Science Validates Erickson

[Fore_Thirty]

I’m not drawing conclusions from GEARS. What I’m doing is looking at all of the mathematical models, which I will freely admit I can’t understand, presented by PhD level engineers and mathematicians and listening to them speak on the physics and biomechanics of the golf swing. Their conclusion is that the net force at the couple is negative in all golf swings for reasons beyond the control of the golfer. This is why golf shafts are in lead deflection into and at impact.

I am then looking at GEARS data and seeing the realization of that mathematical modeling repeated time after time after time after time with the best players in the world. Certainly if holding shaft flex was the holy grail of ball striking SOMEONE SOMEWHERE on one of the Tours would have figured out how to do it and they would have been measured. They would have been so dominant with this impossible and mysterious technique that a club manufacturer would have brought them in and tested their swing to see how it applied to their clubs and shafts. We would be able to see it. Brian Manzella or Michael Jacobs or Michael Finney or Mike Bennet or Andy Plummer or Michael Manavian or Shaun Webb or Mike Granato or Kwon or Nesbit or Sasho or Mike Schy or Chris Como…or someone…anyone…would have noticed this magical player who accelerates the hands very slowly in transition, maintains a slow acceleration until late in the downswing, and then accelerates aggressively into impact and holds shaft flex. You don’t think one of them, all with access to GEARS or GEARS data would have seen this phenomenon in their research and instruction and investigated it.

None of this is even discussing the club manufacturers who literally built shafts and heads with deflection and droop in mind. What do you think delivering a club into impact with a lagging shaft would do to the 3D loft of the club face? Would a functional golf shot even be possible with a lagging shaft? Shafts are built to kick into impact.

As far as “pivot stall” you’re really just talking generically about “the core” appearing not to slow down. Well, that’s not how it works either. The pivot is comprised of multiple body segments and those segments move at different rates and at different times and they all have different tilts. It is impossible to see all of that on a 2D video representation. You need a 3D system to see what’s happening, you have to differentiate body segments, and you have to be able to the the movement in its own plane because tilts distort turns in 3D. For the record, Rory McIlroy’s hips actually close into impact, but his shoulders and “core” keep opening. How do you explain that in 2D? Because in 3D it can be measured. And John, ABS principals and theories, or whoever else can be too.

[72holeouts]

Blockquote

I agree that it is a nauseating “same old same old” fact that many ABS groupies will never mentally engage with opinions that disprove their ideology.

Jeff.

Blockquote

I’ve said before and Ill say it again. I DESIRE to get on GEARS. I am not Lag, nor Brad. But I know I accelerate beyond impact. I know it’s superior…i’ve played against guys on tour, and if anyone denies it, I’m down to play–just so you can hear it. This does NOT sound like modern tour pros…it is heavier, lands softer with flatter trajectories, and is hardly ever bothered by wind.

Look…I know you have your ideals. I’m telling you…I’m down to show you exactly how good this really is. I’ve tried everything imaginable to hit the golf ball more consistently. This is far better than anything I’ve seen or tried before. Lets test it.

Just let me know when and where to be, my game travels just fine.

Oh, and I’m no groupie…none of us are, show a little respect. Maybe we’ve searched and found something that we like better than you do, notice none of us searching or straying from our community.

[86General]

I got a GEARS session from a guy in NJ for about $125, for about 90 minutes. Other places I looked into charge up to $300. I have no idea what the average is. But you can go to GEARS sports and find a place close to you to get measured.

[hanisch]

@86General

I’m not making any judgement about what the best swing is, nor am I in any way disputing what anyone says about the soundness of the ABS hitting swing. But GEARS data show, both in most individual swings and in the tour average swing, that everything in the body has negative acceleration through the impact zone; only the club head has a positive acceleration. The hands, arms, ribcage, and pelvis all have positive acceleration EARLY in the downswing. It then changes to a negative acceleration, at some point around when the lead arm is parallel to the ground. The sequence is clearly that the body parts accelerate in the first part of the downswing, then begin to slow down, while the club head continues to speed up through into impact.

The argument is based on (1) the modern game overemphasizes distance at the cost of accuracy, and (2) the modern driver is much lighter and longer than in the past.

The modern light driver makes it too easy to over accelerate from the top. The body can’t maintain this acceleration and therefore slows down. The club overtakes the body and then carries the body past impact to the finish.

This technique may indeed produce longer drives than a pivot driven one with heavier gear. When a driver is very light, swinging with the arms and hands from the top may produce a faster club head speed than what a body pivot with a gradual start from the top (and pouring it on late, say at P3.25) can produce. And the modern overemphasis on distance may also make this technique the overwhelming dominant one on tour, with the driver. Moreover, a pivot driven technique may not be possible with such light and long drivers. That may very well explain why most, if not all, the GEARS data with driver swings are as they are. But this does not deny the possibility of accelerating all the way to impact with the right equipment. Is there GEARS data using iron swings, where pros are going for accuracy rather than trying to maximize distance?

[86General]

@hanisch

I’m criticizing the assertion that the laws of physics are being violated, and specifically that GEARS data “proves” this.

First of all, thank you for reading the stuff I wrote here, and please forgive me if my answering and occasionally disagreeing with things I read sounds troll-like. It’s not that at all. I’m a golf nut, and have a scientific mind, and I just like talking about these things. It’s hard sometimes to have a good discussion in these serial-monologue exchanges, because we can’t always respond to everything, and we sometimes miss at making our point or including context. I’m not asserting that I have refuted anyone’s concepts of what works in golf. As I said, I’m at best statistically above average for a recreational player (my lowest index ever was about 6 years ago when I was between 6-7 for a season), and I don’t have jack for street credit as a player, golf teacher, or golf scientist. All that said…

I believe the idea that shaft flex “violates the laws of physics” was someone else’s assertion, and I think you are correct when you say we could construct a robot with a suitable club and so forth which would swing with shaft lag at impact. But I think focusing too much on that syntax diverts us from the point.

I think perhaps what’s being implied by the admittedly over-stated “violation of the laws of physics” is that it seems - from GEARS data yes but also as presented in multiple models of golf swings created by people like Kwon and Mackenzie and so forth - in an actual golf swing, made by a human with arms and legs and using equipment commonly used today, the physics dictate that the shaft is kicking forward, not back, that the hips are decelerating, not accelerating, etc. etc. The physics dictate it - simplifying here - because the energy is being transferred from the body to the clubhead in the kinematic sequence, and the laws of physics do stipulate that in this situation, as the outward part speeds up, the inward part slows down.

None of this is to say that Mr. Erickson or Mr. Hughes have the “wrong” idea about anything. In the end, what is right is what works for you; what someone feels like they are doing, or whatever thought one uses to create good golf swings, is valuable and in the end is the only thing that matters. The golf swing is sort of invisible, because we see the body and club move, but we can’t actually see the forces and torques at work acting on them. So is it possible that a golfer might feel as if he is accelerating when he’s actually decelerating?

I think sure, it’s possible. I can think of an explanation. If there is some huge force being exerted against the rotation of your hips or the uncocking of your wrists or whatever it is, you might be applying forces with your muscles that your brain interprets as making you accelerate, when all you are actually doing is fighting against deceleration. Everything is relative, motions are all conditional on the position and movement of the observer. So in an environment like a golf swing, where you are moving against resistance, it could clearly feel like you are accelerating when, to the camera, or the 3D, or the GEARS, or the great cosmic observer, you are decelerating.

[Fore_Thirty]

Then take an old, heavy driver into a GEARS studio and hit it. It’s very simple to test and find out empirically.

[86General]

Hanisch asked: Is there GEARS data using iron swings, where pros are going for accuracy rather than trying to maximize distance?

This is the tour average iron swing. Club head speed of 93, and it’s about 15 years ago, so I’m guessing this is a mid to short iron. I’m imagining it’s predominantly X-flex shafts in this group. The shaft is deflecting forward coming into impact, as you can see in the image (and is measured as well by the GEARS sensors). And the body dynamics are - from a brief look - the same as in a driver. Meaning, the body starts slowing down at some point midway-ish in the downswing, and the club head continues to accelerate up to impact.

Regarding the measurements: At the point captured in that screen shot, the club head speed is 92. At impact it’s 93. Regarding the body segments, if we look at club parallel to the ground compared to just pre-impact, the acceleration trends are exactly the same in direction as with the driver. The pelvis goes from 327 to 119 and the arms from 743 to 352. The units are degrees of rotation per second.

Again, as I said in my insufferably long previous post, I don’t assert or necessarily believe that any of this invalidates a swing theory wherein someone endeavors to accelerate through impact.

[hanisch]

Yes, we can all get passionate and sometimes come across as trolls! I’m sorry if I came across as being hostile. I certainly regard you (as well as @Fore_Thirty, @JeffMann, and @Dubious) as honestly trying to understand the golf swing, and as such debating in good faith.

The problem I see with citing GEARS data (or that of an equivalent system) is not the data per se, or the methodology of measuring the data. It’s the conclusions being drawn from it from others on this site (not you).

ABS teaches a technique that’s very different from the technique that most modern pros are employing with their drivers. The ABS technique is based on that of Hogan, Snead, Trevino, and many others. It’s not some untested new thing. Many of today’s pros are ABS-like with their irons, but not really with their drivers. It’s not compatible with super light and long drivers.

That’s why I find it thoroughly unproductive to draw conclusions about what is possible with an ABS technique from GEARS data based on modern driver non-ABS swings. I’m not saying you’re doing this, but posting about how Rory uses his hips, or about papers by PhDs analyzing techniques very different from that of ABS to “prove” that certain claims are impossible, is not only bad science, it downright silly. But more importantly it doesn’t move the conversation in a more productive direction.

[Fore_Thirty]

Spot on post. 100%. I think I said something very similar, if not basically exactly what you said, more than once in my posts, but it seems to have been glossed over.

I think golf instruction/swing theory boils down to a few different things: A. What really happens. B. What the player feels is happening. C. What the player’s intentions need to be. D. How the instructor meshes reality with feel and intentions E. How visual/feel based illusions play into all of that. It is very complex.

But I simply refuse to have a discussion of golf swing reality, which can be measured scientifically and objectively, and mix in feel, emotion, and perception to it. There is a time and a place for those thing, and I’d argue that they’re probably more important when it comes right down to it, but if they discussion is about the reality of golf mechanics then that’s the only discussion that needs to be had.

We can 100% simultaneously say, “Pivot segments decelerate, the hands reach maximum acceleration halfway down, the hands decelerate into the ball, and the shaft kicks forward at impact,” while also saying, “In order for those things to be timed correctly we need to feel like the pivot is accelerating late and we need to feel like the hands and club accelerate post impact and the best way to do that is to train ourselves with he intent of holding shaft flex all the way through the ball.” There is nothing wrong or contradictory about those statements and they mesh just find. The golf swing is fast and we simply don’t perceive it in real time. Intents often have to be different than reality and forces and torques are not always occurring as they would appear to be in images or video…or even GEARS. GEARS isn’t showing forces, it’s just showing movement.

But when we have PhD level people saying stuff and explaining the science behind it and then we have data seeming to back it up in all instances it just flat out sound crazy when forum of people say, “Yeah, well all of those Tour players are doing it wrong,” and “John can do it because he feels like he does it and we know it’s true because it looks like it on video” when that simply isn’t an objectively reasonable claim. If the claim was just, “This is what I feel and this is what my intents are and this is how I train and I’ve helped all of these players with these drills and techniques and it seems to work consistently” then everyone would be fine with that. No need to invoke the supernatural or mysterious stuff that has yet to be proven.

For the record, yes, my claim is it’s impossible for a human being to accelerate the hands into and through impact and it’s impossible for a human being to hold shaft flex. My claim is also that it isn’t even desirable because that isn’t how clubs or shafts are made and it isn’t how they’ve ever been made. I will recant my statements and take ownership of being wrong when someone gets on GEARS, makes a normal, full, playing golf swing, and presents data counter to my claims. Or at bare minimum, upon second request, give me the name of a Tour player who “accelerates the hands into impact with a frozen right arm and holds shaft flex” and let me try to find their GEARS data. I’ve been told I’m presenting players with an incompatible technique, so someone give me the name of a compatible player. If there isn’t one let’s get John on GEARS. Someone in this thread said an offer was on the table for a free GEARS session. If that’s not true or if that offer is off the table then I’m sure we can crowd source the money from this forum and pay for a GEARS session. I will even personally pay for the gas required to drive to the location. We can certainly remove any financial burden or excuse preventing the testing.

[hanisch]

Do we know who that is in the image so we can determine what technique they use? Many pros employ a swinging technique, even with their irons. Others don’t. That the body dynamics are like the driver, as you said, it seems plausible that they’re swinging and not ABS-style hitting. Also, they still may be trying to maximize distance while being analyzed rather than on a course trying to make a shot. Also, averages might be misleading. What’s the variance?

I’m not trying to be obstinate. Rather I’m trying to do good science. As Richard Feynman, and all great and good physicists and other scientists have remarked, when one presents data supporting a conclusion one also has to also show how it might not support it, or how it might support some other conclusion. For otherwise you’re not doing good science.

Again, as I said in my insufferably long previous post, I don’t assert or necessarily believe that any of this invalidates a swing theory wherein someone endeavors to accelerate through impact.

Yes, I know that’s not what your reply is about.

[86General]

I agree. Very well-stated.

You’re spot on in distinguishing between making points about a good golf swing versus the mechanics of what is actually happening in said swing. Hanisch said that the ABS swing is based on the swings of Hogan, Snead, and Trevino, and is “not untested.”

Certainly those swings have been thoroughly tested as effective golf swings. But with regard to biomechanics, they are, in fact, totally untested, or nearly so. We are limited to what we can say about those swings by looking at 2D video, which I think we all agree is a very limited tool.

I think any golf teacher anywhere would agree with you when you say: "We can 100% simultaneously say, “Pivot segments decelerate, the hands reach maximum acceleration halfway down, the hands decelerate into the ball, and the shaft kicks forward at impact,” while also saying, “In order for those things to be timed correctly we need to feel like the pivot is accelerating late and we need to feel like the hands and club accelerate post impact and the best way to do that is to train ourselves with he intent of holding shaft flex all the way through the ball.”

[RangeRat]

@Fore_Thirty

For the record, yes, my claim is it’s impossible for a human being to accelerate the hands into and through impact…

[Fore_Thirty]

You can choose to continue with the snark if you’d like or you can man up, engage in the discussion, and provide some objective data to back up your assertions like an adult. Your choice.

[Fore_Thirty]

Because frankly, as far as I see it, there are only a handful of people in this discussion asserting something and then providing evidence and data to back it up…data they’ve undergone time and expense to access and understand. And then there are others posting GIFS and moving goal posts. Can you guess who’s who?

[RangeRat]

@Fore_Thirty

You can choose to continue with the snark if you’d like or you can man up, engage in the discussion, and provide some objective data to back up your assertions like an adult. Your choice.

[72holeouts]

Im gonna find a way to get tested, hopefully its not that ridiculous cost-wise. Might be great marketing opportunity for them.

Thanks for the heads up 86.

Im bringing my ABS gear though, otherwise it invalidates the test. Ill bring my modern ARIAS irons since they are set up ABS spec, zero offset, etc.

Might take some time, but this is a project worth doing. Crossed fingers

[Ayersjj]

@86General @Fore_Thirty

Can we see ur swings? Everyone has posted their swing except you.

Thanks

[Fore_Thirty]

Don’t have any video of my swings, but here’s some pictures of today’s 4:30 line practice after about 80 balls with 4 and 7 irons and one of my Trackman combine scores compared to Jason Dufner’s combine, Patrick Reed’s combine, and Tour average combine score. As you can see, I royally jacked up the 60 yard shot but my overall ballstriking is at or better than Tour level, especially my iron play.

I own everything I say or do and I have the receipts. I can promise you that.

[72holeouts]

We are in luck, the golftec here has a system. Ill ring them up tomorrow and let you guys know what they say.

[72holeouts]

Nice work, excellent scores!

Would love to see your action either way…