Club Shallowing/Laid Off at the Top

[iacas]

9 hours ago, colin007 said:

Is Rahm's swing actually all that short when looking at his shoulder turn?

It’s < 90°.

So… yes.

[Big Lex]

Doesn't Phil Mickelson actually steepen his shaft plane early in the downswing? Is shaft plane flattening one of those things which happens, but isn't a fundamental, per se? It either happens or doesn't, depending on how you swing. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Big Lex said:

Doesn't Phil Mickelson actually steepen his shaft plane early in the downswing? Is shaft plane flattening one of those things which happens, but isn't a fundamental, per se? It either happens or doesn't, depending on how you swing. 

If it's too shallow, you have to steepen it at some point. If it's too steep, you have to shallow it at some point.

From memory, Phil is pretty much on a decent plane most of the time.

Yeah. Not too much change really.

[cedrictheo]

Over the years I’ve spent SO much time working on going from steep to shallow in transition. It didn’t improve my Ballstriking much if it all. But I wasn’t particularly laid off at the top when I was focusing on this… I was just chasing a picture. I somehow thought being on plane wasn’t as good as going steep to shallow.

I’ve come to see that swing models can be classified into planar and non-planar mechanics. Non-planar being the ones with the steep to shallow move (see Matthew Wolf or Victor Hovland). While planar swings tend to go up and down on roughly the same plane (see Tiger / Fleetwood / O’Grady).
 

Now I see that both planar and non-planar swings can produce great golf shots consistently. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, cedrictheo said:

Over the years I’ve spent SO much time working on going from steep to shallow in transition. It didn’t improve my Ballstriking much if it all. But I wasn’t particularly laid off at the top when I was focusing on this… I was just chasing a picture. I somehow thought being on plane wasn’t as good as going steep to shallow.

I’ve come to see that swing models can be classified into planar and non-planar mechanics. Non-planar being the ones with the steep to shallow move (see Matthew Wolf or Victor Hovland). While planar swings tend to go up and down on roughly the same plane (see Tiger / Fleetwood / O’Grady).

Now I see that both planar and non-planar swings can produce great golf shots consistently. 

I like people to find the plane early.

If you're shallow, you'll steepen it. If you're steep, you need to shallow it.

The earlier you can do it, the better. And the less you can do it, generally speaking, the better.

I generally also prefer less "out of plane" motion than more.

[cedrictheo]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

I like people to find the plane early.

If you're shallow, you'll steepen it. If you're steep, you need to shallow it.

The earlier you can do it, the better. And the less you can do it, generally speaking, the better.

I generally also prefer less "out of plane" motion than more.

My personal experience backs this up but also curious what you found is better with a planar motion? Speed? Contact? Face control? Path? Something else?

[Vinsk]

5 minutes ago, cedrictheo said:

My personal experience backs this up but also curious what you found is better with a planar motion? Speed? Contact? Face control? Path? Something else?

FWIW in my non-instructor opinion it seems to me that all those aspects you mentioned are more likely to be consistent the less one has to do. I hope that makes sense. Doing whatever you have to do to steepen or shallow the swing is just one more movement that can cause error.

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, cedrictheo said:

My personal experience backs this up but also curious what you found is better with a planar motion? Speed? Contact? Face control? Path? Something else?

I mean…

28 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

FWIW in my non-instructor opinion it seems to me that all those aspects you mentioned are more likely to be consistent the less one has to do. I hope that makes sense. Doing whatever you have to do to steepen or shallow the swing is just one more movement that can cause error.

… that's a pretty good answer.

The more "out of plane" motion/energy you have, the tougher it will be on you.

On whatever plane you swing, if you're on that plane longer, you have "less" to do.

Think about it this way… if you're off-plane at 6, you don't have much time to try to get it back on-plane by 7. It'd be better to be the same amount off-plane at 5 than 6, because you have more time for it to get on track. Ditto for 4 being better than 5. 3 being better than 4. Etc.

Does that make sense?

[cedrictheo]

I follow the logic. Not totally convinced it’s better for ALL of the variables I mentioned…

For example I’ve read there can be speed benefits to non-planar mechanics (passive torques).

That being said I am currently working towards a planar swing. And have seen considerable improvements to strike consistency and club face control.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, cedrictheo said:

For example I’ve read there can be speed benefits to non-planar mechanics (passive torques).

Sure. To go extreme, long drive swings break a lot of "golf swing swings" conventions, because… of the rules of the game.

[cedrictheo]

49 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

FWIW in my non-instructor opinion it seems to me that all those aspects you mentioned are more likely to be consistent the less one has to do. I hope that makes sense. Doing whatever you have to do to steepen or shallow the swing is just one more movement that can cause error.

Side note… your mention of consistency had me think that it’s just as important to be able to control speed  as to be able to reach higher peak speeds. Never thought about that before. Always been on a quest for more speed. And have overvalued peak speed when choosing what to prioritize.

[phillyk]

These sorts of topics bring this into mind.

The arms really shouldn’t do much in backswing and assuming the lower body starts the downswing, there shouldn’t be much thought in needing to shallow.  This also assumes good physical stability and mobility. Many people have poor posture and have trouble maintaining posture (most common of which are back issues). The outliers are just that. What is easiest and most efficient?

[mdl]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:09 PM, phillyk said:

These sorts of topics bring this into mind.

The arms really shouldn’t do much in backswing and assuming the lower body starts the downswing, there shouldn’t be much thought in needing to shallow.  This also assumes good physical stability and mobility. Many people have poor posture and have trouble maintaining posture (most common of which are back issues). The outliers are just that. What is easiest and most efficient?

I just saw on an AMG video that the average pro's adduction angle only decreases 10˚ from setup to A4! Def been trying to keep that in mind, with mixed success.

[cedrictheo]

2 minutes ago, mdl said:

I just saw on an AMG video that the average pro's adduction angle only decreases 10˚ from setup to A4! Def been trying to keep that in mind, with mixed success.

Crazy.

I’ve been working on loading the adduction (10 degrees -15 degrees) as the first move in my backswing (pinching left arm to left nipple). And then maintaining that pressure point from there. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by cedrictheo

[mdl]

4 hours ago, cedrictheo said:

Crazy.

I’ve been working on loading the adduction (10 degrees -15 degrees) as the first move in my backswing (pinching left arm to left nipple). And then maintaining that pressure point from there. 

Well... The other key insight I remember from that video is that pros do very little adduction through A2~2.5, and in fact many pros abduct slightly as they use their SI joint to push out and create even more width through that point in the swing. The pro adduction happens in the ~A2.5-A4 portion of the backswing (well, of course then there's much more in the downswing but we're talking backswing)

[cedrictheo]

21 minutes ago, mdl said:

Well... The other key insight I remember from that video is that pros do very little adduction through A2~2.5, and in fact many pros abduct slightly as they use their SI joint to push out and create even more width through that point in the swing. The pro adduction happens in the ~A2.5-A4 portion of the backswing (well, of course then there's much more in the downswing but we're talking backswing)

Interesting. No adduction until P2-P4 reminds me of how Rory and Xander's load the arms. I'm not heading that direction with my swing (modeling mine on how Mac O'Grady loaded his arms). Would be interested to look at individual swings on GEARS as opposed to the tour average for this one.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, mdl said:

I just saw on an AMG video that the average pro's adduction angle only decreases 10˚ from setup to A4! Def been trying to keep that in mind, with mixed success.

Yeah, something like that.

It's getting a little off topic here, but this one's good:

57 minutes ago, mdl said:

Well... The other key insight I remember from that video is that pros do very little adduction through A2~2.5, and in fact many pros abduct slightly as they use their SI joint to push out and create even more width through that point in the swing. The pro adduction happens in the ~A2.5-A4 portion of the backswing (well, of course then there's much more in the downswing but we're talking backswing)

Yeah, so, I don't know about that one Cedric. Mac's never been on GEARS, and almost all of the Tour players will actually WIDEN the lead arm adduction angle during the early part of the backswing, because their left shoulder is moving forward a bit in their shoulder joint.

I'll update the other topic with a bit more on this. You gave me an idea for a tweet.

[iacas]

I actually just created a new topic to talk about the early takeaway only: