I have been trying to educate myself with TGM concepts this past season.
One concept that gets me drawn to ABS is the pivot powered swing and having the pivot as the source of the force to drive the club.
Thus the pivot driven lever assembly …is much superior than Homer’s secondary or primary lever.
IMO the secondary and primary lever in conjunction with class 3 lever system works well for the short game but not for any type of full swing.
The force being the pivot, the weight being the club and the fulcrum somewhere in the middle specifically the left shoulder makes much more mechanically sense to hit the ball well.
One may argue that this is no longer a class 3 lever but a class 1 lever system where the power is conserved to the outlet …the club.
welcome dlam,
here’s a thread with some info regarding your post
click above link
I read that thread a few times and it’s the only thread that deals the problem of Homer’s assembly unit as it relates to the full swing.
The simple lever system can’t be apply perfectly to the human body as we are not straight levers like a hammer or a rowing oar.
However where the effort is created, where the fulcrum is and where the force is applied can be assigned.
The concept that the weight/load is the club rather than the end of the lever(clubface/ball) , the effort being the pivot and the fulcrum is the shoulder girdle is a good place to start.
I propose the left arm by itself to be the lever from the shoulder to wrist only.
The weight would be the club and the hands would be clamps.
The source of the power would be the pivot and the fulcrum would be the left shoulder.
This would be far different lever assembly system taught in TGM
I think if it benefits a person to see the action as a class 1 lever, then that’s the way they should see it- it’s a strong and valuable image. I don’t think it is, purely, nor do I see a necessity to put it into a box like that. At the end of the day, it’s possible that the club is the only real lever, and the left hand and it’s power sources are the force, while the right hand and it’s power sources are the fulcrum(a fulcrum with force?)- the load would be the clubhead and then the clubhead/ball combination. I think shaft flex and force are easier to create with this concept, than with purely rotating pivot/torso, hand clamp acceleration. Not sure if that sounds swingery, but I don’t think it does. It feels leveragey to me. It’s a gradual, constantly driven thing through the zone, not a sling and dump thing. There is distance between the hands even if it’s not visible or even felt, and that distance is the thing I think. I see this as part of the reason it’s so important to keep the sides moving all the time during the real acceleration. I’m not a physics guy, but that’s my sense of it.
The rotation of the torso… with support and assistance from the hips, legs, and feet, is going to have dual fulcrums in both shoulder sockets.
The forearm rotation is going to work in unison with vertical wristcock, with fulcrums in the hands at various points, moving the mass of the golf club including the shaft.
Post impact, we are dealing with shoulders that act more as motorized arm sockets working against the mass of the clubhead.
The torso acts as the master and overlaps the other two which act as subsets… meaning their function has a more limited time interval than the pivot which is always working.
Great description. I reckon the point I was trying to make is that it is what it is, as such. There’s a case for claiming that technically that’s not a class 1 lever, but it doesn’t have to be to be valid and good. It could be it’s own new lever assembly and that’s cool. It’s got traits of one, and conceptually, it’s a good image to say that it’s a class 1 lever, but to me, that’s not why it’s valid. It’s valid because it’s valid, not because it’s a class 1 lever. I guess, in a way, it does it a disservice to claim that it’s class 1, because people might say that it isn’t, so therefore, it’s not valid.
There was a point when lever classes didn’t exist, but the levers did, and I’m sure people used them because they were useful. Documenting and categorizing happenings can be valuable, but also limiting because not everything has been documenting. So relying on documentation to prove the existence of something, is a very strange formula, and one that I don’t prescribe to. Maybe it should just be called a Lag Lever. There it is, it’s been named. You’ve just changed the course of physical reality. Congrats.
I’m having some difficulty trying to decide how to use the shoulder sockets as fulcrums properly…dual fulcrum with the torso acting as the master certainly explains how golfers start the forward swing with the hips and lower core then the shoulder follow.
Some days I feel I want to lead with my left shoulder and other days I want to fire my right shoulder…leading to rhythmic disturbances in my swing and alignment problems.
Any ideas of solving this?
Lock em both to the torso on the downswing until post impact…then copy the greats or enroll in ABS
One way to solve the dual shoulder fulcrum problem is just assign one shoulder to lead in the forward swing.
This will depend largely on the whether I want divot or sweep action on the ball.
I also think rhythm might change but if I keep the overall tempo the same then I wouldn’t have any rhythmic disturbances.
I like the early wrist hinge in the backswing. This seems to promote good tempo.
You may also want to read the LTLGM thread-pages brought over from ISEEK which are stored within the walls of ABS. There is a wealth of insight there. If you understand, and can execute, Homer’s drive and drag functions, then what you read there will stand out like a sore thumb…or put more eloquently: Homer gave us the donut and Lag shows where the hole is! 
RR
I find that TGM has some useful concepts for the short game. But trying to decipher Homer’s code for the full swing is not like DaVinci’s code. There is no holy grail.
Homer gave golfers something to nibble at. And like you said it is like swiss chess. It is full of holes. Though some golfers seem satisfied by the mechanical explanation. I am not. This leads me here.
The pivot is the main assembly unit
Once you lock the shoulders into the torso by squeezing the armpits tight, how can you move one shoulder without moving the other? Once they are cohesively connected, they will then function more as a coat hanger than independent ball joints.
You can certainly think about one or the other, but if one moves the other will move.
I think the dual shoulder fulcrum concept is anything but a problem. Use it to your advantage.
Think of it this way.
Or you can assign the lower torso movement rotating on top of the hips, then working against their resisting forces.
The hands- forearm rotation have their own lever system that work as their own motors mounted on the ends of the arms (spokes)
Generally speaking, the arms have very little to do with a proper golf swing. The right elbow folds, and unfolds and how that is properly done needs some attention. But the golf swing is best to happen through proper torso rotation, and forearm rotation, and wrist cock protocols.
The shoulders as a coat hanger is a great analogy!
I notice there are some differences getting the coathanger (shoulders/arm/head unit) beyond the hitting area.
Westwood keeps his head and eyes way behind the ball during and after impact and the left elbow stays bent.
Furyk/Duval looks a foot or two ahead of the ball through impact and keeps a straight left arm.
What are your preferences?
In order for the pivot to be the master assembly, I believe that the pivot must initiate the swing and be the conductor of the orchestra.
This means rhythm as expressed RPM is controlled by the speed of one’s torso turning.
The shoulder-arm-club arc mechanism and wrist hinge mechanism have to be in tempo with the pivot.