VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:57:26 12/05/01 Wed
Author: trencher
Subject: Definately not conventional
In reply to: Rob 's message, "Re: SA or other acronyms" on 09:05:13 12/04/01 Tue

This debate started when you made this statement:
==================================================
"Yes, it is the same guy (Craig Bowden) except he plays conventionally. Perhaps he tried NG as an experiment but there is definitely no single-axis in his setup at all."
==================================================

This fact 'alone' does not make him conventional.

A notable (Peter) that studies the golf swing in depth describes conventional golf in the following statement:

"is a swing that requires body rotation or pronation of the trail arm to square the clubface to the target line at impact for a 'full swing'.

I buy into that 100% and feel all these spring-offs of NG are variations of a swing different than CG with their own peculiarities and hybrids.

Why call them SA or single-axis swings other than picking '1' of the absolutes and naming a forum or the bulk of them under that category. Why not call them FBI (Face Ball at Impact) or MLA (Moe-Like Alternatives). MLA would be considered politically correct in Canada :-) (where it means Member of the Legislative Assembly)

Just because this fellow is not using the one absolute that you put so much weight on does not mean he is not a NG'er, IMA'er, BGG'er, MLA'er, FBI'er or SA'er etc etc.

If you were to play a round with the fellow I speak of you would definately change your opinion about him not fitting into the mold or the 'formula' you developed to determine if a golfer is not conventional. I agree he is not single-axis at setup position but all the other traits are there to disclude him from the CG category.

Your right about not being able "to be a little bit pregnant", this guy is pregnant, big time. I have had the luxury to see all his Moe memorabillia dating back to the 70's, play 1 round with him and get a couple of lessons at the dome.

Categorize him how you will but you and I can only aspire to play NG as well as he does. If you've setup hands low for 30 years possibly this will be an easier adaptation for some. There is no doubt at impact he is single-axis as all proper golf swings (yes , even conventional) tend to be.
Sheesh Rob ...this posting regarding the same friendly debate on 2 forums has to stop......it's taxing our keyboards :-)....trencher

.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.