E . . . What would be your description of INSTANT HIP ACCELERATION?
This is one that continues to elude Bucket.
What does it look/feel like? I think Hogan did it but are their any current players that would be posterboys?
Hogan is an excellent example, Sergio too.
Easier to see in players who use a lot of float loading and/or snap loading (Nicklaus).
Imagine a whip motion - the root of 'instant' is that there is never any 'slack' in the whip - simply the change of direction causing the 'snap' in effectively two places - at loading/transition - and at both arms straight.
Cracking a whip going back, and cracking it going through - with the 'instant' startdown being the way you do it. If you were to pause at the top, you couldn't 'crack' the whip (load) on the backswing.
A hitter on the other hand, can get away with a pause at the top, because they don't need to build CF going back, they can simply use muscular force. In fact, it can be quite helpful for a hitter to literally stop at the top, to confirm delivery paths/lines, but a swinger doing the same would be in big trouble (no CF to provide power or square up the face).
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
Yes sir . . . I think this is precisely why he uses Tracing the Straight Plane Line for both Hitting and Swinging. That way the Hip Motion can be the same Slide parallel to the Plane Line . . .
I would like to agree with you, but I can't. Just because Yoda traces a straight plane line, doesn't mean that his hip's slide parallel to the Plane line. The delivery path waggle that Yoda demonstrated in the original Jeff Hull Acquired Motion video was far smoother than Jeff Hull's hip thrust, but it still resulted in a far more open hip position at impact, than Ted's model. If you look at Jeff Hull and Ted Fort at impact fix in Part 1 of the Lynn Blake/Ted Fort/Jeff Hull video, you will see a clear demonstration of how much more open Jeff Hull is at impact fix, compared to Ted Fort. I am willing to bet that Yoda at impact fix looks like Jeff at impact fix, not like Ted.
I would like to agree with you, but I can't. Just because Yoda traces a straight plane line, doesn't mean that his hip's slide parallel to the Plane line. The delivery path waggle that Yoda demonstrated in the original Jeff Hull Acquired Motion video was far smoother than Jeff Hull's hip thrust, but it still resulted in a far more open hip position at impact, than Ted's model. If you look at Jeff Hull and Ted Fort at impact fix in Part 1 of the Lynn Blake/Ted Fort/Jeff Hull video, you will see a clear demonstration of how much more open Jeff Hull is at impact fix, compared to Ted Fort. I am willing to bet that Yoda at impact fix looks like Jeff at impact fix, not like Ted.
I PROMISE you that if Lynn Blake is tracing the Geometric Plane Line (not the Angle of Approach or Arc of Approach) his Startdown Hip Motion IS PARALLEL to the Plane Line.
You are correct that the Fix Alignments are different with regards to the Hips for Jeff vs. Ted. You will also note in the video that Jeff is using the Arc of Approach Procedure (watching the curved blur of the clubhead) as a result of the Parallel Pivot (parallel to the delivery line), his Hip Motion is more of a TURN or ROTARY. Ted on the other hand is using the pivot as a backstop. He also uses the Angle of Approach which is a cross line slide not a turn. As a result his hips will probably look "less" open at fix and impact.
Per 7-12 . . .
ALL motion – Pivot and Power Package – moves parallel to the selected Delivery Line. That is, prior to the Downstroke Turn, a Slide parallel with either the Angle of Approach or the Plane line per 2-J-3.
So at Impact Yoda could look more like Jeff because he traces the straight plane line and not the angle of approach. His hips slide is On Line not Cross Line and would like produce hips that are "more open."
__________________
Aloha Mr. Hand
Behold my hands; reach hither thy hand
Last edited by 12 piece bucket : 11-22-2006 at 05:29 PM.
I think that I originally laboured under belief that Hitting was always - angle of approach/ cross line hip slide - and swinging was always arc of approach.
Recently , and moreso after reading this thread, i understand that hitting can be done either cross line/ angle of approach OR ( like Yoda) in-line / arc of approach.
As i see it Arc of approach is a direct equivalent to "straight plane line tracing" but both are seperate from "angle of approach"
Any time pp3 traces a straight plane line( square - square) you will naturally have an angle of approach procedure( ie. there will be an arc of clubhead blur causing inside out impact but inline/onplane motion)... you get to choose what image you want to see for yourself but the alignment is the same.
Arc of approach is purely for hitters when the target line of flight is different to the plane line? maybe and your motion is crossline?... gettting a bit vague here!
Anybody confirm this? Thanks
PS. Those old editions often explain things in a more straightforward manner... thanks bucket!
Ted on the other hand is using the pivot as a backstop. He also uses the Angle of Approach which is a cross line slide not a turn. As a result his hips will probably look "less" open at fix and impact. "
I learned a whole lot hanging out with you on this thread this afternooon. I went back and took another look at Ted Fort's downswing waggle. What I had previously thought was a parallel hip move, actually was a parallel hip move starting from a hip position that was pointing cross line because the hips had turned in that direction on the backswing. I had previously tried to have my hips move in a crossline direction and failed to figure out how to do that properly. Now I understand from watching Ted that the way to do that is to allow my hips to turn sufficiently on the backswing to get one lined up in the right direction for your forward crossline hip slide. You help had put another piece of the puzzle in place, which I think is an important step forward for me. Thank you so much for repeatedly pointing me in the right direction and backing up your points with educational quotations from "HK's good book".
I learned a whole lot hanging out with you on this thread this afternooon. I went back and took another look at Ted Fort's downswing waggle. What I had previously thought was a parallel hip move, actually was a parallel hip move starting from a hip position that was pointing cross line because the hips had turned in that direction on the backswing. I had previously tried to have my hips move in a crossline direction and failed to figure out how to do that properly. Now I understand from watching Ted that the way to do that is to allow my hips to turn sufficiently on the backswing to get one lined up in the right direction for your forward crossline hip slide. You help had put another piece of the puzzle in place, which I think is an important step forward for me. Thank you so much for repeatedly pointing me in the right direction and backing up your points with educational quotations from "HK's good book".
No problem boss . . . it's ALL in that book! Just sometimes hard to find.
You are right too . . . you must put yourself in a position at the top comply with your delivery line and lag loading procedure.
I think that I originally laboured under belief that Hitting was always - angle of approach/ cross line hip slide - and swinging was always arc of approach.
Recently , and moreso after reading this thread, i understand that hitting can be done either cross line/ angle of approach OR ( like Yoda) in-line / arc of approach.
As i see it Arc of approach is a direct equivalent to "straight plane line tracing" but both are seperate from "angle of approach"
Any time pp3 traces a straight plane line( square - square) you will naturally have an angle of approach procedure( ie. there will be an arc of clubhead blur causing inside out impact but inline/onplane motion)... you get to choose what image you want to see for yourself but the alignment is the same.
Arc of approach is purely for hitters when the target line of flight is different to the plane line? maybe and your motion is crossline?... gettting a bit vague here!
Anybody confirm this? Thanks
PS. Those old editions often explain things in a more straightforward manner... thanks bucket!
OK Dawg . . . This ain't as difficult as it seems at first pass.
All the Angle of Approach is is a line that connects the Point of Impact and the Low Point. All the Arc of Approach is is an ARC that connects the same two points.
Now both of these (the curved line and the straight line) are ON THE PLANE. The Angle of Approach (the Line) extends out to right field. However the Arc of Approach curves back IN after reaching Low Point . . . as a result the procedures are different. The Arc of Approach ain't for the Hitter.
You can actually approximate the Angle of Approach a couple of ways.
1. Go to Fix and get your Right Forearm On-Plane. Imagine a line on the ground running parallel to your on-plane right forearm. There is the approximation of the Angle of Approach Delivery Line.
2. Low Point is opposite your left shoulder. You can determine your impact point at Fix. Now just imagine a line connecting the dots.
HOWEVER . . . Homer Kelley said that the Hitter utilizing the Angle of Approach procedure didn't have to be precise. He found in his experiments and observation that you could have different amounts of "out to right field" and achieve the same result. So you pick how much out to right field works best for YOU and that is YOUR angle of approach.
From the player's vantage point I think Homer Kelley would say that to the player the clubhead will ALWAYS appear to pass out side the Line of Flight (or target line). The flight of the ball is in a VERTICAL plane and the golf club operates on an Inclined Plane . . . so anything positioned back of low point means that the inclined plane will be OUTSIDE of the flight of the ball.
Lay a plate on the table and take a look for yourself . . .
OK Dawg . . . This ain't as difficult as it seems at first pass.
All the Angle of Approach is is a line that connects the Point of Impact and the Low Point. All the Arc of Approach is is an ARC that connects the same two points.
Now both of these (the curved line and the straight line) are ON THE PLANE. The Angle of Approach (the Line) extends out to right field. However the Arc of Approach curves back IN after reaching Low Point . . . as a result the procedures are different. The Arc of Approach ain't for the Hitter.
You can actually approximate the Angle of Approach a couple of ways.
1. Go to Fix and get your Right Forearm On-Plane. Imagine a line on the ground running parallel to your on-plane right forearm. There is the approximation of the Angle of Approach Delivery Line.
2. Low Point is opposite your left shoulder. You can determine your impact point at Fix. Now just imagine a line connecting the dots.
HOWEVER . . . Homer Kelley said that the Hitter utilizing the Angle of Approach procedure didn't have to be precise. He found in his experiments and observation that you could have different amounts of "out to right field" and achieve the same result. So you pick how much out to right field works best for YOU and that is YOUR angle of approach.
From the player's vantage point I think Homer Kelley would say that to the player the clubhead will ALWAYS appear to pass out side the Line of Flight (or target line). The flight of the ball is in a VERTICAL plane and the golf club operates on an Inclined Plane . . . so anything positioned back of low point means that the inclined plane will be OUTSIDE of the flight of the ball.
Lay a plate on the table and take a look for yourself . . .
Thanks for clearing it up.... I made a typo when i said "arc of approach purely for hitter"... meant "angle". Depressed at moment... Australia kicking English butt on first day of Ashes...imagine a "world series" that truly involved intercontinental rivalry and you get close to the significance of the current cricket match between England and Australia...
What I was trying to say is that you achieve an "arc of approach" curved clubhead path by straight plane line tracing and vica versa...
Can one use either in hitting or swinging...? this is the bit i am unsure of...? I thought that someone somewhere said that Yoda's hitting looks so similar to his swinging ( and hence different to Teds hitting) because he hits with tracing a straight plane line...? and a square- square set up 10-5-A...
But Ted uses 10-5-E set up and "angle of approach" is purely hitting and ,as you say, precision is less important ...
"Right field" cricket equivalent = "mid off" I think...
Can one use either in hitting or swinging...? this is the bit i am unsure of...? I thought that someone somewhere said that Yoda's hitting looks so similar to his swinging ( and hence different to Teds hitting) because he hits with tracing a straight plane line...? and a square- square set up 10-5-A...
But Ted uses 10-5-E set up and "angle of approach" is purely hitting and ,as you say, precision is less important ...
Normally someone choose either hitting or swinging depending on their own set of unique golfing talents and what works best for them. Someone like Lynn Blake, for teaching purposes, needs to be fluent in both hitting and swinging. It would simply be too complicated for him to choose optimum forms of hitting and swinging in this case because too many parts would need to swapped out, every time he switched from one form to the other. So instead of optimizing one science or the other, Yoda chooses parts that work quite well for him regardless of whether he is hitting or swingiing. The only minor problem was that for me, duplicating his downswing waggle, I didn't get the crossline hip movement that I desired. But it is now fixed and all is well.
Most places where you learn golf teach you swinging, period. Here you get to figure out whether you are a hitter or a swinger and then go from there. A huge competitive advantage for the Golf Machine, I say.
Normally someone choose either hitting or swinging depending on their own set of unique golfing talents and what works best for them. Someone like Lynn Blake, for teaching purposes, needs to be fluent in both hitting and swinging. It would simply be too complicated for him to choose optimum forms of hitting and swinging in this case because too many parts would need to swapped out, every time he switched from one form to the other. So instead of optimizing one science or the other, Yoda chooses parts that work quite well for him regardless of whether he is hitting or swingiing. The only minor problem was that for me, duplicating his downswing waggle, I didn't get the crossline hip movement that I desired. But it is now fixed and all is well.
Most places where you learn golf teach you swinging, period. Here you get to figure out whether you are a hitter or a swinger and then go from there. A huge competitive advantage for the Golf Machine, I say.
I think...
Linear Mode
