Lag's Personal Equipment Specifications

Equipment
121

5.jpg

This 1940’s persimmon driver came stock off the shelf at 48 degrees. I don’t claim that this photo of Sergio is 100% accurate
due to possible camera angle distortion, but here are two views from the same swing that certainly “suggest” he has a similar flatter entry into impact than the 64 degree modern frying pans amateurs are opening up Christmas morning.

Clearly his shaft is pointed below his belt level… so I think you will find that to get the shaft down that low, below belt, your looking at a pretty flat entry.

I know Sergio is considered one of the premier ball strikers on tour.

Are there modern tour players working into flatter entry?

Of course. The ones that want to stack the chips in their corner to hit the ball straighter.

122

Two,

I’ve seen that image before. As we both know shutter speed and camera optics can really distort fast moving objects, but… I would be curious to know if Iron Byron’s wrist joint was powered or just a swivel. What’s interesting in this image is “why” the shaft appears to have a degree of lag well beyond parallel 4. Why would the designer (or operator) of Iron Byron make the machine accelerate this far after impact? Also, the machine must have an apparatus to stop the club from continuing it’s travel momentum or the club would continue moving in a circular motion. Assuming there is some type of stop apparatus near the end-of-swing (near last yellow arrow), and considering the machine “appears” to still be accelerating the club at or near this time point - it would stand to reason that the club shaft would either break (snap) when it abruptly hits the stop apparatus or have a drastic rebound…which from a design standpoint would not be wanted nor necessary. Thus the multiple overlayed images are highly questionable.

I see virtually no shaft deformation, kickback, or rebound after the clubhead collides with the golf ball. I see a definite slowdown of the machine’s arm from release point to impact, which is [more of] a natural event in an unpowered wrist/hands swingers type of swing. Notice however that after impact the machine’s arm has slowed drastically, which would be (in my belief) an accurate depiction of what happens in a post impact golf swing - that being, collision with the golf ball slows the club down. BUT if the image shows the machine’s arm to have slowed, why is the shaft (with a heavy mass clubhead) not recovering from this slowdown collision with the ball immediately after contact? An even more important question is - why does the shaft appear to be accelerating (lagging) when it should (at some time point during post impact) be decelerating with forward bend?

One could ask numerous questions about this image, which doesn’t appear to be a true and accurate depiction of what happens. I believe the multiple overlayed images are likely a combination of purposely using different shutter speeds, with each overlayed image chosen based on what “looked” good in an advertising promotion for True Temper. I doubt True Temper wanted to have an advertisement showing all the shaft deformation and bends at various time points because most golfers would not understand it.

123

Sergio does indeed have a flatter delivery than most. From the top Sergio really drops (moves) his hands straight down to save and increase (down-cock) his wrist cock before they start moving radially, which causes the left wrist to uncock and the club to release. I believe the timing of his swing is far more critical than most, which is apparent by his on one day, and off another day, performances. Not that their swings are necessarily similar, but Lanny Wadkins was another player that had a swing that was critical on timing. By the way Lanny played extra heavy (static) clubs with high swingweights and tipped 1" X shafts. So did J.C. Snead.

124

Golow
a month ago you stated holding shaft flex was the most important golf related swing topic you had found or heard…if you understood how holding flex down at least to impact and post impact is possible by swing dynamics then it could possibly change your thoughts about the equipment you think should be used and many other things you have mentioned throughout this thread

It’s not a trick question…Would love to hear YOUR thoughts…

125

On Sergio,

I would strongly disagree.

Would you suggest Hogan’s swing was very timing critical?
I would argue that timing (in a traditional sense) is introduced only when the clubface works independent from pivot rotation.

Flat entry or using heavy gear would not effect timing negatively when implemented correctly. Quite to the contrary.

1 Like
126

As far as the streaky ball strikers… I would much rather be a Lanny Watkins or a Johnny Miller type player that could just really get it going one week, and be off for the next three. In pro golf, you win your big money by winning tournaments, which then lead to special exemptions to other prestigious events.

Everybody plays bad and has off days and weeks. The human body by it’s volatile nature does not react exactly the same everyday. However, good technique does wonders to keep things together.

Dad and I watched an old video of the 86 PGA Championship last night, and Norman, who was #1 in the world at the time was not hitting it very good on the Sunday back nine… en route to a 76. However, by shooting 65- 68- 69 the first three rounds, he had the luxury of missing some shots and hooking a few drives and still having a very good chance to win the tournament
when his ball was in the air on the approach shot to 18. He nearly won despite some poor play on Sunday.

It’s nice to be a bit streaky.

Part of having a great golf swing is having the ability to light it up. Some guys simply don’t have that kind of capability.
I’ll take the “light it up” style any day.

127

Lag,

I believe it is possible to hold shaft flex beyond a point where impact would occur “if” there was no collision or impact with a golf ball. I also believe that the longer the time period of such a swing (with no ball collision) the more difficult it would be to accomplish. However, when collision with a golf ball is thrown into the scenario I don’t see how it is possible.

A lagging club shaft indicates it is being accelerated. When a golf ball is struck it’s my understanding that energy is transferred from the club to the ball, which must make the club decelerate. If the club doesn’t decelerate how can there be a transfer of energy into the ball? The less energy a ball receives the less distance it will be propelled.

Obviously “holding shaft flex” goes hand-in-hand with an “increasing rate of acceleration” of the club. You can’t have one without the other. You claim emphatically that you can hold shaft flex beyond impact. Are you saying you can hold shaft flex beyond impact “with a golf ball”? I just don’t see how that is accomplished when the club collides with a golf ball.

You talk a lot about intent and intentions, which I think is great and I totally agree with you. But, intentions are just that - a goal to do something, which in most cases the objective can be accomplished. Using intent as a mind-thought to help or aid an individual to accomplish something close to the intended goal is often helpful and worthwhile. But do you really think the intent is truly accomplishable?

I’m trying to get a handle on whether you believe (1) holding a lagging shaft flex beyond impact with a golf ball & (2) increasing the rate of acceleration of the club beyond impact with a golf ball is possible when the purpose is to perform an effective golf swing. Since both #1 and #2 go hand-in-hand, one is not possible without the other. I’d like to get your comments…

I seem to recall reading one or more messages in older posts where you said, or indicated to some degree, that these two events may not be possible in reality, but the “intent” to accomplish them is what is important. I can definitely understand that just fine. I just can’t understand how they can actually be accomplished.

128

What I said:
Absolutely best topic.
I personally feel (the topic) is most important.
Lag’s “explanations” and “descriptions” of a stressed shaft in the downswing and through impact are fantastic.

I was speaking (writing) from the standpoint of a lagging (stressed) club shaft in the downswing with the intent (popular word with ABS) to sustain it through impact. I don’t believe the shaft flex can be held beyond impact with a properly struck golf ball.

129

but yet again we have not answered the question…

If you know/knew how to hold shaft flex into impact (and possibly beyond)…would it change your mind about the the so called superior equipment??

Don’t want to do all the work on this thread GoLow…if we are all to hopefully learn something… …you’ve gotta give us something about your way of thinking instead of non answers and avoiding the question or by giving us a generic view based on what society seems to think…not what you think…

Part 2)
Hogan and Miller both talked about speeding the club after impact…they both said you could and both went after the thought

whether this is fact or fiction… does it matter?..If I try to speed up after impact…isn’t that a better swing thought than speeding up at transition and dumping the club into the ball ?

130

The thought of doing it is great. I’m not convinced it can be done in reality.

Fact or fiction - obviously it is questionable. Does it matter? No, not really. However, I’d just like to know the facts…not the fiction. I’m all for the thought…or the intent.

No good golf swing speeds up at transition…

131

This discussion is fracturing into many discrete pieces- from retaining flex, lie angle, post impact acceleration, cavity backs, etc,- and a rat’s ADD will short circuit very easily if trying to discuss that many topics at the same time. :laughing:

I was going to start discussing why hearing and feeling flush is for more important than seeing and feeling flush as Go Low you seem to believe that seeing is believing as evidenced by your choice in students. Sight is a powerful yet unusual sense.

Go Low…if you heard your back door open and went to see whom, perhaps, opened the door, you were responding to aural feedback. Once at the back door, and finding it open, how open is it…2 inches, 10 inches, 2 feet? You could make a good assessment but the only reality states the door is open by an approximate amount short of indeed measuring the amount. I’m sure you’ve encountered visual illusions on a golf course but have you ever encountered an aural illusion?

