The unusual athleticism of the head drop in the golf swing

I can't remember which golf forum I was reading wherein a high-mileage member was looking for a swing that would be easier on his back.

Some well-intentioned poster advised him to watch some Moe Norman videos.

That struck me as funny since I recalled that Norman had a pretty significant head drop at impact. This move has always struck me as one of the least discussed hallmarks of a certain kind of atypical athleticism. Looking at Norman and Trevino I can only imagine how hard the drop was on their backs. I know it hurts mine just mimicking this kind of drop working on my swing in the mirror. People talk about flipping and casting; try to flip or cast from a posture anywhere close to what Norman and Trevino achieved. Impossible. It's the opposite of the coming out of it move that most high handicap players have perfected.

I recall when Hank Haney was working with Charles Barkley that Haney missed this completely. A head drop like Norman's (maybe six inches) is tough, Trevino's had to be closer to a foot and I recall Barkley's was even more than that (as well as a part of a wildly ugly, almost tragic swing). My approach with Barkley would have be to have him start his swing at the top of his backswing. Then, his job would have been to swing down toward impact while keeping his head at position he had set at address. It was the transition that destroyed Barkley's,

Anyway, the dynamics of the good player head drop are interesting to me.

Why is good tempo in golf so elusive?

Over the years, I've worked on and been frustrated by pretty much every part of my game. Still, more often than not it's my full swing shots that get out of whack. A natural analytic, I tend to consider active issues like path and plane and then more passive issues like stance and alignment.

It's natural for me to think about the angle of the club face at impact when the ball goes on a line I never intended. But, there have only been a very few times when my full swing woes were provably attributable to issues like these.

Almost always, the root cause has been poor tempo.

There have been times when I got too slow going back and there have been times when I was too fast at the transition but tempo (and lack of it) always end up being the source of my problem and also of its solution.

The longer my tempo stays bad the harder it becomes for me to recognize it's has gone bad. The new bad tempo starts to feel correct, at least in some perverse, only-in-golf, way.

Years ago, my internal timing really left me leading to immense frustration. At some point I stumbled onto the creation of a very effective tempo aid. I took a 6 foot length of 1 inch PVC and fill each end with the equivalent of about a foot and a half of number 9 lead shot. I was still shooting a lot of skeet in those days.

Anyway, I'd lay the PVC across my shoulders, behind my head. Then, I'd take my full swing stance and I'd work on my back swing and down swing tempo. The mass of the lead and the flex of the PVC made me very much aware of the need for gradual deceleration at the end of the back swing and gradual acceleration at the start of the down swing. I could turn quickly (and fully), but not abruptly. The mass from the lead also made it easy to rotate fully and well beyond the ball. It was immensely helpful and cost about $10. One day I ran out of 20 GA and I loaded the shot into some shells for a league shoot.

So, that's one thing that worked.

Here are some that haven't:

The Whippy: I always wanted to love these clubs. Cool guy. I always felt that as more of a hitter than a swinger, the Whippy was basically making fun of my natural swing. I got OK with it after a while but I always found the transition back to my regular clubs simply felt too weird.

Metronomes: What a great idea, but not for me. There are lots of free metronome apps for the iPhone but I have never been able to correlate the mechanical regularity of the beats to the human tempo of my  movements. A golf swing has pace, timing and tempo but it doesn't really have rhythm (though good players obviously do) that can be readily associated with the external and continual beats of a metronome.

Counting, or Fre-ddie Cou-ples, a la Johnny Miller: I've known guys who count back (1 and 2) and make impact 3 and finish 4. It makes sense, and I've been known  to do it between holes or when I warm up. It's totally harmless (I think) and maybe helpful for some but it's never gotten me out of a tempo tailspin.

In the end, my best ally against poor tempo has been my own sensitivity. I literally feel for it. I find that I can zoom in on a certain part of my body (my shoulders, usually) and feel the point at which they start to move at a speed that doesn't fit with the swing I'm trying to make. My goal is always to equalize the pace and feel of my back swing (and turn) with my move into the ball. This has proven far more effective for me than to feel as if I am swinging slowly or easily, etc. I need to feel my hitting impulse I just need to have it happen at a pace I can handle.

Filling the gaps: Determine the clubs you should buy to make your set work.

Loft is simple, unless you refuse to pay attention to it.

My friend, Jay has refused so far.

He has little to no idea of what loft means to ball flight and distance. Of course, one also has to factor in length to make a loft equation work. Let's look at a couple loft and length tables.

First, here are the specs for the classic Ping Eye 2 irons.

These are the irons Jay used to play:

We can see that the Ping Eye 2 5 iron had 28.5 degrees of loft and was 37.75 inches long.

Here are the specs from Jay's new irons, the Ping G20:

The G20's 5 iron is two degrees stronger than the Eye 2 5 iron. Even at the same length this makes the G20's 5 iron close to the loft of the Eye 2's 4 iron.

Now look at the 9 iron lofts. There's a full 5 degrees of difference. That means the G20s are over one club stronger than the Eye 2s in the short irons.

That, my friends, is a big difference.

Stronger lofts at a given length mean generally longer ball flight. Yes, I am purposefully ignoring issues such as the club's center of gravity and shaft flex (for now).

So, it should come as no surprise to Jay that his new 7 iron flies further than his old 7 iron given its 4 degree stronger loft.

Let's look a bit closer at Jay's set:

Jay plays a 10.5 degree driver that is 45.5 inches in length yet his longest iron (his 4 iron) has a loft of 23 degrees and is 38.25 inches long.

It's pretty clear he'll need some clubs to fill in that length, loft and distance gap.

Happily, it's a simple problem to solve now that we have our length and loft tables.

As a brief aside, for the last 20 years stronger lofts and longer lengths have been the fashion. The explanation for this is easy; people like to believe their new clubs result in longer shots than their old clubs and club makers are happy to help facilitate the illusion.

Stronger lofts create a problem, though, that's different (and I would say more difficult to solve) than weaker lofts. In a weak loft set (like the Eye 2), the player can go directly from his 50 degree pitching wedge to a sand wedge.

But, in a stronger lofted set the player will be forced to learn to play and use a gap wedge which will fill a gap between his strong-lofted pitching wedge and his sand wedge that shouldn't be there in the first place.

We can forget about all that for now...

Jay still needs to address the gap between his 4 iron and his driver.

The first step is to find a club that will take care of the range a 3 iron would cover. We can see the 3 iron loft would have 20 degrees of loft. A much easier club to hit would be a 3 hybrid which will have a loft of 20 degrees and be just a touch longer than a standard 3 iron. Those of you who are paying attention have noticed a classic gap between clubs of around 3 or 4 degrees...

In the old days, a set would either have a 2 iron or a 5 wood. Most modern sets have neither but we still have a length, loft and distance gap to fill. The next club could be either be a 17 degree fairway wood (likely a 4 wood) or a 17 degree hybrid. A strong player might choose a longer, 17 degree hybrid (which would create the lower ball flight of a traditional long iron. But, Jay's not a very strong player. He needs clubs that are easy to hit and get the ball into the air.

A 20 degree hybrid and a 17 degree 4 wood fill the gap between his 4 iron and driver just fine.

His basic set should consist of 9 irons (sand, gap wedge, pitching wedge, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 and 4 irons), a 20 degree hybrid, a 17 degree 4 wood and his driver. When he adds in his putter he's at 13 clubs.  Many players have a specialty club they add for specific conditions or courses. Some add a lob wedge, a chipper, a low bounce wedge or maybe even a two wood or a strong 3 wood, on any given day, thereby maxing out their bag at the USGA limit of 14 clubs.

Here's something that doesn't matter at all, but lots of people (Jay?) think it does:

People are prone to get all worked up over how far they hit their irons.

They'll say things like, "I used to hit my 7 iron 150 and now I hit it 130."

They say this as if it matters but it doesn't.

The distance a player hits a club is a function of club head speed, the path of the club and the angle of the club head as it strikes the ball. Each one of those are variables for any player, and are wide variables for the recreational player.

Don't get worked up over losing distance which really hasn't been lost. Try to focus on striking the ball squarely and play the distance you get. Then, figure 10 yards distance between each club and get out there and post a score.

See, Jay?

It's simple.

What's relevant in Golf Digest?

I don't know why I get Golf Digest. 

What I do know is that it will never stop coming. It was a charitable thing, as I recall. 

Oh well.

Anyway, month in and month out there are two relevant things in pretty much every issue. The first is My Shot (which is excellent this month) and What's in my bag?

This month, David Eger's My Shot retells the story of the Tiger Woods Dropgate incident with an interesting aside about the rules mastery (or lack of same) possessed by chairman of the Masters competition committee, Fred Ridley.

I never liked Eger much as a player, but he's willing to say what he believes so he has earned my respect. He'll earn even more if he manages to beat one of my least favorite Champions Tour players, Kenny Perry.

134 pages and about 8 that are worth reading? 

Seems fair to me...

The low point of every issue are the swing sequences. 

They are so static and rote as to be meaningless. 

Here's a great, numbingly dull quote about Billy Horschel that gets the feel across:

"A good look at setup: He stands in a balanced and athletic position."

Imagine a player on the PGA Tour with a good, athletic setup.

The SeeMore PTM1 / Precision Tour Milled

My feelings about SeeMore putters should come as no surprise to my readers. After years of fooling around with this putter and that, seemingly ad infinitum, a humble FGP from a local used putter bin showed me the way to the hole. Since then, there's been no holding me back. Quite simply, with the FGP I make putts that I used to miss. After a while, a sense of confidence sets in and, since it's a confidence that's based on success, that confidence itself leads to more putts holed. My original FGP is a brass model from back in the day. It's a modest looking putter but its lines are clean and purposeful. The lack of adornment makes it easy to keep your eye off the putter itself and on the line of the putt.

The PTM1 shares the shape of the old FGP, and also starts as a casting, but its face, sole, bore and RST lines are CNC milled. It's relevant to note that the PTM1 is made from stainless steel rather than brass. This leads to different sound at impact anywhere on the head. The brass FGP is especially resonant on putts hit on the sweet spot while the PTM1 sounds slightly more muted.

You can see the results of the face milling are pretty slick looking. While everyone pretty much ignores the original FGP the PTM1 gets plenty of compliments. The face doesn't matter much to me, but I appreciate the new battleship gray powder coating on the top line and cavity of the putter. It keeps the PTM1 even more neutral looking than the original's black finish especially when the sun is very bright. SeeMore lets you custom order putters down to the half inch so I ordered my new PTM1 at 33.5" (my old FGP is 34") and it's perfect. You also have your choice of covers. Me? I'm a basic black with an American flag kind of guy!

Whenever anyone will stand next to me long enough to listen, I tell them about the SeeMore FGP and now the PTM1. I've never been an ambassador for anything, ever. In fact, for years I made my living reviewing products. Let's just call my reviewing style unbiased (even though some thin-skinned folks called it critical).

Look,  I'd be happy to be critical of SeeMore putters if I could but, if I'm honest, I can't. If more people used a SeeMore putter, they would make more putts.

I'm sure of it.

Homemade Tour Swings

With the exception of Jim Furyk's, I love a homemade swing that's good enough to make it to the tour.

That said, I'm always worried that one of the more interesting swings could run headlong into a swing guru and get changed forever.

Rickie Fowler: I know, his swing really isn't homemade but his long time coach isn't a well-known guru, so I'll count his. I hope Fowler is confident enough to resist because I really like his swing.

Bubba: Like Daly & Furyk, I think Watson's swing is pretty much hard wired at this point, for better or worse.

Sergio Garcia: Scar tissue, overt personality defects and all, I am a Garcia fan. I watched him for four days at the Torrey a few years back and his ball striking was dazzling. The sound of his iron shots sound a lot like Trevino's. I think he could get desperate and get a swing & head guru and that would be the end of him. He'd go from near-great to mediocre; from a sometime artist to a mechanic. Think Charles Howell III...
The LPGA & Champion's Tours are even more rich when it comes to homemade swings. I don't much like the big, slow-tempo swings of most Korean players. Michelle Wie may end up being something of a cautionary tale; it's not hard to look at what happened to her game while under the ongoing influence of a guru and want to avoid the same fate.

I'm not sure how the swings of Paula Creamer, Morgan Pressel & Natalie Gulbis came to look the way they do. Each has been around a guru or two, yet their swings keep their unique look, which is very cool.

The guys on the Champion's Tour would probably be more guru-prone but I most of them lack the flexibility to rebuild their swings. That's good news since old-school and homemade swings are far more interesting.

The best & worst about Tiger Woods and The Ruling

The best...from Gary Van Sickle at Sports Illustrated:

"We learned that 33-7 isn’t the score of a football game but a rule that, if applied universally the way it was to Tiger Woods in Augusta, means no player guilty of a rules breach found after-the-fact should ever be disqualified for signing an incorrect score again. Of course, that’s not how it is going to work for the rank and file. There will be more DQs for wrong cards following post-round penalties. The Masters bent the rules for Tiger. Let me simplify the whole supposedly complicated Tiger issue for you: Yes or no, did Tiger sign for an incorrect score? Correct answer: Yes. He agreed that he took a wrong drop and should’ve had a two-shot penalty included. Tiger should’ve been disqualified. The rest of the story is smoke and mirrors and the more Fred Ridley talked, the worse it sounded. What a stain it would’ve been had Tiger won. He would’ve had to get to 20 majors to beat Jack because this one wouldn’t have counted in the eyes of a lot of observers. Luckily, that’s a moot point now."

The worst...from Gary Player:

"In golf, we have a rules committee, and situations like this are exactly why. When a referee makes a ruling, you have to accept it. It doesn't matter what the commenters on the side say, so why make comments? It makes no difference who thinks Woods should have been disqualified, or who thinks he should have withdrawn. We have to abide the decision. That's how we play golf. Augusta made the final verdict: Tiger broke a rule, and he took his penalty exactly how it was given. No talking can change it, and amen to that."

I used to try not to think Gary Player was a holier-than-thou-chump.

I told him nice up & down once at Valencia Country Club during a Champion's Tour event and he said with a wink, "Thank's, laddy!" It was cool. I was like 40 years old at the time.

Still, what Player misses is that rules evolve from forces applied from both within and without a sport. No ruling body should or can do their work in a vacuum. Commentary, questions and criticism of the rules (and the rule makers) are more than necessary evils, they are the road to better rules.

ESPN's Rick Reilly on Sergio Garcia's Demons

This piece by ESPN's Rick Reilly annoyed me on both tone and style points, so I fired off this sharply tongued missive to him:

Dear Mr. Reilly

Really, it's hard for me to figure out why Sergio Garcia's attitude is so interesting to you. He's a golfer; would it be so wrong to judge him by his play rather than dredging up quotes and actions from him going back more than a decade?

Garcia is 33 years of age and has no majors. Then again, Brandt Snedeker is 32, also with no majors, but 3 fewer PGA Tour wins than Garcia. Should we talk about Sned's sunny disposition or his game? In addition to Snedeker, have you ever compared Garcia's career to that of Ian Poulter? Poulter may be trending in the press, but his record doesn't compare.

Garcia finished the Masters at -3, just like Lee Westwood and Matt Kuchar. Has anyone checked their attitudes lately? It would seem not.

I've watched Garcia since the days of his win at the British Amateur and his run at the PGA Championship. Like you, I've wondered about his life away from golf. Also like you, I've not walked a step in his shoes, so I don't question what I don't know.

Why not? Because it would be like kicking a man whom I don't know. In the end, I was surprised of the mean-spirited feel to your piece. If Garcia has been hard on anyone, it's been himself. If he is man of great talent yet lacking commensurate confidence & joie de vivre, so what?

Why not just leave him to his demons?

But please, refrain from adding your own.

2013 Masters: This year's tale of guilt.

In so many ways, Tiger Woods is the perfect counterpoint to Adam Scott.

His failure to hit the gas hard enough on Sunday was blamed on slow greens. Sure, they were trhe very same greens that Cabrera and Scott made epic putts on but, hey, they were just too slow for the stripped one.

Woods debacle at the 15th left me with only one question:

Why did Woods think it was OK to drop a couple yards short of the divot of his previous shot?

I haven't heard anyone ask this question.

In one respect, it doesn't matter: The fact is he made a bad drop and signed an incorrect scorecard.

Game over.

The additional fact is that was only the Masters Rule Committee's failure to identify the penalty in real time, and to notify Woods before he signed his card, that saved him from disqualification.

2013 Masters: This year's tale of redemption.

When Adam Scott blew a four shot lead over the last four holes at the 2012 British Open I wondered if he would ever be able to redeem himself...to himself.

It was the kind of collapse that could have ruined the career of a player like Scott.

Now that Scott has exorcised whatever demons may have remained by his amazing win at The Masters it may be time to start to wonder about his potential to become the best player in the world. One major does not a number one player make, of course, still Scott's the perfect age to become a golfer in full to borrow from Tom Wolfe.

He's long and accurate driver whose short game and new-found fortitude could make him hard to beat. The folks at Nike would like us to imagine Rory McIlroy as his foil, but a slightly younger and just as fit Scott could be the genuine challenger to Woods and the other would-be Number Ones.

Am I practicing or playing?

Few who play golf know the difference, but it's a key question.

Sometimes you practice on the golf course and sometimes you play.

You will be wise to declare the difference before you tee off.

When you play, golf is game of fewest strokes. It doesn't matter how you get the ball into the hole, just do it. Don't take mulligans or re-hit shots or putts that may not have been hit the way you intended. Focus on numbers, focus on shots; get the ball into the hole and let nothing stand in your way.

Practice rounds are usually played when the course is uncrowded and you're playing alone. You can also have a practice round with your instructor called a teaching lesson. The circumstances of a practice round don't matter. What does matter is that you have something in mind when you practice. If a certain shot has been troublesome, a practice round is a good chance to work on it.

If there has been a problem shot, take some time to look around and try to see what it is about the shot that makes it hard.

Is the challenge visual? In other words, does it really just look hard and cause you to lose confidence or become uncertain?

Is there a tricky angle that makes it appear that a tree or other hazard will be in your way?

Look and think.

Ask yourself what your common miss looks like on that particular shot. Does is usually go left or right? Too low? Too long?

Be a detective & be creative in finding a solution.

Please, don’t groove a miss!

Even though a practice round is a good chance to practice tough shots, it's important to remember not to groove a miss. Grooving a miss is the foolish practice of hitting a tough shot over and over, without success. How can you tell if you're really practicing or whether you're grooving a miss? It's pretty easy: First, make sure the shot is doable. A doable shot is a shot you can get right over 70% of the time. If the shot has more of 50% likelihood of success (or less) feel free to try the shot you hit poorly a second time, but no more.

If you hit the same shot poorly twice in row move on and forget it for now!

The same is true for putts. I like to hit lots of extra putts when I play a practice round. But, I only practice hitting putts that can teach me something about the green's slope, speed or grain. I won't stand there and hit (and miss) the same tricky downhill / sidehill left to righter. My confidence is shaky enough. I want to walk off the green during a practice round knowing more about the way the green plays than I did when I walked onto it.

After your practice round sit down and enjoy a Diet Coke. Think about your round. Mentally break your round up into three parts; your full shots, your short game and your putts. Ask yourself which of the three were the best and ask which of the three was not what you'd like it to be.

One of the best ways to get help from an instructor is to be specific when you ask for their help. You'll be helping your teacher to help you by asking something like, "Hey pro, I'm having a lot of trouble making solid contact on my pitches."

Identifying issues is a positive way of analyzing your game. Analyzing your game should not be about the minute examination of every movement and swing element. Analysis your game should focus on specifics that relate to actual shots. The game is golf, not golf swing.

Improve your masterpiece.

A practice round can be some of the most fun and enjoyable golf you'll ever play. A practice round is like a canvas waiting to be painted. Your job is to imagine the finished painting, as you'd like it to be to be and then judge your completed effort when you're done with your round. You will never create the perfect painting; no one ever has. But, golf will give you an infinite number of chances to improve on your masterpiece.

Enjoy each one!