Mike Breed got attribution for another whack article in GD! June 19, which suggested a “Shank Solution”. Naturally, I read it to look for falsehoods and their standard, crippling advice. I am now wondering, when they say shank ‘Solution’, do they mean ‘Enabling’?
I can’t figure out how so much bad information comes from golf instruction personalities, but I have a theory. I don’t actually think Breed wrote the article. No reputable instructor would write or even sign off on this many misleading pieces.
Let’s begin with their Shank cause. “Typically, the clubface is wide open at impact, and the swing is out to in, with the clubhead coming from the far side of the strike line and cutting to the inside. Those two conditions expose the hosel, which hits the ball, shooting it right.”
I want to fit as much as I can into this one post, so I have to gloss over some other, equally-important corrections. For people familiar with my philosophy and basic disposition toward this kind of publication are probably laughing by now. I’ll try to be gentle.
First, how can an impact position contribute to impact position? Is it just me? Our answer, of course, is that it can’t. The assertion is maddeningly preposterous. Causality has nothing to do with recency. Also notice the writer left all their assumptions, which provide context, conveniently out of their explanation.
Second, our swings don’t have one vector at impact unless everyone’s ball position is the same, bodies are the same size and shape, and response instinct is the same. Moreover, NO ONE who plays their ball back in their (neutral) stance and maintains balance approaches their ball from outside the target line. If it’s not true for all, it’s not true.
They can’t even allow the writer to say “Target Line”. They use the term, “Strike Line” which, by the way, IS the target line. I don’t know where to begin with that one, because I’ve never heard it before. I suspect that phrase allows them a back door when eventually called into question. Archive it.
Furthermore, the phrase, “Shooting it right” doesn’t seem like the words a golf swing expert uses to describe anything golf-related. It sounds like something I’d read in Field and Stream, which is another reason I think a novice penned the article. Now, we get to the “Fix” portion of the palaver.
“Fix the face”. Apparently, a stronger grip fix is the answer to curing the shanks. So, the problem is movement, and the answer is a grip change. Got it. I cannot square the club without a strong grip… Check. Just one question, how did Jack Nicklaus manage to do it? Ben Hogan? Never mind… just checking.
“Fix the path”. Initiating a full shoulder turn is actually correct, which surprised me. However, they ruined it by encouraging an active, swinging ‘out to the ball’ movement without ever applying an intentional or set-up context. Their omissions make their explanation incomplete and, therefore, wrong again.
They’re getting sloppy, and it shows. But, like I said, I don’t think a reputable golf professional even wrote it. Breed should sue them for defamation of character. Be that as it may, take note of how fast and loose GD articles appear going forward. We should see quite a show.
With each, aberrant instruction article we receive, we bear witness to the last throes of the instructional leviathan. Multitudes of Open Stance golfers throughout the World, who no longer give its fire-breathing, forked-tongued minions any time and monetary fuel are dealing the final, fatal blow. The giant, ugly, misleading, and destructive beast is now writhing in pain. It’s hosel was “exposed”, apparently.
Open your stance, and play golf.
John Wright – Founder
The Open Stance Academy
https://www.openstanceacademy.com/golf/here-we-go-again/
https://www.openstanceacademy.com/golf/we-believe-golfers-should/
https://www.openstanceacademy.com/golf/real-eyes-realize-real-lies/