Hogan's Pivot - 'Right Loading' Discussion

[natureboy]

Last post on the specifics of Hogan in this thread. Start a new thread with a specific topic if you'd like to continue.

Most people interpret "stick your butt out" to mean something different than what Hogan did or said. Obviously any forward bending from the back, hips, etc. can move the CG toward the ball (away from his butt). That's so much a given that I didn't think we needed to explicitly discuss it. Who on earth would take it to mean "stand straight up and down"?

Again, per the anatomical stuff re: pelvic tilts and stuff, I disagree that Hogan "stuck his butt out." We see people who are, everyone would agree, "sticking their butts out" and they don't look at all like Hogan.

Incorrect. Quite easy to do. Nicklaus sometimes lifted his heel too. This video below pretty old, but still relates to the discussion. Skip to 1:30 for a swing where 90% of my weight moves right (and 2:30 or so for my head to be re-centered), and 2:48 for me to lift my left heel off the ground while keeping my weight centered to slightly forward. At 4:40 I exaggerate that a lot.

I am not saying that either of those swings on the right (where I get 55-90% of my weight FORWARD while lifting my heel) are "good swings." They simply illustrate that you can lift your heel without shifting your weight, or shift it INTO the side that lifted the heel (they also illustrate how weight is not pressure). Your assertion that it's "hard to do" is incorrect. It's relatively easy to do while shifting only 5-10% of your weight back (to 55 or 60%) at the top of the backswing, as I contend Hogan did.

BTW, this is part of the reason I said this is in my wheelhouse… I've been looking at weight, pressure, GRF, etc. for a number of years, and with my background in physics, it's relatively easy to understand stuff.

The left heel coming off the ground doesn't mean anything by itself. You still have to look at where the weight moved, or measure where the pressure moved (or make reasonable estimates based on scientific understanding).

Besides, he didn't lift his heel all the time… I have one video where he lifts his heel, and it was his "Power Golf" swing (with a driver, too). Pictures below.

None, when there is no motion.

And of course by "pressure" we've bastardized that to mean "force" because pressure is force per area… so we're kind of "summing" the pressure under the "area" (each foot), which just leads back to… force. We just - not by my choice - seem to use "pressure" more in golf, but we're really talking about force.

He loaded pressure there (probably up to about 65-70%; not 80%+). He didn't load a lot of weight there.

The transition, in the way we number things, is ~A3.5 to ~A4.5. It is a period of time.

The top of the backswing is A4. It is a single moment in time.

During transition, Hogan's weight likely shifted from about 55% right to about 55% left. His pressure likely remained toward the right until just after transition, when it flashed forward quite fast, like any good player's does.

We have some good threads on this with some data from SwingCatalyst. For example…  ​ .

You're wrong about his right leg holding most of his body weight, unless by "most" you simply mean > 50%, at which point I would agree that he had probably 55-57% of his body weight right of center (and 65-70% of his pressure right… pressure is far easier to move (and imperceptible if you don't quite "grok" the concepts). By A4 pressure approaches weight as the body isn't moving a LOT like it is from A1 to ~A3). A sizable bit of that weight shift is the left arm moving back…

Plus…

Good luck convincing anyone his weight is favoring his right side very much (if at all) there.

Disagree all you want: Hogan's extra spike didn't serve him any actual, real purpose on 99%+ of the golf shots he hit (and I'm excluding the obvious like putts and chips). You're buying into a myth rather than looking at this scientifically. Plus, Hogan's technique was not different than "modern technique." I would argue it wasn't really different at all, but I would point out too that there is no "one technique" anyway.

Hogan's extra spike may have made him feel good about his little trick, and it may have helped him once or twice a year, but purely from a physics standpoint, it didn't do much of anything.

Let me put it another way… From A3 to A5 is when we find the most pressure (force) in the right foot in the golf swing. Yet, there's very little shear forces then (consider them horizontal) - most of the force is vertical. The GRF vector tips forward at the end of the transition (and this is where, if a golfer is going to slip, he'll do it) but in the vast majority of cases it's already too late. You see… by the time the forces become "shear enough" that extra traction could be important, the golfer is exerting comparatively little force into the ground under his right foot. That's why many good golfers are still able to hit a relatively solid shot when their rear foot slips. They'll often tend to hook them a bit because the rear foot shooting out backward slows hip rotation, which presents body alignments which are more closed at impact and which sends the path outward a bit more than usual and/or increases rate of closure a little bit (as the arms "fly past" the body's rotation prematurely), but generally the strike is pretty clean.

Hogan's extra spike was irrelevant for 99% of the golf shots he hit - it may have provided extra traction if he was standing on a very slippery surface, like hardpan dirt, a wet piece of wood, etc. Even the small shear forces in transition (when the forces still favor the right foot) can be enough to slip then. But it's still your core that moves your hips forward - you don't push off with your right foot. If you did, you'd see pressure (force) reading spike again beneath the right foot, and you don't. In fact, the right knee is in the process of regaining flexion… which decreases pressure (force).

