Confessions 12 --- Exploding Heads

[DeNinny]

I see your point, DeNinny. While I'm not as erudite as you in verbalizing what is going on and why in the swing, I most certainly have a feel for it. I guess I'm just more of a show me kinda guy rather than worrying about the whys. But then again, I have some ability to self-correct on the fly when things are going astray, so perhaps you are right in that I am downplaying my understanding of what is going on. I suppose my lack of analysis is self serving in the sense that it is a deliberate short circuit to the tendency to pollute one's mind with swing thoughts and avoiding debates on the larger subject. ;)

 

From what I read in your posts, you are as 'erudite' as anyone else in describing your swing thoughts.

 

And LOL for me, I do recognize that I've been fortunate in that my education and career have enabled me to understand and learn this game in ways I never even conceived when I got serious about it. That's why I feel lucky. I didn't become a chemical engineer to learn about golf. So I know that the stuff I post in detail will get to the point of others not understanding everything and moreover there are folks that don't want the details. The fundamental physics of this game is easy, but the details of properly applying the fundamentals at all levels and not missing key details is where things get hard. As mentioned it has taken all of my education and experience to figure it all out, but also what has helped is to actually 'debate' the science through me posting a hypothesis and then fully welcoming the challenge of WRX naysayers on it. So I am with you in avoiding debates based on opinion and emotion, but I actually welcome a technical debate, because they actually have proven solutions and the mere act of the debate itself actually moves the resolution along, provided those debating have a common understanding of the science. To me what is important is getting the debate to resolution: all debaters get to the technical "truth". I guess I'm just used to it in my education and work since technical debates are commonplace. And although technical people LOVE to be right, what's more important in having the debate is converging towards the technical truth if not outright proof of it. I've always said that it is more important that the science be right, rather than me be right about the science...BUT LOL I will put up my technical interpretations to ANYONE for debate. I confess that my hope is that some club design engineer with a good engineering degree will come along and truly refute ANYTHING that I have ever technically posted and provide technically irrefutable 'proof' that I've missed something. It hasn't happened yet because I'm pretty sure everything I post is backed by the laws of physics. But I'm open to it and welcome it in the interest of learning as much as possible about this carney game.

[DeNinny]

So scomac, this discussion has got me thinking deep again about this game. It actually got me thinking about why you seem to think the swing is too much of a technical problem to actually analyze. I'd like to challenge that thought if you will indulge me...(and please don't think of this as a debate...it is nothing but a healthy discussion and sharing of opinions...)

 

So my question to you and anybody else that thinks I have been too analytical about the swing, I'm curious if you think that the swing is any more complicated than combining the mechanics of only just 5 basic motions. The reason I ask this is because that is how simple I see it: it is 5 basic motions that combine in simple harmony to swing a club and propel the little golf ball down the fairway. Also each one of these motions is a simple hinge or rotation in one direction and then another. That's it. Nothing complicated in any of that. 5 basic motions that are in single directions. True, the actions are being performed in three dimensions but individually they are done in their own first (or second) dimension. As an isolated motion, it is very simple to execute. So again I ask, does this really sound that complicated or too analytical? (Again, I'm seeking opinion and perspective more than anything.)

[scomac2002]

So scomac, this discussion has got me thinking deep again about this game. It actually got me thinking about why you seem to think the swing is too much of a technical problem to actually analyze. I'd like to challenge that thought if you will indulge me...(and please don't think of this as a debate...it is nothing but a healthy discussion and sharing of opinions...)

 

So my question to you and anybody else that thinks I have been too analytical about the swing, I'm curious if you think that the swing is any more complicated than combining the mechanics of only just 5 basic motions. The reason I ask this is because that is how simple I see it: it is 5 basic motions that combine in simple harmony to swing a club and propel the little golf ball down the fairway. Also each one of these motions is a simple hinge or rotation in one direction and then another. That's it. Nothing complicated in any of that. 5 basic motions that are in single directions. True, the actions are being performed in three dimensions but individually they are done in their own first (or second) dimension. As an isolated motion, it is very simple to execute. So again I ask, does this really sound that complicated or too analytical? (Again, I'm seeking opinion and perspective more than anything.)

 

No, it isn't complicated when explained like that. I think the issue that I was having was the technical detail of the impacts of forces, inertia and the like and how the golfer is attempting to influence those rather than a more visually descriptive potion if you will.

 

I think the art of enlightenment is the ability to explain something complicated in a way that a layman would understand rather than explaining something simple in complex detail. I understand what motivates you to do that, but I think that it tends to lose folks along the way or at least has the potential to do so.

[DeNinny]

So scomac, this discussion has got me thinking deep again about this game. It actually got me thinking about why you seem to think the swing is too much of a technical problem to actually analyze. I'd like to challenge that thought if you will indulge me...(and please don't think of this as a debate...it is nothing but a healthy discussion and sharing of opinions...)

 

So my question to you and anybody else that thinks I have been too analytical about the swing, I'm curious if you think that the swing is any more complicated than combining the mechanics of only just 5 basic motions. The reason I ask this is because that is how simple I see it: it is 5 basic motions that combine in simple harmony to swing a club and propel the little golf ball down the fairway. Also each one of these motions is a simple hinge or rotation in one direction and then another. That's it. Nothing complicated in any of that. 5 basic motions that are in single directions. True, the actions are being performed in three dimensions but individually they are done in their own first (or second) dimension. As an isolated motion, it is very simple to execute. So again I ask, does this really sound that complicated or too analytical? (Again, I'm seeking opinion and perspective more than anything.)

 

No, it isn't complicated when explained like that. I think the issue that I was having was the technical detail of the impacts of forces, inertia and the like and how the golfer is attempting to influence those rather than a more visually descriptive potion if you will.

 

I think the art of enlightenment is the ability to explain something complicated in a way that a layman would understand rather than explaining something simple in complex detail. I understand what motivates you to do that, but I think that it tends to lose folks along the way or at least has the potential to do so.

 

Yes you are now onto my path with this post! It is all about golf enlightenment with me. I'm constantly working on simplification of my thoughts and the science, and posting and seeing how it is received and understood is part of it! But remember, the definition of layman is relative. It is difficult to gauge where someone is going to get lost when you are not on the same technical page. I don't always know when something is too technical or not.

 

So now, here is my goal: I will build upon the concept of those 5 basic motions and explain how to go from them to those technical forces and inertia that the golfer has to 'manage' throughout the swing. And my intent is NOT to lose you along the way. The ideal result is hopefully we both are more enlightened. I believe the problem statement is...what is the ideal physics of the swing? In particular how does the golfer create and manage the centrifugal forces and momentum changes at play?

 

And yes I know a visual will help. LOL I used to put stuff on graph paper and post it but I actually like the challenge of trying to put things simply in words alone. It is definitely more challenging to explain things simply but the difficulty is what makes me keep refining what I'm thinking.

 

So anyway, tonight I will build on those 5 basic motions. Just as a teaser and thought provocation, here they are...

 

1) The hips turn back and forth around a center.

 

2) The shoulders turn back and forth around a center.

 

3) Both arms raise and lower the club at their shoulder sockets.

 

4) The trail arm hinges to 90 degrees and then straightens.

 

5) The wrists hinge the club and then return the hinge to the same position at address.

 

I don't care who's swing you look at, they all have these actions except Moe Norman eliminated 3) with his true single plane swing.

[Palauan Hammer]

Before I joined Golfwrx, I had a basic understanding of mechanics. But when my buddies come visit me now I tell them I've gone to golf college and I now have at least a Bachelors, working toward my Masters.

 

I guess I was scared at first of "knowing too much", but I soon realized I'm preparing my golf game to go to battle. The better I can understand the golf swing, and more importantly my golf swing the better I'll be prepared. When warming up for a tournament somewhere far away from home (and my coach) I'd like to be able to make adjustments and not be afraid of losing my swing, then going to the first tee hoping it shows up when I plant the tee.

 

That being said, I'm interested to see your post Ninja, I like what your on to with the 5 simple motions. Looking forward to be able to possibly have yet another perspective on the golf swing. I'm soaking and have been soaking all of this in like a sponge.

 

Lastly, it's official, I actually have a sentencing date!! March 1st. If things go well, March 2nd I will be teeing it up (103 days from now) :D :D :D

[Palauan Hammer]

Alright, so where should I play my first round?

 

1. 7,188 layout, 73.2/131 rating form the "gold tees" (back tee). Course is a fairly open layout. Wind is really a factor on this course.

 

2. 7,101 give or take the back tees are not always open. Rating, 72/141. Lots of jungle, forced carries on tee shots, windy, undulating greens. Nicklaus design.

 

3. The BEAST lol, also my favorite course. Ball striking must be solid or it will eat your lunch. 7,472, 76/139. It's long, has tiny, very quick turtle back greens,and is always windy as it's across the street from Pacific Ocean, literally.

[Matt J]

Might as well go big and play the BEAST!

 

Guam has more nice golf courses than my home town. Nicklaus design, huh? They're always first class.

[DeNinny]

I love Nicklaus designs...Pronghorn, Reflection Bay (R.I.P.), Bear Creek.

 

I say either that course or the BEAST. I already have my betting scores too...

[Palauan Hammer]

Might as well go big and play the BEAST!

 

Guam has more nice golf courses than my home town. Nicklaus design, huh? They're always first class.

 

The Beast it is!! I love that course anyway.

 

Yeah I'd say for a small place we have some gems. Leo Palace is the name of the resort here that has 36 holes, 18 Nicklaus, 18 Palmer design. Let me dig up some pics and I'll post a couple

 

 

EDIT: My lowest score on the beast is a 75, just days before house arrest began. It was windy and I finished double bogey, bogey. Could've been under for the day too easily. It's the type of course where you feel like no listening to anything on the drive home because your brain is fried.

 

 

Cancel, this video is better hahhaha

 

[DeNinny]

For the record, Palauan Hammer will shoot a 79 at the BEAST.

 

But LOL knowing his best is a 75 there concerns me.

[Palauan Hammer]

For the record, Palauan Hammer will shoot a 79 at the BEAST.

 

But LOL knowing his best is a 75 there concerns me.

 

79 is very doable, it's up to the wind to be honest and my driver. For example, the par 5's are as follows 610,584,580,624.

 

Actually, 79, NO PROBLEM hahaha

[Palauan Hammer]

Here's some other options

 

 

 

This is the course that's literally right next to my Aunt's house.

 

[DeNinny]

Before I joined Golfwrx, I had a basic understanding of mechanics. But when my buddies come visit me now I tell them I've gone to golf college and I now have at least a Bachelors, working toward my Masters.

 

I guess I was scared at first of "knowing too much", but I soon realized I'm preparing my golf game to go to battle. The better I can understand the golf swing, and more importantly my golf swing the better I'll be prepared. When warming up for a tournament somewhere far away from home (and my coach) I'd like to be able to make adjustments and not be afraid of losing my swing, then going to the first tee hoping it shows up when I plant the tee.

 

That being said, I'm interested to see your post Ninja, I like what your on to with the 5 simple motions. Looking forward to be able to possibly have yet another perspective on the golf swing. I'm soaking and have been soaking all of this in like a sponge.

 

Lastly, it's official, I actually have a sentencing date!! March 1st. If things go well, March 2nd I will be teeing it up (103 days from now) :D :D :D

 

Palauan on the Lammer, that is cool beans about having an actual date. LOL now time will seem to slllllooooooooowwwwww down as you get closer and closer...get zen...find your 'chi', my island bruddah....

 

LOL and what I'm going to explain on the swing is the BASICS...LOL it is the undergrad first semester at college stuff. I will say right up front that I will explain the foundational science behind all good swings. And I promise you that everything I explain will be observed in 90% of all good golf swings. In fact, I used video and sequence pics throughout the eras of golf to validate that everything that I explain is actually observed in nearly all swings. My take on the swing and all its nuances has always been that if someone has done it on tour, then it is a valid way to swing and there are physics that obviously support it. So if an instructor comes along and contradicts this and says a mechanic MUST be done a certain way but yet there are clearly tour proven exceptions to this, then to me I don't think that instructor has a good understanding of the science behind the swing. Sure, his way may work fine, but to be dictatorial about it is just wrong.

 

Also I'm really interested in connecting with you, scomac, and anybody else on this. If it at least makes sense, then that is already a win for me. And if it actually helps anyone, even better. For you personally, Hambooger, I would be pleased as punch if I knew you drew anything I ever posted as help while you are out there competing. Ok so here goes...

 

So before I get into the specifics of those 5 basic moves I need to make some general statements and set some of the basic foundational physics that apply more in general.

 

One thing to remember is that ALL the moves are based on a hinge or pivot point. As such, each move is it's own rotation and will follow Newton's laws of motion based on rotating bodies. And as each rotation occurs, then each one will have centrifugal force involved that is pulling on the rotating mass. This is an important point because this is where forces and inertia will come into play as the actions actually happen. And if all these rotations are on different planes of motion at varying points in the swing, then the forces and inertia created by them will be at odds with each other. Please just note this foundational issue moving forward.

 

Another thing to remember about rotational motion is that the ideal is for the rotation to occur on a fixed and flat plane. When a planet orbits the sun, it doesn't orbit in a sinusoidal motion. Instead it rotates on a perfectly flat and level plane. I hope this statement is blatantly obvious, but again it is important to note up front because again it will apply to all the 5 motions. As a hammer thrower rotates the hammer around his body before throwing it, it rotates on a perfectly flat plane (at an angle) around his body. In fact it is VERY hard for him NOT to rotate the hammer on that perfectly flat plane. Again this is important because as all the 5 motions are occurring on their own individual planes of rotation, one still has to account for this in the big picture rotation of the entire swing as a whole, as the entire mass of the arms (which are also bending and moving in their own individual planes) and the club (which is also taking on different angles and positions relative to the direction of the overall swing plane) are moving around the overall swing center, the point right between the shoulder sockets.

 

Ok so just to recap and I hope I didn't just lose you guys on this...

 

1) Each of the 5 basic motions is an individual rotational motion that will generate its own centrifugal force. That force will pull the CG of whatever mass is being rotated radially away from the pivot point and in the plane of rotation.

 

2) Rotational motion of a mass around a pivot point or center will always follow along a flat plane, or better put, the center of gravity of the rotating mass will always follow along a flat plane. Otherwise, added force or energy will be needed to make the object still rotate but also along a curved or non-flat rotational path as it does so. This force is needed because, again, centrifugal force is going to try to pull it to a flat plane rotation, so added force must be added to counter this. Simply put: Once a plane of rotation is established for a moving object, it's CG will want to stay on that plane of rotation and it will take added energy to make the CG travel on a different angled plane.

 

Ok so now that these two foundations are set and hopefully understood that they will be at play as each action occurs, I want to elaborate on 2) above as it applies to the 'problem statement'.

 

The ideal swing (based on pure physics) MUST be done such that the center of gravity of the mass of the swing, meaning the CG the arms and club as an entire unit, even when they are changing angles and having their own planes of rotation, rotates around a flat plane.

 

To make sure this is explicitly clear, let's consider the ideal flat plane of rotation for that mass. Imagine (or actually go grab a club) and hold it such that it is in a straight line away from your body and in the same straight line as the arms, meaning there should be no angle formed between the arms and club shaft and they are straight and horizontal. In that position, rotate the shoulders on a perfectly horizontal plane. Go back and forth in rotation with 90 degree shoulder turns. The arms and club should be like a helicopter blade and (if you do it fast enough) you will feel the centrifugal force of it pull the arms and club in a straight line again horizontally and directly away from the center of the swing at any point in the rotation. This is no different than that hammer thrower example, but instead of a hammer on a straight cord, you are holding the club. This is the ideal flat plane of rotation and the CG of the swing is also on the same plane as ALL the swing mass.

 

Ok so again the ideal is such that the CG of the swing mass is going to always want to follow a flat plane, and this is 'proven' in the ideal sense. But now you have to consider the geometry of the swing is both dynamic and NOT flat like the ideal example. So now let's deviate a little from the ideal example above.

 

Now go into the same position where the arms are holding the club straight away from the body in a horizontal plane at the level of the shoulders. But now hinge the club up 90 degrees so it is vertical to your horizontal arms. Now try the same 90 degree flat shoulder rotation. What happens? Centrifugal force is going to try to pull the clubhead flat again and in the same plane as the arms rotation. Again this is that physics of 2) above. By hinging the club 90 degrees to the plane, the overall mass of it moved OFF plane and so the CG of the swing mass is no longer on that plane. It is now taking ENERGY for you to fight that pull and maintain the mass of the club above the plane of rotation. One way to alleviate this added force is to just let the club go back flat and return the entire mass of everything back onto a the flat horizontal plane. This is a return to that ideal.

 

But now let's say you have to keep the 90 degree angle. How then would you still rotate the club and arms as a unit AND in the same angled shape BUT also such that its CG is on that horizontal plane at shoulder level? Answer: you have to lower the angle of your arms (while keeping that 90 degree club angle) such that about half the weight of total weight of arms and club is below the horizontal and flat shoulder plane and the other half of it is above the plane. In this position, the CG will get back on the ideal rotational plane and the mass of the swing (the arms and club) are then balanced above and below it with equal weight. And furthermore, if you DIDN'T allow this to happen BUT you still rotated your shoulders on a horizontal and flat plane, centrifugal force will pull your arms into that position anyway (if you let it).

 

So I'm going to stop here because if none of this is conceptually understood, there is no point getting into the detailed actions yet. Please let me know if anything doesn't make sense.

 

Oh, and welcome to DeNinny's 'swing cave'. If it is still dark, I can still turn up the lights.

[scomac2002]

I'm with you so far, DeNinny, although I'm not sure that you can maintain the club at 90° perpendicular to the plane by simply lowering your arm angle. In my mind the whole reason your rotate your forearms clockwise in the backswing (for a right handed golfer) is that forces are pushing the club down to follow the plane of your swing to keep the mass centered on its rotational axis.

[Palauan Hammer]

I'm with you Ninja, I've read your post twice so far and I'm able to follow along.

 

For the record, Hambooger is my favorite nickname so far! LOL

[DeNinny]

I'm with you so far, DeNinny, although I'm not sure that you can maintain the club at 90° perpendicular to the plane by simply lowering your arm angle. In my mind the whole reason your rotate your forearms clockwise in the backswing (for a right handed golfer) is that forces are pushing the club down to follow the plane of your swing to keep the mass centered on its rotational axis.

 

The 90 example was conceptual only, just so you understand how the CG of the swing mass (the arms and club as a single 'unit') changes position if the geometry of that mass changes in relation to the plane of rotation. Conceptually this is EXACTLY what happens in the swing. Early in the downswing the entire club is on the actual plane of rotation (kind of like that ideal scenario), but later in the DS it has to leave the plane in order for the clubhead to square up.

 

But to your point, if 90 is not possible, what is? Clearly (unless you are Moe Norman) there is SOME angle between the arms and shaft at impact. Just eyeballing it, it looks like 120-150 degrees. It is definitely NOT flat at 180 which is the ideal (straight arms AND shaft). So even though 90 is not possible, SOME angle is.

 

No need to answer this. I just want to point out that at impact (and late in the DS) the CG of the swing mass is NOT ideal in that BOTH the arms and club are NOT on the same plane and that because of this you have to just know and acknowledge that the CG will be on a line (looking DTL) or plane somewhere in between the arm plane and the plane from the shoulder sockets to the clubhead. And again, above this line or plane is half the mass of the swing and below it is the other half.

 

We are at the core of complexity of my swing theory (aka DeNinny's Universal Swing Theory, or the DUST Model). I am glad you thought about that complexity of maintaining a 90 degree wrist hinge AND you pointed out the need to rotate the forearms to set that shaft ON PLANE!

 

BTW, did you notice I DON'T have forearms rotation as one of the 5 motions? (Just food for thought...Hint: It's already covered in just one of the motions.)

[DeNinny]

I'm with you Ninja, I've read your post twice so far and I'm able to follow along.

 

For the record, Hambooger is my favorite nickname so far! LOL

 

It's my favorite too. Except now that makes me Hambooger Helper.

 

I'm so glad you can follow. It means I can explain it all 'simple enough', which means I am further refining my own understanding. I confess that since yesterday and before my post I thought a lot about condensing all the details I need to explain simply and as I do that I see it all from different and even better/simpler perspectives.

[DeNinny]

Ok so there is just one more foundational physics point to make before I go back to the big picture goals of the swing and the 5 basic motions in detail...

 

An arcing path has only ONE point of square relative to a fixed reference point. This is yet another key foundational physics to note about those 5 motions. Since they are all arcing motions around a center or pivot point, they are going to make the clubhead and thus face travel on a curved path. And because of this, the face is going to have an ever changing face angle, so again because of this there is only going to be ONE point of squareness of that clubface. I belabor this point because it refutes the point of trying to make the clubhead and clubface travel in a straight line rather than an arcing path. It also means then the point of squareness must be timed and positioned just right. Consider this: if the timing is off just a little or if the center of the swing has drifted just a little, then that will disrupt the normal square position. At that same position in space, the clubface will NOT be at the same angle as when the timing and center of swing position is just right.

 

So now to play devil's advocate to this and say you want to somehow laterally slide in the swing and create some moments of straight line motion so that the clubface actually does remain square and also travels straight with no arcing path. This may sound fine and dandy and I cannot argue that some golfers may have the skill to do this, but the physics of those 5 motions being all arcing motions says that the clubface has only one instant where it will square at certain point in space. And to deviate from this would require more energy which ultimately is the potential for added variability. So again, the physics supports that it is better to accept the arcing path nature of the clubhead and that timing the swing and holding it steady give the golfer the best chance of consistently putting the clubface in a square position at a certain point in space.

 

Ok so I *think* I've covered all the foundational physics of the 5 motions which has everything to do with the basic physics of rotational motion. Everything that I just explained is going to apply to all the motions. So now let's start drilling down to the details, but for that I want to start at the big picture level and set the specific goals of a good swing. This is essentially a refinement of the earlier 'problem statement'.

 

Goal #1 - Consistently put the clubhead in the same square position coming into impact.

 

Goal #2 - Generate the highest clubhead velocity going into impact.

 

That's it. This is all that a good golf swing is doing. So now, how can we get this done with our body and the club?

 

Goal #1 is fairly straightforward. In order to achieve this goal from a basic level it means that all the actions should ideally be SIMPLE actions that can be repeated. There is more detail than this of course but as I have stated I have condensed the swing to 5 simple motions and already described them. So to me getting the swing down to 5 is already in support of Goal #!. And then along with those 5 actions is the need to TIME them just right and REPEAT them just right.

 

Now before I get into Goal #2, high clubhead velocity, I need to first explain why I chose those 5 actions: they literally move the clubhead when done as an isolated motion without considering any of the others. To prove this to yourself, take a club and get into address position with it. And then from address position. Just do ONLY the one action described. Here is what will happen with each:

 

1) If you only turn your hips and just let your upper body stay as it was at address in relation to the hips, you will find that the clubhead just rotates along with the hip turn as it stays down there at address position height.

 

2) If you leave your hips in place and then just rotate your shoulders back and forth and also keep your arms as they were at address, then you will notice that the clubhead also moves in relation to the shoulders only.

 

3) If you just literally raise the club by hinging both arms right at the shoulder sockets and keep them straight like they were at address, then you will see that the clubhead just goes up and down.

 

4) If you do nothing but bend your trail arm from how it was at address position (remember to also keep your lead arm straight), you will notice that this is what will cause your lead forearm to roll (<- are you reading this, scomac?) such that the back of your lead hand points up by the time the trail arm bends 90 degrees. Also you will notice that your hands are no longer centered in front of you and that they drift such that they are more in front of your trail side than your lead side. They will pretty much be right in front of your trail arm by the time it bends 90 degrees. Note also that this made the clubhead rotate 90 degrees from square. And lastly note that this action physically brought the clubhead and club CLOSER to the body. This is one of the complicating motions in all of the swing, so please make note of all the things it does to the swing mass geometry.

 

Also scomac, there is no need to think about arms rotating or rolling in the swing. The rolling of the forearms is a RESULT of either arm bending while the other arm remains straight. In the backswing the trail arm bends and this AUTOMATICALLY forces the lead forearm to roll one direction and then as it straightens again in the downswing the lead forearm rolls back so square, again automatically. Then on the follow through, the lead arm bends and the trail arm straightens and then rolls in a mirror image to the other arm. Again, to prove this to yourself, get into address position with a club and literally and ONLY just bend the trail elbow first and then straighten it and then as soon as that happens start bending the lead elbow first. Then straighten the lead elbow and repeat. What will happen is your forearms will roll back and forth and the action is DICTATED by the elbows bending and straightening one at a time.

 

5) If you only hinge your wrists while in address position you will notice that this literally moves the clubehead above address position level.

 

Ok so this is the 'proof' that all the 5 motions are actually moving the clubhead. And yes I know there are a few more nitpicky ones (like tilting the spine) but if you will indulge me I will get to the nitpicky stuff later. These 5 actions are the major contributors to Goal #1 and #2, as evidenced that their individual actions actually move the clubhead.

 

So now the question becomes how do we synchronize all the 5 motions such that they meet Goal #2, maximum clubhead velocity? I was going to explain all the WRONG ways to do this but since this is getting lengthy I will just jump to it: In order to generate maximum clubhead velocity the golfer must create a swing with a LOW MOI at the start and then just at the right time he must utilize centrifugal force as much as possible in order to accelerate the clubhead even more and to cause the clubhead to extend back to the impact point. Since extending the clubhead will INCREASE the MOI of the swing, it is VERY important to reduce the time, before impact, that the swing is extended because as per Newton's rotational laws of motion, a high MOI takes more energy to rotate at the same speed as a low MOI.

