Revisiting Swinging Left.

[Brian Manzella]

Should you "swing left"?

Whats wrong with "swinging straight"?

What's the difference between "swinging left" and "aiming left."

Even though it has been covered in here in great length and detail, it is still somehow misunderstood by some.

Let's start here:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uepMzddHpas?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


In this video, I start with a "swinging straight" shot.

Only one little problem—the face was square!

And since the bottom of the swing—the only part that is truly planar—is a curve on that planar surface, (represented in the video by the curve drawing on the cardboard on the blue plane board) hitting the ball on the way down will ALWAYS PRODUCE a swing path that is to the right of the bottom of that board.

Where ever that blue plane board is "aimed" that is your DIRECTION OF SWING.

So, if you swing straight, you will also swing inside-out, and the more down you swing, the more right it will be, because you will hit the ball further back on the curve on the plane, and you had better KNOW that the ONLY SHOT YOU CAN HIT ANYWHERE NEAR THE SWEETSPOT THAT WILL GO AT THE TARGET IS A DRAW, which requires an OPEN to the target clubface to go toward the pin.

What's wrong with draw that goes at the target?

Well, not much...

But....

More on that in a little while.

Knowing all of that, HOW DO YOU HIT A STRAIGHT SHOT?

Well.... you have to swing left.

You do not have to aim left.

Most folks aim in a different place than they swing, some did it famously. Sam Snead swung left of his aim, and Lee Trevino swung right of his aim.

So..... how far left?

Well, if you control your downward angle of attack to PGA Tour levels, it turns out you need to SWING LEFT (not aim left) 2.4°.

How far left is that?

About 4.5 yards per 100 yards.

If you hit down on the ball even more than that, you need to swing (not necessarily aim) further left.

Here is a visualization of aligning your plane to the left and ZEROing out your path:

And a video of a really good player doing it:

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/34609086?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="700" height="560" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

That's what swinging left is.

 

[Matt 4-L]

If I was going to swing parallel to my feet I would have to AIM more left for the straight shot or I could "come across it" if I was aiming at the target, is that correct. I think the confusion comes in when we have terms not fully defined or use somewhat interchangeable terms. It's either a push that you have to aim more left for it to go to the target or come across it, but I don't like the term push because it's intentional and push sounds like a "mistake" or coming across it sounds like a "mistake" even if it's intentional. Just Swing Left. Sounds like a Nike commercial.

 

[wulsy]

I'm interested in the relationship between the VSP and the resultant path (see http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/16601-its-math-anyway-brian-manzella-video-17.html ).

Would it be fair to say that the more vertical your VSP the easier it is to swing left without aiming left? And conversely the "flatter" your VSP the more you have to aim left to swing left enough to get a zero resultant path?

 

[tongzilla]

all great...BUT...

how many times have a student come to you FEELING that they are swinging right (maybe to cure their slice) but their resultant clubhead path is actually left?

 

[gmbtempe]

all great...BUT...

how many times have a student come to you FEELING that they are swinging right (maybe to cure their slice) but their resultant clubhead path is actually left?

I would imagine quite often, but thats the beauty of a slow mo camera and trackman, proof is right there in front of you.

Feel isn't real and the two devices would show that.

I remember thinking I was a over the top slicer for years because thats what my better player friends said, and I was very new to message boards. Kevin Shields made the comment "you don't get a swing more inside out and plane line right than yours".....well as he showed my why on camera I knew I had to get the baseline left. I would imagine a Trackman would have only hammered out the point. Its a very difficult concept to accept on its face due to the previous beliefs on path and ball flight.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Swinging left should have no friggin references to the feet line ! Swing plane orientation is being created by shoulder girdle orientation for obvious reasons. Look at Kevin's feet that are a bit closed (as the majority of great ballstrikers were) and compare how his hips are open. I bet his shoulders at impact are in between as they should be, i.e. slightly open, although watching his release that's a bit too crossover for my taste they might be more squarish.


Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

how many times have a student come to you FEELING that they are swinging right (maybe to cure their slice) but their resultant clubhead path is actually left?

That's probably happening when a student has been ordered swinging more to the right and doing it without altering his fundamentals is against his subconscious mind. Feels lie.

Cheers

 

[Matt 4-L]

Swinging left should have no friggin references to the feet line ! Swing plane orientation is being created by shoulder girdle orientation for obvious reasons. Look at Kevin's feet that are a bit closed (as the majority of great ballstrikers were) and compare how his hips are open. I bet his shoulders at impact are in between as they should be, i.e. slightly open, although watching his release that's a bit too crossover for my taste they might be more squarish.


Cheers

I don't see a problem with using the feet as a reference point, it's just a reference point nobody says they have to influence the swing plane.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I don't see a problem with using the feet as a reference point, it's just a reference point nobody says they have to influence the swing plane.

Well, I can see them for various reasons. First, parallel feet stance is biokinetically not effective. Second, concentrating on having parallel feet does not guarantee that shoulder girdle is parallel and often may darken the picture (from autopsy and my old stupid ignorant times).

Cheers

 

[Matt 4-L]

Well, I can see them for various reasons. First, parallel feet stance is biokinetically not effective. Second, concentrating on having parallel feet does not guarantee that shoulder girdle is parallel and often may darken the picture (from autopsy and my old stupid ignorant times).

Cheers

I use the feet (footline) for my reference point because that is the only thing that doesn't move throughout the swing.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I use the feet (footline) for my reference point because that is the only thing that doesn't move throughout the swing.

Yes, I can understand you very well, believe me. I used to think the same.
But if you think a bit deeper you will see it brings no guarantee that the rest of the body will be parallel as well. If you think a further bit deeper you will find that the shoulder girdle position depends much more to e.g. eye dominance or weight setup than to feet (or even pelvis) positioning. And all this without going deeper into kinetics - just pure static anatomy.

Cheers

 

[cwdlaw223]

Well, I can see them for various reasons. First, parallel feet stance is biokinetically not effective. Second, concentrating on having parallel feet does not guarantee that shoulder girdle is parallel and often may darken the picture (from autopsy and my old stupid ignorant times).

Cheers

Dariusz -

Why are parallel feet not biokinetically effective (all the time)? I believe you from my life experience. When I try to squat I've always found that I need a closed stance to take the load from the bar properly. Parallel feet crushed me when I used to workout. Never understood why until I read your post. I think you're onto something.

 

[Matt 4-L]

Even Hogan used his feet as a reference point. I hit lots of shots with open and closed feet and actually very few with parallel feet to the target but I still reference them as open, closed, parallel.

I think this is why people get confused, different definitions and different reference points, swinging left for me means swinging left of my target line or coming over the top in pop terms or simply aiming more left of target and swinging on plane.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz -

Why are parallel feet not biokinetically effective (all the time)? I believe you from my life experience. When I try to squat I've always found that I need a closed stance to take the load from the bar properly. Parallel feet crushed me when I used to workout. Never understood why until I read your post. I think you're onto something.

Short answer - because a biped faces North and the target is West (for RH golfers).

Deeper answer - google "diagonal stance" or PM me.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Even Hogan used his feet as a reference point. I hit lots of shots with open and closed feet and actually very few with parallel feet to the target but I still reference them as open, closed, parallel.

I think this is why people get confused, different definitions and different reference points, swinging left for me means swinging left of my target line or coming over the top in pop terms or simply aiming more left of target and swinging on plane.

Hogan thought his feet line is changing. The truth is his feet was almost always closed - even with 3/4 pitch shorts (I do not mention chip shots for obvious reasons) what was obseved very carefully by his closest swing buddies. Refer please to Dickinson, Venturi and Burke.

Cheers

 

[mgranato]

What are the thoughts about open stances (for RHers)? Are there instances where open is more beneficial than closed?

The stance (the whole thing) and the way people take it (or percieve that they take it) and where they percieve it's "pointing" is always interesting to observe. Of all the high-end players I play with, I can't recall any of them having the same stance going in the same direction. But I would bet they all think they are pretty much "square setteruppers".

 

[Erik_K]

Swinging left should have no friggin references to the feet line ! Swing plane orientation is being created by shoulder girdle orientation for obvious reasons. Look at Kevin's feet that are a bit closed (as the majority of great ballstrikers were) and compare how his hips are open. I bet his shoulders at impact are in between as they should be, i.e. slightly open, although watching his release that's a bit too crossover for my taste they might be more squarish.


Cheers

A very interesting observation. Just because one sets up closed, does not mean you can't have an out-to-in swing path. Clearly shoulder alignment, weight at the setup, ball position, etc all influence the path.

Erik

 

[Dariusz J.]

What are the thoughts about open stances (for RHers)? Are there instances where open is more beneficial than closed?

According to my studies - no, if we talk about kinetics because it is much harder to maintain the balance in coronal plane as well (feet and hips are both open, there is no counterbalance there) as it reduces the very subconscious-friendly OTT element. It may be beneficial for those whose downswing plane is below backswing plane but, at best, it makes them a very consistent but not very universal ballstriker (vide Trevino).

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

A very interesting observation. Just because one sets up closed, does not mean you can't have an out-to-in swing path. Clearly shoulder alignment, weight at the setup, ball position, etc all influence the path.

Erik

What can I say more. It is so obvious.

Cheers

 

[Matt 4-L]

... But I would bet they all think they are pretty much "square setteruppers".

+1