Also, obviously, people can play pretty good golf in tennis shoes. Snead would play in bare feet. Today, then, it didn't matter. Plus, consider the location of his extra spike: it was right of the "inner-most" row of spikes on the inside (left side) of his right shoe. When you bank your foot (Hogan banked his right foot beautifully), the inner row of spikes applies traction the longest (they remain in the ground the longest). The inner-most spikes, which already existed, apply more force longer during the swing than anything right of them. Hogan's extra spike was right of the inner row of spikes, further reducing its effect. At least he was smart enough to put it as far left as possible.

Science doesn't work that way.

Mostly backward (away from where the golf ball is).

Now that I understand your definitions, I think we are mostly talking past each other on terminology.

I never stated that Hogan's pivot wasn't very centered. I agree his center of gravity - c/g (more properly - center of mass ) doesn't shift much and there is no 'sway'. That appears to be your definition of weight. I was saying that he 'loads' / 'pushes' into the inside of his R leg / foot as he goes back significantly enough to take most of the pressure off his front (L) leg / foot. Please don't create straw men with my statements.

When I (and most others who do) say 'right loading' I mean his "body weight" on the backswing (not at the top) is being mostly (~70%+) carried / held by his rear (R) leg. That appears to be your definition of 'pressure'. The feel in the rear (R) leg (using this approach) is decidedly that of the muscles actively holding up most of the body's weight (see scientific definition) relative to the force of gravity. Nicklaus' lower body pivot (especially early swing) was very similar. A 'right side loading' does not mean a sway of the hips outside the rear (R) leg / heel.

Re. swing pictures, it would be more helpful / accurate to make the pic on the right the point where the hip turn back stops as I believe that is your (& the standard) definition of the end of backswing and start of transition. Pics of Hogan at 'the top' mean he is already well into his transition / about to start the downswing. He is already into or has begun the 'bump' / 'tip' toward the front leg with his lower body.

Hogan lifts the forward (L) heel in the Shell videos too with driver. Only about an inch or so (per 'Five Lessons' text), but that's significant in terms of what he was doing with the pivot. The 'Power Golf' swing with driver was his 'crushing it' swing so it's exaggerated and he clearly dialed it back with his 'Five Lessons' swing. I agree that he rolls his front (L) foot more than lifts the heel with shorter clubs / shorter swings, but the lower body pivot per his setup is intentionally smaller with those swings. I think his basic motion / intentions remained the same.

Re. the spikes. It may indeed have been a 'few instances' of soggy conditions that prompted the 4 added spikes. They may have been irrelevant on most shots, but you know that Hogan was all about eliminating / reducing possibility of costly mistakes.

If in socks you pressure into the inside of your 'banked' R leg / foot to turn around it (producing a torque around the R leg) and by mistake let the c/g of the body shift too much to the heels, what happens to the front of the R foot? Yes, their position inside of the outside row (especially at the ball of the foot) was significant. In terms of extra purchase, it could have been mostly psychological, but why then to do those science ignorant engineers and architects add extra piers to a building foundation in soft soil in order to distribute the load? Adding a flatter baseball type spike for surface area would have been more useful for his intent, but probably not allowable due to likely damage to the greens.

Hogan & Snead pivoted / turned in different ways. Snead was much more 'turn in a barrel', but also a great swing. I would say Hogan & Nicklaus (esp. early) were more similar in their lower body action.

Back to golf posture & the 'derriere'. Hogan never said 'stick it out'. He was only saying (paraphrasing) that in a good athletic stance it was the most prominent feature away from the ball when looking down the line. This feature / fact is evident on your own good posture videos. I did not say he meant stand straight up (straw man).

Hogan was saying not to stand straight up, which from his teaching days was a common error he encountered. Look at the pics in 'Five Lessons' Chapter 2 - Stance & Posture below the sports stick drawings for examples of what he was arguing against. Unsurprisingly one of them includes a 'sway back' position with an exaggerated butt out position. His 'sports stick' analogy pics show a pelvic tilt that is neutral to the lower and mid back. The upper back (thoracic) gets rounded a bit as the head tilts to look at the ball...a good 'ready position'.

@joekelly @Hammer 4 @boogielicious

[iacas]

Originally Posted by natureboy

I never stated that Hogan's pivot wasn't very centered. I agree his center of gravity - c/g (more properly - center of mass) doesn't shift much and there is no 'sway'. That appears to be your definition of weight.

I feel I've been pretty clear about my definitions of the relevant words. We've produced or included several videos, pictures, etc. that further back up the definitions.

In most cases we've kind of been forced to use the words how other people use them. I've been fairly clear about my definition of "weight." Because the golf swing takes place within a fairly constant gravitational force (and mass), weight can be considered fairly equivalent to the mass of the object (and the distribution of both the "mass" and "weight").

I realize that "weight" is technically a force, but I long ago gave up arguing that point in the context of the golf swing because, by and large, we play golf on the planet earth where the gravitational pull and thus the force of gravity is pretty darn consistent, with only small fluctuations, and is basically immeasurably consistent from the left foot to the right foot.

