Do you throw or twist?

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, johnrobison said:

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?"

 

 

What type of swing (hitting or swinging) did Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit measure? It makes a big difference! Do you know the answer?

 

The reason I ask the above question is because in a 'hitting' golf swing the golfer purposely/intentionally uses physical muscular strength force throughout the entire downswing and through impact. However, in a 'swinging' golf swing the golfer with a sound golf 'swing' typically tries not to use or add any physical muscular strength force in the latter part of the downswing. So, do you know the answer?

   

Also, was the force measurement technique and parameters setup to measure the distinction between momentum force and any 'additional' physical muscular strength force that the golfer might purposely/intentionally add at different time points throughout the downswing for the express purpose of increasing clubhead speed? Do you know the answer?  

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Nail_It

[johnrobison]

5 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

 

What type of swing (hitting or swinging) did Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit measure? It makes a big difference! Do you know the answer?

 

The reason I ask the above question is because in a 'hitting' golf swing the golfer purposely/intentionally uses physical muscular strength force throughout the entire downswing and through impact. However, in a 'swinging' golf swing the golfer typically tries not to use or add any physical muscular strength force in the latter part of the downswing. So, do you know the answer?

   

Also, was the force measurement technique and parameters setup to measure the distinction between momentum force and any 'additional' physical muscular strength force that the golfer might purposely/intentionally add for the express purpose of increasing clubhead speed? Do you know the answer?  

They're measuring the forces applied. It's irrelevant whether the golfer intended to or applied them purposefully - they forces are applied.

 

They also measure multiple swings. These guys are scientists and not just looking at a single case to make generalizations.

 

The point is that what a golfer feels or has conscious awareness of is less than the sum. I might be consciously focused on the feeling of pulling my lead side, to the exclusion of all other feelings. But that doesn't mean that I'm not also pushing my trail side - I'm just not aware of it. It's certainly possible that intending to apply more force with the trail side, or being consciously focused on doing so, isn't as effective as focusing the conscious mind on the lead side for some golfers. But that doesn't mean that both aren't happening. And it might not feel as though forces are being applied after P6 (and possibly for many golfers, intending/attempting to apply force at that time could be ruinous) but forces are being applied and, if I'm understanding the results of their studies, that's a pretty inarguable fact at this point. Somebody please correct me if I misunderstand the recent research.

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, johnrobison said:

They're measuring the forces applied. It's irrelevant whether the golfer intended to or applied them purposefully - they forces are applied.

 

They also measure multiple swings. These guys are scientists and not just looking at a single case to make generalizations.

 

The point is that what a golfer feels or has conscious awareness of is less than the sum. I might be consciously focused on the feeling of pulling my lead side, to the exclusion of all other feelings. But that doesn't mean that I'm not also pushing my trail side - I'm just not aware of it. It's certainly possible that intending to apply more force with the trail side, or being consciously focused on doing so, isn't as effective as focusing the conscious mind on the lead side for some golfers. But that doesn't mean that both aren't happening. And it might not feel as though forces are being applied after P6 (and possibly for many golfers, intending/attempting to apply force at that time could be ruinous) but forces are being applied and, if I'm understanding the results of their studies, that's a pretty inarguable fact at this point. Somebody please correct me if I misunderstand the recent research.

 

I can definitely see how continued body rotation would [of course] produce an applied force even if/when the golfer was just passively maintaining a hold on the club's grip. That force is not what is in question. That said, the questions should have originally been much more detailed to narrow-down the scope of exactly what the question is - which is to differentiate between the recognized applied force due to continued body rotation vs. force that is specifically applied by a)the lead arm/hand and/or b)the trail arm/hand at various position/time points during the downswing and post-impact.

 

Since a 'hitting' golf swing requires different [physical muscular strength] protocols to be applied (including 'when' they are applied) compared to a 'swinging' golf swing, I think that including numerous golfers with these two different types of golf swings (even though the golfers measured may have had sound golf swings) would provide flawed data for the questions I have...and to address the topic being debated. This begs the question of whether Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit believe a 'hitters' golf swing has a different physical muscular strength behavior compared to a 'swingers' golf swing? Do you know the answer to that question? What is your personal opinion of that question? In other words, simply put - was Homer Kelley, the hundreds of TGM qualified GSEB, GSEM, GSED authorized instructors and the countless number of golf instructors/teachers/coaches and tour players worldwide right or wrong that the two golf swings are mostly mutually exclusive in terms of how they are 'powered' (a.k.a. use of physical muscular strength)? Also, do you know if the 'multiple swings' measured by Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit were from golfers with a wide range of abilities (handicaps) all lumped into one set of data results? All these questions are very relevant. It makes a difference...     

        

Edited October 15, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

Nail_It,
The two patterns can be very different when it comes to application, but then again so can two different hitting patterns or swinging patterns. An when Lynn Bake demonstrated the difference between hitting and swinging with full driver swings back in the days, it was virtually impossible to tell which was which. 

 

The total work done with the golf club including direction and timing isn’t all that different since the club is moved more or less the same way.  
 

There is probably most torque applied in a swing with fast transition, (Fowler) where you typically see the most shaft flexing.

 

PS the physics part in TGM is pretty good as far as impact goes, but not for how swing speed is produced.  For a starter, there is no mention of torque. But today we have a lot of scientific research who provide a much more complete understanding. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Lefthook

[johnrobison]

3 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

I can definitely see how continued body rotation would [of course] produce an applied force even if/when the golfer was just passively maintaining a hold on the club's grip. That force is not what is in question. That said, the questions should have originally been much more detailed to narrow-down the scope of exactly what the question is - which is to differentiate between the recognized applied force due to continued body rotation vs. force that is specifically applied by a)the lead arm/hand and/or b)the trail arm/hand at various position/time points during the downswing and post-impact.

 

Since a 'hitting' golf swing requires different [physical muscular strength] protocols to be applied (including 'when' they are applied) compared to a 'swinging' golf swing, I think that including numerous golfers with these two different types of golf swings (even though the golfers measured may have had sound golf swings) would provide flawed data for the questions I have...and to address the topic being debated. This begs the question of whether Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit believe a 'hitters' golf swing has a different physical muscular strength behavior compared to a 'swingers' golf swing? Do you know the answer to that question? What is your personal opinion of that question? In other words, simply put - was Homer Kelley, the hundreds of TGM qualified GSEB, GSEM, GSED authorized instructors and the countless number of golf instructors/teachers/coaches and tour players worldwide right or wrong that the two golf swings are mostly mutually exclusive in terms of how they are 'powered' (a.k.a. use of physical muscular strength)? Also, do you know if the 'multiple swings' measured by Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit were from golfers with a wide range of abilities (handicaps) all lumped into one set of data results? All these questions are very relevant. It makes a difference...     

        

Kelley, et al. were somewhat right at the time. His theories have been expanded upon/clarified/discounted over time, and I would hope that as an engineer, he would change his opinions as new data is discovered.

 

My personal opinion of swinger vs hitter is that it's a spectrum - the lead side and trail side contribute to forces applied and will be more or less of either depending on the golfer. They are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, intent and conscious focus have much to do with it - as Lefthook pointed out in Lynn Blake - and, while a golfer might feel as though he is swinging with 100% of the force pulling from the lead side, there is still a component of trail side force that he just isn't consciously aware of.

 

A golfer may not be aware of or able to feel the forces applied to the club by the hands at and after P6, but they're happening. That might contradict your own beliefs, and whether you want to reconsider what you've decided to be truth is up to you. But those things are happening and are indisputable as I understand it.

Edited October 15, 2020 by johnrobison

[GreatStrike]

2 hours ago, johnrobison said:

Kelley, et al. were somewhat right at the time. His theories have been expanded upon/clarified/discounted over time, and I would hope that as an engineer, he would change his opinions as new data is discovered.

 

My personal opinion of swinger vs hitter is that it's a spectrum - the lead side and trail side contribute to forces applied and will be more or less of either depending on the golfer. They are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, intent and conscious focus have much to do with it - as Lefthook pointed out in Lynn Blake - and, while a golfer might feel as though he is swinging with 100% of the force pulling from the lead side, there is still a component of trail side force that he just isn't consciously aware of.

 

A golfer may not be aware of or able to feel the forces applied to the club by the hands at and after P6, but they're happening. That might contradict your own beliefs, and whether you want to reconsider what you've decided to be truth is up to you. But those things are happening and are indisputable as I understand it.

 

Homer Kelley died in 1983 so he can't change anything even if he wanted to. 

