Secret In The Dirt - Golf's Greatest Social Network

I have one I could share..

I compiled this from four YouTube videos uploaded by patrickdereus.
I think it runs in the same vein as the previous video Eric Hamlin posted.
Probably of little value to a low handicapper as they already have a smooth transition. Unlike me who suffers from jerking the club from the top resulting in all types of misses.

Eric,
Hello. Welcome to the Optimal thread. I was hoping we would get some younger folks posting swings in this thread eventually and you are the third one in the last month to do so. HaHa on this is optimum. I have said that before and you see where that got me. See my rule #10 that you will be optimizing for the rest of your life if you want to have steady improvement or be at your optimum at any age. Just for the record, I have no clue who you are, have never spoken to you, never PM'd you, nothing. I am seeing your swing for the first time as of an hour ago so these are my initial impressions.

I took a look at your swing and you definitely have some talent. You have a nice smooth swing and good balance. I wanted to draw your attention to a couple things. When I first saw your swing, I was thinking George Knudson so I decided to give you a few images of George vs you so you can see what I am seeing. At setup, you have your hands very high...this might be due to upright clubs or you just like to have your hands high. Most great players will have their hands much lower at setup. Your first move on the takeaway is to go up with your hands a little where George goes down and gets the club going up. Your hands go up and get the club going flat and around. At the top of the backswing, you are very flat. Most great players have the shaft over their right shoulder or inside it. There have obviously been some tour players with a similar backswing as yours...I noticed you had Tommy Armour on your channel so maybe he is who you are emulating or like his move because it looks similar to yours or you have seen him or you like his swing...not sure. In transition, you have the club outside the shoulders with the clubface in a shut position so it is hard for your arms to leverage your body in transition but you still do a nice job of rotating your package nicely though the ball and you have good body speed. It is definitely an effective swing. My belief is you could get more power by getting your hands lower at address and going more in and up on the takeaway to get that shaft over your right shoulder in transition and then smash it from there. It would be a fairly easy tweak for you. My belief is your misses will be a block dead right or a hook left, but I am not sure because I obviously never saw you play under the gun in a tournament coming down the stretch to see how your swing holds up. It is up to you what you want to do obviously. I believe I could help you improve further. If you already have a teacher, then fine. If you are going it alone, then that is great...keep up the good work.
Thanks,
Rock
Eric Hamlin wrote:

Don,
I appreciate you putting this together. I like how he thinks. Yes, you have to be smooth in transition and I like how he explains how the clubhead goes down instead of most golfers having an image of the clubhead just going around like a Ferris wheel. I also particularly like him explaining how to maximize what you got if you grab and hit from the top to at least keep the ball in play by making a compensation in your body movement. Good thinking and it is simple.
Thanks,
Rock
Don wrote:

Jim,
HaHa. You updated your baby picture. I like the other one better, but I am glad you think you have progressed to crawling now. Can you post an image of what you are going to look like when you have your swing optimized. You and Johnny do your thing. It sounds like you two are having fun with it so keep on doing it. On the grip, it sounds like you are going more for Dariusz's Biokinetic grip. I know that works well when I twist the hands together which sounds similar to what you are saying with the left hand going under. I am not sure what you guys are working on but you are having fun and that is key to getting better at anything. It frees you up so your best can come out. I don't care about Wow factor as long as you are doing the work and getting better. There is no shortcut to owning your swing as all of the quick fixers have everyone believing. You are not getting to a point where you can break 75 from the tips on any course unless you have hit thousands and thousands of balls and play thousands of holes. I don't want you two to stay in the garage too long though as you have nice athletic ability and you need to get out on the course and keep your hunting skills sharp. Glad to have you in the thread.
Thanks,
Rock
Jim Franks wrote:

Sorry Doug, re-reading my post I see why you said what you did. My mistake.

I meant to say that AFTER I take my grip and begin the backswing, I feel the left hand working under the right to get the club back without rolling my arms open. Not twisting my hands in the grip.

Bad use of the written word on my part.

We just think my right hand is able to act too independently unless it is more on top of my left and better connected to it.

