Upper core awkwardness

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Good for you. I'm probably softcore. Mostly marshmallows and ice cream.

Yeah that probably more accurate for me.

 

like a crunch wrap supreme.

 

 

[TheDeanAbides]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

Good for you. I'm probably softcore. Mostly marshmallows and ice cream.

That's my life at the mo. Soft foods. Soup for weeks. 

[PedronNiall]

On 1/27/2025 at 7:47 PM, Nels55 said:

Here is am explanation of the different cores:

 

 

On 7/25/2025 at 11:35 AM, Nels55 said:

A quick explanation of the 3 cores:

What core are you?

 

Really? You bumped this to post a rehash of the vid you posted 6 months ago?

[RayPlan]

This is all a bunch of pseudoscientific bunk. You could separate the golf swing into endless taxonomies and find some things that correlate with each other enough to create something like this. 

 

It's such an obvious sales trick to say "oh, most of us are actually this thing, but everyone tries to make you do this other thing instead!" In other words, pay us and we'll give you the real secrets that work for people like you! 

 

Great way to confuse yourself if you try to combine the specifics of this with non-proprietary understandings of the golf swing. 

Edited July 26 by RayPlan

[virtuoso]

22 minutes ago, RayPlan said:

This is all a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense. You could separate the golf swing into endless taxonomies and find some things that correlate with each other enough to create something like this. 

 

It's such an obvious sales trick to say "oh, most of us are actually this thing, but everyone tries to make you do this other thing instead!" In other words, pay us and we'll give you the real secrets that work for people like you! 

 

Great way to confuse yourself if you try to combine the specifics of this with non-proprietary understandings of the golf swing. 

Well, the real genius behind it is that the student is already doing what is optimum for his core, so they just say keep doing that and don’t have poor self esteem about it. Keep early extending because that is what you are supposed to do. 

[Nels55]

Here are a few of the posts that Monte has made on this subject which I found interesting to re-read:

 

Virtuoso might find this one interesting:

 

[virtuoso]

34 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Here are a few of the posts that Monte has made on this subject which I found interesting to re-read:

 

Virtuoso might find this one interesting:

 

Yeah, Monte and I have already argued about it.

[NosajNeelik]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

Here are a few of the posts that Monte has made on this subject which I found interesting to re-read:

 

Virtuoso might find this one interesting:

 

Reposting things doesn’t make it better 🤣

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, NosajNeelik said:

Reposting things doesn’t make it better 🤣

"it"?  Are you talking about Monte's posts?

[ALIF]

I’m not a believer in this sort of taxonomy.

[NosajNeelik]

5 hours ago, Nels55 said:

"it"?  Are you talking about Monte's posts?

The premise of the thread. You basically started it over lol

[virtuoso]

28 minutes ago, NosajNeelik said:

The premise of the thread. You basically started it over lol

Yeah, too early. Needs to wait until it becomes vintage chic…..then the upper core 20 hdcp’s can go back to humping the pee out of it.

[NosajNeelik]

57 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

Yeah, too early. Needs to wait until it becomes vintage chic…..then the upper core 20 hdcp’s can go back to humping the pee out of it.

It’s like my mom coming into the garage when my teenage metal band was practicing….

 

”sounds great guys! Keep going…” 

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, NosajNeelik said:

The premise of the thread. You basically started it over lol

Oh, I had a specific purpose in mind with the Monte quotes.  I was trying to get those who like to mock the good doctor's work to think a bit. 

 

Actually I see the point of the criticism and I have had the same thoughts while watching Doc Wright on Youtube.  On the other hand I have also done the stance width tests and observed my hips opening and closing as predicted.  So, I suspect that there may well be something to the system. 

[PedronNiall]

1 minute ago, Nels55 said:

Oh, I had a specific purpose in mind with the Monte quotes.  I was trying to get those who like to mock the good doctor's work to think a bit. 

 

Actually I see the point of the criticism and I have had the same thoughts while watching Doc Wright on Youtube.  On the other hand I have also done the stance width tests and observed my hips opening and closing as predicted.  So, I suspect that there may well be something to the system. 

 

Legitimate criticism about the lack of any data or research subject to scrutiny by science at large for this method isn't mocking. Not like anyone who's actually mocking it is going to be swayed either way, but reposting reshoots of prior videos and quoting posts from this thread to "provide support" isn't do anything to shore up evidence of the ideology. 

[ThinkingPlus]

For anyone who has struggled learning the golf swing, correlating swing methods to body types or to mobility/strength limitations is very attractive because it provides a bit of an excuse for our failures. While it may be valid, I am always suspicious when told my failings aren't my fault, but a consequence of trying the wrong swing method/approach. It just seems too easy an out. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

 

However, if it's helping some folks play better, then it's hard to be too critical. Ceilings might be lowered, but most folks aren't willing to max out their potential anyway. Just being able to play "not awful" golf is sufficient.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

For anyone who has struggled learning the golf swing, correlating swing methods to body types or to mobility/strength limitations is very attractive because it provides a bit of an excuse for our failures. While it may be valid, I am always suspicious when told my failings aren't my fault, but a consequence of trying the wrong swing method/approach. It just seems too easy an out. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

 

That's about where I land on this, especially when the stuff seems like phony "science." Like LAB putters. 😉 

 

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

However, if it's helping some folks play better, then it's hard to be too critical. Ceilings might be lowered, but most folks aren't willing to max out their potential anyway. Just being able to play "not awful" golf is sufficient.

 

A lot of things can help people be a little better somewhat quickly… and then the players either get worse or they've gone down a road where their improvement hits a lower ceiling.

 

Not talking about this topic specifically, more these "kinds" of things.

[Pnwpingi210]

A good core exercise is stirring the pot.   This thread delivers

[Nels55]

17 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

For anyone who has struggled learning the golf swing, correlating swing methods to body types or to mobility/strength limitations is very attractive because it provides a bit of an excuse for our failures. While it may be valid, I am always suspicious when told my failings aren't my fault, but a consequence of trying the wrong swing method/approach. It just seems too easy an out. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

 

However, if it's helping some folks play better, then it's hard to be too critical. Ceilings might be lowered, but most folks aren't willing to max out their potential anyway. Just being able to play "not awful" golf is sufficient.

Rinker and Monte have both said that instruction that they got in their primes hurt their careers. 

 

Rinker's impact position with his hips nearly square at impact gets bashed here but maybe if he had done that in his prime he would have had more success.  Or maybe he was less upper core when he was younger and would have been a bit more open. 

 

At any rate it makes sense for a person to swing in the way that is best for their body to move.  Mike Adams and Doc Wright have both come up with systems to try to accomplish this.  My observation is that the two systems share common ground but also disagree in some areas so neither one is perfect.  But possibly they are a small step in the right direction. 

[MK7Golf21]

On 4/18/2025 at 12:46 AM, Nels55 said:

The importance of the index finger:

 

Tried it and didn’t do anything to my hips. This lady must be playing along or he used some type of hypnosis. 

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Mike Adams and Doc Wright have both…

 

… come up with a way to market something of dubious scientific validity.

[Pnwpingi210]

Unless you have some major physical limitations or restrictions, it’s not your body that causing a crud swing, it’s your crappy coordination and movement patterns.  Those (coordination and movement patterns) are learned.  

[RayPlan]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

Rinker and Monte have both said that instruction that they got in their primes hurt their careers. 

That could be true for a lot of pro golfers, but that says nothing about why the instruction was bad. It's also very difficult to prove or disprove, unless, for example, someone suffers an injury that has an obvious link to a specific move that was part of their instruction. 

 

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

 

Rinker's impact position with his hips nearly square at impact gets bashed here but maybe if he had done that in his prime he would have had more success.  Or maybe he was less upper core when he was younger and would have been a bit more open. 

OR, maybe Larry's making a self-serving rationalization about why things didn't work out the way he hoped. This is the sort of thing people think and say all the time in life. This isn't a knock against him personally, everyone has regrets about things they could have done differently. Conveniently, it's impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that this weird system would have helped him in the past, so he can just say it without any risk. 

 

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

At any rate it makes sense for a person to swing in the way that is best for their body to move. 

No it doesn't. No one thinks of swinging a hammer in this way. You use a hammer to hit nails. Doing it well means applying a significant force in a precise manner, over and over.

 

You can do it in an inefficient way and still successfully fasten things together, but with a lot of bent nails, bruised thumbs, and maybe a sore elbow. 

 

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

Mike Adams and Doc Wright have both come up with systems to try to accomplish this.

Both systems rely on accepting a basic premise (that there are specific body archetypes that can be matched with different golf swing styles) that's pretty questionable on its face. 

 

The idea that someone can take something as incredibly diverse as human body composition and functionality, and break it down into a small number of discrete categories for how to swing a golf club is very hard to believe. Especially when the claim is that most people fit into this specific category (upper core) that just so happens to encompass the most common swing flaws that bad golfers have. 

 

It doesn't pass the smell test.

 

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

But possibly they are a small step in the right direction. 

Seems unlikely.

 

The biggest problem I have with this stuff is that carries the assumption that golfers and the golf swing are somehow special. They're not. It's just a game of skill that requires some movements that are unintuitive to a lot of people. 

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

That's about where I land on this, especially when the stuff seems like phony "science." Like LAB putters. 😉 

 

 

A lot of things can help people be a little better somewhat quickly… and then the players either get worse or they've gone down a road where their improvement hits a lower ceiling.

 

Not talking about this topic specifically, more these "kinds" of things.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of torque balanced putters and L.A.B. 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of torque balanced putters and L.A.B. 

 

Everyone's entitled to believe in a few superstitions in life. 😉 

[ALIF]

2 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Unless you have some major physical limitations or restrictions, it’s not your body that causing a crud swing, it’s your crappy coordination and movement patterns.  Those (coordination and movement patterns) are learned.  

^^^^^^^ This to infinity.

[Nels55]

39 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of torque balanced putters and L.A.B. 

I have made several putters that are lie angle balanced.  I set the putters up so that the shaft intersects the COG of the head.  I believe that such a putter is a better option for some people and not so good for others.  In my case I have a fairly straight back and through motion without much rotation which may be something that works better with a balanced putter.  

 

Here is my thread on my putter modifications for anyone interested who has not seen it:

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1840113-stroke-lab-exo-7-wilson-and-lynx-putters-converted-to-center-balanced/

 

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I have made several putters that are lie angle balanced.  I set the putters up so that the shaft intersects the COG of the head.  I believe that such a putter is a better option for some people and not so good for others.  In my case I have a fairly straight back and through motion without much rotation which may be something that works better with a balanced putter.  

 

Here is my thread on my putter modifications for anyone interested who has not seen it:

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1840113-stroke-lab-exo-7-wilson-and-lynx-putters-converted-to-center-balanced/

 

Just having the shaft go through the COM doesn't make a putter torque balanced about the lie angle axis despite what alot of folks believe. It will be zero torque about the vertical axis, but not the lie angle axis. However, it won't have a significant amount of residual torque about the lie angle and will likely still produce good results.

[ThinkingPlus]

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Everyone's entitled to believe in a few superstitions in life. 😉 

I have degrees in math and physics as you know. I don't have superstitions.

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, RayPlan said:

That could be true for a lot of pro golfers, but that says nothing about why the instruction was bad. It's also very difficult to prove or disprove, unless, for example, someone suffers an injury that has an obvious link to a specific move that was part of their instruction. 

 

As one example, I don't need Monte to have suffered a physical injury to believe what he says about how certain instruction was harmful to his career/golf swing - the proof is in the experiences as he relates them.  I assume he or anyone else has a handle on how things were pre and post whatever caused any problems.