|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 24, 2012 19:56:33 GMT -5
Natep posted the following comment in another thread (where he disparages the value of TGM)-: "seeing that the most helpful concepts of no tugging, out-toss, and hand path are not discussed or acknowledged in TGM."
He believes that the TGM system of explaining golf swing mechanics is inadequate because he perceives that it doesn't even discuss the concept of i) "no-tugging", ii) the out-toss maneuver and iii) the hand path. Does any forum member support his opinion, and believe that the TGM system doesn't deal adequately with these topics. I would be interested in reading/debating any opinion that supports Natep's personal position.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Jul 25, 2012 7:37:53 GMT -5
You mean the 'out toss' that was first mandatory, then became a 'feel', then became something that was not taught to 200 students at Augusta and then taught to a few students after Augusta this year?
I have no real problem with the out-toss concept other than it once being claimed as 'something every great player has done' to the change in tune.
I also don't have a problem with the swinger motion concept of drag loading. Although TGM prescribes learning feel from mechanics. So the mechanics of drag loading were to pull with the left arm. If you *felt* a tugging motion and that allowed you to repeat the mechanics...good for you. If you felt a tugging motion and that did not allow you to repeat the mechanics...come up with a different feel or maybe switching to the hitting motion concepts.
Personally, I don't look at either as bad or good, I'm just curious as to what the cause and effect of the entire motion of the golf swing does in terms of creating power, accuracy and precision. I believe that Homer Kelley felt the same way as well.
Recently the man that was on the forefront of science and his minions tried to convince us that Brandt Snedeker strikes it better than Boo Weekley because Weekley was a 'handle dragger.' This argument is so laughable considering the actual ShotLink data. Particularly with the driver as Weekley generates 5 mph more clubhead speed (measured by Trackman), hits it roughly 15 yards further on average and hits 65% of his fairways compared to Snedeker's 60% of fairways.
So if using Manzella's concepts works for you, great. But, I would not discredit other mechanics or feels that are not part of Manzella's preferred techniques.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jul 26, 2012 11:52:34 GMT -5
I don't know what Natep (and BM) really mean by "tugging" but I believe that the left shoulder socket pulls the left humeral head with it during any motion of the left shoulder socket between P4 and P7.3 and that is what I believe is meant by the term "left arm tugging". The left arm has no choice but to be pulled forward by the left shoulder socket when it moves in the downswing. Here is a capture image showing Natep's left shoulder motion between P4 and P7.3. Position 1 is the end-backswing (P4) and position 2 is at P7.3. Note that the left shoulder socket's motion is relatively horizontal, which means that the left humeral head has to follow the same path. I believe that Natep is a TGM swinger who generates his swing power via a pivot action, and the pivot action basically releases PA#4 by this left shoulder socket "tugging" motion. It starts to happen as soon as the left shoulder socket starts to move and it happens continuously throughout the downswing and followthrough. The speed of motion of the left shoulder socket (and therefore left humeral head) determines the speed of release of PA#4 and therefore clubhead speed at impact - it can conceptually be thought of as reflecting the action of the "central torque generator". However, that doesn't mean that the hand arc path is totally dictated by the left shoulder motion. The left humeral head has to follow the left shoulder socket motion in 3-D space, but while this is happening a golfer can simultaneously vary the 3-D motion of the left humerus due to independent motions of the left humeral head within the left shoulder socket. The left humerus moves much more downwards (groundwards) between P4 and P7 (while the left shoulder socket moves near-horizontallly) - and the rate varies between different golfers. Here is Sergio Garcia's hand arc path between P4 and P5.5 perfectgolfswingreview.net/GarciaHandPath.jpg [/img] The red splined path traces his hand path between P4 and P5.5. Note that it is steep between position 1 and position 2 - because SG drops his hands near-vertically downwards at the start of the downswing. The blue arrowed path represents the usual hand arc path (eg. Tiger Woods). The slope is not as steep between P4 and P5 and it is more gradually downwards - because the hands drop more gradually downwards per unit time of left shoulder socket rotation. TGM mechanics/biomechanics clearly explains this phenomenon of the hand arc path, and gives guidance on its operation. Here is a capture image from my swing video lesson where I demonstrate how the right arm/hand should move - while tracing a SPL. This image represents my backswing action - but the same principles apply to the downswing. One has to learn how to trace a SPL using the right hand and PP#3 so that the clubshaft is always on-plane between P4 and P7.3. That means that you are simultaneously controlling the rate of dropping of the left arm (left hand) while you are rotating the left shoulder socket relatively horizontally. One can trace a SPL while using different degrees of steepness of the hand arc path by varying the rate of right arm adduction relative to the rate of upper torso (and therefore left shoulder socket) motion. It is a fallacy to believe that TGM doesn't clearly explain how to control the hand arc path - as seen from a DTL perspective. In what way does BM give better instructional guidance on how to move the hands between P4 and P7.3 - if you believe that he does give better guidance? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Jul 27, 2012 12:19:09 GMT -5
In what way does BM give better instructional guidance on how to move the hands between P4 and P7.3 - if you believe that he does give better guidance? Jeff. I don’t know all of what Brian teaches when it comes to hand path and how he applies that in his lessons (probably more important than anything). From what I’ve seen, the video on the ‘new release’ done by Jacobs explains a bit of their viewpoint. To me, the video was done in large part to take more shots at Lynn Blake. Jacobs talked about how the low point of the hands was further away from the target than the clubhead’s low point. This is where the entire beef began between Brian and Co. with me. Anyway, one of the points Jacobs was making in the video was to argue against TGM’s ‘Aiming Point Concept’ where the golfer directs the thrust of the hands. Jacobs point was that with the Aiming Point Concept, the idea is for the golfer to get the low point of the hands more in front of the ball, but it was an exercise in futility because the low point of the hands is behind the ball. I can see the argument, but one of my beliefs is that the Aiming Point Concept could still work for some golfers because even though they visualize and feel like they are thrusting the hands in front of the ball, I would imagine that no matter how hard they tried, the low point of the hands would still be behind the ball. This is where the entire handle dragging nonsense began. It’s nonsense because they originally claimed you could see it and measure it from a caddy view standpoint and whether or not the #1 pressure point rose into impact. I have some videos of Mac where the #1 PP rises into impact. I have others, same type of shot, where it doesn’t. I also saw way too many good ballstrikers on Tour that didn’t see the #1 PP rise into impact…and some of the lesser ballstrikers on Tour that did have the #1 PP rise into impact. And everything in between. And plenty of them were like Mac, some shots they did see the #1 PP rise, others they didn’t. That’s probably why Manzella and Co. keep changing their definition and now their stance on it is you can’t measure it, you have to know what the golfer is feeling, which I find to be a completely illogical and flawed way to determine ‘handle dragging’ and furthermore, if it’s detrimental to the golfer. As far as hand path from the DTL view, I just think that they are missing a lot of stuff. Perhaps they have more information they don’t bring to the public. I won’t go into it here either. But, that’s my general thoughts on Brian and Co. and their teaching of handpath. 3JACK
|
|