When to push against the ground?

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, airjammer said:

This good enough?

Watched the first video and agree with @iacas the videos aren’t in the context of the thread and thus not relative to this topic. Based on titles going to go out on a branch and say they are also out go context 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, airjammer said:

 You are only attached to the earth in the golf swing by your feet. Every single movement you make with any bodypart affects grf. 

 

We know. That doesn't change anything I've said.

[MonteScheinblum]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

I disagree with Monte on the “active” part. I have to get a number of people to actively do things. The ground is just a platform, so you have to push to get that reaction. If you’re forward properly that’s the time to “jump” with the lead leg. That’s an active thing.

 

One of the things Dave never seems to look at is… I bet the time to impact isn’t as different as “pre-P5” in the long driver and “P6” in the shorter hitter looks. The long driver is getting to impact in like 0.1 servings from there… and the short hitter might in almost the same time. If the short hitter did it at P4.3 she’d have peaked the speed out to the club ~P6 most likely!

We don’t disagree.  I tell people to push too.  What I meant is if all you do is push, it’s a disaster if you didn’t get into position to push first.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

We don’t disagree.  I tell people to push too.  What I meant is if all you do is push, it’s a disaster if you didn’t get into position to push first.

 

Okay then. 👍🏼

[KD1]

Check out these log reaction forces

 

 

[Scottbox]

5 minutes ago, KD1 said:

Check out these log reaction forces

 

 

I watched this 5x. I thought it was an SCTV sketch.

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, KD1 said:

Check out these log reaction forces

 

 

That looks just like things at my driving range...

[getitdaily]

7 minutes ago, KD1 said:

Check out these log reaction forces

 

 

Now there's a way to drill grf for golf. Get the timing wrong and you're paying, big time.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, Scottbox said:

I watched this 5x. I thought it was an SCTV sketch.

Timber sports are wild to watch. Serious skills, but some stuff that's really scary. You really don't want to shank in that contest...

[ShortGolfer]

Two years ago I couldn't feel the bottom of my right foot, so I decided to skip GRF entirely.  The sensations are coming back so  may look into that again.

There are some folks in which the nerves go dead and never come back.

[KD1]

47 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Timber sports are wild to watch. Serious skills, but some stuff that's really scary. You really don't want to shank in that contest...

 

They call me Paul Bunyan, 'cause my swing clears forests and splits fairways!

 

Edited July 23 by KD1

[onehopstopt]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Even if you limit it to the PGA Tour, slower swingers peak a bit later. Some are leaving a little speed on the table, but some, per what I'm saying, have to peak later to actually synchronize what they're doing. You can see it in other things, too. Hand speed (grip speed on GEARS) often peaks a bit later if you're looking at it relative to where the shaft is. Get a large enough sample size (some players have a little float load, some are pretty wide throughout) and you'll see some correlation there.

 

OK this is compelling data. It definitely does make intuitive sense that faster swings would need to apply ground force earlier. I wonder what you would see as an issue for applying vertical force too early, and how common it is.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

They don't — you're going to find a lot more LPGA Tour players who are below optimal than a PGA Tour players. The gap is closing, but there's still a gap. Just not as much money in the women's game, which affects the instruction they can get, and honestly the amount of time and effort they have to put in to get to the Tour and keep their cards.

 

This also makes a lot of sense. I guess I should have expected that!

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, onehopstopt said:

OK this is compelling data. It definitely does make intuitive sense that faster swings would need to apply ground force earlier.

 

To be clear, both can be and sometimes are true:

• The earlier you apply GRF, the faster you will swing (to a point).
• Faster swingers have to apply it earlier (by shaft angle) because they have less time (or the same amount of time) as a slower swinger to get from that shaft position to P7.

20 minutes ago, onehopstopt said:

I wonder what you would see as an issue for applying vertical force too early, and how common it is.

 

You almost never see it.

 

Even if you count someone who doesn't really apply much verticals at all, it's still generally late, not early.

[getitdaily]

38 minutes ago, onehopstopt said:

 

OK this is compelling data. It definitely does make intuitive sense that faster swings would need to apply ground force earlier. I wonder what you would see as an issue for applying vertical force too early, and how common it is.

 

 

This also makes a lot of sense. I guess I should have expected that!

I'll defer to @iacas here because he has data and the systems to.measure this stuff...but, imo, applying verticals too early would basically be

 

1. Dive bombing the lead foot at p2

2. And then pushing up from the lead foot before the arms start down

 

On video it would look like a reverse pivot followed by a goat hump.

[jonsnow]

17 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

I'll defer to @iacas here because he has data and the systems to.measure this stuff...but, imo, applying verticals too early would basically be

 

1. Dive bombing the lead foot at p2

2. And then pushing up from the lead foot before the arms start down

 

On video it would look like a reverse pivot followed by a goat hump.

How did you know that? I haven't even posted my video yet...

[getitdaily]

3 minutes ago, jonsnow said:

How did you know that? I haven't even posted my video yet...

I see the past and the present. Im mentally ambidextrous. 

[getitdaily]

 

 

[PedronNiall]

@unskinnybop99

 

Ground reaction forces are a construct of the mind. Can you prove Van der Waals forces even exist? If you can't and you can't see them with your naked eye how can you even be sure the ground is real or that it's holding you up? Only once you understand that all things are unknowable can you begin to transcend to striking the ball with intent alone. 

 

But seriously, if you're really curious about the when you can watch some Dr Kwon evals to supplement your insights. Interesting outcomes there. One of the longest ball strikers he worked with was actually going vertical too hard though his timing was good. Once he "cleaned it up" he gained even more yardage despite already being WRX sick nasty with it.

 

Here's a quick overview where he talks about typical ranges.

 

 

 

Here's the eval @glk shared previously. At the 10 minute mark they discuss how he uses the ground and that he actually gets too much reaction force because of how he moves. From there they go on to discuss the fix and many other things. Worth watching from the beginning. 

 

 

 

[Valtiel]

13 hours ago, golferdude54 said:

Isn’t arms lagging behind in transition a bigger/more common problem than not pushing off the ground enough?

 

Won’t pushing it more just leave the arms even further behind if the arms aren’t fixed first?

This got skipped over but I think it's actually an interesting question with an equally interesting (by my understanding) answer. 

Arms lagging behind transition is linked to weight being stuck back. IMO it's a combo of needing to buy time to get weight forward and the tendency for your hands/arms to travel towards where your pressure is front/back. When you're stuck on your back leg and thus "late", your hands/arms are not incentivized to take the quickest path towards the ball as you need time to get your low point closer to it. It's like a regulator on how fast you can swing your arms because they want to cast out wider from the top. If your weight is forward however (or rather in the process of getting there) then your hands/arms are incentivized to pull in and get narrower. Therefore if you're pushing off off the ground with your front leg then that means you got enough weight forward in time to even do that, and if you got that weight there in time then you sequenced correctly and your arms probably aren't lagging as a result. 

[GolfTurkey]

I have 2 postulates and a question for the instructors:

 

  --Almost every time an instructor posts before and after swing videos of a student that has made a big improvement to their swing, their club head speed usually went up significantly. 

 

  --If their club head speed increased significantly, their grf must almost definitely have increased significantly too and/or the timing of grf improved, all without thinking about it.

 

My question is how often is directly targeting grf beneficial versus simply cleaning up the swing and grf improving as a byproduct and how good does a swing have to be for direct grf targeting to take place (as opposed to fixing something else move obviously wrong)?

[iacas]

11 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

Here's a quick overview where he talks about typical ranges.

 

That video seems to be about A/P forces (and pushing in those directions), not the vertical that we're talking about here.

 

7 hours ago, GolfTurkey said:

--Almost every time an instructor posts before and after swing videos of a student that has made a big improvement to their swing, their club head speed usually went up significantly.

 

I disagree with that one, but I don't know what you've seen. I have plenty of lessons where I honestly don't even look at the clubhead speed, or lessons where I note it at the beginning and at the end, the student is swinging within 3 MPH of their original swing speed, but on the lower side… but they're still having to think about and do "new" things so it's not fully up to speed yet. These students often end up a little faster, but I wouldn't call it "significantly." To see a significant rise in SS requires a significant (doesn't mean difficult) change.

 

7 hours ago, GolfTurkey said:

--If their club head speed increased significantly, their grf must almost definitely have increased significantly too and/or the timing of grf improved, all without thinking about it.

 

Does the second matter if the first is off?

 

7 hours ago, GolfTurkey said:

My question is how often is directly targeting grf beneficial versus simply cleaning up the swing and grf improving as a byproduct and how good does a swing have to be for direct grf targeting to take place (as opposed to fixing something else move obviously wrong)?

 

The simple truth is that you can often go about a change in two ways. When I change someone's hand path, perhaps, or I change how much they bend their right elbow so they stop bending it 130°… the GRF stuff changes. But am I looking at GRF when I'm helping them not bend their right elbow as much as they're physically capable of bending it? No.

 

But for other things… you can shift someone's club path by where the points of application are in the feet (and when, and how), or you can change it another way. What way is better is case by case. Depends on a lot of other things, too.

 

That's part of being an instructor.

[sundaypins]

On 7/23/2025 at 11:10 AM, GoGoErky said:

Do you have names of any instructor who says let the club do the work or don’t do anything til p6. I don’t recall any saying that and would be interested in watching their content 

 

I know 4 PGA tour players off the top of my head, and could remember a few more maybe.  A decision allowing the club to do its work is made well before P6 and really has nothing to do with P6.  

 

[GolfTurkey]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

I disagree with that one, but I don't know what you've seen. I have plenty of lessons where I honestly don't even look at the clubhead speed, or lessons where I note it at the beginning and at the end, the student is swinging within 3 MPH of their original swing speed, but on the lower side… but they're still having to think about and do "new" things so it's not fully up to speed yet. These students often end up a little faster, but I wouldn't call it "significantly." To see a significant rise in SS requires a significant (doesn't mean difficult) change.

 

Does the second matter if the first is off?

 

 

I've seen Monte (and other instructors) post several clips like this:

 

https://www.instagram.com/montescheinblum/reel/DFqDV2evNxy/?hl=en

 

This is a sample of one...some time ago I spent three days with an instructor.  I was tilting back too soon in transition and my hands were working deeper so I ended up stuck too far from the inside and hitting blocks and hooks. 

 

There was a small amount of backswing work but about 90% of the time was spent on keeping the upper body stacked over the lower in transition and the hand path working more out in transition (an intention of exiting more left helped with the hand path).

 

Almost every swing was at 30-40% effort and there was no talk or measurement of grf or even speed. At the end of the final day the launch monitor came out and the instructor had me hit a few drivers. By this stage I was really tired (it was hot and humid and I'd hit a lot of swings even if they were low effort). Much to my surprise, my CHS was up 7-8 mph just because of an improved swing (and grf must have been better too).

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

https://www.instagram.com/montescheinblum/reel/DFqDV2evNxy/?hl=en

 

Did you watch the Before swing? It's an outlier situation.

 

8 minutes ago, GolfTurkey said:

Almost every swing was at 30-40% effort and there was no talk or measurement of grf or even speed. At the end of the final day the launch monitor came out and the instructor had me hit a few drivers. By this stage I was really tired (it was hot and humid and I'd hit a lot of swings even if they were low effort). Much to my surprise, my CHS was up 7-8 mph just because of an improved swing (and grf must have been better too).

 

Okay.

 

Look, I often have someone who comes in for a GEARS lesson make some swings on the force plates. Then we work on GEARS, and… at the end, I measure their swing on the force plates.

 

They're often quite a bit better. Better timing, higher peaks.

 

Everything you do has the potential to change the force plates. Very few lessons gain "significant" clubhead speed. Given that, I reject the premise you proposed before.

 

That's all.

[GoGoErky]

53 minutes ago, sundaypins said:

 

I know 4 PGA tour players off the top of my head, and could remember a few more maybe.  A decision allowing the club to do its work is made well before P6 and really has nothing to do with P6.  

 

In the context of this thread?

 

 

Edited July 25 by GoGoErky

[sundaypins]

26 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

In the context of this thread?

 

No directly, yes indirectly but no need posting anything further between 2 competing, but similar ideas, in reference to letting a club do its work:  one person comments about 'affecting' GRF, the other speaks about 'creating' GRF.