Okay, John, you have not responded to my post #71 seeking confirmation of the "pictures" you are referencing. Forging ahead, I assume (per my post) that you mean Sketches 2-C-1/2/3.
Yes, I'm sorry I missed that one. Please accept my apologies.
Originally Posted by Yoda
By the way, that was my fifth post written directly in response to one of your own and also the fifth one with zero reply from you. Mox nix to me, but I find it kind of interesting, especially given your insistence that people respond to yours "or else" you begin to wonder (your post #55).
Thanks for your responses. The other 4 responses either had no questions in them, told me my question was invalid, told me to read the book more closely or I was told that one didn't have the desire to respond.
Regarding post #55, I wrote
Originally Posted by John Graham
When the questions don't get answered, that's when I start to wonder why didn't it get answered.
Did I ask a bad question?
Was my question specious as Lynn has stated?
Have I not researched enough to merit a question of this magnitude?
Maybe the questions aren't answerable or proovable and thus require an amount of faith. Nothing wrong with that.
At least a couple of these would be my fault and not an "or else" as been presumed.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Two points:
1. Look closely at Sketch #1 in each of the Series, i.e., 2-C-1 #1, 2-C-2 #1 and 2-C-3 #1. You will notice that the ball is sitting on a tee, and Low Point is clearly illustrated as occurring 'in the air'. Therefore, as specifically related to these drawings, there is no contact with the ground whatsoever, much less any "pinch" effect (which, of course, doesn't happen anyway, even with the ball on the ground).
As specifically related to these drawings, I can see that the ball is on a tee. Why would a person assume that this information would change with a ball on the ground? Is low point changing? What changes so that the ball isn't driven downward from where it is resting?
Originally Posted by Yoda
2. In 2-C-1 and 2-C-2, your observation that the ball is being carried "downward and to the right" (On Plane) is correct. However, Sketch 2-C-3 illustrates the Lob Shot being executed as a deliberate Throwaway procedure. Hence, it is being carried neither downward nor to the right.
"Precision is recognizing and reconciling minute differentiations." [2-0]
Seems strange to me that only during the impact interval does the path of the club have 100% influence on the direction of the ball(down and to the right) and yet at separation it chooses to leave the face practically at right angles. How can Homer have it both ways? While on the face, only path influences ball even though the face is rotating while the ball is on it and the ball's centerlined has moved relative to both the angle of approach and arc of approach as depicted in 2-C-1#3 and this has no effect. Then all of a sudden, the ball decides to stop listening to the path and come off the face at practically right angles.
Some smart ball.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I have several other comments -- actually, a comprehensive overview -- relating to the Sketches, their purpose and the precision depiction of the illustrated concepts. In it you will find the answers to a few of your earlier questions (and more). I will get to that task as time permits.
Hey John, You really are just a person who likes to argue, LOL!
Why would you specifically relate to "these drawings" and not the chapter they are located in? Hey John, Resilience, Trajectory Control and Linear Force are all just some of the facts "baked into" those diagrams. Homer went out of his way to remind people that you have to cross -reference EVERYTHING!
For example, if you read 2-C-0 you'd see the the intentionality of the shot is "compress the ball through a particular point along a particular line..." Horizontal Hinging is intended to send the ball in a particular direction as is Layback. Lacking intentionality, the ball comes off the face of the club "practically right angles." Check 2-D-0/2-D-1, to see a larger set of factors all of which I wonder if you have considered in forming your remarks.
Homer was not an idiot or a fool (and it's fascinating to see you disrespect for him. Are you planning to sell something?) My stance on this site is that I'm learning and so I do not hold myself out as an expert. If I don't understand something, I make an observation and ask a question. But that is after reading the book and watching the videos and giving them the substantial credit they deserve. You seem to have no such restraint.
Yoda gave you some good advice.
A golf ball pays close attention to lots of factors at impact. There is a lesson there for all of us.
Originally Posted by John Graham
Yes, I'm sorry I missed that one. Please accept my apologies.
Thanks for your responses. The other 4 responses either had no questions in them, told me my question was invalid, told me to read the book more closely or I was told that one didn't have the desire to respond.
Regarding post #55, I wrote
At least a couple of these would be my fault and not an "or else" as been presumed.
As specifically related to these drawings, I can see that the ball is on a tee. Why would a person assume that this information would change with a ball on the ground? Is low point changing? What changes so that the ball isn't driven downward from where it is resting?
