New AMG Shallowing Video - Wow...

[Zitlow]

11 hours ago, Nard_S said:

 

because the act of getting "open" is in itself a shallowing move.

 

I adopted this a few years ago, my GIR's rose like 50% and added a full club on distance.

 

Here's the thing, the but:

 

Not sure there's any point in doing rapid arm lowering or a throw from top if you're just going to stall hips to square at impact. Solid hip clearing and rapid arm throw go together. The catch is neither are easy to implement and then to match together is another headache.  Been working on both for years myself. Have had serious confusion on tilts. This topic clears that up a bit for me.

 

It's 100% hypocritical to say ''square hips fine but passive arms not".  Both not ideal, at all,  but much of times less than perfect is all there is, so let's agree on that. Let's not pretend this outlier is better than that outlier., just because it's my outlier. 

 

My experience leads me to believe P4 in full optimized glory, is what makes all this happen. but it's also not enough to have great positions, you need the impulses and rapid sequential firings of muscles. Speaking for me alone, that part is the hardest. Initiating a rapid firing earlier than I'm anywhere used to doing. A video, 3D geometry and a pile of lessons doesn't resolve this. Hard work does.

 

Maybe you're smart enough to use what works for you and disregard the rest but I doubt these "ah ha" this is the answer new things work for most people. 

 

Why were the old school greats so great using low tech clubs and balls and without state of the art high tech teaching tools? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zitlow]

13 minutes ago, Golfbeat said:

 

I am always surprised that nobody talks about the influence of the position of the club face. In my opinion, almost all "non pro" no body rotations are caused by a club face which has not been properly squared in time.

 

Start with trying to hit straight shots with an exaggerated closed club face and soon 90% of people that so-called cannot rotate will be able to rotate just fine.

 

The plane of the shaft, face and clubhead determining the sequence. 

[ThinkingPlus]

14 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

 

Maybe you're smart enough to use what works for you and disregard the rest but I doubt these "ah ha" this is the answer new things work for most people. 

 

Why were the old school greats so great using low tech clubs and balls and without state of the art high tech teaching tools? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They practiced.  Alot. They also were very talented. This is not much different than modern pros except things happen more quickly.  Modern juniors and pros are guided by better, measurement based instruction to short circuit the time it takes to get really good.

 

Better information understood and applied correctly.  You don't necessarily get better players at the very pinnacle of the game, but the number of really good players is dramatically increased vs. ye olden times.

[MPStrat]

15 minutes ago, Golfbeat said:

 

I am always surprised that nobody talks about the influence of the position of the club face. In my opinion, almost all "non pro" no body rotations are caused by a club face which has not been properly squared in time.

 

Start with trying to hit straight shots with an exaggerated closed club face and soon 90% of people that so-called cannot rotate will be able to rotate just fine.

This is definitely a big contributor to the ability to rotate and reduce dynamic loft at impact. 

Tour guys are all over the map with how they manage the clubface. There are guys like Zalatoris who keep the lead wrist extended and the face extremely open later than most and then you have DJ who sort of does the opposite.
 

I was actually discussing this a little bit yesterday with someone. One of the big differences between manzellas images of Rory and DJ’s arm lowering in the swing happens relatively late in the downswing. They lower a very small amount from the top until almost p6. From there the huge difference in lowering is the release. DJ rotates a lot more through the bottom with a later release where Rory isn’t as rotated and lets the club go earlier. Rory’s move is better for speed, some might say DJ’s is a little better for accuracy. That’s up for debate for sure. 
 

How this relates to what you’re saying is that the way they manage their club faces plays a big part in the uniqueness of their swings as it relates to arm lowering, body rotation and how they release the club.
 

If someone is labeled “upper core”, their clubface should be more open than Rory and nowhere near DJ. They can’t rotate and therefore can’t support it. It won’t match. Some people in this thread say that most people fall into that category. I think thats nonsense. 

