Macs,
One of the difficulties with that pitch elbow idea is that it tends to make for an overactive right arm, and I’m not a huge fan of it as an intent because it has an outward inclination, especially if you’re trying to use it as a flattening type of action. The irony is that it actually functions better as a thought the more upright you are, because it has less ‘out’ and more ‘down’ to it. Though at the same time, that obviously depends on how you’re going about it. If you’re trying to ‘push’ it in there with the right arm, that can be trouble because that puts an outward force or lateral type force on the shaft. ‘Pulling’ it in there would be a better way to go because that’s an inward action that keeps the lateral pressure off the shaft. But overall, because it’s an accelerating action, as a simple go to kind of thought, it can cause problems.
Overactive basically ends up being early action or early acceleration. From my experience of trying to work the club into that area over the years, I found that trying to go at or get to the inside of the ball, while seeming to make sense, actually creates the complete opposite results. This is one of those areas that made me step back and ask myself what the hell was going on. If you GO towards the inside of the ball ‘from the top’, you actually go outside too early and end up on the outside of the ball. The harder you try and work to get into that pitch elbow position, the more difficult it can actually be to get into.
Again, we’re talking milliseconds here, this is sounding awfully complicated, but it’s really not.
One of my things with figuring these kinds of things out is, if can NOT get it into a place you want it to be, then you actually KNOW how to NOT do it, and if you know how to not do it, then you have some information to work with that can lead you to a solution.
At P3, pitch simply flattens the shaft and opens the clubface. It’s really more of a rotation of the upper arm in it’s socket.
By increasing the range of motion, you have to have the ability to handle it… to get the club back square on the ball at impact. If you don’t… it doesn’t work.
The amount of pitch must be correlated to the amount of active forearm rotation. I prefer pitch to evolve from forearm rotation itself. Trying to do it, or shove the elbow there without the matching dynamic action is a trainwreck.
But if you add in some intense forearm rotation to the action of the wrists… there are some magic moments waiting.
It’s important to clarify high ideals while drilling, compared to trying to do something when you hit a golf ball. Drilling on a flat right wrist - bent left combo at P3 is good stuff, but only if this is being actively conditioned with the appropriate forearm rotation… such as some of the impact bag work I have students do. If you are trying to get this position, and think that the club is going to release from there magically on it’s own… good luck to you.
This is why I split from TGM swinging, because you lose either way. If you only try to drag down the FLW from the top, via flashlight drills and all that… you are not taking advantage of what the forearms can offer to the dynamics of the golf swing.
You are leaving a lot on the table, and the door to the really top shelf ball striking stuff not going to be accessible.
With all the talk here about the hands… we can’t lose sight of the pivot, because that’s ultimately what is going to drive the swing. The open face stuff at P3, flat and all that… opens up the option for the shoulders to rotate level through impact. If you go steep with the shoulders through impact, it’s “time the flip”… and lots of ball beating.
Interesting… makes sense. Every time I heard that phrase used, and also when you hear that old advice of a side arm throw, it kind of worries me because of that outward aspect to it and the inclination to do that early in the downswing. Thanks for clarifying.
Hogan was certainly vague or maybe even cryptic,
but if you watch the Shell’s clinic, the Coleman video, or other demonstrations of the big flat shaft thing at P3 that has confused so many, you just have to tie that into the 3 right hands comment from his book and you are basically there.
Of course you have to make the leap from hands to forearm rotation, because the hands do move when the forearms rotate.
The more exacting scientific minded might argue that the hands only control fingers, the wrists only cock and bend, and the forearms only pronate or supinate all independent of elbow movement.
Personally I would rather not get lost in translation, feel what he means, and learn to apply the principles in a more definitive or down to earth way… then share that more clearly… for the benefit of others and myself, rather than shroud the whole thing in scientific rhetoric, formulas, component variations, or cryptic Da Vinci codes.
This stuff is a hitter’s move… active aggressive forearm rotation. It’s not for swingers, and will likely land on deaf ears from those coming from that perspective.
Its’ unfortunate that Homer Kelley missed the forearm rotation thing, and instead choose to focus on the right elbow to define the strike. He pretty much got the swinging thing, but not the hitting… completely missed the boat on that one.
I was browsing a search on Kelley the other day and came across a guy who has apparently re written the yellow book into a layman’s version… yet he still didn’t get the right arm thing either. So the whole thing just keeps splitting and fracturing into more of the same same corrupted DNA… dividing from cell to cell with no end in sight. Just like the take on modern golf gear.
This is great. I guess some of the stuff I’m trying to get to the bottom of in this hitting/swinging analysis is that there are supposed hitters who don’t really use much in the way of active forearm rotation- I see some room in there for clarification. Does what I see as differences between Senior and Furyk make any sense to you? Btw, I have submitted to the concept of swinging, but I think it needs another name because swinging seems active to me, and that stuff isn’t active.
This leads me to a question(s) : ( Sunday morning coffee)
If one reaches a “perfect P3”, and then fires his pivot, and uses centripetal force to reach a “perfect p4”, ( no dumping down the line with centrifugal force)…must the right forearm actively rotate? Or will it happen naturally? Or can you do it either way? Or do you start with feeling active, then as time passes, you don’t feel it?
This may be a part of my question, or simply another topic: What is the difference in “hands controlled pivot” and “pivot controlled hands”?
Eagle,
This is a real long story question. Some of it depends on how you’re doing what you’re trying to do. I personally don’t see a separation in the parts, so ultimately the thrust happens everywhere- but that has to be trained and mastered. A firing of the pivot or legs or back or whatever it is, manifests in a firing or rotating of the forearms etc., etc., whatever it might be. It could feel at some point as if there’s a CF sort of reaction to the firing, but it would be active because you’ve actually created the CF- can you see what I mean with that? The CF doesn’t all of a sudden appear, you make it. This is kind of like Kafka’s question, or at least my thoughts on it are similar- you’re creating and containing the CF, and the weird thing is that the constant creation of it is required and may be the same thing as the constant containment of it. You really do create more of it by ‘cutting it left’ that’s not a containment action imo. There’s a reason the club stays on the outside of the hands longer when you cut it left, and it’s not by trying to reduce CF. This really one of those MC Escher painting moments that you could tie your head in knots with. Like I said, it’s a long story.
In terms of the pivot/hands control, you can’t move with any great force or efficiency without using your pivot. And at the same time, your hands can’t move functionally without the pivot moving. So it may be a perspective thing- is the pivot moving to facilitate the hands needs, which it certainly does, or are you hitting the ball with the power of your pivot channelled through the hands. You could debate this until the end of eternity and not come up with a pure truth. But to sum it up, you can’t hit the ball very well with your hands without the power of your pivot, AND you can’t hit the ball very well with the power of your pivot, without your hands. This is why I don’t see separations in the actions of each part. It all really depends on where you are with your swing. We’re talking ideals in a lot of ways, but there are different cures for different sicknesses.
A really great article in the New Yorker from Nov 7th…it’s well worth a read as there are many connections to what we’re all trying to do. It’s about Marathon/long distance running- form, energy transfer, etc., it’s very interesting…
Bom,
Good article. Interesting that small changes carry such a risk of injury, but can make performance gains.
I agree…it is what we are trying to do…make the correct fundamental changes.
I’m moving this over here so as not to get that thread way off track…
George Costanza had the same genius… this cracks me up every time, classic stuff…
… apparently there’s a problem with embedding this video but you can link through to youtube from it…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUvKE3bQlY[/youtube]
This is interesting . . . is it easer to “hit” from “across the line” or “swing” from “across the line” . . . I have found that if you shoot the club across the line it wants work “under” due to momentum and POTENTIALLY could shoot out away from you ala “swinging” . . . could be wrong?
This post makes some sense to me . . . I’m the POSTER BOY for PERVERTED . . . PITCH 
. . . . Thanks to ole Bently J. Doyle’s Tape . . . I shoved it in there for sure . . . still do it . . . don’t try but it just goes there . . .
