BOMBSHELL: New Research from the Manzella Labs!

Status
Not open for further replies.

westy

New
Does the ground help?

All kinds of bits and parts going every which way....
But aside from those.....clubhead/playing surface interaction and/or white ball impact must affect the path of the head....surely....
 
i havn't read all this thread, but from what i can tell, its is merely an extrapolation of what we already knew. we knew the club travelled in basically a dead straightline through impact. this lead to the need for the plane line to be directed to the left of the target line, and that meant that the right shoulder had to be on plane with the now open plane line, directed to the left. because of this the body would be more open and less tilted then if tracing a plane line that was along the target line. this aso is affected by the D-plane as the left shoulders up-and-in motion through impact, as well as the up-and-in movement of the hands and the down-and-out direction of the clubhead (relative to the hands and shoulder) creates this "flat-spot". again there are other factors involved that we are mostly knowledgable about, such as the point between the shoulders, as this has an affect on low point, axis tilt and how open your shoulders are.

of course this is all theory, and im sure everyone would realise that telling students to "swing straight" would be poison for almost everyone.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, but wanted to mention that there was a couple pages in Michael Hebron's book (something like "the inside moves the outside") that discusses the flat spot. I picked it up this morning just to remember what it said before posting. It basically had to do w/ the fact that there is weight shift and pivot involved in the downswing. Was interesting that he felt this is one reason better players are better...they have a better weight shift and have longer flat spots. Anyways...don't want to say much more as i'm sure I'll mess it up, but curious if anyone had read that and is this the same thing Brian is talking about?
 

lia41985

New member
Trevino and Nelson knew! Hogan did too!! So did Moe!!!

And now Brian has a scientific explanation and the instructional genius as to how we all can learn to as well. Well done, sir.
Have read carefully. Out of my depth here, but fascinated to hear the results. Tired enough to hazard a guess though...

A wheel is circular. If you lock the axle and force the whole thing horizontally along a flat road, the same spot of wheel will be in contact with the ground. Massive over-simplification, I know, but you would have to think some lateral movement of the left shoulder relative to the ball would be involved. It is clearly moving laterally anyway as it attached to the pivoting body and isn't frozen in space before, during and after separation.
I saw it that way, too! I guess I think of it as gyroscopic motion...
Can a guy with a more upright plane have a longer "flat spot" as Jack Nicklaus said in his book?

As for causes and effects I would guess a guy with a big weight shift would have a bigger flat spot than a guy who leans left on the whole swing. I would say any independent movement from the body versus the arms and club would have an effect on the size of the flat spot.
That's why I thought Tiger was looking so steep for a while.

I just realized this was an old thread but I'm wondering if any of this could also be related to what I wrote here: http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...-secret-flatter-eventual-sweet-spot-path.html
 
Last edited:
I don't believe they're saying that the flat spot has to be parallel to the ground, just flat (sustaining the line of compression) through the ball...a constant angle of attack.
Add Allen Doyle and Trevino among the Masters of the STLOC.
 
I would think that a flatter swing could have a longer flat spot, but a more upright swing could have a longer "straight" spot...
 
I would think that a flatter swing could have a longer flat spot, but a more upright swing could have a longer "straight" spot...

I would agree. It seems like the flatter arc is tangent to the ground longer but more curved. And the upright arc is tangent to the ground less but straighter. Is this true?
 
FLAT implies level, horizontal, so it's not a good word to use if you don't mean horizontal.

Let's assume "flat spot" in this context is being used by Manzella Labs (BTW great expression Brian: your marketing degree shines through every now and again;)) to describe a straight line. Brian spoke of about 6-8 inches I believe. If it is indeed not parallel to the ground but simply a straight line, then the useable AoA is in a very restricted zone. Too steep and you have a 4 inch deep divot. So even if it is only a straight line it is still gona be pretty much a horizontal one.
 
FROM TOMMY 2 GLOVES THREAD
It ain't pretty, but I've played with Tommy 25 or more times in competition and I've never, ever, seen him mis-hit a shot. He used to have issues with distance control, but he hits it really, really high and really, really straight.

But mostly, he's fearless.

He's got a flat spot, right?;););)
 

leon

New
I'm assuming flat spot means straight, not level, correct?

From Brian's original post

The golf club is NOT moving in either a circle or an ellipse down near and through
impact. No matter what angle you are looking at or measuring. The swing has a very long nearly FLAT spot, and a very long nearly DEAD STRAIGHT spot
as well.

so I guess flat means flat and straight means straight. Note he did say "nearly". He also said its not a circle or ellipse, so I guess that rules out any talk of a swing "arc" as well.

He also alluded to 10 reasons why, in a tantalising way that made me think he'd post one of his great lists, but I guess he's saving it for the book (and quite right too). My guess - axis tilt, run up & jump, parametric acceleration are some of them.
 
Last edited:

leon

New
Leon:

Care to elaborate on the parametric acceleration? That sounds interesting.

I couldn't do it justice, but check out this from the Manz

Parametric Acceleration.

It provides for a steep enough angle to get to the ball, and a shallow enough "flat spot" to keep the clubhead level-ish to the ground so the club doesn't dig, or tilt the D-Plane down too much.

This Parametric Acceleration, a pulling up on the grip so that the grip end stays very close to the belt line to and through impact, speed the club up to get the ball to go far enough when contact is very low on the face (which makes the ball launch lower and spin more).

The golfer as he is applying this Parametric Acceleration, is cutting across the ball hard, probably with a path in the neighborhood of 4 or 5° outside-in, with a face a decent amount open to that.

More friction, more spin, less divot, less chance of skulling, pretty much the cast's arse.

Tour players are stupid good at it.

From this thread:

www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/14175-whats-science-behind-tour-pitch.html
 

oldpro

New
Brian...absolutely what the swing of the future will be PERIOD. The golf swing must get in sync with technology and you pin pointed the area of needed change.
 
It has occured to me that the radius of the sweetspot arc can be disturbed by the movement of the centers (hands, left shoulder, sternum). This does not mean that the arc itself is not still in-plane. You could swing in-plane and also directly over a straight line, if your techinique was to "walk" the club through the ball. Neither "circular arc" nor "in-plane" mandate "perfect radius".

But hasn't it already been established that the sweetspot changes direction, both vertically and horizontally, just in the time that the ball is on the clubface, albeit only a few .10ths of a degree? Now we're talking 6 inches of linear movement?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top