|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 23, 2012 20:41:22 GMT -5
Jeffy, I have read post #35 in your Jeffy-forum thread, and we certainly have different definitions of "being underplane". Sergio has always had a shallow clubshaft plane at his P5.5 position, but a shallow clubshaft plane doesn't mean that he is underplane. My definition of "being underplane" is not getting the club to be parallel to the ball-target line at the P6 position and having the clubshaft angled back (away from the ball-target line), which will predispose to an in-to-out clubhead path from P6 to P7. By contrast, coming OTT is having the clubshaft angled forward of parallel at the P6 position, which will predispose to an out-to-in clubhead path from P6 to P7. Sergio gets his clubshaft parallel to the ball-target line at the P6 position, and he can therefore easily generate an in-to-square-to-in clubhead path through impact - as demonstrated by those multiple swing videos that I posted. I have also not seen any difference in Sergio's marked personal propensity to have a shallow clubshaft angle at P5.5 in his recent swings (2009-2012) compared to his less recent swings (2000-2005). He always shallowed his clubshaft by dropping his hands down to the elbow plane between P4 and P5.5 - even when Hardy (and you) thought that he was the world's greatest ball-striker. Having a shallow clubshaft plane angle at P5.5 doesn't result in him getting "stuck" or prevent him from perfectly controlling the clubhead path from P5.5 to P7 - as "evidenced" in those multiple swing videos. Addendum: I took the swing video from the 2011 Masters (above) and produced these capture images. Image 1 shows Sergio at the P5.5 position. Note his shallow clubshaft plane angle. Note that the back of his FLW is parallel to the inclined plane and his clubface is parallel to the back of his FLW. Image 2 shows Sergio at P6 with his clubshaft parallel to the ball-target line. Note that he has rotated his FLW so that it is now parallel to the ball-target line, and his clubface is parallel to the back of his FLW with the toe of the club pointing up. Image 3 shows Sergio bypassing the P6.5 position and he is now starting to release PA#3, which closes the clubface relative to the clubhead path arc. Image 4 shows Sergio at impact. He got there effortlessly with no "getting stuck" problem and with no problem generating an in-to-square clubhead path from P6 to P7. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Aug 23, 2012 21:25:16 GMT -5
Jeffy, I have read post #35 in your Jeffy-forum thread, and we certainly have different definitions of "being underplane". Sergio has always had a shallow clubshaft plane at his P5.5 position, but a shallow clubshaft plane doesn't mean that he is underplane. My definition of "being underplane" is not getting the club to be parallel to the ball-target line at the P6 position and having the clubshaft angled back (away from the ball-target line), which will predispose to an in-to-out clubhead path from P6 to P7. By contrast, coming OTT is having the clubshaft angled forward of parallel at the P6 position, which will predispose to an out-to-in clubhead path from P6 to P7. Sergio gets his clubshaft parallel to the ball-target line at the P6 position, and he can therefore easily generate an in-to-square-to-in clubhead path through impact - as demonstrated by those multiple swing videos that I posted. I have also not seen any difference in Sergio's marked personal propensity to have a shallow clubshaft angle at P5.5 in his recent swings (2009-2012) compared to his less recent swings (2000-2005). He always shallowed his clubshaft by dropping his hands down to the elbow plane between P4 and P5.5 - even when Hardy (and you) thought that he was the world's greatest ball-striker. Having a shallow clubshaft plane angle at P5.5 doesn't result in him getting "stuck" or prevent him from perfectly controlling the clubhead path from P5.5 to P7 - as "evidenced" in those multiple swing videos. Addendum: I took the swing video from the 2011 Masters (above) and produced these capture images. Image 1 shows Sergio at the P5.5 position. Note his shallow clubshaft plane angle. Note that the back of his FLW is parallel to the inclined plane and his clubface is parallel to the back of his FLW. Image 2 shows Sergio at P6 with his clubshaft parallel to the ball-target line. Note that he has rotated his FLW so that it is now parallel to the ball-target line, and his clubface is parallel to the back of his FLW with the toe of the club pointing up. Image 3 shows Sergio bypassing the P6.5 position and he is now starting to release PA#3, which closes the clubface relative to the clubhead path arc. Image 4 shows Sergio at impact. He got there effortlessly with no "getting stuck" problem and with no problem generating an in-to-square clubhead path from P6 to P7.Jeff. Which, without question, Sergio does MOST of the time. He is, by all accounts, a very talented athlete. However, his ballstriking stats tell us he doesn't do it enough to be rated more than an "adequate" ballstriker. Except by those who ignore objective data...
