Who on tour has a Malaska type swing??

[Strike Force]

There sure are lots and lots of excellent teachers that use gravity to get across their message of what they are trying to convey to their students.

 

► http://www.golf.com/...essons-arm-drop

[Hilts1969]

I remember that I once argued with iTeach. It did not end well for me. Haha. He really knows his s***.

 

He does I'm waiting to be told how hitting a golf ball from the moon to mars is impossible due to Delta forces

[Strike Force]

Shawn Clement uses 'gravity' to get his message across to his students very nicely. There's no need to talk about detailed muscle contractions and how or which way an object being held drops or falls. Shawn gets his message across perfectly without getting into such malarkey.

 

[ayan]

Gravity applies on the moon. The force due to gravity is just a lot smaller than here on earth.

 

Nobody said gravity isn't existing during the golf swing. Just that the amount of force gravity is acting on the club is very minuscule in comparison to what force the body is applying to the club. And gravity absolutely in no way flattens the shaft because gravit is a vertical force and to flatten the club you'd have to apply a horizontal force. Gravity doesn't apply horizontal forces.

 

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you, thanks for that. Now, if gravity weren't there, acting in conjunction with the other forces applied by the player that you've been describing in many posts, the club would definitely not shallow the way we're used to seeing. Furthermore, if the club were weightless (i.,e., no gravity) if we applied only horizontal forces to it, it would just experience a lateral translation in the direction of the horizontal force applied, and it would not shallow at all. However, with gravity in the mix, we can shallow the club with two fingertips (i.e., no active external torque) by simply tugging the butt end of the club "smartly". If gravity were not here, the player would have to apply, in additon to everything else he does in the case of gravity, a downward force and moment to replace the effect of the weight of the club.

[Hilts1969]

I think iteachgolf and some others are far too hung up about exactly how body parts and objects are moved and/or affected by gravity.

 

I take it that the assertion of this video titled 'How to Shallow the Club With Gravity' is incorrect - that using gravity should not be used to explain how to shallow the golf club... Yes? No?

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Body parts are moved by muscles contracting and extending. It's not being hung up, it's not knowing what you're taking about. You're calling tricep contraction gravity.

 

No gravity should not be used when talking about shallowing the club. Again the shaft flattening requires a horizontal force, a force gravity cannot apply

 

So, if someone was holding his arm up while pointing upward and his spine was severed or he suddenly died of cardiac arrest where there was immediately no more muscle activity whatsoever - what would happen to the [once] raised arm?

 

Gtavity would put him perfectly on plane but his swing speed would leave a lot to be desired. This happened to a playing partner once.

 

He still beat me 2&1

[Yff Theos]

Gravity exists. Gravity acts on the arms-club unit. Gravity will not shallow the club.

[iteachgolf]

Gravity applies on the moon. The force due to gravity is just a lot smaller than here on earth.

 

Nobody said gravity isn't existing during the golf swing. Just that the amount of force gravity is acting on the club is very minuscule in comparison to what force the body is applying to the club. And gravity absolutely in no way flattens the shaft because gravit is a vertical force and to flatten the club you'd have to apply a horizontal force. Gravity doesn't apply horizontal forces.

 

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you, thanks for that. Now, if gravity weren't there, acting in conjunction with the other forces applied by the player that you've been describing in many posts, the club would definitely not shallow the way we're used to seeing. Furthermore, if the club were weightless (i.,e., no gravity) if we applied only horizontal forces to it, it would just experience a lateral translation in the direction of the horizontal force applied, and it would not shallow at all. However, with gravity in the mix, we can shallow the club with two fingertips (i.e., no active external torque) by simply tugging the butt end of the club "smartly". If gravity were not here, the player would have to apply, in additon to everything else he does in the case of gravity, a downward force and moment to replace the effect of the weight of the club.

 

Again read what I wrote. Gravity is applying a force. It’s just minuscule in relation to the forces being applied by the body. We literally couldn’t play golf without gravity. So all these hypotheticals that aren’t possible really are pointless. Gravity isn’t applying the force that flattens the shaft.

[iteachgolf]

I malarkey is claiming gravity is the cause of the shaft shallowing. And applies to any teacher saying so. Posting videos of other teachers who are ignorant and use science terms incorrectly isn’t going to make you right. It’s just going to mean more people are wrong.

[Hilts1969]

If this guy tried the malaska move he would take down a plane

[Quick Bucket]

I think iteachgolf and some others are far too hung up about exactly how body parts and objects are moved and/or affected by gravity.

