Science & Motion Sports, the makers of the SAM Puttlab also have an instrument called the SAM BalanceLab which measures where your weight is during the golf swing. The pic above shows a sample of what the readout looks like. They also have the same style of reports that the SAM Puttlab has.
I think this is really a great idea and I would love to get a practice session. Furthermore, if I was an instructor, I'd love to get the BalanceLab and do studies on every golfer I could find on exactly where their weight is in different parts of the swing. I think it would be really interesting to get some definitive answers in order to solve more mysteries about the lifeblood of the golf swing....the pivot.
One of the questions I hear a lot about is golfers 'losing their spine angle.' I believe one of the big reasons why they do is that they get too much weight on their toes. Like Shawn Clement likes to say, imagine the arches of your feet to be suction cups to the ground. Or as Ben Hogan stated in '5 Lessons', simply lift the toes upward out of your shoes.
It's sort of like trying to see over a wall that is a few inches taller than you are. What you do is you get up on your tippy toes to make yourself taller to see over the wall. Same thing with the golf swing. If you get up on your toes, you get taller and 'lose your spine angle.'
As we know, Mike Maves is a huge proponent of footwork and having the weight on the correct part of the feet in the golf swing. Particularly not having the weight on the toes. And it's no coincidence that Maves perfectly maintains his spine throughout his swing.
But there's other parts of the SAM BalanceLab that I think would be extremely helpful. Not just for the golfer, BUT FOR THE TEACHER. It's often hard for an instructor to tell exactly where the golfer has their weight...well, now they would know.
Plus, I think it would give the instructor a better idea of where good players tend to have their weight at different points in the swing.
I'm trying to find somebody who has one in Georgia, but if you can find one in your area (just google it), I'd try it out.
As many of you know, I've become increasingly interested in the Trackman Launch Monitor. Recently, Brian Manzella went over Trackman's newsletter about 'Smash Factor' (http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/golfing-discussions/11540-class-learning-trackman-research-smash-factor.html)
Here's some quick notes from it.
1. Smash Factor is Ball Speed / Clubhead Speed.
2. Ball Speed has the biggest correlation to distance. Clubhead speed has a pretty high correlation to ball speed. The reason why so many golfers and clubfitters have looked at clubhead speed over the years is usually it translates to more ball speed. But more clubhead speed does not always mean more distance. Balls speed does equate to distance (or lack thereof).
3. One of the reasons why clubhead speed does not always equate to distance is due to the reason why Trackman looks at 'Smash Factor.' Hitting the ball more square on the face will increase the golfer's 'Smash Factor' and increase their clubhead speed. As the Trackman newsletter puts it:
Let me give you an example. With a club speed of 100 mph and a smash factor of 1.40, the ball speed is 140 mph. But if the golfer could obtain a smash factor of 1.48 with a more controlled swing having a lower club speed of 98 mph, the ball speed would be increased to 145 mph – i.e. an additional 5 mph ball speed by swinging slower. Since 1 more mph ball speed (all other things equal) will generate 2 more yards carry, an extra 10 yards is added to the drive in this case by swinging with more control! Further, the more controlled swing will most likely have a very positive effect on dispersion.
Ever have one of those swings where you really swing easy and absolutely kill it? That's because you're hitting it so square off the clubface and creating an optimal 'smash factor' compared to swinging harder and not hitting it as far.
4. Optimal 'smash factor' changes with each club. With the driver it's about 1.50, but you're more likely to get it in the 1.48 area if you're a great golfer. It gets lower with the shorter the club.
So if you're really worried about clubhead speed, don't be...at least for now. Learn how to hit the ball as square as you can on the clubface and master that first. Then try to find ways to increase clubhead speed while still being able to hit the ball dead square off the clubface.
PUTTING
A lot of PM's are asking for putting help (although I shouldn't be the one asking given how I've putted recently). As always, I suggest getting the LPAS training aid (pic below)
What I've learned is that 'D-Plane' is alive and well in putting too. Meaning that the golf ball's general direction in putting is almost exclusively influenced by the angle of the putter head at impact. Putting stroke path isn't *that* important as most people make it out to be. However, I do believe that the path can easily influence the angle of the putterhead at impact.
Anyway, with the LPAS you really attack a big part of the problem and that's aim bias. It can also show if you have too much forward shaft lean at address which de-lofts the putter head.
Now remember what David Orr's studies show:
Golfers with Right aim bias = tend to adjust their putter stroke PATH in order to compensate for their right aim bias.
Meaning, if you aim right of the target, you're likely to have a putter stroke path that goes left (or cuts across the ball) so you can get the ball back working at the target.
Golfers with a Left Aim Bias = tend to manipulate the putterhead ANGLE in order to compensate for the left aim bias.
Meaning, if you aim left of the target the tendency is to open the putterhead at impact so you can get the ball working at the target.
I honestly believe that anybody who takes the game seriously should have some sort of laser device for their putting.
PLANNING YOUR ROUNDS
Been getting some PM's on how I would go about planning rounds for tournaments.
Well, this is something I am by far not the expert on and I really wish somebody would come up with a video or a book that shows how the pros plan their rounds. Maybe David Orr will come up with that sometime in the future.
Anyway, when I think of planning rounds I think of Jim McLean's '8 Step Swing' book where he talks about asking an old football coach at West Point (IIRC) how do his teams stay motivated when they are facing competition that is far superior to him. He said the coach replied that they are not so much concerned about the final score, but more worried about winning the preparation battle. The coach felt that if they beat the other team in the preparation part of the game, then they did everything they could to win the game. I think this is a good thought to have in any endeavor.
The first thing I would suggest is getting an Exelys Breakmaster (pictured above) or one of those big, putting green levels. I prefer the Breakmaster because it gives a digital readout of the amount of slope. Now, I don't get technical when it comes to the readout of the slope, but if I know that a certain part of the green slopes about 3.0 degrees and another part slopes less than 1.0 degrees, that lets me know what type of break I'm looking at (3.0 is very high, 1.0 is rather marginal). So yes, map out the greens in a practice round. After awhile you'll become quite good and quick at doing it and the notes are a cinch. There's some other things I'm looking into about mapping out greens with AimPoint technology, but once I fully understand those things I'll pass it along here on the blog.
I also make sure to check the main yardage for the hole. If it's a short par 4, I'll check the 100 yard marker. If it's a longer hole I may check the 150 or 200 yard marker. Even if you have a GPS system (which I suggest getting), the yardage may just play longer or shorter than it says due to elevation, wind flow, etc. For instance, the Atlanta Braves used to play at Fulton County Stadium and then 'moved' to Turner Field which really consisted of just tearing down Fulton County Stadium and building Turner field about a good hundred yards away. When they designed Turner Field they wanted to make it more of a pitchers park and the architects and engineers heavily studied how the wind and other factors flowed through in that area. So the Braves went from having one of the most hitter friendly ballparks to having one of the most pitcher friendly ballparks, in large part to just changing the direction of the ballpark. That's why checking yardages is very important.
In fact, a good example was a junior tournament that I won way back when I was about 16 years old. On the 18th hole, I was playing relatively well but one of the playing partners was beating me by 1 stroke. I drove my ball into the left woods and he hit his drive down the middle of the fairway about 160 yards away. All I could do was chip out and I chipped it to about 165 yards. From my practice round I knew that the shot actually played a good 175 yards even though there was no wind and it was a flat shot. I knocked it to about 12 feet. My playing partner didn't recognize that and hit it well, but was short of the green. I made my putt, he chipped on and missed and we went into a playoff and I won the playoff. Nothing drives me more nuts than misclubbing.
I also take practice rounds pretty seriously, but without focusing on the score. So when I get up to hit the tee shot, I take it just like I would in the tournament. However, if I hit a bad shot, I'll tee it up again until I hit a good one. A lot of times, holes just don't fit your eye. So what you want to do if you're not hitting the tee shot well is to fiddle around with target lines that finally do work for you and make note of it for the tournament. Also, if there's possible pitfalls on a hole (like a false front), I'll hit shots from that pitfall just in case. You can never be 'too prepared.'
Lastly, I'm just trying to figure out what the architect was thinking when they designed the hole. Most holes usually allow for a certain way to hit a shot off the tee (i.e. left-to-right, right-to-left). The first hole on one of courses I play allows for a right-to-left shot off the tee. However, the fairway slopes to the right. So while there's plenty of room over there on the right side, the architect designed the hole so that if you hit it to the right side you have a longer shot into the green and also have to hit it over the water that is right of the green. Furthermore, the ball is very likely to be well below your feet over on the right side. The left side is a flatter lie with a shorter shot to the green and the water isn't as big of a factor. However, you flirt with a fairway bunker and O.B on the left side. For me, I aim left center of the fairway and play for a fade. If it goes straight I should be in excellent shape. If it fades too much, I'll be safe with a long shot into the green. If it is a slight fade then I'll be in solid shape.
Those are just some basics into planning your round.
Creating Sergio-esque Lag
I've seen some posts around the Web wondering how guys like Sergio create all of that lag. Well, for starters...they all have a great, great pivot action in their swing.
In 'The Golfing Machine' terms Sergio is said to 'float load' the club and have 'maximum trigger delay.'
Float loading is simply increasing the wristcock on the downswing compared to the amount of wristcock on the backswing. It's a very, very effective way to swing the club.
The way Sergio does it is he has very, very little wristcock on the backswing along with incredible width on the backswing.
I believe that *for the MOST part*, the swing follows Newton's law of 'for every action there is an equal, but opposite reaction.' So when somebody like Sergio has minimal wristcock on the backswing, the 'reaction' is to have maximum wristcock on the downswing.
That's why I hate Leadbetter's method of cocking the wrists early in the takeaway. The 'reaction' to that is to uncock the wrists in the downswing which is casting the club. And you wonder why so many people read Golf Digest and struggle with the game.
As for the maximum trigger delay, I think that's mostly a function of a great pivot combined with the golfer grasping the concept of not actively trying to hit the ball with their arms and hands and instead letting the pivot do the work.
I think that a golfer can float load the club without nearly as much lag as Sergio has and still hit the ball extremely well. However, I think that trying to actively create the lag that Sergio has is a bad idea and it should happen rather naturally. But, float loading the club is a good idea. Just let the amount of lag happen naturally.
Anyway, here's a great Brian Manzella video on float loading the club.
I do get some people asking me about how my game is coming along. Four weeks into my 'comeback', I'm currently gaming a 1.7 handicap index. And because of the way my course membership is set up, I play a new course from the tips every week and my home course every Saturday with my ole man and his friends.
However, my game is frustrating as ever. Saturday I went out and had my best ballstriking game to date, hitting 14 greens and shooting 73 (+2). Unfortunately, I had zero birdies and had an awful day of putting (35 putts with only 1 three putt --- and I was knocking it stiff all day). Then on Thursday I go out and shoot 77 with 26 putts (only 7 greens). I've been starting off pretty hot lately, but then I just fizzle. Played a tough track a couple of weeks ago and started -1 after the first four holes on a course I've never played before. Then on that Saturday (the 73 round) I started off +1 after the first five holes, but had 4 birdie putts inside 7 feet on those holes. Then yesterday I started off -2 after four holes on a course I never played before.
One thing that helps is understanding D-plane more. However, sometimes I fall a bit too in love with it. Almost like a baseball pitcher who discovers a really good change up and keeps throwing it and neglecting their fastball. I think I'm very close to going really L-O-W (the 73 I shot I could've shot a 65 if I could've putted *decent* and the course has a 140 slope), but OTOH I'm also probably close to having a really terrible round. But, I believe learning a pivot controlled hands swing has helped me become much more consistent and avoid those bad rounds with the possibility of having a really good day here and there.
Anyway, I've had some people ask me what I think of Michael Breed's 'Golf Fix' show on The Golf Channel.
Well, personally I'm not a big fan of it. Lots of cliches and stuff that really doesn't dig deep at the root of the problems with golfers....particularly the pivot. I really miss Golf Academy Live, which I'm not sure why they don't do it anymore given how much they are probably spending on 'The Golf Fix.' And it's much easier to find possible great teaching talent with the advancements on the internet like Brian Manzella, Dave Orr, Lynn Blake, etc.
All of those guys would be great, but I think the Golf Channel is looking for that certain type of teacher that appeals to the higher handicapper and is very camera friendly. Personally, I think Shawn Clement could fill that role better than Michael Breed.
The Tourstriker is a pretty neat training aid to help the golfer better train their hands and to hit down on the ball properly (with the irons, remember it's more optimal to hit slightly up with the driver). Here's what it looks like:
As you can see, the leading bottom edge of the club is elevated. So in order to hit the ball effectively the golfer has to make the correct move through impact which consists of a flat left wrist at impact and with the clubhead going down towards the ball...hitting the ball...then going further down and making a divot. Thus, the divot winds up being in front of where the ball used to be.
Very good aid for beginners and flippers. I think this does a good job of training the hands a bit, but eventually the golfer needs to learn how to pivot effectively so it enables the wrist to be flat at impact with ease. However, Martin Chuck's blog talks about the pivot and other important things regarding the golf swing and the Tour Striker.
I found this great Web site for Moe Norman fans like myself...a scrapbook of pictures, magazine articles and newspaper articles of Moe. Been reading the articles. Just a ton of fun http://moenorman.org/scrapbook.php?top_cms_id=4
I've made some posts about Trackman Launch Monitor and after reading some posts over at www.brianmanzella.com there's now some talk about the FlightScope Launch Monitor. Here's a YouTube video for FlightScope
FlightScope claims that they have virtually the same technology as Trackman and the big difference is FlightScope costs $8K versus Trackman costing $28K. Trackman claims there are some parameters that they have that FlightScope doesn't have. There's some talk of it over at this thread (http://www.brianmanzella.com/forum/golfing-discussions/11526-trackman-technology.html)
Here's a post from a FlightScope rep over in that thread:
Hello all, FlightScope rep here from the Boston MA area - Mark. I'll start by saying that out of respect for this great forum, I'll leave all the sales stuff at the door and answer questions as they come. I'm an electrical/mechanical engineer during the day so I'll be as objective as possible...(At least I'll try!)
Indoor tracking - I tend to agree that both companies are more accurate outside...simply because both track the entire ball flight and indoors we can’t. Both track to the net and then calculate the rest of the flight. (Which is still much better than other launch monitors out there)
With respect to PING - yes they jumped on TM early. I was told at training last week you will soon see the switch to FS. The only proof I have is the nFlight integration I saw and that some PING reps are now buying FS. More manufacturers are on the way.
Precision - there is no significant difference in accuracy, both use the same tracking technology: Multi channel phased array RADAR.
Here are the differences as I see them – FS can track indoors and out with the same hardware. As of this note, FS now does putting (with a camera accessory) and demonstrated 1.0 release at the show.
FS or TM - It is an ongoing debate. I think we can solve right here in this forum – I’ve seen Brian in action at the MIT forum for a few years: he is objective, informative and a blast to learn from.
I suggest we let Brian and his staff Put TM and FS side by side and write their findings. From there we let the cards fall where they may. I’ve done it many times and the data is identical. I’ll supply the FS hardware at no cost for a week.
I hope I've not crossed the "sales" line.
If I hear more about FlightScope, I'll pass it on.
