World Golf Congress
- Thread starter dwurzer
- Start date
- Status
Jon Hardesty
New
David, I will be there all week. Look forward to seeing you again.
Richard Franklin
New
Can anyone share some thoughts on this event? I looked at the schedule of events.. Brian, Sasho, and a couple of other presentations are the obvious standouts. Trying to figure out if its worth going to. (From an instructors viewpoint.)
Billy McKinney
New
John Ortega and I will be out there all week, Doc.
Bill M.
Bill M.
i was there today, some interesting stuff for sure. rob neal had a good presentation on the lead shoulder, i was hoping it would get more into the "lift and pullback" like in that mcilroy video, but it was mainly about the value of minimizing the lead shoulder angle (upper arm vs ribcage). that tied in with sasho mckenzie's mention of "proximal leading distal". what i got from both was that you don't want the hands outracing anything until you are close to impact. sasho also did a computer simulation that found that even if a person didn't have a perfect kinetic chain, they might still have a very playable golf swing, if not optimal from a SS standpoint. he made the point that there is a risk and time investment in "optimizing" a swing that may or may not be the right course of action for a given golfer. if anyone is interested, PM me for a better summary.
dave philips from TPI was talking about technology and made some really good points about uses and limitations, but he did mention that he didn't think people should hit up on the driver, and that the reason TM might give those readings was because of shaft bend. and that all the pros hit down on it. but he didn't sound too sure.
it's interesting that when golf scientists don't have science to back up an opinion, they seem to fall back on "well, that's what all the good players do." and that's not a bad way to go, but it's not deductive.
the driver on the upswing is an interesting issue, because it seems like an interesting battleground between how things have been done in the past and the way that tech is showing might be a better way to do things in the future.
looking forward to brian's talk tomorrow.
please delete this if it breaks any forum rules.
dave philips from TPI was talking about technology and made some really good points about uses and limitations, but he did mention that he didn't think people should hit up on the driver, and that the reason TM might give those readings was because of shaft bend. and that all the pros hit down on it. but he didn't sound too sure.
it's interesting that when golf scientists don't have science to back up an opinion, they seem to fall back on "well, that's what all the good players do." and that's not a bad way to go, but it's not deductive.
the driver on the upswing is an interesting issue, because it seems like an interesting battleground between how things have been done in the past and the way that tech is showing might be a better way to do things in the future.
looking forward to brian's talk tomorrow.
please delete this if it breaks any forum rules.
Last edited:
Frans@France
New
thanks Bryan
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Good recap, thanks
Jared Willerson
Super Moderator
Why didn't Dave also point out that most LPGA players hit UP with the driver.
Seems a small sample pool to me to only include PGA Tour players, while LPGA tour players (who most middle aged men can compare themselves to) hit up a lot.
Interesting.
Seems a small sample pool to me to only include PGA Tour players, while LPGA tour players (who most middle aged men can compare themselves to) hit up a lot.
Interesting.
S
SteveT
Guest
In half an hour, Brian will be making his presentation: Science-Based Methods to Improve Golf Ball Flight. He is now the pre-eminent authority on Trackman and the application of the D-plane within the golfswing.... as shown in Golf Mag too.
Udaman, Brian....
Udaman, Brian....
more from WSGC tuesday:
rob neal, his idea centered around the accurate measurement of the front shoulder movement, specifically the angle that it makes with the torso. the closer the front arm is to the chest, the smaller that angle is. he determined that a minimized angle here could be an important part of a powerful golf swing, due possibly to a stretch-shorten cycle at the front (left) shoulder joint. he also proposed that the "stretch and recoil" rate is important but i do not remember seeing data on this.
he mentioned that the minimized angle only increases clubhead speed IF the arm and hand accelerate away from the body before impact. said a lot of junior and women golfers do well to minimize the angle, but they don't use the power this affords them. in other words, the angle stays minimal and the hands never speed thru.
seems like maybe a similar argument to the one against "holding" the lag. these positions are powerful, but only if their energy is released efficiently at or near impact.
lanny bassham, gold medalist in shooting, his book "with winning in mind" is probably the best mental game one i've read. he recommended taking a practice swing AFTER every shot. after a good shot, it's a repeat of the feel and motion, after a bad shot it's a correction.
tom house, ex-MLB pitcher, scientist, and MLB pitching coach, he went into the idea of strengthening both the concentric and eccentric muscles of the shoulder, showed some excellent data that he was super proud of that when pitchers trained with lighter and heavier balls, and HELD ON to the ball on about half their training throws, they gained significant velocity and showed lower injury rates. i overheard greg rose from TPI asking him how to do something similar for golf, and he mentioned LETTING GO of the club some of the time on training swings to work different muscle combinations.
he also said there was NO velocity difference between an efficient stretch delivery and a traditional windup for a pitcher. as a proponent of a "no backswing" type golf swing, that was music to my ears.
WSGC wednesday:
Pia Nilsson/ Lynn Marriott (vision54), really impressive. i may buy one of their "mental game" notebooks. it seemed like softer science but a lot of excellent ideas regardless. talked about the performance advantage of knowing and understanding your own golf philosophy, ie: "why do you play golf?"
they talked about the value of plateaus in the growth and improvement process. the idea was that they were an "incubation period" where skills were developing internally before they emerge externally. that it's ok not to push past them, they exist for reason and shouldn't be rushed, the argument being that it's too likely to make incorrect, or "fad" swing changes, etc.
they seem excellent at framing things in a way that maximize golfer ability and motivation. they talked about the value in writing things down every time you notice them going well.
brian's talk was mostly stuff we've heard here before, but it was no less interesting. he gave kevin shields some swing video love, and mentioned a mandrin model and michael finney. he is an engaging, down-to-earth public speaker with excellent ideas and team, and if there is an emerging "revolution" in golf instruction, he could very easily become the leader of it.
kwon, the man after brian, came with what seemed like solid science and theory, and went deep into his work that showed that a true "one-plane" swing is neither possible or optimal. not to mention the confusion about what constitutes a "swing plane" anyway since he showed convincingly that the shoulders, hands, hips, and clubhead all move in different, non-parallel planes.
he said most good players he studied have a "semi-planar" swing that has a truly planar clubhead through the impact zone, but that is higher (steeper) than that in the transition and lower (steeper) in the first part of the followthrough.
i believe he coined this "semi-planar" path (of the clubhead) ideal as a "functional swing plane", or FSP.
unfortunately jeff broker didn't have time to speak, that was kind of unfortunate.
let me know if you guys have any other questions, i am happy to try to answer them. this is most of what i remember but sometimes answering questions on the material helps me understand it better.
rob neal, his idea centered around the accurate measurement of the front shoulder movement, specifically the angle that it makes with the torso. the closer the front arm is to the chest, the smaller that angle is. he determined that a minimized angle here could be an important part of a powerful golf swing, due possibly to a stretch-shorten cycle at the front (left) shoulder joint. he also proposed that the "stretch and recoil" rate is important but i do not remember seeing data on this.
he mentioned that the minimized angle only increases clubhead speed IF the arm and hand accelerate away from the body before impact. said a lot of junior and women golfers do well to minimize the angle, but they don't use the power this affords them. in other words, the angle stays minimal and the hands never speed thru.
seems like maybe a similar argument to the one against "holding" the lag. these positions are powerful, but only if their energy is released efficiently at or near impact.
lanny bassham, gold medalist in shooting, his book "with winning in mind" is probably the best mental game one i've read. he recommended taking a practice swing AFTER every shot. after a good shot, it's a repeat of the feel and motion, after a bad shot it's a correction.
tom house, ex-MLB pitcher, scientist, and MLB pitching coach, he went into the idea of strengthening both the concentric and eccentric muscles of the shoulder, showed some excellent data that he was super proud of that when pitchers trained with lighter and heavier balls, and HELD ON to the ball on about half their training throws, they gained significant velocity and showed lower injury rates. i overheard greg rose from TPI asking him how to do something similar for golf, and he mentioned LETTING GO of the club some of the time on training swings to work different muscle combinations.
he also said there was NO velocity difference between an efficient stretch delivery and a traditional windup for a pitcher. as a proponent of a "no backswing" type golf swing, that was music to my ears.
WSGC wednesday:
Pia Nilsson/ Lynn Marriott (vision54), really impressive. i may buy one of their "mental game" notebooks. it seemed like softer science but a lot of excellent ideas regardless. talked about the performance advantage of knowing and understanding your own golf philosophy, ie: "why do you play golf?"
they talked about the value of plateaus in the growth and improvement process. the idea was that they were an "incubation period" where skills were developing internally before they emerge externally. that it's ok not to push past them, they exist for reason and shouldn't be rushed, the argument being that it's too likely to make incorrect, or "fad" swing changes, etc.
they seem excellent at framing things in a way that maximize golfer ability and motivation. they talked about the value in writing things down every time you notice them going well.
brian's talk was mostly stuff we've heard here before, but it was no less interesting. he gave kevin shields some swing video love, and mentioned a mandrin model and michael finney. he is an engaging, down-to-earth public speaker with excellent ideas and team, and if there is an emerging "revolution" in golf instruction, he could very easily become the leader of it.
kwon, the man after brian, came with what seemed like solid science and theory, and went deep into his work that showed that a true "one-plane" swing is neither possible or optimal. not to mention the confusion about what constitutes a "swing plane" anyway since he showed convincingly that the shoulders, hands, hips, and clubhead all move in different, non-parallel planes.
he said most good players he studied have a "semi-planar" swing that has a truly planar clubhead through the impact zone, but that is higher (steeper) than that in the transition and lower (steeper) in the first part of the followthrough.
i believe he coined this "semi-planar" path (of the clubhead) ideal as a "functional swing plane", or FSP.
unfortunately jeff broker didn't have time to speak, that was kind of unfortunate.
let me know if you guys have any other questions, i am happy to try to answer them. this is most of what i remember but sometimes answering questions on the material helps me understand it better.
S
SteveT
Guest
Has anybody noticed... there is a new word emerging in the golfswing lexicon... "science" or "scientific"...??!!!!
Looking through the golf magazines it seems those are the "new" buzzwords. My, how times are changing!!! ;D
Looking through the golf magazines it seems those are the "new" buzzwords. My, how times are changing!!! ;D
aaron_lohan
New
Has anybody noticed... there is a new word emerging in the golfswing lexicon... "science" or "scientific"...??!!!!
Looking through the golf magazines it seems those are the "new" buzzwords. My, how times are changing!!! ;D
Is it science or pseudo-science?
thursday was kind of slow, but some really good stuff today at the WSGC. too bad this event isn't every year.
mr. kwon presented some research that got some big buzz and shed some real doubt on the kinematic sequence idea and also on the "stretch-shorten" theory, also said that the x-factor research has been overstated.
his argument on the TPI-type kinematic sequence stuff was that the work was all done in 2-D and is oversimplified. he showed some 3-D kinematic sequencing data that looked very different.
on the x-factor, he said that while it differs drastically between groups of golfers (ie: high 'cappers vs. tour pros), it does not correlate with swing speeds within those groups. basically he said it's there, it's a good thing, but it's not as big a factor in swing speed as has been stated in the past.
sean horan had some good stuff about golfers judging shot quality on ball feedback rather than body kinematics. basically, even if a golfer makes all the right kinematic moves, if he doesn't hit it solid or it doesn't go the right direction, he will determine the shot to be a failure and judge it as negative feedback, which presents a challenge for instructors. made me think that at least for beginners, practicing a lot without a ball may be a very good thing.
dave pelz shared a lot of data in his morning session, if i can sum it up, it's basically that he has the coolest backyard ever. and also that putts gained is a hugely important stat in determining winners each week. basically, to be a winner, you HAVE to putt better than your competition. he mentioned that chad campbell, els, goydos, dustin j, and boo weekley are the worst putters on tour. i'm assuming PGA stats confirm that, although i haven't checked.
i don't remember exactly when mark broadie talked, but he's the guy that came up with the "putts gained" stat that the PGA uses now. pelz loves it, says it's a great stat. broadie also has a similar stat for the long game, and it showed very convincingly that the long game is very important to scoring. moreso than we've been led to believe. also said that most amateurs don't aim correctly to minimize their scores, basically if there is OB trouble, you want to aim well away from it. not enough that you have a 0% chance of going OB, but that a 2% or so chance is optimal. those types of 2 stroke penalties are absolute killers when talking about minimizing scores.
a lot of people, including brian, took lots of pics of the presentations with iphones, etc. maybe they can post some of the more interesting stuff here.
so much to learn here, but one thing i picked up is that there is a very different feel between most of the golf science presented here and the "pop" golf science that seems to trickle down most often to the average golfer. golf marketing masquerading as science is alive and well. caveat emptor. not to mention that one must take care even when applying the good science in real world settings.
btw, there was not a stack and tilt guy anywhere near this conference.
mr. kwon presented some research that got some big buzz and shed some real doubt on the kinematic sequence idea and also on the "stretch-shorten" theory, also said that the x-factor research has been overstated.
his argument on the TPI-type kinematic sequence stuff was that the work was all done in 2-D and is oversimplified. he showed some 3-D kinematic sequencing data that looked very different.
on the x-factor, he said that while it differs drastically between groups of golfers (ie: high 'cappers vs. tour pros), it does not correlate with swing speeds within those groups. basically he said it's there, it's a good thing, but it's not as big a factor in swing speed as has been stated in the past.
sean horan had some good stuff about golfers judging shot quality on ball feedback rather than body kinematics. basically, even if a golfer makes all the right kinematic moves, if he doesn't hit it solid or it doesn't go the right direction, he will determine the shot to be a failure and judge it as negative feedback, which presents a challenge for instructors. made me think that at least for beginners, practicing a lot without a ball may be a very good thing.
dave pelz shared a lot of data in his morning session, if i can sum it up, it's basically that he has the coolest backyard ever. and also that putts gained is a hugely important stat in determining winners each week. basically, to be a winner, you HAVE to putt better than your competition. he mentioned that chad campbell, els, goydos, dustin j, and boo weekley are the worst putters on tour. i'm assuming PGA stats confirm that, although i haven't checked.
i don't remember exactly when mark broadie talked, but he's the guy that came up with the "putts gained" stat that the PGA uses now. pelz loves it, says it's a great stat. broadie also has a similar stat for the long game, and it showed very convincingly that the long game is very important to scoring. moreso than we've been led to believe. also said that most amateurs don't aim correctly to minimize their scores, basically if there is OB trouble, you want to aim well away from it. not enough that you have a 0% chance of going OB, but that a 2% or so chance is optimal. those types of 2 stroke penalties are absolute killers when talking about minimizing scores.
a lot of people, including brian, took lots of pics of the presentations with iphones, etc. maybe they can post some of the more interesting stuff here.
so much to learn here, but one thing i picked up is that there is a very different feel between most of the golf science presented here and the "pop" golf science that seems to trickle down most often to the average golfer. golf marketing masquerading as science is alive and well. caveat emptor. not to mention that one must take care even when applying the good science in real world settings.
btw, there was not a stack and tilt guy anywhere near this conference.
Last edited:
WSJ had an article today on the WSGC...mainly on brain studies, putting, and owgr rankings issues.
Why Scientists Love to Study Golf - WSJ.com
Why Scientists Love to Study Golf - WSJ.com
Last edited:
- Status