So that we're clear, weight and mass are roughly equivalent terms in the golf swing. Pressure regrettably is abused slightly to mean "the sum of the forces exerted via the entire area of each foot." In the pressure graph below, for example, golfers use the term "pressure" not to mean the size of these peaks, but the sum total of the volume of these peaks:

Part of the reason I'm less annoyed with using "weight" instead of "mass" (though golf instructors fortunately do occasionally use the term "COM" or "center of mass") is that, again, the gravitational field (what combines with the mass to "create" the weight) doesn't change during the golf swing. Gravity is, effectively, a constant (as is the golfer's mass). So, IMO, "weight" is an "okay" substitution. It doesn't appeal to the scientist in me, but it's at least understandable why someone would say "weight" to mean "mass" particularly when golf instructors have to talk with the average golfer and don't have time to educate them on the differences between weight and mass… in a system where they're basically equivalent due to the fact that both remain constant throughout the swing.

I was saying that he 'loads' / 'pushes' into the inside of his R leg / foot as he goes back significantly enough to take most of the pressure off his front (L) leg / foot. Please don't create straw men with my statements.

I don't feel that I have.

I agreed that Hogan loaded most of the pressure (force, volume in the graph above) on his right foot. The videos I linked to, the threads, my studies and research, etc. show that this happens. We (Golf Evolution) have nearly single-handedly refuted S&T;'s claims that pressure (force) AND weight (mass) stay forward throughout the backswing. I understand this stuff.

Here is a sampling of the relevant things I've said:

• Hogan likely hit peaks of about 65-70% pressure (force) on his right foot during his backswing.
• His weight (mass), however, likely only ever went to about 55-57%.
• It is possible to dynamically lift your heel and yet not move your "weight" (mass) to the right foot.

When I (and most others who do) say 'right loading' I mean his "body weight" on the backswing (not at the top) is being mostly (~70%+) carried / held by his rear (R) leg.

There's almost no chance Hogan shifted 70% of his body's mass "weight" to the right foot during his backswing during normal swings.

I strongly suggest you begin use to use weight as mass and then either pressure or force (the latter if you feel like being slightly more scientific, the former if you want to be more like golf instructors) rather than using them to mean very nearly the opposite. Not only is it more confusing (your "weight" does not increase during the golf swing - both gravity and your mass remain the same), but it's misleading because a golfer's body is not a closed system — his muscles - not gravity - can create additional forces.

That appears to be your definition of 'pressure'. The feel in the rear (R) leg (using this approach) is decidedly that of the muscles actively holding up most of the body's weight (see scientific definition) relative to the force of gravity. Nicklaus' lower body pivot (especially early swing) was very similar. A 'right side loading' does not mean a sway of the hips outside the rear (R) leg / heel.

Yes, scientifically, "weight" is a "force." But that's not how the terms are used when discussing the golf swing. I covered this above.

But again… a golfer's mass and gravity are pretty much constant throughout the golf swing. Gravity is also roughly the same from the left foot to the right foot.

So… mass = "weight" and force = "pressure." You may not agree, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's never been expressed clearly to you in the past, but that's how the terms are used by golf instructors, and there's only so much swimming against the tide that I'm willing to do, particularly when the differences are, in many cases, nearly negligible.

Also, as I've said a bunch of times now, you cannot accurately measure "weight" in a dynamic system (unless you can plot everything in 3D, know the densities or masses of various segments of the body, etc.). You can only measure forces. Since gravity and mass are constant, there has to be a way to say that a golfer is generating extra forces (in various directions).

I never suggested you said that Hogan moved his hips outside of his right heel.

Re. swing pictures, it would be more helpful / accurate to make the pic on the right the point where the hip turn back stops as I believe that is your (& the standard) definition of the end of backswing and start of transition. Pics of Hogan at 'the top' mean he is already well into his transition / about to start the downswing. He is already into or has begun the 'bump' / 'tip' toward the front leg with his lower body.

There is no standard. Mine is when the arms stop moving back. Others define it as when the clubhead or shaft clearly change direction. If someone's hips begin moving forward rather early the hands, arms, and club shaft can still be traveling back well into what you would then call the "downswing." That's weird.

"Transition" is not a discrete point in time - it is a span of time.

Yes, he's already begun his hip bump, but he has a LOT more to go.

Regardless, he likely NEVER has his weight (mass) 70% let alone 80% right.

Hogan lifts the forward (L) heel in the Shell videos too with driver. Only about an inch or so (per 'Five Lessons' text), but that's significant in terms of what he was doing with the pivot. The 'Power Golf' swing with driver was his 'crushing it' swing so it's exaggerated and he clearly dialed it back with his 'Five Lessons' swing. I agree that he rolls his front (L) foot more than lifts the heel with shorter clubs / shorter swings, but the lower body pivot per his setup is intentionally smaller with those swings. I think his basic motion / intentions remained the same.

Again I will point out that you can add flex to the knee dynamically while keeping your weight (mass) relatively centered. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on his left heel.

Re. the spikes. It may indeed have been a 'few instances' of soggy conditions that prompted the 4 added spikes. They may have been irrelevant on most shots, but you know that Hogan was all about eliminating / reducing possibility of costly mistakes.

