What do you think the reasoning was behind the omission of the "torso at right angles to the plane" thing? Have you ever asked Yoda?
It makes sense in that any turn of the torso would maintain the on plane travel of the right forearm but ..... is that a Pivot to Hands kinda logic maybe? See the glossaries definition of Pivot for instance. Just guessing. I dunno, I really dont know.
As far as the definition of Elbow Plane goes: In the first and second, if Im reading it right, it was any plane angle which saw the Right Elbow and Forearm on Plane at Impact. Where as in later editions it was by definition a singular , low plane angle, referenced by where the Right Elbow touches the waist and amongst the many angles that can see the Right Forearm on Plane at Impact.......
I also see Okies point about it seeming to be a recommended Plane Angle in the Third. Where as in later years he apparently preferred the TSP.
Maybe Yoda'll come in here and provide some background insight?
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed but don't know where or when in the forum.
From a geometric standpoint based on the rationale Mr. Kelley gave for the Elbow Plane in the earlier editions vs. the TSP in the later . . . .which do you believe to be more compelling and why? I'll reserve my answer . . . .
Threaded Mode
