View Single Post
Old 07-16-2010, 01:39 AM   #15
TessUnsonia

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
496
Senior Member
Default
JP - it made me feel good to read this as I recently went back to an open stance and "eyeballing" the distance on short (less than LW) pitches. I've tried for months to get the 9 o'clock/10 o'clock thing down, but just can't make consistent contact that way. I was considering a few lessons to drill the clock methodology, but just may stay with my little cut shots.

From a loft perspective it's exactly the same thing.

But your second sentence sums it up; it's all in what you're comfortable with. As I said, I grew up with an open stance approach to golf and when I'm about fifty yards away, my belt buckle is basically facing the target at address and I'm swinging more or less across the ball.

I myself tried to play an entire season with a "modern" setup; a square stance and only varying loft, swing length and ball position, just to see if it might make a difference in my game and even though I stayed with it for an entire season, I simply could not get used to that setup. To me, it took all of the feel out of my game and everything became focused on mechanics.

I understand perfectly why a square setup is advocated and I also understand the reason for carrying extra wedges all the way down to a 60 (which I used for that year), but I found myself thinking too much about clubhead speed and loft rather than focusing on my target and I completely lost my touch.

The open-stanced setup is just natural to me and I guess I've sort of learned the nuances of that setup and so I went back to it after that year and I've never looked back. To me, it's more intuitive to just open the clubface and the stance than it is to try to calibrate a backswing and match a loft to it.

To each his own.


-JP
Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk
TessUnsonia is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity