The thing Jeff misses is the intent- scientists look for factual evidence to accommodate their ideas. Intentions and feels beat these best efforts.
Scientists try to produce a look or a figure. Good players produce the look from intentions and pressures and feels.
This one intention alone produces greater feel in the hands so we know where the clubhead is at all times. Great players always talk about knowing where the head is and as a result being able to make microscopic alterations to the face or path on a whim to produce a good shot from a swing that may have been somewhat off their best.
Jeff was around way back at the start of ABS and has ventured back singing the same tune. That’s fine. I believe his golf handicap around that time was a high single handicap to low teens? Correct me if I am wrong.
As a follow up question I would like to know if Jeff’s handicap and ability has become greater because of this so called knowledge he has. Cos I teach hundreds of people every year and John teaches a bunch of people online and they all get better from our teachings. That’s the goal. The ball flight and strike is a sign of a good golfer- not the knowledge base they use to no effect
I agree that a skilled golfer creates an efficient golf swing by “intentions, pressures and feels”. I also agree that a skilled golfer should know where the clubhead is at all times, and that great clubhead control is an end-product of the efficient execution of his “intentions, pressures and feels”.
However, my “intentions’ pressures and feels” are science-based and also primarily based on the intensive study of the golf swing action of pro golfers. I think that John Erickson’s ABS-ideology makes no sense from a biomechanical perspective.
Consider his newest video where he tries to show that he can “hold shaft flex” throughout his early downswing and early followthrough - https://youtu.be/f2tb4ltFQEI
If you look at his pivot motion in that video it is biomechanically unnatural and contrived. Note that his speed of body motion is very slow between P4 and P5.5 (mid-downswing when the hands are at waist level) and it then speeds up dramatically after P5.5. No pro golfer - including Ben Hogan, George Knudson, Sam Snead - ever performed a driver golf swing action in that biomechanically unnatural manner.
Watch the video between the 0:21 - 0.38 minute time point. Note how actively he rotates his lower body (pelvis) from the very start of the downswing and how his hands get down to waist level during that time period. Ben Hogan was not “saving his pelvic rotation” for later in the downswing as JE advises in his ABS teaching.
You asked-: “As a follow up question I would like to know if Jeff’s handicap and ability has become greater because of this so called knowledge he has.”
My knowledge of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics has increased dramatically over the past 20 years, and I am now striking the ball better today (at the age of 74 years) than I was at the age of 54 years. The reason is that I have successfully translated my knowledge into more efficient “intentions, pressures and feels” - despite the fact that my aging body is obviously less flexible today than it was 20 years ago.
Jeffro, @ 74 years of age u claim to be better than at age 50. Thats great u have an advanced scientific advantage online only BUT….
When many of us here are working on ABS fundamentals and someone from another website since 2012 crashes the party here with a hack as a background you really deserve almost zero attention.
You make all these grandiose claims of excellence then critique JE @lagpressure motion imitating Hogan but dont show us all your fantasies of greatness via video of ur critique.
Your paper trail is worth nothing. Try going and having a range session and show us all your expertise please. Give us something more than a rude statement regarding nonsensical original poster bc basically at this point ur just a wannabe player on paper that has few interested parties on ur other blog other than @Dubious
I’ve helped Jeff on his journey understanding the golf swing.
Jeff claimed with great conviction… it was “Impossible” to hold shaft flex through the strike.
I proved Jeff wrong scientifically… he now knows that it IS POSSIBLE.
Then Jeff said it is not possible making a full swing, where the left arm gets past 10:00…
Again, I PROVED Jeff wrong… I showed the science world that it IS IN FACT POSSIBLE"
Now Jeff is complaining that this “proof” I supplied to his scientific community was
“biomechanically unnatural and contrived!”
Well, I can assure everyone that the golf swing is extremely “unnatural and contrived” because if it wasn’t… humans would naturally pick up a golf club and swing it perfectly if it were natural and not contrived. There would be no lessons because it would come as easily to people as breathing or a baby crying. Natural…
Jeff studies swingers… not hitters. His finding are based upon swingers, and his own swing has developed as a swinger. Swingers can play good golf… I would not argue. I find it to be an inferior method because I have used both methods at a high level of proficiency. I don’t see myself going back to “swinging” any time soon.
I am quite certain that Jeff and company are going back to their labs, putting on their white coats and trying to figure out “how did John Erickson execute this holding shaft flex thing?” What was once impossible is now possible… but if we can’t figure out how he did it… we must discredit him in some way… because it’s not supposed to happen in the scientific world. A slight of hand? a master of illusion? A contemporary golfing Houdini?
A least the scientific community can write a paper now called “Holding shaft flex in the golf swing, the pros and cons”. But it will no longer be relegated to the “impossible folder”.
You wrote-: “I am quite certain that Jeff and company are going back to their labs, putting on their white coats and trying to figure out “how did John Erickson do this holding shaft flex thing?” What was once impossible is now possible… but we if we can’t figure out how he did it… we must discredit him in some way… because it’s not supposed to happen in the scientific world. A slight of hand? a master of illusion? A contemporary golfing Houdini?”
I eventually did figure how you did it in your latest video. You practiced enough so that you could slow down your pivot motion in the early downswing and then you rapidly accelerated your body/arm motion in the later downswing - and that allowed you to “hold shaft flex” in the later downswing and early followthrough. That video demonstration does indeed make you a contemporary golfing Houdini, who is a master of illusion. When you played golf professionally, I strongly suspect that your pivot motion was much more biomechanically natural and similar to that of a pro golfer (like Ben Hogan). Why don’t you take up the challenge of posting a video of your golf swing action from your pro golfing days and then simultaneously post the video of your recent “holding shaft flex” technique, but played back at a normal speed and not artificially slowed down. That comparison will likely show that you are indeed a very skilled master of illusion!
This stuff could only happen in the internet age, it’s just so unreal to natural human interaction.
In the real world, you’d pair up with one of these hacks at your local muni, they’d chop it around the place as you stripe it - then after the round, they’d listen intently as you explained to them how to get better. They’d then go work on the same stuff and get better.
But in the age of the keyboard warrior eggspurt, we get this nonsense…
It’s really pretty funny if you’ve managed to maintain normal human being status in the last 15 or 20 years.
John wrote-: “At least the scientific community can write a paper now called “Holding shaft flex in the golf swing, the pros and cons”. But it will no longer be relegated to the “impossible folder”.”
John incorrectly believes that he invented the technique of “holding shaft flex” during the late downswing and early followthrough in a golf swing action. However, most pro golfers have been using that technique for many decades for their putting, chipping or short iron shots under ~100 yards. What is really controversial is whether it is possible to use that same “holding shaft flex” (ABS-hitting technique) when striking a golf ball with a driver with the intention of obtaining a reasonably satisfactory driving distance level (as compared to the standard TGM swinger’s action). If that were possible, then let’s see the evidence. I want to see John, or any of his ABS-students, post a video of their driver golf swing action showing that they are “holding shaft flex” during their late downswing and early followthorough AND simultaneously post Trackman data for their clubhead speed at impact, ball speed, and ball carry distance.
Many ABS-groupies label critics like me “hackers” and they believe that they (by contrast) can “stripe the ball” as a result of using the ABS-hitting technique. OK - then let’s see them provide the “evidence” (as delineated in the previous paragraph) that will confirm their opinion.
John has never said he invented the term “holding shaft flex” - we all know the very best Ballstrikers did it. It’s a different sound, different flight. If the best did it then it’s a goal of procedure to becoming better
As far as better- and you saying ABS players need to prove their existence as good players rather than labeling others as hackers I present evidence 1-2-3 with plenty more if you need extra clarification
As far as Trackman stuff - data is all relative. Numbers change from shot to shot based on trajectory intent, shape intent, distance intent, quality of strike and several other factors.
In this video I show how I can alter the ball flight characteristics from post impact intentions. Something scientists don’t believe in because they think that impact is all that matters and that you can’t alter the swing beyond impact point and change anything because the ball has already left the clubface.
This is non edited video- the Trackman data shown if for the three shots struck during the filming and the data is all totally different but all three shots ended up almost directly on target with entirely different paths, face angles and flights and start lines- all from a neutral square alignment.
These were all 8 iron shots as stated in the video
You wrote-: “John has never said he invented the term “holding shaft flex” - we all know the very best Ballstrikers did it. It’s a different sound, different flight. If the best did it then it’s a goal of procedure to becoming better”.
Your bold-highligted opinions reflect your personal/subjective opinions, but I have never seen a pro golfer “hold shaft flex” in the later downswing + early followthrough in a full (eg.driver) golf swing action, and you have provided zero evidence that it happens. Those videos of Bradley Hughes shows no evidence of him “holding shaft flex” during the later downswing and early followthrough.
You also wrote-: “In this video I show how I can alter the ball flight characteristics from post impact intentions. Something scientists don’t believe in because they think that impact is all that matters and that you can’t alter the swing beyond impact point and change anything because the ball has already left the clubface.”
Your post-impact intentions can obviously affect the ball flight pattern if they affect the pre-impact clubhead path and clubface angle relative to the path. However, the “real cause” of the different ball flight patterns is what your body/arms/hands/club are doing pre-impact to cause those different ball-flight patterns. So, for example, to hit a fade ball flight you changed your clubhead path at impact to -3.7 degrees, which means that your pre-impact clubhead path was altered to become slightly out-to-in. There are different biomechanical methods of generating a slightly out-to-in clubhead path through impact, and you have provided zero evidence/reasoning to support your personal opinion that focusing on your post-impact intention is the best method of achieving that goal in the most consistent manner. The same applies to your draw shot where you generated an in-to-out clubhead path at impact of 10.9 degrees. You have provided zero evidence/reasoning to support your personal opinion that focusing on your post-impact intention is the best method of achieving that goal in the most consistent manner.
Also, and most importantly, you have provided no evidence/reasoning to support John Erickson’s opinion that one can control the clubhead path/clubface better by “holding shaft flex” into-and-through impact when performing those different ball flight patterns.
Jeff,
Would strongly suggest you listen to Bradley‘s Brendon Todd podcast interview. At 5:44 left in the podcast, Brendon speaks about the utility of what Bradley and John are teaching relative to the crucible of tour-level performance. If you listen, you’ll here how he contrasts ABS’ feel-based instruction to that of the numeric approach.
For what it’s worth Brandon‘s own experience mirrors my own. I went from a forearm-based swing to that of being told to keep the club face square to the line via a closed leading edge at P1. And that’s when the crying started.
You write about contrasting the ABS-feel approach to a numeric approach. I have no idea what’s a “numeric approach”. Can you please explain what’s that approach. I only believe in the legitimacy of “feel” approaches, which are based on sound golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. The ABS-hitting approach is an excellent “feel-based” approach for short irons shots, but I cannot understand how it can work in a driver swing - if one wants drive the ball >280 yards.
online only 
BUT….
