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

[lia41985]

There's a difference between the segmental stability needed in an athletic motion utilizing kinetic chain snap and this notion that the centers shouldn't move in a golf swing. If the idea of "non-moving centers" helps give segmental stability to a particular golfer's swing and transfer force efficiently, great! However, having "non-moving centers" is definitely not a requirement.

Furthermore, while the notion of "non-moving centers" "makes sense" on a very superficial level in terms of low point control, what scientific support is there for this proposition? What if a guy stays so centered in his backswing that once he shifts forward he's coming in too steep too the ball--I don't think that's an uncommon problem with those trying to "stack and tilt". As a consequence these people will start working under (i.e. Tiger Woods) and, predictably, you've lost low point control Sure, if the model is performed perfectly then this isn't an issue but when is perfect execution of any method anything but...perfect execution? In the end, no model will work for everyone and that's the point. To optimize, you have to take certain components and fit them to the golfer thereby breaking the mold of any particular model. Wasn't that, like, the point of The Golfing Machine?

Why not focus instead on what the club's doing and get the body to get the club to work properly so that we can do what's most important--control the ball!

By the way, noone's saying that the "stack and tilters" or the "Foley-ites" or whoever can't make a living but we live in a day and age of free information and free exchange and people can think for themselves and can come to their own conclusions. So quit crying about being the focus of criticism. It's hypocritical given all the shots these people have taken at basically every other teacher in the biz. EVERY TEACHER HAS CRITICS! Stop complaining about being targeted and instead present a cogent and persuasive rebuttal. Or don't. It's your choice.

One thing is for damn sure, noone has a monopoly on "truth" and being a "truth seeker" doesn't mean going to a certain instructor's seminar. For example:

Top 100 teaching pro Brian Manzella attending a S&T school. I commend him for seeking truths

Twitter / nick : Top 100 teaching pro Brian ...

And this was after Nick posted the following:

I thought I lost respect for Brian Manzella until I just heard he signed up for a school with Mike & Andy. True truthseeker

Twitter / nick : I thought I lost respect f ...

I wrote this in an earlier post:

Isn't that interesting? If optimal means matching the eventual sweet spot plane with the appropriate shoulder rotation then Foley's preference for a flatter eventual sweet spot plane would call for shoulders that were less steep (i.e. a right shoulder that was higher rather than the lower position exhibited in players matching a steeper eventual sweet spot plane with steeper shoulders). I think what Starchuk is recommending (which may be what Tiger and Foley are working on) is to get the shoulder rotation less steep but making the suggestion differently. What Brian refers to as a high right shoulder socket position Starchuk refers to as a low right shoulder on a golfer that has not extended early--Starchuk thinks that Tiger's "chest extended early" (per the text seen at around the :44 second mark of his video).

http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfin...ss-line-now-manzella-video-10.html#post189454

(Nick has since removed the video.)

What a JOKE! Why can't people be humble enough to say that they agree or can learn from another person?

Does Nick realize that his mentor Sean spoke with Brian about Trackman and getting together? "Truth seeker", eh?

And another thing, a lot of this "revolution" CRAP isn't that AT ALL. "New Ball Flight Laws"?! Please. Read Practical Golf and tell me what's wrong. Read Search for the Perfect Swing and tell me what's wrong. Read The Physics of Golf and tell me what's wrong. They're have been several SCIENTISTS that have read The Golfing Machine and found a TON of errors.

Here's modern golf's most recognizable "revolutionary" talking about hitting up on the driver:

YouTube - Sean Foley at Toronto Golf Show 2011.wmv

Wow, what an earth shattering idea. Now watch this:

YouTube - John Jacobs teaching Tour Pro Gonzalo Fernández Castaño

Here's what that video description says:

John Jacobs talking about how to change his fading Drive into a Draw using the body turn and a earlier lowest part of the swing to get the club face closed at impact. Not to use the hands to close the clubface which would create snap hooks or pushes.

The passion these self-annointed "revolutionaries" have is great. But there's A LOT of immaturity and disingenuousness.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Seems to me if you had a choice, you'd want the least variables possible.

It is just plain ole NOT THAT EASY!

You have to wind up, and un wind, and help your arms and hands give the ball a good WHACK. It HAS TO BE DONE with a certain angle of attack, and a certain dynamic loft, and a certain path and face.

TRUST ME, if you do all of the above, YOU WILL STONE COLD LOOK LIKE A DAMN TOUR PLAYER THROUGH THE BALL.

This INCLUDES a center that moves a BUNCH.

Why????????????????????????????????????????????

Because there is no other way to do it.

You HAVE TO MOVE SOME THINGS people like to call CENTERS to be able to do this (for example):

6 iron
19° dynamic loft
2° inside-out
1° open
3.9° angle of attack
61° vertical sweetspot path plane

If I were any good at geometry, I could draw it for all of you.

The Blue stuff CAN NOT BE DONE WITHOUT MOVING THE CENTERS!!!!!!!!!!!

Ball game.

 

[JTillery]

I totally agree ......... but Im speaking of the head itself. If i could hit good shots either way, Ill take the relatively still head. Are we saying that you can't produce those numbers with a head that only moves a couple inches?

 

[jerry1967]

It is just plain ole NOT THAT EASY!

You have to wind up, and un wind, and help your arms and hands give the ball a good WHACK. It HAS TO BE DONE with a certain angle of attack, and a certain dynamic loft, and a certain path and face.

TRUST ME, if you do all of the above, YOU WILL STONE COLD LOOK LIKE A DAMN TOUR PLAYER THROUGH THE BALL.

This INCLUDES a center that moves a BUNCH.

Why????????????????????????????????????????????

Because there is no other way to do it.

You HAVE TO MOVE SOME THINGS people like to call CENTERS to be able to do this (for example):

6 iron
19° dynamic loft
2° inside-out
1° open
3.9° angle of attack
61° vertical sweetspot path plane

If I were any good at geometry, I could draw it for all of you.

The Blue stuff CAN NOT BE DONE WITHOUT MOVING THE CENTERS!!!!!!!!!!!

Ball game.

Seems to me Jimmy Ballard was right in his teaching. ."The golfer must coil the triangle and CENTER behind the ball into the brace of the right leg".
One of his "Seven Common Denominators" for swinging a golf club.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Whoa....

This is all DOWNSWING STUFF.....

But there is a relationship to the backswing.....more to come!

 

[birdie_man]

This is what I mean.

"Less moving parts". "Fewer variables".

It is simple logic. Many people seem very willing to place all their faith in isolated ideas like this though.

Again, if it works for you then run with that. But every golfer should study the HOF, and learn. Heck- all it takes is a glance...never mind study...

Maybe we should adopt..."keep your head well behind it like a baseball player".

 

[jerry1967]

Whoa....

This is all DOWNSWING STUFF.....

But there is a relationship to the backswing.....more to come!

I guess this would apply then. Another one of the "Seven Common Denominators" by Jimmy Ballard.

"The golfer must, after initiating the change of direction with the right foot and right knee, immediately release the right side and CENTER".

 

[Brian Manzella]

I guess this would apply then. Another one of the "Seven Common Denominators" by Jimmy Ballard.

"The golfer must, after initiating the change of direction with the right foot and right knee, immediately release the right side and CENTER".

The backswing that Jimmy Ballard posed at the MIT Summit was a really good pivot—nothing like Curtis Strange. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

But, his downswing thought—while giving the golfer a good "run up" (maybe) does nothing for "the jump."

 

[birdie_man]

I don't have a degree in Bio-mechanics. I'm also a product of the Tennessee public school system so I'm really behind the 8-ball on this. However, after having TWO major back surgeries, one a spinal fusion at the age of 45, I decided I needed to do away with what I have always thought was a stretch ( no pun intended ) the X factor and turn my hips. When I started doing this two things happened, one, my head stayed centered not because I tried to keep it there but because my weight stayed left or on my lead foot. The other was I started hitting the ball with more compression, I could keep my legs under my hips and my hips under my torso. I think there is a cult out there that calls this look or feel, or move or whatever you want to call it- stacked. Now, all I know is that at 45 years old I'm hitting it better with what FEELS and LOOKS like to me a centered swing. So, doing what teachers tend to do if we are half decent at playing this game, we show it to our students. Right or wrong that's what happens. There are teachers that teach what THEY are working on in their swing all the time- which is not a good thing. I'm sure I don't have to explain why but it has something to do with everyone being different ;-) But what I have explained above has worked for me and my students. Although I'm friends with the S&T cult, I don't teach it in it's purest form. I'm also a TGM AI that very rarely mentions much about during a lesson- Unless someone wants to know it. I don't necessarily subscribe to every nuance of those philosophies because as an adult I can think for myself. That's what works best for me and my students.

Without high speed video I would have said there have been players over the course of history that did not move their centers ( I've seen video where Hogan seems to move his and I've seen some that looked like he absolutely did not) and guys that really did- Curtis Strange comes to mind. But with the use of high speed video it seems to me that you can find something in every swing that suits your thinking or proves your point.

I hear a lot of rhetoric about the evil methodologists and how they are are so adamant that their WAY is THE way and it is destroying the world. But right or wrong it wouldn't be a very believable method if they didn't think that way would it? I can't convince people that what I'm selling is for real if I don't hail it as the best thing available. If something works I'm going to shout it from the rooftops. Not everyone may agree with it but it's what I do to feed my family, pay my bills, and make a living. When Golf Digest did their article on S&T they went to Plummer and Bennett. Not the other way around. What they had was a compelling method that just happened to keep some journeyman tour guys playing and playing at a level higher than they had ever played before. It wasn't like Foley that had 5 of the top 75 players in world come knocking on his door and he gets all the credit for their entire careers. Those guys had dozens of wins world wide not to mention their amateur careers when they came to him. As much malpractice that goes on in our industry I don't understand the vitriol toward them in particular. They didn't set out to sell snake oil. But every time there is a major debate on the golf swing, they start getting drilled. Especially around here.

Sorry so long.

Good post. I would never hate on someone as level headed as you.

I think it's very important to distinguish some types:

1. Hard sell of particular method: "This is the best way always, and is all I do and teach. It is superior because 'X'. So and so pro does it like this, look at these photos from real bad angles."

2. Softer method sell: "This way I think works best among other ways. I prefer and tend mostly to teach this one way."

3. Function over form: "There is more than one way to get it done, even if I generally prefer certain things. However, I foremost do and teach whatever works best."

ETC...

...

As long as people are able to get by doing silly things, silly ideas will persist. Reality. How do we get people doing other things?

And I understand needing to make cash...but there is getting by and there is really digging your heels in deep, and putting your dang head in the sand. Some people may call it "selling out". I somewhat get how and why it happens, I just can't imagine doing it, and think it is basically not good no matter how you spin it.

I hope it is not naive to think there simply must be a better way. I'm just getting sick of all this stuff. Very outspoken, but very illogical, too self-interested, etc. Or at least misinformation.

Anyhoo..

Why do you think your new pivot move works for you? Is your upper body more still or just the lower body? How did it change your ballflight? What was your old move like?

What do you mean school in TN?

Good luck with your back, that's tough. Maybe esp. for a gofler.

 

[lia41985]

But, his downswing thought—while giving the golfer a good "run up" (maybe) does nothing for "the jump."

I don't know anything about Ballard but amen on pairing "the jump" with "the run up"! If you "run up" and "jump" there's no way you're keeping your centers from moving.

 

[trickyric67]

as I was reading this thread I was thinking "pull back, run up and jump" but I thought there was going to be twist to the plot!
I had the opportunity to spend a full day with Jimmy Ballard last year and when you really think about how completely different from the establishment what he was teaching was, without the technology of 3D motion capture or trackman or high speed video to verify his theories he still did a pretty amazing job!
to answer the question of why some people hold fast to the non-moving center, I look at most things in same light, some people are so invested in a belief that at some point no matter what you show them to prove they are wrong they will not accept it. let those flat earthers pray to the sun gods and make sacrifices to the lord of the harvest.

 

[lia41985]

Whoa....

This is all DOWNSWING STUFF.....

But there is a relationship to the backswing.....more to come!

Jacobs talks about this relationship here (pages 35 to 48):
<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border:0px" src="http://books.google.com/books?id=PZUgoDRHnn4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA35&output=embed" width=500 height=500></iframe>

 

[noonan1]

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??

Do you have an example of one of these moving model golf swings?

 

[jpeck]

Forgot one .. a right eye dominant golfer.
Btw this thread is poor. Six pages and not one guy has challenged \ answered you except me, and this forum is better than that!

Hey Danny, could you elaborate on this right eye dominant thing? Sounds real interesting to me. Thanks in advance.


(my answer to the original question is a swing with a non-moving center is a shut down swing designed to limit big moves that could go wrong - not much help in today's power game, but might tame a wild action. golfers will grab at anything that looks like a shortcut, hence the fascination )

 

[Brian Manzella]

Do you have an example of one of these moving model golf swings?

Yup.

Right here on my computer.

I am not posting it up.

But, if you ask a question or two about it, I will answer.....

 

[spktho]

Do you have an example of one of these moving model golf swings?

I'm thinking every human golf swing has moving centers throughout the swing.

 

[Walt]

confused

I remember when Brian said that the center between the shoulder blades is constant in all the great players. You know, like a non moving center but I guess that was when he knew everything unlike now when he knows everything.

 

[counterfall]

I remember when Brian said that the center between the shoulder blades is constant in all the great players. You know, like a non moving center but I guess that was when he knew everything unlike now when he knows everything.

On the surface I can see the confusion, if Brian actually said that. However, it would be harder to respect Brian if he continued to say that while ignoring hefty evidence to the contrary. THAT would be dogmatic and inflexible. I do not really see that as the case here.
A person or scientist can only come to a conclusion based on the evidence available at the time. If, however, consideration of new evidence causes the same person to retract the original conclusion and propose a new one, then that is fully acceptable.

 

[gmbtempe]

On the surface I can see the confusion, if Brian actually said that. However, it would be harder to respect Brian if he continued to say that while ignoring hefty evidence to the contrary. THAT would be dogmatic and inflexible. I do not really see that as the case here.
A person or scientist can only come to a conclusion based on the evidence available at the time. If, however, consideration of new evidence causes the same person to retract the original conclusion and propose a new one, then that is fully acceptable.

what evidence?

 

[rprevost]

I remember when Brian said that the center between the shoulder blades is constant in all the great players. You know, like a non moving center but I guess that was when he knew everything unlike now when he knows everything.

I understand the confusion. The early publications on the perfect pivot, I think, taught a stationary point around which the head turned, in contrast to tri-pod teaching. I would expect that BManz's earlier work will be reanalyzed at some time, in light of the new scientific evidence, and I really look forward to a discussion of the pivot in the context of moving centers.