New AMG Shallowing Video - Wow...

[Krt22]

3 minutes ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

Oh, I agree. How many are going to put in the work though? 

Not very many, but that can be said about any and everything swing related.

[scooterhd2]

23 minutes ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

Oh, I agree. How many are going to put in the work though? 

 

What are we doing here brother? Do you see people on the range? The problem is they are working on the wrong thing. This whole video is about doing less work and achieving more. 

[yjt93]

4 hours ago, Kuuuch said:

I think some GG folks are still missing the point. Let’s also stop talking about feels. We are talking about what does vs does not cause the club to shallow which the AMG proves with data…I can go on IG and say my big toe shallows the club but that doesn’t make it right even if it works for me lol

I would not agree with this either. I would argue the biggest point they’re saying is  1) What folks are teaching to shallow the club doesn’t happen (I.e. leaving hands up, body shallowing the club, external rotation of right shoulder) all of which GG is teaching.

2) the role of the right arm in shallowing the club 

3) lowering the arms + adding the pivot can work wonders for shallowing the club like below…

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ck1ykwTjQq9/?igshid=YWJhMjlhZTc=
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CkmZ1N0jGlh/?igshid=YWJhMjlhZTc=
 

 

 

 

 

 

on point 3 with the first video, why is it bad to hold the glove there? You can still increase the angle at the bicep no? Is it because you gain more speed if it's not pinned?

[scooterhd2]

5 minutes ago, yjt93 said:

on point 3 with the first video, why is it bad to hold the glove there? You can still increase the angle at the bicep no? Is it because you gain more speed if it's not pinned?

If the arm is pinned, theres less room to come down and shallow the club. Going to be forced to use the body and tilts. 

[tthomasgolfer605]

37 minutes ago, scooterhd2 said:

 

What are we doing here brother? Do you see people on the range? The problem is they are working on the wrong thing. This whole video is about doing less work and achieving more. 

I'm just saying that I've seen this for 35 years. Some info comes along and people will try it for a bit then move along to the next thing because the time and work it takes to implement this would take who knows how long. Even when the best player in the world made a similar change, it took over a year and that's with doing it all day every day. I like AMG, but this isn't the last piece of the puzzle or anything. Several things have to be in place before even working on this move.

Edited January 20, 2023 by tthomasgolfer605

[baudi]

>>>Mr Bitterman here at table 14: one bottle of Krug please and some glasses for my friends<<<

 

Selective quote:

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

The second is that if golf instruction is the opposite of what elite pro golfers do in their swing, that instruction is wrong.

 

No. Next to picking the low hanging fruit of commonalities make proper use of the dynamics in datasets. For all good swings also go out and find positive outliers, opposite extremes and distinctive characteristics of positive examples. From here, create a starting point on how a decision making tree can/should be pointed out. If presented well, as AMG proved they can, the output will be interesting too for great ball striking cocky golf nerds. Man I am so happy for not being banned yet so I will skip further critique.

Now, let's share some champagne! 

[AlohaPineapple]

47 minutes ago, baudi said:

>>>Mr Bitterman here at table 14: one bottle of Krug please and some glasses for my friends<<<

 

Selective quote:

 

No. Next to picking the low hanging fruit of commonalities make proper use of the dynamics in datasets. For all good swings also go out and find positive outliers, opposite extremes and distinctive characteristics of positive examples. From here, create a starting point on how a decision making tree can/should be pointed out. If presented well, as AMG proved they can, the output will be interesting too for great ball striking cocky golf nerds. Man I am so happy for not being banned yet so I will skip further critique.

Now, let's share some champagne! 

a man of taste!

 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

Outliers in golf are the same as any other outlier.  It proves the rule rather than disproves it…and golfers deny that to their detriment.

 

”Ray Floyd whipped it inside and it works well for me.”

 

Well, no it doesn’t, you play 3 times a week and hit balls the other 4 days and you’re a 14 with an over the top slice and you drive it 230 with 100 mph of club speed.

 

Anyone think this lifestyle is going to work?  Have at it.

 

https://www.foodbeast.com/news/100-year-old-woman-drinks-whiskey-and-smokes-15-cigarettes-a-day/

[AlohaPineapple]

2 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Outliers in golf are the same as any other outlier.  It proves the rule rather than disproves it…and golfers deny that to their detriment.

