Why this position?

[lia41985]

What the advantage of such a top of that backswing position (pause at :28 second mark):
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_p1PwISsnYg?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/_p1PwISsnYg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Any thoughts from the forum?

I would argue that this position is a result of the player trying to move his arms as inward and upward as possible, which is in accordance with what Brian has said about what a good backswing does:

...taking your hands swing in and upward to a right arm throwing position

Taken from: http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/172197-post1.html

 

[Jared Willerson]

That pose looks GREAT with a line drawing program!

 

[birdie_man]

No one should really have anything against Sergio's swing (why should I he is amazing) for starters. But Sergio doesn't load fully until into his downswing. It is not for everyone.

If he was anywhere close to fully loaded at the top 28 mark) it would look a hell of a lot different.

 

[lia41985]

No one should really have anything against Sergio's swing (why should I he is amazing) for starters. But Sergio doesn't load fully until into his downswing. It is not for everyone.

If he was anywhere close to fully loaded at the top 28 mark) it would look a hell of a lot different.

My question remains what benefits are yielded from getting to such a top of the backswing position? I would argue there is a benefit. I believe Sergio's top position is a result of following the swing thought offered by Brian of what a good backswing was: which is to get the hands BOTH as UPWARDS as possible and as INWARDS as possible. Brian's student, Lindsay, does this beautifully 20 mark):
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/brxuVLnqjiY?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/brxuVLnqjiY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

And wouldn't you know it that both of their right arms look like they're in a position to throw the hell out of something! Getting the hands working like this, as Brian suggests, loads the pivot maximally. What is amazing, I think, about Sergio's swing, is that he's able to ADD EVEN MORE LOAD to his swing, which he does so via his famed lag/trigger delay paired with a late tumble.

 

[greenfree]

Must be a better vid of Sergio to illustrate the inward/upward handpath, hard to see, but i get the point.
I don't think many could copy that d.s.

 

[lia41985]

Must be a better vid of Sergio to illustrate the inward/upward handpath

Here's the most illustrative video I could find (closely observe the first two seconds):
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9hI52BFxdwc?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/9hI52BFxdwc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[Brian Manzella]

Some comparisons...

BLUE DOTS: Shoulder Sockets

GREEN LINE: Turned Shoulder Plane

Slim RED LINE: Plane of Shoulders

DARK GREY LINE: Plane of Lower Left Arm

 

[lia41985]

I went ahead, before Brian posted, as a courtesy to remove references to other instructors/methodologies because truly, I didn't want the discussion to be about other instructors, but on Sergio's top position in light of Brian's take on the backswing.

 

[lia41985]

BLUE DOTS: Shoulder Sockets

GREEN LINE: Turned Shoulder Plane

Slim RED LINE: Plane of Shoulders

DARK GREY LINE: Plane of Lower Left Arm

Just a shot in the dark here, but in a backswing that gets the arms moving maximally inward and upward, does it look like the plane of the lower left arm traces the turned shoulder plane?

 

[birdie_man]

Why is no one "selling" Nicklaus?

(nowhere near the flat armswing stuff anyway)

 

[jenhaoyen]

Why is no one "selling" Nicklaus?

(nowhere near the flat armswing stuff anyway)

Upward back swing is harder to teach if you don't understand how to do it correctly. Swinging around the shoulders are much simpler. So I'm guessing that's why they sell the swinging flat around the shoulders. because they are just lazy.

 

[Bigwill]

Why is no one "selling" Nicklaus?

(nowhere near the flat armswing stuff anyway)

I've always wondered this. The greatest of all time; one of the greatest drivers of the ball of all time; ended up being the greatest without the benefit of a great short game, so you know his ballstriking was on point. So why not more about his swing? And to be honest, his swing wasn't really all that unusual. Maybe the average golfer doesn't have the strength to make his swing work? If that's the case, why not teach it to strong amateurs? You hear about all kinds of players and their swings; with Jack, all you hear about is 1) Length, 2) Fade, 3) Majors.

How about some insight from the knowledgeable?

 

[rogerdodger]

Not knowledgable but I wonder the same thing. Also, why not teach Snead's swing? The emphasis on flat, rotary swings have really dominated teaching likely due to marketing. Nicklaus generated incredible power for someone shorter than Woods. High hands has a lot to do with that. High hands, lift the left heel on the backswing, transfer weight with the feet, not a bad way to play.

 

[birly-shirly]

I've always wondered this. The greatest of all time; one of the greatest drivers of the ball of all time; ended up being the greatest without the benefit of a great short game, so you know his ballstriking was on point. So why not more about his swing? And to be honest, his swing wasn't really all that unusual. Maybe the average golfer doesn't have the strength to make his swing work? If that's the case, why not teach it to strong amateurs? You hear about all kinds of players and their swings; with Jack, all you hear about is 1) Length, 2) Fade, 3) Majors.

How about some insight from the knowledgeable?

I remember reading a book on putting from years back, probably published in Jack's prime. It said, if Jack wasn't so famous for hitting 300 yard drives, he'd have the reputation as probably the best clutch putter ever. People also credited him with being really strong mentally, which I think is almost inevitably going to be taken as a backhanded compliment in terms of his ballstriking. I really think that Jack's game, and ability to score, was just so gigantic that people struggled to get their heads around all of it at once. I still think that just about the most staggering statistic about Jack's career was his record of runners'-up and top 3 finishes.

I actually think something similar is happening to Woods. People happily single out the clutch putting, or the short game, mental strength or athleticism. But I feel you more often hear that his success is in spite of, rather than because of, his swing or indeed his ballstriking.

Even putting people's Haney misgivings aside - how often do you see his 2000 swing cited as a model?

 

[greenfree]

They don't teach these types of swings because their always looking for a better mouse trap and some think they have one. But maybe they don't.

 

[nwb]

Why is no one "selling" Nicklaus?

(nowhere near the flat armswing stuff anyway)

I think its because pretty much because through the late 70s Nicklaus was not a good model to copy. By his own admission he was not hitting the ball solidly or as far as he felt he should be. He then wrote a book (I forget the title but I have it at home) where he described the changes he made to his swing around 1980. Basically flattened the backswing a bit, folded his right arm in the backswing quicker, brought the club to the inside quicker. Basically saying all that he had once believed in was not working any more (age maybe?)

Early 60s Nicklaus - my fav swing ever - was mightily powerful and very much a swing that worked with his considerable size (in the 60s). In the 70s he got too upright but not deep enough and was saving the shots with a massive leg drive. Another reason why his swing is not taught any more is because it is insanely hard on the back.

There is no question that his swing worked well for him, his temperament, build and for the equipment and courses of his time. But as a swing to copy for the masses? I don't think its the best model - and I speak as someone who did (try to) copy his swing!

 

[aaron_lohan]

A lot of people copied the Nicklaus swing, but went too upright and tended to rock and block and had trouble hitting precise short irons.

 

[spmurph]

Another reason why his swing is not taught any more is because it is insanely hard on the back.

Why was his swing hard on the back?

 

[nwb]

Why was his swing hard on the back?

I think the strong leg drive which then led to a reverse c finish. But i hold my hands up in that i am no biokenetic/mechanic expert so i may be wrong. I think the general feeling is that a reverse c is bad for the back. Also Jack had hip problems in his career and had it replaced. No idea if that is swing related or not though.

 

[aaron_lohan]

I think the strong leg drive which then led to a reverse c finish. But i hold my hands up in that i am no biokenetic/mechanic expert so i may be wrong. I think the general feeling is that a reverse c is bad for the back. Also Jack had hip problems in his career and had it replaced. No idea if that is swing related or not though.

It is very bad on the back in a reverse c position the discs in the lumbar region are greatly compressed because the back is overly arched.