 

How (when and in which sequence order) a hitter applies the three (3) TGM Power Accumulators (i.e. PA) is very different from how (when and in which sequence order) a swinger applies his three (3) Power Accumulators. According to Homer Kelley (and the hundreds of TGM qualified GSEB, GSEM, GSED authorized instructors) 'hitting' and 'swinging' are indeed very different protocols, with many of the Power Accumulators for a 'hitting' protocol being impossible to apply in the same way (when and in which sequence order) for a 'swinging' protocol. In other words, many of the Power Accumulators are mutually exclusive pertaining to which ones are used and how they are used; dependent upon whether you are a swinger or a hitter. 

 

I have put Lefthook on ignore so I do not see his posts. 

 

A hitter intentionally applies very strong trail arm force to the golf club whereas the swinger is intentionally trying not to apply force with the trail arm.

 

Homer Kelley described that a 'swinging' golf swing uses three (3) Power Accumulators (PAs) in a sequential manner to power the golf swing. PA4 is the first Power Accumulator that is used in a swingers golf swing and it releases the left arm, then PA2 which releases the golf club and then PA3 which releases the roll of the left arm/forearm and therefore the clubshaft/clubface into impact. Note the 'swinging' golf swing sequence is PA4, PA2 & PA3.  Now for the 'hitting' golf swing.

 

Homer Kelley described that a 'hitting' golf swing uses three (3) Power Accumulators (PAs) in a sequential manner to power the golf swing. PA1 is the first Power Accumulator that is used in a hitters golf swing and it is due to the very active straightening of the trail arm (straightening of the bent elbow) that is produced by a very active trail triceps muscle contraction. PA1 is the primary source of power for the hitter. However, the active release of PA1 only starts to happen in the mid-late phase of the downswing. Kelley also described what he called a 'Four Barrel' hitting technique which involves adding PA4 in which it releases before the release of PA1. Note the 'hitting' golf swing sequence is PA1, PA2 & PA3. 

 

Relevant Notes:

The swinger does not use PA1 (very active straightening of the trail arm) - PA1 is not in the swinger's sequence at all.

The primary source of the hitter's power is from the trail arm (PA1) straightening.

The use of PA1 (trail arm straightening) in the hitters swing only starts to happen in the mid-late phase of the downswing.

 

The Power Accumulators and their sequence for a hitter are in direct conflict for a swinger, and visa-versa. Therefore they are indeed exclusive and cannot happen. 

 

Note: In a pure 'swinging' golf swing the trail arm only plays a supportive role, and not a dominate role, in releasing PA2 and PA3 which is unlike in a 'hitting' golf swing. 

 

Like many things there are subsets and sub-subsets and so forth where individuals may incorporate various features making their golf swing a hybrid version.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Nail_It

[johnrobison]

I know what the Power Accumulators are and how they're used by swingers and hitters according to Kelley (I'm also aware that he's dead, BTW) but just because he said it, doesn't make it so. You're approaching it as a binary problem when it's actually on a spectrum. 

 

Your reasoning is circular. You continue to reference TGM for your evidence when that's actually the alleged evidence that's in question. The book was certainly very influential but it's not canon and there is much more recent research to confirm what's actually happening in the swing.

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, johnrobison said:

I know what the Power Accumulators are and how they're used by swingers and hitters according to Kelley (I'm also aware that he's dead, BTW) but just because he said it, doesn't make it so. You're approaching it as a binary problem when it's actually on a spectrum. 

 

Your reasoning is circular. You continue to reference TGM for your evidence when that's actually the alleged evidence that's in question. The book was certainly very influential but it's not canon and there is much more recent research to confirm what's actually happening in the swing.

 

You're getting off target. The focus was on the use of physical muscular force late in the downswing where Dan Martin said to 'let it ride', which you have disagreed with - wanting to put all golf swings in one spectrum or within one encompassing range.  

 

Dan Martin, TGM experts, and many other teachers/instructors, tour players and golfers recognize that there is a significant difference between a swinger and a hitter, with the primary difference being that a hitter uses his trail arm as the primary power source (and it is applied in the mid-late downswing) whereas with a swinger the trail arm is not purposely even used. You may not want to admit that, but I think it is an accepted understanding. Maybe you want to change what was once the focus we were discussing to align with your argument. 

 

I am not a follower of TGM by any means, but am aware of TGM and some of Mr. Kelley's research. I'm not opposed to dropping the referral of TGM lingo and instead simply calling a hitting golf swing a 'leveraged' golf swing with force applied largely perpendicular on the clubshaft. But that doesn't change what was once the focus of what we were discussing. 

 

You are suggesting that a golf swing is a golf swing and that all golf swings fall into one wide range. I am under the belief that, much like Homer Kelley's research determined, that there are two distinct ways to swing or move a golf club. And, that when certain protocols for one type of golf swing are used when swinging with the other type of golf swing, it's like mixing oil and water. People that have played this game for a period of time usually recognize this fact. If they don't then they likely continue to be the typical handicap golfer...because that mixing of protocols is exactly why most golfers don't reach their capabilities.

 

If you want to disagree with that summarization that is your prerogative to do so, and I respect that... 

        

Edited October 16, 2020 by Nail_It

[GreatStrike]

Here are some videos displaying and discussing swinging versus hitting. I grant you that it's often difficult to determine the difference by just watching a 'swinging' golf swing compared to a 'hitting' golf swing (unless it's like Arnold Palmer), but most golfers with sound golf swings know how they apply the power and what the difference is.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

 

9 hours ago, Nail_It said:

I have put Lefthook on ignore so I do not see his posts. 

 

Note the 'swinging' golf swing sequence is PA4, PA2 & PA3.  Now for the 'hitting' golf swing.

 

Note the 'hitting' golf swing sequence is PA1, PA2 & PA3. 

 

Relevant Notes:

The swinger does not use PA1 (very active straightening of the trail arm) - PA1 is not in the swinger's sequence at all.

The primary source of the hitter's power is from the trail arm (PA1) straightening.

The use of PA1 (trail arm straightening) in the hitters swing only starts to happen in the mid-late phase of the downswing.

 

 

The sequencing is the same in all strokes. 4-1-2-3 is the order of the release, and a golfer can use as many or as few of these as he likes. He can also do without any (for e.g. a putt). A hitter's use of PA#1 does practically the same with the hands and club as the swinger's PA#4. It moves the hands towards the impact position.

 

It is also vital in this discussion to reflect on "extensior action". It is the TGM swinger's use of the trail arm. It involves a deliberate thrust, just like hitting, but outward, not forward. It braces the triangle between the shoulder girdle and the two arms and makes the stroke less flimsy. Towards impact, the trail arm is actively straightened. In a swing, the hands are keeping up with the pivot. In a hit, the hand are catching up a tiny little bit. Extensior action isn't mandatory in a swing, but highly recommended, especially when Lynn Blake talks about it. And I agree.

 

Rope handling vs axe handling are terms that has to be understood in the right context, and the right context is about intent, not about the real forces applied. The forces are literally the same, and the end results are very similar. It is quite telling that the guys who discuss Hogan's stroke in that video are unable to draw certain conclusions as to whether he hits or swings or does a 4-barrel stroke.

 

The difference between hitting and  swinging is significant in terms of feel and also in terms of how you work the ball. A hit tends to prevent clubface closure, so the club must be more closed towards impact. A swing is the opposite, so you need to crank it open before the downswing starts, and perhaps open it even more during transition. You can also apply a hit to add some finesse. If you struggle in the greenside bunker you can add a little thrust to the stroke. Just get the hands down in front of you as fast as possible and it will be a lot easier to keep the face open with the desired amount of shaft lean through the sand and control the steepness and low point - as you TURN through (pun intended).

 

HK provided a flawed understanding of the physics of creating swing speed in TGM.  He attributed swinger's swing speed to centripetal force, which is flat out wrong. And he attributed too much of the hitters power generation to the trail arm thrust, which perhaps accounts for only 10%. Hitters and swingers create the majority of the swing speed by pulling from the lead side and pushing from the trail side, and it goes with the territory of rotating motions that the pulling part will be carrying more "weight". Hitting or swinging, the power is generated in the same joints and body segments as for everybody else: Trail foot, lead foot, torso etc. Big muscles and big joints. And only a small percentage from the trail arm.  The net forces and torques applied to the club are practically identical, since both ends of the club is moved along very similar paths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nard_S]

 The problem with designating "hitter" or "swinger" are both highlight and both ignore greater aspects of the entire swing. Golf is very much an activity where the answer lies somewhere other than where you looking. And you never look until something is wrong. So say I'm a "hitter", and things are off, I'll go do my "hit" thing and turn it up to "11" and maybe marginally compensate with it. Sometimes 2 wrongs temporarily make a right or two negatives do multiply to a positive. But in truth the better answer may lie in being more of a "swinger". So I cannot relate to any of this, especially when it speaks from an era before high speed video and advanced computer analysis.

