The "Dariusz J." Swing Theories Thread

[ZAP]

I would think there is a lot of room for wiggle in a biomechanical approach. Humans are not all arranged the same in terms of joint angle,muscle insertions and limb length. Just look at something as simple as Q angle in the lower leg and valgus/varus of the elbow to get an idea.
I really do think there are some good ideas in terms of ideal mechanical advantage but we have to remember we are not all made the same or wired the same.

Of course the pursuit of ideal is what we are all here for I think. If we ever really figured it out golf would be boring and we could move on to charades or something.

 

[ej20]

I would think there is a lot of room for wiggle in a biomechanical approach. Humans are not all arranged the same in terms of joint angle,muscle insertions and limb length. Just look at something as simple as Q angle in the lower leg and valgus/varus of the elbow to get an idea.
I really do think there are some good ideas in terms of ideal mechanical advantage but we have to remember we are not all made the same or wired the same.

Of course the pursuit of ideal is what we are all here for I think. If we ever really figured it out golf would be boring and we could move on to charades or something.

I would also add that we are all different in regards to flexibility as well.There are some moves by great players that most of us simply cannot emulate.Olympic hurdlers can leap over hurdles with a straight lead leg without knocking it over with the trailing leg.Perhaps biomechanically ideal and looks effortless but I would like to see the average person try that without tearing some tendons.

 

[Dariusz J.]

My sincere suggestion though, when it comes to validating your theories, would be not to rely on the list of great ballstrikers that you gave. With the exception of Furyk (and possibly Trevino) that list is too historical (a) for us to understand exactly what they did; or (b) how well, in statistical terms, they did it.

What I would like to see (though of course it's entirely up to you) is for you to state your case around modern players for whom we have decent stats. Whether you use GIR stats, or shotlink data, would be up to you - but (even if you truly believe that those on your list rank better than more recent players) surely your thesis should still stand up as an analysis of the best and most consistent ballstrikers currently playing, and whether or not they fit your model of an automated swing.

I know I for one would really sit up and take notice if you were able to do this.

I thought before about a similar idea, Birly. Two things that stopped me:
- there are no (maybe except Furyk and to some extent Garcia) really classy great ballstrikers from tee to green nowadays; I cannot say that Durant or Senden are in Furyk's league, not mentioning the league of the greatest ballstrikers in the history of the game;
- tendencies that are present in today's equipment (such as too upright lie angles or offset) wouldn't favour a good comparison with old masters of the game.
However, if you or other knowledgeable guys here can help me in defining today's greatest ballstrikers, we should see how many % of them match my theories.

Cheers

Homer's book has been around for decades and yet is still relatively unknown.If it was that revolutional,don't you think it would be more mainstream by now?If there was really a cure for cancer like many alternative treatments claim,you would have thought it would have made headlines around the world and be the treatment of choice in all hospitals.
You make a very bold claim that Kelly set a new standard for golf instruction.There is NO evidence that TGM instructors(in general) have a better teaching record than others.Please don't try to respond to a post with another claim that is debatable.It's like posting a pic or video from a poor angle to support your argument.

Heh, that's good - me defending Homer Kelley against former TGM believers
I always criticized openly everything that I don't like in TGM approach and Homer Kelley's work. And I still do - but, no offense, it's obvious that he sets new standards in golf instruction because he tried to produce a coherent system which explains the golf swing. We all use a lot of his definitions and notions in our discussions all the time.
BTW, I never said that TGM instructors have a better teaching record than e.g. Manzella Academy instructors. Again, as said before, I don't care for microscale instruction whatever good it is. I am trying to work out a macroscale system that hopefully will cause finally the average HCP drop down from shameful result of 25 or something. Not everyone wants or can afford take lessons from good instructors. Besides, there is no guarantee that such an istruction won't appear as an ordinary short-run band-aid.

Regarding the perpendicularity of the lead arm,you should have made it clear that you prefer to see the lead arm below rather than above the ideal.I have no idea what you mean by conjunction of the lead arm and main body.I can offer an OPINION also that too flat a lead arm can induce an OTT action in many players.

I cannot say this. IMO, having the lead arm below shoulder line is the same caliber mistake as having it above the line. In both ways the perpendicularity is lost. I just tried to explain why both Hogan and Moe happened to have it below the line sometimes.

Some play better steepish because not everyone is comfortable with a lot of lead forearm rotation which a flatter swing requires.This is one area where DJ has overlooked.A flatter swing might be better in some ways but requires a lot more rotational lead forearm skill.It's not for everyone.

I did not overlook anything, EJ. Lead forearm rotation in the backswing happens unintentionally because there is no other biophysical option left, therefore, it is difficult to claim that someone is more or less comfortable with it. It does not require any skills for an average healthy human.

Cheers

I would think there is a lot of room for wiggle in a biomechanical approach. Humans are not all arranged the same in terms of joint angle,muscle insertions and limb length. Just look at something as simple as Q angle in the lower leg and valgus/varus of the elbow to get an idea.
I really do think there are some good ideas in terms of ideal mechanical advantage but we have to remember we are not all made the same or wired the same.

Of course the pursuit of ideal is what we are all here for I think. If we ever really figured it out golf would be boring and we could move on to charades or something.

I would also add that we are all different in regards to flexibility as well.There are some moves by great players that most of us simply cannot emulate.Olympic hurdlers can leap over hurdles with a straight lead leg without knocking it over with the trailing leg.Perhaps biomechanically ideal and looks effortless but I would like to see the average person try that without tearing some tendons.

Gents, there is no place for such details as a 5-10* different ROM in joints or different flexibility in the macroscale approach. It's all microscale you're mentioning here. Those are minor things that should never darken the big picture, IMO. If someone cannot match the model in 100% - it's OK. The most important is tyo use the principles of the model - and not to say that e.g. "I am a single shifter because I am too fat or too less flexible". It's BS. I can say e.g. my lead arm is not entirely straight or my backswing is less than 90 degrees due to my microscale issues, but it has no influence in the macroscale. People run 100 meters below 10 sec., around 12 sec, more then 15 sec, etc. - but the general mechanism of running motion is still the same, only biokinetical efficiency is different.

Cheers

 

[ej20]

Dariusz J,I don't think you have understood what I am trying to say about forearm rotation.Yes,lead forearm rotation happens in every swing but this rotation is greater with a flatter swing.Nicklaus said he preferred an upright swing because it required LESS forearm rotation.I agree with him.

Do you agree that this is the case?Would you also agree that this greater range of movement would be harder to automate?

Lets not forget that Hogan and Moe spent their entire waking hours practicing and most of that time would be dedicated to the long game as both has openly showed contempt for the short game aspect of golf.Moe was a loner who never married and Hogan had no kids and a very supportive wife.

I think if you want to study a swing for the ease of automation,then perhaps you should be looking at Bruce Lietzke.Word has it he rarely practiced and spent most of his time fishing or with his family yet he still won 12 pga titles and was never lower than 74 on the money list.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz J,I don't think you have understood what I am trying to say about forearm rotation.Yes,lead forearm rotation happens in every swing but this rotation is greater with a flatter swing.Nicklaus said he preferred an upright swing because it required LESS forearm rotation.I agree with him.

OK, EJ, understood. I agree with his thesis as well that upright swing needs less lead forearm rotation...but...

Would you also agree that this greater range of movement would be harder to automate?

Yes, I would, but provided both motions do not meet natural limitations in their ROMs.
The easiest to automate is this kind of motion that meets its spacial limits and lets to create overtorques in joints provoking the motion in opposite direction to start automatically. It acts like a spring wall - as we said, human hard structure is not like soft rubber but not like titanium either. The beauty of the theory of benefitting from natural limitations of the human organism.

Lets not forget that Hogan and Moe spent their entire waking hours practicing and most of that time would be dedicated to the long game as both has openly showed contempt for the short game aspect of golf.Moe was a loner who never married and Hogan had no kids and a very supportive wife.

True.
I prefer to analyze these ballstrikers who show contempt for the short game aspect of golf and are able to win with ballstriking, not putting or chipping though. I am interested in full swing motion only.

I think if you want to study a swing for the ease of automation,then perhaps you should be looking at Bruce Lietzke.Word has it he rarely practiced and spent most of his time fishing or with his family yet he still won 12 pga titles and was never lower than 74 on the money list.

I did somewhen before and disscussed it on the WRX forum. I cannot explain Lietzke's phenomenon with biokinetics. He can be just an exception that confirms the rule - either my theories suck.

Cheers

 

[ej20]

I don't think the ROM of the lead forearm will be a limiting factor for even the least flexible players.The simple fact is the greater range of movement required of the lead forearm has to be more detrimental compared to a smaller range of movement.The rate of clubface closure would be greater and timing is going to be a little more erratic.

It is much harder to time a tennis top spin forehand than a flat forehand.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I don't think the ROM of the lead forearm will be a limiting factor for even the least flexible players.The simple fact is the greater range of movement required of the lead forearm has to be more detrimental compared to a smaller range of movement.The rate of clubface closure would be greater and timing is going to be a little more erratic.

It is much harder to time a tennis top spin forehand than a flat forehand.

Try it, please. It's easy to prove if the limitation has been found - your lead wrist will start to cup (dorsi flex). It happens because both palms are holding the same grip which additionally limits both ROMs.
And this is the famous Hogan's Life Magazine secret, IMO. He said only to naive readers that he cupped his wrist - all started to believe that he was doing it consciousnessly & on purpose and the army of slicers increased seriously within one day. My deduction is that he just used the theory of natural limitations which goes perfectly in pair with lowering (flattening) and shortening (laid-off) the backswing plane after the "secret" change.

The tennis analogy is not good, IMHO, because a) the ball is in fast motion and b) the topspin move is not natural for one-handed shot arc that does not require the forearm pronation and supination back. We already agreed that the lead forearm pronation is a biomechanical must - thus, the supination is as well.

Cheers

 

[ej20]

We can debate all day and get nowhere but I suspect Nicklaus has tried to flatten his swing in practice without success.He liked to watch Hogan so it would make sense he would at least experiment with a flatter swing seeing he considered Hogan the best ball striker ever.

There are just somethings that biomechanics cannot account for.The intangibles.If it doesn't work for a player,it doesn't work.End of story.

Tiger has flattened his swing and it's highly debatable that he's a better ball striker now than back in 2000 when he had a more upright swing.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Well, I never said that one cannot ar should not use a method based on different principles. I never said that there is no zillion ways to perform a given action - I said that there is no zillion EQUALLY GOOD ways to perform an action.
Especially when we are talking about PGA pros who are gifted above average.
Let's better concentrate on how to make a hacker's life easier

Cheers

 

[rainbow_in_the_dark]

Well, I never said that one cannot ar should not use a method based on different principles. I never said that there is no zillion ways to perform a given action - I said that there is no zillion EQUALLY GOOD ways to perform an action.
Especially when we are talking about PGA pros who are gifted above average.
Let's better concentrate on how to make a hacker's life easier
Cheers

Game improvement irons

 

[miki111]

Clubs "from the rack" in last 10-20 years, with more upright lies, longer shafts (so even more upright) produced more upright swings, U just cannot swing to the EEP with modern eqipment bought from golf stores.
Dariusz said about clubs erlier, but everybody just missed it. Please just think what it does to the players (especialy new).
Anyway, I"m cheering for Dariusz, first cause he is my countryman, but also cause I mostly agree with his ideas.
I have great respect for Brian, his Academy, and his work, but I wish he will try and research Dariusz's ideas.

regards miki

 

[birly-shirly]

I thought before about a similar idea, Birly. Two things that stopped me:
- there are no (maybe except Furyk and to some extent Garcia) really classy great ballstrikers from tee to green nowadays; I cannot say that Durant or Senden are in Furyk's league, not mentioning the league of the greatest ballstrikers in the history of the game;
- tendencies that are present in today's equipment (such as too upright lie angles or offset) wouldn't favour a good comparison with old masters of the game.
However, if you or other knowledgeable guys here can help me in defining today's greatest ballstrikers, we should see how many % of them match my theories.

