Nevermind . . . Let's leave the Land of Oz and head to the practice tee. Watch me hit two delicious little pitch shots. I'll hit both with the same descending blow (Clubshaft Control) and with an identical amount of force (Clubhead Control). Both shots will fly dead straight, but the second will fly distinctly higher than the first. Now . . .
Why would that be?
Answer:
Because, through Impact, my Left Wrist (Clubface Control) executed a totally different Motion. And that totally different Left Wrist Motion produced a totally different ClubfaceMotion. And that totally different Clubface Motion produced a totally different Separation alignment and Ball Response. Putting it simplistically . . .
Impact matters!
Have you done this while having a Trackman / Flightscope giving you numbers?
__________________
Golf is an impossible game with impossible tools - Winston Churchill
Forgetting the science for a moment. I have watched at least 6 authorized instructors teach and demonstrate hinging all the way from south carolina to california. I think I have the technique down fairly well. I know that the shot pattern is different and also useful. Therefore from that standpoint it is a valid teaching concept. Now in regard to science. It would be helpful to all of us for someone like Yoda to reveal his thoughts about trackman. Although I am a scientist I would caution all not to be overawed by science. After nearly 25 years of knowing about hinging, seeing hinging demonstrated and doing it myself the statement that there is no such thing is just laughable. Perhaps the available science is lacking. Now I am a good ping pong player and pride myself on the use of sandpaper or rubber paddles. Slams and cut shots produce various ball flights. Has that been studied also and is it relative? So when I read that science disproves hinging I just don't care frankly. My lesson using a trackman was very helpful so I believe it is a useful tool. So let the discussion continue, but for the "scientists" to snicker at the masters of the hinging art makes me lose respect for them.
Forgetting the science for a moment. I have watched at least 6 authorized instructors teach and demonstrate hinging all the way from south carolina to california. I think I have the technique down fairly well. I know that the shot pattern is different and also useful. Therefore from that standpoint it is a valid teaching concept. Now in regard to science. It would be helpful to all of us for someone like Yoda to reveal his thoughts about trackman. Although I am a scientist I would caution all not to be overawed by science. After nearly 25 years of knowing about hinging, seeing hinging demonstrated and doing it myself the statement that there is no such thing is just laughable. Perhaps the available science is lacking. Now I am a good ping pong player and pride myself on the use of sandpaper or rubber paddles. Slams and cut shots produce various ball flights. Has that been studied also and is it relative? So when I read that science disproves hinging I just don't care frankly. My lesson using a trackman was very helpful so I believe it is a useful tool. So let the discussion continue, but for the "scientists" to snicker at the masters of the hinging art makes me lose respect for them.
I'm hearing from you there is a HUGE difference between the science, and real world teaching. I can watch YODA and VJ Trolio executing different hinge actions in basic motion and see the difference in the balls reaction with my own eyes. Great post Mr. Sandridge!
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
Hybrid Mode
