7th edition stroke pattern

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shootin4par

New
talking with an AI and the 7th edition pattern, up the tsp, no plane shift, down the tsp, hip slide, not turn, and right wrist throw. Who has a pattern like that? and no hip turn but hip slide on the downswing, that would be square hips at impact, who has square hips at impact?
 
R

Ringer

New
I worked a bit on this to get rid of my cut shot.

In the end though I got rid of the slide and went to more spine angle over the ball at impact for the desired effect.

For me it was about the kinetic chain. Hips tending to outrace the rest of the body....etc.
 
golfbulldog

golfbulldog

New
If you set out to live by alignments then you are stuck with your anatomy...

I built my own plane board like Homer Kelley...I set the angle at my Turned shoulder plane and looked at my wrist... it was not level... not even close with regularish clubs...


Level left wrist and turned shoulder plane at address/fix (the only way you can get zero axis shift as prescribed)... can't do it with normal clubs...
 
S

shootin4par

New
was homer expecting a zero shift swing or was he basicallly saying this would be the best pattern so get as close to it as possible? He also wanted a straight line delivery in this procedure. square hips at impact and square shoulders, that would produce ideal conditions for a pendulum. Again, at the downswing slide rather then rotate. This seems very close to the austin method and talking with an AI, that is his opinion on it. Golf is now getting into the kinetic chain, the k vest. Austin studied this in the golf swing a long time ago, and it seemed like others did as well. Seems like science is trying to catch up to some of the guys from the past. Look at the pivots of the lady in the book, austin, and in search for a perfect swing chapter 13 I believe. all compound actions.

do you have to start the backswing on the TSP, no, but you can shift up to it and straight line delivery path from there

explore the possibilities and see what you come up with
 
Last edited:
S

shootin4par

New
Ill try again as well
was homer expecting a zero shift swing or was he basicallly saying this would be the best pattern so GET AS CLOSE TO IT AS POSSIBLE
 
Last edited:
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Good Ole Homer....

ZERO Shift.

Seems like a good idea. Right?

Get on a plane board—not one of those STUPID RINGS—and set it up on your TSP, even the friggin' arm pit plane the FlavorAiders like.

DO IT! Video it from behind. FEEL IT.

Then you tell me.
 
T

tobell

New
The Zero Plane Shift Folly

It is my belief that the Zero Plane Shift pattern is the single concept that has prevented TGM from really taking off from day one. Brian is correct, there has never been a great player with Zero Shift---we are not machines. The word "pattern" connotes repeatability, however zero plane shift equals zero tolerance equals zero repeatability. Rather than developing a "pattern" (assuming you follow the patterns provided in TGM) you're sent off to the folly of striving to achieve the un-achievable –a Zero Plane Shift swing--utter nonsense!

The fact is Shifting Planes results in torque forces that become the feel which we can then monitor and subsequently forge into a reasonably sound and reliable PATTERN.

Zero Plane shift = Endless struggle.

Plane Shift = Feedback via torque forces which can be monitored and forged into a PATTERN!

Consider STRIVING versus PATTERNING. Consider Humans versus Machines. Machines don't STRIVE, however when Humans attempt to becomes machines they are doomed to endless STRIVING. Wouldn't it be more wise to regard the Machine as a conceptual model with respect to the golf swing? This approach would be more solidly grounded in reality, not as some suggest technically inferior. Humans and their central nervous systems require feedback when performing a physical task, machines do not. Homer did a wonderful job with the Machine Concept when devising his catalogue of components, but he missed the mark when he attempted to arrange these components into "Non-compensating" component patterns.
 
Last edited:
S

shootin4par

New
seems all the focus is on the zero shift. what about hip slide versus rotate, going up on tsp and down on it. Look at austin on video and you will see when he gets close to the top he is on TSP and comes down on that. it looks like a little OTT but you see in the follow through he is above the plane he was on the intial 2/3 of his backswing and his hands finish very high, very high. His pivot looks like the one in the tgm book, and the sftps book.

The stroke pattern in number 7 from my conversation with an AI about it who has worked with austin, is very similar to austin and the AI I talked to thinks that as well, in fact he brought that to my attention.

focus on one detail if you will rather then try to see the stroke pattern HK talked about. one thing I can just about guarentee is that HK watched Austin, cause austin was on public tv in a skeleton suit back in HK's dau/ anyone here seen taht footage, some pretty good stuff if you have not. THink about it, where is golf going right now??? biomechanics, science, kinesiology. Austin was there MANY years ago and he may be standing there in spirirt when our modern science catches up to him. Is that a possiblity that you guys are open to? TGM follows homer, well what do they think about the 7th edition stroke pattern? was homer smart enough to write a book to follow but not smart enough to know what he was talking about in that 7th edition pattern?
 
Last edited:
T

tobell

New
Homer versus Austin

Shootin:

It's not a matter of intelligence but of perspective. Homer's machine premise is very useful indeed, however it is not without limitations. Understanding where Homer excels is key to reaping the most from TGM. Austin was most certainly a better ball striker than Homer. Austin’s understanding of kinesiology lead him to a stroke pattern that he believed was optimal –with all joints properly aligned-- while Homer was coming from a Machine perspective in his attempt to illustrate the “non-compensating” optimal swing pattern in the last 2 editions. Homer’s brilliance lay in his cataloguing of components, not their assembly. Austin used Standard Hip Action by the way—this allows his back knee to straighten in the backswing—great for Maximum Participation Strokes. Austin executes it and Homer catalogs it for us. Austin provides a “The Way” methodolgy based upon his understanding of kinesiology. Homer provides his machine concept and a vast catalog of components one can use to understand the merits and limitations of most "Any Way". Two different men providing two different contributions to the world of golf.
 
Last edited:
S

shootin4par

New
Ringer said:
Please remind me. Which tournaments did Mike Austin win with that perfect stroke pattern?
Click to expand...
austin was a boxer, golfer, had four seperate degrees, did scientific research for the goveremt, was in at least one movie, etc... the point is he had more interest other then golf. Also, at the time the tour did not pay well. He made more money gambling then to be made on tour. and he was a self proclaimed bad ptter on top of it all. If hogan had never won a tournametn would that null and void his swing? what about sneads swing, would it have not been as sweet? So while you may want to look at one thing, like people focuesed on zero shift, there is a bigger picture
 
S

shootin4par

New
tobell said:
Shootin:

It's not a matter of intelligence but of perspective. Homer's machine premise is very useful indeed, however it is not without limitations. Understanding where Homer excels is key to reaping the most from TGM. Austin was most certainly a better ball striker than Homer. Austin’s understanding of kinesiology lead him to a stroke pattern that he believed was optimal –with all joints properly aligned-- while Homer was coming from a Machine perspective in his attempt to illustrate the “non-compensating” optimal swing pattern in the last 2 editions. Homer’s brilliance lay in his cataloguing of components, not their assembly. Austin used Standard Hip Action by the way—this allows his back knee to straighten in the backswing—great for Maximum Participation Strokes. Austin executes it and Homer catalogs it for us. Austin provides a “The Way” methodolgy based upon his understanding of kinesiology. Homer provides his machine concept and a vast catalog of components one can use to understand the merits and limitations of most "Any Way". Two different men providing two different contributions to the world of golf.
Click to expand...

actually was not trying to put homer vs austin, but how HK's seventh eddition pattern was similar. I meant to compare the similarities.
 
golfbulldog

golfbulldog

New
tobell said:
Shootin:

It's not a matter of intelligence but of perspective. Homer's machine premise is very useful indeed, however it is not without limitations. Understanding where Homer excels is key to reaping the most from TGM. Austin was most certainly a better ball striker than Homer. Austin’s understanding of kinesiology lead him to a stroke pattern that he believed was optimal –with all joints properly aligned-- while Homer was coming from a Machine perspective in his attempt to illustrate the “non-compensating” optimal swing pattern in the last 2 editions. Homer’s brilliance lay in his cataloguing of components, not their assembly. Austin used Standard Hip Action by the way—this allows his back knee to straighten in the backswing—great for Maximum Participation Strokes. Austin executes it and Homer catalogs it for us. Austin provides a “The Way” methodolgy based upon his understanding of kinesiology. Homer provides his machine concept and a vast catalog of components one can use to understand the merits and limitations of most "Any Way". Two different men providing two different contributions to the world of golf.
Click to expand...

sounds dead right to me... they can work in harmony as advanced thinkers in golf for their time... just thinking about slightly differin aspects of golf...
 
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
Ringer said:
Tigers swing in 2000-2002 was about as close to Zero shift as I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

David Toms is probably the closest example on tour to a Zero Shift.

He goes from the hands only plane to the TSP very early in the takeaway and then comes right back down it.

I can't remember back what Tiger's swing looked like in 2000-2002 (i'll have to check) but i'm pretty sure that he was doing a reverse shift (as Adam Scott does now) which is TSP backswing to a Elbow Plane downswing.
 
S

shootin4par

New
actually now that I think about it he won as many tourneys on the pga as HK, pennick, brian, mandrin, ben, you, mike, jim, maritin hall, led, haney, etc.... i am not bashing any of these, my point is we have all studied their methods, so if it is pga tour wins you want, no sense in asking swing questions to mostly anyone. If someone on that list has a win or two, dont nail me to it, it is not my point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top