Should the wrists hinge vertically or should trail wrist go into extension on backswing?

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

Now, I'm curious about your take on this feel of theirs. 

 

My take is that I have no idea what they're talking about. The wrists absolutely do what they say they don't do or that "does nothing in the golf swing" or whatever it was they said.

 

The trail wrist folds back some and radially deviates some. This is measured and known.

 

8 hours ago, JayMas said:

Not an instructor, but this seems weird to me. Would make sense for someone with too much radial as a focus/feel, but to say radial deviation is one of the biggest fallacies in golf seems like a real hot take? The wrists do radially deviate even if it isn't a lot, I can't believe that would be in question or someone would say they do not do that.

 

I'll just assume it's a "many should feel this extreme" because they often do too much of the opposite, especially because Milo and his team/guests seem to be good instructors.

 

Agreed.

 

4 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

You tell a guy who over vertical hinges and extends the lead wrist at the top to get more right wrist bend.  You tell the guy who has nearly a 180* angle between his lead arm and the shaft and whips the club head inside and ends in arm over run he needs more radial (vertical hinge).

 

…
 

Use a hack motion for 3 swings and look at a graph of a neutral swinging elite player and you’ll have the answer to this whole thread.

 

Yep.

 

As for the rest… boy, it's just not worth it. Happy New Year, y'all.

[Nels55]

6 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

That’s right up there with the Foley video explaining that the hiss sound of the ball after impact is air coming out of the seams.

Milo et al are talking about trail wrist ulnar deviation.  It is possible to swing well with or without it.  The trail wrist motion demoed in the video is pretty much Jack Kuykendal's straight line ideal mechanical advantage motion though they probably don't pay any attention to lining the shaft up with the trail arm ulnar bone at setup.  It is a way to swing and it works okay and it may be ideal for some.

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Milo et al are talking about trail wrist ulnar deviation.

 

In which video? When?

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

In which video? When?

 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

 

 

When the lead wrist deviates (ulnar or radial), the trail wrist does too.

 

Occasionally you get a golfer whose hands are almost 90° to each other, so radially deviating the lead hand will extend the trail hand or something, but… generally speaking, radially deviating the left will radially deviate the right.

 

Both actions (folding back and hinging/radially deviating) happen in the golf swing (as do their opposite motions).

[MonteScheinblum]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

When the lead wrist deviates (ulnar or radial), the trail wrist does too.

 

Occasionally you get a golfer whose hands are almost 90° to each other, so radially deviating the lead hand will extend the trail hand or something, but… generally speaking, radially deviating the left will radially deviate the right.

 

Both actions (folding back and hinging/radially deviating) happen in the golf swing (as do their opposite motions).

It’s not like these things have been measured to death.

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

 

When the lead wrist deviates (ulnar or radial), the trail wrist does too.

 

Occasionally you get a golfer whose hands are almost 90° to each other, so radially deviating the lead hand will extend the trail hand or something, but… generally speaking, radially deviating the left will radially deviate the right.

 

Both actions (folding back and hinging/radially deviating) happen in the golf swing (as do their opposite motions).

Milo uses a strong lead hand butterfly grip and with that grip or something close to it it is fairly easy to put the trail wrist in extension with no or very little radial deviation while the lead wrist is in full radial with possibly a bit of flexion thrown in.  That is what was demonstrated in the video imho.  

[MonteScheinblum]

54 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Milo uses a strong lead hand butterfly grip and with that grip or something close to it it is fairly easy to put the trail wrist in extension with no or very little radial deviation while the lead wrist is in full radial with possibly a bit of flexion thrown in.  That is what was demonstrated in the video imho.  

…and that’s fine, but to say it’s a fallacy to vertical hinge as an absolute is the age old problem of teaching what works for you instead of what’s generally correct and what’s right for the individual.  

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Milo uses a strong lead hand butterfly grip and with that grip or something close to it it is fairly easy to put the trail wrist in extension with no or very little radial deviation while the lead wrist is in full radial with possibly a bit of flexion thrown in.  That is what was demonstrated in the video imho.  

It’s not 90° to his right hand. Plus what @MonteScheinblum said.

[Righty to Lefty]

16 hours ago, glk said:

Measured data says there is lead deflection in swings but as usual you are right and the shaft doesn't bend toward the target at impact - not.   Especially for elite swings.  See Tutelman data with writeup by wishon included.  Now for hacks that early release the shaft might be inline but wishon has said he has never seen a shaft being away from the target.  Come on, be open minded like you preach to others.

 

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/shafts/ShaftLab3.php

Once again I never said the shaft is trailing, I said that the shaft is very close to being in a straight line after I incorrectly said that it doesn't lean forward, as it technically does by some amount.  The shaft absolutely does bend towards the target at impact and you can clearly see it in the still frame of Rory as the club head encounters the resistance from striking the ball the midsection of the shaft deflect towards the target: 

 

So I guess Rory is a hacker because if we can't agree that Rory's shaft is for all intents and purposes in a straight line at impact then we can agree to disagree I suppose but to say that it is leaning forward by some crazy amount, which it obviously is not, would be disingenuous even if it is technically leaning forward a few millimeters if measured.  

 

The force that I was demonstrating in my video is an example of the input that the golfer makes and simulates impact force.  As the club encounters resistance from the ball and the ground the shaft is flexed towards the target because that hands are actively working to stop the handle end of the club and create stability and that is perfectly demonstrated by this DJ iron shot.  The shaft is not trailing the handle end, and I never said that it was, the shaft is roughly inline with the hands until the club is is rapidly decelerated by striking the ball and then ground, and the mid section of the shaft is deflected towards the target.  

 

The club is not under any force from the golfer at address so you can't aim it because the club will not return to that same position at impact. You have to simulate impact to aim a shot and then over time you will develop an awareness for how to predict it.  Trust me my mind has been wide open ever since I picked up a left handed club and started over after playing right handed during my whole golf life.  

 

[glk]

36 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

Once again I never said the shaft is trailing, I said that the shaft is very close to being in a straight line after I incorrectly said that it doesn't lean forward, as it technically does by some amount.  The shaft absolutely does bend towards the target at impact and you can clearly see it in the still frame of Rory as the club head encounters the resistance from striking the ball the midsection of the shaft deflect towards the target: 

 

So I guess Rory is a hacker because if we can't agree that Rory's shaft is for all intents and purposes in a straight line at impact then we can agree to disagree I suppose but to say that it is leaning forward by some crazy amount, which it obviously is not, would be disingenuous even if it is technically leaning forward a few millimeters if measured.  

 

The force that I was demonstrating in my video is an example of the input that the golfer makes and simulates impact force.  As the club encounters resistance from the ball and the ground the shaft is flexed towards the target because that hands are actively working to stop the handle end of the club and create stability and that is perfectly demonstrated by this DJ iron shot.  The shaft is not trailing the handle end, and I never said that it was, the shaft is roughly inline with the hands until the club is is rapidly decelerated by striking the ball and then ground, and the mid section of the shaft is deflected towards the target.  

 

The club is not under any force from the golfer at address so you can't aim it because the club will not return to that same position at impact. You have to simulate impact to aim a shot and then over time you will develop an awareness for how to predict it.  Trust me my mind has been wide open ever since I picked up a left handed club and started over after playing right handed during my whole golf life.  

 

Ok you admit you mistaking said the shaft can't be in lead deflection.   However to be able to see shaft deflection from a camera one needs a high speed camera like a phantom     On Rory's swing you posted a photo that is one frame too late so that impact has already affected the shaft.   Here is one frame before impact and a very slight lead bend can be seen (I had to enlarge it on my iMac to see it - would be better to have a high speed video so could capture frames right before impact).

 

 

[Nels55]

7 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

…and that’s fine, but to say it’s a fallacy to vertical hinge as an absolute is the age old problem of teaching what works for you instead of what’s generally correct and what’s right for the individual.  

Yes.  I spent a number of years trying to make various single axis swings with the straight line motion and I hurt my lead thumb and played a lot of not so good golf.  There is a pretty much dead forum dedicated to the subject:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/sagfmoderator/single-axis-golf-forum-f72052/ 

 

It's doable but perhaps not such a good idea for most golfers.  I am curious if you ever met Scott Hazledyne?  He was the main instructor for NG when Jack Kuykendahl started it.  Later on he made a living doing golf schools and selling VHS tapes for some number of years.  He was called "dial a shot Scott" by tour players when he played.  It would be really interesting to see data for his "Single Axis" "Straight Line" swing to see exactly what was going on there.   

[MonteScheinblum]

3 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Yes.  I spent a number of years trying to make various single axis swings with the straight line motion and I hurt my lead thumb and played a lot of not so good golf.  There is a pretty much dead forum dedicated to the subject:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/sagfmoderator/single-axis-golf-forum-f72052/ 

 

It's doable but perhaps not such a good idea for most golfers.  I am curious if you ever met Scott Hazledyne?  He was the main instructor for NG when Jack Kuykendahl started it.  Later on he made a living doing golf schools and selling VHS tapes for some number of years.  He was called "dial a shot Scott" by tour players when he played.  It would be really interesting to see data for his "Single Axis" "Straight Line" swing to see exactly what was going on there.   

Those are marketing terms just like no turn cast and broom force.  I know what you’re talking about and I’d bet someone who did it correctly, it wouldnt look terribly different on the downswing in 3D, just a “more difficult” way IMO, of making a backswing. 

[Nels55]

22 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Those are marketing terms just like no turn cast and broom force.  I know what you’re talking about and I’d bet someone who did it correctly, it wouldnt look terribly different on the downswing in 3D, just a “more difficult” way IMO, of making a backswing. 

LOL that is funny that you say "more difficult".  IMA was touted as an easier way to swing!  Devotee's of the method did love to argue that one.  It does not seem like there are not many around anymore though. 

 

The 'single axis' is patented and I will attempt an explanation in case anyone is interested.  LOL unlikely but you never know.  The idea is that the club gripped in the lifeline of the trail hand and in line with the ulnar bone of the trail arm.  During the swing the club shaft and arm relationship remains on the same plane which is moving through space and is not the swing plane.  That relationship forms the 'single axis'.  Okay, I reckon that is enough of this stuff...  

[MonteScheinblum]

4 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

LOL that is funny that you say "more difficult".  IMA was touted as an easier way to swing!  Devotee's of the method did love to argue that one.  It does not seem like there are not many around anymore though. 

 

The 'single axis' is patented and I will attempt an explanation in case anyone is interested.  LOL unlikely but you never know.  The idea is that the club gripped in the lifeline of the trail hand and in line with the ulnar bone of the trail arm.  During the swing the club shaft and arm relationship remains on the same plane which is moving through space and is not the swing plane.  That relationship forms the 'single axis'.  Okay, I reckon that is enough of this stuff...  

This is what gets lost on most.  When you look at pga tour players both past and present and the overwhelming majority do certain moves relatively the same way, Occam’s razor should make it clear that’s likely the easiest way.

 

When someone tries to force a 3D motion into an into what is seemingly a more simple linear 2D pattern, it may sell, but it’s not easier.

 

It’s the equivalent of aiming a Saturn rocket at the moon.  It may seem easier, but it’s not and it won’t work.

[virtuoso]

3 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

This is what gets lost on most.  When you look at pga tour players both past and present and the overwhelming majority do certain moves relatively the same way, Occam’s razor should make it clear that’s likely the easiest way.

 

When someone tries to force a 3D motion into an into what is seemingly a more simple linear 2D pattern, it may sell, but it’s not easier.

 

It’s the equivalent of aiming a Saturn rocket at the moon.  It may seem easier, but it’s not and it won’t work.

Yeah, the single plane, one plane, single axis, one club length stuff is all completely backwards in their stated aim vs their real application.

 

Most of these theory advocates will tell you it’s very science-y…..but it’s science-y in the way a 7th grader would look at science.

[MonteScheinblum]

39 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

Yeah, the single plane, one plane, single axis, one club length stuff is all completely backwards in their stated aim vs their real application.

 

Most of these theory advocates will tell you it’s very science-y…..but it’s science-y in the way a 7th grader would look at science.

Love the avatar lol

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

This is what gets lost on most.  When you look at pga tour players both past and present and the overwhelming majority do certain moves relatively the same way, Occam’s razor should make it clear that’s likely the easiest way.

 

When someone tries to force a 3D motion into an into what is seemingly a more simple linear 2D pattern, it may sell, but it’s not easier.

 

It’s the equivalent of aiming a Saturn rocket at the moon.  It may seem easier, but it’s not and it won’t work.

Ha ha no way you have it all wrong!  The tour player’s swing is way too complicated and requires world class timing!  Average golfers cannot do it and will never be able to hit the ball  on target or solidly.  X method on the other hand simplifies the swing and makes golf easy and fun.  We have a special half off price right now but hurry as this pricing won’t last!
 

 Funny how that line can seem so logical but really doesn’t make much sense…

[virtuoso]

1 hour ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Love the avatar lol

As you discovered—it’s been my true identity all along.

