Do these 2 parallel developments share the same origin?

[wulsy]

First let me restate that I am 100% in agreement with Brian's post, no issue and great information.

Maybe trivial -however understanding the context of a statement or manipulating contexts for the researcher are important issues. In addition, if you assume a given context and your student is looking at it from a different context then you'll never be able to communicate it clearly to them.

#1 assumes the context of any one particular swing - on a constant particular plane. So you imagine a plane and the clubhead traveling on a circle (close enough) on that plane. The more the clubhead moves vertical during the orbit say at halfway down you measure it's movement for 8 inches of the orbit - the more out it moves, compared to the more horizontal it moves for that same particular distance (say 8 inches around low point) the less out it moves.

Here is the context where that statement would be incorrect. If you are comparing resultant paths of two swings. One swing is flat and one is on an upright plane. We compare these two resultant paths at the same section of the orbit - say halfway down when the clubhead is making it's most direct vertical line at the plane line. Now, when you were to talk about these two resultant paths - here would be the correct answer in this context - more down equals less out and more up equals less in, i.e. steeper plane for any particular distance of travel has less out than the same distance on a flatter plane.

#2 As Golfdad alludes to - the idea of swinging left - can be a confusing concept without a clear understanding of the context. Aiming the plane line left of the target (on paper) would be necessary with a descending blow with an iron in order to hit a straight shot at the target. But is "swinging left" the best term for that? And what are the other contexts that someone could use "swing left" in?

Certainly in the context of the clubhead- we don't want that swinging left at impact - needs to be moving right at the target or "On-line". Even with your plane line a few degrees left, a player could move his hands and arms in relation to his trunk/body where he could sense that he was swinging left or right of his "body", even if they move more left of the target line than a square plane. That's the biggest potential mis-cure takeaway for somebody - that they'd actually swing more left in relation to their body in order to achieve "swinging left". So the context in #2 is to say the plane line direction is aimed left in relation to the target. "Swinging left" is not a correct context for the clubhead movement through impact or necessarily the movement or feel of the hands, arms or club in relation to the midline of the body.

Not a bad post Mike. Some things which you describe are a bit too obvious, but there are a couple of very astute obsevations. B+

My answer that 1 + 2 don't apply when the clubhead is well above plane is however the definitve answer to your original question. Can I have an A+?

 

[wulsy]

Brian hits the nail on the head with "things we didn't know"! And could NEVER see, I might add...

Brian is without a doubt one of the best internet broadcasters. He has a talent for talking and describing the golf swing. Always entertaining and informative. He is also, I would guess, a great teacher. Never seen him in action but I would put money on it that he's one of a small group who was "born to teach". As I said somewhere else on this forum, I liked Brian's presentation style from a coupla years ago. He was the alpha male of u toob golf videos: the only guy you could watch for more than 90 secs. I just find he's not quite as cool now, seems to be just worshipping the scienctists.

Brian, since you haven't banned me for my insolence, I'll give you tip on how to regain your former coolness: worship the SCIENCE not the SCIENTISTS.

 

[golfdad]

Mike 0, I didn't know! Honestly.

Are you a high school math teacher by any chance? You sound like one, ie you write as if you are talking to a child.

Brian did not invent the "D-plane" concept. Brian was not the first, or even one of the first, users of Trackman. Brian taught golf firstly from an intuitive/traditional standpoint and then became heavily TGM influenced. Then he went beyond this and realised for example that releasing the club in the way he has described would not make the ball go left. All good, and Brian is bringing these ideas to his forum.

But do you honestly think that no-one else ever, in the history of golf/golf instruction came to these conclusions? Anyone who believes that is very naive.

Wulsy, I think you have a point and made it plenty clear. But I don't see where you are going with this, dwelling on who and what they might have known prior to the hard data from trackman and the making sense of the hard data. Have you seen that Hogan drawing illustrating his feet alignment for each club?

It is not unlike someone coughing up a storm and spitting out blood and some can make a guess that there is a lung infection and treat it accordingly, without means for further verification. Then comes along X ray, which confirms this prior suspicion. Is there really a point now looking back and saying that see, i knew prior to X ray there must be something going on in the lungs?

How about data on where in the lung, how extensive inside the lung, or if it is spreading outside the lung,,,?

With Trackman data and correct interpretation, the management is more precise and more importantly, accurate and reliable.

An older gentleman teacher who is otherwise very very smart but visually impaired due to cataracts can now rely on the Trackman!

 

[golfdad]

First let me restate that I am 100% in agreement with Brian's post, no issue and great information.

Maybe trivial -however understanding the context of a statement or manipulating contexts for the researcher are important issues. In addition, if you assume a given context and your student is looking at it from a different context then you'll never be able to communicate it clearly to them.

#1 assumes the context of any one particular swing - on a constant particular plane. So you imagine a plane and the clubhead traveling on a circle (close enough) on that plane. The more the clubhead moves vertical during the orbit say at halfway down you measure it's movement for 8 inches of the orbit - the more out it moves, compared to the more horizontal it moves for that same particular distance (say 8 inches around low point) the less out it moves.

Here is the context where that statement would be incorrect. If you are comparing resultant paths of two swings. One swing is flat and one is on an upright plane. We compare these two resultant paths at the same section of the orbit - say halfway down when the clubhead is making it's most direct vertical line at the plane line. Now, when you were to talk about these two resultant paths - here would be the correct answer in this context - more down equals less out and more up equals less in, i.e. steeper plane for any particular distance of travel has less out than the same distance on a flatter plane.

#2 As Golfdad alludes to - the idea of swinging left - can be a confusing concept without a clear understanding of the context. Aiming the plane line left of the target (on paper) would be necessary with a descending blow with an iron in order to hit a straight shot at the target. But is "swinging left" the best term for that? And what are the other contexts that someone could use "swing left" in?

Certainly in the context of the clubhead- we don't want that swinging left at impact - needs to be moving right at the target or "On-line". Even with your plane line a few degrees left, a player could move his hands and arms in relation to his trunk/body where he could sense that he was swinging left or right of his "body", even if they move more left of the target line than a square plane. That's the biggest potential mis-cure takeaway for somebody - that they'd actually swing more left in relation to their body in order to achieve "swinging left". So the context in #2 is to say the plane line direction is aimed left in relation to the target. "Swinging left" is not a correct context for the clubhead movement through impact or necessarily the movement or feel of the hands, arms or club in relation to the midline of the body.

Hello Mike, thank you for continuing sharing your knowledge. Perhaps you can clarify couple things for me.

Brian wrote: "More Down equals more out/ More up equals more in."

From your discussion on that line, it seems to me you are thinking of a larger segment of the swing loop, but I thought he was talking about the resultant path at and immediately right after impact, thus, with irons, the more downward the impact, the more right the ball goes (thus, "out") and with drivers, the more up one strikes, the more left the ball goes (thus, "in"). In other words, I thought he defines the resultant path STARTING at the impact, not prior.

In another thread later (sorry, don't know how to quote it into this post), I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying that, all else being equal, a flatter swing, with irons, will lead to a more right-ward resultant path, when comparing with a more vertical swing?

 

[Brian Manzella]

First.

I was doing a quick and dirty list. I am actually given a talk on that subject in a few days. I promise I'll be slightly more exact than one line for each idea.

The great thing about the internet is that your words are time stamped. So, go find me the person who talked about the resultant path before Fredrik Tuxen, or talked about it at length before me except and a couple of others.

I really think it is funny how obvious it is supposed to be now.

It just wasn't.

 

[Michael Jacobs]

When we discuss the Resultant Path the Vertical Swing Plane is included in the term. It's already included in the definition..

 

[Mike O]

Mike 0, I didn't know! Honestly.

Are you a high school math teacher by any chance? You sound like one, ie you write as if you are talking to a child.

Brian did not invent the "D-plane" concept. Brian was not the first, or even one of the first, users of Trackman. Brian taught golf firstly from an intuitive/traditional standpoint and then became heavily TGM influenced. Then he went beyond this and realised for example that releasing the club in the way he has described would not make the ball go left. All good, and Brian is bringing these ideas to his forum.

But do you honestly think that no-one else ever, in the history of golf/golf instruction came to these conclusions? Anyone who believes that is very naive.

Wulsy,
Back up from the blackboard a little and you'll understand why I'm not agreeing with you. (That's a joke with a little bit of truth, not meant to get you worked up). If you read his post - the "nobody knew" was just referring to "swinging left". Here is why I think nobody knew, because if you read, review every golf book around let's just say prior to 10 years ago, I never saw anyone comment that a plane needed to be aimed left to hit a ball straight. Then to give you some validation for your "nobody knew" - I defined it as ten people or less, which could include Jorgensen and 9 others. Aiming the plane left, takes really an integration of A) Golfing Machine Plane + B) D-plane/Trackman, so you don't have the Machiners saying aim your plane left and you don't really have D-plane people saying aiming your plane left because they're not thinking swing plane. (could be wrong on that but trying to make a point)

However, here is where our perspectives are really different in response to Brian's post, in my opinion. It appears to me that you took his post to say to some degree "No one knew this stuff before me" (Brian). IMO Brian can be over the top on some of that stuff - and it can be irritating - so I get your response in that context. However, please note that he wasn't saying that at all, in addition, he's always acknowledged his sources i.e. D-plane, Trackman. I've said before that I think it is the right approach to always be learning, growing and I have liked Brian's approach in that manner.

That's the best I can do for a reply.

 

[Mike O]

When we discuss the Resultant Path the Vertical Swing Plane is included in the term. It's already included in the definition..

Understood Mike, still the quote wouldn't apply if you are comparing two swings however as I said maybe trivial - so we can skip over it.

 

[Mike O]

Hello Mike, thank you for continuing sharing your knowledge. Perhaps you can clarify couple things for me.

Brian wrote: "More Down equals more out/ More up equals more in."

From your discussion on that line, it seems to me you are thinking of a larger segment of the swing loop, but I thought he was talking about the resultant path at and immediately right after impact, thus, with irons, the more downward the impact, the more right the ball goes (thus, "out") and with drivers, the more up one strikes, the more left the ball goes (thus, "in"). In other words, I thought he defines the resultant path STARTING at the impact, not prior.QUOTE]

As Brian said - he was just posting one liners. Part of the confusion I guess and certainly you bring up a good point in regards to my post. I took it to me the direction of the clubhead movement, the more it's moving down on the plane AT IMPACT, the more out to the right the clubhead would be moving, in other words, IF you played the ball way back in your stance you've essentially moved it back up the plane on the loop and now at impact the clubhead is moving far to the right of your square plane line. Hope that quick answer showed where my mind was at on that - not that it was in the right spot or not So I was thinking of the clubhead path, and if you play it further back you change the orientation of it's path to the target without changing the direction of the swing plane. The RESULTANT PATH I believe refers to the starting direction of the ball flight based on clubface, clubpath direction, impact location on the clubface - so I just assumed that in regards to RESULTANT PATH of the ball, Brian was pointing out the affect of the clubhead direction - and how more down affects the direction of the clubhead - the two are tied together i.e. down and out, due to the plane angle and circular arc of the clubhead.

 

[Mike O]

Hello Mike, thank you for continuing sharing your knowledge. Perhaps you can clarify couple things for me.

In another thread later (sorry, don't know how to quote it into this post), I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying that, all else being equal, a flatter swing, with irons, will lead to a more right-ward resultant path, when comparing with a more vertical swing?

YES - However I don't have the degree of understanding on these things as Brian - so if I happen to be wrong someone will correct me.

 

[Mike O]

Not a bad post Mike. Some things which you describe are a bit too obvious, but there are a couple of very astute obsevations. B+

My answer that 1 + 2 don't apply when the clubhead is well above plane is however the definitve answer to your original question. Can I have an A+?

Not a teacher so I don't give out grades Seriously, couldn't follow it, it's certainly a different answer than mine. I do get confused when I hear "well above plane", what plane?, in relation to what? the club is going to be on some plane and if you measure it's movement on that consistent plane - say during release - assuming a consistent plane then #1 and #2 apply. Are you talking plane shifts?

 

[golfdad]

Thanks Mike for your explanations and now I understand where you are coming from.

It is interesting that you were talking about backing up the loop a bit, if you will, as well as angle of attack, since yesterday when I took my kid out, I encouraged her to play the round with only her six iron (and her putter as well), because the wind was picking up and I wanted her to start experimenting hitting 6 irons with the ball closer to the back foot for a lower ball flight under the wind. She did fairly ok with direction control (she has no idea about d-plane adjustment and I had nothing to ffer to her). But assuming she lined up the clubface sqaure at address and managed a "regular swing" with the ball more back in the stance, I would assume the angle of attack is more downward with this setup and the possible implications that comes with it was in operation... but who knows how she really really aligned the ball...and how she compensated,,,

Somehow I suspect if I start telling her about d-plane, she might tell me I am getting even more weird

 

[wulsy]

Wulsy,
Back up from the blackboard a little and you'll understand why I'm not agreeing with you. (That's a joke with a little bit of truth, not meant to get you worked up). If you read his post - the "nobody knew" was just referring to "swinging left". Here is why I think nobody knew, because if you read, review every golf book around let's just say prior to 10 years ago, I never saw anyone comment that a plane needed to be aimed left to hit a ball straight. Then to give you some validation for your "nobody knew" - I defined it as ten people or less, which could include Jorgensen and 9 others. Aiming the plane left, takes really an integration of A) Golfing Machine Plane + B) D-plane/Trackman, so you don't have the Machiners saying aim your plane left and you don't really have D-plane people saying aiming your plane left because they're not thinking swing plane. (could be wrong on that but trying to make a point)

However, here is where our perspectives are really different in response to Brian's post, in my opinion. It appears to me that you took his post to say to some degree "No one knew this stuff before me" (Brian). IMO Brian can be over the top on some of that stuff - and it can be irritating - so I get your response in that context. However, please note that he wasn't saying that at all, in addition, he's always acknowledged his sources i.e. D-plane, Trackman. I've said before that I think it is the right approach to always be learning, growing and I have liked Brian's approach in that manner.

That's the best I can do for a reply.

Nice reply.

 

[wulsy]

I took it to me the direction of the clubhead movement, the more it's moving down on the plane AT IMPACT, the more out to the right the clubhead would be moving, in other words, IF you played the ball way back in your stance you've essentially moved it back up the plane on the loop and now at impact the clubhead is moving far to the right of your square plane line. Hope that quick answer showed where my mind was at on that - not that it was in the right spot or not So I was thinking of the clubhead path, and if you play it further back you change the orientation of it's path to the target without changing the direction of the swing plane.

That's quite an interseting observation. Could it lead to a whole new concept of zeroing out, not by swinging left, but by widening the arc? Anyone thought of that already? Can I claim to be the first? Or is it already a factor in the "new" release idea?

 

[Mike O]

Thanks Mike for your explanations and now I understand where you are coming from.

It is interesting that you were talking about backing up the loop a bit, if you will, as well as angle of attack, since yesterday when I took my kid out, I encouraged her to play the round with only her six iron (and her putter as well), because the wind was picking up and I wanted her to start experimenting hitting 6 irons with the ball closer to the back foot for a lower ball flight under the wind. She did fairly ok with direction control (she has no idea about d-plane adjustment and I had nothing to ffer to her). But assuming she lined up the clubface sqaure at address and managed a "regular swing" with the ball more back in the stance, I would assume the angle of attack is more downward with this setup and the possible implications that comes with it was in operation... but who knows how she really really aligned the ball...and how she compensated,,,

Somehow I suspect if I start telling her about d-plane, she might tell me I am getting even more weird

Thanks Golfdad - love your approach.

Yes, if you only change ball position and nothing else - you change the angle of attack.

Yes, you don't need to understand the D-plane to go out, hit some balls different ways, gain experience and be able to hit any shot imaginable, at will. The results of the shot show you, tell you, if you created an impact condition that created a ball flight pattern that you wanted.

Early on in my career in order to hit the ball lower, the only way I did that was to move the ball back in my stance. Depending on what you are trying to do - still an option. However, sometimes there are issues with that, you put too much spin on the ball and the shot goes higher than you want it to, etc. In order to hit the ball lower - besides picking a club that doesn't have as much loft on it - my preferred technique is to not change the ball location but rather to just swing slowly and apply less power, thereby reducing compression, thereby reducing spin, which results in a low flying shot. For example, if it's really windy and I have 200 yards, I might take a three wood and baby it, hardly compress it, - that way it stays really low.

Just a thought for you.

I guess as a side effect of leaving the ball near where I hit it normally - I also have less d-plane issues, divergence issues, appropriate re-alignment issues to deal with.

 

[Mike O]

Nice reply.

Thanks,
Let's face it - email or forum discussions can be difficult, depending on how one writes, is percieved, etc. etc. Lots of time you have someone who doesn't realize how they come across, etc. etc. or is taken the wrong way, or doesn't have the time to sugar coat it, etc. I'm as guilty as anyone in that regard. I like that you don't just accept anything and keep on questioning, etc. I give you an A+ for independent thinking.

 

[wulsy]

Yeah Mike, nice to hear from someone who can see through the writing and surmise how it COULD have been taken if we had all been in one room. Consider yourself the best in the class. That boy will go far.

Just goes to show how much voice tone and body language/facial expression influences how we percieve things. I'll bet not many here would have been in the slightest offened or even irritated by most of my comments had we been able to see each other face to face.

But the occasional wulsy forum bashing perpetrated by a few here doesn't bother me at all. I'm not that sensitive, as you may have guessed.