jc21539

If I understand correctly, what's being said is that Tiger sets up with the clubface at about 40 degrees (48 degrees minus the 8 degrees forward lean) and strikes down at about 8 degrees. His ball flies up at about 34 degrees. The overall angle between the clubface and the angle of approach is 40 degrees up minus 8 degrees down, which equals a net sum of 48 degrees. 34/48=0.71 5/7=0.71 So the angle the ball flies up at is exactly 5/7 of the overall angle between the clubface direction and the swing path. I honestly couldn't have made this up if I wanted to, nor would I have any reason to. The laws of motion don't change with magnitude. I'm sorry, I don't think I can say this any more clearly. I never said that the ball flies off the clubface at twice the speed of the clubhead. This is being quoted from one website that I used out of many different resources, a website that does happen to be about physics and not about golf. I wouldn't expect them to know everything about the elasticity of clubheads and golf balls. They were correct to say that the ball would fly off the face at a greater speed than the clubhead, and that the compression of the ball on the clubface would reduce the speed. I hope everyone is aware that the speed of the ball off the clubface is greater than the speed the clubhead is traveling. Just take a putter, and swipe at a golf ball at an extreme out-to-in or in-to out path, but keep the clubface pointing straight. See whether the ball goes closer to the clubface direction or the swing path direction. “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -Benjamin Franklin

If the logic that the clubhead path is more influential in determining the initial direction of the ball flight than the clubface is, then this logic must also hold true for the vertical flight as well. That would mean that if you hit the ball at the exact bottom of your swing arc with a wedge, the ball would initially start out on the direction of the swing path, which would be parallel to the ground, and only after traveling in the "air" for a while would it start to move up, even though it would have to start out as a grounder. In reality, we are usually hitting down on the ball, so the ball has to start downwards, the same direction the clubhead is traveling...right? If you believe that this image holds true, then it must work the same way for the horizontal vector. Angles don't care whether they are facing up or down or right or left. There is no IF about it. The website that you can find this information on is http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/...lubmakeronline . But with a basic understanding of physics and some common sense, you can tell that this will hold true for the horizontal vector just as it does for the vertical vector. If anyone can prove otherwise, besides saying that some golfers have agreed on it, please explain in scientific detail. I am open to any relevant arguments, as long as they have some basis in reality and not just intuition or personal perception. I have read the previous threads about this on this forum. They are wrong. The information was probably taken out of a magazine. That's why I had to start a new one.

I was browsing the internet the other day, and I came across an article that stopped me in my tracks. The article was written by David DeNunzio, managing editor of the instruction section for Golf Magazine. What really bugs me about this article is that the information in it is simply wrong. I am referring to the section where he describes what makes a ball slice. Unfortunitely, it appears that Mr. DeNunzio was just regurgitating common knowledge about the golf swing, and was not really interested in finding out the facts. The article is found here at http://www.golf.com . If the three diagrams where he explains the three different types of slices are true, then golf is apparently the only thing in the known universe that is able to defy the laws of physics. If the swing path is straight down the target line, and the clubface is open, the ball will NOT start out even remotely straight. The ball will start out, at the very least (according to the laws of physics), within 5/7 of the angle that the clubface is pointing, in relation to the angle between the clubface direction and the swing path direction. Here is a graphic representation of what I just described: I can't help but wonder, if this guy is the managing editor of the instruction section for a magazine as widely published as Golf Magazine, what about the rest of the stuff that these guys spit out week after week?

I am not suggesting lead tape as a theory... I have done it myself. It doesn't take that much lead tape. When you apply the tape to the club head, it has a much more profound effect than if you apply it throughout the shaft, like the momentus does. In addition, it allows you to actually feel where the club head is. Any pro shop can change out a grip for you for $10. The training grip is about the same, and is not even necessary. Some versions of the momentus don't even come with one. So it's not really all that difficult, and most importantly, it doesn't cost $100. Maybe that's not a lot of money to some people, but if I can avoid it with something that is reasonably comparable and only costs $23, then I'm going to do it. It only has to be 1/4 as effective to be worth the money. Having used both, I can say that it absolutely is. If you don't want to go through the hassle of lead tape, then a weighted club ring works nicely as well (by the way, it's against the rules of golf to use one while you are actually playing).

