|
Post by rohlio on Dec 7, 2010 12:46:25 GMT -5
I think that's precisely the distinction that should be made more. They rotate 90 degrees to the top of the spine, but not necessarily on the same plane. Okay that makes sense. Each shoulder viewed as a discrete particle does in fact rotate the neck in a circle at a 90* angle from the upper spine assuming that someone doesn't actively shrug or depress the shoulder during the rotation. However a line drawn between the two discrete shoulders through the spine does not necessarily rotate at a 90* angle to the axis of the spine. That line could be seen to rotate at any number of angles relative to the top of the spine. This distinction is important, because it is a very important claim made by S&T (and many others). Viz. that it is advantageous that this line (the one drawn between the two shoulders) should rotate in a plane perpendicular to the axis defined by the spine. Further by keeping that axis stable through the motions of "tilting", and "extending" we allow the "turning" element to happen in this plane that is perpendicular to a stable axis. To the original post then it seems to me that the act of extension does not help the golfer to turn the shoulders line perpendicular to the spine. Rather it allows the golfer to maintain the axis in a steady position such that turning the shoulders around it yields a consistent path. If one were not extending ( the spine) through impact and into the follow through the spine would be translating towards the target. If the shoulders continued to turn on a perpendicular plane to the axis of the spine, you would not gain much benefit from this.
|
|
|
Post by Ringer on Dec 7, 2010 13:13:08 GMT -5
I've really been trying to work this out ever since Dr. Zick presented it at the symposium and the more I think about it the more it seems correct. But one of the ways that makes it a bit more relatable is to think of the CHEST always facing the ball.
Think about chopping down a tree with an axe. If you were to aim for a part of the tree which is at eye level you would actually arch your back somewhat just to face your chest slightly upward toward the point you want to strike. If you were to aim at the base of the tree where it meets the ground you would bend over in SOME fashion just so your chest could face this point.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Dec 7, 2010 13:35:33 GMT -5
To the original post then it seems to me that the act of extension does not help the golfer to turn the shoulders line perpendicular to the spine. Rather it allows the golfer to maintain the axis in a steady position such that turning the shoulders around it yields a consistent path. If one were not extending ( the spine) through impact and into the follow through the spine would be translating towards the target. If the shoulders continued to turn on a perpendicular plane to the axis of the spine, you would not gain much benefit from this. Yes, that's the point I was trying to quickly hint at earlier. Are we talking about a circle around our spine or in 3D space. If the upper center remains stable then the shoulders can not only turn in a circle around the spine, but in 3D space (approximately, of course) as well. If we don't come out of flexion then the upper center will move really far forward and the shoulders won't rotate in a circle in 3D space.
|
|