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.
Threaded Mode
