hi brian could you please post a brief description of the way you are trying to highlight, i must have missed it. i myself prefer a pivot where i turn more around my spine like snead which for me means standard knee action
Last edited by bantamben1 : 12-27-2005 at 03:33 AM.
Lynn, I would like to state my case in reverse—if that's ok.
I FIRMLY believe that the Imperatives should dictate the components.
And, in the real world of teaching, choosing a 'pivot center'—the head or the base of the neck—is a component of sorts, a choice that the teacher needs to make in an area that has to be done, but can be done differently.
If I can get a student to COMPRESS the ball with lag pressure, 'draw' a straight Plane Line, & control the clubface with Hinge Action—and do it with a perfectly still head—then I do it.
But, from an athletic function standpoint, and from a pure performance standpoint, the base of the neck PIVOT CENTER works more of the time and is employed more of the time by world-class players over the years, in my opinion.
Also in my opinion, the IDEA that the head PERFECTLY between the feet and VERY STILL during the swing, is an IDEA that would hurt more people than it would help.
But, like Big Don Villavaso says "As sure as Gawd made little green apples," you could teach ALL of your students to have a head that is PERFECTLY between the feet and DEAD STILL during the swing, and be a very, very successful teacher.
I just believe—in my limited experience—that it is an OPTION, just like a Shoulder Turn Takeaway is an option, and an option that can help the right student at the right time.
I am VERY SORRY that Ted Fort had a tough time with the idea. As well as having trouble with a double shift, swinging, etc.
Ted, I think your swing is a good one, but I have NO DOUBT that I—as well as many others—could have taught you to have a through-the-neck pivot center and made you into a very good player, like you are.
When I started teaching David Toms, he had a dead still head, almost no hip turn, and sometimes never got the club on the Turned Shoulder Plane. So I "fixed" him.
Looking back, maybe I should have left his head still.
Of course, if you had a time machine, would you risk his career and life to find out if I was wrong or right?
Last edited by brianmanzella : 12-27-2005 at 10:27 AM.
I think what is missing is that the head is round and takes more space then a straight line. It rotates in its space like Mac. I only see Toms with a major shift to the right. Where you draw that line creates the debate.
I am VERY SORRY that Ted Fort had a tough time with the idea. As well as having trouble with a double shift, swinging, etc.
Ted, I think your swing is a good one, but I have NO DOUBT that I—as well as many others—could have taught you to have a through-the-neck pivot center and made you into a very good player, like you are.
The idea wasn't the problem. Spending 10 years suffering to break 80 by moving my ^%#^#@ head and double shifting was the problem. The only reason I could break 80 then was because I could and can make everything when a putter's in my hands. I thought I was getting good TGM instruction before I met Lynn, but later found I was getting someone's take on TGM. It was a take that didn't even include a hitting procedure. This person (not Brian Manzella, so no false rumors lower this thread) said, "through our research, (in other words, not Homer's) we've found that your right eye needs to be over your right foot at the top of your swing. Additionally, shifting isn't a problem as long as you stay in between shaft plane and somewhere around shoulder plane." As a result, I couldn't play dead in a western movie.
When I moved closer to 1-L, I played better. In fact, I was infinitely better. I am, by no means, perfect. But I will guarantee you that I have fewer moving parts, and as a result, better consistency. My search WAS, IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE for an uncompensated stroke. As a result, I play better than I've ever played and have the scores to prove it. I tried going down the road of letting someone else convince me that they were smarter than Homer and had better ideas. If Homer says anything is an "ideal" or chooses one component over another, I accept his assessment. If anyone was ever thorough about anything, it was Homer. I was fooled once, but I'm smart enough not to be fooled twice. It was a blessing to meet someone like Lynn that's not trying to re-write Homer's work. And I'm not saying that you, Brian, are trying to do so. But if the Albert Eienstein of golf tells me that something is "recommended" and a guy from Louisiana tells me to do it differently, I'll have to choose the author of the book. I'm not trying to slight you because I think you're a good teacher. But, I think Homer got it right over, and over, and over, and over...................
In all honesty, the only area that I heard from you and that I would have a real problem implementing was the exaggerated finish swivel that had the clubface laying horizontal to the ground. I think that's a good thing for someone that steers to try to do, but I wouldn't have them do it in reality. Other than that, I think we had many more areas of agreement than disagreement.
The idea wasn't the problem. Spending 10 years suffering to break 80 by moving my ^%#^#@ head and double shifting was the problem. The only reason I could break 80 then was because I could and can make everything when a putter's in my hands. I thought I was getting good TGM instruction before I met Lynn, but later found I was getting someone's take on TGM. It was a take that didn't even include a hitting procedure. This person (not Brian Manzella, so no false rumors lower this thread) said, "through our research, (in other words, not Homer's) we've found that your right eye needs to be over your right foot at the top of your swing. Additionally, shifting isn't a problem as long as you stay in between shaft plane and somewhere around shoulder plane." As a result, I couldn't play dead in a western movie.
When I moved closer to 1-L, I played better. In fact, I was infinitely better. I am, by no means, perfect. But I will guarantee you that I have fewer moving parts, and as a result, better consistency. My search WAS, IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE for an uncompensated stroke. As a result, I play better than I've ever played and have the scores to prove it. I tried going down the road of letting someone else convince me that they were smarter than Homer and had better ideas. If Homer says anything is an "ideal" or chooses one component over another, I accept his assessment. If anyone was ever thorough about anything, it was Homer. I was fooled once, but I'm smart enough not to be fooled twice. It was a blessing to meet someone like Lynn that's not trying to re-write Homer's work. And I'm not saying that you, Brian, are trying to do so. But if the Albert Eienstein of golf tells me that something is "recommended" and a guy from Louisiana tells me to do it differently, I'll have to choose the author of the book. I'm not trying to slight you because I think you're a good teacher. But, I think Homer got it right over, and over, and over, and over...................
In all honesty, the only area that I heard from you and that I would have a real problem implementing was the exaggerated finish swivel that had the clubface laying horizontal to the ground. I think that's a good thing for someone that steers to try to do, but I wouldn't have them do it in reality. Other than that, I think we had many more areas of agreement than disagreement.
This is an awesome post, Ted, and I totally agree with it (not that it will help you sleep any better at night).
, (much clearer...lol)
Hybrid Mode
