Jimmy Ballard

[Ayersjj]

Jimmy Ballard doesnt want u to “shallow”. If anything he would rather see u swing ONTOP of the shaft plane plane in DS with a high right shoulder. The steepness is “shallowed” by a shift of a vertical motion of the spine. Jim Hardy 2 plane is similar. The release of the club from start of DS. No lag.

 

 

 

> @commoditybroker said:

> The RA2 is for width, not lag.... I’m not trying to lag, I’m trying to get more shallow with the shaft closer to my right arm versus my left arm halfway down... much like Henrik Stenson and most every other consistently great ball striker I see on Tour....

>

>

>

>

> @SandPiper, please post a video of your swing so I can get a better visual of how you swing, especially in transition?

 

 

[commoditybroker]

@SandPiper how can you say that George Knudson got wide on his downswing?? It is pretty clear to me in the grid behind him that on the backswing he was 7 squares from his right foot at waist high going back and then only 5 squares from his right foot at waist high coming down, clearly narrower than he went back....

**Backswing**

 

**Downswing**

 

 

@AyersJJ I never said I was trying to "shallow", I said in 1 day with the RA my swing naturally got shallower, whereas before it was way too steep, which was causing all kinds of issues for me and I couldn't figure out how to correct...and then, bam, the RA2 fixed it for me. Doesn't Ballard use Hogan and Knudson as examples? Both of them on the downswing are shallow and the shaft is clearly on their right arms, not on the left where I was which is way steep. Just play that video @SandPiper put up and watch Knudson in transition.

 

 

 

 

Knudson was notorious for getting the club behind him on the backswing so I think he could have really benefited from the RA2 because it makes keeping the club in front of your body very easy, which I am experiencing. Video doesn't lie and I can see a huge difference in my video. If you don't agree with me then put up a video so I can see how you guys are doing it, but I'm stoked with the improvement I see in only 1 day regardless of what Ballard thinks of it because my ball flight and the video speaks volumes to me.

[SandPiper]

R2 D2 please take the Butch Harmon device back to the other blog on WIDTH and lag or go take a lesson from my pro.

Thanks.

http://nmgkgolf.com/

 

 

> @commoditybroker said:

> @SandPiper how can you say that George Knudson got wide on his downswing?? It is pretty clear to me in the grid behind him that on the backswing he was 7 squares from his right foot at waist high going back and then only 5 squares from his right foot at waist high coming down, clearly narrower than he went back....

> **Backswing**

>

>

> **Downswing**

>

>

>

> @AyersJJ I never said I was trying to "shallow", I said in 1 day with the RA my swing naturally got shallower, whereas before it was way too steep, which was causing all kinds of issues for me and I couldn't figure out how to correct...and then, bam, the RA2 fixed it for me. Doesn't Ballard use Hogan and Knudson as examples? Both of them on the downswing are shallow and the shaft is clearly on their right arms, not on the left where I was which is way steep. Just play that video @SandPiper put up and watch Knudson in transition.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Knudson was notorious for getting the club behind him on the backswing so I think he could have really benefited from the RA2 because it makes keeping the club in front of your body very easy, which I am experiencing. Video doesn't lie and I can see a huge difference in my video. If you don't agree with me then put up a video so I can see how you guys are doing it, but I'm stoked with the improvement I see in only 1 day regardless of what Ballard thinks of it because my ball flight and the video speaks volumes to me.

 

[commoditybroker]

Wow, okay. I'm still waiting for your video so I can see how it's done?? I thought this was a discussion? I find something that helps me hit it better and you don't want to hear it, and I dispute what you say with pictures and that is your reply ?!?!? Maybe others might benefit from this information even though it obviously doesn't fit your agenda SHEEESH!

 

R2 D2 out....

[garyt]

This thread has taken a nosedive since Knudson got brought in to it. Isn't there a Knudson thread already? This is a Ballard thread

[Ayersjj]

@SandPiper chill man Tin Cup was a great flick with lots of cool devices even RA2. We all fall prey to Them I got a “the hooker” ?? (Calvin Peete) just last week ??

 

 

 

[Ayersjj]

@commoditybroker as long as there is pressure in the shaft ur good steep or shallow. Centrifugal force wants to drop the club in transition which needs to be resisted with connection. JB calls it “fall in” not lag.

[SandPiper]

Knudson/Ballard/NormMoote

All the same. Look at Rocco

 

> @garyt said:

> This thread has taken a nosedive since Knudson got brought in to it. Isn't there a Knudson thread already? This is a Ballard thread

 

[torbill]

> @Ayersjj said:

> @torbill Wonder what JB says about the RA2 many bot here recently if it helps or hurts the transition springing of the shaft. I will ask him. I know he hates the medicus.

>

> IMO ... JB will say “Any contraption that **_inhibits_** the firing right side towards the ball will be dished as gimmicky” The medicus aid did just that. RA2 is for width is my understanding (maybe more, dunno), but most using it are doing a lag and trying to narrow in downswing which is far from Ballard covering the ball from the initial kick in transition.

 

JJ, if you’re asking me the question, I’m not aware of anything that Ballard teaches relative to width. I’m not even sure if there is an agreed-to understanding in the Ballard world over what words like width and radius mean. We had that discussion a number of pages back on this thread and I’m not sure that there was any sort of consensus re. how JB defines the terms.

 

The human body is a machine in the golf swing, nothing more or less. We can understand any golf swing on the basis of mechanical principles. The human mind may control the machine, but it is the machine that hits the ball. Anybody who believes that there is something other than physics at work, some sort of special pixie dust, has an active imagination. I have a couple of degrees in mechanical engineering from a major university. I may be old and obsolete, but I have a pretty fair understanding of kinetics and kinematics - forces and motions - and I scratch my head in bewilderment at some of the claims in the golf swing world. There is an endless stream of snake oil that just does not stand to any sort of analysis. I’m not saying that width is snake oil, but I would like somebody to explain how width leads to any greater storage of energy in the large muscles. Or how it creates a more efficient release of that energy into the ball. It isn’t obvious.

 

I know that Speedster is working on width and having great results. Speedster is not into snake oil. He plays at an exceedingly high level, understands his swing better than anybody I know of, and is not prone to short term placebo effects. So there must something to it. I’m pretty sure that it isn’t about a greater storage of energy in the large muscles. So, it must be that, for some people, width creates a more efficient release of the stored energy. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - eg. the swings of some of the long drive champions, as well as players like John Daly, who are very collapsed at the top and hit the ball into next week. So, it hardly seems possible that width confers some sort of advantage that is universal to all players.

 

Personally, I stick with my understanding of mechanical principles, which fit very well with what JB teaches. I don’t pay much attention to discussions of width. My sense is that JB wants soft arms and a relaxed upper body, and this is what I try to do, and my width is whatever it is.

 

I will be very interested in knowing what Ballard tells you about this topic, and I hope you will post it for all of us. What is his definition of width? What is his definition of radius? In his method, what is their role in generating power and accuracy?

 

[Ayersjj]

Will do. I need to do some filming of my swing again and do a video lesson w JB. I will pose some questions for him and update. Until then working on **not changing from my address position** thru the whole swing. Just a little nugget from Colbert ?

 

 

 

 

 

> @torbill said:

> > @Ayersjj said:

> > @torbill Wonder what JB says about the RA2 many bot here recently if it helps or hurts the transition springing of the shaft. I will ask him. I know he hates the medicus.

> >

> > IMO ... JB will say “Any contraption that **_inhibits_** the firing right side towards the ball will be dished as gimmicky” The medicus aid did just that. RA2 is for width is my understanding (maybe more, dunno), but most using it are doing a lag and trying to narrow in downswing which is far from Ballard covering the ball from the initial kick in transition.

>

> JJ, if you’re asking me the question, I’m not aware of anything that Ballard teaches relative to width. I’m not even sure if there is an agreed-to understanding in the Ballard world over what words like width and radius mean. We had that discussion a number of pages back on this thread and I’m not sure that there was any sort of consensu

>

 

 

[jc4birdie]

FWIW, I bet JB will be positive re: RA2. I've not seen anything in JB's material critical of width; in fact, I specifically remember his book admonishing as "deep" a coil into the leg as possible. Now, that's not width per session, but it is creating as much coil AWAY from the ball as efficiently possible.

[jc4birdie]

Per se, not per session. Damned autocorrect.

[SandPiper]

If this is a Ballard thread and Ballard never mentions much about this RA2 contraption why is there so much talk about it? His website is full of toys. Are u guys mixing methods? Big no no.....promotes confusion and bad golf shots.

 

 

> @jc4birdie said:

> FWIW, I bet JB will be positive re: RA2. I've not seen anything in JB's material critical of width; in fact, I specifically remember his book admonishing as "deep" a coil into the leg as possible. Now, that's not width per session, but it is creating as much coil AWAY from the ball as efficiently possible.

 

 

[Ayersjj]

Anything that promotes a single length radius JB would like. Its the **narrowing** in the downswing I am curious his thoughts. JB taks “fall in” vs “lag” is whats different. He teaches a reestablishing of triangle vs compression and shaft lean.

 

> @jc4birdie said:

> Per se, not per session. Damned autocorrect.

 

 

[Ayersjj]

@97speedster please change the board name back to a JImmy Ballard thread. Thanks

[97speedster]

> @SandPiper said:

> If this is a Ballard thread and Ballard never mentions much about this RA2 contraption why is there so much talk about it? His website is full of toys. Are u guys mixing methods? Big no no.....promotes confusion and bad golf shots.

>

@SandPiper Do you mind posting a video of your swing so I can see the blend of Ballard and Knudson in full action?

 

 

 

 

[torbill]

> @jc4birdie said:

> FWIW, I bet JB will be positive re: RA2. I've not seen anything in JB's material critical of width; in fact, I specifically remember his book admonishing as "deep" a coil into the leg as possible. Now, that's not width per session, but it is creating as much coil AWAY from the ball as efficiently possible.

 

Birdie, I'm not seeing it.

 

Ballard teaches that a good combination of power and control resides in the big muscles of the body, not the arms and hands. It is the coil into the back leg that loads the big muscles and stores the energy.

 

How can a device that maintains width cause a stronger coil? I don't see it. I do see how having the arms and club further from the body's core makes it *easier* to have a strong coil - decelerating inertia helps wind the spring. But I can coil just as strongly by putting my hands on my chest, which removes them from consideration, and thinking about getting my body fully coiled.

 

To me, the advantage of width would have to come on the way down, not up - somehow a more efficient release of the energy that was stored by the coil. In ways that I just do not understand.

 

 

[Ayersjj]

Excellent point !!!!

I dont see these guys wearing JB connectors, gloves or the RA2 for that matter. Alot of this talkn bout gadgets is just aids and have too much focus. Imo

 

> @torbill said:

> > @jc4birdie said:

> > FWIW, I bet JB will be positive re: RA2. I've not seen anything in JB's material critical of width; in fact, I specifically remember his book admonishing as "deep" a coil into the leg as possible. Now, that's not width per session, but it is creating as much coil AWAY from the ball as efficiently possible.

>

> Birdie, I'm not seeing it.

>

> Ballard teaches that a good combination of power and control resides in the big muscles of the body, not the arms and hands. It is the coil into the back leg that loads the big muscles and stores the energy.

>

> How can a device that maintains width cause a stronger coil? I don't see it. I do see how having the arms and club further from the body's core makes it *easier* to have a strong coil - decelerating inertia helps wind the spring. But I can coil just as strongly by putting my hands on my chest, which removes them from consideration, and thinking about getting my body fully coiled.

>

> To me, the advantage of width would have to come on the way down, not up - somehow a more efficient release of the energy that was stored by the coil. In ways that I just do not understand.

>

>

 

[dodger]

Why would using a device designed to limit the fold of the right elbow be against Jimmy's teachings? He discusses the right elbow being down, which happens with the right angle, which is not a device that changes the angle of either elbow in terms of pointing anywhere but down. Being anti-width is like being anti lag, both occur differently in swings, neither is more necessary than the other. It is the intent and mechanism for achieving those issues that screw up golfers. One Ballard tip that I have tried is to swing with no pressure on the underside of the grip, the fingers barely hold on. I hit great shots with that thought, video showed a ton of width and more lag than I ever had trying to move the hands with the body, which is seems to be a focus with people's perception of Ballard. Everyone is different in terms of swing thoughts. This is why books and videos and websites have a limited effectiveness. Frankly, Butch and Pete Cowen have some similarity with Ballard and took it a little different direction due to the equipment changes. I look a lot at Annika's swing, pretty straight right arm most of the backswing. Ballard says her swing is the best ever. If a device helps you get in those positions, why would you not use it?

[SandPiper]

Whatever floats ur boat

> @dodger said:

> Why would using a device designed to limit the fold of the right elbow be against Jimmy's teachings? He discusses the right elbow being down, which happens with the right angle, which is not a device that changes the angle of either elbow in terms of pointing anywhere but down. Being anti-width is like being anti lag, both occur differently in swings, neither is more necessary than the other. It is the intent and mechanism for achieving those issues that screw up golfers. One Ballard tip that I have tried is to swing with no pressure on the underside of the grip, the fingers barely hold on. I hit great shots with that thought, video showed a ton of width and more lag than I ever had trying to move the hands with the body, which is seems to be a focus with people's perception of Ballard. Everyone is different in terms of swing thoughts. This is why books and videos and websites have a limited effectiveness. Frankly, Butch and Pete Cowen have some similarity with Ballard and took it a little different direction due to the equipment changes. I look a lot at Annika's swing, pretty straight right arm most of the backswing. Ballard says her swing is the best ever. If a device helps you get in those positions, why would you not use it?

 

 

[torbill]

> @dodger said:

> Why would using a device designed to limit the fold of the right elbow be against Jimmy's teachings? He discusses the right elbow being down, which happens with the right angle, which is not a device that changes the angle of either elbow in terms of pointing anywhere but down. Being anti-width is like being anti lag, both occur differently in swings, neither is more necessary than the other. It is the intent and mechanism for achieving those issues that screw up golfers. One Ballard tip that I have tried is to swing with no pressure on the underside of the grip, the fingers barely hold on. I hit great shots with that thought, video showed a ton of width and more lag than I ever had trying to move the hands with the body, which is seems to be a focus with people's perception of Ballard. Everyone is different in terms of swing thoughts. This is why books and videos and websites have a limited effectiveness. Frankly, Butch and Pete Cowen have some similarity with Ballard and took it a little different direction due to the equipment changes. I look a lot at Annika's swing, pretty straight right arm most of the backswing. Ballard says her swing is the best ever. If a device helps you get in those positions, why would you not use it?

 

Good post, and I agree.

 

I hope that I haven’t written anything here that suggests that I am anti-width. Or pro-width. My problem is that I don’t see why, on the basis of forces and motions, that it matters a lot. If somebody wants to explain how width confers an advantage for players like me I am all eyes and ears.

 

I am old. By my standards Annika is very young. I’m sure that Annika and all the young pros can play with a straight arm all day long without disconnection. My concern is that if I start focusing on width as a priority it is going to take my focus off things that Ballard appears to believe are more important to getting me into good positions. If Ballard isn’t focusing me on width, and if I can’t understand how width helps on the basis of mechanical principles, then it is something that I’m not going to spend a lot of time thinking about.

 

[97speedster]

The last thing I need is JB's validation on whether the Right Angle 2 is right or not, because his own words say it's right. If it's not his aid or idea, he might dispute it, I've been around him enough to know. He told me back in the 1990's that at the top of the swing the left arm is connected and the right arm reaches for the sky. If you set-up with a triangle and maintain the triangle to waist high, then shouldn't all 3 sides of the triangle remain intact at the same length? If they don't then it's not a triangle. Butch Harmon has a great track record and he sells ONE training aid for the full swing and it's the Right Angle 2 for width and to maintain the triangle to waist high and not have it collapse at the top either.

 

There is an awful lot of criticism on what I say by people that have never tried the Right Angle 2 or are too stubborn to even look outside of the box. I can guarantee that I have spent more hours with JB than this entire thread combined AND plenty of hours in Las Vegas at Butch Harmon's school too.... regardless of what you guys think about me having a massive improvement in my game since March, I know what I am talking about and don't need validation by anyone because my scores and ball flight give me all the validation I need. I work extremely hard at this game with some of the best in the business including fitness experts like Joey D who works with Brooks, DJ, Rick and Justin Thomas. When their bio-mechanic experts prove to me that the shoulder turn is increased by a straighter right arm and I feel it for myself, then I know it's right. If your shoulder turn doesn't increase you won't be able to get it past waist high with the Right Angle 2 on. I got a ton of DM's from people thanking me and telling me their swings have never felt so good and they can vouch for the increase in their shoulder turns too, it's an instant feel.

 

You can read Ballard's own words below. The right arm is the governor of width and when it bends too soon in the backswing the triangle is broken immediately, that is a fact of science and math. I'll put my knowledge of Ballard, Butch and the golf swing in general against anybody and not only that, I'll use myself and my scores as an example when I do it, not Google images!

 

 

Along with Nicklaus, you can see width (triangle intact is the same thing as width by the way) in every great player and find me one that goes narrow to wide.

 

 

 

 

 

[SandPiper]

It a beautiful day in Ottawa. Time to go play some golf

[97speedster]

 

[jut111]

Haha. Every one knows sandpiper is a tool but dude, my 3 year old niece handles conflict better then you. Yikes.

[Krt22]

I have not seen this much post editing action in a long time...delete..undelete..redelete. That takes some time and effort!

[DonRSD]

LMAO at the title of this thread hahahaha.

[HitEmTrue]

> @DonRSD said:

> LMAO at the title of this thread hahahaha.

 

When it changes I can’t find it again!

 

@grantc79 , you just have to roll with it when someone tries to knock it off the tracks.

 

 

[Ayersjj]

Ballards a joke? I dont get it...

> @DonRSD said:

> LMAO at the title of this thread hahahaha.

 

 

[97speedster]

> @Ayersjj said:

> Ballards a joke? I dont get it, please explain.

> Thanks

> > @DonRSD said:

> > LMAO at the title of this thread hahahaha.

>

>

 

No, I changed the name to "This thread is dead and you can thank SandPiper" whenhe replied with a very immature response to my post above.... he deleted it and I changed it back. If this thread is going to deteriorate I'd rather you guys start a new one and I'll stay off it, but I don't want my name attached if there are going to be immature and vulgar responses like the one SandPiper deleted. Regardless of what you guys might think, I know what I'm talking about and unless Ballard got it wrong in his book then he should agree.... width and maintaining the triangle to waist high are the same thing, you can't maintain a triangle when you bend the right arm early.