Leslie King Method (Swing Factory)

I've recently started (re-)working my swing based on reading some of Leslie King's theories on line.

http://www.golftoday.co.uk/proshop/tuition/index.html

I've also glanced at the Swing Factory book but I'm not sure what else it includes for the money.

In practice I'm hitting the ball more consistently with better distance and trajectory so, although the acid test will be whether the new swing stands up on course, so far so good.

However I was wondering what some of you guys think of the method as much of it seems counter to modern teaching - especially the "one piece takeaway" - I've cut & pasted some text to show what I mean.

THE GOLF ACTION IS BASED UPON A FREE SWING OF THE HANDS AND ARMS INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY.

The body in fact has nothing to do with propelling (cause the movement of) the hands and arms at any time.

A correct swing is based upon a free swing of the hands and arms. A bad swing is based upon body propulsion - an action in which the hands and arms are set in motion by body movement.

I warn again. If the take away is started by a turn and dip of the shoulders you will not achieve the correct take away line ... and consequently, the alignment of your swing plane will be wrong.

To understand the nature of the take away think of the simple chip shot. In it the backswing is performed entirely with the hands and arms. No body or shoulder movement is involved. If the shoulders turned, the club would be taken off line. It is the same with other shots, and this is the key to the start of the full shot. Start the drive as you would start the chip... with the left hand and arm alone. Then add the body movement (the shoulder turn) at the proper time simply to allow the swing to progress further, clear to the top.

We have already seen that the takeaway is NOT "one-piece". The hands and arms start the movement. Then the shoulders begin to turn to allow the swing to continue to the top. This implies a genuine swing of the left hand and arm.

In the "one-piece" takeaway the club, hands and arms are being set in motion by turning the shoulders. This is what I call the "body propelling the hands and the arms". This is not a swing at all.

Oops sorry a rather long post - perhaps I should have posted it as an article, anyway look forward to reading the debate.

Sounds like a classic 2 plane swing to me. The arms move the body. Nothing wrong in that at all but as with all swing theories Kings is his own perosnal view and when he states things like the body propelling the swing is not a swing at all im afraid he's talking cobblers. Ask Hogan if his body didnt propel his swing. Ask One Planers

Im a one planer and my own personal view is that leading with the arms requires a lot of timing since you have to syncrhonise the pulling down of the arms with the turning shoulders but thats my view. When I rebuilt my swing I followed the One Plane Swing methodlogies of Ballard, Hardy, Roger Gunn and Chuck Quinton and found that it worked for me. However neither way is wrong or right

With golf there are one hundred different ways to successfully swing the club dependenent on body shape, grip, posture, flexibility etc. He has one method that may work for you but the one piece of advice I would give is stick to what he says. Dont start mixing something King says with something Leadbetter or Hardy or Ballard says or a tip you see in a magazine since then you'll be mixing swing types

Indeed King and Ballard are the polar opposites in teaching terms from what I can see

Read something similar to this in either golf or golf digest. I've posted this previously but the acrnonym CASH stands for the order of takeaway - clubhead, arms, shoulder and hips and the opposite on the follow through. The thinking is that too early a shoulder turn will get the club trapped inside on the takeaway.

I think it was Golf Magazine...Mitchell Spearman, the self proclaimed "world's most expensive pro" @ $600 per hour. He created CASH as far as I know. I love his book "The AIM of Golf."

Its such a great way to think about the order or the "sync" of your swing.

Go figure he calls it CASH, he works at 2 of the most expensive clubs in the world - Manhattan Woods (NY) & Isleworth (FL).

I am not a believer in two or one plane swing theory; it has been proven to be bogus. Also leslie King is fine for mind trips but not very practical for players.

I was reading some of the sections, I thought it was decent stuff. I liked his thoughts on the grip. Good stuff.

bdbl,

I started to write extensively about how L. King's lessons got me set in the right direction but I gave up. Anyway, let me just say that you miss the point entirely if all you can think of quoting out of his lessons is the "one piece takeaway".

Let me point you in the right direction.

What is the purpose of the golf swing?

What is the most important part of the golf swing?

It's written in plain text in L. King's lessons, just copy and paste and you'll be set. Incidentally, the same answer will fit both questions.


Have fun


Martin Levac

Hi folks

i have a copy of this book and i have to say that it is truely excellent.
it breaks down the swing into six parts , set up ,take away, backswing , downswing,impact and follow through and looks at each part in detail.

By itself it is an excellent instructor , but when you couple it with a copy of the DVD, "THE SWINGMAKERS" with Gerry Newham ( former intructor at the knightsbridge golf school but still teaches Kings method ), you get to see the swing demonstrated as well.

www.theswingmakers.com

ML

Obviously pleased that Leslie King has worked for you because I hope it works for me as well but - and perhaps I am feeling sensitive this morning or something - was there any need for the patronising tone?

