Inspiration in a time of a golfing low

This isn’t my favorite song of theirs, but it’s definitely one in which I find inspiration. Not sure why, but I really enjoy these guys:

Inspiration abounds and sometimes there’s so much to go around it almost hurts. Other times it’s hard to find your way through a day. Lately, I’ve been finding so much beauty in life that I get to the course full of excitement and confidence. I can’t wait to get there and can’t wait to tee it up after my practice session ends. I know my skills and game are better than ever and each first tee I hit I’m ready to go after it and make some good shots, shoot a nice and low score.

The problem, though, is that my on-course confidence is at an epic low. I’m testing some new drivers, trying to change my iron swing, the new wedges I’m not 100 percent sure how to hit short approach shots with due to the different bounces and my putting is good but I don’t seem to start the ball on the line I want each time. Outside of that, all is gold.

I know the change is going to come and life happens in cycles, but that doesn’t necessarily make it better while you are in the middle of the old “take a step back before moving forward.” Everything I am doing is for the long-term greater good and I know that progress is happening, just have to stick to my guns.

I’ve been testing out some new drivers and here are the FlightScope numbers from the most recent one:

photo-2

There are some things I really like about these numbers, like the club path and face to path, but the dynamic loft is now too low on average which added to lower spin is causing a lot ball flight.

This driver has a 43″ Accra stiff shaft in it. I tested out one right before the holidays with an x-flex shaft and I only played 9 holes with it. It felt crazy strange and I hadn’t a clue why I literally could not hit the ball more than 170 yards. The night before I went to see Jari at Birdie Finnish golf to have him switch out the shafts I picked it up and did a light flex test in my hands, honestly not bending the shaft much at all, but then this happened:

It was one of the craziest things I have seen in golf. There were maybe 20 swings on the shaft and it just exploded in my hands. I didn’t put much pressure on it, so it must have had just a randomly weak spot. No offense to Accra, of course, as they make great shafts, I just happened to have found one with a defect. They will swap it out with Jari, for sure. But, I do know that the structure of this particular shaft probably led to how it performed on the course.

At any rate, I now have the Stiff flex version and am liking it, but it’s not quite perfect yet. I can tell that something is a bit off with either the length, the head, the weight or something. But, it’s getting closer to the date where I find a driver that really fits me. Right now I am hitting way more fairways with the 43″ shaft and making center contact more often. But, I am not getting it up in the air high enough, especially for winter time when the ball plugs as soon as it hits grass and a better trajectory can increase your drives by 15-20 yards.

It’s a work in progress, but at least it’s finally progressing.

I am also still adjusting to my new wedges, which is proving to take longer than I had imagined as short wedge game has always been a strength of mine, but now I am finding myself chunking one or two shots a round and then blading a couple. It does not lead to confidence or scoring. The question I have is how long do you try something out before you make a decision if it belongs in the bag or not? Last year I stuck with a driver that I never “found” for months and then realized that it just didn’t fit my game. In retrospect I wish that I would have switched it out earlier, but I kept thinking something would click. I don’t want to replicate that experience, but I also want to do my due diligence with any potential new piece of gear. What does everyone else do?

I’m going to give the new wedges another week and then if I have not found confidence in them will switch out to the old ones for a week to see if it’s the arrow or the operator.

22 Responses to "Inspiration in a time of a golfing low"

Steve says:

January 12, 2015 at 1:22 am

Just a thought – Do you REALLY want to have a driver? Finally, after years of heartache and multiple brands, lofts and shafts, I made the decision to remove the driver for good from my bag as it just wasn’t for me.
Every round would be the same. Start out with the driver, long first drive slightly ascew, and then it would go downhill form there!! Finally, shift to the 5 wood which averages 220 and in play almost every time…

Recently changed my 3 Wood as flex was wrong for me and now i have a 235+ club that doesn’t have me in the weeds most of the time.

Never been happier and the sacrifice in distance has had no affect. Stress, for now, is gone from my Sunday game!!
Pete says:

January 12, 2015 at 8:26 am

Steve, I think it all depends on what level you aim to get to. Dan’s stated aim is to be a touring pro and when you’re playing with the ‘big boys’ a club that puts you about 235 yards off the tee just isn’t going to cut it. It’ll be great to have for the odd short, tight hole but you can’t be going 3 wood, 3 wood into every other par 4 and expect to score. Into even a gentle breeze on quite a few tour length courses and you’ll be short even hitting 3 wood, 3 wood (in fact you would be on a few holes on my home course). Point is playing on a Championship course off the Championship tees is a different game, if you can’t get it out there 285 minimum then frankly you’re in trouble. Add to that the fact that Dan’s strength is more in his shorter clubs not the long irons and leaving out the driver just isn’t going to work…….. IMO
cdvilla says:

January 12, 2015 at 10:50 am

There’s the odd outlier like Tim Clark who can manage a touring career with a 105mph driver swing but Pete’s right, you want to play in the big leagues, you’ve got to drive it. The way everything sets up these days, a functional driver swing is much different than a function iron or wedge swing. A lot of hdc. players have more success with a 3-wood (me included) because that maps much more closely to an iron swing.

Dan, most of the current thinking around the driver swing would probably point to your AoA being a little low and that you would want a number between +3 to +5. If it helps, here’s a reference I like to use re: my driver numbers and what’s closer to optimal. http://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2012/11/optimal-driver-numbers

I continue to enjoy your posts.
Zane says:

January 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm

I hope you are giving yourself the opportunity to go out, let go and play golf without judgement. I know ‘deliberate’ practice is part of the deal, but from reading your blogs there appears to be a lot of analysis going on. If you’re thinking about your swing a lot, thats going to become a habit and its going to fail you when you’re under a bit of pressure (i.e conscious processing hypothesis). I am sure you know this, but I read all sorts of statistical analysis and I hope these things don’t come into your game and that you get to enjoy time on the course embracing things like the smell of the grass, the chirping of the birds and the sound of the ball dropping into the hole whilst taking that delightfully pleasant walk along the fairway…
Uncle Robot says:

January 13, 2015 at 12:27 am

Hey Dan,

My Bag full of nice clubs, including my Calloway Diablo Octane Black Tour Driver (The Darth Vader Driver) that were “lost” by the TSA at the airport in 2013.
That Driver was incredible, I could shape the ball, hit it high, low and in between. It was a tragic loss.

You will know as soon as you hit the right driver for you, that its the one. I borrowed a driver from a friend. (an older model TaylorMade Burner) As soon as I hit it I knew I needed this club. I offered to pay him for the club and he told me that he got it from a friend for free. I gave him a box of ProV1′s as consideration and I now own the club. It is not the newest/latest model, but I can hit this club better than my Darth Vader driver.

Don’t limit your search to whats the latest and greatest on the shelf, and don’t force yourself to like something that just isn’t you. It might surprise you. Good Luck!
Richard Chen says:

January 13, 2015 at 2:06 am

I think the “club path” (at impact?) figures are very good, being that they are below 2 degrees. Although, they are not consistently in one direction of either all left (slightly in-to-out,) or all right (slightly out-to-in) for draw or fade paths for a left-hander.

The “face to path” figures have many over 2 degrees like over 4, which is high for the driver. Below 2 degrees and better are good for the Driver shot.

I think an “absolute face angle” figure is more useful for developing arrow-straight down-the-middle drives. This is almost the same as the “Ball Angle horz.)” figure in the table. The “absolute face angle” can also be calculated as “club path” plus “face to path” like 4.7R + 2.0L = 2.7R for shot-9, which is a 2.7 degrees “shut” (closed) face angle at impact (for a left-hander.) The 2.7R absolute face angle is close to the 2.4R “Ball Angle (horz.)” figure in the table, so that it is not necessary to actually calculate the “Absolute Face Angle” by using the “Ball Angle (horz)” figures in the table as a close approximation.

A closed (or shut) club face angle at impact will also decrease clubface loft, producing lower dynamic-loft in most cases. This can be seen at setup with the clubhead soled right behind the ball by rotating the hands clockwise (for a left hander) to shut the clubface. When the clubface is shut and closed, the loft of the clubface is also reduced at the same time.

On the other hand, an opened clubface at impact will also increase clubface loft, producing higher dynamic-loft in most cases. By turning the hands at address counter-clockwise (for a left hander) the clubface can be seened to open up with increased clubface loft at the same time.

Besides closed, and opened clubface angle at impact reducing and increasing dynamic-loft at the same time, hitting the ball below, and above the sweet-spot (center of gravity) of the clubface will also reduce, or increase dynamic loft.

Thus, dynamic-loft is influenced by (1) absolute clubface angle of squared, closed, or opened. (2) face impact point of at, below, or above the sweet-spot. (3) angle of attack of whether the vertical clubhead swing path is level, descending, or ascending (which is effected by whether the hands are inline, in front of, or in back of the ball at impact.)

In the table of results, being that the “club path” figures are mostly less than 1 degrees, the clubhead is traveling basically straight into the ball at impact. This implies the balls are hit at the bottom of the downswing arc, when the the clubhead had straighten out after traveling from inside-to-out during the earlier part of the downswing. Contacting the ball at the bottom of the downswing arc implies the clubhead has mostly “leveled” out at impact.

This leveling out of the clubhead at impact is shown by the “Angle of Attack” average figure of 0.1. While some advocates advocate an upswing Angle of Attack of +5.0 degrees (for the high handicapped players with driver swing speeds of less than 100 miles per hour,) the Andrew Rice website wrote that tour players have an average Angle of Attack of minus 1.5, as opposed to an advocated Angle of Attack of plus 5 for the average level players.

Thus an average Angle of Attack of 0.1 is close to the tour players average of minus 1.5, and the 0.1 figure is very good.

Trying to swing way up at the ball at plus-5 Angle of Attack is only for the low level players, as players of the tour have an average Angle of Attack of minus-1.5 according to the Rice website.

Swing way up on the ball increases the risk of topping the driver shot, as the hands are made to be way behind the ball at the moment of impact in a scooping action. This also increases the risk of shutting the clubface at impact, or opening up the clubface is a drastic scooping up action happens. Having the hands way behind the ball at impact also increases hitting fat (hitting the ground behind the ball before contacting the ball) specially for irons or fairway shots off of the turf.

In the table, shut faces match closely with low dynamic lofts in most cases, which is logical once it is understood that closing the clubface will also reduce the loft of the clubface. The few cases of hitting low with opened clubfaces may be due to contacting the ball below the sweet spot of the clubface. This can be determined by examining the ball-mark imprint left on the clubface from either some traces of “ball-paint” left on the clubface, or by using ball-mark indicating face tape.

The reason the tour average for the dynamic loft of the Driver is minus 1.5 may be due to the pros hitting the ball hard producing more backspin on the ball so that de-lofting the Driver clubface slightly will reduce backspin to counter the increased backspin from hitting the ball harder. The pros maintain their “lag” very deep into the downswing release, which tends to produce a downward stroke at the ball. This also simplifies the downswing, as a “down-to slightly down” sequence is simpler than a “down-to slightly down-to level-to slightly up-to up” sequence of the clubhead.

Again, from using the ball-impact-mark system approach (BIM,) it can be learned that it is basically impossible to control the contact point of the clubface on the ball by changing clubhead swing path, as it is basically only the clubface angle which dictates the contact point of the clubface with the ball. In the same way, the height of the contact on the ball by the clubface is less dictated by the vertical attack angle of the clubhead vertical swing path, but rather more dictated by whether the clubface is shut, which reduced effective loft of the clubface, or the clubface is opened, which increases the effective loft, and by whether the ball is hit at the level of the sweet-spot, or below or above the level of the sweet-spot.

In winter practice, the balls can be stored in a warm indoor place overnight to keep the balls warm, so that the balls can pick up full amounts of backspin to gain full amounts of height when hit. The balls can be kept warm by putting them in an insulated box during travel until they are ready for practice use.
pete says:

January 13, 2015 at 1:59 pm

Just be a little careful there, Richard, I’m pretty sure the Rice website is pretty out of date. With modern equipment you’ll find most pros do in fact hit up on the ball a tad, not all but most – just go check the radar stats on the PGA Tour website and cross reference that with the loft a given pro has on his driver (I’ll let you do that one, think you’ll enjoy it, maybe supply us with a graph of some sort…… just teasing you my friend ) and you’ll find on average the initial ball launch is higher than the loft they have on the driver – they’re hitting up on the ball. They do this to get the spin down while maintaining a high launch, it’s not rocket science – this will maximise your distance.

At the end of the day you need a swing with a neutral swingpath that will consistently square the clubface at impact while minimising spin and launching the ball at maybe 13 or so degrees (give or take). Right now Dan has a swing he can get to be fairly neutral path wise through impact but then the club face control is a bit off. A betting man would say his hands are having to get involved in the shot too much. Why? I’m sure Dan will tell us in the fullness of time and I’m pretty sure it’s something he’ll work his way through.
Richard Chen says:

January 14, 2015 at 8:09 am

Pete,

Many great drivers can hit high, medium or low drives, although they probably have a “natural” driving height of either high, medium, or low. Each type of these drives have advantages and disadvantages. Many past great champions from Texas are experts at the low drive, because there is a lot of windy conditions there, and they developed the skill of hitting low drives as kids playing in very windy conditions.

I guess McIlroy is the standard of shot shapes now days, but I don’t know whether his natural driver shot is high, medium, or low. I heard someone said on television that Northern Ireland can be very windy. I would guess he can hit high, medium, and low drives, as he has won majors in difficult weather conditions.

It would stand to logic that a player first perfect a driving at the height that comes naturally, whether medium, which is probable the normal case, high or low, which is probable for those players in windy parts of Texas.

High drive with low spin gives the maximum carry and roll, which is great for good weather conditions, or driving down wind, while it is questionable to drive too high with severe head, and cross winds. Too much rolling can roll into punishing rough in very narrow fairways.

Drives of normal height can be effective in many playing conditions. If it is a natural shot, it can be very consistent.

Low drives are needed in severe wind conditions. Low driving can be a safe shot for some that develop an ability of hitting low drives that stays in play all of the time in the most pressure filled situations.

Hitting the ball above the level of the sweet spot (ie. center of gravity) can produce a higher shot, although more backspin may be produced, which can be reduced by a little de-lofting of the clubface by having the hands slightly in front of the back of the ball resulting in a slightly negative angle of attack.

Squaring the clubface at impact should be a fairly easy thing to do, as it takes no more than few ounces of strength to rotate the clubface. This can be seen by setting up with the heel of the driver head resting on the ground, and by rotating the club handle with the thumb and forefinger of one hand. It takes only a minimal of force to turn the clubface from opened to squared to closed. Because it takes so little strength to open, to close, and to square the clubface, strength is not a limiting factor in squaring the clubface at impact. It is mostly a mental thing.

Mentally producing a squared clubface at impact can involve visualization, feel, and an understanding of the geometry involved.

Physical approach to producing consistently squared clubface at impact can involve the grip, practice of the release like in Hogan’s book, and using the waggle.

Training aids approach can involve using analyzer, and simulator machines, and the like.

Using visualization, the toe of the driver can be mentally visualized to catch up even with the heel of the driver during the final release phase of the downswing. At the back of the ball, the toe of the drive can be visualized to catch up even with the heel of the driver head at impact. After impact the toe of the driver head can be either visualized to stay even with the heel for a spell for a neutral or fade drive, to for the toe to past the heel after impact for a draw or neutral drive. Nicklaus writes to pick a small spot a couple of feet in front of the ball as a guide to swing the driver clubhead through, which can encourage a full but guided and controlled release, which can help square the clubface during impact.

Sam Snead, and others wrote that there is a feeling of slapping the ball with the back of the leading hand to square the clubface. The feeling of having the rear hand palm turing and releasing to face in the direction of the target during the final hitting release phase tends to square the clubface at impact. Snead wrote it is like padding the bottom of a baby with the rear hand at golf ball impact. Nelson wrote that it is like throwing the clubhead toward the target during the final release and impact.

Physically Hogan went into great lengths on the proper grip, which ultimately it is the hand positions that controls the clubface. His video on Youtube of a movie clip demonstrated on keeping the upper arms tight to the side of chest, so that the body can more control the arms and hands during the swing, which can increase consistency in controlling clubface angle. This implies setting up with the hands closer to the body during setup. But, Moe Norman set up with the arms sticking way from the body, although he said that he totally controlled his swing with his leading side implying that he had exceptional leading side control abilities. Most top players of today have their arms and hands close to the body during setup whether they are tall or not.

Training aids like radar and optical swing, launch, and flight monitors give measurements of clubface angle at impact, although they are quite expensive. The ball impact marks type of training aids are very inexpensive providing both contact points on the clubface, or on the ball showing how near the sweet spot of the clubface is the contact, and showing the clubface angle as well as the clubface loft angle at the precise moment of impact. These aids can train the mind to better visualize, and to better understand how to improve clubface angle at impact, to improve clubhead path, and to hit the ball near or on the sweet spot of the clubface.

Whether hitting high, medium, or low drives, clubface angle plays an important role in producing these shots. The mastery of clubface angle, together with clubhead path (plus hitting on or near the sweet spot) go a long ways to better than par scores.
pete says:

January 14, 2015 at 9:44 am

Hi Richard.

Yep all that is true but what I was saying is that most pros now hit up a tad these days. Mcilroy’s ‘normal’ drive is a pretty high bomb btw. While you can get more distance into wind with a lower drive that won’t be the case with a low drive that spins a lot – it’ll balloon and stall. You’re far better off with a neutral ball flight and at driver speeds that means lowering the spin. Hitting down on the ball won’t help you with that.

While I see what you say about ….. well about all that stuff above…… I’m looking at Dan’s driver shots.

Generally speaking if you’ve got a lot of variation in face angle but not as much in swing path, it means the player’s hands are getting far too involved in the shot. Generally they’re recovering the shot due to an issue in their swing. So if you look at Dan’s face to path (2.8L, 4.3R, 4.7R, 0.5L, 1.6L, 4.2R, 0.6L etc) and look at the dynamic loft which varies from 6.9 to 15.2 which is a big variation it’s fairly clear that his hands are coming into the shot for some reason. Knowing what launch and angle attack etc you may want to end up with is interesting, but right now Dan needs to figure out why his hands are having to try to recover the shot and change his swing so they don’t.
Richard Chen says:

January 14, 2015 at 1:48 pm

Pete,

Without seeing the swing in person, I can only make some educated guesses on his driver swing.

First, it is not completely sure to me whether he is playing from the opposite side, that is, a right hander playing with left-handed clubs. This was mentioned in the original Golf Magazine article about his quest of going from a none golfer to making the tour after ten thousand hours of practice, that there was some uncertainty about whether he is left or right handed. I think that the test to determine whether a person is truly right or left handed is to perform baseball overhanded pitching of balls. I have never heard of a “switch” pitcher in major league baseball, while I have seen many “switch” batters in major league baseball. A “switch” batter is a baseball player who can switch to either the left or to the right side of the home plate to hit the ball, depending whether the pitcher is right of left handed. I have never seen a pitcher at the major league level nor lower levels who can pitch effectively with either the right or left hand depending on whether the batter is hitting from the left or right side of the home plate. In golf, there is a Canadian golf coach on Youtube who sometimes show video clips of swing golf clubs and hitting golf ball from either side.

A proposal in the book “In Search of the Perfect Swing” said that it may beneficial if golfers swing from the opposite side like left-handed Hogan swinging with right-handed clubs. The story is that as a youth, Hogan cannot afford left-handed clubs, so he switched to playing with more available right-handed clubs. The book supposed that having the dominant hand and arm in the leading side provides more control to producing straighter shots. In his second book the 5-lessons, Hogan went to great lengths on drills for developing clubface control like twisting towels, and mini back and forth release drills, which few others talk about. Is it because he was playing from the opposite side. It is not completely certain whether Hogan is left handed, as there is some Youtube clips that dispute this. It is for certain that Johnny Miller is a left-hander playing right-handed clubs, as he says so in one of his Youtube videos. Miller advocates a kind of giant-sized waggling drill where from an address position, he takes the club all the way back, and performs a down swing with the clubhead stopping completely at the ball with the hands frozen in a draw, straight, or fade impact position of the hands. It is only two examples, but it seems to me that extra special clubface control drills are needed when playing on the opposite side, because it seems it is hander to control the clubface angle swinging from the opposite side.

Second, a year or two ago, there was a spell of hitting the driver back and forth to the right and to the left. It was not completely clear from the blogs whether these were straight pulls, and straight pushes, but it appeared to be pure pulls alternating with straight pushes. The description is that after pulling a driver shot, the release is blocked in the next driver shot resulting in going far in the other direction. If these are true pushes alternating with true pulls, it means that the swing paths are alternating from inside-out to outside-in in an alternating sequence. This means that there is an attempt to use changes in swing path to fix clubface angle problems. From studying the process of making ball impact marks on the golf ball, it is determined that it is mathematically impossible to fix a clubface angle problem by changing the swing path. For example, if the shot is pushed, both the clubface is opened, and the clubhead swing path is inside-out in the same direction of the opened clubface. The correction to be made is to square up the open clubface on the next swing, and not by changing the swing path by going from inside-out to outside-in. An off clubface angle is corrected by changing the clubface angle, and not by changing the swing path. A left and then right club paths cannot be used to fix problems caused by off clubface angles.

There are players with great hands like Amour and Hogan. There are players not “using” the hands in the full swing like Nicklaus. There are players with great hands and body. If a player has good to great hands, should the instruction say to suppressed the hands, or to say to educate the hands, and make them work with the body? Specially, if someone has great hands, but so so body strength, then it is obvious that he has to use what he’s got. He has to use the hands.

Ultimately, the position and orientation of the hands determine the clubface angle at impact. The traditional rule of thumb is that the clubface is matched, or the clubface is the same as the back of the leading hand. The clubface can also be matched with the palm of the rear hand. It is not an exact match, depending whether a strong-grip position is used. Still, the clubface angle is in sync with the back of the leading hand, or with the palm of the rear hand.

The debate is whether the hands act alone from the body in squaring the clubface during the release, or whether the body “directs” the hands and arms without the hands acting separately from the body so to speak to square the clubface during the release. This is not about feel, or no feeling of using the hands per se to square the clubface. In a grooved swing, there is no feelings of using any individual parts. The whole thing just flows in a grooved swing.

Here is what is meant. Hogan advocates a leading hand and wrist action of supernation of bowing out the top of the leading wrist. This can also be approximately done more naturally by just pointing the base side of the leading hand to point more downward to the ground just before going into the release. Both of these actions are done by the leading hand, wrist, and forearm without the body being the driving force. Thus, these can be considered as “using the hands” to help square the clubface. Both of these actions tend to rotate the clubface to a more closed orientation to match more closely the clubhead swing path without shifting the clubhead head swing path to the outside line during the early part of the downswing just before entering the release phase. If the lag is maintained properly, the clubface can start to close earlier in the downswing without pushing the clubhead to the outside line by using these “hand” actions. Hogan won the “triple-crown” which means winning the first three majors in the same year, (and he probable could had won the PGA, which he did not enter due to schedule conflicts, or perhaps due to the effects of injury) with these hand actions.

Because it takes so little force to change the clubface angle, it is hard to feel any changes in clubface angle. Clubface angle is a delicate thing. Because clubface angle should be as accurate, and as squared as possible to the millionth of a degree if possible, as Miller said in an Youtube video, and as calculate by the Arctangent formulate in a prior post, clubface angle control is both a delicate thing, and it is a thing demanding ultra precision for maximum results. Maximum results like chipping in, pitching in, approaches to tap in distances, pouring in long putts, and keeping drives in play all the time. Delicate and precision tasks are performed by the hands in general, and not by the body. The needle is thread by the legs, nor by the feet, nor by the trunk of the body, but by the hands and fingers.
pete says:

January 15, 2015 at 12:23 am

Richard,

You do slightly remind me of this guy (said in jest, honest )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osD2U-s8i6E

If you’ve never seen the vid before I hope you get the meaning.

