Just a reminder.....from a while back....

[Brian Manzella]

Fredrik Tuxen said to me today in a 30 minute Skype conversation:

A perfectly straight ball (no side-spin) would actually have an impact have about about a 0.4° closed face at mid-impact interval (the point near maximum compression when the ball gets its programming) and a 0.7° inside-out path. These numbers are not 0.0° because of a gear-effect-like action on the face to the ball (more on that in a second). On an normal shot with about 0.8° of face closure during the entire impact interval, that would mean the club would have first contact with the ball with the face AT 0.0° so that halfway through the interval, the clubface would be 0.4° closed.............So what?............So THIS!........(more Tuxen) If the golfer did everything EXACTLY like the straight ball, except had HALF the amount of closure during the interval, so that the face would be 0.2° closed (0.2° MORE OPEN THAN THE STRAIGHT BALL) the ball would slightly draw!!!!!! Start slightly right and DRAW!!.

So.....

Lets say that the TGM THEORETICAL idea of "horizontal hinge action" produced the straight ball (it can) and the "angled hinge action" produced the half amount of closure in the example above (just about correct if you do some math) then TGM would be EXACTLY BACKWARDS!!!

And all of the "less face rotation crowd" might get MORE HOOKS!!!

Too good....

 

[Brian Manzella]

Just incase anyone forgot this post from MAY OF 2012...

 

[tongzilla]

I get the point- faster closer rate = more slice effect. Makes sense when you imagine the ball rolling to the right as the clubface closes during impact.

Anyway...you would be crazy to try control spin axis via closure rate. Do it through path/face instead.
If fact, I think if you want to think about closer rate, think of its effect on face/path instead.

 

[wulsy]

More closure counteracts the GE, right?

 

[wulsy]

Brian, would it be fair to say that TM measures two factors and models everything else based on these two values, with this modelling being based on collision physics and the associated mathematics? And that this modelling is more accurate than anything which could actually be measured?

 

[rogerdodger]

In the book shape your swing the modern way by Byron Nelson, which was written in the mid-70's, he has a chapter about working the ball. He talks about working with the late great amateur Harvie Ward who was having issues hitting a draw. He talked about teaching Ward to "draw with an open face". I believe these theories may not have been known or well described in the past, but they have been used by great players whether acknowledged or not. Thanks to Brian the light keeps getting brighter.

 

[DCgolf]

In the book shape your swing the modern way by Byron Nelson, which was written in the mid-70's, he has a chapter about working the ball. He talks about working with the late great amateur Harvie Ward who was having issues hitting a draw. He talked about teaching Ward to "draw with an open face". I believe these theories may not have been known or well described in the past, but they have been used by great players whether acknowledged or not. Thanks to Brian the light keeps getting brighter.

Side note on Harvey: Ken Venturi was once said this to me: Give me Nicklaus in his prime and Ward in his prime, I'll take Harvey! This guy could flat golf it! This has hothing to do wth the thread just thought you might find it interesting. BTW, Nelson worked with Kenny as well.

 

[Brian Manzella]

FROM FREDRIK TUXEN:

A perfectly straight ball (no side-spin) would actually have an impact have about about a 0.4° closed face at mid-impact interval and a 0.7° inside-out path. These numbers are not 0.0° because of a gear-effect-like action on the face to the ball (more on that in a second). On an normal shot with about 0.8° of face closure during the entire impact interval, that would mean the club would have first contact with the ball with the face AT 0.0° so that halfway through the interval, the clubface would be 0.4° closed.

.........So what?............So THIS!........(more Tuxen) If the golfer did everything EXACTLY like the straight ball, except had HALF the amount of closure during the interval, so that the face would be 0.2° closed (0.2° MORE OPEN THAN THE STRAIGHT BALL) the ball would slightly draw!!!!!! Start slightly right and DRAW!!.

So.....

Lets say that the TGM THEORETICAL idea of "horizontal hinge action" produced the straight ball (it can) and the "angled hinge action" produced the half amount of closure in the example above (just about correct if you do some math) then TGM would be EXACTLY BACKWARDS!!!

And all of the "less face rotation crowd" might get MORE HOOKS!!!

Too good....

What's the point of this information?

Really simple...

Nobody in golf is teaching a swing that with a normal clubhead speed (100-115 mph) would produce a Rate of Closure more than 3500° per second. I can not imagine anyone that really would, even an AJ Bonar, but for the sake of explanation let's say someone would teach a 3500° rate.

This would give you a closing AMOUNT (if you hit a ball of shaving cream and not a golf ball that would slow the rate some) of ~1.6°.

Nobody in golf teaching a swing that with a normal clubhead speed would produce a Rate of Closure less than 1500° per second. I can not imagine anyone that really would, even a genetically engineered son of a S&Ter and a Handle-dragging steer-hold on for lifer, but for the sake of explanation let's say someone would.

This would give you a closing AMOUNT (if you hit a ball of shaving cream and not a golf ball that would slow the rate some) of ~0.7°.

This would give you a difference with shaving cream of .9°.

With a golf ball, probably less, and the sum of the whole interval (approximately "summed up" at max compression) the difference would be toward half that amount.

But that's not the point, in the real world of golfers taught by Brian Manzella or a S&Ter or Jim Flick, those golfers would have Rates of Closure of between 2400° and 3000°.

Leaving you with a difference on the high end of next to nothing.

With absolutely no proof of any kind—scientific or real golfer testing—that less face rotation would lead to any benefit. It might lead to less.

For the last 30 years I have taught a clubface at least parallel pre-impact of at least somewhat turned down from toe-up. In some swings over the years a face at that location cutting through the plane.

For the last 30 years I have taught a clubface at 45° post impact of no more than vertical to the ground (slightly more closed than perpendicular to the plane).

Over the years when I've taught some folks a full-roll, wedding ring up swivel, they wound up with LESS visible rotation through the ball.

In the last few years when I've taught a bending left worst post-impact, it has always been pared with a less closing face on the way to a "Spiderman" left hand at the swivel.

No long term or medium term Brian Manzella student, nor a student of any Manzella Academy or POPSE Instructor I've ever seen, had a swing that looked anything like a exaggerated steer, over drag, hold on for life move, or a super rotated face either.

If you make a really good orthodox swing, one where the face is slightly topped over at last parallel, and the face is turned to the plane in the swivel—or slightly less. A swing where the golfer has proper torso and pelvis sequencing, taking out the forward bend of the torso and pelvis through the ball....

Your actual measured Rate of Closure will be so close to someone with a maximum steer the face through the ball like a Dave Pelz putting stroke swing, that the ball will never know the difference.

And you might give him 5 a side.

 

[Dariusz J.]

What's the point of this information?

Really simple...

Nobody in golf is teaching a swing that with a normal clubhead speed (100-115 mph) would produce a Rate of Closure more than 3500° per second. I can not imagine anyone that really would, even an AJ Bonar, but for the sake of explanation let's say someone would teach a 3500° rate.

This would give you a closing AMOUNT (if you hit a ball of shaving cream and not a golf ball that would slow the rate some) of ~1.6°.

Nobody in golf teaching a swing that with a normal clubhead speed would produce a Rate of Closure less than 1500° per second. I can not imagine anyone that really would, even a genetically engineered son of a S&Ter and a Handle-dragging steer-hold on for lifer, but for the sake of explanation let's say someone would.

This would give you a closing AMOUNT (if you hit a ball of shaving cream and not a golf ball that would slow the rate some) of ~0.7°.

This would give you a difference with shaving cream of .9°.

With a golf ball, probably less, and the sum of the whole interval (approximately "summed up" at max compression) the difference would be toward half that amount.

But that's not the point, in the real world of golfers taught by Brian Manzella or a S&Ter or Jim Flick, those golfers would have Rates of Closure of between 2400° and 3000°.

Leaving you with a difference on the high end of next to nothing.

With absolutely no proof of any kind—scientific or real golfer testing—that less face rotation would lead to any benefit. It might lead to less.

For the last 30 years I have taught a clubface at least parallel pre-impact of at least somewhat turned down from toe-up. In some swings over the years a face at that location cutting through the plane.

