane through the ball is 10 degrees right of the intended line, not parallel down the line as a laser trainer would have you swing. Is the clubhead itself actually moving 10 degrees in to out, or is it the appearance of the club moving 10 degrees out (to the eye of the person swinging) actually creating a club moving straight down the line (to somone looking down the intended line)?

The correct swing path is 10 degrees inside out. That hits a straight ball. A clubhead moving along the target line hooks the ball and hits substantially left. The laser light systems and any system that teaches swinging on a single plane are useless.

Regarding the sponges, do you recommend the same positioning if someone is swinging conventionally. Specifically, would you increase the distance between the sponges, causing less of an inside move on the backswing?

The sponges are the same no matter what swing method you use. The backstroke has no effect on the golf stroke. Taking the club inside is the easiest way to get it to the top. Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, and Moe Norman all took the club sharply inside.

Jack

Do any of the golfers on the pro tour use the baseball grip and would it be wise to start using it?

Several very good players have used a separated hand grip. Most stick with the most disadvantaged overlapping or interlocking grip.

I know I am not getting the right turn or my hips into my swing.

If you mean the correct hip motion at the correct time, you are correct. The hips provide a ZERO contribution to clubhead speed. Hip rotation at the start of the downstroke is the number one incorrect teaching dogma by the traditional establishment. It is the cause of the dreaded slice.

I just started playing golf about 2 years ago when I retired. I'm only 52 and I really love the game but I get so frustrated because I get no distance with my swing.

You have unsatisfactory distance because you are trying to use your body to create speed. You cannot create speed where there is no speed. Body rotation is very slow. Speed comes from the arms -- lever straightening and rotation.

I'm not going to give up because I really love to play. I hope to find something that works for me.

You don't need to give up. You need correct scientific information. If you can count to three and move your right arm, you can reach your mechanical potential. To learn the proper single-axis mechanics, you need knowledge. Becoming a subscriber to my Golf Science Magazine ($60/yr) will provide you with the correctly applied scientific principles necessary to understand this method. There is a new, improved system of Single-Axis Golf. It's called Level-Power-Golf, and the goal is to make everyone his or her own teacher. This can be accomplished with the Lever-Power-Golf Training System, which will give you unprecedented power, accuracy and consistency. Learn to be a solid ball-striker.

Jack

Would appreciate any suggestions.

I am 62 years old and can generate up to 115 mph while sitting on a stool. You need to do several things -

First, you should become a member of my web site and learn how to create more arm speed. I can absolutely guarantee you that your arms do not outrace your lower body.

Next, you need to do exercises to increase your arm speed and build Type IIx fast-twitch muscles.

Finally, you ought to look at one of my MaxImpact drivers. Jack

Could you please give me your best tip on how to practice putting during these cold Canadian winters.

Because putting is only a one foot motion, there is little need to practice during the off season. Practicing on rugs is virtually useless. Practicing mechanics, like sinking 100 three foot putts in a row has not been shown effective in making a good putter.

In general, it is not the mechanics. It is the controlling of the FEAR mode that makes one a good putter. Many of the greatest chokes in golf are missing the 6 foot and in putt under pressure. Phil Michelson is the most note worthy of great players who chokes with 5 holes to go in a major (he also has poor mechanics which adds to the problem). Wait until next spring and then practice the drills I have on my web site.

Jack

First a comment then a question. I went to hit balls yesterday after viewing your LPG swing on the Scigolf website. UNFORTUNATELY a teaching pro at the driving range set up next to me who knows me and my swing. I thought, GREAT! After warming up a bit I pulled my 6 iron and gave it a rip with my best effort at an LPG swing. I know if you had seen the swing you would have ordered immediately that I not tell anyone I was attempting LPG! Nevertheless the shot took off straight as a string like shot out of a rifle! I was shocked. I hit shot after shot with all my clubs and had one of the best practice sessions EVER and I am an 8 hdcp. The pro finally just shrugged and said "whatever works!"

Always amazing to me.

Sorry for the longwinded testimony but I have been trying NG for six months with moderate success. With my first attempt at LPG the ball went farther with a penetrating trajectory that I just could not believe! Mega kudos! I have two questions.

1) Two months after I started NG with wide stance and head over right knee at impact I developed arthritis in my right hip. Given your understanding of anatomy, was this coincidence or is there something in that swing that would cause undo stress?

There is nothing in the two instructions that you mentioned that most good golfers don't do at impact. However, if you are following their Life Time of Better Golf instructions of pushing at the ball and not rotating your forearms, you could be overswinging and forcing the stress to try to make up for the loss in distance.

2) In the putting stroke you teach, it would seem that the top of the putter at address (with the clubhead 8" behind the ball and at 20 degree incline) would be lower to the ground than at impact (5 degree incline) causing one to dig into the green unless he "raised up" or made some compensatory move. I hit a few "fat" putts and it made me wonder. I know I'm missing something. Please explain what happens on the forward stroke (with no backswing) that keeps you from hitting it "fat."

Thanks again for your persistence in publishing truth not myth.

I hold the putter head about an inch above the ground and piston the right arm. I have not experienced fat putts.

Jack

My question goes back to that time period when you were involved with NG. (Let me say it for you, "Those thieves, cheaters, etc.") What would you find positive and negative about your NG clubs compared to today's technology.

My original technology was similar to traditional technology. The positives from a science standpoint was that I used a high center of gravity (about 25.4 mm from the sole). This means that you would get maximum energy transfer because the clubhead would twist less and the ball would go farther. This was great for science but not so great for amateur golfers. The high center of gravity made it very hard for them to get the ball airborne. It took a pro swing with good sized divots to get the correct ball flight. A case where optimum science is not optimum for amateur golfers.

As far as the other features, they are similar. Seven gram head spread between iron heads. This allows for fast swing weighting assembly and 1/2" increments between clublengths. This is as far from optimum science as it is possible for golf clubhead technology to get. Swing weighting totally mismatches a set of clubs. There is no rotation point in a golf stroke 12" or 14" from the butt of the club. The fact that the human brain can make the adjustment for 14 different feels shows the power of the brain. Science shows this to be unnecessary.

Optimum iron head design has a 10 gram spread and uses total weight, 1st and 2nd moment of inertia balancing. This makes every club feel the same when you hold it and when you swing it. It allow for amateurs to achieve up to 150 yards spread between 11 irons. Traditional assembly allows for 110 yards. Science rules!

If this is so great, why don't tour players use MaxImpact clubs? The human brain works on stored brain patterns. It is very close to impossible for tour pros to make a change from the clubs they played their best with. It takes a minimum of thirty days to put any kind of program in short term memory. It takes two years to put into long term memory. No tour pro will go longer than 10 swings. If he does not get immediate gratification, he will discard the club.

Tiger has gone through almost every design Nike can come up with. He still has not found a driver that feels like the one he used in college. You will never see a Nike commercial that showed him only hitting 2 fairways in his first round at LaCosta this year. Any reasonable golfer knows that it had nothing to do with the equipment. It was his first competitive round after a three month lay off. However, wait until he hits 14 fairways and you will see numerous Nike ads with hidden suggestion that the clubs had something to do with it.

There are numerous carts on training ranges with 10 to 15 different 5 irons. You are to hit them until you find the one that works best for you. Here's the problem. The one you will find that works best for you will be the one that matches the 5 iron in your bag. That is the only one you have a "feel" pattern for in your brain.

If you ever decide to purchase MaxImpact irons, give yourself 30 days to adjust. Only then, will you understand how superior science is to outdated technology.

When I say current technology is outdated, I am saying that the only change in golf clubheads since 1950 is the size of the head and pushing around of the weight on the clubhead. The shafts are not really better, the grips are not better and game improvement heads (oversized, offset, bounce addition and flow weighting) have made it worse for the amateur.

Clubs with flow weighting, offset, excessive bounce, and oversize are all designed to cure a slice. That is what game improvement means; a club to cure a slice. If you purchase one of these, you must have and keep slice mechanics. They are designed to make a ball go straighter and to take out some of the sidespin. If you don't keep and play with poor mechanics, you cannot use these clubs. You're only deluding yourself into thinking that you have improved. Statistics on amateurs show that the average scores have stayed around 100 for past 100 years. You can choose delusion or science. Science works and delusion works. The difference is that with science, you scores will come down.

Jack

1) With your LPG system do you have a method of varying trajectories or shot shapes?

Every system has a method of varying trajectory and shot shape. Shape is path to face. Trajectory is release method through impact. This physics is the same for any system.

If so, does that instruction come with the Training System?

I have not included it to date. I may put it on the web site sometime in the future.

2) Do you use different flexes in your clubs or "one flex fits all"?

Again, every good club maker uses different flexes for the swing speed of the player. Again, this is straight forward physics.

3) You state your clubs have the "lowest center of gravity," Doesn't that make the ball balloon, or is the lower trajectory I prefer not advantageous? (I am just curious as to how extreme low CG is affected by wind.)

Trajectory is controlled by stiffness of the shaft. If you want a low trajectory, just make the shaft stiffer. The low center of gravity guarantees you that you will not have many thin hits called worm burners.

4) Thanks for the website, you have me curious as can be. I have switched to NG recently and have hit enough good shots to be encouraged.

