Taggsy

Thanks for the suggestion mchepp, I'll give it a read! I've managed to get hold a copy of "Science & Golf 1", I've heard there's plenty of interesting jazz in there. Erik, I was only joking about the tour instructor thing - besides, you know Sean Foley's teaching tour pros now too? ;) Have a great Christmas gents, I'm off back to work!

Honest answer; I don't know, because I don't 100% understand 100% of TGM. If I did, I'd more likely be teaching tour professionals than answering your question on this forum I'll give you a more thorough answer though; There are a couple of different sections to the book. For the most part, TGM is a catalogue simply giving names to different motions you can make during the swing. Kelley divided the swing into 12 sections, the body into 3 zones, different motions into 24 components, each component had it's own variations, then he'd listed 4 motions you could make with your hands and arms to power the swing, then the different hand / wrist positions... etc. Is any of this wrong? Well no, how could it be? Kelley's simply identified a motion or position in the golf swing and given it a name. Well, what are the other parts of TGM? Some simple geometry, simple physics, a few characteristics every decent swing should have, advice on how to practice, how to change your swing... Not too much to argue with there. Seeing as there's a thread on this, could I ask another question? Could anyone provide links to specific studies on TGM concepts? Or even where someone has taken a passage / idea verbatim from TGM, and then proven it to be wrong using trackman / high speed cameras for example? I'd be genuinely interested in studying them!

And I contend that by definition, by removing the left arm you have destroyed the Triangle Assembly, and in doing so the whole Power Package concept. Ergo, there are no power accumulators on Dave's swing whatsoever. If you're happy admit the actions of the "ghost" accumulators are the same as the actual accumulators, what's the difference between Dave's one-handed and two-handed backswings? You've completely misunderstood what the first accumulator is. It's simply the bending of the right arm. What you've described above is the bending of the right arm, in conjunction with keeping the clubshaft on plane. You can't keep the clubshaft on plane without using a combination of accumulators. And again, by definition there are no accumulators at all because you have no power package. But if that's besides the point, why have you mentioned power accumulators at all in your post showing Dave's swing? What you've demonstrated above is the The Flail, 2-K. On Dave's one-handed swing, the closer the clubshaft and his right arm get to being in line, the faster the clubhead is travelling. He's in centrifugal acceleration until the clubshaft and his right arm are in line. Your study shows a 150 degree angle between clubshaft and right arm has a faster clubhead speed than a 140 angle. Each angle up until 180 degrees will have an increase of speed. That's nothing new, it's in TGM. I'm not contesting your use of the term "PA5", I've explained previously what it actually is in TGM terms. The reason I'm posting here is because your understanding of TGM's concepts is wrong. And when you don't understand the concepts, it's very easy for you to say "the majority of the book is wrong". You have a large, interested, and intelligent readership on these forums, and for some, the only understanding they have of TGM is from what you tell them. I think you owe them a service of using TGM terms and concepts properly, especially when pointing out "missing" parts from the book. But again, that's a debate for another time. Most importantly for this thread, I've not once said your concept is wrong, I totally agree with you that throwing your right wrist angle can add clubhead speed. The point is, it's nothing new.

Removing the left arm doesn't prevent the use of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accumulators, it simply means you cannot cock the left hand, roll the left hand, or change the angle between the left arm and chest... Sound like an oxymoron? Let me explain; The 1st accumulator is the bending of the right arm. If Dave had used that in isolation on his backswing, this is what would have happened; Right arm bends at elbow. Right hand moves towards right shoulder. Angle between right forearm and right upper arm decreases to around 90 degrees (for argument's sake). Distance between right hand and right shoulder shortens by 8" (for argument's sake). That's the 1st accumulator in all its isolated glory. So what does that mean for the club? Very simply, the clubhead will move by 8" in a straight line towards the shoulder. That's it. But on Dave's backswing we can see the club's moved a lot more than that. Let's start with Dave's clubface. There's no picture of address for us to see, but I should imagine Dave's clubface at the start is pretty much facing the target. But at the top of his swing the clubface is facing the camera. That's a change of 90 degrees or so. Dave's not pivoted much during his backswing, if at all, so we know that's not down to him turning his shoulders 90 degrees. We know from above that the 1st accumulator didn't do that, so what was it? That was the 3rd accumulator. As well as the open clubface, we can see the clubhead has moved vertically from the ground more than the 8" or so caused by the 1st accumulator. In fact it's just above knee height. From floor to knee, let's say it's 22" for argument's sake. We'll deduct the 8" from the 1st accumulator and we're left with 14" of vertical movement we can't account for. That would be the 2nd accumulator. Finally, Dave's right hand has moved away from the ball on the backswing, not just towards the right shoulder (the 1st accumulator), but also away from whatever his target is. That is the 4th accumulator. The irony here is, given the "TGM literalist" comment, these misunderstandings are from taking TGM concepts literally (i.e. with no left wrist, there can be no 2nd accumulator). That's not the case, as power accumulators are simply out of line positions- the left hand / wrist / arm is an easy way to see those out of line positions. If you remove the left arm, you can still have those out of line positions, as demonstrated by Dave. As always, submitted with respect.