I get what you say about some players having more ‘educated’ hands and being able to use that asset (I have to work pretty hard to stop my hands taking over on the shot) but trust me, when you stand up on the tee you don’t want to be putting the kind of manipulations in you’re talking about unless you’re one of them. My call, and it’s not a criticism in any way, is Dan isn’t. If he was you wouldn’t be getting such variations on club face to path because he’d be recovering the shot with his hands to *make* it go straight.

A swing needs to be functional. All the science in the world can be thrown at a player but at the end of the day they just need to get their body in a position where they can consistently deliver the club head square to the ball, while swinging with a pretty neutral path, without having to throw in multiple ‘manipulations’ with the hands and wrists etc (unless, as I said, you happen to massively talented with your hands.

Here’s a swing I know well……. mine (from a while ago but don’t have an up to date on youtube).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKrI2UsafVg

Now there’s a bunch of things that I’m doing ‘wrong’ if you go by the book – could work on my lower body stability a bit (but would need to be more flexible first), I fall onto the ball a tad in the downswing, I tend to hit a highish ball flight by preference (but can keep it down when needed)…….. but it’s functional, it works for me because I’m not asking my hands to get overly involved, I just swing through.

I posted my swing on a site once for comment and got told what I was doing ‘wrong’, things that the book says are not perfect. It was a bit unfair to do, shouldn’t have done it but wanted to see what came back – I had just stepped off the course after shooting 4 under par.

I think what Dan needs is someone to give him the ability to see the golf swing in a simple way. Looking at it like JC in the first clip is just not going to help.

As an aside I have 2 coaches – one for long game as that’s his forte and one for short game for the same reason. Both coach players at tour level and both are forever ‘reigning me in’ and trying to get me to see golf in a more simple way as I tend to get bogged down in the technical sometimes. Dan needs someone like them, he doesn’t need the ‘book answer’ ……… IMO.

I do enjoy debating with you Richard, we see the game of golf in such diametrically opposed ways. Maybe neither of us is right, but that’s no reason not to ‘argue’ about it I await a post of your ‘scientific’ swing with interest. And yes – that’s a challenge
Travis says:

January 15, 2015 at 11:53 am

I’m interested in your experience with the Flightscope. Particularly if you think its improving your game. I understand having the data can improve your ball striking or give you confidence in your equipment and swing changes but has it resulted in an improved scoring average? How many hours do you use it per week and do you think its worth the $10K for the serious competitive amateur/mini-tour player?
Robert morrison marshall says:

January 15, 2015 at 5:18 pm

Hi Dan, congratulations on your winning outlook, I thought that I was the only person to have this same mentality, where I started to question what I was really capable of if I applied my mind to something completely new. I can only say this- that you are on to something special, in the sense that there is a grey area with academics or psychologists in the area of human potential in my humble opinion.
My advice to you, if you are lacking confidence at this moment.. is to remember that usually, the learning curve flattens out at points on the climb to success, then it usually drops slightly, prior to a reassessment in skill and applying this, then suddenly it rises up(the skill that was required). All the statistics can sometimes leave the body unable to perform the swing tasks that have become second nature, given that the less mental and physical pressure that you put on your game, the better the results on the course. I have always realised that golf is more mental than physical, putting aside differences in physical anatomy and ability. Consider that Ben Hogan in his prime, probably never averaged more than 250-260 yards off the tee with driver, do you see my point- it is the mind games that cause the tension and make our game ‘seem’ worse. It is the perception of the ‘problem’ , thus when one realises what we are actually doing, as opposed to what we are really doing, we can relax and get the game plan back up to the heights that we know it can reach! I am from Scotland and have a very similar PLAN but my personal circumstances are very difficult for me, yet I have no doubt in my capability of achieving the result. Hope to hear your response by email as I am more intrigued and am very interested in sharing some ideas, I hope you do not dismiss my comments, as I am a very unique individual. Go for it, ignore the doubts.
alcw says:

January 15, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Thanks Dan, I enjoyed that tune and kept listening some good of their other blues music. Music has had that same impact on me when I need that little pick me up to keep it going through tough times. I love to listen to WPFW (available online) on Saturday’s where it’s all non professional playing a variety of blues/soul/rhythm & blues –their lack of canned production is refreshing. Winter is such a grind on those of us not living in climates designed to train/practice/play the golf game. As for when to keep a club, for all your statistical observation, don’t forget how you perform(ed) under pressure. Sometimes a club just works when you need to carry a distance, chip it close or make a putt. I’m all for analysis and dialing in through metrics, but when Old Man Joe has you by the throat, if you are worried about your tools then it’s wrong.
Richard Chen says:

January 15, 2015 at 6:49 pm

Pete,

Not too long ago in the United States, they often ran a television commercial clip for a while of Tiger Woods swinging a golf club with a few dozen physics formulas superimposed on the screen twirling around him. As the ball flies, many more other physics formulas twirled all over the television screen. No, the ball did not pop up, but the ball was shown to flew almost for miles, which is also humorous. The commercial (advertisement) clip instilled some fun by injecting some humor in to it. It tried to implied that Woods was using high-physics to horn his swing to be the best in the world. They once called Bobby Jones “the mechanical man” in attributing some scientific prowess about him. I guess, some similar video clip can be made of someone swinging a driver, while Hogan’s 5-lessons is being recited in the background.

There is saying of “paralysis from analysis.” Another saying is that “no more than one swing-thought can be made during the downswing.”

Just swing without any analysis. All of these analysis are not needed. That were what Gene Sarazen always say, and saying them often in interviews, as he disparaged all of the golfing analysis made by others. At the end of his autobiography, he said that people asked him what are the methods for making championship swings, and he wrote that his description of the golf swing will not fully fill a single page, implying there is no way he can write a golf instruction book, because there is not enough matter of substance to fill a golf instruction book, as the only worthwhile instruction is to swing, period. Well, IMO, Hogan proved him wrong. There are more to the matter than just swinging away. Sarazen’s book was long out of print, and most today don’t even know his name. Hogan’s book is still being read and studied, and most golfers know of Hogan.

In the second Youtube video, you do more than slightly remind me of Nicklaus, and that is not being funny. Nicklaus is around your height at five-eleven and a half. Nicklaus is a great putter making many winning putts. Your Youtube showed you make ten straight putts in practice. Nicklaus, and specially, Lee Travino, broke into top level golf by playing well in the US Open. If remembered correctly, Nicklaus’s first win was the US Open. Travino came in fifth in his first pro outing at the US Open, and won it two years (?) later. Moody did it in a similar fashion. Prior to entering the national stage, Travino was a golf course maintenance worker full time, and he hit at least five hundred practice ball per day. The Open is open to anybody with talent.

The most natural golfer may be Nancy Lopez. She started to pound out great shots with a four wood on her first couple of minutes of swing a golf club for the first time.

Some say Bobby Jones had a lot of natural talent. It is also known that he had a formal technical education in mechanical engineering.

Well, I am not sure what you are looking for. You seem to have a love/hate outlook about golf-science. When I comment from a technical viewpoint about golf, it does not imply that is the only viewpoint there is. Far from it. It just means that is what I am most comfortable and interested in writing about.
Richard Chen says:

January 15, 2015 at 9:30 pm

Pete (continued),

I needed a break to attend to some other chore.

Now as to the challenge of a posting of a ‘scientific’ swing analysis.

It was commented above that the traditional way to square the clubface at impact is to turn the back of the leading hand to face in the direction of target. The method of squaring the clubface at impact can be analyzed.

But before the technical analysis, some refinements to this traditional method of squaring the clubface can be made. An improved way of using this method is to have the top of the leading forearm in additional to the back of the leading hand together turning to face the target during impact. This will help to ensure that the leading wrist stays “flat” through the hitting zone. The hitting zone can be taken from the back of the ball to a few inches in front of the ball. The leading forearm/wrist/back of hand are “held” “squared” (facing the target) through this “elongated” hitting zone, so as to take some of the timing out of this squaring process.

In Dan’s flat swing with the driver, the rear elbow stays down low near the side of the body in what used to be called the Scottish backswing. This will cause the arms to “roll” so that the leading forearm, and the leading hand will rotate a fair amount during the backswing. Unless, the arm and hands “unroll” during the downswing to cancel out the “rolling” during the backswing, the clubface will remained opened, casing a push. In the original Scottish swing, the stance is very opened to almost 45 degrees open for the feet, which allows a push to go in the direction of the target. In a normal squared stance, or a closed stance at address without enough unrolling of the arms and hands, the opened clubface at impact will push the ball into the trees. With a lot of rolling of the arms and hands going back, and the need for a lot of unrolling coming down, there is need to concentrate on having the back of the leading hand, and the top of the leading forearm pointing at the target through the hitting zone to square the clubface at impact.

There is a story of Byron Nelson hitting to a medium length par-3 (perhaps the 16th at the Masters) and hit the pin, so that the ball bounced back into the water fronting the green. When he re-teed to hit again, he again hit the pin with the ball bouncing back into the water. This implies that the clubface angle was very precise.

The precision of the clubface angle needed can be calculate as the arctangent of the radius of the hole divided by the distance of the ball from the hole:

Maximum deviation of clubface angle = (radius of hole/distance of shot)

The radius of the hole can be approximated as 2 inches. The distance of the shot is expressed in inches.

For example, if the above shot was from 160 yards, the shot distance in inches is 160 X 3 X 12 = 5760 inches.

The maximum deviation in clubface angle of the two shots =

arctangent (2/5760) =arctan(0.00034722)

which from an online arctan calculator is equal to 0.01989424 degree, or
approximately 0.02 degree.

The two clubface angles were within two-hundredth degrees of being perfectly squared.

According to a Johnny Miller’s Youtube video of him giving a golf swing clinic, he said he can feel and distinguish clubface angle deviations of less than a thousandth of an inch easily.

Not sure if any of today’s golf swing monitors can measure clubface deviations to hundredth of a degree.
pete says:

January 15, 2015 at 10:57 pm

Thanks Richard.

Firstly, no problem with being compared to Nicklaus. While many have said he won all those Majors *despite* his golf swing, not *because* of his golf swing, he did win them and that’s what I think is important. Secondly, I’m significantly thinner now than in that putting video, that was 10 putts made in a row from 9 feet – I alternate that with 100 putts made in a row from 3 feet and do one or the other every day.

Love/hate relationship with golf science – good way to put it Truth is I know the science – I’ve tested doppler radar systems (military ones but ‘get’ how they work), I studied mechanics in physics as well as aerodynamics, I understand the angles and how they relate to each other, I even tested a swing alanlyser at one point. I honestly do get the science.

I’ve recently been interviewed by a launch monitor company about how to train people on simulators (I was an air traffic control instructor until quitting all that glamour and ‘pursuing’ golf) and I think this is where the science is important – not the ‘raw’ angles and data but how it relates to a player. We are all different biomechanically as well as how our mind works. What is often left out of the scientific debate on the golf swing is that fact. The ‘perfect’ swing has a certain x factor, a given amount of lag, a set angle into the ball………. but MY ‘perfect’ swing is different to someone else’s.

Going back to something you said earlier when you mentioned that the amount of rolling of the wrists or squaring of the clubface can then be “calculated”. It can, what I was saying was that this has very little use to a player. What they need to do is feel the amount of rolling of the wrists they need. Like I said, from the top I don’t feel like I roll my wrists or try to square the club face, I just swing and the ball goes pretty much where I want it to (most of the time). You said Nicklaus was the same? Didn’t know that. Anyway, I have a very good swing coach who I trust totally and he’s got me to that stage.

The bottom line is that, in amongst all of this back and forth, while I’m actually pretty interested in the science from a slightly detached view (ie I’m not about to start thinking about it while hitting a golf ball) it’s just not what Dan needs to sort out his driving woes. What he needs is a good coach to look at his swing and basically ‘tweek’/rebuild it so he doesn’t need to have all the manipulations with the hands we spoke about above. He needs a good coach, he doesn’t need the science (however interesting it is to some of us )

Last thing, you misunderstood me earlier – I didn’t want you to give me a scientific analysis of a swing, I was challenging you to post a youtube clip of your swing, one with all the science in it. Mine is a ‘works for me’ type swing built through using a good instructor who understands my personal strengths and weaknesses. Let’s see yours which I’m guessing is more based on the science. Just a friendly challenge
Matt says:

January 16, 2015 at 8:39 am

Dan,

I am a long time follower of the blog and I am very interested to see what comes of this project with hopes that it is successful when comparing your achievements to your original goals. It seems like every time I come back to check on a blog post, you are talking about all of your numbers and metrics on the golf swing and how that relates to your improvement. However, the scores that you are posting don’t show much consistency with few bright spots in between a bunch of mediocre rounds of golf. This makes me question if you have become lost in the numbers game on the practice tee in your journey to become a professional golfer (much like I suspect that Tiger did over the last few years with Sean Foley)?

I myself am a millennial, so I completely understand and respect the value of all of these new inventions and tracking devices, but I also believe that they can cause a golfer to very much overthink his or her processes on the actual golf course. The game is already tough enough, but when you start thinking of dynamic loft and angle of impact on the course, that only makes the game 100 times more challenging.

I would like you to take a look at Kelvin Miyahira’s work on http://www.aroundhawaii.com/speed_training.html if you have some time on a rainy day. He has broken the swing down into movements that anyone can mimic and it is all based on things that several of the greats of the game have in common. He has definitely helped my game through just reading the articles and implementing the theories and I could only imagine that the instruction could help you in working through your driver woes.

I hope that things continue to improve and that warm weather is on its way sooner than later! If you are ever in the Augusta, GA area, I’d love to treat you to a round of golf.

Best,

Matt
pete says:

January 16, 2015 at 11:38 pm

Quite interesting to read comments on some of the forums about all this. One in particular has quite a bit to say on the subject, some constructive some ……… well there’s a lot of opinion out there

(OT – yes I was banned for arguing with the administrator, we did it behind the scenes. No drama as there wasn’t any – we disagreed, he kept deleting my posts as being ‘off topic’ (didn’t know how to flag comments as off topic in a thread, maybe I should have learned) even though I started the thread, my profile was altered 3 times (really hacked me off, never been on a forum where your profile is altered like that) and I lost my rag. For what it’s worth Iacas, I’m sorry. Tried to get in touch and even though it’d be child’s play just to come back on under a different username (have a different IP etc now) that’d be dishonest. Everyone says things they sometimes regret – sorry. Wish we could have agreed to disagree but neither of us was going to back down and walk away, we’re both too stuborn. Shame really……)

Anyway, the above administrator posted a good link here about a guy who went from ‘novice’ to ‘expert’ at table tennis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y21uwFUgkE

I find it interesting on a few levels but mostly for similarities and differences between the Dan Plan. Similarities – both are pretty single minded about their pursuit. Whether you agree with everything about how Dan is going about his plan or not you can’t doubt his stubborn determination. Both started out as novices (Dan more so obviously) and both improved significantly although Dan’s obviously at the 6 month point as compared to the table tennis plan.

Differences that I think Dan could learn from and incorporate into ‘phase 2′ of his plan:

- Interesting to see the dedication to fitness, notice the mixed marshal arts punch dummy in his flat at the beginning etc? What’s Dan’s fitness and weight training plan? I don’t know but I don’t know a pro who doesn’t have one (my last session with my pro invovled a lot of time in a room with lots of mirrors trying to do things my body didn’t really want to do, I still ache…). This stuff is important. Some people can drive the ball 280-300 yards, some people need to put in significant effort to get there.

- Coaching. The guy isn’t just practicing, he’s being directed by a coach who knows his stuff. In fact if you read the blog the coach actually brings in specialist coaches at different times to add value to the programme, you see a couple of them on the vid. Being a novice with a plan is fine but you need someone who has coached at the top level to know what players at the top level even play like. If not, how do you expect to know what it is you’re aiming at? Big difference between watching a pro on the TV and standing next to one hitting balls on the range.

- The insistance by the coach to focus on tournament play from the half way point. They started off playing against each other in the guy’s appartment – bit like a friendly round on your home course really, but the coach made him get out there and compete as that’s a very different ball game. Even before he was in a positiong to do particularly well the coach wanted him to see what he was aiming at.

- He used the tech wisely. He splashed out on a table tennis machine…… never even heard of such a thing! The science behind the spin on the ball of a given shot that the machine launches at him is not really that relevant. What is is that he got hold of the tech he needed and used it to the best advantage for his game. Dan has the Flightscope now which is a good thing. I have a GC2 (debatable which is ‘better’) and only use it….. well, every day. That Flightscope should be being used so much it’s almost melting. In the yard on ‘indoor’ mode if necessary. Put it in a kids tent if it’s raining. But it should be being used a lot. Maybe it is but not really seeing that in the daily posts.

On that theme what is Dan’s daily routine? I’ve not seen it on the site and it’s this sort of detail that would be interesting. Mine starts at 0500 with an alarm so I can do phys at 0530 while my wife is around to look after the kids till she leaves for work. I have them after school for a couple of hours till she gets home at 1800 then it’s back at it so my ‘working’ day finishes at about 1930 – 2000. I’m not wingeing – hands up who’s wife would be working while they were pursuing some golfing thing Helps she loves her job. Did take a while to financially be in a position to do this though and those finances would have to run through to playing a year or two at ‘mini tour’ level. Significant sponsorship before then isn’t going to happen (IMO). Maybe I personally won’t get there, but it won’t be through lack of effort or lack of finances ………. although it might be through my wife losing her patience.

I’ve been in touch with a guy called Simon Thornton over here who went from a 7 handicap in his mid 20s having played for maybe 10 years to playing on the Europro (3rd tier tour below European and challenge tours) in 2 years. He’s since won on the european tour 10 years after being a 7 handicapper wanting to be a pro. His message – work hard, work really, really hard. He also had an excellent coach to channel that enthusiasm and effort. THIS is what Dan needs – he needs all this determination and all this enthusiasm channeled in a direction that will move him forwards. He needs this so badly I want to shake him

Dan’s a seriously nice bloke, I’ve been in touch with him recently, and unlike some I actually think he’s doing ok. I do however think he could learn a lot from the table tennis video and incorporate it into the second half of his plan. I’d go as far as to say he needs to.

p.s. Still waiting for the swing vid Richard

p.p.s. Sorry Iacas, maybe one day we’ll bump into each other and shake hands on the Swilcan Bridge and realise how daft we were both being. Take care.
Richard Chen says:

January 20, 2015 at 10:43 am

Pete,

I don’t have any video of my swing since adopting a physics-formulas based swing. Since it is the middle of the winter here, it will have to wait for spring before going out to golf, and to make some videos, if anyone is still interested then.

Instead I will make a brief description of how physics-formulas are used in my swing at present to first, to design the swing, and then to actually provide control during the actual swing, if you are curious about what such a swing may look like.

Physics-formulas can be used for designing, and for operational use. For example, physics formulas can be used during the design of an airplane, or a car for making trade-offs on various requirements. They can be use during the actual operation flight of the airplane like for navigation.

Thus formulas can be used to design the golf swing, specially the setup positions at address. I now setup with the hands closer to the body to the extend that they feel a little uncomfortably close to the body during address. This is based on the physic formula of the Conservation of Angular Momentum, which shows that the body rotation will automatically speed up without using any extra energy, when the hands, arms, and the club swing close to the body during the downswing, and during the release. Since I believe in the formula, I accept the slightly uncomfortable feeling of having the hands feeling too close in at address. Before, the feeling is opposite of wanting to stick out the hands a little more to gain a bigger swing arc, which common sense encourages in opposition to what the physics formula concludes.

The grip is medium-strong, as being slightly stoop-shouldered (rounded shoulders,) the hands naturally tend to turn in somewhat. Nicklaus wrote that the grip position should conform to the natural hang of the hands when standing.

The backswing is upright having stand close to the ball with the hands close in at address, with left (leading) arm in control with the right side passive. Since at address the hands are close in with the arms fairly vertical, there is a “v” angle formed by the left arm with the driver shaft. The v-angle forms a “pre-cocking” of the hands, so that there is little to no need for further conscious cocking of the hands during the backswing. Since there is no (conscious, nor much if any actual) cocking of the hands during the backswing, the swing is greatly simplifed in the approach of your coaches to simplify the swing. As a weekend, and now just an occasional golfer, I cannot rely on muscle-memory to produce accurate and consistent swings, as I don’t hit golf balls everyday, so that there isn’t any muscle-memory being build up, nor are the golfing muscles in shape, as I sit most of the time to do computer and smart phone programming and coding. The local course I usually play on does not have any driving range. It did not even have a practice putting green until recently.

To play well after stepping on the first teed without hitting any balls for a week to several months, and without any warming up on the driving range, nor even a few chips on the practice putting green places additional difficulties on the swing. Under these circumstances of swinging without muscle-memory, nor adequate warm ups other than a few swings without any balls at the first tee, I tend to swing with using the left side mostly with the right side being very passive providing only support to try to keep the ball in play by swinging the clubhead to either Nicklaus’ guiding spot a few feet in front of the ball, or Nelson’s target spot far down range.

Here I have came up with personal formulas to place swing-to spots for the clubhead, which are between Nicklaus and Nelson’s spots. My swing-to spots are at distances of 3D for the driver and long clubs, of 2D for mid-irons, and 1D for wedges. In use, the table format of the formulas is pre-calculated to alleviate the need to perform formula calculations during the swing. For the 3D formula, the table is 70/210, 80/240, 90/270, 100/300 and so forth. It means swinging the clubhead to a visulaized distance of 70 yards produces a ball distance 3 times greater at 210 yards, and so on, so that swinging the clubhead to a visualized distance of 100 yards gives a ball distance of 300 yards. This enables the passive right hand to become much less passive, and for it to release under good control with power. This also enables the left side, and shoulder to pull up with good control and power. Feet and leg actions are OK, as I played basketball often as a kid. The hip turn is restricted so as to not over turn to have the shoulders unwind too early coming over the top, as I am not that flexible as an occasional golfer.

After not having the opportunity to play for a while, I set up to swing the driver clubhead to an imagined down range spot at a conservative distance of 70 yards, which will produce a ball distance of 210 yards. If the swing goes well during the first part of the downswing, the brain has been trained to swing the clubhead to an increased imagined distance of 90 yards during the release to produce a ball distance of 270 yards. Of course, if there are more opportunities to play often, the 80/240 table entry can be selected with an increase during the release to the 100/300 entry.

The clubhead is imagined to be swung low to the ground like a miniture bowling ball out to the 70 to 90 yard spot down the fairway. This encourages a down and through following through with the head staying down after impact.

By knowing and visualizing how the squared clubface contacts and compresses the ball during impact add to the precision and power of the downswing.

This demonstrates one way how physics formulas and geometric mathematics can be used to design the shape of the swing, and to actually control, and to make mid-course adjustments during the actual downswing. It is probably a good approach for someone who doesn’t get a chance to play and to practice a lot to build up muscle-memory, and to build up the golfing muscles, and who is technical.
pete says:

January 23, 2015 at 10:44 am

I’ll reply to both this and your other post in the newest blog as it’s kind of along the same lines
Constantine says:

December 16, 2023 at 11:18 am

You never learned how to develop your full swing. It had so many flaws in it at this point in the journey, and you never demonstrated you understood how to change it for the better. No equipment modification can fix a swing flaw, and you are clearly very bogged down by that idea as a solution. It doesn’t take much to look at your swing on video and see several fatal flaws.

This is about 10K hours of deliberate practice and human potential and your deliberate practice didn’t evolve enough. You were never able to really change how you swung the club over the last 2-3 years of the journey. I think never fixing your takeaway issue shows that you did not understand how to make changes. That should’ve only taken one summer or so to at least sort of implement, but it’s nonexistent in your swings to this point, and that’s after a couple years or so of knowing about the problem. Come on, man.

One of the lessons I take away from TheDanPlan is I have to really think about how I practice. Do I understand what I’m trying to change, why I’m trying to change it, and how I’m going to change it? Because if I don’t, I could end up eternally frustrated, quitting the game entirely or worse, injuring myself badly like Dan did.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply