|
Post by natep on May 7, 2011 19:18:40 GMT -5
Natep, I agree that the diagram is junk, and I do not discuss the arc of approach and the angle of approach in any of my review papers. Although I am a fan of many TGM concepts, I do not believe in hitting the inside quadrant of the ball or trying to hit out to first base (cross-line procedure for hitters). I no longer believe that the clubface closes significantly during the ball-clubface impact interval, and I have modified my review papers accordingly However, although chapter 2 has many errors, I do believe in the basic biomechanical concept of the release swivel action (release of PA#3) and hinging actions. They make so much sense from a biomechanical perspective. I especially like the LAFW/RFFW concept and the power accumulator loading/release concepts because they also make sense from a biomechanical perspective. Jeff. Jeff, I am aware of your positions on many TGM concepts, and your ability to discard what you discover to be false, and to keep what you believe is sound. I think your approach is intellectually honest and sound. But there are many who represent TGM who would never admit that TGM has any errors whatsoever, no matter how much evidence they are presented with. And there are numerous errors and falsehoods in the book. I think the anti-TGM tone at BM's largely in response to and because of this.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 19:23:18 GMT -5
Where do you find this diagram? TG M 6th ed., page 17 2-C-1
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 19:24:21 GMT -5
Do you know how they came up with the diagram?
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 7, 2011 19:34:17 GMT -5
Do you know how they came up with the diagram? Do I know precisely what Homer did to come up with the idea for that diagram? No.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 7, 2011 19:35:54 GMT -5
Natep,
I can readily understand why BM and his groupies have given up on many TGM concepts.
However, this was the first post in that thread - here are the top three TGM concepts in his list.
"Ideas that can hurt:
1) The Flat Left Wrist. I was very into this.
2) Forward lean. I was striving for a LOT of forward lean; really wanted to make sure my hands were ahead of the ball at impact.
3) Retaining Lag
I think that it is irrational for any anti-TGM bias (based on disagreement with concepts promulgated in chapter 2 of the TGM book) to go so far that it will also criticise the advisability of a FLW/forward shaft lean/lag at impact.
Jeff.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 19:41:12 GMT -5
Wasn't the poster saying he over did these? Can you have too much forward lean?
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 7, 2011 19:43:48 GMT -5
Yes, he said those concepts CAN hurt if they are overdone, i.e. being so concerned with a flat left wrist that you end up applying a negative wrist torque so that the wrist never bends at all post impact. I agree with BM that you want a free-wheeling clubhead thru impact and that applying a negative wrist torque can impede that.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 19:47:00 GMT -5
sort of like adding tension because your trying so hard to make these things happen?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 7, 2011 20:02:17 GMT -5
Natep,
Why should the left wrist bend post-impact and allow the clubhead to pass the hands?
I also don't understand why maintaining a FLW post-impact would impede the clubhead's motion in space.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 7, 2011 20:43:13 GMT -5
We have had this discussion before and you have stated that the pivot should rotate the torso fast enough so that the LAFW stays intact and the clubhead never wants to pass the hands. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, I would reply that if your body is turning that fast post impact it's because you have an inefficient kinetic sequencing, and the energy that's turning your torso post impact is energy that never made it into the clubhead. Not every shot in golf requires maximum clubhead speed, but if maximum clubhead speed is desired then the left wrist should be allowed to bend post impact, so that the clubhead is travelling at a higher RPM than the left arm, which is not possible if the LAFW is intact. Here is a short presentation by Mike Dunaway which demonstrates: Here's an overhead of Tiger from his book:
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 20:53:32 GMT -5
Why does it have to be intact post impact?
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 20:54:45 GMT -5
Will it affect the path if it isn't?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 7, 2011 22:28:15 GMT -5
Natep, You wrote-: "While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, I would reply that if your body is turning that fast post impact it's because you have an inefficient kinetic sequencing, and the energy that's turning your torso post impact is energy that never made it into the clubhead." Where did you derive this belief that turning the torso well post-impact is a sign of inefficient kinetic sequencing? On what basis did you acquire the belief that the energy required to turn the torso post-impact is energy that could have got into the clubhead? Here is Jack Nicklaus post-impact. He is essentially keeping the arms/clubshaft (LAFW) rotating in synchrony with his rotating torso after impact? Why do you believe that his excellent post-impact torso rotation implies that he had an inefficient kinetic sequence? Why do you believe that his efficient torso rotation post-impact decreases his swing power? You also wrote-: "Not every shot in golf requires maximum clubhead speed, but if maximum clubhead speed is desired then the left wrist should be allowed to bend post impact, so that the clubhead is travelling at a higher RPM than the left arm, which is not possible if the LAFW is intact." How much "extra" clubhead speed do you think a golfer can acquire by allowing his right wrist to straighten through impact (and flip the club)? Here is the answer. www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/handhit.phpNote that applying positive wrist torque pre-impact only increases clubhead speed by a very small amount and that it will only work if the timing of the application of the positive wrist torque is optimised. If it is not perfectly timed, it can actually decrease clubhead speed. Also, if a golfer introduces a flipping motion in his late downswing, he may not time it perfectly and pre-impact flipping will have a disastrous effect on the clubface orientation at impact. Mike Dunaway/Mike Austin believed (without scientific evidence) that the left wrist had to bend post-impact, but David Tutelman demonstrates the futility of trying to increase clubhead speed by using a slap hinge release action. That photo of Tiger Woods shows a very imperfect swing action. Fortunately, he doesn't normally swing in such an unsynchronised manner. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 7, 2011 22:36:49 GMT -5
1) I never said a word about applying a positive torque with the right hand, your tutelman link and accompanying explanation is a strawman argument.
2) My assertion was that if the body was rotating fast enough post impact so that the clubhead never passed the left hand, then that would be an inefficient kinetic sequencing. There is ample data that measures the kinematic sequencing in high performance golf swings, and this data shows the segments slowing down sequentially pre-impact. It is my position that the body cannot slow down sequentially, and optimally, and continue to turn fast enough to keep up with the clunhead. You can see in the Nicklaus sequence that his body cannot keep up with the club either.
3) Your opinion that Tiger's swing from his book is terrible is just that; an opinion. Many would disagree with that opinion, and his extraordinary results from that era would also indicate otherwise. Do you really think that when they did the photo-shoot for his book that they took a terrible swing and chose that one to publish? I doubt it.
4) You can say there is no science to support this release, yet Dunaway and Austin absolutely bombed it extraordinarily long. Woods was also bombing it past everyone back then, and was #1 in total driving for many years.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 7, 2011 22:39:59 GMT -5
In the first pic the shaft is out of line with his lafw and in all the other as well, in pic 4 it forms almost a 90* angle. The body is in line with the shaft but the shaft isn't in line with the left arm anytime after impact and probably anytime before. That means the clubhead has past the lafw and the flw is probably not maintained any longer.
|
|