Hi Etzwane, thank you for your post, and for making an excellent point! I totally agree with you on one aspect, but disagree on a couple of others. I’m with you 100% when you say you can “beat” centrifugal force by “actively” uncocking your left wrist on the downswing. But what exactly does that entail, and how would we know when you’re in complete control of the uncocking and there’s no centrifugal force involved? Well, an easy test would be this; at any point on the downswing with a cocked left wrist, you should be able to completely stop your arms and hands, and the clubhead would stop exactly where it was also. If the clubhead didn’t stop, and it continued on its path, no matter what distance, then you know there was “centrifugal acceleration” (the mass of the clubhead trying to get to an in-line position (clubshaft in-line with the left arm)). So could we perform that test, potentially stopping our hands at any point on the downswing and the clubhead would stop also? You betcha.... but we’d have to either be swinging that club damn sloooooowly to do so, or else have incredibly firm wrists to be able to stop a clubhead from traveling at, for argument’s sake 70MPH, to 0MPH in the blink of an eye. So what does it mean to “beat” centrifugal force? Well, put simply, if the centrifugal force is accelerating the clubhead towards the ball, then to beat it, you need to produce an equal and opposite force. That is to say, on the downswing, you would be actively slowing the clubhead down. You don’t want to be doing that! The point is, you can uncock the wrist actively or passively, but they both involve centrifugal force. Hitting isn’t “beating” centrifugal force, it’s an absence of it. But again, you’d made an excellent point- thanks for posting. (P.S. You may be thinking the definition of Hitting I give on this thread would also fail the “centrifugal test” because the clubhead would continue traveling after my hands abruptly stop... and you’d be right! But because the clubshaft is already in-line, instead of that moving clubhead being “centrifugal acceleration”, it’s actually “centrifugal deceleration”, the useless side effect of momentum after impact.)

Thank you for the link and informing me! I genuinely didn't know who he was, and I would be very interested in learning from him how and why I'm wrong. I feel the answer he gave Erik is incomplete (in that it doesn't fully explain Hitting and Swinging), but the quotes I've used from the book itself does- or at least does to me! Stating I didn't know who Mr Evans is wasn't supposed to be a glib remark, and I'm very sorry if it came across that way. Hi Mchepp, It doesn't come across as harsh at all. Hitting and Swinging is an interesting concept (hell, if you had no interest in it, you wouldn't have opened this thread, right? ), but it's a concept very few people understand. Whenever you read about it online, there's always the disclaimer "It's basically this... but it's more complicated than that...". Well, I'm a curious chap, and I'd like to know exactly what it is, rather than the simple version of it. I'm guessing you're the same - after all, you're on this thread. And that's what this thread is about, and that's my motivation; so that next time you hear about the concepts of Hitting and Swinging, you'll know exactly what they are, but you'll also know what they're not. Do I think this thread will help golfers make better swings? No, I doubt it very much- but that was never the point. As for Jeff Mann's site... why would you watch an an hour and 45 minute long YouTube video explaining what you could read in my first post in a couple of minutes (plus a three second swing video)?! Not only that, as you've mentioned, I've quoted verbatim from the book. I'd hoped you see there is no opinion and very little interpretation from me- it's Hitting and Swinging in Kelley's words, not mine. I hope that answers your questions

How many of you watched him hit balls for the whole four and a half minutes? lol

That's an excellent description of a Hitting stroke! (You could rotate your shoulders if you wanted to- that's the Pivot.) "It's also the feeling I have at impact along with the normal centripetal rotation, hence my comment that I swing + hit at impact." Ok, now I see where we were getting confused. What you see and feel at (preferably just after) Impact, where the clubshaft and left arm are in line - that part there is exactly the same for Hitting and Swinging. But that's only one point in time of the golf swing - at that fraction of a second, Hitting and Swinging may look the same, and to you, feel the same - but for the rest of the swing, they're different.... but I know you understand that

You don't have to be "fairly certain" about anything in The Golfing Machine. It's all there and very explicit- it's just difficult to find! I'm sorry to say I don't know who Chuck Evans is, but I welcome him to read my post and point out where I'm wrong, why I'm wrong, and do so by quoting directly from The Golfing Machine, just as I have. You'll understand if I don't just take his word for it. "Homer Kelley had the opinion that a golfer could PUSH or PULL the golf club during the swing, and that you couldn't really do both at the same time because you'd lose your lag pressure (or something). Again, pulling was "swinging" or "drag loading" and pushing was "hitting" or "drive loading."" You're simplifying Hitting and Swinging into 'pushing' and 'pulling'. Drag Loading isn't the definition of Swinging - it's a component of Swinging. The same goes for Drive Loading with Hitting. (Incidentally, 10-19-A, Drive Loading, nicely shows the Top and Impact of a Hitting stroke). What do you mean exactly by "pushing" and "pulling" the golf club? If by "pushing" we're in agreement that it's a motion performed by the right arm extending from a bent position (using the First Accumulator), then it may surprise you to know you can "pull" the club with the First Accumulator also. Take a club in your right hand only, make an on plane backswing as best you can using the First Accumulator... now "pull" the clubhead towards your imaginary ball. How did you "pull" that club? By using muscular thrust of your bent right arm- which is "pushing" So there you go, you've "pushed" and "pulled" the club not only with the same stroke, but with the same hand, using the same Accumulator. "I agree that every swing involves some "swinging." Again, hitting alone is really weak. But it's also true that virtually every swing involves "hitting," too." Hitting alone is very weak. Kelley says in the preface to use Hitting if you're strong. Of course you'd have to be very strong to make a Hitting stroke go anywhere near as far as a Swinging stroke. Again, you've ignored The Golfing Machine's definition of Hitting and substituted it for "pushing". I concur virtually every swing involves "pushing", but Hitting is something completely different. "People will say that they "feel" like they're doing one or the other, but they're all doing both. Arnold Palmer was a "hitter" but Jack Nicklaus may have applied more right arm thrust (force across the shaft) than Arnie despite being a "swinger" to everyone's eyes." What you feel ain't real. You know that As for Arnie and Jack, sure, one of them may have had a more active right arm and purposely used the First Accumulator compared to the other- but neither of them were Hitting according to The Golfing Machine. Hitting isn't just 'pushing'- it's also an absence of centrifugal force during the swing.

Could you tell me what you think Hitting is?

I hear what you're saying MiniBlueDragon, and I completely understand what you mean and what you're doing during your swing. But the bottom line is this; There is centrifugal force, therefore you are swinging. It's really that simple.

Read the first post, not Phil's reply. What you're saying is "Through Impact I'm powering the swing with my right arm". I'm not disputing that at all. But is there centrifugal force in your swing? Yep. That means you're Swinging. Read my first post

Hi Phil! You'd know the answer to that question if you'd read my initial post I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but for the sake of me answering your question, I'll assume you believe Hitting is using muscular force (the right arm pushing the club). You'd be half right if that's what you believe. Hitting is using muscular force and NOT centrifugal force. Any time there is centrifugal force, irrespective of if the right arm is controlling that centrifugal force, it's still swinging. There's only one way to perform Hitting- read my first post and look at the video! When people have performed studies on Hitting and Swinging and conclude "they both have the same elements" or "you can do both at the same time", they've completely misunderstood what Hitting is. They've been comparing Swinging with.... Swinging (but what they thought was Hitting). Read the first post Phil. If you're still unsure after reading it, ask away

It's about as close I can get to keeping the left arm and clubshaft in-line.

