+stephen f - Stephen, do you know for a fact that Jim Flick ever had any personal interaction with the late Mr de la Torre? Do you know for a fact that Mr. Flick ever read Ernest Jones or Daryn Hammond? Stephen, I personally don't know one way or the other... just curious if you know? BTW, are you "juststeve" from GolfWRX?
+RollYourRock I am not juststeve from WRX, but I know who you're talking about. Whether or not Flick ever had any personal interaction with de la Torre is not a critical question with regard to whether he was an influence on Flick. I do recall Flick mentioning that he had talked to de la Torre and referring to his ideas on occasion. (For my part, there are a very few particulars with de la Torre that I might question, but the vast majority of what he teaches and his basic idea of what the swing is and how the body relates to it are dead right.) I would find it impossible to believe that Flick did not read Ernest Jones, since he referred to him sometimes (as did Toski). Certainly both Toski and Flick had broadly the same fundamental approach to the golf swing as Jones did and to how it was best learned. As for Hammond, I don't recall either of them ever specifically referring to him. But all of them are in the same sphere of influence and thought about the swing. However, if your point is that Toski was much closer to Flick and worked much more closely with him over the years, and also that Toski shouldn't be forgotten in a discussion like this, of course you're absolutely right. I think it's just a shame that Toski is all but forgotten by the golf world, especially the mass-media part of that world, but real players of any experience know who he is and appreciate his contribution, which as far as I'm concerned was absolutely massive. Toski is a giant of the game and always will be, as far as I'm concerned. I don't actually get into personalities and loyalties and bona fides and all that anyway, like some people do. (You've probably seen some of the bloody civil wars over the work of people like Mike Austin.) What matters to me is content, ideas, and outcomes. I just think the basic idea of the swing espoused by people like Jones, de la Torre, Toski, Flick, Vivien Saunders, etc., is an unfortunately forgotten and fundamentally superior (not to mention much more pleasurable and far less miserable) way to learn and play the game. In fact, I think it's a _necessary_ way, because I'm convinced that every pro who is working on micropositions and overanalysis and "rotating hard" and "pulling left" and all of that first learned a feel for the club and the swinging motion when starting out, and that became so second nature that at least some percentage of them can do almost any amount of "modern" dressing-up without totally destroying that second-nature motion they developed. (As it turns out, of course, some of them can't, and _do_ end up destroying both their swings and their ability to enjoy the game.)
It feels like he was the master of the classic swing and the PGA was getting more toward a modern swing at this point. Dynamics and I think he wasn't quite clear on what the body was doing to create the clubs motions. It almost feels like he's trying to apply classic principles to Modern motions and it doesn't quite fit.
great just great, so much wisdom .
Legend
Manuel De La Torre!!!
+Drew E - Not really, actually Bob Toski was Jim's biggest influence.
+RollYourRock
But both were influenced not only by de la Torre but also by Ernest Jones (of whom de la Torre was a big devotee).
+stephen f - Stephen, do you know for a fact that Jim Flick ever had any personal interaction with the late Mr de la Torre?
Do you know for a fact that Mr. Flick ever read Ernest Jones or Daryn Hammond?
Stephen, I personally don't know one way or the other... just curious if you know? BTW, are you "juststeve" from GolfWRX?
+RollYourRock
I am not juststeve from WRX, but I know who you're talking about.
Whether or not Flick ever had any personal interaction with de la Torre is not a critical question with regard to whether he was an influence on Flick. I do recall Flick mentioning that he had talked to de la Torre and referring to his ideas on occasion. (For my part, there are a very few particulars with de la Torre that I might question, but the vast majority of what he teaches and his basic idea of what the swing is and how the body relates to it are dead right.)
I would find it impossible to believe that Flick did not read Ernest Jones, since he referred to him sometimes (as did Toski). Certainly both Toski and Flick had broadly the same fundamental approach to the golf swing as Jones did and to how it was best learned.
As for Hammond, I don't recall either of them ever specifically referring to him. But all of them are in the same sphere of influence and thought about the swing.
However, if your point is that Toski was much closer to Flick and worked much more closely with him over the years, and also that Toski shouldn't be forgotten in a discussion like this, of course you're absolutely right. I think it's just a shame that Toski is all but forgotten by the golf world, especially the mass-media part of that world, but real players of any experience know who he is and appreciate his contribution, which as far as I'm concerned was absolutely massive. Toski is a giant of the game and always will be, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't actually get into personalities and loyalties and bona fides and all that anyway, like some people do. (You've probably seen some of the bloody civil wars over the work of people like Mike Austin.) What matters to me is content, ideas, and outcomes. I just think the basic idea of the swing espoused by people like Jones, de la Torre, Toski, Flick, Vivien Saunders, etc., is an unfortunately forgotten and fundamentally superior (not to mention much more pleasurable and far less miserable) way to learn and play the game. In fact, I think it's a _necessary_ way, because I'm convinced that every pro who is working on micropositions and overanalysis and "rotating hard" and "pulling left" and all of that first learned a feel for the club and the swinging motion when starting out, and that became so second nature that at least some percentage of them can do almost any amount of "modern" dressing-up without totally destroying that second-nature motion they developed. (As it turns out, of course, some of them can't, and _do_ end up destroying both their swings and their ability to enjoy the game.)
yes i know for a fact Mr. Flick spent time with Mr. de la Torre . Jims last book was very much influenced by Manual!
Bunch of lame PGA guys in the audience not taking Mr Flick seriously. No wonder the state of golf instruction sucks.
It feels like he was the master of the classic swing and the PGA was getting more toward a modern swing at this point. Dynamics and I think he wasn't quite clear on what the body was doing to create the clubs motions. It almost feels like he's trying to apply classic principles to Modern motions and it doesn't quite fit.