LynnBlakeGolf Forums - 9-1-5...Pics

LynnBlakeGolf Forums (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/index.php)

- The Golfing Machine - Advanced (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=17)

- - 9-1-5...Pics (http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1961)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket

Teddy-Ballgame,

You are saying even as a Swinger Eldrick should set up with more bend in his Right Elbow thereby placing the Clubshaft and Right Forearm in the same plane i.e. Right Forearm Flying Wedge assembly at Address? This would solve the old Bobbing problem?

B

When Homer went to impact fix, his head dropped several inches. When he went back to adjusted address, his head didn't return. You could make a case that Eldrick starts from preliminary address. He does find the alignments at impact, as well as anyone in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by comdpa

Hey Ted,

I cannot agree more with you.

Disagreeing with Mr Kelly is like:

1)Saying that you can develop a better law of thermodynamics.
2)Saying that you could have developed a better law of electricity.
3)Saying that you could have developed a better law of gravity!!! (how about that!)

[-o<

Flat-out disagreeing with him definitely is sketchy man....you just have to think about how much he knew....

But is anyone really flat-out disagreeing? It's just customizing...if it really comes down to it. I personally agree that one should strive to fit most of his recommendations....but that's not always the way it works....for lots of reasons.

I just think that Homer has never said you MUST do anything....except for 3 things....did he?

For the record...I do agree that one should strive for a Stationary Head....

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...52/ai_76143272

Here's what some were taught and some still teach as a "source of power." It was a favorite of my previous instructor. Right eye over right foot. It's position golf at it's worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by denny.

I worked many hours with George Kelnhoher. A fine man who taught many of us a great deal. He helped develop Howell, Cink,Duval,Danials. McKelvey,
Perks and Many others.
Homer Kelley, Lynn Blake ,George Kelnhofer,David Leadbetter and you and me are correct in our teaching about some things and wrong about others ( Homer just appears to be 99% keerect).
George's hot lines and computer applications are the best in the business.
You were a Kelnhofer disciple and now a Blake disciple. Who will you follow nexted? I know what George teaches and also know now he seems to have missed a few things. I believe you owe him more then the rap you have given him.
I challenge anyone to go to Atlanta and spend time with George

I am on the search as all of us are for the truth. I have worked with MANY professionals, some were TGM'ers and some were not. BY FAR, I have received the best instruction available from TGM'ers. George IS a fine man and VERY knowledgeable. He helped me on my "guided struggle", and for that I owe him a great gratitude. Additionally, there is no denying the success that many under George have achieved.
My goal, as yours seems to be now (99% percent correctness, which I believe is an understatement), is to follow Homer's teachings. It would seem illogical for you to follow anyone else, if you believe the percentage. So the assertion that you make about the percentage and discipleship places you in the same boat as me. Welcome to your own argument. I'll answer the ridiculous question that you posed about whom I'll follow. I'll follow the guy that's as close to 100% correct that I can find. That would be Homer, and Lynn would be my fellow disciple, friend, and teacher.
Unfortunately, Homer is gone but his work is alive and is his legacy. The only reason that I follow Lynn's teaching is his willingness to expose Homer's work for the genius that it is. Lynn has a goal to share this knowledge with whomever will listen. If Lynn strayed from the book, he would no longer be a disciple of Homer's (it would be something of his own creation), he would no longer be my teacher, but he would still be my friend.
As far as George's hotlines and his computer applications, they are fantastic. None of this have I ever denied.
Back to the argument that is not about George. The argument is: To follow the teachings found in 1-L or not to follow the teachings found in 1-L. If you would like to support the case for the latter either geometrically or physically, I will give you my undivided attention. If you support the teachings found in 1-L, you are on Homer's team with me. End of argument.

A Gentleman's Game

Quote:

Originally Posted by denny.

I worked many hours with George Kelnhoher. I believe you owe him more then the rap you have given him.

Let the record show that Ted never mentioned the name, only the instruction that is clearly at variance with the Head location illustrated in the photo sequences of 9-1 and 9-2.

What is happening to her head ?

I apologise for not knowing the name of the lady in the photos.

Please compare the photos 8-3 through to 8-10.

I presume these are posed photos in a controlled environment to "model" correct movements. There is a small amount of head tilt to players right on the backswing ( using stationary ball as the fixed point) BUT by "Release" (8-9) there is the "appearance" of some forward head movement BUT by "impact"(8-10) the head has moved back to original position.

Is this "appearance" real ?

Is this the desired head movement?

Is this an oversight in these photos?

This may be more enlightening than comparing photos / video taken in a very uncontrolled environment.

Is it not possible to get some of the TOP swingers on this forum who regularly video swings to set out a standard manner of filming - eg. specific backdrop to swing with markings ( eg. grid) rather than laurel leaves etc ? and I mean for their swings down the line / face on etc using same backdrop. Maybe at one of the teaching seminars where you all get together?

Thanks for reading this, look forward to your comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YodasLuke

ok luke so your saying from this article that some teachers study the way top players swing and teach these movements and that is wrong. i also guessing that alot of these players where probably studied hitting a driver these same players when hitting a wedge probably dont move there head much at all.

takin' it anatomically DEEP

Quote:

Originally Posted by bantamben1

I'm simply stating that the data given in the comparison are wrong. There are other factors here that lead to illusion. There is a hole at the base of the skull where the spinal cord enters called the foramen magnum. The skull is oblong (not a perfect circle) and this hole is located BEHIND an ear to ear diameter. Additionally, the bones furthest forward in the skull are the front teeth. The nose is cartilage that protrudes even farther from the center of the head. Therefore, rotation around the spine, a single axis would cause the nose, as a point of reference, to move dramatically. The Stationary Post (a players head) may turn (Pivot) but does not "sway" or "bob". And, this relationship does not look like a lollipop on a stick. The spine is not centered in the base of the skull. Rotation creates 'movement' if looking at the face. This is the lesser of the details.
The second is the ability for the head of the humerus (the top of the upper arm bone) to protract (to extend forward or the feeling of making your shoulders touch in front of your sternum). The shoulder is also on a concentric circle with the head or spine as the axis, which would be measurably further than the nose or face from the center of rotation. A common myth in golf instruction is that the shoulders turn as if they are a steel bar across the spine. It is NOT the case. Simply measuring an angle created by the movement (turning) of the left shoulder includes no portion for range of motion (protraction) created through extensor action. Seemingly, this angle would be created by turning the shoulders as much as possible with some 'head' movement ("sway"). WRONG! You lose double Jeapordy! Without the above mentioned considerations the article referenced earlier would seem to have merit. When my left shoulder is under my chin, my right shoulder is still very visible from a front view. This means a different degree of "turn" is happening in each shoulder.
Yoda's been very busy with people coming in from out of town, and without his help, I would have never seen these things. When he has time, he will post the DEFINITIVE post on 9-1-5. I'm anxious to see it. [-o<

Quote:

Originally Posted by YodasLuke

I'm simply stating that the data given in the comparison are wrong. There are other factors here that lead to illusion. There is a hole at the base of the skull where the spinal cord enters called the foramen magnum. The skull is oblong (not a perfect circle) and this hole is located BEHIND an ear to ear diameter. Additionally, the bones furthest forward in the skull are the front teeth. The nose is cartilage that protrudes even farther from the center of the head. Therefore, rotation around the spine, a single axis would cause the nose, as a point of reference, to move dramatically. The Stationary Post (a players head) may turn (Pivot) but does not "sway" or "bob". And, this relationship does not look like a lollipop on a stick. The spine is not centered in the base of the skull. Rotation creates 'movement' if looking at the face. This is the lesser of the details.
The second is the ability for the head of the humerus (the top of the upper arm bone) to protract (to extend forward or the feeling of making your shoulders touch in front of your sternum). The shoulder is also on a concentric circle with the head or spine as the axis, which would be measureably further than the nose or face from the center of rotation. A common myth in golf instruction is that the shoulders turn as if they are a steel bar accross the spine. It is NOT the case. Simply measuring an angle created by the movement (turning) of the left shoulder includes no portion for range of motion (protraction) created through extensor action. Seemingly, this angle would be created by turning the shoulders as much as possible with some 'head' movement ("sway"). WRONG! You lose double Jeapordy! Without the above mentioned considerations the article referenced earlier would seem to have merit. When my left shoulder is under my chin, my right shoulder is still very visible from a front view. This means a different degree of "turn" is happening in each shoulder.
Yoda's been very busy with people coming in from out of town, and without his help, I would have never seen these things. When he has time, he will post the DEFINATIVE post on 9-1-5. I'm anxious to see it. [-o<

Great Post....

I was hoping someone would respond in another thread with something like this regarding tripod, pivot, stationary head..

I know you move your left shoulder closer to the ball while the head, neck and right shoulder doesn't move at all. Try it, against a wall. Just move the left shoulder and all else remains in place.

One of the reasons I asked in an earlier post for a view from the back is specifically to address the illusions you get from viewing front on that disappear when viewing from the rear.

Paul Chek has some interesting diagrams based on his studies regarding alignment/posture, etc.

One other tidbit I came across is that the Rotational Axis, the anchor points are directly effected by the weight axis and are not the same axis. Posture is a key factor in what happens or appears to be happening.