At the start of the new year, I will disclose how to determine the true DNA of one’s golf swing, which shall form a new basis from which all subsequent golf swing and clubfitting principles are derived and which shall include the justifiable reasoning behind gripping a golf club the way it is commonly recommended. Before doing so, however, I want to review some crucial concepts that have been discussed leading up to this point.
First, it is always extremely important to pay close attention to the particular perspective a subject is viewed from at any given time, plus any specific definitions given during a discussion. For instance, when I analyzed golf swing perfection recently, I do not recall exhaustively and specifically defining exactly what that term was intended to encompass, for I did not think it to be critical at the time. Rather, I made some assumptions that the expression referred (at least in part) to achieving pre-determined, physical body positions in an unvarying manner in the course of one or more swings, also accompanied by a pre-determined, unvarying time frame respecting those positions. Nor did I state that the only way to truly achieve such ends is, by default, to make each swing from a perfectly level lie. But these are basically at least some of the reference points I emanated from when I discussed that topic.
If contemplating a different golfing aspect, however, I might assign a definition to golf swing perfection comprising achieving perfect swing timing throughout every possible lie encountered to the exclusion of all other swing factors. I might at that point also define swing timing in part as being the most critical swinging element toward realizing the best consistency, distance, and accuracy for a golfer. There are no objectively right or wrong definitions here, as I am merely redefining certain words from what can first encompass an extremely wide interpretation at the start into a more narrowly focused meaning for a more specific discussion. Despite the fact that one definition may clearly be a derivative of another, the meanings of the terms can still be so different within the context of an analysis that I might have to totally rewrite my last several posts if deciding to analyze golf swing perfection based on a definition of swing timing exclusively. But I hardly think any of us want to go through that again at this particular time.
Lest you think this is an unimportant subject to address seriously here, a profoundly sad, rampant, and real-life example of what happens when such details go unheeded concerns the definition of the word “feel” in golf (a very important expression). This word is so broadly, carelessly, and ignorantly defined and utilized throughout the golf industry that the club specification of swingweight (intimately tied to and derived directly from the definition given to golfer “feel”) is subsequently defined one way by many in the golf industry and another way by others. As I previously noted, the general term “feel” is a favorite that is used and abused by those in the industry who are incapable of explaining something in a more specific manner, often using the word as an “out” when they do not adequately understand something themselves. If anybody cannot explain to you in a precise, understandable manner exactly which “feel” is being addressed (there are several in golf) when discussing a golf swing or clubfitting, then you are not the only one who is confused, and it may be time to find a better individual or organization for help.
Other recently discussed topics include the fact that one is generally more sensitive to changes in any equipment used when an object intended to be struck is not moving when swinging at it. This condition makes golf somewhat rare, particularly if one insists on golf being called a sport. Most sports utilize a moving object in the normal course of play, thus considerably more “athleticism” is commonly required of such games. This can include (depending on the specific sport) greater physical strength, better hand-eye coordination, and quick reflexes (this last trait of which golf requires none, unless quickly ducking when someone yells “Fore!” counts). As further evidence of how difficult a golf swing is not, I also point to my past topics regarding how much easier it is for children to promptly and proficiently learn on their own how to hit a stationary object compared to one that is moving at various speeds and directions (just one of countless examples), and the fact that so many people are able to play golf (and play it well), when with only a quick noting of their athleticism it can be pretty obvious that they would never even be allowed on the playing field in other sports, at any age. But an easier golf swing can actually make it harder to fit and/or make golf clubs compared to equipment used in other activities.
And adding further to this greater sensitivity to golf equipment differences is the fact that not just one, but up to fourteen individual golf clubs are currently allowed under the rules of play and routinely switched between for successive golf shots. When contemplating more about this, if only two golf clubs were routinely used (let alone fourteen) and they were alternated between for successive strokes, this can still be a problematic situation given the high sensitivity to differences in some golf club features. (This can potentially occur even if only one club were used that is adjusted between swings and which perceptibly changes one or more club characteristics by attempting that). Such circumstances make golf a truly unique, one-of-a-kind game in its own right, a game for which some unprecedented processes have been developed over time and which should be applied if one is to be able to perform to the best of one’s ability. These novel processes apply to both golf swing and clubfitting techniques, and unfortunately some are not correctly comprehended to this day.