I agree with you here. SWINGYDE is # 2 best training aid!

And more importantly, his philosophy hasn't changed either. It's just gotten reinforced by study.

Bob Toski is still alive 97 years old, 98 in September.

same swing with curent club and ball would probably fly 210.

If you haven't looked at How to Become a Complete Golfer (his book with Toski from the late '70s) and How to Feel a Real Golf Swing ('80s), you ought to check those out too. Also, Peter Kostis used to work with Toski and Flick a lot, and before he was a TV commentator he was one of the best teachers in the game. His book The Inside Path to Better Golf might be the greatest barely-known instructional book ever.

Especially when combined with the appropriate amount of forearm rotation. Absolutely.

i used the early wrist set years ago and learned it from the peter kostis and jim flick books and it worked for a long time and then got away from it. just started using it again today and it was working so good, then came across this old video which i remember, coincidence i guess. FORE!!!!!!!!

Better believe it. It's an absolute zoo right now. Most of the common garbage you hear on golf broadcasts by various analysts is just death to the average player, and even to better players. A guy who's learned to swing the swinging elements fast and freely by second nature might be able to think about "rotation" and "big muscles," but you apply that to an amateur who's never really felt or developed that force and who already can't put the sweet spot on or near the ball, and you're just going to destroy his game.

7.31 I never knew he had seen my swing before. 😂😂😂

Mil Sneler - Butch Harmon only won one tournament yet he’s one of the most respected instructors in the world. Titles don’t mean everything.

Flick was Jack Nicklaus' instructor after Mr. Grout died. If he's good enough to work with the greatest of all time, you may want to pay attention.

Don't know. How many championships was Nick Saban personally responsible for as a player? Or Tom Landry? Or Belichick? Actually Malaska was a very good tournament player who wanted to keep his playing career part-time as a PGA member and teacher. But whatever. And Flick was only a teacher for -- among other people -- the greatest major-championship player in the history of the game. He's also one of the all-time bestselling authors of instructional materials ever. Next.

i don't think you have to win tournaments to teach golf to amateurs.

As a football player I was average at best but had a great success as a coach and teacher. I have had assistant coaches who were great athletes with successful playing careers who were terrible coaches. Your logic here is so flawed it is not even worth consideration.

Jim Flick taught the game to tens of thousands of people and worked with some of the greatest names in golf, Jack Nicklaus primarily among them. If his method of communicating the nuances of the swing doesn't perfectly align with how "we scientists" would describe them, so much the better. "We scientists know" is just pure arrogance. I see people speaking like this on TV and I wouldn't trust them to watch my dog for the afternoon.

In the 17 years as an amateur I accepted the authority of the PGA-pro, because everybody told me I had to. When I made a career switch to follow my passion I received a knock-out blow on the first day when they told me how to teach. Why? You cannot argue with physics...... The explanation of the ball flight laws is dead wrong. I showed pages of books and youtube clips to professors in physics and they laughed very hard.Then I studied biomechanics and saw that what we teach is so wrong.....

I agree with you when you mean that many people abuse the words scientific, academy and professional. It makes me sick!

I guess you are lying. You're not a scientist.

I mean, I'd be willing to hear what Schagen says specifically, but it always amazes me how people with zero creds in playing or teaching come out here on internet comment lists and try to shred those who have them. Might want to have some respect for a guy who taught, among other players, the greatest major-championship player in the history of the game. Aside from that, I'm seriously wondering what he could possibly mean by "acceleration cannot be observed." I was a lead tech writer in the defense and physics research industry (in addition to teaching and playing as a pro), and I never heard a scientist ever make this claim, or try to parse the difference between "observing acceleration" and "observing the effects of acceleration." It _is_ true that even great teachers misuse technical terminology sometimes ("lever" is one of the most common offenses), but they're not doing scientific treatises. They're trying to get you to understand and feel a concept. Whether a specific action involves a lever or an applied-force pendulum, or something else, or whether you're looking at the "effects of acceleration" rather than "the actual four-dimensional reality of acceleration," is mostly for internet "experts."