Mike and Dana's hip turn video lesson

[hayam]

Jeffman,

 

You get it , but you don't get it..keep searching i guess.

[JeffMann]

Jeffy

 

I have received that McLean DVD of Sam Snead's swing that you recommended. Sam Snead specifically stated that he never locked his right knee, but that he maintained a very small degree of flex in his right knee. He repeated that statement twice in the McLean interview.

 

I will be reviewing his swing shortly. He definitely didn't have a left-centered backswing.

 

Jeff.

 

p.s. My website is only about the non-Hardy one plane swing, and not the 2PS swing.

[Furrankee]

Jeffmann, you need to stop borrowing stuff from BM's site and using it to justify whatever thinking you have. Brian does all the work and you use it for your ammunition.

 

It's obvious you're an apologist for a particular kind of swing theory. I have a feeling it's the TGM Brian Manzella seeks to teach. Just play golf with Dana, Hoganfan and others and see who plays the best game, and have a good time while you're at it. You'll probably learn something from them. What is your point anyway, with all this fuss?

[AmenCorner]

wow!!! lot of posts and pictures.......

 

Here is my 2 cent (or whatever you say overthere)

 

THE BALL DOESN´T KNOW !!!!

 

You can do whatever you want during the way up to top, have any position you want at top, go down towards the ball, with or without shifts, the ball do not care.

 

As long as you have a flat left wrist at impact, lag and tracing a straight plane line from releasepoint to follow through, you can do whatever you want.

 

 

Whatever Dana and Mike chooses to do with their students, which btw I think is very interesting, I am sure that they have this in their mind somewhere/somehow.

[jeffy]

Jeffy

 

I have received that McLean DVD of Sam Snead's swing that you recommended. Sam Snead specifically stated that he never locked his right knee, but that he maintained a very small degree of flex in his right knee. He repeated that statement twice in the McLean interview.

 

And your point is?

 

I will be reviewing his swing shortly. He definitely didn't have a left-centered backswing.

 

That is your invention: JeffMann's Loch Ness monster.

p.s. My website is only about the non-Hardy one plane swing, and not the 2PS swing.

 

You could have fooled me. Other than Hogan and Garcia, nearly every golfer you analyze and tout here and on your website is a two-planer. Leadbetter and "Swing Like a Pro", which you quote extensively, are two-plane methods. Your "model" is Badds when he was a two-planer working with Leadbetter. And explain the significance of a "non-Hardy one-plane swing" (another invention of yours): if the left arm is more or less in line with the shoulders at the top, it is one-plane. Period.

[JeffMann]

F - you wriote-: " Jeffmann, you need to stop borrowing stuff from BM's site and using it to justify whatever thinking you have. Brian does all the work and you use it for your ammunition.

 

It's obvious you're an apologist for a particular kind of swing theory. I have a feeling it's the TGM Brian Manzella seeks to teach. Just play golf with Dana, Hoganfan and others and see who plays the best game, and have a good time while you're at it. You'll probably learn something from them. What is your point anyway, with all this fuss?"

 

Your personal bias robs your statements of any common sense.

 

I, of course, have a personal opinion on the golf swing, and I certainly use information gleaned from a variety of sources to bolster my opinions. Doesn't everybody do that? We all have an opinion based on information obtained from some source, and that source information represents the ammunition which we use when debating these issues. I sometimes even modify my opinions as a result of these online debates, when a contrary argument/opinion impresses me. You think that I am an apologist for a BM-TGM swing style, others think I am an apologist for Leadbetter's or McLean's thinking and some even think that I am a proponent of a two-plane swing. If anybody really read the papers on my website, you would soon learn that I have represented many different teachers' viewpoints, and that my papers have an exploratory quality (trying to explore new avenues of thinking about the golf swing).

 

My thinking on the biomechanics of the golf swing is not affected by knowing that I cannot beat Tiger Woods or Dana or other golfers at the game of golf. That's a statement of total irrelevance.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Jeffy - you wrote "Any your point is? "in response to this statement of mine: "I have received that McLean DVD of Sam Snead's swing that you recommended. Sam Snead specifically stated that he never locked his right knee, but that he maintained a very small degree of flex in his right knee. He repeated that statement twice in the McLean interview."

 

Seeing that you seemingly lack the mental capacity to understand my statement, I will repeat it. Sam Snead stated that he didn't lock his knee straight in the backswing, and he stated that he maintained a small degree of flex in his right knee." That statement is in response to your previous post about Sam Snead's straight right leg when you commented on Kevin Na's slight right knee flexion during his golf swing. I am only stating that Snead also maintained a slight degree of right knee flex in his backswing, and that it is a natural/physiological phenomenon.

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Your personal bias robs your statements of any common sense.

 

Students, classic argumentum ad hominem.

[JeffMann]

Your personal bias robs your statements of any common sense.

 

Students, classic argumentum ad hominem.

 

 

Does this statement from F also qualify for an "argument ad hominem" designation- "It's obvious you're an apologist for a particular kind of swing theory"?

 

Who started this type of personal attack? I respond to forum members in kind. I never insult anyone who genuinely disagrees with me - if they don't insult me first, and if they simply state their disagreements.

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Jeffy - you wrote "Any your point is? "in response to this statement of mine: "I have received that McLean DVD of Sam Snead's swing that you recommended. Sam Snead specifically stated that he never locked his right knee, but that he maintained a very small degree of flex in his right knee. He repeated that statement twice in the McLean interview."

 

Seeing that you seemingly lack the mental capacity to understand my statement, I will repeat it. Sam Snead stated that he didn't lock his knee straight in the backswing, and he stated that he maintained a small degree of flex in his right knee." That statement is in response to your previous post about Sam Snead's straight right leg when you commented on Kevin Na's slight right knee flexion during his golf swing. I am only stating that Snead also maintained a slight degree of right knee flex in his backswing, and that it is a natural/physiological phenomenon.

 

Jeff.

 

You are too much, Dr. StrawMann: First, I did not say Snead had a "straight right leg", although it sure looks straight. I referred to Snead "straightening the right knee". Second, where did I or anyone else ever state that Snead or Palmer or Hogan or Boros or Nicklaus or Gary Player, to name a few greats who "straighten" the right knee in the backswing, FULLY straighten or LOCK it? Why do you degrade yourself with such lame "arguments"?

 

BTW, where is your, or Manzella's, evidence that straightening the right knee is somehow inferior? Look at the list of top tour winners of all time:

 

1. Snead-83

2. Nicklaus-73

3. Hogan-64

4. Palmer-62

 

I bet they were pretty "comfortable" hoisting all those trophies.

[jeffy]

Your personal bias robs your statements of any common sense.

 

Students, classic argumentum ad hominem.

 

 

Does this statement from F also qualify for an "argument ad hominem" designation- "It's obvious you're an apologist for a particular kind of swing theory"?

 

Who started this type of personal attack? I respond to forum members in kind. I never insult anyone who genuinely disagrees with me - if they don't insult me first, and if they simply state their disagreements.

 

Jeff.

 

Of course not: a personal attack by itself is not an argumentum ad hominem. As I previously stated, you quite often incorrectly apply that term. Here is a useful link that will educate you on its proper usage:

 

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

[JeffMann]

Jeffy - you wrote "Any your point is? "in response to this statement of mine: "I have received that McLean DVD of Sam Snead's swing that you recommended. Sam Snead specifically stated that he never locked his right knee, but that he maintained a very small degree of flex in his right knee. He repeated that statement twice in the McLean interview."

 

Seeing that you seemingly lack the mental capacity to understand my statement, I will repeat it. Sam Snead stated that he didn't lock his knee straight in the backswing, and he stated that he maintained a small degree of flex in his right knee." That statement is in response to your previous post about Sam Snead's straight right leg when you commented on Kevin Na's slight right knee flexion during his golf swing. I am only stating that Snead also maintained a slight degree of right knee flex in his backswing, and that it is a natural/physiological phenomenon.

 

Jeff.

 

You are too much, Dr. Straw Man: First, I did not say Snead had a "straight right leg", although it sure looks straight. I referred to Snead "straightening the right knee". Second, where did I or anyone else ever state that Snead or Palmer or Hogan or Boros or Nicklaus or Gary Player, to name a few greats who "straighten" the right knee in the backswing, FULLY straighten or LOCK it? Why do you degrade yourself with such lame "arguments"?

 

BTW, where is your, or Manzella's, evidence that straightening the right knee is somehow inferior? Look at the list of top tour winners of all time:

 

1. Snead-83

2. Nicklaus-73

3. Hogan-64

4. Palmer-62

 

I bet they were pretty "comfortable" hoisting all those trophies.

 

 

-------------------

 

Jeffy - you started this side-issue by incorrectly making two errors when you wrote-: "Yeah, maintaining that flex in the right knee is real "natural" and "comfortable". Thanks for pointing that out. Of course, who was widely lauded as having the most "natural" swing? Sam Snead. But, now that you point out how unnatural and uncomfortable he was by straightening the right knee, imagine how much better he would have played by maintaining its flex."

 

Your first error - Believing that Kevin Na maintained his "address position" flex in his right knee during the backswing. If you look at his backswing, you will see that it straightens to a considerable degree, but that it never gets as straight as Snead's right knee.

 

Your second error - Presuming that I was sympathetic to the idea of maintaining the "address position" flex in the right knee during the backswing as being "natural" or "comfortable". I have not taken that positon. To quote directly from my paper on the backswing-:

 

"Although it is important to keep the right knee flexed throughout the backswing to prevent any right lateral shift (sway) of the body during the backswing, it is acceptable to allow the right knee to move slightly backwards during the backswing.

 

 

The yellow line is the address position, and the red line is the end-backswing position. Note that Aaron Baddeley's right knee does not move laterally (away from the target) during the backswing, but that it does move slightly backwards (towards the tush line) by 1-2". If one looks at the right knee cap, it may seem to rotate about 10 degrees to the right, which reflects the small amount of internal knee rotation that can occur within a constantly flexed knee joint. Notice that the left knee doesn't flex forward much as the hips rotate, and it shouldn't jut forward of the toe line (note that a minimal amount of "air" can be seen between the left and right knees in the down-the-line view)."

