This is my last post concerning my personal website, which is merely a pet hobby interest. If anybody wants to discuss it, they can send a PM. I am here to discuss HK's ideas and learn more about the TGM system.
You wrote-: "Please make sure you get the Gulbis sequence on there as well to support your theories."
That statement reflects your character, and therefore your opinion doesn't represent a constructive comment that will help me make my personal website more accurate.
Jeff.
Jeff,
You're the one who muddied the LBG site with Gulbis as your "new-and-improved" version of pivot center being the "set distance of the left shoulder socket from the ball at impact". I'm not sure why my request that you post that same swing sequence on your website as a reflection of your understanding of a proper golf swing is now an indicator of my "character"? Sounds like more imprecision on your part.
It would be a shame if your "pet hobby" messed up other people's hobby.
At the risk of being far too basic for you guys...
The drill "Steady Head Drill" on the 2nd disk of Alignment Golf shows this perfectly. Lynn discusses keeping he head centered while creating tilt by moving the hips a little forward. This actually gives the illusion of the head being back, but Lynn shows us that the head is still centered between his feet.
Homer Kelley's text along with Yoda's demonstration is good enough for me, I want as few compensations in my motion as possible!
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
You wrote-: "Your looking at his driver swing, I believe. His iron swing is more balanced, centered if you will. No wobble at the top.
The premise of the book is that it is a machine, a golfing machine that we are trying to build. It doesnt take much to see the need for balance and a vertical c.o.g line about which to rotate. Like the spinning top."
I agree with your position about having a centralised swing and the idea of minimising any sway/wobbling. Tiger Woods stays more centralised, with less secondary axis tilt, in his short iron swing - compared to his driver swing where he has far more secondary axis tilt. I made that point in a previous post where I stated that I believe that a stationary head is a marker of a stable pivot structure. I compared Mike Bennett to Anthony Kim, and I stated that Mike Bennett's COG remained closer to the center and that one could conceive of him having a very centralised pivot center and a very centralised pivot axis - like a spinning top. I think that it's a much better technique than the idiosyncratic technique of Natalie Gulbis. Natalie Gulbis is to Mike Bennett (re: centralised pivot axis and stationary head) like Jim Furyk is to Anthony Kim (re: keeping the clubshaft on-plane during the backswing). One can get away with atypical moves, but that requires a compensatory adjustment action. I prefer staying as close to the TGM model as possible. I simply don't think that HK's idea of a "stationary head" mandates a pivot axis in the center of the stance. I think that for driver swings (where one places a premium on distance) that certain golfers may prefer to have their stationary head (which stabilises their pivoting skeletal structure) just to the right of the center of their stance - like Anthony Kim. That allows them to have more secondary axis tilt and still remain stable and balanced.
You wrote-: "Your looking at his driver swing, I believe. His iron swing is more balanced, centered if you will. No wobble at the top.
The premise of the book is that it is a machine, a golfing machine that we are trying to build. It doesnt take much to see the need for balance and a vertical c.o.g line about which to rotate. Like the spinning top."
I agree with your position about having a centralised swing and the idea of minimising any sway/wobbling. Tiger Woods stays more centralised, with less secondary axis tilt, in his short iron swing - compared to his driver swing where he has far more secondary axis tilt. I made that point in a previous post where I stated that I believe that a stationary head is a marker of a stable pivot structure. I compared Mike Bennett to Anthony Kim, and I stated that Mike Bennett's COG remained closer to the center and that one could conceive of him having a very centralised pivot center and a very centralised pivot axis - like a spinning top. I think that it's a much better technique than the idiosyncratic technique of Natalie Gulbis. Natalie Gulbis is to Mike Bennett (re: centralised pivot axis and stationary head) like Jim Furyk is to Anthony Kim (re: keeping the clubshaft on-plane during the backswing). One can get away with atypical moves, but that requires a compensatory adjustment action. I prefer staying as close to the TGM model as possible. I simply don't think that HK's idea of a "stationary head" mandates a pivot axis in the center of the stance. I think that for driver swings (where one places a premium on distance) that certain golfers may prefer to have their stationary head (which stabilises their pivoting skeletal structure) just to the right of the center of their stance - like Anthony Kim. That allows them to have more secondary axis tilt and still remain stable and balanced.
Jeff.
Jeff. Go ahead and get your head more to the right. None of us cares if you do.
I don't see how it allows more secondary axis tilt. It just means you have to change your tilt less in the downswing, it does not change the range of motion.
The modern "got to have it now" generation.
A bunch of teachers see axis tilt at impact in good players and don't in poor players, so they preset it at address (reverse K), instead of teaching people how to change the axis tilt dynamically. It is just fine with a ball high on a peg. And there are other compensations one can make to hit the ball off the ground. But why?
-as per another one of your threads, axis tilt as defined in TGM assumes the head is centered. The ability to do this is a display of "Hula hula flexibility" with the hips and a resulting tilt of shoulders.
-the head back move, I think, is a compensation regardless of who is doing it. It allows more time for the primary lever assembly to lengthen by moving low point further back in the stance. A common move for junior golfers who cant support the increasing mass of the levers extension with their power packages or throw out action. A moved that once learned is hard to break especially for the physically weaker adult golfer be they male or female.
This is C.O.A.M. as Homer defined it (6-C-2-B) and as it should be applied when building your own machine. The reason we release a driver earlier than a wedge for instance. The reason some hang back. A reason for kids clubs.
You could with a long enough lever move the world but who here amongst us could move a lever of that length?
I played with a guy who overcame his driver yips by cutting it down to 5 iron length. He didnt seem to lose much distance.
I hope you guys don't mind the thread jack, but your driver yips comment hit close to home...
I quit the game this summer because of the driver yips. I couldn't even hit drivers on the practice range, buildings and other golfers weren't safe, and I didn't want my members to see me, I needed to give a few lessons and didn't want them to see how bad I was hitting it...
I solved the problem by beginning my journey of learning TGM, finding out that I had lost ALL MY LAG PRESSURE, along with losing all sensation of where the club-head and club-face were, and working with the Pure Ball Striker while reading the yellow book to get the lag feeling back. Sorry if that looks like a plug, but I consider it as a public service announcement. It has allowed me to play golf again, Just in time for the snow.
Now so it doesn't look so much like a thread jack, I'm keeping my lag pressure through the line of compression, with a steady head placed right between my feet, and striping it!
Kevin
Originally Posted by O.B.Left
Jeff
You wrote..........a frig it.
Couple of notes:
-as per another one of your threads, axis tilt as defined in TGM assumes the head is centered. The ability to do this is a display of "Hula hula flexibility" with the hips and a resulting tilt of shoulders.
-the head back move, I think, is a compensation regardless of who is doing it. It allows more time for the primary lever assembly to lengthen by moving low point further back in the stance. A common move for junior golfers who cant support the increasing mass of the levers extension with their power packages or throw out action. A moved that once learned is hard to break especially for the physically weaker adult golfer be they male or female.
This is C.O.A.M. as Homer defined it (6-C-2-B) and as it should be applied when building your own machine. The reason we release a driver earlier than a wedge for instance. The reason some hang back. A reason for kids clubs.
You could with a long enough lever move the world but who here amongst us could move a lever of that length?
I played with a guy who overcame his driver yips by cutting it down to 5 iron length. He didnt seem to lose much distance.
Where is Golfgnome?
O.B.
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
A bunch of teachers see axis tilt at impact in good players and don't in poor players, so they preset it at address (reverse K), instead of teaching people how to change the axis tilt dynamically. It is just fine with a ball high on a peg. And there are other compensations one can make to hit the ball off the ground. But why?
Love your posts, HennyB. In your life on the PGA TOUR, you've probably seen more great golf swings -- and more Golf Instructors, great and not-so-great -- than anybody on this site. Don't hold back on your insights . . .
Love your posts, HennyB. In your life on the PGA TOUR, you've probably seen more great golf swings -- and more Golf Instructors, great and not-so-great -- than anybody on this site. Don't hold back on your insights . . .
Hybrid Mode
