|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 17, 2024 10:33:10 GMT -5
Revisiting this thread , I have found the following video which shows that the club shaft is not swinging within a functional swing plane if there is a PA3 angle at impact. However, the clubhead's hosel can be touching that functional plane (but not the whole shaft). The previous post shows the swing plane board being used by Martin Hall where the female is trying to keep the whole shaft swinging within the board plane, while also trying to square the clubface. In my opinion that is only possible if she loses any PA3 angle first while the whole shaft is touching the board, and then squares the clubface just before impact. In the video below, one can clearly see that the lead arm swing plane must steepen if the clubface is squared by lead forearm rotation with an intact GFLW/LFFW and a PA3 angle at P7. Therefore the whole of the club shaft cannot be swinging within a functional swing plane (note how the 'shaft' has to move beneath the 'explanar type gadget' plane from P6-P7) while the 'head' is still touching the plane rim. Further , look at Martin Hall's short video above where he is ensuring the whole of the shaft is swinging on the same functional plane from P6-P7 and note that he is keeping the clubface square to the path from P6-P7 without any forearm rotation, which is obviously not reflective of a real golfers swing. In my opinion , practicing swinging on a plane board trying to keep the whole shaft within a functional swing plane is flawed if you are a golfer who prefers a PA3 angle at P7. DG DG, You wrote-: " In the video below, one can clearly see that the lead arm swing plane must steepen if the clubface is squared by lead forearm rotation with an intact GFLW/LFFW and a PA3 angle at P7. Therefore the whole of the club shaft cannot be swinging within a functional swing plane (note how the 'shaft' has to move beneath the 'explanar type gadget' plane from P6-P7) while the 'head' is still touching the plane rim." I totally disagree! That Explanar device prevents the clubshaft from even getting to the FSP. The angle of the lead arm will depend on where one stands relative to the Explanar device (which is an artificial device that only has a single steep plane eg. TSP). The only valid swingplane device is one where it only exists between P6 => P7 and where the hands are positioned on the swingplane at P6. The lead arm swingplane in a "real life" golf swing action will only steepen after P6 if the golfer shallows the clubshaft and then approaches impact with a large accumulator #3 angle (eg. Sergio Garcia's downswing). During the P6 => P7 time period, the entire clubshaft should still be roughly parallel to the FSP irrespective of the size of the accumulator #3 angle.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 18, 2024 7:53:48 GMT -5
Revisiting this thread , I have found the following video which shows that the club shaft is not swinging within a functional swing plane if there is a PA3 angle at impact. However, the clubhead's hosel can be touching that functional plane (but not the whole shaft). The previous post shows the swing plane board being used by Martin Hall where the female is trying to keep the whole shaft swinging within the board plane, while also trying to square the clubface. In my opinion that is only possible if she loses any PA3 angle first while the whole shaft is touching the board, and then squares the clubface just before impact. In the video below, one can clearly see that the lead arm swing plane must steepen if the clubface is squared by lead forearm rotation with an intact GFLW/LFFW and a PA3 angle at P7. Therefore the whole of the club shaft cannot be swinging within a functional swing plane (note how the 'shaft' has to move beneath the 'explanar type gadget' plane from P6-P7) while the 'head' is still touching the plane rim. Further , look at Martin Hall's short video above where he is ensuring the whole of the shaft is swinging on the same functional plane from P6-P7 and note that he is keeping the clubface square to the path from P6-P7 without any forearm rotation, which is obviously not reflective of a real golfers swing. In my opinion , practicing swinging on a plane board trying to keep the whole shaft within a functional swing plane is flawed if you are a golfer who prefers a PA3 angle at P7. DG DG, You wrote-: " In the video below, one can clearly see that the lead arm swing plane must steepen if the clubface is squared by lead forearm rotation with an intact GFLW/LFFW and a PA3 angle at P7. Therefore the whole of the club shaft cannot be swinging within a functional swing plane (note how the 'shaft' has to move beneath the 'explanar type gadget' plane from P6-P7) while the 'head' is still touching the plane rim." I totally disagree! That Explanar device prevents the clubshaft from even getting to the FSP. The angle of the lead arm will depend on where one stands relative to the Explanar device (which is an artificial device that only has a single steep plane eg. TSP). The only valid swingplane device is one where it only exists between P6 => P7 and where the hands are positioned on the swingplane at P6. The lead arm swingplane in a "real life" golf swing action will only steepen after P6 if the golfer shallows the clubshaft and then approaches impact with a large accumulator #3 angle (eg. Sergio Garcia's downswing). During the P6 => P7 time period, the entire clubshaft should still be roughly parallel to the FSP irrespective of the size of the accumulator #3 angle.
Jeff.
Dr Mann So are you saying that the golfer in the video should be using a swing plane board at an angle as shown by yellow line in the image below (from P6-P8)? DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 18, 2024 10:42:06 GMT -5
DG, You wrote-: " In the video below, one can clearly see that the lead arm swing plane must steepen if the clubface is squared by lead forearm rotation with an intact GFLW/LFFW and a PA3 angle at P7. Therefore the whole of the club shaft cannot be swinging within a functional swing plane (note how the 'shaft' has to move beneath the 'explanar type gadget' plane from P6-P7) while the 'head' is still touching the plane rim." I totally disagree! That Explanar device prevents the clubshaft from even getting to the FSP. The angle of the lead arm will depend on where one stands relative to the Explanar device (which is an artificial device that only has a single steep plane eg. TSP). The only valid swingplane device is one where it only exists between P6 => P7 and where the hands are positioned on the swingplane at P6. The lead arm swingplane in a "real life" golf swing action will only steepen after P6 if the golfer shallows the clubshaft and then approaches impact with a large accumulator #3 angle (eg. Sergio Garcia's downswing). During the P6 => P7 time period, the entire clubshaft should still be roughly parallel to the FSP irrespective of the size of the accumulator #3 angle. Jeff.
Dr Mann So are you saying that the golfer in the video should be using a swing plane board at an angle as shown by yellow line in the image below (from P6-P8)? DG Yes - if his clubshaft shallows down to the hand plane between P6 => P7. Most pro golfers, who shallow the clubshaft between P4 => P6, only shallow it down to the elbow plane by P6 and then the clubshaft should remain on that swingplane between P6 => P7. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 29, 2024 10:37:26 GMT -5
I now have a copy of Dr Kwon's research article titled : "Assessment of planarity of the golf swing based on the functional swing plane of the clubhead and motion planes of the body points".For 14 skilled golfers , it basically shows body point movement planes (MP) during the golf swing relative to FSP but here are some of the findings/opinions that Dr Kwon stated : "It was concluded that skilled golfers exhibited well-defined and consistent FSP and MPs, and the shoulder/arm points moved on vastly different MPs and exhibited large deviations from the FSP. Skilled golfers in general exhibited semi-planar downswings with two distinct phases: a transition phase and a planar execution phase"
"The trunk rotation and linear shoulder motion during the downswing/follow-through, therefore, tend to promote an off-plane motion of the clubhead (and a spiral swing) by pulling it down past the FSP. The relative orientations of the shoulder MP and trunk plane to the FSP and the curvature of the clubhead trajectory with respect to the FSP (in the semi-planar swing in particular) suggest that trunk rotation is not what drives the downswing and the arms move somewhat independently of the trunk in a fashion to secure a clean planar motion of the clubhead during the execution phase. Therefore, it is an unlikely scenario that a forceful trunk rotation directly generates a high impact velocity.
