Hybrid Pop Up Help
 

I'm recently trying to relearn TGM from initial studies back in the early 90's primarily due to your web site input..Thank you..

I have a new shot however. It is that I can pop up my hybrids (19 & 23 degree Quick Strike Golfsmith types) probably 30 feet in the air and maybe 30 yards long..I've done this on a slight downhill lie and uphill lie as well...Each time the low point of my divots were about 4" in front of the ball..It's almost like I'm driving the ball into an 80 degree sloped hill with a hybrid..It doesn't happen all the time

I naturally trap and hit the ball quite low anyway and shoot in the mid 70's more times than not...The rest of my clubs seem to be fine and hit normal straightish shots

Does anyone else have this problem with the shallow faced hybrids? Thanks for your help

Mashie

Fulcrum?
 

Does the low point of your divot have the correct relationship with the low point of a geometrically correct golf stroke...namely the left shoulder? It could be as simple as a ball position too far up plane. I match the low point of my divot with my left shoulder, not neccessarily four inches in front of the ball.

Fulcrum response
 

okie,

Thank you for your immediate reply...My ball position at address is just inside my left heel..I'd say my left shoulder is at least 4 in front of the ball @ impact...My low point fulcrum/shoulder might even be slightly more than 4 inches ahead of the ball but the hybrid head comes back up out of the ground..In other words, if I tee up a hybrid slightly the low point is about 5 inches ahead of the ball..I grew up on a hard pan GC and natuarlly really lean on the shaft...

Mashie

Move the ball down plane
 

I may be missing something but I would say if the ball is five inches back of your left shoulder then it may be too far "back in your stance." I think it is about 6 inches from the left shoulder to your nose, so if you are at 5 inches and you have a centered head the ball is pretty much in the middle of your stance. I have found that if the ball is too far back of low point I have the tendency of creating a more realistic (but tragic) low point with a bending left wrist...the kiss of death! I have developed a rule with regards to ball position. I do not place the ball further back than what is required for a realistic length of divot. For example placing the ball way back in your stance, in reality up plane, say 10 inches back of low point suggests a divot similar in length! Not all clubs are designed to excavate! So, I have found my straightaway ball postion for example with a lob wedge exactly off the tip of my nose, 6 inches up plane from lowpoint. This is still a work in progress and is most frustrating because if your ball postion is off then your geometry is going to be off, neccessitating fancy corrective hinge action (angled to vertical usually!) If you are popping them up you are catching it too high on the club that has a lowered center of gravity, so move it down plane, but be sure to go down and out like before! Knowing full well that I will not take a proper divot I still hit down on my driver... heck I hit down on EVERYTHING! The thrust is still down for a grass as well as an air divot. So keep the good mechanic (down) and perhaps improve your geometry a bit (ball postion.)

Up Plane Response
 

Okie,

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply...I'm pretty sure you just nailed the solution..Thinking it over more clearly I do place the ball further back (at least a ball) for slightly uphill and downhill shots...This is probably exactly why I haven't seen the pop up on the flat range...I'll also find out the best solution for me when the geometery is off and I tend to naturally put it back in the stance when I have a funky lie..

Also I like your rule about the reasonable divot length and will experiment with that as well through the bag..I might not even have to hit a shot to fix this problem now that I've seen the most likely solution..Maybe the best lesson ever for me! and I've been playing for over 30 years...Thanks..

Also, understanding golf methodologies and short game are my thing..If I can help you in any way just give me a jingle.. :salut:

Mashie

Thanks
 

I hope that you sort it out. Thanks for the offer. I am curious to know what you mean by golfing methodologies? Is that reference to knowledge about different teaching styles etc.?

Golfing Methods
 

I've had lessons from Led, Ballard, Gary Smith, Paul Moran, Sorrell, Robert Baker to name a few popular ones :eyes: ...To me Ballard, Sorrell, "SliceFixer", and TGM are all different methods to get the job done...One method says your head moves 18 inches to left and is a fault if your head fixates at any point..And another says your head must remain fixed throughout most of the swing...I see a style difference as hitting versus swinging in TGM...Whether hitting or swinging is your style, you must keep your head fixed/FLV or the machine won't work too well..

I understand that Homer wrote, "stationary" but Homer himself did not have a stationary head in his swing ttp://www.lynnblakegolf.com/gallery/images/mm-ms.gif. Why?

A Low Point
 

Bad camara work, lack of flexibility, emphasing a point, using 10-13-A Standard Shoulder Turn without adaquate Waist Bend from the hips sockets.

Bouyaaa!
 

Take that! Is is possible to keep the head perfectly stationary? I think not, but that is the ideal, and I do not believe you have to have zero deviation...but less is best. The steadier my head is the better I strike it. It is a testment to innate balance of tour players whose heads resemble bouyeys on a choppy sea! I not this particular topic is well worn but...no but...just wanted to post!

Agreed and let's not start it up again!

"Heading" in the Right Direction
 

One additional comment regarding Mr. Kelley. He always view himself as a "researcher" and not a "performer". So like the pictures in the book, if he was trying to get "a" point accross, his actions were not intended as a reference to any other aspect which his demonstration may include incidentally.

I am surprised that nobody responded to your analysis mashie72. Permit me. TGM is not a method, but does indeed support all workable methods. It is the physics of rotation and the gemoteric apodictic certainties that govern ALL golf strokes, seeings they are all subject to the laws of force and motion. 24 components, 144 variations = a verititble buffet of golf stroke options. It is a systematic approach that supports MY WAY, but never THE WAY. It is a teacher's perogative to teach a favored stroke pattern (Homer expressed preferences) but their preference is not THE law, but to be worth anything it must be based on law. Outside of TGM the tendency is towards positions, whereas TGM is rooted in alignments. People think they understand that distinction, but I have expereince serendipitous wonder on that idea more than once!

Listening to Led and his protege Baker they are describing fleeting feelings with little mechanical substance. Mechanics produces the feel (if you are look...look...looking!) And then feel reproduces the mechanics with scientific precision. Automation is the utilization of the precision of science...concerning the golf stroke anyway. Some are automatically bad, others are learning to harness the forces of nature.

TGM is a philosophy that is driven by the true order of things. I believe it is unsurpassed in its ability to describe what is actually taking place. The ignorant and the arrogant suggest it is a cult. That is of course simply non-conformity to the true nature of things (that is for Bucket!) I think the golf puzzle was solved. Understanding the proof HK provided is the only quest that still remains. Endless info is still being provided...people have still gotta eat.

I'm interested in your experiences with such luminaries as long as we acknowledge that there is little or no parity with TGM!

Forgive me...Okie is ornery today!

mashie72,

Not sure if you're familiar with 1-L-18, but plane angle effects ball position.

A quote from Mr. Kelly.This might be a factor if there is any "side hill" element to the up hill/down hill lies you describe.

The Titled Tire
 

Andy R,

Thanks for your input..No, I wasn't aware about the steeper plane angle and ball placement relationship...However it makes sense to me that the more tilted the tire is on the the ground, the more of the tire's circumference touches the ground..Now this brings up a question for Okie to see if his driver's low point is much further up plane than his 6" for his wedge...As I think I understand Okie, a 10" Air divot is probably not the case...:happy3:

Mashie

Method
 

Okie,

Tell me how you really feel...:laughing9 ...No problem I think understand where you're coming from..No doubt about for me too about HK's book in it's efforts to describe and explain the golf swing..I believe it's second to none as far as consistent in depth details of the mechanics of the swing based on an inclined plane..

However, for me, it's still a method which "refers to the plans or procedures followed to accomplish a task or obtain a goal"...If you use the Ballard method, you hardly follow any of the plans or procedures to accomplish the same task..

Then you might retort, "Well, Ballard is in there with PP#4 etc" or you might say Ballard method is inferior and fleeting...I'd reply the Rocco did OK this year for 5 days in the Open, Calvin Peete, Hal & Curtis all hit it pretty darn straight..

Anyway, I'm here to learn from you folkes and maybe you can learn from me and not fight over semantics...:) Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree

Feel free to ask me anything you want to know about the other high priests

Mashie
 

The ball postion for the driver is further down plane. Low point is about two inches ahead...kinda off my left ear!

Yeah, we are probably at an empasse. Forgive my ethusiasm, but TGM taught me to put my own stroke pattern together. I am still tinkering. A method to me is a particular stroke pattern i.e. it has enough compatible components to work. Hal Sutton and co. were successful despite, not because of the methodology in question? I say if you can sway equally well in both directions go ahead and sway i.e. a compensation to overcome a move with no mechanical advantage. Example I do not think Tiger's knee would be jacked up if he kept his head at its impact fix position at startup (i.e. he stands too tall at address, has to squat to get back down and then torques the left knee coming out of the squat) Of course all of the options are available to him and he has figured out a way to get by! :laughing9

There are three imperatives...how you achieve them is your own private golfing adventure. Swaying is not an imperative! The intent is not to be argumentative, but I feel that there is a real difference between TGM and the rest.

[quote=okie;56047]Example I do not think Tiger's knee would be jacked up if he kept his head at its impact fix position at startup (i.e. he stands too tall at address, has to squat to get back down and then torques the left knee coming out of the squat) Of course all of the options are available to him and he has figured out a way to get by! :laughing9
QUOTE]

I am not sure the Tiger knee speculation is correct. Els, Perry, funk, Jacobson and others have had knee surgery. Toms had back surgery and Couples suffers from back problems. Yet John Daly has had none of these problems yet had stomach (hard to figure out why) muscles repaired. It may have to do more with genetics as many basketball players have knee problems and many others never have a problem.

1-l-18
 

Okie,

I guess I'm still a little in the fog about the ball's distance from the low point for the driver since its plane is flatter than the wedge...To me your lob wedge ball position is 6" from the low point and 2" with the driver..But per Andy & 1-L-18 reads the ball should be closer to the low point on a steeper plane..

Thanks again when you have a chance

Mashie72

Slightly abridged version
 

I am not sure the Tiger knee speculation is correct. Els, Perry, funk, Jacobson and others have had knee surgery. Toms had back surgery and Couples suffers from back problems. Yet John Daly has had none of these problems yet had stomach (hard to figure out why) muscles repaired. It may have to do more with genetics as many basketball players have knee problems and many others never have a problem.[/quote]

It is indeed speculation. Perhaps not the best example of to steel my point. I was suggesting that a high head at address neccessitates a bob-squat move in order to go down. Tiger may indeed have peanut brittle for knees, but my contention is that left leg snapping straight does not help his cause. Again my point was seeking the optimum mechanical advantage. The original critique was concerning the benefit Ballard's suggestion that lateral movement is an "imperative." I was trying to communicate to Mashie72 my understanding of the difference between method teaching (limited view of what works best) and TGM (the principles that undergird ALL workable patterns)

So my abridged contention is that due to Tiger's genetic predisposition to suspect knees he would be better off not snapping that left knee! I wince when he does it! I'm wrong more times than I am right on a host of topics so I welcome correction...with a wince of course!

Self Analysis
 

Thanks for everyone's posts for the hybrid Pop-up question..This post is for others who might have the same problem...

It's just my best guess that the pop-ups were primarily due to 1) Bobby C's book mentioning the swing bottom and aiming point are both 4" ahead of the ball and 2) lack of pulley in my swing...I took BC's word for 1) because he has/had a GSED and 2) I basically had just straight line belt all the way to the aiming point with little or no release (pulley).

Add in the uphill lies with heavy bottomed hybrids and I'd pop them up every so often..


Also, FWIW Okie, I'll be the first one to hand you $5 when you tell Jim Dent to his face that there is no benefit to latteral motion for him. :toothy:

Mashie72

Me Thinks!
 

I would suggest that he is a superb striker of the ball despite the extraneous movement, not neccessarily because of it! :laughing9