janik
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by janik on Oct 24, 2022 9:45:46 GMT -5
Thank you for your reply, Dr. Mann, your validation on an idea/technique is the true acid test.
It is amazing how much one has to feel the independent lowering of the arms from P4 and it comes nowhere close to being too far from the inside at P6.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Oct 26, 2022 10:36:16 GMT -5
I also found Monte's broom force drill a bit strange considering he must know that in a full long club swing (ie. 5 iron- Driver) the shaft is in forward bend and therefore negative hand couple/torque applied via the hands approaching impact. Yet his broom force drill, although being used to correct flawed body pivot and arm kinematics, seems to also be ingraining a positive hand couple/torque.
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 26, 2022 11:40:44 GMT -5
I also found Monte's broom force drill a bit strange considering he must know that in a full long club swing (ie. 5 iron- Driver) the shaft is in forward bend and therefore negative hand couple/torque applied via the hands approaching impact. Yet his broom force drill, although being used to correct flawed body pivot and arm kinematics, seems to also be ingraining a positive hand couple/torque. DG I don't see anything in that MS video that suggests that his advice will invariably result in a positive trail hand torque phenomenon between P6 => P7. Any positive push-pressure being applied by the trail hand between P6 => P7 could be applied at PP#1 (which is above the coupling point) when the trail hand keeps up with the lead hand in terms of hand speed. In other words, the trail arm/hand is performing the equivalent motion of a stone skipping motion, but the lead hand is pulling the club handle non-stop between P4 => P7 - in the same way as one would perform Ben Hogan's two-handed basketball throw motion.
During this late downswing and early followthrough time period, the trail palm can be applying push-pressure against PP#1 (which is above the coupling point) and if the lead hand is always leading, then there is no reason why a positive trail hand couple phenomenon should be operant below the coupling point if the trail wrist is kept bent-back (extended).
I can perform a broom sweep motion in the same manner and if I keep my trail wrist continuously bent-back, then no push-pressure should be applied by the trail hand below the coupling point during the late downswing and early followthrough.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Oct 26, 2022 17:12:04 GMT -5
I also found Monte's broom force drill a bit strange considering he must know that in a full long club swing (ie. 5 iron- Driver) the shaft is in forward bend and therefore negative hand couple/torque applied via the hands approaching impact. Yet his broom force drill, although being used to correct flawed body pivot and arm kinematics, seems to also be ingraining a positive hand couple/torque. DG I don't see anything in that MS video that suggests that his advice will invariably result in a positive trail hand torque phenomenon between P6 => P7. Any positive push-pressure being applied by the trail hand between P6 => P7 could be applied at PP#1 (which is above the coupling point) when the trail hand keeps up with the lead hand in terms of hand speed. In other words, the trail arm/hand is performing the equivalent motion of a stone skipping motion, but the lead hand is pulling the club handle non-stop between P4 => P7 - in the same way as one would perform Ben Hogan's two-handed basketball throw motion.
During this late downswing and early followthrough time period, the trail palm can be applying push-pressure against PP#1 (which is above the coupling point) and if the lead hand is always leading, then there is no reason why a positive trail hand couple phenomenon should be operant below the coupling point if the trail wrist is kept bent-back (extended).
I can perform a broom sweep motion in the same manner and if I keep my trail wrist continuously bent-back, then no push-pressure should be applied by the trail hand below the coupling point during the late downswing and early followthrough.
Jeff.
If you look at the drill that Brendon is being asked to do, he is using a split grip (separated by at least 1 foot) with his trail hand well below any coupling point. In my opinion, he is applying a positive hand couple and doesn't mirror the biomechanics you posted above. DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 26, 2022 18:57:37 GMT -5
I don't see anything in that MS video that suggests that his advice will invariably result in a positive trail hand torque phenomenon between P6 => P7. Any positive push-pressure being applied by the trail hand between P6 => P7 could be applied at PP#1 (which is above the coupling point) when the trail hand keeps up with the lead hand in terms of hand speed. In other words, the trail arm/hand is performing the equivalent motion of a stone skipping motion, but the lead hand is pulling the club handle non-stop between P4 => P7 - in the same way as one would perform Ben Hogan's two-handed basketball throw motion. During this late downswing and early followthrough time period, the trail palm can be applying push-pressure against PP#1 (which is above the coupling point) and if the lead hand is always leading, then there is no reason why a positive trail hand couple phenomenon should be operant below the coupling point if the trail wrist is kept bent-back (extended).
I can perform a broom sweep motion in the same manner and if I keep my trail wrist continuously bent-back, then no push-pressure should be applied by the trail hand below the coupling point during the late downswing and early followthrough. Jeff.
If you look at the drill that Brendon is being asked to do, he is using a split grip (separated by at least 1 foot) with his trail hand well below any coupling point. In my opinion, he is applying a positive hand couple and doesn't mirror the biomechanics you posted above. DG I agree that when performing the split hands drill (as shown in that video) that one has to be applying a positive hand couple torque below the coupling point during the later downswing. It is possible that MS believes that a golfer should be applying a positive trail hand couple torque during the later downswing in a "real life" full golf swing action. However, in a "pure" TGM swinging (lead arm swinging) action that should not be happening. So, when performing a broom action drill using a TGM swinging action, the trail hand should not be placed in a split hand location and any push-pressure being exerted by the trail hand in the later downswing should not be applied below the coupling point (mid-hands point). Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Oct 27, 2022 11:14:11 GMT -5
This is what MS said in reply to this question on the Golfwrx 'Monte's New No Turn- Cast' thread. ------------------------------------------- forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1756226-montes-new-no-turn-cast/page/75/#comments 11 hours ago, Duffer Mark said: Does Monte claim tour pros ulnar deviate from the top of the backswing?
Monte Scheinblum reply:
No one good does. However, we are talking about intent. With the body shifting and rotating in the other direction, most golfers need the 8 o’clock ulnar intent. That encourages more rotation which slows and delays when the ulnar actually happens. As does arms in sequence….which is also a problem for most golfers. The arms don’t accelerate before the hips or thorax. That’s impossible. However, the overwhelming majority of golfers accelerate the arms late, so the intent needs to be arms first. ----------------------------------- I don't understand how an intent to ulnar deviate in a particular direction will somehow cause the golfer to pivot in such a way that it biomechanically reduces that intended ulnar deviation. MS says "it encourages more rotation' which I assume is the pivot. But in a Dr Kwon youtube video he opined that 'Active Wrist Torque' can cause the body rotation to slow down. When I double-checked this with SMK by email he replied saying "I agree with Dr. Kwon." My question is could the intent of casting early in the downswing cause tension/friction in the lead wrist joint and therefore inadvertently create negative wrist torque hindering any early release of PA#2 (ie. create lag)? If the answer is yes, will the golfer then need to perfectly time the relaxation of his lead wrist joint to help optimise the PA#2 release action and intended forward shaft lean by impact? DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 27, 2022 17:50:53 GMT -5
This is what MS said in reply to this question on the Golfwrx 'Monte's New No Turn- Cast' thread. ------------------------------------------- forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1756226-montes-new-no-turn-cast/page/75/#comments 11 hours ago, Duffer Mark said: Does Monte claim tour pros ulnar deviate from the top of the backswing?
