Who on tour has a Malaska type swing??

[TB07]

y'all are nuts. He (Malaska) states repeatedly that this move/feel is for the guys that fire the hips and leave the arms behind. The Monte 68 ballerina. Then drive the handle, move the hands out at the ball and then try to time a flip. This is not a "how to swing" move. It's a exaggerated feel to remove a bad swing move.

 

He talks about how the shaft automatically shallows from the top and because of that you have to offset that force. It talks about it in a lot of videos and I've never seen one video where he says you need to shallow from the top.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Well if malaska is describing a feel that might work for some players and you can't tell what a player is feeling then it doesn't do much to say someone makes the "malaska move". You can't possibly know. My swing is shallow early and steepens into plane late. My intent is never to steepen it aka the anti malaska. Alex noren steepens into plane and his intent is definitely never to steepen.

 

If Malaska is describing his so called 'move' as a feel, and not a literal move, then it's something we wouldn't see, yes? I said Singh looks almost as if he were "LITERALLY" doing the Malaska move (because of the quote limit, you'll have to refer back to my original post with the Singh video to see where I said 'literally'). I'm not describing what I think he feels when I say that (how tf would I know what he feels?), I'm describing what I think I literally see him doing[/]. Clearer?

[Pinball Wizard]

y'all are nuts. He (Malaska) states repeatedly that this move/feel is for the guys that fire the hips and leave the arms behind. The Monte 68 ballerina. Then drive the handle, move the hands out at the ball and then try to time a flip. This is not a "how to swing" move. It's a exaggerated feel to remove a bad swing move.

one of his videos where he shows this and spouts the gravity nonsense is literally titled how to properly swing a golf club.

 

Why might it be that, in static conditions, a club held perpendicular to the horizon feels much lighter than the same club oriented parallel to the horizon and feels much heavier. Is more surface area being exposed to gravity causing the difference?

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Here's an interesting quote from Tom Watson, from http://www.golftoday.co.uk/golf_international_mag/features/tom_watson_interview.html

 

"I had struggled with my game from around 1984 and got very frustrated. At one point I hated the game and even took a few months off to see if I could rekindle the fire. I was tired of getting the club stuck behind me and hitting the ball out to the right. I was beating my head against the wall and nothing worked. But then I pictured Corey Pavin's practice swing where he goes way inside and then comes way over the top to make a big loop. It gave me the down swing thought I needed to turn my upper body with my right shoulder higher and eliminate the pronounced ‘Reverse C' shape of my downswing in my previous swing. I immediately hit two perfect 3-irons and then played the Pro-Am and the tournament wonderfully."

 

I can't find a video of Pavin's practice swing, so I can only go on what I remember about it (a memory dimmed by a longtime distaste for the fellow), but it seems to me as if his practice swing was not dissimilar, at least, to the so-called 'Malaska move'.

[Fort Worth Pro]

y'all are nuts. He (Malaska) states repeatedly that this move/feel is for the guys that fire the hips and leave the arms behind. The Monte 68 ballerina. Then drive the handle, move the hands out at the ball and then try to time a flip. This is not a "how to swing" move. It's a exaggerated feel to remove a bad swing move.

one of his videos where he shows this and spouts the gravity nonsense is literally titled how to properly swing a golf club.

 

Why might it be that, in static conditions, a club held perpendicular to the horizon feels much lighter than the same club oriented parallel to the horizon and feels much heavier. Is more surface area being exposed to gravity causing the difference?

Center of mass is not in line with the force being applied to the handle.

[Pinball Wizard]

y'all are nuts. He (Malaska) states repeatedly that this move/feel is for the guys that fire the hips and leave the arms behind. The Monte 68 ballerina. Then drive the handle, move the hands out at the ball and then try to time a flip. This is not a "how to swing" move. It's a exaggerated feel to remove a bad swing move.

one of his videos where he shows this and spouts the gravity nonsense is literally titled how to properly swing a golf club.

 

Why might it be that, in static conditions, a club held perpendicular to the horizon feels much lighter than the same club oriented parallel to the horizon and feels much heavier. Is more surface area being exposed to gravity causing the difference?

Center of mass is not in line with the force being applied to the handle.

 

What force? The club is just being held in the air devoid of any movement whatsoever.

[Fort Worth Pro]

y'all are nuts. He (Malaska) states repeatedly that this move/feel is for the guys that fire the hips and leave the arms behind. The Monte 68 ballerina. Then drive the handle, move the hands out at the ball and then try to time a flip. This is not a "how to swing" move. It's a exaggerated feel to remove a bad swing move.

one of his videos where he shows this and spouts the gravity nonsense is literally titled how to properly swing a golf club.

