|
Post by richie3jack on Feb 11, 2013 13:44:32 GMT -5
Jeffy, Happy to be disabused but I thought that the Danger Zone stats were biased towards longer hitters b/c they have a higher proportion of par 3 shots (with a perfect lie). Looking at adjusted par 3 scoring average, dustin johnson is at 61, garrigus at 105, McDowell at 117, woodland at 133, and watson at 165. I realize that this is impacted by short game / putting, but i've shown in other posts that it doesn't get these guys to the top. No, it's not biased towards longer hitters. Take a look at Robert Garrigus: 8th in Danger Zone play 4.19 DZ shots/round (93rd) 82.6% DZ shots from fairway/tee box (83rd) Mickelson was 122nd in % of DZ shots from the fairway/rough...typically a great DZ player. Why? Because he sticks it close when he's in the DZ. You can cheat the system a little by finding the fairway. But, it's only a little. If you stink when you're in the DZ, you're going to stink, period. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 11, 2013 13:46:11 GMT -5
I have arbitrarily defined a hand release action as being DH-stable if it ensures a FLW and stable clubface clubface that faces the target all the way between P6.9-P7.1 (which is my arbitrary definition of the immediate impact zone - colored in orange in the next image). To ensure DH-stability through the immediate impact zone, I arbitrarily prefer to state that the left wrist must remain flat to a little beyond the end of the immediate impact zone, and I have arbitrarily chosen P7.2 as a cut-off point. If the left wrist bends before P7.2, then I classify it as a non-DH release action. This is a non-DH release action. You also asked-" Who authorized you to be an oracle in the topic of three Cotton release types?" I am not an oracle with respect to Cotton's release actions - I am simply a critic, who thinks that they are useless in terms of understanding the biomechanics/mechanics of the different DH-release actions used by professional golfers eg. no-roll hand release action, non-delayed full-roll hand release action (associated with/without underflipping) or delayed full-roll hand release action. Jeff. Well, Jeff, how to begin this. - what does DH-stable or DH-unstable mean ? - why do you think it for DH-stability (whatever it means) one needs to have a FLW longer than just after separation ? - I believe you're wrong in determining impact zone in such a small period of time; between your 8.9 and 7.1 one would have a very tough, if not impossible, a task to determine the release type in Cotton's terms; one would need at least from 6.5 to 7.5 to determine it well; - you underestimate Cotton's clasification which I find very weird; this is the most logical classification taking into account clubhead's behavior in the impact zome asd weel as define RoC in both vertical and horizontal senses; pure physics here. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 11, 2013 14:02:10 GMT -5
Dariusz,
You asked-: "what does DH-stable or DH-unstable mean ?"
Strange question - because I have already defined the term DH-stable as being a situation where both the FLW/clubface face the target during the entire time period from P6.9 to P7.1.
You asked-: "- why do you think it for DH-stability (whatever it means) one needs to have a FLW longer than just after separation?"
Because I think that it is near impossible to consistently time a square clubface so that it only square for the shorter time period of the impact interval of 1/4000th second. I believe that golfers must keep the FLW/clubface facing the target for the entire duration of the immediate impact zone to eliminate that timing problem of trying to only keep the clubface square from first ball impact until the exact moment of ball-clubface separation.
You also wrote-"you underestimate Cotton's clasification which I find very weird; this is the most logical classification taking into account clubhead's behavior in the impact zome asd weel as define RoC in both vertical and horizontal senses; pure physics here."
I think that your opinion is totally wrongheaded. "Pure physics" doesn't produce "pure" vertical and "pure" rolling motions of the clubhead. I think that the clubhead's 3-D motion through the immediate impact zone primarily behaves in response to human biomechanical actions (and not the pure laws of physics, which applies to an Iron Byron machine).
You also wrote-: "I believe you're wrong in determining impact zone in such a small period of time; between your 8.9 and 7.1 one would have a very tough, if not impossible, a task to determine the release type in Cotton's terms; one would need at least from 6.5 to 7.5 to determine it well"
The wide range of P6.5-P7.5 to define a DH-release action makes no sense to me, because it includes the time period P6.6-P6.9 where the PA#3 release action is happening and it also includes the time period P7.2-P7.5 where certain biomechanical actions can affect the motion of the clubhead that aren't related to the fundamentals of DH-release mechanics/biomechanics. If one needs to classify Cotton's release actions by looking at what is happening to the FLW/clubface between P6.5-P7.5, that's yet another reason why I find his classification system useless.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 11, 2013 14:18:54 GMT -5
3jack,
You wrote-: "I'm measuring ballstriking, not what your (or any other teacher's) preferred swing mechanics look like.
And what's to say that Snedeker doesn't have more ballstriking talent than we really think and that if he were to change his mechanics he could strike it even far better than he does now?
Lots of possibilities."
I agree - lots of possibilities.
Your ball-striking stats measure the final result of two interacting factors - i) good swing biomechanics and ii) good raw talent. Both factors can obviously be altered in such a manner that any change will have a beneficial effect.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Feb 11, 2013 14:25:04 GMT -5
3jack, You wrote-: " I'm measuring ballstriking, not what your (or any other teacher's) preferred swing mechanics look like.
And what's to say that Snedeker doesn't have more ballstriking talent than we really think and that if he were to change his mechanics he could strike it even far better than he does now?
Lots of possibilities."I agree - lots of possibilities. Your ball-striking stats measure the final result of two interacting factors - i) good swing biomechanics and ii) good raw talent. Both factors can obviously be altered in such a manner that any change will have a beneficial effect. Jeff. I can agree with that, Jeff. It's why I don't discuss swing mechanics in Pro Golf Synopsis other than the effects of 'hitting up' or 'hitting down' as far as the driver distance goes. But, that part is relevant as far as analyzing the golfer's game goes. While the Tour golfers are obviously talented, I just tend to lean against basing it purely on talent because somebody like Trevino was not a great golfer until he altered his swing mechanics. It wasn't like he found his talent. His talent was always there, he just needed the swing mechanics to change so he could stop hitting hooks. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 11, 2013 14:53:43 GMT -5
Another irritant in discussions like this is the perception that stating a personal preference for certain mechancanics means that one does not think a golfer can hit the ball.
Miller Barber could stripe it, but there are certain things I would not prefer as an ideal.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 11, 2013 15:36:06 GMT -5
Dariusz, You asked-: " what does DH-stable or DH-unstable mean ?" Strange question - because I have already defined the term DH-stable as being a situation where both the FLW/clubface face the target during the entire time period from P6.9 to P7.1. But what do these DH letters mean ? I believe your opinion is totally wrongheaded. If a golfer is able to deliver a FLW into contact there is no serious evidence that something changes during the very narrow impact interval. Again, you do not understand the mechanics of slap-hinge release. Wrists lose angles after separation, therefore, what to time here ? It is like you just let wrtists perform their natural action because of both physical (momentum) and anatomic (RoM in wrist joints available) reasons. Please tell me what you don't understand here. The reson I ask is that I write it for n-th time and you revert to your old fairy tales. Iron Byron does not relfect golf stroke reality, therefore, it cannot reflect anything related to golf swing motion. This clasification is very useful since it depict reality what happens with the clubface in the wide impact zone in 3-D. It may remain square in 3-D, it may remain square in one of dimensions while change in the other. Besides, does the notion RoC (rate of closure) rings a bell ? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Feb 11, 2013 17:13:09 GMT -5
Another irritant in discussions like this is the perception that stating a personal preference for certain mechancanics means that one does not think a golfer can hit the ball. Miller Barber could stripe it, but there are certain things I would not prefer as an ideal. When it comes to the entire Snedeker swing mechanics, it's been in relation to them claiming last year that Snedeker was a superior ballstriker to Boo Weekley. And that Boo Weekley was a 'handle dragger.' Also that Boo may sound better on the range, but they would rather have Snedeker's Trackman numbers. So we are not using an example of somebody with an extreme motion like Miller Barber. It's with relation to 2 players with fairly orthodox golf swing mechanics in Weekley vs. Snedeker. They denounced Weekley's swing mechanics and praised Snedeker's and I pointed out that Weekley was a far better ballstriker because his metrics show that *clearly*. So unless Boo is the most talented ballstriker of our era, he must be doing something right mechanically. I just tend to believe that they don't have a clue as to what a handle dragger is or how to identify one on camera. More of a way to fit into their never ending agenda of denouncing all things associated with TGM. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 11, 2013 18:07:37 GMT -5
Dariusz,
You asked-: "But what do these DH letters mean?"
I am baffled by that question. You stated that you have read my "impact chapter" and that you have read all my posts in the thread on "left wrist bending" and you still have to ask me what DH means. I now perceive that I have been wasting my time answering your questions - wrongly thinking that we were indulging in a serious discourse. However, the reality seems to be that you have never understood what I am talking about, and I plan to no longer repond to your posts. You are free to communicate with the other forum members as long as you continue to follow this forum's rules-of-decorum.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 11, 2013 18:18:19 GMT -5
Dariusz wrote-: "If a golfer is able to deliver a FLW into contact there is no serious evidence that something changes during the very narrow impact interval."
The issue is not whether the clubface remains square during the impact interval if it was square at the exact moment of first ball contact. The issue is how to consistently get the clubface square at the exact moment of first ball impact - if a golfer allows the left wrist to hinge freely in a horizontal hinging manner as the arms/clubshaft pass through the impact zone. If the left wrist is freely hinging in a horizontal hinging manner while the left arm/club moves from P6.5 to P7.5, then this superadded left wrist motion makes it much more difficult to time a square clubface at the exact moment of impact. If Dariusz believes otherwise, then he is free to harbor that contrary belief.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Feb 11, 2013 21:34:58 GMT -5
Another irritant in discussions like this is the perception that stating a personal preference for certain mechancanics means that one does not think a golfer can hit the ball. Miller Barber could stripe it, but there are certain things I would not prefer as an ideal. When it comes to the entire Snedeker swing mechanics, it's been in relation to them claiming last year that Snedeker was a superior ballstriker to Boo Weekley. And that Boo Weekley was a 'handle dragger.' Also that Boo may sound better on the range, but they would rather have Snedeker's Trackman numbers. So we are not using an example of somebody with an extreme motion like Miller Barber. It's with relation to 2 players with fairly orthodox golf swing mechanics in Weekley vs. Snedeker. They denounced Weekley's swing mechanics and praised Snedeker's and I pointed out that Weekley was a far better ballstriker because his metrics show that *clearly*. So unless Boo is the most talented ballstriker of our era, he must be doing something right mechanically. I just tend to believe that they don't have a clue as to what a handle dragger is or how to identify one on camera. More of a way to fit into their never ending agenda of denouncing all things associated with TGM. 3JACK I honestly LOVE Miller Barber's swing and think that an ENORMOUS number of players would benefit greatly by trying to mimic his backswing and right elbow drive in the downswing. I'm serious. I think players in general have gotten way too flat and the arms stuck behind. And it is not as hard as it looks. It is actually relatively easy to pull off, speaking from experience.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 11, 2013 22:37:42 GMT -5
When it comes to the entire Snedeker swing mechanics, it's been in relation to them claiming last year that Snedeker was a superior ballstriker to Boo Weekley. And that Boo Weekley was a 'handle dragger.' Also that Boo may sound better on the range, but they would rather have Snedeker's Trackman numbers. So we are not using an example of somebody with an extreme motion like Miller Barber. It's with relation to 2 players with fairly orthodox golf swing mechanics in Weekley vs. Snedeker. They denounced Weekley's swing mechanics and praised Snedeker's and I pointed out that Weekley was a far better ballstriker because his metrics show that *clearly*. So unless Boo is the most talented ballstriker of our era, he must be doing something right mechanically. I just tend to believe that they don't have a clue as to what a handle dragger is or how to identify one on camera. More of a way to fit into their never ending agenda of denouncing all things associated with TGM. 3JACK I honestly LOVE Miller Barber's swing and think that an ENORMOUS number of players would benefit greatly by trying to mimic his backswing and right elbow drive in the downswing. I'm serious. I think players in general have gotten way too flat and the arms stuck behind. And it is not as hard as it looks. It is actually relatively easy to pull off, speaking from experience. In general I agree, I was just pointing out a unorthadox player most people know.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 11, 2013 22:55:28 GMT -5
Jeffy,
You may like Miller barber's swing, but you have not presented any argument as to why it is biomechanically advantageous. I think that his left hand motion in the backswing is far too steep, and it gets the hands too high above the right medial clavicle. That makes it biomechanically difficult to avoid coming OTT and coming down a too-steep downswing plane.
I have no idea what you mean by writing about "right elbow drive". The movement of the right elbow in the downswing in a swinger is targeted at getting the RFFW to support the LAFW as it descends down the inclined plane between P4 and P6, and it is much more difficult to drop the right elbow down to its optimum pitch elbow position at P6 when one starts from a high flying right elbow position.
I am not surprised that only a very few PGA tour golfers use that swing pattern, and I only know of two present-day PGA tour golfers who look like MB - and that is Steve Marino and Rory Sabbattini. Rory manages to shallow his clubshaft by P6, but Steve Marino comes down too steep a plane, which is biomechanically disadvantageous. The fact that SM can play well using that swing pattern is a testament to his raw talent, and not a testament to the biomechanical advantage of that swing pattern. I am not surprised that most PGA tour golfers have their left arm across their shoulder turn angle at their end-backswing position or slightly higher than the shoulder turn angle - and that they avoid getting their hands too high above their right medial clavicle.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 12, 2013 2:21:21 GMT -5
Dariusz, You asked-: " But what do these DH letters mean?" I am baffled by that question. You stated that you have read my "impact chapter" and that you have read all my posts in the thread on "left wrist bending" and you still have to ask me what DH means. I now perceive that I have been wasting my time answering your questions - wrongly thinking that we were indulging in a serious discourse. However, the reality seems to be that you have never understood what I am talking about, and I plan to no longer repond to your posts. You are free to communicate with the other forum members as long as you continue to follow this forum's rules-of-decorum. Jeff. Jeff, Don't offend me. Maybe I am blind, but tell me where you use these DH letters in your article ? perfectgolfswingreview.net/impact.htmNow I can presume it relates to the term drive-holding which I am not familiar with and that it may be very generally similar to Cotton's push release term. I will read carefully your other post of today and will comment later on. BTW, I have exactly the same feeling about you -- that you don't want to understand what I am explaining to you as regards Cotton's classification and, especially, slap-hinge release which you still regard as error which is simply ridiculous. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz J on Feb 12, 2013 2:27:01 GMT -5
Dariusz wrote-: " If a golfer is able to deliver a FLW into contact there is no serious evidence that something changes during the very narrow impact interval." The issue is not whether the clubface remains square during the impact interval if it was square at the exact moment of first ball contact. The issue is how to consistently get the clubface square at the exact moment of first ball impact - if a golfer allows the left wrist to hinge freely in a horizontal hinging manner as the arms/clubshaft pass through the impact zone. If the left wrist is freely hinging in a horizontal hinging manner while the left arm/club moves from P6.5 to P7.5, then this superadded left wrist motion makes it much more difficult to time a square clubface at the exact moment of impact. If Dariusz believes otherwise, then he is free to harbor that contrary belief. Jeff. Jeff, You are still mixing flipping (serious swing error aimed at squaring the clubface) with a subconscious friendly valoid release type where clubhead moves squarely to the arc horizontally. Do you seriously believe that such guys as Vardon or Mehlhorn were flipping to help to close the clubface Now listen. In the moment of impact, or even at 6.9, maybe at 6.8 noone will be ever able to see a difference between all three release types and both the clubface as well as wrists will look identically. The differences are being shown earlier and later. Cheers
|
|