But WHY shallow the shaft?

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Three key points.

 

1. You shallow correctly. Dropping hands excessively, or dropping the right shoulder are two examples of not...

2. You do it without opening the club face.

3. You don’t do it excessively.

 

Ok, but that’s all ‘how’. People who don’t understand ‘why’ and how it fits into everything else are going to hear “shallow!” and think that’s all that matters. What’s your “Why?”

 

You’ve gotten some good answers but this is where golfers get themselves in trouble. They want too many why’s.

 

Why should you breath? You will die if you don’t. Does it matter about oxygen transfer into the blood stream and all of the steps after?

Why should you not redline your car? Because the engine is in danger of exploding. Do you need to know more than that.

 

It’s the optimum way to do it. Trying to understand the minutia gets you, as a golfer, in trouble.

 

Ah! No, I’m on the “why should I even give a f***?” end of the spectrum. So far, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t understand why everyone just doesn’t take the club back as far as they can with their right hand and beat tf out it. (If you were going to slap your mother-in-law to death, would you really even worry about your backswing?)

[MonteScheinblum]

Three key points.

 

1. You shallow correctly. Dropping hands excessively, or dropping the right shoulder are two examples of not...

2. You do it without opening the club face.

3. You don’t do it excessively.

 

Ok, but that’s all ‘how’. People who don’t understand ‘why’ and how it fits into everything else are going to hear “shallow!” and think that’s all that matters. What’s your “Why?”

 

You’ve gotten some good answers but this is where golfers get themselves in trouble. They want too many why’s.

 

Why should you breath? You will die if you don’t. Does it matter about oxygen transfer into the blood stream and all of the steps after?

Why should you not redline your car? Because the engine is in danger of exploding. Do you need to know more than that.

 

It’s the optimum way to do it. Trying to understand the minutia gets you, as a golfer, in trouble.

 

Ah! No, I’m on the “why should I even give a f***?” end of the spectrum. So far, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t understand why everyone just doesn’t take the club back as far as they can with their right hand and beat tf out it. (If you were going to slap your mother-in-law to death, would you really even worry about your backswing?)

 

Well,if you’re going to be your usual condescending self, I’ll end my part in this of this conversation by saying your take on Floyd’s swing was way off as well.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Three key points.

 

1. You shallow correctly. Dropping hands excessively, or dropping the right shoulder are two examples of not...

2. You do it without opening the club face.

3. You don’t do it excessively.

 

Ok, but that’s all ‘how’. People who don’t understand ‘why’ and how it fits into everything else are going to hear “shallow!” and think that’s all that matters. What’s your “Why?”

 

You’ve gotten some good answers but this is where golfers get themselves in trouble. They want too many why’s.

 

Why should you breath? You will die if you don’t. Does it matter about oxygen transfer into the blood stream and all of the steps after?

Why should you not redline your car? Because the engine is in danger of exploding. Do you need to know more than that.

 

It’s the optimum way to do it. Trying to understand the minutia gets you, as a golfer, in trouble.

 

Ah! No, I’m on the “why should I even give a f***?” end of the spectrum. So far, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t understand why everyone just doesn’t take the club back as far as they can with their right hand and beat tf out it. (If you were going to slap your mother-in-law to death, would you really even worry about your backswing?)

 

Well,if you’re going to be your usual condescending self, I’ll end my part in this of this conversation by saying your take on Floyd’s swing was way off as well.

 

I assure you, I’m not being condescending. I was just trying to be very upfront about my perspective. If there’s a persuasive reason to shallow the club, it’s something I’d seriously consider, but the suggestion to do so, without a persuasive reason to do so (at least, to me) is not enough.

 

At least to me, an understanding behind an idea is important. It’s more persuasive. If I have a mistaken concept, the more systematically pervasive that mistaken concept is, the less likely a local override I don’t yet believe in has a chance for taking effect. That’s why I need to understand the essence of why.

[sethdavidsdad]

Listen at about the 33 minute mark. Jeff Smith tells you the answer Why.

 

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/e/f/5/ef57b97e683d6087/20180521_OntheMark.mp3?c_id=21129150&cs_id=21129150&expiration=1527135550&hwt=1b7dc5dc3b98d34d5588637d5b0438a9

[MonteScheinblum]

Listen at about the 33 minute mark. Jeff Smith tells you the answer Why.

 

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/e/f/5/ef57b97e683d6087/20180521_OntheMark.mp3?c_id=21129150&cs_id=21129150&expiration=1527135550&hwt=1b7dc5dc3b98d34d5588637d5b0438a9

 

Nice.

[NotForeLong]

 

 

Ok, but that’s all ‘how’. People who don’t understand ‘why’ and how it fits into everything else are going to hear “shallow!” and think that’s all that matters. What’s your “Why?”

 

You’ve gotten some good answers but this is where golfers get themselves in trouble. They want too many why’s.

 

Why should you breath? You will die if you don’t. Does it matter about oxygen transfer into the blood stream and all of the steps after?

Why should you not redline your car? Because the engine is in danger of exploding. Do you need to know more than that.

 

It’s the optimum way to do it. Trying to understand the minutia gets you, as a golfer, in trouble.

 

Ah! No, I’m on the “why should I even give a f***?” end of the spectrum. So far, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t understand why everyone just doesn’t take the club back as far as they can with their right hand and beat tf out it. (If you were going to slap your mother-in-law to death, would you really even worry about your backswing?)

 

Well,if you’re going to be your usual condescending self, I’ll end my part in this of this conversation by saying your take on Floyd’s swing was way off as well.

 

I assure you, I’m not being condescending. I was just trying to be very upfront about my perspective. If there’s a persuasive reason to shallow the club, it’s something I’d seriously consider, but the suggestion to do so, without a persuasive reason to do so (at least, to me) is not enough.

 

At least to me, an understanding behind an idea is important. It’s more persuasive. If I have a mistaken concept, the more systematically pervasive that mistaken concept is, the less likely a local override I don’t yet believe in has a chance for taking effect. That’s why I need to understand the essence of why.

 

Literally the very first reply to your initial post has a video that explains it as clearly as possible. As for your suggestion that the reasons haven’t been persuasive enough, why should any of us care whether you shallow the club or not? Who even told you to do it? IMO you are acting like you are somehow owed an explanation for something when you aren’t and in any event you’ve already gotten the explanation.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Listen at about the 33 minute mark. Jeff Smith tells you the answer Why.

 

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/e/f/5/ef57b97e683d6087/20180521_OntheMark.mp3?c_id=21129150&cs_id=21129150&expiration=1527135550&hwt=1b7dc5dc3b98d34d5588637d5b0438a9

 

Thank you, but I’m afraid that lost me. Part of my issue is that I’ve used a very strong left hand grip for most of the golf I’ve ever played (it started as a ‘bandaid’ that worked). So, in my mind, I think of cupping in a very strong grip as perhaps playing the same role as cocking in a neutral grip, but I don’t know (and what about a sort of strong grip?).

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Literally the very first reply to your initial post has a video that explains it as clearly as possible. As for your suggestion that the reasons haven’t been persuasive enough, why should any of us care whether you shallow the club or not? Who even told you to do it? IMO you are acting like you are somehow owed an explanation for something when you aren’t and in any event you’ve already gotten the explanation.

 

Owed an explanation? Hm! I don't know where you got that idea. I just asked the question. Secondly, if that's the clearest possible answer to my question, then I'm screwed as it totally eluded me. This is the kind of answer I'm looking for - if I asked "why should I hit the ball first and not the planet Earth?", the type of answer I'm looking for might be "because, if you hit the planet Earth first, all your energy would be spent on the Earth, not the ball." That's like a Sesame Street answer. I'm looking for something that's as simple as that. I didn't make that clear, so that's on me and I apologize for that.

 

If you don’t understand how Floyd isn’t shallowing, you don’t understand what shallowing is. Might want to learn the “what” before the “why”

 

I just saw this (missed it until just now). Not that I'm owed an explanation, but what is shallowing, then? (Good point, btw. Maybe that's why I don't understand it. Thanks.)

[PutterKilledTheDream]

Listen at about the 33 minute mark. Jeff Smith tells you the answer Why.

 

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/e/f/5/ef57b97e683d6087/20180521_OntheMark.mp3?c_id=21129150&cs_id=21129150&expiration=1527135550&hwt=1b7dc5dc3b98d34d5588637d5b0438a9

Gatorhator never posts around here anymore..... it all ended when Dr Lomis vanished

[wmblake2000]

Literally the very first reply to your initial post has a video that explains it as clearly as possible. As for your suggestion that the reasons haven’t been persuasive enough, why should any of us care whether you shallow the club or not? Who even told you to do it? IMO you are acting like you are somehow owed an explanation for something when you aren’t and in any event you’ve already gotten the explanation.

 

Owed an explanation? Hm! I don't know where you got that idea. I just asked the question. Secondly, if that's the clearest possible answer to my question, then I'm screwed as it totally eluded me. This is the kind of answer I'm looking for - if I asked "why should I hit the ball first and not the planet Earth?", the type of answer I'm looking for might be "because, if you hit the planet Earth first, all your energy would be spent on the Earth, not the ball." That's like a Sesame Street answer. I'm looking for something that's as simple as that. I didn't make that clear, so that's on me and I apologize for that.

 

If you don’t understand how Floyd isn’t shallowing, you don’t understand what shallowing is. Might want to learn the “what” before the “why”

 

I just saw this (missed it until just now). Not that I'm owed an explanation, but what is shallowing, then? (Good point, btw. Maybe that's why I don't understand it. Thanks.)

 

I'm really not following what is at the base of your question? Is it 'should I go thru the effort to shallow?'

 

I have also asked this question.

 

The best answer to why I have is, a shaft on plane also requires the especially the trail arm to be in position to make optimal strike (shaft leaning forward, low point in front of ball, square face, with max speed generated through the multiple sources of speed, aka 'efficient.'). Other planes do not allow all the above benefit - at least, not as consistently because other planes require more supporting motion to deliver similar results.

 

My experience is, thus far, this is all valid.

 

But is it worth the effort for you? There's no one else who can answer this except you.

[Silky]

My understanding is the counterbalancing and counteracting. One shifts, tilts the spine, and turns the torso around the spine to swing the club. In turning around the spine, the pivot is divided into lead side and trail side where they counteracting like on opposite sides of a seesaw. So the lead side of the torso is counterbalancing and counteracting the golf club through the trail side and the arms. The most efficient counteraction is to have the center of masses of the two sides of the seesaw and the fulcrum be on the same plane.

 

Now, the next "why" for me is why the backswing should be steeper than the downswing?

[Smash Factors]

Why shallow the shaft?

 

Look at the main difference between a V-shaped swing vs a U-shaped swing.

 

With a V-shaped (Steep) swing, there's a very short period of time where the face has an opportunity to square up with the path.

 

With a U-shaped (Shallow) swing, there's a longer period of time where the face can square up to the path.

[dap]

Well we got the how's and why's so what about real world application?

 

Still yet to see anyone who has a steep transition go meaningfully shallow, at least not permanently. If it's not in your DNA, it's not in your DNA.

 

Here's an example of a player going at it for about 10 years trying to flatten his transition. Still steep.

 

 

 

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Why shallow the shaft?

 

Look at the main difference between a V-shaped swing vs a U-shaped swing.

 

With a V-shaped (Steep) swing, there's a very short period of time where the face has an opportunity to square up with the path.

 

With a U-shaped (Shallow) swing, there's a longer period of time where the face can square up to the path.

