Upper core awkwardness

[games]

On 4/16/2025 at 3:03 PM, PedronNiall said:

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

 

[virtuoso]

1 hour ago, games said:

 

Huh? No, no...the morons have already slipped through the gate. Its now become a rear guard action.

[PedronNiall]

5 hours ago, games said:

 

 

You literally do not even know what that word means. Gatekeepers are people who either limit who has access to something, or colloquially, those who attempt to decide who has rights to a community or identity. Me telling you to stick to discussing the merits of the system rather than trying to make veiled insults because I and others require proof that a thing is valid isn't gatekeeping. 

 

Bottom line is keep the discussion to the topic and stop derailing it with your poor attempts at superiority when you have no leg to stand on and want to argue for a thing "just because". 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

Bottom line is keep the discussion to the topic and stop derailing it with your poor attempts at superiority when you have no leg to stand on and want to argue for a thing "just because". 

 

I think which leg he stands on is determined by what part of the baseball bat he's gripping.

[Nels55]

The importance of the index finger:

 

[GoGoErky]

I lost brain cells watching that.

 

Good luck getting better if you think hes on the right track to getting the right setup or anything.

 

 

[TheDeanAbides]

7 hours ago, Nels55 said:

The importance of the index finger:

 

This is like writing off a car and instead of having it rebuilt you put on a new bumper sticker.

Edited April 18 by TheDeanAbides

[Chunkitgood]

17 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

You literally do not even know what that word means. Gatekeepers are people who either limit who has access to something, or colloquially, those who attempt to decide who has rights to a community or identity. Me telling you to stick to discussing the merits of the system rather than trying to make veiled insults because I and others require proof that a thing is valid isn't gatekeeping. 

 

Bottom line is keep the discussion to the topic and stop derailing it with your poor attempts at superiority when you have no leg to stand on and want to argue for a thing "just because". 

So, gatekeepers get to define what gatekeeping is and define it as something other than what they do to avoid being accused of gatekeeping.

 

Sweet.

[GoGoErky]

36 minutes ago, Chunkitgood said:

So, gatekeepers get to define what gatekeeping is and define it as something other than what they do to avoid being accused of gatekeeping.

 

Sweet.

Another ignorant post. Funny you will quote someone then runoff or when someone quotes you not engage. 

[ThinkingPlus]

Just now, GoGoErky said:

Another ignorant post. Funny you will quote someone then runoff or when someone quotes you not engage. 

Definition of a troll.

[games]

18 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I think which leg he stands on is determined by what part of the baseball bat he's gripping.

 

The best part of this thread has been the "outing" of the self-appointed, passive-aggressive gatekeepers who seem to like playing with each others' bats.

<mic drop>

[GoGoErky]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Definition of a troll.

100% and everyone knows it.

 

[iacas]

39 minutes ago, games said:

The best part of this thread has been the "outing" of the self-appointed, passive-aggressive gatekeepers who seem to like playing with each others' bats.

<mic drop>

 

That's funny in two ways. First, that you think that you just dropped the mic. Second, that you think I'm passive. 😄 And a bonus third: that you continue on with your (incorrect/invalid) idea of "gatekeeping." You're free to post here. Nobody's gatekeeping anything, and those who are, are the moderators.

 

I've not really interacted with you much, and given how little substance you've added… I think that trend will continue.

 

On 4/13/2025 at 11:54 PM, PedronNiall said:

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. 

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, games said:

 

The best part of this thread has been the "outing" of the self-appointed, passive-aggressive gatekeepers who seem to like playing with each others' bats.

<mic drop>

 

No one's been passive aggressive but you. I've been very direct in taking you to task for your derailing and veiled insults. I have no problem calling your empty rhetoric and attempts to deflect. 

Edited April 18 by PedronNiall

[games]

4 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Definition of a troll.

He wasn't wrong.

[ThinkingPlus]

22 minutes ago, games said:

He wasn't wrong.

But somehow he's never right. As far as gatekeeping goes, that's self imposed. Post what you want. If your posts have merit, they will get support. Spout nonsense, then don't be surprised if folks ask for evidence.

[Nels55]

5 hours ago, games said:

 

The best part of this thread has been the "outing" of the self-appointed, passive-aggressive gatekeepers who seem to like playing with each others' bats.

<mic drop>

I appreciated your post with the info on the Wright balance system. 

 

I simply don't see the need for the personal attacks.  I would really appreciate it if you could keep your posts focused on the positive side of things.  Thank you!

[games]

Now, regarding Wright Balance...

 

I've been evaluated twice. The first was back in Illinois in August 2018 where I was pegged as low core. The second was here in Des Moines in September 2019, and I was deemed mid-core. I've posted videos here in the past, and anyone with eyes would look at me and say "upper core" and move on. And, I think that is probably where I am now.

 

After not golfing at all for two years, I started going to the simulator again a couple of months ago. Before I stopped playing, if I focused solely on it, I could maintain tilts and not violate small farm animals. Now, I'm really having trouble trying to turn through to even an abbreviated finish without early extending.

 

Contrary to judgments already made about me, I truly don't know if Wright Balance is snake oil or not. Initially, I too, was hung up on what appeared to be a bunch of random stance widths. After the first fitting I wrote "I can't believe two inches difference in my stance can make much difference." But, then Monte comes along and states that Wright independently corroborated the stance widths Monte used.

 

If the golf swing were purely a rotor sitting atop a fixed platform, I would fully expect a linear relationship between stance widths and core type. But, the golf swing is NOT static, and it is not purely mechanical. As a learned athletic movement, the swing requires balance.  What controls balance? The brain!

 

Based on that, I suspect there's a neurological "brain mapping" element to Wright's system, which as a layman, I can't comprehend. For now, Monte's description as "voodoo" is as good as any. So, for me, the jury's still out.

[games]

14 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I appreciated your post with the info on the Wright balance system. 

 

I simply don't see the need for the personal attacks.  I would really appreciate it if you could keep your posts focused on the positive side of things.  Thank you!

 

Hello. Prior to reading your post, I put the thread back on topic.

 

About seven or eight years ago, I went to watch Monte play in a Monday qualifier for the American Family Champions Tour event in Wisconsin. Monte introduced me to EA Tischler who was also competing. Tischler collaborated with Mike Adams on a biomechanical golf framework. And, since that time, it was my understanding Wright and Adams/Tischler were going to pool their research. But, haven't heard anything of late.  

[Nels55]

40 minutes ago, games said:

 

Hello. Prior to reading your post, I put the thread back on topic.

 

About seven or eight years ago, I went to watch Monte play in a Monday qualifier for the American Family Champions Tour event in Wisconsin. Monte introduced me to EA Tischler who was also competing. Tischler collaborated with Mike Adams on a biomechanical golf framework. And, since that time, it was my understanding Wright and Adams/Tischler were going to pool their research. But, haven't heard anything of late.  

I remember hearing that they were trading information.   I believe that there was mutual respect for each other's work.  There are definitely differences in the two systems and I also am not completely sold on either one as I don't have enough knowledge to make any sort of definitive judgment.  The proof is in the pudding which is how the students do.

 

I do like the idea that there is no one universal perfect setup and swing that works for everyone.  Measuring in order to figure out the best mechanics for each individual seems like a good way to go.  I believe that the top teachers in the game do that sort of thing intuitively while lesser teachers stick to more rigid methods and don’t do well with students who don't fit into their particular system.

[Pnwpingi210]

7 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

So, gatekeepers get to define what gatekeeping is and define it as something other than what they do to avoid being accused of gatekeeping.

 

Sweet.

Yeah, but who’s the keymaster?

 

[games]

8 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Yeah, but who’s the keymaster?

 

 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, games said:

 

 

Now the question is Zuul upper core?  And if so how do we prove it?

[ThinkingPlus]

25 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Now the question is Zuul upper core?  And if so how do we prove it?

I'm pretty sure I am the demon core. Teachers are afraid to provide instruction for fear of death.

Edited April 19 by ThinkingPlus
Added clarity...

[PedronNiall]

12 hours ago, games said:

Now, regarding Wright Balance...

 

I've been evaluated twice. The first was back in Illinois in August 2018 where I was pegged as low core. The second was here in Des Moines in September 2019, and I was deemed mid-core. I've posted videos here in the past, and anyone with eyes would look at me and say "upper core" and move on. And, I think that is probably where I am now.

