I imagine that one could jump higher with a dynamic bend rather than a static knee bend.
However, what's the relevance of the jumping-up part?
My mental image of this knee-flexing action is that it is designed to stablise the golfer in his downward thrust action - a form of bracing equivalent to the bracing action of a "firm left leg" that is needed to brace a golfer against the forward momentum generated by the rotating arms/clubshaft.
David Lee, in his book "Gravity Golf" described a counterfall action directed 70 degrees left of the target - that he felt was required to stablise the torso during the down-and-out thrust action of the arms during the early-mid downswing.
I think that all these stabilising movements allow a golfer to swing faster and still remain in balance, but I don't think these movements are prime sources of added power.
I have become more conservative since I discovered TGM's system of power accumulator loading/release. I am skeptical of any "new" idea of generating more swing power - if the "new" idea cannot be explained in TGM terms/concepts. Consider the idea of a second hip/shoulder firing. How could it increase swing power? I think that any proponent of that "new" idea would have to demonstrate how it increases power via the PA system - which is essentially an arm power system. They would have to demonstrate how body power translates into increased arm power at a time point in the downswing when added arm power is useful, rather than harmful.
I imagine that one could jump higher with a dynamic bend rather than a static knee bend.
However, what's the relevance of the jumping-up part?
My mental image of this knee-flexing action is that it is designed to stablise the golfer in his downward thrust action - a form of bracing equivalent to the bracing action of a "firm left leg" that is needed to brace a golfer against the forward momentum generated by the rotating arms/clubshaft.
David Lee, in his book "Gravity Golf" described a counterfall action directed 70 degrees left of the target - that he felt was required to stablise the torso during the down-and-out thrust action of the arms during the early-mid downswing.
I think that all these stabilising movements allow a golfer to swing faster and still remain in balance, but I don't think these movements are prime sources of added power.
I have become more conservative since I discovered TGM's system of power accumulator loading/release. I am skeptical of any "new" idea of generating more swing power - if the "new" idea cannot be explained in TGM terms/concepts. Consider the idea of a second hip/shoulder firing. How could it increase swing power? I think that any proponent of that "new" idea would have to demonstrate how it increases power via the PA system - which is essentially an arm power system. They would have to demonstrate how body power translates into increased arm power at a time point in the downswing when added arm power is useful, rather than harmful.
Jeff.
Jeff,
I'm skeptical too. The more I figure out, the more Homer rings true. In fact, the more I think about moving my power package fast, the father the ball goes. But, I do notice that the guys that hit it really far in the air tend to go from bent legs to straight legs.
I'm skeptical too. The more I figure out, the more Homer rings true. In fact, the more I think about moving my power package fast, the father the ball goes. But, I do notice that the guys that hit it really far in the air tend to go from bent legs to straight legs.
So this bent to straight leg thing, aint in the book? Is that right?
Thats ok , though right. Homer did say "because of question of all kinds....
HB - I think that going from a bent knee position in the downswing to a straight left leg position at impact is nothing more than the O factor principle - as described by Robert Baker in his swing video lesson. It simply depends on how much of a positive O factor one wants to acquire at impact. Some golfers like Tiger Woods have a very straight left leg at impact (which is partially responsible for his left knee damage) while other golfers keep their left knee slightly flexed at impact.
I agree with Robert Baker that it is a good idea to have a positive O factor at impact, but greater amounts of O factor do not necessarily correlate with increased clubhead speed. One only needs enough O factor to get secondary axis tilt that allows the right shoulder to move downplane, which allows for the correct in-to-square-to-in clubhead swingpath when PA#4 releases the left arm into impact.
HB - I think that going from a bent knee position in the downswing to a straight left leg position at impact is nothing more than the O factor principle - as described by Robert Baker in his swing video lesson. It simply depends on how much of a positive O factor one wants to acquire at impact. Some golfers like Tiger Woods have a very straight left leg at impact (which is partially responsible for his left knee damage) while other golfers keep their left knee slightly flexed at impact.
I agree with Robert Baker that it is a good idea to have a positive O factor at impact, but greater amounts of O factor do not necessarily correlate with increased clubhead speed. One only needs enough O factor to get secondary axis tilt that allows the right shoulder to move downplane, which allows for the correct in-to-square-to-in clubhead swingpath when PA#4 releases the left arm into impact.
Jeff.
Interesting stuff in regards to extension and flex.
HB - I think that going from a bent knee position in the downswing to a straight left leg position at impact is nothing more than the O factor principle - as described by Robert Baker in his swing video lesson. It simply depends on how much of a positive O factor one wants to acquire at impact. Some golfers like Tiger Woods have a very straight left leg at impact (which is partially responsible for his left knee damage) while other golfers keep their left knee slightly flexed at impact.
I agree with Robert Baker that it is a good idea to have a positive O factor at impact, but greater amounts of O factor do not necessarily correlate with increased clubhead speed. One only needs enough O factor to get secondary axis tilt that allows the right shoulder to move downplane, which allows for the correct in-to-square-to-in clubhead swingpath when PA#4 releases the left arm into impact.
Jeff.
What makes you believe that straightening the legs at the right time has no effect on clubhead speed. Can you explain that biomechanically?
What does "not necessarily" mean. Hitting the driver far is not all about clubhead speed. Launch conditions.....
Do guys that hit drivers far and high tend towards straighter or more bent legs at impact and beyond?
I would be really careful about using any Robert Baker beyond positive O factor at impact or beyond.
In other words, the left leg must straighten at the correct time during the downswing if a golfer has an "optimum" kinetic sequence. However, the left leg doesn't have to straighten in a hyper-straightened manner (that causes a significantly positive o factor). Some superb golfers prefer to allow to allow the straightened left leg to still have a few degrees of flexion at impact/early followthrough, which means that the degree of positive O factor will be slightly less, and the left pelvis will be less upslanted at impact. I know of no reason why those two small variations in the degree of left pelvis upslant at impact should affect clubhead speed at impact.
I know of no causal correlation between driver distance and the degree of upslanting of the left pelvis at impact.
A more upslanted left pelvis at impact may allow a golfer to more easily hit upwards with a driver. However, according to Bobby Clampettt in his book "The Impact Zone", a golfer should always strike the ball while the club is descending to its low point - even when using a driver. Long drive competitors do not follow BC's advice because they seek different ball launch conditions when using drivers with very small loft angles.
In other words, the left leg must straighten at the correct time during the downswing if a golfer has an "optimum" kinetic sequence. However, the left leg doesn't have to straighten in a hyper-straightened manner (that causes a significantly positive o factor). Some superb golfers prefer to allow to allow the straightened left leg to still have a few degrees of flexion at impact/early followthrough, which means that the degree of positive O factor will be slightly less, and the left pelvis will be less upslanted at impact. I know of no reason why those two small variations in the degree of left pelvis upslant at impact should affect clubhead speed at impact.
I know of no causal correlation between driver distance and the degree of upslanting of the left pelvis at impact.
A more upslanted left pelvis at impact may allow a golfer to more easily hit upwards with a driver. However, according to Bobby Clampettt in his book "The Impact Zone", a golfer should always strike the ball while the club is descending to its low point - even when using a driver. Long drive competitors do not follow BC's advice because they seek different ball launch conditions when using drivers with very small loft angles.
Jeff.
Always talking in circles. How did you get from Tiger and Jamie back to Clampett? Does Clampett drive far?
MFT thread? Outside of standard thinking. Links with guys that hit far. Learning about what the big boys do to get that little bit extra. Then, is it practical or advisable? Worth what you have to give up?
What do they do? Besides pure speed, what are the common attributes of guys that hit far?
HB - I think that going from a bent knee position in the downswing to a straight left leg position at impact is nothing more than the O factor principle - as described by Robert Baker in his swing video lesson. It simply depends on how much of a positive O factor one wants to acquire at impact. Some golfers like Tiger Woods have a very straight left leg at impact (which is partially responsible for his left knee damage) while other golfers keep their left knee slightly flexed at impact.
I agree with Robert Baker that it is a good idea to have a positive O factor at impact, but greater amounts of O factor do not necessarily correlate with increased clubhead speed. One only needs enough O factor to get secondary axis tilt that allows the right shoulder to move downplane, which allows for the correct in-to-square-to-in clubhead swingpath when PA#4 releases the left arm into impact.
Jeff.
Jeff I like his pants and the green screen trick and all but only made it half way through "O FActor". Its hard to watch some of these things for me. I hardly ever read a Golf Digest anymore either. He made so many statements in the first half that I would disagree with that I had to turn it off. "Watch , as I speed my hips........." . Like he didnt swing harder with his arms......... so power is a zone 1 thing then?
"O Factor", the name is so derivative maybe and that is what put me off. "X FActor" , O Factor etc.
Factor this....Knowing of Hula Hula, pivot center, axis tilt etc how can you not disagree with his recommendation to tilt at address and set the head back in the stance as a normal procedure? This is a person recommending that you forsake centered balance, in the name of a what? A preset "O Factor" predicated on a misunderstanding of what it is that he is observing on tour at impact? "O FActor" address : Centered hips, but tilted by taking the head back into a wobbly off center position. You must see the implications to low point, balance, the necessity to slide into impact from there etc .............
This by the way is hardly new. I remember as a kid , copping Golf Digests recommendation to set the weight on the back foot at address to pre start the swing. There was a photo of Tom Wieskopf on the cover with his head set back and his shoulders tilted. His hips centered instead of his head. I hit a lot of hooks off of that stance.
Its 30 odd years on lets set the record straight. The uncompensated average every day swing has a pivot center between the feet.
Hybrid Mode
