That being said- It would be that the golfer could strike the ball at any point on the "circles" with the same results relative to the tangent to the circle at the point struck. ??
Which then leads me to the 2 thoughts. 1. Is the circle shape important beyond practical use? 2. Is anything important beyond alignment of the clubface relative to the direct of the clubface at impact?
HB
That's it. Well said.
Quote:
"It would be that the golfer could strike the ball at any point on the "circles" with the same results relative to the tangent to the circle at the point struck."
So what do we call that point on the orbit when the tangent to the circle is aimed at the Target?
The Club is designed with length and lie angle and loft. The loft plane is a vertical plane. Rebound will be at right angles to the face. When this geometry (Shaft in a vertical plane at the correct lie angle) intersects the bottom of the circle, we have Low Point. That alignment at separation causes the rebound to occur along the Target line (clubface alignment).
Here's an old doodle of mine. Guys submit drawings you did on a napkin or toilet paper or whatever if you want. Take a photo of it on your phone and post it !!!
Rule #2 Unused toilet paper only! This is for all those Viking fans out there.
Here's an old doodle of mine. Guys submit drawings you did on a napkin or toilet paper or whatever if you want. Take a photo of it on your phone and post it !!!
Rule #2 Unused toilet paper only! This is for all those Viking fans out there.
This first drawing is were D and I have a difference of opinion. The Angle of Approach should maybe be left for a later time eh D? Do you have the Angle of Attack handy? The attitude of the clubhead through the very minute but all important impact interval. It should be tangential to the orbit, no? Pointing more down as the ball goes back (up and in) the stance.
D lets discuss this bizz later ok. Dont want to get bogged down on this . Not saying your wrong. We could do a separate thread if you want to address it right now. Lets talk Arc of Approach PROCEDURE here on this thread anyways before we jump into IMO THE most complex aspects of the geometry...... Angle of Approach PROCEDURE.
"THE GEOMETRY OF THE CIRCLE IS PLANE GEOMETRY (2 DIMENSIONAL - 4-D-0) AND CONSISTS OF THE CIRCUMFERENCE (AND ARCS), RADIUS, RADIANS, DIAMETER, TANGENTS, CHORDS, PLANE, AND PLANE LINE. ONLY THE CIRCUMFERENCE IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE AND IT IS DESCRIBED BY A RADIUS MOVING AROUND A CENTER ........"
This last bit "only the circumference is not a straight line".... sounds simple enough but it is interesting given that most new golfers and a lot of old time golfers too in their despair or merely operating under false logic try to cover the plane line or target line instead of tracing , pointing at it. Its as if we want to find a straight line to guide us and there is one but we attempt to make what should be a more circular orbit natured geometry linear . Like pool or billiards. Different tools / implements , different associated geometries. Contrast the hammer throw and the spear chuck. The golf club , which can whack a ball a long way mandates a circular geometry. IMO.
I don't want to complicate this. BUT, will U need to add shoulders and place the center of rotation af the shoulders?
Then later an extension of the radious because of the uncocklin of the left wrist?
Am I getting way ahead of the basics U want to start at?
If so Ignor this for awhils.
hb
Dont need the shoulders I suppose but the eyes and their location above the plane are critical to where we're going. We can get to the centres , the levers etc later that'd be cool. Much can be gleaned before things get that complicated IMO.
The basic drawings are a model only . They're two dimensional , dont have any levers etc. Very un human like . No wrist cock , no #3 angle . Very flat . BUT IT REVEALS A GEOMETRY A WAY OF PERCEIVING THE CORRECT ATTITUDE THE CLUBHEAD SHOULD TAKE THROUGH THE BALL . Something that just doesnt seem to be apparent even to the best of golfers . The best merely operate in a manner inconsistent with they might perceive or write about. Weird but not uncommon or new by any means.
Yoda once relayed that Byron Nelson who was conceptually operating under a false logic of straight back and straight through (Im leaving face considerations out but he also had that wrong) intentionally left photos of his own action out of his book. His own swing was contradicting his logic.... Nothing against Lord Byron , I deeply admire the guy and his swing. My gosh his swing! My point is only that the geometry , the circular nature of the club head orbit , especially when its leaned onto an inclined plane is difficult to find . Its not difficult geometry to understand , but its not our first consideration when trying to figure out why that ball doesnt want to behave. We tend to look for a more linear explanation of things . "Square to Square" and the golf magazines of the 70s were a high water mark for this sort of thing. But the false logic of it , if you will, has been around for probably as long as the game has been played. Kids dont seem to be subject to it , they just do without much thought to things .
You cant go by what a lot of pro's say they are doing. (Especially Moe IMO, never trust a Canadian especially one from Ontario). Look at the pictures . This very thing cost Homer the better part of his first decade or so of research.
Linear Mode
