<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Face the ball at impact?

December 17 2010 at 1:43 AM

  (Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

 
I think that the measure of shoulder turn discussed in the long thread is rather difficult considering that the shoulders can move in a lot of different directions. There does not seem to be a definition of shoulder position at impact that I like; so far anyway. I do think that shoulder turn is being looked at from the wrong perspective in some cases. Shoulder turn to me is around the spine meaning that the plane that should be measured is not parallel to the ground.

Here are few pics of Moe:
[linked image] [linked image]

Did Moe 'face the ball at impact'?

It is my opinion that telling most average golfers to 'face the ball' at impact will not result in a position at impact that matches Moe's. To me Moe is cranked around as far as he can get at impact considering the restraints of his body type, setup and his intention to keep the trail foot on the ground.

As for my swing I for the last number of years have trained myself to keep my trail foot on the ground through impact. I am now thinking that is a mistake. When I get up on my toe with the knee kicked in a bit I am lot more comfortable and my back feels better. It also seems easier to maintain the spine angle through impact. LOL I am in the early stages of this one so we shall see. I did get this training from a couple of pros that I had lessons with many years ago. One pro gave me some drills to achieve this impact position in order to overcome a tendency to pull hook at that time. His comment was that my lower body was following my swing instead of leading it.

Regards, Herbert

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Sounds....

December 17 2010, 7:08 AM 

like you are thinking on the right track!

I fought for years to get rid of the fundamental "face the ball at impact" with NG. They finally did somewhat after I departed. wink.gif

Shoulder turn means to most people actually upper torso turn. If you asked most what shoulder turn is they would demonstrate the upper body turning away and through, while the shoulders are going along for the ride. wink.gif

All top golfers today that I have seen have their hips and upper body open relative to the target line at impact. Why would anybody want to do it differently? I think it is even much healthier for the body to do it that way. wink.gif

The turning open even will help you accomplish the bent trail arm at impact as the trail shoulder will be closer to the ball at impact if the upper torso has turned open. Hurrah!!! wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

One point

December 17 2010, 9:40 AM 

I do not believe that shoulder position at impact has changed for pros in the last 100 years or more as far as being 'more open'. I think that if you measured a pro at setup using the rotation around the spine you would find that the pro is open by a lot.

To illustrate my thinking I have provided a pic of the Model Pro at setup. I have drawn lines to try to indicate the rotation of the shoulders relative to the spine. It looks like the shoulders are open by 20 or 30 degrees maybe more if measured on the basis of rotation around the spine? Please note that there is a problem with perspective from this camera angle which I think would tend to make the angle look more acute then it actually is.
[linked image]

Regards, Herbert

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Appearance

December 17 2010, 10:48 AM 

That looks to me like the trail shoulder is lower than the lead and the line is 20-30 deg away from horizontal. That is not relative to the target line and that relationship defines 'open' and 'closed'.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Shoulders or Upper Torso?

December 17 2010, 11:10 AM 

Pros measured by Dr. Neal have the hips on average 4° open at address, and the upper body 8.5° open at address. The average upper body (shoulders) tilt away from the target is 10°.

On average the pros measured by Dr. Neal have both the hips and upper body 40° Open at impact. This does not mean the same player has exactly hips and upper body the same amount open at impact, just that the average of all measured comes out to that.

I was hips 46° open and Upper body 42° open at impact. If you had asked me before the test to guess I would have said hips 30° and upper body square.

Ham




 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Average

December 17 2010, 1:12 PM 

The 'average of all measured' or the average of the 75% that were within the corridor?

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

My understanding is...

December 18 2010, 8:30 AM 

that it is the average of all Tour Pros measured. Some of the pros are outside the corridor on some of the items, I don't know if any Pro is in the corridor on all measurements. Just like no single pro matches Dr. Mann's model swing exactly on every part.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Of course...

December 18 2010, 11:13 AM 

you can provide the reference to confirm you understanding or I'll assume that not all of the pros are in the average happy.gif

If no pro is in the corridor on all measurements then the corridors would not seem to be valid as a method of instruction.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

You can...

December 18 2010, 11:41 AM 

assume whatever you like. You know what they say about that...

If no pro is in the corridor on all measurements then the corridors would not seem to be valid as a method of instruction.

You of course are entitled to your opinion, but I think Dr. Neal's experience in working with top players around the world, and his being chosen by Jim McLean to run the biomechanics lab at his schools over the past 10 years speak for itself. His system helped me in just ten minutes of work with it, when video would not have been such a help. The timing sequence is the heart of what he is teaching and that fits with any method IMO.

Ham


 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

It's only logical

December 18 2010, 11:54 AM 

If there is not any pro that is within the corridors for all categories (your statement) then there is no proof point that being within the corridors in all categories will lead to success. Since the mechanics of the different categories are in one swing they all need to cooperate to make a correct action and if no golfer is within the corridor for all then it could be that it's because being in the corridor for all does not lead to success.

In any case you may want to check on YOUR statement that it could be that there is not any pro that is within the corridor for all categories.

Instead of 'assume' let me say that 'I will take it', that should help you feel better happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Correct action?

December 18 2010, 12:06 PM 

What is a "correct action"?

I said that I do not know if the pro's measured fit into the corridor for all measurements. There are like 40 measurements of each swing not counting the transition and timing sequences.

He could make it that everybody fits in every corridor if he wanted, but what would that prove?

Ham


 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

It would seem...

December 18 2010, 12:11 PM 

that there is a significant misunderstanding.

The only way he can make everybody fit in every corridor is to define the corridors to be sufficiently wide that all the data fits. That is clearly not what he did since 25% of the tour pros tested do not fit in the corridors.

Since he said that 75% of the pros did fit in the corridors I took that to mean that for 75% of the pros, their swings fit into every corridor defined. Your statement that you do not know if any pros fit in all the categories I suspect is a misunderstanding of Dr. Neal's work but I could be wrong about that happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Could be....

December 18 2010, 12:15 PM 

the comment that 75% fit was not clear to me. I don't remember that coming up at the seminar.

How would you phrase an email to him? Then I will see if I can get a clarification, or can find it online.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Appearance 2

December 17 2010, 1:25 PM 

model_pro_address_anntd.gif
Note that a line apx perpendicular to your shoulder line does not align with the torso.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Shoulders

December 17 2010, 11:02 AM 

Shoulders can move in a lot of directions but there is certainly no problem with defining where each shoulder is (though you may not like the result). In fact LTOBG very specifically uses shoulders and not upper torso and notes the independent movement of the shoulders so you could not have followed NG's direction with any other definition.

It is fine to measure shoulder turn in a plane perpendicular to the thoracic spine (remember the spine is curved and jointed so you either have to pick a spinal section or define a single spinal axis) but:

1) 'Open' or 'closed' are terms relative to the target line so the plane for that relationship is horizontal by definition

2) The shoulder line will still not necessarily represent the long axis of the upper torso

Moe is not 'cranked around' as far as he can get given Moe's statements in an interview. He said that he could hit the ball further but that the distance came at the cost of accuracy and then gestured showing more shoulder rotation and the club coming away from the target. Moe wanted the club to stay in a narrow lane pointed at the target in follow through.

Scott (IMA) has always said that forcing you trail heel to stay on the ground through impact could lead to back problems. In IMA the direction was that your trail foot needed to roll onto the inside edge (as you see Moe doing in your second photo) before the heel came up. To do this requires a specific sequence of lateral shift and hip rotation which is desired.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

Re: Shoulders

December 17 2010, 2:06 PM 

No I don't have an interest in this fight so I will 'like' the result...

Hmmm, it may be true that Moe was not be cranked around as far as he could be...

But he was cranked around a heckuva lot further then at least one forum member is when he tries to face the ball or even just tries to keep his trail heel on the ground at impact.happy.gif

I believe that the advice to 'face the ball at impact' is very bad for most any am who tries to apply it. What do you think?

Regards, Herbert


 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

Planes

December 17 2010, 3:11 PM 

1) 'Open' or 'closed' are terms relative to the target line so the plane for that relationship is horizontal by definition

Yes except that the shoulders are on an inclined plane. For instance if the body was tilted so that the plane was perpendicular to the ground (like a Ferris wheel) then the shoulders would essentially never be open or closed they would always be square to the target line.

In light of this it is important to know how Dr. Neil defines his measurement. He may not be measuring relative to the target line on a horizontal plane, perhaps he is measuring degrees of rotation in an inclined plane that he defines in some precise way? If this were true then the degree of rotation numbers would be higher then if measured in the way that you describe.

Regards, Herbert

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Agreed

December 18 2010, 11:18 AM 

Exactly, since the shoulders are on an inclined plane the 'open' or 'closed' would be measured as the component of the angle on the horizontal plane. I don't know if Dr. Neal makes this adjustment for his torso measurement and an adjustment would be required because his device, as placed, will measure on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the device which is surface mounted on the back.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

How it "actually" measures

December 18 2010, 11:50 AM 

How the device actually measures!

The info below is copied fromhttp://www.totalgolfanalysis.co.uk/services/systemindepth.html

TGA Services » The 3D System in Depth

Over the past 20 years there has been considerable development in the 3D analysis systems measuring human kinematics. These systems fall into two categories: active or passive marker systems.

For these systems to accurately measure movement within the golf swing it is necessary to accurately measure both the body's linear movement along the three axes (XYZ) as well as its orientation (rotation), often around these axes.

These six parameters (three translations and three rotations) are known as degrees of freedom (DOF) of movement.

Highly accurate passive marker systems such as VICON, Motion Analysis Corporation and Taylormade's MATT system are based around the tracking of retro-reflective (passive) markers attached to body landmarks, by multiple high speed cameras. Given the number of cameras required (4-10), the inability of the system to work in strong sunlight and the calibration required, these systems are usually permanently based in a laboratory. The major benefits of these systems are that the golfer is free to move within the calibrated volume and no wires are attached. However 'real time' 3D movement analysis is not possible as it would take around 20 minutes or more per swing to process the results depending whether three or six DOF results are required. 'Real time' biofeedback with the golfer is not available with these systems.
Golf BioDynamics is so effective because it gives people a complete reading of everything in the golf swing

Active marker systems rely on transducers of some form being attached to the body. The sensors used are relatively small, as over the past 15 years, technological advancements have much reduced their size and greatly increased their accuracy. A transmitter emits a weak magnetic field which is disturbed by the sensors that are attached to various parts of the body (head, torso, pelvis, hands, etc.). The system then tracks all movement within this field creating a precise model of the golfer and provides highly accurate data. These systems are therefore not restricted by use in strong sunlight, positioning of cameras or having to be laboratory sited. Such systems can be wireless or tethered and offer results in 'real time', allowing biofeedback work to be performed, with the obvious benefits in developing improved performance in a much reduced timescale.

The system used by Total Golf Analysis uses Polhemus hardware and, given the accuracy of data required, we use a tethered system where wires are attached to sensors that are placed on specific areas of the body. This allows us to provide results that are accurate to 1 degree and 1 mm and allows us to measure results in all six DOF, which is obviously very important when analysing a motion as precise and as fast as a golf swing. Polhemus does supply a wireless system that is capable of providing results analysing motion in six degrees of freedom, but at present it does not provide results with the accuracy required to meet our demands. I feel sure that, in time, they will develop a wireless system to suit our needs and, providing it is not prohibitively expensive, I am sure that we will migrate to it. The only downside to the Polhemus system is that large metal objects closer than 25 cm from a sensor can distort the readings and the system is wired. We feel that these limitations are a minor trade-off to the fact that there are no restrictions in swinging while tethered; the system is fully portable with short set-up times; results are in 'real time', allowing biofeedback; the system can be used in all weather conditions; and resulting data is very accurate.
The kinematic sequence cannot be seen on video and can be measured only in 3D

There are other active marker systems that have appeared in the golf analysis industry over the last few years, most notably K-VEST and I-CLUB. These systems are wireless and therefore benefit from ease of use and are very well presented and allow biofeedback. However, both systems provide results measuring only three degrees of freedom. This means that they provide data with regard to the rotational components of the swing but do not measure the linear values of these rotations. Put simply, they do not measure the direction of the rotations as would be necessary with a golfer with excessive sway in torso or pelvis, excessive head lift or drop, loss of spinal angle, etc. This is a vital requirement when analysing golf swings and performing meaningful biofeedback. These systems, according to the makers of the transducers (Intersense who supply transducers for the K-VEST), are highly accurate, but their accuracy is limited beyond 1200 degrees per second. This makes them accurate for the large muscle groups but not so for forearms, hands and club.

To our knowledge, we are the only company offering 3D golf analysis using a fully portable system quantifying results in full six degrees of freedom and able to perform biofeedback on our students in the UK.


 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

That is very nice but....

December 18 2010, 11:58 AM 

it does not address the question of whether the measurements are adjusted for the inclined plane of measurement in order to get a measurement in the relevant horizontal plane and oriented towards the target.

Since they do not state that there is no reason to believe that they are adjusted as described.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Do you not understand...

December 18 2010, 12:13 PM 

that the following means?

For these systems to accurately measure movement within the golf swing it is necessary to accurately measure both the body's linear movement along the three axes (XYZ) as well as its orientation (rotation), often around these axes.

These six parameters (three translations and three rotations) are known as degrees of freedom (DOF) of movement.


It is clear that the body measurements are relative to the target line, you only have to look at what is measured in the report and how it is presented. You can also see it in the diagram.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Clearly you do not understand...

December 18 2010, 12:41 PM 

that the XYZ coordinate system does NOT have to be oriented to the target line and the fact that there is an XYZ does not say that it IS oriented to the target line.

BTW - DOF is irrelevant to this point.

For example - In Dr. Neal's paper in 'Science and Golf V' he explicitly notes that hand linear velocity is measured in the direction of the target line (i.e. the component of that velocity in the direction of the target). He makes no such note about the angular components that were measured in the study. I don't find this a surprise given what he was looking to measure but it is a mistake to take data beyond what is actually being measured (as was the case with 'shoulders' vs 'torso').

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Well,...

December 18 2010, 1:10 PM 

it is oriented to the target line. You only need to look at the diagrams in the report.

Also I do not think that any scientist such as Dr. Neal would orient it any other way.

The shoulders vs. upper torso decision came from Jim McLean who thought using shoulders better because almost all golfers understood it that way.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

I read the report...

December 18 2010, 1:26 PM 

but that is a marketing piece sort of like the newsletters that refer to shoulders even when that is not what is being measured.

The peer reviewed research paper makes no claim that angular measurements are on an XYZ coordinate axis relative to the target and it would have been a simple adjustment to say that they did given the explicit reference to 'target' for linear hand velocity.

While you may think that a scientist such as Dr. Neal would not orient it any other way the fact is his opinion about shoulders vs torso did not go his way happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

You...

December 18 2010, 1:49 PM 

only wish to obscure the fact that it is related to the target line, and cast doubt upon the findings which do not agree with your opinion. The only one who loses in this case is yourself. wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

You...

December 18 2010, 1:55 PM 

clearly wish to support something in which you might develop a commercial interest beyond what the stated information supports even to the extent of misrepresenting some of that information through a significant part of this discussion.

I have not cast doubt on any part of Dr. Neal's peer reviewed paper which I think is excellent and I have cited here in the past.

I loose nothing by sticking to the facts and not the hype happy.gif


Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Nothing to...

December 18 2010, 2:48 PM 

do with support or commercial interest. I have none. Maybe I will someday, maybe not, but from what I have seen in my 40+ years of golf this is the best technology I have seen. I have not misrepresented anything here as opposed to other people. wink.gif

Ham


 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

How soon they forget

December 18 2010, 4:57 PM 

Up until this post you'd argued that Dr. Neal's work represented shoulder angle despite what Dr. Neal had told you. Every post of your's before then that argued shoulder angle WAS a misrepresentation of what you knew about Dr. Neal's work.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

And....

December 18 2010, 5:15 PM 

I defined that shoulder angle = upper torso, and that Jim McLean wanted it that way as MOST people understand it better that way. LOL

Instead of moving forward with the discussion you seem motivated to dig up the past, and to distort the meaning of posts that have been made. Unfortunately for you most of the readers here do not care about your twisting the posts in whichever direction you like in order to try and change the subject. Well except for their entertainment value. LOL wink.gif

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Reference

December 18 2010, 5:31 PM 

If you defined it that way prior to the post I referenced I'm sure you'll be able to provide a link to it. In this discussion you have been the only person attempting to change the subject (i.e. from shoulders to torso beginning with the referenced post).

There is a lot of entertainment value in someone being caught out for 'misrepresenting' as you were when a careful look at the instrumentation showed that it was not set up to measure shoulder angle.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Second post....

December 19 2010, 2:10 AM 


 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Reading comprehension Problem (again)

December 19 2010, 2:39 PM 

You responded to my post where I said:

If you defined it that way prior to the post I referenced I'm sure you'll be able to provide a link to it.

I guess you have a problem understanding 'prior'.

The post you referenced is dated December 17 2010 at 7:08 AM. The post I referenced is dated December 15 2010 at 12:04 PM. December 17th was not 'prior' to December 15th.

This could also be the politicians way of pretending to have not heard the question and proceeding to answer a different one that they'd prefer to answer.

Yes you did change your definition after admitting that Dr. Neal did not agree that his data should be defined as shoulder rotation. As I said before everything you said relative to Dr. Neal's work supporting conclusions about shoulder rotation before December 15 2010 at 12:04 PM in this discussion was a misrepresentation of the data.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

I would have...

December 19 2010, 2:51 PM 

expected that you would realize that this is a new thread and that the discussion had changed, after all you locked the last discussion so that nobody could post to it any longer. Please try to keep up with the different threads here. Or if you don't like the threads direction just lock it again.

All I did was define what Dr. Neal is presenting as shoulder rotation. McLean understands that most all human beings understand shoulder rotation incorrectly, but in order to communicate on their level he presents it as they understand it. Maybe you could learn something from him?

A wise man once wrote. "The meaning of your communication is the response you illicit." wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

More reading comprehension problems

December 19 2010, 3:00 PM 

The title of this thread is also about 'facing the ball at impact'. Your statement here assumes that your misrepresentations in a different thread on the same topic are 'wiped clean' in the new thread however my statement to which you responded did not mention 'thread' it mentioned 'prior' i.e. date.

So I will agree you have not to my knowledge knowingly misrepresented Dr. Neal's work in this thread as you did in the last one. 'For the sake of clarity' this does not mean that I believe you are now representing his work accurately because I don't. It's also not a future 'pass' for things you might later post that make it clear you have been knowingly misrepresenting some other aspects of Dr. Neal's work.

Pter

 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

????

December 19 2010, 3:15 PM 

Why do we care if it is called trunk rotation or shoulder turn? Degrees open for either should be about the same? Also I don't see any basis for your accusing Ham of intentionally misrepresenting Dr Neal's work in the previous thread. It is a simple matter of common usage vs. technically correct is it not? McLean and Dr. Neal do the same in the appropriate environment to they not?

Regards, Herbert

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Why

December 19 2010, 3:44 PM 

First I do not believe Dr. Neal and Dr. Mann are measuring the same thing. If you look closely at the swing analysis report that Ham referenced you will notice that 'Setup Foundations' (address) has a perspective that is pretty clearly vertically above the golfer. Dr. Mann has that same perspective for address and impact but the referenced report has a very different perspective for downswing/impact. You'll also notice that the report does not have the target line indicator (the black line) for impact that it has for setup. Add to this that the technology of the device is that it will measure rotation along its axis and there is a lot of evidence that shoulder rotation at impact for Dr. Neal is on the tilted axis of the upper torso and not relative to a horizontal plane (which as you noted will vary with torso lean).

If this is the case then directing people to have their shoulders 25-50 deg open to the target (horizontal plane) is totally incorrect.

I think when a golfer hears 'shoulder rotation' and 'open' they think of the horizontal plane and the target. I think a golfer hearing 'trunk rotation' is more likely to ask what is meant as well as to think of it on the tilted plane of the torso. The term 'open' in my opinion is still problematic; better to say 'past level' I think.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

I think what...

December 20 2010, 11:39 AM 

you are trying to say is that it is possible to have the shoulders relatively square to the target line at impact, while at the same time the upper torso has rotated around it's axis 30+°. If that is what you are trying to say then I would tend to agree with that. wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Sounds like...

December 20 2010, 4:41 PM 

you got a response from Dr. Neal happy.gif

Yes - As Herbert's example (of an extreme forward bend) showed it's possible to be 0 Deg open to the target line with any degree of shoulder rotation with sufficient forward bend. Any degree of forward bend means that a measurement done on the torso axis (actually at the level of the shoulder blades based on the photo of the device - since the torso bends that might not be the axis at other points) is not accurate relative to the target line. That is even without the ability of the shoulders to move independent of the torso.

This aspect of geometry is critical to certain swings that emphasize forward bend and a more vertical plane to create greater consistency/accuracy.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

not...

December 20 2010, 5:32 PM 

Dr. Neal....and I am not posting about an "extreme" forward bend, but I see again how shoulders vs. torso can cause problems in understanding movement. wink.gif

Ham


 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

Advice

December 20 2010, 4:48 PM 

If this is the case then directing people to have their shoulders 25-50 deg open to the target (horizontal plane) is totally incorrect.

Incorrect is an interesting term. It might be incorrect technically but that advice is a lot better then telling people to 'face the ball at impact.' IMHO of course. happy.gif

Hmmm, this is especially true of folks who are using strong grip swings. Strong grip swings work best with the body open at impact. This is one very good reason why Dr. Mann's data might be out of date. I believe that there has been a significant trend towards strong lead hand grip swings on tour since Dr. Mann did the model. Dustin Johnson is one good example.

Regards, Herbert

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Perhaps....

December 20 2010, 5:01 PM 

though there was a certain Duval during the time of Dr. Mann's measurements beyond all the Harvey Penick trained golfers.

Facing the ball at impact seems to work pretty well for one noted golfer happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

My intention....

December 17 2010, 1:57 PM 

Or perhaps hope is that the work of Dr. Mann and Dr Neal can be reconciled. My original attempt at drawing lines to indicate the angle was somewhat flawed as pointed out by Peter and Ham. In that vein here is a look at the model from a couple of views. The model seems fairly precise so it should be possible to discern whether the model of Dr. Mann matches the research of Dr. Neal? It seems to me that is an important question here.

In order to know we would need to know what the upper torso angle would be measured to be by Dr. Neal. Would the measurement be in line with his corridors? Also it would be interesting to know what Peter might measure as shoulder angle relative to the target line...
[linked image]

Regards, Herbert
edit for speeeleinng error...

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

I like...

December 18 2010, 9:26 AM 

the view from above. You can really see how open the upper body is from that angle.

I have not been able to find any measurements from Dr. Mann's model online that would tell us how many degrees his model is open relative to the target line at impact. Have to dig a little deeper.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

The first question is...

December 18 2010, 11:45 AM 

what is the target line? I used the view from above since that would give the horisontal plane required for 'open' and 'closed' relative to the target line as well as making identification of the anatomical points easier. Since there is no target or ball flight reference I first assumed the target was perpendicular to the shaft at address but this left the shoulders pretty much parallel to the target line at address which is not what Dr. Mann said. Creating a new target line between the balls in the address frame and impact frame and using the apx positions of the acromions as the shoulder markers it looks like apx 6-7 deg at address and apx 14-15 deg at impact. So the model pro returns at impact to within 7-9 degrees of address position which pretty well matches Dr. Mann's description.

It is not clear if Dr. Neal actually has his baseline for measurement as the target line or the address position of the golfer. Looking at his results it seems as though it might be the address position in which case 'open' or 'closed' is not the way it is commonly defined in golf - relative to the target.

Edited to add the markup I used:

model_pro_above_addr_impact.gif


Peter

 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

Re: The first question is...

December 18 2010, 12:09 PM 

Probably the baseline is related to the target line as per Ham the average pro is open a bit at address in Dr. Neal's work.

Dr. Mann also says that the typical pro is open at address and advises that the trail foot is 1 inch closer to the target line then the lead foot.

Here is picture of fairly successful golfer from an angle that is I think closer to the torso plane:
[linked image]

From this angle his shoulders appear to be open to the target line by quite a lot...

Regards, Herbert

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

But...

December 18 2010, 12:26 PM 

that is not what Ham said. The post you reference only says 'target' with regard to torso tilt.

Are you then assuming that the foot line is the target line? I can tell you from close observation of Tiger about which I posted here that he adjusts his foot line based on the shot (draw or fade) that he wants to hit however I just checked and in this case the foot line is pretty much parallel to a line between the ball in the 2 frames.

Tiger is very open at impact but he is also very open at address with a minimal difference between the two:

Tiger_above_addr_impact_anntd.gif

BTW - I don't think the torso plane is shown but rather vertically above.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   


(Login gHerbert)
SAGF Members 2001

vertically above

December 18 2010, 12:49 PM 

The camera is at an angle and not vertically above or Tiger's head would be in front of his feet:
[linked image]
Interesting to note that in the above pictures Tiger does not look to be all that open at impact or address from the rear profile angle!
Or compare with the model:
[linked image]

Makes sense?

Regards, Herbert


 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Not if it's vertically above the target line <n/t>

December 18 2010, 12:57 PM 


 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Clear in both cases....

December 18 2010, 1:53 PM 

that both are open between 35 and 50° relative to the target line at impact with their upper torsos. Great job!!

I don't think anyone can see it any other way. Well just make that 99.999% of the people. wink.gif LOL

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

And...

December 18 2010, 1:59 PM 

to the extent that you are correct it is a confirmation that Dr. Neal is not measuring in an XYZ coordinate system where the XY plane is horizontal because as Herbert has pointed out the view is not vertically above the golfer happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Dr. Neal's view...

December 18 2010, 2:49 PM 

is in 3D, while yours is from all appearances 1D.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

It's unfortunate...

December 18 2010, 4:52 PM 

that you do not understand the relevance of the component of the angle to the 2D reference for the target line even though Herbert's example was pretty clear. Regardless I'm confident that Dr. Neal would.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

My understanding...

December 18 2010, 5:20 PM 

is just fine. Either way you look at it the best players are well open with the upper torso at impact. If you wish to strive for square then that is fine for you. Best of luck to you. Hopefully you will not injure yourself.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

It is just fine...

December 18 2010, 5:32 PM 

as long as you satisfied with it being incorrect happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Not according....

December 19 2010, 2:12 AM 

to all evidence presented including the Dr. Mann pictures Herbert presented.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Let's see...

December 19 2010, 3:14 PM 

Dr. Neal's success corridor for 'Shoulder Turn' in the 'Impact Zone' is 25-50 deg. Dr. Mann's model pro at impact is less than 20 deg open at impact. So Dr. Mann's composite of 100 tour pros is not in Dr. Neal's success corridor.

Herbert posted an overhead view of Tiger that you clearly supported noting the impact position was within the corridor however you chose not to note that the address position shown is well outside of the corridor.

There is a simple explanation for the data disparities but it would not work well with your representation of Dr. Neal's work happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Reference

December 19 2010, 5:21 PM 

Please show where Dr. Mann states the impact parameters for the upper body at impact which you claim as less then 20°.

As for Tiger you have no way of knowing what type of shot he set up for in the picture, or what the target line was to be. Please give that info and an exact measurement as to his upper body orientation to the target line.

It is clear that you do not wish to believe that tour players are open with the upper body at impact relative to the target line, but all evidence so far shows that they are, regardless if you measure relative to the targetline, or otherwise. wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

How soon they forget (again)

December 19 2010, 11:27 PM 

You asked and I answered. This is from the book so you'll have to buy it if you don't trust my answer.

Since you had no idea of knowing what kind of shot Tiger was hitting then you should not have jumped on it as a proof of your point but rather commented at the time that you could not draw any conclusions from it without knowing what kind of shot he was hitting happy.gif You didn't but instead used it as a 'proof' and it is that justification that gives weight to your ignoring the address position.

I have no wish to 'believe' anything. I just take the data as it's presented and apply knowledge to address interpretations. Your interpretation is fallacious on its face and not even supported by the report you referenced. It would serve you well to spend more time with Dr. Neal and forget interpretations until you understand better.

Peter


 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

The book

December 20 2010, 2:29 AM 

Does it say in the book apx 9 deg open at address and as noted earlier, about the same at impact. or is that your interpretation of pictures?

In the Tiger picture I did not look at the address picture as I was more focused on impact at that time.

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

In science...

December 20 2010, 10:11 AM 

you take the data as it's presented. Not some of the data. All of the data. Taking only some of the data in science is considered misrepresenting the data.

Dr. Mann provides images in the book with target line and shoulder line marked so it is not my selection of anatomical locations that led to the drawing of the shoulder line (though if I had it would have been the same).

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Understood, but...

December 20 2010, 11:47 AM 

you responded to a question about upper torso position with your measurement of the shoulders.

I had asked what is the position of the upper torso at impact in the "model swing"? Please let us know in degrees open, square, or closed.

and then you answered. The diagrams in 'Swing Like a Pro' show apx 9 deg open at address and as noted earlier, about the same at impact. The reference line is from one shoulder to the other

Now you go on to say:
Dr. Mann provides images in the book with target line and shoulder line marked so it is not my selection of anatomical locations that led to the drawing of the shoulder line (though if I had it would have been the same).

But the question was about upper torso, not shoulders. You can see maybe where it gets confusing?

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

It only...

December 20 2010, 4:32 PM 

gets confusing when someone chooses to use one term and then change it when called out that they are incorrect. I will give it to you that you explained that Dr. Neal did not measure shoulder turn nearly 2 hours before asking the question though in a separate part of the thread happy.gif

Note that my reference to an earlier post about Dr. Mann has no ambiguity about what was measured as open.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

Still does not answer...

December 20 2010, 5:27 PM 

the question as to why you answered with measurements for the shoulders when upper torso was requested. Do you have no measurement for the upper torso at impact from Dr. Mann? Is that why you answered with shoulders instead of torso, or were you confused due to cold weather?? wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Dr. Mann's...

December 20 2010, 6:44 PM 

composite pro can provide a number of measurements that are not published in his book including torso rotation.

I answered with shoulder rotation because up until your 'correction' post that is the way you presented the data . My error for not understanding that you'd completely abandoned the idea that you'd been arguing so forcefully.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

There was no...

December 21 2010, 12:21 PM 

idea abandoned. The only change was terminology. In order to communicate with you the terminology was changed.

For MOST people shoulder turn and upper torso rotation are the SAME. In reality they are not.

Maybe the same could be said for hip turn. wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

:-)

December 21 2010, 9:35 PM 

The fact that, as you say, shoulder turn and torso turn are NOT the same means that the change in terminology was not to communicate with me but rather to correctly communicate. With regard to 'MOST people': As parents sometimes say 'If MOST people jump off a cliff would you' happy.gif

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Ham
(Login hammeredit)
SAGF Members 2001

The meaning....

December 22 2010, 3:25 AM 

of your communication is the response you got.

Everybody could learn something about communication here.

wink.gif

Ham

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

3-D

December 19 2010, 2:28 PM 

I thought you might find these views interesting. They are from the 3-D video that was used a few years back so this is 2 views of impact fro the same swing:

tiger_impact_view_1_anntd.giftiger_impact_view_2_anntd.gif

The shoulder line is made from the visible top of the shoulders in both views. The other line is the ball flight line.


Peter

 
 Respond to this message   

(Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner

Time for a new thread

December 23 2010, 10:16 AM 

Feel free to carry on individual discussion in new threads.

Peter

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Face the ball at impact?
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement