Stationary Head - To be or not to be

[Mathew]

The crux of the matter is this (and I don't think I can say it strongly enough)...

The Head is related to the Left Shoulder (by the simple fact that it rides on the plane of the shoulder girdle) which is the Low Point of the Swing.

If your Head moves to the Right or to the Left of the Center of the Stance, the Low Point moves thus, you have to either...

1) Move it back to Center at impact or,

2) Shift your aiming point forward (if your head shifts right of center and stays there through impact) or backward (if your head shifts left of center and stays there through impact) to allow your club to get into an in-line position and not hit the ground first or the top of the ball or,

3) Have a ball position that already FACTORS in the amount of 'sway'.

With all due respect, if you have to ask me, "What are you talking about; can you elaborate on these compensations?", then use a Stationary Head Center.

Again, if your answer to the question "Can you make these 'compensations' at the same time, all the time?" is less than an affirmative 'YES!', use the Stationary Head Center.

The crux of the matter is that the nature of the power package alignments and the way best to plan the shoulder motion's dynamically moving line per law of the triangle into impact.

You see the impact alignments that Homer Kelley pointed out relate to the primary lever assembly and the right forarm positioning - if you see the power package you have two which are under the constant control of the hands to precise alignments however if you visualise you can see yet another triangle from the left shoulder to the right elbow. By just using the primary lever alignments and right forearm alignments this triangle sits on a plane - this plane can be rotated on a line from the right elbow and the only means of control you have to this triangle is the amount of elbow bend. Elbow bend at fix is an amount in degrees and as such the best you can have a close approximation with the intention of the stationary head allowing enough leeway with the point between the shoulders that the right shoulder thrusts to a point (hip slide) before spining on its axis without significantly affecting the nature of the power package alignments mid stroke. This is fine tuning...

If you move the head out of its constant stationary position...suddenly the whole clubhead orbit and how your alignments operates, changes during the downstroke and becomes out of presise control. You turn a mechanical advantage into a thing that requires compensation. This is on a different radio show altogether...

The stationary head is a wonderful thing. The centered arc is the fundamental bedrock (as Jack Nicklaus might say) of G.O.L.F.

Otherwise just grip it and hope to rip it...

[birdie_man]

Well haven't been in here for a while....guess I have posting to do....sigh....

I wasn't sure. At first I assumed you were sarcastically mouthing an "Italian Scallionism," since the Bird Man has been bowing low at Spaghetti Boy's alter lately and I was chiming in my $.02. When Birdie responded to me, I went back and reread your post and thought, "well, gee, maybe this dude was being sincere."

Well, I thought better of it all and apologized for the sake of civility (and, BTW, Homer said it, too).

Ya he was poking fun at me and maybe Brian...(not a big deal tho)...

...

BTW "bowing down"???

Gimme a break....that's really really low. I actually did think u seemed like a good dude after you apologized for that comment there. Dunno where that "bowing down" junk came from.....I'm not like that at all I think FOR MYSELF.

There's not many things that I take more seriously than that BTW.

I will leave you with the following, though...
IMHO, "whatever works," no matter who says it smacks a bit of being a quick fix, or a bandaid to me, no matter who says it.

No way in....heck. It's beautifully simple. Too simple for some ppl I guess. Tell me please how there is a better benchmark than results...

And it doesn't mean u disregard principle or lower your standards either. (although if you have one ideal in mind anything but that would prolly seem like lowering your standards) If that's what you think then you don't understand IMO.

All it means is exactly what the "spaghetti man" says: "Let the Imperatives (how well you hit the ball) dictate the Components."

Not the other way around.

Yesyes.

Manga manga! (tee hee hee)

Throughout my whole experience with her, she was patient, and we both stayed the course, sticking to fundamentals. No "whatever works" or quick fix bandaids.

You see, you just don't understand what a bandaid really is. (no you don't)

And you don't fully grasp what "whatever works best" (for that person) means either.

It's not just some sloppy, defocused "Oh, well I'll just do whatever."

