Quiros' Swing, Elbow Plane, Biomechanics, and NEW Manzella BLOG!

[Burner]

Actually, at the same temperature, the ball travels farther at higher humidity. The difference between 85% humidity and 20% humidity at 85 degrees is only about 1.3 yards for a drive that carries 256 yards.

The reason for this is the fact that at higher humidity, there is a greater proportion of water vapor. Water vapor is less dense than the major gases in the atmosphere (Nitrogen, Oxygen) and therefore the air is less dense. Less dense air offers less drag and less lift, the combination which results in slightly more distance.

Nice one Rob!

You never cease to amaze me.

And, for the sceptics this might help convince them.

Golf Ball Performance and Temperature

 

[Dariusz J.]

Isn't it "too flat" for some of you, guys ?

Now you can see what "flat" really means. Quiros is not flat despite his lead arm being below/in line with the shoulder line. He's perpendicular to his spine. Anyone who is not perpendicular to the spine is either "truly flat" (very rarely) or "truly upright" (very common).

Cheers

 

[spktho]

Isn't it "too flat" for some of you, guys ?

Why? Definitely not the "single planer" swing.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Why? Definitely not the "single planer" swing.

Dariusz is taking a little shot at the percieved idea that followers of this forum do not like flat backswings.

 

[spktho]

Dariusz is taking a little shot at the percieved idea that followers of this forum do not like flat backswings.

Got ya. Another one who would change Nickolaus, Miller, Watson, Furyk...

Back to the original thread: I have a video put out by Bobby Scheaffer and Billy McKinney about the pivot and they talk about how long hitters look like they aren't putting much effort in to swing the club. They talk about how the hips work in the pivot and how when a long hitter swings, they are working their "hips"--defined as the body parts from the knees to the chest--nearly as hard and as fast as they can. Quiros definitely shows this.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Why? Definitely not the "single planer" swing.

What's the "single planer" ???
If you wanted to mean "one planer" (in Hardy's terms) - Quiros is definitely a one planer, FYI.

Dariusz is taking a little shot at the percieved idea that followers of this forum do not like flat backswings.

Kevin, no. I am taking a little shot at those who use the word "flat" erroneously from the biomechanical point of view.

Got ya. Another one who would change Nickolaus, Miller, Watson, Furyk...

How would you know what would I do ? Leave such silly commments for yourself, please.

Cheers

 

[spktho]

You're right Dariusz J., I don't know what you would do. In that same sense, you don't know what or whom "some of you" are in your statement about the "too flat" swing hence my question why.

I must be mistaken, if Quiros has a one plane swing, it looks nothing like most of the one plane swings I've seen advertised on the net and appears to me to change planes during his swing. It really doesn't matter to me either way because I don't subscribe to a single swing pattern and don't have a horse in the race.

"Biomechanical point of view", in my opinion really doesn't mean much if you mean that there is only one way to move and align the 206 bones in the adult human skeleton by using all the muscles with various origins and insertions that are innervated by various nerves with variable synapse locations among the population. Not to mention the different level of consciousness and unconsciousness each person has as they interpret "feel vs real". But, there are general movement patterns that produce the most consistent results in a kinesthetic endeavor.

When you say Quiros is perpendicular to his spine, what is perpendicular to his spine? (his lead arm? club shaft?) and when during the swing should "it" be perpendicular to the spine? Is there any variance in the 90* to the the spine for "it"? If so, at point(s) throughout the swing? Do the players that I mentioned have anything in common with Quiros' swing with respect to a "biomechanical point of view"?

 

[Dariusz J.]

You're right Dariusz J., I don't know what you would do. In that same sense, you don't know what or whom "some of you" are in your statement about the "too flat" swing hence my question why.

I must be mistaken, if Quiros has a one plane swing, it looks nothing like most of the one plane swings I've seen advertised on the net and appears to me to change planes during his swing. It really doesn't matter to me either way because I don't subscribe to a single swing pattern and don't have a horse in the race.

"Biomechanical point of view", in my opinion really doesn't mean much if you mean that there is only one way to move and align the 206 bones in the adult human skeleton by using all the muscles with various origins and insertions that are innervated by various nerves with variable synapse locations among the population. Not to mention the different level of consciousness and unconsciousness each person has as they interpret "feel vs real". But, there are general movement patterns that produce the most consistent results in a kinesthetic endeavor.

When you say Quiros is perpendicular to his spine, what is perpendicular to his spine? (his lead arm? club shaft?) and when during the swing should "it" be perpendicular to the spine? Is there any variance in the 90* to the the spine for "it"? If so, at point(s) throughout the swing? Do the players that I mentioned have anything in common with Quiros' swing with respect to a "biomechanical point of view"?

Spktho,

Step by step, if I may:

- being a "one planer" means that the lead arm at the top of the swing is at the same plane as the shoulder line. Nothing more or less. Vide e.g. Quiros. It's more of a marketing notion, however, it has some mechanical merits and good implications. It has nothing to do, however, with having only one single plane in the swing motion which is simply impossible due to the way humans are built. Usually, Hardy's one planers are double shifters EP --> TSP --> EP. Vide e.g. Quiros. Usually, one planers' relation between the spine and the shaft is around perpendicularity. Vide e.g. Quiros.

- the movement of the upper distal parts of the main body (i.e. arms) is the most efficient when either they or a part of them (i.e. forearm) is working perpendicularily to the main body core (i.e. spine); why ? because if a mass equipped with distal "arms" is turning around a fixed vertical axis of rotation, they tend to be positioned perpendicularily to the axis due to cp/cf forces.

- biomechanics can help to find the most efficient motion for a typical human in each possible action no matter if it is a golf stroke or hammering nails; in golf, there are simply biomechanically better and worse patterns; you're very right saying that there are general movement patterns that produce the most consistent results in a kinesthetic endeavor; moreover, if you analyze the common denominators of golfers that are regarded as great and very consistent ballstrikers (Moe, Hogan, Trevino, Snead, O'Grady, Furyk-downswing only, etc.) you can find a lot of interesting things - among others e.g. that swinging perpendicularily to their spines is one of such common denominators.

Cheers

 

[spktho]

Thank you for your explanations.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Good Stuff.

Ok, this might sound stupid, but to me this looks like a pretty standard swing that doesn't look super powerful (compared to nicklaus, daly or sadlowski for example), but because he does it quicker than just about everyone else he gets loads of clubhead speed.

It is very orthodox.

Of course, very few current instructors know what this means anymore.

Watch this:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v0IA6_Zr8gk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v0IA6_Zr8gk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>


This is a GREAT pivot. None of this BS centered/left shifted crud.

- being a "one planer" means that the lead arm at the top of the swing is at the same plane as the shoulder line. Nothing more or less.

I couldn't care less what folks who rip off a guy who drew lines on 2D stills to come up with many of his ideas call anything.

No, no, no—if you subscribe to a METHOD, like the goofy "one-plane" method, you HAVE TO BE STUCK with all the BS that is attached to it:

The over-bent-over address posture.

The lawn mower takeaway.

The over-the-top start down.

And, most importantly:

The CRAPPY PUSH POSITION RIGHT ELBOW.

So, J., if you want to discuss the fact that left arm should be 90° to the spine at some point in the swing (because it won't be for long), then I'll post something up.

 

[spktho]

No, no, no—if you subscribe to a METHOD, like the goofy "one-plane" method, you HAVE TO BE STUCK with all the BS that is attached to it:

Exactly the point of my questioning, thank you for stating it clearly.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Should the Left Arm be 90° to the Spine in the golf swing? w/Manzella Audio analysis

HERE IS THE AUDIO ANALYSIS with Brian Manzella and Jon Hardesty:

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3247397568-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://web.me.com/brianmanzella/brianandjohnqswing.mp3" width="400" height="27" allowscriptaccess="never" quality="best" bgcolor="#ffffff" wmode="window" flashvars="playerMode=embedded" />

 

[spktho]

- the movement of the upper distal parts of the main body (i.e. arms) is the most efficient when either they or a part of them (i.e. forearm) is working perpendicularily to the main body core (i.e. spine);
Cheers

He'll probably fall back to this. Saying that any part of the arms or club shaft being perpendicular is biomechanically advantageous.

 

[Brian Manzella]

He'll probably fall back to this. Saying that any part of the arms or club shaft being perpendicular is biomechanically advantageous.

When?

For how long?

To what part of the spine?

???

Have you had a listen yet, skltho?

 

[Dariusz J.]

I couldn't care less what folks who rip off a guy who drew lines on 2D stills to come up with many of his ideas call anything.

No, no, no—if you subscribe to a METHOD, like the goofy "one-plane" method, you HAVE TO BE STUCK with all the BS that is attached to it:

The over-bent-over address posture.

The lawn mower takeaway.

The over-the-top start down.

And, most importantly:

The CRAPPY PUSH POSITION RIGHT ELBOW.

So, J., if you want to discuss the fact that left arm should be 90° to the spine at some point in the swing (because it won't be for long), then I'll post something up.

Brian,

First, I have just explained as well as I could, to another member of your Forum, what does the notion "one planer" mean. It does not mean I endorse this method. I was in OP Hardy method camp until I started my biokinetic researches that simply exposed some flaws in this method such as e.g. inability of squaring the face without the existence of conscious thoughts or biomechanically improper relations between the wrists and elbow joints (among others this dreaded "lawnmower" takeaway you mentioned).
Hardy is very right, OTOH, as regards the importance of perpendicularity of distal parts in relation to the mass core (spine). It's the only one effective biophysical method for subduing the distal parts motion to the pivot without necessity of having a great ability of dealing with timing.
Secondly, this CRAPPY PUSH POSITION RIGHT ELBOW as you said, produces the most consistent results on Tour today (Furyk) that you, Trackman fans, so much admire. IMHO, the importance of those punch/pitch elbow positions is exaggerated. Both can produce EEP and perpendicularity of rear forearm to the spine.

Finally, I'd love to discuss the fact that left arm should be 90° to the spine at some point in the swing (because it won't be for long) and see what you'll post up. If I may ask you - take into account that the right forearm (not arm, since we are not Moe) is 90* to the spine in the downswing.

Cheers

 

[spktho]

Bingo! Hate to say it, but I told you so. Thanks Dariusz.



Brian, I asked the same questions(post #48), that weren't answered(give me some credit). And Brady is playing with that finger, not very well but playing--how's yours by the way?

I hadn't listened at the time. I did now.

I absolutely agree with ya Brian.

 

[Brian Manzella]

This is LONG from over.

First, I have just explained as well as I could, to another member of your Forum, what does the notion "one planer" means.

Cool.

But, I'm sticking to my opinion on this one. The ONE PLANE SWING is a method/pattern, and when someone uses the term "one plane" the term should mean either:

The whole shooting match One Plane Pattern.

or

The club, or sweetspot, staying on ONE PLANE the whole swing.
​

Period.

...as regards the importance of perpendicularity of distal parts in relation to the mass core (spine). It's the only one effective biophysical method for subduing the distal parts motion to the pivot without necessity of having a great ability of dealing with timing.

I would agree with you if there was a way to START the left arm on this 90° angle, and keep it there through impact.

They is no such way.

So in my above posted audio, I ask a number of questions, and make a number of points that challenges this whole idea wholesale.

Have you listened yet?

Secondly, this CRAPPY PUSH POSITION RIGHT ELBOW as you said, produces the most consistent results on Tour today (Furyk) that you, Trackman fans, so much admire.

Furyk has no choice in his elbow position due to his extreme close distance to the ball.

I admire someone who can produce zeros with power, and so would you.

I'm waiting for a response to my points in the audio....

 

[Dariusz J.]

Cool.

But, I'm sticking to my opinion on this one. The ONE PLANE SWING is a method/pattern, and when someone uses the term "one plane" the term should mean either:

The whole shooting match One Plane Pattern.

or

The club, or sweetspot, staying on ONE PLANE the whole swing.
​

Period.

True. I agree 100%. That's why I said that Hardy's "one plane" is more a marketing notion. That's very important then to know what an "one planer" really means, especially, if the notion is being so widely used now on many golf fora.

I would agree with you if there was a way to START the left arm on this 90° angle, and keep it there through impact.

They is no such way.

So in my above posted audio, I ask a number of questions, and make a number of points that challenges this whole idea wholesale.

Have you listened yet?

I'd love to. Unfortunately, having first updated my QuickTime programme, then de-installed and installed the new 7.6.5 version - I still cannot open the audio file Will try to ask a wiser PC expert tomorrow and I will return to the discussion.

Furyk has no choice in his elbow position due to his extreme close distance to the ball.

I admire someone who can produce zeros with power, and so would you.

I'm waiting for a response to my points in the audio....

Yep, he has no choice. Anyhow, the truth is he zeroes better than the rest of the staff without a pitch elbow. Not that I prefer push over pitch - actually is the other way (Hogan). The point is that IMO it does not matter pitch or push - in the big scale.

Cheers

 

[Brian Manzella]

The LINK for the audio file....

[media]http://web.me.com/brianmanzella/brianandjohnqswing.mp3[/media]

Hope this helps, J.

 

[Dariusz J.]

[media]http://web.me.com/brianmanzella/brianandjohnqswing.mp3[/media]

Hope this helps, J.

Yep, thank you.

So, my comments for what they are worth:

1. Biomechanists do not deal with "speed" or "strength" only. They deal with the efficiency of motion in a given field or aggregate fields. For a golfe,r I guess, the efficiency means both accuracy, repeatability, consistency and strength. We are not examine a LD ReMax champion here.
If a biomechanist had a task to find the most efficient swing pattern for this LD champ, he would forget about factors that increase repeatability and consistency. It's obvious that in such a case noone would care specially about reducing timing issues at the costs of limiting swing speed.
However, if a biomechanist had a task of producing the most accurate golfer, he would eliminate all scenarios that could enlarge the occurance of timing issues, such as e.g. letting the distal parts of the body (arms) swing independently on the main body. Arms are the best way subdued to the main body when they act perpendicularily to this main body. Period.
And, as we can see on Quiros's example, he can produce rather enough speed for a Tour player without extra ooph from arms - would he hit it longer if he was a "two-planer" with upright arms ? Very likely. Would he be a more consistent ballstriker as a "two planer" ? Very unlikely.

2. Although your drawing of the spine is not the best it gives the idea of the spine natural shape. These curvatures of the spine have a lot of biomechanical metits for a human, not so much for a golfer, therefore it's enough to answer your question that the arms should be perpendicular to this part of the spine the shoulder joints are - it means thoracic. Cervical part is your neck. Like your friend said in the podcast.
Now, humans are equipped with two arms that sometimes are handicapped. The elbow joints cannot move in all directions and the distance between shoulder joints is huge enough to unable arms be all the time perpendicular to the spine.
If a golfer hold the club with the lead arm only, he would not need the elbow joint to let the arm be perpendicular to the thoracic spine all the motion. Imagine Moe Norman swinging the club with his lead arm only.
But we have to use the trail arm too. Again, because the elbow joint cannot move (fold) in all directions there is no possibility the lead arm can be perpendicular to the spine all the time. But they can be perpendicular at the top (lead arm - to the thoracic spine), during downswing (rear forearm - to the lumbar spine, while the rear humerus is parallel to the spine !) into impact (lead arm - to the thoracic spine and rear forearm all the time to the lumbar spine).
The rear forearm perpendicularity to the lumbar spine has its special merits as well. It can happen only when a golfer reaches the EP and the shaft is in-line with this forearm. What is interesting, the earlier the golfer can achieve the EP (i.e. the EEP = early elbow plane), the earlier the perpendicularity of the rear forearm is being achieved. Not coincidentally, practically all best ballstrikers the history of golf knows were EEPers.
Lastly, if one would like to search the common denominators of best ballstrikers thinking about perpendicularity of various elements - it will appear that there are surprisingly big number of these. Not for power, for consistency - to decrease the impact of timing issues.

3. You said, Brian, that Quiros is pretty orthodox and neutral at the top which I assume he's not flat in your eyes. Therefore, a golfer with lead arm below the shoulder line (means it is not perpendicular to the spine) is flat and a golfer with lead arm above the shoulder line (also means it is not perpendicular to the spine) is upright. This is what I agree to 100%.
Therefore, I hope you agree it is no use to call flat a e.g. Hardy's one planer or S&Tilter. Am I right ?

4. I wholeheartedly agree with your idea how the instruction in next 5 years should look like. It should be a merge of experts from many specialities, anatomy specialists and biomechanists included.
I believe that a series of discussions between a professional physician, a professional biomechanist and medical doctors, being held under the auspicia of a great professional golf instructor will be more enlightening than all golf books ever written so far.

Cheers