Bom,
There is no contradiction in the quote. I don’t understand you mentioning that I think that pre impact acceleration is a waste of time. Just a gentle reminder, it takes two to tango. 
NRG,
Discussions often are subjective and often philosophical in nature and turn around in circles for that same reason. Year in year out the same and yet more of the same. I always strive to bring correct information to the table and appreciate it from others as well. But I am afraid now to mention it since it seems to merit a car exhaust pipe being tested out on my skull. 
FYI,
Dr Steven M. Nesbit is a well known golf scientist.
Associate Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lafayette College, Easton, PA, USA
Degrees - PhD, PE, MS, BS
Research interests - Sports Biomechanics, mechanisms, computer modelling
whereas your
Rab C. Nesbitt is lowlife scum in Glasgow, Scotland, who spends his time drinking.
Not quite in the same league. 
lag,
I feel there to be a tendency to overcook the importance of science for answers. Examples, cancer research and particle physics. No clarity just an exponential increase in more and more complexity. Science is good to have as a reference frame for understanding the very basic notions relating to a golf swing. It is also simply interesting to know and might help keeping instructions on track.
When you stress the importance of feeling pressure in your hands you relate to proprioceptive notions i.e., knowing were the clubface is in 3D space. Moreover maintaining this pressure throughout the down swing assures that the hands reach impact before the clubhead. Also I can see that the hand pressure is the central node from which all of the body takes its information to harmonize its action.
But this 5 pound pressure is not going to change anything much about the impact physics. The impact forces are just too large to have this small force change the impact physics. However there is indeed a very strong intuitive feeling that it actually does play a role.
The long standing perceptions of the heavy hit - somehow getting the effective clubhead mass increased by the golfer - and the notion of clubhead force/acceleration through impact increasing ball departure speed are indeed very tenacious.
And therein lies the compelling essence of ABS.
Some of you may have surmised I played baseball, as a catcher, at a fairly serious level. (No, it’s doubtful anyone here saw me play) One of the things ya learn early on in catching is the concept of a heavy ball. Again, it’s 100 per cent a feel thing. Pitcher X and Pitcher Y would have similar numbers on a radar gun, but pitcher Y would be universally regarded as having a “heavy ball.”
Agreed, it makes no sense. If one pitcher throws at a given velocity, and another throws at a higher one, it would make sense that the second pitcher would feel “heavier”, ie a louder pop in the glove, more sting in your catching hand, etc.
But it just didn’t play out like that. My left hand can still feel C***** C****'s fastball. It really felt like he was substituting a leather wrapped lacrosse ball when he pitched. He never posted the highest numbers on the jugs gun, not by a long shot. But catching him a 85mph gave a sensation of a heavier ball than many folks did at 89 or 92 mph.
I know, kE = 1/2 MV^2, so the sensations contradict the physics, in that even a marginally faster ball will have a higher kE, and that increased kE should feel “heavier”. But it doesn’t. Get half a dozen catchers together, and they will all agree that some pitchers threw (throw) a heavier ball than others, even though their numbers would indicate otherwise.
That’s why lag’s emphasis on feel resonates so well with some of us, it describes what’s going so well. Heavy hit = heavy ball. We get it. It’s as lucid as the day is long.
Regards,
hawg1
Sometimes…oftentimes…science and theories are big time wrong( the world is flat), or not always right( Newtonian physics), …and we must we find a better explanation(quantum physics).
What we see and feel happening should count a lot. What works will always count.
Like the Bruce Lee 1 inch punch. And the maintenance of impact alignments until P5.
Mandrin,
First of all I would appreciate if you actually read what I wrote. I’m not inventing anything here. Axial forces is right up there with shear forces and torque in standard mechanical engineering.
Your “evidence” (the Cochran study) doesn’t even try to address the axial forces that runs through the shaft as far as I can see.
You also need to understand that a hinge is fully capable of transmitting axial forces and shear forces.
And then maybe you’ll realize that a club with a hinge between the shaft and the head can be subject to as much shaft loading as any other club. And as much shaft pulling as any other club. It would be different if the hinge was right under the hands, then it would only enable shaft pulling. But that wasn’t the case was it?
Draw some force diagrams and you’ll see clear as the day that such a hinge doesn’t isolate the club head from the shaft and the golfer.
If your representation of the Cochran study is fair their conclusion lacks foundation in their empirics. The said research method isn’t even fit to isolate the influence from shaft loading.
Having said that, I would be curious to see how such a hinge would influence the ball flight on off center hits. I predict major gear effect to occur on above/below sweet spot impacts. Of course if you were right about the “private moment” the hinge shouldn’t make a difference on off center hits either.
