|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 24, 2011 22:14:53 GMT -5
Tom,
You wrote-: "OK, identify a video and the time into it where they say "must"."
No thanks!
I don't have to prove my point - I simply believe that they state that the "correct" hand arc path must have its low point near the right thigh and not near impact, and I think that I have ample "evidence" to justify my impression of their "belief" if you take the time to view all their videos and forum posts on the topic.
You also wrote-: "And what is so bad about recommending it? How do you think it will HURT?"
I never implied that it would be harmful. In fact, I even gave you an example of my favorite golfer - Annika Sorenstam - who has her hand arc path low point much further back than low point. However, there is no biomechanical law that states that the low point of the hand arc path must be near the right thigh and well before low point. I think that it depends on one's swing technique.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 24, 2011 22:20:27 GMT -5
nmg,
You wrote-: "Also Tiger has dominated golf for a decade baring the post scandal melt-down. If you're going to say his swing sucks you had better add the caveat that his short game and putting are great."
I never stated that his swing sucks! I stated that one particular swing pattern - where he bobs-up-and-down - sucks! His previous swing pattern was fantastic - as exemplified in this Nike commercial swing video, where he doesn't bob-up-and-down.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 24, 2011 23:19:31 GMT -5
Tom, You wrote-: "OK, identify a video and the time into it where they say "must"." No thanks! I don't have to prove my point - I simply believe that they state that the "correct" hand arc path must have its low point near the right thigh and not near impact, and I think that I have ample "evidence" to justify my impression of their "belief" if you take the time to view all their videos and forum posts on the topic. You also wrote-: "And what is so bad about recommending it? How do you think it will HURT?" I never implied that it would be harmful. In fact, I even gave you an example of my favorite golfer - Annika Sorenstam - who has her hand arc path low point much further back than low point. However, there is no biomechanical law that states that the low point of the hand arc path must be near the right thigh and well before low point. I think that it depends on one's swing technique. Jeff. Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. They used to swing and teach the way McNary swings, now they think there is a better way. And the research certainly supports that it generates higher swing speed. What cliams beyond that have they made? They never state that there is a "biomechanical law that states that the low point of the hand arc path must be near the right thigh and well before low point". That is just a strawman you've made up to knock down.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 25, 2011 0:04:59 GMT -5
Tom, You wrote-: "OK, identify a video and the time into it where they say "must"." No thanks! I don't have to prove my point - I simply believe that they state that the "correct" hand arc path must have its low point near the right thigh and not near impact, and I think that I have ample "evidence" to justify my impression of their "belief" if you take the time to view all their videos and forum posts on the topic. You also wrote-: "And what is so bad about recommending it? How do you think it will HURT?" I never implied that it would be harmful. In fact, I even gave you an example of my favorite golfer - Annika Sorenstam - who has her hand arc path low point much further back than low point. However, there is no biomechanical law that states that the low point of the hand arc path must be near the right thigh and well before low point. I think that it depends on one's swing technique. Jeff. Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. They used to swing and teach the way McNary swings, now they think there is a better way. And the research certainly supports that it generates higher swing speed. What cliams beyond that have they made? They never state that there is a "biomechanical law that states that the low point of the hand arc path must be near the right thigh and well before low point". That is just a strawman you've made up to knock down. While I am more on your side than naught I would disagree as they have made the following statements "look guys we have studied all the great players and they all are doing this". The implication is that if you are not doing what the recommend then you are doing it wrong. Whats funny though is upon further discussion Brian readily admits he does not do the out toss and its only for some people. Its been very confusing.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 25, 2011 0:27:29 GMT -5
Tom,
You wrote-: "Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. They used to swing and teach the way McNary swings, now they think there is a better way. And the research certainly supports that it generates higher swing speed. What cliams beyond that have they made?"
