Confessions 12 --- Exploding Heads

[Reasonability]

Good feedback.

 

I'll come back to your comments specifically as others weigh in. There may be many who won't touch this topic (lol) If it's just us mushrooms - no prob.. Not against what you laid down there. Not 100% sure I see HOW the shaft and trail forearm end up in such alignment while STILL being on the same plane as the lead arm but I owe it a couple of re-reads. We both may be much closer on that point than I think at this point.

 

Now - as I call it a day...

 

This subject has a VERY elegant and simple answer (IMO). And absolutely there is a roadmap to it that' is pretty simple and actionable.

 

BUT... NOT everyone wants to explain it in concrete and actionable terms - Some seen determined to actually complicate it from where I sit. What's more - there are definitely those who would say that it IS important to have a flatter DS plane than was true taking the club up..

 

Examples:

 

I'm sure this fella said something. I don't know what he said but I feel pretty sure the speakers on my laptop were making a sound. I hope he discovers caffeine at some point soon in his life. And hey - I'm completely capable of missing a man's point or being too thick to understand some things. Anyway - here is another take on swing planes. Hope it helps someone go out there tomorrow and play better golf....

 

 

 

And then there's this guy.

 

 

Man makes a lot of sense, right? Actually suggests something actionable and gives some specifics as to how to addressing certain ball flights with a specific fix.

 

But notice - he is actually saying the club should be altered in plane with purpose.

 

I cut this guy a little slack cause he's serving a way of THINKING about a correction to a particular swing flaw. But that slack being given - he does seem to my ear he suggest a GOOD swing is flatter on the way down than it was on the way up. Isn't that what he says?.

 

I maintain the better swing is NOT flatter in the DS. It LOOKS that way from DTL.

 

Am I wrong? Cause if that last fella is right - I'm just wrong. We (you and I) both are.

 

I will go as far as to say that swing where the golfer is improving is not flatting out as much as the man says. It's APPEARING to be flatter two-dimensionally..

[Reasonability]

BTW -

 

I can prove what I'm tossing around here... lol.

 

Have only orbited all around it - but that part is coming after we see if it's going to be just us mushrooms - which is fine if so. lol. Either there is or isn't a general consensus that the DS plane is (or isn't) flatter in really "good" swings. That "proof" will cause a face-palm or two to those interested.

[Palauan Hammer]

Love the swing discussion and I'm here with my notepad! LOL

 

 

Those questions are way out of my league, I would like to think I know the answer but I don't. I don't try to swing into the ball on a flatter plane in my experience. I just try to swing back down the same way I got there. Don't know if that's right, I'm ever so slightly steep. In my DTL the shaft is just on my forearm not quite dissecting it. Again, don't know if that's correct either LOL

 

I will look forward to soaking in some knowledge though! Fire away when you guys are ready

[Matt J]

I've referenced the book on a few occasions, "Swing Like A Pro" by Ralph Mann and Fred Griffin. They used some of the first computer and film technology to attach hundreds of sensors to over 100 top players, both male and female, in the years leading up to the book's publication in 1998, to analyze positionally where these players are during the golf swing.

 

In essence they determined that the "shallowing" of the golf swing is myth at least as it applies to the game's most successful players.

 

My $.02: (this may or may not really answer your questions Judge)

 

The interplay between Plane, Ball Position, and how exactly we "release the club" largely dictates one thing - PATH.

 

I think you can come from square, slightly OTT, or slightly shallow. The key word being SLIGHTLY.

 

If we pull the club straight back to the ball from the outside then we're going to have a pull tendency. Square usually the same and from the inside, push.

 

All of those can be okay if they're "slight." Usually they work better with a corresponding face angle to bring the ball back to the target i.e. slightly open from outside-to-in and slightly closed for an in-to-out path. Traditionally a player like Nicklaus that had plenty of length in his era will not fight a slightly out-to-in path and open face because a fade or power fade as people like to call it with the GOAT, is easiest to control and IMO usually results in more consistent turf interaction and contact largely due to "using the bounce."

 

An in-to-out move is sought after by the amateur because they need the distance. A lower effective angle of attack and less side spin (draw spin is tougher to create for most golfers) results in longer straighter shots as a rule. I think most draw players rely very heavily on timing to get the best contact and there's the rub. It's tougher under pressure to keep the right tempo.

 

If I had gobs of swing speed or played short layouts exclusively I would probably play a fade. My target distance is 6,900 to 7,000 yards because that's where our state amateur tournaments for my age group are played. I have to hit a draw or find a way to create more swing speed to compete at those distances.

 

Sorry, if that's off topic or not exactly what you were asking. I can't really visualize the positions you're referring to Judge. I don't know if it's from a lack of experience looking at video from the angles you're describing or trying to flip flop it for lefty or what. I do know that I aspire to bring the club back DTL or slightly outside because I need the space to shallow and have better mishits if I'm not coming from a flat position at the top.

[Reasonability]

 

Pause at 1:19 and again at 1:21.

 

Did his shaft change planes or stay on the same plane down from the top. If the latter - why is it now flying through the trail forearm?

 

You can go find this on almost any great ball striker - and you're going to see this apparent look of the shaft changing from the lead arm plane to the trail arm. There's a good chance you do it yourself.

 

HOW is this possible?

 

And btw - on the other side of this one lays the whole bull shizzle about shaft lean - setup - conflicting info ranging from swing in-to-out, swing it to the left (for righties) - handle dragging - over-the-top flatter planes, steeper planes, single plane swings, two-plane swings, casting....

 

Every single bit of all that stuff is nested right here inside of this one single question!

 

Again, it is possible because the position of the lead shoulder is constantly MOVING in relation to where it was at the top and where it is at 1:19 and 1:21. And again in order to set up the unhinging of the wrists and trail elbow along their own same plane going into impact, there is going to be a point where you see this plane on video. And this is exactly what you see at the 1:21 mark. The trail forearm and shaft are on a plane pointing just at the ball or slightly below it. Also note that the plane with the lead forearm is pointing ABOVE the ball at this point.

 

OK - Lets go down your route. So that says the right lead shoulder is the key especially ifwhen correct trail elbow bit is ladled into the mix.

 

And the second bolded statement says he's on his way to a shank or something bad. NO?

 

You and I are actually close to something here Ninja - something we've both worked on before - but I still have something to share and am purposefully holding back a card cause I want to hear you and others unpack this one. There is (in my mind) an entirely different perspective on this. And I apologize in advance to one and all who at this stage of the discussion may be getting weary of my little gamesmanship here.

 

There is another way (maybe not the way others want or like to even view this whole "plane" bit) that in my mind very simply and elegantly explains how the heck a shaft starts off on the same plane as the lead arm somehow ends up in line with the trail arm... and my answer has nothing to do with the lead shoulder per se... there is a strong element of it when it comes to the trail elbow... but it's actually more about a 2D camera perspective AND the way the whole teaching and swing analyst world have WAY over complicated this whole mess.

 

Ham... will be glad to have not only your ear but your thoughts as we go.

 

Matt - You were honest here and I respect that. What I'll encourage you to consider (if you want) - is to move the thought process for just a bit here away from steep and shallow and ask yourself HOW it is possible for a clubshaft to move through the trail arm when it did NOT start off doing so at the top. THEN we can get to angles of attack - yardages - etc. Not censoring you - not condemning your post - not saying for one second you're wrong. You were honest in saying the question on the table is not one you've invested a lot of deep time with. So what I AM saying is if you would - consider only the one question if you're willing and able (or even care to)... HOW does the plane show up on a video - the way it does? Is it a matter of purposeful flattening during the downswing - OR - is it something else?

 

What we have so far - and tell me if I'm putting words in anyone's mouth is this (so far)...

 

A) I haven't really looked specifically at this down-the-line shaft to arms thing but here is how I manage my swing. (which is honest).

 

B) I've now been told twice (lol) that its about a lead arm plane coming in higher with the trail elbow lower and some lead shoulder influences.... while at the same time hearing that ideally - the shaft is always on the same plane as the lead arm.

 

I "think" that's also an honest take and with all due respect -- I don't 100% line up with HOW the lead shoulder and trail elbow stand as THE way it works on camera - or clearly explain why a shank or a hand-flip through impact would not be the result given the explanation presented. But I could be missing something and inferring things. For sure what I'm going for has not yet been stated.

 

LMAO - pardon the way I'm going at this one guys. I'm not "playing" you. I would simply prefer knowing if I see the answer to this one central quest incredibly differently than the instructor in that video. (whom btw I've given some cred to but feel even HE missed the mark).. And so far the answers given are not honing in on the solution in a way that 100% lines up with how I personally see it. Most importantly - the perspective I have on this one leads straight into SO many issues. Matt went at one of them - namely steep vs shallow AoA... but (no offense Matt) in the process he (honestly) owned suggests he's not really looked at this one question first, before seeking answers as to how the swing should work. And that's fine! I'm asserting here that he MAY have skipped a step in his own search and it would be nested right HERE.

 

I commit to laying down where old Judge sees all this at some point today and put an end to this little business of keeping one card face down. Just want to give it a fraction more time to see if any others care to go straight at offering another perspective to that ONE and only ONE (for now) key question. Thanks for the inputs so far. We may be closer than we think - maybe not. We may end up rationalizing and saying "that's exactly what I was trying to say all along" - maybe not. But I have yet to hear to my satisfaction a fully clear reason for HOW the shaft appears to change planes that lines up with my thinking - at least not quite.

 

Once I play the final card - will there be disagreement to it?

 

Welcome to the deep dive! .

[Michael C.]

External rotation of the trail shoulder.

[Reasonability]

External rotation of the trail shoulder.

 

Excellent - yet a new and different take on HOW the shaft flies (as seen) DTL through the trail forearm... a very purposeful "action" causes it in this case.

 

Love the input!

[DeNinny]

Reason, my point about the lead shoulder was ONLY based on how it dynamically changes the perspective of the plane of the lead arm and shaft, so it is hard to "fix" this plane in relation to the trail forearm and shaft plane.

 

I can expand on your reply even more later tonight. But if you want to play your card now, I have no issue. Just saying that I may be able to 'derive' what you are getting at if you wait.

[mdgboxx]

Rode the dingy to open a potential can or two of worms. Could be these two subjects find their way into deeper discussion and it could be no one cares to touch either with a ten foot pole. We shall soon know, won't we?

 

First -

 

Sorry for asking you to read and scroll - but the heart and soul of my first can of worms is a chart included in the following about shaft length.

 

http://www.golfalot....des/shafts.aspx

 

I suppose it would've been easier to just post the chart but this way you can see what I saw and where this came from. Now...the old Ping fitting charts are not new. They have always relied on this wrist-to-floor bit from day one. And the chart in this article is no big revelation either to many who have been around their own game and spent much time dabbling with fittings.

 

The question is... what say you fellas about how close this chart comes to NAILING it for the length of your 5 iron?????

 

The next can of worms is swing related - coming up next as I need a moment to write it up.

 

All answers to this shaft length biz is fair game btw - All I'm asking is if the sticks you game are dead on with this chart and do such charts really matter (or not)? Fire at will.

 

IMHO, this debate (if it is indeed a legitimate debate) raises more questions than true, black/white answers.

 

When I stumbled upon the Pursuit m510, Gigagolf site, I first compared their eFitting Chart to my specs, that I have from PING. The results are identical. IMO, it adds credibility to Gigagolf.

 

1) Your chart (link)

33-34 inches = 5i @ 37.5" /// 35-36 inches = 5i @ 38" /// etc.

 

Wrist to floor is 34.5 inches --------- Do I use 34" or 35" ?

 

2) Do I measure with shoes on (= +3/4") or barefoot (= 0" or -3/4") ?

 

3) There's that anti-slip bulge on the butt of the grip, forcing me to grip down at least 1/2". Do I ignore it or add to the final shaft length ?

 

4) Are there specific standards for length and flex of iron shafts ?

 

TBH, my last questions would be: "Where're you going with this"? "What, exactly, are you looking for"?

 

If you're looking for an opinion, then I don't have one. I let the Ping rep figure it out for himself, using his own competent expertise along with Flitescope/Trackman and the "Lie impact board" and "Impact tape".

[mdgboxx]

 

Pause at 1:19 and again at 1:21.

 

Did his shaft change planes or stay on the same plane down from the top. If the latter - why is it now flying through the trail forearm?

 

You can go find this on almost any great ball striker - and you're going to see this apparent look of the shaft changing from the lead arm plane to the trail arm. There's a good chance you do it yourself.

 

HOW is this possible?

 

And btw - on the other side of this one lays the whole bull shizzle about shaft lean - setup - conflicting info ranging from swing in-to-out, swing it to the left (for righties) - handle dragging - over-the-top flatter planes, steeper planes, single plane swings, two-plane swings, casting....

 

Every single bit of all that stuff is nested right here inside of this one single question!

 

What jumped out at me in that video, happens at 0:05 sec.

 

The camera clearly moves to the right. It starts directly behind the ball, then moves directly behind an old sand filled divot, ±12" in front of the tee box.

 

Could it be that our view of DTL is, now, somewhat distorted ? --------Reasonable Doubt ?----------

[Reasonability]

Rode the dingy to open a potential can or two of worms. Could be these two subjects find their way into deeper discussion and it could be no one cares to touch either with a ten foot pole. We shall soon know, won't we?

 

First -

 

Sorry for asking you to read and scroll - but the heart and soul of my first can of worms is a chart included in the following about shaft length.

 

http://www.golfalot....des/shafts.aspx

 

I suppose it would've been easier to just post the chart but this way you can see what I saw and where this came from. Now...the old Ping fitting charts are not new. They have always relied on this wrist-to-floor bit from day one. And the chart in this article is no big revelation either to many who have been around their own game and spent much time dabbling with fittings.

 

The question is... what say you fellas about how close this chart comes to NAILING it for the length of your 5 iron?????

 

The next can of worms is swing related - coming up next as I need a moment to write it up.

 

All answers to this shaft length biz is fair game btw - All I'm asking is if the sticks you game are dead on with this chart and do such charts really matter (or not)? Fire at will.

 

IMHO, this debate (if it is indeed a legitimate debate) raises more questions than true, black/white answers.

 

When I stumbled upon the Pursuit m510, Gigagolf site, I first compared their eFitting Chart to my specs, that I have from PING. The results are identical. IMO, it adds credibility to Gigagolf.

 

1) Your chart (link)

33-34 inches = 5i @ 37.5" /// 35-36 inches = 5i @ 38" /// etc.

 

Wrist to floor is 34.5 inches --------- Do I use 34" or 35" ?

 

2) Do I measure with shoes on (= +3/4") or barefoot (= 0" or -3/4") ?

 

3) There's that anti-slip bulge on the butt of the grip, forcing me to grip down at least 1/2". Do I ignore it or add to the final shaft length ?

 

4) Are there specific standards for length and flex of iron shafts ?

 

TBH, my last questions would be: "Where're you going with this"? "What, exactly, are you looking for"?

 

If you're looking for an opinion, then I don't have one. I let the Ping rep figure it out for himself, using his own competent expertise along with Flitescope/Trackman and the "Lie impact board" and "Impact tape".

 

I'm sorry (sincerely) for not being clear as to where I'm going with this my good friend. And FWIW I completely agree that a true fitting is WAY more that just a measurement from the wrist to the floor - so your point about impact tape and deeper work would indeed be in order.

 

Where I'm going with this...basically comes down to this. The old wrist to floor thing is ONE indicator. Was simply wondering who would look at such a chart and concur with what was printed as actually applicable to what they game...or not. That's all it was about.

 

I rather assumed some would say "Wow - I never really felt my clubs fit me and this may have helped confirm that." OR... "That whole wrist-to-floor crap almost ruined my game in the past and I NEVER look into such things gong forward.". Seemed like a can of worms subject like so many things related to golf equipment. It does apply for me btw cause I'm a taller fella but was not given really long arms to match. So for yours truly - what's in that chart 5-iron-wise would in fact apply to me. As to being borderline or between some of the graduated steps on the chart...Heck I dunno! I assume you'd split the difference and look at something in 1/4" rather than 1/2" increments? You got me on that one.

[mdgboxx]

Good feedback.

 

I'll come back to your comments specifically as others weigh in. There may be many who won't touch this topic (lol) If it's just us mushrooms - no prob.. Not against what you laid down there. Not 100% sure I see HOW the shaft and trail forearm end up in such alignment while STILL being on the same plane as the lead arm but I owe it a couple of re-reads. We both may be much closer on that point than I think at this point.

 

Now - as I call it a day...

 

This subject has a VERY elegant and simple answer (IMO). And absolutely there is a roadmap to it that' is pretty simple and actionable.

 

BUT... NOT everyone wants to explain it in concrete and actionable terms - Some seen determined to actually complicate it from where I sit. What's more - there are definitely those who would say that it IS important to have a flatter DS plane than was true taking the club up..

 

Examples:

 

I'm sure this fella said something. I don't know what he said but I feel pretty sure the speakers on my laptop were making a sound. I hope he discovers caffeine at some point soon in his life. And hey - I'm completely capable of missing a man's point or being too thick to understand some things. Anyway - here is another take on swing planes. Hope it helps someone go out there tomorrow and play better golf....

 

 

 

And then there's this guy.

 

 

Man makes a lot of sense, right? Actually suggests something actionable and gives some specifics as to how to addressing certain ball flights with a specific fix.

 

But notice - he is actually saying the club should be altered in plane with purpose.

 

I cut this guy a little slack cause he's serving a way of THINKING about a correction to a particular swing flaw. But that slack being given - he does seem to my ear he suggest a GOOD swing is flatter on the way down than it was on the way up. Isn't that what he says?.

 

I maintain the better swing is NOT flatter in the DS. It LOOKS that way from DTL.

 

Am I wrong? Cause if that last fella is right - I'm just wrong. We (you and I) both are.

 

I will go as far as to say that swing where the golfer is improving is not flatting out as much as the man says. It's APPEARING to be flatter two-dimensionally..

 

I tried but couldn't connect with Craig Hanson. My ears refused to listen, I had this sudden urge for liquid relief....And I did. :taunt:

 

Robin Symes, however, got my attention. When I translate to my lessons, I was instructed to keep my trail bicep in contact with my chest as much as possible. Inevitably, my lead elbow points at/inside the ball and my hips engage before my upper body and the club is pointing at the ball, half way through the downswing.

 

It reminded me of all those videos, where a whole slew of guru instructors suggest that I put a glove under my trail arm pit.

[Reasonability]

 

Pause at 1:19 and again at 1:21.

 

Did his shaft change planes or stay on the same plane down from the top. If the latter - why is it now flying through the trail forearm?

 

You can go find this on almost any great ball striker - and you're going to see this apparent look of the shaft changing from the lead arm plane to the trail arm. There's a good chance you do it yourself.

 

HOW is this possible?

 

And btw - on the other side of this one lays the whole bull shizzle about shaft lean - setup - conflicting info ranging from swing in-to-out, swing it to the left (for righties) - handle dragging - over-the-top flatter planes, steeper planes, single plane swings, two-plane swings, casting....

 

Every single bit of all that stuff is nested right here inside of this one single question!

 

What jumped out at me in that video, happens at 0:05 sec.

 

The camera clearly moves to the right. It starts directly behind the ball, then moves directly behind an old sand filled divot, ±12" in front of the tee box.

 

Could it be that our view of DTL is, now, somewhat distorted ? --------Reasonable Doubt ?----------

 

I like the way you think - but in this case I saw Rory's swing multiple times and the indications were it was more than one swing - as happens during practice rounds and such. And I would say if we picked any other decent golfer and made 100% sure the camera angle remained constant and that the golfer did not move around left, right, forward or back from swing to swing - that we could still this shaft plane "flattening" thing occurring over and over from one video to the next. The Rory swing was honestly (hand up) the first one I grabbed and sure enough it was there. Could have snagged a dozen more - and it would be there.

 

You can YouTube this subject of the DS being "flatter".... Many espouse the value of it. Hank Haney did a series on the Golf Channel with Ray Romano being the student - to which over and over again Hank wanted Ray to "make a loop" at the top which would get the shaft to lay down flatter on the DS. (again - Hank was trying to get Ray to correct a fault so that whole "loop" business may have been an instructor's trick to get old Ray to fix his flatter shaft going back followed by vertical shaft in the DS - so perhaps Hank need to be given credit here for applying a teaching technique more so that espousing the DS MUST be flatter. I dunno but that is plausible.

 

But there is no denying that it appears to happen in better swings on video - and no denying we keep getting caught up in what constitutes "shallow" - and the video evidence seems to support that laying that shaft down on a flatter plane from the top and back down to the ball - is needed.

 

Or... is it?

 

I say it's been so overcomplicated and riddled with "shallow and steep" stuff - no one can figure out something much simpler and way more actionable than it's become. The camera is not lying - but we are missing an important and simple point when we view it --- and by simply missing the one simple issue tied to it - the whole world has seeming been pulled over a cliff where the "trick" to a golf swing is to shallow it by manipulating something to cause it.

 

Ninja - no offense about the shoulder bit! Hope it wasn't taken as an admonishment that I'm right and you're some lost boob in this. What you'll soon hear is that I 100% agree with so much of what you said - a couple of things Matt and others said, too. But there is a piece of this puzzle (for those curious enough to figure it out) where the world of those drawing two lines up from the golfer and analyzing it - those same folks who then SO OFTEN espouse a purposeful manipulation of the club to generate in-to-out or more shallow of an AoA... are in my book using the wrong visual to get us there. They have not only done so - but they have added a massive amount of confusion to something that ends up making many folks on their quest confused and likely playing worse than would have been the case otherwise.

 

More to come... Need to step away for a haircut and dinner. Maybe others will weight in on this deep dive in the meantime.

 

Three things are true (amazingly) at the same time.

 

A) Things do not always look as they actually are from one camera angle.

B) Despite "A" above the camera is not lying - we are just misinterpreting it.

C) The analysts and many gurus have missed it when it comes to both A and B which has caused many-o-golfer to be mislead into manipulating and complicating the swing WAY more than need be...which in the end would make for poorer ball strikers rather than better ones.

 

I'll lob a "D" situation out there and have eluded to it a couple of times already. Sometimes the instructor MIGHT know better than what he is saying - but plants a thought or drill in the golfer's mind to help him change... so it's plausible that certain YouTubes or instruction is more about change management and teaching techniques than actual fact just to illicit a response from the student. That one plausible. BUT there is also a great many folks preaching the DS plane should in fact be flattened and using the WRONG video imagery to support their point - thereby making what could have been a very good golfer a poor one.

[Fellaheen51]

Like you Reason, I'm a taller fellow with longish legs and shorter arms (6'3", 38.5" WTF). Early on in my club building days, was getting conflicting info on "correct" build length. Took a composite from several sources to ascertain a suitable build length. Like Mdg, I was confused by the recommendation. I'm a tweener, so do I go +/- .5" with the measurement? In general, opt for a longer length as I dislike any sensation of feeling bent over in my setup posture (i.e reaching for the ball). At the 39" WTF, the table is consistent with my 7i build length of 38.0". There is always a certain amount of alchemy involved, balancing length, lies, reasonable SW numbers, often working with "as found" used clubs, that requires a certain amount of experimentation. WTF is a decent starting point, because if I don't get the length right first, all else doesn't really matter. Always measured with your golf shoes on.

 

Points of comparison. The Ping nFlight web fitting puts me at Maroon dot +1/2" (?). An actual Ping fitting (no trackman, that was an extra charge) at the LGS while purchasing the i20's put me in Silver dot +1.25". Don't know if he was Ping "certified" or just store certified. I was naive about the entire ping methodology and didn't ask many questions during the process. Even though confirmed by the lie board, in the wild, out on the course, always had a tendency towards the lefts. Sent them back to Ping this winter, based on nothing more than intuition, had them bent to Green dot (+2.25* from standard). Based on ball flight as the only indicator, that's the correct setup. Length remained constant. My swing had evolved.

 

With a couple of recent acquisitions, after extensions were installed, built with 3/8" progressions off the 9 iron moving down thru the set (.25" PW > GW > SW). Does make the 6 iron and 5 iron a little more manageable with the slightly shorter length IMHO. Something of a preliminary exercise with the idea of doing a MOI build next off-season. Something that PD has discussed (and elsewhere around WRX).

 

In general, I remain a full fitting skeptic. Or Luddite. To my thinking, one could conceivably obtain differing results based on the "when" of a fitting. During the season, winter months when one hasn't swung a club for awhile? On the day of the fitting, which swing am I going to have? I tend to get somewhat nervous (self conscious?) when I'm outside of my golfing comfort zone. A trackman fitting would most definitely qualify as being outside of my zone. And what is the evaluation environment? Am I inside hitting in a bay with a net 20 feet in front of me? Or outside, in the wild, hitting off of grass. Feeling the club interaction with turf. Have a hard time believing that someone that doesn't know me from Adam, never has viewed my swing, can in one hours time (and $150.00) determine what is suitable. Just seems that there has to be some form of evaluation period and to some degree, trial and error, to reach a final destination of a fully fitted, correct set of irons. Not to mention the ulterior motive of a LGS is to sell you new clubs. Its not about the money, its the amount.

 

Lastly, you may have seen this in tech, maybe not. Some interesting ideas about length, lie and "geometric optimization" of a iron set being discussed in the following thread. Won't attempt to explain it, beyond my verbiage capabilities. Perhaps Ninz will offer insight at some point. But seems to have some degree of merit.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1282794-optimize-your-set-with-the-clubmakers-calculator-major-update/page__pid__13562180#entry13562180

 

BTW, much improved ball striking today during the range session. Simplify, tempo being keys. May get around to posting about it in the grille latter.

 

Translation of DTL please. Down the line?

[mdgboxx]

 

Pause at 1:19 and again at 1:21.

 

Did his shaft change planes or stay on the same plane down from the top. If the latter - why is it now flying through the trail forearm?

 

You can go find this on almost any great ball striker - and you're going to see this apparent look of the shaft changing from the lead arm plane to the trail arm. There's a good chance you do it yourself.

 

HOW is this possible?

 

And btw - on the other side of this one lays the whole bull shizzle about shaft lean - setup - conflicting info ranging from swing in-to-out, swing it to the left (for righties) - handle dragging - over-the-top flatter planes, steeper planes, single plane swings, two-plane swings, casting....

 

Every single bit of all that stuff is nested right here inside of this one single question!

 

What jumped out at me in that video, happens at 0:05 sec.

 

The camera clearly moves to the right. It starts directly behind the ball, then moves directly behind an old sand filled divot, ±12" in front of the tee box.

 

Could it be that our view of DTL is, now, somewhat distorted ? --------Reasonable Doubt ?----------

 

I like the way you think - but in this case I saw Rory's swing multiple times and the indications were it was more than one swing - as happens during practice rounds and such. And I would say if we picked any other decent golfer and made 100% sure the camera angle remained constant and that the golfer did not move around left, right, forward or back from swing to swing - that we could still this shaft plane "flattening" thing occurring over and over from one video to the next. The Rory swing was honestly (hand up) the first one I grabbed and sure enough it was there. Could have snagged a dozen more - and it would be there.

 

You can YouTube this subject of the DS being "flatter".... Many espouse the value of it. Hank Haney did a series on the Golf Channel with Ray Romano being the student - to which over and over again Hank wanted Ray to "make a loop" at the top which would get the shaft to lay down flatter on the DS. (again - Hank was trying to get Ray to correct a fault so that whole "loop" business may have been an instructor's trick to get old Ray to fix his flatter shaft going back followed by vertical shaft in the DS - so perhaps Hank need to be given credit here for applying a teaching technique more so that espousing the DS MUST be flatter. I dunno but that is plausible.

 

But there is no denying that it appears to happen in better swings on video - and no denying we keep getting caught up in what constitutes "shallow" - and the video evidence seems to support that laying that shaft down on a flatter plane from the top and back down to the ball - is needed.

 

Or... is it?

 

I say it's been so overcomplicated and riddled with "shallow and steep" stuff - no one can figure out something much simpler and way more actionable than it's become. The camera is not lying - but we are missing an important and simple point when we view it --- and by simply missing the one simple issue tied to it - the whole world has seeming been pulled over a cliff where the "trick" to a golf swing is to shallow it by manipulating something to cause it.

 

Ninja - no offense about the shoulder bit! Hope it wasn't taken as an admonishment that I'm right and you're some lost boob in this. What you'll soon hear is that I 100% agree with so much of what you said - a couple of things Matt and others said, too. But there is a piece of this puzzle (for those curious enough to figure it out) where the world of those drawing two lines up from the golfer and analyzing it - those same folks who then SO OFTEN espouse a purposeful manipulation of the club to generate in-to-out or more shallow of an AoA... are in my book using the wrong visual to get us there. They have not only done so - but they have added a massive amount of confusion to something that ends up making many folks on their quest confused and likely playing worse than would have been the case otherwise.

 

More to come... Need to step away for a haircut and dinner. Maybe others will weight in on this deep dive in the meantime.

 

Three things are true (amazingly) at the same time.

 

A) Things do not always look as they actually are from one camera angle.

B) Despite "A" above the camera is not lying - we are just misinterpreting it.

C) The analysts and many gurus have missed it when it comes to both A and B which has caused many-o-golfer to be mislead into manipulating and complicating the swing WAY more than need be...which in the end would make for poorer ball strikers rather than better ones.

 

I'll lob a "D" situation out there and have eluded to it a couple of times already. Sometimes the instructor MIGHT know better than what he is saying - but plants a thought or drill in the golfer's mind to help him change... so it's plausible that certain YouTubes or instruction is more about change management and teaching techniques than actual fact just to illicit a response from the student. That one plausible. BUT there is also a great many folks preaching the DS plane should in fact be flattened and using the WRONG video imagery to support their point - thereby making what could have been a very good golfer a poor one.

 

In the mid 90's, when I was first introduced to golf, I would sometimes see remnants of the pre-calculated, drawn on paper, and soon after, the new internet ways of teaching.

 

Do you remember those "HUGE" slanted circle frames? I assume they were 8+ feet tall.

 

http://www.freepaten...om/3583707.html

 

I've never tried one, although I wanted to, but it was explained to me that, in those days, lol, coaches would teach by ""feel"".

 

The student, after being taught a proper grip and posture, would stand inside the circle and hone in his swing by trying to make a full swing, assisted by the coach, while keeping his club away from the frame. Any mistake would result in an immediate feedback. Screeeechhh, Clunk. LMAO

 

The student would quickly learn what NOT TO DO, allowing a better swing to rise to the surface. (FEEL)

[Palauan Hammer]

Fella, yes DTL is "Down the Line"

 

Perhaps the laying down thing is from the wrists and starting the downswing with the lower body?? IDK LOL Me Hammer, me hit ball make go hole :taunt:

 

 

Edit: I would thing with fitting it would always be better to err on the side of "longer" because at least you can choke down. That's if you we're fitting yourself. I personally play standard length. I'm 6'0" , I don't know my wrist to floor. Lie angle for me is 1* up.

[Reasonability]

Like you Reason, I'm a taller fellow with longish legs and shorter arms (6'3", 38.5" WTF). Early on in my club building days, was getting conflicting info on "correct" build length. Took a composite from several sources to ascertain a suitable build length. Like Mdg, I was confused by the recommendation. I'm a tweener, so do I go +/- .5" with the measurement? In general, opt for a longer length as I dislike any sensation of feeling bent over in my setup posture (i.e reaching for the ball). At the 39" WTF, the table is consistent with my 7i build length of 38.0". There is always a certain amount of alchemy involved, balancing length, lies, reasonable SW numbers, often working with "as found" used clubs, that requires a certain amount of experimentation. WTF is a decent starting point, because if I don't get the length right first, all else doesn't really matter. Always measured with your golf shoes on.

 

Points of comparison. The Ping nFlight web fitting puts me at Maroon dot +1/2" (?). An actual Ping fitting (no trackman, that was an extra charge) at the LGS while purchasing the i20's put me in Silver dot +1.25". Don't know if he was Ping "certified" or just store certified. I was naive about the entire ping methodology and didn't ask many questions during the process. Even though confirmed by the lie board, in the wild, out on the course, always had a tendency towards the lefts. Sent them back to Ping this winter, based on nothing more than intuition, had them bent to Green dot (+2.25* from standard). Based on ball flight as the only indicator, that's the correct setup. Length remained constant. My swing had evolved.

 

With a couple of recent acquisitions, after extensions were installed, built with 3/8" progressions off the 9 iron moving down thru the set (.25" PW > GW > SW). Does make the 6 iron and 5 iron a little more manageable with the slightly shorter length IMHO. Something of a preliminary exercise with the idea of doing a MOI build next off-season. Something that PD has discussed (and elsewhere around WRX).

 

In general, I remain a full fitting skeptic. Or Luddite. To my thinking, one could conceivably obtain differing results based on the "when" of a fitting. During the season, winter months when one hasn't swung a club for awhile? On the day of the fitting, which swing am I going to have? I tend to get somewhat nervous (self conscious?) when I'm outside of my golfing comfort zone. A trackman fitting would most definitely qualify as being outside of my zone. And what is the evaluation environment? Am I inside hitting in a bay with a net 20 feet in front of me? Or outside, in the wild, hitting off of grass. Feeling the club interaction with turf. Have a hard time believing that someone that doesn't know me from Adam, never has viewed my swing, can in one hours time (and $150.00) determine what is suitable. Just seems that there has to be some form of evaluation period and to some degree, trial and error, to reach a final destination of a fully fitted, correct set of irons. Not to mention the ulterior motive of a LGS is to sell you new clubs. Its not about the money, its the amount.

 

Lastly, you may have seen this in tech, maybe not. Some interesting ideas about length, lie and "geometric optimization" of a iron set being discussed in the following thread. Won't attempt to explain it, beyond my verbiage capabilities. Perhaps Ninz will offer insight at some point. But seems to have some degree of merit.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry13562180

 

BTW, much improved ball striking today during the range session. Simplify, tempo being keys. May get around to posting about it in the grille latter.

 

Translation of DTL please. Down the line?

 

Rarely if ever - have I personally related so much to a single post. Every last word on that page is something I've personally come to deeply relate to.

 

Thank you for not allowing a fellow confessor feel alone in his ambivalent notions about his physical proportions - the fitting process - etc. You just wrote a single post that sums up the better part of the last year of my journey. And I agree - the length of a shaft is only one issue but when you're built like we are - it's a monster issue. Off the rack clubs? We can't ever truly experience them can we? And when we try - we end up bent way over - hands in some goofy forward press, confused and conflicted in our swings - find it difficult to finish a complete backswing - tired and worn out at a level leaving us wondering if we've contracted some strange ailment - and the list goes on. Then when we extend the shafts - we know we are messing with the swing weights and moving the bend points on the shafts farther away from our hands meaning the potential for balloon shots might come knocking. Then to you point - what is the right progression from shortest to longest in all this? We read everywhere that adding much more than 3/4" to most (whatever the heck "most" means) OEM clubs is some sort of tipping point where we're still safe without ruining the club's performance. Like you - what if I like a set of clubs that need a full 1" or even more?

 

Not sure I will read another post soon that so resonates with me personally Fella. LOL - none of this puts us in some special pity-party club. Lots of golfers have had to work long and hard to find their way through this fitting stuff - and lots have the good fortune of just being proportioned in ways that are middle of the road but none-the-less have worked long and hard to get their equipment tuned up and spec'd to their personal liking. So you and I are not really "special" in that sense... but just wanted you to know I so deeply related to the way you laid that one down. Word for word I read it wondering if I had written it myself. You summed it up beautifully. Like all those who have paid their dues on this stuff - our perseverance despite the ambivalence and body types seems to get us through it all in the end. (lol - I do however wish I could walk into a store and test clubs with at least some assurance the length bit didn't enter into it. But it is what it is. I just hold them on the end of the handle and hit them off the little rubber tee and hope that gives me at least some sense of what I like - What else can we do, right?)

[Reasonability]

Turning the last card up here. And I don't expect everyone to agree so flame it to your heart's content.

 

The missing element in all this comes from something you can prove on your own - with the help of a reflective window or tall skinny closet mirror. I will explain the way you can prove it for yourself in a bit in case you want for yourself to witness it for yourself.

 

We so often see from down-the-line two lines drawn. One is the "shaft" plane and it mirrors the plane of the shaft at address. Then growing up out of the ground at the ball - we see the line that extends up through the shoulders. So we watch the video and a guru tells us that club needs to be on or above the flatter (shaft plane) line at all times - OR - on or below the shoulder plane line. And for golfers operating somewhere in between the two - then we are told that golfer is doing really well.

 

Here is where the logic of all this gets complicated and messy - WAY more messy than it needs to be.

 

We are told that lower shaft plane line is where great impacts are born - and that the trail forearm and shaft lining up together about halfway down is ideal. So that becomes actual teachings and video aimed at getting us to flatten that shaft or "lay it down" to make sure this effect happens.

 

I say we can make it happen with no manipulation - and in fact can cause it to happen by trying to NOT make it lay down or do anything to manipulate it. In fact we can take out that nonsense of laying it down on a flatter DS plane - purposefully try NOT doing so - and the camera will absolutely show us that it happens anyway.

 

What I'm serving up here - is that the camera from down-the-line will indicate we flattened the DS plane when if fact - we DIDN'T.

 

The next post will show you at home how to prove it for yourself...

[Reasonability]

You need a reflection of yourself - to do this...

 

A cheapy little full length closet mirror - or a widow where there's enough of a reflection to come close enough to being a mirror will do.

 

Little quick caveat - just go with me on the fact I speak of flat lead wrists at the top rather than having it bowed like Dustin Johnson up there. Assume (just humor me for now) that you arrive at the top with the upper back a touch farther from target than you lower back and that your weight is into your trail leg and heel. We can nit-pick that stuff and HOW to swing it back later.

 

Now - here is what you do...

 

Rather than worry about how to swing it up there reliably and consistently (yet)... just manufacture this pose at the top of the backswing:

 

A) Fairly straight lead arm (not all locked up and tense and certainly not bent like a spaghetti noodle

B) Lead arm looks in the mirror placed down-the-line to be pointing back down to or just above the ball and target line.

C) Lead forearm is resting on a line just about even with or a fraction above the trail shoulder (in the mirror)

D) Lead wrist is flat

E) If the leading edge of the clubface up there is not parallel to the back of the lead hand and wrist - just twirl the club in you hands up there until it is. This gets you "square" at the top versus the club being shut (clubface pointing up to the sky) or open (toe of the club hanging straight down).

F) Trail elbow basically under the hands and handle which means the trail forearm is close to vertical

G) The shaft is very close to being parallel to the target line. The shaft is not point across the target line nor is it pointing to the pull side of the target by much.

H) Remember the caveats - The flat lead wrist means there is a bend in the back of your trail wrist. Your shoulders have turned past the ball and therefore you hips would have responded automatically and be turned about half as much. Make sure your shoulders turned perpendicularly to your address spine - rather than having rotated level to the horizon with the lead shoulder crashing up hard into the lead side of you face.

 

We are manufacturing the pose above for now and will study in in the mirror. Not swing to that pose.

 

Now that checklist sounds like a mess, right?

 

Just strike the pose with a mirror or reflective glass with as many of those little check marks as you can get yourself into and take a good long look at that down-the-line reflection.

 

CRITICAL!!!! Really soak in the notion that a line extends right down from the lead arm to the ball - That shaft and lead arm are up thee sitting on the same exact "plane" -- and the line of that plane extends right back down to the ball. Call that whatever plane you want to call it... the shoulder plane - the swing plane - the Hogan plane - who cares (lol) call the freak'n thing Fred for all it matters.

 

Now as you look in that mirror - think of that lead arm, both hands, the "set" both wrists are in, the shaft - consider all that one solid and unitized "structure"... as though it really doesn't have any hinges or joints or opportunities for it to change. In SLOW MO - move that whole one-piece structure now in one unitized piece.

 

BY TURNING - your shoulders and hips ONLY - turn to a point about halfway to 3/4 of the way down to the ball. DO NOT cast uncock the wrists one iota. Move that whole structure in one piece and get it moving right in front of the chest and turning with the chest. Do NOT dump the shaft to lead arm angle and do NOT start to even slightly flatten the trail wrist out at all.. And yes (to DeNinn's earlier point) move that structure so that the trail elbow is getting in front of that trail side hip in the process but do NOT quite yet start alerting the hands or even remotely think of dumping and angles or throwing anything toward the ball - YET.

 

Where is the shaft? Where is the lead arm heading?

 

Your lead arm MAY well be looking a bit like its flying a touch out in front of the target line. That shaft will be either between the forearms - or - already laying right through the trail forearm.

 

You DID NOT lay that shaft down and in fact you did everything in your power NOT to and yet right there in that mirror - it sure looks like you did!!!!!

 

BUT - lets FINISH THIS!

 

KEEP TURNING - AND TURNING - AND TURNING THE MASS IN THE NAME OF SCOTEE!

 

By the time you get to the point that the handle is approaching the zipper and lead thigh area you will be straining so hard your eyes will be bugging out - but the more you open up the body (clear your lead side) the more smoothly you can do this without straining and groaning and hurting yourself, You will finally HAVE to let that shaft-to lead arm angle dump and your trail wrist and elbow will finally just HAVE to begin straightening out . But LOOK right in front of you!!! the clubface is square to the target.

 

So - very slowly and by starting from a pose at the top. You just proved that there is a reason why the camera angle from down-the-line sure makes it look like the shaft is supposed to lay down on a flatter plane in the DS when it merely looks that way. The truth is..,

 

We stand squared up to the ball - shoulders, hips, knees all facing the target line. But at impact we TURNED. the less we TURN the more the hands had to flip and the more likely our path is jacked to hell and back.

 

The trail shoulder has moved toward the ball with a still slightly bent trail wrist and elbow - while the lead side hip and shoulder have already moved well to the pull side of target. What appeared from DTL to be a flattening shaft plane was the effect of the TURN not yet being finished up yet - and since the body at that point had slightly out-turned the arm flow - nothing at all flattened out in the plane... Instead the plane itself was happening with central actor in the middle of it (US) rotating - a process which at the point where the lead arm looks to be on the way to a shank and the shaft looks flatter is simply NOT about to occur. Once the rest of the business of TURNING into impact is completed - all is well.

 

Just stop at that point in the down-the-line mirror where the shaft and lead arm are lining up and turn and face the mirror holing that same pose... You still have a ways to go, right? But on camera - you appear to already have finished up the turning stuff and the rest is all arms. And when that happens - we are STALLING.

 

The down-the-line view obscures the fact we are in a different body position than was true at address - causes to our eye to entirely miss the fact our turning body - not a purposeful act caused it to LOOK like one thing when another dynamic is truly behind it all (yes trail elbow as part of it).... Your mirror just proved it.

 

Bottom line - don't purposefully lay down the shaft. In fact try NOT to. Don't try standing the shaft up either. This is one of those things were we need to take complicated crap out of the swing rather than add more junk to it.

 

As you just proved for yourself in front of a window or mirror - you should try NOT laying it down and just.... here it comes STU...swing the damn thing.

 

Adding goofy manipulations require uncanny timing to get anything good from. JUST SWING IT BACK ON THE SAME PLANE YOU SAW IN THAT MIRROR and DO NOT sweat this phenomenon of how it appears to a camera lens that's seeing only one piece of the story.

 

Now - can a swing be a little flatter back and through and NOT land on the trail shoulder as demonstrated here? Sure! Just ask PD and Matt Kuchar among many others. By virtue of such swings there can tend to be a little more in-to-out path and it can seem (at first) a bit odd to such golfers when they're asked to swing it to the pull side as a swing though to prevent that one).

 

Can the plane be above this demonstrated way of proving in - i.e. higher than above the trail shoulder at the top? You bet! We see barrel chested guys like Craig Stadler and fellas of similar build who just naturally swing it back on a higher plane. They have some little trade-offs and swing thoughts to help them be as consistent as the day is long and it works out just fine.

 

Reason's conclusion - better perhaps to keep it simple and avoid purposeful ways to see this trail-arm and shaft thing as being something to really strive for. Just let it happen as a consequence of your rotation. Cause I can assure you that if you try and get the shaft flying through the trail forearm and you do NOT get that elbow down and turn and clear the lead side...yadda yadda - that all is NOT going to fly better flights. Things will get worse as result.

 

DONE! Blow me up! You've now got all I have on it.

[DeNinny]

Turning the last card up here. And I don't expect everyone to agree so flame it to your heart's content.

 

I think we end up with the same result but our means to conclude it are different.

 

The missing element in all this comes from something you can prove on your own - with the help of a reflective window or tall skinny closet mirror. I will explain the way you can prove it for yourself in a bit in case you want for yourself to witness it for yourself.

 

We so often see from down-the-line two lines drawn. One is the "shaft" plane and it mirrors the plane of the shaft at address. Then growing up out of the ground at the ball - we see the line that extends up through the shoulders. So we watch the video and a guru tells us that club needs to be on or above the flatter (shaft plane) line at all times - OR - on or below the shoulder plane line. And for golfers operating somewhere in between the two - then we are told that golfer is doing really well.

 

These are merely reference lines to me. I kind of think it is obvious that the shaft plane as drawn from address needs to look *close* to that at impact. The difference between impact and address is that centripetal force *may* pull the angle formed between the forearms and shaft a little wider than at address, making the golfers hands, looking DTL, appear above where they were at address.

 

And then the ball to shoulders line again is an obvious bound. It really isn't going to change.

 

To me, the ultimate goal of the swing is energy efficiency so that everything turns without much change to momentum and coupled with this is to have a low swing MOI first in order to generate the centripetal force that will convert to high clubhead speed at the latter part of the downswing. So the ultimate set up for this is to swing with that "average weight" of the entire swing, the arms, hands, and club itself, such that it forms an "orbit" around the center of the swing which is the point between the shoulder sockets. This average weight also falls on a plane that starts just below the ball and passes through the point between the shoulder sockets. Incidentally, this plane falls right between the two reference planes you mentioned before. The reason I put this plane starting just below the ball instead of AT the ball is because again I'm estimating that the "average weight" of the swing needs to account for the mass of the arms and hands that counterbalance the weight of the clubhead, and the plane falls somewhere between these two masses where their "weight" is balanced on either side. (And remember I called this the "DUST" plane in my earlier post to Palauan Hammer.)

 

At the top of the downswing, the club and shaft fall on this DUST plane and you can see when the hands get to the 9 o'clock position (relative to FO perspective) on nearly all swings, the shaft, looking DTL, is pointing to a point just BELOW the ball. Rory's swing is doing this and so are MANY others. It doesn't matter if the golfer has a vertical swing or a flat swing. With the exception of Sergio's swing, there is no flattening of the shaft at the top. At the top, the shaft is set on that DUST plane, and you can tell this because most golfer's hands at the top will fall right on it. Looking DTL at the top, you can draw a plane from the hands and through the center of the shoulder sockets and it will intersect a point just BELOW the ball. And then on the first half of the downswing, before the trail elbow straightens, the golfer merely turns and drops his hands in sync such that the shaft and clubhead, the mass of the entire club, drags behind the hands and travels along this DUST plane.

 

Then when the trail elbow drops to about hip height, the trail arm will finally start to straighten in conjunction with the pull of centripetal force which will cause the shaft and clubhead to start deviating from being directly on the DUST plane. As the trail arm starts straightening, the clubhead starts rotating from parallel to the path to square and goes ABOVE the DUST plane and the rest of the shaft and arms starts going BELOW the DUST plane. It is also precisely at this point, that the shaft and trail forearm are on that "plane" you were mentioning.

 

Here is where the logic of all this gets complicated and messy - WAY more messy than it needs to be.

 

I definitely agree that the logic of using all those other planes and lines makes things complicated and messy.

 

For example, there isn't really a "need" to define the lead arm and shaft plane. That plane is simply formed as an artifact to setting the club on that DUST plane at the top. I misstated this earlier (in that at the top the clubhead and shaft follow the plane of the lead arm...I renege that comment...it is NOT true...), but there is no point in the swing where the lead arm and club and shaft are on the same plane with respect to the swing path. Again, the lead shoulder puts that plane on a rotating arc so it is impossible for it to be considered a "flat" plane. Again, my simple view is that the shaft and clubhead drag behind the HANDS and they are travelling along that DUST plane.

 

We are told that lower shaft plane line is where great impacts are born - and that the trail forearm and shaft lining up together about halfway down is ideal. So that becomes actual teachings and video aimed at getting us to flatten that shaft or "lay it down" to make sure this effect happens.

 

Again, I submit that the ideal is simply because you want to unhinge the trail elbow and wrists along a common plane. The swing has two key hinge points, the point between the shoulder sockets which is the main fulcrum and then there are the wrists which serve as the fulcrum for the club itself. Once that trail elbow starts straightening when it gets to about the trail hip height, the wrists will start to unhinge and also the clubhead starts passing above that DUST plane while also rotating to square. This move alone will "lay down" the shaft since again the rest of the shaft starts following the hands which start passing BELOW the DUST plane.

 

I say we can make it happen with no manipulation - and in fact can cause it to happen by trying to NOT make it lay down or do anything to manipulate it. In fact we can take out that nonsense of laying it down on a flatter DS plane - purposefully try NOT doing so - and the camera will absolutely show us that it happens anyway.

 

I completely agree. And BTW, a lot of these "analysts" are viewing the swing from DTL where it only appears to flatten but really doesn't and this is simply because at the top of the swing the hands are a little to the left (for a right handed swing) of the DTL "center" view perspective, so simply as the downswing starts there is an illusion that the shaft flattens.

 

What I'm serving up here - is that the camera from down-the-line will indicate we flattened the DS plane when if fact - we DIDN'T.

 

The next post will show you at home how to prove it for yourself...

 

I was trying to post this before you played your final card...

[DeNinny]

...

 

Just strike the pose with a mirror or reflective glass with as many of those little check marks as you can get yourself into and take a good long look at that down-the-line reflection.

 

CRITICAL!!!! Really soak in the notion that a line extends right down from the lead arm to the ball - That shaft and lead arm are up thee sitting on the same exact "plane" -- and the line of that plane extends right back down to the ball. Call that whatever plane you want to call it... the shoulder plane - the swing plane - the Hogan plane - who cares (lol) call the freak'n thing Fred for all it matters.

 

Now as you look in that mirror - think of that lead arm, both hands, the "set" both wrists are in, the shaft - consider all that one solid and unitized "structure"... as though it really doesn't have any hinges or joints or opportunities for it to change. In SLOW MO - move that whole one-piece structure now in one unitized piece.

...

 

This is my only bone of contention in what you said. The lead arm, at the top, DOES NOT point at the ball in MANY good swings. It points ABOVE the ball from the DTL view. To me, the hands are simply on that DUST plane which intersects the hands, the point BETWEEN the shoulder sockets, and a point just below the ball (or just a hair closer to the golfer than the ball is when looking DTL). Setting the club on this plane allows the entire mass of the swing to rotate most efficiently around the center of the swing. And when this happens, the lead shoulder is out in FRONT of the golfer, basically under his chin, and this causes the lead arm plane to pass ABOVE the ball, not through it. When I look at Rory at the top, per your link, this is what his top position looks like, and also if you look at Palauan Hammer's avatar, he is also set at the top like this too.

[mdgboxx]

Like you Reason, I'm a taller fellow with longish legs and shorter arms (6'3", 38.5" WTF). Early on in my club building days, was getting conflicting info on "correct" build length. Took a composite from several sources to ascertain a suitable build length. Like Mdg, I was confused by the recommendation. I'm a tweener, so do I go +/- .5" with the measurement? In general, opt for a longer length as I dislike any sensation of feeling bent over in my setup posture (i.e reaching for the ball). At the 39" WTF, the table is consistent with my 7i build length of 38.0". There is always a certain amount of alchemy involved, balancing length, lies, reasonable SW numbers, often working with "as found" used clubs, that requires a certain amount of experimentation. WTF is a decent starting point, because if I don't get the length right first, all else doesn't really matter. Always measured with your golf shoes on.

 

Points of comparison. The Ping nFlight web fitting puts me at Maroon dot +1/2" (?). An actual Ping fitting (no trackman, that was an extra charge) at the LGS while purchasing the i20's put me in Silver dot +1.25". Don't know if he was Ping "certified" or just store certified. I was naive about the entire ping methodology and didn't ask many questions during the process. Even though confirmed by the lie board, in the wild, out on the course, always had a tendency towards the lefts. Sent them back to Ping this winter, based on nothing more than intuition, had them bent to Green dot (+2.25* from standard). Based on ball flight as the only indicator, that's the correct setup. Length remained constant. My swing had evolved.

 

With a couple of recent acquisitions, after extensions were installed, built with 3/8" progressions off the 9 iron moving down thru the set (.25" PW > GW > SW). Does make the 6 iron and 5 iron a little more manageable with the slightly shorter length IMHO. Something of a preliminary exercise with the idea of doing a MOI build next off-season. Something that PD has discussed (and elsewhere around WRX).

 

In general, I remain a full fitting skeptic. Or Luddite. To my thinking, one could conceivably obtain differing results based on the "when" of a fitting. During the season, winter months when one hasn't swung a club for awhile? On the day of the fitting, which swing am I going to have? I tend to get somewhat nervous (self conscious?) when I'm outside of my golfing comfort zone. A trackman fitting would most definitely qualify as being outside of my zone. And what is the evaluation environment? Am I inside hitting in a bay with a net 20 feet in front of me? Or outside, in the wild, hitting off of grass. Feeling the club interaction with turf. Have a hard time believing that someone that doesn't know me from Adam, never has viewed my swing, can in one hours time (and $150.00) determine what is suitable. Just seems that there has to be some form of evaluation period and to some degree, trial and error, to reach a final destination of a fully fitted, correct set of irons. Not to mention the ulterior motive of a LGS is to sell you new clubs. Its not about the money, its the amount.

 

Lastly, you may have seen this in tech, maybe not. Some interesting ideas about length, lie and "geometric optimization" of a iron set being discussed in the following thread. Won't attempt to explain it, beyond my verbiage capabilities. Perhaps Ninz will offer insight at some point. But seems to have some degree of merit.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry13562180

 

BTW, much improved ball striking today during the range session. Simplify, tempo being keys. May get around to posting about it in the grille latter.

 

Translation of DTL please. Down the line?

 

Rarely if ever - have I personally related so much to a single post. Every last word on that page is something I've personally come to deeply relate to.

 

Thank you for not allowing a fellow confessor feel alone in his ambivalent notions about his physical proportions - the fitting process - etc. You just wrote a single post that sums up the better part of the last year of my journey. And I agree - the length of a shaft is only one issue but when you're built like we are - it's a monster issue. Off the rack clubs? We can't ever truly experience them can we? And when we try - we end up bent way over - hands in some goofy forward press, confused and conflicted in our swings - find it difficult to finish a complete backswing - tired and worn out at a level leaving us wondering if we've contracted some strange ailment - and the list goes on. Then when we extend the shafts - we know we are messing with the swing weights and moving the bend points on the shafts farther away from our hands meaning the potential for balloon shots might come knocking. Then to you point - what is the right progression from shortest to longest in all this? We read everywhere that adding much more than 3/4" to most (whatever the heck "most" means) OEM clubs is some sort of tipping point where we're still safe without ruining the club's performance. Like you - what if I like a set of clubs that need a full 1" or even more?

 

Not sure I will read another post soon that so resonates with me personally Fella. LOL - none of this puts us in some special pity-party club. Lots of golfers have had to work long and hard to find their way through this fitting stuff - and lots have the good fortune of just being proportioned in ways that are middle of the road but none-the-less have worked long and hard to get their equipment tuned up and spec'd to their personal liking. So you and I are not really "special" in that sense... but just wanted you to know I so deeply related to the way you laid that one down. Word for word I read it wondering if I had written it myself. You summed it up beautifully. Like all those who have paid their dues on this stuff - our perseverance despite the ambivalence and body types seems to get us through it all in the end. (lol - I do however wish I could walk into a store and test clubs with at least some assurance the length bit didn't enter into it. But it is what it is. I just hold them on the end of the handle and hit them off the little rubber tee and hope that gives me at least some sense of what I like - What else can we do, right?)

 

I related when the two of you thew it out there, but didn't quite know how to respond.

 

In '72, I was a business agent for a chain of buildings. My office was at ground level where we had a waterfall and mini lake with a few fish swimming around.

 

One of my tenants had her mother babysit her 4 yr/o, and she like too sit in the lobby and get excited every time a fish moved. That morning, I asked the granny what changed with her daughter. I noticed a change, and was, I guess, embarrassed to mention it to her.

The lady said, that's because you saw Diane and not Lisa, they're twins. Lisa has long legs and short body. Diane has short legs and a long body. They're faces are identical and both the same height at 6'2".

 

I myself, at 5'7" have short legs and long(er) body. If I was bow-legged, I'd be a chimpanzee! :cheesy:

[Reasonability]

LMAO - It takes a LOT of words sometimes to un-complicate what has been WAY overcomplicated. The lines drawn and DTL videos can become the basis for teaching not something simple - but in the end very bad juju. The reflection/mirror test proves that one of those teaching and swing analysis doo-dads so often found out there - has one and only one place. Where the swing fault needs to be sort of "over corrected" in order to get the golfer to actually change... then I give that instructor credit for a teaching "trick". But otherwise - it's really just overcomplicating the crap out of a golf swing. Junk gets put in the trunk and the average guy seeing and hearing it ends up in a horrible mess.

 

Shallow will take care of itself once the setup and motion is managed in-posture and with a lot more KISS and a whole lot less of a mess being part of it. The recent talk about rhythm and tempo... just pure music at it applies to all of this hoo-ha. Give the body, the club, the whole mess TIME to flow without flinching and forcing one bit of it.

 

 

////////

 

MDG - the story about the twins... good stuff. We just aren't all put together quite the same.

[Matt J]

I tried looking at some DTL video and reading your posts Reason. I do *kind of* see what you're talking about.

 

Part of the reason I didn't get into much detail is because I don't get that technical about positions. I don't think most people's problems in golf are solved by breaking down all of the positions. I've had a lot of breakthroughs in the last couple of years when it comes to swinging and understanding a golf swing, but they all had one thing in common, they made sense to me and I was willing to change. The average guy I play with that doesn't play very well, he wants to get better, but he's not willing to take the steps to make it happen. All the old guys just want more yards off the tee and all the young guys just want to figure out how to control the distance they have. That's bad golf in a nut shell if you ask me.

 

As far as club length goes, I fit that standard profile so I that's something else I haven't invested much time into. I read some where that more short guys play longer clubs on tour than tall guys. Kind of makes sense to me. Us shorter guys need the extra distance. I've been tempted to play longer than standard driver and built that monster up a few weeks back. I don't get any extra yardage though. I have to swing it so smooth to keep it in play that it goes the same distance as my standard driver. Go figure.

[Matt J]

Judge, I truly appreciate all that goes into your "Deeper Dives." I hope you don't take my comments as minimizing your approach. I know that some people analyze and understand much more than I do. I also meet guys that think I go way too analytical. Different strokes and all....

 

One reason I think I've built a golf swing around "feels" is that they are easy to imitate for me. For instance, I know I can drop the club too far "into the slot" and push the ball off the planet. I also came OTT for many years as a younger more casual player so that's a familiar feel to me. So, if I keep it between the ditches....

 

Funny story (at least to me) - one of my buddies I was playing with quite a bit at my old club, he has gobs of athletic ability. He's a fire plug with big strong forearms and creates as much swing speed as anyone I've ever seen. I think he can probably swing a driver upwards of 125 mph. So, we always play little games for a beer or a soda and I would usually win. He helped me a lot when we were at the same handicap because I would need to focus on my game and not try and out bomb him. He signs up for a series of a few lessons with one a pro at our club. In an hour lesson this guy has his ball flight about 1000% more consistent. We go out and play, I'm having an off day, and he beats me for the first time in months.

 

So, a week or two goes by and I see him out on the range and he's spraying the ball again. We go out and play and he plays as poorly as I've ever seen him play. I ask him what happened with the lessons and the advice the pro game him... his answer, "it felt weird."

 

Scoring well felt weird too, but in a good way, right !?!

 

Creatures of habit and all, I guess.

[Reasonability]

Judge, I truly appreciate all that goes into your "Deeper Dives." I hope you don't take my comments as minimizing your approach. I know that some people analyze and understand much more than I do. I also meet guys that think I go way too analytical. Different strokes and all....

 

One reason I think I've built a golf swing around "feels" is that they are easy to imitate for me. For instance, I know I can drop the club too far "into the slot" and push the ball off the planet. I also came OTT for many years as a younger more casual player so that's a familiar feel to me. So, if I keep it between the ditches....

 

Funny story (at least to me) - one of my buddies I was playing with quite a bit at my old club, he has gobs of athletic ability. He's a fire plug with big strong forearms and creates as much swing speed as anyone I've ever seen. I think he can probably swing a driver upwards of 125 mph. So, we always play little games for a beer or a soda and I would usually win. He helped me a lot when we were at the same handicap because I would need to focus on my game and not try and out bomb him. He signs up for a series of a few lessons with one a pro at our club. In an hour lesson this guy has his ball flight about 1000% more consistent. We go out and play, I'm having an off day, and he beats me for the first time in months.

 

So, a week or two goes by and I see him out on the range and he's spraying the ball again. We go out and play and he plays as poorly as I've ever seen him play. I ask him what happened with the lessons and the advice the pro game him... his answer, "it felt weird."

 

Scoring well felt weird too, but in a good way, right !?!

 

Creatures of habit and all, I guess.

 

We indeed are creatures of habit.

 

Matt this is about all I've got my man...No golfer can stand there going through an endless checklist. No one has a prayer of pulling the trigger and operating like a computer controlled robot. We all learn and execute very individually. At the point anyone feels he has ALL the answers and starts insisting as much - then others who are in their own way (with their own habits) getting through their own journey... the stage is set for others to shut down. Doesn't matter who is right or wrong at that point. Doesn't matter how much logic, sincerity, personal experiences, knowledge, wisdom, or caring and sharing is behind it... golfers are human and individual. No amount of anything trumps that simple fact. One man's purity is another's poison in golf. No amount of rationalizing it or justifying it explains that simple fact away.

 

This is one huge reason why - based on my own wiring I don't find it "entertaining" to turn the word sharing into the word debate and then watch the term debate turn into internet popcorn. If I wanted to watch a slaughter for laughs - I'd watch films of lions tackling and eating prey. But again - that goes right back to individual wiring.

 

I realize that a deep dive will literally have about a .05% chance of resonating with others - and very few others at that. So - selfishly I suppose I saw this business of plane and flatter planes on the way down out there getting posted about - videos being produced about it - and to me it was all destructive and too complicated. Did I make a dent in the universe with my bull-shizzle?

 

Not one tiny bit. All I really accomplished was to puke out something I personally see and felt somehow compelled to share. But I honestly don't imagine it changes anything for anyone else really.

 

Using two dowel sticks to improve putting - doesn't change the world does it? Relating little Velcro-elastic doo-dads to get the grip and swing motion synced up.... pretty much a laughable thing to others.

 

We all have to just give each other room to call it as we individually want to experience it. Call it feel - call it some swing philosophy - call it mechanical - call it equipment based - call the other guy an idiot - and still... each of us has our own wiring on this journey. No can possibly have all the answers cause the other golfer's wont let him have them. That would rob the receiver of controlling his own destiny at the will of another. Not going to happen no matter how much sense it makes or how the message is delivered. Ain't going to happen.

 

The deep dive is sort of fun in one sense. Painful in another. Chances of it building consensus? Very very slim. Chances of it distancing golfers from each other and/or being ignored? Very very high.

 

We are golfers - that's really about the only thing we honestly have in common.

[DeNinny]

Reason, to me deep dives are fun!

 

I personally like to take a golf analysis as far as possible. I don't think the 'whys' of golf have ever been thoroughly analyzed. This stuff on the arms/shaft plane that we have been discussing, in my experience has NEVER been evaluated in detail, but it *could* lead to a new understanding of the game. For example just by bringing it up, I was forced to reevaluate how all the hinges of the swing work and how that trail forearm and shaft plane is formed.

 

And I'm NOT saying that every dive needs an actionable result or a specific conclusion. Just having the knowledge or a different perspective is helpful. It helps me see MY perspective of the game better. It also opens up avenues of further exploration.

 

Edit: the only difference between an argument, debate, and healthy discussion is the open (or closed) mindedness of those involved.

[Reasonability]

Reason, to me deep dives are fun!

 

I personally like to take a golf analysis as far as possible. I don't think the 'whys' of golf have ever been thoroughly analyzed. This stuff on the arms/shaft plane that we have been discussing, in my experience has NEVER been evaluated in detail, but it *could* lead to a new understanding of the game. For example just by bringing it up, I was forced to reevaluate how all the hinges of the swing work and how that trail forearm and shaft plane is formed.

 

And I'm NOT saying that every dive needs an actionable result or a specific conclusion. Just having the knowledge or a different perspective is helpful. It helps me see MY perspective of the game better. It also opens up avenues of further exploration.

 

Edit: the only difference between an argument, debate, and healthy discussion is the open (or closed) mindedness of those involved.

 

Therein my friend lies the "rub". The lines in the sand for you and I as to what is or isn't deep dive "worthy".... We both have to admit such passions are just NOT universally shared.

 

We're kidding ourselves if we start believing for one minute that we don't convert at least "some" objectivity into rationalization...We endeavor not to - but we at some point have to become guilty of it. Why? Cause we ourselves are no less or no more human than the next guy despite all efforts to remain objective.

 

We also are fooling ourselves by trying to own some sense of obligation to others by shining a light on things FOR them. Golfers universally push back when someone comes at them with stuff they don't want or don't care to explore. They generally prefer instead to turn their own headlights on bright at times, dim them at other times, and turn them off...all at will...rather than looking to you or I to do so for them.

 

Yes there are many things both you and I see as having never been fully unpacked - or to us improperly unpacked. TRUE THAT. Putting such views out there on public display over and over. Fine and dandy but regardless of how we see it - its the roadmap to loneliness when you think about it. I suppose we could go down as people ahead of our time - behind the times - I dunno - lol. But we risk at every turn on this stuff of being alone in our times.

 

I will drop this. I mentioned to Fella how much his one post about the fitting process resonated with me personally.

 

So I can at least report that the whole deep-dive thing about shaft lengths carried with it a measure of pain - to write it up - for others to respond to (or ignore - lol).... but I will share this much. On a very selfish level - I was so glad to hear from Fella on that one and the way he expressed it at least made me feel less alone on my journey. A very selfish thing for me personally came from it. I drove countless miles and invested countless hours in trying to find a way to trust the fitting process - made no easier by the fact I just can't quite apply my swing with my build to off-the-rack sticks. So I selfishly put a chart out there in search of how others experience it... and in that deeper dive moment - I very selfishly found a voice that made all those miles and hours worth it.

 

LOL - but to assume for one minute that a gang of folks line up with my dribble - or that I somehow change the world even fractionally with my rants. I'd be kidding myself with that one. Folks out there know it and I know it. The sun will rise tomorrow and little if anything will have truly been altered one way or the other, deep dive or no -- right? LOL - begs the question - then why bother others at all with it? .

[DeNinny]

Reason, to me deep dives are fun!

 

I personally like to take a golf analysis as far as possible. I don't think the 'whys' of golf have ever been thoroughly analyzed. This stuff on the arms/shaft plane that we have been discussing, in my experience has NEVER been evaluated in detail, but it *could* lead to a new understanding of the game. For example just by bringing it up, I was forced to reevaluate how all the hinges of the swing work and how that trail forearm and shaft plane is formed.

 

And I'm NOT saying that every dive needs an actionable result or a specific conclusion. Just having the knowledge or a different perspective is helpful. It helps me see MY perspective of the game better. It also opens up avenues of further exploration.

 

Edit: the only difference between an argument, debate, and healthy discussion is the open (or closed) mindedness of those involved.

 

Therein my friend lies the "rub". The lines in the sand for you and I as to what is or isn't deep dive "worthy".... We both have to admit such passions are just NOT universally shared.

 

We're kidding ourselves if we start believing for one minute that we don't convert at least "some" objectivity into rationalization...We endeavor not to - but we at some point have to become guilty of it. Why? Cause we ourselves are no less or no more human than the next guy despite all efforts to remain objective.

 

We also are fooling ourselves by trying to own some sense of obligation to others by shining a light on things FOR them. Golfers universally push back when someone comes at them with stuff they don't want or don't care to explore. They generally prefer instead to turn their own headlights on bright at times, dim them at other times, and turn them off...all at will...rather than looking to you or I to do so for them.

 

Yes there are many things both you and I see as having never been fully unpacked - or to us improperly unpacked. TRUE THAT. Putting such views out there on public display over and over. Fine and dandy but regardless of how we see it - its the roadmap to loneliness when you think about it. I suppose we could go down as people ahead of our time - behind the times - I dunno - lol. But we risk at every turn on this stuff of being alone in our times.

 

I will drop this. I mentioned to Fella how much his one post about the fitting process resonated with me personally.

 

So I can at least report that the whole deep-dive thing about shaft lengths carried with it a measure of pain - to write it up - for others to respond to (or ignore - lol).... but I will share this much. On a very selfish level - I was so glad to hear from Fella on that one and the way he expressed it at least made me feel less alone on my journey. A very selfish thing for me personally came from it. I drove countless miles and invested countless hours in trying to find a way to trust the fitting process - made no easier by the fact I just can't quite apply my swing with my build to off-the-rack sticks. So I selfishly put a chart out there in search of how others experience it... and in that deeper dive moment - I very selfishly found a voice that made all those miles and hours worth it.

 

LOL - but to assume for one minute that a gang of folks line up with my dribble - or that I somehow change the world even fractionally with my rants. I'd be kidding myself with that one. Folks out there know it and I know it. The sun will rise tomorrow and little if anything will have truly been altered one way or the other, deep dive or no -- right? LOL - begs the question - then why bother others at all with it? .

 

LOL I gotta confess, I've always been MUCH less sensitive about how others perceive and receive my posts. As I've stated to others that want to "manage" my post content, feel free to IGNORE it.

 

I don't argue with what you are saying, but I take a completely different approach to doing deep dives and to posting ANYTHING. I see ALL of it as everyone is simply SHARING their golf journeys. Nobody is being forced to read or receive it. If it is part of YOUR golf journey, then by all means, FEEL FREE to post!

 

So my man, even if it is as trivial as trying to understand how much you tense your sphincter (hee hee...hypothetical example only) during impact and it is something you discovered on YOUR golf journey and you have ten pages to post about it, then forget how it will be received and just post! Who knows, maybe someone will relate to it and, even if it is only between you two, a better understanding of the game is reached.

 

Main point being is that there should be NOTHING wrong with sharing your golf journey.

[Matt J]

One issue for me, is in shaping my own game, I have personal "deep dives" going on in my own head usually. I think there is a protective nature to not engaging something that is superfluous to where I am at the moment. But, I will say, as with my teaching friend's advice, I often absorb and it comes back at a later point and it is useful.

 

I read every word of what you posted Judge, but in my limited ability to understand, I simplified your posts as simply an affirmative vote for "don't worry about shallowing the club." Which I agree with for about 95% of players 95% of the time. The exception being someone who is sequencing their movements correctly but simply takes the club back outside, brings it back outside, and is frustrated with their ball flight. Like I alluded to in my post, there can be success with this type of swing, but it takes a lot of power and accepting the slight pull fade as a predominant ball flight, which I have no problem with if you have the distance and want to play one ball flight.

 

As for the length of the iron set, and your plight with finding a comfortable length at address, I've always been a little confused concerning that dilemma for the taller golfer. As a general rule, the taller player seems to be typically content with overall distance and swing speed, but may struggle with distance control particularly with wedges. My advice to that player, having met a few, is simply work the wedges particularly hard. Wedge play seems to be a common plight for any golfer at some time in their progress. I've fought that demon myself and created a system that works for me, but obviously there's no guarantee that it would work for anyone else. So, all I can do is make my suggestion as to how I worked through partial wedges and what I do to maintain my own wedge play.

 

I had a little breakthrough playing 9 holes of practice on our little executive-style course this morning. I'll explain it as briefly as possible for those so inclined - obviously no one is obligated to read or comment if it bores you - so here goes....

 

I reworked my takeaway over the last couple of weeks. Basically, I start the handle first away from the ball, which results in a "reverse hinge" of sorts starting the club on a steeper plane. This was a suggestion my pro made at one point that I wasn't ready for at the moment, but a couple of weeks ago I was having a great range session moving through the bag high-to-low lofted clubs. I got to my 4 hybrid, was pleased with the flight. Pulled my next lowest lofted club, a 5 wood, and had "stinger syndrome." Everything was starting low and maybe a bit pulled. So, I tried this taller plane invoking move. Worked like a charm. Much higher ball flight although tougher to control, I think mostly because it was "new to me."

 

So, I instantly was intrigued of trying it throughout the bag as I generally believe in one swing through the bag. The problem being I couldn't hold the trajectory down in my short irons and my contact was a bit more inconsistent. Today, I realized I simply can't utilize this "feeling" on knockdowns and my "stock" short irons. I can minimize how long and how deeply I have this feeling and make it work and that's probably what I'll do, so I have some trigger consistency, but if I hold it like I would in a fairway wood I'll always hit the high ball. For some reason I'm okay with varying how long I hold that initial feeling, but I wouldn't be okay with ditching it totally in the short irons. Too much to think about.

 

I think the hardest thing about this game for most amateurs is accepting that sometimes we will post higher numbers in pursuit of better play. I'm right there, right now. Some guys I play with think I need my head examined. Post some of your best scores and then revamp your move seems ridiculous, but this is the second time I've done exactly that. I think you need to walk away from a round feeling you played up to your potential to reevaluate what that potential truly may be.