Thanks DG for starting this thread. I had not studied Mike and Terry’s work before this. I must say I am very impressed. This is not something that is easy to critique. Their entire system is built around helping each individual player find what works for their specific body type, coordination, and swing preferences. It is based on what works best on the practice tee and golf course. The screens do not need to be perfectly accurate; they simply provide a decision-tree to categorize a golfer’s possible grip, set-up, and swing choices to expedite the learning process. Ultimately, improving the golf swing and overall performance is all that matters. If the player improves, does it really matter if a screen is perfectly predictive?
I watched the videos posted in this thread and a few others, did a few screens, and worked out my possible grip, set-up, and swing preferences. For example, I think I should use an under right hand grip, an open stance, a mid-range swing path, and a centered pivot. This is similar to someone like Lee Trevino.
Then, I took this to the range and found that it worked nicely. I had to practice a bit to perform a good drive hold release and keep my right palm up with no early club face roll, but I was very pleased with the results. I then took it to the course and had a similar experience.
So, I am very pleased with my progress over the span of a few days. Now, I wish I could get a lesson from Mike or Terry to fine tune it. I would like to learn how to optimize my power and accuracy using force plates, flight scope, video, and specific instruction.
I’m very excited to learn more. Hopefully their book will be published soon.
Again, I think it’s futile to criticize their specific screens or teaching methods when it is all skill-outcome based. The only logical way to critique their approach is to take a sample of golfers and determine which teaching method helps a player improve the fastest in terms of swing speed, accuracy, and scoring average. My guess is that this approach would do very well against any other teaching method.
Jim
Hi Jim
I think I did the tests back in 2016 and I had quite a discussion with EA Tischler at the time (see below all the questions I raised to him) but obviously I'd never read any of Dr Mann's articles or studied Biomechanics in any great depth, otherwise my questions would have been different.
Question : Don't we use a whole variety of swing anchor options dependent on the intended task? For example , we would probably utilise a rear anchor for an uphill shot, front anchor for a downhill shot. We'd have no choice in the matter otherwise we'd lose our balance. Further, if we wanted to hit a low shot , wouldn't we put more weight on the front foot/hip ? For a high shot wouldn't we naturally put a little more weight on the rear foot?
Answer: Based on the conventions of how the game is taught your points seem logical, however aren't necessarily the case. Saying that we have no choice in the matter otherwise we'd lose balance is a false statement. Secondly, we do not need to put more weight on the front foot to play a low shot. We can simply move the ball back in the stance and adjust our grip up and down on the shaft as needed. Nor is it true that you need to put more weight on the rear foot for higher shots. As a matter of fact many people will start topping shots by moving the weight more rearward. Additionally what is commonly called weight shifting is actually a pressure shift. Now from a novice athletic approach your points seem logical, however from a biomechanical standpoint we have many other options. The thing to keep in mind is that when more power is needed you invite injury the more you move away from the alignments you are designed to play with. In extreme uphill and down hill situation where balance is most critical you wouldn't use a full pivot action. You would use more of an arm swing technique. In which case you could stand on either foot as long as the other foot simply accommodates balance.
Question: Also wouldn't anchor type also depend on the club being chosen? Maybe front anchor for wedges , centre anchor for mid-irons, rear -anchor for driver?
Answer: Once again this is an conventional athletic view. The fact is that Front Anchor golfers that learn to play all their clubs with front anchor techniques ultimately play their best. Bernard Langer would be an example. Rear Anchor golfers can play all their shots with a Rear Anchor alignment and Center Anchor golfers all their shots with a Center Anchor alignment. In doing so they will actually experience better balance, less work, and more efficiency.
Question: So in your first book 'Secrets of Owning Your Swing' , are you just demonstrating a swing anchor appropriate to a flat lie and normal ball trajectory for a particular iron? Or are you saying we should adopt a single biomechanically fitting swing anchor for all shots? Where club selection, ball position, clubhead speed are the only variables we would use to get a certain ball trajectory (on a horizontally flat lie only, but inappropriate for certain uphill/downhill shots).
