Two…Yes, post impact acceleration,I guess. It just seems (in your posted video) that Hogan looks to almost have the ball on the club face for an instant, and appears to “sling” or “throw” the ball out. Faster after impact.
Rat analysis for the day and may speak to the three dimensional thesis.
Three dimensions: height, width, and depth.
We are the height standing on a two dimensional plane- the ground… The feeling of uprightness.
!/4 way back is the width
Completing the turn and ending up laid-off is the depth.
Been thinking alot about “laying the club off into the 3rd dimension” as if the club goes to a certain relative location in back of us- like where is that “into” position located. . However, I feel we don’t have to get the depth to go “into” a certain place. The depth is acheived by the laid-off position which starts to form as we continue our rotation going around and back. In other words, when the wrists set going back, that is for all practical purposes “the depth” and that’s married to our torso rotation.
From the top, don’t lose the depth- drop it and take it low and left. It feels like I’m hitting the ball with the “depth” of the club if that makes any sense.
Ooh…I like those words a bunch. Lag was talking about “laying the club off into the depth of the 3rd dimension” and at the time it sounded to me a little Rod Serling-ish- which is a good thing!
I’ll have to add you to that “sounds like” list. Thanks for that a bunch Bom…are those your words, or maybe from Joyce or somebody. They sound vaguely familiar, maybe you mentioned it before?
Let’s see we now have " laying the club off into the 3rd dimension for from the depth comes the shallows".
Rod would be taking that shaft into the 4rth dimension. There is a 4rth dimension in the golf swing… but we are going to work on the 3D stuff to start with!
If we are to believe the string theorists, there are at least seven other dimensions one could take it into, too. 11-D coverage of the golf swing to be covered in detail in Mod #3, right?
I agree it sounds crazy, and that the theoreticians proposing this stuff sound crazy, except that these people are extremely smart, well-educated physicists. As it stands now, String Theory is a mathematically sound but empirically untested attempt to resolve incongruencies between the Standard Model of particle physics and Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and Gravity. That sounds all well and good but I’m no expert, for sure others may know more. II do know that scientists are excited because they are generating data with a new particle accelerator in Switzerland that may start to test this theory…
Actually, crr, my post was tongue-in-cheek. I’m all over string theory and the theories of time/space by Stephen Hawking. I happen to live near a super-collider and find the possibilities absolutely fascinating. There is so much we don’t know–dark matter just the latest to pop up. I find it interesting that there are as many theories about Ben Hogan and his swing as there are in physics.
Cheers, man…
It’s a phrase I came up with a while ago as I was thinking about the shallow strike. It hit me that to get it shallow you first have to get it deep, and I’m a sucker for that kind of contradictory imagery. It’s probably been said before in one form or another in relation to the sea, which is basically where I solidified the image from.
That area around the top there really speaks to why getting the shaft parallel to the target line isn’t really a goal. If the bottom of the swing is measured by where the clubhead scrapes an arc, then shouldn’t the top of the swing be a reciprocal point in space that the clubhead passes through. I think your idea about maintaining the depth speaks to honouring that journey.
The idea of swing plane is another swing cancer. It’s a flawed and misunderstood concept. A baseball pitchers arm is not moving across a two dimensional plane during the wind up and delivery. We are not cartoons living in a two dimensional plane.
If you are a golf instructor and teaching the popular on plane swing concept from address to finish then you have a lot of explaining to do.
They key is in harnessing the secret of opposing forces.
Wow–I find that stuff fascinating as you obviously do, too. I guess Hawking was asked what he thought about if the LHC were to corroborate string theory, to which he replied something to the effect that it would be far more interesting if it didn’t. Anyway, back to Hogan…
Was trapping a feel today regarding not losing the laid-off depth dimension from the top. It felt like I was doing some type of “abdominal crunch” or “abdominal squat” from the top with the R forearm remaining rolled wide open while lowering. I’m not sure that is the correct term or not since rats don’t lift weights…and can’t if we tried , but that’s kind of how it felt.
It was then like a stored package of depth ready to fire by turning- and damn if the R upper arm doesn’t stay pinned by default. Happy camper!
I’ve been trying to get a feeling in practice swings that from the top of my backswing, I try to feel like I’m trying to scrape the club down my back before turning. The effect of this is to bring my hands down to my hips before turning, such that it puts them in the exact module one position. Is this the type of move you are referring to? I can do this at full speed into the bag and I can definitely feel the pressure in the club as I close it, but it seems like it would be near impossible to do this accurately through a ball…