I'm just starting to investigate the D-plane. I actually have found it quite beneficial to my understanding of what's going on through impact and any resulting ball curvature.
I've also found it seems to explain my predominant draw/hook ball flights from the summer. As I've begun to play the ball back of low point (i.e. up plane) and take a divot, I've hit shots that I would have sworn were right down target line/plane line (one and the same for me aligned neutral or square) with club face square that drew/hooked.
Well, d-plane predicts that (maybe TGM, too, but I didn't understand). So, for me, my understanding has increased and I have a better thought as to how to align (swing plane slightly left of target line) to get a straight ball.
Having said that, I still think TGM provides the best "how to" around! As others have said, if Homer was slightly off on the precise nature of the clubhead/ball collision, I don't think that detracts from the practical results of applying the components that put that clubhead into motion.
So, for me, TGM and more precisely Alignment Golf provide the swing mechanics that I want to learn and apply to improve my ball striking and ultimately reduce my scores. The d-plane has helped me at least better understand what is going on through impact (despite what my prior "knowledge" and feel led me to believe) and understand that I HAD made the swing I intended but got results that would have led me to change things I didn't need to change...I just need to work with slight changes to alignment!
Again, as others have said, I think all of golf benefits from the search for a "unified field" theory of the swing. Facts gathered from Track Man (clubhead path, etc., more so than the "predicted" ball flights which should just be observed) need to be incorporated and explained by TGM if we are to be able to continue to expand our knowledge and understanding of the golf swing and resulting ball flights.
I'm just starting to investigate the D-plane. I actually have found it quite beneficial to my understanding of what's going on through impact and any resulting ball curvature.
I've also found it seems to explain my predominant draw/hook ball flights from the summer. As I've begun to play the ball back of low point (i.e. up plane) and take a divot, I've hit shots that I would have sworn were right down target line/plane line (one and the same for me aligned neutral or square) with club face square that drew/hooked.
Well, d-plane predicts that (maybe TGM, too, but I didn't understand). So, for me, my understanding has increased and I have a better thought as to how to align (swing plane slightly left of target line) to get a straight ball.
Having said that, I still think TGM provides the best "how to" around! As others have said, if Homer was slightly off on the precise nature of the clubhead/ball collision, I don't think that detracts from the practical results of applying the components that put that clubhead into motion.
So, for me, TGM and more precisely Alignment Golf provide the swing mechanics that I want to learn and apply to improve my ball striking and ultimately reduce my scores. The d-plane has helped me at least better understand what is going on through impact (despite what my prior "knowledge" and feel led me to believe) and understand that I HAD made the swing I intended but got results that would have led me to change things I didn't need to change...I just need to work with slight changes to alignment!
Again, as others have said, I think all of golf benefits from the search for a "unified field" theory of the swing. Facts gathered from Track Man (clubhead path, etc., more so than the "predicted" ball flights which should just be observed) need to be incorporated and explained by TGM if we are to be able to continue to expand our knowledge and understanding of the golf swing and resulting ball flights.
Just my 2 cents on the topic...
This was my experience as well.
As a constant double checker, I came hear to find out if what I learned and was teaching was incorrect.
From what I have learned here, I'm not convinced that this information about the D Plane has been trumped by the geometry of the circle but I am open minded.
As with all things, use what works and don't use what doesn't work.
As a constant double checker, I came hear to find out if what I learned and was teaching was incorrect.
From what I have learned here, I'm not convinced that this information about the D Plane has been trumped by the geometry of the circle but I am open minded.
John,
In the precision Sketch 2-C-1 #3 (2-N-0 / Geometry of the Circle with Separation deliberately assumed at Low Point), the Swing Path (Arc of Approach), the Clubface and the Line of Compression each face directly down the Plane Line (in this case, also the Target Line). TGM contends that this configuration will produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot.
Under these exact conditions, does the D-Plane concept predict another result? If so, what? If not, then in this specific instance, how does D Plane theory "trump" Geometry of the Circle / Hinge Action theory? Or vice versa? In a non-adversarial world, could they be equally predictive?
Assuming "sweet spot" contact, and The Flat Left Wrist, or its equivalent, both camps would predict a straight, on-target shot with maximum compression.
But Yoda, since you've "arrived", would angled hinging allow the original contact points between ball and clubface to remain intact throughout the arc of the impact interval?
The D Plane assumes that the Ball Rolls on the Clubface. Impact and separation points are always different and D Plane never assumes Max Compression.
All Hinges produce a sustained line of compression, so all hinges give maximum compression. The Angled Hinge tilts the Line of Compression.
The D Plane is a term for the plane connecting two impact vectors. It is not an analytical model. Hence, The D Plane doesn't "assume" anything.
The book clearly identifies only Horizontal Hinge Action as the ideal application of linear force, producing perfect vector alignments.
And for the record, an arched left wrist, or its equivalent, would produce more compression than The Flat Left Wrist, or its equivalent. This would, of course, "hood" the clubface, which the book suggests to avoid. Although, virtually all great ball-strikers do it.
The D Plane is a term for the plane connecting two impact vectors. It is not an analytical model. Hence, The D Plane doesn't "assume" anything.
The book clearly identifies only Horizontal Hinge Action as the ideal application of linear force, producing perfect vector alignments.
And for the record, an arched left wrist, or its equivalent, would produce more compression than The Flat Left Wrist, or its equivalent. This would, of course, "hood" the clubface, which the book suggests to avoid. Although, virtually all great ball-strikers do it.
It's clear that you have NO grasp of "compression", the "line of compression" or "sustaining the line of compression". You said: "And for the record, an arched left wrist, or its equivalent, would produce more compression than The Flat Left Wrist, or its equivalent." Are you delirious?
Furthermore, you don't have a grasp of your own beliefs. Have you read page 80 of your Bible: "The Physics of Golf"? it says:
Quote:
The Ball Slides and Rolls on the Clubface
We shall finally consider the effect of this sliding friction between the ball and the clubface. When the clubhead begins to make contact with the ball, the ball will begin to slide up the clubface, with the force between the ball and the clubface gradually increasing. The resulting frictional force on the ball will gradually give the ball a rolling motion, and when the ball is about to leave the clubface, the ball will be rolling without sliding if there has been enough friction.
In the precision Sketch 2-C-1 #3 (2-N-0 / Geometry of the Circle with Separation deliberately assumed at Low Point), the Swing Path (Arc of Approach), the Clubface and the Line of Compression each face directly down the Plane Line (in this case, also the Target Line). TGM contends that this configuration will produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot.
Under these exact conditions, does the D-Plane concept predict another result? If so, what? If not, then in this specific instance, how does D Plane theory "trump" Geometry of the Circle / Hinge Action theory? Or vice versa? In a non-adversarial world, could they be equally predictive?
Lynn,
Thanks for the question.
Are you teaching people to produce seperation at lowpoint as described in 2-C-1#3 to produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot?
I doubt it.
Clearly, you understand and respect D plane well enough to know that this is the only way you can phrase a question that matches the book in some way.
It's not really the geometry of the circle as I see it drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper is it?
This was my experience and I still have not been convinced.
Again, I am quite open to discussion.
__________________
Make Everything.
Last edited by John Graham : 12-16-2010 at 11:43 PM.
Are you teaching people to produce seperation at lowpoint as described in 2-C-1#3 to produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot?
I doubt it.
Clearly, you understand and respect D plane well enough to know that this is the only way you can phrase a question that matches the book in some way.
It's not really the geometry of the circle as I see it drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper is it?
This was my experience and I still have not been convinced.
Again, I am quite open to discussion.
John,
Thank you for thanking me for my question. Actually, there were several questions, but for whatever the reason, you chose not to answer even one of them.
Let's revisit the situation:
My questions referenced the Impact alignments of Sketch 2-C-1 #3 and asked that your answers address those alignments specifically.
I asked you simple, straightforward questions that deserved simple, straightforward answers.
I did not ask you to ask me a question regarding my teaching.
Nor did I ask you to ask me a question regarding your perception of the "geometry of the circle as .... drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper".
Finally, I did not ask for your comment as to how I chose to "phrase" my question.
So, let's begin again . . .
Please answer my questions. In the interest of brevity, let's make it even more simple and focus on just the first question:
Will the Impact alignments as illustrated in 2-C-1 #3 produce a dead straight shot? Or will they not?
Actually, there were several questions, but for whatever the reason, you chose not to answer even one of them. 
Hybrid Mode
