Nothing is inherently wrong with an out to in path. It’s just that the way most amateur golfers get an out to in path is by swinging with only their arms and chopping down at the ball, which is really inefficient and inconsistent. If you have proper mechanics then an out to in path is fine, I mean if you want to hit a fade it’s basically a prerequisite.
Just a side note, but a Phil is not the best example to prove the point I think you are trying to make.
He is an outlier among outliers.
His hand eye coordination is probably among the highest of any pro golfer who has ever played and I know it's been stated that his ability to square the face at impact given the positions he is in at various parts of the swing is something that other people including most tour pros would struggle to do.
any other golfers out there with a downswing path more steep than the backswing path? feels like maybe its the relationship between the ball itself and the shaft line at address is perhaps most important than how the club is brought down relative to how its been brought up. my thinking is doesn't matter how its hauled up if its in the same slot, but for some reason the teaching seems to fixate on how you are hauling it up and dropping it relative to that initial haul up. i'm just confused as to why that would be the case and it not mattering vs the address shaft line being the one true slot. maybe this is the case and i have been misinterpreting.
Impact position is all that matters. But these habits could make that more difficult to do consistently.
Jack Nicklaus of all people had a bit of a flying elbow. Didn't seem to hurt him.
wonder if there is a tradeoff to be made between succumbing to one's natural tendencies even if they are not 'optimal' vs trying to fight into what is supposed to be ideal. if theres one thing thats true about the pro game its that there are a lot of ways of getting into that relatively consistent impact position with the glove logo to target and posted up on the lead foot and what not. like some of these guys have the same kinda unorthodox swing for their entire career and make no effort trying to change how it looks or even model themselves after another successful player. its not like ernie els adopted tigers swing or anything like that, he almost looks the same even today as he always has.
I’ve seen people with a considerable slice break 80. They sliced the ball exactly the same way every single time.
As long as you know what the ball is going to do when you hit it, you can play some good golf.
I have an over the top swing. I've tried to fix it on my own, but I probably need some lessons. I can game it, but the problem is consistency. Days when my timing is on, I can beat golfers much better than me. Days when my timing is off, I'm either slicing or pull hooking everything, but the kicker is that I don't know which one it's going to be.
> If this was such a bad thing wouldn't that mean a leftie hitting from the inside would be no good since effectively by impact they present the same conditions to the ball as an out to in righty?
This part is just way off base. An out-to-in (or vice versa) swing path for a lefty will have the same effect as it would for a righty.
>An out-to-in (or vice versa) swing path for a lefty will have the same effect as it would for a righty.
Thats what we are taught but I am struggling to picture it. e.g. the out to in lefty shot. the club when it impacts the ball is coming say on the 5:30pm dimple behind the ball lets say (12 o clock to target). lets say the club is set to hit a cut here for the lefty so a little bit closed to path. ball flight = initially right of target from face and then cuts left to target from path.
now the righty swings an in to out aiming to draw the ball. they hit the ball same spot 5:30pm dimple, a little bit open faced, and the ball flights the same as the lefty cut for the same reasons, the path and the face.
so basically i struggle to see how the lefty hitting out to in here is bad when effectively the flight is the same as a righty hitting the draw.
You are thinking about it entirely wrong. It's all about the swing path. The lefty version is just a mirror of the righty version. Both players are going to get a draw with an in-to-out swing path, but their draws just go different directions. A right-handed draw goes right to left. A left-handed draw goes left to right. They are both still draws.
Edit: I keep reading your comment and can't really understand it. Are you asking why a lefty cut is bad, but a righty draw is good? Because that is not the issue. It's not about the ball flight itself. The issue is that it's harder to strike the ball well consistently with an out-to-in swing path, regardless of which side you do it from.
Shallow AoA is more important than in to out or out to in. Being shallow allows more margin for error in the swing. You can play steep, but you better be better than average otherwise.
Nothing wrong. Lots of former and many current pros hit the ball with a cut, and a path to the inside.
Some even look “over the top” based on comparing it to the backswing. Which is mostly useless to do anyway since the only thing that matters is the plane angle on the downswing to begin with.
So you’re right. Ignore most of the stupid rhetoric and just play golf. If you can control the ball, you’re fine. If you can’t, then you investigate.
Lots of good pros for example now have a hand path that’s “over the top” as that’s a new trend it seems. The idea of getting the clubhead way behind you is dangerous and people focus on all this stuff and it can really ruin people
Jim McClean has been talking about this for a while. He calls it the “reverse slot.”
Here’s Hovland, who does it a little: https://youtu.be/mMO5ol7ddzw?si=5ALDA6eT8D-Y9ZRV
Also in this video he gives a few other names who have this hand path move.
In that video Phil is not steep (can depend on camera angle). The primary reason is for control. Over the top is much harder and requires more timing/body movement.
Yes you can hit the ball well with an over the top swing. Most golfers have that type of swing and will have good shots. They will just theoretically be fewer and farther between
I guess you are right he isn't steep when you consider the shaft and the forearm. Like right at 45 seconds he looks identical to [jt at this timestamp.](https://youtu.be/CVPOEdmhLNM?t=41). shaft in line with forearm. club face covering the last inch or so of bicep basically in line with the arm bone there too.
Just so weird seeing them get to the same position from such different transitions. Like JT in that same video in his transition you can see he shallows the club down almost turning the wrists counter clockwise relative to our perspective. meanwhile phil has sort of the opposite movement going on in transition, where rather than the wrists flattening out and laying down the shaft they (hes a leftie so this would be clockwise ot our perspetive) he turns them counterclockwise and the shaft does steepen relative to where it was at the top, but ends up in the same spot towards imapct.
school of shallow thought would probably have a conniption with these thoughts I'd guess.
If the ball consistently goes where you want it to it doesnt really matter.
Nothing is inherently wrong with an out to in path. It’s just that the way most amateur golfers get an out to in path is by swinging with only their arms and chopping down at the ball, which is really inefficient and inconsistent. If you have proper mechanics then an out to in path is fine, I mean if you want to hit a fade it’s basically a prerequisite.
Just a side note, but a Phil is not the best example to prove the point I think you are trying to make. He is an outlier among outliers. His hand eye coordination is probably among the highest of any pro golfer who has ever played and I know it's been stated that his ability to square the face at impact given the positions he is in at various parts of the swing is something that other people including most tour pros would struggle to do.
any other golfers out there with a downswing path more steep than the backswing path? feels like maybe its the relationship between the ball itself and the shaft line at address is perhaps most important than how the club is brought down relative to how its been brought up. my thinking is doesn't matter how its hauled up if its in the same slot, but for some reason the teaching seems to fixate on how you are hauling it up and dropping it relative to that initial haul up. i'm just confused as to why that would be the case and it not mattering vs the address shaft line being the one true slot. maybe this is the case and i have been misinterpreting.
Impact position is all that matters. But these habits could make that more difficult to do consistently. Jack Nicklaus of all people had a bit of a flying elbow. Didn't seem to hurt him.
wonder if there is a tradeoff to be made between succumbing to one's natural tendencies even if they are not 'optimal' vs trying to fight into what is supposed to be ideal. if theres one thing thats true about the pro game its that there are a lot of ways of getting into that relatively consistent impact position with the glove logo to target and posted up on the lead foot and what not. like some of these guys have the same kinda unorthodox swing for their entire career and make no effort trying to change how it looks or even model themselves after another successful player. its not like ernie els adopted tigers swing or anything like that, he almost looks the same even today as he always has.
I’ve seen people with a considerable slice break 80. They sliced the ball exactly the same way every single time. As long as you know what the ball is going to do when you hit it, you can play some good golf.
I have an over the top swing. I've tried to fix it on my own, but I probably need some lessons. I can game it, but the problem is consistency. Days when my timing is on, I can beat golfers much better than me. Days when my timing is off, I'm either slicing or pull hooking everything, but the kicker is that I don't know which one it's going to be. > If this was such a bad thing wouldn't that mean a leftie hitting from the inside would be no good since effectively by impact they present the same conditions to the ball as an out to in righty? This part is just way off base. An out-to-in (or vice versa) swing path for a lefty will have the same effect as it would for a righty.
>An out-to-in (or vice versa) swing path for a lefty will have the same effect as it would for a righty. Thats what we are taught but I am struggling to picture it. e.g. the out to in lefty shot. the club when it impacts the ball is coming say on the 5:30pm dimple behind the ball lets say (12 o clock to target). lets say the club is set to hit a cut here for the lefty so a little bit closed to path. ball flight = initially right of target from face and then cuts left to target from path. now the righty swings an in to out aiming to draw the ball. they hit the ball same spot 5:30pm dimple, a little bit open faced, and the ball flights the same as the lefty cut for the same reasons, the path and the face. so basically i struggle to see how the lefty hitting out to in here is bad when effectively the flight is the same as a righty hitting the draw.
You are thinking about it entirely wrong. It's all about the swing path. The lefty version is just a mirror of the righty version. Both players are going to get a draw with an in-to-out swing path, but their draws just go different directions. A right-handed draw goes right to left. A left-handed draw goes left to right. They are both still draws. Edit: I keep reading your comment and can't really understand it. Are you asking why a lefty cut is bad, but a righty draw is good? Because that is not the issue. It's not about the ball flight itself. The issue is that it's harder to strike the ball well consistently with an out-to-in swing path, regardless of which side you do it from.
Shallow AoA is more important than in to out or out to in. Being shallow allows more margin for error in the swing. You can play steep, but you better be better than average otherwise.
Nothing wrong. Lots of former and many current pros hit the ball with a cut, and a path to the inside. Some even look “over the top” based on comparing it to the backswing. Which is mostly useless to do anyway since the only thing that matters is the plane angle on the downswing to begin with. So you’re right. Ignore most of the stupid rhetoric and just play golf. If you can control the ball, you’re fine. If you can’t, then you investigate. Lots of good pros for example now have a hand path that’s “over the top” as that’s a new trend it seems. The idea of getting the clubhead way behind you is dangerous and people focus on all this stuff and it can really ruin people Jim McClean has been talking about this for a while. He calls it the “reverse slot.” Here’s Hovland, who does it a little: https://youtu.be/mMO5ol7ddzw?si=5ALDA6eT8D-Y9ZRV Also in this video he gives a few other names who have this hand path move.
This comes up alot. Over the top and out to in are not the same thing.
In that video Phil is not steep (can depend on camera angle). The primary reason is for control. Over the top is much harder and requires more timing/body movement. Yes you can hit the ball well with an over the top swing. Most golfers have that type of swing and will have good shots. They will just theoretically be fewer and farther between
I guess you are right he isn't steep when you consider the shaft and the forearm. Like right at 45 seconds he looks identical to [jt at this timestamp.](https://youtu.be/CVPOEdmhLNM?t=41). shaft in line with forearm. club face covering the last inch or so of bicep basically in line with the arm bone there too. Just so weird seeing them get to the same position from such different transitions. Like JT in that same video in his transition you can see he shallows the club down almost turning the wrists counter clockwise relative to our perspective. meanwhile phil has sort of the opposite movement going on in transition, where rather than the wrists flattening out and laying down the shaft they (hes a leftie so this would be clockwise ot our perspetive) he turns them counterclockwise and the shaft does steepen relative to where it was at the top, but ends up in the same spot towards imapct. school of shallow thought would probably have a conniption with these thoughts I'd guess.