MB's Centripetal Force Thread

[Pretzel]

22 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

Gees dude use common sense it's just a laymen s term statement maybe it's 17.5% who cares!

I care. You're pulling stuff out of your @$$ with no support whatsoever for the statements you're making.

22 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

If you want scientific proof get a basketball and hop on to the court and proceed to the 3 point line. From here take a running start and shoot that ball. Then try it taking 4 steps backwards and shooting the ball otherwise known as a fade way shot.

That example is not applicable in the slightest to a golf swing. A reverse pivot does not mean at all that you are actively moving away from the golf ball at impact. You could be quite stationary. Regardless, the difference would be approximately .1-.5 mph of clubhead speed, which is entirely negligible from this point of view. It's not the difference between running forwards and moving backwards, it's the difference between subtly shifting forwards and equally subtly shifting backwards.

22 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

The reverse pivot causes not only the host of awful shots I described,but also a loss in speed because your hooking it and falling off of it

I used to hook the ball. That doesn't mean I had less clubhead speed at that point in time. I actually swung faster when I hooked the ball with a bit of a reverse pivot (average of 122 mph vs 118 mph). You're saying these things, but you're providing no proof. I just gave a counterexample to your statements. The burden of proof lies upon your shoulders to prove the validity of your absurd claims.

22 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

It's like your asking me to prove the moon is smaller then the Earth I'll say trust me it is.

Actually, this can be proven, and quite easily. We can measure the size of the moon since we know how far away we are from it and we know how large it appears in the sky. This makes a diameter calculation rather easy. You're claiming things that cannot be proven because, factually speaking, they aren't true in the slightest.

22 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

Golf magazines are known to spread quite a bit of misinformation. We actually have an entire thread on this site devoted to pointing out misinformation or funny statements in golf magazines. Showing a single picture taken entirely out of context doesn't help your argument at all.

 

5 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

I meant centripetal force

Then say centripetal force. You said centrifugal, proving that you clearly know nothing about the subject you're speaking on. Clarity and precision in communication is important.

The take home of what I'm trying to say is this: You're trying to argue physics with someone who's an engineering major with a physics minor, and an engineering physics roommate. I have likely taken more classes in the subject of physics than you and I'm willing to wager I know more about the topic than you likely ever will. You're also arguing about the golf swing with someone who's written a book that is the most well-supported (from a statistics/facts standpoint) golf education book on the market today. He knows more about the golf swing than you ever will, and he's telling you why you're wrong, but you keep ignoring him. I would recommend you don't do either of these things.

[Mike Boatright]

38 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I would actually say that he's going on the offensive against misinformation. He is not being defensive, and he argued his points quite well. You the proceeded to ignore his points and tell him he had no proof. 

You lack an understanding of centrifugal and centripetal forces. There is no such thing, in all actuality, as a centrifugal force. Anyone with a basic high school physics education can tell you this. "Centrifugal force" is better known by a term called "inertia", meaning that the club wants to continue in a straight line rather than a circle. There is no physical force, only the momentum of the club carrying it in a straight line unless it is acted upon by an outside force (which would be the centripetal force). 

Physics Background from University of Virginia

Since you are basing your entire theory upon a force that you misunderstand, and which doesn't actually exist in reality, it can easily be reasonably inferred that the rest of your argument is likely unsound as well. I would recommend that you do a small amount of research before you post your epiphanies, and you might learn something in the process.

 

Also, as for the gravity thing: Your club is approximately 2 meters off the ground (generously speaking) when you finish your backswing. If you just sit there and let gravity "do it's thing", your club would be traveling at approximately 6.25 m/s (~14 mph) when it hit the ball, imparting a "whopping" amount of energy in the form of 4.9 Joules (assuming perfect energy transfer) to the golf ball, allowing the golf ball to take off with an initial velocity of 14.75 ms (using the ~45 gram weight of a golf ball) or about 33 mph. This would give your ball a maximum carry distance of ~22. 2 meters with a perfect launch angle of 45* and no spin, meaning you can hit the ball 24.27 yards with gravity alone (assuming you take perfect advantage of it). 

I meant centripetal force are you saying it's not real let me check...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Sources_of_centripetal_force  Yup it's real and it's based around a center axis ''AKA'' you the golfer and a lever with a tethered object the club head. It's more complicated in it's true nature and goes into advanced mathematics, orbital velocities and such which are beyond me. Just like orbit of the moon is gravity because it's actually just falling,kinda like dropping a rock from a building it's still the same force just smaller. The weight of a club head being 220 grams is tethered to a 45 inch shaft and 3 1/2 foot arm. This extension along with some added force from your hands in an orbit around an axis ''AKA your body" utilizes the lever,gravity and centripetal force.

 

Yeah your correct I'm no physics major just had some college sort of.. Anyway this is just basic stuff here if your a physics expert than how can you disagree?

45 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

.

 

[Pretzel]

8 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

Yeah your correct I'm no physics major just had some college sort of.. Anyway this is just basic stuff here if your a physics expert than how can you disagree?

Maybe it's because you're wrong? The slight backwards sway that a reverse pivot could cause would not be enough to significantly effect the clubhead speed of someone who doesn't reverse pivot. All other things being equal, they would have a slightly lesser swing speed (not even close to 50%, more like .5% at most), but we know that all other things would not be equal. By eliminating the reverse pivot you would also change other features in your swing which would serve to either further increase or further decrease your swing speed.

To have a drop in swing speed by 50%, you would need to move backwards at about 50 MPH based upon the logic of your argument (saying that the reverse pivot is weaker solely because you are moving away from the target at impact, something which you still have not proven to be true yet). This is something that humans aren't really capable of, but you have yet to provide any other reasoning as to why a reverse pivot would be weaker (like I said, I hit it further when I hooked the ball with a reverse pivot than I do now, and swung faster). 

Here's something that may interest you:

Quote

In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match.

I am asking for you to support your hypothesis that the reverse pivot so dramatically reduces swing speed. Do you have any evidence to support it, or will you continue to just tell me it's common sense?

 

[Mike Boatright]

50 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

.

 

17 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

The take home of what I'm trying to say is this: You're trying to argue physics with someone who's an engineering major with a physics minor, and an engineering physics roommate. I have likely taken more classes in the subject of physics than you and I'm willing to wager I know more about the topic than you likely ever will. You're also arguing about the golf swing with someone who's written a book that is the most well-supported (from a statistics/facts standpoint) golf education book on the market today. He knows more about the golf swing than you ever will, and he's telling you why you're wrong, but you keep ignoring him. I would recommend you don't do either of these things.

Honestly you kinda have a straw man argument! This is the depiction I put on the first page I thought it was interesting and kinda made sense to me,I mean the proof was in the putting in my view. Instead i'm hearing how great you are your an author and know 10x more about the golf swing then me what does that have to do with the price of beans? Your arguments are based on mishaps of misspoken words or incorrect data and is pretty much irrelevant to the point. Your so far off the topic and the idea here that I no longer wish to go on. Your like a lawyer twisting words to unvalidate my main topic here from irrelevant trivial matters. This put's me in a negative light and really doesn't do anything to add the what I thought would help other golfers. It's like I was giving directions and said it's 10 miles down the road to the gas station when it was really 35 and somehow your focusing on this like an annoying lawyer character in an old timey movie.

[Dan42nepa]

Your post along with a Jimmy Ballard thread helped this morning. I shot an 82 low round so far this  year. The effortless swing and stance although I used a swing thought of standing sideways next to a golf cart and using your right hand to slap/push the cart backwards hitting the back of the seat.. sort of using your body to effectively push with the most energy. I used that in my stance and made great contact and had effortless distance by using that stance to generate the most leverage into the ball.

