I'm just starting to investigate the D-plane. I actually have found it quite beneficial to my understanding of what's going on through impact and any resulting ball curvature.
I've also found it seems to explain my predominant draw/hook ball flights from the summer. As I've begun to play the ball back of low point (i.e. up plane) and take a divot, I've hit shots that I would have sworn were right down target line/plane line (one and the same for me aligned neutral or square) with club face square that drew/hooked.
Well, d-plane predicts that (maybe TGM, too, but I didn't understand). So, for me, my understanding has increased and I have a better thought as to how to align (swing plane slightly left of target line) to get a straight ball.
Having said that, I still think TGM provides the best "how to" around! As others have said, if Homer was slightly off on the precise nature of the clubhead/ball collision, I don't think that detracts from the practical results of applying the components that put that clubhead into motion.
So, for me, TGM and more precisely Alignment Golf provide the swing mechanics that I want to learn and apply to improve my ball striking and ultimately reduce my scores. The d-plane has helped me at least better understand what is going on through impact (despite what my prior "knowledge" and feel led me to believe) and understand that I HAD made the swing I intended but got results that would have led me to change things I didn't need to change...I just need to work with slight changes to alignment!
Again, as others have said, I think all of golf benefits from the search for a "unified field" theory of the swing. Facts gathered from Track Man (clubhead path, etc., more so than the "predicted" ball flights which should just be observed) need to be incorporated and explained by TGM if we are to be able to continue to expand our knowledge and understanding of the golf swing and resulting ball flights.
Threaded Mode
