But WHY shallow the shaft?

[Golfbeat]

 

Ha! Nice. I’m getting my ticket today to go there.

 

That's a long way from LA to the East Coast of Florida!

[Petunia Sprinkle]

I think the point about gravity is, if you drop an apple on someone's head, it's not going to hurt anywhere near as much as it would if you threw it as hard as you could.

 

What about super strong grips? If a big reason to 'shallow' is for the sake of squaring the club at impact, doesn't a strong grip eliminate that concern? (If anything, you'd be more worried about blowing past square and well onto 'fore left', yeah?)

 

I think that another reason for shallowing is to create a longer "flat spot" at the bottom. See this video of Andrew Rice.

 

 

(This explanation is gonna suck, but...)

Using the center of the shaft, for no other reason than as a frame of reference, if the clubhead is getting lower from and the hands are getting higher from, there will be a flat spot.

[WILDTHING]

I think the point about gravity is, if you drop an apple on someone's head, it's not going to hurt anywhere near as much as it would if you threw it as hard as you could.

 

What about super strong grips? If a big reason to 'shallow' is for the sake of squaring the club at impact, doesn't a strong grip eliminate that concern? (If anything, you'd be more worried about blowing past square and well onto 'fore left', yeah?)

 

I think that another reason for shallowing is to create a longer "flat spot" at the bottom. See this video of Andrew Rice.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

(This explanation is gonna suck, but...)

Using the center of the shaft, for no other reason than as a frame of reference, if the clubhead is getting lower from and the hands are getting higher from, there will be a flat spot.

 

Tbh the video makes no sense to me. There is no 'flat spot' from a geometry point of view, but he has used a shallower angle of approach because he's created a smaller angle between his arms and clubshaft and the club path is more conical approaching closer to impact .

 

Further by having that smaller angle between arms and clubshaft the clubhead has to travel a lot longer distance for every degree you rotate your lead forearm, so you can better control the rate of closure of the clubface (ie. because the MOI of the club around the lead forearm axis is larger and you can more easily feel the dynamic weight of the club).

[Swisstrader98]

So much good stuff in this thread. Great job folks! Should be pinned, imo.

 

Pinned after a handful of posts?

 

I’m not sure we’re even close to an answer nor will we ever be on this subject. This is like one of those Hogan Secret threads.

[Swisstrader98]

The quick answer as to “why” is that it keeps internet pros and others gainfully employed because it’s the latest buzzword since the X Factor.

 

I’ve been trying to get the concept myself and I think it’s done a pretty good job of screwing up my swing. I feel like I must manipulate the club at the top and re-route it on the downswing which is a complete and absolute death move. Doesn’t work for me.

[Golfbeat]

It's not a buzzword but a fact. All good players do it. The fact that you cannot do it it not proof that it should not happen.

[BrianMcG]

I was checking out some YouTube videos and found this interesting one of Phil. His shaft is much steeper in the downswing than the backswing. This may explain why he's great with wedges and everywhere which his driver.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_24xsNqaqcQr

 

 

I would have bet my paycheck that there wasn't anyone on tour Thant didn't shallow the club in transition.

[WILDTHING]

I was checking out some YouTube videos and found this interesting one of Phil. His shaft is much steeper in the downswing than the backswing. This may explain why he's great with wedges and everywhere which his driver.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_24xsNqaqcQr

 

 

I would have bet my paycheck that there wasn't anyone on tour Thant didn't shallow the club in transition.

 

I wouldn't worry about his backswing plane because its the downswing you need to focus on. If you drew a path from the centre of his hands (on the grip) and compared it to the the path of the 'Centre of Mass' of his club, you will find the COM takes a slightly shallower path than his hands. (but they will match up by impact).

 

The reason why Phil is everywhere with his driver is that the angle between his outstretched lead arm and clubshaft is very large (almost a straight line) , while he rapidly supinates his right forearm late before impact to square the clubface (see image below -from Jeff Mann's site- showing how rapid that supination is and where his timing needs to be perfect).

 

[Petunia Sprinkle]

I just came across this. Not sure what to make of it, though.

 

http://youtu.be/8xFWcgSWU-Y

 

I haven’t had a chance to play, or hit the range lately. I get the idea of the CoG of the club being below the hands (I think) When I use a very strong grip (I go back and forth, all the time), if what I think is the club’s CoG is below the hand path, the ball’s going way left. With a very strong grip, by cupping my left wrist and keeping the club ‘above my hands’, I can just pull the clubhead into the inside corner of the ball and hit it nearly dead straight. Were I not so easily swayed by the bright, shiny lights of screwball new theories (new to me, at least), I’d probably just do that all the time (left thumb be damned).

[Petunia Sprinkle]

I think the point about gravity is, if you drop an apple on someone's head, it's not going to hurt anywhere near as much as it would if you threw it as hard as you could.

 

What about super strong grips? If a big reason to 'shallow' is for the sake of squaring the club at impact, doesn't a strong grip eliminate that concern? (If anything, you'd be more worried about blowing past square and well onto 'fore left', yeah?)

 

I think that another reason for shallowing is to create a longer "flat spot" at the bottom. See this video of Andrew Rice.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

(This explanation is gonna suck, but...)

Using the center of the shaft, for no other reason than as a frame of reference, if the clubhead is getting lower from and the hands are getting higher from, there will be a flat spot.

 

Tbh the video makes no sense to me. There is no 'flat spot' from a geometry point of view, but he has used a shallower angle of approach because he's created a smaller angle between his arms and clubshaft and the club path is more conical approaching closer to impact .

 

Further by having that smaller angle between arms and clubshaft the clubhead has to travel a lot longer distance for every degree you rotate your lead forearm, so you can better control the rate of closure of the clubface (ie. because the MOI of the club around the lead forearm axis is larger and you can more easily feel the dynamic weight of the club).

 

I disagree. A flat spot, even in a straight line, is indeed possible. (If we're gonna get in a giant fight about it, it might be worth starting another thread.) Just think about the highly valued 'strip of bacon' divot. It's long, straight and usually a nearly uniform depth from start to finish. Or, haven't you ever put two or more balls in a straight line, headed toward the imaginary target, and hit all of them in one swing, just for the hell of it? How do you think either of those is possible without a straight flat spot?

[WILDTHING]

I think the point about gravity is, if you drop an apple on someone's head, it's not going to hurt anywhere near as much as it would if you threw it as hard as you could.

 

What about super strong grips? If a big reason to 'shallow' is for the sake of squaring the club at impact, doesn't a strong grip eliminate that concern? (If anything, you'd be more worried about blowing past square and well onto 'fore left', yeah?)

 

I think that another reason for shallowing is to create a longer "flat spot" at the bottom. See this video of Andrew Rice.

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

(This explanation is gonna suck, but...)

Using the center of the shaft, for no other reason than as a frame of reference, if the clubhead is getting lower from and the hands are getting higher from, there will be a flat spot.

 

Tbh the video makes no sense to me. There is no 'flat spot' from a geometry point of view, but he has used a shallower angle of approach because he's created a smaller angle between his arms and clubshaft and the club path is more conical approaching closer to impact .

 

Further by having that smaller angle between arms and clubshaft the clubhead has to travel a lot longer distance for every degree you rotate your lead forearm, so you can better control the rate of closure of the clubface (ie. because the MOI of the club around the lead forearm axis is larger and you can more easily feel the dynamic weight of the club).

 

I disagree. A flat spot, even in a straight line, is indeed possible. (If we're gonna get in a giant fight about it, it might be worth starting another thread.) Just think about the highly valued 'strip of bacon' divot. It's long, straight and usually a nearly uniform depth from start to finish. Or, haven't you ever put two or more balls in a straight line, headed toward the imaginary target, and hit all of them in one swing, just for the hell of it? How do you think either of those is possible without a straight flat spot?

 

No need for another thread , but I cannot envisage the golf swing as a straight line from a purely geometric point of view . So do you think that the first image below is a definition of the flat spot? If yes , then you are steering the golf club because I can only envisage the club path as an arc (at least in a swingers action).

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOb_nJySLwI

[Golfbeat]

What about this for a square (ish) flat spot?

 

[glk]

I'd post Tylers video on this but it is on his pay site.

 

So Young will have to do.

 

https://www.adamyoun...c-acceleration/

[KMeloney]

No need for another thread , but I cannot envisage the golf swing as a straight line from a purely geometric point of view . So do you think that the first image below is a definition of the flat spot? If yes , then you are steering the golf club because I can only envisage the club path as an arc (at least in a swingers action).

 

Those images are from a bird's eye view, with left and right path and face relationships. The flat spot conversation is about flattening the bottom of the swing with respect to levelness to the ground.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

I disagree. A flat spot, even in a straight line, is indeed possible. (If we're gonna get in a giant fight about it, it might be worth starting another thread.) Just think about the highly valued 'strip of bacon' divot. It's long, straight and usually a nearly uniform depth from start to finish. Or, haven't you ever put two or more balls in a straight line, headed toward the imaginary target, and hit all of them in one swing, just for the hell of it? How do you think either of those is possible without a straight flat spot?

 

No need for another thread , but I cannot envisage the golf swing as a straight line from a purely geometric point of view . So do you think that the first image below is a definition of the flat spot? If yes , then you are steering the golf club because I can only envisage the club path as an arc (at least in a swingers action).

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOb_nJySLwI

 

First of all, I said nothing about clubface angle. Whenever I hit a straight line of balls (don't tell me you never do silly **** at the range), the first ball goes wherever it goes and the rest of the balls go subsequently more left of it. So, for me at least, the clubface is closing in that instance.

 

The only point I was trying to make is that it is possible for the clubhead to go in a straight, flat line, and that action is not dependent on shallowing. If the hands are ascending and going inwardly around the body, and the clubhead is descending and still going in to out, at the right amounts of each of those countering movements, a straight, flat clubhead path will be the result. I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm also not arguing how one should go about it, either, in regard to swinging/hitting/steering/getting lucky/etc..

[wmblake2000]

Flat spot does not mean straight. Equates to a long shallow divot but the divot can curve left for r handed golfer

[WILDTHING]

No need for another thread , but I cannot envisage the golf swing as a straight line from a purely geometric point of view . So do you think that the first image below is a definition of the flat spot? If yes , then you are steering the golf club because I can only envisage the club path as an arc (at least in a swingers action).

 

Those images are from a bird's eye view, with left and right path and face relationships. The flat spot conversation is about flattening the bottom of the swing with respect to levelness to the ground.

 

Many thanks for that clarification .I have seen that Adam Young article before (that glk posted) about parametric acceleration but forgot about the 'flat spot' part.

 

PS. Strangely enough, this parametric acceleration , 'flat spot' creation and the evoking of the Ryke effect all seem to be related to the lead shoulder going up and back.

[uitar9]

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".

 

My why is " to lower my HCP". I don't even know why I want to, but don't care.

 

Listening the DD on the golfers edge. Made reference to young and old students and use of trackman. Older students (pre online gaming) need more physical and mental explanations. DD uses trackman for herself. Younger students understand trackman and are told, reduce the spin by 200 RPM. They just do it.

 

Both young and old move toward their desired result-better ball flight.

 

"Why" is important for some, not for others.

 

This is a golfing thread/forum. To me, ball flight is what will help me get fewer strokes. Why...damned if I know, but thats what I believe

 

When I ask for help, help is given, and I see ball flight is "my" better, I don't care why. I'll just repeat it.

 

Circling back:

 

Was reading the hogan power book. He said something like, if you want to hit it further, hit it harder. and one way to do that was start the downswing with the trail hip. I went to the range this winter and only hit driver for ten balls at the end of a session. and really tried starting the downswing with my trail hip. and really tried that start harder and harder.

 

Ended up with a crazy result: my ball flight for all clubs was straighter, on line and the ball went further. That has translated on the course. More FIR and more pars . I've had to add 3-7 yards to my old distances.

 

I just don't care why this has improved my ball flight. But I'm sticking with it.