[mrodock]

I have often heard the argument where one person argues that any swing that makes it on the PGA Tour is a good way to swing the golf club and when there are components of swings that show up again and again then those are obviously even more important. The contrary viewpoint is the person that doesn't possess the tour pros's time or talent cannot rely on what the pros do in order to obtain a swing philosophy/methodology. Much like most of us probably cannot use MIT professors techniques for solving advanced math problems, lack the talent and the time to learn.

I wonder if both sides are wrong to an extent. For my argument I will consider an average golfer (about a 20 handicap) trying to break into the single digit ranks. I think they would be silly to try and copy a tour players swing, or even come up with a composite of several very effective pros swings. On the other hand, I don't think that what the pros do should be completely thrown out. The question really isn't whether someone can do what the pros do with a lot of practice, but what path or direction is the person going toward. I think Homer Kelley had the best answer of all. Eliminate the snares and improve the 3 imperatives. In this way, you are doing working toward a tour quality swing but you do not have to be boggled down in interpreting whether something is simply a mannerism or a fundamental. Further, by working on one problem at a time you are not taking on more than you can handle, so you might be able to play fairly well during a swing change and while heading down a path that will lead to a much more fundamentally correct golf swing.

I am curious what other people think of this debate. If some swing is on tour does that make it right? Or are these men and women so talented that they could strike the ball extremely well swinging in a phone booth.

Matt