MANZELLA MATRX Downswing Club Powering...the future of our golf instruction

[Brian Manzella]

[In the upcoming "Friends" video]

There are three ways to move the club from the top to the ball.

You can use:

Positive Torque—Negative Torque—or No Torque.

And you can use these on ANY of the Power Generators.

(Don't ask me how many....)

Anyhoo, "Pure Swinging," ala Ernest Jones and Manual DeLaTorre, is NO TORQUE. The weight of the club and the pivot action is producing all the power generator release.

POSITIVE TORQUE is actively releasing a generator. The folks who talk about actively straightening their right arms, are doing this. Is this "Hitting"? It is what it is. Active Release. Hitting is such a restrictive term. Positive Torque can be applied to one Generator while Negative Torque is being applied to another. Positive Torque of one Power Generator can CAUSE negative torque of another.

NEGATIVE TORQUE. Anything the RESTRICTS the release of a Generator—including just "holding it back," and including what The Golfing Machine calls Drag Loading, force along the shaft, will produce Negative Torque. It is not, and should not be called "Swinging," because—well, by the dictionary definition, and Ernest Jones', which is older than TGM by a lot—it is not.

Can you combine the tow or three?

Yes.

And, basically everyone who can hit it a lick does, and does in full power shots, and in many variations.

Why am I announcing it now?

The cat is out of the bag.

 

[tongzilla]

and to confuse matters even more, some golfers who feel negative torque actually has positive torque, and vice versa.

 

[Brian Manzella]

That's Right, Leo.

and to confuse matters even more, some golfers who feel negative torque actually has positive torque, and vice versa.

You got it buddy.

This system is just more precise, and so much easier to do.

 

[holeout]

Nice job Brian. Very, very simple explanation of a confusing concept. I like the common sense, layman's terms approach. I bet Mandrin probably approves of the terms, as well .

 

[huestisc]

Wow, the Matrix just got a LOT more interesting, I can't wait to hear more!

Have you been able to shoot the "Friends" video yet?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Actually....

Nice job Brian. Very, very simple explanation of a confusing concept. I like the common sense, layman's terms approach. I bet Mandrin probably approves of the terms, as well .

It got the terms from Dr. Aaron Zick.

I exlained my theory to him, he thought about ity for a minute and gave me the terms.

When the book comes out, he'll get credit, and dinner at Ruth's Chris.

 

[holeout]

It got the terms from Dr. Aaron Zick.

I exlained my theory to him, he thought about ity for a minute and gave me the terms.

When the book comes out, he'll get credit, and dinner at Ruth's Chris.

Nice! So these terms not only make sense, but have street cred with the physics/science community? It's like the perfect storm.

 

[tobell]

Shouldn't "No torque be Low torque"

Brian,

Very interesting concepts. I don't mean to nitpick, and bring this point up only because you are striving for a more precise system; shouldn't Ernst Jones' pure swing be regarded as Low torque instead of No torque? I understand that Jones wanted no leveraging of the club across the shaft and preferred that one sense the pull of the swinging club-head, but does that really result in a complete absence of any and all torque?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Well...

Brian,

Very interesting concepts. I don't mean to nitpick, and bring this point up only because you are striving for a more precise system; shouldn't Ernst Jones' pure swing be regarded as Low torque instead of No torque? I understand that Jones wanted no leveraging of the club across the shaft and preferred that one sense the pull of the swinging club-head, but does that really result in a complete absence of any and all torque?

Oh....there is (low) torque.

But, the GOLFER does not put it there.

It should also be noted that the physics/math say that a "No Torque" golf stroke (ala Manzella Matrix) will only be able to produce about 80% of a golfer's potential power.

"So Brian, why would you want to do it"??

.....ah....in the video....the "Friends" video.....

 

[mandrin]

Square circle

Brian,

Golf instruction over the centuries has become a curious mixture of ideas and concepts expressed in a variety of ways. “Hitting the ball with your stomach” is just a tiny typical example. There have been the valiant efforts of HK attempting to cast golf into a scientific frame work without being really equipped to do so.

You have seemingly gone away from a limited concept system, easier to market, and instead gone for a broad multiple concept approach - “whatever works” - more difficult to grasp, explain and market. However “matrix” is definitely an attractive term.

I am quite intrigued with the approach you might have taken formulating your ideas. When put on paper they might possibly seem self evident yet haven taken likely many years of diligent sustained efforts to have come to fruition.

 

[bendet3]

Now that you have us all licking our chops, any news on the ETA for the "Friends" video?

 

[jeffgladchun]

Absolutely brilliant Brian. Every so often I discover (usually on this forum) a little bit of information about the golf swing that totally changes my perspective on it. This is one.

 

[Chris Sturgess]

I don't really get what's news here. Postive torque is just turning into the ball and is the only way to play golf at a high level. No torque is the bs that Jim Flick misleadingly advocates and is for old women who dink the ball. Might be useful for a half speed pitch shot. Reverse torque is silly.

 

[Brian Manzella]

No, No, & No.

Positive torque is just turning into the ball and is the only way to play golf at a high level.

No.

"Turning into the ball" is positive PIVOT Torque, but high level golfers use all sort of combinations with "No Torques" and "Reverse Torques."

No torque is the bs that Jim Flick misleadingly advocates and is for old women who dink the ball. Might be useful for a half speed pitch shot.

No.

Jim Flick advocates swinging the arms WITH the arms. Sounds like positive ARM Torque to me.

Fred Couples employs plenty of "no toque" movements.

The "Never Hook Again" pattern has a drop as a key move.

ZERO TORQUE IN A DROP?

Reverse torque is silly.

No.

Hogan had plenty. Sergio does as well. All "Maximum Trigger Delay" patterns are by definition REVERSE TORQUE Patterns.


Chris, this is groundbreaking stuff. Sorry I had to be the one to release it.

 

[Chris Sturgess]

No.

"Turning into the ball" is positive PIVOT Torque, but high level golfers use all sort of combinations with "No Torques" and "Reverse Torques."

I didn't say "turning only with your body", I said turning...meaning everything. Arms/wrists included.

I guess if someone had a very closed clubface at the top they could have very little forearm torque and hit a fade, but I think they need at least a little.

Jim Flick advocates swinging the arms WITH the arms. Sounds like positive ARM Torque to me.

He says to just let the clubhead fall I think but he also is into having the forearms crossover through the ball so true that is arm torque.

Fred Couples employs plenty of "no toque" movements.

Really? His clubface is wide open at the top and it is barely open at all at the ball. His pivot has a huge amount of postive torque of course but his clubface would still be wide open at the ball if his forearms/wrists didn't have any positive torque from the top.

The "Never Hook Again" pattern has a drop as a key move.

ZERO TORQUE IN A DROP?

IT"S A GOOD THING YOU PUT THAT IN CAPS OR I WOULDN"T HAVE NOTICED IT. The act of gravity alone (a drop) does not involve torque no. But you could let the club drop using no muscle but just gravity alone while at the same time using a little forearm muscle to rotate the arms (torque).

ETA: unless you are talking about pendulum like torque, which is different than muscle rotation torque and needs to be specified. But then with that said Ernest Jones and De la Torre who I think advocate a gravity drop would have torque like a pendulum does. So it would be wrong to say they are "No Torque."

Hogan had plenty. Sergio does as well. All "Maximum Trigger Delay" patterns are by definition REVERSE TORQUE Patterns.

So you are calling lag reverse torque? Lag does not necessarily involve rotation. Lag would only be reverse torque if the clubface is opening as the lag is happening, which is the opposite of lagging the sweetspot. I mean, if you consider the pendulum like aspects of the arm swing and lag torque then ok lag is reverse torque but that is a completely different kind of torque than the hip, shoulder, forearm/wrist/clubface rotation that is commonly refered to as torque in the golf swing. So that is pretty confusing and the two forms of torque involved need to be thoroughly clarified.

Chris, this is groundbreaking stuff. Sorry I had to be the one to release it.

Don't worry. You will still be the most awesomest guy in the world no matter what happens.

 

[huestisc]

No idea

Dude, it's clear you have absolutely NO interest in what Brian is talking about, you just want to squabble about his terminology, which to me is clear, and I think it is to others as well...torque doesn't exclusively refer to forearm or pivot rotation, it can apply to any lever assembly rotating around a fixed point...anyway, most of us are interested in hearing more about what he has to say, some of us are learning here! But feel free to jump in and discredit everything Brian has to say based on your personal interpretation....whatever floats your boat!

 

[holeout]

Chris, I think you're measuring torque in a different way than Brian is. Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate an object around an axis. In your view of it, the object is the clubface and the axis is the shaft.

This is not what Brian is describing.

When he is trying to describe "Downswing Club Powering," the object is the clubhead and the axis is the hands (or wrists, whichever one makes the most sense). So your statement that "reverse torque is silly" may actually be true when describing the "torquing" of the clubface, but Brian is referring to a reverse torque of the clubhead.

See the difference?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Simple.

A "Power Generator" is an angle that—when "Straightened Out"—can hit a golf ball all by itself.

"Straightening Out" on purpose is POSITIVE torque.


Restricting, or Delaying "Straightening Out" on purpose is NEGATIVE torque.


Allowing "Straightening Out" to happen on its own, is NO torque.
​

See, told you it was simple.

 

[tongzilla]

A "Power Generator" is an angle that—when "Straightened Out"—can hit a golf ball all by itself.

"Straightening Out" on purpose is POSITIVE torque.


Restricting, or Delaying "Straightening Out" on purpose is NEGATIVE torque.


Allowing "Straightening Out" to happen on its own, is NO torque.
​

See, told you it was simple.

how does one "straighten out" the turning of the pivot?

 

[niblick1]

A "Power Generator" is an angle that—when "Straightened Out"—can hit a golf ball all by itself.

"Straightening Out" on purpose is POSITIVE torque.


Restricting, or Delaying "Straightening Out" on purpose is NEGATIVE torque.


Allowing "Straightening Out" to happen on its own, is NO torque.
​

See, told you it was simple.

So working to keep the right wrist bent after impact is "negative torque" and allowing it to straighten well after impact (and allowing left to bend) on its own is "no torque"?