Stack and Tilt

[imperfectgolfer]

Dan,

There are two approaches to hitting a pull-fade.

From a D-plane perspective, one needs to generate a clubhead path that is left of the ball-target line and a clubface orientation at impact that is open to the clubhead path (but closed to the ball-target line).

To generate a clubhead path left of the ball-target line, there are two approaches.

1) One can keep the stance line parallel to the ball-target line, and swing out-to-in relative to the ball-target line and stance line. That means that one is moving the clubshaft across the front of the body - from out-to-in through the impact zone.

2) One can shift the baseline to the left, and simultaneously shift the stance line to the left (so that the stance line remains parallel to the baseline). Then, one can trace a SPL and generate an in-to-square-to-in clubhead path relative to that leftwards-aimed baseline. The "true" clubhead path at impact will be equally leftwards-directed - compared to technique number 1.

Why do you prefer technique number 1, rather than technique number 2 to generate a clubhead path that is more leftwards-directed?

Jeff.

[iteachgolf]

Technique two will still have an inside out impact and face will have to be much more open, which he and many will tend to draw and double cross when face isn't open enough. Technique one is still tracing a straight plane line, the line is simply left of the stance line and face can even be slightly closed and the ball will fade.

[imperfectgolfer]

Dan,

You are free to prefer technique 1 - rather than technique 2 - to hit a pull-fade.

I prefer technique 2 because I think it is biomechanically more easy/natural to consistently move the arms in the "correct" manner when the stance line is parallel to the baseline. I think that technique 1 requires an OTT move and an out-to-in clubhead path relative to the stance line.

I agree that technique 2 requires that a golfer open the clubface more at address, to ensure that the clubface is appropriately open at impact. However, that is an easy maneuver - one simply rotates the clubface more open in one's left hand before re-gripping the club at address.

When using technique 2 to hit a pull-fade, I also recommend angled hinging (rather than horizontal hinging) and a hold-off finish action (rather than a finish swivel action).

Technique 2 is recommended, and demonstrated, by Lynn Blake/VJ Trolio in their "Alignment Golf" DVD.

Jeff.

[iteachgolf]

All my players use angled hinging (at least ones I've taught for an extended period of time) and all depends on your definition of an OTT move. Brian Smock doesn't look too OTT in the video while using a baseline that is shifted left. All the best faders of the ball but Lee Trevino I can think of all do it with a baseline that is left of their stance line (Hogan, Snead, Mac, Duval, etc).

[gmbtempe]

Mar 18, 2010 20:47:21 GMT -5 iteachgolf said:

All the best faders of the ball but Lee Trevino I can think of all do it with a baseline that is left of their stance line (Hogan, Snead, Mac, Duval, etc).

and soon they will be adding gmb to that list

[imperfectgolfer]

Dan,

You wrote-: " All the best faders of the ball but Lee Trevino I can think of all do it with a baseline that is left of their stance line (Hogan, Snead, Mac, Duval, etc)."

I wonder if Lynn Blake would agree that all the best faders of the ball do it with a baseline that is left of their stance line, which means that they are swinging out-to-in relative to their stance line.

Jeff.

[gmbtempe]

Mar 19, 2010 12:28:29 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

Dan,

You wrote-: " All the best faders of the ball but Lee Trevino I can think of all do it with a baseline that is left of their stance line (Hogan, Snead, Mac, Duval, etc)."

I wonder if Lynn Blake would agree that all the best faders of the ball do it with a baseline that is left of their stance line, which means that they are swinging out-to-in relative to their stance line.

Jeff.

If someone would have just fixed my club face 15 years ago when I started playing and left my natural swing which had the baseline left I probably would have been a much better player. I see nothing wrong with a swing that is slightly outside in, as pointed out the players above all featured a baseline to the left of the stance line (though I think Hogan was probably closer to a straight baseline and it sounds like part of his fade was other factors).

I know you will likely say that bio mechanically, ideally, in to out swings are best but isn't it what fits the player and his abilities the best and sometimes those things don't line up? Its not like many of the SnT guys have not tried the normal pattern first.

It could very well be the reason that SnT works for some people despite some of the concerns you have posted, they just seem to be able to perform that action better.

