D, I'm sure my question was lost in the mix yesterday but I am still interested in the answer.
Clubpaths, and Hogan vs. Tiger 2000
- Thread starter Dariusz J.
- Start date
- Status
D, I'm sure my question was lost in the mix yesterday but I am still interested in the answer.
Dariusz J.
New member
Direct run by myself - none; I used, however, a lot of published work of scientists (anatomy and simple physics) in books and in the net and extrapolated their summaries into areas that I was particularily interested in. Tried to be very methodic and careful in this work.
Cheers
Dariusz why did you feel a need to "correct" the stance diagram in 5L? I tried the stance as described and found it was more restrictive in been able to turn the hips.
This might be a problem for a lot of golfers and I don't see it as a solution for a balance issue, balance is a more complicated thing than just standing diagonally.
Also what does the size of the feet in relation to body mass have to do with anything? I think through the process of evoloution the feet have developed to exactly the size they need to be to support our body mass.
Haven't heard to many athelete's complain that their feet were to small to keep them standing up or they were unable to perform in their sport because their feet were to small.
I don't see how this stance relates to the d-plane , could you explain how it relates? Does this stance matter to the d-plane, not sure looking for some clarification.
This might be a problem for a lot of golfers and I don't see it as a solution for a balance issue, balance is a more complicated thing than just standing diagonally.
Also what does the size of the feet in relation to body mass have to do with anything? I think through the process of evoloution the feet have developed to exactly the size they need to be to support our body mass.
Haven't heard to many athelete's complain that their feet were to small to keep them standing up or they were unable to perform in their sport because their feet were to small.
I don't see how this stance relates to the d-plane , could you explain how it relates? Does this stance matter to the d-plane, not sure looking for some clarification.
Last edited:
Dariusz J.
New member
Good questions - will do my best to give honest answers:
Well...four main reasons:
a. to ensure the best balance possible in the coronal plane throughout the motion;
b. to ensure proper pressure points independent for both feet (and avoid less effective one that could bring errors) that can lead to optimal usage of both types of torques occurring in the motion (vertical - normal force and horizontal - shear force);
c. to avoid the scenario of using the same motion (full swing) with an open feet stance even with short clubs;
d. to ensure that the anatomical natural limitation is being found in the rear hip joint (that makes the linear CoG transfer automatic before the downswing phase begins).
It was hard to me to correct Hogan, but when I observed his real stance and read Gardner Dickinson's comments - I knew I was on a good track.
It is, however, I haven't found a better one to ensure proper balance through a dynamic motion when a biped faces North and the target is West; mind you, the feet alone are a very weak base for a total weight moving dynamically. I cannot understand how a parallel feet stance may be suggested to a golfer...
Of course. The bigger the feet the better balance they can ensure but PROVIDED their extra size allows for using ground forces proportionally. The ligaments and muscles in such scenario must have been much stronger.
Maybe because they never tried diagonal stance. I see a lot of amateurs who have big issues with balance. All of them use parallel stance. These who tried what I told them never returned back according to my best knowledge.
Well, D-plane requires aligning more open the more lofted a club is so that zeroing out is naturally easier.
Cheers
Well...four main reasons:
a. to ensure the best balance possible in the coronal plane throughout the motion;
b. to ensure proper pressure points independent for both feet (and avoid less effective one that could bring errors) that can lead to optimal usage of both types of torques occurring in the motion (vertical - normal force and horizontal - shear force);
c. to avoid the scenario of using the same motion (full swing) with an open feet stance even with short clubs;
d. to ensure that the anatomical natural limitation is being found in the rear hip joint (that makes the linear CoG transfer automatic before the downswing phase begins).
It was hard to me to correct Hogan, but when I observed his real stance and read Gardner Dickinson's comments - I knew I was on a good track.
It is, however, I haven't found a better one to ensure proper balance through a dynamic motion when a biped faces North and the target is West; mind you, the feet alone are a very weak base for a total weight moving dynamically. I cannot understand how a parallel feet stance may be suggested to a golfer...
Of course. The bigger the feet the better balance they can ensure but PROVIDED their extra size allows for using ground forces proportionally. The ligaments and muscles in such scenario must have been much stronger.
Maybe because they never tried diagonal stance. I see a lot of amateurs who have big issues with balance. All of them use parallel stance. These who tried what I told them never returned back according to my best knowledge.
Well, D-plane requires aligning more open the more lofted a club is so that zeroing out is naturally easier.
Cheers
Darius said: Maybe because they never tried diagonal stance. I see a lot of amateurs who have big issues with balance. All of them use parallel stance. These who tried what I told them never returned back according to my best knowledge.
Of course. The bigger the feet the better balance they can ensure but PROVIDED their extra size allows for using ground forces proportionally. The ligaments and muscles in such scenario must have been much stronger.
I don't see how bigger feet provide better balance in a human. There's way more to balance than foot size, i.e. vestibular system, vision etc. Big feet are just big feet usually in proportion to body size.
The diagonal stance is just another way to stand IMO. I don't think you have to "align "more open for more lofted clubs to satisfy the d-plane or that it necessarily makes it easier to zero them out, it might then again it might not depending on the individual.
Of course. The bigger the feet the better balance they can ensure but PROVIDED their extra size allows for using ground forces proportionally. The ligaments and muscles in such scenario must have been much stronger.
I don't see how bigger feet provide better balance in a human. There's way more to balance than foot size, i.e. vestibular system, vision etc. Big feet are just big feet usually in proportion to body size.
The diagonal stance is just another way to stand IMO. I don't think you have to "align "more open for more lofted clubs to satisfy the d-plane or that it necessarily makes it easier to zero them out, it might then again it might not depending on the individual.
Dariusz J.
New member
Do you agree that a better static balance leads to a better dynamic one ? If yes, think about the tower in Piza. Assuming it is made of solid material (and do not have strong building fundamentals) when would it fall down ? When the CoG exceeds the perimeter of the base, which means the bigger it is the better. Simple physics.
Well...maybe someone knowledgeable in D-plane chimes in and confirm/deny if what I wrote makes sense. I remember Brian said that Hogan knew some stuff in the context of the D-plane.
Cheers
Dariusz said: Do you agree that a better static balance leads to a better dynamic one ? If yes, think about the tower in Piza. Assuming it is made of solid material (and do not have strong building fundamentals) when would it fall down ? When the CoG exceeds the perimeter of the base, which means the bigger it is the better. Simple physics.
No I don't totally agree , it depends on the person there's people that look fantastic balance wise at adress but as soon as the action starts all hell breaks loose.
Your talking about inanimate objects and if they are at a tipping point. The human anatomy is flexible and has built in safety responses to tipping points unlike the tower of Pisa on it's own, plus you totally ignored the vestibular/inner ear of humans that is a main point for balance in a human, unlike the Tower of Pisa we can react to a tipping point. Our feet are fine for our body mass and balance in a normal human...geeez.
Compare apples to apples. buildings, machines, tables , chairs, bottles of booze etc.have no ability to adjust their cog on their own, but we can.
No I don't totally agree , it depends on the person there's people that look fantastic balance wise at adress but as soon as the action starts all hell breaks loose.
Your talking about inanimate objects and if they are at a tipping point. The human anatomy is flexible and has built in safety responses to tipping points unlike the tower of Pisa on it's own, plus you totally ignored the vestibular/inner ear of humans that is a main point for balance in a human, unlike the Tower of Pisa we can react to a tipping point. Our feet are fine for our body mass and balance in a normal human...geeez.
Compare apples to apples. buildings, machines, tables , chairs, bottles of booze etc.have no ability to adjust their cog on their own, but we can.
Last edited:
Dariusz J.
New member
I did not omit anything. I just presumed the point for balance of human is identical for all humans (macroscale). How would a researcher be able to formulate universal theories if he/she deals with individual microscale elements ? The universal rule is the bigger the perimeter of the base (and the lower the object's CoG is) the better the static balance is no matter if the object is made of iron or clay.
Why should I explain such basic things ???
Cheers
Admit it you didn't know about the vestibular system and if it's so basic and you leave it out and your dealing with humans for your theories of stance and balance and setup dependant automation that little microscale detail that's not important will blow apart your Macroscale theory to pieces ESPECIALLY when your using inanimate objects to compare THEIR BALANCE TO A HUMANS. Leaning Tower of B.S.
Last edited:
Dariusz J.
New member
I am tired. I gave all my heart to answer all questions and now I am being claimed that I don't know that there is inner ear...
No matter how big is one's ability of dealing with balance issues we can imagine it is constant for this person and might be bettered or worsened by using simple physic rules. Do you think that such a person won't benefit from physics ? Why do you want to lead the discussion to such ridiculous level ? Beats me.
Cheers
Because you brought it there with your example of comparing humans to a leaning tower, makes no sense. You brought it up, not me. I just responded to it.
Dariusz J.
New member
No sense ???? Geez....imagine 2 men of the same weight and proportions = the same location of the CoGs. One has gigantic feet, another very small feet. Both have the same ability of dealing with balance. Which one, in your opinion, will deal with balance better ? which one can afford the CoG moving more ?
The same scenario is when comparing parallel stance to the diagonal one.
Cheers
Dariusz J.
New member
No, we are what Mother Nature made us but let's use every opportunity to ease our actions. How would you like to have your feet grown ? They are not soft tissue only as women's tits.
Cheers
Footwedge, assuming both men have properly functioning inner ears I go with Dairusz on this.
In post 272 you say it "makes no sense" but more correctly it should be that it makes no sense to you. Regardless, I'm sure that big feet with an uncoordinated person might be a detriment too, so perhaps there is more beyond both your theories.
In post 272 you say it "makes no sense" but more correctly it should be that it makes no sense to you. Regardless, I'm sure that big feet with an uncoordinated person might be a detriment too, so perhaps there is more beyond both your theories.
It doesn't work that way in humans, size of feet has nothing to do with it if your a normal human.
Footwedge, assuming both men have properly functioning inner ears I go with Dairusz on this.
In post 272 you say it "makes no sense" but more correctly it should be that it makes no sense to you. Regardless, I'm sure that big feet with an uncoordinated person might be a detriment too, so perhaps there is more beyond both your theories.
Get serious, if foot size had anything to do with balance Shaq would be with the acrobats in a show at cirque de soliel. Your talking stability. I have no theory just opinion.
Dariusz J.
New member
Do you know what does the word PROPORTION mean ? Shaq's big feet mean nothing with his higher located CoG. Think wide.
Cheers
- Status