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 23, 2012 23:27:20 GMT -5
Jeffy,
I think that it is extremely foolish to posit a cause-and-effect relationship between Sergio's present-day ball-striking stats and a lifelong propensity to have a shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5 because he had that same lifelong propensity when his ball-striking stats were much better. If there is a biomechanical/mechanical "cause" (rather than a mental "cause") for his present-day stats being suboptimal, then an objective person would search for another specific biomechanical/mechanical swing fault that is casually related to a particular suboptimal ball flight pattern.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Aug 24, 2012 18:12:18 GMT -5
Jeffy, I think that it is extremely foolish to posit a cause-and-effect relationship between Sergio's present-day ball-striking stats and a lifelong propensity to have a shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5 because he had that same lifelong propensity when his ball-striking stats were much better. If there is a biomechanical/mechanical "cause" (rather than a mental "cause") for his present-day stats being suboptimal, then an objective person would search for another specific biomechanical/mechanical swing fault that is casually related to a particular suboptimal ball flight pattern. Jeff. So, why do you think he became a mediocre ballstriker?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 24, 2012 18:19:50 GMT -5
Jeffy,
You asked-: "So, why do you think he became a mediocre ballstriker?".
I have no idea - because I haven't studied his "poor" swings to see if I can detect a consistent swing fault.
If you can find a reasonable number of Sergio's "poor" swing videos, then one could start to analyze his swings using a swing analyzer program - to see if he has developed a consistent swing fault. In the absence of those videos, one would simply be "guessing".
Consider an analogous example. Jim Furyk has a very idiosyncratic swing action. If he suddenly started to have "poor" ball-striking stats, then I wouldn't automatically blame his idiosyncratic looping swing action as being the causal factor. He has played his entire career with that idiosyncratic swing action and with overall great success. If he suddenly developed "poor" ball-strking stats, then I would study his swing action to look for a new/consistent swing fault that could be the causal factor.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Aug 25, 2012 9:41:29 GMT -5
Jeffy, You asked-: " So, why do you think he became a mediocre ballstriker?". I have no idea - because I haven't studied his "poor" swings to see if I can detect a consistent swing fault. If you can find a reasonable number of Sergio's "poor" swing videos, then one could start to analyze his swings using a swing analyzer program - to see if he has developed a consistent swing fault. In the absence of those videos, one would simply be "guessing". Consider an analogous example. Jim Furyk has a very idiosyncratic swing action. If he suddenly started to have "poor" ball-striking stats, then I wouldn't automatically blame his idiosyncratic looping swing action as being the causal factor. He has played his entire career with that idiosyncratic swing action and with overall great success. If he suddenly developed "poor" ball-strking stats, then I would study his swing action to look for a new/consistent swing fault that could be the causal factor.Jeff. Terrible analogy. Sergio didn't "suddenly" become a mediocre ballstriker. It began to deteriorate six years ago: 2005Total driving: 38th GIR: 1st 2006Total driving: 105th GIR: 37th 2007 Total driving: 164th GIR: 105th And the stats have been erratic ever since. BTW, none of the swings you posted pre-date 2006. Of course, Sergio was born in 1980, so another explanation is that once he got into his late 20s he lost some of the athleticism that had earlier allowed him to "get away" with his swing flaw.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 25, 2012 15:50:37 GMT -5
You are free to label Sergio's shallow clubshaft angle at P5.5 a swing flaw, but you have never explained why it represents a flaw from a biomechanical perspective. You would also need to explain how the athleticism of youth could overcome this perceived swing flaw in a way that is not readily possible today.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Aug 26, 2012 8:18:14 GMT -5
You are free to label Sergio's shallow clubshaft angle at P5.5 a swing flaw, but you have never explained why it represents a flaw from a biomechanical perspective. You would also need to explain how the athleticism of youth could overcome this perceived swing flaw in a way that is not readily possible today. Jeff. Yes I have. Hand-eye co-ordination. Why don't you answer my question? Why is Sergio a mediocre ball striker?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 26, 2012 17:18:53 GMT -5
Jeffy,
Sergio won last week and came in third this week, and his swing action on Swingvision's slow-mo replay looks biomechanically as sound as ever. If you really believe that his swing is biomechanically unsound, then you still have to present reasons for your belief. An over-simplistic belief that a shallow clubshaft angle at P5.5 makes a swing biomechanically unsound doesn't have any validity in the world of golf swing biomechanics.
Your personal belief that young golfers have better hand-eye coordination than more experienced golfers in the age range of 25-35 years has no scientific validity. I don't even know why any golfer would believe that hand-eye coordination plays a role in a full golf swing. There is a golf instructor where I live who hits the ball perfectly when blind-folded - as long as he can adopt his address setup before he is blindfolded. Once he has his address setup optimized, he swings perfectly without looking at the ball - based on his inordinately skilled ability to perform a consistent swing action on the basis of well-honed proprioceptive sensations. He can also hit balls cleanly off a 1 foot, 2 foot and 3 foot high tee when blind-folded - if he first creates his setup address posture without a blindfold in place.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Aug 26, 2012 20:29:00 GMT -5
Jeffy, Sergio won last week and came in third this week, and his swing action on Swingvision's slow-mo replay looks biomechanically as sound as ever. If you really believe that his swing is biomechanically unsound, then you still have to present reasons for your belief. An over-simplistic belief that a shallow clubshaft angle at P5.5 makes a swing biomechanically unsound doesn't have any validity in the world of golf swing biomechanics. Your personal belief that young golfers have better hand-eye coordination than more experienced golfers in the age range of 25-35 years has no scientific validity. I don't even know why any golfer would believe that hand-eye coordination plays a role in a full golf swing. There is a golf instructor where I live who hits the ball perfectly when blind-folded - as long as he can adopt his address setup before he is blindfolded. Once he has his address setup optimized, he swings perfectly without looking at the ball - based on his inordinately skilled ability to perform a consistent swing action on the basis of well-honed proprioceptive sensations. He can also hit balls cleanly off a 1 foot, 2 foot and 3 foot high tee when blind-folded - if he first creates his setup address posture without a blindfold in place. Jeff. I have presented the reasons: being so underplane causes occasional mishits that drag down his ballstriking stats and cost him today's tournament. The fact is Sergio's ballstriking is mediocre and I have presented the obvious reason why. What is your explanation?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 27, 2012 0:05:00 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: "being so underplane causes occasional mishits".
I think that's a BS opinion! Jeffy has not demonstrated why a shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5 (which is not the same as being "underplane") would cause mishits. Sergio has no biomechanical problem getting his clubshaft effortlessly into impact from that position - and it is not a complicated biomechanical action. Jeffy has never presented a video showing a mishit shot, and he has definitely not shown a causal connection between any mishit shot and a shallow clubshaft underplane situation at P5.5.
Which mishit shot cost him today's tournament and what has it to do with his shalllow clubshaft plane at P5.5? Jeffy can always blame any imperfect Sergio shot on his shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5, but that doesn't represent proof, and it merely represents Jeffy's distorted perspective of cause-and-effect relationships in golf swing biomechanics.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Aug 27, 2012 7:33:52 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: " Today he is a mediocre ballstriker and the reason is obvious: he gets too far underplane late in the downswing." Where is the "evidence"? If he getting too underplane today, then it means that his swing biomechanics/mechanics must have changed. Where is the "evidence" that he is routinely getting more underplane today - compared to the years 2000-2005? Jeff. Not necessarily. But if you want the answer, do your own research. We know what the facts are and I have provided my views on the cause. What are your views on why Sergio is an erratic ballstriker?
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Aug 27, 2012 7:35:49 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: " being so underplane causes occasional mishits". I think that's a BS opinion! Jeffy has not demonstrated why a shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5 (which is not the same as being "underplane") would cause mishits. Sergio has no biomechanical problem getting his clubshaft effortlessly into impact from that position - and it is not a complicated biomechanical action. Jeffy has never presented a video showing a mishit shot, and he has definitely not shown a causal connection between any mishit shot and a shallow clubshaft underplane situation at P5.5. Which mishit shot cost him today's tournament and what has it to do with his shalllow clubshaft plane at P5.5? Jeffy can always blame any imperfect Sergio shot on his shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5, but that doesn't represent proof, and it merely represents Jeffy's distorted perspective of cause-and-effect relationships in golf swing biomechanics. Jeff. His misses are consistent with an impact that is too shallow: weak and to the right.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Aug 27, 2012 9:49:37 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: " being so underplane causes occasional mishits". I think that's a BS opinion! Jeffy has not demonstrated why a shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5 (which is not the same as being "underplane") would cause mishits. Sergio has no biomechanical problem getting his clubshaft effortlessly into impact from that position - and it is not a complicated biomechanical action. Jeffy has never presented a video showing a mishit shot, and he has definitely not shown a causal connection between any mishit shot and a shallow clubshaft underplane situation at P5.5. Which mishit shot cost him today's tournament and what has it to do with his shalllow clubshaft plane at P5.5? Jeffy can always blame any imperfect Sergio shot on his shallow clubshaft plane at P5.5, but that doesn't represent proof, and it merely represents Jeffy's distorted perspective of cause-and-effect relationships in golf swing biomechanics. Jeff. His misses are consistent with an impact that is too shallow: weak and to the right. Was this the miss that Hogan had to deal with, I would assume his swing action created a similar type of over shallowing of the club?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Aug 27, 2012 13:46:35 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: "His misses are consistent with an impact that is too shallow: weak and to the right."
I think that stating that his clubshaft plane at impact is too shallow is BS, because his impact plane is not too shallow. His clubshaft is just above the hand plane at impact and many golfers (Hogan and Trevino and Mahan) are on this plane at impact. Sergio steepens his clubshaft plane after bypassing the P5.5 position, when his FLW (and LAFW) rotates >90 degrees into impact - and where his i) hand position and ii) chosen accumulator #3 angle at impact determines his clubshaft plane through the immediate impact zone.
Jeffy - you keep asking me what causes Sergio's mishits and I have no idea because I do not have access to any swing videos showing his mishit shots. How can I possibly know what causes his mishits if I cannot analyse those particular mishit swings using a swing analyser program?
Finally, I cannot fathom why anyone would believe that a clubshaft that is on shallower impact zone plane (eg. hand plane versus the turned shoulder plane) would produce "weak shots to the right" if the golfer still traces a SPL between P6.5 and P7.5, and if he efficiently releases PA#3.
Jeff.
|
|