Who on tour has a Malaska type swing??

[white03]

I've been working on the Malaska swing principles for about 3 months now.

 

I was wondering who on the Tour has a swing like Mike advocates?

 

Thank you

 

Will you now still be working on Malaska's principles :)

 

Absolutely, as I said in another post, I am much more consistent ball striker now than ever before. There's more than one way to successfully hit a golf ball. iTeach is very adamant on his way, good for him and no doubt he is successful in his method.

[iteachgolf]

I've been working on the Malaska swing principles for about 3 months now.

 

I was wondering who on the Tour has a swing like Mike advocates?

 

Thank you

 

Will you now still be working on Malaska's principles :)

 

Absolutely, as I said in another post, I am much more consistent ball striker now than ever before. There's more than one way to successfully hit a golf ball. iTeach is very adamant on his way, good for him and no doubt he is successful in his method.

 

I don’t have a way or a method. There are commonalities that great players share and an efficient way to move the club. But it can be done many different ways and my players all look different swinging the club

[ayan]

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.

 

As it were, I agree with you and also think that is not representative of what actually happens. I responded to @Etzwane using the same reasoning he provided to counter the argument in favor of gravity. If you have a closed form solution to share, please do so that we can all plug the numbers and see. I think that any argument suggesting that gravity does not play a role in the shaft laying down on a more horizontal plane can be proven to be flawed.

 

I believe there have been a couple of things inaccurately portrayed, to an extent, in this thread. First, when referring to the weight of the club it’s been correctly stated that the net vertical force (that we must resist) acting on us is equal to the weight on the club. Many dismissed the effect of all the actual forces that are happening, but looking only at net force can be very misleading. For example, if you put a watermelon in a vice and start tightening it, the net force on the watermelon is zero, all the way until it explodes on you… In the case of a golf club, we have to be able to exert an upward force on the club which will be greater than its weight in order to offset the moment of that weight. What I’ll say is somewhat simplified, but can be easily verified at home with a scale. Consider the case when you hold the club in one hand, as @iteachgolf did in his gravity videos. If the club is in other than a vertical position, as he said, not only do you need to apply a vertical force equal and opposite to the weight of the club, but you also need to apply a couple to offset the moment of the club’s weight. Agreed. Since we’re holding the club in our hand, to generate a couple, we will need to exert an upward force with the index/thumb part of the hand and a downward force on the butt end of the club by squeezing it mostly with our pinky and ring fingers. The upward force our body has to be able to generate to make that happen is the force experienced in the index/thumb area. That force can be calculated pretty easily. For the worst case, i.e. club horizontal and with the most leverage over our hand, it would be “on the order of” (this would hold true if there was a true fulcrum point in our hand, etc.) the length between the club’s COG and the butt end of the club, times the weight of the club, divided by something a bit less than the width of our hand. By way of example, if the club weighed say 1 lb, had the COG 20“ away from the end of the grip and our hand were 3” wide, the downward force squeezing the index finger would be about 7 lbs. This can be measured by putting the butt end of the club on a scale resting on one point located at about the middle of the grip, pushing down on the butt end and seeing what the scale measures when we push enough to make the shaft horizontal. The club obviously still weighs 1 lb, but it is exerting a 7 lb downward force on the hand. If a person is not strong enough to lift 7 lbs, or if his/her index finger gets squashed by a 7 lb force, the person will not be able to hold the 1 lb club horizontally. [The other requirement is that he or she must also be able to squeeze the butt end of the club with a 6 lb force] This is, needless to say, the same leverage principle that allows jacking a car up applying a force smaller than the weight of the car on one end a long distance away from fulcrum, to lift a much greater weight closer to the fulcrum. So yes, the club is no heavier, but the person holding it horizontally has to be seven times stronger than needed to hold the club vertically.

 

Second, we have the forces and torques applied to shallow the shaft. In order to lay the club down, we need to decrease the torque we are already applying to the club in the first place that allows us to hold it up in the air at the top of the backswing. Unless the shaft is vertical, a torque, in addition to an upward force, is required to offset gravity. If we decrease the torque, by relaxing the right wrist and shoulder for example, the shaft will drop to a more horizontal plane only if the club has some weight to it… if it didn’t, we could let go entirely of the club and it would stay in the same position, suspended in the air. If we simply relax the wrists and let the left wrist bow, the clubhead will drop almost straight down and this will shallow the clubhead’s path. This is negative beta torque, using Manzella’s nomenclature, and it is exerted by the very weight of the club itself when we stop fighting it as hard we were, provided we continue to hold on to the butt end of the club – if we don’t hold on, the club drops straight down without changing any angles and there is no beta torque. If we also relax the right shoulder, hands/arms will likely also drop down, right shoulder will externally rotate more and the club will shallow out a la Sergio Garcia. In all these scenarios, the combination of gravity and us hanging on to the club are executing the shallowing.

[Golfbeat]

Relax your right shoulder and right hand from the top, keep a good grip on the handle with your left hand and you are good to go with a shallow shaft!

[Shilgy]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

[zoots]

So I guess Butch was giving Tiger incorrect and/or inefficient instruction

[iteachgolf]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

 

A ton go straight down and I can post a good number of examples where the hands actually work deeper/more in during transition.

[Golfbeat]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

 

I think that the issue is that for many the right shoulder drops too much which can create too much down and not enough out and forward.

[Golfbeat]

Let's not watch Game 7 and continue with this thread.

[Pinball Wizard]

Good post ayan!

 

So yes, the club is not heavier, but the person holding it horizontally has to be seven times stronger than needed to hold the club vertically.

 

[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.

 

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.

 

That's fine, but we're talking about Mike Malaska and his so-called 'move' here and the possible reasoning behind it. In a video I posted on the first page, in the first minute (see 1st video below), Tiger Woods demonstrates what is, in my view (and that of others), the same thing as Malaska's move. He's using his hands in a steepening manner to counter what is a fairly 'laid off' position at the top of his backswing. From that laid off position at the top of the backswing, were he too loosen his grip, the clubhead would drop causing the shaft to flatten as I've described it. The 'move', which I believe Tiger is doing, is a counter to that flattening and the reason behind the 'move'.

 

I think Malaska's 'move' would only work if the club is laid off, and if we look at the larger picture of Malaska's approach, he does seem to favor and promote swinging from a laid off position at the top (see 2nd video below).

 

 

http://youtu.be/xOecUNBV_Q0

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5T-Q46qjF0

[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 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!

 

It's all he ever talks about. Moving the club that way is his preference. If he didn't want everyone to swing that way then why would he literally never discuss shallowing in ANY video but only discuss steepening. It's because he thinks the club shallows automatically

[iteachgolf]

 

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.

 

That's fine, but we're talking about Mike Malaska and his so-called 'move' here and the possible reasoning behind it. In a video I posted on the first page, in the first minute (see 1st video below), Tiger Woods demonstrates what is, in my view (and that of others), the same thing as Malaska's move. He's using his hands in a steepening manner to counter what is a fairly 'laid off' position at the top of his backswing. From that laid off position at the top of the backswing, were he too loosen his grip, the clubhead would drop causing the shaft to flatten as I've described it. The 'move', which I believe Tiger is doing, is a counter to that flattening and the reason behind the 'move'.

 

I think Malaska's 'move' would only work if the club is laid off, and if we look at the larger picture of Malaska's approach, he does seem to favor and promote swinging from a laid off position at the top (see 2nd video below).

 

 

http://youtu.be/xOecUNBV_Q0

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5T-Q46qjF0

 

And again I demonstrated in my video from a more laid off position that it wouldn’t flatten if you just let the clubhead drop vertically due to gravity. The clubhead would have to move horizontally relative to the grip to shallow/flatten. Which it does not. The only way the clubhead will work horizontally relative to the grip (causing the club to rotate flatter) is if a horizontal force is applied to the grip.

 

Think of it this way the target line is the z axis, y axis is vertical and x axis is horizontal. The only way the clubshaft will shallow/flatten is for the clubhead to move more negative on the X axis or the grip to move in the positive direction on the X axis , it also happens to work more negative in y direction and and less positive in the z direction because the club is a fixed length.

 

Gravity will not move the grip or the club in the X axis. It’ll only move it 2 dimensions if you are still holding one end as a hinge and neither are horizontal. Without horizontal motion the pitch of the shaft isn’t changing. The clubhead is just moving closer to the ground

[Strike Force]

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!

