Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

[ubizmo]

Here's something to kick around a bit...

In the backswing, after the "one-piece takeaway," the club starts to become cocked, decreasing the angle between club and forearms. The way I see it, there are two ways to do this.

1. The approved way: The hands turn and the club face opens up, so that the cocking of the club is accomplished first by pointing the toe of the club to the sky and then pulling back so that by the end of the backswing the club face is on the swing plane and the toe is pointing to the target line. Since at address and impact, the club face is square to the target line, this means that the club face must rotate 90* during the backswing, then 90* again during the downswing.

2. Another way: The club face remains square to the swing line (i.e., the path that the club head follows from address through impact) throughout the swing. To cock the club while keeping it square to the swing line, the right wrist cups as far as it will go. The club face never rotates at all.

(I guess the "AJ method" being discussed in another thread is a third option, but I don't know much about it.)

I don't know if anybody swings the second way. Correction. I know that I was doing it for a while.

A month or so ago I was playing a round and doing very badly. A fellow had joined our party, and he was a pretty good golfer. He saw the trouble I was having and said, "I don't normally offer swing advice that's not asked for, but I can see you're having some problems and I might be able to help you out." I gratefully accepted his help. He said my backswing was going too low around my back, and my left arm was folding up, and if I could correct this I'd have better luck. So I worked very hard on keeping the left arm straight and making my backswing go *out* from my body and not back.

The results were immediate and dramatic. I started strking the ball a lot much straighter and cleaner, and my distance was about average. Needless to say I kept doing this, and it even carried over to my next round and practice sessions.

What I didn't know was that in complying with his advice I had gone from method 1 to method 2. I was keeping the club face square to the swing line instead of opening it up. I don't know why I started doing this; I just did. Probably the overall adjustment to my swing felt so different that I didn't notice this difference.

But when I went to my next lesson, the teacher noticed it and said I should correct it and go back to method 1. He said that method 2 would cost me power.

Well, okay. So I've been trying to swing with the approved method. I can do it, but the results aren't as good. When I connect, I'm likely to hit farther off the target line. When I "backslide" and go back to method 2, I get a cleaner, straighter shot.

I'm really on the fence about this, because I hate to give up something that seemed to be working pretty well. I don't often have the experience of having something work well. On the other hand, if method two is fundamentally unsound for some reason...I suppose I should nip it in the bud.

Your advice cheerfully accepted.

[LowPost42]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Well, I know that those who follow the teachings of The Golfing Machine (TGM), are often right-side actuated, that is, their right (trailing) side dictates what's going on in the golf shot. The left arm doesn't come around, the right arm folds up, pulling the left side back. The left wrist doesn't cock, the right wrist cups (which, incidentally, cocks the lead wrist).

I wouldn't say that one method is 'right' and one method is 'wrong' (especially considering my own personal experience as of late). I'd say one method works better for you, and one doesn't.

I think Cliff posted something about how there's essentially 296* players on the PGA Tour, and 296 different swings.

The thing about all those swings is that each player is consistent with it, and each player can repeat that swing to a very large degree, every time they swing.

Now, that said, I don't think that just any swing will work for golf. I think there are fundamental things that have to be in the golf swing in order for maximum power and accuracy. Things like wrist cock, a proper coil, proper address position, and the ability to deliver the clubface to the ball the intended way most times.

But I also think that things like the type of grip you choose, the plane you choose to use (one or two), how you set your feet, where you play your ball, how weak or strong your grip is, etc is all relative to your own personal swing.

For example, a very strong grip (2-3 knuckles) is the suggested grip for the one plane swing. However, if I take that grip, I end up with a very closed clubface. So instead, I take a very neutral grip. Obviously my forearms rotate very well on the downswing, so a stronger grip isn't necessary.




* Borrowed from the dropdown list at pgatour.com, listing active PGA Tour players.

[ubizmo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Well, I went to the driving range today and worked on just this one thing: the manner in which I cock the club during the backswing. I tried to do everything else the same. Same shoulder turn, same swing path, and so on. For ease of reference I'll call the two ways of working the wrist the "standard" method and the "square" method, and in case anyone cares they can refer to the first message I posted.

I'm not familiar with a lot of different golf swing methods (never heard of The Golfing Machine, for example), so I don't know if there's any school of thought that endorses the square method. I DO know that it's not part of the "PGA-approved" golf swing.

I started with my PW and struck 10 balls with the standard method, as best as I can do it. The results were...scattered! I didn't top any but the distances varied a lot, and I hit quite a few pushes wide to the right. Interestingly, on a couple of those pushes I hit the ball fat and left a serious divot. Looking at the divot I could see that my swing path was right on line, so obviously my club face was open, causing the push.

Then I hit 10 using the square method. The distances were a bit more constant at about 100-110 yards, but the most noticeable thing was the shots were a *lot* straighter. I did hit a couple off to the right, but no more than 30*, whereas with the standard method I was hitting 45* and 60* to the right of the target line.

I took out a 6 iron and repeated the experiment, but in the opposite order. I hit the 10 shots with the square method first. I wanted to see if there was just a "warmup effect" going on. But I got the same results. Using the square method I hit 7 balls straight out, about 150-160. I topped one, and hit two fat, going only about 120, but straight. Then I switched to the standard method. I got 3 straight shots, about the same distance. I topped four. I pushed three.

Next I took out my 3 hybrid and went back to standard method first. I was able to get 7 shots off without topping, but 6 of them hooked or sliced pretty severely (this is hitting off the grass, not a tee). Distance about 180 yards. Then the square method: I topped two and hit 8 pretty straight. Two of them sliced or faded (I'm never quite sure of the difference), but not nearly as bad as with the square method--never more than 30* off line.

That's 60 balls hit, and with each club I got better--though by no means perfect--results with the square method. With the remaining 25 balls I just practiced with my driver and 3 wood, but not continuing the experiment.

Conclusion: I hit better with the square method. It could be a placebo effect; maybe I just expect to hit better that way. I'm not sure why, though, since when my teacher pointed it out to me and told me how to correct it, I thought my swing would improve, but it got worse.

My theory is this: The square method, since it doesn't involve opening and closing the club face between the horizontal and impact positions of the club, doesn't involve such precise timing as the standard method. Because the club face stays square to the swing path, it doesn't have to orientation in the final hundedths of a second of the swing. The disadvantage of the square method is probably exactly what my teacher said: it costs some power and distance. I may not see that now, because my swing isn't that fast anyway. And I may never see it, since I took up golf 2 years ago at age 50. But this is just a guess; I really don't know.

I don't want to commit myself to a fundamentally flawed swing that will cause problems for me later. But if the "problem" that it's going to cause is that it will prevent me from hitting the ball like Ernie Els....well, what can I say?

[LowPost42]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

cmays, I don't understand what you're saying here - like wrist cock is irrelevant (sorry if I've oversimplified).

I don't understand how the releasing of the wrists through the impact zone (a 'late release' so to speak) doesn't add power to any given swing, be it one plane or two.

Using a doppler radar unit (commonly known as swing speed radar), I've tried both swings - one without wrist cock, and one with. Time and again, the wrist cock swing was up to 15 mph faster.

[Simon Woo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Hi Ubizmo,

I hope I understood everything correctly. The proposed method of not rotating the club head (ie keeping is always square to the swing path) might have some drawbacks. Can you imagine the resistance on the club if a full swing was done in that manner? I know the clubhead is small, and perhaps wind resistance might not amount to much, but nevertheless I am sure it has some impact on the swing speed (and stability)?

There's also something called pronation. For example in a tennis serve, we do not swing the racquet face square to the path, but by rotation the hands so that the face is in line with the path, resistance is minimised, you can literally slice through the air, and at the correct instant, rotate back for maximum impact.

Naturally, it will be easier to swing in a square path because there is less variation, less crucial timing needed to impact the ball sweetly. And perhaps that could be the main issue with your approved swing - a matter of refining your timing?

This is an interesting discussion and I'm just airing my thoughts

[ubizmo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Wrist cock is only needed in a upright swing to prevent the club from striking the ground and provides no power to the swing and if overdone will decrease the coil in the body.

I don't understand that. The wrist is not cocked at address and it's not cocked when it returns to the position at impact. It's only cocked when it's above the ground, so I don't see how the purpose of cocking the wrist can be to prevent collision with the ground.

Wrist cocking provides a braking action in the backswing such as in the flop shot to prevent us from hitting too hard.

If I understand you, a cocked/cupped wrist held through the swing (I.e., a "hooded" swing) decreases power, making it, precisely, a chip shot. There's no added power from the wrist. No "swatting," as Greg Willis dubs it (I'm still not sure swatting can really be avoided, as Greg suggests it can and should, but that's another topic).

Swing the club back to shoulder high in a upright manor and hold. Drop the arms down until the club touches the ground and hold. Is the clubface open?

This is with a "standard" backswing, I take it. The answer is yes. The club face would be about perpendicular to the ground, as it was in the horizontal position of the swing.

Do the same with your close method, drop the arms down and you should find that the clubface is not fully closed.

It's not fully closed to the *ground* because it's perpendicular to the swing plane, which is tilted relative to the ground. The so-called "upright" swing isn't literally on a vertical plane.

One other thing...I learned by accident that my "square method" is also used in the "Simple Swing" method, although the resemblance ends there.

I'm not in any way trying to advance an argument that the "square method" is better, in general, than the standard method. But I've done research over the years into the components of athletic ability, some of which are innate. One of these I've mentioned in another thread: the proportion of fast-twitch muscle fiber. The more the better, for any sport involving explosive movements, like golf. Another is timing, which also appears to have a substantial genetic basis. We all know that some people can pick up an athletic movement faster than others. Whether it's baseball, cricket, ping pong...they just catch onto it quickly. Others, like me, are the opposite. I think my "square method" has the benefit of being more forgiving of my poor timing than the standard method--a benefit that better athletes just don't need.

[ubizmo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

The proposed method of not rotating the club head (ie keeping is always square to the swing path) might have some drawbacks. Can you imagine the resistance on the club if a full swing was done in that manner? I know the clubhead is small, and perhaps wind resistance might not amount to much, but nevertheless I am sure it has some impact on the swing speed (and stability)?

Simon, I have no idea how much air friction might be a problem for the square swing. I'm sure there must be some effect, but I'm inclined to think it's negligible. I have no hard data though.

Naturally, it will be easier to swing in a square path because there is less variation, less crucial timing needed to impact the ball sweetly. And perhaps that could be the main issue with your approved swing - a matter of refining your timing?

Yup, I think that's it exactly. But as I wrote in the other message, it appears that timing has a large genetic component. It can only be trained to a limited extent. The fact that you play tennis, if you're reasonably good at it, suggests that you're timing is pretty good. That means you should be able to achieve a comparably good level of golf timing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a former hockey player like Allen Doyle is now a leader in the seniors' tour.

My situation is different. As a kid I was never any good at any sport. I was strong, but I had great difficulty hitting a baseball. You know the thing kids do, where they **** a ball into the air with one hand and then grip the bat and swat it? I could never do that!

In my 30s I studied Shotokan karate for a few years. It was fun but I was hopeless at it, especially sparring, which involves precise timing of blocks and strikes.

I have no illusions about becoming a great golfer, at 52. I'm out there to have fun and play the best game I'm capable of. Figuring that out is a challenge in itself.

So yes, I think my square swing has some drawbacks, including aerodynamics. But I suspect that in *my* case they are more than balanced by the advantage of not requiring precise timing.

[Simon Woo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Hi Todd I am totally with you on this one. Indeed as I think we can all easily pictuer this, the easiest way to swing was just to have the club hanging vertical, and have it swing like a pendulum. No rotation, no delayed release, no angles, no timing issues to worry about.

I guess all the other things that come in are in man's quest to find a more powerful swing (given the limitations of our human physique) while sacrificing the least accuracy and consistency.

On a lighter note, I have seen some people at the range doing the square swing, and to be honest with it, it looks really ugly from the back (Maybe that was a really extreme case) But hey that doesn't mean he can't continue to do so if he can hit the ball consistently and at an acceptable distance

Yep I think we've come to the same conclusion. The expected argument against this swing would be the lack of delayed release, the clubhead catching up with the hands upon impact, the lack of power as a result - that kinda argument But the argument for it would be that it's much more forgiving on timing and gives better consistency.

[LowPost42]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Thanks, cmays.

I get what you're getting at now - and yes, I agree that the average golfer is so set on cocking the wrists that they'll 'over cock', and cause a lead arm breakdown.

[computer_guy33]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

The square method sounds similar to Greg Willis's method of keeping the right wrist bent (unless I'm reading his tutorial incorrectly).

I took his advice a few months ago and now produce more distance and straighter shots. It's easier to produce a square face and the ever important distance producing clubhead lag.

Even if the club pros don't agree, it's hard to argue with the results.

There is an excellent article on clubhead lag at
http://golf.about.com/od/golftips/l/blclubheadlag1.htm

[LowPost42]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Lots of luck and if you can tie your shoes there is no reason why you can not play in the upper 70's in 6 months.

Golfone.

That's a pretty hefty statement. This is my second 6 month interval (the Canadian season only lasts 6-8 months).

How do you take a guy like me (broke 100 for the first time a few weeks ago), and get me shooting in the high 70's in 6 months?

[ubizmo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Hi Todd I am totally with you on this one. Indeed as I think we can all easily pictuer this, the easiest way to swing was just to have the club hanging vertical, and have it swing like a pendulum. No rotation, no delayed release, no angles, no timing issues to worry about.

It sounds like this was the swing that **** Aultman used. Did you check out the link, http://www.golfdigest.com/instructio...etofgolf1.html, that cmays posted? There's some really fascinating material there.

On a lighter note, I have seen some people at the range doing the square swing, and to be honest with it, it looks really ugly from the back (Maybe that was a really extreme case) But hey that doesn't mean he can't continue to do so if he can hit the ball consistently and at an acceptable distance

A short backswing can be ugly. I think with the square swing, the backswing may or may not be short; it depends on the extent of the shoulder turn, not the wrist hinge. On that same web page, read the tribute to Moe Norman, who incidentally also kept the club face square to the swing path as long as possible. His swing was so ugly that it was ridiculed, and yet he was probably the most accurate ball striker of all time. In fact, I think it's interesting that three great, and accurate, ball strikers all had hideous swings: Moe Norman, Lee Trevino, Allen Doyle. Doyle is currently leader in the senior's tour and is well known for the accuracy of his ball striking. He's a former hockey player and his golf swing looks like a slap shot. I guess anything is possible.

Yep I think we've come to the same conclusion. The expected argument against this swing would be the lack of delayed release, the clubhead catching up with the hands upon impact, the lack of power as a result - that kinda argument But the argument for it would be that it's much more forgiving on timing and gives better consistency.

I don't actually see why the square swing would lead to a lack of delayed release. But this is something I don't understand very well.

I'll continue to experiment; I've got nothing to lose.

[ubizmo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

The square method sounds similar to Greg Willis's method of keeping the right wrist bent (unless I'm reading his tutorial incorrectly).

I'm pretty sure Greg would say that my method requires me to "swat" the ball, which his drill tries to stop.

[Simon Woo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

http://www.golfdigest.com/instructio...etofgolf1.html, that cmays posted? There's some really fascinating material there.

Yes it's so enlightening! But does it seem to suggest that you can do anything and still be good at golf?

A short backswing can be ugly. I think with the square swing, the backswing may or may not be short; it depends on the extent of the shoulder turn, not the wrist hinge.

Hmm I don't know if I got the idea correctly, but I was referring to the top of the swing, where the clubface is facing a quite awkward direction.. At the top of your new swing, where does the club head/toe actually point?

I don't actually see why the square swing would lead to a lack of delayed release. But this is something I don't understand very well.

I guess I was referring to the simple swing, where I assumed upon impact, the hands are in line or in front of the club head as opposed to behind, therefore not being able to create a lagging effect unless the right wrist is cupped (a no-no?). Does that make sense?

[Simon Woo]

Re: Club face and cocking club back--2 methods

Hi Todd you are absolutely right. This is the "ugly" top of the swing that I was mentioning I saw someone do at the range that day. Well now I know, it's a Moe Norman swing, and it works just as well