Bertie apparently could not recall his NGI golf forum's password, so he could not post the following message in this thread, and he therefore sent the following message to my personal e-mail address.
"
Jeff
You have either misunderstood my point or have purposefully misinterpreted it and led forum members to believe I hold beliefs on the swing that I have not made! In particular you have assumed I subscribe to the thinking that it’s imperative to have a positive couple at impact. I have never stated this opinion in my work. You made an incorrect assumption and presumed that is what I think and proceeded to write a response to counter a position I don’t hold.
Just because the handle trails the lead forearm at impact doesn’t necessarily mean that there needs to be a positive or a negative couple. It just means that the pressure points in the couple will be in a different location than if the shaft had flipped.
What I have stated is that the handle of the club should trail behind the lead forearm at impact. And that when the handle is in a position where it lags behind the lead forearm the pad of the lead hand will physically be against the handle. And will be able to act to stabilise the handle both above and below the point of rotation. But critically above! (Regardless whether the couple be positive or negative)
I have stated that lag tension will exist up until the point during the swing when the club shaft is aligned with the lead forearm. (The point of full extension)
After which point the club shaft will have flipped passed the lead forearm. Something that we agree is disadvantageous before impact. So a golfer should reach impact with all normal shots and with all the clubs regardless of shot type, BEFORE THEY REACH FULL EXTENSION. The ONLY way to achieve this is to deliver the handle into a position where the club shaft trails behind the lead forearm at impact. Meaning the handle of the club will be in a forward position.
You and a fellow contributor (DubiousGolfer) have assumed that I have an opinion on whether a golfer should have a positive or negative couple at impact and even more whether there is a positive or negative couple based on what club the golfer is swinging. I don’t! What I have said is that the handle needs to be in a certain position at impact in relation to the lead forearm to avoid FLIPPING!
If the handle isn’t in this forward position, a position where the shaft lags behind the lead forearm at impact, by definition the club will have flipped passed the lead forearm, meaning that the butt end of the handle will physically be moving away from the pad of the lead hand. Meaning, It will be in space and no physical pressure can be applied against it regardless of whether that pressure be positive or negative. This is the critical point that has been missed in the Tutelman illustrations, (to be fair to Tutelman, he was expressly trying to convey the point of what happens to the shape of the shaft when there is a positive or negative couple, and the illustration wasn’t focussing on when during the swing full extension is reached).
Irrespective of your personal beliefs about whether a PGA Tour Player has a negative or positive couple at impact with any particular club in the bag they are immaterial to the point and purpose of the DST impact Line. Which is to enable player to understand and feel the position of the handle in relation to the lead forearm and the orientation of the club handle and club face that delivers a lag impact. Which is one thing that is irrefutable amongst the best ball strikers from the players of yesteryear right through to the modern greats. And is the point I am making.
So, the important point is NOT about whether a golfer has a positive or negative couple at impact. The important point is to reach a position at impact where the shaft trails the lead forearm and as I have stated before the ONLY way to achieve this is by delivering a forward handle position at impact.
Interestingly you still haven’t accepted the point I made in an earlier post that all of the best ball strikers reach this position with all the clubs in the bag including with their driver. Despite you holding a contradictory view by saying that this would produce a handle dragging action and suitable for punch shots with mid irons only. Despite making this statement you have used an image of a golfer to demonstrate a desirable impact position using a driver in this exact lag impact position in your own website.
All I will say is that I wish I could reach this lag impact position with the driver as successfully as, Jon Rahm, Dustin Johnson, Tommy Fleetwood, Rory McIlroy, Brooks Keopka, or even Cameron Champ!
To clarify the subtle difference between a driver impact and a punch shot impact, its to do with ball position and the angle of attack. The muscle activation timing and movement of the swing is largely similar, the differences occur in that a punch shot, the ball position is more central or back in the players stance producing a negative (downward) angle of attack, compared to a driver ball position which is further forward in the stance and being on a “tee” which produces a shallower or even a positive (upward) angle of attack."
The first point that Bertie has brought up is the question as to whether he recommends a positive, or negative, hand couple phenomenon at impact and be stated that I have either misunderstood, or misrepresented, his position when I implied that he recommends stabilising the club handle through impact by using a positive hand couple phenomenon. So, let's carefully consider his claims by thoroughly examining the first series of statements in his message.
Bertie stated the following at the start of his message-: "
You have either misunderstood my point or have purposefully misinterpreted it and led forum members to believe I hold beliefs on the swing that I have not made! In particular you have assumed I subscribe to the thinking that it’s imperative to have a positive couple at impact. I have never stated this opinion in my work. You made an incorrect assumption and presumed that is what I think and proceeded to write a response to counter a position I don’t hold.
Just because the handle trails the lead forearm at impact doesn’t necessarily mean that there needs to be a positive or a negative couple. It just means that the pressure points in the couple will be in a different location than if the shaft had flipped.
What I have stated is that the handle of the club should trail behind the lead forearm at impact. And that when the handle is in a position where it lags behind the lead forearm the pad of the lead hand will physically be against the handle. And will be able to act to stabilise the handle both above and below the point of rotation. But critically above! (Regardless whether the couple be positive or negative)."
Note that Bertie asserted in the bold-highlighted statements that if a golfer comes into impact with the handle of the club trailing behind the lead forearm that the heel pad of the lead hand will physically be positioned against the club handle, and he has also secondarily claimed that it will enable a golfer to stabilise the club handle above and below the point of rotation (which is the coupling point) through impact. How is this possible? Bertie does not analyse/explain how the club handle being positioned against the heel pad of the lead hand at impact will stabilise the club handle through impact.
From my personal perspective, we have to ask two relevant questions - i) what biomechanical forces allow the club handle to be positioned against the lead hand's heel pad if the golfer comes into impact with forward shaft lean where the lead forearm is ahead of the club handle and ii) how do these biomechanical forces help to stabilise the club handle through impact?
Bertie is correct to infer that if the clubshaft is being flipped pre-impact secondary to the clubshaft traveling faster than the lead forearm, that the club handle will move away from the heel pad of the lead hand, and that if if it is not flipped then the club handle will be positioned against the heel pad. However, what "biomechanical forces" are in play that makes it biomechanically possible to keep the club handle tightly opposed against the lead hand's heel pad when the golfer arrives at impact with forward shaft lean due to the lead forearm leading the club handle into impact? I can only envisage two possibilities. The one possibility is that the lead hand's left 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers are pulling the club handle against the lead hand's heel pad as the lead forearm leads (pulls) the club handle into impact and the second possibility is that push-pressure is being exerted by the trailing hand against the aft side of the club handle thereby pushing the club handle against the lead hand's heel pad. I get the impression (from Bertie's original post) that Bertie does not want the lead hand's 3rd, 4th and 5th finger tips to be pulling the club handle against the lead hand's heel pad at/through impact, which then means that the only force that can be keeping the club handle tightly opposed against the lead hand's heel pad must be push-pressure being exerted by the trailing hand against the aft side of the club handle (above and /or below the coupling point). If I am correct, then how can that push-force being exerted by the trailing hand against the aft side of the club handle help to stabilise the club handle through impact? From my personal perspective, if the right palm pushes against PP#1 (which is located over the base of the left thumb) and also simultaneously pushes against the aft side of the club handle
above the coupling point, that it can synergistically help to stabilise the club handle through impact. However, I cannot understand how positive push pressure being exerted by the right hand's fingers against the aft side of the club handle
below the coupling point can help to stabilise the club handle (and avoid left wrist flipping) - unless the right wrist is rigidly being kept bent-backwards (extended) while it is simultaneously pushing against the aft side of the club handle below the coupling point. This scenario (where push-pressure is being exerted against the aft side of the club handle below the coupling point by a non-flexing trailing hand) is exactly what should happen in a TGM hitting technique (as recommended by Homer Kelley), but I believe that it should not happen in a TGM swinging technique as recommended by Homer Kelley.
I therefore would like to see Bertie expand on this point - by first explaining whether he believes that most PGA tour golfers are using a TGM hitting technique or whether he believes that they are using a TGM swinging technique, and by then secondly explaining what biomechanical forces allow a pro golfer to perform a drive-hold hand release action - as seen in the following capture images of Cameron Champ's early followthrough action between impact and P7.4.
