Then you're naive. When HK examined "In Search of the Perfect Swing", and corrected their many errors, it didn't stop them from publishing the book as written and HK certainly didn't update the Golfing Machine because he found new knowledge. He didn't find new knowledge and I doubt he would find any in "The Physics of Golf" that would cause him to challenge or change his thinking. I mean, if I'm not impressed, what ever would make you think that Homer Kelley would be? I would be much more easily impressed than Homer Kelley.

I wonder what happened to the Hundreds of Golf books in Homer Kelley's library?

You have the opportunity to read both "The Golfing Machine" and "The Physics of Golf" as I have many times. No one on this website or any other has taught me about the "D Plane". I learned by making the effort to buy the book, read it and understand it. The same goes for 2-A and 2-B in the Golfing Machine. They're not exactly the Hot Topics on LBG.com or any other Website for that matter.

This isn't about TGM vs. D-Plane. This is about being spoon-fed the "talking points" without doing the homework yourself. TGM'ers are always accused of putting "Belief" before "Fact". This may be true for many TGM followers at least until they understand the material. Don't be so naive to think that the "D-Plane" is any different.

I spent some time writing my post comparing TGM and the "D-Plane". I used direct information and diagrams from both books to substantiate my claims. You should do the same. I have yet to see, a single, solitary reference to any material published in "The Physics of Golf". All I hear is commentary and TGM bashing.

If you don't understand the material, then fine, this is the place to learn. But if all you want is an excuse not to have to work very hard and long to understand the Golfing Machine, without saying as much, by replacing it with oversimplified science for much less effort, then get in line with 99% of the Golfing world at the back of the bus.

But if its "Sweet Talk" you want, then "I'm sure Homer Kelley would find "The Physics of Golf" interesting and challenging and he and Theodore would probably have become great friends and work together on many projects." :)

Let me simplify what I'm trying to say. Jorgensen "discovered" that about 85% of the initial direction of a struck Golf Ball is directly related to the direction the Clubface is pointing. He didn't invent, he discovered. So did Homer Kelley. Jorgenson also discovered that a Tilted Spin Axis will cause the Ball to curve one way or another. So did Homer Kelley. Jorgensen discovered that the amount of divergence of Clubface Alignment and Clubhead Path caused the Spin Axis to tilt in a predictable way. So did Homer Kelley. Jorgensen "Coined" this phenomena the "D-Plane". Homer Kelley called the Phenomena a Fade, Draw, Pull, Push, Pull Hook, Hook, Slice, etc., you get my meaning. But, there's much more to it than that. You'll find all the answers in The Golfing Machine.

So you're saying Lynn is wrong then and Homer wouldn't have been open to the new technology and information. Got it, message received.

You tell me.

And I suppose you would argue Trackman is a total waste then. All the data that's been accumulated over the years of it's operation and development provide plenty of proof that the D-Plane is a reliable ball flight diagnosis.

The fact is here that you ARE putting belief before fact. D-Plane explains the geometry of impact and resultant ball flight. Why this excellent explanation that has been tested repeatedly is viewed so negatively by you is really quite alarming.

I don't believe everything I read either. Not even what's in TGM.

WHERE do you see me "bashing" TGM? Hmmm? Where? For chrissake I'm agreeing with Lynn. Ipso facto you are disagreeing with him. You don't think Homer would have had any room for the D-Plane explanation. Why do I need to cite anything to agree with something someone else said? That is certainly a high requirement for the ability of one to post here.

Seriously man, you are so far off from anything I've said it's unbelievable. Who the heck are you responding to? I don't think it's me.

Yet the extrapolation of the information has been proven incorrect. In to out path with a square face at separation is supposed to cause a straight shot according to what has been said regarding TGM alignment. However the data accumulated with these conditions shows a hook. Why?

Man, I go to AC for one night and you guys start a war without me!
 

