A rotating plane (floating/dynamic plane) that exist independent of the type of golf stroke motion.
Obviously I need to wait and see what the value of this floating/dynamic is? The planes we deal with normally are static so to speak, at least there is one part that remains constant, normally the plane line. As far as I can tell this floating/dynamic lacks that quality, the only constant is that it at, I think 90* from the flat left wrist, making this the top of the forearm.
I don't believe it is correct to equate 'wristcock' and 'hinge action'. Maybe I am missing something but the wristcock isn't referred to as hinging, but it is the rotation of the wrist that is referred to as hinging. Maybe this is where Matt is trying to bring hinging in, but if so and if accurate at least my descriptions, then the wristcock has no hinge pin to refernence to.
A rotating plane (floating/dynamic plane) that exist independent of the type of golf stroke motion.
Obviously I need to wait and see what the value of this floating/dynamic is? The planes we deal with normally are static so to speak, at least there is one part that remains constant, normally the plane line. As far as I can tell this floating/dynamic lacks that quality, the only constant is that it at, I think 90* from the flat left wrist, making this the top of the forearm.
I don't believe it is correct to equate 'wristcock' and 'hinge action'. Mathew is not equating wristcock to hinge action, the pivot point of the left wrist was refered to by ME as a PIN around which the left wrist moves. This pin would be vertical to the inclined plane and was used by me as a visual descriptor to describe how Mat's new plane works
Maybe I am missing something but the wristcock isn't referred to as hinging, but it is the rotation of the wrist that is referred to as hinging. Maybe this is where Matt is trying to bring hinging in, but if so and if accurate at least my descriptions, then the wristcock has no hinge pin to refernence to.
What Mat is doing is to use the position of his new plane, relative to other planes to measure and calculate. I haven't gotten my mind completely around exactly how he intends to do this yet, but I'm close, I think. The fog is lifting, but is still there
NOW I see what I was missing.... the #3acc plane. Very cool. I knew you needed another plane to reference Jen's plane against to calculate wrist cock, and I was hoping Jen had a good looking sister!!!
Thanks Mathew, No more fog (at least on this topic).
G2M
NOW I see what I was missing.... the #3acc plane. Very cool. I knew you needed another plane to reference Jen's plane against to calculate wrist cock, and I was hoping Jen had a good looking sister!!!
Thanks Mathew, No more fog (at least on this topic).
G2M
G2,
How about a summary of Matthew's new drawing- in regards to all components in the drawing, particularly Jen's Plane, the formula, and a real golfer?
However, I've been busy but I'm starting to get it- just going to take a little longer- Specifically Jen's plane role and definition would be helpful.
Due to the fact that the right forearm can only move straight up and down from its elbow location this means that at any point the entire right arm is always in a plane....
In this plane the closer the right hand goes to the right shoulder - the greater the angle between the upper arm and the forearm. This always creates a triangle shape between the right shoulder to hand - right shoulder to elbow - elbow to hand, except when it is inline. It is actually the right shoulder to hand line that is the third line on the law of the triangle per chapter 6.
PS - Im looking for this to be a active discussion. If you have any input to give or feel you want to add something - please discuss
Due to the fact that the right forearm can only move straight up and down from its elbow location this means that at any point the entire right arm is always in a plane....
In this plane the closer the right hand goes to the right shoulder - the greater the angle between the upper arm and the forearm. This always creates a triangle shape between the right shoulder to hand - right shoulder to elbow - elbow to hand, except when it is inline. It is actually the right shoulder to hand line that is the third line on the law of the triangle per chapter 6.
PS - Im looking for this to be a active discussion. If you have any input to give or feel you want to add something - please discuss
My first thought was so what are you going to call THIS plane? Seriously, though, this looks to be another "reference plane" that will allow calculation of another angle precisely. Perhaps the right wristcock angle measured by changing positions of the lines of intersection of this plane relative to the plane of the right wrist pivot point, which at the top will/should be vertical to this plane. Close???
Due to the fact that the right forearm can only move straight up and down from its elbow location this means that at any point the entire right arm is always in a plane....
In this plane the closer the right hand goes to the right shoulder - the greater the angle between the upper arm and the forearm. This always creates a triangle shape between the right shoulder to hand - right shoulder to elbow - elbow to hand, except when it is inline. It is actually the right shoulder to hand line that is the third line on the law of the triangle per chapter 6.
PS - Im looking for this to be a active discussion. If you have any input to give or feel you want to add something - please discuss
Just a small trivial thing- but to keep everything crystal clear- the more the hand is closer to the right shoulder- the "larger the angle" is what you said. So for me that's looking at it from the "other side", "the underside"- because I first think of "THE ANGLE" as the angle that is between the hand and the shoulder- and that angle gets smaller as the hand approaches the shoulder. So you are talking about the angle getting greater because you are looking at it as if there is a circle that passes through the shoulder and the hand- and as the hand and shoulder are moving closer together- while the angle between the two get smaller the other "angle" of the 360 degree circle gets larger.
Have I got it?
Also, Matthew - some very interesting stuff- but I've got to understand it before I give it the rave reviews that it might deserve. I'll get there just need some time.
Thanks,
Mike
P.S. I didn't pay attention to your second drawing- which clearly shows how the context in which you are referring to a larger angle when the right hand is closer to the right shoulder. You are taking the angle from the right shoulder as I was looking at it from the right elbow. Maybe your description of the "greater angle between the upper arm and forearm" could be improved.
G2,
How about a summary of Matthew's new drawing- in regards to all components in the drawing, particularly Jen's Plane, the formula, and a real golfer?
However, I've been busy but I'm starting to get it- just going to take a little longer- Specifically Jen's plane role and definition would be helpful.
Mike;
I'll try to do a better job with this later, but I wanted to comment on the "real golfer" aspect. My opinion, and sort of along the line that bagger posted earlier, is that I'm not sure, nor I think is Matthew, of the future long term uses of this new information. I can see difficulties in it's initial application to the real golfer, in that the nuances of getting accurate measurements coupled with differeing golfer anatomy will make this difficult to apply. In swing analysis, the camera setup will have to be precisely oriented so that the computations won't suffer from differing camera angle perspectives. Also, the difference between traditional wristcock measurements from a front on photo (shaft angle to left forearm), and that calculated by this will be small since the only real difference is the fact that the #3acc plane and the sweetspot plane are only slightly different. At the top, the SSP, the #3acc plane both are the same. As you move down, the #3acc plane drops slightly below the SSP. If it didn't, the ball would be hit by the hozel. This effect causes the traditional method of determing wristcock, or lag to be slightly incorrect since the points of measurement are not on precisely the same plane. This new calculation allows you to evaluate the difference. More later...
I'll try to do a better job with this later, but I wanted to comment on the "real golfer" aspect. My opinion, and sort of along the line that bagger posted earlier, is that I'm not sure, nor I think is Matthew, of the future long term uses of this new information. I can see difficulties in it's initial application to the real golfer, in that the nuances of getting accurate measurements coupled with differeing golfer anatomy will make this difficult to apply. In swing analysis, the camera setup will have to be precisely oriented so that the computations won't suffer from differing camera angle perspectives. Also, the difference between traditional wristcock measurements from a front on photo (shaft angle to left forearm), and that calculated by this will be small since the only real difference is the fact that the #3acc plane and the sweetspot plane are only slightly different. At the top, the SSP, the #3acc plane both are the same. As you move down, the #3acc plane drops slightly below the SSP. If it didn't, the ball would be hit by the hozel. This effect causes the traditional method of determing wristcock, or lag to be slightly incorrect since the points of measurement are not on precisely the same plane. This new calculation allows you to evaluate the difference. More later...
