Jim Furyk was on CNBC this morning in a lead-up to the Ryder Cup. At the conclusion of the interview, Kernan questioned Furyk’s unusual move at the ball. Furyk told him his dad was a golf professional and knew he was a feel player. Therefore, he (assumed) “You can repeat what’s natural”, so he allowed it.
Jim Furyk has been a great player for a couple decades. He won the US Open in ‘03, and the Fed Ex Cup in ‘10. Jim is one of the streakiest putters of the last thirty years. He has been known as a great ball-striker, too. His tournament history is equally littered with predictable miscues that cost him many wins. However, let’s discuss the question of repeating what is natural, because that statement implies we cannot repeat what is unnatural.
Is it equally logical to say Furyk’s swing was unnatural to the eye? If his natural swing was repeatable, shouldn’t it be reliable? What if we noticed that, under final nine pressure and predictable course conditions, like trouble on the left, Jim’s swing broke down (reliably) each time? How can something repeatable fail when it counts? It’s because repeatability, like timing, has nothing to do with feel (). Therefore, we can assume Jim was a fairly willful boy, which served him well in competition, up to a point.
I would argue that Jim is a great adaptive athlete, who made the most of a need for maximum motion in his swing. He wasn’t swinging that way for nothing, and he wasn’t swinging that way because it was natural. His swing may have been a form of rebellion. But, one thing is certain… Jim was telling a story with his swing.
He was saying, “I want to stand too close to my ball. So, what I’m going to do is stand up straighter, maybe because my core is softer than others’. Then, I’ll balance an above-the-plane club head with severely under-the-plane hands. My net is a very upright move to meet the ball. Now, to square the club, I’m going to rotate my whole body past the ball, with minimal separation, while the club is still behind me. Then, I’ll rely on perfect timing to pull it off. Meanwhile, I’ll create maximum drama, and leave everyone wondering how I did it.”
Obviously, Jim is a golf swing raconteur, under-par excellence. However, any story told a thousand times has different iterations. If we dissect such a story, we notice differences… inconsistencies. Why? Because it is unnatural to repeat the same story the same way, without variation, for decades. In my view, Jim’s swing guarantees a failure that eventually must come in order to make the “story” interesting for the him, as well.
Therefore, it is not Jim Furyk’s swing that is “natural” or that “You can repeat what’s natural“. The truth is that the golf swing is unnatural. Doing what is natural with an unnatural situation doesn’t, somehow, create nature. Perhaps doing what is unnatural with an unnatural situation is the way to balance the scale – effectively eliminating the boredom while making our personal “stories” more interesting in each telling.
Some say the Open Stance is unnatural and the square stance is natural. Obviously, I disagree. Both are contrivances based on philosophies. However, my philosophy seems logical, because the Open Stance cooperates with my physical well-being while enhancing power and repeatability. Therefore, I chose to set up open, and play golf. I recommend you do the same.
John Wright – Founder
The Open Stance Academy
