Confessions 12 --- Exploding Heads

[Reasonability]

 

 

 

If you try to maintain the same knee flex as you turn the hips, by the physics you will drop in height. Each hip is closest to its respective knee when both hips and knees are square. As soon as you turn the hips to be at an angle to the knees, that distance lengthens,​ so in order to keep the hips at the same height as you turn them, you actually have to straighten both legs.

 

I'm trying to picture this in my mind, it doesn't seem to compute. Unless you mean "not at the same time"

 

My lead knee may move to my lead foot instep, in the BS, then on the DS, my trail leg (hip turn/snap) will straightened (pushing my hips forward) THEN, at/past impact, my lead leg will be forced to straighten as I transfer.

 

What am I missing? :dntknw:

 

I don't mean that the legs fully straighten. I just mean they have to flex LESS (just a little) as the hips turn in order to keep the hips at the same height. As the hips turn at the same height, they get a little farther away from each respective knee.

 

Take a flat dollar bill. Then start twisting it in opposite directions at each end. What happens? Answer: the ends get closer together.

 

What if the hips don't turn at the same height? I set up with my trail hip and shoulders

aligned together but tilted into a secondary tilt. Are you saying I need to come out of

my tilt on the back swing? That would be bad juju for me.

 

Also, if you set up without secondary tilt, you will get into that position at impact

anyway with the trail hip lower than the lead hip; along with the shoulder. So at

some point on the down swing you should lose hips being at the same height,

unless you lower the trail shoulder only, but then lose your shoulder and hip

alignment and leak power.

 

It doesn't matter if the hips are tilted or not. As long as they turn, each hip, regardless of tilt, gets farther away from its respective knee as soon as the turn starts.

 

All I'm saying is that if you want to KEEP that same tilt as you turn the hips in the backswing AND you want to keep them at their same relative heights, then you have to add 'length' to both legs as you do it.

 

Like what I'm hearing for you guys on a couple of levels. Chief among them...

 

We consciously or subconsciously get ourselves in a little trouble that can be avoided. The bones in our legs don't shrink or grow during the golf swing. But the amount of flex in the knees will change just enough to help keep the entire swing from bobbing up and down and flailing around. Using the lower body joints in a relaxed and purposeful way is like sitting on a swiveling bar stool... one hip is going to rotate back when we turn one way and the other hip is gong to the same when turning the other way. If the toes could reach the floor while swiveling around the knees would gain and lose a little flex in the process. If the seat of the bar stool were a bit tilted then the knee work would have to accommodate that - but as DeNinn points out - we are trying in the end to do our best to avoid bobbing that seat up and down or sliding it too much off of its "center post".

 

Good stuff guys!.

[jbhawx]

One issue I find in my swing at times is knee flex. As I rotate back I'll essentially squat a little, as if my left knee flexes more as I rotate and I somehow try to keep the same flex in the right knee. This usually always results in a fat shot, or a topped ball if during the downswing I try to revert back to my orginal knee flex (I guess like popping up). good thing is, it doesn't happen often.

 

If you try to maintain the same knee flex as you turn the hips, by the physics you will drop in height. Each hip is closest to its respective knee when both hips and knees are square. As soon as you turn the hips to be at an angle to the knees, that distance lengthens, so in order to keep the hips at the same height as you turn them, you actually have to straighten both legs.

 

Totally makes sense. The right knee usually starts to straighten out in the BS as I rotate around and the left knee folds inwards. What I meant is sometimes I will also flex that left knee more, as in bend it more as it goes in, this results in the right knee also bending more instead of straightening out during the BS. So really I am doing the opposite with the right knee. I can feel my whole body getting closer to the ground lol.

 

...and when you are closer to the ground you *may* hit it fat if you don't return back to the ideal height at impact. Or you *may* hit it thin or top it, if you overcompensate and get higher than the ideal impact height.

 

It's best to keep the hips at a constant height throughout the swing if you want to have one less variable to deal with.

 

exactly. Now just to figure out how to eliminate that issue all together lol.

[Conrad1953]

There are only two ways to make a swing arc more 'shallow':

 

1) Literally move the point at which the swing 'bottoms out' to be closer to the point of impact.

 

2) Widen or flatten the arc itself.

 

So, based on what you're saying the secondary tilt flattens the arc at the bottom.

Is that correct? That makes sense and is why you see all good ball strikers in

that position coming into impact; regardless of whether they preset it at address

or got there during the down swing.

