Re: What is (supposedly) Phil M's swing flaw?

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:15:52 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf
Size: 2,853 bytes

Far be it from me to criticize Phil's swing. Personally, I'd love to have
it (in reverse, of course). But the instructors I've spoken with who are
familiar enough with it to have an opinion say he has too many moving parts.
Legs are a little too active in the backswing and he moves off the ball a
bit too much. The result is that he must have perfect timing to execute.
It's similar, in some ways, to what Tiger realized he'd have to rebuild in
his swing after he won the '97 Masters. Realizing he had a swing that was
too reliant upon perfect timing, he opted to go through a down period during
which he rebuilt his swing with fewer moving parts. The problem with a
timing swing is that when the timing is there, it's great, but when it's
not, you can feel lost launching air balls, and no telling which planet
they'd land on.
However, not that I'm more of an authority on swing mechanics than these
instructors I've spoken to about Phil's swing, but I'd beg to differ with
them just this much: While there's no question that his timing-based swing
tends to be more all-or-nothing than the fewer-moving-parts,
never-miss-a-cut swing of a Tiger Woods, I think Phil has managed to have
his swing hitting mostly on all cylanders when it counts. It's usually been
his putting,not his long game, that's cost him in the majors. Seems like
every time he's been right there in contention, you can look back and count
at least 4 or 5 times in the tournament (sometimes 2 or 3 times on Sunday)
when he's let a little short one get away. Even the oft-cited criticism of
his go-for-broke style of course management has, IMO, been misplaced when it
comes to his performance in majors. While I can recall him letting the Bay
Hill title slip away a couple years ago on a boneheaded decision, I'd be
hard-pressed to recall a time when his decision-making has been to blame for
him failing to win a major. Unless you count all those needless high flop
shots he's played around the greens at Augusta when a more straightforward,
lower chip and run would carry less risk.
Randy
"Bill Sands" <email-address-deleted> wrote in message
news:email-address-deleted...
> I flipped by Phil talking with the press, and the subject was some
presumed
> flaw in his swing (and by flaw, I mean some established technique to which
Phil
> does not rigorously adhere). Phil responded that Floyd and Nicklaus both
have
> slight variations to their swing that aren't 'by the book', Floyd with his
> swing path and Nicklaus with his elbow. He stressed that these swing
> differences didn't seem to adversely affect their careers, and that each
golfer
> must, within reason, stick with what works and what feels good.
>
> My question: Since I walked in on this conversation, what is this
difference
> that Phil has?
>
> Thanks.
>
> BS