Hogan-Guldahl Gap

The parallels between Ralph Guldahl and Ben Hogan are tremendous. Both Texas born, within nine months of each other. Hogan turned professional in 1930. Guldahl turned professional in 1931. They both had success, although Guldahl realized success immediately and enjoyed it on a fairly continual basis until 1940 when his game fell apart. In his first decade he won 16 times including three majors and was considered the best player in the game from 1937 to 1939. During which time he won three majors.
Hogan struggled up until 1940 when he won his first individual title (one of four). During the 1940's he won 53 tournaments, including three majors.
Guldahl's slide from number one to being unable to play competitively is widely attributed to an instruction book which he authored in 1940. It is said that he over-analyzed his swing. An effort which resulted in "paralysis by analysis."
Hogan authored an instruction book "Power Golf." Which was published in 1948. Although his more formative publication "Ben Hogan's Five Lessons; The Modern Fundamentals of Golf" would be published nearly a decade later. In that decade, despite a near death car accident, Hogan won 12 times, including six majors.
The distinction between the two; a golfer who realized success naturally then disseminated his ability over a book and a golfer who unearthed success then refined it in two books is apropos.
Guldahl realized success through a clear understanding of the demands of golf, then obliterated himself with objectivity. Hogan rationalized golf to an exhaustive point then arose with simple keys to the swing. The cases are suggestive of how golfers digest information. Complexity is hardly digestible.
Why do I bring this up? I do so in reference to the myriad of conjectures about how a golf swing should look. In Ralph Guldahl there was a golfer who became distracted by his form and lost the function of his swing.
In Ben Hogan there was a golfer who contended the typical assertions on the topic of form and developed the swing which functioned best.
We now look to Ben Hogan as an ideal of form because of how well his swing functioned. Even though his swing characteristics don't prescribe to archetypal ideals of form.
I am reminded of all the instruction which compares a students swing to a touring professionals. This is done from outside the swing, from the perspective of the swing coach. It's a Guldahl approach to golf: analyze the form and leave the function to the student. If the student is still able to function (as touring professionals are) they will benefit. If the student becomes lost in form their game will suffer (as Guldahls did.)
All great shots begin and end at impact. The purity of the shot is the result of impact. Oughtn't instruction focus on the cause of a good shot and relate the form of the swing back to its function?
This very question has lead me to perpetuate Hogan's Angle in a manner which is consistent with relaying information to students via impact. The intent of Hogan's Angle is not merely to correct the positions of one's hands, arms, hips, etc. The intent of Hogan's Angle is to give correct motion, correct form a purpose.