"THERE MUST BE ENOUGH LATERAL MOTION FORWARD TO TRANSFER THE WEIGHT TO THE LEFT FOOT"

[jak_bot]

Why does Mac have a glove in each back pocket? Is he trying to make something standout more on video?

[Dariusz J.]

"Probably he wants to ensure that the humera parts of arms are subdued to the main body. If he has Hogan's motion he would not need any such tricks.

Cheers"

Sorry for this stupid post - I assumed you ask why keeping gloves under armpits...my bad.

Cheers

[Lake]

[quote name='jak_bot' timestamp='1297085425' post='2957475']
Why does Mac have a glove in each back pocket? Is he trying to make something standout more on video?
[/quote]
That very well could've been the case...though he uses a glove for his right hand when he swings lefty.

[JOEGOLFWRX]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297072943' post='2957387']
[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1297043604' post='2956772']
other peoples hip area motion are irrelevant, we could all be paralyzed and it wouldn't change a thing. [/quote]

[b]Wrong.[/b] The ultimate verification of a theory one believes/applies is always practice. If you cannot achieve results that a theory you believe in prescribes it means that this theory sucks. This is the most probable reason why you (and people like you) are afraid to present a theory alongside with attempts to use the theory in practice. You can say as eloquent things as you can and present as abstract vids as you can but you won't change my way of thinking. Sorry, mate.
[/quote]


[b]no, i'm right.[/b], lol, i didnt say your hip motion was irrelevant, yours is somewhat relevent, i said other peoples were, i could be jimmy ballard, doesnt mean i cant observe.


[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297072943' post='2957387']
[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1297043604' post='2956772']
the professor doesn't even play golf, he doesn't have to if he follows the scientific method.[/quote]

Yes, [b]but the professor's goal is only to depict[/b] what happens in the swing motion in detail using scientific values (exactly as in Jorgensen's or this guy you presented below - Penner's case). [b]He knows very well that he is of no direct help to golfers[/b] since the missing part is to explain how to apply the principles of the optimal motion (no matter if the goal is to maximize CHS or coefficient of repeatability).
[/quote]

depict [b]and predict[/b].

really what he is doing is modeling, it just so happens the syntax is mathematics. your syntax is english with a lot of biomedical and newtonian terms.

but both are the same, creating a model to not only depict reality, but also predict future events.

he is not modeling instructive prescriptions, that is why as a scientist he doesn't prescribe. but what he does model, he does so scientifically. and each model states its assumptions.

as the number of assumptions increases, the models accuracy and relevance diminishes.

you are modeling a set of prescriptions for a full swing, and unscientifically making a whole load of assumptions about it.

claiming its a superior route to consistency (theory), while it hasn't been compared to other methods (peer research/experimentation/ replication of predictions), based on your own assumptions about the newtonian causalities of why the best ball strikers were so consistent (hypothesis), because they did stuff that doesn't really show up on film (observation).

a cart load of assumptions put before the horse.

its pseudo-science opinion.



[b]"all models are wrong, some of them are useful"[/b]

it might be useful, ...who knows ? it might even be close to right, ...but its not science, it just sounds like it.


did you ever think people don't produce all these theories as often as you expect, because its actually really hard to come up with anything new and useful with any universal scientific truth ? lol, the complexity gets out of hand as you seek universal truth in a system with many variables, and the triviality and irrelevance of the model increases as you decide to ignore these variables.

[dap]

The problem with swing models is that they don't take into consideration a players swing "DNA".

Some players prefer to see the swing shape as more upright and steep whilst others may prefer a flatter swing.

Tiger Woods has tried a flatter swing like Hogan and it has ruined his driver.

Biomechanical models should not be based on achieving optimalisation alone.It needs to consider a players swing shape preference.This is the way to achieve "automisation" in my opinion.

A flatter swing may be more optimal in theory but this is useless if the player naturally gravitates towards a more upright swing.He is constantly fighting his instincts and in the end achieves the opposite of
"automisation".

This point is even more relevant to the weekend player who doesn't have 8 hours a day to groove a swing model they aspire to.

[JOEGOLFWRX]

+1, personally id like to see what biok would look like with option for adaption to certain tendencies

[Dariusz J.]

[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1297129435' post='2959009']depict [b]and predict[/b].

really what he is doing is modeling, it just so happens the syntax is mathematics. your syntax is english with a lot of biomedical and newtonian terms.

but both are the same, creating a model to not only depict reality, but also predict future events.

he is not modeling instructive prescriptions, that is why as a scientist he doesn't prescribe. but what he does model, he does so scientifically. and each model states its assumptions.

as the number of assumptions increases, the models accuracy and relevance diminishes.

you are modeling a set of prescriptions for a full swing, and unscientifically making a whole load of assumptions about it.

claiming its a superior route to consistency (theory), while it hasn't been compared to other methods (peer research/experimentation/ replication of predictions), based on your own assumptions about the newtonian causalities of why the best ball strikers were so consistent (hypothesis), because they did stuff that doesn't really show up on film (observation).

a cart load of assumptions put before the horse.

its pseudo-science opinion.

