Analyzing Nancy Lopez's swing action

[imperfectgolfer]

Here is 3jack's analysis of Nancy Lopez's swing action.

richie3jack.proboards.com/thread/4422/nancy-lopez-swing

I think that it is one of the most wrong-headed analyses of a golfer's swing action that I have ever read.

He posts this P3+ backswing photo.



He mentions that her clubface is closed at this time point (which is true), but he doesn't explain how that is biomechanically possible if one has a neutral left hand grip.

He posts this image of her P4 position.



He states-: "The only big thing going on here is that her clubface is super closed. Having struggled with a closed clubface myself, the tendency is to 'back up' on the downswing."

He then states that she uses a "goat-humping" pelvic motion in her downswing based on this image.



However, where is the evidence of "goat-humping"? In a "goat-humping" pelvic motion, both hip joints must move towards the ball-target line in a sliding-outward manner and there is no rotary pelvic motion present when a golfer is "goat humping". That pelvic motion pattern doesn't happen in her downswing action, and her left hip joint moves back towards the tush line as she uses a "left hip clearing action ala Hogan" pelvic move in her early downswing. It is only her right pelvis that prematurely leaves the tush line.

3jack also makes the following statement-: "However, what is interesting is her clubface is pretty much square. So she went from severely closed clubface at p5 to pretty much square at p6. '.

How is that possible? 3jack doesn't discuss the underlying biomechanics!

3jack then states-: "The 'backing up' and 'early extension' come hand in hand. All in attempts to get the ball up in the air because that clubface was so closed at p5.".

I think that's wrong-headed/illogical reasoning!

Consider this swing video analysis of NL's swing action.



Here are capture images of her backswing/downswing action (other than image 2 which is from her earlier career).



At this later stage of her career, i) she wasn't standing so erect at address, ii) she had a rotary pelvic motion during her downswing with no "backing-up/extension" phenomenon and she maintained her spinal angle, and yet her clubface was still as closed at P3/P4 as it was in those historic still images. That means that there is no causal connection between the fact that she had a closed clubface at P3/P4 and the pattern/ nature of her pivot motion during her downswing action. 3jack has not seemingly understood why she had a closed clubface at P3/P4 and why it decreased as her downswing evolved. I believe that it has no causal connection with her pelvic motion or any change in her spinal angle bend during her downswing.

3jack also made the following statement-: "My feeling is that there was a lot of timing required in Lopez's swing. Her ability to have such a closed clubface at p5 and then square it at p6 is really fascinating. But, it takes a lot of timing and repeatability to be able to do."

I would like to see him explain why it requires an inordinate amount of timing for NL to go from a closed clubface at P4 to a square clubface at impact.

Jeff.

[imperfectgolfer]

Here is a video where Jim McLean analyzes NL's swing action.



He tries to explain why NL closes her clubface during her backswing action.



Jim McLean claims that NL closes her clubface because she rotates her left forearm clockwise and flattens her left wrist (while she bends her right wrist backwards) between P1 and P2 (image 1) - instead of cocking both of her wrists upwards at the same time (image 2). He is obviously wrong, because that type of dual-wrist motion happens routinely in golfers who use a RFT type of takeaway action, and that doesn't cause a closed clubface at P2.

See Martin Hall's video



If one performs a RFT action while allowing the left wrist to flatten to an AFLW (instead of being a GFLW) then it will angulate the clubshaft more and not necessarily close the clubface (in the absence of incorporating a twistaway maneuver).

Jim McLean then claims (wrongly again) that her clubface becomes naturally square by the P6 position (image 3) as she drops her hands downwards. Like 3jack, he is wrong to claim that NL's clubface is square at the P6 position.

Who believes that NL has a square clubface at P6, rather than a closed clubface?

Jeff.

[imperfectgolfer]

Here is my analysis of NL's swing action.

I will show that she doesn't have less clubface closure at P6 than P4, and that she doesn't need to time the change in clubface closure from P6 to P7 because it automatically dissipates (considering the fact that the clubface closure is due to twistaway).

