The 'perfect' swing myth

We all have a perspective of what constitutes a good golf swing; we often compare our techniques to those champion performers. If one's technique is similar to the 'role model' then the technique must be good - correct? This is often the case. However, the fact that champions vary in the observable features of their performance suggests that merely copying is not the smartest way to reach peak performance. Thus, it is important to realise that there is no 'one' correct technique. People are different and good technique varies according to many individual characteristics, such as body size and shape, strength, physical maturaity and flexibility. This presents a dilemma. If golfers can look different and perform proficiently, how do we assess technique and identify faults in order to improve it? We need to be aware that the 'ideal' movement pattern does not necessarily have a particular appearance. Rather, the 'ideal' performance is one in which the movement obeys the important mechanical and physiological principles relevant to the skill.

One-size-fits-all technique - what the scientific and coaching literatures say

Adlington, G.S. (1996). Proper swing technique and biomechanics of golf. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 15, 9-26:

“Golf swings are unique; they are like fingerprints. Because no two are alike, it is risky to assume that what works for one will work for another. Therefore, when fixing an individual golf swing, the proper remedy, although following some general principles, will be unique to that particular swing. In 1988, I was fortunate enough to be involved in a golf school headed by Peter Kostis at my course. Peter liked to say, “There is no one swing for everybody, but everybody must have one swing.” This, I believe, is the starting point in understanding how to help a person achieve his or her goals with the swing, while preventing injury.” (p. 10)

Nicklaus, J. (1976). Golf My Way. London: Pan Books Ltd.:

“I am not a believer in “methods.” I’m a believer in fundamentals. Whatever any golfer does with a golf club should have only one purpose: to produce correct impact of club on ball. If he can achieve that consistently, the manner in which he does so doesn’t really matter at all.” (p. 15)

“The heart of the matter is that whatever style or shape or method of swinging a fellow adopts, if he can play golf at all, during impact he’ll look pretty much like Lee Trevino, or Doug Sanders, or me, or any other good golfer you like to name. Whatever his legs, hips, hands, arms, shoulders, and head―and, above all, his club―may be doing at other points in the swing, they’ll be much the same as ours just before, at, and just after impact ... It is this controlled, specific impact position that any method worth adopting must be designed to achieve” (p. 16)

“Good methods are not designed to produce precise angles of the wrists, or photogenic top-of-the-backswing postures, or perfect follow-throughs. These and other like factors may be important, but only as a route to a broader goal. That goal is a particular relationship of the golfer to his club, and through that of his club to the ball, at impact.” (p. 16)

“My own means of achieving this goal are, of course, distinctive. I have a very personal method of swinging the club. For example, although my method is designed to achieve exactly the same objective as Arnold Palmer’s and Gary Player’s and Lee Trevino’s―to name three of my favourite adversaries―it is different from each of theirs both in overall form and in particular components. It is very different, too, even from the methods of the two golfers who, as idols in different ways, most influenced my development as a player, Bob Jones and Ben Hogan.” (p. 17-18)

“... a golf swing isn’t something that can be Xeroxed: Even if another golfer could pretty well reproduce my motions and tempo, it is far from certain he’d achieve the results I do.” (p. 18)

“There is a relatively easy and a relatively difficult way to achieve the common objective at golf―which, let me remind you yet again, is not a particular pattern of swing but proper impact of club on ball. I believe that my style is closer to the relatively easy way than it is to the relatively easy way than it is to the relatively difficult way. I think that my style is easier to learn initially and to play with fruitfully as the years advance. In that sense I’d certainly be happy for my game to serve as a model― but only as a rough model, mind you, not as a working blueprint.” (p. 18)

“The basic point I want to make is that there are certain fundamentals common to all successful methods of swinging a golf club, and it is with these that the ambitious golfer should concern himself, not with the mannerisms of any one player no matter how successful that player may be. Even when you have more or less mastered there fundamentals, I can assure you that you’ll still have plenty on your hands keeping them in good working order without complicating the issue by copying other people’s idiosyncrasies.” (p. 21)

“The point I want to make emphatically as possible right at the start of this book is that you cannot automate the golf swing. No “method” of swinging the club has ever been invented that will enable a golfer to achieve machine-like shot-making perfection over an extended period, and in my opinion none ever will ... I believe the best a fellow can do to forge himself a good golf game is to select those fundamentals that have been common to the greatest number of good players down the years, then apply them assiduously as his talent, opportunity, and desire allow.” (p. 22)

“... I have large, strong legs and a fairly powerful torso rather than small, weak hands and arms. Obviously I want to swing in a way that maximises my strengths and minimises my weaknesses. Thus I belong very definitely to the “legs and body” school of golfing thought rather than to the “hands and arms” club. Possibly, if were differently endowed physically I’d play differently. As it is, to me the legs and body are the engine of the golf swing; they fuel and drive it. The arms are simply connecting rods to the club. I regard the hands as linkage; hinges through which power, first as leverage and then ad centrifugal force, is transmitted to the clubhead.” (p. 45)

Zumerchik, J. (2002). Newton on the Tee: A Good Walk Through the Science of Golf. New York: Simon & Schuster:

“It’s easy to tell someone to watch the pros and try to emulate their every move, but these are truly gifted athletes who work their magic on the ball in ever so subtle ways. We’re not endowed with the abilities of Tiger Woods or Greg Norman; we don’t have the same multifaceted skills, the same ability to employ invisible and subtle forces to alter the ball’s flight, bounce, and roll. Thus, it’s not worth trying to emulate their every move. Instead you want to honestly evaluate your strengths and weaknesses before selecting equipment and devising a strategy for play that best fits with your unique God-given talents. There is not a one-size-fits-all “right” swing. You need to develop a swing that plays up your strengths and deemphasizes your weaknesses.” (p. 5)

“Blurring things further is the fact that no two golfers swing exactly alike, even professionals. Everyone possesses unique physical characteristics (height, weight, and frame) and athletic skills (speed, quickness, strength, and flexibility), rendering moot the notion of one universally identifiable “correct” perfect swing to be working toward. Differences in mechanics should be expected, and length of backswing, degree of wrist cock, plane of swing, type of stance, and grip should all be tailored to your strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncrasies. For example, if you have an athletic build―this waist and wide shoulders―your best potential swing will look far different than a golfer built like a barrel. Likewise, if you are strong but lack flexibility, your best potential swing will be far different than a long, lanky golfer with great flexibility.” (p. 11)

Hay, J.G. (1993). The Biomechanics of Sports Techniques (4th Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

“The critical features of the swing at the instant of impact are the orientation of the clubface, the position of the clubhead, and the velocity at which it is moving. Theoretically―provided the clubface is at right angles to the required direction, the centre of gravity of the clubhead is directly behind the centre of the ball, and the clubhead is moving forward with the maximum speed possible, under the circumstances―the position of the golfer is of little consequence. Experience suggests, however, that the need to satisfy these three conditions allows only minor variations in the position of the golfer at impact...” (p. 290)

Jorgensen, T.P. (1994). The Physics of Golf (2nd Edition). New York: Springer-Verlag.

“If you watch your fellow golfers, or even the professionals on television, you soon realise the infinite variety in the swing of a golf club. Some swings are a delight to watch and are probably a great satisfaction to the golfer. However, some swings are so grotesque that the exasperation expressed comes as no surprise.” (p. 4)

Suttie, J. (2006). Your Perfect Swing. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

"In the beginning of using this method, I had very good results―especially with beginners; however, over the years that followed I began noticing that this ideal professional swing model wasn't working for everybody. Many of my students found themselves falling into their same old unproductive habits after a few months away from my teaching. It was nearly impossible for many of my students to maintain the "on-plane" swing the way my model was directing them to. It took me a while to realize that my students' bodies, physical proportions, and equipment didn't match the characteristics on any ideal model I had developed―or ever could develop. I concluded that one of the game's historical techning failures revolves around the fact that we were teaching the same swing to students with widely diverse body types and mental approaches to the game. Golfers come equipped with unique bodies, as well as individualized swing styles, thought processes, levels of flexibility, power sources, motivation, and a myriad of other influences that affect their swings and the way they play the game" (p. viii)

"I realized I had the teaching formula backward. Rather than teaching a swing that used individual traits to a player's advantage, I'd been forcing all of the unique swing styles of my students into a rigid model. It was like trying to fit all golfers with the same size golf shoe. My teaching technique was suffering from some insurmountable disadvantages. What I figures out in the process from developing to implementing my strategy with real live students was that my computerized model had been, and remains today, an effective stating and learning reference point for helping players customize their swings, but not the be-all end-all answer for every golfer." (p. viii)