|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 12, 2023 13:41:47 GMT -5
Watch this BBG video featuring Drew Cooper Drew expresses a number of opinions regarding the topic of "creating lag" that are totally wrongheaded and unscientific. For example, he states that a strong lead hand grip is conductive to "creating lag". Why would a strong lead hand grip allow a golfer to better maintain lag between P4 => P5.5? He states that an ability to generate torso-pelvic separation (X-factor) allows a golfer to better generate lag. Why? I believe that there is no causal connection between a golfer's ability to maintain lead wrist lag in the plane of lead wrist radial => ulnar deviation between P4 => P5.5 and a golfer's degree of torso-pelvic separation. He states that increasing lag via the technique of "float-loading" is harmful - watch the 7:30 - 7:38 minute time point of the video where he states that creating too much lag by "float-loading" is harmful because the body will then have to slow down in order to release that lag in an optimal manner. That's totally untrue! A subset of skilled pro golfers can use "float-loading" in their early downswing to temporarily increase their clubhead lag and it increases (not decreases) their potential clubhead speed at impact. Jamie Sadlowski is an example. Note that JS has much more than a 90 degree lag angle at P5 (position 2).
Drew's opinion that JS therefore has to slow down his pivot action in some non-optimal manner in order to release that added degree of lag is nonsensical (unscientific)! Drew Cooper never discusses any of the "real" issues that affect a golfer's ability to create-and-maintain lag between P4 => P5.2+ as evidenced in this Kwon image. Note the direction of the curved green arrow created by the lead hand generating a negative MoF as the lead hand pulls the club handle down the hand arc path between P4 => P5.5 - it is rotating clockwise and that promotes lag at the level of the lead wrist. The trail hand is simultaneously applying a positive hand couple force to counteract the effect of that negative "moment of force" so that the lag angle can remain unchanged between P4 => P5.2+. Neither Brendon Devore or Drew Cooper had anything useful to say about the biomechanics of the downswing action that allows a golfer to produce that negative MoF and its counteracting positive trail hand couple force that must perfectly balance that MoF in order for clubhead lag to be continuously maintained to an unchanged degree between P4 => P5.2. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 20, 2023 9:59:14 GMT -5
Here is yet another nonsensical BBG video featuring the golf instructor JT Thomas. You only have to watch the first 5 minutes of the video. JT opines that a golfer should move the trail upper arm, which may be in a condition of external rotation of the trail humerus at P6, to become more internally rotated by P7. I have no objection to the "idea" that the trail humerus must become more internally rotated between P6 => P7, but I disagree with JT's reasoning. JT infers that for the trail upper arm to apply energy (force) to the club handle in the later downswing and at impact, that the trail hand must be applying a positive torque to the aft side of the club handle in the later downswing and at impact - watch his "boxing punch" analogy between the 3:04 - 3:06 minute time points of the BBG video. However, we know that the trail hand is applying a negative torque, and not a positive torque, to the club handle between P6 => P7 based on golf research studies. Here is Kwon's image showing the torques being applied to the club handle in tour pro golfers, teaching pros and skilled collegiate golfers.
The red graph is the torque being applied by the trail hand, the green graph is the MoF torque due to the lead hand pulling the club handle along the hand arc path, and the blue graph is the total torque.
Note that the trail hand torque is positive in the early-mid downswing and that it then becomes negative in the later downswing in all 3 groups of skilled golfers.
Here is Sasho MacKenzie's graph regarding the same issue.
The blue graph is the torque being applied by the hand couple, the black graph is the MoF torque being applied by the lead hand pulling the club handle along the hand arc path, and the red graph is the total torque.
Note that the transition between a positive hand couple torque and a negative hand couple torque happens at ~P5.5, and that the hand couple torque is negative during the later downswing and at impact.
It is a fallacy to believe that the trail hand is applying a positive torque to the club handle between P6 => P7 in a professional quality golf swing action - as inferred by JT Thomas.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 20, 2023 17:46:46 GMT -5
Dr Mann
I think you make some very valid points regarding the unscientific nature of those 2 videos. I'm a bit bemused why Brendon , after all these years meeting and interviewing biomechanical scientists like Dr Kwon and Dr Sasho MacKenzie , doesn't raise these questions to Drew and JT Thomas.
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 21, 2023 6:49:23 GMT -5
Dr Mann I think you make some very valid points regarding the unscientific nature of those 2 videos. I'm a bit bemused why Brendon , after all these years meeting and interviewing biomechanical scientists like Dr Kwon and Dr Sasho MacKenzie , doesn't raise these questions to Drew and JT Thomas. DG I am not surprised that Brendon does not challenge any of his guest golf instructors on the legitimacy of their golf instructional opinions because his main goal is to be an "entertainer" who can generate a lot of $$$$ by gaining more subscribers to his BBG channel. He is not really interested in trying to intellectually understand the golf swing biomechanics/mechanics of pro golfers. He also has a limited mental capacity to understand the complex details underlying theories related to golf swing biomechanics/mechanics. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 27, 2023 14:49:59 GMT -5
Here is another nonsensical BBG video featuring Brian Manzella.
I presume that Brendon is going to present a number of BBG videos featuring BM and this one is crazily stupid and typical of BM's nonsensical thinking re: golf swing biomechanics.
In this video, BM implies that it is only possible to hit good quality straight shots if a golfer has forward shaft lean at impact if the golfer simultaneously has a very high clubhead speed that is commonly associated with PGA tour golfers like Jon Rahm (and BM seemingly recommends a minimum clubhead speed of 100mph with a driver). He seemingly recommends far less forward shaft lean at impact for golfers who have a lower clubhead speed and he even seemingly recommends a small degree of flipping at impact. BM does not explain why having a high clubhead speed at impact can work for a golfer who comes into impact with a lot of forward shaft lean (like Jon Rahm). BM even demonstrates a DH-hand release action through impact and he seemingly equates it with a handle-dragging technique, which is totally wrongheaded! Note that BM (between the 14:46 - 15:10 minute time period of the BGG video) states that it is 100X better for a golfer to get the speed out to the clubhead rather than coming into impact like a DHer (who he wrongheadedly implies is "holding-off" the release of the club by "retaining the angle")!
BM even refers to a female golfer on the range who apparently has a weak lead hand grip strength. Watch the BBG video between the 15:24 - 15:56 minute time points. BM wrongheadedly implies that adopting a weak lead hand grip will cause the clubface to be too open at P4 and that it will lead to push-sliced shots because the clubface will be too open at impact. AMAZINGLY, BM states that she would be better off if she flipped through impact because then her clubface would be less open. That's crazy! The correct solution for a golfer, who chooses to use a weak lead hand grip (like Justin Thomas, Jon Rahm, Scottie Scheffler, Collin Morikawa and Will Zalatoris), is to use the appropriate amount of PA#3 reaction to ensure that the clubface is square at impact.
Phew!
This is BM at his worst!
Jeff.
|
|
janik
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by janik on Jul 28, 2023 1:57:04 GMT -5
Hi Dr. Mann
While I don’t disagree with what you stated above, I do believe a lack of face closure is a root cause for golfers flipping the club in order to hit a somewhat straight shot. For some reason, releasing PA#3 is not an intuitive move, in my observations of amateur playing partners.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 28, 2023 8:55:20 GMT -5
Hi Dr. Mann While I don’t disagree with what you stated above, I do believe a lack of face closure is a root cause for golfers flipping the club in order to hit a somewhat straight shot. For some reason, releasing PA#3 is not an intuitive move, in my observations of amateur playing partners. I agree that a lack of face closure is a root cause of the tendency to flip the club through impact in many amateur golfers. They usually cannot rely on a standard PA#3 release action to square the clubface for a number of reasons - they are not actively using a lead arm swinging action, too much tension in the lead forearm, active use of the trail arm/wrist to power the swing between P6 => P7 where the trail hand pushes the club handle too fast through impact. A standard PA#3 release action only works well if one is performing a lead arm swinging action with i) a relaxed lead forearm and ii) a passive trail arm/hand that does not interfere with the lead forearm's supinatory motion between P6 => P7. Optimally, the trail forearm should continue to supinate between P6 => P6.5 and then move towards neutral between P6.5 => P7 without becoming overtly pronated.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 28, 2023 11:15:54 GMT -5
Hi Dr. Mann While I don’t disagree with what you stated above, I do believe a lack of face closure is a root cause for golfers flipping the club in order to hit a somewhat straight shot. For some reason, releasing PA#3 is not an intuitive move, in my observations of amateur playing partners. I agree that a lack of face closure is a root cause of the tendency to flip the club through impact in many amateur golfers. They usually cannot rely on a standard PA#3 release action to square the clubface for a number of reasons - they are not actively using a lead arm swinging action, too much tension in the lead forearm, active use of the trail arm/wrist to power the swing between P6 => P7 where the trail hand pushes the club handle too fast through impact. A standard PA#3 release action only works well if one is performing a lead arm swinging action with i) a relaxed lead forearm and ii) a passive trail arm/hand that does not interfere with the lead forearm's supinatory motion between P6 => P7. Optimally, the trail forearm should continue to supinate between P6 => P6.5 and then move towards neutral between P6.5 => P7 without becoming overtly pronated.
Jeff. Dr Mann Do you reject SMK's method of squaring the clubface using the passive torque he described in the video below? From 2:55 -3:33 , he infers that from P6-P7 , golfers are not strong enough to rotate the clubface 60 degrees in 0.04 secs. If he's correct then I'm assuming the standard PA#3 action using rotation of a relaxed lead forearm cannot be achieved. DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 28, 2023 12:04:12 GMT -5
I agree that a lack of face closure is a root cause of the tendency to flip the club through impact in many amateur golfers. They usually cannot rely on a standard PA#3 release action to square the clubface for a number of reasons - they are not actively using a lead arm swinging action, too much tension in the lead forearm, active use of the trail arm/wrist to power the swing between P6 => P7 where the trail hand pushes the club handle too fast through impact. A standard PA#3 release action only works well if one is performing a lead arm swinging action with i) a relaxed lead forearm and ii) a passive trail arm/hand that does not interfere with the lead forearm's supinatory motion between P6 => P7. Optimally, the trail forearm should continue to supinate between P6 => P6.5 and then move towards neutral between P6.5 => P7 without becoming overtly pronated. Jeff. Dr Mann Do you reject SMK's method of squaring the clubface using the passive torque he described in the video below? From 2:55 -3:33 , he infers that from P6-P7 , golfers are not strong enough to rotate the clubface 60 degrees in 0.04 secs. If he's correct then I'm assuming the standard PA#3 action using rotation of a relaxed lead forearm cannot be achieved. DG I totally reject SMK's reasoning. Starting with the club at the P6 position when the clubhead lag angle is still ~90 degrees, SMK states that a golfer is not strong enough to square the clubface. He is totally wrong because he is thinking of the squaring force being a rotary force that will rotate the clubshaft while it is still at a ~90 degree angle relative to the lead arm when the MOI will still be very large. The "real life" reality is that the PA#3 release action happens after the release of PA#2 is significantly completed and then the MOI is much lower. Here is an example - featuring Phil Mickelson. At P6 (image 3) the MOI of the club (in terms of the force needed to rotate the clubshaft about its longitudinal axis) could be too large to perform a PA#3 release action at P6 using little force (torque).
However, PM only starts his PA#3 release action at P6.7 (image 5) when he has significantly completed the release of PA#2 and when the MOI is very small. Chris Como's reasoning is also highly flawed. Watch what he states between the 2:20 - 2:24 minute time point of the video - he states that a golfer will start to square the clubface by "steepening late" and he is demonstrating the clubshaft's motion between P5.5 => P6.2. However, that CC-demonstrated phenomenon is a change in the steepness of the clubshaft's swingplane in the mid-downswing and that CC-demonstrated phenomenon is not a PA#3 release action, which mainly happens in most pro golfers (who use a weak/neutral lead hand grip) after P6.5.
Here is an example of a pro golfer's PA#3 release action.
Justin Thomas (who uses a weak lead hand grip)
Image 1 is at P6 and image 2 is at P6.5 - note that the back of JT's lead hand is not rotating counterclockwise between P6 => P6.5 so he is not yet performing his PA#3 release action. Note that he only starts to rotate the back of his lead hand (via a lead forearm supinatory action) after P6.5 when the MOI is much smaller due to the fact that the PA#2 release action has already significantly released the club. Finally, also consider the physics of the RYKE effect. Note that virtually no torque is needed to cause the clubshaft to rotate about its longitudinal axis between P6 => P7 if there is a passive rotary joint inbuilt into the peripheral end of the central arm and it only requires a very small impulsive force (due to hitting that wire that moves the clubshaft slightly off-plane) - watch the video between the 6:54 - 7:17 minute time points). I think that neither SMK or CC take the physics of the RYKE effect into account. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 28, 2023 18:24:24 GMT -5
Dr Mann I have my doubts that the forearm muscles can contract from around P6.5 in time to square the clubface by P7 , even with a small MOI of the club about the longitudinal axis of the lead forearm. From searching on the internet I have found the following: "The forearms have many small muscles with varying fiber types. However, most forearm muscles are slow twitch dominant, much like the soleus muscle. Slow twitch muscle fibers are difficult to grow because they rely on a rich supply of oxygenated blood called myoglobin." "The soleus muscle in the leg, by contrast, has a high proportion of slow-twitch fibers and requires about 100 msec to reach maximum tension." Now look at the screen image of a multiple major winner in one of SMK's videos whose club is approximately at P6.5 and note the time to impact is 0.021 secs= 21 msecs. How can a golfer physically activate and contract the forearm muscles quickly enough to rotate the clubface square by impact in 21 msecs when it would require about 100 msecs without any extra load (like a golf driver)? Kevin Ryke's theorised physics explanation of the Ryke effect was was also used to claim it could increase clubhead speed with an increased PA3 angle. He has freely admitted he was wrong in that respect, therefore his explanation for the physics of the Ryke effect must also be wrong. When I look at the Ryke effect, it looks just like SMK's passive torque effect but happening later in the downswing and actually too late to square the clubface by P7. You can regard the push of that 'obstacle' on the lead 'upper arm' as similar to a push on the wrist joint to make its path steeper relative to the instantaneous 'club' swing plane. If Kevin Ryke was able to accelerate the 'arm' and 'club' in his model as fast as a real golf driver swing, the rotation of that coloured strip of metal (representing the club) would not have had the time to square by impact. DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 28, 2023 18:49:43 GMT -5
DG, You wrote-: " How can a golfer physically activate and contract the forearm muscles quickly enough to rotate the clubface square by impact in 21 msecs when it would require about 100 msecs without any extra load (like a golf driver)?" You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that the lead forearm supinatory muscles are only contracting between P6.5 => P7. However, you have forgot to consider the general principle that torque must precede action by a long period of time so the lead forearm muscles must start contracting much sooner than P6.5. Here is an image from SMK's paper on this topic. Note that the M arm torque starts at ~P5.5 - P6. Its "effect" is seen later when the MOI becomes small enough. I also do not think that there is any connection between SMK's passive torque "idea" which is dependent on the clubshaft being on a shallower plane than the lead hand's pulling force plane that causes the clubshaft to shift towards the plane of the pulling force (lead arm abduction plane). The gold-colored arrow shows that the clubshaft is being induced to steepen its swingplane as a result of that passive torque and it is not due to an "external force". In the RYKE model, the club handle pulling force is on-plane and an "external force" moves the clubshaft off-plane and that induces the RYKE phenomenon. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 28, 2023 21:05:34 GMT -5
Dr Mann Yes , I agree that the arm torque could theoretically happen earlier as shown in those SMK graphs, using his forward dynamics model to optimise clubhead speed. The article is titled "A three-dimensional forward dynamics model of the golf swing" published in 2009. But note the important point below regarding his model from another research article "Club position relative to the golfer’s swing plane meaningfully affects swing dynamics" which was published in 2012. "The maximum torque capability of the forearm torque generator was increased to compensate for a lack of a trailing arm. In fact, the maximum torque produced by the forearm torque generator (30 Nm) was three to eight times greater than the maximum supination values reported in the literature (Salter & Darcus, 1952; Gallagher et al., 1997; O’Sullivan & Gallwey, 2002; Gordon et al., 2004), which should account for any additional torque applied to the club by a trailing arm during a real golf swing. While an attempt was made to account for the muscular contribution from a trailing arm, the mass and moment of inertia of the trailing arm were not accounted for and should be noted as a limitation of the model." In the 2009 research article, he fails to mention if he has increased the lead arm torque generator capability in a similar fashion but look at the table for maximum Torque (Tm) generator values below: The M_Arm is 60 Nm which is double that used in the 2012 research! So, I'm assuming that the lead forearm generator in SMK's model for those graphs in the 2009 research article is far greater than a real golfer's lead forearm supination capability. Further, we know in real golfers swings (as per Jon Sinclair graphs) , the trail forearm is supinating from P4 to just before P7 , therefore it cannot be contributing to the lead forearm PA#3 release. Therefore , SMK has provided the lead forearm generator too high a torque generating capability that has no bearing in reality to the biomechanics of a tour pro golfer's swing. I am now uncertain whether the lead forearm of a real golfer can produce the necessary torques as portrayed in those optimised graphs. You said: 'In the RYKE model, the club handle pulling force is on-plane and an "external force" moves the clubshaft off-plane and that induces the RYKE phenomenon.' When I look at those Ryke videos , it is the upper arm that is moved off-plane while the clubshaft is instantaneously on its original downswing plane. If the upper arm is moved off-plane , then the lower forearm and wrist will also move off-plane compared to the instantaneous clubshaft plane. That scenario will be similar to SMK's passive torque effect because the Ryke model 'wrist/hand' will be moved to a steeper path than the clubshaft plane. DG Addendum: Just thought I'd note down something else about the SMK forward dynamics model regarding the M_Arm graph in the research article 2009 'A three-dimensional forward dynamics model of the golf swing'. SMK described the M_Arm as follows: The Arm segment was modelled as a straight rigid body with the elbow joint fixed at 180 degrees. The Arm was able to perform horizontal adduction-abduction as well as internal–external rotation about its own longitudinal axis.
The Arm segment was affixed to the Shoulder reference frame and, therefore, moved in the adduction–abduction plane with the Shoulder reference frame. In addition, the Arm rotated about its own longitudinal axis, which represented a combination of shoulder internal–external rotation and forearm pronation–supination.Therefore the optimised graphs were for 'full arm' torques which I suspect explains why the maximum torque generator threshold was set high at 60 Nm (which includes the extra torque for a missing trail arm). The graph would show the torques required to rotate the upper arm and forearm segments together In the 2012 forward dynamics model the lead arm was constrained to swing in the same plane as the torso while the upper arm could not rotate about it's longitudinal axis . But there was a forearm segment allowing it to rotate about its longitudinal axis which was given a Max torque of 30Nm (which includes the extra torque for a missing trail forearm). The optimised graphs from that research article ""Club position relative to the golfer’s swing plane meaningfully affects swing dynamics" would only show the torque required to rotate the forearm about its longitudinal axis. Optimised Graph From 2012 forward dynamics model Optimised graph from 2009 forward dynamics model - no independent forearm rotation.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 28, 2023 23:06:31 GMT -5
DG, You wrote-: " So, I'm assuming that the lead forearm generator in SMK's model for those graphs in the 2009 research article is far greater than a real golfer's lead forearm supination capability.
Further, we know in real golfers swings (as per Jon Sinclair graphs) , the trail forearm is supinating from P4 to just before P7 , therefore it cannot be contributing to the lead forearm PA#3 release. Therefore , SMK has provided the lead forearm generator too high a torque generating capability that has no bearing in reality to the biomechanics of a tour pro golfer's swing.
I am now uncertain whether the lead forearm of a real golfer can produce the necessary torques as portrayed in those optimised graphs." You are approaching the problem of the release of PA#3 in a TGM swinging action from a theoretical perspective. I can perform a PA#3 release action in "real life" with great ease using a TGM swinging action. I recommend that you, and other golfers, try my approach. Here is Logan Aldridge's lead arm-only golf swing action. He uses a very strong lead hand grip and he therefore does not have to use a large amount of lead forearm supination between P6.5 => P7.
I can duplicate his one-armed golf swing action using a weak lead hand grip, and I have zero difficulty squaring the clubface by P7 using a passive PA#3 release action. Here is how I perform the lead arm-only golf swing action (which is basically a TGM swinging action). Like Logan, I rotate my pelvis clockwise by ~45 degrees and my upper torso by ~90 degrees between P1 => P4. I shorten my lead arm backswing action so that the lead arm only gets to the 10 o'clock position. I then release PA#4 using only my shoulder girdle muscles and I do not use a pivot-induced release of PA#4. Some key points regarding my PA#4 release technique-: 1) I pull the club handle down to P5.5 as fast as possible using my lead shoulder girdle muscles to release PA#4. 2) I try to get my lead hand to reach its maximum speed by P5.5. 3) I make no attempt to shallow the clubshaft between P4 => P5.5 and I keep the back of my GFLW continuously parallel to the swingplane between P4 => P5.5. 4) I use the aiming point technique to direct the butt end of the club at a point on the ball-target line that is a few feet behind the ball and roughly just outside my trail thigh - and that creates a U-shaped hand arc path with an on-plane clubshaft motion. I then allow PA#2 to release passively using no consciously-applied muscular torque.
I then allow PA#3 to release passively after P6.5 using no consciously-applied lead forearm supination muscular torque. I can easily reach the P7 position with no forward shaft lean, or a small amount of forward shaft lean, indicating that I successfully released PA#2. I can easily reach the P7 position with the back of my lead wrist/hand (GFLW) facing the target, indicating that I successfully released PA#3. I can repeat the described lead arm-only golf swing action multiple times and I have zero problems completing the release of PA#3 by P7 even though I make zero effort to use any muscular force to perform the release of PA#3.
Some key points needed to duplicate my described golf swing action. 1) I mentally program my golf swing action at address and I imagine that I will end up at P7 with the back of my lead wrist/hand (GFLW) facing the target (indicating that I have successfully completed the release of PA#3). 2) It is critically important that the lead arm is not actively pulling the club handle along the hand arc path beyond P5.5 because the lead arm has to slow down to passively complete the release of PA#2 => PA#3 (according to the release physics that underlie the passive release of PA#2 and PA#3).
3) It is critically important to create a U-shaped hand arc path, and not a V-shaped hand arc path, so that PA#2 can release naturally without any conscious effort and that there is sufficient time to complete the sequential release of PA#2/3. 4) It is critically important to not attempt to use any muscular torque to release either PA#2 or PA#3. The lead arm must be very relaxed, especially the lead forearm, and one should "feel" that the lead hand can rotate counterclockwise effortlessly with great ease secondary to an effortless lead forearm supinatory motion. If you duplicate my described technique, the "feel" of the release of PA#3 should be effortless and unconsciously achieved. I make no deliberate effort to biomechanically induce the release of PA#3 and it happens automatically/freely with no sense of using any muscular effort.
Any reasonably skilled golfer (who clearly understands the biomechanics/mechanics of a TGM swinging action using the sequential release of PA#4 => PA#2 => PA#3) should be able to duplicate my described lead arm-only TGM swinging action and successfully complete the release of PA#3 by impact.
There is no need to have to use a trail arm to successfully complete the release of PA#3 by impact.
Finally, watch this video that I made with Jim George.
Watch the video starting at the 49:29 minute time point and you will see Jim George performing a two-armed TGM swinging action using a weak/neutral lead hand grip.
Then, watch him perform a lead arm-only TGM swinging action starting at the 50:20 minute time point. Note that he can release PA#2 => PA#3 perfectly and he is not using any conscious muscular effort to release either PA#2 or PA#3.
Jeff.
|
|
janik
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by janik on Jul 29, 2023 6:21:30 GMT -5
Hi Dr. Mann,
Very informative post.
Question: in the video with Jim, you mention how the swinging action is identical with lead arm only or both arms. Personally, my swinging action is excellent lead arm only, but totally off looking with the trail arm back on. Particularly I notice a loss of lag early on from P5 to P6. It is like my trail arm is an inch too long and its presence forces the club lag to come out. I have tried to feel like I swing with trail arm closer to me (ie shorten it) but fail to hit the ball cleanly when doing so.
Your thoughts appreciated.
Janik
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Jul 29, 2023 8:22:18 GMT -5
Dr Mann
I agree that your post is very informative indeed and I also do not feel any need to actively use my forearms to try and square the clubface by P7.
With regards the physics of release of PA#3, I think the forward dynamic models used by SMK can create more questions than answers.
DG
|
|