[comrade]

You make some good points . . . My contention would be that AMBIGUOUS . . . could be? . . . I would submit that there are OPTIONS rather than AMBIGUITY. I would sum it up like this. There is Geometry and then there is Physics . . . and then there is Motion . . . and then there is ACTION . . .AND THEN there are ILLUSIONS

12piece,

the ambiguity i was refering to is between that of the straight line delivery PATH and the straight line delivery LINE and its relation to the aiming point foward, or aiming point aft of the ball.

it would be easy to think that both straight lines (PATH and LINE)are foward or behind the ball depending on the aiming point. especially when he says in 7-23,"... a straight line wheel track motion (rather than its rotation) toward and on through the ball, or through the aiming point."

but mr. kelley defines the aiming point in the 6th edition as being on the delivery line. so it sounds like the straight line effort is on the inclined plane OUT (angle of approach) to the aiming point and not to an aiming point DOWN (angle of attack)in FRONT of or BEHIND the ball.

and he says in a very abstract passage in 6-e-2 in the 7th edition about the endless belt, "... because both of those lines represent the true delivery paths and move -physically- directly at the point on the ball through which the angle of approach passes even with the aiming point procedures."

this again sounds like the delivery paths and delivery lines intersect at the ball.regardless of the length of the straight line portion of the belt.

it might make more sense(?) if we read the passage in 7-23 about the line delivery path to mean, " a straight line... toward and on through the ball, or through the aiming point (the point of the release, on the straight line delivery path to the ball,influenced by the handspeed and clubshaft length to get pp#3 to its impact fix location )."