Monte Scheinblum reply:
No one good does. However, we are talking about intent. With the body shifting and rotating in the other direction, most golfers need the 8 o’clock ulnar intent. That encourages more rotation which slows and delays when the ulnar actually happens. As does arms in sequence….which is also a problem for most golfers. The arms don’t accelerate before the hips or thorax. That’s impossible. However, the overwhelming majority of golfers accelerate the arms late, so the intent needs to be arms first. ----------------------------------- I don't understand how an intent to ulnar deviate in a particular direction will somehow cause the golfer to pivot in such a way that it biomechanically reduces that intended ulnar deviation. MS says "it encourages more rotation' which I assume is the pivot. But in a Dr Kwon youtube video he opined that 'Active Wrist Torque' can cause the body rotation to slow down. When I double-checked this with SMK by email he replied saying "I agree with Dr. Kwon." My question is could the intent of casting early in the downswing cause tension/friction in the lead wrist joint and therefore inadvertently create negative wrist torque hindering any early release of PA#2 (ie. create lag)? If the answer is yes, will the golfer then need to perfectly time the relaxation of his lead wrist joint to help optimise the PA#2 release action and intended forward shaft lean by impact? DG I do not understand why one should believe that an intent to cast should cause a negative lead wrist torque. However, forcing one's lead wrist into flexion between P4 => 5.5 may increase tension at the level of the lead wrist joint and impair its ability to passively perform a free release of PA#2. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Dec 3, 2022 9:25:50 GMT -5
This is what MS said in reply to this question on the Golfwrx 'Monte's New No Turn- Cast' thread. ------------------------------------------- forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1756226-montes-new-no-turn-cast/page/75/#comments 11 hours ago, Duffer Mark said: Does Monte claim tour pros ulnar deviate from the top of the backswing?
Monte Scheinblum reply:
No one good does. However, we are talking about intent. With the body shifting and rotating in the other direction, most golfers need the 8 o’clock ulnar intent. That encourages more rotation which slows and delays when the ulnar actually happens. As does arms in sequence….which is also a problem for most golfers. The arms don’t accelerate before the hips or thorax. That’s impossible. However, the overwhelming majority of golfers accelerate the arms late, so the intent needs to be arms first. ----------------------------------- I don't understand how an intent to ulnar deviate in a particular direction will somehow cause the golfer to pivot in such a way that it biomechanically reduces that intended ulnar deviation. MS says "it encourages more rotation' which I assume is the pivot. But in a Dr Kwon youtube video he opined that 'Active Wrist Torque' can cause the body rotation to slow down. When I double-checked this with SMK by email he replied saying "I agree with Dr. Kwon." My question is could the intent of casting early in the downswing cause tension/friction in the lead wrist joint and therefore inadvertently create negative wrist torque hindering any early release of PA#2 (ie. create lag)? If the answer is yes, will the golfer then need to perfectly time the relaxation of his lead wrist joint to help optimise the PA#2 release action and intended forward shaft lean by impact? DG I do not understand why one should believe that an intent to cast should cause a negative lead wrist torque. However, forcing one's lead wrist into flexion between P4 => 5.5 may increase tension at the level of the lead wrist joint and impair its ability to passively perform a free release of PA#2. Jeff. Dr Mann You mentioned the following in the recent thread : "If the trail elbow actively drops downwards very fast due to an active trail upper arm adduction maneuver between image 1 => image 3, while the trail wrist remains very extended, it will produce a downward (groundward) pull on the club handle that will shallow the clubshaft. That will secondarily cause the lead wrist to passively become less extended while HS continues to maintain an intact LFFW alignment due to the fact that his lead lower forearm is simultaneously pronating to a small degree during the clubshaft shallowing action." So can the above biomechanics force the lead wrist into less extension, increase the level of lead wrist tension and impair its ability to prematurely release PA#2 in the early downswing? DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 3, 2022 10:30:21 GMT -5
I do not understand why one should believe that an intent to cast should cause a negative lead wrist torque. However, forcing one's lead wrist into flexion between P4 => 5.5 may increase tension at the level of the lead wrist joint and impair its ability to passively perform a free release of PA#2. Jeff. Dr Mann You mentioned the following in the recent thread : "If the trail elbow actively drops downwards very fast due to an active trail upper arm adduction maneuver between image 1 => image 3, while the trail wrist remains very extended, it will produce a downward (groundward) pull on the club handle that will shallow the clubshaft. That will secondarily cause the lead wrist to passively become less extended while HS continues to maintain an intact LFFW alignment due to the fact that his lead lower forearm is simultaneously pronating to a small degree during the clubshaft shallowing action." So can the above biomechanics force the lead wrist into less extension, increase the level of lead wrist tension and impair its ability to prematurely release PA#2 in the early downswing? DG I think that the degree of change in lead wrist extension between P4 => P5.5 in Henrik Stenson's early downswing is very small and it is likely not resulting in an increased tension level in the lead wrist joint if it happens passively due to the trail upper arm's adduction action. By contrast, I think that the active lead wrist bowing maneuver used in the reverse motorcycle move will increase tension in the lead wrist joint and it may more likely interfere with the smooth release of PA#2. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Dec 3, 2022 10:59:36 GMT -5
Many thanks Dr Mann
DG
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on May 18, 2023 10:22:12 GMT -5
Here is Monte claiming that there are 2 hinge releases where most clubhead speed comes from . The release of PA2 (vertical hinge release) and a lead wrist flexion-> extension hinge release (horizontal hinge release). http://instagr.am/p/CsEXKFotUlY The instagram messages say the vertical hinge is released primarily by the use of the arms and wrists while the horizontal hinge is released by the use of the body. In my opinion he is very vague to explain the kinetics involved in these 2 release mechanisms, so I can only guess that he's theorising that the release of PA2 is primarily caused by the following: 1. Lead wrist active ulnar deviation from P4-P6.5 2. MOF release by a net force across the mid-hand-point generated mainly by using shoulder girdle muscles to move the arms/hands from P4-P6.5 For the release of the horizontal hinge (where there doesn't seem to be any defined TGM power accumulator equivalent) , he claims it is the body that is responsible. Therefore, I can only guess that he is assuming : 3. Another MOF type release where the GRF's (vertical/torque/horizontal- working together) are somehow responsible for creating a net force via the arms/hands across the mid-hand-point from P6.5-P7.0. I think he is theorising that this type of MOF release is causing the club to pull the wrists along into impact with lead wrist moving from flexion->extension direction while trail wrist moving from extension-flexion direction. If you look at JS's graph below , it does seem to show lead wrist movement from flexion-extension direction and trail wrist extension-flexion directional movement from P6.5-P7. I have drawn white arrows pointing to the P6.5 position for both lead and trail wrists. DG
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on May 19, 2023 5:38:57 GMT -5
Dr Mann
I have a question.
If the golfer is using for example a neutral grip and moves his lead wrist minimally in the radial->ulnar deviation direction without allowing the trail wrist to extend or flex, will the trail forearm have no option but supinate to accommodate that lead wrist movement in the radial -> ulnar deviation direction?
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 19, 2023 9:28:07 GMT -5
Dr Mann I have a question. If the golfer is using for example a neutral grip and moves his lead wrist minimally in the radial->ulnar deviation direction without allowing the trail wrist to extend or flex, will the trail forearm have no option but supinate to accommodate that lead wrist movement in the radial -> ulnar deviation direction? DG No. Grasp your left forearm firmly with your right hand in order to prevent any left forearm rotation. Then, you will note that you can freely move the left wrist in the plane of radial => ulnar deviation without any forearm rotation. In the intact LFFW swing technique, the RFFW can act in a similar manner to constrain any left forearm rotation that is solely due to the left wrist moving in an ulnar direction. Howver, if the left forearm is passive, and not constrained in any manner by the trail arm/hand, then there is slight tendency for the left forearm to supinate when the left wrist is ulnar-deviating. Jeff. p.s. I will study Monte's instagram post tomorrow and I will then comment.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on May 20, 2023 6:23:16 GMT -5
