|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 9, 2010 13:28:24 GMT -5
Greg, I would not be surprised to learn that teaching that 25 handicap golfer a S&T swing would result in better consistency in low point location. However, I think that one could get the same good results with a more centralised backswing action.  Image c represents the S&T end-backswing posture while image b represents a rightwards-centralised backswing golfer's end-backswing posture (eg. Stuart Appleby). A vertical end-backswing posture would be intermediate between b and c (eg. Sean O'Hair), and that should also result in better consistency in low point location - without subjecting the spine to excessive latriflexion forces. Jeff. Jeff, I would also add most really high handicappers hit outside in to the ball and that the SnT swing seems to almost put you into a inside out swing and hit a draw/hook. When you see a habitual slicer hit a draw its like they hit the lottery or something. |
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 9, 2010 13:52:23 GMT -5
Dave, You wrote-: " At the same time it shows Nick Faldo in a position that (to me) adds a "whole-nother" dimension to the return to impact. This goes to the point of tilting to the left while turning the shoulders and extending...we would say to do so in order to turn the shoulders in a circle and keep the upper and lower centers stacked (vertical)." I can understand your point of view. However, I think of the golf swing differently. I think that the arms and torso must move in two different planes of motion - because it is biomechanically natural. In a natural golf swing (eg. Ben Hogan's swing), the upper/lower torso move relatively horizontally in the early/mid downswing and the shoulders move along a steeper angle only in the late downswing. While the shoulder sockets are moving relatively horizontally in the early-mid downswing, the arms are free to move in any plane because the humeral heads are rounded and the shoulder socket joints (glenoid fossa) are shallow cups. I believe that a golfer needs to move the arms mainly downwards while the shoulder sockets are moving relatively horizontally. I believe that Nick Faldo is in a perfect end-backswing position to achieve that goal. His reverse-K posture at the end-backswing position has created space under his right shoulder (and in front of his right hip) for the power package's "slot-descent" in the early downswing.  Note how Hogan drops the power package into that "space" in the early downswing while his shoulders rotate relatively horizontally. I do not believe that it is biomechanically difficult to learn this natural movement. Jeff. |
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Feb 9, 2010 13:53:45 GMT -5
I agree that the upper swing center is stacked over the lower swing center at address and at the end-backswing position, and that gives one the impression that the spine is vertical. The spine is vertical (or within a few degrees - even in your posed picture it's, what, 3 degrees from vertical)? The spine is tilted left which, from the face-on-view, is in the same plane and so it keeps the appearance of a vertical spine. A line, from tailbone to base of the neck, drawn from the face-on view is vertical. That's what I'm saying when I say "vertical." You ruled out people in your study because they didn't have a spine tilting towards the target, but that's not the goal of the swing. It may be a good "feeling" for people who have translated their upper center away from the target on the takeaway, but it's a _feeling_ and nothing more - the end goal is to get to roughly vertical - like Sean O'Hair. However, it is not vertical - it only the "apparent" spine, which is defined as an imaginary line that joints the lower and upper swing center that is vertical. The spine is slightly left-tilted in a spiral between those points. Yes, a few degrees. Don't confuse drills and still posed pictures meant to impress a "feeling" upon a golfer with what Mike, Andy, or anyone actually thinks occurs. Golf instructors tell students all the time to try to hit the ball at 4:30 or to "trap" the ball, but neither of those things actually occur unless the golfer blocks the ball 45 degrees right or tops the ball. During the backswing, Bennett/Plummer state the a golfer must tilt 30 degrees leftwards after extending the spine, and then bend forward over the waist. No they don't. Specifically, the last part - there's no "bend forward over the waist." 1) stand up 2) tilt left 3) rotate shoulders and hips It's the third step which maintains the golfer's inclination to the ground (relative to their address position), which also keeps their head in place, but there's no "bending." It's a straightening (from the lower back/hips) and a tilting (mid and upper back). In image 4, the golfer looks stacked (vertically oriented), but incorporated into that posture is a 30 degrees leftwards spinal tilt. That leftward tilt is towards the camera, which is why he "looks" stacked and why the spine is, to within a few degrees, vertical from this perspective. Part of that end-backswing stacked posture is the fact that the right leg is straightened and the right pelvis elevated. That causes the lower lumbar spine to be tilted leftwards. Yeah, it's part of the very subtle helix type way the spine curves. The right hip isn't that much higher - even an exaggerated pose you wouldn't actually employ in an actual golf swing can only put the right hip two inches higher than the left or so, and the hips are rotated 45 degrees or so as well, so "left" is no longer toward the target at the hip level either. Here is a back view of Mike Bennett.  