pivot question

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

golfie

New
Trebuchet

Thanks for the link to the Trebuchet. I do not see any part of the trebuchet that is actively braking .
IMO I believe that the lower body slows because you simply cannot accelerate all the way to the finish.

Someone has posted that for a given motion , a person can accelerate through 2 thirds of the motion and has to decelerate throught the last third.

My top choice for slowing for the shoulder and arms would be momentum transfer to the club.
 
Last edited:
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Brian Manzella said:
The Line of Compression is SIMPLY a square hit.

Period.

You can't "sustain" anything, but if you mean "compression through a flat left wrist," then the Kinetic Chain works like this:

The Hips slow to a point—then—the shoulders to a point—then—the arms to a point—then—the club catches the wrists———after impact.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who came to Louisville to see Brian with me was taught the soft draw pattern. Every now and then he hits a real high pull draw. And the above is the exact explanation - he snaps his chain too early and the club catches the wrists before impact. He's real good and doesnt have poor players' throwaway- just early snapping.
 
W

welshdentist

New
Brian Manzella said:
The Line of Compression is SIMPLY a square hit.

Period.

You can't "sustain" anything, but if you mean "compression through a flat left wrist," then the Kinetic Chain works like this:

The Hips slow to a point—then—the shoulders to a point—then—the arms to a point—then—the club catches the wrists———after impact.
Click to expand...

Would I be right is saying this is what Building Blocks boils down to?
 
N

nmgolfer

New member
No no no... Its a cart & horse thing.

Take for instance the trebuchet example. Some would have us believe the rock gets thrown because the lever arm slows down.. wrong. THe rock gets thrown because the sling slips off a hook that allows it to let go. Said another way: when the sling slips off the hook the sling is no longer providing a centripetal force and so the rock moves off in a straight line (and follows a parabolic trajectory because of gravity).

If a golfer's "kinetic chain" never slows down the club will still release. While Dante's golfer's hand did, Nesbit's scratch golfer's hands didn't, they never slow down (in fact they're accelerating right up to impact). There are many ways to swing a golf club.

Lying eyes....

Some people will believe slowing body parts equals (causes) better golf swings right up to the time someone comes along and proves them all wrong. Today's tour pros learned the game at (practically) the same time (some would call it the Nicklaus now Woods era). Is it any wonder almost all of them look similar?
 
tongzilla

tongzilla

New
let's get this straight first

This instructor likes OPEN HIPS and shoulders at impact.

A lot of players have square-ish pivot alignments at impact.

If you want them to achieve a more 'open' look, telling them to snap the kinetic chain is not the best idea. But telling them to turn through the ball in a 'synchronised' fashion might be better.

Sometimes it's good to ask the student to do something that really doesn't happen in reality, if that's what they need.

An interesting question is, does a player with more open hips at impact (such as David Toms) have more or less kinetic snap than a player with more square hips (such as Mickelson)? I don't know what the answer is, but it sure FEELS like to there's less pivot breaking when I'm more open at impact.
 
N

nmgolfer

New member
I like analogies..

tongzilla said:
This instructor likes OPEN HIPS and shoulders at impact.

A lot of players have square-ish pivot alignments at impact.

If you want them to achieve a more 'open' look, telling them to snap the kinetic chain is not the best idea. But telling them to turn through the ball in a 'synchronised' fashion might be better.
Click to expand...

I like analogies and this one is worthless for people who don't ski, but for those who do it might help.

One (very critical) key to staying on your feet when you are downhill skiing is to always be facing down the fall-line. Your shoulders (upper body) should always face down the fall-line. What's that? IF you let a ball roll down-hill from where you are standing which way would it go? That's the fall-line. In golf the fall-line is perpendicular to the target line. At impact I want my shoulders facing down the fall line... hips are a bit more open though. Why? accuracy. I find too much rotary action (open shoulders) causes my accuracy to decrease. This of course implies left shoulder up, right down otherwise known as axis tilt. To each their own though.

As for what cause "snap"... well its the kinematics. Its hand path (which is caused by left shoulder path and arm acceleration). Someday I'll build the simulator that allows one to play with the parameters. I'm talking about a math model that will demonstrate that slowing body parts are not needed and or beneficial. till then...
 
H

holeout

New
nmgolfer said:
I like analogies and this one is worthless for people who don't ski, but for those who do it might help.

One (very critical) key to staying on your feet when you are downhill skiing is to always be facing down the fall-line. Your shoulders (upper body) should always face down the fall-line. What's that? IF you let a ball roll down-hill from where you are standing which way would it go? That's the fall-line. In golf the fall-line is perpendicular to the target line. At impact I want my shoulders facing down the fall line... hips are a bit more open though. Why? accuracy. I find too much rotary action (open shoulders) causes my accuracy to decrease. This of course implies left shoulder up, right down otherwise known as axis tilt. To each their own though.

As for what cause "snap"... well its the kinematics. Its hand path (which is caused by left shoulder path and arm acceleration). Someday I'll build the simulator that allows one to play with the parameters. I'm talking about a math model that will demonstrate that slowing body parts are not needed and or beneficial. till then...
Click to expand...

As a pre-cursor, I know you know WAY more about physics, kinematics, etc. and you shouldn't feel the need to belittle my knowledge base since I'm challenging some of your statements. So there :).

What does downhill skiing have to do with swinging a golf club? I personally can see no similarities to the two activities, other than they are both considered individual sports and both occur outside. To further this point, what does a "fall line" have anything to do with golf? And why does the "fall line" fall perpendicular to the target line?

I believe Brian has stated many times that when looking at data from 3-D machines, all good players have their shoulders open, and their hips open more. If keeping your shoulders square to the target line at impact is beneficial, why doesn't any good player do it?

Just want to know what you think is all.
 
G

golfspike

New
holeout said:
As a pre-cursor, I know you know WAY more about physics, kinematics, etc. and you shouldn't feel the need to belittle my knowledge base since I'm challenging some of your statements. So there :).

What does downhill skiing have to do with swinging a golf club? I personally can see no similarities to the two activities, other than they are both considered individual sports and both occur outside. To further this point, what does a "fall line" have anything to do with golf? And why does the "fall line" fall perpendicular to the target line?

I believe Brian has stated many times that when looking at data from 3-D machines, all good players have their shoulders open, and their hips open more. If keeping your shoulders square to the target line at impact is beneficial, why doesn't any good player do it?

Just want to know what you think is all.
Click to expand...

Couple of queries but don't a lot of players set up with open shoulders ?
ANd for nmgolfer why would the feet be not responsible for the snapping of kinetic chain?
 
D

Deadly_Scope

New
This is a very interesting question and it reminded me alot about a portion of text within 'search for the perfect swing' whereby it says this underneath an illustration (which I might replicate if there is enough interest)...

disclaimer - ill amend the quote slightly and the language inorder to make more sence since it includes references to the diagram and references to its terminology used within the book...

"Why the upper lever slows down as the lower one speeds up. Imagine the two lever system lying static but out of line. Then any force that moves the clubhead outwards also tends to move the point between these levers backwards. Now think of the whole system rotating forwards , the force pulling the clubhead outwards is centrifugal force ; and the backward movement of this point (due to its straightening out) is now superimposed on the general forward movement of the whole system, and so becomes merely a slowing down of the upper lever"
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Rules and Comment

I edit a post someone made about a person on another site.

We don't mention other sites and "non public domain" teachers either on this site. I did for years and all it does is "advertise."

This is NOT about a teacher, this is about ANY TEACHER or any scientist that thinks you can't "SNAP" a kinetic chain, when every damn 3d machine in the world MEASURES EVERY GOOD PLAYER DOING IT!!!!

I have had NO PROBLEM teaching golfers to do it. Once apon a time, I taught SNAPPING IT, then I followed the reverse path. When I swicthed back--a few years back---every single student got better.

This or that teachers "results" are always held out in a science debate.

Baloney!

And nm, sorry dude, I think you are all wet on this one.

Calling Mandrin....
 
N

nmgolfer

New member
Holeout - as I said up front the skiing analogy won't help everyone. You should ignore it especially if you don't ski. As for what someone says they saw on some machine... Its purely anecdotal and doesn't tell me anything. Its an stretch to say watching a video proves anything but then I approach these issue as a scientist. Does the fact that the Larsen Ice shelf broke off (which everyone witnessed on video) prove that global warming is happening? Some say yes... the are of course full of it.

Golfspike - most golfers seem to associate "kinetic chain" with "bull whip" where each incremental segment of the whip slows passing on its momentum to the next (slightly less massive) segment, (which we call conservation of momentum) until finally the most distal segment (the tip) moves very very fast. Its sounds nice in theory but the Human body is not a bull whip and that is not what is happening during the golf swing. In fact the only way a bull whips behavior can be explained (scientifically) is by considering both conservation of momentum and energy but that's another story.

During a golf swing forces are transmitted between the golfer's feet and earth (it would be difficult at best to swing a golf club in the vacuum of space). That is the only role the feet play. They provide a connection to earth, something to push against

Deadly-Scope: Centrifugal force is imaginary... not real... a mental / verbal construct used to try to explain a more complex subject to laymen. There is no centrifugal force acting on the club no matter what those two Brits once claimed. (we've gone over this ad infinitum see archive)

Brian - It doesn't bother me that you don't believe what I tell you. I know it to be true and thats all that matters. Besides we have different goals. Mine is to fully understand the dynamics of the golf swing in the language of Newtonian mechanics; yours is to be the best golf instructor you can. You may not need the truth.

I don't expect to change opinions here, the sport of golf is riddled with tightly held myths and most likely always will be... Always remember to have fun and remember...

"It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
 
H

holeout

New
nmgolfer said:
Holeout - as I said up front the skiing analogy won't help everyone. You should ignore it especially if you don't ski. As for what someone says they saw on some machine... Its purely anecdotal and doesn't tell me anything. Its an stretch to say watching a video proves anything but then I approach these issue as a scientist. Does the fact that the Larsen Ice shelf broke off (which everyone witnessed on video) prove that global warming is happening? Some say yes... the are of course full of it.
Click to expand...

I have skiied many times before, as well as snowboarded. Never once have I equated the sensation to that of swinging a golf club. You'll have to forgive my reluctance to link the two. I'll think about it some more.

As far as the 3-D machine "anecdotes" go, your paralleling Brian's evidence with a video of an ice shelf is an unfair comparison. What Brian found was that NO good players that were put on this machine had anything even close to square shoulders at impact. While you could scream "sample size" and throw his information out the window, you could also admit that perhaps there is a chance that open shoulders at impact are beneficial.
 
N

nmgolfer

New member
Shortgamer... maybe so, I'm more zen now. Its not worth the energy.

Holeout... besides both being individual sports done out side, both (Skiing and golf) require good balance, both involve body movement about a (relatively speaking) stationary "swing center", both have the same basic set-up stance (knees slightly bent, back straight, bend at hips and weight evenly split between the three balance points on the two feet). I see lots of similarities. I didn't say can't or shouldn't. I said for me open shoulders at impact negatively impacts my accuracy but that's me... to each their own. Pro golfers practice one hell of a lot; maybe they're able to perfect the timing. Anyway if it bothers you, forget I said that too.
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Nm???

There is no doubt that nm knows some math.

I believe you on lots of things, but sir, you are WRONG about this one.

What you are trying to get me to believe id that something that I taught successfully pre-June '87 (Ben Doyle) and post 2004, that I tested left handed, that the 100,000 dollar 3D machines show everyone on Tour does, that is NOT in any book like TGM, doesn't exist???

What??

You better come with some math quick, and--just like Don Villavaso says, "If you can not explain it in childlike terms, you don't know it yourself."
 
N

niblick1

New
nmgolfer said:
Some people will believe slowing body parts equals (causes) better golf swings right up to the time someone comes along and proves them all wrong. Today's tour pros learned the game at (practically) the same time (some would call it the Nicklaus now Woods era). Is it any wonder almost all of them look similar?
Click to expand...

Thinking that the longest hitters in golf studied physics and adopted a flawed physics model and that theoreticians will come along and open up a whole new arena of distance is what is wrong-headed thinking -- it's backwards. It's just as wrong as the people who attempt to explain golf physics with the coffee cup off the back of the car example.

These were athletes who figured out through hitting a million golf balls how to maximize the clubhead speed while still managing direction. This is the same way that home-run hitters learned to hit 600 foot home run shots. They didn't study theoretical physics. Physics and anatomy attempt to explain how someone can hit a baseball 600 feet. Find me one good photo of a guy hitting a golf ball 350 yards or a baseball 600 feet with square shoulders at impact and hips still with a lot of room still to turn.

And wouldn't accelerating hips through impact make a lot more sense if you could turn your hips 540 degrees? There is a range of motion in a golf swing for hips and shoulders, the questions is how you use that range to maximize clubhead speed down a line of compression.

And if you ever build a great model for humans hitting the golf ball - will it look like a modified trebuchet or Woods or Nicklaus?

How is it possible to fully use PP4 and have square shoulders at impact?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top