Peter Thomson: A Case Study in The Flatter Eventual Sweetspot Path

[lia41985]

And what components "work" in combination to achieving that:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fhzjyFSCc4Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I DON'T THINK there was ever a golfer who managed his game better than Peter Thomson. He had a low ball flight because he trapped everything, which made it difficult for him to properly flight the driver. But he didn't change, because he knew he had the perfect swing for 13 clubs. As well as the perfect temperament.

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2011-03/jacobs-diaz-lessons#ixzz1HNaZ3WcK

 

[drewyallop]

Lia:

What does it mean to "trap" the ball?

Drew

 

[Lifter]

Lia:

What does it mean to "trap" the ball?

Drew

My understanding of "trapping" the ball involves hitting the ball with the weight forward on a steep angle with a very strong grip. Results in very significant divots.

 

[lia41985]

I think of "trapping" as synonymous with "covering":

Covering the ball, in the vernacular that I am familiar with, means a higher, "on top of it" right shoulder through impact.

In our research, this works very well with flatter eventual sweetspot/CoG/GoI paths.

So, an example of a golfer who would aim left and cover it would be Ben Hogan.

Also keep in mind what Brian stated, which is that these "Hogan model" swings have steeper VSP (numbers) "through the bag."

 

[jpeck]

And what components "work" in combination to achieving that:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fhzjyFSCc4Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

John Jacobs: A Life Full Of Lessons: Golf Digest

Lia, can you give me a run down of the flatter eventual sweetspot path and the components that make it work? I seem to have missed that that in the video, and want to make sure I understand it.

Also, are you saying Thomson has a Hogan model swing?

 

[lia41985]

Lia, can you give me a run down of the flatter eventual sweetspot path and the components that make it work? I seem to have missed that that in the video, and want to make sure I understand it.

Also, are you saying Thomson has a Hogan model swing?

I'll take your last question first. Yes. As far as the first question, this is the most I can give you:

So, basically, you have a few possibilities....

1. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
2. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
3. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.

4. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
5. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
6. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

7. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
8. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
9. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

You don't need lines....it doesn't have to be exact...but you do need a pretty good camera angle.

Those 9 possibilities, have hand paths that can be:

A. Straight(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
b. Convex(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
c. Concave(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.

This hand paths can various relationships to the sweetspot vs. right shoulder paths....

Etc.

Plus, quite a few other variables....

I think of what Brian presented as a classification system of different club, shoulder, and hand path orientations to achieve reasonable face and path combinations. I know Brian's research now flies under the flag of Project 1.68 but the classification system presented is like the Manzella Matrix--there are a host of hand, arm, body, and club motions to achieve reasonable ball flights up until a point where a shot is hit with too much curve (too much face and path divergence).

This is the main point....there are so many combinations that work

Incidentally, I dont want to speak for Brian, but cant he withold some information? He does have a book in the works.

These are Brian's ideas. It's his system of classification that he will present to us showing how many different combinations work and until he presents I won't probe too deep. Your request asks for a little bit more than I'm willing to offer or, frankly, that I have knowledge of. I'm here learning! I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

 

[jpeck]

I'll take your last question first. Yes. As far as the first question, this is the most I can give you:




These are Brian's ideas. It's his system of classification that he will present to us showing how many different combinations work and until he presents I won't probe too deep. Your request asks for a little bit more than I'm willing to offer or, frankly, that I have knowledge of. I'm here learning! I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Actually, I don't really understand where you're coming from - you've been very active (manic, in fact) on the board lately. Thanks, but I'll wait for Brian to finish his work and get it from him.

 

[lia41985]

You're welcome, jprick.

 

[ekennedy]

Geez, is it asking too much to have a few highly trained professionals do years of research, spend countless hours of time and enormous amounts of money to gather information on the golf swing and then share it with all of us for free? And in the event we don't quite understand the information, break it down for us like we are 5th graders?

Seriously, its getting to the point that I can't get everything I want without getting off the couch.

 

[jpeck]

You're welcome, jprick.

Somehow I'd expected better from you. Oh well...