Do you throw or twist?

[GreatStrike]

If there was any question about the affirmation of what I have said - that a 'hitter' applies muscular force to the golf club very late in the downswing (where a 'swinger' intentionally does NOT apply muscular force at the bottom), then take a look at this from the Golf Illustrated article. 

 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between hitting and swinging. A swinger tries to have the shaft straight at impact with ball, while a hitter's objective is to retain the flex of the shaft at impact by applying muscular force through the wrist and forearms at the bottom of the swing arc.   

 

    

 

This is one of the primary differences between 'hitting' and 'swinging'. A 'hitter' purposely applies muscular force perpendicular to the side of the grip/shaft with his trail arm/hand during the entire downswing including post-impact in an effort drive the club through impact. The 'swinger' relies on centrifugal↔centripetal force to literally 'swing' the club, therefore the 'swinger' tries not to apply any side force to the grip/shaft but instead pulls (stretches) the shaft lengthwise, telescopically, in-line or longitudinally as it moves through the circular arc guided by the lead arm. For the 'swinger' to attempt to apply muscular force with the trail arm/hand during the downswing (especially beyond P6) doing so will likely cause disastrous interference to the swing with any miniscule reward not being worth the huge risk.    

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

20 minutes ago, torbill said:

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.

Thank you for validating the role of centripetal force.

 

TGM is short for The Golfing Machine, HK is short for Homer Kelley, the author of TGM. HK spend several decades trying to figure out the mysteries of the golf swing. 

[torbill]

6 minutes ago, Lefthook said:

Thank you for validating the role of centripetal force.

 

TGM is short for The Golfing Machine, HK is short for Homer Kelley, the author of TGM. HK spend several decades trying to figure out the mysteries of the golf swing. 

Well, whoever Homer is, I guess he still hasn’t figured it out. 

 

Not just your comments on centripetal force.  Your whole last paragraph agrees with my understanding of basic kinetics and kinematics.  There are a lot of violations of the laws of physics that go on in golf instruction. 😉

[GreatStrike]

42 minutes ago, torbill said:

Well, whoever Homer is, I guess he still hasn’t figured it out. 

 

Not just your comments on centripetal force.  Your whole last paragraph agrees with my understanding of basic kinetics and kinematics.  There are a lot of violations of the laws of physics that go on in golf instruction. 😉

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that... 

 

Here is some information about 'The Golfing Machine' and Homer Kelley: 

 

The Golfing Machine textbook has been used worldwide since 1969 for teaching the game of golf. Created by Homer Kelley, The Golfing Machine golf instruction system gained a devoted following which has continued to grow for over 40 years. Homer’s vision was to create an Authorized Instructor network so instructors could share the knowledge contained in his book and ensure its proper instruction for golfers worldwide. Up to his death in 1983, Homer worked diligently to realize that vision.

The Golfing Machine, LLC was established in 2002 with the goals to reignite its authorized instructor program, continue its expansion worldwide, promote "The Golfing Machine" text, and establish a professional organization that provides continuing education and information on "The Golfing Machine" to professional golf instructors and the public.

The company’s educational programs are based on the book "The Golfing Machine". They present an accurate interpretation and application of the simple geometry and common physics as a comprehensive catalog of options to instructors and amateurs alike, allowing them to further understand the golf swing and make accurate and informed decisions on technique.

Since 2002, the organization has authorized hundreds of new instructors, offered classes in Europe and the U.S., published “The Golfing Machine” – 7th Edition, hosted Authorized Instructor Teachings each year and celebrated its 40th Anniversary and been covered in recognized publications including Golf Week and Sports Illustrated.

About Homer Kelley

 

For whatever it's worth SMU physics major and U.S. Open winner Bryson DeChambeau found The Golfing Machine to his liking! 

► Bryson DeChambeau went full Golf Scientist in professing his love for “The Golfing Machine”

Edited October 19, 2020 by Nail_It

[Lefthook]

2 minutes ago, torbill said:

Not just your comments on centripetal force.  Your whole last paragraph agrees with my understanding of basic kinetics and kinematics.  There are a lot of violations of the laws of physics that go on in golf instruction. 😉

 

👌

 

Kelley passed away in 1983, so his research ended a long time ago. 

