Michael Breed's Quadrants

[Jimdangles]

Originally Posted by Double Bogey

Wow... I should not have read this... it is far to early for all this knowledge.  Maybe I should just start online lessons

and let the "boys" tell me what do do...

It may never be too early. Understanding ball flight laws immediately helped my game. It will help you point out why you are slicing, duck hooking, etc.. This is kind of step 2 to that but as eric is pointing out it wrong and should mostly be ignored. do a search for ball flight laws. WORLD OF HELP!

[onlybereaved]

I trust Iacas's information over Michael Breed's any day...I just wonder:

How does Michael Breed get away with giving info on such a huge forum (GC) when he is a class-A (or whatever) instructor, and highly regarded (for the most part, by what I would guess would be a big percentage of viewers etc)?

Wtf

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by onlybereaved

I trust Iacas's information over Michael Breed's any day...I just wonder:

How does Michael Breed get away with giving info on such a huge forum (GC) when he is a class-A (or whatever) instructor, and highly regarded (for the most part, by what I would guess would be a big percentage of viewers etc)?

Wtf

Because those viewers buy every golf magazine and read every article, and then, thoroughly confused, they go to motor mouth Breed, whose command of ultimatums leads them down the path to ruin. Ultimately, clowns like Breed make more money for real instructors.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Because those viewers buy every golf magazine and read every article, and then, thoroughly confused, they go to motor mouth Breed, whose command of ultimatums leads them down the path to ruin. Ultimately, clowns like Breed make more money for real instructors.

Like I said, I appreciate Michael Breed's passion and energy.

And he wasn't as wrong as some people would have said. He was right about the impact point being higher or lower on the ball to change trajectory. He was right about the impact point being to the left for a ball to start right. His demonstration indicates that he would play pull-draws and push-fades, which I don't like, but it's one way to play golf. The only thing he was flat out, absolutely, in-no-way-right about was striking the ball above the equator. That part made no sense at all. NONE.

Anyway, and this isn't necessarily related to Michael, but lousy instructors COST good instructors money. Think about it: your buddy goes and takes a lesson, doesn't get better, hears a bunch of hooey, etc. Are you more or likely to take a lesson? Is he?

If golfers got better - as they should - going to lessons, instructors would be busier because it'd be a proven way of improving.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by iacas

Like I said, I appreciate Michael Breed's passion and energy.

And he wasn't as wrong as some people would have said. He was right about the impact point being higher or lower on the ball to change trajectory. He was right about the impact point being to the left for a ball to start right. His demonstration indicates that he would play pull-draws and push-fades, which I don't like, but it's one way to play golf. The only thing he was flat out, absolutely, in-no-way-right about was striking the ball above the equator. That part made no sense at all. NONE.

Anyway, and this isn't necessarily related to Michael, but lousy instructors COST good instructors money. Think about it: your buddy goes and takes a lesson, doesn't get better, hears a bunch of hooey, etc. Are you more or likely to take a lesson? Is he?

If golfers got better - as they should - going to lessons, instructors would be busier because it'd be a proven way of improving.

Well, hopefully, people like Breed will drive people to instructors.

My comments were more general as to Breed after watching parts of his program for a couple of years. I can't remember if he says to "find an instructor." He ought to ...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

My comments were more general as to Breed after watching parts of his program for a couple of years. I can't remember if he says to "find an instructor." He ought to ...

He does. "Go see your local PGA professional" is usually about what he says. And he's right about that... with the added disclaimer that you need to do your research to make sure he's not one of the lousy 90% or so of instructors.

[ldehtiar]

I agree with you completely that this segment was a mess.  Your conclusion that ball position is the primary influence of dynamic loft is spot on.  I don't know why he was bothering with the shaft plane stuff.

I think the biggest point of confusion was due to the difference between the target line and the swing path.  In my opinion, swing path and the position of the club face relative to it are all you need to understand in order to move the ball left and right.  I think that is where this gets goofy:

"To hit a playbable draw, the face needs to be pointing RIGHT of the target at impact. Michael gets it RIGHT in drawing his X on the LEFT half of the golf ball, but gets the "closed face" part wrong. He'll make this mistake later on as well in a confusing way."

Yes, the face needs to be pointing right of the target at impact to allow the ball to start to the right, and contact the ball on the left half, relative to the target.  The club face needs to be closed relative to the SWING PATH to generate the counter-clockwise spin necessary to produce a draw.  I think my biggest complaint with the show is the lack of good visuals.  He will try to draw a circle on that tv 4 times before he gets an egg he can live with.  Why not have somebody work up a proper drawing prior to the show so that it looks like it should?  Here is mine:

[Anthony Banks]

could this be why.... when I am practicing to draw the ball I found that putting it back in my stance helped me. By reading this info is that because with the ball back in my stance and a swing path slightly right I in actuality was hitting the ball with an open face(not squaring up in time in relation to my normal ball position being mid to forward in my stance) and a path out to the right? What i don't understand is why I have no problem fading the ball but all kinds of trouble drawing the ball.

[ChrisGSZ]

Focusing on the quadrants is likely to be hugely beneficial - but not because of the physics. The physics are important, but the greatest advantage of this method is that it encourages an 'external' mental focus - the ball. We've known for decades that sports skills deteriorate when we focus internally on technique and improve most rapidly when we focus externally on 'other things'. The ball (or it's quadrants) is an excellent external focus and will develop our swing effectively whatever the physics.....

[FinnMaia]

Hi there. thanks for the work that went into that post. Much appreciated.

I had been walking around for a while after seeing that video and working towards a similar response to it, albeit mentally.

I think Michael and many Golf Teachers believe that leaving out detail benefits the majority; by leaving a mental image the job is done. It doesn't suit me, I need to know the nitty gritty.

One thing is left unanswered, or still not illustrated for me: (if you can CC michael.c.hunt@gmail.com if possible, forum might do that I guess)

BLADING THE BALL versus a  'CRISP, CONTROLLED CHIP' (there is blading, chunking, clicking, crisp - I want to know what others feel about these terms and how they approach it. I like to be a clicker, but that makes me less of a crisp shot man - what am I losing out on?)

Call me a perfectionist, but I want to choose where I hit the ball precisely because I feel I can. Matt Kuchar sets up and hovers his club HALFWAY down the ball, allowing his strong turn I believe to dip the ball 'enough below the ball equator'. But why not make a science of this - WHERE IS THE BEST PART OF THE BALL TO HIT EXACTLY?

Low loft clubs don't really count in this question, if you place a driver next to a ball, even trying to hit at a specific place will have little effect - the club really does all the work with low loft. It slaps it, with slight backspin. OK no complaints.

Higher loft clubs can hit at the equator, and blade the ball deliberately, like a putt with interest. A little lower results in a low compressed chip? A little lower results in a less compressed chip? I've found that I can hit the ball only slightly under the equator and get a really nice high chip, being careful as this shot has a lot of distance on it. I feel in control at this point. I've removed all the funk of mud and grass underneath, but I am hitting as close to the equator as I can without blading the ball.

Is there any written stuff on this, I can't find it anywhere. Even Stan Utley mentions nothing about where on the ball one should aim. It's sort of assumed under the umbrella of 'compression', 'pinching the ball against the ground' etc. This isn't clear to me. Is hitting the ball as close to the equator without blading it recognized under 'pinching' and 'compressing' or is it considered way too 'dangerous' for the irrepressible amateur?

Some other thoughts, ignore if you are busy..

All golf shots impart backspin . Nick Faldo does a good job in his "Swing for Life" in talking about backspin imparted which points to the left ( \ ), resulting in a shot to the left (and a draw), and the opposite for backspin imparted to the right ( / ). The image of this, taking a view from the ball at ground level from behind along the target line, is of a line running from 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock, like this: \ for a draw; and like this / for a fade.

It strikes me that using the quadrant image achieves the entire opposite, as it implies for me at least that a draw uses topspin and a fade uses backspin. If you think that both use backspin it sort of helps.

However, you don't even need to do this to create a fade ..as the swing arc will impart clockwise spin naturally (as the arc enters and leaves all on the left side doing it for you, without any added affect), all you have to do is keep the right wrist neutral, and have a middle follow through with your left elbow and the ball will fade, bit like a cricket shot. Increasing the fade is about increasing the amount of spin which is achieved through club speed, not necessarily by hitting further 'right' on the ball, opening the stance, or making the swing steeper.

Removing variables is how to play golf better, not increasing them.

[FinnMaia]

Anthony

from my experience , because the swing arc approaches the ball like this:    )   there is already natural anti-clockwise spin imparted on the ball at impact.

In essence, we don't need to do much to fade it. We have to put something in, therefore, to draw it.

I think it's obviously a classic that when we try harder to draw, the problem is we end up slicing: we create a fantastic fade.

Nick Faldo in Swing for Life says a draw is still about backspin, despite the image from this video making us think we stroke topspin to make a draw. It's still  backspin, IN MY EXPERIENCE.

You just put it on it like this:     \      not like this /    - if the top of the line points left, it goes left; if the top of the line goes right, it goes right.

As we know, there's lots of simpler and beautiful parts of the swing which are more important than simply trying to hit the right part of the ball - flat wrist, Michael McTeagues' lighthouse turn and lift versus arm swing, start with your feet and knees. I do like Faldo's simplification of making the ball do what we want though, it's mainly in the wrists, not about changing lots of stance ideas, ball position.

We all have our favourites. I do not mean to influence here, this is what works for me. Appreciate the post.

MH

[Zekamaboy]

Hi all

I'm a newbie here - this topic may have arisen in the past, if so my apologies.  The advice was for me to find a 'related' topic and post there, please forgive me if what I say has nothing at all to do with what's gone before.

The point about which the swing rotates for any club selection is probably midway between the toes.  On the attached roughly-to-scale diagram, I've drawn a circular arc centered on that point, the arc being the clubhead path before and after impact, as seen from directly above the golfer's head. (The arc does not attempt to show the dip and rise of the clubhead in the vertical plane).  For a driver, the arc radius is going to be about 30 inches, or a bit more.  I've shown the teed-up ball on that arc as T1, directly opposite (where the perpendicular bisector of the toes meets the circle, for you of mathematical mind).  And I've drawn the target straight down the tangent line (parallel to the toes).  Now, if the clubface is square on impact, the ball will be hit straight down the tangent line towards the target - perfectly straight, at least as far as the geometry is concerned.  It should hold true for any club where the ball is played anywhere near the center of the stance.

For the driver, however, the recommendation is for the ball to be played well forward of T1.  This is somewhere off the front foot, and could be 6 inches or more forward.  I've drawn the ball at T2, and it changes the geometry significantly.  The swing radius is as before, and it can be seen that the tangent is now pointed well left of the target. If the swing is not altered, the ball will be pulled, or more likely, pull-sliced as the player will subconsciously square the clubface to the target at impact, and thus cut across the ball.

How to alter the various facets of the driver swing to replicate the T1 impact (swing plane neither in nor out, clubface square at impact) I do not know, and I'm seeking your help.  One way that suggests itself to me (and I'm a long handicapper) would be to bring the hands forward, above the left toe at address, like a forward press, such that the club AND the clubface are once again aligned square to the target, then aim to retain that squareness at impact.  This could be a hopelessly wrong remedy, but other modifications to the grip or swing or the clubface attitude seem less preferable.  Alternatively, I may be imagining that this is a problem and there really is no problem at all.

By the way, I'm a leftie (and an old guy), and like a lot of lefties I'm fighting a persistent tendency to push/fade/slice.  This is particularly true of the driver, less so of the irons which I play further back in the stance.  Because lefties are in the minority I've drawn the diagram for a right-handed golfer.

I would sure appreciate any and all comments.

Regards

[iacas]

My advice for your is at the end. If you want to skip the quick points of discussion and just read the last sentence or two, be my guest.

The point about which the swing rotates for any club selection is probably midway between the toes.

I disagree, and would put the point closer to the left (lead) shoulder or armpit.

For a driver, the arc radius is going to be about 30 inches, or a bit more.

It's going to be quite a bit more than 30 inches. Roughly the length of the club + the lead arm - the bit where they overlap and a little for the fact that they're probably not in a straight line. From overhead, the swing path will resemble an oval, not a circle, because as you properly noted it doesn't account for the "vertical" component in a 2D drawing.

For the driver, however, the recommendation is for the ball to be played well forward of T1.  This is somewhere off the front foot, and could be 6 inches or more forward.  I've drawn the ball at T2, and it changes the geometry significantly.  The swing radius is as before, and it can be seen that the tangent is now pointed well left of the target. If the swing is not altered, the ball will be pulled, or more likely, pull-sliced as the player will subconsciously square the clubface to the target at impact, and thus cut across the ball.

I'll stop you there, because people can get a bit rowdy when it comes to the ball flight laws. I'll assume that you agree and understand that the ball doesn't start on the direction of the club's path, but actually starts much closer to the face. So if a player is swinging to the left, but has the face pointed at the target, the ball will start just barely left of the target (due to the small contribution of the path to the start direction), and will slice quite far to the right of the target. I'm sure you agree with everything set forth here: Ball Flight Laws .

I just wanted to clarify, so we can talk about things accurately.

I would sure appreciate any and all comments.

Swing out more. Heck, something as simple as dropping your back foot (for you, your left foot) back. This will adjust your swing path (for you, a lefty) to be more to the left, thus reducing any right-ward swing direction you have currently.

[colin007]

he also mentioned pressing the hands forward - this and raising the handle/hands at address can "pre-set" your hands/arms for a more outward path to help with getting the clubhead heading more to the left (for a lefty) at impact, and not heading back to the right.  obviously getting your weight forward will also help.

[Zekamaboy]

Now that I've read the Ball Flight Laws I agree with them.  I'm here to learn and improve my driving so that I'm in play more regularly off the tee, thanks for your feedback.

Thanks also to colin007 for his comments on the 'forward press' to square up both the shaft and the face when playing the ball well forward.

All feedback is welcome - I may have to temper it to suit my ageing swing.