As mentioned by BPGS1 a little while back I was banned from ISG after only a few days. However I feel having done quite well lasting that long since, a few years back, my very first post on LBG was intercepted and received notice that I was not welcome. They indeed do defend there turf with tenacity.
We have instruction and the result, a golf swing. Instruction is bewildering in its variety but yet the resulting swings remarkable similar. When LBG demonstrates hitting and swinging nobody seems to see any difference even with close scrutiny. What feels as totally different swings will be judged by an onlooker as being the same. Is this only a matter of feel or is there more to it?
Most golf instruction nowadays teaches to start the down swing from the bottom up and referring to the kinetic chain action for the desired progressive transfer of momentum / kinetic energy from the ground up to the clubhead. However there are still quite a few who think of the lower body as a stable platform and feel the action to be in the hands/arms.
Peter Croker; ‘’ The hands are the source of motion of the club, arms, shoulders, hips and legs - all the way down to the base of your feet. “
Tom Tomasello’s down and out right arm action.
Mark Evershed - clubhead velocity contribution: body 4.6 %, hands 60 %.
Since the swings of these instructors don’t show an early release as is indeed the case for amateurs when starting the downswing with heir hands, they must doing something to prevent this early release to happen. One possibility is that they teach one thing and do another. But that is the easy way out of this dilemma.
Well known golf science authors such Stobbs et al and Jorgensen were convinced that the major source of power comes from the contribution of the big muscles and perhaps influenced the opinion of golf kingdom towards their point of view. They did however overlook the contribution of the linear joint reaction forces, hence their opinion carry less weight.
Even if indeed very simple, an analysis, using a double pendulum model, like Iron Byron, shows nevertheless some light on this issue. It shows that an active hand release action can be neutralized by an appropriate torque developed by the core.
This problem of invisible exertions makes golf indeed so utterly frustrating for many. Seeing a beautiful simple looking swing one just can’t reproduce it, even if spending much effort, as we usually don’t have a clue about the invisible exertions to required to produce it.
Welcome to the forum, fascinating stuff - thanks for posting. I can see how the start down move could look very similar / identical for the top down and bottom up examples but how about when we get between hip high to hip high or p3 to p4 in Lags terminology - can we tell a difference there in what the golfer is doing internally? For you does the clubs path betray what is going on at all internally or at least in what the hands are attempting to do? Lag often refers to these positions as the x-ray of the golf swing. How would you view this?
Of the photos on the right (top and bottom), this is what TGM promotes for both hitting and swinging. Either the right arm is driving actively, or it is being pulled straight and out to right field passively due to the outward pull of CF.
In these photos, I was doing the CF pulled out passive version.
The photos on the left show the “cut if left” or “around the corner”. In these photos, I am fighting the outward throw of CF, first by pinning the upper arms onto the body… and firing THE HANDS actively. The right arm takes a more passive roll. It is actually PULLING against and resisting the expansion of the shaft. I call this hitting because “the hands” really do hit. Both Hogan and Snead talked about how the hands actively hit at the the bottom of the golf swing… nothing new.
In the photos, both these were well struck golf shots… and it shows the validity of both methodologies… however, the hitting version on the left keeps the shaft nicely on plane with less clubface rotation happening post impact. It also puts more pressure into your hands that your brain translates into feel. Personally, I like the idea of being able to do something, rather than passively doing nothing.
By actively firing the hands, you have the chance to hold or add shaft flex into impact… where with the passive hand approach, the wrists will work more as hinges not motors.
For some reason, TGM ignores this second option as viable or worthy of component consideration, even though many of the finest ball strikers that have ever lived use this protocol. So if you suggest such things… you’ll be tossed from sites like LBG and ISG, and you might end up here hitting the ball much better…
Actually the analysis is not just for the initial from the top down motion but all the way to impact. I will try to do a bit more work including past impact, but a 2D model is really very limited in its scope.
On thing I like to make clear is that in my mind there are two distinct worlds both equally valid – the world of feel and the world of real. Hence, things which don’t make sense scientifically can be very valid in teaching golf. Also it is easy to mix things. For instance one can feel augmenting club speed when one really assures better clubhead impact conditions.
