Snead, Hogan & Nicklaus vs Tiger, Rory Etc.

[Daniel Eason]

Im lost by this topic....the back issue surely is muscular?

I'm no expert but the modern pro is most probably working out harder on a (twice) daily basis to hit that ball 50-80 yards further than the likes of Hogan and snead did.

This increases strain on the relevant muscles and tendons/ligaments.

I sit in a chair all day and I sure as hell feel it if I sit in that thing incorrectly.....

[Hoganstriker]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392506746' post='8676107']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392506331' post='8676065']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392499951' post='8675521']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392431633' post='8671231']
[b]The discussion regarding address is amusing. What real diff does it make whether you rigidly try to set angles at address or address the ball naturally in a balanced position in terms of health or injury risk[/b] when you have to move out of that position quite a ways before there is any real load on the body?
Address is diff from top of bs which is diff from impact-there's movement so to me you cannot say one address style is safer or healthier than another.
It would be one thing if you immediately lifted a great load from address but thats not what happens in golf.
[/quote]

Lol the part I bolded shows you have no idea what you are talking about. You will never ever find an athlete that prefers to be in the old golfers position. It's hilarious you'd call it balanced in terms of health or injury risk. That position is about as weak as you can get, with the only exception being even more spinal flexion and getting more on your toes.

It's just funny you try to seem objective to either point, yet so clearly show bias in your statement. Also I'm pretty sure set up angles matter significantly. Nearly all coaches look at the set up position of the players, and I know tons that consider it the most important attribute...... I have literally never heard someone say your address position doesn't matter because you obviously move in the backswing.... In any activity where you start from one position and then move to another, obviously the initial position affects the manner at which you move to the next 2 positions.........
[/quote]

The bolded part says in terms of health or injury risk. Your response is intended to be inflammatory but I do not find it so.
[/quote]

Yet it's completely incorrect in that respect. I can read as well.
This is a really easy question, is it easier to hold a weight on your back if you have a straight back and bend at hip to establish the COG so you can hold onto it, or if you stand straighter at the hip and then round your back to establish that same COG?
Or to simplify even further, have someone push on your palm and try to overpower you. Try this with your entire arm extended(except the wrist of course, so the activity is even possible), vs being flexed at the elbow. Should be a pretty substantial difference.
[/quote]

Are you holding a huge weight at address? NO.
I don't know why you seem to feel the need to convince me of something I cannot be convinced of. Look at Hogan or Snead from dtl at and through the ball. Their backs are less bent and twisted under load.
The impact position is not the address position. I stand by my viewpoint. You seem to be taking the stance that the spine is located in the center of our body and its axis and orientation does not change during the swing. At least I think that is why you are getting all bent out of shape. (pun intended)

I don't think you have really followed what I have written. No need to get your nickers in a twist.

[Hoganstriker]

Heck I could even argue that a relaxed balanced position is way more repeatable at address than a serious of body contortions and angles being created and held.

[farmer]

OT, but that Hogan video-"if you don't mind...", genuinely a gentleman.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392509857' post='8676375']
Heck I could even argue that a relaxed balanced position is way more repeatable at address than a serious of body contortions and angles being created and held.
[/quote]

What is your qualification for it being balanced?

It doesn't matter that you aren't holding a weight at address(even though OP used the squat bar on back analogy in first page), in any athletic event, we want to be as biomechanically efficient as possible, to increase both performance and longevity. Generally the things that make us more efficient also are things that prevent injury. Therefore there is no reason to put the spine in a compromised position AT ANY POINT in the swing, if we don't have to.


Anyway I never said impact was the same thing at address. However you certainly reach impact and the position at the top of the backswing from the deviations from the address position. Therefore it's probably pretty important...... So you think we could just stand with our chest perpendicular to the ground, and that would be ok? Because I mean heck it's not impact and its not the top of the backswing, so it doesn't matter. Obviously the positions you are in at one point facilitate/impede reaching other positions that one would deem ideal later in their swing. Therefore I don't see how you are saying its unimportant, unless you do feel it would be acceptable to have your chest pointing straight down at address.

I have no idea how you are saying that the address position doesn't matter.

[gabh]

[quote name='Daniel Eason' timestamp='1392507661' post='8676197']
Im lost by this topic....the back issue surely is muscular?

I'm no expert but the modern pro is most probably working out harder on a (twice) daily basis to hit that ball 50-80 yards further than the likes of Hogan and snead did.

This increases strain on the relevant muscles and tendons/ligaments.

I sit in a chair all day and I sure as hell feel it if I sit in that thing incorrectly.....
[/quote]

I don't think it's muscular pain that's a concern. It's the nerves, which is inside the spine and discs. Wrong posture and the discs gets compressed too much, which means the nerves too. If it's muscular it could be gone in a couple of days. But discs and nerves, it's a PITA.

[Hoganstriker]

Pinhigh27,

Did I say that? Remember the quote you bolded before you decide to go off on me okay?
Only a complete fool would state that it does not matter in relation to one's ability to make a repeatable swing. You need a repeatable starting position before you can have a repeating swing and a ton of work goes into that. Isn't that obvious?
But your viewpoint as I understand it is that the spine is in the center of the body and is some sort of axis relative to the golf swing. I just disagree with your position.
I disagree with those who draw imaginary lines on peoples golf swings from dtl indicating the spine. It's just not that simple.
I don't prefer the modern swing in terms of how hard it can be on the body. Physics doesn't lie and yes the modern swing is an efficient swing however I think there's a lot of benefit to a bit more motion in the hips and legs if one is interested in a swing thats easy on the body.
There's a lot to be learned from great swings of the past and thats what everything has been built on. I think its just wrong to sit and say bending over and being quiet with the legs then twisting and spinning a long lever with a weight on the end of it around your body at high speed is a real safe way to go about it.
Basic lifting safety 101 don't twist when you lift and don't bend at the waist and lift. Use the legs.
I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth but it's bull.
Look at the older gear the older greats used look at the spinning ball-their swings did not evolve into a single fixed axis rotary fashion.
There was a lot of motion going on not less trying to lock everything down into some theoretical model. There's a reason you see them stand the way they do to the ball at address. It's not a slump or a weak position in any way.
Stop antagonizing me and pushing whatever viewpoint you have as if it's the only one. Obviously Hogan Snead Nicklaus Player Knudson etc did not subscribe to your viewpoint.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392519673' post='8677241']
Pinhigh27,

