Non-Compensating

[Spike]

Dear Brian and all,

I keep hearing that this or that will work for him or her or whoever, but not for everyone.

HK's work shows us that there are plenty of ways of doing it.

Do all these ways create "non-compensating" swings?

Or is Homer saying, if you meet the requirements of the 3 basic imperatives and 3 basic essentials you will have a "non-compensating" swing.

Or is non-compensation even worth looking for?

 

[cdog]

EXCELLENT QUESTION!

Make it a 2 part question and ask is it better to swing with or without manipulations?

Example, Martin Hall was talking about 2 problems with clubface control, slicing and hooking, for slicing, he gave a drill that had you hit a impact bag past impact with the toe of the clubhead, for hooking, the drill was to go past impact with the face still square to the target line.
For both problems he basically showed how to manipulate the face for the ball flight you want.

Is there a way to swing without manipulations and compensations?

 

[lmisner1040]

EXCELLENT QUESTION!

Make it a 2 part question and ask is it better to swing with or without manipulations?

Example, Martin Hall was talking about 2 problems with clubface control, slicing and hooking, for slicing, he gave a drill that had you hit a impact bag past impact with the toe of the clubhead, for hooking, the drill was to go past impact with the face still square to the target line.
For both problems he basically showed how to manipulate the face for the ball flight you want.

Is there a way to swing without manipulations and compensations?

Why yes, his name is BM. DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME IT's called alignments and mental programing.

Lou

 

[Spike]

Why yes, his name is BM. DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME IT's called alignments and mental programing.

Lou

Alignments and mental programing I can see, but swinging without manipulation I cannot see that. Especially in the change of direction from back to down. (One of the reasons for pressure points.)

It is non-compensation that I'm wondering about. If the requirements of the 3 E's and the 3 I's are met is this considered a non-compensating swing?

 

[dbl]

Spike, so ask yourself, can you design a swing (or multiple swings) which have the 3I and 3E's*? Yes, there are many. Of these, are some without manipulations or compensations? Yes. What fraction? I'm afraid it's very low.

Just look at the basics. Suppose you zero out the pivot, or employ non-automatic releases. Obviously there are manipulations.

And as another example, if you combined certain parts from hitting and swinging procedures you'd have to compensate to achieve the 3I's.

So overall, the golfer has quite a bit of choice in what procedure he assembles, BUT there is no automatic part of this, where if he just picks his goals (3I's), then the other components are automatically determined.


* As a side note, let's deal with the 3E's first: I'd say the 3E's are relatively simple to achieve, for purposes of this discussion.

 

[Spike]

Spike, so ask yourself, can you design a swing (or multiple swings) which have the 3I and 3E's*? Yes, there are many. Of these, are some without manipulations or compensations? Yes. What fraction? I'm afraid it's very low.

Just look at the basics. Suppose you zero out the pivot, or employ non-automatic releases. Obviously there are manipulations.

And as another example, if you combined certain parts from hitting and swinging procedures you'd have to compensate to achieve the 3I's.

So overall, the golfer has quite a bit of choice in what procedure he assembles, BUT there is no automatic part of this, where if he just picks his goals (3I's), then the other components are automatically determined.


* As a side note, let's deal with the 3E's first: I'd say the 3E's are relatively simple to achieve, for purposes of this discussion.

Thanks dbl and cdog.

The 3 E's. Yes I would agree they are relatively simple to achieve if they were understood as reactionary conditions to alignments, sequence and forces applied.

I need some clarification here. I see the 3I's as not goals but I's. The goals, I see, are to first choose between hitting or swinging. The second is to understand the relationships and how to apply force. The third would be educating the hands. The fourth finding a pattern without compensation.

I think it is possible for non-automatic releases to become automatic in time. The only manipulation that is necessary, imo, is change of direction toward sustaining the line of compression. So manipulation is a necessity and a good thing in this case.

