Holding shoulder or back to target

[Dariusz J.]

Unfortunately, I and many others were told to "swing the club with your body pivot" and "swing from the ground up" and "the legs power the swing" and "maximum x-factor stretch creates more power".

Out of these four three are essential truth for golf while two are essential truth of any human movement engaging the whole body. Problems arise when misunderstanding the above. Arms cannot be treated as lifeless limbs (they must create torques in a more active way because they cannot benefit from shear forces) but certainly shouldn't be treated as leaders.

Cheers

 

[ekennedy]

Food for thought...

Flightscope and Trackman start tracking the club's movement at around the point where the club is parallel to the ground, or about 3 feet short of the ball. At that point, the average golfer's club is moving about 20mph. Even golfers that generate 105mph swings clubhead speed may only be 30mph at last parallel.

My point? Doing anything quickly from the top accomplishes very little.

 

[drewyallop]

How do you define "carry"?

I think it is demonstrated in the Soft Draw video (purchase). At the top, move the club/upper torso package to the left a little bit. For me the counterfall into the left leg accomplishes this. I try not to take the club down until the counterfall has started.

 

[Erik_K]

How do you define "carry"?

I believe it is defined in the Never Hook Again video.

 

[blehnhard]

I thought "carry" was some small amount of shoulder turn to the left to bring the hands / arms toward the target line somewhat prior to (or along with) bringing the hands straight down. Usually needed by someone who has very "deep" hands at the top to keep from coming too much under plane.

 

[Erik_K]

I thought "carry" was some small amount of shoulder turn to the left to bring the hands / arms toward the target line somewhat prior to (or along with) bringing the hands straight down. Usually needed by someone who has very "deep" hands at the top to keep from coming too much under plane.

Yup, that sounds right.

 

[66er]

Is the out-toss another way of getting not tugging across? That's what back to the target is about right?

 

[spktho]

Out of these four three are essential truth for golf while two are essential truth of any human movement engaging the whole body. Problems arise when misunderstanding the above. Arms cannot be treated as lifeless limbs (they must create torques in a more active way because they cannot benefit from shear forces) but certainly shouldn't be treated as leaders.

Cheers

Actually, imo, the sequencing of those "essential truths", in addition to the shoulder complexes and their comparison to the arm/hand path sequencing are not only misunderstood, but have not been objectively studied enough to have a definitive scientific understanding of the correct sequencing of the body part motions in the golf swing.

If you haven't noticed, I think finding the sequencing of the body motions of the best golfers is the key and, as we know, this cannot be done by looking at video. It needs to be done like Nesbit has shown with his 'torques' research and like how art has described with dual force plates since intent and timing happens much faster than the eye can see.

For now, I have never hit the ball better than I am now by consciously leading with the arms/hands

 

[grahler]

S,

Great post.
IMO there's only one shot in golf. Its all about what you can do on demand to have command of that shot.

 

[drewyallop]

Arms ... certainly shouldn't be treated as leaders.

Cheers

Why not?

 

[drewyallop]

When someone like McIlroy squats down at the start of his downswing the force that the ground exerts on his feet decreases. Does this mean that ground reaction force also decreases? And if this is the case does that alone invalidate the idea of powering a swing from the ground up?

 

[SteveT]

When someone like McIlroy squats down at the start of his downswing the force that the ground exerts on his feet decreases. Does this mean that ground reaction force also decreases? And if this is the case does that alone invalidate the idea of powering a swing from the ground up?

No... he's setting himself up for max parametric acceleration going into final release. Ya gotta dip a bit sometimes in the downswing to give yourself room to rise up at the right time. Even with the dip, he's got plenty of GRFs to initiate his kinetic chain sequence.

If you want to get the "feeel" of what happens to supercharge your centripetal force at impact, just try dipping down a lot and then rise up quickly during your golfswing. Of course, don't try hitting the ball, just feeel the increased loading underfoot when you suddenly jump up. Then do it will no dip and level knees.

Only the best and smartest can inject parametric acceleration into their golfswings... the rest just flail away.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Actually, imo, the sequencing of those "essential truths", in addition to the shoulder complexes and their comparison to the arm/hand path sequencing are not only misunderstood, but have not been objectively studied enough to have a definitive scientific understanding of the correct sequencing of the body part motions in the golf swing.

If you haven't noticed, I think finding the sequencing of the body motions of the best golfers is the key and, as we know, this cannot be done by looking at video. It needs to be done like Nesbit has shown with his 'torques' research and like how art has described with dual force plates since intent and timing happens much faster than the eye can see.

This is exactly what I said -- arms must create torques differently because of lack of support point. This is beyond any doubt and scientific researches we are witnessing here on the site confirm it.
However, it does not mean they should darken the big picture of human kinetics. If science is able someday to measure torques of the whole movement I bet how different the results are and how unimportant some movement are in macroscale.

For now, I have never hit the ball better than I am now by consciously leading with the arms/hands

I wish it remains forever and I wish to be a bad prophet but I am afraid it will not last long. The question is if you are in a position to admit it in the future.

Why not?

Because it brings huge timing issues and inconsistencies, that's obvious.

Cheers

 

[spktho]

This is exactly what I said -- arms must create torques differently because of lack of support point. This is beyond any doubt and scientific researches we are witnessing here on the site confirm it.
However, it does not mean they should darken the big picture of human kinetics. If science is able someday to measure torques of the whole movement I bet how different the results are and how unimportant some movement are in macroscale.

It appears that you still did not recognize sequencing of the parts(arms/hands)--regardless of whether you want to look at the "microscale" or "macroscale"--as being important. "Different" types of torques is not the same as when these torques are applied in relation to the lower or upper body pivot.

I wish it remains forever and I wish to be a bad prophet but I am afraid it will not last long. The question is if you are in a position to admit it in the future.

I have no problem admitting a change. If you would have asked me last summer what I was doing to hit the ball well I would have told you--and probably did on here--that I was working on starting the downswing with the lower body. However, it was not as well as I am hitting now. I have always been searching for the best sequencing of body motions in the golf swing...for my best swing.

To be more clear, I am not saying what I am working on or doing is best for everyone. Everyone has their own movement patterns that may be correct or may need to be changed.

To be fair Dariusz, will you admit or give credit where credit is due?

 

[Dariusz J.]

It appears that you still did not recognize sequencing of the parts(arms/hands)--regardless of whether you want to look at the "microscale" or "macroscale"--as being important. "Different" types of torques is not the same as when these torques are applied in relation to the lower or upper body pivot.

Very probable that I don't because I am not dealing with microscale and I won't until the end of this season (end of my experiment). Arms and hands are last in the queue in the setup-dependent swing I am promoting. They do nothing conscious.
It does not mean that I will not change my opinion when I test this and that next year. For the moment I speak what I believe in after my researches and empiric studies.

I have no problem admitting a change. If you would have asked me last summer what I was doing to hit the ball well I would have told you--and probably did on here--that I was working on starting the downswing with the lower body. However, it was not as well as I am hitting now. I have always been searching for the best sequencing of body motions in the golf swing...for my best swing.

To be more clear, I am not saying what I am working on or doing is best for everyone. Everyone has their own movement patterns that may be correct or may need to be changed.

That's great to hear and, as I said, I wish I am a bad prophet. Nice to know that there are still golfers that are willing to admit the truth.

To be fair Dariusz, will you admit or give credit where credit is due?

Absolutely, YES. I would even admit that Foley is no joke and Woods is a great ballstriker if it appears they are able to win more than one casual tournament and stats confirm it. I admitted that Nicklaus was evenly good ballstriker to Hogan in view of great arguments of you people here.
Alas, usually, it is that I am rarely admitted to be right, rather there is silence - vide last year of Foley and Woods when noone said "Dariusz was right" LOL. End of threadjack.

Cheers

 

[drewyallop]

No... he's setting himself up for max parametric acceleration going into final release. Ya gotta dip a bit sometimes in the downswing to give yourself room to rise up at the right time. Even with the dip, he's got plenty of GRFs to initiate his kinetic chain sequence.

If you want to get the "feeel" of what happens to supercharge your centripetal force at impact, just try dipping down a lot and then rise up quickly during your golfswing. Of course, don't try hitting the ball, just feeel the increased loading underfoot when you suddenly jump up. Then do it will no dip and level knees.

Only the best and smartest can inject parametric acceleration into their golfswings... the rest just flail away.

Thanks Steve. I think I understand the how the "jump" helps the parametric acceleration. But let me rephrase my question. I may be wrong but to me powering the swing from the "ground up" implies shear forces are applied to start the downswing. If there is less force on the feet during the squat and the squat starts immediately (see McIlroy pictures) does that mean that no sheer force is possible until you start coming out of the squat. And if the upper torso/arms/club unit has begun to move before coming out of the squat then the swing "starts" from the upper torso down. Put another way the swing starts with the upper torso/arms first and then is supported and accelerated by shear forces generated by the lower body - but only after you start coming out of the squat.

Complicated. Maybe we have to wait for Art's force plate work.

BTW, can force plates measure forces simultaneously in 3 dimensions?

 

[spktho]

Very probable that I don't because I am not dealing with microscale and I won't until the end of this season (end of my experiment). Arms and hands are last in the queue in the setup-dependent swing I am promoting. They do nothing conscious.
It does not mean that I will not change my opinion when I test this and that next year. For the moment I speak what I believe in after my researches and empiric studies.

End of threadjack.

Cheers

Yes, your "macroscale" studies being different than my "microscale" sequencing is exactly where we differ on this subject at this time. I hope you will delve into studying the sequencing of the "microscale" movements with good objective measuring devices, ie. surface EMG, torque gauges, 3d ROM..., when your present study is complete. The more data to look at means the better understanding and questions can be had to help in the conclusion(s).

I apologize for the threadjack as well.