Sweet Spot Plane
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
mandrin
New
MizunoJoe,
I have the feeling that it is somewhat difficult for you to accept a math golf model. In science models are used to study complex problems in the most simple way yet retaining the essential features. This allows conveniently to study complex problems a bit at the time. Allowing all of the complexity to enter the problem at hand just leads nowhere.
What I am presently doing is to try to get a handle on swing plane and the forces associated with it. Likely never been done. A swing plane has very little practical value if there is not at the same time some mechanism at work which helps to establish it and maintain it.
Golfers are prone to think that there conscious actions are all important and decisive for a proper golf swing. However it is my feeling that golf is more about learning to give in to the forces at work. THE most important force coming into being during a swing is the centrifugal inertial type force. Without it quite impossible to generate a decent golf swing.
To come back to your question. Think of the blue plane as HK’s dynamic swing plane. Now the little game I am playing is to imagine the club shaft to be not aligned with this plane and have the mathematics derived tell me the restoring forces coming into play due to the inertial forces generated by the swing. A huge advantage of models.
mandrin - how do you get past the random nature of the integer? Don't all your calculations have an inherent assumption of relativity, whatever that measure may be? The differing perspective problem as an equation, if you will. That does not make the endevor any less useful I suppose. No doubt the 'swinging force' is key.
Just my version of mathmatical philosophical pondering... that the distance between 0 and 1 is ultimately a random assumption. The math version of Heisenberg.... (yeah, I'm a science geek in a former life). Base 10, why not 'base double nature of prime'. Another example of perspective being important.
Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled program....
mandrin
New
EdZ, quite an ‘interesting’ activity to wonder about the distance between 0 and 1, even if this is very far from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Heisenberg’s ideas about mathematics were indeed not uncertain but actually the only thing he really believed in as certain.
It could be fascinating to hear your views about how this singular pondering helped you to embrace finally HK’s golf/science ideas.
Anyway, back to more down to earth activities ....
mandrin
New
“ The 'balance' between hitting and swinging ”quote:Originally posted by EdZ
I've never discounted Homer's work.... I've just had unique perspectives.
The 'balance' between hitting and swinging....
EdZ, do you feel that swinging and hitting are (not) mutually exclusive?
“ Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance ”
EdZ, do yo mind to elaborate a bit on above.
It appears that the concept of ‘balance’ is central to your ideas about good golf. Aware of Kiegel’s ‘Balanced Golf’?
Swinging and hitting are a continuum, two sides of the same coin
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=continuum
ALL motion in the universe seeks balance, although it may not always be clear which forces are at play. This is a fundamental, a true imperative, of nature. One that many if not most people on this planet are unaware of, or at least seem to be.
Equilibrium
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Equilibrium
One can equate both balance and equilibrium with the word efficient.
Efficient forces move in a straight line, with no wobble - they move smoothly - and most importantly they move ON PLANE (perhaps a bit abstract a statement, but an important point).
So we have 'on plane' force (efficient)
We have 'balanced' force (efficient)
Add to that a SWINGING force, which is of course, also efficient, an important element of TIME.
And then of course - SUPPORT - the crux of sending one object in motion by another - efficient transfer of energy.
No wasted motion.
no, I'm not familiar with Keigel's book, however I see that it was published in 1999.
I've certainly seen a dramatic increase in The Golf Channel, Golf Digest, and Golf Magazine mentioning the word BALANCE.
More and more each day.
As they mention EFFICIENT, more and more each day.
Did they think nobody would notice?
I suspect that my writings on this board, Lynn's site, and FGI have had something to do with that.
If you build it, they will come I suppose.
Knudson, Hogan - they knew how important BALANCE is.
Now if they rest of the world would 'get it'....
"Support the on plane swinging force in balance" - Ed Zilavy
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=continuum
ALL motion in the universe seeks balance, although it may not always be clear which forces are at play. This is a fundamental, a true imperative, of nature. One that many if not most people on this planet are unaware of, or at least seem to be.
Equilibrium
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Equilibrium
One can equate both balance and equilibrium with the word efficient.
Efficient forces move in a straight line, with no wobble - they move smoothly - and most importantly they move ON PLANE (perhaps a bit abstract a statement, but an important point).
So we have 'on plane' force (efficient)
We have 'balanced' force (efficient)
Add to that a SWINGING force, which is of course, also efficient, an important element of TIME.
And then of course - SUPPORT - the crux of sending one object in motion by another - efficient transfer of energy.
No wasted motion.
no, I'm not familiar with Keigel's book, however I see that it was published in 1999.
I've certainly seen a dramatic increase in The Golf Channel, Golf Digest, and Golf Magazine mentioning the word BALANCE.
More and more each day.
As they mention EFFICIENT, more and more each day.
Did they think nobody would notice?
I suspect that my writings on this board, Lynn's site, and FGI have had something to do with that.
If you build it, they will come I suppose.
Knudson, Hogan - they knew how important BALANCE is.
Now if they rest of the world would 'get it'....
"Support the on plane swinging force in balance" - Ed Zilavy
mandrin
New
EdZ,
One Dynamics element underlying in generally your ideas I feel is that of the kinetic chain in which the proximal elements are much heavier than the distal elements.
An essential characteristic feature of such chain is that with very little motion of the heavy distal elements substantial energy and motion can be departed to the outer elements.
Lynn’s swing is to my eye a good example. The apparent lack of motion of the lower body is likely do to a very efficient timely transfer from the heavy proximal elements.
Amateurs are usually showing lots of motion whilst the experienced golfer has way less. Balance is easier maintained when all motion is efficient and hence minimized.
Do you put value into a notion such as mentioned by Roberto de Vincenzo - that of feeling ‘to hit with the stomach’?
One element in your post intrigues me - “Efficient forces move in a straight line.......” - since all motions in a golf swing are, by definition, primarily rotary in nature.
One Dynamics element underlying in generally your ideas I feel is that of the kinetic chain in which the proximal elements are much heavier than the distal elements.
An essential characteristic feature of such chain is that with very little motion of the heavy distal elements substantial energy and motion can be departed to the outer elements.
Lynn’s swing is to my eye a good example. The apparent lack of motion of the lower body is likely do to a very efficient timely transfer from the heavy proximal elements.
Amateurs are usually showing lots of motion whilst the experienced golfer has way less. Balance is easier maintained when all motion is efficient and hence minimized.
Do you put value into a notion such as mentioned by Roberto de Vincenzo - that of feeling ‘to hit with the stomach’?
One element in your post intrigues me - “Efficient forces move in a straight line.......” - since all motions in a golf swing are, by definition, primarily rotary in nature.
birdie_man
New
(lol)
mandrin
New
Hcw, let me lighten your lantern, since you are in the dark - there is the sling and there is the slingshot.quote:Originally posted by hcw
but he did!quote:Originally posted by mandrin
David, would he have had a chance against Goliath had he applied a force along a straight line?
The sling (shepherd’s sling) comprises a small cradle or pouch that holds the projectile in the middle of two lengths of cord. Both of the cords ends are held in one hand and twirled rapidly around several times around before being released.
The slingshot (catapult) has a pocket for holding the projectile. Each end of the pocket is attached to a rubber band, which is attached to the ends of a fork-shaped frame.
You will probably realize by now that the sling was David’s weapon and the slingshot probably your favorite weapon.
Sling - circular motion. [8D]
Slingshot - straight line motion.
quote:Originally posted by mandrin
Hcw, let me lighten your lantern, since you are in the dark - there is the sling and there is the slingshot.quote:Originally posted by hcw
but he did!quote:Originally posted by mandrin
David, would he have had a chance against Goliath had he applied a force along a straight line?
ah mandrin, there you go assuming again...sorry to disappoint you, but i know the difference between the two weapons...let me ask you this: what did david use to apply force to his sling? (hint golfers use the same things to apply force to the club)
-hcw
ps- another point is how does a stone travel after release from a sling?
- Status