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

[spktho]

In know I am overshadowed in this debate, but here's some of my thoughts. I have been involved in a couple professions that have this same issue of metodologies fighting for dominance as golf swing teaching has and it usually boils down to recognition and/or greed for their developers. This is why I like Brian's approach to just teach the person the best golf swing--whatever it may look like--so the person can play golf to the best of their ability.

Shouldn't a "one plane" swing and swing method occur on only one plane? After all "one plane" is the name. So, now Quiros and any other golfer who has their lead arm on the turned shoulder plane at some point in their backswing is a "one plane" swinger even though they shift planes during their swing?

I know anatomy and physiology and especially the biomechanics of the human spine. (Is there really a golf swing methodology called "Biomechanic" or is just the study of "sports biomechanics"?) Biomechanics is determined by anatomy as the structure determines the function of anything in living systems. Knowing anatomy and having seen many golf swings in a quest for learning, the generalizations that the optimal biomechanical golf swing for accuracy and repeatability is to have the lead arm at 90* to the thoracic spine at the top of the backswing and the right forearm 90* to the lumbar spine coming into impact can and is achieved by many, many, many poor ball strikers. This is because the human anatomy (bones, joints, muscles) dictates that when a person is holding on to a stick with both hands and trying to hit a ball sitting on the ground, they have to rotate around an axis that is the spine; and their arms have to work as they do because they are attached and include joints that can only move in certain ranges while being connected to the stick. My 4 year old does this with very limited knowledge of the golf swing and he has trouble even hitting the ball. So, yes the best ball strikers have this relationship as do many more of the worst golfers. Not to minimize this notion, but there is much more involved in the golf swing than this notion of the upper extremities being 90* to any part of the spine at some time during the downswing.

There is a definite need for in depth sports biomechanical studies on the golf swings. Especially comparing various forces between amateurs and professionals and the different styles comparing professionals. I think the technology exists, but the academia interest is lacking.

For now Trackman is the best tool as it measures the result of all the biomechanics of individual golfers.

 

[greenfree]

You can't only swing on one plane, total b.s. Even Moe Norman couldn't for obvious reasons, like your arms are attached at your shoulders and you hold the club in your hands, and you have 2 legs, well most of us. Good luck with that setup SWINGING ON ONE PLANE.

 

[ej20]

You can't only swing on one plane, total b.s. Even Moe Norman couldn't for obvious reasons, like your arms are attached at your shoulders and you hold the club in your hands, and you have 2 legs, well most of us. Good luck with that setup SWINGING ON ONE PLANE.

It's actually not physically impossible to do....just swing on an Explanar.

But yes,for whatever reason,nobody is able to do it as their free swing.

 

[greenfree]

It's actually not physically impossible to do....just swing on an Explanar.

But yes,for whatever reason,nobody is able to do it as their free swing.

Well if it's physically possible... what's stopping us from doing it? Can you hit balls while on the explanar?

 

[ej20]

Well if it's physically possible... what's stopping us from doing it? Can you hit balls while on the explanar?

You cannot use a real club and hit balls but you can swing using the built in handle.

Not sure why we can't do it for real but I suppose it would be like trying to draw a perfect circle without a compass.....and do it with your eyes closed at a very fast pace.

Thats why I think those contraptions and lasers are useful but don't expect miracles.

 

[vjsinger]

IMO. The study of Biomechanics is WAY behind and needs to catch up FAST!! Sorry, but if you're a golf instructor, you need to have a clue about this stuff. What swings the club? The body people, the body!!

Golf Student: My neck hurts in my golf swing..why?
Golf Teacher: ( Should have an idea of what they're talking about)....don't say, because you swing too far right... This won't help I'm guessing. Or, don't quote some FU#$5ng excerpt out of a book. This is the worst thread ever!

 

[ej20]

Well if it's physically possible... what's stopping us from doing it? Can you hit balls while on the explanar?

Here's YE Yang's secret to beating Tiger.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a5ILE-zeAP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a5ILE-zeAP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Kevin Shields]

His hands are way inside that thing around impact. Is that how you're supposed to use that thing?

 

[Brian Manzella]

First off, a little definition from a Biomechanist website:

The discipline of biomechanics integrates the laws of physics and the working concepts of engineering to describe the motion of various body segments and the forces acting on these segments.
​

I am telling you right now, that a well-versed "biomechanist" would be a no better than a 10 hanicapper in physics compared to a Zick, Wood, or Jorgenson.

And a super serious engineer, let's say like our own Erik K. (three degrees and a couple of NASA fellowships), would probably not be overly impressed at the engineering knowledge of a Biomechanist.

That's not to take ANYTHING away from a Biomechanist. I am far from a Phyiscs/Geometry/Engineering/Physical Therapy etc, expert.

But I am a golf swing expert.

So, let me go on record here as saying that here's how I think it OUGHT TO work:

The Physicist has an idea, the Biomechanist adapts it to a human structure, the Physical Therapist test the golfer to find out how much of it they can do, and the Golf Teacher figures out how to integrate that much into the pattern of the Golfer.
​

Otherwise, you get crazy things happening.

Like...

• Pete Egoscue, the well known and knowledgeable "Anatomical Functionalist," decided back in about 1990 to enter the world of golf swing theory and instruction.

His ideas were goofy, non-golflike, and died before they even got on the vine.

• The TPI folks, who would have you believe that the reason folks come "over the top" has nothing to do with the clubface, but maybe the hammys.

Get it?

So, when you say:

1. Biomechanists do not deal with "speed" or "strength" only. They deal with the efficiency of motion.

I say:
Did they check with me & Aaron Zick first?

In other words...

A theory by a NON-GOLF TEACHER/NON PHYSICIST would be a guess, unless they did some research.

And the reason that that many don't believe that, is the teachers they are dealing with on a regular basis, are method teachers who want validation, and not QUESTION ASKERS & THEORY PROPOSER/DEBUNKERS like me and my group.

Just saying...

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 perpendicularly to this main body. Period.

Sounds good.

But, was Zick, Wood, and the Manzella group in the room?

So to speak...you see.

would (Quiros) 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.

Sorry J.,

I HATE those BULLS#!+ terms so I'll re-write your statement in a way that lets me calm down my nerves...

would (Quiros) hit it longer if he was a with upright arms ? Very likely. Would he be a more consistent ballstriker as a upright arms ? Very unlikely.

Ah....

Now I have some cheesecake to chew on....

I cry BS.

No way you are going to tell me that Nicklaus and Miller would have been more accurate iron players with a flatter backswing.

You can say it, and so can a "Bio Mechanist," but...

You'd both be guessing.

And I'd say, they figured it out—for them.

And so, I'd guess—because it is just a guess—that you are wrong there.

...the arms should be perpendicular to this part of the spine the shoulder joints are - it means thoracic.

Now that's a good theory, but not one ANYONE talks about.

Trust me, J., at all the conferences I attend, when someone says 90° to the spine, they mean the whole thing as if it were as I drew it.

That's why I did it that way in the early frames, but three parted it in the latter one.

The rear forearm perpendicularity to the lumbar spine has its special merits as well....Not coincidentally, practically all best ballstrikers the history of golf knows were EEPers.

I here ya, J.

But, I'd say that TRYING to get folks to be on the Elbow Plane will RUIN many a golfer.

They won't teach you that in any University.

 

[Dariusz J.]

First off, a little definition from a Biomechanist website:

The discipline of biomechanics integrates the laws of physics and the working concepts of engineering to describe the motion of various body segments and the forces acting on these segments.
​

I am telling you right now, that a well-versed "biomechanist" would be a no better than a 10 hanicapper in physics compared to a Zick, Wood, or Jorgenson.

And a super serious engineer, let's say like our own Erik K. (three degrees and a couple of NASA fellowships), would probably not be overly impressed at the engineering knowledge of a Biomechanist.

That's not to take ANYTHING away from a Biomechanist. I am far from a Phyiscs/Geometry/Engineering/Physical Therapy etc, expert.

But I am a golf swing expert.

So, let me go on record here as saying that here's how I think it OUGHT TO work:

The Physicist has an idea, the Biomechanist adapts it to a human structure, the Physical Therapist test the golfer to find out how much of it they can do, and the Golf Teacher figures out how to integrate that much into the pattern of the Golfer.
​

Otherwise, you get crazy things happening.

I do not disagree at all, Brian. That's why I said that physicists, biomechanists and doctors should work under a golf swing expert's supervision.
I think that the wrong thing is, however, if a golf swing expert neglects the "bio" part of the puzzle and concentrates only on "physic" part - or viceversa.
Moreover, as said in this thread - Trackman offers not only the great knowledge how to zero out the ball flight - but also who and with what swing characteristics is more naturally prone to zero it. Perhaps it's wort to examine Furyk's swing more closely in the biomechanical aspect - to see his EEP, how greatly he subdues the arms to the main body motion, etc. Perhaps it's worth to run such researches on larger scale in a more professional way...if I could find a lot of common denominators of the best ballstrikers with my very limited resources and totally amateurish studies - imagine what can be found by a team of pro physicists, biomechanists and great instructors + proper measuring devices.

A theory by a NON-GOLF TEACHER/NON PHYSICIST would be a guess, unless they did some research.

And the reason that that many don't believe that, is the teachers they are dealing with on a regular basis, are method teachers who want validation, and not QUESTION ASKERS & THEORY PROPOSER/DEBUNKERS like me and my group.

Just saying...

I hear you. FYI, I am the first who would put my own researches into a negative light of a "guess" or "unproven amateurish theory". Nothing more.
But, I guess, without such guesses or amateurish threories (that are mind-provoking) the overall progress in the branch would be much slower even if some of them finally can appear false.

No way you are going to tell me that Nicklaus and Miller would have been more accurate iron players with a flatter backswing.

You can say it, and so can a "Bio Mechanist," but...

You'd both be guessing.

And I'd say, they figured it out—for them.

And so, I'd guess—because it is just a guess—that you are wrong there.

OK, understood you very well.

Now that's a good theory, but not one ANYONE talks about.

Trust me, J., at all the conferences I attend, when someone says 90° to the spine, they mean the whole thing as if it were as I drew it.

That's why I did it that way in the early frames, but three parted it in the latter one.

OK, all clear. Perhaps it's the time for a change in this aspect. More "bio" doesn't mean less "physic"

I here ya, J.

But, I'd say that TRYING to get folks to be on the Elbow Plane will RUIN many a golfer.

They won't teach you that in any University.

I asked the question WHY (is so difficult or harmful to get all players to the EP) several times and never got a convincing answer. Maybe it's the good time now and place here Brian ?

Cheers

P.S. Thanks for serious approach and sincere discussion. I appreciate this. Just FYI.

 

[ej20]

Most downswings shift to the elbow plane,could be early,could be late.Not many good players come straight down the turned shoulder plane but there are some like John Senden.

I have always thought coming straight down the turned shoulder plane is verging on OTT but perhaps not always.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Most downswings shift to the elbow plane,could be early,could be late.Not many good players come straight down the turned shoulder plane but there are some like John Senden.

I have always thought coming straight down the turned shoulder plane is verging on OTT but perhaps not always.

The OTT would depend on how much stall in the pivot, or early axis tilt, hip slide with no unwind, independent arm drop or carry. TSP with some carry surely look OTT, but maybe the camera angles are deceiving if they are trying to bend the baseline left to zero out.

 

[spktho]

Here's YE Yang's secret to beating Tiger.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a5ILE-zeAP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a5ILE-zeAP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

His swing looks nothing like that on the course.

 

[ej20]

His swing looks nothing like that on the course.

Not his entire swing but his transition is eerily familiar.Very onplane.

That's perhaps one of the best things of the Explanar.It can teach you what an onplane transition feels like.Most average players start down too steep.

 

[spktho]

You're right. I went back and looked at his swing a little more from different views. He does have that transition as he does in the Explanar. Solid. The swing I saw before must have been at a different angle because it appeared steeper.

How is the Explanar any different from the PVC circle trainers?

 

[dominicscaife]

Great Thread

Great discussion.

If there are any airport security guards out there with those big 3D x-ray machines - grab Furyk and Woods next time they are passing through and make a video...

More seriously... for everyone who wants to see a 3d model of a human spine and move it around you can do so here:

3D Spine Model

Click the "3d view" button and drag the thing around to see it for yourself.

 

[birdie_man]

I had a conversation with a Nationwide Tour official when I volunteered at the Chattanooga Classic. The official told me that first and foremost the Nationwide tour is a developmental tour, therefore they want to try and develop players not destroy them, that is the job of the majors.

Because of this "developmental" attitude, most Nationwide tour courses are set up fairly easy with little rough and to teach the players on that tour to "go low" and get used to making a lot of birdies.

Very interesting.

I wonder what some of the opposite approach would yield.

 

[ej20]

You're right. I went back and looked at his swing a little more from different views. He does have that transition as he does in the Explanar. Solid. The swing I saw before must have been at a different angle because it appeared steeper.

How is the Explanar any different from the PVC circle trainers?

None really except the Explanar has a plane fin at the top which ensures the club is kept onplane but you could probably easily incorporate that into the pvc trainers also.

It's also probably a lot more solid and durable.

 

[birdie_man]

I like this swing. Obviously it is nice.

I do not understand it as much as I wish I did though.

I don't understand these elbow planers. Esp. if they have lots of angle and delay in their release.

I cannot do it so far.

Will try everything I can though. For fun if not much else comes out of it.

(EDIT: Didn't think that one out too well. Obviously it would be a great learning experience if I could figure out how to Elbow Plane myself somewhat effectively.)

For now I just find these swings kind of neat.

 

[vjsinger]

Cool