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

[phizzy30]

7 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).

 

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.

 

This pushing the leg off through impact is also known as the "squat move".  All the kids coming up through the high school and college ranks do this.  The most notable guys that incorporate this are Rory, Matt Wolff, Bryson, JT.  The one common denominator between all of them is that they are all long off the tee. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by phizzy30

[RichieHunt]

I know Dr. MacKenzie does not believe in the non-dominant swing training theory and he makes logical points.  When I think of golfers that could play fairly well both sides, I think of Phil, Vijay and Mac O'Grady.  All hit the ball very long.  In fact, Mac is one of the strongest people, pound for pound, that I've ever met.

 

I did get paired with a 8 handicapper at Waldorf Astoria in Orlando that could swing it equally well both ways.  It was kinda odd seeing somebody swinging it both ways that well, without being a scratch golfer.  It does show that it can happen (although he was probably in his mid-to-late 50's).

 

One thing that I think should be at least considered is Michael Lavery's research into ambidexterity.  Bryson has read and followed his teaching as well.  

 

But in his book Whole Brain Power he claims that as your ambidexterity improves, the body releases a natural chemical that acts like a steroid and makes one stronger.  

 

I think pure power and brute strength probably helps more with the backswing instead of the downswing as so many people think.  As we know, one of the ways to lengthen the moment arm is to increase the speed of the backswing.  Moving a golf club super fast in the backswing and doing it with a long backswing, like the long driver competitors do, is no easy task.  It takes pure strength to get that club moving 'back' a long ways and at super fast speed.

 

At least that's my 02.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

 

[ShowMe]

5 hours ago, chipa said:

 

By elastic tissues, do you mean tendons and ligaments?

 

Yes

 

Isn't it the muscles that provide the power?

[Precis1on]

27 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

 

Isn't it the muscles that provide the power?

 

Would say that the muscles provide power, but your ligaments, tendons, and joints also need to adapt. It's probably less of an issue in golf, your body tends to protect itself from something it can't do. If you've taken a break from working out for an extended period of time, you'll sometimes find that your ligaments and tendons take longer to adapt than your muscles to the weights that you're putting on the bar. I was in horrific tendon pain when I went back to olympic lifts (snatch, c&j) after 10 years off. 

[chipa]

2 hours ago, ShowMe said:

 

Isn't it the muscles that provide the power?

 

The muscles provide power but also are used move the weight of the body to the right side which causes the elastic tissues to load like a rubber band as the body is forced to decelerate. The energy stored in the elastic tissue is released soon after on the downswing.

[phizzy30]

5 hours ago, RichieHunt said:

I know Dr. MacKenzie does not believe in the non-dominant swing training theory and he makes logical points.  When I think of golfers that could play fairly well both sides, I think of Phil, Vijay and Mac O'Grady.  All hit the ball very long.  In fact, Mac is one of the strongest people, pound for pound, that I've ever met.

 

I did get paired with a 8 handicapper at Waldorf Astoria in Orlando that could swing it equally well both ways.  It was kinda odd seeing somebody swinging it both ways that well, without being a scratch golfer.  It does show that it can happen (although he was probably in his mid-to-late 50's).

 

One thing that I think should be at least considered is Michael Lavery's research into ambidexterity.  Bryson has read and followed his teaching as well.  

 

But in his book Whole Brain Power he claims that as your ambidexterity improves, the body releases a natural chemical that acts like a steroid and makes one stronger.  

 

I think pure power and brute strength probably helps more with the backswing instead of the downswing as so many people think.  As we know, one of the ways to lengthen the moment arm is to increase the speed of the backswing.  Moving a golf club super fast in the backswing and doing it with a long backswing, like the long driver competitors do, is no easy task.  It takes pure strength to get that club moving 'back' a long ways and at super fast speed.

 

At least that's my 02.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

 

The whole spiel about the natural hormone release that acts like a steroid is theory, correct?  If so I think it's a load of bs.  The only anabolic steroid our body releases is test and there is no valid literature/study that supports that becoming ambidextrous releases more of that.  There are other analogues or deravitives of test but those are manipulated by adding or subtracting certain molecules hence we get things like DHT based steroids, nor-testosterone analogues, etc that have to either be injected IM or taken orally. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by phizzy30

[tomba51]

I noticed this on You Tube. I haven't watched it yet, but it apparantly addresses the issue at hand, so it might be of interest.

[phizzy30]

9 hours ago, tomba51 said:

I noticed this on You Tube. I haven't watched it yet, but it apparantly addresses the issue at hand, so it might be of interest.

I have a set of Speed Stix and I swing RH and LH.  Coach would always have us swing both ways for baseball back in the day so I started incorporating that back in high school for golf but I would use baseball bat back then and swung it like a golf club as part of my workout routine when I was playing for my golf team in college.  This was back in the late 90's and we weren't required to workout for golf, but I did anyways on my own.  It has stuck with me ever since.  I believe it has helped me in terms of gaining distance off the tee.    

Edited October 12, 2021 by phizzy30

[baudi]

Non dominant swing? Fred Couples likes/d to start with reversed swings to stretch up. That must be close to a non dominant swing. 

 

Apart from the muscles  learning a Non Dominant Swing (stupid name; great excuse though) will train the brain. eg. feeling new form and function, timing, balance, positioning, transition, impact, the works. Basically a player develops a new set of motor skills very close to a familiar one. How is that not helpful?   

 

If MacKenzie believes NDS does not have a positive effect on a swing then as a scientist his duty could/should be to set up an experiment to test his bold conjecture(s). Till then it is just a belief far from a justified belief.   

Edited October 13, 2021 by baudi

[HiTrajLoSpin]

1 hour ago, baudi said:

If MacKenzie believes NDS do not have a positive effect on a swing then as a scientist his duty could/should be to set up an experiment to test his bold conjecture(s). Till then it is just a belief far from a justified belief.   

 

It's not incumbent on MacKenzie to disprove the conjecture that NDS improves golf swing speed; rather, it's the responsibility of those who are proponents of NDS training (in combination with DS training) to perform experiments proving their bold conjecture that it increases swing speed to a greater extent than simply using DS training.

Edited October 12, 2021 by HiTrajLoSpin

[baudi]

@ Hi TrajLowSpin Agreed and point taken. Under normal conditions.

However, Richie H. states MacKenzie backs up his PoV with reasoning why NDS does not work. 

From my simple heuristic PoV the drill of warming up and streching up in reversed mode is both very effective and efficient. (as seen elsewhere in and out golf). If an objective experiment would show the results (with test and control groups etc) that CHS is positively effected by NDS practice; sincerely I would doubt beforehand that MacKenzie would alter his point of view just like that. Hence, I would ask him to speak out and support his belief with theory and/or facts. 

  

 

**Disclaimer Proving why NDS are effective at a significant level of  probability would be far more difficult.

Edited October 13, 2021 by baudi
typos; ego-cover

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Is no one going to point out what a lame move it is to correct typos in Phil's tweets? Phil could tell me the sky is green and I'd side with him if his critics started editing the typos in his claim.

[MountainKing]

Maybe the exact science is off, but I'd probably follow Phil's advice for speed training over Gary or Peter.  Phil can show us the evidence that what he is doing is working, the other two cannot. 

[SirFuego]

On 10/12/2021 at 10:44 AM, HiTrajLoSpin said:

 

It's not incumbent on MacKenzie to disprove the conjecture that NDS improves golf swing speed; rather, it's the responsibility of those who are proponents of NDS training (in combination with DS training) to perform experiments proving their bold conjecture that it increases swing speed to a greater extent than simply using DS training.

IMO, both conclusions are equally valuable provided that they are performed in an unbiased manner.  The problem is that when a concept becomes popular through marketing and/or anecdotal evidence, it's often just accepted to be true until someone proves otherwise.  This tends to put the onus on the detractors disproving a theory because those who came up with the theory don't stand to gain anything by building publicly available empirical evidence that their theory is true.  Best case, they prove what everyone already believes to be true -- worst case, their theory is found to be false or overhyped.

 

There is a similar argument brewing in the footwear industry where barefoot/minimalist proponents are saying that footwear companies should need to "prove" that heavily cushioned heel-toe drop shoes with narrow toe boxes actually cause fewer injuries.  In their defense, there don't seem to be any unbiased studies that exist to prove that they do cause fewer injuries, but at the same time, Nike, Adidas, etc stand to gain absolutely nothing from such studies because minimalist shoe companies aren't big enough competitors for them to be concerned.  Like anything, there is probably some truth to both sides of the argument, but it takes a massive amount of money to reach unbiased conclusions.

[Zitlow]

Can we really trust golf science? Dr. Fauci says to always trust the science. Is that the same science that tells us there are 87 genders. 😆

[milesgiles]

im almost positive its good from an injury prevention aspect so its worth doing on that basis alone.. id be surprised if it didnt help you swing faster overall however 

[baudi]

Edited October 14, 2021 by baudi
found under a pile of dubious magazines

[shoot4par]

Redundant, apologies... Was gonna post that same superspeed video for the third time.

Edited October 19, 2021 by shoot4par