|
Post by konrad on Sept 14, 2013 18:20:55 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. Jeff. Jeff, You've got to be kidding! You couldn't recognize I was being flippant?? I just finished making the comment that the book should be burned and banished from the face of the earth! Please, try to pay attention sir.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 14, 2013 18:29:43 GMT -5
Konrad,
I apologize for not noticing the "wink" emoticon after your "good stuff" comment.
My mistake!
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Sept 14, 2013 18:50:01 GMT -5
You don't miss much Jeff, so I took the opportunity to bust your butt a little. ;D
It amazes me the reverence for MOG by some people. I spent time with him back in the '80's and even though he had a very good golf swing, he was a fruit cake.
If Plumber & Bennett spent so much time working with MOG and that book is what came of that time with him, either P&B's comprehension skills come into question or MOG's ability to convey his cutting edge knowledge is less than satisfactory. Could be both IMO.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 14, 2013 20:59:24 GMT -5
Konrad,
You wrote-: "If Plumber & Bennett spent so much time working with MOG and that book is what came of that time with him, either P&B's comprehension skills come into question or MOG's ability to convey his cutting edge knowledge is less than satisfactory. Could be both IMO."
There is a third possible explanation = there is no "cutting-edge" knowledge that MOG could convey to B/P.
I, of course, don't know if MOG ever had any "cutting-edge" knowledge because none of MOG's opinions are publicly available.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Sept 14, 2013 21:17:07 GMT -5
There is a third possible explanation = there is no "cutting-edge" knowledge that MOG could convey to B/P. I, of course, don't know if MOG ever had any "cutting-edge" knowledge because none of MOG's opinions are publicly available. Jeff. Ah yes, I'm well aware of that possibilty. Again, my comment about "cutting edge knowledge" was tongue in cheek. I doubt there will ever be anything written for public consumption by MOG. He has a reputation for being undecided to a point where if he tried to write everything down he could never finalize a draft for a publisher. Maybe he'll surprise us down the road. Don't hold your breath though.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 15, 2013 12:38:39 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. I'm not defending them, it was reported and I read it somewhere can't remember now where that they were not happy how the book was edited etc. and some things were not as they wanted in the book. Why they didn't pursue the option you brought up I have no idea they would have to tell you personally that, as I cannot. But I seriously doubt they advocate a flip at impact for a fade, makes no sense as a cornerstone of their method is not to flip and hit the small ball before the big ball. I personally have never seen or heard them advocate this flipping action for a fade or any normal shot. If there is evidence of them saying this on their video's or in their live teaching maybe someone can produce that here but I can't.
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 15, 2013 12:59:36 GMT -5
At the 45 second mark of this video one of their checkpoints at impact sure looks like a flat lead wrist and some shaft lean. And for a fade they are using the same conditions but adjust other factors using the d-plane not a flip at impact. The fact is there is no way to have a good consistent club to ball contact if you flip and that does not fit into their method at all. So now I'm probably defending them. And I don't disagree with a lot of things they advocate but I'm not a S&T groupie.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 16, 2013 8:59:56 GMT -5
I think one look at Mike Bennett's swing versus Mac's swing should show some clear differences in what they teach. P&B took what they learned from Mac and then took some things that they preferred, took out some things they didn't prefer and came up with some stuff based on research they conducted.
The ball flight patterns for a 'stock' shot in MORAD vs. S&T are completely different with MORAD being a mid-trajectory straight shot or with a little fade versus S&T teaching a high trajectory push-draw. There are obvious differences at impact that are needed to produce those shots and thusly, changes in mechanics to produce those impact conditions.
A big difference is that P&B advocate getting the 'weight' on the lead side at p4. I can tell you unequivocally that Mac would find that undesirable.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 16, 2013 9:14:30 GMT -5
Does Mac want one to flip at impact to hit a fade? Somehow I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 16, 2013 9:21:41 GMT -5
Does Mac want one to flip at impact to hit a fade? Somehow I doubt it. No. I haven't read the entire book, so I don't know what the context they were putting that in. I've talked to countless S&T people and I've never heard them advocate a flip. Perhaps less forward shaft lean to hit a fade, but not a flip. With MORAD, remember that Mac is the swing model. And if you ever see Mac's swing on camera, it's the absolute antithesis of a flip at impact. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by chipitin on Sept 16, 2013 10:01:38 GMT -5
I have seen his swing on camera and I agree. I can understand less shaft lean but I can't understand them advocating a flip at impact for a fade, makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Sept 16, 2013 10:49:57 GMT -5
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 Well, I'd have to disagree with you there. From 93-95 Titleist and Callaway started pairing up launch monitors to their robots and started doing research on optimum launch parameters. It didn't take them long to find out that 12 degrees at 2400 rpm went farther than 9 degrees at 3600 rpm. They subsequently found out that high launch and low spin was easier to achieve with a low lofted driver struck with an upward AOA. And, they subsequently told all their Tour Staff that data and anyone else that visited, and started designing their drivers with lower cg's. Tuxen came along saying same 10 years later.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Sept 16, 2013 12:26:13 GMT -5
I remember the OEM's talking about optimal launch conditions (high launch, low spin). I don't recall any of them discussing attack angles. I could be wrong on that, but I remember when Trackman started to come out GOLF Magazine did an article discussing hitting up versus hitting down and the distance benefits. Perhaps nobody wanted to listen to those OEM's and for whatever reason, Tuxen was able to convey the message that golfers wanted to hear.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by virtuoso on Sept 16, 2013 12:43:02 GMT -5
Richie, they didn't discuss attack angles "publicly" because that would put them in the instruction business. They didn't want to come across as saying: You need to buy our club AND change your swing.
If you want to say that Tuxen increased awareness of the AOA issue, I'm with you there. But he did not "discover the distance benefits" of an upward AOA.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 17, 2013 22:31:11 GMT -5
At the 45 second mark of this video one of their checkpoints at impact sure looks like a flat lead wrist and some shaft lean. And for a fade they are using the same conditions but adjust other factors using the d-plane not a flip at impact. The fact is there is no way to have a good consistent club to ball contact if you flip and that does not fit into their method at all. So now I'm probably defending them. And I don't disagree with a lot of things they advocate but I'm not a S&T groupie. Wrong. Lee Westwood.
|
|