It would have to be in-spite-of any thing Natural Golf teaches. They are ABSOLUTE DISGRACE to my discoveries and teaching.

I have altered my Hogan Apex irons by adding 1" to the length, adjusting the lies and installing oversized grips.

That is a good start. I hope you did not install the USGA nonconforming grips of Natural Golf. They are too small in the left hand and flare out in your right hand. Just the opposite of what you want.

5) I am going to go see if I can make any headway with the LPG swing I downloaded off the Scigolf page under Training Aids. Is this a waste of time w/o the Training Aid?

Thanks for your continuing contribution to golf.

YES. That is why I allow Scigolf to show the swing. You will immediately see the merits of greater clubhead speed and maybe more accuracy. Any time you bend your left arm, you create greater clubhead speed. However, to learn the motion correctly and become your own teacher, you need the LPG kit and Sponges. The LPG device has been called by one user, the "Device From Hell." It force you to swing correctly. Your body does not want to do that. It wants to do whatever traditional non-optimum mechanics you have learned. The LPG and Sponges force you to swing correctly with instant feedback on every shot. With the aids, you can establish successful mechanical patterns in as little as thirty days. Without the aids, you will just keep doing what you have always done.

Jack

After reading the articles, I really appreciate your effort in finding and explaining the scientific truth about the golf swing. However, there are several questions I would like to ask for your opinion. It seems that the lower body, in your view, contribute very little to generate clubhead speed.

It is not my view. It is conservation of momentum mathematics and kinesiology of the human body that PROVES that the body is a stabilizer and contributes virtually nothing to clubhead speed.

1. Power of the lower body? How about making a swing while sitting on a stool, which takes the lower body out of the picture?

This is part of my IRON LAW DRILLS for members of my web site. I am 62 years old and can sit on a stool and swing at clubhead speed greater than 110 mph. I air carry the ball over 250 yards sitting on a stool.

2. Power of the arms and hands? How about making a swing upright with the back of the body against a pole and the chest and hip tied down to it, which takes the whole body out of the picture

3. Power of the hands? How about sitting on the sofa and resting the arms on the armrest leaving only the hands to move the club, which takes the rest of the body out of the picture?

I am not sure if it's necessary to measure the clubhead speed in each of the above situations to make the point.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks for the attention.

JJ Chen

2. and 3. are not necessary. You have the problem exactly backward. What you need to do is place splints on the right arm so you cannot bend at the right elbow or right wrist (left wrist cock has virtually no effect), and see how far you can hit a ball just using your body and free arm motions from the shoulder joints. Clubhead speed will be less than 20 mph.

I had a karate expert argue one time that the power came from the body when he threw a karate punch. I had him put his right arm out straight and told him not to bend his arm and hit me as hard as he wanted. He walked away very angry because he was proven by science to be incorrect. Power comes from high speed motion in a short period of time. The body is incapable of this. Only the arms can generate high speed in a short period of time. World class sprinters are only moving around 20 mph. You cannot create speed where there is no speed. The body moves very slowly. If boxers punched each other with straight arms, they could stand toe to toe and punch each other all day.

Jack

On your web page concerning equipment, you state that oversize heads have 5 disadvantages. The fifth one you list is a sort of contradiction, no? You say a simple way to tell if an oversize head is advantageous, tour players would be using them.

First, I am talking about Irons. Oversized metal-woods with the ball teed high does provide maximum distance. If you use some simple common sense and think about oversized irons that claim game improvement features, you would realize that you have to have the fault (slice) in order to play them. If you don't they are useless. The Tommy Armour 845's took Couples and Calcavecchia off tour for almost two years. The Spaulding game improvement irons almost ruined Payne Stewarts career.

Aren't tour players using traditional assembly?

This gets a lot more technical. The human brain is an amazing organ. It can learn thousands of different patterns and do them all effectively. All you have to do is establish the pattern. Tour players establish patterns when they are very young and any change feels awful to them. If they hit a set of scientifically balanced clubs, they would hate them at first. Balanced clubs weigh more but have a lighter head feel. Once the brain makes the change from off-balanced to scientifically balanced, it performs far better. Because it takes about 30 days to establish an effective short term memory pattern, most current tour players will never make the switch. This is why it is so hard to make a club for a tour player. Tiger Woods has tried as many variations of clubheads as it is possible to try and likes virtually none of them. What his brain patterns are looking for are clubs that he grew up playing (his Titleist blade head of 1970). Tiger will never wait 30 days to establish a new pattern.

The current generation must die out and future generation will use science.

Aren't tour players playing 2-axis golf?

Mst are. However, there have been and are a lot of great players who played Single-Axis -- Bobby Jones, Gene Sarazen, Moe Norman, Bob Rosberg, Paul Azinger, Tom Lehman and Phil Michelson are just a few.

Again, the current generation must die out and be replaced by a new generation. Tiger Woods is not the best player in the world because of his mechanics. His mechanics are average. Amateurs performing his mechanics will have an average score around 100. He is the best player in the world because he has the best short game of any player who ever played the game.

I will be kicking off the LPG Professional Challenge within the next 12 months. I will be conducting tournaments around the country to find 4 top amateurs. I will then finance them for one year and put them on tour using LPG. Each year, I will continue this process. Eventually, Single-Axis and LPG will dominate and everyone will wonder why the old timers played the way they did.

Jack

How is it that every golfer in step frame photography from Moe Norman to David Toms has his hips open at least 20 degrees, if not more, at impact, and yet you keep insisting that this is not necessary?

First, I have plenty of step by step frames of Moe and other golfers whose hips are not open at impact. I keep insisting that it is not necessary because it is not.

You also now say that it is necessary to rotate the forearms through impact and beyond but in earlier times (natural golf) maintained that this did not happen?

That is why they are disgrace to my Single-Axis discoveries with no concept of any correct golf stroke. They have the left hand on top of club (guarantees you will always be fighting a duck hook), the stance is too wide, the hands are too high at address and they teach you to push at the ball.

Also the type of release through impact seems to be keenly detailed such as McLeans (golf digest power line article)...

You need to be a member of my web site. I show that McLean is the most dangerous teacher in golf. I also show that his NO positions are where virtually all good golfer will be just before impact and that there is not a single golfer in the position he suggests.

downcock (which is similar to Peter Croker's description of left thumb down or toe of the club down) through impact

Peter Croker! I though his nonsense died years ago.

- this seems to avoid any wrist flipping or breakdown and has not been so keenly discussed before in the left wrist - sounds like Hogan's supination.

I have no idea what this is asking? You seem to have a little of this and a little of that from every known source. You should try my simple science system. If you can count to three and move your right arm, you can reach your potential as a golfer.

Jack

A few questions and comments. First, though I haven't adopted your new swing I am a true believer in single axis golf and you deserve much credit for your work. It is a breath of fresh air to have a true scientist discuss the realities of the game. Next, regarding Couple's swing, I too have long suspected that he and perhaps Trevino are using single axis mechanics in their swings. You maintain he is close and I would ask isn't it an all or nothing situation? Perhaps you mean he is close in that he plays single axis but with a twist favoring a right to left ball flight? Third, after following your research and doing some of my own I am convinced Hogan is the true father of the single axis swing.

First, let's define a single-axis swing. Single-axis is the alignment of the right forearm and the shaft at address and impact without an angle between the hand and forearm. Hogan was a major two-axis player. That is why he thought a straight shot was a mishit.

I've often wondered if he wasn't the inspiration behind Moe Norman.

You don't need to wonder. Moe developed his swing on his own without any assistance. Many of his contemporaries tried to change him. He would say, "let me see you hit the ball." After they would hit a few shots, Moe would respond, "No, I hit it better than you." Thank goodness, he never took a traditional players advice.

And finally, I am purchasing a set of irons soon and am considering yours among others. I want to ask your advice. I don't feel I need the extra iron length, in fact I'm considering having them an inch or so shorter than standard. I feel I'm able to form an adequate grip without residing to the split hand.

You used the correct word -- adequate. Interlocking and overlapping can never be scientifically optimum. However, if you are satisfied and want to stick with that type of grip, I have built several sets of clubs for traditional players. One testimonial is posted on the site under equipment.

In addition, when I choke down on my irons I feel my consistency, comfort, and confidence more than make up for what I perceive to be a relatively small loss in distance.

There is no reason to give up distance for control. Tour players have both, and my clubs offer that for amateurs.

Could you please comment on the relationship between club length and distance. Is it linear?

It is linear. For every inch longer you make a club, you will gain about 2 mph of clubhead speed if you are strong enough to generate the additional torque necessary to swing the club. It takes 5% more torque per inch.

I've read that a longer club effectively has a higher swingweight, if this is the case couldn't some of the gain of having a longer club be mitigated by this factor?

Only with traditional assembly. With scientific assembly, it is just the opposite.

Finally, I much appreciated your discussion of centrifugal force and kinetic energy.

Every physics book that discusses centrifugal force shows it to be a fictitious force. Centrifugal force does not exist in a golf swing. Any teacher that tells you that centrifugal force is involved is incorrect.

I also read in other places that swingweight has a neutral effect on distance.

Swingweighting is a nonscientific method of off balancing clubs. The human body has the ability to adjust the 13 different feels of the clubs. Scientific assembly provides for two swing feels -- one for irons and one for woods.

