With your indulgence: "It's like Deja-Vu all over again" Yogi Berra.
I agree, but, with the prior noted exception - posts #48 and %53
Again my #1 would be "true swinger" and #2 "manipulative.
I have said #1 does not exist. The "true swinger" alignments are a SPECIAL CASE of manipulative hands. The FLAT LEFT HAND controls. Always. That would be manipulation.
HB
HB,
I was eventually going to respond to your post 48 and 53 and still plan to do so, however to be honest, that might take a number of posts for us to get on the same page so I've delayed doing that for when I have the energy and motivation.
On another front - above in the quote where you say "#1 doesn't exist". I just want to be clear that you understand the nature of my posts. I'm just relaying my understanding of the concepts in the book. I'm not making any comment about usefulness, if they exist, or anything in regards to application. It's as if one were to start by understanding the concepts and then another stage might be you learn more other information beyond those concepts, and then another stage might be that you disagree or have other perspectives than the Golfing Machine writings. I'm just posting on a limited perspective - stage one - "this is what he means". No response needed - just wanted to make sure you understood my approach here.
I know you were just re-iterating your point - no problem with that - I just wanted to clarify the limited nature and purpose of any of my posts.
It's curious - the lack of questions asked on this forum - in order to understand other's posts. Anyone have a theory on that? (Oops a question!)
Finally, a question regarding your quote above HB.
"I have said #1 does not exist. The "true swinger" alignments are a SPECIAL CASE of manipulative hands."
I'm not being a "smarta..." here - just making sure I understand your perspective or clarifying your post. What alignments of the theoretical True Swinger are a SPECIAL CASE of manipulative hands - can you clarify that for me. In other words - in what way and what alignments are a Special Case for the concept of True Swinging?
Thanks
__________________
Life Goal- Developing a new theory of movement based on Brain Science
Interests - Dabbling with insanity
Hobbies- Creating Quality
It's curious - the lack of questions asked on this forum - in order to understand other's posts. Anyone have a theory on that? (Oops a question!)
Your effort to reconstitute 7-2 makes a different kind of sense. I am in the incubator stage regarding your annotations and intend to follow up. In the meantime, I would ask that you sit on these two eggs, first, the exact nature of CF alignment activity, then second, what is disruptive to that activity.
Your effort to reconstitute 7-2 makes a different kind of sense. I am in the incubator stage regarding your annotations and intend to follow up. In the meantime, I would ask that you sit on these two eggs, first, the exact nature of CF alignment activity, then second, what is disruptive to that activity.
Bumpy
Excellent Bumpy! Like where you are going and I agree that those two eggs could use some thought, response, clarification - as I sit on those two - if I see them start to hatch I'll provide some further descriptions of what I see.
__________________
Life Goal- Developing a new theory of movement based on Brain Science
Interests - Dabbling with insanity
Hobbies- Creating Quality
HB,
I was eventually going to respond to your post 48 and 53 and still plan to do so, however to be honest, that might take a number of posts for us to get on the same page so I've delayed doing that for when I have the energy and motivation.
No Problem, thanks
On another front - above in the quote where you say "#1 doesn't exist". I just want to be clear that you understand the nature of my posts. I'm just relaying my understanding of the concepts in the book. I'm not making any comment about usefulness, if they exist, or anything in regards to application. It's as if one were to start by understanding the concepts and then another stage might be you learn more other information beyond those concepts, and then another stage might be that you disagree or have other perspectives than the Golfing Machine writings. I'm just posting on a limited perspective - stage one - "this is what he means". No response needed - just wanted to make sure you understood my approach here.
I understand
I know you were just re-iterating your point - no problem with that - I just wanted to clarify the limited nature and purpose of any of my posts.
It's curious - the lack of questions asked on this forum - in order to understand other's posts. Anyone have a theory on that? (Oops a question!)
Theory- forums tend to be places "visitors" search for information AND tend twords making speecher rather than have conversations. That seems to be the nature of the beast.
Finally, a question regarding your quote above HB.
"I have said #1 does not exist. The "true swinger" alignments are a SPECIAL CASE of manipulative hands."
As I understand it. The "true" swinger is defined where clubface alignment is automatic via CF and is confined to a single impact alignment by the physics of CF for streight-away flight. I (my points in this discussion not TGM)see it as a alignment that doesn't require manipulation (special) but still is Flat Left Hand clubface control.
I'm not being a "smarta..." here - just making sure I understand your perspective or clarifying your post. What alignments of the theoretical True Swinger are a SPECIAL CASE of manipulative hands - can you clarify that for me. In other words - in what way and what alignments are a Special Case for the concept of True Swinging?
I tried to answer the SPECIAL CASE of manipulation above. It is also likely that I am not communicating a clearly as I am thinking. So ask away.
Hybrid Mode
