![]() |
Quote:
I would have thought this was the other way around - the clubhead actually covers the angle of approach, not visually covers it (although as the clubhead gets closer and closer to the ground it would get closer and closer to visually covering it as well). Why do I think this? Because the location of our eyes isn't part of the geometry of the stroke - if my neck grew 20 feet then visually covering the angle of approach would change the geometry (the length of my neck would affect the geometry of the stroke). But then I take your point about the plane having to be verticle if the plane is really closed - so perhaps it neither visually nor vertically covers the line (exactly) with 10-5-E. With an angle of approach procedure and a plane line that was square, it would actually (vertically) cover the angle of approach though, wouldn't it? Chris |
Quote:
|
Quote:
To your points in turn: 1. My mistake - you can obviously use the angle of approach as per 2-J-something or other (the bit about visual equivalents), but that musn't be the angle of approach procedure? 2. A really good point and a fog lifter for me - you have to watch those visual illusions!!! 3. I think I get this. Maybe. But don't ask me to explain it! 4. I get this. 5. But still, you'll only get true visual covering if the plane is so steep it's an eye plane!!! Nonetheless, as the clubhead gets close to the ground it will start to approximately cover the plane line visually (right?). I see now that it won't vertically cover it for reason 2 above. Chris |
Quote:
|
I think my confusion stems from whether we're talking about the angle of approach on the inclined plane, or it's visual equivalent on the ground. For 10-5-E, the one on the ground is the reference for constructing a new plane line, right? But once you've got the new plane line, forget both the old plane, and any new angle of approach visual equivalent. Trace the new plane line and the clubhead will (approximately) visually cover the (old visual equivalent) angle of approach through the bottom of it's arc.
I think I have further confusion stemming from the fact that not only does the clubhead have a path that can be described in various ways, but so too do the hands have a path, which can be described in the same way. So for example, in the 10-5-E procedure, does the right forearm operate parallel to the old (clubhead) angle of approach (that is the new planeline, and so directly behind the club), or does it have a new angle of approach? I'm guessing the former. If so, would the latter be using the closed plane line without using the "angle of approach procedure"? Chris |
Quote:
|
tongzilla:
"The Angle of Approach procedure requires a Closed Plane Line per 10-5-E" Since Ted is using an open stance not 10-5-E, therefore he is not using the angle of approach? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
10-5-E may be used with Open, Square or Closed stance lines, which is independent of Plane Line direction. These stance line variations are all classified under 10-5-E. Ted is using the Angle of Approach procedure. |
Assuming that I am using an angle of approach, how do you know which stance should be used for what shot? The reason I am asking is that I still experimenting and any comments will definitely solve my puzzle. On 3, 5, 7 woods, I been using closed stance and the shot is great. But for 6, 7 iron shots sometimes I hit the top. I am not sure if that is due to the lie or the stance. On wedge shot, however I am using a square stance.
The closed stance for wood shots allow me to hit with my right forearm! I am still learning.. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35 AM. |