[YodasLuke]

Thanks Luke, will do.

Ill balance the machine and space it properly from fulcrum to ball when at fix, not adjusted. Sounds so logical and yet you'd never get this level of insight anywhere else.

Never thought about compensations and cause and effect relationships from a down the line, radius/fulcrum point of view. Very interesting.

One more question if I may. Given that the mass of the arms/club moves from in front of us to behind us and then in front of us again etc. In the ideal does the center of balance move around or stay put? If it doesnt move is there a compensating counter balancing of some sort?

O.B.

David Lee's primary thesis in Gravity Golf involved the "counter fall" or counter balancing of the arms and club. David's an extremely intelligent man. The theory has some good science, but there are some things that take big leaps of faith, in my opinion.

I've seen many representations of CG in great players including force plates, 3-D models, etc. I remember a Spanish company that had one of the first 3-D models. This may have been more than ten years ago. They had Jose Maria in their data and showed a ground-up view from the feet with a marker that showed his CG. It never got closer to the ball, so one would have to assume there was some form of a counter balance.

I've got my own theory about force plates. I think some of the data is misinterpreted. They suggest it's favorable to have a hook (a CG that gets closer to the ball in the downstroke). I'm not sold on that theory. I think they're reading the weight move from the right heel to the left ball, when the hips are still closed.