Answer: As a general rule I recommend that golfers learn to play with their biomechanically designed swing anchor alignment with all stock shots. Now of course their will be stances and lies that are extreme and you just need to do your best to stay balanced and get the ball back in play or down the fairway back toward the green. In those cases if you try to apply too much power you will definitely invite injury. Of Course, the stronger, more flexible and more athletic the golfer is the more likely they can safely play with more power in those situations
Question: Some other golf articles have mentioned that the reasoning behind creating a braced anchor is to prevent swaying (lateral weight movement) caused by 2 things :
1. The weight of the arms and club in the backswing .
2. The centrifugal force of the arms/club unit in the downswing
Both the above will have forces that will tend to pull you out of your axis of rotation. So one has 2 choices if this happens,
a. Shift your hips before the downswing progresses as a counterbalance to prevent your axis of rotation being pulled rearwards by points 1 and 2 above.
b. Preset weight on that front foot/hip at address so that one doesn't have to implement point a. This would mean deploying a front anchor by default even if biomechanically incorrect.
So for the rear anchor and centre golfer , I can see no other option than to shift their hips laterally if you want to avoid what points 1 and 2 will do your axis of rotation.
Answer: What you need to keep in mind is that the processes ground force pressure, counterswivels, spinal extension and internal forces can help naturally and athletically help the body and arm swing maintain a harmonious balance. The two key applications in my view are the way we maintain vertical pressuring into the ground as well as the internal postural pressuring. Lastly the way we manage our COM in relations to our COP are key to applying force while staying in balance. Sorry if I don't have the time to go more into details. But that's what I do in lessons everyday
Question:Hi Ed - Is the central nervous system subconsciously predicting and making preparation for increased centrifugal force (dynamic swinging weight) by exerting more brace , pressure , turning moments of force (with the just the right amounts at the right time) using the static friction between feet and ground to keep one in balance? Is this what activates the pressure changes you are talking about? I can't imagine anyone pre-empting the pressure change by consciously shifting pressure in the golf swing. I think by subconsciously 'predicting contact' and 'bottom of swing' while swinging to a 'focussed target' in a balanced finish will make the swing easier . Won't conscious thinking about any body parts /pressure feels /positions, etc short circuit the natural kinetic sequence of the body? Another quick question and I suspect this might be controversial but I must ask (because you are an expert in biomechanics). Is setting up at address the same as impact plane back friendly? I keep seeing videos by various instructors that counter your 'releasing posture' recommendations. They say that in the conventional golf swing , there is compression on the spine if you don't set up at address the same as impact plane. This question is specific to that action being recommended by Kirk Junge and Todd Graves.
Answer :Is the kinetic sequence of the body truly natural and/or inherent? Or is it learned and conditioned. I think you are mixing concepts of learning skills with performing tasks once a skill set is learned and then being employed. I for one am very aware of the pressure shifts. By the way you cannot have motion, or a kinetic sequence without force first and the pressuring is part of that initial force. Whether consciously induced or subconsciously activated it is operating at the initiation of the sequence. To your second question. There are all kinds of theories out there and in those types of theories they are trying to rotate more in posture and in doing so it is often better to set the club at address in the zone you will deliver it in, but not necessary. You can make adjustments without spinal compression, although many conventional teachings do create spinal and back issues. I do cover setting up in the delivery zone in my books and on my website. And even state I believe it will become much more popular in the future, however not necessarily prevalent. Many people do not believe in posturing up because they have a flawed view of what they think makes a more complicated sequencing, when it actually does not complicate it for those golfers that need it. It actually make sequencing easier and more consistent. I deal with reality instead of speculation and theory.