 

After not golfing at all for two years, I started going to the simulator again a couple of months ago. Before I stopped playing, if I focused solely on it, I could maintain tilts and not violate small farm animals. Now, I'm really having trouble trying to turn through to even an abbreviated finish without early extending.

 

Contrary to judgments already made about me, I truly don't know if Wright Balance is snake oil or not. Initially, I too, was hung up on what appeared to be a bunch of random stance widths. After the first fitting I wrote "I can't believe two inches difference in my stance can make much difference." But, then Monte comes along and states that Wright independently corroborated the stance widths Monte used.

 

If the golf swing were purely a rotor sitting atop a fixed platform, I would fully expect a linear relationship between stance widths and core type. But, the golf swing is NOT static, and it is not purely mechanical. As a learned athletic movement, the swing requires balance.  What controls balance? The brain!

 

Based on that, I suspect there's a neurological "brain mapping" element to Wright's system, which as a layman, I can't comprehend. For now, Monte's description as "voodoo" is as good as any. So, for me, the jury's still out.

 

To recap, you've been evaluated as both lower and mid-core, yet think you're upper. So the system is ineffective in giving a consistent core reading, and you as a player felt uncomfortable trying to approach play from either of the core tenets the evals said you should.

 

Yes, the brain controls balance, but it has nothing to do with holding your fingers a certain way. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279394/ As demonstrated in that synopsis, the brain primarily evaluates sensory input from organs near to it and then sends out response actions to the limbs, not the other way around. This is why tactile inputs not directly related to a person's current orientation--which "okay"-like hand signs are not--are useless in helping with balance and orientation. There is no science backing the claims of Wright Balance. They did an entire study of some kind with it in use for the swing yet never published the results, which is telling. To date, it has only been evaluated in a single study as a tool for posture correction.

 

Let's look at actual science discussing the where in the body the brain takes cues on balance from and how it interprets them. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9618500/

 

The results showed that there was a significant difference between the seven calculated parameters over the five foot positions. Except for sample entropy in A-P, all parameters showed significant differences between the foot positions. During BS, the range decreased with increasing inner feet distance, which is in line with the literature examining healthy young subjects [5, 6, 14, 15, 23–27]. This work shows an additional significant influence of stance width on the LoS range, supporting previous findings by Krewer et al. [6] and Juras et al. [28]. Accordingly to earlier findings [6, 23, 28], our results demonstrate that stance width had a stronger effect on the parameter of the M-L (effect size: BS 0.80, LoS 0.85) than on the A-P dimension (effect size: BS 0.24, LoS 0.18). This is consistent, as changing the stance width results in changes of the lateral but not the sagittal aspect of the supporting surface.

 

Human upright stance is a generally unstable position characterized by balancing the center of mass high above the base of support. Maintaining balance is a complex motor skill based on neuromuscular control that includes the passive biomechanics, sensory inputs, and actively generated muscular torques [29]. Changes of the supporting surface causes several alterations in the neural control of bipedal stance as stance width has a major impact on frontal plane biomechanics [30]. An increasing stance width biomechanically changes the relation of body center of mass relative to the limits of the supporting surface and, therefore, permits larger excursions before reaching its boundaries [31], which is reflected by increased LoS parameters. In addition, it affects the physics of lower body motion as well as the interaction torques from upper body movements and surface [30, 31]. Increasing the stance width may also alter the stretch of muscles and tendons that stabilize the hip joints [23] and further results in an altered feedback from proprioceptors and intrinsic stiffness [30]. Those biomechanical changes may be linked to changes in sway and muscle activity [30]. Consequently, an increased base of support (feet wider apart) relates to reduced ankle joint mobility in the frontal plane [14] and, therefore, is argued to require lower levels of muscle activation for postural response [32]. This explains the decrease in spatial BS parameters. However, even though the length of the sagittal supporting surface was not changed, maximally decreased stance width (feet together) seemed to induce increased sagittal plane movements during BS. Thus, a possible explanation would be, that this biomechanically more instable position requires increased neuromuscular effort to maintain stability, which can be generated by increased movements and thus neuromuscular feedback (e.g., proprioception). This would not apply to the LoS trial, which explicitly requires weight shifting movements by the subjects. This could explain the limited effect of stance width on A-P excursion for LoS trials, as post hoc comparisons revealed mainly differences between the stance widths in comparison to the repetition of the self-selected foot position (self_2).

 

Bingham and colleagues [31], however, suggested that although wider stance width allows for greater center of mass excursion and greater torque generation due to mechanical leverage of the hip (see above), the increase in functional stability is only present when accompanied by appropriately scaled neural feedback. Thus, in case of an impaired nervous system, subjects may not take advantage of the intuitive benefits of wide stance due to increased neural delay, inappropriate contextual modulation, or increased sensorimotor noise [31].

 

While this is a study conducted on the ability of older, healthy adults to maintain balance, there are several relevant findings and explanations of body systems that hold true regardless of age or the activity being performed. Of note, a wider stance provides more stability because of the way the human body is oriented when standing and the way our body's weight is distributed, and there are no magical variations in line with the Wright Balance ruler for people at which a narrower then wider then narrower stance becomes more efficient for maintaining balance. Only for those who have some kind of nervous system impairment is the benefit of a wider stance in maintaining balance lost.

 

What this study, and a related one, demonstrated as well is that while wider stances do provide more stability, the tension, increases in stiffness, and reduction in the ability for certain structural changes to occur as quickly does mean there are diminishing returns for correcting excess movements that have or will get the body in a less-than-ideal position. In other words, a narrower stance, while less stable as the width decreases, can more readily provide sensory output to the brain that something is off, requiring more total movement for correction than a wider stance. A wider stance, while less able to give the same level of feedback to the brain as width increases, is more stable than a narrow one, and while less mobile, can accomplish correction with less total movement. It is a literal balancing act of finding what works for the given person based on their body structure, their sensory capacity, and their movement tendencies.

 

Also interesting is that balance--specifically frontal plane sway--while employing narrower stances appears to be affected by visual cues, while balance appears unaffected by visual cues when taking a wider stance.

 

Nothing in studies I found at all corroborates the claims of the Wright Balance system. Your own experience says it's inconsistent in even doing what it espouses to do, identifying a core from which a golfer should base their setup, including stance width, for consistent results. If you want to go on believing it might be valid in spite of no published, peer-reviewed data showing that it is and actual published, peer-reviewed data showing that it isn't then that is your choice to do so.

[Pnwpingi210]

On 4/19/2025 at 8:59 AM, PedronNiall said:

 

To recap, you've been evaluated as both lower and mid-core, yet think you're upper. So the system is ineffective in giving a consistent core reading, and you as a player felt uncomfortable trying to approach play from either of the core tenets the evals said you should.

 

Yes, the brain controls balance, but it has nothing to do with holding your fingers a certain way. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279394/ As demonstrated in that synopsis, the brain primarily evaluates sensory input from organs near to it and then sends out response actions to the limbs, not the other way around. This is why tactile inputs not directly related to a person's current orientation--which "okay"-like hand signs are not--are useless in helping with balance and orientation. There is no science backing the claims of Wright Balance. They did an entire study of some kind with it in use for the swing yet never published the results, which is telling. To date, it has only been evaluated in a single study as a tool for posture correction.

 

Let's look at actual science discussing the where in the body the brain takes cues on balance from and how it interprets them. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9618500/

 

The results showed that there was a significant difference between the seven calculated parameters over the five foot positions. Except for sample entropy in A-P, all parameters showed significant differences between the foot positions. During BS, the range decreased with increasing inner feet distance, which is in line with the literature examining healthy young subjects [5, 6, 14, 15, 23–27]. This work shows an additional significant influence of stance width on the LoS range, supporting previous findings by Krewer et al. [6] and Juras et al. [28]. Accordingly to earlier findings [6, 23, 28], our results demonstrate that stance width had a stronger effect on the parameter of the M-L (effect size: BS 0.80, LoS 0.85) than on the A-P dimension (effect size: BS 0.24, LoS 0.18). This is consistent, as changing the stance width results in changes of the lateral but not the sagittal aspect of the supporting surface.

 

Human upright stance is a generally unstable position characterized by balancing the center of mass high above the base of support. Maintaining balance is a complex motor skill based on neuromuscular control that includes the passive biomechanics, sensory inputs, and actively generated muscular torques [29]. Changes of the supporting surface causes several alterations in the neural control of bipedal stance as stance width has a major impact on frontal plane biomechanics [30]. An increasing stance width biomechanically changes the relation of body center of mass relative to the limits of the supporting surface and, therefore, permits larger excursions before reaching its boundaries [31], which is reflected by increased LoS parameters. In addition, it affects the physics of lower body motion as well as the interaction torques from upper body movements and surface [30, 31]. Increasing the stance width may also alter the stretch of muscles and tendons that stabilize the hip joints [23] and further results in an altered feedback from proprioceptors and intrinsic stiffness [30]. Those biomechanical changes may be linked to changes in sway and muscle activity [30]. Consequently, an increased base of support (feet wider apart) relates to reduced ankle joint mobility in the frontal plane [14] and, therefore, is argued to require lower levels of muscle activation for postural response [32]. This explains the decrease in spatial BS parameters. However, even though the length of the sagittal supporting surface was not changed, maximally decreased stance width (feet together) seemed to induce increased sagittal plane movements during BS. Thus, a possible explanation would be, that this biomechanically more instable position requires increased neuromuscular effort to maintain stability, which can be generated by increased movements and thus neuromuscular feedback (e.g., proprioception). This would not apply to the LoS trial, which explicitly requires weight shifting movements by the subjects. This could explain the limited effect of stance width on A-P excursion for LoS trials, as post hoc comparisons revealed mainly differences between the stance widths in comparison to the repetition of the self-selected foot position (self_2).

 

Bingham and colleagues [31], however, suggested that although wider stance width allows for greater center of mass excursion and greater torque generation due to mechanical leverage of the hip (see above), the increase in functional stability is only present when accompanied by appropriately scaled neural feedback. Thus, in case of an impaired nervous system, subjects may not take advantage of the intuitive benefits of wide stance due to increased neural delay, inappropriate contextual modulation, or increased sensorimotor noise [31].

 

While this is a study conducted on the ability of older, healthy adults to maintain balance, there are several relevant findings and explanations of body systems that hold true regardless of age or the activity being performed. Of note, a wider stance provides more stability because of the way the human body is oriented when standing and the way our body's weight is distributed, and there are no magical variations in line with the Wright Balance ruler for people at which a narrower then wider then narrower stance becomes more efficient for maintaining balance. Only for those who have some kind of nervous system impairment is the benefit of a wider stance in maintaining balance lost.

 

What this study, and a related one, demonstrated as well is that while wider stances do provide more stability, the tension, increases in stiffness, and reduction in the ability for certain structural changes to occur as quickly does mean there are diminishing returns for correcting excess movements that have or will get the body in a less-than-ideal position. In other words, a narrower stance, while less stable as the width decreases, can more readily provide sensory output to the brain that something is off, requiring more total movement for correction than a wider stance. A wider stance, while less able to give the same level of feedback to the brain as width increases, is more stable than a narrow one, and while less mobile, can accomplish correction with less total movement. It is a literal balancing act of finding what works for the given person based on their body structure, their sensory capacity, and their movement tendencies.

 

Also interesting is that balance--specifically frontal plane sway--while employing narrower stances appears to be affected by visual cues, while balance appears unaffected by visual cues when taking a wider stance.

 

Nothing in studies I found at all corroborates the claims of the Wright Balance system. Your own experience says it's inconsistent in even doing what it espouses to do, identifying a core from which a golfer should base their setup, including stance width, for consistent results. If you want to go on believing it might be valid in spite of no published, peer-reviewed data showing that it is and actual published, peer-reviewed data showing that it isn't then that is your choice to do so.

Well said.

 

gate is wide open for a response!

[Nels55]

Here is a quick look at upper, mid and lower core mechanics:

 

[Nels55]

A quick explanation of the 3 cores:

What core are you?

[Pnwpingi210]

43 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

A quick explanation of the 3 cores:

What core are you?

Hardcore

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Hardcore

 

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