[Pretzel]

3 minutes ago, Mike Boatright said:

 

Honestly you kinda have a straw man argument! This is the depiction I put on the first page I thought it was interesting and kinda made sense to me,I mean the proof was in the putting in my view. Instead i'm hearing how great you are your an author and know 10x more about the golf swing then me what does that have to do with the price of beans? Your arguments are based on mishaps of misspoken words or incorrect data and is pretty much irrelevant to the point. Your so far off the topic and the idea here that I no longer wish to go on. Your like a lawyer twisting words to unvalidate my main topic here from irrelevant trivial matters. This put's me in a negative light and really doesn't do anything to add the what I thought would help other golfers. It's like I was giving directions and said it's 10 miles down the road to the gas station when it was really 35 and somehow your focusing on this like an annoying lawyer character in an old timey movie.

I never said I was an author. That would be @iacas. He's a pretty cool guy, as long as you don't spread misinformation disguised as fact. 

[boogielicious]

Just now, Mike Boatright said:

 

Honestly you kinda have a straw man argument! This is the depiction I put on the first page I thought it was interesting and kinda made sense to me,I mean the proof was in the putting in my view. Instead i'm hearing how great you are your an author and know 10x more about the golf swing then me what does that have to do with the price of beans? Your arguments are based on mishaps of misspoken words or incorrect data and is pretty much irrelevant to the point. Your so far off the topic and the idea here that I no longer wish to go on. Your like a lawyer twisting words to unvalidate my main topic here from irrelevant trivial matters. This put's me in a negative light and really doesn't do anything to add the what I thought would help other golfers. It's like I was giving directions and said it's 10 miles down the road to the gas station when it was really 35 and somehow your focusing on this like an annoying lawyer character in an old timey movie.

Mike, you are wrong and Pretzel is correct. You brought up the incorrect terms not he or Matt. This is another example of misinformation you post. FWIW I have a Masters in Chemical Engineering and can state that Pretzel is correct.

In my 34 years in engineering I've run across people like you many times who use terms they have no idea about and make statements with authority. It makes you sound smart to the uninformed, but silly to those in-the-know. Please stop. This forum has many engineers and scientists who will correct you every time you do this. 

[Mike Boatright]

2 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I never said I was an author. That would be @iacas. He's a pretty cool guy, as long as you don't spread misinformation disguised as fact. 

I'm pretty sure iv'e stated all fact's besides the 50% reverse pivot thing that's was only a generalization with some truth to it. If all of this is wrong then go ahead and reverse pivot all day if you hit it longer doing this then have it.

[iacas]

It would blow your mind to know that yanking up and even back on the handle at the right time in the downswing would actually ADD club head speed, @Mike Boatright.

While I was away, you said a lot of stupid stuff. I might even have the time to respond to some of it later tonight. 

 Very little of what you have said in this thread is "true."

[Ernest Jones]

What I learned today:

If you miss the ball you have reduced your club head speed by 100%.

That is some pretty spectacular logic.

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

What I learned today:

If you miss the ball you have reduced your club head speed by 100%.

That is some pretty spectacular logic.

Hmmmm...  If you were on a launch monitor that calculated your club head speed from ball speed, I could see how someone (a very rare someone) might think that would be true...

[iacas]

In no particular order…

3 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

90% of the golf swing is getting behind the ball at address or on the backswing.

Behind with what?

A good number of the best players in the world are awfully close to 50/50 weight distribution at the top of their backswing (change of club direction). The biggest "movers" are around 55% weight toward the trail side.

What's the other 10%?

3 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

If you can do this then you can initiate the clearing of your hips as much as possible on the downswing.

So, like Jim Furyk? He has some of the most "cleared" hips of anyone… why doesn't he hit the ball very far, relatively speaking? Rory is less open than Furyk. Dustin Johnson too.

3 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

The only thing that can happen from there is falling back and losing about 50% of your club head speed.

I'm not even gonna touch that. Ridiculous you even said it. And, you could actually swing faster moving backward during the downswing. It creates a larger moment arm, adds a little parametric acceleration, and is basically like cracking a whip, sorta… Long story short, moving backward from the target during the downswing and near impact could increase clubhead speed.

3 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Hey as long as it works man Ideally I think it's best to set up with a spine Tilt like this \ And rotate around that axis doing this makes it almost impossible to sway or reverse pivot.. This is what I have been working on lately with superior results and some weird pushes though?

You haven't been working on it lately. You had one good range session and think you've uncovered the secret to golf.

3 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

I find it odd that every new fix has new misses. If you happen to set up to the golf ball in a more I Position and come off the ball minimally it can still be effective as long as you come off the ball a little.. Use this idea or shot for more of a 6 iron or something similar. I really think the reverse pivot is the death all to golf shots in general and is the Achilles heel to most golfers. Were talking slices,snap hooks,shanks,topped shots,chunks it's just all the awful shots.

Almost nobody has a reverse pivot.

But "not having a reverse pivot" doesn't mean you have to move well off the golf ball in the backswing.

Also, Justin Rose is pretty "|" and doesn't move off the ball. If anything his weight (look at his hips) is farther forward at A4 (top of backswing) than A1 (address).

Justin Rose is pretty good, no?

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

If you disagree explain yourself instead of saying no not ahh no it isn't like a 12 year old.

Please take your own advice.

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Baseball and golf are forever integrated like peanut butter and jelly they have a long history together and many similarities in the swing.

Really? Aside from "swinging a stick at a white ball" they have surprisingly little in common, from my perspective.

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Yes you can lose up to 50% of your club head speed by reverse pivoting and duck hooking it depends on how you hit it and how good you are.

What's a duck hook have to do with clubhead speed? Again, very few people actually reverse pivot.

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

I have hit a 280 yard drives and then a 150 yard snap hook from a reverse pivot some players miss the ball entirely that's a 100% loss, so yeah it's a killer!

Too good not to quote again.

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Gees dude use common sense it's just a laymen s term statement maybe it's 17.5% who cares!.

Stop just making stuff up.

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

If you want scientific proof get a basketball and hop on to the court and proceed to the 3 point line. From here take a running start and shoot that ball. Then try it taking 4 steps backwards and shooting the ball otherwise known as a fade way shot. Generally speaking you never see fade away 3 pointers because the reverse motion takes heat off the shot,hence you lose power duhh..

We don't run away from the golf ball in the golf swing.

As I noted above, you can actually generate more speed moving your body backward slightly. That's why baseball hitters often do this. Their COM is often actually moving backward relative to the middle of their stances. It can help the rotational speed.

Most are actually moving their COM relative to the center of their stances very little. It would be contrary to their goal: to rotate as fast as possible.

Which way is Jamie Sadlowski's COM going in these two photos? Forward? Backward? Staying the same?

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

I meant centripetal force are you saying it's not real let me check...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Sources_of_centripetal_force  Yup it's real and it's based around a center axis ''AKA'' you the golfer and a lever with a tethered object the club head.

First, if you mean to say centripetal, say centripetal, not centrifugal. In truth, because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, you're just making stuff up and hopping to and fro as you go.

So here's where you're still failing to understand some things…

If the golfer just pulls inward (from the top of the backswing?), what happens?

I've drawn two circles for you: one showing the radius from roughly between the golfer's shoulders to the ball, and one from the same place to the clubhead. You'll notice that they're two different radii, because the wrists are hinged/cocked/bent.

Please, @Mike Boatright, tell me how pulling inward along the arrow shown will result in tremendous clubhead speed?

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

It's more complicated in it's true nature and goes into advanced mathematics, orbital velocities and such which are beyond me.

The number of things which appear to be beyond you is growing at a faster pace than the universe is expanding.

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

It's more complicated in it's true nature and goes into advanced mathematics, orbital velocities and such which are beyond me. Just like orbit of the moon is gravity because it's actually just falling,kinda dropping a rock from a building it's still the same force just smaller. The weight of a club head being 220 grams is tethered to a 45 inch shaft and 3 1/2 foot arm. This extension along with some added force from your hands in an orbit around an axis ''AKA your body" utilizes the lever,gravity and centripetal force.

Gravity adds very little clubhead speed.

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Yeah your correct I'm no physics major just had some college sort of.. Anyway this is just basic stuff here if your a physics expert than how can you disagree?

It's because he's a physics expert that he's disagreeing.

1 hour ago, Mike Boatright said:

Honestly you kinda have a straw man argument! This is the depiction I put on the first page I thought it was interesting and kinda made sense to me,I mean the proof was in the putting in my view. Instead i'm hearing how great you are your an author and know 10x more about the golf swing then me what does that have to do with the price of beans? Your arguments are based on mishaps of misspoken words or incorrect data and is pretty much irrelevant to the point. Your so far off the topic and the idea here that I no longer wish to go on. Your like a lawyer twisting words to unvalidate my main topic here from irrelevant trivial matters. This put's me in a negative light and really doesn't do anything to add the what I thought would help other golfers. It's like I was giving directions and said it's 10 miles down the road to the gas station when it was really 35 and somehow your focusing on this like an annoying lawyer character in an old timey movie.

Yeah, his point of view is the irrelevant one…

4 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

A lot of baseball players hit on their front foot such as hunter pence and a few others especially the old school ones like Ted Williams known as one of the greatest hitters of all time.

Where is the weight in the baseball hitters shown above? Do you understand the differences between weight, pressure, and force?

4 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Anyway there a tons of mechanics in the swing such as timing,athleticism grip and alignment but overall understating that inertial forces and leverage play 75% of hitting the ball vs forcing it will help a lot of players out and make the game way less complicated in feel vs steps and checkpoints etc..

Uh, okay. So again, you had a decent day on the range, and now you know all there is to know about golf, yes?

4 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Ok prove me otherwise why are you getting so threatened and defensive kinda weird?

You've been proven wrong, and nobody's getting defensive.

[Hardspoon]

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

I mean the proof was in the putting in my view.

I know I'm off-topic (not that it matters after @iacas' mic-drop), but this made me actually laugh out loud. 

 

[Mike Boatright]

Picture left is what I was referring to originally before I was told I was wrong. I was never talking about a reverse pivot entirely. My main point from this entire thread is the golf swing isn't that complicated and is a simple force of nature even if i'm off with calculations or whatever. Notice how perfect her center is in relation to the ball. The center being her hips. Pretzel stated that gravity would equate a whopping 33 mph on the down swing if it was left alone on it's own. That's actually quite substantial when you add it as a multiplier take 33 mph x added acceleration from your hand speed and you probably get 66 mph. The axis of rotation would be here hips which would further increase the multiplier. Being that she is behind the ball her shaft lag and speed would  be maximized to about 100 mph with a driver without much effort thanks to leverage and acceleration.

This is why LPGA our player hit it far without strength based on centripetal force,leverage mechanics and clearing out to let this multiplier occur. I don't care if I said 50% speed loss or whatever it wasn't my point and is way off topic! I know with strength you can do just fine take Jason Zuback he had a huge reverse pivot but a stable body and hit it 400 yards. everyone on here is trying to get better and why not maximize what science has to offer vs odd references and exceptions to the rule? Yes Jim furyk does it different you don't lose 50% of your club head speed and maybe i'm off with the calculations so im not incorrect in my analogy here. You notice the depiction of an orbit in both photos this is the key added with the axis as the speed multiplier x the shaft as the lever and the head utilizing centripetal force and acceleration. Knowing this beats mechanics,checkpoints and steps because it's simplifies the whole thing. Simply load up with balance and let the rest occur. This is why I hit 40 drives in a row 265 yards + Iv'e never had that kind of consistency before and I mean never because I was fighting the forces of nature instead of letting them work for me. Everyone else will continue to struggle over analyze and improve eventually by luck mostly unless of course they take this advice here.

I will say This forum has helped me a ton in reference to mechanics and being able to achieve that backswing position. What I'm saying is this all you need need to work on in terms of fundamentals as the  primary objective. Once you get that  part down the rest does not matter simply let it go and the ball will fly. It's simplifies everything work on getting set up the the ball with proper mechanics,alignment and ball position and grip that's it. Once you get this down understanding that the down swing is nothing more than a force of nature is eye opening. Iv'e seen the topic of getting your weight forward as the primary objective and core here as the 5sk method,but in reality that motion is yin and yang with the first part being essential and the second part being the result.