I should imagine most readers of this forum have heard the terms “Hitting” and “Swinging”, and may have a vague idea of what they entail. You’ve probably heard one’s pushing the club, the other’s pulling the club, one’s using your right hand, the other your left, that one’s muscular force and the other centrifugal force. These are simplified explanations. Homer Kelley, the chap who wrote The Golfing Machine and who first classified Hitting and Swinging, has written the following about simplifying explanations in the introduction to his book; “Treating a complex subject or action as though it were simple, multiplies its complexity because of the difficulty in systematizing missing and unknown factors of elements.” “...golf instruction kept simple does not make it simple - only incomplete and ineffective.” With this in mind, let’s go through The Golfing Machine and discover exactly what Hitting and Swinging are. You may be surprised... ***** Firstly, why all the confusion in the first place? Surely you could flick to the section entitled “Hitting & Swinging”, read what it says, and you’re good to go. Right? Erm, no. For those of you who’ve (attempted to!) read The Golfing Machine, you’ll quickly discover it’s not an easy perusal. For a start, Kelley seldom repeats himself. This means the book is littered with cross references. As a (not accurate) example, if you want to understand what’s written on page 25, you’d need to have read page 50, but to understand page 50, you need to have read pages 5 and 78, but if you want to understand pages 5 and 78..... et cetera, et cetera. Couple this with the fact the language used is very exacting (Kelley spent a long time making sure every single word was correct and not open to misinterpretation- even making up the word “non-automatic” because “automatic”’s antonym is “manual”, and the definition of “manual” was at odds with what Kelley meant). You can flick through, read a paragraph where it mentions something being “vertical to the angled plane” and think to yourself “Well, I know ‘vertical’ means ‘up and down’, so I understand that part”, when in fact Kelley was using the dictionary definition of “vertical”, meaning “perpendicular”. It’s not patronising to suggest you have a dictionary on hand when reading The Golfing Machine! If the cross referencing and language used isn’t hard enough, there are a lot of concepts that don’t have pictures or diagrams! You’ve probably already guessed it, but the Hitting and Swinging concepts are prone to the above difficulties. ***** Where shall we begin our search on the elusive meaning of Hitting and Swinging? Kelley was kind enough to provide us with a glossary of most of the terms and concepts in the book, so that’s as good a place to start as any. For each Golfing Machine concept, Kelley gives us three examples; A “real world” example from something non-golfing that has parallels to the concept (but not always 100% the same). A mechanical example, for example a comparison to machine parts or a scientific definition. A golfing example - what exactly this concept is on the golf swing. Hitting and Swinging are in the glossary as one entry. For the “real world” example he uses; “The catapult (Hitting) vs. the sling (Swinging).” For the Mechanical example he gives; “Continuous thrust producing a steady acceleration of a hinged beam is a Hitting action. A rotating arm pulling steadily on a weighted line is a Swinging action.” For the golfing example he gives; “Accelerating the Club radially with Right Arm Thrust is Hitting. Accelerating the Club Longitudinally, with either Arm, is Swinging.” So there’s your answer, lesson over! ;) I’m joking... what does the above mean in English? I’m going to come back to that a little later, but first I want us to go through the book for more information that can help us. In the preface to The Golfing Machine, Kelley writes; “The golf stroke involves, mainly, two basic elements - the geometry of the circle and the physics of rotation.... The geometry (of Hitting and Swinging) is the same for both. But, basically, the physics of Hitting is muscular thrust, and of Swinging, centrifugal force. Herein, “Motion” is geometry - “Action” is physics.” Kelley says here that the golf swing is made up of motion (of your body and golf club), and the way to make that motion. He explains that the motions for hitting and swinging are the same (by that he means; for both you are moving your body and golf club), but how you move your body and club are different. At this juncture I’d like to clarify one of the most widely held misunderstandings about Hitting and Swinging. And that is; they look the same. They don’t. They look completely different! This misunderstanding arises from the above statement where Kelley says the “geometry is the same for both” , and from another section in the book entitled “Right Arm or Left” (1-F). Firstly, the “geometry is the same for both” simply means the clubshaft and arms move away from the ball around a fixed point, your left shoulder (but also your spine, that’s not important now), and then back towards the ball. Because there is a fixed point from which the arms and clubshaft are moving, the clubshaft makes an arc, That’s the geometry, and it’s the same for both Hitting and Swinging. The actual golf swings themselves looks completely different. The misunderstanding also comes from the aforementioned section, “Right Arm or Left”. Here, Kelley says it’s difficult to detect if the right arm is active (using muscular thrust), or not, just by looking, because either way the right arm bends on the backswing, and straightens on the downswing. The bent right arm will straighten on the downswing whether you’re pushing your right arm straight with your triceps or not, because the hands are moving away from the right shoulder. The left arm is pulling the right arm straight, or the right arm is straightening itself- either way, they look the same. Because people believe Hitting is simply muscular thrust (actively straightening the right arm with the triceps), and because you can’t tell if there is muscular thrust on a swing, then it seems obvious that you can’t tell if someone is Hitting or Swinging just by looking. That would be true except for this one very important point.... Swinging, as we’ve learnt above, is centrifugal force- and Hitting is not. Centrifugal force is very easy to see on the golf swing! The centrifugal force on the golf swing, according to The Golfing Machine’s glossary is; “The effort of the swinging clubhead to pull the Primary Lever Assembly (left arm and club) into a straight line.” In layman’s terms, it’s the angle between your straight left arm and the clubshaft. On the backswing that angle decreases when cocking your left wrist, and on the downswing it increases when swinging the clubhead towards the ball. That angle between the left arm and clubshaft on the downswing is often referred to as “lag”. So we now know Swinging is any time there is centrifugal force during the downswing . I hope at this point you’re thinking to yourself; “Hang on, isn’t that every swing?!”. Because you’d be pretty much correct. It’s certainly every swing that’s ever been on tour. It’s most likely every swing you’ve ever seen, ever, anywhere, on anyone! So what on earth’s Hitting? Well, we know Hitting isn’t Swinging, and we know Swinging is any time there’s centrifugal force, so Hitting must be an absence of centrifugal force. How could we use the golf club without centrifugal force? It’s easy; you keep the clubshaft in line with the left arm at all times. You imagine the left arm and golf club are just one line with no arching, or bending, or cocking, or uncocking of the left wrist. That left wrist may as well not even be there. With your left wrist frozen and the left arm and clubshaft in line, how can you hit the ball? With muscular thrust. You bend your right arm on the backswing, and use your triceps to straighten the right arm on the downswing- pushing that in line left arm and clubshaft towards the ball. You don’t believe me when I say that’s Hitting? Let’s look back at the glossary definition. Hitting is like a catapult. (not the elastic kind you hold in your hand, but the kind that propels rocks and boulders into castles!). Google “catapult” if you’re not sure what they look like. The first dozen or so images show them quite nicely. The mechanical definition was the “ continuous thrust producing a steady acceleration of a hinged beam”. See how that relates to the catapult. The beam is the length of wood that throws the rock. The hinge is what attaches that moving beam to the base of the catapult. The continuous thrust is whatever method is used to propel that wooden beam forwards. Now compare that definition to the golf swing. This time the beam is the left arm and clubshaft, the hinge is the left shoulder, and the continuous thrust is the right arm straightening. In summary; Swinging is any time there is centrifugal force. Hitting is pushing the in-line left arm and clubshaft with the bent right arm. ***** There we have it. Hitting and Swinging explained. And that’s not my opinion or interpretation of Hitting and Swinging; it’s straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak- directly from The Golfing Machine. I’ll include a video of me Hitting. You already know what Swinging looks like ;)

My argument was never that it doesn't exist, nor that it isn't extremely useful. After all, of the pictures David initially posted show clear as day that the "PA5" angle is there and it's changing exactly how he described. The point I was trying to make was that the "PA5" can be explained using TGM concepts without creating new ones or claiming it's an undiscovered piece of the swing. I know you've not agreed with me, but I believe the "PA5" angle on the backswing and downswing is a natural effect of the other Accumulators and wrist positions, not something new or independent. Post impact, I believe the "PA5" angle is described in 2-K, The Flail. Through Impact to Low Point, the Primary Lever Assembly reaches its in-line position (i.e. the left arm and clubshaft are in a straight line). Once the clubhead passes the hands, the Primary Lever Assembly is out-of-line again, this time in Centrifugal Deceleration. How you go past that in-line position and allow the clubhead to pass the hands is up to you. You either maintain the flat left wrist, and continue rolling the wrists (the Third Accumulator), or you simply bend the left wrist (or a combination of both). When employing Angled or (Dual-Action) Vertical Hinge Action, you must bend the left wrist to allow the clubhead to pass the hands. If you didn't, you'd either end up rolling the wrists anyway, causing (Dual Actioned) Horizontal Hinge Action, or the clubhead wouldn't pass the hands and you wouldn't go into Centrifugal Deceleration, causing a great loss of speed (nicely demonstrated in my avatar pic ;) But anyway, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me - I know you'd rather be arguing the toss about hip slides and ball flight laws ;) ;)

With your explanations of the right wrist angle, we may have a conundrum regarding how this "Accumulator" loads. To sum up where we stand on the "5th Accumulator" using your answers from the above posts; The "Fifth Accumulator" is not the result of the First (and so Fourth) Accumulators, in conjunction with a stationary left wrist (post 22 - last response) The "Fifth Accumulator" is not the result of the position of the right elbow from the left elbow (post 26 - second response) The "Fifth Accumulator" does affect the left wrist angle (post 26 - first response) I'll take these factors as being true, and now I'd like you to perform an on plane (or best you can) backswing for me, taking the hands to around head height or whatever's normal for you but using these criteria; You must use the First Accumulator, bending your right arm to 90 degrees or so. You must move your right elbow away from the left, so at a DTL view the angle between the right and left forearms is around 90 degrees (or as close as you can get it). You must have a flat left wrist at address, and this angle must not change at all. Maintain the flat left wrist right to the top. (Throw in the Second and Third Accumulators and a Pivot, make it a "normal" swing ;) So we should see this backswing would have no change in the "5th Accumulator" angle from address to the top, right? Why? Because you've performed every motion you said the "5th Accumulator" isn't, and for good measure, not performed a motion you said the "5th Accumulator" is. How'd you get on... because I'm having a problem ;)

