Fowler Stuff (now with p5 Manzella Answers)

[birly-shirly]

Do this experiment -- keeping a pencil in both hands try to draw 10-centimeter lines on the wall with extended arms via their movement trying as much as possible to replace line on the same place. Then bend both arms in elbow, tie your humera to the body and try to draw these lines via body rotation. You will find that in the latter case lines are drawn in a much more consistent way. Hope this will be selfexplanatory addendum to your question.

Cheers

If your life, or your livelihood, depended on your ability to draw neat 10cm lines on a wall - would you really use EITHER of the techniques described here? Or would you rather rely on the sensitivity and fine motor co-ordination of your hands and arms. Most golfers have a hard enough time putting the club squarely on the ball - and I'm never really convinced by attempts to deal with this as a mechanical problem, rather than a co-ordination problem.

I don't believe that you can eliminate the timing requirement for good golf. It might be possible that certain movement patterns REDUCE the timing requirement - but I think the timing requirement remains huge for any golfer. Find me a good golfer who doesn't worry about tempo and rhythm. Re-read what Hogan said about the importance of his waggle (and of NOT grooving it, but adjusting it to every shot) before arguing that Hogan's timing ran on automatic.

Fine control of timing is, I believe, a reasonable explanation for how good players can manage their ballflight even whilst they talk in terms of the "old ballflight laws".

It's my hunch that the sooner the average golfer learns how to manage their timing, rather than chasing (bio)mechanical models or a certain "look" - the sooner they'll start to improve.

 

[Dariusz J.]

If your life, or your livelihood, depended on your ability to draw neat 10cm lines on a wall - would you really use EITHER of the techniques described here? Or would you rather rely on the sensitivity and fine motor co-ordination of your hands and arms. Most golfers have a hard enough time putting the club squarely on the ball - and I'm never really convinced by attempts to deal with this as a mechanical problem, rather than a co-ordination problem.

We are discussing sports, not matters of life and death. But yes, if I have a choice of these two methods and my life would depend on how consistent these vertical lines are in relation to each other -- I'd surely chose the 2nd method via body pivot. Not slightest doubt about it.

I don't believe that you can eliminate the timing requirement for good golf. It might be possible that certain movement patterns REDUCE the timing requirement - but I think the timing requirement remains huge for any golfer. Find me a good golfer who doesn't worry about tempo and rhythm. Re-read what Hogan said about the importance of his waggle (and of NOT grooving it, but adjusting it to every shot) before arguing that Hogan's timing ran on automatic.

Neither I. Never said it is possible to make everything automatic nor that Hogan achieved it. Instead, I am always repeating, that partial automatism is worth everything.

Apropos, do you know how many times Hogan used the word 'automatic' or 'automatically' in his 5L book ? Somebody calculated it. I strongly believe automating the motion as much as possible was Hogan's macroscale idea.

Cheers

 

[bluebird]

Dariusz J

So the consensus is your model (Hogan) timed his face square, in the Gamma, and that is less timing, or easier to time than Fowler who times his square face in the alpha direction ? Or do you think that Fowler times his face square in the gamma axis also?

John

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz J

So the consensus is your model (Hogan) timed his face square, in the Gamma, and that is less timing, or easier to time than Fowler who times his square face in the alpha direction ? Or do you think that Fowler times his face square in the gamma axis also?

John

John, there is no need to use these gamma, alpha, beta, etc. It is that simple:

a. hypothetically, the fastest possible RoC would be that only in one point of time the clubface is square (or it is as a golfer wants it to be); besides this point it's either open (because ill-timed golfer is late with squaring the face) or closed (because ill-timed golfer is early with squaring the face).

b. hypothetically, the slowest possible RoC would be that it does not matter if golfer is late or early, his clubface is square (or like he wants it to be).

Fowler is closer to a. while Hogan closer to b. How do you think, which one of them is more timing-proof ?

