I cannot fathom why you presented the last three photos of Tiger Woods.
You have drawn a red line through the ball at impact and stated that the hosel is not on that plane line. Of course it cannot be on that plane line if the sweetspot is on that plane line. At impact, the hosel and sweetspot cannot possibly be on the same plane.
However, they are on the same plane at the extremes of the impact zone.
What can one conclude other than the fact that there is only a very small difference between the clubshaft plane and the sweetspot plane within the vicinity of the ball (roughly within 1 foot of the ball) while there is virtually no difference as one gets closer to the third and fourth parallels? Also, the difference between the clubshaft plane line at impact and the sweetspot plane line at impact is very small and of no apparent practical significance.
If I drew the red line from PP#3 to the hosel, I would be able to demonstrate that the hosel is also very close to that red line when the clubshaft is near the third and fourth parallels. I personally don't think that my demonstration would help to clarify matters.
You have stated nothing of relevance, other than express your personal sentiments.
I am using this Yoda-provided forum to explore/discuss golf swing issues. If you think that the questions that I pose, and the opinions that I express, are not of interest to you, then do not visit this forum.
You also don't have to be so pretentious and infer that you are very concerned about the quality of this "LBG-website" while inferring that I am not equally concerned. We simply use different measuring sticks and I personally think that I am doing everything possible to make my forum a serious intellectual forum devoted to exploring golf swing issues while simultaneously discouraging unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
You have stated nothing of relevance, other than express your personal sentiments.
I am using this Yoda-provided forum to explore/discuss golf swing issues. If you think that the questions that I pose, and the opinions that I express, are not of interest to you, then do not visit this forum.
You also don't have to be so pretentious and infer that you are very concerned about the quality of this "LBG-website" while inferring that I am not equally concerned. We simply use different measuring sticks and I personally think that I am doing everything possible to make my forum a serious intellectual forum devoted to exploring golf swing issues while simultaneously discouraging unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
Jeff.
Equally concerned, maybe. Equally qualified, not even close. Check with others on this site if I bring "relevance" to it. Check with Lynn if I bring "relevance" to the many schools I do with he and Ted. Ask any of my students or professionals I work with if I bring "relevance" to the lesson tee. You may also find out if I am "relevant" when I step onto the first tee of a tournament. I have earned the right to voice my concerns on this site, you have been banned from everywhere but this little corner of golf cyberspace. Why do you think that is?
As I stated quite clearly before, you simply can't argue opinions which is clearly what you have done once again. If I present something that is factually incorrect then prove it wrong, otherwise accept the same treatment that you give others.
Powerdraw's post soliciting help for his shanking and subsequent responding posts -- including Golfgnome's explicit prescriptions -- were inappropriate to this thread. These posts have now been moved to a new thread under his name in the forum The Golfing Machine -- Basic. Same thing with O.B. Left's post regarding center-shafted clubs.
And now, please continue, but be aware of the ever-present threat of threadjack. We have many forums on this site. Please post appropriately. Thanks.
When I use the term "relevance" it has nothing to do with your opinions regarding the golf swing. Your opinions regarding the golf swing are as relevant as any other forum member's opinions.
What I find irrelevant are all your opinions regarding my attitude and motives (eg. allegations of arrogance or boorsishness or secret/unwholesome agendas). They may have relevance to you, but they have no relevance to golf swing issues. I never question the motives/attitudes of other forum members - I simply argue passionately about golf swing issues. If I disagree with another forum member who passionately argues on behalf of his personal opinion, I don't accuse him of arrogance or boorishness because he relentlessly pursues his argument. He is entitled to harbor strong personal opinions with as much intensity as I harbor personal opinions.
You also stated-: "As I stated quite clearly before, you simply can't argue opinions which is clearly what you have done once again. If I present something that is factually incorrect then prove it wrong, otherwise accept the same treatment that you give others."
This is bizarre. I only argue about opinions and not facts. If something is known to be factually correct, then I wouldn't waste my time arguing about that point. I only bother to argue about "opinions", which I think are not factually correct. I have never complained about other forum members treating my personal opinions in the same way. I expect other forum members to question the legitimacy of all my opinions regarding the golf swing, and I never resent them questioning my personal "opinions".
"Equally qualified". I find that concept meaningless. I judge a forum member's opinion based on the quality of his argument and not on the basis of whether he is supposedly qualified to harbor an opinion. I don't disqualify any forum member from expressing an opinion in this forum, and I don't judge the legitimacy of their opinion based on their "status", but solely on the logical strength of their argument.
The main reason why I have been banned on other golf forums is because I unhesitatingly question every forum member's expressed opinion - irrespective of their "expert" status. I was banned from GolfWRX because I unceasingly questioned the legitimacy of Jim McLean's X-factor theory. I was banned from iseekgolfguru.com for unceasingly questioning an "expert"'s opinion to the dismay of other forum members who didn't like my constant questioning of Lagpressure's opinions (eg. questioning the legitimacy of Lagpressure's belief that one can reactivate PA#4 after impact and questioning his belief in a 5th power accumulator or questioning his belief that one should pull a club out of its orbit post-impact). I was banned from Brian Manzella's website because I questioned his authority. I have no regrets for unceasingly questioning the legitimacy of other forum members' expressed "opinions" regarding the golf swing. I think that the constant questioning, and requestioning, of all forum members opinions (without fear of consequences and without indulging in overt ad hominem attacks) is what a good golf discussion forum is all about - and that belief about an "open forum" that is free of restrictive rules doesn't only apply to me; it applies equally to all forum members who participate in the forum.
Do you think you were banned because you questioned opinions or because of the way you go about questioning opinions and presenting your case?
I enjoy a good debate on all things golf, and I have my own opinions on a lot of matters, but there is a time to 'agree to disagree'. That said I don't think I have ever properly understood any post you have ever made.
When I use the term "relevance" it has nothing to do with your opinions regarding the golf swing. Your opinions regarding the golf swing are as relevant as any other forum member's opinions.
What I find irrelevant are all your opinions regarding my attitude and motives (eg. allegations of arrogance or boorsishness or secret/unwholesome agendas).
. . .
The main reason why I have been banned on other golf forums is because I unhesitatingly question every forum member's expressed opinion - irrespective of their "expert" status.
Jeff,
I have specifically asked Golfgnome to refrain from further engagement on this thread and in this forum. His talents and time are too valuable to waste in further unproductive interaction here.
. . .
I am both founder of LynnBlakeGolf.com and one of its resident experts. Hear me: I do not fear your questioning attitude or your exhaustive posts (you are right a lot, and you are wrong a lot). At the same time, I will not allow you to dominate my site and obscure its mission. Hence, I have not banned you, but instead have established your own appreciated -- but necessarily quarantined -- presence here.
I hope that you perceive no personal slight because I question the relevance of those photos of Tiger Woods regarding the question-issue of the appropriate "clubshaft orbit through the impact zone".
I will restate my position in a different fashion. At impact, the idea of a clubshaft plane with its base on the ball-target line has no relevance because one doesn't hit the ball with the hosel (heel) of the club. At impact, the baseline of any theoretical clubshaft plane must be inside the ball-target line, so that the sweetspot can hit the ball. In other words, at impact the only plane of practical relevance is the PP#3-sweetspot plane. We agree on that point.
We even agree that during the early takeaway that one could use the imaginary PP#3-sweetspot axis line to trace the ball-target line (SPL).
I only think of the "clubshaft being on-plane" concept as being relevant because it helps a golfer move the clubhead in an arc that is symmetrical to the ball-target line, and that results in an in-to-square-to-in clubhead swingarc that is perfectly symmetrical with respect to the ball-target line. To achieve that goal, a golfer must focus his attention on the clubshaft. From my perspective, one could also use a dowel stick (which doesn't have a clubhead) to train a golfer to swing the clubshaft on-plane (where the end of the dowel stick nearest the ground always points at the ball-target line - except when the dowel stick is parallel to the ball-target line). In Lynn's Alignment Golf DVD there is a drill performed by VJ Trolio where he runs the clubshaft along a railing (made of PVC tubing) that is about 18" high. Isn't that drill supposed to help a golfer acquire a sense/feel of being on-plane through the impact zone? In that drill, it is the clubshaft which is tracing a SPL, and not the imaginary PP#3-sweetspot axis line. Hopefully, all golfers understand that the drill is only an approximation because there is a subtle difference in the sweetspot plane, relative to the clubshaft plane, in the immediate vicinity of the ball.
Finally, in my mind, I can hold the following mental image. I can mentally imagine the clubshaft tracing a SPL through the impact zone (in the manner that I described VJ Trolio's low-fence drill), but I also simultaneously realize that the SPL must actually be inside the ball at impact (and not through the center of the ball). I can then readily mentally picture the clubface closing during the release swivel phase and followthrough phase and I can mentally picture the sweetspot path being slighly curved as the clubhead moves through the impact zone. It "feels" is as if the clubhead toe is rotating around the hosel (while the hosel traces the SPL).
I can also think of the same situation using an alternative mental image. I can imagine the PP#3-sweetspot axis line (not the clubshaft) tracing the SPL, which then forces me to imagine that the hosel tracks along an inward curved path through the impact zone. I find this mental image disconcerting - because I cannot really imagine the hosel curving inwards (towards the toes) as it moves from the third parallel position to the fourth parallel position. Can you really imagine the hosel of the club following an inward curved path as it moves through the impact zone - while your hand thrust is down-and-out-and forward?
Yoda - I respect your decision to quarantine me here. I harbor no ill-feelings. I think that's it's a good decision because I have an irrepressible urge to pursue my arguments to the nth degree, and I can easily understand how my behavior can upset many forum members if I dominate the threads.
I hope that you realize that I enjoy participating in your delegated forum because i) I respect your tolerance for alternative opinions (even if you think that they are wrong) and ii) because I always hope to sometimes be proven wrong (so that I can learn something new). My ultimate goal remains a relentless probing of golf swing issues so that I can better understand the mechanics, biomechanics and physics of the golf swing - while I simultaneously try to avoid indulging in unproductive ad hominem attacks.
I hope that you perceive no personal slight because I question the relevance of those photos of Tiger Woods regarding the question-issue of the appropriate "clubshaft orbit through the impact zone".
I will restate my position in a different fashion. At impact . . .
Jeff,
As I did with Golfgnome, I have asked YodasLuke to disengage from this Forum. He is a generous, but working professional with a limited amount of discretionary time. In my judgement, that time is largely wasted here.
My Contributing Professionals are here with a purpose; namely, to help our readers and students play better golf. My observation has been that their participation in your Forum rarely contributes to that purpose.
Hybrid Mode
