.
Originally Posted by Yoda Yoda Explains The Secret of Golf...and that is the good stuff Sir. That "feel" works for me, improves my students, and nobody can tell me otherwise...
Originally Posted by KevCarter Hey, we've gone from "Book Literalists" to "Handle Draggers." I think thats an upgrade!Yoda in 'drag'. I like that.
Originally Posted by YodaIn this video you state that golfers should be "using core muscles" of their body to move the mop. Back in my university days (35 years ago), voluntary muscles were classified as either "postural" or "phasic". Postural muscles were also termed "anti-gravity muscles" in that they kept us upright or in specific postures while our phasic or "moving" muscles produced desired motions to do work. I believe that "core" muscles in current jargon refer to the old "postural" muscles. Maybe I'm wrong. However, if core muscles do refer to muscles that ideally are used for stability and balance, then we shouldn't favor them to play golf well. Humans should use their arms and/or legs to best move objects or themselves around in space. I think confusion arises when the mucles that move our pelvic and thoracic girdles are considered core muscles. I don't think they are. These girdles are part of the skeleton's appendicular system which can be defined as our limbs. From walking or sprinting to pitching, kicking, or punting, or from jumping or lifting to bowling, boxing,or golfing, the phasic muscles of our arms and legs do a much better job than postural muscles in creating the speed, strength, and accuracy to be really good at most sports. I hear Chamblee, Kostis, Doyle, and now you, et al, telling golfers to use their core muscles to hit the ball better.
Originally Posted by coophitter In this video you state that golfers should be "using core muscles" of their body to move the mop. Back in my university days (35 years ago), voluntary muscles were classified as either "postural" or "phasic". Postural muscles were also termed "anti-gravity muscles" in that they kept us upright or in specific postures while our phasic or "moving" muscles produced desired motions to do work. I believe that "core" muscles in current jargon refer to the old "postural" muscles. Maybe I'm wrong. However, if core muscles do refer to muscles that ideally are used for stability and balance, then we shouldn't favor them to play golf well. Humans should use their arms and/or legs to best move objects or themselves around in space. I think confusion arises when the mucles that move our pelvic and thoracic girdles are considered core muscles. I don't think they are. These girdles are part of the skeleton's appendicular system which can be defined as our limbs. From walking or sprinting to pitching, kicking, or punting, or from jumping or lifting to bowling, boxing,or golfing, the phasic muscles of our arms and legs do a much better job than postural muscles in creating the speed, strength, and accuracy to be really good at most sports. I hear Chamblee, Kostis, Doyle, and now you, et al, telling golfers to use their core muscles to hit the ball better.I sense that you've got it right, Coop. I'm not a biomechanist and, in using the term "core", I may have fallen victim to the popular vernacular and its application to the golf idiom.
Are core muscles our postural, antigravity muscles or are they our phasic muscles? If there were an age old question as to whether the torso should move the arms and legs around or whether the arms and legs should move the torso around, the arms and legs moving the torso would trump the day, every day, all day. But what do you call these arm and leg muscles?
Originally Posted by whip Lynn...Whip,
i think it was a very good point to make about the fact that although yes the shaft may be bending forward at the point of impact the idea is always to sustain the lag, this can be a tough concept to understand when watching the shaft on video, I have discussed this with my AI several times about the pre-stressed Club shaft and the phenomena of the shaf bending forward seemed to contradict, it is not so much phenomena I suppose and can be explained by physics and geometry as much as anything else
Handle draggers? I saw something in golf digest Jim McLean stuff about throwers and draggers thought it was funny how it categorized which players were throwers and which were draggers they had all completely different swings and I saw nothing that correlated them.
When I got into the golfing machine I knew it was something that was not accepted by mainstream golf and in fact the person who introduced me to it deemed it as too complex, this is what attracted me to it. It should come as no surprise to me the reaction to tgm from other golf forums, still it is somewhat frustrating for others to blatantly bash your teaching system and pigeon hole it
I have come along way from my posts on golfwrx about my own theories and seemsasifs about the golf swing w kevcarter and oldskooltexan before I came across tgm it was during that time that I discovered the book and haven't looked back since, while they keep searching I'll stick with the yellow book