Posted by: Jack Mankin (MrBatspeed@aol.com) on Sun Oct 29 10:33:45 2006

>>> Pardon my audacity...

This site teaches that the lower body powers the upper body, yet this site is imbued with cues preaching the inverse. Such convolution between research and practicality amazes even me. It is also made clear that no weight should shift during rotation; however, on "The Final Arc II," John Elliot's weight shift onto his front foot is duly noted. Are not these elements self-contradictory?

One must remember that people are wired differently. While emphasizing shoulder rotation might have the desired effect for certain individuals, focusing on hip rotation will assist others developmently.

There is much more to say, but I will leave others to digest these thoughts. <<<

Hi Hitherto

Welcome to the site. – A major problem in discussing the mechanics of the swing is how one defines the term being discussed. In your post, it appears your definition of “weight shift” is based on which leg is responsible for supporting the body’s weight. This interruption of weight shift would say that since the weight on each foot is fairly even at initiation, but at contact most of the weight is borne by the lead-leg means that there is a forward shifting of the body’s weight from back to front.

You are correct in saying that at contact most of John’s weight is on his lead-leg. However, during the swing, John’s body mass is rotating about a stationary axis. Therefore, there was no forward movement of his body’s mass. For him to develop linear momentum to be transferred to help power his swing, his body’s mass must have linear velocity (linear movement of his axis – center of mass) .

If wish to say that weight on his lead-leg constitutes a forward weight-shift in his swing, just remember that there was no transfer of momentum to aid in powering his swing.

Jack Mankin