[imperfectgolfer]

Greg,

It doesn't bother me if an individual golfer wants to swing out-to-in across the front of his body. That's his personal choice. My primary interest is the arena of golf swing biomechanics/mechanics and the logical underpinnings that form the foundation of a particular golf swing style.

An out-to-in swing action (to hit a pull-slice fade) may be biomechanically natural for a S&T golfer, who doesn't have a reverse-K posture at the end-backswing position. However, a golfer who uses a rightwards-centered backswing action swing style, and therefore adopts a reverse-K posture at the end-backswing position, cannot easily/naturally swing out-to-in through impact - unless he performs an OTT move. A reverse-K posture creates space under the right shoulder, and in front of the right hip, for a golfer to "slot" his power package in a natural biomechanical manner - as demonstrated by Ben Hogan in this video segment - that naturally/automatically creates an in-to-square-to-in clubhead path.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdChWnxDvU

Jeff.

[danadahlquist]

Jeff if you got out of the forward flextion on the backswing you would fix your left arm from being bent. Let me know how that works.

[imperfectgolfer]

Dana,

It doesn't work at all.

My major problem is due to an i) inability to slide my left scapula more forward across the back of the chest wall so that I can get my left shoulder socket more forward, and also due to ii) inflexibility within my left shoulder socket joint that prevents me from freely rotating my left humerus internally to a sufficient degree plus iii) considerable stretch-inflexibility of the left upper arm muscles that prevents me from getting a greater degree of separation between the left humeral head and the glenoid fossa of the left shoulder socket joint during the extensor action maneuver.

Getting out of forward flex by a "left tilt-extension" maneuver only makes it easier for me to get a slightly larger upper torso rotation.

Jeff.

[danadahlquist]

Apr 5, 2010 3:26:12 GMT -5 imperfectgolfer said:

Dana,

It doesn't work at all.

My major problem is due to an i) inability to slide my left scapula more forward across the back of the chest wall so that I can get my left shoulder socket more forward, and also due to ii) inflexibility within my left shoulder socket joint that prevents me from freely rotating my left humerus internally to a sufficient degree plus iii) considerable stretch-inflexibility of the left upper arm muscles that prevents me from getting a greater degree of separation between the left humeral head and the glenoid fossa of the left shoulder socket joint during the extensor action maneuver.

Getting out of forward flex by a "left tilt-extension" maneuver only makes it easier for me to get a slightly larger upper torso rotation.

Jeff.

Ok that does not make your left arm bent. PP1 will take care of that.

[Richie3Jack]

Alright, I just saw these past few posts.

I actually really enjoy this thread. And my thoughts at the moment are that I really do not want to lock threads and if I have to, I'll either ban or suspend a poster or ban them from this particular thread instead of locking the thread.

My feeling is that locking threads are generally not a good thing because it ruins it for those who followed the rules.

A few days ago iteachgolf made a remark that Jeff was 'clueless' about a subject. I let that go because I thought that was a borderline word to be used. I looked at it like I know *some* darome, but if a legit expert in darome said that I was clueless about the entire darome swing instruction theory, I'd probably agree with them. I can see why 'clueless' can be thought of as an insulting word and why it may be thought as just the truth.

Jeff in another thread said that Dana Dahlquist's words were 'jibberish' to him. Again, a borderline word to me.

My problem is not with the occasional 'borderline' word that can be interpreted as offensive or condescending. But when you get a lot of 'borderline' words, that's where the problems arise.

I'll never fault a poster for posting a lot as long as there is some substance to their posts. That's what this forum is about. People should post when they feel like it. I don't get the idea of what is the 'right' amount to post.

If you don't like a poster's posts...don't read them. Simple as that.

I would like this forum to be treated a bit like a courtroom where people present their arguments with facts and/or somewhat reasonable logic and people decide from there. Jeff and I actually disagree quite often. I don't get caught up in 'winning the argument' and present my 'case' and let it go from there. I would appreciate it if everybody could tone down their passionate opinions to make this a more pleasant forum to post and read.

If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.

But after this post I've made, we need to get back to talking about the thread.







3JACK