Dr Mann I have a question. If the golfer is using for example a neutral grip and moves his lead wrist minimally in the radial->ulnar deviation direction without allowing the trail wrist to extend or flex, will the trail forearm have no option but supinate to accommodate that lead wrist movement in the radial -> ulnar deviation direction? DG No. Grasp your left forearm firmly with your right hand in order to prevent any left forearm rotation. Then, you will note that you can freely move the left wrist in the plane of radial => ulnar deviation without any forearm rotation. In the intact LFFW swing technique, the RFFW can act in a similar manner to constrain any left forearm rotation that is solely due to the left wrist moving in an ulnar direction. Howver, if the left forearm is passive, and not constrained in any manner by the trail arm/hand, then there is slight tendency for the left forearm to supinate when the left wrist is ulnar-deviating. Jeff. p.s. I will study Monte's instagram post tomorrow and I will then comment. Many thanks Dr Mann DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 23, 2023 10:39:57 GMT -5
I will be commenting on that Monte Scheinblum instagram video in this post. MS states that there are two lead wrist unhinging motions happening with respect to the lead wrist in a pro golfer's golf swing action - i) an unhinging motion happening in the plane of radial => ulnar deviation, which he claims is happening between P4 => P6, and ii) an unhinging motion happening in the plane of lead wrist bowing => extension that is happening between P6 => P7. He is totally wrong about both of those claims. I agree that there is a lead wrist unhinging (uncocking) motion happening in the plane of lead wrist radial deviation => ulnar deviation (representing the release of PA#2), but it is happening in the later downswing between P5.5 => P7. Also, there is no significant lead wrist motion happening in the direction of lead wrist extension between P6 => P7 (other than a small amount happening pre-impact in some pro golfers). Consider a pro golfer who uses a very strong lead hand grip - Milo Lines. Image 1 is at P6, image 2 is at P6.5, and image 3 is at impact. Note that the back of his lead hand is facing the ball-target line throughout the entire P6 => P7 time period. Note that his lead wrist is moving from being radially-deviated at P6 to becoming far less radially-deviated at impact, and that represents the release of PA#2. There is very little change in the degree of dorsiflexion (extension) of his lead wrist between P6 => P7, and if it did change to a small degree it would mainly affect his accumulator #3 angle and it would not be a source of swing power (as MS wrongly suggests). Here is Justin Thomas' driver swing. Image 1 is at P6, image 2 is at P6.5 and image 3 is at impact. Note that JT's lead wrist is moving from radial deviation => ulnar deviation between P6 => P7 (while he is simultaneously releasing PA#3 due to a lead forearm supinatory motion that causes the back of his lead hand to rotate ~70 degrees between P6 => P7). Note that there is no significant amount of lead wrist unhinging motion happening in the plane of lead wrist flexion => extension between P6 => P7 and his lead wrist is still slightly palmar flexed at impact. In his broomstick demo, MS implies that keeping the broom's bristles close to the ground (in a sweeping motion) between P6 => P7 is due to a lead wrist unhinging motion in the plane of lead wrist flexion => extension. He is totally wrong! If a golfer keeps his clubhead level to the ground between P6.5 => P7 (creating a "flat spot' in the clubhead arc), then it due to the interplay of two factors - i) the timing of the final release of PA#2 (which increases the swing radius) and iii) the timing of the elevation of the lead shoulder socket (which decreases the swing radius). If there is a small amount of lead wrist extension happening just before impact, it will not significantly affect the swing radius. Here is Scott Cowx's HackMotion graphs showing the wrist option A pattern.
This is a very common pattern seen in pro golfers who use a weak/neutral/moderately strong lead hand grip combined with the intact LFFW/GFLW technique. The green graph is the lead wrist extension-flexion graph. Extension = positive, flexion = negative. Note that the lead wrist is slightly extended at P4 and that its degree of extension remains relatively unchanged in the early-mid downswing. Note that it moves in the direction of flexion in the later downswing to become slightly flexed at impact. Note that the degree of lead wrist flexion remains unchanged in the early followthrough before it rapidly moves towards a greater degree of extension in the later followthrough time period. MS is also totally wrong regarding two other comments. He claims that getting the broomstick's head to the ground in the early-mid downswing is due to an arm motion while sweeping the broomstick's head along the ground in the later downswing is due to a body motion. That may indeed apply to his broomstick demo, but it does not apply to the clubhead end of a golf club in a full golf swing action performed by a pro golfer. The clubhead moves groundwards between P4 => P6 due to a pivot-induced release of PA#4 (release of the lead arm) and the clubhead moves along the clubhead arc in a more low-to-the-ground manner between P6 => P7 due to the release of PA#2 (which is not due to body motion).
Jeff.
|
|