 

 

[johnrobison]

13 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

You're getting off target. The focus was on the use of physical muscular force late in the downswing where Dan Martin said to 'let it ride', which you have disagreed with - wanting to put all golf swings in one spectrum or within one encompassing range.  

 

Dan Martin, TGM experts, and many other teachers/instructors, tour players and golfers recognize that there is a significant difference between a swinger and a hitter, with the primary difference being that a hitter uses his trail arm as the primary power source (and it is applied in the mid-late downswing) whereas with a swinger the trail arm is not purposely even used. You may not want to admit that, but I think it is an accepted understanding. Maybe you want to change what was once the focus we were discussing to align with your argument. 

 

I am not a follower of TGM by any means, but am aware of TGM and some of Mr. Kelley's research. I'm not opposed to dropping the referral of TGM lingo and instead simply calling a hitting golf swing a 'leveraged' golf swing with force applied largely perpendicular on the clubshaft. But that doesn't change what was once the focus of what we were discussing. 

 

You are suggesting that a golf swing is a golf swing and that all golf swings fall into one wide range. I am under the belief that, much like Homer Kelley's research determined, that there are two distinct ways to swing or move a golf club. And, that when certain protocols for one type of golf swing are used when swinging with the other type of golf swing, it's like mixing oil and water. People that have played this game for a period of time usually recognize this fact. If they don't then they likely continue to be the typical handicap golfer...because that mixing of protocols is exactly why most golfers don't reach their capabilities.

 

If you want to disagree with that summarization that is your prerogative to do so, and I respect that... 

        

I disagree simply because scientific research has shown it to be incorrect. You believe it's binary but the data shows that it's a spectrum. Your belief is based on what people observed and what people feel. Mine is based on what's been measured. 

 

Not much of it really matters from a practical standpoint, by the way. Certainly not for the majority of golfers. This is more of an academic discussion as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, plenty of golfers who feel more swinging intents might also need to feel the right arm straightening sooner, just for example. If your belief is that it's binary - mutually exclusive - you would disagree that they need to incorporate that as an intent whereas the measured data says that it would benefit them.

[GreatStrike]

15 hours ago, johnrobison said:

They're measuring the forces applied. It's irrelevant whether the golfer intended to or applied them purposefully - they forces are applied.

 

They also measure multiple swings. These guys are scientists and not just looking at a single case to make generalizations.

 

Quote

You're approaching it as a binary problem when it's actually on a spectrum. 

 

 

All golf swings are hybrid to some extent, a mixture of various golfer intentions as well as 'how' and 'when' golfers purposely use and apply their physical muscular strength to power their individual golf swings. All 'types' of golf swings can be put into one melting pot, and the data created from that particular research will be nothing more than a loose synopsis or review of all those combined golf swings with no specificity for the various swing 'types'. Obviously that was all that Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit wanted out of their research data, which is fine but it does not address the issue that you are in disagreement with.

 

To refresh our memories of what the disagreement is about:

Nail_It said: 

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.  

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.

 

Let me define golf swing 'types' (which should not alter the premise) so there will not be an added matter of contention. The discussion is built around 'when' golfers power their individual golf swings, with special emphasis on whether force is applied post-P6 or is even necessary. The discussion has not been about the acquired power from body [torso] rotation - only about the use of a golfer's arms relative to 'when' force is applied, which has moved to also include 'how' force is applied. If the Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit research did not disclose it in their research I think it is important to include one additional factor to the discussion - that is - by 'which' arm (lead or trail) is applying the force. 

 

I think there are fundamentally four (4) different 'types' of golf swings for which various characteristics or modifications further make the golf swing unique to the individual. For the purpose of describing the four 'types' of golf swings I have come up with the following:

Lead arm non-dominant arm - Swinging (e.g. Payne Stewart)

Lead arm dominant arm - Swinging (e.g. Johnny Miller)

Right arm dominant arm - Hitting (e.g. Arnold Palmer)

Right arm dominant arm - Throwing (e.g. Mike Austin)

 

Here are some videos of the four (4) different types of golf swings:

 

Lead arm non-dominate arm - Swinging

 

Lead arm dominant arm - Swinging

 

Right arm dominant arm - Hitting

 

Right arm dominant arm - Throwing

 

 

All four of these different types of golf swings (played from the right-hand side) apply different arm forces. Two of the golf swings are primarily powered by the lead arm and two are primarily applied by the trail arm. Of the two lead arm golf swings, one (Payne Stewart) is considered by many to be a 'pure swing' with no intention of powering the swing beyond around P6. The other lead arm golf swing (Johnny Miller) is left arm dominant and appears to use his left (lead) arm much deeper into the downswing than does Payne Stewart. The trail arm hitting golf swing of Arnold Palmer is just that - his trail arm drives the golf club throughout the entire swing much like a lumberjack drives an axe. The trail arm golf swing of Mike Austin is a throwing type golf swing that uses his left or lead arm only for support (as displayed in the chosen video/gif) and his trail arm is used to literally throw the golf club, which is a cousin of 'swinging'.

 

The point being - all four of these different golf swing types apply primary power quite differently in terms of 'how' it is applied, 'when' it is applied and which arm applies it. To conclude that all golfers, regardless of 'type', apply force "throughout the entire swing " is not only too simplistic but also not accurate.          

 

 

     

Edited October 16, 2020 by Nail_It

[johnrobison]

8 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

 

All golf swings are hybrid to some extent, a mixture of various golfer intentions as well as 'how' and 'when' golfers purposely use and apply their physical muscular strength to power their individual golf swings. All 'types' of golf swings can be put into one melting pot, and the data created from that particular research will be nothing more than a loose synopsis or review of all those combined golf swings with no specificity for the various swing 'types'. Obviously that was all that Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit wanted out of their research data, which is fine but it does not address the issue that you are in disagreement with.

 

To refresh our memories of what the disagreement is about:

Nail_It said: 

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.  

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.

 

Let me define golf swing 'types' (which should not alter the premise) so there will not be an added matter of contention. The discussion is built around 'when' golfers power their individual golf swings, with special emphasis on whether force is applied post-P6 or is even necessary. The discussion has not been about the acquired power from body [torso] rotation - only about the use of a golfer's arms relative to 'when' force is applied, which has moved to also include 'how' force is applied. If the Michael Jacobs and Dr. Steven Nesbit research did not disclose it in their research I think it is important to include one additional factor to the discussion - that is - by 'which' arm (lead or trail) is applying the force. 

 

I think there are fundamentally four (4) different 'types' of golf swings for which various characteristics or modifications further make the golf swing unique to the individual. For the purpose of describing the four 'types' of golf swings I have come up with the following:

Lead arm non-dominant arm - Swinging (e.g. Payne Stewart)

Lead arm dominant arm - Swinging (e.g. Johnny Miller)

Right arm dominant arm - Hitting (e.g. Arnold Palmer)

Right arm dominant arm - Throwing (e.g. Mike Austin)

 

Here are some videos of the four (4) different types of golf swings:

 

Lead arm non-dominate arm - Swinging

 

Lead arm dominant arm - Swinging

 

Right arm dominant arm - Hitting

 

Right arm dominant arm - Throwing

 

 

All four of these different types of golf swings (played from the right-hand side) apply different arm forces. Two of the golf swings are primarily powered by the left arm and two are primarily applied by the right arm. Of the two lead arm golf swings, one (Payne Stewart) could be considered a 'pure swing' with no intention of powering the swing beyond around P6. The other lead arm swing (Johnny Miller) is left arm dominant and appears to use his left arm much deeper into the downswing than does Payne Stewart. The right arm hitting golf swing of Arnold Palmer is just that - his right arm drives the golf club throughout the entire swing much like a lumberjack drives an axe. The right arm swing of Mike Austin is a throwing type golf swing that uses his left arm merely for support and his right arm literally throws the golf club, which is a cousin of swinging.

 

The point being - all four of these different golf swing types apply primary power quite differently in terms of 'how' it is applied, 'when' it is applied and which arm applies it. To conclude that all golfers, regardless of 'type', simply apply force "throughout the entire swing " is simply not correct.         

 

 

     

Well... First of all, what I said was that the forces were measured throughout the entire swing (I'll trust that you're not purposefully mischaracterizing my statement for the sake of your argument and, instead, simply misunderstood me) and the result of those measurements contradict the notion that additional force post-P6 is disruptive. I subsequently added something to the effect of, telling a golfer to get to P6 and then try to add more force, won't be effective since nobody's neurological system responds that quickly. But to say that the force has all been generated prior to P6 and additional force after P6 is disruptive is disputed by the data.