14 hours ago, iacas said:

It would blow your mind to know that yanking up and even back on the handle at the right time in the downswing would actually ADD club head speed, @Mike Boatright.

While I was away, you said a lot of stupid stuff. I might even have the time to respond to some of it later tonight. 

 Very little of what you have said in this thread is "true."

Why be so harsh I was just trying to help others?

12 hours ago, iacas said:

Which way is Jamie Sadlowski's COM going in these two photos? Forward? Backward? Staying the same?

Jamie sadlowski is a long driver and utilizes the same forces i'm talking about x 20! He loads up way behind the ball often past parallel to create a massive orbit. Along with his super fast hands and a + degree in launch as he hangs back a bit results in 375 yard drives. If youv'e ever seen a remax long drive show then you know that these guys hit it very wild and a few good ones from luck and timing. This is an odd reference he does the same thing a good golfer would do with adjustments to power it out there. Most golfers should have a slight + degree in launch angle on drives and probably hang back at impact a little it's just unavoidable.

Take Rory here much more consistent with power by the result of his set up he is hanging back at impact but still getting the speed multiplier from clearing of his hips. Lpga tour players hang back less hence more consistency. The more you force it the more power can occur with the added fun of wild misses. Another basketball reference would be shooting a 17 foot jump shot it's stable easy and consistent vs a long 3 that uses the same mechanics but will require added force and instability,and if you fail to use the mechanics you will probably shoot an air ball.

14 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

What I learned today:

If you miss the ball you have reduced your club head speed by 100%.

That is some pretty spectacular logic.

That's not what I meant and you know it again irrelevant to the topic.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Mike Boatright

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Picture left is what I was referring to originally before I was told I was wrong. I was never talking about a reverse pivot entirely. My main point from this entire thread is the golf swing isn't that complicated and is a simple force of nature even if i'm off with calculations or whatever. Notice how perfect her center is in relation to the ball. The center being her hips. Pretzel stated that gravity would equate a whopping 33 mph on the down swing if it was left alone on it's own. That's actually quite substantial when you add it as a multiplier take 33 mph x added acceleration from your hand speed and you probably get 66 mph. The axis of rotation would be here hips which would further increase the multiplier. Being that she is behind the ball her shaft lag and speed would  be maximized to about 100 mph with a driver without much effort thanks to leverage and acceleration.

This is why LPGA our player hit it far without strength based on centripetal force,leverage mechanics and clearing out to let this multiplier occur. I don't care if I said 50% speed loss or whatever it wasn't my point and is way off topic! I know with strength you can do just fine take Jason Zuback he had a huge reverse pivot but a stable body and hit it 400 yards. everyone on here is trying to get better and why not maximize what science has to offer vs odd references and exceptions to the rule? Yes Jim furyk does it different you don't lose 50% of your club head speed and maybe i'm off with the calculations so im not incorrect in my analogy here. You notice the depiction of an orbit in both photos this is the key added with the axis as the speed multiplier x the shaft as the lever and the head utilizing centripetal force and acceleration. Knowing this beats mechanics,checkpoints and steps because it's simplifies the whole thing. Simply load up with balance and let the rest occur. This is why I hit 40 drives in a row 265 yards + Iv'e never had that kind of consistency before and I mean never because I was fighting the forces of nature instead of letting them work for me. Everyone else will continue to struggle over analyze and improve eventually by luck mostly unless of course they take this advice here.

I will say This forum has helped me a ton in reference to mechanics and being able to achieve that backswing position. What I'm saying is this all you need need to work on in terms of fundamentals as the  primary objective. Once you get that  part down the rest does not matter simply let it go and the ball will fly. It's simplifies everything work on getting set up the the ball with proper mechanics,alignment and ball position and grip that's it. Once you get this down understanding that the down swing is nothing more than a force of nature is eye opening. Iv'e seen the topic of getting your weight forward as the primary objective and core here as the 5sk method,but in reality that motion is yin and yang with the first part being essential and the second part being the result.

Why be so harsh I was just trying to help others?

Jamie sadlowski is a long driver and utilizes the same forces i'm talking about x 20! He loads up way behind the ball often past parallel to create a massive orbit. Along with his super fast hands and a + degree in launch as he hangs back a bit results in 375 yard drives. If youv'e ever seen a remax long drive show then you know that these guys hit it very wild and a few good ones from luck and timing. This is an odd reference he does the same thing a good golfer would do with adjustments to power it out there. Most golfers should have a slight + degree in launch angle on drives and probably hang back at impact a little it's just unavoidable.

Take Rory here much more consistent with power by the result of his set up he is hanging back at impact but still getting the speed multiplier from clearing of his hips. Lpga tour players hang back less hence more consistency. The more you force it the more power can occur with the added fun of wild misses. Another basketball reference would be shooting a 17 foot jump shot it's stable easy and consistent vs a long 3 that uses the same mechanics but will require added force and instability,and if you fail to use the mechanics you will probably shoot an air ball.

That's not what I meant and you know it again irrelevant to the topic.

You are misrepresenting what others have said and changing what you think you have said. Please stop.

[billchao]

2 hours ago, Mike Boatright said:

Why be so harsh I was just trying to help others?

You're not helping anyone. Your writing is incoherent and your information is flawed in some spots and downright wrong in others. It is apparent that you don't know what you're talking about and you have no idea why you happened to hit it well that particular day but you took that one good range sessions as proof that you have figured "it" out, whatever "it" is.

Next week you will be back to hitting duck hooks because you haven't made any tangible changes to your swing.

You don't know physics and you don't know the golf swing. Do yourself a favor and stop pretending you do.

[JonMA1]

@Mike Boatright - I know you mean well, and like the rest of us, are passionate about golf and improving. Nothing wrong with that. 

But understand something, if anyone at any level - pro, scratch, single-digit or bogey - posts instruction on swing mechanics, Erik and Mike are going to call us out on it. Every one of us.

There is just too much poor instruction out there and they don't want it on this site. Too many folks (including PGA teaching pros), spout feels or misuse sciences like biomechanics and physics. It does nothing but add confusion to what is already a tough sport to learn.

So I hope you can understand and appreciate what they are trying to do. A little humility on your part can go a long way.

[Mike Boatright]

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

ou're not helping anyone. Your writing is incoherent and your information is flawed in some spots and downright wrong in others. It is apparent that you don't know what you're talking about and you have no idea why you happened to hit it well that particular day but you took that one good range sessions as proof that you have figured "it" out, whatever "it" is.

It's true you probably just don't understand it it's beyond you that's fine. My writing is incoherent probably a little but last time I checked it's in English not Russian.

1 minute ago, JonMA1 said:

@Mike Boatright - I know you mean well, and like the rest of us, are passionate about golf and improving. Nothing wrong with that. 

But understand something, if anyone at any level - pro, scratch, single-digit or bogey - posts instruction on swing mechanics, Erik and Mike are going to call us out on it. Every one of us.

There is just too much poor instruction out there and they don't want it on this site. Too many folks (including PGA teaching pros), spout feels or misuse sciences like biomechanics and physics. It does nothing but add confusion to what is already a tough sport to learn.

So I hope you can understand and appreciate what they are trying to do. A little humility on your part can go a long way.

Actually what I have said here relates to everything I have learned from this forum. If you read what I wrote to any degree you would understand. I'm saying that everything people are working on is correct only from the set up,grip and mechanics stand point. This goes for the 5sk or any other method up into a backswing. The rest of the swing does not exist and is a motion that occurs from the result of momentum,leverage centripetal force and by you just clearing out of the way. I mean you use your hands sure, but it's actually that simple and people need to realize this or will forever be lost in the mystery of golf.