The equipment forces their hands…hitters protocol doesnt work so well without mass.
2 Likes
It may be simpler, but there is no door. Just a human being applying and responding to forces and torques.
Dubious,
What is going on with you? I’m trying to have an intelligent dialog with you and you get indignant, even hostile.
Do you actually read my posts?
Do you expect others to study so intently all of your posts so as to instantly recall what you wrote? A simple “as I posted earlier here…” not only suffices, but comes across much less self-important.
Why do you go off on tangents about pseudoscience and Richard Feynman?
What tangent are you referring to? As is clear from my reply to you, I was directly addressing your inflammatory remark that “this forum which seems obviously anti-science…” by noting that what to your mind is scientific is actually much closer to pseudoscience, and I used Feynman’s observations to make my point. I know you regard yourself as someone steeped in science, so I imagine it’s jarring for you to hear this. And responding with hostility only suggests that deep down you know you’re not being very scientific.
It’s quite simple .
- JE posted a picture of Greg Norman implying shaft flex into impact .
- I’ve shown you the graphs of Greg Norman’s swing where shaft flex is measured with lead >/forward flex at impact.
What’s the problem?
The problem is painfully obvious. John provides evidence of Greg Norman holding shaft flex. Instead of analyzing and critiquing that evidence (i.e., that particular photo), you instead deflect by putting forth graphs of something unrelated to the swing portrayed in that photo. This simple dialog should spell out for you the distorted logic in your argument:
Person A: Here’s a photo of a batter hitting a fly ball into the outfield.
Person B: Well, that’s impossible because here’re two graphs showing that same batter hitting balls that bounced in the infield.
That’s logically what you’re communicating. When you argue in such an illogical way it makes it harder for others to take seriously your claim that it’s they who are unscientific.
The tool used was called ShaftLab.
Ok, that’s nice to know I guess, but the name of the tool is not the issue. Unless those graphs reflect data from the swing in the photo John posted, what’s the point of bringing it up? Reread the dialog above between Persons A and B.
Did you see my link about the ‘doctored images’? They were posted on this forum but JE deleted it so I posted them again on the NGI forum.
Again, what does this have to do with that photo of Greg Norman? Are you accusing John of doctoring that photo? You’re really grasping at straws.
If you’re interested in having a productive, intelligent dialog, then please respond accordingly. Try to hear people and understand what they’re saying and where they’re coming from. If you don’t understand what someone is saying, then ask them to reword it. If you find someone’s claim hard to believe, then speak directly to that, and not deflect to some unrelated “evidence.”
William
2 Likes
Can you please describe what the alpha, beta, and gamma planes are in your own words, using language that’s common to the vast majority of members on this forum?
He’s definitely not just using beta force he’s using alpha torque. That’s Johns whole point about hitting vs swinging. He’s aggressively rotating the clubhead into impact. In a ‘big picture way’ his pivot provides the beta force and hands the alpha torque.
The actually kinematics are not important in learning this motion, Johns intention is.
The intentions have to be taken into account. Current 3D systems work off of calculations and visual diagnostics. Even where people have pressure sensing devices in grips, or force plates, the intentions are key and often absent.
If I’m focusing on applying force at both ends of the club into and through and beyond the strike, the clubshaft could visually have a wave of pressure distorting it that makes it intuitively appear that I’m not doing what I say I’m doing, and intending and actually feeling, all the while the shaft is stressed.
Whatever the visual appearance there is a tangible difference when shafts of different flexes and weight and material and stress hit a ball. You are effectively saying that there isn’t, and that the golfer can’t make any pressure changes to the club through impact because the net negative (from one study) force on the hands indicates the clubshaft is behaving like a string or means the hands are doing gross negative work or intended gross negative work on the grip. That is effectively what you are saying and is an utter nonsense.
I am going to teach the ABS Methodology… not you. Feel free to start your own instruction site and teach as you wish.
4 Likes
And you are effectively saying that because (from one study you are relying on) the resultant force is negative at the hands, your input and intended input should therefore also match it, in order to replicate and learn it, and to advocate people to do otherwise Jeff called being a charlatan aka you should not strive to hold shaft flex.
And are not prepared to describe your intentions and pressures that cause results. It’s ridiculous. It is the resultant forces caused by your intentions that causes the club to hit the ball in a certain way, the ball to behave in a certain way and your score to be a certain way, as especially tested under competition pressure.
86,
You’re misunderstanding what’s being said.
Consider Fosbury claiming he can clear the high bar while keeping the his center of mass much further below the bar than others have ever achieved. All the data in the world collected by observing other Olympians and world champions would in no way invalidate Fosbury’s claim. And certainly “science” wouldn’t invalidate it.
You can’t on the one hand claim to present scientific evidence, and then on the other hand argue so unscientifically.
William
The modern lightweight clubs are too light… and make the invitation to over accelerate and lose shaft flex the standard.
All you have to do is go back in history and look at the weights of irons and woods.
The heaviest clubs were in the 1950’s… slightly lighter in the 60’s… lighter yet in the 70’s and continuing to get lighter and lighter into the contemporary game. Is it an accident that Hogan, Snead, Nelson… played through that era… Jack, Arnie, Gary learned in that era? Lead tape was all over the backs of clubs into the 70’s and 80’s?
Coincidence that Tiger grew up as a Junior player in the end of the persimmon era? That he grew up hitting heavier persimmon woods… carved out his basic golf swing using the gear of the previous generations?
The focus has been on maxing out velocity with overlength lightweight clubs… not achieving acceleration through the strike which becomes extremely problematic with light weight gear.
The craze has led to lighter irons as well with longer shafts and delofting as well. Lofts are almost 2 clubs off from the old standard. Why? It’s a scam… nothing more. It’s utter nonsense because irons are for accuracy both in direction and distance control. Any quality player who has experimented with heavier irons will know that distance control is far superior with heavier heads.
The solution to the modern game is to pack an atom smasher frying pan that you just let rip when you don’t need to be concerned about accuracy. There are usually a few holes on a course like this. Use it when it’s advantageous to do so. The rest of the game is going to be better played with accuracy in mind. The courses or venues are also going to be a factor.
Why doesn’t the tour play tight bowling alley fairways with thick rough down both sides? It would be tougher… it would be more challenging… and why not for the pros? They are supposed to be so good… so why don’t we see that? Why not small greens? They are harder to hit… and greens that require the ball be placed in the correct positions under the hole? Why are putting surfaces to pristine? It does make it more of a putters game. Bad greens force players to hit the ball closer to make birdies… because they simply won’t make as many putts.
But back to modern clubs…
A light club just accelerates too quickly… then loses shaft flex. The heavier clubs are harder to get moving and take much longer to reach a point of over acceleration… or where acceleration reaches zero on the downswing.
The folks here questioning that it is not possible… have been shown that it is possible.
Shorter backswings, heavier clubs, hitter releases are the path to doing it.
The best way to show it… and feel it… is to take a shorter swing, a heavier club and use a hitter’s release… and this is how you do it.
I hit lots of shots like this. By far the majority of my shots in a round of golf would be this protocol.
The longer shots which much higher velocities create a longitudinal acceleration that stretches the shaft to look straight… even if tangential kinetic energy is still stored in the shaft… (holding shaft flex). This is just how it all works.
I think it’s upsetting to folks who are basing their view of the golf swing on passive hand swinger releases, studying 2/D images, and not understanding the significant forces of longitudinal acceleration masking a shaft flex hold through the strike.
The GEARS invitation is appreciated, however it is in Pennsylvania… I am in California and don’t leave the Bay Area that often. If it works out I am out there for some reason, I would be more than happy to stop in. However, I am not convinced of the benefits of any of these machines for playing golf. Ball flight is much more convincing to me than numbers on a video screen.
I look at divots, listen to the sound of the strike, feel the off centered hits when they come and where that drops the ball on the pie chart. Shot shaping, how the ball plays off sidehill lies, wind, trajectory, pin positions or fairway shapes. Numbers on a screen are just such a short fall of information for playing golf.
I can see the benefit for long drive competitions… but a repeating golf swing will win over someone mimicking some random tour player’s data on such a device.
With all the golf science geniuses out there, they still are not making golf clubs void of offset. It’s pretty shocking really… disappointing.
The scientist still can’t distinguish between hitting and swinging. It’s NOT a subjective opinion… very real stuff.
I could hit a shot 160 yards with a long flowing swing using a swingers release, and I could hit it 160 with a half backswing and an accelerating club. What are the machines going to tell me? They are the same? Different? I already know the answer and which method is best. So the whole digital analysis aspect is rather pointless as I see it.
7 Likes
The scientists/engineers are designing the clubs with offset to move the COG back away from the shaft on purpose to maximise the kick when the shaft releases.
3 Likes
You apply forces and torques to a door when you open and close them. Describing and documenting of those forces and torques does little to help your ability to close a door.
However, practicing closing the door and controlling those forces using biomechanics will in fact improve your ability to close the door. If you got a door closer that closed doors at the highest levels, he could probably teach you how to do it too. In fact, what if we found two master door closers???
Hell, one day you might even be able to slam it!!! Exciting stuff for sure…
Unfortunately, nowadays they make doors too light, so when you slam them they break. You cant accelerate them either, because the air resistance is too.much to over come without mass.
This doesnt change the fact that you can still close that door, of course. You just dont do it with any authority anymore. Its a glancing door close really…house doesnt shake anymore when you slam it. Even sounds hollow…
Designed obsolescence is a thing, where would we be if we weren’t buying new fancy light weight doors every 6 months?
Its unfortunate you cant connect these dots…but how do you see a forest when you have become a tree?
4 Likes
Goodness that is just an awful post of disinformation. If ur sold on using a swingers release like Tommy Aaron to each his own, but thats just a piss poor analysis of the great ball strikers over time. 
1 Like
hanisch
Anti-science is what ABS does and the fact you throw your support behind it (against the research evidence and high tech measuring equipment) by looking at old 2D images of golf shafts is frankly delusional.
This is what you have said " read more like postmodern claptrap than works of science." Your prose seems anti-science to me.
“but nothing deep or informative is produced from it. Reading these don’t result in a deeper understanding of the golf swing that can be used and to put to the test.”
You support ABS on feel and 2D images of shaft in flex while I post evidence of measurements made on shafts using strain gauges (via a very expensive tool called ShaftLab designed by Tru Temper). A poster above has the same ‘lead/forward shaft flex at impact’ measurements for Greg Norman in the database of GEARS. This is a far superior 3D high tech tool than ShaftLab or will you also regard it as ‘postmodern claptrap’?
"John posts a photo of Greg Norman visibly holding shaft flex. It’s from a reputable golf magazine, so there’s no reason to think it’s doctored or produced using inferior cameras. "
I didn’t say the Greg Norman image was doctored - read my post again.
I also wondered why JE deleted my post that showed a possible doctoring of one of the images he posted to prove shaft flex post impact (without striking a ball). That is also shown on the NGI forum if you wish to view it.
John Erickson’s ideas on swinging like Ben Hogan | Newton Golf Institute (proboards.com)
“You then list three criticisms of John’s swing and teaching methods by those who aren’t even in the same universe as John as far as golfing skill and achievement. How do those criticisms refute that photo of Greg Norman holding shaft flex? More bait-and-switch.”
That is untrue as I have never criticised JE swing, but questioned the claims of what he says he’s doing. You haven’t produced any legitimate evidence to support that his feel is real apart from old 2D images and videos on low speed cameras. Even his attempt to prove it on the recent youtube video is highly questionable.
"obfuscating language (another tactic of postmodern pseudo-intellectuals) " - Lol! All your posts seem to be filled with obfuscation using ‘Cargo Cult Science’ as a ‘get out clause’ to rubbish the evidence. So do you regard ShaftLab and GEARS measurements of lead/forward flex for all the golfers on their database as ‘Cult Cargo Science’?
Feynmann- comment
" In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land."
Sounds like a long-winded way of saying ‘Correlation’ doesn’t mean ‘Causation’.
Feynmann -comment
“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.”
Feynmann mentions ‘Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree’ and unfortunately for ABS nature has made up its mind in the golf swing. The COM of the club is slightly behind the shaft/hosel, while the tension in the shaft will reach about 100 lbs when a typical driver is swung at about 100 mph at/through impact. Nature will always tend to align the COM of the club with a net force (the majority of that net force will be directed in the direction of the shaft. Therefore, the clubs COM will tend to align with that force and cause forward shaft bend. The actual forward shaft bend is even more than is expected by the latter which means the hands are applying a negative torque too at the grip which is basically Newtons 3rd Law (or is that cult cargo science at work too?).
Further, the fact that JE continues to delete my evidence showing doctored images of him retaining shaft flex post impact (ie. editing out the ball image post impact) seems to indicate deception.
Which is why I copied and pasted my thread here on the NGI forum because I knew he’d delete it out of pure shame.
The insulting tone of your first paragraph just confirms Hanish’s points…
Don’t go away mad, just go away.
2 Likes
Insulting tone! Lol! Why don’t you call out most of your own ABS posters too ?
Measuring something with a meter doesn’t change what the ball does.
If you want real “science”…or measured observation, let’s compare ball flights.
Why do the modern guys hit is so much higher? Why don’t they change trajectory anymore? Why don’t they work it into targets? Why are systems like DECADE (which teach you to be ok with missing it all the time) becoming so popular? Why are clubs getting “easier to hit and longer”, yet handicaps aren’t improving?
Why did old school guys hit it flatter with more spin? Why did they work it both ways, high and low? Why did Hogan advocate hitting every club to the same APEX height for stock shots? Why did Tiger do this and really no modern guy since can?
When you answer those questions, you’ll realize that the old school techniques were far superior. That’s real observable science. Hogan stopping a 2W from 250 with a tail wind (SWWG Hogan vs. Snead) with a persimmon and balata, around a front trap takes control. It was the same with long irons, Trevino and Knudson had the ball doing jigs on the greens from 200 all day. Gary player stuffed it if he was inside 200. They all had bad days of course, but their good was FAR superior…based on OBSERVABLE comparisons. I think their bad was better than some “good” players today.
We OBSERVE and MEASURE our ball flights here in ABS with our EYES, which are attached to a far superior computer system (our brains). We don’t need digital printouts to tell us the ball responded, sounded and reacted upon landing as we desired. Trackman numbers are nice to see…but when your spin consistency is with 100rpm, does it really matter if a box tells you that? Nope, you saw the ball hop, spin and stop on a dime. Goal complete…move on. The reason tour pros need all this modern tech and teachers at every turn…they don’t have control. Not like the guys in the 50s anyway.
The fact that you need machines to do that for you tells me how far gone you are…or stupid, but I honestly don’t want to disrespect you. I was once a number chaser/figure it out guy. I figured it out BY DOING THE WORK AND OBSERVING/CORRECTING. I came back to thank our teachers and help those attempting to take on this program.
Anyone come back to thank you? Or help you with your students?
Lag shoots 65s with persimmons on classic tracks that would make your head spin. Hell, he won a regular tourney with persimmon clubs back in the day…or placed, I can’t remember…but geesh, observable science guys!!!
He posts his swing in super slow motion. He invites people to his house for lessons…lol, he’s not hiding anything. Just not a huge fan of this era of golf…and who can blame him. He doesn’t care to follow the “trends”…because he’s met the greats and disciples of greats…they all did the same things. Now he shares that with us.
It’s funny, I originally wanted to get on GEARS for a totally different reason…now I see it’s the typical witch hunt. I wanted to help you guys understand, get the word out. You don’t want that…and it saddens me.
3 Likes
@Dubious @Fore_Thirty @JeffMann so u musketeers have any scientific data on this subject? Thx
Many have spent many years drilling using the Advanced Ball Striker Teachings.They have even gone as far as altering their equipment so they can adhere to all the hitting protocols.It’s really shameful how some of these guys post over multiple forums and outlets how bad this program is to them.If it is that bad to you than simply leave and take up the million other swing doctrines that might be to your liking.It’s really quite amazing how much time some people truly have.And time wasted breaking down or finding faults In areas they would never pursue.Just imagine what good they would accomplish in this little world of ours accomplishing positive.Versus negative
1 Like
Think of it this way:
Your behavior is like that of the heckler at the comedy club. Your first and perhaps second comment was interesting or funny. You try and engage the person on stage that we all came to see. The crowd starts booing the heckler because they want to get on with the show. But the heckler ignores their booing, and keeps at it.
I’m the other patron that attempts to help to you the exit, waving off the obvious rancor that you created, before the bouncers toss you out.
1 Like
Instead of hurting this program.They are actually helping