Folks, it's called lead tape and it costs $3. Just to clarify a bit, I do own a momentus myself. I also own an old wooden fairway wood with lead tape and a grip trainer on it. They do the same thing. Besides just the added weight (ignore the "perimeter weighting" b/s), it is actually the drill that is helping your swing plane and tempo. You can do the "momentus" drill with any club in your bag, including one that you stick $3 lead tape on.

Any swing in the middle of January is nice to me. Your swing looks like it can hit good shots to me, which isn't surprising. If there's one thing I could pick out (I'm fishing for it a bit), it would be that it looks like your sliding a bit on the downswing. The best part about your swing is how athletic your setup is. It looks like all you have to do from there is push a button. I am a little confused though, why are you doubting your swing anyway? For everyone else, I don't think the 0.0 represents a 0 handicap - it stands for "professional," i.e. no handicap. He's a teaching professional.

I'd have to say that getting rid of the stymie completely eliminated a huge competitive aspect of the game. Contrary to popular belief, when you are playing competitive golf, you are not in control of your fate. Other golfers can beat you by shooting a lower score than you, and you can't control what they shoot. But why not??? It's competition, after all.

I like to start the club as close as possible to where I would like to make contact with the ball. That means on the ground, with the ball dead center in the middle of the club face. I think it gives my eyes a little assistance in finding the ball again.

It turns out I was correct...it was interesting to research! But, I did learn a bit more about the physics behind ball flight. I don't understand the equations very well, but this is what I have come to learn: 1. Clubface has more effect on the starting direction of the ball than swing path, although swing path does (in theory, it is technically "can" but in practice, "does") have an effect. 2. In a frictionless collision, the ball would start out directly down the path perpendicular the clubface. 3. The faster your clubhead speed, the more effect swing path has on the initial direction. This is generally where I am basing my information from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=16863 . If you take the paragraph where he talks about the angles between c, p, b, and alpha, and draw yourself a diagram, it helps greatly in understanding the 5/7 rule.

No, actually, what I am talking about is physics. You are correct in that if you come over the top, you are likely to have an open clubface. But when we say open, we mean open in relation to the swing path. So if the clubface is square to the target line, and your swing is outside to in, then your clubface is open in relation to your swing path. But an outside to in path does not create a slice on its own. If you are out to in and the clubface is open in relation to the path, then that is a pull slice. If you come over the top with a dead shut clubface, you won't be seeing any slices. You'll be seeing pull hooks instead (which are fairly common as well). If you are inside to out and have an open clubface in relation to your path (which means really open in relation to your target) then you will hit a huge push slice, meaning it starts right and goes further right. To actually start the ball right of your target (while hitting the ball somewhere on the actual clubface), your swing must be inside out. Atleast, that is my understanding of the physics based on what I've read. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it is actually a combination of swing path and clubface that determines where the ball starts out, but I don't really know for sure. I am no physicist, but it would be interesting to research. Anyhow, you can get a pretty good sense of what you are doing using the basic rule.

There is a big difference between a slice and a push. A push is caused by an inside to out swing path. A slice is caused by an open clubface in relation to your swing path. Figuring out whether you are slicing, pushing, or both is not always an easy task, especially if you are on the severe end of the spectrum. A shot that appears to be a push could really just be an extremely severe slice. In addition, hitting the ball off the extreme end of the toe or off the hozzle can make it virtually impossible to tell what is going on from ball flight alone. Grip, alignment, and posture are three things that make it easier for golfers to swing down the target line with a square clubhead. But it is ultimately the golfer's intentions that determine where the ball goes. Determine what areas of your setup you feel least comfortable with. If it's your grip, try switching to a ten-fingered grip for a while, and remember that human beings grip things with their fingers. If it is alignment, put some clubs down to line up your body parallel to the target line. For your posture, focus on making the most powerful and balanced swing you can, and your posture will react naturally. The key here is to keep it simple. If you don't already, try picking out an intermediate target about a foot in front of the ball on your target line. I think this is one of the best ways to keep your mind focused on the target line, because you can actually see it. When you swing, forget about anything else you've learned besides swinging the club down the target line. And remember, nothing happens overnight. Not even becoming millionares or fixing your slice. Hope this helps.

I second that... spend more time on the putting green.

You know, I've never been a big fan of the line on the swing. I always figured that if I couldn't do it every time on every shot, then I better learn how to do it without it. Last time I played, however, I decided to give it a shot. Low and behold, I did actually putt slightly better than normal. I found the greatest improvement to be on putts within five feet. I guess the theory of maximizing your advantage whenever possible also works in this case.

I hate golfless winters in New England. One of these days, I'm going to shoot myself .

I don't exactly remember where I read this - it may have been Ben Hogan's book or in one of Bob Rotella's books, but I really don't remember - but it sticks out in my mind none the less. Whoever the teacher was, he had a student that was having a lot of trouble making solid contact. Do you know what the teacher said to the student? He said, "Go home, and don't come back until you can hit the ball. Until you can make contact with the ball every time, I can't help you." Sure enough, the student came back. Your swing is bottoming out at different places because your mind is so cluttered with swing thoughts that you are forgetting your basic objective: hit ball at target.

I received the original momentus as a Christmas gift one year. There are definitely some good things about it. The weight of the club is good for building up golf muscles, since it is working the actual muscles that you are using to swing. In addition, the momentus drill they give you where you start the club head ahead of you and then let gravity help swing it back is a good drill. But... that drill works well with any club, not just the medicus. In addition, an old club, a grip trainer, and some lead tape is a much cheaper alternative than spending $100 on the medicus. It is also easy to adjust the weight with the lead tape - just add or take off. The momentus does have verifiable results though - I had a friend who made some of the funkiest moves you'll see in a golf swing, but when he swung the medicus, it looked somewhat like a golf swing. Whether this actually translates into your real swing, and how long that takes, is another story. I personally like the lead tape idea myself.

Not only can you go out and not think about anything but playing golf, but it's a heck of a lot more fun, and you will be surprised how much better your final score will be. I'm not saying it will be par, atleast not instantly, but there are a lot of other factors that affect your score much more than your swing, and they are usually the most neglected. Maybe if you free your mind up from your swing, other parts of your game, such as course management and your short game, will start getting the attention they deserve. I have had my butt handed to me on a silver platter by some of the worst looking swings I have ever seen. The funny thing is, no matter how ugly the swing is, producing a repetitive shot with enough distance for the courses you are playing is all that matters. Just look at Jim Thorpe. I can't imagine that his swing was ever "built" from the ground up. Maybe by Picasso. Good luck on the range!

In no way am I implying that anyone should, or even could, be able to just pick up a golf swing and swing like Tiger. It takes a bit of time to develop the muscle coordination required to transport something as long and as heavy as a golf club in a precise enough way to hit good golf shots. I am also not saying that anyone, given enough time, will learn to make a good swing on their own. I think that we would see more unique functional swings, but I don't know if it would work for everybody. I just think that the golf swing should be taught and learned in an athletic way. Instead of focusing on swing plane and club face, I would focus on things like setup and target line. I really do think that the majority of golfers completely underestimate the importance of focusing on the target. I would say that my explanation of the swing path tangent line was more on the technical side than anything else, but it is a different approach than is often taken, and it helps to give someone the sense of purpose in their golf swing. I think that the overall purpose is often lost on people when the swing is broken down into segments. And finally, I think there is WAY too much focus on the backswing. The backswing has essentially become the second swing. Same with the transition. None of it makes sense on its own. It all makes sense when you put everything together. Technical, of course, is a subjective term. But when I think of technical, I think of the things we don't need to know. It is merely the in-depth observation and analysis of what good golfers are already, and have been, doing. Don't forget - first came man, then came golf, then came golf mechanics. Not the other way around. It is definitely true about Golf Digest contradicting itself from month to month. I'm sure the fact that they use articles from many different teaching professionals doesn't help the matter, but they also don't really care about the content past the fact that people believe it and it keeps selling magazines. And of course, a lot of it is "technically" right. It's just "technically" useless to reader.

