• Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

Mike Austin Swing

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
The swing was different from the "conventional" swing on many counts. Here are a few:
1. Mike was interested in "mobility", not "stability" meaning he didn't keep his feet attached to the ground or try to create torque against the ground. His left ankle was allowed to raise on the back swing, permitting his lower body to swing to the right, his hips tilting. His upper body then turned back. His right ankle, knee and hip started the downswing by first raising and then turning.
2. He didn't make a turn by spinning on a central axis (think of a spike going from the top of your head through your body to the ground between your legs.) He thought that that caused all types of back problems. Instead, he allowed the lower half of his body to swing like a pendulum - first to the right, hips tilting, and then upper body turning. The action reversed on the way down. (While his lower body swung like a pendulum, his head stayed steady.)
3. He never swung his arms. His left arm was attached to the side of his left pec. His arms moved, because his ankles, knees and hips caused this torso to move which in turn moved his arms.
4. Late in his teaching, he didn't advocate rolling the arms (or hands) over through impact. He kept the club face in line with the points of a circle. (This time think of a semi-circle. One part of the compass you used to draw circles in high school is on top of your head, the other is drawing a semi circle through the ball.)
5. On the downswing he didn't pull the club, butt first. He called that "harpooning". He didn't keep this left wrist firm. He released it from the top, never trying to "hold the angle". Harpooning and holding the angle was like putting a brake on the swinging club. "And why the hell would you want to put a brake on it!", he used to snarl.
With this in mind perhaps seek out some video clips of him on the net and see if you can see some of these principles in action.
Hope this helped.
 

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
Wow, typed out a response and lost it. I'll try again. I knew about the disputes. It's one of the reasons I decided to speak out after some 8+ years. I can only speak of what I know. I had taken lessons from MIke for 4 years. The next time we spoke by phone he tells me he has changed the swing to make it the most powerful and accurate swing ever. I fly to Studio City and sure enough he's got changes. Significant ones as to the hands and the release.I also stood by his side for every lesson he gave that week and witnessed the changes. I never heard him utter "conical action". He may have said it later. I never heard him say it. To me, that term was confusing. (But maybe I'm just not that bright.) Bottom line was that he no longer cocked his hands in the traditional sense. He did it side-to side (palmar flexion to dorsil flexion. He also didn't allow the arms (or hands) to cross over. Sounds like what you are doing with the chips. Crazy how straight it goes. Really could not believe it. On the full swing, you just add the pivot.
As to fat shots, Mike use to spot (spot? I meant bark) one of 3 things: I let my left arm drop; I stopped the circular motion of the body causing the club to bottom out; I allowed the force of the swinging club to pull my head down, thus decreasing the space between it and the ball. With less room, you hit the ground.
It's hard to make swing changes when playing for money. You can also hit it great with a traditional method. You also have to go out and learn how to play the game. Nonetheless, I remain absolutely amazed at how Mike had people flusihing it with no effort. For me personally, it eliminated all the moves of strain and pain. I always got a kick out of how Mike's playing partners reportedly described his swing, "It looks like your just playing with it."
 

295yards

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2009
447
0
Can't quite grasp the "religious", "cult" or "spam" assertions. Interesting responses though, particularly under a thread entitled "Re: Mike Austin Swing".

For what it's worth, I have always had a great passion for learning how people achieved extraordinary results. In the sports arena I worked my butt off to finance lessons with Leadbetter, John Schlee, Jimmy Ballard, Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, David Lee, and Ben Doyle, to name a few. My friends thought I was crazy. (I've done the same thing in music, chess and skiing.) They were all great teachers and wonderful people. I also happened to take years of lessons from Mike Austin. Mike, god bless him, is gone. I have no interest in convincing people to swing like him or to convince others that his swing was better than anyone else's swing. When you are standing on the last tee (whether to break your own 18 hole record, win the club championship, or just take some beer money from your buddies) it all comes down to what you can repeat under pressure. Plus, golf's suppose to be fun. Do whatever makes you have the most fun.

I personally found Mike's teaching to very unique and effective however. I could hit bucket after bucket with no pain or strain. I immediately had increased length and accuracy. I could take it to the course. Plus, I thought that it was awfully cool that someone studied kinesiology and engineering and then applied it to sports performance well before it was popular (Mike Marshall, former picture for the Dodgers was the only other example that came to my mind). I also always believed that the more you learned, the more weapons you had in your arsenal. Wasn't it Johnny Miller who use to pretend he was Trevino when he wanted to fade it and someone else when he wanted to hook it?

Mike led an extraordinary life and made some really wonderful accomplishments as a member of the 350 Club and as a former Southern California Teacher of the Year. Further, he was remarkably intelligent and a wonderful character. He probably deserved a lot more public acknowledgement than he ever received. He was also a buddy. Almost 90 when I last saw him, I agreed to step up on behalf of his legacy when people were misrepresenting what he taught.

Anyway, I do (or did) have an interest in allowing people who had a true interest in Mike's swing to learn what he was teaching rather than try to guess from the limited available video or learn from people that never took a lesson from the gentleman. Sorry, but for me it was like having Honus Wagner give you a batting lesson or Bruce Lee showing you how to perform the 1 inch punch. I thought it would be pretty cool thing. Maybe I was wrong . . . Or, maybe I'm just in the wrong venue . . .

The short game comment is in my sig. It has nothing to do with my post in this thread.

The reason, if you cannot figure it out, why people are calling spam is, until now you have not said any one thing about the actual swing in a Mike Austin swing thread.

It sounds more like Mike Austins swing can change your life. Buy it now.

To be honest, I'm either way too stupid or the swing is just to difficult to understand as I hear you explain it.

Perhaps it is too difficult to explain fully on a forum but that it IS ridiculously easy to understand if I just order a copy of some book or DVD.

Would you like to recommend how I can place my order?
 

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
LOL on the Signature/short game comment. My ignorance. Hope it helps evidence that I am not a polished "spammer".

I apologize but I am new to contributing to forums in detail. I have enjoyed reading forums and commenting generally but have not participated on a large scale. I didn't put specifics at the beginning since I wasn't sure how or where to start and didn't even know if the thread was alive or if there was any continued interest in Mike Austin whatsoever. In my simple mind, I just thought that finding a forum with a specific Mike Austin thread was a good start.

Any way, a couple of people have since posed some specific questions and I tried to provide details. It's hard without adding video. But I think those are the rules. I've also tried to repeat that in my humble opinion there are a million body types and mental make-ups out there. No one swing method is the panacea. Plus, you gotta get out there, sink putts and learn how to play.

For those that were interested in Austin however, I was simply sick of reading all the poor "instruction" especially from guys who never took lesson from him or met him when he was confined to his home. It also wasn't fair to Mike. I think Mike was really ahead of his time in studying the body and motion and applying it to enhance golf performance. He was cantankerous to say the least, but a brilliant man. And a great friend once you knew him. He told great stories of rooming with Errol Flynn, giving lessons to Howard Hughes and co-owning a driving range with Bob Hope.

I witnessed him give well over 50 lessons. Some of the students struggled but I did witness some jaw dropping results. And for those that don't know, this guy was giving real, passionate hour long lessons well into his late 80's and early 90's. He had lost the use of his right arm and 80%+ loss of locomotion in his right leg. And he wasn't just sitting there. The guy was barking and cussing and laughing and jumping (as fast as he could) out of his chair. Plus, he was driving the LA freeways everyday from Woodland Hills to Studio City for the lessons. The stuff of a legend.

Thanks for your comment.
 

Augster

Rules Nerd
Supporting Member
Mar 9, 2005
1,473
23
I'm happy to discuss the "Austin Swing" with someone that has actually been with him.

The "conical action" is most likely a term used by Shauger. It is exactly as you describe, your hands fold back and through, with a little bit of a twist to keep the face dead square to the ball. The hand action is SO different from conventional teaching that it does take a bit to get used to.

Probably more time than I had devoted.

Short pitches and chips have never been straighter for me. I should really use that hand action for my chips/pitches because you don't shift your weight back. I just don't want to try to get used to various hand actions for various swings. Too confusing.

Marrying that hand action with the very different body action isn't a small change. It is a fundamental change. But every change feels good and correct because, physically, it is much closer to correct than a conventional swing.

The full swing, where you point your lower spine at your right heel going back, then shifting it and pointing it at your left heel going down and through takes a bit of getting used to also. Conventional, you rotate around your spine. With the Austin swing, you move the spine.

So which hand action did Mike Austin teach you? Conventional, or conical? Or a hybrid of some sort?
 

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
As to the hand action, it changed over time. I'd say it was more conventional at first (Mid- 1990's). Then a hybrid. (Late-1990's).
Finally, the release that we discussed above. I never heard Mike use the term "conical".
 

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
Check out the bow in the left hand and the leg action of Dustin Johnson in the Open.
Funny, Johnny Miller speaks as if these are swing flaws. (Yet Johnson is leading and bombing the ball.) Perhaps these are not flaws but are instead contributing to his success.
This is classic Mike Austin action
 

indacup

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,519
37
Iowa
Check out the bow in the left hand and the leg action of Dustin Johnson in the Open.
Funny, Johnny Miller speaks as if these are swing flaws. (Yet Johnson is leading and bombing the ball.) Perhaps these are not flaws but are instead contributing to his success.
This is classic Mike Austin action

One thing that is consistent with the "Austinites" is ongoing attempts at attributing everyones GOOD performance to the players supposedly "unwittingly" incorporation of the Austin swing in their shots, but you never hear them take credit for a players bad shots.

Basically they are trying to take credit for a players "good" performane and allude to say "if you wanna play like that, learn the Austin swing! LOL

Dan Schauger has a photo of Ben Hogan and will bring a new student to the picture and point out how Hogan was using the Aistin swing, but kept it a secret. LOL

It's all a fraud
 

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
Hmmm. Interesting opinion.
I do keep scratching my head however to understand the resistance to factually discussing Mike Austin's technique on a Mike Austin thread?!

Any who:
The point was not that everyone that does well in a round must be utilizing some aspect of Mike Austin's swing.
The point was not that "if you wanna play like that, learn the Austin swing!"
The point was that a player can hit a ball well even though the player's swing has aspect that are not modern. And, maybe the "flaw" is actually enabling better results.
An aspect of a swing that differs from the "modern" swing doesn't necessarily make the swing flawed.
(The player can also score badly regardless of technique. Example - 82 in final round of an Open.)

It was a neat Open to watch, wasn't it? Everyone struggling. The greens are so small. Quite the performance by McDowell.
 

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
BTW
I have witnessed the Hogan reference by the instructor you named.
I totally agree with you on that point. I don't see anything there that would suggest MA.
 

indacup

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,519
37
Iowa
Hmmm. Interesting opinion.
I do keep scratching my head however to understand the resistance to factually discussing Mike Austin's technique on a Mike Austin thread?!

It’s not so much “resistance” to discussing it as you claim, but rather, not discussing it in the positive manner you wish. A discussion, as I pointed out previously, is not limited to just positive experiences…they can include negative ones, like the ones I experienced first hand. To include one type of information without the other is NOT a discussion, but a commercial.

In my mind, based again on experience has shown that you people constantly promote the Austin swing for gain…whether it be for monetary reasons ..i.e. Jacob B., Mike D., Dan S…. et al…or for a more ego based cause.

However, I will admit, you are much nicer than many of the other Austin-ites…I respect you for that.
 

AustinFan

Active Member
Jun 6, 2010
14
0
Sorry. Didn't realize that you were the writer that had the personal bad experience. Plus, I see what you are saying on the all positive spin that you may have run into before. And, thanks for separating me from the others.

I guess I don't feel like I am "Austin-ite". I may have said it before, but I am a golf nut and literally paid my way, starting as a young guy, to take lessons with Jimmy Ballard, Leadbetter, Harmon, David Lee, Ben Doyle, Peter Croker, Hank Haney and Mike Austin. I say that because some times it was with my last buck. I just really enjoyed learning things right from the horse's mouth. And believe me, I took some grief from a lot of former girl friends on the time and money spent . . .

As to Mike Austin, I spent a lot of time with him and he taught things differently. He let me stand by his side for years and document lessons. I wasn't one of the guys who took a lesson from him for an hour and ran. We stood in the heat, rain, etc. Plus, he was an incredible character (roomed with Errol Flynn, gave lessons to Howard Hughes, etc., etc.) He was way ahead of his time in sports performance. I saw students struggle, but I also saw amazing powerful results with much less effort expended. (Also, you had to see him give a lesson - he pulled you, twisted you, swore and praised you all in the course of an hour. He watched every single shot and felt your pain or delight. This is a guy in his 80's with basically the use of only one arm and leg due to a stroke. By all rights no one would have ever said anything negative about him if he had just sat at home in his Barcalounger. Instead, the guy's driving his big old Cadillac down the LA freeways to get to the range every day. The regulars at Studio City use to have to quiet Mike down down because he'd be yelling at me so much. But what passion!) On his "method" the biggest point to me was that there didn't seem to be the wear and tear on the body that I normally experienced. Plus, I hit it straighter and farther. I still hit bad shots. Who doesn't. It's part of the game. It just proved to me that there was a different way of hitting it. And, at the very least I was exposed to a different style and had new arrows in my quiver.

I last spoke with Mike some 6 or 7 years ago. He was a dear friend. He passed on in 2005. I've sat idly by for some 6 or 7 years listening to people tout what he taught and knew that much of it was wrong and/or outdated. Some of these guys never even met Mike. To me, that's wrong.
 

SilverUberXeno

El Tigre Blanco
Jul 26, 2005
4,620
26
I have the exact same bow in my wrist that DJ does at the top. I've been trying to "fix" it because I've never seen anyone swing like that before, besides me. My ballstriking has been awful since I started the process. Tonight I hacked at balls for two hours, then decided "**** conventional swing wisdom" and went back to my bowed wrist and a pure one-plane turn.

Miraculous.

So, Dustin Johnson, sorry about that whole Hindenburg thing, but thank you for being just odd enough to encourage me to keep being odd too, and killing the ball.

Mike Austin's swing probably works. There are dozens of swings that work.
 

Steve Pratt

Active Member
Jul 24, 2010
1
0
hi all,

I just wanted to jump in here and put in two cents. I also took many lessons from Mike and studied kinesiology as well. Mike's swing was nearly identical to Sam Snead's, and very similar to Mssrs. Jones, Nicklaus, and Watson. That is a hell of a lot of tour victories and majors. They all moved the spine like a pendulum with aid of their legs, leveraging their weight from right foot to left. They all threw the clubhead from the top. They all kept steady heads. They all hit it long, and all played or are still playing at an extremely high level until an advanced age. Snead won on the PGA tour in his 50's, Nicklaus won the Masters at 46, and Watson, well last year's performance at the Open. Nicklaus has always said he felt he released the clubhead from the top.

The Mike Austin swing works with mechanical advantage that can be measured objectively with math and biomechanics. You don't have to use it to hit the ball super long - you can cruise around the course at about 70% hitting it 310 dead straight. You can use it to stuff pins from 100 yards too. It isn't the swing of a gorilla - it is a swing of precision and efficiency.
 

🔥 Latest posts

Top