 

What those 4 swings appear to be doing and what those golfers feel or intend isn't necessarily reality. The trail arm isn't capable of providing the primary source of power or speed in a swing. It only feels that way to them and appears that way to the observer. Again, these things have been measured.

[Lefthook]

@johnrobison Some of this can matter a lot. A lost golfer searching for answers to his troubles can go in the wrong direction when he gets flawed answers. My venture into TGM hurt my game but it improved my understanding. I went to Geoff Jones after I decided that the patterns taught by TGM literals wasn’t for me... after my critical but very informed questions were ignored. And one day I started to read slicefixer’s posts here and everything made sense. I had a lot of second thoughts  and alternative hypothesis re TGM when I showed up at his  “misery hill”, so I asked geoff about those. Geoff doesn’t know a whole lot about TGM .. he did his own journey ... but he knows his own philosophy well enough to answer just about anything a TGM nerd might ask. Which is a lot of questions. For me it was a validation of my own understanding as well as his qualifications. There wasn’t a question I could ask him that he hadn’t asked himself and answered already. And he knew what he was talking about. And his stuff worked for me. Not hitting vs swinging, but a very connected turn where the hands and pivot is synced at all times - and you can make all the effort through the ball that your hart desires. Only the club is truly released and freewheeling, the rest is in gear. Everything stays connected.  And today more and more of the best new golfers in the world move through the ball the same way as he has been teaching for more than 20 years. 
 

So yes, these things matters.

 

Slicefixer wants his students to “bust it” but it ain’t a TGM hit. It is a very connected swing with a lot of effort from transition and all the way through the ball.
 

I had a session where he corrected me every time I stepped off the gas to save the shot even though I got the result I was hoping for. Coasting as Nail_It advocates was not acceptable.

 

And it feels great to pull that off on the 1st tee in a prestigious tournament when you are nervous as hell and your playing partner is equally nervous, but not equipped with the same tools, so he dumps the ball in a lateral water hazard even though he is clearly a better golfer. And I get a look at birdie.

[GreatStrike]

2 hours ago, johnrobison said:

Well... First of all, what I said was that the forces were measured throughout the entire swing (I'll trust that you're not purposefully mischaracterizing my statement for the sake of your argument and, instead, simply misunderstood me) and the result of those measurements contradict the notion that additional force post-P6 is disruptive. I subsequently added something to the effect of, telling a golfer to get to P6 and then try to add more force, won't be effective since nobody's neurological system responds that quickly. But to say that the force has all been generated prior to P6 and additional force after P6 is disruptive is disputed by the data.

 

What those 4 swings appear to be doing and what those golfers feel or intend isn't necessarily reality. The trail arm isn't capable of providing the primary source of power or speed in a swing. It only feels that way to them and appears that way to the observer. Again, these things have been measured.

 

I think you need a refresher on exactly what I wrote that you disagreed with. That said, I think it is you that is purposely mischaracterizing my statement for the sake of your argument. What I wrote was; 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.  

 

My quote above (in bold) is very different from what you are claiming that I said - which is: "the force has all been generated prior to P6 and additional force after P6 is disruptive". If you care to see the actual post that started our disagreement discussion it's HERE. 

 

In my opinion most golfers trying to learn a 'swinging' golf swing are taught (or eventually learn on their own if they get much better) that attempting to add additional force by using the trail arm post-P6 is likely to be more disruptive than beneficial in terms of both clubhead speed and clubface control...and when it is beneficial the risk is not worth the miniscule reward of additional clubhead speed. This is an accepted principle by many teachers/instructors, and for what it's worth the TGM instructors and advocates agree because the trail arm is not a necessary TGM Power Accumulator as I understand it in a 'swinging' golf swing. Trail arm for support of the arm structure - yes, necessary to power a 'swinging' golf swing - no. But wait! 'If' you are lead arm dominant (like Johnny Miller and many tour pros) or are ambidextrous, then you might be better equipped to add force beyond P6. I suggested that this should be considered one of four swing types, referring to it as 'Lead arm dominate arm - Swinging'.       

 

For you to say "The trail arm isn't capable of providing the primary source of power or speed in a swing." is simply flat out incorrect. I'm pretty sure that Mike Austin for one would have (if still alive) emphatically disagreed with you...as his many videos and discussions express. 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

I don’t like to be ignored by ignorant people, but I guess Nail_It wouldn’t get it anyway.
 

I know Lynn Blake well enough to say that he would not endorse Nail_It’s interpretation of TGM. Lynn has very high standards and Nail_It has just rrplicated a few headlines without understanding what they represent. What we have been presented in this thread is perhaps the worst and most charlatan TGM interpretation I’ve seen from a professional TGM endorser ever. I am still waiting or hoping for the TGM society to connect with science and move the great work of Homer Kelley forward. But Nail_It is heading in the opposite direction.

 

In the meantime this guy is advertising and endorsing Dan Martin’s services which I am pretty sure is his alter ego. Their flaws and oversimplifications are just too rare and similar, and Nail_It has just too much inside about the purpose of these videos. So he is endorsing his own services and pretending to be someone else. It is highly unethical and problematic, and I am surprised that the moderators allow it. If it was my forum he would have been given the choice between coming clean or be banned. 

[GreatStrike]

Some of you may find this information interesting. The graphs below show the forces exerted by each hand of a right-handed professional golfer during the forward swing motion. 

 

There are three graphs:

Xsp shows the forces applied perpendicular to the clubshaft(Ysp) and swing plane(Zsp)

Ysp shows the forces applied to the longitudinal axis of the clubshaft (tension/stretch force lengthwise in the same direction as the shaft)

Zsp shows the moment values of the hands pertaining to the normal vector (magnitude and direction) of the swing plane

 

 

Xsp - Forces applied perpendicular (side) to the clubshaft and swing plane:

Xsp Force: The force/pressure applied to the side of the shaft/grip) is very equal from both hands during the entire downswing

Xsp Force: The force/pressure applied to the side of the shaft/grip is very minimal 

Xsp Force: The force/pressure applied to the side of the shaft/grip falls to Ø at impact 

All the above Xsp graph indicators demonstrate that the professional golfer has no intention of deliberately applying perpendicular (side) force on the shaft.

All the  above Xsp graph indicators demonstrate that the professional golfer has a 'swinging' golf swing in lieu of a 'hitting' golf swing since the latter would have applied significant side pressure to the shaft, including through impact.     

• The time curve of the Xsp axial forces of the hands showed approximately coupled force. The coupled force, which accelerates the angular motion of the club, increased gradually until -0.1 sec, and then decreased rapidly toward the impact. 

 

Ysp - Forces applied to the longitudinal axis of the clubshaft (tension/stretch force lengthwise in the same direction as the shaft):

Ysp Force: The longitudinal force (tension/stretch force - lengthwise in the same direction as the shaft)  

The Ysp graph demonstrates the amount of significantly increasing tension/stretch force as the swing motion progresses toward impact.

The Ysp graph along with the Xsp graph demonstrates the golfer was very precise in pulling the clubshaft without redirection side force.   

• The longitudinal Ysp force of the lead hand (grip-end side hand) increased toward the impact and showed significantly large value compared to that of the trail hand (head side hand). 

 

Zsp - Moment values of the hands pertaining to the normal vector (magnitude and direction) of the swing plane:

Zsp Moments: Moments are the turning effect that forces exert on the hands as the swing motion progresses toward impact.  

The Zsp moments graph demonstrates at what time point forces are exerted on the individual hands due to uncocking turning forces.  

• The moment of the lead hand (grip-end side hand) about Zsp axis showed positive values, which accelerates the forward angular motion of the club, until -0.05sec, and then showed negative values toward the impact. The moment of the trail hand (head side hand) showed positive values from about -0.1 sec to the impact.

 

Results of analysis:

These results indicate that the longitudinal force along the grip handle exerted by the lead hand (grip-end side hand) would be a great contributor to the generation of the clubhead speed because the force shows the largest value compared to other components of exerting forces of the individual hands.

 

My personal observation/comments:

It is clear that this professional golfer employs a 'swinging' golf swing in lieu of a 'hitting' golf swing. The golfer methodically applied very minimal perpendicular (side) force (Xsp) on the clubshaft with an equal amount of force applied by both hands. (A hitter would have applied significant perpendicular (side) force on the clubshaft.) The golfer exhibited a near perfect longitudinal (tension/stretch - lengthwise in the same direction as the shaft) force (Ysp) that continued in an ever-increasing amount of energy as it rounded the bend and really ramped-up significantly late in the swing (last 0.075 second) just prior to impact. (This is the area (post-P6) where trying to add additional force to a 'swinging' golf swing is likely to disrupt the 'swing'.) The golfer's use and control of centrifugal↔centripetal force to 'swing' the golf club efficiently is praiseworthy.    

