EDZ's own version of 2-K

[EdZ]

quote:Originally posted by corky05


I'd like to find out if a Zero Shift procedure complies with your plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright EdZ 2004 All Rights Reserved

Could you elaborate?

What I describe IS a zero shift plane. It is a different perspective on how to look at 'plane' in the swing that makes a zero shift plane easy to achieve.

By focusing on your hands and arms, and forgeting the club. The 'undersides' of your upper arms - imagine you have a plane board at address that is under your upper arms, and includes the butt of the club. It is the HANDS that stay on that plane back and through.

 

[holenone]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Simple - the referenced low power stroke is NOTHING LIKE what I am describing.

Get that through your head. You do not understand my position if that is what you think I am saying. Asking me to explain that pattern means nothing, it isn't what I am talking about, it is what you THINK I am talking about, and you are wrong about that. Simple.

I understand the gyroscopic nature of the Golf Stroke. And I think you do, too.

My demonstrated point was -- and is -- that when quantified, your theory does not adequately explain that phenomenon, nor can it be used to produce it.

It is deficient.

 

[EdZ]

How so? Can you elaborate on why you feel that way?

 

[corky05]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

quote:Originally posted by corky05


I'd like to find out if a Zero Shift procedure complies with your plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright EdZ 2004 All Rights Reserved

Could you elaborate?

What I describe IS a zero shift plane. It is a different perspective on how to look at 'plane' in the swing that makes a zero shift plane easy to achieve.

By focusing on your hands and arms, and forgeting the club. The 'undersides' of your upper arms - imagine you have a plane board at address that is under your upper arms, and includes the butt of the club. It is the HANDS that stay on that plane back and through.

I never liked the Ballard model? This is way too similar for my liking. I don't like hanging my hat on something like this, especially when it doesn't transcend through other swing types. An example; given earlier was the Don Trahan swing. He doesn't have the element that you are expounding on, however there are elements of TGM in play. If it can be excluded, I generally think of it as non-essential. " What my chest hair is doing during the swing is inconsequential to the result". Similarly, is this action that you hang your hat on,"Ball long gone". I'm not sure Jim Thorpe would be a great model for your swing. You can't argue he strikes the ball great!
But he never gets to both arms straight, 45degrees, no discernable rotational element, etc. etc. IMHO, I conclude it must be a non-essential.

 

[EdZ]

I'm not talking about the Ballard model per se, although Ballard would probably understand my view IMO. Ballard had no DOWN. No axis tilt, no real lag.

Let's look at some pictures of Trahan and Thorpe (if anyone has some?)

(as an aside, look at this pic of Brady, extend that line, he complies with what I am talking about)

http://www.bradyriggs.com/

 

[armourall]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

quote:Originally posted by corky05


I'd like to find out if a Zero Shift procedure complies with your plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright EdZ 2004 All Rights Reserved

Could you elaborate?

What I describe IS a zero shift plane. It is a different perspective on how to look at 'plane' in the swing that makes a zero shift plane easy to achieve.

By focusing on your hands and arms, and forgeting the club. The 'undersides' of your upper arms - imagine you have a plane board at address that is under your upper arms, and includes the butt of the club. It is the HANDS that stay on that plane back and through.

Your "plane" appears much more vertical than the turned shoulder plane. I'm still puzzled how you think the hands can trace both planes simultaneously.[?]

 

[EdZ]

The center point BETWEEN the shoulders. It can be zero shift but be above, on, or below the turned shoulder plane. It would ideally be on the turned shoulder plane. Of course the amount of forward lean at address is a factor as is distance from the ball.

 

[Turfspanker]

Ed,

Since you agree I'm "close" to getting it. Let me be clear that although I SEE what you are saying, I don't believe it holds any value unless you are trying to give a struggling beginner some visual analogy. For instance..."See this picture of Tiger, imagine a line of connection here...now do what he does in the picture at both arms straight". I'm simplifying for you but you are simplifying the golf stroke.

1-B Simplicity "Treating a complex subject or action as though it were simple, multiplies its complexity because of the difficulty in systematizing missing and unknown factors or elements. Demanding that golf instruction be kept simple does not make it simple-only incomplete and ineffective."

Sound familiar? I know it does to most of the readers of the EdZ theory.
As I see no value in continuing on this subject, I'm moving on. Best of luck to ya and I hope that some of your students "get it" and become better golfers as a result.

Personal thanks to Yoda for trying to crack the egg. A Yeomans effort in my opinion and I KNOW he has a ton on his plate.

Turfspanker

 

[rwh]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

The swing center is between the shoulders, at the base of the neck . . .

The bottom of the circle is under the ground, ahead of the ball.

(excerpts hi-lited by rwh)

Ed,

Still trying to visualize your swing model.

(1) Is the swing center (base of the neck) also the center of the circle that extends underground, the bottom of which is ahead of the ball? (2) If we had a face-on photo of you at Address, where would a vertical line from the base of your neck intersect the ground in relation to ball position for (a) 9 iron (b) 5 iron (c) 3 iron (d) Driver?

 

[EdZ]

turfspanker - what I am describing is a different perspective to 2K.

rhw -

1) yes - the bottom of which is ALWAYS perpendicular to the shoulder line, at both arms straight.

2) at address, or at fix? either way, the line would always be perpendicular to the shoulder line, (to where both arms straight WOULD be, under the ground), regardless of the tilt of the shoulders, therefore if you setup with the right shoulder lower than the left, it would always be ahead of the ball (and should be) It would be on a parallel line to the target line, inside the ball, on an extension of the line of the upper arms.

 

[armourall]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

The center point BETWEEN the shoulders. It can be zero shift but be above, on, or below the turned shoulder plane. It would ideally be on the turned shoulder plane. Of course the amount of forward lean at address is a factor as is distance from the ball.

Let's look at this sequence of Els...

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/79626

Your "plane" would be drawn from the center point through the hands at address. This line would be nearly vertical (and appear just behind his head if continued upward). Looking at the top of Els' backswing, are his hands on your plane?

 

[EdZ]

He's pretty close, yes, if anything he is a touch above it at the top. In frame 2 you can see he has 'rolled to the inside' and not kept the clubhead outside his hands. No, the line wouldn't be verticle. PP1 to the 'underside' of the shoulder/upper arms/center of shoulders. The 'underside of the upper arms' is a swing image that helps prevent what you see here in frame 2.

 

[EdZ]

quote:Originally posted by Turfspanker

Ed,

Since you agree I'm "close" to getting it. Let me be clear that although I SEE what you are saying, I don't believe it holds any value unless you are trying to give a struggling beginner some visual analogy. For instance..."See this picture of Tiger, imagine a line of connection here...now do what he does in the picture at both arms straight". I'm simplifying for you but you are simplifying the golf stroke.

1-B Simplicity "Treating a complex subject or action as though it were simple, multiplies its complexity because of the difficulty in systematizing missing and unknown factors or elements. Demanding that golf instruction be kept simple does not make it simple-only incomplete and ineffective."

Sound familiar? I know it does to most of the readers of the EdZ theory.
As I see no value in continuing on this subject, I'm moving on. Best of luck to ya and I hope that some of your students "get it" and become better golfers as a result.

Personal thanks to Yoda for trying to crack the egg. A Yeomans effort in my opinion and I KNOW he has a ton on his plate.

Turfspanker

Fair enough Turfspanker, I'm not saying the swing is 'simple' any more than walking is simple, or using a fork is simple. The 'description' of all of them is very complex. That doesn't mean the conscious thought during the motion must be.

In any case, I really appreciate your contribution to the conversation very much.

 

[armourall]

Ed,

Something else that just occurred to me... the lowest point of your circle (not your maximum radius) should be directly below the center point, somewhere in the middle of the stance and, as you said, below the ground. If that's the case, I'm picturing your flail as an upward blow to the ball, rather than downward. Is that what you intended?

 

[EdZ]

Now I know you are getting it armourall!

It is NOT an upward CONTACT, it IS a DOWNward blow thanks to how you position the 'circle' relative to the ground, and right wrist bent, but if you were to imagine the 'full' circle, it would be considered in the 'upward portion' of that circle.

Therefore you have ENSURED that you have lag every time because of how you have positioned the circle, with its 'true' radius under the ground.

And because it is under the ground, and you have right wrist bend, the entire thing LOOKS like an elipse. It also LOOKS like the left arm is the 'flail'. And the more right wrist bend and axis tilt (lowered right shoulder on plane), the more you ensure you contact the ball WELL BEFORE you have given up lag at full radius.

Does that clear it up for you armourall?

All the while, you are thrusting to both arms straight, the ONLY time you reach the full radius of the true swing circle.

I ask that some of you incubate on this for a while before responding.

thanks armourall

 

[armourall]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

Now I know you are getting it armourall!

It is NOT an upward CONTACT, it IS a DOWNward blow thanks to how you position the 'circle' relative to the ground, and right wrist bent, but if you were to imagine the 'full' circle, it would be considered in the 'upward portion' of that circle.

Therefore you have ENSURED that you have lag every time because of how you have positioned the circle, with its 'true' radius under the ground.

And because it is under the ground, and you have right wrist bend, the entire thing LOOKS like an elipse. It also LOOKS like the left arm is the 'flail'. And the more right wrist bend and axis tilt (lowered right shoulder on plane), the more you ensure you contact the ball WELL BEFORE you have given up lag at full radius.

Does that clear it up for you armourall?

All the while, you are thrusting to both arms straight, the ONLY time you reach the full radius of the true swing circle.

I ask that some of you incubate on this for a while before responding.

thanks armourall

Straying farther outside the box...

If this is the "true" flail, why not position the ball relative to the "true" low point (i.e., place the ball between the center of the stance and right foot)?

 

[EdZ]

with an open stance on a short chip, ball back, you do

You have to take into account the angle of the clubhead into the ball, to far back = too steep.

More importantly, you have to generate power by turning 'around' that spot on your back. You would have no power and be too steep with the ball back too far.

Think about a low, ball back punch shot - less axis tilt

You position the circle such that you ENSURE your lag, a 'centered' ball position would give you a more 'fully extended' impact (and you must setup with a 'higher center')

HENCE THE REASON - that centered ball position requires LESS right wrist bend, less axis tilt, and a more forward ball position requires MORE right wrist bend and more axis tilt.

 

[EdZ]

A good quote from Yoda on the TGM site that is applicable to the concept I am talking about:

(yoda)
You don't swing 'down along it!' You swing down and through it. Remember, this is just a line on the face of an Inclined Plane that actually extends into the ground. And in that ground is another Plane Line, the Low Point Plane Line. You don't 'see' that one on the top of ground.
(/yoda)

It is this 'low point plane line' that represents true, full extension

 

[rwh]

EdZ,

You're passionate, you're a thinker and I agree with you a lot of times. I can see why you like the idea of the center of the swing being the base of the neck. However, I'm really comfortable with the view that the Left Shoulder is the center of the Swing and the base of the Neck is the center of the Pivot. The bottom line for me is not that your view is necessarily "wrong"; rather, I just don't feel persuaded that my view is wrong and/or that there is any need to change it.

 

[njmp2]

quote:Originally posted by EdZ

A good quote from Yoda on the TGM site that is applicable to the concept I am talking about:

(yoda)
You don't swing 'down along it!' You swing down and through it. Remember, this is just a line on the face of an Inclined Plane that actually extends into the ground. And in that ground is another Plane Line, the Low Point Plane Line. You don't 'see' that one on the top of ground.
(/yoda)

It is this 'low point plane line' that represents true, full extension

Full extension is not at the low point plane line either, it comes after that line too. Full extensor there is a power leakage. Truely.