festivus

That's fair - those exercises don't pound your shoulders with correct technique. In fact they improve stability. So yeah just throwing random technical stuff at random people is a mistake - no argument there. I don't see bad technique as the fault of the exercise, but the coach/athlete. FYI I've done this with multiple athletes pre-game in multiple sports to great effect. Light-ish sets with some bar speed and box jump or hops afterwards is a magical warm-up. It's certainly not the only way but it's quite a good one. Just curious - if the lifts are "pounding your shoulders" then why would you save them for another day? All the supposed damage is incremental and chronic so why would it make a difference? Taking joints through their full range of motion under a load that can be technically handled and using different power bands is kinda the whole point.

Yeah could be. I guess I'm thinking of it like Tour players will have a far more secure grip throughout the swing. If the grip pries apart (due to weak hands, unstable shoulders or poor mechanics) then you're gonna inevitably alter grip pressure in response. I guess to me the study result is just a symptom and not a cause of proper grip or mechanics. I've seen some seriously strong guys lose their grips many times over. I hope that makes sense.

Just FYI - it is common. Depending on the certification body, roughly 64-90% of amateurs tested (well over 10,000 cases) early extend which is essentially what you're talking about. Mvmac's drills are great but you may want to also go back and re-capture some hip mobility (toe-touch, squat, etc.). In very broad terms this pattern is often the body unable to hold posture...most of the control happens at the spinal cord level meaning it's a reflex. Consciously changing it can be a chore that some folks just aren't in a good place to do physically.

Late to the party but great thoughts. Keep in mind that shoudler/scap instability will compromise the ability to grip consistently throughout the range of motion. The firm grip also stimulates the rotator cuff and help keep things in place. I have heard much about your second study reference (consistency of grip pressure) but we know for sure that as momentum/centrifugal force increases, the grip responds reflexively. Could it be that endless practice sets the Tour player up for anticipating this in advance? Maybe so, not sure.

foam ball is a great idea. I have one of those short weighted clubs (maybe 18" long) which is nice indoors.

Good thoughts. Clearly seems a mental block. Go back to Tin Cup - anything you can do to get your mind off the bad performance/lack of confidence is an important step. Find your happy place, focus on just the target, focus on just one dimple of the golf ball, whatever to get your conscious mind off the trouble you have with the shot.

Gray Cook is simply phenomenal. The more you listen the more you'll learn. What we do depends on where an individual is, but if you allow that I have no clue on your current capacity, I'll give you some options. Remedial: (use a 2x4 as a heel lift at first - this will help you stabilize - apply the breathing pressure to the squat) Intermediate: apply the breathing pressure to your movements Advanced: asymmetrical loads... That's a lot to throw at you but start with the basics and you're welcome to ask more questions

That's fair - like any info you need someone who knows what he/she is doing to break down all the info and make simple suggestions. For us the 3-D is actually more useful for the 15-handicapper because we can get to the bottom of why they're doing what they do; in other words why have all the lessons and other stuff not worked to this point. That requires some time, testing, and expertise but is obviously worth it. Otherwise, the extra data is just noise and you're 100% right more a hassle than anything. This OP spent $3,000 and didn't get much out of it. Probably a dedicated and interested person just too bad he/she didn't find someone to help them more. IMHO neither video nor 3-D is necessary to get better but you can increase your chances exponentially other things being equal.

Any exercise program should start with someone who applies objective baseline tests. This can be as simple as toe-touch, shoulder turn, etc. Without that baseline testing, how do you know if his/her program is helping you? Someone with FMS or TPI certification is a good place to start. Of course not all of them are great but you're increasing your chances that a) the trainer isn't a hack, b) the trainer cares enough to take time off for professional development, and c) the trainer will use some objective criteria to evaluate. Less chance of wasting your time, money, and effort. Going to either website will allow you to search for qualified people in your area. Like any other business, there are great, good, mediocre, and terrible trainers. Don't forget you're the customer and have a right to interview a few to see who will work well with your needs. Edit: feel welcome to get back to me about your needs and experiences and I can try to help more - decades of work in the business ought to be put to good use to help you out.

Are you willing to take a couple minutes for some simple exercises to get rid of some of the stiffness? It can really help once you get to the range.

If the 70 yard shot is no problem then I doubt it's technique per se. That's nothing against the video but at some point you have confidence and lose it with a certain mental picture or situation. The mental block is a good recipe for deceleration and geauxforbroke's idea is spot in IMHO. Have you tried the goldilocks approach? One swing you know is not enough momentum, one swing you know is too much, take one in between and go. Something to distract your mind from the "problem" and get you to focus on the target more...

Thanks - I think they do actually have things in common from a biomechanical standpoint. My point to saevil was the comparison is difficult with 2 vastly different lie angles. Also one exception does not discount a generalization, especially from 2 of the most extreme cases on Tour.

Yes, a terrific point. The tuck (or tilt) is something reflexive IMHO. It's a response to the centrifugal force generated in the swing. It's one of several things that are different between address and impact. I can't see any way where a conscious effort to try to tuck would be a good thing. This is where the right advice ends up leading to the opposite result (humping the goat aka early extension). Here's a quick video from world-famous therapist Gray Cook that might help you get the gist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehu40pr_ITs The key piece is to realize you can improve your ability to make this happen. Pick your term: spinal rhythm, core sequence, core stability, etc. Virtually anyone barring developmental defect had this in order to roll over, crawl, stand up, and walk. You had it at one point! There are many methods and systems out there which can help. I have zero commercial interest but can direct you to a couple simple ideas and exercises if you like. The ultimate goal is to help that tuck happen on its own, without thinking about it. 10-15 minutes in a day with minimal equipment should make some of those changes well within reach. Just let me know if it's something you're interested in and I'll try to help.

Saevil - yes I appreciate your thoughts and believe you've a ton of knowledge. Apologies if this got off track. I was offering a possible explanation for why this person was seeing the results they were seeing. I think without anything more than his post a generalization is the best one could do.

That's fair - appreciate your thoughts. A classic case of being "opposite" is reverse spine tilt. Often missed or not seen in 2-D and easily picked up right away in 3-D. We see the same in some wrist angles and torques where people have come to us with 2-D "diagnosis" of (name your condition) and it turns out to be very different because of the many bones and joints being hard to pick up on 2-D. Good tools are only good tools and can help or hurt - you're 100% correct. In the hands of good teachers then better tools would likely produce better results, no? There are 3-D systems that don't require cords - we built ours that way for the exact reasons you describe. Some of the biofeedback systems can really help bridge the gap between "feel" and "real."

To be honest it's not relegated to golfers. We see it actually more prominently with our runners. Quite a few people have some where a couple blocks move at a time. It's rarely a case of perfect but what the person can get away with for the given task. You see a ton of desk jockeys, plumbers, and roofers struggle with this but a lot of other people do just fine with it. We might be thinking of different things here - many golfers can set up in a golf posture, sure. But I don't know why anyone would apply that static test to a dynamic activity. Once angular momentum and centrifugal force mount, the vertebrae need to work at least somewhat independently in order to keep the swing axis intact. That's obviously a much taller order than simple static set-up.

Saevil - not sure why you're interested in acting like this but be my guest. I fully agree set-up and impact can have very different positions. Again, it depends on what the individual can handle. I'm offering a possible line of explanation as to why a person had the results they had. I never said it was the only way, but I hope we agree little more than generalizations can be done over the internet with no pictures, etc. All you've done is be negative without being helpful. That's your right but I just don't see the point. Depending on the course and definition (TPI, NG 360, etc.) you'll see between 64-90% of amateurs classify as loss of posture. That's amongst well over 10,000 reports collected by trained personnel. The PGA Tour does a bit better but the sample size obviously smaller. So even going with the most conservative estimates, it's a high %. Sure you can dismiss in whatever way you please, but I've sen it so many times with my own eyes it's a good approximation at worst. The certification bodies own the data of their practitioners who do the tests. I've tried time and again to get them to publish in peer-reviewed journals but it's a whole other story. What you may see as an abdominal crunch with Rory is not. It's a posterior pelvic tilt. The difference is one is 99.9% guaranteed to involve the glute max and hip rotators while the other is doubtfully so at best. That tilt is actually a dead giveaway for maintenance of posture in the presence of massive centrifugal force.

spinal rhythm is the ability to move 1 part without disturbing positioning of another. Easy to dance to - you'll see it in a clean toe-touch or deep squat where the spine gradually rounds or arches. Many folks with dysfunction will move a whole part of the spine (like 10 vertebrae) all together in one chunk. That's a good recipe to not be able to handle the centrifugal forces in the swing.

2-D video can be as much a hindrance as a help. For some it's a life saver, for others a source of utter confusion. That might sound like a cop-out but it can really depend. Some people are okay with "feel is not real" and trust the pro's advice will improve plane, balance, or whatever. Others need that visual confirmation on a regular basis. One thing is for sure: 2-D video can be incredibly deceiving. There are many things that appear one way but are in reality the opposite, and 3-D really helps sort that out. If you're gonna invest and believe technology can help you, then you'll get more from 1 3-D session than 5 2-D ones. But maybe some of these experiences have turned you off and you just want to some practical advice and feedback that keeps it quite simple. If you're already shooting 95 than you could break 90 with some course management and short game work.

That makes a ton of sense. I prefer heavier shafts and have seen a lot people who overswing benefit from the same. The body and brain develop under gravity's pull and thus respond to gravity and centrifugal force. So many movements don't make it anywhere close to conscious control so it's logical to suggest the brain is computing many things without us realizing it. Much of that computation has to do with the intent (goal) and the weight of the implement. In my experience it's much easier to toss a golf ball to a target than a ping pong ball.

That would really depend on where the intercostal is irritated. The doorway stretch could do nothing or actually make it worse. there's no way to know for sure, gotta go case by case.

In real golf you get time to walk, joke, laugh, think before your next shot. It's pretty difficult to keep a steady focus like you describe for each shot consecutively. I prefer the Fred Shoemaker/Tim Gallwey approach where you try to concentrate on one thing throughout the swing - it could be a dimply on the ball, blade of grass out at the target, intermediate target, trajectory, whatever. The moments when you fail to concentrate on that 1 thing would be "short circuits" or lapses. IMHO these often happen at swing transition. I don't think your routine is wrong but I'm skeptical most people can make the focus equal for ball 1 as ball 75. In other words it COULD be quality practice but not many seem able to pull that off. Practicing concentration within the 2 seconds of the golf swing can tell you a lot about your swing and also give the brain time to breathe in between. You can apply that practice to hitting big hooks, big slices, etc., on purpose.

Actually, you'll see Furyk's posture and spinal rhythm sets him up for his unconventional swing - it's neither modern nor old school - it's just his. Standing close to the ball with a flexed trunk sets him up to do what he does. Without objective data on knee bend I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot." We happen to actually quantify this and correlate with functional and spinal testing, so I've got the data right in my hands. The question is from an individual trying to figure out if knee flex might help him hit his 2 deg flat clubs better. The answer depends on what an the individual can handle from a flexion standpoint - increased knee flex regularly correlates to a more upright trunk. For most people we see, that helps them handle the centrifugal force from the standpoint of scapular rhythm, and thus a key part of posture maintenance. It's a line of reasoning for this person and also helps others understand why many folks who play for a living might have different club and body set-ups. You've managed to take 1 picture with a driver and 1 with a short iron of the Tour's most unconventional swing. Hardly much of an analysis, no offense. It's really apples to oranges in more ways than 1. My comments never talk about an arched lower back or pulling the shoulders down. I hope we both agree deliberate manipulation pre-shot would probably lead to poor results most of the time. I'm sorry but if you think most golfers can handle proper posture within the dynamics of the golf swing, that's simply incorrect. Thousands of real people measured in 3-D analysis say otherwise.

More knee flex often leads to a more upright trunk - hence your 2 deg flat clubs. Anatomically, this puts less load on the mid-back muscles and sets the shoulder blades a bit lower, two things very often dysfunctional in our seated society. That could well help your feel, awareness and thus tempo. Hard to say more without seeing actual video. You'll see a lot of modern Tour pros stand pretty close to the ball, requiring more trunk flexion. These guys for the most part have the ability to handle that where a lot of regular joe's are not prepared for that load, lose posture, and you can guess what happens from there.

Lee Trevino made it the most clear IMHO; Imagine a 2x4 extends straight out from the edge of each shoulder. The hands should stay within the 2x4's. Obviously as you rotate the torso, the 2x4's would ride along. That covers Rory, Jack, and most everyone else. There's a few Gumby exceptions (Kuchar) but not many.