A controversial subject
- Thread starter Ringer
- Start date
- Status
If only my fingertips were touching they would be flat. Pressing the palms together creates angles in both wrists.
Anyway, I questioned it because I thought I recalled you talking about maintaining lag until the "low point." (My apologies if I got this wrong. There are too many posts to go back and search.)
Funny thing about circles.... you can only go back and forward around them. Any effort to force the club down will result in either a shift in the "swing center", and extension of the swings radius, or a direction of the force counter to the design of the club.
I know nobody agree's with me here, but it's fact.. so I'll leave it at that.
I know nobody agree's with me here, but it's fact.. so I'll leave it at that.
You guys are unbelievable. Attempting to skew EdZ position just for simple ridicule. A tactic over used time and time again. Holenone had the decency to stay on subject and answer EdZ questions to the best of his ability.. you guys just go off and start attacking EdZ. The classic TGM turn off tactic. If anyone had just heard of the book and this website, saw the vicious posting on the last few pages, you've pretty much lost them for a "simpler system". You are the demise of your own success. But just keep blaming EdZ for that. Say it's "dis-information" all you want. It just makes you all look unable to form any concievable argument.
Ed and I obviously have different views here. And in holding those views, we find a 'sameness' and also a 'difference.'
The 'sameness' is that we each hold an opinion. I believe that I have a rational view of the Golf Stroke based on science, and that Ed has an irrational view based on his personal version of 'seems as if.' He believes the same thing, of course, only in reverse.
The 'difference' is that I don't demand he accept my view. In fact, I could care less. If he only could bring himself to that same degree of tolerance, the number of flying objects tossed onto his playing field would greatly diminish.
Unfortunately, that seems to be a concession he is simply unwilling -- or unable -- to make.
That is not a bad thing. Down is good. That's why it locates itself at the left shoulder at impact, the low point while the body has its own center, the head that's still. You do force the club DOWN, although force is not the word I would use.
Not every statement you post is correct although you think it is, I know you don't agree with me, but it's fact.. so I'll leave it at that.
The Circle of the Clubhead Orbit lies on a Flat, Tilted Plane. That Plane has a Baseline. Therefore, the Golf Stroke has two dimensions in addition to the one you have described. Namely, Up and Down and Out and In. Hence, the Golf Stroke's basic Geometry:
-- Up, Back and In (to The Top);
-- Down Out and Forward (through Impact);
-- Up Back and In (to the Finish).
Lisa Manzella
Manzella Golf Academy BrianManzella.com Administra
Lynn...I apologize for Edz's remark about our Maker (among his other ramblings).
So...one day, your host, Brian Manzella, was watching the AT&T at Pebble Beach on a beautiful day, with Cindy Crawford swinging Callaway Great Big Bertha Titanium Irons....
....It was the day I realized even an atheist had to doubt the 'random probability' theory....
So...one day, your host, Brian Manzella, was watching the AT&T at Pebble Beach on a beautiful day, with Cindy Crawford swinging Callaway Great Big Bertha Titanium Irons....
....It was the day I realized even an atheist had to doubt the 'random probability' theory....
I wouldn't call what holenone posted bringing religion into golf, however and i say this after almost feelin sorry for you. Whatever your beliefs are that was a rude an arrogant statement to make. But that just goes to show the type of person you have proven yourself to be. You are so glued to your opinions that no matter what someone shows you to be true, your to smart to accept it or consider the possibilty you might be wrong. You are more than welcome to any beliefs or lack there of but this is not the place to view them. I'll pray for you, you arrogant bastard. (my apologies Brian, but I'm sick with what this has turned into.)
By the way if you are such an expert on the golf swing, what kind of game do you have. There are several here who can vouch to Lynn's ballstriking, where do you rate on the ballstriking scale????
This will be my last look into this thread. i would much rather see discussions that result in good golf and good learning. Agree to disagree, admit that there might be another way of looking at things and get on with it. This is such a collosal waste of time
Ringer, You say its a fact? How so? And how can you change radius in anybodys swing? Nothing between my left shoulder and left hand is telescopic or retractable. If the radius is defined as half the diameter of a circle.
If the model for your circle is different than mine, which is possible, mines not really a circle, why or how is it better? It seems like you have to be concerned with the radius changing for one. I can't see how that could be a plus with regards to consistency?
Secondly, I'm not a big circle advocate in the first place. Watson hits it well, kind of "U" shaped, Trevino, flat elliptical. So, funny thing about circles are if they are dictating how you swing ie. back,forward , and around it only applies to your model.
If we are talking about radius change and circles from left shoulder to clubface? I don't think any one has a perfect circle. You would never break your wrists. Swinging like a pendulum. Any mechnical advantage to that? No!
The reason the hands should go down(lag enabeler), instead of forward, back and around (lag minimizer/pro-throwaway).
