Gentleman could it be you guys are talking different cf's? Homers vs Newtons or whoever? Check the glossary. I don't believe they are one and the same.

Whip said: "Everyone think they are smarter than Homer Kelley".

Whip is part of "everyone".

My book is in a container somewhere on the Atlantic Ocean at the moment so I am unable to check it. But I did check this thoroughly earlier. HK's definition is golf specific. There's nothing wrong with it, Newtonian wise. Not in the book as far as I can see, but this is one of the areas where TGM doesn't spell it out, where there's room for interpretation, and where some of the interpretations being used have flaws.

I can say more about this later, if I'm not stigmatized as believing I think I'm smarter than Homer. Right now I have a golf match to catch.

How is it erroneous?

Wow this is the type of post that would cause me to not address any of your future posts are you serious?

Check this article

http://people.stfx.ca/smackenz/Publi...20dynamics.pdf

Although it does not exactly address the case at hand, it shows that, in simulations, even if one does not actively supinate in the downswing the club face closes, and even can come back square if the club starts under the plane of the hands (if the other power sources are timed accordingly). I have to re-read the article to understand the reason.

What they don't understand is the physics of swinging and hitting creates their geometry.

I just got the coolest golf bag of all time !!!!! Fred couples Bridgestone Ryder cup captain edition autographed staff bag

Playing in the long beach open next week my first pro event

You should know.

I was just playing your game for a change.