I'm confused though because based on the equation KE increases with added mass. Perhaps any linear gain in mass is offset by the loss in velocity. For the record though, please tell me, assuming an extremely heavy clubhead could be swung at tour speeds, would it produce more distance?

I apologize for running on but feel you are uniquely positioned to help me resolve these mysteries. Keep up the good work!

Thank you. As for your question regarding mass, the answer is for up to an 11 pound (mass in this case is 11/32 slugs) clubhead, yes. After that, no. However, you will start to lose distance once a driver head goes from 200 grams to 205 grams. For humans*, a 200 gram driver head is optimum.

I answer all the above question in detail with mathematics on my website. For those who total answers, you should become a member.

Jack

* When I edit these I would normally change this word, but humans gave me a chuckle.
Don

b>From Matt:

I have been looking over your web site with some interest, but not in doing what you promote. I spoke with an aquaintance, Chuck Evans (GSED, "The Golfing Machine") about your philosophy. He gets pretty heated when your name comes up in conversation. He spoke of a time at the PGA Show where you had a booth and everyone was flocking to it. You attempted to debunk Homer Kelley and Chuck stood up to it. He says he dismantled each of your arguments and explained to the people why your ideas weren't correct. What do you have to say to this?

The Golfing Machine is one of the single worse books ever written on the golf stroke. There are about three things that are even usable. I do not remember Chuck Evans, howver, he has ZERO chance of disproving anything I do or say regarding golf. I thought that the Golfing Machine had died year ago. None of the premises of the book are correct. The swing does not take place on a single plane. There are no swingers or hitters. There are not x-number of components to every swing (the brain does not work that way). There is virtually no science in the book. It just a laundry list of every possible way Homer Kelly thought the body could move - None of which would be an effective golf stroke.

Please ask Mr. Evans to disprove any of my theories.

I can disprove all of the Golfing Machines. The only reason I don't put it in print, is that it would take a good six months to explain all the faults in the book. I have neither the time nor desire to prove something wrong that a small minority of golfer still promote. The Golfing Machine should be re-labeled the The Dead Golfing Machine.

Jack

Jack-- I wonder if you heard Lanny Wadkins very intelligent interpretation of the Tiger-Phil controversy yesterday. He explained that Tiger's specs are "classic", lofts similar to Jack Nicklaus, iron shafts etc-- that his equipment is designed for control. He further said that Phil M. takes "advantage" of the so-called advances, super-strong lofts, graphite shafts etc. and the "advances" are killing his game. He advises Phil to play "throwback" equipment. I was startled to hear such an intelligent comment (which merely echoes what you have been saying, in general, for years) over the general prattle of TV nonsense.

Golf tournament viewers need to understand that the announcers are (in general) great golfers from the past, celebrity sports announcers, and several traditional guru instructors. They are there to entertain and provide you with their perceptions of reality. Anyone who is a sports fan, has to know that reality virtually never exists in sport competition. The reality that never exists in golf is the analysis of equipment and players' mechanics. They get the statistics correct, but the analysis of those statistics is virtually always incorrect. Kostis was not even close when he analyzed Tigers sit-down move (and getting the club caught behind him) and Michelson's spine angle.

Tiger's lofts versus other lofts -
Other than physiological, there is no advantage to strong or weak lofted clubs For an amateur to hit an iron labeled 9,150 yards, is a major ego boost and he will actually play better. If the club had a 5 or 4 label on it, he would not be a man. He would be a wimp. Ping was the first to take advantage of this. They were the first to put a 9 on a 7 iron (1950, 9 iron loft was 48 degrees and a 7 iron was 40) and add two wedges. Today, most people play with 4 wedges and start the numbers with a 9 iron. This is excellent physiological labeling for amateur egos.

Most tour players play with strong lofts because it makes them seem super human. Tiger IS super human and does not need four wedges and a 9 iron. He generates the clubhead speed necessary to hit the distances he wants a club to go. All tour players clubs are virtually identical except for the lofts. The majority play with a blade size (with and without perimeter weighting), steel shafts (although current graphite would be better if they would change). They all play with off-balanced, swing-weighted clubs with 7 gram head spread technology. The human brain has the ability to adjust to this non-optimum method of club assembly.

Once a professional athlete reaches the level of play of a great athlete, they can tell the slightest change in their equipment. Ted Williams once rejected all his new bats over a difference in diameter that no one else could feel. It is more important for tour players to know the exact distance, within a yard, that each club will hit a ball. They also need to know the exact trajectory each type of swing will produce. Once their patterns are established, changes usually are for the negative.

Tour players are no different from any other human when it comes to changes. They must establish a new set of brain patterns for the change. Short term memory can be effective in as little as 30 days, but long term memory and complete subconscious control will take around two years.