 

I specifically took the position that the right knee must retain a slight degree of flex to prevent lateral movement, but that it could straighten from a front-to-back perspective. Snead has slightly more front-to-back straightening than Kevn Na - it's only a matter of degree.

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Jeffy - you started this side-issue by incorrectly making two errors when you wrote-: "Yeah, maintaining that flex in the right knee is real "natural" and "comfortable". Thanks for pointing that out. Of course, who was widely lauded as having the most "natural" swing? Sam Snead. But, now that you point out how unnatural and uncomfortable he was by straightening the right knee, imagine how much better he would have played by maintaining its flex."

 

Your first error - Believing that Kevin Na maintained his "address position" flex in his right knee during the backswing. If you look at his backswing, you will see that it straightens to a considerable degree, but that it never gets as straight as Snead's right knee.

 

Your second error - Presuming that I was sympathetic to the idea of maintaining the "address position" flex in the right knee during the backswing as being "natural" or "comfortable". I have not taken that positon. To quote directly from my paper on the backswing-:

 

"Although it is important to keep the right knee flexed throughout the backswing to prevent any right lateral shift (sway) of the body during the backswing, it is acceptable to allow the right knee to move slightly backwards during the backswing.

 

 

The yellow line is the address position, and the red line is the end-backswing position. Note that Aaron Baddeley's right knee does not move laterally (away from the target) during the backswing, but that it does move slightly backwards (towards the tush line) by 1-2". If one looks at the right knee cap, it may seem to rotate about 10 degrees to the right, which reflects the small amount of internal knee rotation that can occur within a constantly flexed knee joint. Notice that the left knee doesn't flex forward much as the hips rotate, and it shouldn't jut forward of the toe line (note that a minimal amount of "air" can be seen between the left and right knees in the down-the-line view)."

 

I specifically took the position that the right knee must retain a slight degree of flex to prevent lateral movement, but that it could straighten from a front-to-back perspective. Snead has slightly more front-to-back straightening than Kevn Na - it's only a matter of degree.

 

Jeff.

 

Glad to see that you have finally thrown in the towel on this issue: your original criticism of Dana and Mike (advocating a straightening of the right knee) has been overwhelmed by the facts, including stuff from your website. Of course, only someone as loony as you would try to claim that this was your position all along.

[JeffMann]

Your capacity for incorrect assumptions/statements is expanding rapidly, and you are increasingly detached from the reality of my " true position". I wonder why! :-)

 

I never primarily objected to Dana's idea of straightening the right leg - I primarily objected to the idea of steepening the tilt of the right pelvis and steepening the shoulder turn angle in the backswing. I have previously stated that the right pelvis normally gets higher in the backswing when the right leg straightens, and I previously stated that I only objected to any exaggerated uptilt of the right pelvis. I even posted a photo sequence of Tiger Woods showing the normal pelvis tilt that occurs in the backswing as a result of the right leg straightening - see post #113..

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Your capacity for incorrect assumptions/statements is expanding rapidly, and you are increasingly detached from the reality of my " true position". I wonder why! :-)

 

I never primarily objected to Dana's idea of straightening the right leg - I primarily objected to the idea of steepening the tilt of the right pelvis and steepening the shoulder turn angle in the backswing. I have previously stated that the right pelvis normally gets higher in the backswing when the right leg straightens, and I previously stated that I only objected to any exaggerated uptilt of the right pelvis. I even posted a photo sequence of Tiger Woods showing the normal pelvis tilt that occurs in the backswing as a result of the right leg straightening - see post #113..

 

Jeff.

 

"I DID NOT have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN!"

 

President William Jefferson Clinton, referring to Monica Lewinsky. She just blew him.

[kosmosspoetz]

JeffMann,

 

Do you want to turn the hips? Keeping the right knee flexed stops the hips from rotating. As the right leg straightens the range of motion of the hip turn increases. No need to lock out the right knee. Dana does not say to. As far as swaying the hips to the right, it is independent of whether or not the right leg straightens.

 

When you maintain the address position right knee flex, how much shoulder rotation can you get while remaining centered (left or right centered)?

[JeffMann]

Kossmosspoetz

 

I answered your question in my paper on the backswing pivot - see hip pivot .

 

I stated that one should allow the right hip to pivot sufficiently so that a golfer can achieve an adequate shoulder turn - which is approximately a 90 degree shoulder turn. One can regulate the degree of pelvic pivoting by regulating the degree of right knee straightening in the backswing. I definitely don't believe that one should maintain the same degree of right knee flexion that is adopted at address, and one must definitely allow the right knee to straighten somewhat in order to optimize the backswing pelvic pivoting action.

 

Jeff.

[Lake]

Jeffman,

 

Why do I have to go see a Dr. to get a prescription if all of the information of my illness is listed in print and easy to obtain. If I went on and on about my symptoms over the phone or through a forum wouldn't your answer contain the word depends at some point. My symptoms are pushes, hooks, and thin/fat contact with irons. While it sounds like a little amoxicylan about my path would fix my problem are you sure its not something more serious. Remember, this is my life we are talking about here maybe I'm on Tour playing for a living. Maybe I didn't give you all the details...like all of my lymph nodes are the size of golf balls. Maybe I'm bending my left wrist (right-handed) on the downswing and now that you corrected my path I'm smothering low left hooks very solidly I might add. What I'm getting at is that improving golf swings is very case sensitive. Your goal IMOP is to create a source for people to educate themselves on the golfswing and different theories/models that surround the game. If you stick to this I am your biggest fan. I would love to see you collect all sorts of information on MORAD/TGM/Hardy/DL/Pelz/Utley/Butch/ etc. I would love to see P1, P2, P3 listed with The Three Basic Imperatives and The Three Basic Essentials. Rather than trying to disprove theories/models explain their objectives. This might help others choose what is best for them and add value to a market which you have identified as lacking. I love your passion and share it with you...this Saturday I am going down to Alabama to visit with a top instructor to continue my education. I think it would be fantastic if your research included some documented visits as well.

 

Keep up the good work Doc...I look forward to a grand website from you in time.

[mlm74]

:good: great post lakewood!

[JeffMann]

lakewoodgcc

 

I'll probably follow your good advice and stop debating controversial issues, where I cannot gain a good understanding of contrary points of view, and I 'll just concentrate on learning more about the biomechanics of the golf swing, so that I can improve the quality of my website's golf instructional material.

 

Jeff.

[bantamben]

Your capacity for incorrect assumptions/statements is expanding rapidly, and you are increasingly detached from the reality of my " true position". I wonder why! :-)

 

I never primarily objected to Dana's idea of straightening the right leg - I primarily objected to the idea of steepening the tilt of the right pelvis and steepening the shoulder turn angle in the backswing. I have previously stated that the right pelvis normally gets higher in the backswing when the right leg straightens, and I previously stated that I only objected to any exaggerated uptilt of the right pelvis. I even posted a photo sequence of Tiger Woods showing the normal pelvis tilt that occurs in the backswing as a result of the right leg straightening - see post #113..

 

Jeff.

 

You say you objected to the idea of steepening the hips but not to straightening the right leg. Im guessing then, you also dont object to the idea of increasing the bend in the left knee on the backswing as so many of the great have done. See the thing is when you increase the bend in your left knee and and decrease the bend in your right knee your hip angle will be steeper as it does in players like hogan snead and player. Snead had the most hip turn as does an early hogan that is why hogan's early swing as well as snead's loose alot of the bend in their right leg. I would say it also depends on the shot. I would teach someone to turn there hips more with a driver than I would with a pw because there is a difference in the length of swing between the two. One is a power swing one has more importance on accuracy so the straightening of the right leg would be less with a wedge. If you bend over 35 degrees from the hips wouldn't you want your shoulders to turn parallel to your torso inclination. Recent instruction has not been teaching that but, that is what Myself , Mike Mcnarry and Dana Dalqhuist advocate this (steeper) shoulder plane wich only gets your pivot power more directed towards where the force of the club is directed. For more pics and information check out the pros swing section at http://dahlquistgolf.informe.com/ . I defend our stance on how we teach the swing as I beleive it works otherwise I certainly wouldn't advocate it. I do aplaud that you are open to new ideas, the golf swing is a very complicated motion and just as you are doing research I as well have enjoyed spending many hours trying to understand the way the great players did it as well as what is more biomechanically effecient. That is what lead me to Mac O'grady and I learned more there then in all the previous years of research and application. Good luck on your journey.

[JeffMann]

Bantamben

 

You write-: "If you bend over 35 degrees from the hips wouldn't you want your shoulders to turn parallel to your torso inclination. Recent instruction has not been teaching that but, that is what Myself , Mike Mcnarry and Dana Dalqhuist advocate this (steeper) shoulder plane wich only gets your pivot power more directed towards where the force of the club is directed."

 

When I started this thread, my primary theme was that I could not understand the biomechanical rationale for a steepr shoulder turn angle in the backswing. You state that you believe in the idea of a steeper backswing shoulder turn because you believe that it allows the downswing pivot power to be better directed towards where the force of the club is directed. This is the first time that a MORAD teacher/believer has even made an attempt to provide a biomechanical reason for the choice of a steeper shoulder turn. Could you please expand on your explanation, and compare it to Tiger Woods'/Sergio Garcia's downswing action, and explain why their horizontal downswing pelvic rotation and steeper shoulder turn is biomechanically disadvantageous compared to your preferred downswing model. I am always willing to learn the biomechanical reasoning behind alternative methods of executing an efficient downswing pivot action.

 

Jeff.

[dana dahlquist]

BantambenYou write-: "If you bend over 35 degrees from the hips wouldn't you want your shoulders to turn parallel to your torso inclination. Recent instruction has not been teaching that but, that is what Myself , Mike Mcnarry and Dana Dalqhuist advocate this (steeper) shoulder plane wich only gets your pivot power more directed towards where the force of the club is directed."When I started this thread, my primary theme was that I could not understand the biomechanical rationale for a steepr shoulder turn angle in the backswing. You state that you believe in the idea of a steeper backswing shoulder turn because you believe that it allows the downswing pivot power to be better directed towards where the force of the club is directed. This is the first time that a MORAD teacher/believer has even made an attempt to provide a biomechanical reason for the choice of a steeper shoulder turn. Could you please expand on your explanation, and compare it to Tiger Woods'/Sergio Garcia's downswing action, and explain why their horizontal downswing pelvic rotation and steeper shoulder turn is biomechanically disadvantageous compared to your preferred downswing model. I am always willing to learn the biomechanical reasoning behind alternative methods of executing an efficient downswing pivot action.Jeff.

Jeffmann,Ill keep this simple and maybe won't write on this again due to it does not make the average golfer better, it would be better suited off forum threads.Take a look at Sneads set up notice the bends that he has at address. Start with the neck and see his eyes. They are looking DOWN at the ball, not at 90 degrees from the spine but close.I would start there then go to the shoulders, mid back, lumbar to hips, Knees then ankles. If you notice each area is a rotational area.Now if these areas are aspects of rotations in the swing they must rotate on a ratio. When bent over you will notice the ratio is about 2-1 from the shoulders to the hips. (In a perfect situation)Now from the hips to the knees it the same. What do you think is the situation of the knees to the ankles? Same? You bet.Golfers tend to become to Linear to the downswing approach, this tends to help on that issue.If you try to do this in a stationary head situation you will notice that the incline works in much of the same way. You will also notice that the right leg will have a LOSS of flex.One other thing that is been over done on the topic is the talk on pivot. There are many ways to skin the cat, and many ways the arm and hands (linkage) works to produce good shots.Here is hogan in a nice pic. Notice the right angles

[jeffy]

You state that you believe in the idea of a steeper backswing shoulder turn because you believe that it allows the downswing pivot power to be better directed towards where the force of the club is directed. This is the first time that a MORAD teacher/believer has even made an attempt to provide a biomechanical reason for the choice of a steeper shoulder turn.

 

Not exactly. Dana and Mike provide this very explanation in the video! The advantages Mike lists are:

 

1. More power

 

2. Better, steeper angle of attack

 

3. Much more compression, as a result of the above

 

4. Also, creates room to get the right elbow in front of the right hip in the downswing and avoid a collison of the two

 

5. Resulting in a greater ability to bring the club down more on plane and from the inside

 

 

Could you please expand on your explanation, and compare it to Tiger Woods'/Sergio Garcia's downswing action, and explain why their horizontal downswing pelvic rotation and steeper shoulder turn is biomechanically disadvantageous compared to your preferred downswing model. I am always willing to learn the biomechanical reasoning behind alternative methods of executing an efficient downswing pivot action.

 

Jeff.

 

Review the video again. Mike points out at the very beginning that horizontal hips in a one-plane swing can lead to a too shallow angle of attack, creating inconsistent contact and compression. As far as Sergio and Tiger are concerned, they are both gifted athletes and create steepness during the downswing, as did Hogan and others. However, how is that approach easier to learn and execute, particularly for the less talented amateur golfer?

[JeffMann]

Dana

 

I sometimes have great difficulty understanding your posts because I don't quite know what point you are making.

 

You state-: "Now if these areas are aspects of rotations in the swing they must rotate on a ratio. When bent over you will notice the ratio is about 2-1 from the shoulders to the hips. (In a perfect situation) Now from the hips to the knees it the same. What do you think is the situation of the knees to the ankles? Same? You bet."

 

The theme of your post is primarily about rotational ratios of different body parts and about a 90 degree angle (presumably related to Hogan's shoulder turn around his spine). You seem to be implying that the human body should rotate in a golf swing and that the degree of rotation of the shoulders should be in a 2:1 ratio relative to the pelvis, which should be 2:1 relative to the knees, which should be 2:1 relative to the ankles. This imposition of an arbitrary 2:1 ratio is not seemingly based on a knowledge of human anatomy because it doesn't seemingly take into account the "real" anatomy of the human body. Most importantly, the ankle and knee joints are virtually incapable of any rotatory movement. It is possible to forcibly torque-rotate the knee about 10 degrees at most, but that is not physiological/natural. The knee joint is primarily designed to flex-extend only. Secondly, you state that the shoulders should rotate in a 2:1 rotation relative to the pelvis. Now presume that you recommend an average shoulder rotation around the spine of 90 degrees, then I presume that you are implying that the pelvis should rotate 45 degrees. Why set an arbitrary 2:1 ratio figure for this rotational relationship? Do you have a sound biomechanical reason for adopting this arbitrary 2:1 relationship that is based on a sound knowledge of human anatomy and human biomechanics? If you do, could you please supply an explanation.

 

Secondly, you have not provided an explanatory link between this rotation of the shoulders/pelvis and the degree of steepness of the shoulder turn. You seem to be implying that the shoulders should rotate 90 degrees around the spine and I therefore presume that the degree of steepness of the shoulder turn will depend on the degree of spinal tilt at addess. So, if Palmer has a 38 degrees bent-over spine, and Hogan has a 32 degrees bent-over spine, then Palmer's shoulder turn angle will be steeper. If that is what you are saying, then I would not have any problem with that position - because it is simply stating that the shoulders have a physiological tendency to rotate at approximately a 90 degree angle to the spine. However, in your hip turn video, you are introducing an additional move - a deliberate uptilting of the right pelvis due to a deliberate straightening of the right leg in such a manner that it pushes the right femoral head upwards (and not only rearwards and leftwards as normally occurs). THis increased uptilting of the pelvis has a significant effect on the lumbar spine and it will cause the lumbar spine, and entire spine, to be flexed more forward (towards the ball-target line). Then if the shoulders rotate at 90 degrees to the spine tilt angle, the degree of shoulder turn steepness will be greater. You have not provided an explanation as to why you want this greater degree of shoulder turn steepness. Can you provide a biomechanical advantage-reason?

 

Consider Jeffy's provided reasons. He stated-:

 

"1. More power

 

2. Better, steeper angle of attack

 

3. Much more compression, as a result of the above

 

4. Also, creates room to get the right elbow in front of the right hip in the downswing and avoid a collison of the two

 

5. Resulting in a greater ability to bring the club down more on plane and from the inside."

 

1. Do you believe that it allows for greater power, and if you do, could you please explain the mechanism by which that greater power occurs.

 

2/3. I can understand how it can produce a steeper angle of attack, but is that an advantage when hitting a driver, woods, long irons. Virtually all the photo-examples you, and I, have provided have been driver swings. Why would this steeper shoulder turn, and consequently a steeper clubshaft angle of attack, be advantageous when using a driver.

 

4. Creates more room for the right elbow. Here is a swing video by Brady Riggs showing

. Note that he can easily create space for the right elbow without evoking the need for a steeper-than-usual shoulder turn angle. So, how does a steeper shoulder turn improve on the situation?

 

5. Easier to bring the club down on plane and from the inside. Do you believe that claim? Why would it be easier?

 

Here is Hogan demonstrating the initiating lower body move in the downswing.

 

 

Note that he has a non-steep shoulder turn in the backswing and a horizontal pelvic turn. Note how easy it is easy for him to bring the club down on plane and from the inside - simply by turning the lower body horizontally towards the target while dropping the right shoulder and right elbow down to the right hip area. How does a steeper shoulder turn angle during the backswing improve on this move?

 

Finally, could you please address two issues.

 

1. In post #117, I stated that a less-steep shoulder shoulder turn and horizontal pelvic rotation in the backswing allows for a more physiological movement of the lumbar spine, and lumbo-sacral joint area, in the downswing. By contrast, uptilting of the right pelvis changes the orientation of the lumbar spine, which needs to be "corrected" in the early downswing, and I stated that "corrected-movement" of the lumbar spine is not smooth or physiological. Do you disagree?

 

2. Here is a comparison of Mike McNary's driver swing compard to Faldo/Woods/Els.

 

 

I don't think that Mike has a significantly more straightened right knee than those other golfers, or a more uptilted pelvis. His shoulder turn is also relatively horizontal, and seems to the be the least steep shoulder turn angle of the 4 golfers.

 

My question - why is Mike using a traditional/classical shoulder turn angle style in his "real life" swing when he states that he believes in a steeper shoulder turn angle?

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Secondly, you have not provided an explanatory link between this rotation of the shoulders/pelvis and the degree of steepness of the shoulder turn. You seem to be implying that the shoulders should rotate 90 degrees around the spine and I therefore presume that the degree of steepness of the shoulder turn will depend on the degree of spinal tilt at addess. So, if Palmer has a 38 degrees bent-over spine, and Hogan has a 32 degrees bent-over spine, then Palmer's shoulder turn angle will be steeper. If that is what you are saying, then I would not have any problem with that position - because it is simply stating that the shoulders have a physiological tendency to rotate at approximately a 90 degree angle to the spine. However, in your hip turn video, you are introducing an additional move - a deliberate uptilting of the right pelvis due to a deliberate straightening of the right leg in such a manner that it pushes the right femoral head upwards (and not only rearwards and leftwards as normally occurs). THis increased uptilting of the pelvis has a significant effect on the lumbar spine and it will cause the lumbar spine, and entire spine, to be flexed more forward (towards the ball-target line). Then if the shoulders rotate at 90 degrees to the spine tilt angle, the degree of shoulder turn steepness will be greater. You have not provided an explanation as to why you want this greater degree of shoulder turn steepness. Can you provide a biomechanical advantage-reason?

 

Please; you continue to make a fool of yourself with this endless rephrasing of the same questions. All these questions were addressed in the video and have been covered repeatedly throughout this nearly 150 post thread. For the umpteenth time, holding the hips horizontal by maintaining the right knee flex will tend to cause a flatter shoulder turn than is optimal with a one-plane swing. The flatter plane will tend to cause inconsistency in the quality of impact and compression.

 

1. Do you believe that it allows for greater power, and if you do, could you please explain the mechanism by which that greater power occurs.

 

Review the god damn video, fool! Mike explains why; you even referenced it in your initial post!

 

2/3. I can understand how it can produce a steeper angle of attack, but is that an advantage when hitting a driver, woods, long irons. Virtually all the photo-examples you, and I, have provided have been driver swings. Why would this steeper shoulder turn, and consequently a steeper clubshaft angle of attack, be advantageous when using a driver.

 

The video is with an iron; at the end, Dana and Mike make iron swings. Obviously, it is easier to "get away" with a shallower swing with a teed-up driver: a lot of aspiring one-planers can hit the driver fine, but are too shallow with the mid-irons and longer clubs.

 

4. Creates more room for the right elbow. Here is a swing video by Brady Riggs showing

. Note that he can easily create space for the right elbow without evoking the need for a steeper-than-usual shoulder turn angle. So, how does a steeper shoulder turn improve on the situation?

 

You're kidding, right? Brady is demonstrating EXACTLY THE SAME PIVOT AS DANA AND MIKE! It is your fantasy that Dana and Mike are "evoking the need for a steeper-than-usual shoulder turn angle", whatever the hell "usual" is! They want it steeper than one that is TOO FLAT!

 

5. Easier to bring the club down on plane and from the inside. Do you believe that claim? Why would it be easier?

 

I assume Dana and Mike believe "that claim", since they demonstrate how this works in the video. Have you watched it!?

 

Here is Hogan demonstrating the initiating lower body move in the downswing.

 

 

Note that he has a non-steep shoulder turn in the backswing and a horizontal pelvic turn. Note how easy it is easy for him to bring the club down on plane and from the inside - simply by turning the lower body horizontally towards the target while dropping the right shoulder and right elbow down to the right hip area. How does a steeper shoulder turn angle during the backswing improve on this move?

 

Again, you must be kidding: Hoagn's right leg, hip and shoulder action follow what Dana and Mike are advocating perfectly!

 

2. Here is a comparison of Mike McNary's driver swing compard to Faldo/Woods/Els.

 

 

I don't think that Mike has a significantly more straightened right knee than those other golfers, or a more uptilted pelvis. His shoulder turn is also relatively horizontal, and seems to the be the least steep shoulder turn angle of the 4 golfers.

 

My question - why is Mike using a traditional/classical shoulder turn angle style in his "real life" swing when he states that he believes in a steeper shoulder turn angle?

 

Whoever invented the expression "duh!" most have been dealing with you. First, Mike is relatively short: the other three are all over six feet and, naturally, bend over more. Second, Faldo is hitting an iron, so his swing is naturally steeper still. Third, did Dana or Mike ever say that these three major champion winners were too flat or too shallow? Fourth, and the most obvious, did it ever occur to you that Mike is doing EXACTLY what he says to do in the video? No doubt he could create a more horizontal shoulder turn THAT IS TOO FLAT if he wanted to, by maintaining more flex in the right knee and keeping the hips more level.

 

You imply that what they teach is not "traditional/classical", but I see it in many of the "traditional/classical" greats: Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Player, Boros.

 

Seriously, you are simply recycling the same "issues" over and over again, and simply ignoring the answers, beginning with the explanations in the video. Stop making a jackass out of yourself and move on to something more productive.

[dana dahlquist]

Dana

 

I sometimes have great difficulty understanding your posts because I don't quite know what point you are making.

 

You state-: "Now if these areas are aspects of rotations in the swing they must rotate on a ratio. When bent over you will notice the ratio is about 2-1 from the shoulders to the hips. (In a perfect situation) Now from the hips to the knees it the same. What do you think is the situation of the knees to the ankles? Same? You bet."

 

The theme of your post is primarily about rotational ratios of different body parts and about a 90 degree angle (presumably related to Hogan's shoulder turn around his spine). You seem to be implying that the human body should rotate in a golf swing and that the degree of rotation of the shoulders should be in a 2:1 ratio relative to the pelvis, which should be 2:1 relative to the knees, which should be 2:1 relative to the ankles. This imposition of an arbitrary 2:1 ratio is not seemingly based on a knowledge of human anatomy because it doesn't seemingly take into account the "real" anatomy of the human body. Most importantly, the ankle and knee joints are virtually incapable of any rotatory movement. It is possible to forcibly torque-rotate the knee about 10 degrees at most, but that is not physiological/natural. The knee joint is primarily designed to flex-extend only. Secondly, you state that the shoulders should rotate in a 2:1 rotation relative to the pelvis. Now presume that you recommend an average shoulder rotation around the spine of 90 degrees, then I presume that you are implying that the pelvis should rotate 45 degrees. Why set an arbitrary 2:1 ratio figure for this rotational relationship? Do you have a sound biomechanical reason for adopting this arbitrary 2:1 relationship that is based on a sound knowledge of human anatomy and human biomechanics? If you do, could you please supply an explanation.

 

Secondly, you have not provided an explanatory link between this rotation of the shoulders/pelvis and the degree of steepness of the shoulder turn. You seem to be implying that the shoulders should rotate 90 degrees around the spine and I therefore presume that the degree of steepness of the shoulder turn will depend on the degree of spinal tilt at addess. So, if Palmer has a 38 degrees bent-over spine, and Hogan has a 32 degrees bent-over spine, then Palmer's shoulder turn angle will be steeper. If that is what you are saying, then I would not have any problem with that position - because it is simply stating that the shoulders have a physiological tendency to rotate at approximately a 90 degree angle to the spine. However, in your hip turn video, you are introducing an additional move - a deliberate uptilting of the right pelvis due to a deliberate straightening of the right leg in such a manner that it pushes the right femoral head upwards (and not only rearwards and leftwards as normally occurs). THis increased uptilting of the pelvis has a significant effect on the lumbar spine and it will cause the lumbar spine, and entire spine, to be flexed more forward (towards the ball-target line). Then if the shoulders rotate at 90 degrees to the spine tilt angle, the degree of shoulder turn steepness will be greater. You have not provided an explanation as to why you want this greater degree of shoulder turn steepness. Can you provide a biomechanical advantage-reason?

