It is my understanding that Homer's on-plane concept is a general concept designed to keep the clubshaft on-plane throughout the entire swing and not specifically targeted to keeping the clubshaft (or sweetspot) on-plane in the immmediate vicinity of the impact zone. I think that if a golfer gets his clubshaft on-plane throughout his entire swing, then he has developed an idealised clubhead arc that will in-to-square-to-in and that will enable him to square the clubface at impact.
Here is my idea of an idealised clubshaft on-plane swing - Anthony Kim's swing.
The issue of the clubhead swivelling into impact is a separate issue. I actually think that it happens automatically. Have you watched an Iron Byron machine in action? It has a universal joint that is totally passive. The clubhead swivels automatically to allow the clubface to become square at impact. There is no device in that macahine that actively causes the clubface to become square at impact.
I think that many golfers (swingers) shank the ball because they have stiff wrists which prevents the automatic release swivel action from happening naturally.
It is my understanding that Homer's on-plane concept is a general concept designed to keep the clubshaft on-plane throughout the entire swing and not specifically targeted to keeping the clubshaft (or sweetspot) on-plane in the immmediate vicinity of the impact zone. I think that if a golfer gets his clubshaft on-plane throughout his entire swing, then he has developed an idealised clubhead arc that will in-to-square-to-in and that will enable him to square the clubface at impact.
Did I miss something, or did we not cover this subject? I would suggest that the perect scenario would be to have the CG constantly On Plane and to have the Clubshaft On Plane most of the time.
Originally Posted by Jeff
Here is my idea of an idealised clubshaft on-plane swing - Anthony Kim's swing.
I think I understand Toolish's point earlier in the thread. And, I've always said that I'm not a big fan of Plane conversations with bad camera angles. Kim's a great specimen, but it's still a bad vantage point.
If you're the guy looking on the same plane as the fragments of debris that create the rings of Saturn, you'd insist you were looking at things traveling in straight lines. If your eyes move off of that plane, you'd insist you were looking at circles.
I would spend a lifetime in 2-J-1, 2-J-2, and 2-J-3.
I have a different perspective of an observer's observation conclusions of Saturn's rings - presuming that the observer stands sufficiently far away from Saturn.
Regarding Saturn's debris, if one was on-plane with the moving debris, one wouldn't think that the debris moves in a straight line if one had binocular vision. One would see that the debris was moving in a circular path along the surface of an an imaginary plane that was straight-in-line with the observer's position.
If one was standing off to the side, one would still see debris moving in a circular manner, and one would be able to imagine its circular orbit being along an orbital plane that is angled relative to the observer's position.
When watching someone twirling a stone attached to a string in a circle around his head, I would never perceive the stone to be traveling in a straight line - no matter what the angle of the observation point relative to the orbiting object's orbital plane.
I have a different perspective of an observer's observation conclusions of Saturn's rings - presuming that the observer stands sufficiently far away from Saturn.
Regarding Saturn's debris, if one was on-plane with the moving debris, one wouldn't think that the debris moves in a straight line if one had binocular vision. One would see that the debris was moving in a circular path along the surface of an an imaginary plane that was straight-in-line with the observer's position.
And, what if I presume the observer is closer? Is your presumption more valid? Not at all, but you have further validated my point. It's all about perspective. Thus, Homer gave us 2-J-3.
So, a claim of an On Plane motion with a camera that is not On Plane is a guess, no matter how 'educated' the guess. If someone challenged your claim that Kim was On Plane and required proof, you would place the camera On Plane to provide proof.
It is my understanding that Homer's on-plane concept is a general concept designed to keep the clubshaft on-plane throughout the entire swing and not specifically targeted to keeping the clubshaft (or sweetspot) on-plane in the immmediate vicinity of the impact zone.
Jeff.
Mr. Kelley wanted the club on plane period. Precision in precision out particularly at impact.
Jeff, you said "The issue of the clubhead swivelling into impact is a separate issue. I actually think that it happens automatically. Have you watched an Iron Byron machine in action? It has a universal joint that is totally passive. The clubhead swivels automatically to allow the clubface to become square at impact. There is no device in that macahine that actively causes the clubface to become square at impact. "
For Iron Byron, I have tried to find more information through google without success. I would love to hear how the clubhead can do a 180 degree swivel unpowered (i.e. only by inertial forces). I can learn something here. Thanks in advance.
Lensing issues aside where is it best to position a camera for a down the line swing? On the base line, opposite the hands or?
Thanks
OB
One way you can do it is to take a laser pointer and place it on top of the camera. Shoot it at the player's hands to get the first estimation of height and location. Since almost no one swings on a Hands Plane, I move the camera toward the ball about two to four inches. I find that almost all of my players' strokes fall between the Elbow and Turned Shoulder Planes. So, my goal is to get the camera's eye looking straight down Plane.
I've heard some suggest that the camera should be placed at shoulder height. Those that use this height suggest that it comes closer to the teacher's eye level view. It's my opinion that it's less important what the club is doing at Top or End. I feel it's more important to see what the club is doing from Release through Impact.
I have also heard suggestions that the camera should be placed on the base line. The only way this would be possible would be to have the camera's eye looking through the back of the ball. I've never seen it done this way.
Another way would be to have the camera follow the club up and down the Plane. I have no idea what this would cost, as you'd have to have some way to match the Acceleration Rate of each player.
You'll notice that many of the videos that we see, as in Kim's video, are taken by a cameraman that has the camera on his shoulder. Additionally, he's standing off Plane. This is fine for TV, but it's not good for analysis.
As you've seen in some of the 3-D pics that I've placed on this site, you can place the camera's eye in many places. This technology is obviously the future. But, I'm going to wait until it's less than $250,000. For now, I'll have to remain in the Dark Ages, using video.
I have never thought of moving it off the elbow plane to adjust to the players chosen backswing plane or downswing plane. Makes perfect sense.
Sorry for thread jacking but while we are talking planes:
The Butch Harmon laser trainers have one light pointing out the grip end and another one pointing from approximately the #3 to the sweet spot (coincidence rather than TGM compliance probably). With constant back and forth swinging you can get the two ends to trace a straightish line from horizon to horizon along the target line , albeit with some wobbling as the sweet spot laser rotates off the inclined plane to the sweet spot plane.
Do you know of another or maybe better way of practicing plane compliance? If so please share it. I have the Harmon lasers and find them to be very helpful although my neighbours must be wondering what the heck is going on in the dark of my living room. They can shine out the windows and on to trees etc.
Hybrid Mode