Have you ever falled to visually find a typographical error in your posts that are most certainly there, yet the sound the key makes while you are hitting on your keypad is being processed in ways which will manifest into hitting the next key. In fact, next time typing pay close attention to sequence…we hit the key and listen while we then look at the screen for confirmation. Our fingers are reacting to the sound from the keys, not looking at the screen. Is any of this making sense, and do you now want to change your student selection?

One last thought…Ever wonder why Hogan heard the wind in the trees…did he? :slight_smile: RR

132

GoLow,

The answer to your question is all over the LTLGM thread. In 08 we had long drawn out discussions about it with scientists getting involved and all kinds of mathematical equations.

Basically, in a nutshell, it can be done without a ball. It can be done with a whiffle ball. Can it be done with a golf ball?
Of course. But as the object that is being struck gets heavier it gets more difficult.

Think of it this way.

Suppose you punch off the line in a 600 HP Corvette. The car weights 2000 pounds and you are accelerating from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds. It’s pretty obvious that if the car were to collide with a golf ball that happened to be bouncing across the road, even if it put a dent in the front grill of the car… there is no way that a golf ball is going to slow down the acceleration of the car as it’s moving from 40 to 45 mph in fractions of a second.

And this is really at the core of the reasoning for heavier gear. MASS. The greater the mass, the less the club is going to be affected by a collision. The speeding Corvette has a lot of mass compared to a golf ball. The golf ball has no chance.

A ping pong ball has no chance of slowing down a golf club. A marble cue ball would have a greater chance. A lead one even greater. A two ton slab of granite and the club has no chance.

The golf swing is just that. It’s a complete motion from start to finish. My golf swing has very specific protocols for muscular involvement well after impact. I will make the same motion whether a golf ball is in the way or not. I refuse to be ball bound or have the presence of the golf ball effect my golf swing. Whether I hit a golf ball or ping pong ball, or a 50 pound impact bag, my intention is going to be the same.

Johnny Miller and Mike Austin both claim they could strike a golf ball with such force that their clubhead did not decelerate due to the collision of impact with a golf ball. I personally have never made that claim. I can however, hold shaft flex past low point, or with a whiffle ball on the ground. If I am quoted as being able to hold shaft flex past impact, I am using impact as a reference point in the golf swing… with or without a ball. I don’t think I am strong enough to do it.
But is somebody? and with a heavy enough golf club? Probably.

If I were to take on a bet about this… I would swing as heavy a club as I possibly could move. Maybe 10 pounds. I would move my focus of maximum clubhead speed up near P4, and have a go at it.

What I would not do is attempt this with a lightweight titanium frying pan. A lightweight clubhead would be the worst possible choice for me if I really wanted to win the bet.

I’m sure one of the scientific readers here could work up a nice looking bell curve that would demonstrate the optimal mass based upon “a given” human strength, velocity, and acceleration potential. One thing for sure is you would want to go heavier than lighter.

The great strikers like Hogan and Snead, Knudson, Moe, these guys used very heavy gear. Because they knew the advantages of doing so.

The thing the modern club makers aren’t getting in all their “amazing brilliance” is that good golf is not just how far you hit the ball. It’s about how straight you hit the ball. It’s about a players ability to control their distance, and heavier gear has a huge advantage in this department. It’s also about feel, and control, and of course the impact physics of all that.

This is why we are not seeing the next “Hogan”. Is it Tiger? No. Phil? No. Westwood? No. We simply will not witness masterful ball control of Hogan’s level until the scientists wake up from their lightweight wind tunnel dream. The USGA wakes up from their need to push gear into 400 yard drives, the tour wakes up from their insistence on moving toward 8000 yard golf courses for competition, and instructors stop teaching upright golf swings.

1 Like
133

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjvJPeBWJGk [/youtube]

GoLow
Have you seen this swing of Lag on youtube???

134

Lag,

I’m still confused by what you say. I’m talking about doing it while actually playing a game of golf.

You say: “Can it be done with a golf ball? Of course. But as the object that is being struck gets heavier it gets more difficult.” I am talking about hitting a 1.62oz golf ball with a golf club of your choice in which you would commonly play the game of golf.

You talk about an accelerating 2,000 lb Corvette hitting a golf ball, but the Corvette’s mass weighs 20,000 times what a golf ball weighs. This mass difference multiple is hugely greater than using the heaviest golf club you could possibly swing to hit a golf ball. It simply is not a reasonable comparison considering a golf club can only be increased slightly before it becomes too heavy to swing effectively.