I wasn't trying to pick out the most important aspects of King's teaching method but to suggest where it might differ from much modern orthodoxy - I doubt, for example that anyone could seriously disagree that

THE GOLF SWING IS A MOVEMENT WHICH CAUSES THE CLUB-HEAD TO SWING INTO AND ALONG THE INTENDED LINE OF FLIGHT THROUGH THE IMPACT AREA AND BEYOND....WITH THE FACE OF THE CLUB SQUARE TO THAT LINE.

However his views on the body creating power and the one piece takeaway are different to much that is taught today and that was the debate I thought I was starting.

bdbl,

That is the correct answer to both questions. I apologize for the patronizing tone but I see no reason to debate further once I know you know what's important and what's not.

I show this drill to beginners so that they understand this concept.

Bring the arms not more than horizontal and bring the club back to the ball, maintain the head as immobile as possible, maintain focus on the ball with the eyes even as you strike the ball. The purpose of this drill is to focus on maintaining focus on the ball for proper contact. The result is that beginners usually send the ball further and closer to their target than otherwise.


Have fun


Martin Levac

Firstly, proven bogus by whom?

Secondly,Gary player won the British open in 1974after visits to Leslie King.Michael Bonallak , one of britains most famous amatuers, went on to win 5 british amatuer championships after having his swing reshaped by King.Julie Inkster , famous american LPGA player and LPGA hall of fame inductee, had her swing reshaped by King.
Not very practical for players?????
I think somebody is definately on a mind trip.

Golfonenemisis: If you are going to debate anything, have the intellegence to do some research!!

One of golfs endless debates, arm swing vs body swing. Jim Mclean does a good job in the 8 step swing book explaining both sides of this issue. Both work, and both work at professional levels (Freddy Couples vs Ben Hogan), but it seems to me that the overall picture is that the arm swing requires a little more timing and thus is susceptable to breaking down easier whereas the body swing requires a little more athleticism and flexibility. I always enjoy the fact that proponents of both swings often use the same illustration. I have seen arm swingers (at a Flick school) sit in a chair and hit drives 225 yards, "proving" that the body is not needed. I also read body swing teachers say sit in a chair and take your feet off the ground and try and hit the ball with any power, you can't, thus "proving" you need lower body action and leverage to hit the ball. I think McLean's approach to seeing both sides is correct and I don't understand why guys like Flick and Ballard get so pissy trying to prove they have "the" answer.

Dont know if anybody realises, but Leslie King also taught David Leadbetter, so where does that leave us??????

bdbl

You state that Leslie King's opinions regarding the takeaway is contrary to modern teaching. In what way?

I think that modern teaching about the takeaway is exactly what Leslie King recommends. I deal with this issue in question number 9 of my backswing review chapter.

See - http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/backswing.htm

Although I agree with Leslie King's opinions regarding the backswing, I do not accept his fundamentals regarding the downswing, but that is only because I am a proponent of a "body downswing" while Leslie King is a proponent of an "arm downswing". However, regarding the backswing, I agree with Leslie King because the modern, total body golf swing is only a body swing in the downswing, and not the backswing.

----------------------
What's the relevance of the fact that Gary Player met Leslie King in Britain? I think that Gary Player's swing exemplifies a body swing style, and not Leslie King's arm swing style.

Jeff.

Do you really Jeff? You know what, whilst I might have calmed down tomorrow, at this precise moment I just don't give a tinker's toss. In your overweaning, self opinionated arrogance, you and Shooting4par just about deserve each other.

At the time of that post I hadn't seen your magnum opus and needless to say I doubt if I am capable of doing the analysis that entailed - I was just going on the criticism of "coil for power on the backswing" and of the "one piece takeaway" - and asking for opinions, gosh I wish I was a clever as you, mind you luckily for most everyone on here, we don't actually need to be Jeff Mann to post.

At the time, and since, following King's teaching with the help of the likes of BrianW had (until today's 11 over handicap - hence the temper) changed my golf dramatically.

I apologise to the majority of well meaning people on here for this post- it might have been better to ignore you. Tell you what though this is my last post; over the last month the tone on here has gone dramatically down hill; from now on I'll read posts from the likes of Slats, LP and Scragger because they are on the same journey as me, and Nicole because she's amusing, and Brian because he's helpful.

Yours and others I'll wait until the Reader's Digest version comes out.

__________________
I firmly believe that we should try to experience all that life affords, except, perhaps, bestiality and of course Morris Dancing.