Do you throw or twist?

[b_f_c_99]

The best of this thread was said by nail it on the first page, his first response.  I’m not sure how or why the issue has been complicated for 15 pages.  Quote below.

 

Regardless of whatever release method is used the golf club must move robustly from one side of the wrists to the other side.

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, b_f_c_99 said:

The best of this thread was said by nail it on the first page, his first response.  I’m not sure how or why the issue has been complicated for 15 pages.  Quote below.

 

 

Regardless of whatever release method is used the golf club must move robustly from one side of the wrists to the other side.

 

Thanks! 

 

I think this thread has been complicated to a degree because the golf swing itself can be deeply complex and extraordinarily difficult to understand, much less played at an impressive level by most people. It doesn't have to be that way, but it has been [that way] for hundreds of years and still is today. Even my one sentence statement that you quoted; "Regardless of whatever release method is used the golf club must move robustly from one side of the wrists to the other side." could easily spawn yet another 15 pages on that one subtopic alone. Golf is often called the most difficult game to play proficiently for a reason...    

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Nail_It

[b_f_c_99]

1 hour ago, Nail_It said:

 

Thanks! 

 

I think this thread has been complicated to a degree because the golf swing itself can be deeply complex and extraordinarily difficult to understand, much less played at an impressive level by most people. It doesn't have to be that way, but it has been [that way] for hundreds of years and still is today. Even my one sentence statement that you quoted; "Regardless of whatever release method is used the golf club must move robustly from one side of the wrists to the other side." could easily spawn yet another 15 pages on that one subtopic alone. Golf is often called the most difficult game to play proficiently for a reason...    

 

The golf swing can be over complicated.  Really if most people either throw it or twist it as the first move down they will find success.  Most problems seem to come from trying to hold the lag or hit through the ball.  Watch any golf on television with the announcers blathering on about that crap in super slow motion and it’s no wonder people struggle.

[Lefthook]

Talking about complicated. 

 

When Sasho McKenzie presents his science it can be very complicated, but when he translates it to practical tips it can be very simple. How to create more speed? Swing faster, make a longer backswing, speed up transition. Push away from the target towards impact. And then there is a very strong correlation between how hard you press the lead foot into the groud towards impact and swing speed. Some of these are the opposite of what have been advocated here.

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Lefthook

[Carlito]

12 hours ago, b_f_c_99 said:

The best of this thread was said by nail it on the first page, his first response.  I’m not sure how or why the issue has been complicated for 15 pages.  Quote below.

 

 

Regardless of whatever release method is used the golf club must move robustly from one side of the wrists to the other side.

Do you think this thread had also 400K views without the complicated stuff?

Edited October 14, 2020 by Carlito

[KMeloney]

6 hours ago, Lefthook said:

Talking about complicated. 

 

When Sasho McKenzie presents his science it can be very complicated, but when he translates it to practical tips it can be very simple. How to create more speed? Swing faster, make a longer backswing, speed up transition. Push away from the target towards impact. And then there is a very strong correlation between how hard you press the lead foot into the groud towards impact and swing speed. Some of these are the opposite of what have been advocated here.

 

 

 

 

What about those videos are at odds with the discussion here? I don't see the influences involved with creating a "flat spot" in the swing as coming from manipulation of the hands or putting a side-force on the grip. Using the playground swing analogy, it seems to me that the efficient way to create a flat spot at the bottom of a playground swing arc would be by moving the crossbar that the swing hangs from, and not by manipulating the chains in any way. The flat spot in the golf swing would be achieved by moving the upper body (shoulders?) differently while otherwise maintaining the "taut" tracing of the club on its arc, wouldn't it? And doesn't the same hold true in applying a "bracing"  at impact like discussed in the first video?

 

(These aren't rhetorical questions, btw. I don't know the answers.)

[Zitlow]

Austin called the 2 competing forces Escape Force and Holding Force. 

[Lefthook]

@KMeloney 

 

1) Here, a slow & easy transition has been advocated. McKenzie says that a fast transition is good for speed.

2) It has been argued that the job is done by p6. McKrnzie talks about pushing off the lead foot through the ball for balance and speed.

3) The claim for “rope pulling” is partly justified, it is a very strong correlation between swing speed and how hard you pull and how long. But at the same time, in any decent swing, a significant torque is applied. That means force across the shaft. The amount of torque doesn’t correlate as much with speed as the linear force (pulling), but there is nevertheless a lot of it. And a golfer like Nicklaus - and a teacher like Monte - both are known to advocate an attempt to release early. Monte’s “cast” Involves a torque intent. But he has found out (I believe) that a casting attempt leads to greater hand speed which equals to more pulling and leads to higher swing speed.

 

Claims doesn’t have to be valid and justified simply because they resonate with you. Sometimes the truth is different.

 

I like the emphasis on linear force in those rope pulling videos that has been posted, but overall these videos oversimplify the golf swing and are somewhat misleading, although not entirely so.

 

On a personal account I believe the golf swing is difficult because you have to keep the pushing from trail side and the pulling from lead side perfectly synchronised through the ball - and because the combined force has to change direction at all times for max efficiency and reliability. We are not designed to be rotary machines.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Lefthook

[GreatStrike]

6 hours ago, Lefthook said:

@KMeloney 

 

1) Here, a slow & easy transition has been advocated. McKenzie says that a fast transition is good for speed.

2) It has been argued that the job is done by p6. McKrnzie talks about pushing off the lead foot through the ball for balance and speed.

3) The claim for “rope pulling” is partly justified, it is a very strong correlation between swing speed and how hard you pull and how long. But at the same time, in any decent swing, a significant torque is applied. That means force across the shaft. The amount of torque doesn’t correlate as much with speed as the linear force (pulling), but there is nevertheless a lot of it. And a golfer like Nicklaus - and a teacher like Monte - both are known to advocate an attempt to release early. Monte’s “cast” Involves a torque intent. But he has found out (I believe) that a casting attempt leads to greater hand speed which equals to more pulling and leads to higher swing speed.

 

Claims doesn’t have to be valid and justified simply because they resonate with you. Sometimes the truth is different.

 

I like the emphasis on linear force in those rope pulling videos that has been posted, but overall these videos oversimplify the golf swing and are somewhat misleading, although not entirely so.

 

On a personal account I believe the golf swing is difficult because you have to keep the pushing from trail side and the pulling from lead side perfectly synchronised through the ball - and because the combined force has to change direction at all times for max efficiency and reliability. We are not designed to be rotary machines.

 

 

1) The recommendation to go slow and easy is for learning purposes - crawling before walking, walking before running, running before jumping...

2) Once a 'swinging' golf swing has arrived around the area of P6 the swing's momentum needs no further additional emphasis to become an effective and powerful golf swing - more than enough to prove that the instructor's swing advice and the technique he advocates is valid. Any additional emphasis (e.g. intensity, force, physical strength) applied post-P6 stands more a likelihood of disrupting the 'swing' than to benefit the swing. 

 

All the videos that have been posted were clearly made to specifically display and discuss how to use the 'PRO' training device, and how the [correct] technique to use the training aid pertains to how a 'swinging' golf swing should originate and develop. The videos are not meant to demonstrate how the golf swing (in its entirely) is to be made, therefore any belief by you that the videos oversimplify the golf swing, or are somewhat misleading, is unfair in my view.      

     

Edited October 14, 2020 by Nail_It

[golfsticks]

3 hours ago, Lefthook said:

On a personal account I believe the golf swing is difficult because you have to keep the pushing from trail side and the pulling from lead side perfectly synchronised through the ball - and because the combined force has to change direction at all times for max efficiency and reliability. We are not designed to be rotary machines.

 

 

Good personal account, no slack with precise strike arrival.          

 

 

[Lefthook]

I strongly disagree with #2.

 

And btw, what is your affiliation with Dean Martin Golf? Do you know him? Any business interest in his oversimplified philosophy? Taken lessons with him or his associates?

 

PS Sorry for ringing the bell, but your posts here just doesn’t seem like an independent verdict at the moment.

[GreatStrike]

2 minutes ago, Lefthook said:

I strongly disagree with #2.

 

And btw, what is your affiliation with Dean Martin Golf? Do you know him? Any business interest in his oversimplified philosophy? Taken lessons with him or his associates?

 

PS Sorry for ringing the bell, but your posts here just doesn’t seem like an independent verdict at the moment.

 

You did not quote my post, but I gather you are addressing my previous post. 

 

I respect your disagreement with my #2, however Dan Martin, a Class-A PGA professional, himself stated in some of his videos what I reiterated with his 'let it ride' commentary after around the P6 position. 

 

Sorry, I am not familiar with Dean Martin Golf, but I have become aware of Dan Martin Golf. I was not informed that the topic being discussed was a legal matter with a law judgment [verdict] decision.

 

Apparently there is something that is troubling or concerning to you about me. I'm guessing you think that I might be Dan Martin the Class-A PGA professional. Or, maybe that I have some affiliation with Dan Martin Golf, or have a connection with Dan Martin personally, or have taken lessons from Dan Martin, or have participated along with Dan Martin in any way, or have been associated with any of Dan Martin's associates in any way, including Dan Martin's family members, friends and neighbors. 

 

Can you help me make sense of why you are 'ringing the bell'' after this thread has accumulated more than a dozen pages with no mention by me or anyone else of Dan Martin yet now you suddenly have made the determination with condemnation ("Sorry for ringing the bell" - is past tense) that I am somehow affiliated with Dan Martin?           

[Lefthook]

Well.... are you?

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, Lefthook said:

Well.... are you?

 

Don't take this at more than face value, but like probably 98% of all the members here on GolfWRX - who I am is none of your or anyone else's business. I hope that you will respect my response.  

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

I didn’t ask about your business unless this IS your business, in which case you should have come clear. 

[GreatStrike]

54 minutes ago, Lefthook said:

I didn’t ask about your business unless this IS your business, in which case you should have come clear. 

 

Did you mean to say "come clean"? The reason I ask is because I feel like you are interrogating me and demanding an answer. 

 

I don't know why you aren't able to understand that no one here has a right to know anything about me unless I'm willing to make it known, which I am not. That includes who I am, and in like manner must include who I am not too. I'm sure this same standard applies to you and every other member here at GolfWRX. You can make assumptions all you wish, and likely come to a pretty sound conclusion of who I am not, but to exclude for the intention of narrowing the choice will not be an option. I really do hope that you can respect that...    

   

Edited October 14, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

I’ve asked the moderators if they agree. Hopefully they will look into this.
 

And who is Dean Martin Golf anyway? 

[GreatStrike]

16 minutes ago, Lefthook said:

I’ve asked the moderators if they agree. Hopefully they will look into this.
 

And who is Dean Martin Golf anyway? 

 

Good Lord, you are asking moderators to help determine and reveal my identity to you. Amazing!  I hope they educate you and set you straight!  

 

You need to ask yourself (see HERE) who Dean Martin Golf is! You are the one that came up with the name... 

 

PS - Please let me know what the moderators say about your request, okay? 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

My mistake. What is your relationship with Dan Martin Golf etc?

Edited October 14, 2020 by Lefthook

[GreatStrike]

6 minutes ago, Lefthook said:

My mistanke. What is your sffilisyion with Dan Martin Golf etc?

 

I don't know what the words mistanke or sffilisyion means.

 

I've already given you my response! Here it is again:

 

Apparently there is something that is troubling or concerning to you about me. I'm guessing you think that I might be Dan Martin the Class-A PGA professional. Or, maybe that I have some affiliation with Dan Martin Golf, or have a connection with Dan Martin personally, or have taken lessons from Dan Martin, or have participated along with Dan Martin in any way, or have been associated with any of Dan Martin's associates in any way, including Dan Martin's family members, friends and neighbors. 

 

Can you help me make sense of why you are 'ringing the bell'' after this thread has accumulated more than a dozen pages with no mention by me or anyone else of Dan Martin yet now you suddenly have made the determination with condemnation ("Sorry for ringing the bell" - is past tense) that I am somehow affiliated with Dan Martin?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know why you aren't able to understand that no one here has a right to know anything about me unless I'm willing to make it known, which I am not. That includes who I am, and in like manner must include who I am not too. I'm sure this same standard applies to you and every other member here at GolfWRX. You can make assumptions all you wish, and likely come to a pretty sound conclusion of who I am not, but to exclude for the intention of narrowing the choice will not be an option. I really do hope that you can respect that...    

  

Edited October 14, 2020 by Nail_It

[dhc1]

i find this thread interesting but I'll throw in my 2 cents on the identity issue.

 

You as a poster are certainly free to hide your identity. However, if people think you are affiliated with a teacher, there's a chance that refusing to say that you're affiliated with said teacher will reflect badly upon that teacher with an audience that they wouldn't want to alienate. If you're not affiliated with that teacher, I think it's the right thing to acknowledge that to prevent an uninvolved teacher getting their reputation attached to you for no reason.

 

I also think that saying that I am not a person (or affiliated with said person) is in no way revealing your identity as there's 328 million Americans. 

 

Here you go: I am not David Leadbetter nor in any way affiliated with him. easy peasy

Edited October 14, 2020 by dhc1
added language

[PJ1120]

Here we go......another attack on a poster that has contributed a lot. What's wrong with you guys?

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

i find this thread interesting but I'll throw in my 2 cents on the identity issue.

 

You as a poster are certainly free to hide your identity. However, if people think you are affiliated with a teacher, there's a chance that refusing to say that you're affiliated with said teacher will reflect badly upon that teacher with an audience that they wouldn't want to alienate. If you're not affiliated with that teacher, I think it's the right thing to acknowledge that to prevent an uninvolved teacher getting their reputation attached to you for no reason.

 

I also think that saying that I am not a person (or affiliated with said person) is in no way revealing your identity as there's 328 million Americans. 

 

Here you go: I am not David Leadbetter nor in any way affiliated with him. easy peasy

 

The main reason that I took the stand I did was the way Lefthook came across in asking his questions as if he was some authority figure demanding to find out who someone is. Also, the way Lefthook accused me ("Sorry for ringing the bell" - past tense), that 'if' I was affiliated with Dan Martin he suggested that it would be frowned on.  I don't know about you, but most people don't like being treated in such a way.

 

PS - Even though you have admitted not being David Leadbetter how do I know you are being truthful?  

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Nail_It

[dhc1]

1 minute ago, Nail_It said:

 

The main reason that I took the stand I did was the way Lefthook came across in asking his questions as if he was some authority figure demanding to find out who someone is. Also, the way Lefthook accused me ("Sorry for ringing the bell" - past tense), that 'if' I was affiliated with Dan Martin he suggested that it would be frowned on.  I don't know about you, but most people don't like being in such a way.

 

PS - Even though you have admitted not being David Leadbetter how do I know you are being truthful?  

 

 

 

 

You don't know but again, it is respectful to leadbetter that it's publicly stated that he's not associated with my golf ramblings. 

 

I do hope you continue with with golf perspective here.

[johnrobison]

5 hours ago, Nail_It said:

2) Once a 'swinging' golf swing has arrived around the area of P6 the swing's momentum needs no further additional emphasis to become an effective and powerful golf swing - more than enough to prove that the instructor's swing advice and the technique he advocates is valid. Any additional emphasis (e.g. intensity, force, physical strength) applied post-P6 stands more a likelihood of disrupting the 'swing' than to benefit the swing. 

