[Daryl]

One issue was that a player can be more accurate using an acquired motion swing than a full motion swing. Yoda wanted to demonstrate the dynamics of the issue. He had VJ test these dynamics by first using a five iron with a full motion swing and recorded a swing speed of 91 MPH. Then VJ used a four iron with an acquired motion swing and recorded 90 MPH. This demonstrated that a golfer can use one stronger and longer club with the more controllable acquired motion swing, have only marginal change in distance and reduce all of the risks associated with full motion golf swings. In other words, why not use the acquired motion as a standard procedure for any shot for which a longer club exists. It seems like common sense.

VJ's comments were that the acquired motion swing was more controllable, easier and more likely to hit the target.

My comments are that:
1) VJ has one of the best golf strokes I have ever seen in my life. He should be on the Tour.
2) When they talk accuracy, they are not talking about hitting the green from 200 yards, they are talking about being next to the pin, whereas I'm happy to be near the green. VJ's five iron was only off line by five or more feet or so. No big deal for me. But it makes a big difference to him.
3) It's easier for me to hit my distances with a full swing than it is with a 3/4 swing.

But don't listen to my words alone. There were a lot of people there and they all have different perspectives. I'm not saying that this procedure is restricted to low handicaps only. It's just that for VJ, his accuracy improved and he reduced many risks, but for me, my accuracy is no better with the aquired motion than with the full motion swing and my risks don't get reduced. At 180 yards, pin right and bunker in front, I'm adding a club anyway and going for the fat of the green.