Grip pressure vs swing speed?

[phizzy30]

49 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Anyone is more than welcome in this country to say that 2+2=5.

 

Just like the people who actually know what 2+2 is have the right to tell them they are horribly wrong.

 

Bad perceptions are THE Biggest reason golfers aren’t better.  Not lack of flexibility, core strength, talent, athletic ability. Practice time, etc.  Those are reasons why golfers aren’t elite golfers.  The reason why a 12 isn’t a 9 is his perception of what to do is wrong.  
 

If you think 2+2=5, your ability to do more complex math is Mr. Blutarski’s GPA.

 

If you think you’re supposed to grip it like a bird, load the right side at the top,  allow your arms to be along for the ride, shift weight and swing to right field, you have no chance at getting better and when you get older, your game will deteriorate quickly.  
 

You know how I know this?  Between live lessons, golf schools, video analysis , face time lessons, talking with colleagues about their clients and hitting balls at the range and listening to other golfers, I spend about 3000-4000 hours a year studying this stuff.

 

Everything I said has no outliers.  ZERO.  Assuming no one does anything to increase their time and effort.  If a guy practices once a week, wins the lottery, quits his job and plays every day, He will get better with his poor perceptions.  His ceiling is just way lower.

Monte, I used to be in the camp that you must rotate hips hard and fast and let the arms go along for the ride.  However, after reading your posts and spending time at the range, I've decided to have a more open mind.  Mind you, I'm very stubborn when it comes to certain things(my shortcoming), but I feel it's best to learn instead of being set in my ways.  Could you briefly explain how the pelvis should correctly move on the down swing?  And what exactly are the role of the arms?

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, PedronNiall said:

 

There's gotta be something better than the majority of golfers I run into whether they're a week, a year, or decades in still not having a sound grip. I don't find it that crazy because it's all explanation with no means for those learning to actually feel what better players do, but having baselines would make it easier to put some kind of tool in player's hands that lets them know when there's an issue with their applied pressure.

 

 

That's the part I don't understand and hope someone can help. 

 

For example, if you take my 16 yo son, me, and Monte, and you test all of our grip strengths on a dynamometer, I think you're going to see a very disparate outcome. Pretty sure I'll have a much stronger grip than my son, and pretty sure Monte will absolutely dust me based on what he's said. 

 

So the question then comes... Let's say Monte is gripping 5/10 (for him), and he's obviously a better golfer than my son or I, so that's who we want to emulate. What happens if I, with a much lower "10" (i.e. let's assume my 10 is Monte's 7.5), tries to apply the same grip pressure as Monte? So for me that'll be my 6.67/10. What happens if my son, who very well might have his 10 be Monte's 5, tries to apply the same grip pressure, so for him he's at a 10/10. Will either us of have success swinging the club, or will we BOTH be so tense trying to manufacture that amount of pressure that we're completely screwing up our swings? 

 

I'm a little concerned that data, in this case, could potentially mislead. Because I'm not sure you can tell my son "just grip as hard as you can so you're gripping the club the same as Monte does and can swing as fast as him", because trying to grip at 10/10 pressure might screw too many things up. Then the answer is "well you'd better work on your grip strength so that your 6/10 or 7/10 is closer to Monte's 5/10, if you want to swing close to as fast as Monte". 

 

And that's fine, but that's strength work, not swing perception or swing work, right? 

 

Hope that makes sense?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Bad perceptions are THE Biggest reason golfers aren’t better.

 

I think it's two things, but yours is definitely first in the list because it's first in order:

• The perceptions you speak of.
• A lack of understanding just how difficult it is to change a pattern when 90% of the golf swing happens in a second and out of the field of view and involves almost every muscle in your body and has such small margins of error.

In other words, you can correct the perception… and someone can fully buy in, but then they've gotta put in the work. Some people get some things faster than others. Or a thing that takes one guy three weeks to nail might take another three years. But very little in golf comes easily.

 

Again, that's the second thing in order, but — off the cuff — I think it may be just as big a barrier.

