Pressure shift to lead side, conscious move?

[baudi]

The 'automatic' reflexes have to be learned and felt. I agree with the words of Dunaway 'vital importance of setting up correctly and swinging back into a sound position at ToS'.

But his description in the paragraph above does not fully fit my ideas. I am missing a crucial aspect.

The phasing in my stage of transition has to go at a 'certain ease' compared to the backswing and the downswing.  

Here, the awareness of the inner clock for motion and timing is vital for flow and bridge the sequences.
If unaware / not sensing the proper rhythm, I tend to lose control over my swing. Hence I regard this as more conscious and less reflexive element.

Ask Johan Cruijff (he knew): if you're not on the right spot when you should be you're either too late or too soon.

Ask Mr. Fletcher (yes him): he teaches this point quite unorthodox: are you dragger or a rusher or are you gonna be on my f-ing time.

Or ask Arthur Schnabel (live performer): he explained it most elegantly.  'It's not the notes I handle better than many pianists. The pauses between the notes, that's where the art resides'.      

Universally it's all the same concept. Achieving this phenom at a consistent high level is challenging, at least for me.     

 

Edited March 6 by baudi
long gaze to cut to the chase

[cav5]

41 minutes ago, baudi said:

The 'automatic' reflexes have to be learned and felt. I agree with the words of Dunaway 'vital importance of setting up correctly and swinging back into a sound position at ToS'.

But his description in the paragraph above does not fully fit my ideas. I am missing a crucial aspect.

The phasing in my stage of transition has to go at a 'certain ease' compared to the backswing and the downswing.  

Here, the awareness of the inner clock for motion and timing is vital for flow and bridge the sequences.
If unaware / not sensing the proper rhythm, I tend to lose control over my swing. Hence I regard this as more conscious and less reflexive element.

Ask Johan Cruijff (he knew): if you're not on the right spot when you should be you're either too late or too soon.

Ask Mr. Fletcher (yes him): he teaches this point quite unorthodox: are you dragger or a rusher or are you gonna be on my f-ing time.

Or ask Arthur Schnabel (live performer): he explained it most elegantly.  'It's not the notes I handle better than many pianists. The pauses between the notes, that's where the art resides'.      

Universally it's all the same concept. Achieving this phenom at a consistent high level is challenging, at least for me.     

 

 

Great post. Its unteachable, but that can be freeing in it's own way. The elder masters of golfwrx hate when you say motion can only be learned. Everything else is a brutal description.

[Ajgaguy83]

3 hours ago, cav5 said:

 

Great post. Its unteachable, but that can be freeing in it's own way. The elder masters of golfwrx hate when you say motion can only be learned. Everything else is a brutal description.

 

 

You both are right...... but wrong.

 

All of the examples are correct, but here's something they fail to include in their statement........  Every one of those examples have supreme technical proficiency above the masses. Guess what, that's what makes them professionals, and excellent ones at that.

 

What they're trying to convey, but fail to do so properly....... which aligns with all the things you and others seems to hate when people bring this up, you have to first have supreme technical proficiency to be able to make pieces like Beethoven's opus 51 magical. You don't do that by having good technique. You only do that once you're achieve tour level (insert whatever sport, hobby, PROFESSION, you want) technique and that doesn’t happen by accident. It’s takes years of dedicated effort, instruction, etc. I can assure you all of those individuals had rigorous instruction and lessons. Hard work is the magic. No one gets there by just knowing/doing as you’re intending to portray. It’s not simply instinctual, even for those who it appears to be (i.e. check it out, they are all proud of their coaching lineage). 

 

Again, when dudes or dudets have forgotten more about a subject then you (myself included) have ever know/will ever know, you should pay attention.

 

Edited March 7 by Ajgaguy83
Added sentence indicating these people had lessons and instructions.

[johnrobison]

1 hour ago, cav5 said:

The elder masters of golfwrx hate when you say motion can only be learned.

I'd guess they do too, but only because it's nonsense talk that leads to nowhere.

 

But what else would we expect other than for you to come stumbling into another thread with nothing of value to further the discussion. Maybe I'm just frustrated the last month or so, but I'd swear the trolling activity has increased around here lately.

[Zitlow]

4 hours ago, cav5 said:

 

Never heard of Dunaway but I agree. Basically said this in another thread. Transition with goal of getting kinetic energy from body/arms into clubhead via the hands. You're ability to do that is your golf swing. You will be on lead side if you do this. Based on your grip and starting posture you'll have different looks to get the clubhead on the ball. When its eventual spiked acceleration matches up with the pivot's constant pace which had a head start...boom, release, no patterns necessary.

 

 

Yep, I think you're saying the transition is intuitive if the the body and club are in sync and in the correct position at the top. Most people are in a rush to get back to the ball. 

 

Mike Dunaway died in 2015, he learned from Mike Austin who died in 2005 at age 95. Austin was a pioneer in kinesiology, the study of muscular motion. They didn't force the clubhead to the ball.

 

I was fortunate to have taken lessons from both of them, their swings looked pretty conventional but they didn't do what most teachers teach today. 

 

Dunaway in 1997 using a 44" GBB Driver, SW D7. It was heavy, felt like a sledge hammer. 

 

 

Edited March 7 by Zitlow

[Valtiel]

8 hours ago, cav5 said:

Transition with goal of getting kinetic energy from body/arms into clubhead via the hands. You're ability to do that is your golf swing. You will be on lead side if you do this. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Zitlow said:

 

Yep, I think you're saying the transition is intuitive if the the body and club are in sync and in the correct position at the top. Most people are in a rush to get back to the ball. 

 

 

Yes, and the whole point of the confrontation that you @Zitlow are once again completely side-stepping like it doesn't exist is that people "rush" because they get stuck for several reasons, the main one discussed here being improper pressure sequencing. @cav5 said basically the same thing you were either arguing against earlier and worded so poorly that it appeared that way, which is "You will be on lead side if you do this [correctly]". 

Your previous assertion complete with condescending responses was that you are "stacked on that back leg at the top of the swing and then it comes through like a freight train while your left side automatically knows what to do and you don't need to 'micromanage' it. This is completely assbackwards in terms of what people tend to struggle with because it encourages exactly what you just said; rushing. If you're stacked on the back leg and have made no effort to create momentum towards your front leg *until* the downswing starts then it's already too late, and only elite pros ever approach attempting to create forward momentum in such a small window at the top, like the examples I took time to provide that you have once again ignored. 

No one cares how many Mikes you've taken lessons with if you continue to spout bad advice and ignore any challenge to your ideas. 

Edited March 7 by Valtiel

[Avidswampthing66]

On 2/28/2024 at 4:34 PM, cav5 said:

Smoothness throughout just makes the club heavier, sooner, and now you can't move at all

To be smooth, is to be dead.  To be quick and jerky is how pivot to the trailside flip hanger.  This is the way.

[Ajgaguy83]

1 hour ago, Zitlow said:

I was fortunate to have taken lessons from both of them, their swings looked pretty conventional but they didn't do what most teachers teach today. 

 

Dunaway in 1997 using a 44" GBB Driver, SW D7. It was heavy, felt like a sledge hammer. 

 

Must have been using 

 

In all seriousness.... great drives, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I'm not saying it didn't happen, nor am I saying it's not impressive, etc. or anything else. Let's separate that from your statement, "their swings looked pretty conventional but they didn't do what most teachers teach today." Let's discuss that...... in regards to the thread topic.

 

Does that mean their swings are bad or incapable of producing good results, no. But indicating that their swings don't do what most teachers teach today does tell us something. Time moves on, we learn and have the ability to adapt. There's a great book about the formation of trails (hiking) and how those paths are well worm because we (humans or animals depending on the trail) figure out the best path, the most efficient path, the path of least resistance (but that doesn't mean lazy or without effort/work).

 

That's what's frustrating about these continual threads and arguments. There's new data, en mass, that shows the "old" (insert whatever old golf adage you want, isn't optimal).  In everything else in life we appreciate innovation and new trends. Again, your words not mine, that your teachers' swings aren't similar to today's teaching. Is that good or bad for the majority of golfers? I'm being serious. Why isn't their teaching being taught today if we have more data and ability to analyze the golf swing? Becoming the best possible golfer is big business. Anything that captures that large of a market will find and provide the best way.

 

A wise man once said...... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sean124]

I did not expect to see Macho Man in this thread. Kind of made my night 🤣

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Zitlow said:

Once the motion is trained…

 

That's something you gloss over in almost every post you ever make.

 

As for Mike Austin the scientist…

 

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, Valtiel said:

. If you're stacked on the back leg and have made no effort to create momentum towards your front leg *until* the downswing starts then it's already too late, and only elite pros ever approach attempting to create forward momentum in such a small window at the top,

I think that rear post golfers are able to to load up on the trail side and then start the journey forward as the downswing begins.  The predominant force is horizontal and going a bit later is fine for those players per Mike Adams system. 

 

I seem to be able to do either front or rear post in my own fashion (not what we might call pro quality) and both work but the rear post system takes some pressure off of my tender lead hip.  I actually feel like I have more time when I do the rear post swing so maybe I naturally fit that system. 

 

LOL, the second paragraph is a nobody believes it and nobody cares sort of statement but such is life I just can't help myself sometimes.

[MonteScheinblum]

3 hours ago, Valtiel said:

 

Yes, and the whole point of the confrontation that you @Zitlow are once again completely side-stepping like it doesn't exist is that people "rush" because they get stuck for several reasons, the main one discussed here being improper pressure sequencing. @cav5 said basically the same thing you were either arguing against earlier and worded so poorly that it appeared that way, which is "You will be on lead side if you do this [correctly]". 

Your previous assertion complete with condescending responses was that you are "stacked on that back leg at the top of the swing and then it comes through like a freight train while your left side automatically knows what to do and you don't need to 'micromanage' it. This is completely assbackwards in terms of what people tend to struggle with because it encourages exactly what you just said; rushing. If you're stacked on the back leg and have made no effort to create momentum towards your front leg *until* the downswing starts then it's already too late, and only elite pros ever approach attempting to create forward momentum in such a small window at the top, like the examples to took time to provide that you have once again ignored. 

No one cares how many Mikes you've taken lessons with if you continue to spout bad advice and ignore any challenge to your ideas. 

The number of golfers on my lesson tee during 2023 that were stacked right at the top and didn’t have low point control issues was 1.  A former Major League Baseball player.

 

The percentage of those people who attempted to initiate the pressure shift forward before the end of the backswing, the incidence of low points no longer behind the ball with a short iron and increased their club head speed between 3 and 10%……..was 100%.

 

When I was a high level player in the 90’s I had the luxury of having as many cockamamie theories as I wanted on what a good golf swing entailed.  When my job became making people actually improve I no longer was afforded that luxury.

[Nels55]

12 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

The number of golfers on my lesson tee during 2023 that were stacked right at the top and didn’t have low point control issues was 1.  A former Major League Baseball player.

A couple of questions that I am curious about:

Did he have a step through swing like Gary Player?

Did you change him to shift earlier?

[MonteScheinblum]

11 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

A couple of questions that I am curious about:

Did he have a step through swing like Gary Player?

Did you change him to shift earlier?

No and no.  I only make changes that are necessary to affect misses.

[Nels55]

4 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

No and no.  I only make changes that are necessary to affect misses.

Okay, one more thing, did he have a strong lead hand grip?  Maybe an under trail hand?

[MonteScheinblum]

4 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Okay, one more thing, did he have a strong lead hand grip?  Maybe an under trail hand?

No pretty neutral 

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

I think that rear post golfers are able to to load up on the trail side and then start the journey forward as the downswing begins.  The predominant force is horizontal and going a bit later is fine for those players per Mike Adams system. 

 

I seem to be able to do either front or rear post in my own fashion (not what we might call pro quality) and both work but the rear post system takes some pressure off of my tender lead hip.  I actually feel like I have more time when I do the rear post swing so maybe I naturally fit that system. 

 

LOL, the second paragraph is a nobody believes it and nobody cares sort of statement but such is life I just can't help myself sometimes.

Don't disagree, but even "load up on the trail side" is something that has plenty of right and wrong in it, so golfers of all "posts" still need to understand the things about sequence with their "post" simply informing the "how" IMO. 

That is where I think the potential for talking past each other comes from, and I think in two main ways:

1) An understanding of where we are actually starting from in a mechanical sense. Instructors are definitely guilty of this from time to time, and I know I have been too, and it's the varying degrees to which the conversation *starts* with what pros do without bridging the gap between that and where the average amateur actually *is*. It's the basic hierarchy of competence:



Pros all exist in the top two spots and occasionally dip down into the third when struggling. The things that they know and/or struggle with are things literally invisible to many average golfers, literally just like a different language for many. To jump straight to talking about them is to overwhelm and/or waste their time without a bridge or some sort of decoder ring to reach some element of "conscious". And I definitely do *not* say that as someone with all the knowledge, I just have enough to see the whole pyramid and strong memory of what it was like to not. 

2) The second problem is simply how our understanding of the golf swing has evolved with time and technology and whether everyone else's has evolved with it. If anyone formed an understanding of the golf swing prior to modern measuring techniques and had *nothing* about it change after them....i'm skeptical. It's certainly possible, but that would need to be verified thoroughly. Elite players of the past have said some pretty verifiably wrong things about the golf swing we can easily prove now and plenty of old instructional ideas and -isms have fallen away for similar reasons. Plenty of good stuff too though of course. 

There are only a handful of true "objectives" in the golf swing and a thousand personal "subjectives" for how to think about and realize them. Quacks, conmen, and sometimes well meaning enthusiasts live in the myriad of subjectives and build little houses around them to contain their philosophies. These are useless unless the student or recipient of the information happens to be your neighbor, and until the level of "conscious" is reached when it comes to all the moving parts, someone preaching the truly objective and someone hocking the subjective can look the same when they are not. 

 

Edited March 7 by Valtiel

[GolfTurkey]

I don't know how anyone can say they are a middle-post golfer with a straight face

[MonteScheinblum]

2 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

I don't know how anyone can say they are a middle-post golfer with a straight face

I’m a middle finger golfer.  

[MonteScheinblum]

43 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

Don't disagree, but even "load up on the trail side" is something that has plenty of right and wrong in it, so golfers of all "posts" still need to understand the things about sequence with their "post" simply informing the "how" IMO. 

That is where I think the potential for talking past each other comes from, and I think in two main ways:

1) An understanding of where we are actually starting from in a mechanical sense. Instructors are definitely guilty of this from time to time, and I know I have been too, and it's the varying degrees to which the conversation *starts* with what pros do without bridging the gap between that and where the average amateur actually *is*. It's the basic hierarchy of competence:



Pros all exist in the top two spots and occasionally dip down into the third when struggling. The things that they know and/or struggle with are things literally invisible to many average golfers, literally just like a different language for many. To jump straight to talking about them is to overwhelm and/or waste their time without a bridge or some sort of decoder ring to reach some element of "conscious". And I definitely do *not* say that as someone with all the knowledge, I just have enough to see the whole pyramid and strong memory of what it was like to not. 

2) The second problem is simply how our understanding of the golf swing has evolved with time and technology and whether everyone else's has evolved with it. If anyone formed an understanding of the golf swing prior to modern measuring techniques and had *nothing* about it change after them....i'm skeptical. It's certainly possible, but that would need to be verified thoroughly. Elite players of the past have said some pretty verifiably wrong things about the golf swing we can easily prove now and plenty of old instructional ideas and -isms have fallen away for similar reasons. Plenty of good stuff too though of course. 

There are only a handful of true "objectives" in the golf swing and a thousand personal "subjectives" for how to think about and realize them. Quacks, conmen, and sometimes well meaning enthusiasts live in the myriad of subjectives and build little houses around them to contain their philosophies. These are useless unless the student or recipient of the information happens to be your neighbor, and until the level of "conscious" is reached when it comes to all the moving parts, someone preaching the truly objective and someone hocking the subjective can look the same when they are not. 

 

Such a good passage that I put in bold.  Here’s the fun part.  Most of the true objectives are scoffed at by the majority because they go against decades old tightly held narratives.  Hold lag, shift weight, swing to right field, etc.

Edited March 7 by MonteScheinblum

[Golf_Goof]

9 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

I don't know how anyone can say they are a middle-post golfer with a straight face

Maybe it depends on how large one's middle post is? 😉

[Nels55]

26 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

Don't disagree, but even "load up on the trail side" is something that has plenty of right and wrong in it, so golfers of all "posts" still need to understand the things about sequence with their "post" simply informing the "how" IMO. 

That is where I think the potential for talking past each other comes from, and I think in two main ways:

1) An understanding of where we are actually starting from in a mechanical sense. Instructors are definitely guilty of this from time to time, and I know I have been too, and it's the varying degrees to which the conversation *starts* with what pros do without bridging the gap between that and where the average amateur actually *is*. It's the basic hierarchy of competence:



Pros all exist in the top two spots and occasionally dip down into the third when struggling. The things that they know and/or struggle with are things literally invisible to many average golfers, literally just like a different language for many. To jump straight to talking about them is to overwhelm and/or waste their time without a bridge or some sort of decoder ring to reach some element of "conscious". And I definitely do *not* say that as someone with all the knowledge, I just have enough to see the whole pyramid and strong memory of what it was like to not. 

2) The second problem is simply how our understanding of the golf swing has evolved with time and technology and whether everyone else's has evolved with it. If anyone formed an understanding of the golf swing prior to modern measuring techniques and had *nothing* about it change after them....i'm skeptical. It's certainly possible, but that would need to be verified thoroughly. Elite players of the past have said some pretty verifiably wrong things about the golf swing we can easily prove now and plenty of old instructional ideas and -isms have fallen away for similar reasons. Plenty of good stuff too though of course. 

There are only a handful of true "objectives" in the golf swing and a thousand personal "subjectives" for how to think about and realize them. Quacks, conmen, and sometimes well meaning enthusiasts live in the myriad of subjectives and build little houses around them to contain their philosophies. These are useless unless the student or recipient of the information happens to be your neighbor, and until the level of "conscious" is reached when it comes to all the moving parts, someone preaching the truly objective and someone hocking the subjective can look the same when they are not. 

 

I agree with what you said in the first post other then the small detail of rear post players who actually have a good swing.  Average golfers who stand up on the backswing with a flat shoulder turn and never get to the lead side at all are a lot more common then rear post golfers like Luke Donald who actually shifted very close to the start of the through swing.  LOL telling everyone to get on the trail side and then fire the trail hip around the posted lead leg is unfortunate.  Not going to work for the vast majority of golfers.

[baudi]

3 hours ago, Valtiel said:

1) An understanding of where we are actually starting from in a mechanical sense. Instructors are definitely guilty of this from time to time, and I know I have been too, and it's the varying degrees to which the conversation *starts* with what pros do without bridging the gap between that and where the average amateur actually *is*. It's the basic hierarchy of competence:



Pros all exist in the top two spots and occasionally dip down into the third when struggling.

OT -Sorry to intervene. This model is often brought to life. 

The model you posted is nothing more than an abstract descriptive theory for a learning process. It simply and only deals with individuals learning new skills or skill sets. No matter who you are or how good you are. If the model is right; serious practitioners (or observers) might recognize the phases when learning but it is limited. 

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Valtiel said:

Quacks, conmen, and sometimes well meaning enthusiasts live in the myriad of subjectives and build little houses around them to contain their philosophies.

 

Look at you, @Valtiel, subtweeting so many… 🤣

[cav5]

14 hours ago, Avidswampthing66 said:

To be smooth, is to be dead.  To be quick and jerky is how pivot to the trailside flip hanger.  This is the way.

LOL didn't know you could bring something from another thread. But yeah, try to smoothly lift and add speed to 300lbs sitting on the ground.

[cav5]

On 3/6/2024 at 4:32 PM, Ajgaguy83 said:

 

 

You both are right...... but wrong.

 

All of the examples are correct, but here's something they fail to include in their statement........  Every one of those examples have supreme technical proficiency above the masses. Guess what, that's what makes them professionals, and excellent ones at that.

 

What they're trying to convey, but fail to do so properly....... which aligns with all the things you and others seems to hate when people bring this up, you have to first have supreme technical proficiency to be able to make pieces like Beethoven's opus 51 magical. You don't do that by having good technique. You only do that once you're achieve tour level (insert whatever sport, hobby, PROFESSION, you want) technique and that doesn’t happen by accident. It’s takes years of dedicated effort, instruction, etc. I can assure you all of those individuals had rigorous instruction and lessons. Hard work is the magic. No one gets there by just knowing/doing as you’re intending to portray. It’s not simply instinctual, even for those who it appears to be (i.e. check it out, they are all proud of their coaching lineage). 

 

Again, when dudes or dudets have forgotten more about a subject then you (myself included) have ever know/will ever know, you should pay attention.

 

 

Don't know why you think I'd disagree with this. Of course hard work is key. I'm just saying a golf swing motion is not the piano or math. Both which can be taught and learned. This note is this key. This much plus that much equals this. I played piano in front of a hundred people from age 9-12. I hated it but its right in front of you to get better because a notes a note. I also took golf lessons. Hard work is the only transfer.

 

There is no sliding scale of vagueness. My compound lift analogies are just as invalid as moving down the right leg. You don't master a golf motion by understanding it or knowing what it is. I don't get what's so hard about that.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, cav5 said:

I'm just saying a golf swing motion is not the piano or math. Both which can be taught and learned.

 

Since you can't possibly be saying the golf swing can't be taught and/or learned… I think you've once again failed to make clear what you're actually trying to say.

The golf swing can be taught and learned. People teach it and learn it every day. At every level.

 

Are they exactly the same as a nearly completely mental thing (math) or something like playing the piano (which isn't entirely mental)? No.

 

Edited March 8 by iacas
clarified

[PedronNiall]

On 3/7/2024 at 12:22 AM, Golf_Goof said:

Maybe it depends on how large one's middle post is? 😉

 

 

@cav5 Your continual claims that the golf swing can neither be understood nor taught are a special kind of strange. While the concepts that make up a fully developed, optimal swing for an individual become more and more complex, the basic conditions for setup & swing are easily understood and explained, as are the simpler movements that help to facilitate a sound full swing.

 

We've been able to see how categorically & fundamentally similar much of the golf swing is to the athletic motions used for tennis, baseball, and any other stick & ball sports. A huge barrier up until now has been the mysticism that you're espousing, that golf is some unknowable, unteachable bit of magic. I'd happily wager that as more of the former and less of the latter becomes the norm, there will be a lot more average players enjoying the game and a lot more players in total capable of achieving scores of par or better.

[Ajgaguy83]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

Since you can't possibly be saying the golf swing can't be taught and/or learned… I think you've once again failed to make clear what you're actually trying to say.

Scary things is that does seem to be what he’s indicating.

 

Where to begin…… there’s so many things that are incorrect in his last response quoting me.

 

No point trying to address them….. but why not?

 

A note isn’t a note. Any real pianist will tell you that’s the same as saying you’re wedge game is the same as Phil’s, Seve’s, whoever you prefer, because well a chip is a chip, a lob is a lob, and a pitch and is pitch. Silly analogy isn’t it, but a short game IS a short game per your analogy. 
 

12 hours ago, cav5 said:

You don't master a golf motion by understanding it or knowing what it is.

Correct, just like you don’t master piano or math by being able to read treble and bass clefs, or understand the math associated with theoretical physics because well, “that plus that” equals, let’s say 4. The irony is, no one claims to have mastery by having greater understanding. All that does is make the path easier.

 

I’m guessing you had piano lessons and a teacher?

 

There’s an old saying, all non-conformists conform to non-conformity.

 

Lastly, since golf can’t be taught because it’s not a note or equation, why do you continually try to teach it and spend so much time espousing perceived teaching information?

 

You say, 

 

12 hours ago, cav5 said:

I don't get what's so hard about that.

 

but honestly, like for real, do you not see the irony given everything I just mentioned (not to mention that of others).

 

 

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Since you can't possibly be saying the golf swing can't be taught and/or learned… I think you've once again failed to make clear what you're actually trying to say.

The golf swing can be taught and learned. People teach it and learn it every day. At every level.

 

Are they exactly the same as a nearly completely mental thing (math) or something like playing the piano (which isn't entirely mental)? No.

 

he’s acknowledged in another thread that self teaching is still teaching and learning so he knows it can be taught and learned. But once again he is either trolling or not clearly communication his thoughts