Again, apologies for my lame-looking quoting! “I suppose. I've done it repeatedly. If your elbows stay in the same position, the triangle down to your hands maintains the same orientation, the wrists will maintain their positions as well.” I’ll eat humble pie here and admit my example of simply bending your right arm is a poor one, because you can maintain that right wrist angle when performing that simple motion. But, as you quite rightly pointed out, that’s only possible when maintaining the angle between both forearms. I hope we can find some common ground here and both agree on a couple of points with regards to your “5th Accumulator” concept as you see it. The “5th Accumulator” is the angle between the back of the right hand, and the right forearm. The “5th Accumulator” does not affect the left wrist angle. If we can agree on that, then I hope we can agree that the “5th Accumulator” is effectively the right elbow moving away from the left elbow on the backswing (on whatever path), and then moving back towards it on the downswing (independent from the actual bending of the right arm, the First Accumulator). (The right elbow moving away from the left elbow increases the angle between both forearms- the triangle you’d mentioned. This increasing angle will decrease the angle between the back of the right hand and the right forearm because we’re not changing the left wrist angle…) To go off on a brief, but important tangent, the Power Package Assembly consists of a two-dimensional triangle made up of three lengths; the hands to the left shoulder, the left shoulder to the right shoulder, and the right shoulder to the hands. (So using the First Accumulator is simply decreasing the distance between the hands and the right shoulder- which of course also changes the angle between the left arm and chest, the Forth Accumulator). Now, if we understand the above Triangle Assembly, we can see the positioning of the right elbow in relation to the distance from the left elbow (which I hope we agree is essentially what the “5th Accumulator” is) doesn’t, if used in isolation, have any consequence on the angles and length of this triangle. It’s not part of the two-dimensional triangle; it’s an extra point that hangs below it. So if it's not an Accumulator what is it and why has it been overlooked in TGM? You will find the answer in 7-3 and 10-3. The position of the right elbow, ergo the “5th Accumulator” angle, is defined as The Stroke, the third of the twenty-four components. Look at the pictures of the Punch, Pitch and Push Strokes. There’s your “5th Accumulator”. “Okay, put your left hand on the club. Do nothing but fold your right wrist back and then "throw" it. The clubhead will move and you've generated power.” Before I respond to this, I want to make sure we’re in agreement to the two points I’d made above about this “5th Accumulator”, namely; The “5th Accumulator” is the angle between the back of the right hand, and the right forearm. The “5th Accumulator” does not affect the left wrist angle. If you don’t agree with the second point, ignore completely the previous explanation above. If the “5th Accumulator” is affecting the left wrist angle, then you’re suggesting this movement is simply arching the left wrist on the backswing, and bending it back to its in-line position on the downswing… but I don’t believe that’s what you’re advocating. (I’ll come to the left wrist bending after Impact in a moment- for now I’m concerned with everything prior to and including Impact). Now, if I hold the club with both hands and “do nothing but fold my right wrist”, that has an affect on the left wrist. Anyone with a left grip that isn’t turned almost 90 degrees at address, with the back of the left hand facing skywards, would have their left wrist arch with the bending of the right wrist. Of course, if the left wrist were turned 90 degrees at address, and you’d attempted to bend the right wrist (assuming your could even hold the club in such a way without having to turn your right wrist also), you’d be cocking the left wrist - the Second Accumulator. There is a way to do as you suggest and only bend the right wrist without that having an affect on the left wrist, but as I’ve described above, that would involve having some right arm bend, and then simply moving the right elbow away from the left elbow. Set your address up in that fashion and then use the “5th Accumulator”. The Power Package wouldn’t move in the slightest, and neither would the clubhead. You’d simply be stood there moving your right elbow on your bent right arm to and from the left elbow. You’ve not moved the Lever Assemblies to an out-of-line position- you’ve not accumulated any power. “Aha! Why do we need to maintain a flat left wrist after impact? We don't.” I never said you did. You need to maintain a flat left wrist through impact. The point I was making was; if your “5th Accumulator” was about bending and straightening (the process of arching) the right wrist, then the left wrist would be arching on the backswing, and bending on the downswing. If it’s bending on the downswing, then it’s bending through impact. Of course, none of this happens in the example pictures David posted because the left wrist angle remains stationary. And if the left wrist remains stationary, and the right wrist angle is changing… It’s because of the right elbow movement… and the right elbow movement isn’t an accumulator. “The accumulators are not independent. It's difficult to load #1 without also loading #4 (and vice versa). Your grip will affect how much #2 and #3 contribute to each other.” You’re spot on. But I wouldn’t say it’s “difficult” to load the First Accumulator without the Fourth, I’d say it’s impossible! Just as I’d described the two-dimensional Triangle Assembly above- you’re shortening the length between the hands and right shoulder (by bending the right arm), and this will cause the angle opposite (the angle between the left arm and the chest) to decrease. That angle is the Fourth Accumulator. “You can call it flipping all you want. If it happens after impact I don't care.” Neither do I, that’s why I wrote about the left wrist bending “on the downswing”, not “after Impact”. “Flipping can increase power... if you time it properly. Yes, you read that right.” As could bending the left arm at the elbow on the backswing and straightening it again on the downswing, or even shifting your weight to the back foot on the backswing and shifting it to the front foot on the downswing. A lot of things can increase power if you time them properly- it doesn’t mean you should attempt to build that into your swing. I’ll summarise again because it’s another long post ;) Your “5th Accumulator” boils down to the left wrist’s involvement; If you believe the “5th Accumulator” affects the left wrist’s angle, then what you’re advocating is simply the arching of the left wrist when accumulating, and then the bend ing of the left wrist when releasing. That is to say consciously bend ing the left wrist through Impact (I’ve underlined the “ing” because you can be bending without yet having a bent wrist). If you believe the “5th Accumulator” doesn’t affect the left wrist angle, then it’s simply the position of the right elbow in reference to the left elbow on a bent right arm. If that’s the case, it’s called The Stroke, 7-3.