Look, I have to know if someone got that guy's phone number. I'm out here at school in West Philly, It's 10 pm and the school bus is warmed up with about 50 respondents for our "First Tee" program. We only have 10 golf clubs but lots of my peeps have on real bulky hoodies! :)

Everybody's ready to find that dude and deliver a little Basic, Acquired, and Total motion to that fella, if you feel me on this! :)

Daryl, what color are the robes? Silk? My team wants to know if you can hook us up? 'SUP Unc!? Our school colors are blue and white. We need a lot of 2x and 3x sizes. I told the kids that we needed to protect "Uncle Daryl" from mean "D-Plane" people. One of the boys, Abdullah Muhammed (6-8", 420 lbs, 3rd grade) said "Mr. B.....we need to explain tho the evil "D-men" that Islam is a force of peace in the world, and that the minor prophet HK, and his priest Uncle Daryl, plane blessings surround them, must never be dissed!"

Could you guys hurry up? We only have the bus 'till tomorrow and then I need new insurance and permission slips. I told the district we were headed to Georgia since lots of my peeps have kin down there. They were mad that the evil "D-men" insulted Uncle 12 Piece, Uncle Yoda, and Uncle OB, too! They felt that chicken remark was way off the hook. :)

YBGF

If I had a dime for every time someone said that TGM is wrong, I'd be $$$$. If I had a dime for every time someone presented evidence that TGM was wrong, I couldn't by a 10 cent cup of coffee.

I'm so tired of people that talk about their claims rather than providing information to support their claim.

Ringer, support your claims with analysis and not propaganda. I assume you can do that, right? Otherwise, what's the point of this dialogue?

Maybe this isn't a dialogue but a "baiting game" you've been trained to play? Either give me something substantial that explains your claim that Homer was wrong or that Jorgensen was correct or won't respond again.

Others have already stopped. I may as well too.

Part of 1-L-16 is wrong.

To quote "Clubface alignment controls the Ball Line-of-Flight."

Clubface contact location controls Ball Line-of-Flight.

What's really funny to me is that you actually believe I'm attacking TGM or Homer. I said nothing of the sort.

Homer went on to describe the importance of knowing where the low point was (2-J-2) but I don't know where he explained to line up differently to compensate for this... do you? That's one question I posed but NEVER got an answer for. Instead you just came after me asking for proof of something.. lord knows what you're even wanting proof of.

The other thing I asked for is where Homer explained why higher lofted clubs result in less curvature. The D-Plane explains this quite easily as I did in my video, but 2-A makes no such conclusions as you suggested it did.

Finally, what "claims" am I making? What statement have I made that needs backing up? I'm simply saying that the D-Plane is an explanation of the geometry involved during impact that Homer didn't expand upon himself. Though he might have if he had access to the technology. You somehow interpreted this as some sort of threat on your livelihood apparently because you're lashing out like a wild dog at me. All I want is the truth.

Lashing out like a wild dog? You guys are all delusional.

All you want is the truth? All you guys do nothing but twist other peoples words to make them look bad so you win debates. Winning debates has nothing to do with finding the truth.

Nobody's buying what you are selling.

Kevin

Amazing..?
 

I do believe HK had a complete understanding of the alignments that would dynamically reproduce the positions recently explained by "D" plane “graphics”. Alignments are vastly superior to position. Reading- 7-2 then 2-j-3 then 2 then 1 a little 2-E and throw in a dabble of 6-E and one can start to perform ball flight control. After all is said, How do you get it into the computer (chapter 14)? A vector diagram or a feel? That is the value of TGM. With understanding TGM becomes a vastly superior tool for both instruction and instructed.


Just my opinion

"De Joisey" Bear

What's My Line?
 

Regarding "line up differently" . . .

I think I read elsewhere in your posts that you mean lining up more Open with the higher lofted clubs and more closed with the lower lofted ones. Is that right? Are you referring to the Stance Line in relation to the Plane Line? If not, then what? Please explain what you mean, and ideally, why it is necessary.

Thanks!

:salut:

Boss . . . what he is trying to say is . . . if the ball is taken beyond low point club is traveling back up and in and as a result you should aim right to account for those plane/orbit conditions . . .assuming you are hitting a straight shot . . . vicey vercy for back of low point . . .

7-2 is likely where the d-plane folks would take issue with the Machine I'd say.