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.

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.

(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.

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

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

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.