Taggsy

Thanks for the suggestion mchepp, I'll give it a read! I've managed to get hold a copy of "Science & Golf 1", I've heard there's plenty of interesting jazz in there. Erik, I was only joking about the tour instructor thing - besides, you know Sean Foley's teaching tour pros now too? ;) Have a great Christmas gents, I'm off back to work!

Honest answer; I don't know, because I don't 100% understand 100% of TGM. If I did, I'd more likely be teaching tour professionals than answering your question on this forum I'll give you a more thorough answer though; There are a couple of different sections to the book. For the most part, TGM is a catalogue simply giving names to different motions you can make during the swing. Kelley divided the swing into 12 sections, the body into 3 zones, different motions into 24 components, each component had it's own variations, then he'd listed 4 motions you could make with your hands and arms to power the swing, then the different hand / wrist positions... etc. Is any of this wrong? Well no, how could it be? Kelley's simply identified a motion or position in the golf swing and given it a name. Well, what are the other parts of TGM? Some simple geometry, simple physics, a few characteristics every decent swing should have, advice on how to practice, how to change your swing... Not too much to argue with there. Seeing as there's a thread on this, could I ask another question? Could anyone provide links to specific studies on TGM concepts? Or even where someone has taken a passage / idea verbatim from TGM, and then proven it to be wrong using trackman / high speed cameras for example? I'd be genuinely interested in studying them!

And I contend that by definition, by removing the left arm you have destroyed the Triangle Assembly, and in doing so the whole Power Package concept. Ergo, there are no power accumulators on Dave's swing whatsoever. If you're happy admit the actions of the "ghost" accumulators are the same as the actual accumulators, what's the difference between Dave's one-handed and two-handed backswings? You've completely misunderstood what the first accumulator is. It's simply the bending of the right arm. What you've described above is the bending of the right arm, in conjunction with keeping the clubshaft on plane. You can't keep the clubshaft on plane without using a combination of accumulators. And again, by definition there are no accumulators at all because you have no power package. But if that's besides the point, why have you mentioned power accumulators at all in your post showing Dave's swing? What you've demonstrated above is the The Flail, 2-K. On Dave's one-handed swing, the closer the clubshaft and his right arm get to being in line, the faster the clubhead is travelling. He's in centrifugal acceleration until the clubshaft and his right arm are in line. Your study shows a 150 degree angle between clubshaft and right arm has a faster clubhead speed than a 140 angle. Each angle up until 180 degrees will have an increase of speed. That's nothing new, it's in TGM. I'm not contesting your use of the term "PA5", I've explained previously what it actually is in TGM terms. The reason I'm posting here is because your understanding of TGM's concepts is wrong. And when you don't understand the concepts, it's very easy for you to say "the majority of the book is wrong". You have a large, interested, and intelligent readership on these forums, and for some, the only understanding they have of TGM is from what you tell them. I think you owe them a service of using TGM terms and concepts properly, especially when pointing out "missing" parts from the book. But again, that's a debate for another time. Most importantly for this thread, I've not once said your concept is wrong, I totally agree with you that throwing your right wrist angle can add clubhead speed. The point is, it's nothing new.

Removing the left arm doesn't prevent the use of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accumulators, it simply means you cannot cock the left hand, roll the left hand, or change the angle between the left arm and chest... Sound like an oxymoron? Let me explain; The 1st accumulator is the bending of the right arm. If Dave had used that in isolation on his backswing, this is what would have happened; Right arm bends at elbow. Right hand moves towards right shoulder. Angle between right forearm and right upper arm decreases to around 90 degrees (for argument's sake). Distance between right hand and right shoulder shortens by 8" (for argument's sake). That's the 1st accumulator in all its isolated glory. So what does that mean for the club? Very simply, the clubhead will move by 8" in a straight line towards the shoulder. That's it. But on Dave's backswing we can see the club's moved a lot more than that. Let's start with Dave's clubface. There's no picture of address for us to see, but I should imagine Dave's clubface at the start is pretty much facing the target. But at the top of his swing the clubface is facing the camera. That's a change of 90 degrees or so. Dave's not pivoted much during his backswing, if at all, so we know that's not down to him turning his shoulders 90 degrees. We know from above that the 1st accumulator didn't do that, so what was it? That was the 3rd accumulator. As well as the open clubface, we can see the clubhead has moved vertically from the ground more than the 8" or so caused by the 1st accumulator. In fact it's just above knee height. From floor to knee, let's say it's 22" for argument's sake. We'll deduct the 8" from the 1st accumulator and we're left with 14" of vertical movement we can't account for. That would be the 2nd accumulator. Finally, Dave's right hand has moved away from the ball on the backswing, not just towards the right shoulder (the 1st accumulator), but also away from whatever his target is. That is the 4th accumulator. The irony here is, given the "TGM literalist" comment, these misunderstandings are from taking TGM concepts literally (i.e. with no left wrist, there can be no 2nd accumulator). That's not the case, as power accumulators are simply out of line positions- the left hand / wrist / arm is an easy way to see those out of line positions. If you remove the left arm, you can still have those out of line positions, as demonstrated by Dave. As always, submitted with respect.

Hi Etzwane, thank you for your post, and for making an excellent point! I totally agree with you on one aspect, but disagree on a couple of others. I’m with you 100% when you say you can “beat” centrifugal force by “actively” uncocking your left wrist on the downswing. But what exactly does that entail, and how would we know when you’re in complete control of the uncocking and there’s no centrifugal force involved? Well, an easy test would be this; at any point on the downswing with a cocked left wrist, you should be able to completely stop your arms and hands, and the clubhead would stop exactly where it was also. If the clubhead didn’t stop, and it continued on its path, no matter what distance, then you know there was “centrifugal acceleration” (the mass of the clubhead trying to get to an in-line position (clubshaft in-line with the left arm)). So could we perform that test, potentially stopping our hands at any point on the downswing and the clubhead would stop also? You betcha.... but we’d have to either be swinging that club damn sloooooowly to do so, or else have incredibly firm wrists to be able to stop a clubhead from traveling at, for argument’s sake 70MPH, to 0MPH in the blink of an eye. So what does it mean to “beat” centrifugal force? Well, put simply, if the centrifugal force is accelerating the clubhead towards the ball, then to beat it, you need to produce an equal and opposite force. That is to say, on the downswing, you would be actively slowing the clubhead down. You don’t want to be doing that! The point is, you can uncock the wrist actively or passively, but they both involve centrifugal force. Hitting isn’t “beating” centrifugal force, it’s an absence of it. But again, you’d made an excellent point- thanks for posting. (P.S. You may be thinking the definition of Hitting I give on this thread would also fail the “centrifugal test” because the clubhead would continue traveling after my hands abruptly stop... and you’d be right! But because the clubshaft is already in-line, instead of that moving clubhead being “centrifugal acceleration”, it’s actually “centrifugal deceleration”, the useless side effect of momentum after impact.)

Thank you for the link and informing me! I genuinely didn't know who he was, and I would be very interested in learning from him how and why I'm wrong. I feel the answer he gave Erik is incomplete (in that it doesn't fully explain Hitting and Swinging), but the quotes I've used from the book itself does- or at least does to me! Stating I didn't know who Mr Evans is wasn't supposed to be a glib remark, and I'm very sorry if it came across that way. Hi Mchepp, It doesn't come across as harsh at all. Hitting and Swinging is an interesting concept (hell, if you had no interest in it, you wouldn't have opened this thread, right? ), but it's a concept very few people understand. Whenever you read about it online, there's always the disclaimer "It's basically this... but it's more complicated than that...". Well, I'm a curious chap, and I'd like to know exactly what it is, rather than the simple version of it. I'm guessing you're the same - after all, you're on this thread. And that's what this thread is about, and that's my motivation; so that next time you hear about the concepts of Hitting and Swinging, you'll know exactly what they are, but you'll also know what they're not. Do I think this thread will help golfers make better swings? No, I doubt it very much- but that was never the point. As for Jeff Mann's site... why would you watch an an hour and 45 minute long YouTube video explaining what you could read in my first post in a couple of minutes (plus a three second swing video)?! Not only that, as you've mentioned, I've quoted verbatim from the book. I'd hoped you see there is no opinion and very little interpretation from me- it's Hitting and Swinging in Kelley's words, not mine. I hope that answers your questions

How many of you watched him hit balls for the whole four and a half minutes? lol

That's an excellent description of a Hitting stroke! (You could rotate your shoulders if you wanted to- that's the Pivot.) "It's also the feeling I have at impact along with the normal centripetal rotation, hence my comment that I swing + hit at impact." Ok, now I see where we were getting confused. What you see and feel at (preferably just after) Impact, where the clubshaft and left arm are in line - that part there is exactly the same for Hitting and Swinging. But that's only one point in time of the golf swing - at that fraction of a second, Hitting and Swinging may look the same, and to you, feel the same - but for the rest of the swing, they're different.... but I know you understand that

You don't have to be "fairly certain" about anything in The Golfing Machine. It's all there and very explicit- it's just difficult to find! I'm sorry to say I don't know who Chuck Evans is, but I welcome him to read my post and point out where I'm wrong, why I'm wrong, and do so by quoting directly from The Golfing Machine, just as I have. You'll understand if I don't just take his word for it. "Homer Kelley had the opinion that a golfer could PUSH or PULL the golf club during the swing, and that you couldn't really do both at the same time because you'd lose your lag pressure (or something). Again, pulling was "swinging" or "drag loading" and pushing was "hitting" or "drive loading."" You're simplifying Hitting and Swinging into 'pushing' and 'pulling'. Drag Loading isn't the definition of Swinging - it's a component of Swinging. The same goes for Drive Loading with Hitting. (Incidentally, 10-19-A, Drive Loading, nicely shows the Top and Impact of a Hitting stroke). What do you mean exactly by "pushing" and "pulling" the golf club? If by "pushing" we're in agreement that it's a motion performed by the right arm extending from a bent position (using the First Accumulator), then it may surprise you to know you can "pull" the club with the First Accumulator also. Take a club in your right hand only, make an on plane backswing as best you can using the First Accumulator... now "pull" the clubhead towards your imaginary ball. How did you "pull" that club? By using muscular thrust of your bent right arm- which is "pushing" So there you go, you've "pushed" and "pulled" the club not only with the same stroke, but with the same hand, using the same Accumulator. "I agree that every swing involves some "swinging." Again, hitting alone is really weak. But it's also true that virtually every swing involves "hitting," too." Hitting alone is very weak. Kelley says in the preface to use Hitting if you're strong. Of course you'd have to be very strong to make a Hitting stroke go anywhere near as far as a Swinging stroke. Again, you've ignored The Golfing Machine's definition of Hitting and substituted it for "pushing". I concur virtually every swing involves "pushing", but Hitting is something completely different. "People will say that they "feel" like they're doing one or the other, but they're all doing both. Arnold Palmer was a "hitter" but Jack Nicklaus may have applied more right arm thrust (force across the shaft) than Arnie despite being a "swinger" to everyone's eyes." What you feel ain't real. You know that As for Arnie and Jack, sure, one of them may have had a more active right arm and purposely used the First Accumulator compared to the other- but neither of them were Hitting according to The Golfing Machine. Hitting isn't just 'pushing'- it's also an absence of centrifugal force during the swing.

Could you tell me what you think Hitting is?

I hear what you're saying MiniBlueDragon, and I completely understand what you mean and what you're doing during your swing. But the bottom line is this; There is centrifugal force, therefore you are swinging. It's really that simple.

Read the first post, not Phil's reply. What you're saying is "Through Impact I'm powering the swing with my right arm". I'm not disputing that at all. But is there centrifugal force in your swing? Yep. That means you're Swinging. Read my first post

Hi Phil! You'd know the answer to that question if you'd read my initial post I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but for the sake of me answering your question, I'll assume you believe Hitting is using muscular force (the right arm pushing the club). You'd be half right if that's what you believe. Hitting is using muscular force and NOT centrifugal force. Any time there is centrifugal force, irrespective of if the right arm is controlling that centrifugal force, it's still swinging. There's only one way to perform Hitting- read my first post and look at the video! When people have performed studies on Hitting and Swinging and conclude "they both have the same elements" or "you can do both at the same time", they've completely misunderstood what Hitting is. They've been comparing Swinging with.... Swinging (but what they thought was Hitting). Read the first post Phil. If you're still unsure after reading it, ask away

It's about as close I can get to keeping the left arm and clubshaft in-line.

I should imagine most readers of this forum have heard the terms “Hitting” and “Swinging”, and may have a vague idea of what they entail. You’ve probably heard one’s pushing the club, the other’s pulling the club, one’s using your right hand, the other your left, that one’s muscular force and the other centrifugal force. These are simplified explanations. Homer Kelley, the chap who wrote The Golfing Machine and who first classified Hitting and Swinging, has written the following about simplifying explanations in the introduction to his book; “Treating a complex subject or action as though it were simple, multiplies its complexity because of the difficulty in systematizing missing and unknown factors of elements.” “...golf instruction kept simple does not make it simple - only incomplete and ineffective.” With this in mind, let’s go through The Golfing Machine and discover exactly what Hitting and Swinging are. You may be surprised... ***** Firstly, why all the confusion in the first place? Surely you could flick to the section entitled “Hitting & Swinging”, read what it says, and you’re good to go. Right? Erm, no. For those of you who’ve (attempted to!) read The Golfing Machine, you’ll quickly discover it’s not an easy perusal. For a start, Kelley seldom repeats himself. This means the book is littered with cross references. As a (not accurate) example, if you want to understand what’s written on page 25, you’d need to have read page 50, but to understand page 50, you need to have read pages 5 and 78, but if you want to understand pages 5 and 78..... et cetera, et cetera. Couple this with the fact the language used is very exacting (Kelley spent a long time making sure every single word was correct and not open to misinterpretation- even making up the word “non-automatic” because “automatic”’s antonym is “manual”, and the definition of “manual” was at odds with what Kelley meant). You can flick through, read a paragraph where it mentions something being “vertical to the angled plane” and think to yourself “Well, I know ‘vertical’ means ‘up and down’, so I understand that part”, when in fact Kelley was using the dictionary definition of “vertical”, meaning “perpendicular”. It’s not patronising to suggest you have a dictionary on hand when reading The Golfing Machine! If the cross referencing and language used isn’t hard enough, there are a lot of concepts that don’t have pictures or diagrams! You’ve probably already guessed it, but the Hitting and Swinging concepts are prone to the above difficulties. ***** Where shall we begin our search on the elusive meaning of Hitting and Swinging? Kelley was kind enough to provide us with a glossary of most of the terms and concepts in the book, so that’s as good a place to start as any. For each Golfing Machine concept, Kelley gives us three examples; A “real world” example from something non-golfing that has parallels to the concept (but not always 100% the same). A mechanical example, for example a comparison to machine parts or a scientific definition. A golfing example - what exactly this concept is on the golf swing. Hitting and Swinging are in the glossary as one entry. For the “real world” example he uses; “The catapult (Hitting) vs. the sling (Swinging).” For the Mechanical example he gives; “Continuous thrust producing a steady acceleration of a hinged beam is a Hitting action. A rotating arm pulling steadily on a weighted line is a Swinging action.” For the golfing example he gives; “Accelerating the Club radially with Right Arm Thrust is Hitting. Accelerating the Club Longitudinally, with either Arm, is Swinging.” So there’s your answer, lesson over! ;) I’m joking... what does the above mean in English? I’m going to come back to that a little later, but first I want us to go through the book for more information that can help us. In the preface to The Golfing Machine, Kelley writes; “The golf stroke involves, mainly, two basic elements - the geometry of the circle and the physics of rotation.... The geometry (of Hitting and Swinging) is the same for both. But, basically, the physics of Hitting is muscular thrust, and of Swinging, centrifugal force. Herein, “Motion” is geometry - “Action” is physics.” Kelley says here that the golf swing is made up of motion (of your body and golf club), and the way to make that motion. He explains that the motions for hitting and swinging are the same (by that he means; for both you are moving your body and golf club), but how you move your body and club are different. At this juncture I’d like to clarify one of the most widely held misunderstandings about Hitting and Swinging. And that is; they look the same. They don’t. They look completely different! This misunderstanding arises from the above statement where Kelley says the “geometry is the same for both” , and from another section in the book entitled “Right Arm or Left” (1-F). Firstly, the “geometry is the same for both” simply means the clubshaft and arms move away from the ball around a fixed point, your left shoulder (but also your spine, that’s not important now), and then back towards the ball. Because there is a fixed point from which the arms and clubshaft are moving, the clubshaft makes an arc, That’s the geometry, and it’s the same for both Hitting and Swinging. The actual golf swings themselves looks completely different. The misunderstanding also comes from the aforementioned section, “Right Arm or Left”. Here, Kelley says it’s difficult to detect if the right arm is active (using muscular thrust), or not, just by looking, because either way the right arm bends on the backswing, and straightens on the downswing. The bent right arm will straighten on the downswing whether you’re pushing your right arm straight with your triceps or not, because the hands are moving away from the right shoulder. The left arm is pulling the right arm straight, or the right arm is straightening itself- either way, they look the same. Because people believe Hitting is simply muscular thrust (actively straightening the right arm with the triceps), and because you can’t tell if there is muscular thrust on a swing, then it seems obvious that you can’t tell if someone is Hitting or Swinging just by looking. That would be true except for this one very important point.... Swinging, as we’ve learnt above, is centrifugal force- and Hitting is not. Centrifugal force is very easy to see on the golf swing! The centrifugal force on the golf swing, according to The Golfing Machine’s glossary is; “The effort of the swinging clubhead to pull the Primary Lever Assembly (left arm and club) into a straight line.” In layman’s terms, it’s the angle between your straight left arm and the clubshaft. On the backswing that angle decreases when cocking your left wrist, and on the downswing it increases when swinging the clubhead towards the ball. That angle between the left arm and clubshaft on the downswing is often referred to as “lag”. So we now know Swinging is any time there is centrifugal force during the downswing . I hope at this point you’re thinking to yourself; “Hang on, isn’t that every swing?!”. Because you’d be pretty much correct. It’s certainly every swing that’s ever been on tour. It’s most likely every swing you’ve ever seen, ever, anywhere, on anyone! So what on earth’s Hitting? Well, we know Hitting isn’t Swinging, and we know Swinging is any time there’s centrifugal force, so Hitting must be an absence of centrifugal force. How could we use the golf club without centrifugal force? It’s easy; you keep the clubshaft in line with the left arm at all times. You imagine the left arm and golf club are just one line with no arching, or bending, or cocking, or uncocking of the left wrist. That left wrist may as well not even be there. With your left wrist frozen and the left arm and clubshaft in line, how can you hit the ball? With muscular thrust. You bend your right arm on the backswing, and use your triceps to straighten the right arm on the downswing- pushing that in line left arm and clubshaft towards the ball. You don’t believe me when I say that’s Hitting? Let’s look back at the glossary definition. Hitting is like a catapult. (not the elastic kind you hold in your hand, but the kind that propels rocks and boulders into castles!). Google “catapult” if you’re not sure what they look like. The first dozen or so images show them quite nicely. The mechanical definition was the “ continuous thrust producing a steady acceleration of a hinged beam”. See how that relates to the catapult. The beam is the length of wood that throws the rock. The hinge is what attaches that moving beam to the base of the catapult. The continuous thrust is whatever method is used to propel that wooden beam forwards. Now compare that definition to the golf swing. This time the beam is the left arm and clubshaft, the hinge is the left shoulder, and the continuous thrust is the right arm straightening. In summary; Swinging is any time there is centrifugal force. Hitting is pushing the in-line left arm and clubshaft with the bent right arm. ***** There we have it. Hitting and Swinging explained. And that’s not my opinion or interpretation of Hitting and Swinging; it’s straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak- directly from The Golfing Machine. I’ll include a video of me Hitting. You already know what Swinging looks like ;)