Why high hands at the top?

[natep]

I used to think Hogan had the best swing ever. I spent almost ten years trying to emulate it. Spent hundreds if not thousands of hours reviewing every obscure video I could find. Read every Hogan secret book. Every Hogan thread on every forum on the net.

Trying to copy his swing was just a giant waste of time for me.

Check out this swing, before his accident, but after his alleged "secret". A hell of a lot different than the swing he had after his accident. One of the most swashbuckling swings you'll see from back then.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niBSCaC3E2k[/media]



Hogan swung the way he did after his accident not because he wanted to, but because he had no choice, imo.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Do you mean a 2-planer with palmar flexion at the top a'la Dustin Johnson ?

Cheers

No sir, think more Nick Price

 

[lia41985]

Of course. Here is the quote from Wikipedia (I haven't got my books with me now):

"The muscles and joints of the shoulder allow it to move through a remarkable range of motion, making it the most mobile joint in the human body.[citation needed] The shoulder can abduct, adduct (such as during the shoulder fly), rotate, be raised in front of and behind the torso and move through a full 360° in the sagittal plane. This tremendous range of motion also makes the shoulder extremely unstable, far more prone to dislocation and injury than other joints."

Add to the consideration the mass of arms and their length and you'll have the big picture.

Cheers

P.S. No surprise dr Neal talked about the importance of shoulder strength. He's not ignorant for sure.

The shoulder can become injured as a result of instability in the shoulder joint. But guess what, the flip side of this instability is an incredible range of motion, which utilized can produce a sensational amount of power. "Keeping" your shoulders "stable" (by "gluing" them to your chest to achieve a "flat", "low-plane", and/or "one plane" arm position) really prevents one from executing both a precise and powerful athletic motion. Darius, your "science" would say that baseball pitching at the MLB is an impossibility. But by utilizing tremendous range of motion in their shoulders, professional pitchers are able to throw with high speed and accuracy (95 mph fastball in the corner).

While on the topic of the shoulders, I thought this might be an interesting view for some of you guys:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bJ6o5DCr_h8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bJ6o5DCr_h8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[msheftic]

I think if you look at all the different swing you can come to one conclusion, higher hands works great for some and a little flatter works great for others. That is the beauty of the golf swing, there are so many different ways.

You cannot argue with Tiger's record, he is that good. But his driver maybe the worst part of his game. His ability to get the ball in the hole from just about anywhere is why he is the best. His left arm is pretty much across his shoulders and his hands are high. Not a bad combination.

 

[ej20]

Research may very well uncover that high hands is the optimum way to achieve the best combination of distance and accuracy but what if that is just not in your swing DNA?

Some people will never get their hands as high as Nicklaus or Dustin Johnson no matter how hard they try.Nobody in history has ever succesfully copied Jack's swing nor has anyone copied Hogan's.

Let's say someone tries for high hands and the highest they can manage is head high?Is that considered high hands ala Nicklaus or Dustin Johnson?

 

[mgranato]

I paid for the anti summit. I observed nothing more than what I would on an instruction video. All heresay.

Can you point me to the instruction video that you've watched which featured Zick, Wood, and Neal? Apparently that level of expertise is common in your instructional video library, but I was unaware that such videos existed. Maybe you can provide a link so I can add the video to my library as well.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Research may very well uncover that high hands is the optimum way to achieve the best combination of distance and accuracy but what if that is just not in your swing DNA?

Some people will never get their hands as high as Nicklaus or Dustin Johnson no matter how hard they try.Nobody in history has ever succesfully copied Jack's swing nor has anyone copied Hogan's.

Let's say someone tries for high hands and the highest they can manage is head high?Is that considered high hands ala Nicklaus or Dustin Johnson?

Agreed. But I dont really think anyone is saying everyone should have high hands. I, for one, take exception to what I feel (i could be wrong) is becoming an all too commonly accepted viewpoint that centered swings with flow, deep hands simplifies things and is better for consistency.

 

[ej20]

Agreed. But I dont really think anyone is saying everyone should have high hands. I, for one, take exception to what I feel (i could be wrong) is becoming an all too commonly accepted viewpoint that centered swings with flow, deep hands simplifies things and is better for consistency.

Now I am not a fan of SnT but my opinion is that their arms are not all that flat at the top.It only appears that way due to their very steep shoulder turn.It is flat in relation to the shoulders but not in relation to the ground.

I think that's the beauty of golf.There may be an optimal way but there is not one way.There has been great players with a centered pivot and there has been great players with 2 pivot points.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Agreed. But I dont really think anyone is saying everyone should have high hands. I, for one, take exception to what I feel (i could be wrong) is becoming an all too commonly accepted viewpoint that centered swings with flow, deep hands simplifies things and is better for consistency.

That is it.

 

[JON B]

Just going by what the man (who is revered around here, as he should be) actually said, without any what-if's. But if their ages were reversed, I bet Hogan woulda said he wished his hands were higher at the top.

 

[matt kluck]

Power Golf

Research "Power Golf" and you will see a better swing than the "Five Fundamentals"!!!!!
MK

Just going by what the man (who is revered around here, as he should be) actually said, without any what-if's. But if their ages were reversed, I bet Hogan woulda said he wished his hands were higher at the top.

 

[ej20]

I think Byron Nelson said something to the effect that Hogan hit a lot of greens but he was not all that consistently close to the hole.He may have been very conservative about attacking pins as was Nicklaus.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Just look at the guys in the Golf Hall of Fame. How many of them have flat Hogan backswings?

While using the word "flat" is pejorative and I do not like this expression, especially if we talk about swinging more or less perpendicularily to the spine (prefer low plane description) it is no doubt that three men and one woman with such "flat" swings were claimed the best ballstrikers that ever lived - Hogan, Moe, Knudson and Mrs.Wright.
Noone is arguing that a low plane swing is a recipee for winning tournaments since it depends on more factors than ballstriking quality only but it is certainly the best kinetic model for repeatability. Saying that low plane swings have no values is hypocrisy. IMHO, it's just a qui pro quo situation as usually in life.

I used to think Hogan had the best swing ever. I spent almost ten years trying to emulate it. Spent hundreds if not thousands of hours reviewing every obscure video I could find. Read every Hogan secret book. Every Hogan thread on every forum on the net.

Trying to copy his swing was just a giant waste of time for me.

Actually, I am very sorry to disagree again, Nate. While we can argue that post-secret pre-accident is the best of Hogan's swings (1946-49), its principles are much closer to his post-accident swing than to his pre-secret swing. Moreover, I am sorry to say this, if you wasted 10 years in trying to emulate Hogan's swing and you did not see anything good it simply means that you concentrated on eye-striking details instead on the big picture and main biokinetic principles.

No sir, think more Nick Price

OK, understood, thanks. Not a bad choice and I can imagine biomechanists defend this action easily, however, not my ideal model.

Research "Power Golf" and you will see a better swing than the "Five Fundamentals"!!!!!
MK

Oh, no.

Good discussion, Gents. It's a pleasure to read such threads.

Cheers

 

[Brian Manzella]

Whew!

Lots of things can work for lots of people. I just don't think discounting Hogan or Snead in favor of Bubba Watson is going to help the cause against the method guys. Nor will saying PERIOD after every sentence.

Jon,

The whole POINT of my belief on the golf swing is that you DO NOT HAVE TO swing upright, or flat, or anything in between, or shift a lot, or a little, or have a tripod running through your coconut, or where a white belt.

That's the POINT.

Period.

The method guys say they have science, they might have a teaspoon, but all of the science we've learned AFTER the Anti-Summit says—no chance.

That goes for Brian Manzella as well.

I have totally revamped what I am doing with some of my better players who swing on flatter Eventual Planes.

Constant Upgrades—That is my advantage over the "method guys."

Agreed. But I dont really think anyone is saying everyone should have high hands. I, for one, take exception to what I feel (i could be wrong) is becoming an all too commonly accepted viewpoint that centered swings with flow, deep hands simplifies things and is better for consistency.

That is ALL I am saying.

I don't have any students that I get to swing upright just for funzies. I just know the swings that look like the golfer's underarms are Super 77ed to their arms, are just not "scientifically optimum."

But if it works for any student, I am down with that.

Research "Power Golf" and you will see a better swing than the "Five Fundamentals"!!!!!
MK

I used to think the same thing.

I now believe the opposite.

 

[natep]

Dariusz,

There is a Golf Digest interview with Hogan where he says that the strongest feature of his swing was that his left arm went across his chest at the top of the swing. I'm sure you've seen it. Trying to copy this, combined with Hogan's concept of the arms being bound with rope, is what held me back and kept me from improving past a certain point.

When I first started playing as a kid, it was commonly accepted that Hogan was the best ever and that he was the model. All the kids I played with, the pro at the club, said 5 Lessons was all anyone needed. I got pretty good, I could break 80, but I wasnt near as good as I could have been if I wouldve ended my fascination with Hogan sooner.

I'm 6'1", with long arms, and trying to copy his top of the backswing postion was just stupid. You can say whatever you want about the biokinetics and automation, but you'll never convince me that Hogan's swing is the best swing for everybody. No swing is the best for everybody.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz,

There is a Golf Digest interview with Hogan where he says that the strongest feature of his swing was that his left arm went across his chest at the top of the swing. I'm sure you've seen it. Trying to copy this, combined with Hogan's concept of the arms being bound with rope, is what held me back and kept me from improving past a certain point.

When I first started playing as a kid, it was commonly accepted that Hogan was the best ever and that he was the model. All the kids I played with, the pro at the club, said 5 Lessons was all anyone needed. I got pretty good, I could break 80, but I wasnt near as good as I could have been if I wouldve ended my fascination with Hogan sooner.

I'm 6'1", with long arms, and trying to copy his top of the backswing postion was just stupid. You can say whatever you want about the biokinetics and automation, but you'll never convince me that Hogan's swing is the best swing for everybody. No swing is the best for everybody.

I do not want to convince anyone that Hogan's swing is the best for everybody. But I believe that the majority of Hogan's macroscale swing principles (such as e.g. grip, diagonal stance, utilizing ground forces perfectly, moving sequentially from the ground up, low plane, benefitting from hard structure torques, putting the motion in a cascade of events resulting one from the other, etc.) are optimal for each 2-legged, 2-armed creature with a head on top in our 3-D reality while the goal is repeatability. This is the real treasure of Hogan's secrets, not copying every position he was capable to achieve.

Cheers

 

[natep]

Dariusz,

I have no objections at all to extrapolating macroscale principles from Hogan's swing.

 

[BIGBALL]

This would be the opposite of high hands.It has been said that Doug Sanders only ever leaves the fairway to make phone calls.I don't think he was very long though.

High hands or low hands,I think you should do whatever is in your golf DNA.Would anyone lower Jim Furyks hands or get Doug to raise his hands higher?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/giM-46V31_k?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/giM-46V31_k?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Wow - I would say that is about the exact length of my swing! Of course, I have some club face issues, so I do leave the fairway for more than phone calls - more like backpacking

 

[ej20]

Wow - I would say that is about the exact length of my swing! Of course, I have some club face issues, so I do leave the fairway for more than phone calls - more like backpacking

BIGBALL,there's nothing wrong with a 3/4 backswing.Another guy by the name of Moe Norman also used a very short backswing.

 

[Brian Manzella]

After a little editing....

I felt this thread was worth saving from the freezer....

So, here it is.

This is what I am saying:

I rarely LOWER arms in lessons, most hackers arms, once you fix their hands, are too low.

Now with better players, some do a lot better with a slightly flatter backswing then they came to me with. But really, I just use the adjustment like any of dozens of other different swing elements. Part of a customized whole.

As far as the shoulder movement goes, this has been an observation of mine since I was pup teacher many moons ago:

The shoulders have to move beyond their cozy confines of address to hit the ball a lick.

One of our science pals, has told us in scientific terms why this movement is important.

Basically, it is a couple of more power generators.