Secret In The Dirt - Golf's Greatest Social Network

Grady Dickens wrote:


You'd need to see p3 to p4 to be sure, but you can pretty much sense it from the impact position.

1. cp, 2. cp, 3. cp, 4. cf, 5. cp,
6. cp, 7. cf, 8. cp, 9. cp, 10. cp,
and 11. cf

The Hogans are easy because they are familiar, but 5 and 9 are the only two I'm unsure of. Hard to get up on the right toe like a few of those and have the stability down below to orbit pull it left. Furyk is a bit different with the elbow behind the hip requiring his leg drive and hold off move.

A picture of the right elbow at impact doesn't say much. If the player straightens the right elbow right after impact then what's the point? Pivot stall, arm throw, premature closure of the clubface due to inadequate post impact pivot thrust, all the while disturbing lowpoint and throwing the shaft off plane out to right field to boot. This adds a HUGE timing element into the golf swing. Timing the straightening of the right arm and timing the closure of the clubface with arm activity. You do that, not me.

The straightening of the right arm and left knee through impact are two big moving parts that add a massive timing element to the golf swing that can be virtually eliminated from the swing. However, you have to substitute in their place an increase in the two main rotational power sources or you will lose distance. You have to strengthen in a different area and train hard to do it. It's not a swing tip or quick fix which is what most people want. Even the touring pros are missing the mark and wondering why they can't hit the ball straight. I turned on the TV to watch the Canadian Open for about 3 minutes. The first shot I saw was the leader hit his drive 30 yards right into some bushes. This was not even on Sunday. The ball was lost, but he got a drop and then a further drop because of some tire tracks, and ends up only taking a one stroke penalty when he should have been reloading from the tee. Too many red stakes on these golf courses and too many drops going on.
The second shot I watched was another guy near the lead miss the green left into a bunker with an 8 iron from middle of the fairway. I turned the TV off after that. The modern swing most of these guys are using is an arm throw disconnect through impact with a stalled pivot. Talk about timing.. and they wonder why they can't play consistent golf week to week? I can't imagine having to rely upon pristine putting surfaces and a belly putter to shoot under par. Didn't a guy shoot 66 at Olympic opening round this year and only hit 8 greens in reg? And then you saw many of the worlds top players missing the cut because they were off with their putting? No, they should still be making the cut if they are off with their putting if they can hit the ball straight.

John, Thank you for your post. It has just come at the right time for me. I started on Bradley's program a few weeks ago and am on drill 1 which is a big change for a former single shift swinger as with that action you don't get close to the 4 30 drill. I played the other day and I am hitting it a lot shorter. Just from drill 1 I can tell that your motion uses the pivot in a totally different way and that is where the power must be generated. Am I right in thinking that the to come ground/foot pressure drills are where the power and distance increase comes.
It seems to me that with your action the right shoulder action is more round and flatter and not downpane and is rotatational through the strike and the pivot is not used to counter balance a last second violent throw out of the arms and club to generate power. I was good at that action but it is not compatable with drill 1 and that loss of power has to be picked up somewhere else in a different way with your motion otherwise I will be hitting it a lot shorter. I am going to stick with the program but was wandering at what point someone learning your motion gets their distance back.
I can fire hard from the 4 30 drill but in the real swing I have to make a slow tempo effort to drop from the top to 4 30 in a double shift action as it is totally alien to my previous single shift action and when I get there the aggression is gone and I smooth it through impact.It goes dead straight but there is nothing on it. If I get aggressive I don't hit 4 30 on the way down and it all goes wrong. I have not got to the point where I can drop into 4 30 and fire hard like I can in drill 1 in the real swing.

John Erickson wrote:


For me it's the thing I look about most and as I have seen most difficult thing to achieve for many many players. And of course no only at impact, but still bit post impact. Left elbow out and up, right in and down.

For me that tells really about the acceleration where hands never catch the body center line and left arm stays in strong connection to the chest. I'd like to feel increasing pressure there instead of letting it loose.

I tried to find that one image of Snead from dtl where you can see target between the arms as the elbow line is pointing about 20 degrees to the right and shoulders already about 20 degrees to the left. It tells he has been keeping that way of rotation in his arms through the impact and strong pivot has made squaring of the face without any arm roll. Couldn't find it yet but I try to post it later.

Not sure if you guys categorize Luke Donald as a great ballstriker, but here's an interesting article about him playing vintage clubs:

www.golf.com/tour-and-news/luke-donald-tees-it-vintage-clubs


"By Joe Passov, Senior Editor (Courses/Rankings)
Published: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 | 09:47:00 AM


Sure, your equipment is better than the stuff that was in your dad's golf bag but how much better? We put GOLF MAGAZINE Contributing Player Luke Donald on the case, turning him loose at Desert Forest Golf Club in Carefree, Arizona, armed with 45-year-old clubs: MacGregor's Eye-O-Matic 60 driver and Tourney Velocitized fairway woods, Wilson Staff Dyna-Powered irons and sand wedge, a Ben Hogan Equalizer pitching wedge, a Bulls Eye putter, and an original Ping 1-A putter. He used two types of Titleist balls his current model, the Pro V1x, and a new sleeve of Tour 90 balatas from a decade ago, the softest ball we could find that we were sure wouldn't implode. For comparison's sake, he also hit shots with his current clubs, including a 365cc titanium-headed driver with a graphite shaft.

Here is Donald's report:

Though the heads are much smaller than what I'm used to, these woods are real good-looking, especially considering they're decades older than I am. The sweetspot may be tiny, but you can tell these clubs have great balance; everything's in proportion. Today's drivers are more head-heavy.

Well, here goes nothing....

There's a big difference in the sound and feel at impact. The persimmon feels dead, like I'm hitting a grapefruit. It's a struggle to get the ball into the air with the driver. The balata ball has a low, flat trajectory that dives quickly at the end. (My Pro V1x proves easier to get airborne, but only just.) On the 1st hole, I make a decent swing at least the contact feels fine. But when I look up the ball is knee-high. Almost gives the photographer a haircut.

My current driver sends it 50 yards past the old MacGregor with modern balls, 20-35 yards with the balata. I don't see as much difference in the fairway woods. At the 7th hole, a par 5, I have 245 yards left. With the 3-wood I hit a balata straight and get it to the green, but my second attempt, with a Pro V1x, takes off just as straight but much higher and stays in the air a lot longer. The difference between the old and new balls is amazing. Jack Nicklaus always says the modern ball is the biggest reason for the length we get these days. Now I have to agree.

The '59 Wilson irons are comparable to my Mizuno MP-33s. The hosel on the old ones is thicker and the blade shorter, but the shape, offset and topline are similar. I notice the Wilson 4-iron has more loft than my Mizuno 4-iron, and the shaft is about an inch and a half shorter. Not surprisingly, my current set plays about a club longer throughout the bag. The old pitching and sand wedges perform like I'm used to wedge design has stayed pretty classical. But on shorter shots the balata ball produces a different feeling, like it wants to stick to the clubface. I thought I might tear the cover off the ball. You'd think the balata would be much easier to control, but the Pro V1x spins almost as much.

Putting is easy with the old Bulls Eye there's a reason this model lives on. The Ping takes some getting used to. Never mind the high-pitched ping; it's so light and the metal so thin that judging distance takes some time.So what did I learn? Modern technology has definitely made the game easier. I've gained a new measure of respect for the old-timers, who couldn't just crush the ball; they had to be true shotmakers."

BHSP,

Don't mention Luke Donald again on this thread. Lol.

PJ and Tapio,

I don't have the energy (on vacation) to go back and review how you answered the question on the impact pics. The answer goes to something Tapio said in the immediately preceding post in regard to the left arm being "out". The left arm will separate from the body some on transition , but it needs to get down and tight to the left pec by impact. The problem with some of those impact pics is the left arm is "out" and high, and the shaft is well above address angle.

Early on in this thread Festus made a good point (as he usually does) that you just can't beleive how low you have to go to get the hands down to address angle. That is why I posted the stills of John in transition and then at p3, showing the downward decent of the hands. The great ball strikers were able to make this move while maintaining a shallow angle of attack. The irony is that, as I have said earlier in this thread, when I have sniffed at this move I very much feel "up" not down from p3 to finish. It is a fascinating game.

John Hue,

Distance comes from good shoulder rotation back.. but more importantly through. A lot of people can make a big turn but then fail to drive it through post impact. There is sequencing involved here.

Finishing too flat is a common power vampire.... but I am not talking lifting the hands up right after impact to a high finish.. quite the opposite.

Bradley and I don't leave any stones unturned. It takes time to learn the stuff...but when you do, you'll not only have it right but a clear understanding of how things should work from a true internal perspective.

You learn the golf swing from within.. by becoming a quality ball striker yourself. Then you really get it. There are just too many internal pressures going on that are invisible to arm chair analysts. Slot it, then work the 4:30 line into the orbit pull finishing with the left side crunch. All the ground pressure options and the four constant pressure zones that need to be maintained. You can't see this stuff in pics or videos. You can see the manifestation of this stuff... but not the HOW to do it.

Be patient. You are in good hands.

Hey PJ, do you think the distinction you're proposing between CF and CP is a meaningful tool?

We could take an Iron Byron type machine as being 100% CP, if we designed it that way. No throw at all just a pure pivot.

But a human will always have some degree of both right? And it will be really difficult to tell how much of each from looking at an action, or even talking to the person. Because not only is feel not real, the mental frame of reference will be completely different across individuals.

This discussion has really got me thinking now... I've had plenty exposure to the ABS/rotational school hatred of "throw" in the swing. I certainly agree with the critcism of the results of some modern swings. No fun to see top players butchering ordinary shots in the search for ever more distance.

However, I am undecided if these results are all caused by the so-called "throw" or whether its a deal more complicated than that. So here's the question for debate:

Are these throws all the same type and aimed in the same place, with the same mechanics etc? Does it matter, is one type of throw potentially more effective than another?

Is it possible, in theory at least, to have a throw that produces acceptably consistent results?

I find it hard to believe that the myriad of swings out there can be broken down by "he throws", "he doesnt".

Dave
IMo a throw is not at all incompatible with a pivot driven move.
Its just that at impact you would be THROWING NOT HAVING THROWN.
Hogan mentioned it Burke mentioned it...IMO a throw means what? Elbow must lead like a pitcher or a tennis serve.
In a swing the pivot pulls the hands via left arm to left and up.
Why would it be bad to have that throw intent in the hands arms resulting in the sequence functioning like Hogan said if the pivot outraces it?
To me intent to throw results in automatic delay of clubhead and hands. Kind of like using an aiming point high and outside but result is you never hit the target because the pivot is pulling hands left and up..
Take what I say as primarily theory. I have never broken par.
What I am suggesting is also hairsplitting terminology from ABS as I understand pivot driven hitting. I am not in ABS so I can't comment better on their hand arm drills/moves.
I just think there's reasons some greats mention having a throw in your swing.

Steve, I think I'd agree with all of that.

To me, the WHOLE SWING is a throw. I'd see a "late throw" as potentially being an inconsistent way to go ("how late?"), but a properly constructed throw sequencing all the body parts appropriately should not be an inconsistent thing any more than a baseball pitch, tennis serve, javelin throw etc are inconsistent.

And I don't believe either that every single player who demonstrates a big gap between their club and body is necessarily "throwing out", I just think they have lost control of their swing, for all kinds of reasons.

BTW, this is not meant to be argumentative I just want to understand what I'm missing here.

Dave
no worries. I just think what JE says is so true about saving ones forces until they are needed.
I am just saying within the motion there's a throwing intent but in essence it fails because the pivot is outracing it.
Really is splitting hairs with words.
I just think throwing from the top would be the antithesis of ideal. First you would need to be in position or all is lost.
I like what the ABS guys say about saving ones leverage. To me that's what's important.

Lane Holt wrote:


I just wasn't trying to hijack this thread. I haven't played the .370, I was happy with the first one so I figured whats the point. I have been waiting, no so patiently for the iron shafts to come out. I guess they are still in design, I haven't called inventix in a while. Do you know the status?

I am vacationing in Taos (cool place...if I wanted to "drop out" ...this place would be high on the list). I was able to get out to Taos Country Club for a quick range session (all I have is my ipad and I don't know how to copy the YouTube video I did and post it here...perhaps someone reading can go to my YouTube channel and post it here). After the session the guy picking up range balls parked his ball machine and came over to me and talked to me for 20 minutes on the state of the game. The guy's name is Ron Stelten. He has studied the impact of technology on the game extensively. He says 1977 was the perfect balance of equipment...ball and gear. The correlation between swing speed and added distance was 2 yards for every onemph in swing speed. He said the metal driver increased distance a bit...maybe one yard per year during the 90s. The big turning point was first the pro v ball, and then the trampoline 460 cc driver. Driving distance increased 7 yards a year in 2001 and 2002. He said back in the day there was maybe a 20 yard distance between George Bayer and the rest. Now it is not uncommon for someone like Bubba to hit it 80 yards past his playing competitors. But what is interesting is he said Bubba doesn't hit it that much further because of strength or fitness, he said it was primarily a technological advantage. I don't know about that since all tour players have access to launch monitors etc... But I do agree it is ridiculous that there is that kind of disparity between players, and it isn't good for the future of the game. I just don't believe Bubba has a superhuman physical advantage. Ron apparently was a very good player, and was very good friends with Pat Simmons. In any event he knew a lot about old gear, and it was a pleasure to talk with someone that had an appreciation for classic gear.

Here you go, Grady:

.

A throw out is a viable way to play ....SO long as the pivot keeps working along with it. That is why myself and John E teach the pivot to get busy.....and the best way to get the pivot working is to bring the club from around yourself and not up and down... That is why we try lead a student down that path and even if they can't do it exactly they are strengthening forearms and the connection and pivot to work in a functional manner.
Tom Watson, Greg Norman, even myself in younger days threw the right arm out a bit post impact... BUT... we all kep the right arm in reasonably close at impact for support and kept the pivot working hard and the wrists never fully uncocked and rolled the clubface shut and we never threw the shaft out to the right or flipped it around our bodies on the way through. The pivot kept working in unison with the force and the butt of the club still pointed in the direction of the chi area and the clubface appeared neutral when it showed up exiting the shoulder line up into the follow through.
Better to work toward keeping things moving than just going by the notion that once the ball is struck it doesn't matter what we do.
Keeping the pivot working keeps acceleration of the clubhead and shaft moving and inline with our core....a primary power source. Stalling the pivot is more of a timing slow down dump where the arms fly away earlier and the shaft and clubhead really gets thrown around into and through impact and a lot more can go wrong. Especially for the average guy who doesn't/can't practice much and wants to swing out of his boots with the lighter upright equipment
Footwork/ground pressures is very important to allowing the pivot to keep functioning.....not something to misinterpret or brush aside....hence it being the 2nd drill we teach our students. Without it the horsepower just isn't going to be there

Great swing Grady.
Just wanted to put up some trevino words I saw.

!

@Tim,

Thanks. Nothing really noteworthy about the swing, other than the setting. By the way, Ron has a website-www.ronstelten.com. It references his blog...Iknowgolfblog.com, which had some interesting posts as Ron competed on the senior tours for a while.

@Azmat,

Thanks for the Trevino video, one of the great ball strikers for sure. It is interesting you posted because Ron recounted Trevino's exploits with his punch dot r20 sand wedge (I had one in my bag) in winning the 1971 British Open at Muirfield.

I hit many balls on the range last month in Dallas with the Nunchuk Iron shaft. It is absolutely amazing. Just like the driver and 370 shafts it is hard to hit crooked . However, because of the intense labor to mfgt. the cost would be prohibitive. The specs. Are so demanding that the maker( whose name I won't mention) says the reject rate would be too high. CEO , Mike McCall is doing everything he can to solve these problems, but he and the Inventor will not sacrifice quality!
Buy yourself a 370 Hybrid shaft and put it on a Iron head. You talk about something special !!!!!

I believe that all premium shafts made in the future could possibly be made using Nunchuk Technology. It just makes sense.

Regards,

Lane

Lane, I'm not discounting the awesomeness of the Nunchuk (even though I haven't tried one yet, I know they are supposed to be great), but random product plugs are very off-topic for this thread--a thread that's dealing with swing dynamics much more so than equipment.

Perhaps you could start a sort of "Nunchuk Newsletter" thread? A place where you can regularly update users on any new developments with the shaft?

Timothy,

I was replying to Jason about the Nunchuk. I am so sorry if this upset you .

Lane

@Grady
Good that u liked this video, though what is noteworthy is that he talks alot about his left hand. I dont think there is a swing that is as great as Hogan's, but Trevino made the game look so simple, whereas its not.

Lane Holt wrote:


Don't worry Lane, I'm not upset, I was just trying to keep things on track. I wasn't aware of Jason's posts, so it looked like a random plug.

Azmat Lodhi wrote:


If you look at the stats over a "life time" objectively then there is no doubt that Snead had the BEST swing of all times! Snead's swing was "natural"! He didn't need to dig it from the dirt!