[Ringer]

Then you're naive. When HK examined "In Search of the Perfect Swing", and corrected their many errors, it didn't stop them from publishing the book as written and HK certainly didn't update the Golfing Machine because he found new knowledge. He didn't find new knowledge and I doubt he would find any in "The Physics of Golf" that would cause him to challenge or change his thinking. I mean, if I'm not impressed, what ever would make you think that Homer Kelley would be? I would be much more easily impressed than Homer Kelley.

So you're saying Lynn is wrong then and Homer wouldn't have been open to the new technology and information. Got it, message received.

I wonder what happened to the Hundreds of Golf books in Homer Kelley's library?

You tell me.

You have the opportunity to read both "The Golfing Machine" and "The Physics of Golf" as I have many times. No one on this website or any other has taught me about the "D Plane". I learned by making the effort to buy the book, read it and understand it. The same goes for 2-A and 2-B in the Golfing Machine. They're not exactly the Hot Topics on LBG.com or any other Website for that matter.

This isn't about TGM vs. D-Plane. This is about being spoon-fed the "talking points" without doing the homework yourself. TGM'ers are always accused of putting "Belief" before "Fact". This may be true for many TGM followers at least until they understand the material. Don't be so naive to think that the "D-Plane" is any different.

And I suppose you would argue Trackman is a total waste then. All the data that's been accumulated over the years of it's operation and development provide plenty of proof that the D-Plane is a reliable ball flight diagnosis.

The fact is here that you ARE putting belief before fact. D-Plane explains the geometry of impact and resultant ball flight. Why this excellent explanation that has been tested repeatedly is viewed so negatively by you is really quite alarming.

I don't believe everything I read either. Not even what's in TGM.

I spent some time writing my post comparing TGM and the "D-Plane". I used direct information and diagrams from both books to substantiate my claims. You should do the same. I have yet to see, a single, solitary reference to any material published in "The Physics of Golf". All I hear is commentary and TGM bashing.

WHERE do you see me "bashing" TGM? Hmmm? Where? For chrissake I'm agreeing with Lynn. Ipso facto you are disagreeing with him. You don't think Homer would have had any room for the D-Plane explanation. Why do I need to cite anything to agree with something someone else said? That is certainly a high requirement for the ability of one to post here.

If you don't understand the material, then fine, this is the place to learn. But if all you want is an excuse not to have to work very hard and long to understand the Golfing Machine, without saying as much, by replacing it with oversimplified science for much less effort, then get in line with 99% of the Golfing world at the back of the bus.

Seriously man, you are so far off from anything I've said it's unbelievable. Who the heck are you responding to? I don't think it's me.

But if its "Sweet Talk" you want, then "I'm sure Homer Kelley would find "The Physics of Golf" interesting and challenging and he and Theodore would probably have become great friends and work together on many projects."

Let me simplify what I'm trying to say. Jorgensen "discovered" that about 85% of the initial direction of a struck Golf Ball is directly related to the direction the Clubface is pointing. He didn't invent, he discovered. So did Homer Kelley. Jorgenson also discovered that a Tilted Spin Axis will cause the Ball to curve one way or another. So did Homer Kelley. Jorgensen discovered that the amount of divergence of Clubface Alignment and Clubhead Path caused the Spin Axis to tilt in a predictable way. So did Homer Kelley. Jorgensen "Coined" this phenomena the "D-Plane". Homer Kelley called the Phenomena a Fade, Draw, Pull, Push, Pull Hook, Hook, Slice, etc., you get my meaning. But, there's much more to it than that. You'll find all the answers in The Golfing Machine.

Yet the extrapolation of the information has been proven incorrect. In to out path with a square face at separation is supposed to cause a straight shot according to what has been said regarding TGM alignment. However the data accumulated with these conditions shows a hook. Why?