Image 1 is at impact, image 2 is at P7.2 and image 3 is at P7.4.
Note that Cameron Champ is using a DH-hand release action through impact and he does not allow the clubshaft to bypass his lead forearm (from an angular rotational perspective) between impact and P7.4, and that allows him to keep the clubface square to the clubhead arc between impact and P7.4. What biomechanical forces are likely in play to make this DH-hand release action possible? I personally believe that the major biomechanical phenomenon that makes Cameron Champ's DH-hand release action possible is that he does not stall the targetwards motion of his lead arm between impact and P7.4 and that he perfectly matches the targetwards angular velocity of his lead arm relative to the targetwards motion of the clubshaft while simultaneously using the ventral aspects of his lead hand's 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers to keep the club handle tightly opposed against the side of lead hand's heel pad during his DH-hand release action. I also suspect that Cameron Champ may be applying a finite amount of push-pressure with his right palm against his lead hand's PP#1 and against the aft side of the neighbouring club handle
above the coupling point in order to help stabilise the club handle between impact and P7.4. I also suspect that Cameron Champ may be applying a negative hand couple phenomenon with his extended right hand where he rigidly avoids applying positive push-pressure against the aft side of the club handle
below the coupling point. The combination of a left hand pulling the butt end of the club handle forward (in a targetwards direction) while the trailing hand applies a restaining force on the club handle
below the coupling point (in a direction that is away from the target) constitutes a negative hand couple phenomenon, and I would not be surprised if Cameron Champ is using a negative hand couple phenomenon between impact and P7.4.
Now that I have expressed my personal opinion, I would like to see Bertie explain the biomechanical forces (acting on the club handle) that he believes are in play during Cameron Champ's DH-hand release action that is happening between impact and P7.4.
Bertie stated the following in his latest message-: "
You have either misunderstood my point or have purposefully misinterpreted it and led forum members to believe I hold beliefs on the swing that I have not made! In particular you have assumed I subscribe to the thinking that it’s imperative to have a positive couple at impact. I have never stated this opinion in my work. You made an incorrect assumption and presumed that is what I think and proceeded to write a response to counter a position I don’t hold. Just because the handle trails the lead forearm at impact doesn’t necessarily mean that there needs to be a positive or a negative couple."
Note the bold-highlighted statement where Bertie claims that he does not assert that a positive hand couple phenomenon has to imperatively be present in his lag tension golf swing technique (where the lead forearm leads the club handle into impact) in order to provide club handle stability through impact. That claim is seemingly very different to the claim that Bertie made in his original post when he stated-: "
In fact, only when a golfer has this impact geometry in their main lever assembly, are they capable of providing this crucial stabilising pressure above the point of rotation on the handle, with the lead hand. The reason for this is, as soon as the club shaft hinges around the point of rotation on the handle and overtakes an extension of the lead forearm, as a result of reverse torque, the butt end of the club wants to rotate around the centre of gravity on the club, in a reverse direction away from the target. This club movement moves the pressure point from the pad in the lead hand to the base of the forefinger. Reducing the length of the radius that the pressure point is from the point of rotation on the handle. This removes the stabilising pressure that the lead hand is able to provide, making the golfer dependent upon their trail hand only from the point of full extension into impact. Meaning that the player would be throwing the club head at the ball, instead of leading the club handle through the ball. So, if a player wants to have a stable couple where they are able to apply equal and opposite amounts of pressure both above and below the point of rotation on the handle, they need to reach a handle position where the shaft trails behind their lead forearm at impact. Regardless, of their choice of club or shot type. For a clearer explanation of this please refer to the video here, vimeo.com/373872166 (at timeline 15:10 until 18.35)."
Note the bold-highlighted statement where Bertie states that if a golfer wants to have a stable couple (where they are able to apply equal and opposite amounts of pressure both above and below the coupling point) then they must reach impact where the shaft trails behind their lead forearm at impact.
Here is a capture image from his vimeo-video where he demonstrates how lag pressure is being exerted at impact in order to provide club handle stability through impact.
Note that his capture image shows lag pressure being exerted against the club handle
above the coupling point by the heel pad of the lead hand in a direction that is away from the target and lag pressure being exerted against the aft side of the club handle
below the coupling point by the right hand in a targetwards direction. My first question for Bertie is how can the lead hand's heel pad be applying lag pressure against the club handle in a direction that is away from the target if the lead hand's heel pad is still
continuously moving targetwards, and not moving away from the target, at impact? My second question is what is the difference between this capture image and a positive hand couple. From my personal perspective, this capture image demonstrates a positive hand couple phenomenon, but Bertie seemingly asserts that his lag tension golf swing technique can provide club handle stability through impact without using either a negative or positive hand couple phenomenon through impact. How is this possible? I would like to read Bertie's answer to this question! My third question regarding this topic is why does Bertie assert that this scenario - where a positive pressure is being exerted by the lead hand's heel pad against the club handle in a direction that is away from the target while the trailing hand simultaneously applies a positive pressure against the aft side of the club handle below the coupling point in a targetwards direction - require that the clubshaft be trailing the lead forearm? Surely, it is physically possible for a golfer to still be applying those two positive forces (which represent a positive hand couple phenomenon) at the point of full extension (when the lead forearm and clubshaft are in a straight-line-alignment)? If Bertie disagrees, then I would like him to explain why the biomechanical actions that constitute a positive hand couple phenomenon is not possible at the point of full extension?
Let's take my argument further and consider if it is possible for a skilled pro golfer to control the club handle, and therefore clubface, after the point of full extension.
At the 15:12 minute time point of his vimeo-video, Bertie states that after the point of full extension the lead wrist will invariably break down, which means that the clubshaft will flip passed the lead forearm. Bertie seemingly believes a skilled pro golfer can no longer provide clubshaft stability if the clubshaft becomes straight-line-aligned with the lead forearm, which is presumably why he strongly advocates that full extension must not happen before impact. However, I personally believe that the true "real life" reality is that a skilled pro golfer can easily provide club handle stability, and therefore clubface control stability, after the point of full extension if they use the intact LAFW golf swing technique.
Here are capture images of Kelli Oride performing a DH-hand release action through impact.
Image 1 is at impact where Kelli Oride has her hands marginally forward of her club handle when hitting a fairway wood.
Image 3 is at P7.2 and image 4 is at P7.3 - where the club handle is straight-line-aligned with her lead forearm. Bertie may believe that Kelli Oride has less club handle stability at P7.2/P7.3 than she had at impact (because she no longer has her lead forearm ahead of her club handle), but I believe that any such "belief" is not true because I believe that she is simply swinging an intact LAFW through the immediate impact zone between P7 (imapct) and P7.3 and I believe that there is as much club handle stability, and therefore clubface stability, at P7.3 (compared to impact) as long as she
continuously maintains an intact LAFW during the club's travel time through the immediate impact zone between impact and P7.3. I suspect that Bertie does not really understand how using an intact LAFW golf swing technique throughout
both the entire downswing and also the early followthrough provides club handle stability (and therefore clubface stability) through impact without there being an imperative need to have the lead forearm being ahead of the club handle at impact. In other words, I believe that if a skilled pro golfer uses the intact LAFW golf swing technique and reaches a condition of full extension just before impact, but successfully angles the lead forearm (and clubshaft which is straight-line-aligned with the lead forearm) slightly away from the target at impact in order to get the desired amount of forward shaft lean at impact, then their ball striking result will be identical to Bertie's lag tension swing technique scenario (where the lead forearm leads the club handle into impact) presuming that they both have the same clubhead attack angle, same dynamic loft and the same clubface sweetspot contact conditions at impact. If Bertie disagrees, then I would like him to explain why my "belief" is wrongheaded.
Finally, if Bertie cannot remember his NGI golf forum user name and /or password (that is required to post a reply in this thread), then he can simply invent a new user name and password in order to reply to the many questions that I have posed in this most recent post. I am also very willing to have a Skype video conversation with Bertie if he wants to ask more questions or if he wants to discuss these issues in greater detail.
Jeff.