Let's Talk Lag's Golf Machine

Lag - would you mind summarising (if that’s possible) what the major differences were in how you and the ISG TGMers interpreted the book, or hitting, or whatever it was? Was it just that they see hitting as a right-arm palm-strike type action whereas you see it as more of a hand/forearm action? Was it the fact that they don’t believe “resisting the CF forces” has anything to do with hitting?

FWIW, I just can’t grasp the right-arm palm strike action at all, except for little chip shots. To me the M1 action makes more sense.

If no one objects I’d be very happy to take that on as a mini project - I love reading the uber thread so its never a hardship to read it one more time and make some notes. Perhaps I’ll give the first couple of sections a go over the next 24-48 hours and post the results. If anyone thinks I am missing anything as I go through or the style isn’t helping they are very welcome to drop me a pm.

Cheers, Arnie

P.S I’ll cross reference everything TGM style 10-2-1 shall I :wink: Just joking…

Lag - Funny you should bring stance width up, I just sent a long email to a long-time student who is struggling with that issue. It’s an individual thing, many factors come into play, mainly height but also flexibility, back health, and Swing Style. My take on this: stance width affects degree of hip rotation (narrower=more hip rotation, wide=less), Low Point (wider=low point move to the right for a right-handed golfer, narrower = moves to the left), balance (narrow hurts balance, wider lowers your center of gravity and helps balance), low back/spine health (narrow= better for the back due to less twisting/stretch pressure on the spine and spinal ligaments and muscles, too wide causes that pressure to increase), right spine tilt (narower = less and wider = more) and amount of lateral weight transfer during forward swing (too wide = a lot of lateral transfer and this can be hard to time and to stay in balance, can lead to a sway and lack of a firm Left Wall of Resistance during Release).

We recommend narrower stances for shorter folks and wider stances for taller folks - for all of the above reasons. Average height of around 5’9-5’11, starting with the inside of the heels on a SW and LW measured at either 9 or 10 inches wide. From there the stance gets progressively wider in 1 1/2 inch increments for each of the following club categories: 9, PW, GW; 6,7,8; 3,4,5 and hybrids and 5 wood; 3 wood; driver.

You could go an inch wider than this, but that may be too wide for most folks. Personal preference. I would not go narrower than the baseline starting point of nine inch method. Six feet to six feet 4 inches, the SW/LW baseline is 10 or 11 inches. Over 6’4" its 11 or 12 inches.
5’5" it’s 8 or 9 inches. 5’4" or less its 7 or 8 inches.

Use a marked three foot long yard stick for each club category stance width and practice in front of a mirror for a few minutes every day. It gets to be a habit very quickly.

Lag, I posted my response to your question in the wrong thread, “Unlocked”. Sorry for that. Still learning my way around here. Can you possibly move it to the correct place?

Jim W

BP - I think its fine here but I have also placed your thoughts on stance width and Lags question in the module 2 student section of the site where there is related material.

More important, many thanks as v interesting stuff.

Cheers, arnie

Just to say as promised I knocked up a bullet point style table of contents for pages 1-10 of of Let’s Talk Lag’s Golf Machine. You can find it in the page 1-10 thread but here is a direct link:

http://www.advancedballstriking.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=334&p=2792&sid=a08679ca44c9f3ad0c745a848c912a85#p279

It was fun to do, but let me know if it is or isn’t helpful before I plow on! I believe that Lag will pull together a terminology crib sheet at some point so I have avoided attempting to do that here.

Thanks, Arnie

It is very helpful to me as I always read the thread jumping around from one page to another. With the note there from you, I could find out the topic first and start reading. Thanks A-A !! :sunglasses:

AA,

Fantastic,
This is exactly why I sub divided the posts up into 16 sub pages rather than the ominous 162 pages of non referenced material as they have it on the former site.

Once this is done, maybe we could just have one index page that would then point to the sub pages. Just an idea. I suppose over time we can do the same thing over here… so for every “X” number of posts, we can start a new page off and just continue. I like that idea. Good work. It already feels like much more of a team effort here rather than what was going on before.

TeddyIrons,

From my experience being both a hitter and formerly a swinger, and from the perspective of a tour player, the distinction between hitting and swinging should be in the hands.

Both Hogan and Snead often referenced “hitting with the right hand” Hogan also talked about “Hitting just as hard with the left hand”

In a nutshell I see it like this… the hands can either be passive hinges or active motors. I can drag the hands down from the top with the pivot,
and allow angular momentum to take over and automatically release the club. This is swinging. Relaxed hands also promote relaxed arms, and this is where we see the arms flying off the body post impact, out to right field.

Mac O’Grady once said “Swinging is out to right field, Hitting is around the corner”
That’s the cut it left stuff post impact… which works perfectly with a no roll or TGM “angled hinge”

With the dead or passive hand swinger’s protocol, there is little or no resistance to the outward pull of CF, so the clubface simply flips over because if the forces that be are unchecked, the clubface will seek a gravitational inline position with the shaft quickly past lowpoint. We see this as a full roll or TGM calls a horizontal hinge.

Now if the hands “HIT” actively, then that hit changes the path of the club and shaft, and starts the move left or around the corner. The hitter actually is in a fight with CF… trying to pull against it.

If you let go of a golf club at impact, the club will bounce off the ground and go off to your right towards right field. If we fire the hands and
keep the upper arms pinned onto the body, we are changing the direction of the golf club from it’s natural path.

So a common question would be, why would one want to do that? We’ll, for many reasons… First, you are going to actually keep the clubshaft on plane… Ask any of the guys here that are into module #4 and they will attest to the validity of this. It’s really quite a shock for most when they find out where true swing place actually is. Second… you can limit the amount of clubface rotation, and install an angled hinge action, which no doubt offers much better control of the golf ball. Third, this pull against CF puts feel into our hands… much more than if we are just dump slapping the club on the ball, and finally, hitting allows us the possibility to bring into impact a pre-stressed clubshaft into impact, which will be much more effective in resisting the forces of impact because to do so, you are introducing acceleration into the formula. Swingers do not have that option…swingers use a momentum strike, not a force strike. There is a difference… and it reads

f=ma hitters
p=mv swingers

p being momentum m being mass v being velocity a being acceleration f being force

Now you can call this stuff what you want, but from what I know about Lynn Blake who seems… for some reason to be the newly appointed expert of TGM, he teaches hitting to follow the same path as swinging, but instead of a passive hand and arm dump, he calls it a right arm hit, driving the right elbow actively with muscular force to an early both arms straight position post impact.

Now if you actually read The Yellow book and don’t just take Lynn Blake’s word for it… you might look at…
2-K at the bottom.

A Ball related release for swingers can be produced by using RIGHT ARM THRUST INSTEAD OF BODY MOMENTUM to resist clubhead slowdown during extension, if there is sufficient Clubhead inertia to restrict Lag pressure thrust to only extensor action application.

Lynn is simply confusing right arm active driving with a swinger’s option to drive actively with the right arm substituting a post impact pivot thrust with a right arm extensor action drive out to right field.

If he wants to call that hitting, fine… but the problem is that it looks exactly the same, so it’s nearly impossible to distinguish even if you are standing right infront of the player, or even watching it on video at 10K shutter speed. So his poster child Brian Gay, is doing this, or so he says, (I question this also) but Lynn is smart enough to set him up very upright on a shoulder plane and not down low on an elbow plane where he would be dealing with the shaft moving quickly off plane post impact. Gay’s upright impact swingplane is more along the lines of Moe, so he avoids the hazards of typical swingers problems.

Gay’s clubface closes pretty quick post impact, and is not angle hinging from what I can see, so this screams swinging to me. Moe’s face shut down quickly also, and this simply doesn’t happen with active firing hands. Then again Blake calls Moe a pure hitter so go figure.

The real hitting is what Mac and I would talk about, cutting left with an active hand strike, and this would be more inline also with the words of Hogan or Snead, or Mac, who have all voiced their opinions on what to call “a hit”

I actually tried to teach this to Paul Smith over a Skype session, showing the difference, but he is just too rooted in the Blake camp to even consider it as a possibility.

Here is a quote Paul made on the thread last month…

ps.jpg

So why Paul? Why pin the arms on the body? How about so you can learn to hit the ball like Hogan for starters… :astonished:
hgan.jpg

This thread is called “Let’s Talk…” not “Let’s smoke and mirror everything to death.”

BP,

I’m sure you remember Rex Caldwell… maybe the widest stance ever? It would be fun if someone could dig up some pics of Rex with those pyramids of Egypt.

Knudson credited the finishing up flat upon the left foot to learning to strike it off a wider stance.

What’s your take on the left foot roll over used by so many? The thought of that hurts my ankle right now!
I know a lot of good players or great players went over on the left foot. I don’t think I would be prone to teach it unless
someone was already using it with great success. I have seen more than a fair share of top golf played that way, so it clearly has merit.

You being “The Balance Point Man” you must have some strong opinions on this…

Lag, I like to see the left foot flat all the way to the Finish. Not everyone can do this, takes pretty good flexibility in the left calf and ankle, but it does help a lot with Balance. I know it was one of the things Hogan worked on for a over a year to master it. Talk about mastering ground forces! You are right, many great players have some degree of left ankle roll over at Finish, J Miller probably the most extreme example. I say they all would be better strikers if they kept it flat.

The first thing I check working with a new student is his connection to the ground with his feet and his overall Balance. If I see a lot of instability in the feet/ground connection, we always start the improvement process right there. Balance is job number one - because when it is poor, the RIghting Instinct takes over the body and the Golf Swing Program stops being communicated from brain to body. Working on anything else first is a waste of time.

The trend on Tour now seems to be moving toward narrower stances, prior to that it was toward wider stances. TIger has certainly gotten a lot narrower, compare his driver stance with Butch era compared to today. Like most things in golf - and in life - “straight down the middle” (old Bing Crosby golf-themed tune!) as Buddha recommended, is usually best.

Lag, great post, whisper is that Blake doesn’t teach swinging/hitting correctly as you suspect, from a GSED who was close to Homer
One thing to consider , dont forget plane angle and #3 accum / sweetspot influence on the appearance of the amount of face rotation going on

I’m not anti TGM, but I just see it for what it is… an futile attempt at complete cataloging of the golf swing. It fails in that way, just as any attempt at such a lofty undertaking would. I don’t think you can cover everything in a book format. If any reader has one iota of confusion or even a question, it’s essentially an incomplete work.

I think the idea is delicious, that with 24 components and 124 variations you get close, but by not having a component for ground forces in the feet, and even the variations that would present, shows a bit of inexperience. Homer was limited by his perspective of observable analysis. If he really could have felt the golf swing within the body the way Hogan or Moe or Trevino did, it would have been a completely different book. It’s a tough read and endlessly confusing for nearly everyone. I mean look at the dogmatic camps you have for it now? Somehow it went from science to religion. As soon as I proposed that the world was not flat anymore, I was exiled. A few hundred years ago, I might have been executed in front of crowd of jeering TGMer’s.

Once I reread the book again in close detail this year, and questioned “where is the beef?” or the missing pivot form one lever post impact, that was too much … because obviously I never got an answer from the experts… and only Homers 2 M 3 even suggests such a thing. Could that really have jolted the basic foundation of the work? I think it’s worth a look… not to say a lot of the other stuff is not good… but to me this is really serious stuff.

If you install the form 1 lever, and work that properly then you get FLW… then the FLW is only a vapor trail condition, not really a core imperative… The whole thing starts to look like a house of cards that is ready to fall. Then you now have a different imperative…

Stationary head is not right… maybe through impact but not a good idea at transition into P3. Knee flex is a great way to initiate transition, so the head is going down unless you are raising up the torso to compensate, but even then the head would move back towards your ankles.

It should stay within the scientific method, and not propped on top of the pulpit.

BP,

Have you seen Ryo Ishikawa? He is a small guy using a very wide stance. I thought it looked really good.

How 'bout Tim Clark?!? They showed his left ankle on the follow through. His ankle touched the ground he rolled so much!!! It looked like footage from a B-grade Zombie movie minus the blood. :stuck_out_tongue:

As Gerry Hogan (correctly) states - “the heel is the bottom of the leg”. That’s good enough for me.

Thanks for the explanation Lag - a great post and what I thought but glad to have it confirmed.
I think LB is very good, but I agree that your version is also hitting, and whether right arm thrust is hitting or not doesn’t matter to me any more - tried it and failed. I also agree about your comments on the head - trying to keep that still is a vapour trail too. TGM has definitely become religious dogma in many places and oddly enough the thread over at LBG about you brought me over here :slight_smile:
TGM is very useful no doubt, but it shouldn’t be set in stone.

Thanks Goodness, we are back to GOLF discussion. I am no expert and have deliberatly kept away from reading the yellow book. Just know the zest from the forums. I think in all TGM the “Observing eye” is placed in the hands whereas I believe (I dont know if Lag agrees) that this Eye should be located in the core of the pivot e.g the spine between the shoulder blades. If you make that as a vintage point a lot of Homer’s work becomes redundant. Please dont hang me. :cry:

The left foot roll is an interesting topic. I am the first to NOT DISREGARD it as poor technique. As BP said above, Johnny Miller did this about as good as anyone. If I were re writing TGM I would certainly assign it, it’s own component variation. The feet are very ignored in TGM. A lot of talk about the hands, but not the feet. Just the general open and closed stuff, and basic weight transfer from one foot to another.

Why not separate components for:

Weight transfers
Loading Ground Pressures
Pressure release and application procedures
Toe Rotations
Heel lifting options
Stance width variations
Ankle rolling options

I could probably go on… but these are all very important elements to be considered at some point, and will have an effect of what will be going on in the knees and hips, and ultimately affect the torso and shoulder rotations that flow power through the arms right down into the golf club.

This is really what I mean by TGM being an incomplete work, and this is just THE FEET! So these things are all left up in the air for the instructor to either address, ignore, encourage, discourage, turn a blind eye, or pretend they don’t exist because Homer said so.

One of the things where I think Homer had the biggest impact is on general swing terminology. Homer didn’t invent the term “lag” but he might have invented the terms for angled, horizontal or vertical hinging. Elbow plane, hands plane, shoulder plane, extensor action, impact fix… there’s lots of helpful terminology coined throughout the book the I certainly use, and I think is very good and helpful in describing the golf swing. Also some of the more technical jargon such as “law of the flail” which I have never seen referenced anywhere else in the scientific community (if anyone can find it please post) and other daunting jargon in chapter #2.

The more scientific minded golfers tend to gravitate toward TGM for this very reason. Scientists are hell bent of proper cataloging and categorizing, and for good reason. There is nothing more frustrating than asking for a sample tissue, then someone hands you a piece of toilet paper!

It’s amazing how many of the ABS students here are doctors and lawyers. I suppose the initial lure of TGM is the textbook manual offering, but as people find out, it seems to lack the organic side of golf which certainly can’t be ignored either.

Pirsig’s one off book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” had a big impact on my bridging the scientific world with the practical, the artist or player within me welded to my analytical TGM side. For me, it was no doubt the most influencing piece of literature that would support both sides equally within my own mind so I could traverse across the canyon of intellect and intuition. Had I not got my hands on that book as a 23 year old, I might very well still be trying to figure out how to swing on plane with a flashlight attached to both ends of a golf club against a wall in a dark room twenty years later.
Good intentions there…but that’s not the way to do it…

Excellent points there,Lag. I think Homer actually missed quite a bit by current standards of golf swing theory and understanding. How about options for amount of axis tilt and how that affects Low Point location, release timing, and amount of arm lag. I think he missed the boat entirely on arm swinging concept, he accepted the conventional wisdom then, and even today, that the golf ballstriking motion is at its most fundamental level an arm swinging independently across the chest motion, especially through impact segment of the swing. If he understood that this is the biggest Illusion in all of golf, he would have included the Pivot thrust as the number one lever in the swing, as you have talked about before. THAT is his most profundly important missing piece of the puzzle. But - “you dont know what you dont know”.

He never talked about body type and flexibility and their incredible influence on how an individual can move the body and club. And I think his division of the swing into only two swing styles, Hitting and Swinging, was misleading in that there were clearly two other styles even back in his day. One could argue that S/T and the Gary Edwin swing style (similar to s/t) might be a fifth style.(That is not me endorsing those methods, just reporting what is!). He missed entirely the geometry of the amount of arm to chest angle relationship to amount of hip and shoulder “openess” at impact, and a fourth factor - amount of axis tilt at impact, and how those four factors affects ball flight. He seemed to miss a lot of important stuff related to trajectory control. My guess is he just did not know about this stuff, hence its not in the book.

I also think his explanations of both swinging and hitting were flat out incorrect and seemed to change a lot between different editions of the book. What most TGM’ers will never admit, is that Homer himself was searching for The Answer, and was not just “objectively” cataloging a lot of ways the conscious intellectual mind of a highly analytical observe could explain the golf swing. He was working on his own swing through trial and error on the range, the way most average golfers do, trying out a “swing thought” to see how it affected ball flight. He had his unconscious biases and filters - no question about it. Nothing wrong with that empirical approach, but it is hardly a rigorous scientific approach - especially by current standards. I can lead to some very valid insights - but also some glaring errors.

Mac told me that Homer told him that he actually “stole” a lot of his info from the first modern book on the science of the swing by Dave Williams ? - if my memory serves - and also Search for the Perfect Swing. He seems to have read Dantes book as well and was familiar with Boomer too. Mac’s take was that the foundational flaw in TGM was placing geometry as far more important than physics.

Well,

Things really feel good here, without having to tip toe around the threat of getting booted on this thread’s previous home.
I remember seeing the book “Search for the Perfect Swing” back when I was a kid. It would be interesting to have a re read of it from my perspective now. I’ll keep my eye out for a copy, or maybe I can order it from the public library here.

Over time I moved away from geometry based theory, to physics based, because with the extensive video work I did on myself as a test subject, and I am a very stubborn student!.. I quickly learned that the geometry was only going to be created by the physics that guided or created it.

I like teaching pressures, internal body pressures, and things we can feel within the body, because like you said, everyone is different, but if you can feel a kinetic link start to develop throughout the body from the ground up, you are going to improve at this game much faster than trying to analyze every angle and joint measurement from an armchair.

It sure helps to know what things need to feel like… and if you are a 15 handicapper, there is no way you are going to be feeling the correct sensations within the body. I don’t mean to keep bagging on Paul Smith, but when he was explaining to me that the hands guide the action of the pivot, I realized he was a 15 handicapper. It was just one of the moments when you simply see the childlike innocence of good intentions… he is showing me that if you put the hands here… say for instance the top of the backswing, look how the body just magically follows?

He believes that if the hands simply move through the correct positions or path, the body will passively follow along.
That’s all the flashlight stuff…
The high handicappers have no concept of the cohesive body tensions that must exist in the swing. In common golf lingo we hear the word connection… Like you said, simply flapping the arms back and forth across the chest is not going to get you to top tier ball striking as much as the equipment companies have tried to allow that to happen… they are failing miserably… because the club designers these days I would guess are hackers themselves… not Ben Hogan making and shaping a PowerThrust set of forgings. Just look at the clubs now… they scream back at you “you need help!”

I really feel the lightbulb moment that “the inside turns the outside” is the biggest “right of passage” in the pursuit of a properly functioning golf swing. When a player really gets that one… everything changes.