Dana Dahlquist's Driver Swing

[slicefixer]

DD, that is a darn good golf swing......IMOP...... :russian_roulette:

[JeffMann]

Hoganfan 924

 

You write-: "Yes, it is deliberate and I won't "argue" that it is advantageous because I don't believe that it is. I only know what O'grady teaches (and what Plummer/Bennett advocated in 2 GD articles) and how he swings the club himself, which Dana has done an admirable job emulating."

 

I don't know what O'Grady recommends, but you are seemingly willing to state that B/P deliberately recommend a leftwards pelvic shift during the backswing, so that the outer border of the left pelvis gets outside the left foot, for a driver swing in their GD articles. Could you please quote the sentence/paragraph and page number of that quote - I have read the articles multiple times and I must have missed that specific recommendation.

 

Here is the GD article photo of a driver swing at the end-backswing position - note that the outer border of the left pelvis is not outiside the left foot as occurs in Dana's driver swing.

 

 

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

MachineGolfer - you wrote-: "shiftless hip turn with rotated shoulder allows for pitch elbow, on the downswing dana is releasing his forward tilt, utilizing vertical force from the grouund up to "torque" each joint which is actually creating a faster swing then turning his body as fast as he can in a rotary motion...forward tilt is then replaced by a side tilt."

 

Could you please expand on these points. I cannot understand your argument. You state that a shiftless hip turn allows for a pitch elbow. What exactly do you mean by a pitch elbow, and you do you think that it is advantageous compared to the traditional backswing, which presumably doesn't have a pitch elbow? You state that a vertical force originates from the ground-up and passes through every joint to create a faster swing than can be achieved by a rotary swing style. Could you please supply some evidentiary biomechanical support/reasoning to back up that claim? I am paricularly interested in knowing where that vertically-oriented force originates and how it travels across the body's joints in a vertical manner. Secondly, I am interested in learning how that force transmits itself to the clubshaft.

 

Jeff.

[Asleep]

Spanked it!

 

 

Nice swing, DD.

[JeffMann]

Slicefixer - you state that Dana has a darn good driver swing. I don't dispute that fact. However, could it be better - if he kept the outer border of his left pelvis within the inner boundary of his left foot during the backswing (like Hogan in the following photo) so that he didn't have a steeper than normal downswing hand swingpath AND could more easily create a "firm left side"? Note how Hogan creates a "firm left side" at impact by ensuring that the outer border of his left pelvis is inside his left foot at impact. Secondly, note how easy it is for Hogan to establish a significant degree of secondary axis tilt in the downswing - which is partly related to the fact that the outer border of his left pelvis is well within the border of his left inner foot at the end-backswing position (start of the downswing). Thirdly, note that Hogan has a more shallow attack angle, which I presume to be an advantage when hitting a driver.

 

Jeff.

 

[hoganfan924]

Jeffmann,

 

I really don't care for the overall "theme" of this thread (as I think I made clear in my first post). Dana has a fine swing that is true to the MORAD model. Seems to me you're just on a fishing expedition to try and bait those of us who have some training in MORAD or S&T into providing you with that knowledge for free. Sorry, but I'm not biting.

 

If you really want to know, sign up for a MORAD school here: www.macogradygolfschools.com and pony up the $2500 like I did. I'm certain Mac would answer all of your questions. Or spend some time with "The Golfing Machine" or a TGM instructor to understand things like "pitch vs. punch elbow."

 

BTW, you failed to answer the 2 questions I posed to you in my first post and then you put words in my mouth by stating that I said that O'grady, P&B advocated a leftward shift of the pelvis to the extent that the left side of the pelvis extended leftward of the foot. I said no such thing if you'll reread my posts. I only stated that a leftward shift was what they teach, I did not say to what degree.

[scores]

The ---> You write with respect to the leftwards shift of Dana's head/torso/pelvis in the backswing-:

 

Creates LAG!! without trying...natural! in the Transition. I kinda like it but who am I!

[Machinegolfer]

MachineGolfer - you wrote-: "shiftless hip turn with rotated shoulder allows for pitch elbow, on the downswing dana is releasing his forward tilt, utilizing vertical force from the grouund up to "torque" each joint which is actually creating a faster swing then turning his body as fast as he can in a rotary motion...forward tilt is then replaced by a side tilt."

 

Could you please expand on these points. I cannot understand your argument. You state that a shiftless hip turn allows for a pitch elbow. What exactly do you mean by a pitch elbow, and you do you think that it is advantageous compared to the traditional backswing, which presumably doesn't have a pitch elbow? You state that a vertical force originates from the ground-up and passes through every joint to create a faster swing than can be achieved by a rotary swing style. Could you please supply some evidentiary biomechanical support/reasoning to back up that claim? I am paricularly interested in knowing where that vertically-oriented force originates and how it travels across the body's joints in a vertical manner. Secondly, I am interested in learning how that force transmits itself to the clubshaft.

 

Jeff.

 

Matching components, with a rotated shoulder turn ie. rotating around the spine, steep shoulder turn, is compatible with hip slant, standard leg action ( sam snead legs ) to create time in the golf swing and make it longer...as far as the vertical force is concerned try to spin around as fast as you can swinging a golf club...then try swinging a golf club by release your forward tilt, ie sticking your but under your back as you swing or as GD says "standing up"....the turn is only actually 1/3 turn, 1/3 releasing forward tilt/ 1/3 side tilt... as far as it transfering to the clubshaft....have youever seen the pga tour logo swing a golf club??? it looks like his body is moving fast, and his swing is fast but there is such little movement in his swing...MORAD golf swing...torque creates speed

[Asleep]

Jeffmann,

 

I really don't care for the overall "theme" of this thread (as I think I made clear in my first post). Dana has a fine swing that is true to the MORAD model. Seems to me you're just on a fishing expedition to try and bait those of us who have some training in MORAD or S&T into providing you with that knowledge for free. Sorry, but I'm not biting.

 

If you really want to know, sign up for a MORAD school here: www.macogradygolfschools.com and pony up the $2500 like I did. I'm certain Mac would answer all of your questions. Or spend some time with "The Golfing Machine" or a TGM instructor to understand things like "pitch vs. punch elbow."...

Good post.

[jcjr34]

Seriously folks, am I the only one that is noticing that he is not shifting his body, head, or anything to the left as Jeffmann is suggesting? It's the camera that had shifted, not the golfer. Look at the first two frames and put a ruler from the nearest pine tree tip on the left of his head and it measures the same distance to the center of his head in both frames. Also, if you measure the piece of bunker that's behind his left hip, from the tip of the bunker to the edge of his hip, it's the same distance. I think the red lines aren't telling the truth between the two frames. If I'm wrong, please tell me what to look for which shows a body shift to his left. :russian_roulette:

[BeautifulNice]

I think the red lines aren't telling the truth between the two frames. If I'm wrong, please tell me what to look for which shows a body shift to his left. :russian_roulette:

 

I think you're right. DD doesn't move right on the backswing. Left hip remains aligned with bunker in the distance behind him. JeffMan has also drawn the wrong redlines around DD's head. Pine trees in distance tell the tale. DD's head seems to move back a fraction on downswing. Not sure what JeffMann is after but the lines he's drawn aren't accurate. DD's got a nice compact, stacked swing. Good for him.

[Jrose]

Seriously folks, am I the only one that is noticing that he is not shifting his body, head, or anything to the left as Jeffmann is suggesting? It's the camera that had shifted, not the golfer. Look at the first two frames and put a ruler from the nearest pine tree tip on the left of his head and it measures the same distance to the center of his head in both frames. Also, if you measure the piece of bunker that's behind his left hip, from the tip of the bunker to the edge of his hip, it's the same distance. I think the red lines aren't telling the truth between the two frames. If I'm wrong, please tell me what to look for which shows a body shift to his left. :russian_roulette:

 

 

I thought the exact same thing, it looks like the red lines not drawn correctly. If you look at the bunker and the tree in the background they are the same distance away at each position of the swing.

[Furrankee]

video parallax.

[JeffMann]

It's astonishing that so many people are willing to judge the distance moved by body parts in a golf swing by looking at reference structures in the far distance. That technique is so inaccurate as to be meaningless. You have to use a frame-of-reference that is the SAME distance from the camera as the body. I normally use the inner border of both feet where they meet the ground, because the feet are planted at FIXED spots on the GROUND and don't move.

 

Regarding the placement of the red lines - they cannot be wrong. I placed the red lines alongside his head at the address position on his swing video. I then didn't move the red lines when I advanced the swing video frame-by-frame. The only potential source of error is camera shake when using a hand-held camera, but that will not produce a large degree of error under normal circumstances.

 

Also, one can use common sense. Look at the slope of his outer left thigh. If the slope is leftwards-upwards, then the outer border of the pelvis must be outside the left foot.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Hoganfan 924

 

You write-: "Seems to me you're just on a fishing expedition to try and bait those of us who have some training in MORAD or S&T into providing you with that knowledge for free."

 

You're paranoid and crazy if you think that I am fishing for secret knowledge. I am not interested in any ideas/opinions that are not OPENLY publishable in the public sphere. I am only interested in ideas that qualify as being scientific (being falsifiable). A hypothesis (idea) about the golf swing only becomes falsifiable if it can be subject to analysis/criticism in an OPEN forum. If MORAD has ideas about the golf swing that are not publically available, then they do not interest me - because they cannot be scientific (falsifiable). I once worte a paper on the Philosophy of Science, and some of my 10 concluding principles of "good" scientific practice were as follows.

 

8) A scientist should structure his explanatory theory in a scientifically articulate manner - so that the avenues available for confirmation or refutation of his theory are clearly delineated => this will lessen the likelihood of there being an intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.

 

9) A scientist should realise that even if his explanatory theory is experimentally confirmed by very stringent scientific testing, that his explanatory theory must still be shown to be intellectually coherent and logically consistent, and it must also mesh seamlessly with other 'good' explanatory theories in the same field.

 

10) A scientist should realise that his explanatory theory has to be un-falsifiable if he wants it to become the current 'winning' theory, and the scientist should therefore actively promote rigorous experimental challenges to demonstrate that his explanatory theory cannot be falsified.

 

If the MORAD system is secret and NOT in the public sphere, then it doesn't fulfill those criteria of "good" scientific practice, and it then cannot be scientifically/socially useful. The function of this forum is to share ideas/opinions about the biomechanics of the golf swing and a contributor should be willing to see his ideas/opinions falsified. An unwillingness to post "reasons" for one's beliefs automatically emasculates those beliefs. I am not primarily interested in whether people disagree with my ideas/opinions - I am primarily interested in WHY they disagree with my ideas/opinions. An unwllingness to discuss the "WHY" makes any offered agreement/disagreement by any forum member a statement of fact without any scientifically/socially useful function.

 

Jeff.

[rok78]

Hoganfan 924

 

You write-: "Seems to me you're just on a fishing expedition to try and bait those of us who have some training in MORAD or S&T into providing you with that knowledge for free."

 

You're paranoid and crazy if you think that I am fishing for secret knowledge. I am not interested in any ideas/opinions that are not OPENLY publishable in the public sphere. I am only interested in ideas that qualify as being scientific (being falsifiable). A hypothesis (idea) about the golf swing only becomes falsifiable if it can be subject to analysis/criticism in an OPEN forum. If MORAD has ideas about the golf swing that are not publically available, then they do not interest me - because they cannot be scientific (falsifiable). I once worte a paper on the Philosophy of Science, and some of my 10 concluding principles of "good" scientific practice were as follows.

 

8) A scientist should structure his explanatory theory in a scientifically articulate manner - so that the avenues available for confirmation or refutation of his theory are clearly delineated => this will lessen the likelihood of there being an intellectual 'disconnect' between his explanatory theory and the observational data.

 

9) A scientist should realise that even if his explanatory theory is experimentally confirmed by very stringent scientific testing, that his explanatory theory must still be shown to be intellectually coherent and logically consistent, and it must also mesh seamlessly with other 'good' explanatory theories in the same field.

 

10) A scientist should realise that his explanatory theory has to be un-falsifiable if he wants it to become the current 'winning' theory, and the scientist should therefore actively promote rigorous experimental challenges to demonstrate that his explanatory theory cannot be falsified.

 

If the MORAD system is secret and NOT in the public sphere, then it doesn't fulfill those criteria of "good" scientific practice, and it then cannot be scientifically/socially useful. The function of this forum is to share ideas/opinions about the biomechanics of the golf swing and a contributor should be willing to see his ideas/opinions falsified. An unwillingness to post "reasons" for one's beliefs automatically emasculates those beliefs. I am not primarily interested in whether people disagree with my ideas/opinions - I am primarily interested in WHY they disagree with my ideas/opinions. An unwllingness to discuss the "WHY" makes any offered agreement/disagreement by any forum member a statement of fact without any scientifically/socially useful function.

 

Jeff.

 

I can't wait for Hoganfan to post. But I have this question for you, if you are truly into scientific research for the golf swing, why haven't you done your research and read The Golfing Machine or Search for the Perfect Swing? When researching a method such as Stack & Tilt, these books would be key to understanding much of why they do what they do. Read those books and THEN people may actually take what you type seriously.

[hoganfan924]

Jeff,

 

I'm well versed in scientific theory. I don't care for how you approached this thread:

 

First off, you publicly posted another members swing as an obvious ruse to expand your knowledge of a swing theory with which you lack expertise. That could have been handled with a PM directly to Dana. You then questioned Dana about the veracity of his method and requested that others comment. You obviously did so without Dana's permission. If you did that to me, I would have had this thread locked down and deleted long ago. Dana was (fortunately for you) gracious enough that he actually answered some of your questions without apparently being offended. In hindsight, I should have never jumped in on this thread and I apologize to Dana for writing anything about his swing.

 

Mac O'grady hasn't published his data and I agree that is unfortunate. It is not therefore in the public domain. I don't like it, but it's his choice. Whether it lacks usefulness as a result I think is bunk. As an Engineer, I strongly desire to understand the "why" of things but I also recognize that I don't always need to understand the theory of something before successfully applying it, as millions of people demonstrate every day. As a Doctor (I'm assuming that you are a Medical Dr., apologies if that is incorrect), I'm sure you understand this quite well. For example, did you read every reseach study done on every pharmaceutical that you ever prescribed to your patients? Did you fully research and understand the mechanism behind how these drugs actually work? We both know the answer is NO, because even the drug companies don't always understand the exact mechanism by which a drug works, in some cases they just have research studies that say "compound X was 53% effective in lessening the symptoms of Y condition while a placebo was only 22% effective, without really understanding "why." Does Joel Zumaya need to understand the biomechanics of throwing a ball to be able to throw a baseball 102 mph? Doubt it.

 

Because MORAD is not published, I believe that it should be considered Mac's intellectual property. That's why members like Dana who are well versed in MORAD are only going to give you small snippets and not a complete picture. This is a public forum that is visited by thousands. For someone to fully lay out to you (and all who read this thread) the theory of MORAD and all of the underlying principles would be irresponsible on their part and they aren't going to do it.

 

Relative to the question you posed to me about a leftward shift, answer this question:

 

P&B clearly stated in both GD articles that the weight on the lead foot should increase during the backswing. They clarified in the 2nd article that this was "not just a feeling to strive for" but to actually do it. Considering that the Cg of the torso and head are in front of the spine, and that they move rearward (away from the target) if you only rotate about the spine, and that P&B advocate a stacked set-up where the upper and lower swing centers are vertically aligned, how in the world are you supposed to accomplish this without shifting the pelvis, torso and head toward the target in the backswing?

 

BTW, you still haven't answered the questions I posed to you in my first post. So to borrow one of your quotes:

 

An unwllingness to discuss the "WHY" makes any offered agreement/disagreement by any forum member a statement of fact without any scientifically/socially useful function.

 

Since you're so willing to post another members swing, why don't you post your own, explain why you do what you do and answer other members questions about it? Or would that be too "scientifically/socially unuseful?"

[jcjr34]

It's astonishing that so many people are willing to judge the distance moved by body parts in a golf swing by looking at reference structures in the far distance. That technique is so inaccurate as to be meaningless. You have to use a frame-of-reference that is the SAME distance from the camera as the body. I normally use the inner border of both feet where they meet the ground, because the feet are planted at FIXED spots on the GROUND and don't move.

 

Regarding the placement of the red lines - they cannot be wrong. I placed the red lines alongside his head at the address position on his swing video. I then didn't move the red lines when I advanced the swing video frame-by-frame. The only potential source of error is camera shake when using a hand-held camera, but that will not produce a large degree of error under normal circumstances.

 

Also, one can use common sense. Look at the slope of his outer left thigh. If the slope is leftwards-upwards, then the outer border of the pelvis must be outside the left foot.

 

Jeff.

 

Jeff, sorry to belabor this point..

But to say that anything behind Dana was meaningless would have had some merit if they were moving cars or even an audience, but I highly doubt that the entire land behind him could have moved during that split second. If we are to use your method of referencing, then draw a vertical line on the golf ball and see how little Dana's position had shifted. This way you can take all doubt away from my argument if his body had totally shifted the way you have it pictured.

If you were to extend the vertical red lines that you drew down to his feet, you'd notice that they end up in different places aorund his feet in frames 1 and 2, just like the trees and everything else in the entire frame #2 which has shifted. You brought up my main point in theis entire argument which was that there was camera shake during his backswing when you froze frame #2. Had the camera that shot the video of Dana been stationary, I would not even have brought up this argument. The mistake that you did make in frame #2 was that you didn't move the redlines to coincide w/ the slight camera movement.

The adjusted redline on Dana's left hip is in actuality the yellow line that you drew, which is the same as frame #1. Thus, this shows VERY little to no body shift at the top of his backswing.

[JeffMann]

rok78

 

Why have you automatically assumed that I haven't read those books?

 

Surely, it is silly method of trying to put down a person's position, considering that I have read those books, and my points of view are not dependent on, or contradicted by, anything written in those books.

 

Jeff.

[rok78]

rok78

 

Why have you automatically assumed that I haven't read those books?

 

Surely, it is silly method of trying to put down a person's position, considering that I have read those books, and my points of view are not dependent on, or contradicted by, anything written in those books.

 

Jeff.

 

Then why didn't you understand what Machinegolfer typed. I inferred from there because he was using TGM terms. Also previously you stated you couldn't understand Hayam and he used TGM terms. I haven't slogged through all of The Golfing Machine yet myself, but I understood those terms. That's why I assumed you didn't read it. Why would it be silly to point out the contradictions between your supposed "scientific" research and not doing the most basic research itself.

 

If you don't see the connection between TGM and Stack & Tilt, or TGM and anything, then you really have much further to go before you even begin writing "research papers" to critique the theory.

[JeffMann]

Hoganfan924

 

Issue number 1:

 

You state-: "First off, you publicly posted another members swing as an obvious ruse to expand your knowledge of a swing theory with which you lack expertise."

 

You have a conspiracy theory as to my underlying intent when I questioned the biomechanical efficiency of moving one's pelvis outside the left foot during the backswing. I am not personally interested in the source of your paranoid beliefs, and I simply hope that other forum members can contribute reasonably informed opinions as to the biomechanical advantages/disadvantages of such a move. If MORAD-trained members do not want to comment on the biomechanical advantages/disadvantages of such a move, then they are free to NOT participate in the discussion.

 

Issue number 2:

 

You state-: "For example, did you read every reseach study done on every pharmaceutical that you ever prescribed to your patients? Did you fully research and understand the mechanism behind how these drugs actually work? We both know the answer is NO, because even the drug companies don't always understand the exact mechanism by which a drug works, in some cases they just have research studies that say "compound X was 53% effective in lessening the symptoms of Y condition while a placebo was only 22% effective, without really understanding "why."

 

It is NOT important for me to personally review every research study published in the medical literature to have faith in the results of scientific research in the field of clinical medicine - as long as I know that the research results were published in the medical literature (publically available medical journals). If the research has been published, then I know that it is OPEN to analysis/criticism by other interested researchers who can criticise it from various perspectives - methodological flaws, statistical analysis flaws, errors in result-interpretation etc. That's what science is all about - framing a hypothesis, testing one's hypothesis through scientific testing, and checking the hypothesis to see if it has a low falsifiability factor in the face of strong opposing evidence/viewpoints. The MORAD system certainly cannot be deemed to be scientific because it does not publish its methods/results and it does not attempt to establish a low falsifiability factor by encouraging critical analysis and re-analysis by other golf swing instructors/analysts in the public shere.

 

Issue number 3:

 

You state-: "P&B clearly stated in both GD articles that the weight on the lead foot should increase during the backswing. They clarified in the 2nd article that this was "not just a feeling to strive for" but to actually do it. Considering that the Cg of the torso and head are in front of the spine, and that they move rearward (away from the target) if you only rotate about the spine, and that P&B advocate a stacked set-up where the upper and lower swing centers are vertically aligned, how in the world are you supposed to accomplish this without shifting the pelvis, torso and head toward the target in the backswing?"

 

I agree that B/P state that one should increase weight on the lead foot during the backswing, but it doesnt automatically imply that the outer border of the left pelvs must move OUTSIDE the left foot during this maneuver. In fact, if B/P recommend that the lower swing center (midway point in the pelvis between the hips) is supposed to remain vertically over the center of one's stance/ball during the backswing, then it automatically implies that the pelvis shouldn't shift leftwards during the backswing.

 

Here is the photo of Bennett performing the backswing, and note that he attempts to keep his lower swing center centralised at the end-backswing position. That means, that although he is pointing more weight over the left foot (due to an UPPER torso lean to the left), he is NOT shifting his pelvis laterally to the left.

 

 

Note that Bennett's lower swing center (roughly in line with his belt buckle) is still centralised at the end-backswing position.

 

Issue number 4:

 

Regarding the posting of my own swing video, you state-: "Since you're so willing to post another members swing, why don't you post your own, explain why you do what you do and answer other members questions about it? Or would that be too "scientifically/socially unuseful?"

 

This is a silly position because you have not provided a plausible reason why our biomechanical understanding of the golf swing will be advanced by seeing my personal swing video. Dana's swing video is different - because i) he clearly has an unorthodox move, and ii) when that unorthodox move is performed by a highly regarded golf instructor, it is reasonable for a forum member to attempt to understand the reasons for that unorthodox move.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

rok 78

 

You write-: "Then why didn't you understand what Machinegolfer typed. I inferred from there because he was using TGM terms."

 

I may understand TGM terminology, but that doesn't mean that I either understand, or agree, with a theoretical biomechanical explanation using TGM terms. TGM terms are just the vocabulary used by TGMers. and a forum member using TGM terminology still has to produce a logically coherent explanation that passes muster with other people who understand TGM terminology.

 

Jeff.

[rok78]

rok 78

 

You write-: "Then why didn't you understand what Machinegolfer typed. I inferred from there because he was using TGM terms."

 

I may understand TGM terminology, but that doesn't mean that I either understand, or agree, with a theoretical biomechanical explanation using TGM terms. TGM terms are just the vocabulary used by TGMers. and a forum member using TGM terminology still has to produce a logically coherent explanation that passes muster with other people who understand TGM terminology.

 

Jeff.

 

Can you see where I could infer you didn't read TGM by your response to Machine? You didn't know what pitch elbow was, and how that relates to a shiftless hip turn. How components work together is also part of TGM and goes beyond simple terminology.

 

Jeff, if you really want to understand S&T or any other method, spend some money and get a lesson to get it straight from the horses' mouth. Or PM Dana and get it right from him. No reason to start a whole thread to solve one question that could've been answered through a PM. I think this is turning too off-topic, so I'll stop now.

[JeffMann]

jcr34

 

Don't apologise for belaboring the point about camera shake. You make a good point.

 

I redid the lines. Here is the result.

 

 

I extended the red lines (alongside his hips) and the yellow lines (alomgside his head) all the way to the ground this time. One can now see that points at the end of the lines, near 1 and 2, have moved slightly upwards (about 2") and slightly rightwards (about 1"). I presume that it means that the camera has moved slightly leftwards and downwards during the duration of the backswing. That presumably exaggerates the leftward shift of his pelvis movement. I still think that his left outer thigh (green line) has a slope that is left-upwards implying that the pelvis has moved slightly leftwards - although the blue line may be an exaggeration (due to camera shift) of the degree of leftward shift of the pelvis.

 

I still think that having the outer border of the left pelvis outside the left foot, or even in line with the left foot, at the end-backswing position is NOT necessarily biomechanically optimum for a driver swing.

 

Re-consider Ben Hogan's driver swing.

 

 

Note that, although he shifts his pelvis laterally leftwards during the downswing, at impact he still has the outer border of his left pelvis within the inner border of his left foot. That's my idea of a hitting against a "firm left side".

 

Here is another photo of Ben Hogan near-impact - note that the outer border of his left pelvis is well within the border of his left inner foot.

 

 

I would be interested to see the effect of a wider stance and a Ben Hogan-style swing on Dana's driving distance. If he can hit the ball 290 yards with a steeper swing and a less-supportive "firm left side", he may be able to hit the ball 330 yards (40 yards further) using Ben Hogan's swing style.

 

Jeff.

[dana dahlquist]

So I work all day and this forum blows up. LOL

I guess the best thing I can advise is for Jeff to go learn from Mac at this point.

[JeffMann]

rok78

 

You are correct. I only partially understand the use/expression of TGM terms and their inter-relationships. That's why I was hoping that he could re-explain his position in a more simple, easy-to-understand, manner. Unfortunately, I still cannot understand his explanation.

 

I could take your advice and spend money having personal instruction with a TGM and a S&T golf instructor. However, I am too much of a miser to spend money on personal golf instruction lessons. I prefer to gain a little insight from online golf forums, despite the "apparent" imperfection of online forum opinions.

 

Jeff.

[dana dahlquist]

I would be interested to see the effect of a wider stance and a Ben Hogan-style swing on Dana's driving distance. If he can hit the ball 290 yards with a steeper swing and a less-supportive "firm left side", he may be able to hit the ball 330 yards (40 yards further) using Ben Hogan's swing style.

 

First off, there is only one Hogan.

There is a whole lot more into playing good golf than perfect swing style(s).

I have no problem with distance; I really do not play for it off the tee.

I do however find it a little belittling in a way in which this was phrased; maybe I would hit it further if I were Bubba Watson

 

The best thing for Jeff to do IMO is to go putt and hit pitch shots and work on your short game, then go play in an event.

[jcjr34]

jcr34

 

Don't apologise for belaboring the point about camera shake. You make a good point.

 

I still think that his left outer thigh (green line) has a slope that is left-upwards implying that the pelvis has moved slightly leftwards - although the blue line may be an exaggeration (due to camera shift) of the degree of leftward shift of the pelvis.

 

I still think that having the outer border of the left pelvis outside the left foot, or even in line with the left foot, at the end-backswing position is NOT necessarily biomechanically optimum for a driver swing.

 

 

Note that, although he shifts his pelvis laterally leftwards during the downswing, at impact he still has the outer border of his left pelvis within the inner border of his left foot. That's my idea of a hitting against a "firm left side".

 

I would be interested to see the effect of a wider stance and a Ben Hogan-style swing on Dana's driving distance. If he can hit the ball 290 yards with a steeper swing and a less-supportive "firm left side", he may be able to hit the ball 330 yards (40 yards further) using Ben Hogan's swing style.

 

Jeff.

 

Jeff, Thank you for clarifying the pics for everyone here and explaining further to me what the issue you see is in the golfer's swing. Now that that is out of the way, let me provide you w/ my insite on his backswing as you have explained in frame #2. I don't really consider his move a lateral (side to side) shift, it's more like he is merely rotating around with his knees as well as his hips (as evident in the slight outward angle of his right knee as well). However, as you could see in frame #3 which is his impact position, his hip has not crossed over the imaginary wall/door jam in which some of the drills tell you to practice doing. It seems to me that although his lower body isn't all that quiet, it still achieves a quite optimal finish. Heck, if I could do that and hit 290 myself like that, I wouldn't change a thing! :russian_roulette:

What Ben Hogan preaches is not to have much (if any) knee movement as to create that maximum coil around the hips. That's why in his '5 Lessons' book, he says to almost have both knees pointing inwards.

[BeautifulNice]

jcr34

 

Don't apologise for belaboring the point about camera shake. You make a good point.

 

I redid the lines. Here is the result.

 

 

I extended the red lines (alongside his hips) and the yellow lines (alomgside his head) all the way to the ground this time. One can now see that points at the end of the lines, near 1 and 2, have moved slightly upwards (about 2") and slightly rightwards (about 1"). I presume that it means that the camera has moved slightly leftwards and downwards during the duration of the backswing. That presumably exaggerates the leftward shift of his pelvis movement. I still think that his left outer thigh (green line) has a slope that is left-upwards implying that the pelvis has moved slightly leftwards - although the blue line may be an exaggeration (due to camera shift) of the degree of leftward shift of the pelvis.

 

JM: Why not draw your vertical lines from fixed points (DD's feet and the ball) in each frame and compare? This is "common sense" isn't it? His feet don't move and the ball doesn't move. If camera movement means that this method of comparison is unreliable, then what's the point of pursuing this discussion? The method you've suggested is certainly unreliable (just look at your lines above), and there aren't any other reliable ways of determining DD"s movement in this video.

 

Even if DD has moved his left hip in line with or outside his left foot, Hogan did something akin to this (what slice has described as sitting down in the backswing). I imagine there's some Hogan video out there that could be analyzed enough to support this view. Regardless, it's a rotary swing and some folks might rotate to the point where their hip appears to go left.

 

I don't know much about MORAD, and it gives me a chuckle to read that MORAD can't be discussed because it's "intellectual property" -- but whatever DD is doing, he hits the ball freakin' 290! Fine if you think he can do better . . . if he just swung like Hogan. I think we can all agree that if we all swung like Hogan we could do better.

[JeffMann]

Beautifilnice

 

I don't think that it will make any difference if one drew lines from fixed ground points - like the point where the feet meet the ground. In fact, if you look at those red lines, they meet the ground at a point that is just inside the feet - so those lines are actually meeting your "fixed" point requirement. Wherever one places the lines, there will be a small amount of error if the camera moves slightly. Regarding the degree of error, it is obviously not large, because the lines only move 1-2", and that's a small degree of error.

 

You state that Hogan moved his left outer pelvis outside his left foot. I have NOT seen that phenomenon happen with a driver. It obviously happens with a short iron swing - for Hogan and many/most PGA tour players. My focus in this thread is the driver swing. Most golfers want to generate a full swing at near-maximum power when hitting a driver, and I think that there is a biomechanical advantage to having a wider stance and ensuring that the pelvis remains within the vertical confines of both inner feet during the backswing/downswing. Most PGA tour players follow this biomechanical principle when hitting a driver. I used Hogan as an example, but it is not unique to Hogan. Here is another example of Tiger Woods and Adam Scott.

 

 

I placed a red line alongside their left outer hip at the end-backswing position. You can see that that the red line is vertically inside the left inner foot. During the downswing, they shift their pelvis left-laterally, but at impact their left outer pelvis border is still inside the left foot (representing a "firm left side").

 

The fact that Dana can hit it 290 yards is irrelevant when discussing the optimum biomechanical method of driving a golf ball. For example, I can hit a drive 180-200 yards standing on one foot, and I can hit it 220 yards when having a very narrow stance (feet seperated by a gap of 3"). That doesn't mean that a very narrow stance is the best stance for a driver swing.

 

Here is an example of a golfer hitting a drive >240 yards using only the left arm.

 

 

I presumably don't have to argue that he should also use his right arm if he wants to optimise his driver swing distance.

 

Jeff.