Anyone heard, know/know of this pretty famous teacher in the 70’s to 80’s:
John Jacobs

I read a few of his stuff including a book by him many years ago…seems quite clued in on the swing and performance

Is he a TGM practitioner too ?

i believe he lives in UK….

Dart has all his books from memory. He has written some very good stuff. UK yes, TGM A.I. no, though had the principles of it from his own studies.

Kyc,

I saw a guy back home, who mentioned John Jacobs a fair bit. He’d be getting on now…. I don’t think he’s TGM, much like the guy I saw, I think he teaches from observations of top players, refusing to be drawn on “theories” (widely taught by run of the mill golf pro’s across the globe).... I was showed an article on arm movement in the golf swing by JJ, arms lift, body turns, left arm straight etc…. In The Layman’s terms the same as TGM, but drawn from a different learning source.

OC

yup i read his book years ago
have to dig it up again…and see it again

but he seems to be quite grounded in the science of the golf swing too !

If he’s anything like bloke I saw he will have learned through watching. Guy I saw started tracing Ben Hogan’s swing plane in the early 1970’s. building his own philosophy on the golf swing. It was mad, he showed me the drawings. Apparently JJ, was one of the pioneers of using ball flight to fix swing errors.

OC

JJ was good on basic geometry but in a general way 10%. A lot short on physics 90%.

He has some good books and ideas – I have two of them – but I would say that I found that the second one I bought included a good bit of direct ‘cut and paste’ from the first, which was a bit annoying.

However, I really like ‘50 Greatest Lessons Of The Century’, which is nicely laid out and a great ‘toilet read’. Basically, it is structured as a page or two of Jacobs’ stories/impressions of great players, followed by a nicely laid out lesson derived from the style of each (although some of the anecdote stories bits seem a bit makey-uppey/embellished).

The lessons basically go along the lines of ‘If I see someone doing this thing/having this ball-flight pattern problem this is what I tell them to do’.

In terms of Jacobs’ career, he’s been around and well respected for a long time in what is a tough business. That isn’t likely to be a fluke.

Personally, I think the reason for his success and longevity is his approach to knowledge – like TGM he bases his teaching on a basic unchanging constant rather than over-arching theories; in his case, it’s the ball.

He is good on swing-path, face angle and how you should learn from ball-flight, although you won’t find much about lag pressure or pressure points and the likes, and he can be a bit homely at times.

IIRC Hank Haney, Butch Harmon and Jim Hardy have all either worked with him or given him great credit for being a top teacher at some point or other.

Hardy (the ‘One Plane Swing’ guy) credits him with the observation years ago that Hogan ‘Did Everything On The Same Plane’ and says it’s a cornerstone of his teaching.

He doesn’t think he knows it all, nor does he seem as antagonistic to other people’s ideas as some teachers tend to be.

A related question is ‘Why don’t other teachers last as long?

I think it’s because their seemingly all-explaining theories can almost by definition only last for a limited time; after a while they idea they bring to the heart of golf instruction tends to blot out and distort other knowledge and ideas. They are transitory.

‘Swing In A Barrel’, ‘Drive The Legs’, ‘Fire The Right Side’ or ‘Swing The Handle’ or whatever else all go in and out of fashion because they work for some people and not for others. (‘X-Factor’ is probably the stupidest theory of them all).

Getting a little off topic, ‘Stack And Tilt’ will eventually suffer the same fate – e.g. it will work for some but soon enough some new guru will find a way of communicating ‘shift smoothly to your right’ in a suitably media savvy format and also make a truckload of cash!

Like S&T, the next theory will be the million dollar answer to THEIR question, for SOME golfers. This will temporarily give it the appearance of being a successful answer to the timeless conundrums of golf for everyone.

I think TGM is the next ‘level’ up from Jacobs’ ball-flight based teaching in that it goes another step back up the chain from the ball’s flight and derives insights and ‘rules’ from there.

I had the pleasure of having had several lessons from JJ when I was a young hungry pro trying to “make it”. I also watched him teach others quite a bit.

He was a real gentle giant. 6’3” and very softly spoken with are very caring understanding nature (although his memory for peoples names was terrible….bless him.

