Connection?

[Dariusz J.]

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

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.

The weather is bad, we're off season already. Again, sad time, half a year without golfing

No, I haven't worked with this book. I use mainly Polish books (orthopaedic and for rehabilitation) and sometimes materials from the net. The best book I have (was a gift from my wife last X-mas) is The Atlas of Kinetic Rehabilitation (in Polish) that gives you all the necessary info on har structure RoMs, among others.

Cheers

 

[SteveT]

No, I haven't worked with this book. I use mainly Polish books (orthopaedic and for rehabilitation) and sometimes materials from the net. The best book I have (was a gift from my wife last X-mas) is The Atlas of Kinetic Rehabilitation (in Polish) that gives you all the necessary info on har structure RoMs, among others.

Dariusz ... go to a university library and ask them if they can get this book for you either in Poland or on inter-library loan in Europe if available. I think it will help you to better link anatomy to the golfswing. As for the Statics & Dynamics of Newtonian physics, you can find that in local libraries ... Powodzenia ...

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz - one definition of "connection", applied to the right arm's movement back and through, is that it should make a similar movement as in throwing a ball sidearm.

This might disappoint anyone who ruined their game with a headcover in their right armpit, but when I throw a ball, the right upper arm comes well clear of the side of the chest and isn't going to hold anything in place.

What do you think?

 

[SteveT]

Dariusz - one definition of "connection", applied to the right arm's movement back and through, is that it should make a similar movement as in throwing a ball sidearm.

This might disappoint anyone who ruined their game with a headcover in their right armpit, but when I throw a ball, the right upper arm comes well clear of the side of the chest and isn't going to hold anything in place.

What do you think?

Not only must the hands work in 'unison', the arms at the shoulder joints should work in unison ... because if the arm action alignment at the right shoulder is doing something very much different than the left shoulder, you will be introducing conflicting forces.

If your lead upper arm stays connected to your pec and your right upper arm is flying off your pec, you will be swinging over the top .. I think ...

As for the sidearm throwing action, if you are using that as an analogous swing model for the right arm, then you should be advocating a left-handed tennis backswing too. In both of these examples, the upper arm flies off the chest ..!!!!

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz ... go to a university library and ask them if they can get this book for you either in Poland or on inter-library loan in Europe if available. I think it will help you to better link anatomy to the golfswing. As for the Statics & Dynamics of Newtonian physics, you can find that in local libraries ... Powodzenia ...

Dziekuje (Thank You)
Already noted well the title as well as the author.

Dariusz - one definition of "connection", applied to the right arm's movement back and through, is that it should make a similar movement as in throwing a ball sidearm.
This might disappoint anyone who ruined their game with a headcover in their right armpit, but when I throw a ball, the right upper arm comes well clear of the side of the chest and isn't going to hold anything in place.
What do you think?

Do you mean something like this, Birly ?

YouTube - Golf - Right Arm and Body Connection Drill

I personally think that swinging with headcover under rear armpit is useless since although it teaches real connection of the upper distal limb's part to the main body it deprives the motion off its necessary dynamics.
I bet that is also why you let your humerus detach when throwing a ball since most probably you want to throw it hard.
HOWEVER, if your goal is to throw a series of balls to a bucket standing 3 meters in front of you most probably you will succeed with automating this motion (supposing there is someone to pass next ball to your hand) by subduing the motion of your arm to your main body (rotating back and forth, back and forth, etc. like a machine).
Something like this:

YouTube - BEN HOGAN Five Lessons Training Exercise

He wanted us all to understand this simple truth we're talking about.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Not only must the hands work in 'unison', the arms at the shoulder joints should work in unison ... because if the arm action alignment at the right shoulder is doing something very much different than the left shoulder, you will be introducing conflicting forces.

If your lead upper arm stays connected to your pec and your right upper arm is flying off your pec, you will be swinging over the top .. I think ...

As for the sidearm throwing action, if you are using that as an analogous swing model for the right arm, then you should be advocating a left-handed tennis backswing too. In both of these examples, the upper arm flies off the chest ..!!!!

Steve - I think, if connection means anything useful, it probably does mean "moving in unison" or synchronisation of body and arms. Actually, I think it's a pretty hard thing to measure or define. I think any good swing combines turning of the core with lifting of the arms. These are obviously independent movements - it's just that some people can make these moves look so well choreographed that, as spectators, we perceive a unity or connection that probably isn't really there. Co-ordination - yes, but I'm less sure now that "connection" is such a helpful term.

I think that the left arm, since it swings across the chest going back, can much more easily stay in contact with the pec even whilst it lifts a considerable amount. The right arm, if you're going to keep it in contact with the right pec going back, is a much more restrictive move. I don't think the right arm separating from its pec leads itself to an OTT move. If anything, I might expect someone who swings so deep or flat that their right arm DOES contact the pec, to REACT with an OTT move. But that's all a bit subjective.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean in terms of the left handed tennis move.

 

[birly-shirly]

Do you mean something like this, Birly ?

YouTube - Golf - Right Arm and Body Connection Drill

Hard to tell from face on. But I would guess that holding the right arm in place with the left hand is still a bit more restrictive than a natural throwing motion. I think the challenge is to synchronise the swinging movement of the arms with the rotation of the body - so I think any drill that freezes one part of the body has limited (not zero, but limited) value.

I personally think that swinging with headcover under rear armpit is useless since although it teaches real connection of the upper distal limb's part to the main body it deprives the motion off its necessary dynamics.
I bet that is also why you let your humerus detach when throwing a ball since most probably you want to throw it hard.

Agreed.

HOWEVER, if your goal is to throw a series of balls to a bucket standing 3 meters in front of you most probably you will succeed with automating this motion (supposing there is someone to pass next ball to your hand) by subduing the motion of your arm to your main body (rotating back and forth, back and forth, etc. like a machine).

I think the issue there goes beyond mechanics and into sensitivity and fine motor co-ordination. I wouldn't want to throw a dart like that, however short the distance. If you consider the possible extremes - there are successful putters who have delegated control of their stroke to the hands and wrists almost exclusively, but I can't think of any examples of pure body rotation putters.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I think the issue there goes beyond mechanics and into sensitivity and fine motor co-ordination. I wouldn't want to throw a dart like that, however short the distance. If you consider the possible extremes - there are successful putters who have delegated control of their stroke to the hands and wrists almost exclusively, but I can't think of any examples of pure body rotation putters.

You missed the point, my friend. Rotation matters when the stroke is on wide arc - say, full swing. While putter face goes on arc as well it is almost invisible because the back and forth-strokes are of negligible distance on this arc. Thus, no need to use body rotation in the sense e.g. Hogan showed in the clip unless putt is enormously long.
BTW, what would you call the best kinetic model, giving best repeatability and consistency, for putting:
a. with wrists ?
b. with humerus bones out of main body ?
c. with humerus bones touching the main body ?
Please answer honestly. Without feeding me with "there are many ways to skin a cat" BS.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz

Honestly - I think we just have different interests, or views of performance.

I think about the issue, especially in putting, more in terms of sensitivity, fine motor skill and feedback perception. I think your interests are more rooted in physics and anatomy.

(a) is good, but underpowered. I think the effort involved to putt the ball any distance would drown out sensitivity. Especially on the greens I play...

(b) or (c) - I'd choose between based on comfort and freedom of movement. You could reach too far from the body to be comfortable or balance. Equally, you could bunch yourself up to the point of struggling to make a fluid stroke.

If I had to choose, I'd say the arms should "hang". Is that option (d)?

I know already. I flunked your test!

BS

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz

Honestly - I think we just have different interests, or views of performance.

I think about the issue, especially in putting, more in terms of sensitivity, fine motor skill and feedback perception. I think your interests are more rooted in physics and anatomy.

(a) is good, but underpowered. I think the effort involved to putt the ball any distance would drown out sensitivity. Especially on the greens I play...

(b) or (c) - I'd choose between based on comfort and freedom of movement. You could reach too far from the body to be comfortable or balance. Equally, you could bunch yourself up to the point of struggling to make a fluid stroke.

If I had to choose, I'd say the arms should "hang". Is that option (d)?

I know already. I flunked your test!

BS

Thinking about feedback perception is indeed another level of studies. I am just a mechanist.

Apropos, you flunked the test because you try to invent another answer where there is no place for it
If the arms hang they do or do not touch the main body via humerus bones. Thus, maybe I should ask - if you think they should touch or not ? or it does not matter perhaps since the state of "hanging" is the most important ?

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Probably (b) then. But not because I want to introduce distance between the arms and the body for its own sake, and definitely not exaggerated. I'd want an absence of strain and freedom of movement.

Hogan (uniquely, to my knowledge) advocated resting his right elbow on his body to putt as a steadying device. And we all know what happened to him...!