 

”Ray Floyd whipped it inside and it works well for me.”

 

Well, no it doesn’t, you play 3 times a week and hit balls the other 4 days and you’re a 14 with an over the top slice and you drive it 230 with 100 mph of club speed.

 

Anyone think this lifestyle is going to work?  Have at it.

 

https://www.foodbeast.com/news/100-year-old-woman-drinks-whiskey-and-smokes-15-cigarettes-a-day/

 

[MonteScheinblum]

12 minutes ago, AlohaPineapple said:

 

Greatest John Daly line ever.

 

People pull muscles all the time.  You can’t pull fat.

 

Sorry…just the greatest line ever.

Edited January 20, 2023 by MonteScheinblum

[scooterhd2]

1 hour ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

I'm just saying that I've seen this for 35 years. Some info comes along and people will try it for a bit then move along to the next thing because the time and work it takes to implement this would take who knows how long. Even when the best player in the world made a similar change, it took over a year and that's with doing it all day every day. I like AMG, but this isn't the last piece of the puzzle or anything. Several things have to be in place before even working on this move.

 

I dont doubt that this is just more info that will be discarded and improperly implemented by the masses. But this isnt really the next thing. Its not a swing that you have to try. Its just data on what happens in really good golfers. And for alot of people it coincides with some really good instruction and some feels like the NTC, Rose Drill, Milo Lines turn the door knob, etc. The thread is littered with other youtube and instagram examples. And for alot of us, this isnt a huge swing change. Its already something we have been working on, and now have some extra conviction and direction. 

 

Look at it this way. Every Formula 1 team has a plan and strategy for every turn on a track. In practice laps and qualifying every detail is looked at and TEAM A realizes that are really slow through turn 4. They look at film and data points of the top 5 fastest teams on turn 4, and they are all taking a similar line. Should they stick with their strategy that produced the worst times, or maybe consider that these other teams are doing something right here and they might want to try to mimic those positions to improve their turn and speed?

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by scooterhd2

[LeftDaddy]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Well, if you do that with data all day, you realize that data is one thing, and information is something completely different. Data is raw. Information fuels decision-making and is valuable. It sounds like your day job is turning data into information, and I'll bet you're paid a fair amount for it, because it's a hell of an important job. 

 

The data shows what top golfers do in the swing. To turn that into valuable information, there are some assumptions:

 

1. The first assumption is that if this is something that you see in elite pro golf swings, that means it's good. Because, well, they're the best golfers on the planet with the most consistent ballstriking and shooting the best scores. This assumption could be wrong (as a lot of Moe Norman disciples might claim) and that there is a better way to do it. Some may claim that pros do it but it's inapplicable for us mere mortals. But for us casual hacks, many accept the assumption that if every pro golfer they measure does X, and a bunch of hacks don't do X, that doing X will improve our swings. 
2. The second is that if golf instruction is the opposite of what elite pro golfers do in their swing, that instruction is wrong. So everyone who is being taught to shallow the club via "go external" or whatnot, if they actually accomplish it, will be putting something into their swing that makes it harder to hit the ball well than easier. No, "go external" might be a feel (and we know feel isn't real), so if the feel gets them closer to what the pros do, per assumption #1, it should improve their swing. But if it gets them farther from what the pros do, per assumption #1, it probably won't. 

 

But the data is just data: here's how elite golfers move. It's your job as the viewer to interpret it. Based on what you've described as being your day job, you should be well trained to do so. 

Good post. I’m paid well for doing a lot of things, one of which is making business decisions that use data (and many other inputs) to hopefully make those decisions somewhat simple. They never are, of course, because data is never the full picture, and frankly, a lot of data is just plain misleading. So I’ve developed a way to handle data, which is to appreciate both what it is telling me, and what it isn’t. The AMG is good stuff, and part of the picture, and honestly my initial reaction was “oh, cool, so shallowing isn’t as hard as I thought it was”. It wasn’t until people started making this about “AMG vs GG” that I really started to critique it a bit (for what it is and isn’t). GGs approach isn’t the be-all, end-all, but it has definitely made me a better golfer. Neither is AMGs approach, and theirs has made me a worse golfer (though to be fair I haven’t signed on for a full program with them).  This is all my point with “data”. Just because you have data doesn’t mean it paints a full picture. 
 

Anyway, on to clarifying a couple of things. First, to your 1st assumption, yes, it is quite reasonable to assume that the “pro” way is a better way. But I don’t consider it as reasonable to assume that it is the only way. Perhaps a better way has been found. But a composite GEARS model isn’t going to show me those outliers. That said, if you put GGs guys on GEARS, I’m virtually certain they would like very similar to the composite model. 
 

Thus, second, GG says the body drives shallowing. AMG says it’s the arms. Might it be possible that the body movements espoused by GG cause the arms to react in a way so as to keep the shaft shallower, and thus proving this whole argument is a bit moot?  Meaning, OK, sure, even GGs model requires that the hands / arms move in some way to keep the shaft shallow. He explains it as “pivot the body properly and the shaft lays down by itself “, so can’t both be true (that the cause-effect of a proper pivot helps the arms into “shallowing” positions, or that doing bicep curls helps shallow the shaft and forces the body to rotate in order to hit the ball)?  
 

Nuance rarely comes through in message boards like this, so I won’t even bother with all of the ways that both AMG and GG seem to be getting misinterpreted here. I’m not advocating one approach over another. I was just trying to clarify a few misconceptions that I think people have about both GG and AMG, but clearly I’m in the minority on that and must not know what I’m talking about. There’s no way that GGs approach could have helped me shallow and rotate better than I ever had before, because clearly AMGs data shows that I’m not shallowing how I think I’m shallowing. Ugh. 

[Krt22]

4 minutes ago, LeftDaddy said:

There’s no way that GGs approach could have helped me shallow and rotate better than I ever had before, because clearly AMGs data shows that I’m not shallowing how I think I’m shallowing. Ugh. 

No one has said GGs approach doesn't work (quite the opposite actually), but it is 100% plausible that you are not shallowing the way you think you are(ie the way GG explains it) given the data does in fact show otherwise.  The rub of this whole debate is GG says one thing is happening, AMG says one thing is happening, but one has data and the other does not.

 

The argument here is not what works, it's simply what is actually happening.  For decades and decades millions of golfers (and thousands of instructors) played golf using fundamentally incorrect ball flight laws.  That didn't stop elite golfers from playing at a very high level, it didn't stop instructors from helping ams, it didn't stop the game from progressing, but now we have data that shows it was in fact technically flawed. This isn't much different

 

I've said it before and I will say it again, if GG wanted to cement his pattern/theory, why hasn't got on Gears to squash the beef once and for all? Because he has nothing to gain by being "right" and everything to lose by being "wrong". As long as his students think it's right and are getting good results, the actual truth isn't that important. So he can basically hand waive all he wants, it actually helps him market his brand, his paying students even join the fun in defending the pattern. Let's be real, the golf instruction space is more crowded and lucrative than it has ever been, so teaching something "unique" is a big differentiator for him. If the data shows it's not as unique as he markets it..well that would not be good for business.

 

 

[baudi]

1 hour ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Outliers in golf are the same as any other outlier.  It proves the rule rather than disproves it…and golfers deny that to their detriment.

 

”Ray Floyd whipped it inside and it works well for me.”

 

 

That's not what I meant. I plea for the search of more swing patterns based on the data instead of one average Idealtyp as shown in the vid. By the nature of work it leaves out the example of simply copying Ray Floyd. If you stop the vid of AMG at 14 seconds. You see the cluster of golfclubs to  the left. In this range of the pros you can see the clubs are not exactly positioned in the same way so the assumed differences are visualized. (Which in comparison makes sense as for example Hogan's swing is quite different from Bubba's). In stead of looking for one common denominator my suggestion is to create refined patterns (or models) set by the use of distinctive characteristics as seen in good swings. Of course gaining new insight from data is hard work. And validation quite difficult.

(Additonal, If correct, Scott Cowx uses thirteen swingmodels).

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, LeftDaddy said:

 

Anyway, on to clarifying a couple of things. First, to your 1st assumption, yes, it is quite reasonable to assume that the “pro” way is a better way. But I don’t consider it as reasonable to assume that it is the only way. Perhaps a better way has been found. But a composite GEARS model isn’t going to show me those outliers. That said, if you put GGs guys on GEARS, I’m virtually certain they would like very similar to the composite model. 
 

Thus, second, GG says the body drives shallowing. AMG says it’s the arms. Might it be possible that the body movements espoused by GG cause the arms to react in a way so as to keep the shaft shallower, and thus proving this whole argument is a bit moot?  Meaning, OK, sure, even GGs model requires that the hands / arms move in some way to keep the shaft shallow. He explains it as “pivot the body properly and the shaft lays down by itself “, so can’t both be true (that the cause-effect of a proper pivot helps the arms into “shallowing” positions, or that doing bicep curls helps shallow the shaft and forces the body to rotate in order to hit the ball)?  
 

 

I had no interest in getting into an AMG vs GG debate. I don't think this AMG video is necessarily "instructional" as in a "how to get somewhere" sense, and I don't know enough about GG to have a clue what his instructional method is. I'm more interested in the idea of data analysis than debating "who". 

 

Per the first paragraph quoted, I think there is a degree to which AMG qualifies that there are differences in swings and that not everything they discuss is based on a "composite" model. But one of the things they were discussing was that although there were a range of behaviors they saw, they didn't (if I'm remembering correctly) see ANY golfers that were "going external" on the transition/early downswing. So there are various ranges of things that pros do to make good golf swings, but if you look at the boundary of the range, external rotation is not within the dataset. 

 

The second bit, I don't recall AMG ever having cause and effect in that video. They said "this is what pros do." They did show a couple of drills on feels, and talked about their "blender" drill, but in general the video was descriptive, not prescriptive. It's possible that a proper pivot unwinds those positions fairly naturally in transition (I think that's what Waldron recommends--it's not necessarily "active" intent to extend the trail arm). But even if that's true, the AMG video talked about all the ways that golfers try to actively shallow the club and how it makes things worse. It didn't seem that they took a position on whether the arm movements were active or not. They just said "these are the movements we see in pro golfers".

 

So I don't know why there is debate. As you say, you think that if you put successful GG students on GEARS, you'd see movements that mimic the pros that AMG has measured. If that's the case, then GG is doing his job. 

 

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

 

 

For decades and decades millions of golfers (and thousands of instructors) played golf using fundamentally incorrect ball flight laws.  That didn't stop elite golfers from playing at a very high level, it didn't stop instructors from helping ams, it didn't stop the game from progressing, but now we have data that shows it was in fact technically flawed. This isn't much different

 

 

This is something that surprised me. I "came of age" in the golf world in the 1990s, during my teenage years. Golf Digest subscriber, my most active golf life was those years with the exception of my recent rediscovery of the game in 2020. Apparently I learned golf with old ball flight laws, and then they changed.

 

But I have no recollection of ever encountering the "old" ball flight laws and would have considered them preposterous if I did. To my proto-engineer brain, it seemed obvious that the face angle determined where the ball started and face-to-path determined its curvature. 

 

Coming to GolfWRX I was shocked that people once thought path was the majority determinant of start line. 

[LeftDaddy]

4 hours ago, Krt22 said:

No one has said GGs approach doesn't work (quite the opposite actually), but it is 100% plausible that you are not shallowing the way you think you are(ie the way GG explains it) given the data does in fact show otherwise.  The rub of this whole debate is GG says one thing is happening, AMG says one thing is happening, but one has data and the other does not.

 

The argument here is not what works, it's simply what is actually happening.  For decades and decades millions of golfers (and thousands of instructors) played golf using fundamentally incorrect ball flight laws.  That didn't stop elite golfers from playing at a very high level, it didn't stop instructors from helping ams, it didn't stop the game from progressing, but now we have data that shows it was in fact technically flawed. This isn't much different

 

I've said it before and I will say it again, if GG wanted to cement his pattern/theory, why hasn't got on Gears to squash the beef once and for all? Because he has nothing to gain by being "right" and everything to lose by being "wrong". As long as his students think it's right and are getting good results, the actual truth isn't that important. So he can basically hand waive all he wants, it actually helps him market his brand, his paying students even join the fun in defending the pattern. Let's be real, the golf instruction space is more crowded and lucrative than it has ever been, so teaching something "unique" is a big differentiator for him. If the data shows it's not as unique as he markets it..well that would not be good for business.

