McLeans' X factor

[dana dahlquist]

You said, I have only criticised their golf instructional beliefs... I don't really care one way or the other...

I have only heard one other guy say stuff like "Junk Science" about some teaching idea's. He can back it up with his tour card. And his ball striking.

For the future, people just want to here positive things and not the negitive.

I would think Mr. Mann, if Jim Mclean was at your house you would pic his brain. Have a good night...

[dlygrisse]

There is only one way to settle this, meet at dawn on a nuetral course and settle it like gentleman just like two other famous golfers. Remind you of anyone? Not that I am saying anyone is Looney Tunes LOL
[attachment=199814:bugs.jpg]

[JeffMann]

Dana

You write-: "I have only heard one other guy say stuff like "Junk Science" about some teaching idea's. He can back it up with his tour card. And his ball striking."

Interesting argument! You are basically arguing that it is OK to be critical if one has the athletic ability to play golf ball very well, and that my physical inability to play golf sufficiently well means that I should refrain from having a strong opinion.

You also state that you only want positive comments, and not negative comments. Fine! If you think that an absence of criticism fosters critical thinking about golf instructional material, I will let you guys you have that type of forum discussion enviroment. I will simply stop posting in this forum and wish you guys a Merry Christmas.

Jeff.

[dana dahlquist]

Ok Jeff, I think alot of people are a little upset. I never said anything about your physical situations or how your game is.

I just think its best people talk about the good things that can help another. Debunking is kinda lame when it comes to the game of golf.

[rankoutsider]

well, what dana was saying, i think, is that the phrase "X is junk science" is a fairly grandiose and damning phrase, and if you are going to say it, you should at least have something to back it up that you can point to: a tour card is something like that. i don't believe dana is saying that this locution is an especially nice one for anyone to make, but if you are going to say it, at least be something more than a weekend warrior. i don't agree with a lot of what i read about golf from recognized sources, but c'mon, these guys are teaching pros who think about this stuff 12 hours a day, work with the best students out there, and read everything there is to read. they might be making debatable claims, but they KNOW what they are talking about. this is why the phrase junk science is a galling one for some.


and criticism is fine, as i'm sure everyone knows. but criticism and dismissal are different things. and trying to move a debate onto a terrain where it doesn't belong, and which the writer had no interest in elucidating, is pointless. talking about muscle firing and elasticity as a way to dismiss mclean's X factor is just useless. he is talking about how to get into a good posture where your shoulders are fully turned but you have kept some good stability with your weight over the ball. his thoughts on mitocondrial DNA are, jeffman is right, less than incisive.

[Points]

Well, I have read the X factor book a few times so I thought I might return to the subject which Jeffman called into question. The original X factor was done because at that time there was a common idea that the more a player turned on their backswing the more distance they would create. Max hip turn and max shoulder turn=max distance. What Jim's research found was that it was not necessarily how much you turned but how you turned. Quoting Jim, " We found that all long hitters do not necesarily make big shoulder turns. Nor do all players who make big shoulders turns hit the ball a long way." One other thing of note was how few players actually turnd 45-90. Many players turned both their hips and shoulders more than the then Hogan optimum numbers.

To be real honest, tendon stretch and so forth is for the scientists to figure out. As Jim often states, my lab is the "real world" It is not in a lab with rats or on the internet. It is observing and measuring what players actually do. If Jeffman considers this junk science, well I am very proud to be a junk scientist. At one point in this discussion, I was accused on not understanding science. As a lay person, my idea of a science experiement is that you create a hypothesis which in this case was that it is how your hips and shoulders that create distance. From there, you go test it. The test in this case started at the 1992 Doral Ryder Open. I think many in the field were tested that week using SportSense. This test created results and the results were published. As it relates to golf, this is fairly scietific to me. The results was not based on still photos or quotes but instead on what players actuall did. The thing that we forget is that the X factor has become very much a common term in the golfing community but there was a time 15 years ago when it was new. If Jim's method fails under Jeffman's lithmus test, so be it. I think that it is important for others reading this to maybe better understand what the X factor is. Buy the book because all of the ideas in the latest article are in it

As a teacher, the application of the X factor has helped me a lot. A guy that is 70 needs more hip turn and a kid with little muscle development might overturn until he gain some mass. Both are OK. Understanding the relationship and a players options is important. I guess what ultimately bothers me about this post and others is the fact that you can get on the internet and say anything. Like this thread, you can crticize someone's ideas based on third hand information which you have received. This type of posting fails under the lithmus test known as integrity or lack there of.

I have worked with and know several PHD's in bio mechanics. When I have been around this men, I have never heard them degrade the X factor. In fact, they are usually look to better understand the muscles, tendons, and etc and how they relate to distance. I think this is one of many reasons why I think there is a lot of merit to the X factor. Another big reason is that is what I see the top players in the world doing. In golf today, bio mechanics is more important than ever. Look at what the Aussies are doing in terms of the tour. All of those players have pasts which include the Institute of Sport. One of the major things used in training is the measurement of what the body is doing. Included within there training and a major facus is the X factor and the X factor stretch. I guess junk science continues to get lucky.

[Veritas]

[quote name='Points' post='831254' date='Dec 20 2007, 08:24 AM']Well, I have read the X factor book a few times so I thought I might return to the subject which Jeffman called into question. The original X factor was done because at that time there was a common idea that the more a player turned on their backswing the more distance they would create. Max hip turn and max shoulder turn=max distance. What Jim's research found was that it was not necessarily how much you turned but how you turned. Quoting Jim, " We found that all long hitters do not necesarily make big shoulder turns. Nor do all players who make big shoulders turns hit the ball a long way." One other thing of note was how few players actually turnd 45-90. Many players turned both their hips and shoulders more than the then Hogan optimum numbers.

To be real honest, tendon stretch and so forth is for the scientists to figure out. As Jim often states, my lab is the "real world" It is not in a lab with rats or on the internet. It is observing and measuring what players actually do. If Jeffman considers this junk science, well I am very proud to be a junk scientist. At one point in this discussion, I was accused on not understanding science. As a lay person, my idea of a science experiement is that you create a hypothesis which in this case was that it is how your hips and shoulders that create distance. From there, you go test it. The test in this case started at the 1992 Doral Ryder Open. I think many in the field were tested that week using SportSense. This test created results and the results were published. As it relates to golf, this is fairly scietific to me. The results was not based on still photos or quotes but instead on what players actuall did. The thing that we forget is that the X factor has become very much a common term in the golfing community but there was a time 15 years ago when it was new. If Jim's method fails under Jeffman's lithmus test, so be it. I think that it is important for others reading this to maybe better understand what the X factor is. Buy the book because all of the ideas in the latest article are in it

As a teacher, the application of the X factor has helped me a lot. A guy that is 70 needs more hip turn and a kid with little muscle development might overturn until he gain some mass. Both are OK. Understanding the relationship and a players options is important. I guess what ultimately bothers me about this post and others is the fact that you can get on the internet and say anything. Like this thread, you can crticize someone's ideas based on third hand information which you have received. This type of posting fails under the lithmus test known as integrity or lack there of.

I have worked with and know several PHD's in bio mechanics. When I have been around this men, I have never heard them degrade the X factor. In fact, they are usually look to better understand the muscles, tendons, and etc and how they relate to distance. I think this is one of many reasons why I think there is a lot of merit to the X factor. Another big reason is that is what I see the top players in the world doing. In golf today, bio mechanics is more important than ever. Look at what the Aussies are doing in terms of the tour. All of those players have pasts which include the Institute of Sport. One of the major things used in training is the measurement of what the body is doing. Included within there training and a major facus is the X factor and the X factor stretch. I guess junk science continues to get lucky.[/quote]

Well said. I am resurfacing in this thread hoping that a civil discussion can be had from here on out.

Question for the swing experts. In my reading of the GD article and the research articles I was thinking about what happens when you increase the stretch and had the feeling that the greater x-factor stretch you got, the more the upper torso would have to accelerate to "catch up" to the hips. If this is true, someone with more athletic ability (ie. greater strength and timing) would be able to handle a greater stretch without it throwing off the timing of the swing. Someone not strong enough, if too big of a stretch would not have the strength or timing to rotate the upper torso to "catch up" and would cause poor contact and control of the swing. I think you said something similar in referring to the kid. As a result, those stronger athletes might have the abillity to both be stronger increasing there ball speed and take advantage more of some of the possible stretch induced mechanisms discussed in this thread. From your knowledge of the golf swing, and your experiences teaching, does this make any sense?

[Golfchicago]

O.K. once again the name calling must stop. Not only is it the rules, it is just the right thing to do. SESOB or SOB, c'mon lets keep it civil. We are suppose to learn and help each other. I shouldn't have to waste my time typing this.

I have a problem with someone stating Jim's theories are junk science. If you are going to say that, you better back that up with facts, not opinion and weak analogies. This isn't a science classroom. This is the real world. When you start criticizing a highly respected man, you really need to have a strong case. In the lab world you might not have to defend your position, but this is the real world. I just never in my wildest dreams would criticize someone with such inflammatory language without having overwhelming proof.

Another note, if we are going to help each other out, it stands to reason that we respect each other. Using statements like "your lack of knowledge as to how science works is astonishing" to a layman is inflammatory and degrading. I really shouldn't have to point this out. Continually taking personal jabs at people's knowledge or reasoning is not the right way to argue. JeffMan you are constantly belittling people in this post. I hope it is a matter of you not realizing what you are doing. Please review your comments. There is nothing wrong with spirited debating but let's minimize the insults.

[Points]

First of all, the stretch occurs in a very small amount of time. Guys with bigger stretches (like a Garcia) the two way motion is easy to see using video. For the most part, you need a bio mechanics machine/set up to get really good accurate numbers.
In terms of the stretch, it works in several ways. For some players (like the kid), the stretch can be too much causing their timing to suffer greatly. In order to improve the player, you have to improve the body. Other players who either need to create a larger stretch or X factor may need to focus on stretching in order to get to the optimum range. I say range because it is not an exact science. Ulitmately, the stretch is important because it helps dictate where the body parts reach optimum speed. You don't want everything reaching it peak speed all at once. Instead, power is trasferred from the ground up into the clubhead. Hopefully, the clubhead meets the ball when the power reaches the clubhead. So, yes both your ideas make sense.

[caryk]

[quote name='Points' post='831254' date='Dec 20 2007, 08:24 AM']To be real honest, tendon stretch and so forth is for the scientists to figure out. As Jim often states, my lab is the "real world" It is not in a lab with rats or on the internet. It is observing and measuring what players actually do.[/quote]

Best comment on this thread by far!

I posted an exempt from an article earlier in this discussion from a Golf Tips magazine issue that was published back 1999. It looked at the X-Factor as well and had some interesting findings using some actual anatomical measurements that they made during the swings. I scanned the complete article (see attachment) for those who might like to read and download it. There are a couple of other related articles in that series as well and I can scan those too if anyone here wants them as part of this thread.

[Golfchicago]

Jeffman,

You have got to be kidding me. I am not going to argue over a ton of posts with you about this. You state there is nothing in the rules that states what is a respected man. Are you kidding me, this isn't the lab room, this is reality. Jim Mclean is the 4th ranked golf instructor by GD. That is respect from his peers. It is beyond reason why anyone would question that Jim is a respected man. Regarding name calling, don't waste your time with the argument that you can do it because everyone else is doing it, that is not acceptable. I stated that the name calling needs to stop. Yes you have attacked Jim Mclean personally. You stated his theory is junk science and your base that on opinions and weak analogies. Then the best defense you have is some people's opinions are facts to other people. Lol, that is hilarious. I don't even need to comment on that one, it stands by itself.

Jeff, the board doesn't care if you are unpopular in your opinion. Yes we do welcome all different opinions. We are lucky to have a great diversity of teaching philosophies. Jeffman, I just started hanging out here in the swing fitness forum. I think it is sad that you are defending yourself like you are. This is a place to learn and help. You have insulted people on this particular post. It doesn't make your comments right because another person made a negative comment toward you. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Jeff, we obviously differ in opinion here. You justify belittling other people because you are misunderstood and other people do it. I don't believe you should do it for any reason. I have said belittling things to other people and I've apologized once I realize what I did wrong. Questioning that Jim Mclean is a respected man just defies common sense. Jeff, if you don't think that giving us a definition of prejudice comes across condescending, then I truly feel sorry for you. Maybe you are misunderstood? sorry you feel like you need to leave. We are not asking you to leave.

[Golfchicago]

[quote name='lake' post='832358' date='Dec 21 2007, 01:07 AM'][quote name='JeffMann' post='832254' date='Dec 20 2007, 10:07 PM']However, it doesn't really matter that I am frequently misunderstood and misrepresented in this forum - because I will no longer be participating in future forum discussions.

Jeff.[/quote]

This guy didn't quit when the going got tough!!! [url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=-uulmhtAeGI&feature=related"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=-uulmhtAeGI&feature=related[/url]
Find the truth Jeff and then kick some arse
[/quote]

Wow great video. It puts things in perspective. Thanks for sharing.

[Golfchicago]

[quote name='Points' post='832550' date='Dec 21 2007, 08:03 AM']Only because Jeffman placed me in a category where I wrote "inflammatory and degrading remarks" am I writing this.

Points - "By posting the Mike Austin swing, you show a clear lack of understanding as to what the X factor is." (post #28)

Maybe our real world's differ. I think a person has a clear lack of understanding of a subject when he gets on website and starts writing opinions on a subject where he hasn't read the book, read the original article, or watched on of the two DVD's yet portrays himself as an expert. You posted a swing of a long hitter who I am sure has a large X factor as to proof that the X factor was junk.

Points - "I find this amazing as you have failed to correctly read posts during this thread." (post 98)
Jeffman wrote " I was reading through all the posts again. I may have misunderstood your point of view." I think my point of view on the subject was very clear from the beginning as to what the X factor was. I was direct and to the point in all of my posts.

Hopefully, some reading this post did gain a better understanding as to what the X factor is otherwise it was a complete waste of my time. Do not stop turning the hips and try to turn your shoulders to the max. Do not try and turn everything(hips and shoulders) to the max. Rather find a blend of momement that works for you. I am sure this is not the end of Jeffman.[/quote]

Josh, I didn't answer his allegation about your statement or anyone else because I would have ended up writing a freakin thesis paper by the time I got done answering all of Jeffman's rebuttals. I want to make it clear that your statement and most of the other statements Jeff claimed were inflammatory and degrading, were actually not because like your statement, the others also had support and validity. The sad part is that this entire post got sidetracked and the info that is important is buried amongst all this nonsense.

[DemolitionMan]

Once again, this thread had to be cleaned up. GolfChicago has shown a tremendous amount of restraint and patience. Yet still, some of you don't get it. It's quite simple. Keep the threads clean and on topic. If you have an issue with someone, take it to PMs.

I don't expect to see another post in this thread unless it is about Jim McLean's X Factor. And I would be careful with any criticism with Jim. And no it's not censorship, it's called respect. If you can't show any, post elsewhere.

Now, back to the topic.

[Hifade]

Chicago and Demo...thx for putting this thread back in place. I, for one, would have pulled the trigger prior to it getting to this. Lots of different teaching styles out there......many of which you may or may not agree with but attacking those you don't agree with is a JV move at best.

Nice restraint....well done and hopefully we are all back on topic.

[hayam]

lol

Ok we need a bigger PM box :P

[hezlett]

[quote name='DemolitionMan' post='833410' date='Dec 21 2007, 09:07 PM']I don't expect to see another post in this thread unless it is about Jim McLean's X Factor. And I would be careful with any criticism with Jim. And no it's not censorship, it's called respect.[/quote]

I think the biggest issue with the X-Factor is the misapplication of it. McLean himself addressed it here:

[url="http://www.jimmclean.com/tips/"]http://www.jimmclean.com/tips/[/url]

[birdie_man]

Good job mods.

Back to the program...

[Golfchicago]

[quote name='birdie_man' post='835472' date='Dec 24 2007, 01:37 AM']Good job mods.

Back to the program...[/quote]

Thanks Birdie, we are all about the freedom of speech thing but we are also big on maturity and respect. When that is violated to the degree it was, we didn't have any choice. We try to make the right decision. It is not always easy becasue it isn't always black and white. We want this to be a place when people of all views can come here and enjoy learning from each other.

[Xiphos]

The K-Vest is a great tool for monitoring X factor. They have found in their research that the ideals are much less than the book X factor suggested. I can not remember what they are off of the top of my head, I will try and find out tomorrow. Once you reach a certain point you get diminishing returns.

[Bejay]

I have jumped into this debate at the end so please excuse me if I am repeating something that has gone before:

 

I do not agree with the precept that the legs and hips generate substantial power or speed in the downswing, the hips rotate at around two miles per hour so can only contribute to around 15% of swing speed, the shoulders, arms and wrists are the main speed generators. The main job of the hips and legs are to clear the way for the arms to swing, they also supply stability.

 

Regards

Bejay

[Xiphos]

I have jumped into this debate at the end so please excuse me if I am repeating something that has gone before:

 

I do not agree with the precept that the legs and hips generate substantial power or speed in the downswing, the hips rotate at around two miles per hour so can only contribute to around 15% of swing speed, the shoulders, arms and wrists are the main speed generators. The main job of the hips and legs are to clear the way for the arms to swing, they also supply stability.

 

Regards

Bejay

 

Those are the stats that Natural Golf uses to promote their swing. The hips may only move at 2mph, but with out using them properly the arms would not swing as fast.

[mizuno67]

read some of this debate but i could not find anything written about How to increase the X-factor in the transition area of the swing can someone let me know

 

thanks

[leekgolf]

Wow- this thread is pretty weird. Here's my thought, Wallop the ball with your pivot. The more you can load your pivot, the faster it will unload.

If your arms are strong enough to control the torque and speed created, you can control the clubface and hit it where you want it to go.

[Bejay]

I have jumped into this debate at the end so please excuse me if I am repeating something that has gone before:

 

I do not agree with the precept that the legs and hips generate substantial power or speed in the downswing, the hips rotate at around two miles per hour so can only contribute to around 15% of swing speed, the shoulders, arms and wrists are the main speed generators. The main job of the hips and legs are to clear the way for the arms to swing, they also supply stability.

 

Regards

Bejay

 

Those are the stats that Natural Golf uses to promote their swing. The hips may only move at 2mph, but with out using them properly the arms would not swing as fast.

 

 

Wow- this thread is pretty weird. Here's my thought, Wallop the ball with your pivot. The more you can load your pivot, the faster it will unload.

If your arms are strong enough to control the torque and speed created, you can control the clubface and hit it where you want it to go.

 

With due respect.

 

You hit the ball with the club and it is your arms and hands that generate most of the headspeed to send it there. Your pivot is the axis you rotate on and can do nothing other than assist the speed generators to operate.

 

I can swing a golf club very fast with my arms and hands alone, I have seen people hit the ball over 250 yards on their knees. I am not suggesting the lower body and pivot play no part but I do not buy into the idea that coil and lower body rotation allow substantial swing speeds to be generated.

 

Try hitting balls with your feet together, you will be surprised how far you can hit.

[Points]

Actually, try hitting the ball with only your hands and arms while your feet are off the ground. If hit it it half as far as normal let me know. On your knees or with your feet together you are using a lot of body motion. If as you claim, the body does not produce a lot of power then one should be able to hit it fairly far sitting in a chair with their feet off the ground. Best of luck on this one.

[mizuno67]

Actually, try hitting the ball with only your hands and arms while your feet are off the ground. If hit it it half as far as normal let me know. On your knees or with your feet together you are using a lot of body motion. If as you claim, the body does not produce a lot of power then one should be able to hit it fairly far sitting in a chair with their feet off the ground. Best of luck on this one.

 

lol thats good Points personally i would have thought that a study on the right shoulder ( for right handers) and the extra rotation of it while the hips are starting there pivot would be more of a power source rather than the x factor

[Bejay]

Actually, try hitting the ball with only your hands and arms while your feet are off the ground. If hit it it half as far as normal let me know. On your knees or with your feet together you are using a lot of body motion. If as you claim, the body does not produce a lot of power then one should be able to hit it fairly far sitting in a chair with their feet off the ground. Best of luck on this one.

 

Ben Witter hitting 300 yard drives

Not much lower body power in this swing!

[slicefixer]

Actually, try hitting the ball with only your hands and arms while your feet are off the ground. If hit it it half as far as normal let me know. On your knees or with your feet together you are using a lot of body motion. If as you claim, the body does not produce a lot of power then one should be able to hit it fairly far sitting in a chair with their feet off the ground. Best of luck on this one.

 

Ben Witter hitting 300 yard drives

Not much lower body power in this swing!

'

LOL.....IF he can hit it 300 IN THE AIR off of the ball he'd hit it about 450 using his PIVOT :D......all of my students can hit it almost as far with their stance about 4 or 5 inches apart as they can in their normal set up......but, even with the narrow stance, they can still PIVOT VERY effectively.........I've seen Phil Blackmar hit it 270 - 280 in the air basically reverse pivoting and hittin' it with his right arm, but, that does NOT mean it's the best and most efficient way for the majority/average golfer to swing a golf club.........

 

BTW, at one time I could hit it 220 in the air off of my knees and I saw Monty Scheinblum hit it 280 off of his (you can still use your CORE to drive the swing even though your on your knees ya' just can't "clear" the left side very effectively so the arms release a bit earlier)...... but, I could hit it 280 in the air using my full pivot motion and Monty might well be the longest hitter I've ever seen who could PLAY..........

 

BTW II, the hips are nothing more than a coupla' joints........something has to "influence" em'.........

[Bejay]

Actually, try hitting the ball with only your hands and arms while your feet are off the ground. If hit it it half as far as normal let me know. On your knees or with your feet together you are using a lot of body motion. If as you claim, the body does not produce a lot of power then one should be able to hit it fairly far sitting in a chair with their feet off the ground. Best of luck on this one.

 

 

Ben Witter hitting 300 yard drives

Not much lower body power in this swing!

'

LOL.....IF he can hit it 300 IN THE AIR off of the ball he'd hit it about 450 using his PIVOT :D ......all of my students can hit it almost as far with their stance about 4 or 5 inches apart as they can in their normal set up......but, even with the narrow stance, they can still PIVOT VERY effectively.........I've seen Phil Blackmar hit it 270 - 280 in the air basically reverse pivoting and hittin' it with his right arm, but, that does NOT mean it's the best and most efficient way for the majority/average golfer to swing a golf club.........

 

BTW, at one time I could hit it 220 in the air off of my knees and I saw Monty Scheinblum hit it 280 off of his...... but, I could hit it 280 in the air using my full pivot motion and Monty might well be the longest hitter I've ever seen who could PLAY..........

 

BTW II, the hips are nothing more than a coupla' joints........something has to "influence" em'.........

 

My point is not that the pivot or lower body rotation is not important, it is that the major clubspeed generators are the shoulders, arms and hands. The lower body has an important part in the golf swing but I think people have been duped into believing that the legs and hips generate most of the power. I would estimate them being responsible for around 18/20% of it.

 

Please see this supporting article:

http://www.scigolf.com/scigolf/myths/myth3.htm