 

 

[johnrobison]

1 hour ago, Nail_It said:

If there was any question about the affirmation of what I have said - that a 'hitter' applies muscular force to the golf club very late in the downswing (where a 'swinger' intentionally does NOT apply muscular force at the bottom), then take a look at this from the Golf Illustrated article. 

 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between hitting and swinging. A swinger tries to have the shaft straight at impact with ball, while a hitter's objective is to retain the flex of the shaft at impact by applying muscular force through the wrist and forearms at the bottom of the swing arc.   

 

 

This is one of the primary differences between 'hitting' and 'swinging'. A 'hitter' purposely applies muscular force perpendicular to the side of the grip/shaft with his trail arm/hand during the entire downswing including post-impact in an effort drive the club through impact. The 'swinger' relies on centrifugal↔centripetal force to literally 'swing' the club, therefore the 'swinger' tries not to apply any side force to the grip/shaft but instead pulls (stretches) the shaft lengthwise, telescopically, in-line or longitudinally as it moves through the circular arc guided by the lead arm. For the 'swinger' to attempt to apply muscular force with the trail arm/hand during the downswing (especially beyond P6) doing so will likely cause disastrous interference to the swing with any miniscule reward not being worth the huge risk.    

 

What's the date of that article?

[GreatStrike]

3 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

What's the date of that article?

 

October 2010

 

[Nard_S]

5 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

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...

 

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...   

 

 

        

LOL, it's not unfortunate and I don't need anyone's pity. The false theocracy & prism in which your swing world is divided contains many miss matching parts.

 

For instance the idea of "a swinger has a shaft in line with the ball at impact" and a hitter has "shaft lean and is imparting force with the hands" is utter nonsense. If you do not understand that, I cannot help you. There is not a PGA Pro ever who swung by that goofy definition of a "swinger". Maybe Bobby Jones did with hickory but I have my doubts there. 

 

Shaft lean, which is highly desirable happens for a number of reasons. Thinking it is a result of some sort swing style is pure snake oil.

 

You are citing stuff from 1969! And it's not coming from Hogan. Also from Golf Digest! You know something, I think my index dropped  a few points when I stopped reading there "swing tips".

 

[torbill]

57 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that... 

 

Here is some information about 'The Golfing Machine' and Homer Kelley: 

 

The Golfing Machine textbook has been used worldwide since 1969 for teaching the game of golf. Created by Homer Kelley, The Golfing Machine golf instruction system gained a devoted following which has continued to grow for over 40 years. Homer’s vision was to create an Authorized Instructor network so instructors could share the knowledge contained in his book and ensure its proper instruction for golfers worldwide. Up to his death in 1983, Homer worked diligently to realize that vision.

The Golfing Machine, LLC was established in 2002 with the goals to reignite its authorized instructor program, continue its expansion worldwide, promote "The Golfing Machine" text, and establish a professional organization that provides continuing education and information on "The Golfing Machine" to professional golf instructors and the public.

The company’s educational programs are based on the book "The Golfing Machine". They present an accurate interpretation and application of the simple geometry and common physics as a comprehensive catalog of options to instructors and amateurs alike, allowing them to further understand the golf swing and make accurate and informed decisions on technique.

Since 2002, the organization has authorized hundreds of new instructors, offered classes in Europe and the U.S., published “The Golfing Machine” – 7th Edition, hosted Authorized Instructor Teachings each year and celebrated its 40th Anniversary and been covered in recognized publications including Golf Week and Sports Illustrated.

About Homer Kelley

 

For whatever it's worth SMU physics major and U.S. Open winner Bryson DeChambeau found The Golfing Machine to his liking! 

► Bryson DeChambeau went full Golf Scientist in professing his love for “The Golfing Machine”

That’s a nice testimonial, but it doesn’t reflect what he knew, or didn’t know, about forces and motions in the golf swing.  I am more interested in swing principles than testimonials, and if Homer believed that centripetal force increased clubhead speed, he didn’t know what he was talking about.  Centripetal acceleration will increase as the golfer applies actual, physical principles that increase clubhead speed.  This increase in centripetal acceleration has to be resisted by an equal and opposite force, applied by the player, or the club will fly out of his hands.  So, an increase in centripetal force is an effect of increased clubhead speed, not a cause of it.  