 

I take it that the assertion of this video titled 'How to Shallow the Club With Gravity' is incorrect - that using gravity should not be used to explain how to shallow the golf club... Yes? No?

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Ballard seems to have a better handle on things than iteachgolf and others do.

[Golfbeat]

I think iteachgolf and some others are far too hung up about exactly how body parts and objects are moved and/or affected by gravity.

 

I take it that the assertion of this video titled 'How to Shallow the Club With Gravity' is incorrect - that using gravity should not be used to explain how to shallow the golf club... Yes? No?

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Ballard seems to have a better handle on things than iteachgolf and others do.

 

Now, why would you say that?

[Hilts1969]

I think iteachgolf and some others are far too hung up about exactly how body parts and objects are moved and/or affected by gravity.

 

I take it that the assertion of this video titled 'How to Shallow the Club With Gravity' is incorrect - that using gravity should not be used to explain how to shallow the golf club... Yes? No?

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Ballard seems to have a better handle on things than iteachgolf and others do.

[Strike Force]

I think iteachgolf and some others are far too hung up about exactly how body parts and objects are moved and/or affected by gravity.

 

I take it that the assertion of this video titled 'How to Shallow the Club With Gravity' is incorrect - that using gravity should not be used to explain how to shallow the golf club... Yes? No?

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Ballard seems to have a better handle on things than iteachgolf and others do.

 

Ya think so! Clay Ballard does a nice job of getting his message across to his students, which is what the student wants and expects.

[Etzwane]

Gravity applies on the moon. The force due to gravity is just a lot smaller than here on earth.

 

Nobody said gravity isn't existing during the golf swing. Just that the amount of force gravity is acting on the club is very minuscule in comparison to what force the body is applying to the club. And gravity absolutely in no way flattens the shaft because gravit is a vertical force and to flatten the club you'd have to apply a horizontal force. Gravity doesn't apply horizontal forces.

 

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you, thanks for that. Now, if gravity weren't there, acting in conjunction with the other forces applied by the player that you've been describing in many posts, the club would definitely not shallow the way we're used to seeing. Furthermore, if the club were weightless (i.,e., no gravity) if we applied only horizontal forces to it, it would just experience a lateral translation in the direction of the horizontal force applied, and it would not shallow at all. However, with gravity in the mix, we can shallow the club with two fingertips (i.e., no active external torque) by simply tugging the butt end of the club "smartly". If gravity were not here, the player would have to apply, in additon to everything else he does in the case of gravity, a downward force and moment to replace the effect of the weight of the club.

 

The shallowing is due to inertia, the center of mass of the club tends to re-align to the directon of the force...

 

During the time of the full downswing, gravity would contribute to ~ couple of inches movement downward ( 1/2 g t^2 and I took 0.1s for the downswing).

[Miggaletoe]

Gravity applies on the moon. The force due to gravity is just a lot smaller than here on earth.

 

Nobody said gravity isn't existing during the golf swing. Just that the amount of force gravity is acting on the club is very minuscule in comparison to what force the body is applying to the club. And gravity absolutely in no way flattens the shaft because gravit is a vertical force and to flatten the club you'd have to apply a horizontal force. Gravity doesn't apply horizontal forces.

 

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you, thanks for that. Now, if gravity weren't there, acting in conjunction with the other forces applied by the player that you've been describing in many posts, the club would definitely not shallow the way we're used to seeing. Furthermore, if the club were weightless (i.,e., no gravity) if we applied only horizontal forces to it, it would just experience a lateral translation in the direction of the horizontal force applied, and it would not shallow at all. However, with gravity in the mix, we can shallow the club with two fingertips (i.e., no active external torque) by simply tugging the butt end of the club "smartly". If gravity were not here, the player would have to apply, in additon to everything else he does in the case of gravity, a downward force and moment to replace the effect of the weight of the club.

 

The shallowing is due to inertia, the center of mass of the club tends to re-align to the directon of the force...

 

During the time of the full downswing, gravity would contribute to ~ couple of inches movement downward ( 1/2 g t^2 and I took 0.1s for the downswing).

How in the hell are you calculating that. There are forces being exerted by the person holding the club that are several magnitudes higher than gravity.

[ayan]

Gravity applies on the moon. The force due to gravity is just a lot smaller than here on earth.

 

Nobody said gravity isn't existing during the golf swing. Just that the amount of force gravity is acting on the club is very minuscule in comparison to what force the body is applying to the club. And gravity absolutely in no way flattens the shaft because gravit is a vertical force and to flatten the club you'd have to apply a horizontal force. Gravity doesn't apply horizontal forces.