 

[Dariusz J.]

Probably (b) then. But not because I want to introduce distance between the arms and the body for its own sake, and definitely not exaggerated. I'd want an absence of strain and freedom of movement.

Hogan (uniquely, to my knowledge) advocated resting his right elbow on his body to putt as a steadying device. And we all know what happened to him...!

Good luck with (b) then.
I choose definitely (c) because it is what physics tells me.
FYI, Hogan was one of best putters before accident and become the worst one after it when not only he suffered his lead side injuries (including eye) but also it surely affected his eyedness. BTW, this fact only underlines how much better he was outside greens than other golfers and why his mechanics should be taken into account at first.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

OK. Like I said, I think we both have different interests.

I like physics as much as the next guy when the problem is one of launching the ball a distance. I just don't see putting as a problem of applied physics. Physics obviously does apply, in the same way as it applies to riding a bike, or dancing, or playing a musical instrument. But, personally, I think the problems (or at least my problems!) in putting are problems of perception and feel.

BTW - wasn't Hogan's putting an (a)?

 

[Ringer]

I like to think of the short game as a limitation of the kinetic sequence to provide speed. Knock it down to one or two components that cause speed and you also limit a lot of error.

Back in yonder days a LOT of putting strokes were in fact just wrists. Then some guys had some success with the faster greens by using just their shoulders and no wrists.

Ultimately though, if you can eliminate it down to one "torque" that is causing the speed to happen then you'll have a fairly consistent stroke.

 

[Dariusz J.]

OK. Like I said, I think we both have different interests.

I like physics as much as the next guy when the problem is one of launching the ball a distance. I just don't see putting as a problem of applied physics. Physics obviously does apply, in the same way as it applies to riding a bike, or dancing, or playing a musical instrument. But, personally, I think the problems (or at least my problems!) in putting are problems of perception and feel.

BTW - wasn't Hogan's putting an (a)?

Birly, all is a problem of applied physics. Even if you move your pinky 1 centimeter - action vs. reaction, etc. Unless we are no longer forced to consider Newtonian reality as the only one describing our world correctly despite we already know it sucks. But noone was capable to present a similarily coherent system based on not measurable values.

And yes, Hogan used too much wrists. Anchoring elbows can't help much in such a case :/

Cheers

 

[Damon Lucas]

Dariusz,

I am interested in why you think c) is the best option?

The collision of the rear forearm with the body in the through stroke as a result of that setup seems to me a less than optimal option for a putting stroke.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz,

I am interested in why you think c) is the best option?

The collision of the rear forearm with the body in the through stroke as a result of that setup seems to me a less than optimal option for a putting stroke.

There is no collision, Damon. Humerus parts touch main body all the time of a putting stoke (again, excluding enormously long arc), i.e. elbow joints do not move in relation to the body. Full swing - yep, there may be a collision if e.g. one is stuck, but in putting - rather not, I guess.

Cheers

 

[Damon Lucas]

Ok, so collision may be too strong a word. How about conflict?

As the rear hand heads towards the target, when the inside of the upper arm tries to pass the side of the chest as the armpit closes, this conflict pronates the forearm and hand closed thru impact into a pull stroke.

Again, what are the 'physics' in your mind as to why a locked in humerus bone is good for putting, let alone optimal?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Ok, so collision may be too strong a word. How about conflict?

As the rear hand heads towards the target, when the inside of the upper arm tries to pass the side of the chest as the armpit closes, this conflict pronates the forearm and hand closed thru impact into a pull stroke.

Again, what are the 'physics' in your mind as to why a locked in humerus bone is good for putting, let alone optimal?

What conflict ? A conflict would be when e.g. your arms wanted to go out of synchron and something unnecessary blocked them from doing so. Again, Hogan presented that one can (and should !) synchronize distal parts' motion with the main body in a half-full-shot ! Putting is not even a 1/2 of it I guess.
As regards armpit closing - it is just a necessity because in golf the target is sidewise. If the target is in front of you - it's a completely different scenario.

Cheers

 

[Damon Lucas]

If the humerus bones are 'attached' to the main body, then that promotes a more rotational shoulder move rather than one where the obliques can move the shoulder frame more towards the balls of the feet. This then means that the ball position becomes more critical for a straight roll of the ball from the setup, as well as rendering the golfer less able to move his body in sync with the free swinging of the arms/putter in space(in the downswing).