 

I absolutely see your point that the knees must lose a little flex on the back swing

to maintain the same height. Unlike others, I try not to lose all flex and let that

trail knee get all the way straight cause in my case it leads to me getting stuck.

 

I remember reading before about that feeling of rising a little as we go back. It

feels like we are rising due to letting the knees straighten a little but in essence

we are maintaining the same overall height; if we do it right....and realizing it's

not an exact thing. In my case, I just try to not let my knees straighten all the

way but try to keep some bend in them at the top of my swing.

 

It's actually a key component in the swing pattern I adopted awhile back.

[mdgboxx]

I have a question about controlling putt distance by length of swing.

How does that work? Do you exert the same force on the putter?

 

The putter head keeps accelerating so a longer swing equates to

more speed? Sorry, it's late and I'm tired. I've never tried this method.

 

I do like Stu and just by feel. I can't get too mechanical. I can't imagine

hitting all putts exerting the same force and relying on the length of the

swing to control the speed. It must work, I guess because many do it.

 

If I was standing 6 feet from you, it would be easy for you to nonchalantly toss a ball at me. If I was across the street, not only would you make a much longer arc, (swing) you would probably take a step forward in your follow through. My follow through is almost *always* longer than the back pendulum. Why you ask? Because I'm accelerating through the swing.

 

Usually, I have a longer, although slight, follow through in my putting swing. It's not unusual for me to even follow with my hips, when I'm facing a long 30 foot Putt. (And longer)

 

My interpretation of "feel" is more like, letting things fall in their place on their own. At least as far as Putting is concerned.

[mdgboxx]

One issue I find in my swing at times is knee flex. As I rotate back I'll essentially squat a little, as if my left knee flexes more as I rotate and I somehow try to keep the same flex in the right knee. This usually always results in a fat shot, or a topped ball if during the downswing I try to revert back to my orginal knee flex (I guess like popping up). good thing is, it doesn't happen often.

 

If you try to maintain the same knee flex as you turn the hips, by the physics you will drop in height. Each hip is closest to its respective knee when both hips and knees are square. As soon as you turn the hips to be at an angle to the knees, that distance lengthens,​ so in order to keep the hips at the same height as you turn them, you actually have to straighten both legs.

 

I'm trying to picture this in my mind, it doesn't seem to compute. Unless you mean "not at the same time"

 

My lead knee may move to my lead foot instep, in the BS, then on the DS, my trail leg (hip turn/snap) will straightened (pushing my hips forward) THEN, at/past impact, my lead leg will be forced to straighten as I transfer.

 

What am I missing? :dntknw:

 

I don't mean that the legs fully straighten. I just mean they have to flex LESS (just a little) as the hips turn in order to keep the hips at the same height. As the hips turn at the same height, they get a little farther away from each respective knee.

 

Take a flat dollar bill. Then start twisting it in opposite directions at each end. What happens? Answer: the ends get closer together.

 

What if the hips don't turn at the same height? I set up with my trail hip and shoulders

aligned together but tilted into a secondary tilt. Are you saying I need to come out of

my tilt on the back swing? That would be bad juju for me.

 

Also, if you set up without secondary tilt, you will get into that position at impact

anyway with the trail hip lower than the lead hip; along with the shoulder. So at

some point on the down swing you should lose hips being at the same height,

unless you lower the trail shoulder only, but then lose your shoulder and hip

alignment and leak power.

 

Isn't it the shoulders that are leaning to the trail side, b/c your trail hand is lower on the grip, while your hips are level at address?

[glk]

My go to video for swing. Knees - trail knee straightens. Front knee increases flex. In transition both knees regain setup flex. Front side is going "down" - ankle, knee, hip, shoulder - side bend. See 6:00-6:50 in video.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X83UZtBNH3Q

[DeNinny]

There are only two ways to make a swing arc more 'shallow':

 

1) Literally move the point at which the swing 'bottoms out' to be closer to the point of impact.

 

2) Widen or flatten the arc itself.

 

So, based on what you're saying the secondary tilt flattens the arc at the bottom.

Is that correct? That makes sense and is why you see all good ball strikers in

that position coming into impact; regardless of whether they preset it at address

or got there during the down swing.

...

 

Take care, I never said anything about what secondary tilt does. All I stated was the science of what it takes to 'shallow' a swing arc. But...you raise a good topic about secondary tilt and what it does to the swing path. I'm going to say right up front that it is HIGHLY conditional as to whether or not secondary tilt flattens (or widens) the arc at the bottom of the swing. The answer is "it depends".

 

Let's start with the condition that the swing arc is ASSUMED to be a perfect circle. Now *if* this is true, then secondary tilt will NOT flatten the swing arc at the bottom. All the secondary tilt will do (again under this assumption) is move the center of the swing farther back and maybe just a little lower. But the key point is that the swing is still circular, so all the secondary tilt did was, as per my point 1) above, move the swing bottom back and slightly down further which ultimately shallows the swing WITHOUT flattening or widening the arc. It shallows the swing by moving the bottom of the swing closer to impact which makes the AoA closer to horizontal (i.e. shallower).

 

So now let's look at the condition of an elliptical swing arc, a more oval and non-circular one. Under this assumption, ABSOLUTELY secondary tilt will help to flatten the swing arc out AND it will help to move the swing bottom back a little and thus closer to impact. The reason this answer is different than the pure circle swing arc is because a pure circle is "dimensionless" in the rotational dimension. Look at a circle from outside at any angle and it still "looks" the same, but an elliptical arc CHANGES as you change the angle that its primary axis is set at.

 

(I confess I wonder if this is making Reason's head explode...)

 

So anyway, the key question now is whether or not the swing is near a perfect circle or is it elliptical? This will tell us whether or not it is likely that secondary tilt shallows the AoA through moving the bottom point closer to impact and/or through flattening the bottom. And to be REALLY CLEAR, we really only need to consider the swing arc formed at the very last part of it when all the final swing "hinges" are unhinging. The upper part of the downswing doesn't really count since the hinge of the trail elbow and wrists are not moving at that point. (The swing arc is not fully "defined".)

 

Personally, it doesn't really matter what the answer is. Secondary tilt does shallow the swing, no question to me. And if I had to guess, the swing arc is really close to circular at the bottom half of it.

 

Also to me there is a bigger purpose for secondary tilt which is that it is the proper position for supporting the clubhead during the maximum pull of centripetal force. During the swing, centripetal force keeps increasing as the clubhead accelerates in a circular direction. And if the golfer is properly sequencing the swing to accelerate PAST impact, then there will be an even greater pull of centripetal force at this point. So ultimately the spine should be tilted so that there is the least amount of torque force on it pulling it to either side. It is like the golfer is playing "tug of war" with the clubhead. Pulling is best done with the spine in the same direction as the pulling action. To me this purpose is even more important than shallowing the swing AoA through it.

[Palauan Hammer]

TooLed!!

 

 

Nice stuff guys! This is why I love Confessions, I learn all the time!

 

Just realized my Sister has a fancy phone with HD video and slow mo, so I'm gonna finally shoot some nice swing footage. Hitting foam balls too LOL Hopefully I don't puke when I see it :taunt: :bad:

[DeNinny]

Hammer-n-sickle I bet your worst looking swing is still better than most people's best. (Lefty notwithstanding.)

[Conrad1953]

 

If you try to maintain the same knee flex as you turn the hips, by the physics you will drop in height. Each hip is closest to its respective knee when both hips and knees are square. As soon as you turn the hips to be at an angle to the knees, that distance lengthens,​ so in order to keep the hips at the same height as you turn them, you actually have to straighten both legs.

 

I'm trying to picture this in my mind, it doesn't seem to compute. Unless you mean "not at the same time"

 

My lead knee may move to my lead foot instep, in the BS, then on the DS, my trail leg (hip turn/snap) will straightened (pushing my hips forward) THEN, at/past impact, my lead leg will be forced to straighten as I transfer.

 

What am I missing? :dntknw:

 

I don't mean that the legs fully straighten. I just mean they have to flex LESS (just a little) as the hips turn in order to keep the hips at the same height. As the hips turn at the same height, they get a little farther away from each respective knee.

 

Take a flat dollar bill. Then start twisting it in opposite directions at each end. What happens? Answer: the ends get closer together.

 

What if the hips don't turn at the same height? I set up with my trail hip and shoulders

aligned together but tilted into a secondary tilt. Are you saying I need to come out of

my tilt on the back swing? That would be bad juju for me.

 

Also, if you set up without secondary tilt, you will get into that position at impact

anyway with the trail hip lower than the lead hip; along with the shoulder. So at

some point on the down swing you should lose hips being at the same height,

unless you lower the trail shoulder only, but then lose your shoulder and hip

alignment and leak power.

 

Isn't it the shoulders that are leaning to the trail side, b/c your trail hand is lower on the grip, while your hips are level at address?

 

You can set up that way mdg but it curves your spine a little. By kicking in

your trail knee a little that will tilt your hips and align them with your shoulders

so you can tun around a stable spine. This is the secondary tilt of which we

speak.

[DeNinny]

 

What if the hips don't turn at the same height? I set up with my trail hip and shoulders

aligned together but tilted into a secondary tilt. Are you saying I need to come out of

my tilt on the back swing? That would be bad juju for me.

 

Also, if you set up without secondary tilt, you will get into that position at impact

anyway with the trail hip lower than the lead hip; along with the shoulder. So at

some point on the down swing you should lose hips being at the same height,

unless you lower the trail shoulder only, but then lose your shoulder and hip

alignment and leak power.

 

Isn't it the shoulders that are leaning to the trail side, b/c your trail hand is lower on the grip, while your hips are level at address?

 

You can set up that way mdg but it curves your spine a little. By kicking in

your trail knee a little that will tilt your hips and align them with your shoulders

so you can tun around a stable spine. This is the secondary tilt of which we

speak.

 

And with this setup position, the golfer merely goes to full arms extension at the six o'clock position relative to his tilted spine. That will be his point of maximum acceleration, a point PAST impact.

 

Alternatively, the golfer can set up with a straight spine and then dynamically move into the tilted spine position during the downswing.

[Reasonability]

Trail hand is lower than the lead hand at address - pulling the trail shoulder lower. So we get a head start on secondary tilt whether we know it or not - lol. Bumping the lead hip toward the target just that tiny fraction and as Rad points out letting that trail knee set an equal fraction more toward the target right along with it... and voila... the line straight down through the sternum points down to just about the lead instep or ankle bone. The head is already pretty much behind the ball (something like at impact) so we have a "head start on the head". The spine is not bent ONLY at its upper most vertebrae but rather lined up smoothly along its length. That business of the lower trail hand is managed - it's not over done - life is good.

 

I've seen becoming confusing and overdone. For some there is suddenly is a ton of forward press of the hands and handle at address, the heed is WAY back and that line through the sternum points well to the target side of the lead knee. Folks also get confused by the fact there will always be more secondary tilt with driver and what seems like none with shorter clubs.

 

Easy peasy! Let's get parts to match again starting with the driver setup....

 

At address - start with feet together with the ball right out in front of them. So you would barely move the lead side foot at all, correct? At best a half to one shoe-width's worth until the instep is about right out in front of the lead armpit should do. But you would move the trail foot back more than just happened to the lead foot. ...Far enough to have the knees NOT touching if they wanted to in the finish pose. Far enough to set that foot's instep at least out in front of that trail shoulder socket if not even a little more.

 

There you are with the feet are properly set - you know your trail shoulder and head already are wanting to tilt some anyway cause that trail hand is lower. So bump the hip girdle maybe an inch or two at best toward the target and see if the line through the sternum points down to just about the lead side ankle. You can stick your driver shaft against the breast bone and check it. Trail knee should be a bit more kicked toward the target as a natural consequence of all this. All these body parts are "matching" up for a driver setup. (we could dive deeper about how the upper body and man-boobs connect and such but we do that one on a rainy day).

 

So how does secondary tilt become confusing with wedge in hand? Why is there suddenly less or almost none of it? What happened to the matching parts just because the shaft got shorter? (ergo the confusion about this tilt madness)

 

So lets solve that riddle - starting again with setup for the wedge. Same thing...feet together with the ball right out in front of them. This time the lead foot moves about where it did for driver - BUT the trail foot will move about the same amount as did the lead foot. The knees actually could touch in the finish pose. The lower trail hand suddenly gave the whole secondary tilt process enough of a head start that its pretty much already there. Because the stand width is narrower that line down through the sternum already is pretty darn close to there it needs to be anyway. OK if the golfer wants to he can bump his hip girdle ever so slightly toward the target and such but that shorter shaft and more narrow stance width gave him about all the secondary tilt he needs anyway.

 

Parts matching up this time.... stance width to secondary tilt -- and HOW to do it. And WHY its almost done for you with wedges - takes a little more work until it becomes habit with driver... and with mid-irons -- same thing - the knees almost touching in the finish pose indicates a good stance width. Set the feet in a way that will accomplish that - fractionally bump the hip girdle toward the target and hold a shaft against the sternum to see if its on a line pointing down to just about the lead side ankle. Parts match throughout the whole flipp'n bag!

 

By the way - this whole knees touching or not touching bit - LOL - wouldn't suggest banging the knees into each other! From face on you would see that that "could" touch if you wanted them to when swing the shorter clubs.

 

Angles of attack....

 

I could be wrong.... but my "exploding head" (lol) senses tell me - and I'm certain M. Deninny can inform me... that the swing motion is more of an ellipse than it is a perfect circular orbit as seen face on. And... (drum roll Hammy)..I assert that because we are TURNING... that angle of attack gets a boost in being shallow - thanks to the fact we TURN.

 

If I wipe the arms in right in front of me making a sort of "V" shape with that swing... the bottom of that goofy swing arc would touch the tround at a point. BUT... if were spinning on a lazy susan and made that same move... the mere act of spinning round on an axis would cause a longer thing on the ground us golfers call a divot! LMAO.

 

I see your head explosion and raise you a rotating ellipse! .

[DeNinny]

I covered both bases, circular and elliptical, so there is no raise.

 

The bigger and more accurate questions are...

 

1) Is the lowest part of the swing an elliptical arc or a circular one?

 

2) When viewed NOT from FO but from a point perpendicular to the SLANTED swing arc, is the swing arc, again from this perspective, circular or elliptical?

 

(Food for thought: Take a CIRCULAR quarter and view it from an ANGLE. What is the shape of it from this perspective? Is it still a perfect circle when viewed at an angle?)

[Reasonability]

Guess this means stance width and setup and pre-shot routines are related to knee work and hip turn depth and all these parts actually match as the swing gets more stable?

 

How many conceptual swing jargon terms were in that first question? I count seven. LMAO!

 

Why can tie to how. We absolutely can move from things being complicated to more simple and efficient - more consistent and stable. It may be the longer path to getting there - won't be perfect - won't be something everyone agrees to - and there will be individuality along the way for each body type, age, flexibility, etc. But we CHOSE... We setup and swing it somehow of our own choice and these conceptual jargon-riddled swing doo-dads have a roadmap that can be made actionable rather than just conceptual. Silly little things! Easy ways to set the feet and turn the shoulders and flex the knees. Stupid things that make for very purposeful practice and teach the feel golfer how to play more and more on auto-pilot.

 

Next up -- is putting a function of how hard we hit it or just swinging wider back and through? We (I believe) touched it????

 

Bwaaaa haaa haaa!

[Reasonability]

I covered both bases, circular and elliptical, so there is no raise.

 

The bigger and more accurate questions are...

 

1) Is the lowest part of the swing an elliptical arc or a circular one?

 

2) When viewed NOT from FO but from a point perpendicular to the SLANTED swing arc, is the swing arc, again from this perspective, circular or elliptical?

 

(Food for thought: Take a CIRCULAR quarter and view it from an ANGLE. What is the shape of it from this perspective? Is it still a perfect circle when viewed at an angle?)

 

These cards are marked!

[Michael C.]

The measured low point on the PGA guys is 4-8 inches on the target side of impact. With a straight lead arm at address and shoulders turning 90* to the spine you end up with a lead shoulder farther away from the ball at impact. If the head stays back and the shoulders are slightly open, how does this low point move forward from the address position?

[DeNinny]

I covered both bases, circular and elliptical, so there is no raise.

 

The bigger and more accurate questions are...

 

1) Is the lowest part of the swing an elliptical arc or a circular one?

 

2) When viewed NOT from FO but from a point perpendicular to the SLANTED swing arc, is the swing arc, again from this perspective, circular or elliptical?

 

(Food for thought: Take a CIRCULAR quarter and view it from an ANGLE. What is the shape of it from this perspective? Is it still a perfect circle when viewed at an angle?)

 

These cards are marked!

 

Bwaaaa haaa haaa!

[Michael C.]

If the center point moves even a fraction towards the perimeter during the motion the swing arc becomes elliptical. ...even from an angle.

[DeNinny]

If the center point moves even a fraction towards the perimeter during the motion the swing arc becomes elliptical. ...even from an angle.

 

The rest of the swing (and thus its normal shape) moves with the center.

[Reasonability]

Know doubt this was covered earlier (managing putting distance more by length of stroke at a uniform tempo - OR - do we just hit it harder).

 

No doubt force and velocity equations. All are FACT and there's no disputing it.

 

Here's all I have that hopefully ads anything useful.

 

If by some miracle....

 

I heard and felt the same exact metronome tempo in my head over the ball every time up - and...

I played the same exact ball - on the same greens with the same green speeds and grain - and...

I somehow managed every time up to physically make the same exact stroke in every physical way...

 

There would never be a need to "hit" it harder or softer thing entering into it - ever. The length of the stroke would always produce the same amount of rollout. All I'd need to really study is that a swing back to the instep versus twice that much or half that much would equate to given respective rollouts while keeping the rhythm and tempo the same. Heck I'd just step off putts and apply the swing-width plan needed to manage distance every time up.

 

.As miracle-based as all that sounds - I have to say I do go for the miracles more so that focusing on the hit. I'm human and the hit impulse does get the best of me. Can't for one minute report that if it swings to the back foot instep and through versus 1.00452 centimeters past the outside of the back foot (and through) - all that yields exacting distance outcomes. It's a feel thing. I'm guessing about it and not analyzing it. I try to avoid the "hit" thing simply cause I want to avoid face-rotation of the putter head - want to avoid also the wrists breaking even a little. So I do try and stick to a tempo that's hopefully consistent and a setup and motion that avoids the "hit it hard or soft" approach. I confess to failing at the way I do it but for me - over the long haul - I three putt a lot less and on a good day more than a few roll in.

 

Would be lying like a rug to suggest there is never any "hit" in the stroke. It's also no stretch of the truth to say I try avoiding it. The ball gets "hit" enough when it's just in the way of the stroke.

 

Best I've got gents. The Reason approach evidently requires a wing and a prayer cause it needs miracles to pull it off! LOL

[Michael C.]

If the center point moves even a fraction towards the perimeter during the motion the swing arc becomes elliptical. ...even from an angle.

 

The rest of the swing (and thus its normal shape) moves with the center.

 

So it's a circle with a moving center. Got it.

[Reasonability]

The measured low point on the PGA guys is 4-8 inches on the target side of impact. With a straight lead arm at address and shoulders turning 90* to the spine you end up with a lead shoulder farther away from the ball at impact. If the head stays back and the shoulders are slightly open, how does this low point move forward from the address position?

 

Cool stat! Never heard that number.

 

Wonder which iron that's based on or if it ways data complied throughout the bag? (Might be a little different number for wedge than 3 iron in my swing - lol.

 

"Straight lead arm at address"... hmmm Kinda-sorta simmering with that one but will commit to think it through for ya.

 

"How does this low point move forward from the address position?"

 

Beauty of a question. Will go away and sit with that one, too. The knee jerk form here... the "geometry" at address of the shaft and body is different during the flow thru impact than was true at address. Need to simmer...

 

What do you guys think?

[Palauan Hammer]

Hammer-n-sickle I bet your worst looking swing is still better than most people's best. (Lefty notwithstanding.)

 

LOL, thanks DeNinjiujitsu! I have this program on my PC, it's call V1. You can flip the image or clip around. Swing looks more "conventional" right handed haha. Even I think left handed swings look weird just because I'm not used to seeing them .

[Michael C.]

The measured low point on the PGA guys is 4-8 inches on the target side of impact. With a straight lead arm at address and shoulders turning 90* to the spine you end up with a lead shoulder farther away from the ball at impact. If the head stays back and the shoulders are slightly open, how does this low point move forward from the address position?

 

Cool stat! Never heard that number.

 

Wonder which iron that's based on or if it ways data complied throughout the bag? (Might be a little different number for wedge than 3 iron in my swing - lol.

 

"Straight lead arm at address"... hmmm Kinda-sorta simmering with that one but will commit to think it through for ya.

 

"How does this low point move forward from the address position?"

 

Beauty of a question. Will go away and sit with that one, too. The knee jerk form here... the "geometry" at address of the shaft and body is different during the flow thru impact than was true at address. Need to simmer...

 

What do you guys think?

 

Stat comes from the book "The Impact Zone" by Bobby Clampett.

 

I believe that the center of the swing arc continually changes as does the radius from these points from center to hands as well as center to clubhead.

[Palauan Hammer]

My thoughts on putting using a calculated backstroke technique......I couldn't do that. I prefer to react to what I see, and what I'm feeling in my feet. For me the biggest factor in having excellent distance control and hitting my intended line is center face contact. That's why I spend a ton of time using to tees to make a gate barely wider than my putter head and hit a couple hundred putts like that. 50 Left hand only, 50 right hand only, 50 both hands. Then putt around the practice green for a half hour to hour. Again, I have the time to do this. I don't think it's possible to develop a backstroke system personally because every single putt and green is different. I could be wrong on that part though. I, again, prefer reacting to the target.

