The "Dariusz J." Swing Theories Thread

[ej20]

Well, I never said that one cannot ar should not use a method based on different principles. I never said that there is no zillion ways to perform a given action - I said that there is no zillion EQUALLY GOOD ways to perform an action.
Especially when we are talking about PGA pros who are gifted above average.
Let's better concentrate on how to make a hacker's life easier

Cheers

I respect your opinions but like I am,you are only offering opinions so far and no hard evidence to back it up.Saying Hogan was the best ball striker ever and therefore should be the model for a biomechanically optimal swing is flawed logic.Another flawed logic is that what you consider biomechanically optimum is more easily automated.Well if Hogan and Moe truly automated their swing,why did they spend so much time practicing their long game even after they so called "owned" their swing?

Your opinions may turn out to be correct but they are theories only.Homer tried to apply physics and geometry to the golf swing and came up short.You are trying to apply biomechanics which is equally as difficult.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Clubs "from the rack" in last 10-20 years, with more upright lies, longer shafts (so even more upright) produced more upright swings, U just cannot swing to the EEP with modern eqipment bought from golf stores.
Dariusz said about clubs erlier, but everybody just missed it. Please just think what it does to the players (especialy new).
Anyway, I"m cheering for Dariusz, first cause he is my countryman, but also cause I mostly agree with his ideas.
I have great respect for Brian, his Academy, and his work, but I wish he will try and research Dariusz's ideas.

regards miki

Thank you very much, Miki.

Cheers, mate, we need to play sometimes in Postolowo or Sierra together

I don't think that the test of your theories should depend on a comparison of current players with players of another era - but it should stand up to scrutiny against the current crop all playing under the same conditions and with an unprecedented volume of statistical data available to measure their actual performance.

As for who the current best ballstrikers are - why don't you just go with last year's leaders in either the greens in reg stat, or proximity to the hole from 200 yds?

Because it's not so easy to define the best ballstrikers, IMO. Not only GIR or proximity to the hole matters. FIR is equally or even more important (because it's the driver, more difficult club to control) but with today's pampered courses (no rough) and rip'n'whack mentality we are able to measure rather who's the better rescuer, not ballstriker.
Anyhow, I can try in a free moment - could you give me a link to the site where the last 10 years' stats are gathered ?
Lastly, I'd love to know some info whose Trackman results, except Jim Furyk's ones, proved to be the best - if someone have such data.

Cheers

Horrible quote.

You give a guy a thread, and he rips the last 28 years of your life.

All I have to say is this: you need to save all of your nickels and come watch me teach.

Damn.

C'mon, Brian - I haven't ripped anyone. And I would love to see you teach.
Have I said great instructors should be changed by biomechanists ? No way in hell. The problem is that an average not very gifted beginner, without a solid biomechanical background, must come to the instructor zilion times frequently and spent another zillion times at the range in order to play below 80. I only claim that a good biokinetic background aimed at automating the motion will help to reach the same goal much faster and much easier. I used the word "band-aid" in the context that even the best quality instruction won't last forever if the student does not working on recommended solutions. Solid biokinetic foundation can last forever, because our hard structure does not change in the macroscale our entire life.
What next depends on the very golfer - if he/she wants to develop further - me and any other biomechanic theories won't give him/her nothing more. He/she will have to find an instructor - the better one the better for him/her.
Don't you remember I said that the best summit of sharp minds should be lead bt a great instructor, and not by a biomechanist or physicist ?

Cheers

I've read all the posts, but I don't think Dariusz has given much information into his "theories"(should be hypotheses) other than perpendicularity to the spine, eep, and looking at the "macroscale hard structure of joints".
Give up the info. Exactly how should one swing a golf club with the best "biomechanical advantageous" motion that happens "automatically" from the setup?

Spktho, you're very right (I have already underlined it earlier, BTW) that perpendiculartity to the spine, EEP, etc. are just effects, very desirable effects IMO but not goals in themselves !
The very idea of automating the motion on the basis of the theory of limitations in the hard structure of human organism (joints) allows to swing sequentially from the ground up thanks to simple physical forces (shear forces, torques, overtorques). With a greatly prepared setup (grip, stance, allignment, presets) there is practically no room left for other directions of motions or timing influences, generally there is no much room for errors.
Some of our joints work like walls, some like small springs, some like centers of rotation - the whole trick is to put teverything in a correct turn of events.

Say, the example of one of such events - creating of the firm rear side from the ground up. Using a proper stance (foot and hip joint positions) and preset of certain joints (in this case ankle and knee joints of the rear leg), you can achieve the firm foundation that acts like a trampoline in a due moment (transition). Doesn't it sound interesting, to say at least ?

Cheers

I respect your opinions but like I am,you are only offering opinions so far and no hard evidence to back it up.Saying Hogan was the best ball striker ever and therefore should be the model for a biomechanically optimal swing is flawed logic.Another flawed logic is that what you consider biomechanically optimum is more easily automated.Well if Hogan and Moe truly automated their swing,why did they spend so much time practicing their long game even after they so called "owned" their swing?

Your opinions may turn out to be correct but they are theories only.Homer tried to apply physics and geometry to the golf swing and came up short.You are trying to apply biomechanics which is equally as difficult.

EJ, I never said my opinions are something more than pure theories or hypotheses.
However, as for now, me and my son (plus a few guys that I helped in the net without seeing them live) are the best examples that maybe there is something worth looking into here in this topic.
I have never pretended to be another man that I really am and I won't ever. I never promise that this system will work. I don't force anyone to lose money - all info I give is free. This is my hobby and despite I sacrificed a lot of hours for gaining necessary knowledge and researches I still have enough energy to learn and discuss it further.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Because it's not so easy to define the best ballstrikers, IMO. Not only GIR or proximity to the hole matters. FIR is equally or even more important (because it's the driver, more difficult club to control) but with today's pampered courses (no rough) and rip'n'whack mentality we are able to measure rather who's the better rescuer, not ballstriker.
Anyhow, I can try in a free moment - could you give me a link to the site where the last 10 years' stats are gathered ?
Lastly, I'd love to know some info whose Trackman results, except Jim Furyk's ones, proved to be the best - if someone have such data.

I agree that there will be an element of debate about any list of best ballstrikers based on stats - but I think that any theory that stacks up based on either GIR or shotlink data would need to be taken seriously.

I know you think that course set ups are too "soft" and that missed fws aren't penalized harshly enough - but surely you'd accept that, all other things being equal, it's still on average harder to put your ball on the green from the rough than from the fw.

In which case, someone who scores high on GIR but low on FIR must be pretty strong in their iron play.

I don't agree that FIR should be rated as highly as GIR. Not because FIR (at tour level) is almost irrelevant to scoring - but just because FIR as a stat only measures the ability to hit a perfectly teed up ball, with one club, from a level, manicured lie - and it rewards a lack of clubhead speed!

The best source of stats that I know of is PGATOUR.com - The Official Site of the PGA TOUR

 

[ej20]

There is all this talk about Hogan and Trevino being the best ball strikers ever but I don't buy into that until I see some data to prove it.

They didn't keep stats when Hogan was playing but did when Trevino was.PGA tour stats go back all the way to 1980 and Nicklaus had better ball striking stats than Trevino and he was much longer to boot.I think Nicklaus is the most underated ball striker of all time.It seems like everyone thinks he won those 18 majors with his putter only.

 

[ej20]

Nick Faldo said in one of his books that Nicklaus was the player that inspired him to change his swing.He said Nicklaus's ball striking was out of his league and he knew playing with him coming down the stretch in a major they were both contending,he would not win a major without improving his ball striking.

He said Nicklaus aimed dead center towards the green and the ball would peel left or right depending on the pin location.The times that it went straight he would still be on the middle of the green.This was coming down the stretch in a major under the most pressure imaginable.

Nicklaus said Hogan and Trevino were the best ball strikers he ever saw.What did anyone expect him to say?Himself?

 

[birly-shirly]

There is all this talk about Hogan and Trevino being the best ball strikers ever but I don't buy into that until I see some data to prove it.

They didn't keep stats when Hogan was playing but did when Trevino was.PGA tour stats go back all the way to 1980 and Nicklaus had better ball striking stats than Trevino and he was much longer to boot.I think Nicklaus is the most underated ball striker of all time.It seems like everyone thinks he won those 18 majors with his putter only.

I completely agree. I think that "all" good ballstriking does is put you in position where, if you putt well enough, you'll contend. No-one, including Hogan, ever hit the ball consistently into gimme range. And no-one was ever in contention more often than Nicklaus.

Dave Pelz says that Trevino was the best ballstriker he ever measured - hitting his full swing approaches consistently to a distance of around 5% of the total length of the shot. Ie Trevino stuck his average 200yd approach to around 30ft from the hole - and this was the best ballstriking that Pelz ever measured (at the time of writing the Short Game Bible).

Shotlink stats indicate that there are a few guys in that ballpark. Trevino was a great ball striker and a great shotmaker. So was Nicklaus. And so are quite a few tour millionaires currently.

 

[ej20]

I completely agree. I think that "all" good ballstriking does is put you in position where, if you putt well enough, you'll contend. No-one, including Hogan, ever hit the ball consistently into gimme range. And no-one was ever in contention more often than Nicklaus.

Dave Pelz says that Trevino was the best ballstriker he ever measured - hitting his full swing approaches consistently to a distance of around 5% of the total length of the shot. Ie Trevino stuck his average 200yd approach to around 30ft from the hole - and this was the best ballstriking that Pelz ever measured (at the time of writing the Short Game Bible).

Shotlink stats indicate that there are a few guys in that ballpark. Trevino was a great ball striker and a great shotmaker. So was Nicklaus. And so are quite a few tour millionaires currently.

I'm surprised with those Pelz data that Trevino didn't have better PGA tour stats.Granted Trevino was 40 when they started keeping PGA stats but so was Nicklaus.If anyone cares to look,Nicklaus had far better ball striking stats than Trevino every single year from 1980 to around 1985.

 

[ej20]

Also I would say proximity to the hole can be a misleading ball striking stat as some players are very aggressive and fire at every pin while others are more conservative and play away from trouble.The guys who are not that close to the hole maybe great ballstrikers also as their target could be away from the hole.

 

[birly-shirly]

Also I would say proximity to the hole can be a misleading ball striking stat as some players are very aggressive and fire at every pin while others are more conservative and play away from trouble.The guys who are not that close to the hole maybe great ballstrikers also as their target could be away from the hole.

And then there are the guys who are great ballstrikers, but who play within their limitations whilst still sticking it close. Faldo comes to mind.

 

[nwb]

I'm surprised with those Pelz data that Trevino didn't have better PGA tour stats.Granted Trevino was 40 when they started keeping PGA stats but so was Nicklaus.If anyone cares to look,Nicklaus had far better ball striking stats than Trevino every single year from 1980 to around 1985.

Co-incidentally in the years where he underwent swing changes to flatten his swing! (much publicised and written about in detail in one of his books)

 

[ej20]

And then there are the guys who are great ballstrikers, but who play within their limitations whilst still sticking it close. Faldo comes to mind.

Another great ball striker who doesn't get much attention.He was always deemed mechanical yet he could work the ball anyway imaginable and had magnificent distance control.He has also been described as short yet no shorter than Trevino.

No other player has written a book that described the transition from the top so detailed.His best move is the transition,the fabled and ellusive early shallowing of the club.

 

[ej20]

Thank you very much, Miki.

Cheers, mate, we need to play sometimes in Postolowo or Sierra together





Because it's not so easy to define the best ballstrikers, IMO. Not only GIR or proximity to the hole matters. FIR is equally or even more important (because it's the driver, more difficult club to control) but with today's pampered courses (no rough) and rip'n'whack mentality we are able to measure rather who's the better rescuer, not ballstriker.
Anyhow, I can try in a free moment - could you give me a link to the site where the last 10 years' stats are gathered ?
Lastly, I'd love to know some info whose Trackman results, except Jim Furyk's ones, proved to be the best - if someone have such data.

Cheers




C'mon, Brian - I haven't ripped anyone. And I would love to see you teach.
Have I said great instructors should be changed by biomechanists ? No way in hell. The problem is that an average not very gifted beginner, without a solid biomechanical background, must come to the instructor zilion times frequently and spent another zillion times at the range in order to play below 80. I only claim that a good biokinetic background aimed at automating the motion will help to reach the same goal much faster and much easier. I used the word "band-aid" in the context that even the best quality instruction won't last forever if the student does not working on recommended solutions. Solid biokinetic foundation can last forever, because our hard structure does not change in the macroscale our entire life.
What next depends on the very golfer - if he/she wants to develop further - me and any other biomechanic theories won't give him/her nothing more. He/she will have to find an instructor - the better one the better for him/her.
Don't you remember I said that the best summit of sharp minds should be lead bt a great instructor, and not by a biomechanist or physicist ?

Cheers




Spktho, you're very right (I have already underlined it earlier, BTW) that perpendiculartity to the spine, EEP, etc. are just effects, very desirable effects IMO but not goals in themselves !
The very idea of automating the motion on the basis of the theory of limitations in the hard structure of human organism (joints) allows to swing sequentially from the ground up thanks to simple physical forces (shear forces, torques, overtorques). With a greatly prepared setup (grip, stance, allignment, presets) there is practically no room left for other directions of motions or timing influences, generally there is no much room for errors.
Some of our joints work like walls, some like small springs, some like centers of rotation - the whole trick is to put teverything in a correct turn of events.

Say, the example of one of such events - creating of the firm rear side from the ground up. Using a proper stance (foot and hip joint positions) and preset of certain joints (in this case ankle and knee joints of the rear leg), you can achieve the firm foundation that acts like a trampoline in a due moment (transition). Doesn't it sound interesting, to say at least ?

Cheers




EJ, I never said my opinions are something more than pure theories or hypotheses.
However, as for now, me and my son (plus a few guys that I helped in the net without seeing them live) are the best examples that maybe there is something worth looking into here in this topic.
I have never pretended to be another man that I really am and I won't ever. I never promise that this system will work. I don't force anyone to lose money - all info I give is free. This is my hobby and despite I sacrificed a lot of hours for gaining necessary knowledge and researches I still have enough energy to learn and discuss it further.

Cheers

DJ,can you explain what you mean by early elbow plane?

P.S There is no questioning your generosity.The time you have spent should be rewarded.I wish you the best.

 

[ej20]

Co-incidentally in the years where he underwent swing changes to flatten his swing! (much publicised and written about in detail in one of his books)

To be fair to Trevino,Nicklaus was number one in total driving and GIRs in most of those years and top five in the few years he wasn't.Can't do much better than that.

 

[Dariusz J.]

DJ,can you explain what you mean by early elbow plane?

P.S There is no questioning your generosity.The time you have spent should be rewarded.I wish you the best.

Thank you very much, EJ. I appreciate your kind words.

The early elbow plane (EEP) is a description of a biophysical phenomenon when a classic double shifter achieves the EP relatively very early in the downswing (until the rear elbow joint goes in front of the turning body) with the shaft bissecting the forearm; a decent amount of lag is necessary to perform the EEP. An EEP golfer receives full support from both rear humerus (in relation to the body alongside with which is moving) as well as from rear forearm that supports the shaft and clubhead until impact being in-line with it and at a perpendicular angle to the core.
What is worth underlining here is that if the rear arm straightens too soon the rear elbow goes in front of the body too soon both the rear humerus as well as forearm lose the above mentioned supportive functions --> typical for worse pivoters and crossover release golfers.
The best example is post-accident Hogan who achieves the EEP very early in the downswing (his rear elbow moving forward early and fast after transition) until shaft becomes in-line with rear forearm and rear forearm perpendicular to his core. From this moment there is his turning main body only, the rest is in status quo in relation to it --> best motoric scenario for consistency in the downswing phase I can ever imagine.

Cheers


P.S. I checked the PGA stats from last 5 years using the link that Birly quoted in his post. As mentioned already, one name appears the most frequently both in FIR and GIR stats every year in the top - Joe Durant.
What's even more important, watching his swing on the YT I can see that although he's too upright at the top and less bent with his spine for being a model, he's still a good example of an EEP golfer !

 

[ej20]

Thank you very much, EJ. I appreciate your kind words.

The early elbow plane (EEP) is a description of a biophysical phenomenon when a classic double shifter achieves the EP relatively very early in the downswing (until the rear elbow joint goes in front of the turning body) with the shaft bissecting the forearm; a decent amount of lag is necessary to perform the EEP. An EEP golfer receives full support from both rear humerus (in relation to the body alongside with which is moving) as well as from rear forearm that supports the shaft and clubhead until impact being in-line with it and at a perpendicular angle to the core.
What is worth underlining here is that if the rear arm straightens too soon the rear elbow goes in front of the body too soon both the rear humerus as well as forearm lose the above mentioned supportive functions --> typical for worse pivoters and crossover release golfers.
The best example is post-accident Hogan who achieves the EEP very early in the downswing (his rear elbow moving forward early and fast after transition) until shaft becomes in-line with rear forearm and rear forearm perpendicular to his core. From this moment there is his turning main body only, the rest is in status quo in relation to it --> best motoric scenario for consistency in the downswing phase I can ever imagine.

