Post by jonnygrouville on Mar 15, 2010 2:25:33 GMT -5
Jeff,
I felt the considerable time and effort you invest in your articles required a considered response (although by no means comparable in terms of effort). I also (obviously) have some queries and concepts that need clarifying, if you have the time (or if anyone else has any views of these topics). I will stay away from anything to do with the pivot for now though, as this is going to go on enough as it is and only talking about the hands and arms!
As a whole, it again demonstrates the benefits of ‘poly-swing-theorism’; being able to critically review everything available and develop a methodology from there. Now being completely DIY, this is invaluable to improving my swing! I would not know about a lot of these concepts without these articles.
Okay, I do know what the one-piece takeaway is, but the sections are interesting all the same. In particular, relating to the wrist action. You say that there is ‘very little’ wrist movement and that the wrists and hands should be ‘relatively passive’. I think your qualifications are entirely correct and that many people struggle because they have been told that there is no wrist or hand action at all in the one-piece takeaway. If there was no action at all, at the end of the takeaway per your picture, Baddeley’s club would be pointing more downwards, the clubhead probably only a foot or so from the ground. By the time the club was horizontal (the actual end of the takeaway), everything would in all probability be way too far inside, being more dragged there by the pivot.
I think there is an issue here of falling foul of the various articles in golf magazines and ‘tips’. If the majority of golfers have too much wrist action in the takeaway, an instructor will have to put in his hundred-word single-page takeaway-tip that there should not be any movement at all. Likewise you say that there should be a ‘small amount’ of left forearm pronation during the takeaway. I agree. I know I diligently followed the ‘one-piece’ takeaway and ended up in a weak position with the clubface shut. And I was probably not alone.
It did always make me wonder how you were meant to have no wrist movement at all during the takeaway and then flick some magic switch to have the wrist action complete by the end of the backswing. Your qualifications are correct to recognize that there is still some ‘up’ in the one-piece takeaway. Otherwise, there will only be back and in, having to add a big ‘up’ lift with the arms to finish the backswing just like your model over-the-top swing sequence. I am not saying his takeaway is one-piece, but I think poor application of this takeaway can lead to similar trouble and a lot of people end up with this kind of action.
The left arm flying wedge alignment still has me confused. Firstly, I thought it would always be intact! If two straight lines cross, they will always form a plane, no? But then arching or bowing the wrist will essentially mean that the lines don’t cross. That, I get.
You picked this up again later and I thought I had it. Only holding the club in your left hand, I thought it would only be possible to breakdown the wedge if you bent your wrist. You can cock it upwards and downwards, you can rotate the forearm. Seems to me that it is still on plane and you will have your geometrically flat left wrist. Looking at it the other way, if you have a geometrically flat left wrist, the left arm wedge will be intact, no?
No. When discussing Darcy’s swing, you say that he ‘has a geometrically FLW, but his left arm flying wedge’s alignment is not intact/ correct’. This turned the light out and left me fumbling for the switch. I didn’t think it mattered from a point of view of wedge intactness essentially where the club is pointing. From the earlier discussion, I thought you could have an intact left arm wedge and not be on Homer’s plane. Is that right?
What makes Moore’s wedge intact and Darcy’s wedge not?
If Adam Scott rotated his left forearm at the top to point the club one way or another (laid-off or across-the-line), wouldn’t the wedge still be intact having the club and forearm in the same plane and just be pointing in a different direction? It would look wrong viewed down-the-line, but moving to the left or the right you would find a perspective from which they would line up if he has retained a flat left wrist and the club and left forearm would be on plane. Wouldn’t they?
Sorry if I have misunderstood something, but I would like to understand this more as (as you emphasize in your article) I agree it is critical to consistent clubhead delivery to the ball.
(The whole Darcy swing analysis is really good. Glad you picked up on that flippant remark from Leadbetter!
)
One of the concepts I have been thinking about a lot recently is the multiple and independent biomechanical movements in the backswing. It is interesting to analyse what is happening and why in your examples of Furyk and Moore. To me this is like David Orr’s concept of the ’18-inch backswing’ when describing his walrus and war-chant concepts. Furyk and Moore have much more, a swing like Hogan will involve less of this ‘backswing’.
As you make clear throughout your article, we can see things, but we need to understand why they have happened. It is easy to identify a fault, but we need to understand why it has happened to work out how we can move it back closer to where we want to be.
I felt the considerable time and effort you invest in your articles required a considered response (although by no means comparable in terms of effort). I also (obviously) have some queries and concepts that need clarifying, if you have the time (or if anyone else has any views of these topics). I will stay away from anything to do with the pivot for now though, as this is going to go on enough as it is and only talking about the hands and arms!
As a whole, it again demonstrates the benefits of ‘poly-swing-theorism’; being able to critically review everything available and develop a methodology from there. Now being completely DIY, this is invaluable to improving my swing! I would not know about a lot of these concepts without these articles.
Okay, I do know what the one-piece takeaway is, but the sections are interesting all the same. In particular, relating to the wrist action. You say that there is ‘very little’ wrist movement and that the wrists and hands should be ‘relatively passive’. I think your qualifications are entirely correct and that many people struggle because they have been told that there is no wrist or hand action at all in the one-piece takeaway. If there was no action at all, at the end of the takeaway per your picture, Baddeley’s club would be pointing more downwards, the clubhead probably only a foot or so from the ground. By the time the club was horizontal (the actual end of the takeaway), everything would in all probability be way too far inside, being more dragged there by the pivot.
I think there is an issue here of falling foul of the various articles in golf magazines and ‘tips’. If the majority of golfers have too much wrist action in the takeaway, an instructor will have to put in his hundred-word single-page takeaway-tip that there should not be any movement at all. Likewise you say that there should be a ‘small amount’ of left forearm pronation during the takeaway. I agree. I know I diligently followed the ‘one-piece’ takeaway and ended up in a weak position with the clubface shut. And I was probably not alone.
It did always make me wonder how you were meant to have no wrist movement at all during the takeaway and then flick some magic switch to have the wrist action complete by the end of the backswing. Your qualifications are correct to recognize that there is still some ‘up’ in the one-piece takeaway. Otherwise, there will only be back and in, having to add a big ‘up’ lift with the arms to finish the backswing just like your model over-the-top swing sequence. I am not saying his takeaway is one-piece, but I think poor application of this takeaway can lead to similar trouble and a lot of people end up with this kind of action.
The left arm flying wedge alignment still has me confused. Firstly, I thought it would always be intact! If two straight lines cross, they will always form a plane, no? But then arching or bowing the wrist will essentially mean that the lines don’t cross. That, I get.
You picked this up again later and I thought I had it. Only holding the club in your left hand, I thought it would only be possible to breakdown the wedge if you bent your wrist. You can cock it upwards and downwards, you can rotate the forearm. Seems to me that it is still on plane and you will have your geometrically flat left wrist. Looking at it the other way, if you have a geometrically flat left wrist, the left arm wedge will be intact, no?
No. When discussing Darcy’s swing, you say that he ‘has a geometrically FLW, but his left arm flying wedge’s alignment is not intact/ correct’. This turned the light out and left me fumbling for the switch. I didn’t think it mattered from a point of view of wedge intactness essentially where the club is pointing. From the earlier discussion, I thought you could have an intact left arm wedge and not be on Homer’s plane. Is that right?
What makes Moore’s wedge intact and Darcy’s wedge not?
If Adam Scott rotated his left forearm at the top to point the club one way or another (laid-off or across-the-line), wouldn’t the wedge still be intact having the club and forearm in the same plane and just be pointing in a different direction? It would look wrong viewed down-the-line, but moving to the left or the right you would find a perspective from which they would line up if he has retained a flat left wrist and the club and left forearm would be on plane. Wouldn’t they?
Sorry if I have misunderstood something, but I would like to understand this more as (as you emphasize in your article) I agree it is critical to consistent clubhead delivery to the ball.
(The whole Darcy swing analysis is really good. Glad you picked up on that flippant remark from Leadbetter!
)One of the concepts I have been thinking about a lot recently is the multiple and independent biomechanical movements in the backswing. It is interesting to analyse what is happening and why in your examples of Furyk and Moore. To me this is like David Orr’s concept of the ’18-inch backswing’ when describing his walrus and war-chant concepts. Furyk and Moore have much more, a swing like Hogan will involve less of this ‘backswing’.
As you make clear throughout your article, we can see things, but we need to understand why they have happened. It is easy to identify a fault, but we need to understand why it has happened to work out how we can move it back closer to where we want to be.