The hand and clubhead motions during a downswing are produced by the combined efforts of the arms (shoulder and elbow joint motions), shoulder girdles (elevation/depression and winging), and trunk (rotation and lateral flexion). The position of the shoulder line with respect to the pelvis line at TB (X-factor) can affect the subsequent motions of the arms, shoulder girdles, and trunk (i.e. the motion paths of the hands and clubhead) and ultimately the FSP. Therefore, the difference in the X-factor/X-factor stretch among different skill groups may mean some fundamental differences in the swing technique (FSP, MPs, etc.), Functional swing plane and motion planes in golf which can then affect the clubhead velocity. Further investigations on biomechanically correct meanings of the X-factor/X-factor stretch are warranted to better explain the causal relationship between the X-factor and impact velocity/shot distance, if any."Isn't Dr Kwon suggesting that the rotational aspect of the upper body pivot , is not a major contributor to clubhead speed? But when I look at his graphs below, there is some overlap of the instantaneous lead shoulder movement plane with the clubhead plane from TB (top of backswing P4) to ED (early downswing- shaft vertical P5.3). Look at the error deviations (vertical band of vertical lines traversing the graph lines) where I've drawn yellow arrows. In my opinion there must be some contribution to clubhead speed via PA#4 release in the early downswing. Maybe not in the FSP plane during the early downswing but it can be diverted back onto the FSP by P6 (mid-downswing) without any loss in clubhead speed. DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 29, 2024 11:06:05 GMT -5
I now have a copy of Dr Kwon's research article titled : "Assessment of planarity of the golf swing based on the functional swing plane of the clubhead and motion planes of the body points".For 14 skilled golfers , it basically shows body point movement planes (MP) during the golf swing relative to FSP but here are some of the findings/opinions that Dr Kwon stated : "It was concluded that skilled golfers exhibited well-defined and consistent FSP and MPs, and the shoulder/arm points moved on vastly different MPs and exhibited large deviations from the FSP. Skilled golfers in general exhibited semi-planar downswings with two distinct phases: a transition phase and a planar execution phase"
"The trunk rotation and linear shoulder motion during the downswing/follow-through, therefore, tend to promote an off-plane motion of the clubhead (and a spiral swing) by pulling it down past the FSP. The relative orientations of the shoulder MP and trunk plane to the FSP and the curvature of the clubhead trajectory with respect to the FSP (in the semi-planar swing in particular) suggest that trunk rotation is not what drives the downswing and the arms move somewhat independently of the trunk in a fashion to secure a clean planar motion of the clubhead during the execution phase. Therefore, it is an unlikely scenario that a forceful trunk rotation directly generates a high impact velocity.
The hand and clubhead motions during a downswing are produced by the combined efforts of the arms (shoulder and elbow joint motions), shoulder girdles (elevation/depression and winging), and trunk (rotation and lateral flexion). The position of the shoulder line with respect to the pelvis line at TB (X-factor) can affect the subsequent motions of the arms, shoulder girdles, and trunk (i.e. the motion paths of the hands and clubhead) and ultimately the FSP. Therefore, the difference in the X-factor/X-factor stretch among different skill groups may mean some fundamental differences in the swing technique (FSP, MPs, etc.), Functional swing plane and motion planes in golf which can then affect the clubhead velocity. Further investigations on biomechanically correct meanings of the X-factor/X-factor stretch are warranted to better explain the causal relationship between the X-factor and impact velocity/shot distance, if any."Isn't Dr Kwon suggesting that the rotation aspect the upper body pivot , is not a major contributor to clubhead speed? But when I look at his graphs below, there is some overlap of the instantaneous lead shoulder movement plane with the clubhead plane from TB (top of backswing P4) to ED (early downswing- shaft vertical P5.3). Look at the error deviations (vertical band of vertical lines traversing the graph lines) where I've drawn yellow arrows. In my opinion there must be some contribution to clubhead speed via PA#4 release in the early downswing. Maybe not in the FSP plane during the early downswing but it can be diverted back on the FSP by P6 (mid-downswing) without any loss in clubhead speed. DG Kwon does seem to be arguing that upper torso rotation is not a major factor responsible for maximum clubhead speed at impact - and I agree with that opinion. I do not understand what you are trying to convey with those graphs and yellow arrows. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 29, 2024 11:46:41 GMT -5
Dr Mann
I am confused by your previous statement because don't you prefer the following as mentioned on your website?
"It is obviously possible for PA#4 to start being released from the very start of the downswing if the left arm is pulled away from its adducted/elevated P4 position - as happens in Leslie King's left arm swinging methodology where the left arm is swung independently down-and-forwards towards the ball and where the golfer uses a reactive pivot action. That type of driver golf swing action is limited in power because it only uses muscular power derived from the shoulder girdle muscles to swing the left arm across the front of the reactively rotating body. By contrast, most PGA tour golfers use an active pivot action-induced TGM swinging action, which starts with a lower body (pelvis) counterclockwise rotation followed shortly thereafter by an upper torso counterclockwise rotation"
Isn't the upper body pivot also driving the lead shoulder socket to contribute to clubhead speed via the release of PA#4? I cannot understand how that matches with what Dr Kwon is suggesting? He is saying that upper torso rotational velocity is not a major contributor to clubhead speed at impact because the movement plane (of trunk/shoulders) are so different to the clubhead plane.
The yellow arrows show theoretically , that the lead shoulder plane and clubhead plane could be both be moving on the same plane in the early downswing (although not on the FSP plane). Therefore, theoretically the rotation of the lead shoulder socket can contribute to the clubhead speed, at least in the early downswing.
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 29, 2024 12:04:02 GMT -5
Dr Mann I am confused by your previous statement because don't you prefer the following as mentioned on your website? "It is obviously possible for PA#4 to start being released from the very start of the downswing if the left arm is pulled away from its adducted/elevated P4 position - as happens in Leslie King's left arm swinging methodology where the left arm is swung independently down-and-forwards towards the ball and where the golfer uses a reactive pivot action. That type of driver golf swing action is limited in power because it only uses muscular power derived from the shoulder girdle muscles to swing the left arm across the front of the reactively rotating body. By contrast, most PGA tour golfers use an active pivot action-induced TGM swinging action, which starts with a lower body (pelvis) counterclockwise rotation followed shortly thereafter by an upper torso counterclockwise rotation"
Isn't the upper body pivot also driving the lead shoulder socket to contribute to clubhead speed via the release of PA#4? I cannot understand how that matches with what Dr Kwon is suggesting? He is saying that upper torso rotational velocity is not a major contributor to clubhead speed at impact because the movement plane (of trunk/shoulders) are so different to the clubhead plane. The yellow arrows show theoretically , that the lead shoulder plane and clubhead plane could be both be moving on the same plane in the early downswing (although not on the FSP plane). DG I have often stated that upper torso rotation is a major factor in generating clubhead speed because it causes targetwards motion of the lead shoulder socket that pulls the lead humeral head along with it. However, I have also repeatedly stated that the lead arm mainly moves downwards, and not targetwards, between P4 => P5.5 (which means that it is moving in a different plane) and I have repeatedly used this capture image of Dustin Johnson's hand arc path to make that point. The red splined path is his hand arc path. Image 1 is at P4 and image 3 is at P5.5. Note that DJ's hands have mainly moved downwards and they are not closer to the target at P5.5 than they were at P4. That is due to independent motion of the two arms in their respective shoulder sockets where both the left-and-right shoulder girdle muscles are casually responsible for a lot of the speed of release of PA#4. However, note how much the lead shoulder socket has moved targetwards between P4 => P5.5 thereby pulling the lead humeral head along with it, and that contributes to the speed of release of PA#4.
Why are you making the point that the lead shoulder and clubhead are moving on the same plane in the early downswing, and that it is not on the FSP? That fact is obvious to me, but what is the relevance of pointing out that fact? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 29, 2024 12:43:12 GMT -5
Dr Mann If the lead shoulder was moving in a completely different plane to the clubhead then they would likely not contribute much to clubhead speed but the graphs seem to imply it can happen. Yet Dr Kwon is comparing the trunk plane against the clubheads FSP plane (not the trunk plane vs the clubheads plane in the early downswing) and then stating "trunk rotation is not what drives the downswing". So I cannot understand how you can be in agreement with his statement. DG PS. I'm assuming when Dr Kwon says 'trunk' he means the chest and shoulder sockets (I've attached his research article below). Kwon et al. 2012.pdf (403.89 KB) I've now seen his definition of trunk in the article: Trunk Markers: 4 trunk markers (right and left acromions, C7, and T12)
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 29, 2024 19:49:50 GMT -5
To further elaborate my point that Dr Kwon's statement makes no sense is when I look at this video by Dr Sasho MacKenzie from 03:40- 03:45. One can see that the clubhead speed has increased from P4 (TB) to shaft vertical (ED in Dr Kwon's swing event terminology) to 39.8 mph . That is a significant increase in speed and it seems obvious to me that the rotating upper torso is contributing to that CHS.
His statement "trunk rotation is not what drives the downswing" seems incorrect unless I have misinterpreted his meaning.
DG
|
|