|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 17, 2023 13:11:49 GMT -5
Michael Neff has very few videos listed in his you tube channel, and this is one of the few. He seemingly wants to show that these two pro golfers have different release styles, but I can see no evidence that he has demonstrated any details on the release of PA#2 or PA#3 or different hand release actions through impact. At the 1:49 minute time point Neff claims that the one golfer has more supination after impact, but what is he actually pointing at because I am not aware that he is even measuring lead forearm supination in his GEARS system. He then clicks on the body data and I can see no data on forearm/wrist angles in that side-panel. Can you identify anything that Neff has presented in that video that shows that these two golfers have different release styles? Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 17, 2023 18:50:38 GMT -5
Dr Mann
Michael Neff made some videos on another channel with Christina Ricci. The one below talks about the hand release in a little bit more detail but he has no concept of a DH hand release action (maybe because GEARS doesn't have the capability to measure it because of its low sampling frequency).
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 18, 2023 11:42:16 GMT -5
Dr Mann Michael Neff made some videos on another channel with Christina Ricci. The one below talks about the hand release in a little bit more detail but he has no concept of a DH hand release action (maybe because GEARS doesn't have the capability to measure it because of its low sampling frequency). DG Here is my analysis of the video featuring Michael Neff (MN) with Christina Ricci (CR). At the 1:03 minute time point of the video. MN states that having a bowed lead wrist (like Dustin Johnson) will decrease a golfer's potential maximum clubhead speed. I think that it is an irrational opinion that makes no sense from a biomechanical perspective. Why should adopting a bowed lead wrist decrease the maximum potential clubhead speed obtainable at impact? Between the 4:23 - 4:39 minute time point of the video, MF defines a neutral lead wrist as a scenario where the clubface is parallel to the watchface area of the lead lower forearm. That only happens with a weak lead hand strength grip and an intact LFFW/GFLW alignment. If the lead hand grip strength is neutral, then the clubface will be ~5-15 degrees closed relative to the watchface area of the lead lower forearm if the LFFW is intact; and if the lead hand grip strength is moderately strong then the clubface will be closed ~30 - 45 degrees relative to the watchface area of the lead lower forearm if the LFFW is intact. Interestingly, MF wrongheadedly claims that a golfer with a neutral lead hand wrist usually comes down the same swingplane during the downswing with zero plane shift compared to the backswing swingplane, but I cannot begin to understand why he believes that it is a near-mandatory requirement. Also, most pro golfers who use a neutral lead hand grip (like Justin Rose) shallow the clubshaft between P4 => P6. Then, MN compares two golfers who use a different hand release action through impact. Justin Rose uses a DH-hand release action through impact while the other amateur golfer uses a flipping subtype of non-DH hand release action (which MN calls a RIT release - named by Jim Hardy for his one-plane swing release pattern - RIT is an abbreviation of the phrase "right arm inward throw"). CR is obviously ignorant regarding the RIT release pattern (which is also recommended by Mike Malaska) and she states that a golfer should never get the trail hand to be located more under the club handle through impact. She wrongheadedly states that what Justin Rose is doing is getting his trail hand to roll over the top of the club handle through impact - see 9:26 minute time point of the video. Amazingly, MF states that the amateur golfer using a RIT hand release action also has a "on-top" trail hand which is simultaneously under the club handle. CR corrects that contradiction and MF then agrees that his trail hand is under the club handle through impact. Then, even more amazingly, CR who is opposed to a RIT hand release pattern, asks MF how a golfer should correct that type of RIT hand release action, which she perceives to be undesirable. MF at the 11:32 - 12:38 minute time point of the video then demonstrates how a golfer should "correct" that problem by performing a rolling subtype of non-DH hand release action through impact. Watch CR laugh with glee at the 12:22 minute time point of the video because she routinely teaches a rolling subtype of non-DH hand release action through impact.
Here are capture images of Mike Malaska performing a RIT hand release action through impact. Note how he "chicken-wings" his lead arm and stalls his lead arm motion through impact while he actively straightens his trail wrist using a right arm throw motion. That causes the clubshaft to bypass the lead arm soon after impact. Note that he still manages to keep the clubface square to his clubhead path post-impact (see image 2).
