The "Dariusz J." Swing Theories Thread

[rainbow_in_the_dark]

Dariusz,

Another question: I think I read that your theory is based on joint limitations, rather than muscles or ligaments.

I think the reality is muscles and ligaments play an important role in limiting a joint's range of motion. If true, how does this effect your thinking?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz - do you disagree with the idea that, when they were hitting all those balls, Hogan and Trevino were maybe grooving their timing. And that maybe it was the repetition that allowed them to internalise and repeat their timed sequence of movement so well.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but if someone had stumbled across or discovered mechanical automisation, wouldn't you expect to see them reduce their level of practice thereafter (and save their aching joints)? As you said, your own goal is to perform to a decent standard whilst only playing infrequently.

Quite probable scenario as well, Birly. However, as I understood Bob Toski well in the BH Collection DVD, Hogan simply loved to work on new things in quest for perfection. Having already mastered avoiding shots left, he was claimed to focus on achieving the same exact trajectory for all clubs independent on loft and club length. If it's true, he was in search for another piece of automatization in his swing - not sure why he would need it, but anyhow.
Do not forget about another thing - while it is true that my goal is to perform to a decent standard whilst only playing infrequently and not training at all, some golfers (as Hogan and Trevino) were/are pros and must go to entirely different level than playing around 80. Not all things can be automated, therefore, they cannot have that luxury as I can, I am afraid.

Cheers

D,
One thing doesn't add up for me here. If the left humerus is raised so that it is perpendicular to the spine and the right humerus is not raised at all - stays near the side of the body - then you would naturally get different elevation levels of the clavicles - left clavicle higher than the right clavicle - and therefore the "shoulder line" wouldn't be perpendicular to the spine, unless there was some reason why the golfer would "shrug" their right shoulder more than the level of the humerus would naturally create - to get it up to the level of the left shoulder. Of course, in this context we are talking about "level", "perpendicular" to the body and not the ground.

Also, since the spine isn't straight and is changing orientation throughout the swing- it might be good to specifiy a certain portion i.e. upper spine, or C1-C6, etc.- also maybe even at a certain location in space i.e. top of backswing - so that you can more precisely define that- to make your statement more bullet proof.

Look forward to any feedback you might have - I might have missed something in the way you described it.

Mike, first, why don't you think that the lead humerus cannot be perpendicular to the spine (thoracic part of course, sorry I did not add it before; why thoracic - because it is a corespondent part of the spine to the shoulder blades) while the rear one cannot be parallel to it in the 3-D ? If you watch Hogan on top you can clearily see that both humerus bones are at perpendicular planes to each other without touching each other. Each player without a flying elbow is around that position. It's like your rear part of the boby goes at 45* angle up and back and some body parts are perpendicular, some parallel in 3-D. Too bad I don't know how to put pics from my PC here

Secondly, a very good remark about the spine. I always underline that the spine is not like "|" but like "S". However, the given parts of the spine must be treaten as "|" e.g. when talking about perpendicularity relationship between body parts. I know that it's sort of generalization which I do not especially like, but I have no other choice.

Cheers

Dariusz,

Another question: I think I read that your theory is based on joint limitations, rather than muscles or ligaments.

I think the reality is muscles and ligaments play an important role in limiting a joint's range of motion. If true, how does this effect your thinking?

I cannot go deeper than hard structure because I am too dumb for this goal. While it is true that muscles and ligaments play very important role in joints' range of motion I made an assumption that hard structure limits the soft structure and that the torques and overtorques are created in joints thanks to the soft structure. Other words - our hard structure cannot be treated like a gum, but it cannot be treated like a titanium either.

Cheers

 

[ej20]

I truly believe that there is a good golf swing that is repetitive in all of us but I don't buy into the idea that it must be biomechanically sound as defined by one person to be "automated".There is no consistent data or imperical evidence that "biomechanically" sound is a one plane backswing position followed by a move to the elbow plane.

Most of the great players and indeed most pros have a two planeish top of backswing position.I would say there are more good players with a steep lead arm plane than there are good players with a flat lead arm plane.

As far as shifting back to the elbow plane,almost all good players do make some shift back towards the elbow plane but not all make a big shift and a lot come down somewhere between the turned shoulder plane and elbow plane which is perfectly acceptable and indeed one can argue that this is biomechanically sounder as the elbow plane is boredering on being underplane.

Also there is the issue of where in the downswing this shift happens and does the club continue to shallow or steepen once the elbow plane is reached which is another thread of it's own.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I truly believe that there is a good golf swing that is repetitive in all of us but I don't buy into the idea that it must be biomechanically sound as defined by one person to be "automated".There is no consistent data or imperical evidence that "biomechanically" sound is a one plane backswing position followed by a move to the elbow plane.

Most of the great players and indeed most pros have a two planeish top of backswing position.I would say there are more good players with a steep lead arm plane than there are good players with a flat lead arm plane.

As far as shifting back to the elbow plane,almost all good players do make some shift back towards the elbow plane but not all make a big shift and a lot come down somewhere between the turned shoulder plane and elbow plane which is perfectly acceptable and indeed one can argue that this is biomechanically sounder as the elbow plane is boredering on being underplane.

Also there is the issue of where in the downswing this shift happens and does the club continue to shallow or steepen once the elbow plane is reached which is another thread of it's own.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree completely. While it is true that I cannot present a scientific evidence of some biomechanical tests (although I'd love to be able to run such) - there is no better evidence, IMHO, than analyzing common denominators of the best ballstrikers swings. I do not care about best players, I care about best full swing ballstrikers.
We can easily note that the swings of the golfers who are claimed to be the best ballstrikers on this planet by experts, i.e. their fellow pros and top instructors and coaches, have some common points in their motions. The very vast majority of them were one planers (with their lead arm NOT letting be above their shoulder line at the top) with perpendicular relation to the spine; all of them were double shifters to the EP in the downswing; not coincidentally, all achieved this EP relatively early (EEP)...not mentioning here some other points - maybe later.
Hogan, Knudson, Moe, Trevino, Snead, Furyk, Boros, Thomson, Middlecoff, Nelson, Jones, Lema just to mention the most important names if someone are guessing whom I am talking about.

Cheers

 

[ej20]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree completely. While it is true that I cannot present a scientific evidence of some biomechanical tests (although I'd love to be able to run such) - there is no better evidence, IMHO, than analyzing common denominators of the best ballstrikers swings. I do not care about best players, I care about best full swing ballstrikers.
We can easily note that the swings of the golfers who are claimed to be the best ballstrikers on this planet by experts, i.e. their fellow pros and top instructors and coaches, have some common points in their motions. The very vast majority of them were one planers (with their lead arm NOT letting be above their shoulder line at the top) with perpendicular relation to the spine; all of them were double shifters to the EP in the downswing; not coincidentally, all achieved this EP relatively early (EEP)...not mentioning here some other points - maybe later.
Hogan, Knudson, Moe, Trevino, Snead, Furyk, Boros, Thomson, Middlecoff, Nelson, Jones, Lema just to mention the most important names if someone are guessing whom I am talking about.

Cheers

I respect your opinions as well and I admire your boldness and assuredness of your convictions but I still believe you are barking up the wrong tree.I am sure Homer Kelly believed he got it all correct but we now know most of the science in his book is flawed.It's always a good bet to be on the safe side of modest otherwise you risk egg on your face sometime down the line in history.All we are offering is our OPINIONS,nothing more,nothing less unless you have irrefutable evidence or data.

That said,you say that the lead arm should be perpendicular to the spine at the top of the backswing to be biomechanically sound.I would argue that your model Hogan and Moe had their lead arm below perpendicular in many of his old videos.Wouldn't that be as unbiomechanically sound as a steep lead arm?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FqI6IzDdpZM&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/FqI6IzDdpZM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Dariusz J.]

EJ, thanks to people like Mr.Kelley the progrss is being constantly made; he made mistakes (who doesn't), but he set new quality for golf instruction if one likes it or not. Progress is being made by people that are not afraid of formulating new and unpopular ideas because of losing face in the golf community or in the net.

As per the perpendicularity of the lead arm Hogan and Moe could indeed be below biomechanical optimum sometimes. However, they did not risk conjunction of the movement of the arms and main body which were certainly of more importance for them that risking it as in case of upright arms swings. Hogan may be closest to my biokinetical optimum but even he cannot match it totally.

Cheers

 

[greenfree]

The lead arm should be perpendicular to the spine at the top of the backswing to be biomechanically sound.

Why does it matter if it is in the backswing? Can it be in this position at a different point in the downswing and thus be "biomechanically sound" also?

 

[vjsinger]

Can you describe in a little more detail what you mean by pulling the club with the right arm/right side in the backswing? What are the advantages of this pulling motion in the stability of the spine in the backswing? Where does the pulling motion originate?(scapula?) I've heard that before? Great thread!

 

[Mike O]

Mike, first, why don't you think that the lead humerus cannot be perpendicular to the spine (thoracic part of course, sorry I did not add it before; why thoracic - because it is a corespondent part of the spine to the shoulder blades) while the rear one cannot be parallel to it in the 3-D ? If you watch Hogan on top you can clearily see that both humerus bones are at perpendicular planes to each other without touching each other. Each player without a flying elbow is around that position. It's like your rear part of the boby goes at 45* angle up and back and some body parts are perpendicular, some parallel in 3-D. Too bad I don't know how to put pics from my PC here

Secondly, a very good remark about the spine. I always underline that the spine is not like "|" but like "S". However, the given parts of the spine must be treaten as "|" e.g. when talking about perpendicularity relationship between body parts. I know that it's sort of generalization which I do not especially like, but I have no other choice.

Cheers

I know that the lead humerus "can" be perpendicular to the "spine" - no disagreement there.

My point was that the higher you raise the arm - the more the clavicle on that side of the body will tend to elevate i.e. shoulder shrug. So, if you have the left humerus perpendicular to the spine and the right humeris parallell to the spine - you will see different elevations of the right and left shoulders in relation to the body - clavicle elevation- so that the "shoulder line" - a line drawn from the left to the right shoulder joiont - will not be perpendicular to the spine.

 

[rainbow_in_the_dark]

I have to say Dariuzs ... and I mean no disrespect whatsoever ... that your theory is hyper focused on setup but doesn't, by necessity, dismiss the need for some timing and conscious thought during the swing. I think Brian said it best when he posted the quote I'm using in my current signature. However of course there are setup arrangements that make it easier or more diffcult to execute a well timed swing. Just like someone wouldn't go to the extreme that setup is no consequence, I am having a hard time biting on timing is of no consequence either.

 

[Dariusz J.]

The lead arm should be perpendicular to the spine at the top of the backswing to be biomechanically sound.
Why does it matter if it is in the backswing? Can it be in this position at a different point in the downswing and thus be "biomechanically sound" also?

The backswing should also matter since it is a part of the whole sequence of events. The closer to the ideal the backswing is the less are chances for unnecessary big plane shifts (vide: Furyk), stored energy losses and compensations introduced. Therefore, the earlier the perpendicularity of the distal parts to the main body core is being performed the better from the biokinetical point of view - including the backswing phase. It is very logical, BTW.

Cheers

Can you describe in a little more detail what you mean by pulling the club with the right arm/right side in the backswing? What are the advantages of this pulling motion in the stability of the spine in the backswing? Where does the pulling motion originate?(scapula?) I've heard that before? Great thread!

I mean pulling up and back with the whole rear side (between hip and shoulder joint both included) at 45* angle up and back. The scapula motion inwards happens unintentionally and it is not necessary to concentrate on such details during the motion.
The best sequence of events, IMO, is when utilizing the inertia of the trigger compression, i.e. to press against a firm lead side to rock on the swing and follow the inertia by the rear side pulling. Then the rear hip cannot turn too flat (it should turn up and back).
If the hips turn too flat and the spine motion is neutral, the shoulders will tend to turn too flat, too. This often is caused by incorrect lead
side pushing that is a mechanical swing killer that not only shortens the backswing but also robs energy from the swing. The motion should correspond with the part of the body in the sagittal plane. Moreover, the accuracy of the movement - if one needs to move a heavy object at an inclined plane he/she will see that it's much easier to follow the intended track by pulling the object not by pushing it from behind.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

I know that the lead humerus "can" be perpendicular to the "spine" - no disagreement there.

My point was that the higher you raise the arm - the more the clavicle on that side of the body will tend to elevate i.e. shoulder shrug. So, if you have the left humerus perpendicular to the spine and the right humeris parallell to the spine - you will see different elevations of the right and left shoulders in relation to the body - clavicle elevation- so that the "shoulder line" - a line drawn from the left to the right shoulder joiont - will not be perpendicular to the spine.

Depends what side is leading the motion. That's why it's so crucial to use the correct side in the sagittal plane. In the backswing the entire lead side should be passive - the cavicles should be more or less in their neutral position in relation to the spine and shoulder blades. If I am wrong here, please lead me to the materials when I can read more about these phenomena. Thanks in advance and it is nice to hear someone with a good medical know-how.
BTW, too bad Jeff Mann is not here anymore.

Cheers

Cheers

 

[Kevin Shields]

Do you consider Watson and Nicklaus to be among the best ball strikers? Several pros admitted to watching Watson on the range because his ball was making a different sound at the Open this year.

 

[Mike O]

Depends what side is leading the motion. That's why it's so crucial to use the correct side in the sagittal plane. In the backswing the entire lead side should be passive - the cavicles should be more or less in their neutral position in relation to the spine and shoulder blades. If I am wrong here, please lead me to the materials when I can read more about these phenomena. Thanks in advance and it is nice to hear someone with a good medical know-how.
BTW, too bad Jeff Mann is not here anymore.

Cheers

Cheers

D,
Certain joint motions create other motions. If you are sitting in your chair at your computer and sit up straight- bring your left arm up and across your chest so that it is level to the ground and your left hand is level with your right shoulder - if you look over at your left shoulder you will notice how much it has elevated. If your right arm is still hanging by your side - then the right shoulder hasn't elevated at all- therefore the line from the left shoulder to the right shoulder is not going to be perpendicular to the spine.

Although it would apply to the golf swing- to keep the anatomy simple-take a look at it in a simple example like that. If for some reason you were to think that a motion in the golf swing over-rides that - you could describe it.

 

[savydan]

Hey D, do you have a consolidated version of your theory? Like a 1 or 2 pager?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Do you consider Watson and Nicklaus to be among the best ball strikers? Several pros admitted to watching Watson on the range because his ball was making a different sound at the Open this year.

Who am I to decide who's better ballstriker myself, Kevin. I just based my choice of the best ballstrikers on numerous opinions found in the net. Neither Nicklaus nor Watson are frequently mentioned names in such publications.
Surely not in the league of Hogan, Moe, Knudson and Trevino.

Cheers

D,
Certain joint motions create other motions. If you are sitting in your chair at your computer and sit up straight- bring your left arm up and across your chest so that it is level to the ground and your left hand is level with your right shoulder - if you look over at your left shoulder you will notice how much it has elevated. If your right arm is still hanging by your side - then the right shoulder hasn't elevated at all- therefore the line from the left shoulder to the right shoulder is not going to be perpendicular to the spine.

Although it would apply to the golf swing- to keep the anatomy simple-take a look at it in a simple example like that. If for some reason you were to think that a motion in the golf swing over-rides that - you could describe it.

OK, Mike, now I think I got what you want to say. However, IMO, when lead arm is raised the shoulder is adducted, not elevated per se. You still can elevate your shoulder girdle when being at top of the backswing and with the lead shoulder adducted. I agree that adduction sets the joint higher per se, but also the rear shoulder joint that is in abduction + outward medial rotation phase tends to sit higher, especially if the rear side pulls it up and back at 45* angle.

Please look e.g. here for anatomical references: Range of Movement (ROM)

It's an interesting phenomenon you brought up for sure and my answer may be not good enough, but I will try to ask about it to one of my friend doctors that helped me with the theory a.s.a.p. I am primarily interested in confirmation of the thesis that the clavicles may go out of natural relation to the spine as you suggested.

Cheers

Hey D, do you have a consolidated version of your theory? Like a 1 or 2 pager?

Well, the best I can offer is to read all "intro" posts on all subfora here:

http://www.biokineticgolfswing.forom.pl/index.php

It would make a sort of resume of the whole theory.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Quite probable scenario as well, Birly. However, as I understood Bob Toski well in the BH Collection DVD, Hogan simply loved to work on new things in quest for perfection. Having already mastered avoiding shots left, he was claimed to focus on achieving the same exact trajectory for all clubs independent on loft and club length. If it's true, he was in search for another piece of automatization in his swing - not sure why he would need it, but anyhow.

Fair enough - I guess we can't know why Hogan practiced as much as he did, only that he did - and that he must have loved it to be able to stand it. However, I understand that Paul Runyan was of the opinion that Hogan had to "hit 3 practice balls for every one that Nicklaus hit".

Whichever, I happen to believe that even the best ballstrikers - and maybe even particularly the best ballstrikers - must spend a large chunk of their practice time finding and reinforcing their movement sequences - or rhythm and timing.

My sincere suggestion though, when it comes to validating your theories, would be not to rely on the list of great ballstrikers that you gave. With the exception of Furyk (and possibly Trevino) that list is too historical (a) for us to understand exactly what they did; or (b) how well, in statistical terms, they did it.

What I would like to see (though of course it's entirely up to you) is for you to state your case around modern players for whom we have decent stats. Whether you use GIR stats, or shotlink data, would be up to you - but (even if you truly believe that those on your list rank better than more recent players) surely your thesis should still stand up as an analysis of the best and most consistent ballstrikers currently playing, and whether or not they fit your model of an automated swing.

I know I for one would really sit up and take notice if you were able to do this.

 

[Kevin Shields]

For instance, statistically Joe Durant is one of the best and he is not an EEP'er.

 

[ej20]

EJ, thanks to people like Mr.Kelley the progrss is being constantly made; he made mistakes (who doesn't), but he set new quality for golf instruction if one likes it or not. Progress is being made by people that are not afraid of formulating new and unpopular ideas because of losing face in the golf community or in the net.

As per the perpendicularity of the lead arm Hogan and Moe could indeed be below biomechanical optimum sometimes. However, they did not risk conjunction of the movement of the arms and main body which were certainly of more importance for them that risking it as in case of upright arms swings. Hogan may be closest to my biokinetical optimum but even he cannot match it totally.m,don
Cheers

Homer's book has been around for decades and yet is still relatively unknown.If it was that revolutional,don't you think it would be more mainstream by now?If there was really a cure for cancer like many alternative treatments claim,you would have thought it would have made headlines around the world and be the treatment of choice in all hospitals.

You make a very bold claim that Kelly set a new standard for golf instruction.There is NO evidence that TGM instructors(in general) have a better teaching record than others.Please don't try to respond to a post with another claim that is debatable.It's like posting a pic or video from a poor angle to support your argument.

Regarding the perpendicularity of the lead arm,you should have made it clear that you prefer to see the lead arm below rather than above the ideal.I have no idea what you mean by conjunction of the lead arm and main body.I can offer an OPINION also that too flat a lead arm can induce an OTT action in many players.

 

[ej20]

For instance, statistically Joe Durant is one of the best and he is not an EEP'er.

John Senden is another example.Year in year out always amongst the best in total driving and GIRs.Steepish player.

Some play better steepish because not everyone is comfortable with a lot of lead forearm rotation which a flatter swing requires.This is one area where DJ has overlooked.A flatter swing might be better in some ways but requires a lot more rotational lead forearm skill.It's not for everyone.