Again, a posed picture intended to demonstrate a feel to the golfer, and again even your line (which I consider slightly off) is within 3 degrees of perfectly vertical. I don't know about you, but 87 degrees is awfully close to 90 in my book, particularly (again) in a posed image.  The green line represents the rightwards spinal tilt. There is a major difference to the S&T golfer's spinal orientation. Look at Nick's lower back, right above his belt - it's nearly vertical too, and only the helix nature puts his neck back so you can connect the end of the line to the right. Plus, Nick's right hip is clearly higher than his left. In the image I posted, Nick pushes his hips quite a bit forward through the ball, yet with a head that's transposed to the right, equal hip movement forward will create MORE of the flexion of the lower spine you're so much against than a head that's forward more. To put into numbers, from a face on view and assuming 0 is centerline, a golfer whose head moves from 0 to -3" to -3" (address, backswing, impact) and whose tailbone or lower center goes from 0 to 0 to 6" will have more of what you dislike than an S&T golfer who goes from 0-0-0 and 0-0-6. Or, since their head moves ever so slightly forward, the S&T guy could go 0-0-1 and 0-0-10 and STILL have only as much of difference between their upper and lower centers as your shot of Nick Faldo. It is true that many traditional/conventional golfers have a lot of left-lateral pelvic slide in the downswing. That's not the issue. The issue is that a S&T golfer slides the pelvis aggressively left-laterally while keeping the upper swing center stationary. If the upper swing center is kept stationary it immobilises the upper thoracic spine and forces most of the left-lateral latriflexion forces to operate at the level of the lower spine. No it doesn't. If that were the case, how would you explain the many good golfers whose head moves further away from the target on the downswing? That only increases the tilt and, by your logic, would serve to further "immobilise" the upper thoracic spine. You post a picture of Tiger's swing, and his head moves back and right - it doesn't assist in any "rotary" fashion that you can't do by keeping your head stationary. If anything, a stationary head and thus, by proximity, a fairly stationary center-of-rotation for the shoulders (your lower neck, essentially, or very upper back) is easier to rotate about than one that's dipping and sliding down and to the golfer's right like Tiger's. Dave already responded (I filmed the drill, you know) that this, like many of the posed pictures, is a _drill_ to help a player get the proper "feeling." The feeling here is that you don't stay in flexion through impact, which is how a lot of people interpret the age-old "maintain your spine angle" advice. If you do not believe that this swing pattern subjects the lumbar spine to a lot of latriflexion forces, then we perceive reality differently. I see it as subjecting golfers to no more so than the typical golf swing, and possibly less given that their upper center remains the same. To borrow use my numbers system again, let's say Tiger Woods is 0, -2, -4 (he drops his head and it slides to his right on the downswing into impact). His hips go 0, 0, 6 (probably more, but we'll keep it cautious). That's a difference of 10 inches. A stack and tilt golfer can go 0, 0, 1 and 0, 0, 8 and still have only 7" difference despite 2" more lateral hip movement. In the traditional/conventional golf swing, the golfer is encouraged to allow his upper torso to move forward with the pelvis, so that the golfer ends up with an erect posture. Aha, so you think the average golfer's upper body goes forward? In my experiences, either that's not true at all or they move through the ball while still being flexed because they're "trying to stay in their spine angle." www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdAu2j2BtPQYeah, if the average golfer is 0, -3, +3 and 0, -2, and +5, he's going to have less than the S&T guy. But if he's 0, -3, -3 and 0, -2, +5 he'll again have more, and if he - like Dave demonstrates in the video - "stays in his spine angle" - he'll have another whole bunch of problems. You seem to want to see a golfer whose head moves forward on the downswing. I agree that may be less stressful on the back - maybe - but it's no way to hit a golf ball IMHO, and I simply don't see a lot of that going on except among bad players who are overdoing the "stay in your spine angle" advice. Tiger's moves in the opposite direction, and if anything, S&T allows your head to move forward. You've probably heard the advice about keeping your head behind the ball through impact, then letting your arms pull you through and up... That's not S&T advice. Mike and Andy don't care if you let your head rotate through like Annika or Duval. |
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 9, 2010 14:05:44 GMT -5
Wow this is getting to be a very good thread. I just view it as two distinct ways to hit a little white ball, since there is a million ways to get to proper impact alignments is there really a "right" way? . post a picture of Tiger's swing, and his head moves back and right - it doesn't assist in any "rotary" fashion that you can't do by keeping your head stationary. If anything, a stationary head and thus, by proximity, a fairly stationary center-of-rotation for the shoulders (your lower neck, essentially, or very upper back) is easier to rotate about than one that's dipping and sliding down and to the golfer's right like Tiger's Do you tend to see people who get to much weight left move their head backwards in order to be able to rotate through the shot? It seems like with a lot of weight left it might be hard not swing way out to right field and to compensate you see that head go back. I thought that might have been something Mike Weir fought? |