?
Mandrin,
If you view this clip carefully at 3:50, you can clearly see Mary saving right arm and some good post impact pivot work. Clearly she understands the importance of acceleration.
I have heard this argument before, but I don’t think it takes into account a players feel… and it might be a better scientific experiment to do a probability study using hard data to observer the players that do and the players that don’t.
“Probability” is a very overlooked factor in golf theory. I do read a lot of talk about probability in atomic particle theory, and I think the same line of thinking could be applied to golf.
For instance, the probability of a player being able to repeatably execute a given shot… such as a low draw or high fade around a dogleg (within certain tolerances) increases as the players ability to hold shaft flex into impact increases.
I have never seen this kind of study being done, but I think it could be done, and could follow the scientific method in doing so.
You could argue that a player losing shaft flex could on occasion hit a proper shot, therefore it could be concluded that acceleration is not responsible for the outcome… but if the numbers were significantly skewed in favor of the player that does, over a larger sampling, then science might have some further explaining to do.
And in this probably lies “the feel factor” that science seems not to… so eagerly embrace… maybe because of it’s less that quantifiable nature on the laser or radar imaging screen… but again, if probability is taken into account, then I think there could lie some very valuable and tangible data.
On further thought,
I think the whole idea of having excellent technique in golf is to simply increase the probability of favorable outcomes.
I played yesterday with Barkow, and a young hot shot kid joined us with all the latest gear, and a very big upright aggressive swing… typical of what I see developing from the from the “Frying Pan” generation. I had the typical odd looks from everyone around the first tee pulling out the archaic persimmon, and I could feel eyes rolling in their sockets as I teed off.
As the kid was typically driving the ball 30 yards past me and at times maybe 50 yards, his probability of hitting fairways and greens was significantly lower. Early in the round he was boasting how he had shot a 73 the day before at Harding Park with excellent ball striking, this shotmaking skill of his didn’t seem to transfer from one day to the next, or simply couldn’t find it’s way across the Bay Bridge to Oakland. On the 9th hole, he hit yet another monster drive into a swampy environmentally protected area marked by red stakes, and after watching me stick a 6 iron to within a foot from the pin, came over, politely shook our hands and stated he had simply “had enough” of his poor play for the day, and headed for the parking lot.
I got the feeling he is not used to people beating him… especially with gear from 60 years ago.
The point of this story is that… had we been in “the swing lab” I am sure his numbers would have been much more impressive than mine on launch monitors or speed radar devices in the club fitting indoor driving net.
However, in my mind at least, the reason I can beat a player such as the young man above, is do to better applied physics.
A much flatter swing, better acceleration rates through impact, heavier gear, and a golf swing that is more likely to repeat itself due to a better thought out blueprint on the design table… even though I would be lacking in shear velocity readings with a driver and what most would view as inferior equipment.
lag,
In a golf swing there is, just to mention a few, the efficiency of the action, the clubhead speed speed and the matter of precision/repeatability. The scientific analysis is perhaps primarily concerned with the first two and really can’t say too much about the last item counting mostly for the serious golfer.
If you have a type of swing usually referred to as a ‘centrifugal swing’ there is minimum tension. It seems that this type of swing is not always reliable. One day the magic works yet another time it is simply gone. If however you incorporate into your swing a much more deliberate action, short compact swing, maximum acceleration through impact than perhaps this is not so much the case. This type of swing requires, not a letting go, but instead a very deliberate action, a much sharper awareness during the downswing, especially where it counts, through impact.
Hence is it perhaps partly a matter of intentions, a mental attitude, translating into a more repeatable action ? The type of swing you teach is also requiring lots of deliberate work and hence etches with time a substantial groove into the grey matter in comparison to a centrifugal type swing where minimum conscious interference is being sought-after.
Now this I agree with whole-heartedly! I’m not convinced that we should all find the “zone”, empty our minds, and “allow it happen”. I think the state of mind more follows the single minded purpose (i.e. striking the golf ball while maintaining shaft flex) than the antithesis.
Just one man’s opinion…but I do hold a high rank! 
Captain Chaos
If you look at the game of golf… assuming a par 72 with 10 four pars, 4 three pars, 4 five pars…
It is important to understand that only the tee shot on 14 of the holes is going to possibly offer an advantage to a player with a higher swing speed… and that is assuming there are no lay up shots with an iron. I might very typically hit an iron or three wood 3 or 4 times in a round off the tee…representing a more specific distance preference to play a hole properly.
