Unified theory or not

Having done further study of Bobby Clampett's 'The Impact Zone', Jimmy Ballard's 'How to Perfect Your Golf Swing' (not sure if that's the exact title) and thought again about Paul Wilson's 'Swing Machine Golf', I realise that the similarities in their ideas of the golf swing outweigh the differences.

For example, each of these golf teachers seeks to somewhat de-emphasise the role of the arms and hands in the golf swing. That is, they want the arms to work with the core of the body, shoulders, torso and hips, to move the golf club, especially in the full swing. That's not to say the arms and hands do not play a role, nor to deny the importance of the wrists, but it is essentially about increasing awareness of the need to start the swing with the lower body, to create and retain lag, and avoid the cardinal error that is casting or swinging mainly with the arms in an over-the-swing plane direction.

Wilson impressed me when I studied his 'method' several years ago because of the way he emphasised the need to make the swing effortless, using the core muscles and legs to drive the swing. Ballard's emphasis on connection, retaining the arm - shoulder triangle and use of the right knee and foot had a lot in common with Wilson's approach, though he warns against spinning out with the hips, something Wilson did not adequately address, in my view.

Clampett was, of course, heavily influenced by the incredible book 'The Golfing Machine' by the late Homer Kelley, and by Kelley's golf teacher adherents, such as Ben Doyle. His ideas on lag creation and retention are not too far away from Ballard's basic principles and, for that matter, not a mile away from Wilson's work. After all, we have 'The Golfing Machine' and 'Swing Machine Golf'; notice any overlap?

If you take each of these two 'Machine' approaches, however, and compare them you will find considerable difference in the degree of complexity each introduces into their theory. Kelley and his followers deal in complexity (power accumulators, P3, P4, etc., and a myriad of ultra-technical terms) whereas Wilson tends to try to simplify the golf swing exercise as far as he can. Neither approach is quite satisfactory in my view, but within each theory there are gems of wisdom that many golfers would do well to take note of and try to incorporate in their own games.

In particular, I believe the involvement of the lower body in initiating the swing is very important, as is the transfer of weight to the front foot during the swing and into impact. Both contribute to compressing the ball, promoting effective spin direction, and consistent ball striking in general. These three gurus would probably agree that most of the other elements of the golf swing taught by the many thousands of golf instructors are matters of style, with limited and only short-lived outcomes at best, and are the reason for the stagnation of golfing standards amongst the amateur golfing ranks over recent decades.

I would add that because a lot of golf instruction is about description, including the identification of faults and the postulation of 'cures', this form of instruction is failing to get to the crux of the issue - an understanding of the linked and sequential role of the legs, arms and torso or core. It is very hard to move from description to implementation, few people do it well; implementing anything is often the poorly conducted final stage of any developmental project. No different in golf; key issues are neglected or allowed to lapse. Frustration sets in. Progress is stymied.

I don't think there is one unified theory or method to be had; that is, a system that can be taught to anyone successfully. However, I think that by taking the key ideas from the three teachers mentioned above, and by thinking about one's own game and how to implement the key ideas or principles, a golf swing can be improved. I actually hit what I would describe as a 'real golf shot' in my last round. There was only one, but maybe one swallow can be a harbinger of the spring - or is that a swing.