Although I do not favor that flipping subtype of non-DH hand release action through impact, it does not necessarily cause the clubface to open-or-close relative to the clubhead path between P7 => P7.2. Many pro golfers (eg. Matt Kuchar) use a RIT release action through impact and they can hit perfectly straight shots. CR favors a rolling subtype of non-DH hand release action through impact where the trail hand rolls over to lie on top of the club handle through impact - as demonstrated by Phil Mickelson in this animated gif. I think that this type of rolling subtype of non-DH hand release action causes a high clubface ROC through impact and it is even more undesirable than the flipping subtype of non-DH hand release action. MF wrongheadedly implies that Justin Rose is using a rolling subtype of non-DH hand release action through impact - but that is not true. Justin Rose uses a DH-hand release action through impact as can be seen in the following capture images. Image 1 is at impact and image 2 is at P7.2 (~12" post-impact). Note that his clubshaft is not bypassing his lead arm (from an angular rotational perspective) and that he is keeping his clubface square to his clubead path between P7 => P7.2.
Although the GEARS system, operating at a 450HZ sampling rate, is too slow to efficiently study a golfer's hand release action through impact, here is a capture image from the above CR/MN video. Note that it captures Justin Rose (blue colored avatar) at his P7.2 position - where the clubshaft has not bypassed his lead arm (from an angular rotational perspective) and where the clubface is still square to the clubhead path. Both MN and CR are seemingly ignorant about the biomechanics of a DH-hand release action, which is routinely used by many pro golfers.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by playing18 on Feb 18, 2023 16:34:16 GMT -5
Nice analysis and critique. Do you think this incorrect thinking stems from the misconception that PA#3 is somehow an important power accumulator when in reality it plays a very minor role in power development?
The rolling of the forearms in such a short time frame and across such a limited ROM just can’t generate any meaningful power. The same applies to moving a flexed or bowed lead wrist to a neutral wrist position from p4 to p7. There is simply too little absolute motion to provide any meaningful power contribution.
Of course, this is not the case with PA#4 (the master PA) and PA#2 which move across relatively large distances and have sufficient time to transfer significant power to the club’s handle.
Jim - playing18
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 18, 2023 17:05:41 GMT -5
Nice analysis and critique. Do you think this incorrect thinking stems from the misconception that PA#3 is somehow an important power accumulator when in reality it plays a very minor role in power development? The rolling of the forearms in such a short time frame and across such a limited ROM just can’t generate any meaningful power. The same applies to moving a flexed or bowed lead wrist to a neutral wrist position from p4 to p7. There is simply too little absolute motion to provide any meaningful power contribution. Of course, this is not the case with PA#4 (the master PA) and PA#2 which move across relatively large distances and have sufficient time to transfer significant power to the club’s handle. Jim - playing18 I don't know how they think about the role of a PA#3 release action (due to lead forearm supination) other than it seems that they both think that a lead forearm supinatory motion happening pre-impact must invariably be associated with a continuous lead forearm supinatory release action post-impact. They do not realize that it is possible to perform a lot of lead forearm supination pre-impact without performing any lead forearm supination between P7 => P7.2+. Justin Thomas uses a weak lead wrist grip strength so he has to use a lot of lead forearm supination between P6.5 => P7 in order to square his clubface by impact - as seen in the following capture images between image 1 (P6.5) => image 2 (P7). However, he uses a DH-hand release action between impact (image 2) and P7.4 (image 3) which allows him to keep the clubface square to the clubhead path during that early followthrough time period. Note that he keeps his trail palm under the club handle all the way between P7 => P7.4 and he does not roll his trail palm over the top of the club handle (as recommended by Christina Ricci). Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 18, 2023 17:13:36 GMT -5
Dr Mann
With regards MN stating that having a bowed lead wrist (like Dustin Johnson) will decrease a golfer's potential maximum clubhead speed. If a golfer tended to bow the lead wrist too much, won't this also cause some circumduction including ulnar deviation and loss of PA2 angle? If yes, could that be speed reducer?
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 18, 2023 17:22:52 GMT -5
Dr Mann With regards MN stating that having a bowed lead wrist (like Dustin Johnson) will decrease a golfer's potential maximum clubhead speed. If a golfer tended to bow the lead wrist too much, won't this also cause some circumduction including ulnar deviation and loss of PA2 angle? If yes, could that be speed reducer? DG I can agree that having a bowed lead wrist at impact will be associated with a greater degree of ulnar deviation of the lead wrist, which would decrease the accumulator #3 angle at impact. However, having a small accumulator #3 angle at impact does not cause a decrease in clubhead speed and most long-drive competitors have a small accumulator #3 angle at impact. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by playing18 on Feb 18, 2023 18:02:42 GMT -5
MN says he likes a lower handle rotation rate coming into impact yet indicates he likes the L-type release pattern with continued lead forearm rotation from p7 to p8.
Isn’t the main advantage of the DH release to help minimize late and unintended over-closing of the club face just before impact since a DH release involves squaring the club face at p7 and then maintaining a squared to the arc club face for 6 to 12 inches past impact?
Doesn’t this help minimize the risk of hitting hooks, along with making it easier to release PA#3 passively with no added help or resistance?
Consequently, isn’t the main purpose of a DH release pattern to potentially improve accuracy? Isn’t it true that a DH release has no direct bearing on power contribution or power loss?
Just seems like MN is misinformed on the release because he thinks continuing the preferred “slow” rotation he likes is somehow related to power generation or he may incorrectly think a DH release is handle-dragging which can indirectly decrease power.
Thoughts?
Jim - playing18
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 18, 2023 19:54:38 GMT -5
MN says he likes a lower handle rotation rate coming into impact yet indicates he likes the L-type release pattern with continued lead forearm rotation from p7 to p8. Isn’t the main advantage of the DH release to help minimize late and unintended over-closing of the club face just before impact since a DH release involves squaring the club face at p7 and then maintaining a squared to the arc club face for 6 to 12 inches past impact? Doesn’t this help minimize the risk of hitting hooks, along with making it easier to release PA#3 passively with no added help or resistance? Consequently, isn’t the main purpose of a DH release pattern to potentially improve accuracy? Isn’t it true that a DH release has no direct bearing on power contribution or power loss? Just seems like MN is misinformed on the release because he thinks continuing the preferred “slow” rotation he likes is somehow related to power generation or he may incorrectly think a DH release is handle-dragging which can indirectly decrease power. Thoughts? Jim - playing18 You asked-: " Isn’t the main advantage of the DH release to help minimize late and unintended over-closing of the club face just before impact since a DH release involves squaring the club face at p7 and then maintaining a squared to the arc club face for 6 to 12 inches past impact?" No. A DH-hand release action only starts at impact and it automatically/naturally presumes that a golfer has already squared the clubface by impact via the golfer performing a PA#3 release action (based on the biomechanical mechanism of lead forearm supination) during the later downswing. The timing of the PA#3 release phenomenon can vary - most pro golfers, who use a weak-or-neutral lead hand grip, perform their PA#3 release between P6.5 => P7, but some pro golfers (eg. Sergio Garcia) start earlier at P5.5. One cannot start a PA#3 release action between P4 => P5.5 because any lead forearm supination happening when the intact LFFW is lying on the swingplane will cause the clubshaft to steepen and "tumble" over-the-plane. A golfer first needs to start releasing PA#2 before releasing PA#3 although the release of PA#3 will overlap the release of PA#2 to a variable degree. The amount of lead forearm supination required during a PA#3 release action is inversely proportional to lead hand grip strength.
There is no scientific evidence that using a DH-hand release action results in more ball flight accuracy than using a non-DH hand release action, but this has never been formally studied by golf researchers where they take a group of skilled pro golfers and make them perform both a DH and a non-DH hand release action in sequence (eg. 10x DH-release action swings versus 10x non-DH release action swings).
Using a DH-hand release action does not effect swing power generation or a pro golfer's ability to generate the maximum amount of clubhead speed at impact in a driver golf swing action. Unfortunately, many ignorant golf instructors/golfers think that a DH-hand release action = handle-dragging release action, but they are totally different hand release techniques. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by playing18 on Feb 18, 2023 20:55:14 GMT -5
I agree but it begs the question, why even use a DH release pattern? By definition, it doesn’t begin until p7 and it happens automatically based on favorable swing mechanics but it can easily be disrupted by forcing lead forearm supination to speed it up or by restricting it by applying muscle tension and slowing it down, before p7, which is usually counterproductive.
So logically it must improve accuracy compared with lead forearm manipulation. I agree that a perfectly timed passive L to L release can be just as accurate, but few have the hand-eye coordination to do this to perfection.
So isn’t this the message for instructors: to teach a passive release and encourage no active lead forearm manipulation, and promote a DH release if the player can do it based on their swing mechanics, and as a second choice promote more of a passive L-type release.
Jim - playing18
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 18, 2023 21:33:37 GMT -5
If golfers are squaring the face by impact , it's only in contact with the ball for a very brief period of time. "For a brief moment in time (about 450 microseconds and 0.5-0.75 inches) the clubhead is connected to the ball. The ball squishes against the clubface before separating" I don't know how much the clubface would rotate in those 0.5-0.75 inches when it is in contact with the ball for a non-DH vs DH hand release action, and whether it will make much of a difference to the accuracy of the strike. DG PS. Here is an article from Adam Young: www.adamyounggolf.com/the-only-thing-golf-ball-cares-about/UPPER AND LOWER ORDERSThe ball responds predominantly to just a few things – some more important than others. UPPER
The most important factors to the ball that YOU as a golfer control are; Where was the face pointing (this is a 3D value which includes loft, lie angle and clubface direction)? What was the path of the club (again, a 3D value which includes angle of attack and swing path)? What was the difference between the 3D path and face (which not only creates the spin, but the spin axis (and thus curvature) of the ball) Did the club hit the ball first, or the turf – and by how much? Where did the ball strike on the face? This affects energy transference into the ball as well as gear effect What speed was the clubhead going We call these the main ball-flight laws. MIDSome things which affect the shot less so, but still in an important way are Friction – what materials (such as grass/sand) were trapped between the ball and the face? Bounce – how did the sole of the club interact with the ground during the impact interval? LOWER
Less important factors (almost negligible) are
Rate of closure – how quickly was the clubhead closing during the impact interval
The acceleration of the club ------------------- I think Adam Young must have used Dr Phil Cheetham's graphs in his dissertation on HTV vs LTV to make that statement 'Rate of Closure' is almost negligible. Sasho MacKenzie states the following: -------------------------------------- Does Rate of Closure actually matter?It would seem beneficial to be on the low end of the Rate of Closure spectrum. Wouldn’t it be tougher to ‘square-up’ a faster closing face? However, there is currently no evidence to suggest that players with lower RoC hit more fairways or hit their approaches closer to the hole. For example, in his PhD Thesis, Dr. Phil Cheetham found no relationship between shaft twist speed and driving accuracy in a group of 70 PGA Tour players. In the studies that have been conducted, it is possible that the influence of RoC was obscured by other golfer characteristics, such as hand-eye coordination and course management.
---------------------------------------- I would also prefer a study on less skilled golfers to see if their accuracy improved by changing their hand release action from non-DH to DH.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 19, 2023 1:05:39 GMT -5
DG, I think that Adam Young's reasoning does not make sense. It is obvious that the ball only responds to the conditions at the moment of impact (eg. clubhead path, clubface angle, dynamic loft, center/off-center condition of the strike relative to the clubface sweetspot). However, the purpose of golf instructional advice is to make a golfer's biomechanics better so that he can better control those impact parameters in a more consistent manner. When I refer to the clubface ROC through impact, I am not interested in the clubface ROC at the moment of ball-clubface contact (which lasts ~1/4000th of a second). I am only interested in the clubface angle immediately before impact (P6.95) and immediately post-impact (P7.05) and how consistently a golfer can have those clubface measurements close to being square if he wants to hit a straight shot. You quoted Sasho MacKenzie as follows-: " It would seem beneficial to be on the low end of the Rate of Closure spectrum. Wouldn’t it be tougher to ‘square-up’ a faster closing face? However, there is currently no evidence to suggest that players with lower RoC hit more fairways or hit their approaches closer to the hole. For example, in his PhD Thesis, Dr. Phil Cheetham found no relationship between shaft twist speed and driving accuracy in a group of 70 PGA Tour playersThat's a worthless argument because one cannot compare different pro golfers who have different levels of individual talent. Sasho even admitted in one conference that the only worthwhile methodology to study this issue is to perform a study on a group of 20-50 skilled pro golfers who have the requisite skill to perform the two types of non-DH hand release action (flipping and rolling) and a DH-hand release action. Then, one could see if they can hit the ball straighter using a DH versus a non-DH hand release action while keeping their pre-impact golf swing biomechanics/mechanics unchanged.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 19, 2023 9:10:15 GMT -5
Dr Mann
So are you saying that a golfers successful intent to do a DH hand release action from P7-P7.2 will reduce the ROC between P6.95-P7.05?
DG
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 19, 2023 10:09:18 GMT -5
Dr Mann So are you saying that a golfers successful intent to do a DH hand release action from P7-P7.2 will reduce the ROC between P6.95-P7.05? DG That's my expectation. Whether that happens in reality is unknown. Interestingly, Michael Neff has joined this forum and he may post to this thread. I hope that he does because it may turn out to be a worthwhile learning experience that can help us better understand the golf swing biomechanics of pro golfers. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by dubiousgolfer on Feb 19, 2023 11:02:43 GMT -5
Dr Mann
I hope Michael Neff contributes to this discussion too. He does mention on that recent video that he is quite willing to take the challenge of using a 'Phantom Camera' and comparing it to GEARS to check the integrity of measurements.
Maybe this would be a prime opportunity to ask for a phantom camera check to be made on the lead wrist movements from P6.95-7.2 for several golfers that visually show DH hand release actions.
DG
|
|