BP, thanks for the thoughts… I have a lot of questions and thoughts about this stuff, maybe I’ll get to them at some point. I appreciate the input…
BOM
Mandrin,
Is this a genuine question or is it a trick COAM question? My point seems pretty simple for a smart guy like you to have grasped. Let me know if you want a real answer or one that satisfies scientific theory…
Cheers
ok lag i want a video of you demonstrating the difference of hitting and swinging. you can post it in the mod 1 student forum. i have included here a video of a TGM explanation of hitting vs. swinging. It seems to me that when a TGM instructor explains the difference between hitting and swinging, both moves involve passive hands. the hitting motion in tgm is passive hands lunging (pushing) at the ball. i know you differ with this instructors explanation, but i need to see you demonstrating your explanation, showing us how the active motors fire at the ball in hitting vs. passive hands in swinging.
you said to me that there’s a huge difference between hitting and swinging. the only difference i see so far is that in a hitter’s motion the hands are active and in a swinger’s motion the hands are passive.
when i view ben hogan’s swing it seems like he uses a swinger’s motion with very active hands in the swinging area. where am i missing it?
i kill the ball with a swinger’s motion with active hands in the hitting area. is this hitting? i’m having trouble trying to understand the difference between hitting and swinging from an ABS insider perspective.
tgm demonstrating hitting vs. swinging
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=palfrbV2x7c[/youtube]
This is a quote from Lag on Gotham Golf Blog on Dec 19th, 2009
BomGolf,
No tricks. Probably just my mistake but I simply try to understand your point. Reading it several times I conclude that you are making a distinction between going down and going forward with regard to momentum being generated. Is that correct?
My distinction was really more to do with the difference between the build up of speed in the club and/or your body/arms from the top to P3 prior to the real activation of pivot power, vs. if you just started from the slot. I don’t know if it’s stored/ built up/contained/accumulated or what it is, or even where it is if it is, but it seems like common sense that there’s a significant advantage to be gained in that journey down into the slot. The downswing becomes rotational and gets a lot of power because of that, but it doesn’t start down rotationally. I wasn’t saying that the direction of the journey down was necessarily having an impact, though I think it does due to the natural journey of something circular, just that that journey to the slot is relevant to the speed you can create. You’re point about why not start from P3 was what I was responding to- maybe I should’ve made that clear. I thought since you’ve spent so much time discounting angular momentum that you may have wanted to go down that road again- I’m not the man for that fight! No hard feelings…
If you hold your arms out to your sides at shoulder height and let them fall would they be going faster when they hit your sides or when they start moving? If you used effort to fire them down would they be traveling faster when they left shoulder height or when they hit your sides? What if you activated effort half way down? Would you rather be hit by a coin that fell from 2 feet above your head or by one that falls from a 20 story building? A 747 needs a long runway to build up enough speed in order to take off. A fighter jet can take off from the deck of a ship but does use an accelerator sling to do it even though it has jets that make it eventually break the sound barrier(but it obviously can’t do that from standing) Do you think one, each, or any of these things would have an impact on the difference in how fast the club can travel if you started it from P3 or if you started it from the top of your backswing? These are the kinds of ideas that I would think about when trying to see into these points…
Smoothy,
It’s not the first time Gerry Hogan was referenced in regard to something I’ve said. It’s kind of funny because we didn’t exactly see eye to eye when he was here. Thanks for the quote, it’s very interesting. I think thumb position is something that doesn’t get much air time but there are some funky looking places for it to be that make a lot of physical sense but aren’t very ‘golfy’…
Cheers
BomGolf,
Some interesting train of thoughts and intriguing questions…
It indeed makes sense that any momentum generated during the first part of the downswing is not lost but carries over into the rest of the swing. I like to come back on this.
The matter of arm movement also intrigues me. Do arms fall (rotate) faster only using gravity, hence not using any helping action by muscles in arms and shoulders ? Jim Flick touched on this matter in his book ‘ON GOLF’.’
Mandrin,
Due to muscle connection and pure instinct to support something you’re holding, I really don’t think anything in the golf swing happens purely because of gravity, as a general rule. Sergio is really the only guy I’ve physically seen that has a free drop down, and that’s still observational. I suppose it all is, but he actually looks like he pulls his downswing out of a free fall half way down. Feelings and intentions are another matter.
I have a question regarding storing energy that may be completely basic but I was wondering if you could answer it if you get the time…
In talking about the falling coin, or anything falling really, something came to mind that I’ve wondered about from time to time. So taking into account wind resistance and air flow etc., an object that’s falling is increasing in speed as it falls. The increase is relatively constant or completely constant? Again, negating air flow etc. And by constant I mean for example there would be some consistent sequential relevance between the speed increase in say the second quarter of it’s journey and the third quarter of it’s journey. Obviously it would be going faster at the end of it’s third quarter, but that it’s speed would be measurable based on it’s acceleration through the first two quarters.
Anyway, to get to the point. Where is the energy stored? Or is it? The object itself hasn’t changed form or anything, yet it’s moving at in increased rate of speed. The energy of the object appears to be greater in terms of it’s potential for impact and also it’s rate of travel, but it’s all relative to it’s surroundings. It hasn’t changed itself, I don’t think. So I guess my question is, is the object itself storing the energy? I’m trying to get my head around where it’s energy is, but I can’t…
Maybe you have some thoughts on this…
Cheers…
It’s certainly the feeling of gravity…
meaning the transition is not a hand throw… but a passive dropping into the slot…
So for that to really work correctly the transition must be initiated by something other than the hands…
Both Hogan and Snead talked about it being the lower part of the body.
Hogan’s action is a thing of beauty but you had better have your ducks lined up in a big way if you are going to do it like he did or it will be
a major train wreck.
I like Snead’s sit and squat action for most golfers. Hogan’s move is extremely advanced stuff if you are going to actually do it that way.
I have had some major lightbulbs over hitting in the ABS way in the last few days. The duck analogy is very true. When performed correctly true ABS hitting requires STRENGTH to hold onto that club through the hitting area and tear it out of orbit.
I am desperate to go on in modules but I am now realising how they fit togther starting with the end in mind and I need strength and speed to perform hitting correctly.
I cannot see Hogan as anything other than a REALLY stong and fast handed hitter in an ABS sense, but he did load the club early and somehow was strong enough to hang onto the shaft flex
Amazing looking at it with new ideas…
That start down is a real feel thing, and has to be personalized to fit. I know Hogan was big on starting down with the lower half, but Snead talked about the hands initiating his downswing(last 2 fingers of his left hand) because he couldn’t feel rhythm or timing in his big muscles. He felt that this motion of the hands then activated his bigger muscles into action. Video appears to contradict that, but that was obviously his way of feeling that into action.
It’s kind of like putting the key into the ignition- that has the effect of bringing fuel, air, and spark together and then make the engine get to a certain amount of revs etc., but all we actually ‘do’ is put the key in, we don’t actually have to ‘do’ all that other stuff. Kind of like Moe understanding everything through his own sense of things even though the physical reality may contradict those thoughts.
The other thing I sometimes think about in relation to learning from people is that their ideas change over time, and when you find something that works, it’s as if this thing is the ultimate truth of golf. It’s intoxicating as I’m sure everyone understands. I know I’ve ridden swing thoughts into the ground, and my game with them, because I had success with them. I guess when I read things or whatever it might be, I always have that in the back of my mind that this was a moment in time that may well have changed two weeks later after a few bad finishes. I tend to look out for the end of career thoughts or what they have to say when they’re old guys because you tend to get the greatest hits as opposed to the current idea. I guess I’m saying this because Snead may well have talked about the squat at one time in his career, and then the hands at another point. It’s easy to see what happens, and to an extent, there’s general agreement about the major commonalities or ‘truths’ about how the swing works, but there are a ton of crazy ‘feelings’ that get that stuff to happen.
I think building the main structure of the swing is beyond feeling, that’s about basic standard body motion and is the real motor of the swing. How you get it to move and hit the shots you want it to hit is an entirely other matter and is where personality comes into it, or what side of the bed you woke up on.
BomGolf,
Energy is a very ancient concept. The word energy has its roots in a Latin word ergo, which means work. With the addition of the prefix en- led to another word very similar to energy, energia, meaning activity. Hence from very ancient times, energy has been associated with activity and work.
Just like force, momentum, the concept of energy slowly evolved over time into the way we finally view it nowadays. Energy is rather multifold and comes indeed in many forms, e.g., chemical, light, heat, sound, motion, etc. and is conserved. Conservation of energy is probably the most important law in science. No exceptions so far has been found.
So what is kinetic energy? It is not some intrinsic quantity stored, acquired or lost by a moving object. When in motion the object remains perfectly the same. It is mathematically defined as ½ M V^2, hence requiring knowledge of two quantities, mass M and velocity V.
Potential energy isn’t related to motion, as is kinetic energy, but instead to position relative to the surface of the earth. This gravitational positional energy is defined as M g H, where M is mass, g is Earth’s gravitational acceleration, and H is height above earth.
Nature is, rather charmingly, nicely geared in such a way that, in many cases, the sum of these two forms of energy remain constant or almost constant. Hence ½ M V^2 + M g H = constant.
Therefore if you raise an object a certain height above the earth it is given potential energy and when released the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of motion. Once it reaches the surface all potential energy has been converted into kinetic energy.
When the object collides with the surface its kinetic energy is then converted into other forms, heat, sound, mechanical deformation, no energy is lost, but simply converted into other forms. Even during the fall there is already a bit changed into heat through friction with air.
Water rushing downstream possess kinetic energy since it is moving. It gets this energy because it is falling through a gravitational field. As it falls, energy in the gravitational field comes out of storage and is used to move the water. The heavy heavy ball of a demolition machine is storing energy when it is held at an elevated position. This stored energy of position is referred to as potential energy.
One might feel that a golfer from the top converts potential energy of position into kinetic energy of motion. This however is only true if a golfer had no muscles whatsoever. In reality a golfer mainly ‘energizes’ his club primarily by contraction of muscles, converting chemical energy into kinetic energy. But very little due to conversion of gravitational potential energy.
Just take something as self evident as space. What is it really ? Is it empty, representing nothing at all ? Is it infinite or finite ? Is it perhaps somehow full of some type of energy ? To avoid headaches why not consider it simply as something one can define by multiplying two sides and a height to define a chunk of it as L1 x L2 x H.
So similarly I would suggest to take kinetic energy in the same way as space even it seems all so self evident to many. It really isn’t. So why not take nature simply as it presents itself without trying to unravel its mysterious features. Hence take kinetic energy to be simply ½ M V^2 and accept nature as the master magician without trying to find out how it does it tricks.
There is indeed something very magical going on in that we can formulate abstract numerical formulas / equations and observe nature in its many different manifestation perfectly obey these abstract mathematical formulations. Science does not necessarily explain things but rather the relations between them. Hence sort of a hand book with very useful receipts. 
Mandrin,
Thanks for the thorough post, I appreciate the effort a lot. I’ll read it a few more times and get my head around it…
Cheers,
B
Al Barkow and I put out this article in “Golf Illustrated” October 2010, which should be hitting the stands this week.
Here is a glimpse.
I opened a separate thread on the main index page in the event we get new readers who find there way here, as the website address was published in the article. The magazine used their own model for the layout, which I think they did a nice job. Barkow and I did submit our own photos take out at Mare, but maybe they didn’t like the persimmon in my hands?
It’s a good article and I suggest finding a copy, or for those of you out of the country, you might try emailing Shelly at shughes@golfillustrated.com.
No relation to “twomasters” I don’t believe.
I find it a bit surprising not finding references on ABS to Tommy Armour , a popular player/teacher who was very adamant about hitting with the hands when swinging in his era was rather the dominant approach to the golf swing.
A few quotations form his book –
’ HOW TO PLAY YOUR BEST GOLF ALL THE TIME ’ :
Chapter 10 – The Art of Hitting with the Hands
[i][b]“The action is that of whipping the clubhead through the ball with the hands. Not slapping it, waving it, flinging it, stiff-arming it, but whipping it with a tigerish lash.”
“And with Hogan, Snead, and every other star, it is the right-handed smash that accounts for masterly execution of the shots. Don’t let anyone you tell otherwise.”
“The more you can get your hands ahead of the clubface in the downswing, the more you can apply with the right hand.”
'The late uncocking of the wrists, or the delayed hit, as you may hear the effect, instinctively causes a decided acceleration of the right hand action at the most effective period.”[/b]
[/i]
All this seems to be quite fitting with ABS.
It is interesting to contrast above with some instruction from Ernie Vossler which I gather was a well known instructor teaching hitting.
In an article in Golf Magazine, april, 1978 -
[i][b]“I say that the “late hit “is one of the most misleading pieces of golf instruction ever conceived. Although it may sound outrageous, it’s my belief that no one can hit too soon. I don’t think anyone can unlock his wrists and release the clubhead too early, as long as he has begun the forward swing and the path of the club and the angle of the clubface are on proper course.”
“The instant you’re poised over the ball at address, you should be thinking - ‘hit the ball at the start of the downswing’. Why ? Because there is a delay between the time your brain sends a signal to your muscles and the time the muscles carry out the task. Think of hitting the moment the forward swing begins and you’ll release correctly. Try to ‘hit late’ and you’ll hit too late”.
[/b][/i]
Tommy Armour on the same subject of late release :
[i][b]“The more you can get your hands ahead of the clubhead in the downswing, the more power you can apply with the hands.”
“Hands as much ahead as possible as long as possible. Steady head and body. The right-hand smash is held back until the critical instant.”[/b]
[/i]
This is typical in golf - clear contradiction. But both are correct, it all depends on the type of golfer being addressed. There is interaction between various torques and this can vary depending on the method and the individual.
It is interesting that Ernie Vossler is clearly taking into account the reaction time. I wonder, if in his era, this was common knowledge?
I found an article from 1990 about hitting…it has an impact bag in it!!
It’s not really that hi tech but thought I would drop it in here for reference
Updated canyon fog shots from early dawn this morning from the deck.
New video also posted in the student forum area discussing the rotated hit line or “Trevino Release”
Cool pictures . What trajectory did you want to produce on each of those 2 shots ?
The “hit” tends to fly a bit lower and more boring in it’s trajectory because the increase in acceleration through impact delofts the face slightly… but less and less the stiffer the shafts are and assuming you are fully releasing the shaft to stabilize lowpoint.
In frame 6 after impact, what kind of sensations does the swinger feel in their arms and hands when they are moving off their body?
