I want an answer to this question......

[Brian Manzella]

Every single time that real scientists have modeled a golf swing, in 2D or 3D, and a possible parameter was moving the center, whether to optimize for power or a flat spot, or anything worthwhile, the center moves. Every time.........so why all the fascination with a non-moving center??

 

[ekennedy]

My guess is that a to an observer/instructor, a center pivot (wherever they point to...) is measurable by the amount that point moves during the swing. Although its been discredited as a bad metaphor, its the same rationale they use for an spinning ice skater creating a more efficient and faster turn and the same basic reason why center pivot teachers like their students to keep their upper arms tight to their body. It seems like junk science to me...

 

[ckkrispie]

I think some of it comes down to marketing a method. It is easier to sell "non-moving center" as a more simple swing method.

 

[lia41985]

1.) It "makes sense"/"strikes a chord" at a base level. A closer examination yields a correct understanding, which you've found.
2.) It's an easier "sell."
3.) The science behind the non-moving center is a lot more complicated than the model of the non-moving center.

Keep up the great research, Brian!

 

[mgranato]

Close your eyes and pick one

Moving is tooooo hard...

Moving takes toooo much time...

Moving relys on timing...

Moving is not what the best ball strikers did...

Moving hurts the back....

Moving is why handicaps haven't fallen...

Moving is too chaotic....

 

[Jared Willerson]

It sounds simpler, less contrived with fewer moving parts and less dependent on timing....blah, blah, blah.

It's just marketing...because in real time, most pros swings don't look like the head moves much. You wouldn't believe all the comments on YouTube vids that say something like "look how still his head is, he is going to be a star", to a more trained eye, the head obviously moves 3-4 inches off the ball, but the hack continues to marvel at the "still" head.

I just never saw how hitting balls with a bottle of water on my head would make my swing any better.

 

[ScottRob]

Hey Norm!

Optimization is not a prerequisite for hall of fame golf. Just do what it takes to beat the others. Although with all the technology optimal may be the new norm.

 

[jerry1967]

Every single time that real scientists have modeled a golf swing, in 2D or 3D, and a possible parameter was moving the center, whether to optimize for power or a flat spot, or anything worthwhile, the center moves. Every time.........so why all the fascination with a non-moving center??

Very good information here, thank you.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Moving center? Backswing or Downswing or both?





3JACK

 

[westy]

hitting a ball without moving.

Moving is tooooo hard...
everything is in motion. instantaneous multiple helical axes.

Moving takes toooo much time...
there is no rush.

Moving relys on timing...
rhythm is the glue

Moving is not what the best ball strikers did...
bullshit. snead moved, hogan moved, jack moved, duval moved, they all moved differently.

Moving hurts the back....
if outside the range of motion or overloading something

Moving is why handicaps haven't fallen...
poor motion and sequencing, not motion

Moving is too chaotic....

from chaos comes order.
practice.

 

[johnnymarlboro]

Personally, I prefer a nougat filled center.

Seriously though, I think that alot of teachers teach the whole centered thing, because they really believe that the averge person who is not overly athletic, just can't consistently incorporate a more dynamic move. I think alot of people out there buy into it because they haven't improved despite hard work. But I think most folks out there desperately want to get better, they just don't know how to get there. Unless you are a skilled athlete, I think trying to figure it out on your own is a very hazardous road. But I don't believe the average middle class person has the time, or money to be as good as they want to. When professionals try to change their swings it takes years, and they have acess to top notch instructors, and nothing but time to practice. People tend to learn on their own, and develop bad habits because it's hard to monitor progress on your own. It's like trying to paint a perfect portrait, when you've only ever seen other people do it. Looks pretty easy, I can do that! Wait, what do you mean I've got to get fit for brushes...?

But I digress, mostly I think it's a flavor of the month. Every era seems to have had it's prefered "methods" for the most part. There's alot of snake oil salesmen out there, and the average Joe is desperate.

 

[mandrin]

Every single time that real scientists have modeled a golf swing, in 2D or 3D, and a possible parameter was moving the center, whether to optimize for power or a flat spot, or anything worthwhile, the center moves. Every time.........so why all the fascination with a non-moving center??

Brian,

If we look specifically at TGM and try to fathom why this strange fascination for a 'non-moving' center there might possibly be an explanation considering the religious/scientific background of Homer Kelley. With a 'non-moving' center everything is neat and ordered, once and for all. It fits very much with the philosophy of the present self appointed TGM guru.

One can't help thinking of Galileo and Copernicus. They destroyed the comfortable idea that the earth constituted the center of the universe. The earth just being regarded as just another celestial bodies did meet ferocious resistance. Not being anymore the stable center around which all that existed moved around did raise all kind of religious turmoil.

Perhaps a visit on the couch or a few hypnotic sessions for some of these fervent TGM disciples adhering to this comfortable idea of a 'non-moving' center might possibly reveal the truth, deeply encrusted and hidden in a lot of pseudo jargon.

 

[footwedge]

What i want to know is where the f %$&*% is "the" center/centers and how the hell can i keep it/them from moving? Is the golf swing really like a pendulum?...lol. Oh no! i moved my head again damn!

 

[lia41985]

What i want to know is where the f %$&*% is "the" center/centers and how the hell can i keep it/them from moving? Is the golf swing really like a pendulum?...lol. Oh no! i moved my head again damn!

How did we get off on the wrong foot?

 

[footwedge]

How did we get off on the wrong foot?

I don't remember, but it's water under the bridge. That's my story and i'm sticking to it.

 

[Steve Greffen]

At least we can still hold on to the fact that the low point is always at the left shoulder pit!

Has anyone seen my circle swing diagram?? I have a presentation to make to my cult followers er I mean students!

 

[lia41985]

I don't remember, but it's water under the bridge. That's my story and i'm sticking to it.

I'm down with that

 

[TROYNYGOLFER]

Brian,

One can't help thinking of Galileo and Copernicus. They destroyed the comfortable idea that the earth constituted the center of the universe. The earth just being regarded as just another celestial bodies did meet ferocious resistance. Not being anymore the stable center around which all that existed moved around did raise all kind of religious turmoil.

Perhaps a visit on the couch or a few hypnotic sessions for some of these fervent TGM disciples adhering to this comfortable idea of a 'non-moving' center might possibly reveal the truth, deeply encrusted and hidden in a lot of pseudo jargon.

I think Mandrin makes a great argument. When you add the fact that so much golf instruction that makes it to the public is filtered (via GD, TGC, golf telecasts) to conform to the existing model, it makes it very difficult for the science to emerge. When the supply of good information is restricted and the demand for good information is equally restricted, the equilibrium level where supply meets demand is far lower than ideal.

There is one other item I would like to suggest. In order for the "current elite" to accept the science of the golf swing, the current gurus must essentially make a statement that they were wrong. In my humble experience, it has been the further up the chain you go, regardless of the field, the higher you go, the more resistance you have to change. Generally speaking, those who have prospered and done well tend to have big egos (often a key to their success), a substantial investment in the status quo, and frequently have a formal or informal cadre of synchophants and acolytes that reinforce their beliefs.

 

[mandrin]

At least we can still hold on to the fact that the low point is always at the left shoulder pit!

Bolt,

Strictly speaking this is only the true if the golf club forms a straight line with the left arm. Releasing the club early or late does shift low point away, albeit not dramatically, from the spot aligned with the left shoulder pit.

 

[johnnymarlboro]

Bolt,

Strictly speaking this is only the true if the golf club forms a straight line with the left arm. Releasing the club early or late does shift low point away, albeit not dramatically, from the spot aligned with the left shoulder pit.

I think he meant it sarcastically. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case, my bad.