[baudi]

31 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

Why were the old school greats so great using low tech clubs and balls and without state of the art high tech teaching tools? 

Face control. 

(p.s. Which also accounts for the new school greats).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by baudi

[Zitlow]

2 minutes ago, baudi said:

Face control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True and they swung the shaft on plane as well. Some people at the range make all kinds of Houdini body motions just hit the ball because they don't aim the club properly. 

[MK7Golf21]

12 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

 

If someone is labeled “upper core”, their clubface should be more open than Rory and nowhere near DJ. They can’t rotate and therefore can’t support it. It won’t match. Some people in this thread say that most people fall into that category. I think thats nonsense. 

 

 

Depends on the player, you have a 15 handicap who slices it off the planet and doesn't rotate. This is like 95% of the golfing population. I don't think a more open open club face is going to help them, in fact the opposite.

Edited March 5, 2023 by MK7Golf21

[MPStrat]

1 minute ago, MK7Golf21 said:

 

 

Depends on the player, you have a 15 handicap who slices it off the planet and doesn't rotate. This is like 95% of the golfing population. I don't think a more open open club face is going to help them, in fact the opposite.

I think you missed the point. I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t learn how to control their clubface. I’m saying that if upper core is a thing, and most people fall into that category (I don’t believe that to be true) their clubfaces need to be more open in the swing than Rory and most other tour pros for that matter. 

[RoyalTroon]

16 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

Some people at the range make all kinds of Houdini body motions just hit the ball because they don't aim the club properly. 

 

Ol' Harry might salivate over this contraption, he might even try it upside down.

 

[Nard_S]

17 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

Maybe you're smart enough to use what works for you and disregard the rest but I doubt these "ah ha" this is the answer new things work for most people.

I agree, there's confluence of matching parts. Doing A effects B which effects C. Sometimes intents are ''wrong'' but still work because of this.  I don't like the cherry-picking aspect of this stuff because there's context to all of it. If you think you can just do rapid arm unfold and you will be more like Rory without the quality of his pivot, which has been somewhat inferred by just stressing ''aha'' on arm angles, good luck with that. I've got years of ball beating that says otherwise.

 

33 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

Why were the old school greats so great using low tech clubs and balls and without state of the art high tech teaching tools?

What is rarely mentioned is how good their lower body action was. Snead's & Hogan's leg work was crazy good and really hard to replicate. High level. Even old school ''reverse C" guys like Miller, Jack and many others, yeah, really bad for back, but that's not easy to pull off or teach.

 

GG's original thing was to adopt what Snead did and make it teachable. he never talks that way anymore. But early on he did. So I get his "arms up" approach, but it's heresy now. Then when you point all this out you hear, "well of course you need to do A, B, C, D, & E well too". So then let's stop with the ah ha & word salad stuff.

[Zitlow]

21 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They practiced.  Alot. They also were very talented. This is not much different than modern pros except things happen more quickly.  Modern juniors and pros are guided by better, measurement based instruction to short circuit the time it takes to get really good.

 

Better information understood and applied correctly.  You don't necessarily get better players at the very pinnacle of the game, but the number of really good players is dramatically increased vs. ye olden times.

 

True, there are more players now and the tour players are better conditioned. Except for the gambling, you don't see the smoking, the womanizing and the booze like back in the day.

 

Even with the state of the art advances in equipment and teaching technology are people getting better by a lot? 

 

According to the USGA in 2016. In the last 25 years, the average USGA handicap for a man has improved nearly two full strokes, from 16.3 to 14.4. 

 

Improve by nearly two full strokes in 25 years - Wow! 

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

 

True, there are more players now and the tour players are better conditioned. Except for the gambling, you don't see the smoking, the womanizing and the booze like back in the day.

 

Even with the state of the art advances in equipment and teaching technology are people getting better by a lot? 

 

According to the USGA in 2016. In the last 25 years, the average USGA handicap for a man has improved nearly two full strokes, from 16.3 to 14.4. 

