The "Dariusz J." Swing Theories Thread

[ej20]

I don't believe the EEP move can be taught succesfully to most players.It's also not an imperative to play great golf although desirable.If it doesn't come naturally,it will never feel natural.

I also don't agree that this move will automatically happen by just pre-setting ankle,knee and hip joints at setup.DJ will need to elaborate more on this.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I don't believe the EEP move can be taught succesfully to most players.It's also not an imperative to play great golf although desirable.If it doesn't come naturally,it will never feel natural.

I also don't agree that this move will automatically happen by just pre-setting ankle,knee and hip joints at setup.DJ will need to elaborate more on this.

Presetting ankle and knee joints aimed at building the firm rear side at setup are just elements of one "event" in the whole cascade. Look at the post below, please.

And of course you are right that the EEP (as the desirable effect) is not an absolute imperative to play great golf. IMHO, it's just a sign that an owner of such swing motion (with the EEP) does not need to bother with timing issues so much comparing to fellow golfers without it.

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.

Here you are, Spktho:

ad.1. The stance should be diagonal. The diagonality concerns two areas:
- relation of both feet to one another
- relation of feet to hips and hips to shoulders.
The diagonal stance gives a much better base for a human body weight. The bigger surface the base has the easier is to be in balance through the motion and, what is even more important, the easier is to use the ground shear forces comparing to when all body parts are in line with each other. Human feet are very small themselves comparing to the mass that they must keep in balance, especially during such a dynamic motion as the golf swing is. Therefore, feet should be placed at address the way they can cover the biggest possible surface on the ground.

As regards joints presetting it should concern both rear limbs - the rear leg and the rear arm.
The rear leg preset (ankle & knee joints) builds the firm rear side sequentially from the ground up. It ensures that there is no sliding away from the ball and automatizes the transtion.
The rear arm preset (elbow joint) ensures that the rear humerus supports the main body action and the rear forearm supports the shaft during the entire motion. It prevents from rear humerus go outside the parallel position in relation to the spine = flying elbow.


ad.2. The backswing must be lead by the rear side, as mentioned earlier. IMO, it won't let a too inside takeaway which is the main enemy of flattening the shaft plane after transition = one of the biggest enemies of the downswing EEP. The best results are achieved if it is being performed sequentially from the ground up at ca. 45* angle up & back.

ad.3. The downswing phase occurs sequentially from the ground up as well thanks to an automated transition that is possible thanks to finging limitations in the joints sequentially from the ground up. The overtorques in the joints cause the trampoline effect when changing the orientation of the motion (from backswing to downswing). The lower the body part the sooner it finishes backswing and the sooner it starts downswing. It creates optimal condition for the plane to drop (congruently) from TSP to EP as soon as possible.
The whole process is named the Sagittal Plane Compression; this YT vid is a quick visualization:

http://<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFPtl6tfbtc&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFPtl6tfbtc&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I am aware that what is written above may be not understood well because of short cuts, bio ligo and my poor English. I am sorry for this and please do not hesitate to ask for further clarifications.

Cheers

 

[Kevin Shields]

Looks like a forward press initiating a lower body LCT. (A concept that transformed the way I hit a ball)

 

[rainbow_in_the_dark]

Presetting ankle and knee joints aimed at building the firm rear side at setup are just elements of one "event" in the whole cascade. Look at the post below, please.

And of course you are right that the EEP (as the desirable effect) is not an absolute imperative to play great golf. IMHO, it's just a sign that an owner of such swing motion (with the EEP) does not need to bother with timing issues so much comparing to fellow golfers without it.

Cheers




Here you are, Spktho:

ad.1. The stance should be diagonal. The diagonality concerns two areas:
- relation of both feet to one another
- relation of feet to hips and hips to shoulders.
The diagonal stance gives a much better base for a human body weight. The bigger surface the base has the easier is to be in balance through the motion and, what is even more important, the easier is to use the ground shear forces comparing to when all body parts are in line with each other. Human feet are very small themselves comparing to the mass that they must keep in balance, especially during such a dynamic motion as the golf swing is. Therefore, feet should be placed at address the way they can cover the biggest possible surface on the ground.

As regards joints presetting it should concern both rear limbs - the rear leg and the rear arm.
The rear leg preset (ankle & knee joints) builds the firm rear side sequentially from the ground up. It ensures that there is no sliding away from the ball and automatizes the transtion.
The rear arm preset (elbow joint) ensures that the rear humerus supports the main body action and the rear forearm supports the shaft during the entire motion. It prevents from rear humerus go outside the parallel position in relation to the spine = flying elbow.


ad.2. The backswing must be lead by the rear side, as mentioned earlier. IMO, it won't let a too inside takeaway which is the main enemy of flattening the shaft plane after transition = one of the biggest enemies of the downswing EEP. The best results are achieved if it is being performed sequentially from the ground up at ca. 45* angle up & back.

ad.3. The downswing phase occurs sequentially from the ground up as well thanks to an automated transition that is possible thanks to finging limitations in the joints sequentially from the ground up. The overtorques in the joints cause the trampoline effect when changing the orientation of the motion (from backswing to downswing). The lower the body part the sooner it finishes backswing and the sooner it starts downswing. It creates optimal condition for the plane to drop (congruently) from TSP to EP as soon as possible.
The whole process is named the Sagittal Plane Compression; this YT vid is a quick visualization:

http://<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFPtl6tfbtc&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFPtl6tfbtc&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I am aware that what is written above may be not understood well because of short cuts, bio ligo and my poor English. I am sorry for this and please do not hesitate to ask for further clarifications.

Cheers

By "diagonal stance" do you mean both feetflared out like a stack and tilt guy or is just the front one acceptable? Also, when setting a line drawn across the hips diagonal to one across the shoulders, which one of the 2 is more open?

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz - you said "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 !"

But you also said

Now, the EEP (early elbow plane) is not the goal per se. It's just a logical result of benefitting from the above mentioned rule of swinging perpendicularily to the spine (core) with arms and club. Human joints are "constructed" the way they can move only in certain directions and planes. E.g. elbow joints, unfortunately, cannot bend back which makes it impossible to tie both forearms in one unit (assuming the humeruses cannot because of the distance between shoulder joints). That's why in order to follow the rule of swing perpendicularily to the core either we would need to swing with both arms extended (like Moe Norman) or to have only a part of the arm (forearm) that is square tho the spine

Isn't there a contradiction here? One says that movement perpendicular to the spine is just an effect and not a goal in itself. The other says that perpendicular movement is the rule that leads to swinging on the elbow plane.

Either way, I don't see the relevance of the left arm being perpendicular to the spine at the top. Every full swing that I have ever seen has the left arm perpendicular to the spine at some point. And there is no swing on earth where the left arm could move very far from that position in a plane that is perpendicular to the spine without going wildly OTT.

And I don't see how the right forearm being perpendicular to the spine guarantees or even assists movement perpendicular to the spine.

The most obvious way, perhaps the only way, that I can imagine for the arms to truly move perpendicular to the spine is for the arms to not move at all relative to the body, but to be carried around by the turning core, which of course turns perpendicular to the spine.

Now, I know that's a bit reminiscent to one of the drills in 5 Lessons - and perhaps what some folks over on golfwrx are working on as their rotary or pivot-driven swing. Is this your model for movement through the ball?

 

[spktho]

Thanks Dariusz for giving some more information.

Some observations and maybe questions that you could clarify:

1. On the set up, I understand that having the right foot in a pronated position will take the ankle joint(s) as well as the tarsals into or near anatomical end range. Putting the knee in a valgus position as well as medially rotated will place the knee joint at or near anatomical end range. Due to the position of the knee, the right hip joint is also near its anatomical end range of internal rotation. Is this a fair assessment of how these joints are to be preset?

2. I think I understand your view on the grip, but how would you preset the arms--especially the orientation of the forearms' ability for supination/pronation?

3. Does the name "sagittal compression" refer to the spinal axis tilt leading up to impact?

4. In the "second compression phase" can you explain what you mean by the "rear hip compressing" against the lead hip?

5. You state the right side is passive during all of the downswing phases but then add in the "three right hands" at the end of the "2nd compression phase". Wouldn't one need to actively use the right hand/arm from at least half way down to achieve this? It seems as though you are describing a pulling swing form the lead side only during the down swing but, I don't think it is.(maybe that's why I'm not that good).

Look forward for your clarification and thoughts from the instructors.

Could you also describe how this swing appears not to have a need for much timing and doesn't have many of the elements you describe lessening timing in the swing?:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An9GbjeL8ng[/media]

 

[ej20]

spktho,whilst I think Toms does have an upright swing(much more so than DJ would consider biomechanically easier to automate),I think this video is shot not only from a poor angle but too close in as well.The camera appears to be facing down the tushline which will exaggerate the OTT look.

 

[ej20]

Toms is a great example of an upright player that keeps the club relatively in front of his body during the swing.Now this may not have his arms and club perpendicular to his spine but as you can see clearly there is very little rotation of his lead forearm particularly coming into impact.Uncocking into the ball is difficult enough to time let alone together with a roll of the forearms very late which an elbow planer needs to do to square up the face.

