Revisiting Arnold Palmer's Golf Swing

In some ways, history has been unkind to Arnold Palmer. He is remembered for blowing a seven shot lead at the 1966 U.S. Open and his early-career swing was often criticized as "far from pretty," "will never win any prizes for aesthetics or grace," and lacking in "style points". His swing today gets even more criticism for poor setup and excessive head movement (here).

Palmer himself has been very self-depricating about his golf swing. Some comments I have heard him make include "I didn't really understand the golf swing very well," "My iron play was a detriment to my golf," "I hit the ball too low," "I really didn't win that much," etc.

I have a few Palmer stories. In the 1960s, I saw him play an exhibition round (I think with Gary Player and George Bayer) at the Brown Deer Golf Club in Milwaukee, WI. What struck my high school golf team and me was Palmer's ball flight. His drives started off low and took off like an F-80 jet fighter plane. Palmer also gave an exhibition (probably during the same time period) at the Odana Hills Golf Club in Madison, WI. On the 16th hole, a rock was placed for many years where Palmer hit his drive well over 300-yards in the left rough. Although the course was not watered during this period, the hole does play into the prevailing winds and Palmer was using a wooden-headed driver and a wound balata ball! It brings to mind Palmer's 346-yard drive on the first hole of the final round in the 1960 U.S. Open at Cherry Hills.

Unfortunately, for my high school golf team and me, Palmer never wrote an instructional book. We were pretty much limited to learning what we could (which was a lot, especially about course strategy) from the Niklaus instruction books. The Niklaus swing, however, was not well suited for me (right now I agree with Zach Johnson, never hit a fade). Looking back on my golf career, copying Palmer would have been more appropriate.

The video, above, is really fun. It shows Palmer's early career swing (you can see Palmer's current swing here) with a lot of fun analysis including the launch of a five-stage rocket. The assertion in the video is that Palmer had the most efficient golf swing they have ever analyzed in slow motion.

A few things I can point out that are not part of current golf instruction except Stack & Tilt, Shawn Foley, the new Tiger Woods swing and a few others (here): (1) Head steady and centered, (2) right leg straightens on the backswing and left knee moves out toward the ball, (3) swing starts with the lower body (specifically, the left knee moving toward the target), and (4) the hands are the last swing component (stage 5 of the rocket launch) to move on the downswing. It's important to note that the swing is not a "hit" but rather a "move" starting with the lower body. If Palmer was really "hitting it hard" there would have been less leg movement and less shoulder turn. Palmer did hit it hard but it was a result of the complete move.

By the way, where did the current received wisdom about "moving your head 12 inches behind the ball" on the backswing come from? Certainly not from the swings of either Arnold Palmer, Jack Niklaus or any of that generation except possibly Trevino. And, more importantly, why is the lateral head movement superior or even necessary? Questions, questions, so many questions!

Let's also keep in mind that Arnold Palmer is still playing a lot of golf at Bay Hill, still loves to play and has had no major career golf injuries of which I'm aware. In a sport that generates a lot of back, wrist, shoulder and elbow injuries, Palmer's swing and physique definitely allowed for longevity.

Finally, let's not forget Arnold Palmer's record (here): Amateur Wins (26), Professional Wins (94), Masters (4), U.S. Open (1) and British Open (2).

Tracing The Effects of Fed Policy

This Wednesday, US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will hold the first-ever press conference after the two-day policy meeting of the FOMC and the release of the Fed's Q2 economic forecast. The FOMC meeting minutes discuss Fed open market operations (sales of securities and foreign currency operations). The intent of the open market operations is to influence interest rates, money supply and the value of the dollar. Ultimately, the Fed is charged with fostering price stability, promoting sustainable growth in output and employment.

Below is a simple directed graph you can use to follow and evaluate Fed Policy (the symbols in the graph are defined below).

Fed manipulation of interest rates is clearly designed to increase investment. An increase in investment will increase national income and increase employment. Increases in the money supply (access to credit) will, in addition to stimulating investment, also stimulate consumption (as long as banks are willing to lend).

A current controversy (here) involves whether the foreign currency operations are helping or hurting recovery. Since world commodities and the US stock market are denominated in dollars, decreases in the value of the dollar have contradictory effects, increasing exports and stock prices will decreasing consumption (increasing gas prices act like a consumption tax).

It will be an interesting press conference. The FOMC statement will be released at 12:30 pm ET Wednesday, market reaction will follow and the press conference will be held at 2:15 pm ET followed by the market close at 3 pm ET.

NOTE: The Fed economic projections are available in the html version of the FOMC Meeting notes (for example, see the Jan 25-26 2011 notes here and the summary of economic projections here). In the FOMC minutes, the Fed publishes projections for the change in real GDP, the unemployment rate, percentage changes for PCE inflation (the price index for personal consumption expenditures) and Core PCE inflation (the PCE excluding food and energy).

In the graphic, symbols are given conventional definitions: i = interest rate, M = money supply, I = investment, G = government expenditure, C = consumption, X = exports, IM = imports, Y = aggregate demand and L = employment.

Using The Big Muscles and Getting The Hands Out of the Golf Swing

A correspondent from South Africa wrote that he had found Ross Duplessis (golf director at the University of New Mexico) a reliable source of golf instruction. Duplessis has a YouTube channel (here) and a blog (here). The video above seems to form the basis of his instruction which concentrates on getting the hands out of the golf swing and recruiting the large muscles (shoulders and hips) for power and control.

One problem I have (along with a lot of other amateurs) is casting (releasing the hands too early here). Duplessis has a particularly simple and clear explanation: push the hands forward at address, use the shoulders (one big muscle group) to move the club, hands and arms backwards maintaing the wrist angle. Unwind the hips (another big muscle group) to maintain the wrist angle through impact (the flying wedge). In the video above, he demonstrates with the 30 yard wedge shot--a great way to learn the concept and a great shot to have on the course.

Maintaining the flying wedge has been a particularly difficult concept for me to get. Part of my problem is that I do not set up with my hands pushed far enough forward as in the image above (from the Stack & Tilt Book). Another part of my problem is not using my shoulders to control the backswing.

What seemed to help a lot when I played today was to concentrate on letting my left knee flex several inches toward the ball as the right knee straightens on the backswing (from the Stack & Tilt Book p. 64) allowing my shoulders to control the backswing. To maintain the flying wedge, I also had to slow my swing down at the top (think "pause" and "smooth") to allow my hips to unwind and begin the downswing. For the next round, I'll have to work on hand position (pushing the wrists forward at address).

Today was particularly windy in the Midwest. Concentrating on these few points from Duplessis and Stack & Tilt helped me hit some quality shots.

Japan, Energy Intensity and the Kyoto Protocol

As part of my ongoing posts on Japan (here) I came across an interesting statistic in a paper by Clive Hamilton and Hal Turton on Determinants of emissions growth in OECD countries. Over time, the OECD and EU countries have been reducing their energy intensity (TFC/GDP) where TFC is Total Final Consumption of energy and GDP is Gross Domestic Product. Japan has not reduced energy intensity to the same degree (see the graphic above). From the Hamilton and Turton paper:

"Japan has not improved as much as other countries, a result that can be attributed to a combination of events prior to 1982 including economic restructuring that replaced highly energy-intensive industries and pressures from the 1970s oil crisis that led to a highly energy-efficient economy".

Why is Japan as an energy intensity outlier interesting or important? Consider a simple model that underlies a lot of thinking about environmental impacts (e.g., the IPAT equation, the Kaya Identity and the Environmental Kuznets Curve):

Population growth (N above and P in the IPAT equation) under a given level of affluence (A in the IPAT equation and q above) generates output (Q). A given level of technology (T in the IPAT equation and e above) generates a certain level of energy use (E), that is, energy intensity. Energy intensity generates an environmental impact (C for CO2 emissions in this case). The lower the energy intensity, the less the environmental impact.

The fact that Japan has had relatively stable energy intensity for much of the late 20th century and, as a result of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, might have to phase out its nuclear power plants means that, in the future, we can expect an increase in carbon emissions (one estimate, here, is for a 10% to 37% increase). Japan had planned on using increased nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions and meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. As a result of the earthquake and tsunami, Japan is unlikely to meet its emission targets.

Western Industrial Throwaway Economy No Longer Viable

The notorious environmentalist, Lester Brown (discussed in a prior post here) thinks that we need an urgent and immediate response, on the scale of World War II, to revamp the Western Economic system (here).

We need an economy for the twenty-first century, one that is in sync with the earth and its natural support systems, not one that is destroying them.The fossil fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy that evolved in western industrial societies is no longer a viable model—not for the countries that shaped it or for those that are emulating them. In short, we need to build a new economy, one powered with carbon-free sources of energy—wind, solar, and geothermal—one that has a diversified transport system and that reuses and recycles everything. We can change course and move onto a path of sustainable progress, but it will take a massive mobilization—at wartime speed.

It is not likely to happen without a major catastrophe on the order of a world war, but he is offering a Plan B, should it be needed.

The Cost of Collective Bargaining

Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker describes the amount of cost reduction that will result from eliminating the collective bargaining rights of public workers ($ Saved = 0).