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Feb 9, 2010 14:08:30 GMT -5
I think that the arms and torso must move in two different planes of motion - because it is biomechanically natural. It's in bold so it must be correct, right? :-P I think the arms and torso move in a gradient of planes of motion. After all, your hips move in one plane (hopefully not horizontal) thus your lower back moves in one plane, your shoulders move in another plane entirely, and at every point in between the spine is moving in different planes. That's particularly true when you add in side tilting left on the backswing and right side tilting through impact. And yeah, the club shaft and your arms move on their own planes, too. I've yet to see a golfer with a shoulder plane that matches a golf club's lie angle - they're bound to be flatter. S&T wants, say, a 30 degree circle - roughly matching your inclination to the ground - which is why you both stand up and side tilt 30 degrees or so on the takeaway. I believe that a golfer needs to move the arms mainly downwards while the shoulder sockets are moving relatively horizontally. They can only really move "downwards" if they lifted up to begin with. If you're a one-plane swing - of which S&T is a one-plane move - there's no room to "go downwards." Frankly, as I said before, the timing of this "drop" move is a piece I'm glad not to have to deal with anymore. My swing's more about simple rotation now than dropping, timing, and rotating all together. I believe that Nick Faldo is in a perfect end-backswing position to achieve that goal. His reverse-K posture at the end-backswing position has created space under his right shoulder (and in front of his right hip) for the power package's "slot-descent" in the early downswing. How is there more "room" to drop into the slot if you're tilted away from the target versus more upright or stacked"? With the arms in the same position, there's less room if you're in a reverse K than if you're in a more stacked position at the top. I must say, too, I find it hard to believe that, given a swing that causes back problems and one which has yet to cause a back problem that I know of (and hasn't among the PGA Tour players, many of whom talk about how their backs feel better with S&T), that the latter is the one more likely to lead to back problems "30 or 40 years from now" like you suggest. Common sense tells you that if your back feels better in the short term, you're likely not causing the long-term damage you seem to believe you're causing. That just doesn't make any sense, and it's counter to the way your body behaves. If something's causing damage, you don't feel better or even "the same" for 30 years and then suddenly become debilitated. |
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Feb 9, 2010 14:16:53 GMT -5
Do you tend to see people who get to much weight left move their head backwards in order to be able to rotate through the shot? It seems like with a lot of weight left it might be hard not swing way out to right field and to compensate you see that head go back. In average golfers, they move their weight right and leave it there. Their head might even move further right because they spin out. Some actually reverse pivot, some move their head back because they're trying to hit the ball up in the air and lift it, whatever. That's the average golfer with a "conventional" swing. An average golfer could be 0, -2, -5, -, +3, -4, -3, -4, -5... whatever. You almost never see a regular golfer with his head right of where it started unless they're doing that "stay in your spine angle" thing - and even then it's not at impact, it's usually well after impact into their follow-through. The PGA Tour pros I see a "conventional" swing will often see their heads move a little away from the target on the backswing. Some add a little more movement (like Tiger) as part of their "pouncing cat" move. But more and more these days their heads are staying fairly centered (look at Zach Johnson's swing through the years - his head stays more centered each passing year). I'm not sure I answered the question, and that's just based on my observations and conversations with instructors, so... who knows. I will point out that the weight goes to the right foot on an S&T backswing, it just doesn't "feel" like it to most people. Again, that highlights the differences between teaching a "feel" versus realization about what's actually happening. |
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 9, 2010 14:18:35 GMT -5
iacas I suspect that we will not reconcile our differences in how we perceive "spinal movements" in the golf swing. We look at the same photos and come to different conclusions. You are focused on measurements of an imaginary line drawn between two points - located at the lowest lumbar vertebra and highest thoracic vertebra - relative to the vertical. I believe that one needs to imagine the 3-D spiraling motion of the human spine - based on human anatomy. If you look at Nick Faldo's end-backswing, you will note that the lumbar spine is oriented to the right - due to the pelvic motion which reorients the frontal surface of the lumbar vertebra to the right.  Nick Faldo allows his thoracic spine to rotate in sympathetic alignment with his lumbar spine, and that gives him a rightwards tilted spine at the end-backswing position. Note that the base of his head is to the right of his lowest lumbar vertebra. Note that Mike Bennett's head is more vertically aligned with his lowest lumbar vertebra and I believe that it requires a left-tilting motion of the spine to acquire that end-backswing posture. During the downswing, that left-tilting posture needs to be reversed and the motion needed to reverse that posture is the left-lateral pelvic shift, which induces a latriflexion motion mainly at the level of the lower spine - because the upper swing center is kept stationary. By the way, I never implied that a traditional/conventional golfer's head should move forward in the downswing - it should only occur during the post-impact finish phase of the swing. Jeff. |
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 9, 2010 14:24:18 GMT -5
Do you tend to see people who get to much weight left move their head backwards in order to be able to rotate through the shot? It seems like with a lot of weight left it might be hard not swing way out to right field and to compensate you see that head go back. An average golfer could be 0, -2, -5, -, +3, -4, -3, -4, -5... . I assume this is head movement, though I have not seen it written and defined. My instructor threw this verbiage around a little, it was like, 2 right backswing and then 5 left or something (I could have the numbers wrong). I figured it was darome stuff but I was just focused on fixing the movement to match his visual. He made a joke that I was had like 14" of movement or something crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 9, 2010 14:26:07 GMT -5
iacas You wrote-: "How is there more "room" to drop into the slot if you're tilted away from the target versus more upright or stacked"? With the arms in the same position, there's less room if you're in a reverse K than if you're in a more stacked position at the top." I disagree! See this Brady Riggs video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvOr5nNqYEw&mode=related&search=Jeff. |
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 9, 2010 14:32:24 GMT -5
iacas You wrote-: "After all, your hips move in one plane (hopefully not horizontal)." I guess that you do not approve of Jamie Sadlowski's horizontal pelvic motion.  Jeff. |
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 9, 2010 22:36:11 GMT -5
Greg, You wrote-: "I would also add most really high handicappers hit outside in to the ball and that the SnT swing seems to almost put you into a inside out swing and hit a draw/hook. When you see a habitual slicer hit a draw its like they hit the lottery or something." I think that any swing pattern that pulls the left arm inside quickly in the early backswing can predispose to an inside-out clubhead path and a draw/hook pattern. Slicefixer's 9-to-3 swing pattern accomplishes that goal without any need to have a left-leaning torso. See - www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYxsxEamMJE&feature=channelNote the back view of the golfers at 2 minutes. Note the rightwards tilted spine/torso. Jeff. |
|
davidwedzik
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Instructor
Posts: 26
|
Post by davidwedzik on Feb 10, 2010 10:53:58 GMT -5
iacas You wrote-: "How is there more "room" to drop into the slot if you're tilted away from the target versus more upright or stacked"? With the arms in the same position, there's less room if you're in a reverse K than if you're in a more stacked position at the top." I disagree! See this Brady Riggs video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvOr5nNqYEw&mode=related&search=Jeff. I know we disagree on many of your biomechanical points re: stack and tilt and that is OK - what fun would it be if we all just agreed  - that said I have to comment on this video and how it pertains to the arms "dropping" into the slot. My points would be these: 1. The comparison swings to the reverse K that Brady is prescribing have nothing to do with Stack and Tilt. I would IMMEDIATELY try to stop someone from making that move with the hips as well. The only difference being I would have them rotate the trail hip behind them and keep the lower center in place (middle of belt/tailbone). If you watch a SnT motion from the rear view you will see that the trail hip makes this motion I am describing. Going from one extreme to the other as Brady is prescribing doesn't make sense to me. If the hip and torso motions are melded correctly the right side is pretty much in a vertical/straight line (not with right side or secondary axis tilt already in place as in the reverse K). *** As the hips start to move linear the secondary axis tilt is put IN and the arms have all the room in the world to simply stay on the torso as PA#4 and #1 release. When done in this manner it is much simpler to produce a low point in front of the golf ball. If the arms are dropped from Brady's top of backswing position one of three things are likely to happen...1) the club will crash into the ground behind the ball...2) the golfer will time the all the pieces moving forward correctly and hit the ball solidly (though likely with less compression and not enough of a down and out strike)...or 3) not wanting to crash the club, the golfer will shorten the radius by pulling their elbows apart, resulting in clubhead throwaway and a thin strike. 2. If the player was to move the hips that far to the right the arms would most certainly LIFT off the torso in the backswing. This lifting and pulling apart of the elbows would be the cause of the upcoming over the top move...not the lack of room for the arms to DROP into the slot. If it was about getting space there the player could simply slide forward fast and create the space. I'm not disagreeing that in the video there appears to be less space if the hips are slid way to the right on the backswing (incorrectly)...just saying that the apparent "lack" of space is not the root cause of the over the top action. 3. Another problem I have here is that when the body is left in flexion (i.e. Brady in this video) the arms have limited capacity to "swing" to the top (PA#4 has nowhere to go...try it from both extremes). This causes the swing to get short for many players (given a "standard" study group....I realize there are Jamie Sadlowski's of the world out there) and with less PA#4 there is generally much less power. Again...I know we disagree on a number of things and maybe we will on this as well...but I hope this makes sense. David Wedzik Golf Evolution |
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 10, 2010 12:33:21 GMT -5
David I think that I understand your position, although I don't agree with some of your points. I agree that the Brady Riggs video has nothing to do with the S&T swing. It was a comparison between a reverse-K backswing action and a reverse pivot action that is due to excessive swaying of the pelvis to the right. A S&T golfer does not sway the pelvis to the right. If a golfer sways the pelvis too far to the right, and leans over to the left, that causes the mid-torso to bulge out-to-the-right, thus eliminating any space for the power package "sloting process". That induces an OTT move. A S&T golfer doesn't have that mid-torso bulge to the right, but still has less "space" than a traditional reverse-K golfer. However, I agree with this statement that you made-: " If the hip and torso motions are melded correctly the right side is pretty much in a vertical/straight line (not with right side or secondary axis tilt already in place as in the reverse K). *** As the hips start to move linear the secondary axis tilt is put IN and the arms have all the room in the world to simply stay on the torso as PA#4 and #1 release." I agree that the "space" is created when the pelvis moves linearly towards the target, while a "true" reverse pivoting golfer (due to a backswing hip sway action) may start the downswing incorrectly with an upper body move that throws the club OTT. That's not a problem for a S&T golfer who starts the downswing with an assertive linear pelvic motion towards the target. You wrote-: "Another problem I have here is that when the body is left in flexion (i.e. Brady in this video) the arms have limited capacity to "swing" to the top (PA#4 has nowhere to go...try it from both extremes). This causes the swing to get short for many players (given a "standard" study group....I realize there are Jamie Sadlowski's of the world out there) and with less PA#4 there is generally much less power." I agree that the reverse-K backswing action limits the degree of shoulder rotation, while a S&T golfer can more easily get the hands deeper in the backswing. You wrote-: " When done in this manner it is much simpler to produce a low point in front of the golf ball. If the arms are dropped from Brady's top of backswing position one of three things are likely to happen...1) the club will crash into the ground behind the ball...2) the golfer will time the all the pieces moving forward correctly and hit the ball solidly (though likely with less compression and not enough of a down and out strike)...or 3) not wanting to crash the club, the golfer will shorten the radius by pulling their elbows apart, resulting in clubhead throwaway and a thin strike." This is where I disagree with your opinion. I think that the club will hit the ground behind the ball ("fat shot") only if two conditions are met - i) premature uncocking of the left wrist and/or ii) failure getting the torso over to the left side (pivoting over a straightening left leg, instead of hanging back) during the downswing. That is definitely a problem for many beginner golfers, but I do not think that's a problem for experienced golfers. Golfers who use a rightwards-centralised backswing action (photo B) should not have this problem.  Stuart Appleby has minimal shift of his upper swing center in the backswing, and I don't believe that such a small amount of upper torso shift predisposes to "fat shots". I also cannot understand why you believe that the traditional golfer (eg. Stuart Appleby) cannot hit down sufficiently to solidly compress the ball. The major problem that I have with the S&T swing is the absolute necessity for a very assertive linear motion of the pelvis left-laterally during the downswing while keeping the upper swing center stationary. I believe that it subjects the lumbar spine to excessive latriflexion forces that may possibly damage the lumbar intervertebral facet joints over a period of many years. Whether my biased opinion has scientific validity requires a well-executed scientific study - see perfectgolfswingreview.net/stackstudy.htm - but I cannot imagine any researcher being willing to perform such an expensive clinical study. Jeff. |
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 10, 2010 12:46:05 GMT -5
Jeff,
I think he said from Brady's position that he would have less compression, though that is very subjective. I think Stuart is much more centralized than the swing in that video of Brady's.
I know one thing Brady hates the Stack and Tilt swing, his comments from a question and answer session on the subject.
Hi Brady
A while ago Stack and Tilt seemed to be all the rage on tour, but now it seems to be dying down. The poster boy for it, Aaron Baddeley, has also dumped it and gone back to a more conventional approach.
The one thing about it that always used to trouble me is that the S&T coaches say you should lean over to your left at the top of the swing (and show pictures of themselves posing in that position), but none of the S&T pros every really used to do in their actual swings.
In your opinion, is the Stack and Tilt swing something that could ever last, or has it had its 15 minutes?
Brady's Reply
The fact is that players who are transitioning from a swing that is excessively inside as they attack the ball with their weight hanging back will always benefit from a more centered pivot and less inside path. The problem occurs when the player starts to play better from the change to a more neutral position of the body and goes on to drink the entire jug of Kool-Aid. The pictures of where they want their players are ridiculous. Any study of the golf swing over the last 60 years will give proof that what they are advocating hasn't worked.
One final thought on the question. Teaching a method of swinging the club has the same effect as a broken clock. Every once in a while you will find a student who will need what you are selling, but everyone else is out of luck. A great teacher should adjust to every student they teach and make each lesson a unique experience.
As usual you can tell I have no opinion on the matter....
|
|
davidwedzik
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Instructor
Posts: 26
|
Post by davidwedzik on Feb 10, 2010 13:52:54 GMT -5
You wrote-: " When done in this manner it is much simpler to produce a low point in front of the golf ball. If the arms are dropped from Brady's top of backswing position one of three things are likely to happen...1) the club will crash into the ground behind the ball...2) the golfer will time the all the pieces moving forward correctly and hit the ball solidly (though likely with less compression and not enough of a down and out strike)...or 3) not wanting to crash the club, the golfer will shorten the radius by pulling their elbows apart, resulting in clubhead throwaway and a thin strike." This is where I disagree with your opinion. I think that the club will hit the ground behind the ball ("fat shot") only if two conditions are met - i) premature uncocking of the left wrist and/or ii) failure getting the torso over to the left side (pivoting over a straightening left leg, instead of hanging back) during the downswing. That is definitely a problem for many beginner golfers, but I do not think that's a problem for experienced golfers. Golfers who use a rightwards-centralised backswing action (photo B) should not have this problem. Stuart Appleby has minimal shift of his upper swing center in the backswing, and I don't believe that such a small amount of upper torso shift predisposes to "fat shots". I also cannot understand why you believe that the traditional golfer (eg. Stuart Appleby) cannot hit down sufficiently to solidly compress the ball. The major problem that I have with the S&T swing is the absolute necessity for a very assertive linear motion of the pelvis left-laterally during the downswing while keeping the upper swing center stationary. I believe that it subjects the lumbar spine to excessive latriflexion forces that may possibly damage the lumbar intervertebral facet joints over a period of many years. Whether my biased opinion has scientific validity requires a well-executed scientific study - see perfectgolfswingreview.net/stackstudy.htm - but I cannot imagine any researcher being willing to perform such an expensive clinical study. Jeff. Jeff - I think we actually agree on more things than not when it comes right down to it. Without considering some other "off the wall" variables I "basically" agree with you that "the club will hit the ground behind the ball only if two conditions are met - i) premature uncocking of the left wrist and/or ii) failure getting the torso over to the left side (pivoting over a straightening left leg, instead of hanging back) during the downswing." That is really what I was saying when I explained option 1)...the club crashing into the ground if the upper torso is left too far "back" (option 3 is very similar of course). The other point I would make is in response to "The major problem that I have with the S&T swing is the absolute necessity for a very assertive linear motion of the pelvis left-laterally during the downswing". There is not a necessity for the very assertive linear motion. I believe that motion IS the correct piece to simplify the golfer's hitting the ball on the backside of the circle. I would simply say this is the most efficient way to hit the stock push/draw. If I was looking for a straighter start line with less curve or hitting a fade I would lessen the linear portion relatively. It is interesting because I believe that most people hear SnT and think everyone is being taught to do the exact same thing every swing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I work with better players a lot that hit too much OUT and we have done things like slow down the linear for certain shots...release the side tilt at a different rate...feel like the shoulders are very open at impact, etc. We work towards a defined model...yes...which I believe is a very good thing...but it is not always a "canned" must be this way every time approach. Dave |
|
- that said I have to comment on this video and how it pertains to the arms "dropping" into the slot. My points would be these: