Forming the Future of Golf Through Reform
In my next post I will finally begin some genuine golf instruction, which I am really looking forward to. I guarantee I will be revealing aspects not disclosed adequately before (if at all). This includes my first topic of the golf grip, explaining the real reason behind overlapping or interlocking one’s hands together when golfing while it is not so advantageous to do so in other activities. If you are convinced the reason is so “the hands can work more as a single unit together” and that this is beneficial because “a golf swing is more difficult than other activities,” as is the usual rhetoric, then I am afraid you still have much to learn. Only one of these statements is in fact accurate (and even then only under very specific circumstances, rendering it somewhat misleading) and the other one is downright wrong.
I cannot say I have enjoyed dwelling on many of the poorer attributes currently existing in the golf industry, in particular the clubfitting trade. Pointing out this industry’s many failures and weaknesses while trying to still show some respect to those responsible for its current state is neither an easy nor a fun task. But somebody surely needs to do it, and if the trade is not able to address such problems, it may not survive at all much longer let alone grow into the future. Hopefully I have been able to inject a little humor at times to ease the pain, but unfortunately there is only so much that might be done before the hard truth just needs to be faced.
And the hard truth is, while hypothetically envisioning the fitting trade as a disconnected entity of foreign origin that was neither established nor influenced by earthlings, it is an entity lacking essential competence. It has unfortunately, but justifiably so, developed a reputation on earth similar to a bad golf swing that sometimes produces a good result, though inconsistently at best. Many possessing certifications from this entity and some organizations recognized by this entity as being good at working the craft are doing such a disservice to the trade that they should be paying golfers for their services rather than the other way around. But at the end of the day, the “clubfitting” entity has learned much of what it knows from the “golf swing teaching” entity, which is another matter, and the industry’s roots need to be uncovered yet further to really gain a firm understanding of why things are the way they are.
A lack of physical technology is certainly not a problem today, but an obvious lack of appropriate golf swing and clubfitting knowledge still is. Because correct knowledge can be the element of success that is toughest and takes the longest to secure, the Waggle Weight Company might help by assuring you here the company and its WaggleWeight and Waggle Weight Wisdom trademarked names will only be associated with the most knowledgeable individuals and organizations and the highest quality companies and products. You will never see these names affiliated with the many “pretenders” still so common throughout the golf industry. Also of note is that the first Waggle Weight patent, which is the first legitimate improvement in swingweighting since its inception about 1930 and which may far exceed the betterment swingweight has brought to golfers’ games for three quarters of a century, is expected to be issued within the next couple of months. When this occurs, any given (USA) company, organization, and/or individual can be prohibited from using the advanced golf club specification for approximately the next seventeen years. In order to help distinguish any better-skilled practitioners from lesser-skilled counterparts, preliminary plans have been made to do exactly that.
Before proceeding further, I wish to express a couple more items. While much of golf swing theory and clubfitting can be firmly rooted in tangible science, I have made it clear that these two areas also have a great deal of “art” associated with them. A golf swing, for example, can be performed effectively using almost any movement(s) imaginable and anyone’s specific “teaching method” if it is practiced enough. Likewise, clubfitting can take on an “art form” for one who prefers to curve a golf ball a certain way or seeks a different feeling shaft from that of “established” standards, none of which really matters as long as the player can beat others in matches or otherwise obtain personal satisfaction from playing. My point here is that, while I believe I have set the most effective platform thus far for both beginning and advanced swing and clubfitting learning, I also expect this project to be a work of science and art in progress that is likely to change and evolve.
As one example of artistic prerogative based on elements discussed thus far, an identical method of fitting clubs to golf ball travel would be classified as a “direct” fitting method if considering ball travel as being more important within any given discussion and yet an “indirect” method if contemplating swing performance as being more important during another discussion. So no matter how “black and white” I attempt to make any given topic, analyzing the same topic from a different perspective might result in a totally “different” black and white view or “art form.” Also, rarely does a day go by when I do not learn some new aspect or relearn an old one better. Thus, I would not be surprised if at some point I contradict and/or rewrite some of my own material on golf swing and/or clubfitting theory or practice. This has happened to far greater minds than mine. Some information may also be repeated multiple times either in review or when certain topics are approached from different perspectives. Since Waggle Weight Wisdom ventures into undeveloped golfing matters that are largely unexplored and the first of their kind in their particular field(s), future revision and/or contradiction may be considered a good sign and not a bad sign. Comments are always welcome.