Ben Hogan's idea of a full golf swing being analogous to a side-throw ball throwing action and an optimum model for understanding weight shift in a full golf swing fits the school of thinking where the power is thought to be a mainly a matter of trail side action. However at one time it was thought to be exclusively a lead side affair like, for example Prof Jorgensen, and it was advised to forget the trail side almost as being a nuisance.
Mandrin, you may have already stated this but which of these two ideas above do you feel works best?
Sonic_Doom
At one time left side dominance was the general accepted wisdom with only a few exceptions, e.g., Tommy Armour. Presently there is more frequently reference to right side actions such as skipping a stone or making a sidearm underhand throw and less to left shoulder pull, as by Jorgensen, or throwing action of a frisbee. I don’t know which is better from a scientific point of view. There is perhaps a very general argument I can see in favor of lead side action and that is that pulling in front leads more readily to a stable repeatable motion at the periphery (clubhead) than a pushing effort from behind.
Let me just add a few more general observations inspired by your question.
People for ever want to use the logic of yes and no, black and white, separating things, cataloging concepts. Once something has gotten a distinct label it almost takes on a life of itself and becomes often source for vigorous debate. Golf has lots of this labeling - swinging vs hitting, pulling vs pushing, body vs arms, right vs left side, quick vs heavy hit, mind vs matter, etc..
Is there something as ONE scientifically optimum swing for all? Definitely for a robot golfer but quite likely not for a real golfer where scientific principles play a role but many more variables are introduced into the equation based on the golfer himself. However I believe that a small number of clearly defined concepts are important. Several such concepts as plane, centrifugal force, kinetic chain, 'power' accumulators, etc., constitute a healthy foundation on which a more individual stroke pattern can be built, but I don’t see one optimum model.
One has to be careful even with the opinions of scientists, when discussing golf.
Well known and very respected scientists such as Cochran et al, and Jorgensen derived that the energy of the swing, from a power viewpoint, comes in great measure from muscles other than those of the arms and shoulders, i.e., hence rather from legs, thighs and back. However their reasoning leading to this conclusion is wrong. It is based on the power produced only by the muscles and it ignored the considerable power generated by the inertial joint forces. Both Cochran and Jorgensen seemingly were unaware of this very significant contribution. Their conclusion has been accepted without questioning by many, such as, for instance, David Tutelman on his interesting website.
Both Jorgensen and Cochran et al were convinced that a powerful golf swing to be mainly a lower body powered affair. This probably stimulated and polarized the long standing debate between those who feel that power comes form the body rather than from the arms or vice versa. The golf swing still might be mainly an affair of the lower body muscles but the scientific arguments used by Jorgensen and Cochran to support this view are not as conclusive anymore. Therefore those who believe that the arms play a major role producing power in the golf swing have a little more leeway for there arguments and hence to keep the debate alive.
