Clubhead lag myth?

[natep]

@jrich99

@golfbulldog

@jrich99

Then, the question becomes a) Who are the “high end players” and b) what type of pattern do they use?

The only way we’ll ever know is to have have someone uses an ABS move effectively tested on the same equipment. I’d also be interested to know how they tested it.

I think that is the key … to assume that all high-end players swing the same is not valid unless players of varying patterns are studied under the same conditions. I would expect their finding of less (zero) force across the shaft at impact to be tru of Vijay and Couples who are often seen as losing right hand pressure at / after impact… but is harder to imagine from someone like Hogan who retained right wrist bend until after impact… They need to test Hogan!

The model of swing they seem to be saying is optimum seems to be one that is optimised for distance rather than accuracy… that is what the modern game requires to win on the CURRENT tour…so that is what a commercial tour level coach is looking for…that will also work for many amateurs who play on course which encourage length off the tee and no longer give credit for shot shaping…

Remember where Brian has come from and where he is going… He is passionate about golf and wants to teach as well as anyone on the planet…Brian is on a mission to use science to teach the best golf swing he can - to have verifiable fact and not opinion as the basis of his instruction… He, like many of us (that includes Mike Jacobs who tried to buy TGM after Homer’s death), thought that TGM was that fact -based swing instruction programme… many scientists now dispute the physics contained in TGM…kind of makes you feel “wronged” for a while when you realise that you were right to doubt some of the “hard to swallow” bits of TGM…but you kept trying to swallow none the less… so Brian and his colleagues are trying to search for the perfect golf swing… they call it “Project 1:68” and it will be available commercially (unlike MORAD it seems)… these short videos are just “amuse bouche” for the real thing - “kite flying” if you will… hard to hold them to account for every word they say since it is incomplete (pending final publication and payment of money)…and yet it gives them a chance to find out what the public think about their ideas… politicians do this all the time in the UK…something I am sure that they have learnt from their US cousins…

They are using a combination of scientifically observed data of players as well as physics principles to hypothesise what might be the optimum pattern.

They are open about their previous beliefs which science now discredits - they admit that they have tried to squash ideas in the past that they now hold true (based on their current science) - I am sure that if Lag wanted to have himself measured then Brian would arrange for it to be done. The outcome could be that Brian has to rewrite some of his science or that Lag’s ideas are very effective feels rather than actual facts… it might be that very effective feels or intentions are a better way of teaching… all remains to be discovered… The process that Brian and co are undergoing is an exciting one - the manner in which it is delivered remains to be seen… but they are keen to avoid actively or aggressively disproving others…merely finding truth…or at least that is what I understand from their material.

Financial DIsclosure - I have paid Brian for 2 afternoons of lessons about 4 years ago. I have bought some of his videos.

If ManZilla ever does publish his project, I’l read it for kicks. I think he has some of the better research out there, but I find him very frustrating to listen to. It would be interesting to have the test data for someone like lag. Although I belive the core principles of ABS to be fact, even if they were disputed I’d say they are a very effective intention. Even if flex can’t be held to impact, it makes sense to try. Another core tenet of ABS is to work toward perfect intentions, whether they are attainable or not.

Great posts.

[jak_bot]

@natep

@jrich99

@golfbulldog

@jrich99

Then, the question becomes a) Who are the “high end players” and b) what type of pattern do they use?

The only way we’ll ever know is to have have someone uses an ABS move effectively tested on the same equipment. I’d also be interested to know how they tested it.

I think that is the key … to assume that all high-end players swing the same is not valid unless players of varying patterns are studied under the same conditions. I would expect their finding of less (zero) force across the shaft at impact to be tru of Vijay and Couples who are often seen as losing right hand pressure at / after impact… but is harder to imagine from someone like Hogan who retained right wrist bend until after impact… They need to test Hogan!

