EDZ's own version of 2-K

[EdZ]

These are the most important parts of my position that have yet to be countered by ANYONE, including Brian:
--------------------------------------------

Perhaps if I put this in TGM specific terms some of you will better understand my position:

1) 2K is incorrect in ONE VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL - the 'handle' of the flail is NOT THE LEFT ARM, it is the line from the swing center to the hands (this is the most basic and complete way to view my position)

2) the justification in 2H for 'moving centers' is no longer needed, and is inaccurate. The centers are the same, the planes are not.

3) It is the HANDS that move the flail, one pulling, one pushing. you CAN both HIT and SWING because you can both pull, AND push on this correct 2K golfers flail.

5) this correction to 2K allows for a greatly simplified visual image of the swing, and the plane - the plane that this 'line' travels back and through (Anika does a great job of this). The plane that the HANDS travel on, back and through, in relation to the center point. This correction also reconciles wheel rim, and wheel spoke, as discussed by Homer.

Most importantly - this correction MORE fully supports the rest of TGM's core concepts. Impact still looks the same, because at impact this corrected 2k flail is basically against the INSIDE of the left wrist, quite literally page 102 of Hogan's 5 lessons. At that point the end of this corrected flail IS the raised wrist bone. Remember, the line is perpendicular to the shoulder line.
Evidence for this position being correct (aside from the above) includes it explaining why a more forward ball position requires MORE right wrist bend, and a centered ball position requires less right wrist bend. It also explains the many players (goosen for example, or even De La Torre, or even those on the Austin crew who have a 'traditional' flail per 2k) that appear to violate 2K as Homer wrote it, but do not under my corrected view of 2K.

For an effective swing visual, simply imagine this corrected flail in 2k, with its handle between your arms, as a wheel spoke, and your hands as the wheel rim. Or alternately, imagine a string from your center and a rock IN your hands.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Thank you to those genuine enough to have civil conversation and debate.

For evidence that supports my view:

See this pic of Hogan at impact, imagine that line from center to the left wrist bone.

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80516/1/3060934

Or this series of Mickey Wright, see that line

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/90714

not the best angle, but this one of Tiger shows the plane (wheel rim) well (top and bottom of right pics)

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80234

more good pics showing Tiger, see that line

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80234/1/3117535

 

[Brian Manzella]

Ed.

No offense, but I never use the 'center' for teaching. You are welcome to as this---thankfully---is a free country.

I think you'd be SHOCKED at how many lines I came up with, that had near 100% correlation.

Some helped me teach then, but it turns out that Homer's were better.

I still use 'MY ways' all the time in my teaching. But I still shoot for the 3 imperatives.

Funny thing is...the more I learn, the more Homer is right.

I locked the other thread because it was dead. No new ideas.

Your idea is valid, and I hope it helps you and maybe someone else who understood it.

On to the NEXT big deal.

 

[EdZ]

First, you edited both my post, and my title. For someone who wanted a censor free forum, that is unfortunate.

Second, that thread was not dead given what I had just posted, which is why I started this one, perhaps people who can provide real debate, can discuss this topic without personal attack.

Third, I am, and always have been, here to learn. I am looking forward to ANYONE who can clearly articulate, and provide evidence for, my position being incorrect, as many keep insisting it 'must' be. I have provided evidence as to why I think it is correct, and pictures to demonstrate it.

and finally, it is sad that many people have decided to attack, rather than discuss. the people here are all friends of golf, I would hope. I am not trying to discredit, if anything I am trying to enhance. As with anything, two people can look at the same thing and describe it differently. Don't let different perspectives become personal attack

Peace - EdZ

 

[Brian Manzella]

EDZ: First, you edited both my post, and my title. For someone who wanted a censor free forum, that is unfortunate.
BRIAN MANZELLA: Yes I did. It IS my forum, and when people start to name call, I have to do something. You have the honor of the having the first locked post. I will unlock it at some point.

EDZ:Second, that thread was not dead given what I had just posted, which is why I started this one, perhaps people who can provide real debate, can discuss this topic without personal attack.
BRIAN MANZELLA:It WAS dead in that NO NEW information or insight was appearing. You can do that in this thread

Third, I am, and always have been, here to learn. I am looking forward to ANYONE who can clearly articulate, and provide evidence for, my position being incorrect, as many keep insisting it 'must' be. I have provided evidence as to why I think it is correct, and pictures to demonstrate it.
BRIAN MANZELLA: I value you particpation in here Ed. Peopel did their best to comment and now I am commenting in this thread. As I said, it IS a valid line for some application, just not in my teaching.

BRIAN MANZELLA:Sorry for the editing Ed. But when needed....I will.

 

[njmp2]

Edz how much discussion is needed? I see you are bringing your argument over to GFI. And now I see he is pleading on TGM Forum. Go for it, but why suffer them with repeat beggings for acceptence. Sad, even pathetic. Was this the goldmine the copyrights were pegged to?

 

[EdZ]

Brian, I was not attacking anyone. People were attacking me, not my position. As you can see, njmp is at it again. No locked threads for all the insults Mathew, Ringer, njmp etc have thrown around (of some very crude and inappropriate statements), yet you lock a thread in which I am trying to stick to the point.

In any case, I DO appreciate that you are allowing the conversation to continue, and that you have acknowledged my views.

njmp - grow up. You have stated you do not agree. What do YOU add to the conversation other than being rude?

 

[njmp2]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Brian, I was not attacking anyone. People were attacking me, not my position. As you can see, njmp is at it again. No locked threads for all the insults Mathew, Ringer, njmp etc have thrown around (of some very crude and inappropriate statements), yet you lock a thread in which I am trying to stick to the point.

In any case, I DO appreciate that you are allowing the conversation to continue, and that you have acknowledged my views.

njmp - grow up. You have stated you do not agree. What do YOU add to the conversation other than being rude?

Plz don't cry but you are bringing this on yourself. Even a programmed insect would change course after a while. Sticking to your point is what is driving people nuts.

My point is the conversation should be dead already. You have a view, wrong as it may be. It hasn't changed anyone's mind in several weeks. Move on. I'm sure the folks at fgi will stroke your ego.

 

[njmp2]

I didn't want to distract Hue's thread but:

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

I much prefer a focus on getting the back of the lead shoulder behind the ball, as if knocking down a door with it.

When that left shoulder, the lead, moves behind the ball, the circle shifts the the right. It re-locates back to the left shoulder and becomes the low point of the swing. The head remains the body's center, not the swings. The body is a platform for the swing which has a moving center.

 

[azgolfer]

You could also look at it as a three jointed flail, spine to shoulder, shoulder to wrist, wrist to clubhead. I'd be curious what a line from the center to the hands does from start to finish, I don't think I've seen this line drawn before.

 

[EdZ]

Your circle moves, mine does not, and that is the point. The requirement of 2H is absurd, it would be like saying you could drive your car with a full cup of coffe on the dash without spilling it. Yes, you could if you accelerated and decelerated very smoothly and precise, but is that really a 'machine' like variable you want in your swing? Is that really providing for a stable, repeatable swing?

Now despite what HK says in 2H, the reality of pro swings is that they do accomplish what I am stating. Pictures prove that. If they didn't do what I am saying, they would violate 2H. This isn't a matter of one view being 'right' and one being 'wrong', 2H/2K just has an incorrect assumption. Homer fixed his focus on the left arm and tried to justify it in 2H. What I am talking about, the revised 2K, not only solves the 2H problem, but explains other areas that appeared incompatible (like hitting AND swinging).


AZ - yes, as far as how the HANDS are moved, that lever, and even the current 2k, are valid, but the current view of 2K becomes invalid after both arms straight, whereas my view does not.

The motions of the body are all about moving the HANDS, and the hands move the club. The hands stay on plane with center.

Nicklaus talks of keeping the club 'between the arms' at the top. He is talking about my view of 2K.

This revised view of 2K IS what connection is all about. Keeping that line in tact, the hands and chest moving through together.

 

[njmp2]

In your own mind you are right. I think the best thing is to just ignore your whole concept before an entire month is wasted by this. EdZ move on. Homer is correct and nobody is more wrong then you. You have a total misconception of the triangle, circles and TGM in general. I hope others heed this in leave you on your island of EDZ, where you are king. So far on fgi only machiner wasted two secondfs of his life to put a sorry face on it.

 

[Mathew]

I actually agree with Brian that the old thread serves nothing... Its boring watching these people 'spar' and is akin to watching chimpanzees hurl bananas at each other.

Edz - Homer was the engineer for boeing without an engineering degree(which basically means that you need to know your stuff 10x better than others to get the same job position), and not to be a put down to you in any sence but really you aren't in his league of understanding(and neither am I or anyone else on this forum too except maybe Yoda). I honestly believe that Homer was spooky intelligent. I remember once hearing an old chinese proverb which has always been of great importance to me when learning which I think has relevance here. The cup has to be emptied before it can be refilled. See how often that this applies in your life and embrace it because it is a true path of learning.

 

[corky05]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Your circle moves, mine does not, and that is the point. The requirement of 2H is absurd, it would be like saying you could drive your car with a full cup of coffe on the dash without spilling it. Yes, you could if you accelerated and decelerated very smoothly and precise, but is that really a 'machine' like variable you want in your swing? Is that really providing for a stable, repeatable swing?

Your version applied without cheating would result in 140 yard drives. Trust me, you have had ample opportunity to show that your swing is circular, but you havn't substantiated that yet. If you hit the ball with the majority of your weight on your left foot, like me, Annika, and Manzella, then your circle only exists in your head or you may "feel" like that is what you do, but you're not. Sorry!
Now despite what HK says in 2H, the reality of pro swings is that they do accomplish what I am stating. Pictures prove that. If they didn't do what I am saying, they would violate 2H. This isn't a matter of one view being 'right' and one being 'wrong', 2H/2K just has an incorrect assumption. Homer fixed his focus on the left arm and tried to justify it in 2H. What I am talking about, the revised 2K, not only solves the 2H problem, but explains other areas that appeared incompatible (like hitting AND swinging).

Don't try to rewrite the book! If you want to create your own inneffectual swings,fine! But, you have demonstrated such a poor understanding of physics, science, anatomy, and engineering that it would be an abomination and desacration to try to intermingle your "stuff" for lack of a better word, with the yellowe book. It might not be everybodys cup of tea, but your certainly not qualified to make amendments to it.

Nicklaus talks of keeping the club 'between the arms' at the top. He is talking about my view of 2K.

He is talking about his plane, not this center spine thing you tried to make up.

This revised view of 2K IS what connection is all about. Keeping that line in tact, the hands and chest moving through together.

No,No,No and No! Its great to be back!

 

[Ringer]

EdZ... I have had a lot of patience with this... and I think most us who teach understand you to a degree. It cannot be stressed enough. TGM is obviously not a catalog of view points. It is a catalog of the components of the golf swing. You are suggesting a view point which I, to a certain extent, agree with. However, it is not a reality so long as Accumulator #1 is allowed. The fact is, that once the hands move closer to the right shoulder, the shorter the radius from your spine to hands. Then on the forward swing, so long as the hands stay closer to the right shoulder than left, the radius remains smaller than at setup or impact fix. Once the arms fully extend at follow through, then the raidus is regained. This is a physical reality which makes YOUR flail imprecise. However, the accepted concept of the flail being the left arm attached to a lever system (the shoulders), is quite acceptable. The swing center is still necessary as the shoulders must use the spine as their fulcrum for the class 1 lever.

Conceptually, your idea simplifies this machine.. however it is imprecise as the physics of it are similar but not exactly accurate.

 

[corky05]

Ringer, Some good points! I think the minute you start saying that "radius changes length and shoulders(plural) is where you really expose the fragility of the rotational force concept. A circle's radius is finite not dynamic. The left shoulder supports that in your example. The measured distance from origin (left shoulder) to hand is the same at all points. This is not so as you so eloquently demonstrated below;

"The fact is, that once the hands move closer to the right shoulder, the shorter the radius from your spine to hands. Then on the forward swing, so long as the hands stay closer to the right shoulder than left, the radius remains smaller than at setup or impact fix. Once the arms fully extend at follow through, then the raidus is regained. This is a physical reality which makes YOUR flail imprecise."

 

[corky05]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Your circle moves, mine does not, and that is the point. The requirement of 2H is absurd, it would be like saying you could drive your car with a full cup of coffe on the dash without spilling it. Yes, you could if you accelerated and decelerated very smoothly and precise, but is that really a 'machine' like variable you want in your swing? Is that really providing for a stable, repeatable swing?

Now despite what HK says in 2H, the reality of pro swings is that they do accomplish what I am stating. Pictures prove that. If they didn't do what I am saying, they would violate 2H. This isn't a matter of one view being 'right' and one being 'wrong', 2H/2K just has an incorrect assumption. Homer fixed his focus on the left arm and tried to justify it in 2H. What I am talking about, the revised 2K, not only solves the 2H problem, but explains other areas that appeared incompatible (like hitting AND swinging).

A batter in baseball moves his circle toward the pitcher as he swings. Steps toward the pitcher as he is swinging. "Agreed?"

The idea that a professional baseball player can move forward, swing at the same time, and hit a baseball solidly, when Randy Johnson serves up a pitch in excess of 100mph must seem like an impossibility to you Ed?

You don't believe a professional golfer can achieve this same task when their golf ball is static?

A serious underestimation!

Have you ever seen "the Hitman" put on a golf clinic? I don't think he is calling on rotational force to pull off those shots?

Just some things to ponder?

 

[Mathew]

quote:No locked threads for all the insults Mathew, Ringer, njmp etc have thrown around (of some very crude and inappropriate statements), yet you lock a thread in which I am trying to stick to the point.

Missed this earlier. Edz all my insults are in jest and fun. Every so often I like battling wits...ie when I crushed ppg. I really don't dislike him at all, infact I don't even know him. This is the Brian Manzella site and you need to respect his moderation. Actually your not as unrespected in this forum as you may think, while most of us don't agree with your swing theory, you do have an impressive enthusiasm for the subject.

Chill out and most of all enjoy being here... this really is a great discussion board which is fun to be around... so just enjoy

Mathew

 

[armourall]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

These are the most important parts of my position that have yet to be countered by ANYONE, including Brian:
--------------------------------------------

Perhaps if I put this in TGM specific terms some of you will better understand my position:

1) 2K is incorrect in ONE VERY IMPORTANT DETAIL - the 'handle' of the flail is NOT THE LEFT ARM, it is the line from the swing center to the hands (this is the most basic and complete way to view my position)

2) the justification in 2H for 'moving centers' is no longer needed, and is inaccurate. The centers are the same, the planes are not.

3) It is the HANDS that move the flail, one pulling, one pushing. you CAN both HIT and SWING because you can both pull, AND push on this correct 2K golfers flail.

5) this correction to 2K allows for a greatly simplified visual image of the swing, and the plane - the plane that this 'line' travels back and through (Anika does a great job of this). The plane that the HANDS travel on, back and through, in relation to the center point. This correction also reconciles wheel rim, and wheel spoke, as discussed by Homer.

Most importantly - this correction MORE fully supports the rest of TGM's core concepts. Impact still looks the same, because at impact this corrected 2k flail is basically against the INSIDE of the left wrist, quite literally page 102 of Hogan's 5 lessons. At that point the end of this corrected flail IS the raised wrist bone. Remember, the line is perpendicular to the shoulder line.
Evidence for this position being correct (aside from the above) includes it explaining why a more forward ball position requires MORE right wrist bend, and a centered ball position requires less right wrist bend. It also explains the many players (goosen for example, or even De La Torre, or even those on the Austin crew who have a 'traditional' flail per 2k) that appear to violate 2K as Homer wrote it, but do not under my corrected view of 2K.

For an effective swing visual, simply imagine this corrected flail in 2k, with its handle between your arms, as a wheel spoke, and your hands as the wheel rim. Or alternately, imagine a string from your center and a rock IN your hands.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Thank you to those genuine enough to have civil conversation and debate.

For evidence that supports my view:

See this pic of Hogan at impact, imagine that line from center to the left wrist bone.

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80516/1/3060934

Or this series of Mickey Wright, see that line

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/90714

not the best angle, but this one of Tiger shows the plane (wheel rim) well (top and bottom of right pics)

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80234

more good pics showing Tiger, see that line

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80234/1/3117535

I looked at this picture of Tiger...

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80234/1/3117535

and noticed that the "spoke" or "flail" does not appear to remain perpendicular to the shoulders. Picture #6 seems to show the hands trailing the "flail." In Picture #7 (impact), they do catch up (perhaps showing the left arm blasting off the chest?).

Personally, it seems that to have PP#4 intact, my chest is pointing ahead of the hands, just like Mr. Woods.

 

[EdZ]

YES.... remember, that line is on a 'ball and socket' type joint at center.

The most IMPORTANT point you are all missing is that the line is perpendicular with center AT both arms straight. That you are creating a whipping motion INSIDE that larger circle. Once again, the ONLY time you are at full extension is both arms straight and THAT is the ONLY time you MUST have that line perpendicular to the shoulders.

In a whip motion, the end of the whip moves near center, before it moves away from center.

Edit: as far as Tiger's pic, I wish it were possible to know if that shot went where he wanted, he 'is' ahead of where I would want (but by such a small margin, a few inches).

THAT is why you can have a shorter radius, but still maintain the hands ON that plane, on that line, and go to both arms straight.

On the backswing, there are advantages to keeping that 'spoke' - this is part of why extensor action is so important, it keeps your hands and chest in the proper relationship.

The move down absolutely shortens that line from hands to center. It must to some degree. Regardless you must be back to a straight line at impact, or at the least, both arms straight.

 

[EdZ]

For the record, the TGM site has removed my post about this matter with no comment.