(and don't tell me because they have not discovered Homer, thats old and worn out)
Maybe they have discovered Homer, but do they really understand hitting and its application?
How exactly is it surprising that people can hit with short irons but not long irons and woods? Has there ever been a "swinger" that, when first starting out, hit long irons and woods just as well as short irons?
Maybe all the people, that have the woods/irons problem, are "just starting out" (in understanding and application). Is that so hard to believe, given one can basically only find solid information on hitting from TGM and this site???? And given the fact that those who we know to have a solid understanding of hitting and who have put in the correct practice (example Ted Fort) do just as well as swingers (in distance and accuracy)???? AND given the fact that any and all "decent" mainstream golf instruction (instruction that, like it or not, is in the memory of even TGMers, and creates habits and biases) is based on swinging????
These days, in my opinion, most people on tour do not dig it out of the dirt.
But, back when they did, I think any normal person would agree that there were more variations, some of which clearly tended toward hitting (Palmer, Traveno). So if they don't dig it out of the dirt, what kind of instruction are they getting? As detailed above, certainly not instruction with any knowledge of the hitting option.
There's alot of blame to go around as to why the swinging procedure might SEEM more effiecient, but the hitting procedure itself is not part of this blame.
Threaded Mode