Question : ****This relates to Ed's interpretation about what Ben Hogan /Jack Nicklaus said about earlier the release , the better . Ed seems to be advocating the active unhinging of the wrists (in the correct plane) being felt at the top of the swing.*****
Hi Ed - Are you advocating active wrist torque in this correct unhinging or just letting the unhinge happen naturally by the pivot/arm action (ie. letting the hands and arms react to gravity and centrifugal force rather than any musculature manipulation)? When I read the Tutelman article (Tutelman.com) about the physics of the golf swing it basically said that 'wrist cock angle' and 'wrist torque' have a positive and negative impact (respectively) on the efficient transfer of energy via the arms and hands to the golf ball. That we need to retain as much wrist cock angle into delivery without exerting wrist torque (which is quite difficult). But you seem to be advocating early 'wrist cock angle' unhinging using active 'wrist torque' which is completely the opposite.
(Note: Although Ed seems correct about most things, I personally think he is incorrect about this specific issue but will await his reply).
Answer :Remember that in my videos I am providing an alternative view for those that have been struggling with their conventional views. That could be an older convention or a newer convention. Are we talking what physics is explaining is happening or what the golfer perceives he or she is doing. Many golfers need to feel a more active delivery and in doing so they both maintain angle to the proper point in the swing and deliver with the properly timed unhinging. There are also studies out there, by biomechanists and physicists that say you need to be unloading those angles very early. So, who is correct? Or are they both correct, just viewing the activities from a different perspective. Or is one view correct for some and another view correct for others? Some players experience delay, others through hard and early. The question is, what works best for the individual and that includes both active and passive versions.
Question:Hi Ed Do you think that one should vary their golf grip dependent on their intended swing task ? I've noticed that for the same arm displacement in the backswing, a weaker more neutral grip results in a quicker clubhead speed through impact than having a strong grip (especially in the lead hand). So basically , for the same length backswing, you would need to clear the hips quicker if you had a weaker grip (faster clubhead speed) vs a stronger grip (lower clubhead speed). So imho it seems that accuracy is dependent partially on how your grip , rhythm and tempo fits together to facilitate the optimal clubface impact with ball to achieve the intended task. A strong grip might suit someone who has a slow rhythm who can move their hips out of the way slower but to a greater degree to enable rollover of wrists later in the follow-through. Someone with a quicker rhythm but with limited hip movement might be more suited to having a weaker grip with a more flippy action of the wrists to allow it to rollover without any impingement in the follow-through.
Answer:we actually see the opposite. Players that open their hips less through impact tend to have weaker grips and golfers that open their hips more through impact stronger grips. That is when trying to be more rotary. golfers the have massive vertical force coupled with vertical motion (launch) have stronger grips and golfers the have less vertical force with less vertical motion have weaker grips.
Reply:Yes , this is not so simplistic as I first thought. I'm forgetting that there are throwing and hitting actions too which might utilise weak and strong grips in various ways . So if someone had limited hip movement , maybe a rotary swing would be biomechanically wrong for them anyhow. So my original question is quite irrelevant. Thanks for the reply.
Question:Hi Ed - So does this mean that ball position will vary dependant on your swing linkage rather than its relative position to your 'sternum notch' (ie. the low point of your swing) or lead shoulder joint (ie. some also say this is the low point of swing)? So, for example, if you are on a flat horizontal good lie , and you just want to strike a ball with a standard trajectory 7 iron and are swinging with a 'biomechanically correct' rear linkage action . Then you may struggle to hit the ball if you think about addressing the ball just before your sternum or left shoulder joint using the current golf instruction guidance. That the only way to truly judge ball position in your stance is to complete a few practice strokes (near the ball) and predict clubhead 'ball/grass/turf' contact for your intended task and then try and replicate that in the actual stroke. I suspect in a worse scenario, if we are swinging using the wrong swing path/linkage for our bodies plus making assumptions for ball position (ie. low point under our perceived centre of swing), then this may cause even greater inconsistencies in our game.
