I would prefer that a player had a steady head, however, there are so many great players that lower or back up their head, I wouldn't try to remove it from a great players swing, but if building from scratch, I'd probably try to keep it fairly steady. You certainly see the longest drivers move their head back & down through impact, where you will some more accurate drivers stay fairly steady. If you check out the longest hitters, they NEED to move their head down to accommodate the amount of lag they produce. I think most really efficient drivers move the head slightly to aggressively down & back through impact - there are a few who move forward (O'Hair), and many who stay pretty steady (A Kim), but to say it's wrong to move it down/back is a little absurd to me since so many players do it. Plus if the handle moves forward 3 inches, the body has to account for the shortening of the arc - it can move forward or down/back, or the arc can widen. If you watch Tiger hit fairway bunker shots, his head barely moves because the margin of error is less. The FB debate was more about the way some people attacked BC, not offering to enter a civil and intelligent debate, but flat out ripping him. My belief is that great players all have quirks in their swing, and you don't change them for the sake of change or aesthetics - if it doesn't cause a problem in shot making, then leave it alone. In the days of the old swing - "drive your legs" the head had to drop, and from what I've seen, Tigers head drops, but moves less laterally away from the target than it did when he worked with Butch.

FWIW, I don't really pay much attention to what announcers say about the golf swing - I don't get much opportunity to watch live telecasts, and most times, they don't know a lot about the mechanics of a golf swing - I do like hearing what they have to say about playing the game and the thoughts/feelings/pressure on players during a tournament.

Hope that clarifies it a little.

I'm sure I have some sort of compulsion or ego issues that make it very difficult for me to not do this. Please skip ahead to about 9 min in the video below.



It's very obvious from the video that the quoted line above is ridiculously incorrect. I mean, what on earth?

I'm sure there are several people following my recent posts who think I'm a real ******* for questioning a guy who's been so gracious to volunteer his extensive knowledge of golf instruction. To be clear, I'm in no way questioning all of the information that has been dispelled or believe that there has been more harm than help.

That being said, you praise Brandel's knowledge of the golf swing and his professionalism [that involved flaming a PGA member]. Brandel said the following: "The fact that Sean thinks the information he is giving Tiger is going to make him a better player is the most preposterous/egotistical thing I've ever heard in sports"

Brandel has at least a half dozen more comments just like this. There is also a bunch of video evidence from the same author just like the one above that consistently dispels the nonsense that comes out of Brandel's mouth. I mean, even NxtWrldChamp calls Brandel "the biggest idiot alive....No Brandel, the most preposterous thing anyone has ever heard in sports is you saying that even if Tiger breaks Jack's major record he still wouldn't be the greatest golfer to ever play the game and he may not even be in the top 2. And amazingly enough the most egotistical thing anyone has ever heard in sports is you criticizing the decisions that the greatest player to ever play the game is making."

When you combine your Brandel defense/praise/friendship/whatever with the grossly erroneous comment about Tiger, you are negatively influencing the same golfers you are trying to help. Like I said, I still believe you've done much more good than harm, and even if we disagree about Brandel, the Tiger comment is just evidence of the lack of accountability that I'm all wound up about in the first place.

That said who really gives a **** if people take Brandel or Kostis or Miller or Faldo or you at their word. There's too much noise and gimmicky **** in the business anyway to ever overcome that on a significant scale. There will simply always be too many golfers searching for the secret. And while I strongly believe that the announcers and misinformed golf instructors of the world have good intentions and believe in their teachings, it's just not enough.

Thx. I have played golf for many years but only recently have begun to comprehend the true fundimentals of the swing. This has improved my game drastically since i can pinpoint the cause of my errant shots much faster and more acurrately. On my quest to improve my game and knowledge of the golf swing, i had to filter through so much misinformation, i regret all the time and money lost. It seems with the help of technology, a consensus is developing of what the correct fundimentals are. Its just unfortunate some people in influencial positions are more of a detriment to advancing the sport. I no longer pay attention to what commentators say but it shouldnt be like that.

I was never much of a tiger fan. I never denied his talent and do believe he is the greatest golfer i ever saw play(never saw jack play other than highlights). I just didnt like his personality. Very dry and anal.

However, even i find myself defending tiger when this guy talks. I mean he seriously has it against tiger. It seems he goes out of his way to bash tiger. I think golf channel is taking a big gamble with his tone. I dont know how ratings work but maybe there is a horde of tiger haters that live and die by every BC comment. It just seems stupid to actively seek such bias criticism of the one player who is the sole reason there even is a dedicated golf channel.

Your post doesn't warrant a reply from me, but once again, you've manipulated the situation, and, again tried to make your point without doing so from an intelligent, adult manner.

Agreed.

Complete contradiction to other statements.

I never agreed with that quote - I said I was impressed with BC's knowledge of the golf swing & how he handled taking time to join a discussion but then being "attacked."

Congrats - you found a video in which someone other than yourself did all the work - the same guy who slammed BC. Did you take the video? No. Do you know what type of shot he was hitting (high/low, spin/low spin etc)? No. All you know is you went to a website where someone is calling someone else wrong and used that for your point. I have HOURS of video of every player on tour that I have taken - if I felt the need (I don't) I could post them to make points about this. Players swings differ by the shot they are hitting - does Tigers head move that much on every fw bunker shot? Does it ever move less? Does it move as much there as on his full shots from a fairway? Your vendetta against me is obvious (guess I should have spent more time diagnosing the videos of your swing you posted on the forum last year).
I'm sorry you feel that I have some "worship" towards BC and that I'm negatively affecting golfers around the world (my success in the industry tells me otherwise). FWIW, I don't agree with much that BC says on tv, although I rarely get a chance to watch live telecasts. I think he has made some blanket statements, and my basis for saying he was knowledgeable ws based on other discussions, and not on anything he'd said on a broadcast. I do find it humorous that you posted your swing on a poker forum and asked me to review it - did you feel you were going to get all the answers you were seeking from this site? Especially when you feel so strongly that I am negatively influencing golfers? Since Tiger has said/written he tries to feel as though his head is on a shelf in fairway bunkers and his goal is to keep his chin high through the shot, I think I'll stand behind my statement - especially for the majority of players who struggle from fw bunkers. But, you head on out to the course and try dropping your head 5-6 inches down & back on your next fw bunker shot - let's just hope you don't have to carry any water. I've seen your golf swing - I can predict fairly accurately how that shot will work out for you.

The true secret is posting your swing in a poker forum and asking for advice from random posters.

I don't have any problem backing up what I say/believe - that's part of my job. I'm happy to expand on points and have INTELLIGENT discussions about the golf swing. It's more than obvious that kind of discussion will not happen with you, since you have an agenda of which you can't seem to get past. If it makes you feel better - you WIN!! Tigers head moved downward in a bunker shot! Not that I said it didn't move, just that it moved less, and for the average player, trying to maintain a balanced position in a fw bunker and keep their head somewhat steady is good advice. Intentionally telling an amateur to try to drop their head in a fw bunker is a recipe for disaster. But, what do I know.

In closing, I won't be replying to any more of your attacks/name-calling/BC worship insinuations. My effort to have a discussion has turned into your mission to prove anything I say incorrect. I'll be at Augusta all day, and I'm sure I can film several videos to help you prove your point that I am misinforming the general public, then again, I might be able to find one that would support my statements. Too bad I won't be posting any for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy your day watching Wayne D videos - I know I'll enjoy mine!

I mean I definitely stand by this comment. That still is the most preposterous thing anyone has ever heard in sports

With that being said, this is getting a little out of hand IMO. I don't think dagolfdoc and ship's scenarios are the same here. Doc only defended Brandel from all the bashing and said that he actually knows a decent amount about the swing and impressed doc a bit in the FB discussion. I'm certainly inclined to believe him and don't think this statement needs a lot of facts to back it up. Brandel certainly can know a lot about the golf swing, doesn't mean there aren't thing he thinks that other people will disagree with. It's a bit different from ship saying that some of what Foley says is flat out wrong, and then not being able to even give us a hint. Also no offense to ship, but I'm much more likely to just take doc's word when it comes to swing stuff than ships and that is due to the last few years, getting a first hand account to everything doc knows.

