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

[bplewis24]

I get my weight forward on bunker shots.  Extremely so.

Discuss.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I get my weight forward on bunker shots.  Extremely so.

Discuss.

That's nothing ... I putt like a flamingo.

[jclark]

Honestly, in the golf swing I think it would be impossible to swing without transferring weight. Therefore if if you wind up the backswing weight will shift back. On the downswing you got to get your weight FORWARD to move the bottom of your swing arc at or forward of the ball. This IMO, is a non-negotiable aspect of good ball striking.

[Pablo68]

Originally Posted by jclark

Honestly, in the golf swing I think it would be impossible to swing without transferring weight. Therefore if if you wind up the backswing weight will shift back. On the downswing you got to get your weight FORWARD to move the bottom of your swing arc at or forward of the ball. This IMO, is a non-negotiable aspect of good ball striking.

Oh, it's possible to swing without transferring weight (or much of it) and also some 'reverse pivot'.

Either way, it's a crapshoot for decent contact and they'll never play to their potential.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

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 mean during the backswing, I disagree, and if you watch weaker players or newbies, you'll see a reverse weight transfer.  physics again....

i.e., the balance is - if you take a weight (like 2 lbs, plus arms, etc) and move it back, the rest of the body of mass will swing FORWARD.  And then, when you swing fast forward with some parts, the rest of your body will swing backwards.  the opposite of what's needed.

the result is inconsistent hitters, people that don't get divots and try to be masters at picking, a swing that's lifting way too early, lots of problems.

you have to actively press forward to get your body moving that way, or even to counter the swing dynamics.  Swing a tennis racket, throw a baseball, that strong foundation is something to press against to keep center of mass moving forward.

(I was doing something of what logman noted as an issue, in order to keep my head still and avoid reverse pivot, I get weight up front and KEPT it there - I was stuck at the front and couldn't go farther as a results.  I played fine for short game and chips and pitches (still head and weight forward is good there, right?), full swings I was good when I was able to pick the ball clean, but my power was gated, and my full swing limited from my potential considering my strength and level athleticism, never could take a divot, bad shots tended to be very fat, or very thin. - first lesson we to allow my body to come back and then forward through the ball - dramatic increase in terms of consistent contact, taking divots, more distance.  In fact, my distance is quite a bit more, and I'm a bit distressed that I'll have to reset my club selection criteria....not that distressed)

[jamo]

If you mean during the backswing, I disagree, and if you watch weaker players or newbies, you'll see a reverse weight transfer.  physics again.... i.e., the balance is - if you take a weight (like 2 lbs, plus arms, etc) and move it back, the rest of the body of mass will swing FORWARD.  And then, when you swing fast forward with some parts, the rest of your body will swing backwards.  the opposite of what's needed.

No, not necessarily. Your body will only fall over laterally if the center of gravity is outside of your feet, and your CoG doesn't have to be exactly in the center for you to feel balanced. I can be standing straight up-and-down, take a two-pound weight in my right hand, and extend my right hand and arm directly outward without moving my body at all and I'll still stay balanced. I could do that will a five-pound weight, 10lbs, 20, etc. and still stay balanced. They're just not moving my CoG far enough.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by jamo

I could do that will a five-pound weight, 10lbs, 20, etc. and still stay balanced.

That's why we call you The Goon! LOL.

[jclark]

No, not necessarily. Your body will only fall over laterally if the center of gravity is outside of your feet, and your CoG doesn't have to be exactly in the center for you to feel balanced. I can be standing straight up-and-down, take a two-pound weight in my right hand, and extend my right hand and arm directly outward without moving my body at all and I'll still stay balanced. I could do that will a five-pound weight, 10lbs, 20, etc. and still stay balanced. They're just not moving my CoG far enough.

I have a hard time seeing this. If you stand straight up and hold out a weight at arms length then there will be a slight weight shift. It's physics. For you to FEEL balanced you are going to slightly shift some weight the opposite direction to counterbalance and feel stable. Either way there is always going to be shifting of weight.

[jamo]

I have a hard time seeing this. If you stand straight up and hold out a weight at arms length then there will be a slight weight shift. It's physics. For you to FEEL balanced you are going to slightly shift some weight the opposite direction to counterbalance and feel stable. Either way there is always going to be shifting of weight.

