Let's Talk Lag's Golf Machine

Essential Reading
1181

1teebox,

The nice thing about golf is that even if an idea/concept/theory is proven wrong scientifically it does not really alter the value of the golf instruction connected somehow to this ‘faulty knowledge’. Golf is indeed very much about feel and very little about science. But human nature craves for explanations so some is required. :wink:

However when forums such as iseekgolf bans me only after 5 days of neutral posts, and LBG does not even let me post only once, it is clear that some, fancying themselves to be truly scientific, are indeed very much afraid that someone might destroy their fantasy about teaching a superior scientific golf. :laughing:

1182

I do everything I can to feel as if the club is off plane at every moment in the swing… this being a 3D feel. Loop at transition, shallow in and steep exit,
all moving through a series of opposing forces felt and experienced throughout the body and into the hands. The key is knowing what you should be feeling.

The result is a very on plane looking golf swing.

I think trying to swing on plane is one of the worst things you can try to achieve, because our eyes are simply denied access to visually seeing a plane.
Because our eyes are above the plane looking down, if a plane exists, we are seeing the circular motions or arcs being drawn across it’s surface, and that being visually projected against… not a plane… but the ground which is more or less perpendicular to our body. This leads us to a series of horrific illusions if we are visually interested in something we believe to be on plane.

1183

mandrin,

Opinion and new light on subjects is embraced or hammered here as it should be until the truth, or a sharper perspective, anyone’s, survives the occasional subjective flap. It’s a hoot and a good deal, one of the best imho. I fervently hope my treasured, but wrong, golf swing fantasies will be replaced by science or the right feel, or both, the sooner the better.

Best to you,
1teebox

1184

Dear Lag pressure,
You DO know you are getting 10 to the 23rd karma points for creating this site, doncha?

I’ve read all of the archived posts, and would like to make a few coments.

  1. Your words and concepts took five strokes off my round today. How you describe the golf swing, in terms of a hitter, solidified every lesson I’ve ever had.

  2. I prolly saw you play in the Canuck tour, back when Ronnie was the president. If it was on a course in Calgary, I think Canyon Meadows, but that was alota years ago.

  3. Did you ever get roped into being a ringer in the Alberta Oilman’s open?

  4. You mentioned, WAYYY back in one of the posts, that you have played courses in PEI. That’s the end o’ the world I’m playin now, and it makes one smile to read you mentioned this million acre farm as a fave. Guessin you played Crowbush Cove, or maybe Mill River.

Anyway, just wanted to give you the feedback that yes, your words DO make a difference to the rank and file golfers out here. The 220 yard three iron,which nestled oh so sweetly 10 feet from the cup, has a direct line back to my efforts to feel “acceleration after impact” .

The tenor of many posts seem to dispute you on this, but for any who care to read, that concept slots in PERFECTLY to former jocks who struggle with the golf swing.

And on that note, one final question. Why, in your opinion, do so few top athletes from other disciplines (two name brand quarterbacks excepted) ever get really good at golf? It would stand to reason that baseball players should, with a wee bit of tweaking, be able to pure the ball way more than we do.

Isn’t a quality golf swing just a hair’s breadth away from the swing a batter uses to smoke a low and away slider to his pull side? That’s what it feels like when I really paste one.

Anyway, thanks again for your words and insights. They are appreciated.

hawg1

1185

Thanks for the kind words, and it is always a joy to hear more positive feedback. Glad to hear things spoken about on this site are making a difference in your game.

To answer your question… golf is unlike other sports. Even baseball, the ball is moving, and the target is a lot smaller in golf than the 90 degree baseball diamond.

Most sports deal with running fast, jumping high, agility, being big and strong. A good general athlete will be pretty good at quite a few sports with just a little basic instruction.

Golf is different.

Golf is dealing with moving a weighted stick around your body at high speeds with EXTREME precision. High speed rotational forces can be very unfamiliar even to the best of athletes. Typical big and strong is not going to get you far in golf… Although we do need to be strong, the areas for muscular development are unusual in typical gym terms. Even if you are making basically the correct movements… you still have to be able to completely sense where the club is in the golf swing at all times through what we might call “lag pressure”.

The modern gear is trying to get more athletes into the game so they can basically brut the ball with misdirected force and poor intentions, and to some degree this is working. But I would like to see any of the contemporary cross over athletes do it with blades and persimmon. I would only be a believer then.

The powers that be have been busily trying to dumb the game down for quite some time in an attempt to remove more advanced technique, feel, intuition and even putting on perfect surfaces is dumbing that part of the game down… as there used to be grain to deal with and so forth.

I am not surprised to see the Asians doing well, with a history of martial arts to draw inspiration and also advanced concentration methods. It makes sense to me.

Golf instruction in general is also very mediocre at best. Most modern instruction fails to even address the very real polar protocols of hitting and swinging, so this only allows for massive confusion and conflicting methodology from every angle.

The modern gear helps you the day you get it, then it slowly chips away at the health of your golf swing over time like a diet high in salt, processed sugar and grease void also of key vitamins and minerals… because your brain fails to get the proper nutritional feedback… so eventually you more than likely end up worse than before. Your swing gets out of shape, and at some point you start looking for answers, and then fall further into a blackhole of confusion with all the contradiction in teaching approaches.

There are 15 handicappers charging $200 an hour teaching golf. It’s crazy really.

Back to the Canadian Tour…

I played basically in the Bob Beauchemin commissioner era… (not sure I spelled that right! sorry Bob) from 1987 though 1993 I think was my last partial year. Alberta Open was at the WONDERFUL Wolf Creek in Ponoka… and PEI was at Brudenell. We played up in Fort Mac Murray also… Victoria was usually at either Royal Collwood, or the other course where Rutledge grew up… can’t think of the name (Umberland?). I should though because I beat him in the pro am there. BC Open was usually at Point Grey which was a really nice old school track. Winnepeg was at Southwood or Breezy Bend, and Windsor where I won in 91 was at Roseland, and or Point West? We played quite a few tracks around Toronto, Niagra, Hamilton, I liked Brampton CC a lot where John Henrick was pro for many years. Quebec Open was usually at Sorel or Victoriaville which were hidden treats and some of the best off course times were always in Quebec. Great food, and just an interesting place for us Californians. Usually there was an event in Fredericton, and of course Brudenell out at PEI. We would stay in these little cabins on the beach of the Brudenell river, and we would make these huge bon fires at night, and roast marshmellows on the end of broken golf shafts… and the Wednesday all you can eat lobster feast was more than memorable, and quite delicious!
We learned that years ago in PEI you could tell the rich kids from the poor kids at school, because the poor kids would have lobster sandwiches in their lunch boxes, while the rich kids would have roast beef sandwiches in theirs!
missed most of 1990 with an injury.

1 Like
1186

Mandrin…thanks for the clarification. Don’t know who that guy was you mentioned that suggested the “lighthouse” feel…will look him up. Funny though, I played around with that a long time ago in which the feel was exactly as you described: feeling the shaft perpendicular to the ground when loaded at the top and bringing that relationship forward by way of the lighthouse…and at the last moment, a vertical hinging, or drop, of the hands.

That said…I’m confused how the term 3D is being used, as opposed to 2D. In a three dimensional aspect do you mean height, width, and depth to the swing, or perhaps interchangably, down, out, and forward?

Can you define 2 and 3 dimensional movement, and their differences. :slight_smile: RR

1187

RR said:

That said…I’m confused how the term 3D is being used, as opposed to 2D. In a three dimensional aspect do you mean height, width, and depth to the swing, or perhaps interchangably, down, out, and forward?

Me too. Forgive me for being a little dense for not getting it/ being able to see :nerd: it…but I am interested and would appreciate clarification.
Thanks/ eagle

1188

Mandrin,…

I understand completely what you mean by the 3d feeling, never heard anyone describe it like that but that´s what I feel. For RR, my understanding of it is that I don´t feel like I am running the club on a 2d cardboard slanted upwards if you will to match the swingplane. My feeling is that I bring the club up in a loopy and almost “convoluted” fashion that keeps the club feeling super connected to my body (core) going up and then I again repeat that action with the help of simply unhinging those angles (very purposefully unhinging only certain angles meaning things unhinge in a certain direction) with the help of gravity and then the hands and then the pivot. My key to keep on plane was thinking of my elbows and hands as hinges that only release in a very certain way (feels quite weird but the results are very much onplane). I can release my hands, forearms and elbow joints in sequence and then finally the hands at the bottom. It all feels restricted, certain and very intentional indeed and not at all as im running the club along a slanted 2d board. I agree with lag, I don´t feel onplane at all. This at least results in my best ballstriking so far, and its very far from my attempts to be onplane before.

Regards

CP

1189

A quick Google search revealed this article by Eddie Merrins that addresses his concept of a 3D swing.

golf.com/golf/instruction/ar … 64,00.html

1190

Range Rat,

The golf swing occurs in three dimensions, hence, by definition all swings are 3D. However, ‘2D’ and ‘3D’ were used to make a long story very short. Lots of golf is attached to the notion of plane. Some have gone very sophisticated with this approach but it all remains very closely associated with the simple notion of a plane.

A plane is two dimensional, hence, this type of golf can be generically be characterized as being ‘2D’ in nature…the golfer is using images and motion patterns to keep the club on a plane. Even when many planes are introduced, such as in TGM, the basic aim is still to reduce the complexity of the swing to the readily grasped concept of a plane, hence 2D.

When not considering any notion of plane one can more appropriately talk about a ‘3D’ swing. Specifically I referred to swing using a rotation of the trunk about the vertical axis and the shoulders and wrist, rotating about horizontal axes. The arms/wrists move the club up and down in front of the body whilst the latter rotates around a vertical axis. An important detail with this particular swing is that the wrist are unhinging vertical onto the ball and can develop a rather appreciable torque if so desired.

The concept of plane as applied to golf, has become probably way overcooked with time and likely becoming a straightjacket, imposing a constraint on the swing from the outside. It appears that lag’s approach is from the inside, having forces/torques create the geometry of the golf swing. Hence there is no notion of plane, but it might just happen nevertheless - just another paradox in golf. :astonished:

1191

Thanks much Mandrin…nice explanation. Now I know how the term is being used :slight_smile: RR

1192

I wonder how this fits in with Lag’s module 1 action…?

Certainly, the idea of having separate axes with the wrist releasing vertically (or feeling like it releases vertically from a position above the ball) speaks to the delayed or late hit and the two stage rocket with the pivot accompanying and then taking over the post impact thrust.

1193

I really agree with this. And anyone who has spent time out on the world tours knows there are a lot of loopy actions playing some fantastic golf at times.

The logical references to the club being parallel to the ground AND parallel to the base of the plane or target line add terrible mental images for a proper golf swing.

For one…

These are nearly incomprehensible moments in time, when the club is going to be parallel to the ground. When the clubhead is approaching 100 mph, we don’t have much time to feel or monitor such a position.

Most of the ABS referencing here to P3… P4 and so forth is only for starting positions for module work, or simply referencing pre and post impact intentions. The shaft itself is never going to be felt as if it is parallel to the base line.
Such a parallel feeling will send a player into an arm swing, OTT and certainly a lack or proper hand action.

Since we are not on an “eye plane”, we are dealt several big illusions, but nonetheless, these distortions are in fact what we see…
and we need to be seeing the correct distortions… not just any distortion.

1194

lag,

It is fascinating how, especially in TGM, the issue of planes is really getting out of hands. Example, TGM teaches two distinct planes…a shaft plane and the sweet spot plane. However the difference is so small that this is beyond human perception. Moreover, as an important side note…Homer’s scientific ideas re to planes are simply not correct. His sweet spot plane is wrongly defined and equally so is his idea of gyroscopic action.

In a discussion, several years back, I had this exchange with a TGMer, illustrating clearly how far people get deeply embroiled in all this fancy plane stuff.

NAT:
“The shaft only holds itself to the inclined plane when it rotates from its own plane to that of the sweetspot’s plane during the backstroke for swinging…then it rotates from the sweetspot plane back to it’s own for impact and the Hinge Interval…then again rotates from its own to that of the sweetspot for the finish swivel…But the Sweetspot plane always holds itself to “tracing” the intended plane line!!!”

mandrin:
NAT, above, crystal clear, and so simple and down-to-earth - I really love it. Any non-golfer reading this will instantaneously deeply regret not having taken up golf as it appears clearly from above to be a very fascinating sport. All those planes - inclined plane, own plane, sweet spot plane as well as hinge interval, finish swivel, plane line, tracing …so much fun. :laughing: :laughing:

1195

M
I don’t comment much (mainly cuz I don’t know too much), but that made me LOL
thanks for the chuckle
bent

1196

Top notch, Mandrin… great stuff.

1197

The tracing the plane line stuff is really fools gold at best. You can work with a flashlight against a wall all night long, and still have the arms completely disconnected from the body, and even be horrifically off plane because light coming out of one end of the shaft as a vector does not guarantee that light coming out of the other end at the same time is going to be staying in a two dimensional reality.

It took me a while to actually figure out that we don’t want to be on plane for much of the swing. P3 to P4, yes, but no where else really.

There are fantastic advantages to being flat, under or below plane upon entry into P3, and the exact opposite exiting P4.
Once you both understand this because you have actually felt this within the body, it opens up another world of understanding and the golf ball loves it.

This also is very supported historically by the games top ball strikers.

91.jpg
91.jpg727×586 97.2 KB

1198

For those vintage equipment fans, I have interviewed Mr. Jesse Ortiz formerly of Orlimar Golf and now with Bobby Jones Golf. Jesse and his father Lou were the premier persimmon people back in the day. I’m sure Lag is familiar with their work.
http://gothamgolfblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/q-with-jesse-ortiz.html

Part 2
http://gothamgolfblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/q-with-jesse-ortiz-part-2.html

Enjoy,
NYC

1199

I saw my first wooden Orlimar driver in the 1970’s, when I asked a schoolmate from the west coast to go out for a round of golf. It struck me as a thing of beauty.

That was an interesting and very informative interview with what sounds like a good guy. Thanks!

1200

mandrin:
NAT, above, crystal clear, and so simple and down-to-earth - I really love it. Any non-golfer reading this will instantaneously deeply regret not having taken up golf as it appears clearly from above to be a very fascinating sport. All those planes - inclined plane, own plane, sweet spot plane as well as hinge interval, finish swivel, plane line, tracing …so much fun.

Lets hope you didn’t have to come up with one of your elaborate formulas to come up with that reply.