Position at Address and Impact. Why do We Set up Differently?

[KelvinPDX]

I looked for previous conversations about this but to no avail. Im wondering if there’s a bio mechanical reason for setting up to the ball in a relatively neutral, face forward position making the golfer adjust his body through several different transitions. I’ve tried setting up to the ball in my hopeful impact position and find I’m hitting the ball with more accuracy and I think similar distance. Is it the ability to form the swing from the face forward position in various ways? Or is there something in the body transition from face forward to sideways that allows for more power? Thanks for any insight!

[KelvinPDX]

I actually found a thread discussing having the club shaft placed at address at a similar angle to the angles the club would be at impact. My question is actually, yes placing the club shaft at address at a similar angle to the club position at impact, but also, having the right knee flexed and pointed to somewhere between the left toe and the ball, having the hips and shoulders at address at the angle similar to their position at impact. It seems to me being in the position you want to end up at is the obvious solution but there must be a reason that pros don’t do this and I’m curious what that reason is.

[dennyjones]

Welcome to TST @KelvinPDX.   If you watch elite players, you'll notice they do have some variance in their setup compared to their opponents.  

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, KelvinPDX said:

I actually found a thread discussing having the club shaft placed at address at a similar angle to the angles the club would be at impact. My question is actually, yes placing the club shaft at address at a similar angle to the club position at impact, but also, having the right knee flexed and pointed to somewhere between the left toe and the ball, having the hips and shoulders at address at the angle similar to their position at impact. It seems to me being in the position you want to end up at is the obvious solution but there must be a reason that pros don’t do this and I’m curious what that reason is.

This question is in line with the Jim Venetos method. We have a thread discussing this method. JV himself participated briefly but as usual bailed when it came to biomechanically explaining this belief. I would suggest you just watch some YouTube videos of him and you will be able to get a good idea what’s going on.

Essentially the ‘conventional’ method used by pros generates power by a series of proper weight shifting and timing/routing of the club. The golf swing is usually best suited when it’s swung in a ‘circular, shallow, descending inside to out pattern. If you set your body into position so that this is performed, closed stance with weight forward, and you hold that position, you will quite immediately begin hitting some nice shots.

However, despite what JV argues you’re losing sources of power. Eliminating weight shift, hip turn, shoulder turn, eliminates these sources of power.

Watch some JV YouTube videos then maybe read the discussion on this method here:

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Vinsk

[KelvinPDX]

Thanks for that reference! I’ve looked at his stuff before and agree with some posters that the lower body bit (or the lack thereof) bothers me. ACTUALLY what I’m talking about is not similar to his method in that the only difference to the conventional swing is in the address. All other things are the same. Foot position (somewhat square to the target) is the same as a conventional swing. Only the knee position and upper body address are different. Also, clearly, how you get to the backswing is different. Im just wondering if the asymmetry in the conventional swing serves a geometric or biomechanical advantage (Matt Wolfe’s swing would be an extreme version of asymmetry, in that the backswing is on as different a line as his swing as possible (kinda)).

[Vinsk]

4 minutes ago, KelvinPDX said:

Thanks for that reference! I’ve looked at his stuff before and agree with some posters that the lower body bit (or the lack thereof) bothers me. ACTUALLY what I’m talking about is not similar to his method in that the only difference to the conventional swing is in the address. All other things are the same. Foot position (somewhat square to the target) is the same as a conventional swing. Only the knee position and upper body address are different. Also, clearly, how you get to the backswing is different. Im just wondering if the asymmetry in the conventional swing serves a geometric or biomechanical advantage (Matt Wolfe’s swing would be an extreme version of asymmetry, in that the backswing is on as different a line as his swing as possible (kinda)).

I’m not real sure what you’re asking then. But there are much more qualified members here who can shed some light on your question. In general I believe that the best golfers and instructors in the world would’ve found a method ‘easier’ than the conventional one if it existed. And I understand there are many variances to this swing I.e. Wolfe, Furyk, DeChambeau. But the conventional method ( the Five Keys) are all represented in these swings.

[KelvinPDX]

I guess, here on TST, the proper answer to any question like this (alternate swing approaches) is that if it embodies the five keys and doesn’t screw the keys up somehow by putting you in a bad position, and it works, it’ll be fine. I’ll read up more on those keys and see if what I’m talking about fits or not.

ps Venetos advocates a preset open feet position. And a still lower body. I’m not talking about that. Just put yourself in (or close to) the position you happen to be when you actually hit the ball and start from there instead of all square to the ball. Video would probably help. Might try but that pretty heady stuff for my first post.

[phillyk]

3 minutes ago, KelvinPDX said:

 Just put yourself in (or close to) the position you happen to be when you actually hit the ball and start from there instead of all square to the ball. Video would probably help. Might try but that pretty heady stuff for my first post.

I get what you're saying.  It is a good drill to help people get into a good impact position, but it does reduce power and sometimes a lower ball flight. The question, really, is how you make the back swing?  Think of weight and pressure.  Conventionally, backswing brings pressure to right side with somewhat centered weight. Impact brings nearly everything to the left.  If, you are starting with everything left, are you making a back swing that tries to keep it there or are you moving it?  Keeping it there is simple but reduces power.  Moving it adds a lot of extra movement that would require good sequencing to make consistent.

[KelvinPDX]

In answer to “how do you make the backswing”... one does it similar to the conventional swing except where you start. I suppose there is the 45 or so extra degrees the hips need to rotate in the backswing since the hips are set up around 45* open. But this wouldn’t affect timing on the downswing. Only the backswing timing and it’s extremely minimal at that. Maybe it’s just that bigger backswing requirement that makes it less efficient. I find it strange that we have to twist our wrists and arm position to get into the traditional address position. Seems like a formal position and not bio mechanically developed. 

[phillyk]

8 minutes ago, KelvinPDX said:

 I find it strange that we have to twist our wrists and arm position to get into the traditional address position. Seems like a formal position and not bio mechanically developed. 

Huh? I feel like the position that you are said to be starting in is much more of a twisted position than conventional.

24 minutes ago, KelvinPDX said:

In answer to “how do you make the backswing”... one does it similar to the conventional swing except where you start. I suppose there is the 45 or so extra degrees the hips need to rotate in the backswing since the hips are set up around 45* open. 

45* is a lot of extra rotation.  Not saying it can't be done, just that it takes more work.

[iacas]

There’s really no reason to set up like you are at impact, and a bunch of good players really couldn’t even non-dynamically set up like they are at impact, because they get there dynamically.

[Double Mocha Man]

Oftentimes, at impact, especially on drives, the trail heel is well off the ground and, in some cases, the front foot is in the air.  Dare you to set up that way!

[Darkfrog]

I'm having a hard time picturing exactly what is being described. I thought it was something similar to the JV method, but sounds like something else. 

Is OP asking why we don't set up/address the ball with hips open X-degrees, shoulders open Y-degrees, Z-degrees of shaft lean, etc.?

I'm also not clear what twisting wrist/forearms is done at address. I have seen players set up with extreme shaft lean, to the point where the hands are almost ahead of the lead hip, but they didn't hit the ball well. I feel like my arms are just hanging, and my wrists are just in their natural position holding the club.

[Keep It Simple]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

There’s really no reason to set up like you are at impact, and a bunch of good players really couldn’t even non-dynamically set up like they are at impact, because they get there dynamically.

Lexi Thompson comes to mind.

 

[KelvinPDX]

I’m totally failing on the description so here’s some photos first is my conventional setup at address. Next is the setup I’m wondering about.

I was rooting around the web and there’s a system called DST advocating a similar approach. 

[KelvinPDX]

Looking at the second picture, my wrist is probably pronated (slightly cupped) too much and should be at least straight. But the thing this tries to avoid is having the wrist ever being cupped (except in reality my wrist gets bowed at impact with early release, I’m working on this with the split grip drill, and despite the flip I’m getting relatively consistent results from this position). At take away, wrist is straight or slightly flexed. This is part of what I was wondering... is the transition out of the cupped wrist to the flexed/bowed wrist part of the power equation?

[iacas]

I am almost tempted to merge that into the first post for future people, but since it’s only post #15 I’m hoping they’ll at least get to this point to see it before commenting.

That setup is not what you would look like at impact. It’d be quite different, again because you can get there dynamically. Point being, if it’s not that different, and you hit it better from there, go for it.

Matt Wolff doesn’t set up like his impact, but because he wants to get his hips so open, he “pumps” them open as his trigger to start his backswing.

[KelvinPDX]

Wow that’s perfect thanks. He’s basically  doing what I’m describing. It’s not the same but it’s closer than addressing the ball face forward. Is that photo of the end of the pump or a setup position? I’m going to have to find more stuff on his swing. My difference is I wouldn’t pump but would go from a static position. I’m wondering if he pumps so he can get more dynamic action into the backswing. This is perfect thanks so much. This site is awesome.