 

This is a technical dilemma with the swing. It is conflicting physics. On one hand you need to have an extended clubhead, but on the other hand, as soon as you extend the clubhead the increased MOI will SLOW it down. I have to admit I struggled with this issue for a while in my exploration. I had to answer how you could keep increasing clubhead velocity when the MOI of the swing is also increasing. And the answer is...through being in the process of extending but NOT fully extended AT impact. This is the ONLY way to balance the high MOI created by extension with needing to increase clubhead velocity. The clubhead must literally be "flying" farther away from the body as it goes into impact. It is the ONLY way to utilize centrifugal force to assist in generating clubhead velocity.

 

So are we clear on Goals #1 and #2 being the overall goals of a good swing and also how to meet them from a high level? I think I'm ready to get into the motions (FINALLY!).

[Palauan Hammer]

Good stuff Ninja, never thought of the forearm rotation being taken care of by the trail arm bending. That's good stuff, I used to be a big time roller of forearms in the takeaway back in the day.

 

I'm enjoying your breakdown on the swing, funny thing is when I look at DTL video of my swing I have this "pop" at impact where my trail elbow goes from 90ish degrees to completely strait, like a piston punching the ball almost.

 

Completely unrelated note, I did yard work today and water blasted my front walkway. I spent 8 hours in the sun today LOL, my water blaster is a weak tiny one so it took me AGES to water blast our walkway :beach:

[DeNinny]

Good stuff Ninja, never thought of the forearm rotation being taken care of by the trail arm bending. That's good stuff, I used to be a big time roller of forearms in the takeaway back in the day.

 

I'm enjoying your breakdown on the swing, funny thing is when I look at DTL video of my swing I have this "pop" at impact where my trail elbow goes from 90ish degrees to completely strait, like a piston punching the ball almost.

 

Completely unrelated note, I did yard work today and water blasted my front walkway. I spent 8 hours in the sun today LOL, my water blaster is a weak tiny one so it took me AGES to water blast our walkway :beach:

 

LOL you don't even know it yet but I'll bet I'll end up just describing what you already do. And I'm glad you have DTL video of it so you can validate what I'm saying with your own swing. Please,TRY to challenge what I'm explaining!

 

Yes the trail arm bending and straightening is sort of a hidden move that is highly misunderstood because the focus has always been on the forearms actions. Understanding it was a personal breakthrough moment for me too. I think of it now too as a governing move. It takes care of a lot of things at once. And ultimately you just have to TIME when to execute it. And yes it is as simple as that "pop" move you have. It is nothing but a 90 hinge going straight. It is 'hidden' amidst a rotating frame of reference (from hips and shoulders turning) so it is difficult to see as a unifying move for other things.

 

If you consider the geometry and mechanics of the arms starting at address position where they are straight and in front of the golfer and joined at the hands, the arms become a single structural unit and cannot move without affecting the other. To change the position of one arm affects the other and vice versa. The hands are what connects everything and makes it all one unit or unified structure. Bending one arm must move the other.

 

Consider further that both arms straight put the hands at the furthest possible point from the body, so to bend one arm will pull BOTH hands closer to the body. BUT...since the other arm is locked straight, that other arm MUST roll AND the hand MUST drift (actually it 'arcs') over to the other side of the body. Remember, the straight arm by itself is simply hinged at the shoulder socket, so it can swivel and allow the hands to arc over to the other side of the body as the other arm bends.

 

Basically, the trail arm bending shortens the radius of the trail arm AND it FORCES the roll of the straight lead arm and the arc of the hands over to the trail side of the body. End result is that the club gets pulled closer to the body AND it is rotated 90 degrees from square...all from a single, SIMPLE move.

 

LOL you have nothing but time on your hands, so 8 hrs just gets you closer to March 2nd.

[scomac2002]

 

Also scomac, there is no need to think about arms rotating or rolling in the swing. The rolling of the forearms is a RESULT of either arm bending while the other arm remains straight. In the backswing the trail arm bends and this AUTOMATICALLY forces the lead forearm to roll one direction and then as it straightens again in the downswing the lead forearm rolls back so square, again automatically. Then on the follow through, the lead arm bends and the trail arm straightens and then rolls in a mirror image to the other arm. Again, to prove this to yourself, get into address position with a club and literally and ONLY just bend the trail elbow first and then straighten it and then as soon as that happens start bending the lead elbow first. Then straighten the lead elbow and repeat. What will happen is your forearms will roll back and forth and the action is DICTATED by the elbows bending and straightening one at a time.

 

 

While I didn't say this explicitly in my previous post you have described what I was alluding to in that the rolling action was more or less automatic. It is with that in mind that led me to a Steve Stricker type of approach with the limited wrist set and hand action. The fewer moving parts and the less timing involved the better. I have always sought out and intuitive motion and that strikes me as being one.

 

So now the question becomes how do we synchronize all the 5 motions such that they meet Goal #2, maximum clubhead velocity? I was going to explain all the WRONG ways to do this but since this is getting lengthy I will just jump to it: In order to generate maximum clubhead velocity the golfer must create a swing with a LOW MOI at the start and then just at the right time he must utilize centrifugal force as much as possible in order to accelerate the clubhead even more and to cause the clubhead to extend back to the impact point. Since extending the clubhead will INCREASE the MOI of the swing, it is VERY important to reduce the time, before impact, that the swing is extended because as per Newton's rotational laws of motion, a high MOI takes more energy to rotate at the same speed as a low MOI.

 

Is this not needlessly complicated? From my perspective, speed is generated by length and quickness. The length is achieved not by having a long looping swing , but through maintaining width while being compact such that you can be quick to the ball. The quickness is then generated by smoothness of tempo, not from trying to swing the club as fast as humanly possible. Fred Couples is a perfect example of this.

[DeNinny]

Also scomac, there is no need to think about arms rotating or rolling in the swing. The rolling of the forearms is a RESULT of either arm bending while the other arm remains straight. In the backswing the trail arm bends and this AUTOMATICALLY forces the lead forearm to roll one direction and then as it straightens again in the downswing the lead forearm rolls back so square, again automatically. Then on the follow through, the lead arm bends and the trail arm straightens and then rolls in a mirror image to the other arm. Again, to prove this to yourself, get into address position with a club and literally and ONLY just bend the trail elbow first and then straighten it and then as soon as that happens start bending the lead elbow first. Then straighten the lead elbow and repeat. What will happen is your forearms will roll back and forth and the action is DICTATED by the elbows bending and straightening one at a time.

