Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Natural Forces vs. Technique

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I always get confused by the word 'Power' as used by instructors, academics , etc. Sometimes it's used as a 'feel' word then other times it is used to explain the physics of a swing.

    For example , here is Chuck Evans talking about what 'Powers' a swing using data research from a famous golf scientist Phil Cheetham.



    Then he even states in % terms which sections of the body is 'Powering' club speed.

    Driver
    Legs: 21% men , 26% women
    Core: 10% men & women
    Shoulders: 12% men & women
    Wrist : 56% men & women

    But what is he actually inferring? That 56% of all the 'Power' used to move the wrists is somehow transmitted to the clubhead to increase its velocity? That 21% of the 'Power' used to move the legs are somehow transmitted through all the various interconnections of the body and finally to the club to increase its velocity?

    Or does he actually mean 'Energy' or 'Work' transfer rather than 'Power'?

    For them to properly identify all those percentages above , they must know beforehand all the interconnecting patterns of cause and effect in the human body. That some of the energy/work done to move my left toe will somehow (with 100% certainty) , via some known pattern /interaction of body parts, get to my hand /fingers to move that club. Or my left toe is being used in an indirect manner to facilitate some other action to allow another part of the body to transfer energy to that club.

    All seems very inconclusive/vague to me but this type of data is being used to draft up recommendations for future golf instruction.

    Comment


    • kid_fullerene
      kid_fullerene commented
      Editing a comment
      Hi Schrodinger - that's an interesting and enjoyable approach you're bringing to the 'big question' -- I like your distinction about energy vs. power. So borrowing and probably misusing the ideas - I would pose this line of inquiry (just for the heck of it) .. regardless of what/how we're using energy .. what are we trying to 'power' or send power to?

      maybe a place to start?

      cheers

      k_f

    • Schrodinger
      Schrodinger commented
      Editing a comment
      Actually , I think I've misinterpreted that video by Chuck Evans . I think those % values are relating to clubhead speed . So he might be saying 56% of clubhead speed comes from the motion of the wrists uncocking/rolling , 21% from the legs doing something, 10% core doing something, 12% shoulders doing something. But he never explained what that 'doing something' is and how it gets transformed into clubhead speed. Very confusing indeed considering he spent quite a few minutes identifying 'Power Sources' then ignoring all of them bar one (ie. the wrists).

      This sort of vague 'golf science' is why I stick to general high level explanations in my own golf swing and why WIG is my best pal.

  • #47
    Hi Schrodinger, Aloha WIG Friends..

    Thought I'd grab a couple productive currents of discussion going on in this thread and maybe try to weave them together and see what happens.

    There are better technical minds on this board than me - but I think that this video captures an interesting set of notions .

    1. What a 'Smash Factor' really is - simply explained

    2. A Quality Strike can produce a terrific shot even at a slower swing/club head speed

    3. What that seems to suggest is that if you have a clear sense of where you want the momentum to go - and let the swing partner with gravity - some great things can happen in the shot and show up in the metrics.



    so ..

    clubhead speed good

    clubhead speed translated to ball speed more completely (higher smash factor) better

    clear sense of the shot resulting in optimal smash factor (1.50) impressive and probably best..

    a sense of what is energizing this can help..

    but the discussion is really what the power is about - and where it's going seems to be the $$$$

    I'm sure there's more to this ..

    but it's a place to start

    cheers for now

    k_f
    from the hidden Ravine below 13th at CN G&CC
    tu nunquam hic

    Secret Swing Tech c/o Pigaman @ Crackpot Labs

    wisdomingolf.com/index.php?option=com_ku...&id=47972&Itemid=225

    let energy instead of style define you.

    Proud Member 'Quote Yourself Club'

    Comment


    • #48
      Here's another unscientific video which shows the importance of the arms/wrist movement for creating clubhead speed. Could it be that the arms/wrists are the main contributors and everything else (ie. upper and lower body pivot , secondary tilt, centrifugal pump, etc ) just used to optimise/amplify the 'Law Of The Flail' action? Maybe that simple explanation is sufficient enough for golfers who want to use a CF induced release swing action.


      Comment


      • kid_fullerene
        kid_fullerene commented
        Editing a comment
        Hi Schrodinger - for what it's worth the 'wrists are the main contributors' and the 'everything else is just the optimisation' is probably your best 'open question/insight' .. Unhinge of the wrists is the sort of 'gravity payload' and how it happens in context with the 'optimisation sequence' will give you or any golfer a proper golf swing. You can build a optimisation sequence that lacks the 'gravity boost' with the wrists ..and it will look right but be functionally empty .. (that might be what Shawn means when he talks about the 'fashion show')

        the wrist action is relative (and will look and feel many different ways) to how the arms (being the main contributors) sync to the rotation of the body.. so a CF swing .. which is typically a lower body dominant swing.. has characteristics of 'heavy', 'lag' and 'snap' .. Other swing types have entirely different keys .. and don't and can never mix well with the CF type swing.

        the 'trick' is knowing the rhythm and timing of the body into the outward snap (hidden fall/wrist action) of the relatively later release type associated with the CF induced release action.

        Once you have this - you can sort the unlike swing types out from it .. Larry Rinker's thinking is as concise and well thought out a way to do it as any .. as he explains the mechanics in addition to the various appearance(s) of the resulting swings.

        my belief - and this is unsupported by anything resembling a factual basis for this .. is that one's 'optical matrix' .. how one visually perceives taking action influences what swing type(s) are available to them .. there are particular stances that work and so on..

        last leap .. there is some thinking that rather than a sort of 'mind/body' connection ..that there is an 'embodied mind' that builds and shapes a reality and a way of interacting with the world (and its games).

        it might be that one is predisposed to seeing things in a certain way in terms of golf .. that one might be born to delivering or optimising the 'arm/wrist speed' in a particular way and trying to take on a technique set that is ill fitting might be a long, vertical and unproductive climb up the wrong hill .

        I have some thinking that is forming around the history of golf and its teaching that is related to that premise.. at a high level it makes a sort of sense in terms of internal logic .. but I doubt that in and of itself it will have any of us shooting below par.. but it might save some of us some time.

        cheers for now

        k_f

      • Schrodinger
        Schrodinger commented
        Editing a comment
        Hi Kid
        Well put although I think its probably more complex than any of us can fathom. The wrists for a CF induced swing (from what I've read so far) should be passive hinges and I can only assume their speed and path are dictated by everything else. With regards a CF swing being a typical lower body dominant swing , yes that may be correct although there other swing actions that also utilise CF induced release . For example , have you ever read the Leslie King technique which is a left arm swinging action that uses a reactive pivot ? He proclaimed that the body only reacts to support the swinging of the dominant lead arm. The CF induced release (with passive wrists) in the Leslie King technique is basically from the start of the downswing because the wrist/hand path is basically very circular (ie. lead arm pulling down from a 'momentarily' still lead shoulder socket).

        I agree , the 'trick' is rhythm and imho is the key to an efficient CF induced release which is why an external focus to an intended outcome coupled with a subconscious PMD (to reinforce that intent), is so important. I can imagine many golfers doing drills and thousands of repetitions to ingrain the correct release for particular types of shots but unable to apply that same 'automated' precision for the infinite number of scenarios on a golf course.

        To be honest , I've never heard of Larry Rinkler but I'll look him up.

        Like the idea of an optical matrix and maybe that is connected with a 'judgement of a perceived outcome'. For example , my judgement on how the ball will react to my chip/pitch out of greenside rough is criminally poor. Also my distance control judgement for mid-short irons are just as poor and I think that is due to not playing enough and allowing my senses to provide enough feedback to improve my judgement.
        Last edited by Schrodinger; 2 weeks ago.

    • #49
      Hi guys,

      How did “cave-man” learn how to tie a rock onto the end of a stick to create a club (modern-day hammer)? Who taught him the proper and most efficient manner in which to propel a spear?

      IMHO, a great deal of what our Chairman espouses is rooted in that basic, underlying awareness that “something” WILL occur IF we just ALLOW it to happen?
      That’s where “energy towards a target” comes from?
      It is not of great benefit for that cave-man to heave his spear with great velocity if it not aimed properly at his prey?
      I have been occasionally “quoted” as suggesting that our key is in doing “nothing”?
      More accurately, I’m suggesting that one should focus on that which will yield that more desirable outcome. Collaboration WITH Gravity will be more productive than trying to implement something that might prove to be OPPOSING Gravity?

      In the words of Peter Drucker, an Austrian-born American management consultant, educator, and author, whose writings, including The Effective Executive, contributed to the philosophical and practical foundations of the modern business corporation…(Wikipedia)

      “...There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all...”

      Love this place and you guys

      dude abides

      "OLD" Forum Participation

      Entry Date: 18-JAN-2011
      Posts: 1813
      Thank You: 1048

      "Be water, my friends"

      Comment


      • kid_fullerene
        kid_fullerene commented
        Editing a comment
        Hi Dude, Hello to Schrodinger and Good Day to the 80 some odd Active WIG friends working in and around the forum..

        some good stuff bouncing around with these latest notions .

        just to grab a few ideas off the 'discussion table' and try them out this way (apologies for the use of your notions which I will gladly return to both of you virtually intact) .. If I had to try for a sort of 'blend' of what you've both shared .. so much of what we perceive as 'golf swing' as actually a sort of a body reaction to the dominant part of the sequence. We have to know when to 'do nothing' relative to what has or will be moving first in the resulting kinetic chain from visualization, intention and setup to the desired shot. The 'doing nothing' in an arms takeaway visualized within the 'optical matrix' (thank you for that Mr. S) of an upper body dominant, hands/arms swing with a more active wrist release down a 'train tracks' alignment would likely vary from a lower body leading, later release type (look at Shawn's Hogan Diagonal line video) .. The releases are different .. the sequence that got them there is different... the way the wrists are engaged to deliver the either fast or heavy 'payload' is a bit different.. Teachers/instructors/Crackpot Golf Theorists can't patent or sell you gravity.. only a working sequence .. of something that can produce a repeating swing .. and I guarantee you there is definitely room for a 'doing nothing' in each of their sequences..the time and nature of the 'drop' while we wait for the 'apparent nothing' varies by sequence.

        that's plenty for what was supposed to be a brief comment..

        I'll visit again soon..

        cheers

        k_f

      • Ken Robie
        Ken Robie commented
        Editing a comment
        Was he related to Sam Drucker??? ;>)

    • #50
      Hi WIG Friends

      I suppose everybody has figured out how to 'Google' something by now..

      but if it saves you a couple of keystrokes..

      'Sam Drucker' appeared on a number of TV Shows in the US ..way back when..

      the actor who played him, Frank Cady, celebrated 96 Birthdays on this fine Earth..and brought a great many smiles to those who enjoyed his performances..



      Peter Drucker .. brought all kinds of wisdom and insight into the business space .. I particularly like these 5 questions - related to his concepts of Management by Objective..

      2019 is coming ..

      some missions and objectives and important questions about how one is intending and actually proceeding .. never a bad thing..



      wonder if any can apply to our shared 'charter' to grow wisdom here at the WIG forum?

      this was intended to be simply a sidenote .. but instead has enough behind it that I'll leave it as its own thing..

      might even be worth its own thread..

      which is why He who 'must abide' is always a 'North Star' for those of us who seek Wisdom in and around Golf..

      cheers

      k_f
      from the hidden Ravine below 13th at CN G&CC
      tu nunquam hic

      Secret Swing Tech c/o Pigaman @ Crackpot Labs

      wisdomingolf.com/index.php?option=com_ku...&id=47972&Itemid=225

      let energy instead of style define you.

      Proud Member 'Quote Yourself Club'

      Comment


      • #51
        HI WIG Friends..

        this is the twice promised 'next thought' .. and I've been working to get it to something a bit 'bite sized' ..it's a Sunday and my coffee has yet to fully kick in.. I apologize in advance for the lack of clarity in what follows.

        Let's suppose for a second that there might be actually multiple areas in the Human Spine to swing around.. and that those areas have distinct sorts of 'Swing Fingerprints' (swingerprints?? too cute??)

        And let's suppose that while no one can "Patent Gravity' .. though many have tried..

        and let's finally suppose that the ability to research and manufacture equipment continues to lever up off of its prior iterations..

        and like fashion, there are things that suddenly get 'hot' in terms of apparent results and instruction that produced them ..

        and maybe one of the many fun paradoxes in and around this Great Game .. the one that is comparable to jumping on a pillow

        and I think that this can be measured in terms of those taking up the game and those leaving the game and the net Scores/Handicap having not moved on average in spite of better tools, golf equipment, instruction and wisdom ..

        in short,

        why?

        this isn't purely rhetorical .. I think it's a question that actually has at least a partial answer..

        the forces and technique were pretty much sorted out at least a century or more ago .. reading at some of these early works on golf and those that have since followed .. you can see that even without some of thee great technological advances that now exist .. those who had to understand & instruct golf .. had a handle on the subject..

        here's what I believe happened..

        in the earliest writings (at least published and still available) Start with Dunn's '5 Lessons' and the early works of Ernest Jones.
        Golf was taught as an 'eye/hand' game .. likely what Larry Rinker would define as 'Upper Core'..

        the equipment in Hickory and its 'whippiness' would contribute greatly to needing to work the 'down' as the bow of the shaft would already provide a lot of 'snap' or 'around'

        that's not to say that there weren't other ways of accomplishing the swing - simply that it was perceived as being that kind of action..

        with the advent of improved manufacturing and newer materials that took place in the early part of the last century .. steel shafts in particular ..
        the 'door' opened for those who could swing it with their bodies .. and the predominant golf methodology became more of what Rinker would describe as Mid or Lower core swings..



        definitely a lot more power .. and those 'Classic' swings from that Golden Era..and the 2 Triumvirates who established and then propagated the game are what are being drawn on again as a model.. I think that this was defined more or less for the ages by Hogan's 5 Lessons.

        think about this for a second ..

        and ask another what seems at the surface, another rhetorical question..

        what happened to all those golfers and would be golfers who were 'Upper Core' .. did they all suddenly vanish?

        or are they locked out of making any kind of progress in the game ..

        that their potential in doing something that they're not wired to do is sort of decided in the early going .. and then dead-ended?

        I have no idea what the actual numbers of who is built to see and do what in terms of what potential swing and alignment types there are..

        but even with normal distribution ..it would seem logical that at least 1/3 of the golfing population would be chasing the 'wrong concepts' (at least for them) at least some if not much of the time..

        hmmm..

        I thought I could try and make it concise and sensible .. clearly that's a 'no' ..

        I'm blaming the Coffee..

        and I'll leave this here for the moment..

        make of it what you will

        cheers

        k_f
        from the hidden Ravine below 13th at CN G&CC
        tu nunquam hic

        Secret Swing Tech c/o Pigaman @ Crackpot Labs

        wisdomingolf.com/index.php?option=com_ku...&id=47972&Itemid=225

        let energy instead of style define you.

        Proud Member 'Quote Yourself Club'

        Comment


        • #52
          Hey Kid, as it relates to average scores over time, how much influence has the "perfection" of golf course "defense of par" contributed to scores staying the same? I.e. the so called "Tiger proofing" of a golf course attitude going all the way to the cup on the green? The other thought I had is the the modern golf ball requires a purer face strike to be able to control spin on a GPS targeting scale if you will. The older ball if you were a hooker or slicer you could almost guarantee the amount of shape needed and where it would go. The greens would hold lower trajectory shots and approach chip and putts did not catch the next train out of town if a little firm on the stroke.

          Comment


          • COSTA103
            COSTA103 commented
            Editing a comment
            Hi guys,
            Hi Ken...

            IMHO, the "Tiger-proofing" of golf courses has had little to nothing to do with scores staying the same.
            The VAST majority of players whose scores count towards that "average" score are shot on courses that have NOT been affected?
            Almost precisely EIGHT years ago, I made the same observation, CONFIRMED by Golf Digest February 2009.

            dude abides

          • Ken Robie
            Ken Robie commented
            Editing a comment
            You don't think agronomy and course maintenance procedures fall under the wide ranging Tiger effect? I realize that the average small course does not have the resources, but how many small course golfers actually respond to nation polls???

          • kid_fullerene
            kid_fullerene commented
            Editing a comment
            Ken -

            this is some interesting perspective in that I grew up playing courses, equipment and style with the tail end of this .. I used wooden drivers, the earlier golf balls and courses of earlier designs (often no modern irrigation, very different green complexes & bunkering) and honestly had forgotten how this was a very different experience. Glad you brought this into the conversation.. a quality golf shot is definitely changing due to different conditions and course requirements..

            very much worth noting ..

            cheers

            k_f

        • #53
          I would guess that as steel shafts took over from hickory , the move from Upper to Mid Core was more to do with clubface control than power. If you look at this video (I know it's an old one 2011) there was only a 16 yd difference between the 1880's club vs the modern 460 cc head. But note how he became increasingly wayward with the older clubs and I think his swing was more core driven than arm.



          So yes, maybe the modern equipment materials have forced golfers into a technique 'dead end' favouring a core driven swing which may be incompatible with many of us. I'm seriously thinking about getting some graphite shafted irons as my body progressively becomes too inflexible. Looking at that previous video , which showed significant clubhead speed just by the swinging of the arms/wrists, has added to that inclination.
          Last edited by Schrodinger; 1 week ago.

          Comment


          • kid_fullerene
            kid_fullerene commented
            Editing a comment
            S

            thank you for that perspective - you definitely brought some things into the discussion/thought process that I had not even considered.. I'm still trying to work out what I think are the potential aiming differences between the techniques.. your notion of the equipment driven 'dead end' is an interesting viewpoint .. where we blame the equipment and then buy more equipment .. are we potentially 'matching into' or attempting to solve the wrong problem??

            raises some bigger questions than I first realized.

            cheers

            k_f

        • #54
          Hi guys,
          Here's a little somethin'-somethin' that I concocted back then.

          just sayin'.....


          Conventional Instruction Ineffective?

          Over the years, have golfers become better players? If so, how much better? Conventional wisdom has been over the years that the average handicap of players has changed very little, if at all.

          Recent information provided by GHIN (Golf Handicap Information Network) provided to me through an inquiry I made to the United States Golf Association (USGA) (Thank you Cindy Cooper) indicates that in the17 year period (since the inception of the GHIN System) from 1991 to 2008, the average handicap (for men) had fallen from 16.3 to 14.6.

          Oddly enough, the DAY AFTER Cindy had emailed me with her excellent data, I received my February 2009 edition of Golf Digest in the mail. What do you think I found on page 102? Exactly! No less than PRECISELY the SAME information that Cindy Cooper had so thoughtfully emailed to me was presented in chart form to illustrate the correlation between new equipment developments and player handicaps.

          At first I was bummed to see the information I had privately requested presented in a widely distributed format for all to see. But I soon realized that Golf Digest’s presentation of the data was in fact, contributing to making my point!

          What IS my point you ask?

          At first blush a reduction in Handicap from 16.3 to 14.6 over the past 17 years might seem quite dramatic. Just look at Golf Digest’s chart. The slope of the handicap curve makes it appear as if handicaps have “dropped like a stone”? In reality, it figures out to +/- one tenth of a stroke per year, or about ONE stroke every TEN years. (At this point I would invite all the math-geeks to challenge my calculations on technical merit, but you get my drift.) Now, is a stroke every ten years GOOD? Or not? I think the answer to the question is somewhat academic. As Bill Parcells once said when he was Head Coach of the New England Patriots, “…it is what it is…”

          Now, as was so adequately suggested in Golf Digest’s article, this drop in handicap chronologically coincides with the most dramatic increase in technology and equipment offerings in the history of the game. All this technology focused on making all of us play better and shoot lower scores. There can be no doubt that the equipment of today makes the game much easier than it was “back in the day”.

          But golf courses have gotten HARDER, you’ll counter. Diabolical designs have sprung up (and continue to spring up) all over the world. Tree-lined, narrow fairways; deep, escape-proof bunkers; fast, crowned, steep sloping greens are all the rage. Shooting a “good score” is much more difficult, right? Well, isn’t that what the SLOPE factor in the Handicap calculation is all about?

          (insert slope comparison example)

          At least in theory, the higher score you’ll shoot on a more “difficult” course will be offset by the SLOPE rating assigned for that course; thereby normalizing the increase in course difficulty as a factor in average handicap.

          Additionally, there have been dramatic increases in the technologies that affect course CONDITIONS. We all remember the cow-fields and back-yard courses we played in our youths? I would suggest that even if your playing ability has not improved one iota, the score you shoot today on your childhood home course will be LOWER than it was “back in the day”. What’s the difference? Improvements to course conditions.

          So, exactly what IS my point you repeat?

          If equipment technology advancements have made the game easier…and the relative level of course conditioning has made your ability to get the ball to roll into the hole more reliable…and the increases in course-design-treachery are being offset by the SLOPE aspect of handicap calculation…why has the average handicap ONLY gone down ONE stoke every TEN years?

          I, for one, am willing to lay the credit for the improvement in average handicap entirely at the feet of the technology advancers. How about you? Don’t you think that today’s new clubs and balls are responsible for one-tenth of a stroke per year over your performance in previous eras? I know it has for me?!?!

          If this premise is accurate, then…

          where’s the value-added to conventional golf instruction?

          If there’s any value-added at all. Once you account for the overwhelming contribution of technology advancements, what’s left from one stroke every ten years? Is it possible that conventional instruction hasn’t MADE a contribution to that minor drop in average handicap? Is it possible that conventional instruction hasn’t worked?
          (Note to the Golf Gods: “What IS the penalty for blasphemy, anyway?”)



          dude abides
          "OLD" Forum Participation

          Entry Date: 18-JAN-2011
          Posts: 1813
          Thank You: 1048

          "Be water, my friends"

          Comment


          • kid_fullerene
            kid_fullerene commented
            Editing a comment
            Hi Dude

            that GHIN information is pretty incredible - given what the highest 1% are doing with the equipment advances .. and with new shot/swing measuring and fitting technologies - those with high/repeatable swing speeds are hitting shots on a regular basis like I have never seen.

            so what's the disconnect? Is it as simple as 'no target' .. 'complete lack of external focus' and being 'fashion show victims' I have no doubt that the Chairman speaks truth .. I think that those things and more are very much in play with our lack of GHIN progress.

            I also have come to believe that Conventional Instruction even if it's done perfectly and with motivated, bright and disciplined students can likely effectively 'orphan' them .. as 1 size won't ever fit all ..

            so .. we can see at the Pro Level that there is a wide variety of golf swings .. are they simply the result of "maverick swing coaches' ?? What are they getting that we aren't? Or are they like most elite athletes born with the 'spark' that most don't get??

            Was this game designed to never be accessed at its most basic level??

            seems like a swing should be the least of our problems - and yet .. it seems like we spend a lot of time at the basic level ..

            if one even partially accepts the premise of this thread .. is that there are many paths to a repeating swing .. but success only really may be finding a way to identify and perfect your own sense of target and corresponding swing..

            maybe there is no 'perfect swing' but a swing that is perfect for you ..

            a lot to mull over on a Sunday..

            cheers for now

            k_f

        • #55
          Maybe the root cause is the idea that there is 'proximal- distal' sequencing in the golf swing similar to other sports such as throwing a ball , running , etc . I think conventional instruction has always preached this as some sort of necessity but maybe it's wrong

          In golf this 'proximal -distal' sequencing is 'legs > pelvis >thorax>arms> club' .The way human beings have evolved to do tasks like throwing and running is by using inertia efficiently from proximal larger segments that taper off into distal shorter smaller segments. But the addition of the club (ie. a longer heavier distal segment) messes up the natural 'proximal - distal' sequencing which your human body is already designed to do, so you have to learn to coordinate your movements (it won't be natural).

          Back in 2007 there was a research study of 500 low-handicap and scratch golfers that found angular velocities of the pelvis, thorax, and arms peaked at about the same time in the swing, while the clubhead velocity peaked later and very close to impact. Further , many newer empirical studies have shown that this 'proximal to distal' sequence is not present, even in elite-level golfers.

          A relatively new (2017) research article even forewarns as per below:

          "Elite-level golfers looking to fine-tune their performance may not find it worthwhile to rebuild their swings to follow the proximal-to-distal sequence. Similarly, it may not be safe for golfers with physical constraints to try to achieve the sequence swing outlined in this chapter. The X-Factor Stretch in particular needs further research to determine possible links with and mechanisms of lower back injury, which is already a large and growing problem in golf."

          Funny enough in WIG , Shawn has always stressed that the pelvis (and everything above it ) is like a turntable which is imho different to the kinetic sequence still being advocated today in conventional golf instruction. If you look at Shawn's swing in slow motion (ie. the view from above) you will see that his hips/torso/shoulders are almost square together just before impact . Imho, there isn't much X-factor downswing stretch with probably less strain on his lower back.

          PS. This video below is an excellent example of a teacher that has realised that kinematic sequence is not some fundamental necessity. If you look at the 2nd kinematic sequence at 1:40 the speeds of the pelvis/Upper Body/Club all seem to peak together (just like Shawn) and he says "this guy is kind of a squat jumper" (Centrifugal Pump?).

          Last edited by Schrodinger; 1 week ago.

          Comment


          • kid_fullerene
            kid_fullerene commented
            Editing a comment
            S -

            interesting stuff - I'm still working to understand this and it's an important area to continue to explore..

            I grabbed this quote from your post that really struck me..

            Shawn has always stressed that the pelvis (and everything above it ) is like a turntable which is imho different to the kinetic sequence still being advocated today in conventional golf instruction. If you look at Shawn's swing in slow motion (ie. the view from above) you will see that his hips/torso/shoulders are almost square together just before impact . Imho, there isn't much X-factor downswing stretch with probably less strain on his lower back.

            'pelvis as turntable' -- for what it's worth, I absolutely agree .. and the concept I'm trying to get my mind around and share it as best I can.. is it is how in WIG terms .. the ACU has access or synchronizes to it..

            the timing or 'window' of that access determines a lot of things..not the least of it is the 'natural' timing of the golfer's release.. the 'out of the wayness' of that turntable which can have the release look 'earlier' or 'later' ..

            if we take this concept out a bit further .. earlier golf swings were more hands/arms ..syncing to turntable and then turning together.. Later swings became more turntable moves first.. arms sync into it..

            that shifted again where turntable shifts a bit laterally ..arms run parallel and then sync to it ..

            and so on ..

            the various 'body elements' all slow down as the arms/hands accelerate - and then they slow down as the speed goes out into the club head..

            cheers for now

            k_f

        • #56
          This video of swinging a towel against a wall is a good drill involving the ACU and the pelvis turning to create speed and smash factor. It kind of reminds me of Shawn's hitting or smashing a doorframe analogy. The use of the towel really gives you an understanding and feel for the second fulcrum in the golf swing. IMHO it brings together the technique of a natural swing.

          Ed, a Canadian golf pro, mentions that some people don't turn their hips which we should ignore and turn the hips as he says he prefers to do.
           

          Comment


          • Schrodinger
            Schrodinger commented
            Editing a comment
            Nice drill but 'pelvis turning to create speed and smash factor' is being refuted by recent studies. For example LPGA have on average higher pelvis/ribcage rotational speeds than PGA players . So questions are being asked why aren't they driving the ball longer than the men? Something else is happening and they haven't figured it out yet.

            PS. But if you mean pelvis turning to create a greater range of motion for the arms swinging, then that makes a lot of sense.
            Last edited by Schrodinger; 1 week ago.

          • Gary
            Gary commented
            Editing a comment
            If you look at the video below, Aimee prefers to coil from the thighs, hips and obliques Vs the lower back. She uses her lower body to sync her hands and arms.

            Power Back Swing
            January 24, 2016
            https://youtu.be/o15i8gRtpsc

            If you look at this video by Shawn, is he basically doing the same thing as Aimee? He does not say he is coiling his thighs, but maybe he is.

            Ball Below the Feet: 3/14/2011
            https://youtu.be/DHNokrTI98A
            It is your quads and gluteus that support your golf swing, not your quads and calfs. You want to feel the heels of both feet support your swing. See starting at the 4:00 minute how to support your golf posture.

        • #57
          Schrodinger wrote, "
          Nice drill but 'pelvis turning to create speed and smash factor' is being refuted by recent studies. For example LPGA have on average higher pelvis/ribcage rotational speeds than PGA players . So questions are being asked why aren't they driving the ball longer than the men? Something else is happening and they haven't figured it out yet.

          PS. But if you mean pelvis turning to create a greater range of motion for the arms swinging, then that makes a lot of sense. "

          I guess I made a mistake. I believed that have a greater range of motion and rotational speed created by the pelvis turning meant hitting the ball further. Thanks for the insight!

          Comment


          • #58
            Gary thanks for sharing the Aimee video. She makes an excellent point that the turn in the back swing has the lower torso (thighs, hips and obliques) in sync with the ACU and upper torso!
            Last edited by Ron I; 1 week ago.

            Comment


            • #59
              I thought that one end of your thigh is the knee ? If that's the case then doesn't coiling your thigh also coil your knee? Also unsure whether there is such a thing as being able to coil the thigh so doesn't Aimee mean internal and external rotation in the hip joint?

              Click image for larger version  Name:	knee-joint-showing-patella-femur-stock-illustration__ca202018.jpg Views:	1 Size:	18.3 KB ID:	12190
              Last edited by Schrodinger; 1 week ago.

              Comment


              • #60
                Hi WIG Friends..

                Hip Feels, Knee Feels, perceptions of anchoring and movement .. sources of change -

                what strikes me is that a way to consider looking at these perceptions might be how far the joints are relative to the spine 'center' that is being 'swung around' or synchronized to by the ACU.

                that's to say - if you're working a bit lower in the spine (hips or below) turning out of the way earlier or initiating the 'kinetic chain' from there, if you will .. one might have more a sense of knees ..

                an example of that might be Lee Trevino who sometimes talks about his sense of knees in the swing..

                same bone..just lower..??

                vs. say .. Byron Nelson..

                who describes a bit of a lateral shift and more a sense of torso and hips ..

                same bone .. just higher?

                vs. say Tommy Aaron .. who might have a different discussion entirely ..

                not saying that this is even close to being a proper thought process ..

                just a bit of conjecture..

                and of course .. all of this is relative to how those Great Players perceived directing energy towards their chosen targets ..

                bones are bones, joints are joints.. but energy to target is the real determinant .. how one organizes him/her self to that intention is the most crucial thing..

                cheers for now

                k_f
                from the hidden Ravine below 13th at CN G&CC
                tu nunquam hic

                Secret Swing Tech c/o Pigaman @ Crackpot Labs

                wisdomingolf.com/index.php?option=com_ku...&id=47972&Itemid=225

                let energy instead of style define you.

                Proud Member 'Quote Yourself Club'

                Comment

                Working...
                X