In the precision Sketch 2-C-1 #3 (2-N-0 / Geometry of the Circle with Separation deliberately assumed at Low Point), the Swing Path (Arc of Approach), the Clubface and the Line of Compression each face directly down the Plane Line (in this case, also the Target Line). TGM contends that this configuration will produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot.
Under these exact conditions, does the D-Plane concept predict another result? If so, what? If not, then in this specific instance, how does D Plane theory "trump" Geometry of the Circle / Hinge Action theory? Or vice versa? In a non-adversarial world, could they be equally predictive?
Lynn,
Thanks for the question.
Are you teaching people to produce seperation at lowpoint as described in 2-C-1#3 to produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot?
I doubt it.
Clearly, you understand and respect D plane well enough to know that this is the only way you can phrase a question that matches the book in some way.
It's not really the geometry of the circle as I see it drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper is it?
This was my experience and I still have not been convinced.
Again, I am quite open to discussion.
__________________
Make Everything.
Last edited by John Graham : 12-16-2010 at 11:43 PM.
Are you teaching people to produce seperation at lowpoint as described in 2-C-1#3 to produce maximum compression (no "glancing force") and a dead straight shot?
I doubt it.
Clearly, you understand and respect D plane well enough to know that this is the only way you can phrase a question that matches the book in some way.
It's not really the geometry of the circle as I see it drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper is it?
This was my experience and I still have not been convinced.
Again, I am quite open to discussion.
John,
Thank you for thanking me for my question. Actually, there were several questions, but for whatever the reason, you chose not to answer even one of them.
Let's revisit the situation:
My questions referenced the Impact alignments of Sketch 2-C-1 #3 and asked that your answers address those alignments specifically.
I asked you simple, straightforward questions that deserved simple, straightforward answers.
I did not ask you to ask me a question regarding my teaching.
Nor did I ask you to ask me a question regarding your perception of the "geometry of the circle as .... drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper".
Finally, I did not ask for your comment as to how I chose to "phrase" my question.
So, let's begin again . . .
Please answer my questions. In the interest of brevity, let's make it even more simple and focus on just the first question:
Will the Impact alignments as illustrated in 2-C-1 #3 produce a dead straight shot? Or will they not?
Thank you for thanking me for my question. Actually, there were several questions, and for whatever the reason, you chose not to answer even one of them.
Let's revisit the situation:
My questions referenced the Impact alignments of Sketch 2-C-1 #3 and asked that your answers address those alignments specifically.
I asked you simple, straightforward questions that deserved simple, straightforward answers.
I did not ask you to ask me a question regarding my teaching.
Nor did I ask you to ask me a question regarding your perception of the "geometry of the circle as .... drawn on napkins, easels and pieces of paper".
Finally, I did not ask for your comment as to how I chose to "phrase" my question.
So, let's begin again . . .
Please answer my questions. In the interest of brevity, let's make it even more simple and focus on just the first question:
Will the Impact alignments as illustrated in 2-C-1 #3 produce a dead straight shot? Or will they not?
No "discussion" required.
One word will do.
specious but not being overly technical with the details and specifics of the drawing I have mentioned in the past, I would say yes.
I tried to use one word. I really did but I feared it would get me kicked off.
In fact, the alignments are identical -- only with more detail -- to those you demonstrated in your "level" (Low Point) explanation of the straight shot in Parts 1 and 2 of your well-done YouTube 'D Plane' videos.
I understand the complexities introduced when the ball is located forward or aft of Low Point. As did Homer Kelley. Which is why he differentiated the "precision position per 2-G" from other Impact Locations requiring "Clubface adjustment" (7-10).
For now, we at least agree that the depiction of Impact Geometry in 2-C-1 #3 will produce a dead straight shot. In other words . . .
Well, I don't need to go through this. I'm better off working and studying on my own than to be continually stalled in my progress by someone like John.
A few months off will do me good. I think that I'll start posting on johns website. Until I'm banned. But, since I'll be the only one posting, it may take awhile.
In fact, the alignments seemed to me to be identical -- only with more detail -- to those you demonstrated in your "level" (Low Point) explanation of the straight shot in Parts 1 and 2 of your well-done YouTube 'D Plane' videos.
I understand the complexities introduced when the ball is located forward or aft of Low Point. As did Homer Kelley. Which is why he differentiated the "precision position per 2-G" from other Impact Locations requiring "adjustment".
For now, we at least agree that the depiction of Impact Geometry in 2-C-1 #3 will produce a dead straight shot. In other words . . .
It is correct.
Lynn,
Before I say good bye, just wanted to thank you for your time and expertise. I've learned alot from you, your videos and the archives here.
I'm glad we could finish on a note of agreement.
Best of luck at the Teaching Summit and in all your future endeavors.
I apologize if I have caused too much trouble and tell Daryl not to go away.
Actually, there were several questions, but for whatever the reason, you chose not to answer even one of them. 
Hybrid Mode