So this “amount of pitch and correlating it to ACTIVE forearm rotation deal” . . . that’s pretty good . . . . so to your point about being able to HANDLE the amount of range motion that comes with pitchy . . . have you ever had to UNPITCH somebody? I potentially could be a candidate OR I reckon I could be a candidate for MUCHO MORE ACTIVE FOREARM ROTATION . . . I know doing what I think is Module 1 . . . I feel a MASSIVE AMOUNT of rotation in the forearms . . . with my “real” swing I’m hands out club under . . . my swing has no corner to go around . . . but with this drilling/training . . . I WHIP THAT SUCKER 'ROUND THE CO’NER . . . . but with the amount of pitch I got with a driver and the lack of rotation . . . i can hit the ball ANY DANG WHERE.
You’re gonna get me started on the hitting and swinging debate- it seems I’m the lone voice for something in between. In my view, it all depends on how you see impact- are you going to be involved in the strike or not? The strike zone doesn’t have to be all that long in order for you to apply a force to the ball that would be in line with a hitting type strike. The across the line action brings the two opposing force directions of the body and club together for a very short time, but it’s a very powerful time. I would see that as more of a ‘pop’ strike, it’s a late snap from deep inside with the body already going around the other way. There’s a lot of contained force in that- Daly, Jimmy Bruen, Sadlowski to an extent (most late setters do it to an extent because the club drops around behind on the way down) From across the line, the club comes down and into the zone from higher up but is dropping behind because of the momentum you mention. It utilizes and is more at the mercy of CF, but it can still be a body type strike with strong hands, and it’s all over bar the shouting very soon after impact- the follow through tends to be more about momentum than thrust. You’re right that it can lead to a swingy action, but, like I said, it depends on how you see impact. The backswing doesn’t get a whole lot of love in ABS, but I think it’s a useful tool if you know what you’re doing with it. Most good golfers who get it across the line tend to be very good golfers, because if you know the move, and understand how to use it, it’s actually fairly easy since a lot of the work gets done for you.
Cmon Bucket…this stuff is already in your genes.
Remember the stories of old grandad hightailing full throttle down a winding patch of nowhere road deep off the 'beaten path in his best efforts to make the revenuers look foolish. Well, even the best drivers, and we’re not 'spoutin NASCAR, can have an attention short circuit…and for old pappy his occurred just before dead man’s curve because he was too busy with the eye candy nestled next to him. Once he realized he was in the curve, and all four barrels sucking fumes, how will a good 'ole country patriarch keep the pretty’s faith and lose Mr. Revenuer at the same time.
Did he drop low and turn hard on that wheel…or did “the curve” claim another victim for the IRS 
You can’t rotate a goat . . . . . . .
What kinda backstroke gets love from you? I been reading . . . slowly here . . . and like you say . . . not much on “how to” backstroke . . . but how about “handpath depth”? Is that a piece? I could be wrong but looks like if we is trying to create range of motion we’d want the hands to get pretty deep no? Seems to me that the natural order of things is people want to swing/move their hands OVER their backstroke handpath . . . so the deeper you get the more you can stay IN as your hands move out?
You’re good at asking questions- I like that…
I’m big on the sides of the body and understanding what they do and need to do. If you break the turn of the body down into the left and right side journeys, it can look very different depending on which side you want to focus on. It’s very easy, and even more common, to be unaware of what the actual journey of the left side is. Taking it from the perspective of the shoulders in the backswing, if you say that for arguments sake, the spine is an axis, then the left shoulder makes a 90 degree turn which is outward, downward and backward, and the right one makes a 90 degree turn behind-ward(that’s a word, right?) upward, and forward. The rest of the sides of the body do the same. If you, like most people do, override the natural inclination of the left side in the backswing, and make it all an inward right side motivated move, then you paint yourself into a pretty tight corner that you’ll want to spring out of. When I’m training, I’m very aware and conscious of the separate journeys of the shoulders arms and hands, and giving the backswing that little left side motivated outward push to get going, sends you out into a nice bit of space that you’ll want to fill on the way back down. It takes a little faith, and I never think of those separate backswing journeys when I play, but it makes a lot of physical sense. I like to know that that action is trained and there for me when I play. So the hands are not really a single unit that ‘go deep’ in the backswing, they have a little fight that you want the right sided inward pull to win, but if it wins too early then you lose in the long run.
I don’t see this as flat or upright or any of that, I don’t really think in those terms. I just look at motion and what’s required or what my body requires, and then try to work around that. There are things that have to get done obviously, and I don’t think it’s case get it moving and inertia takes over, but I do think there are things you can do that make it easier, and make us actually want to do the things that we want to do.
That out-over thing you talked about is natural I think, but it’s also a reaction to what I’m talking about- that out caused by the in. In a lot of ways, we’re always switching sides in the golf swing.
Interesting . . . haven’t thought of it in those terms . . . being a machine cat . . . I think of “handpath” right or wrong whatever . . . . i was looking at a thread earlier where you had put up some pics of hogan and snead dtl . . . seems like when you look at the cats from 'n the day . . . their hands are much “deeper and in” than some of the modern cats . . . I know y’all are big on old skool gear . . .could that have something to do with it? Funny you look at some of the footage of some of the older masters . . . all those dudes look kinda “hoganish” . . . seems like I remember one of the old vets saying “that wasn’t no coincidence . . . that’s how we were taught!”
I’d say they were all deeper back in the day for sure, and Hogan was probably the first not to lift up from deep. Though Hogan did emphasize a left arm take away which did stop him from going messy deep in terms of swinging his arms across his chest. And because he’s short, it all suits his build. Snead having the club in the same place as Hogan could be tricky because he’s a decent bit taller than him, so he lifted it up to the top and then came over his backswing route. Obviously that’s just fine and he’s one of the best ever. But I do think it’s tricky for the average player to have a functional out over loop because once it starts going out, it’s hard to pick the point to stop. Plus, not having the overall awareness or coordination of a very good player, getting the club off the rader behind you can be stressful and you can end up going even further out over. They’re better off trying to have the other loop as a general rule- it’s just an easier way to get the club coming from the place you want it to into the zone. The bottom line is that there’s no straight path in the golfswing- I’m not sure how your TGM brain will deal with that statement. So if there’s no straight path back and through there has to be a loop, and there are only two loop options- in to out, or out to in. Pick your loop and go play… could it be that simple? Maybe not, but if you develop some impact zone skills then maybe it could.
My theory for the overall depth into the backswings back in the day, is they were coming out of the Bobby Jones etc. era where it was ‘all in the hips’. That’s probably what a lot of those guys were hearing as kids. Right away that gets you deeper than you need to be, so even the best players of both those eras came over their backswing route. Lag and Al Barkow talked a bit about Jones and Snead being OTT in their radio show- it’s a good listen if you haven’t already. I wouldn’t say OTT, I’d say over the backswing, but it’s right back to where it needs to be.
They also dragged the club away back then which you really don’t see much of anymore which is a shame I think, because that does set you up for good things imo and gives you the feel of the weight of the club. They all had active legs and feet during the takeaway, and you certainly don’t see that today, which is also a shame because it deadens the overall action and makes it less athletic. Guys today think having gym style arms and shoulder makes you athletic- take a look at DeVicnezo or Mickey Wright or Hogan and you’ll see athletes- not that you haven’t seen them.
I assume golf evolved out of a moving game at some point, and looking at the old old swings, they were all on the move right after they hit. And I suspect the felt like they were on the move before they hit it too. Bobby Jones talked about wanting to feel light on his feet from start to finish, and Snead practiced in his bare feet for rhythm, so these guys liked to move. Moving gets a bad rap in golf, but I think it’s great and shouldn’t be feared at all- that holds particularly true for putting imo. I tend to go off on tangents because I’m always seeing links but there’s a conversation in that…
I posted a clip of Casper and Brewer in another thread a few days ago- Casper’s club starts away while his weight is still moving through the air from his left foot to his right, and his right foot is still off the ground. That’s fantastic to me because he’s playing a moving game in a lot of ways. He’s not trying to be a machine on any level, he’s an animal and he’s okay with it…
Bring it on through to Jack and then it all starts going straight up from the start and disconnected, and downhill and sideways in terms of striking with a few obvious exceptions. I’m not even sure what the question was anymore… hand depth/path… I think you can get too deep in the backswing, and I think it can cause problems. The one thing nobody really talks about in terms of the old days is that they all feared a hook like it was a disease, hearing them talk about it it’s like leprosy or something. The shafts weren’t great and the balls were funky etc., etc. but I also have a feeling that that super deep backswing had something to do with. It’s too common a factor back then to rule it out as at least part of the reason.