Hinge Action, Rate of Closure, and what you SHOULD do with the clubface (p9 pic)
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
mgranato
New
Not directed to you AT ALL.
And I am not alone is saying that your contributions are very much appreciated.
Unfortunately, I spell more articulately than I speak. My understanding of the swing is limited, but not my understanding of much of the motivation behind this RoC discussion.
The nonsense referenced was the assertion by some that a "closed-to-open" release exists. Meaning that one can slightly close the club face just prior to impact and then slightly hold open the face through impact... intentionally making these adjustments in real time ( "get the clubface slightly closed just prior to contact, and then by impact feeling like it's actually holding more open" ). Absolutely none of this theory am/was I accrediting to you. Looking at it from your perspective, I could see how you took offense, but hopefully you know now that none of my comments were directed towards you and no offense was meant at all.
Last edited:
Brian Manzella
Administrator
I'm going to some up this entire thread, and the hypotheses that are the part of this heated debate.
1. TGM Hinge Action suggests that there can be different rates of closure while the clubface is on the ball. Therecan be, albeit very small differences. But, according to TGM if, for example, a full-roll clubface through impact (horizontal hinge action) would produce a straight ball with a given set of impact alignments, a no-roll clubface through impact (angled hinge action) would produce a slight fade.
This turns out to be not only wrong, it is exactly backwards!!
Since the ball ALWAYS picks up some fade-bias as the face closes through impact (and it ALWAYS DOES unless there is a "toe side" strike (see this video for background https://vimeo.com/34394940 )....it picks up MORE fade bias spin on a "full roll" then a "no roll" first half of the impact interval. So, if the "full roll" shot is al balanced out to create a straight ball, the less than "full roll" "no roll" will produce a very slight draw!!!
Take home: TGM is not an accurate reference for the modern understanding of impact collision and ball flight.
2. There are at least two totally different methodologies that are really big proponents of a slow rate of closure. They suggest that closing the face sooner (remember it is pretty darn open at the top), and then holding the face on line through impact, will produce more consistent ball flight.
These methodologies rely on low-end high-speed video (casio), or sometimes just stills to attempt to make their point.
I have spent hours talking to the best scientists on this subject, including tests on the $200k+ Enso-pro unit. They all agree with me on my hypothesis. It is my assertion that trying to close the face earlier, and then attempt to slow it from closing more, is not something that should be pursued unless as "feel." Both Rob Neal and Sasho MacKenzie feel that the pursuit of trying to close the face sooner, and prevent it from closing is not something they'd recommend.
The question should be asked...Why do these otherwise very different methodologies, both feel that this "close earlier-prevent from closing late" procedure is one to pursue?
In my opinion, since both methods can produce overly inside-out and downward angles of attack, they both independently tried to figure out a way to prevent hooks. One went straight to the face, limiting the closing through impact and into the follow-through. The other used a combination of a straighter path and less face closure.
It seems to me, that these methodologies, either before the TrackMan/D-Plane era, or without considering it, just adjusted the face/path relationship, and are giving their "close earlier-prevent from closing late" procedure more credit than it deserves.
That's is succinct as I can make it.
1. TGM Hinge Action suggests that there can be different rates of closure while the clubface is on the ball. Therecan be, albeit very small differences. But, according to TGM if, for example, a full-roll clubface through impact (horizontal hinge action) would produce a straight ball with a given set of impact alignments, a no-roll clubface through impact (angled hinge action) would produce a slight fade.
This turns out to be not only wrong, it is exactly backwards!!
Since the ball ALWAYS picks up some fade-bias as the face closes through impact (and it ALWAYS DOES unless there is a "toe side" strike (see this video for background https://vimeo.com/34394940 )....it picks up MORE fade bias spin on a "full roll" then a "no roll" first half of the impact interval. So, if the "full roll" shot is al balanced out to create a straight ball, the less than "full roll" "no roll" will produce a very slight draw!!!
Take home: TGM is not an accurate reference for the modern understanding of impact collision and ball flight.
2. There are at least two totally different methodologies that are really big proponents of a slow rate of closure. They suggest that closing the face sooner (remember it is pretty darn open at the top), and then holding the face on line through impact, will produce more consistent ball flight.
These methodologies rely on low-end high-speed video (casio), or sometimes just stills to attempt to make their point.
I have spent hours talking to the best scientists on this subject, including tests on the $200k+ Enso-pro unit. They all agree with me on my hypothesis. It is my assertion that trying to close the face earlier, and then attempt to slow it from closing more, is not something that should be pursued unless as "feel." Both Rob Neal and Sasho MacKenzie feel that the pursuit of trying to close the face sooner, and prevent it from closing is not something they'd recommend.
The question should be asked...Why do these otherwise very different methodologies, both feel that this "close earlier-prevent from closing late" procedure is one to pursue?
In my opinion, since both methods can produce overly inside-out and downward angles of attack, they both independently tried to figure out a way to prevent hooks. One went straight to the face, limiting the closing through impact and into the follow-through. The other used a combination of a straighter path and less face closure.
It seems to me, that these methodologies, either before the TrackMan/D-Plane era, or without considering it, just adjusted the face/path relationship, and are giving their "close earlier-prevent from closing late" procedure more credit than it deserves.
That's is succinct as I can make it.
Brian -
Is it very, very rare that someone hits the ball on the face with the COG for the ball and face lined up perfectly? Just looking for a little more direction on the claim about fade bias for a closing clubface. I think I get the fade bias issue if the COGs aren't spot on.
Is it very, very rare that someone hits the ball on the face with the COG for the ball and face lined up perfectly? Just looking for a little more direction on the claim about fade bias for a closing clubface. I think I get the fade bias issue if the COGs aren't spot on.
gmbtempe
New
Brian,
When you say "prevent it from closing" do you think they are consciously trying to hold the face open, kind of kin to "hold that lag" type of move that some would purport as a viable thing to do?
My thinking is that one through grip, hand path, shoulder path, and pivot can mechanically slow down how much the face needs to close between the last parallel and impact, but I am not sure you can "try" and hold it open through impact when making a athletic, powerful, golf swing.
When you say "prevent it from closing" do you think they are consciously trying to hold the face open, kind of kin to "hold that lag" type of move that some would purport as a viable thing to do?
My thinking is that one through grip, hand path, shoulder path, and pivot can mechanically slow down how much the face needs to close between the last parallel and impact, but I am not sure you can "try" and hold it open through impact when making a athletic, powerful, golf swing.
Last edited:
drewyallop
New
Thanks Art. I will need some time to think about this.
Drew
Drew
Dariusz J.
New member
The summary is pretty good, however, it lacks the most important thing (at least according to myself), namely, slow RoC thanks to NO CONSCIOUS DELIBERATE HOLD-OFF. Conscious hold-off probably is worse than unconscious high RoC crossover release.
I know that fighting against conscious action is easy and against unconscious and more stable practically impossible -- but let's play fair till the end and not pretend that someting does not exist.
Cheers
drewyallop
New
gmbtempe,
A useful perspective. To understand your thinking more could you describe the grip, hand path, shoulder path and pivot that will slow down face closure?
Drew
gmbtempe
New
1. strong grip
2. more over than under hand path
3. more level shoulders rather than vertical
4. less slide with pivot, more rotation
When I look at pictures of lots of different players, (Duval, Couples, Fowler, Garcia, Toms, T. Watson ) They all seem to get to last parallel with the club in a similar position, (Slightly toe down) Some of these guys have very strong grips and some have neutral grips. I guess my point is that none of these guys are square to the arc at this point and all of them have to rotate the club 50-80 degrees from this point to impact.
gmbtempe
New
Its pretty hard to be square to the arc, somewhere in between.
gmbtempe
New
Part of the equation that is being missed here its not just the position of the face between parallel and impact but the path the hands, club, shoulders are taking.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
It is very, very, VERY rare that someone hits the ball on the face with the COG for the ball and face lined up perfectly. Less than 5% of the time for really good players.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Just think about it, to do what these two methodologies are hypothesizing WILL ABSOLUTELY increase the Rate of Closure at last parallel from a conventional swing. The face DOES NOT WANT TO BE IN THIS MORE CLOSED POSITION BY ITSELF, so the golfer has to do it.
Of course you could just grip it 20-30° stronger, but none of this list had ANYTHING LIKE a 20-30° stronger than normal clubface—Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Weiskoff, Miller, Norman, Woods, Toms, Furyk, Stricker.
And since if you don't grip it like Azinger, you HAVE TO ADD MORE CLOSING EARLIER, you set in motion a ramp up (increase of RoC that EVERY GOLFER HAS from last parallel to impact) that will HAVE TO BE THWARTED.
Too much work.
Never Hook Again downswing is 10,000% better option for the regular golfer or tour player.
Best golf video, best original pattern, ever ever ever.
Ever talk to someone who can play and hits a fade? I'm talking TOUR STAR now...
"I just aim at a spot over there to the left and make sure it doesn't go left of that."
(i.e. HOLDING ON FOR DEAR LIFE)
Dariuuz....
If you get your body WAY, WAY open and have a TON of right side bend and axis tilt, you can DELAY WHEN THE LINE UP OCCURS.
You ain't slowing anything down....just displacing it.
At least 40°....
That's one of things that Paul Wood saw ACROSS THE BOARD on ENSO-pro, when the clubhead has reached half speed on the downswing, the face was 60° open to the instantaneous path.
That's before last parallel, but not THAT much more.
No hall-of famers with the face HALFWAY between TOE UP and Square to the Plane, at last parallel.
None.
No they don't.
Dear Drew,
You increased my faith that THIS IS A FIRST CLASS SITE, with mostly first class contributors.
I have some first-orded, science-based analyses that IMO expose the degree to which this movement can be affected by the general limits of the human body during the explosive downswing.
I would love to know and understand the motivation behind this extensive ROC discussion and contribute to it's continuation BUT.....I am only interested in the scientific, not political aspects of the problem, but want to better understand the latter before contributing any further.
My most sincere thanks,
art
Last edited:
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Like I said....
Ideas developed pre-D Plane/TrackMan era, and NOWHERE NEAR as elegant and proven as the NEVER HOOK AGAIN 2 Pattern.
Ideas developed pre-D Plane/TrackMan era, and NOWHERE NEAR as elegant and proven as the NEVER HOOK AGAIN 2 Pattern.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/42245635" width="500" height="392" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
Dariusz J.
New member
Ah, yes ! Anatomy of human body during the golf swing motion makes it impossible to avoid totally swivel/crossover of forearms in a full swing.
However, it can be delayed which means practically the same as slower RoC in the impact zone because it happens when the ball is long gone.
It is available EASILY for a good quality pivot-subdued swings that are the best option for a golfer. This is what I was preaching from the beginning and you still were arguing as I promoted a deliberate hold-off.
Cheers
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Dariusz...
I just KNEW you couldn't be for the strong grip, manipulation swing.
It's not MY fault you wanted to call it "rate of closure."
We cool.
- Status