All that really matters is at that spilt second around impact. Is the "end all" hands straight in front of chest? Ed, went so far as to refer to this as "full radius". I personally don't beleive it is. Its one of the effects of great ball striking.
How is my model around impact not "full radius"? Is there anyway I could extend the distance between my left shoulder and clubface? Wouldn't quote, "full radius be more efficient at this point of the swing? In the other model discussed over the last few pages, "full radius" occured post impact. Consider this, Anything less than full radius is inefficient. I swing a rock at end of 10 feet of string, my rock is faster than yours on 5 feet of string. The most efficient portion of your swing is post impact and the impact of the ball and clubface can rob another thirty percent. This sounds like a terribly impotent model. Max. potential can never be realized.
I put "Full Radius" in quotes because the very term maes me hurl. Its another made up term from "the champion of inaccuracies".
If the model for your circle is different than mine, which is possible, mines not really a circle, why or how is it better? It seems like you have to be concerned with the radius changing for one. I can't see how that could be a plus with regards to consistency?
Secondly, I'm not a big circle advocate in the first place. Watson hits it well, kind of "U" shaped, Trevino, flat elliptical. So, funny thing about circles are if they are dictating how you swing ie. back,forward , and around it only applies to your model.
If we are talking about radius change and circles from left shoulder to clubface? I don't think any one has a perfect circle. You would never break your wrists. Swinging like a pendulum. Any mechnical advantage to that? No!
The reason the hands should go down(lag enabeler), instead of forward, back and around (lag minimizer/pro-throwaway).
All that really matters is at that spilt second around impact. Is the "end all" hands straight in front of chest? Ed, went so far as to refer to this as "full radius". I personally don't beleive it is. Its one of the effects of great ball striking.
How is my model around impact not "full radius"? Is there anyway I could extend the distance between my left shoulder and clubface? Wouldn't quote, "full radius be more efficient at this point of the swing? In the other model discussed over the last few pages, "full radius" occured post impact. Consider this, Anything less than full radius is inefficient. I swing a rock at end of 10 feet of string, my rock is faster than yours on 5 feet of string. The most efficient portion of your swing is post impact and the impact of the ball and clubface can rob another thirty percent. This sounds like a terribly impotent model. Max. potential can never be realized.
I put "Full Radius" in quotes because the very term maes me hurl. Its another made up term from "the champion of inaccuracies".
The geometry of a circle will cause your coveted "down" movement without any intention but to trace a circular path. Attempting to move the club in one particular direction will cause linear movement within the path of the hands and club. Once you have that a series of shifts must be made in order to direct the club properly down the plane line.
If you notice, the ONLY times where "down" is used in TGM (unless someone can point out to me elsewhere) is either coupled with "out" or in advice to avoid "up". 6-E-2-1
When someone can show me where "forward on a circular path" is not allowed in TGM, then maybe you have a case. I see some particular strokes which do not adhere to this, but I do not find them to be more ideal than that of circular.
I fail to see how this particular instance represents "every statement I post". I would never say that every post I make it fully accurate. Mistakes do happen, and my mind does change from time to time about certain aspects... but I require a very large degree of evidence to overthrow my point of view. And again I will say that ridicule is NOT EVIDENCE. It has the exact opposite effect and you do your cause much much much more harm than good by doing it.
Now we're going back to aspects of the topic. Thank you for this very concise response Holenone, it makes for a much better discussion.
You are talking specifically about the tilt of the plane. This might be a much more appropriate location for the term down as we can say we want a steeper or shallower plane. But to use "down" in reverence to the geometry of the circle I absolutely oppose. Unfortunately, that is the very definition it appears HK is trying to make. Down, out, up, around, etc etc..
The angle of the plane could be seen, and is scene by students of MDLT to be above the right shoulder at the top of the backswing. That would be all the reference one needs for steepness of the plane. It simplifies a lot of the details and does not in any way negate them. Again this comes to a matter of perspective or "relativity". Which point are you observing from and how do you want to interpret that is personal. You can say the plane is 3 dimensional, or you can say it is one dimensional. The location of that plane would require description in other dimensions, but the circular arc itself is only one dimension.
Ringer doesn't teach what he does-never has. Example, the flat wrist which he says on another forum is a TGM Imperatives but not for him. Bent right wrist, he has one but his students are told don't. As is hitting Down, ring says down is a natural product of a circle- at one time even the thought of a circle was refuted (busy brain)- if he had any idea of what educated hands are, not wise azzed forearms, he would understand down better. The list goes on.
What goes up must come down The educated hands know better then forearms what to do. Since the ball lies on the ground, even Homer gave you ther benefit of the doubt where the impact is. DOWN
Harm to who- you oh fragile psyche. Acting like a stubbord little child. "I'll so them, I won't listen to them." Thats the excat opposite. And you are right, that is you. You pass yourself off as someone who wants to study TGM and you never give credit to it on other forums. Guess your posse wouldn't like the TGM references.
- Status