Also after talking with doc, I realize a little better how Brandel is in a tight spot on TV sometimes because he doesn't have a ton of time to elaborate on his points. Doc told me that was something Brandel brought up in the FB discussion and it makes sense. Your viewpoint can easily be taken the wrong way if it is taken out of context and you don't have the adequate amount of time to defend your position. So I'm a little more sympathetic to Brandel.

Anyway Doc probably won't see this til Thursday, he will be chilling on the range at Augusta the next couple days. Hope it's awesome, post some of the good footage you get!

no doubt BC was a touring pga pro for many years so he should definately have a better knowledge of the golf swing than any of us. to me it just seems he has something personal against tiger and everything associated with him, including "modern golf swing theory."

i mean its comical when you watch the golf channel and you see even the other anchors or analyst try to quickly distance themselves from BC's comments after he speaks.

The bold is a fallacy. Playing ability has nothing to do with teaching ability, or even knowledge. There are plenty of examples of players with better careers than BC, Faldo especially, demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of the golf swing.

Largely agree with the rest of your post, although I question how much of BC's act is strictly for tv.

thats why i said "SHOULD." personally i question his knowledge as well. i just didnt want to come off as some weekend hacker who thinks he knows more than an ex-tour pro. i understand he only has a small window of time to make his points, but i find him making numerous contradictory statements and flat out absurdities that allotted time has no bearing on.

Well no ****, but the poster said BC should know more about the golf swing than this forum....lets review

Does BC have more knowledge about the golf swing then most on this forum? Most likely.

Just like being a big name teaching pro has very little to do with teaching ability or even knowledge.

I agree with both of these statements - there are great players who don't know squat about the golf swing and there certainly teachers who you couldn't pay me to let them give them give me a lesson. However, I always enjoy talking to great players and listening to their thoughts about playing the game. I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to spend some time with some great players and our discussions have rarely been about the swing - more about their thoughts, routine, course management, etc. My thought is, that an announcer who is an ex-player should comment on the playing aspects and maybe occasionally mentioning knowledgeable aspects of the swing or simple tip - not the other way around.

I don't get to watch many tournaments on the GC (usually working), so I can't really comment on some crazy statements made by BC (according to the quotes above - if he said those, that's nuts IMO), but simply about the conversations/FB discussions we've had - which were interesting & informative to me.

If anyone is interested, here's the FB discussion between Wayne & BC - I'm leaving out the 83 other comments - only including WD & BC. Sorry for the length, just figured some of you might like to read it & you can form your own opinions. Thread was started with the following:

Wayne DeFrancesco
A couple of things are at work here. Tiger made it look easy from the time he won his first US Junior up until he ran into the fire hydrant. No one is used to seeing him struggle, although we have gotten used to it a bit over the last 2 years. We are especially not used to seeing him struggle on Sunday when he has positioned himself to possibly win. Every pro goes through that, except Tiger, until now. Then add that no one on television is going to miss commenting on Tiger's progress or lack thereof because that is pretty much the only thing any listener wants to hear. TV is inherently hysterical, because anyone with a rational, calm perspective is seen as "boring".
Thus, we have the Brandel Chamblees of the airwaves, all following in the "tell it like it is" (or like it isn't) style of Johnny Miller. Chamblee is a thoughtful guy who can make some interesting observations when he is not talking about swing mechanics. As soon as he ventures into swing analysis he loses all credibiltiy. I have done a few videos debating his insights into Tiger's swing, and the more I see of him the more I am convinced that he a) has it in for Sean Foley and anyone else he perceives as teaching swing "technique", and b) he sees his criticisms of Tiger as cutting edge and something that is elevating him in the business. The truth is that Chamblee is not a teacher and has not done the prerequisite study required to present a coherent argument regarding golf swing mechanics. He has gone from Tiger's "dipping", to Tiger's "popping up", and now to Tiger's overly leaned shaft. I have shown that almost all great players lower during their swings (Chamblee finally admitted as much), then showed that Chamblee himself elevated during the impact interval (as do tons of other greats), and I will show that his assertion about Tiger's forward lean and the size of his divots ("way bigger than Phil's) is more nonsense. Lee Trevino, one of the greatest wedge players in golf history, took divots the size of small animals. To argue in front of millions of golfers who suffer from clubhead throwaway that forward leaning the shaft is a bad thing is not helping anyone. In fact, such stupidity sets back the efforts of teachers all over the country. At least Miller is entertaining. Chamblee is simply annoying.

