Mike's latest video on the grip

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz - you're not the only person I've heard say that, and in general, not just with respect to Hogan's grip.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure I've ever really understood the argument. Left thumb on top of the shaft is still on top of the shaft regardless of high or low hands. And the benchmarks that I use in checking my own grip don't appear to me to move much relative to high or low hands at address.

I do think there are dangers in copying someone else's grip slavishly - in terms of direction of "Vs", or knuckles, or whatever - and I suspect that the size of your hands will have an effect on how a "neutral" grip might look - but that's another issue.

What do you think people are looking at that changes from high to low hands and makes the "strength" of the grip appear altered?

I do agree, Birly. I am the first man to abandon classic way of seeing the grip via V's or knuckles. There is only one neutral position of the palms when a man bends down and limbs are tensionfreely hanging - neither it is anatomical position (praying) nor a gorilla one - it is something in between with both palms at an angle towards each other. In such a scenario, the higher are the hands the weaker the LH looks and the stronger the RH is giving the look of both V's pointing parallely somewhere around rear clavicle. The truth is that ulnar deviation of both wrist made them look so, since with lower hands it will look as the LH is very strong and the RH very weak. Thus, I would neither use knucles or V's to depict grips because it is very misleading. E.g. post-secret Hogan never had a very weak LH grip; it was obviously weaker than in previous times but not so much as his RH was weakened in relation to pre-secret times.
As per my neutral ideal - indeed, the LH is a bit stronger than Hogan's post-secret but the RH is similarily weak.

Cheers

 

[ScottRob]

Because you prolly never paid attention to the big picture and follow stereotypists' opinion. The strength/weakness of the grip depends not only on how pronated/supinated thewrist is but also on its deviation vector. Higher hands at setup = more ulnarily deviated lead wrist (just as Hogan had) optically weakens the grip a lot and viceversa.

Cheers

Nah, I am just too busy breaking par, my Polish provocateur! Pardon my stereotyping! Are you able to comment on the Norwood/Rodgers inquiry? So, how do high hands strengthen Hogan's grip?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Nah, I am just too busy breaking par, my Polish provocateur! Pardon my stereotyping! Are you able to comment on the Norwood/Rodgers inquiry? So, how do high hands strengthen Hogan's grip?

Why provocateur ? You asked I answered the best I can.
No, I cannot since I do not know anything about Norwood/Rodgers inquiry.
The answer to your last question is inside the last post of mine answering Birly's post. The best would be also if you make an excercise with a mirror and altering the deviation vector of your wrists. You will have a very clear answer how a FO grip looks like with both versions.

Cheers

 

[footwedge]

Hogan show's his grip at approx. 8:40 of the video. If you stop the video at about 8:43 to me it looks fairly neutral in the left hand and weak in the right hand position wise. Maybe he changed it later in life who knows? to me it looks like the grip he used post accident.jmo.



The Hawk - YouTube

 

[spktho]

Because you prolly never paid attention to the big picture and follow stereotypists' opinion.
Cheers

Nah, I am just too busy breaking par, my Polish provocateur!

Why provocateur ? You asked I answered the best I can.
Cheers

Telling someone that they do not pay attention and are just following others' opinions without really knowing the person, could be considered provoking

 

[Dariusz J.]

Telling someone that they do not pay attention and are just following others' opinions without really knowing the person, could be considered provoking

English language will never stop to astonish me. In our language, saying that one does not pay attention to something or following stereotypes (because e.g. did not have time or willingness to go into details) is not derogatory or provoking - just stating the most probable or obvious facts. As Odysseus said in Troy to Agamemnon - "there is no insult to say that a dead man is dead". Anyhow, if it sounded wrong in English - please accept my apologies.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Hogan show's his grip at approx. 8:40 of the video. If you stop the video at about 8:43 to me it looks fairly neutral in the left hand and weak in the right hand position wise. Maybe he changed it later in life who knows? to me it looks like the grip he used post accident.jmo.

The Hawk - YouTube

I do agree as well. That's why I said that his post-accident LH grip was never as weak as it is usually portrayed as well as that true neutral according to my definition would be a bit stronger though.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

I do agree, Birly. I am the first man to abandon classic way of seeing the grip via V's or knuckles. There is only one neutral position of the palms when a man bends down and limbs are tensionfreely hanging - neither it is anatomical position (praying) nor a gorilla one - it is something in between with both palms at an angle towards each other. In such a scenario, the higher are the hands the weaker the LH looks and the stronger the RH is giving the look of both V's pointing parallely somewhere around rear clavicle. The truth is that ulnar deviation of both wrist made them look so, since with lower hands it will look as the LH is very strong and the RH very weak. Thus, I would neither use knucles or V's to depict grips because it is very misleading. E.g. post-secret Hogan never had a very weak LH grip; it was obviously weaker than in previous times but not so much as his RH was weakened in relation to pre-secret times.
As per my neutral ideal - indeed, the LH is a bit stronger than Hogan's post-secret but the RH is similarily weak.

Cheers

OK - but I've tried your "free-hanging arms" version of neutral, and I still don't see any optical illusion that makes that grip look any stronger or weaker depending on the height of the hands at address. What do you think will look different?

Re your method for finding "neutral" - is it your reasoning that, because that's how the hands hang naturally at address, that's also their most natural alignment at impact?

 

[wulsy]

Birly, you always ask very pertinant questions, I like your reasoning.

I agree: one would have to ask why exactly Dariusz recommends an anatomically neutral position.

Your other question: one thing for sure that is optically effected by the ulnar/radial deviation is the amount of dorsal extension in the left wrist. The more UD the less DE. Generally left hand grips look stonger when the DE is increased.

 

[Dariusz J.]

OK - but I've tried your "free-hanging arms" version of neutral, and I still don't see any optical illusion that makes that grip look any stronger or weaker depending on the height of the hands at address. What do you think will look different?

The most visible is the change of number of knuckles - count how many you can see them with ulnar deviation and how many in radial one with your lead hand on the grip in neutral position.

Re your method for finding "neutral" - is it your reasoning that, because that's how the hands hang naturally at address, that's also their most natural alignment at impact?

Do you ask me about hands or arms here ? And also relative to what taking into account that impact must look different due to many things, our being bipeds as the most important ?

I agree: one would have to ask why exactly Dariusz recommends an anatomically neutral position.

Because of many factors such as e.g. neutral position of clavicles or natural merging of lead wrist deviation with rear wrist flexion. If you want details, I invite you to my site to read and look the material.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Not seeking an argument on this - but I honestly don't see any change in the number of knuckles visible. A 2-knuckle grip for me stays a 2-knuckle grip in any practical posture. I think the lateral position of the hands between the left thigh and the crotch will have more of an effect on how the grip looks.

I agree with Wulsy about the look of the angle at the back of the left wrist changing - but it's a difficult angle to objectively measure (compared to number of knuckles or direction of Vs), so I was really asking whether that was what people were using as their benchmark in saying that a grip looks stronger or weaker.

Dariusz - re hands or arms, I'm assuming that you mean that both should be hanging naturally, given that they're connected. As you say though, lots changes between address and impact, so what's the advantage of a neutral alignment in a static position at address - where the weight is fairly centered between the feet, the shoulders are fairly square and the weight of the club is perhaps supported by the ground?

Personally, I buy into the idea of adjusting the grip based on what happens during the swing, and especially at impact, and to hell with what feels comfortable at address.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Not seeking an argument on this - but I honestly don't see any change in the number of knuckles visible. A 2-knuckle grip for me stays a 2-knuckle grip in any practical posture. I think the lateral position of the hands between the left thigh and the crotch will have more of an effect on how the grip looks.

I agree with Wulsy about the look of the angle at the back of the left wrist changing - but it's a difficult angle to objectively measure (compared to number of knuckles or direction of Vs), so I was really asking whether that was what people were using as their benchmark in saying that a grip looks stronger or weaker.

OK, let's agree to disagree then. It's not a crucial question in the history of golf, so we can move on.

Dariusz - re hands or arms, I'm assuming that you mean that both should be hanging naturally, given that they're connected. As you say though, lots changes between address and impact, so what's the advantage of a neutral alignment in a static position at address - where the weight is fairly centered between the feet, the shoulders are fairly square and the weight of the club is perhaps supported by the ground?

Personally, I buy into the idea of adjusting the grip based on what happens during the swing, and especially at impact, and to hell with what feels comfortable at address.

The first argument that comes into mind is if we take an impact position at address (i.e. the position that is being created thanks to what happens during the downswing phase) it must affect the backswing phase that will no longer be the same as started from a neutral position. It's an invitation for errors and, eventually, further compensations. The address must be a solid base to ease/automate what happens mechanically later on, and not just mimic one of static positions.

Cheers


P.S. There are a lot of threads about mid-hands vs. impact hands also here on this Forum, IIRC. I for sure myself remember one thread where Brian gave a few clear points why starting the swing with an impact fix is not a good idea. And he was right.

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz - I completely agree if what you're saying is that the golf swing is a feedback loop. So if you make a diagnosis based on ballflight and make a change, the results might not be perfect, in fact they're unlikely to be perfect first time.

But in my view, you make the change and you go from there. It's incremental progress and evolution - not a blank sheet design process.
I think that, fundamentally, that's where you and I differ. I think that you have an ideal swing in mind. To my mind, perfection - if it exists - is just perfectly adapted. Or compensated, if you like. Or even perfectly balanced errors. I think that's especially true of the grip and other so-called fundamentals.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz - I completely agree if what you're saying is that the golf swing is a feedback loop. So if you make a diagnosis based on ballflight and make a change, the results might not be perfect, in fact they're unlikely to be perfect first time.

But in my view, you make the change and you go from there. It's incremental progress and evolution - not a blank sheet design process.
I think that, fundamentally, that's where you and I differ. I think that you have an ideal swing in mind. To my mind, perfection - if it exists - is just perfectly adapted. Or compensated, if you like. Or even perfectly balanced errors. I think that's especially true of the grip and other so-called fundamentals.

The difference between you (and 99% of others) and me is that I am thinking MACROSCALE where all humans are IDENTICAL (only proportions can sometimes change). In this abstract world, there is no place for thoudsands of ways, there is the only one best way of executing a given action. Yes, there is the ideal swing, i.e. ideally performed action of a human when hitting an object lying on the ground with a golf club.
In our 4-D reality, with our imperfect conditions, it can be only reached (at least partially) via benefitting from limitations theory that leaves no options and trusts free thoughtless unintentional mechanics such as we are identically projected machines for this goal. No iterchangeable parts in such machines because it always worsens the ideal scenario - that's why such ideas as TGM suck. Just perfect machines for a given goal, whatever it is accuracy or long driving needing perfect ideal components, starting from a very specific ideas for stance and grip.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

I know how annoying this will sound, but I'll say it anyway.

"I knew you'd say that!"

Since I already know your views on this, I'm happy to agree to differ here too - not because you're right or I'm wrong, but because it's just an issue of what we're respectively interested in. Plus, we've jacked this thread enough as it is.

 

[ScottRob]

Why provocateur ? You asked I answered the best I can.
No, I cannot since I do not know anything about Norwood/Rodgers inquiry.
The answer to your last question is inside the last post of mine answering Birly's post. The best would be also if you make an excercise with a mirror and altering the deviation vector of your wrists. You will have a very clear answer how a FO grip looks like with both versions.

Cheers

Polish, transliterated into English does the job of getting to the point. However, English may provide for more nuanced correspondence. I use "provocateur" in a friendly ribbing sort of way, not as a slight. I commend your multilinguilism. I appreciate your forthrightness, and figured it has something to do with the inner workings of your mother tongue, hence "Polish Provocatuer."

Joe Norwood was an early advocate of studying anatomy, as it relates to the golfswing. Being a biomechanics guy I thought you might have heard of him. He wrote a screw-ball book called Golf-o-Metrics. It is poorly written and difficult to follow, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is a lot of good stuff in there. The grip he taught was basically a strong left hand, as well as a strong right hand, with the wrists set down. He was probably the last American teaching professional that was connected to the old British golfing dynasty e.g. Vardon and co.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Polish, transliterated into English does the job of getting to the point. However, English may provide for more nuanced correspondence. I use "provocateur" in a friendly ribbing sort of way, not as a slight. I commend your multilinguilism. I appreciate your forthrightness, and figured it has something to do with the inner workings of your mother tongue, hence "Polish Provocatuer."

Joe Norwood was an early advocate of studying anatomy, as it relates to the golfswing. Being a biomechanics guy I thought you might have heard of him. He wrote a screw-ball book called Golf-o-Metrics. It is poorly written and difficult to follow, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is a lot of good stuff in there. The grip he taught was basically a strong left hand, as well as a strong right hand, with the wrists set down. He was probably the last American teaching professional that was connected to the old British golfing dynasty e.g. Vardon and co.

No probs, I apologize for being too defensive sometimes but my history on golf fora is full of vicious comments and shots at myself.

I am not good at the history of biomechanics in golf since my amateur work started originally from the very beginning, i.e. anatomy and basic physics and not with trying to ammend/copy what was before. I prefered to be a tabula rasa here because it is easier to be objective. Moreover, I admit to be guilty for thinking that biomechanics in golf has no history worth going to.
BTW, I have googled Joe Norwood and found a nice summary written by his grandson as well as a site:
http://www.dan-norwood.com/Joe_Norwood_The_Man_and_His_Swing.pdf
The Anatomy of Golf by Joe Norwood

Going back to the grip - it appears that he modelled it on Harry Vardon, therefore, your description seems to be correct.

Cheers

 

[wulsy]

Hey Dariusz, do you see any anatomical the connection between pronation/supination and dorsi/palmar flexion/extension?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Hey Dariusz, do you see any anatomical the connection between pronation/supination and dorsi/palmar flexion/extension?

Of course. Moreover, I guess it is what Hogan's Life magazine secret depends on making it a totally unconscious move (especially, as said with a low plane swing Hogan had). A sort of natural consequence of reaching the biolimit in pronation RoM in a golf swing is the dorsal flexion of the wrist accompanied with radial deviation. Note that e.g. with a deliberate palmar flexion approachint top there is practically no radial deviation as well - and there is not possible to reach the biolimit in pronation (vide twistaway).
One could say that the natural lead forearm/wrist action pairs are: backswing - pronation - RD - DF and downswing - supination - UD - PF.

Cheers

 

[wulsy]

Thanks. So max supination causes palmar flexion to follow and max pronation causes dorsiflexion to follow, right?