I still remain unconvinced by any argument that supports the idea of a pivot center and/or a pivot axis, but I will consciously remain open to any "new" thoughts regarding the issue.
Jeff.
Hey Jeff
So given your statement in your last post that you now do "imagine that the axis of rotation is a diagonal line drawn between the left foot and the swing center" can we take from that you now acknowledge the existence of the axis of rotation and the pivot center (or swing center)?
Have you found two new concepts to adopt? Can we go to the "tote board". One TGM one VJT (or is axis of rotation somewhere in the yellow booK? I dunno)
In regard to whether the pivot center is directly between the feet. I like Henny's note that if it isnt it requires compensations and Bucket's that if it is back of center it is draw or pull biased. Good observations there. The "uncompensated" swing will have the pivot center in the middle of the feet.
As for your note about the diagram on page 37 of Vj's book, illustration 11, I understand your confusion. I wonder if anyone has noted this before. Interesting.
I think it is a typo. That the line drawn from Hogan's left shoulder to low point should be labeled as the Impact Circle Radius. Page 49 ; "The true radius of Hogan's impact circle is a line from his left shoulder (at impact) to a point in front of the his ball (the low point of his swing)". Brackets by the author.
No. I do not believe that there is an axis of rotation between the left foot and the upper swing center.
I think that the idea of a pivot axis is merely a mental construct imposed on a human being's 3-D torso movement in space during the downswing. In that sense - in the sense of a mental construct - it makes more sense to me to imagine why a person would imagine a "hypothetical" pivot axis between the upper swing center and the left foot rather than between the upper swing center and a point on the ground midway between the feet.
Either way, I don't personally find the mental construct of a pivot axis helpful. I simply cannot understand how this "mental construct" could help a golfer move his torso better in space. I think that one merely needs to position one's head in a "desired' position at address, and then start the downswing with a hip shift-rotation movement that produces secondary axis tilt, that allows the right shoulder to move downplane. Then, by keeping the head stationary, the torso will spiral in a rotary manner towards impact, and beyond impact.
I don't understand why an upper swing center that is slightly right-of-center should predispose to a draw, or why it should be described as a compensated swing rather than an uncompensated swing.
I have recently posted two driver swing sequences - Tiger Woods and Stuart Appleby - where the head/upper swing center is marginally behind the center of the stance. I cannot understand why their swings would be labeled "compensated" or "draw biased". I don't believe that a small amount of right-of-center positioning of the pivot stabiliser point should predispose to a draw - if the golfer can easily shift his lower body forward onto the lead leg during the downswing and avoid a "hanging back" problem. I think that a "hanging back" problem will only occur in a good golfer if the head is positioned very far right-of-center (where the golfer is overtly leaning to the right).
No. I do not believe that there is an axis of rotation between the left foot and the upper swing center.
I DO, ASSUMING THERE IS AXIS TILT. FOR NON SHIFTING STROKES THEN THE AXIS OF ROTATION IS CENTERED , ASSUMING THE HEAD OR CENTER IS CENTERED.
I think that the idea of a pivot axis is merely a mental construct imposed on a human being's 3-D torso movement in space during the downswing. In that sense - in the sense of a mental construct - it makes more sense to me to imagine why a person would imagine a "hypothetical" pivot axis between the upper swing center and the left foot rather than between the upper swing center and a point on the ground midway between the feet.
I THINK THAT AXIS TILT (WHICH REFERS TO THE SHOULDER AXIS) ALSO TILTS THE TORSO, ASSUMING THE CENTER IS HELD STEADY AND THEREFOR TILTS THE AXIS OF ROTATION OF THE PIVOT.
Either way, I don't personally find the mental construct of a pivot axis helpful. I simply cannot understand how this "mental construct" could help a golfer move his torso better in space.
KNOWLEDGE MUST BE WORTH SOMETHING. YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD ADMIT THIS. YOU BEING SO FAR FROM "GRIP AND RIP IT" PRACTICALITY.
I think that one merely needs to position one's head in a "desired' position at address, and then start the downswing with a hip shift-rotation movement that produces secondary axis tilt, that allows the right shoulder to move downplane. Then, by keeping the head stationary, the torso will spiral in a rotary manner towards impact, and beyond impact.
FINE ME TOO. I DESIRE IT TO BE CENTERED UNLESS I NEED TO DO SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT REQUIRES A SLIGHT COMPENSATION.
I don't understand why an upper swing center that is slightly right-of-center should predispose to a draw, or why it should be described as a compensated swing rather than an uncompensated swing.
ITS ALL ABOUT MANAGING LOW POINT VIS A VIS THE BALL POSITION. WHY POSITION YOUR HEAD BACK AND THEREFOR YOUR WEIGHT BACK WHEN YOU CAN JUST MOVE THE BALL FORWARD AND SWING IN BALANCE? THIS IS THE UNCOMPENSATED SWING. BALANCE MUST BE WORTH SOMETHING NO?
IT IS IN EVERY OTHER SPORT.
I have recently posted two driver swing sequences - Tiger Woods and Stuart Appleby - where the head/upper swing center is marginally behind the center of the stance.
MINOR COMPENSATIONS ARE OH SO COMMON. THIS IS SHOT MAKING. FOREGOING A MARGINAL AMOUNT OF BALANCE FOR AN ADVANTAGE OF SOME SORT, IN THIS CASE PROBABLY LAUNCH ANGLE. WHICH THEY COULD ARGUABLY ACCOMPLISH IN AN UNCOMPENSATED MANNER BY MOVING THE BALL MORE FORWARD VIS A VIS THEIR LEFT SHOULDER OR LOW POINT.
I cannot understand why their swings would be labeled "compensated" or "draw biased". I don't believe that a small amount of right-of-center positioning of the pivot stabiliser point should predispose to a draw - if the golfer can easily shift his lower body forward onto the lead leg during the downswing and avoid a "hanging back" problem.
THE DRAW OR PULL BIAS COMES WHEN THE LEFT SHOULDER OR LOW POINT MORE CLOSELY APPROACHES OR MOVES AFT OF THE BALL POSITION. IT GIVES THE CLUBFACE MORE TIME TO CLOSE AS THE CLUBHEAD APPROACHES ITS UP AND IN PATH POST LOW POINT. I THINK THIS IS HOW I USED TO HIT A HOOK WHEN I WAS 16 YEARS OLD ANYWAYS.
I think that a "hanging back" problem will only occur in a good golfer if the head is positioned very far right-of-center (where the golfer is overtly leaning to the right).
A GOOD GOLFER WOULD ONLY OVERTLY DO THIS FOR A SPECIAL SHOT , SAY A LONG DRIVE GUY TRYING TO LAUNCH IT SUPER HIGH , WITH LOW SPIN.
Jeff.
My comments above in caps.
We're going in circles. Lets hurry up and get to the debate about the flat left wrist.
All your comments about low point relative to ball position have no necessary causal connection with the "mental construct" of a pivot axis.
Each individual golfer can simply choose the biomechanical parameters that allow him to hit the ball with the clubhead still moving on a descending path at impact (ball positioned behind the low point) while remaining in good balance during the downswing. Some golfers, like Tiger Woods, swing their arms very fast across the front of their rotating torso in the downswing, and they may prefer to have a greater amount of secondary axis tilt at impact so that they feel that they are in better balance. Therefore, they will have to position their stationary head right-of-center at address when using a driver.
Also, some professional golfers prefer to have a rightwards-centered backswing where their weight distribution at the end of the backswing is right-of-center when they use a driver - because they prefer to have the ability to shift their pelvis left-laterally at the start of the downswing so that they can acquire their desired degree of secondary axis tilt by impact.
All these biomechanical choices are individual choices that do not require the golfer to think in terms of a centralised pivot axis, and I do not think that I have learnt anything useful if somebody chooses to define their swing as being "compensated" rather than "uncompensated" simply because that person harbors a hypothetical "mental construct" of a pivot center and a centralised pivot axis.
The only point regarding the pivot action that I believe is an essential requirement is the idea of a pivot stabilising point (eg. head or upper swing center), but there is no mandatory requirement that the pivot stabilising point has to be perfectly centralised between the feet. The desired position of the pivot stabilising point depends on the desired degree of secondary axis tilt at impact - that will allow the individual golfer to swing his arms very fast while remaining in good balance.
Hybrid Mode