 

Ugh! For me, the V-shape comes from a very narrow downswing. And it doesn't seem to matter what plane it's on. In this instance, moving the ball forward helps as I set up with lots more shaft lean than is typical (and I really don't know if that increases even more in my downswing, or not), plus, for most of my collection of swings, I use a very strong grip. I can see how shallowing the club (at least, from a novice's view of that term) would make the collision with the ground less of an issue, so that's something.

 

 

Now, the next "why" for me is why the backswing should be steeper than the downswing?

 

Whether I take it back steeply or flat, it always seems to come back down on the same plane. Narrow, or wide, seem to be my variables.

 

 

I'm really not following what is at the base of your question? Is it 'should I go thru the effort to shallow?'

 

I have also asked this question.

 

The best answer to why I have is, a shaft on plane also requires the especially the trail arm to be in position to make optimal strike (shaft leaning forward, low point in front of ball, square face, with max speed generated through the multiple sources of speed, aka 'efficient.'). Other planes do not allow all the above benefit - at least, not as consistently because other planes require more supporting motion to deliver similar results.

 

My experience is, thus far, this is all valid.

 

But is it worth the effort for you? There's no one else who can answer this except you.

 

Well, I really don't know. It might be were an explanation of why were to strike a chord in me. I've always taught myself (it's what I want to do, plus, I'm obviously a pain in the ***, so...). Most of my progress has been made when I get an idea that strikes me as fascinating. It can be anything from an idea about the swing someone mentions to a persuasive argument someone makes to just noticing something in someone else's swing that seems like something worth experimenting with.

[wmblake2000]

Why shallow the shaft?

 

Look at the main difference between a V-shaped swing vs a U-shaped swing.

 

With a V-shaped (Steep) swing, there's a very short period of time where the face has an opportunity to square up with the path.

 

With a U-shaped (Shallow) swing, there's a longer period of time where the face can square up to the path.

 

Ugh! For me, the V-shape comes from a very narrow downswing. And it doesn't seem to matter what plane it's on. In this instance, moving the ball forward helps as I set up with lots more shaft lean than is typical (and I really don't know if that increases even more in my downswing, or not), plus, for most of my collection of swings, I use a very strong grip. I can see how shallowing the club (at least, from a novice's view of that term) would make the collision with the ground less of an issue, so that's something.

 

 

Now, the next "why" for me is why the backswing should be steeper than the downswing?

 

Whether I take it back steeply or flat, it always seems to come back down on the same plane. Narrow, or wide, seem to be my variables.

 

 

I'm really not following what is at the base of your question? Is it 'should I go thru the effort to shallow?'

 

I have also asked this question.

 

The best answer to why I have is, a shaft on plane also requires the especially the trail arm to be in position to make optimal strike (shaft leaning forward, low point in front of ball, square face, with max speed generated through the multiple sources of speed, aka 'efficient.'). Other planes do not allow all the above benefit - at least, not as consistently because other planes require more supporting motion to deliver similar results.

 

My experience is, thus far, this is all valid.

 

But is it worth the effort for you? There's no one else who can answer this except you.

 

Well, I really don't know. It might be were an explanation of why were to strike a chord in me. I've always taught myself (it's what I want to do, plus, I'm obviously a pain in the ***, so...). Most of my progress has been made when I get an idea that strikes me as fascinating. It can be anything from an idea about the swing someone mentions to a persuasive argument someone makes to just noticing something in someone else's swing that seems like something worth experimenting with.

 

I'll tell you, at least for me, 'shallowing' the club has been hard as hell to learn. And I'm still a work in progress, but I am close.

 

Bottom line; longer, straighter, more consistent. Women want me, men want to be like me. Endorsement money falls like rain from the sky. My hair grew back.

[dap]

Tiger Woods 2000 didn't shallow. Probably best ballstriking season of all time.

 

 

[dg_1983]

Just coz

 

While I agree with the notion of understanding why. There becomes a point where the success seen in others of being "flatter" rather than "steeper" becomes reason enough.

[glk]

Tiger Woods 2000 didn't shallow. Probably best ballstriking season of all time.

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

Really? He clearly gets the COM of the club below his hand path.

 

From Wayne D's Tiger swing analysis comparing his 2000 swing to his 2011 (photo is of his 2000 swing around the 3:00 mark)

 

 

[Dbogey]

great topic, I think everyone has their own DNA in their swing and trying to change that DNA can be very difficult. Maybe I missed this but have you sought out a teaching professional who can help you? Do you even need to shallow out? Maybe post a video and let some of the experts on here take a look?

[MountainGoat]

 

You’ve gotten some good answers but this is where golfers get themselves in trouble. They want too many why’s.

 

Why should you breath? You will die if you don’t. Does it matter about oxygen transfer into the blood stream and all of the steps after?

Why should you not redline your car? Because the engine is in danger of exploding. Do you need to know more than that.

 

It’s the optimum way to do it. Trying to understand the minutia gets you, as a golfer, in trouble.

 

I don't want to get into this discussion except to say that your life ends the day you stop asking "why".

[iteachgolf]

Tiger Woods 2000 didn't shallow. Probably best ballstriking season of all time.

 

 

 

Huh? The club is clearly shallowing/flattening in transition.

[dap]

Tiger Woods 2000 didn't shallow. Probably best ballstriking season of all time.

 

 

[media=]

[/media]

Really? He clearly gets the COM of the club below his hand path.

 

From Wayne D's Tiger swing analysis comparing his 2000 swing to his 2011 (photo is of his 2000 swing around the 3:00 mark)

 

 

You're talking about shallowing relative to hand path. You can still be a little steep even if you shallow relative to hand path.I am assuming the OP means shallowing relative to the ball.

 

[dap]

While Grady Dickens might be technically shallowing, he would still be considered to be transitioning steep.

 

[dap]

Grady is shallowing from a steep transition. Here is Brooks Koepka doing the opposite. He is steepening from a very shallow transition. Shallowing is required for Grady because he's in a steep position as he's transitioning. Shallowing is not required for Koepka because he's already in a shallow position in transition.

 

 

 

[iteachgolf]

Grady is shallowing from a steep transition. Here is Brooks Koepka doing the opposite. He is steepening from a very shallow transition. Shallowing is required for Grady because he's in a steep position as he's transitioning. Shallowing is not required for Koepka because he's already in a shallow position in transition.

 

 

 

Again, huh? Brooks is shallowing in transition. You do realize the camera angle and the lense in he Grady video is horribly skewing how it looks don’t you?

[dap]

Grady is shallowing from a steep transition. Here is Brooks Koepka doing the opposite. He is steepening from a very shallow transition. Shallowing is required for Grady because he's in a steep position as he's transitioning. Shallowing is not required for Koepka because he's already in a shallow position in transition.

 

 

 

Again, huh? Brooks is shallowing in transition. You do realize the camera angle and the lense in he Grady video is horribly skewing how it looks don’t you?

I don't consider Brooks to be shallowing in transition. He's already in a very shallow position at the top of his backswing. I would consider Ryan Moore to be shallowing in transition. As for Grady, every swing I have seen from any angle he is steep in transition except maybe bar one when he was doing exaggerated drills.

 

[Ghost of Snead]

Shallower you can get, the more efficiently you transfer energy from the clubhead to the ball.

 

The shallowest one can get is horizontal. Taking your comment literally, were you to swing horizontally, you'd miss the ball entirely. So, shallowing, up to a point, may be helpful, but beyond that, it's no longer a good idea.

 

 

Often times a player hooks the ball in large part due to being too steep.

 

You're basically trying to get the Center of Mass of the club below the plane of the path of the hands in the downswing. Snead, Miller Barber had an 'over the top' look, but the path of the Center of Mass traveled under where the hands traveled. This allowed them to return the club head to the ball more efficiently instead of having to rely on getting into early extension and time it just right as well as being able to control the club face better. And it allowed them to deliver the club head with more velocity as well.

 

The players that have the CoM more in line with their hand path are/were guys like Trevor Immelman, Aaron Baddley and Charles Howell III. All players that had issues with very steep attack angles and not striking the ball all that well. All three of them have taken steps to get the CoM traveling below their hand path. CH3 has had the greatest success and has shallowed out his AoA and is having his best ballstriking season in over a decade.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

The thing I noticed for the first in the video glk posted, one I've seen before, is that you want the center of mass of the club to be 'inside the ball', at the very least (I don't think I've ever been outside it, ever). And you're saying you want the center of mass 'inside the hands', so to speak, yes? If the center of the club's mass is below the hands on the downswing, at some point, the center of mass of the club has to go above the plane of hands, or 'outside the hands' (to continue that imagery), or the clubhead will go between the hands and feet instead of going out to hit the ball, is that correct?

 

So, I still don't understand how players, like Ray Floyd, who take the club back too flat and are laid off at the top of their swing, would be considered to be shallowing the club on their downswing. It seems to me, as they are already shallow in their backswing and at the top of their backswing, they could still steepen the club in the downswing but not so much as to cause the club's center of mass to go above their hands until it's necessary. Comparing Floyd to a contemporary, Trevino did the opposite. It is much easier to see Trevino shallowing the club for the downswing from where he took it back on the backswing.

 

If you don’t understand how Floyd isn’t shallowing, you don’t understand what shallowing is. Might want to learn the “what” before the “why”

 

Yep, go to ~ 7:00 in this vid and watch his hand path versus the approximate path of the club COM.

 

[iteachgolf]

Grady is shallowing from a steep transition. Here is Brooks Koepka doing the opposite. He is steepening from a very shallow transition. Shallowing is required for Grady because he's in a steep position as he's transitioning. Shallowing is not required for Koepka because he's already in a shallow position in transition.

 

 

 

Again, huh? Brooks is shallowing in transition. You do realize the camera angle and the lense in he Grady video is horribly skewing how it looks don’t you?

I don't consider Brooks to be shallowing in transition. He's already in a very shallow position at the top of his backswing. I would consider Ryan Moore to be shallowing in transition. As for Grady, every swing I have seen from any angle he is steep in transition except maybe bar one when he was doing exaggerated drills.

 

 

I don’t think you understand what shallowing is. Brooks is massively shallowing the shaft in transition. Grady is shallowing as well. You don’t have to have the shaft pointed way outside the ball to be shallowing the shaft and get the benefits from a physics perspective

 

[dap]

Grady is shallowing from a steep transition. Here is Brooks Koepka doing the opposite. He is steepening from a very shallow transition. Shallowing is required for Grady because he's in a steep position as he's transitioning. Shallowing is not required for Koepka because he's already in a shallow position in transition.

 

 

 

Again, huh? Brooks is shallowing in transition. You do realize the camera angle and the lense in he Grady video is horribly skewing how it looks don’t you?

I don't consider Brooks to be shallowing in transition. He's already in a very shallow position at the top of his backswing. I would consider Ryan Moore to be shallowing in transition. As for Grady, every swing I have seen from any angle he is steep in transition except maybe bar one when he was doing exaggerated drills.

 

 

I don’t think you understand what shallowing is. Brooks is massively shallowing the shaft in transition. Grady is shallowing as well. You don’t have to have the shaft pointed way outside the ball to be shallowing the shaft and get the benefits from a physics perspective

Umm I thought I already said in a previous post that you could be shallowing and also be in a steep position so I understand a lot more than you give me credit for. That would have been over most people's heads.

 

A few years ago I would have also said Brooks was shallowing in transition but he's in a group of players including Hogan in my opinion that shallow as they reach the top of the backswing and not in that initial move down. Brooks is past parallel at the top and the shaft pointed left of target which is an incredibly laid off position. He could not possibly shallow more coming down.

[oikos1]

Steep vs shallow is a continuum. Every swing has both, with the better pattern for the full swing appearing to be steep to shallow vs shallow to steep. Too much at either extreme is probably not a good thing, although we do continue to find life living in incredible extremes, so there's that.