 

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you, thanks for that. Now, if gravity weren't there, acting in conjunction with the other forces applied by the player that you've been describing in many posts, the club would definitely not shallow the way we're used to seeing. Furthermore, if the club were weightless (i.,e., no gravity) if we applied only horizontal forces to it, it would just experience a lateral translation in the direction of the horizontal force applied, and it would not shallow at all. However, with gravity in the mix, we can shallow the club with two fingertips (i.e., no active external torque) by simply tugging the butt end of the club "smartly". If gravity were not here, the player would have to apply, in additon to everything else he does in the case of gravity, a downward force and moment to replace the effect of the weight of the club.

 

The shallowing is due to inertia, the center of mass of the club tends to re-align to the directon of the force...

 

During the time of the full downswing, gravity would contribute to ~ couple of inches movement downward ( 1/2 g t^2 and I took 0.1s for the downswing).

 

I agree with you, it's all about inertia. Downswing length is more like 0.25 to 0.30 seconds, using 0.25 seconds puts 1/2 g t^2 at 12 inches, 0.30 at 17 inches. That means without that extra vertical drop help from gravity we'd miss the ball by about a foot. In a game where a little over and inch is the difference between a sweetspot strike and a hosel rocket, the effect of gravity seems to be an order of magnitude greater than the margin of error. Not what I would refer to as minuscule.

[TB07]

There sure are lots and lots of excellent teachers that use gravity to get across their message of what they are trying to convey to their students.

 

► http://www.golf.com/...essons-arm-drop

 

What is your point? That you can use incorrect explanations and still get the point across? That has nothing to do with the thread. If you have actual evidence that gravity shallows the club, or that the Malaska move won't steepen the club than post it. Someone saying so isn't evidence. What FWP and iteach have said have actually been researched.

[buckeyefl]

Shawn Clement uses 'gravity' to get his message across to his students very nicely. There's no need to talk about detailed muscle contractions and how or which way an object being held drops or falls. Shawn gets his message across perfectly without getting into such malarkey.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Oh he is quite good at malarkey.

[Miggaletoe]

Gravity applies on the moon. The force due to gravity is just a lot smaller than here on earth.

 

Nobody said gravity isn't existing during the golf swing. Just that the amount of force gravity is acting on the club is very minuscule in comparison to what force the body is applying to the club. And gravity absolutely in no way flattens the shaft because gravit is a vertical force and to flatten the club you'd have to apply a horizontal force. Gravity doesn't apply horizontal forces.

 

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you, thanks for that. Now, if gravity weren't there, acting in conjunction with the other forces applied by the player that you've been describing in many posts, the club would definitely not shallow the way we're used to seeing. Furthermore, if the club were weightless (i.,e., no gravity) if we applied only horizontal forces to it, it would just experience a lateral translation in the direction of the horizontal force applied, and it would not shallow at all. However, with gravity in the mix, we can shallow the club with two fingertips (i.e., no active external torque) by simply tugging the butt end of the club "smartly". If gravity were not here, the player would have to apply, in additon to everything else he does in the case of gravity, a downward force and moment to replace the effect of the weight of the club.

 

The shallowing is due to inertia, the center of mass of the club tends to re-align to the directon of the force...

 

During the time of the full downswing, gravity would contribute to ~ couple of inches movement downward ( 1/2 g t^2 and I took 0.1s for the downswing).

 

I agree with you, it's all about inertia. Downswing length is more like 0.25 to 0.30 seconds, using 0.25 seconds puts 1/2 g t^2 at 12 inches, 0.30 at 17 inches. That means without that extra vertical drop help from gravity we'd miss the ball by about a foot. In a game where a little over and inch is the difference between a sweetspot strike and a hosel rocket, the effect of gravity seems to be an order of magnitude greater than the margin of error. Not what I would refer to as minuscule.

That is not how any of this works. You cannot count the contribution of gravity as what would happen if there was no force being exerted on the club.

[iteachgolf]

Gravity applies on the moon. The force due to gravity is just a lot smaller than here on earth.

 

Nobody said gravity isn't existing during the golf swing. Just that the amount of force gravity is acting on the club is very minuscule in comparison to what force the body is applying to the club. And gravity absolutely in no way flattens the shaft because gravit is a vertical force and to flatten the club you'd have to apply a horizontal force. Gravity doesn't apply horizontal forces.

 

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you, thanks for that. Now, if gravity weren't there, acting in conjunction with the other forces applied by the player that you've been describing in many posts, the club would definitely not shallow the way we're used to seeing. Furthermore, if the club were weightless (i.,e., no gravity) if we applied only horizontal forces to it, it would just experience a lateral translation in the direction of the horizontal force applied, and it would not shallow at all. However, with gravity in the mix, we can shallow the club with two fingertips (i.e., no active external torque) by simply tugging the butt end of the club "smartly". If gravity were not here, the player would have to apply, in additon to everything else he does in the case of gravity, a downward force and moment to replace the effect of the weight of the club.

 

The shallowing is due to inertia, the center of mass of the club tends to re-align to the directon of the force...

 

During the time of the full downswing, gravity would contribute to ~ couple of inches movement downward ( 1/2 g t^2 and I took 0.1s for the downswing).

 

I agree with you, it's all about inertia. Downswing length is more like 0.25 to 0.30 seconds, using 0.25 seconds puts 1/2 g t^2 at 12 inches, 0.30 at 17 inches. That means without that extra vertical drop help from gravity we'd miss the ball by about a foot. In a game where a little over and inch is the difference between a sweetspot strike and a hosel rocket, the effect of gravity seems to be an order of magnitude greater than the margin of error. Not what I would refer to as minuscule.

 

I said the force of gravity is minuscule in comparison to the force applied to the club by the body. And it doesn’t affect the shallowing of the club, which is what the whole discussion is about.

 

The time would actually be closer to 0.2 or less because in the initial part of the transition the club actually works UP not down. So if you wanted to calculate how much of the downward movement occurs from gravity you’d have to start when the club actually starts moving downward, which is not at the beginning of the downswing.

[Strike Force]

There sure are lots and lots of excellent teachers that use gravity to get across their message of what they are trying to convey to their students.

 

► http://www.golf.com/...essons-arm-drop

 

What is your point? That you can use incorrect explanations and still get the point across? That has nothing to do with the thread. If you have actual evidence that gravity shallows the club, or that the Malaska move won't steepen the club than post it. Someone saying so isn't evidence. What FWP and iteach have said have actually been researched.

 

Post #344 by Etzwane I believe will provide your answer about gravity helping to shallow the club...if you are looking for exact, precise and accurate information.

 

There are a whole lot of [so-called] incorrect explanations when teaching and discussing and conveying information about the golf swing, many of which I'm sure you yourself have provided over time.

 

I think it is clear that Mike Malaska is an excellent golf teacher and obviously his use of the positive Beta move (i.e. tumble) or whatever you want to call it has helped many of his students at all levels. While Mike Malaska is FAR better known to the masses than you and the other teachers that participate here in this GolfWRX forum, I would think his teaching abilities and credentials trumps everyone else here. That said, if Mike Malaska (or Clay Ballard or Shawn Clement, etc.) wants to convey a message to his students using an idea, concept or interpretation that makes sense yet may not be totally accurate - there are very few people that would (or should) have a problem with that. I'm sure that Mike Malaska has helped far more golfers than he has harmed with his teaching methods...

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Again the clubhead will drop vertically. As that's the only direction gravity is applying a force. It would not rotate the club which is required for the shaft to shallow.

 

The club will not and cannot flatten and then steepen due to gravity. That requires 2 horizontal forces and gravity applies zero horizontal force. You aren't seeing this in 3D. Again in the video I held the club laid off and just let the clubhead fall. The shaft didnt flatten. Gravity will only make the clubhead move vertically down the plane it's in. It won't rotate the club. For the shaft to flatten the club must be rotated in the horizontal direction. If Rahm let the clubhead go it would move down and TOWARDS the target. When the club is flattened from that position in 3D the clubhead would move AWAY from the target. I also showed this in the video I made

 

In your video, relative to the ground, your shaft does flatten and then begins to steepen again in the opposite direction from where it started (upside down).

 

 

In the second still, despite the blur, we can see that the 'shaft' is more horizontal, or flatter, than it was in the first still. This is due to gravity. In the third still, we can start to see it getting steeper again, yet upside down from where it started. This is the shaft being flattened and re-steepened, in effect, by gravity.

 

Yes, gravity is only working on the shaft vertically. If you let the entire thing go, it would fall straight down in the same angle. But, you're not letting it all go. You're letting the far end be affected by gravity while interfering with gravity's affect on the near end, causing the far end to swing down in an arc, even though the force is strictly vertical. This causes a change in the angle of the shaft from diagonally upward, to horizontal ('flat'), to diagonally downward. So, via gravity, the shaft does get flatter until it reaches horizontal.

[iteachgolf]

Again the clubhead will drop vertically. As that's the only direction gravity is applying a force. It would not rotate the club which is required for the shaft to shallow.

 

The club will not and cannot flatten and then steepen due to gravity. That requires 2 horizontal forces and gravity applies zero horizontal force. You aren't seeing this in 3D. Again in the video I held the club laid off and just let the clubhead fall. The shaft didnt flatten. Gravity will only make the clubhead move vertically down the plane it's in. It won't rotate the club. For the shaft to flatten the club must be rotated in the horizontal direction. If Rahm let the clubhead go it would move down and TOWARDS the target. When the club is flattened from that position in 3D the clubhead would move AWAY from the target. I also showed this in the video I made

 

In your video, relative to the ground, your shaft does flatten and then begins to steepen again in the opposite direction from where it started (upside down).

 

 

In the second still, despite the blur, we can see that the 'shaft' is more horizontal, or flatter, than it was in the first still. This is due to gravity. In the third still, we can start to see it getting steeper again, yet upside down from where it started. This is the shaft being flattened and re-steepened, in effect, by gravity.

 

Yes, gravity is only working on the shaft vertically. If you let the entire thing go, it would fall straight down in the same angle. But, you're not letting it all go. You're letting the far end be affected by gravity while interfering with gravity's affect on the near end, causing the far end to swing down in an arc, even though the force is strictly vertical. This causes a change in the angle of the shaft from diagonally upward, to horizontal ('flat'), to diagonally downward. So, via gravity, the shaft does get flatter until it reaches horizontal.

 

No it didn’t. And your wrong. You can see it easily in the DTL version of the same video. It’s not flattening. You can’t see depth in 2D video so idk how you think you can see a shaft flattening from FO while its blurry

 

The club moving from short of parallel to parallel and then past parallel is not the shaft flattening. Flattening occurs in the opposite plane of motion.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Again the clubhead will drop vertically. As that's the only direction gravity is applying a force. It would not rotate the club which is required for the shaft to shallow.

 

The club will not and cannot flatten and then steepen due to gravity. That requires 2 horizontal forces and gravity applies zero horizontal force. You aren't seeing this in 3D. Again in the video I held the club laid off and just let the clubhead fall. The shaft didnt flatten. Gravity will only make the clubhead move vertically down the plane it's in. It won't rotate the club. For the shaft to flatten the club must be rotated in the horizontal direction. If Rahm let the clubhead go it would move down and TOWARDS the target. When the club is flattened from that position in 3D the clubhead would move AWAY from the target. I also showed this in the video I made

 

In your video, relative to the ground, your shaft does flatten and then begins to steepen again in the opposite direction from where it started (upside down).

 

 

In the second still, despite the blur, we can see that the 'shaft' is more horizontal, or flatter, than it was in the first still. This is due to gravity. In the third still, we can start to see it getting steeper again, yet upside down from where it started. This is the shaft being flattened and re-steepened, in effect, by gravity.

 

Yes, gravity is only working on the shaft vertically. If you let the entire thing go, it would fall straight down in the same angle. But, you're not letting it all go. You're letting the far end be affected by gravity while interfering with gravity's affect on the near end, causing the far end to swing down in an arc, even though the force is strictly vertical. This causes a change in the angle of the shaft from diagonally upward, to horizontal ('flat'), to diagonally downward. So, via gravity, the shaft does get flatter until it reaches horizontal.

 

The club moving from short of parallel to parallel and then past parallel is not the shaft flattening.

 

I think we mean 'flattening' very differently.

[iteachgolf]

Again the clubhead will drop vertically. As that's the only direction gravity is applying a force. It would not rotate the club which is required for the shaft to shallow.

 

The club will not and cannot flatten and then steepen due to gravity. That requires 2 horizontal forces and gravity applies zero horizontal force. You aren't seeing this in 3D. Again in the video I held the club laid off and just let the clubhead fall. The shaft didnt flatten. Gravity will only make the clubhead move vertically down the plane it's in. It won't rotate the club. For the shaft to flatten the club must be rotated in the horizontal direction. If Rahm let the clubhead go it would move down and TOWARDS the target. When the club is flattened from that position in 3D the clubhead would move AWAY from the target. I also showed this in the video I made

 

In your video, relative to the ground, your shaft does flatten and then begins to steepen again in the opposite direction from where it started (upside down).

 

 

In the second still, despite the blur, we can see that the 'shaft' is more horizontal, or flatter, than it was in the first still. This is due to gravity. In the third still, we can start to see it getting steeper again, yet upside down from where it started. This is the shaft being flattened and re-steepened, in effect, by gravity.

 

Yes, gravity is only working on the shaft vertically. If you let the entire thing go, it would fall straight down in the same angle. But, you're not letting it all go. You're letting the far end be affected by gravity while interfering with gravity's affect on the near end, causing the far end to swing down in an arc, even though the force is strictly vertical. This causes a change in the angle of the shaft from diagonally upward, to horizontal ('flat'), to diagonally downward. So, via gravity, the shaft does get flatter until it reaches horizontal.

 

The club moving from short of parallel to parallel and then past parallel is not the shaft flattening.

 

I think we mean 'flattening' very differently.

 

I defined it very clearly. Club rotating in the horizontal direction away from/perpendicular to the target line. And because the clubhead is closer to the target at the top of the swing and the club is a fixed length when flattened it moves diagonally both away from the target and away from the target line. Which is exactly what I demonstrated in those videos.

 

The same way everyone else is using but apparently you.

[TB07]

There sure are lots and lots of excellent teachers that use gravity to get across their message of what they are trying to convey to their students.

 

► http://www.golf.com/...essons-arm-drop

 

What is your point? That you can use incorrect explanations and still get the point across? That has nothing to do with the thread. If you have actual evidence that gravity shallows the club, or that the Malaska move won't steepen the club than post it. Someone saying so isn't evidence. What FWP and iteach have said have actually been researched.

 

Post #344 by Etzwane I believe will provide your answer about gravity helping to shallow the club...if you are looking for exact, precise and accurate information.

 

There are a whole lot of [so-called] incorrect explanations when teaching and discussing and conveying information about the golf swing, many of which I'm sure you yourself have provided over time.

 

I think it is clear that Mike Malaska is an excellent golf teacher and obviously his use of the positive Beta move (i.e. tumble) or whatever you want to call it has helped many of his students at all levels. While Mike Malaska is FAR better known to the masses than you and the other teachers that participate here in this GolfWRX forum, I would think his teaching abilities and credentials trumps everyone else here. That said, if Mike Malaska (or Clay Ballard or Shawn Clement, etc.) wants to convey a message to his students using an idea, concept or interpretation that makes sense yet may not be totally accurate - there are very few people that would (or should) have a problem with that. I'm sure that Mike Malaska has helped far more golfers than he has harmed with his teaching methods...

 

Nobody said he can't teach or doesn't help his students. Many ppl said Sergio is an example and Mike said so himself which is inaccurate. It's also shown in lots of his videos how he wants the hands to work down and steepen the club. Many people are already far to steep. He's never once talked about someone having to shallow the club by not allowing the hands to work straight down. This implies he wants EVERYONE to use this method. It's a method of which, simply put, almost all good players DONT use.

 

Again, that doesn't mean his move won't work for some, and it doesn't mean he doesn't help his students. It just is what it is.

[i*windows]

There sure are lots and lots of excellent teachers that use gravity to get across their message of what they are trying to convey to their students.

 

► http://www.golf.com/...essons-arm-drop

 

What is your point? That you can use incorrect explanations and still get the point across? That has nothing to do with the thread. If you have actual evidence that gravity shallows the club, or that the Malaska move won't steepen the club than post it. Someone saying so isn't evidence. What FWP and iteach have said have actually been researched.

 

Post #344 by Etzwane I believe will provide your answer about gravity helping to shallow the club...if you are looking for exact, precise and accurate information.

 

There are a whole lot of [so-called] incorrect explanations when teaching and discussing and conveying information about the golf swing, many of which I'm sure you yourself have provided over time.

 

I think it is clear that Mike Malaska is an excellent golf teacher and obviously his use of the positive Beta move (i.e. tumble) or whatever you want to call it has helped many of his students at all levels. While Mike Malaska is FAR better known to the masses than you and the other teachers that participate here in this GolfWRX forum, I would think his teaching abilities and credentials trumps everyone else here. That said, if Mike Malaska (or Clay Ballard or Shawn Clement, etc.) wants to convey a message to his students using an idea, concept or interpretation that makes sense yet may not be totally accurate - there are very few people that would (or should) have a problem with that. I'm sure that Mike Malaska has helped far more golfers than he has harmed with his teaching methods...

 

Nobody said he can't teach or doesn't help his students. Many ppl said Sergio is an example and Mike said so himself which is inaccurate. It's also shown in lots of his videos how he wants the hands to work down and steepen the club. Many people are already far to steep. He's never once talked about someone having to shallow the club by not allowing the hands to work straight down. This implies he wants EVERYONE to use this method. It's a method of which, simply put, almost all good players DONT use.

 

Again, that doesn't mean his move won't work for some, and it doesn't mean he doesn't help his students. It just is what it is.

it's a feel,

how about this?

most of the good stuff is on his website

[Strike Force]

There sure are lots and lots of excellent teachers that use gravity to get across their message of what they are trying to convey to their students.

 

► http://www.golf.com/...essons-arm-drop

 

What is your point? That you can use incorrect explanations and still get the point across? That has nothing to do with the thread. If you have actual evidence that gravity shallows the club, or that the Malaska move won't steepen the club than post it. Someone saying so isn't evidence. What FWP and iteach have said have actually been researched.

 

Post #344 by Etzwane I believe will provide your answer about gravity helping to shallow the club...if you are looking for exact, precise and accurate information.

 

There are a whole lot of [so-called] incorrect explanations when teaching and discussing and conveying information about the golf swing, many of which I'm sure you yourself have provided over time.

 

I think it is clear that Mike Malaska is an excellent golf teacher and obviously his use of the positive Beta move (i.e. tumble) or whatever you want to call it has helped many of his students at all levels. While Mike Malaska is FAR better known to the masses than you and the other teachers that participate here in this GolfWRX forum, I would think his teaching abilities and credentials trumps everyone else here. That said, if Mike Malaska (or Clay Ballard or Shawn Clement, etc.) wants to convey a message to his students using an idea, concept or interpretation that makes sense yet may not be totally accurate - there are very few people that would (or should) have a problem with that. I'm sure that Mike Malaska has helped far more golfers than he has harmed with his teaching methods...

 

Nobody said he can't teach or doesn't help his students. Many ppl said Sergio is an example and Mike said so himself which is inaccurate. It's also shown in lots of his videos how he wants the hands to work down and steepen the club. Many people are already far to steep. He's never once talked about someone having to shallow the club by not allowing the hands to work straight down. This implies he wants EVERYONE to use this method. It's a method of which, simply put, almost all good players DONT use.

 

Again, that doesn't mean his move won't work for some, and it doesn't mean he doesn't help his students. It just is what it is.

 

I personally do not think a video that talks about a particular method is meant to help everyone. You should not either. Just because Mike Malaska never discusses people with an opposing swing fault does it imply that he wants EVERYONE (literally) to use this one method. That's absurd! That's a huge stretch and quite a far-fetched view! I hope you were kidding...

 

Maybe you want Mike Malaska (and others producing golf swing instruction videos) to make a statement at the beginning of each video. Something like the following:

Statements and messages conveyed in this golf swing instruction video include matters that involve known and unknown swing variations, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to differ physically or materially from the results expressed or implied in this video. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these instructions, methods, or verbal messages.

 

Would that make you happy? Trust me - it'll never happen!

[Pinball Wizard]

Again the clubhead will drop vertically. As that's the only direction gravity is applying a force. It would not rotate the club which is required for the shaft to shallow.

 

The club will not and cannot flatten and then steepen due to gravity. That requires 2 horizontal forces and gravity applies zero horizontal force. You aren't seeing this in 3D. Again in the video I held the club laid off and just let the clubhead fall. The shaft didnt flatten. Gravity will only make the clubhead move vertically down the plane it's in. It won't rotate the club. For the shaft to flatten the club must be rotated in the horizontal direction. If Rahm let the clubhead go it would move down and TOWARDS the target. When the club is flattened from that position in 3D the clubhead would move AWAY from the target. I also showed this in the video I made

 

In your video, relative to the ground, your shaft does flatten and then begins to steepen again in the opposite direction from where it started (upside down).

 

 

In the second still, despite the blur, we can see that the 'shaft' is more horizontal, or flatter, than it was in the first still. This is due to gravity. In the third still, we can start to see it getting steeper again, yet upside down from where it started. This is the shaft being flattened and re-steepened, in effect, by gravity.

 

Yes, gravity is only working on the shaft vertically. If you let the entire thing go, it would fall straight down in the same angle. But, you're not letting it all go. You're letting the far end be affected by gravity while interfering with gravity's affect on the near end, causing the far end to swing down in an arc, even though the force is strictly vertical. This causes a change in the angle of the shaft from diagonally upward, to horizontal ('flat'), to diagonally downward. So, via gravity, the shaft does get flatter until it reaches horizontal.

 

The club moving from short of parallel to parallel and then past parallel is not the shaft flattening.

 

I think we mean 'flattening' very differently.

 

Couple things PS, I think you're on top of things with your observations. In the iteachgolf gravity videos he keeps hammering his message juxtaposed upon target lines, and targets, but gravity affects us and things attached to us, not targets, notwithstanding the fact at 14 sec, he was dropping the club behind him when in fact he was rotating- he wasn't dropping anything, he was rotating something further away from him, deeper if you will The hand pressures doing that can easily be argued as reactive forces to gravitational influence because we all know force deforms, and gravity is a force. The deformation is what is felt in the hands as pressure. Additionally, a comment was made somewhere that initially transitions move upward, which is true for some, but not a universal by any means. The reroute can go back level, then up. Gravity is always in relation to us, and our attachments, not to targets, flags, chimneys, or little leprechauns. Plus dropping clubs while flattening is not totally reserved to rotating an arm. Feel free to PM if you have questions about my pov. Nice hearing what your point of view too. Crazy game.

[iteachgolf]

Again the clubhead will drop vertically. As that's the only direction gravity is applying a force. It would not rotate the club which is required for the shaft to shallow.

 

The club will not and cannot flatten and then steepen due to gravity. That requires 2 horizontal forces and gravity applies zero horizontal force. You aren't seeing this in 3D. Again in the video I held the club laid off and just let the clubhead fall. The shaft didnt flatten. Gravity will only make the clubhead move vertically down the plane it's in. It won't rotate the club. For the shaft to flatten the club must be rotated in the horizontal direction. If Rahm let the clubhead go it would move down and TOWARDS the target. When the club is flattened from that position in 3D the clubhead would move AWAY from the target. I also showed this in the video I made

 

In your video, relative to the ground, your shaft does flatten and then begins to steepen again in the opposite direction from where it started (upside down).

 

 

In the second still, despite the blur, we can see that the 'shaft' is more horizontal, or flatter, than it was in the first still. This is due to gravity. In the third still, we can start to see it getting steeper again, yet upside down from where it started. This is the shaft being flattened and re-steepened, in effect, by gravity.

 

Yes, gravity is only working on the shaft vertically. If you let the entire thing go, it would fall straight down in the same angle. But, you're not letting it all go. You're letting the far end be affected by gravity while interfering with gravity's affect on the near end, causing the far end to swing down in an arc, even though the force is strictly vertical. This causes a change in the angle of the shaft from diagonally upward, to horizontal ('flat'), to diagonally downward. So, via gravity, the shaft does get flatter until it reaches horizontal.

 

The club moving from short of parallel to parallel and then past parallel is not the shaft flattening.

 

I think we mean 'flattening' very differently.

 

Couple things PS, I think you're on top of things with your observations. In the iteachgolf gravity videos he keeps hammering his message juxtaposed upon target lines, and targets, but gravity affects us and things attached to us, not targets, notwithstanding the fact at 14 sec, he was dropping the club behind him when in fact he was rotating- he wasn't dropping anything, he was rotating something further away from him, deeper if you will The hand pressures doing that can easily be argued as reactive forces to gravitational influence because we all know force deforms, and gravity is a force. The deformation is what is felt in the hands as pressure. Additionally, a comment was made somewhere that initially transitions move upward, which is true for some, but not a universal by any means. The reroute can go back level, then up. Gravity is always in relation to us, and our attachments, not to targets, flags, chimneys, or little leprechauns. Plus dropping clubs while flattening is not totally reserved to rotating an arm. Feel free to PM if you have questions about my pov. Nice hearing what your point of view too. Crazy game.

 

Huh

 

When I was flattening it I clearly said I was rotating my arm and yes clubhead would be deeper. That’s the whole point, the club wasn’t simply being dropped, it was being flattened/shallowed. Deeper means away from the target line. Target line is a frame of reference. Nobody said gravity affects the target line. The force being applied to the shaft to shallow it is active and not reactive due to gravity. Again the force must be applied in the horizontal direction and gravity works in the vertical direction. Shaft can flatten by other means such has changing wrist alingments but fact remains it flattens because of a force being applied by the golfer and not due to gravity

 

The club cannot flatten or shallow without working deeper relative to the grip. Aka the club cannot flatten without being rotated. So when you saying I’m eotating like it’s it a trick it clearly shows your lack of understanding. If the club isn’t being rotated horizontally it isn’t shallowing. Deeper is simply a term meaning away from the target line. So you using deeper is using the same frame of reference. Call it the Z axis from Dtl if you want. It means the same thing.