 

 

 

Reference

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Nail_It

[johnrobison]

6 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

I think you need a refresher on exactly what I wrote that you disagreed with. That said, I think it is you that is purposely mischaracterizing my statement for the sake of your argument. What I wrote was; 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.  

 

My quote above (in bold) is very different from what you are claiming that I said - which is: "the force has all been generated prior to P6 and additional force after P6 is disruptive". If you care to see the actual post that started our disagreement discussion it's HERE. 

 

In my opinion most golfers trying to learn a 'swinging' golf swing are taught (or eventually learn on their own if they get much better) that attempting to add additional force by using the trail arm post-P6 is likely to be more disruptive than beneficial in terms of both clubhead speed and clubface control...and when it is beneficial the risk is not worth the miniscule reward of additional clubhead speed. This is an accepted principle by many teachers/instructors, and for what it's worth the TGM instructors and advocates agree because the trail arm is not a necessary TGM Power Accumulator as I understand it in a 'swinging' golf swing. Trail arm for support of the arm structure - yes, necessary to power a 'swinging' golf swing - no. But wait! 'If' you are lead arm dominant (like Johnny Miller and many tour pros) or are ambidextrous, then you might be better equipped to add force beyond P6. I suggested that this should be considered one of four swing types, referring to it as 'Lead arm dominate arm - Swinging'.       

 

For you to say "The trail arm isn't capable of providing the primary source of power or speed in a swing." is simply flat out incorrect. I'm pretty sure that Mike Austin for one would have (if still alive) emphatically disagreed with you...as his many videos and discussions express. 

 

I don't see how my paraphrasing is mischaracterizing what you said. I certainly didn't intend to and it's simply what's inferred from your statement. Feel free to clarify your statement to correct my misunderstanding of it if you care to. I only chimed in on this discussion because I understood your statement to say that from P6 on, it's all momentum and any forces applied afterward will disrupt the swing (I'm reading your quote again and that's still what I infer) when, in fact, we now know that the golfer does apply force at and after P6.  Again, clarify if you care to but I'm exhausted by it and am moving on.

 

I don't really care what Mike Austin thinks is the primary power source in his swing. It might feel to him that it's the right arm but I believe the measured data shows that the trail arm isn't capable of producing that kind of speed. He's just not consciously aware of the amount of power being contributed by his left arm (which is perfectly fine, by the way, since that's what works for him). Some pros will tell you that they keep their left arm pinned to their chest. The data shows otherwise but that doesn't mean it's not what they feel. That's cool. Again, plenty of golfers need to be told to straighten their right arm sooner or faster or whatever. They might even have to feel that it's the sole source or power - but it ain't.

 

I know instructors who will qualify those "feel" statements by telling the student, "It's not what's happening, but it's what you have to feel is happening". I think it's important to make the distinction, especially with so many of us using video to analyze our swings. It's pretty frustrating to watch a golfer try to literally replicate what the instructor told him to only feel like he was doing.

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, johnrobison said:

I don't see how my paraphrasing is mischaracterizing what you said. I certainly didn't intend to and it's simply what's inferred from your statement. Feel free to clarify your statement to correct my misunderstanding of it if you care to. I only chimed in on this discussion because I understood your statement to say that from P6 on, it's all momentum and any forces applied afterward will disrupt the swing (I'm reading your quote again and that's still what I infer) when, in fact, we now know that the golfer does apply force at and after P6.  Again, clarify if you care to but I'm exhausted by it and am moving on.

 

I don't really care what Mike Austin thinks is the primary power source in his swing. It might feel to him that it's the right arm but I believe the measured data shows that the trail arm isn't capable of producing that kind of speed. He's just not consciously aware of the amount of power being contributed by his left arm (which is perfectly fine, by the way, since that's what works for him). Some pros will tell you that they keep their left arm pinned to their chest. The data shows otherwise but that doesn't mean it's not what they feel. That's cool. Again, plenty of golfers need to be told to straighten their right arm sooner or faster or whatever. They might even have to feel that it's the sole source or power - but it ain't.

 

I know instructors who will qualify those "feel" statements by telling the student, "It's not what's happening, but it's what you have to feel is happening". I think it's important to make the distinction, especially with so many of us using video to analyze our swings. It's pretty frustrating to watch a golfer try to literally replicate what the instructor told him to only feel like he was doing.

 

You've had your say and so have I. Neither one of us are making any headway with the other. Thanks for the civility. 👍  

Edited October 17, 2020 by Nail_It

[GreatStrike]

On 10/16/2020 at 10:11 AM, Nard_S said:

 The problem with designating "hitter" or "swinger" are both highlight and both ignore greater aspects of the entire swing. Golf is very much an activity where the answer lies somewhere other than where you looking. And you never look until something is wrong. So say I'm a "hitter", and things are off, I'll go do my "hit" thing and turn it up to "11" and maybe marginally compensate with it. Sometimes 2 wrongs temporarily make a right or two negatives do multiply to a positive. But in truth the better answer may lie in being more of a "swinger". So I cannot relate to any of this, especially when it speaks from an era before high speed video and advanced computer analysis.

 

Nard_S - I understand. Many (probably most) people feel as you do about labeling a golfer's golf swing as either 'hitting' or 'swinging'. Nevertheless, I think you will find the following interesting. 

 

The following are comments from John Erickson (a.k.a. 'Lag Pressure'), a retired former tour player that competed using a 'swinging' golf swing and changed to a 'hitting' golf swing. You (and others) hopefully will find his perspective about the topic of 'hitting' and 'swinging' interesting.

 

Note: The website (Advanced Ball Striking) where these comments are posted is extremely slow, or simply unavailable because the website's server is down, therefore I copied and pasted the first seven posts that John Erickson posted since they are the most pertinent to this 'hitting' vs 'swinging' topic. The entire website is applicable to this topic. I did include a link to the website at the end of this post.)  

 

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

 

We’ll, I must say that swinging and the use of longitudinal acceleration I believe to be the superior method of all things feel. Dumping the power package on the ball with soft hands is just a beautiful thing around the greens for all the chips, flops and around the green wedges.

I would argue that swinging makes a huge assumption that our hinges are always well oiled, free and flexible. The steady even acceleration to the moment of truth depends on exactly these things… steady, even, and well oiled firm, but flexible hinges.

We of course can debate the pressure gauge software inside the computer. Everyone seems to have a different setting. I am not likely to go into the red on a weekend game with guys at the club, but coming down the final three holes to win the South Australian Open might put me well into the red! lol

It’s natural when we feel pressure to tighten up, and these states of muscle constraint do not do well for the free flexible hinges.

Now if you have the mind of a Nicklaus, and pressure does not bother you, then your computer will keep pumping oil to those hinges right to the award platform on the 72nd green. For me that was not usually the case!

Once I learned how to hit, with a tight grip pressure, and radial acceleration with an angled hinge, I found that to be much better under the gun, and as my computer would cut off the oil and my muscles would tighten, I would typically just rotate a bit faster and I would just have to remember to pull one LESS club down the stretch and since I would practice with a very tight cohesive body tension, those moments would really just seem all too familiar…. I found I was able to perform much better under pressure with pure hitting techniques.

Greg McHatton once asked me why I would want to pull the club out of orbit with the angled hinge, and the answer was really quite simple. So I could hit it straight consistently!  

 

................................

 

In simple terms..
Swingers typically but not necessarily always are the guys with the long flowing swings, smooth and effortless looking (don’t be fooled though).
Hitters look more like short backswing, quick swing, that kind of thing.

The heart of what I was saying is that I think pure swingers have a harder time under pressure, and in my years on the tour, I saw the games best using hitting methods. Clampett and I had a long talk about it one year at Q school. He agreed.

The best hitting striker I ever saw was Peter Senior from Australia. I was there when he we waxing everyone from Norman in his prime, Faldo, no one could touch him. No swinging going on with that fine move.

For pure CF swingers.. Moe Norman who I spent a lot of time with picking his brain while I was on the Canadian Tour in the late 80's early 90's.
With hitting, I didn't have to practice at all to keep the ball on the course, and there have been times since my retirement where I went over a year without touching a club. One year I went out with my father, having not played in over a year, and I shot 68 at Oak Creek CC in Sedona which is a decent test RT Jones track. Now I am not saying this to toot my horn here, but to make a point… there is absolutely no way I could have done that swinging with rusty hinges!

Since coming back to golf last year, I still don't practice, only play.. and hitting makes it possible to not have to grind thousands of golf balls to strike the golf ball properly.

Swingers pull, hitters push. I believe there are purists on each end of the spectrum, most players do some of both, often not all that effectively.

From a purely ideological standpoint swinging is superior I believe.
But for me hitting proved the better method to win money and tournaments on the world stage.

 

...............................

 

Swinging might feel like this:
If you were to let go of the club at impact the club would of course bounce off the ground move away from you.. say towards 10 or 11 o clock. using the ball as a reference to a clock... Aiming the hands at the inside quadrant of the ball.

Now if you go with that momentum you can use a full roll of the wrists and let the arms move away from the body after dumping all the force on the ball and then into the ground. This is the Doyle, McHatton approach I was taught early on, and it works well. I know. I can swing that way and have won tournaments with that kind of swing.

Hitting:
Now if you fight that expanding circle action, you have to use an angle hinge, no wrist roll and the club is released by the rotation of the body. If you stand behind a golfer with this motion, the hands will quickly disappear around the body after impact… kind of like cutting it left..... by pulling the club out of it’s natural longitudinal orbit, you create a massive amount of pressure in your hands, on all three pressure points. This pressure in your hands is FEEL! and this is the feel that you can learn to utilize to control the ball exactly how you want to…. a three yard draw, a five yard fade, low, high, it’s all yours if you can learn to do it. Warning! You have to have strong arms and hands if you are planning on rotating fast and hitting it far!

On top of that, you have to learn what I believe to be the most difficult swing move in all of golf. Straightening the right arm out quickly on the downswing…while the torso turns flat or at right angles to the spine or axis. It’s a great move to master though, because if you can do it, you can’t ever get over the top of the shot and pull it.
 

For those who are still confused, it feels like you are coming right over the top to hit a big pull shot, but instead, that hands move straight down, as if they are going to land in your right hip pocket, but your shoulders are turning as flat as a 15th century Spanish globe.

I have seen that move win a lot of money and tournaments.

Swinging for me took a lot of practice, stretching, and all in all my body just had to feel really loose free and oily.. I couldn’t just step off the plane after a long flight, bad food, and go to the course and start flushing shots right away. Each week was like having to re lube the machine and get it all oiled up for Thursday. It really wore me out over time.. the road is a whole other thing. I saw a lot of compact short swing hitters just step off the plane at shoot 65 in a Tuesday round.. I was always quite envious of that until I learned how to do it myself.

I would strive for maximum swing radius so I would float load or drag load the club back to the top, so that my wrist would not c0ck until the very end of my backswing, then I would flex my knees into a big “sit down” bowlegged thing, this would start the change in direction, and I would hold 90 degree club shaft angle to the third parallel with a big gutty upper body rotation into this sit down leg squat.
 

Once there the left leg would straighten violently and the hips would clear fast and you just dump all that inertia onto the ball and into the ground with loosey goosey free flexible wrist and arms. The thing that was amazing about this, and so different is that after impact the upper arms would NOT stay packed and in tight to the body but would just move out away from the body with a full roll of the wrists, so free and spent feeling. You just have to trust that the forces that be will release the club into perfect alignment, and amazingly they do! ... but with this one disclosure … FREE FLEXIBLE HINGES WITH A STEADY AND EVEN ACCELERATION on the way down.

So my argument as a practical player and tester of this is that yes it does work, as long as the brain sends oil to the joints! .. meaning you don’t tighten up, get nervous or feel any pressure out on the course.

Swinging in general makes several big assumptions…
1. That the human body will create a steady even acceleration for all the laws of physics and geometry to do what they need to do..

2. That the hinges are properly lubed at all times when playing golf shots.. meaning free flexible wrists, heavy noodle like arms, and the “gutty” inner motion of the body is really driving the swing..(loading and delivering the power package)

I will say that the hitter must also feel that “gutty” body rotation (for fuller shots).. but accepting that we all have “off days” I like being off as a hitter much more than being “off” as a swinger.

I played today, and really felt “off’, but still managed 7 birdie putts inside 20 feet. I only hit one shot that I would say was “really” bad.. That would not have been the case back when I was for the most part a swinger..

 

...............................

 

The right arm and elbow have different roles for swingers and hitters..

Remember, Mac O’Grady is a hitter all the way, so his right arm straightens quickly on the downswing to the 3rd parallel. He rotates his shoulders very flat, and our swings (Mac and mine) would have a lot more similarities than differences. I say this because I really believe that I know what Mac is feeling in the swing. I don’t position my hands as low as Mac does at address… but I know why he does that..

Now with swinging, the right arm is passive all the way down, and the feeling of the right hand moving out to the right forever, seems appropriate in it’s description.

Swinging, you are feeling that you are throwing the club into the ground in an on plane way..everything is dumping into the ball. When the clubhead hits the ground it kinda bounces off the ground, and the arms make no attempt to stop this action, therefore the free flexible way is to have the upper arms detach from the body and the wrists make a full roll after impact… this is all a result of the club bouncing off the ground. If there was no ground you would likely feel that your arms were being pulled from their sockets!

Now in Mac’s style of hitting, and myself as well, we do everything we can to stop the club from doing everything I described above!

By pulling the clubhead out of it’s natural straight line descent into the earth, we muscle it around our body in a tight way, keeping the upper arms glued to the body, and rotating flat. But the key to this working is what the right arm does on the downswing. If you were to keep the right arm bent with this kind of motion, you would come OTT and pull every shot dead left. You HAVE to straighten the right arm on the way down or it’s OB left..

The plane is the same but it feels totally different because you can’t do both!

Now swinging does work, and it is of golf’s highest ideals...but from my experience of doing both fairly well in my career, I would say that swinging I might hit it like a (10) somedays, and like a (3) others.. but as a hitter I am like a (6) to an (8) all the time. I never hit the ball bad… and I say that in comparison to when I hit the ball bad as a swinger.. I could really spray it on an off day, but I never spray it now… never.

As far as the body, as a swinger I would like my body to feel like a yoga instructor, where as a hitter, I really need to feel like an athlete..

 

...............................

 

On tour..I would keep my swinging activities to around the greens.. I believe the softness, sensitivity of the hands gives the great touch around the greens, and putting too.. so I might say I swing inside 30 yards… hit everything outside that..

Now that being said, I would say that with swinging… I like the hands and arms to feel heavy and deliberate. With hitting, I like the arms and hands to feel light and tight… so I would say at a high level of the game, this might explain why a lot of great short game players hit the ball poorly in comparison, and a lot of great ball strikers have trouble with touch around the greens.. I think this is a real reality for a lot of players, and this might give a very real insight into why this happens.

The players that figure out how to move from one feel to the other are the ones that really set themselves apart from the others..

Nowadays, since I don't play serious competitive golf, I'm hitting everything, even chips and pitches..
This way I can keep a decent short game with zero practice.. and that is what I am after now...
I'm even hitting putts now.. zero practice.. very simple action. 

 

................................

 

At transition, it's not a bad idea to have the arms feeling ahead at first, then as the torso starts turning it would feel behind, because of the lagging effect, or should I say, as the body rotates, the arms would feel that they lag behind.. as they compress into the body while the torso is rotating...

The hands need to be in the same relative position “on plane” from the third to fourth parallel, so if your hands are down low, right hip pocket on the downswing, make sure that when the hips have fully cleared, that the hands are now 4 or 5 inches from your belt buckle at the fourth parallel, on the same relative plane as they were on the downswing.
This again is angle hinge stuff, that of hitters..

Now with swingers, you would NOT want to do this, because when the club hits the ground as a swinger, it essentially “bounces” of the ground away from the body , and would appear to be off plane, but the intent is for the club to go down into the earth and stay on plane… (radial vs longitudinal acceleration)

If anyone doesn’t understand the difference here please let me know and don’t be afraid to ask questions, maybe I can learn a better way to explain all this without having to show someone in person.. which I am quite sure I could communicate these concepts much more easily.. 

 

...............................

 

Rhythm is equally important in both hitting and swinging. The key is to have it…. and to really understand the difference between radial (hitting) and longitudinal acceleration. The intent is totally different, yet they both need an application of rhythm.

In a sense the third and fourth parallel should be mirror images, particularly if you are hitting, you could think of teeth on a saw blade. But the feel is a bit different in hitting because as a hitter… you are in a way, pulling the club out of orbit… in other words, if you were to let go of the club at impact it would hit the ground and bounce off to the right, into right field.. so the hitter does everything he or she can to resist this throw out action. The swinger would argue the opposite, allow as little interference as possible, loose free arms, wrists, let the clubhead roll over and so forth. The shaft of the swinger would appear to be OFF plane to the hitter, moving out and away from the body after impact. All this stems from the difference of intent from Longitudinal or radial acceleration… two very different objectives.

“The hitter attempts to bring a pre-stressed shaft into impact through radial acceleration. The swinger sees this as futile, and not realistic choosing to dump the force, lengthwise down the shaft telescopically…. and uses the virtue of a rhythmic, steady even acceleration to take full advantages of the physics of centrifugal force to activate the release motion of the club automatically through a straightening and inline throw that is guided by smooth, steady, even power supply.

I knew the difference here intellectually as a young TGM student, but it really didn’t crystalize for me until years later until I could really feel the difference. I spent half my career as a swinger, the other half as a hitter. I really know what these styles feel like in the body, and since golf is a game of feel, I became aware of the pros and cons as a real life test subject.

As a hitter, the mirror image “look” is interesting, because at parallel 3 the hitter would feel non manipulated, but to get the same look over at parallel 4, you would be under a sensation of heavy manipulation…. both with the plane of the shaft and with the attempt to hold off the closing of the clubface. The “word” manipulation sounds “bad” to most, but that “pulling it out of orbit”, and resisting the closing of the clubface, actually puts feel in your hands, and gives you an awareness of the clubhead, shaft and clubface a swinger could only dream about.

Distance from the ball is a great topic, it could start a new thread of it’s own.

Again you might have two different protocols here between hitters and swingers. The swinger might have greater success with the ball being farther away at address to take advantage of the maximum swing radius principle. The bigger the arc the faster the clubhead will travel given the same pivot speed… but of course longer means heavier too.. but now with the modern gear, you can have longer and lighter, so that is the main reason the ball is going farther.

The hitter would be more along the lines of a figure skater pulling everything inward to speed up the rotation when they go into one of those routine closing spins. The closer the hands are to the body the faster the hitter can rotate, which is the core of the hitters quest for developing radial speed… The hitter would argue that the swinger has little chance of repeating their swing on a day in day out basis due to the nature of the human body NOT being able to always accelerate steady and even, and that the wrist and arms could feel tight from time to time, and interfere with the freeness of the hinges that are so paramount to the swingers success..

So, back to the question.. how far to stand? Well first, are you hitting or swinging? This of course leads right into how to set up your irons flat or upright?

Personally I like flat irons for hitters, more upright for swingers.
Either way, you must set your irons to proper impact alignments, not “address” alignment… and not the markings on your club swinging the way you do on a black rubber mat. Fitting your clubs to your swing in the NOW state, with guarantee you stay with what you have good or bad.. nothing will foster poor impact alignments faster than poor club fitting.. It happens ALL THE TIME!  

 

...............................

 

► Reference

 

About as polar opposite as two players could be releasing the club.
Ben Hogan the classic hitter and Rickie Fowler a swinger with pivot stall.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Nail_It

[GreatStrike]

Here is the Golf Illustrated - October 2010 article:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Nail_It

[Nard_S]

My last post pretty much lays out where I stand on this. Outside of a way to designate the rate of acceleration in a swing and whether that rate peaks in a early or late state, I don't believe in "hitter vs swinger" prism and choose not to see things through that. In fact I think it's detrimental to do so and have expressed why in a number of my posts.

 

One can mix both aspects of hitter and swinger into one swing. One can execute a swinger like swing off the tee and then go "hitter" from out of the rough. One can lead the head w/hands  and do so at a leisurely tempo/pace. One can thrash thru at "hitter" tempo and release w/ the so-called "rollover of hands" that swingers supposedly do. It's all nonsense that will lead one to utter confusion.

 

What you seem to be advocating is to swing the club with little to no tension below the elbows. Soft forearms & supple hands, "don't muscle the club" . This is good solid advice. If the club feels heavy in the hands transition on, chances are you're doing something wrong. For me, I know things are right when the club feels very light and my hands never fatigue, even if I hit 150 balls. The thing is you can have the rhythm & tempo of Ernie Els or of Nick Price. Either way the club can feel heavy & cumbersome or light & supple. "Swinger vs hitter" has zero bearing on this.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Nard_S

[b_f_c_99]

That was an interesting read.  I definitely, started out trying to swing the club, had the same inconsistency as Mr Erickson.  Then slowly developed a hitting style because it is more consistent day in and day out.  Of course I don’t play anywhere near his level but I can relate to the not practicing or warming up.  In fact I never warm up other than to take a dozen or so swings that are really more of get the feeling right exercise and then tee it and go.  Not warming up does not affect my ability to hit solid shots from the get go.  For years I questioned what I was doing because I couldn’t find any affirmation.  Ericksons posts are so close to what I feel that it’s almost scary, and comforting in a way because I know I’m not alone!

[GreatStrike]

13 hours ago, Nard_S said:

My last post pretty much lays out where I stand on this. Outside of a way to designate the rate of acceleration in a swing and whether that rate peaks in a early or late state, I don't believe in "hitter vs swinger" prism and choose not to see things through that. In fact I think it's detrimental to do so and have expressed why in a number of my posts.

 

One can mix both aspects of hitter and swinger into one swing. One can execute a swinger like swing off the tee and then go "hitter" from out of the rough. One can lead the head w/hands  and do so at a leisurely tempo/pace. One can thrash thru at "hitter" tempo and release w/ the so-called "rollover of hands" that swingers supposedly do. It's all nonsense that will lead one to utter confusion.

 

What you seem to be advocating is to swing the club with little to no tension below the elbows. Soft forearms & supple hands, "don't muscle the club" . This is good solid advice. If the club feels heavy in the hands transition on, chances are you're doing something wrong. For me, I know things are right when the club feels very light and my hands never fatigue, even if I hit 150 balls. The thing is you can have the rhythm & tempo of Ernie Els or of Nick Price. Either way the club can feel heavy & cumbersome or light & supple. "Swinger vs hitter" has zero bearing on this.

 

It's unfortunate to hear that you don't believe that there is a distinct and fundamental difference between a 'hitting' golf swing and a 'swinging' golf swing...and many of the essential aspects of each swing type are not only not compatible, but many are impossible to perform in the same golf swing. I think the information and numerous articles and videos I have provided recently clearly support the view and understanding that there most definitely are two very distinct different types of golf swing - 'hitting' and 'swinging'. 

 

You are actually a bit of an anomaly per se, Nard_S. Most amateur golfers are totally unaware that there are two very different golf swings, each with its own very distinctly different protocols. Combining elements of the two swings is what actually causes the boundless problems for amateurs and prevents them from reaching their natural capabilities.  In your case, you actually admit that you are aware of the many [noted] experts that acknowledge and agree that there are two different golf swings, yet you say it is "all nonsense." Of course, that is your prerogative...   

 

 

        

[GreatStrike]

20 hours ago, b_f_c_99 said:

That was an interesting read.  I definitely, started out trying to swing the club, had the same inconsistency as Mr Erickson.  Then slowly developed a hitting style because it is more consistent day in and day out.  Of course I don’t play anywhere near his level but I can relate to the not practicing or warming up.  In fact I never warm up other than to take a dozen or so swings that are really more of get the feeling right exercise and then tee it and go.  Not warming up does not affect my ability to hit solid shots from the get go.  For years I questioned what I was doing because I couldn’t find any affirmation.  Ericksons posts are so close to what I feel that it’s almost scary, and comforting in a way because I know I’m not alone!

 

I'm glad you enjoyed it! I hope it was informative and enlightening to many of the golfers here that are following this thread. 

 

In the John Erickson Golf Illustrated article there is only one sentence you will see in the article that was partially highlighted in yellow. Obviously this sentence was highlighted to make a point. Here is the sentence: This knowledge will impact the instruction you take from a professional, who may teach you to be a hitter when you are naturally or should be a swinger, and visa-versa. Hopefully that sentence helped to encourage some golfers back ten years ago to consider whether or not they were receiving proper advice. And, I personally hope it does the same for some golfers now that are reading about this.

 

 

With the exception of novice beginners or simply giving general instruction on swing fundamentals I've always found it absurd that some instructors teach a group of golfers - unless the golfers are familiar with, and agrees with, the instructor's swing philosophy and the instructor can offer some serious one-on-one instruction advice. Otherwise, in my opinion, that's just a means for the instructor to make some easy money and doesn't do much for the participants looking to improve their golf swings.  Similarly, taking instruction from an instructor that only teaches 'swinging', or only teaches 'hitting', isn't going to work out well at all if it is best that the student learns how to swing a golf swing that the instructor doesn't teach...or doesn't even understand. 

 

Interesting story: Ian Baker-Finch totally lost his swing shortly after winning The Open Championship in 1991. The 6'4" Australian sweet swinger just wanted to increase his distance. Long story short - Ian Baker-Finch eventually went through a couple dozen different swing teachers/coaches, first being taught (I'm told) a 'hitters' golf swing, which is in direct conflict in many ways to the 'swinging' golf swing he grew up and what won him many tournaments, including The Open Championship. To increase his distance he was instructed to use more body rotation and to add power to his swing with a 'hitting' behavior, whereas the golf swing that got him to the level of being one of the top players in the world was a 'swinging' golf swing. Things went haywire almost immediately. After literally years of seeking swing advice from a wide range of well-meaning instructors and people from all over the globe Ian lost total memory of what his original golf swing was all about, and what he used to do. Sadly, it was gone. It ended up affecting not only his career, but it affected him psychologically as well...and he never fully recovered.

 

If you consider what you've recently seen and read in this thread to be both informative and interesting you (and others) will likely use the knowledge to help answer some festering questions about your own golf swing. That is learning! As you said; "Erickson's posts are so close to what I feel that it’s almost scary, and comforting in a way because I know I’m not alone!"  

 

The truth of the matter is, most golfers should be taught a 'swinging' golf swing in lieu of a 'hitting' golf swing. I'd say all junior golfers should be taught a 'swinging' golf swing. I'd say that virtually all female golfers should be taught a 'swinging' golf swing. And, I'd say that around 80% or more of the male adult golfers should be taught a 'swinging' golf swing. The junior golfers and female golfers don't have the muscular strength to use a 'hitting' golf swing...and neither do around 80% of young adult male golfers either. (And if you are an aging male golfer that once used a 'hitting' golf swing your golf swing is losing speed much faster than if you had used a 'swinging' golf swing.)  Usually (but not always) the golfer that makes a 'hitting' golf swing work for them has many of the following characteristics (not in any particular order) - strong, muscular, thick-chested, hot-head, short, boisterous, quick talker, rowdy, big-boned, loud, rebellious, blacksmith forearms, strong hands/fingers... On the other hand, usually (but not always) the golfer that makes a 'swinging' golf swing work best for them has the following characteristics (not in any particular order) - patient, studious, calm, average build, passive, tall, lanky, gentle, quiet, curious, attentive... You get the picture.     

 

As you are probably aware, most golf professionals first learned the game as a junior and of course they started out as a 'swinger' because they didn't have the strength to be a 'hitter' even if they wanted to. Most of them learned early-on that once when they gained some muscle the results were disastrous when they tried to add some muscular force to their extremely efficient centrifugal↔centripetal 'swinging' golf swing. (Ernie Els has a nice story about that.) And of course many of those people quickly acquired the ability to play excellent golf and become some of the best golfers in the world - some of them remaining to be amateurs, some becoming golf instructors and some becoming elite tour players. By far, most of the golf instructors that learned the game as a junior teach only a 'swinging' golf swing. And, some of them legitimately try to teach both a 'swinging' golf swing or a 'hitting' golf swing depending on their student. And of course you have some that teach a 'hitting' golf swing because that is the type of golf swing they have. But then you have the teacher/instructor that is not cognizant of the two very different golf swing protocols of 'hitting' and 'swinging' and thus does not adapt to what the student really needs. He just teaches what has worked for him. You can imagine what happens when the student has no clue that there is a 'hitting' golf swing and a 'swinging' golf swing and for the most part the two swings are incompatible, and the instructor who teaches any student that comes his way with a dollar in his pocket. You have a recipe for poor instruction and a golfer that can't get better due to the instructor and his lack of knowledge about the two very different golf swings and the fact that both the instructor and the student must decide which of the two golf swings ('hitting' or 'swinging') is best for him.  

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Nail_It

[b_f_c_99]

I’m a bit different than the normal hitter build.  The only things that really apply to me are short and quick talker.  You could argue that I’m ‘golf strong’ but other than that I’m all of five six with shoes at best and 135 pounds, and in my mid 50’s.  I regained 25 yards on the driver and 10 or so on irons this year by pulling out my original tour tempo program from about  20 years or so ago.  Turned on the fastest swing speed ratio that was on there and did that for about 5 minutes.  Changed nothing else, just picked up the tempo of everything.

 

I totally agree most are lost because they are mixing up swing parts that are like oil and water.  All of the guys I watch on YouTube are very knowledgeable and I’m sure what they are telling people is correct.  But is it correct for the individual watching?

Edited October 18, 2020 by b_f_c_99

[GreatStrike]

38 minutes ago, b_f_c_99 said:

I totally agree most are lost because they are mixing up swing parts that are like oil and water.  All of the guys I watch on YouTube are very knowledgeable and I’m sure what they are telling people is correct.  But is it correct for the individual watching?

 

Yep - I agree! Then you have the amateur golfer here on GolfWRX that asks for help with his golf swing and is told by a slew of other amateurs (and instructors too) that his elbow is in the wrong position or he needs to do this, or do that. What's amazing is not only does the golfer himself not know what is the best way for him to swing a golf club (hitting or swinging), but the golfers giving him advice are clueless because in all likelihood they (like most amateurs) are trying to mix hitting and swinging protocols themselves. And so it goes with golfers trying to get better. 

[torbill]

On 10/16/2020 at 4:48 AM, Lefthook said:

 

 

The sequencing is the same in all strokes. 4-1-2-3 is the order of the release, and a golfer can use as many or as few of these as he likes. He can also do without any (for e.g. a putt). A hitter's use of PA#1 does practically the same with the hands and club as the swinger's PA#4. It moves the hands towards the impact position.

 

It is also vital in this discussion to reflect on "extensior action". It is the TGM swinger's use of the trail arm. It involves a deliberate thrust, just like hitting, but outward, not forward. It braces the triangle between the shoulder girdle and the two arms and makes the stroke less flimsy. Towards impact, the trail arm is actively straightened. In a swing, the hands are keeping up with the pivot. In a hit, the hand are catching up a tiny little bit. Extensior action isn't mandatory in a swing, but highly recommended, especially when Lynn Blake talks about it. And I agree.

 

Rope handling vs axe handling are terms that has to be understood in the right context, and the right context is about intent, not about the real forces applied. The forces are literally the same, and the end results are very similar. It is quite telling that the guys who discuss Hogan's stroke in that video are unable to draw certain conclusions as to whether he hits or swings or does a 4-barrel stroke.

 

The difference between hitting and  swinging is significant in terms of feel and also in terms of how you work the ball. A hit tends to prevent clubface closure, so the club must be more closed towards impact. A swing is the opposite, so you need to crank it open before the downswing starts, and perhaps open it even more during transition. You can also apply a hit to add some finesse. If you struggle in the greenside bunker you can add a little thrust to the stroke. Just get the hands down in front of you as fast as possible and it will be a lot easier to keep the face open with the desired amount of shaft lean through the sand and control the steepness and low point - as you TURN through (pun intended).

 

HK provided a flawed understanding of the physics of creating swing speed in TGM.  He attributed swinger's swing speed to centripetal force, which is flat out wrong. And he attributed too much of the hitters power generation to the trail arm thrust, which perhaps accounts for only 10%. Hitters and swingers create the majority of the swing speed by pulling from the lead side and pushing from the trail side, and it goes with the territory of rotating motions that the pulling part will be carrying more "weight". Hitting or swinging, the power is generated in the same joints and body segments as for everybody else: Trail foot, lead foot, torso etc. Big muscles and big joints. And only a small percentage from the trail arm.  The net forces and torques applied to the club are practically identical, since both ends of the club is moved along very similar paths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea what TGM is, and I haven’t plowed through this thread, but I do have a couple of degrees in mechanical engineering and I understand forces and motions exceedingly well.  I agree with all of your last paragraph.  

 

Centripetal force is a contributor to swing speed - what?  Centripetal force is the radial force that you apply to a rotating club mass to keep it from flying out of your hands. Whoever HK is, he understands nothing about forces and motions.

[b_f_c_99]

46 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

Yep - I agree! Then you have the amateur golfer here on GolfWRX that asks for help with his golf swing and is told by a slew of other amateurs (and instructors too) that his elbow is in the wrong position or he needs to do this, or do that. What's amazing is not only does the golfer himself not know what is the best way for him to swing a golf club (hitting or swinging), but the golfers giving him advice are clueless because in all likelihood they (like most amateurs) are trying to mix hitting and swinging protocols themselves. And so it goes with golfers trying to get better. 

Yeah, I recently posted in thread on a guys swing where I intentionally pointed out all the bad things In his swing while at the same time explaining that I had no clue how to help. This was meant as an illustration as to why he needed knowledgeable eyes to diagnose the root issues.   Twenty years ago I had a pretty solid swing, I never saw it on video, ball flight told me what I needed to know.  Then I went on an internet walkabout learned a bunch of things and then ended up back where I started.

 

In general I would agree that a pure swing is probably better for most people, however after people become proficient with it they will ALWAYS go looking for distance.  When that happens the will start trying to speed things up and the swing motion will collapse.