Did I say that? Remember the quote you bolded before you decide to go off on me okay?
Only a complete fool would state that it does not matter in relation to one's ability to make a repeatable swing. You need a repeatable starting position before you can have a repeating swing and a ton of work goes into that. Isn't that obvious?
But your viewpoint as I understand it is that the spine is in the center of the body and is some sort of axis relative to the golf swing. I just disagree with your position.
I disagree with those who draw imaginary lines on peoples golf swings from dtl indicating the spine. It's just not that simple.
I don't prefer the modern swing in terms of how hard it can be on the body. Physics doesn't lie and yes the modern swing is an efficient swing however I think there's a lot of benefit to a bit more motion in the hips and legs if one is interested in a swing thats easy on the body.
There's a lot to be learned from great swings of the past and thats what everything has been built on. I think its just wrong to sit and say bending over and being quiet with the legs then twisting and spinning a long lever with a weight on the end of it around your body at high speed is a real safe way to go about it.
Basic lifting safety 101 don't twist when you lift and don't bend at the waist and lift. Use the legs.
I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth but it's bull.
Look at the older gear the older greats used look at the spinning ball-their swings did not evolve into a single fixed axis rotary fashion.
There was a lot of motion going on not less trying to lock everything down into some theoretical model. There's a reason you see them stand the way they do to the ball at address. It's not a slump or a weak position in any way.
Stop antagonizing me and pushing whatever viewpoint you have as if it's the only one. Obviously Hogan Snead Nicklaus Player Knudson etc did not subscribe to your viewpoint.
[/quote]

I never said anything about tilting around the spine. All I said was that the address position matters because we're deviating from it obviously throughout the swing.

Believe me I understand biomechanics and lifting. It's something I compete in. Your whole point about it being ideal because the greats did it makes no sense. A lot of those same greats never understood why the ball curved at it did, yet that clearly doesn't make their false views true. It's funny for someone who says I put words in your mouth, you are so quick to do to me.

Hogan's posse is really starting to annoy me. It's like the group not willing to let go and just feels so confronted anytime someone would question their great idol.

[Hoganstriker]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392521846' post='8677433']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392519673' post='8677241']
Pinhigh27,

Did I say that? Remember the quote you bolded before you decide to go off on me okay?
Only a complete fool would state that it does not matter in relation to one's ability to make a repeatable swing. You need a repeatable starting position before you can have a repeating swing and a ton of work goes into that. Isn't that obvious?
But your viewpoint as I understand it is that the spine is in the center of the body and is some sort of axis relative to the golf swing. I just disagree with your position.
I disagree with those who draw imaginary lines on peoples golf swings from dtl indicating the spine. It's just not that simple.
I don't prefer the modern swing in terms of how hard it can be on the body. Physics doesn't lie and yes the modern swing is an efficient swing however I think there's a lot of benefit to a bit more motion in the hips and legs if one is interested in a swing thats easy on the body.
There's a lot to be learned from great swings of the past and thats what everything has been built on. I think its just wrong to sit and say bending over and being quiet with the legs then twisting and spinning a long lever with a weight on the end of it around your body at high speed is a real safe way to go about it.
Basic lifting safety 101 don't twist when you lift and don't bend at the waist and lift. Use the legs.
I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth but it's bull.
Look at the older gear the older greats used look at the spinning ball-their swings did not evolve into a single fixed axis rotary fashion.
There was a lot of motion going on not less trying to lock everything down into some theoretical model. There's a reason you see them stand the way they do to the ball at address. It's not a slump or a weak position in any way.
Stop antagonizing me and pushing whatever viewpoint you have as if it's the only one. Obviously Hogan Snead Nicklaus Player Knudson etc did not subscribe to your viewpoint.
[/quote]

I never said anything about tilting around the spine. All I said was that the address position matters because we're deviating from it obviously throughout the swing.

Believe me I understand biomechanics and lifting. It's something I compete in. Your whole point about it being ideal because the greats did it makes no sense. A lot of those same greats never understood why the ball curved at it did, yet that clearly doesn't make their false views true. It's funny for someone who says I put words in your mouth, you are so quick to do to me.

Hogan's posse is really starting to annoy me. It's like the group not willing to let go and just feels so confronted anytime someone would question their great idol.
[/quote]

LOL again now you claim I am some Hogan guy? Don't judge a book by its cover. You know what annoys me? People who use the term biomechanics and think by using that term they get some form of credibility and then engage in personal attack after it has become clear that they have no point.
You were the one who brought this on yourself, it's not my fault now you look foolish.
I am not going to let you drag me down anymore.
It's all there in the very part you bolded when you began your rambling nonsensical attack on me and that attack was unwarranted.
You have offered no content other than attempts to antagonize so stick a fork in you you are done, son.
It's not my fault you excercise your muscles more than your brain.

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

[gabh]

Totally agree. It's perfectly fine to disagree and argue. But disagree and attack? Seems like there's a hidden agenda again. I think maybe the push review brigade has also become the push attack brigade.

