beta torque?
- Thread starter cnadon
- Start date
- Status
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
It's amazing how many people supposedly in the know thought of plane in the way of Hogans book. I just don't see how that was possible with a pair of working eyes.
Maybe I'm crazy but something that jumped out at me was in showing the move back to the ball/ downswing weight shift. He says the lead(left in this example)hip goes down and forward. This would be suicide for me. It would cause the swing center(bowtie) to be target side of ball which would cause a plethora of inconsistencies. Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I don't think so. This is something I fight. The thought of side bend or the lead hip rising is one thing tht has really helped me. Watching this video is bringing back some bad memories. I'm telling you, finding this site has been game changing for me...still trying to forget all the crap that has been taught. Like my signature says .... goose fraba...
Brian Manzella
Administrator
The Cowen video, while very interesting and quite good, violates the rules...
I'll keep it up for a while....
When the new sites roll out, some of those rules will go away anyway.
I'll keep it up for a while....
When the new sites roll out, some of those rules will go away anyway.
drewyallop
New
Had to reread to paper that Lia posted 5 times before I understood it (not the math though). I still am surprised that research like this is does not inform golf instruction more, except here, MJ and a few other places. So many interesting things here. The analysis of the flaws in the swing theories of Haney and Hardy is interesting. I don't have the biomechanics knowledge to judge the validity of his conclusions but they seem intuitively right. I believe Haney et al have developed these theories in good faith but absent any biomechanical data of the type in this paper they are guessing.
Other things of interest ...
The spiral swing vs the semi-planar swing, the latter being easier to control. Also large differences in shoulder plane between the two.
The semi-planar swing shoulder plane is flatter than the spiral swing.
The functional swing plane (swing plane at impact) is higher than the setup swing plane.
Body planes and functional swing planes vary with club length.
Throwing the drunk off always present in good swings (n = 14 scratch or plus golfers)
The remarkable consistency between these good golfers in functional swing plane; less so in body planes.
Clubhead trajectory is purely planer after last parallel.
For the semi-planar swing the clubhead is above the functional swing plane at the top but is quickly brought down to FSP in transition For the spiral swing the clubhead is significantly higher than the FSP at the top and it takes longer to bring it down to the FSP because the golfer has to overcome higher forces. Also there seems to be an overcorrection where the clubhead falls below the FSP (dreaded underplane condition?)
Lots more on elbows, forearm, shoulders.
Let me know if I have this right or wrong.
Other things of interest ...
The spiral swing vs the semi-planar swing, the latter being easier to control. Also large differences in shoulder plane between the two.
The semi-planar swing shoulder plane is flatter than the spiral swing.
The functional swing plane (swing plane at impact) is higher than the setup swing plane.
Body planes and functional swing planes vary with club length.
Throwing the drunk off always present in good swings (n = 14 scratch or plus golfers)
The remarkable consistency between these good golfers in functional swing plane; less so in body planes.
Clubhead trajectory is purely planer after last parallel.
For the semi-planar swing the clubhead is above the functional swing plane at the top but is quickly brought down to FSP in transition For the spiral swing the clubhead is significantly higher than the FSP at the top and it takes longer to bring it down to the FSP because the golfer has to overcome higher forces. Also there seems to be an overcorrection where the clubhead falls below the FSP (dreaded underplane condition?)
Lots more on elbows, forearm, shoulders.
Let me know if I have this right or wrong.
drewyallop
New
Yeah that image haunted my early years in golf. But after Hogan achieved apotheosis no one dared to declare that the Emperor had no clothes. Here iconoclasts all and thank heavens for that.
hp12c
New
New site? Why?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
hp12c, there will be a new sub-site from my site and MJ's. More to come.
OK boys, I had to do a lot of editing. Stop with the cursing.
I never bought Hank's theory for one second.
OK boys, I had to do a lot of editing. Stop with the cursing.
I never bought Hank's theory for one second.
Dariusz J.
New member
Geeez...I even do not know where to start...thus, since noone here will believe me anyhow, short points as follows are enough:
1. Hogan's pane of glass is not a motion plane but the upper limit of all possible planes;
2. Hogan was smart enough to differ backswing plane from downswing one;
3. Haney's theory is perfect world theory for a non-human;
4. Hardy's one plane swing does not mean physically one plane. It's probably his clumsy marketing attempt to sell his theories.
and
5. Before criticizing I'd suggest to learn something first, at least basic things.
Cheers
1. Hogan's pane of glass is not a motion plane but the upper limit of all possible planes;
2. Hogan was smart enough to differ backswing plane from downswing one;
3. Haney's theory is perfect world theory for a non-human;
4. Hardy's one plane swing does not mean physically one plane. It's probably his clumsy marketing attempt to sell his theories.
and
5. Before criticizing I'd suggest to learn something first, at least basic things.
Cheers
Brian Manzella
Administrator
But, obviously it isn't.
Yeah, he got that wrong as well, mixing up his body feels for his arm and club plane.
Nah, it is goofy even for a robot.
Think about it.
Everyone knows that. But it was a terrible named pattern and has fallen from #1 to nearly the scrap heap of history.
The pot calling the kettle black.
jimmyt
New
Brian excellent post......case when less is more......don't waste or mince words
birly-shirly
New
Brian - credit where credit's due. I can only recall reading in two places the idea that a steep shaft in transition/early downswing will tend to open into impact, and vice versa, that a shallow shaft will tend to close.
One place is here, relatively recently, and seemingly coming out of Sacho MacKenzie's work. The other place is Haney's book from years ago.
Now, I never really understood why this would be without the discussion here, and in particular, the Anti-Summit 2 video.
But, leaving aside the idea of perfectly congruent shaft planes, you don't think Hank was maybe onto something - even if he didn't fully know how to explain it?
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Burly, not a big deal but just to be clear, a lot of people knew a steep shaft out of transition will back up to the plane and open.
Saying he was on to something is one way of putting it, but I think he explained it perfectly, which is the problem. He didn't have it correct at all but it might not be the worst theory ever. Haney himself said golf 101 is across the line causes hooks and laid off causes slices so he really didn't have anything right as far as theories are concerned.
Saying he was on to something is one way of putting it, but I think he explained it perfectly, which is the problem. He didn't have it correct at all but it might not be the worst theory ever. Haney himself said golf 101 is across the line causes hooks and laid off causes slices so he really didn't have anything right as far as theories are concerned.
Last edited:
drewyallop
New
Did any body read the paper? I could be wrong but the conclusion was that a clubhead too far above the functional swing plane (FSP) at the top would be much more difficult to wrestle back to the functional plane at impact and often results in the clubhead falling below the FSP. It seems this would also make it more difficult to square the clubface. On the other hand, most of the golfers in the study had a clubhead that was not as far above the FSP at the top and this allowed the golfer to get the club down to the FSP sooner and presumably with less effort and more consistency. If by "steep" we mean the clubhead is too far above FSP at transition then Kevin's prediction of an open face at impact is right.
So given all this what kind of incredible coordination and strength must guys like Sergio and Furyk have?
I am not sure how this fits with MacKenzie's work. I have to read it again.
So given all this what kind of incredible coordination and strength must guys like Sergio and Furyk have?
I am not sure how this fits with MacKenzie's work. I have to read it again.
birly-shirly
New
Kevin - I remember seeing those "golf 101" tweets from Haney - and I was confused then as they seemed to directly contradict what he'd written previously.
I certainly can't claim that no-one else in golf knew this. However, the explanations that I commonly heard were that on a swing too much from the inside, the hands would tend to roll the clubface closed.
So really, all I was saying was that I've only heard 2 schools of thought really focus on how the club responds to the forces on it - rather than how the hands react. If, as you say, this was more widely known - then that's cool and I stand corrected. Credit to Haney duly withdrawn.
I've just always been intrigued by his explanation of how the plane interacts with ballflight - and Sacho's explanation was like the proverbial lightbulb for me. I finally understood what you and Lindsay have been saying repeatedly (or rather, why it happens) - but it also seemed to corroborate Haney's ideas.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Haney def had some conflicting ideas but I would be totally in the wrong if I claimed I knew everything he knew. I only recall what ive seen written or quoted by him. I could certainly be off.
lia41985
New member
Can you buy a theory?
Can you buy a golf swing theory or just sell them?
I'm just selling myself on the idea even if I buy.
Sooo...what'd you teach me, Bri?
Last edited:
Dariusz J.
New member
Well, although certainly parallel planes are affordable for a robot (one-armed) the last thing I would want is to dispute it further and to defend Haney or Hardy. Your comment about what happened with one plane theory is very true.
What surprises me is your comment as regards Hogan's concept of different backswing and downswing planes, and it is not because it is Hogan's concept, but because it is a very logical issue judging humans are bipeds. Could you expand why don't you agree to it ?
Cheers
There are planes in the golf swing for sure, but they don't remain constant. Haney got that wrong and many followed like sheep. In one European country it cause an epidemic. Hogan got it less wrong, but I think he can be forgiven for that, given that he lived in a time where science and sport were not connected.
But to be honest, if you take Haney's general idea as a rough guide not to be followed in detail, it's not TOTAL nonsense. For all those forum followers here who are so impressed by ideas like tumble, this is a planar concept which is not really at odds with Haney's idea.
Hogan got it less wrong, but I think he can be forgiven for that, given that he lived in a time where science and sport were not connected.But to be honest, if you take Haney's general idea as a rough guide not to be followed in detail, it's not TOTAL nonsense. For all those forum followers here who are so impressed by ideas like tumble, this is a planar concept which is not really at odds with Haney's idea.
- Status