Dear sammy,
I don't disagree that there are torques in the setup posture I call "neutral" in gravity, but I do disagree that this is incongruous with working with gravity assistance in the making of the stroke, as opposed to what you call "a fully torqued putting stroke."
Let me make some notes on your step-by-step description to illustrate the difference between setup torque and a torquing stroke motion:
"I trust your 'out of gravity' reference does not mean losing your balance, but is a reference to the position of various mass segments with the vertical force of gravity."
YES.
"Starting with the body, the upper torso is cantilevered over and a counter-torque at the hips must be applied to control the CofM of the torso and head too. The upper arms hanging straight down is recommendable, but the forearms must be supported by an elbow counter-torque."
YES, THAT'S RIGHT. THE LOWER BODY BALANCES AND STABILIZES THE CANTER-LEVERING OF THE UPPER TORSO AND "CATCHES" THE WEIGHT OUT OVER THE BALLS OF THE FEET USING THE TENSION OF THE MUSCLES IN THE ABDOMEN, LOWER BACK, AND LEGS. THE NORMAL MUSCLE TONE OF THE UPPER AND LOWER ARMS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ELBOWS "NATURALLY" AND "NEUTRALLY" HOLDS THE ELBOW IN ITS "NATURAL" ANGLING OUT OF PLUMB. ONCE SETUP, THOUGH, NOTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE TO KEEP THIS FORM (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MICRO-ACTIVATIONS OF BALANCE-EQUILIBRIUM MUSCLES, WHICH ARE ALWAYS ACTIVE).
Now the hand-putter assembly, is another 'out of gravity' situation. The putter is also cantilevered away from the supporting wrist joints requiring another counter-torque at the hands to maintain the putter lie angle .. at static address and dynamic stroking action.
THAT'S WHAT GRIP PRESSURE IS FOR. THE GRIP PRESSURE SECURES THESE TORQUE FORCES OF THE PUTTER IN THE HANDS, CANTER-LEVERING THE HANDLE UP AGAINST THE THUMB TIPS AND AWAY FROM THE INSIDES OF THE LAST FINGERS WRAPPED BENEATH THE HANDLE. (THIS IS WHY MAKING SURE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CONTACT OF THE LAST FINGERS BENEATH THE HANDLE IS USUALLY HANDLED BEST BY MAKING FULL CONTACT WITH THE HANDLE AND THE SURFACE OF THESE FINGERS, AND ALSO WHY TOO NARROW A HANDLE-GRIP ENCOURAGES ACTIVITY OF THE HANDS IN THE STROKE IN WHICH THESE UNDERNEATH FINGERS SEEK SECURITY AS THE TORQUING PUTTER HANDLE CHANGES THE RELATIONSHIP OF FINGERS NOT SECURELY "ON" THE HANDLE.) I TEACH A GRIP PRESSURE OF ABOUT 2-3 ON A SCALE OF 1-10, AND THIS IS PLENTY TO "HANDLE" THESE HANDLE TORQUES, AND CREATE A STABLE RELATIONSHIP. IF YOU STUCK A SWORD INTO THE GROUND ON AN ANGLE, BUT STUCK IT IN THE DIRT FAR ENOUGH, THE SWORD WOULD BE STABLE IN SPACE EVEN THOUGH IT HAS A TORQUE ON IT FROM THE ANGLE OUT OF PLUMB.) AND YES, THE SAME MINIMUM GRIP PRESSURE ON THE HANDLE IS SUFFICIENT TO "HANDLE" THE TORQUES OF THE CANTER-LEVERED PUTTER BOTH AT STATIC ADDRES AND DURING THE STROKE, WITHOUT INCREASING THE GRIP PRESSURE DURING THE STROKE. IN FACT, THE GRIP PRESSURE IS NOT ENOUGH UNLESS IT ELIMINATES ANY TENDENCY FOR CHANGE WHEN GOING FROM STATIC TO DYNAMIC TORQUES. ONCE SET, THOUGH, THIS GRIP PRESSURE DOES NOT ALTER AND NEED NOT MAKE ANY CONTRIBUTION BY WAY OF "TORQUING THE STROKE" AS YOU DESCRIBE.
"So what do we have now? A putting system that is braced with counter-torques to maintain form."
TRUE ENOUGH, BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO USE A TORQUING STROKE, AND YOU REALLY MEAN A TORQUING OF THE ARMS AND PUTTER AND SHOULDERS DOWN AND THRU IMPACT.
I agree that the backstroke MUST be a torquing action of the body to move the stroke into the backstroke, but thereafter I PREFER a relaxation of those muscles that started the stroke back, and NOT a relaxation of the setup muscle tones that hold the upper torso and putter assembly in a stable relationship. the so-called triangle setup with a minimum static muscle tones stays the same during the stroke, especially the downstroke. Different muscles groups are involved in the torquing back of the stroke at the start and the maintaining of the form during the stroke. None of which requires or even advises a "fully torqued putting stroke" in the thru-stroke.
The NEED for torquing the thru-stroke arises only in reference to feed-forward corrections of the path of the stroke and/or some form of feed-back based manipulation of the path of the stroke according to so-called hand-eye coordination or some combination of vision and proprioception during the stroke. I teach instead a learning of how biomechanics alone (not motion or muscle movement) controls or fails to control path in the thru-stroke. The reliance for solid, online impact is first and foremost based upon this body-knowledge, and it is only when things go awry that something corrective needs to be done.
This is why I teach a focus upon the feeling of the shoulder frame and base of the neck during the stroke, and not the "feel" of the fingers and arms. This upper region is the biomechanically significant region of the body for path control in the first instance. Knowing what sorts of backstroke feel in this body region are headed for smooth sailing and what sorts are headed for rocky shores gives the golfer plenty of warning and time to get a flawed stroke back on track.
It is true that if you allow the static muscle tone in the hands and arms to attract the focus of your sense of the body, then you are likely to "recruit" those body parts to "control" the stroke path. But you surely agree that more "proximal" joints imply less "freedom" of motion in space in relation to the body as a whole, so that shoulder action is more closely correlated and coordinated with the body as a whole than is hand motion or even arm motion. A stroke that is more centrally embedded in the sense of the body-as-a-whole in space in relation to the target seems to me, based upon two decades of messing with this issue, a superior way to manage the path of the stroke, for accuracy and consistency. It's just a question of learning how to do this, as what you describe is not at all how to do this.
Bottom line: There is a major difference between setup muscle tone designed to accommodate static and dynamic torques and thereafter using changing muscle activation to "torque" the stroke in the thru-stroke. Yes, there is a natural tendency to do this, but it is not by that fact alone vouchsafed as the "best" approach to stroke control. The biomechanical control of stroke path with a non-torquing thru-stroke is an acquired skill that mostly involves shedding this handsy-armsy approach and learning a more centrally embedded relationship between the body in space and stroke action to a target in relation to the body in space. And yes, in some cases there is a need to torque the thru-stroke to correct stroke path, but in my view these occasions are infrequent in comparison to path problems injected by reliance upon the hands and arms and a "fully torqued putting stroke" such as overcooking the stroke into a pull or overspeeding the stroke out of coordination with setup tone so that the face of the putter flares open thru impact, etc. etc. etc., all of which directly are caused by torquing the stroke. Once you QUIT this thru-stroke torquing as a general approach, the problems become less frequent and more manageable.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist
Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.
Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.