Seems strange to me that only during the impact interval does the path of the club have 100% influence on the direction of the ball(down and to the right) and yet at separation it chooses to leave the face practically at right angles. How can Homer have it both ways? While on the face, only path influences ball even though the face is rotating while the ball is on it and the ball's centerlined has moved relative to both the angle of approach and arc of approach as depicted in 2-C-1#3 and this has no effect. Then all of a sudden, the ball decides to stop listening to the path and come off the face at practically right angles.
Some smart ball.
I look forward to seeing your comments.
__________________
HP, grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Progress and not perfection is the goal every day!
Last edited by innercityteacher : 11-21-2010 at 10:09 PM.
Kids come into my computer lab and grab the $3000 machines from time to time and shake them or twirl them or... They are kids, as I said.
When I ask them, "Did you loose the common sense that you used to cross the street this morning (In an above-conversational level tone)," they usually say something like "What are you talking about?"
So I explain. "Crossing the street requires you to be careful of cars and other moving machines which will hurt you. You considered the context or big-picture of the street. You were smart and so you made it to school. You walk into my room and you try to damage an expensive machine that could help you become a millionaire by giving you an education. Why? Where is the common sense you had this morning?"
John, you are an adult and as I recall, you seem capable of considering the big-picture (if that is you in those you-tube videos) in making logical presentations. Yet, somehow, you expect me to believe that you are incapable or unable to look at a diagram in TGM and not consider five pages in front or in back? Really?
And you do this passive-aggressive stuff I see at school. Like a child, you bully and try to hide behind victim status ("If I'm allowed.") (I have to accept my limitations...I question until I do....) Your response seems like your the standard "I'm really trying to get better" BS bullies try to use when they are caught. "Just my way of learning...acting, speaking , assaulting, confusing..."
I don't think you are credible.
ICT
Originally Posted by John Graham
ICT,
Thank you for referring me to those passages and your input.
I don't really like to argue. I like to understand. I question until I do (if allowed).
Surely, sometimes it takes me awhile to understand and I accept my limitations in that regard.
I am truly sorry if I come off as a person that argues just to argue. It is just my way of learning. Question until understanding.
I've asked before and if that method of understanding is no longer allowed I will understand. No harm no Foul.
I am a fan of the book and use concepts from it in my own teaching.
JG
__________________
HP, grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Progress and not perfection is the goal every day!
Last edited by innercityteacher : 11-22-2010 at 12:34 AM.
John, you are an adult and as I recall, you seem capable of considering the big-picture (if that is you in those you-tube videos) in making logical presentations. Yet, somehow, you expect me to believe that you are incapable or unable to look at a diagram in TGM and not consider five pages in front or in back? Really?
And you do this passive-aggressive stuff I see at school. Like a child, you bully and try to hide behind victim status ("If I'm allowed.") (I have to accept my limitations...I question until I do....) Your response seems like your the standard "I'm really trying to get better" BS bullies try to use when they are caught. "Just my way of learning...acting, speaking , assaulting, confusing..."
I don't think you are credible.
ICT
Wow!!!!
Lets see now.....
I am not here to just defend John, as I think that he came on a little hot, but I will defend the right to ask questions, no matter how stupid they may seem, and that we, as members of this community, try to answer them in a appropriate/correct way.
Answering as you did, ICT, makes me question your credibility as an educator.
__________________
Golf is an impossible game with impossible tools - Winston Churchill
I am not here to just defend John, as I think that he came on a little hot, but I will defend the right to ask questions, no matter how stupid they may seem, and that we, as members of this community, try to answer them in a appropriate/correct way.
Answering as you did, ICT, makes me question your credibility as an educator.
We need to figure out a way to clean up this mess. A bunch of great guys posting and getting pissed at each other over an idea. Our problem is with the man that re-intoduced the information, not with the information itself. We need to get past it, study it, and figure out where it fits with our studies...
We are all friends here. Come on guys, it's not worth WWIII.
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
Seems strange to me that only during the impact interval does the path of the club have 100% influence on the direction of the ball(down and to the right) and yet at separation it chooses to leave the face practically at right angles. How can Homer have it both ways? While on the face, only path influences ball even though the face is rotating while the ball is on it and the ball's centerlined has moved relative to both the angle of approach and arc of approach as depicted in 2-C-1#3 and this has no effect. Then all of a sudden, the ball decides to stop listening to the path and come off the face at practically right angles.
Some smart ball.
Do you agree that "practically at right angles" means something similar to D plane?
Where do you think Homer was wrong? Do you think that the ball doesn't stick during the impact interval? That it rolls on the face? Or something else?
Linear Mode