I have to say this thread is turning into a great learning tool far all..great job


I would never have known, when I took up this tough game back many many moons ago in 1982...that their is so many ways and teachings to strike that little white ball. But the nice thing, we all have one objective..no matter where we are living in the world..we all want to get better



Great job starting this thread Doug

JesseV wrote:


All it takes 15 minutes of rotational and pivot exercise daily for a month using a medicine ball and two balance cushions. It builds the muscles that you need for rotational balance and power effectively and quickly. No hitting impulse or over the top moves.

Eric Hamlin wrote:


Very Nice swing Eric for a home grown action.

How did you fall into Cochran&Stobbs or Homer Kelley pseudo science traps at such a young age?

Nice work on your swing Eric. It is enviable, indeed!

I am so happy to see younger players enjoy the game as you appear to.

Keep on digging in the dirt my friend!

JIm

Well, good day today... Slammed sole down/ turn left towards target..as upper body resists...and looked excellent at waste level pre impact. Will post front on and better vid tonight




Also, just some comments on some books I ordered..I love to read about golf and such..so i ordered this from amazon.. Gravity golf/ Gerry hogan golf/ and the Hindu bible.. How does those choices sound?



Very close..and my front on looks excellent

Little secret..if your right eye dominant, having slight head tilt to the right ( right handed) is natural

8 degrees and snowing and windy..wore a mask today


Love you guys..

Chris

Ok..here is front and side...

Enjoy

GreenLies wrote:


I picked up Cochran & Stobbs after The World Scientific Congress of Golf. A 28 year old biomechanist introduced me to the book, and I introduced him to The Golfing Machine.. I'd have to say Search for the Perfect Swing is the better book because I realized that TGM is just simply 1-L and the 5-3's. I think you're right about The Golfing Machine being a pseudo science, but wrong about Cochran & Stobbs' also being a pseudo science. It is literally a science text book on every detail their is in the game of golf. From the Double Pendulum (which is a real thing - scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DoublePendulum.html ), to biomechanics; and from everything about ball flight, to statistical analysis on a round of golf. There's even more information in there! For a book that was written in 1968 (a year before TGM) it was WAY ahead of it's time; and all the science is still accurate to this day.. except for the old club and old ball, which doesn't matter too much.

Eric Hamlin wrote:




I think you're right, Eric. I shouldn't put Cochran & Stobbs book which is based on science by true scientists using scientific methods and research in the same category with Homer's pseudo scientific Golfing Machine.

However their Double Pendulum model of the swing (i.e. the left arm/wrist and the club) is very elementary/basic model and missing the most important power factors of a golf swing (lower body, hips, torso, shoulders, and the right arm/hand).

Pendulum and Double pendulum swings have speed but not much power. As you may know, 80% of the swing power, for a right handed golfer, comes from upper body through the right shoulder, arm, and hand which is missing from Cochran & Stobbs Double Pendulum model.

Green lies/and Eric..I read all of those books, I think a lot of us now want something that will work that is simple and repeatable. Honestly, it is a club and ball..just hit it..should be our intentions. I've scene too many young juniors pick up a club for the 1 st few times and have a perfect swing with no thoughts at all..but hit and have fun. All of these doctrines/ philosophies and such are great and I love them as you do,, but come on,,golf in its simplest form is a club and a ball.

I'm posting my swings for all amateurs of the nation/ maybe the world..trying to find a technique that will help me and help them as well. My goal is to crack this wide open, and find a feel or trigger that can help assist us.. I'm just not beating balls aimlessly for enjoyment, I'm doing this as a learning experience for all of us to share. You all have been more than helpful, which I will always be grateful for. Now it is my time to get this, and develop a method that we can learn from

That is why Doug is so valuable , he had been out there using every method known to man..he knows what works and what doesn't. Importantly he is an amateur like us, who loves the game. Those are the guys that will crack this code wide open for us. The ones who I understand what we are going through,

I love all the books and disciplines as you do,,but it will take an amateur to figure this out for us

God speed

Chris

I don't think it does, in fact Chapter 9 talks about that very topic; in great detail. The Double Pendulum model is great because it recognizes the body-club system of having a great deal of symmetry; not to mention it's a legit way to go about physics. The Double Pendulum isn't just the left arm either; a lot of times it's interpreted that way, but that's not the case. As described in Ch. 2; the 1st pendulum (lever) goes from the center of the body to the hands, and the 2nd pendulum (lever) goes from the hands to the clubhead. What's great about The Double Pendulum is that the title already encourages rhythm, and timing. As for power; more power in the golf stroke is just more velocity, because the ball really doesn't know or care about how strong the player is..

As for keeping it simple, I have found that teaching The Double Pendulum has been quite successful because the student has been given an easy visual of what they need to do, swing the whole golf club. Manuel de la Torre helps me keep it simple. The motion is; Address-Parallel-Top-Parallel-Impact-Parallel-Finish! There's actually a great exercise to that.. I have a lot more tools in my toolbox for teaching, but when it comes to Cochran & Stobbs I don't teach more than the model. Keeping it simple is crucial to teaching, but you should have all the information you need in case they want the complex answer.

Address-Parallel-Top-Parallel-Impact-Parallel-Finish!

Johnny and I have been working on my OTT. I can now feel the 'weight' of the club after today's work and my drilling. Thanks for the pointers, Linda!

Getting closer, still lots of un-training to be done before I am actually working on what will be 'my' swing.

Double pendulum model is one of the worst concepts applied to golf instruction. Not only it does not reflect 3-D reality (favours 2-D geometry over physics and anatomy which is plain stupid thing) but it creates false concepts that are being spreaded further.

Avoid everything that calls for double pendulum.

Cheers

www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/leecommotion2.php
Dariusz,
Agreed. I am not a big fan of the double pendulum model for coaching someone about the golf swing. However, it can be used as a model to do some analysis of a golf swing...yes, very simplified analysis but it is better than no analysis. Dave Tutelman did an article awhile back and I want to draw your attention to the analysis he did of my golf swing...Dec2010. If you study Page 2 of his article, I think the r(t) method he uses to model my golf swing is very interesting and it gives a quantitative calculation of distance which I like. If you have observed the Picasso's that Eyball has done of my swing and others, you will find that the distance from the clubhead to the C6 is much less on the downswing than the backswing at any point in time. If you read his analysis on Page 2, you will find out how the radius...from center of body of rotation to the center of my hands...actually varied in my swing versus time and he calculates a lower and upper bound on distance that I would get based on that. How he calculates the r(t) is straightforward in terms of using pixels. The way he calculates distance based on the r(t) is logical and based on physics, geometry, and mathematics.

It would be of value to have an automated program that would take anyones videos (DTL and Face On) and calculate their r(t) to tell them how far away they are from an optimized r(t) to give them an idea of how much distance they are away from their optimized distance. In summary, the value of a swing model...double pendulum is not the best I am sure but it is simple which is of value...is to give golfers a more quantitative assessment of what they are actually doing and extrapolate from that what is possible. I see value in being able to do that. In the meantime, the golf ball tells you the truth of what is happening. You can do experiments to validate a swing technique by the distance it produces and optimize your swing to optimize the distance. I think that is better than a coach giving a qualitative assessment of your swing...wow, your swing looks nice and you really hit that one nice. Do you believe this idea of a quantitative assessment of a golf swing to give you an idea of how close you are to an optimized golf swing has any merit?
Thanks,
Rock

Rock,
All concepts that help to find a solution are good. Double pendulum model can be applied to some stages of the motion -- and this will be helpful, not dangerous. However, if such concepts become basis for motion concepts -- it brings danger.

Keep up what you're doing.

Cheers

Johnny and I have been working on my OTT. I can now feel the 'weight' of the club after today's work and my drilling;;


Jim,

You look relaxed, fluid.


Thank goodness someone did the research.

Eric,
Agree with you that keeping it simple is important aspect of coaching for some students...students have varying capacities to process information and to learn as I am sure you have observed in your coaching as well as in school as well as in life. What I have observed is coaching golfers about the target and how to know their relationship to the target as being very important. Staying on balance with a nice tempo and rhythm geared toward getting the golf ball to go to the target is a nice simple way to coach. For the most part, the body knows what to do if you allow it to do it. Most people get poor visuals of what their swing should do from a wide variety of sources and it would be best to clear their mind of all that. Most tour pros use something simple as their swing key...one-two, back-through, up-down... and are focusing on the target with no care about what is going on in their swing. Most amateurs will say will they have their swing 'grooved' so they can keep it that simple. From my logic, why would an amateur want to make it more complicated than a pro? Is that going to make the results better? The answer is No it is not. However, most cannot go out on the course and truly focus on the target, then swing the club, and accept the results and keep doing that until they get better. They want the quick fix that shortcuts the process. There is no shortcut. You may find something that works better for a day or two or three and think you have the shortcut...handicaps haven't gone down for the average golfer since before you were born so that should be proof that these quick fixes that are out there do not work. You have to put in the time keeping it simple for the fruits of your labor to payoff. If you want to use double pendulum as you simplified golf visual, then I cannot stop you...you have free will. However, please consider what you are doing to your student by giving a simplified swing model that is not valid in reality. I believe it would be better to focus on the basics of target, balance, tempo and rhythm and be very observant on how they are in those areas. Are they hitting it solid, is it going at the target, and make adjustments in your coaching to give them the correlations between what they are doing and the results. Look at their finish position after every shot and the result and eventually you will be able to find correlations between the two. We have seen the videos of Johnny Miller showing finish positions for a fade. There is also one for a draw and a straight shot..low and high shot. You have finish as the final piece of your swing instruction. Do you need more than that? Have you ever tried showing someone the finish position you want them in for the shot you would like them to hit? This involves real-time coaching sometimes on a shot-by-shot basis. I am not intending to get on you about your teaching, but to coach you in another technique of coaching to help you evolve and improve.
Thanks,
Rock
Eric Hamlin wrote:

If they can hold the finish, it's a proper finish.

I made a new video.. youtu.be/KcsDrHdv0sw

its meh

Jim,
I analyzed your swings on the video. What jumped out at me is you had slowed down and your finish was not complete as it was on 10Jan2013. I captured an image of you in transition and your finish position. The one on the left is from 10Jan2013 and the one on the right is from 1Feb2013. In transition, the one on the left your clubface is nice and square and you are in a good position to hit. The one on the right your clubface is shut. In you follow through, the one on the left is nice and full and the one on the right is short and not complete relative to the 10Jan2013.

I appreciate you believe you are going to break yourself down to the root and build yourself up. I am seeing no evidence that is working. I really want you to do great, but I am really concerned about what you are doing. When I frame through the swings, your clubhead speed has gotten significantly slower. I don't see any dramatic changes in your swing. Yes, your swing is a little shorter, but your cluface is shut in transition and you are not going at it through impact.

As I said before, it is great you are working on your swing and you are enjoying it. I would like you to consider that you may be overloading yourself on what you do not want to do...swing too long and OTT...instead of what you do want to do...hit the ball long and at the target. I agree that feeling the mass from the takeaway to the finish is a good thought to have. I am just questioning your focus on what you do not want to do is going to cause it to go away....there is logic in that but I do not believe that will get you where you want to go.
Thanks,
Rock
Jim Franks wrote:

Eric,
Now you are talking...I see you are a real golfer now...hitting off the dirt like that leads me to believe that you love to hit balls. Since we are on the topic of finish positions, I decided to capture an impact finish superposition. What it shows is you really got your lower body all the way left at impact into the same position you were at in the finish. You have a nice move...nice balance tempo and rhythm and continue to impress. It will be interesting to see you develop. You nailed that shot off the dirt nicely. I wanted to make you aware of a new invention, it is called a tripod:) You can mount your camera on it and it will keep the images stable and then you and your friend can enjoy the practice better...and I can better analyze the video.
Thanks,
Rock
Eric Hamlin wrote: