Fundamental vs Peculiar

[Martin Levac]

This is in response to several posts in another thread where the term fundamental is used to describe aspects of a peculiar method or other that one uses to swing the golf club. "The fundamentals of the golf swing".

Fundamental comes from foundation, the base. It means, relating to the foundation or to the base.

An example. The rules are fundamental aspects that define the game of golf without which one can't play golf. In other word, if you don't play by the rules, you aren't playing golf. The rules are the basis of the game of golf.

An example of not fundamental. The hat I'm wearing makes me look quite good while I swing that club. It doesn't do much for my game but I like it nonetheless. The hat is a personal aspect of the game of golf, it doesn't break the rules either way.

Peculiar. It means, distinctive in nature or character from others.

An example. The method Ben Hogan uses to swing the club is peculiar to him and no other. Many imitate the method although few can do it with as much effect as Ben did. It is a distinctive method that can be recognised even when somebody other than Ben uses it.

An example of not peculiar. The 5 iron I'm playing with is just like any other 5 iron I've played with in the past and is just like any 5 iron everybody else plays with today. It isn't distinctive, it's mostly the same as everybody else's 5 iron.

As it applies to the golf swing.

When we use the term fundamental in "the golf swing fundamentals", we really mean the individual aspects of swinging a golf club in order to strike a ball. Those individual aspects are not fundamental in themselves but they are built on top of fundamental rules and laws that govern the interaction between the clubhead and the ball.

I prefer to use the terms part, facet, aspect, portion, piece, division. Because that's what those "fundamentals" really are, parts of a whole.

Perhaps we use the term fundamental because we want to emphasise how important each part is. Perhaps we just don't know what to call these motions we do. How about we call them motions or changes in motion. Because afterall that's all they are.

What's really fundamental and important is the interaction between the clubhead and the ball. It is fundamental because that's what the golf swing is built on. It is important because that's what determines where the ball will go.

So, the only true fundamental aspect of the golf swing is striking the ball. Every other part of the golf swing is peculiar to each of us. In other words, we use whatever method that will produce the fundamental result that we must produce.

Perhaps we use the term fundamentals in the sense of "principles from which other truths can be derived; "first you must learn the fundamentals"; "let's get down to basics"". Well, I've shown that individual aspects of a method are not fundamentals but instead are merely peculiars of said method.

Perhaps we use the term fundamentals to describe general aspects that are common to every method known. Now there is an acceptable use of the term.

Here's an example. The Vardon grip isn't a fundamental but it is a peculiar way of applying one of the fundamentals. The grip.

Another example. The backswing is one of the fundamentals because everybody must take the club back. What is not fundamental is how one must take the club back. So, Hogan's method of taking the club back isn't fundamental in itself, it is simply peculiar to Hogan's method.

Yet another example. It is fundamental that we stand sideways in order to make the stroke. That's what the rules say so I guess it's fundamental to the game of golf and the method that everybody must employ. What isn't fundamental is where exactly we must put each foot in relation to the ball or to each other or to the rest of our body. That will remain peculiar to each of us.

And the last example. The golf swing can be described as having multiple parts, each of which we can name and each of which are common to every method known. These parts are the stance, the backswing, the downswing, the followthrough, the grip, etc. Mind you, there is no obligation to execute each part exactly the same way every time everywhere by everybody. What is an obligation is that each part exist because that is the nature of the golf swing and every golf swing consists of every one of those parts put into pretty much the same sequence. We start with the backswing, we follow with the downswing, we end with the followthrough. There is no other sequence possible to the golf swing. We must grip the club with the hands. We don't have to grip it with both hands but we can't grip it with any other part of our body. Etc, etc.

That last kind of fundamentals is defined by the rules of the game and by the laws of the universe. They are generic in nature. Once peculiar comes in, fundamental goes out. Such as Hogan's method, it's a peculiar method built on fundamental rules and laws.

Ultimately, there is only one fundamental aspect to the game of golf, that is its purpose. To send a ball to a target using a club. Everything else is built on that simple edict. We can't send anything else but the ball to the target. We can't send the ball anywhere else but to the target. And we can't use anything else but a club to send the ball to the target. If we don't do that, we can't win or are simply not playing golf.

If any of you didn't understand half of what I wrote above, perhaps it's best you never use the term fundamentals as in "the fundamentals of the golf swing". Instead, use the term parts of the golf swing or aspects of the golf swing. It will allow you to maintain a level head when approaching each individual aspect of the golf swing as you practice. Otherwise, you may assign more importance to the method and not enough to the purpose.

[BrianW]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

And your point is?

To educate the members on the meaning of words like "Fundamental" or "Peculiar" and to suggest that the proletariat would be better using simple words like "Parts" or Aspects"?

I suggest your article is over long, patronising and without logical conclusion. No "part, facet, aspect, portion, piece or division" (as you like to say) has brought any real benefit to others. I would suggest writing a book Martin, Ben Hogan had it wrong, he was just documenting a peculiar swing of his own that few can copy. Who would buy a book like that?

[SevenBall]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

The golf swing is just a series of 'tricks' put together by people who have studied it or used it. When these tricks are put together you get a motion that is very simple to initiate and that in the end produces an easy, good result.

Learning golf is like anything else, there ARE easy and hard ways to do it.

[Neil18]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

The fundamentals are the basic starting points from which each individual's swing comes. In a nutshell, the grip and the stance (in which we'd include alignment of feet, hips, shoulders, ball position, spine angle etc). But because it takes a while to refer to all these things separately, we call them the fundamentals.

These are what we refer to as the generic fundamentals, but as we all know (and is possibly what you're trying to convey?), the fundamentals can vary from person to person. But they are still the fundamentals of every persons swing. If we talk of one player having open shoulders or another having closed feet, we're still talking about fundamentals i.e. referring to their starting point/foundation.

Reinventing the wheel is not necessary, Martin. You can take the word "fundamentals" if you like, and change it to something else, but that approach won't stop a "visual accuity agent" being a plain old window cleaner.

[Jeff Mann]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

I tend to agree with the widespread sentiment that Martin's intellectualising about "fundamentals versus peculiarities/individualities" is not accurate or useful.

I think that its crazy to label certain features of Hogan's swing (starting the downswing with a hip shift-rotation transition move, maintaining wrist lag, hitting at impact with a flat left wrist, keeping the right knee flexed during the entire backswing to increase torso coiling) as "peculiarities" rather than as "fundamentals". Those features are fundamental to any golfer's swing, who uses a similiar lower body swing style, and they are not Hogan's individual characteristics.

In another thread started by Samson72 about his swing, I offered him basic advice about how to correct his over-the-top move. My advice about starting the downswing with a lower body move is a "fundamental" if one wants to use the Hogan/Woods type of swing style, and not a "peculiarity". Of course, Samson72 is free to ignore my advice and stick to his present swing pattern, but he cannot ignore certain "fundamentals" if he buys my argument that it is better to use the Hogan/Woods swing style.

Jeff.

[Martin Levac]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

"These are what we refer to as the generic fundamentals, but as we all know (and is possibly what you're trying to convey?), the fundamentals can vary from person to person. But they are still the fundamentals of every persons swing. If we talk of one player having open shoulders or another having closed feet, we're still talking about fundamentals i.e. referring to their starting point/foundation."

That above is the gist of it. The fundamentals of the golf swing. The peculiars of Hogan's method.

"I think that its crazy to label certain features of Hogan's swing (starting the downswing with a hip shift-rotation transition move, maintaining wrist lag, hitting at impact with a flat left wrist, keeping the right knee flexed during the entire backswing to increase torso coiling) as "peculiarities" rather than as "fundamentals". Those features are fundamental to any golfer's swing, who uses a similiar lower body swing style, and they are not Hogan's individual characteristics."

That above is precisely the reason I prefer to use parts instead of fundamentals. Hogan's method remains Hogan's method, not The method, not the foundation on which all other methods are built. I've heard too many times "I'm supposed to, you're supposed to" ...do it like Hogan and no other way. It sounds like a rule or the law and many I've seen act accordingly. They try to fit the mold, they try nothing new and remain mediocre.

I'm not supposed to do anything other than obey the rules and send the ball to the target using the club. Anything else is up to me. If I swing like Tiger, I'll study the peculiars of such a method. Same goes for Hogan's method. If I want to swing the way I want, no problem, I'll develop my own peculiar method and it will work just as well as any other method.

The term fundamental is normally used in conjunction with some immutable law or other. Like, the fundamental laws of the universe. Well, the fundamentals of the golf swing aren't so fundamental when compared to the fundamental laws of the universe. I mean, those laws can't be bypassed but those golf swing methods can be done differently and still produce the intended result. I suspect that it is because of the term's usual usage and associated strength that we use it to describe the golf swing. It gives the method more importance than otherwise.

In the strict sense of the word. The interaction between the clubhead and the ball is fundamental in nature. It can't be made otherwise and we must obey the laws of the universe as they apply to this particular event. We can produce this event in any way we choose but we choose to obey yet more rules, those of the game of golf. We can't bypass the laws of the universe or the rules of golf but we can certainly bypass Hogan's method or any other method, for that matter. As long as we produce the intended result. In other words, I don't have to grip the club this way but I absolutely must strike the ball this way if I want to produce this intended result.

Fundamentals. Principles from which other truths can be derived; "first you must learn the fundamentals"; "let's get down to basics"

The interaction between the clubhead and the ball is the principle from which other truths can be derived.

Here, some explanation. I start the downswing with my arms. I don't maintain wrist lag. I don't have the left wrist flat when I strike the ball. I have my legs pretty much straight all the way. I don't use my body to propel the club, I use my arms. In this case, how can any peculiar method of Hogan's be fundamental if I can do it differently and still produce the intended result? Those features of Hogan's method are peculiar to Hogan himself, they simply became very popular because of their appeal and because the method is associated with success, Hogan's. Look, we conclude the same thing with Tiger's method. We should conclude the same thing with Trevino's or Furyk's or Moe's but we don't because they all lack the aesthetic appeal. It still doesn't diminish the effectiveness of each of those methods.

The appropriate way to speak of Hogan's method is he approached the golf swing in a peculiar fashion that, for him and many others, rendered the fundamentals more effective or at least more appealing. Now just put any other name such as Tiger, Furyk or Trevino. In the case of Trevino, remove appealing from the description. In the case of Tiger, add that he publicly changed a whole bunch of features yet remained just as successful.

It used to be that we should all swing like Vardon, Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus. Forget Nicklaus, nobody should swing like that, not even Jack himself. But there I go again with my discrimination of a peculiar method, I shouldn't do that because it's quite obvious that it worked for him. Now we should all swing like Tiger. In 20 years, it's gonna be somebody else's method that we should emulate. Why not swing like Snead? In my eyes, he was a much better player than Hogan by far.

[Jeff Mann]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

Hmm! I wonder if other forum members think that our posts (Martin's and mine) reflect our good sense, or lack of good sense.

Martin writes-: "I'll develop my own peculiar method and it will work just as well as any other method." He also states-: " I start the downswing with my arms. I don't maintain wrist lag. I don't have the left wrist flat when I strike the ball. I have my legs pretty much straight all the way. I don't use my body to propel the club, I use my arms. In this case, how can any peculiar method of Hogan's be fundamental if I can do it differently and still produce the intended result?"

In other words, Martin is stating that he can use that "peculiar method" of swinging a golf club and still get the same intended result (an accurate fairway wood ball flight of sufficient velocity to propel the ball 250 yards to land in the middle of a distant green). Seeing is believing! Even if Martin has the miraculous capacity to achieve that "intended result" using that "peculiar method" of swinging a golf club, do forum members really believe that they should likewise strive to learn how to develop a similar "peculiar method" of swinging a golf club if they want to accurately hit a fairway wood 250 yards to a distant green?

Martin also writes-: "If I want to swing the way I want, no problem, I'll develop my own peculiar method and it will work just as well as any other method."

Maybe I'm too old and too sceptical, but I believe that there is a definite reason why the majority of PGA tour players use the "same golf fundamentals" that are common to golfers like Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, and Tiger Woods and which are well described in the book "Swing Like a Pro". The SLAP reseachers developed the ModelPro golfer model because they believe in "fundamentals" (like me) - see http://www.modelgolf.com/whatismodelgolf.asp#mechanics

I use those "same fundamentals" in my soon-to-be-finished online review of the lower body golf swing.

Jeff.

[bill reed]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

hi martin
i think you missed something in hogan's book, its called "the MODERN fundamentals of golf " and as the title says its diffrent from the old fundamentals in that hogans thinking and the work he did in getting him back to playing golf when he was almost killed was that he started at the bottom and worked up. his book has been the basic fundamentals ever since, he talks about 3 grips not one and does talk about diffrent planes in the swing when using diffrent clubs, before hogan no one talked about the plane of the swing or how it changed in the downswing.
most people did not think about it deeply but after his book people did think and tweeked and changed things as they understood more. i think his book made so many of todays teachers think about things more. it is the basic of every teaching pros and the 5 MODERN fundamentals are used in almost every teaching book now published.
bill

[Martin Levac]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

Bill Reed, and is that also why the great majority of players are afraid of trying something different than those 5 modern fundamentals thereby never finding out if there's a better way to do it? "Oh no, I'm not supposed to do that, it's wrong."

So we're supposed to start the downswing with the lower body. What if that's the reason we can't make proper contact with the ball? We'll never know. We'll never know because it's supposed to be done like that, any other way and we're not playing golf. According to Hogan's method anyway.

Jeff Mann, the miracle is that of practice. We can all do it and it truly is a miracle. Never mind. My ability or inability to produce the intended result doesn't take away anything from my capacity to distinguish between fundamental and peculiar.

Just the term "modern fundamentals" should give us a hint as to the intent of the book. Out with the old, in with the new. As they say. I much prefer the term "modern method" or Hogan's method, it's much more accurate and it gives it the importance that it deserves, no more.

