Yale professor is on to something....
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Mandrin, you are dealing with a guy who WILL learn, I have said it before and I'll say it again:
The Golfing Machine is a tool (for me). It is the FINEST tool ever yet developed for golf.
But it isn't the alpha and it sure won't be the omega.
The Golfing Machine is a tool (for me). It is the FINEST tool ever yet developed for golf.
But it isn't the alpha and it sure won't be the omega.
Mandrin, Brian is sharing what he has learned. It is called Teaching. It is you, my friend, who is learning. You lurk here often, and jump in discussions occasionally, for 1 reason: You are getting fed.quote:Originally posted by mandrin
Brian, you are learning fast.
Previous reaction: "So what exactly are you saying?"
and now: "Mandrin, you are quite correct."
I love to watch a contrarian come around.
Keep coming back.
Just imagine that your looking straight down on the player in Fig 2. At the end of the backstroke, the shaft is slanted forward and the shoulders are slightly closed. The left shoulder is then rotated back away from the target line on a horizontal plane for the forward stroke. Now get grab a putter and try it. [xx(]
This is why golf isn't played in 2 dimensions on a sheet of graph paper using a protractor. [
]Brian Manzella
Administrator
When I drew it Joe, EVERYTHING was orthodox!!!
I will publish the pics soon.
I will publish the pics soon.
mandrin
New
MizunoJoe given your statement above I would be delighted to hear your views relative to HK’s very simple 2D model of a golf swing as portrayed by Fig1-L and the multiple references to planes, circles and lines, all typical 2D notions.quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe
This is why golf isn't played in 2 dimensions on a sheet of graph paper using a protractor. [
quote:Originally posted by mandrin
MizunoJoe given your statement above I would be delighted to hear your views relative to HK’s very simple 2D model of a golf swing as portrayed by Fig1-L and the multiple references to planes, circles and lines, all typical 2D notions.quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe
This is why golf isn't played in 2 dimensions on a sheet of graph paper using a protractor. [
Looks 3-D to me. The shaft is constrained to the slanted plane embedded in 3 dimensions and moves back, in, and up, then forward, out, and down.
mandrin
New
quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe
quote:Originally posted by mandrin
MizunoJoe given your statement above I would be delighted to hear your views relative to HK’s very simple 2D model of a golf swing as portrayed by Fig1-L and the multiple references to planes, circles and lines, all typical 2D notions.quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe
This is why golf isn't played in 2 dimensions on a sheet of graph paper using a protractor. [
Looks 3-D to me. The shaft is constrained to the slanted plane embedded in 3 dimensions and moves back, in, and up, then forward, out, and down.
MizunoJoe,
It looks perhaps 3D to you, but it is not. Motion contained in a horizontal plane is 2D. Slanting the plane does not change this, it still remains 2D.
Mentioning back, up, in, as well as down, forward, out, sounds a bit like a magic formula but it is simple a complicated way to say to swing on plane.
tongzilla
New
quote:Originally posted by mandrin
tongzilla, I have a fair idea why your request for a bird’s eye view,
...which is?
Thanks for taking the time to make these diagrams mandrin. I have a few questions about your "Some 3D views for straight-line downward hitting through impact" diagram. The side view (fig 3) shows the spherical weight (clubhead) being on the inclined plane during its travel. This automatically implies the clubhead is going down and out. However, with your front view, the clubhead moves in a straight line. But according to your side view, it should also be moving out.
Another point. I wonder why you haven't drawn what happens when the clubhead starts coming back up (as it eventually has to).
Thanks.
Burner
New
This discussion brings all this to mind.
Seems that Leslie King may have reached this conclusion long ago.
Seems that Leslie King may have reached this conclusion long ago.
mandrin
New
Tongzilla, I know all to well how complex things become when operating in 3D. It is for that reason that I produced several 3D figures at the same time to make interpretation a bit easier.
The figures are not ‘drawn’ but generated using mathematics. Also a straight line in 3D remains a straight line irrespective of any possible projection onto any plane.
You can see the outward component in Fig1. Look closely at the straight line trajectory relative to the adjacent reference box coordinate.
However, to show more readily the ‘3D’ motion I have generated a close up of the trajectory of the ‘club head’. It shows very clearly both the ‘down’ and ‘out’ motion.
Don’t forget that the only purpose was to simply show that it is quite possible to have a club head move along a straight line through the impact zone.
What happens hence before and after impact is of no concern in this particular simple model. One thing at the time.
The shaft motion is planar, but what about the clubhead which sticks out of the plane? And how do you handle the rotation of the shaft around the sweetspot line?
Back, up, in, etc is simply a SIMPLE way to describe something happening in in the real world. You must stay in the 3-D coordinate system so that the player and clubhead attached to the shaft can relate to the planar motion of the shaft, rather than change to the 2-D coordinate system of the plane, causing everything but the shaft to disappear.
mandrin
New
MizunoJoe, you are usually quick making all kind of affirmative statements. However what do you have to back it up? Perhaps simply only because it is in the little yellow book?
You don’t seem to make a difference between a simple model and the very complex reality of a real swing when this suits you in your arguments.
I am almost tempted to post the incredible complex equations I have derived whilst attempting to analyze lead arm roll and sweet spot behaviour in the down swing.
Even your indisputable reference and hero HK uses the universal technique of very simple models such as portrayed in Fig 1-L. For instance, he clearly ignores in 2-F the 3D aspects of the golf club when he states that -
“The full length of the Clubshaft remains unwavering on the face of this Inclined Plane - Waggle to Follow- through. . . . See sketch 1-L.”
What does happen here to the sweet spot in HK’s model of Fig 1-L? It appears clearly that you are a more devout catholic than the Pope himself. [
]
mandrin
New
MizunoJoe, fine, so what about HK’s very simple 2D model? It is basically and logically flawed as is clear from 2-F. Let me take you by the hand and show it to you.
Statement #1:
“The full length of the Clubshaft rermains unwavering on the face of this Inclined Plane - Waggle trough Follow-through. Every other Component of the stroke must be adjusted to comply with that requirement. See Sketch 1-L.”
Statement #2:
So there is a “Clubshaft” Plane and a “Sweet Spot”, or “Swing”, Plane.
Except during Impact, the Club Shaft can travel on, or to-and-from, either Plane because Club Shaft rotation must be around the Sweet Spot - not vice versa.
First it is said with emphasis that the clubshaft is remains unwavering on the face of an inclined plane. (Statement#1)
Next it is stated clearly that the clubshaft is moving between two planes. (Statement#2)
You can’t have it both ways simultaneously.
MizunoJoe, I am impatiently awaiting your logic contortions. However, I expect my post to be conveniently ignored.
- Status