Originally Posted by Mathew (Post 38507)

In a zero shift plane, the club would travel up and down the turned shoulder plane. In theory this is fine as far as delivering the sweetspot (a statement good enough for just now which is not quite true but unnessesary to add to the conversation), however the fact is that most clubs are not actually set up to be hit on this plane without tilting the clubface - one of the major directional factors. To exactly use the turned shoulder plane is not too easy in when trying to construct a model in terms of vector geometry yet the closer the golfer may come to this ideal, the less complicated the golfers alignments becomes.

Originally Posted by Mathew (Post 38527)

Actually Edz... A plane by defination is a flat surface in which a straight line can be drawn by two points. The key word here is two, not one, but two points.... pp1 and pp3.

However even this isn't true but accurate enough for golfers. Now heres a real head spinner for you. Pp3 isn't actually strictly speaking on the inclined plane except under a certain condition...

Originally Posted by golfgnome (Post 38528)

So the question becomes, as teachers why don't we fit our students to a zero shift golf club and teach them to make a zero shift swing? Most of our students have hands or elbow plane golf clubs thus requiring a double shift to make the ball go straight.

Originally Posted by EdZ (Post 38529)

Yes - a line from PP#1 to the 'center' of balance. PP#3 'orbits' PP#1 and only PP#1 can stay 'on plane'.