[Righty to Lefty]

21 hours ago, glk said:

Ok you admit you mistaking said the shaft can't be in lead deflection.   However to be able to see shaft deflection from a camera one needs a high speed camera like a phantom     On Rory's swing you posted a photo that is one frame too late so that impact has already affected the shaft.   Here is one frame before impact and a very slight lead bend can be seen (I had to enlarge it on my iMac to see it - would be better to have a high speed video so could capture frames right before impact).

 

 

I have absolutely no problem being wrong because look at all the information that you put out not just to me but everyone that now pushes the knowledge of the thread/forum forward so much appreciated for that.  From that photo that you posted it demonstrates something that I often struggled to explain and would often get a lot of push back and that is that the hands are not only working in opposition to each other, but that they are also working very hard to stop the handle end of the club to transfer force onward to the club head while creating  also stability.  Now that you mention the lead deflection take a look at this video that I made some years ago for a buddy trying to explain what I was feeling from the perspective of my input from the golfer's perspective.  I just didn't realize that if you create enough opposition to the club that the shaft/ club head will actually go into lead deflection.

 

 

 

This is also why I was not worried about wrist angles and that is because I felt how much force was being created and realized that the wrists are busy stabilizing the club and have very little input on the shot while they are under force even while using just the alignment sticks as I have now moved on to using a tsunami bar that is the basically the same concept, but magnified. Either way thanks for your post.  R to L

[DShepley]

This thread is a train wreck

[Righty to Lefty]

21 minutes ago, DShepley said:

This thread is a train wreck

I mentioned my stance on not needing to monitor wrist angles in my post and feel that the reason why is because of the videos that I posted.  This thread would not have this much traction if it weren't for the small talk on the side that can be added.  We talkin bout wrist hinge,  that thread would be 1 page long if all we talked about was wrist hinge because someone would have posted the answer then everyone else would have moved on.  

[Nels55]

48 minutes ago, DShepley said:

This thread is a train wreck

It’s interesting that popular threads almost always get that comment.  Stimulating conversations tend to move in odd directions.  Dead threads stay on topic.

[kowalgolf]

57 minutes ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I mentioned my stance on not needing to monitor wrist angles in my post and feel that the reason why is because of the videos that I posted.  This thread would not have this much traction if it weren't for the small talk on the side that can be added.  We talkin bout wrist hinge,  that thread would be 1 page long if all we talked about was wrist hinge because someone would have posted the answer then everyone else would have moved on.  

I see where your coming from. I hope I'm not going down another rabbit hole because I saw an old Ben Hogan drill where he puts the butt end of the club on his rear hip and rotates 90 degrees to impact. It changes my sequence where my torso seems to be working better. I've been working the last 3 yrs. with the wrists(Hackmotion) and the lowering of the arms in the DS. Not getting the results I want but I'm a perfectionist which is bad. I've been playing 63 yrs. and I kind of understand the swing in general but the sequence still remains a mystery.

[DShepley]

1 hour ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I mentioned my stance on not needing to monitor wrist angles in my post and feel that the reason why is because of the videos that I posted.  This thread would not have this much traction if it weren't for the small talk on the side that can be added.  We talkin bout wrist hinge,  that thread would be 1 page long if all we talked about was wrist hinge because someone would have posted the answer then everyone else would have moved on.  

The line between traction and distraction is a fine one for sure.

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

It’s interesting that popular threads almost always get that comment.  Stimulating conversations tend to move in odd directions.  Dead threads stay on topic.

Absolutely.  I’ll never understand why folks are afraid of conversation.  Ideas aren’t harmful.  Keep the good. Flush the  bad. 

[Soloman1]

Ever tried to have a conversation with a flat-earther? 🙂

 

[Nels55]

3 hours ago, Righty to Lefty said:

I mentioned my stance on not needing to monitor wrist angles in my post and feel that the reason why is because of the videos that I posted.  This thread would not have this much traction if it weren't for the small talk on the side that can be added.  We talkin bout wrist hinge,  that thread would be 1 page long if all we talked about was wrist hinge because someone would have posted the answer then everyone else would have moved on.  

"Wrist hinge" is different for everyone depending on how they are built and how they grip the club.  Different grip strengths of lead and trail hand can accommodate different hinging motions.  Physical attributes also play a large effect.  There is no universal right answer.

[Soloman1]

The amount is different.

[Nels55]

Just now, Soloman1 said:

Ever tried to have a conversation with a flat-earther? 🙂

 

Yeah.  Sometimes they or depending on the discussion maybe I can learn something...  Monte's signature says it all in that regard.  If you think you know everything it can impede the learning process.