Cheers


P.S. I checked the PGA stats from last 5 years using the link that Birly quoted in his post. As mentioned already, one name appears the most frequently both in FIR and GIR stats every year in the top - Joe Durant.
What's even more important, watching his swing on the YT I can see that although he's too upright at the top and less bent with his spine for being a model, he's still a good example of an EEP golfer !

Your EEP idea is something I agree with but it's not new.That shallowing transition is eerily apparent in just about all great ballstrikers.Like I said in a previous post Nick Faldo described in detail how he did it in his book written in 1990.Brady Riggs has another take on it and describes it as a clockwise quarter turn of the leading forearm.Another fellow,can't remember his name,believed Hogan did it by uncupping his left wrist on the downswing.

Many people know this move exist and have tried in vain to incorporate it into their swings.Those that have the move probably were born with it and happens naturally.Now comes the question.How would you teach that move and do you think you would have a high success rate?

 

[ej20]

Just to add...Hogan was an EEP before his accident.He always had that move.

 

[Brian Manzella]

The Host needs to do some hosting...

This thread is not going the way I would like it to.

Here what I mean...

When someone besides myself or any of the other Manzella Academy Instructors has a theory or two, we welcome them to "post it up."

We hope that they can communicate it in a concise, easy to understand way, and back it up with some pictures, data, research, or other "exhibits."

This thread is an unreadable mess of thousands of words, and out-of-the-air theory.

Not what makes this the best place on earth to discuss the golf swing.

So I will attempt to get this thing back on track by MODERATING the discussion.

As far as I can decipher, here is Dariusz J.'s theories.

1. The golf swing is impossible to Automate—which simply means to make automatic—but you can improve on the ability of the golfer to reproduce it within an acceptable range. This improvement would be possible if the golfer's pattern was made to be biomechanically sounder.

2. Dariusz J.'s believes that biomechanically sounder principles include a left arm at the top of the swing 90° to the spine, and a very early down-shift to the elbow plane.

3. Everyone should try to make their swing patterns employ these principles.

4. Only golfers that swung this way were amoung the best ball strikers of all-time.​

Here are my responses to these 4 ideas.

1. The ability of golfer to be able to reproduce golf swings in an acceptable range under pressure is aided by the following:

a. Sound Mechanics. This means they are adhering to the laws of physics, geometry, golf club design and function, and biomechanics.

b. Working against the memory (muscles don;t have memory) of every swing they ever made in their life, and every swing they ever saw in their life, and everything they ever heard or learned about the golf swing before they started to do whatever it is they are NOW trying to do.

c. Fits with the way their mind works, how they see shots, and the way the play their best strategy wise.

d. Fits THEIR physicality.

Biomechanics only will NEVER be ideal for ANY particular golfer.


2. This idea is probably sound from a biomechanics point-of-view, but may suck in a physics model. I have my own doubts as well.


3. Bullturds.


4. Johnny Miller—in his prime—was "as good a ball-striker as anyone who ever put on spikes," that's what Nicklaus said, and he should know, he was THE BEST BALL STRIKER on tour, or in the top 3, for 20 straight years. Byron Nelson was as good as anyone in his day. Tiger in 2000 was right there as well.
​

These are all FACTS, and I am getting sick and tired of folks ignoring them, and me, in some of this threads.

BM

 

[Dariusz J.]

This thread is not going the way I would like it to.

Here what I mean...

When someone besides myself or any of the other Manzella Academy Instructors has a theory or two, we welcome them to "post it up."

We hope that they can communicate it in a concise, easy to understand way, and back it up with some pictures, data, research, or other "exhibits."

This thread is an unreadable mess of thousands of words, and out-of-the-air theory.

Not what makes this the best place on earth to discuss the golf swing.

So I will attempt to get this thing back on track by MODERATING the discussion.

Well, I just tried to answer the questions directed at myself as well as I could without intending to make such mess. I do hope that your moderation will make this thread better. Thanks, Brian.
My short comments in red colour below:

As far as I can decipher, here is Dariusz J.'s theories.

1. The golf swing is impossible to Automate—which simply means to make automatic—but you can improve on the ability of the golfer to reproduce it within an acceptable range. This improvement would be possible if the golfer's pattern was made to be biomechanically sounder.

Yes, Sir.

2. Dariusz J.'s believes that biomechanically sounder principles include a left arm at the top of the swing 90° to the spine, and a very early down-shift to the elbow plane.

Yes, but again, these two phenomena are desirable effects of a biokinetically sound pattern - not the goals themselves. They simply should appear when the motion becomes automated to a degree, which can be another proof that they represent the most biokinetically sound motion.

3. Everyone should try to make their swing patterns employ these principles.

Yes.

4. Only golfers that swung this way were amoung the best ball strikers of all-time.​

Not only, but the vast majority of golfers regarded as best ballstrikers; I'd say enough big percentage of them to be able to draw some conclusions as regards common denominators.


Here are my responses to these 4 ideas.

1. The ability of golfer to be able to reproduce golf swings in an acceptable range under pressure is aided by the following:

a. Sound Mechanics. This means they are adhering to the laws of physics, geometry, golf club design and function, and biomechanics.

b. Working against the memory (muscles don;t have memory) of every swing they ever made in their life, and every swing they ever saw in their life, and everything they ever heard or learned about the golf swing before they started to do whatever it is they are NOW trying to do.

c. Fits with the way their mind works, how they see shots, and the way the play their best strategy wise.

d. Fits THEIR physicality.

Biomechanics only will NEVER be ideal for ANY particular golfer.


Agree 100%, maybe except point d. which is a typical microscale issue..


2. This idea is probably sound from a biomechanics point-of-view, but may suck in a physics model. I have my own doubts as well.


Yes, it is a theory only, but noone until now was able to present counterarguments strong enough to conclude that it sucks.


3. Bullturds.


I think otherwise, but, again I am the macroscale theorist and not a (great) instructor that works in the microscale.


4. Johnny Miller—in his prime—was "as good a ball-striker as anyone who ever put on spikes," that's what Nicklaus said, and he should know, he was THE BEST BALL STRIKER on tour, or in the top 3, for 20 straight years. Byron Nelson was as good as anyone in his day. Tiger in 2000 was right there as well.
​

I do agree. We all forgot about Miller who is another exception from the rule, if I may say this way, IMO. But I heard that Miller was only great with his irons, therefore, not a complete great bastriker - please correct me if I am wrong. Nelson was already mentioned by me as an example of a good ballstriker who is an EEP golfer though.


These are all FACTS, and I am getting sick and tired of folks ignoring them, and me, in some of this threads.

BM

Whatever you think, I am the last man who would ignore anyone here or your rules, Brian. I can agree to respond only to posts that you point out as a moderator. All is up to you and your forum members.

Cheers

 

[Brian Manzella]

and here we sit...

 

[spktho]

Spktho, you're very right (I have already underlined it earlier, BTW) that perpendiculartity to the spine, EEP, etc. are just effects, very desirable effects IMO but not goals in themselves !
The very idea of automating the motion on the basis of the theory of limitations in the hard structure of human organism (joints) allows to swing sequentially from the ground up thanks to simple physical forces (shear forces, torques, overtorques). With a greatly prepared setup (grip, stance, allignment, presets) there is practically no room left for other directions of motions or timing influences, generally there is no much room for errors.
Some of our joints work like walls, some like small springs, some like centers of rotation - the whole trick is to put teverything in a correct turn of events.

Say, the example of one of such events - creating of the firm rear side from the ground up. Using a proper stance (foot and hip joint positions) and preset of certain joints (in this case ankle and knee joints of the rear leg), you can achieve the firm foundation that acts like a trampoline in a due moment (transition). Doesn't it sound interesting, to say at least ?

Cheers

You have made it sound interesting, but that's about it. How about start with:

1. describing the "proper stance(foot and hip joint positions) and preset of certain joints".

2. describe the "proper" backswing sequence of movements and positions.

3. describe the "proper" downswing sequence of movements and positions.

.....and so on.

Because

and here we sit...

waiting to learn.