 

[Dariusz J.]

By "diagonal stance" do you mean both feetflared out like a stack and tilt guy or is just the front one acceptable? Also, when setting a line drawn across the hips diagonal to one across the shoulders, which one of the 2 is more open?

As said, the diagonality of the stance concerns two areas:
- relation of both feet to one another --> the lead feet is considerably flared out while the rear one is sort of perpendicular to the target line (although, precisely, it should be also flared out slightly depending on how deep is backed up); something like that: \ |
- relation of feet to hips and hips to shoulders --> the heel line of the feet is always closed to the target - the longer the club the more closed; the hips are open in relation to the target line, the shoulders are square to the target line. Something like that: shoulders | hips \ feet /
assuming the target is Northwise.

The detailed info about the DS is here if anyone is interested:

http://www.biokineticgolfswing.forom.pl/viewforum.php?f=11

Cheers

Isn't there a contradiction here? One says that movement perpendicular to the spine is just an effect and not a goal in itself. The other says that perpendicular movement is the rule that leads to swinging on the elbow plane.

Prolly it's my fault that I was imprecise. The EEP is a function of the perpendicularity of the distal arms to the core. In turn, the perpendicularity is a function of physics - when a main body equipped with distal parts turns those distal parts tend to become in a perpendicular position to the turning core thanks to CP/CF forces.
Both are just effects of the very motion which is rotary and the goal is to subdue the motion of the distal parts to the main body as physically effectively as possible so that the impact of the timing issues is limited = the motion is more automated.

And I don't see how the right forearm being perpendicular to the spine guarantees or even assists movement perpendicular to the spine.
[\QUOTE]

I'll try to explain it to you this way. Hypothetically, if our arms have no elbow joints everyone would swing like Moe, only the angle between the core and arms would differ (of course, the ideal is to have this perpendicularity relation). Elbow joints gives a lot of opportunities for a human to perform more different motions. It's generally a bliss but it can be a problem as well.
The rear forearm being perpendicular to the core neither guarantees nor assist the movement. It's the movement that ideally requires and forces the forearm to be in-line with the shaft and perpendicular to it in the approach zone. The longer the approach zone looks like that, the smaller are chances for timing issues to spoil something. I do not need, I guess, to convince anyone that if the longer is the body part that supports the shaft the better if our goal is to subdue the motion to the core.
If we assume that the humeruses are to be used to tie the motion of the arms to the body (because the very shoulder joints are to weak a connection point) only the forearms are treated as distal part at least until impact. And, as said befoore, the distal parts should be best perpendicular to the turning core. This is, more or less, the logics.

The most obvious way, perhaps the only way, that I can imagine for the arms to truly move perpendicular to the spine is for the arms to not move at all relative to the body, but to be carried around by the turning core, which of course turns perpendicular to the spine.
Now, I know that's a bit reminiscent to one of the drills in 5 Lessons - and perhaps what some folks over on golfwrx are working on as their rotary or pivot-driven swing. Is this your model for movement through the ball?

Yes, good remark. The 9-to-3 drill function is to teach to subdue the motion of the arms to the motion of the body and to swing in-to-in. However, if the motion is properly sequenced no such drills are necessary, IMO.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Thanks Dariusz for giving some more information.

Some observations and maybe questions that you could clarify:

1. On the set up, I understand that having the right foot in a pronated position will take the ankle joint(s) as well as the tarsals into or near anatomical end range. Putting the knee in a valgus position as well as medially rotated will place the knee joint at or near anatomical end range. Due to the position of the knee, the right hip joint is also near its anatomical end range of internal rotation. Is this a fair assessment of how these joints are to be preset?

Yes, Sir. The rear hip joint is being influenced by presets (especially the knee joint preset) and its ROM is considerably diminished as well. Not only it's practically impossible to sway back but also the only one ROM left is up and back, as we exactly want (we do not want to find the limitation of the rear hip too early because noone believes in a crap X-factor theory . The rear leg will be allowed to straighten but it won't be allowed to straighten fully or lock in the knee (which we do not want).
All of the above creates the firm rear side from the ground up that will act like a spring support during transition phase.

2. I think I understand your view on the grip, but how would you preset the arms--especially the orientation of the forearms' ability for supination/pronation?

Only the rear arm. The very similar way to the knee joint preset - outward rotation. The rear hand is in a naturally weakish position on top of the grip. It stays there but the elbow joints is being externally rotated - like you want the socket be directed up to the sky.

3. Does the name "sagittal compression" refer to the spinal axis tilt leading up to impact?

Not exactly, it refers to the compression and expansion phases that occur in the sagittal plane - e.g. lead side compresses into rear one or rear side expands from lead one, etc. In fact, the first working title was Sagittal Axis Twist but I disliked this because it was misleading a bit.

4. In the "second compression phase" can you explain what you mean by the "rear hip compressing" against the lead hip?
5. You state the right side is passive during all of the downswing phases but then add in the "three right hands" at the end of the "2nd compression phase". Wouldn't one need to actively use the right hand/arm from at least half way down to achieve this? It seems as though you are describing a pulling swing form the lead side only during the down swing but, I don't think it is.(maybe that's why I'm not that good).

The explanation of the above points refers to the very interesting phenomenon of the impact (2nd) compression that happens without the change of the orientation of the motion (like during transition).

The short answer is inertia of the rear side. It means there is no need for a conscious action. IMO, Hogan could feel it this way but he did not need to use his rear hand or forearmarm consciously - the rear forearm uses the inertia that it has while the impact compression happens (as visualized in this thread).

Cheers

 

[Brian Manzella]

The Manzella Academy Response.

Don't take this in a bad way, but...

This thread has done NOTHING to convince me or ANY of my instructors of anything.

And there is no more open group of teachers on the planet.

So, what exactly is the purpose of this thread?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Don't take this in a bad way, but...

This thread has done NOTHING to convince me or ANY of my instructors of anything.

And there is no more open group of teachers on the planet.

So, what exactly is the purpose of this thread?

Brian, while I appreciate the fact that such a thread is being hosted on one of the most important golf fora on this planet, let me ask a return questions to you and your instructors:
- how can I convince you or your instructors about possibility of partial automating the motion without a sincere willingness of trying the ideas that have just started to be described mainly thanks to spktho questions ? I do not think you or one of your instructors have already tried anything I described...
- have you asked your biggest physics authorities such as Mandrin or Dr.Zack how e.g. an optimal swing of a humanoid (cyborg) should look like using mathematical and physical formulae ? Unfortunately, I am not able to do it myself and I know that you believe in science;
- what do you want me to do here (instead answering the questions of your forum members and ) in order to define the purpose of this thread ?

Cheers

 

[Steve Greffen]

have you asked your biggest physics authorities such as Mandrin or Dr.Zack how e.g. an optimal swing of a humanoid (cyborg) should look like using mathematical and physical formulae ? Unfortunately, I am not able to do it myself and I know that you believe in science

Stop looking for shotcuts! You want this macro view and a swing that everyone should copy when there are multiple patterns and possibilities out there. The golfer is an individual and will not benefit from one optimal pattern for the human body. Heck not all bodies are even the same.

Your contribution I feel is in the information that you have on the body. Why not try to use some of that to explain the benfits of some of Brian's patterns and describe more specifically what a person would do to perform these motions.

Steve

 

[savydan]

I'll suggest what you ought to do on the last question:

You need to write down and post what your theory is, why you think so, and how you plan to prove/demonstrate it. Whether it's 1 or 2 pages, or 1 or 2 paragraphs it's up to YOU to define your theory - not anyone else.

Otherwise this will continue as a hodge-podge of overlapping questions and answers while posters try to guess what your theory is and where you are going with it.

What would you do if their was a biokinetics golf conference and you wanted to present a paper on your theory? How would you get your paper approved for presentation?

Would you copy and paste a bunch of questions and answers from various golf forums and send them off to the conference committee?

No, you'd write an abstract defining your theory, why you think it's so, and your plan to prove or demonstrate it.

Say what you want about Jeff Mann, at least he defined what he was trying to convey. Take a page out of his book, if you must, as far as precedure goes.

Write an abstract or summary on your theory for starters, dude! You're taking questions before you presented your paper.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Stop looking for shotcuts! You want this macro view and a swing that everyone should copy when there are multiple patterns and possibilities out there. The golfer is an individual and will not benefit from one optimal pattern for the human body. Heck not all bodies are even the same.

Your contribution I feel is in the information that you have on the body. Why not try to use some of that to explain the benfits of some of Brian's patterns and describe more specifically what a person would do to perform these motions.

Steve

Steve, how can I stop looking for a macroscale shortcuts if this is exactly what I am looking for ?
You're thinking in microscale. Humans are identical in the big picture. It does not matter what pattern of Brian I'd take to present anything from macroscale. Patterns are microscale issues. You can take anyone you want, slicer or hooker, tall slim guy or fat short one - everyone have two legs, main body, two arms, head, similar proportions and the same 4-D reality surrounds us all.

