Upper core awkwardness

[virtuoso]

27 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I endorse neither.  To be fair if someone measured out as lower core Rinker would teach that person something very similar to what Milo teaches. 

But, Nels, to actually be fair, Rinker would never ever teach anything as extreme as what Milo teaches. Ever.

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, virtuoso said:

But, Nels, to actually be fair, Rinker would never ever teach anything as extreme as what Milo teaches. Ever.

You have seen a lower core student being taught by Rinker?  Or Dr. Wright?

[Pnwpingi210]

What do I do if I’m left side upper core and right side lower core?  Do I do both?  maybe it’s what’s kept me from the tour all these years!

[Nels55]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

What do I do if I’m left side upper core and right side lower core?  Do I do both?  maybe it’s what’s kept me from the tour all these years!

LOL you simply did not train hard enough!  Unfortunately there does not seem to be anyone here who actually understands the Wright balance system well enough to explain such things.  Anyway I am guessing that such an unbalance is not possible. 

 

I have backed myself into a corner trying to defend the system a few times and if not for Monte Scheinblum I would have been thoroughly thrashed.

 

I like the idea of trying to match the swing up to the students best movement pattern which is why I find TPI, Mike Adams and Wright Balance interesting.  The TPI approach of testing for physical problems and then providing an exercise program along with a recommend swing based on data and Dr. Rose's knowledge along with some AI seems very sound to me.

[virtuoso]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

You have seen a lower core student being taught by Rinker?  Or Dr. Wright?

You got me man. It's totally plausible that Rinker and Wright teach this to their lower core players.

[Pnwpingi210]

32 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

LOL you simply did not train hard enough!  Unfortunately there does not seem to be anyone here who actually understands the Wright balance system well enough to explain such things.  Anyway I am guessing that such an unbalance is not possible. 

 

I have backed myself into a corner trying to defend the system a few times and if not for Monte Scheinblum I would have been thoroughly thrashed.

 

I like the idea of trying to match the swing up to the students best movement pattern which is why I find TPI, Mike Adams and Wright Balance interesting.  The TPI approach of testing for physical problems and then providing an exercise program along with a recommend swing based on data and Dr. Rose's knowledge along with some AI seems very sound to me.

I didn’t have the proper tools to test (Mop handle, bungee cords, two measuring tapes x’d in the floor and white index cards.

[Nels55]

1 hour ago, virtuoso said:

You got me man. It's totally plausible that Rinker and Wright teach this to their lower core players.

Are we in agreement that Milo has a good golf swing?

[virtuoso]

5 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Are we in agreement that Milo has a good golf swing?

He has a swing that works for him but I would never teach that. You can’t take amateurs and teach them something that only works if they are right eye dominant and want to swing like David Duval, and play a low punch cut…..and amateurs couldn’t move their pivot like that while their arms stay behind their torso, even if you wanted to. You’re just going to destroy them.

[GoGoErky]

27 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

He has a swing that works for him but I would never teach that. You can’t take amateurs and teach them something that only works if they are right eye dominant and want to swing like David Duval, and play a low punch cut…..and amateurs couldn’t move their pivot like that while their arms stay behind their torso, even if you wanted to. You’re just going to destroy them.

This x1000

[GoGoErky]

38 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

Are we in agreement that Milo has a good golf swing?

Milo’s swing is his swing and his students can’t swing me that. It’s not a swing that should be promoted. I have first hand experience watching online and some students who take in person lessons as well a do his online course.

 

They struggle to make a good a good pelvis rotation. They have zero chance of hitting the ball goo making his swing.

 

his leave the hands up and passive arms are also opposite of what happens in the golf swing. The video you posted and him talking about and effortless swing is terrible. His swing is far from effortless and a good golf swing takes effort

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

Milo’s swing is his swing and his students can’t swing me that. It’s not a swing that should be promoted. I have first hand experience watching online and some students who take in person lessons as well a do his online course.

 

They struggle to make a good a good pelvis rotation. They have zero chance of hitting the ball goo making his swing.

 

his leave the hands up and passive arms are also opposite of what happens in the golf swing. The video you posted and him talking about and effortless swing is terrible. His swing is far from effortless and a good golf swing takes effort

Every time I hear anyone mention, in any way, shape, or form, that there is such a thing as an effortless golf swing, I cringe. It is BS of the highest order. Generating effective clubhead speed requires effort. Nothing in life or golf is free. Effortless = RUN AWAY QUICKLY....

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Every time I hear anyone mention, in any way, shape, or form, that there is such a thing as an effortless golf swing, I cringe. It is BS of the highest order. Generating effective clubhead speed requires effort. Nothing in life or golf is free. Effortless = RUN AWAY QUICKLY....

 

I made an effortless swing earlier today. Didn't see where the ball went, though. I'd link to the tweet for the video, but… x.com just stopped making tweets ("xeets"?) from embedding just recently.

 

[Pnwpingi210]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Every time I hear anyone mention, in any way, shape, or form, that there is such a thing as an effortless golf swing, I cringe. It is BS of the highest order. Generating effective clubhead speed requires effort. Nothing in life or golf is free. Effortless = RUN AWAY QUICKLY....

Right?

I mean it takes effort to stop the swing once you start it ….

 

[Nels55]

5 hours ago, virtuoso said:

He has a swing that works for him but I would never teach that. You can’t take amateurs and teach them something that only works if they are right eye dominant and want to swing like David Duval, and play a low punch cut…..and amateurs couldn’t move their pivot like that while their arms stay behind their torso, even if you wanted to. You’re just going to destroy them.

I looked at a little bit of lower core stuff and there are definitely appear to be differences between what Milo teaches and the lower core swing.  There are similarities also like the strong grip and open hips at impact.  The point I was trying to make is that Milo teaches everyone the same swing excluding physical limitations like a bad back while Rinker varies his teaching according to the core theory.  Maybe Milo is closer to mid core.  Here is a look at the different cores:

 

 

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I looked at a little bit of lower core stuff and there are definitely appear to be differences between what Milo teaches and the lower core swing.  There are similarities also like the strong grip and open hips at impact.  The point I was trying to make is that Milo teaches everyone the same swing excluding physical limitations like a bad back while Rinker varies his teaching according to the core theory.  Maybe Milo is closer to mid core.  Here is a look at the different cores:

 

 

Milo teaching everyone the same swing is a terrible idea and even worse when it’s a swing that requires a ton of effort to even try and make. Using milo as any reference for anything instruction is a bad idea. Haven’t seen much of Larry but the few things I’ve seen from him will keep amateurs from getting better.

 

Using either as any reference or as examples for getting better are good are some of the worst ones

[virtuoso]

7 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I looked at a little bit of lower core stuff and there are definitely appear to be differences between what Milo teaches and the lower core swing.  There are similarities also like the strong grip and open hips at impact.  The point I was trying to make is that Milo teaches everyone the same swing excluding physical limitations like a bad back while Rinker varies his teaching according to the core theory.  Maybe Milo is closer to mid core.  Here is a look at the different cores:

 

 

Nels, looking at this post, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony--I don't even know where to begin.

[Nels55]

5 minutes ago, virtuoso said:

Nels, looking at this post, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony--I don't even know where to begin.

Lol go for it!  At least I conceded a bit.  Interesting how much Rinker / Wright Balance get bashed here.  

[virtuoso]

Just now, Nels55 said:

Lol go for it!  At least I conceded a bit.  Interesting how much Rinker / Wright Balance get bashed here.  

I'll spare you. It would have been a massive wall of text...and I promised myself a couple years ago I wouldn't do that anymore. Honestly, I've beat up on Rinker/Wright, etc enough already.

[Nels55]

It seems that Larry Rinker was an original member to Jake Trout and the Flounders.

 

[NosajNeelik]

21 hours ago, Nels55 said:

It seems that Larry Rinker was an original member to Jake Trout and the Flounders.

 

That doesn’t make it better. Actually much, much worse. 

[games]

On 1/11/2025 at 7:39 PM, iacas said:

 

Few others seem to have seen it, let alone having it thoroughly peer reviewed. What we have seen, in videos with baseball bats or "OK" symbols with our fingers/hands, doesn't give me much confidence.

 

If all this breaks down to is that some people will use their legs or lower body more than others, and others will use their arms and upper body a bit more, fine. But that's not the type of stuff I've seen.

 

Eh.

 

Why is 8 narrower than 4, 1, and 5. Why is 9 between 8 and 7? Why is 2 as narrow as it is?

 

I'm glad you have, but I've yet to see anything that gives me any confidence in this stuff at all. If you can't explain it, and it comes down to "voodoo," then…

 

THE RULER IN THE VIDEO IS USED FOR TESTING to determine your ONE dominant core region out of nine total. (The same ruler is given to the student to take home for use with balance exercises. Another discussion...)

 

After taking some measurements and an interview with the client, the tester feeds the collected data to Wright Balance which generates a series of 5-9 stance widths for each core type (lower, middle, upper). Only the first three measures listed are used for testing. Once your dominant core type is determined, you can use ANY of the five or more stance widths listed FOR YOUR TYPE.

Failure to use the widths assigned to your core type rips a hole in the space-time continuum...

  

The ruler is marked with the first three widths listed for each core type.

The first width listed for lower core type tests region #1. The second lower core width tests region #2. The third lower core width tests region #3.

The first width listed for middle core type tests region #4. The second middle core width tests region #5. The third middle core width tests region #6.

The first width listed for upper core type tests region #7. The second upper core width tests region #8. The third upper core width tests region #9.

 

The tester has you stand in all nine widths and has you perform the same set of tasks while standing in each width.

You will be more successful at performing the tasks in one width than in the other eight.

That is your DOMINANT CORE REGION which dictates your FINAL core type (upper, middle, lower).
 

The pic and list illustrate what I've summarized above.

More detail can be found in this Wright Balance document (the link is fine):

https://fliphtml5.com/azhq/vgba/How_to_Use_Your_Stance_Width_Results/

 

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, here is a link to another e-book with six chapters detailing the research, the testing method, and each of the three core types. The title is "Chapter 6" but the book contains links to the previous chapters.:

https://fliphtml5.com/azhq/tazi

 

 

1-3 (Blue) - Lower Core Regions

4-6 (Black) - Middle Core Regions

7-9 (Red) - Upper Core Regions

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13 by games

[PedronNiall]

4 hours ago, games said:

 

THE RULER IN THE VIDEO IS USED FOR TESTING to determine your ONE dominant core region out of nine total. (The same ruler is given to the student to take home for use with balance exercises. Another discussion...)

 

After taking some measurements and an interview with the client, the tester feeds the collected data to Wright Balance which generates a series of 5-9 stance widths for each core type (lower, middle, upper). Only the first three measures listed are used for testing. Once your dominant core type is determined, you can use ANY of the five or more stance widths listed FOR YOUR TYPE.

Failure to use the widths assigned to your core type rips a hole in the space-time continuum...

  

The ruler is marked with the first three widths listed for each core type.

The first width listed for lower core type tests region #1. The second lower core width tests region #2. The third lower core width tests region #3.

The first width listed for middle core type tests region #4. The second middle core width tests region #5. The third middle core width tests region #6.

The first width listed for upper core type tests region #7. The second upper core width tests region #8. The third upper core width tests region #9.

 

The tester has you stand in all nine widths and has you perform the same set of tasks while standing in each width.

You will be more successful at performing the tasks in one width than in the other eight.

That is your DOMINANT CORE REGION which dictates your FINAL core type (upper, middle, lower).
 

The pic and list illustrate what I've summarized above.

More detail can be found in this Wright Balance document (the link is fine):

https://fliphtml5.com/azhq/vgba/How_to_Use_Your_Stance_Width_Results/

 

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, here is a link to another e-book with six chapters detailing the research, the testing method, and each of the three core types. The title is "Chapter 6" but the book contains links to the previous chapters.:

https://fliphtml5.com/azhq/tazi

 

 

1-3 (Blue) - Lower Core Regions

4-6 (Black) - Middle Core Regions

7-9 (Red) - Upper Core Regions

 

 

 

 

 

I went through that doc prior to what I posted two pages ago. As mentioned, he has one published research paper related to posture correction. He has none published and peer-reviewed related to the magic ruler or secret society hand gestures producing sound analysis of how a given person must setup and swing the golf club. 

 

Reading through that thing did nothing to strengthen the position of the method as being rooted in truth. 

[games]

 

 

 

 

[Nels55]

6 hours ago, games said:

 

 

 

 

I think that Doc Wright and Mike Adams are both on the right track in making an effort to determine the best way for each individual to setup and swing.

[PedronNiall]

7 hours ago, games said:

 

 

 

 

 

We're quite curious here, about what actually happens in the swing and what is shown through empirical data to be the best way to accomplish efficient, repeatable versions of those elements that make it up. My curiosity led me to watch videos on it and dive into the research backing its effectiveness; currently there is none. 

 

When this method starts presenting valid data that proves its worth I see no reason it wouldn't be taken at face value. Until and unless that happens it will remain unproven and without merit. 

[games]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I think that Doc Wright and Mike Adams are both on the right track in making an effort to determine the best way for each individual to setup and swing.

I agree. Adams gets ripped here by some, and I have no idea why.

[games]

1 hour ago, PedronNiall said:

 

We're quite curious here, about what actually happens in the swing and what is shown through empirical data to be the best way to accomplish efficient, repeatable versions of those elements that make it up. My curiosity led me to watch videos on it and dive into the research backing its effectiveness; currently there is none. 

 

When this method starts presenting valid data that proves its worth I see no reason it wouldn't be taken at face value. Until and unless that happens it will remain unproven and without merit. 

A private, for-profit, company generally doesn't publish the recipe to its secret sauce.

 

I shouldn't have to say that, but the American education system does a TERRIBLE job of teaching basic business principles...

 

 

[GoGoErky]

8 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

We're quite curious here, about what actually happens in the swing and what is shown through empirical data to be the best way to accomplish efficient, repeatable versions of those elements that make it up. My curiosity led me to watch videos on it and dive into the research backing its effectiveness; currently there is none. 

 

When this method starts presenting valid data that proves its worth I see no reason it wouldn't be taken at face value. Until and unless that happens it will remain unproven and without merit. 

Exactly. Data > feelings.

[GoGoErky]

10 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I think that Doc Wright and Mike Adams are both on the right track in making an effort to determine the best way for each individual to setup and swing.

If you think that then why aren’t you using their stuff to work on your swing rather than using what Monte teaches and taking lessons with him?

[PedronNiall]

17 hours ago, games said:

A private, for-profit, company generally doesn't publish the recipe to its secret sauce.

 

I shouldn't have to say that, but the American education system does a TERRIBLE job of teaching basic business principles...

 

 

 

Right. So they have a single study showing it works for posture correction, but the reason they don't have any proving its efficacy for the swing is because they'd be giving too much away. Makes absolutely no sense. 

 

Perhaps you should educate yourself a little better on things before you attempt to insult others. Makes you look even worse when you try veiled ad hominem attacks on top of having no leg to stand on in your "argument".

 

If you want to discuss the merits of the system then do so and keep it to that.