Spontaneously, looking at lag’s pictures, I would say that in general swinging sharply left past impact is not easy as it is much more natural to let things go at impact. The reason being the same as when pushing on a vehicle/cart. From standstill it is easy to exert maximum force but as son as motion occurs and speed increases it become increasingly difficult to exert a large force.
Lagpressure mentioned that going sharply inside keeps the shaft on plane. I feel that it might do a bit more since one can swing on plane without really concentrating on going sharply left through impact. The sharp inside left move is likely also shortening the effective swing radius injecting some more energy into the swing. When done at maximum clubhead speed just prior to impact shortening the swing radius is most efficient.
However the funny ‘up the left arm’ TGM move or chasing after the ball with the clubhead are doing exactly the opposite, they are potential power leaks as they tend to increase the effective swing radius of clubhead. Even if these effects are seen beyond impact they have their roots before impact.
I can think of one teacher who has somewhat similar ideas to lagpressure, i.e., Mark Evershed. He is also strong on swinging left beyond impact and like lagpressure, his concept ‘constantly correct clubface plane’ aims at minimizing roll of arms through impact and beyond. The latter reducing clubface impact orientation timing issues.
When I left the TGM ostrich hole in 1987, I quickly became more interested in understanding why good players where able to play great golf, control the golf ball and do so with apparent ease… than try to discredit their technique as some kind of bizarre oddity, or think they would have been better if they did it more like the yellow book suggested.
The “feel vs real” often comes up to try to discredit the masterful ballstriker if what they say seems contrary to what they do.
However, if FEEL can describe something REAL or REALLY GOOD, then it should not always be so quickly discarded.
There have been some greats who have said that the right palm should face the sky at P4… and although no one seems to do it,
the feeling of that can really inhibit the over roll of the clubface that has plagued many, or at least made golf more difficult than it needs to be. That feeling can lead to a nice compromise that can work well for many when applied properly.
You wrote-: “The photos on the left show the “cut if left” or “around the corner”. In these photos, I am fighting the outward throw of CF, first by pinning the upper arms onto the body… and firing THE HANDS actively. The right arm takes a more passive roll. It is actually PULLING against and resisting the expansion of the shaft. I call this hitting because “the hands” really do hit.”
What do you mean by the phrase-: “firing THE HANDS actively”. What biomechanical action is used to fire the hands, and when does it occur?
Secondly, you seem to imply that you are keeping the clubshaft on-plane in image 1, and not image 2. Is that correct? If yes, on what basis do you make that claim - why is the club deemed to be on-plane in image 1 and not image 2?
Jeff
The true plane has never been explained before John. If you look at the picture that extra stick is the plane. It is module No. 4 in John’s program. I would not say it here as this is his living.
The concept of being “on-plane” has been well explained by Homer Kelley in his TGM book. It is defined as a clubshaft that points at the ball-target line (traces the baseline of the inclined plane - traces a straight plane line) during its passage from P3 to P4.
That “extra stick” and the clubshaft in image 1 may be on-plane if the clubshaft traces a SPL, but the clubshaft in image 2 can also be on-plane if it also traces a SPL (points at the ball-target line).
Here is an example of a golfer tracing a SPL, which keeps the clubshaft on-plane during the backswing, downswing and followthrough.
If you view the pics of hitting on the deck–
The shaft in the deck was set at shaft angle at address…where is the shaft heading in the left photo? …ON PLANE…where is the shaft heading in the right photo?..ABOVE PLANE…
It’s all right there to see…one move matches the original shaft plane on the way through and one doesn’t quite match up
On plane is not a straight target line thru the ball back in either direction— the swing is an arc-- like a baseball swing on a tilted over
Those flashlights should be nowhere near that line on the ground- Lag will explain it better than me-- he repeatedly talks about the flashlight drill being bogus-- he can show it better and explain it better than I can… especially if you understand the 4.30 line and how the greats found it coming down
Sergio will show the flashlight is a myth right here in these pics…butt of club (flashlight) is hardly anywhere near that floor target line --and he returns the shaft back to impact on the same address plane and cuts left just like Lag’s left on plane photo
Why even bother getting technical with something comepletely meaningless, I could trace infinite different lines going back and get to exactly the same motion through impact, and stiff every shot. Conversely I could have that stick up my bum and trace a perfect plane, though I would have some problems integrating that move into my golf game.
You wrote-: "If you view the pics of hitting on the deck-- The shaft in the deck was set at shaft angle at address…where is the shaft heading in the left photo? …ON PLANE…where is the shaft heading in the right photo?..ABOVE PLANE…
It’s all right there to see…one move matches the original shaft plane on the way through and one doesn’t quite match up.
You have a different (arbitrary) definition of being “on-plane”. You believe that a golfer can only be “on-plane” through impact (between P3 and P4) if the clubshaft is on the original clubshaft-at-address plane.
However, according to Homer Kelley, a golfer can be “on-plane” between P3 and P4 as long he traces the SPL. His clubshaft angle relative to the ground can be anywhere between the TSP and the hand plane - between P3 and P4. There is no necessary mechanical/geometrical reason for the clubshaft to be on the clubshaft-at-address plane at impact.
Here is Phil Mickelson’s “on-plane” clubshaft through impact - he is on the TSP at impact (and not the clubshaft-at-address plane at impact), but he is “on-plane” because he traces a SPL.
Phil Mickelson’s clubshaft descends down the TSP and remains on the TSP between P3 and P4.
You also wrote-: “On plane is not a straight target line thru the ball back in either direction— the swing is an arc-- like a baseball swing on a tilted over.”
You are not understanding the concept of tracing a SPL. One “traces” a line, but that doesn’t mean that the clubhead arc is ever moving in a non-arced manner.
Here is Kevin Na’s on-plane swing (he is tracing a SPL). The red splined path shows that his clubhead path is circular even though is tracing a SPL.
DTL photos are meaningless studies about perfect swing plane unless the camera lens itself is positioned so that it is actually
“on plane”… and you have a stationary reference such as a pole similar to what I installed for my pics to use a verifiable reference. Without it… all bets are off…
I agree that DTL photos suffer from parallax error if the camera is not perfectly placed.
However, the DTL views are not therefore “meaningless”.
I can tell that Phil Mickelson is “on-plane” on the TSP even with an imperfect DTL camera angle. One only needs a rough approximation to understand the concept of a golfers tracing a SPL at variable degrees of clubshaft angle through the impact zone.
The swing plane from P3 to P4 is not allowed generalizations or rough estimations. To strike a golf ball repeatably well, the amount of precision I require of myself and my students is not based upon general assumptions or any kind of haphazard guestimations.
In ABS instruction “rough approximation” is simply not sufficient.
I don’t agree with the TGM suggestion that as long as the shaft is pointing at the plane line it is on plane.
If that plane is moving as if hinged to the plane line as if a door were placed sideways onto the ground and it rocks back and forth due to the shaft becoming increasingly steep due to arm disconnection… I think you are playing with fire.
TM
I dont feel comfortable about discussing the modules in the public space but you and I know that the stick in the picture is 3 dimentional and all the underplane to above plane stuff.
A bit off topic. But in that pic of Sergio’s swing, anyone else notice the amount Sergio’s hips turn from the pic SG6 (almost at P3) and SG7 (just before impact)? Some excellent Mod 4 work?
The swing plane from P3 to P4 is not allowed generalizations or rough estimations. To strike a golf ball repeatably well, the amount of precision I require of myself and my students is not based upon general assumptions or any kind of haphazard guestimations.
In ABS instruction “rough approximation” is simply not sufficient."
I never stated that a golfer should only roughly approximate the situation of being “on-plane” between P3 and P4. I only stated that one can only approximate one’s visual estimation of whether a golfer is truly “on-plane” with an inadequate DTL camera angle.
The true reality is that it is possible for a golfer to have a variable degree of clubshaft steepness when his club moves “on-plane” from P3 to P4. It can be as steep as the TSP or as shallow as the hand plane.
You may not like Homer Kelley’s definition of a clubshaft being “on-plane” when it traces a SPL between P3 and P4, but that is a widely accepted definition of being “on-plane”. Your idea of a door being mounted sideways on the ground makes no sense. The club arises from the arms, which are attached to the torso, and if a golfer keeps the clubshaft on the same inclined plane between P3 and P4, then he has an “on-plane” swing through the impact zone.
I can understand that you may prefer that a golfer’s “on-plane” clubshaft (between P3 and P4) be on a shallower plane, rather than a steeper plane, but then you have to produce an argument that supports your preference.
