Why high hands at the top?

[drewyallop]

I may be wrong, but don't higher hands at the top mean greater instantaneous velocity at the bottom?

Take as an illustration a system of two bodies, the earth and a ball. A ball resting on the ground has no potential energy. Lift the ball and the ball gains potential energy. Drop the ball and the potential energy is released in the form of acceleration which produces a certain ball velocity at any arbitrary point in time, say just before the ball strikes the ground.

Lift the ball higher and drop it. The rate of acceleration is exactly the same as the first case (air resistance ignored) but because the duration of the acceleration is greater, the velocity is also greater just before the ball strikes the ground.

By analogy and all other things being equal, lifting the hands higher on the backswing will result in greater velocity of the club/body earth system. Of course an individual golfer may not be capable of the work necessary to lift beyond a certain point because of muscular restriction (strength, flexibility). But in all cases, any increase in hand height will result in greater clubhead velocity.

So is it also true that a laid off configuration at the top will always develop less velocity, all else being equal.

Comments?

Drew

 

[natep]

It has been my experience that more clubhead speed is attainable with higher hands.

I'm interested to hear what the more knowledgeable than I have to say about it.

 

[Bigwill]

It has been my experience that more clubhead speed is attainable with higher hands.

I'm interested to hear what the more knowledgeable than I have to say about it.

Ditto for me.

 

[aaron_lohan]

I think the speed comes from a freer arm swing, if you keep the arms ultra flat and connected to the body they will travel slower due to the fact the body turns relatively slowly.

 

[drewyallop]

I think the speed comes from a freer arm swing, if you keep the arms ultra flat and connected to the body they will travel slower due to the fact the body turns relatively slowly.

Good observation. If I understand you correctly higher hands also have the extra benefit of freeing the arms in addition to the extra velocity gained.

Drew

 

[Todd Dugan]

Sean Foley has said that "deeper" hands (flatter) is more powerful. But did anyone catch the side-by-side comparison of Bubba Watson and Jamie Sadlowski in the long drive competition at Kapulua last Thursday? Those dudes were reachin for the sky! Jamie can CARRY it 400 yards..................

 

[natep]

Sean Foley has said that "deeper" hands (flatter) is more powerful. But did anyone catch the side-by-side comparison of Bubba Watson and Jamie Sadlowski in the long drive competition at Kapulua last Thursday? Those dudes were reachin for the sky! Jamie can CARRY it 400 yards..................

That's an interesting Foley statement.

I would be astonished if Bubba or Sadlowski could gain distance with their lead arm across their chest at the top.

 

[natep]

Sean Foley has said that "deeper" hands (flatter) is more powerful. But did anyone catch the side-by-side comparison of Bubba Watson and Jamie Sadlowski in the long drive competition at Kapulua last Thursday? Those dudes were reachin for the sky! Jamie can CARRY it 400 yards..................

I did see the side by side. I also remember Faldo saying something like "If you dont reach for the sky.....you dont have a chance".

Does anyone know what he was talking about? Was he saying you dont have a chance to hit it long, or saying you dont have a chance in general?

 

[Brian Manzella]

It has to do with the DIFFERENCE between how much the SHOULDERS move and the BACK moves.

No way to do it as much "across the chest."

Sean is guessing a bit.

 

[msheftic]

I would agree that higher hands at the top would result in more speed. Some seeking more distance would benefit with higher hands. Many short hitter I teach have the shaft eye level at the top of the back swing. Broken down left arm with minimum turn results in very little power.

Compare Snead to Hogan. Sam was one of the longest on Tour back in his prime and after his prime could still hit the hell out of the ball. But Ben was probably the best ball striker to ever live and he was more left arm across the chest. Much flater than Sam. Ben wasn't as long as Sam but both proved each backswing worked and worked well.

If a player is going for max distance, yes higher the better. If your seeking more control with a preminum on hitting fairways, I like more of the left arm across the chest. That doesn't mean hands are low. Matt Kuchar is your prime example. Pretty good year in 2010 and he could have the flattest swing on tour. Probably much flatter than I would teach but how could agrue with his results. Could he pick up 20 more yards with much higher hands? Maybe, but do you sacrifice control for distance?

 

[golfdad]

so essentially we are talking about 2 plane vs one plane, right?

or at least, higher 2 plane vs lower 2 plane?

 

[ej20]

Generally speaking a longer backswing will result in longer drives.Not always but most LD guys have ultra long backswings.The more you swing the hands back,the more the arms will lift taking the hands higher.

Keeping the left arm across the chest essentially prevents the arm lift and so you will have lower hands and a shorter backswing for more control.

I have no doubt that the so called 2 plane swing has more potential for distance than the one plane.

 

[proguy747]

Is everybody trying to hit the bar as far as possible?
Or are you trying to create a more consistent swing?

 

[ej20]

Is everybody trying to hit the bar as far as possible?
Or are you trying to create a more consistent swing?

I am certainly not good enough to play with a longer 2 plane swing.I prefer to keep it shorter and across my chest to eliminate the need for a big re route.

 

[natep]

I want to hit it as far as possible and consistent. In my opinion there's no real reason they have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Kevin Shields]

There is absolutely no reason high hands would cause any inconsistency if you know what you can and cant do with it. This idea that low hands being more consistent is absurd. Maybe it is for some, maybe not. But to say it as if it were just common knowledge is just plain wrong. I know plenty of people that have components that dont mesh at all with low hands.

 

[Kevin Shields]

I am certainly not good enough to play with a longer 2 plane swing.I prefer to keep it shorter and across my chest to eliminate the need for a big re route.

Not good enough??

 

[Kevin Shields]

Is everybody trying to hit the bar as far as possible?
Or are you trying to create a more consistent swing?

What are you implying? That low hands are more consistent?

 

[ej20]

Not good enough??

Not good enough as in being able to do the big shift back on a good plane on the downswing.An example would be Furyk.

Without the big shift,you might come down a little too steep and OTT.

 

[proguy747]

high hands usually come with arms that are out of synch with the body.