Aligning parallel left

[imperfectgolfer]

Consider this 3jack thread.

richie3jack.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2673

There seems to be very little sympathy for the swing fundamental of having a parallel-left stance among forum members. I personally regard it as a major alignment element in pro-golfer's swings, and I think that most pro-golfers go to a lot of trouble to aim correctly with a parallel-left stance. One can see it frequently happening in DTL views on TV broadcasts of PGA tour events.

Unfortunately, many golfers and golf instructors don't really understand what parallel-left alignment aiming really means.

John Graham wrote-:

"I'm not a big fan of parallel.

Everyone tries to make it a certain way and that way is always wrong.

I once had a student that was a surveyor that always had his stance line point directly at the target. I asked him why he did that and he said, "Parallel is parallel." "If I hit a perfectly straight shot, I'll be just a couple feet away from the stick."

Parallel does not look parallel. It looks converging. Many forget that."

I think that John is totally wrong. Parallel is only converging when viewed from behind the ball and if one looks at the far distant target, and that induces golfers to wrongly aim their shoulders at the target - as demonstrated in the following diagram from Lupo's book.



The author of the book (Lupo) recommends that a golfer should place a club on the ground at the "projected" stance line so that the club points at the target (as seen from behind) - see image 1. This is based on the converging railway line track concept. He then states that a golfer should place his feet on the "established" stance line, which means that the shoulders/feet are facing the target at address - image 2. I think that this maneuver is a major mistake! If the feet and shoulders are facing the target at address, then the "true" alignment will likely be in the direction of the red arrow in image 3 - about 10-20 degrees right of the target. I highly recommend that golfers adopt my alignment recommendations as demonstrated in image 4. First establish the ball-target line by standing directly behind the ball. Second, locate an object (eg. tuft of grass or divot mark) about 6 feet away on the ball-target line - red dot, labelled "X". Third, stand alongside the ball, and place the clubhead behind the ball so that the clubface (short blue line) faces point "X". Fourth, make sure that your foot stance line is perpendicular to the clubface, which means that the stance line is parallel to the ball-target line - yellow line. Fifth, make sure that an extension of the stance line (yellow line) points well left of the target (double-headed red arrow) - as viewed when glancing out of the corner of the left eye at the left shoulder. As a rough approximation, the width of the double-headed red arrow at the target should be about 7 feet for every 100 yards of distance.

Jeff.

[gmbtempe]

What do you think of Hogans stance diagram, which promoted anything but parallel left through the bag?

[imperfectgolfer]

tba wrote the following in 3jack's forum.

"What effect will J.M's alignment method have on a swing, is it even relevant, as the ball doesn't know if you are standing facing it in any manner, it is only concerned with the impact parameters."

Who cares what the ball "thinks" as it is a non-conscious object that only responds to what the golfer does with the club. It is the golfer who is a conscious agent and it is the golfer who has to get his swing mechanics/biomechanics optimised in order to hit the ball optimally. If a golfer doesn't want to have his stance/body parallel to the ball-target line (like Hogan and Trevino) that's OK. I simply think that most professional golfers are square to the ball-target line because they prefer to swing inline (relative to their stance/body) and they don't want to swing in-to-out, or out-to-in, relative to their stance/body line. It's not a swing imperative, but I think that it makes biomechanical sense to swing inline (relative to one's stance/body line).

Jeff.

[gmbtempe]

I don't really disagre with any of that.

I was reading over at WRX and the comment was "most poor players results are often dictated by poor alignment at setup". This comment is often perpetuated with the popular instruction. When I am playing with poor players and they hit it off the 6th groove with a 30 degree open face the last thing I think is "if they only aligned better he would have hit it good".

[imperfectgolfer]

JG wrote in the 3jack thread-: "Yea, I don't know what to say. He's usually pretty bright. Can't really understand how anyone can think that way. I once had to pull out parallel ropes to our 100 yard marker just to prove it to some one."

JG is usually pretty bright himself, but he seems to be unable to understand this issue.

I am not disputing the fact that parallel lines converge in the distance - that fact is readily obvious to anybody who stands on a railway track and looks into the far distance. However, that doesn't mean that the person standing on the left hand track can aim his stance/body towards that distant point of convergence (which is an imaginary point where the left hand track and right hand track converge in the distance) - he has to aim his stance/body straight-in-line with respect to the track that he is standing on so that his stance/body is parallel to the right hand track. Then, when he looks at his left shoulder (out of the corner of his left eye) he is viewing his left shoulder from an angle that introduces parallax distortion, and that introduces the "visual sensation" that his left shoulder is pointing well left of the target.

Consider this simple photo.



If the golfer turns his head slightly sideways to look at his left shoulder, he will perceive that it is pointing at "Y" and not "X". However, the "true" reality is that his stance/body is parallel to the ball-target line.

Jeff.