Welcome to the instruction I had growing up as a hooker! It caused me to hook more and be even more lost!
Question: In terms of probability, does swinging left produce a greater likelihood...
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Welcome to the instruction I had growing up as a hooker! It caused me to hook more and be even more lost!
For me, the jury is still out on swinging left, quite simply because I can't make it work for myself. When I swing left it just feels like a glancing blow compared to to clean powerful compression when I don't swing left. However I think that it can work for some and has to be paired with how EXACTLY you are releasing.
Would it be fair to say that Rory doesn't like it either? And that Tiger believes it will work but is still waiting?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
For you?
Yikes.
Remember, we are talking about a swing direction-plane line-base line-HSP either to the left of your stance, or to the target.
The Hall-of-Fame is full of 'em. The Tour is loaded with them.
It could be that you are overdoing it when you consciously try to swing left. When I was first introduced to swinging left, I ended up overdoing it, and got those weak feeling contacts you're talking about. As a result, I got away from it. I've come back to it though, with the knowledge that I have to feel like I'm hitting the tiniest cut, through the bag. The result is that I end up with a ball flight that is fairly straight, and that I can hit it really hard. But if I go overboard like I did before (more is better), I'm losing 40 yards and I'm getting weak shots.
I never try to swing right or swing up when I hit driver. I naturally swing out and up if I have to hit the ball off a tee. If I try to swing out, then I'm going out too much, and I'm gonna hook and push the ball and get thin shots. Swinging left may be the same thing for you; maybe you naturally do it enough that you don't have to think about it.
Last edited:
IMO, I think that when a lot of the golfing public hears "swing left", they're thinking some kind of cut action, or they're picturing Hunter Mahan. I think they would be better off thinking "left enough post-impact to create a straight path through impact", or something like that. If you're over the top, or a natural fader who already swings left pretty quickly after impact, then the last thing you need to feel is the club going more left. There's nothing wrong with the concept itself; it's just that the application of it is going to vary by degrees depending on the player.
Last edited:
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
That's because the more right you swing the more you deloft the face and the better it "feels" but it's a misnomer. It's similar to people who thought (including a lot of us here) that banging down on the ball and holding that left wrist flat was adding something. Seemed to add more pop than say a less down more bending less wrist impact sensation but the only difference was simply they dynamic loft we were applying to the ball.
Feel isn't real, all the ball knows is the what d-plane you created regardless of how you did it.
Virtuoso
New
Hall of fame post.
We all need to give glancing blows a chance and "let truth have its day."
Last edited:
Could be, Bigguy, thanks for your comments.
But fact remains I'm a badass iron hooker and driver push slicer. I come at it too much from the inside and have never really found a solution. But I think Tiger's solution of the absurdest thoughswing in the history of world class golf is a joke, so I'll keep looking.
I know, I agree, you are 100% right, I have no objections your Honour. But it is more of a glancing blow, right?
Not necessarily dude.
I'm not so sure about that one either. Some folks have no feel for reality, others do.
So it is a glancing blow after all, o Virtuous one?
Virtuoso
New
It's always a glancing blow if you want to get the ball in the air.
Why does everyone want to squish the ball so much?
Virtuoso
New
There is a difference between plane being left and path being left.
Indeed, hence the resultant path as coined by BM. But as I said ( http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...-produce-greater-likelihood-3.html#post235592 ) you have to change how you release pretty much big time when you change your HSP.
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
No, that is my point.
People seem to equate swinging left with a giant outside in path and a wide open clubface that creates an upshoot fade that goes nowhere. Go watch Brian's video on youtube that is labeled "Teaching with trackman" and you'll hear trackman voicing out the face/path and there is no way, nooooo way, you can visually see the slight differences in his path of -1 to +2.
drewyallop
New
Yes.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
OK....two swings with a 4 iron....
A. Perfectly straight base line, 2.4 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."
B. Base line left (SWINGING LEFT), 2.4 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."
Which one is more of a glancing blow?
A. Perfectly straight base line, 2.4 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."
B. Base line left (SWINGING LEFT), 2.4 degrees down, 16 degree dynamic loft, perfectly align CoGs for no horizontal gear effect, a clubface that allows the ball to LAND ON the target line, or "go in the hole."
Which one is more of a glancing blow?
It depends on how much you swing left/how left the HSP is, no?
BUT, if I assume you are referring to a straight shot in the second example:
In the first case the face would have to be shut to the resultant path, right?
In the second case the face would square to the resultant path, right?
A shut face has less loft so but the dynamic lofts were identical therefore there must have been either more shaft lean and/or a steeper angle of attack in the second case in order to produce identical dynamic lofts. Therefore the second case produced a more glancing blow.
Assuming identical CH speeds the second shot would theoretically be shorter, not allowing for trajectory differences.
BUT, if I assume you are referring to a straight shot in the second example:
In the first case the face would have to be shut to the resultant path, right?
In the second case the face would square to the resultant path, right?
A shut face has less loft so but the dynamic lofts were identical therefore there must have been either more shaft lean and/or a steeper angle of attack in the second case in order to produce identical dynamic lofts. Therefore the second case produced a more glancing blow.
Assuming identical CH speeds the second shot would theoretically be shorter, not allowing for trajectory differences.
- Status