The MJ/BM "throwing the clubhead at the ball" technique may generate slightly higher clubhead speeds, but that doesn't make it a better way to execute a hand release action. I put a much higher premium on clubface control through the impact zone, and I think that the best way to execute a hand release action is a technique that can produce a stable clubface (clubface that remains square to the target) through the immediate impact zone (from P6.9 to P7.2). I think that it is possible to achieve that goal using a full roll hand release action or a no-roll hand release action - with both techniques maintaining an intact LAFW/FLW from P6.9 to P7.5+. I think that it is less likely to happen with the MJ/BM RACP hand release technique.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by neckbone on Dec 25, 2011 11:23:02 GMT -5
Whats funny though is upon further discussion Brian readily admits he does not do the out toss and its only for some people. Its been very confusing. Confusing is correct. I think there is some gold and some crap in the "Ideas on the Release" thread/video so you just have to take the gold and use it if you will, like any other teaching philosophy. I've been an over the topper ever since I started playing and no amount of "put the elbow here and bump the hips in transition and hit it like you're throwing a ball sidearm" could keep me from doing it. The release thread got me thinking about moving the club away from the target at the start of the downswing and it's alleviated my OTT move when I've done it correctly. It's also shallowed my divots substantially. Now I just need to drill it until it becomes second nature. Thinking about what I want the club to do as opposed to what I need my body to do has made all the difference. That approach probably doesn't work for everyone but it has helped me a great deal. That being said, I think the "Out-toss" is just flat out ridiculous, at least the way it's described in the video. I don't see too many guys that can hit it out of their shadow performing an out toss.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 25, 2011 12:57:28 GMT -5
Tom, You wrote-: "Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. They used to swing and teach the way McNary swings, now they think there is a better way. And the research certainly supports that it generates higher swing speed. What cliams beyond that have they made?" The MJ/BM "throwing the clubhead at the ball" technique may generate slightly higher clubhead speeds, but that doesn't make it a better way to execute a hand release action. I put a much higher premium on clubface control through the impact zone, and I think that the best way to execute a hand release action is a technique that can produce a stable clubface (clubface that remains square to the target) through the immediate impact zone (from P6.9 to P7.2). I think that it is possible to achieve that goal using a full roll hand release action or a no-roll hand release action - with both techniques maintaining an intact LAFW/FLW from P6.9 to P7.5+. I think that it is less likely to happen with the MJ/BM RACP hand release technique. Jeff. I agree with you here. They haven't made the case at all that, overall, their "new release" is "better", in fact, I think what they are teaching it is crap. I just think that you don't need to create strawmen to show that.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Dec 25, 2011 12:59:14 GMT -5
Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. They used to swing and teach the way McNary swings, now they think there is a better way. And the research certainly supports that it generates higher swing speed. What cliams beyond that have they made? They never state that there is a "biomechanical law that states that the low point of the hand arc path must be near the right thigh and well before low point". That is just a strawman you've made up to knock down. While I am more on your side than naught I would disagree as they have made the following statements "look guys we have studied all the great players and they all are doing this". The implication is that if you are not doing what the recommend then you are doing it wrong. Whats funny though is upon further discussion Brian readily admits he does not do the out toss and its only for some people. Its been very confusing. I think it is pretty clear that the claim that "look guys we have studied all the great players and they all are doing this" is very suspect.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Dec 25, 2011 17:01:20 GMT -5
I don't think they ever taught anything remotely like McNary's swing. I think they taught a bigger move off the ball and then the 'run up and jump' or whatever they called it at the time.
The thing with their hand path is that they may not have actually said golfers 'must' see the coupling point rise into impact, they just took every golfer who didn't to task, took blatant shots at Lynn Blake and ridiculed Lynn and golfers who did this as 'handle draggers.'
Then, when I mentioned that most of the stuff in the 1st video by Jacobs was stuff that Mac discovered 20 years ago, Mike Finney got upset and did nothing but antagonize me. Even though I had others supporting me and I do have pics of Mac with a rising coupling point into impact.
Sounds like they are doing more than just recommending it.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by bullet on Dec 25, 2011 23:52:30 GMT -5
I would be astonished if that was true. I'd have to see that to believe it. Thats about 30 yards longer than Tiger hits a 7-iron. Really? Dana Dahlquist made a post, maybe in that same 3jack thread, that the CP pattern that McNary uses/teaches puts up terrible Trackman numbers, with too steep of an angle of attack and he loses distance because of it. Based on his knowledge of the pattern, and the shape of his hand path I'm inclined to believe he's correct. Here's a 7-iron swing: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=QQlO8eGmbyw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube] Also, Jeff, why would you say that the hand path that BM recommends is BS and just arbitrary? It's based on Miura's paramatric acceleration and Nesbit's optimized hand path study. Dahlquist has been out of morad for long time , he can't even cp swing himself , so WTF would he actually know , he is just blabbing cause morad make fun of that stack n tilt stuff stolen and modified . The only reason mcnary is slightly crashy as you tools say is for what reason , you would not have a friggin clue .... But I will tell you fool ... It was shot selection and taking it down tsp longer ... No go get a decent swing
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Dec 27, 2011 9:01:54 GMT -5
I get along with Dana very well. I don't know what the deal is between Mac and him is, nor do I really care to.
I do find there are some things I disagree with Dana on, but it appears to me that it's due to him having been out of the loop since 2008. One thing people often get wrong about M.O.R.A.D. is that it is an ongoing 'investigation.' I'm sure if I stopped working with it now, that in 2014 I would be out of the loop on a lot of new information.
But, Dana does not a ton of M.O.R.A.D. information as well. I also think Dana choses to CF over CP because that it what Bennett and Plummer teach. Although I don't quite agree with arguments against CP.
3JACK
|
|