Return to Index  

There are quite a few...

August 25 2009 at 9:44 PM
  (Premier Login sagf_moderator)
Forum Owner


Response to LOL...Peter, you are right

people that have stopped in here over the years and the objective data supported their theories and I have said so. There are also quite a few that come with theories that are not supported by the objective data and I have said so. What is curious is how vehement the ones are where the data does not support their theories arguing in the face of massive evidence. How many times do you have to see high speed video of impact to know the ball is NOT pinched between the clubface and the ground happy.gif

It is perfectly fine if you all at GGA have found it advantageous to teach people not to move laterally but to rotate. In 20+ years of teaching sport I've often found it useful to advise an athlete to do something other than what I REALLY wanted them to do if it gets the to REALLY do what I want. If you have good results with that then their should be no need to ascribe that to Moe but that is what was done here and it is not correct. It seems that MANY golf instructors feel the need to ascribe to some pro their specific theories even when the objective evidence does not support the connection. There have been MANY examples of that discussed here. While I perfectly understand the marketing advantages I do not support false assertions whether strongly believed or not.

If the two shots of Moe with hips parallel at address and in the downswing from Todd's video had shown no lateral movement then I would have acknowledged such and we could then have a different discussion about the differences between what was shown in Todd's video vs 'Journeyman' where I got the clips I posted. Such was not the case.

I had already surmised from Todd's position that he was likely making surface notations and incorrectly ascribing them to the spine. That has been done here before years ago and why I made two posts one of which indicated the likely 'beachball' error and another which showed a human skeletal diagram showing how deep the spine was in the torso vs what some might think. It seems those 'hints' were not enough and likely the erroneous analysis will stay 'out there' on YouTube. The fact that it is 'out there' still does not make it correct.

So in the end you have Todd's video confirming what my clips indicated - When 'normalized' to eliminate rotational perspective issues Moe's lower spine moves laterally towards the target and vertically down between address and impact.

As I said in my first post in this thread 'Simple'.

Peter


 
 Respond to this message