[gabh]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392521846' post='8677433']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392519673' post='8677241']
Pinhigh27,

Did I say that? Remember the quote you bolded before you decide to go off on me okay?
Only a complete fool would state that it does not matter in relation to one's ability to make a repeatable swing. You need a repeatable starting position before you can have a repeating swing and a ton of work goes into that. Isn't that obvious?
But your viewpoint as I understand it is that the spine is in the center of the body and is some sort of axis relative to the golf swing. I just disagree with your position.
I disagree with those who draw imaginary lines on peoples golf swings from dtl indicating the spine. It's just not that simple.
I don't prefer the modern swing in terms of how hard it can be on the body. Physics doesn't lie and yes the modern swing is an efficient swing however I think there's a lot of benefit to a bit more motion in the hips and legs if one is interested in a swing thats easy on the body.
There's a lot to be learned from great swings of the past and thats what everything has been built on. I think its just wrong to sit and say bending over and being quiet with the legs then twisting and spinning a long lever with a weight on the end of it around your body at high speed is a real safe way to go about it.
Basic lifting safety 101 don't twist when you lift and don't bend at the waist and lift. Use the legs.
I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth but it's bull.
Look at the older gear the older greats used look at the spinning ball-their swings did not evolve into a single fixed axis rotary fashion.
There was a lot of motion going on not less trying to lock everything down into some theoretical model. There's a reason you see them stand the way they do to the ball at address. It's not a slump or a weak position in any way.
Stop antagonizing me and pushing whatever viewpoint you have as if it's the only one. Obviously Hogan Snead Nicklaus Player Knudson etc did not subscribe to your viewpoint.
[/quote]

I never said anything about tilting around the spine. All I said was that the address position matters because we're deviating from it obviously throughout the swing.

Believe me I understand biomechanics and lifting. It's something I compete in. Your whole point about it being ideal because the greats did it makes no sense. A lot of those same greats never understood why the ball curved at it did, yet that clearly doesn't make their false views true. It's funny for someone who says I put words in your mouth, you are so quick to do to me.

Hogan's posse is really starting to annoy me. It's like the group not willing to let go and just feels so confronted anytime someone would question their great idol.
[/quote]

What's your point pinhigh? Them not knowing the ball flight laws, assuming that's true (and I don't believe it because they need to curve the ball than us now), doesn't mean they don't know the benefits of curved thoracic in a golf swing.

You don't believe in naturally curved upper back?

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392528701' post='8677869']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392521846' post='8677433']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392519673' post='8677241']
Pinhigh27,

Did I say that? Remember the quote you bolded before you decide to go off on me okay?
Only a complete fool would state that it does not matter in relation to one's ability to make a repeatable swing. You need a repeatable starting position before you can have a repeating swing and a ton of work goes into that. Isn't that obvious?
But your viewpoint as I understand it is that the spine is in the center of the body and is some sort of axis relative to the golf swing. I just disagree with your position.
I disagree with those who draw imaginary lines on peoples golf swings from dtl indicating the spine. It's just not that simple.
I don't prefer the modern swing in terms of how hard it can be on the body. Physics doesn't lie and yes the modern swing is an efficient swing however I think there's a lot of benefit to a bit more motion in the hips and legs if one is interested in a swing thats easy on the body.
There's a lot to be learned from great swings of the past and thats what everything has been built on. I think its just wrong to sit and say bending over and being quiet with the legs then twisting and spinning a long lever with a weight on the end of it around your body at high speed is a real safe way to go about it.
Basic lifting safety 101 don't twist when you lift and don't bend at the waist and lift. Use the legs.
I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth but it's bull.
Look at the older gear the older greats used look at the spinning ball-their swings did not evolve into a single fixed axis rotary fashion.
There was a lot of motion going on not less trying to lock everything down into some theoretical model. There's a reason you see them stand the way they do to the ball at address. It's not a slump or a weak position in any way.
Stop antagonizing me and pushing whatever viewpoint you have as if it's the only one. Obviously Hogan Snead Nicklaus Player Knudson etc did not subscribe to your viewpoint.
[/quote]

I never said anything about tilting around the spine. All I said was that the address position matters because we're deviating from it obviously throughout the swing.

Believe me I understand biomechanics and lifting. It's something I compete in. Your whole point about it being ideal because the greats did it makes no sense. A lot of those same greats never understood why the ball curved at it did, yet that clearly doesn't make their false views true. It's funny for someone who says I put words in your mouth, you are so quick to do to me.

Hogan's posse is really starting to annoy me. It's like the group not willing to let go and just feels so confronted anytime someone would question their great idol.
[/quote]

What's your point pinhigh? Them not knowing the ball flight laws, assuming that's true (and I don't believe it because they need to curve the ball than us now), doesn't mean they don't know the benefits of curved thoracic in a golf swing.

You don't believe in naturally curved upper back?
[/quote]

Of course I do. It's just that the position the old people are in isn't that natural curvature. What's in the pictures is a significant deviation from what is normal. My point was that HoganStriker acts like the old pros somehow know what's ideal for their spine, yet they didn't even understand why the golf ball curved as it does. They aren't infalliable and it's not simply correct because they did it.


HoganStriker, I'm so sorry I labeled you a hogan supporter, seeing as your name is HoganStriker, you clearly aren't a fan at all. Not to mention the fact that you've still failed to qualify how the pictured position is biomechanically efficient.

You know you've lost an argument when you feel the need to tell the other person how they look. You clearly don't understand how the spine works. Please tell me how that position is superior to the "rigid" one. There was no attacking. No agenda. Anatomy and biomechanics aren't really debatable. This is my job. Studying/treating the body, lifting and golf are the 3 things I do. So if you can please explain to me how a rounded back(really hope you understand how this is different than the natural curvature) is somehow more natural than just standing with what appears to be a flat back, that would be great. Just because it LOOKS like Rory's spine is straight, doesn't mean it actually is. It's not like they've magically aligned the spine to be perfectly straight.

It's funny I just said you were wrong and you got so offended so quickly. You act just like Lane Holt. If you're correct, then you can show me how these positions you suggest are superior. Then I truly will look like a fool. Until then, I don't and its pointless for you(the person I'm arguing with) to tell me how I look.

Expecting a "you aren't worth my time response" Here's to hoping you prove me wrong.

[Hoganstriker]

Okay I will bite. In a word-tension.
The rigid tensioned posture at address is an albeit slight addition of tension. This tension can cause the swinging of the club to be shall we say manipulated more than a truly pure swing. No way for me to describe my viewpoint better than what I am doing. In a pure swing from the very first move back tension is an enemy. If we put so much effort in to the setup procedure why would we manipulate things durig the bs?
IMO after a good setup without tension the club is swung back and finds where it wants to be in large part due to physics. This could be argued to be more reliable than manipulations of angles/tensions hand moves arm moves etc etc.
So if you want to know my viewpoint (which is ultimately meaningless anyhow in the grand scheme of things) thats it. The more tension one creates at setup the more they bring the possibility of getting the club off line and requiring further manipulations.
The whole point to me of setup is to basically be able to make a first move back from that point which requires less manipulation. The more tension you build in at address the greater the odds that it will find its way to the handle and screw things up.
Also in most swings when the turn happens that bit of roundness you hate so much is gone during the turn back imo. So thats why I feel so attacked- to me everything you are trying to argue about is totally meaningless.
First you put words in my mouth then you do it again and again and quite frankly its annoying.
So in closing-I am for the SLUMPED position over the RIGID position because I believe it allows one to make a more pure move back.
Also I believe a relaxed positions better accomodates the natural athleticism of the body to work-since nothing is fixed or rigid minor errors are compensated for subconsciously...This is getting way weird but the athletic portion of the brain is not a conscious hold this or manipulate that function...Those ideas are the opposite of great athletics period. Ever hear the phrase dumb jock? To me that is not a dumb jock its just that he's gifted in the consciousness that I am talking about. Many great athletes keep things very simple from a mechanical perspective especially in golf and would never go into the long drawn out mechanical minutae like we often see on online golf forums.
So anyways I don't know if that was a comprehensible explanation or not but thats always been my personal take-nothing more.
I don't like manipulations and conscious carrying of the club on the way back or opening or holding it shut or whatever.
To my way of thinking the entire point of the setup is to reduce the number of manipulations required.
Its a goofy out there viewpoint but at least maybe now after explaining what I mean and considering my previous comments about the setup you might be able to see how a person could actually prefer less tension at address even if it is a slight difference.

[whatshannenin]

After a brief skim of this thread and the misinformation getting thrown around…...

 

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392532735' post='8678085']
Okay I will bite. In a word-tension.
The rigid tensioned posture at address is an albeit slight addition of tension. This tension can cause the swinging of the club to be shall we say manipulated more than a truly pure swing. No way for me to describe my viewpoint better than what I am doing. In a pure swing from the very first move back tension is an enemy. If we put so much effort in to the setup procedure why would we manipulate things durig the bs?
IMO after a good setup without tension the club is swung back and finds where it wants to be in large part due to physics. This could be argued to be more reliable than manipulations of angles/tensions hand moves arm moves etc etc.
So if you want to know my viewpoint (which is ultimately meaningless anyhow in the grand scheme of things) thats it. The more tension one creates at setup the more they bring the possibility of getting the club off line and requiring further manipulations.
The whole point to me of setup is to basically be able to make a first move back from that point which requires less manipulation. The more tension you build in at address the greater the odds that it will find its way to the handle and screw things up.
Also in most swings when the turn happens that bit of roundness you hate so much is gone during the turn back imo. So thats why I feel so attacked- to me everything you are trying to argue about is totally meaningless.
First you put words in my mouth then you do it again and again and quite frankly its annoying.
So in closing-I am for the SLUMPED position over the RIGID position because I believe it allows one to make a more pure move back.
Also I believe a relaxed positions better accomodates the natural athleticism of the body to work-since nothing is fixed or rigid minor errors are compensated for subconsciously...This is getting way weird but the athletic portion of the brain is not a conscious hold this or manipulate that function...Those ideas are the opposite of great athletics period. Ever hear the phrase dumb jock? To me that is not a dumb jock its just that he's gifted in the consciousness that I am talking about. Many great athletes keep things very simple from a mechanical perspective especially in golf and would never go into the long drawn out mechanical minutae like we often see on online golf forums.
So anyways I don't know if that was a comprehensible explanation or not but thats always been my personal take-nothing more.
I don't like manipulations and conscious carrying of the club on the way back or opening or holding it shut or whatever.
To my way of thinking the entire point of the setup is to reduce the number of manipulations required.
Its a goofy out there viewpoint but at least maybe now after explaining what I mean and considering my previous comments about the setup you might be able to see how a person could actually prefer less tension at address even if it is a slight difference.
[/quote]

Interesting. I'm not a teacher and honestly have no idea how the tension would facilitate/impede the proper sequence, I was just purely arguing from an injury standpoint. However it still seems to me that with regards to tension(which I assume would be generated from deviating from what is natural) that Rory's position would generate less tension than the past one. Honestly when I just pick up a club and get into position, it's relatively similar. I feel like it would require more work(and thus tension as I interpret it) to get into the past position. No idea if that has to do with the clubs(lie) or the way I've been taught, just something anecdotal I guess.

I'd like to hear some of the teachers on this board and what they think about those differences in set up and how they allow the swing to commence as I'm pretty much guessing in the dark.

[gabh]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392530872' post='8678017']
[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392528701' post='8677869']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1392521846' post='8677433']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1392519673' post='8677241']
Pinhigh27,

Did I say that? Remember the quote you bolded before you decide to go off on me okay?
Only a complete fool would state that it does not matter in relation to one's ability to make a repeatable swing. You need a repeatable starting position before you can have a repeating swing and a ton of work goes into that. Isn't that obvious?
But your viewpoint as I understand it is that the spine is in the center of the body and is some sort of axis relative to the golf swing. I just disagree with your position.
I disagree with those who draw imaginary lines on peoples golf swings from dtl indicating the spine. It's just not that simple.
I don't prefer the modern swing in terms of how hard it can be on the body. Physics doesn't lie and yes the modern swing is an efficient swing however I think there's a lot of benefit to a bit more motion in the hips and legs if one is interested in a swing thats easy on the body.
There's a lot to be learned from great swings of the past and thats what everything has been built on. I think its just wrong to sit and say bending over and being quiet with the legs then twisting and spinning a long lever with a weight on the end of it around your body at high speed is a real safe way to go about it.
Basic lifting safety 101 don't twist when you lift and don't bend at the waist and lift. Use the legs.
I don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth but it's bull.
Look at the older gear the older greats used look at the spinning ball-their swings did not evolve into a single fixed axis rotary fashion.
There was a lot of motion going on not less trying to lock everything down into some theoretical model. There's a reason you see them stand the way they do to the ball at address. It's not a slump or a weak position in any way.
Stop antagonizing me and pushing whatever viewpoint you have as if it's the only one. Obviously Hogan Snead Nicklaus Player Knudson etc did not subscribe to your viewpoint.
[/quote]

I never said anything about tilting around the spine. All I said was that the address position matters because we're deviating from it obviously throughout the swing.