[b]"all models are wrong, some of them are useful"[/b]

it might be useful, ...who knows ? it might even be close to right, ...but its not science, it just sounds like it.

did you ever think people don't produce all these theories as often as you expect, because its actually really hard to come up with anything new and useful with any universal scientific truth ? lol, the complexity gets out of hand as you seek universal truth in a system with many variables, and the triviality and irrelevance of the model increases as you decide to ignore these variables.
[/quote]

OK, you won. I really have no time or willingness to walk all these mind meanders with you. My goal is to produce [b]a theory to help people play golf easier[/b]. since the current golf instruction (in general) rather is not capable to. Call it a pseudo-science or whatever suits you. What matters is the final effect.



[quote name='dap' timestamp='1297138512' post='2959485']
The problem with swing models is that they don't take into consideration a players swing "DNA".

Some players prefer to see the swing shape as more upright and steep whilst others may prefer a flatter swing.

Tiger Woods has tried a flatter swing like Hogan and it has ruined his driver.

Biomechanical models should not be based on achieving optimalisation alone.It needs to consider a players swing shape preference.This is the way to achieve "automisation" in my opinion.

A flatter swing may be more optimal in theory but this is useless if the player naturally gravitates towards a more upright swing.He is constantly fighting his instincts and in the end achieves the opposite of
"automisation".

This point is even more relevant to the weekend player who doesn't have 8 hours a day to groove a swing model they aspire to.
[/quote]

True to some extent in microscale. In macroscale, there are no various DNAs, it is only one model for all creatures equipped with head, main body two upper distal parts and two lower distal parts, all of them working in the same 4-D reality.
What macroscale studies give is the biophysical base for all golfers and then they adapt it for they individual needs. There is no options in macroscale only one correct best way to achieve a goal. Same as in physics books for primary school - there are no (or are very seldom) equally good best solutions.

As Woods is concerned, a lot of elements in the attempt of flattening his swing was simply wrong. He probably would do much better if he followed my principles - and I mean it. I know I would not be given a chance to prove it though, lol.

Cheers

[dap]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297151670' post='2959804']
[quote name='JOEGOLFWRX' timestamp='1297129435' post='2959009']depict [b]and predict[/b].

really what he is doing is modeling, it just so happens the syntax is mathematics. your syntax is english with a lot of biomedical and newtonian terms.

but both are the same, creating a model to not only depict reality, but also predict future events.

he is not modeling instructive prescriptions, that is why as a scientist he doesn't prescribe. but what he does model, he does so scientifically. and each model states its assumptions.

as the number of assumptions increases, the models accuracy and relevance diminishes.

you are modeling a set of prescriptions for a full swing, and unscientifically making a whole load of assumptions about it.

claiming its a superior route to consistency (theory), while it hasn't been compared to other methods (peer research/experimentation/ replication of predictions), based on your own assumptions about the newtonian causalities of why the best ball strikers were so consistent (hypothesis), because they did stuff that doesn't really show up on film (observation).

a cart load of assumptions put before the horse.

its pseudo-science opinion.

[b]"all models are wrong, some of them are useful"[/b]

it might be useful, ...who knows ? it might even be close to right, ...but its not science, it just sounds like it.

did you ever think people don't produce all these theories as often as you expect, because its actually really hard to come up with anything new and useful with any universal scientific truth ? lol, the complexity gets out of hand as you seek universal truth in a system with many variables, and the triviality and irrelevance of the model increases as you decide to ignore these variables.
[/quote]

OK, you won. I really have no time or willingness to walk all these mind meanders with you. My goal is to produce [b]a theory to help people play golf easier[/b]. since the current golf instruction (in general) rather is not capable to. Call it a pseudo-science or whatever suits you. What matters is the final effect.



[quote name='dap' timestamp='1297138512' post='2959485']
The problem with swing models is that they don't take into consideration a players swing "DNA".

Some players prefer to see the swing shape as more upright and steep whilst others may prefer a flatter swing.

Tiger Woods has tried a flatter swing like Hogan and it has ruined his driver.

Biomechanical models should not be based on achieving optimalisation alone.It needs to consider a players swing shape preference.This is the way to achieve "automisation" in my opinion.