In reality, there are no superior tour irons when using traditional swing weighting and seven gram head spread technology. It is just moving the weight around on the head and making the lofts stronger.

Kostis' explanation of Tiger's sit-down move and Michelson's spine angle -
Kostis believes that Tiger gets the club caught behind him because he sits down at the start of the downstroke. Kostis believes that the distance from the clubhead to the neck should stay the same throughout the swing. Just quoting traditional dogma shows Kostis' complete lack of understanding of biomechanics and kinesiology. All great golfers have a sit-down motion at the start of the downstroke (Byron Nelson had the most of any player I have studied). If you will go back and slow motion the swing, you will see that Tiger's right heel comes up almost immediately at the start of the downstroke when he hits a poor shot to the right. You will notice that his hands are well out in front of him and not behind him. He is starting the swing with too much lower body rotation and this is moving his right shoulder and hands outward and, therefore, he cannot release down and out. He has to hold on and this blocks the shot to the right. His problem is over rotation of his lower body too early in the downstroke. He does not get his hands caught behind him.

If you want to see a perfect swing, go back and look at the 8 iron on the 180 yard par three. At impact, Tiger's feet were flat on the ground, his shoulders were square to the target and his hips were only open about 15 degrees. It is the best mechanical motion I have ever seen him make.

Regarding Michelson, Kostis believes in another traditional dogma of keeping the same spine angle throughout the swing. For those who are members of my web site, you know the incorrectness of this belief. Anyone who plays with a two-axis grip, must move the spine upward and backward. Michelson is not inaccurate because of any mechanics. It is pure fear mode playing. For now, Tiger rules.

On a different note, Fred Couples set-up on a wedge looks "single-axis" to me--right forearm aligned with shaft. Is that correct?

Fred Couples plays very close to single-axis on all his shots.

Jack

I noticed you say that your MaxImpact irons will hit farther than any other irons I also saw that the lofts of your irons are on average about 2 degrees stronger than the other irons on the market.

The chart below shows two iron heads that have lofts similar to MaxImpact irons.

               Golf Works Geotech              Cobra Gravity Back    MaxImpact

9 Iron          39 degrees                            41 degrees              40 degrees
5 Iron          26 degrees                            26.5 degrees           25 degrees
3 Iron          21 degrees                            20 degrees              19 degrees

Incidentally most touring pros play with strong lofts.

Isn't that combined with the fact your clubs are 2 inches longer the reason they go farther?

Absolutely not! The clubs are not two inches longer in effective playing length from the right hand to the club head. That is, the effective length is the same.

When you overlap your hands, you are pushing on the hinge and losing club speed and control -- that is why they put the door knob on the opposite side of the hinge. If you move your right hand down, you lose two inches of lever length. You need to move your left hand up and keep the right hand at the same location.  To do this, obviously, the club must be two inches longer. 

If you make a traditional club two inches longer the heads will be so heavy that you cannot swing them.  Seven gram head spread technology and swing weighting is as far from optimum assembly as possible.

Impact irons use our new 10 gram head spread technology and scientific assembly of total weight, 1st and 2nd moment-of-inertia balancing.  This is why they go farther and higher. There is between 130 and 150 yard spread between 10 of the irons. This is accomplished with one swing feel. There is about 90 to 110 spread between traditional assembly. This is accomplished with a different swing speed and feel for every iron due to the off-balancing of swing weighting.

The physics is very simple. A longer shaft with a lighter head hits the ball farther - 5 wood versus a long iron.

Jack

In the last Ask Jack, you said, "The spread between 10 irons will be between 130 and 150 yards (as compared to traditional of 100 yards)."

No! I mean if your L wedge (60 degrees) is 90 yards, you will hit the 3 iron 230 yards.

To clarify this I have my distances with MaxImpact Irons below.

My Age - 62 and height - 5'10"

Club    Degrees of Loft      Distance (yards)

Jack

I'm trying to make a prototype golf club set made that would give an equal weight head with a wide range of lofts (approx 20 degrees to 60 degrees) with no change in lie or weight, with the club head weighing approx. 280 grams.

See if you can find a set of Tommy Armour "Equals". This was major failure. You underswing on the short irons and overswing on the long irons. Physics does not allow for just the loft alone to provide for more than about an 8 yard spread between clubs.

Is it possible for you to adjust a casting of one of your iron heads, using the same basic head, but modifying the loft to vary as widely as I would want? The goal is to play a set of equal length and matched irons getting and overall distance control from just the loft angle.

No. The lie angles are too flat on the longer clubs.

Or is it possible to re-weight your clubs enough to adjust the set by 50g. approx. at the top, so that all the heads could weigh the same. The lie could be adjusted to be the same, if the weights could be matched to be the same.

There is a company already trying to revive this principle. I don't remember their name, but it has to fail from the standpoint of physics.

Jack

I have a set of the original Natural Golf irons. The one with Natural on the bottom. How do these rate in terms of the newer Natural golf clubs and your clubs?

The original Natural Golf iron was one of my first designs. It is one of the finest heads every manufactured. You will hit them farther than any traditional iron head ever made.

They have one drawback. I placed the center of gravity above ball impact. This provides for the greatest transfer of energy from the club to the ball. However, placing the center of gravity that high has a major drawback that cannot be overcome by a high percentage of amateurs. It is very difficult to get the ball airborne past the five iron unless you take a professional type divot. Using very flexible shafts helps some. These heads also used the 7 gram per head spread technology. I had not done the mathematical calculations for total weight and 1st and 2nd moment-of-inertia balancing.

A perfect physics design is my current MaxImpact irons. They have the lowest center of gravity of any club on the market. They are the easiest to get airborne. They use my 10 gram per head spread technology as well as total weight and 1st and 2nd moment-of-inertia balancing. What all of the above means is that every club feels the same at address and during the swing. The spread between 10 irons will be between 130 and 150 yards (as compared to traditional of 100 yards).

There is no bounce on any iron except the Sand Wedge. This means the you can take the 3 iron off hard pan with ease and the 60 degree wedge from any lie. There are NO irons by any manufacturer that even remotely compare with the physics design and playability of my MaxImpact irons.

Jack

Any help would be appreciated.

I Quote 11 dfferent authors who made correct statements about the golf stroke in my Science magazine. One of them is Joe Norwood. Mr. Norwood stated, "90% of errors are created by body rotation." Your lower body, and therefore your shoulders are rotating (leading) in the downstroke. By the time your clubhead gets to the ball, you are 30 to 60 degrees open at impact with the clubface on a correct path to hit the ball hard right.

My Sponges will give you instant feedback when this happens. You would hit the front sponge every time.

Jack Kuykendall

I've enjoyed reading your information on the facts about clubhead speeds. I am 6'0 190lbs and carry a 1 hdcp. Currently I swing my driver at speeds of 105 to 110 consistently with a carry of approx. 265 to 280 yards.

Those number do not correlate with physics. It takes around 115 mph to air carry 265 and about 120 mph to air carry 280 yards. Either your clubhead speed or air carry distances are incorrect. As the clubhead speed increases, the coefficient of restitution goes down. This means that as you swing faster and faster, the multiplier is less. At 100 mph, the multiplier is approximately 2.3 yards for each mile per hour of clubhead speed (solid hit, 2,500 rpms of ball spin, correct launch angle). As the clubhead speed increases, this multiplier goes down.

How do I effectively increase my speeds to 120 to 130?

Practice the power move explained on my web site.

What type of exercises and or training devices should I be looking at? Is this even possible to obtain

Work on developing Type IIx fast-twitch muscle in your arms and shoulders. It is definitely possible. Again, this is explained on my web site.

Should I be looking at arm and wrist strength?

Absolutely!

Jack

My clubhead speed at impact with a driver is 97mph. What is a rule of thumb to measure clubhead speed to distance?

At this clubhead speed, it is around 2.3 times the clubhead speed for air carry, e.g., 97 X 2.3 ~= 223 yards.

Jack

I'm looking at buying some new Irons, with so many to choose from how can I narrow it down?

If you think you are confused, go to a PGA show and listen to the sales pitch of the 200 + vendors telling you that their technology is superior to the other 199 + vendors. They all have test and statistics to prove it.

Most PGA teaching professionals change clubs every two years. They have sold all they are going to of the type they are playing. When they change, the public buys the new club.

Callaway is one of the best at exploiting golf purchasers. They know that golfers buy what's NEW, not what is best.

I like the clones I've seen on the net -431 stainless steel with Rifle shafts but should I go for Callaway Big Bertha or Taylor Made Firesole? I'm a middle of the road hadicapper and I'm looking for some advice.

All of the current irons and clubs are equal. There are no superior irons. They move the weight from one spot to another and put a NEW spin on the story.

If you want a new technology and proven performance, you need to study the MaxImpact iron on my web site and at the ">Scigolf Store. Jack

I am told that the 2 video package with the audio tape and book "Lifetime of Better Golf" is outdated and the left hand grip will cause a closed club face and a loss of power, is this correct?

It is far worse. The "Lifetime of Better Golf" was a rewrite of my work by Larry Olson and Peter Fox. They changed many things; all of them for worse. They had your stance too wide, your hands too high, your left hand on top of the club (hook position) and they taught you to push at the ball.

It only took 5 years for the golfers who were mislead by Natural Golf to discover that a "lifetime" is the time it takes for those who invested in the system to discover that it had NO chance to work. Natural Golf is an absolute disgrace to my teaching and my Single-Axis discovery.

Jack

What is happening to the rotation of the hands and club during your swing?

I have the same sensation that Ben Hogan had. Roll your hands as much as you can on the backstroke and then swing the club the same as you would a baseball bat.

How can I check my swing in this regard?

The motion is too fast for any checking. You must use training aids that give instant feedback. My Sponges provide instant feedback.

Jack

What was wrong with the Thing putter that you helped invent? It never caught on. The idea seemed to make sense. Curious.

There is one reason and only one reason any putter catches on -- you pay a lot of tour players play them. Funny how it changes yearly.

The THING is good putter in the hands of good putter. You need to be able to keep the ball pattern within 1/2 inch. On long putts you can get twisting if you are outside of 1/4 inch from the center line.

It is great for short putt, more difficult on long putts for amateurs.

Jack

THE DOMINANT SIDE TEACHES THE RIGHT SIDE LPG

After learning about the Lever-Power Golf Swing from Jack Kuykendall in Tempe, Az, my challenge was to unlearn what I was doing in my previous golf swing. I really found out why I had a left to right shot and at that time had offset irons and used an open stance. I sure did a lot of readjusting on my own, but carried a 7 handicap and could execute solid shots. They were just unpredictable from round to round. Fortunately, Jack had calibrated the swing path with use of his sponges and the LPG wrist brace really helped with forearm rotation. All his training equipment develops effective results.

After three weeks of indoor swinging through the sponges with the brace on and off, the weather in early March warmed up enough to go hit golf balls. Learning the motions first was very helpful. I kept practicing and even indoors I would use the Kuykendall Toss with Cayman Balls in a gym and toss baskets full court with an average of two out of twelve through the hoop. I made an authentic-like golf ball on a cord and practiced the full swing in the gym also from a turf mat. I still have a model with a small turf mat that flies realistically with a solidly struck shot and it is a great warm-up unit and home practice unit.

As I taught people the swing, I noticed that they were proficient within one hour with what took me a few weeks to accomplish; mainly the forearm rotation without blocking out the shot with the left hand. After a season of conducting clinics and occasionally taking a shot with someone's left handed iron successfully I began wondering about my dominant side, the left side. I read Jack's information on his web site and really could see why all those previous students could accomplish the rotation so smoothly. They were all right dominant. One of my students even had his left fingers surgically reattached and had next to no grip with his left hand. He was successful in the first ten shots when we first met. Is he a happy golfing camper! He figured golf was over for him until a golf professional from his family's club referred him to me. Back to my dominant side.

Last April I decided to teach myself the LPG swing from my dominant side. I followed Jack Kuykendall's practice recommendations and kept record of what I did by the hours I practiced. During this practice time I viewed aspects of the swing and began to notice what my right side was doing incorrectly to produce missed shots. I could observe and relate this information to myself from well struck shots on my left side. My left dominant forearm just dominated my right forearm in rotation. I even noticed that my right arm in the left handed swing position had no feeling of strength at all.

After 18 hours of recorded practice time I took the swing to the course. What a strange sense to see the fairway from a different view. I golfed about twelve holes with shots in the fairway but distance was lacking compared to my more developed and faster right side. Shots were accurate, but four clubs down in distance from what I was used to. It was truly bogey golf with a delightful par if I tossed it close enough on the par fours. I was thankful that Jack had designed the swing from the more lofted irons at first because that is what saved a par or bogey when I took it to the course at first.

I still use the left-sided swing for demonstration purposes, as it is pure LPG, plus for the lefties they appreciate seeing the mechanics demonstrated. My brother, George, another Lever-Power Certified Instructor, told me about a twisting motion he thinks about in training with the right hand just before contact with the ball. I listen to him because he retrained himself from his former 4 handicap swing to the LPG swing and is very right dominant and great with analogies. He told me he is at about a 6 -7 handicap now and getting better. I have a site in my basement where I swing with the brace on through the sponges both on the left and right side. Because I am now in Wisconsin, I use a local dome to hit balls although a brisk 34 degrees with the sun and little wind will find me hitting to greens in the afternoon. I can only state that I am truly thankful that someone actually figured out what is truly necessary to hit solid golf shots plus the fact there is an explanation for the motions. It still amazes me at age 51 that there is only room for lower scores and spectacular shots when playing. I have often commented on the idea of what if Jack Kuykendall had discovered this swing decades ago. It's simplicity would have brought out more superb golfers which is what the future has in store now that it is here.

Thanks, Jack.

Go to previous questions:

To Ask The Professor Main Page

© Scigolf.com Company 2002