Square to the Arc (from Roy)

[barlucjak]

i said that was the feeling i get but ok , dont knock something just because it dies not work for you or you can not do it . if you could better explain it i am all ears as it is not the conventional swing

[iacas]

i said that was the feeling i get but ok , dont knock something just because it dies not work for you or you can not do it . if you could better explain it i am all ears as it is not the conventional swing

At this point nobody has a clear picture what "it" is. It's highly unlikely you don't turn your forearms during your swing so film a video and let's see it. Do one in slow motion ideally. Seriously - let's see it.

[Joe Mama]

Did you read the 75 posts which came before? That 2D picture is not representative of 3D space. It's impossible unless you make a goofy swing that nobody in the history of single digit play let alone better has ever made.

When you say "It's impossible," you're no doubt referring to a claim someone else made in this forum, not my claim. I'm making no claim other than that I try to keep my club face square to the swing arc for as long as I comfortably can simplifies my swing and improves my ball striking. I included the drawing just in case anyone had any doubt about what "square to the arc" means. It means that a line perpendicular to the club face is tangent to the arc. As for what "perpendicular" and "tangent" mean, I refer forum readers to any high school geometry text. :)

[Joe Mama]

My main reason for posting is to encourage readers to try to keep the club face square to the arc for as long as is comfortable for them to see if their ball-striking improves. .

[iacas]

When you say "It's impossible," you're no doubt referring to a claim someone else made in this forum, not my claim.

It's impossible to keep the clubface "square to the arc" beyond about A2 (shaft horizontal to the ground early in the backswing) unless you make a goofy swing that nobody in the history of single-digit players (or better) has ever made.

I illustrated that much earlier with the stick diagrams.

Every good player rotates his left forearm about 90° (but MUCH more than 0°), which rotates the clubface off the plane.

I'm making no claim other than that I try to keep my club face square to the swing arc for as long as I comfortably can simplifies my swing and improves my ball striking.

I doubt that you do it nearly as long as you believe you do it.

I included the drawing just in case anyone had any doubt about what "square to the arc" means. It means that a line perpendicular to the club face is tangent to the arc. As for what "perpendicular" and "tangent" mean, I refer forum readers to any high school geometry text. :)

I think we know what it means. At the top of the backswing, as the lead forearm has rotated around 90°, it's closer to perpendicular to that tangent.

My main reason for posting is to encourage readers to try to keep the club face square to the arc for as long as is comfortable for them to see if their ball-striking improves.

It's not really something worth seeking. If someone wants to keep their clubface square to the arc until the shaft is horizontal in the backswing (the first time, so, very early in the backswing), that's fine. Keeping it "square to the arc" any longer than that is a Very Bad Thing™.

[Joe Mama]

Iacas, you said....... " Roy, the simple fact of the matter is that in every golf swing, the clubface does not stay square to the plane past about the position where the shaft is horizontal to the ground on the backswing. In every golf swing (and by that I mean everybody's full golf swing, not any swing ever made), the clubface will rotate to a position that's about 90 degrees from "square to the plane." Just a couple of points Roy mentioned he was using a very strong 4 knuckle grip and that reminded me of the Jerry Heard "super swing". Occasionally I'll have a few swings like this at the range. Interesting grip.......super strong top hand with the thumb running down the back of the shaft so it would feel like the hammer and nail analogy  that Roy was trying to pass on. Bottom hand....also with the thumb running down the back of the shaft and the knuckles pointing towards the target. So when you pick up the club the and swing up to the top, the clubface can stay square to the target. It's an interesting swing method with alot of power, the only downside is you must keep the bottom hand thumb travelling down the line and not rolling over. [COLOR=181818]Also Jack Kuykendalls "E2E " swing is a swing with no wrist cock and a square to the line clubhead.[/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]Maybe Roy was referring to something like Heards grip and swing.[/COLOR]

That is the exact swing I am talking about. The challenge is to cope with the tendency of the forearms to roll counter-clockwise too much, too soon, which pulls the ball left. Pulling the right foot back a bit helps.

[Joe Mama]

In regard to my suggestion that golfers try to keep their clubface square to the swing arc for as long as is comfortable, Iacas remarked, "It's not really something worth seeking. If someone wants to keep their clubface square to the arc until the shaft is horizontal in the backswing....that's fine. Keeping it "square to the arc" any longer than that is a Very Bad Thing™." With a four-knuckle left hand on my irons and left thumb at three o'clock I am able to swing back at least 225 degrees (zero at setup, 90 degrees horizontal, 180 degrees vertical, plus at least 45 degrees more, all the while the clubface is square to the swing arc, without any rolling of the forearms. You may say that I just think the face is square. To this I can only say to forum readers, try it yourself, then decide if I'm imagining it. In my opinion, virtually every grip style, and every manner of takeaway, is a "very bad thing" for certain golfers, but a good thing for others. Iacas's game no doubt would be ruined if he attempted the type of backswing we've been talking about in this forum, but others with a much higher handicap might lower their scores. I like this swing because it has fewer moving parts. When I attempt the orthodox cock and roll backswing with the subsequent supination/pronation swing through, I sometimes make a superb ball strike, but too often I mis-hit the ball because of poor timing. Very bad things happen less often with my square swing. Note: If I execute the orthodox swing correctly, the release occurs more naturally--more fluidly, than with the square swing, with the former consequently providing greater club head speed. The trade-off for me, then, is greater reliability at the expense of speed. For me, it's been worth it. I believe some readers in this forum might find that this swing for them is indeed worth seeking.

[Zeph]

Could you post a video or at least pictures of this swing that is square to the arc that far? It is difficult to try something that we don't know how looks.

[iacas]

With a four-knuckle left hand on my irons and left thumb at three o'clock I am able to swing back at least 225 degrees (zero at setup, 90 degrees horizontal, 180 degrees vertical, plus at least 45 degrees more, all the while the clubface is square to the swing arc, without any rolling of the forearms. You may say that I just think the face is square. To this I can only say to forum readers, try it yourself, then decide if I'm imagining it.

Video or it didn't happen.

Your feel isn't real. Again, I illustrated this quite simply using stick figures much earlier in this thread.

And again, even if you're capable of making that swing (obviously it's physically possible, nobody's debating that), it's not the type of swing which is likely to let you get down to even the high single digits, or possibly even breaking 90 regularly.

In my opinion, virtually every grip style, and every manner of takeaway, is a "very bad thing" for certain golfers, but a good thing for others. Iacas's game no doubt would be ruined if he attempted the type of backswing we've been talking about in this forum, but others with a much higher handicap might lower their scores.

Why should they learn something which they'll then have to un-learn (as, again, it's not a motion like anyone who is any good at all employs)?

I like this swing because it has fewer moving parts. When I attempt the orthodox cock and roll backswing with the subsequent supination/pronation swing through, I sometimes make a superb ball strike, but too often I mis-hit the ball because of poor timing. Very bad things happen less often with my square swing.

Let's see some video.

[mvmac]

@Joe Mama have you seen this video? Do you see any good players that swing like this?

[Joe Mama]

@Joe Mama have you seen this video? Do you see any good players that swing like this?

I have viewed the video. However, I am unable to judge from the video whether your left hand grip is two, three, or four knuckles.[quote name="mvmac" url="/t/44429/square-to-the-arc-from-roy/90#post_1037611"] @Joe Mama have you seen this video? Do you see any good players that swing like this? [/quote] The video and added graphics is better than I could create, but in my opinion is nevertheless inconclusive. I hope you will not rush to attribute my reluctance to accept your argument to stupidity or stubbornness. I believe more information needs to be provided about the setup. For example, I could not tell how many left knuckles are showing on the left hand of the golfer at setup. The number is absolutely vital. With only three knuckles showing on my left hand, for example, I can take the face back square only about 90 degrees; if only one knuckle, it's only 30 degrees. In order for me to take it back the 225 degrees I have been talking about, I have to have all four knuckles--and MORE--showing. (If I had a fifth knuckle, it would show.). Short of that, I cannot keep the face square along all of the 225 degree arc. So, my question is this: how many knuckles at setup are showing on the left hand of the golfer in the video? If it's fewer than four plus, then it's no surprise to me that the forearms will definitely rotate (which means that , of course, the face becomes no longer square to the arc). How many knuckles?

[iacas]

How many knuckles?

That's not relevant. And honestly, if you think it is, then we're either talking about very different things or you're not really understanding things…

The video and added graphics is better than I could create, but in my opinion is nevertheless inconclusive. I hope you will not rush to attribute my reluctance to accept your argument to stupidity or stubbornness. I believe more information needs to be provided about the setup. For example, I could not tell how many left knuckles are showing on the left hand of the golfer at setup. The number is absolutely vital. With only three knuckles showing on my left hand, for example, I can take the face back square only about 90 degrees; if only one knuckle, it's only 30 degrees. In order for me to take it back the 225 degrees I have been talking about, I have to have all four knuckles--and MORE--showing. (If I had a fifth knuckle, it would show.). Short of that, I cannot keep the face square along all of the 225 degree arc.

So, my question is this: how many knuckles at setup are showing on the left hand of the golfer in the video? If it's fewer than four plus, then it's no surprise to me that the forearms will definitely rotate (which means that , of course, the face becomes no longer square to the arc).

How many knuckles?

None of that makes any sense. The number of knuckles showing is irrelevant. I could grip the club with a claw and it would either stay square to the arc (and look like I demonstrated) or rotate and look normal (i.e. roughly perpendicular to "square to the arc", or "parallel to the arc").

[mvmac]

I have viewed the video. However, I am unable to judge from the video whether your left hand grip is two, three, or four knuckles.

The video and added graphics is better than I could create, but in my opinion is nevertheless inconclusive. I hope you will not rush to attribute my reluctance to accept your argument to stupidity or stubbornness. I believe more information needs to be provided about the setup. For example, I could not tell how many left knuckles are showing on the left hand of the golfer at setup. The number is absolutely vital. With only three knuckles showing on my left hand, for example, I can take the face back square only about 90 degrees; if only one knuckle, it's only 30 degrees. In order for me to take it back the 225 degrees I have been talking about, I have to have all four knuckles--and MORE--showing. (If I had a fifth knuckle, it would show.). Short of that, I cannot keep the face square along all of the 225 degree arc.

So, my question is this: how many knuckles at setup are showing on the left hand of the golfer in the video? If it's fewer than four plus, then it's no surprise to me that the forearms will definitely rotate (which means that , of course, the face becomes no longer square to the arc).

How many knuckles?

That's actually @iacas in the video but no biggie.

How many knuckles doesn't matter, there are guys like Azinger and Tommy Gainey that can probably see 4 knuckles that don't keep the face square to the arc because it's not a functional way to swing a golf club. There has to be some forearm rotation.

[Joe Mama]

Here is a bad photo of my left hand at setup: Note: I have been asked to submit a video of my swing. It is easy to ask, but not so easy to comply. I don't have the skill of a Golf Channel videographer, so I doubt that I could efficiently capture the critically relevant portions of the swing in order to make my argument believable. Indeed, a recent video posted and analyzed by another poster more talented than I was not at all unambiguous, in my opinion. Any swing would have to simultaneously filmed by two or three cameras in order to make clearer the actual angles involved, and even then interpretations would be subjective.

[iacas]

Here is a bad photo of my left hand at setup:

Again, your grip is irrelevant.

Note: I have been asked to submit a video of my swing. It is easy to ask, but not so easy to comply. I don't have the skill of a Golf Channel videographer, so I doubt that I could efficiently capture the critically relevant portions of the swing in order to make my argument believable.

Use a camera phone. Put it down the line. Record your swing. That's all that would be required.

Indeed, a recent video posted and analyzed by another poster more talented than I was not at all unambiguous, in my opinion.

Where?

Any swing would have to simultaneously filmed by two or three cameras in order to make clearer the actual angles involved, and even then interpretations would be subjective.

I disagree that you need several camera angles, and I disagree that the interpretations would be subjective. Something is either "square to the arc" or it's not.

And grip strength (knuckles showing) is irrelevant.

Welcome to the site, @Joe Mama . Please look around as we have a lot of information here. You might even start here: http://thesandtrap.com/f/4088/swing-thoughts .

[Joe Mama]

That's actually @iacas in the video but no biggie.  How many knuckles doesn't matter, there are guys like Azinger and Tommy Gainey that can probably see 4 knuckles that don't keep the face square to the arc because it's not a functional way to swing a golf club. There has to be some forearm rotation.

I don't claim that seeing four knuckles necessarily leads to no forearm rotation. Sure, golfers can show four knuckles and have any manner of backswing. What I said was that there is no hope of my keeping square along all of the 225 degree arc if I don't show all four knuckles. This requirement, along with the proper placement of my right hand, and the required manner of takeaway, allows my to keep square to the arc.

[iacas]

I don't claim that seeing four knuckles necessarily leads to no forearm rotation. Sure, golfers can show four knuckles and have any manner of backswing. What I said was that there is no hope of my keeping square along all of the 225 degree arc if I don't show all four knuckles. This requirement, along with the proper placement of my right hand, and the required manner of takeaway, allows my to keep square to the arc.

I don't believe you.

Your 225 degree estimate speaks to that - if the shaft is traveling 225 degrees, your left arm is traveling about 225 degrees too.

The only way for the shaft and your left arm to get out of line would be to rotate the left arm!

[mvmac]

I don't claim that seeing four knuckles necessarily leads to no forearm rotation. Sure, golfers can show four knuckles and have any manner of backswing. What I said was that there is no hope of my keeping square along all of the 225 degree arc if I don't show all four knuckles. This requirement, along with the proper placement of my right hand, and the required manner of takeaway, allows my to keep square to the arc.

Let's try to make this more simple.

Do you see any players on tour that keep the face square to the arc throughout the entire backswing?