Passive Release vs Active Release

[pdkim2001]

Which generates more speed?

Hi!

I have been a passive release/flatter swinger but recently have been considering a change to a more active/upright swing. Does one generate more speed than the other?

Thanks to anyone offering any insight.

[TEConnor]

Hi!

 

I have been a passive release/flatter swinger but recently have been considering a change to a more active/upright swing. Done one generate more speed than the other?

 

Thanks to anyone offering any insight.

 

I have hit the ball pretty far with both methods. About 18 months ago I set off on a quest to learn a "rotary" swing with a "passive" release as you call it. Before that I had VERY active hands in the release, especially with the driver. I have noticed that my average well-struck shot goes the same distance with either method. I am much more consistent and accurate with the passive, body release (low and left as Slicefixer calls it) and that has actually improved my driving. However, when I really caught one with the flip they did seem to carry maybe 10 yards farther (though they tended to spin more too). On the monitor I probably have lost 2 - 4 mph in my average swing speed, but as I said, my spin has dropped a lot for the average driver and the smash factor is better...it all is a wash for consistent distance. I'm just now starting to feel really comfortable in release hard (low and left) with the body. I think that once I really get it down, I'll be right back to where I was distance-wise for some of the bombs that I would pull out once in a while with the flip. The advantage, however, is that I never ever ever hit it left unless I want to. Man does it feel great stepping up to long par 4 with trouble left and saying to myself, well I think I'll aim a few yards to the right of the OB stake, release hard left, and go play my shot from the fairway. With the FLIP, I would have approached this shot as follows, "Oh holy mother...OB left...don't hit it left whatever you do just don't go left ball.......DAGNABBIT!!!.....STOP HOOKING!!!!......NOOOOOO!!!"

 

Tim

[pdkim2001]

Thanks TE!

 

I guess I am suffering from "the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome and wondering if I'm leaving some yards on the table.

[ezra76]

I've been working a lot on a more passive release. I used to hit it a lot more wildly with a lot more misstrikes, especially off the tee, with a more active release. Now I may miss left with basically a draw started too far left to begin with but haven't hit a ball that curved right in months. Everything draws, whether it's a foot or 40yds. depends on my setup. I'm hitting it a lot more solid with the driver, impact has been dead, dead center probably over 90% of the time on the course. I may see one ballmark a round that is inside of the rest, which are on top of each other dead center on the face. Squaring the face has become soooo much easier, don't even think about it anymore for the most part.

 

Oh, and distances have remained about the same, difference is I hit more max distance more often. Avg. distance has gone way, way up.

[irishfight4it]

depends on your body type... if you are long and lanky, a leverage player, than the active release is how you must generate clubhead speed.... if you are shorter or more rotund, a more passive release to utilize core strength/mass will give you more power

[Shaitan]

I think I'd rather have consistency over occassional distance any day my friend. Knowing that I can hit it straight, and if I hit a bad shot it will be a slight push, is a great asset to my game as i know where the ball will go (most the time :black eye:). Working on the core muscles will help you hit it further with the rotary swing if that is what you want :)

[TEConnor]

depends on your body type... if you are long and lanky, a leverage player, than the active release is how you must generate clubhead speed.... if you are shorter or more rotund, a more passive release to utilize core strength/mass will give you more power

 

I agree that a degree of "core" strength is important in the rotary swing. But I also contend that a very upright, flip release requires a ton of back, leg, core, wrist, and shoulder strength to really hit the ball a ways. You will not find most folks with that strength set but no core strength. Hence, I believe that if you can hit it far one way, you'll most likely find a way to do so in the other. I think the outliers are the folks who can only do so in one of the methods (once they "really" learn it).

 

Example...Henrik Stenson: passive release...tallest player on tour...absolutely bombs it with a rotary action. Counter example...Rory Sabatini: stocky little tyke that flips and teeters like it's 1974...hits it a long ways as well.

 

I've never been accused of being rotund, nor short and I hit it pretty much the same with each method. In my opinion, unless you simply cannot rotate around your core at all or you have very weak wrists and hands, most everyone will be comparable in length with either method.

 

Tim

[JohnnyNight]

irish

 

long and lanky are ideal for a long smooth passive release, not active, the taller

you are the more distance you get, that is just physics.

[dfw1500]

The passive release is much more reliable than the active release where you are dependant on impeccable timing to square the club this type of relese does givfe power but also gives inconsistencys and wild misses with a heap of shape in the game......the passive release is all body and the speed and distance is multiplied as the centripetal force of the body rotation is increasing the outside and providing centrpetal acceleration and masses of power....think of an ice skater in a spin or a discus thrower this is how they generate their speed and power.

[irishfight4it]

ok, an active release is utilized in 2 plane swings, and tall players are more suited to 2 plane swings not 1 plane/rotary swings... and henrik stenson isn't that tall, only 6'1... look at vijay and ernie, tall players with very active release.... also i contend rory isn't an active release player, if he was, with as shut as his club is he would hook it off the planet....

[titaniummd]

depends on your body type... if you are long and lanky, a leverage player, than the active release is how you must generate clubhead speed.... if you are shorter or more rotund, a more passive release to utilize core strength/mass will give you more power

 

I am not tall (68") but not rotund, either (more of a mesomorph).

 

However, I think I have more consistency with a passive release. I think it is more accurate and there is less tension in the swing. I tend to have a fade.

 

With the active release, I either pull the shot or hook it. This requires a lot more practice(which I do not have as a recreational player) to get the timing down on a consistent basis.

 

What I am realizing regarding getting more distance is this:

A wider swing arc and more shoulder rotation. That could add a club length to my shot.

If I deloft the club by leaning my hands forward, I can add a club length.

The combination of the two really makes a difference if I want to hit the irons longer. I am noticing that I cannot use option 2 for woods or a longer hybrid without hitting the Big Ball first or topping it.

[Swingtheclub]

I have no idea which release would hit the ball farther or why so many of you refer to the the one release as passive and the other active.

 

I know this I keep the club face square in many key positions in my swing and guess what its almost always square at the bottom.

 

I know if I get the club face square at the top of my backswing it will be square at impact unless my body does something stupid.

 

I also have never had the sensation of flipping and never fought a duck hook.

[mainegolfa]

The passive release is much more reliable than the active release where you are dependant on impeccable timing to square the club this type of relese does givfe power but also gives inconsistencys and wild misses with a heap of shape in the game......the passive release is all body and the speed and distance is multiplied as the centripetal force of the body rotation is increasing the outside and providing centrpetal acceleration and masses of power....think of an ice skater in a spin or a discus thrower this is how they generate their speed and power.

 

the rotary swing also utilizes a principal of physics known as "conservation of angular momentum", which basically states that a rotating object can spin faster the smaller the radius of rotation is and the denser the center of gravity(hence the spinning skater analogy). what this means in terms of swinging a golf club is that the more compact you can stay on your downswing, the easier it will be to turn with speed with minimal effort from the core. I believe this concept facilitates the initial acceleration of the core from the top of the backswing, as this is the most compact point in the swing. looking at the first half of Mr. Hogan's downswing, you can see how compact he stays(maitaining angle between club and wrist, and right arm). this allows him to accelerate his core quickly with ease. at some point in the downswing centrifugalforce starts to act on the club, pulling it away from the body and taking the energy you've developed thus far with it, turning your core rotation into clubhead speed.

The rotary swing can be a very powerful swing provided you make use of these concepts correctly. if you throw your arms out at the ball from the top of the backswing like a lawn mower blade, then you'll never maximize you're core's ability to turn as this will make you're center of gravity less dense and the radius of your swing wider. IMO, as long as you're left arm is extended throughout the swing until after impact, you almost can't be too compact provided you're not "stuck".

[tongzilla]

For me personally:

 

Longest drive comes with an "active release".

 

But average driving distance is higher with "passive release".

 

Distance control is much better with passive release.

 

Direction control is much better with passive release.

 

Playing under pressure is better with a passive release.

 

Once again, this is for me personally.

[Swingtheclub]

Not trying to argue with you here at all. I know nothing about physics. I do know a bit about the golf swing of course thats my opinion.

 

As I have said many times I think the core rotation swing of Ben Hogan was simply and anti hook swing. At the same time I think a certain amount of rotation is necessary in the golf swing. I just hate that people say that as a so called two planer I stall my hips and flip my wrist and sling the club at the ball. Actually I think its insane.

 

But the reason I am posting is your comment the conservation of angular motion..

 

Now after reading your post this may make no sense . But I was taught as a young assistant pro that it meant that sooner or later that the club head had to catch up with the hands.

 

Now I believe that happens in a good golf swing . But it appears my termonology was wrong. I always felt good saying it too.

 

"Golf is nothing more than the conservation of angular motion" Now if your right I can never say it again .

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The passive release is much more reliable than the active release where you are dependant on impeccable timing to square the club this type of relese does givfe power but also gives inconsistencys and wild misses with a heap of shape in the game......the passive release is all body and the speed and distance is multiplied as the centripetal force of the body rotation is increasing the outside and providing centrpetal acceleration and masses of power....think of an ice skater in a spin or a discus thrower this is how they generate their speed and power.

 

the rotary swing also utilizes a principal of physics known as "conservation of angular momentum", which basically states that a rotating object can spin faster the smaller the radius of rotation is and the denser the center of gravity(hence the spinning skater analogy). what this means in terms of swinging a golf club is that the more compact you can stay on your downswing, the easier it will be to turn with speed with minimal effort from the core. I believe this concept facilitates the initial acceleration of the core from the top of the backswing, as this is the most compact point in the swing. looking at the first half of Mr. Hogan's downswing, you can see how compact he stays(maitaining angle between club and wrist, and right arm). this allows him to accelerate his core quickly with ease. at some point in the downswing centrifugalforce starts to act on the club, pulling it away from the body and taking the energy you've developed thus far with it, turning your core rotation into clubhead speed.

The rotary swing can be a very powerful swing provided you make use of these concepts correctly. if you throw your arms out at the ball from the top of the backswing like a lawn mower blade, then you'll never maximize you're core's ability to turn as this will make you're center of gravity less dense and the radius of your swing wider. IMO, as long as you're left arm is extended throughout the swing until after impact, you almost can't be too compact provided you're not "stuck".

[mainegolfa]

ken,

First off, I never have said anything bad about having an upright swing. In fact, I've used one for most of my golfing career only having switched to a rotary motion within the past couple years. I'm sure you've got a great swing and certantly would'nt presume telling you otherwise(especially not having seen it).

 

Second, If I understand what you're saying correctly( which I might not be), I'm not saying that you should hold all of you're angles for as long as you possibly can and resist letting the club head catch up to your hands at some point. I'm just saying that maintaining you're angles( in a rotary swing) for the first part of you're downswing helps to "jumpstart" the rotation of your'e core by utilizing this concept. this is just my opinion and am always open to hear what others have to say, especially if it's a differing opinion.

 

I am by no means "calling you out" just wanted to clarify what it is you're saying.

thanks.

[Swingtheclub]

First I was not calling you out either.

 

I am sure that your definition of conservation of angular motion is better than mine. Or more correct according to physics.

 

I just thought it was funny you are the only person I have ever heard use that phrase but me.

 

The rest of my post was just me ranting and again not at you. I get tired of hearing how the one plane and rotate the core is the best way to swing the club.

 

sorry again if you took offense it was not intended.

[mainegolfa]

none taken.......(;p)

[jaridyard]

Here I go....

 

The angular momentum of a moving particle is

 

L = mv⊥r

 

When a golfer is swinging, there is very little friction between the arms/club and the air, so they are essentially a closed system, and angular momentum is conserved. If they pull the head of the club in (head is closer to the axis of rotation through wrist set), they are decreasing r for all the atoms in the system. It would violate conservation of angular momentum if the system then continued rotating at the same speed, i.e., taking the same amount of time for each revolution, because the clubs negative contribution to angular momentum would have decreased, and no other part would have increased its angular momentum. This is impossible because it would violate conservation of angular momentum. If total angular momentum is to remain constant, the decrease in r for the clubhead must be compensated for by an overall increase in the rate of rotation. That is, by setting and retaining wrist set, they substantially reduce the time for each rotation.

 

So, fundamentally the shortening of the radius of swing through wrist set and in all longer hitters an increase in wrist set on the downswing increases the rotational speed of the body when no other torques are acting upon it.

 

A combination of centrifugal force, a ficticious but highly useful layman term (from the centre of body rotation to the outside of the system, not just the club/arm lever) and tangential force (acting perpendicular to the shaft) release the clubhead without the need for an 'active release'.

 

Ahhhhh, in response to the OP, all things being equal an 'active' release is unlikely to increase total velocity.

 

Centripetal force only acts to keep hold of the club, difficult to say that its adds a great deal. Newton's 3rd Law.

[pdkim2001]

Here I go....

 

The angular momentum of a moving particle is

 

L = mv⊥r

 

When a golfer is swinging, there is very little friction between the arms/club and the air, so they are essentially a closed system, and angular momentum is conserved. If they pull the head of the club in (head is closer to the axis of rotation through wrist set), they are decreasing r for all the atoms in the system. It would violate conservation of angular momentum if the system then continued rotating at the same speed, i.e., taking the same amount of time for each revolution, because the clubs negative contribution to angular momentum would have decreased, and no other part would have increased its angular momentum. This is impossible because it would violate conservation of angular momentum. If total angular momentum is to remain constant, the decrease in r for the clubhead must be compensated for by an overall increase in the rate of rotation. That is, by setting and retaining wrist set, they substantially reduce the time for each rotation.

 

So, fundamentally the shortening of the radius of swing through wrist set and in all longer hitters an increase in wrist set on the downswing increases the rotational speed of the body when no other torques are acting upon it.

 

A combination of centrifugal force, a ficticious but highly useful layman term (from the centre of body rotation to the outside of the system, not just the club/arm lever) and tangential force (acting perpendicular to the shaft) release the clubhead without the need for an 'active release'.

 

Ahhhhh, in response to the OP, an 'active' release is unlikely to increase total velocity.

 

Centripetal force only acts to keep hold of the club, difficult to say that its adds a great deal. Newton's 3rd Law.

 

That was what I was looking for ! :clapping:

 

Seriously, thanks for all the feedback. Guess I should have paid attention in Physics class.

[tchilds]

Here I go....

 

The angular momentum of a moving particle is

 

L = mv⊥r

 

When a golfer is swinging, there is very little friction between the arms/club and the air, so they are essentially a closed system, and angular momentum is conserved. If they pull the head of the club in (head is closer to the axis of rotation through wrist set), they are decreasing r for all the atoms in the system. It would violate conservation of angular momentum if the system then continued rotating at the same speed, i.e., taking the same amount of time for each revolution, because the clubs negative contribution to angular momentum would have decreased, and no other part would have increased its angular momentum. This is impossible because it would violate conservation of angular momentum. If total angular momentum is to remain constant, the decrease in r for the clubhead must be compensated for by an overall increase in the rate of rotation. That is, by setting and retaining wrist set, they substantially reduce the time for each rotation.

 

So, fundamentally the shortening of the radius of swing through wrist set and in all longer hitters an increase in wrist set on the downswing increases the rotational speed of the body when no other torques are acting upon it.

 

A combination of centrifugal force, a ficticious but highly useful layman term (from the centre of body rotation to the outside of the system, not just the club/arm lever) and tangential force (acting perpendicular to the shaft) release the clubhead without the need for an 'active release'.

 

Ahhhhh, in response to the OP, all things being equal an 'active' release is unlikely to increase total velocity.

 

Centripetal force only acts to keep hold of the club, difficult to say that its adds a great deal. Newton's 3rd Law.

 

 

yeah, what he said!! :clapping: :clapping:

[Swingtheclub]

I think I will stick to explaining the difference between supination and pronation and leave the conservation of angular motion comments to ones more educated than me.

 

Pi are square no cobbler are square pie are round see I know my science :cheesy:

[dfvxc]

Here I go....

