You all know I am against trying to copy swings as I think it is a losing battle…Adam Scott copying Tiger 2000 not withstanding.
Everyone wants to copy Hogan and Moe Norman because they were supposedly the best ball strikers of all time…and everyone wants to point to their swings as the reason.
I have a counterpoint. Hogan and Norman were known to be monomaniacal about their practice. It was said they both hit balls up to 8 hours a day and sometimes till their hands bled.
Wouldn’t it make sense that their great ball striking was just as much or more a result of being the two hardest workers of all time and not necessarily the efficiency of their swings or how easy they were to reproduce.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to copy the swing of a player who had success and was known for not practicing at all?
Someone like say, Bruce Lietzke? A guy who his caddy left a banana in his bag in the last tournament of the year only to find that it was still there after the first of the year as Bruce spent the whole off season fishing.
A guy with an over the top swing because doing that and hitting a fade was a lot easier to reproduce than the draw swing coming from the inside that took Norman and Hogan a decade of 8 hour a day practice to perfect.
Are you seeing a pattern?
I am obviously not suggesting that Bruce Lietzke has a better swing than Ben Hogan, but my hypothetical makes perfect sense.
All today’s post is about is yet another redundancy on my part trying to educate the golfing public, one golfer at a time, to not buy into the mob mentality of what is correct or ideal and open your minds up to a more common sense approach.
I may have already posted this, but I found out recently that oil being a fossil fuel is not some proven scientific certainty. It was suggested by some Russian scientist in the 18th century at a conference and it has just been generally accepted, but no one has ever taken the time to prove it.
Whether or not I have all my facts straight is not relevant, I am using this to prove a point.
I think a lot of golf axioms fall into that category of “generally accepted’ and many of them are not only false, but sometimes 180* false.
The ball flight laws being the most glaring example of something that was generally accepted for the last 100 years, and what was true was actually the opposite.