drewyallop
New
Watch Dr Zick in the anti-summit video.
Tumble Torque
- Thread starter gmbtempe
- Start date
- Status
Watch Dr Zick in the anti-summit video.
lia41985
New member
I'm also curious about the shoulder tumble point made by Kevin.
S
SteveT
Guest
Drew ... can you briefly explain what Dr. Zick said about "torque" at the Anti-Summit ... if it was in the context of lead arm/hand 'tumble' ... thanks.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Shoulder tumble, for lack of a better term (tumble is a handpath thing) is only used for lower paths requiring a high right shoulder to keep the clubhead moving out to the ball and not dropping undeplane. So use it if it matches your swing, but its not what is making the club tip over to the other side of the hands.
S
SteveT
Guest
Is such precision necessary in the golfswing ... or should we be giving more validity to Michael Hebron's "in the ball park" concept of the golf swing ???
Last edited:
How and why?
Kevin, I'm more inclined to think this has less to do with "keeping the clubhead moving out to the ball" and more to do with the intended path. The only reason someone would be "under plane" is if they had shifted their plane line out to the right and are trying to "strike the inside aft quadrant".
Furthermore, I think hip action (or even leg action) is in fact the primary root of the issue. I have not see anyone approach the ball vastly under-plane but with a proper amount of open hips. Usually they're dead-legged or trying desperately to keep the hips from rotating by rolling on the inside of their back foot and keeping the heel on the ground. Heel on the ground = under plane, Heel off the ground early = over plane. Not always but a good general rule of thumb.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
S
SteveT
Guest
Anybody who tries to apply an axial torque on the club through "applied supination" of the lead forearm or even the entire left arm from the shoulder socket to the wrists is destabilizing the centripetal radius.
Besides it's a useless manoever because all you are doing is uncontrollably spinning the eccentric clubhead into the ball at Impact.
If you hit the ball on the sweet spot while 'tumbling' the clubface around the sweet spot axis; the toe side of the club is spanking the ball and the heel side is running away from the ball.
You want to have a still axis clubface going squarely into the ball at Impact ... and if you are 'tumbling' the clubhead approaching the ball, you won't be able to stop the momentum and you will never be able to time it into Impact properly.
Hope that helps ....
drewyallop
New
I'll paraphrase he good Doctor: There are two ways to apply force on the down-swing 1. pushing down with the right hand and 2. pulling up with the left hand.
A Manzella instructor here, can't remember who, has recommended uncocking the left wrist by pushing down with the right hand. I think he is saying the same thing.
Is it a matter of one or the other? I don't think it was discussed but I assume they are not mutually exclusive.
There was no mention of torque or applying a twisting force but if you hold a club straight out in front you, rotate on a horizontal plane and apply one or both of those forces you definitely feel torque. Zick also mentioned that a considerable force can be generated even by people with Olive Oyl forearms (me). In fact I can attest that it is real easy to overdo this and either lose balance or pull something in the shoulder/forearm.
This "procedure" (yes, I am channelling Homer {pbuh}) is equivalent to the much discussed force across the shaft (FATS). There was discussion of when to apply the force: the conclusion was at some point after the of the shaft was perpendicular to the ground on the down swing.
Drew
drewyallop
New
Grrrrr!
Lindsey Newman
New
Anybody who tries to apply an axial torque on the club through "applied supination" of the lead forearm or even the entire left arm from the shoulder socket to the wrists is destabilizing the centripetal radius.
Besides it's a useless manoever because all you are doing is uncontrollably spinning the eccentric clubhead into the ball at Impact.
If you hit the ball on the sweet spot while 'tumbling' the clubface around the sweet spot axis; the toe side of the club is spanking the ball and the heel side is running away from the ball.
You want to have a still axis clubface going squarely into the ball at Impact ... and if you are 'tumbling' the clubhead approaching the ball, you won't be able to stop the momentum and you will never be able to time it into Impact properly.
Hope that helps ....
Tumble is referring to the shaft not the face. The whole idea of tumble is to prevent the shaft from backing up into an under plane, inside steep position which would tend to open the face. There should be zero need to twist the shaft about itself given a good grip.
Last edited:
I only watched part of the 1st segment so far and Dr. Zick also said that at impact, the force added by the golfer is negligible, something like 40lbs. of pressure(ft.lbs.?) compared to 1400lbs., on average, without any force added. I haven't got there yet in the symposium, but it makes sense any force added by the golfer has to be added much earlier than impact.
Anybody who tries to apply an axial torque on the club through "applied supination" of the lead forearm or even the entire left arm from the shoulder socket to the wrists is destabilizing the centripetal radius.
Besides it's a useless manoever because all you are doing is uncontrollably spinning the eccentric clubhead into the ball at Impact.
If you hit the ball on the sweet spot while 'tumbling' the clubface around the sweet spot axis; the toe side of the club is spanking the ball and the heel side is running away from the ball.
You want to have a still axis clubface going squarely into the ball at Impact ... and if you are 'tumbling' the clubhead approaching the ball, you won't be able to stop the momentum and you will never be able to time it into Impact properly.
Hope that helps ....
Appreciate the detailed response but it seems like more conjecture than actual science.
Lets go at this one thing at a time.
First you say it's destabilizing the "centripetal radius". I have never heard this term before. I am not sure if you are describing the radius of the swing or the radius which the left shoulder moves around an axis. I believe you mean the latter.
If that is the case then I believe what you are saying is that any rotation around the left arm axis would move the clubs CG away from the plane that the left shoulder is rotating on. I would conquer with that, however I would point out that all swings seem to do this at some point. The left shoulder rarely if ever rotates around an axis that would lie in plane with the ball. This is especially visible with those players who have angle retention between their left arm and club at impact. They must apply SOME form of torque (with the left arm as the axis of the torque) to get the clubface square to the target, otherwise it would present the heel of the club to the ball.
Next:
I would hardly describe any maneuver that orients the clubface as a "useless maneuver". This smacks of "Well the amount of torque required to close the clubface is so much smaller than the torque we generate for speed.... so therefore it is insignificant." Since clubface closure is possibly regarded as the MOST important component of the D-Plane I would certainly not want to declare any such maneuver or torque as insignificant or useless. It may be the MOST important torque or maneuver one can make in the entire golf swing.
Next:
As Dr. Wood stated at the Anti-Summit, this is in fact what happens. The toe is going approximately 10 mph faster than the heel leading into impact. That alone suggests some force is creating it. To have one end of an object traveling faster than another would require an unbalanced force acting upon it.
Lastly:
No, I do not want the clubface going squarely into the ball at impact. That would require a manipulation of the hands and arms that I would not like to deal with. There MUST be some sort of rate of closure. That rate of closure requires fine motor skills and repetition through practice. It is in fact WHY we practice. It may be the very difference between PGA tour and 35 handicap. We all have spacial awareness. Some of us have just developed the awareness with the clubface to a much greater extent than others.
I realize that a lot of what I have to say is conjecture as well, but honestly my conjecture accounts for the human element as well as observable fact. I am willing to accept you may be right but I would need much more than just contrarian conjecture to alter my opinion.
Why does EVERYONE miss #3????
You can PULL DOWN with the right hand.
(Not directed at you specifically, I'm just always seeing this 3rd way missed.)
How would you define "under plane"?
Lindsey Newman
New
How 'bout instead of under plane let's just say under and open to the preferred sweet spot path.
Ohhh.. I like that.
I am just of the opinion someone is swinging more out to the right than the target line. I'm ok with someone saying "under plane" just as long as we really establish where the original plane is to begin with.
S
SteveT
Guest
If you take that preconceived approach, I won't bother to re-educate you ... since I have just been warned off to not hurt people's tender feelings.
However, on the issue of the closing clubface at Impact, I don't think anybody who understands the dynamics would advocate applying a "tumble" torque to the club handle to manipulate the clubface through Impact. I believe Dr. Woods only acknowledges that there is some nominal speed difference between the toe and heel at Impact, but does he explain why it happens and it's consequence to the Impact event? Search that out before throwing it out as something that you believe contradicts my comments.
It's also something that BManz should clarify to legitimize Project 1.68 ....
I'm not looking for a "re-education" because I'm quite educated. It's just that you used a term I have never heard before anywhere. Not on any golf websites, not in any of my science courses, not when I've spoken to the engineers for FAA, or my grandfather who is a former genuine NASA rocket scientist. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I've just never heard it and apparently neither have they. I think that would be "educating" instead of "re-educating" me anyway.
- Status