My point there was to illustrate how they were irrelevant the large majority of the time. At his level, even 0.5% might be the difference between winning and losing, and with little downside, why not add more spikes? I agree. But they were not the magic secret some make them out to be.

If in socks you pressure into the inside of your 'banked' R leg / foot to turn around it (producing a torque around the R leg) and by mistake let the c/g of the body shift too much to the heels, what happens to the front of the R foot? Yes, their position inside of the outside row (especially at the ball of the foot) was significant. In terms of extra purchase, it could have been mostly psychological, but why then to do those science ignorant engineers and architects add extra piers to a building foundation in soft soil in order to distribute the load? Adding a flatter baseball type spike for surface area would have been more useful for his intent, but probably not allowable due to likely damage to the greens.

I don't even know what you're trying to say with that.

You don't bank your right foot in the backswing (which is what you seem to be talking about given "pressure into the inside of the right leg")… And I'm not sure why you're talking about the heels, an ignorant engineer (and you talk about me making up straw men? :P), etc.

Hogan & Snead pivoted / turned in different ways. Snead was much more 'turn in a barrel', but also a great swing. I would say Hogan & Nicklaus (esp. early) were more similar in their lower body action.

Their turns and pivots are not nearly as different as you seem to want to believe. Pressure traces (force traces :D) of the game's best are rather consistent; incredibly so within the same player, and still quite similar from player to player.

Since you will agree that Hogan's head didn't move much, and his hips didn't sway backward much, then you will surely agree his weight (mass) stayed close to 50/50. Because, as I have said several (hundred?) times, pressure (force) can and does certainly shift right. Probably not near 80%, but around 65-70% for Hogan and Snead. Some players get to 80% (you can find Andrew Rice promoting 80/20 as fairly standard IIRC).

If this entire thread is a matter of you not "getting" the terminology that's been used (for better or worse) in golf for quite some time, then man, what a waste of your time and mine.

Back to golf posture & the 'derriere'. Hogan never said 'stick it out'. He was only saying (paraphrasing) that in a good athletic stance it was the most prominent feature away from the ball when looking down the line. This feature / fact is evident on your own good posture videos. I did not say he meant stand straight up (straw man).

Dude, I never said "stick your butt out." That was you . I very clearly talked about how "stick your butt out" was interpreted by many to affect the posterior/anterior tilt of the pelvis (and lumbar spine). I never once said that your butt should be inside your heels or anything like that. It's you who is constructing a straw man on this.

Also, this thread is not one where you "get back to" something in the other thread. That's the point of having two threads - to keep discussion on a topic in the same thread.

Hogan was saying not to stand straight up, which from his teaching days was a common error he encountered. Look at the pics in 'Five Lessons' Chapter 2 - Stance & Posture below the sports stick drawings for examples of what he was arguing against. Unsurprisingly one of them includes a 'sway back' position with an exaggerated butt out position. His 'sports stick' analogy pics show a pelvic tilt that is neutral to the lower and mid back. The upper back (thoracic) gets rounded a bit as the head tilts to look at the ball...a good 'ready position'.

You shouldn't toss around allegations of straw men when you are guilty party.

Let's chalk that stuff up to a misunderstanding (on your part?), okay? I feel it's fairly obvious that I don't want people standing straight up and down. I also feel it's pretty obvious that what I mean about "sticking your butt out" can be misinterpreted by people.

That's the sticking point.

If you say "stick your butt out" to mean one thing to you, but the majority of golfers take it to mean something like the lower-right picture on page 54 of my copy of Five Lessons, then Hogan is not "doing what he said" to that majority of people.

So I will continue to contend that Hogan did not "stick his butt out a bit" - not how the majority of people would take that to mean. Hogan can say all he wants about what he felt, but "feel ain't real." They're VERY real to the person, but if I say I feel like I'm doing something and the majority of people do something different when they do it, it "ain't real" to them.

That stuff isn't the topic here, though.

[natureboy]

I feel I've been pretty clear about my definitions of the relevant words. We've produced or included several videos, pictures, etc. that further back up the definitions.

In most cases we've kind of been forced to use the words how other people use them. I've been fairly clear about my definition of "weight." Because the golf swing takes place within a fairly constant gravitational force (and mass), weight can be considered fairly equivalent to the mass of the object (and the distribution of both the "mass" and "weight").

I realize that "weight" is technically a force, but I long ago gave up arguing that point in the context of the golf swing because, by and large, we play golf on the planet earth where the gravitational pull and thus the force of gravity is pretty darn consistent, with only small fluctuations, and is basically immeasurably consistent from the left foot to the right foot.

So that we're clear, weight and mass are roughly equivalent terms in the golf swing. Pressure regrettably is abused slightly to mean "the sum of the forces exerted via the entire area of each foot." In the pressure graph below, for example, golfers use the term "pressure" not to mean the size of these peaks, but the sum total of the volume of these peaks:

Part of the reason I'm less annoyed with using "weight" instead of "mass" (though golf instructors fortunately do occasionally use the term "COM" or "center of mass") is that, again, the gravitational field (what combines with the mass to "create" the weight) doesn't change during the golf swing. Gravity is, effectively, a constant (as is the golfer's mass). So, IMO, "weight" is an "okay" substitution. It doesn't appeal to the scientist in me, but it's at least understandable why someone would say "weight" to mean "mass" particularly when golf instructors have to talk with the average golfer and don't have time to educate them on the differences between weight and mass… in a system where they're basically equivalent due to the fact that both remain constant throughout the swing.

