Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

88 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No idea why gioreeko continues to feed the troll...
  2. I just used weight shift because it’s a term that’s familiar to all of us and was used in the title of this thread. I’m fine with mass and center of mass. Expanding on Simsonia, we can march in place, keeping our weight/mass as centered as possible. And the force between the ground and the feet will fluctuate, as Simpsonia explains. But I would argue that it’s a purely vertical fluctuation of force/pressure, and this sort of dynamic isn’t going to allow much of a swing for hitting a golf ball. What’s required is a horizontal/lateral force component between the grou
  3. You’ve changed the subject. My statement is that there can be no pressure change without a force, and I argued that the force is supplied by a weight transfer. You acknowledge this by referring to lateral movement. And there doesn’t even have to be lateral movement because the weight of the club and arms will change the center of gravity. I asked you what the source of a pressure-changing force could possibly be, other than a weight transfer. You didn’t answer the question. I have no issue with the notion of understanding foot pressure, to inform and help build a better swin
  4. Glk, this is a video of a particular golfer’s understanding of physics, and I will argue that it’s technically incorrect. If the player is in a position of what is called static equilibrium, with some distribution of weight on his feet, and if there is no external force applied, such as another person pushing on his shoulder, the only source of the force that is required to change foot pressure, that the golfer has available, is to shift his weight. Sure, from a static address position you can use the muscles of your right let to push to the left, which I think is what the fellow in the video
  5. Oh, so sorry! Yes, I was thinking Stanks and wrote your name. Sigh...
  6. Exactly. Nothing more than a claim, no supporting evidence such as a picture or two. I haven’t played the new 3-piece ball. But this is the same sort of complaint I noticed with the original 4-piece, which I have played extensively and still play. And it’s still happening, with the unsupported claims from Snagy, which I refuted a couple of weeks ago. Complaints about durability from people who produce no supporting evidence have no credibility with me . One of the specific reasons I continue to play the original 4-piece ball, other than the great performance, is
  7. Well, this may be the world’s greatest tip, but it isn’t consistent with Ballard method. It is actually in opposition to a couple of key Ballard principles, and will take you away from the Ballard method. First, narrow stance. Second, no weight transfer. The Ballard method wants a wider stance in order to support an athletic, weight-shifting motion and to avoid twisting. And nobody who ever gets a strong weight shift to his/her right side is going to be able slide his foot backwards like that on the downswing. In the Ballard method the weight shifts into the braced right side, then stron
  8. Seems to me that there are a number of reasons. One is that some people just resent success. I am an investor, and I have been invested in Costco stock since 1996, 25 years. I know more about this company, it’s practices, its DNA, it’s leadership, its problems, than 99-44/100% of the people who post to this list or read it. l have watched Costco grow by leaps and bounds. They have gone from a company that most people never heard of to one of the true, 500# gorillas in the retail world. Some people feel that success makes a company too big for its britches, that it should be cu
  9. Wow, this thread is getting even weirder. Now we have notions of Costco bilking its members by selling them factory seconds. Evidence? None, of course. Critical thinking? None, of course, because it’s obvious that the reputation that Costco has spent the last 30 years would be destroyed in about 12 nanoseconds if they ever got exposed for selling seconds as firsts. And over what? Polo shirts?
  10. Unfounded speculation. Where is your evidence that there is such collusion? Common sense suggests that no company with a decent brand to protect is going to farm-out their brand and let a retailer wreak havoc on it with inferior merchandise. Don’t reputable brands do exactly the opposite, which is to say, protect their brands? Sure there are brands that over time get cheapened. And there are brands that put different quality into different distribution channels. And in the end their reputation suffers. But this sort of behavior is more on the brand than any sort of weird co
  11. Agree! I think they are all pretty much Ballard textbook.
  12. I actually played the “free” 4-piece all summer. It was a good ball, but not as good as the original 4-piece. The cover on it *was* less durable, but I never cut it, like some. When Titleist sued Costco over the original 4-piece one of their claims was that the Costco ball cover was less durable than advertised. I thought to myself, ha pot calls kettle black. So I played one of the Kirklands for 10(!) rounds as a test case. At that point the ball had lost all of its sheen, but there were no dings and the ball was still playable. The cover on the original 4-piece has been great, for me.
  • Create New...