He would know every little problem in your entire long game just from watching you hit one shot, regardless of whether you hit it well or not, his eye for the swing and causes for the ball flight were amazing. On several occasions he would do his party trick by coaching people by only watching the ball and never looking at their swing – only instructing them what to do on what he saw the ball do.

His main theme with me was to always make sure my elbows and hips were moving correctly and in sync together. I was only 18, so used to get in the classic “trapped” position in the downswing as my hips raced ahead of my arms. It was always very easy to understand though.

Yes he wasn’t hot on the physics, and was in no way a TGM’er but he more than made up for it in his shear ability to get EVERY person he taught to hit better shots in a fairly short period of time. A true legend!

‘X-Factor’ is probably the stupidest theory of them all

Care to explain this statement?

The way it was originally delivered has led to great misinterpretation of what it actually is and how it applies!

Developing a muscular stretch in a 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 ratio between the upper and lower body is a critical biomechanical procedure to power generation.

Ever hear of the stretch shortening cycle?

“A muscle that is stretched to a critical point activating the myotatic reflex will contract harder and faster than a muscle that has not been prestretched”

Why do you bend you knees when jumping for maximum height?

Aussie -

On the biomech point, I don’t disagree with you, but that isn’t really what I’m talking about in my opinion.

However, if we talk only about the product called X-Factor that became popular in the mid-90s, I especially dislike(d) it.

Why?

1) The original, and most damaging, presentation of the ‘discovery’ of ‘X-Factor’, encouraged golfers of all levels to restrict their hip-turns going back and turn their shoulders as far as possible. This was and is a totally ludicrous piece of instruction to try to apply to the entire golfing population. It may suit a cohort of the population, but it’s not for everyone.

2) The presentation of ‘X-Factor’ as a “discovery” – this is an example of a very naive approach to knowledge that is particularly common in golf instruction.

3) The way ‘X-Factor’ was allowed to be portrayed as THE single most important thing in the golf-swing when the fact of the matter is that for a lot of people, it’s totally irrelevant and they could play good golf never having heard of it or thought about it.

It is the biggest example of golf magazine BS (see other thread) that I can think of. It is and was a gimmick, and in my book it above all the other ‘swing ideas’ I mentioned did the most damage (but that’s just an opinion).

Let me say again I HATED the way they presented it!

Aussie -

On the biomech point, I don’t disagree with you, but that isn’t really what I’m talking about in my opinion.

However, if we talk only about the product called X-Factor that became popular in the mid-90s, I especially dislike(d) it.

Why?

1) The original, and most damaging, presentation of the ‘discovery’ of ‘X-Factor’, encouraged golfers of all levels to restrict their hip-turns going back and turn their shoulders as far as possible. This was and is a totally ludicrous piece of instruction to try to apply to the entire golfing population. It may suit a cohort of the population, but it’s not for everyone.

2) The presentation of ‘X-Factor’ as a “discovery” – this is an example of a very naive approach to knowledge that is particularly common in golf instruction.

3) The way ‘X-Factor’ was allowed to be portrayed as THE single most important thing in the golf-swing when the fact of the matter is that for a lot of people, it’s totally irrelevant and they could play good golf never having heard of it or thought about it.

It is the biggest example of golf magazine BS (see other thread) that I can think of. It is and was a gimmick, and in my book it above all the other ‘swing ideas’ I mentioned did the most damage (but that’s just an opinion).

Let me say again I HATED the way they presented it!

The asinine “inventor” of the X factor presented it as a massive torque created by resistance between lower and upper body rotation which, when released, would generate enormous power.

He was rumbled just as soon as those who “torqued” realised that on releasing this super wound up, spring like tension, nothing at all happened and that other motions had to be made in order to move the golf club.

On being rumbled he then “invented” the Y factor which no one seems to have taken any notice of, let alone remember.

Hmmmmmm…...........I wonder why?

Burner and Beezneeds I find your statements laughable in regards to X factor and X factoring.

Not only does it exist and it does actually work in producing power (when used correctly!). The Y factor is simply an extension of X factor in which you increase the original X factor by seperation of hips turning first into the downswing.