 

I was commenting on all of lefthook’s last paragraph, not just the part on centripetal force.  In my view, the way that he stated it is pretty accurate.  

 

As to swing theories, there are as many of them as there are fad diets.  Many of them are based on a faulty understanding of the physical principles involved.  

[Nard_S]

2 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

 

    

 

 

 

If a player comes into impact with his trail arm bent 10 degrees with a smidgeon of flex in the wrists, he then releases it through and bottoms the swing 3"- 4" in front of the ball, that guy is swinging properly. He may look like a swinger, Payne Stewart or he may look like a hitter, Nick Price but there's little doubt he's a damn good player.

[GreatStrike]

37 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

LOL, it's not unfortunate and I don't need anyone's pity. The false theocracy & prism in which your swing world is divided contains many miss matching parts.

 

For instance the idea of "a swinger has a shaft in line with the ball at impact" and a hitter has "shaft lean and is imparting force with the hands" is utter nonsense. If you do not understand that, I cannot help you. There is not a PGA Pro ever who swung by that goofy definition of a "swinger". Maybe Bobby Jones did with hickory but I have my doubts there. 

 

Shaft lean, which is highly desirable happens for a number of reasons. Thinking it is a result of some sort swing style is pure snake oil.

 

You are citing stuff from 1969! And it's not coming from Hogan. Also from Golf Digest! You know something, I think my index dropped  a few points when I stopped reading there "swing tips".

 

 

I'm certainly not going to defend John Erickson, but what John meant has nothing whatsoever with 'shaft lean'. I'm not even sure why you thought so because shaft lean has not even been mentioned. John Erickson says that a hitter has the 'intention' of retaining the shaft flex (bend) throughout the downswing and into impact by applying force perpendicular to the shaft, which has the golfer driving the club through impact. That (retaining the bend in the shaft) is not going to happen, but that is his mind-thought.

 

And, for what it's worth a 'swing' with put stretch tension on a flexible string or rope, as well as on a golf shaft, where the shaft is straight.     

 

Would it be safe to say that as a [presumed] non-expert that you disagree with Homer Kelley, Ben Doyle, Lynn Blake, Greg Mc Hatton, John Erickson, Dan Martin, Chuck Evens, David Leadbetter, Sean Foley, Bobby Clampett, Bryson DeChambeau and a slew of other experts about there being two very different golf swings - hitting and swinging?  If so - okay. But like Shania Twain's old hit song - That don't impress me much.

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Nail_It

[Nard_S]

On 10/17/2020 at 8:17 PM, Nail_It said:

Here is the Golf Illustrated - October 2010 article:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's another one:

The follow through that has the shaft across and upright is a "hitter" thing. Um no it's not. It is done by an exit left intent with hands which is coupled with an elevated shoulder rotation. The hands arms actually quieter in this. How do I know? Because I used to have finish on right and now it's a lot more like the one on left.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Nard_S

[Nard_S]

4 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

Would it be safe to say that as a [presumed] non-expert that you disagree with Homer Kelley, Ben Doyle, Lynn Blake, Greg Mc Hatton, John Erickson, Dan Martin, Chuck Evens, David Leadbetter, Sean Foley, Bobby Clampett and a slew of other experts about there being two very different golf swings - hitting and swinging?  If so - okay. But like Shania Twain's old hit song - That don't impress me much.

If you actually pay attention to what I have posted I acknowledged there is a swinger type and a hitter type. I object to the broad brush used, object to the typing & definition you attribute to them and find it all quite unsettling how dots are connected to espouse a theory that have little bearing on actual facts.

[GreatStrike]

7 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Here's another one:

The follow through that has the shaft across and upright is a "hitter" thing. Um no it's not. It is done by an exit left intent with hands which is coupled with an elevated shoulder rotation. The hands arms actually quieter in this. How do I know? Because I used to have finish on right and now it's a lot more like the one on left.

 

Well then, that takes care of that! It makes you an amateur golf expert extraordinaire that disagrees with the likes of Homer Kelley, Ben Doyle, Lynn Blake, Greg Mc Hatton, John Erickson, Dan Martin, Chuck Evens, David Leadbetter, Sean Foley, Bobby Clampett, Bryson DeChambeau and a slew of other experts no-nothings. I think that is worthy of an LOL ROTFLMAO! 

[Nard_S]

10 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

I'm certainly not going to defend John Erickson, but what John meant has nothing whatsoever to do with 'shaft lean'. I'm not even sure why you thought so because shaft lean has not been mentioned. John Erickson says that a hitter has the 'intention' of retaining the shaft bend throughout the downswing and into impact by applying force perpendicular to the shaft, which has the golfer driving the club through impact. That (retaining the bend in the shaft) is not going to happen, but that is his mind-thought.   

 

 

Here is another thing I have a problem with. When Bruce Koepka's swing is looked at, we can all a agree that he is a "Hitter", right? When his swing is examined . BK reaches max acceleration, max bend, max hand speed, etc with the clubhead when it's at like 4-5  o'clock. According  to your experts, he would try to hold that "bend" or force till impact. He most certainly does not.

[Nard_S]

5 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

Well then, that takes care of that! It makes you an amateur golf expert extraordinaire that disagrees with the likes of Homer Kelley, Ben Doyle, Lynn Blake, Greg Mc Hatton, John Erickson, Dan Martin, Chuck Evens, David Leadbetter, Sean Foley, Bobby Clampett, Bryson DeChambeau and a slew of other experts no-nothings. I think that is worthy of an LOL ROTFLMAO! 

 

I'm glad I'm funny because the absence of substantive & informative rebuttal is pretty sad.

[GreatStrike]

7 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

If you actually pay attention to what I have posted I acknowledged there is a swinger type and a hitter type. I object to the broad brush used, object to the typing & definition you attribute to them and find it all quite unsettling how dots are connected to espouse a theory that have little bearing on actual facts.

 

Oh okay, now you are crawfishing and saying that you agree that there is a hitting and swinging golf swing, but you just object to the 'broad brush' used and the typing and definition attributed to them. Now if that isn't a sneaky way of backpedaling I don't know what is...  I really hate that it unsettles you! 

[Nard_S]

Btw, go take a look how Greg Norman, a sure as s.h.i.t. alpha male Hitter of the ball finished with his follow through. he looked like the guy on the right, only way more so.

[GreatStrike]

14 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

 

I'm glad I'm funny because the absence of substantive & informative rebuttal is pretty sad.

 

Trust me, there's no need even trying to have a discourse with someone like you. I was hoping to be helpful by providing some meaningful information to the members of GolfWRX, but it seems that you want to object, disagree and argue. I've been around those kinds of people before - it's never enjoyable. 

 

So, if you would like to share your great knowledge, Nard_S, please do so and I will stand down. The floor is yours. Have at it...  

Edited October 19, 2020 by Nail_It

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, Nail_It said:

 

Oh okay, now you are crawfishing and saying that you agree that there is a hitting and swinging golf swing, but you just object to the 'broad brush' used and the typing and definition attributed to them. Now if that isn't a sneaky way of backpedaling I don't know what is...  I really hate that it unsettles you! 

Go read my posts, there is a common acceptance that there are two basic swing types. A swinger has a late peak of their acceleration, that a a hitter has an early peak. I alluded to early & late peak a couple of times here. One of the most basic parameters in choosing a shaft is where on the spectrum you fall. Early or late. Smooth transition or hard and fast. You have back pedaled on being informed with TGM. Pot calling the kettle black.

[johnrobison]

14 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

October 2010

 

I suspected so. Again, old stuff based on observing swings and feels rather than measured data.

[PJ1120]

1 hour ago, johnrobison said:

I suspected so. Again, old stuff based on observing swings and feels rather than measured data.

 

John.......do you not accept the hitter vs swinger theory?

[golfsticks]

Expending too much trust toward measured data can open up numerous needless rabbit holes. 

 

Throwing is great and natural as it's the fastest articulated movement we normal humans can make, so I've heard.  

 

Don't agree with several points in Dan's videos but they are a good view anyway.  One of his points was no speed downrange, all speed directed toward the trail end on the aiming stick.  He might be, as he says, riding into impact with the club, but if he was throwing a ball like that he would be riding, but riding the pine on our ball club. 

 

Anyone know what would be a corresponding P5 position or area,  in a basic pitching sequence. 

 

A little reckless speed near the front goes a long way.

 

 

 

 

[moehogan]

36 minutes ago, golfsticks said:

Expending too much trust toward measured data can open up numerous needless rabbit holes. 

 

Throwing is great and natural as it's the fastest articulated movement we normal humans can make, so I've heard.  

 

Don't agree with several points in Dan's videos but they are a good view anyway.  One of his points was no speed downrange, all speed directed toward the trail end on the aiming stick.  He might be, as he says, riding into impact with the club, but if he was throwing a ball like that he would be riding, but riding the pine on our ball club. 

 

Anyone know what would be a corresponding P5 position or area,  in a basic pitching sequence. 

 

A little reckless speed near the front goes a long way.

 

 

 

 

Maybe the start of the “stride” coming out of the “tuck”?

[johnrobison]

6 hours ago, PJ1120 said:

 

John.......do you not accept the hitter vs swinger theory?

Hitter vs Swinger is a binary premise and, in my opinion, the intent and mechanics employed fall somewhere on a spectrum. Plus, I think that a great deal of it has to do with where the golfer is consciously focused. That's why you'll see guys demonstrate a swing vs a hit and the results are virtually identical. There will be some golfers who make a better swing when they feel that they're pulling 100% from the lead side. There will be others who make a better swing feeling that they're pushing 100% from the trail side. Neither are actually doing 100% of either - it's just their intent and feel. Perhaps many are 50/50 Switters. Some golfers with a swinger's pattern might feel nothing at all in the trail arm, for example, whereas others might have to feel the trail arm straightening - some a lot, some a little. I just don't think the two patterns are mutually exclusive, is all.

[PJ1120]

57 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

Hitter vs Swinger is a binary premise and, in my opinion, the intent and mechanics employed fall somewhere on a spectrum. Plus, I think that a great deal of it has to do with where the golfer is consciously focused. That's why you'll see guys demonstrate a swing vs a hit and the results are virtually identical. There will be some golfers who make a better swing when they feel that they're pulling 100% from the lead side. There will be others who make a better swing feeling that they're pushing 100% from the trail side. Neither are actually doing 100% of either - it's just their intent and feel. Perhaps many are 50/50 Switters. Some golfers with a swinger's pattern might feel nothing at all in the trail arm, for example, whereas others might have to feel the trail arm straightening - some a lot, some a little. I just don't think the two patterns are mutually exclusive, is all.

 

I've struggled with this for a long time. I've intermittingly pulled and then threw with somewhat consistent results. Tony Finau said in an article this past year that he didn't want to feel one arm moving faster than the other. This, to me, is like having two intents.....I don't know if I'm capable of that.

Edited October 19, 2020 by PJ1120

[johnrobison]

22 minutes ago, PJ1120 said:

 

I've struggled with this for a long time. I've intermittingly pulled and then threw with somewhat consistent results. Tony Finau said in an article this past year that he didn't want to feel one arm moving faster than the other. This, to me, is like having two intents.....I don't know if I'm capable of that.

What if the intent was to move your hands instead of your arms?

[PJ1120]

15 hours ago, johnrobison said:

What if the intent was to move your hands instead of your arms?

 

Interesting thought

[golfsticks]

22 hours ago, moehogan said:

Maybe the start of the “stride” coming out of the “tuck”?

 

Looking at that in over the top throws, probably has not much to do with lead arm and more with the trail arm and how it's bent-loaded at various locations.    Will look at side arm and submarine too.  The tuck you mentioned would be the lead wrist flexion offsetting the accelerating trail arm's wrist extension?  Never really looked at this relationship before, kind of fun exploring. 

[golfsticks]

16 hours ago, johnrobison said:

What if the intent was to move your hands instead of your arms?

 

36 minutes ago, PJ1120 said:

Interesting thought

 

Yes it is.