 

 

While I didn't say this explicitly in my previous post you have described what I was alluding to in that the rolling action was more or less automatic. It is with that in mind that led me to a Steve Stricker type of approach with the limited wrist set and hand action. The fewer moving parts and the less timing involved the better. I have always sought out and intuitive motion and that strikes me as being one.

 

So now the question becomes how do we synchronize all the 5 motions such that they meet Goal #2, maximum clubhead velocity? I was going to explain all the WRONG ways to do this but since this is getting lengthy I will just jump to it: In order to generate maximum clubhead velocity the golfer must create a swing with a LOW MOI at the start and then just at the right time he must utilize centrifugal force as much as possible in order to accelerate the clubhead even more and to cause the clubhead to extend back to the impact point. Since extending the clubhead will INCREASE the MOI of the swing, it is VERY important to reduce the time, before impact, that the swing is extended because as per Newton's rotational laws of motion, a high MOI takes more energy to rotate at the same speed as a low MOI.

 

Is this not needlessly complicated? From my perspective, speed is generated by length and quickness. The length is achieved not by having a long looping swing , but through maintaining width while being compact such that you can be quick to the ball. The quickness is then generated by smoothness of tempo, not from trying to swing the club as fast as humanly possible. Fred Couples is a perfect example of this.

It's actually the specific physics of what you just said. I'm in the process of explaining HOW and WHY to be smooth and yet quick, just like Fred Couples. In fact, moving forward we can use his swing (and Hambooger's) as an example of doing everything I'm stating.

 

What specifically did I state that was complicated and not in alignment with length and quickness? I stated that length is needed by doing that late extension. And I stated that quickness is needed through turning with a low MOI and releasing centrifugal force. And yes, old Boom Boom is a PERFECT model of this. You couldn't have picked a better example! (But I was going to stick with Snead...heck, we can analyze both as my 'proofs'.)

 

Also I'm glad we are on the same page about how the forearms actually roll. I actually don't even like to mention it. However, you can instead think of the action as the lead arm staying straight as it pivots up at the shoulder sockets at a 45 degree angle and across the chest over to the trail side, while also rolling the lead wrist 90 degrees. This action will 'force' the trail arm to bend (and also roll a little in sync with the lead arm roll). Again, the two arms are unified at the hands and also tied to the same torso with pivoting sockets, so any movement of one arm dictates a specific movement by the other.

[DeNinny]

Ok Senor scomacattack, check out this vid of old Boom Boom in the context of everything 'complicated' that I posted earler:

 

http://youtu.be/OQuyJc5W904

 

He is doing all the 5 basic motions that I mentioned. He is doing them SMOOTHLY. The reason he is doing them smoothly is because he ISN'T complicating them. They are simple arcing and hinging actions.

 

At the top of his swing his trail arm is bent 90+ degrees. This is how the clubface pivoted to be parallel to the swing path (instead of square) and how the clubhead and shaft got in the position to be dragged exactly behind the hands on the way down. In conjunction with his SIMPLE wrists hinge, this is also what sets the club CLOSE to his body. And per Newton's laws of motion this gives him a low MOI and that low MOI is what allows him to turn with QUICKNESS.

 

As he starts his downswing he maintains that bent trail elbow and hinged wrist position as a single structure or unit until about halfway down. As he does this he can VERY efficiently turn with seemingly EFFORTLESS energy because 1) he is dragging the clubhead directly behind his hands in the plane of rotation and 2) he keeps the club tucked close to his body because if he extended that early it would slow his turn down. Note also that as he does this early DS turn, he is simply dropping his arms (yet another SIMPLE and basic move) in conjunction with the turn. At this point he is only doing three simple moves: turning his hips, turning his shoulders, and dropping his arms while maintaining the structure of his bent trail arm and his hinged wrists. Oh and BTW he is dropping his trail elbow back to the same relationship as it had with his trail hip at address.

 

As he gets about halfway down, his trail elbow (still bent 90 degrees along with his wrists still hinged) reaches his trail hip because he SIMPLY dropped his arms. And it is at that point he starts SIMPLY straightening (i.e. EXTENDING or LENGTHENING) his trail arm and also SIMPLY unhinging his wrists at the same time. The rest of the DS is just him continuing that SIMPLE unified action. As this happens, the clubhead gets further away from the body (which slows it down...which is why it must be done in conjunction with centrifugal force release) and it starts rotating back to square. And then PAST impact you see that his trail arm gets fully straight and AT impact you see it slightly bent.

 

Throughout all these 'complicated' actions he is accelerating the clubhead QUICKLY but yet SMOOTHLY. The reason he can do this is because his actions are SIMPLE and he is relaxed so that he doesn't create severe momentum or force changes and also take the club off its natural path.

 

Here's more of that beautiful swing. Such smooth transition from LOW MOI to HIGH MOI...

 

[Palauan Hammer]

I could watch Freddy swing all day. Him and Ernie.

 

Somnac, Steve Stricker is a great swing to think of, very simple action. Also last night (local time) I was watching the DP World on golf channel and Francesco Molinari has a wonderfully simple action. Another one I've been admiring besides his, Richard Sterne.

 

 

Ninjitsu, I'm with you. You have primed me over the last couple years to be able to follow you better. I'm gonna start my "100-100" program, I have a 100 days, so I'll make a 100 (quality) swings until then. I'll be sure to 'verify' the 5 motions. Also, upon watching Freddy's swings I don't feel so bad about chasing that magical position of the club shaft matching up with the trail forearm in the downswing. Plus before WRX I had only watched my swing on video once so have no idea what I was doing, also I don't remember being steep, yes I took divots and sometimes deeper ones with wedges but always 3-4 inches after the ball with all clubs but the driver. I"m basically conceding that I don't care if my trail arm matches the club shaft on the downswing anymore, I'm chasing my tail with that one LOL

[DeNinny]

Palaundry Hamper, I promise if you stay with me all the way that you will have a light so bright for your own personal swing cave. LOL get ready for your 'high beams'.

[DeNinny]

I could watch Freddy swing all day. Him and Ernie.

 

Somnac, Steve Stricker is a great swing to think of, very simple action. Also last night (local time) I was watching the DP World on golf channel and Francesco Molinari has a wonderfully simple action. Another one I've been admiring besides his, Richard Sterne.

 

 

Ninjitsu, I'm with you. You have primed me over the last couple years to be able to follow you better. I'm gonna start my "100-100" program, I have a 100 days, so I'll make a 100 (quality) swings until then. I'll be sure to 'verify' the 5 motions. Also, upon watching Freddy's swings I don't feel so bad about chasing that magical position of the club shaft matching up with the trail forearm in the downswing. Plus before WRX I had only watched my swing on video once so have no idea what I was doing, also I don't remember being steep, yes I took divots and sometimes deeper ones with wedges but always 3-4 inches after the ball with all clubs but the driver. I"m basically conceding that I don't care if my trail arm matches the club shaft on the downswing anymore, I'm chasing my tail with that one LOL

 

Ok so you want some Strick swinging exactly as I described for Couples? I got your Strick right here...

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

He is doing everything I explained that Couples does in his swing. He doesn't nearly take the club back as much but he still rotates the club tight to his body on the way down for that low MOI. And really watch how simple his arms drop is. You can really see it in this super slow motion. His trail elbow from the top simply goes straight towards his trail hip as it rotates, and then by the time it catches the hip he immediately starts straightening his trail arm and he just keeps doing this right through impact and just PAST it.

 

The other thing he does picture perfect is swing the club (or rather the swing mass CG) on that perfect balanced plane. Watch from the top and follow the shaft angle as his lead arm gets just before halfway down (just before the 9 o'clock). At that position, draw a line that follows where it points at the ground. This is the plane of the overall swing CG that I'm explaining that MUST be always on an established plane where the CG of the arms and club as a unit, as they orbit or rotate around the center of the swing, must NEVER leave. When the CG orbits on a perfectly flat plane like that, as explained earlier, the energy of the system will be in the lowest and most efficient state. Any deviation of the CG moving off this plane will require added energy and it will also add variability and so this is in direct conflict of Goals #1 and #2. So again, where is the shaft pointing at the halfway down point (or just before halfway)? Is it pointing at the ball? Or is it pointing just below the ball? Answer: it is pointing just below the ball.

 

Why does it point just below the ball and why not directly at the ball? Again the reason is because of that transition of the club going perfectly ON plane at the first half of the DS, again also when the trail arm is bent 90 degrees and the hands are efficiently dragging the club directly behind them on the plane of rotation, to OFF plane as soon as the trail arms starts straightening. As this starts happening the club immediately starts pivoting off plane where the clubhead goes above it and the hands and arms go below it. This is how the overall weight of the swing stays balanced on that plane. As the clubhead goes above the plane, in order for the CG to stay on that plane there must be some counterweight to go below it so that it doesn't veer off the plane. So again an equal mass has to go above plane as below and Stricker is demonstrating this perfectly.

 

By the way I am calling this the DUST plane from here moving forward. The DUST plane is simply the ideal plane at which the entire CG of the swing, meaning the mass of the arms and club, rotates around the center of the swing, the point directly between the shoulder sockets. Looking DTL, it starts at a point just below the ball (maybe a couple of inches or so) and it goes up to the point directly between the shoulder sockets. This is the plane at which all good swing rotate going into the ball. If you look at all good golf swings the shaft will always point just below the ball at the halfway down point (or just before...it depends when they start straightening the trail arm).

 

Also Palbert Hamstein, here is your first 100-100 homework: deconstruct your swing into those 5 motions in front of a mirror. You need to learn your swing well enough to know, relative to the frame of reference of your rotating shoulders, exactly what angles and directions that you do all your own motions at, especially for the direction that you hinge your wrists and at what angle your lead arm raises as both your trail arm bends and your arms raise. Here is how you do it standing in front of a mirror:

 

1) Take your normal address position.

 

2) Take your backswing and freeze it at the top. In this position, DO NOT move your arms in relation to your shoulders and keep everything frozen in your hinges angles and arms and wrists position.

 

3) Return your hips and shoulders back to square, but again keep the arms and club as a unit frozen. In this position, make note of the position of the club in relation to your head or any frame of reference you choose. Note the angle of the shaft and the position of the clubhead. Note where your arms and hands are.

 

4) Return your UPPER arms back to address position, BUT...keep your trail arm bent and your wrists hinged. Only allow your arms to drop back to address position. They may drop straight down or they may drop at a slight angle in order to get back to how they hang at address. Again from this position, note the orientation of both your arms and the angle of the wrist hinge and again the position of the club.

 

5) Now straighten your trail arm so that your arms go back to address position, BUT...keep your wrists hinged as they were at the top. Again, note the wrist hinge angle and position of clubhead and shaft. Also note how the lead arm rolls as you straightened the trail one.

 

6) Finally unhinge your wrists and this final action should drop the club right back to how it is at address. In fact you should be exactly back at address and you will have proved to yourself that it only took those five simple actions to get to the top of your swing. You just did them in reverse.

 

And finally repeat steps 1) through 6) using the mirror for the DTL view.

 

Keep repeating these steps until you have deconstructed your own swing into the 5 basic motions and know exactly where they occur in relation to your backswing and downswing. In doing this I hope it brightens your own swing cave torch.

[scomac2002]

DeNinny,

 

Read your posts late last night to ponder for a while and perhaps I need to ponder longer. It maybe that with the golf season now officially in the books, for me at least, there are other things more pressing, such is the case of a two sport athlete and I use that term perhaps unadvisedly. That said, I guess my conclusion is that the light has yet to come on in my personal swing cave.

 

In a general sense, I have no issues with the accuracy of your descriptions. I still maintain that it is needlessly complicated by introducing the physics factors. While they may be behind the anatomical interplay of a good swing it strikes me as being needless details to just clutter up the process of an individual working on developing a repeatable and effective swing. It may only be five simple motions, but that is a lot to sequence and time within the time frame that it must happen to be successful. It maybe simple, but it's not easy, hence the need for 10000 repetitions to ingrain the correct move. Where most of us fail is through the introduction of small errors in the execution even if we are aware of what must transpire.

 

At any rate, thanks for the thought exercise. WE just see things from a different point-of-view; a left brain, right brain sort of thing, but fundamentally I believe we are really on the same page.

[DeNinny]

DeNinny,

 

Read your posts late last night to ponder for a while and perhaps I need to ponder longer. It maybe that with the golf season now officially in the books, for me at least, there are other things more pressing, such is the case of a two sport athlete and I use that term perhaps unadvisedly. That said, I guess my conclusion is that the light has yet to come on in my personal swing cave.

