Shoulders and sequencing

[lia41985]

A few question about "sequencing the shoulders":

First: would it be correct to say, in admittedly crude terms, that in the initial takeaway stages, the shoulders are primarily rotating; to the top primarily tilting; in transition primarily tilting, and to and through impact primarily rotating? Too much tilting in the takeaway means not enough depth of the hands. Too much turn in the transition means too much tug, hence lateral bend or increased focus on a vertical drop of the arms helps at this stage. Thoughts?

Another question: how is lateral bend best taught? I think art's discussion about stability and dynamic balance is particularly important here. As Rob Neal said, "transition is everything." There are lots of forces being generated at this stage and the loss of stability and balance is a big threat. I think art's thought about keeping the right hip back can help direct the swing's path correctly while creating lateral bend. It'll help in keeping the path from straying too far inside-out.

Last question: swinging the arms below the shoulders has been a very helpful thought to me. Keeping my inclination to the ground aids in this although I've read that in "going normal" we should try to lose all our forward bend. In doing that, isn't there a danger that the hand path will move too far inside-out? The danger in doing it the way I'm describing is to be overly passive in the lower body and hitting pulls and hooks but I pair the idea with the image of letting a pack of dogs through my legs and catching the last one by the tail. In doing that the ball flies well and it looks great.

 

[Erik_K]

Wow those are some great questions. I'd love to hear some answers and/or discussion.

 

[SteveT]

lia.... You are guilty of generalizing and then attempting to relate it to your own swing.... and we don't have enough anatomical evidence to arrive at a judgment.

When you talk about "rotation", "tilting", "lateral bend", "transition", "inclination", "forward bend", "vertical drop", "tug", etc., these terms mean different things to golfers with different body types.

To give these terms meaning, you must first define the body type, and then determine how these movements and postures apply.

A short stocky golfer has different anatomical features from a tall, lanky golfer. Their body segment sizes and ratios are quite different, and that will govern how they "rotate", "tilt", "bend", etc.

The length of the spinal column in comparison to the girth of the body will create different results. The length of legs, arms, shoulder span will also affect the swing characteristics.

It's nice talking about all those swing features, but it would be questionable to apply it to a wide array of golfers in a generalized manner.

Now, the application of forces and torques can be applied to a golf model and certain valuable conclusions can be made.... as revealed by mandrin, Nesbit, Mackenzie, Zick, Arturo, others.

Perhaps you should just provide videos and pics with lines drawn all over the golfer at various stages of the swing to define what you are saying for general discussion.. and even injecting "feeel" into it just to be sociable. Just saying......

 

[lia41985]

Steve, you're a beauty. Have a nice day

 

[SteveT]

Steve, you're a beauty. Have a nice day

"Golf is what the ball does." -John Jacobs

It depends...

"Golf is also what the body does." - Arturo

No ifs, ands or buts...

 

[lia41985]

When you talk about "rotation", "tilting", "lateral bend", "transition", "inclination", "forward bend", "vertical drop", "tug", etc., these terms mean different things to golfers with different body types.

"Steve",
These terms are used here frequently, not just by me but by others, like the instruction staff. They know what I'm talking about and they actually teach for a living. It's there opinions I care about. If I cared to ask you I'd PM you so that you could give me a cornucopia of bullshit in the guise of your intelligence. I didn't, of course. You and the two Jeffs are prime examples of P.O.S., add nothings that should be banned everywhere but we tolerate you because you humor us like clowns. It's not you who suffers fools lightly. Rather, you're an insufferable fool who for all his self-professed knowledge can't even perceive what's really going on in your surroundings. It's not quite autistic, it's cathartic--a lifetime of inadequacy redeemed on a golf forum. Good for you!

 

[Kevin Shields]

I don't know if it adds to your post, but my swing has never felt better. As my grasp of certain concepts heighten, I've noticed certain other unintended changes, like my alignment and grip. The most satisfying change, however, is the almost total elimination of quick, lagging tug from the transition. So I would agree with Neal.

 

[lia41985]

Kevin,
I can't help but smile re: your focus on setup elements. Making sure the "hub" is aligned properly (posture, stance alignment, grip--particularly getting the right amount of ulnar deviation, etc.) has been a huge breakthrough. Silly, I know that we have been told that this is so basic. It definitely automates the swing more, per mandrin's recent post. The idea being "set it right and let it go!" Also, I used to be a big time tug and thrower thinking, mistakenly, that this represented a correct execution of carry and tumble--boy was I wrong! No width and terrible sequencing adding up to awful ball striking. Rather than thinking in terms of an indefinite idea of being dynamic, I think of setting up right and swinging in balance with good tempo. Still indefinite but also more in line with what the best golfers have told us for perpetuity.

 

[SteveT]

"Steve",
These terms are used here frequently, not just by me but by others, like the instruction staff. .......

I'm just trying to inject some objective scientific rationality to the discussion here.

If you are seeking personalized swing advice, then say so and the instruction staff will take a flyer in an attempt to give you the freebie you seek.... notwithstanding your admission that "they actually teach for a living".

Also if you want a non-scientific analysis of your needs just say "No Science Please".... and there is no need to go off the deep end with random insults.... that only demeans you and reveals your unhappy state of mind now that you are not able to plaster the forum with dubious vids and pics.

Perhaps you should apologize to the forum for your uncalled-for potty-mouthed language.

Kevin has responded in a manner that is professional and responsible. He can talk about his swing, but not your's and your vague generalized questions.

 

[SteveT]

Kevin,
I can't help but smile re: your focus on setup elements. Making sure the "hub" is aligned properly (posture, stance alignment, grip--particularly getting the right amount of ulnar deviation, etc.) has been a huge breakthrough. Silly, I know that we have been told that this is so basic. It definitely automates the swing more, per mandrin's recent post. The idea being "set it right and let it go!" Also, I used to be a big time tug and thrower thinking, mistakenly, that this represented a correct execution of carry and tumble--boy was I wrong! No width and terrible sequencing adding up to awful ball striking. Rather than thinking in terms of an indefinite idea of being dynamic, I think of setting up right and swinging in balance with good tempo. Still indefinite but also more in line with what the best golfers have told us for perpetuity.

Talk about "cathartic".... LOL

 

[SteveT]

I don't know if it adds to your post, but my swing has never felt better. As my grasp of certain concepts heighten, I've noticed certain other unintended changes, like my alignment and grip. The most satisfying change, however, is the almost total elimination of quick, lagging tug from the transition. So I would agree with Neal.

Now that's an interesting commentary about "feeel" that should be further examined.

Does your swing feel smoother.. more powerful.. more secure.. more confident.... more automatic?

All these "feeels" are legitimate feedback sensations... both physical and mental.

In particular, your feel that "the almost total elimination of quick, lagging tug from the transition" relates directly to proper kinematic sequencing to optimize your kinetic energy generation. IOW, you eliminated "burning the rubber" coming out of transition into a gradual buildup of power where and when it counts.

Interestingly, this was known in 1966 in Dr. David Williams paper on The Dynamics of the Golf Swing ... and all he used for his analysis is the famous strobe image of Bobby Jones' swing. When I read his paper, after giving up on all the ancient golfswing books and beloved pro's "golf my way", as well as all the teaching scam artists; I was blown away by the scientific revelations that suddenly made sense of the golfswing. Of course it's one think "knowing" and then "doing" when your body is not set up for a golfswing... but eventually it all came together.