Ravenous Bugblatter Beast
Deep in thought
- Sep 6, 2005
- 1,189
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #106
Well, like I said previously, the difference in how we were thinking about was in terms of our starting assumptions about how to view it.bdcrowe said:I'm interested in your final decision on this, since you've moved to the finer points of the lessons.
You were viewing it in terms of the ball having a fixed position, and the feet being altered.
I was getting the same sort of stance idea, but working with a different assumption to start. My feet would have fixed positions, and the ball would "move" in response to that.
I now work from the starting assumptions you were using, positioning my left heel to the fixed position of the ball, then adjusting my right foot according to the club I'm using.
Both sets of starting assumptions are valid to use, but this way now is probably easier to figure in the head. It's almost like the decision between using a heliocentric solar system model or using a geocentric solar system model to describe things. NASA could use a geocentric solar system model to calculate flight plans for its rockets, it would just be horrendously complex to do so in comparison to using the sun at the center of the solar system.
That might not be exactly what you wanted to hear, but that's how I tend to think about it. And the analogy isn't exactly a perfect comparison either, but it's hard sometimes to try to talk to people about the idea of starting assumptions shaping our thinking and conclusions, whether it's about the golf swing, or more philosophical debate.