Wuh? Wha chu tawkin bout main?
Todd wrote: "then you must come to the conclusion that there is a way that is more repeatable where you match the anatomy to the golf club."
Uh...what Peter said ( Vijay Singh vs Mike Weir )plus this: There is a way that is the MOST repeatable for each golfer, and it is incumbent on the golfer to learn what that is for him. There are definitely wrong ways to hit a golf ball. Given enough time though, even the wrong way ends up being the right way:
"It's normal for me, he admitted. "It's such a mental game you have to control your mind. I've gotten quite a bit of notoriety from being a cross-hand player. But playing cross-handed is just part of my game." Hmm...Imagine that. Part of HIS game. I love that. Right for him. ( how many of us that have qualified for any of our National Opens?)
There is no one right way. If I deliver the club head to the ball as I intended to on the next shot, then that is the right way. If I can consistently deliver the club head to ball as I intend to shot after shot, then that is the right way. That is golf swing. Most of us PLAY and we then have the challenge of doing the above in the context of a competitive match, where the object is to post the best possible score our ability will allow us to. That is golf. When our "range swing" is the same as our "course swing", that is golf mastery. When you can win consistently using golf mastery, that is golf genius.
Todd wrote: "When you stop looking at his swing as idiosyncratic and model him you will improve."
I view all swings as idiosyncratic in that they are the products of the individual's body, personality, and mental and emotional capacities. It is no secret that I use a swing model based on the single axis variant known as IMA, amped by Bertholy. ( though if Peter, EPII, or Scott H. were to inspect it I am sure they would declare it to not be pure IMA! ). It is Bertholy's view that when it comes to a fine golf swing, there really are only a few fundamentals that must be present. And that often, style is mistaken for fundamental. I choose to model the fundamentals, those common characteristics that are present in all great swings - Hogan's, Moe's, Tiger's, Yours
. Just focusing on modeling these fundamentals, I have improved - lots. One of the comments you hear a lot is how the golf swing has changed so much over the years, the modern swing etc. That is true to some extent. But go back 40 years and look at the pros then and the pros now, and you still see the same things at transition, just prior to impact, and at impact. That's a pretty damn good model.