Nicklaus vs. Hogan Model: Tumble and Through The Ball Action

[lia41985]

Hogan, Garcia, Fowler, and McIlroy demonstrate the Hogan model. Watson, Schwartzel, Jacquelin, and Atwal demonstrate the Nicklaus model.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vw27iExp948" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[footwedge]

Are you saying "versus" as in one is better than the other or as in comparing the differences between the two?

 

[dbl]

Lia, great videos.

Can you remind me of what Brian said about those two models? There was the eventual sweetspot plane, but was there shoulder plane considerations too?

 

[mgranato]

I love Jacquelin's swing - butter.

Does anyone over 5'8" swing like the Hogan model? All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't get me in those positions.

 

[Phil Rosenbaum]

Mike Finney tried to pose sergios swing on damons MATT system. I think he is still seeing a chiropractor. That was 6weeks ago.

 

[curtisj76]

I love Jacquelin's swing - butter.

Does anyone over 5'8" swing like the Hogan model? All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't get me in those positions.

Are you saying height plays a role in the swing? I'm like 5'9, what should this tell me? thx

 

[mgranato]

Are you saying height plays a role in the swing? I'm like 5'9, what should this tell me? thx

I don't know enough to say, but was just making an observation about the names most often associated with that model. Although it does seem well suited to that body style (height and size).

Isn't 5'8" - 5'10" about the historical sweetspot for great golfers? You should be about a +4 at 5'9".

 

[johnnymarlboro]

I don't know enough to say, but was just making an observation about the names most often associated with that model. Although it does seem well suited to that body style (height and size).

Isn't 5'8" - 5'10" about the historical sweetspot for great golfers? You should be about a +4 at 5'9".

Hey, I'm right in that range. So all I have to do is copy Hogan, Garcia, McIlroy, and Fowler? Why didn't anyone tell me sooner. See you suckers on tour.

UPDATE: mgranato is a fibber.

 

[mgranato]

You littlens sure as hell can't swing like the Weiskopf, North, Els, Blackmar model.

 

[lia41985]

Are you saying "versus" as in one is better than the other or as in comparing the differences between the two?

The latter

Can you remind me of what Brian said about those two models? There was the eventual sweetspot plane, but was there shoulder plane considerations too?

Yes and yes

What I am finding in my research....I am doing research is this:

There seems to be two kinds of golf swings.

Without giving it all away, the Nicklaus-Calcaveccia-Watson-Toms model, and the Sergio-Hogan-McIllroy-Fowler model.

There is "optimum" way to do those two types of swings. And....there is "sub-optimum."

You can make either work, of course, because the ball only knows what the club is doing.

But the body is a HUGE influence.

The Hogan-Sergio-McIllroy-Fowler model (Flat Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Steep Inward Hand Path/High Right Shoulder Socket Path) closes it more like the science model from laid off, and opens it from cross the line.

The Nicklaus-Calc-Toms-Tom Barttlett-Lindsay Gahm model (Steep Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Outward Hand Path/Low Right Shoulder Socket Path) opens more from laid off, and closes it more from cross the line.

My thoughts on tumble...

IMHO-Every good golf swing (relative) has some form of tumble.

A very important thing to always remember is that the shaft and the clubface are married. I say this only because when you steepen the shaft you are also squaring the face (ideally).

like a car (hands/arms) pulling a trailor (shaft/clubhead) you must initially pull the trailor in the correct direction so when the trailor comes unhitched (as we have learned in this forum) it continues in the right direction

Most folks never get to expirience tumble. Why? Horizontal, out or high hand path in the downswing.

If your left arm is not as vertical as possible at last parallel and you try to tumble you will hit some super steep shots or skanks. So the first key is to have a good hand path.

If you look at the most envied swings, you will typically see super vert hand paths coming down that allow the player to steepen the shaft/face combination as much as they want. They have zero concerns of skanking it or hitting it steep. They typically have a more neutral grip so the shaft can tumble as much as they want without fear of a hook. Players with good hand paths have a few of options on how they tumble the shaft/clubface combo.

Option 1 - Hogan - ish, Sergio - they have a model or low left arm position at the top and a great closed counterfall transition which puts them WAY DOWN close to the original shaft plane LINE early. From there this type of player uses both hands and right shoulder to steepen the shaft back into the ball while also squaring the face.

Option 2 -Nicklausian - Watson - They have a higher left arm position at the top. Same great counterfall, but because of the higher position at the top, they never get the shaft as close to the original shaft plane LINE. Therefore they cannot hit as much with the right shoulder and instead soley use the down pressure from the arms to steppen/tumble the shaft. ...

So what are the keys IMO?

Have a grip that allow you to steepen the shaft without fear of hitting it left.

have an incredible (maybe feeling closed) counterfall transition that keeps the hand path inside and a left arm more vertical

Then if you don't tumble/steepen the shaft you"ll hit the fattest open faced, hook shots ever.

No matter what - get into a position with your counterfall that allows you to HAVE to steepen the shaft!

For those of you that find this reply redundant, accept my apologies.

Since hand path is an important component of both models I wanted to include a quotation about Lindsey Newman discussing hand path:

What is the objective? You either want to apply the club (and I mean the whole club) correctly or you don't. If from the top, your hand path travels on a direct path to the ball, you obviously have to stand the shaft up and back it up to get the face on the ball. Both moves are "under-ish" and opening type moves. I would contend that I always would want the shaft and face to be applied in a way it was designed. The club head and shaft are designed to swing out to impact. An out hand path that makes the shaft stand up or back up will, at best, inhibit that action.

 

[dbl]

Originally Posted by Brian Manzella
The Hogan-Sergio-McIllroy-Fowler model (Flat Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Steep Inward Hand Path/High Right Shoulder Socket Path) closes it more like the science model from laid off, and opens it from cross the line.

The Nicklaus-Calc-Toms-Tom Barttlett-Lindsay Gahm model (Steep Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Outward Hand Path/Low Right Shoulder Socket Path) opens more from laid off, and closes it more from cross the line.

Thanks, that's the one I wanted. Seems like even though the focus is on eventual sweetspot plane, the result can also just about be assumed from view of high hands or low hands at the top.

Maybe they just go hand in hand. Not sure there are many high hands and flat sweetspot planes and low hands and steep sweetspot planes.

 

[lia41985]

Not sure there are many high hands and flat sweetspot planes

I'm uncertain but I do have an example: http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/15148-stacy-lewis.html#post191068

 

[dbl]

Ahhh..that's right. Sigh, a hybrid....

Oh well, aside from these two models, from the comments in that Lewis thread, there is room for hybrids, even a preferred one of high hands and flat ss plane. Interesting.