|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 12, 2013 9:02:57 GMT -5
3jack mentioned in another thread that MOG discovered "something" new about the geometry of the circle and how it works in conjunction with a golf swing. What specifically did MOG come up with that is "new" or that is specifically "insightful/revelatory"?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Sept 12, 2013 10:06:45 GMT -5
Jeff,
I "think" that Richie meant that Mac understood long ago that you have to take AOA into account when analysing path angle, ie, even if the baseline doesn't change, a more downward angle equals a more outward angle.
Mac was definitely the first to start talking about swinging the handle to the left at impact to account for the path/attack relationship.
This was taken mainstream later by the likes of Ledbetter and typically referred to as a "big muscle release" or "body release".
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 12, 2013 10:39:12 GMT -5
Virtuoso, I don't understand what you mean by "swinging the handle left at impact". How will it affect the clubhead path at impact? By contrast, I can understand that one needs to move the entire 'in-to-square-to-in' clubhead arc in a leftwards direction - as demonstrated in this next photo - if one wants to move the clubhead path leftwards at impact. Is that what MOG actually stated? Note that when a golfer wants to shift the entire 'in-to-square-to-in' clubhead path at impact leftwards (in order to hit a straight shot when generating a negative clubhead attack angle at impact) that one also has to change the directional orientation of the pre-impact clubhead path. Did MOG state that "fact"? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Sept 12, 2013 12:51:38 GMT -5
Yes Jeff, I was unclear. He means the whole baseline is shifted to the left.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 13, 2013 8:09:47 GMT -5
I never said that he 'discovered something new about the geometry of the circle.'
Mac understood the geometry of the circle and the low point and how it all works with each other. Remember, Mac started off a 'deeper' understanding of the golf swing by learning TGM and going to see Homer Kelley who discussed things like 'down, out and forward' and how the clubhead then goes upward and inward after it reaches the low point.
Mac started too apply the geometry of the circle understanding that if you want a square path with the irons, the baseline must be left of the target (CP). Conversely, a square baseline will produce an inside-to-out path (CF).
I've never been taught to swing the handle left. In fact, that could produce swing mechanics that Mac and the thousands of golfer's he's worked with try to avoid.
IMO, the big thing Tuxen should be credited for was his examination and understanding of hitting the driver with an upward attack angle. He discovered the distance benefits and then figured out what the baseline and path relationship would be.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 13, 2013 10:16:26 GMT -5
3jack, I don't really know what MOG had to say about the "circle" because it is not in the public sphere. I believe that Bennett/Plummer learned from MOG. I hope that MOG didn't teach them their ideas about shotmaking - based on a circle. This is the image from chapter 6 of B/P's S&T book. In the book, B/P write-: " Imagine the swingpath as a circular path painted on the ground to represent the path". Then alongside this photo, they say " Impact on pushes comes on the back side of the arc, with the club swinging outward; impact on pulls and fades comes on the front side, with the club swinging across the ball". That statement is obviously wrong-headed because one cannot have impact on the front side of the circular clubhead swingpath (beyond low point) when hitting an iron with a negative attack angle. Their second attempt to describe this shotmaking scenario happens on the next two pages when they present these photos. Alongside this photo (image 1 and 2), they write: " Weight forward and handle forward for a draw' weight back and handle back for a fade". Alongside this photo (images 3 and 4) they write: " For the biggest draw, the weight goes forward the farthest and the shaft leans forward the most. For the biggest fade, the weight stays back the most and the shaft leans back". That's nonsensical advice - one cannot have backward shaft lean at impact if one wants to hit a pull-fade, because that represents flipping at impact. Which rational golf instructor would recommend flipping at impact? The correct way to hit a pull-fade is to shift the entire baseline left and swing in-to-square-to-in relative to the leftwards-shifted baseline, but ensure an open face at impact, and also ensure that you have forward shaft lean at impact when hitting an iron. Hopefully, B/P don't teach this approach any longer. I haven't looked at their latest DVD series to confirm that fact. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 13, 2013 13:07:05 GMT -5
Jeff,
I have never attended a clinic by P&B and do not own either of their DVD’s. I’ve read portions of the book. I know that P&B both worked with Mac extensively for years. They left on bad terms, but I’ve never bothered to ask what those terms were since it’s none of my business and frankly, I don’t care anyway.
I would have to read the book again, however what they *might* be describing is what happens with the average golfer when they tend to hit a push with hook spin or a pull with slice spin. Obviously, if they are advocating to hit the ball with slice spin by hitting the front side of the circle, then I would take issue with that with the irons as you pointed out.
I would have to look, but there was a YouTube video about a year or so ago from S&T certified instructor Steve Sieracki and a female instructor (forget her name). They were demonstrating on how to hit draws versus fades. They exaggerated the mechanics and motions which would provide a hook or a slice (rather than a draw or fade). But it consisted of on a hook, move the ‘weight’ forward and keep it there by straightening the rear knee as early as the golfer can in the backswing. Essentially, they are trying to reorient the baseline.
I also know that S&T teaches a ‘push-fade’ to hit a fade on command. It’s the same concept as their push-draw mechanics, but they reorient their body and clubface alignments left of the target at p1. They will hit a ball that ‘pushes’ right of where the club face is aligned, but is left of the target. Then the path will be left of the face angle, producing a slice spin that moves the ball towards the target.
I highly doubt that P&B advocate a bent left wrist given that they were taught in TGM for years before they ever got into MORAD. And I can’t imagine anybody learning to flip at impact from learning MORAD.
I would have to look at the book more, but in my experience of having worked with 2 different MORAD teachers, I’ve never had either tell me to move the weight forward or backwards to hit a certain shot on command.
From what little I've seen from their latest DVD, it was mostly about understanding D-Plane and them being against large weight shifts to their back foot. They showed some golfers like Troy Matteson with their 'weight' well forward at p4. However, this was debunked by Erik Barzeski as it turns out the Force Plates and video being used were out of sync.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 13, 2013 13:20:50 GMT -5
Jeff- they are talking about these handle positions at setup: the handle more back and the handle more forward as that is supposed to change the face angle to path relationship. That's what I take from it.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 13, 2013 22:38:38 GMT -5
Chipitin,
I think that the handle position at address cannot possibly have an effect on the handle/clubhead/clubface position at impact, and it cannot be causally responsible for a golfer's ability to deliberately hit a push-draw or pull-fade shot. If you believe otherwise, then please present an explanation.
Also, those photos apply to impact and not address. Bennett/Plummer specifically write about impact conditions in their book when they discuss this issue on page 121. B/P state on page 121 -: "What causes contact to be on the back or front side of the circle? Three conditions: 1) ball position. 2) the location of the weight' and 3) the angle of the shaft at impact. ---- If the ball position is forward, the weight is back and the butt of the club is pulled back, the club will hit on the front side".
Now B/P do discuss the issue of left hand grip and its "supposed" effect on clubface orientation at impact. That discussion starts on page 126 when they discuss "attachments". They make the wrong-headed claim that left hand grip strength affects the clubface angle at impact. They claim that a strong grip allows for a closed clubface at impact and a weak grip allows for an open clubface at impact. B/P make these foolish claims regarding the left hand -: "Turned 30 to 40 degrees clockwise from vertical. This position helps you deliver the clubface at impact in a closed position, which starts the ball left, making room for a fade." --- "Turned 10 to 20 degrees clockwise from vertical. This too helps you achieve an open clubface at impact, which causes the ball to start right, making room for a draw." I believe that those claims are not true if one doesn't alter the degree of PA#3 release action that is appropriate for different left hand grip strengths. A weak left hand grip will only result in an open clubface at impact if a golfer fails to complete his release of PA#3. The idea of trying to vary the degree of PA#3 release action from swing-to-swing is a very inconsistent way to attempt to achieve an open clubface at impact.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 14, 2013 0:31:06 GMT -5
Jeff, the handle position at address in pic #1 is consistent for an inside takeaway and can facilitate an inward takeaway and a outward path for a draw , the opposite applies to pic#2 for the fade.
It can help some golfers achieve a takeaway that set's up the proper path on the downswing for either shot.
I don't know why P&B would prescribe a flip to hit a fade, it must be an error if that's supposed to be an impact position for a fade.
And I don't personally subscribe to that method whatever the book is saying I was just thinking that might be the idea behind it as the wrists impact condition for a fade doesn't makes sense to me.
I was thinking it was an error and that it might be an address setup position as that can help some golfers like I previously said. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 14, 2013 9:06:15 GMT -5
Chipitin,
You wrote-: "I don't know why P&B would prescribe a flip to hit a fade, it must be an error if that's supposed to be an impact position for a fade."
It it's an error, then it must be B/P's error because that is what they actually describe in their book. If I am mistaken, then somebody has to demonstrate where I have misinterpreted the book's actual printed statements.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Sept 14, 2013 11:00:02 GMT -5
It it's an error, then it must be B/P's error because that is what they actually describe in their book. If I am mistaken, then somebody has to demonstrate where I have misinterpreted the book's actual printed statements. Jeff. From page 121 of the Stack and Tilt Swing book: "What causes contact to be on the back or front side of the circle? Three conditions: 1) ball position, 2) the location of the weight, and 3) the angle of the shaft at impact. This assumes that your hands have continued to swing on their circular arc, without moving outside or farther inside. If your hands stay on the arc, these are the only three factors that determine where the club hits on the circle."Too bad book burning is no longer in vogue. This one would be an excellent candidate to be banished from the face of the earth. 3Jack mentioned a video by Steve Sieracki and an unknown female instructor. I believe her name is Melainey Gunning. In the video below she is demonstrating the four steps for hitting a draw. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 14, 2013 12:06:51 GMT -5
Chipitin, You wrote-: " I don't know why P&B would prescribe a flip to hit a fade, it must be an error if that's supposed to be an impact position for a fade." It it's an error, then it must be B/P's error because that is what they actually describe in their book. If I am mistaken, then somebody has to demonstrate where I have misinterpreted the book's actual printed statements. Jeff. I'm not here to defend S&T but didn't they say they didn't approve of the first book and it had many errors in it, also what's the newer version of their method say? I doubt they prescribe to that first version of hitting a fade with a dorsiflexed lead wrist if you could ask them. Everything I have seen or read of their method has a flat or slightly bowed lead wrist at impact as one of their cornerstones for solid striking not a flipping lead wrist. But I guess I could be wrong and they want people to flip for a fade, but somehow I seriously doubt that's what they want, or wanted in that book.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 14, 2013 17:36:54 GMT -5
Konrad,
You may be impressed with that S&T video that enumerates the four steps to hit a draw. However, I think that it makes no sense from a causal perspective - and it merely reflects the biases inherent to the S&T philosophy. Many golfers can hit a draw without any of those 4 elements. All that is required is a clubhead path that is to the right of the target, and a clubface orientation angle that is open to the ball-target line, but closed to the path.
It can be performed with i) weight not excessively forward; ii) with the right arm still significantly bent at impact; iii) with the pelvis open and the shoulders slightly open at impact and iv) without performing a "butt-tuck-under-the spine" pelvic thrust maneuver. I have zero sympathy for those S&T elements.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 14, 2013 17:43:33 GMT -5
Chipitin,
You wrote-: "I'm not here to defend S&T but didn't they say they didn't approve of the first book and it had many errors in it."
Why are you defending B/P by implying that they didn't approve of the book's contents? If they didn't approve of the book's contents - they could have withdrawn the book from the market or they could have added a section to their website explaining why they didn't agree with many comments made in the book. I find it totally unacceptable for an author to allow a book to be published, or remain in the marketplace-for-new books, if there are many errors in the book, and/or if it doesn't reflect their true opinions.
Jeff.
|
|