 

Why might it be that, in static conditions, a club held perpendicular to the horizon feels much lighter than the same club oriented parallel to the horizon and feels much heavier. Is more surface area being exposed to gravity causing the difference?

Center of mass is not in line with the force being applied to the handle.

 

What force? The club is just being held in the air devoid of any movement whatsoever.

 

You are applying a force equal and opposite to that of gravity

[Pinball Wizard]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

[Milkers]

y'all are nuts. He (Malaska) states repeatedly that this move/feel is for the guys that fire the hips and leave the arms behind. The Monte 68 ballerina. Then drive the handle, move the hands out at the ball and then try to time a flip. This is not a "how to swing" move. It's a exaggerated feel to remove a bad swing move.

 

There are numerous videos where Malaska says something along the lines of "there are many ways to swing a club but this way (the move) is the best/easiest/most consistent".

[Fort Worth Pro]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

[Pinball Wizard]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

 

A "small amount of force necessary" from where, and how is it applied?

[Yff Theos]

Why won'y you all invite this instructor to the forum and discuss everything with him instead of guessing ?

[Fort Worth Pro]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

 

A "small amount of force necessary" from where, and how is it applied?

 

Applied to the handle by your hand. Is that a legit question or are you trolling?

[Pinball Wizard]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

 

A "small amount of force necessary" from where, and how is it applied?

 

Applied to the handle by your hand. Is that a legit question or are you trolling?

 

Nope, just trying for some clarity before a follow-up question.

[Pinball Wizard]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

 

So does this explain, which gets back to my original question, why a club held vertically to ground without movement feels lighter than the same club held parallel to the horizon, which feels at least twice heavier, because more force that is equal and opposite to gravity is being applied to the horizontally held club?

 

Edit: changed perpendicular to parallel.

[iteachgolf]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

 

So does this explain, which gets back to my original question, why a club held vertically to ground without movement feels lighter than the same club held perpendicular to the horizon, which feels at least twice heavier, because more force that is equal and opposite to gravity is being applied to the horizontally held club?

 

More total force isn’t required. It’s feels lighter because the force being applied is inline with the COM of the club when vertical which means the torque is 0 and there is almost no muscular force required. When the club is horizontal it is applying a torque which requires more muscular force to counteract. But the net force required is exactly the same because the club isn’t moving and therefore is at equilibrium.

 

 

Standing with bad posture doesn’t require any more total force than good posture. Poor posture requires more muscular force in the back to offset the COM being forward in space relative to the hips. Which can cause back problems this force exerts on the spine. It’s why bending over and practicing putting for a long time can leave you with a sore back. But standing taller doesn’t require less net force it simply is applying the same net force with less force being required by the muscles in the lower back. The force being applied when standing vertically is through the hips and supported by rigid bones transmitting the force from the floor rather than the muscles. This is why a squat increases strength, you are using this increased force applied by the muscles to get stronger. And the deeper you squat the harder it is

 

So basically no the force required is exactly the same. You’re just feeling more force being applied by the muscles in arms and shoulder. Same net amount of force just being applied and reached very differently. In golf the torque being applied is far greater than gravity alone so gravity has a negligible impact on the force being applied and required to a club in motion.

[white03]

WOW, this is getting way deep :)

 

Here's what I know from my own experience....

 

I played to a 4-5 handicap before I started the "Malaska move and swing theory". My swing had a small OTT move at the start of the downswing, shaft got very upright at impact and divots were deep and slightly left. None the less, if I practiced enough I could get the "flip" at impact timed correctly and play decent golf

 

In the last 3-4 months, since I started listening to all the Malaska videos on YT and practicing, my handicap is down to 1-2. No more OTT move at the start of downswing, shallow divots, and shaft at impact is more in-line with where it was at address. My ball contact is much more consistent and the swing feels less violent.

 

To me the feel of the handle going down (as opposed to out) and the clubhead coming out (as opposed to dropping down) is working very good

 

My 2 cents

[Pinball Wizard]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

 

So does this explain, which gets back to my original question, why a club held vertically to ground without movement feels lighter than the same club held perpendicular to the horizon, which feels at least twice heavier, because more force that is equal and opposite to gravity is being applied to the horizontally held club?

 

More total force isn't required. It's feels lighter because the force being applied is inline with the COM of the club when vertical which means the torque is 0 and there is almost no muscular force required. When the club is horizontal it is applying a torque which requires more muscular force to counteract. But the net force required is exactly the same because the club isn't moving and therefore is at equilibrium.

 

 

Standing with bad posture doesn't require any more total force than good posture. Poor posture requires more muscular force in the back to offset the COM being forward in space relative to the hips. Which can cause back problems this force exerts on the spine. It's why bending over and practicing putting for a long time can leave you with a sore back. But standing taller doesn't require less net force it simply is applying the same net force with less force being required by the muscles in the lower back. The force being applied when standing vertically is through the hips and supported by rigid bones transmitting the force from the floor rather than the muscles. This is why a squat increases strength, you are using this increased force applied by the muscles to get stronger. And the deeper you squat the harder it is

 

So basically no the force required is exactly the same. You're just feeling more force being applied by the muscles in arms and shoulder. Same net amount of force just being applied and reached very differently. In golf the torque being applied is far greater than gravity alone so gravity has a negligible impact on the force being applied and required to a club in motion.

 

Interesting, thanks and I think I understand what you're describing. By the way, I had to go back and edit post #135 as I got my parallel and perpendiculars mixed up, which is an easy mistake. I don't know if it would be more prudent to continue with FWP, or you, both which make interesting points that I am not not totally sold on yet.

[Shilgy]

y'all are nuts. He (Malaska) states repeatedly that this move/feel is for the guys that fire the hips and leave the arms behind. The Monte 68 ballerina. Then drive the handle, move the hands out at the ball and then try to time a flip. This is not a "how to swing" move. It's a exaggerated feel to remove a bad swing move.

 

There are numerous videos where Malaska says something along the lines of "there are many ways to swing a club but this way (the move) is the best/easiest/most consistent".

And in every video he says that because you are rotating at the same time you will not do what the rehearsal move feels like. But it will prevent you from getting stuck-the exact issue the move is to prevent.

There is no question if you suggested this move to many amateur players it would harm-not help. "Address the issues the player has" is the key to good instruction. I could be wrong but I don't think iteach or Fort Worth would spend a lot of time on a hackers grip if they already had a great grip.

[Fireballer]

Is this anything?

 

 

[Pinball Wizard]

Let's try this, FWP do you agree with iTeach's thoughts in post #136, as if you would have said the same thing if you replied to my post #135 to you. If you're both in agreement I will just continue with what iTeach had to say. I only have enough energy to have one discussion at a time.

[iteachgolf]

Sorry for appearing daft, but some confusion is settling in. One one hand a claim is made about "gravity nonsense" while the current state of the discussion claims an equal and opposite force is being applied to that of gravity. What is applying the equal and opposite force?

 

Gravity has essentially zero effect on a golf swing. The force and torque being applied is so great that gravity is a non factor. If the club is static and not moving then yes there is a small amount of force necessary to not allow it to fall to the ground.

 

So does this explain, which gets back to my original question, why a club held vertically to ground without movement feels lighter than the same club held perpendicular to the horizon, which feels at least twice heavier, because more force that is equal and opposite to gravity is being applied to the horizontally held club?

 

More total force isn't required. It's feels lighter because the force being applied is inline with the COM of the club when vertical which means the torque is 0 and there is almost no muscular force required. When the club is horizontal it is applying a torque which requires more muscular force to counteract. But the net force required is exactly the same because the club isn't moving and therefore is at equilibrium.

 

 

Standing with bad posture doesn't require any more total force than good posture. Poor posture requires more muscular force in the back to offset the COM being forward in space relative to the hips. Which can cause back problems this force exerts on the spine. It's why bending over and practicing putting for a long time can leave you with a sore back. But standing taller doesn't require less net force it simply is applying the same net force with less force being required by the muscles in the lower back. The force being applied when standing vertically is through the hips and supported by rigid bones transmitting the force from the floor rather than the muscles. This is why a squat increases strength, you are using this increased force applied by the muscles to get stronger. And the deeper you squat the harder it is

 

So basically no the force required is exactly the same. You're just feeling more force being applied by the muscles in arms and shoulder. Same net amount of force just being applied and reached very differently. In golf the torque being applied is far greater than gravity alone so gravity has a negligible impact on the force being applied and required to a club in motion.

 

Interesting, thanks and I think I understand what you're describing. By the way, I had to go back and edit post #135 as I got my parallel and perpendiculars mixed up, which is an easy mistake. I don't know if it would be more prudent to continue with FWP, or you, both which make interesting points that I am not not totally sold on yet.

 

I said the same thing FWP said just more detailed. What aren’t you sold on? This is basic physics and the forces and torques can be measured with 3D during the swing. Michael (FWP) understands this and knows what top players how doing.

 

Gravity absolutely isn’t what is causing the shaft to flatten in transition. It’s the force being applied to the grip of the club. Players who flatten the club in transition are making that happen, not necessarily consciously, and not gravity.

[Pinball Wizard]

I said the same thing FWP said just more detailed. What aren't you sold on? This is basic physics and the forces and torques can be measured with 3D during the swing. Michael (FWP) understands this and knows what top players how doing.

 

Gravity absolutely isn't what is causing the shaft to flatten in transition. It's the force being applied to the grip of the club. Players who flatten the club in transition are making that happen, not necessarily consciously, and not gravity.

 

The discussion is not about what top players are doing. At this point it is narrowly directed at "gravity nonsense" and whether there is any influence as Malaska claims, so if you don't mind hopefully FWP will agree, or disagree with your comments, some which were real good, then the discussion can proceed. Like I said, one discussion at a time is about all I can handle.

[iteachgolf]

I said the same thing FWP said just more detailed. What aren't you sold on? This is basic physics and the forces and torques can be measured with 3D during the swing. Michael (FWP) understands this and knows what top players how doing.

 

Gravity absolutely isn't what is causing the shaft to flatten in transition. It's the force being applied to the grip of the club. Players who flatten the club in transition are making that happen, not necessarily consciously, and not gravity.

 

The discussion is not about what top players are doing. At this point it is narrowly directed at "gravity nonsense" and whether there is any influence as Malaska claims, so if you don't mind hopefully FWP will agree, or disagree with your comments, some which were real good, then the discussion can proceed. Like I said, one discussion at a time is about all I can handle.

 

Nobody said gravity is not there. Just that the amount of force and torque gravity applies is extremely small relative to the amount of force being applied to the club during the golfswing. Making it statistically insignificant. This has been measured, forget best players, it’s been measured on players of all ability levels and all sorts of swings. The force of gravity is insignificant and essentially a non factor when it comes to forces being applied to the golf club while being swung at speed. It’s not debateable. Feel free to ask the top biomechanics and physics experts in the field.

 

You can’t refute anything I wrote. Again it’s basic physics. Malaska isn’t saying it has a very small influence, he’s saying it is THE influence in the shaft shallowing.

[Hilts1969]

I'm all for the malaska move for some players but I too have an issue with his rationale behind it. He says that due to the weight of the club the shaft has a tendency to shallow from the top and his move prevents that from happening too much. I like stuff that at least make sense and this frankly doesn't. Most hackers start down too steep and need the opposite move. Skipping a stone is a popular one.

 

You can't argue against physics

[argee1977]

I'm not sure i understand how the gravity thing is coming up, from what i've seen, isn't Malaska just using this example in regards to rerouting the club during the downswing (early extension, OTT, flip, etc), and using his example on how to use this force to get the clubhead on an arc to the ball? It's pretty much the same thing Pete Cowen says in his videos as well, and a few others that i've seen.

[Chote konez]

Is this anything?

 

 

 

It’s a tweet from the Twitter ;)

[Chote konez]

I'm not sure i understand how the gravity thing is coming up, from what i've seen, isn't Malaska just using this example in regards to rerouting the club during the downswing (early extension, OTT, flip, etc), and using his example on how to use this force to get the clubhead on an arc to the ball? It's pretty much the same thing Pete Cowen says in his videos as well, and a few others that i've seen.

 

I think the entire point is that everyone has their own idea of what Malaska is saying and means and that therefore he’s not getting his point across. Maybe the internet video format doesn’t suit his teaching style.

[Quick Bucket]

I like Malaska saying the swing is invisible to an outsider.

[iteachgolf]

I'm all for the malaska move for some players but I too have an issue with his rationale behind it. He says that due to the weight of the club the shaft has a tendency to shallow from the top and his move prevents that from happening too much. I like stuff that at least make sense and this frankly doesn't. Most hackers start down too steep and need the opposite move. Skipping a stone is a popular one.

 

You can't argue against physics

 

Correct and physics says gravity isn’t why the shaft flattens in transition and that gravity plays an insignificant role in the swing. The shaft flattens because of forces applied to the club. The golfer is making it flatten. Not gravity.

 

Physics disagrees with what Malaska is saying