For the last 30 years I have taught a clubface at 45° post impact of no more than vertical to the ground (slightly more closed than perpendicular to the plane).

Over the years when I've taught some folks a full-roll, wedding ring up swivel, they wound up with LESS visible rotation through the ball.

In the last few years when I've taught a bending left worst post-impact, it has always been pared with a less closing face on the way to a "Spiderman" left hand at the swivel.

No long term or medium term Brian Manzella student, nor a student of any Manzella Academy or POPSE Instructor I've ever seen, had a swing that looked anything like a exaggerated steer, over drag, hold on for life move, or a super rotated face either.

If you make a really good orthodox swing, one where the face is slightly topped over at last parallel, and the face is turned to the plane in the swivel—or slightly less. A swing where the golfer has proper torso and pelvis sequencing, taking out the forward bend of the torso and pelvis through the ball....

Your actual measured Rate of Closure will be so close to someone with a maximum steer the face through the ball like a Dave Pelz putting stroke swing, that the ball will never know the difference.

And you might give him 5 a side.

I wanted to stay out of the forum for good but I couldn't resist.

Brian, for God's sake why do you still wasting time in proving that the RoC between contact and separation matters not much. It is so certain for anyone with a common sense plus a dose of imagination.
As I mentioned many times before, RoC matters because of timing issues. Crossover release player will always need more great timing instinct to deliver the clubface relatively square at the ball, and not prematurely closed or prematurely open because of ill-timed crossover !!!
If one is able to have a RoC that hypothetically and ideally allows to maintain the square position of clubface towards its path what matters are just much more macro factors as e.g. stance or grip.

RoC is a derivative of both physics or anatomy and should be a subconscious world issue. I do not think a crossover release player uses this release 100% consciously, but more because of his swing faults such as e.g. poor pivot just to name one. Same with a low horizontal RoC releases as push or slap-hinge (in Cotton terms). Do anyone serious think that e.g. Furyk holds his clubface squarely to his path so beautifully because of his conscious actions ??? No, it is because he creates biomechanical scenario with his macro motion which allows him to have a low RoC release unintentionally. And having his clubhead squared to the arc relatively long before contact and long after contact he can worry about moments/days of bad timing sense much less.

Delete this post if you like. I am just posting it because of respect to you, and you alone.

Have a good weekend,

 

[tongzilla]

I wanted to stay out of the forum for good but I couldn't resist.

perhaps try not logging on in the first place. Or request to de activate your account.

Crossover release player will always need more great timing instinct to deliver the clubface relatively square at the ball, and not prematurely closed or prematurely open because of ill-timed crossover !!!
If one is able to have a RoC that hypothetically and ideally allows to maintain the square position of clubface towards its path what matters are just much more macro factors as e.g. stance or grip.


RoC is a derivative of both physics or anatomy and should be a subconscious world issue. I do not think a crossover release player uses this release 100% consciously, but more because of his swing faults such as e.g. poor pivot just to name one. Same with a low horizontal RoC releases as push or slap-hinge (in Cotton terms). Do anyone serious think that e.g. Furyk holds his clubface squarely to his path so beautifully because of his conscious actions ??? No, it is because he creates biomechanical scenario with his macro motion which allows him to have a low RoC release unintentionally. And having his clubhead squared to the arc relatively long before contact and long after contact he can worry about moments/days of bad timing sense much less.

You can also have a non cross over player (or whatever you want to call Hogan's release) with an ill timed release. You can have Hogan set up perfectly with perfect grip and stance and all the macro factors or whatever you want to call it, and he can STILL have an ill timed release. How long a player can keep the club square to the arc before and after impact is basically irrelevant to how well the player can zero out the path and face at impact.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Dariusz, try to resist next time. Have a good weekend.

 

[magicmarker]

...It is so certain for anyone with a common sense plus a dose of imagination.

Should be easy to prove then. So prove it.

As I mentioned many times before, RoC matters because of timing issues. Crossover release player will always need more great timing instinct to deliver the clubface relatively square at the ball, and not prematurely closed or prematurely open because of ill-timed crossover !!!
If one is able to have a RoC that hypothetically and ideally allows to maintain the square position of clubface towards its path what matters are just much more macro factors as e.g. stance or grip.

That's just, like, your opinion man...

RoC is a derivative of both physics or anatomy and should be a subconscious world issue. I do not think a crossover release player uses this release 100% consciously, but more because of his swing faults such as e.g. poor pivot just to name one. Same with a low horizontal RoC releases as push or slap-hinge (in Cotton terms).

I don't think or speak in Cotton terms, but out of curiosity, did he have a word for choking. Mine is 'leaking oil' also known as 'going in to a Furyk' or 'Furyking'

Do anyone serious think that e.g. Furyk holds his clubface squarely to his path so beautifully because of his conscious actions ??? No, it is because he creates biomechanical scenario with his macro motion which allows him to have a low RoC release unintentionally. And having his clubhead squared to the arc relatively long before contact and long after contact he can worry about moments/days of bad timing sense much less.

ROC is clearly your favorite topic, after BH of course. It surprises me that you would dig your heels in in order to bicker instead of just absorbing the information that is being given away. Scientific information that comes from research, testing and experiments. Not just common sense. Though around here it's beginning to become common sense and the ship is boarding without you.

You have to want to know the truth more than you want to know your right.

I'm glad to see you back. I mean that. You can respond but I am not going to engage in a science vs sense argument any further, I've given my 2 cents.

 

[Brian Manzella]

What is hilarious in all the this comedy is the single one thing that I can never remember ever telling anyone in 30 years of teaching is to "roll your hands over" or cross one over the other.

 

[tongzilla]

What is hilarious in all the this comedy is the single one thing that I can never remember ever telling anyone in 30 years of teaching is to "roll your hands over" or cross one over the other.

but wouldn't teaching wedding ring up achieve that look?

 

[Brian Manzella]

but wouldn't teaching wedding ring up achieve that look?

No.

You'd better "hit the box" and keep the right arm under the left if you were on your way to WDU.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I neither need to prove anything nor to explain why I am allowed to post. If one moron does not understand it is this moron's problem.
Your'e unable to see the whole picture, which was obvious to me many months ago. You're turning in a circle.

Bye bye.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Dariusz,

You don't teach and you haven't seen me teach. You have no idea what I teach, apparently.


I let you stay on this site when dozens of folks told me to get rid of you.


What are friggin trying to say?

You think I teach a cross-over release??????

 

[DCgolf]

As Sam Goldwyn of MGM used to say, "don't even ignore him".

 

[ej20]

Dariusz, try to resist next time. Have a good weekend.

That ain't gonna happen.

This forum has reduced him to drive by shootings and hit and runs.It must be addictive once you start.

The only way to make him behave professionally is to agree with all his opinions.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz,

You don't teach and you haven't seen me teach. You have no idea what I teach, apparently.


I let you stay on this site when dozens of folks told me to get rid of you.


What are friggin trying to say?

You think I teach a cross-over release??????

Let's settle this down once and for all. As regards banning my account from your site it WAS ME WHO ASKED ABOUT IT long time ago. As you might notice I am a very rare guest since some time and, in fact, I promised to myself not to post here anymore but broke it yesterday since I like from time to time to read this forum, and just couldn't resist to chime in and urge you to stop proving things that are OBVIOUS as regards the RoC between impact and separation. Again, please disactivate my account.

Now, opposite to MANY of your forumers, I feel you're a good guy with a big heart, Brian. That's why I wanted to help you to go out from the vicious circle you are still in. I never said or even imposed you're teaching a crossover release. Actually, I liked your new release much better than TGM handle dragging you were proponent some years ago because you're much closer to subconsciously driven golf swing IMO now. That's beyond obvious for everyone that could read my posts before. What it is missing are macro studies that will make you closer to the biomechanical truth. I was looking after it since you converted to your new project and it was me that was double disappointed to see you stop in so relatively unimportant issues. Of course, it was, is and will be my SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

I say move forward !

All the best.