Distance Question

I think brilliant white and painted to the top give a bigger illusion than sunk into the ground and a turf line at the top of a 2 year old cup.

LowPost, you're right, during the PGA, it was mentioned that the hole looks larger than it is because of the white paint. The white paint is for the benefit of the TV telecast, so the hole stands out better (bigger) on the green.

Office work got in the way but I finally got to see the u-tube video mentioned above... It makes sense and I am gonna experiment with it on the driving range... Thanks.

Hello All:

I have to agree with the earlier post by KBP concerning Lorena Ochoa's technique.

I have seen her play on five occasions over the years and each time I watched her entire warm-up. I video taped these sessions so I could review this truly world class swing any time from optimal angles. Her leg and hip action is amazing and you can clearly see that this is her power source. Most importantly, this dynamic use of her lower body and core muscles allows her to whip the upper body (yes, including her arms and hands) in balance which is critical.

As to the argument of whether the swing is arms, legs, hands, body, fast, slow etc...it is really all of those elements but the secret is coordinating these in such a way that allows the golfer to swing as fast as possible through impact keeping the clubhead and shaft in the correct positions. This is only possible if the entire body is in balance. Not one proffesional today looks out of balance at any time in the swing. This is why the first move of the swing should be very slow relative to the 100 plus MPH we attempt to achieve at impact. A quick jerky move off the ball will rarely allow a balanced swing. Nor will a quick move from the top.

This is where the hip action usually seperates the good from average players. The hips connect the lower and upper body actions and if you watch closely you see that the good players have a hip movement that is very different from high handicaps. This is usually very clear at impact where the better players hips are open or clearing and the high handicaps are more square. This differential not only provides power but also balance.

Also, it is true that Lorenas average drive is about 260-270 but who among us would not like those numbers especially with her consistency. When you watch her it is crazy how she can move it these distances especially when you stand next to her, very diminuative. Still a great athelete proving clearly that the game is mostly about good technique, timing and balance.

I can not agree with the concept that the hips can be major speed generators in the golf swing. I know players like Tiger use greater than normal hip rotation but I see this as the weakness in his swing and he does make some poor shots at times, normally a push where his hips become overactive and his upper body lags back creating an open clubface.

The hips do play their part but they move at low speed and work to support the faster movements of the torso, shoulders, arms and wrists. Someone with fast hips and slow upper body movements will not hit long shots, the hips can be effective to keep the head back and lower the trail shoulder as they slide forward. A golf swing is no different in this respect to swinging a heavy hammer into a nail or throwing a heavy weight underarm away from you. In these cases you would not pay any attention to the way the hips move, they would work all on their own with no need to exaggerate their natural low speed support to the body, any over rotation will cause you to spin out and throw the trail shoulder forward, promoting an outside in swing.

To reiterate: If you want to hit the ball further then you must be able to swing the club faster and under control, to do this you must work on the upper body, arms and wrists transferring momentum progressively to the clubhead and then the ball. The lower body can only assist to support these movements and create a stable platform that allows you to hit through faster with stability.

The attached article has it right:

http://www.arthurdevany.com/?p=94

__________________
Best Regards
Brian

________________________________
Funny o'l game!

Regarding Brian's contention that the hips are not a major source of distance, I read a study a while back that about 76% of the speed and power of the clubhead comes from the hands, wrist, arms levers. This, you know for yourself, having made an occasional escape shot where you basically used only those components to make a remarkably satisfying and long shot. There's someone like Dennis Walters who gives a good demonstration of the idea that you don't need the hips and lower body to get a lot of distance. There's also the trick shots of hitting from your knees, or while sitting on the edge of a chair.

Clubhead speed is the major factor in distance, so you have to rationalize what the hips and legs contribute to the clubhead speed. In the case of the hips being out of sequence with the arms and hands (firing too quick), the clubhead speed is in fact greatly compromised.

I forget the other percentages according to the studies, but say the shoulder and body rotations adds another 20%, or so.

That would suggest the hip and leg movements contribute to about 10%.

So as an example, if the first two components gives a average pro golfer 230 yards on a driver shot, and his hip and leg actions gives him an additional 7%, that would be a distance of 256 yards. Say an exceptionally strong hip and leg action gives you the additional 3%, that would take his drive past the average pro's ball by about 7 yards.

You can quibble about the figures I'm using for the examples, but I believe the basics of the analysis justify the reality. The difference in yardages in the ranks of the top distance golfers is not in tens of yards, but in single digit yards. So, does Ochoa's super strong hip and leg actions account for her whatever single digit distance difference over the next lower LPGA players? Of course, you have the Pavin's and such who are tens of yards lower, but this may be justification because he has very little hip action. You also have recreational golfers who do not shift the weight at all and fall back in their followthrough, and only hit the drives 150 yards. There are other factors, which affect the speed and distances of golfers, but consider the above analysis on an apples to apples basis (i.e. good golfers of the same calibre, good techniques, same full swings)

As for the actual percentages in the report, I'm sure someone out there has the actual figures. I'm fairly certain about the 76% figure.

Ted

Good points Ted. The link I attached in my thread supports your explanation well.

things like this are so trivial. Did the study say who it was on or what type of swing stlye they had? because that will make a huge differnce.

also, and engine supplies 100% of power to the wheels. but w/o a transmition you are going no where. so the transmision is 100% nessisary to the movement of a car. espicialy if you had a very high gear and measured at the wheel. you would then measure that their is higher speed after the transmision and now come up with a study that says the transmision supplies 80% of the power and the engine only supplies 20%? or another analogy... if the tail end of a whip said it didsn't need the butt end, instead of the whip now being 10' long it is only 8' long now, your distance will suffer, same goes for anypart of the whip going away and any part of your swing going away. can you hit the ball w/o anypart? sure. will it go as far if you used all of it? no

if someone gave you a choice as to what body parts you can use and them only then this discussion might have a point. but if not, you might want to use all of your body parts in harmony to get the result you need.

I think you may have missed the point. We all agree that the lower body adds to the power of a golf swing, the point that is being debated is whether hip rotation is the prime speed generator. This is an important debate in my estimation as many state that the lower body generates most of the power, I (and others) believe that this is not so. I think this kind of information confuses golfers who are looking for improvement and will actually create unnecessary problems in them learning something that should not be as complicated as it has become.

Of course you are entitled to your view and if the subject is trivial to you then that's fine, it just happens to be quite important to me.

__________________
Best Regards
Brian

________________________________
Funny o'l game!

I have read other articles and heard the figures quoted often by teaching pros such as Jim McLean, Wilson (who teaches the Golf Machine principle) and many others over the years. The Golf Machine is based on the Iron Byron (look, no hips) action. So you can't discount this as trivia. Neither is the proof of escape shots made by virtually every golfer, using the hands and arms swing only.

Jim Flick, who is the originator in partnership with Jack Nicklaus, of the still prestigious Golf Digest Schools of Golf, constantly preaches that in instructing new and average students, that he de-emphasizes the lower body in the swing. As Brian has said earlier, Flick says that for the average golfer the legs should react to and support the swing of the arms. He does say that for teaching his pros and advanced golfers, he would add in the legs, presumably for the added distance which they need to compete.

I frankly could not follow your analogy of transmissions, whips, etc you relate in your post, with respect to this issue.

As to the type of golfer, there is a difference in the Sergio lag versus the O'Meara lag, but this is a comparison of the relative hands, arm levers and rotations of each golfer. There are also other unique diferences in styles, but again that does not address the issue of the "major" contributor.

The main thing though, as Brian said, is you are missing the point of this aspect of the discussion.



If you are somehow defending the idea the legs are the major contibutors to the distance, the percentages should be reversed supposedly (legs 40, 50 or 70%, arms ?? %.) Hummm?

Ted

when you say you can't follow... do you mean you don't know how a transmision or whip works like you don't understand? or do you disagree with my analogy?

am i defending the legs are major contributors to distance? i think the legs are as important as the hands are. in that i said all parts in harmony are important.

so i guess i would be defending that legs are imprtant and major CONTRIBUTORS (not producers) of distance. and again, i can't give them a number

i guess trivial is not the word i was looking to use. the subject is not trivial, it is more the numebrs are arbitrary i guess would be better way of saying it.

and that means that i can't assign any number% of importance to any body part, there is no way to measure it really.

i can hit 6i 200 all parts. or i can take my wrist cock completly out and hit it 175. would you then say that wrist make 13% of the swing? or i could take out my hips and hit 175 (though it would not be very accurate), then would my hips give 13% of the swing? it might be true that in a full out swing the arms/hands happend to produce 76% of the power, but if you took them out, you are not swinging with 24% of that power that you had. I feel there is just too many factor to compute to give a number to something.

and there are so many differnt swing techniques and how were these numbers measured? did they measure one planers? two planers? ect.

could my lower body be considered to power my swing? absolutly but what does the lower body mean? my lower body is connected to my upper body, when i move my lower body my upper body moves, so if i concentrated on my upper body then i would say that that was the major power contributor.

but how do i use my lower body? do i use it to fire my hips around fast to power the swing? aboslutly not. I DO NOT think that hip ROTAION adds speed to the club. now weight shifting and hips ROTATING is very important. but the hips are rotating in reaction to and to support teh upper body.


one thing i agree with you 100% on is that it has become WAY to complicated when i reality it is not.

golfinguy28,

You are choosing to ignore the main issue, and all your comments do not address the issue of where the hips and legs stand as major contributors to distance. We're not discounting the whole body working in harmony, and the like truths. You suggest that isolating components is not measurable, but you have to know this is not a huge scientific undertaking. Swing labs do this kind of thing and more, using a variety of golfers.

You cannot ignore the fact that Dennis Walters hits the ball over 250 yards, while sitting at the edge of the cart seat, while strapped in. In this case, the hips and legs provide no contribution to speed and distance. The fact then is the hands, arms (and add the shoulders and torso to an extent, in this case) only are likely producing the 250+ yard distance for him.

Studies and reputable icons in the game have given the figure of 76% as the contribution of the hands and arms. You choose out of hand to not believe these sources. If it's not in that neighbourhood, Mr. Waters, and others like him, or the guys hitting from their knees, must be doing the impossible. I must do the impossible every time I hit a 150 yard shot with a hooded 7 iron, using only a flick of the wrists and arm rotation, no legs at all. If I used my hips and legs, with a full swing, I don't think I would hit it 200 yards. In any case, these actual examples must show that the legs are not a major contributor, as there's not a whole lot of "major percentage" left for their contribution after the hands and arms have their share.

Regarding your part swing analogies, that is not a consideration, as I clarified in my first post on this subject, and I'm sure everyone would reasonably understand that: There are other factors, which affect the speed and distances of golfers, but consider the above analysis on an apples to apples basis (i.e. good golfers of the same calibre, good techniques, same full swings)

Ted

The current debate is refering to the hips in the golf swing, I hope that helps you understand.

My previous quote was in response to a post by Mr T.Slaught that made emphasis on the important role the hips had in powering the golf swing. I responded by stating my opinion that I dont believe this is correct and their main role was to support the upper body and add a small degree of rotational power, that it is the shoulders arms and wrists that contribute most to long hitting. I also posted a link to a website that gave a very informative overview of the subject. I am confused at what point you are trying to make here so find it hard to enter into a constructive debate with you. Please read Mr Slaughts post again and comment on whether you are in agreement with his comments, if not then please clarify your opinion on the matter.

I repeat again: No one is suggesting the lower body plays no part in generating power.

__________________
Best Regards
Brian

________________________________
Funny o'l game!

I think you and brian might be on differnet topics. I thought that brian's main point was to de-emphisise the hips rotation since that produces very little distance in itself. which i agree.

the guy in the chair is a differnt story, when i say use my hips i mean move my lower spine since my hips are connected to my lower spine it is just easier to say hips. but that guy in the chair is clearly moving his lower spine and would move his hips if you could. and you see when his lower spine moves left in the DS his shoulder (which was up) now goes down and creates leverage and goes into his right arm. if it wasn't for that lower spine/hip action he would not hit as far as he does. i would like to see one picture of that guy hitting with his left arm only more than 100 yards. if you use the left ar only you need a ton of rotaional force to power the swing, the wieght shift is quite pointless.

take your left arm off and only use your right arm to swing, it is nearly impossible to use muscle's to get that club to the ball, so you have to lock the arm back and use the legs and weightshift and body to get the club to the ball. so what is powering the club? the weight shift is allowing the club to to swing and the graviry and centrifigal force is accelerating the club and that is how you get 250 shot w/o using arm muscles. now the right arm will act as a lever still, but centrifigal force is powering that lever, not muscle.

if i went with you and had to give numbers i would say 30% right arm, 40% in wieght shift, 10% wrist and 19% right tricep and the only reason i would give the left arm 1% is that is provodes stability so the right arm can focus on hitting the ball.

if you hooked me up to that machine it might register some arbitrary number for my lower body. how does it measure that? does it measure the rotational forece of my lower body? if that is true then the machine would be wrong, I do not purposfully give my lower body and forcefull rotaion.

the spine is a 2' lever with a "T" on the top being our shoulders. if you move tht bottom of that T 1' the top of the "T" moves maybe 6" but with a ton more force due to the principal of leverage and fulcrums ect. and that wieght shift powers 40% of my swing and the right arm allows the club to travel in an arc utilizing gravity and centrifigul force to smack the ball. if you want to give it a little juice, you can add a wrist cock, and you can add a right tricep motion, and getting real advances you can add opposing hands conter torque and start to really smack the ball, but that is too advanced, the wieght shift right arm concept is the most basic part of the swing IMO.

but i am also talking about a swing, not a hit. a hitter doesn't need any rotaion or weight shift at all, it is pure pectoral and tricep and forearm muscles and maybe a little shoulder muscles for juice.


i have read T slaugh post. and i do disagree that the "clearing of the hips" is what powers the swing and that is the edge pro's have.


this is what i mostly think happens here http://www.newgolfswing.com/newgolfswing07.php

I think you and brian might be on differnet topics. I thought that brian's main point was to de-emphisise the hips rotation since that produces very little distance in itself. which i agree.


No, Brian and I are on the same topic. Brian took exception to the statement that the hips are a major contributor to distance. That was the topic, the de-emphasization was a side issue. I agreed with Brian and pointed out, with good substantiation which you out of hand wave off, that the hands and arms generate more distance than does the hips. It was you who went off topic and danced all about the topic, with vague references to an engine, partial swings, and so on.

Even your last post, why would you even going into an irrelevant discourse about taking one hand off the club to make what point. No one has suggested anything close to this.

As for Mr. Walters, I already said in my previous post in his case he has some contribution from his shoulders and torso, but I doubt he could not contribute any hip lunge (it would be supporting the upper body and arms swing), and definitely no legs.

I believe your last sentence (i have read T slaugh post. and i do disagree that the "clearing of the hips" is what powers the swing and that is the edge pro's have. and your earlier statement to de-emphisise the hips rotation since that produces very little distance in itself. which i agree should end this discussion.

Ted