 

 

My theory on the low point moving forward is this (probably way off) here goes.

 

Coming into impact we shift our weight forward, the angle formed with our wrists if done properly will unhinge just after impact, both arms should be extended it this point. So because of this extension and weight shift the low point happens after the ball, even if the head stays back. Weight shift, rotation, extension. That's what I think LOL

 

Interesting stat too, 4-8 inches. When I was playing good golf I remember my divots starting a good 4-6 inches target side of the ball. I was really obvious on par 3's, I could use the same stub tee forever because the divot was way after contact.

[Conrad1953]

I read Bobby's book many years ago when it first came out. He also advocates

playing with BLADES, lol.

 

Anyway he studied divots and came up with averages per HC. I think a scratch

am is 1-3 inches target side; more realistic for us. You must be very very precise

and very very shallow to have the bottom of the divot 4-8 inches target side. If

you can do it consider yourself a pro ball striker!!

[jbhawx]

The measured low point on the PGA guys is 4-8 inches on the target side of impact. With a straight lead arm at address and shoulders turning 90* to the spine you end up with a lead shoulder farther away from the ball at impact. If the head stays back and the shoulders are slightly open, how does this low point move forward from the address position?

 

Cool stat! Never heard that number.

 

Wonder which iron that's based on or if it ways data complied throughout the bag? (Might be a little different number for wedge than 3 iron in my swing - lol.

 

"Straight lead arm at address"... hmmm Kinda-sorta simmering with that one but will commit to think it through for ya.

 

"How does this low point move forward from the address position?"

 

Beauty of a question. Will go away and sit with that one, too. The knee jerk form here... the "geometry" at address of the shaft and body is different during the flow thru impact than was true at address. Need to simmer...

 

What do you guys think?

 

Stat comes from the book "The Impact Zone" by Bobby Clampett.

 

I believe that the center of the swing arc continually changes as does the radius from these points from center to hands as well as center to clubhead.

 

According to Manuel De La Torre in his book "Understanding the Golf Swing" He says that the center of gravity you create through balance is the low point of the swing. That is also why he says no weight shift. By shifting weight you change your CoG and when you change your CoG you change the bottom of the arc, or the bottom of the swing.

 

From what I've learned pros actually don't transfer any weight to the right during the BS except very few. It takes impeccable timing to shift the weight back. However; pros keep the weight centered during the BS and at the top they shift to the left foot as they go into the DS and that is what causes the bottom of the swing to be ahead of the ball and move. Hence why their divots are always ahead of the ball.

 

I've routinely heard even outside the above mentions that where the majority of weight is at impact influences where the club bottoms out. It only makes sense when you think that the swing will bottom out at your body's center of gravity. So wherever that is, appears to be the low point in the swing.

[DeNinny]

The measured low point on the PGA guys is 4-8 inches on the target side of impact. With a straight lead arm at address and shoulders turning 90* to the spine you end up with a lead shoulder farther away from the ball at impact. If the head stays back and the shoulders are slightly open, how does this low point move forward from the address position?

 

Cool stat! Never heard that number.

 

Wonder which iron that's based on or if it ways data complied throughout the bag? (Might be a little different number for wedge than 3 iron in my swing - lol.

 

"Straight lead arm at address"... hmmm Kinda-sorta simmering with that one but will commit to think it through for ya.

 

"How does this low point move forward from the address position?"

 

Beauty of a question. Will go away and sit with that one, too. The knee jerk form here... the "geometry" at address of the shaft and body is different during the flow thru impact than was true at address. Need to simmer...

 

What do you guys think?

 

Stat comes from the book "The Impact Zone" by Bobby Clampett.

 

I believe that the center of the swing arc continually changes as does the radius from these points from center to hands as well as center to clubhead.

 

According to Manuel De La Torre in his book "Understanding the Golf Swing" He says that the center of gravity you create through balance is the low point of the swing. That is also why he says no weight shift. By shifting weight you change your CoG and when you change your CoG you change the bottom of the arc, or the bottom of the swing.

 

From what I've learned pros actually don't transfer any weight to the right during the BS except very few. It takes impeccable timing to shift the weight back. However; pros keep the weight centered during the BS and at the top they shift to the left foot as they go into the DS and that is what causes the bottom of the swing to be ahead of the ball and move. Hence why their divots are always ahead of the ball.

 

I've routinely heard even outside the above mentions that where the majority of weight is at impact influences where the club bottoms out. It only makes sense when you think that the swing will bottom out at your body's center of gravity. So wherever that is, appears to be the low point in the swing.

 

Sorry, but the CG does NOT define where the bottom of the swing is. It can affect it due to centripetal force, but it does NOT define it. The swing bottom is wherever the point of maximum extension is from the center of the swing.

 

You can have two balls with the exact same radius, but their CG locations can be different. The CG location does NOT change the ball's radius.

 

Also part of the fact that a pro ball striker's bottom is 4-8 inches past impact is because the impact with the ball helped to deflect the clubhead deeper into the ground. Divots are simply deeper when the ball enters the equation and this may have nothing to do with the AoA or swing arc.

 

Edit: The more telling data would be what is the pro striker's AoA just BEFORE impact? And what is the clubhead velocity AND acceleration at that point?

[DeNinny]

If the center point moves even a fraction towards the perimeter during the motion the swing arc becomes elliptical. ...even from an angle.

 

The rest of the swing (and thus its normal shape) moves with the center.

 

So it's a circle with a moving center. Got it.

 

I never said it was for sure a circle. If I were to guess I would say it is very circular near impact. All the hinges/pivot points of the swing are circular actions, so that is the basis of my guess.

 

I also never said the center, which I define as the point between the shoulder sockets, is moving DURING the swing. I only stated it moves in the context of setting up with secondary tilt BEFORE the swing even starts.

 

That said, the wrists, both shoulder sockets, and the trail elbow are all moving hinges/pivot points, but in general the center of the swing shouldn't move during the swing. And if it does, then it better be a CONSISTENT action, both in timing AND positions.

[jbhawx]

Sorry, but the CG does NOT define where the bottom of the swing is. It can affect it due to centripetal force, but it does NOT define it. The swing bottom is wherever the point of maximum extension is from the center of the swing.

 

You can have two balls with the exact same radius, but their CG locations can be different. The CG location does NOT change the ball's radius.

 

Also part of the fact that a pro ball striker's bottom is 4-8 inches past impact is because the impact with the ball helped to deflect the clubhead deeper into the ground. Divots are simply deeper when the ball enters the equation and this may have nothing to do with the AoA or swing arc.

 

Edit: The more telling data would be what is the pro striker's AoA just BEFORE impact? And what is the clubhead velocity AND acceleration at that point?

 

 

I agree it does not define it, and I don't think I was trying to say it did.

 

From my understanding your own center of gravity influences the center of the swing. For example if you stood with 50/50 weight and your CoG dead center and just held a club and let it hang it will be directly centered. If you than shift your weight and nothing else the club will sway in order to align itself with your CoG. This could be due more to your body adjusting to your CoG rather than the club. However; from what I've interpreted on centripetal force any change in center point would also cause a change in the outside arc. In golf a change in your body's CoG by shifting weight to left or right foot, causes the same effect as the center point changing during centripetal force. So therefore when you change the center point, which would be the wrists or fulcrum point, the outside arc of the swing also changes accordingly.

 

Another way to think of it. Using a ball suspended from a string (Think those desk pendulum swinging balls, but only one) if you start the ball swinging back an forth around the fixed point the bottom of the swing will be directly below its suspension point. Now if you move that suspension point to the left or right, the ball's centripetal force also adjusts. In the golf swing, by changing, or shifting your weight, you change where the center is, and that causes the club's bottom of the swing to change as well. The "bottom" of the swing is also below that center point.

 

So, For example if you popped up, with no shift in weight the ball would be topped because you lengthened the distance from the ground. If you did the opposite you would hit the ball fat, because you decreased the distance from the ground. If you moved your weight to the right you would bottom out behind the ball. If you moved your weight to the left you would bottom out in front of the ball.

 

I entirely agree that the "bottom" is where full extension occurs. At address you technically are already at "full extension", but at impact you are not. Why is that? Because you shifted that center point in front of the ball instead of keeping it the same. This occurs through a shift in weight to the left foot in the simplest explanation.

 

Now I realize that it is far more complicated than that, and a ton of more variables, but just looking at "weight shift" there is an influence on the "bottom" of the swing when you shift the weight. Shifting weight changes your center of gravity, which influences the clubs center during centripetal force, which in effect changes the location where the bottom of the swing occurs.

 

 

lol after typing this I realize now that this may get interesting... :golfer: