stuck

Originally Posted by mattney

yeah im definately swaying goin back brian great video im goin to start playing with one leg. thanx.

Originally Posted by BrianW

I would not suggest you actually play golf on one leg, it's more of a drill to get the feel of staying stacked and minimising sway. As I suggested, I think your problem is that you go back on your trail leg at impact which makes you hit behind the ball and probably push it out right.

Originally Posted by vp27519

The ol reverse pivot.

Just try maintaining your spine angle on the takeaway. Also perhaps hold your pose on the follow through or til the ball first hits the ground. This will help with weight transference and balance.

VP

Originally Posted by golfinguy28

you talk as if a reverse C is bad? It is not nearly as common today as it was, but it is not bad.

Originally Posted by golfinguy28

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...n_Sequence.JPG
Mike Austin frame 8

http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/FofH-Hogan.jpg Ben Hogan

http://progolferdigest.com/wp-content...lesteros-4.jpg Seve Ballesteros

http://forums.iseekgolf.com/images/up...006c5c52fe.jpg Moe Norman

all of these great golfers had Reverse C. You definatly saw it a lot more in older golfers than more recent golfers. The reverse C appearance happens because the head is left back and the weight/hips shift forward and your trailing leg is kinda not important and completly passive as it dangles there and completing the bottom portion of the C, your back really isn't bent that far like a C, its just leaning back. Look at hammer throwers, they are leaning back like 45* when they release their hammer but they don't fall because that hammer pulls them up, if they hung their leg back there is would create a C look as well. There reason for that is that older goflers (ones using the hickory shafts) needed to use centrifigul force to hit the ball. Now since we have graphite and steel we can load the shaft up alot more and use compression to send the ball. If you tried to compress only back in hickory days golf would be and even more expensive sport than it already was. James Braid is one of the well know centrifigal method users and he recoreded a hit 398 using hickory and a gutta percha. If you could find any pictures of Ted Ray or Harry Vardon or James braid please let me know as they are very hard to come about.

If you see it worked, then why don't you see it as much today? I can't say for sure, but if you want to hear my guess... Have you ever heard of the saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater)? I think that when people saw the swing they tried to imitate it based on visual only. It is one swing that is very hard to try to math visualy as it has many illusions to it. I think that when people attempted to match this swing visualy and without proper instruction or thought they ended up messing their backs up big time. So people said, this is bad for your back, we need to think of a new method to hit instead of trying to fix thier swing and threw away that method. Now the popular swing methods will cause problems to your knees and people are again trying to change the swing. I think that is why clements has a good method as it illudes to the centrifigal use though it is not 100% like it.


If you look at fram 8 This is a dynamic postion from a baseball pitcher which cannot be attained while static and cannot be held for very long either. Mike Austin hit his record 515 yard drive at age 64 which did have tailwinds and maybe got a good bounce and some don't belive it whatever. The man had a top swing speed of 155mph (compared to Tigers 125ish) and a cruising speed of 130ish. He hit the ball well over 300 into his 70's including averagein 308yds at age 74 in 12 differnt long drive competiions and he was just as accurate as he was long. and i know of a few 65+ people that can drive 300+ using this method.
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resour...ngpitching.jpg
If a baseball pitcher is pitching correctly he usually throws our his shoulder as the most common injury and the ball is pulling his arm out of his socket and that painfull looking picture of the all of that stress on the elbow is very very rare to be the site of an injury. As in golf if done correctly the centrifigul method very very rarely involves back pain though it looks very painfull it is not a static nor held postion.

now a reverse C is good when used correctly. not shifting your wieght through and keeping it on the back foot will cause more of a "h" i think, the back will be strait and the front leg out and that is jsut logical absurdity. if you wanted to hit a guy really hard, you wouldn't move backwards as you puched him, you would negate all of that forward force and you would have no balance ect. I don't know where the school of though came from that advocates weight moving backwards in the DS.

This was actually shorter than my 1st one but i kind of lost my train of thought.

So in summary, The reverse C looks a a lot worse than it is, and it is not not held for very long and it in itself is not bad for your back. It is the twisting torque, that whole "x factor" BS that is terrible for your back. And yes a reverse pivot is bad and if you think about it makes no sense from a physics standpoint nor a biomechanical one.

Originally Posted by golfinguy28

once again words can have many differnt meanings. i interpreted reverse C to mean at impact. it looks like you are referrring to a reverse C well into the follow through and that is what i condider to be a reverse pivot not a reverse C. yes that is bad form, and would lead to poor distnaces and that would be very bad for yor back. though mike had a huge reverse c at impact when he got to that point in the follow through he actually ahd his right foot come up and join his left foot.

so i think i am in agreeance with your school of thought here that a reverse pivot is bad.

Originally Posted by golfinguy28

sigh... yes so again we belive the same thing here as far as explanation and method, what we are on disagreance on is what a reverse C means.

to me a reverce C means exactly what it looks like. I the attached pictures the guy from behind has a regular C shape at impact and the guy from face view appears to make a reverse C. that seve reverse C is a good thing IMO. but that is no way is a reverse pivot.

that picture you show in your last post looks to me like a regular "C" only that is at the top of the BS and i agree that looks weak. if i had to assign a letter to the top of the BS i would say a "h" as the weight is on the back foot and the head is back and the only thing forward is the front leg and it is completly passive at this point and is just dangling there.




i agree that the people i showed have most of thier weight on their lead foot becuase they all had great weight shifting and that they keep their heads back and it gives the appearance that they have (what i call) a reverse C due to the fact that the letter C in reverse can be traced along thier bodies, maybe it looks more like a reverse "k". I dont' know maybe i learned wrong what that means, i always asummed it ment what i thought it ment due to that visable C shape alongside the body. it would be called just a C if i had a picture of a left hander face on. to me it doesn't at all give anywhere near the impression that they have a reverse pivot, i dont' know where you would see that?

so again, i agree a reverse pivot is bad and shifting back in the DS is not only bad but doen't make and logical sence to me.

can we let this one go?

Originally Posted by golfinguy28

you talk as if a reverse C is bad? It is not nearly as common today as it was, but it is not bad.