You’re confusing debate about science with judgement about a teaching methodology. The title of the thread isn’t “My improvement validates Erickson.” It’s “Science Validates Erickson.”
As JE said in another reply, all that really matters with regard to playing golf is the flight of the ball. So the fact that the shaft isn’t bent backward and the hands and hips and torso are decelerating at impact is irrelevant…with regard to playing golf. But it is very relevant if we are debating the science of a golf swing.
If for you, the best way to strike it well is to intend to accelerate your torso through impact, that in itself is valid. It’s valid as a method to hit a golf ball. But it isn’t necessarily a valid description of what actually happens when you swing. The only way to see if it actually describes your swing, from an observational/scientific perspective, is to take measurements.
And the measurements show that you might feel as if you’re doing A, when in reality you’re doing B. Take a GEARS session, and you’ll see. GEARS by the way isn’t a “2D” system, it isn’t radar or a launch monitor. It is a 3D motion capture system that measures every segment of your body and the club simultaneously. It’s not the only motion capture system out there, but I think it is the only one that is sold commercially and used in applications other than academic research (i.e., by baseball instructors, golf teachers, etc.).
Again, you are not correct, I am NOT dragging the clubhead at all… VERY ACTIVE hand and forearm rotation.
I suggest you try to re create this … I think you will find it is VERY difficult without proper hitting knowledge. It’s very challenging…
This is actually the core of ABS instruction… of what we train the body to do in the early Module work.
This is NOT swinging stuff… you would be doing yourself a huge golfing favor by attempting to do this… then I am most certain you would come back with very good and intelligent questions and a much more sophisticated understanding of the golf swing.
You are still doing it from a 2 1/2-3 foot “backswing”. You’re not dealing with the forces present in the change of direction/transition, you aren’t dealing with getting enough hand speed early in the downswing, you aren’t dealing with the arc of the clubhead moving outside the hands, you aren’t dealing with changing directions or curving your hand path from P6 to P7. It isn’t a motion representative of what happens in a golf swing.
@BomGolf222 is right anyway…its the swingers anticipation that causes the stall in your references above, dubious.
You are incorrect because you’ve put the ‘cart before the horse’. It is the release of the club that causes the stall of the lead arm, energy has flowed from the arm to the club as it releases which is why the arm stalls. If you time the release too early the arm will stall prematurely and the clubhead’s angular momentum is going flip your wrists before impact.
You don’t wish to be measured on GEARS but Erik Barzeski has offered JE or another of his students to use whatever equipment you wish.
Those ShaftLab graphs showing lead shaft lag just before impact were dated 1999 so not exactly modern data using modern golf clubs. I repeat, was Arnold Palmer one of those superior hitters that could be categorised as using an ABS type technique?
Because you can’t do it accurately with a 2 dimensional video. But it has been done in the past with things like strobe cameras and such, and the conclusions are all the same.
There are numerous explanations of the kinematic sequence in golf books going back to Cochrane and Stobbs in the 70s…even Hogan in his book talked about how on the downswing his hips accelerated his shoulders which accelerated his hands and then the club. I don’t see why this is so hard for people to accept. You can have the INTENT of accelerating your hands or torso or whatever, but your body will not actually do it in the swing. Once you transfer the energy of one body segment to the next, the previous element of the chain slows down. It’s Newton’s law of the conservation of angular momentum. It’s so pronounced in Rory McIlroy that his hips actually turn backward briefly in his swing, before impact.
There was a shot that you don’t see anymore, a low drilled hanger that lands softly, it made no sense to the eye or to logic, but it happened - go in lower and flatter but stop quicker.
It was a heavy strike feeling, leaving the clubhead on the ball for a little bit longer is how it felt. The new ball hasn’t helped, but you can still hit something similar to it if you hit it properly.
First off, they are averages…secondly, they have 6ft of dispersion. That is NOT control of trajectories. Its not that the old guys were super human, the equipment was superior for consistency. Modern equipment is designed for a swingers mishit.
Stop showing modern data…its pointless in this argument.You just continue to show how little you actually understand about proper ballstriking.
Then get me some data from 1967 measuring apex heights through the bag. Otherwise you’re just inventing stuff, assuming about those inventions, and talking out of your ass.
This is one of the problems with this ‘debate’, data is required to ‘prove’ points about golf from previous era, or from this era even.
Here’s what I’d say from experience - the best players from 20+ years ago would hit an 8 iron the same height as a 5 iron, and I mean the proper ball strikers. I’d even go out to a 3 iron and say the same. All of the shots would just hang there for whatever forward distance they traveled, then drop down.
I can’t prove that, I’m just saying how it was, and how it isn’t now.
@lagpressure i have not seen so much bullshiat anti technique of a OP discussions on a golf blog before
I guess ur a threat to a swingers technique bc these guys are HANGRY to keep flippn their 18 hcps
I love this orbit pull but of course the used this pic against ur theory of the orbit pull shaft flex. BTW Jimmy Ballard loves this pic as the inner and outer forces work to create a whole club release !
