Non-dominant swinging improving dominant swing speed - Phil Mickelson vs. Gary McCormick/Peter Kostis.

[ShowMe]

Anybody see this twitter discussion going on between Mickelson and McCormick/Kostis and have any insights into which is correct?  Seems like Phil is making up scientific principles on the fly.

 

Gary McCormick

Come to Phil with all of your biomechanics questions, because he majored in Psych at ASU… 🙄

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by ShowMe

[Zitlow]

I think Phil is talking about the holding force that resists the escape force. 

[Santiago Golf]

I agree with Phil 

 

I'm a left handed golfer

 

When I was teaching 300+ days a year for two years straight ... I was teaching and demonstrating right handed

 

I was hitting the ball 310+ at the time and putting better level than the avg tour pro ... iron play was trash

 

hardly ever hitting balls except for playing

 

Colin McCarthy ... look him up ... will agree with Phil. Dude is one the top 5 instructors in the world & can break par both ways

[Jeremy8810]

Yeah, I think Phil’s reply is pseudo science at best. There’s been no evidence in any study that proves what he said.

 

However, there is absolutely no harm in training reverse swings. For me, I mainly do it in case there are some unfound as of yet benefits and to eliminate the possibility of developing muscle imbalances both functionally and aesthetically.

 

You’re already engaging in speed training, why not add the other side? It adds to the cardio aspect of it and there’s no downside to it at all.

[dsmil]

Sasho Mackenzie and Mike Carroll don't see the rationale in non-dominant swings and that's enough for me.  They think that swinging that fast without a ball trains deceleration enough already.  Not to mention having to double the time of the speed sessions and the fatigue/injury risk associated with that.  There's definitely a line of thinking out there that thinks that the Superspeed sessions are too long and that 20-30 swings would be more appropriate.

Edited October 6, 2021 by dsmil

[chipa]

22 minutes ago, dsmil said:

Sasho Mackenzie and Mike Carroll don't see the rationale in non-dominant swings and that's enough for me.  They think that swinging that fast without a ball trains deceleration enough already.  Not to mention having to double the time of the speed sessions and the fatigue/injury risk associated with that.  There's definitely a line of thinking out there that thinks that the Superspeed sessions are too long and that 20-30 swings would be more appropriate.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but Sasho Mackenzie promoted the kinetic chain theory that doesn't take into account the forces, etc generated by the loading and unloading of elastic tissues?

[chipa]

As an engineer I have been befuddled by most attempts to apply physics to the golf swing, and Peter Kostis is no different but there are many other big names as well that do the same. This does not mean they can't be effective teachers, only that they don't understand all of the forces involved in the golf swing.

 

As far as I can tell Phil Mickleson has been able to develop exceptional club head speed for a long time, and still can, with an exceptionally smooth motion that appears to be easy on the body. In other words a swing close to the maximum efficiency possible in terms of amount of effort needed to generate clubhead speed and as such I think most of us can learn somethign from Phil, including myself. At any rate what Phil says doesn't break any established rules of physics.

 

Furthermore, looking at Phil's swing and it's clear from his mostly short finishes that he does decelerate, so what he said is true about his particular swing. I also do this when I'm swinging well and I find it easier on my back and knees.

[dsmil]

21 minutes ago, chipa said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but Sasho Mackenzie promoted the kinetic chain theory that doesn't take into account the forces, etc generated by the loading and unloading of elastic tissues?

 

I am not smart enough to have a clue about what you're talking about.  I searched Google for Sasho Mackenzie kinetic chain theory and a post by you popped up 😄

[dvq9654]

This has nothing to do with physics, but how can anyone argue that having a more balanced body would not be a good thing speed-wise? That's all swinging the other direction accomplishes. It trains the "off side" of your body, which is probably very neglected in many golfers. You could address this in the gym and I'm sure Phil and others do, but swinging the opposite way can't hurt and probably at least provides some benefit. 

 

This topic seems like a funny hill to die on if you're Kostis / McCormick

 

Also - if you ever watched Kostis talk about the golf swing on CBS, it's clear he knows very little about the actual mechanics of a swing. He sounds like the old timer at the local range who can teach through heuristics, but not through actual data (e.g., AMG)

[chipa]

On 10/6/2021 at 3:27 PM, dsmil said:

 

I am not smart enough to have a clue about what you're talking about.  I searched Google for Sasho Mackenzie kinetic chain theory and a post by you popped up 😄

 

As I understand it based on reading about Dr. Mackenzie's work he promotes a "kinetic chain" golf swing theory, where the sum of the rotational speed about the joints is transferred mechanically to the clubhead. However, I don't think his model takes into account the forces generated at the joints by the loading and unloading of elastic tissue, and therefore could lead people to believe that the swing is a purely rotary movement. This research has already been done in baseball and tennis. My only point is I'm not sure that Dr. Mackenzies model is as complete as the biomechanical models done in other sports and as such there is no good reason to discard Mickleson's advice given the obvious high clubhead speed he has generated for many years with relatively little stress on the body compared to other swings like Tiger Woods.

Edited October 8, 2021 by chipa

[shoot4par]

37 minutes ago, dvq9654 said:

This has nothing to do with physics, but how can anyone argue that having a more balanced body would not be a good thing speed-wise? That's all swinging the other direction accomplishes. It trains the "off side" of your body, which is probably very neglected in many golfers. You could address this in the gym and I'm sure Phil and others do, but swinging the opposite way can't hurt and probably at least provides some benefit. 

 

This topic seems like a funny hill to die on if you're Kostis / McCormick

 

Also - if you ever watched Kostis talk about the golf swing on CBS, it's clear he knows very little about the actual mechanics of a swing. He sounds like the old timer at the local range who can teach through heuristics, but not through actual data (e.g., AMG)

 

 

This is one of the concepts in Super Speed, I think. You do non dominant swings as well. It makes sense to have a balanced body for any athletic endeavor (hell aesthetically its important if you're a body builder). Also a guy I'm friends with has brought up the concept of a braking mechanism in the golf swing and its contribution to overall speed. He's a hell of a teacher, won the PGA teaching award for the section. So while I have no opinion one way or another, It's not like Phil is jumping out of left field with the idea. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by shoot4par

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, chipa said:

As an engineer I have been befuddled by most attempts to apply physics to the golf swing, and Peter Kostis is no different but there are many other big names as well that do the same. This does not mean they can't be effective teachers, only that they don't understand all of the forces involved in the golf swing.

 

As far as I can tell Phil Mickleson has been able to develop exceptional club head speed for a long time, and still can, with an exceptionally smooth motion that appears to be easy on the body. In other words a swing close to the maximum efficiency possible in terms of amount of effort needed to generate clubhead speed and as such I think most of us can learn somethign from Phil, including myself. At any rate what Phil says doesn't break any established rules of physics.

 

Furthermore, looking at Phil's swing and it's clear from his mostly short finishes that he does decelerate, so what he said is true about his particular swing. I also do this when I'm swinging well and I find it easier on my back and knees.

I have to agree.  There’s definitely a braking mechanism to my swing too.  I mean otherwise you’d be hitting yourself in the back with the shaft right ? 
 

I’d tend to at least humor the guy who’s gaining  Speed when others claim it’s not possible.  And doing it with an injury free swing.  Even if he’s wrong. He’s more correct than the guy drawing on his tweets and calling BS.  

Edited October 6, 2021 by bladehunter

[phizzy30]

In the end it comes down to genetics.  Some of us are born with more fast twitch fibers period.  If we were all born with the same amount, we would all be swinging 150 mph like Kyle Berkshire.  All the speed training in the world isn't going to make 99.5% of golfers swing as fast or even nearly as fast as Kyle period. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by phizzy30

[Zitlow]

Without the resistance or holding force the centrifugally charged escape force of the clubhead travelling on the circumference of the circle would pull the back of your neck which is the center of the circle into the circle. 

 

[airjammer]

55 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I have to agree.  There’s definitely a braking mechanism to my swing too.  I mean otherwise you’d be hitting yourself in the back with the shaft right ? 
 

I’d tend to at least humor the guy who’s gaining  Speed when others claim it’s not possible.  And doing it with an injury free swing.  Even if he’s wrong. He’s more correct than the guy drawing on his tweets and calling BS.  

It doesn’t make much sense to think that  using what would be your dominant side swing deceleration muscles in a opposite fashion in this case acceleration would make them brake better. 
 

What Phil is doing is how misinformation is spread. I’m not a biomechanics expert but neither is he. He’s just regurgitating things that have been said to him. 

[bladehunter]

8 minutes ago, airjammer said:

It doesn’t make much sense to think that  using what would be your dominant side swing deceleration muscles in a opposite fashion in this case acceleration would make them brake better. 
 

What Phil is doing is how misinformation is spread. I’m not a biomechanics expert but neither is he. He’s just regurgitating things that have been said to him. 

I assumed he  just meant using muscles that you normally don’t will make them stronger.  Thus able to brake harder.    

[ShowMe]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

I have to agree.  There’s definitely a braking mechanism to my swing too.  I mean otherwise you’d be hitting yourself in the back with the shaft right ? 
 

I’d tend to at least humor the guy who’s gaining  Speed when others claim it’s not possible.  And doing it with an injury free swing.  Even if he’s wrong. He’s more correct than the guy drawing on his tweets and calling BS.  

 

Wait.  I hit myself in the back with the shaft all the time with the driver and fairways.  You're not supposed to do this?  🙂

[airjammer]

42 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I assumed he  just meant using muscles that you normally don’t will make them stronger.  Thus able to brake harder.    

Yes I believe that is what he meant as well but it’s not logical in this case. 
 

If you want put on the breaks faster or more forcefully you need to overload the breaking muscles, ligaments, etc with more force than they normally get in the same way you want them to perform. 
 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with swing left hand and right handed it’s probably a good thing in general for nothing less than increasing your athleticism as you age. I just don’t think the science supports this particular theory on helps increase swing speed. I also wouldn’t listen to Phil in this case. Bryson has gained way more speed and if it was even remotely beneficial you’d see him with a left handed driver on a pga tour range trying to out drive Brooks 

[bladehunter]

29 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

 

Wait.  I hit myself in the back with the shaft all the time with the driver and fairways.  You're not supposed to do this?  🙂

I don’t think there’s a rule against it. But to me it would  feel out of control. Long drive  guys do it.  But they also snap shafts over their backs occasionally 

[bladehunter]

11 minutes ago, airjammer said:

Yes I believe that is what he meant as well but it’s not logical in this case. 
 

If you want put on the breaks faster or more forcefully you need to overload the breaking muscles, ligaments, etc with more force than they normally get in the same way you want them to perform. 
 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with swing left hand and right handed it’s probably a good thing in general for nothing less than increasing your athleticism as you age. I just don’t think the science supports this particular theory on helps increase swing speed. I also wouldn’t listen to Phil in this case. Bryson has gained way more speed and if it was even remotely beneficial you’d see him with a left handed driver on a pga tour range trying to out drive Brooks 

I’m not saying he’s correct. I just don’t see how we can say he’s wrong either.  Even if it’s placebo.  It’s probably worth some  mph . 
 

It’s funny to me. I’ve always done it ( swing lefty ) while warming up.  I can feel the stretch difference.  But it’s pretty easy for me to do , I always batted both in baseball. Lefty for more power.  

[tomba51]

2 hours ago, phizzy30 said:

In the end it comes down to genetics.  Some of us are born with more fast twitch fibers period.  If we were all born with the same amount, we would all be swinging 150 mph like Kyle Berkshire.  All the speed training in the world isn't going to make 99.5% of golfers swing as fast or even nearly as fast as Kyle period. 

We may not be able to swing 150 mph like Kyle Berkshire, but that doesn't mean that we can't improve our swing speed.

[phizzy30]

Just now, tomba51 said:

We may not be able to swing 150 mph like Kyle Berkshire, but that doesn't mean that we can't improve our swing speed.

I agree.  I have clients that come to me for golf specific training.  I incorporate over speed training with them.  My point was that genetics limits us to what we can and can't do. 

[dsmil]

Response from Sasho this evening:

 

 

[milesgiles]

makes complete sense to swing non dominant, can't possibly hurt

[Jeremy8810]

People are taking more time to argue against non-dominant side swings than it would take them to just do it in their training.

[SirFuego]

https://simplifaster.com/articles/nondominant-side-swings-golf-benefits/

 

Look at theory 4 in particular which discusses the strength aspect of braking "When swinging a golf club that weighs around 300 grams at most, you obviously won’t overload the tissues to a point where a strength response will happen."

 

Does Bryson regularly do non dominant swings?

Edited October 7, 2021 by SirFuego

[chipa]

13 hours ago, dsmil said:

Response from Sasho this evening:

 

 

 

I share and appreciate Dr. Mackenzie's interest in understanding the golf swing, however, I'm not sure he puts a lot of emphasis on the loading and unloading of the elastic tissues in the body as a significant method to generate "easy" clubhead speed. (Please correct me if I am wrong if you have more info).

 

What I have found out is a weight shift where significant pressure is felt in the right leg adds considerable clubhead speed. This doesn't mean the head needs to move a great deal nor the left heel comes off the ground at the top of the backswing nor that the right foot needs to be on it's toe at impact, only that most of the weight is on the right foot at the start of the downswing swing and one pushes "off" through impact. Bryson Dechambeau doesn't move a lot laterally and only slightly lifts his heels but it is clear his right leg is pushing off through impact. This concept is not new, in fact Arnold Palmer said the same thing as well as others like Hogan. 

 

What I have seen is that I have attained unusually high clubhead speed with this method. I can consistently get over 115 mph at 56 years old and 150 lbs and 5'6" with limited flexibility and a weak left knee.

 

Furthermore, I am helping a friend in his 50's learn the golf swing and as might be expected he has an over the top move and his normal 2 wood swing speed is 85-87 mph. Nonetheless, merely by helping him with his setup and takeaway so that he doesn't pull the club back with his right hand and loads his right side his clubhead speed jumps out of the blue almost 20 mph. This is not due to any other training, the only difference is the weight shift. Furthermore, his swing changes to hitting from the inside(no over the top) and plays a draw. His fastest 2 wood speed is 106 to date, and he is 54 years old. The PGA ave. for a 3 wood of the same length is 108 mph.

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by chipa

[ShowMe]

2 hours ago, chipa said:

 

I share and appreciate Dr. Mackenzie's interest in understanding the golf swing, however, I'm not sure he puts a lot of emphasis on the loading and unloading of the elastic tissues in the body as a significant method to generate "easy" clubhead speed. (Please correct me if I am wrong if you have more info).

 

 

By elastic tissues, do you mean tendons and ligaments?

 

 

[shoot4par]

18 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I have to agree.  There’s definitely a braking mechanism to my swing too.  I mean otherwise you’d be hitting yourself in the back with the shaft right ? 
 

I’d tend to at least humor the guy who’s gaining  Speed when others claim it’s not possible.  And doing it with an injury free swing.  Even if he’s wrong. He’s more correct than the guy drawing on his tweets and calling BS.  

 I do this occasionally, haha. 

[chipa]

53 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

 

By elastic tissues, do you mean tendons and ligaments?

 

 

 

Yes