Here again is her backswing action.



Image 1 shows her idiosyncratic/quirky backswing takeaway action. She rolls the back of her left hand clockwise by ~90 degrees while turning her pelvis/upper torso. Note that her hands move inside very quickly and the clubshaft is angled back below the red line plane.

Image 2 is a face-on image from another swing video. It shows two phenomena - i) she has a bowed left wrist and is likely performing a twistaway maneuver that closes the clubface (relative to the back of her left forearm) and ii) she has completed her shoulder turn when her hands are still below waist level.

From that position, she doesn't turn her shoulders more, but she lifts her hands up very steeply to her P4 position where her clubshaft is across-the-line (image 5). Note that her left wrist looks bent - so how can she still have a closed clubface if she is no longer palmar flexed. The likely answer is that she is still employing a lot of twistaway action.

Contrast her P4 position to Fred Couples, who also crosses the line at P4.

Fred Couples at P4.



Note that FC's left wrist is very bent and his clubface is not closed relative to the back of his left forearm. Also, note that his right wrist is not very bent and his right palm is vertical. By contrast, NL has significantly less bend in her left wrist at P4 and a much more bent right wrist causing her right palm to be less vertical, and that combination allows her to maintain twistaway and a closed clubface at P4 (despite her clubshaft crossing-the-line).

Now consider her downswing action.



I have drawn a red line through her right elbow and a blue line through her left elbow to show that her right elbow is slightly higher than her left elbow at the P4 position.

Image 2 show her transition move - she very actively adducts her right humerus down towards her the right side of the torso (while she performs a left hip clearing action ala Hogan pelvic move). Note how fast her right elbow drops below her left elbow - and that independent right arm action (independent of the pivot motion) allows her to rotate the power package clockwise (as viewed from her head position) and thereby shallow the clubshaft.

Image 3 shows her reaching the P5.5 position - note how shallow her clubshaft is despite her hands coming steeply down over her right shoulder socket area. Note that her left arm is stretched-out towards the ball-target line, and that the back of her left forearm faces considerably skywards (due to the clockwise rotation of her power package due to her very active right arm adduction move that drives her right elbow far below her left elbow).

Image 4 is between P5.5-P6. The yellow line is drawn parallel to her clubface and it looks near-vertical to the ground. That is probably why 3jack/Jim McLean incorrectly claim that her clubface is square at the P6 position. However, one should never use the ground as a reference point. One should look at her clubface (yellow line) relative to the back of her left forearm (blue line) and it is obviously still very closed at that time point.

Here is a similar comparison at P4 - note that her clubface is closed relative to the back of her left forearm to roughly the same degree.



In other words, she is not going from a closed clubface at P4 to a square clubface at P6. I believe that the only rational explanation that can explain her closed clubface (relative to the back of her left forearm at P4 and P5.5-P6) is the presence of a twistaway phenomenon. If I am correct, then it also explains why she doesn't have to use any timing maneuver to get a square clubface by impact (P7) because the twistaway phenomenon disappears between P6 and P7 as her left wrist moves towards ulnar deviation thereby stretching her flexor digitorum profundus muscles to the left 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers. She only has to time her PA#2 and PA#3 release actions to get a square clubface by impact, but that is a normal requirement in all swingers - irrespective of whether they have a closed clubface at P4, or not.

Basically, if a golfer uses a twistaway action during his backswing or early downswing action, then he doesn't have to modify his swing action because of the presence of a closed clubface due to twistaway - because the clubface-closing effect will automatically disspate by impact.

Jeff.

[chipitin]

You're so wrong on this it boggles the mind. The U.D. has zero to do with the dissapation of the " closed" clubface angle.


Anyone can prove this to themselves , it has to do with the angle change in the trail arm from the b.s. to the d.s due to the correct adduction of that trail arm resulting in a flattening of the club due to moving the lead arm in a more pronated position and moves the face angle to a more open position , this along with the secondary axis tilt is what dissipates the closed face.



Those moves change the arms angles and thus changes the clubface orientation. That's why Lopez's clubface is way less closed at P5 then at P4 and I doubt she has U.D. at P5.


So how did the severe closed face become almost square from P4 to P5? If not due to U.D.






And that doesn't even take into consideration the shaft droop.


No one can maintain the wrists in R.D., the forces are too great they will go into/towards U.D.

[chipitin]

Anyone can close the face at address so it looks left of the target line and not inline with the back of the lead forearm, you can add P.F and Twistaway , keep both arms relatively straight. Then all you have to do is correctly add axis tilt/side bend and fold your trail arm so it is under the left and the left becomes pronated and you will see the face no longer is closed.

The lead wrist is in U.D. while performing this, proving it has zero effect on the face angle change.


U.D. is in the Alpha Plane/X-Axis. Has no affect on the face angle. But Gamma Torque does.



Brian Manzella:
"YOU WILL MOVE ALL SORTS OF THINGS WHILE YOU ARE ROTATING THE CLUBHEAD ABOUT THE Z AXIS."

[chipitin]

Brian Manzella




"a. Clubhead on a table top, clubface vertical to the table at "address," body straight up and down, normal standing attitude.. 20 inch scrape backswing, 40 inch forward swing. Score lines of the FACE stay 90 degrees to the table. ZERO z axis/GAMMA rotation.

b. Clubhead on a table top, clubface vertical to the table at "address," body straight up and down, normal standing attitude. On the 20 inch scrape backswing face opens 30 degrees. On the 40 inch forward swing the face closes 60 degrees and finishes 30 degrees closed to the table. There is OBVIOUS z axis/GAMMA rotation. We will call the amount (which is dependent on the speed) XXX amount.

c. Clubhead on a table top, clubface vertical to the table at "address," body straight up and down, normal standing attitude. On the 20 inch scrape backswing face opens 30 degrees. On the 40 inch forward swing the face rotates the EXACT same amount that caused the face to rotate 60 degrees to the table and finished 30 degrees closed to the table. THE SAME EXACT XXX z axis/GAMMA rotation. But....the golfer slides the tailbone a hair forward, open the hips a bunch, the shoulders a decent amount, adds right side bend, moves toward back extention......The face does not rotate as much to the table.

Got it?"

[imperfectgolfer]

Chipitin,

You wrote-: "You're so wrong on this it boggles the mind. The U.D. has zero to do with the dissapation of the " closed" clubface angle.

Anyone can prove this to themselves , it has to do with the angle change in the trail arm from the b.s. to the d.s due to the correct adduction of that trail arm resulting in a flattening of the club due to moving the lead arm in a more pronated position and moves the face angle to a more open position , this along with the secondary axis tilt is what dissipates the closed face.

Those moves change the arms angles and thus changes the clubface orientation. That's why Lopez's clubface is way less closed at P5 then at P4 and I doubt she has U.D. at P5."

We operate in alternative mental universes when it comes to understanding/describing golf swing biomechanics/mechanics.

You seem to be describing degrees of "open versus closed" clubface values relative to a different reference frame than me, and you are seemingly using the the ground as a reference point while I use the back of the left forearm as a reference point. That probably explains why you believe that the clubface is more open at P6 than P4 while I believe that it is basically unchanged.

Also, in my system of understanding how the clubface changes its orientation relative to the back of the left forearm at different time points during the golf swing, I don't ever have to think of the trail arm, or other factors such as body tilt, because they cannot alter this intrinsic relationship between the clubface and the left arm, and they only change the extrinsic relationship between the clubface and the ground as a reference point. By using the ground as a reference point you will inevitably mix up left arm elements (eg. left arm rotation, left wrist flexion/extension, and twistaway) that affect the clubface orientation with non-left arm elements (body tilt in 3-dimensions, right shoulder path, angle of the right humerus relative to the right side of the torso, angle of the right forearm bend at the right elbow, and angle of the right wrist bend in 3-dimensions) that seemingly affect the clubface orientation. Also, because different golfers have different body and arm angles at different time points during their swing, then you will be perceiving different clubface orientation angles that are not intrinsic to what the clubface is doing relative to the back of the left arm.