 

It's all he ever talks about. Moving the club that way is his preference. If he didn't want everyone to swing that way then why would he literally never discuss shallowing in ANY video but only discuss steepening. It's because he thinks the club shallows automatically

 

No he doesn't! iteachgolf posted a Mike Malaska video (see below) in which Malaska talks about the three positions at the top (laid-off, in-line & across the line). Malaska makes a great case for being laid-off a bit at the top because the clubhead naturally wants to move outside the hands midway into the downswing from pure momentum so the clubhead gets to the ball without any extra effort. He addresses all three positions correctly and properly explains how the golfer must 'do something' (e.g. positive Beta torque) to get the clubhead out to the ball when the club is on-line/in-line, and how the golfer must really work to 'catch the face up' when the club is across the line. He's dead-on-the-money accurate about that...

 

Mike seems to think it is easier when the club is laid-off a bit at the top...where the momentum naturally throws the clubhead out to the ball around P5.5 or there about. Again, accurate... There is nothing wrong with his view that it's easier to get the clubhead back out to the ball from a slight laid-off position at the top... However, he also clearly says there is nothing wrong with any of the three positions. He is not stating that his preference is the only method. Not at all... Get real!

 

PS - This 'move' is not all Mike Malaska ever talks about!!! He has a large number of extremely good instructional swing videos besides this particular instructional method. Surely you knew that... Right?

 

[media=]

[/media]

[TB07]

So he doesn't have a preference on how the club should move in transition?

[dap]

To be fair to Mike he has never said gravity causes the club to shallow. He says that when the golfer starts the downswing the weight of the club increases and that by the time it reaches waist height it weighs 20lbs. The golfer produces this weight,not gravity. He says this weight wants to shallow the club. Still doesn't make sense to me as most hackers start down steep and never shallow. The classic over the top move.

 

[Strike Force]

So he doesn't have a preference on how the club should move in transition?

 

Geeezzz! I think Malaska's preference is to be slightly laid-off so the momentum of the club in downswing will naturally move the clubhead outside the hands to collect the ball at impact. However, as displayed in the video (above) Mike can swing effectively from any of the three club positions at the top...and I feel quite sure he can competently instruct students based on any of the three positions as well...

[Petunia Sprinkle]

To be fair to Mike he has never said gravity causes the club to shallow. He says that when the golfer starts the downswing the weight of the club increases and that by the time it reaches waist height it weighs 20lbs. The golfer produces this weight,not gravity. He says this weight wants to shallow the club. Still doesn't make sense to me as most hackers start down steep and never shallow. The classic over the top move.

 

I wonder if the over the top, too steep, hacker moves are a reaction to the same problem Malaska is proposing to solve. In a very wrong way, they’re sort of the same idea (in the way cat poop resembles Tootsie Rolls).

[dap]

To be fair to Mike he has never said gravity causes the club to shallow. He says that when the golfer starts the downswing the weight of the club increases and that by the time it reaches waist height it weighs 20lbs. The golfer produces this weight,not gravity. He says this weight wants to shallow the club. Still doesn't make sense to me as most hackers start down steep and never shallow. The classic over the top move.

 

I wonder if the over the top, too steep, hacker moves are a reaction to the same problem Malaska is proposing to solve. In a very wrong way, they’re sort of the same idea (in the way cat poop resembles Tootsie Rolls).

The club does whatever the golfer needs to do to make contact with the ball. A hacker that transitions steep and stay steep need to throw their right shoulder out in order to make contact with the ball and this is the classic OTT out to in path. If they didn't come out to in they would hit their toes so they do whatever is required to hit the ball albeit wipe it.

 

The good player that transitions steep learn to flatten it late and then you have the classic underplane player that hits blocks and push hooks, the severity depends how much they come in to out. The Malaska move in my opinion addresses this kind of player. It can help the underplane player reduce the amount of in to out.

[TB07]

So he doesn't have a preference on how the club should move in transition?

 

Geeezzz! I think Malaska's preference is to be slightly laid-off so the momentum of the club in downswing will naturally move the clubhead outside the hands to collect the ball at impact. However, as displayed in the video (above) Mike can swing effectively from any of the three club positions at the top...and I feel quite sure he can competently instruct students based on any of the three positions as well...

