Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Knee Bend At Address

4 posts in this topic

This thread is created to see if most experts agree on how much flexion in the knees there should be at address and what happens to both knee angles during the swing???????


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Knee Flex at address

Not to little that your restrictive in your swing. Not to much that it throws off your balance. Look at it this way, When you do a squat, you naturally change your upper body location to keep your center of gravity between your feet. This keeps you in balance.  Also to much of a squat at address would restrict your hips movements, because they are tucked back more.

Ideally you want a position that allows free rotation of the hips, and free movement of the arms. To bent over and you can't rotate your hips, not bent over enough and your swing becomes way to vertical. There's variance for every golfer, but its not that much.

Knee Flex in the golf swing,

In the backswing your right leg extends/straightens from its normal position (let the great debate start again :p)

Then in the downswing, you gain that flexion back, were you get that classic squat maneuver that tiger and Rory do for power, the old Sam Sneed, Sit down for power tip. Then you get your left leg to  straighten out in the finish, though it doesn't need to lock, it can have knee flex, look at tiger, he does this now to help take stress of his knee. Also bubba purposely flies his foot out in the follow through to protect his knee, that's why he looks off balance.

From the start position, Rory has a knee angle of 155 degrees, His knee angle goes to about 165 degrees, meaning he's gained 10 degrees of extension his his left knee at the top of the swing. Just before impact, he's knees are flexed to about 143 degrees. So he gain's over 20 degrees of flexion in his knees from the top of the backswing to the bottom.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Tom Watson used the analogy of how you stand as if guarding someone in basketball.  Relaxed athletic stance with weight evenly distributed on the feet.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • I'm good friends with a number of college coaches, particularly women's college coaches, and while I have no doubt that some likely care about height, most will take the player with the good scores so long as their game is commensurate. You're making a big assumption that a 5'5" girl is going to be bumping hybrids all day long. Jamie Sadlowski is only 5'10". Sadena Parks is 5'3". Kim Sei-young is 5'4". Brooke Henderson? 5'4". Randomly chose players from the top 20 on the LPGA's Driving Distance list. Distance is an, absolutely, but there's a big world between "bumped hybrids that roll onto greens" and "spinning the ball with irons." Height correlates to distance, but we're not talking about an R2 value of 0.89 or something. Now, before this gets too far off topic… let's leave it at that. P.S. Off topic because we're talking about how to get noticed by college coaches, not generalities of height and distance and impact on scoring in the vague, non-specific sense.
    • There are two ways he could reasonably respond to this… A) How would he know?
      B) The current rule does just that. I think you're misreading what he wrote. And you have no idea what the "primary cause" is, particularly since you're not even discussing a specific situation right now. I can see how soling your putter near the ball could be more likely to cause a ball to move than walking in and stopping a foot+ away from the ball. A ball overhanging the hole is not deemed at rest until the time has elapsed (or the player taps in). The situations are not alike. You, too, seem to be reading this incorrectly. Re-read 18-2/0.5. There's no presumption of guilt or innocence. The facts are simply weighed, and the most likely cause determined. The player is not guilty until proven innocent. Kindly stop just making stuff up. On that we agree.
    • I have a daughter playing D1 golf.  While the competition isn't as severe, D1 and high D2 coaches do have stereotypes for their golfers.  They want them a certain size and a certain build.  They will take a kid that is 5'9" that averages a 78 over a girl that is 5'5" and averages 75 .  They know that the 5'9" hasn't maxed out their potential and can grow in the distance department just on size alone.  They want girls going into greens with irons and spinning the ball, not a bumped hybrid that rolls onto the green.  Heard this from several coaches in the process.
    • I'm curious if Phil had found a setup edge with putting if he'd share it so openly with his fellow pros? He's rather competitive, but has been open about some of his strategies in the past. It probably depends on the individual stroke tendencies.
    • Did they ever look at just an exception to this rule for obvious external causes like wind and gravity? To a large extent though the hovering of the club was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause - absent wind. Why is a putt that comes to rest on the edge of the cup and then goes in when a player walks toward it to mark it not treated the same under this rule. It's at rest and then it moves. Treat like situations alike, right? Why make an exception because it's on the green or near the hole? The player walking in is the likely cause and aren't extra heavy footsteps not allowed, because they are likely to tip the balance? Might not be 'opposite', but I do think your idea is a bit like shifting of the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff. If done this way you could stick with the existing 51% threshold to be tighter on latitude. It just seems that way with a few of the rulings as applied. To a large extent though the hovering of the club to avoid a penalty was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause of movement - absent wind. I personally like that the wind moving the ball regardless of whether or not the club was grounded does not result in a penalty now.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. billymo2
      (24 years old)
    2. bostonboy9416
      (16 years old)
    3. kpaulhus
      (29 years old)
  • Blog Entries