Kev, I've isolated the section of your post that was disturbing and off-base. Please - how many times do we need to go over this before you get it! Let's not see this kind of thing again
Sorry Mike, I lost my head for a minute!
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
The steeper the plane, the less potential sidespin (within the limits of the clubs designed lie angle).
I think you are making some assumptions here about the rate of rotation of the face though. You of course are very aware of this but this is all with the assumption that the face and path are "matching" with in reason to project the ball to the target. My point with the elbow plane (which most great players end up on) is it is the ideal blend of power and accuracy. Power as you say below and also the rate of rotation is slower due to the #3 requirements.
In an ideal application for accuracy (not a human, but a mechanical machine), the plane would be verticle, with exactly the right alignments (ball at proper low point etc). assuming the face isn't slinging around like a screen doe in a tornado.
Of course that assumes a club designed differently (a 90 degree lie angle).
In an ideal application for power, the plane would be horizontal, with exactly the right alignments for ball position. (for those being picky, I suppose you would have to account for gravity's downward pull)
Maybe . . . could there be a relationship with the "axis of rotation" that overrides what basic plane is being used?
If you hold a club out in front of you, arms straight out in front of the chest and make a baseball swing, you have a more rotational motion, more potential power, but less potential accuracy (less margin for error in ball position and clubface alignment). Lots of #3, very little #2.
If you do the same thing, but swing up/down like an axe, you'd have great potential for accuracy, but power variation might be more difficult (less margin for error in angle of attack/spin). Lots of #2, but little #3.
Mechanically speaking, the best plane angle would be 45 degrees for all shots - to give the most margin for error in power and accuracy.
45 to what? The ground? Spine? Axis?
Of course all of the above must consider the human machine, and the club's design.
Questions/Queries above . . . Thanks for the response . . . interesting discussion. Not sure I'm on board but good stuff to hash out.
__________________
Aloha Mr. Hand
Behold my hands; reach hither thy hand
Last edited by 12 piece bucket : 10-19-2009 at 10:49 AM.
The whole confusion of both golf and G.O.L.F.'s application is where the human machine gets involved.
If there is one area I would have loved to have learned more of re: Homer's views, it is how the human machine relates to what he has described in the book.
there is geometry, there is physics, and there is anatomy
It doesn no good to look at a golf motion without considering all three.
As far as the questions in your post, yes I am assuming a primary lever, and to whatever extent reasonable, fair to say that my initial comments re: ideals are likely more applicable to a hitter than a swinger, who must deal with the face rotation and its 'physical' relation to plane more than a hitter would.
as far as 45 degrees - to the ground (again, mechanically speaking, for margin of error in both distance and accuracy)
I'm curious if anyone has any data looking at what angle the right forearm is to the ground at impact on average for the top players? Any key differences for accurate players vs. powerful ones?
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
The whole confusion of both golf and G.O.L.F.'s application is where the human machine gets involved.
If there is one area I would have loved to have learned more of re: Homer's views, it is how the human machine relates to what he has described in the book.
there is geometry, there is physics, and there is anatomy
It doesn no good to look at a golf motion without considering all three.
Ed, you sound like you could be a salesman for the New Biomechanical Integration Approach recently introduced by TGM Home Office and GSEM Matthew Rosman . Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Ed, you sound like you could be a salesman for the New Biomechanical Integration Approach recently introduced by TGM Home Office and GSEM Matthew Rosman . Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Hadn't heard of that, interesting.
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
No matter what you say, I'm impressed with your two big wins this year. Again; Congratulations.
That entitles you to write a book. Perhaps a "Pop-Up".
Ah speaking of Pops. Being an old hockey player I normally pull the guys sweater over his face and then pop him. Its much easier for him that way, he doesnt have to watch. Next time we have dinner please wear you Black Hawks sweater. Jeff will help out too, i bet. Those Sabers fans like a good scrap. Old time hockey, eh.
Ah speaking of Pops. Being an old hockey player I normally pull the guys sweater over his face and then pop him. Its much easier for him that way, he doesnt have to watch. Next time we have dinner please wear you Black Hawks sweater. Jeff will help out too, i bet. Those Sabers fans like a good scrap. Old time hockey, eh.
When you begin to write your Golf Book, just remember that the Holes start on the Merry-go-round Hole and end on the Windmill Hole.
Pictured Below is the 7th at "Canuckistan Links" Golf Course.
Again; Congratulations.
Linear Mode