I can remember that she had a cupped wrist in her own backswing, but when I asked her if it needed to be flat at the top, she said she didn't give a damn as long as the hands led the club into ball, otherwise you'd be scooping the ball.

THAT IS A "WHATEVER WORKS."

lol....too easy.

"as long as the hands led the club into the ball"...

Translation: "The ball only knows what the club is doing."

i.e. 3 Imparatives. (however you can do em best, time after time after time)

I mean....now that I think about it u'd think u'd appreciate that I'm a guy who says "whatever works"....I could just as easily be trying to completely shoot down "tripod" and Stationary Head....but that's not what I'm all about.

There's room for all kinds of differences in this game...based on....

"WHATEVER WORKS." (damn right)

Well, I ramble... but anyway, what's optimum? A solid foundation, not "whatever works." It probably won't work tomorrow.

U don't understand in the slightest. (what I'm all about)

Anyway, I leave you now. I was gonna tell a booger joke, but Birdie beat me to it.

Yes I guess you were the only one who didn't realize I was trying to lighten up the situation. (for your sake)

I even used an emoticon for God's sake....

Smiley emoticons usually mean "warm and fuzzy" u know....

I guess booger jokes aren't very civil??

[birdie_man]

Efnef: That's just one major difference between this site and Rocky's, civility. Goes a long way my friend. BTW Rocky is the fly in my signature

Ya I agree. Civil discussion does go a long way.

Anyway tho....

Civility? Brian calls it as he sees it and is pretty blunt sometimes but....how unfair is it really most of the time? Should we all be yes men?

....I like the openness.....sure there's a bit of an edge sometimes (I agree he could work on the delivery to ruffle less feathers while he's making his point) but big deal....

I guess it would all seem "uncivil" if you disagreed or were on the recieving end.

I mean....I know I ain't an "uncivil" guy...

I might be the most civil guy I know actually.

...

BTW....regarding "the dust he does raise".....so long as there is a good point dusty always kicks the crap out of squeaky clean.

Birdie: tastes better than scallions!

Oh yes they are divine! Esp. the big yellow ones!

(thumbs up)

[birdie_man]

Birdie: Thats been done already my friend, like the thread title asks:

Stationary Head - To Be Or Not To Be?

I like HKs analysis personally, who's do you like? Maybe you're gonna do said analysis?

Done without bias by whom?

...

HK doesn't comment on what pros do in TGM as far as I know...

BTW I've already said (prolly more than 2 times) that while HK's opinions obviously DO deserve a large amount of respect and DO hold a substantial amount of weight they are not the END to any argument by any stretch.

If that's what you think then I think you are kidding yourself frankly.

...

BTW no I am not gonna do the said analysis right now. Are you?

That would take forever and would require many sequences and lots of time.

It is the only way tho if we are gonna start tossing pictures around.

[birdie_man]

It seems to me, that this is the only thing that ever seems to get debated.

Ya it is a hot topic it seems. (important tho no?...look at all the responses even)

Look how easily we got on it this time around.

I notice in another place in cyberspace that there is pictures of Lynn with a tripod (from a 10-5-E variation for hitting and a handheld hence non-level camera that is not square on the plane line, playing in the middle of winter in a windy day and I think he said he had 5 layers of clothes on - I might add). Through my work in 3d - just a few degrees out and you can find that you can totally change the impression of things. I mean its laughable, this is the guy that said he needs some solid scientific proof and he then takes from a ghosty and double compressed video and makes some suspicious pictures. Do you recon these where good conditions from which to judge???

Yes.

Lack of their knowledge never allows them to debate anything else...

Yes.

Unfortunately for the naysayers, this does not detract from the principle. And for every person that you can find that sways, I can find one with a perfectly centered pivot. There is the ideal and like in every game you play, every deviation of it - you lose....

It is possible and it is correct...

"Possible" I of course have no problem with. Even "possible to play world class golf with extreme precision"...no problem with that whatsoever.

Again: "Whatever works (best)."

...

However, it is "correct" (or "perfect" or "always ideal" or "superior" or w/e other rigid words) that I do not like....

...when it is given as the only option I mean.

And in my opinion, "you lose" is incorrect, or (at the very least) very incomplete.

[birdie_man]

There are so many posts to answer...(and lord knows I can't stop now)...

...

Posts #121 and 122 (almost didn't get through 122 tho...I'm very tired) are typical...and even seem very logical BTW.

That is not "end of story" tho by any means.

You have regurgitated what Homer says and have not addressed WHY it is possible to play such good golf with a head that is not Stationary or not always Stationary between the feet.

To answer quickly, my response (and there are those who know much better than me) would be that anatomical "things" make it reliable (I know that is vague but it's Friday night and I don't really care...think about it for a bit tho)....

...as an aside from the simple logic and Geometry of "Low Point is here and if your head moves Low Point moves and must then move back."

Again that is only my answer and there are those who know much better than me.

...

I'm gonna toss in a "whatever works (best)" here too BTW. (*toss*)

With all due respect, if you have to ask me, "What are you talking about; can you elaborate on these compensations?", then use a Stationary Head Center.

Uh no thanks Justin. (it's Justin right?)

I understand the "compensations" very well thank you. Glad you actually listed them tho. (some ppl say things and don't give any reasoning)

[tongzilla]

Everyone has compensations in their swings, so live with it. Sometimes, getting rid of or minimising these compensations will improve your ball striking. Sometimes it won't. The student and teacher has to figure it out. For a purpose built machine, it certainly will improve its ball striking. But humans are not machines no matter how much we want it to be.

[Sonic_Doom]

Done without bias by whom?

Are you suggesting that the golf swing hasn't been studied by plenty of book authors and such for many decades? Forgive me for not citing specific examples, it was a general statement. You can use a photo or sequence to argue ANY point whatsoever. That's what I love about TGM, the golfer pictures inside only demonstrate the alignments and not 'this is how ____ does it'.

BTW I've already said (prolly more than 2 times) that while HK's opinions obviously DO deserve a large amount of respect and DO hold a substantial amount of weight they are not the END to any argument by any stretch.

If that's what you think then I think you are kidding yourself frankly.

...

Not the end, just the best to date IMO.

[Bagger Lance]

This thread seems to have run it's course, and I don't want to see us lower our standards here. Please either edit your posts regarding other instructors or delete them.

The ridiculous, false, and slanderous insinuations continue on the other forum, but we have put that entire organization on permanent "ignore". I would ask that friends of LBG do the same.

What's been done is forever behind us now and there is no looking back.

Thanks

[birdie_man]

Are you suggesting that the golf swing hasn't been studied by plenty of book authors and such for many decades?

Heck no. So....have "they" come to the same conclusions as you seem to have?

Forgive me for not citing specific examples, it was a general statement. You can use a photo or sequence to argue ANY point whatsoever.

No big deal.

Fair enough....I just said for any given golfer you need to look at more than one sequence and more than on shot type and with different clubs in hand. Fair, no?

That's what I love about TGM, the golfer pictures inside only demonstrate the alignments and not 'this is how ____ does it'.

That is well and good as one facet of things. "How _____ does it" should hold some ground tho.

Not the end, just the best to date IMO.

It IS the best to date.

This thread seems to have run it's course, and I don't want to see us lower our standards here. Please either edit your posts regarding other instructors or delete them.

The ridiculous, false, and slanderous insinuations continue on the other forum, but we have put that entire organization on permanent "ignore". I would ask that friends of LBG do the same.

What's been done is forever behind us now and there is no looking back.

Thanks

You are 100% right Bagger.

There's no need to get into this...

I mean....honestly, when certain things are brought up I find it very very hard not to respond...

....but I do realize we're at the point where the thread can turn into to a crap-throwing contest. (or at least a pointless argument that has no place on a forum dedicated to golf instruction)

And frankly I feel like I should respond to those last few posts (and can easily) but I will refrain.

I'd rather talk about golf than shift the topic to something else anyway.