 

I'm pretty sure that Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit disproved that, didn't they? They measure force applied throughout the entire swing and I'm pretty sure contradict your belief.

Edited October 14, 2020 by johnrobison

[GreatStrike]

10 minutes ago, PJ1120 said:

Here we go......another attack on a poster that has contributed a lot. What's wrong with you guys?

 

Thank you for standing up! I appreciate that... 👍

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

You don't know but again, it is respectful to leadbetter that it's publicly stated that he's not associated with my golf ramblings. 

 

I do hope you continue with with golf perspective here.

 

Thank you for the kind words.  I'll overlook Lefthook's crass comments for what they are.

 

I have no intentions of not continuing to offer my golf perspective as well as sharing information from others that I think is helpful.   

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Nail_It

[GreatStrike]

3 hours ago, johnrobison said:

 

I'm pretty sure that Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit disproved that, didn't they? They measure force applied throughout the entire swing and I'm pretty sure contradict your belief.

 

All you need to do from around P6 with a 'swinging' golf swing is basically hold on and let it 'ride'. Your work is largely done in the first half of the downswing - the rest is what you did earlier making the 'swing' really come alive. There is plenty of momentum force in what Dan Martin calls the 'ride'. Just like there continues to be reduced, yet still very significant, momentum force during post-impact and well into the follow-through - if there wasn't this momentum force then you could stop the golf club and your body a couple inches after impact. Of course that's impossible. 

 

Do we even know what kind of swing (hitting or swinging) Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit were evaluating when they measured those forces you are referring to? Do we even know how they measure those forces - meaning is it strictly momentum force - or is it measuring separately any 'additional' physical muscular strength force that the golfer intentionally adds for the express purpose of increasing clubhead speed? I certainly don't know. Maybe you do.    

 

If you are spinning a weight around on the end of a string and stop your axis (hand) rotation the measured force does not just suddenly cease. In the case of a 'swinging' golf swing once you arrive around P6 (and let it 'ride' so to speak) the weight and momentum of the golf club and the golfers arms and body rotation do not just suddenly cease. As long as the golfer continues to hold onto the golf club with relaxed wrist joints, the swing arc radius reduces in size late in the downswing just prior to impact which dramatically speeds up the clubhead as it robustly moves from one side of the wrist joints to the other side - so just momentum coasting (a.k.a. let it 'ride') alone works out quite well...and I'm pretty sure that a measured force would be quite high even though intentional applied force (physical muscular strength) for all practical purposes would be near zero very late in the downswing. Not to say that some golfers are able to add intentional force (applying physical muscular strength) throughout the entire downswing and maybe even beyond, but that has proven to be far more disruptive to a 'swinging' golf swing than beneficial. Now then, if you are talking about a 'hitting' golf swing, then that's an entirely different protocol where drive force (physical muscular strength) like a lumberjack uses is needed 'through' impact. Two very different protocols and techniques. Swinging is more like throwing and hitting is more like, well slugging and twisting.   

    

These two Dan Martin videos should help you to understand when the 'swing' is basically on its own momentum. And what is meant by swing momentum, energy transfer and 'the ride' (as Dan Martin calls it) in a 'swinging' golf swing. I can assure you that in a sound 'swinging' golf swing there is no added force applied throughout the entire swing as you suggest. In a 'swinging' golf swing the last thing you want to do is apply intentional physical muscular strength force late in the downswing, which is precisely what the typical amateur golfer does...and then he wonders why he keeps making bad swings.   

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

Are you making this up or what?

 

Here's an abstract from a scientific paper:

 

This study measured changes in angular momentum during a golf swing and determined its associations with club head speed (CHS). Three-dimensional coordinates of anatomical landmarks were obtained during driver shots in 17 male collegiate golfers. A 15-segment model was used to calculate total (body-club system) angular momentum about the whole-body centre of mass and the segmental contributions of the trunk, arms, legs, and club to CHS. Angular momentum of the body-club system and the club increased from the top of the backswing towards ball impact. While angular momentum of the arms reached a maximum before the middle downswing, that of the trunk peaked after the middle downswing. The trunk maximum angular momentum was selected as the sole contributor for CHS (R² = 0.494, p = 0.002). CHS negatively correlated with the relative difference between maximum angular momentum and angular momentum at impact only in the trunk (r = −0.492, p = 0.045). These results suggest that 1) the club head is accelerated by increasing angular momentum of the body-club system without sequential motion from the proximal (trunk) to distal (arm) segments, and 2) gaining large trunk angular momentum in the later part of the downswing is essential for fast CHS.

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24748668.2019.1702298?af=R&journalCode=rpan20

 

 

This is quite the opposite of what you and your alter ego claims.

 

 

[johnrobison]

16 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

All you need to do from around P6 with a 'swinging' golf swing is basically hold on and let it 'ride'. Your work is largely done in the first half of the downswing - the rest is what you did earlier making the 'swing' really come alive. There is plenty of momentum force in what Dan Martin calls the 'ride'. Just like there continues to be reduced, yet still very significant, momentum force during post-impact and well into the follow-through - if there wasn't this momentum force then you could stop the golf club and your body a couple inches after impact. Of course that's impossible. 

 

Do we even know what kind of swing (hitting or swinging) Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit were evaluating when they measured those forces you are referring to? Do we even know how they measure those forces - meaning is it strictly momentum force - or is it measuring separately any 'additional' physical muscular strength force that the golfer intentionally adds for the express purpose of increasing clubhead speed? I certainly don't know. Maybe you do.    

 

If you are spinning a weight around on the end of a string and stop your axis (hand) rotation the measured force does not just suddenly cease. In the case of a 'swinging' golf swing once you arrive around P6 (and let it 'ride' so to speak) the weight and momentum of the golf club and the golfers arms and body rotation do not just suddenly cease. As long as the golfer continues to hold onto the golf club with relaxed wrist joints, the swing arc radius reduces in size late in the downswing just prior to impact which dramatically speeds up the clubhead as it robustly moves from one side of the wrist joints to the other side - so just momentum coasting (a.k.a. let it 'ride') alone works out quite well...and I'm pretty sure that a measured force would be quite high even though intentional applied force (physical muscular strength) for all practical purposes would be near zero very late in the downswing. Not to say that some golfers are able to add intentional force (applying physical muscular strength) throughout the entire downswing and maybe even beyond, but that has proven to be far more disruptive to a 'swinging' golf swing than beneficial. Now then, if you are talking about a 'hitting' golf swing, then that's an entirely different protocol where drive force (physical muscular strength) like a lumberjack uses is needed 'through' impact. Two very different protocols and techniques. Swinging is more like throwing and hitting is more like, well slugging and twisting.   

    

These two Dan Martin videos should help you to understand when the 'swing' is basically on its own momentum. And what is meant by swing momentum, energy transfer and 'the ride' (as Dan Martin calls it) in a 'swinging' golf swing. I can assure you that in a sound 'swinging' golf swing there is no added force applied throughout the entire swing as you suggest. In a 'swinging' golf swing the last thing you want to do is apply intentional physical muscular strength force late in the downswing, which is precisely what the typical amateur golfer does...and then he wonders why he keeps making bad swings.   

 

 

 

No. What you feel is happening or what some people describe as their feel might coincide with that but it's not what's happening. The forces have been measured by Nesbit, by Mackenzie, and by others. Your analogy to a weight on a string, while visually similar, does not equate to the forces in a golf swing. We know this because, again, the forces have been measured. You can argue with science all you want because it challenges the beliefs that you've spent years developing and espousing, but you can't change the facts.

 

In the words of Keynes - "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"