I agree wholeheartedly that strength and flexibility are definitely limiters of a person's ability to make a dynamic golf swing. But just because our muscles are not used to certain movements does not mean our minds are not. And if our minds know what we want our muscles to do, it is like learning to ride a bike. We just keep on practicing until we do it. The golf swing is just not that complicated. It's the closest thing to a circle that our bodies will allow us, although its never going to be perfectly "one plane" because our bodies are not built like the mechanical golfer. And basically, at the point of impact on that circle, the tangent to that point should be pointing down the target line. Now, that is just in theory, because in practice, we don't hit the ball with most of our clubs at the bottom of the swing arc. But the horizontal aspect of the tangent line should be pointing down the target line. We do the same thing when we throw a ball, even overhand. We don't think about where exactly we are going to release it so that the tangent to the point on the arc that our hand travels on is pointing directly at our target. But we do it, because that's the only way to get it there. We are subconsciously aware of it, but we don't need to be consciously aware of it to learn how to do it successfully. Same with driving a car. When we are going around a curve, we don't take each foot at a time, constantly adjusting the wheel to follow the center line. We look ahead towards the end of the curve, and our minds naturally figure out the required wheel turn to get there. We don't have to measure out on the wheel exactly how far in inches we need to turn it for this radius turn for however many yards. We figure it out by looking at our destination at the end of the curve, and from there it's just a matter of experience. Here's another example: we all have the ability to draw a straight line. But the only way to do it successfully is to make a single motion, and to focus on where we want the pencil tip to end up. Go ahead and try it. If you try to slowly draw a straight line by focusing on each little movement of your hand, you will end up with a wavy, segmented attempt at a line. But if you do it in a single motion, focusing on the point at which you want the pencil tip to end up at, you will surprise yourself by making it go there without any thought at all. When we scratch an itch on our skin, it is like a golf swing. Every time we move our fingers back in preparation for the next scratch, it is like we are making a backswing. We don't think about where our fingers need to be to set up the perfect approach into the itchy spot. We don't think about our transition technique going from the fingers back to the dive into the skin. All we are thinking about is the itchy spot, and how we want to dig our fingers into it. The way we coil back our fingers is just a reaction to how we want them to attack the itchy spot. Certainly, if we are unable to physically wield a club, or wield a hammer, or use a shovel, or throw a ball, then there is no amount of technical knowledge that would ever allow us to actually produce the results we desire. The undisputable fact is, however, that hitting things with sticks is not only natural - it is part of our evolutionary instinct. It is just as natural as anything else we do and has been an influential factor in our development as a species. We as humans have been using spears for hunting and fishing for at least 400,000 years. Check out this article on archeology.org. If we weren't able to hit our targets with sticks, we would not be here today to debate one of the outlets of those very instincts, i.e. sports. I'm not saying that the golf swing isn't something that has to be learned. What I am saying is that we are already pre-wired to learn the golf swing and other similar tasks involving eye-hand coordination and spacial judgement. We don't need drills to learn that. We need only to apply our natural learning ability to golf through experience and practice. There are literally thousands of golfers out there that are living proof that the golf swing does not need to be taught technically. But, just like hunting with a spear as our ancient ancestors did, experience, intelligence, and physical ability will always be prime factors in our success. By the way, I use the term we mainly because I don't want anyone to think I am talking to them specifically and be offended. Not to mention that for years, I was stuck on the technicalities of the golf swing, and I really didn't make any progress until I learned to change my mindset.

I guess it depends on whether you choose to focus on the similarities or the differences. Either way, his swing at 2 years old was a heck of a lot better than the majority of amateurs. He broke 50 for nine holes when he was 3 years old. He was better than almost everyone on this forum by the time he was 13.

By how sore your elbow is after. Seriously, though, I would avoid mats if it is possible. The club is always going to bounce off the mat, so you will never truly tell where the deepest part of your divot is. Some mats are more padded than others, so you can see a little dark spot where the club hit the mat, but even then, you can't really get enough information from it.

I was watching a show on National Geographic Channel about some Dinosaur mummy they found that was preserved for millions of years. Pretty cool, but I do have a point coming up. To analyze the way the ancient dinosaur walked, they input what they knew about the dinosaur's weight, skeletal design, and muscle mass, and let a super computer run millions of tests to find the most efficient way for it to move. They knew the computer was accurate because they had tested it before on other species of today that they could actually compare the computer results to, one of which was humans. Now here's what I'm getting at. The motion of a person running is so complex, it took the supercomputer about one hundred and fifty million tries just to get it right. Does that mean that running is complicated? Well, yes, but at the same time, of course not. Everyone could improve by getting lessons, even tour players. It never hurts to be a little more balanced, to create a little more stability in the lower body, and to have a little more control over distance and ball flight. But these are not the "technical" aspects that many people think of. They are, however, many of the "technical" things that tour players work at improving on a consistent basis. By the way, Tiger did happen to win the Masters by 12 shots with essentially the same swing he had when he was 2 years old. Granted, he made some major "technical" changes after that, but we will never know whether he was better off for it. It has never been his swing that has made Tiger so dominant, anyway.

I used the term "we" because, even if you are Tiger Woods, there is always going to be someone that comes next who is longer, straighter, and better than you. In effect, we all are limited by what our bodies and minds will allow us. And I think I should probably define what I call technical. Is the grip technical? No, actually it's fairly natural and logical. It gets confusing because of some added extras such as the palm over thumb, overlap/interlock, and index trigger. But other than that, it's just like gripping anything else. In fact, all of the preshot positions make a lot of sense in an athletic way. Ringer absolutely nailed what I was really getting at when he said that the actual swing is one motion and cannot be learned by dissecting it into little segments at a time. Yeah, someone like Jim McClain or David Leadbetter can break down the golf swing into smaller and smaller pieces, and then sell videos that make them a ton of money. But just because they can dissect it that way doesn't mean you can learn it that way, which makes it foolish to teach it that way, unless you want to sell videos and make tons of money. I think somewhere back in the post, someone talked about Tiger being a 9 technical player and a 1 feel player. Maybe you didn't see the videos of him swinging when he was 2 years old. Here it is for anyone who hasn't seen it: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/59134/...t_2_years_old/ . How much of a technical player could he have been then? Yes, his swing has changed since then...although not drastically until he started working with Butch Harmon. He only won 3 U.S. Junior Amateurs, 3 U.S. Amateurs, and the Masters with the swing he had since he was 2 years old. So are you saying that, even though the golf swing is something that has to be learned through hours of drills to learn each individual part of the swing all the way to impact, a 2 year old can do it? What I'm saying is, if a 2 year old can do it, then it's not as complicated as it's being made out to be.

I have to disagree on one thing: that it takes hours of working on particular drills for your swing to become natural. That is actually a bit counterintuitive, since nothing could be natural if it takes hours of drilling to ingrain. I personally think that it is the drills that we are using that is the problem, not that people are not practicing them. When we use drills, we usually isolate one small part of the swing. While this is logical in certain settings (analyzing an IT system, for instance), the golf swing is too unified a motion for the depth of analysis that we are giving it. I believe that the problem with the way most people choose to swing a club is on a much more basic level than any individual parts of the swing. Here's my analogy: To fix a burnt-out light bulb, you wouldn't go rewiring all of the switches in the house, would you? That's not to say that after years of trial and error, we can't get the wiring right. Maybe, in the process, we even attempted to replace the light bulb. And, if we were lucky, we replaced the lightbulb at a time when we had, by coincidence, gotten all the wiring right. But if we already screwed with the wiring by the time we replaced the light bulb, the light is never going to work. Our minds are more capable than golfers seem to think. Look at how quickly we can learn to swing a baseball bat or a tennis racket. Look at how quickly we learn to throw a baseball, or shoot a basketball. We don't nitpick every single thing our muscles are doing when we do those things. We just have one thing in mind, and that is what we want the result to be. Our mind takes care of the rest for us. And for those of us who can't hit a baseball to save our lives, can't reach first base from home plate, can't hit a tennis ball over the net, or can't reach the rim the foul line, taking all the lessons from every pro on the entire face of the planet is not going to make you a great golfer. With enough practice, we can achieve mediocracy, and you know what? It's really not so bad. Heck, the more shots you hit a round, the better value you are getting for your money.

The most efficient way to do anything is always going to be the simplest. However, the simplest way to effectively hit a bunker shot depends a great deal on the consistency of the sand. If you are in shallow, coarse sand, setting up square will help to take bounce off of your wedge so the leading edge can cut into the sand more easily. In beach sand, playing the shot from an open stance will help use the bounce to pop the ball out - this type of sand was what bounce was created for. In general, it is simpler for most people to always set up square for every shot. But the best way for you is the simplest way for you.