Answer:When discussing ball position I always talk about the INFLUENCES. There are a variety of things that influence ball position. Let's discuss in terms of stock ball positions for each club first. I believe that each club is made with a different amount of forward lean, with many of the drivers and even some of the most recent 3 woods having rearward lean. Because of those differences the ball position changes. To that regard I will talk about a ball position pattern when we talk about the set of clubs in general. The hand position in relations to the body remains relatively constant. Then the club is positioned from the hand location for the desired amount of forward lean. That would position the ball in a different position in relations to the sternum, or lead shoulder joint if you prefer. Now, if we take Swing Anchor influences into account then Front Anchor golfers would have a ball position pattern that is compressed forward a bit. Rear Anchor golfers would see the pattern moved back a bit. That is mainly because the the relative differences in the alignment of their Axis of Symmetry that influences Sternum and Lead Shoulder positioning. Center Anchor golfers would have a more central pattern. Now the exact Axis of Symmetry influences the neutral position for each club as well. Sternum Line Axis of Symmetry compresses the pattern forward, Spine Line moves the pattern more rearward. Center Line more central. The Impact Linkage alignment also influences the ball position pattern. Front Impact Linkage moves the pattern forward. By the way I typically say it compresses the pattern forward because there is less room to move forward as compared to rearward. Rear Impact Linkage moves the pattern rearward, and Center Impact Linkage makes it more central. Vertical applications in Posturing Up (ie Stand Up Postural Release) move the ball position pattern more forward and more Rotate in Posture golfers move the pattern more rearward, with Post Up Postural Release golfers more central. Keep in mind that many of the influences tend to balance out in each golfers biomechanical design.
Reply:Thanks Ed - If there are so many influences regarding ball position (as you mention above) and there is 1/16 th of an inch error margin between a good and poor strikes off the clubface, then it becomes clearer why most golfers (including me) play so inconsistently. So until we know exactly which biomechanical actions fit our body and how they influence impact point (together) in the full swing-dependant on intended task, ball position seems like a guessing game. I particularly like the idea of conducting practice 'perpetual motion drill' swings (near the ball location) to predict contact and direction before attempting the actual swing. Would you advocate something like that until we finally own our swing (which could take several years to hone)?
Answer:I don't really have any troubles getting golfers to find the low point. The subconscious mind is a super-computer. When the dynamics activities match-up with the structural design low-point becomes a given. I find that most golfers have been brainwashed to see ball position in a certain way, as well as there toe line alignments. By prescribing those alignments with knowing anything about the golfer's unique biomechanics they are being set up to have a mid-match between low point and ball position! Working from Biomechanical structure, to dynamics and then allowing for the ball position to be adjusted makes the process easy. Now, at any given time, put the ball where the low-point occurs, given there are no others influences, such as instructions for improvement! The continuous swing drills can help locate that zone. I might add that talent, amount of time spent training or practicing, along with the golfers desired level of performance are contributors as well.
some golfers simply won't put the time or effort into improving. They may not even practice. They just go to play when they want to play and hope athleticism carry them through the experience.
Question:Hi Ed - In the conventional golf swing setup , wouldn't you agree that trying to get the clubhead square at impact while doing the postural release (correctly) is almost impossible to master for most recreational golfers? If we setup as per impact (like Mo Norman) wouldn't we limit (or even make defunct) early extension/postural release timing issues into impact? I've been trying to copy the Mo Norman swing but its hurting my back because it doesn't seem to fit my biomechanics. I know its weird but I'm finding it easier to have a Mo Norman setup but do a more 2 plane upright swing. The downswing is easier because I don't have to do any postural release adjustments to get the club back on the impact plane (ie. which I already did at address/setup).
