Secret In The Dirt - Golf's Greatest Social Network

phily wrote:


Hogan (I mean, Ben) is not a HITTER. He is a SWINGER. Evidence? His high hands finish. That will NEVER happen in a HITTER.

Additional evidence...he said he used his L arm...he said you gotta use your L arm...not a HITTER...

Hogan is all #4 and #3 as far as intent is concerned...

Ben Hogan Swing Project wrote:


That is because in DS, he is externally rotating his L shoulder...you will NEVER achieve that Hogan finish wherein his L elbow is still in front of his torso if you don't ER the LS...NEVER...

In layman's terms...rotate the farking L elbow...lol

I think the distinction between hitting and swinging is somewhat over-blown.

"...the correct hitting motion is one unbroken thrust from the beginning of the downswing to the end of the follow-through. I point out also that I think of only two things: starting the hips back and then hitting just as hard as I can with the upper part of my body, my arms and my hands, in that order. "

"On a full shot you want to hit the ball as hard as you can with your right hand. But this is only half the story. HIT THE BALL AS HARD AS YOU CAN WITH BOTH HANDS. The left is a power hand, too. If you hit hard with only the right and let the left go to sleep, you will not only lose much valuable power, you also will run into all the errors that result when the right hand overpowers the left. YOU MUST HIT AS HARD WITH THE LEFT AS WITH THE RIGHT."

"Hit the ball on the downswing and hit right on through the ball."

Five Lessons, Lesson No. 4.

Grady Dickens wrote:


The recock or lack of recock has got nothing to do with it. You can lack recock and still bend that L elbow early and down...

The high hands finish is the ext rot of L shoulder (turning of upper arm bones from shoulder to elbow) and his L side extension and R side bend creating/maintaining the 2nd/axis tilt through the ball. The shoulders turning quite upright/vertical at impact and follow thru gets his hands and clubhead high, and the L elbow not collapsing early downwards and still in front of torso because that same L elbow is turning..the inside of the L elbow faces the sky in DS, just like what the inside of the R elbow does during the BS...

By the way...look at the hips of the golfers in the pictures and compare them to Hogan's...Hogan's hips are BOTH FORWARD and FACES LEFT OF TARGET...tsk tsk tsk...

For those that believe that Hogan drove the club, stressed the shaft, "hit" etc...

It seems pretty clear that most of the great players of the previous generation, e.g. Vardon, Jones etc - all these guys had a swing that looks more like a "swing",. Of course they were all playing hickory.

Do people believe that the equipment drove this change from a freer swing to a more compact hitting protocol?

And how does that factor into today, where equipment is somewhere between the flexibility of hickory and the stiffness of the equipment in the steel era?


(FWIW I believe Hogan swung the club, its difficult to watch the Cano video and believe anything else. There is absolute freedom in the club in those swings. But as I've said before hitting and swinging are just extremely simplistic labels anyway, so its not really important.)

Drew Art wrote:


The technical terms "HITTING" and "SWINGING" should be taken under TGM's perspective...I think that is what Brad is connotating... hitting in TGM is the Thrust of the R triceps unbending the R elbow...that is Hitting.

Mark Poniatowski wrote:


Yes Mark, the mythical Hogan is "insanely strong" but in reality Mr. Hogan was small, only 5'8" and 145 lbs!

Cheers Vincenzo, it is a bitch at times describing things.

Probably best to let further descriptions rest, but leave you with my feelings on it. During transition my weight is certainly going down in conjunction with increasing knee flex, and it feels real heavy in the right foot. Once at the entry of the delivery zone, the pressure goes to the inside edge of the right foot and stays there until being pulled out of position. For me, it has to stay there because once starting in the zone I am turning very hard and level inside the inside of the left knee. On the left knee is the knee cap and just to the right of that knee cap ( all connected somehow ) is some sort of bone that feels like a circular knob...don't know what it is called...but that is my left axis point and I turn hard inside of that inside circular knob trying to send force way left of me.

The result is that I go up the post-impact spiral staircase backward.

Hey Drew, you've accidentally (?) highlighted the issue with hitting/swinging teminology here... Hogan preceded any hitting/swinging terminology in golf. So he used the term "hit" as we would say hit in any trivial discussion. He didnt mean anything more by it.

Similarly he also used throwing analogies without realising these would become the topic of heated debate 60 years later

For my money, TGM definitions of these are vast over-simplifications and not really useful unless you are having a TGM discussion. Likewise centrifugal and centripetal.

So I think I agree with you when you say the distinction is overblown. Its meaningless. Its like saying someone is right-wing politically, and therefore we know what their opinions will be on A-Z. Its way more complicated than that.