Wow - that's a pretty strong statement, but let's not debate that. I do think though, that if you expect your theories to be applicable to weekend players, then they should be capable of explaining the differences in ballstriking abilities of tour players - even tour players that you don't have a very high opinion of.

Surely, using your theories, you should be able to identify the current players that are using what you think is biomechanically advantageous, and demonstrate that they have an advantage over the players who you consider to be less "correct".

I don't think that the test of your theories should depend on a comparison of current players with players of another era - but it should stand up to scrutiny against the current crop all playing under the same conditions and with an unprecedented volume of statistical data available to measure their actual performance.

As for who the current best ballstrikers are - why don't you just go with last year's leaders in either the greens in reg stat, or proximity to the hole from 200 yds?

 

[rainbow_in_the_dark]

Clubs "from the rack" in last 10-20 years, with more upright lies, longer shafts (so even more upright) produced more upright swings, U just cannot swing to the EEP with modern eqipment bought from golf stores.
Dariusz said about clubs erlier, but everybody just missed it. Please just think what it does to the players (especialy new).
Anyway, I"m cheering for Dariusz, first cause he is my countryman, but also cause I mostly agree with his ideas.
I have great respect for Brian, his Academy, and his work, but I wish he will try and research Dariusz's ideas.

regards miki

I'm not so sure about the too upright lies theory. I tried shorter shafts and flatter lies and all I did was hurt my back because I had to bend over too much at address. I'm average height so it's not like I was too tall to use them. My arms and shoulders are pretty much inline at the top with standard lie clubs.

 

[Brian Manzella]

John Senden is another example.Year in year out always amongst the best in total driving and GIRs.Steepish player.

Some play better steepish because not everyone is comfortable with a lot of lead forearm rotation which a flatter swing requires.This is one area where DJ has overlooked.A flatter swing might be better in some ways but requires a lot more rotational lead forearm skill.It's not for everyone.

Hall-of-Fame post.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Shaky Ground.

I don't care for microscale instruction whatever good it is. I am trying to work out a macroscale system that hopefully will cause finally the average HCP drop down from shameful result of 25 or something. Not everyone wants or can afford take lessons from good instructors. Besides, there is no guarantee that such an istruction won't appear as an ordinary short-run band-aid.

Horrible quote.

You give a guy a thread, and he rips the last 28 years of your life.

All I have to say is this: you need to save all of your nickels and come watch me teach.

Damn.

 

[rainbow_in_the_dark]

Hall-of-Fame post.

Is that true a flatter swing requires more forearm rotation? It's not so obvious to me. Watson has an upright swing and rotates aggressively thru impact. More inside swing allows for more extensor action, at least it seems to me.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Watson uncocks the left wrist from a less open top of the backswing clubface position. Flatter swings require more #3 accumulator roll to shoot out the sweetspot.....unless you're "old Duval".

 

[rainbow_in_the_dark]

I'm sorry it's just not obvious to me. A flatter swing with pitch elbow, puts one in a position to power the club through with very little #3 roll. More upright swings which aren't positioned for extensor action will require roll to get the club thru. At least that's how it seems to me.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Is that true a flatter swing requires more forearm rotation? It's not so obvious to me. Watson has an upright swing and rotates aggressively thru impact. More inside swing allows for more extensor action, at least it seems to me.

This is what I am saying...

The point was that SOME of the reason why golfers might choose one plane angle over another, is forearm rotation.

1000 other reasons as well.

But...

A flatter swing with NO ROLL will still have more "roll" relative to the target line.

 

[spktho]

I've read all the posts, but I don't think Dariusz has given much information into his "theories"(should be hypotheses) other than perpendicularity to the spine, eep, and looking at the "macroscale hard structure of joints".

Give up the info. Exactly how should one swing a golf club with the best "biomechanical advantageous" motion that happens "automatically" from the setup?