Driver stance width

[mgranato]

How do you guys determine yours? I've heard the typical "shoulder width" advice given. But what does shoulder width have to do with stance width? I've also seen the advice that the stance width should be determined by hip width. This seems to make some sense, but I don't know how correct that is either.

Is it a matter of just using what width best helps you do what you are trying to accomplish? Is there a potential problem with too narrow/wide of a stance? Do certain patterns favor certain widths?

Is there a biomechanically optimal way of determining this?

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Wide enough to maintain balance but not too wide that doesn't allow you to get through the shot; generally the wider the stance the more axis tilt you will create through the ball and that could mean you'll rotate less so keep that in mind.

 

[mgranato]

What's the drawback with too narrow?

 

[cwdlaw223]

Lack of balance!

I use the inside portion of my feet to compare against my shoulders. If you use the outside portion your stance might be too narrow.

 

[mgranato]

Why the shoulders?

 

[cwdlaw223]

Reference point for me. Could use another frame of reference other than shoulder width.

 

[Jared Willerson]

I spin out when I am too narrow.

 

[Rick Dandy]

Driver

Wide Stance

Larger flat spot

 

[SteveT]

.....Is there a biomechanically optimal way of determining this?

Yes there is, and it involves static and dynamic balance conditions.... but why don't you just PM Arturo and Dariusz asking them to give you the full details since it falls into their area of forum expertise.

 

[aaron_lohan]

What if you have wide shoulders and narrow hips or vice versa?

I think it's probably best to experiment.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Yes there is, and it involves static and dynamic balance conditions.... but why don't you just PM Arturo and Dariusz asking them to give you the full details since it falls into their area of forum expertise.

Steve, I am not an expert, just an amateur theorist, but it is obvious that stance should allow to locate the downswing vertical axis of rotation in the same place towards the lead ankle joint; the rear foot moves more back the longer the club is, makes it finding the bottom of the arc earlier as well as finding bigger leverage. Therefore, the stance should be wide enough to allow to use leverage from the ground up approaching transition. The bigger is the momentum the bigger should be the leverage and the wider the stance is. Shoulders have nothing to do here, hips a bit more (width of pelvis) but it's rather an individual thing while the principle is the same.
Also google the Wiberg angle and start to be aware how femur bones are built and how attached to the hip joint and when it is best to built leverages. Finally, observe Hogan and his both feet separate placement procedure, especially with the driver.

Cheers

 

[dschultz6072]

Put your feet so you feel balanced. I don't think there's any rhyme or reason for it other than ability to maintain balance and do your thing.

 

[mgranato]

What's bringing about all these questions is that dealing with some gimpyness in the right ankle and Achilles. During our lesson, Brian suggested that I'll probably have to narrow my stance some while I'm dealing with this. My "normal" width stance is pretty useless right now.

Dangerous as it can be, it got me thinking. My proportions are fairly cartoonish... big head, wide shoulders, narrower hips, and short legs (for someone 6'5"). I found some proportional "standards" for symmetry and aesthetics. The shoulders should be 3 widths of the head (not even close). The legs should be 4 head lengths tall (not even close). The overall height should be 6-7 head lengths tall (not even close). So with so many odd proportions, I was looking for a standard or optimal (based on the individual) for this part of the setup. Doesn't really sound like there is one.

No one stance width has ever really felt great to me. The width that feels the strongest and most stable is the one that's difficult to "catch the dog" with. The width that catches the dog the best doesn't really feel the strongest or most stable. The dagum Goldilocks of golf.

 

[Dariusz J.]

My proportions are fairly cartoonish... big head, wide shoulders, narrower hips, and short legs (for someone 6'5"). I found some proportional "standards" for symmetry and aesthetics. The shoulders should be 3 widths of the head (not even close). The legs should be 4 head lengths tall (not even close). The overall height should be 6-7 head lengths tall (not even close). So with so many odd proportions, I was looking for a standard or optimal (based on the individual) for this part of the setup. Doesn't really sound like there is one.

No one stance width has ever really felt great to me. The width that feels the strongest and most stable is the one that's difficult to "catch the dog" with. The width that catches the dog the best doesn't really feel the strongest or most stable. The dagum Goldilocks of golf.

Hmm...your proportions look like of ancient Greek heroes and with your overall size it should be Ajax (the great one).
It appears your upper body yields from a wide stance while your lower one not quite exactly this...pretty centered pelvis area pattern (with minimal linear motion) should feel good, but stance as wide as possible for hips width, IMO.

Cheers

 

[SteveT]

Steve, I am not an expert, just an amateur theorist,

You're too modest ...

...but it is obvious that stance should allow to locate the downswing vertical axis of rotation in the same place towards the lead ankle joint;

Obviously so... because this must be done to avoid reverse weight shifting in the downswing.

...the rear foot moves more back the longer the club is, makes it finding the bottom of the arc earlier as well as finding bigger leverage. Therefore, the stance should be wide enough to allow to use leverage from the ground up approaching transition. The bigger is the momentum the bigger should be the leverage and the wider the stance is.

Yes... this relates to greater "wedging" of the feet for higher horizontal GRF components for more lateral leverage, or thrust in either direction.

Shoulders have nothing to do here, hips a bit more (width of pelvis) but it's rather an individual thing while the principle is the same.
Also google the Wiberg angle and start to be aware how femur bones are built and how attached to the hip joint and when it is best to built leverages. Finally, observe Hogan and his both feet separate placement procedure, especially with the driver.

Perhaps it's the height of the body CofG that is more significant, and from this the anatomy of the pelvis and the foot placement becomes significant.

Never heard of the "Wiberg angle" within the hip femoral joint, but it sounds good. Another factor is the "Q-angle" between the upper and lower leg at the knee joint. The Q-angle defines bowlegs, knock knees, or normal leg structure... and may be more significant than the Wiberg angle. What do you think?

 

[softconsult]

Somewhere I have a dvd from my Mike Jacobs lesson. For me on that day he wanted a wider stance with the Driver. At one point in a setup I ask him whether he is paying for the potential groin pull! I was killing it with the wide stance, but I have regressed to a more comfortable width since then.

 

[Dariusz J.]

You're too modest ...

LOL...sometimes I must be modest, sometimes I am arrogant. But when I am serious I am always sincere and not pretending who I am not.

Never heard of the "Wiberg angle" within the hip femoral joint, but it sounds good. Another factor is the "Q-angle" between the upper and lower leg at the knee joint. The Q-angle defines bowlegs, knock knees, or normal leg structure... and may be more significant than the Wiberg angle. What do you think?

Yes, but I focused on the Wiberg angle because of direct correlation to the pelvis area that was my goal when replying to Mike.

Cheers

 

[mgranato]

Hmm...your proportions look like of ancient Greek heroes and with your overall size it should be Ajax (the great one).
It appears your upper body yields from a wide stance while your lower one not quite exactly this...pretty centered pelvis area pattern (with minimal linear motion) should feel good, but stance as wide as possible for hips width, IMO.

Cheers

Ajax, ha... I'm the guy on the left...

The part that you highlighted is what seems to be my default stance. You know what they say about blind squirrels...

 

[drewyallop]

A lot of things depend on how big the head is.

 

[dschultz6072]

6'5"? No wonder you smash it.