Clubpaths, and Hogan vs. Tiger 2000

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ej20

New
Dariusz J. said:
Geez...it's hard for some guys to admit they were wrong...LOL. It is not a still photo but the line was drawn actually on a moving picture via V1 programme tool, thus, it is pretty accurate.
The theory is not controversial, IMO. Even Hogan mentioned that the downswing plane must be shallower than the backswing one. The loop happens unintentionally thanks to subconscious mind and the explanation why it happens is a bliss for everyday's hackers who are constantly being cucified as OTTers and usually end with severe goat humping, poor pivot, loss of power and uncontrollable shots.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Yes I think you will relate very well to not liking admitting you are wrong.LOL

Post the entire video and then superimpose that line you have drawn on it and lets see if they match.
 
E

ej20

New
Dariusz J. said:
So you think I cheated with that picture...ROFL. Here is the link to the vid:

MATTEO MANASSERO ACCENTURE MATCHPLAY 2011 DRIVER DOWN LINE 2 - YouTube

Superimpose it yourself. I even do not know how to do it.

Cheers
Click to expand...

You wouldn't deliberately cheat would you?LOL.I give people the benefit of the doubt.Lots of people claim to average 300 yards and probably really do believe it.Human nature.The truth hurts and ignorance is bliss.

I think that video says it all.Where is the inside outside loop?Manessero has a very orthodox swing.
 
Last edited:
mgranato

mgranato

New
Dariusz J. said:
Naaah. I think that Woods's motions aren't optimal for a human and, thus, not allowing him to use his potential in the field of repeatability and consistency. Not because they are different than Hogan (who is not my model as explained before) but because they are different from being biokinetically soundest. It's simple and really it does not need to be complicated by such divagations.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Human’s can repeat their best learned patterns of movement, period. They don’t repeat an ideal of the optimal movement simply because it’s ideal or optimal.

Exactly how optimal can a movement be if it requires constant maintenance with hours and hours of practice hitting millions of balls? That’s not flourishing because of an optimal pattern based on anatomy and physics, but rather a pattern based on endless repetition and free time.

What about a pattern like Lietzke’s? Simple, repeatable, next to no maintenance, and successful. Those attributes strike as being more in harmony with our anatomy and physics than the opposite does.

BTW, I'm enjoying the discussion.:)
 
C

conkanen

New
While Dariusz' ideas are not new(I actually learned similar ideas from another instructor/player), I haven't hit it better since implementing them a little over 6 weeks ago. Different strokes i guess.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
mgranato said:
Human’s can repeat their best learned patterns of movement, period. They don’t repeat an ideal of the optimal movement simply because it’s ideal or optimal.

Exactly how optimal can a movement be if it requires constant maintenance with hours and hours of practice hitting millions of balls? That’s not flourishing because of an optimal pattern based on anatomy and physics, but rather a pattern based on endless repetition and free time.

What about a pattern like Lietzke’s? Simple, repeatable, next to no maintenance, and successful. Those attributes strike as being more in harmony with our anatomy and physics than the opposite does.
Click to expand...

+1

Diagonal stance and OTT movement are to do with the movement of the clubhead - not biokinetics or optimal body movements.

I think I'd pay attention if someone was already an expert in biomechanics and claimed to have found some optimal movement pattern in Hogan, or any other great player for that matter.

But, I just don't feel that that's what's happened here. It feels very much like the reverse, that based on great admiration for Hogan's achievements, or reputation, or great looking move on video - Dariusz has gone looking in the science books for snippets of corroboration for a Hogan based model. If some of those factors also fit Moe Norman, or Knudson, or Trevino - then so much the better.

But then you try to square this with the success of Woods, or Nicklaus, or Watson - and you get this diatribe about power, and putting, and modern pampered golf courses and how these guys weren't fit to carry Hogan's bag.
 
E

ej20

New
Birly,don't put words into Dariusz's mouth.He did not base his model around Hogan and then tried to corroborate it with science.

He designed the model himself before he knew who Hogan was and lo and behold,it matched Hogan.

Ok,I have done it again,I have put words into his mouth.LOL
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
birly-shirly said:
+1

Diagonal stance and OTT movement are to do with the movement of the clubhead - not biokinetics or optimal body movements.

I think I'd pay attention if someone was already an expert in biomechanics and claimed to have found some optimal movement pattern in Hogan, or any other great player for that matter.

But, I just don't feel that that's what's happened here. It feels very much like the reverse, that based on great admiration for Hogan's achievements, or reputation, or great looking move on video - Dariusz has gone looking in the science books for snippets of corroboration for a Hogan based model. If some of those factors also fit Moe Norman, or Knudson, or Trevino - then so much the better.

But then you try to square this with the success of Woods, or Nicklaus, or Watson - and you get this diatribe about power, and putting, and modern pampered golf courses and how these guys weren't fit to carry Hogan's bag.
Click to expand...

Surely (pun intended) you're not saying D is pulling a Carnac on us... "The answer is Ben Hogan."

carnac1.jpg


"The question... who has the most optimal pattern of movement in golf history, the most anatomically correct move in golf history, the move that most obeys the laws of physics, and is someone that I really really really like?"

I think it's easy to start with an answer, and then go out and pigeon hole things to fit how you want the puzzle to look even if some of the pieces are forced.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
mgranato said:
Surely (pun intended) you're not saying D is pulling a Carnac on us...
Click to expand...

mgranato - I work for a very wise lady who has a favourite saying with which she answers questions like yours. It seems particularly apt in the case of your post.

Were she here, I'm sure she would say: "If the cap fits, wear it."
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
ej20 said:
You wouldn't deliberately cheat would you?
Click to expand...

Would you cheat yourself ? What's the point of cheating ? To win a discussion on a golf forum while I'd know that I cheat myself ? Be serious. The truth is that Manassero is very similar to Hogan in this regard - shallower downswing plane over steeper backswing plane. You don't believe - OK, I'll live with it.

mgranato said:
Human’s can repeat their best learned patterns of movement, period. They don’t repeat an ideal of the optimal movement simply because it’s ideal or optimal.
Exactly how optimal can a movement be if it requires constant maintenance with hours and hours of practice hitting millions of balls? That’s not flourishing because of an optimal pattern based on anatomy and physics, but rather a pattern based on endless repetition and free time.

What about a pattern like Lietzke’s? Simple, repeatable, next to no maintenance, and successful. Those attributes strike as being more in harmony with our anatomy and physics than the opposite does.

BTW, I'm enjoying the discussion.:)
Click to expand...

Well, the answer is that Hogan needed to be a range rat because a) he was a tour player and b) he searched for perfect ideals. I am searching optimal solution for weekend hackers that have no time/desire to spend countless hours on range with silly repetitions or drills. With a setup-dependent swing they should play decent golf below 85-90 without any training. Like I do for last 2 years.
I know the phenomenon of Lietzke and it is a mystery to me. Might be just an exception that proves the rule.

conkanen said:
While Dariusz' ideas are not new(I actually learned similar ideas from another instructor/player), I haven't hit it better since implementing them a little over 6 weeks ago. Different strokes i guess.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear it.

birly-shirly said:
+1

Diagonal stance and OTT movement are to do with the movement of the clubhead - not biokinetics or optimal body movements.
Click to expand...

Noooo. Diagonal stance is to do with the setup that guarantees a proper sequence from the ground up, balance and optimal usage of ground forces. OTT on the other hand is just a normal subconscious move associated with the fact that one tries to hit something which lies on the ground as powerfully as possible having gravity as a friend.


Cheers
 
S

spktho

New
conkanen said:
While Dariusz' ideas are not new(I actually learned similar ideas from another instructor/player), I haven't hit it better since implementing them a little over 6 weeks ago. Different strokes i guess.
Click to expand...

You haven't hit it better or have never hit it better?
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Dariusz J. said:
Noooo. Diagonal stance is to do with the setup that guarantees a proper sequence from the ground up, balance and optimal usage of ground forces. OTT on the other hand is just a normal subconscious move associated with the fact that one tries to hit something which lies on the ground as powerfully as possible having gravity as a friend.
Click to expand...

Yes - but that's your version of optimal biomechanics. I find Brian's explanations, in terms of manipulating and compensating both angle of attack and plane direction more persuasive. They fit much better with how the stance alignment changes through the bag.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Dariusz J. said:
Well, the answer is that Hogan needed to be a range rat because a) he was a tour player and b) he searched for perfect ideals. I am searching optimal solution for weekend hackers that have no time/desire to spend countless hours on range with silly repetitions or drills. With a setup-dependent swing they should play decent golf below 85-90 without any training. Like I do for last 2 years.
I know the phenomenon of Lietzke and it is a mystery to me. Might be just an exception that proves the rule.
Click to expand...

Lietzke's no mystery. He worked damned hard to get his swing down - and then he went into maintenance rather than chasing the genie of "better" mechanics.

Also, no disrespect, but isn't shooting 85 - 90 fairly average. Not saying you should be any better, but most regular golfers aren't any worse. Isn't the average club handicap around 16?
 
J

Jared Willerson

Super Moderator
Most people who play at least once a week break 90 fairly regulary, if not all the time. To me the litmus test between avid "club golfer" and good "club golfer" is the ability to break 80 fairly consistently. The avid players are usually in the 1st, 2nd flight of a club championship while the good players are in the Champ B, C, and occasionally in the first flight.

Around where I live anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top