How do Reverse Tumble, Tumble, and the "Flick" Release all fit together???

[finncox]

In the recent past, we've spent a lot of time on the EPIC "Sergio and the Tumble" thread, and discussed the merits of the Tumble. To me, one of the big takeaways from this thread was how damaging a hands-out, "reverse tumble" could be to one's golf swing.

Then, the "Release" videos got a lot of attention, and we spent some time looking at Fred Couples, who leverages the "flick" really, really well. Also, something I took away from that thread was that Soft Draw-like, across the line swing allowed you to leverage the flick really well from the top, and release the heck out of the club. Personally, I went back to more of a SD type move, and have started striking my irons really well again, in particular.

However, it struck me last night that we have mentioned swings like Couples' in the past as "reverse tumblers" to a certain extent, due to their across the line position. If reverse tumble is so dreaded in one sense, why do players who tend toward across the line (Nicklaus, Snead, Jones, Couples, Goosen, Senden, etc.) hit the ball so damn well?

My thesis is this:

They are not really reverse tumbling INTO the ball like we hackers, who have a hands-out move, and back the shaft up all the way into the ball. Instead, they are reverse tumbling ENOUGH that they can get the club back "on plane" from its steep backswing position, and then "re-tumble" it into the ball.

Really, I'm trying to distinguish between why the reverse tumble for hackers is so bad, if an across the line position inherently requires some sort of reverse tumble at some point during the swing to avoid an overly steep club coming into the ball? Given how much time was spent on the negative effects of reverse tumble, and the merits of tumble, I'm just trying to straighten all this out in my head. I personally spent a lot of time trying to learn to tumble the club, thinking that I had to avoid reverse tumble like the plagued, and I didn't get any better. In going back to SD, I'm having more luck, but just had a confused moment when it occurred to me that this swing may involve that very "dreaded" move that I thought we were all supposed to avoid.

Does this make any sense to anyone, or is this merely a wasted thread???

 

[BertramSterling]

This does make sense, but I'm not sure I have the answer.. (but here goes!)

I thought that a steep club shaft, late in the downswing, meant that you have to move your hands out towards the ball (since essentially the club head is lower than it was at address). I also took it that you could steepen a more horizontal shaft, but not 'lift' a steep shaft up into impact (at higher speeds late in the swing, to try and flatten). So, to me, Sergio is essentially flattening out the shaft to allow for the large (late) amount of steepening. Try and imagine this move in reverse!

So, if this all holds true then I would think the answer is ... if the club is steep enough that you have to carry it outward to the ball to hit it (i.e. hands going toward the ball late in the downswing)...you were too steep/too late. This also is often accompanied by a loss of posture, standing up through impact, over-the-top, etc. All could be moves to 'fit in' the extra reaching you DIDN'T have at address.

Fred Couples looks across the line at the top of the backswing, and steep, but reverse tumbles and halfway back down it looks fairly 'orthodox'. I think Sergio does the same thing, but from a laid off position at the start - hence the very flat looking shaft halfway down. I think the difference is Sergio HAS to tumble a lot, late on, and Couples just needs to find the right amount and nothing more. As you say, into the ball is the key - the ball doesn't know where you were at the top of the backswing...

 

[finncox]

Fred Couples looks across the line at the top of the backswing, and steep, but reverse tumbles and halfway back down it looks fairly 'orthodox'. I think Sergio does the same thing, but from a laid off position at the start - hence the very flat looking shaft halfway down. I think the difference is Sergio HAS to tumble a lot, late on, and Couples just needs to find the right amount and nothing more. As you say, into the ball is the key - the ball doesn't know where you were at the top of the backswing...

This is very similar to what I was trying to say when I listed the across the line players in my OP. They reverse tumble it early, to get it back to "orthodox," and then still tumble it a litte from there, into the ball. In contrast, we hackers tend to get our hands going out to the ball, and actually have to keep backing the shaft up to hit it, right?? Otherwise, we'd miss the ball??

 

[BertramSterling]

This is very similar to what I was trying to say when I listed the across the line players in my OP. They reverse tumble it early, to get it back to "orthodox," and then still tumble it a litte from there, into the ball. In contrast, we hackers tend to get our hands going out to the ball, and actually have to keep backing the shaft up to hit it, right?? Otherwise, we'd miss the ball??

Yeah, although I think most people who throw their hands out at the ball probably do so *because* of a backed up shaft (due to being overly steep in the area you talk about) and if the hands didn't go out they'd miss it on the inside.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Better players usually reverse tumble and the club just falls on plane all the while intending to line up with the ball.

Hacker types who do it use a reverse tumble just to hit it because the face is so open and the hand path so poor that they need that move of the club just to make contact.

 

[Steve Greffen]

Better players usually reverse tumble and the club just falls on plane all the while intending to line up with the ball.

Hacker types who do it use a reverse tumble just to hit it because the face is so open and the hand path so poor that they need that move of the club just to make contact.

Kevin,

Do you work a lot on hand path with hackers to improve, or do you try other ways to improve where their club is going? It seems to be a challenge on the less than co-ordinated golfer.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Steve

 

[Kevin Shields]

Kevin,

Do you work a lot on hand path with hackers to improve, or do you try other ways to improve where their club is going? It seems to be a challenge on the less than co-ordinated golfer.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Steve

I wish I had an answer but it totally depends on who it is. if I think (right or wrong) that handpath would get the fastest results, I'll try it.

 

[Steve Greffen]

I wish I had an answer but it totally depends on who it is. if I think (right or wrong) that handpath would get the fastest results, I'll try it.

Thanks Kevin, I guess I should have known that answer. Not everyone is going to be the same. I suppose I was thinking about when you thought an undesirable hand path needed to be fixed. Again though, a perfectly good answer to that would be it depends.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[mgranato]

Do you ever see a good handpath with doodoo club movement?

 

[wulsy]

I thinl where Kevin is coming from with the "it depends" standpoint is that a doodoo hand path which matches/offsets a gaagaa club movement is a usable variation. The one would lead to the other to a large extent. I dare say some can and do make it work very well.

 

[Kevin Shields]

David Toms has what we may call a "poor" handpath and a slight reverse tumble but offsets it with width and a downarched left wrist. Thats more likely IMO to help an weekend player.

 

[finncox]

Better players usually reverse tumble and the club just falls on plane all the while intending to line up with the ball.

Hacker types who do it use a reverse tumble just to hit it because the face is so open and the hand path so poor that they need that move of the club just to make contact.

Thanks for this response, Kevin. I always find it amusing how the Instructors on this forum can succinctly respond to our questions, though they may be drawn out and wordy.

So, I guess what I can take away from this is that a pattern like Soft Draw, which inherently will involve some reverse tumble, should not worry me. In other words, stop thinking about all this technical crap and go out and flick the club into the ball!!

 

[Kevin Shields]

Sorry for being drawn out and wordy

 

[dbl]

finn. I assume. meant that questions were wordy.

 

[BertramSterling]

David Toms has what we may call a "poor" handpath and a slight reverse tumble but offsets it with width and a downarched left wrist. Thats more likely IMO to help an weekend player.

Hmm... does this mean that a good tumble & hand path is more compatible with depth in the swing, as opposed to width?

 

[finncox]

Sorry for being drawn out and wordy

Haha.....I was talking about my question Kevin. I re-read the sentence that I wrote, and realized how contradictory and ridiculous it sounds when read aloud.

I was definitely referring to my three or four paragraph "question."

My bad on the confusion.

 

[ej20]

The sexy thing to do is lay it off on the transition and then tumble into the ball with a vertical hand path ala Sergio.

However,the reality is that this type of swing shape is not suited for everyone.

An across the line then a steepish transition followed by a reverse tumble with a slightly outward hand path can work well as shown by a lot of great players.I think the key is to keep the reverse tumble minimal.If you don't,you will most likely swing into the ball very underplane and consistent golf will be difficult.

 

[jimmydean]

Can someone explain and show tumble and reverse tumble? I always thought that tumble was making a clockwise move with the clubhead on the downswing but I am now confused. Help. Thanks.
Jimmy

 

[Kevin Shields]

Can someone explain and show tumble and reverse tumble? I always thought that tumble was making a clockwise move with the clubhead on the downswing but I am now confused. Help. Thanks.
Jimmy

Look at the Rocco Mediate thread and someone posted a video of his swing. You will see a massive reverse tumble. he and Carl Peterssen have the biggest on Tour, along with Daly.

 

[ej20]

Tom Watson would be another reverse tumbler.

Sergio and Quiros would be tumblers.We've seen enough of Sergio so lets look at Quiros.