Wayne DeFrancesco Brandel: You have millions of people watching you. What you say counts.
You have an obligation to be correct, and that means that if you're going to generalize you should include the exceptions. When you speak of time constraints you are making excuses. You know who's playing in the
tournament and my guess is you know fairly well what points you are going to make before you make them. Why not make them better? If you want to claim
that Tiger is over-leaning the shaft then find something to back you up. I never just say stuff, I show it. My lines don't make things more
complicated, they make it easier to compare and discuss, because I always
draw the same ones. That way I can tell you for sure that Tiger is not
"coming over the top" even though he is rehearsing it as such, and I can
also tell you that his hands are not "more out" than they were in 2000. I
can also show you side by side of Mickelson hitting wedges with a steeper downswing and just as big divots as Tiger. It's right there for you to look
at. You would rather rely on your sense of things than on the evidence.

As for my "sitting in a darkroom" I actually spend the vast majority of my time on the lesson tee, and have done so for the past 25
years. The rest of the daylight that I have available I use to practice and play, because I still play competitive golf. I take my stuff out on the
course and post scores. I don't sit in a television booth and make comments about how the best player of the generation is an idiot for trying to
improve his game by taking instruction. You may not think you have a bone
to pick with Sean but how do you think he feels when you state on TV that it
is "outrageous" for him to think he can teach Tiger anything? You may not
see your attitude and your attacks as hateful or mean spirited but I can
promise you there are many who do. Taking lessons is 100% voluntary. Tiger chose Sean, not the other way around. Sean will simply give Tiger whatever Tiger wants, just like Hank did and just like Butch did. Your taking of
sides with Butch over anyone else is obvious and inappropriate for someone
in your position. I don't know what kind of bad experience you had with "technique" instruction, but there are more ways to teach a complex game
than sitting in a chair encouraging your student to "relax". I have heard
you go on about who you consider the great teachers, Ernest Jones, Harvey Penick, Butch Harmon, and I have heard you savage the "modern" instructors
such as Leadbetter, O'Grady and Foley. You have hopped on the "simplicity" wagon and are riding it for all you're worth, and that's your right. But to insist that everyone else is making the game more complicated than necessary
is ridiculous. And when you insinuate that teachers like myself are doing
so to extend lesson times and jack up lesson rates (yes, I heard you say
that) I find that highly insulting. You try spending 8 hours on the lesson
tee with people who can't hit the ball and have no concept of what they are doing and " keep it simple". But oh, that's right, you've never taught
before. You wouldn't last, and you wouldn't help half of the people who
were paying you. You fear complexity even though it exists, and you long to make simple what is not. If it were so simple you would still be out on
Tour, and everyone would be good.

Wayne DeFrancesco I hope you guys realize that Brandel Chamblee has declared war on "modern instruction" and takes every opportunity to disparage what pga teaching professionals do to help their students. His words and tone are serious: he accuses anyone who uses modern technology and the increasingly comprehensive knowledge recently gained about the swing and teaching methods and lumps it all in a sweeping generalization that accuses us of " overcomplicating" our instruction unnecessarily in order to seem smart and squeeze more money out
of our students. If you think he's not taking about you that's fine, but he
is nevertheless hurting your credibility and reputation, which will
ultimately hurt your business. I intend to stay on him (just check out my website) and make sure people are getting the other side of the story and
see the truth about his shoddy analysis and attacks on teaching
professionals who aren't named Butch harmon. He has an audience of
millions, and I am a lowly pga professional, but we have to do what we can.

Wayne DeFrancesco James: You should google "interview with brandel chamblee'. His Golf Magazine (may have been Golf.com) interview will come up and you will see more of what I am talking about. "Butch (Harmon) knows talent, and how to help a player find his best, most innate swing- not the cookie cutter, scientific approach to the teaching, which I think is a cancer on the game...When you learn the swing watching and obsessing over videotape you become obsessed with your flaws, on perfection". My point is that Chamblee's sweeping generalizations regarding how teachers teach tour players is the information that is going out to millions of viewers. He has no clue how hard it is to teach a 25 handicapper. And to your point about what our "job" is, do you think you are telling me something I don't know and practice every day? Your job is to know as much as you can so that you can use any and every way possible to help the person who is paying you. The better you are at teaching the more people you will be able to help. If an engineer comes to you for lessons and wants you to explain everything that happens in the swing and offer him proof of your answers, can you do it?

Wayne DeFrancesco Rick Woodson: I like you comment about players. Don't forget that PGA professionals are players as well. I started the thread, but you only include Chamblee and Ogrin in your post about listening to "players" before you go to science. I won the National Club Pro Championship. I won 3 State Opens. I won 3 Section Championships. I was low club pro at the PGA Championship and played in 8 majors. Does that count? You think my heart rate has been elevated a few times? There are plenty of fine instructors who have played competitive golf all their lives. There are many reasons why players don't play the tour, be it injury, life style choices, or lack of ability. That doesn't preclude us from being thought of as "players". I have argued for decades that teachers should keep competing, and should feel obligated to continue to work on their own games while trying to get better at helping others with theirs. I have done so myself, and I would like to get a bit of credit for doing so.

Wayne DeFrancesco James: That question was hypothetical, not questioning your abilities. I
don't even know you. I'm sure you are a fine instructor. As for Butch and Phil, I'm sure Butch is great but the truth is that anyone who knows
Mickelson's swing knows that he never changes it. Butch says the same stuff
to him all the time, and has done so for 5 years. You think he came up with something new last week? Every now and then Mickelson plays better than
anyone in the world. Then whoever is teaching him is heralded as a genius. Mickelson just knows how to play. And the next time you want to insult Rick Smith you might want to remember that Mickelson won majors in 2004,2005. And 2006 while working with Smith. He won his other one with Harmon. Smith
doesn't deserve that slight.

Thanks for posting Doc. Actually impressed with how Brandel handled himself if that is all of his comments considering how hard he was getting ragged on.

Funny that this Wayne says that Brandel has it out for Foley. Was watching GC earlier tonight and Brandel basically refused to give any credit to Sean for what he's done with Tiger, Hunter, and Justin despite what those 3 have accomplished already this season, though he did say that Sean probably knows what he's talking about which is a far cry from his absurd quote above.

Thanks for posting that facebook conversation. In case it's not obvious to those reading it, Wayne D was asked by someone to comment on some of the then recent stuff Brandel had been saying. When I asked in February for you to support the claim that BC 'came off very informed, and gained a lot of respect' by citing something specific in the above conversation, despite my obvious bias, I can assure you it was a genuine question. I do appreciate the free advice you gave about my swing. I promise I was not waiting a year to find the right moment to "get you back."

Other than the last part that Brandel starts with "Michael" I had read the same comments from Brandel. I mean, in your defense, the words Brandel uses do make him seem informed and I kinda wanna tip my hat(respect) to him for having the balls to respond. However, in the context of the points he's trying to defend/make, I just don't think what he says is much more valid than the Foley comment nxt referenced.

I've been accused of using someone else's work to support my point. While I may not understand how that matters, it inspired me to do some work of my own. First up, Anthony Kim.



There was also some accusation that the one sample of Tiger's fairway bunker play may not have been ample evidence. Fair enough.

This camera was moving all over the place so I used the bottom of his cap and the top edge of the grass for reference. The others will be more obvious.










Happy Masters Week to Everyone. I hope you have all enjoyed Doc and I's two man show: "Who's internet penis is bigger?" Maybe some day Doc and I will be best friends and giggle about the time we made each other so mad over the lol internet.

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the 83 other comments. This was the most engrossing post I have read on this forum.

I'm just a random reader here but it really seems like there are two "camps" of people with comments and they also seem to have similar personalities. jk3a and wayne d are obviously agreeing with each other, particularly about the point that "people with large audiences have an obligation to say correct things". On the other side we have dagolfdoc and BC who don't really like having relatively anonymous internet people call them out and from their POV get some free pub from knocking the big name tv golf guy. On a personal level this is entirely understandable, but the thing I'm struggling with as a reader of all this is that all Wayne and jk3a's pictures seem to show they are right? The whole head lowering thing also just makes logical sense to me so I'm inclined to believe it until presented with more counter argument than BC's claim that its bad.

