The Release w/Brian Manzella & Michael Jacobs

[birly-shirly]

1. Just move the club back and forth on a horizontal plane, keeping the hands reactively in the same spot. The point that appears not to move is it.

2. All I do is feel like I get the clubhead and arms started early without tugging, and bend my left wrist through impact as back-on-itself as I can. Definitely a freewheeling thing.

I'm struck by the continuity of this stuff with the soft draw pattern. Is this release more compatible with a grip that's a bit stronger than "Manzella Neutral"?

 

[Lifter]

Tiger swung more right, Hogan swung more left. If you swing more to the right you don't want want too steep an angle of attack (and the resulting deeper divots) because that'll push you're true path even more to the right. Vice versa for Hogan.

Excellent observation, Lia. Except that I think that Tiger in 2000 swung pretty far to the left too. More reliable method of hitting the ball straight. Less dependent on timing. Centripetal rather than centrifugal.

I agree that in 2009 and possibly even now Tiger has been very in-to-out through impact. That's a big part of the problem.

 

[sweetser]

And even better version with Hogan and Jones...

Jones: "The great fault in the average golfer's conception of his stroke is that he considers the shaft of the club as a means of transmitting actual physical force to the ball, whereas it is in reality merely the means of imparting velocity to the clubhead... I like to think of the golf club as a weight attached to my hands by an imponderable medium, to which a string is a close approximation, and I like to feel that I am throwing it at the ball with much the same motion I should use in cracking a whip. By the smilie, I mean to convey the idea of a supple and lightning-quick action of the wrists in striking--a sort of flailing action."

 

[mgranato]

Centripetal rather than centrifugal.

What does this mean? One of those forces can't be present without the other. I've heard those descriptions used before but don't really know what they reference.

 

[Lifter]

What does this mean? One of those forces can't be present without the other. I've heard those descriptions used before but don't really know what they reference.

From what I've read, the centripetal release has the upper arms against the body past impact. The centrifugal release has the upper arms off the body past impact.

Centripetal is associated with a "body-dominant pivot." Centrifugal is associated with an "arms-dominant pivot." In a centripetal release, the clubface closes very gradually post-impact. In-to-in. In a centrifugal release, the clubface closes rapidly post-impact. In-to-out.

 

[Jared Willerson]

CP CF stuff is ridiculously way off base. Neither of those mean anything. Kind of like swinging and hitting. It's silly.

 

[Lifter]

CP CF stuff is ridiculously way off base. Neither of those mean anything. Kind of like swinging and hitting. It's silly.

I guess I view CP vs. CF as a simple way of illustrating the following thoughts written by Brian Manzella:

A ZERO RESULTANT PATH on shots off of the ground REQUIRES a swing direction—plane line—base line—HSP. to the left.

The Left.

You HAVE TO SWING TO THE LEFT OF THE TARGET to hit straight shots off of the ground.

That means—by default—that DURING THE SWING, the CLUBFACE HAS TO be less closed TO THE SWING than a "push draw" golfer.

Surely, the "push drawers" can have a strong grip or something else that gets THEIR REQUIRED MORE CLOSED TO THE SWING DIRECTION CLUBFACE more closed. SOmething besides "hand action."

But, to keep hitting these "push draws" right at the target, they have to have DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF CLOSED TO THE PATH—and closed to the plane!!—throughout the progression from wedge to 3-wood.

So, I think, for most golfers, the STRAIGHT BALL IS EASIER TO DO.

Just have the face SQUARE at impact, and swing left the correct amount.

Period.

This REQUIRES A CLUBFACE that is OPEN TO THE PLANE at impact.

Which for most is LESS "hand action."

Have a nice day.​

I'm sure the details do matter. But CP vs. CF is a good way of introducing the concept to novices.

 

[dbl]

Lifter, Ryan pointed out your wrong use of his words on the previous page, and here another Manzella instructor tells you CP and CF are off base. You've got to know the heritage of those "concepts" right? Bringing them here is kind of insulting and likely if anyone wanted to be technical...against the rules too. If you just want to talk about a body dominated swing or an arms dominated swing, that's general I suppose, but this thread is on coupling point release and aspects surrounding ti (line up etc).

 

[Kevin Shields]

Yeah, why would you want to introduce a wrong concept to a beginner? Isnt that what we're always complaining about? Poor instruction and bad info?

 

[Jwat]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I never mentioned the word "picking," nor did I say anything about optimal. What I did say is that "this concept reminds me of . . . Tiger . . . in his prime . . . mak[ing] a patch of shallow divots with nearly every club in his bag." Show me a player that can do this, and I'll show you a player that can execute this concept - "the coupling point release."

I'm talking about practice, mannnnn. Practice. Not optimal. Practice.

At the 6:04 mark, Tiger rehearses a move where is hands are as high as they can reach. Then on his actual swing, he gets close to that spot and he isn't laid off. My question is, "Did Tiger release his hands sooner on the DS here than he did with Haney or even now with Foley where his hands are lower and more laid off?"

For me personally, it seems like when my hands aren't jerked inside and go more up the arc like in NHA, I have an easier time closing the gap and doing it faster. That is what I saw Tiger doing in this video.

 

[dbl]

for Lifter, continuing,
An answer for mgranto might have been that centrifugal is a fictitious forced used in certain frames of reference whereby...blah blah blah (since that was along the lines he was asking....).

 

[Lifter]

Yeah, why would you want to introduce a wrong concept to a beginner? Isnt that what we're always complaining about? Poor instruction and bad info?

First, I don't really know about the heritage of the concepts. For all I knew, they were very commonly used. Apparently not. Sorry about that.

Second, from my (novice) perspective, the concepts aren't so much "wrong" as they are simplistic. Don't know the details well enough to know what is and is not controversial. If there are huge gaping flaws then whoops again. Not obvious to me what those flaws are. But I'll use different terminology (such as "swinging left") in the future.

 

[mgranato]

for Lifter, continuing,
An answer for mgranto might have been that centrifugal is a fictitious forced used in certain frames of reference whereby...blah blah blah (since that was along the lines he was asking....).

Not at all. I've heard those two terms used to discuss "releases" before, but I didn't understand why those terms were used.

Why is centrifugal fictitious? All the docs at the anti-summit were discussing it as if it was real.

 

[Kevin Shields]

I think we know that you know where they come from. You've referenced ABS and the like here before. Its no biggie, we're just trying to get it right, not necessarily simplistic by using invalid or incomplete terms or concepts.

 

[Lifter]

I think we know that you know where they come from. You've referenced ABS and the like here before. Its no biggie, we're just trying to get it right, not necessarily simplistic by using invalid or incomplete terms or concepts.

I did get the concept from there but didn't realize that it actually originated from there. Also, I think there's a significant difference between invalid and incomplete. I'm a big fan of incomplete, actually. With a lot of this stuff, my mind can only absorb the simple bullet points. When the simple bullet points (incomplete, I suppose) are broken down into small details, my eyes often glaze over. This forum has gotten a lot better about that over the years, which I think makes it a lot more attractive.

 

[Eagle59]

pivot

If this new data contradicts conclusions drawn from the past, do these new thoughts affect what we think about the lower body, ie. the pivot or are we solid there?

 

[dbl]

Not at all. I've heard those two terms used to discuss "releases" before, but I didn't understand why those terms were used.

Why is centrifugal fictitious? All the docs at the anti-summit were discussing it as if it was real.

If I (or anyone) would give an overview, there would a 100 page argument over it. Nonetheless I will try giving one example: When you take a curve in your car, and a book or cd on your dash goes sliding out to the outer edge of the windshield....there is no real force on it...but you can describe it's motion as if there was. A viewer standing by the edge of the road, btw, does not see a book sliding left to right (perhaps one could say he sees the car diverging/turning away from the book's initial straight path). So we have differing frames of reference, the viewer on the side of the road, and a viewer inside the car. To make the situation even worse, we are on a rotating globe which is orbiting around a sun in a galaxy spinning and moving through the comos, etc.

On the web there are many confusing texts and examples (and some inexact definitions)

Here's one page for the tape on the dashboard (and, lol, says there is no such thing as centrifugal force, but then they are ignoring that it can be used for an analysis inside the frame of reference):
Graphic: No such thing as centrifugal force (Flame Licker)

Btw, I am not trying to speak authoritatively on this and my understanding of non-inertial frames of reference may be wrong or incomplete, etc. I do see mention at wikipedia in the article on rotating reference frames that "All non-inertial reference frames exhibit fictitious forces."

 

[JEREMY5577]

If this new data contradicts conclusions drawn from the past, do these new thoughts affect what we think about the lower body, ie. the pivot or are we solid there?

Yes my pivot has changed drastically. But it changed as a result of pushing away from the leftward movement. After a while the pivot became less rotational than it was. To me a good pivot is a direct result of a good release. If you release correctly you have to pivot correctly because the two fight eachother they go hand in hand.

 

[dbl]

Michael has said repeatedly some things about the pivot in this thread, but I just remember it as just that you do this club/hand/arm action along with a good pivot. So it implies what was a good pivot is still a good pivot, at least to me.

 

[johnnymarlboro]

If I (or anyone) would give an overview, there would a 100 page argument over it. Nonetheless I will try giving one example: When you take a curve in your car, and a book or cd on your dash goes sliding out to the outer edge of the windshield....there is no real force on it...but you can describe it's motion as if there was. A viewer standing by the edge of the road, btw, does not see a book sliding left to right (perhaps one could say he sees the car diverging/turning away from the book's initial straight path). So we have differing frames of reference, the viewer on the side of the road, and a viewer inside the car. To make the situation even worse, we are on a rotating globe which is orbiting around a sun in a galaxy spinning and moving through the comos, etc.

On the web there are many confusing texts and examples (and some inexact definitions)

Here's one page for the tape on the dashboard (and, lol, says there is no such thing as centrifugal force, but then they are ignoring that it can be used for an analysis inside the frame of reference):
Graphic: No such thing as centrifugal force (Flame Licker)

Btw, I am not trying to speak authoritatively on this and my understanding of non-inertial frames of reference may be wrong or incomplete, etc. I do see mention at wikipedia in the article on rotating reference frames that "All non-inertial reference frames exhibit fictitious forces."

I agree, it's all quite confusing to those that haven't studied it in depth. It seems those that say it doesn't exist claim that acceleration is responsible. But I feel like basic Newtonian physics kind of simplifies things for those of us that aren't trying to build space stations or mathmatical models. I think the non-inertial car example is a bit different then, say a rock on a string example. In twirling a rock on a string, the centripetal force, the action, is being transmitted by the string, and the centrifugal force, the reaction, is acting on the source of the centripetal force and is pulling outward from the center of its rotation. Equal and opposite reactions. See Newtons Third law. But I'm no expert either. However fictitious or not, in my opinion using centrifugal and centripetal to classify any sort of release styles as being one or the other is deeply flawed, and nonsensical from a scientific standpoint.