The interaction between the clubhead and the ball is just as pertinent as it was 400 years ago when golf was first invented. It will remain so until the rules of the game are changed so much that this particular trait of the game becomes irrelevant. The reason is simple, it must obey the fundamental laws of the universe.

[BrianW]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

Hmm! I wonder if other forum members think that our posts (Martin's and mine) reflect our good sense, or lack of good sense.

Martin writes-: "I'll develop my own peculiar method and it will work just as well as any other method." He also states-: " I start the downswing with my arms. I don't maintain wrist lag. I don't have the left wrist flat when I strike the ball. I have my legs pretty much straight all the way. I don't use my body to propel the club, I use my arms. In this case, how can any peculiar method of Hogan's be fundamental if I can do it differently and still produce the intended result?"

In other words, Martin is stating that he can use that "peculiar method" of swinging a golf club and still get the same intended result (an accurate fairway wood ball flight of sufficient velocity to propel the ball 250 yards to land in the middle of a distant green). Seeing is believing! Even if Martin has the miraculous capacity to achieve that "intended result" using that "peculiar method" of swinging a golf club, do forum members really believe that they should likewise strive to learn how to develop a similar "peculiar method" of swinging a golf club if they want to accurately hit a fairway wood 250 yards to a distant green?

Martin also writes-: "If I want to swing the way I want, no problem, I'll develop my own peculiar method and it will work just as well as any other method."

Maybe I'm too old and too sceptical, but I believe that there is a definite reason why the majority of PGA tour players use the "same golf fundamentals" that are common to golfers like Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, and Tiger Woods and which are well described in the book "Swing Like a Pro". The SLAP reseachers developed the ModelPro golfer model because they believe in "fundamentals" (like me) - see http://www.modelgolf.com/whatismodelgolf.asp#mechanics

I use those "same fundamentals" in my soon-to-be-finished online review of the lower body golf swing.

Jeff.

Jeff,

I think I have already nailed my colours to the mast here and agree with you on what makes up a set of fundamental moves common to the best swings.

Martin is entitled to his opinion, however, if he is able to strip out the endless semantics and padding in his messages, while condensing them to a size that enables the will to live when reading, he may be able to make a debate that others feel comfortable to participate in. A video of his swing may also help to persuade us.

[bill reed]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

hi martin
i very much agree with you in that its hogans method and do think it should be thought about it in any other way, its the same with trevino's "golf my way" he is giving you his thoughts and method. i do think hogan should not taken as not the only way to do it but do think it's a good start if you dont have a teacher. you can play good golf by using his book to learn the fundamentals,
monty has a book out " the thinking man's golf" he tweeks some of hogans fundamentals but adds that the tweeks work for him and would not work for every one.
hogan also said in his book that he dont do everything he says as he does change his grip and goes from closed to open stance as well.
i loved trevino's book as its so diffrent to every one else in the way he sets up and plays and the way he changes his plane with his hip slids.
there are many ways to play this great game and from someone that does copy trevinos style of setting up and playing i do still go to hogans book to get help to get the basics right now and then.
bill

[Neil18]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

By your command Brian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XKd0EIitg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2W2m5sn0xY

This should be interesting....................................... ..............

[BrianW]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

By your command Brian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XKd0EIitg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2W2m5sn0xY

This should be interesting....................................... ..............

Jeez!!!.............

[bill reed]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

nice realxed golf swing neil
bill

[GoNavy]

Re: Fundamental vs Peculiar

When we talk about fundamentals, many people include too many things in this category.

Weight shift for instance, you will not find any pro or low handicapper that does not move weight from back foot to front foot, how they do it or the amount they shift might change, but the fact that they do it, makes it a fundamental.

The grip all pro and low handicappers grip the club in a fundamental way, some strong, some weak, but they all allow a firm hold on the club, with enough pressure to resist twisting and allow the arms to be free of tension. They all have the heel pad on top of the club and the trigger finger below, for the left hand and primarily in the fingers for the right hand. You will not find any pro or low handicapper that does not do this, so that makes it a fundamental

Ball Position, placed before the bottom of the arc for short irons, at the bottom of the arc for mid irons and woods, after the bottom of the arc for driver is a fundamental. This is a fundamental they all do, it might be two inches from the heel it might be middle of stance, etc... these are suggestions where most would be, but not a fundamental. You have to achieve the above to be fundamental.

Posture is a fundamental, you will find any good golfing standing straight up, or slouched over, it just doesn't happen, because the are fundamentals way to achieve these that all good players use.

There are other fundamentals, but it is important to weed out what is fundamental to what is a suggestion to achieve a fundamental, I aggree to that....