I also read that Facebook exchange and I don't see how you can read that as BC coming off well. He takes several cheap shots and ad hominem attacks at Wayne for no real reason even after making some very reasonable points (particularly the "war and peace" and "10 min videos trying to be relevant" type things were very distasteful to me, he is arguing the guy who is actually trying to show his evidence is being too long winded?). Furthermore, sorry to say, but dagolfdoc uses similarly distasteful pot shots for no real reason at all in between salient points (basically disparaging jk3a for posting a swing for analysis in a poker forum - hey I did that too, I also take lessons from a PGA professional, am I a total idiot wasting my time too?).

golfdoc: you give tons of great free advice here and that's great, but there is certainly some ego involved in doing so. I should know, I'm a very good poker player and I post poker advice on 2+2 quite often, I have nothing really to gain from doing it but being a respected member of the community and helping people make me feel good and certainly stroke my ego some. By saying that we are just a lowly poker forum and why would people post their golf swings here instead of learning from a real pro like you, I find it akin to me going to the micro stakes poker forum and saying "hey guys why are you bothering discussing poker you are all poor players playing tiny stakes, you are wasting your time". Everyone starts somewhere, and the beauty of this site is that correct information trumps incorrect information no matter who you are and what your reputation is. Reading all this all I've seen is tons of evidence from the "other guys" and a lot of disparaging hand waving from you and BC. Maybe the evidence is wrong or not showing what I think its showing, but I don't think they are deceiving on purpose, if its wrong it would be nice if someone said why instead of being so dismissive. In my experience in poker, when people take that attitude they are changing the argument because they don't really know how to answer the question, and that's what it looks like BC is doing in his comments.

By who? That was the original post.

FWIW, I don't believe I ever said TW's head didn't move. I said he "tries" to keep it still & depending on the shot it may not drop as much.

Obviously some camera movement. I believe I said his head "stays pretty steady" - not does not move at all.

OK, now explain how that conversation makes him a "****ing ******?"
Fair enough - that's your opinion.

Then I wouldn't use it.

Although I don't have my entire swing library at home, but here's a couple pics of some decent players, both have won this year, I've tried to draw lines to a fixed point so you can measure:






Once again - I never said head movement was bad - just that I would prefer it to stay steady. Not really sure how this worked into head dropping, but I'm pretty sure Iron Byron works around a fixed axis - of course I could be wrong, and, if so, I'm sure there will be a post pointing it out shortly!

DD - just saw your post, and while I disagree with some of it, I appreciate the thoughtful manner in which you posted. I agree there is certainly some irritation in my posts, and if you've read the entire thread, much of it came from jk3a basically "calling me out" about not replying to his question regarding BC. I'm surprised you think BC sounded worse in the FB thread - he was invited to join since he was being mentioned, and I feel he was pretty calm until poked one too many times. I only mentioned jk3a's swing postings because he said there were too many "misinformed golf professionals" yet wanted advice from a poker forum - why?

Thanks for posting the pictures, it seems the jury is out on the head lowering thing after all

From my reading it just seems like BC tends to throw little barbs in here or there, in a verbal conversation they could easily be innocent, done with a smile in a joking manner, when you read them online it often reads petty and out of place, any humor is lost. Wayne isn't very nice to him, but he is straightforward in his criticism, BC reads as more passive aggressive to me. Shrug, I agree with what ship--this posted somewhere that everyone is just kinda feisty recently, a lot of people are trying their best on golf channel and on these forums. Appreciate the response.

I don't have the time right now to really read and digest all of these posts, but from a cursory view I think that it is crucial to use the same frames for comparison. Meaning that the head does typically drop early in the downswing and then lift as teh player jumps into impact to create leverage and force. So showing that Tiger has dropped early in the swing or that Robert Rock or Rose are level at impact is not comparing remotely the same thing.

Again, I haven't read the posts very thoroughly, but these comparisons to prove either side seem pointless to me. You load in the backswing, typically lower in the downswing and the explode up through impact. Pretty simple really.

I think.

Yep, anytime there is discussion about the golf swing, and the parties involved are passionate, it can get pretty intense. In the PGA Teaching & Coaching Summit several years ago they had Flick & Ballard debate on stage - you've got 2 of the best, most successful teachers in the world with drastically different philosophies - it seriously almost became a fist fight. There's a million different ways to swing and as many different ways to teach - there's no one right way. I certainly agree that teachers should be able to defend their philosophy/teaching, and I feel I can defend mine adequately - however, head drop doesn't fall into my philosophy at all - it's all about improving weaknesses, developing a consistent shot, and learning to play the game/score. Somehow this got a little derailed into head drop.

Fair enough - once again - I am not saying it shouldn't drop - however, some do, some don't. Here's the same swings 1/2 way down:

Nice doc....that gives me hope as I can't get mine to drop and create a little Rickie Fowler style side bend.

Q School is only half a year away?????

copied from Wayne's blog:
Nick C
Wayne: Since I consider you to be among the smartest golf swing analysts online, I'd love it if you would check out the thread going on in the Golf Teaching Professionals group about Brandel's comments regarding Tiger's swing and where he feels he's going off track.
I've seen some great analysis of Tiger's new swing on your YouTube channel. Brandel specifically doesn't agree with the amount of Forward Shaft Lean he's seeing from Tiger and thinks his new swing is 'too complicated' for Sundays.
Wayne DeFrancesco
A couple of things are at work here. Tiger made it look easy from the time he won his first US Junior up until he ran into the fire hydrant. No one is used to seeing him struggle, although we have gotten used to it a bit over the last 2 years. We are especially...

you said, "his head barely moves"

Let's talk camera movement. You were right, the camera does move ever so slightly up as noted by the red lines below his feet on the stationary object that is his alignment stick. This teeny tiny movement does create the appearance the his head is lower that it would be had the camera not moved as compared to the red line that was once atop his head. You said pretty steady. Robert Rock is a great example of pretty steady. AK is clearly not.


The Justin Rose picture you decided to use does have some camera movement that can be noted within the black circles by the narrowed distance from the red line to the tree in the background. That said, whether Justin Rose lowers slightly or not doesn't matter. As DeathDonkey so kindly pointed out, this is just another example of changing the question. I NEVER said anything about all players lowering.


He's obviously not a ****ing ****** nor is he the biggest idiot alive. As I said in my apology, the language is exaggerated. Also, I didn't say, nor was my comment based on the FB conversation alone. It was but a contributor to my opinion on him.

This is what I said, " And while I strongly believe that the announcers and misinformed golf instructors of the world have good intentions and believe in their teachings, it's just not enough." I did not say 'too many.' WHY? I don't know. Because I want to improve and feel confident that I can filter the information. Even if you believe it's not offensive to the likes of DD and others who post their swing, it's a pretty giant slap in the face to the forum here in general and all those posters who can and do help people who post their swings.

Also, most importantly, it's mother ****ing Masters Week! As much as I might enjoy this at times, I think it would be great if Rob and I could call a truce or agree to disagree or whatever and move on. I've said a number of things that could have been said in a more adult, intelligent manner and I will make a better effort to do so in the future.

This is kinda where i wanted to lead the conversation when i started the thread. I too am a poker player that benefited greatly from the info available at twoplustwo. It really opened my eyes to the real fundamentals of poker and dispelled alot of the established literature on poker of the earlier era. The "old school" pros were and still are to a large degree very dismissive of the twoplustwo community and the more analytical, game theory approach to poker. I see that parallel going on with golf instruction today.

I believe from 20+ years ago to about 5 years ago, golf instruction has been stagnant. I dont think the avg golfers handicap has gone down in that time frame. I know as many golfers quit as new one start and thats not a sign of improving players. Thats because the info taught to avg golfers during that time was mostly garbage. Its like how most poker players sucked back then because no one knew how to play fundamentally sound.

Also in wayne d's defense, he said not all players lower their head during the swing. He said most of the GREAT players lower their head during the swing. He is very careful to stress that he would never change something in someones swing that works well. He just points out similarities in the great ball strikers and head lowering in common trait of their swing.