That explains your thinking in this description where you stated-: "Anyone can close the face at address so it looks left of the target line and not inline with the back of the lead forearm, you can add P.F and Twistaway , keep both arms relatively straight. Then all you have to do is correctly add axis tilt/side bend and fold your trail arm so it is under the left and the left becomes pronated and you will see the face no longer is closed". Good luck trying to get golfers to achieve a square clubface at impact where you have to try to alter one factor in order to counteract the influence of another factor - especially when multiple factors are operant. In my system of thinking about golf swing biomechanics/mechanics, I merely have to think of squaring the back of the functionally-flat left wrist at impact, and I automatically know that the clubface will be square at impact if the clubface has not changed its relationship relative to the intrinsic intact LAFW alignment during the swing action.

Jeff.

[chipitin]

I guess you missed this in my post.

"Anyone can close the face at address so it looks left of the target line and not inline with the back of the lead forearm"



In other words you can close the face and then take your grip. And still do what I said and you can change the face angle relative to what matters when you impact a ball.


You change the lead arm angle you change the face angle relative to how it impacts the ball.






Where's the ball located? It is all intertwined, you can't escape how one move will affect other things that's the nature of the beast.

How many swing type variations are there in TGM?

Does everyone have the same matching swing elements?

Don't you think that's the role of a good instructor to be able to know what components match up and what components do not.

There is nothing you can say that changes the fact that side bend and doing certain movements does alter the face angle in relationship to how it will strike the ball which sits on the ground.


That's because it alters the lead arms angle thus changing how the clubface angle impacts the ball!!!

You fail to understand this important factor!


Does Lopez alter the angle of her LAFW? What effect does this have on the club and the clubface? Can one alter the angle of the LAFW and still play golf at a high level?



The bottom line is this.... alter the angle of the lead arm and you alter the angle of the face this applies in your mental universe or any mental universe.



The whole swing is about changing positions from address to impact!

[imperfectgolfer]

Consider these BM comments that Chipitin provided.

""a. Clubhead on a table top, clubface vertical to the table at "address," body straight up and down, normal standing attitude.. 20 inch scrape backswing, 40 inch forward swing. Score lines of the FACE stay 90 degrees to the table. ZERO z axis/GAMMA rotation.

b. Clubhead on a table top, clubface vertical to the table at "address," body straight up and down, normal standing attitude. On the 20 inch scrape backswing face opens 30 degrees. On the 40 inch forward swing the face closes 60 degrees and finishes 30 degrees closed to the table. There is OBVIOUS z axis/GAMMA rotation. We will call the amount (which is dependent on the speed) XXX amount.

c. Clubhead on a table top, clubface vertical to the table at "address," body straight up and down, normal standing attitude. On the 20 inch scrape backswing face opens 30 degrees. On the 40 inch forward swing the face rotates the EXACT same amount that caused the face to rotate 60 degrees to the table and finished 30 degrees closed to the table. THE SAME EXACT XXX z axis/GAMMA rotation. But....the golfer slides the tailbone a hair forward, open the hips a bunch, the shoulders a decent amount, adds right side bend, moves toward back extention......The face does not rotate as much to the table.

Let's start with example a. Instead of using the tabletop as the reference, imagine a clubhead arc that is symmetrical to the ball-target line between P6 and P7.5. Theoretically, if a golfer started with a very strong left hand grip, then it would be possible for him to move the left arm/left hand in such a way between P6 and P7.5 that the clubface could remain square to the clubhead arc between P6 and P7 and there would be no gamma rotation happening between P6 and P7.5.

Then, example b would be relevant to a golfer who uses a neutral left hand grip, and who rotates the left arm/FLW clubface clockwise during the backswing to get to the P4 position. This left arm rotary process would have be exactly reversed during the late downswing so that the left arm/FLW, and therefore clubface, would rotate counterclockwise by the same amount and hopefully become square by impact. Now, let's presume that the golfer has a clubface control problem and that he doesn't have a complete PA#3 release action between P6 and P7 and that he therefore has an open clubface at impact, which predisposes him to sliced shots. How should be remedy this problem? From my perspective, the cure must be targeted at the precise problem issue, which is an inefficient release of PA#3. I think that it would be a major mistake to try and remedy the situation by using example c - where one tries to affect the clubface's orientation by altering the body's pivot motion. The reason is that the golfer may already have achieved a perfected pivot motion (which was really not a problem-issue), but to affect the degree of clubface closing that happens in the late downswing, he could try and alter his pivot action in an attempt to remedy an open clubface problem (that was causally due to an imperfect left arm roll motion). Now, he has to juggle two imperfect golf swing motions - an imperfect left arm roll motion during the release of PA#3 and an imperfect pivot motion. I think that finding a consistent cure is going to be much more difficult. This imperfect swing situation could become much worse if he also decided to actively straighten his right wrist and pronate his right forearm more between P6 and P7 in the hope that it would help him to avoid an open clubface at impact. Now, he would have three imperfect golf swing motions (an imperfect roll motion of the left arm; and imperfect pivot motion and an imperfect active right forearm pronatory motion) that he needs to synergistically coordinate. I regard this golf instructional approach as a quagmire!

The same scenario applies to NL's swing action. It is obvious that she has a closed clubface at P3 and P4. If one doesn't know what's the biomechanical cause, then one could use non-targeted swing action cures that have a general clubface opening effect eg. altering one's pivot motion by "backing up" and extending (as described by 3jack) or by increasing one's secondary axis tilt/side-bend and the steepness of one's right shoulder motion +/- right arm angles (as described by Chipitin). I think that's a wrong-headed remedial approach because the added swing alterations may be imperfect methods of performing a golf swing motion, and it becomes increasingly (and unnecessarily) complex to have juggle more-and-more imperfect golf swing motions to get a desired effect (square clubface at impact). If my diagnosis of NL's closed clubface problem is correct (and that it is due to twistaway) then it doesn't even require any treatment because the clubface will automatically become square at impact without making any alteration to her pivot motion, axis tilt/side-bend or right arm angles.

The same thinking about the swing process applies to this other example provided by Chipitin.

Chipitin stated-: "Anyone can close the face at address so it looks left of the target line and not inline with the back of the lead forearm, you can add P.F and Twistaway , keep both arms relatively straight. Then all you have to do is correctly add axis tilt/side bend and fold your trail arm so it is under the left and the left becomes pronated and you will see the face no longer is closed.

Let's presume that a golfer unintentionally (and unknowingly) adopts a closed clubface when he adopts his left hand grip at address. Then, if he has a perfected pivot motion and a perfected left arm/intact LAFW/FLW motion during his swing action, he will end up with a closed clubface at impact (if his FLW faces the target at impact). It is obvious that he can make the clubface less open at impact by altering his degree of axis tilt/side bend, and/or trail arm angles, to counter the closed clubface problem (that was simply due to a left hand grip problem), but then he is altering his pivot motion and trail arm motion in a way that may be biomechanically inefficient/imperfect. I think that he should simply correct the "true" cause of his closed clubface- at-impact problem, which was the "fact" that he unintentionally/unknowingly adopted a closed clubface at address.

Chipitin wrote-: "Don't you think that's the role of a good instructor to be able to know what components match up and what components do not.".

Which good golf instructor? Certainly not BM who recommends using a twistaway maneuver as a generally-applicable maneuver to cure a slice (which could simply be due to adopting an open clubface at address, or simply due to an incomplete release of PA#3) - even though I have shown that a twistaway maneuver cannot really alter the clubface angle at impact because its clubface- closing effect automatically dissipates between P6 and P7. I don't even believe in this whole idea of matching components if the term "components" implies treating one imperfect swing action with another imperfect swing action.

Jeff.

[imperfectgolfer]

Consider again this Chipiin comment-: "You're so wrong on this it boggles the mind. The U.D. has zero to do with the dissapation of the " closed" clubface angle.
Anyone can prove this to themselves , it has to do with the angle change in the trail arm from the b.s. to the d.s due to the correct adduction of that trail arm resulting in a flattening of the club due to moving the lead arm in a more pronated position and move the face angle to a more open position.

He believes that the clubshaft flattening process secondary to an active right arm adduction action between P4 and P6 opens the clubface (which was closed at P6 in NL's situation). I believe that it has zero effect on the degree of clubface opening. Take as an example, a golfer who has a steep backswing left arm action (eg. Ryan Moore or Rory Sabbatinni). They both radically shallow their clubshaft between P4 and P6 by using the same right arm adduction action - even though they do not have a closed clubface at P4. That means that they should have a very open clubface at P6 (causally due to the clubshaft shallowing action). Where is the "evidence" supporting this belief?

Jeff.

[chipitin]

If it was so obvious why did you argue and disagree that is was possible, which you did for days. Now it's obvious...really?

By the way you're whole argument is not what I was talking about, it is not a cure for a closed face angle. It is showing that those moves affect the face angle which you said they didn't.

You are making up another argument that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Skilled golfers have Gamma torque and perform side bend etc. all these moves are done to a much higher degree by them than a poor golfer. Even skilled golfers use moves that affect the face angle.

Like I said before just eliminate side bend and the correct pivot action and keep the Gamma torque then see where your shots go.

These things are all needed they are all intertwined, the fact remains what I said does affect the face angle.

Is it a cure for a swing fault....it might be or maybe not, but that wasn't my argument. Is having a "perfect swing "with not one single fault a cure for an imperfect swing....obviously, but who has a perfect swing with no faults?

[imperfectgolfer]

Chipitin,

You stated-: "Never said that you're putting words in my mouth again!

Which part of your quote am I misinterpreting/misrepresenting and that represents the action of "putting words in your mouth"? Am I misrepresenting this bold-highlighted statement -: it has to do with the angle change in the trail arm from the b.s. to the d.s due to the correct adduction of that trail arm resulting in a flattening of the club due to moving the lead arm in a more pronated position and moves the face angle to a more open position?

Jeff.

[chipitin]

Jeff said this days ago in the side bend thread.


imperfectgolfer
Global Moderator
*****
member is offline




[send pm]

Joined: Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,854

Chipitin commenting on a theory of lateral bend
« Thread Started on Dec 7, 2013, 12:56am »

Chipitin has commented on a theory on the effect of lateral bend and axis tilt on the clubface between P6 and P7 - based on a video that he has viewed.

Chipitin wrote-: "It has an affect on the shoulders which in turn affects the arm positioning. Anyone can do it and see that when you add side bend the arm angle changes and that affects the face angle.

I has nothing to do with a direct effect on the twistaway action itself, but since it affects the shoulder and arm angles it changes the face angle."

I can easily understand how lateral bend/axis tilt has an obvious effect on the motion of the two shoulder sockets during the downswing, but I don't understand how it directly affects the arm angle in a very specific way, so that it will directly affect the clubface closure in the late downswing.





Jeff said this now: It is obvious that he can make the clubface less open at impact by altering his degree of axis tilt/side bend, and/or trail arm angles, to counter the closed clubface problem



You admitted that it's obvious! So I was right, thank you.

[imperfectgolfer]

Chipitin,

You wrote-: "You don't understand what I said. It affects the lead arm's angle, it is all intertwined, you try to pick and choose, you are not understanding that statement at all!

I can understand how the right arm adduction move (+/- lateral bend) affects the lead arm's angle (relative to the torso), but I cannot understand how it can make the clubface more open at P6 (which you claimed).

You keep on stating that everything is intertwined. I suspect that believing that "everything is intertwined" is one of your major problems. You cannot isolate the "effect" of individual biomechanical actions eg. shallowing the clubshaft by pronating the left arm may affect the clubshaft, but it doesn't affect the degree of openness of the clubface (relative to the back of the left forearm) if the LAFW/GFLW remains intact and if there is no superadded twistaway action.

Chipitin,

You juxtaposed these two statements that I made trying to imply that I am contradicting myself.

"I can easily understand how lateral bend/axis tilt has an obvious effect on the motion of the two shoulder sockets during the downswing, but I don't understand how it directly affects the arm angle in a very specific way, so that it will directly affect the clubface closure in the late downswing?

and

"It is obvious that he can make the clubface less open at impact by altering his degree of axis tilt/side bend, and/or trail arm angles, to counter the closed clubface problem."

I have bold-highlighted part of my original claim that I believe is the distinguishing element that differentiates the two statements. I believe that clubface closure in the late downswing is due to the release of PA#3 (and that represents a gamma rotation of the clubshaft) and any direct effect is any effect that only affects the rate of roll of the clubface, and it does not include secondary effects due to alteration of the clubshaft angle (relative to the ground) or due to alteration of the clubhead's path through the impact zone, which only indirectly affect the clubshaft angle.

Finally, you wrote-: "You look at things in isolation, that's a big problem for you!."

I do agree that I am very capable of looking at golf swing biomechanical actions in isolation, but I don't think that it's a big problem for me. In fact, I think that's it's a major intellectual advantage.

Jeff.

[imperfectgolfer]

Consider again this post made by Chipitin-: "Anyone can prove this to themselves , it has to do with the angle change in the trail arm from the b.s. to the d.s due to the correct adduction of that trail arm resulting in a flattening of the club due to moving the lead arm in a more pronated position and moves the face angle to a more open position, this along with the secondary axis tilt is what dissipates the closed face.

Consider his bold-highlighted statement. He implies that one can change the face angle by altering the clubshaft plane during the downswing. That's obviously true! However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the clubface is more open relative to the clubhead arc at any defined position between P4 and P7 - simply because one changes the steepness of the clubhead arc. That brings into question - how does one decide that the clubface is open, or closed, relative to the clubhead arc at any time point between P1 and P4, and also between P4 and P7?

To answer that question rationally, I believe that one must understand that if a golfer has a neutral left hand grip (and a clubface that is neutral relative to the left hand at address), that he will have to rotate his left arm/forearm/GFLW clockwise during the backswing, and counterclockwise during the downswing. That means that the clubface will always open (relative to the clubhead arc) during the backswing action and close during the downswing action. The amount that the clubface will be open any any time point during the backswing action between P1 and P4 depends on the timing of the roll motion of the left arm/GFLW. If a golfer maintains an intact LAFW/GFLW during the entire backswing action from P1 to P4, then one can stop a slow-mo video of the golfer's swing action and look at the clubface relative to the clubhead arc - and it will be "appropriately open" if it still parallel to the back of the left lower forearm (as it was at address). That defines the neutral point - and the degree of opening of the clubface relative to the clubhead arc at that time point will vary between different golfers - because they may be rolling their left arm/GFLW clockwise at different rates during their backswing action. By using this "neutral point" definition, it will also take into account the steepness of the hand arc path, and the steepness of the clubshaft plane, which will vary between different golfers. Using that "neutral point" definition, one can clearly infer that NL's clubface is disproportionately closed relative to the clubhead arc at different time points during her backswing action - if the clubface is closed relative to the back of her left lower forearm. Also, the amount that the clubface is closed relative to the clubhead arc - relative to the "neutral point" - must be the same as the amount that it is closed relative to the back of the left lower forearm. In other words, the amount that the clubface is open-or-closed relative to the back of the left lower forearm is a good marker of the amount that the clubface is open-or-closed relative to the clubhead arc (relative to the "neutral point"). That allows me to logically claim that NL's clubface is roughly as closed at P6 as it was at P4. Using that explanation and my definition of a "neutral point", I cannot understand how 3jack, Jim McLean and Chipitin can claim that NL's clubface is either neutral or open at P6.

Jeff.