Upper core awkwardness

[MonteScheinblum]

What I meant to say is that it’s not about making a different swing on purpose to fit some arbitrary ideal.

[Albatross Dreamer]

4 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I’ve had extensive discussions with Dr. Wright over the years.

 

I've seen his research.  It’s not about completely different golf swings.  
 

It’s about knowing what your core with gravitate toward.

 

Uppers will gravitate toward weaker grips and less rotation.  Lowers will tend to have stronger grips and more rotation.

 

Uppers will tend to react better to upper body centric advice and lowers to lower.

 

Most tour players are mids.  Most people are uppers.

 

My theory is most tour players being mids shows you can tell them anything and they will make it work.  So even if they got poor instruction, they survived.

 

I also believe most of the people who are the passive arms works bandwagon at a cult level are lowers.  

I have been accused of teaching an arm driven swing, which is hilarious, because i go with what people will hear and often that’s a lower body idea. 
 

 

I haven't seen Dr. Wright's source material so won't speculate on what exactly it says/shows. From what I've seen it seems more correlative than causative though.

 

To offer some thoughts:

 

First, measuring pros and ams in a certain period of time often isn't all that informative. If he's tracked pros since they were very young and ams over times as they progress than that could offer more insight when it comes to cores

 

Additionally on why pros may be mid and ams upper 

 

Pros:

-Have spent years getting the best possible connection between upper and lower body to maximize their swing

-Tend to have above average hip mobility, strength, etc

-Pros in ALL sports tend to be able to respond to any coaching cues. So it may not be a "core" thing, but a having the right parents/good neuromucular skills and hours and hours of practice thing. We can see this in more talented vs average youth athletes as well. Many times with elite athletes it's mostly a matter of not messing them up.

-Have good sequencing which is going to allow them to use both upper and lower properly

 

Ams:

-Many haven't played for a long period of time, especially as a youth when the window of learning is at its peak

-Tend to have less mobility & movement capabilities which is going to affect what positions they can get into

-Many sit in a desk all day meaning less lower body strength and lower body kinesthetic awareness

-Have sucky sequencing which affects how their upper and lower body matches up

-May or may not have been athletes when younger, which affects overall body awareness

 

I'm probably missing some other things above.

 

When I first heard of his theories it fit exactly what I'd expect to see in pros being mid vs ams being upper. That doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but that by itself may not be a proper explanation for things (there's also the possibility it does as well). 

Edited January 12 by Albatross Dreamer

[MonteScheinblum]

His research and measurements were done over 30 years.

 

I get what you’re saying, but I’ll put it this way.  You’ve seen me post here.  I poo poo everything that doesn’t pass the small test.  
 

When he puts you through the screening and you do all sorts of plank and width of stance tests.  You will believe.  It’s like voodoo.  Kind of like that flat earth guy who just observed the 24 hours sun in Antarctica.  

Edited January 12 by MonteScheinblum

[iacas]

4 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I’ve had extensive discussions with Dr. Wright over the years.

 

I've seen his research. It’s not about completely different golf swings.

 

Few others seem to have seen it, let alone having it thoroughly peer reviewed. What we have seen, in videos with baseball bats or "OK" symbols with our fingers/hands, doesn't give me much confidence.

 

If all this breaks down to is that some people will use their legs or lower body more than others, and others will use their arms and upper body a bit more, fine. But that's not the type of stuff I've seen.

 

20 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

When he puts you through the screening and you do all sorts of plank and width of stance tests.  You will believe.  It’s like voodoo.  Kind of like that flat earth guy who just observed the 24 hours sun in Antarctica.  

 

Eh.

 

 

Why is 8 narrower than 4, 1, and 5. Why is 9 between 8 and 7? Why is 2 as narrow as it is?

 

I'm glad you have, but I've yet to see anything that gives me any confidence in this stuff at all. If you can't explain it, and it comes down to "voodoo," then…

[MonteScheinblum]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Few others seem to have seen it, let alone having it thoroughly peer reviewed. What we have seen, in videos with baseball bats or "OK" symbols with our fingers/hands, doesn't give me much confidence.

 

If all this breaks down to is that some people will use their legs or lower body more than others, and others will use their arms and upper body a bit more, fine. But that's not the type of stuff I've seen.

 

 

Eh.

 

 

Why is 8 narrower than 4, 1, and 5. Why is 9 between 8 and 7? Why is 2 as narrow as it is?

 

I'm glad you have, but I've yet to see anything that gives me any confidence in this stuff at all. If you can't explain it, and it comes down to "voodoo," then…

It’s about body orientation 

 

Your hip width ,femur length, etc., work better in different orientations.  
 

He said elite golfers basically always find their proper stances by trial and error.  
 

I have a driver width, full iron width, pitch width, Chip width and putting width of stance that’s ideal for me.

 They are all different, but they match up to my body orientation.  That’s what it’s about. 
 

It’s not voodoo in what you do.

 

He measured which core I was.  
 

Then he pulled up a chart of what my stance widths should be.  He then measured all my stance widths I use.  The voo doo is his chart was spot on.

 

He said elite golfers almost always have themselves aligned already.  Hacks don’t and get better when they use their core and body orientation stance widths. 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

It’s not voodoo in what you do.

 

Sorry. I haven't seen anything remotely credible. Moving my finger one knuckle away is not going to affect the way my knees bend or my pelvis aligns. Gripping a slightly different part of a bat isn't going to move my balance point.

 

This makes no sense at all to me. Not that anyone would ever be a 2, not the ordering (or the spacing).

 

 

I get that you've bought in. I've yet to see something that makes any sense.

 

Edited January 12 by iacas
picture

[MonteScheinblum]

I would have said the same thing.

 

Ive said it many times.  I don’t know enough to explain it to a dissenter.  It was proven to me to my satisfaction that’s its science and has merit. 
 

On the same way that the moon landing was proven to me by an expert, but I can’t prove it to someone that believes it’s fake. 

[ChrisSP]

1 hour ago, MonteScheinblum said:

When he puts you through the screening and you do all sorts of plank and width of stance tests.  You will believe.

 

This^^^

 

When I posted earlier in this thread about my experience I tried to allude to this when I mentioned stance width and provided an example of how much small changes in stance width dramatically changed my stability, balance, hip orientation, grip, etc.

 

I've yet to encounter anyone who's actually been through the screening process who didn't find the experience eye opening.

[golferdude54]

A debate between the 2 smartest instructors on here…

 

[Nels55]

Okay, a bit more on Larry Rinker's somewhat unappreciated impact position:

 

Please just for a moment consider the possibility that Rinker's current upper core keep your back to the target as long as possible swing is superior to the get the hips open as much as possible at impact swing that he was taught when he played on tour.  Also please consider the possibility that if he had been taught the upper core swing when he was young his hips would have been slightly more open at impact which might please those who are not in favor of the position shown here.

 

Here is Joe Miller world long drive champion bombing one, if I remember correctly this was the winning drive:

 

A couple of questions that I am curious about....  What exactly is the reason that the hips have to be open at impact in order to have a good swing?  How far open do they have to be to qualify?

[RayPlan]

5 hours ago, golferdude54 said:

A debate between the 2 smartest instructors on here…

 

And a great opportunity to flatter both of them at once. Whoever wins, golferdude wins.

[MonteScheinblum]

4 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Okay, a bit more on Larry Rinker's somewhat unappreciated impact position:

 

Please just for a moment consider the possibility that Rinker's current upper core keep your back to the target as long as possible swing is superior to the get the hips open as much as possible at impact swing that he was taught when he played on tour.  Also please consider the possibility that if he had been taught the upper core swing when he was young his hips would have been slightly more open at impact which might please those who are not in favor of the position shown here.

 

Here is Joe Miller world long drive champion bombing one, if I remember correctly this was the winning drive:

 

A couple of questions that I am curious about....  What exactly is the reason that the hips have to be open at impact in order to have a good swing?  How far open do they have to be to qualify?

I have been asking the last question for almost 20 years and the answer I get is, “The more the better.”

 

I happen to disagree.  I believe everyone has an optimum number and it’s very different for each golfer. 
 

If you want to know why I’m awake at 3 AM pacific……this is one of those moments that will be funny a few weeks from now, but right now, I want to deliver an epic atomic wedgie to someone.  
 

I’m in the emergency room with my son.  He’s fine.  I’ve been here for 15 hours and one of the other fathers is not fine.  I will bet a shiny new quarter he trolls me on social media considering his demeanor.

 

Two doctors gave him the same medical opinion

that an IV would not helpand he refused to leave.  
 

He then lectured the two doctors and the head nurse about the intricacies of IV’s as he has friends in the medical field.  
 

 

[virtuoso]

7 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Okay, a bit more on Larry Rinker's somewhat unappreciated impact position…….What exactly is the reason that the hips have to be open at impact in order to have a good swing?  How far open do they have to be to qualify?

It’s not about being more or less open at impact per se. It’s about what body alignments allow you to deliver what impact geometry with the club.

 

Staying more closed allows non-flexible golfers a chance to deliver a more inside path, so it can be an option for them but it will limit their ability to deliver vertical geometry that a high level player really needs. But, who cares, because that guy just wants to quit slicing the ball. But he will continue to hit bloopy scoopy iron shots.

 

For a long drive guy, he is trying to take a 4 degree lofted driver and hit 7 degrees up at it. Less open at impact works fine. But he is, by necessity, a one trick pony.

 

Nels, if you were a teacher, and you had a young, flexible kid who really wanted to get good, and he tested as upper core, would you try to get him to emulate Larry Rinker at impact?

[NosajNeelik]

7 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Okay, a bit more on Larry Rinker's somewhat unappreciated impact position:

 

Please just for a moment consider the possibility that Rinker's current upper core keep your back to the target as long as possible swing is superior to the get the hips open as much as possible at impact swing that he was taught when he played on tour.  Also please consider the possibility that if he had been taught the upper core swing when he was young his hips would have been slightly more open at impact which might please those who are not in favor of the position shown here.

 

Here is Joe Miller world long drive champion bombing one, if I remember correctly this was the winning drive:

 

A couple of questions that I am curious about....  What exactly is the reason that the hips have to be open at impact in order to have a good swing?  How far open do they have to be to qualify?

Why is it the poster boy for upper core on your was brain gay? He was a notoriously great putter and short crooked driver. Considering all the new data with strokes gains concerning the importance of distance over accuracy, would you want Brian Gays swing to be your model? 

[glk]

10 minutes ago, NosajNeelik said:

Why is it the poster boy for upper core on your was brain gay? He was a notoriously great putter and short crooked driver. Considering all the new data with strokes gains concerning the importance of distance over accuracy, would you want Brian Gays swing to be your model? 

Gay was getting run over due to his length off the tee and he started to work to gain distance - picked up 20 yards and won again in 2020.

Don't know if he is working with Dana but this showed up on Dana's instagram in 2023.    Tabs show still of before/after.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpMGsg2tbDo/?hl=en&img_index=1

[Nels55]

44 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

It’s not about being more or less open at impact per se. It’s about what body alignments allow you to deliver what impact geometry with the club.

 

Staying more closed allows non-flexible golfers a chance to deliver a more inside path, so it can be an option for them but it will limit their ability to deliver vertical geometry that a high level player really needs. But, who cares, because that guy just wants to quit slicing the ball. But he will continue to hit bloopy scoopy iron shots.

 

For a long drive guy, he is trying to take a 4 degree lofted driver and hit 7 degrees up at it. Less open at impact works fine. But he is, by necessity, a one trick pony.

 

Nels, if you were a teacher, and you had a young, flexible kid who really wanted to get good, and he tested as upper core, would you try to get him to emulate Larry Rinker at impact?

The idea behind the core system as I understand it is that the hips will be as open as they should be at impact and there is no need to work on getting them more or less open.  So, no I would not have the hypothetical student emulate Larry Rinker at impact.  I would have the student get to the impact position that is best for him or her.

 

I believe that there is something to the core system but i am not sure that I would be a Wright certified instructor if I was a golf instructor.  

[virtuoso]

11 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

  I would have the student get to the impact position that is best for him or her.

How would you determine that?

[MK7Golf21]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

It’s not about being more or less open at impact per se. It’s about what body alignments allow you to deliver what impact geometry with the club.

 

Staying more closed allows non-flexible golfers a chance to deliver a more inside path, so it can be an option for them but it will limit their ability to deliver vertical geometry that a high level player really needs. But, who cares, because that guy just wants to quit slicing the ball. But he will continue to hit bloopy scoopy iron shots.

 

For a long drive guy, he is trying to take a 4 degree lofted driver and hit 7 degrees up at it. Less open at impact works fine. But he is, by necessity, a one trick pony.

 

Nels, if you were a teacher, and you had a young, flexible kid who really wanted to get good, and he tested as upper core, would you try to get him to emulate Larry Rinker at impact?

yea, I’m no instructor but being that closed and standing up at impact will cause you to have tilt of upper body back behind the ball/away from target at impact. Prone to thin, angle of attack and face control issues among other things I’m sure. 
 

Don’t have to be super open but this is on the extreme side of closed and you know what they say about trying to imitate extremes. 

[virtuoso]

1 hour ago, MK7Golf21 said:

yea, I’m no instructor but being that closed and standing up at impact will cause you to have tilt of upper body back behind the ball/away from target at impact. Prone to thin, angle of attack and face control issues among other things I’m sure. 
 

Don’t have to be super open but this is on the extreme side of closed and you know what they say about trying to imitate extremes. 

Well, more specifically, with a closed or less open torso—which the pelvis position sets the limitation on—you essentially run out of wrist alignments necessary for handle lean vs angle of attack. If that happens with a driver, you have the ability to adjust static loft, and can play with ball position quite a bit….because it’s on a tee….so ground clearance.

 

With irons you have no such luxury….and…you have to be able to create a larger variance of shots as well. So you need to have a larger amount of wrist alignments to chose from while also hitting the ball from different lies. You need to be in the middle of the range of possible wrist alignments.

 

The problem with these types of classification systems is that they are presented as systematic….but they are actually completely arbitrary and very limiting. Because they sound science-y and are user friendly (due to validating sub-standard motor patterns already learned), they present what Tocqueville called a “clear but false idea.” 

Edited January 12 by virtuoso

[NosajNeelik]

29 minutes ago, glk said:

Gay was getting run over due to his length off the tee and he started to work to gain distance - picked up 20 yards and won again in 2020.

Don't know if he is working with Dana but this showed up on Dana's instagram in 2023.    Tabs show still of before/after.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpMGsg2tbDo/?hl=en&img_index=1

Interesting that the poster boy needed to change in order to stay relevant. Good for him. 

[PedronNiall]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Few others seem to have seen it, let alone having it thoroughly peer reviewed. What we have seen, in videos with baseball bats or "OK" symbols with our fingers/hands, doesn't give me much confidence.

 

If all this breaks down to is that some people will use their legs or lower body more than others, and others will use their arms and upper body a bit more, fine. But that's not the type of stuff I've seen.

 

 

Eh.

 

 

Why is 8 narrower than 4, 1, and 5. Why is 9 between 8 and 7? Why is 2 as narrow as it is?

 

I'm glad you have, but I've yet to see anything that gives me any confidence in this stuff at all. If you can't explain it, and it comes down to "voodoo," then…

 

Had no idea he'd plied his trade in so many sports until that little animation at the end. I can see the benefit of keeping your "proven" method away from any public scrutiny when you have so much to lose if it's taken to task. 

 

Some of the golf guys who refuse to embrace modern tech keep their instruction to their own jargon as it's rarer to be able to call them out on false claims. Seems Wright's game is similar in presenting methods that have little to no basis in fact but are obfuscated behind paid access or are costly to disprove. Someone would have to really be in the mood to spend the time and money needed to show the method is false so as long as none of his crew ruffles the wrong feathers they can all go along as they like while raking in money from those curious to try it. 

 

If there were validity to this it would have caught fire and Wright would be publishing the data everywhere he could. Clearly he's patented the measuring devices related to it so it's not as if he'd have any worry about someone simply using his method without having to compensate him. 

 

It is literally eye opening to me that people laugh at other methods that are rooted in embracing common swing flaws but somehow this one gets a pass from a few without any sort of outside validation. 

 

As @Albatross Dreamer and @virtuoso pointed out, this mostly comes down to embracing the tendencies of less skilled, less practiced players. Who's most likely to take a shine to the tenets of the awkward upper core swing? Those with little time in the game or those who have had difficulty picking up on the swing, which as many of us here are aware, is not natural even to the best of athletes. No surprise that if you sell them something that gives them results of some kind without having to do the work of fixing glaring flaws they'll embrace it. 

 

Can't for the life of me understand how this gets a pass but I guess that's where we'll remain until someone gets in the mood to take it to task. 

 

And what even is this information from the Read More section under Wright's name? It's intentionally vague, poorly written, and if I read anything like this on the page of a clinician I was considering visiting that appointment would never, ever happen. 

 

Dr. Wright holds two doctorates. His areas of specialization are research, learning & psychophysiology. He was a full time member of the faculty of the University of Southern California School of Medicine for 4 years and a member of the clinical faculty for over 25 years. He has been a Class A PGA Professional since 1992.

Dr. Wright was inducted into the California PGA Teacher’s Hall of Fame in 2017.

He did the research design, wrote the protocols and ran the balance of the study with Dr. Mellman for the duration of the project.

Each of the research subjects had 40 light sensors on their body and 1000 force sensors in each shoe. The entire study was about balance in 75 set up positions from Stance Width to head position and 20 swings with 4 different grip sizes. There were also separate protocols for vision assessment and balance and an exercise to determine the impact on balance in a standing posture.

 

https://wrightbalance.com/about-us/

 

If you take a look at the site, Wright has a singular paper published related to any of this, and that is on a posture correcting exercise. There are studies discussed, such as the one from above with the sensors and the like, yet none of the results from any of the others were ever published. That is beyond glaring. If someone truly had something this groundbreaking their students would be pouring out into the world and on average be far more successful at all levels than others because they'd be the most likely to have been taught the most efficient swing for their bodies, yet that is not what we see. I'll even go so far as to argue that the championships under Wright's tenure were happenstance of great recruiting as the related players did not go on to Tour fame which they attributed to the Wright method. 

 

If the method were as groundbreaking as is claimed there's zero reason they wouldn't be touting the difference in sensor output results from those who use the method vs those who don't even if for some irrational or unclear reason they chose not to publish research proving the strength of the method. Nothing about this makes sense. There's also a reason that Wright and Rinker are about the only ones with any video on the method on YouTube despite all the professionals mentioned as having been certified on the method on the site. 

 

There's more murk and obfuscation around all of this than many conspiracies, it's freaking wild. 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

I see Gay and what Rinker demonstrate as exteme.

 

Just the like extreme open extreme side bend guys.

 

I don’t think the range between upper and lower is 70* of body rotation.  More like 20-30.

 

Its not about allowing an extreme upper to early extend and be square hiped and allow a lower to be 70* open hips.

 

It about a lower being 45ish and the upper 20ish.

 

Those are random numbers that show a reference point for lowers getting more open. 
 

I was taught wide open and could do it and it killed my back and I hit blocks off the planet.

 

That’s the whole premise.  
 

The extremes presented is like saying all tall people have to play basketball and all short people have to play Ewoks.

 

Just like holding lag is not the answer to casters, allowing EE and square hips to uppers who can’t get as open as Akshay Bhatia.

 

Wide open is not the ideal for most.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

 

[Simpsonia]

17 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I see Gay and what Rinker demonstrate as exteme.

 

Just the like extreme open extreme side bend guys.

 

I don’t think the range between upper and lower is 70* of body rotation.  More like 20-30.

 

Its not about allowing an extreme upper to early extend and be square hiped and allow a lower to be 70* open hips.

 

It about a lower being 45ish and the upper 20ish.

 

Those are random numbers that show a reference point for lowers getting more open. 
 

I was taught wide open and could do it and it killed my back and I hit blocks off the planet.

 

That’s the whole premise.  
 

The extremes presented is like saying all tall people have to play basketball and all short people have to play Ewoks.

 

Just like holding lag is not the answer to casters, allowing EE and square hips to uppers who can’t get as open as Akshay Bhatia.

 

Wide open is not the ideal for most.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me try to connect the dots with one other question then. Do you think a student should try to get as rotated and open as is safely and naturally achievable for that individual, due to all the downstream benefits that rotation can bring to the swing? Or to put it another way, for a student seeking improvement, they shouldn't settle for less rotation than they are safely and naturally capable of. 

 

If so, maybe that's the disconnect. Maybe Wright and Rinker teach as such to their in-person students. It just seems from the outside when one sees an impersonal YouTube video espousing "you don't need to rotate at all" that that is what is being sought as the ideal rather than achieve what is obtainable on a personal basis. The nuance of personalized instruction is completely lost with impersonal YouTube generalizations, on both sides of the coin. 

[MK7Golf21]

33 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Let me try to connect the dots with one other question then. Do you think a student should try to get as rotated and open as is safely and naturally achievable for that individual, due to all the downstream benefits that rotation can bring to the swing? Or to put it another way, for a student seeking improvement, they shouldn't settle for less rotation than they are safely and naturally capable of. 

 

If so, maybe that's the disconnect. Maybe Wright and Rinker teach as such to their in-person students. It just seems from the outside when one sees an impersonal YouTube video espousing "you don't need to rotate at all" that that is what is being sought as the ideal rather than achieve what is obtainable on a personal basis. The nuance of personalized instruction is completely lost with impersonal YouTube generalizations, on both sides of the coin. 

 

my opinion but I don't think you should work in extremes. If you are as closed as that screenshot then I would think working on what is causing you do be so restricted in your rotation would be beneficial to your game in long run (if you are physically able). A bit more rotation would more than likely be beneficial to your over all game and shot options, possibly health too. Same for when you are extremely open, like Tiger's kid Charley was years ago. Working on getting a bit less rotation would probably be beneficial your game and health in the long run. 

[Nels55]

On 1/7/2025 at 12:46 PM, PedronNiall said:

 

Care to share some examples of any relatively known instructors who teach this?

Here is a passive arms swing video by a Golf Digest top 50 teacher:

Impressive swing change.

[GoGoErky]

He rolls the club inside, early extends and stalls and flips at the ball with the feeling she gave him because the arms had to catchup. It’s why passive arms is not good 

 

his arms and hands definitely weren’t passive and it looks and sounds like he’s hitting the bal thin. Which cool it’s not fat: what she taught him was how to shift.  

Edited January 13 by GoGoErky

[Valtiel]

On 1/10/2025 at 11:24 AM, Simpsonia said:

All sorts of people play all sorts of good and bad golf with all sorts of good and bad swings. What I'm saying is that a zero rotation swing like the below will never be as efficient or as consistent as a baseline stock tour pro style swing with rotation. A zero rotation swing requires a lot of compensations that some people can do, and a lot of others cannot. 

 

On 1/10/2025 at 1:19 PM, Nels55 said:

Rinker's hips do rotate they simply rotate later then most tour pros.  He has a lot of room between his arms and his body so he is not goat humping.   He also still has some spine angle.  He has shaft lean so I doubt that he has low point control problems. 

 

On 1/10/2025 at 2:15 PM, NosajNeelik said:

This picture is hilarious. The post is spot on to me. This isn’t what anyone should want to achieve at impact or accept from themselves if they’re seriously trying to be a good golfer - which if you’re on this site I’m pretty sure you are. 

 

On 1/11/2025 at 8:04 AM, virtuoso said:

I think it’s more of a matter of: this is how your swing already is so keep doing that. 
 

Having said that, if I have a guy that is older, bad back, no flexibility, and he’s trying to get open at impact while staying in his posture….and he can’t do it, so swipes across the ball….I would tell him to quit trying that. I would tell him to stay closed, stand up, dump the arms, twist the handle, and hit a little baby draw…..because that’s the only way he is capable of putting decent numbers on the ball. But I wouldn’t send him to Q School.

 

The reason to do that is because it’s all he can do. Rinker and Wright will tell you it’s the actual ideal way…..which is just stupid.

 

The super villain genius behind that teaching method is that you really don’t have to try to get people to change anything. Every lesson and clinic is a smashing success before they even begin.

 

On 1/11/2025 at 10:47 AM, MK7Golf21 said:

that impact screenshot has been posted around this site for years. One of the weirdest impact positions I’ve seen. 

 

10 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I have been asking the last question for almost 20 years and the answer I get is, “The more the better.”

 

I happen to disagree.  I believe everyone has an optimum number and it’s very different for each golfer. 

I've definitely spent my fair share of time thinking about this one too. @MK7Golf21 you mentioned the strangeness of the the impact position, but there are definitely a few notable tour players that have been similar. Marc Leishman and Webb Simpson come to mind, and even Geoff Ogilvy to a certain extent. Thinking about how/why they work in the context of the whole "core" philosophy has definitely been interesting, and my feeling currently is that it's very dependent upon hands and how they match up with natural body tendencies. When you start looking at the outliers on both sides, lets say Marc Leishman to Dustin Johnson, you see huge variations in hands/grip etc. Same with Simpson and Ogilvy. These "upper core" guys get tons of load in the hands and are really "throwing" the club a lot more through impact. WIth @MonteScheinblum mentioning that most Ams are uppers it also makes sense why so many of them struggle, because so often they have lousy hand mechanics. Poor/late/incorrect wrist hinging, bad positioning at the top, poor grip fundamentals etc. 

Personally I like to look at it like a general overview of cause/effect (please correct/amend smarter folks in case i'm off here). 

1) More open hips at impact -> More spine angle can be maintained -> More right arm bend can be maintained. This means the body can stay pointed down at the ball longer and the arm structure doesn't have to straighten and "release", which usually means less clubface rotation. If you are physically able to create these conditions there are in theory fewer moving parts through impact from a numbers standpoint. Face and path are very "stable" so to speak. The downside is that this is harder on the body and tends to invite a block/push/slice when you're off as path can get excessively left (for a righty). Mito Pereira's 18th hole collapse at the PGA in 2022 is a perfect example of this. He tried to hard to save it, but when everything is so "stable" from a release standpoint you have less potential IMO to correct when all your body positions aren't perfect. 

2) More square hips at impact -> Less spine tilt -> More release of the arms/hands required. Less taxing on the body but more reliant on good hands/wrists from a release standpoint. Higher clubface rotation and a more rightward (for a righty) path, meaning draws are favored. More moving parts from a release standpoint, but via things that are easier to move quickly (hands), so it can be just as "stable" with the right matchups. The odd snap hook or shank will appear here more than the above, see Webb Simpson's shank history. Interestingly this group seems to more often have higher grade short games which fits as you could argue they are "better with their hands" since they are a more active component. 

Both have downsides which makes this yet another bell curve, the meat by definition being in the middle which is where Monte mentioned most pros tend to fall. #2 here is more accessible to the average player but it requires good hands, hence why poor hand/wrist fundamentals are so detrimental. 

The elephant in the room with all of this, and why I took issue with how Rinker sells his approach, is that a fundamentally proper pivot/shift is necessary *for both*. This is something that is just as frequently busted with the average player due to a poor/missing understanding of proper pressure shifting sequencing, so no amount of flipping between these extremes will fix anything. A properly sequenced pivot and proper loading/setting of the hands based on the individual's swing is a prerequisite for all of this. 

[virtuoso]

@Valtiel see pm

[MK7Golf21]

@Valtiel I don't know that impact pretty extreme. I only looked up Webb and he isn't even in the same ballpark, he is a more handsy guy though I agree and also I get what you mean. I actually like Simpsons, not crazy open or closed. 

 

 

older one here from 2011 or so

 

Edited January 13 by MK7Golf21

[PedronNiall]

3 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Here is a passive arms swing video by a Golf Digest top 50 teacher:

Impressive swing change.

 

Except she's not teaching a passive arms swing, she's teaching one where the arms aren't the initiator or engine of the downswing, which they shouldn't be. The terminology could be better but it works for someone having the issues he did so pertinent to the lesson at least. I don't think all the talk about the hands don't nothing is great for any rando watching it hoping to understand the swing rather than someone with similar issues to his needing a fix, though this isn't the first YouTube clip that's not to be taken out of context. 

 

I'm quite sure you can look at what he did when he went from duffing it to a solid strike and agree his arms weren't passive.