Sorry, Answer Man, this isn't really "evidence"

[Jeff Martin]

Sometimes, you have have to feel sorry as someone disintegrates before your eyes, even if that someone is Brian Manzella.

Over the weekend, the Answer Man tried to tell his flock that there was no difference between "good swings" or "bad swings" as far as generating distance was concerned: in the eyes of Dr. Nesbit, all swings were created equal with respect to "efficiency". Good players did not have more "efficient swings", they just exerted "more work", and that additional work was the source of their faster clubhead speed.

Sadly, Dr. Nesbit's own research contradicted this nonsense (within Nesbit's own research sample the most efficient swing was 35% more efficient than the least efficient swing). So, once again, Manzella was exposed as talking through his hat.

Not yet willing to give up, Brian has tried yet another desperate gambit. Tonight, this post appeared on his site:





OK, those are very nice Trackman numbers, pretty much what 5' 8" 150 pound Lucas puts up. So? What did this dude put up "10+ hours" ago, before he started to work with Brian? Without the "before" numbers, the "after" numbers have no context. I have a friend in his early 50s that can put up pretty close to these kind of numbers. And he really can't play all that well, given his length: hits it all over the place. So, Brian, why should I be impressed? A long hitter with some cash showed up for lessons. Well, la dee frickin' da:



What a difference a day makes. Over the weekend Brian was telling his forum that "bad swings" were "just as efficient" as "good swings". That was the "exercise": more distance could only came from exerting "more work": more force over longer distance. Bulk up and stretch out your swing because every swing was "just as efficient" as any other. Ask the expert, Dr. Nesbit! Don't go looking for a "more efficient swing". Doesn't exist! Just ask Dr. Nesbit!

Today, we have a different message: "Wait a minute, I teach a swing that IS more efficient. Really! Look at this guy! Not even 5' 10" and just 160 pounds! Over 320 yards!"

Brian, could we have some video, before and after, as well as the before and after Trackman data? And perhaps an explanation of what changes were made and why they contributed to more clubhead speed? And then you might tell us why your "number 1" student, David Toms, is stuck at 106mph, in 181st place in driver clubhead speed on tour in 2011? Haven't you spent more than "10+ hours" with him??? What's the problem, Answer Man? Toms doesn't "get it" Or is it you don't really "got it"



Jeff

[golfdad]

If I am not mistaken, that long thread on release was filled with pictures with drawn lines and cute dots indicating this and that (possibly video clips as well). I walked away with a lot of visuals, on how to lose all lag to be normal at impact. I don't remember seeing Trackman data back then reflecting and correlating the degree of "well-timedness".

So, can we look at Trackman data and deduce whether a release is ill timed or well timed?

[gatorgolf]

I would like to see a before and after video of the swing. I think the answer to your last question about Toms is that Brian just doesnt "got it". Im actually not even sure if you asked Brian why David is such a good ballstriker he would even know. The fact that he said he regrets helping David to put in a "continous pivot though the ball" pretty much says it all about his lack of knowledge. Its clear from that statement that he prefers a pivot stall though i have no idea why. Ive always thought David's pivot along with his release were the reasons that he is such a good ballstriker, but when Brian uses players like Lexi or Luke as example of a good release then its pretty obvious that he doesnt have a whole lot of knowledge when it comes to how the best ballstrikers swing.

[footwedge]

A screen shot of trackman #'s means nothing. Show us the actual golfer and his swing producing those numbers in real time and the before swing that produced different #'s, in other words document the journey through video as some kind of real tangible proof.

NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC and wouldn't pass the sniff test by real scientists looking for proof or this forum's standard, screen shot of #'s is useless. Those could be Bubba's #'s for all we know.

Also the comment "don't choke on it wannabes" from Manzella is directed at ....? his flock I guess or potential customers... nice touch " Stallion"

[footwedge]

The Manzella of la Mancha, tilting at windmills.

[footwedge]

Another gem by Manzella of la mancha




When the white-belt crowd uses the word "efficient" to talk about a golf swing, they are not really talking about "efficiency" in the scientific realm. They are talking about "LESS MOVING PARTS." As in less shift, less lag, less shoulder complex movement, less plane shifts.

Less swing almost never means more distance with the same exertion.

You can make a more efficient swing—no doubt about it—and the how is something that really has not be studied yet.

But it is NOT more lag—some people hit it further with less.

It is NOT super 77ing your upper arms to the body—See Bubba Watson.

It is not HANDLE DRAGGING FOR SPEED—some folks hit it further thinking "move the clubhead fast" like Jon Byrd.



Let's see you can make a more efficient swing...duh! But the how hasn't been studied yet....but Manzella has already made conclusions on a study that hasn't even been made. More lag can't do it, arms close to the body can't.... wait I'm guessing a well timed release can.

Like if you have more lag then your neighbour I think you can still have more clubhead speed and a well timed release and hit it farther than him. Of course that's just my opinion like LA Mancha's , SINCE THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO DISPUTE MY OPINION I MUST BE RIGHT.....RIGHT? That's hilarious , some people hit it farther with less lag.... ah ok, and some can't hit it out of their shadow using out-toss and throwing it away even with the intention of killing it. So what's the answer? Answer Man only has an opinion but he's right... that's hilarious.

[richie3jack]

Luke Donald has been AT BEST a mediocre driver of the ball. In 2010, he was one of the WORST drivers of the ball.

Very good iron player and last year he topped it off with ridiculous iron play. Of course, he was 'very good' from the Danger Zone and the best from the Safe Zone and Birdie Zone.

Here's 10 players off the top of my head that I believe my metrics show are better ballstrikers than Luke Donald:

1. Boo Weekley (taught by TGM AI and MORAD school attendee Mark Blackburn)
2. Heath Slocum (taught by above)
3. David Toms (ironically taught by Brian with a 'continuous pivot')
4. Jason Bohn
5. Dustin Johnson
6. Shane Bertsch
7. Kyle Stanley
8. John Senden (outside of the Birdie Zone)
9. Zach Johnson
10. Chad Campbell

I find it hard to believe that none of these players are 'handle draggers.'






3JACK

[footwedge]

Also hard to believe some don't have lot's of lag. How about J.S. most lag ever but he can't hit it out of his shadow and he's only as efficient as Manzella... that's hilarious!

[Jeff Martin]

When the white-belt crowd uses the word "efficient" to talk about a golf swing, they are not really talking about "efficiency" in the scientific realm. They are talking about "LESS MOVING PARTS." As in less shift, less lag, less shoulder complex movement, less plane shifts.

Less swing almost never means more distance with the same exertion.

For once, I agree with Manzella on something!

Minimizing and eliminating micro moves to make the swing look pretty and "efficient" is probably just as damaging as other golf instruction alchemy, such as Chris Welch's "bracing" the body at impact or the "out toss".

Of course, Manzella doesn't expand on what determines "scientific" efficiency in the golf swing, a topic Nesbit addresses at AS2. What Nesbit's research has found is that the keys to distance is a long swing (typically from flexibility) plus sustaining the body's applied forces and torques throughout the downswing: he observes that a player whose peak forces are applied too early transfers less of the body's energy to the club. That means that sequencing is critical: forces or torques applied too early or after impact will never make it to the club.

Thanks, Answer Man!



Jeff

[Jeff Martin]

Here's 10 players off the top of my head that I believe my metrics show are better ballstrikers than Luke Donald:

1. Boo Weekley (taught by TGM AI and MORAD school attendee Mark Blackburn)
2. Heath Slocum (taught by above)
3. David Toms (ironically taught by Brian with a 'continuous pivot')
4. Jason Bohn
5. Dustin Johnson
6. Shane Bertsch
7. Kyle Stanley
8. John Senden (outside of the Birdie Zone)
9. Zach Johnson
10. Chad Campbell

I find it hard to believe that none of these players are 'handle draggers.'

Richie-

Interesting list. In his first article on "lag", Kelvin identified a group of "extreme laggers", those with the most lag deep into the downswing, as well as a group of "early releasers", those with the least lag.

www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2011-10-pga-tour-clubhead-lag-part-1.html

From your list, we have two from Kelvin's "extreme laggers" list: Boo Weekly and Dustin Johnson; both have decent length: Dustin is 2nd in clubhead speed at 121mph, Boo is 57th at 115mph.




Another on your list with "healthy" lag includes John Senden, who is also pretty long (30th in clubhead speed at 116.4mph):



Other "notables" on Kelvin's "extreme lagger" list include these guys: some bombers plus some "players".






Heath Slocum, Zach Johnson, Shane Bertsch and David Toms from your list don't have a lot of lag (they also don't hit it very far), but they get a real solid "drive/hold" impact: no "well-timed" Luke Donald flip/roll here:

Heath - 178th in clubhead speed at 107mph:



Toms - 181st at 106mph:



Shane - 169th at 108mph:





Zach - 177th at 107mph:




None of Kelvin's "early releasers" made your list. Here are some "notables", none of them are "bombers" and they include the shortest hitter on tour, Brian Gay:





Take-aways:

Laggers can hit it far as well as hit it good. Early releasers can hit it good but not far. The choice is yours!

Jeff

[footwedge]

I'll take what's behind door # 1 Monty!

[Jeff Martin]

Richie-

Rounded out your list of ten. Very tough to get anything for Stanley and Bohn, but I managed.

Kyle Stanley - a bomber with lots of lag



Jason Bohn - this is a drill he did for the Golf Channel: looks like a "handle dragger" to me!



Chad Campbell - at first looks like a lagger, then releases early and gets to impact looking just like Lee Westwood:





So, let's recap. Without any premeditation, you listed ten players who you thought "off the top of your head" were better ballstrikers then Luke Donald. Of those, four are "laggers":

Boo Weekly
Dustin Johnson
John Senden
Kyle Stanley

And five release early but drive/hold or "handle/drag":

Heath Slocum
David Toms
Shane Bertsch
Zach Johnson
Jason Bohn

That just leaves one who releases early and does not have the shaft "up the left arm" at impact; presumably, Manzella and Jacobs approve of him:

Chad Campbell

So, of your list of ten ballstrikers superior to the world's number 1 player, nine don't fit the "new release" model and do it wrong according to Manzella and Jacobs. Does that tell you something?? Like maybe Manzella and Jacobs don't have a clue??



BTW, Mike wants to know "who ate my Happy Meal???"



Jeff