It's All Rick's Fault!

Instructor Tom Patri in this week's SI Golf Plus can't understand what's taking Phil so long to blame his post U.S. Open inconsistency on his buddy/teacher and actually makes some great points.

First, I can't fathom why Smith, who's worked with Mickelson for a decade, has never shortened Mickelson's swing, which is sometimes as long and loose as John Daly's and routinely causes Mickelson to hit wildly off-line drives and long-iron shots. Second, Smith and Mickelson just seem too close. They are not only good friends but also partners in business ventures, and their families are close as well. Such a deep friendship is almost always the kiss of death to a teacher-player relationship because it prevents the instructor from being sufficiently blunt and critical.

The third-and biggest-problem is Smith's personality. He's simply too nice, which I think has caused him to be more or less a yes-man to Mickelson. Phil seems to be surrounded by people who too often have told him whatever he wants to hear rather than what he should hear. For that reason alone Mickelson dearly needs Harmon, who is an authority figure in the mold of Bob Knight.

Comments

[Bob N.]

Classic push - pull set up, hands are tooooo low. This dead give away is evident by the angle in his arms and putter shaft, two different planes means two wrongs will have a hard time making a right.

[Greg H]

I recently read an article where Smith was quoted as saying that he has been trying to get Phil to shorten his swing for years, but Phil will not do it. He then discussed how their relationship was usually compromise between what each of them wanted.

He also said that he wants Phil to go back to the power fade, which he could control (and with which he won 3 majors), but Phil wants to hit a draw because it is about 15 yds longer.

[86general]

I don't buy into the idea that specific swing characteristics (i.e., long v. short, fade v. draw, low v. high, overall shape/type of swing, etc.) have significant effects on overall consistency, ability to perform under pressure, etc.

There are major championship winners with long swings, short swings, loose swings, and tight swings. There are brilliant, major champions who have faded the ball, drawn the ball, hit it high, and hit it low. There are major champions with precise, clinical tee-to-green games, and others with wild long games. About the only thing that seems to be consistent is that all great champions are great putters, at least during the phase of their career when they are winning the championships.

The evaluation of golf swings and swing mechanics that we see on TV is, in my objective view, ridiculous. Tiger Woods remarked a few years ago about his problem of (paraphrasing) his lower body outracing his arms and hands, such that the club would become "stuck behind him" requiring him to "flip the hands to square up the face." For the last 5 years, Peter Kostis and every other TV swing guru seems to find this particular flaw in about 2/3 of full swings. In the '70s, the Nicklaus reverse C/leg drive swing was the way to do it, now the more rotary, straight spine version is "correct." Interesting how this latter method has been touted as
easier on the back, yet Fred Couples, perhaps the poster boy for the more modern swing, has chronic back problems.

I am willing to believe that if Tiger thinks he gets the club stuck and has to flip his hands, whatever he means by that, then there is a chance it's correct. But I defy anyone to really prove it. Let's see some real, slow motion photos of what these pros really do. With Tiger's new method, is the face staying more relatively square, rotating less, in the hitting zone than before, as one would expect if he's eliminated the hand flipping?

The swing happens very, very fast, and even with video it's tough to infer from video stills exactly what is happening dynamically in the swing. While I certainly think professionals understand how they swing and are able to monitor and correct their action, to be able to get specific about what the club face is doing for a fraction of a fraction of a second during a fraction of the swing is not believable.

Of course there are fundamentals of good swings, but there is a huge range of variation in those fundamentals that are still compatible with championship caliber golf. What makes these guys professionals is eye hand coordination and body control that is light years better than the rest of us, and the committment to practicing and perfecting their game, whatever particular form it happens to take.

Otherwise, how do we explain Trevino, Montgomerie, Palmer, Lopez, et al, and why aren't Charles Howell, Ty Tryon, and Adam Scott sweeping the trophies every year?

I do have a point here: Phil Mickelson cannot blame his particular type of swing for his troubles. He has a majestic, powerful swing. He has a short game and putting game that is as good as practically anyone who has ever lived. In the Tiger Era, where we have probably the greatest golfer in history dominating, Mickelson has won dozens of tournaments, three major championships, and has finished close to the top in many, many more. How can anyone possibly conceive of him as a flawed golfer, at least as far as method is concerned?

If he has a flaw, it's that his comfort zone appears to be just shy of major championship winner, and this leaves him prone to critical errors in the biggest events, at least when he's on the verge of winning.

There ain't nothing wrong with the man's golf game, mechanically speaking.