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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Yoda knows...and he taught me!
For those less fortunate, Swinging is an option.
Last edited by YodasLuke : 02-08-2006 at 04:46 PM.
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.
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.
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 DEFINITIVE post on 9-1-5. I'm anxious to see it.
Wow, Teddy, none of this is in Homer's book "The Golfing Machine," His 80 hours of audio, couple hours of video or notes.
Does this mean we can use other data in debate around this place?
I will say this—this post is harder to read than the book.
Anyway, here is a little common sense and some (easy to read) hard facts:
• The Spine is NOT in the middle of the torso, nor the middle of the head.
• The center of the spine is also not in the rear of the torso, nor the head.
• You can hit a golf ball at a world-class level with many different points used as the 'center of rotation.'
• You don't hit the ball on the backswing.
• When you change the center of rotation on the backstroke, you change the path the hands take on the backstroke some, but change their path dramatically on the downswing.
• When you change the center of rotation on the backstroke, you change the path the CLUBHEAD takes on the backstroke some, but change the CLUBHEAD path dramatically on the downswing.
• The bottom of the spine, the tailbone, moves all over dodge in a Stationary Head swing, as well as a bunch in other 'center of rotation' locations. On the downswing it has to move some to tilt the axis, and that movement has more than just a toward the target dimension for some plane lines.
• The center of gravity in the body (swing) is located well below the head in the lower torso area.
• Just as MORAD states, the head movement is obviously something that influences the pattern a great deal.
The point here Teddy, is that there is libraries full of data in biomechanics and other disciplines that would really muddy the water in the search for the PERFECT 'swing.' Homer had bunch figured out, but obviously not everything.
I teach a lot of people to have a perfectly steady head, because for them it works better.
But, you and Lynn are saying you ONLY teach it one way—totally still head—which means our friend Leo Tong(zilla) went totally with LBG's teachings, he would have to HOPE and PRAY that he would be able to hit it as good with a "pivot tripod center," as he does with a different—more "spine centered" center of backstroke rotation. Because, right now, and at Canton, his RESULTS say that you are wrong.
But, you and Lynn are saying you ONLY teach it one way—totally still head—which means our friend Leo Tong(zilla) went totally with LBG's teachings, he would have to HOPE and PRAY that he would be able to hit it as good with a "pivot tripod center," as he does with a different—more "spine centered" center of backstroke rotation. Because, right now, and at Canton, his RESULTS say that you are wrong.
1-K: "There is no factor -- including Clubhead Throwaway -- that cannot, by proper assembly, adjustment, alignment, etc., be worked into a fairly effective Stroke Pattern for some application or other."
1-H: "There is little excuse for focing the average weekend golfer -- who has some strong tendency or other -- to adopt any procedure or Stroke Pattern that calls for the elimination of that tendency. It is far easier to develop a Stroke Pattern that properly compensates for it. Change the factors that are easily controlled to fit those that are difficult to change.
1-E: "The student must not expect to play a game with more precision than is built into it. But every student should achieve a commensurate degree of consistency and play with a satisfying assurance of competence to perform within these built-in limitations and that, at any time, the limitations can be reduced by merely increasing the precision of all or any part of the present game."
1-K: "There is no factor -- including Clubhead Throwaway -- that cannot, by proper assembly, adjustment, alignment, etc., be worked into a fairly effective Stroke Pattern for some application or other."
1-H: "There is little excuse for focing the average weekend golfer -- who has some strong tendency or other -- to adopt any procedure or Stroke Pattern that calls for the elimination of that tendency. It is far easier to develop a Stroke Pattern that properly compensates for it. Change the factors that are easily controlled to fit those that are difficult to change.
1-E: "The student must not expect to play a game with more precision than is built into it. But every student should achieve a commensurate degree of consistency and play with a satisfying assurance of competence to perform within these built-in limitations and that, at any time, the limitations can be reduced by merely increasing the precision of all or any part of the present game."
10-0: "The aim of every player should be an Uncompensated Stroke - no faulty elements needing to be counteracted or offset."
Hybrid Mode
