You're right: I am a D-Plane novice. I turned off quickly a few years back when a seminar speaker promoting it attempted to "prove" that Impact was really 'Outside-In' and not Inside-Out'.
This could be scary depending on angle of attack. If the ball is hit before low point, it will be inside out as you mention. However, if the ball is hit after low point then you will have Outside-in.
Depending on the context could be accurate or not.
If the ball is hit before low point, it will be inside out as you mention. However, if the ball is hit after low point then you will have Outside-in.
Not a 'news flash', nevercrosses. I've been preachin' that for thirty-one years. See 1-L #13 and #15.
Allow me to add a further component in the speaker's passionate argument: A divot. And not just any divot, mind you, but a divot carved Outside-In and to the left of the Target Line!
I'm comin', 'Lizabeth. I'm comin' to join you!
-- Fred Sanford
Sanford and Sons
Now what?
Are we to believe that, assuming a Square Plane Line and a Ball located Up Plane from Low Point, that a Clubhead moving Down an Inclined Plane through Impact to Low Point will take an Outside-In Divot?
Well, that's where, when and why I left 'De Plane'.
As I said in a post above, I now look forward to learning more about it, relating it to the principles that have served me well for three decades and drawing my own conclusions.
Not a 'news flash', nevercrosses. I've been preachin' that for thirty-one years. See 1-L #13 and #15.
Allow me to add a further component in the speaker's passionate argument: A divot. And not just any divot, mind you, but a divot carved Outside-In and to the left of the Target Line!
I'm comin', 'Lizabeth. I'm comin' to join you!
-- Fred Sanford
Sanford and Sons
Now what?
Are we to believe that, assuming a Square Plane Line and a Ball located Up Plane from Low Point, that a Clubhead moving Down an Inclined Plane through Impact to Low Point will take an Outside-In Divot?
Well, that's where, when and why I left 'De Plane'.
As I said in a post above, I now look forward to learning more about it, relating it to the principles that have served me well for three decades and drawing my own conclusions.
I hope you enjoy the learning process.
Eventually it will be required knowledge similar to making sure they hold the end with rubber on it.
Eventually it will be required knowledge similar to making sure they hold the end with rubber on it.
nevercrosses,
This may surprise you, but I have enjoyed the learning process my whole life. Hopefully, that enjoyment will continue . . . at least for a while yet!
You also are on that path. I see that and appreciate it. Maybe someday we will meet, smile and shake hands and perhaps even get a chance to share our varied experiences over a glass of "something". I would like that.
Today, in another thread, I read your lengthy and well-reasoned post with its terrific visuals illustrating your points. I got your message right away. Wonderful!
Your core question:
"Why two Plane Lines? More specifically, why the Chord Plane Line (and not the Tangent)?".
I answered your question -- succinctly and correctly. As a result, you know more about golf this evening than you knew this morning. And that's a good thing.
Why has this happened?
Because I took the time to read your post, digest your thoughts and respond. I knew my knowledge would be valuable to you. Now, you know, too. At least I think you do. In any event, that's why I did it: To help you along the way.
But, with your quoted response, you do not thank me for your new knowledge.
Nor do you credit me for passing it along.
Heck, you don't even acknowledge it.
Hey, no problem!
Somewhere, sometime that may happen.
But not today.
Today that realization is a bit too painful, and I understand that.
Here's my 'rub':
Today you sarcastically write me off as someone living in a Dark Age. Someone who needs only to understand the D-Plane to make golf make sense. Someone who has had the whole thing 'bass-ackwards' all these years . . . and didn't even know it.
Hybrid Mode
