D, I'm sure my question was lost in the mix yesterday but I am still interested in the answer.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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 ???
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.
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.
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.
If we follow your logic we should all gain 200 pounds and grow our feet to size 26. We don't need to is my point.
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.
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.