Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 79756)

I don't think the people at TrackMan have taken a position one way or another on the validity of the Hinge Action concept. The challenge comes from other quarters.

All I wanted TrackMan to verify was what 'others' said could not be done. Namely, that I could change the Clubface alignment through Impact simply by using my Flat Left Wrist to execute selectively each of the three Hinge Action Feels, i.e., Roll, No Roll and Reverse Roll.
And it did.

Of course, I already knew I could control the Clubface with my Flat Left Wrist, but I went through the "scientific" exercise in order to "prove" that I could.

And I did.

:salut:

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 79702)

John,

In the precision Sketch 2-C-1 #3 (2-N-0 / Geometry of the Circle with Separation deliberately assumed at Low Point), the Swing Path (Arc of Approach), the Clubface and the Line of Compression each face directly down the Plane Line (in this case, also the Target Line). TGM contends that this configuration will produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot.

Under these exact conditions, does the D-Plane concept predict another result? If so, what? If not, then in this specific instance, how does D Plane theory "trump" Geometry of the Circle / Hinge Action theory? Or vice versa? In a non-adversarial world, could they be equally predictive?

:salut:

Originally Posted by Daryl (Post 79719)

1.) No Max, you're wrong again and again. You're talking about "How much" of the ball is being compressed, not higher compression.

2.) It's your "Bible". The "D Plane Gods". You know and "Pray" to Both of them. The "Path" God and the "Clubface Angle" God.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......

TGM - Ball Spin Physics



Bold by Daryl

Below, is the explanation to what Homer said in the sentence that I highlighted in bold:

Imagine drilling an off-center hole through a ball (bottom line of compression) on the line of compression and pushing a stick through it so that it sticks out both ends. This stick doesn't pass through the center of the ball. Now drill a second hole through the ball that passes through the center (Top line) and is perfectly parallel to the first hole, then insert a stick. Those two sticks represent the Spin Plane caused by the Line of Compression of that Impact. The Spin Plane is highlighted in green.





After you insert both sticks, no matter how you rotate or orient the ball, the spin plane will always be represented by those two sticks as long as "The original contact points of the Clubface and ball remain in contact throughout the entire Impact Interval". Any Impact that doesn't maintain the impact as also the separation point, unless done intentionally, is a "Mis-Hit". Furthermore, the rate of Spin is determined by the distance between those two Parallel Lines for any given Clubhead Speed.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .....

The "Search for the Perfect Swing" does not include this information. "The Search for the Perfect Swing" and "The Physics of Golf" only outline the conditions of "Mis-Hit" Impacts.

Originally Posted by John Graham (Post 79767)

Lynn,

Thanks for the question.

Are you teaching people to produce seperation at lowpoint as described in 2-C-1#3 to produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot?

I doubt it.

Clearly, you understand and respect D plane well enough to know that this is the only way you can phrase a question that matches the book in some way.

It's not really the geometry of the circle as I see it drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper is it?

This was my experience and I still have not been convinced.

Again, I am quite open to discussion.

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 79778)

John,

Thank you for thanking me for my question. Actually, there were several questions, and for whatever the reason, you chose not to answer even one of them.

:sad:

Let's revisit the situation:

My questions referenced the Impact alignments of Sketch 2-C-1 #3 and asked that your answers address those alignments specifically.

I asked you simple, straightforward questions that deserved simple, straightforward answers.

I did not ask you to ask me a question regarding my teaching.

Nor did I ask you to ask me a question regarding your perception of the "geometry of the circle as .... drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper".

Finally, I did not ask for your comment as to how I chose to "phrase" my question.

So, let's begin again . . .

Please answer my questions. In the interest of brevity, let's make it even more simple and focus on just the first question:

Will the Impact alignments as illustrated in 2-C-1 #3 produce a dead straight shot? Or will they not?

No "discussion" required.

One word will do.

:salut:

Originally Posted by John Graham (Post 79780)

. . . yes.

Originally Posted by John Graham (Post 79785)

Daryl,

I saw that.

This seems appropriate for the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1p1nsCR84w

Originally Posted by John Graham (Post 79785)

Daryl,

I saw that.

This seems appropriate for the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1p1nsCR84w