Cy wrote:


Not only that, Cy, post-accident he was physically wrecked. Yet he still hit hundreds of balls and still had his legendary years ahead of him. Its VERY HARD to reconcile that with some peoples description of the massive physical efforts he employed to drive that club through.

I would say he had very big and strong hands though.

Thanks, Dave. Yes, you are right.

The terms, like hitting vs swinging and CP vs CF are bad short-hand.

secretinthedirt.com/index.php/forum/20-g...the-truth-about-cpcf

There is an image in the first lesson of 5 Lessons in which Hogan demonstrates where the center of gravity is in his club...




Hogan knew the importance of that COG and how to control the angular momentum of the club in the release to THRUST LATE and THROUGH.

Thanks for that, Drew. Agree.

And that brings us back to the tool in the hands and its effect on how we use it. Hoping someone with knowledge will comment on the differences between hickory v steel era, and then on todays equipment.

Just to be absolutely clear the "hitting" described by Bradley and John Erickson is NOT the right arm thrust hitting of TGM. Instead it is a frozen right arm. Very different.

And the strength and conditioning required s not "massive" but simply developed through repetition. Hogan certainly did plenty of that. The good part about that is once the necessary conditioning is attained it takes just a small amount of practice to maintain it.

Grady Dickens wrote:


Hi Grady,

Is John and Bradley's version of hitting, or swinging or motion for that matter, the same as what Hogan does, per the right arm?

Mark, 1lovegolf24

Well we think so...but that is just a matter of opinion. And everyone swings....hitting is done within a swing. Once the club is in motion it is being swung. If you are a pure swinger you "let" it swing. If you hit you take control of the club and redirect it...but it is still swinging.

Festus wrote:


Hmmm...I don't feel my R knee flexing more...I feel it being pulled and straightened (or dragged as aptly described by Brad many pages back) by the leftward (or SW-ard to be exact) moving L hip.

And when I turn the pivot very hard, I don't feel it inside the L knee, I feel it on the outside of it...but my only thought really is extend the L hip, turn hard, and roll the snot out of my L arm/elbow/hand...all at the same time ASAP...

No, it's not complicated. The recent attempts to classify or differentiate a type of swing showing the hallmarks of a - held hinge, shallow shaft plane, bent elbow through impact, aggressive hip & hand move left through impact, left heel plant post etc. - grouping, seeks to clarify things. It seeks to expand awareness and shed light by also showing why this grouping of moves used to swing a golf club is different and produces the results it does.

It's a step forward in the organization of our thoughts. It's not some TGM approach to placing 25,000 sticky notes to every twitch a golfer made and then saying - "ok, now connect the dots any way you like".

When you drive down the street you see different homes and you group them into their design categories - that's a Tudor, that's a Mission, that Provincial, or that's Brick, Stucco etc.- that's helpful to the discussion it's not misleading nor is it some kind of dangerous short hand. It's a method of identification noting a grouping of materials and or design even with variables within the category. Whether or not they have modern furniture inside is beside the fact. You now know where to look and what the other person is talking about so that when the discussion is on a Frank Loyd Wright '60 glass house and someone comes up with the 'opinion' "you know what would look good on the outside... some victorian gingerbread trim" you quickly realize they may not be looking at the same house.

We got into this 'why can't we all get along' conclusion not because we are agreeing to disagree but because part of the 'discussion' would prefer things stay 'complicated' because that allows everyones 'opinions' to sound just valid as the next. That's the beauty of not agreeing on a term. If everyones views are just as factual as the next then everyones 'opinion' is meaningless. what becomes of the point of sharing information here - to tell stories?

Example - " Hogan is not a Hitter he is a Swinger " Ta Dah! (sigh) now would you please tell me who is a Hitter and why?? Who are these 'Hitters' that are markedly swinging the club differently than the grouping I mentioned above? Are you trying to say that you want Hogan to be the 'Swinger' and the swingers to be labeled as the 'Hitters' ?! This goes hand in hand with "I don't like the term 'pressuring down' so lets change it to an already perfectly clear and distinctly separate description of 'pushing off' so I can sound like I know what I am talking about". To be fair 'Evidence' was offered to back up this conclusion: - "he said he used his L arm...he said you gotta use your L arm...not a HITTER...Hogan is all #4 and #3 as far as intent is concerned..." (that's not edited) This was labeled as 'evidence'. Evidence of what? All some folks did was loosely coin a term 'hitter' to describe a grouping of distinct moves.

Now cut the B.S. - everyone here knows exactly what is meant by a hitters swing and a swinger in the context of this site - period. If they don't then either they are lying or they haven't understood any of the countless videos and over simplified posts explaining these distinctions or bothered to even look at them. Some very well intentioned and experienced individuals made the effort to lead the 'horse to water' and while I'm sure they don't really care what term you finally land on to describe Hogans grouping of moves it's only common sense not to play ignorant of the shorthand used for these swing methods and instead argue 'terms' to avoid taking a hard look at your own conclusions. Look on your computer screen - see all the icons and folders, we do categorize & classify in order to simplify. If you are discussing a project and you email someone a folder you created with a group of specific photo sequences but they decide to rename the folder to suit their tastes (fine) (but) the discussion is only going to break down and become more complicated as time goes on because what you are specifically referring to can not be agreed upon.

If you don't like using the terms a 'hitters swing' vs 'swinger' then how would you prefer to differentiate the these obvious differences used to complete a swing? Someone suggested using TGM - how about using Scientology, that might be less complicated? Or would you prefer to say that there simply are too many variables to classify an individuals swing and turn this into a philosophy thread so we can chase our tails.

Drew Art wrote:


Tally from Hogan words above:

The word(s) Hit/Hitting 8 (eight)

The word(s) Swing/Swinging 0 (zero)

Bradley Hughes wrote:



Mr. Bradely,

IMO, we are not trying to say we either swing or we hit. The point is, their is no difference IMO. Personally, I doubt Hogan used the word "hit" to describe his motion. IMO, he swung the club, to "hit the ball", but that's just me.

If someone actually groups certain aspects of ones swing, Hogan's, fine. I happen to believe those aspects used to characterise Hogan's swing motion, as a hit, are misleading. Holding angles? I don't see that.Frozen right arm? Dynamically, maybe, but not consciously. One continous thrust? Yes.

Furthermore, I doubt very seriously that a "swinger" is just letting the club fall, or is not in control of the shaft.


The point is, not everyone sees Hogan the same.

If some choose not to use someone elses classification as theirs, when describing Hogan, I think "this" thread should allow and respect that.

BTW, I happen to like TGM and or the use of PA 1-4 , to describe ones opinion about the swing motion.

Mark, 1lovegolf24

Mark wrote:

Furthermore, I doubt very seriously that a "swinger" is just letting the club fall, or is not in control of the shaft.

@Mark:

That is exactly what a pure swinger is doing. He is letting the CF forces work. A pure swing is a beautiful thing. I spent 40 plus years swinging the club that way and there were times when I could do it perfectly. It is just magical when it happens. It is almost an out of body experience. Like you are watching yourself do it. The problem with it for me is I couldn't get to that place that allowed me to completely let go and "let it happen" consistently. I was the master of the 74 on my high school golf team, with a 7 or 8 thrown in. If I felt a little jumpy in my hands you can bet it would manifest itself in a bad golf shot. It is a beguiling thing...pure swinging...it gives you these glimpses...but then it lets you down. With the hitting approach I am in control of the club. No out of body experience there. Just a craftsman doing his craft. Jumpy hands no longer make any difference.

Grady Dickens wrote:



Grady,

Thanks for the honesty. I am starting to get the drift of where you are coming from, especially if you yourself have experinced and felt a difference.

So, If I may, could you offer, for starters, hitter and swinger aside, one thing you changed or did differently that helped you get to that place.

Also, just for the fun of it, would you consider an axe swinger a hitter, of swinger?

Mark, 1lovegolf24

phily wrote:


What was that about?... I said evidence in the context of what is a "Swinger" and a "Hitter" per TGM the way I understood it. A Hitter per TGM uses R triceps thrust/push. Evidence that this is not Hogan is his own words saying "you gotta use your L arm". Now, if that is not evidence to you, which is both of personal knowledge (not hearsay) and expert testimony of what Hogan he himself did...lol...I don't know what to say...

As to the Houses...Tudor, Mission, Provincial, etc....those houses are not moving...lol

Grady Dickens wrote:


IMO your 40-year swing is better...it is just that you HAD, you know...so you were the captive of the clubFACE...its all about controlling the clubFACE back then, correct? Its "rolling" too much, right? So all you worry is to "time" that face to be square at impact, right? No?

Dave wrote:


Exactly Dave, for a small man Mr. Hogan had long arms and strong hands and forearms. His shoulders and torso muscles were average of small men at best.

Stephen wrote:

IMO your 40-year swing is better...it is just that you HAD, you know...so you were the captive of the clubFACE...its all about controlling the clubFACE back then, correct? Its "rolling" too much, right? So all you worry is to "time" that face to be square at impact, right? No?

@Stephen: My 40 year old swing is better than what? The swing I make now? If so, how can you say that not having seen my swing a few years ago?

Also, I don't think Phily's comment was aimed at you.

@Cy: Strong hands, forearms, glutes and thigh muscles. Those are the golf muscles. Shoulders and pecs are not helpful to golf. So I think we are in agreement on Hogan's physical characteristics and why they were a part of his success.