What I find interesting is in your first paragragh above...are some without manipulations and compensations? Yes. What fraction? ...very low.

I take that to mean not many of the available patterns are without compensations. So why bother with these patterns? Why not work towards a non-compensating swing?

These are just my thoughts and I certainly appreciate yours 'cause I just can't stop learning.

Thanks so much!

 

[dbl]

I need some clarification here. I see the 3I's as not goals but I's. The goals, I see, are to first choose between hitting or swinging. The second is to understand the relationships and how to apply force. The third would be educating the hands. The fourth finding a pattern without compensation.

Heck, I don't know where you exactly are in this process, but those Imperatives relate to impact and must be goals in mind for choosing components to get you there, or their execution. In constructing your machine, you want to it be on plane, efficient and having proper impact. That MAY entail educating the hands, and selecting reliable procedures and practice.

As far as the swings which have no maniuplations, the book lists two reliable procedures to consider. Beyond that there are others, but ...folks often choose something like a grip type which is fairly incompatible with their grip action, or an ebow position or arm motion which is incompatible with releasing their accumulators the way they have in mind. But do take a look at those lists in chapter 12.

You obviously have a procedure of some sort now. I think there are other threads on deciding whether swinging or hitting would be better for a given golf. I think Brian advocates swinging for most people (who are quick), and hitting for those who aren't able to swing.

However, keep in mind you may wind up liking a procedure which has some compensations. And for that matter, hitting draws and fades, probably has manipulations involved (like bending the plane line). So they are not ALL bad.

I generally use a procedure until laziness enters in and something wrong starts happening, and so I search out a solution, find it and refine things into a new procedure. Sometimes this is swinging and sometime hitting. I am currently hitting*. If you aren't real sure which way to go, learn each basic procedure and see what works well enough to use in play.

* though not with 100% angled hinging.

 

[Spike]

Heck, I don't know where you exactly are in this process, but those Imperatives relate to impact and must be goals in mind for choosing components to get you there, or their execution. In constructing your machine, you want to it be on plane, efficient and having proper impact. That MAY entail educating the hands, and selecting reliable procedures and practice.

As far as the swings which have no maniuplations, the book lists two reliable procedures to consider. Beyond that there are others, but ...folks often choose something like a grip type which is fairly incompatible with their grip action, or an ebow position or arm motion which is incompatible with releasing their accumulators the way they have in mind. But do take a look at those lists in chapter 12.

You obviously have a procedure of some sort now. I think there are other threads on deciding whether swinging or hitting would be better for a given golf. I think Brian advocates swinging for most people (who are quick), and hitting for those who aren't able to swing.

However, keep in mind you may wind up liking a procedure which has some compensations. And for that matter, hitting draws and fades, probably has manipulations involved (like bending the plane line). So they are not ALL bad.

I generally use a procedure until laziness enters in and something wrong starts happening, and so I search out a solution, find it and refine things into a new procedure. Sometimes this is swinging and sometime hitting. I am currently hitting*. If you aren't real sure which way to go, learn each basic procedure and see what works well enough to use in play.

* though not with 100% angled hinging.

DBL, thank you so much. I see what you are saying. I might have been thinking that the 3I's would be effects of a properly assembled swing.

As far as where I'm at (I'm definately new to TGM) here is my stroke pattern: 12-2-0

#7. Double Shift AB-up BA-down
#8. Slight forward press for a mental fix (not full fix)
#14. Shiftless-Up and Down But there can be a slight reactionary shift on the down
#15. Standard but hands contolled
#21. Top
#22. Random Sweep with a bit of float loading during the change of direction (hard to explain right now)
#24. In the beginning its a non-auto sweep, when learned it is auto sweep (if that makes any sense)

I thank you again for the help.
spike

 

[dbl]

Glad for a newbie to tgm you have that much down.

Maybe you are the same, maybe different, but for assembling a procedure I usually tend to experiment with swing pieces (digging them out from the dirt) and find something effective, and then go look them up (sometimes). Very occasionally I will say to myself, let's try a sweep release or a snap release, or check to see if a double action something would either fit in or prove useful.