Jim McClean invented nothing! So get your facts straight first off the bat! Not only has “X-factoring” been proven to exist, the metrics of its existance were calculated and given to Jim McClean by the world’s leading authority on golf biomechanics Mr Chris Welch. Jim went on to completely ruin it with his interpretation of how and why it happens IMHO but that is another story.

It has nothing to do with “torquing the body” it is all about muscular contraction and activation after the stretch shortening process. Which is why we bend our knees when trying to achieve maximum vertical jump height. EVERY sport that requires speed of movement utilisises a muscular pre-stretch to enhance the contractivity rates of muscles when they are fired!

Basically the hips are restricted from turning with the shoulders turning 2-3 times more (optimally). The stretch is felt down the entire left side. If the kinetic chain is properly employed on the downswing (ie. ground up… which even HK states in TGM). The hips transport and increase the stretch which should be held as long as is physically possible. From here the stretch releases and due to the stretch shortening cycle the lat, shoulder, core muscles etc are able to contract harder and faster than if the pre stretch was not employed!

Let’s not blame the theory on the physical inadequecies of the average golfer who will not be able to achieve anything close to this. Yes it requires athleticism and most top golf professionals employ this pre stretch into their swings! I have personally been working on it for 4 months and have not achieved near optimum levels of pre stretch nor the ability to hold it for long enough! But I certainly have increased my swing speed and my power as a result!

Why is it that every time a human is not physically able to do something that they say “oh it’s rubbish, it is a BS theory!”? Get some athleticism, train your body to be able to physically achieve it and then come and tell me it doesn’t work! That’s the problem with being a theorist rather than a practioner at times, you lose sight of what is actually possible!!

That’s the problem with being a theorist rather than a practioner at times, you lose sight of what is actually possible!!

AB
You’re sooo going to enjoy Nilsson’s book :-)

AB,

I agree, many people want the easy way out.. training the body is the key, because the club can only do what the body makes it do! You have to start with the body… golf is an athletic game, certainly since the age of Bobby Jones and Gene Sarazen.

Your are most correct in that many people sell themselves short on what is possible. The body can do amazing things if given the chance and the proper guidance.

Garbage practice =garbage results..
Precision practice =precision results.

AB, that the X-Factor is a problem to apply to all golfers might not be such a crazy point. Knowing that you are a long driver, I can’t imagine the time you put in at the gym, track etc to make sure your body is as dynamic, balanced and powerful as possible. Yet, the range of ages, physicalities and skills that play golf make a theory such as the X-factor inapplicable to many, when a lack of flexibility will massively hamper the separation.

I don’t doubt that it has been a massive source of power development for you, I’d never dispute that. Especially given your prerogative being to hit the ball further, thus I imagine you are constantly monitoring how various swing patterns/changes impact your distance. But being broadly applicable to all golfers is where the X-Factor seems problematic. As with all golf instruction, each aspect has its niche, which it will benefit. You’ve obviously benefited, so keep going. For others it might not be the approach, for them a different pathway is probably preferable. As Guru etc always show, there are many different ways to cook an egg. All can lead to a good source of protein!

OC

I will challenge any man to prove it wrong, not only in golf it’s applied in,tennis,baseball,throwing a ball, hockey the list goes on. it just goes to prove on how little people know about Homer Kelly’s work and the golfswing.

the guy who developed the true shorten and contracting theory, actually worked with T.G.M guys on biomechanics in golf.

Those who fully and truly understand Homers work, know it’s even written in book in black and white, Homer may not say x factor but it’s in there.

If you truly understood hitting or drive loading for starters, the motion purely depends on the shorten and contracting cycle. Swingers depend on it for power. And if you blokes fully understood it you wouldn’t bloody be hear ,you would be on senior tour:)

I wonder what John Jacobs would say…..?

lol

Either he would say it’s good or he wouldn’t comment, If he was smart , what measured science does he have to prove it doesn’t work,i don’t think he would take that path, not in his interests,
The funny past in the industry i’m in they all agrue about certain things but one thing all biomechanist agree on is shorten cylce

Aussie Bomber,

Again, you’ve made the simple error of confusing a point about biomechanics with the product called X-Factor that was produced in the mid 90s.

My beef is with the product X-Factor.

If it helps, we can call the historical X-Factor marketed to people in the 90s and used to sell golf mags ‘X-Factor P’ and the other X-Factor ‘X-Factor Q’.

Have a go at seeing the distinction (or keep laughing; it makes no odds to me).

Also, Jim McClean did claim to have ‘invented’ the X-Factor, and, indeed the ‘Y-Factor’.

Beezneeds,
Let me give you some education here, A.B is right and the x factor
wasn’t discovered by jim Mclean , he didn’t have biomechanic technology, he worked with a guy who had biomechanic technology who taught him about the x factor, then shafted him, claimed his worked, made up the bullshit term x factor and the rest is history,
How do I know cause the guy who trained me was the guy he stole it from. he is the world leader in biomechanics not only in golf but all sports.Now let me see who has my guy helped and uses the x factor, stretch , shorten and contract cycle, what ever name you would like to call it, oh yeah and homer kelly uses it
Tiger woods,nick faldo,nick price, ray floyd, V,j singh, ernie els,
Greg Norman, Must be bull sh…t only worked for a handful of guys who one majors, then ab and lag pressure are right, bit of fitness doesn’t hurt, then you have an ability to do it, which is proven right, research show anyone shooting over 76 can’t do it, if they did they could break
80 everyday

Aussie Bomber,

Again, you’ve made the simple error of confusing a point about biomechanics with the product called X-Factor that was produced in the mid 90s.

My beef is with the product X-Factor.

If it helps, we can call the historical X-Factor marketed to people in the 90s and used to sell golf mags ‘X-Factor P’ and the other X-Factor ‘X-Factor Q’.

Have a go at seeing the distinction (or keep laughing; it makes no odds to me).

Also, Jim McClean did claim to have ‘invented’ the X-Factor, and, indeed the ‘Y-Factor’.

Beezneeds:

It is you who has made the error my friend, just because you know the product doesn’t mean you know the research or what the concept actually is. You remind me of someone who stares at one tree and forgets the forest standing behind it!

Jim McClean’s conceptual product from the research he was presented, I agree was fatally flawed but the technique is still called X factoring regardless! The problem with McClean as with all people who steal work is they don’t understand how to correctly apply the principles. McClean claims the hips must turn 45° and the shoulders 90°+ for the X factor principle to ensue. The fact is that X factoring is merely achieving a stretch by getting a 2 to 1 or a 3 to 1 seperation between hips and shoulders – the causes the prestretch in the stretch shortening cycle. Just because someone cant get to 90°+ shoulder turn doesn’t mean they cant X factor! It is a relationship not a number! 30° hip turn, 75° shoulder turn is still X factoring.

Y factoring is simply increasing this seperation in the downswing by utilising the correct kinetic chain (ie hips before shoulders, which increases the stretch reflex prior to release!)

Regardless of what it is called and who invented it, the concept is based on solid science. Which brings me back to your original statement: ‘X-Factor’ is probably the stupidest theory of them all purely shows your ignorance and lack of understanding in efficient biomechanics! The technique is still called X factor today..

Aussie_Bomber,

I am not arguing Bio Mechanics here, I am pointing out the asinine way in which the X Factor was “invented” (you will notice that I also used quotation marks in my original offering for what I thought was a self-evident purpose: evidently it was not) by McLean and packaged as something completely ludicrous.

Please give posters the courtesy of actually reading what they offer before you get your flame thrower out. This was not the first incidence of you going off half-cocked.

I stand by everything I said in relation to that matter.

“The original, and most damaging, presentation of the ‘discovery’ of ‘X-Factor’, encouraged golfers of all levels to restrict their hip-turns going back and turn their shoulders as far as possible. This was and is a totally ludicrous piece of instruction to try to apply to the entire golfing population. It may suit a cohort of the population, but it’s not for everyone.”

To go back to what Beezneeds originally fanned the flames with to put this thread in context.

1. Bio and AB are talking about an X-Factor produced at a different time, Beezneeds made it clear he is talking about the “product X-Factor” of the 90’s

2. The beef was that it was not applicable to all golfers, which has not really been discussed to this point. The actual theory itself and its merits have dominated, unfortunately.

Bio: Its clear that from you biomechanical approach the X-Factor is a great power generating technique…. The question is (without the current focus being applied to only good-elite golfers as it has, because the great majority are not at that level) can it be useful for all golfers of all ages and abilities? Therefore, to go back to Beez’s point, has its mass distribution in the magazines you slaughtered in another thread caused a number of golfers who may or may not be capable of X-Factoring problems….? Is it useful for golfers of all standards, not just elite, or single figure markers?

AB: How about giving us an insight into the increases you have experienced from developing the X-Factor in your swing. Including the benefits it has led to e.g. swing speed, ball speed, distance… That stuff will be fascinating to all the forum members.

The topic just seems to be getting way off track and descending into a playground “i’m right” squabble, instead of what could be an interesting insight into two sides of a fair argument based on differing experiences, at different levels.

OC

I agree here with the last couple of posts. I will add to this that if you wish to kick X Factor around, either start a new thread or rebirth the old one on it and add to the constructive end of things in there.

Everybody is built differently. We have to make the most of all the principles of swinging or hitting to get the most out of ourselves.
I worry when I see ‘hard figures’ that others then try to emulate rather than build on their own starting points and improving them to their levels.

Bio’s gear show changes from A to B (no pun intended there AB) and that does show a player when they get optimal to their own level of physical ability.

Jacobs had the J factor:)

Optimal Cadence:

1. I am just sick of “armchair” experts telling people who actually knows it works that something that has been proven biomechanically essential is BS!!

2. Initally Beezneeds stated: ‘X-Factor’ is probably the stupidest theory of them all

3. The “theory” of the early 90’s is based on Scientific research and remains unchanged in its use today. If you read what I wrote, I actually agreed that Jim McClean’s take was flawed. Does that mean you throw the baby out with the bath water?

4. X factoring has nothing to do with how far you can turn, it has to do with the ratios of seperation. As I stated previously if you can only turn the shoulders 75° and you restrict the hip turn to 30°, you are indeed X factoring. All good golf swings then lead with the hips increasing seperation, thus increasing pre-stretch. It is not brain surgery. Yes with physical training you can enhance this, golf as in life has no shortcuts and you reap what you sow! Make excuses for yourself as to why you are average or limited and that’s exactly what you will get in golf… Average or limited performance!

5. I am not saying it is the be all and end all, I am saying it is important and something that should not be forgotten or ignored!

6. Yeah fine you want data, here you go:

Febuary 2008: Top swing speed – 119 mph, Average clubhead speed – 112-116 mph, Top ball speed – 168 mph, Longest recorded drive – 332 metres, Ball spin rate – 3200 rpm

August 2008: Top swing speed – 153 mph, Average swing speed: 135 -144 mph, Top ball speed – 210 mph, Longest recorded drive – 383 metres, Ball spin rate – 2100 rpm

6 month improvement: +34 mph max clubhead speed, +23-28 mph avg clubhead speed, +42 mph ball speed, +51 metres max drive distance, – 1100 rpm spin rate.

Yes it has involved pain, yes it has involved sweat, yes it has involved a LOT of hard work, yes there has even been lost skin and blood! Am I satisfied? Hell no! Wait until next year, I have only scratched the surface of what I am capable of! But hey what would I know?

Burner:

I guess because I haven’t done a training course and don’t have a piece of paper claiming I am a “golf expert” I don’t know squat! Maybe I should sit back in my arm chair and just read books without ever really knowing what practically works? Maybe then I would be more qualified to express myself?

It’s an open forum mate, I will hold my opinion as strongly as I wish. I am not going to sit back while people denegrate great biomechanical findings because they don’t understand them. Just because it doesn’t make sense or you are physically are incapable of doing something, does not make it untrue! Try getting out of that chair and making something that seems impossible work.

It’s funny how every elite golfer X and Y factors in their swing, whether they know they do or don’t. It must be BS! At the end of the day I couldn’t give a stuff what it is called – Id rather refer to it as pre-stretch and separation anyway! It works and it is proven to work!! Maybe it just takes some elbow grease, some sweat and leaving excuses behind!