I don't think it describes enough outcomes to stand the test of time
I'm predicting in the not so distant future that the D plane will be replaced by a very similar but more inclusive model. I don't think it describes enough outcomes to stand the test of time.
Been away for awhile but I'm curious on your thoughts.
are you assuming a model that would account for toe/heel/bottom/top hits....?
i assume tuxen has this data cold, and he could adjust his model to be as precise as john graham's students want...
Brian is the D plane like Lynn Blake is Yoda and james Ridyard is golfswingrebel
i'm going to take the other side of this prediction....
the D-plane is more precise than most want in the first place.....to replace it with something more precise would be white noise
Yes on all counts. The top vector is just wrong. Data is not a model though.
data is definitely not a model....but a model could be reverse engineered quite easily
hold on for more discussion about the top vector
data is definitely not a model....but a model could be reverse engineered quite easily
hold on for more discussion about the top vector
Rallying the troops? =) This will be fun if nothing else. =)
not rallying.....taking care of a member in the shop.....
lift forces being wrong...you're gonna have to be more specific on these before i take the other side of your argument
he knows to the dimple, the precise effect that an off center hit has on the ball's initial flight....
Initial flight or effect on spin axis or both?
i would asume both.....
so back to your original statement....the d place will be replaced by a theory that will explain center and off center hits...is that what you're saying?