The model of swing they seem to be saying is optimum seems to be one that is optimised for distance rather than accuracy… that is what the modern game requires to win on the CURRENT tour…so that is what a commercial tour level coach is looking for…that will also work for many amateurs who play on course which encourage length off the tee and no longer give credit for shot shaping…

Remember where Brian has come from and where he is going… He is passionate about golf and wants to teach as well as anyone on the planet…Brian is on a mission to use science to teach the best golf swing he can - to have verifiable fact and not opinion as the basis of his instruction… He, like many of us (that includes Mike Jacobs who tried to buy TGM after Homer’s death), thought that TGM was that fact -based swing instruction programme… many scientists now dispute the physics contained in TGM…kind of makes you feel “wronged” for a while when you realise that you were right to doubt some of the “hard to swallow” bits of TGM…but you kept trying to swallow none the less… so Brian and his colleagues are trying to search for the perfect golf swing… they call it “Project 1:68” and it will be available commercially (unlike MORAD it seems)… these short videos are just “amuse bouche” for the real thing - “kite flying” if you will… hard to hold them to account for every word they say since it is incomplete (pending final publication and payment of money)…and yet it gives them a chance to find out what the public think about their ideas… politicians do this all the time in the UK…something I am sure that they have learnt from their US cousins…

They are using a combination of scientifically observed data of players as well as physics principles to hypothesise what might be the optimum pattern.

They are open about their previous beliefs which science now discredits - they admit that they have tried to squash ideas in the past that they now hold true (based on their current science) - I am sure that if Lag wanted to have himself measured then Brian would arrange for it to be done. The outcome could be that Brian has to rewrite some of his science or that Lag’s ideas are very effective feels rather than actual facts… it might be that very effective feels or intentions are a better way of teaching… all remains to be discovered… The process that Brian and co are undergoing is an exciting one - the manner in which it is delivered remains to be seen… but they are keen to avoid actively or aggressively disproving others…merely finding truth…or at least that is what I understand from their material.

Financial DIsclosure - I have paid Brian for 2 afternoons of lessons about 4 years ago. I have bought some of his videos.

If ManZilla ever does publish his project, I’l read it for kicks. I think he has some of the better research out there, but I find him very frustrating to listen to. It would be interesting to have the test data for someone like lag. Although I belive the core principles of ABS to be fact, even if they were disputed I’d say they are a very effective intention. Even if flex can’t be held to impact, it makes sense to try. Another core tenet of ABS is to work toward perfect intentions, whether they are attainable or not.

Great posts.

If their work ever gets published, two things will happen: 1) The price will be extremely high, or 2) The price will be competitive with regards to other golf instruction, but wont be on the market for long due to IP infringements.

[natep]

What kind of infringements?

[lagpressure]

My thoughts on scientific test data coming out of a machine are going to be skeptical because I refuse to let go of the idea of golfing your ball around the golf course as an art form and understanding the power of simple probability.

Hanish and I played Lincoln Park GC is San Francisco yesterday, and I made a couple swings from the tee that were far from perfect but resulted in drives maybe 240 off the tee and still in the fairway. On the 14th I heel necked a drive that took the flight of a low cut that started down the left side of the fairway and moved about 5 yards coming to rest and still in the fairway. I am sure the data would have been horrific coming out of the computer if I made such a swing in the lab… but both my swing and gear are set up to increase probability of poor swings still being in play somehow, and in this case I walked off the green with a birdie, followed by another less than perfect drive on the next that set up another birdie after I hit the pin with my approach, and almost had a string of 4 in a row after hitting a 1 iron on the difficult par 3 #16 10 feet from the hole.
You don’t have to be perfect to play quality golf. I shot 65 with only a handful of really top quality strikes. But I didn’t hit many deal breakers… and maybe only 2 swings bad enough to cost me a shot in and of themselves. One of them I recovered from with a stellar recovery punch out from the trees… while the other resulted in a bogey. A lot of 20 to 30 foot birdie putts which really are nothing more than hitting an iron into a 40 to 60 foot circle. Nothing amazing. But when I did hit irons in close, I made the putts, even on very poorly manicured greens.

Hitting flat heavy gear with stiff shafts, a very firm grip pressure to eliminate most of the torquing of the shaft on off centered hits, but still using blades to give my brain the required feedback for the next shot is paramount. Understanding my tendency for today’s human error and planning each shot accordingly is an art form in itself.

I just don’t see good golf resulting from reading my numbers from a machine created by non golfing scientists who suggest I hit up on the ball with a driver or other suggestions that stem from a narrow minded analysis of what they think is ideal.

What is ideal is that when I make a poor swing… I am still missing somewhere on or near the fairway, or on the side of the fairway that will open up the next shot for me… and iron approaches that leave me uphill chips and birdie runs from down below the hole as often as possible, and both gear and a swing that will create those kind of favorable probabilities.

All done with archaic persimmons, a set of 71 Dyna Button Backs with lead tape scattered all over the backs, a putter that looks more like something in the free bin at a yard sale, and a golf ball that leaves much to be desired as far as it’s low spinning design.

[BPGS1]

Manzella seems to regard the golf swing as an unfathomable mystery that will take decades of “scientific” research to unravel. I think that is simply an absurd concept. If you think it’s a mystery, then I question whether you should be teaching it in the first place. Maybe instead just do the research to satisfy your intellectual curiosity.

But really all of his “projects” are mostly just marketing.

[LipOut]

@lagpressure

and understanding the power of simple probability.

To me this is is the alpha and omega of golf and I’m happy to see this line of reasoning showing up more and more around here. There is so much pseudo science in the golfing world and everyone loves to have science on their side. It’s like the trump card that can’t be beat. In general I see two forms: the physics equation approach and the mechanical model approach. I get noxious with either one. The problem with referencing formulas like p=mv, f=ma, KE=1/2mv^2, etc is that these are extremely simplified special cases and without stating all your assumptions you really aren’t applying the math in a fair (correct) way. Is it a closed system or open system? Are you accounting for heat, friction, vibrations, etc? Is the velocity a vector is just the magnitude important? You have to be on Mandrin’s level to effectively utilize these methods. It’s the math equivalent of “observational teaching” which I think Lag has effectively shown as a suboptimal approach. The problem with all the mechanical models I’ve seen is that they are trying to maximize velocity (or something else) which doesn’t necessarily correlate to effective golf. I would like to see the mechanical model that tries to maximize our nervous system’s percpetion of pressure in the hands within the impact arena or how about the model that minimizes the brain’s impulse to come over the top in transition. What can the models and eqauations tell me about the optimum sequence to avoid right elbow thrust?
This is where probability is important. If you can show through empirical evidence gathered past and present that certain intentions and behavior create feelings and movement patterns that result in maxizing the probability of hitting quality shots while minimizing the probability or hitting poor shots then it doesn’t matter if high speed video shows the shaft losing flex through impact. It doesn’t matter that velocity dominates maximum distance. It doesn’t matter that hitting up on a driver optimizes certain launch conditions of titanium equipment; because the desired result: increased probability of hitting quality golf shots, is not necessarily achieved. Take the very simple case of maximizing club head speed. If I wanted to maximize clubhead speed at the point of impact I could find a way to start several paces away from the ball, happy gilmore into it with a baseball grip, take a John Daly backswing and throw that clubhead right at the ball. No teacher is going to advocate my motion because the probablility of me hitting a good shot are low. But I’ve maximized my clubhead speed! So what. To get a proper optimization model you would need to model elements of physics/mechanics, biomechanics, psychology, sociology, nervous system activity, brain/body delay etc. with adjustment factors for injuries, old habits, equipment, etc. on and on so unless Project 1.68 includes these all as inputs and runs the model with the appropriate outputs then I’ll just call bull#$hit, and read the Manzella student’s lightbulb moments on his forum while I take their money on the course.

[LipOut]

@LipOut

@lagpressure

and understanding the power of simple probability.

To me this is is the alpha and omega of golf and I’m happy to see this line of reasoning showing up more and more around here. There is so much pseudo science in the golfing world and everyone loves to have science on their side. It’s like the trump card that can’t be beat. In general I see two forms: the physics equation approach and the mechanical model approach. I get noxious with either one. The problem with referencing formulas like p=mv, f=ma, KE=1/2mv^2, etc is that these are extremely simplified special cases and without stating all your assumptions you really aren’t applying the math in a fair (correct) way. Is it a closed system or open system? Are you accounting for heat, friction, vibrations, etc? Is the velocity a vector is just the magnitude important? You have to be on Mandrin’s level to effectively utilize these methods. It’s the math equivalent of “observational teaching” which I think Lag has effectively shown as a suboptimal approach. The problem with all the mechanical models I’ve seen is that they are trying to maximize velocity (or something else) which doesn’t necessarily correlate to effective golf. I would like to see the mechanical model that tries to maximize our nervous system’s percpetion of pressure in the hands within the impact arena or how about the model that minimizes the brain’s impulse to come over the top in transition. What can the models and eqauations tell me about the optimum sequence to avoid right elbow thrust?
This is where probability is important. If you can show through empirical evidence gathered past and present that certain intentions and behavior create feelings and movement patterns that result in maxizing the probability of hitting quality shots while minimizing the probability or hitting poor shots then it doesn’t matter if high speed video shows the shaft losing flex through impact. It doesn’t matter that velocity dominates maximum distance. It doesn’t matter that hitting up on a driver optimizes certain launch conditions of titanium equipment; because the desired result: increased probability of hitting quality golf shots, is not necessarily achieved. Take the very simple case of maximizing club head speed. If I wanted to maximize clubhead speed at the point of impact I could find a way to start several paces away from the ball, happy gilmore into it with a baseball grip, take a John Daly backswing and throw that clubhead right at the ball. No teacher is going to advocate my motion because the probablility of me hitting a good shot are low. But I’ve maximized my clubhead speed! So what. To get a proper optimization model you would need to model elements of physics/mechanics, biomechanics, psychology, sociology, nervous system activity, brain/body delay etc. with adjustment factors for injuries, old habits, equipment, strength and flexibility, vision, etc. on and on so unless Project 1.68 includes these all as inputs and runs the model with the appropriate outputs then I’ll just call bull#$hit, and read the Manzella student’s lightbulb moments on his forum while I take their money on the course.

[golfbulldog]

I think that all scientific data - and especially the conclusions drawn from that data - needs to be considered with some degree of scepticism… far greater scepticism than is currently being shown on Brian’s site. Remember that one of his keenest forum members (Lia) is doing this:

youtube.com/watch?v=7CkX51PdyaU

Not to say that there is anything wrong with that move if it gives the required results. He currently says that he is hitting it better than when that video was taken. He plays very little on a the course so the art of taking a move around 18 holes is not high on his agenda.

From a learning point of view I think that intentions are probably a better way for humans to learn - accepting that they might not be real…but on the other hand have some objective data to show if you have really changed anything at all during the lesson (I like trackman for this reason - not to fit myself to some ideal…merely to show me whether I have changed what i think i have changed…after making swing changes…we can all hit a few good balls and think that we have it nailed down… but have rarely changed some of the parameters which count) . At least that is the way my brain likes to work…

[golfbulldog]

@Range Rat

I need some grounding on this one. The thread starts with a video from NYGOLFWORLD, who I think is a man named Jacobs, and then Budman posts a “gem” which is a quote from someone somewhere, then Golfbulldog seems to imply that the quote is from someone named Brian…maybe of the Manzella variety. Does the Budman quoted gem come from Jacobs or Manzella… and are they both associated with one another profesionally.

Watched the Jacobs video at the start of the thread and it looks like putting the cart before the horse if you ask me. If I ever get up on my toes like that would someone please hammer my heels back onto the ground so I can get back “doon”.

Brian Manzella has his forum, Mike Jacobs has a seperate forum but posts alot on Brian’s forum and is professionally associated with Brian. The exact source of the scientific data used for the quote - not sure… perhaps deliberately vague… I am with you re. getting up on the toes… all the greats are on their left heel around impact IMO… The thing that surprises me about their current “findings” is that it will make to alot of their forum members go back to the same swings with which they felt unhappy…and which lead them to Brian’s website in the first place…but now they will have the scientific vindication for going backwards… I see their data as being a nightmare for those who want to self learn … ie. apply the findings without supervision.

[RangeRat]

Thanks Bulldog.

Seems like on every corner there is a ice cream vendor hawking their product…and Jacobs is all speed related.

If I recall the video correctly, he suggests the handle going inward and the clubhead catching up ( something like that ) starts around the right thigh area and both getting to appproximately inline around the center of the body.

In a pivot driven action however, that process of the handle and clubhead occurs way on the other side of the ball…real pressure through the zone. Some can handle it, others can’t, simple as that.

[CaptainChaos]

@golfbulldog

…it will make to alot of their forum members go back to the same swings with which they felt unhappy…and which lead them to Brian’s website in the first place…but now they will have the scientific vindication for going backwards… I see their data as being a nightmare for those who want to self learn … .

advancedballhacking.com

I, however, will not be visiting that site.

Captain Chaos

[golfbulldog]

My scoring game and pleasure has increased this year as I realised that having a stock shot that cannot go left brings a wonderful sense of confidence…the fairways appear twice as wide as they used to be and I visit less bunkers…had my first hole in one…all with my ebay-derived collection of vintage irons… cheap and cheerful…

The swing / release that is being promoted elsewhere is looking for speed/distance and straight balls… straight looks great but it doesn’t bring confidence long term…you know that a miss will come soon and I fear that the " new release" they promote will open up a miss on either side of the fairway… and that just makes golf less fun… however far you hit the thing!

If I were to promote one thing technological thing amongst this forum it would be to look into d-plane - it is nothing new, it demands no change in release or swing… merely explains why the ball goes where it does… and what alignments of clubface and swing direction are required for a desired flight… don’t be afraid of that bit of technology

[jak_bot]

@natep

What kind of infringements?

IP= Intellectual Property

[twomasters]

zero force on the shaft…?
If anyone heard my interview with Doug Sanders back in February…he states in his dialogue…“In my career I believe I broke 20 or 21 driver shafts on my downswing”…
All that being equal I doubt Doug was applying zero force to the shaft

[natep]

@jak_bot

@natep

What kind of infringements?

IP= Intellectual Property

Yes, I understand what IP means. What I meant to say was what kind of IP infringements do you believe them to be committing, and against whom?

[natep]

@twomasters

zero force on the shaft…?
If anyone heard my interview with Doug Sanders back in February…he states in his dialogue…“In my career I believe I broke 20 or 21 driver shafts on my downswing”…
All that being equal I doubt Doug was applying zero force to the shaft

They said that they were reporting zero force across the shaft only at impact, and that force across the shaft reached its max somewhere in the middle of the downswing. Supposedly the only force on the shaft by good players at impact is an upwards pulling, at least in the golfers that were being measured.

[twomasters]

got it natep…I zipped through it without concentrating enough…I understand it now what was meant

[lagpressure]

They said that they were reporting zero force across the shaft only at impact, and that force across the shaft reached its max somewhere in the middle of the downswing. Supposedly the only force on the shaft by good players at impact is an upwards pulling, at least in the golfers that were being measured.

For swingers this would be true, but don’t pile us hitters into that category

[macs]

I dont care much about all this (at least for tonight). There is a Texas Scramble at a Nicklaus Course (Northern Bear) tomorrow. Some guy’s partner(a scratch golfer) who has played a few rounds with me recently (I won 2 out of 4 times with one game tied) is out of Town and has recommended me to be his replacement (paid for). How cool is that .
Thanks Lag.

[lagpressure]

Good stuff…
keep us all posted on how it goes!