 

In a general sense, I have no issues with the accuracy of your descriptions. I still maintain that it is needlessly complicated by introducing the physics factors. While they may be behind the anatomical interplay of a good swing it strikes me as being needless details to just clutter up the process of an individual working on developing a repeatable and effective swing. It may only be five simple motions, but that is a lot to sequence and time within the time frame that it must happen to be successful. It maybe simple, but it's not easy, hence the need for 10000 repetitions to ingrain the correct move. Where most of us fail is through the introduction of small errors in the execution even if we are aware of what must transpire.

 

At any rate, thanks for the thought exercise. WE just see things from a different point-of-view; a left brain, right brain sort of thing, but fundamentally I believe we are really on the same page.

 

scomac I simply ask you to ponder longer (and at least let me finish it...I haven't even begun, LOL) and also to keep an open mind to the fact that eventually all this will crystallize into VERY simple physics and VERY simple actions that will lead to VERY simple feels to practice. Also you may very well already swing properly and all this may do for you is "hard-wire" your brain such that there is now actual science and physics that support you are already swinging it properly. You may think it is clutter, but it will sit in your brain now and maybe actually help behind the scenes.

 

I ask you this: if the simple physics of what is actually happening in the swing "clutters up the process" of learning it, then what do you think about in order to KNOW what to practice? Thinking of nothing helps you learn? What you are saying in that is that you can just FEEL your way to a good swing without actually knowing what to do and why you should do it. Maybe that is why it is taking 1000s of times to figure it out and maybe you can cut this time down if there was actual scientific logic supporting what you are doing (or doing wrong)! I don't argue with that as a viable option, but what I am saying is that understanding the core physics will help you in that process. It tells you specifically WHAT you should do and WHY you should do it so that there is no longer any ambiguity about it!

 

Also what I think you are assuming is that the golfer actually has to THINK about all this as he swings. And that that will clutter his mind. I wholeheartedly agree with this. And that's not what I'm saying at all. All I am saying is that once you UNDERSTAND that this is all your swing is and how to execute those simple motions, is that it will be EASIER to practice and FEEL those 1000s of times, just like you are saying. It will put explanation and PURPOSE to all that practice and repetition. The physics affects what makes the swing repeatable and effective. To ignore it as you practice is to ignore what actually is happening (or is going to happen). That is my point: don't practice in the dark about the physics; practice KNOWING EXACTLY what physics (and mechanics) is good and what is bad. If you do this in CONJUNCTION with what you are feeling, it will help the process of learning.

 

As an example, let's say you didn't know that you weren't on plane in your downswing or that you were setting the club too low at the top of it. What I just explained is how and where to exactly set the club at the top and that explanation is fully in line with the physics (and also supported by the 100s of good swing examples on the tour). Or let's say you weren't getting your trail elbow down to your trail hip as you went into your downswing. Now you would know why you should do that (per the physics) and now you can fix it. Again, these are just examples of how understanding the physics can help you and you don't need anybody to tell you to just do it blindly without knowing why.

 

But absolutely we are on the same page: DON'T think of all this minutia detail in the middle of your swing. All I'm saying is that you should just KNOW that this is the physics of what you are supposed to be practicing. When you actually swing, you should just be confident that what you are going to swing, if done right, is fully backed by the laws of physics and so it should be a good result.

 

I see the swing from both brains and have found benefit in not shutting one half off. I'm just sharing how I use my ENTIRE brain to help with this game. To close one's own logical mind to this game just doesn't make sense to me. As stated earlier, WE BOTH (and all golfers) simply analyze this game to the limits of our mental capacity or desire. I don't think anybody turns one side of their brain on or off intentionally. They are both always on.

[scomac2002]

 

scomac I haven't even begun to explain the SIMPLE details of the 5 motions that will explain how simple they support what you are stating. The only reason it is doesn't make sense is because I haven't even explained how to do them yet. All I have explained thus far is that your own 5 motions in pendulum motions and that there are simple physics principles involved with them. We started this convo with you stating that 5 motions in the swing doesn't seem that complicated. At this point I have only explained physics of those 5 motions and that is all I will keep explaining, staying inline with the premise of the conversation.

 

So what you are saying is that this has just been foreplay?

 

Also what you are saying, to me, is that it is needlessly complicated to actual explain what is physically happening in the swing. If you don't want to know that because you think it doesn't help, then that is your prerogative, I said that up front, but what you just said is that you would rather just repeat the swing 1000 times without actually knowing the mechanics of what you want to repeat.

 

I did not say that or at the very least that's not what i'm implying...

 

I see the swing from both brains and have found benefit in not shutting one half off. I'm just sharing how I use my ENTIRE brain to help with this game. To close one's own logical mind to this game just doesn't make sense to me. As stated earlier, WE BOTH (and all golfers) simply analyze this game to the limits of our mental capacity or desire.

 

Can you tell I'm getting frustrated here? Perhaps I'm just too tired. It has been a long week that is really taxing my desire...

[DeNinny]

So what you are saying is that this has just been foreplay?

 

LOL yes. But I'm 100% hetero.

 

I did not say that or at the very least that's not what i'm implying...

 

My bad. I understand what you were saying. Here is what I'm trying to say to what you stated...

 

It maybe simple, but it's not easy, hence the need for 10000 repetitions to ingrain the correct move. Where most of us fail is through the introduction of small errors in the execution even if we are aware of what must transpire.

 

What I'm really saying to this is that if you understood the SIMPLE actions in support of the SIMPLE physics, it will REDUCE those small errors in execution. My contention in all of this is that once you know HOW and WHY to account for the physics, then it will HELP explain how to reduce the introduction of the small errors you mentioned. If you don't know that you are off plane or don't even know to think of it, then yes you will continue to have small errors in your swing because the non-ideal physics will cause it. If you are trying to roll your wrists independently of your trail arm straightening, then yes that is bad physics that will introduce small errors in execution.

 

So I'm sorry if I misstated what you were saying. Now I *think* you were saying that the physics factors won't help in figuring out the sources of those small errors that you are practicing 10000s of times to eliminate. I'm contending that they actually will help because it is the bad physics that is causing it all. And whether or not this actually helps YOU only depends on whether or not you want to allow it to help you or not.

 

Can you tell I'm getting frustrated here? Perhaps I'm just too tired. It has been a long week that is really taxing my desire...

 

I profusely apologize if I'm the source of it, my friend! I'm only indulging the convo that we started. Just a healthy discussion in my book. I don't have any issue if you don't want to discuss, and remember too I don't get frustrated with technical debates. I enjoy them. But if it is not to your fancy, I completely understand and I will just continue w/Palauan Hammer at this point. But I do ask that you indulge me and at least let me get through the premise of what started this convo...understanding the HOW and WHY of the 5 simple motions of the swing.