Answer:I actually disagree with that assessment. I coach golfers every day that are recreational golfers and find it very easy to use postural release and to manage the alignments of clubface face and force. As a matter of fact, most of them find it easier to manage when the postural release is applied properly for them. When more vertical force is apply the golfer can release through more freely, even trying to hook the release and find it impossible to actually hook the shot. Now, there are those that need earlier postural release and those that need later postural release in regard to matching up with the delivery action and angle of extension, which is actually different than the height of the hands at impact, or the slot plane of the hands during delivery. The height of the hands in relations to the slot-plane has less to do with the postural release as it does the structural influence for slotting. You can have rotary Hip-Plane Slotters, Rotary Torso-Plane Slotters and Rotary Shoulder Plane Slotters. You can have Stand-Up Postural Release golfers that deliver the stroke in the Shoulder-Plane Slot, Torso-Plane Slot or Hip-Plane Slot. You can have Post-Up Postural Release golfers that deliver the stroke in all three slot zones as well. Of course, one of the zone being the most efficient for each individual golfer. There are also reason for being more one-plane or two-plane or what we call low-Track, mid-track or high-track. And from each track you can find golfers best suited for delivering in one of the three downswing slot zones. You may be best suited to be a Higher-Track Torso-Plane Slotter with less postural release. There are also additional dynamic influences for employing more or less postural release. By the way, any golfer that can play with a conventional address shaft plane alignment can also address the ball with the shaft in the desired impact slot zone. However they may actually be better off setting up with the shaft in the lower portion of that zone followed by posturing up and delivering it a bit higher in the zone. There are many viable patterns.
Question:Hi Ed - Many thanks for the detailed reply. I have your book 'Secrets of Owning Your Swing' which will help me understand your terminology better and enable me to find the best way to swing (as per my own biomechanics). In your opinion, do you think all this hype about Mo Norman swing being good for the back is correct from a biomechanics perspective? They have stated that there is no compression on the spine compared to conventional swing., yet Don Trahan says that the wide stance used is bad for the hips. I suspect all I can do is learn by trial and error the painful way. Many thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Answer:Wide stance can be detrimental. It depends on a few things. How wide are your hip joints from each other, how open are your hip joints, what angle do upper leg bones angle out of your hip joints at (inward, straight down, outward), and what core region is your dominant core region (because core region determines what stance widths work best for you body mechanics - check out Dr David Wrights balance studies). There are aspects of Moe Norman's swing that can be beneficial for golfers with chronic back issues, however remember that his swing wasn't a power swing. It was built for accuracy. If you try and put power into the system incorrectly for you, then you will have problems. Also, not all golfers are built to be so-called one-plane golfers.
Question:Hi Ed- What you say makes perfect sense although the instructors advocating Moe's swing claim he drove the ball quite far (although probably not as far as he could have - however, he did look very strong, especially in his wrists and forearms). I have one question if you don't mind. In your opinion which of these types of swing are more difficult to master? One which propels the arms/club unit using the big muscles of the body (I think Leadbetter advocated this -'dog wagging the tail') or where the body moves passively out of the way to facilitate the proper swinging movement of the arms/club unit ( I think Leslie King, Ernest Jones, Jim Flick advocated this type of swing -mainly left arm dominant leveraged swing against a stabilised lower body). The reason I ask, is that I've tried both and the latter seems to be a lot more effortless (obviously ) with purer strikes. But the temptation to use the larger muscles to power the swing is almost impossible to stop and this causes inconsistencies at impact. Do any of your books touch on the subject of body propelled swings versus an 'armsy' type swing?
Answer:I know a variety of professionals that played with Moe and everyone says he was quite short. Even know one that says that Moe played 3 balls out of bounds in one tournament. Clearly one of the best ball strikers in history, however when he tried to apply power he did give up accuracy. The key is finding a swing technique or techniques that fit your body mechanics. That involves three areas of concern. The first is your structural mechanics, the second is your dynamic fingerprint, the third is functional issues. Both ways you mentioned can be effective, there are also those that blend the two. for example, are you a body player, an arms player, a body and arms player or and arms and body player. You could be 70% body and 30% arms, 70% arms and 30% body, or anything in between, or even on the extremes. The key to making those work is to get your ground force pattern to match your swing technique. Whether arms or body dominant or 50-50 you still need to use the ground properly. I have books that touch on all aspects of the game.