Connection?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

birly-shirly

New
As in arms moving in sync with the torso.

Specifically, as in holding a handkerchief, or a headcover, or a towel, or a tee (since we're not namechecking specific methods any more!) in one or both armpits whilst swinging.

Any thoughts from the forum on whether this is good, bad or baloney?

IF IT'S ANY GOOD...

Any thoughts on whether connection does something "mechanical" in terms of the generation of force?

Or is it a matter of co-ordination or synchronisation?

Or just an indirect way of adjusting someone's swing plane to tweak D-plane factors?

Thanks for all thoughts.

BS
 
natep

natep

New
Personally, I dont think I've ever hit a decent shot without my left armpit being "closed" until after impact.

But look at Sadlowski.
 
Last edited:
duckjr78

duckjr78

New
Having read this forum for a while, I have an idea as to the answer.

It helps some of the time. It can ruin others.

Again, just a guess.
 
B

birly-shirly

New
Ha, ha. Thanks. "First it's silly. And second, it's ridiculous."

Somewhat tentatively, not least to avoid getting into discussion of this method or that method, I'd suggest that beyond a halfswing, keeping something tucked in the left armpit isn't half so extreme as trying to keep both pits tight.

I imagine that there's also a relationship between the type of pivot you use and where your arms need to be. Mike has his model or standard pivot, and he goes from there. Someone else might start from someplace else...
 
R

Ringer

New
If you want a swing with maximum power, you need to throw the idea out. You MUST have latissimus dorsi (lat muscle) and tricep brachii (ticep muscle) pull with either the left arm or the right arm. If you pull with the left arm you still use the tricep to hold the arm firm against the inertia of the club. With the right arm you extend the arm to either pull the club down, or push it down depending on the orientation of the right elbow.

If you never let your elbows off your ribcage then there is no lat pull on the arms and so no added power.
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Boy, i hope i dont disappoint anyone because i dont have some great theory on this. Its simply that ive seen way too many people try a connected rotary type move as if its "arms against their sides and rotate all the way to the finish". No braking, no dump, no sling, no snap, etc.
 
S

softconsult

New
I lived in central Ohio in the late 80's. I clearly remember a couple of doctors from my club came back from taking
lessons with Leadbetter (I think it was Leadbetter). They had this arms pinned to their chests swing. Looked very
odd.
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
All depends on goals - if the goal is repeatability and consistency, the more distal limbs are subdued/tied to main body the better. OTOH, if dynamic factor comes along and the goal is more complex, Ringer and Kevin told the truth.

Cheers
 
D

Damon Lucas

Super Moderator
Dariusz J. said:
All depends on goals - if the goal is repeatability and consistency, the more distal limbs are subdued/tied to main body the better. OTOH, if dynamic factor comes along and the goal is more complex, Ringer and Kevin told the truth.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Dariusz,

Can you elaborate?

How should one subdue the various distal limbs?

What effect does that have on the instinctual movements that each human makes for their individual golf swings?

What effect does contracting or subdueing distal limbs have on the efficacy of the proximal movements, and what studies/data can you point us to, to enhance your position on this subject?

How does modern motor learning theory fit into this theory?

Cheers,
Damon
 
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
Damon Lucas said:
Dariusz,

Can you elaborate?

How should one subdue the various distal limbs?

What effect does that have on the instinctual movements that each human makes for their individual golf swings?

What effect does contracting or subdueing distal limbs have on the efficacy of the proximal movements, and what studies/data can you point us to, to enhance your position on this subject?

How does modern motor learning theory fit into this theory?

Cheers,
Damon
Click to expand...

Damon,

The more distal is a part of the system that is to be controlled the stronger/of better quality/etc. must be connection between it and main body. I guess it's so obvious and universal statement in our Newtonian reality that does not need to be additionally proven. I guess even the most modern motor learning theories do not reach out the limits of the Newtonian reality, therefore, nothing can be changed in this sphere.
I will try to use a very simple language here - the only one possible connection type between main body (core) and clubhead is through arms. Our arms are "constructed" with two parts (humerus and forearm) linked to each other by elbow joint (which RoM is limited and cannot move in all possible directions) and are "connected" to our bodies by shoulder joints. Since the shoulder joints are too weak human body points to cotrol repeatability decently everyone who require it should treat humerus parts as these belonging to the main body, i.e. making them work dependently on main body motion. For instance, if we swing with humerus parts tied to the main body we considerably limit clubhead speed and considerably increase repeatability. Typical qui pro quo situation, since it is not possible to strengthen/improve quality of shoulder joints and it remains the same.
Your question concerning instinctual movements in the motion is very good and I wish I can answer it. It belongs to a completely different and much more complex sphere of studies than my researches, therefore, I won't even try to answer it now.

