A controversial subject

[armourall]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

To sum up my view...

The most stationary part of a good player's swing is the base of the neck/between the shoulders point. That SINGLE point of the body IS the center of the ROTATIONAL FORCE that the HANDS (pp#1) trace around this center point. This is at your BACK, not sternum. The 'force' that is created during a swing reaches IT'S maximum distance from the swing center at both arms straight, and the clubHEAD would as well, if we did not position it to hit the ground beforehand, ensuring lag and downward contact.

I'd like to hear your views on this perspective Brian.

Thanks - EdZ

Since we're back on topic now, I'll throw in my observations (if anyone cares)...

It seems the golf swing is typically described as a two pendulum model, with the club being one lever of the pendulum (with the hands at the center) and the left arm being the second lever (with the shoulder as the central hub). Another model that has been studied, which I think is more similar to the EdZ theory, is a three pendulum model, where the third lever represents the connection between the spine and left shoulder. The point on the spine EdZ refers to would be the central hub.

Where I seem to be disagreeing with EdZ is the direct relationship he is trying to establish between this central point and the outermost point of the first (club) pendulum. Part of the problem may be that the entire pendulum never reaches a complete in-line condition. (The first two levers, of course, do.)

EdZ, would you also feel that the same type of direct relationship exists between the central hub of the second pendulum (left arm) and the clubhead?

 

[bcoak]

"That SINGLE point of the body IS the center of the ROTATIONAL FORCE that the HANDS (pp#1) trace around this center point."
It would seem to me that if you did this you would almost have a reverse pivot.?

 

[corky05]

Brian, You used the word pivot, which I think is critical in debunking the "rotational force" myth and it being centered somewhere between the shoulders. If you watch a ballarina pirouette you will notice that the "rotational force" they achieve is on one foot, I'm sure they are trying to achieve another pet phrase "Efficient force". A golfer addresses the ball with feet approximately shoulder width apart, however at impact most of their weight aligns with their "rotational force, which is over their left foot. What is aligning over the left foot? Lets stack it up. Over the left foot is the left shoulder. Isn't the left shoulder outside of the left foot? My shoulders are wider than my feet? Answer, No! Why? Axis tilt. Sometimes' we hear an incorrect(not misunderstood on my part, just plain old incorrect) use of the "Rock and string" or "axle, spoke and wheel" analogies on this site. What is the shortest distance between two points? A straight line. Have you ever seen a wheel on your car that started as a straight line and diverged to two separate locations? Or, does it run in an efficient straight line from rim to axle? Have you ever seen a string tied to a rock and diverge and spin around two separate origins at the same time? Impossible it can only orbit around one, if not the origins are co-located. (our shoulders are not co-located)
When we pivot our weight is generally over one foot(left foot) and there is only one shoulder over that efficient rotational force. The left one. And, that left shoulder is the origin of our "rock and string" or "axle and spoke". And, Axles and strings are efficient straight lines that are neither, convergent or divergent. All my statements have been made using the application of simple machines, not the abberation of simple machines.
In order for the point between the shoulders argument to hold water, we would have to expect, weight 50/50 on the feet at impact, no axis tilt, etc. Example; Sit on a bar stool and hold your golf club, I'll give you a spin, you hit the ball.
In effect, very weak. Thats why we load up on right, pivot, and have some down and targetward momentum, because we want to stripe the ball! The swing could never be forceful enough given the other model. Nobody to help you spin that bar stool!
I want everybody to know I really desire an intellectual argument on this, however, I refuse to be snowed and I don't need to be abused by the juvenile language.

 

[EdZ]

quote:Originally posted by bcoak

"That SINGLE point of the body IS the center of the ROTATIONAL FORCE that the HANDS (pp#1) trace around this center point."
It would seem to me that if you did this you would almost have a reverse pivot.?

Not if that center point is on your back. You turn around the spine. The point isn't 'in' the body per se, it is more 'on' the body, hence the reason you must turn back and get the lead shoulder behind the ball, and that you can turn your entire body 'through' around the spine and appear to move forward through the ball, all the while keeping the swing center stable in 3 dimensional space.

I think that where most are unclear by my view is that I am talking about that single fixed point, and how the hands, and the swinging force, relate to that single point. Imagine that point were a ball and socket type hinge, that the 'first link' of the 'flail of force' I am talking about is fixed at that point, and the ONLY thing acting on this 'flail' is the HANDS. Every other movement of the body is about making the HANDS move. Pulling and/or pushing on the first hinge of the 'flail of force'.


People are quick to assume that this automatically means that other parts of the body are therefore not moving in a 'TGM compatible' way. Quite the contrary. I am not talking about swing or impact conditions that are counter to a fairly 'pure' TGM swing. In fact, it explains a lot of them, and recognizes sustaining lag longer than a left shoulder only view would indicate. It also explains why many swing motions which on the surface look very different, are achieving the same goal - creating and applying rotational force.

 

[EdZ]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

Here is my attempt to unravel your ideas, Edz:

You say: "The most stationary part of a good player's swing is the base of the neck/between the shoulders point."

In my experience...yes.

You say: That SINGLE point of the body IS the center of the ROTATIONAL FORCE that the HANDS (pp#1) trace around this center point.

I think, and Lynn can correct me on this, that these are two different circles. The hand's center is clearly NOT the same as the pivot's.

I'm not talking about the hands center, nor the pivots center, I am talking about the center of the rotational force.

 

[EdZ]

quote:Originally posted by armourall

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

To sum up my view...

The most stationary part of a good player's swing is the base of the neck/between the shoulders point. That SINGLE point of the body IS the center of the ROTATIONAL FORCE that the HANDS (pp#1) trace around this center point. This is at your BACK, not sternum. The 'force' that is created during a swing reaches IT'S maximum distance from the swing center at both arms straight, and the clubHEAD would as well, if we did not position it to hit the ground beforehand, ensuring lag and downward contact.

I'd like to hear your views on this perspective Brian.

Thanks - EdZ

Since we're back on topic now, I'll throw in my observations (if anyone cares)...

It seems the golf swing is typically described as a two pendulum model, with the club being one lever of the pendulum (with the hands at the center) and the left arm being the second lever (with the shoulder as the central hub). Another model that has been studied, which I think is more similar to the EdZ theory, is a three pendulum model, where the third lever represents the connection between the spine and left shoulder. The point on the spine EdZ refers to would be the central hub.

Where I seem to be disagreeing with EdZ is the direct relationship he is trying to establish between this central point and the outermost point of the first (club) pendulum. Part of the problem may be that the entire pendulum never reaches a complete in-line condition. (The first two levers, of course, do.)

EdZ, would you also feel that the same type of direct relationship exists between the central hub of the second pendulum (left arm) and the clubhead?

In my view the entire pendulum DOES reach an inline condition - at both arms straight. At both arms straight the club would again be in the same 'relative' relationship as a mid body hands setup.

The point at which this in line condition occurs is what I call the 'rotation point' for swinging or the 'mirror point' for hitting. At this in line condition you can either rotate (swivel) or bend/arch (hitting). The arms are at approx 45 degrees to the ground at this point and the clubhead would be "in a direct line from the tip of the triangle" and extension of that line would be perpendicular to the shoulder line, at exactly both arms straight.

 

[EdZ]

Corky - suffice to say I don't think you understand my position, it is not what you appear to assume from your post.

what I am talking about is in 3 dimensional space, a flail of force, with one hinge (the hands) and a fixed center point that can rotate around a ball joint.

What the body does is all about making the HANDS move, and the hands pull/push/rotate at ONE POINT on this line.

 

[golfie]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Corky - suffice to say I don't think you understand my position, it is not what you appear to assume from your post.

what I am talking about is in 3 dimensional space, a flail of force, with one hinge (the hands) and a fixed center point that can rotate around a ball joint.

What the body does is all about making the HANDS move, and the hands pull/push/rotate at ONE POINT on this line.

EdZ,

The importance of the flail concept is conservation of angular momentum, not force.

Golfie

 

[EdZ]

Also, to clarify further, the center of the shoulder motion and the center point of this 'flail of force' I am talking about ARE the same however they DO NOT turn on the same planes, the planes intersect at that point.

 

[EdZ]

quote:Originally posted by golfie

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Corky - suffice to say I don't think you understand my position, it is not what you appear to assume from your post.

what I am talking about is in 3 dimensional space, a flail of force, with one hinge (the hands) and a fixed center point that can rotate around a ball joint.

What the body does is all about making the HANDS move, and the hands pull/push/rotate at ONE POINT on this line.

EdZ,

The importance of the flail concept is conservation of angular momentum, not force.

Golfie

Nothing about my view negates this concept at all. Can you say more?

 

[corky05]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Corky - suffice to say I don't think you understand my position, it is not what you appear to assume from your post.

what I am talking about is in 3 dimensional space, a flail of force, with one hinge (the hands) and a fixed center point that can rotate around a ball joint.

What the body does is all about making the HANDS move, and the hands pull/push/rotate at ONE POINT on this line.

The shoulder consists of a ball joint, the hands are attached to the body at the shoulder via a ball and socket joint, they are at the end of the arm. It is mechanically advantageous for the shoulder to be center. At impact less chance of leakage, throwaway. Shoulder, hands,ahead of a lagging, but, straightening clubshaft. Ed model throwaway is the imperative, as, center of shoulders are behind the ball with axis tilt. Your model only works if you have no tilt and someone spins the barstool for you. Inneficient machine, Ed. I'm sorry!

 

[corky05]

(Quote from EdZ)
Nothing about my view negates this concept at all. Can you say more?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright EdZ 2004 All Rights Reserved (end Quote)

It negates it to the very core! Because you can't sustain lag if the center of the swing is behind the ball like that. And the ball doesn't care about both hands straight beyond the ball. Its long gone. The only thing the ball cares about already happened, and if it was a successful endeavor if your body accomodated the appropriate alignments at that split second of imact and separation. If you need to know what that might be? Refer to the three imperatives, no ADLIBBING please.

 

[EdZ]

No Corky, you don't understand it yet. In my view the ball is LONG gone before there is throw away the inline condition isn't until both arms straight. You ALWAYS have lag, and must sustain it LONGER than if you are just focused on the left arm.

You are not thinking in 3 dimensional space, and of the HANDS. The impact conditions and alignments of TGM are in full effect LONGER in my view.

 

[corky05]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

No Corky, you don't understand it yet.

Trust me Ed, I never doubted that! We digress! Let me get back on track here.

Your supposition can't hold water Ed, because you can't retain lag with swing center behind ball. Not today, not ever! Please don't take it personally. I really would like to try to keep the posts civil. However, Your in the "No Adlibbing Zone".
If I were to start understanding Ed, the animals would be running the zoo.

 

[corky05]

Ed, Do you think that ball contact, before both hands straight is all there is to sustaining lag?
This rearward center of swing you support promotes throwaway. So, even though you may still be hitting the ball before both hands straight. It is a very weak, ineffectual swing. Instead of a positive, powerful, lag sustaining swing. It, is a try not to lose all your lag before you contact the ball swing. Not the mindset you want. Excuse me, I want.

 

[EdZ]

First a basic fact - It is a CIRCLE corky - lag can exist at any point in a circle.

The true low point is UNDER THE GROUND

And yes, it is true that less axis tilt requires a more centered ball position and hence that more forward ball position requires more axis tilt.

Think about that corky.

The more forward the ball position, the more right wrist bend is needed. Think about why that is Corky.

Let me say it one more time - nothing about my view of the ROTATIONAL FORCE - conflicts with TGM and its impact alignments. Nothing. My view more fully supports that of TGM's impact because I am talking about maintaining lag LONGER.

 

[EdZ]

quote:Originally posted by corky05

Ed, Do you think that ball contact, before both hands straight is all there is to sustaining lag?
This rearward center of swing you support promotes throwaway.

No, I don't.

And no, it doesn't because true low point is under the ground.

 

[corky05]

Given your model your analysis is a physical impossibility.
If you have spine tilt, which you say you do. If you swing around the spine, instead of left shoulder, you will swing 4-6 inches above the ball, whiff, or run out of right arm.
Now change center over left foot, arm pit, shoulder, lag sustained, low point below and in front of ball achieved, can't run out of right arm.
Please, anybody! Would it not be impossible to have the EdZ proposed "rotational force" plus a tilted spine and not swing upward. Look at any photograph and show me a good golfer that doesn't post and turn over the left leg.
If lag can exist anywhere in the circle, show me a pro that has lag when he's posted up over the left leg, left hand knuckles down, ball sizzling 40 yards down the fairway?
Your model only exists in "Ed World", but don't worry, none of us are ever expecting to change your opinion. In reality it is an impossibility.
Oh yea! I know! I don't understand you. Your Right, Ed! I'm in good company, though!

 

[Ringer]

EdZ - The concept you present is an ideal, but for Zero Accumulator #1. The right side of the triangle is always shorter than the left. Now, the second side of the triangle (described as the shoulders) acts, as I said before, as a class 1 lever where the left shoulder is attached to a flail. The leverage of the shoulders (with the spine as the fulcrum) act to propel the flail. It can be said that since the center of the lever is the spine, whether driven by the right shoulder, or flailed with the left... then it is a decent belief to say that it is the "center" of the swing. Although geometrically, it is not perfectly so. The swing MUST rotate specifically around that particular point, which makes it a "center". But having it as the specific center for the radius would only be definitively true if the third side of the triangle (right arm) had Zero Accumulator #1.

That all being said. It IS an effective mental image to have since the leverage of the shoulders work best when in line with the plane of the swing per 2-H... and all things must rotate around it. By simplifying the mechanics to a "Spoke of the rim" philosophy, we cut out a lot of the specifics which naturally happen on their own, and we will produce the same motion desired had those specifics been known. A stable axis for a circular flail is just as necessary as one for a lever induced flail. Both have the same in line properties that are required to produce proper motion.

 

[EdZ]

Low point is UNDER THE GROUND corky. I don't disagree with your impact alignments, only WHY they are what they are. As I have said many times, nothing about what I am talking about is in conflict with TGM's impact alignments

We position low point to be underground because it helps ensure lag and downward contact. Lower the center of the circle. Think about it.