However, if there is something I can't quite identify I don't let it get in my way of using it when the swing/hit is effective.

My current focus is not on the cataloging BUT on chapter 8 swing sections. Maybe it's rhythm related, but I have gained a lot from foregoing thinking of 24 pieces (joke) to 4 sections.

 

[Spike]

Glad for a newbie to tgm you have that much down.

Maybe you are the same, maybe different, but for assembling a procedure I usually tend to experiment with swing pieces (digging them out from the dirt) and find something effective, and then go look them up (sometimes). Very occasionally I will say to myself, let's try a sweep release or a snap release, or check to see if a double action something would either fit in or prove useful.

However, if there is something I can't quite identify I don't let it get in my way of using it when the swing/hit is effective.

My current focus is not on the cataloging BUT on chapter 8 swing sections. Maybe it's rhythm related, but I have gained a lot from foregoing thinking of 24 pieces (joke) to 4 sections.

As far as assembling pieces and looking them up, well, I'm just not that smart. I find it tough to realize and internalize some of this stuff as it is written. Like the takeaway in a hitting process or the shoulder throw for example are tough ones for me. I'm a swinger slash sometimes switter. I can load against the backswing and hit for shorter shots but not longer ones. don't know why.

I like Chapter 8, precision and looking? These seem to me very valuable stages of the learning process. Being able to master your component movement through the positions that all swings/hits have is a good thing.

The address routine is probably the most important part of it all and yet the least practiced, imo.

The hardest part of hitting a golf shot is getting ready to hit it. I don't think this area has been emphasized enough in teaching. I read in an earlier post where Brian was saying something about teaching the right grip for maximum benefit or something. He said something along the lines of focusing on those grip changes even if it is on every shot during the lesson. Now that's teaching! It is just too important to bypass.

And so is the address routine. The precision that can be achieved in just this area is worth every second spent. How many do it? How many people that read this will do it? Would they do it with the intent and sophistication of the goal achievement as the 3I's?

I believe there is a precise way to address the ball that can set up the geometry, prepare the body for the physics and secure a strong mental state for the shot at hand.

Do we really understand the true power of the waggle?

 

[tourdeep]

EXCELLENT QUESTION!
Is there a way to swing without manipulations and compensations?

I think so. It seems to be the group that's always in front of me with two cases of beer loaded in the cart. The noncompensating swing is the purest of all hacks...

 

[Spike]

Love it Tourdeep!

BTW I'm struggling with finding Homer's specific definitions for manipulation and compensation.

Help anyone?

 

[DOCW3]

Love it Tourdeep!

BTW I'm struggling with finding Homer's specific definitions for manipulation and compensation.

Help anyone?

Spike~

I don't think he intended to define them although the reality of compensation and the need for manipulation are acknowledged. For example:

*When the right shoulder does not move on the same down stroke plane as the hands, compensation by PP3 will be required .

*Non-interchangeable stroke components must be properly compensated or eliminated. However, he indicates the player can elect not to compensate and accept the result.

*The hands are manipulated using the Lag Pressure Point to control the club head.

Also, although he considers plane shifts "hazardous," which I understand as a reference to compensation, he says it is not always possible or advisable to eliminate them.

DRW

 

[Spike]

Spike~

I don't think he intended to define them although the reality of compensation and the need for manipulation are acknowledged. For example:

*When the right shoulder does not move on the same down stroke plane as the hands, compensation by PP3 will be required .

*Non-interchangeable stroke components must be properly compensated or eliminated. However, he indicates the player can elect not to compensate and accept the result.

*The hands are manipulated using the Lag Pressure Point to control the club head.

Also, although he considers plane shifts "hazardous," which I understand as a reference to compensation, he says it is not always possible or advisable to eliminate them.

DRW

Thank you very much for that, DRW! Super answer BTW.