A flatter swing may be more optimal in theory but this is useless if the player naturally gravitates towards a more upright swing.He is constantly fighting his instincts and in the end achieves the opposite of
"automisation".

This point is even more relevant to the weekend player who doesn't have 8 hours a day to groove a swing model they aspire to.
[/quote]

True to some extent in microscale. In macroscale, there are no various DNAs, it is only one model for all creatures equipped with head, main body two upper distal parts and two lower distal parts, all of them working in the same 4-D reality.
What macroscale studies give is the biophysical base for all golfers and then they adapt it for they individual needs. There is no options in macroscale only one correct best way to achieve a goal. Same as in physics books for primary school - there are no (or are very seldom) equally good best solutions.

As Woods is concerned, a lot of elements in the attempt of flattening his swing was simply wrong. He probably would do much better if he followed my principles - and I mean it. I know I would not be given a chance to prove it though, lol.

Cheers
[/quote]
DJ,I have never understood what you mean when you mention microscale and macroscale.On one hand,you talk about the golf swing in extreme detail,yet on the other hand you can be so general.Your swing is either upright like Nicklaus or flat like Hogan.Most others are somewhere in between.Nicklaus has always swung upright since he was a teenager.Trying to flatten his swing to the extent of Hogan would be disastrous in my opinion.Hogan on the other hand has always swung flat.Show me an upright swing from Hogan and I'll show you a flat swing from Nicklaus.Hogan's secret was not flattening his swing.He always swung flat.That is his "DNA".I don't think you give enough thought to the human element and how individuals prefer their swing shape.

Regarding Tiger doing better under your principles,that is a huge statement to make and you are right,it's not one you will ever get a chance to prove.However,I have always believed that if something truly works it will get world wide recognition.There are countless alternative therapies that claim miracle cures for cancer going on for decades.Does anyone think that if any of them really works,they would not be the first treatment of choice in all hospitals by now?

[Dariusz J.]

[quote name='dap' timestamp='1297154839' post='2959831']DJ,I have never understood what you mean when you mention microscale and macroscale.On one hand,you talk about the golf swing in extreme detail,yet on the other hand you can be so general.Your swing is either upright like Nicklaus or flat like Hogan.Most others are somewhere in between.Nicklaus has always swung upright since he was a teenager.Trying to flatten his swing to the extent of Hogan would be disastrous in my opinion.Hogan on the other hand has always swung flat.Show me an upright swing from Hogan and I'll show you a flat swing from Nicklaus.Hogan's secret was not flattening his swing.He always swung flat.That is his "DNA".I don't think you give enough thought to the human element and how individuals prefer their swing shape.[/quote]

I am going to explain details only when I think it is absolutely crucial and it is not my fault that it happens more often that I would like to. Say, the trigger compression phase alone is a very detailed issue of the motion but taking into account its huge impact on creating momentum for correct backsiwng motion it cannot be underestinated in macroscale as well. Hope you understand the example.

As regards planes - I stopped long ago to differ planes as upright or flat - what matters in the macroscale is the perpendicularity of the plane to the spine that depends on the posture and stance. Hogan's swing was more upright before secret and flatter after the accident. Nicklaus's was flatter as he was younger, become more upright as he got older.

[quote]
Regarding Tiger doing better under your principles,that is a huge statement to make and you are right,it's not one you will ever get a chance to prove.However,I have always believed that if something truly works it will get world wide recognition.There are countless alternative therapies that claim miracle cures for cancer going on for decades.Does anyone think that if any of them really works,they would not be the first treatment of choice in all hospitals by now?
[/quote]

I really do not want to go deep into the discussion about serious diseases due to my private reasons. I can only say one thing - sometimes it may appear that new possible cures are not available because pharma mafia blocks their implementations. You probably have not heard ever about Polish homemade inventor who invented a way to absorb and convert the majority of energy during a car crash so that cars are practically not destroyed but cannot go through car manufacturers mafia. Sometimes it is very hard to prove a global usefulness of a product/service without a name while it is easy to promote a total crap when someone has a "good" name.

Cheers

[eightiron]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297083528' post='2957443']
The chances that MORAD is the best golf swing theory until today are very huge. This is practically the only one theory that cares for anatomy and its impact on the motion to a big degree. Too bad that it is secret and O'Grady stubbornly rejects to publish the data of his researches openly.
As regards pitch elbow concept comparing to Hogan's elbow there are crucial differences. They are very visible when watching O'Grady's motion that you brought. In short (since we have discussed it ad nauseum here), just to remind - Hogan's rear elbow moves forward till the biolimit then stalls at the rear hip until coming into impact zone and just moves alongside with body pivot (and no its own motion in relation to the body); Mac's elbow moves forward and continue to move in relation to his body all the time until entering the impact zone ending with having it too much in the front of the hip/body.- no stalling here = no fixing the motion of the rear elbow to the main body movement.

I do not need to stress how big impact on repeatability and consistency could Hogan's supreme way has over traditional "pitch elbow" concept. The rule is simple - the sooner one is able to subdue the motion of distal limbs to the body movement - the better. And the way of achieving it is also simple to describe but impossible to achieve for everybody except Hogan until now - to ensure the rear elbow early motion down and forward so big that it can stall and not cause being stuck with the elbow to much behind the rear hip joint.

The problem of the so called "punch elbow" is exactly opposite - it leads to fixing its motion to the pivot but it does not ensure proper release queue of kinetic chain and, therefore, robs energy and calls for compensations.

This is what I see.

Cheers
[/quote]

How many swings can you show this right elbow stalling on behind or on the right hip , or is it just bad camera techno that you can show this........ just to clarify you are implying that a player with the elbow more forward of the right hip and continually moving forward in relation to the body and in impact zone its too far in front..... So what is the outcome for this player in regard to issue in regard to the right arm........ what happens to the right arm ? straighten faster than Hogan ? as a result of what ?
Seriously give us a real rub down on this morad issue ..... not some bio- limit line... give us the nuts and bolts of the deal

[TeeAce]

[q

How many swings can you show this right elbow stalling on behind or on the right hip , or is it just bad camera techno that you can show this........ just to clarify you are implying that a player with the elbow more forward of the right hip and continually moving forward in relation to the body and in impact zone its too far in front..... So what is the outcome for this player in regard to issue in regard to the right arm........ what happens to the right arm ? straighten faster than Hogan ? as a result of what ?

Seriously give us a real rub down on this morad issue ..... not some bio- limit line... give us the nuts and bolts of the deal

 

I'm not sure if I get it right, but there is few players I found in two minutes from Youtube.

 

Sorry, no time to make it better and hopes that You can get this open

 

And players are: Alvaro Quiros, Rory McIlroy, Matteo Manassero and Henrik Stensson

[williambenjamin11]

Its not stalling aint it? Its just looks so in vid/camera bec hips/torso is also turning at same pace. Since its the pivot turn that brings along the arms/elbow, the arms/elbow is just going along for the ride. If you can stall the elbow, that means you're using your arms instead of the pivot.

Or, if you have to stall the elbow, that means it became ahead of lower body in transition, hence you have to stall it so lower body can catch up, otherwise lefts.

[williambenjamin11]

And for the record, I'm not "conniving" or "conspiring" with 8 on this D.. lol

[TeeAce]

[quote name='williambenjamin11' timestamp='1297168261' post='2959885']
Its not stalling aint it? Its just looks so in vid/camera bec hips/torso is also turning at same pace. Since its the pivot turn that brings along the arms/elbow, the arms/elbow is just going along for the ride. If you can stall the elbow, that means you're using your arms instead of the pivot.

Or, if you have to stall the elbow, that means it became ahead of lower body in transition, hence you have to stall it so lower body can catch up, otherwise lefts.
[/quote]

It depends what You mean with stalled. For sure it don't come to the front of the body and don't get out from it's position before or during impact. It just rotates with the body connected to the right hip and releases out only when shoulders are open enough. Look at Rorys picture. The ball is already on it's way.

Those things happens so quickly that before hi-speed videos it was impossible to see what is the real situation. That's one huge problem when watching Hogans videos and reason why we get so many different opinions about those. We are running 170 fps videos here and in many cases it's not enough to see from pictures what happens and when. Thats why we need graphs to point out those important elements.

[dap]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297157307' post='2959838']
[quote name='dap' timestamp='1297154839' post='2959831']DJ,I have never understood what you mean when you mention microscale and macroscale.On one hand,you talk about the golf swing in extreme detail,yet on the other hand you can be so general.Your swing is either upright like Nicklaus or flat like Hogan.Most others are somewhere in between.Nicklaus has always swung upright since he was a teenager.Trying to flatten his swing to the extent of Hogan would be disastrous in my opinion.Hogan on the other hand has always swung flat.Show me an upright swing from Hogan and I'll show you a flat swing from Nicklaus.Hogan's secret was not flattening his swing.He always swung flat.That is his "DNA".I don't think you give enough thought to the human element and how individuals prefer their swing shape.[/quote]

I am going to explain details only when I think it is absolutely crucial and it is not my fault that it happens more often that I would like to. Say, the trigger compression phase alone is a very detailed issue of the motion but taking into account its huge impact on creating momentum for correct backsiwng motion it cannot be underestinated in macroscale as well. Hope you understand the example.

As regards planes - I stopped long ago to differ planes as upright or flat - what matters in the macroscale is the perpendicularity of the plane to the spine that depends on the posture and stance. Hogan's swing was more upright before secret and flatter after the accident. Nicklaus's was flatter as he was younger, become more upright as he got older.

[quote]
Regarding Tiger doing better under your principles,that is a huge statement to make and you are right,it's not one you will ever get a chance to prove.However,I have always believed that if something truly works it will get world wide recognition.There are countless alternative therapies that claim miracle cures for cancer going on for decades.Does anyone think that if any of them really works,they would not be the first treatment of choice in all hospitals by now?
[/quote]

I really do not want to go deep into the discussion about serious diseases due to my private reasons. I can only say one thing - sometimes it may appear that new possible cures are not available because pharma mafia blocks their implementations. You probably have not heard ever about Polish homemade inventor who invented a way to absorb and convert the majority of energy during a car crash so that cars are practically not destroyed but cannot go through car manufacturers mafia. Sometimes it is very hard to prove a global usefulness of a product/service without a name while it is easy to promote a total crap when someone has a "good" name.

Cheers
[/quote]
Hogan did not have an upright swing prior to his "secret".You need to back up these claims with pics or videos.Nicklaus if anything became a little less upright as he got older.

[attachment=725526:Ben Hogan 1940's.flv_snapshot_00.31_2011.02.08_19.39.02.jpg]

This swing from Hogan in his power golf days show that his left arm is below perpendicular to his posture.How the heck is that considered upright?

[williambenjamin11]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1297169375' post='2959894']
[quote name='williambenjamin11' timestamp='1297168261' post='2959885']
Its not stalling aint it? Its just looks so in vid/camera bec hips/torso is also turning at same pace. Since its the pivot turn that brings along the arms/elbow, the arms/elbow is just going along for the ride. If you can stall the elbow, that means you're using your arms instead of the pivot.

Or, if you have to stall the elbow, that means it became ahead of lower body in transition, hence you have to stall it so lower body can catch up, otherwise lefts.
[/quote]

It depends what You mean with stalled. For sure it don't come to the front of the body and don't get out from it's position before or during impact. It just rotates with the body connected to the right hip and releases out only when shoulders are open enough. Look at Rorys picture. The ball is already on it's way.

Those things happens so quickly that before hi-speed videos it was impossible to see what is the real situation. That's one huge problem when watching Hogans videos and reason why we get so many different opinions about those. We are running 170 fps videos here and in many cases it's not enough to see from pictures what happens and when. Thats why we need graphs to point out those important elements.
[/quote]


Yeah, it won't look like its going in front of body bec Hogan turns his hips first, so hips is ahead of elbow, so elbow not in front of hips. However, its still in front of torso relative to shoulders. Maybe that's why others see a punch, others a pitch. But its actually pitching bec its attached to the shoulders/torso, hence it should be looked in perspective of shoulders/torso.

[Dariusz J.]

[b]Geez, you all should start to read more carefully Why asking me when you take from my posts what you want to take ? I slowly get tired with this thread[/b], especially that the amount of hijacking it from the original Matthias's topic is enormous.

I said stalling the rear elbow joint [b]in relation to the main body [/b](moving in space). Exactly in the spirit of TeeAce's explanations.

I said pre-secret Hogan's swing was [b]more upright [/b]than post-accident; it does not mean same that one is upright and the other not upright in total.

As per Eight's question - yes, the consequences of the "Hogan's disorder" are that the rear arm of Hogan keeps its bend longer and it does not move further than necessary so that the relation between humerus and the main body is tight and he could hit it with his pivot consistently. The dreaded forward shaft lean angle at impact also diminished that somehow was not forcing the rear elbow to go out of the hip too soon.
Conceptually, Hogan's rear elbow was pitch transforming into punch. That's why his swing cannot be classified by definitions created by "either black or white" theories.

Cheers

[dap]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297171563' post='2959936']
[b]Geez, you all should start to read more carefully Why asking me when you take from my posts what you want to take ? I slowly get tired with this thread[/b], especially that the amount of hijacking it from the original Matthias's topic is enormous.

I said stalling the rear elbow joint [b]in relation to the main body [/b](moving in space). Exactly in the spirit of TeeAce's explanations.

I said pre-secret Hogan's swing was [b]more upright [/b]than post-accident; it does not mean same that one is upright and the other not upright in total.

As per Eight's question - yes, the consequences of the "Hogan's disorder" are that the rear arm of Hogan keeps its bend longer and it does not move further than necessary so that the relation between humerus and the main body is tight and he could hit it with his pivot consistently. The dreaded forward shaft lean angle at impact also diminished that somehow was not forcing the rear elbow to go out of the hip too soon.
Conceptually, Hogan's rear elbow was pitch transforming into punch. That's why his swing cannot be classified by definitions created by "either black or white" theories.

Cheers
[/quote]
lol I am just follow the hijackers.

So after the secret,Hogan became even flatter than below perpendicular?So shouldn't the model be well below perpendicular rather than perpendicular?

Sorry DJ,I am not trying to purposely p**s you off but some of your stuff just doesn't make any sense.

[eightiron]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297171563' post='2959936']
[b]Geez, you all should start to read more carefully Why asking me when you take from my posts what you want to take ? I slowly get tired with this thread[/b], especially that the amount of hijacking it from the original Matthias's topic is enormous.

I said stalling the rear elbow joint [b]in relation to the main body [/b](moving in space). Exactly in the spirit of TeeAce's explanations.

I said pre-secret Hogan's swing was [b]more upright [/b]than post-accident; it does not mean same that one is upright and the other not upright in total.

As per Eight's question - yes, the consequences of the "Hogan's disorder" are that the rear arm of Hogan keeps its bend longer and it does not move further than necessary so that the relation between humerus and the main body is tight and he could hit it with his pivot consistently. The dreaded forward shaft lean angle at impact also diminished that somehow was not forcing the rear elbow to go out of the hip too soon.
Conceptually, Hogan's rear elbow was pitch transforming into punch. That's why his swing cannot be classified by definitions created by "either black or white" theories.

Cheers
[/quote]


Nothing like a good hijack hey D

So you think you know , or are you looking at a 2-D illusion . Have you ever measured right arm bend angle at before , impact and after ? You think Hogan is pitch to punch , lol, from what camera angle do you make this stuff up from..... do you even know what pitch , punch mean or you think you know cause you read some BS on a golf forum.... yeah Morad classify Hogan as pitch / elbow position ( ! ) and you know TGM better than O'Grady ?

So O'Grady's right arm straightens faster than Hogan ? Give me something other than complete waffle, like the dreaded forward shaft angle , next we will have Hogan with a right elbow 1 yard behind him and a negative shaft lean of 20 degrees

[JOEGOLFWRX]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297151670' post='2959804']
OK, you won.
[/quote]

[attachment=725542:omg_olsens.jpg]

lol.


[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297151670' post='2959804']
My goal is to produce a theory to help people play golf easier. since the current golf instruction (in general) rather is not capable to. Call it a pseudo-science or whatever suits you. What matters is the final effect.
[/quote]

so you really need to have its effects (results), objectively compared against other methods with similar goals, for a similar sample range of end users. (maybe S&T since they assume its hard not to hit it fat, lol.)

[Dariusz J.]

[quote name='dap' timestamp='1297173092' post='2959967']
So after the secret,Hogan became even flatter than below perpendicular?So shouldn't the model be well below perpendicular rather than perpendicular?

Sorry DJ,I am not trying to purposely p**s you off but some of your stuff just doesn't make any sense.
[/quote]

Yes, he become a bit flatter which is perfectly normal in case of shorter swing.
Yes, a little below perpendicular is perfectly acceptable since arms unified relation to the main body is all the time ensured and the plane shift is lower. The motion is of the same value as strictly perpendicular to the spine. I have already discussed it here and on other fora.
Further explanations for you, however, do not make sense in view of your last sentence.



[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1297175300' post='2960030']So you think you know , or are you looking at a 2-D illusion . Have you ever measured right arm bend angle at before , impact and after ? You think Hogan is pitch to punch , lol, from what camera angle do you make this stuff up from..... do you even know what pitch , punch mean or you think you know cause you read some BS on a golf forum.... yeah Morad classify Hogan as pitch / elbow position ( ! ) and you know TGM better than O'Grady ?

So O'Grady's right arm straightens faster than Hogan ? Give me something other than complete waffle, like the dreaded forward shaft angle , next we will have Hogan with a right elbow 1 yard behind him and a negative shaft lean of 20 degrees
[/quote]

Read your post again and learn how difficult is to try to run a civilized discussion with a guy who treat only his arguments as valid and any other that do not match him calls complete waffle even without trying to say why he thinks that way. Think about
it.
FYI, I am of the opinion that O'Grady had no choice to call it otherwise than "pitch" elbow since, unfortunately for him and his researches, he based them on a incompetent "white or black" type source. Huge mistake. The difference of Hogan's elbow motion comparing to his is so huge that it is laughable that having a choice of admitting it vs. sticking to archaic incompetent sources you choose the latter.
L a u g h a b l e, mate.

Cheers

[TeeAce]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1297175300' post='2960030']
[qu
So you think you know , or are you looking at a 2-D illusion . Have you ever measured right arm bend angle at before , impact and after ? You think Hogan is pitch to punch , lol, from what camera angle do you make this stuff up from..... do you even know what pitch , punch mean or you think you know cause you read some BS on a golf forum.... yeah Morad classify Hogan as pitch / elbow position ( ! ) and you know TGM better than O'Grady ?

So O'Grady's right arm straightens faster than Hogan ? Give me something other than complete waffle, like the dreaded forward shaft angle , next we will have Hogan with a right elbow 1 yard behind him and a negative shaft lean of 20 degrees
[/quote]

IMO O'Grady is miles away from pictures I posted or Hogan.

[eightiron]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1297188680' post='2960522']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1297175300' post='2960030']
[qu
So you think you know , or are you looking at a 2-D illusion . Have you ever measured right arm bend angle at before , impact and after ? You think Hogan is pitch to punch , lol, from what camera angle do you make this stuff up from..... do you even know what pitch , punch mean or you think you know cause you read some BS on a golf forum.... yeah Morad classify Hogan as pitch / elbow position ( ! ) and you know TGM better than O'Grady ?

So O'Grady's right arm straightens faster than Hogan ? Give me something other than complete waffle, like the dreaded forward shaft angle , next we will have Hogan with a right elbow 1 yard behind him and a negative shaft lean of 20 degrees
[/quote]

IMO O'Grady is miles away from pictures I posted or Hogan.
[/quote]
Yep , and the pictures you posted are golfers miles away from hogans swing as well

[eightiron]

So O'Grady's right arm straightens faster than Hogan ? Give me something other than complete waffle, like the dreaded forward shaft angle , next we will have Hogan with a right elbow 1 yard behind him and a negative shaft lean of 20 degrees


Read your post again and learn how difficult is to try to run a civilized discussion with a guy who treat only his arguments as valid and any other that do not match him calls complete waffle even without trying to say why he thinks that way. Think about
it.

[b]True , but exactly when are you civil, after you delete . You stated that the right elbow motion being more forward will make the right arm straighten faster, seems that its not the underlying issue to me , looking at those pics . You make up broad statements like the right elbow is subdued to the body motion, well exactly what part of the body motion ?[/b]
[b]
[/b]FYI, I am of the opinion that O'Grady had no choice to call it otherwise than "pitch" elbow since, unfortunately for him and his researches, he based them on a i[b]ncompetent "white or black" ty[/b]pe source. [b]Huge mistake[/b]. The difference of Hogan's elbow motion comparing to his is so huge that it is laughable that having a choice of admitting it vs. sticking to [b]archaic incompetent [/b]sources you choose the latter.


[b]So now you know morad yet its not published , how do you know what O'Grady calls it , or what he based his research on. I stated he knows tgm yet you conclude his whole research is based on archaic incompetent sources ( another direct shot at tgm, yet you would not know what is on page 1 of that book ). You constantly write that all these sources are sub par , and yet you can't explain anything about them.[/b]
[b]
[/b]
[b]
[/b]
[b]FYI , although I should not need to post it , cause you know morad and the research , there are 3 elbow locations defined and they can vary from the positions through-out the swing . For example at P1 elbow location may be # 2 and at P3 it may be at #1, and this is really just scratching basics
[/b]




Look forward to an actual answer to the questions

[TeeAce]

[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1297203333' post='2961149']
[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1297188680' post='2960522']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1297175300' post='2960030']
[qu
So you think you know , or are you looking at a 2-D illusion . Have you ever measured right arm bend angle at before , impact and after ? You think Hogan is pitch to punch , lol, from what camera angle do you make this stuff up from..... do you even know what pitch , punch mean or you think you know cause you read some BS on a golf forum.... yeah Morad classify Hogan as pitch / elbow position ( ! ) and you know TGM better than O'Grady ?

So O'Grady's right arm straightens faster than Hogan ? Give me something other than complete waffle, like the dreaded forward shaft angle , next we will have Hogan with a right elbow 1 yard behind him and a negative shaft lean of 20 degrees
[/quote]

IMO O'Grady is miles away from pictures I posted or Hogan.
[/quote]
Yep , and the pictures you posted are golfers miles away from hogans swing as well
[/quote]

Might be, but IMO there is lot of similarities at impact. As well as Jim Furyk has.

Like I said, the problem is that we dont have any high speed videos of Hogan and only way to figure out what has happened is to find still positions and try to understand how to get those done. All those players iI posted has found their own way to create much similar joint positions at impact that Hogan had. O'Grady hasn't as his hips are not much open and it's same with shoulders. In his movement seems like hips are stopping and thats why the elbow comes out and to the front of the body. Only way to keep it in and close to the body is by keeping rotation on and accelerate the whole body rotation through impact.

One point to think about is why those guys hit it so far even when they seem to be blocked with their back elbow. I think they have found same thing that Hogan to be able to rotate as much as they can and still avoid left side. For me that has been always the main point of secret. None of small details but the big view.

[HoganAfficianado]

I think the main difference between Hogan and Mac is Hogan attacked from a shallower angle and the club face was more open than Mac's. This allowed Hogan to be more open at impact and release more around his body. For the most part, I agree with Dariusz about the right elbow staying on the right hip from p6 to p7. I have seen wedge swings where the right elbow gets in front "pitchy" and I think this is only because the body isnt quite as open on a wedge shot.

[Lake]

[quote name='Dariusz J.' timestamp='1297180862' post='2960224']

FYI, I am of the opinion that O'Grady had no choice to call it otherwise than "pitch" elbow since, unfortunately for him and his researches, he based them on a incompetent "white or black" type source. Huge mistake. The difference of Hogan's elbow motion comparing to his is so huge that it is laughable that having a choice of admitting it vs. sticking to archaic incompetent sources you choose the latter.
L a u g h a b l e, mate.

Cheers
[/quote]

I have never heard Mac utter the world "pitch" in my time w/ him...what is going on here...what made you come to that opinion D???

Lets get some video up here and see what you are talking about w/ Hogan's elbow. After all this time D...I know you have to feel you have a very good handle on this.

[Siteseer2]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1297204236' post='2961178']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1297203333' post='2961149']
[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1297188680' post='2960522']
[quote name='eightiron' timestamp='1297175300' post='2960030']
[qu
So you think you know , or are you looking at a 2-D illusion . Have you ever measured right arm bend angle at before , impact and after ? You think Hogan is pitch to punch , lol, from what camera angle do you make this stuff up from..... do you even know what pitch , punch mean or you think you know cause you read some BS on a golf forum.... yeah Morad classify Hogan as pitch / elbow position ( ! ) and you know TGM better than O'Grady ?

So O'Grady's right arm straightens faster than Hogan ? Give me something other than complete waffle, like the dreaded forward shaft angle , next we will have Hogan with a right elbow 1 yard behind him and a negative shaft lean of 20 degrees
[/quote]

IMO O'Grady is miles away from pictures I posted or Hogan.
[/quote]
Yep , and the pictures you posted are golfers miles away from hogans swing as well
[/quote]

Might be, but IMO there is lot of similarities at impact. As well as Jim Furyk has.

Like I said, the problem is that we dont have any high speed videos of Hogan and only way to figure out what has happened is to find still positions and try to understand how to get those done. All those players iI posted has found their own way to create much similar joint positions at impact that Hogan had. O'Grady hasn't as his hips are not much open and it's same with shoulders. In his movement seems like hips are stopping and thats why the elbow comes out and to the front of the body. Only way to keep it in and close to the body is by keeping rotation on and accelerate the whole body rotation through impact.

One point to think about is why those guys hit it so far even when they seem to be blocked with their back elbow. I think they have found same thing that Hogan to be able to rotate as much as they can and still avoid left side. For me that has been always the main point of secret. None of small details but the big view.
[/quote]
You from the Hardy school? Anybody who has their left arm in deep punch/inside the baseline has major extensor thrust to kick the sweetspot out. No, other way to do it. It works, but it ain't optimal imo....been there, done that...

Also WAY to much focus on rotation, IMO--- bunch of whirling dervishes, or so it seems...

[Lake]

[quote name='TeeAce' timestamp='1297204236' post='2961178']
[
Might be, but IMO there is lot of similarities at impact. As well as Jim Furyk has.

Like I said, the problem is that we dont have any high speed videos of Hogan and only way to figure out what has happened is to find still positions and try to understand how to get those done. All those players iI posted has found their own way to create much similar joint positions at impact that Hogan had. O'Grady hasn't as his hips are not much open and it's same with shoulders. In his movement seems like hips are stopping and thats why the elbow comes out and to the front of the body. Only way to keep it in and close to the body is by keeping rotation on and accelerate the whole body rotation through impact.

One point to think about is why those guys hit it so far even when they seem to be blocked with their back elbow. I think they have found same thing that Hogan to be able to rotate as much as they can and still avoid left side. For me that has been always the main point of secret. None of small details but the big view.
[/quote]

Are you comparing Hogan and Jim Furyk??? Please explain further

[williambenjamin11]

Can someone tell us a point by point procedural process of how the right elbow function for the sake of those who wants to learn...for free?..

If you're not gonna let the right elbow pull back in bs and just let it be in front of torso in bs like Hogan, aint the "pitch" elbow automatic if you transition correctly?