Hip Power

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SteveT

Guest
Golf: Evidence of How 'Loading the Hips' Improves Golf Drives

ScienceDaily (Sep. 7, 2010) — It's all in the hips. New research provides concrete evidence of how loading the hips improves the power and length of a golf drive.

Golfers call it Factor X -- the ability to propel a golf ball harder and further than was ever thought possible.

For modern coaches, the secret of Factor X has always lain in creating torque by twisting the body around the spine and turning the shoulders relative to the hips. This energy is then released by first rotating the hips towards the ball and allowing the shoulders to follow so that the hips, torso, shoulders, arms, wrists and club "whip" though the ball and create maximum angular velocity at the club head.

Along with twisting the body around the shaft of the spine, coaches have also emphasized what they call "loading the hips," which for right-handers means keeping the right hip still so creating even more stretch as the pelvis rotates on the back swing. It is the power created by this movement that the Northumbria team has demonstrated.

"Up until now, the evidence for 'loading the hips' has all been anecdotal," says Dr Su Stewart , who led the research. "Coaches emphasize it, and certainly any golfer can feel the tension the movement creates. What we have shown is how closely this relatively small movement correlates with increased angular velocity at the club head. A great golf drive is not simply about creating torque by rotating the body around the spine, it is also about creating torque within the hips by rotating the pelvis around the right hip joint itself."

In the study, eight right-handed male golfers with handicaps below five were tested in the laboratory with a variety of techniques including an array of 12 motion-capture cameras and 39 reflective markers (35 on the participants, four on the club).

When the results were analysed, significant correlations were found between club-head angular velocity at the moment of impact with the ball and left and right maximum hip moment. What's more right-hip torque was significantly correlated to swing intensity both at the top of the backswing and at mid-downswing showing that the right hip is instrumental in initiating and driving the downswings that achieve the greatest distance and so suggesting new avenues for both research and coaching.

Previous biomechanical research on the golf swing has focused mainly on the upper body, while research conducted on the lower body has focused mainly on the feet and knees.

The new research was directed by Dr Stewart and undertaken by her undergraduate student James Haigh. James was awarded a first for the study and, in a rare accolade for an undergraduate, is presenting the findings at the British Association of Sport and Exercise Science conference in Glasgow.

Golf: Evidence of how 'loading the hips' improves golf drives
 
significant correlations were found between club-head angular velocity at the moment of impact with the ball and left and right maximum hip moment. What's more right-hip torque was significantly correlated to swing intensity both at the top of the backswing and at mid-downswing showing that the right hip is instrumental in initiating and driving the downswings that achieve the greatest distance and so suggesting new avenues for both research and coaching.

interesting.
 
I increasingly wonder who these studies are based on, and what their swings are like...

I mean, its obvious that the Steven Nesbitt paper isn't based around Tommy Gainey. I'm not disputing anything there, or in this post, and optimal is the key word. Its interesting to think how some of these papers may have turned out with some of the 'less orthodox' swings on tour. Just a thought.
 
Here's one for ya Stevie:

Scientists will never understand the golf swing, because most of their studies are flawed.
 
As much as I would love to disagree with you, you do have a point.

Some of the scientific studies I've read used low handicap players (0-5) as one of their more skilled models as well as higher handicap players (15-20) as their average golfers. But if Golf Digest is correct on their math, then the best players in the world (i.e. Greg Norman in the 80's and Tiger Woods in the early 200's) are +8, +9 and some have Tiger as high as +13...true experts at the game. Don't you think that anyone that gets 14 shots from the best players in the world may be somewhat flawed in their technique?
 
No, but if one study uses Lance Armstrong as their model and another uses the club champion at their home course, its not quite apples to apples. Is it?
 
S

SteveT

Guest
So is the consensus that scientific studies may be flawed... based on your personal skepticism... or because you don't really understand scientific studies?
 
I'm not saying any of the studies are flawed; you are correct, I do not understand the process...

All I'm saying is Ian Poulter is an 'elite' golfer, and so is Tommy Gainey. I don't know how far each guy hits, say, a 6-iron...but it must be comparable and obviously long enough for the tour. But a quick look at a slo-mo of their swings and I would say both are getting the job done differently.

I haven't seen any of the swings analysed in these papers...I'm just presenting the idea that all this science might not be equal.

Because we can't see the swings behind the numbers in most of these, it can be hard to relate. If someone made a website full of video, images and measurements showing Tommy Gainey, data relating to his movement, forces, etc...and argued that this is what elite ball strikers do, you would say he is a handle dragger and not representative of Tiger Woods, or Luke Donald, or anyone else.
But if this same argument was made with purely the data, some graphs and no names (an 'elite' player) you would have to assume that the technique resembled a generic, standard type tour swing. (or dismiss it)
 
S

SteveT

Guest
I'm not saying any of the studies are flawed; you are correct, I do not understand the process...

All I'm saying is Ian Poulter is an 'elite' golfer, and so is Tommy Gainey. I don't know how far each guy hits, say, a 6-iron...but it must be comparable and obviously long enough for the tour. But a quick look at a slo-mo of their swings and I would say both are getting the job done differently.

Are you suggesting that golfswing scientific studies would be more credible for you if they used Poulter and Gainey swings for model analysis?
 
Are you suggesting that golfswing scientific studies would be more credible for you if they used Poulter and Gainey swings for model analysis?

Not at all. Just saying I often read that a study of this elite player has told us X and Y, and then everyone is thinking about how to replicate it. Someone scientifically studies Hogan and finds out his hips had a certain move, well maybe that was part of the solution to the hook? And we don't get the information on the players studied, just the numbers and graphs...and then it is implied that ALL elite players do this.
 
The number and type(s) of golfer(s) is a definite problem to be considered in golf swing studies. The most credible studies will identify the type(s) and number of golfer(s) and will be clear in their conclusion that their findings pertain to their sample and may have implications for golf instruction or medical implications.
 
S

SteveT

Guest
@ spktho ... so a scientific study has 20 golfers of various abilities and tests them. Then somebody on this forum complains that the study didn't use somebody from the tour... as if the study is voided because they didn't use a favorite tour golfer and thus is inadequate for that duffer. Some people just can't be satisfied.. even with their decrepit golfswing and sorry game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top