OK, yeah. Trevino’s head would have been lower. All have some stuff going on below, as evidenced by their trousers moving/ creasing.
The gap between the arms as viewed from down the line appears much larger coming into impact that on the takeaway? Knowing you I’d bet you’re looking at something more intricate.
What’s funny is that I’m always looking for the simplest and most instinctive way to do things 
Sometimes it’s difficult to describe simple. You guys are on the right track. As Eagle was saying, they have the look of over the top, as do so many old day swings, but they’re obviously not. It’s one of my constant obsessions actually, but it’s starting to become clearer to me. I had one of those types of swings, but was told that I was coming over the top, so I worked to make it not look ott, and try to ‘get it from the inside’. But this caused my striking to diminish over time. As a good athlete taking on that advice, I’ve concluded that it’s just bad advice in terms of what it causes as a thought or intent.
Do you think they are starting to turn their shoulders level coming into impact… instead of vertical…but by still keeping the clubhead behind them they aren’t actually coming over the top even though visually to some it would look that way
Two, my view… I would say yes, they are doing what you guys say we need to be doing…that is, turning level not steep. I bet if we have video, these guys would have very little "goat humping " action, or at least the goat would be in the right place. And if we had an impact photo, their shoulders would not be steep like many folks, even ones who look flat at the top.
Bom, you have talked about “willingness to leave the line” post impact. Do you think this pre-impact position is a requirement to be able to “leave the line”…or is it a result of that willingness and/or intention?
I have often thought a special effects video( showing only the butt) that shows the “journey of the butt of the club” from the p3 /slot to p4 would be enlightening. Especially from different angles, maybe even with accompanying graphs. How high it is at different times, and how close to the line, when does it start to leave the line? Hard for me to get my head around …but I think it would be profitable.I think it would surprise me, because I for one am usually focused on what the clubhead is doing, not the butt of the club.
Similarly, a video of only the right elbow would be interesting…since it moves so little in the swing. I think Norwood used to talk about that.
I know you guys have thought it through. And maybe there are options. I’m all ears.
I think they look ott because of the contrast between their arm journeys in the backswing and downswing- their arms are undeniably further out on the way down, as is the club in a lot of ways. Because they honoured the motion of their pivot and bodies so much(both back and through) this is inevitable- just like anything that rotates and changes speed and direction with bits hanging off it. But they’re not just further out, they’ve changed their relationship to eachother too. But everything else has changed their relationships too, imo. As I’ve said before, I don’t think the backswing is irrelevant, I think it sets you up for what you can do to attack the ball- and I don’t mean that just in terms of the arms and hands. I think if you try to get into your downswing positions during the backswing, it can actually tend to cause a real ott move because it’s such an exposed feeling, especially when you go play.
Eagle, you posted this as I was typing and I’ll get to it, but in regards to this quote, what do you define as ‘pre-impact’?
I would say that it’s largely a reaction because you’re responding to the location of the club and you want to accelerate it. If it’s not behind you and in the correct order, then no amount of conscious overriding will get you to functionally leave the line, or rotate level.
Sorry about the quality of this pic…it is a photo of a printout I have up on my wall in my office (I can’t find the original pic on the site?)
It is something Lag made up about flashlights and such and using the example of Trevino, Snead, Knudson, Palmer and Moe…how their club is not on plane with the ball coming down…from looking at this pic it shows to me that an ‘on plane swing’ as so many discuss today , where the butt is pointing at the ball, is too upright and steep and would result in the hand slap body stall that exists in much of today’s tuition
Eagle,
I know this is going to sound crazy in terms of the lingo definitions, but a lot of those guys back then were actually swinging the club. Active arm swing in the backswing, I’d say came in with Jack, and is everywhere now, as is manipulating the club in the backswing. I would describe that action more as chopping. This is one of the many reasons I hate those hitting/swinging terms as definers. The brain processes these things all on it’s own, and whatever meaning it has for them, it will do. So I suppose it depends on the individual’s perception of the words.
But they really were swinging the club during the backwing- hips and feet were the thing back then, and they got things moving, not the arms. I’d love to know the origins or starting time frame of ‘getting it from the inside’, because basically all modern golf swings on the way down, have ‘nice and tidy’ inside arms combined with steep club and flip(I mean, where else can they go?). Whereas all the old swings on the way down have outside arms with shallow/deep club that’s driven low and around through impact. Does that not make you wonder about ‘truth’?
Bom, would you describe what you mean by outside v inside arms please
thanks
Two,
What do you think of when you look at those photos in terms of trying to achieve that action?
a direct pull down of the hands but a shallowing out of the club… Nick Price is a great example of this even in the modern equipment era
Would that sound in tune with your thoughts?..giving it steeper arms but bringing about a shallower club path
Tim,
The two arms do different things during the backswing and downswing, or at least the have different routes. But in essence what I mean is that older swings had the arms swing in around the body on the way back, leading the club, and then more outward on the way down, still leading the club.
In modern swings, the arms are active going back and move off the body early and go out, and then are manipulated to travel down from the top on basically the same line or inside of that.
The wrists are essentially a hinge, and when both side of a hinge go in the same direction, it basically nullifies the hinge. Great strikers have a loaded snap into the strike because they’re leveraging either side of the hinge, in that they fight against the clubs momentum until they strike the ball. You know it when you see it. When the arms and club come down together on the inside, there’s no hinging or real loaded leverage, and the power has to be generated, which is why that kind of action flips off the body through impact, because you basically have to fling the arms for power. That’s how a lot of modern swings work.
It’s a longer story than that, and I’m not saying go hack on the outside coming down, but club does need room to get to the ball.
Is a direct pull down vertical towards the ground or directly to the ball? Does it get you into that position? I’d say I like it if it does
Your swing that I’ve studied the most would have a lot of that old school action going on, you formed all your angles on the way down. I like that.
Outta my rat hole…
The rat votes for inverse relationships…flat shoulders, steeper in appearance shaft relationships and steeper shoulders have flatter appearing shaft relationships.
Nick Price was real good at that, expecially with his chase move.
Gotta run…dinner bell rang… 
interesting, thanks - i like the idea of a really inside backswing path & then routing slightly outside that for the downswing - that seems pretty much where my arms naturally want to go - turn away & inside then do what you have to do to get on the 4.30 line into the ball - might give that a little whirl when i next get a ball in front of me
I guess I have never really thought about that…I just used to do it 
My inclination would be that my hands went down vertically but also pointed at (or towards) the ball the farther they came down and by having the club stay behind I still had room to maneuver it into impact… if you do that pull down motion with the clubhead too steep and not behind then you get stuck and have nowhere to go but flip…
Nice! I was afraid to ask actually- I didn’t want you to go thinking about it 
But thanks for the info.
You looked upright, but there was no disconnection as it was always working on the power of your body, then you loaded down hard. I like how you worked the club on either sides of your arms going back and then coming down, so you were always leading it. Very simple and very powerful.
Great phrase here…
“Pre-impact position” …in the photos you posted, the position these three guys are in is what I meant be pre-impact. What I was asking is, does it help achieve proper post impact “go low and left” with the butt of the club, including the shoulders, leave the line as you say…if you are in this position. Is the position required, or a result of the intent. Or even still, does the position cause teh low left ( vs the dump)?
Does that make sense? ( Or do we need a nun to rap you on the head? 
)
Tim, I would keep an eye for whipping the club head in behind your hands too early going back imo. The arms go in but still manage to stay inside the club for a while- the arms coming out a little near the top and starting down will then drop the club in behind them where you want it. If you get the club behind too soon going back, that out move at the top will be a real ott. There’s a good and a bad way to take the club inside going back.