"Laying off the club"

[jbrunk]

I have been doing this for two months and it is helping. The obvious drawback for an early turner (me) is that it turns to dragging a bunch if you are off that day. If I slow everything down I have found I can hit the ball really well, but I wonder if a lack of strength in the hands and arms prevents me from being able to tumble fast enough to go faster.

Any thoughts?

 

[SteveT]

Watch Brian's video on Low VSP for an excellent description of how to both tumble the clubhead toward the ball and teach it properly.

I asked you since you rejected TT ShaftLab results as an indicator of tumbling style. Perhaps you can provide the forum with your explanation exactly why tumbling and position of the clubhead in the downswing are not related.

 

[mjstrong]

Not that I disagree Steve, but wouldn't the burden of proof fall on explaining why they are related?

 

[bluebird]

steveT,

You have been a big help in my quest for truth in the topic of beta torques.

The difference between shaft loading and laying-off and tumble is that shaft loading would fall mostly in the alpha torques, and moving the shaft to a somewhat parallel plane would fall completely into the beta torque family. Laying-off = negative beta, tumbling= positive beta. Shaft loading using wrist cock in plane can be accomplished with or without any beta movement, the two torques are 90 degrees from each other. Hope that helps.

 

[ekennedy]

High hands, flat club is a great combo

An underappreciated, and simple golf swing.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

High hands, flat club is a great combo

Could you point to an example of someone with that characteristic on tour?

 

[Kevin Shields]

Could you point to an example of someone with that characteristic on tour?

Sergio, Furyk, O'hair, Price

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Sergio, Furyk, O'hair, Price

Gotcha. Thought you were going Sabatini, whew

 

[Kevin Shields]

Gotcha. Thought you were going Sabatini, whew

Now that you mention it.....

 

[Lifter]

I am glad you brought this up Mike. I cannot fit it all in unless my hands go way high (reach for the sky). But then that is not where I put them because I cannot get the clubhead back to the ball with any consistency. Lower hands at transition = more consistency.

I am not sure in all the teaching here that this high hands question has been adequately discussed. For example, if you cannot or will not lift your arms and hands high what is really possible in hand path and torque application? And what is futile?

Maddening how just a few more inches of elevation of the hands/arms can completely unhinge a consistent swing. But then when you occasionally connect from the high position you immediately understand how much more power is available from there.

I really identify with what drewyallop is saying here. In fact, I'm now skeptical that laying it off at the top is as valuable as people are saying it is. Seems to me that steep shoulders + a flat left arm plane at the top works great as long as the shaft isn't too far across the line. Heck, look at Quiros!

 

[Kevin Shields]

I really identify with what drewyallop is saying here. In fact, I'm now skeptical that laying it off at the top is as valuable as people are saying it is. Seems to me that steep shoulders + a flat left arm plane at the top works great as long as the shaft isn't too far across the line. Heck, look at Quiros!

Quiros lays it off. Laying it off a bit is not only valuable, but almost necessary. Just the amount varies. But you can be skeptical.

 

[Lifter]

"The Tumble" - My Thoughts

Quiros lays it off. Laying it off a bit is not only valuable, but almost necessary. Just the amount varies. But you can be skeptical.

Kevin,

Interesting that you see it that way. The way I see it, by my personal definition, Quiros is across the line at the top of the backswing. But he flattens the shaft early and aggressively during his transition. Tiger in 1997 and 2000 was across the line at the top but he flattened very early during his transition. I think that's the key: flattening very early during the transition. If you do that, then you can get away with a position at the top that's a bit crossed.

At least that's my opinion. Actually curious what Kevin and Lindsey think about position at the top vs. flattening in transition and implications for "The Tumble." I think what is done early in transition is a lot more important than exactly what position the golfer is in at the end of the backswing. Even if you're a bit across the line at the top, you can still get plenty of forward tumble if you flatten in transition.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

I think we could have a difficult time discerning what is happening in transition verses the end of the backswing in many off the best ball strikers. Laying the club off BEFORE transition is favorable to laying it off IN transition IMO. Whenever it take place, your better off making one move verses two in the downswing. I would rather be ONLY steepening verses swallowing then steepening in such a short amount of time. One move coming down verses two

 

[Kevin Shields]

Kevin,

Interesting that you see it that way. The way I see it, by my personal definition, Quiros is across the line at the top of the backswing. But he flattens the shaft early and aggressively during his transition. Tiger in 1997 and 2000 was across the line at the top but he flattened very early during his transition. I think that's the key: flattening very early during the transition. If you do that, then you can get away with a position at the top that's a bit crossed.

At least that's my opinion. Actually curious what Kevin and Lindsey think about position at the top vs. flattening in transition and implications for "The Tumble." I think what is done early in transition is a lot more important than exactly what position the golfer is in at the end of the backswing. Even if you're a bit across the line at the top, you can still get plenty of forward tumble if you flatten in transition.

I didn't read the part about AT THE TOP. We've discussed the differences between across the line and laid off and when the shaft lays down in the transition a million times here. Of course you can do it both ways.

 

[Lifter]

I think we could have a difficult time discerning what is happening in transition verses the end of the backswing in many off the best ball strikers. Laying the club off BEFORE transition is favorable to laying it off IN transition IMO. Whenever it take place, your better off making one move verses two in the downswing. I would rather be ONLY steepening verses swallowing then steepening in such a short amount of time. One move coming down verses two

I see what you're saying here, but I doubt that making "one move versus two" is all that important. Yes, I agree that Sergio and Hogan are super-duper awesome. But 1997 Tiger, 2000 Tiger, Quiros, and a whole host of other players are awesome as well. Given all those counter-examples, it's not clear to me that this "one move versus two" is essential.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

I see what you're saying here, but I doubt that making "one move versus two" is all that important. Yes, I agree that Sergio and Hogan are super-duper awesome. But 1997 Tiger, 2000 Tiger, Quiros, and a whole host of other players are awesome as well. Given all those counter-examples, it's not clear to me that this "one move versus two" is essential.

You are only referring to what you see via video. Who knows where and when a player is trying to apply force. That is the great unknown and why it so difficult. There is no doubt however, that if the shaft is in a steep position starting down that something must happen to get it ( the shaft) to an acceptable position. Then, the challenge is not to continue that lay down move to a point where it works underplane. This is where the second "move" comes in play. The player either keeps the shaft aligned well enough to hit a serviceable shot or they don't. If the player did lay it down too much, they then have to make the second move to realign the shaft steeper to hit it.

Their are obviously players who are to steep coming down who lay the shaft down just enough to play great. There are also way more players, including most if not all of the poor ball strikers in the world, who just keeping laying he shaft down till they go under plane, wide open and slice the piss out of it.

 

[grahler]

Lindsey said "Who knows where and when a player is trying to apply force. "

Good call.

 

[Kevin Shields]

I see what you're saying here, but I doubt that making "one move versus two" is all that important. Yes, I agree that Sergio and Hogan are super-duper awesome. But 1997 Tiger, 2000 Tiger, Quiros, and a whole host of other players are awesome as well. Given all those counter-examples, it's not clear to me that this "one move versus two" is essential.

So do you think it is important on the average player, one that would be reading this forum?

Incidentally, far more top players have made one move versus two.

 

[Mike Richardson]

So do you think it is important on the average player, one that would be reading this forum?

Incidentally, far more top players have made one move versus two.

Surely out toss and tumble are 2 moves?

 

[Kevin Shields]

Surely out toss and tumble are 2 moves?

True, but not what we're referring to, but point taken. Out toss is a change of direction move. I'm talking about once the intent to hit the ball has begun, I'd prefer to see the shaft steepen/close as one move rather than shallow/open first. But as Lifter pointed out, of course there are players that do both.