 

Consider Jeffy's provided reasons. He stated-:

 

"1. More power

 

2. Better, steeper angle of attack

 

3. Much more compression, as a result of the above

 

4. Also, creates room to get the right elbow in front of the right hip in the downswing and avoid a collison of the two

 

5. Resulting in a greater ability to bring the club down more on plane and from the inside."

 

1. Do you believe that it allows for greater power, and if you do, could you please explain the mechanism by which that greater power occurs.

 

2/3. I can understand how it can produce a steeper angle of attack, but is that an advantage when hitting a driver, woods, long irons. Virtually all the photo-examples you, and I, have provided have been driver swings. Why would this steeper shoulder turn, and consequently a steeper clubshaft angle of attack, be advantageous when using a driver.

 

4. Creates more room for the right elbow. Here is a swing video by Brady Riggs showing

. Note that he can easily create space for the right elbow without evoking the need for a steeper-than-usual shoulder turn angle. So, how does a steeper shoulder turn improve on the situation?

 

5. Easier to bring the club down on plane and from the inside. Do you believe that claim? Why would it be easier?

 

Here is Hogan demonstrating the initiating lower body move in the downswing.

 

 

Note that he has a non-steep shoulder turn in the backswing and a horizontal pelvic turn. Note how easy it is easy for him to bring the club down on plane and from the inside - simply by turning the lower body horizontally towards the target while dropping the right shoulder and right elbow down to the right hip area. How does a steeper shoulder turn angle during the backswing improve on this move?

 

Finally, could you please address two issues.

 

1. In post #117, I stated that a less-steep shoulder shoulder turn and horizontal pelvic rotation in the backswing allows for a more physiological movement of the lumbar spine, and lumbo-sacral joint area, in the downswing. By contrast, uptilting of the right pelvis changes the orientation of the lumbar spine, which needs to be "corrected" in the early downswing, and I stated that "corrected-movement" of the lumbar spine is not smooth or physiological. Do you disagree?

 

2. Here is a comparison of Mike McNary's driver swing compard to Faldo/Woods/Els.

 

 

I don't think that Mike has a significantly more straightened right knee than those other golfers, or a more uptilted pelvis. His shoulder turn is also relatively horizontal, and seems to the be the least steep shoulder turn angle of the 4 golfers.

 

My question - why is Mike using a traditional/classical shoulder turn angle style in his "real life" swing when he states that he believes in a steeper shoulder turn angle?

 

Jeff.

Thats why I said it was my last post. You are not helping the average golfer get better.

 

Jeffmann said

My question - why is Mike using a traditional/classical shoulder turn angle style in his "real life" swing when he states that he believes in a steeper shoulder turn angle?

It is steeper than your traditional swing type. Mabey look at it in person to find that out.

I think you have totally missed my piont in my post above thats fine, have fun with it.

[dana dahlquist]

Jeffmann-

 

sound biomechanical reason ? What does this come from?

You think too much in absolutes and not like an athlete. 45 degree hip turn or more or less does not matter there is ABOUT a two to one ratio.

 

By the way the picture of Hogan you have there is not in real action, so thats a feeling picture kinda like the Badds picture.

But because he is who he is. We dont question him.

Learn to play catch first..Mabey then you can play good golf.

[JeffMann]

Dana - you wrote-: "My question - why is Mike using a traditional/classical shoulder turn angle style in his "real life" swing when he states that he believes in a steeper shoulder turn angle? It is steeper than your traditional swing type. Mabey look at it in person to find that out."

 

You state that Mike's swing is steeper than a traditional swing. I posted three traditional swings (Faldo, Woods, Els) for comparisioon purposes in this photo.

 

 

The degree of steepness of the shoulder turn angle in the backswing is the angle of the red line relative to the horizontal (ground) - considering that all 4 players have similar degrees of bent-over spine and they all turn their shoulders roughly perpendicular to their spine.

 

On what basis can you claim that McNary has a steeper shoulder turn angle?

 

You also wrote-: " Learn to play catch first..Mabey then you can play good golf."

 

Why are you demeaning yourself by mimicing Jeffys' uncivil behaviour - by making an irrelevant, gratuitious comment?

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Jeffy - it is a waste of time arguing with you. We cannot even agree on what is steep, and what is not steep.

 

How about accepting the following challlenge, considering that you think I am a fool who cannot hit a golf ball?

 

The challenge. Fly over to Salt Lake City some weekend in spring for a golf compettion against me. We will play 36 holes a day at the Salt Lake City airport golf course over two days for a total of 72 holes. Each hole will potentially be worth 3 points - 1 point for gross score, 1 point for GIR and 1 point for FIR - and each point will be worth $10. That means that you could potentially win $30 per hole if you beat me in FIR, GIR and gross score; and you could potentially win $2,160 over the 72 hole competition. After the competition, we will post the final results in this forum.

 

Jeff.