CP Release?

He sure figured something out...


I always wondered if Hogan's main shot was a fade how he played from a closed stance? I guess the question is ....closed to what? If you follow the D plane laws his swing path would have to be left of the target line, with the face slightly open to the path, BUT still have the face aimed slightly left of the eventual target. Maybe he was aimed left, but his stance was closed in relation to the swing path?..........Hmmmmm.....


I always also assumed that he liked a closed stance in order to make a deeper turn to generate more power with the driver.

Can't wait for others to chime in to hear their thoughts.

BUMP

I do not want to repeat myself in this sphere, but - [b]the diagonal stance concept [/b]is the key to explain and understand many important things. The problem is that it exceeds the boundaries that today's instruction moves within and hence such questions like "how it is possible that he....?".

Cheers

I also find it ironic the picture that the OP posted is only found in the "Summary & Review" chapter of [u]5 Lessons[/u], but not in the "Stance and Posture" chapter; where one would think that's where it first should have been. It is also the last picture in the book. This could be coincidence since the book was originally published as a 5-part series in Sports Illustrated, and maybe he wrote each lesson separate and decided to add something he forgot at the end; or did he write the whole thing at once and Sports Illustrated split it up. I don't know the answer, maybe someone here does.

Furthermore, there were books published in the 1930's by the popular golf instructors at the time that had parts of the D-plane correct. IMHO, Hogan 100% read these books and left "crumbs". One "crumb" has been discussed in this forum before. The other "crumb" can be found on page xi of [u]Power Golf[/u].

[quote name='jak_bot' timestamp='1298394001' post='3000266']
I also find it ironic the picture that the OP posted is only found in the "Summary & Review" chapter of [u]5 Lessons[/u], but not in the "Stance and Posture" chapter; where one would think that's where it first should have been. It is also the last picture in the book. This could be coincidence since the book was originally published as a 5-part series in Sports Illustrated, and maybe he wrote each lesson separate and decided to add something he forgot at the end; or did he write the whole thing at once and Sports Illustrated split it up. I don't know the answer, maybe someone here does.

Furthermore, there were books published in the 1930's by the popular golf instructors at the time, that had parts of the D-plane correct. IMHO, Hogan 100% read these books and left "crumbs". One "crumb" has been discussed in this forum before. The other "crumb" can be found on page xi of [u]Power Golf[/u].
[/quote]

Interesting question about what editorial decisions may have been made in how to lay out the SI version of the 5 lessons, given the space considerations of a magazine.

Closed feet in relation to target line do not mean closed alignment of hips and shoulders.

[quote name='drewspin' timestamp='1298402343' post='3000628']
[quote name='jak_bot' timestamp='1298394001' post='3000266']
I also find it ironic the picture that the OP posted is only found in the "Summary & Review" chapter of [u]5 Lessons[/u], but not in the "Stance and Posture" chapter; where one would think that's where it first should have been. It is also the last picture in the book. This could be coincidence since the book was originally published as a 5-part series in Sports Illustrated, and maybe he wrote each lesson separate and decided to add something he forgot at the end; or did he write the whole thing at once and Sports Illustrated split it up. I don't know the answer, maybe someone here does.

Furthermore, there were books published in the 1930's by the popular golf instructors at the time, that had parts of the D-plane correct. IMHO, Hogan 100% read these books and left "crumbs". One "crumb" has been discussed in this forum before. The other "crumb" can be found on page xi of [u]Power Golf[/u].
[/quote]

Interesting question about what editorial decisions may have been made in how to lay out the SI version of the 5 lessons, given the space considerations of a magazine.

Closed feet in relation to target line do not mean closed alignment of hips and shoulders.
[/quote]

Closed feet, open hips, and way open shoulders, thats what I see when I look at Hogan. Closed feet, square hips, slightly open shoulders, that what I see when I look at Snead.