I don't feel that I have.

I agreed that Hogan loaded most of the pressure (force, volume in the graph above) on his right foot. The videos I linked to, the threads, my studies and research, etc. show that this happens. We (Golf Evolution) have nearly single-handedly refuted S&T;'s claims that pressure (force) AND weight (mass) stay forward throughout the backswing. I understand this stuff.

Here is a sampling of the relevant things I've said:

Hogan likely hit peaks of about 65-70% pressure (force) on his right foot during his backswing.

His weight (mass), however, likely only ever went to about 55-57%.

It is possible to dynamically lift your heel and yet not move your "weight" (mass) to the right foot.

There's almost no chance Hogan shifted 70% of his body's mass "weight" to the right foot during his backswing during normal swings.

I strongly suggest you begin use to use weight as mass and then either pressure or force (the latter if you feel like being slightly more scientific, the former if you want to be more like golf instructors) rather than using them to mean very nearly the opposite. Not only is it more confusing (your "weight" does not increase during the golf swing - both gravity and your mass remain the same), but it's misleading because a golfer's body is not a closed system — his muscles - not gravity - can create additional forces.

Yes, scientifically, "weight" is a "force." But that's not how the terms are used when discussing the golf swing. I covered this above.

But again… a golfer's mass and gravity are pretty much constant throughout the golf swing. Gravity is also roughly the same from the left foot to the right foot.

So… mass = "weight" and force = "pressure." You may not agree, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's never been expressed clearly to you in the past, but that's how the terms are used by golf instructors, and there's only so much swimming against the tide that I'm willing to do, particularly when the differences are, in many cases, nearly negligible.

Also, as I've said a bunch of times now, you cannot accurately measure "weight" in a dynamic system (unless you can plot everything in 3D, know the densities or masses of various segments of the body, etc.). You can only measure forces. Since gravity and mass are constant, there has to be a way to say that a golfer is generating extra forces (in various directions).

I never suggested you said that Hogan moved his hips outside of his right heel.

There is no standard. Mine is when the arms stop moving back. Others define it as when the clubhead or shaft clearly change direction. If someone's hips begin moving forward rather early the hands, arms, and club shaft can still be traveling back well into what you would then call the "downswing." That's weird.

"Transition" is not a discrete point in time - it is a span of time.

Yes, he's already begun his hip bump, but he has a LOT more to go.

Regardless, he likely NEVER has his weight (mass) 70% let alone 80% right.

Again I will point out that you can add flex to the knee dynamically while keeping your weight (mass) relatively centered. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on his left heel.

My point there was to illustrate how they were irrelevant the large majority of the time. At his level, even 0.5% might be the difference between winning and losing, and with little downside, why not add more spikes? I agree. But they were not the magic secret some make them out to be.

I don't even know what you're trying to say with that.

You don't bank your right foot in the backswing (which is what you seem to be talking about given "pressure into the inside of the right leg")… And I'm not sure why you're talking about the heels, an ignorant engineer (and you talk about me making up straw men? :P), etc.

Their turns and pivots are not nearly as different as you seem to want to believe. Pressure traces (force traces :D) of the game's best are rather consistent; incredibly so within the same player, and still quite similar from player to player.

Since you will agree that Hogan's head didn't move much, and his hips didn't sway backward much, then you will surely agree his weight (mass) stayed close to 50/50. Because, as I have said several (hundred?) times, pressure (force) can and does certainly shift right. Probably not near 80%, but around 65-70% for Hogan and Snead. Some players get to 80% (you can find Andrew Rice promoting 80/20 as fairly standard IIRC).

If this entire thread is a matter of you not "getting" the terminology that's been used (for better or worse) in golf for quite some time, then man, what a waste of your time and mine.

Most people day to day experience the force of gravity acting on their center of mass through their legs and feet. That's why for some a phrase like 'feel your weight in your rear (R)' leg or 'loading your weight into the inside of your rear (R) leg' can be intuitive. For someone who is unfamiliar with the common instructor definitions your example of standing on one leg is potentially unhelpful (I get it though - no need to explain). Someone who tries that will most definitely feel they are carrying the weight of their body on that one leg no matter where they position their center of mass.

I understand where the attempt to clarify / standardize the terms come from, because where you are carrying your weight (which leg) / applying pressure can be / is usually different from where you center of mass is positioned especially when the body is in motion.

Thank you for explaining and clarifying the use of these terms for most golf instructors. I've seen quite a variation online, but perhaps it better standardized among PGA professionals.

I may have misunderstood your original reference to a 'banked' foot re. Hogan. Which foot and when in the swing are you saying it was banked? I assume you mean tilted relative to the surface of the ground as it came up in discussing the inner and outer spikes on his shoes.

