I know it's Homer....

We're allowed to question him too tho you know.

There we go. If it works then do it...

Spine tilted to the target?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pU89bMedpeE

he deserves the trust
 

Then you agree, they're not just random quotes.

He has earned enough trust and respect through his research to deserve my trust. When I find something that he has suggested that doesn't work, my trust in his words may wane. But, until then...

Now that's an unreasonable oversimplification, Birdie.

Your final quote as I would restate it:

A brilliant man spends 42 years writing a book on golf.

He uses the laws of physics and geometry to develop a machine concept.

He catalogs the human movements to match the machine, not vice versa.

His research IS NOT based on "if it works", it's based on law.

Therefore, if the laws of physics and geometry work for you, then use them.

Hula Hula
 

Birdie,

A reverse pivot is not so much a spine angle issue, but a malfunctioning hip turn. The weight shift to the rear leg is usually accomplished by the turning of the hips. A faulty hip turn leaves weight, or places or the load on the forward leg and the weight is "reverse" shifted to the back leg on the downstroke.

In most backtrokes the lower spine is closer to the target than the upper spine. But the head can still remain centered between the feet at the top the stroke. The reason it appears to be closer is because the lower spine is already slightly tilted towards the target at address. In a full stroke, the hips must "hula hula", but the head can and should stay centered to avoid the other big pivot malfunction.

Swaying.

Hey man no one ever has said that it CAN'T work very well...

No I didn't agree. That is beside the point tho IMO. The point that I think is most important is that we should be allowed to question anyone....even Homer.

And no not just for the sake of doing it or for any agenda....you all know I am a TGM guy....

Fair enough.

If it works in your teaching that is the point that I'd respect above the others.

EDIT: I initially read your response too fast and missed part of the point...I edited this part of my post accordingly.

I disagree....this is part of science.

I dunno what you'd call it....field testing? Something like that.

If you try everything on every kind of person over a great length of time....and find out what works best consistently for the most people.....how is this unreasonable??

That is science.

Then of course you can assign the "WHY does it work?"....

"What works best" is basically the ultimate benchmark in my view.

....

I know the "brilliant man/42 years of reasearch" stuff holds a good amount of ground (to some people more than others of course)....I mean.....Homer is a guy who's opinion COUNTS.

But....anyone and anything is questionable....no one is perfect.....and Homer wasn't done researching when he died either.

Would he have come to different conclusions if he lived a few more years? Who knows...

Doesn't matter tho cause there's more than one smart person who has studied or does study the golf swing.

....

Another point that I think could be relevant is the amount of time Homer spent on the lesson tee.

I do not know exactly how much but from what I can gather he didn't do a lot of "real world" teaching (relatively speaking)....teaching every different kind of person of every level of play....day in day out in seeing what works most of the time.

I know he taught some...I'm not EXACTLY sure how much...but I know there are people with WAY more experience day in day out every single day trying to get people to play better golf.

We gonna discount that opinion?

...

BTW there is LAW in physics and geometry.....and yes Homer did APPLY those concepts (and very well obviously) to his work....

....but to claim that that then makes Homer's work LAW....I know that is a stretch.

i.e. "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." (or however the heck it goes)....

....LAW. (period)

"keep the head precisely between your feet for all shots"....

....law??

I can agree with that. It is the cause....

(....of a spine that tilts towards the target in the Backstroke...)

Question: are there or have there ever been any GREAT or even VERY GOOD players with a reverse-tilted spine at Impact?

I would crap myself right here right now if there were.

Not to say you can't get to a rearward tilted spine at Impact with a "tripod" type pivot....

If it works better for most people for every club and every shot is the real question I guess.

Believe me I don't like a MASSIVE sway either....you must have A center as Lynn said.

Choose what works best for yourself....

I don't know that anyone has ever HAD a beef (but who would I be talking about...) or could/would ever HAVE a beef with someone doing the "tripod" if it worked better for them.

Really that should go for anything that works for anyone.

The real question as you put it is this-how would a machine built like a human do it?

Why consider everyones abilities, habits, limitations? It just leads to band-aids i.e. I can't do X so I'll do Y cause that works better for me. X is the way whether the golfing public can do it or not.

Uncompensated, precise, that is TGM to me.

Golf instruction is another topic.

But humans aren't machines....and Homer's machine looks nothing like a human.

It's theoretical man.....I mean.....it's all logical really...

1L: "The Post may turn (Pivot) but does not "sway" or "bob."

Very logical in theory (esp. for a machine)....but theory none the less.

I know it's Homer etc. etc.....but it's theory...what can I say.

...

I'm not even gonna sit here and argue what I think works best most of the time....that one we've been thru in depth.....all it'll ever do is go back and fourth.

All I can really ever say is do what works for you....if you've given each a good honest try and something works better for you then that would be good enough for me...and should be good enough for anyone.

Whatever works......

I mean, you can throw as much theory and "Homer says" and other junk at it as you want but the bottom line is I want my ball further and straighter down the fairway from shot to shot and I'll do whatever does that for me.

I don't see why you'd want it any other way.

That's the thing tho....

And it relates to what I said above.....

That's only if you take this all as more than theory.

Homer was the man yes....

But what is uncompensated, ideal, perfect, etc? It's debateable.....

I don't even know what else to say but I hope you get my point.

In a way, it's one facet of the topic.....

i.e. swing training vs. long-term swing goals....

i.e. if a student reverse pivots get em to turn their left shoulder over their right knee in the backswing to train the pivot....then once that's trained you can teach em whatever pivot you want. And no I don't think a "tripod" is always the best long-term goal.

I just do not see why everyone cannot see this...

This is really simple....



It is not the 'look of the back' on the backstroke viewed from the front....

Whilst it hard to precisely draw the spine from the front view without the rear pictures - this will be pretty close and useful for demonstration purposes.