Official 1st Annual Manziposium Thread (now with a dozen things that happened)
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Brian Manzella
Administrator
A Dozen Things That Happened at the Anti-Summit...
NO PARTICULAR ORDER....
1. Aaron Zick's new thoracic spine-reative to the swing plane theory.
2. Aaron Zick's observation on the relatively small movement of the right arm relative to the right shoulder.
3. Paul Wood's assertion that NOBODY angle hinges for any length of time.
4. Zick and Wood's assertion that the top of the D-Plane influence from the clubface is mid-impact interval.
5. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing that Pushing and Pulling is not only possible at the same time, but necessarily optimal for maximum distance.
6. Rob Neal's stellar explanations of why the golfer NEEDS TO get light on the left foot on the backswing, to optimize power through sheer and ground forces.
7. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing on parametric acceleration as a means of adding additional clubhead speed.
8. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing that the "Geometry of the Circle" was not even close to being correct.
9. Neal's explanation of why some pivot slack is needed at the top of the backswing.
10. Wood's explanation of how shaft bowing, and forward flexing effected VSP.
11. Neal showing that REAL PIVOT CENTERS could be outside the body, and the centers being used by some were arbitrary at best.
12. Tumble Torque is as real as rain...Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing.
...much more to come....
NO PARTICULAR ORDER....
1. Aaron Zick's new thoracic spine-reative to the swing plane theory.
2. Aaron Zick's observation on the relatively small movement of the right arm relative to the right shoulder.
3. Paul Wood's assertion that NOBODY angle hinges for any length of time.
4. Zick and Wood's assertion that the top of the D-Plane influence from the clubface is mid-impact interval.
5. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing that Pushing and Pulling is not only possible at the same time, but necessarily optimal for maximum distance.
6. Rob Neal's stellar explanations of why the golfer NEEDS TO get light on the left foot on the backswing, to optimize power through sheer and ground forces.
7. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing on parametric acceleration as a means of adding additional clubhead speed.
8. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing that the "Geometry of the Circle" was not even close to being correct.
9. Neal's explanation of why some pivot slack is needed at the top of the backswing.
10. Wood's explanation of how shaft bowing, and forward flexing effected VSP.
11. Neal showing that REAL PIVOT CENTERS could be outside the body, and the centers being used by some were arbitrary at best.
12. Tumble Torque is as real as rain...Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing.
...much more to come....
Lindsey Newman
New
9. Neal's explanation of why some pivot slack is needed at the top of the backswing. - There just went everything I believe in. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water. It's all over, I don't know what to believe anymore. Next your gonna tell me the Saints have won the super bowl. Thanks for sharing....I think
Brian Manzella
Administrator
He also said TOO MUCH slack wasn't any good either.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
he did say TOP of the backswing. Think about a pitcher at the top who takes out the slack in the fall. Just my guess.
I am sure that my question only demonstrates my ignorance, but I want to ask it anyway! Is the idea then that a golfer should have more hip turn with less body torque, and not, as it seems to be currently the fad, to restrict hip turn to create more body torque? As an older, less flexible golfer, I sure like that idea!
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Absolutley, just dont over accelerate into that position. Think soft
Black or White
A lot of what I got from the Summit was that any philosophy that has an extreame inflexible agenda is looking for trouble. Golf contains an awful lot of grey area. If someone claims "zero" head movement other than head pivot, only 100% left or 100% right side participation and not an ounce of combination from either, clubshaft flex has "no" influence on impact conditions........I could go on. Golf is not a subject that all areas can be neatly tagged as absolute and without some variation. Golf is Art.
A lot of what I got from the Summit was that any philosophy that has an extreame inflexible agenda is looking for trouble. Golf contains an awful lot of grey area. If someone claims "zero" head movement other than head pivot, only 100% left or 100% right side participation and not an ounce of combination from either, clubshaft flex has "no" influence on impact conditions........I could go on. Golf is not a subject that all areas can be neatly tagged as absolute and without some variation. Golf is Art.
In the Eye of the Beholder
8. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing that the "Geometry of the Circle" was not even close to being correct.
What I remember most from that portion of the debate was that most everyone that uses that illustration is not even close to the correct degree of down. Dr. Zick made the statement that 3* or 4* degrees of down is much smaller than what is typically shown. I don't remember the others adding all that much to the topic. But when the tape comes out I may experience a Dr. Fung moment! Also the fact that the left shoulder is in motion.......Is there a better drawing of how to describe the shape or geometry of the swing available to show a student? How does one draw a multi-dimensional illustration of a flat piece of paper?
8. Zick, Wood and Neal all agreeing that the "Geometry of the Circle" was not even close to being correct.
What I remember most from that portion of the debate was that most everyone that uses that illustration is not even close to the correct degree of down. Dr. Zick made the statement that 3* or 4* degrees of down is much smaller than what is typically shown. I don't remember the others adding all that much to the topic. But when the tape comes out I may experience a Dr. Fung moment! Also the fact that the left shoulder is in motion.......Is there a better drawing of how to describe the shape or geometry of the swing available to show a student? How does one draw a multi-dimensional illustration of a flat piece of paper?
Jon Hardesty
New
The slack in the pivot was a question that I asked to make sure the research that I had done was correct. Slack in your pivot is more about "the rate of stretch" (ROS) and "the rate of recoil" (ROR).
Stretch shorten cycle? So in other words, a maximum, taut x-factor stretch at the top is less powerful than the stretch initiated during the downswing?
you can hit up on the ball with a forward leaning shaft.
Jon Hardesty
New
Just think of most of the stretch and recoil that is needed should happen in the transition and downswing. Yes, (SSC) Stretch shorten cycle.
Thanks.
James Marshall (Hogan1953)
New member
So you don't want to resist too much with your hips in the backswing?
birdie_man
New
Like the Symposium, Damon is quite objective.
If you were not there, you may not believe the way these guys started GRADING this thing about 10 minutes after we left the meeting room. (after dinner plans were made)
Right casual, like they do it all the time...
Phil Rosenbaum: "So I give it about a B-. Maybe a soft 8."
Mike Finney: About a B-. (I think he said)
(hope I have you guys correct)
...
Brian ran down everything that he thought "lost him points"...
Brian: "5 points off because I turned from Moderator into Manzella a little. (lol) 5 off because the questions coulda been better. 5 points off because..."
Can't remember the other reasons right now but I think he said "80" at the time too. (B rating?)
I think Steve Khatib was a little disappointed I didn't have more criticisms...!
He wondered what they coulda done better. I told him I pretty much was just happy to be there.!!
...
Thinking about it now:
1. It probably could have used some more practical somehow. Tough when you are trying to stick to science though? Then again, "field testing", I have to assume, IS part of the scientific method. I realize it is tough to do at an event like this and perhaps even in golf. (depends on the students too)
2. Maybe more arguing. I liked it. Even with Moderator turning into Manzella. More exciting this way, and things get fleshed out.
Brian, trust me, can bring energy into about any room.....holy. (he has a lot but looks to be efficient as well...he seems to do very well even when tired)
3. Coulda been longer. I woulda very very happily paid a little more and done two days. Yes, it would have been nice to cover clubface and "down the line view" path a lot more. ("the riddle of accuracy" as Damon neatly says above)
4. More audience participation. (from more different people) Tough to get everything in and do this well but maybe with a two day event audience participation can be pushed more by the hosts. (it wasn't pushed but was warmly welcomed)
(I held back a few Qs myself unfortunately...10 points off for me
) 5. More "holy shite" moments, if possible. It is the best when you learn something absolutely new that blows your mind a little, or a lot. A genuinely new idea of course being the best..."the big reveal." (not sure if, 'strategically' you want to do this but...then again maybe you are fine with it) Aaron Zick had one that really caught my attention, with Nicklaus on screen.
Maybe a segment of "new ideas" can be presented and looked over? I found these instances the most interesting I think.
...
Anyhoo...the knowledge already is second to none as far as I can tell (I could be wrong but if I am I want to meet these OTHER guys)...
The panel was great. It says something to get a group of guys like that to work with you.....they are a fair group and very smart and helpful...
...and yes, "Getting better everyday" seems a good fit.
...
If people don't like Brian, it is because he is a threat to what they are doing, as far as I can tell.
I think he wants to help everyone. My guess is that is not good enough for some. Or else they just don't get it.
My guess is one may have to deal with a lot of iffy (iffy?) people, operating the way he does. Some, it seems, may be too much after the money, power, lifestyle. (selfish reasons) Rather than helping and improving.
But then again his circle of friends I am sure is a good one.
...
All in all I give it an A for overall "impression." (first time I have attended one of their events- this is what I basically told Steve)
Objectively, probably about an 8.5. (didn't bother me too much that Brian was Brian)
(I still am not sure he was too dominating)
Last edited:
- Status