Believe me I understand biomechanics and lifting. It's something I compete in. Your whole point about it being ideal because the greats did it makes no sense. A lot of those same greats never understood why the ball curved at it did, yet that clearly doesn't make their false views true. It's funny for someone who says I put words in your mouth, you are so quick to do to me.

Hogan's posse is really starting to annoy me. It's like the group not willing to let go and just feels so confronted anytime someone would question their great idol.
[/quote]

What's your point pinhigh? Them not knowing the ball flight laws, assuming that's true (and I don't believe it because they need to curve the ball than us now), doesn't mean they don't know the benefits of curved thoracic in a golf swing.

You don't believe in naturally curved upper back?
[/quote]

Of course I do. It's just that the position the old people are in isn't that natural curvature. What's in the pictures is a significant deviation from what is normal. My point was that HoganStriker acts like the old pros somehow know what's ideal for their spine, yet they didn't even understand why the golf ball curved as it does. They aren't infalliable and it's not simply correct because they did it.


HoganStriker, I'm so sorry I labeled you a hogan supporter, seeing as your name is HoganStriker, you clearly aren't a fan at all. Not to mention the fact that you've still failed to qualify how the pictured position is biomechanically efficient.

You know you've lost an argument when you feel the need to tell the other person how they look. You clearly don't understand how the spine works. Please tell me how that position is superior to the "rigid" one. There was no attacking. No agenda. Anatomy and biomechanics aren't really debatable. This is my job. Studying/treating the body, lifting and golf are the 3 things I do. So if you can please explain to me how a rounded back(really hope you understand how this is different than the natural curvature) is somehow more natural than just standing with what appears to be a flat back, that would be great. Just because it LOOKS like Rory's spine is straight, doesn't mean it actually is. It's not like they've magically aligned the spine to be perfectly straight.

It's funny I just said you were wrong and you got so offended so quickly. You act just like Lane Holt. If you're correct, then you can show me how these positions you suggest are superior. Then I truly will look like a fool. Until then, I don't and its pointless for you(the person I'm arguing with) to tell me how I look.

Expecting a "you aren't worth my time response" Here's to hoping you prove me wrong.
[/quote]

The "straightened" upper back is less desirable than the "curved" upper back. If I were given a choice,mi would rather tweak my upper back to be curved rather than straighten it from my natural curvature. Why?

My rationale is that the the more curved upper back doesn't require the shoulders to turn more steep than the backswing turn when you turn your hips. With this, there's no additional compression of the lower spine and it's discs on the right side. If there's additional compression on the right side of the discs, the left side of the discs will bulge and press on the spinal nerves and mass around it, thus causing pain. Since there's no need to steepen the shoulders and compress the right side more, shoulders can just turn and immediately after impact the spine could straighten immediately.

If the upper is straightened, the shoulders will turn flat. So, in downswing, when you turn the hips, you need to unflatten the shoulder turn (make it turn steeper). This needs additional compression in the right side of the lower spine, the discs get bulged on the left side, causing possible pains or injury (herniated discs or busted discs or slipped discs).

In a regular gym environment, straightening of the upper back is more beneficial. This is because the lifting is done by just removing forward flexion or just getting into back bending action (standing up, like dead lifts). The straightening will actually avoid compression of the front side of the discs. When you lift, the front side will compress more, so removing compression on the front side of the discs right from the start (setup) will give room for compression during the lifting. This is an entirely different story than a golf swing where you need to rotate the shoulders on an inclined plane.

[Cold_Canadian]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here. Nichlaus had poor posture all the time. Shoulders slouched forward and arms internally rotated. It would make sense that without manipulating any muscles at address, that this position would translate to his address posture.

Now the younger guys all work out in the gym and have personal trainers. This all means better (ideal) posture while standing, which again translates to a their address position. The younger guys have a much better balance in their muscles.

Humans have evolved to make compensations in our muscles when some don't function properly. To say which one is better for each person can't be done. You brain will put your body in what it thinks is the most stable position. It will preform that way until it breaks and your body finds another way about it.

I think the unsafe posture is where you are flexing a certain muscle to "fit" an ideal posture. The muscle must be trained to adhere to a certain position safely through repetition and strengthening.

[gabh]

With due respect to all, I find it extremely entertaining that some will call the posture of Messrs. Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead...add also Nelson, Palmer, Player, Trevino..all legends, to have poor golf postures instead of asking or researching or studying why their posture works in a twist and turn golf swing.

[RBImGuy]

[quote name='Aaronpaige' timestamp='1392561970' post='8678937']
I'm going to take a shot in the dark here. Nichlaus had poor posture all the time. Shoulders slouched forward and arms internally rotated. It would make sense that without manipulating any muscles at address, that this position would translate to his address posture.

Now the younger guys all work out in the gym and have personal trainers. This all means better (ideal) posture while standing, which again translates to a their address position. The younger guys have a much better balance in their muscles.

Humans have evolved to make compensations in our muscles when some don't function properly. To say which one is better for each person can't be done. You brain will put your body in what it thinks is the most stable position. It will preform that way until it breaks and your body finds another way about it.

I think the unsafe posture is where you are flexing a certain muscle to "fit" an ideal posture. The muscle must be trained to adhere to a certain position safely through repetition and strengthening.
[/quote]

Nicklaus won 18 majors, the guys that are fit havent.
its all connected to his adress position to win majors.

[b]Train muscle to adhere position?[/b]
Cant be done.
Your suggestion is impossible.
Please prove me wrong.

[Cold_Canadian]

[quote name='flopper' timestamp='1392564310' post='8679135']
[quote name='Aaronpaige' timestamp='1392561970' post='8678937']
I'm going to take a shot in the dark here. Nichlaus had poor posture all the time. Shoulders slouched forward and arms internally rotated. It would make sense that without manipulating any muscles at address, that this position would translate to his address posture.