(I'm a bit daft and having trouble with the multi quotes, so I'm having to copy and paste your replies!) "I do not find that it necessarily does that. Not even close. I'm quite capable of loading #4 and #1 and not loading "#5" at all." We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't see how it's even possible to use the First power accumulator (and so by virtue the Forth), maintain a constant left wrist angle , and not have the right wrist bend. "In the golf swing, the right wrist will bend back as the left wrist cocks up." I disagree here. The right wrist rolls as the left wrist cocks. If there's no bending of the right arm, and you stood with a club, simply cocking and uncocking your left wrist, there would be no change in angle between the back of the right hand, and the right forearm. The right wrist rolls, not bends. "The orientation of the wrists change. At the top of your backswing, for example, you can have the smallest right wrist angle ever without having a palmar flexed (bowed) left wrist. It depends primarily on #2/#3 but also on how your hands are oriented to each other on the grip." I agree with the first two sentences, but not the third. I still stand by that right wrist angle changing by maintaining a constant left wrist angle (for sake of ease, we'll say it's a flat left wrist), and the bending of the right arm- for the reason I gave above (rolling right wrist, not bending). "So do it. Use the accumulator in isolation. That means no left hand on the grip . Quite possible to hit a ball. In fact, you can hit it a fair amount farther than by using #2 or #3, in most cases." There's the rub! "That means no left hand on the grip" means you no longer have the Triangle Assembly (6-A-1). That means this "Fifth Accumulator" isn't part of the Power Package- and if it's not part of the Power Package, it's not an Accumulator... it's simply a way of hitting the ball with one hand. If you take away the concept of the Power Package and what that entails, you could argue there are plenty of other Accumulators, or just ways to hit the ball in general, without resorting to Accumulators 1-4. Off the top of my head, you could say the Pivot, in and of itself, without the Forth Accumulator angle, is another Accumulator, as would be simply holding your hands completely still and swaying your body back and forth to hit the ball (albeit, an incredibly short distance!) If you're using Golfing Machine terminology and concepts, you can't pick and choose what applies, and then claim there are undiscovered parts. "Second accumulator is not hitting a nail with a hammer, no. Plane is different. It would be if the nail were vertical and we were driving straight down (and technically with the left wrist, not the right)." The Second Accumulator is "when the left wrist is cocked". It doesn't matter on what plane the clubshaft is on or in what direction the cocking takes place. I'm sorry to say I can't see the grip employed for those hammer pictures. If the wrist isn't cocking and uncocking (the traditional way of using a hammer), then I'm wrong in that respect. It simply means the wrist is bending and arching, or in layman's terms, "flipping the wrists". That motion isn't compatible with the Flat Left Wrist imperative. "You may be placing too much importance on our use of the the concept of "throwing." The throwing motions we've shown simply show that it's a way of adding speed and why we called the action "throwing."" I completely agree with the sentiments of that picture, and that releasing that right wrist angle when throwing a ball makes it go faster- but again, you're comparing Golfing Machine concepts (i.e. the Power Package) with a one-armed technique completely different from swinging a golf club. I agree with the concept of this right wrist angle, but I think what's already in The Golfing Machine can explain what it is- and it's a byproduct of a bending right arm and a stationary left wrist, not a separate Accumulator. That's not to say you can't actively play around with this right wrist angle, and consciously decrease it on the backswing, and increase it on the downswing... but that's just "flipping". (( Erik, I'll email you ;) ))

I realise I'm late wading into this thread, so apologies for missing this first time around! The theory of this 5th Power Accumulator is interesting but.... from my understanding of TGM, it's wrong. And I'd like to explain why I think so. Firstly, I agree with a couple of the points David has made. Namely; The angle between the back of your right hand and right forearm changes from Adjusted Address to The Top (i.e. the angle decreases), and then returns to something like what it was during Impact. That this change in angle is part of the Power Package Assembly. However, what David is describing, and showing in every series of * golf swing * pictures, is a result of the First Power Accumulator (the bending and straightening of the right arm) and the golfer maintaining a constant left wrist angle. A quick experiment to demonstrate what I mean would be this; Hold out your arms and make your golf grip (you don't need to hold a golf club for this) Keep your left arm straight and bend your right arm at the elbow to around 90 degrees. Look what happens to the angle of the right wrist. So long as you're not bending your left wrist, you will notice that right wrist angle decreasing. It decreases and increases with the bending and straightening of the right arm. What happens if you try to keep that angle the same when bending that right arm? You'd either have to let the clubshaft leave the your right hand and roll into your fingers only- or you'd have to bend that left wrist. Should you bend that left wrist? It's not a good idea... Another experiment would be to attempt to use this accumulator in isolation. So again, hold out your hands and make your golf grip. Without any help this time from the bending of the right elbow, bend your right wrist to decrease that angle. Can you do it? Absolutely. Can you do it without arching the left wrist? No. So in isolation, this accumulator would be the bending and straightening of the right wrist (and yes, this does happen during the swing, but as we've seen above, only because of the right arm), conversely it is also the arching and bending of the left wrist. Should you bend that left wrist? No sir! To address the non-golfing examples; Hitting an nail with a hammer isn't the wrist arching and bending (as you're suggesting), it's the wrist cocking and uncocking. That's the Second Accumulator. Throwing a ball isn't the same as swinging a club. The Power Package is an adjustable triangle consisting of Accumulators and Lever Assemblies, it's disingenuous to compare the two, especially - specifically - when comparing it to Golfing Machine terminology. The biggest difference between throwing a ball compared to a golf swing is there's no left arm involvement for the throw (yes, you could argue the mass of the left arm moving out of the way, increasing the pivot RPM by way of interia), and with no left arm there's no left wrist to keep "flat". ____________________________________ So to summarise, the "5th Accumulator" is; ....the result of the 1st Accumulator and not bending the left wrist on the backswing. ....basically "flipping" the wrists when used in isolation. ((Submitted with the greatest of respect to the Golf Evolution team))

As an Englishman, allow me to briefly explain the rules on where people come from and what they're known as over here. If you're a sportsman from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales and you're WINNING tournaments, you're British. If you're a sportsman from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales and you're crap, you're Northern Irish / Scottish / Welsh. The English are English regardless of how good / crap you are at your sport. ;) But back to the thread, I was at St Georges for the last day. Highlights were; watching Adam Scott at the practice range, standing next to Tom Lewis' girlfriend by the 8th green (wow), being acknowledged by Simon Dyson after shouting "great shot" at him, and pitching up on the 18th just where most player's drivers were ending up, watching their approaches into the green right in front of me. They were pretty strict at the course and you weren't allowed to bring in mobile phones or cameras. They had airport style security at the gates where you had to put all bags through an xray machine and then be searched via magic wand.

This is after four lessons with Erik and James at Evolvr.

I happen to sympathise with this chap. I'm sure many other people who have taken up golf feel the same way and have the same frustrations. Personally, I feel when teaching a complete beginner, instructors should start from the green and work backwards. So for the first few lessons sticking to the putter, learning the mechanics of that stroke, keeping your left wrist flat and what not. Then when that's mastered, moving on to chipping, then pitching, then half-swings and finally full swings. By the time you're practicing your full swing, you should already be competent in hitting the ball before the ground, maintaining lag and all the other essentials. If Mr Pissage has the patience and humility to start from the beginning in that fashion, only moving on to the next stage of the swing when he has mastered the preceding stage, then I think he'd easily keep his scores under 100 after a year or so of practice and dedication.

I've decided to take the plunge and become a fully fledged S&T; swinger. I've signed up to Evolvr and I'm looking forward to getting some advice on what to work on, rather than my usual hit-and-miss approach to improving my swing! I'd spent the last couple of practice sessions changing my swing to make it more S&T-like.; Most noticeably the follow-though and finish are more typically S&T.; I've adopted a hinge action somewhere between angled and vertical (it feels vertical at least), rather than my old horizontal style. The start of the backswing (to just past P2) is now initiated by rolling and cocking the wrists (3rd and 2nd accumulators respectively) and with little shoulder turn and right arm bending. I've made an effort to slide the hips on the downswing too. I've found it helps to keep my right foot planted to the floor right up to impact, but allow the foot to roll towards the target. This prevents me from turning my hips, but allows them to slide easier. Anyway, here I am with a 7 iron. I'll keep you updated with the improvements! Let me know what you think.

Iacas - Thanks for the advice, I'll work on that. Sean - 160 to 165 is about normal for my 6 iron. The ground was hard today after a few weeks of warm weather here, hence the extra roll. Thanks for taking time to comment.