Haney: Laid Off vs. Across the Line, NOW WITH MANZELLA VIDEO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it a coincidence that Sergio's eventual sweetspot plane is parallel to the path his shoulders move on in the downswing? When would the shoulder plane be too steep for the eventual sweetspot plane?

Thanks
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Is it a coincidence that Sergio's eventual sweetspot plane is parallel to the path his shoulders move on in the downswing? When would the shoulder plane be too steep for the eventual sweetspot plane?

If you are asking whether or not he LEARNED it coincidentally, I say—probably.

But, Hogan's shoulder is there too, and about another 50 low back planers I have studied.
 

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Perfection:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/abfrH1xvrG4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Once again imagine a vertical line (angled 90 degrees to the ground) running up from the butt end of club as it's positioned at address. Run the video letting the video play until the butt end of the club in the downswing "runs into" the line. Note the positions of the face and the shaft in relation to the ball. The shaft angle at this point is the same as the shaft angle at impact, this angle being more upright then the club's lie angle at address.
Hands runaway thru impact so i wouldnt exactly say parfection
 
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/20641989" width="400" height="200" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'vimeo.com', '/20641989']);" href="http://vimeo.com/20641989">Untitled</a> from <a onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'vimeo.com', '/user1093431']);" href="http://vimeo.com/user1093431">Brian Manzella</a> on <a onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'vimeo.com', '']);" href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>


Thank you very much for the insight to your research Brian. This particular concept is quite easy to see and follow. Certainly trying to get someone to acheive more optimal may be a different story as could be the designation of their swing to the two models that you are categorizing. Three questions. 1. If your eventual sweetspot plane is curved do you approximate a straight plane to use to match the shoulder plane?(or should your plane not be curved?!) 2. Is it advisable to change the sweetspot plane to match the shoulders or vice versa? 3. Is there an optimal angle for the shoulder plane to be and does it change for different clubs?

As you have stated many times the camera angle that is chosen can change or distort the angles and planes that we are seeing. Sergios camera angle looks to be on his hands or even closer to his feet. If the camera angle was more on the ball line would the hand path look curved at all or the eventual sweet spot plane? The reason I ask is that I have been taking my down the line videos on the ball line and I am wondering if I want to measure this shoulder/hand path relationship, should I change my camera angle?

Thanks again Brian, I know that there is going to be many more layers to your research than this but it is fantastic to see how you have looked at this. Kevin and Brian's posts make more sense now from their earlier descriptions of swings like Paula Creamer and Jamie Lovemark in another thread.

Steve Greffen
 
Perfection? From an aesthetic perspective or mechanically efficient? Also, is this concave/convex business vernacular that I missed from earlier posts and discussions? I'm just an old TGM'r schooled by our illustrious PGA. I guess I've always looked at it as over or across the line, laid off, flat/steep etc.

It would be SOOOO much easier if you just drew done lines for perspective.
:)


Perfection:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/abfrH1xvrG4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Once again imagine a vertical line (angled 90 degrees to the ground) running up from the butt end of club as it's positioned at address. Run the video letting the video play until the butt end of the club in the downswing "runs into" the line. Note the positions of the face and the shaft in relation to the ball. The shaft angle at this point is the same as the shaft angle at impact, this angle being more upright then the club's lie angle at address.
 

lia41985

New member
Perfection? From an aesthetic perspective or mechanically efficient? Also, is this concave/convex business vernacular that I missed from earlier posts and discussions? I'm just an old TGM'r schooled by our illustrious PGA. I guess I've always looked at it as over or across the line, laid off, flat/steep etc.

It would be SOOOO much easier if you just drew done lines for perspective.
:)
I called it perfection because her swing adhered to the description I gave after the video--when the butt end of the clip "runs into" the line the shaft points right at the ball with the face positioned vertically. Unfortunately, I do not have a line-drawing program to illustrate this for you--I made these determinations the low-tech way: a ruler and an eraseable marker.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Line Drawing vs. Classification

I am not much of a "line drawer." Of course, looking at the marked up Sergio and Duval swings, and some folks have called me out for doing what I say is more or less "a joke."

First of all, you need to understand what a "Line drawer" is.

It is someone that draws lines in every lesson—usually in some crazy places—and try to get their students to "get on that line."

Good luck with that, I say. And I say it for MANY REASONS.

1. Parallax. Simply, camera lens perspective shifting where the lines are vs. where the club is in space. Almost impossible to get it completely correct.

2. If a golfer goes perfectly through the ball on ANY plane, notwithstanding the parallax issues, there is no way of knowing what the resultant path will be. As in "on plane" but in the water.

But, Brian.....you are drawing lines on Sergio and Duval!!

Well, the whole deal started with DOTS on the sweetspot, and not trying to see where these dots were to the ball—or the target—or to the ANYTHING—but, to the right shoulder socket path.

They either are on or close to on a similar plane.

Got it?

So, basically, you have a few possibilities....

1. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
2. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
3. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.

4. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
5. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
6. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

7. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
8. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
9. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

You don't need lines....it doesn't have to be exact...but you do need a pretty good camera angle.

Those 9 possibilities, have hand paths that can be:

A. Straight(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
b. Convex(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
c. Concave(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.

This hand paths can various relationships to the sweetspot vs. right shoulder paths....

Etc.

Plus, quite a few other variables....

Get it?

Good.
 

lia41985

New member
So, basically, you have a few possibilities....

1. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
2. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
3. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.

4. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
5. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
6. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

7. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
8. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
9. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

You don't need lines....it doesn't have to be exact...but you do need a pretty good camera angle.

Those 9 possibilities, have hand paths that can be:

A. Straight(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
b. Convex(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
c. Concave(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.

This hand paths can various relationships to the sweetspot vs. right shoulder paths....

Etc.

Plus, quite a few other variables....
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I know we will all find out about this with completely clarity in due time as Project 1.68 really gets rolling. I have a question: what does "back" refer to, the Zick back line?
 
Last edited:
Line Drawing vs. Classification

I am not much of a "line drawer." Of course, looking at the marked up Sergio and Duval swings, and some folks have called me out for doing what I say is more or less "a joke."

First of all, you need to understand what a "Line drawer" is.

It is someone that draws lines in every lesson—usually in some crazy places—and try to get their students to "get on that line."

Good luck with that, I say. And I say it for MANY REASONS.

1. Parallax. Simply, camera lens perspective shifting where the lines are vs. where the club is in space. Almost impossible to get it completely correct.

2. If a golfer goes perfectly through the ball on ANY plane, notwithstanding the parallax issues, there is no way of knowing what the resultant path will be. As in "on plane" but in the water.

But, Brian.....you are drawing lines on Sergio and Duval!!

Well, the whole deal started with DOTS on the sweetspot, and not trying to see where these dots were to the ball—or the target—or to the ANYTHING—but, to the right shoulder socket path.

They either are on or close to on a similar plane.

Got it?

So, basically, you have a few possibilities....

1. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
2. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
3. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.

4. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
5. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
6. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

7. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
8. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
9. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

You don't need lines....it doesn't have to be exact...but you do need a pretty good camera angle.

Those 9 possibilities, have hand paths that can be:

A. Straight(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
b. Convex(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
c. Concave(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.

This hand paths can various relationships to the sweetspot vs. right shoulder paths....

Etc.

Plus, quite a few other variables....

Get it?

Good.

"Get it?"
Well not 100 % just yet but I do appreciate the further explanation Brian. Will digest this further and stay tuned for more.

Steve
 

lia41985

New member
I've deleted my post about Tiger so that I could present a newer, edited version incorporating all the new bits of knowledge I've gleaned from Brian's recent posts:
Tiger is an elbow planer—Always has been.

He always has had steep shoulders—a low right shoulder—through the ball.

This is a mismatch for anything but an aim left cut/push, or a slinging draw. No problem, he has won majors with both shots working.
Ok, so that's easily visualized--elbow plane approach with steep shoulders and steep eventual plane, more rightward path with a face with a relatively high closure rate for the slinging draw.
Butch tried to get the eventual sweetspot path-plane more steep. Probably get the right shoulder higher as well. This could really work, and obviously did when he was "in the middle" of it all.
Ok, so this would seem to really work by getting Tiger's hand path to get more outward by feeling the right shoulder is staying higher (moving more outward, less under which moves the hands less steeply and more outward)--so path more left with a face whose closure rate is relatively faster than before so the face is probably pointing more left than before. So basically Butch was trying to move the face and path incrementally from right to left, closer to zero?
But an elbow planer will always have a problem with the feel of a steeper eventual plane, ask Phil.
If they make their natural shift with a steeper eventual plane then whereas before the shot was a slinging draw it has now turned into a hook and if the feel of the steeper eventual plane makes the player resort to "holding off" the face, which wasn't what was happening before with just the steep (but less steep than it is now) eventual plane, you've got yourself a push fade and you're dreading being stuck.
So, Haney had early sucess with Tiger allowing him to down shift to his natural elbow plane.
So Butch overcooks the high right shoulder idea in the sense that Tiger is no longer making his natural shift to the elbow plane and Hank let Tiger make this natural shift.
But Haney's backswing forced Tiger to over drop, and Tiger had never been so laid off—two rights+the weaker grip. And a pink slip.
Tiger over drops, under plane and unless he has a strong enough grip or get his eventual sweet spot steeper (like Butch wanted but hard to do with a grip weaker than Butch liked) he's back to the same problem he had with Butch--right-to-right. Tiger could play really good golf under Haney when he could steepen his eventual sweet spot enough. A good example of this was in 2007 when he won Bridgestone by 8 shots then backed that up by winning the PGA the following week. Here are some pictures from the 2007 Bridgestone tourney:
tigerwoods_swing.jpg

Check out this SwingVision analysis by Kostis from the 2007 PGA where he talks about how Tiger does a good job of "swinging his hands and arms past his body"--this was during the second round where he shot a record-tying 63 (with a lip-out putt on 18 for 62):
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UwM-Ge5JLek" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Brian noticed the same changes Kostis was referring to:
Fighting a below plane start down, which even someone with Tiger’s strength can’t get “back on top of”...He has made some fairly noticeable changes since the (British) Open Championship a couple of weeks ago. He was standing closer to the ball, swinging more upright with less left arm rotation going back, and had much less of the Hogan-esque reverse swivel finish.
When Tiger was at his prime with Butch in 2000 he was talking about making the eventual sweet spot steeper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PplQjd6ZP88#t=5m06s

Tiger, when he was with Butch and Haney, also used the image of "shaking hands with the target":
One of my main keys to hitting the ball farther and straighter is full extension down the target line. Reminding myself to "shake hands with the target" gets me in the right position

From: Tiger Tips: Extend for power and accuracy: Golf Digest

That quote came during the time he was working with Hank but Butch teaches the same idea:
After impact, your arms should extend toward the target. Think of it as shaking hands with the target using your right hand. Once you're holding a club, you will get it pointing down the target line with the toe pointing up. This is a good way to hit the ball straighter.

From: Pocket Tips : Best Teachers in Your State | Golf Digest | Find Articles at BNET

This is also a position that Brian demonstrates in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZOwIHeV-xw#t=6m28s
Sean's desire to have Tiger leftward, makes him HAVE TO have his right shoulder even lower, and there is a serious concavity in his hand path.
I'm taking leftward to mean getting Tiger to do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSxRYzWWGKQ#t=51s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jiQG4LMTtA#t=27s

Regardless Tiger's attempting to execute a swing with a combination he never really has per this post by Kevin:
He's fighting a lifetime and a million shots with a certain feel.
That's the feel of steep shoulders. When he was the Tiger we all knew:
d8199567558d805e2aecbffb22644134.jpg

Tiger's fighting the feel of steep shoulders on the downswing--look at this iron shot taken from a practice round at Accenture last week:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gfkqwy6oi9s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here's what Jack Nicklaus wrote in "Golf My Way"--maybe Tiger should pay attention to this if he wants to get back to being the old Tiger and if he wants to beat Jack's record:
If he is a good player, his swing is obviously finely controlled. Yet there is often about it an element of abandoning of freedom, in the way the club releases through the ball: almost as though it were whistling along of its own volition. Over-all, to me, this open-to-closed type of golfer makes the game look graceful, physically "easy"--sometimes you might say, almost symphonic. There rarely appears to be much stress or strain about this manner of striking the ball. The relatively difficult way to play golf, as I see it, is with a swing in which the clubface habitually closes (turns counterclockwise) as it goes back and opens (turns clockwise) on its return to find squareness at the ball. Again, these movements may not be excessive, but to me the resulting complex swing often looks more contrived, forced, less natural. I associate this kind of swing with a flattish plane, a restricted arc and either a blocked or chopped-off finish.
Jack's words were prescient and were echoed by Kevin here:
The better the player the more hands and arms are in use.
And this is supported by scientific findings:
The following are two of the findings in our Project 1.68 study.
• The path of the "grip point" (identified as the point on the grip underneath the overlap location of thehands) in many golf swings, should reach its lowest point near the right leg, well before impact.
• Approximately 70-75% of the work the body does in the golf downswing, goes into moving the body. Meaning only the remainder actually goes into the powering the golf club.
The Pivot is spending 70-75% of its power moving itself.
The shoulder complex, arms, and hands are way more responsible for power than we were told to believe.
So where's Tiger at now? According to Jack, playing golf "the relatively difficult way". Tiger is trying to swing according to Foley's model, and unlike with Haney, Tiger is no longer laid off. Tiger is opening the clubface with a concave hand path and low right shoulder from a position that is much closer to being across the line than he used to be under Haney. Furthermore, since starting his most recent swing change Tiger does seem to be using a "chopped off"/sawed off finish frequently:
Sean+Foley+5C8lezuDcbWm.jpg

Nick Starchuk, who posts videos on YouTube under the name "smartergolflessons", used to work with Sean Foley at Glen Abbey (A day with the Sean’s | Nick Starchuk | CanadianGolfer.com) and seems to be "in the know" about what Tiger and Sean are working on--in fact, he has a video on what Tiger still needs to work on:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0rS63JpLSkg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
At about the :53 second mark you will see the following text flash across the screen:
"Right shoulder too high"
Isn't that interesting? If optimal means matching the eventual sweet spot plane with the appropriate shoulder rotation then Foley's preference for a flatter eventual sweet spot plane would call for shoulders that were less steep (i.e. a right shoulder that was higher rather than the lower position exhibited in players matching a steeper eventual sweet spot plane with steeper shoulders). I think what Starchuk is recommending (which may be what Tiger and Foley are working on) is to get the shoulder rotation less steep but making the suggestion differently. What Brian refers to as a high right shoulder socket position Starchuk refers to as a low right shoulder on a golfer that has not extended early--Starchuk thinks that Tiger's "chest extended early" (per the text seen at around the :44 second mark of his video). All in all it seems that Tiger's probably on the right track towards optimizing his swing towards the Hogan model, which is a move combining components in a way Tiger has never before done and is probably not natural for him--unbelievably difficult and impressive. As Kevin stated:
Tiger grew up and dominated golf with a slightly strong grip, outward hand path, wide arc and a steep downswing shoulder plane.

If he makes the changes he's apparently making work to the point of dominating again (we know he'll win again, he always does), it will be the most impressive thing ever.

If you take the above components and change the width, hand path, tilts, etc its like making Fred Couples into Nick Faldo. Not being critical at all of the changes but it just dawned on me how difficult that would be.
If he can make the change in shoulder rotation and straighten out the concavity of his hand path, he'd probably be more optimized component wise than he ever has. He looks, dare I say, "close" here (from the same practice round at Accenture):
40bcbb91610c1d0d45f46473743b4090-getty-109342967sf084_world_golf_c.jpg

As Brian stated here:
It is obvious to me, Tiger and Sean want the shoulder higher.

Ala Sergio, Hogan, Fowler, Rory....

If he can do that....watch out!
However, that raises an interesting, perhaps philosophical, question. Is utilizing components that come unnaturally to a golfer optimal? We'll just have to wait and see if (when?) Tiger is able to make all of these technical changes. If he can't, we may be seeing more of this:
3b7d242a7aae41c5b1793e7593d0e772-getty-golf-epga-uae-woods.jpg
 
Last edited:
Line Drawing vs. Classification

I am not much of a "line drawer." Of course, looking at the marked up Sergio and Duval swings, and some folks have called me out for doing what I say is more or less "a joke."

First of all, you need to understand what a "Line drawer" is.

It is someone that draws lines in every lesson—usually in some crazy places—and try to get their students to "get on that line."

Good luck with that, I say. And I say it for MANY REASONS.

1. Parallax. Simply, camera lens perspective shifting where the lines are vs. where the club is in space. Almost impossible to get it completely correct.

2. If a golfer goes perfectly through the ball on ANY plane, notwithstanding the parallax issues, there is no way of knowing what the resultant path will be. As in "on plane" but in the water.

But, Brian.....you are drawing lines on Sergio and Duval!!

Well, the whole deal started with DOTS on the sweetspot, and not trying to see where these dots were to the ball—or the target—or to the ANYTHING—but, to the right shoulder socket path.

They either are on or close to on a similar plane.

Got it?

So, basically, you have a few possibilities....

1. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
2. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.
3. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a parallel—or close to it—right shoulder socket path.

4. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
5. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
6. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a STEEPER right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

7. Shallow (low back) eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
8. Mid-back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.
9. Higher back eventual sweetspot path and a HIGHER/flatter right shoulder socket path than parallel or close to it.

You don't need lines....it doesn't have to be exact...but you do need a pretty good camera angle.

Those 9 possibilities, have hand paths that can be:

A. Straight(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
b. Convex(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.
c. Concave(ish) from the DTL view to butt end low point.

This hand paths can various relationships to the sweetspot vs. right shoulder paths....

Etc.

Plus, quite a few other variables....

Get it?

Good.

This is for me a little disappointing.

Why? Because there are just too many variables: it seems that you are saying "this combined with that works, but equally that combined with this can also work" etc etc. And then it doesn't have to be exact and it all depends on the camera angle. And then there's the added variable of which club was being used and add to that the variation in the particular shot he was trying to hit and you're pretty close to chaos.

Then there's the "you shouldn't draw lines, but under certain circumstances you should" contradiction as well.

I'm all for complexity when simplicity does not suffice, but I really believe this is all just too random and chaotic to represent a true golfing model.
 
Last edited:
OK, point taken spktho, but what I get out of it is that there are so many combinations that classification seems almost superfluous.
 
I'm all for complexity when simplicity does not suffice, but I really believe this is all just too random and chaotic to represent a true golfing model.

I'd like to change "a true golfing model" to "real golfing truths".
 
Bolt, your answer is just silly and shows both a lack of manners and education. I don't really know what you were trying to achieve, other than insulting me. It is equally difficult to understand why you would want to do this. Maybe you need to insult others to feel good about yourself? By the way Bolt, I'd put money on it that I've forgot more about golf than you've ever learned.

To those who are interested and capable of discussion: classification becomes increasingly redundant the more you differentiate. The question is of course whether Brian has crossed this point with his last classification of swing attributes.

PS Regulars to the forum will know that I am very much pro Brian and his recent work. I'm just expressing my opinion which in this case may come across as critical/negative.
 
Sorry ol chap. Not trying to be mean, just having fun...guess that didn't translate! See the happy face.

Oh well, perhaps though we could both (myself being pro about these ideas and you questioning them) wait until the full publication comes out. Sound good?

Btw you might be right but I am catching up on the knowledge. Little by little...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top