The argument for why hinge action is irrelevant, as I understand it,is that the ball is on the face of the club for such a short period of time that there is no effective difference between the direction of the club face at impact and that of the face at separation. Because nothing happens between impact and separation, there is nothing that hinge action does.
In discussions with those who advocate the irrelevance of hinge action, I have asked why then does hinge action seem to make a difference that can be seen and felt in, for example, the simplest of shots (as remarked by OBLeft). The answer I received was that hinge action sets the face prior to impact, which then leads to the ball flight. Horizontal hinging tends to a closed face at impact, etc. The point that is made is that nothing significant happens during the impact interval because the time the ball and the face of the club are in contact is so short.
Thanks for sharing rprevost. So this is an old topic of discussion I take it? Im guessing there is some data supporting this contention. Itd be interesting to see. I can see how its "irrelevant" to say Trackmans calculations. That it isnt needed. But does that make it irrelevant to ball response? Not necessarily. There must be a lot of things , compression for instance that isnt measured directly. I dont know , Im a newbie to trackman, I like it though. But Im still thinking there is a practical application for the golfer, making Hinging anything but "irrelevant".
Im no scientist but the thing that seems odd to me is that, brief though the impact interval is , the ball is completely squished and rebounds......that we all agree on Id imagine. So why is not enough time for the ball to roll up the face a little bit more for the layback inherent with Vertical Hinging? The ball seems to get a lot done in that little bit of time , why not react to layback too?
My guess is that what may be irrelevant for Trackman measurements has been extrapolated into a general irrelevance and probably with some malicious intent towards Homer........but remember that Homer didnt invent Hinge action he only identified it. Hinge Action is as old golf itself Id say. Actually given the cor of a feathery it might have been even more "impactfull" in the early days.
If "rprevost" doesn't want to understand hinge action I wish he would go somewhere else and tell someone who gives a sh*t because I could care less what he thinks.
We were having a good discussion on Low Point and I'm really pis*ed off about some asshole who enters the thread and just wants to fu"* around.
Daryl am I missing something....... rprevost seemed anything but what you accuse him of being.
Seems to me if somebody wants to call hinge action irrelevant then they could possibly Steer themselves to golf death.... There's guys Ive heard who say they love Moes swing but dont like his "flashing face" (horizontal hinging). You take that away from Moe and you dont have Moe anymore Im thinking. Pipeline was straight , saw him myself at least 40 or 50 times..... How can a guy that straight have a "flashing face"?
Daryl am I missing something....... rprevost seemed anything but what you accuse him of being.
Seems to me if somebody wants to call hinge action irrelevant then they could possibly Steer themselves to golf death.... There's guys Ive heard who say they love Moes swing but dont like his "flashing face" (horizontal hinging). You take that away from Moe and you dont have Moe anymore Im thinking. Pipeline was straight , saw him myself at least 40 or 50 times..... How can a guy that straight have a "flashing face"?
What's the difference between relating what other have said or saying it yourself? Why doesn't he ask the people who claim hinge action doesn't exist. Why doesn't he read 2-E and 2-G or do a search and read up on it? Why break into a perfectly good thread on Low Point? Is his contribution only going to be to ask challenge questions? Give me a break.
If "rprevost" doesn't want to understand hinge action I wish he would go somewhere else and tell someone who gives a sh*t because I could care less what he thinks.
We were having a good discussion on Low Point and I'm really pis*ed off about some asshole who enters the thread and just wants to fu"* around.
I apologize to Daryl for any offense. I was responding to what I thought was the topic under discussion, namely, the assessment of the relevance of hinge action. Obviously, I was mistaken.
A little background, I took a lesson from Yoda about two years ago. It was a great lesson. He introduced me to the Robert McDonald drills and explained to me how to keep the club on plane. This summer that lesson came to fruition when I achieved my quest of over 20 years to break 80 (I shot a 78 ). For that achievement, I am indebted to Yoda and all the TGM regulars on this site.
Since that lesson, I have been a regular reader of this site. I rarely contribute because I don't really know that much. I am a bogey golfer. One of the reasons I come back to this site is that in my experience, Yoda has been a model of civility. In any case, your language was a bit harsh. I am tempted to borrow a quote of Yoda's from his remarks in an earlier, different thread, "I deserved better", but I won't.
rprevost the Robert McDonald stuff is great isnt it? I believe Lynn picked it up from his time with Paul Bertholy. Lynn moves forward and backward but always towards the truth about things I have found, however old it may be or however new.
O.B., I just want you to know that I've been working for days on this Low Point / Separation issue and I'm starting to think that you were right in your first post and your interpretation that Separation occurs at Low Point. I need a few more days.
I'm looking forward to discussing the vertical dimension of this issue. It affects how deep divots you're taking and what you need to do to avoid slicing the club under the ball instead of driving the club straightish through.
I think this is even more intriguing than the hook/draw/straight/fade/slice/push/pull dimension.
I can slice a draw anytime I want. It is really easy to do with a wedge and with the ball back in the stance. It's THE way to make a a lob wedge that was supposed to carry 82 yards and spin left towards the pin, to stop short of the bunker
I've been a digger throughout my time as a golfer. Ball compression is much better with a thin divot or even without a divot, and when separation happens on the shallowest angle. If I had a stroke where the ball left the club at low point I wouldn't be a digger.
I've got the digging under reasonably control now. But I'm still digging more than I like with all clubs except the driver, and it probably costs me a few yards. And I still hit the occational "perfect" shot that ends up short. A few years ago that beast haunted me regularly and this has turned me into a distance control freak.
O.B., I just want you to know that I've been working for days on this Low Point / Separation issue and I'm starting to think that you were right in your first post and your interpretation that Separation occurs at Low Point. I need a few more days.
D, how dare you assume I knew what my own post was about. I didnt , I dont and I probably never will.
And you can quote me on this if you wish.
But to tell you the truth I was actually going to discuss how the Angle of Approach is maybe even more out to right field if you make separation 3/4 of an inch forward of a ball played back in your stance. Eh? Think about it. Where's that cord pointing?
Which I have now learned has implications to plane line alignment given Trackman and anyone else who might have published similar stuff back in 69.
You know I absolutely nuked a high down wind drive today by playing it forward , (hitting up and in) but moving the plane the line to the right to compensate for the fade tendency.....hope i got that right ......the ball sure liked it. I always used to fade those things but today I could hit em straight or draw them with my plane line adjustment. Thinking about this stuff these last few days has changed the way I set things up.
Bernt, I don't know if this would make any difference to you, but the Book description of Low Point uses the Center of Gravity of the Clubhead, on the Sweetspot Plane, passing through the Impact Point and Low Point.
If we visualize Low Point in relation to the Bottom of the Clubhead Arc, then it may follow that Ball Separation at Low Point would have the Bottom of the Clubhead only brushing the Ground. It seems that Non-TGM people have adopted the term Low Point to define it this way.
But if we adopt HK's view as outlined in 2-N-0, and the COG of your Clubhead is 4 grooves up with a 9 Iron, you may take a decent Divot even if Ball Separation was at Low Point.
I'm doing some illustrations. So far they indicate that the Impact point, on the Ball is where it should be for a 9 Iron (That seems to be the "Given") and the Low Point along that Arc on the Sweetspot Plane, is about 1/4" above the Ground, which makes your 9 Iron dig about a 1/2" ( or a little less) Divot when Separation is at Low Point.
A lot of book info leads me to believe that Separation occurs before Low Point and that Low Point is directly below the Hinge (or should be in a normal and practical golf swing).
Quote:
2-N-0 CLUBHEAD LINE OF FLIGHT The line of flight of the Clubhead and the Line of Flight of the ball are not the same but touch momentarily during Impact. The one has a vertical plane of action, the other an Inclined Plane. This involves the Angles of Approach (2-J-3) established by the Left-Shoulder-to-Ball relationship of the Lever Assemblies 1-L-11. This line cuts diagonally across the face of the Inclined Plane and passes through both the Impact Point and the Low Point. These points also locate parallel Plane Lines passing through them – that is, the Impact Plane Line and the Low Point Plane Line, each of which must use the “Sweet Spot” Plane (2-F). Herein, “Plane Line” means the Impact Plane Line and “Low Point” means Low Point Plane Line.
Hybrid Mode
