The Golf Swing - art, physics biomechanics or a combination?

[chipa]

Greetings, I am new to the forum and am returning to try to play golf after many years. I have tried many swing theories over the years and like most golfers have had inconsistent results. As an graduate engineer who was initially trained to become a research engineer I have a keen eye towards the discussion of the physics regarding the golf swing. I am interested in hearing what other people have to say about the golf swing.

First though let me start by explaining what I mean about classifying the golf swing as "physics". For the purposes of this discussion a swing theory based on physics would be a theory that has a certain defined methodology (forces, geometry) that any person that is able to reproduce the input parameters would have a predictable results, which is very similar to how a scientific theory works in the real world. For example, one of my specialties is hydraulics, where mathematical models are used to predict flows(such as rainfall runoff, etc). In my professional opinion after 15+ years trying to learn the golf swing I have yet to see a swing theory based on physics work with any type of consistency.

The definition of swing theory as art is self explanatory, but it doesn't mean that it can't have physics or biomechanical components, only that the understanding of the theory is not complete enough to predict the outcome with sufficient confidence when the supposed precepts are followed.

The definition of biomechanics I believe is self explanatory as well

IMO, the swing theory that I am leaning to is biomechanics, ie there are certain muscles that need to be used in a certain sequence. I based this on not only being frustrated by all swing theories out there but also by seeing swings like Jim Furyks, Calvin Peetes, Miller Barber's etc. that leave so many swing theorists dumbfounded as to how they can be so effective and consistent.

 

[Soloman1]

 

The problem with using biomechanics is that you can't understand the movement if you aren't measuring. Also, people are different, so movement patterns effective for one person may not be effective for another person.

There is no "unified theory of the golf swing."

If Albert Einstein gave up on golf because it was, as he said, "Too complicated," what chance do we have to understand it?

[chipa]

Soloman1 thanks for the observation. What I meant about biomechanics was mostly which muscles are used in the golf swing, for example triceps etc. If that was what you were referring to yes that would be difficult but at least it gives one more or less a direction to work on, like for example learning to bench press, etc.

Another observation that makes me feel inclined to certain muscles governing the swing is that after some 1000 rounds at public courses is that someone with apparent good mechanics on the takeaway and downswing doesn't always equate to a consistent or even moderately powerful swing. I'm inclined to think that there are certain muscles in the hands and arms that are most important, even more than shoulders (look at Jim Furyk) coupled with keeping them sufficiently relaxed at the right moment and loaded in the proper sequence with stable legs no matter how they are orientated seems to be the most important aspects.

[Fuscinator]

It's always ultimately an art. You can only use science in golf as a way to develop a concept, and more importantly, as a shortcut for eliminating stupid.

[Krt22]

All of the above.

[Barfolomew]

99% brain

1% body mechanics

 

But apparently it's a secret... as most behave like it's the other way round

[chipa]

When I started golf in the 90's I only had a couple of pro lessons because I couldn't afford it, and can't remember anything other then them telling me about the grip and the stance. After that I got married and then didn't have the money to play golf once a week and take lessons too, but at that point I didn't have a lot of confidence in teaching pros because what I was looking for in lessons was more technical detail, so I read golf magazines and watched videos. However, fairly recently my brother started playing golf and was shelling out hundreds of dollars to pay more than one teaching pro and lo and behold the only thing the pro would tell him other than the setup was to "shallow" the club.

On the other hand the web is full of people claiming to have the "secret" to the golf swing, but then again I've tried some of the swing theories out there with little success.

My current concept is this - flexible hands and arms and a correct grip and do a 1/4 to 1/2 swing getting the club in the correct position and doing it repeatedly to have the muscle memory and feeling of the sequence and then get to that position early in my swing and make it a little longer. If I'm not mistaken I seem to think that Isao Aoki had a swing with this characteristic.

[MPStrat]

Great topic. In a perfect world I believe a teacher should be well versed in all 3. But there have been many great teachers of the past that had both the biomechanics and the physics technically wrong. In terms of teacher to student on the lesson tee it should be mostly an art IMO. When it comes to actually learning the swing, studying biomechanics is a nearly useless rabbit hole. IMO, improving the swing is most often about fixing wrong perceptions and beliefs. Those can easily be refuted and corrected in terms of biomechanical data and 2d pros vs ams line drawing, but overcoming these myths is going to be more of an art than a science. Most people are not likely to get better studying GEARS avatars. The best teachers help students understand what they have to do from the students point of view. That’s the art.

[Soloman1]

Some of the best teachers in the world use my 3D system to make some remarkable improvements quickly in players from high handicap to tour pros. And some other teachers have no idea what they're looking at. But, 20% are solid and constantly looking to learn more and improve, as in any industry.

I've had tour pros say that one hour working with 3D is worth more than 8 hours on the range.

Instructors don't always tell players what they're looking at or explain "why" they want they player to make some move or adjustment. Some players don't want or need to know. I've seen players go down the data rabbit hole and data-drive their way right off the tour.

Here's a little nugget - a list of muscle activation sequencing of different portions of the swing by elite players:

Right-handed Golfer

Muscle Activity - Most to least [1] [2] [3] [4]BackswingUpper BodyLeft side: subscapularis [3], upper serratus [4]Right side : upper trapezuis [1], middle trapezuis [2]

Lower BodyLeft side: semimembranosus [1], biceps femoris (long head) [2]Right side: erector spinae [3], abdominal oblique [4]

Early Downswing (top to left arm horizontal)Upper BodyLeft side: rhomboid [1], middle trapezuis [4]Right side: pectoralis major [2], upper serratus [3]

Lower BodyLeft side: vastus lateralis [3], adductor magnus [4]Right side: upper gluteus maximus [1], lower gluteus maximus [2]

 

Acceleration Phase (left arm horizontal to impact)Upper BodyLeft side: pectoralis major [1], levator scapulae [4]Right side: pectoralis major [1], serratus anterior [3]

Lower BodyRight: abdominal oblique [2], gluteus medius [4]Right: left biceps femoris [1], upper and lower gluteus maximus + vastus lateralis [3]

[chipa]

Very interesting, thanks. I suppose the next step for the layman with information like this is to identify each muscle and then start practicing using a standard setup and takeaway sequence and try to ensure these particular muscles are being used. A launch monitor would be an ideal way to measure the success, or at least going to the range with a golf radar. Of course if one has access to a teaching pro that understands the correct biomechanics all the better. Mike Austin was a big beliver in biomechanics and who could argue with his success, at least as someone with an effective as swing as there ever was.