Fowler Stuff (now with p5 Manzella Answers)

[art]

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.

Dear Brian, the team, and the rest of you posting and monitoring this site seeking golf truth,,

Since starting to post a few months ago, I carefully read EVERY 'Whats New' post that appears when I open this site, and carefully selected a few that I felt from my background, I could 'add value'. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS I FEEL I CAN ADD VALUE.

For the past few days there has been a very energized and informative flurry of posts in several threads regarding "RATE OF CLOSURE", a subject of particular interest to me, based on my admiration for the valuable research conducted and published by Dr. Steve Nesbit in 2005 introducing, at least to me the time phased values of alpha, beta, and our topic for today gamma..


Now add Fredric Tuxen, Trackman and Brians' tests on ENSO, and we have been taken on a most fascinating trip of what the science world would call "REDUCTIONISM". At the possible expense of some of you leaving at this point, I will now attach a short paragraph from 'Wikpedia' regarding Dr. Russ Ackoff, an author of the first book on "Operations Research", a great friend of my brother, and a person that has had a major and positive impact on my career, and now my science-based searching for golf truth. .

". The Machine Age, bequeathed by the Industrial Revolution, was underpinned by two concepts – reductionism (everything can in the end be decomposed into indivisible parts) and mechanism (cause-effect relationships)".[2] Hereby "all phenomena were believed to be explained by using only one ultimately simple relationship, cause-effect", which in the Systems Age are replaced by expansionism and teleology with producer-product replacing cause-effect. "Expansionism is a doctrine maintaining that all objects and events, and all experiences of them, are parts of larger wholes."[8] According to Ackoff, "the beginning of the end of the Machine Age and the beginning of the Systems Age could be dated to the 1940s, a decade when philosophers, mathematicians, and biologists, building on developments in the interwar period, defined a new intellectual framework".[2]".

SINCE I promised that I would ALWAYS keep things simple, what Dr. Ackoff means from the paragraph above is that 'reductionism' has value, but to understand the entire golf swing problem at hand, a 'systems' (or scientific systems engineering) approach is required.

As you can imagine, I was the victim/benefactor of many of these 'reductionist/systems' discussions at home in the kitchen, when my brother and Russ, took time off from Wharton, and realized they needed some of my mothers good Italian cooking.

Well, having already missed the opportunity to keep this short I will get to my major point, and promise to expand as this ROC discussion progresses.

IMO, Trackman has done us all a great favor IN REDUCTIONISM by measuring angles and angular rates to parts of a degree, and giving us some insight to expected ball flight changes from the potential gear effects. HOWEVER, IMO, our interpretation and use of these data is BLINDING us to the reality of the potential errors of the SYSTEM that is producing them.

For instance, while admittedly, I have very little actual Trackman data, what I have for multiple shots of an elite golfer with a driver indicates that the one sigma dispersion of the angular position of the club head is ONE DEGREE indicating to me, that an elite golfer in a 'probability' sense, can only be counted on 68% of the time to be plus or minus ONE degree , and of course, 95% of the time plus or minus TWO degrees.

So, in conclusion I want to at least acknowledge that IN MY OPINION, because of the wonders of technology we are becoming VERY PRECISE, at the expense of ACCURACY, and may even be seeing the trees, and not the forest.

To keep this post as short as possible, I will delay, but promise some real science in a future post regarding voluntary and involuntary alpha torques and their effect on ROC, and my guess as to how late in the downswing a voluntary force/torque can be added, and the associated potential errors.

Respectfully,
art

 

[Michael Finney]

optimum

 

[bcoak]

Camilo Villegas hasn't had the best season, but a T-18 at the Zurich Classic of New Orleans was a step in the right direction. Still, the persnickety Villegas wasn't satisfied with the grips on his TaylorMade RocketBallz irons. He had been missing his target left on occasion and felt building up his grips could help offset that.

Read More Equipment: For Pros And Tour Techs, Getting A Handle On Grips Is A Top Priority: Golf Digest

 

[Dariusz J.]

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.

Brian, I understand and applaud every word you wrote here. I understand fully that the arsenal of a good golf instructor must be very wide and microscale is full of various individual causes. I am the last guy who would like to implement drastic changes to those who play well or to tour pros.
But tell me why don't you want to understand me ? I am talking ONLY about preparing these golfers in macroscale who suffer or novice golfers and put their focus on biophysical scenarios, to show them what is easier to time, because the 4th dimension exists. Why to quarrel with physics and their rules that are much older than golf itself ? The rules I say here that are so often ridiculed are TRUE RULES in our 4-D reality. Why not enhance to try to obey them those who need it ?

Cheers

 

[puttmaster]

Brian, I understand and applaud every word you wrote here. I understand fully that the arsenal of a good golf instructor must be very wide and microscale is full of various individual causes. I am the last guy who would like to implement drastic changes to those who play well or to tour pros.
But tell me why don't you want to understand me ? I am talking ONLY about preparing these golfers in macroscale who suffer or novice golfers and put their focus on biophysical scenarios, to show them what is easier to time, because the 4th dimension exists. Why to quarrel with physics and their rules that are much older than golf itself ? The rules I say here that are so often ridiculed are TRUE RULES in our 4-D reality. Why not enhance to try to obey them those who need it ?

Cheers

Darius -- with all due respect, based on your posts here as well as the images and text one sees on your website, your idea of a golf swing model is Ben Hogan. It isn't 1950 anymore. Not all golfers are 5'7" and use heavy, flat, open-faced, XX-stiff shafted clubs. And, certainly, very few of them want to swing as if they do. Hope this helps explain why some may not understand you.

 

[jimmyt]

With all Due repect I thought you were through with this thread.......

and here you remain......

 

[Dariusz J.]

OK, Welshdentist, here it is stuff for you to digest. You think that Hogan was wide open with the last parallel and was rolling like crazy after it to square the face. IMO, it is not true, he was pivoting like crazy and this was the main factor that closed his clubface. His clubface were already set ready much before entering the impact zone, i.e. far from crossover release players.
Since it is very tough to find decent quality of pics (and we would need similar to my Furyk sequence so that the clubface is visible without blurs) I decided to bring 3 things as arguments to support my thesis:

1. A bit before last parallel

Observe how the clubface is already almost square to the arc; observe his lead wrist that's already palmarily flexed; compare the pic to chosen Furyk's pic from my collection and it will be clear that Hogan is just a tad more open in this point which is no odd taking into account Furyk's more open body position at this point.

2. After last parallel just before entering the impact zone

A bit too late, but still useful; clubface appears perfectly square to the arc and looks like it already was square before; watch his rear arm bent and elbow position.

3. Post-impact

Shows exactly what we could see in Furyk's motion; clubhead still square to the arc, no sign of crossover release, no sign of arms throw and the ball is already gone. Rear arm still bent.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Darius -- with all due respect, based on your posts here as well as the images and text one sees on your website, your idea of a golf swing model is Ben Hogan. It isn't 1950 anymore. Not all golfers are 5'7" and use heavy, flat, open-faced, XX-stiff shafted clubs. And, certainly, very few of them want to swing as if they do. Hope this helps explain why some may not understand you.

No, no, no. Hogan is just the closest model to show the majority of macroscale rules that govern biokinetically best action. There are issues that I do not like in his action as well. I have already explained that many times before. Hard structure of humans has not changed since centuries, let alone 50-ies.

With all Due repect I thought you were through with this thread.......

and here you remain......

Why ? I said I was through with a threadjack for Lindsey Newman without any merits in the discussion.

Cheers

 

[johnnymarlboro]

Dariuz, it seems as if what you are refering to as "true rules" of physics also assumes that your theories on RoC, how it is controlled by a golfer, and what is biomechanically optimum are correct. Obviously you think you are correct, but keep it mind that your ideas are theories and not fact as it relates to the rest of the world. To make such bold assertions you really need empirical data not based on decades old photos and stills from videos from weird angles and taken out of context. Theorize what you want to, but real research with the most modern analytical equipment is necessary to begin finding real "truths". Even then plenty of folks won't be happy. No one wants to be proven wrong.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariuz, it seems as if what you are refering to as "true rules" of physics also assumes that your theories on RoC, how it is controlled by a golfer, and what is biomechanically optimum are correct. Obviously you think you are correct, but keep it mind that your ideas are theories and not fact as it relates to the rest of the world. To make such bold assertions you really need empirical data not based on decades old photos and stills from videos from weird angles and taken out of context. Theorize what you want to, but real research with the most modern analytical equipment is necessary to begin finding real "truths". Even then plenty of folks won't be happy. No one wants to be proven wrong.

But, Johnny, I am not talking about my theories (that are unproven empirically) but about universal RULES THAT GOVERN THEM. Such as e.g. the closer to the core it is the easier is to control this or that reaching a limit causes a predictable reaction.

Cheers

 

[johnnymarlboro]

That's exactly my point, you're reverse engineering your theories to the rules. I tried your pencil test, I can do it both ways equally well. I have an art background and used to be a carpenter, and have above average hand eye coordination. Does that mean those rules don't apply to me because of my hand eye coordination? Then it can't really be a true rule.

 

[leon]

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.

Amen.

How is this thread still going?

 

[Dariusz J.]

That's exactly my point, you're reverse engineering your theories to the rules. I tried your pencil test, I can do it both ways equally well. I have an art background and used to be a carpenter, and have above average hand eye coordination. Does that mean those rules don't apply to me because of my hand eye coordination? Then it can't really be a true rule.

You raised an interesting point. Perhaps I should use the word "usually". Or just accept that there are exceptions that prove the rule ? Such Fowler or any other good ballstriker with a crossover release can also be such exception from the rule. Tour players are usually great putters -- does it mean that Hogan, Knudson or Moe did not qualify or were exceptions that proved the rule ?

Cheers

 

[johnnymarlboro]

You raised an interesting point. Perhaps I should use the word "usually". Or just accept that there are exceptions that prove the rule ? Such Fowler or any other good ballstriker with a crossover release can also be such exception from the rule. Tour players are usually great putters -- does it mean that Hogan, Knudson or Moe did not qualify or were exceptions that proved the rule ?

Cheers

Something along those lines I suppose. I just think you should consider the possibility that the answers are not as black and white, and tidy as they often appear on paper. In the real world there are lots of messy gray areas.

 

[welshdentist]

OK, Welshdentist, here it is stuff for you to digest. You think that Hogan was wide open with the last parallel and was rolling like crazy after it to square the face. IMO, it is not true, he was pivoting like crazy and this was the main factor that closed his clubface. His clubface were already set ready much before entering the impact zone, i.e. far from crossover release players.
Since it is very tough to find decent quality of pics (and we would need similar to my Furyk sequence so that the clubface is visible without blurs) I decided to bring 3 things as arguments to support my thesis:

1. A bit before last parallel

Observe how the clubface is already almost square to the arc; observe his lead wrist that's already palmarily flexed; compare the pic to chosen Furyk's pic from my collection and it will be clear that Hogan is just a tad more open in this point which is no odd taking into account Furyk's more open body position at this point.

2. After last parallel just before entering the impact zone

A bit too late, but still useful; clubface appears perfectly square to the arc and looks like it already was square before; watch his rear arm bent and elbow position.

3. Post-impact

Shows exactly what we could see in Furyk's motion; clubhead still square to the arc, no sign of crossover release, no sign of arms throw and the ball is already gone. Rear arm still bent.

Cheers

I was a bit off with previous posts, my apologies if I sounded rude. I just dislike evangelical Hogan did this/I know the secret preachers.

I will simply give my point of view and see what you and others think if they have the will to live to read this. I know you have spent a lot of time studying him, and I respect your views. Whether or not I agree is different to your thinking.

At the end of the day does it even matter? This is my last post on this so here goes 1 hour of my life I'll never get back.

I have those pictures too.

First one depends on where you define last parallel. It happens far later when you hold wrist cock as deep as this.

His hands are nearly at the ball with full wrist cock and he is at the end of rotating the crap out of if from cupped/laid of and under plane. If he doesn't rotate the forearms and uncock ultra fast from here the ball is going right. WAY RIGHT.

Given how laid off and open he was a frame or two previous, this has rotated a lot to get to even this position from the top.

If we as normal human beings pose the last parallel (P3) with the face turned towards the ground slightly and the club shaft parallel to the toe line with full wrist cock all you have to do it turn/pivot and uncock to get the club to the ball square.

Probably the least rate of closure, gives the feeling of 'covering the ball' in modern terms. If the face is toe up or even with the face facing the sky a touch more, it is open to the plane or 'laying on the plane' but the forearms have the face rotated open to the ball in it's current position.

He pivoted/uncocked and rotated the forearms a bunch from the top of backswing.

If we were facing the ball standing on a clock and if you called the club parallel to the feet at the last parallel as 3 o'clock (facing the ball at 12 o'clock) then Hogan and many players of his time attacked from 4.30 which is laid off and under plane, inside and open. He/they then used tremendous strength and timing to rotate the shaft and club hard into impact and on plane by impact. Result was anti left as it was hard to over rotate it. He did this extreme as he was closing it too fast. It wasn't optimal for everyone, just for him to not hook the shit out of it.

If only they had heard of tumble so much easier on the body

Try this as a test.

Pose at P3 with the club toe up and square to the toeline (3 o'clock)

Now rotate the face open as far as you can so the face points to the sky and the back of the club is flat to the ground and cock the wrists further so the club is deeper and lying on an imaginary 4.30 o'clock line. See how much further the club head has traveled? This is a potentially a power source if you choose to do this as the club head travels a greater distance. If you train and are strong and fast enough.

Hogan wasn't quite to this extreme but this is how he became flat, laid off and open to stop himself hooking. It is so under plane, but you can override it with.........

FLAT LIE ANGLES and raw pivot speed and forearm strength.

Second picture

Square to the arc? I think overhead would have this as open to be honest. To me that looks way open but we all see things differently. If he didn't continue uncocking and rotating the forearm to the left along with a hard pivot this ball is going right with fade/slice.

If you are not strong of body or pivot this position would be deadly. I've seen you swing now, you look like a strong guy....

Last picture

Try to get a wet noodle wristed weak man/woman to hit a hard, low penetrating fade.......requires holding off the face and speed/strength

I agree his pivot post impact stopped it closing to the arc. But he HELD IT SQUARE and trained himself to not let it crossover. It was done to prevent it hooking. It was why his post impact pivot was so strong, another anti hook move. He did it so well it became automatic and unconscious.

Just goes to show different points of view. In my opinion if you pivot like crazy, especially from P3 it keeps the face from closing and that's why Ben Hogan was REALLY strong with his post impact pivot. To override his fast closing on the downswing. It's why he was flat, open and laid off....all to overide the fast closure and uncocking which produces speed.

If you can close it fast but not have a problem with hooking, you can do it as fast as you like.

For no rate of closure/crossover you had better be strong in your forearms and fast with the pivot to make up for all the speed you lose holding that face square past impact and dragging that handle.

I stand by my original statement.

Hogan swung it flat, laid off and open to stop hooking it due to his closing the face too fast.

Had he nearly squared it by you definition of P3, not far off..... but this is a snap shot of a face going from way open to square.

Where was it at the top of the swing? Way open, therefore it had to close fast by impact or he'd be a slicer like 90% of the world.

Did he use tremendous strength and speed of his pivot and forearms/hands to square the face for impact and hold it off after impact to stop the face closing, you betcha.

Can you do this in modern times? Certainly if you want to hit if Furyk/Hogan straight but nowhere compared to modern players.

Different era, pattern for Hogan and no-one else other than hookers, although Never Hook again might be better

That's me done, sorry to all who read this and wish they had that 4 minutes of their life back.

 

[GPM1985]

Dear Brian, the team, and the rest of you posting and monitoring this site seeking golf truth,,

Since starting to post a few months ago, I carefully read EVERY 'Whats New' post that appears when I open this site, and carefully selected a few that I felt from my background, I could 'add value'. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS I FEEL I CAN ADD VALUE.

For the past few days there has been a very energized and informative flurry of posts in several threads regarding "RATE OF CLOSURE", a subject of particular interest to me, based on my admiration for the valuable research conducted and published by Dr. Steve Nesbit in 2005 introducing, at least to me the time phased values of alpha, beta, and our topic for today gamma..


Now add Fredric Tuxen, Trackman and Brians' tests on ENSO, and we have been taken on a most fascinating trip of what the science world would call "REDUCTIONISM". At the possible expense of some of you leaving at this point, I will now attach a short paragraph from 'Wikpedia' regarding Dr. Russ Ackoff, an author of the first book on "Operations Research", a great friend of my brother, and a person that has had a major and positive impact on my career, and now my science-based searching for golf truth. .

". The Machine Age, bequeathed by the Industrial Revolution, was underpinned by two concepts – reductionism (everything can in the end be decomposed into indivisible parts) and mechanism (cause-effect relationships)".[2] Hereby "all phenomena were believed to be explained by using only one ultimately simple relationship, cause-effect", which in the Systems Age are replaced by expansionism and teleology with producer-product replacing cause-effect. "Expansionism is a doctrine maintaining that all objects and events, and all experiences of them, are parts of larger wholes."[8] According to Ackoff, "the beginning of the end of the Machine Age and the beginning of the Systems Age could be dated to the 1940s, a decade when philosophers, mathematicians, and biologists, building on developments in the interwar period, defined a new intellectual framework".[2]".

SINCE I promised that I would ALWAYS keep things simple, what Dr. Ackoff means from the paragraph above is that 'reductionism' has value, but to understand the entire golf swing problem at hand, a 'systems' (or scientific systems engineering) approach is required.

As you can imagine, I was the victim/benefactor of many of these 'reductionist/systems' discussions at home in the kitchen, when my brother and Russ, took time off from Wharton, and realized they needed some of my mothers good Italian cooking.

Well, having already missed the opportunity to keep this short I will get to my major point, and promise to expand as this ROC discussion progresses.

IMO, Trackman has done us all a great favor IN REDUCTIONISM by measuring angles and angular rates to parts of a degree, and giving us some insight to expected ball flight changes from the potential gear effects. HOWEVER, IMO, our interpretation and use of these data is BLINDING us to the reality of the potential errors of the SYSTEM that is producing them.

For instance, while admittedly, I have very little actual Trackman data, what I have for multiple shots of an elite golfer with a driver indicates that the one sigma dispersion of the angular position of the club head is ONE DEGREE indicating to me, that an elite golfer in a 'probability' sense, can only be counted on 68% of the time to be plus or minus ONE degree , and of course, 95% of the time plus or minus TWO degrees.

So, in conclusion I want to at least acknowledge that IN MY OPINION, because of the wonders of technology we are becoming VERY PRECISE, at the expense of ACCURACY, and may even be seeing the trees, and not the forest.

To keep this post as short as possible, I will delay, but promise some real science in a future post regarding voluntary and involuntary alpha torques and their effect on ROC, and my guess as to how late in the downswing a voluntary force/torque can be added, and the associated potential errors.

Respectfully,
art

Great post, and not to be glossed over.

Everyone following and participating in this pointless, tired debate should read Art's post a couple times and then move on.

We are in the infant stages of the scientific exploration of golf. The things yet to be discovered will make the existing findings seem remedial by comparison. We'll look back and chuckle over how we thought we knew so much. This is always the way and yet we seem to forget.

Listen to Art, and notice how calm and impartial he remains. I'm sure he's familiar with the damage caused by the mixture of scientific pursuit and unchecked ego.

 

[art]

Great post, and not to be glossed over.

Everyone following and participating in this pointless, tired debate should read Art's post a couple times and then move on.

We are in the infant stages of the scientific exploration of golf. The things yet to be discovered will make the existing findings seem remedial by comparison. We'll look back and chuckle over how we thought we knew so much. This is always the way and yet we seem to forget.

Listen to Art, and notice how calm and impartial he remains. I'm sure he's familiar with the damage caused by the mixture of scientific pursuit and unchecked ego.

Dear GPM1985,

Thank you so much for your kind words and support. It amazed me that following my reply to Brian, the WAR continued, and from my perspective with the exception of you and Michael Finney, no one (yet) seems to want to let go and take a look at the whole golfer-club-ball-earth system, and how all of it affects the outcome.

For the first time in mt 3 short months of 'posting', I feel a little bit of discouragement, as some of the really smart and dedicated folks that contribute seem to be getting caught in this intellectual rip-tide. I sure hope I am wrong, because our work in finding golf truth for the benefit of ALL is far from done, and I very sincerely believe we need everybody's 'value added' help.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I was a bit off with previous posts, my apologies if I sounded rude. I just dislike evangelical Hogan did this/I know the secret preachers.

I will simply give my point of view and see what you and others think if they have the will to live to read this. I know you have spent a lot of time studying him, and I respect your views. Whether or not I agree is different to your thinking.

At the end of the day does it even matter? This is my last post on this so here goes 1 hour of my life I'll never get back.

I have those pictures too.

First one depends on where you define last parallel. It happens far later when you hold wrist cock as deep as this.

His hands are nearly at the ball with full wrist cock and he is at the end of rotating the crap out of if from cupped/laid of and under plane. If he doesn't rotate the forearms and uncock ultra fast from here the ball is going right. WAY RIGHT.

Given how laid off and open he was a frame or two previous, this has rotated a lot to get to even this position from the top.

If we as normal human beings pose the last parallel (P3) with the face turned towards the ground slightly and the club shaft parallel to the toe line with full wrist cock all you have to do it turn/pivot and uncock to get the club to the ball square.

Probably the least rate of closure, gives the feeling of 'covering the ball' in modern terms. If the face is toe up or even with the face facing the sky a touch more, it is open to the plane or 'laying on the plane' but the forearms have the face rotated open to the ball in it's current position.

He pivoted/uncocked and rotated the forearms a bunch from the top of backswing.

If we were facing the ball standing on a clock and if you called the club parallel to the feet at the last parallel as 3 o'clock (facing the ball at 12 o'clock) then Hogan and many players of his time attacked from 4.30 which is laid off and under plane, inside and open. He/they then used tremendous strength and timing to rotate the shaft and club hard into impact and on plane by impact. Result was anti left as it was hard to over rotate it. He did this extreme as he was closing it too fast. It wasn't optimal for everyone, just for him to not hook the shit out of it.

If only they had heard of tumble so much easier on the body

Try this as a test.

Pose at P3 with the club toe up and square to the toeline (3 o'clock)

Now rotate the face open as far as you can so the face points to the sky and the back of the club is flat to the ground and cock the wrists further so the club is deeper and lying on an imaginary 4.30 o'clock line. See how much further the club head has traveled? This is a potentially a power source if you choose to do this as the club head travels a greater distance. If you train and are strong and fast enough.

Hogan wasn't quite to this extreme but this is how he became flat, laid off and open to stop himself hooking. It is so under plane, but you can override it with.........

FLAT LIE ANGLES and raw pivot speed and forearm strength.

Second picture

Square to the arc? I think overhead would have this as open to be honest. To me that looks way open but we all see things differently. If he didn't continue uncocking and rotating the forearm to the left along with a hard pivot this ball is going right with fade/slice.

If you are not strong of body or pivot this position would be deadly. I've seen you swing now, you look like a strong guy....

Last picture

Try to get a wet noodle wristed weak man/woman to hit a hard, low penetrating fade.......requires holding off the face and speed/strength

I agree his pivot post impact stopped it closing to the arc. But he HELD IT SQUARE and trained himself to not let it crossover. It was done to prevent it hooking. It was why his post impact pivot was so strong, another anti hook move. He did it so well it became automatic and unconscious.

Just goes to show different points of view. In my opinion if you pivot like crazy, especially from P3 it keeps the face from closing and that's why Ben Hogan was REALLY strong with his post impact pivot. To override his fast closing on the downswing. It's why he was flat, open and laid off....all to overide the fast closure and uncocking which produces speed.

If you can close it fast but not have a problem with hooking, you can do it as fast as you like.

For no rate of closure/crossover you had better be strong in your forearms and fast with the pivot to make up for all the speed you lose holding that face square past impact and dragging that handle.

I stand by my original statement.

Hogan swung it flat, laid off and open to stop hooking it due to his closing the face too fast.

Had he nearly squared it by you definition of P3, not far off..... but this is a snap shot of a face going from way open to square.

Where was it at the top of the swing? Way open, therefore it had to close fast by impact or he'd be a slicer like 90% of the world.

Did he use tremendous strength and speed of his pivot and forearms/hands to square the face for impact and hold it off after impact to stop the face closing, you betcha.

Can you do this in modern times? Certainly if you want to hit if Furyk/Hogan straight but nowhere compared to modern players.

Different era, pattern for Hogan and no-one else other than hookers, although Never Hook again might be better

That's me done, sorry to all who read this and wish they had that 4 minutes of their life back.

OK, since I am tired with this Hogan stuff I also would like to say that I respect your point of view although you did not convince me and I stay with my version, i.e. from the last parallel to the first one Hogan used mainly his great pivot and, what's most important, his RoC was slow in this period of time, albeit not the slowest (vide e.g. Furyk).

This is also my last point on Hogan in this thread.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

It amazed me that following my reply to Brian, the WAR continued[...]

What WAR, Art ? There are obviously some people who prefer to use ad hominem remarks but it is normal I guess to have a heated debate in the process of truthseeking. The fact that I am not a blind asslicker whom it is tough to convince does not make me a bad person. If you were so kind to mention who was so peaceful in the debate, maybe you should also mention who started insults as well ?

Cheers

 

[Brian Manzella]

Art,

You know I'm a truth seeker.

WAY TOO MANY FOLKS think they know....