The DEFINITIVE S&T video...........

[JustOne]

I would add that if the level of detailing required for a tour players swing to control their ball flight (higher, lower or better dispersion) meant that they (for example) implemented a 3 degree tilt targetwards as it was needed FOR THEM then I'd certainly go for that, but for Mr Average and saying that it's normal I'd certainly (personally) stick with vertical else we'll get people leaning 20 degrees targetward by the end of the day I can always reconsider if any 3D modelling is published

 

[SamQuirkePGA]

I would add that if the level of detailing required for a tour players swing to control their ball flight (higher, lower or better dispersion) meant that they (for example) implemented a 3 degree tilt targetwards as it was needed FOR THEM then I'd certainly go for that, but for Mr Average and saying that it's normal I'd certainly (personally) stick with vertical else we'll get people leaning 20 degrees targetward by the end of the day I can always reconsider if any 3D modelling is published

Agree. In order to achieve centred many would have to feel 20 degrees, I've pictures of Brad Faxon working on this with Charlie Wi.
Steve Elkington would start with his right leg straight and right hip high to overdo, he called it "the prop".

 

[JustOne]

OK, I've got what you are talking about - I think...and it's to do with the curvature (position) of the thorasic spine....

In this limited (rough and ready) quality picture I made then there's an arguement to say that when my feet are facing forwards and I've rotated my upper body (pic on the left) that my thorasic is closer to the target than my lumbar vertbrae or sacrum, and likewise when I side tilt to the left (pic on the right)

[click pic to enlarge....]



nb: no flexion in the pic, that I'm aware of

In which case I agree with you and the targetwards angle could be as high as 15 degrees (less if I had 5-10 degrees flexion) and IF you measure it that way. However there is NO manipulation of the swing or spine to achieve this and I wouldn't describe it as having the spine tilting towards the target.. it's NEUTRAL for the individual.... or semantics.


(late reply as the forum disappeard for 10 mintues there)


I would personally see it slightly different (as I'm awkward) and wouldn't effectively take the 3d curvature of the thorasic into the equation as it goes targetwards without manipulation due to it's shape... thus giving me a vertical spine angle as such... blue line.

 

[thecraw]

After reading all that, angles here there and everywhere, 3 degrees, 20 degrees etc etc I'd give up!

James I do on the other hand admire and acknowledge your understanding and knowledge of the S&T swing. Again reading this thread from start to finish its certainly clear you ken your S&T swing process and I take my hat off to that. Therefore I will not be commenting or throwing silly comments into any of your threads from now on.

Respect where its due.


:fore:

 

[JustOne]

After reading all that, angles here there and everywhere, 3 degrees, 20 degrees etc etc I'd give up!

James I do on the other hand admire and acknowledge your understanding and knowledge of the S&T swing. Again reading this thread from start to finish its certainly clear you ken your S&T swing process and I take my hat off to that. Therefore I will not be commenting or throwing silly comments into any of your threads from now on.

Respect where its due.


:fore:

I appreciate that Crawford although I don't see knowing the angles any more technical than someone who knows that you need to have your clubs 2 degrees more upright or that you need an extra wrap of tape or indeed someone (that's you) who's prepared to pull 6 different shafts out of their driver over the Winter to evaluate which one is best for him :thup:

What the thread does show if you follow the last 10 or so posts is that I'm prepared to fight my corner even with someone who is not only PGA qualified but probably one of the most qualified S&T instructors in the Country and whom I happen to have a LOT of respect for.

Semantics perhaps but Sam said in post #29 that the players spine is 'leaned' towards the target which I don't believe to be true. Yes I am positive it's 'angled' towards the target in a biomechanical measurement but it's not leaned. When you are standing bolt upright your spine is technically 'angled' backwards, it's not leaned (see pic below) and I believe the same to be true in this case. Splitting hairs on a definition perhaps.... see it's not only Bob that I discuss (dispute) things with ... and if Sam comes back with something that clarifies his point such that I find myself agreeing with him then I will without argument, although I think that at the moment we are BOTH correct

 

[SamQuirkePGA]

OK, I've got what you are talking about - I think...and it's to do with the curvature (position) of the thorasic spine....

In this limited (rough and ready) quality picture I made then there's an arguement to say that when my feet are facing forwards and I've rotated my upper body (pic on the left) that my thorasic is closer to the target than my lumbar vertbrae or sacrum, and likewise when I side tilt to the left (pic on the right)

[click pic to enlarge....]

View attachment 3783

nb: no flexion in the pic, that I'm aware of

In which case I agree with you and the targetwards angle could be as high as 15 degrees (less if I had 5-10 degrees flexion) and IF you measure it that way. However there is NO manipulation of the swing or spine to achieve this and I wouldn't describe it as having the spine tilting towards the target.. it's NEUTRAL for the individual.... or semantics.


(late reply as the forum disappeard for 10 mintues there)


I would personally see it slightly different (as I'm awkward) and wouldn't effectively take the 3d curvature of the thorasic into the equation as it goes targetwards without manipulation due to it's shape... thus giving me a vertical spine angle as such... blue line.

View attachment 3784

Boom!

 

[SamQuirkePGA]

After reading all that, angles here there and everywhere, 3 degrees, 20 degrees etc etc I'd give up!

James I do on the other hand admire and acknowledge your understanding and knowledge of the S&T swing. Again reading this thread from start to finish its certainly clear you ken your S&T swing process and I take my hat off to that. Therefore I will not be commenting or throwing silly comments into any of your threads from now on.

Respect where its due.


:fore:

It is not for the player to know the detail but the instructor to interpret this into manageable information.

 

[SamQuirkePGA]

I appreciate that Crawford although I don't see knowing the angles any more technical than someone who knows that you need to have your clubs 2 degrees more upright or that you need an extra wrap of tape or indeed someone (that's you) who's prepared to pull 6 different shafts out of their driver over the Winter to evaluate which one is best for him :thup:

What the thread does show if you follow the last 10 or so posts is that I'm prepared to fight my corner even with someone who is not only PGA qualified but probably one of the most qualified S&T instructors in the Country and whom I happen to have a LOT of respect for.

Semantics perhaps but Sam said in post #29 that the players spine is 'leaned' towards the target which I don't believe to be true. Yes I am positive it's 'angled' towards the target in a biomechanical measurement but it's not leaned. When you are standing bolt upright your spine is technically 'angled' backwards, it's not leaned (see pic below) and I believe the same to be true in this case. Splitting hairs on a definition perhaps.... see it's not only Bob that I discuss (dispute) things with ... and if Sam comes back with something that clarifies his point such that I find myself agreeing with him then I will without argument, although I think that at the moment we are BOTH correct




View attachment 3787

I concur.

 

[Dorian]

Semantics perhaps but Sam said in post #29 that the players spine is 'leaned' towards the target which I don't believe to be true. Yes I am positive it's 'angled' towards the target in a biomechanical measurement but it's not leaned. When you are standing bolt upright your spine is technically 'angled' backwards, it's not leaned (see pic below) and I believe the same to be true in this case. Splitting hairs on a definition perhaps.... see it's not only Bob that I discuss (dispute) things with ... and if Sam comes back with something that clarifies his point such that I find myself agreeing with him then I will without argument, although I think that at the moment we are BOTH correct

I don't think anyone has brought this up yet. But wouldn't/shouldn't you just use the term 'centre of gravity'?

I may not know too much of golf but I've done some years in martial arts which require control over your CoG. That is what I feel I'm trying to do when I swing. People go on about controlling them in different ways, but essentially you're not controlling any point on your skin, your spine, nor your sternum - it is an imaginary (for want of a better term) point within your core that you want to pivot on. For example: pivoting around your spine would just create a centrifugal force with your throax, affect your balance, and put extra strain on muscles. Pivoting around your centre would cause less strain and probably less unwanted movement (head height, swaying, etc).

Just a novices thoughts on the matter

 

[USER1999]

Your spine is a fixed pivot. You can use it to rotate about. It is like a stick, poked through your body.

If you can rotate about any other axis, you are a bit unusual.

 

[Dorian]

Your spine is a fixed pivot. You can use it to rotate about. It is like a stick, poked through your body.

If you can rotate about any other axis, you are a bit unusual.

Wouldn't be the first time I'd heard that

 

[SocketRocket]

Your spine is a fixed pivot. You can use it to rotate about. It is like a stick, poked through your body.

If you can rotate about any other axis, you are a bit unusual.

Not really. Your spine is not anchored to the ground so you cannot pivot around it. The only reference you have to the ground is your feet and you have to use these as a reference point.

 

[JustOne]

I don't think anyone has brought this up yet. But wouldn't/shouldn't you just use the term 'centre of gravity'?

Center of gravity doesn't define the position of the spine Dorian, only where your center of gravity is.

 

[Dorian]

Center of gravity doesn't define the position of the spine Dorian, only where your center of gravity is.

That's the point I was making.

Others were talking about rotating around the spine. If you do you will inherently get weight transference between legs. Rotating around your centre should, theoretically, incur no transference (which, from what i know, is what S&T is looking to produce). It's not necessarily a natural movement - if it was we'd all be playing like Luke Donald.

 

[JustOne]

That's the point I was making.

Others were talking about rotating around the spine. If you do you will inherently get weight transference between legs. Rotating around your centre should, theoretically, incur no transference (which, from what i know, is what S&T is looking to produce). It's not necessarily a natural movement - if it was we'd all be playing like Luke Donald.

I don't mean my answer to be knobby or argumentative (so please don't take it as such) but I'm not quite understanding what you're saying?

In these two pictures how could I tell at a glance where their exact centers of gravity are? Could I see that it was a bit too far forward or a bit too far back?

If I stand straight up on one leg on a set of scales it would tell my weight, if I lean my upper body to the left I can stay on the scales and they still tell my weight, is my COG still centered? If it is then my spine is in a BAD position to hit a golfball, if it isn't centered where is it?... and how can I tell?, same if I lean to the right.

I can say that the principle of S&T is to keep the head steady and in order to do that the shoulders have to turn in a circle, we have to come out of our forward flexion (bent forwards towards the ball) into a side flexion else our head would move to the right as we turn. That means technically we are NOT turning around our spine.

If our spine ran through the center of our body then we could turn our shoulders 90 degrees around our spine (A in the picture below) but our spine is located towards the rear or our torso so by turning the shoulders (and keeping the head still) the spine will move to the right, closer to the target (picture B).

[click pic to enlarge..]


...so whilst (I think) I kind of agree with what you're saying pertaining to a centered turn and/or not turning around the spine, I'm not sure what you're implying with regards to COG or why that term should be used?

 

[Dorian]

I don't mean my answer to be knobby or argumentative (so please don't take it as such) but I'm not quite understanding what you're saying?

In these two pictures how could I tell at a glance where their exact centers of gravity are? Could I see that it was a bit too far forward or a bit too far back?

If I stand straight up on one leg on a set of scales it would tell my weight, if I lean my upper body to the left I can stay on the scales and they still tell my weight, is my COG still centered? If it is then my spine is in a BAD position to hit a golfball, if it isn't centered where is it?... and how can I tell?, same if I lean to the right.

I can say that the principle of S&T is to keep the head steady and in order to do that the shoulders have to turn in a circle, we have to come out of our forward flexion (bent forwards towards the ball) into a side flexion else our head would move to the right as we turn. That means technically we are NOT turning around our spine.

If our spine ran through the center of our body then we could turn our shoulders 90 degrees around our spine (A in the picture below) but our spine is located towards the rear or our torso so by turning the shoulders (and keeping the head still) the spine will move to the right, closer to the target (picture B).

[click pic to enlarge..]
View attachment 3817

...so whilst (I think) I kind of agree with what you're saying pertaining to a centered turn and/or not turning around the spine, I'm not sure what you're implying with regards to COG or why that term should be used?

Basically I'm trying to make the point you're making, but I'm probably not using the correct terminology. I'm thinking of a turn centered as in 'A' in your second image. I reckon that should limit head movement moreso than rotating around the spine.

I took it from other peoples posts that they thought it was a turn using the spine as an axis. Whereas I think a turn around your vertical centre (not CoG as I mis-stated earlier) will optimise the movement of the swing. Am I making any sense yet?!?

 

[G1BB0]

the more I watch pro's the more it looks like s&t... maybe its just me in my old age

 

[Hobbit]

Basically I'm trying to make the point you're making, but I'm probably not using the correct terminology. I'm thinking of a turn centered as in 'A' in your second image. I reckon that should limit head movement moreso than rotating around the spine.

I took it from other peoples posts that they thought it was a turn using the spine as an axis. Whereas I think a turn around your vertical centre (not CoG as I mis-stated earlier) will optimise the movement of the swing. Am I making any sense yet?!?

What is a vertical centre? There is an element of turn at the hips. Its not big but as the left knee dips in and the right leg firms up there is a hip turn. And there is the shoulder turn, which is far more obvious. However, there is no way on God's earth you can keep, say, T3 vertabrae square to where you were facing at address and have T2 rotate thro' 90degrees.

Without wishing to punch big holes in any of what's been posted I'd like to remind everyone that golf is not a game of perfect. Depending on your physical make up, some will overswing and some will have a 3/4 swing. Depending on how far that swing goes the centre of gravity may move either way but the strength in the muscles will maintain the stance - a comparison can see some people lean way over but not over balance because of the strength in the legs and torso, whilst other would overbalance.

There's too much over complication in golf teaching, and there isn't a one size fits all. What may be a S&T backswing and most of the way back down may well resemble something very different at the top of the follow thro'. But if the last few inches thro the ball is down the target line and has power the end result will be just what you want. Giving it a label of S&T, 2 plane or power fade/draw only describes the type of swing, not the result.

Golf is a results based sport, just as in virtually every sport, and what you achieve is more important than how you achieve it - were back to Jim Furyk's swing...

 

[JustOne]

Without wishing to punch big holes in any of what's been posted I'd like to remind everyone that golf is not a game of perfect.

There's some irony in that if you consider that you just wrote 3 paragraphs slating a swing option. S&T is a swing option. Because the golf swing isn't perfect does S&T become a non-viable option worth constant dismissal? Yes we could all swing like Furyk but then golf WOULD be a game of perfect as we'd have no choice. A perfect game is what has been taught for 50yrs as there really weren't any other choices available we all basically got taught (indeed brainwashed?) the one way, but now we DO have other swing styles available surely that fits with your concept, perfectly.

 

[JustOne]

Basically I'm trying to make the point you're making, but I'm probably not using the correct terminology. I'm thinking of a turn centered as in 'A' in your second image. I reckon that should limit head movement moreso than rotating around the spine.

I took it from other peoples posts that they thought it was a turn using the spine as an axis. Whereas I think a turn around your vertical centre (not CoG as I mis-stated earlier) will optimise the movement of the swing. Am I making any sense yet?!?

Yep, and I agree.