Sweet Spot Plane
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
mandrin - I monitor the pivot and am not aware of pressure points #1,#2, or #3, but only PP #4. I make a motion and let CF and gravity cause the clubhead to find the ball and compress it. I only assume that CF will happen and gravity is present, and not an equivalence between the two. The motion of the golfer is caused by muscular efforts, aided and abetted by gravity. This is all very clear to me and the only hanging on I'm going to be doing is to the handle of the club.
The science that is important to golf is the empirical kind, like that of Budney & Bellows on grip pressure, which instructs on how to make a motion.
Burner
New
Your ideas and intuitions, old chap, especially when put in the context of this time, are somewhat less remarkable and your pomposity is astounding.
Rather than taking cheap shots at Homer, and his dedication to finding the answers to our questions, why do you not devote your time to doing something worthwhile - like re-writing the Book in a scientifically correct, in this (your) time, non-pompous, but clearly expressed manner.
We inferior beings might then be able to advance our G.O.L.F games in a similar, if not better according to your collosal ego, manner than Homer and his AI Disciples have so far allowed us to do.
The proof of the pudding is in the reading and, thus far, you have given us nothing but disjointed ramblings, designed to obfuscate, in response to the many attempts you make, unsuccessfully, to debunk Homers work.
Quit while you are behind: or front up like Homer did and give us all something to learn from.
mandrin
New
MizunoJoe, when you stop citing Homer, as in your post above, and put forward your own opinions, you are way more interesting to read.
I agree that an empirical science always has priority over any other science relative to swing a club. However it is fun to do a bit more than just only empirical stuff and on occasion quite useful.
I have made up a drawing and like to have your opinion with regard to the line of pull of the centrifugal force in the downswing.
mandrin - that is not the correct model for a Swinger. C1 rotates freely, while C2 and C3 should not. Your model is that of a golfer with severe Throwaway of Accums #2 and #4. The idea in Swinging is to move the shaft longitudinally, so the player "insures" the pull of CF be along OC3 at the right time and with the correct duration using a straight line Delivery Path.
palmreader
New
[quote.
I have made up a drawing and like to have your opinion with regard to the line of pull of the centrifugal force in the downswing.
[/quote]
Mandrin, One needs to do the vector addition of all three motions and there you have it. It will be influnced by the magnitude of each rotation and hence will be different for different golfers.
I have made up a drawing and like to have your opinion with regard to the line of pull of the centrifugal force in the downswing.
[/quote]
Mandrin, One needs to do the vector addition of all three motions and there you have it. It will be influnced by the magnitude of each rotation and hence will be different for different golfers.
mandrin
New
MizunoJoe:
mandrin - that is not the correct model for a Swinger. C1 rotates freely, while C2 and C3 should not. Your model is that of a golfer with severe Throwaway of Accums #2 and #4. The idea in Swinging is to move the shaft longitudinally, so the player "insures" the pull of CF be along OC3 at the right time and with the correct duration using a straight line Delivery Path.
Palmreader:
Mandrin, One needs to do the vector addition of all three motions and there you have it. It will be influnced by the magnitude of each rotation and hence will be different for different golfers.
MizunoJoe, you are too much hypnotized by Homer’s ideas to be able to think objectively. You see things which are not there. There is not a golfer throwing things all over the place, [] there are simply three segments linked by joints. Your answer however is correct notwithstanding that I don’t agree with the arguments used to support it.
Palmreader seems to favour the idea that the line of centrifugal pull is specific to and hence different for each and every golfer.
Have a look here for the mathematical driven graphical solution.
mandrin - that is not the correct model for a Swinger. C1 rotates freely, while C2 and C3 should not. Your model is that of a golfer with severe Throwaway of Accums #2 and #4. The idea in Swinging is to move the shaft longitudinally, so the player "insures" the pull of CF be along OC3 at the right time and with the correct duration using a straight line Delivery Path.
Palmreader:
Mandrin, One needs to do the vector addition of all three motions and there you have it. It will be influnced by the magnitude of each rotation and hence will be different for different golfers.
MizunoJoe, you are too much hypnotized by Homer’s ideas to be able to think objectively. You see things which are not there. There is not a golfer throwing things all over the place, [
] there are simply three segments linked by joints. Your answer however is correct notwithstanding that I don’t agree with the arguments used to support it. Palmreader seems to favour the idea that the line of centrifugal pull is specific to and hence different for each and every golfer.
Have a look here for the mathematical driven graphical solution.
- Bold by Vaako -quote:Originally posted by mandrin
MizunoJoe:
mandrin - that is not the correct model for a Swinger. C1 rotates freely, while C2 and C3 should not. Your model is that of a golfer with severe Throwaway of Accums #2 and #4. The idea in Swinging is to move the shaft longitudinally, so the player "insures" the pull of CF be along OC3 at the right time and with the correct duration using a straight line Delivery Path.
Palmreader:
Mandrin, One needs to do the vector addition of all three motions and there you have it. It will be influnced by the magnitude of each rotation and hence will be different for different golfers.
MizunoJoe, you are too much hypnotized by Homer’s ideas to be able to think objectively. You see things which are not there. There is not a golfer throwing things all over the place, [
Palmreader seems to favour the idea that the line of centrifugal pull is specific to and hence different for each and every golfer.
Have a look here for the mathematical driven graphical solution.
Here you go again, doin' the sci/math babble - sigh...
I guess if it quacks like a duck, it is a mandarin duck.
Vaako
mandrin
New
I have shown previously that the centrifugal force vector remains perfectly aligned with the club shaft, especially during the important bottom part of the downswing.
The next step is to look at how the club, with its particular spatial mass distribution, is aligning itself in this centrifugal force field.
An elegant way to do this is to determine the potential energy function and look for maximum values of this function to obtain the alignment angle.
Having done this I compared the results with HK’s ideas about a Sweet Spot Plane as explained in TGM.
I dedicate this post especially to Vaako since he is such an ardent supporter of my humble efforts. []
The next step is to look at how the club, with its particular spatial mass distribution, is aligning itself in this centrifugal force field.
An elegant way to do this is to determine the potential energy function and look for maximum values of this function to obtain the alignment angle.
Having done this I compared the results with HK’s ideas about a Sweet Spot Plane as explained in TGM.
I dedicate this post especially to Vaako since he is such an ardent supporter of my humble efforts. [
]quote:Originally posted by mandrin
I dedicate this post especially to Vaako since he is such an ardent supporter of my humble efforts. [
Thank you, I'm touched.
You allways get two thumbs up for trying. Somehow I doubt you will win much support with the latest - we being a cult and all.
Maybe it's time for you to roll out the heavy artillery and prove the sequential release cannot be done in any of the HK defined planes. You know, left arm flying wedge, release direction etc. Who knows, you may even find the critical flaw Mac found. Do it right and you will shake the foundation of TGM community - IMHO, YMMV , YAOYO...
Vaako
shootin4par
New
you guys are making the sweet spot plane too complicated. Put a red dot on the sweet spot of the club and trace that dot from the start of the swing to the finish. Focus on getting this as close to an arc as possible. One arc going back, a little loop to the inside, and an arc on the way down to a 2/3 finish, no need to trace the club wrapping aroudn the head.
Where did you suspend the plub line from the TOP of the shaft down it's centerline orat 90 degrees to the right side...it makes a huge difference..because I used to argue against such a sweetspotplane when I was suspending it from the TOP..It wasn't until later thatI learned that Homer suspended it from the Side at 90 degrees to the centerline of the shaft did it even come close to making sense...So I was arguing against something I personally misinterpreted because I didn't have all the facts that supported Homer Kelley's perspective...Now that darn yellow book is pretty confusing unless you're trained to study it...You just don't pick one up and figure it all out...I don't know if this would help..but at least it is a visual to what is described in Homers work..
This is PGA Tour Veteran ...Neal Lancaster "tracing " the base line with the "Mysterious Sweetspot Plane that supposedly does not exist!"
The Plane of the Shaft is a "Visible Plane"
The Plane of the Swetspot is an "Invisible Plane"
They both come together and join at the first joint of the right forefinger....
The GNAT
This is PGA Tour Veteran ...Neal Lancaster "tracing " the base line with the "Mysterious Sweetspot Plane that supposedly does not exist!"
The Plane of the Shaft is a "Visible Plane"
The Plane of the Swetspot is an "Invisible Plane"
They both come together and join at the first joint of the right forefinger....
The GNAT
- Status