Mechanical Advantage/Simple Swing/Efficient Swing
 

Homer has given us a catalog of components to choose from . . . . you hear many talking heads on tv and instructors speaking of "that is a simple motion" . . . "he's got few moving part" . . . "that is an efficient swing" . . . "what a simple swing" . . . .

What do you think they mean? Do they have a clue? What is a "simple" and "efficient" swing to you? What components would you choose and why would you put them together in such a way?

Holla.

Machiner out of Texas

This qualifies in my book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwPZU...layer_embedded

Beautiful simple swing, without a doubt! Along the lines of a simple, one plane type motion, I love Tommy Armour III and Mike Bennet's S&T patterns.

In the end, I'll go with what Homer Kelley said not long before he died, and what I believe is used as the base of Mr. Blake's hitting pattern.

Sorry, nothing original from me, again. :) Sometimes simple is the key...

Kevin

This swing is pretty simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTG15cSlHHw

Simple Swing = Fewest Compensations. But simple doesn't equate to greater repeatability. There are some pretty heavily compensated swings on the Tour.

Few moving parts is a comment that makes little sense. An effective swing has lots of moving parts, Knudson once said the only thing that does not move in the swing is his left big toe. The answer may lie in the name of Lynn's dvd, Alignment. Whenever my game breaks down on the course, if I simply go back to a right forearm takeaway and hands controlled pivot, my swing gains a smoothness due to the alignment of pivot, hands and clubshaft. If those are aligned, boom.

Drawing Interest
 

The most efficient motion is the one that puts money in the bank.

According to Rachel Uchitel

Define "compensations" . . . . compensated would infer a standard.

What "alignments in the pivot, hands and clubshaft"? Not trying to be a wiseazz . . . just trying to define terms.

Compensations may infer a standard "Uncompensated Pattern". But, I think that if we look to the component level, we can compare one procedure to another on the basis of their relative simplicity, reliability, and compatibility with other components.

A good example of this would be to compare 10-18-A to 10-18-B. 10-18-A appears to be the more simple procedure.

Another example is Plane Shifting. Procedurally, Single Shift is more direct than a Double or Triple Shift.

On plane clubshaft, hands aligned to turned shoulder plane to start.

I would say that a pattern is efficient in how it is complicit to 1-L . . . . rather than a component listing. Much of this starting with selected plane . . . components to match the plane angle to a large degree.

I would say the only thing that ultimately matters is the efficient transfer of energy to the desired result.

Chapter 2 really, the line of compression. The impact interval.

There is likely a difference in looking at the efficient line of compression, vs the human input/energy to get a given amount of compression.

You can have a pattern full of compensations, but still have a really efficient line of compression as far as the ball/club.

On the 'human input' side of things, I agree that Stricker is a nice model.

Not so much less motion = efficient

but only "necessary" motion, and no more (which I would agree looks like 1-L)