Now the younger guys all work out in the gym and have personal trainers. This all means better (ideal) posture while standing, which again translates to a their address position. The younger guys have a much better balance in their muscles.

Humans have evolved to make compensations in our muscles when some don't function properly. To say which one is better for each person can't be done. You brain will put your body in what it thinks is the most stable position. It will preform that way until it breaks and your body finds another way about it.

I think the unsafe posture is where you are flexing a certain muscle to "fit" an ideal posture. The muscle must be trained to adhere to a certain position safely through repetition and strengthening.
[/quote]

Nicklaus won 18 majors, the guys that are fit havent.
its all connected to his adress position to win majors.

[b]Train muscle to adhere position?[/b]
Cant be done.
Your suggestion is impossible.
Please prove me wrong.
[/quote]


Maybe I didn't explain that far enough. You train the Antagonistic Muscle of a tight muscle to balance it out. Which will pull your muscles into better positions.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='gabh' timestamp='1392563834' post='8679089']
With due respect to all, I find it extremely entertaining that some will call the posture of Messrs. Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead...add also Nelson, Palmer, Player, Trevino..all legends, to have poor golf postures instead of asking or researching or studying why their posture works in a twist and turn golf swing.
[/quote]

???? Again, why do you have some concept that because someone that was successful did a certain thing, that it is correct? That isn't always the case. I mean do you understand how foolish that is to say? I mean heck who would say most of them didn't know why the ball curved as it did- even though they clearly didn't. Physics clearly changed after their careers. No. They were wrong. Again, they aren't infallible.

[DJ Watts]

Greetings friends,

I have retrieved something I watched a while ago as this discussion sparked the memory.

I'd ask that you pay close attention, in fact I'd even [b][i]pausing[/i][/b] this video at [b]2:25[/b] and comparing the doctor's address position with the modern one. Also, note where he say to incline from - the hips. Note as well the spine position that he calls [b][i]"neutral"[/i][/b] in his stance - he has a visible curve in the upper back region at the shoulders, you see outward curve of the mid-back and then the inward curve of the lower back. This is the [i][b]"S"[/b][/i] curve of a neutral spine position viewed laterally. The doctor addresses [u][b][i]slouching[/i][/b][/u] in this video but the same would be said for an [u][b][i]overly rigid and straight back[/i][/b][/u] - neither are neutral.

Again, I [i]never [/i]said to[i] "slouch,"[/i] I said one should stand with one's back relaxed and neutral, which will show curves, not a straight line.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDnZlT3UqY[/media]

Again at [b]3:30[/b] and beyond, watch him assume the [i]"leaning over"[/i] stance of the modern swing, and here he's talking about reaching but it doesn't matter why you're leaning over at that angle because when you stand more erect at [b]4:10[/b], you can hear him clearly state [b][i]"you can feel that tension come off of the spine..."[/i][/b]

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

DJ Watts

[Cold_Canadian]

Greetings friends,

 

I have retrieved something I watched a while ago as this discussion sparked the memory.

 

I'd ask that you pay close attention, in fact I'd even pausing this video at 2:25 and comparing the doctor's address position with the modern one. Also, note where he say to incline from - the hips. Note as well the spine position that he calls "neutral" in his stance - he has a visible curve in the upper back region at the shoulders, you see outward curve of the mid-back and then the inward curve of the lower back. This is the "S" curve of a neutral spine position viewed laterally. The doctor addresses slouching in this video but the same would be said for an overly rigid and straight back - neither are neutral.

 

Again, I never said to "slouch," I said one should stand with one's back relaxed and neutral, which will show curves, not a straight line.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Again at 3:30 and beyond, watch him assume the "leaning over" stance of the modern swing, and here he's talking about reaching but it doesn't matter why you're leaning over at that angle because when you stand more erect at 4:10, you can hear him clearly state "you can feel that tension come off of the spine..."

 

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

 

DJ Watts

 

Good post, but I believe it doesn't help your point. He clearly knows what he is talking about, but the man isn't in the best shape. With tight pectoral muscles and that gut, of course his spine will be curved that way. Every muscle that is unbalanced from the ground up, will force your body to make compensations so you don't fall over. He describes the right positions but can't get to them. Your body has evolved to do one thing, and thats MOVE.

 

 

At 4:12 you can really see a good view of how imbalanced his muscles are from the glutes up.

[DJ Watts]

Greetings friends,

 

I have retrieved something I watched a while ago as this discussion sparked the memory.

 

I'd ask that you pay close attention, in fact I'd even pausing this video at 2:25 and comparing the doctor's address position with the modern one. Also, note where he say to incline from - the hips. Note as well the spine position that he calls "neutral" in his stance - he has a visible curve in the upper back region at the shoulders, you see outward curve of the mid-back and then the inward curve of the lower back. This is the "S" curve of a neutral spine position viewed laterally. The doctor addresses slouching in this video but the same would be said for an overly rigid and straight back - neither are neutral.

 

Again, I never said to "slouch," I said one should stand with one's back relaxed and neutral, which will show curves, not a straight line.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Again at 3:30 and beyond, watch him assume the "leaning over" stance of the modern swing, and here he's talking about reaching but it doesn't matter why you're leaning over at that angle because when you stand more erect at 4:10, you can hear him clearly state "you can feel that tension come off of the spine..."

 

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

 

DJ Watts

 

Good post, but I believe it doesn't help your point. He clearly knows what he is talking about, but the man isn't in the best shape. With tight pectoral muscles and that gut, of course his spine will be curved that way. Every muscle that is unbalanced from the ground up, will force your body to make compensations so you don't fall over. He describes the right positions but can't get to them. Your body has evolved to do one thing, and thats MOVE.

 

 

At 4:12 you can really see a good view of how imbalanced his muscles are from the glutes up.

 

He's a physical therapist, not a golfer - he shows what he needs to show to get his point across, which is the proper positions against the lesser ones.

 

Now, if you simply want to disregard what he's saying, that's another choice, and yours to make.

 

But to say that a physical therapist's opinion is incorrect because he's out of shape? Pretty weak. When I want back advice, I'll go with the therapist, not the guy sending him all of his patients.

 

Just saying...

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

[Cold_Canadian]

Greetings friends,

 

I have retrieved something I watched a while ago as this discussion sparked the memory.

 

I'd ask that you pay close attention, in fact I'd even pausing this video at 2:25 and comparing the doctor's address position with the modern one. Also, note where he say to incline from - the hips. Note as well the spine position that he calls "neutral" in his stance - he has a visible curve in the upper back region at the shoulders, you see outward curve of the mid-back and then the inward curve of the lower back. This is the "S" curve of a neutral spine position viewed laterally. The doctor addresses slouching in this video but the same would be said for an overly rigid and straight back - neither are neutral.

 

Again, I never said to "slouch," I said one should stand with one's back relaxed and neutral, which will show curves, not a straight line.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Again at 3:30 and beyond, watch him assume the "leaning over" stance of the modern swing, and here he's talking about reaching but it doesn't matter why you're leaning over at that angle because when you stand more erect at 4:10, you can hear him clearly state "you can feel that tension come off of the spine..."

 

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

 

DJ Watts

 

Good post, but I believe it doesn't help your point. He clearly knows what he is talking about, but the man isn't in the best shape. With tight pectoral muscles and that gut, of course his spine will be curved that way. Every muscle that is unbalanced from the ground up, will force your body to make compensations so you don't fall over. He describes the right positions but can't get to them. Your body has evolved to do one thing, and thats MOVE.

 

 

At 4:12 you can really see a good view of how imbalanced his muscles are from the glutes up.

 

He's a physical therapist, not a golfer - he shows what he needs to show to get his point across, which is the proper positions against the lesser ones.

 

Now, if you simply want to disregard what he's saying, that's another choice, and yours to make.

 

But to say that a physical therapist's opinion is incorrect because he's out of shape? Pretty weak. When I want back advice, I'll go with the therapist, not the guy sending him all of his patients.

 

Just saying...

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

 

 

I never said his words were wrong. He was 100% correct in what he was saying, but was not able to show what the position looked like. I think if he had been in better shape, he would have looked like tiger, rory or any of the others guys you oppose.

[DJ Watts]

Greetings friends,

 

I have retrieved something I watched a while ago as this discussion sparked the memory.

 

I'd ask that you pay close attention, in fact I'd even pausing this video at 2:25 and comparing the doctor's address position with the modern one. Also, note where he say to incline from - the hips. Note as well the spine position that he calls "neutral" in his stance - he has a visible curve in the upper back region at the shoulders, you see outward curve of the mid-back and then the inward curve of the lower back. This is the "S" curve of a neutral spine position viewed laterally. The doctor addresses slouching in this video but the same would be said for an overly rigid and straight back - neither are neutral.

 

Again, I never said to "slouch," I said one should stand with one's back relaxed and neutral, which will show curves, not a straight line.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Again at 3:30 and beyond, watch him assume the "leaning over" stance of the modern swing, and here he's talking about reaching but it doesn't matter why you're leaning over at that angle because when you stand more erect at 4:10, you can hear him clearly state "you can feel that tension come off of the spine..."

 

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

 

DJ Watts

 

Good post, but I believe it doesn't help your point. He clearly knows what he is talking about, but the man isn't in the best shape. With tight pectoral muscles and that gut, of course his spine will be curved that way. Every muscle that is unbalanced from the ground up, will force your body to make compensations so you don't fall over. He describes the right positions but can't get to them. Your body has evolved to do one thing, and thats MOVE.

 

 

At 4:12 you can really see a good view of how imbalanced his muscles are from the glutes up.

 

He's a physical therapist, not a golfer - he shows what he needs to show to get his point across, which is the proper positions against the lesser ones.

 

Now, if you simply want to disregard what he's saying, that's another choice, and yours to make.

 

But to say that a physical therapist's opinion is incorrect because he's out of shape? Pretty weak. When I want back advice, I'll go with the therapist, not the guy sending him all of his patients.

 

Just saying...

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

 

 

I never said his words were wrong. He was 100% correct in what he was saying, but was not able to show what the position looked like. I think if he had been in better shape, he would have looked like tiger, rory or any of the others guys you oppose.

 

Aaronpaige if you think he would agree with them, then you didn't watch the video. He distinctly says to bend from the hips using the glutes and buttocks to counter-weight, keeping the posture more erect and the spine neutral, which is not what the modern stance is. It's the complete opposite. What it is, is exactly how I would say I stand - erect, tilting the spine slightly while keeping it neutral, using the glutes and buttocks to counter-weigh the incline.

 

But I'll agree to disagree, no point in going back and forth over it. Have a good one.

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

[pinhigh27]

Greetings friends,

 

I have retrieved something I watched a while ago as this discussion sparked the memory.

 

I'd ask that you pay close attention, in fact I'd even pausing this video at 2:25 and comparing the doctor's address position with the modern one. Also, note where he say to incline from - the hips. Note as well the spine position that he calls "neutral" in his stance - he has a visible curve in the upper back region at the shoulders, you see outward curve of the mid-back and then the inward curve of the lower back. This is the "S" curve of a neutral spine position viewed laterally. The doctor addresses slouching in this video but the same would be said for an overly rigid and straight back - neither are neutral.

 

Again, I never said to "slouch," I said one should stand with one's back relaxed and neutral, which will show curves, not a straight line.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Again at 3:30 and beyond, watch him assume the "leaning over" stance of the modern swing, and here he's talking about reaching but it doesn't matter why you're leaning over at that angle because when you stand more erect at 4:10, you can hear him clearly state "you can feel that tension come off of the spine..."

 

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

 

DJ Watts

 

Good post, but I believe it doesn't help your point. He clearly knows what he is talking about, but the man isn't in the best shape. With tight pectoral muscles and that gut, of course his spine will be curved that way. Every muscle that is unbalanced from the ground up, will force your body to make compensations so you don't fall over. He describes the right positions but can't get to them. Your body has evolved to do one thing, and thats MOVE.

 

 

At 4:12 you can really see a good view of how imbalanced his muscles are from the glutes up.

 

He's a physical therapist, not a golfer - he shows what he needs to show to get his point across, which is the proper positions against the lesser ones.

 

Now, if you simply want to disregard what he's saying, that's another choice, and yours to make.

 

But to say that a physical therapist's opinion is incorrect because he's out of shape? Pretty weak. When I want back advice, I'll go with the therapist, not the guy sending him all of his patients.

 

Just saying...

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

 

 

I never said his words were wrong. He was 100% correct in what he was saying, but was not able to show what the position looked like. I think if he had been in better shape, he would have looked like tiger, rory or any of the others guys you oppose.

 

Aaronpaige if you think he would agree with them, then you didn't watch the video. He distinctly says to bend from the hips using the glutes and buttocks to counter-weight, keeping the posture more erect and the spine neutral, which is not what the modern stance is. It's the complete opposite. What it is, is exactly how I would say I stand - erect, tilting the spine slightly while keeping it neutral, using the glutes and buttocks to counter-weigh the incline.

 

But I'll agree to disagree, no point in going back and forth over it. Have a good one.

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

 

You're confusing hip flexion and spinal flexion. The modern swing has more bend at the HIP than the old one does. That's the whole point of this discussion. Somehow you have to get your weight on your midfoot, away from your heels, like they would be if you just stood straight up. So the two primary ways we are talking about are a) Straight(er) spine, and more bend at the hips- modern and b) less bend at the hips and more spinal flexion. Keeping the posture more erect is accomplished with straightening the spine and bending at the hip. When referring to erect, that's referring to the spine angle, not keeping the hips angle more erect(as in the old address). The things you posted from his video support the modern position in my opinion.

[Cold_Canadian]

DJWatts,


I think your misinterpreting how Tiger and Rory are getting into this position. They are not forcing anything, they are simply hinging from the hips, just like Jack did.

They are getting into a comfortable position. None of the above players manipulated muscles by contorting anything. Thats how their body felt balanced.

[DJ Watts]

Greetings friends,

 

I have retrieved something I watched a while ago as this discussion sparked the memory.

 

I'd ask that you pay close attention, in fact I'd even pausing this video at 2:25 and comparing the doctor's address position with the modern one. Also, note where he say to incline from - the hips. Note as well the spine position that he calls "neutral" in his stance - he has a visible curve in the upper back region at the shoulders, you see outward curve of the mid-back and then the inward curve of the lower back. This is the "S" curve of a neutral spine position viewed laterally. The doctor addresses slouching in this video but the same would be said for an overly rigid and straight back - neither are neutral.

 

Again, I never said to "slouch," I said one should stand with one's back relaxed and neutral, which will show curves, not a straight line.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Again at 3:30 and beyond, watch him assume the "leaning over" stance of the modern swing, and here he's talking about reaching but it doesn't matter why you're leaning over at that angle because when you stand more erect at 4:10, you can hear him clearly state "you can feel that tension come off of the spine..."

 

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

 

DJ Watts

 

Good post, but I believe it doesn't help your point. He clearly knows what he is talking about, but the man isn't in the best shape. With tight pectoral muscles and that gut, of course his spine will be curved that way. Every muscle that is unbalanced from the ground up, will force your body to make compensations so you don't fall over. He describes the right positions but can't get to them. Your body has evolved to do one thing, and thats MOVE.

 

 

At 4:12 you can really see a good view of how imbalanced his muscles are from the glutes up.

 

He's a physical therapist, not a golfer - he shows what he needs to show to get his point across, which is the proper positions against the lesser ones.

 

Now, if you simply want to disregard what he's saying, that's another choice, and yours to make.

 

But to say that a physical therapist's opinion is incorrect because he's out of shape? Pretty weak. When I want back advice, I'll go with the therapist, not the guy sending him all of his patients.

 

Just saying...

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

 

 

I never said his words were wrong. He was 100% correct in what he was saying, but was not able to show what the position looked like. I think if he had been in better shape, he would have looked like tiger, rory or any of the others guys you oppose.

 

Aaronpaige if you think he would agree with them, then you didn't watch the video. He distinctly says to bend from the hips using the glutes and buttocks to counter-weight, keeping the posture more erect and the spine neutral, which is not what the modern stance is. It's the complete opposite. What it is, is exactly how I would say I stand - erect, tilting the spine slightly while keeping it neutral, using the glutes and buttocks to counter-weigh the incline.

 

But I'll agree to disagree, no point in going back and forth over it. Have a good one.

 

Peace,

 

DJ Watts

 

You're confusing hip flexion and spinal flexion. The modern swing has more bend at the HIP than the old one does. That's the whole point of this discussion. Somehow you have to get your weight on your midfoot, away from your heels, like they would be if you just stood straight up. So the two primary ways we are talking about are a) Straight(er) spine, and more bend at the hips- modern and b) less bend at the hips and more spinal flexion. Keeping the posture more erect is accomplished with straightening the spine and bending at the hip. When referring to erect, that's referring to the spine angle, not keeping the hips angle more erect(as in the old address). The things you posted from his video support the modern position in my opinion.

 

Sorry to disagree - bending from the hips means keeping the legs passive. When you start seeing wide stances and forward leaning spines, especially the big knee bend - that's bending at the waist. Letting your head move forward and the buttocks back is bending from the hips, because that's exactly what's in play.

 

Part of the problem is that you see what you want to see. We'll agree to disagree.

 

Best,

 

DJ Watts

[DJ Watts]

[quote name='Aaronpaige' timestamp='1392580063' post='8680483']
DJWatts,


I think your misinterpreting how Tiger and Rory are getting into this position. They are not forcing anything, they are simply hinging from the hips, just like Jack did.

They are getting into a comfortable position. None of the above players manipulated muscles by contorting anything. Thats how their body felt balanced.
[/quote]

Now you're saying that Tiger and Rory swing the same way as Jack?

Have a great day, hopefully we'll speak again.

Best,

DJ Watts