Tiger questions (not bashings)

Status
Not open for further replies.

footwedge

New member
I'd prefer less personal entanglement footwedge than you are making with Darius. Please let it be.

It's a true statement for anyone to say that a particular swing is less than optimal, whether saying in general or specific ways. But demanding "micro" explanations seems out of line. It's easy for me to read that Darius thinks that the current TW swing is not good biomechanically.

Perhaps if you politely requested an explanation, then we could see if he wanted to answer, which of course he is free not to do.



Okay, pretty please Dariusz, can you please explain to us your fix for Tiger's swing problem/s we would appreciate it, you don't have to provide to much detail as I know it would just confuse most of us.

Oh! dbl, thanks for pointing out that Dariusz doesn't think Tiger's swing is not good biomechanically, I didn't even think that's what he meant. How could I have missed that, right in front of me, must have been looking in microscale, damn!

Anyways hope to hear from you soon Dariusz, love as always, your bud F.W.
 
Dariusz, I have read from your blog and site and I have to say it can be very difficult to find and grasp where the ideas are going and what conclusions should or could be drawn from them. Not to say that anything is incorrect, it is just an observation.

If Brian will allow it can you please respond to post #50. I have the same questions and I have a hard time visualizing your suggestions.
 

Dariusz J.

New member
Magicmarker,

The general idea is to create a cascade of unintentional biomechanical events. One does not need to control anything since all conscious thoughts are left before the backswing begins yet one does not need to be afraid of anything out of control since there are no options left between each link in the chain.
Theory of natural limitations (think: joints and hard structure of a human's organism) just explains everything very easily - vide the SPC concept.

Harmon had a relatively easy job - probably just to correct some microscale issues with young Tiger's amateur motion aimed at achieving the best release of kinetic chain without thinking that always is a qui pro quo. He just let the general principles of his swing go without paying any attention that his TSP shaft angle during the downswing is not what the best ballstrikers did. Either max distance or max precision. Young Woods chose the first since his body was young enough and his clubs forgiving enough to offset the general tendency of breaking pivot early and throwing arms too much in front. Harmon and noone else paid any attention that he destroys his lead knee joint because of jumping with his lead foot off the ground and stumping down to a rotated knee with all dynamic power. This is how kids swing since they want to hit the ball far. Leading with hips leaving upper body closed - a big kinetic disproportion between hips and shoulders.
Then, his knee problems appeared. Haney proposed an unreal (but theoretically very appealing) concept of congruent angles. Unfortunately, for him and his pupil, this concept could be valid for Iron Byron and not a living biped. The more hips are open (which is a proper thing for a biped aiming at killing the ball) the more he needed to be laid off to match parallel planes principles. Read: even more compensations. He needed to tame his hips while still throwing arms in front of the body - still 2-way miss and timing problems.
Foley brought flexion/extension problems in the name of saving his knee. The result, that was easy to predict is that Woods started to jump off his shoes again and his knee will suffer a lot. Instead letting the lead leg be passive during the backswing and bend inside in the knee joint (even if his lead foot rolls to the inside and the heel comes off the ground) he picked up some silly S&T concept of footwork that no previous great ballstrikers ever did before. What is even more funny, Tiger's stance practically did not improve from Haney's times - still parallel without any diagonality - while Haney had no choice with his flawed concept (vide: Iron Byron), now it should have been immediately abandoned as the first thing.

Just remarks to give the big picture. I could go on and on.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Young Woods chose the first since his body was young enough and his clubs forgiving enough to offset the general tendency of breaking pivot early and throwing arms too much in front.

I dont think young Tiger braked his pivot at all. Quite the contrary, I believe. However, I do believe that he is trying to consciously brake his pivot now under Foley.
 

Dariusz J.

New member
I dont think young Tiger braked his pivot at all. Quite the contrary, I believe. However, I do believe that he is trying to consciously brake his pivot now under Foley.

If lead heel comes off the ground (in the impact zone) there's a pivot break. Actually, it is a biokinetic symptom of pivot break. Hogan's lead heel never ever went off the ground (during impact).

Cheers
 
Last edited:
If lead heel comes off the ground (in the impact zone) there's a pivot break. Actually, it is a biokinetic symptom of pivot break. Hogan's lead heel never ever went off the ground (during impact).

Cheers

Here are a couple of guys who have their lead foot come off the ground. They must be breaking the sh*t out of their pivot.

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kr_7QDuCB3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EZ0dNIP-yoU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Dariusz J.

New member
Yes...this is qui pro quo I talked about. If you want to be a ReMax champ, break the pivot before hitting the ball...gain speed, lost control. Qui pro quo - whom did you bring to my example ??? Sadlowski and Watson ??? I am talking Hogan.

Cheers
 

Dariusz J.

New member
Why use Hogan as the template for Tiger?

At least four reasons why:

1. because Woods wants to own his swing;
2. because macroscale principles of anatomy and physics are the same for all humans (proportions are usually similar);
3. because even with papmered conditions of today I bet one would prefer to have more than ca. 50% of fairway hit (especially, even the rough is laughable today there are bushes and trees sideways);
4. because control is the name of the game instead spreading shots everywhere and counting on recovery shots.

Cheers
 

footwedge

New member
Then why not Trevino, or Moe Norman if macroscale principles of anatomy and physics are the same for all humans (proportions are usually similar). Have you seen anyone like Hogan, since?
 
Last edited:

Dariusz J.

New member
Then why not Trevino, or Moe Norman if macroscale principles of anatomy and physics are the same for all humans (proportions are usually similar). Have you seen anyone like Hogan, since?

Moe's and Trevino's principles were very similar in macroscale despite obvious differences. Trevino's stance was faulty (the consequence was that's why he couldn't match all the courses) while Norman's autistic mind forced him to trust his arms detached from his body. Add guys like Knudson, Snead, De Vincenzo, Boros, Cotton, Armour, Jones, etc. to the herd. It's enough to watch and compare similarities in macroscale.

Cheers
 

footwedge

New member
Moe's and Trevino's principles were very similar in macroscale despite obvious differences. Trevino's stance was faulty (the consequence was that's why he couldn't match all the courses) while Norman's autistic mind forced him to trust his arms detached from his body. Add guys like Knudson, Snead, De Vincenzo, Boros, Cotton, Armour, Jones, etc. to the herd. It's enough to watch and compare similarities in macroscale.

Cheers


Thanks, that's all I need to know. Trevino's stance was faulty, I wonder if he knew?
 
Last edited:
I should have remembered Fridays are 1zł potato vodka shots at your local polish watering hole. You're right, they all brake their pivot and no one will ever swing the club like Benny. Cheers.
 

Dariusz J.

New member
Thanks that's all I need to know. Trevino's stance was faulty, I wonder if he knew?

I think he knew something was out of order while he admitted he never could perform well e.g. on Augusta since the course was not adjusted to his stock shots.

Cheers
 

Dariusz J.

New member
I should have remembered Fridays are 1zł potato vodka shots at your local polish watering hole. You're right, they all brake their pivot and no one will ever swing the club like Benny. Cheers.

You have my full attention what happens next after you lie down after your usual carrot juice, ROFL.

Cheers
 
He used to do that little 3 step move before he took the club back, yes? He couldn't hit the ball from a more static address position because it didn't address right to him.

 
Thanks for explaining your position in detail. I understand much better now.

I agree 100% about your Haney analysis.

In an attempt to get back to this being a Tiger thread....I bet Tiger never thought he would have so much in common with Charles Barkley and Ray Ramano. They all tried really hard, but in the end Hank reassured them that it was not his fault they weren't improving. Just look at yourself on video, see how your optimum swing plane is this line, you're still not on plane...
 

bcoak

New
My thread. Please answer the questions, especially number2
1. It has been said that Foley takes some ST components. Read something by a trainer in Golfworld saying that it looks like Tiger is putting more strain on his left knee with this swing as he has more weight on his left leg and driving his hips, producing stress on the knee. Thoughts?
2. On Friday, he hit a big snap hook into the trees. Not sure if this means anything, but his tee flew way right. Is this a result of what Brian said of the 10* inside out?
3. Low hands. Tiger has played his whole life standing tall and making a big turn. He know looks scrunched with very low hands. This seems very drastic. What is Foley trying to do w/ the low hands?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top