Again, not necessarily. There's no physical imperative that makes your body balance out a weight change, or we would never have anything but an exact 50/50 weight distribution. If you do the arm thing like I described, there will be a weight shift towards the side with the weight. Of course there will be. But for weights of that magnitude, it's not going to move your CoG sufficiently enough for you to feel out of balance, and certainly not enough for you to fall over, so your body doesn't have to shift the other way. You can feel in balance despite a weight distribution that isn't exactly 50/50.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by jamo

No, not necessarily. Your body will only fall over laterally if the center of gravity is outside of your feet, and your CoG doesn't have to be exactly in the center for you to feel balanced. I can be standing straight up-and-down, take a two-pound weight in my right hand, and extend my right hand and arm directly outward without moving my body at all and I'll still stay balanced. I could do that will a five-pound weight, 10lbs, 20, etc. and still stay balanced. They're just not moving my CoG far enough.

no - I get what you are saying, but the laws of physics have to apply.  I'm talking dynamic conservation of momentum, you are talking a static balance.  Let's not talk past each other because you're exactly right those terms.  To feel what I'm talking about, stand very still and swing a sledge forward, the rest of your body will swing in the opposite direction of the sledge.

BUT, if you take a nice solid stance, and press forward just prior and while swinging the sledge, then the "pressure" you applied to start the move, will give you a great solid swing and follow through.  But you had to apply that force externally (i.e., to the planet) to get a good motion going.

I wonder if visualizing trying to take a powerful swing on perfectly smooth ice with slippery shoes would be a way to help understand it.  With nothing to push on, reverse weight transfer would occur no matter how one gyrates, and once the ball goes north fast, the golfer would likely VERY slowly go south (cons of momentum).  (there's a lot 'ideal conditions' in here for this, no worries)

in short, IMHO, a passive golf swing will easily result in reverse weight transfer, so a good swing that ends nicely forward requires controlling your base - it's why smart guys buy neat pressure sensing devices to see how to do it best and then use those devices to teach good golfers to be even better.

[jclark]

Very well put REHMWA

[jamo]

Sorry, but I'm failing to see how what you're writing here fits together. Maybe I'm missing something. [quote name="rehmwa" url="/t/65506/getting-my-weight-forward-why/30_30#post_821415"]   no - I get what you are saying, but the laws of physics have to apply.  I'm talking dynamic conservation of momentum, you are talking a static balance.  Let's not talk past each other because you're exactly right those terms.  To feel what I'm talking about, stand very still and swing a sledge forward, the rest of your body will swing in the opposite direction of the sledge.  BUT, if you take a nice solid stance, and press forward just prior and while swinging the sledge, then the "pressure" :-P you applied to start the move, will give you a great solid swing and follow through.  But you had to apply that force externally (i.e., to the planet) to get a good motion going. [/quote] Okay, we agree that if we're including the forces applied to the ground, momentum is conserved. How does that related to what the both of us posted above? [quote name="rehmwa" url="/t/65506/getting-my-weight-forward-why/30_30#post_821415"]I wonder if visualizing trying to take a powerful swing on perfectly smooth ice with slippery shoes would be a way to help understand it.  With nothing to push on, reverse weight transfer would occur no matter how one gyrates, and once the ball goes north fast, the golfer would likely VERY slowly go south (cons of momentum).  (there's a lot 'ideal conditions' in here for this, no worries)[/quote] Okay, sure. But how does that related to any of this? Of course if there's no friction at my feet I'll have backwards momentum after contact. With nothing for your feet to grab onto, you would probably have to stay more centered throughout the swing, yes. So...? [quote name="rehmwa" url="/t/65506/getting-my-weight-forward-why/30_30#post_821415"]in short, IMHO, a passive golf swing will easily result in reverse weight transfer, so a good swing that ends nicely forward requires controlling your base - it's why smart guys buy neat pressure sensing devices to see how to do it best and then use those devices to teach good golfers to be even better. [/quote] By "passive," what do you mean? That your feet aren't using ground forces? What does "controlling your base" mean, exactly? We might not be far off, but I don't know what any of these terms mean.

[rehmwa]

no issues - you and I started with my response, I think, to someone that said the body 'naturally' moves forward during a swing.  Then I went off on physics.  Nothing more than that.  I think you were discussing something else.

the real simple example to that person (not you) is this.

take that sledge, put your feet together, swing the sledge like a pendulum back and forth - the 'natural' tendency for the body as a mass is clearly a reverse weight transfer motion.  (frankly, on review, the iacas said it really well in one of the responses already)

to swing a club AND have good 'pressure' or 'weight' transfer forward, one has to make it happen on purpose, it won't happen just because of the weight at the end of the stick.  You have to have a bit of 'natural athlete' or training or thinking to do it right.  (example, you have to step into a pitch or you lose a lot)

later, thanks for trying to understand my thoughts, I think we both were just talking about different things.

(the ice thing was more about what happens during the swing, not after the hit - it was about trying to get thought about what would happen if you couldn't start your motion with foot pressure.  should have stopped the example without the final state comment)

[dak4n6]

Let's reduce it to basic physics. If you have object A attached by a rigid rod to a smaller object B, and A tries to swing B around its axis, what will happen is the true pivot of that motion will be somewhere between the COGs of the two, so that as B moves to the right, A will move to the left abd vice versa. So, when swinging B counterclockwise (downswing), the COG of A (golfer's torso) will move back to the right unless countered using the muscles to provide forward momentum.

[jamo]

Let's reduce it to basic physics. If you have object A attached by a rigid rod to a smaller object B, and A tries to swing B around its axis, what will happen is the true pivot of that motion will be somewhere between the COGs of the two, so that as B moves to the right, A will move to the left abd vice versa. So, when swinging B counterclockwise (downswing), the COG of A (golfer's torso) will move back to the right unless countered using the muscles to provide forward momentum.

We all agree there. remwha and I were talking about different things.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by jamo

We all agree there. remwha and I were talking about different things.

Yeah - but jamo had some good stuff in there too,

always different things to learn when I keep my eyes open

if you want to have some real fun, go over to the adjustable club thread - I'm sure I butchered that one

[logman]

Wow in depth guys!. My "knowledge" is based on trial and error, feel, whatever. So I'd been noticing that with this new swing my big failing is falling back. It's kinda easy when the instruction is to keep your head over your rear knee and the body should move forward at impact -but only as a reaction to what the arms are doing. Anyhow I've got the tempo problems under control but I'm amazed that my weigh is passive but it doesn't seem to matter in terms of ball striking or distance. If I go against the teachings of Mr. Kuykendall, and press forward and hit down and finish on my font foot my dispersion goes up, the ball goes lower, shorter......all bad. If I go back to the teachings, that is flat feet, wide stance bugger all weight transfer, head over back knee etc the swing comes back into it own. It led me to question the weight forward idea.

[stoverny]

Well I am going to chime in here since it sounds like I am the only one who uses a swing similar to logmans.  I think the main difference re:weight shift is one of emphasis.  Obviously when you swing a weighted club, there is a weight transfer forward.  However many players struggle with this aspect by actively trying to shift the weight as they swing.  They are told this is how you generate power, "compress the ball", etc.  They get so focused on this weight shift that it screws up their swing, because they are not reacting naturally the way they would if they were throwing a ball, swinging an axe to cut down a tree, etc.  Many I do think would actually perform better, if they took their focus away from the lower half of their body altogether, and just used it as a stabilizer, letting the weight shift naturally in reaction to the weight of the club.  This is what we do when swinging a sledge hammer... we don't focus on weight shift, our body automatically shifts in reaction to the hammer's weight.

An analogy I would use is swinging a tennis racket.  Clearly there is a weight shift as the body winds around however at impact the weight is NOT 90% on the front side.  In fact many players actually hit off the back foot and generate tons of power.  My point is that the weight shift occurs in reaction to swinging the racket, and the shift forward usually happens after the ball is gone.  There is no thought during the tennis swing to "get your weight forward" to generate power.

I can tell you that the weight shift is much more difficult, for many more recreational golfers, than most good golfers think.  It is one of those things that can seem easy to someone who can do it, but very difficult for someone who can't.  Perhaps when you golf with some high handicappers at your local muni, you think it they just took lessons, learned the proper pivot and weight shift, they would get better.  I see them and think, if they would just stop fruitlessly trying to shift back and forwards, and started with their weight pre-set back, and let the weight of the swinging clubhead dictate their lower body movements... they would probably start enjoying the game of golf a lot more.

The way the pros swing is probably the most ideal way to generate the most distance, best compression, trajectory, etc.  However I have to laugh when people talk about 100-yard 7-irons.  It seems arrogant to me because if they really believe you can't get any distance while minimizing weight shift, or that every shot must be a fat scoop shot that takes up a big chunk of turf... it shows they clearly have never given any serious consideration to anything outside the mainstream of golf instruction.