 

Let me rephrase the question. Does he not prefer to move the hands straight down and steepen the shaft immediately in transition?

[Strike Force]

So he doesn't have a preference on how the club should move in transition?

 

Geeezzz! I think Malaska's preference is to be slightly laid-off so the momentum of the club in downswing will naturally move the clubhead outside the hands to collect the ball at impact. However, as displayed in the video (above) Mike can swing effectively from any of the three club positions at the top...and I feel quite sure he can competently instruct students based on any of the three positions as well...

 

Let me rephrase the question. Does he not prefer to move the hands straight down and steepen the shaft immediately in transition?

 

Why don't you ask Mike Malaska that question? I think you've seen Mike's golf swing - it's quite nice! Can you not determine how he moves his hands and club in/from the transition when he swings? I suspect he would be willing to help you out and answer your question since you are unable to make that determination yourself...

[Shilgy]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

 

A ton go straight down and I can post a good number of examples where the hands actually work deeper/more in during transition.

Are you talking in relation to torso? Video I responded that way too the hands do go out but largely because of pivot I would think. Hard to imagine hands going straight down, or even backwards, in space and the body pivots.

I hope that made sense.

[Shilgy]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

 

I think that the issue is that for many the right shoulder drops too much which can create too much down and not enough out and forward.

And iteach in the past a moment before yours says he has many that go straight down, even backwards. Hurts to imagine backwards during the pivot.

[northgolf]

Basically the Malaska move is opposite of the Sasho Mackenzie study.

 

Do we agree or disagree with that?

 

Disagree. No two golf swings are congruent. We don't have to deal in absolutes. It may even be impossible to do so when feel vs. real is so subjective. There are elements in the Malaska feel and the Sasho Mackenzie video you linked that are agreeable.

 

Interesting video. Thanks for posting.

Basically the Malaska move is opposite of the Sasho Mackenzie study.

 

Do we agree or disagree with that?

 

Disagree. No two golf swings are congruent. We don't have to deal in absolutes. It may even be impossible to do so when feel vs. real is so subjective. There are elements in the Malaska feel and the Sasho Mackenzie video you linked that are agreeable.

 

Interesting video. Thanks for posting.

 

Congruence is for hacks, what is physically efficient?

[Shilgy]

So he doesn't have a preference on how the club should move in transition?

 

Geeezzz! I think Malaska's preference is to be slightly laid-off so the momentum of the club in downswing will naturally move the clubhead outside the hands to collect the ball at impact. However, as displayed in the video (above) Mike can swing effectively from any of the three club positions at the top...and I feel quite sure he can competently instruct students based on any of the three positions as well...

 

Let me rephrase the question. Does he not prefer to move the hands straight down and steepen the shaft immediately in transition?

From the videos I've seen he prefers it feels like that. But repeatedly states it does not do that as the body pivots.

[ayan]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

 

I think that the issue is that for many the right shoulder drops too much which can create too much down and not enough out and forward.

And iteach in the past a moment before yours says he has many that go straight down, even backwards. Hurts to imagine backwards during the pivot.

 

Maybe Furyk? His hands do seem to move back from the top.

[dap]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

 

I think that the issue is that for many the right shoulder drops too much which can create too much down and not enough out and forward.

And iteach in the past a moment before yours says he has many that go straight down, even backwards. Hurts to imagine backwards during the pivot.

 

Maybe Furyk? His hands do seem to move back from the top.

Players that have very high hands at the top of the backswing will often transition with hands going literally straight down. Dustin Johnson is an example. Furyk is another one.

[Yff Theos]

[Millbrook]

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?

 

I can't take this seriously in the context of this discussion.

[iteachgolf]

The greats shallowed like this (great angle to look at):

 

 

Hands go forward, not down, and then it is easier to apply neg. beta.

Does anyone not do that in transition? The player feels like he is dropping straight down perhaps but they do go out/forward.

 

A ton go straight down and I can post a good number of examples where the hands actually work deeper/more in during transition.

Are you talking in relation to torso? Video I responded that way too the hands do go out but largely because of pivot I would think. Hard to imagine hands going straight down, or even backwards, in space and the body pivots.

I hope that made sense.

 

No. In space. Not relative to the torso.