Elbow Plane - Soft Draw Pattern

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cwdlaw223

New
I've swung on the TSP (turned shoulder plane) all my life and generally follow BMan's soft draw pattern. Am I correct that this pattern is not contingent upon the downswing being on the EP (elbow plane) and/or a CP release?

I've learned recently that swinging on the TSP causes more closure rate issues with the clubface than the EP, however, I just don't swing on the EP. I don't like bending over a lot and using my torso to go left with a CP type release. Also, I can hit the ball much further on the TSP than the EP with a CF release with my swing pattern. My body likes my hands to lift up on the backswing, not go around.
 
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
what is a CP release?

And to your original question, no, the pattern isn't dependent on the elbow plane. Nicklaus is a good example of someone who used soft draw (but modified to fade it) and he came down the TSP.
 
gmbtempe

gmbtempe

New
Jim Kobylinski said:
what is a CP release?

And to your original question, no, the pattern isn't dependent on the elbow plane. Nicklaus is a good example of someone who used soft draw (but modified to fade it) and he came down the TSP.
Click to expand...

came down yes, but not at impact he clearly is on the elbow plane.
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
CP = centripetal (hands closer to the body at and after impact - ex. Hogan)
CF = centrifugal (latin for "center fleeing" = hands away from the body and looks more "down the line" at and after impact - ex. Moe Norman)

I believe these are Morad based terms to describe different release types.
 
Last edited:
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
cwdlaw223 said:
I've swung on the TSP (turned shoulder plane) all my life and generally follow BMan's soft draw pattern. Am I correct that this pattern is not contingent upon the downswing being on the EP (elbow plane) and/or a CP release?

I've learned recently that swinging on the TSP causes more closure rate issues with the clubface than the EP, however, I just don't swing on the EP. I don't like bending over a lot and using my torso to go left with a CP type release. Also, I can hit the ball much further on the TSP than the EP with a CF release with my swing pattern. My body likes my hands to lift up on the backswing, not go around.
Click to expand...

I dont even know where to start with all this MORAD and TGM language. Good God!
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
I think the Morad and TGM language are very helpful in trying to describe various parts of a golf swing at once. I'll admit it takes a lot of effort to understand, however, the language is very useful once the definitions are understood.

Am I correct that the soft draw pattern is not contingent upon the downswing being on the EP (elbow plane)?
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Simplicity by omission is why golf instruction is where it is.

You can absolutely do the Soft Draw pattern without being on a lower path or plane angle.
 
S

SteveT

Guest
cwdlaw223 said:
CP = centripetal (hands closer to the body at and after impact - ex. Hogan)
CF = centrifugal (latin for "center fleeing" = hands away from the body and looks more "down the line" at and after impact - ex. Moe Norman)

I believe these are Morad based terms to describe different release types.
Click to expand...

This is a prime example of ignorance of scientific terminology applied to golfswing fantasies..!!!!

Centripetal and centrifugal are kinetic concepts, NOT applicable to the descriptive positional geometry definitions you provide.

Whoever supplied you with these definitions, gets a couple of big fat "FF"s ... F. Failure..!!!!

Another example of no great scientific minds in golf .. but it really doesn't matter because the recipients of this crap don't know any better ...!!!!:rolleyes:
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
Steve -

How about an answer to my question with your science?

I'm not a Morad, S&T and/ot TGM guy (more a BMan guy) and the words were clearly used to describe positions not kinetic movement. If you have two better words feel free to use them and maybe the rest of the world will catch on. The fact that these words are also used to describe kinetic motion (or force) doesn't mean the words should be ignored because they have scientific meaning in another context. I used these words in the context of desribing positions and not kinetic motion. To argue otherwise shows an arrogance in the flexibility of language itself.

Here is a good example of the context of words and how their meaning can be different depending upon the context. If you read the Old Testament you'll encounter the word honey with certain frequency. In biblical times honey was the best tasting food/dessert that man experienced and it was held with great reverence. This is lost on the use of the word honey in present society because we have so many more foods to choose from and honey doesn't give us the same experience. In the context of biblical scholarship the older definition of honey and the connotation it had is well known. Outside of biblical scholarship it isn't well known. Should only biblical scholars be allowed to use the word honey even if the meaning has changed and is useful in other settings?

I didn't use and/or imply the words were scientific. If you can get the rest of society to conform to your words I would be happy to use them. Of course, you would also have to tell us the words that you think are better at describing the different geometric positions between Hogan vs. Moe Norman instead of espousing "science" without presenting "science" that your science is correct.
 
S

SteveT

Guest
cwdlaw223 said:
Steve -

How about an answer to my question with your science?

I'm not a Morad, S&T and/or TGM guy (more a BMan guy) and the words were clearly used to describe positions not kinetic movement. If you have two better words feel free to use them and maybe the rest of the world will catch on. The fact that these words are also used to describe kinetic motion (or force) doesn't mean the words should be ignored because they have scientific meaning in another context. I used these words in the context of desribing positions and not kinetic motion. To argue otherwise shows an arrogance in the flexibility of language itself.
Click to expand...

My science is Newtonian Physics, and if you have a problem with that, go back to high school and college. :(

There is no "kinetic movement/motion" ... but there is "kinematic movement/motion" .... so you are wrong again ... :eek:

You want two better words??? .... try 'flinging' and 'slinging' or 'swinging' and 'hitting' ... and then I won't be able to criticize such vernacular ... ;)

Btw ... there is no 'flexibility' in scientific terminology ... if you are not correct, you are ignorant .. and if you refuse to learn, you descend into stupidity ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
S

SteveT

Guest
Kevin Shields said:
How about swinging away from the body or swinging across the body?
Click to expand...


Very good ... I like that ... how about "restricted" and "released" ... :D

How about "short" arm radius and "long" arm radius ..??

Or "tight" arms versus "windmilled" arms ..????
 
Last edited:
S

spktho

New
SteveT said:
Very good ... I like that ... how about "restricted" and "released" ... :D

How about "short" arm radius and "long" arm radius ..??

Or "tight" arms versus "windmilled" arms ..????
Click to expand...

Since it's describing motions of body parts why not use the established anatomical movement terms--adducted=toward the center(of the body), abducted=away from the center(of the body) ?
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
SteveT-

How about an answer to my original question? It shouldn't be hard with your science.

I highly recommend C.S. Lewis's writing titled Men without Chests. You appear to elevate science as having god like qualities and will be sadly disappointed when life isn't congruent with your science.

Kevin -

What are your thoughts about the elbow plane vs. turned shoulder plane in the soft draw pattern?
 
F

footwedge

New member
cwdlaw223 said:
SteveT-

How about an answer to my original question? It shouldn't be hard with your science.

I highly recommend C.S. Lewis's writing titled Men without Chests. You appear to elevate science as having god like qualities and will be sadly disappointed when life isn't congruent with your science.

Kevin -

What are your thoughts about the elbow plane vs. turned shoulder plane in the soft draw pattern?
Click to expand...


What are God like qualities? Do you mean infallible?
 
S

SteveT

Guest
spktho said:
Since it's describing motions of body parts why not use the established anatomical movement terms--adducted=toward the center(of the body), abducted=away from the center(of the body) ?
Click to expand...

You mean "flexed" and "extended" ...???:confused:
 
S

SteveT

Guest
cwdlaw223 said:
SteveT-
How about an answer to my original question? It shouldn't be hard with your science.

You appear to elevate science as having god like qualities and will be sadly disappointed when life isn't congruent with your science.
Click to expand...

I forgot your "original question" ... could you repeat it???

I'm not infallible ... I could be wrong ... but I doubt it .... how about "42" ?? :rolleyes:
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
SteveT said:
I forgot your "original question" ... could you repeat it???

I'm not infallible ... I could be wrong ... but I doubt it .... how about "42" ?? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Am I correct that the soft draw pattern is not contingent upon the downswing being on the EP (elbow plane) and/or a release where the arms and end of the clubshaft are close to the body?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top