Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pretzel

  1. When a pitcher "pushes off the mound" their leg becomes straighter and their heel is flat. Regardless of if the pitcher pushes off the mound or not, this is the exact opposite of what pitchers do.
  2. It's not that it isn't easy to see. It's that it's easy to see the exact opposite of what you describe is happening. You are bending your knee and lifting the heel. Those two things are the exact opposite action as pushing off of the ground, which requires you to straighten your leg and drive the foot (including your heel) down into the ground so that you can push off it.
  3. I think you just can't see that you're being ridiculous. You physically cannot push off with the rear foot if you lift your heel and increase the bend in your knee. Pushing off with your rear foot would mean straightening the rear leg and pressing that heel into the ground, because you're pushing off of the foot (which presses the foot into the ground). Are you really so blinded by the need to be right that you're going to disregard basic physics and biomechanics like this?
  4. I'm simply showing you with your own swing, as well as swings of notorious power hitters, that a push off the back foot doesn't occur in the transition to the downswing. You seem to feel like you do this in your own personal swing. That's why I'm using an example of your own personal swing to show you that what you're feeling in the swing is not what is happening in your swing.
  5. Here's an example of your "powerful push" off that back foot in transition. Your feel ain't real buddy, and you just can't seem to get that through your head. Dustin Johnson has the same lack of a push off the back foot in transition, as seen clearly in this video. His heel is gently lifting off the ground from nearly the moment he starts down with the swing, not pressing down into it so he can push off.
  6. Believe me, I can guarantee that many of the things you feel are not real. Pushing off from the rear foot, for example... The same thing applies to everything we humans do, by the way, not just golf. I do a lot of work with horses, and I have to constantly prevent myself from gripping with my knees. I never feel myself do it, but I feel the horse react to me doing it. I then have to ride for a while over-exaggerating things by making sure my knees don't touch the saddle at all to break myself out of that false feeling again.
  7. That's good to finally have a video of the driver with his swing, though watching it I noticed a couple of things that are good avenues for discussion. Please do note before we get started that these comments are in relation to using the Venetos swing in high levels of competition. It has advantages for the beginner or the weekend golfer who just wants to avoid a slice and get started in the game without much practice. On a shorter course I could even picture someone getting to between a scratch and 5 handicap with this swing and competing well in club tournaments. In this post I'm going to be discussing the pitfalls of the swing as it relates to competing in state or national level amateur tournaments and professional tournaments of all levels, where the norm is championship level courses that will usually exceed 7,000 yards in length and pretty regularly play beyond 7,200 yards. If these courses aren't that long, then they're penal in other ways by having narrow and/or tree-lined fairways that prevent you from hitting large curves. Contact was made right about at the 31 second mark, and the ball reaches its apex at about the 34 second mark and is losing altitude before it's even out of view in the video. Considering the video is at about 1/2 speed this means the apex was reached in about 1.5-2 seconds real time, meaning a total tee shot hangtime of only 3-4 seconds. The median on tour is 6.2 seconds and the shortest of any guy playing in those tournaments is still 5.6 seconds. The shortest hitter on tour, Scott Langley with an average of 269.8 yards, has an average hang time of 5.7 seconds. Hang time isn't everything, of course, but it is a good indication of the amount of power in a swing. It would appear that this video supports the idea that the Jim Venetos swing lacks power overall. This isn't me bashing the method as useless, because I can see how it would be useful for a beginner or especially someone who is struggling to control a slice, it's just me stating a honest fact about the swing from what I can see and what I have read and heard. The Venetos swing would struggle to keep up on the championship courses played in tournaments for top amateurs and any level of professional. The second concern is just how much that ball is curving from right to left. Based on the overall appearance of the ball flight (@iacas can probably judge better, he's got a LOT of practice at judging launch numbers from video and watching people hit), that ball might be carrying 200-215 yards but it still looks like it is curving at least 20 yards from right to left in the air. A big draw/hook like that is definitely a welcome sight for anyone who struggles with a slice, but it does give me pause since the spin axis must be severely tilted to get that much curve on a tee shot that isn't exactly a bomb. Longer tee shots will drift further to the side with the same spin axis as a shorter tee shot simply because they have more time to go off course, but with that same spin axis a tee shot that carries 260 yards or more is going to be curving at least 30 yards if not more. Assuming a player with the Venetos swing could somehow find the power to keep up with the short hitters on tour, they would have a rough time with the narrower courses that can be played in higher levels of competition. Merion Golf Club, for example, has fairways that are only 20-30 yards wide for the most part and many of those fairways are lined with trees. You can't aim the ball 15 yards to the right of the fairway on these tight courses to account for that 30+ yard curve, it just doesn't work. Trust me, I know - I used to play a 30-40 yard "draw" off the tee with 260-280 yards of driving distance as my normal shot. There were many courses and tournaments that I struggled at simply because there wasn't enough room for me to be able to hit the fairway without making swing changes to manage my way around that course. The swing, like I said before, could be easy to pick up for beginners or a quick fix for someone who is slicing the ball. It leaves a lot to be desired though when it comes to competing favorably at high levels of competition.
  8. I started using the original MCC grips on my clubs around 6 years ago or so, a little bit after they were released since I liked how grippy they felt especially in the rain. I like corded grips, but they absolutely tear my ungloved hand to pieces usually since my hands are always dry and cracking anyways. I did, however, always use 3 wraps of tape under my grips because for me personally it would help prevent me from shutting the face down and hooking the ball. I've got slightly larger than average hands (8.5" wrist to middle finger compared to the average of 7.44") so the extra tape felt nice and seemed to help keep me from over-rotating my wrists through impact. I've since switched to using the MCC Plus4 grips with just the usual one wrap of tape. The difference between the two grips isn't huge, it's just personal comfort and preference. The Plus4 feels nice to me, but realistically I could play golf just fine with either grip and the standard one wrap of tape so long as I just spent 5-10 minutes on the range making sure my fundamentals were solid and I wasn't getting too handsy.
  9. Hell, my podunk hometown has better golf within a 2-hours drive than what's available in New York. This is a town called Firestone in Colorado, by the way, where the population was ~1,750 when I was born and is still small enough now that my parent's live on a dirt road just 2 minutes from the "bustling city center". In fact, compared to New York, Firestone is a true golfing hotspot! Here's a sampling of the notable courses available within 2 hours of driving: TPC Colorado Castle Pines Golf Club (48 on the Golf Digest rankings, former PGA Tour stop) Ballyneal Golf Club (46 on the Golf Digest rankings) Cherry Hills Country Club (72 on the Golf Digest rankings, host to 3 different US Open Championships) Colorado Golf Club (124 on the Golf Digest rankings) Sanctuary (175 on the Golf Digest rankings) The Broadmoor Golf Club (199 on the Golf Digest rankings) Frost Creek Golf Club Riverdale Dunes Denver Country Club Commonground Golf Club Walnut Greek Golf Preserve Arrowhead The Omni Interlocken Eisenhower Golf Course (on the Air Force base) Not to mention the fact that Colorado has both 300 days per year of sunshine (that's a lot of time to get out and golf, even if you use colored balls when there's snow on the ground) and well over 150 course options within that 2-hour drive from Firestone. Truly, Firestone Colorado is a golfing tourism destination that clearly surpasses the New York metro area. The number, quality, and diversity of the options available far surpasses anything that 2 hours in New York traffic could ever encompass. Plan your next trip to Firestone today, and get a warm welcome from the <14,000 residents (note: you can't actually stay in Firestone, there are no hotels - you'll have to settle for a motel by the highway) as well as the owner of the only local 18-hole course, Whitey (no joke, that's the name of the owner of the only 18-hole course in Firestone itself).
  10. I've just stumbled down enough internet rabbit holes to find these tidbits before.
  11. Membership - MyFlightScope It looks like you should get access to the statistics with simply a free account. I would contact support to see if there is a problem with your account.
  12. It's funny you mention that, because chariot racing is a prime example of an ever changing field of competitors. It's hard to have a consistent depth of field when about half of the competitors die in each race. This is helped by the fact that spectators were encouraged to sabotage the opposing teams (they raced for the Reds, Whites, Blues, and Greens based on the colors they wore) by throwing nail studded chunks of lead at the racers (the Romans did love their lead), and the fact that racers had the reins tied to their bodies instead of just holding them like a sane person. But if we want to talk real domination, I can't believe you wouldn't even mention Scorpus (real racer). He's the all-time wins leader at 2,048 victories before his death at the old age of 27 in a racing incident.
  13. Highest paid athlete in history is a category for GOAT that has yet to be passed. Diocles, from 104 to 146 AD, earned an equivalent amount to $15,000,000,000 (15 billion) in his 24-year career. So far nobody has even come close to that number. One could even argue he's the GOAT for any sport in any time, but certainly he's the GOAT for chariot racing with a record that will not likely be challenged anytime in the next couple centuries. He won 1,462 of his 4,257 races, and placed 2nd or 3rd in another 1,438 of those races. Considering the dangers of chariot racing (they literally carried knives and other weapons for use on their opponents during the race) I'd be surprised if anyone else ever did or will even complete as many races as him, much less win or place. Other unlikely to fall records include Lance Armstrong's 7 Tour de France wins in a row (even though he doped, so did his competitors), Cy Young's 511 wins (careers for pitchers are only getting shorter and shorter), Secretariat's 31 horse-length victory at the Belmont Stakes and race time are unlikely to be approached anytime soon (nobody has been within even 2 seconds of that time before or since), Richard Petty's 200 NASCAR wins, and Wayne Gretzky's points records (he has more assists alone than any other player has total points).
  14. If you believe that to be the case, why don't you go ahead and provide evidence for any other factor making a difference? I have based my opinion on facts and evidence. So far you have backed up your opinion with nothing but, "because I said so".
  15. Except we can account for these variables. In golf the only variable that matters across eras is the strength of the fields. Equipment and course difficulty are irrelevant because, funny enough, all players within an era use the same equipment and play the same course. The only differences are the people who are playing in each era. Tiger's era had exponentially stronger fields than Jack's era, so the reason you like to claim it can't be compared is because when the comparison is made your golden boy falls short.
  16. Your spin rate is your spin rate. Side spin and backspin are not independent from one another, more backspin with the same angle between the club face and the swing path (and hit in the same place on the face) will always result in more side spin. Side spin, as most people think of it, isn't really a thing. The golf ball doesn't spin completely backwards and completely sideways, the golf ball simply spins at an angle. You can factor out the angled spin into backwards and sideways components, but it's just an angle - called the spin axis. It's also affected by how centered your strike is on the face of the golf club, through the gear effect. This angle is altered by changing the difference between the angles of your club face and your swing path. Bigger difference in those those two measurements means a bigger angle to the spin axis, as well as being increased by a strike that is further off center (more gear effect). Increasing your spinrate will increase the speed the ball rotates at, but not change the spin axis. This means that, if you were to break it down into backspin and side spin components, both backspin AND side spin would be increased by the same proportion. This video explains it graphically. It shoes how monitors like Trackman don't measure backspin and sidespin, but simply spin rate and spin axis as well as explaining how this correlates to the curvature of the golf ball.
  17. That is an adapter for the Titleist 917 D3 that fits on any 0.335" driver shaft. The Taylormade TP Shafts were made in both 0.335 and 0.350. Generally speaking the driver shafts were 0.335 and the fairway wood shafts were 0.350, so we do not have enough information to determine whether this adapter would work for the shaft you currently possess. We can't give a reasonable recommendation unless you can give us a little information about your current swing. Do you currently have high driver spin? Do you know what your current driver swing speed is? Is your swing smooth or is it more of a rapid transition at the top?
  18. Men swing 2 degrees steeper with a 3 wood than women do, and they swing 17 mph faster. The lofts of 3-woods are the same for both ladies and men, usually, at about 15-17 degrees. The reason the driver spin numbers are so similar, by comparison, is that men tend to use lower lofted drivers than women. Despite the larger difference in attack angle, when you use a 10.5 or even 12 degree driver instead of an 8.5, 9, or 9.5 degree driver like many men do it will cause your spin rate to go up (and also your launch angle).
  19. Even if he was better than average, the most accurate player on the PGA Tour from 150-175 yards (with a fairway lie) is Danny Willet, and his average proximity to the hole is still 22 feet 5 inches. The median tour pro has an average proximity from the same distance of 28 feet 4 inches. Stat – Approaches from 150-175 yards Strokes Gained | Greens in Regulation | Accuracy from Fairway | Accuracy from Rough | Scoring | Going for it | HoleOuts, Other Pros are insanely good, but not quite good enough to average a yard away from that distance because golf is such a difficult game. It will be interesting to see the results if the European Tour continues to have these hole in one challenge videos.
  20. The average golfer has a 1 in 12,500 chance of making a hole in one while playing golf. Since they'll get a lot of practice at the same shot, however, I'll calculate the success probability based on 1 in 10,000 odds. This means that the probability of failure for each shot is 0.9999 (probability of success is 0.0001) P = 1 - 0.9999^7500 P = 1 - 0.472349 P = 0.527651 The average amateur would have about a 52.7651% chance of success.
  21. His typical miss at 171 is not less than a yard. From the fairway 150-175 yards out even the best pros miss the green entirely more than 20% of the time. I would encourage you to look at the actual math behind this scenario that I posted back on page 3. The odds of success are not 99.987% unless you have insanely high odds of holing each individual shot. Here's the post with the initial math: Here's the post with a more in-depth explanation of why my math is correct: The only thing open for debate is the odds of success for each individual shot. To have a probability of success of 0.99987, your probability of overall failure would be 0.00013. Let's represent your probability of failure on each individual shot as "p". We thus know the following: a = b^c ---> b = a^(1/c) p^7500 = 0.00013 ---> p = 0.00013^(1/7500) p = 0.998808 This means you're giving yourself a probability of success for each individual shot of 0.0012 or 0.12%. Odds of an event with probability "P" are equal to "1 in [1/p]". You just gave yourself a 1 in 833.33 chance of making a hole in one. PGA Tour professionals have a 1 in 2,500 change of making a hole in one. You are claiming that you will be literally exactly 3x better at making a hole in one during this challenge than a PGA Tour pro.
  22. It's an opinion that has been backed up with facts and data. The MPF is an opinion on club playability, one created specifically to favor the clubs that Maltby himself manufactures (the second part there is a fact, not an opinion).
  23. Your swing has no turn to the hips or shoulders. Do you know where "power", or more accurately clubhead speed, comes from in the golf swing? The answer is in using the entire body to create tension and "lag" in multiple areas that can be used to snap each piece into place faster than if there was no tension. The hips being ahead of the shoulders creates tension in your abs, lats, traps, and obliques - tension that can be used to help "pull" your collarbone to rotate faster than it could on its own. Your arms folding across your body puts more tension on the lats and traps, as well as increasing tension in the rhomboids, triceps, deltoids, teres major, and rotator cuff muscles (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and subscapularis) primarily on the side of the leading arm (left side for right-handed golfers). All this allows the arms to rotate faster than they would otherwise. When you hinge your wrists you put tension into primarily the flexor carpi ulnaris, helping to pull the wrist straight again and rotate the clubhead faster than your hands alone can move. Back down below the hips, your legs can increase the speed of the forward hip rotation with the tension applied to the gluteal muscles in combination with using the quads to snap the leg into a straightened position. The gluteus maximus pulls the lead thigh backwards, while the quads pull the lead leg straight (pulls the whole leg behind you, dragging the hips from in front) and the quads of the rear leg push it straight (with the hip flexors moving the thigh towards your front) as a means of using the trail leg to "push" the hips faster. This is made possible by a squatting motion at the top of the downswing and an extension of the legs (alongside those thick glutes pulling the front thigh back and the hip flexors pulling the rear thigh forwards). All of this tension is introduced to the various muscle groups during the normal/"traditional" backswing, which serves the purpose of storing energy much like what would happen if you stretched a spring or an elastic band. Unlike a spring or elastic band, however, our muscles can also contract on their own and actively pull instead of only passively pulling in response to being stretched. The swing you teach, @Jim Venetos, does not store as much energy during the backswing as a traditional golf swing. You do not move your legs or hips at all during the backswing, and only barely move the shoulders. All that energy that is stored during the backswing of a normal golf swing is lost entirely, and the muscles used during the downswing do not have as much leverage to be able to rotate your body and club through the ball as quickly. Here's a comparison of how much/where energy is stored at the top of the backswing for your swing versus a traditional swing: Note that in purple I'm specifically referencing the amount of arm rotation relative to the shoulders. You both have about the same angle between your shoulders and your arms. McIlroy has more energy from his arms being rotated further behind the ball, however, but this is covered in the other points. Here's a comparison of those two swings again, except this time at impact and including context from the motion of the downswing: You're only swinging with your arms and a little bit of your shoulders. Rory McIlroy, and others with a traditional golf swing, can utilize the gigantic muscles in their abdomen, hips, and thighs to maximize the power of the golf swing. You remove the motion of half the body in the golf swing. This can simplify the swing, as you intended it to, but it will never result in increased power because you're not utilizing all the muscle groups that you could otherwise use to increase swing speed. Why don't you go ahead and share those clubhead speed numbers achieved by you and your students? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and propose the following bet: We both create an video of 3 driver shots in a row on a launch monitor, attempting to fulfill the following goals: Power The swing speed on all 3 shots should be 120 mph or higher Accuracy The difference in carry distance between the longest and shortest shots should be no more than 20 yards This filters out big mishits that result from swinging beyond your abilities The horizontal distance between the furthest left and furthest right shots should be no more than 35 yards This is the width of an average fairway This filters out uncontrolled hooks and slices that result from swinging beyond your abilities Video No cuts or editing that would make it possible to edit separate swings into a single attempt Video must visually show the speed, carry distance, and horizontal dispersion for each shot This can be shown in a single graph at the end of the 3 shots or individually for each shot I will post my video on YouTube and publicly share it in this thread Your video can be of either you or one of your students, so long as the person in your video uses your swing technique If you would rather not post it publicly, you are more than welcome to post it as a private YouTube video and send the link to access that video in a PM directly to myself and a second site moderator/staff member The second site moderator/staff member should be sent the video just so they can verify the results - I will be honest about what I see, but this can give you extra assurance that I have honest intentions If it is a video of a student, you're welcome to protect their anonymity by placing a black block over their head/face so long as we can still see their swing mechanics Both videos must be created within 2 weeks of you accepting the bet This gives you time to record it yourself or find a student willing to help you Unlimited attempts are allowed, so long as each attempt is 3 swings in a row I will give you very generous terms for this bet as well. The terms of the bet's payouts can be seen below, with all situations assuming that all video requirements are met unless stated otherwise: I pay you $40 if You meet the power, accuracy, and video requirements - it doesn't matter what my video looks like I fail to produce a video that meets the video requirements I pay you $20 if You meet the power requirement - even if you fail the accuracy requirements - and I cannot meet the power requirement myself I pay you $10 if You meet the power requirement - even if you fail the accuracy requirements - and I meet the power requirement but fail the accuracy requirements You pay me $40 if I meet all requirements and you fail the power requirement Nobody pays anybody if Anything else happens The only way for you to lose money is if I am 100% successful in meeting both power and accuracy requirements and you are unable to back up your bold claims about not losing power to a traditional swing. If you truly believe what you teach, put your money where you mouth is and take this bet with me. I have the advantage of youth, which is why I'm letting you have favorable terms for the bet AND letting you pick any person who uses your swing methods. When it comes to the power of your swing method, this is all I have to say: Put up or shut up
  24. No, it's comparing risks and rewards. In the proposed scenario you are risking 5 years spent in jail if you fail, but the reward if you succeed is $5,000,000. In the comparison you are risking a horrible death in a car crash if you fail to make it to the ice cream shop safely, among other things, and the reward is getting ice cream. The odds of failure are low enough to offset the relatively small reward, however. The odds of success are 99.99%, or more. In this case the odds of success are somewhere between 70% and 90%, depending on your skill level. This means you have a 10-30% chance of going to jail for 5 years, but a 70-90% chance of winning 5 million dollars. The "average" expected outcome over the course of many golfers would thus be 0.5-1.5 years in jail and 3.5-4.5 million dollars. It just comes down to how risk adverse you are when you're wagering jail time against money. For those who are older it's likely a bad move. I outlined on the 3rd page why I would take the risk, but the general gist is that because I'm young losing those 5 years wouldn't ruin my life (with only about a 15% of it happening to me) but the $5,000,000 would be a huge boost that could help me ensure financial stability and success for the rest of my life.
  25. The Maltby Playability Factor is useless when it comes to determining how easy or hard to hit a given model of clubs will be. I play Mizuno MP4 irons, which are muscleback blades, with a MPF of 397. The 2016 Titleist AP2 irons, which are significantly easier to hit than my blades, have a MPF of 417. The 2016 Titleist CB blades have a MPF of 464, almost 50 higher than the far more forgiving AP2 irons. They also rate the PING i210 irons as having a MPF of only 338, and I can assure you that the i210 irons are immensely more forgiving than my MP4's despite having a 59 point lower MPF. They also rate the i200 irons, the direct predecessor to the i210 irons, at more than 100 points higher on the MPF scale at 474 despite the fact that the i200 and i210 irons are virtual identical in terms of playability according to pretty much every review out there. They also claim that the i500 Forged irons, with a MOI of 15.6808, are SUBSTANTIALLY less forgiving than the iBlades, with their MOI of 14.1625 (188 for i500 Forged vs 430 for iBlade). The i500 Forged irons also have a COG that is positioned further to the rear than on the iBlades. The Maltby Playability Factor severely overrates the vertical center of gravity, and it fails to properly account for different lofts in different sets of irons. Part of why the i500 Forged loses so many points to the iBlades is because it's 6-iron (the only measured clubhead for MPF) has 27 degrees of loft instead of 31 degrees like the iBlades. Hell, even the 7-iron of the i500 Forged irons has less loft (30.5 degrees) than an iBlade 6-iron. Maltby may be many things, but a good evaluator of which clubs are forgiving he is not. He designed the system to maximize the ratings of his own clubhead designs, weighting the importance of different measurements accordingly.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...