[Mike O]

Mike;

I'll try to do a better job with this later, but I wanted to comment on the "real golfer" aspect. My opinion, and sort of along the line that bagger posted earlier, is that I'm not sure, nor I think is Matthew, of the future long term uses of this new information. I can see difficulties in it's initial application to the real golfer, in that the nuances of getting accurate measurements coupled with differeing golfer anatomy will make this difficult to apply. In swing analysis, the camera setup will have to be precisely oriented so that the computations won't suffer from differing camera angle perspectives. Also, the difference between traditional wristcock measurements from a front on photo (shaft angle to left forearm), and that calculated by this will be small since the only real difference is the fact that the #3acc plane and the sweetspot plane are only slightly different. At the top, the SSP, the #3acc plane both are the same. As you move down, the #3acc plane drops slightly below the SSP. If it didn't, the ball would be hit by the hozel. This effect causes the traditional method of determing wristcock, or lag to be slightly incorrect since the points of measurement are not on precisely the same plane. This new calculation allows you to evaluate the difference. More later...

G2M

You guys are killing me slowly! The combination of me not understanding what your saying and you guys throwing in stuff that isn't clear - it's a tough road- but I've been on this road before so although frustrated I'm still able to hold the composure together.

I could be wrong but I'm hoping you guys can work on being a little better and careful about defining your terms and ideas. One way to do that is to write in addition to the answer those answers or ideas that are wrong- the one's that are easy to mis-interpret and then clarify and compare those with the correct answer. Also, definitions are especially helpful. OK I'll get off my soap box now- just ignore me when relevant.

Don't get me wrong- appreciate the help already- I'm just saying you guys are capable of better- and I'm pushing you to do it.

Golf2much- I don't think/agree that at the top the #3 accumulator and the sweetspot plane are on the same plane. Sure could be but that would be the isolated exception and not the norm.

I'll start on this particular topic and let you add to or finish it.

Differences at impact fix between the #3 accumulator plane and the Sweetspot plane. First - I'd like you to clarify what you mean by the sweetspot plane in this post, because you could be referring to the sweetspot plane as that inclined plane that the sweetspot travels through as the clubhead travels during the stroke. Or you could be referring to a different sweetspot plane- the one that is slightly different than the #3 accumulator- I'll call it the #3 accumulator sweetspot plane as opposed to the #3 accumulator shaft plane.

Let's look at that one for a moment.

AThe #3 accumulator shaft plane at impact fix with a sandwedge would form a plane that includes these three points- the left shoulder, the #3 pressure point/grip end of the shaft, and the end of the clubshaft near the clubhead/hosel. For clarification sake - if you isolated that #3 accumulator shaft plane - then the three sides of that plane would be 1) the left arm 2) the clubshaft, 3) from the clubshaft near the hosel to the left shoulder. All of those would line up or be on the plane of the #3 accumulator.

The #3 accumulator sweetspot plane at impact fix with the sandwedge would have a couple of differences due to the fact that the sweetspot is 1) further back from the leading edge than the shaft i.e. roughly or crudely half way between the leading edge and rear or top of the clubface - also 2) further away from the hosel i.e. roughly or crudely half way between the hosel and the toe of the clubface.

So that creates two separate differences of the #3 accumulator shaft plane and the "#3 accumulator sweetspot plane". They are as follows: #1) Looking down target- that is from behind the player with the ball between you and the target- the angle of the sweetspot plane at impact fix will be less steep than the shaft angle. Because both use the same point- i.e. #3 pressure point, or end of the grip as one end of that side of the plane but one uses the sweet spot and the other uses the shaft plane as the other point that makes up the "side of the plane".

#2) Same thing- from a different perspective- when looking down from above- as if you are hovering over the player in a helicopter- at impact fix with the sandwedge- the #3 accumulator formed on one side by the line between the sweetspot and the #3 pressure point or end of the grip will be leaning more towards the target than the #3 accumulator shaft plane- because the sweetspot is further back of the hosel/end of the shaft. So if that line from the sweet spot and the #3 pressure point or end of the grip were extending up to the left shoulder it would not go through the left shoulder like the #3 shaft accumulator does- the #3 sweetspot accumulator would actually point slightly ahead of the left shoulder. Bringing a little more precision to that relationship to clarify the concept- let's say that the distance from the sweetspot on the clubface to the #3 pressure point is the same distance from the #3 pressure point to the left shoulder- let's just say they were both 3 feet. Now let's say that the sweepspot is 3/4 of an inch back of the shaft- then assuming the shaft was point right at the left shoulder socket at impact fix- as viewed vertically from the helicopter- then the #3 sweetspot accumulator would point 3/4 of an inch ahead of that shoulder socket.

I'll stop rambling for now- I guess I was trying to clarify the concepts of sweetspot plane that you were referring to and the #3 accumulator plane that you were referring to. I didn't address why they are different and not the same at the top yet, but let me know which sweetspot plane you were talking about and any other feedback on this limited and maybe somewhat off topic issue.

Thanks,
Mike o