Driver stance width

[art]

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...

Dear mgranato,

After seeing this thread develop, I felt that your overall bodies dynamic balance and stability, a major part that may be important to your stance, was being missed.

So, first the suggestion, and then the explanation.

PLEASE take your driver, put your feet together, and take AT LEAST 10 multiple and continuous BASEBALL back and forth swings, increasing the intensity of the energy and club head velocities, ie. 20, 40, 60 and 80 percent, and pay attention to how stable or unstable your overall body is, by noting IF you lose your balance, and IF your feet need to move.

Then transition from the horizontal plane to your normal golf swing plane, again with your feet together, and again increasing the intensity of the energy and club head velocity from 20 to 80 percent, see if you lose your balance and your feet need to move.

During BOTH these exercises, please pay particular attention to your TEMPO and how the loss of balance, and possible reflex actions develop and feel, because WE DO NOT WANT ANY OF THIS WHEN YOU WIDEN YOUR STANCE, AND TAKE YOUR FULL POWER SWING.

So now, widen your stance to your original position in both distance and angular orientation of your left and right feet, and repeat the 20-100 percent, back and forth exercise for 10 swings as above, again noting your TEMPO, and lower body stability. If you lose your balance, LOWER YOUR BODY 1 INCH AT A TIME and repeat the 10 swing exercise until you become dynamically stable from 20 to 100 percent of your standard energy and club head velocity characteristics.

There MAY be more to do to get dynamic stability, as I am HEAVILY influenced by the multiple descriptions of your body shape. IMO, tests on dual force plates would clearly show how much more you need to develop REARWARD FACING restoring centripetal forces from the counterclockwise rotation of your lower body during the downswing. In your case, squatting, in 1 inch increments is probably the most efficient way to develop the higher forces you need.

Please let us know if this at least trends in the right direction, because we certainly want to ADD the 'right hip back' position change TOO, but not until you are able to 'almost' develop sufficient lower body balancing forces to SUPPORT your huge upper body.

 

[SteveT]

Arturo... I attribute my great RHYTHM & TEMPO to my early classical music training as well as ballroom dancing, basketball and tennis. As for balance, I differentiate between static and dynamic balance.

Static balance can be tested by standing on one foot for a significant amount of time, whereas dynamic balance of the body segments with bat or club is somewhat of "semi-dynamic / semi-static" exercise with the golfswing. It's how you create and establish your GRF's that matters.

 

[Dariusz J.]

The part that you highlighted is what seems to be my default stance.

Have you ever tried to add a little diagonality to your stance ? Asking very seriously now. It gives a much better base for a human body weight. The bigger surface the base has the easier is to be in balance through the motion and, what is even more important, the easier is to use the ground shear forces comparing to when all body parts are in line with each other. Human feet and the surface they provide are very small in relation to the entire body mass that they must keep in balance, especially during such a dynamic motion as the golf swing is.

Cheers

 

[mgranato]

Dear mgranato,

After seeing this thread develop, I felt that your overall bodies dynamic balance and stability, a major part that may be important to your stance, was being missed.

So, first the suggestion, and then the explanation.

PLEASE take your driver, put your feet together, and take AT LEAST 10 multiple and continuous BASEBALL back and forth swings, increasing the intensity of the energy and club head velocities, ie. 20, 40, 60 and 80 percent, and pay attention to how stable or unstable your overall body is, by noting IF you lose your balance, and IF your feet need to move.

Then transition from the horizontal plane to your normal golf swing plane, again with your feet together, and again increasing the intensity of the energy and club head velocity from 20 to 80 percent, see if you lose your balance and your feet need to move.

During BOTH these exercises, please pay particular attention to your TEMPO and how the loss of balance, and possible reflex actions develop and feel, because WE DO NOT WANT ANY OF THIS WHEN YOU WIDEN YOUR STANCE, AND TAKE YOUR FULL POWER SWING.

So now, widen your stance to your original position in both distance and angular orientation of your left and right feet, and repeat the 20-100 percent, back and forth exercise for 10 swings as above, again noting your TEMPO, and lower body stability. If you lose your balance, LOWER YOUR BODY 1 INCH AT A TIME and repeat the 10 swing exercise until you become dynamically stable from 20 to 100 percent of your standard energy and club head velocity characteristics.

There MAY be more to do to get dynamic stability, as I am HEAVILY influenced by the multiple descriptions of your body shape. IMO, tests on dual force plates would clearly show how much more you need to develop REARWARD FACING restoring centripetal forces from the counterclockwise rotation of your lower body during the downswing. In your case, squatting, in 1 inch increments is probably the most efficient way to develop the higher forces you need.

Please let us know if this at least trends in the right direction, because we certainly want to ADD the 'right hip back' position change TOO, but not until you are able to 'almost' develop sufficient lower body balancing forces to SUPPORT your huge upper body.

Thanks for the comments. I did the swings as you prescribed. I didn't notice any changes in balance (being unbalanced) or tempo in the 3 different swing positions. Consequently, I did not do the lowering by 1 inch at a time.

 

[mgranato]

Have you ever tried to add a little diagonality to your stance ? Asking very seriously now. It gives a much better base for a human body weight. The bigger surface the base has the easier is to be in balance through the motion and, what is even more important, the easier is to use the ground shear forces comparing to when all body parts are in line with each other. Human feet and the surface they provide are very small in relation to the entire body mass that they must keep in balance, especially during such a dynamic motion as the golf swing is.

Cheers

I haven't, at least not to any degree that I'm aware of. Is the diagonal stance the same as the closed hip setup?

 

[birly-shirly]

What's the drawback with too narrow?

Your heels will rub...if you're Bobby Jones, that is.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I haven't, at least not to any degree that I'm aware of. Is the diagonal stance the same as the closed hip setup?

Au contre, as regards hips. Closed feet, open hips, squarish shoulders = the essence of the diagonal stance. Other words - shoulders are closed in relation to hips but open in relation to feet. Hips are (strongly) open in relation to feet and (less) open in relation to shoulders. Feet are (strongly) closed in relation to hips and (less) closed in relation to shoulders.
Imagine one wants to start a sidewise dynamic physical activity directed at West (assuming one faces North at stance) - can be hammering a nail at the West wall or starting to run to the West, or whatever - the diagonal stance will be chosen best by ones subconscious mind as the most effective one. Hogan knew it post-secret (pre-secret he set rather parallelish) and, by an occasion, it appeared to be the best possible stance type to apply D-plane consequences with the fixed ball position (which is a very huge convenience for a golfer if one does not need to think about 14 different ball positions and which Brian have already highlighted out when talking about 5L drawing).
Simply ingenious statically and dynamically, IMO. Try it, no guarantee that you'll find it good for yourself, but who knows. At least the concept has lots of biophysical arguments for.

Cheers

 

[aaron_lohan]

Have you ever tried to add a little diagonality to your stance ? Asking very seriously now. It gives a much better base for a human body weight. The bigger surface the base has the easier is to be in balance through the motion and, what is even more important, the easier is to use the ground shear forces comparing to when all body parts are in line with each otherCheeers

How does standed diagonally increase the size of the base? Feet have a fixed surface area, no matter where you put them they are the same size, you cant increase the size of the base without making the feet bigger.

 

[Dariusz J.]

How does standed diagonally increase the size of the base? Feet have a fixed surface area, no matter where you put them they are the same size, you cant increase the size of the base without making the feet bigger.

Depends what you understand as the base. If you take only the area of both soles -- you're right, it does not matter how feet are placed. However, if you take into account also the area between soles in 2-D and its relation to the whole body mass the issue of ability to preserve balance becomes completely different.

Cheers

 

[Shot Limit]

Au contre, as regards hips. Closed feet, open hips, squarish shoulders = the essence of the diagonal stance. Other words - shoulders are closed in relation to hips but open in relation to feet. Hips are (strongly) open in relation to feet and (less) open in relation to shoulders. Feet are (strongly) closed in relation to hips and (less) closed in relation to shoulders.
Imagine one wants to start a sidewise dynamic physical activity directed at West (assuming one faces North at stance) - can be hammering a nail at the West wall or starting to run to the West, or whatever - the diagonal stance will be chosen best by ones subconscious mind as the most effective one.

Can you add the target line into your explaination of these positions please Dariusz? Are squarish shoulders parallel to the target line?

Thanks.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Can you add the target line into your explaination of these positions please Dariusz? Are squarish shoulders parallel to the target line?

Thanks.

Of course, my mistake, forgot to add this info. Shoulders squarish to the target line. Relation of hips and feet to the target line is totally unimportant (usually feet closed, hips open -- watch post-secret Hogan or Knudson or even Moe). One should "match" target line with shoulder blades (clavicles) only for obvious reasons.

Cheers

 

[ParHunter]

Au contre, as regards hips. Closed feet, open hips, squarish shoulders = the essence of the diagonal stance. Other words - shoulders are closed in relation to hips but open in relation to feet. Hips are (strongly) open in relation to feet and (less) open in relation to shoulders. Feet are (strongly) closed in relation to hips and (less) closed in relation to shoulders.
Imagine one wants to start a sidewise dynamic physical activity directed at West (assuming one faces North at stance) - can be hammering a nail at the West wall or starting to run to the West, or whatever - the diagonal stance will be chosen best by ones subconscious mind as the most effective one. Hogan knew it post-secret (pre-secret he set rather parallelish) and, by an occasion, it appeared to be the best possible stance type to apply D-plane consequences with the fixed ball position (which is a very huge convenience for a golfer if one does not need to think about 14 different ball positions and which Brian have already highlighted out when talking about 5L drawing).
Simply ingenious statically and dynamically, IMO. Try it, no guarantee that you'll find it good for yourself, but who knows. At least the concept has lots of biophysical arguments for.

Cheers

I can't decide whether Dariusz and art are talking about opposing ideas here on the stance or whether both stances have the same effect.
A head to head comparison of the two stances would be interesting

 

[art]

Thanks for the comments. I did the swings as you prescribed. I didn't notice any changes in balance (being unbalanced) or tempo in the 3 different swing positions. Consequently, I did not do the lowering by 1 inch at a time.

Dear mgranato,

MY APOLOGIES, I did not read your earlier post where you stated "gimpyness in the right ankle and Achilles" was the reason you were searching for a new Driver stance width.

I have had some science-related experiences and testing, and from it learned to voice GREAT CAUTION to not exacerbate an existing injury, or even potentially create more pain when searching for improvements in ones golf swing.

As I am sure the very learned physical conditioning folks that contribute to this site would WARN, 'understand and professionally treat' the injury as a first priority.

When it is OK to swing a driver, I can tell you without hesitation that your body will, as a very high priority, still do everything to protect your right foot/ankle with reflex actions from a variety of locations using internal information from many sensors/proprioceptors.

Again, I am sorry for prematurely concluding that because of your size, may have had insufficient lower and upper body dynamic stability. You still may have, but for sure, your inability to find an acceptable driver stance width, at this time, IMO, has a lot more to do with as you said, "gimpyness in the right ankle and Achilles".

 

[mgranato]

Dear mgranato,

MY APOLOGIES, I did not read your earlier post where you stated "gimpyness in the right ankle and Achilles" was the reason you were searching for a new Driver stance width.

I have had some science-related experiences and testing, and from it learned to voice GREAT CAUTION to not exacerbate an existing injury, or even potentially create more pain when searching for improvements in ones golf swing.

As I am sure the very learned physical conditioning folks that contribute to this site would WARN, 'understand and professionally treat' the injury as a first priority.

When it is OK to swing a driver, I can tell you without hesitation that your body will, as a very high priority, still do everything to protect your right foot/ankle with reflex actions from a variety of locations using internal information from many sensors/proprioceptors.

Again, I am sorry for prematurely concluding that because of your size, may have had insufficient lower and upper body dynamic stability. You still may have, but for sure, your inability to find an acceptable driver stance width, at this time, IMO, has a lot more to do with as you said, "gimpyness in the right ankle and Achilles".

I think my response was as clear as mud... what I was meaning to say was I didn't notice any imbalance while doing the swings you suggested. That being the reason I didn't go further into the squatting move. Had an MRI yesterday, but the wheel is feeling better and I don't think it was much of a factor in doing those swings.

 

[spktho]

Of course, my mistake, forgot to add this info. Shoulders squarish to the target line. Relation of hips and feet to the target line is totally unimportant (usually feet closed, hips open -- watch post-secret Hogan or Knudson or even Moe). One should "match" target line with shoulder blades (clavicles) only for obvious reasons.

Cheers

Dariusz, do you find that when learning the diagonal stance one tends to hit pulls or pushes? I tried this out some today and I hit some really pure shots, just too far left of my target. I wonder if it had to do with the open hips or maybe had the shoulders too open.

On a side--the clavicles are collarbones, the scapulae are shoulder blades

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz, do you find that when learning the diagonal stance one tends to hit pulls or pushes? I tried this out some today and I hit some really pure shots, just too far left of my target. I wonder if it had to do with the open hips or maybe had the shoulders too open.

Spot on since the bigger the diagonality of the stance is the bigger is the automatic promotion of the OTT from inside delivery as well as body rotation. When I started with this concept I was plagued with pulls, but both the great power + contact as well as superb balance in both anatomical planes I got made me experiment further. I got to a point when I understood that I am not fully utilizing the backswing rotation because it felt so huge angle (with the rear foot backed out). Having understood I am neither flexible nor young I let my rear foot be fllared out a bit (not exactly perpendicular as on Hogan's drawings) and voila -- I started to hit powerful straightish shots with a little fade ending. Exactly what I wanted. When I need a draw I just diminish the flare angle of the lead foot which diminishes unintentionally the degree of pelvis openness and ensures a bit less pivot-dependent motion. Not always ends up as well as I wanted but enough good for a person who has been running a no-excercise experiment already for 2 seasons.

On a side--the clavicles are collarbones, the scapulae are shoulder blades

Yes, I always mistake these two names shoulder and collar blades. Thanks for correcting me. I meant clavicles/collarbones because of the fact they qre in the frontal part of the body which eases aligning process.

Cheers