G2M
You guys are killing me slowly! The combination of me not understanding what your saying and you guys throwing in stuff that isn't clear - it's a tough road- but I've been on this road before so although frustrated I'm still able to hold the composure together.
I could be wrong but I'm hoping you guys can work on being a little better and careful about defining your terms and ideas. One way to do that is to write in addition to the answer those answers or ideas that are wrong- the one's that are easy to mis-interpret and then clarify and compare those with the correct answer. Also, definitions are especially helpful. OK I'll get off my soap box now- just ignore me when relevant.
Don't get me wrong- appreciate the help already- I'm just saying you guys are capable of better- and I'm pushing you to do it.
Golf2much- I don't think/agree that at the top the #3 accumulator and the sweetspot plane are on the same plane. Sure could be but that would be the isolated exception and not the norm.
I'll start on this particular topic and let you add to or finish it.
Differences at impact fix between the #3 accumulator plane and the Sweetspot plane. First - I'd like you to clarify what you mean by the sweetspot plane in this post, because you could be referring to the sweetspot plane as that inclined plane that the sweetspot travels through as the clubhead travels during the stroke. Or you could be referring to a different sweetspot plane- the one that is slightly different than the #3 accumulator- I'll call it the #3 accumulator sweetspot plane as opposed to the #3 accumulator shaft plane.
Let's look at that one for a moment.
AThe #3 accumulator shaft plane at impact fix with a sandwedge would form a plane that includes these three points- the left shoulder, the #3 pressure point/grip end of the shaft, and the end of the clubshaft near the clubhead/hosel. For clarification sake - if you isolated that #3 accumulator shaft plane - then the three sides of that plane would be 1) the left arm 2) the clubshaft, 3) from the clubshaft near the hosel to the left shoulder. All of those would line up or be on the plane of the #3 accumulator.
The #3 accumulator sweetspot plane at impact fix with the sandwedge would have a couple of differences due to the fact that the sweetspot is 1) further back from the leading edge than the shaft i.e. roughly or crudely half way between the leading edge and rear or top of the clubface - also 2) further away from the hosel i.e. roughly or crudely half way between the hosel and the toe of the clubface.
So that creates two separate differences of the #3 accumulator shaft plane and the "#3 accumulator sweetspot plane". They are as follows: #1) Looking down target- that is from behind the player with the ball between you and the target- the angle of the sweetspot plane at impact fix will be less steep than the shaft angle. Because both use the same point- i.e. #3 pressure point, or end of the grip as one end of that side of the plane but one uses the sweet spot and the other uses the shaft plane as the other point that makes up the "side of the plane".
#2) Same thing- from a different perspective- when looking down from above- as if you are hovering over the player in a helicopter- at impact fix with the sandwedge- the #3 accumulator formed on one side by the line between the sweetspot and the #3 pressure point or end of the grip will be leaning more towards the target than the #3 accumulator shaft plane- because the sweetspot is further back of the hosel/end of the shaft. So if that line from the sweet spot and the #3 pressure point or end of the grip were extending up to the left shoulder it would not go through the left shoulder like the #3 shaft accumulator does- the #3 sweetspot accumulator would actually point slightly ahead of the left shoulder. Bringing a little more precision to that relationship to clarify the concept- let's say that the distance from the sweetspot on the clubface to the #3 pressure point is the same distance from the #3 pressure point to the left shoulder- let's just say they were both 3 feet. Now let's say that the sweepspot is 3/4 of an inch back of the shaft- then assuming the shaft was point right at the left shoulder socket at impact fix- as viewed vertically from the helicopter- then the #3 sweetspot accumulator would point 3/4 of an inch ahead of that shoulder socket.
I'll stop rambling for now- I guess I was trying to clarify the concepts of sweetspot plane that you were referring to and the #3 accumulator plane that you were referring to. I didn't address why they are different and not the same at the top yet, but let me know which sweetspot plane you were talking about and any other feedback on this limited and maybe somewhat off topic issue.
Hybrid Mode