My eyes are not that good though

[quote name='Staffer' timestamp='1298405021' post='3000732']Closed feet, open hips, and way open shoulders, thats what I see when I look at Hogan. [/quote]

Almost...but look closely:

[attachment=734370:0751-9901.jpg]

[b]Closed feet, open hips, squarish shoulders = the essence of the diagonal stance. [/b]Other words - shoulders are closed in relation to hips but open in relation to feet. Hips are (strongly) open in relation to feet and (less) open in relation to shoulders. Feet are (strongly) closed in relation to hips and (less) closed in relation to shoulders.
Imagine one wants to start a sidewise dynamic physical activity directed at West (assuming one faces North at stance) - can be hammering a nail at the West wall or starting to run to the West, or whatever - the diagonal stance will be chosen best by ones subconscious mind as the most effective one. Hogan knew it and, by an occasion, it appeared to be the best possible stance type to apply D-plane consequences with the fixed ball position (which is a very huge convenience for a golfer if one does not need to think about 14 different ball positions).
[b]Simply ingenious statically and dynamically.[/b]

Cheers

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1298406487' post='3000790']
[quote name='Staffer' timestamp='1298405021' post='3000732']Closed feet, open hips, and way open shoulders, thats what I see when I look at Hogan. [/quote]

Almost...but look closely:

[attachment=734370:0751-9901.jpg]

[b]Closed feet, open hips, squarish shoulders = the essence of the diagonal stance. [/b]Other words - shoulders are closed in relation to hips but open in relation to feet. Hips are (strongly) open in relation to feet and (less) open in relation to shoulders. Feet are (strongly) closed in relation to hips and (less) closed in relation to shoulders.
Imagine one wants to start a sidewise dynamic physical activity directed at West (assuming one faces North at stance) - can be hammering a nail at the West wall or starting to run to the West, or whatever - the diagonal stance will be chosen best by ones subconscious mind as the most effective one. Hogan knew it and, by an occasion, it appeared to be the best possible stance type to apply D-plane consequences with the fixed ball position (which is a very huge convenience for a golfer if one does not need to think about 14 different ball positions).
[b]Simply ingenious statically and dynamically.[/b]

Cheers
[/quote]


Well, I said my eyes are not that good =).

What I see is shoulders more open or equally open to hips. If your eyes are better than mine, then congratulations.

We cannot decide from the picture posted though, that much is for sure.

[quote name='Staffer' timestamp='1298409609' post='3000936']Well, I said my eyes are not that good =).

What I see is shoulders more open or equally open to hips. If your eyes are better than mine, then congratulations.

We cannot decide from the picture posted though, that much is for sure.
[/quote]

Try to concentrate on viewing joints, not the under-joints surface. On the pic I quoted, you may see the lead shoulder shape just showing under Hogan's chin.
Take a look at this photo (unfortunately I know of no good vids or photos from this angle):

[attachment=734442:HoganStanceFront.jpg]

Look that his rear buttock is completely not visible here giving a feel that hips are much more open than shoulders.

Cheers

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1298411217' post='3001007']
[quote name='Staffer' timestamp='1298409609' post='3000936']Well, I said my eyes are not that good =).

What I see is shoulders more open or equally open to hips. If your eyes are better than mine, then congratulations.

We cannot decide from the picture posted though, that much is for sure.
[/quote]

Try to concentrate on viewing joints, not the under-joints surface. On the pic I quoted, you may see the lead shoulder shape just showing under Hogan's chin.
Take a look at this photo (unfortunately I know of no good vids or photos from this angle):

[attachment=734442:HoganStanceFront.jpg]

Look that his rear buttock is completely not visible here giving a feel that hips are much more open than shoulders.

Cheers
[/quote]


Yeah, its the 1955 US Open "slip":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCdUAkbSIPk

Anyhow, its hard to tell from old pictures and vids.

What is a CP release on this forum ? I read the baseline shift left as being a Morad CP ... well , only from not being on elbow plane early enough , The plane may be shifted left visually in transition but what's the clubhead doing through the ball ... basic stuff

but lets get to the stance , diagonal stance or whatever new scientific name you call it......... with the insistence that the right foot was perpendicular to the target..... this is just about the dumbest thing I have read , evidence of a pull fade with some lines ..... but the real kicker is the poor right foot theory just blew way the heck up..... KAboom...... but then again ol Joe would say he must have been pigeon toeing 30 plus degrees.... just more bewdiful stuff .....

I told you once, Eightiron - you won't understand some concepts if you decide to be enframed in relatively narrow and poorly set boundaries of current golf instruction without using your brain to think in a larger scale.

Moreover, where did you escape when finally there were some questions left for you in the former thread ? Was it too tough for you to do something from yourself after receiving all the answers ? If you think that your provoking posts will be envoking my attention only when you want - you're mistaken. Not any more. I am starting to treat your posts like they never are written, like an air - until you learn to treat others with due respect.

Cheers

this whole 'hogan the dplane pioneer' because of ravs drawing is blown way out of proportion.

firstly these guys weren't all working off the so called 'old ball flight laws',

and secondly the difference in base line between a well struck 3 iron and a well struck 9 iron is tiny.

some instructors who want to separate themselves above all 'stone age' instructors extend the base line 300 yards out and say its 20 yards right or left of target depending on up or down strike. extending a 2 or 3 inch flat spot 300 yards is just a conceptual targeting option its not the paradigm shift its purported to be. the shift from 3 iron to 9 iron of swing path on the ground, birds eye view, through the ball 'bullet hole' line of compression is laughably small, and that's the only part that matters,...its about a blade of grass further left at a point opposite your left heel.



D there is plenty of footage of hogan with open foot stance for shorter stuff, shoulder line varied and was often open with all clubs depending on shot, obviously its going to be less as you close the stance line, hips varied in openness relative to feet. as hogan put it

[quote]most pros even tend to list their bodies a little toward the target at address
-- 5 lessons - page 43 [/quote]

the big picture is HOGANS right foot was open, its big because it is the most consistent element of his stance, and it contradicts 5 lessons, and its a hogan forum.

why do you see a square foot as a more important bigger picture, is it because you think it would necessitate SEVAM1s counter torque and people might think you cobbled together a load of the so called 'secrets' ?

Depends on angle of attack but a 3 iron baseline would need to be about 2 degrees more right than a 9 iron baseline to get same path for both clubs. Very small I would agree but decent info to have

[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1298467576' post='3002391']
this whole 'hogan the dplane pioneer' because of ravs drawing is blown way out of proportion.

firstly these guys weren't all working off the so called 'old ball flight laws',

and secondly the difference in base line between a well struck 3 iron and a well struck 9 iron is tiny. [/quote]

These guys were working on finding the best way to hit shots they want and they did not give a damn about old or new ball flight laws crap.
It appears, however, that if someone well-versed in "new" ball flight laws is being asked to draw how stance should look like so that the Trackman numbers are zeroed out the best way - he will draw something very similar to what Hogan drew. Think about it.
,
[quote]
D there is plenty of footage of hogan with open foot stance for shorter stuff, shoulder line varied and was often open with all clubs depending on shot, obviously its going to be less as you close the stance line, hips varied in openness relative to feet. [/quote]

Show me a post-secret Hogan's full shot stance that contradicts the general rules of the diagonal stance. Please, show me - without photoshopping, LOL.
Moreover, I prefer to believe sources like Gardner Dickinson or Jackie Burke than anyone of today. Capisci ?

[quote]
the big picture is HOGANS right foot was open, its big because it is the most consistent element of his stance, and it contradicts 5 lessons, and its a hogan forum.
why do you see a square foot as a more important bigger picture, is it because you think it would necessitate SEVAM1s counter torque and people might think you cobbled together a load of the so called 'secrets' ?
[/quote]

I admitted already once that it might have been several degrees open and that the word "square" was being used to rigidly before, thus, I really do not know why you bring this dispute again. The truth is that his rear foot was close to being square while his lead foot was set flared our (not close to be square).
I do not know why you bring Sevam here. I said many times openly what are the differences between his approach to the rear foot business and mine. You obviously hear too much what Eightiron pms you - me contra Sevam was his favourite subject some time ago. Weird also that you appear only when he appears...LOL.

Cheers

wtf are you talking about, lol ? ive been posting every day or two when i have time, check my log.

the first half of my post was to the op, your getting paranoid if you think every post by me is some attack on you, lol.

its about a millimeter left, think about it.

venturi > burke re:hogan knowledge, Capisci.

ill get you some photos when i get time.

[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1298475493' post='3002701']
wtf are you talking about, lol ? ive been posting every day or two when i have time, check my log. [/quote]

I meant Hogan's subforum.

[quote]the first half of my post was to the op, your getting paranoid if you think every post by me is some attack on you, lol.[/quote]

It does not mean that anyone (me included) cannot respond to that part.
And it's not paranoid, it's just cold reality that I felt attacked by you two acting as a team, judging from some weird contents of the posts. I saw Eightiron's post that he deleted before your first post appeared as well. I don't care about your allegiances a lick, just giving you the picture how it can be seen from my subjective position. Don't worry, won't return to this topic again...LOL.


[quote]its about a millimeter left, think about it.[/quote]

It's only a diagramme. It must be exagerrated so that it is readable.


[quote]
venturi > burke re:hogan knowledge, Capisci.[/quote]

What about Venturi ? What did he say essentially different than Dickinson or Burke ? Enlight me, please. I like a lot what he said on BH Collection DVD and found nothing contradictory to my knowledge. I'll hear or read what he's got to say with pleasure, even if it's against my beliefs about Hogan. Links, please.

Cheers

so 2 people disagree with you and its a conspiracy, you need to talk to more people, lol.

i have nothing against what you call 'diagonal stance' or what hogan calls 'body listing', the only guy ive ever seen who can really play and looks like he follows some linear body parallels is oliver wilson, im sure there are others, but they are the exception. you drop your right hand bellow the left hand, shoulders will tend to open, hips will tend to follow. you stand sideways a proper pivot intention will tend to open stuff up above the feet. if your engine is the hips, intention will open the hips from the shoulders. its all quite natural.

my issue with 'diagonal stance' is its application with hogan, its a clunky explanation of his setup, with regards to his overall stance orientation re: the target, and the orientation of each 'line' relative to one another and to the target and how that effects his shot making.

the big biok issue i have with regards to hogan is [b]hogan said his swing was [u]unnatural[/u] and [u]high maintenance[/u][/b], ...the complete opposite of everything biok stands for.

ill gather some pics of varying stances.

Well, I am afraid you're not familiar with the real pros of the diagonal stance then. It's not just one of stances that a guy can casually take. It is a concept with a few important advantages that I described in detail in my articles.
And frankly...I have never ever seen anyone from any of current golf schools describing and let alone prescribing a non-parallel stance. That's one of quite a few examples why I could call today's instruction narrow-minded and ineffective. They prescribe everything parallel - even if they know that there must be slight margins e.g. due to things you mentioned - starting from feet through hips ending at shoulders. Not to self-picking up myself at a higher pedestal, just stating the truth.

As regards high maintenance swing - I do not recall where Hogan called his swing this way; I consider his post-accident action macroscale principles as very low maitenance ones of a totally set-up dependent swing motion. I wonder how he could think otherwise if he himself said he can't imagine why a weekend hacker shouldn't be able to play between 75-85 if one follows fundamentals described in '5 Lessons'.

Cheers

My feet are alaways closed in relation to target and shoulders. Stance is about 5 closed and shoulders about 5 degrees open, hips pretty square. Mac definitely teaches things shouldn't be parallel. Ill post photos later

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1298491308' post='3003269']
My feet are alaways closed in relation to target and shoulders. Stance is about 5 closed and shoulders about 5 degrees open, hips pretty square. Mac definitely teaches things shouldn't be parallel. Ill post photos later
[/quote]

Well, prolly I shouldn't talk to a man like you who wronged me so unfairly before - but talking into account that I wasn't crystallic that time myself,as well and because it is clear that you really like to help people and are prolly the most helpful guy on the forum now - let's go.

It would be nice to see as well as know reasons why you think that the stance shouldn't be parallel (provided it is no revealing of O'Grady secrets). I am especially interested in why you prefer to have hips squarish and shoulders open which is a reverse scenario to the diagonal stance concept (and, a reverse scenario to what Hogan did). Let's start just here.

Cheers

For me it is my preference to make it easier to get baseline inline to slightly left and steep angle of decent. When hitting the ball higher the shoulders will be more square but still open to my feet. Closed stance allows for a deep enough hip turn while having lead foot turned out encourages the hips to rotate more on the downswing than say a square left foot. For max hip slide the right foot would be turned out and the left foot square but that's not the pattern I use, I want a blended combination of slide and rotation. I won't speak about Morad or Mac in detail as that is not my place. When I get a change I'll post some pics of his setup from videos which many have, to not get anyone in trouble

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1298495973' post='3003419']
For me it is my preference to make it easier to get baseline inline to slightly left and steep angle of decent. When hitting the ball higher the shoulders will be more square but still open to my feet. Closed stance allows for a deep enough hip turn while having lead foot turned out encourages the hips to rotate more on the downswing than say a square left foot. For max hip slide the right foot would be turned out and the left foot square but that's not the pattern I use, I want a blended combination of slide and rotation. I won't speak about Morad or Mac in detail as that is not my place. When I get a change I'll post some pics of his setup from videos which many have, to not get anyone in trouble
[/quote]

Hmm...very nice, but the question was why shoulders should be, in your opinion, open in relation to hips ?

I am anxious to see your visualizations. Hope they will be helpful for everyone to understand Mac's concepts better without breaking his rules...
I found it extremely interesting that he is probably the only one golf swing school who saw the necessity of abandoning the parallel stance and paid attention to this issue.


Lastly, just FYI, in the diagonal stance concept all things matter - in short (macroscale for an average golfer without any correlation to a better player's stuff):
- feet closed - mainly because of balance issues in the coronal plane; secondly, as you said - enabling correct rear hip motion up and back; lastly - to help to prevent incorrect rear hip movements;
- lead foot flared out - as you said - to promote pelvic area rotation in the downswing as well as easing the transition through bending the lead knee inwards;
- rear foot squared (less flared out) - to promote creating firm rear side from the ground up to ensure the linear motion occuring early enough which is the key of automating the transition;
- hips open - this is the only one position where they match the relationship between them and both feet separately in both planes, sagittal and coronal during the setup;
- shoulders squarish - generally for alignment reasons; no aspirations at all to enter into a better player's stuff as e.g. shaping trajectories you mentioned.

Cheers

Shoulders are open due to it aiding in moving the baseline more left in my case. Real easy on elbow plane hitting down on the ball to get path too far inside out. Shoulders get more square as clubs get longer.

Some examples

various stances from various shots, parallax doesn't account for discrepancies mentioned earlier, with some removing parallax would demonstrate greater discrepancies, and there are also a few long shots and some carl welty footage (aka mr anti parallax)

shoulders and/or feet often 'open'.

[attachment=735064:Clipboard1.jpg]
[attachment=735065:Clipboard02.jpg]
[attachment=735066:Clipboard03.jpg]
[attachment=735067:Clipboard04.jpg]
[attachment=735068:Clipboard05.jpg]
[attachment=735069:Clipboard06.jpg]
[attachment=735070:Clipboard07.jpg]
[attachment=735072:Clipboard08.jpg]
[attachment=735073:Clipboard09.jpg]
[attachment=735074:Clipboard10.jpg]
[attachment=735076:Clipboard11.jpg]
[attachment=735077:Clipboard12.jpg]
[attachment=735078:Clipboard13.jpg]

[u][b]re: unnatural and high maintenance [/b][/u]

[quote]"You can never say you've got it. When I met Ben Hogan, he drummed into me that you've got to keep working on it."
-- Bob Torrance[/quote]

[quote]
Ken Venturi carries in his wallet a quote from Ben Hogan:

"For every day I miss practicing it takes me two days to get back to where I was.
[/quote]

[quote]..in an interview for CBS, venturi asked hogan why he practiced so long and so hard.
"i had to" hogan said. "my swing was so bad."
"is that the only reason?" venturi asked sensing the answer beforehand.
"no, i loved it. there is nothing i loved more than waking up in the morning and knowing i could head for the course to practice. i always got the most pleasure out of improving,"[/quote]

[quote]
i don't believe there is anything like a natural golf swing, i really don't think god had golf in mind when he made us, the golf swing is an unnatural thing, and it has to be developed. i think sam snead has a beautiful flowing swing, but it certainly isn't a natural one. he had to develop it, he had to practice it, just as anyone does

-- ben hogan[/quote]

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1298509623' post='3003960']
Some examples
[/quote]

Well, frankly speaking I was expecting something different than just three pics that prolly shows adaptation of the stance for a given scenario (e.g. desired trajectory). I believe the knowledge how to set one's stance in order to cure one's compensations is great and cannot be underrated, but this is not what I would like to discuss right now.
The fundamental question is if O'Grady claims that the stance should not be parallel because of important objective reasons, independently on one's microscale issues (compensations), simply because it is better for all humans playing golf. I claim that it is.

Cheers

[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1298519310' post='3004367']
various stances from various shots, parallax doesn't account for discrepancies mentioned earlier, with some removing parallax would demonstrate greater discrepancies, and there are also a few long shots and some carl welty footage (aka mr anti parallax)

shoulders and/or feet often 'open'.

[attachment=735064:Clipboard1.jpg]
[attachment=735065:Clipboard02.jpg]
[attachment=735066:Clipboard03.jpg]
[attachment=735067:Clipboard04.jpg]
[attachment=735068:Clipboard05.jpg]
[attachment=735069:Clipboard06.jpg]
[attachment=735070:Clipboard07.jpg]
[attachment=735072:Clipboard08.jpg]
[attachment=735073:Clipboard09.jpg]
[attachment=735074:Clipboard10.jpg]
[attachment=735076:Clipboard11.jpg]
[attachment=735077:Clipboard12.jpg]
[attachment=735078:Clipboard13.jpg]
[/quote]

Well, some of the pics are misguided, still with closed feet and typical diagonal stance - you have just been fooled with not very good angles. Some of the pics are not Hogan at all...LOL. Only in very few cases we can see an open feet stance and typical push-fade alignment.


[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1298519604' post='3004384']
[u][b]re: unnatural and high maintenance [/b][/u]

[quote]"You can never say you've got it. When I met Ben Hogan, he drummed into me that you've got to keep working on it."
-- Bob Torrance[/quote]

[quote]
Ken Venturi carries in his wallet a quote from Ben Hogan:

"For every day I miss practicing it takes me two days to get back to where I was.
[/quote]

[quote]..in an interview for CBS, venturi asked hogan why he practiced so long and so hard.
"i had to" hogan said. "my swing was so bad."
"is that the only reason?" venturi asked sensing the answer beforehand.
"no, i loved it. there is nothing i loved more than waking up in the morning and knowing i could head for the course to practice. i always got the most pleasure out of improving,"[/quote]

[quote]
i don't believe there is anything like a natural golf swing, i really don't think god had golf in mind when he made us, the golf swing is an unnatural thing, and it has to be developed. i think sam snead has a beautiful flowing swing, but it certainly isn't a natural one. he had to develop it, he had to practice it, just as anyone does

-- ben hogan[/quote]
[/quote]

These quotes just refer to a Tour player of highest standard. Perhaps you are right that it was a high maintenance swing on such level when one needed to master every shot. It does not change my perspective that a swing with Hogan's main fundamentals for a weekend hacker is a low maintenance swing that excludes timing issues better than any other if only one knows how to automate some parts of it.
This is what my work is dedicated for.
Moreover, Hogan was a fan of range work and the above quotations reflect his general attitude.

Cheers