[MonteScheinblum]

31 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

Monte, I used to be in the camp that you must rotate hips hard and fast and let the arms go along for the ride.  However, after reading your posts and spending time at the range, I've decided to have a more open mind.  Mind you, I'm very stubborn when it comes to certain things(my shortcoming), but I feel it's best to learn instead of being set in my ways.  Could you briefly explain how the pelvis should correctly move on the down swing?  And what exactly are the role of the arms?

The outliers of what I’m about to say would be Gordon Sargent and Wilco.  These guys make it hard for me to teach golf sometimes.  They are elite athletes that are able to fire the hips too early and still sequence their arms properly.

 

The role of the arms is to link up to the rotation of the body.  No later than P5.  Most need to do it earlier.  
 

That's why you see 90+% of ams with their arms and hands behind at P6.  Which is stall, arms take over and flip.  Then everyone says you’re armsy and need to fire the body more.  It feels that way because the arms take over at p6 and it’s a big mess.  
 

The earlier you get your arms to link up with the rotation of the thorax, the more potential for speed and scores you have.

 

The stats are the arms accelerate .02 seconds after the hips.  Any attempt by most golfers to avoid firing the arms asap makes that number go up exponentially.  I’m going to put a gif at the bottom and what .02 is from when the hips fire to when the arms fire.

 

How you get this done is all a feel thing.  You might want to attempt to delay rotation and that’s easier if you shift left sooner.  You can also feel the lead arm accelerate down and away form the chest sooner.  Most need a bit of both…..or door number 4.  Whatever gets you there.

 

You listen to every great player and you hear delayed rotation and bring arms down sooner.

 

The devil’s advocate says they have to feel that because they have good pivots already.  Well, a good pivot isn’t firing the hips or shoulders wide open early and that’s what most ams do and those players are great because they figured out early that fire the body and let the arms go along for the ride was 🐶 💩.

 

When you watch the Rose video about how to rip a 3 wood that went viral, when he says what his fault is, it looks like 80-90% of the ams on my lesson tee.

 

2 FACTs need to be addressed and if you don’t buy in, you have no shot.

 

1.  The separation between segments it’s .01.  Between Lead arm and hips, .02.

2.  It takes the human brain about .25 to actively implement a motor pattern.

 

Good luck sequencing properly if your firing the hips early and delaying the arms. 
 

You’re going to look at the video and say what the hell am I looking at.  Two stills? Then you have to look carefully. This software has a time counter. The one on the left is approximately when his hips start to turn on the downswing.  I jogged it back and forth so you can actually see movement.  The one on the right starts at when the one on the left ends.  You won’t see much there either, but that’s .023.  So the lead arm has been accelerating for .003 seconds plus or minus.  When I show this to golfers who have the passive arms, fire the body mantra. They shake their heads in disgust and start sequencing better almost immediately and gain club speed on the first swing.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2024 by MonteScheinblum

[MonteScheinblum]

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I think it's two things, but yours is definitely first in the list because it's first in order:

• The perceptions you speak of.
• A lack of understanding just how difficult it is to change a pattern when 90% of the golf swing happens in a second and out of the field of view and involves almost every muscle in your body and has such small margins of error.

In other words, you can correct the perception… and someone can fully buy in, but then they've gotta put in the work. Some people get some things faster than others. Or a thing that takes one guy three weeks to nail might take another three years. But very little in golf comes easily.

 

Again, that's the second thing in order, but — off the cuff — I think it may be just as big a barrier.

Yes.  Every lesson all day.  First attempt at a new move.  “Did I do it right?”

 

“How long is this going to take, I have a big member guest this Saturday.”

 

It will be better next Saturday, but about the same percentage as lost body weight in 10 days if yiu stick to the plan.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours ago, Jugs said:

 

 

He's surely not swinging the club around your body. 

 

 

Lots of words with zero meaning. It's videos like this that causes so many misconceptions in the golf swing that folks have almost no chance of improving their golf swing.

 

I like Jackie. He seemed like a nice guy and did alot for the game of golf in Houston. A very good player as well. However, that touchy feely mystic golf guru shtick is worthless when we now know better.

[MonteScheinblum]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Lots of words with zero meaning. It's videos like this that causes so many misconceptions in the golf swing that folks have almost no chance of improving their golf swing.

 

I like Jackie. He seemed like a nice guy and did alot for the game of golf in Houston. A very good player as well. However, that touchy feely mystic golf guru shtick is worthless when we now know better.

This is the MO of the deniers.

 

Find an all time great that did or said something different that what we actually see in most good players.

 

Great players will always be great.  If you go back 100 years and gave every top 10 player in every era today’s equipment, they would still be great once they’re learned how to use it.

 

If you gave 1960/70’s equipment todays players and let them figure out how to use them with what they know.

 

Players 11-500 would absolutely destroy players 11-500 from any era using the same equipment.

 

Because they have nasty crap taught out of them at an early age by instructors who pay attention.

 

If the second coming of Jesus happened and he said…..”To all you golfers out there, light grip pressure  doesn’t work.”

 

The dissenters would still dissent even if they were Uber devout.

 

If he comes back and says the best way to make a good swing is to hold lag…..I’d listen, would want to see him hit one and if he sliced it in the water like the old Jesus and Moses joke, I’d say, “Dang, I thought you were infallible”

 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

the true fundamentals; the patterns for success.

 

what i find funny is that it isn’t rocket science to try the patterns for success. a crow can figure out how to use a tool, but a golfer can’t figure out how to test different grips pressures or other movements.

 

elite players do a, b, c. it’s that simple. don’t make it more complicated. try to do a, b, c. if you can’t figure it out, go see someone to help you do a, b, c.

 

the closer you get to a, b, c, the better chance you have to get better.

 

golf is probably better understood by 10-year olds than adult know it all’s. 🙂

 

 

 

You don’t have to do a,b and c like a tour player.  Just do your personal best.  It’s far superior to doing D and F.

[Shilgy]

47 minutes ago, Jugs said:

 

It's more than worthless, it's priceless.   Jackie wasn't into anything more than getting the job done using less to achieve more-tour tested too.    He didn't designate himself a mystic guru, it was the vast number of players coming to see him that developed the image for him, and those players came to him because Jackie DID KNOW BETTER.   We don't need numbers to find our way.   

And if the numbers show the “non” mystic guru preaching something that is measured to be wrong?

[GoGoErky]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

And if the numbers show the “non” mystic guru preaching something that is measured to be wrong?

We know certain people don’t care about that no matter how much it’s shown to them. They keep posting similar type videos or photos.

[MonteScheinblum]

3 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

We know certain people don’t care about that no matter how much it’s shown to them. They keep posting similar type videos or photos.

I’m OK with anyone who just wants to listen to what the greats of yesteryear said and look the other way at the data being collected as a marketing farce invented by the instruction industry.

 

 

…..but I better not hear of them using an MRI or an X ray when they injure themselves and just have the doctor feel the area.

 

They better not have an EKG, colonoscopy or a cat scan, because doctors 100 years ago helped keep people alive without all that fancy technology.

 

 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I’m OK with anyone who just wants to listen to what the greats of yesteryear said and look the other way at the data being collected as a marketing farce invented by the instruction industry.

 

 

…..but I better not hear of them using an MRI or an X ray when they injure themselves and just have the doctor feel the area.

 

They better not have an EKG, colonoscopy or a cat scan, because doctors 100 years ago helped keep people alive without all that fancy technology.

 

 

But the doc….or was it the barber…..said this was the latest in medicine.😏

 

[Valtiel]

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

We know certain people don’t care about that no matter how much it’s shown to them. They keep posting similar type videos or photos.

 

56 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I’m OK with anyone who just wants to listen to what the greats of yesteryear said and look the other way at the data being collected as a marketing farce invented by the instruction industry.

 

 

…..but I better not hear of them using an MRI or an X ray when they injure themselves and just have the doctor feel the area.

 

They better not have an EKG, colonoscopy or a cat scan, because doctors 100 years ago helped keep people alive without all that fancy technology.

 

 

I played with a family friend last month (retired guy) who is dealing with some neuropathy issues so he's kinda feeling his way through trying to improve his swing. He was striping his driver which he attributed to something he was presetting in his hips at address that was helping him "get clear" at impact. In reality none of that was actually happening BUT it was working over multiple days, so the *last* thing i'd do is say anything to him about it other than "yeah keep doing that!". 

....but I absolutely would say something if he started telling everyone else in the group that they need to do what he is doing. Thankfully he's a smart dude that seems to know these are personal things based on his physical limitations, but for some reason this nuance goes completely out the window with some people when posting on the internet. Almost as if they don't actually play golf or work with other golfers...

[phizzy30]

45 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

But the doc….or was it the barber…..said this was the latest in medicine.😏

 

Back then, blood letting with leaches was the cure for all ailments.  So was opium tonic or was it heroin?  Anyways, thank God for modern medicine. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by phizzy30

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, phizzy30 said:

Back then, blood letting with leaches was the cure for all ailments.  So was opium tonic or was it heroin?  Anyways, thank God for modern medicine. 

Laudanum aka 10% opium was very popular amongst society women. Is that modern enough?

[phizzy30]

Just now, Shilgy said:

Laudanum aka 10% opium was very popular amongst society women. Is that modern enough?

Tombstone!!!

[PedronNiall]

5 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

That's the part I don't understand and hope someone can help. 

 

For example, if you take my 16 yo son, me, and Monte, and you test all of our grip strengths on a dynamometer, I think you're going to see a very disparate outcome. Pretty sure I'll have a much stronger grip than my son, and pretty sure Monte will absolutely dust me based on what he's said. 

 

So the question then comes... Let's say Monte is gripping 5/10 (for him), and he's obviously a better golfer than my son or I, so that's who we want to emulate. What happens if I, with a much lower "10" (i.e. let's assume my 10 is Monte's 7.5), tries to apply the same grip pressure as Monte? So for me that'll be my 6.67/10. What happens if my son, who very well might have his 10 be Monte's 5, tries to apply the same grip pressure, so for him he's at a 10/10. Will either us of have success swinging the club, or will we BOTH be so tense trying to manufacture that amount of pressure that we're completely screwing up our swings? 

 

I'm a little concerned that data, in this case, could potentially mislead. Because I'm not sure you can tell my son "just grip as hard as you can so you're gripping the club the same as Monte does and can swing as fast as him", because trying to grip at 10/10 pressure might screw too many things up. Then the answer is "well you'd better work on your grip strength so that your 6/10 or 7/10 is closer to Monte's 5/10, if you want to swing close to as fast as Monte". 

 

And that's fine, but that's strength work, not swing perception or swing work, right? 

 

Hope that makes sense?

 

Yes, what you said makes sense and it's why more data would be beneficial. More data would mean being in at least a good ballpark to say: the average pro golfer in the study group exerted X maximum static holding force on the grip; regardless of their pressure at address, they generate Y avg pounds of holding force at P2, P4, etc. Here is how those forces relate to the total force exerted by their club at those points, and here is the total weight of the club used. Here is a pressure map of how the grip aligned in their hands and where the pressure was exerted by each segment throughout the swing on average.

 

Now instead of just a grip trainer like Scottie has perhaps popularized again there's a better picture of whether things like squeezing through the fingers, pressing down with the lower palm segment, pressure applied from the trail hand as in Padraig's case, or only closing forces applied unconsciously by the brain as the downswing begins and into impact and able to be applied by a correct grip alignment in the hands at address matter. There would also be a nice set of measurements from all the pros involved showing how close to the average peak closure forces during the swing even those pros with lower max static grip forces could achieve. Now there's a reasonable expectation as to the minimum required max static force someone should have if they want to be able to keep a standard 120g/60g shaft, grip, and standard iron/driver head in control at a similar speed.

 

Then there's no longer a guess as to what pro 1 means by 5/10 and pro 2 means by 7/10 or whether that at all aligns with the actual force they generate from transition to the spiking nearing impact. Instead you know from the results that as long as you're within the 20th percentile of professional max static grip strength you're capable of creating the required grip pressure needed during the swing and you also know whether any of that output being applied efficiently relates to application of force at address or simply making sure you have a sound grip favoring the fingers over the palms, etc. If you're strong enough for your setup, you know you're good to go. If you're not, you know to hit up more forearm and grip strength exercises until you are and that will apply for anyone at any age based on their equipment. You also have a sliding scale to know if you can handle higher swing speeds or if you'll be out of control when you reach them and outside of practice swings and speed training your brain will say no with a ball actually in front of you.

 

YMMV, but I know that never in my junior days nor since nor since have I had anyone who's worked with me, teaching pro or otherwise, really discuss how they applied pressure in their grip. Aside from Padraig I've rarely heard it discussed browsing around YouTube and the like. I've watched tons of videos on the proper grip and it really never comes up there, only discussion on where it should sit in the hands, and that whatever pressure you start with should never change, which measurements tell us is 100% feel not real.

 

I've played with different methods and found they can more or less all work but I find the best results with a grip that locks relatively naturally without trying to apply more force at address, especially when using larger than standard grips that fit my fingers better and allow me to feel the same level of control with even less tension. I'd love having insight on if that aligns with what most of the top players are doing and I'd certainly like to know how it aligns with what the very best do.

 

Tiger mentions very little of applying much added pressure at address and says most Ams grip too hard. A bit more data would go a long way in getting a picture of how that bears out. I'm inclined to think one of the GOATs likely knows what he's talking about as a death grip is going to lead to extra tension, but even he said he does his best to explain what he believes is going on based on his feels, and it's possible someone who's been swinging a club since he was 1-something may be generating absurd max force both at address and in the swing without ever thinking much of it. Scottie rips it pretty nicely despite not swinging at his max potential, and doesn't appear to apply much additional force after setting his grip, but again, hard to tell just by looking. We have one set of detailed pressure maps for the feet, I'd like to see one more for the hands because it would take a lot of guesswork and murkiness out of the swing while giving even more insight into who is most efficient with their power and how they make it happen.

[Valtiel]

3 hours ago, phizzy30 said:

Tombstone!!!

[MonteScheinblum]

2 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

A huge oversight he didn’t win best supporting actor.

[Valtiel]

24 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

A huge oversight he didn’t win best supporting actor.

One of the bigger snubs for sure. I love the video where Kilmer talks about the origins of the accent. 

 

 

[TheDeanAbides]

8 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Lots of words with zero meaning. It's videos like this that causes so many misconceptions in the golf swing that folks have almost no chance of improving their golf swing.

 

I like Jackie. He seemed like a nice guy and did alot for the game of golf in Houston. A very good player as well. However, that touchy feely mystic golf guru shtick is worthless when we now know better.

Nailed it. 

[bortass]

On 6/10/2024 at 8:37 PM, MonteScheinblum said:

There’s a reason why caddie’s clean their player’s grips weekly, or more.

 

I have grabbed someone’s club during a lesson to demonstrate something and ask, “When was the last time you cleaned these clubs.”

 

The answer is never and the clubs are 2-5 years old or more.  I clean the grip on one club and their track man numbers improve across the board.

 

”Wow, that feels tacky.”

The shame is real….

[Zeph]

"When was the last time you cleaned your grips?"

 

 

My Pure grips holds up pretty well without frequent washing, but it's probably due.

[Pepperturbo]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:58 PM, Valtiel said:

And just because you don't see them the same does NOT mean they aren't facts, and arguably this view is more dangerous to the concept of objective/measured truth which is something that we all should be very careful of. 
 

If your opinion is measurable and the measurements contradict what you're saying, then your opinion is wrong. 

Thanks... However, if I listened to everyone who says they have the facts, and I can't or am wrong; therefore they know this or that, I wouldn't have founded three companies and been in business for over forty years, always in the black.  And, I wouldn't have been able to teach myself golf starting at 40 yrs old, and reach index of 2 inside 6yrs.  Those are my facts.  You have a good day.

[Nels55]

36 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Thanks... However, if I listened to everyone who says they have the facts, and I can't or am wrong; therefore they know this or that, I wouldn't have founded three companies and been in business for over forty years, always in the black.  And, I wouldn't have been able to teach myself golf starting at 40 yrs old, and reach index of 2 inside 6yrs.  Those are my facts.  You have a good day.

Grip pressure measurements of pro swings that have been published can be considered factual.  The things that you post are in no way verifiable.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, Nels55 said:

Grip pressure measurements of pro swings that have been published can be considered factual.  The things that you post are in no way verifiable.

Now you guys have gone and done it. You pushed PT into Doc Savage mode. No telling how long it will take for him to chill back out. LOL!  😉

[Pepperturbo]

The fact that some of you like to argue over such trivial things is amazing.  

 

 

Edited June 19, 2024 by Pepperturbo

[iacas]

51 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Grip pressure measurements of pro swings that have been published can be considered factual. The things that you post are in no way verifiable.

 

@Pepperturbo, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Unless you can show something measured, you've got nothing but "feels" here.

 

44 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

What a joke... The fact that you like to argue over such trivial things, is partially why I don't care whether you believe me.  I am sure others feel the same.

 

Con yourself however much you want, but you argued over the same things, and you came armed with a wet noodle (what you think you do, your feels) to a gun fight (measurements, data, facts).

 

The simple fact is that the club will pull with 100+ pounds of force, and if you aren't generating at least that much, it will slip and slide out of your hands.

 

Edited June 19, 2024 by iacas

[Socrates]

On 6/13/2024 at 9:44 AM, betarhoalphadelta said:

So let's summarize:

 

1. The golf swing generates a tremendous amount of force acting on the hands, and the hands must provide an equal amount of force to hang on to and control the club. 
2. The force needed to hang onto and control the club increases with swing speed. So the faster you swing, the more force you must have in your hands to hang on to the club. 
3. To swing effectively, you must be able to provide this force on the grip while not becoming overly tense or rigid in your wrists and forearms. 
4. People with higher grip strength have more ability to put large amounts of force onto the grip of the club with the hands while keeping their wrists and forearms relaxed and loose. People with lower grip strength can't apply those higher forces without significant effort, making it nearly impossible to keep the wrists and forearms relaxed and loose.
5. Ergo, people with higher grip strength have more natural capability to swing faster, as they can hang onto and control the club at higher speeds with less wrist/forearm tension than those with less grip strength.
6. HOWEVER, people with higher grip strength may do this while having a relative lower "feel" of perceived grip effort, because even though they may be gripping the club tighter than someone of lower grip strength, they are using a lower percentage of their overall grip strength than someone with less grip strength. #feelaintreal

/thread

This thread should have been over 2 pages ago.  Now it has devolved into mudslinging.  

 

Please move thread into Rules and Etiquette.   🤔

[Chunkitgood]

31 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Grip pressure measurements of pro swings that have been published can be considered factual.  The things that you post are in no way verifiable.

 

The answer to the original question seems so obvious that the remarkable thing is it engendered all these disparate responses.

 

Based on this sort of thing one has to conclude that golf teaching, as an enterprise, has a fairly high failure rate.  Possibly it would be higher if the people being taught were of a superior species to humanity, but they aren’t.
 

This I attribute personally to the idea that the hands control the body, that if the hands do something the body will respond and moreover will respond in the desired fashion.  I tend to believe that the mind (leaving aside the fact that the “mind” may be more widely distributed than generally believed, and taking the mind to be that part of a human being which learns) controls the body.  Neither the body nor the hands can perform successfully any action which the entirely of the person has not learned to do.  Is there any science that contradicts this?  (As an aside, I once determined to reform my handwriting.  The first instructions in the manual were on how to sit.)

 

Human beings seem to work in terms of intentionality, in which they use the ensemble of learned behaviors they have amassed to fulfill their intentions.

 

Golf teaching frequently not only fails to teach the appropriation ensemble of behaviors (and many or all of the necessary ones may in fact be explicitly unteachable, but must be learned via trial and error or implicit learning) but also stands in the way of the golfer’s intent.  I say the golfer’s intent, which should be to use the golf club as a tool to translate downward forward motion into upward forward motion, even though a large portion of teaching neglects to even try to give the student any idea of what he should be trying to do.  So why do 95% of golfers add loft?  Because that is their naive intention.  But I digress.

 

If golf teaching is ever to be more than sporadically successful, it probably must develop a vocabulary to describe the swing on a level of abstraction that suits the task.

 

The idea of moving the torso necessarily encompasses the motion of the arms, which necessarily move when the torso moves.  The reverse is not true.