Cheers
 
J

James Marshall (Hogan1953)

New member
Does having your upper arms more or less connected have any affect on the efficiency of the kinematic sequence? Is more energy transferred to the distal elements if they more attached to the centre?

If the arms are less connected and the hands higher, let's say at the top of the backswing, and closer to where they've got to get to at impact, the golfer will need less body rotation to get to that spot at impact than a golfer whose hands are lower. In terms of energy generation is there an optimum spot for the hands which maximises the kinematic sequence?
 
S

SteveT

Guest
If your left upper arm comes off your left pec muscle before Impact, your entire left lead arm will rise up and the club will rotate downwards (all in the sagittal plane) for a toe-down presentation of the clubface to the ball at Impact and a toe-hit.

Theoretically, if you are seeking more power you might attempt at flinging the left arm outwards off the chest in an unrestrained manner, but you better compensate for the toe-down, toe-hit presentation of the clubhead. Good luck.

Also if your lead arm comes off your chest your lead arm is then freewheeling around your lead shoulder joint ... instead of just the wrist joint ... which substantially changes the kinetic chain sequencing. Ever think of that??!!! :eek:
 
Last edited:
S

SteveT

Guest
Dariusz J. said:
....... I guess it's so obvious and universal statement in our Newtonian reality that does not need to be additionally proven. I guess even the most modern motor learning theories do not reach out the limits of the Newtonian reality, therefore, nothing can be changed in this sphere.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, Dariusz ... you recognize the inability of most to understand the Newtonian consequences of their musings ... while flinging about Newtonian terminology like "force, torque, acceleration, momentum" and having no real understanding of what they mean or how they manifest themselves in a golfswing. I find it frustrating reading statements that misapply these terms as the writer struggles to explain themselves in scientific terms. Oh, well ... no real harm because most don't know anyway.... :eek:
 
Last edited:
Dariusz J.

Dariusz J.

New member
Yes, Steve, but the problem we may be facing...or better said, our grandgrandsons is that Newtonian terms do not explain factual reality well...
And I agree 1000% with you - let's use science but let's do not omit/forget basic things (anatomy + simple physics). It would be easier for everyone, I guess. You here have already got rid of pseudoscience but let's not start the journey from wrong end of finding proofs for corpuscular vs. wave nature of light :)

Cheers
 
S

SteveT

Guest
Dariusz J. said:
Yes, Steve, but the problem we may be facing...or better said, our grandgrandsons is that Newtonian terms do not explain factual reality well...
And I agree 1000% with you - let's use science but let's do not omit/forget basic things (anatomy + simple physics). It would be easier for everyone, I guess. You here have already got rid of pseudoscience but let's not start the journey from wrong end of finding proofs for corpuscular vs. wave nature of light :)
Click to expand...

Hey, Dariusz ... how's the weather in Polskaland ??!!!:D

About 'anatomy" ... have you read:

The Dynamic Anatomy of the Golf Swing -- W. Garden Hendry, M.B., F.R.C.S.

Published in Europe by -- The Parthenon Press -- Copyright 1985 W.G. Hendry - ISBN 0-88416-523-X

Dr. Hendry, a retired surgeon and after 50 years of golf, wrote a very interesting anatomical analysis of his golfswing in simplified terms. I have used that plus Gray's Anatomy plus other texts to better understand the golfswing. LAWs of the Golfswing and SLAP are valuable golfswing books. TGM was too anecdotal with it's flawed science.


What bothers me is people attempting to apply kinetics and kinematics to the golfswing while only understanding the shape of the golfswing. I just overlook it and try to interpret what they are trying to describe geometrically. Once you get into the dynamic anatomy of the golfswing, most are just at a loss and try to make up something that seems sensible to them. Science is simple if you understand the science ... otherwise you are just guessing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top