For years, many of us have taught and played with the idea that the butt end of the club should point at the target line from the start of the downswing to the last parallel. Moving the hands towards the ball was the easiest way to do this. If we are now trying to move our hands down more steeply, do we still want the butt end of the club to point at the target line on the downswing? If we do, how do we flatten the shaft while moving the hands steeper? My shaft follows my hands and gets steeper. Thanks so much Brian and Mike for your great work.
The Release w/Brian Manzella & Michael Jacobs
- Thread starter dschultz6072
- Start date
- Status
Lindsey Newman
New
You'd be surprised at how your hand path and shaft will look if you send your hands wide and away from the target line behind you. The camera is the key to misperception. What you see from down the line misleads the viewer.
When you make this wide, away from the target line transition and downswing, it will not look any different than a more vertical hand path, but the path of the clubhead is unbelievably different.
Jwat
New
Brian,
You taught my dad and I this shot a couple of years ago. You said no tugging what so ever and take a slower longer BS then just release the clubhead. I do it for all shots from chipping to 100yd in. Haven't ever changed it since then because of continued success. Used to be the worst part of both of our games till we recieved your expertise. The couple of times I did hit some bad shots was due to the body moving towards target during the swing which was caused by the tug.
Everyone should really listen to what Lindsey is preaching here. It is 100% the truth!
scorekeeper
New member
I believe in the last 2 pages the thread has turned a bit right..(as in direction)
Can you use just swingspeed to determine how much shaft deflection there is? Sergio Garcia and Fred Couples may have similar swingspeeds, but Sergio appears to put more load (deflection) on the shaft. So even though the swingspeeds are similar wouldn't the deflection numbers be different because of how much their type swing deflects the shaft?
I remember the story of Fred Couples who used a ladies fairway-wood given to him by Tom Watson to win the Masters in the early 90's.
I remember the story of Fred Couples who used a ladies fairway-wood given to him by Tom Watson to win the Masters in the early 90's.
dschultz6072
New
Couples uses X flex. The only thing slow about his swing is the change of direction. He would snap hook a ladies shaft off the planet.
Michael Jacobs
Super Moderator
When you say a published paper is not accurate in your OPINION, you are making a very big statement. When a paper is published in a world renown journal is is RIGOROUSLY examined for accuracy. Any of the information I divulge has been fully tested
The only reason I haven't discussed the source of those particular deflection numbers is because of all the internet golf swing loons that would be harassing the author with calls and emails. Several of the people who I have hired to do consultation & research specifically asked for that not to happen. The last thing we all need is another loon who can't break 90 calling up and arguing with the finest minds in the golf.
I have done my best to collect & purchase the largest library of scientific information available, every single paper or published work that has been referenced or listed I have in my collection. The USGA has a tremendous amount of information and research that they have never published that I was able to access and consult with. There are 8 specific authors that I find to be the best, and I have consulted with them in extreme detail and have enjoyed all of my time studying. A well known published author has asked me to participate and assist in his future research.
There are a lot shaft deflections statistics I could have used in the show.. for example here is one:
Player with very close to 100 mph head speed and had 1.3 inches of lead deflection at impact
The reason I chose those published numbers is because I wanted my audience to understand deflection, to help them with that I decided to show the extremity of 118mph with a Flexible shaft.
The only reason I haven't discussed the source of those particular deflection numbers is because of all the internet golf swing loons that would be harassing the author with calls and emails. Several of the people who I have hired to do consultation & research specifically asked for that not to happen. The last thing we all need is another loon who can't break 90 calling up and arguing with the finest minds in the golf.
I have done my best to collect & purchase the largest library of scientific information available, every single paper or published work that has been referenced or listed I have in my collection. The USGA has a tremendous amount of information and research that they have never published that I was able to access and consult with. There are 8 specific authors that I find to be the best, and I have consulted with them in extreme detail and have enjoyed all of my time studying. A well known published author has asked me to participate and assist in his future research.
There are a lot shaft deflections statistics I could have used in the show.. for example here is one:
Player with very close to 100 mph head speed and had 1.3 inches of lead deflection at impact
The reason I chose those published numbers is because I wanted my audience to understand deflection, to help them with that I decided to show the extremity of 118mph with a Flexible shaft.
Last edited:
mandrin
New
Just so this doesn't get buried in the thread....
Brian,
A key factor to consider is the large damping due to the soft biomechanical tissue of the hands. Many are prone to think the club when swinging to behave similarly with the butt end camped in a vice.
If the head is deflected, with butt end clamped in a vice, it will vibrate for a considerable time. It can't when the butt end is held by the hands of a golfer. Too much damping.
This is also the reason why the initial deflection energy of the shaft generated at the transition is quickly dissipated and hence no forward kick.
When modeling, either though software or hard ware, a study of shaft deflection has to take into account this damping effect through the hands, otherwise results will have little meaning.
Michael Jacobs
Super Moderator
Mandrin,
All of those were taken into account... just like David Williams said a long time ago
"the hands are as if the club handle is stuck in MUDD'
It makes me feel great, especially the part about the "loons."
The only thing you left out is their deliberate mis-quoting of your findings.
I know that you get absolutely hounded with b.s. over the internet because of what you, Brian and others are doing in an effort to bring real evidence of aspects in the golf swing into perspective. The above post could have front loaded and stressed more what you said in the video for those that do not understand where you are getting your information. It was well written. Especially the aspect of what a research article goes through to get published into a scientific journal. Those who have not had the privilege of going through this process really have no idea how difficult it is. They may just think in terms of typing at their computer desks and relate that to what the authors of scientific journals are required to do.
Just trying to suggest that you try to keep emotions out of the backing for your research findings. I think those attacking your information are looking just for those emotional comebacks.
golfbulldog
New
Remember that scientific publications are published so that people can read and reply to them - whether those replies (if directed to the editor of the journal) are published is at the editor's discretion....
A publication is usually only reviewed by 2-3 experts in that field - some of whom may be involved in direct competitive research ... it has been known for some referees to reject papers based on their competitive instincts.... apparently
The referees are only their to make sure that quality of the science is adequate for the publication.... the editor has already assessed it as interesting and valid topic for consideration.... but, once published, they invite discussion and responses from loons or others...
A publication is usually only reviewed by 2-3 experts in that field - some of whom may be involved in direct competitive research ... it has been known for some referees to reject papers based on their competitive instincts.... apparently
The referees are only their to make sure that quality of the science is adequate for the publication.... the editor has already assessed it as interesting and valid topic for consideration.... but, once published, they invite discussion and responses from loons or others...
Remember that scientific publications are published so that people can read and reply to them - whether those replies (if directed to the editor of the journal) are published is at the editor's discretion....
A publication is usually only reviewed by 2-3 experts in that field - some of whom may be involved in direct competitive research ... it has been known for some referees to reject papers based on their competitive instincts.... apparently
The referees are only their to make sure that quality of the science is adequate for the publication.... the editor has already assessed it as interesting and valid topic for consideration.... but, once published, they invite discussion and responses from loons or others...
There's loons and then there's LOONS.
Remember that scientific publications are published so that people can read and reply to them - whether those replies (if directed to the editor of the journal) are published is at the editor's discretion....
A publication is usually only reviewed by 2-3 experts in that field - some of whom may be involved in direct competitive research ... it has been known for some referees to reject papers based on their competitive instincts.... apparently
The referees are only their to make sure that quality of the science is adequate for the publication.... the editor has already assessed it as interesting and valid topic for consideration.... but, once published, they invite discussion and responses from loons or others...
I bolded the most important part of your response which leads to a greater likelihood of having a significant finding.
Yes and some publications have more credibility than others.
A loon is still a loon if he/she has no credible evidence of their own to back up their responses.
Last edited:
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
golfbulldog,
Having gone through this process (within the field of education, not science), yes there is feedback and debate...with other professional practitioners (Brian, Michael, etc.) or researchers (Nesbitt, et. al) within the field, NOT hobbyists.
As footwedge eloquently stated, "There are loons and then there's LOONS".
Having gone through this process (within the field of education, not science), yes there is feedback and debate...with other professional practitioners (Brian, Michael, etc.) or researchers (Nesbitt, et. al) within the field, NOT hobbyists.
As footwedge eloquently stated, "There are loons and then there's LOONS".
Last edited:
Lindsey Newman
New
I was called a "hobbyist" by someone who is a PGA professional and I took deep offense to it. There are knowledgeable folks that delve very deep into subjects outside of their day jobs. I am not defending anyone with that statement by the way.
birly-shirly
New
Fair point Lindsey - but if the "loon" reference is to anyone raising an objection here, then I'd say that is a tad unfair.
Professional researchers who want to speak peer to peer should publish through their specialist journals. Bring your stuff to a web forum and you've got to take what comes, IMOP. Frans might or might not have had a valid point - but there's no point in getting emotional if you bring your stuff to market here and someone challenges you.
Professional researchers who want to speak peer to peer should publish through their specialist journals. Bring your stuff to a web forum and you've got to take what comes, IMOP. Frans might or might not have had a valid point - but there's no point in getting emotional if you bring your stuff to market here and someone challenges you.
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
I was speaking of the process. Understand where Mike is coming from too. Attacked by everyone from all sides, most with an agenda to protect, when all he is trying to do is get information from research scientists to golfer in a usable way.
birly-shirly
New
C'mon Jared - that's a bit siege mentality, no?
You've got a 94 page thread here and characterising that as an "attack by everyone from all sides" is getting things way out of proportion. Most folks here seem to have been wildly enthusiastic - in spite of the explicit caveats that what's been offered is "for information - not instructional".
That's been part of the problem, in my opinion. Many people haven't come on with their own agenda - but they've maybe misunderstood because the information is coming out in bits and pieces and not structured directly for people to put into practice. That's not a criticism (or even an attack from all sides) - it's just an observation about some of the points that have been raised, and which seem to have raised hackles.
I'm saying this all only from reading what's on here. If there's been a different vibe on other fora, then that's passed me by completely.
You've got a 94 page thread here and characterising that as an "attack by everyone from all sides" is getting things way out of proportion. Most folks here seem to have been wildly enthusiastic - in spite of the explicit caveats that what's been offered is "for information - not instructional".
That's been part of the problem, in my opinion. Many people haven't come on with their own agenda - but they've maybe misunderstood because the information is coming out in bits and pieces and not structured directly for people to put into practice. That's not a criticism (or even an attack from all sides) - it's just an observation about some of the points that have been raised, and which seem to have raised hackles.
I'm saying this all only from reading what's on here. If there's been a different vibe on other fora, then that's passed me by completely.
- Status