But it's always been "precisely between the feet."
Maybe my definition of precision is excessive? I dunno.
...
And the pic has been altered, no?
(again, I realize the upward slope PROBABLY would tip the scales towards the back of center end of the debate....but it's not a sure thing IMO....and not a good pic to analyze then...we need more...IMO)
The Head Center Does Not Require "Middle of the Feet"
Originally Posted by birdie_man
But it's always been "precisely between the feet."
C'mon, Birdie.
I have stated Homer's own preference -- and my own -- for the "between the feet" location of the Head Pivot Center. It was Homer Kelley's ideal (as implied by the Chapter Nine photos in the first six editions and specifically stated in the 7th). But...
In numerous posts, I also have stated his practical adivce to students:
"Set your Head at Impact Fix and leave it there."
If that Fix location is "precisely" in the middle...fine. If a bit behind...fine. If a bit in front...fine. Just locate it and leave it and use it as a Center. Homer Kelley was all about golfers on golf courses, not golfers in the lab. I wrote these very same things in my first posts on this subject months ago, and I reiterated that position as recently as today. My message has been consistent. Why then, is there any perception to the contrary?
There is no mystery:
To serve his own agenda, one self-avowed "competitor" has assigned me the uncompromising doctrine "Head dead still and precisely between the feet." Homer and I get one location in time and space, and he gets everywhere else. Ridiculous.
So, your quote above is not true, and if you want to know exactly where I stand on this G.O.L.F. subject -- or any other for that matter -- then read my posts. All 4,000 some-odd of them. My positions are there, clearly-stated and available at the click of your mouse.
Meanwhile, beware the self-serving misrepresentations of another.
My message has been consistent. Why then, is there any perception to the contrary?
Quote:
There is no mystery:
To serve his own agenda, one self-avowed "competitor" has assigned me the uncompromising doctrine "Head dead still and precisely between the feet." Homer and I get one location in time and space, and he gets everywhere else. Ridiculous.
So, your quote above is not true, and if you want to know exactly where I stand on this G.O.L.F. subject -- or any other for that matter -- then read my posts. All 4,000 some-odd of them. My positions are there, clearly-stated and available at the click of your mouse.
Meanwhile, beware the self-serving misrepresentations of another.
But that's a lot of reading to do...
If it were this simple all the while.....why all the confusion.....it would've been all pretty easy to clear up if you just said this was all a misunderstanding and we just pigeon holed you in some wrong way....no?
I mean....maybe you said it....but man if that's the case you need make that clear (as many times as it takes)....(at the top of your lungs)....maybe I missed it...maybe it got lost in the debate.....I dunno.
...
There are 2 things in my mind:
-what you advocate (and is only one thing, all the time?)
-and why? (including how it works and why it works)
The first needs to be clear....and the second is the part that is more debateable.
My guess is that the other teacher thinks it's important enough to continue bringing up.
Quote:
Homer Kelley was all about golfers on golf courses, not golfers in the lab.
Not sure I understand. Homer learned a lot in his "lab"....it's not irrelevant in the least.
Are you suggesting then that we should consider "what just works better?" (on the course)
That's one thing to consider of course....but you can't ignore principle either. (which I'm sure you'd agree with)
Last edited by birdie_man : 08-27-2006 at 04:04 PM.
No, Birdie, the photos in the Scott sequence were not "altered." They were rotated approximately one degree toward the horizontal in order to remove the sloped bias of the original tilted camera angle. All Stroke relationships were unchanged.
And the only reason I did that was to counter the absurd analysis of the aforementioned "competitor." The day after I posted the sequence here as an example of the Head-Centered Pivot, he chose to use the exact same sequence on his site as an argument against it. As "proof," he drew reference lines -- I had drawn none -- purportedly perpendicular to the horizontal plane, i.e., the ground. In fact, given the slope bias, those lines were not perpendicular, and when I exposed that error, his argument collapsed.
No, Birdie, the photos in the Scott sequence were not "altered." They were rotated approximately one degree toward the horizontal in order to remove the sloped bias of the original tilted camera angle. All Stroke relationships were unchanged.
Ok so that's HOW they have been altered. (no?)
Sorry if "altered" comes off as a strong word....I don't want to say you're trying to neccessarily fool us....you made it clear you changed them....so that's good.
I'm just saying....
Is the camera just crooked? or is the ground actually sloped on an uphill? how much did he compensate? (with regards to head position) did he compensate?
Dunno.
Quote:
And the only reason I did that was to counter the absurd analysis of the aforementioned "competitor." The day after I posted the sequence here as an example of the Head-Centered Pivot, he chose to use the exact same sequence on his site as an argument against it. As "proof," he drew reference lines -- I had drawn none -- purportedly perpendicular to the horizontal plane, i.e., the ground. In fact, given the slope bias, those lines were not perpendicular, and when I exposed that error, his argument collapsed.
As it should have
Okok so he (apparently) made a mistake. (in not noticing the ground was sloped)
All I'm saying....is that apparently (after hearing all this)....this is one picture....and not a good one to judge either, I think.
Last edited by birdie_man : 08-27-2006 at 02:38 PM.
Hybrid Mode
