We have major differences in understanding this topic.
I have addressed many of your issues in my post to Dariusz.
I am only going to comment on this statement that you made in your last post.
""In the backswing, he took his clubshaft up the clubshaft plane (not sweetspot plane 2)"
OK, there is a plane shift from backswing to the downswing probably exaggerated by the parallax effect. Yodasluke is not a robot. Or is he? His swing is the most precised I have observe of any human. The backswing stage is of low energy and it does not matter much that you need to keep the sweetspot on plane during a backswing. But he sure keeps the sweetspot on plane during the downswing."
Homer's definition of "on-plane" refers to the end of the clusbhaft and not sweetspot. See last paragraph of 2-F. Normally the sweetspot can be used as being equivalent to the end of the clubshaft - because it is roughly equivalent to the end of the clubshaft when the clubhead width is <4", but it will not work if the clubhead width is 18" and the hosel-to-sweetspot distance is 9". If one directs PP#3 (which you believe senses the COG of the clubhead) towards the base of the sweetspot plane at the start of the downswing when using a clubhead width of 18" (like Yodas Luke's big club) then it will result in an looped downswing action - as described in a recent post.
You wrote-" "The backswing stage is of low energy and it does not matter much that you need to keep the sweetspot on plane during a backswing."
My understanding of the sweetspot being "on plane" during the backswing (between the first parallel and the top of the backswing) is that it must be on the same plane as the back of the flat left wrist/hand. Yodas Luke successfully achieved that goal during his backswing by rotating the sweespot from sweetplane 2 to the elbow plane during his backswing.
Homer's definition of "on-plane" refers to the end of the clusbhaft and not sweetspot. See last paragraph of 2-F. Normally the sweetspot can be used as being equivalent to the end of the clubshaft - because it is roughly equivalent to the end of the clubshaft when the clubhead width is <4", but it will not work if the clubhead width is 18" and the hosel-to-sweetspot distance is 9".
Jeff,
This is the first of your posts I've read today, and there's no telling what else I've missed. As usual, though, I didn't have to read far before I found an absurd misrepresentation of TGM.
'First instance' misrepresentations -- I view those as misinterpretations -- I can handle. It is the repeat offenses that really get under my skin. Your quote above is a perfect example. Homer Kelley's operative definition of 'On Plane' references the Sweet Spot (Longitudinal Center of Gravity), not the Clubshaft. Read the first three sentences of the second paragraph in 2-F. Or just re-read my post #155 (68 posts ago) where I not only explained that fact, I actually took the time and trouble to write it out for you verbatim. Further, the last sentence of that paragraph explains precisely when the Clubshaft is an acceptable visual equivalent for both Planes. And now you come up with this drivel that once again compels me to respond.
I can draw only three conclusions regarding your persistently obnoxious behavior:
1. You don't read the replies to your tomes.
2. You read them, but choose to ignore them.
3. You read them, but when confronted with the truth, you continue to state otherwise to suit your own purposes.
Your incessant, argumentative responses and use of quotes indicate that you at least read the replies. However, you have made items #2 and #3 an artform.
Here's the problem I've got with you, Jeff . . .
I am the proprietor of this site. I pay for it every month. I have dedicated volunteers who help me deliver its content 24/7. And we have a mission, part of which is to deliver accurate information regarding Homer Kelley and his book, The Golfing Machine. Now, this may come as a surprise, but I have absolutely no problem with those who question his ideas. If that were the case, you'd have been gone a long time ago. What I do have a problem with -- a very big problem -- is someone coming along and continuing to attribute ideas to the book that are either (a) simply not there, or more often, (b) dead wrong in their interpretation.
I've lately been on the receiving end of plenty of advice from people I respect and whose opinions I value. And what they tell me is that, despite my disclaimer on the Forum Home Page (where I state that your opinions are definitely your own and not those of LBG), your presence here implies my tacit approval of the information you deliver. For better or worse, I have come to agree with them. Else, why would I waste so many hours setting things right? Only to find in the very next hour that you've come back and whacked things upside down again.
I thought I could just set up a dedicated Forum for you, leave you be and let you wander through your wonderland alone. I thought you would attract a small but interested following, and you guys could enjoy each other while the rest of us were out working, playing golf or posting quasi-normally. Sadly, I was wrong.
To the contrary, every time I come in I find instances where, as happened tonight, I simply must set the record straight. Usually, I let these recurring opportunities go: I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into pissing contests with you. But, as you can see from this and prior posts in this thread and others, I sometimes must respond, especially to the more agregious affronts to TGM. Or else be viewed as a passive constituent in your efforts. Which, to some degree, I would be, because I'm funding your operation and making it visible to the world.
We gotta do something, Jeff. I'm not sure what. You present your misrepresentations of TGM as facts, and it is taking far too much of my time to correct things. And it burns my soul when I have to let your misstatements stand unanswered because I actually have other, more valuable work to do. Which, by the way, often means writing a post in another forum that I feel will help my students and readers play a better game of golf, a situtation I believe rarely occurs when I spend my time -- no, waste my time (as I have here) -- replying to you.
You have certain redeeming qualities, Jeff, and as I've said before, I applaud your seeking nature. However, you cannot be allowed to sabatoge my mission. You have your own web site, and I am becoming more and more inclined to encourage you to pursue your activities there and not on LBG. Set up your own Forums. I promise I won't go there -- it will be out of site and out of mind -- and you'll have the whole playground to yourself. On the other hand, it takes a long time and a whole lot of effort to get 6,000+ members, so I don't blame you for wanting to hang out here. It gets pretty lonely pretty quick over at your place.
I do not want to ban you, and this exclusive Forum is the ultimate evidence of that fact. But I'm running out of alternatives. Given the obvious incongruity between your persistant attacks and my own personal mission, you may have left me no other choice.
Hybrid Mode
