I agree with you. If we agree that the upper swing center is the pivot stabilising point, then the pivot stabilising point must not bob or sway.
The idea of a pivot stabilising point (whether it is the head or upper swing center) remaining stationary is a very sound concept. I have only questioned the belief that the pivot stabilising point has to be perfectly centralised between the feet and the idea that a golfer pivots around a vertical pivot axis that is centralised between the feet. I think that if the pivot stabilising point is slightly left-of-center, or slightly right-of-center, that it can still perform its stabilising role efficiently - as long as it does not bob or sway.
There is no bobbing-or-swaying of Tiger Woods' and Stuart Appleby's upper swing center (pivot stabilising point) even though it is not centralised between their feet.
Although I personally prefer to keep my pivot stabilising point more centralised - like Aaron Baddeley - I think that it is a personal swing preference, and not a mechanical/geometrical imperative.
I agree with you. If we agree that the upper swing center is the pivot stabilising point, then the pivot stabilising point must not bob or sway.
The idea of a pivot stabilising point (whether it is the head or upper swing center) remaining stationary is a very sound concept. I have only questioned the belief that the pivot stabilising point has to be perfectly centralised between the feet and the idea that a golfer pivots around a vertical pivot axis that is centralised between the feet. I think that if the pivot stabilising point is slightly left-of-center, or slightly right-of-center, that it can still perform its stabilising role efficiently - as long as it does not bob or sway.
There is no bobbing-or-swaying of Tiger Woods' and Stuart Appleby's upper swing center (pivot stabilising point) even though it is not centralised between their feet.
Although I personally prefer to keep my pivot stabilising point more centralised - like Aaron Baddeley - I think that it is a personal swing preference, and not a mechanical/geometrical imperative.
Jeff.
There are ball flight implications . . . . based on the clubhead path's that can result all things being equal.
I think that there can be ball flight implications as you claim - if a golfer doesn't know where to position his ball (for a given position of the pivot stabilising point).
That's why each individual golfer needs to know where his low point is going to be on the ground - based on the position of his pivot stabilising point in space - and he should then position the ball accordingly.
Here is Aaron Baddeley's clubhead swingarc and point "X" shows where the low point of his clubhead swingarc is located. Knowing that fact, he can simply position his ball behind the low point to ensure a descending clubhead path at impact.
The blue line represents the braced/straightened left leg. The red line represents the braced spine (and the degree of secondary axis tilt) at impact. By keeping the pivot stabilising point stationary, and having a braced skeletal structure (spine and left leg), the low point of the clubhead swingarc should always be at the same point - point "x". That allows him to place his ball just behind the low point to consistently ensure optimum impact alignments.
Yoda - I take delight in acquiring greater insights regarding the golf swing.
Since this thread started, I have gained greater insights regarding this issue of the "pivot axis and pivot center".
In particular, I have gained two new insights.
The first new insight was gained from your post which stated that HK asserted that one should position the head at its impact fix location and then keep it there - without automatically implying that the head had to be centralised at address. At the start of this thread I was under the distinct impression that the head had to be centralised between the feet.
The second new insight that I gained came from OB Left when he stated with respect to HK's definition of a pivot center -: "SOME POINT on the body kept stationary throughout the Stroke, to stabilize the motion".
I didn't initially realize that the definition of a pivot center didn't automatically imply that the pivot stabilising point has to be centralised to efficiently perform its function - stablise the motion. In other words, I think that the phrase "pivot stabilising point" may therefore be a more exactingly correct definition of that "SOME POINT".
Then, in conclusion, I have learnt that HK primarily implied that a golfer needs a pivot stabilising point that does not necessarily have to be centralised between the feet. That's a different perspective than the perspective expressed by many TGMers at the start of this thread. So, hopefully, I am not the only LBG forum member who has gained new insights as a result of this prolonged, but fruitful, discussion.
I didn't initially realize that the definition of a pivot center didn't automatically imply that the pivot stabilising point has to be centralised to efficiently perform its function - stablise the motion. In other words, I think that the phrase "pivot stabilising point" may therefore be a more exactingly correct definition of that "SOME POINT".
Jeff,
You really are trying my patience here, and trust me, I have better things to do with my time.
Thirty years ago, the 5th edition of The Golfing Machine defined 'Pivot Center' as follows:
"PIVOT CENTER -- Some point on the body kept stationary throughout the Stroke to stabilize the motion."
-- Homer Kelley (The Glossary)
Homer presumed a certain intelligence in his readers, an intelligence that would instantly understand that the term "some point" meant any point -- central or otherwise -- chosen by the golfer to stabilize the motion. What could be more clear?
Now, you come along with this 'clarification':
". . . I think that the phrase "pivot stabilising point" may therefore be a more exactingly correct definition of that "SOME POINT".
-- Jeff
Can you not see that your phrase is nothing more than an incomplete definition of the term under discussion (Pivot Center)? A term Homer adequately defined for any reasonable person three decades ago?
And while I'm here . . .
Until you start signing your posts "J" (whereupon I will immediately rename this forum Golf by J), you are specifically prohibited from using the initials "HK" when referring to Mr. Kelley (alternatively, Homer Kelley or simply Homer). You may not respect his "Authority", but at least on this site, you will respect his name.
Lynn makes a good point about "Mr. Kelley". In my time with Alex Sloan he always refered to "Mr Kelley". It really stuck out. The tone of voice he used when he said it spoke volumes. To me it means that that appellation was always used by Mr Sloan and Mr Blake because it was earned and signified their great respect for him. Who is this man that Lynn Blake and Alex Sloan revere so much? The more I learn about the yellow book and hear Lynn talk the better I understand it. That is why I read this forum
I apologize for using the abbreviation "HK" in one of my posts. I would never disrespect Homer Kelley and I never thought that it would be disrespectful to abbreviate his name to his initials.
I have often used abbreviated initials when replying to posts, and I never intended my use of abbreviated initials to be disrespectful. I therefore apologize to Hennybogan (for using the abbreviation HB) and to all other forum members whose online names I have abbreviated.
Regarding the issue of respecting his "authority", I wonder if Homer Kelley would have wanted people to respect his "authority" or whether he would have simply wanted people to treat his amazingly insightful ideas/insights with a great deal of thoughtful consideration. I would imagine that he would have felt that the clarity and logic of his ideas could stand up to intense intellectual scrutiny, and I cannot easily imagine that he would expect people to unthinkingly accept his ideas simply because he is deemed by some people to be an "authority".
The idea of a pivot stabilising point (whether it is the head or upper swing center) remaining stationary is a very sound concept. I have only questioned the belief that the pivot stabilising point has to be perfectly centralised between the feet and the idea that a golfer pivots around a vertical pivot axis that is centralised between the feet. I think that if the pivot stabilising point is slightly left-of-center, or slightly right-of-center, that it can still perform its stabilising role efficiently - as long as it does not bob or sway.
[Bold italic emphasis by Yoda.]
Jeff,
You write as if you have discovered some new 'wahoo' information. The FACT is that I have written on this subject many times, including in at least one thread where you were active.
Check my archives: Homer Kelley recommended 'central' axis but said that the important thing was that the golfer set his Head at Fix -- central, left or whatever -- and then leave it there. How many times to I have to reiterate this truth? Please, tell me: How many times?
Stop revisiting this burial ground of old news. Especially since you apparently delight in using it as a gambit to 'disprove' the work of THE "authority figure" -- using your words -- on this site.
Find something new to "question" -- I'm sure you will -- but get off this bus.
Hybrid Mode