 

 

My only beef with what you’ve posted is that you assume GEARS somehow proves GG wrong. I’m not trying to make this about who’s right/wrong. I don’t care, except that I just want people to understand why one group recommends one thing, and the other group another. So most pros get external-ish on the way back, and get slightly more external on the way down, even though they aren’t all the way to what would be considered “external”. GG recommends being internal on the way back, because that will tend to cause you to move more external on the way down. Look at a tennis serve, for example. Point being, GG wants his guys to do something different with their trail arm than most have been taught. Clearly GEARS and GG and AMG say that you get slightly more external on the way down than you were at the top. Anyway, I actually don’t care. Any of you can decide that this video from AMG is the way to go for you. That’s awesome, but I just want people to understand what they are really saying, and what the data is and isn’t showing. 
 

I said from my first post that I was more interested in what I could learn from this thread / that video. I’ve been trying to rediscover some moves I had last year this time that resulted in the best contact and the most power of my life. I thought there might be a nugget in here that could help with my understanding. Turns out, there might have been. I hit balls today and played around with bicep curls (disastrous…shanks and chunks).  BUT, the feeling of having my hands closer to my body started to rekindle some of the old feels. I still used my “feel” of keeping the arms up and rotating hard, etc, but focusing more on laying the shaft “down” and behind me allowed me to rotate more powerfully into impact. I’m still playing with it, but I’m hopeful. That is literally all I cared about in this thread to begin with…was there something to learn here?  I think maybe, and it still doesn’t prove anyone right or wrong. Hopefully, all of you can learn something too. 

Edited January 21, 2023 by LeftDaddy

[Krt22]

10 minutes ago, LeftDaddy said:

 I just want people to understand what they are really saying, and what the data is and isn’t showing. 
 

 

Which is? What have you been able to deduce that wasn't already communicated in the video? The data is the data, what else am I missing? 

[Ex Blade User]

8 hours ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

I'm just saying that I've seen this for 35 years. Some info comes along and people will try it for a bit then move along to the next thing because the time and work it takes to implement this would take who knows how long. Even when the best player in the world made a similar change, it took over a year and that's with doing it all day every day. I like AMG, but this isn't the last piece of the puzzle or anything. Several things have to be in place before even working on this move.

3D capturing swings is relatively new so no one really knew what actually happens really at this intricate of a level. 

[Ex Blade User]

7 hours ago, LeftDaddy said:

Good post. I’m paid well for doing a lot of things, one of which is making business decisions that use data (and many other inputs) to hopefully make those decisions somewhat simple. They never are, of course, because data is never the full picture, and frankly, a lot of data is just plain misleading. So I’ve developed a way to handle data, which is to appreciate both what it is telling me, and what it isn’t. The AMG is good stuff, and part of the picture, and honestly my initial reaction was “oh, cool, so shallowing isn’t as hard as I thought it was”. It wasn’t until people started making this about “AMG vs GG” that I really started to critique it a bit (for what it is and isn’t). GGs approach isn’t the be-all, end-all, but it has definitely made me a better golfer. Neither is AMGs approach, and theirs has made me a worse golfer (though to be fair I haven’t signed on for a full program with them).  This is all my point with “data”. Just because you have data doesn’t mean it paints a full picture. 
 

Anyway, on to clarifying a couple of things. First, to your 1st assumption, yes, it is quite reasonable to assume that the “pro” way is a better way. But I don’t consider it as reasonable to assume that it is the only way. Perhaps a better way has been found. But a composite GEARS model isn’t going to show me those outliers. That said, if you put GGs guys on GEARS, I’m virtually certain they would like very similar to the composite model. 
 

Thus, second, GG says the body drives shallowing. AMG says it’s the arms. Might it be possible that the body movements espoused by GG cause the arms to react in a way so as to keep the shaft shallower, and thus proving this whole argument is a bit moot?  Meaning, OK, sure, even GGs model requires that the hands / arms move in some way to keep the shaft shallow. He explains it as “pivot the body properly and the shaft lays down by itself “, so can’t both be true (that the cause-effect of a proper pivot helps the arms into “shallowing” positions, or that doing bicep curls helps shallow the shaft and forces the body to rotate in order to hit the ball)?  
 

Nuance rarely comes through in message boards like this, so I won’t even bother with all of the ways that both AMG and GG seem to be getting misinterpreted here. I’m not advocating one approach over another. I was just trying to clarify a few misconceptions that I think people have about both GG and AMG, but clearly I’m in the minority on that and must not know what I’m talking about. There’s no way that GGs approach could have helped me shallow and rotate better than I ever had before, because clearly AMGs data shows that I’m not shallowing how I think I’m shallowing. Ugh. 

I thought you were done “debating”

[Ex Blade User]

2 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Which is? What have you been able to deduce that wasn't already communicated in the video? The data is the data, what else am I missing? 

He doesn’t know so it’s weird to keep going to me 

[kobe123]

15 hours ago, LeftDaddy said:

My only beef with what you’ve posted is that you assume GEARS somehow proves GG wrong. I’m not trying to make this about who’s right/wrong. I don’t care, except that I just want people to understand why one group recommends one thing, and the other group another. So most pros get external-ish on the way back, and get slightly more external on the way down, even though they aren’t all the way to what would be considered “external”. GG recommends being internal on the way back, because that will tend to cause you to move more external on the way down. Look at a tennis serve, for example. Point being, GG wants his guys to do something different with their trail arm than most have been taught. Clearly GEARS and GG and AMG say that you get slightly more external on the way down than you were at the top. Anyway, I actually don’t care. Any of you can decide that this video from AMG is the way to go for you. That’s awesome, but I just want people to understand what they are really saying, and what the data is and isn’t showing. 
 

I said from my first post that I was more interested in what I could learn from this thread / that video. I’ve been trying to rediscover some moves I had last year this time that resulted in the best contact and the most power of my life. I thought there might be a nugget in here that could help with my understanding. Turns out, there might have been. I hit balls today and played around with bicep curls (disastrous…shanks and chunks).  BUT, the feeling of having my hands closer to my body started to rekindle some of the old feels. I still used my “feel” of keeping the arms up and rotating hard, etc, but focusing more on laying the shaft “down” and behind me allowed me to rotate more powerfully into impact. I’m still playing with it, but I’m hopeful. That is literally all I cared about in this thread to begin with…was there something to learn here?  I think maybe, and it still doesn’t prove anyone right or wrong. Hopefully, all of you can learn something too. 

How can you say it doesn’t prove anyone right or wrong? When the data shows shallowing comes from the arms and not the body? I can find plenty of “guys” saying pivot shallows it which is simply not true. This data proves that wrong. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

15 hours ago, LeftDaddy said:

 

So most pros get external-ish on the way back, and get slightly more external on the way down, even though they aren’t all the way to what would be considered “external”. GG recommends being internal on the way back, because that will tend to cause you to move more external on the way down. Look at a tennis serve, for example. Point being, GG wants his guys to do something different with their trail arm than most have been taught. Clearly GEARS and GG and AMG say that you get slightly more external on the way down than you were at the top. Anyway, I actually don’t care. Any of you can decide that this video from AMG is the way to go for you. That’s awesome, but I just want people to understand what they are really saying, and what the data is and isn’t showing. 
 

 

At about 9:45 in the video they claim that of the the 5 players the amateur thought were externally rotating the shoulder on the downswing, none of them were. Then they strengthened that claim, saying that not a single player in their dataset of tour winners externally rotates the shoulder on the downswing. Not one.

 

 I don't want to debate teaching methods, but the video doesn't say that pros get more external on the way down. 

[DLiver]

Wow is this move a challenge to implement. Holy cow. 😬

[lookylookitzadam]

@MonteScheinblum or any other instructor: is there any issue with having this feel be the entire downswing move? Basically keeping back to the target and shallowing based on this video seems to be a great way to hit good shots. Honestly feels and looks like Monte’s Cast A from NTC but focused on arm instead of wrist intents. 

[MonteScheinblum]

1 hour ago, lookylookitzadam said:

@MonteScheinblum or any other instructor: is there any issue with having this feel be the entire downswing move? Basically keeping back to the target and shallowing based on this video seems to be a great way to hit good shots. Honestly feels and looks like Monte’s Cast A from NTC but focused on arm instead of wrist intents. 

Ask Justin Rose  😛

Edited January 22, 2023 by MonteScheinblum

[Gr8Balls]

2 hours ago, lookylookitzadam said:

@MonteScheinblum or any other instructor: is there any issue with having this feel be the entire downswing move? Basically keeping back to the target and shallowing based on this video seems to be a great way to hit good shots. Honestly feels and looks like Monte’s Cast A from NTC but focused on arm instead of wrist intents. 

 

 

I'm with you.  I've been in the dumps ballstriking for the last 8 months, and using this as a focal point has lead to nothing but quality shots wedge through driver.

 

I also feel like the quality of strike and ballflight are amplified if I apply the move/intent in a 'ramping up' of acceleration instead of steady or constant arm speed. 

 

I remember reading a quote here, and it might have been Monte, of "think minivan not sports car" when it comes to applying speed.  While I always understood and agreed with it, I think I finally 'get' it.

[MonteScheinblum]

3 hours ago, DLiver said:

Wow is this move a challenge to implement. Holy cow. 😬

It’s easier than what you’re currently doing.  It seems challenging because it’s different.

 

Imagine if you learned to drive a car with your left hand at 2 and right hand at 10.

 

You’d think it was coo coo to have the left at 10 and the right at 2.

 

Look up the guy who built a bike that had the handle bars work backwards.

 

Funny part is when it first came out I told two guys who came to see me from Alabama about it and how it relates to learning new movement.  They laughed and said, “We get it, we built that bike for him.”

[bilbry57]

On 1/20/2023 at 11:13 AM, MonteScheinblum said:

Greatest John Daly line ever.

 

People pull muscles all the time.  You can’t pull fat.

 

Sorry…just the greatest line ever.

A close second 

“I don’t go to the workout trailer because they won’t let me smoke”

Edited January 22, 2023 by bilbry57

[Jeselnik]

 

Idea that turns into gold.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Jeselnik

[Ex Blade User]

1 hour ago, Jeselnik said:

You should have done a bunch of things reasonably correct to get to the top.  IMO, shallowing is done with the brain and feels.  The final shift/early post and shallowing happen about same time, think shift/post is first.  I shallow by thinking about achieving similar hand location and wrist conditions as Hogan(most any pro will do)at waist high.  I dont think about straightening right arm, I think about taking hands thru a point projected (from hand path) on the ground.  I use feels to polish it up. First stage shallow mostly from shoulders(at least the idea)then directing hands and maintaining feels will takeover.  My left wrist condition after the drop is the most specific idea in my swing and it’s just an idea that becomes reality if you let it, again feels polish it up.  I use the feel of palmer flexion in the left wrist for shaft lean control, reality? idk, but the idea is useful.  I think very little about rotation or anything else, the better my posture the faster the hands go.  I try to tighten the string thru the hitting zone, evidenced by hand speed into/thru finish.  Priorities - posture, weight shift, hand path, wrist alignments, thru point, tighten string.  Words are muddy, feels clear it up.

 

My fee 2 cents.

 

JNIK

 

Idea that turns into gold.

/cdn-cgi/mirage/e7549045455b02c1e4dd55cd9c158750b835c990d012716c6b42e7ec2c92bbec/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/e7549045455b02c1e4dd55cd9c158750b835c990d012716c6b42e7ec2c92bbec/1280/https://wrxcdn.golfwrx.com/uploads/monthly_2023_01/3FB41627-A47A-4A5C-9D29-C59DBA3A0399.jpeg.d96fcf0709149457618eea4fb6f23cf2.jpeg

/cdn-cgi/mirage/e7549045455b02c1e4dd55cd9c158750b835c990d012716c6b42e7ec2c92bbec/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/e7549045455b02c1e4dd55cd9c158750b835c990d012716c6b42e7ec2c92bbec/1280/https://wrxcdn.golfwrx.com/uploads/monthly_2023_01/993024F9-682A-4BCA-9DAC-0804A91FD31D.jpeg.b64972aeabe46805456f0081dc7418b7.jpeg

Never really thought about it, haven’t read 5 lessons for years but that picture with the glass looks eerily like the Justin rose drill. Mind blown

 

and second picture like Sergio. The right arm is almost straight while retaining wrist angle. 
 

amazing to me how the old greats figured this stuff out without video or even cameras at the time. Love this game. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Ex Blade User