I'll suggest what you ought to do on the last question:

You need to write down and post what your theory is, why you think so, and how you plan to prove/demonstrate it. Whether it's 1 or 2 pages, or 1 or 2 paragraphs it's up to YOU to define your theory - not anyone else.

Otherwise this will continue as a hodge-podge of overlapping questions and answers while posters try to guess what your theory is and where you are going with it.

What would you do if their was a biokinetics golf conference and you wanted to present a paper on your theory? How would you get your paper approved for presentation?

Would you copy and paste a bunch of questions and answers from various golf forums and send them off to the conference committee?

No, you'd write an abstract defining your theory, why you think it's so, and your plan to prove or demonstrate it.

Say what you want about Jeff Mann, at least he defined what he was trying to convey. Take a page out of his book, if you must, as far as precedure goes.

Write an abstract or summary on your theory for starters, dude! You're taking questions before you presented your paper.

What paper ? So you think we need here a resume now, if I understand well ? after all these posts ? or you did not read the thread well ? Anyhow, OK, here you are:
1. every human motion can be automatized to a degree;
2. automatization of a human motion means limiting the impact of the timing issues on the very motion;
3. we can achieve this goal using the theory of natural limitations in the hard structure of human organism;
4. there exist an ideal motion that is sounder biomechanically than all other motions; in fact, we can define all motions as less or more biomechanically sound;
5. there are some physical indicators of a biomechanically sound motion, in case of a golf swing - such as e.g. perpendicularity of planes to the turning core or EEP or swinging in-to-in on congruent angles, etc.

What else would you like me to write ?

Cheers

 

[Steve Greffen]

and the same 4-D reality surrounds us all.

But we don't all respond the same to the 4-D reality and thus need different solutions on a microscale. Therefore I would say your theorizing is great for the hypotheical and nothing else. Seems that it is a lot of work for you to come up with this? I don't know how you can honestly come up with this information in macroscale and then apply it to individuals (and you have...to yourself and your friends). Sounds like a method and methods work for some and not for others. What are you going to do for the others?

Steve

 

[Dariusz J.]

But we don't all respond the same to the 4-D reality and thus need different solutions on a microscale. Therefore I would say your theorizing is great for the hypotheical and nothing else. Seems that it is a lot of work for you to come up with this? I don't know how you can honestly come up with this information in macroscale and then apply it to individuals (and you have...to yourself and your friends). Sounds like a method and methods work for some and not for others. What are you going to do for the others?

Steve

Excellent question.
The point is that everyone could benefit from that kind of macroscale researches. Imagine that with a sound biophysical knowledge all beginners starts to play decent golf (say, below 100) much earlier no matter the amount of gift or talent they have or how many hours they spent on the range (OK, this is an exaggeration, gift and range hours will count but not so much as now).
Then, true golf instructors "receive" such a guy and shape him/her according to microscale patterns and does not need to teach the basic things, such as reacting to our 4-D reality.
I would be happy with 2 things:
- to see the average HCP finally drop down;
- to see weekend hackers fulfilling Mr.Hogan's dream.
Unfortunately, I am afraid without a biomechanical researches concerning a macroscale model the above goals are not possible even if all instructors are very good. Sorry, but this is what I think.

Cheers

 

[savydan]

It really depends on where you want to go with your theory.

Kick around ideas on golf discussion boards? There's nothing wrong with that if that's as far as you want to take it.

Do you want to get to the point where you get serious cooperation with instructors and scientists that can offer means of measuring and quantifying your theories?

I would think of it as if Brian gave you 1 hour to present your theories at the next GTE. What would you do? Where's your paper? What's your proof? How do you inspire action?

These are all just suggestions to take this to the next level. If that's what you want to do.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dan, and where and how far can I want to go with it ? Think - I am an amateur hacker, not only from 3rd world but rather from the a 6th world golf country; I am not rich enough to run professional studies, I have no time to do it because I need to work almost everyday. This is simply my hobby - I am proud of being able to discuss it with great golfers and great instructors here and there - if it occurs on open golf fora - the better, since everyone can have unlimited access to it.
And my proofs...it is my game, my son's game and several golfers of various HCP (starting from +4) who confirmed that my theories are not junk.
If someone important (a scientist or whomever) would like to cooperate seriously - I am at disposal with my limited knowledge. If not, helping fellow golfers is a good award as well.

Cheers

 

[savydan]

I certainly understand and appreciate where you are saying.

I do think it would be helpful if you could gather what you think is appropriate and put it down in "one document" and post it on your site. It might save you some time in answering the same questions put in a different wrapper, for example. Perhaps you are still gathering info and are not ready to do that. I don't know.