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

And my point was that if you really needed to draw those lines with precision, you wouldn't, given the choice, use EITHER of the techniques you offered. You can make a case for your preference based on mechanical simplicity - but personally, I maintain that fine motor skill is more important.

We agree that you can't make everything automatic. I think your emphasis is on "macroscale" issues. I think that the microscale is where the rubber hits the road. Happy to agree to differ on this.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

No. He did not need to time a lot since he set his humerus/elbow after transition. Gravity plus other forces took care about supination itself. Do you have any idea what is the RoM of pronation/supination with extended arm compared to bent in elbow ? If you don't you should think about it and learn something useful.
What he did with his grip was just a microscale adjustment for a chronic hooker. I do not care about hookers only, I think in big picture

I have a very strong understanding and the more you write the more you expose your general lack of knowledge.

Every time you're challenged you hide behind the "I am focused on the average golfer in macro-scale bullshit". The fact is that you are closed minded and have not done enough due diligence to create effective arguments. People like to talk macro-scale and in general terms when they really don't have the depth knowledge needed for the topic.

Please stop posting, as I would like to remember you in the positive light that I once had for your knowledge.

 

[tbone1065]

A ton has changed in hockey. Protection is better and lighter, skates are lighter. composite sticks, new conditioning. Hockey does not even come close to resembling the game 30 years ago

No kidding. In addition, how about the massive difference in the size and speed of the players. Maybe Darius would say, "no, you stupid, player must make perfect stride and shoot puck with pinpoint consistency. If only they play like Gordie Howe!".

Also, my point was made regarding today's world class players. Last time I checked, they are not consistently hitting duck hooks, fat shots etc...

 

[Dariusz J.]

I have a very strong understanding and the more you write the more you expose your general lack of knowledge.

Every time you're challenged you hide behind the "I am focused on the average golfer in macro-scale bullshit". The fact is that you are closed minded and have not done enough due diligence to create effective arguments. People like to talk macro-scale and in general terms when they really don't have the depth knowledge needed for the topic.

Please stop posting, as I would like to remember you in the positive light that I once had for your knowledge.

Another sad example.
I am not hiding, I am working in macroscale ! Every time I am being challenged ? Where is the challenge ? Unless you call your abusive jibberish like above a challenge, so yes, I am often challenged here on this forum.
I answered to your post giving you some anatomical hints. What next ? I received this tirade of everything but not either logical counterargumentation or approval. Do you read sometimes what you write ?

Cheers

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Another sad example.
I am not hiding, I am working in macroscale ! Every time I am being challenged ? Where is the challenge ? Unless you call your abusive jibberish like above a challenge, so yes, I am often challenged here on this forum.
I answered to your post giving you some anatomical hints. What next ? I received this tirade of everything but not either logical counterargumentation or approval. Do you read sometimes what you write ?

Cheers

When it's you against EVERYONE else, I would think you might begin to look inward and question what you're doing. Where are all the other forum members to defend your stance on these topics. Have you noticed that you're all alone in your arguments? You're like an addict who needs an intervention.

 

[Dariusz J.]

When it's you against EVERYONE else, I would think you might begin to look inward and question what you're doing. Where are all the other forum members to defend your stance on these topics. Have you noticed that you're all alone in your arguments? You're like an addict who needs an intervention.

What relevance does it have ? Do you think sometimes at all ? Was Copernicus or Galileo (sorry to use such examples) full of followers ? Bunch of crows does not make an eagle wrong. History decides who was wrong or not, not regime followers.
FYI, I am often receiving PMs with support from members here who prefer not to reveal it openly here. I can understand them a bit -- if they choose to deal with people like you and end being banned they prefer to sit quiet.

Enough of it. Ending this pathetic threadjack now.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Dariusz....get a grip.


This is my one and only point on USING "Rate of Closure" (the kind ENSO-pro measures) in a golf swing.


Let's first assume that we are dealing with decent players who aren't slicers or who aren't slicers anymore.

And, let's also assume that they can hit the ball first most of the time. What is really wrong with this group of golfers? 90% of the time??

They have club delivery problems: too inside-out, or outside in, too open or closed a face, too much downward angle of attack, or too little. And although sometimes those issues are just shoulders, arms, hands, and club ONLY problems (maybe a third of them) a majority have pivot issues that cause or contribute to their club delivery problems. OK.....sometimes, you straighten the grip. sometimes, you weaken it. Sometimes, you change the location of the club in the hand (angle-wise). There are golfers who need to keep the club from closing too much early in the downswing, some with the opposite problem. Some over swivel, some under (that's the movement of the arms and wrists through impact toward the finish). Some need more forward lean at impact, some less.

What's the point?.

How many times in a swing after all of that is fixed are we trying to INCREASE or DECREASE how slow or fast the clubface is closing????

In my 30 years of teaching, I can tell you DAMN FEW.

To me, all of this is a NON-ISSUE.

My tests on the ENSO-pro (I posted the video here) confirmed what I already knew. With a relatively normal swing YOU CAN drastically INCREASE the REAL measure RoC....Slow it down??...Not so much....It is comical to think I could have made a more cartoonish swing then the one I made trying to limit the RoC. I took an Ed Fiori grip, I made a backswing that would have made Miller Barber blush. My club approach the ball like I was in a Dave Pelz putting track and my finish looked like Tiger in the good ole days trying to slice a ball around a mountain. I just about hurt myself....I decreased my Rate of Closure at impact 10°!!!!! From 2771° per second to 2661°! Could I have done more? No. Would ANY TEACHER ask their student to do more. NO!

So why didn't it change? Well, I didn't change anything else. So my #3 angle (left arm to club from the DTL perspective) was the same. Probably same release point, and same clubhead speed around 103 (I hit a pretty straight ball 250 in the air....You will all find that those elements are more or a predictor of ROC than any movement....I'm talking real measurement here.

There is NO PROOF that a regular golfer would play better or hit more fairways or greens with a 3000° RoC or a 2000° one. No legit research projects on it (my test surely wasn't one).

WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY CAREFUL TO GUESS THAT LESS ROC IS BETTER, just like it is a complete guess that less weight shift is better, less head movement, less anything for a given golfer OR a group of them.

Because I'll bet that LESS is NOT always more.

 

[bcoak]

I guess these Open winners were goat humpers too:
Hale Irwin DTL Driver - YouTube
Payne Stewart

 

[gmbtempe]

I guess these Open winners were goat humpers too:
Hale Irwin DTL Driver - YouTube
Payne Stewart

There are a million ways to get it done..........does not mean its the best way.

 

[mgranato]

There are a million ways to get it done..........does not mean its the best way.

If you're getting it done... isn't that exactly what it means? If getting it done is the goal, then isn't the best way that which gets it done?

Now, if the goal is something else... say trying to copy a couple moves from a few different players who get it done, then maybe stumbling around for a look on a video camera at a range is the best way. Getting it done by osmosis would be a ground breaking accomplishment.

But in cases where reality meets scores which equal goals, it seems the goal should determine the best way for the individual. And reaching that goal either validates the way or not.

 

[welshdentist]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/hogansquareplane.gif/

Deep, laid off at the top, even more laid off in transition to open the face further

Open at last parallel. If from here all he did was uncock his wrists and pivot the face would be 90 degrees+ open

It's from his Shell Wonderful World of Golf, at his prime...

Massive strength to rotate club/shaft back to impact from this deep. Amazing to hit the ball from this flat and deep, but he was a one off......

Hogan's swing is physically difficult.

Looking forward to Darius's post.

Brian has summed it all up to be fair. In that RoC doesn't even matter.


Hogan did though, for the last time, go from deep/laid off/open to square at impact, then held off any further closure with his pivot and arm strength.

Amazing swing for him to get it done amazingly well

Even better for internet geeks to drool over or claim they know the secret. I won't post anymore on this, other than if Darius proves me wrong I will hold my internet hands up and say, you're right.

In fact, i'll say sorry now just in case I am wrong as what i have posted the last few days breaks my rule of forums which is to get involved in anything that doesn't directly help my golf game get better.

Hogan and the internet is not a good mix, everyone seems to be an expert who is the one "who really knows what happened"

I know of a site that does do a great job teaching it and they will tell you how flat, laid off and open he was.

I won't mention it here. But it really doesn't matter anyway as I know you think you are right, and nothing anyone says will help.

This sites been amazing lately, sorry for the meaningless argument/discussion.

 

[birly-shirly]

Looked like he chunked that one...

 

[gmbtempe]

If you're getting it done... isn't that exactly what it means? If getting it done is the goal, then isn't the best way that which gets it done?

Now, if the goal is something else... say trying to copy a couple moves from a few different players who get it done, then maybe stumbling around for a look on a video camera at a range is the best way. Getting it done by osmosis would be a ground breaking accomplishment.

But in cases where reality meets scores which equal goals, it seems the goal should determine the best way for the individual. And reaching that goal either validates the way or not.

Whats the point of a golf swing forum that discusses theory, mechanics, analysis, as ways to execute a golf swing if there is not a hierarchy of different ways to complete a golf swing, but inevitably leading to opinions on what is the "best" way?

We could all just make it as a simple as "whatever works".

Those moves worked for Hale Irwin and Stewart. They were very good iron players which in the 70's, 80' and early part of the 90's was probably a premium.

 

[Brian Manzella]

There are a million ways to get it done..........does not mean its the best way.

You are correct.

Here are three examples:

Super Strong Grip, big Pivot, big high arms, big squat, big jump, big lag, elbow plane, giant continuous unwind, big right wrist throw late, extra min RoC, swing way left, max speed.

Strong grip, very centered pivot, weight centered or left going back, flat arms, big slide, big back extend, min. RoC, swing left, club up the left arm, sawed off finish.

Slightly strong grip, step and turn pivot, slight head move, medium high arms, left arm replace tumble, late elbow plane, arm and wrist throw, spiderman left hand, zeroed out, no cut off finish.​

If we went to every scientists in the world with a 300 million dollar budget and studied 1000's of golfers for 10 years, which one would be closest to optimum?

 

[gmbtempe]

You are correct.

Here are three examples:

Super Strong Grip, big Pivot, big high arms, big squat, big jump, big lag, elbow plane, giant continuous unwind, big right wrist throw late, extra min RoC, swing way left, max speed.

Strong grip, very centered pivot, weight centered or left going back, flat arms, big slide, big back extend, min. RoC, swing left, club up the left arm, sawed off finish.

Slightly strong grip, step and turn pivot, slight head move, medium high arms, left arm replace tumble, late elbow plane, arm and wrist throw, spiderman left hand, zeroed out, no cut off finish.​

If we went to every scientists in the world with a 300 million dollar budget and studied 1000's of golfers for 10 years, which one would be closest to optimum?

I see parts of all three I like a bit, especially out of 1 and 3.

I know 3 is your preferred pattern right now based on your research.

 

[dbl]

"Optimum"...the word...implies optimizing something.....so what is the something? Effort?, highest clubhead speed per erg of work? or highest work output per unit of work put in? ...accuracy... repeatability...elegance of look according to aesthetics of tweed coat relics or of hiphop break dancers?

In transportation systems, optimizing (one at a time) for max distance or max mpg or max work per work input will have three different setups to achieve.


ETA: actually I don't like my question as it often leads to spinning around in circles, but what one is trying to achieve needs to be elucidated and examined carefully. Maybe...what is "get it done"...is it a zone of acceptable error about a set of desired impact conditions?