 

Improve by nearly two full strokes in 25 years - Wow! 

 

 

Compared to the 50 years prior when there was no improvement, 2 strokes is pretty significant. 

[Nard_S]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Compared to the 50 years prior when there was no improvement, 2 strokes is pretty significant.

When you consider the ball and driver improvements alone, it's almost a regression.

[MK7Golf21]

25 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

 

True, there are more players now and the tour players are better conditioned. Except for the gambling, you don't see the smoking, the womanizing and the booze like back in the day.

 

Even with the state of the art advances in equipment and teaching technology are people getting better by a lot? 

 

According to the USGA in 2016. In the last 25 years, the average USGA handicap for a man has improved nearly two full strokes, from 16.3 to 14.4. 

 

Improve by nearly two full strokes in 25 years - Wow! 

 

 

 

It still takes exceptional hand eye coordination etc. to become better at golf. You would have to look if there have been evolutionary advancements in 25 years, I'm guessing no to that.

[PracticeSwinger]

12 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

When you consider the ball and driver improvements alone, it's almost a regression.

I’ll go with the contrarian view, just my opinion nothing factual, I’d say it’s a feat… nowadays any wacko that hits the range a few times and sends it 230yds with a banana slice that ‘holds’ thanks to technology thinks he can play without having a clue of the subtleties of the game and thus post horrendous scores, while trying to do the same with permission that went 140yds at best - those didn’t venture on the course… again, opinion and generalized to the max

[ThinkingPlus]

18 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

When you consider the ball and driver improvements alone, it's almost a regression.

When you consider how much harder green complexes are, longer courses, etc..... Comparing ye olden times to today is always a crap shoot because the game of golf has changed and will continue to change in many ways.  Some ways are more easily quantifiable than others.

[MK7Golf21]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

When you consider how much harder green complexes are, longer courses, etc..... Comparing ye olden times to today is always a crap shoot because the game of golf has changed and will continue to change in many ways.  Some ways are more easily quantifiable than others.

exactly, golf courses have changed with the advancement in club and ball tech as well which kind of evens things out. Back in the day the greens were so slow, nowadays they have made the greens so fast because of how much the ball has improved. It's night and day difference. They have also made huge changes in course length and tee's because of how much farther the clubs hit the ball. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by MK7Golf21

[Nard_S]

5 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

I’ll go with the contrarian view, just my opinion nothing factual, I’d say it’s a feat… nowadays any wacko that hits the range a few times and sends it 230yds with a banana slice that ‘holds’ thanks to technology thinks he can play without having a clue of the subtleties of the game and thus post horrendous scores, while trying to do the same with permission that went 140yds at best - those didn’t venture on the course… again, opinion and generalized to the max

I see that but the ball is about 10 yards straighter these days, rolls a lot better on greens too so that all goes against premise. The differential between persimmon & Ti is 40-50 yards, it's not 100. Which is still huge considering tee boxes on most all courses are exact same. Use a driver 12 times, it shortens approach shots on course by 500 yards.

 

Do agree that gear may have kept people off course or out of game altogether. I played 30 years ago, with balata & basic gear. Play same course today. Pure anecdotal, but most all do not play better than back then. There's maybe 10% that's pulled away, the rest stink now as much as they did then. The curve of competency is much more acute. Used to be a "gun" was 25 yards longer, now he's 60 or more. 

 

I'm actually of belief that a 90's bag of steel-on-steel metals & steel 3-pw setup was and is better setup for almost all duffers, because now the bag has a slew of different classes of gear, when once it was more cohesive. There's wedge sets, irons, hybrids and lighter & longer Ti wood. There's an acclimation to 4 types of clubs instead of essentially one. The specialization has a downside. My bag reflects that belief and gets me eyerolls here. 🙂 Also might explain why index drop is not much lower.

[Nard_S]

26 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

When you consider how much harder green complexes are, longer courses, etc..... Comparing ye olden times to today is always a crap shoot because the game of golf has changed and will continue to change in many ways.  Some ways are more easily quantifiable than others.

My local muni, did speed up the greens, but they also took out a lot of bunkering, cut back a lot of trees and indigenous growth. Truth, course is easier than 30 years ago. so it can go both ways.

[Zitlow]

34 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

 

It still takes exceptional hand eye coordination etc. to become better at golf. You would have to look if there have been evolutionary advancements in 25 years, I'm guessing no to that.

It's easy for someone with decent mobility and coordination to learn a powerful golf swing in half a bucket.

 

The hard part is the reprogramming which takes weeks, months or years. As a former lesson junkie I speak from experience. 

 

 

[RoyalTroon]

4 hours ago, Zitlow said:

Improve by nearly two full strokes in 25 years - Wow!

 

🤣  How long before all topic titles will have a 'Wow". 

 

I just learned how to clean dirty spikes- Wow!

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, BALLYBUNION said:

 

🤣  How long before all topic titles will have a 'Wow". 

 

I just learned how to clean dirty spikes- Wow!

More efficient than blimey...

[michaeld_2020]

Has anyone actually mastered the pattern of dropping the arms first to stop the hips firing too quickly? It's a hard pattern to break

[MonteScheinblum]

10 hours ago, michaeld_2020 said:

Has anyone actually mastered the pattern of dropping the arms first to stop the hips firing too quickly? It's a hard pattern to break

In reality that’s not what you're trying to accomplish.  That’s impossible.  What you’re trying to do is close the gap when it’s too great.

 

It’s not easy, but most worth while things are not.  I’ve had many people close the gap.

Edited March 6, 2023 by MonteScheinblum

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

What you’re trying to do is close the gap when it’s too great.

 

Yup.

[PracticeSwinger]

Looks like AMG is following this thread! (or probably Manzella, Milo, GG and not us haha)... exactly was what talked about in the last few pages : Rory / DJ lead arm lowering in the downswing relative to their shoulders 'rod' and with their spine as reference ...

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cpc9UE9DYl-/

[Zitlow]

They're all in a competition to see how many conscious swing thoughts they can fit into a .25 second downswing. 

 

 

[Nels55]

On 3/6/2023 at 9:20 AM, Zitlow said:

They're all in a competition to see how many conscious swing thoughts they can fit into a .25 second downswing. 

 

 

Not really.  This is an academic discussion of what is happening in pros swings.  I don't believe that any of the teachers mentioned in this thread would bring this sort of thing up while actually teaching.  They all seem to use drills to try to get the motion across to the student.  The drills are aimed at getting the student to make the correct motions without having to think about what is actually happening.  In the end it does not really matter if a teacher is technically correct in some of their jargon, if what they say makes sense to the student and the student's swing improves then who cares what the teacher thinks is going on in DJ's swing?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Nels55
typo

[Zitlow]

23 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Not really.  This is an academic discussion of what is happening in pros swings.  I don't believe that any of the teachers mentioned in this thread would bring this sort of thing up while actually teaching.  They all seem to use drills to try to get the motion across to the student.  The drills are aimed at getting the student to make the correct motions without having to think about what is actually happening.  In the end it does not really matter if a teacher is technically correct in some of their jargon, it what they say makes sense to the student and the student's swing improves then who cares what the teacher thinks is going on in DJ's swing?

I get that perspective but I would be interested in knowing how many people who have tried this have actually experienced a noticeable improvement in their ball striking.

 

I've been in the same boat as almost everyone else trying to manufacture a downswing but I found out it isn't even remotely as complicated as the "experts" make it sound. 

[Hilts1969]

32 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

I get that perspective but I would be interested in knowing how many people who have tried this have actually experienced a noticeable improvement in their ball striking.

 

I've been in the same boat as almost everyone else trying to manufacture a downswing but I found out it isn't even remotely as complicated as the "experts" make it sound. 

What's complicated about lowering the arms whilst getting onto the left side via the pivot?