In talking about Johnny Miller and Mike Austin claiming they could strike a golf ball with such force that their clubhead did not decelerate due to the collision of impact with a golf ball…you said that you have never made that claim. I assume this means you don’t think it’s possible…or that you don’t think you personally can do it. Therefore, we can assume you do believe the clubhead will decelerate due to collision with a golf ball. Yet you will not acknowledge that for a club shaft to lag it must be accelerating…or to put another way - a decelerating clubhead will not allow the shaft to be lagging. You must have an accelerating club for the shaft to lag. You cannot have only one without the other (acceleration & lagging club shaft).

You say “If I am quoted as being able to hold shaft flex past impact, I am using impact as a reference point in the golf swing… with or without a ball.” Reference point? With a ball? It doesn’t count unless it’s done with impact with a golf ball!

Then you suggest that it can be done, however you just said you never made such a claim. You also said you didn’t think you were strong enough to do it. See the confusion? It sounds like double-talk.

Then you say; “If I were to take on a bet about this… I would swing as heavy a club as I possibly could move. Maybe 10 pounds. I would move my focus of maximum clubhead speed up near P4, and have a go at it.” Lag, certainly you know that you could not effectively swing a 10 pound golf club. Even if you did use a 10 pound club the club mass vs. golf ball ratio would only be 100:1, far less than your 20,000:1 Corvette to golf ball ratio. The difference in a modern day club versus an old heavier club doesn’t change the club mass vs. golf ball ratio much at all. Your belief that a heavier clubhead would make a significant difference in preventing clubhead deceleration at collision is mind boggling to me.

As you can see I’m still confused. I’m getting different messages. Forget about reference points, intent, Corvettes, 10 pound clubs, etc. - all I want to know is: Can you swing your golf club and have BOTH an accelerating clubhead and a lagging clubshaft after collision with a golf ball…keeping in mind you cannot have one without the other.

135

The shaft looked pretty straight just prior to impact, which is to be expected after release and near impact. At post impact the club’s shaft was bent-back due to collision with the golf ball, not because the club or clubshaft was accelerating. The club was actually decelerating because force was transferred from the club to the golf ball, which is to be expected.

Lag has a very nice swing and the club is reacting just as it should in an efficient swing…but no swing in my opinion can produce an accelerating club post impact hitting a golf ball, and no swing in my opinion can produce a lagging clubshaft post impact hitting a golf ball.

136

This was a whiffle ball… not a real golf ball in that video.

Obviously the striking of a real golf ball will flex the shaft backward. This is why I used a whiffle ball, to show that the body is capable of holding shaft flex to and beyond without the help of a divot or a golf ball. That was the point I was making.

Austin is gone, but you could ask Miller about his experiment. I think you could reach him up at the Silverado CC in Napa which he just purchased.

Can I do it with a real golf ball? I would use a heavier club than a 14 ounce persimmon that’s for sure. I would also have to test it with a radar gun pointed just post impact, and another gun just prior to impact. I would be more than happy to attempt it if you bring the gear and set it up. This kind of stuff is really not all that interesting to me, because it’s the intention that is important. It’s a tough psychological hurdle for some. Sounds like you are stuck there. Knudson talked about the ball itself being incidental. I agree. I really don’t hit at the ball, but feel it just gets in the way.

It’s no different that trying to make a 30 foot putt. I think you are better off trying to make it. Read the putt, aim the putt, try to hit it the right speed. Does it go in? It either does or it doesn’t. Same with making a golf swing… you try to make a good firm accelerating swing… whether it hits a whiffle ball, a real ball, a divot only, an impact bag or nothing at all, the intentions are exactly the same.

One thing for sure… a swinger with passive wrists will not be able to do it. A hitter actively using muscular force through pivot acceleration and active forearm rotation and firm wrists will have the best chance.

and I would say also, light gear is not helping either.

137

That is very interesting. Actually more than just interesting! First, let me say that I really appreciate you sticking with me in discussing this topic. It is “only” a discussion…

What is most interesting to me, now that I have learned the ball you hit in the video was a lightweight wiffle ball, is; why did the club shaft only started showing any significant lag “at” collision with the wiffle ball? Why did the club shaft not have relatively the same amount of lag prior to collision? I would think it would be equally important (maybe more so) to have the club’s shaft lagging as the clubhead moves into the ball. I realize your intent is to hold the shaft flex beyond collision, but why would you want more shaft lag post-impact than pre-impact? If you hold the shaft’s energy beyond impact don’t you lose that energy - how can it be transferred into the golf ball?

I understand that your hitter’s swing method, while still incorporating a significant amount of CF/CP swinging, uses an aggressive pivot, strong ground forces, and active forearms and hands (which basically is a hitter’s method). Thus, in your hitter’s swing method the golfer’s body must not only be stronger but also perform more demanding work in comparison to a swinger. That said, it’s clear (compared to a swinger’s CF/CP swing) that your method muscularly drives the both club’s shaft and the clubhead through impact more as a combined unit…whereas a CF/CP swinger’s swing has more of a pendulum type flail that transfers energy into the golf ball more from the clubhead alone (clubhead on a string analogy) without as much significance or importance given to the shaft itself. Put another way - a hitter drives more of the entire club (lagging the shaft with leverage/torque) whereas with a swinger the clubhead is more like a freewheeling projectile on a string. All that said, it’s logical that a hitter’s release is somewhat held-off with firmer wrists because the power generator is more body or pivot driven compared to a swinger’s freewheeling swivel type release of the angles. Both methods have lag - a swinger thinks of lagging his left arm and club structure with passive wrists and a freewheeling (less power-driven) release…whereas a hitter thinks of lagging the clubshaft with firm wrists and building up increasing momentum using an aggressive pivot in conjunction with right arm extension. A hitter must torque their club shaft to collision with the golf ball whereas a swinger must prevent the urge to torque the shaft so-as not to interfere with CF/CP forces that (if not interfered with) releases energy down an outward tensioned shaft into the golf ball almost effortlessly. (Bear with me please!)

What surprises me about your hitter’s swing method is that in your method the transfer of energy into the golf ball comes minimally from the release of angles but more importantly there is NO intended release of energy into the golf ball from the lagging (torqued) shaft…because you try NOT to release the shaft’s (lagging) energy into the ball. The primary signature of your method is to hold shaft lag well past impact. You actually try to prevent the shaft’s energy from releasing into the ball since your goal is to have a lagging shaft well past collision. Obviously there is some energy transfer from the release of angles with firm [hitter’s] wrists (even a hitter’s swing has some degree of CF/CP forces), and obviously the hard working body rotation is primarily responsible for generating the power in your method. In your method, without the release of the lagging shaft energy being allowed to transfer into the ball (because you are holding it beyond impact) the swing method becomes a blocking movement of sorts that is almost entirely powered by body pivot/rotation. This does not seem to be an efficient or effective means to transfer energy into the golf ball, nor an efficient or effective means to generate power. While such a method might produce better control (which I believe is doubtful) it’s clear it cannot possibly produce as much clubhead speed, or transfer as much energy into the golf ball, as other methods. (I have noted that you have acknowledged that your swing method does not produce the distance that other methods produce…and that to recover this lost distance requires a significant amount of body and muscular improvement, thus a major reason for the heavy body workout in your training modules.)

It seems to me that a far more efficient and effective hitter’s method (in which the club’s shaft is lagging) would be to release the shaft’s energy and transfer that energy into the golf ball…instead of holding the energy beyond collision. You mentioned Mike Austin. It’s my understanding that the Mike Austin swing method allows the pre-stressed or lagging shaft to release the clubhead into the golf ball maximizing energy transfer. I would guess it is thought of as “allowing” (in lieu of preventing) the lagging shaft to release the clubhead’s energy into the golf ball. Some people call it a “throw” type action, but it’s a hitter’s action with a timed release deep into delivery (e.g. parallel 3.5) and moving from firm wrists to passive wrists so the clubhead “acts like” a free-moving projectile (not connected to a shaft) into the golf ball. As you know Mike Austin was known for having the longest recorded drive in history using persimmon and balata.

I would be interested to receive answers to my questions as well as learn your thoughts about why you believe it’s best not to transfer the built-up shaft energy into the golf ball, but instead hold the shaft’s energy beyond impact. And also I’d like to have your perspective on the Mike Austin method in which the shaft energy is allowed to be delivered into the golf ball by having the clubhead act like a free-moving projectile.

138

GoLow
I have seen first hand and with a lot of awe Lag driving the 305 yards 16th green at Bodega Harbour Links with a jaw dropping drive using a persimmon drriver. I think you are getting there but have to unload a lot of assumptions.

139

Ok,

You said: “Why do the best professional golfers in the world play with (+ or - 2*) standard lie angles”.
This is really a statement in the form of a question.
I think the underlying statement is: The best professional golfers have tried every kind of lie angle (maybe even -6 thru +6) and finally they all came to the conclusion that the best lie angles for them are in the +2 or -2 degree range…
Can you live with this statement? ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. (You can’t answer with another question. :laughing:)

P.S. The analogy for the two cars was not in reference to lie angles but in reference to Blades vs. Cavity backs…

140

No, from the purest sense, I would not agree with your statement. I doubt seriously the best professional golfers have tried every lie angle (e.g. +/- 6*).

I would say the best golfers (amateur and professional) have not tried a wide range of things, especially after they acquired a reasonable golf swing. Instead they built on their own swing and fine-tuned it within tight parameters. I feel most all of these better players had some decent athletic abilites when they were learning their own unique swing, and some of them had some degree of help from a teacher when learning their swing. There are two camps from which excellent golfers come from in my opinion - pretty much self-taught golfers with some help along the way…or golfers with a teacher-molded swing designed and taught by an instructor. A self-taught swing with some help along the way seems to be the most enduring because they “own” and understand their unique swing. I think this is the better of the two, whether it’s a child or an adult. The teacher-molded swing is only as good as the combination of the two individuals - student and teacher. Oftentimes, even with an excellent teacher the teacher is tries to teach the student a method, or movements that the student simply cannot do, should not do, and/or cannot understand. Twomaster recently told the story about him going to David Leadbetter who pretty much destroyed his basically self-taught (as I recall) golf swing that he learned as a young boy. I learned a long time ago that some people just had a flair for getting it (a good swing) easier and quicker, and others were always searching for it regardless whether they received expert advice or not. I’ve seen that more-often-than-not when you try to change an already decent golf swing, the changes rarely workout. But, I also know that there’s always exceptions. The lucky ones are the ones that can recover their old swings if things go from decent to bad…the unlucky ones are often filled with so many changes that it becomes a never ending battle to recover their existing decent swing. The tail-of-the-tape is - don’t vary too far off what you already know first-hand works quiet well for you.

When we look at all the thousands of great golfers over the decades they all have had their own unique swing. Rarely do you see two golfers that have swings that look alike. And some very efficient and effective swings look extremely bizarre, e.g. Moe Norman, Jim Furyk, Bubba Watson, Miller Barber, Lee Trevino, Eamonn Darcy, Raymond Floyd, John Daly, Jim Thorpe, Arnold Palmer, Nancy Lopez, Natalie Gulbis, etc. I dare say if any of those world class players tried to change their swings beyond a tiny bit we probably never would have heard of their names. In my opinion the golfer that succeeds in finding a good golf swing quickly usually has an inate ability to learn an efficient and effective golf swing with very little instruction. I’d say that these are the golfers that fill the lists of the best golfers. Once this class of golfer starts tinkering too much with their unique swing they more times than not lose their swing and oftentimes forget what it was they used to do when they played so well before the tinkering and changing began. In other words they lost “their” unique swing. These expert golfers really don’t want to experiment too much with changing their swing plane, lie angles, delivery, setup, pivot, etc., etc., etc. because they understand and realize how unique everyones swing really is, including their own.

Moving to the other class of golfer - they are the ones that weren’t able to get it. The serious ones that have never been able to get it are the people that are constantly searching for the answer, the secret, the magic move, the way, the method…that will allow them to have an efficient and effective swing. They are the ones that buy all the different clubs, training aids, gagets, books, etc. They will try most anything and everything. They are actually fun to watch (most from afar) because they exude their seriousness, but also their frustration. It’s actually fun to watch an skinny 80lb 15 year-old boy with a low single-digit handicap hitting balls next to a well-conditioned 6’ 2" 180lb 30 year-old with a 20+ handicap that has been searching for a golf swing for ten years. Better yet, it’s even more fun when the low single-digit golfer is a young girl with no meat on her skeleton that has a hard time just picking up her golf bag.

Thought I’d pass on my 2 cents. The answer is no.