Bagger - is it correct to infer that the right forearm need only trace the plane line in the later downswing to reach a perfect impact alignment, and that the right forearm's movement in the early downswing can be very variable in different individual golfers?

Jeff.

Help Wanted
 

Mathew should correct me and say its when the sweetspot and right forearm as guided by the #3 pressure point are tracing the base of the plane.

Or something like that.

Bottom line is that you have to get to the correct release plane.

Through impact the club will need to move on the release plane because of the design of the club (and if anyone is unsure of why this is let me know...)- however technically pp3 will actually be moving fractionally offplane as the club is released. As the club is rotated around the LCOG by moving the left hand towards vertical, the clubshaft will rotate in a conical fashion and because pp3 is on the line of the shaft not the LCOG it must move offplane. The right forearm and arm of course needs to maintain alignments inorder to move the pressure point correctly and in that sence guides pp3.

Jeff,

Study Flip release in the book….one of Paul Hart’s favorite subject. :happy3:

Jeff, you won't "get it" until you feel it...attach your keyboard to a shaft and start swinging instead of typing...

I agree that even with parallax some of those guys are starting down on no specific plane...not TGM plane nor Haney....they usually are on plane during release though impact.

But it really is about sweetspot feel. Homer wrote in a generation before Video cameras were readily available for golf teaching...you just don't need them to make his stuff work.

When you do you swinging with your weighted keyboard...aiming to release on a straight plane line....try and make an intentional off plane release AND then still be on plane for impact region....really hard to do...you will feel the biomechanical inefficiency...then you don't need to draw lines.:golf:

YES SIR! Sergio and Furyk are considered two of the best ball strikers on tour. They shift the club all over the place . . . I would say the plane matters most from impact to separation. That is why the #3 accumulator angle is sooooooooo important. You can shift the plane all over but as Homer said "Plane shifts are hazardous" . . . I would add "the closer you get to the ball."

The right forearm location and alignment to the shaft is going to change based on several factors 3 critical ones would be the delivery path, selected delivery line or arc, and plane angle. The right forearm is going to have a different look based on right shoulder location and the amount of waist bend as well. This is why a centered stroke is so important. If your head Bobs . . . then you disrupt the #3 accumulator angle and your clubface alignments will be fleeting as a result.

Golfbulldog

I don't have to attach the keyboard to a club to understand your concept of an "on-plane feeling". I have tried it with a standard golf club, and the "on-plane feeling" works very well. That's why I am so enamored by HK"s TGM-teaching. It offers a conceptual model that can help a beginner golfer stay "on plane" from an arbitrary (but extremely useful) HK perspective. My arguments about different golfers merely reflects the fact that different golfers use different definitions/concepts of "being on plane" and that a Sergio Garcia-style golfer (who drops the hands more per unit time relative to the amount of left arm rotation per unit time) may not be helped by trying to develop a "feeling" at PP#3 (that can be used to trace a straight plane line) while the hands are moving through the early-mid downswing.

Jeff.

Jeff,

Homers intention, his gift to golfdom, was to provide the information and mechanical understanding necessary for golfers to be able to make an uncompensated golf stroke - a model of mechanical efficiency based on Physics and Geometry.

Homer was a bright lad and readily understood that the making of such a golf stroke was not an easy matter, even for the very best. So, he continued to work for around another 28 years in order to catalogue the differences (individual compensations, if you like) that we golfing inadequates need to know in order for us to make as efficient a golf swing as we are capable of.

Your efforts to complete your understanding of golfing mechanics are to be marveled at. The time you spend in this endeavour and your devotion to duty is almost beyond belief. (Do you get the time to eat, sleep, play golf even?)

Nevertheless, I have to say that I, for one, find it more than slightly offensive that you persist in the introduction all sorts of variations of "golfer examples in action" into your arguments as grounds for your presumption that, somehow, Homer may just have got it all wrong and you will set us all to rights.

A wise man listens Jeff and hears what is being said. Others just talk a lot and hear nothing.

Sorry if this offends you (not my intention as you may come to realise) but it makes me feel a little better to get it off my chest rather than keep these feelings bottled up.

Embrace the information Homer bequeathed to us and ask how ever many questions you must in order to gain an understanding of his work. Don't just chuck up bits and pieces willy nilly in order to prove that you are right in cases where you have clearly not grasped the concept at issue. That is doing yourself a disservice.

Burner

You wrote-: "Nevertheless, I have to say that I, for one, find it more than slightly offensive that you persist in the introduction all sorts of variations of "golfer examples in action" into your arguments as grounds for your presumption that, somehow, Homer may just have got it all wrong and you will set us all to rights."

I am puzzled by your use of the word "offensive". It is never offensive to analyse/dissect/criticize a scientific theory, because a "true" scientist invites rigorous analysis/counterarguments/criticism of his theory, because he knows that his theory's ability to withstand any attempt at falsification (in a Popperian sense) strengthens his theory. In the absence of criticism, a scientific theory is essentialy untested, and therefore not knowingly "true". A scientific theory is optimally tested when it is attacked from every possible angle, because it becomes the "best' theory when it withstands all attempts at falsification (better than alternative theories in the same field). I have read virtually all of Yoda's archived posts and he has repeatedly demonstrated that HK's golf swing theories are extremely sound and not easy to falsify. That's why I hold HK's work in such high regard - it has a very low falsifiability factor.

Regarding my modus operandi of attacking any golf swing theory, it merely reflects my scientific approach established over many decades. I find that the best way to understand a scientific theory and assess its "falsifiability factor" is to attack and analyse it from every possible angle. If it withstands rigorous analysis, then my admiration for its "low falsifiability" factor increases, and I respect it much more. So, don't be offended. Instead, you should realize that my inability to find flaws in Hk's theory actually strenghtens his theory in a way that you would not realise if his theory was not repeatedly dissected and analysed and criticized by me, and many other critics.

Jeff.

Based evidence golf
 

Jeff
It is obvious that your have a very scientific approach, and I do know the based evidence medecine concept.But there is a long way from BEM to Based Evidence Golf, and without offending , I share Burner advice that this forum is not really the place.
You have your own site (http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/index.html), a very good one, where you kindly share your works. Why don't you open a forum on this site to "dissect" with people who appreciate this kind of approach.
Keeping on asking on this forum, wich is the best place, and elaborate on yours, seems to be a very scientific approach, and a good contribution to golf comprehension.