[Daryl]

First, I'm not jacking this thread.

Ok that would imply a steepening to the clubs lie angle wouldnt it ?

Yes

A toe down deal ?

Yes

Why cant you just maintain lie angle ?

That will need you to change the Orbit of the Clubhead. It needs a much Flatter Plane and that compounds the problem of "Diversion".

Hmmm are you talking about the IN of Back , In , Up ?

Yes, In and Up is back on Orbit. If the Ball is moved back on orbit, its above the ground. Steepen the Plane Angle from the Plane Angle Reference Point until the Ball touches earth. Then you'll see that Low Point hasn't changed its location.

If thats what it is I see it , yes. Interesting.

I'm including the quote below because Homer refers to using the "Plane Angle Reference Point".

So those aligned between the Elbow and Shoulder Turn Planes have become the most widely accepted, because actually the Toe or Heel can be lifted enough safely accommodate either of the flatter or steeper Plane and therefore any listed Plane Angle reference Point (2-D-0).

I think that one question that were overlooking in this thread is "Why do longer Clubs need to be more open at Impact than shorter Clubs?". Longer clubs have longer impact intervals because of greater clubhead speed. This is directly related to sustaining the line of compression. The right elbow has less bend at Impact with shorter clubs giving much faster closing which is needed with very short impact intervals.

Steepening the Plane offers faster Clubface Closing for shorter Impact Intervals. You must see the Right Forearm Angle of Approach, then you'll visually see this in action.

Homer said (i'm going to paraphrase), that the golf club is designed for the way that "Humans" swing the club. Somewhere along the way we lost that connection. And the connection, I'm sure, is the Right Forearm Angle of Approach and the Geometry of the Circle. I Know what you're thinking, but I'm not being pig headed.