The choice of pics does matter. In another discussion you made the point that showing someone at the top was not relevant to hip levels (which I understand), because many were already planting / shifting forward by that time. I think the same applies as far as showing movement of the center of mass / 'weight' on the backswing for the same exact reason - especially with Hogan given his bump to the forward leg early in transition. I would concede that he did not have 80% of his mass right of center on the backswing. Would be interesting to see just how much though.

Basic swing elements Hogan & Snead are similar / alike I grant you. I think the details of the dynamics do differ. I think Jack's and Hogan's lower body details are more similar to each other than Snead. Without force plate analysis of any of them it remains speculation / opinion. However, Hogan's intentions / approach are pretty well detailed in what he wrote and some things that are online. I have not read Snead's book.

As far as the 80/20 - 70/30 reference, I was referring to what you would call pressure, or as I would say 'holding / supporting 80% of his body weight' on his rear (R leg). That exact number might be too much, but it was more in the ballpark than 55/45 (or is it 45/55 what's the convention?) which I originally thought was a reference to my 'weight' / your 'pressure', but now understand (thank you again for the clarification) to be a reference to your 'weight' which I would call distribution of body mass or c/g position relative to the center of the stance at address, yes?

Some related pics below:

(both appear to be 'starting down' - after backswing & transition - but still look different in details)

Old school baseball spikes I made reference to earlier. Harder to see the ones on the side aligned mostly with the long axis of the shoe for lateral stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

I don't consider asking questions a waste of my time. If it wasted yours - that was not my intention. Assuming others like me who don't come across a 'definitions you should know before commenting on threads page' when they first sign up the discussion could be a helpful clarification to future readers who think of 'weight' the way I responded - through the feel of it in the legs.

[iacas]

Most people day to day experience the force of gravity acting on their center of mass through their legs and feet. That's why for some a phrase like 'feel your weight in your rear (R)' leg or 'loading your weight into the inside of your rear (R) leg' can be intuitive.

I'm not particularly interested in talking about feels. I am interested in what actually happens. Feels vary. I've had people "feel" opposite things to produce the same mechanics.

For someone who is unfamiliar with the common instructor definitions your example of standing on one leg is potentially unhelpful (I get it though - no need to explain). Someone who tries that will most definitely feel they are carrying the weight of their body on that one leg no matter where they position their center of mass.

Their center of mass would have to be over their foot or they'd fall over.

I may have misunderstood your original reference to a 'banked' foot re. Hogan. Which foot and when in the swing are you saying it was banked? I assume you mean tilted relative to the surface of the ground as it came up in discussing the inner and outer spikes on his shoes.

The right foot banks inward on the downswing.

The choice of pics does matter. In another discussion you made the point that showing someone at the top was not relevant to hip levels (which I understand), because many were already planting / shifting forward by that time.

I think that's a mischaracterization of that discussion.

I remember saying a few things about using photos:

• Camera angles can distort things
• I did the math and the actual amount of hip motion is slight
• Hip joints are internal, and there's only so much you can "measure" by using video and a clothed human

I think the same applies as far as showing movement of the center of mass / 'weight' on the backswing for the same exact reason - especially with Hogan given his bump to the forward leg early in transition. I would concede that he did not have 80% of his mass right of center on the backswing. Would be interesting to see just how much though.

As I have said, he probably had 55-57%, a good bit of that having occurred via the left arm moving from the left side of his body to the right.

This isn't an unknown thing. I've studied this for years. Again, if Hogan set up 55/45 (mass) favoring his left side, his feet don't move, his hips don't sway back, and his head doesn't move much, how on earth is he going to move his mass to the right side very much?

Basic swing elements Hogan & Snead are similar / alike I grant you. I think the details of the dynamics do differ. I think Jack's and Hogan's lower body details are more similar to each other than Snead. Without force plate analysis of any of them it remains speculation / opinion. However, Hogan's intentions / approach are pretty well detailed in what he wrote and some things that are online. I have not read Snead's book.

They're more alike than you seem to understand. You put waaaaaay too much stock in what Hogan wrote.

As far as the 80/20 - 70/30 reference, I was referring to what you would call pressure, or as I would say 'holding / supporting 80% of his body weight' on his rear (R leg). That exact number might be too much, but it was more in the ballpark than 55/45 (or is it 45/55 what's the convention?) which I originally thought was a reference to my 'weight' / your 'pressure', but now understand (thank you again for the clarification) to be a reference to your 'weight' which I would call distribution of body mass or c/g position relative to the center of the stance at address, yes?

What you're trying to convey there is unclear to me. I have used these numbers in various places a few times before; and I feel I've done so clearly.

Some related pics below:

These are not photos. They're drawings, and I know for a fact that Hogan and Snead did not regularly play the ball off their back foot. The drawings don't even have a good camera angle.

[Phil McGleno]

@natureboy -You brought a plastic knife to a gun fight.

[saevel25]

This isn't an unknown thing. I've studied this for years. Again, if Hogan set up 55/45 (mass) favoring his left side, his feet don't move, his hips don't sway back, and his head doesn't move much, how on earth is he going to move his mass to the right side very much?

I think this pretty much sums it up. It comes down to common sense.