Therefore out of say the 72 shots I might take to match par for the day, only 10 of those shots would offer an advantage for an increase in clubhead speed.
We certainly don’t want maximum clubhead speed on putts, chips, pitches, or iron shots… as usually the worst trouble lies over a green. And hitting through a dogleg can offer it’s own problems. So we are really only looking at increasing our velocity as being beneficial about 14% of the time.
But what about the other 86% of the time? Where velocity is not king, but instead, distance control reigns supreme?
We certainly don’t see many golf advertisements promoting superior ball control.
And this is where putting becomes so critical. For any given golfer, they will certainly have an average conversion distance for their approach shots based upon putting. If a player hits 100 balls into a green, holes them all out… what is their average distance for conversion? For better putters it might be 10 to 12 feet? bad putters 6 to 8 feet?
Therefore, out of 100 approach shots… how many more times are you going to hit the ball inside a 10 foot circle using a 7 iron instead of a 5 iron? For myself, based upon years of shagging golf balls in a field, I would guess 3 or 4 out of 100.
So on any given shot, it’s not really as significant as most people think. I will take a well struck 5 iron any day over a poorly struck 9 iron.
My point here is that velocity in all it’s grandness, is a highly over rated concept in golf if you look at the bigger picture of the game.
Bingo! Nailed it. I don’t think Lag has ever professed the pivot driven hitter type swing as being the longest or even most efficient (as defined by some some of ball distance/muscle exerction ratio) method to move a golf ball. He has mentioned numerous times that he was longer with his Ben Doyle swinging type protocol and that with much drilling the hitting method has almost caught up but not quite. But that’s not the goal, is it?
Consider basketball, since we are tossing other sports around. Suppose that instead of the normal free throw scenario (shooting into a 10 foot tall hoop at fixed distance), the player must stand at the free throw line and throw the ball over a line 30 yards away from the player to get the point. Shaq would be one of the very best, no doubt, due to his massive strength and the minimal benefit from precision and repeatability. Science could also tell you the most efficient way to use the muscles and levers in your body to get the ball out there (surely basketball players snap some sort of kinetic chain when they jump and extend their folded elbow and wrist. However, in the standard basketball free throw, Shaq is one of the worst. Why? Well, Shaq is so strong and his hands are so big that the basketball must feel like a tennis ball to him. He has no feel, no feedback. He has nothing to push agaist! These are the advantages of the loaded shaft, not impact physics. If Shaq could increase the weight of the ball to 5 pounds, I suspect his percentage would go up massively. This would be analogous to heavier clubs and more hand pressure / feedback. Science is great for calculating distance and efficiency but the realm of probability / repeatability is a much murkier discussion.
Me 2.
Further, I think the further down towards your hands and the closer to impact you are able to accelerate, the more chances you have to save the shot.
I prefer a stroke that is basically driven by the big muscles. I like to feel that the feet are all into impact. But at the same time I want the the hands to be on top of things. It is not only about adjusting distancesand shaping shots. It is also about getting good results when the pivot and the feet aren’t doing their very best.
The thread ’ TGM perfect ? ’ at LBG did not last long very long. Already closed by the administrator. Yet hardly any sparks. They are so afraid of anything which might disturb the gently cosy peace they have created for themselves.
Everyone keeps saying how open to change Homer Kelley has been seeing the 7 editions of the book, yet is difficult to find a group so scared and resistant to any form of discussion. All they like to do all day is generating self complementary stuff and discussing that everything under the sun is derived from TGM.
The front board of the yellow book speaks loudly about the golfing machine, geometric golf and computer age approach to golfing perfection and illustrated accordingly. Inside some more of the same. However as soon as someone questions convincingly anything scientific the rebuttal is usually - show your swing, science is not important.
Where did Homer Kelley look for his inspiration ? The ‘Search for the Perfect Swing’ was published one year before the first edition of TGM. It is difficult to imagine that Kelley was unaware of this major effort to look at golf from a broad scientific point of view.
Yet, as I have shown, Homer Kelley misunderstood impact physics. This is an important item in the British study and contradicting strongly Kelley’s views on impact physics. It seems difficult to accept that with golf science being so rare, perhaps just the British research effort, that he either did not know or ignored it.
I am a bit curious if anyone knows where Homer Kelley got his inspiration since he does not give credit to anyone in TGM. Nobody works in isolation and one is necessarily impregnated with anterior knowledge.
I’ve never posted on LBG site, probably for good reason. I was there once when Justin Tang posted my swing on there, and they had a field day tearing it apart, with all it’s flaws and how horrible it was according to the good book. The Justin took the footage did catch me on a day I hit every fairway and 16 greens… I think I shot 68 or 69… I think he was a bit disappointed to see me being tarred and feathered over there… because I know he saw some good ball striking, and I think the objective of TGM was to basically catalog various swing components that produce a quality golf swing that is capable of respectable golf.
Doyle used to always tell me I was hitting… as if that was some kind of bad thing. Other than Clampett, I didn’t have any trouble beating even Ben’s top students… because they all had the capacity to hit very offline golf shots on more than a rare occasion. Clampett was different though. He was a fantastic player.
Ben had about as much interest in teaching hitters as I do teaching swingers… so we eventually had to part ways…but I suppose that the TGM version of hitting is not really all that attractive, so it might make sense why Ben stayed on the swinging platform.
Why Homer omitted a pivot driven hit, such as Hogan used one can only speculate at this point. My guess would be that he simply didn’t fully understand it… or he mistakenly viewed the straightening of the right arm due to extreme pressures of CF acting upon it… as a player actually driving the arm actively rather than trying to resist it’s straightening. It’s an easy and forgivable mistake for someone basing their system primarily upon an observation based teaching method. Unless you can really feel the pull post impact… or what I call the orbit pull… it’s not an easy concept to buy into… especially when something like TGM is trying to describe the swing with lots of straight lines and 2 dimensional swing planes.
I don’t know enough about LB and what he teaches… but I would assume the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
I have heard Mac is not a fan… but I don’t think Mac ever worked with LB… maybe he did…?
I am sure he is a very nice man and I respect anyone who dedicates their life to the furthering of their mentor’s ideals.
I know he speaks with a lot of conviction, and I am sure he has helped many many golfers improve. I would only question that if he is teaching a TGM driving the right arm actively at the ball, that this would fall short of more sophisticated methods of ball striking that have been supported by many of the greatest ball strikers in history.
I found it interesting that Gregg McHatton jumped ship on the throw the arms off the body, and flip the hands over stuff that Doyle was so militant about.
It’s hard to speculate what Homer would think about his work or how it has been interpreted by today’s top TGM instructors, but I sense also that it is becoming something more resembling religion than science… which mirrors a ten thousand year old conflict within the human consciousness.
Although I am nearly a TGM illiterate, or at best a 5th grader compared to PhD’s, I find this discussion interesting. I definitely agree one (Homer)would not feel these forces with his swinging and hitting protocols, and therefore would not know what he did not know.
I have a question. Is there a role for EA( extensor action of the trailing arm) in the ABS pivot driven swing? When does it occur and in what direction? I suppose for clarification and comparison, someone can elaborate on EA in Homer’s hitting protocol.
I am thinking the right elbow straightens very early in the ABS down swing, but I do not know if it is actively doing so, and I would think the initial direction is towards its destination at P3, and not at the ball. I think this is similar to what I read Gertson told Johnny Miller…something like this: from the top the hands travel toward the right heel. I do not remember if it was active or passive ( gravity) straightening of the right elbow.
eagle
Going to test rat memory a bit. About 20 some years ago when I first purchased TGM book, I was in rat euphoria. Prior to that I don’t recall any books or instruction that dealt with lever forms and how to drive or drag them. It was an eye-opener for me. It was a difficult read then, and for some, still is…too much bouncing around. But it was like going to a resale shop: if you knew where to look, one could find some real bargains that would further one along.
Personally, I think it is a good method from the standpoint that it is easy to teach to others, and gives them an appreciation of how a mechanical advantage can be stored and used when toying with Mr. Titleist. Prior to TGM, I had my own goofy way of just hitting I guess…wish I could remember how I did it. My only goal was to hit that sucker to where I wanted in to make landfall. Wish I had video of that action because it would be fun to see…but maybe make me nauseous at the sight. 
It was after starting using levers with a more concrete understanding of their importance, that I started to move the ball with more authority and distance. It’s still fun to use the standard TGM swing and hit at times, but since hoarding ABS cheese since January…more and more that pure TGM stuff is taking a back seat.
Now watching people at the range, I’m stuck and startled by how many people are acutally plagued by early over-acceleration and actually slowing down past impact…when I’m sure they would swear that they are not!
As for EA…important for sure going back. As for returning the other way, I look at it this way, and has been THE biggest advance for me: If one is to have any chance of preseving impact alignments to PV5, the R arm has to move in a certain manner and the body has to really move in order to sustain that relationship when firing at the ball. How can one hope to save R arm if there has been a radial drive or drag load coming down. Once those wrists roll…there would have to be some sort of backward re-roll near the end of the swing. 
RR