Arc vs. angle
- Thread starter mgjordan
- Start date
- Status
Yes Brian, do explain Homer's concept about arc and angle of approach, but using the current scientific knowledge that I am about to provide you.
In Chapter 2, Homer illustrates what he perceives to be happening between Impact and Separation of the golf ball and clubhead. He draws a geometric difference between the arc path and arc chord that he believes occurs during the Impact event. Let's do some simple trigonometry to better understand on what scale of dimension we are dealing with in real life.
The Impact event has a duration of 0.4ms (or 4 / 10,000th of a second). New science reveals that the compression phase is about half that or 0.2ms, while the rebound or recovery stage is the remainder. So the Line of Compression can only be applied in half the time and space that Homer thought.
Since the the Impact even occurs in less than half the diameter of the golf ball, the Separation occurs even before the club leading edge reaches the Tee !!!!!! Let us say for convenience that the Impact event occurs in 3/4" of Swing Arc (even though Compression occurs in half that distance or 3/8"). So what is the Radius of the Swing arc? Well Homer tells us it is the Left shoulder, and since a driver may be 45" and the arm length may be 30", the Swing Radius is 75" in total.
So now we have a triangle consisting of two 75" radii between initial Impact and Separation and a base of 3/4". Using simple trigonometry, we can determine that the Angle swept by the Arm-Club radius is only 35 minutes (one degree = 60 minutes) of angle!!
I must reasonably conclude that the difference between the Arc and the Chord between Impact and Separation is insignificantly small, so that there is no significant difference between Angle of Attack and Arc of Attack .... at least not on the human level. Try to manipulate that ... !!!!!
It is a pity that Homer was not aware of trigonometric calculations that would have made him think twice before drawing those grossly out-of-scale sketches in Chapter 2, showing us something that doesn't really exist in applicable reality.
Now it's your turn, Brian .... give em hell .....
In Chapter 2, Homer illustrates what he perceives to be happening between Impact and Separation of the golf ball and clubhead. He draws a geometric difference between the arc path and arc chord that he believes occurs during the Impact event. Let's do some simple trigonometry to better understand on what scale of dimension we are dealing with in real life.
The Impact event has a duration of 0.4ms (or 4 / 10,000th of a second). New science reveals that the compression phase is about half that or 0.2ms, while the rebound or recovery stage is the remainder. So the Line of Compression can only be applied in half the time and space that Homer thought.
Since the the Impact even occurs in less than half the diameter of the golf ball, the Separation occurs even before the club leading edge reaches the Tee !!!!!! Let us say for convenience that the Impact event occurs in 3/4" of Swing Arc (even though Compression occurs in half that distance or 3/8"). So what is the Radius of the Swing arc? Well Homer tells us it is the Left shoulder, and since a driver may be 45" and the arm length may be 30", the Swing Radius is 75" in total.
So now we have a triangle consisting of two 75" radii between initial Impact and Separation and a base of 3/4". Using simple trigonometry, we can determine that the Angle swept by the Arm-Club radius is only 35 minutes (one degree = 60 minutes) of angle!!
I must reasonably conclude that the difference between the Arc and the Chord between Impact and Separation is insignificantly small, so that there is no significant difference between Angle of Attack and Arc of Attack .... at least not on the human level. Try to manipulate that ... !!!!!
It is a pity that Homer was not aware of trigonometric calculations that would have made him think twice before drawing those grossly out-of-scale sketches in Chapter 2, showing us something that doesn't really exist in applicable reality.
Now it's your turn, Brian .... give em hell .....
Brian Manzella
Administrator
The curved blur of the clubhead, or its actual curved path (same thing), is the arc of approach.
To 'execute' this arc, try to 'draw' that precise arc with the clubhead.
That's it.
The line between where you contact the ball and LOW POINT (horton) is the angle of approach.
That line 'keeps going' out to right field to infinity.
To 'execute' that, try to make the clubhead move on that line.
The key word is TRY (horton).
Is that simple enough?
To 'execute' this arc, try to 'draw' that precise arc with the clubhead.
That's it.
The line between where you contact the ball and LOW POINT (horton) is the angle of approach.
That line 'keeps going' out to right field to infinity.
To 'execute' that, try to make the clubhead move on that line.
The key word is TRY (horton).
Is that simple enough?
Yeah! All the Pros carry around trigonomic equations on the Tour. I was talking to a Tour caddie the other day and he blamed most of the slow play on tour, on them. I really feel kind of cheated that Homer didn't have pages and pages of them. They're captivating for the typical audience of a golf book!
Its really not necassary when someone posts in the, "Ask Brian" section, You have to qualify how he's supposed to answer them. You couldn't be a bigger Geeber, if you tried!
Its really not necassary when someone posts in the, "Ask Brian" section, You have to qualify how he's supposed to answer them. You couldn't be a bigger Geeber, if you tried!
Thanks Brian, and could you please be a bit more explicit than "TRY". It is pretty well accepted that you cannot manipulate the Impact Event due to the rapidity and short distance involved (not that I want to split hairs).
Brian Manzella responds:
No kidding.
The 'manipulation' you talk about, but obviously do not understand, happens WAY BEFORE the impact interval.
However, Homer seems to define the Angle of Approach as starting with the approx 3/4" Chord distance between Impact and Separation. You seem to be defining it as starting well before Impact, because you don't have enough time in the Impact Event (0.04ms) to TRY anything.
Brian Manzella responds:
No kidding.
Read the book. The arc and the angle are PRECISELY determined from imapct to low point (low point, BTW, is WAY past impact in some strokes), but extended back and through for application.
Obviously I have erred by confusing Attack with Approach, but that may not be significant to my analysis because both have the Left Shoulder as their Instantaneous Center from Impact to Separation Positions ..... Unless there is some other definitions to Arc and Approach that I am unaware of. From the definitions in the Glossary the only difference seems to be the viewing angle.
Thanks for your patience, and now if you could TRY to reconcile Fact with Feel that would be appreciated.
Brian Manzella responds:
I just did.
Brian Manzella responds:
No kidding.
The 'manipulation' you talk about, but obviously do not understand, happens WAY BEFORE the impact interval.
However, Homer seems to define the Angle of Approach as starting with the approx 3/4" Chord distance between Impact and Separation. You seem to be defining it as starting well before Impact, because you don't have enough time in the Impact Event (0.04ms) to TRY anything.
Brian Manzella responds:
No kidding.
Read the book. The arc and the angle are PRECISELY determined from imapct to low point (low point, BTW, is WAY past impact in some strokes), but extended back and through for application.
Obviously I have erred by confusing Attack with Approach, but that may not be significant to my analysis because both have the Left Shoulder as their Instantaneous Center from Impact to Separation Positions ..... Unless there is some other definitions to Arc and Approach that I am unaware of. From the definitions in the Glossary the only difference seems to be the viewing angle.
Thanks for your patience, and now if you could TRY to reconcile Fact with Feel that would be appreciated.
Brian Manzella responds:
I just did.
Brian is a big boy and he doesn't need your advice on responding to my challenging and invigorating science-based commentary on his fine forum. And fyi, TGM is a "golf book" that proclaims Trigonometry as a 1-A LAW on Page 1. ..... so why are you dissing Homer himself?????
Just because I am struggling to understand TGM from the Foreword to Page 43, doesn't mean you should pop in and insult me at every opportunity. I appreciate that Brian is a qualified GSED AI, and I wish you would stop acting as his beard on this fine forum that is open to controversial thought about TGM. Perhaps you would be happier on another TGM forum where no dissenting thought is permitted for commercial reasons.
Brian is a brave and honorable person to tolerate me on his forum. Now if you would only be so courteous as to refrain from making personal attacks that do nothing to advance TGM.
Who's question was this, MGJordon or Horton's? Horton's ready to move on to the next thread jack and we don't even know if MG has a grasp on this yet? Not to mention, unlike Horton who is worried about fact over feel, MG probably wants to get better at golf. Isn't this what this forum is about?
Interesting question because it seems that according to 2-C-1 Swingers Hinging, both arc and angle of approach are utilized. Perhaps brianman could also include an explanation of Basic Planes and Hinge Motion 2-G as it may apply to swinging, hitting and the various angles and arcs of attack and approach. A simplified explanation tying them all together would of course be appreciated. Thanks.
Brian Manzella response: Read below post with quote, to MG's question.
New science has shown that Homer's concept of Line of Compression is incorrect, and nobody seems concerned except me !!!
Brian Manzella responds:
The Line of Compression is simply the line the SWEETSPOT travels through the ball. Period. OK??
Homer thought that the LOC was maintained thoughout the Impact Interval, but now we know that it is only applicable during HALF the time and distance, because the ball only compresses for half the time and then rebounds back to shape before it Separates in the other half. When the ball starts to recover from the Compression of Impact it is Rebounding back to shape without being influenced by the clubhead. The LOC dissolves away half way through the Impact Interval.
Brian Manzella responds:
No. Even if the ball were made of COTTON, there would STILL be a Line of Compresion. Read above.
So much for Homer's Line of Compression, which he calls "The Principle of Golf".
Brian Manzella responds:
If the line the that sweetspot of the golf club moves through the ball is not THE SINGLE BASIC MOST IMPORTANT THING, IF NOT NEARLY THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, then I am at a total loss.
So much for the concept of Linear Force and the incorrect Vector Diagrams. So much for the "production and manipulation of the LOC" according to Homer. Homer and TGM desperately need friends.
Brian Manzella responds:
Do you understand what the LOC is now, Horton,. good buddy??
But for most on this forum, Homer's Science is not worth spit to them because they were either spoonfed the TGM Method or cobbled together their homemade golfswing based on their interpretation of the book. Sometimes I think I am wasting my keyboard on this forum. Blissfully ignorant people are only concerned with superficial results and not with scientific substance. G'nite ...... [|)]
Brian Manzella responds:
Actually, your post are WORTHLESS in this matter becuase you didn't understand two very basic things:
The line of Compression is a line that will always exist.
And everyone who has EVER swung at a ball and made contact, produced and manipulated this line.
OK???
Please tell me you understand[8D]
Brian Manzella responds:
The Line of Compression is simply the line the SWEETSPOT travels through the ball. Period. OK??
Homer thought that the LOC was maintained thoughout the Impact Interval, but now we know that it is only applicable during HALF the time and distance, because the ball only compresses for half the time and then rebounds back to shape before it Separates in the other half. When the ball starts to recover from the Compression of Impact it is Rebounding back to shape without being influenced by the clubhead. The LOC dissolves away half way through the Impact Interval.
Brian Manzella responds:
No. Even if the ball were made of COTTON, there would STILL be a Line of Compresion. Read above.
So much for Homer's Line of Compression, which he calls "The Principle of Golf".
Brian Manzella responds:
If the line the that sweetspot of the golf club moves through the ball is not THE SINGLE BASIC MOST IMPORTANT THING, IF NOT NEARLY THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, then I am at a total loss.
So much for the concept of Linear Force and the incorrect Vector Diagrams. So much for the "production and manipulation of the LOC" according to Homer. Homer and TGM desperately need friends.
Brian Manzella responds:
Do you understand what the LOC is now, Horton,. good buddy??
But for most on this forum, Homer's Science is not worth spit to them because they were either spoonfed the TGM Method or cobbled together their homemade golfswing based on their interpretation of the book. Sometimes I think I am wasting my keyboard on this forum. Blissfully ignorant people are only concerned with superficial results and not with scientific substance. G'nite ...... [|)]
Brian Manzella responds:
Actually, your post are WORTHLESS in this matter becuase you didn't understand two very basic things:
The line of Compression is a line that will always exist.
And everyone who has EVER swung at a ball and made contact, produced and manipulated this line.
OK???
Please tell me you understand[8D]
Jim Cook
New
You are wasting your time.
Science as you know it means NOTHING! Most of us on this board, based on the comments I've seen, want the Engineering of golf. That is, the APPLICATION of science. Science by its self does not apply to the real world. Homer has listed every possible practicle method of applying sicence (Engineering) to the golf swing.
His line of compression, as he lists it is true. It does disappear as the ball rebounds to its original shape but the line of compression is of PRACTICLE use.
Interestingly enough, in TGM Homer uses the word "Science" many times, but only refers to "Engineering" only once in 1-J (page 6)!!!
Homer thinks of Science as basic to TGM and even states (on page 3)::
"Scientific Golf means you can never consider the game an enigma."
These are wise words from a wise man, and you should read and study them more intensively before you post anything else on this fine forum.
In section 1-J, Homer talks about an "Engineering System" that isolates and coordinates the factors and components in TGM as you allude to. He also refers to a "Feel System" as indispensable to put it all together. More wisdom from Homer.
So Homer believed that Science was necessary to eliminate enigmas, and a combined Engineering and Feel Systems to bring it together. It's a pity that most hackers reject Science and forever "consider the game an enigma" all according to Homer, and which so glaringly shows up on this fine forum.
Now what do you think about the scientific geometric aspects of Angle and Arc of Approach?
Brian Manzella responds again:
Looks like you may have learned how wrong you were.
Ignorance, and you had plenty with Mr. Kelley's work, is a fixable problem, Horton, dear...and today you just got smarter, thanks to your host...
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Because the HITTER is powering the stroke WITH a straight line EFFORT.
And the SWINGER is trying to "SPIN A FLYWHEEL."
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
Actually you are BOTH WRONG...the proper grammatically correct sentence would read "....the correct usage should have been the plural "ones."
Horton is right that the word "would" should have been "should" lol.
should refers to past tense and because you are using a past tense the verb to be needs to be in past tense as well so instead of Horton's correction of "should be" it needed to be "should have been."
Jim_0068 signing out
A+ in writing and english
Horton is right that the word "would" should have been "should" lol.
should refers to past tense and because you are using a past tense the verb to be needs to be in past tense as well so instead of Horton's correction of "should be" it needed to be "should have been."
Jim_0068 signing out
A+ in writing and english
- Status