With Bubba / Bryson being the benchmarks - where would you put Tiger?
90s/2000s Tiger - Artist. Yes he had swing changes and was technical with those, but never felt he was being scientific and was mainly feel based
Recent Tiger - definitely more to the scientist side needing to be more technical given health history and being older
Haha, you should just build out a wedge to six iron length and whenever anyone says they want to be like Bryson, hand them thatā¦
I do have a ton of respect for what heās done and how hard heās workedā¦ but obviously itās not for everyone. I donāt need to add 40 lbs to swing fasterā¦
Somewhat of a scientist in practice. Thatās where I find what works. But all artist on the course which can lead to some spectacular shots when I get it right or some that are really bad when I get the feel wrong. I like to visualize the shot and just hit it. My only swing thought is the shape I want it to go.
I also prefer a bit of wind where I can use the wind to shape the ball 1 way or hold it up into the wind the other way.
I agree with this entirely. I think thereās a reason thereās really only one guy doing it the way Bryson is doing it. Heās chased speed the way it made sense and worked for him, but I fear for him because if one thing in that mechanical swing of his is off, heās likely in for a real off the rails day/week/month. Iām also worried about his ACL if one of those feet gets stuck at some point.
His approach absolutely works for him. I do not hope people try to emulate it. There are many moreā¦naturalā¦ways to gain speed. Watch Cam Champ, Rory, etc.
Much rather sit and watch Rory hit a driver on the range all day than Bryson
Rory hitting driver should come with a parental advisory because itās porn.
thatās one kind of X rated material Iāll show my kids when theyāre about 5 to hopefully emulate
As a former engineer, I want to say āScientistā, but Iām a player that needs to get the right feel or I just donāt play well. Iāve tried to be more mechanical, but it doesnāt seem to work for me. I do think though that I can do mechanical things in practice that may help my feel on the course.
Artistā¦ you have to hit the ball with instinctive execution.
Over the last couple of years I have pared every hole on my course and birdied mostā¦ I donāt need a better swing this old school one works
Good question. I feel stuck in the middle sometimes, but I believe that when I try to get too āscientistā, it makes me go in the wrong direction.
Iām a bit surprised this is so one sided (though small sample size) given some of the other discussions Iāve seen with all the training aids, etc.
I like it when you boys talk dirty
Artist - fascinated by scienceā¦but not really great at applying either to my game.
Is it possible to be a scientific artist? Iāve made a couple of changes focused on specific mechanical things, worked on them enough so that by now theyāre pretty ānaturalā. So thatās me being at least a little scientific. But now when I play, Iām no thinking of mechanics, just the shot I intend to play. Thatās the on-course āartistryā (although sometimes the results are far from artistic).
Absolutely - I think very few people would fall into the extremes but was trying to gauge which side everyone leaned.
I think that makes complete sense. Thatās exactly how I view the swing - put your work in off the course so it feels natural on the course!
Hereās something interesting that will screw with the minds of the scientists. Please bear in mind that I am very scientific, but when you dig in deep enough, you find you have no choice but to yield to the artist.
We can gather data on the swing - everything from kinetic sequence to pressure traces etc. however, none of this (apart from launch monitor data) can tell you whether a shot was world class or horrific.
ābut what if we add more dataā?
The only way we could tell whether a shot was good or not from biomechanics data would be to delve into it in such a precise amount, looking at mm accuracy (because, remember, the diff between a good shot and an awful one can be 2 degrees of face angle, or 1/4 inch of arc depth).
However, something strange happens when we do this.
What you find is, even the best players in the world, at that very precise level, actually use a different combination of variables each time. The swing may look the same on the outside, but the things that makes it work (think, the difference between Adam Scottās best and worst shots) are never the same from one swing to the next.
Research (wiki is a good beginner source) the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis. It will blow your mind, if you can understand it.
Very interesting, the last part scared me off from thinking too much about it! Iām thinking that reading about that would give some really terrible swing thoughts!
which is why announcers also pretend to see something in an errant shot, and the replay looks exactly the same as every other swing from the player 
This is very truthful and hits right at home for me. I have struggled with a swing change over the last 18+ months. Being super technical by nature and realizing how scientific and technical the golf swing is, I couldnāt help but to be super mechanical and break each individual part of the swing down to its finite detail. As you can imagine, it has been a recipe for disaster and frustrating at best. I have really learned how to hit a hosel rocket during this phase. But recently, I have ālet it goā knowing that my body knows the mechanics and it has freed me up significantly. It was during these moments and breakthroughs that I finally realized, I have to stop being a scientist and start being an artist. The only thing was at that point I didnāt know what to call it. So I am definitely still scientist leaning, I guess I could call myself an scientart. I canāt wait to blow my mind with the manifold hypothesis.