 

The angular momentum of a moving particle is

 

L = mv⊥r

 

When a golfer is swinging, there is very little friction between the arms/club and the air, so they are essentially a closed system, and angular momentum is conserved. If they pull the head of the club in (head is closer to the axis of rotation through wrist set), they are decreasing r for all the atoms in the system. It would violate conservation of angular momentum if the system then continued rotating at the same speed, i.e., taking the same amount of time for each revolution, because the clubs negative contribution to angular momentum would have decreased, and no other part would have increased its angular momentum. This is impossible because it would violate conservation of angular momentum. If total angular momentum is to remain constant, the decrease in r for the clubhead must be compensated for by an overall increase in the rate of rotation. That is, by setting and retaining wrist set, they substantially reduce the time for each rotation.

 

So, fundamentally the shortening of the radius of swing through wrist set and in all longer hitters an increase in wrist set on the downswing increases the rotational speed of the body when no other torques are acting upon it.

 

A combination of centrifugal force, a ficticious but highly useful layman term (from the centre of body rotation to the outside of the system, not just the club/arm lever) and tangential force (acting perpendicular to the shaft) release the clubhead without the need for an 'active release'.

 

Ahhhhh, in response to the OP, all things being equal an 'active' release is unlikely to increase total velocity.

 

Centripetal force only acts to keep hold of the club, difficult to say that its adds a great deal. Newton's 3rd Law.

 

you forgot to account for gravitational acceleration playing a bigger part in a more upright 2-plane swing.

[jaridyard]

you forgot to account for gravitational acceleration playing a bigger part in a more upright 2-plane swing.

 

Well..... with gravitational acceleration @ 9.8m/s in a pure vertical path and taking into account the elite players clubhead speed being approx 45m/s the difference between a 2 plane and 1 plane swing (rarely more than 20 degrees difference in the plane of clubhead delivery) but both being at least 30 degrees away from the vertical path I would have to estimate that the difference is non significant.

 

Or were you joking :cheesy:

[dfvxc]

Well, the acceleration rate of 9.8 is constant and applies throughout the swing. With exertion the golfer accelerates the club/clubhead to a certain speed. gravitational acceleration of 9.8 acts on the vertical velocity, which is brought quite high by the golfer.

 

In other words, the rate of change of the rate of change doesn't change, but the rate of change is already quite high so the additional rate of change of the rate of change brought on by gravity becomes quite significant, LOL .

 

Of course there wouldn't be much relative difference if the plane angles are the same. But in fact I think even 5 degrees is significant. I also disagree with your angles. I can swing very upright angle at about 20 degrees from normal, or I estimate about 40, 45 from normal. It depends on the club.

 

*edit*I mean 40, 45 degrees for a rotary swing.

[Shaitan]

Sounds alright, though i believe r=displacement not radius (i'm just being knitpicky) and, as the path won't always be perpendicular to the spine angle, the formula would be L=rp.sin@, where r=displacement, p=linear momentum and @=theta :cheesy:. There is a hell lot of variables in the swing though lol

[dfvxc]

displacement IS the radius... that is way too much of a knitpick..

[jaridyard]

r = radius in the posted formula...displacement lol, same same?

 

And ok, maybe a 30 degree differential of clubhead delivery angle from the top of the backswing, don't forget however that a 2 planer shallows the path in the downswing making the differential smaller. Additionally the extra rate of change to a body that already exhibits a high rate would have to be far greater (let's agree that it would not be an additional 9.8m/s, surely?!) than the likely low single digits m/s. Probably no more than 2-5%, remember statistical significance.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm bored and tired.....bed calls.... and certainly don't want to be another jeffman!!! Lol

 

Enjoy the debate!

[dfvxc]

I think you're right most people kind of shallow out and do a "hybrid", however some do a close to pure 2 plane that is upright throughout.. this is debatable.

 

We have to remember that the golfer continues to accelerate the clubhead, as the wrist set is released and the radius widens. So the more upright the plane is, the more the difference in proportion grows. But anyway, without raw data, I think ur guess may be close if we were to conduct statistical analysis amongst the golfing population. But if we look at very pure upright and pure rotary swings, the proportion could be significantly bigger. Of course there's a lot of issues like height, body type etc.

 

but anyway, I agree with most posters, the upright active release gives a bit more speed, but the the passive rotary is powerful in its own right and is MUCH more consistent.. Feels like it basically hits itself.

[Golfdog]

Mmmmmm....pi.....