|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 25, 2012 9:11:03 GMT -5
See this Jeffy forum thread. jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?465-We-may-have-found-himJeffy makes the following unscientific claim -: "Never mind that there is ample data available to test this hypothesis (for example, comparing the consistency of various release styles using tour player ballstriking stats) and that such analyses support the obvious: that players with less clubface rotation through impact (e.g., Bubba Watson and Boo Weekley) can hit it further and still find it more often than players with a higher rate of closure (e.g., Luke Donald and Phil Mickelson). To claim otherwise is just propaganda! Or, just plain stupidity." That's a BS argument. I believer that most professional golfers maintain a stable clubface (that has a low rate of clubface closure) through the immediate impact zone between P6.9 and P7.2 - irrespective of whether they use a full-roll hand release action or a no-roll hand release action. It is a fallacy that golfers are going to have a less stable clubface through the immediate impact zone - simply because they choose to use a full-roll hand release action after P7.2 (like Rory McIlroy). Jeffy always makes a ridiculous comparison based on a select sample size of a very small number of professional golfers (eg. Bubba Watson versus Luke Donald) to buttress his biased opinions, which are totally unscientific. He accuses BM of being unscientific regarding this issue, but his methodology is equally unscientific and equally biased. I believe that most professional golfers who use a full-roll hand release action (eg. Ernie Els, Dustin Johnson, Heath Slocum, Rory McIlroy, Justin Rose, Brandt Snedeker, Adam Scott, Matt Kuchar, Webb Simpson, Bo van Pelt, Jason Dufner, Steve Stricker) have no problem maintaining a stable clubface through the immediate impact zone. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 25, 2012 9:58:42 GMT -5
See this Jeffy forum thread. jeffygolf.com/showthread.php?465-We-may-have-found-himJeffy makes the following unscientific claim -: "Never mind that there is ample data available to test this hypothesis (for example, comparing the consistency of various release styles using tour player ballstriking stats) and that such analyses support the obvious: that players with less clubface rotation through impact (e.g., Bubba Watson and Boo Weekley) can hit it further and still find it more often than players with a higher rate of closure (e.g., Luke Donald and Phil Mickelson). To claim otherwise is just propaganda! Or, just plain stupidity." That's a BS argument. I believer that most professional golfers maintain a stable clubface (that has a low rate of clubface closure) through the immediate impact zone between P6.9 and P7.2 - irrespective of whether they use a full-roll hand release action or a no-roll hand release action. It is a fallacy that golfers are going to have a less stable clubface through the immediate impact zone - simply because they choose to use a full-roll hand release action after P7.2 (like Rory McIlroy). I agree. I have never said or implied otherwise. This is just another of your endless strawmen. Wrong again, Scarecrow. I said there was plenty of data to make the analysis and gave examples ("e.g." means "for example") of players who fall in different release categories. I never said or implied that looking at just four players was any kind of "scientific methodology". I think your release classification system is completely useless, even comical. Of the players you list as having a "full-roll hand release action", none are rollers like Donald or Mickelson (with the possible exception of Els, who may be a "recovering" roller)!!! Most of them are drive/holders (Johnson, Slocum, McIlroy, Scott, Kuchar, Simpson, van Pelt, Dufner, Stricker). Rose and Snedeker are under-flippers. Both release styles are accurate, but the drive/holders can swing harder and still retain sufficient accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 25, 2012 10:29:26 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: "I think your release classification system is completely useless, even comical. Of the players you list as having a "full-roll hand release action", none are rollers like Donald or Mickelson (with the possible exception of Els, who may be a "recovering" roller)!!! Most of them are drive/holders (Johnson, Slocum, McIlroy, Scott, Kuchar, Simpson, van Pelt, Dufner, Stricker). Rose and Snedeker are under-flippers. Both release styles are accurate, but the drive/holders can swing harder and still retain sufficient accuracy."
In this golf forum, forum members are entitled to post contrary opinions - without fear of being banned. So, Jeffy is entitled to express an opinion that states that my release classification is useless/comical. I believe that KM's/Jeffy's hand release classification is useless because it compares a drive-hold release action (which is a stable release action used by most professional golfers) to a non-stable release action (roller release or flip-release action) which should never be used by any golfer - whether professional or amateur. KM's drive-hold release action is meaningless from a discriminatory hand release action classification perspective - because all golfers should be using a drive-hold release action, which ensures a stable clubface through the immediate impact zone (between P6.9 - P7.2+). My hand release classification system is biomechanically much more sophisticated because it offers drive-holders the choice of two different major types of hand release action - a full-roll hand release action or a no-roll hand release action - and it explains the underlying biomechanics.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 25, 2012 19:55:49 GMT -5
Jeff, that's all very nice but, if what you say is the case, that your belief is that all players should use a stable drive/hold release, then why the hell are you wasting everybody's time posting a thread like this???
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 25, 2012 22:27:43 GMT -5
Jeffy,
The fact that you do not understand why I am posting this thread only demonstrates that you do not understand my position.
You are arguing that BM is wrong to claim that there is no evidence that shows that golfers who have a high rate of clubface closure through impact have a similar accuracy rate than golfers who have a lower rate of clubface closure through impact - because you believe that golfers who use a drive-hold release action (as defined by KM) will (by definition) have a lower rate of clubface closure through impact, and you therefore believe that they will more likely hit the ball more accurately straight. I reject the whole argument about whether a "high" versus a "low" rate of clubface closure through impact is better - because I believe that the optimum approach is to have zero/no clubface closure through the immediate impact zone (and my belief applies to golfers who use a full-roll hand release action and to golfers who use a no-roll hand release action). In other words, I believe that DHers (whether they use a full-roll hand release action or a no-roll hand release action) should optimally have zero/no clubface closure through impact - and therefore the debate between "high" versus "low" rates of clubface closure through impact has no relevance in my mind.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by tomdavis76 on Sept 25, 2012 22:46:50 GMT -5
Jeffy, The fact that you do not understand why I am posting this thread only demonstrates that you do not understand my position. You are arguing that BM is wrong to claim that there is no evidence that shows that golfers who have a high rate of clubface closure through impact have a similar accuracy rate than golfers who have a lower rate of clubface closure through impact - because you believe that golfers who use a drive-hold release action (as defined by KM) will (by definition) have a lower rate of clubface closure through impact, and you therefore believe that they will more likely hit the ball more accurately straight. I reject the whole argument about whether a "high" versus a "low" rate of clubface closure through impact is better - because I believe that the optimum approach is to have zero/no clubface closure through the immediate impact zone (and my belief applies to golfers who use a full-roll hand release action and to golfers who use a no-roll hand release action). In other words, I believe that DHers (whether they use a full-roll hand release action or a no-roll hand release action) should optimally have zero/no clubface closure through impact - and therefore the debate between "high" versus "low" rates of clubface closure through impact has no relevance in my mind. Jeff. Well, that isn't what you said in your initial post, or anything close to that.
|
|