Getting my weight forward.......WHY

[logman]

Originally Posted by dak4n6

I have noticed that whenever logman 'inquires' about something he's not really asking about it as much as arguing against it...

Well, I've got a view..... but I want others to maybe put theirs as well. That's OK isn't it?

[David in FL]

Well, I've got a view....

Yes you do..... :-D

[Clambake]

Tssk, tssk, tsssk.    When are all of you going to realize that when you see a thread started by Logman it's a perfect time to just get away from the computer for a while and do some productive things in your life, and when you come back simply find another thread to read instead?

[newtogolf]

Your swing approach is different that what a traditional swing or 5SK swing would be, so asking us to explain why we shift our weight might not apply to your LPG swing.  Others have given you the reason, the way I was taught, it's about compression.  Without the weight shift and moving the low point it's much harder to compress the ball.

When you swing without a weight shift do you take a divot that's in front of the ball or behind?  Do you even take a divot or are you just trying to pick at the ball?

[David in FL]

Tssk, tssk, tsssk.    When are all of you going to realize that when you see a thread started by Logman it's a perfect time to just get away from the computer for a while and do some productive things in your life, and when you come back simply find another thread to read instead?

You know what they say about beating your head against the wall. You do it because it feels so good when you stop! :-D He's 14 hours or so ahead of us. I figured he may have just gotten a bit of an early.....ahem, start on the weekend. Maybe at lunch..... ;-)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by logman

PPS can we not do a "we should do it because pros do it thing"? I want to know what the strong move forward brings to the table in terms of a weekend golfer.

You've always - and I do mean always - screwed up the "because pros do it" thing.

Pros do it because of what it brings to their golf games. We've never asked someone to do something because a pro does it. We ask people to do things because it's critical to playing good golf.

Where are those swings of yours with a 5-iron off a fairway lie, logman? Good luck hitting those solidly with your weight well back. And I'm not saying you can't do it - but there are better ways to do it.

The simple answer: geometry and speed. If you want more than that, well, read any of about a hundred threads here.

Originally Posted by logman

why wouldn't I just move the ball back in my stance and set up the same ball/body/low point relationship without having to worry about the complications of my weight moving all over the place???

You do realize that at that point your weight would be.... FORWARD of the golf ball, right? So what if you're cheating it? That's the hacker answer: "I'm too stubborn or I don't know how to hit the ball solidly because I don't move my weight forward, so I'm just gonna move it back because then I have a chance."

Never mind that his golf ball will likely have far less power and launch far lower than it should if he would simply learn. Can moving the ball back let someone play decent golf? Yes. But again, every time you attempt to "simplify" the golf swing, you set a new lower ceiling on how good that player can get.

In other words in "just put the ball back" you will have satisfied some of the "geometry" part of the equation and virtually none of the "speed" component. The speed component, honestly, is a far second - baseball players don't shift their weight forward (their swings are almost purely rotational), but they don't have to worry about low point or spin axis tilt very much.

Originally Posted by logman

Weight forward becomes a prerequisite and not a reaction.

If golfers aren't doing it, and its harming their games (this applies to roughly 97% of people who golf), then they need to be made aware of it.

Look, Rupert, your intentional pot-stirring when you either know the answer and are just poking at people or you're too stupid to learn (I'm betting on the former) is getting very, very old.

[logman]

Hi all, is not meant to be a pot storing or anything like that. But I've played weight forward, so weight forward that I'm almost on One leg and neutral stance and falling backward . And by far the worst position to be in is falling back followed by extreme weight forward. What I'm saying is there is danger in weight forward. Imho there are no positions or actions in the golf swing that are solely positive. They're all double edge swords. So even the seemingly benign action of going from 50/50 to 90/10 comes with a downside. IMHO weight forward should be viewed as a reactive stance rather than a set "move" that's performed as an intrinsic part on the swing. My point is that the weight forward idea is a thing that should "happen" in the swing because of what's happened before. So a reactive movement . Ps I didn't want this to turn into a "because the pros do it " discussion because it tends to kill the discussion . Pps. Also Erik, this is not meant to be a crack at your 5 keys.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by logman

But I've played weight forward, so weight forward that I'm almost on One leg and neutral stance and falling backward .

That's not weight forward done properly. Give me a break. You can't say "weight forward is bad!" because you do it improperly.

Originally Posted by logman

What I'm saying is there is danger in weight forward. Imho there are no positions or actions in the golf swing that are solely positive. They're all double edge swords. So even the seemingly benign action of going from 50/50 to 90/10 comes with a downside.

Virtually all poor golfers need to get their weight more forward and do so properly. You did not start this thread as a "double edged sword" type of conversation. You know it, I know it, everyone else here knows it.

Originally Posted by logman

IMHO weight forward should be viewed as a reactive stance rather than a set "move" that's performed as an intrinsic part on the swing.

That doesn't work for the vast majority of golfers who fail to get their weight forward properly. They stay 50/50 or fall backwards or whatnot and need to learn to get their weight forward properly.

Originally Posted by logman

My point is that the weight forward idea is a thing that should "happen" in the swing because of what's happened before. So a reactive movement .

See above. And the countless other times I've said this to you. If a golfer doesn't do it, they need to learn to do it properly. It doesn't just "happen."

Originally Posted by logman

Ps I didn't want this to turn into a "because the pros do it " discussion because it tends to kill the discussion . Pps. Also Erik, this is not meant to be a crack at your 5 keys.

You mentioned it in the first post. I don't think people have really latched on, but clearly you want to try to steer it to that. Hint: just stop mentioning it if you don't want people to talk about it. Duh.

Now, unless you have something new to say, the thread's just about done, no?

[Mr. Desmond]

I don't think weight forward is reactive at all - it may be gradual so that when the golfer is at impact, it is 85-15/90-10, but it is an active movement.

Even if I am sliding my hips and turning them, it will not allow me to get as much weight as is needed forward. I can get away with it on a short iron, but mid irons and fairway woods will be fatted unless you have moved the weight gradually forward so that at impact you have 85-90% of your weight pushing into the ground from the front foot.

[soon_tourpro]

Originally Posted by logman

What's the point of weight forward. I mean what does it bring to the golf swing. It's obviously not imperative to striking the ball well. I mean if your balanced and can swing the stick well why is it advantageous to move our weight from say 50/50 to 90/10.

It allows you to hit the ball 330yard or more due to leverage and dynamic athletic action.

an amatuer that hits the ball let say 200yard with driver wont benefit much with a weight shift action as they are likely to put the brakes on in their swing with compensations already.

adding weight shift which is actually two shifts your doing allows more speed to happen and with less compensation accuracy will increase at the same time.

This is really hard for most amateurs to understand due to their understanding about the golf swing and what to do is highly flawed which often also is true for pro´s but they have solved how to do it so it works for tour level play not saying that they actually understands it.

In every other sport you move the weight why not do it in golf?
any other instruction dont make sense.

[Uncle Peter]

For me, I find that if I don't shift my weight forward, I end up hitting the ground before my ball and topping it most of the times. Plus I end up taking huge divots too (beaver tails as we call them in Canada).

Also, Hank Haney wrote a very good article in Golf Digest several issues ago about weight transfer. After reading it, I've been transferring my weight ever since and making clean contact with the ball.

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by logman

Ha ha,  but seriously, you move your weight from 50/50 to 90/10 to avoid grounding your club 4 inches behind the ball???

If I set up in a neutral 50/50 weight balance with the ball at mid position, swingback slowly to the top and swing through without transfering another 40% of my weight to my front foot......then I'm going to fat it....no not just fat it but go underground???

why wouldn't I just move the ball back in my stance and set up the same ball/body/low point relationship without having to worry about the complications of my weight moving all over the place???

Moving the ball back will create lower ball flight.  We do it in windy conditions on purpose.

Think of it from a different perspective.  When you lift a club that weights roughly 2 lbs back behind your body on the backswing, your center of mass will move back.  If you don't counter balance the  weight of the club head on the downswing by moving your center of mass forward, the swing low point will always move back from where it was at set up.  It is simply physics.  Moving your weight forward guarantees that the low point will be in front of the ball.  That is why it works so well.

You can do it as you have described, but you will be delofting the club face and the ball will come out lower.

[logman]

It allows you to hit the ball 330yard or more due to leverage and dynamic athletic action. an amatuer that hits the ball let say 200yard with driver wont benefit much with a weight shift action as they are likely to put the brakes on in their swing with compensations already. adding weight shift which is actually two shifts your doing allows more speed to happen and with less compensation accuracy will increase at the same time. This is really hard for most amateurs to understand due to their understanding about the golf swing and what to do is highly flawed which often also is true for pro´s but they have solved how to do it so it works for tour level play not saying that they actually understands it. In every other sport you move the weight why not do it in golf? any other instruction dont make sense.

I agree with you about the guy who's hitting the ball 200 yards with the driver, I mean can you imagine hitting a very slow paced swing and driving your body into the 90/10 position. I think that would be obsessive and could lead to compensations in the swing. Surely a better way would be to move your weight forward by the appropriate amount for the golfer and for the swing. And the only way to get that to work would be to use weight forward as a reactive element rather than a prerequisite.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by logman

I agree with you about the guy who's hitting the ball 200 yards with the driver, I mean can you imagine hitting a very slow paced swing and driving your body into the 90/10 position. I think that would be obsessive and could lead to compensations in the swing. Surely a better way would be to move your weight forward by the appropriate amount for the golfer and for the swing. And the only way to get that to work would be to use weight forward as a reactive element rather than a prerequisite.

Logman, I gotta say that I'm not sure I get what you mean when you throw out the terms "prerequisite" and "reactive".

For me, and I'm not going to speak for others, weight forward at impact IS a prerequisite for a solid strike but it's not like I'm fabricating the weight forward or over-emphazing it. It's a natural part of my swing (now) the isn't contrived at all. I'm thinking that when you say "reactive" you mean "not contrived", if that's the case then I agree with you ( ) but I have no doubt that weight forward is absolutely essential to achieve a repeatable, downward striking golf shot.

When I was teaching myself to get that weight to shift it was very contrived because my natural tendencies were to rotate back and away from the ball and then rotate back towards the ball. The results were either a trailing lowpoint manifesting as a top/fat/thin or, if I got lucky, a big old slice-a-rama Yay...but it's not contrived now, I don't even think about, it's just how I fire back into the ball.

Not sure what my point is, just trying to grasp your point I guess.

Summary: I disagree that "weight forward" is not a prerequisite, but I do agree that the weight forward shouldn't be contrived or faked.

I also agree with this part of your quote, " Surely a better way would be to move your weight forward by the appropriate amount for the golfer and for the swing." and I suspect everyone else would agree with this as well. I don't hear any advocating for an inappropriate amount of anything because that would be...well...inappropriate...

Having re-read my post before hitting submit (y'all should try that sometimes ), I'm not sure that my post makes sense but I'm leaving it because, well, it's a Logman thread.

[dhanson]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

I'm not sure that my post makes sense but I'm leaving it because, well, it's a Logman thread.

i suggest you (as well as everyone else) do what i am about to do - just hover your cursor over "logman," scroll down, and click Block.

[logman]

Yeah I think you've pretty much got what I'm trying to say about reactive v prerequisite . However , the two edged sword thing is still there. I reckon if you do a 90/10 weight shift on a half shot then you're flirting with disaster. Wouldn't a better way to talk about weight forward be to say "adequate " weight forward. That is within a range is ok. That is the weight forward is enough to keep balance during the shot, enough to feel that you can swing at your full speed without balance and leverage becoming an"issue" in the swing

[EverythingGolf]

Here is how I see it. Shifting the weight forward while rotating the hips open allows the club to naturally come from the inside and eliminate an OTT move. It is also a more powerful and repeatable move.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by logman

Yeah I think you've pretty much got what I'm trying to say about reactive v prerequisite . However , the two edged sword thing is still there. I reckon if you do a 90/10 weight shift on a half shot then you're flirting with disaster. Wouldn't a better way to talk about weight forward be to say "adequate " weight forward. That is within a range is ok. That is the weight forward is enough to keep balance during the shot, enough to feel that you can swing at your full speed without balance and leverage becoming an"issue" in the swing

Well DUH!!

It's like throwing a ball, the farther you want to throw it, the more weight shift you'll produce. So, yeah, I guess in that sense it is reactive. I'm not shifting X% and hoping it results in the shot I'm trying to accomplish, I'm making the shot I want and THAT cause X% of my weight to shift.

Example: Chipping, there is almost no weight shift at all, the shot doesn't require it and your leaving all your weight on the frontside anyway. Putting, zero weight shift. However, if I'm looking to pipe a 3H 220+ yards down the fairway the action of that shot is gonna require (and cause) a big thrust of the hips.

And on that note, I'm going to go watch TV.

Ciao.