[natureboy]

I'm not particularly interested in talking about feels. I am interested in what actually happens. Feels vary. I've had people "feel" opposite things to produce the same mechanics.

Their center of mass would have to be over their foot or they'd fall over.

The right foot banks inward on the downswing.

I think that's a mischaracterization of that discussion.

I remember saying a few things about using photos:

Camera angles can distort things

I did the math and the actual amount of hip motion is slight

Hip joints are internal, and there's only so much you can "measure" by using video and a clothed human

As I have said, he probably had 55-57%, a good bit of that having occurred via the left arm moving from the left side of his body to the right.

This isn't an unknown thing. I've studied this for years. Again, if Hogan set up 55/45 (mass) favoring his left side, his feet don't move, his hips don't sway back, and his head doesn't move much, how on earth is he going to move his mass to the right side very much?

They're more alike than you seem to understand. You put waaaaaay too much stock in what Hogan wrote.

What you're trying to convey there is unclear to me. I have used these numbers in various places a few times before; and I feel I've done so clearly.

These are not photos. They're drawings, and I know for a fact that Hogan and Snead did not regularly play the ball off their back foot. The drawings don't even have a good camera angle.

I get your point about feels, but I think they are useful to a lot of people as long as the instructor is familiar with lots of different styles and mental pictures to find the ones that work for that particular player and grounds it in 'reals'. I think instruction by feels / pictures might be less expensive than a pressure plate analysis and more accessible to a new golfer, or is time on a device like that with an instructor around $100 or less?

In the example, yes they would fall over...eventually. Sooner if they were standing still. Later if they moved into the leg dynamically, like when you walk. When walking, the center of mass isn't aligned with the axis of the legs either and the tendency to 'fall' is harnessed for the next stride. The guys in the pics below are supporting almost all their (scientifically defined) weight on one leg and their center of mass is not over that foot. Will they 'fall' back to the earth with the other leg. Sure. They are counting on it. Pitchers use a similar (in concept) action.

I understand the standard golf definitions of weight as center of mass that you explained, but I think these examples of 'load right' and 'weight shift' can be intuitive to many students / players if you clarify that it doesn't mean 'sway'.

This is what I have meant and pictured as an extreme when I say 70%-80% 'weight' to the right leg / foot (what you and other instructors have termed pressure). The batters below are beyond that at near 100%.

This is unanswerable by either of us, but if Hogan banked on the downswing could he have had a similar feel on the inside of his rear (R) foot / leg on the backswing? How would a movement like that with a 'loading' / pressure like the above (plus a full turn of the back to face the target) affect the feet?

As far as where Hogan's center of mass / weight (standard golf definition), I think it varies by club because of his narrowing stance with shorter clubs. Below are pictures of him with driver at address and at the end of the backwing (end of hip rotation) and just before his transition & bump starts. Camera angle is dead-on. Note the ball position relative to his front heel.

To me, his mass looks pretty behind the red center of stance line on the right - both his arms, head, and I would say right glute are behind the target-side of the red line / center. But it's momentary as he quickly bumps forward to start his transition. Granted, the look at both positions would be different with a wedge.

I think Hogan knew an awful lot about many ways to swing the club. I don't think his approach is the only way to swing a golf club well. I do think it contains many excellent elements found in all good golf swings as you have often pointed out. But it is also unique individual in many details that are worth noting if you want to understand what he was doing, especially when he points to them as noteworthy or important.

I put stock in what he wrote, because I think his reputation as a teacher and knowledgeable pro mattered to him. I think he took pride in it. Having read his two books, and many of his newspaper articles, I am sufficiently convinced that the voice is consistently his in all of them ( and match the voice in interviews available on youtube). Editors, proofreaders, and consultants, sure. Ghost writer(s)? Don't buy it. Some details may not matter, but he was so right about so many things (without today's technology available to him) that I think it is worth paying attention to what he actually said. Feels mattered to him because they helped initiate the proper actions or reactions. His feels may not work for all or many, but may help understand what his intentions in the swing were that created the movements.

As far as the drawing, yeah that was a bit sloppy cause it was easily available. Below is an 'almost fix'. The pics are close to the drawings (I expect the drawings were done from photos). They are slightly different viewing angles and Hogan is using a shorter iron judging by stance than in the drawing. To my eyes the artist pretty accurately captured both their similarities and some of the individual 'signature' in their pivots. I would expect that with driver, Hogan would look even more different because his right leg would be even further out / angled. Judge for yourself of course.

[iacas]

I get your point about feels, but I think they are useful to a lot of people as long as the instructor is familiar with lots of different styles and mental pictures to find the ones that work for that particular player and grounds it in 'reals'. I think instruction by feels / pictures might be less expensive than a pressure plate analysis and more accessible to a new golfer, or is time on a device like that with an instructor around $100 or less?

We don't charge extra for lessons when we break out the pressure mat. And obviously I use a lot of feels when working with people, but that's not what we're discussing here. This discussion is about "real."

They would fall over...eventually. Sooner if they were standing still. Later if they moved into the leg dynamically, like when you walk. When walking, the center of mass isn't aligned with the axis of the legs either and the tendency to 'fall' is harnessed for the next stride.

Walking is the act of repeatedly falling and catching yourself. None of that changes what I've said.

I didn't see anything else to which I wanted to respond. You like Hogan. Cool.

[parallax]

This isn't as complicated as it is being made.....

Weight causes pressure in the direction of gravity (the force is applied by gravity via the mass). When people feel their weight in their feet they are feeling the pressure applied by their mass via the force of gravity. The pressure that is applied by the feet can be manipulated by moving the center of mass or by applying muscular force.

[iacas]

Weight causes pressure in the direction of gravity (the force is applied by gravity via the mass). When people feel their weight in their feet they are feeling the pressure applied by their mass via the force of gravity. The pressure that is applied by the feet can be manipulated by moving the center of mass or by applying muscular force.

It's not terribly complex, but it's more complex than that:

• Weight (mass) and pressure (force) do not align very often (if ever) in a dynamic (moving) system.
• You can push with your right foot, spike the pressure (force) under the right foot, and increase the weight/mass over your left foot.

Most people aren't very good at feeling the pressure in their feet. You can be 50/50 with one knee flexed and one knee fairly straight, and because the BONES rather than the MUSCLES are absorbing the force of your weight, golfers will often "feel" like more weight is on their flexed knee.

[parallax]

It's not terribly complex, but it's more complex than that:

It is only complex if you confuse concepts and terms.

Weight (mass) and pressure (force) do not align very often (if ever) in a dynamic (moving) system.

This a nonsensical statement. Your weight CAUSES pressure depending on how your center of mass is distributed over your feet. Your weight doesn't change, even when you are moving. The distribution of pressure, and overall pressure (caused by your weight, and any other forces) can and does change as you move or apply force via your muscles.

You can push with your right foot, spike the pressure (force) under the right foot, and increase the weight/mass over your left foot.

You cannot increase your weight/mass by moving, you can, though, increase the pressure caused by your weight (and applied through your feet) by moving your center of mass.

BTW, I am just trying to help you straighten out your definitions and conceptual understanding. The argument you two are engaged in is largely semantic a due to the misapplication of terms and concepts.

[iacas]

@parallax , thank you, but I assure you that I know what terms I'm using. I agree that @natureboy is largely misunderstanding some of the terms. It also seems to be true that you believe your mass distribution is far more closely tied to the force distribution than it is in the golf swing - it's possible to have your mass distributed 55% right while your force is 70% under that same foot… or even under the left foot. Poor golfers often see pressure/force spike to 80% under their front foot… yet never get more than 55-60% of their weight (mass) over that foot. So what you may call a "nonsensical" statement is perfectly explainable, evident in the golf swings of the best players in the world, and so on : weight (mass) distribution rarely matches the pressure (force) distribution.

I also never said your weight changes; In fact, I've made the OPPOSITE point several times: your mass does not change during a golf swing.

[natureboy]

We don't charge extra for lessons when we break out the pressure mat. And obviously I use a lot of feels when working with people, but that's not what we're discussing here. This discussion is about "real."

Walking is the act of repeatedly falling and catching yourself. None of that changes what I've said.

I didn't see anything else to which I wanted to respond. You like Hogan. Cool.

Sweet. It seems like a great tool for analysis and feedback for the student.

[natureboy]

Here is an early Nicklaus swing someone posted in another thread that I haven't seen before.

Does anyone see a tiny movement in Jack's lead foot as he nears the top (about :07 to :09). I wasn't looking for it, but saw a tiny jog of the toe scooting out a hair toward the ball.

That indicated to me (if it's really there) that he momentarily had all his weight off his left foot. Personally, I doubt I am coordinated enough to do this effectively / repeatedly. But I do find it interesting.

[iacas]

That indicated to me (if it's really there) that he momentarily had all his weight off his left foot. Personally, I doubt I am coordinated enough to do this effectively / repeatedly. But I do find it interesting.

You can relieve the pressure/force from your foot without moving your COM significantly. I'm not sure what you think the video illustrates (particularly now that you've used it twice…).

I know you think you've got something here… but we teach a heel lift and plant to some players (as a drill or as a little swing piece) with the COM staying in the same spots as it does in the left-heel-down guys.

[boogielicious]

Here is an early Nicklaus swing someone posted in another thread that I haven't seen before.

Does anyone see a tiny movement in Jack's lead foot as he nears the top (about :07 to :09). I wasn't looking for it, but saw a tiny jog of the toe scooting out a hair toward the ball.

That indicated to me (if it's really there) that he momentarily had all his weight off his left foot. Personally, I doubt I am coordinated enough to do this effectively / repeatedly. But I do find it interesting.

Off topic, but I'm more interested in why there's guy holding a sign with "POOH" on it in the gallery.

It may be due to the slope.  The ball looks to be below his feet.  Not sure if it is really worth commenting on.

[iacas]

The ball looks to be below his feet.

I think the camera is just angled (to make it look like there's a slope).

[Golfingdad]

I think the camera is just angled (to make it look like there's a slope).

Right ... He's clearly on the tee box and I can't imagine any pga tour courses with sloped tees.