interesting. Can you support this? Its not in the book. Is it in the audio tapes? Not saying I disagree .... just wondering.

Also isn't the Angle of Approach a Visual Equivalent? Meaning its only visible from the golfers eye line?

Do you have a copy of the 6th Edition? If so, then you're in luck, because on page 32 Homer Kelley explains that the "Arc of Approach" is the Visual Equivalent of the Geometry of the "Angle of Approach", which is a "straight line through the Impact and Low Points".




"Low Point" is not a Location, it's an Alignment. The Alignment uses the basic geometry that's built into all Golf Clubs by All Manufacturers; "Neutral Hookface". The Shaft (Cog) moves On-Plane. The Target Line represents the Geometry of the Clubface (which is a re-alignment of the shaft). All Clubs have a Built-in Low Point. The Location of Low-Point forward or Aft of your Hinge Pin(s) is up to you. Your choice.

Low Point is the Intersection of the Clubhead Orbit with the Geometry of the Clubface (Target Line) that produces Straight-Away Ball Flight when the Shaft at 90 degrees to the Target Line. Neutral Hookface.

Straight-Away Ball Flight can be produced if the Ball is moved back on Orbit but not Forward of Low Point. When the Ball is moved back on the Orbit of the Clubhead, it rises above the ground. Then we Tilt the Plane (from the Plane Angle reference point) until the Ball returns to the Ground. Adjust the Hookface for Squareness at separation. The Steeper Plane Angle adjusts the Closing Ratio of the Right Forearm Angle of Approach which will "Sustain the Line of Compression" on the Plane of the "Basic Plane" of the chosen Hinge Action (Horizontal, Angled, Vertical). In "Laymans" terms, as the ball is moved back in your stance, it must also be moved "IN". This is all in the "Book", Chapter Two.

One must understand the "Right Forearm Angle of Approach". My up-coming Video's, hopefully available this Spring, will make TGM very easy to understand.

Great post Daryl. Looking forward to the videos, hopefully it will unlock the secrets of chapter two for we scientifically challenged folks! :salut:

Kevin

INDEED.....

I am waiting to order!
 

Daryl, I am going to try moving the ball back and in. I wonder if you remember he Nicklaus and Player comic books that taught golf instruction in the 60's and 70's. I'm sure there were others. I think you have the skills to pull another one off online with website links and videos or even something in a simple "graphic novel" format. Very enjoyable/informative stuff.

ICT

The straight line wheel track is made by a circular wheel
 

Im interested in Homers "straight away ball position" thats what I was looking for info on really. You draw a parallel between it and low point , making for a low point unique to each club. I don't think thats in the book . Did Homer discuss this somewhere else or is it from your personal think tank? Nothing wrong with the latter .... I got tons of that stuff myself. Don't share it very often but there's nothing wrong with a little thinking outside the box.

In regard to the above. I don't see the "Arc of Approach as a Visual Equivalent to the geometry of the Angle of Approach" as you say.

Id say you got two visual equivalents , one for the arc one for the straight line angle of approach procedure. Two club head blurs , one curved one straight line. From the players parallax perspective only . The "look" of the on plane club head path making for a useful visual reference. Two different procedures with entirely different geometry . One straight away plane , one closed plane for the hitters cross line hit. Two vastly different plane angles even.

As such the visual equivalents can not be drawn to show their curve or straight line nature from any perspective other than from the players. See 2-C-1 #3. You titled your drawing "Looking Down" but it doesn't appear to be looking down , players view , like Homers drawing. It looks more like its caddy view . Your drawing is neither 2-C-1 #2B nor 2-C-1 #3 Linear Force. Its not from the book.

The straight line Angle of Approach is not inscribed on the face of the plane in any of Homers drawings! I know of some drawings where it is but those are not Homers!! A well intentioned GSED but not Homer. I understand why this happens, Homer did have a certain way with words. Its so easy to mix things up. The straight line Angle of Approach can't be inscribed on the face of the plane. The straight line is a visual only. An illusion. The visual equivalent to a somewhat circular club head orbit ...which can be inscribed on the face of the plane. The club head can not travel in a straight line down the plane as the orbit is always circular , there are no flat spots possible (at speed anyways). I know Homers talks about "uncentered linear momentum" etc but thats not to be confused with a straight line club head path. I mean did Arnie have a flat spot? Put another way if you were to draw the Angle of Approach on the inclined plane .......it would not be a straight line any more. The straight line itself is the illusion. I know .....Im not doing any better with these words myself. We need drawings.

Homer has a similar looking drawing in 2-C-1 #2B but you will note that the straight line there is titled Angle of Attack not Angle of Approach a totally different deal.

Other than that I got nothing. I don't know if this effects the geometry you're discussing or not.. There's maybe been three people in the history of G.O.L.F. that understood the Angle of Approach. I know Im not one of them. But I have asked a lot of stupid questions to two of those guys. I wish Homer had drawn everything out . Everything. Straight away position , hinge action and ball flight law etc etc. I applaud your efforts to do it Daryl. Looking forward to your videos.

This caught my attention!

Why not make your video with Trackman set up behind you to prove it. I interested in purchasing that.

I have a better wager. You get a player and a Trackman. Spend one day with him. I get him the next day and spend one hour with him. Let him be the judge.

I'm only trying to make a simple point. Low Point is needed to determine the Angle of Approach. Clubhead "Path" is not AOA. So, be aware that "Trackman" numbers will be very exaggerated and often beyond usefulness. Knowing the AOA will help narrow down the possible Swing Flaw(s). Using HK's geometry of the Circle, AOA rarely exceeds 1.5 degrees unless the Ball is positioned behind center of stance. Trackman correlates but I would read those numbers with a large dose of caution and "Cause-effect". This is where a little knowledge will do a lot of damage and a lot of knowledge will do less.

I would argue that until a player becomes somewhat skilful, that Trackman should stay on the shelf. Maybe much longer.

Understanding the geometry is the first step to identifying the critical alignments of the shot. Ball Location (AOA), Hookface (Face-alignment), Swing Plane (Shaft), Stance Width (Shaft Lean), Hinge Action, etc, etc.

I'm not criticizing "Trackmans" potential use as a tool, but it's no substitute for understanding the geometry and physics of Impact and it won't teach you these things.

Honestly, you can help a 15 handicap player reduce his play by 10 strokes simply by teaching him/her the "Right Forearm Angle of Approach" and "Hinge Action". About 15 minutes. I can only assume that it's not being taught because most TGM instructors aren't aware of or don't understand. How much better can you do? The teacher in the above video claims that "Drivers" and "Irons" need different swings. That is what Trackman has done. More confusion, misinformation and another decade of misguided teaching. Good luck with your purchase.

TGM is not invention. HK invented very little. It's about ten's of thousands of observations, definitions and codifications and much more. He didn't invent Hinging, nor RFAOA, or Sweep Release or even the Magic of the Right Forearm. These things were being done for hundred of years before HK wrote the book. A Golf-club and Golfer 200 years ago were subject to the same "Laws" governing the Swing today. "Law" and "Technique" are not the same.

Honestly, you can help a 15 handicap player reduce his play by 10 strokes simply by teaching him/her the "Right Forearm Angle of Approach" and "Hinge Action". About 15 minutes.


It doesn't exactly build up my confidence to hear how easy it should have been.. My ability to learn must be terrible.

I tune in to this channel almost everyday in a search for the truth, although I post very little. You said in post 33 that Homer would have used trackman as a doorstop. You also said you wouldnt spend a nickel on a teacher who uses trackman. Well by my count 38 nationally known teachers, 43 professionals, 37 manufacturers and 39 universities use trackman. Thats a pretty impressive list of fools and I still dont understand this acrimony??? You mention observations resulted in TGM. My point is the observations are still continuing and to reject new observations out of hand is a thin argument (almost invisible). I dont believe trackman is the end all but it seems to be more than a doorstop. Why not observe some more???

157 X $25,000.00 = $3,925,000.00

Cost of a used TGM 6th Edition : $5.00

The "Truth" are the Laws that govern impact and ball response. Trackman doesn't use Low Point which is needed to calculate the AOA. It's an Aid, but not a substitute for knowledge.

Don't make Trackman out to be something it's not. If you want to teach a different swing for every club in the bag, then that's your interpretation, but not Trackman. The guy in the Video is using Trackman to justify his own beliefs and teaching method. That's not observation.

Not a fair comparison. Not comparing apples to apples. You need to go:

157 * $5.00 = $785.00

There, that brings the cost of TGM much more in line with TM. :) :salut:

Kevin

The cost of Kevin's observation: "Priceless"

Gotta keep you honest ole buddy! :laughing1

:golf:

Kevin

When I say I would like for you to set up with a Trackman behind you when you do your videos, I am serious. I sincerely would like to see the numbers on your correct execution. You can rent a trackman for short duration. Wont trackman give a set of numbers that repeat if your stroke repeats? Wont there be some measurable data we can use? Your trackman numbers then, whether it captures the geometry perfectly or not, will give us more observations about how to correctly apply the geometric knowlege. I am not a stack and tilter but it seems they are making a similar video to be released soon that incorporates trackman. Would like to see that done from a more pure TGM approach. Your thoughts?

I would hope that Trackman will record the Ball Flights accurately and compute any minor differences in Geometry. That's not the problem. But, a problem does exist if you look at the numbers in the above video and conclude that a Driver should be swung with a different geometry than a Nine Iron. That they can be different is not the problem either. That they "Should be different for the same Player" is the problem.

In the above video, Trackman shows that it's possible to use different Plane Angles and Angles of Approach and Attack and still result in a straight shot. Really??? is that new??? No, of course not. But the teacher concludes that that's just the way things are. That's why I have a problem with the video and the teacher. That's not the way things are, should be or need to be. In the right hands, Trackman should be an asset to the teacher, but in the wrong teachers hands, it will be the undoing of a potentially good player, who's paying big bucks while being led to believe that this is the best solution.

Trackman is a TOOL. And, as it is with all "tools", it's ONLY as good as the person who uses it. If you as a teacher don't have a firm grasp of golf alignments, then maybe you should learn these first before you spend good money on an overpriced piece of equipment. The teacher in the video is very confident that what he teaches is fundamentally sound and correct. Nothing new about that, either.

That's the scary part, interpretation. Another teacher is using TrackMan to declare there is no such thing as swing planes, even though TrackMan interprets planes and feeds the user the corresponding numbers. That's where AGENDA comes in. Making stuff up to put down other teachers. Saying TrackMan disproves the Imperatives is disingenuous and BS.

Kevin

Yes, I agree one could make up support for almost anything. I would just like to see some data from an accomplished machine stroke on one. Just to see how the geometry is supported. These types of devices are not going away any time soon. They will become more available as time goes on. IMHOP, the TGM community has an opportunity to get out in front now. Somebody make a video!!!! That stack n tilt 2.0 "by the numbers" thingy is going to be popular. I want to see it and I'm not SNT. The same type of thing needs to be done by LBG. Seems like a good time since the "aligment 2" video never came out.

I agree, it would be very interesting. I know YODA has spent time with a TrackMan, hopefully when his schedule allows, he'll jump in.

Kevin

Yes,
What I'm saying is this. These trackman, flightscope type devices are not far from being proliferated. It doesnt matter if you like it or not. It doesnt matter if you think they are doorstops. They are a comin. An analogy would be TV in the 50's, Computers in the 80's and cell phones in the late 90's. These devices will be used whether fair or unfair to evaluate different schools of thought when it comes to the golf swing. It will be up to the proponent of a particular school of thought to defend his numbers. For example, people at home will be comparing the ballistics of Hoganish rotary type swing patterns (swinging left) to stackandtilt to pure TGM and so on. I am not saying that trackman is a perfect device and should be used as the teacher. I am not saying it is not without fault. I am saying it will become more like V1 software, where you can select the pro you want to model. In my opinion, the instructors will be forced into defining what the numbers are for their preferred stroke patterns very soon. I want someone like Mr. Blake to be the one defining (in terms of this type of data) what a G.O.L.F. stroke is before someone else declares it to be incorrect.

Whoa Hoss, I didn't call TM a door stop, but they will never be ubiquitous while the price is so high. Hopefully in my lifetime it will be affordable for all, and we will be silly not to have it as part of the tool box, but they better move quick... :)

Kevin

Personally, while I can see these types of aids can certainly be put to constructive use, as stated earlier, one must consider the source when it comes to interpretation. I was recently in a store and watched a fellow hitting balls into a screen and a sales person then telling him what he needed based on the numbers he had on his computer. The only thing I could see that he needed was lessons. He walked out with a new offset driver with a soft shaft.

There is no doubt that trackman should be used as a tool and not the doctor. People that use it to attack folks are as in the wrong as people that think it's useless or a symbol of evil.

Daryl, I do have a few questions for you: Please keep in mind Im not trying to attack or debunk, I have my opinions and beliefs, you have yours....that's fine. Im genuinely interested in your answers.

(1) Do you think there is one straight correct plane for all clubs after only a minor change in ball position through the bag?

(2) Why do golf balls do different things when the same club is hit more and less down on with the same clubface?

(3) Do you see guys on tv all swinging straight?, and if not, are they wrong or at least inefficient?

(4) How thick is the correct plane? If my analyzing software draws lines that are twice as thick as yours, do they still count? 3x? How many clubshaft widths could fit in one plane before it's off plane?

(5) If a certain attack angle creates a certain path and shot, but you want to alter the shot, and rotate the whole plane line to do so........doesn't that change the attack angle AGAIN? Wouldn't we end up continuously rotating around in a circle?

Just in straight away lehman's terms will do. I have conceded that you are smarter than me.
:laughing9 :laughing9 :laughing9

Thanks for the questions. I'm trying to keep my posts above O.B. Left. He seems to be gaining on me.

Not at all.

The Right Forearm Angle of Approach is 3 dimensional. Because of this, any Change in Angle of Approach will change the Angle of Attack and a change in Angle of Attack will change the Angle of Approach unless you move the ball directly along the 3 dimensional path. If you don’t move the ball directly along this path, then a straight line of compression cannot be achieved and unless it was intentional then you’ll pay the price. Unfortunately, as history demonstrates, you will not get knowledge in return for suffering. You will not learn from your mistakes.

You won’t post scores low enough to compete if you bend the Plane Line. Do you mean Parallel Plane and Target Lines? I think that most of the greatest Players that ever lived did not use parallel Plane and Target Lines.

Thickness is not a Plane dimension.

If, when you rotated the Plane line, you relocated the ball the same distance behind Low-Point, then Angle of Attack and Approach won't be altered. Then, all that remains, is the change in divergence between Plane and Target Lines. IMHO, this is how a True Swinger should approach curving the Path of the Ball (because a True Swinger always uses the same Right Forearm Angle of Approach). So, a True Swinger would rotate Plane and Target Lines to create a divergence, while a Hands Manipulated Swinger would move the ball, one way only (such as moving the ball back on the plane-line without changing the Plane Angle (actually, it simultaneously Flattens the Plane Angle (increases Angle of Approach) and Steepens the Angle of Attack)), and thereby, creates the divergence by changing the relationship between Angle of Attack and Approach. Fades and Draws for True Swingers and Hooks and Slices for Hands Manipulated Swingers. BUT, and this is very critical for you to understand, that both procedures are On-Line. Both, the Hands Manipulated and True Swingers are always On-Plane, never crossing the Line by trying to Swing Inside-out or Outside-in. In other words - in simple terms - never create a Plane Line to the Left of Target and Swing to the Right of Target - that would be crazy.

I wonder if any of this is in the "Trackman User Manual"? :)
All of it is in the little Yellow Book.

And I thought you were going to come at me like a spider monkey with 6-N-0 or something. Shame on me, D.

I need to stay a respectable 100 posts ahead of you. I should have stretched the previous answers to 5 posts.

@Daryl - Ok so thickness isn't a dimension of plane......so if my grip points at baseline its on plane. If it was a big old fat club id have alot more tolerance then right? If my shaft and grip were pencil then I guess it'd be really hard to be on plane!!!! So its exactly the width of a clubshaft? Who decided that!?? There is no width as a dimension? Then why do you draw a line, how can you illustrate it?


You'll have to gimme that deal one more time on how to rotate the whole plane left without increasing angle of attack? If I swing down 60 degrees, then change nothing but rotate the plane line, Im coming in at more than 60 degrees from the balls perspective ....???

Finally, tell me how the "BLUR" isn't indicative of 3D path?

The line is a representation. Same as when you draw a square with a paint brush and claim the corners to be 90 degrees. But if you must know his name, I think his name was "Bob".

Ok, but please understand that I'm telling you something that "appears" to contradict HK's "Swingers" procedure. But I assure you that it doesn't. I outlined the answer below, but bear with me a moment to explain something that has a very direct effect and HK assumes that YOU are completely aware of this. Anytime you move the Ball aft of Low-point, YOU MUST adjust your Plane Angle (not direction) so that the Orbiting Clubhead will intersect the ball at its new location. So, if you move the ball aft, then the Plane Angle must be "Steepened" and if you move it forward again, then you must "Flatten" the Plane Angle.

HK referenced 10-6 in the above quote because he wants you to steepen the Plane Angle by tilting the Plane from it's Plane Angle Reference Point. Turned Shoulder Plane Swingers will steepen the Plane more than an Elbow Plane Swinger.

So, when HK says to move the Ball "Aft" he is assuming that you understand that the Ball will no longer rest on the existing Plane line, but rather on the new Plane Line (closer to your feet) because YOU Steepened the Plane Angle. If the Ball was moved 3" back on the existing Plane Line, then you will "Miss the Ball" because it no longer intersects the Clubhead Orbit (unless you make a postural change).

Set-up and hit a straight shot at the Target. Then, set-up and hit a straight shot 20 yards left of Target. Then, Set-up to hit a straight shot 20 yards left of the Target but rotate the shaft/clubface in your hands clockwise. HK wants you to move the Ball Forward or Aft rather than rotate the Grip because moving the Ball aft 1" is easier than rotating the Grip 1/2 of 1 degree. However, in his procedure, he assumes that you won't change the Angle of Approach although most everyone does.


It is, but is it indicative of equal dimensions down, out and forward simultaneously?

@Daryl, ok one more try for me.

"Ok, but please understand that I'm telling you something that "appears" to contradict HK's "Swingers" procedure. But I assure you that it doesn't. I outlined the answer below, but bear with me a moment to explain something that has a very direct effect and HK assumes that YOU are completely aware of this. Anytime you move the Ball aft of Low-point, YOU MUST adjust your Plane Angle (not direction) so that the Orbiting Clubhead will intersect the ball at its new location. So, if you move the ball aft, then the Plane Angle must be "Steepened" and if you move it forward again, then you must "Flatten" the Plane Angle."

So, in redneck terms, if you move the ball to your back foot and hit the ground by your front foot,...............ugh,... you missed. Aside from this, I would argue outside of theory and in the real world that most people with a ball too back will build a compensation to shallow the angle of attack. Vice versa for the guy who gets it too forward. Regardless, as you just said, moving the ball back and then on top of that increasing plane angle will have a great effect on the "down"......and unless you're swinging up and down a wall, THAT MAKES PATH PATH PATH TO THE RIGHT!!!!!

**CAN YOU SWING DOWN A STRAIGHT LINE WHILE INCREASING AND DECREASING ANGLE OF ATTACK WITHOUT CHANGING ACTUAL PATH AND AFFECTING THE GOLF BALL? DO YOU THINK YOU CAN HIT ZERO DOWN ON A BALL, 2 DEGREES DOWN ON A BALL, THEN 6 DEGREES DOWN ON A BALL WITH ALL SQUARE FACES, ALL TRACING STRAIGHT LINES, AND HIT 3 OF THE SAME STRAIGHT SHOTS?**
* Why do guys swing "under" plane with drivers on tv all the time, then point their wedges at lines that are outside of the straight line baseline?


"the steeper the Plane Angle (10-6), the steeper the Angle of Attack (2-N-1), the higher the trajectory and the deeper the Divot (7-6)."

WHAT!????? Steep plane angles and steep angles of attack hit higher trajectory golf shots? So when you play your ball back, swing down 70 degrees and take a beaver tail divot, you hit it to the moon????

I respect your convictions and dedication, but Im going to bow out now, cause we are obviously playing different games! :confused1 :)

You sure Homer isn't referring to how the ball moves further and further back of low point as you move to progressively shorter irons? The shorter irons with their inherent steeper lie angles.

I think he's referring to how the Angle of Approach and the Angle of Attack are related. How one turns into the other as the plane angle changes. (I know, words again describing geometry , so bad!)

Say you have a perfectly horizontal plane , a mouse swinging a driver. The club head path circular but never getting off the ground, like a hula hoop lying on the ground.... Zero angle of Attack, max Angle of Approach . Now for a hula hoop standing vertical to the ground , a pure vertical plane of motion ..... you get the opposite with the club head path : Max Angle of Attack , minimal Angle of Approach.

The steeper plane angles have more down to them and less out ... meaning they create less Divergence in Path and FAce for balls played back of low point. That and the increased loft of shorter irons minimize the curve of the shot for balls played back of low point with Grip Rotation. That is to say a face that is rotated in the hands so its parallel to the plane line. Its looks like its going to be a big draw shot but the path is not all that far out to the right when you scale things and take into consideration loft .

This is why I don't bother rotating my plane in the manner described in the video above. For short irons. I just take the draw tendency into consideration when aiming my plane line .. It isn't much of a draw after all . Not as much as implied in the video. Or as JT says you can Angled Hinge it too ,swing left, like a little insurance policy against the draw. Nothing wrong with a draw but they do tend to roll out .... not something you want generally with a short iron. Sometimes maybe. If so don't angle hinge it.

If you were to play a 5 iron way back in the stance with the face squared to the target, given its plane angle , lie angle ........look out draw. The flatter plane having more associated OUT less Down. More Divergence in path and face, less loft too.

You can draw all this stuff out on paper. Geometry of the Circle . Seems to me Geometry of the Circle , D plane (not that I know anything about it), Radar , cameras are all addressing the same issue but looking at it from different perspectives . Different disciplines . There should be a lot of overlap but there could be some points of departure too. The latter doenst really bother me much. Whats wrong with "new information of all kinds" as Homer would say? But guys looking for points of departure or worse still cooking them up in a vengeful way do bother me. Its a total waste of their time and ours, the readers.

If a D plane or Flightscope or Foresight guy etc convinced me that I was missing something .....of course Id put it in play. Why not? If they convinced me of something outside of TGM? Id put it in play. If somebody thinks Im nuts to rotate the face instead of the plane ......Im all ears.

Actually if the Foresight company wishes to donate a unit for my personal testing please pm me. Ill do it gladly , pro bono even. ;)

He's big in Japan!
 

Daryl, I a not the enemy! Air is. He must be stopped!

Hey D, Is Mike O. still working for the Iranian Department of Cyber Intelligence? Maybe we should call him in here to you know , " consult " us on this little situation we have here.

It'd be a shame if Airs post count was wiped out and he had start all over again at zero. A real shame.

Lets keep this kind of quiet , okay?

.

Maybe there isn't a life after 99,999. About a month from now. Time will show...

O.B.Left --You sure Homer isn't referring to how the ball moves further and further back of low point as you move to progressively shorter irons? Yes, I'm sure. The shorter irons with their inherent steeper lie angles.

I think he's referring to how the Angle of Approach and the Angle of Attack are related. How one turns into the other as the plane angle changes. No. Their roles are not exchanged. (I know, words again describing geometry , so bad!)

Say you have a perfectly horizontal plane , a mouse swinging a driver. OK The club head path circular but never getting off the ground, ok like a hula hoop lying on the ground....I understand Zero angle of Attack, okmax Angle of Approach Zero Angle of Approach. Now for a hula hoop standing vertical to the ground , a pure vertical plane of motion ..... you get the opposite with the club head path : Max Angle of Attack "0", minimal Angle of Approach "0".

The steeper plane angles have more down to them and less out no... meaning they create less Divergence in Path and Face for balls played back of low point. No That and the increased loft of shorter irons minimize the curve of the shot for balls played back of low point with Grip Rotation. That is to say a face that is rotated in the hands so its parallel to the plane line. Its looks like its going to be a big draw shot but the path is not all that far out to the right when you scale things and take into consideration loft .

This is why I don't bother rotating my plane in the manner described in the video above. For short irons. I just take the draw tendency into consideration when aiming my plane line .. It isn't much of a draw after all . Not as much as implied in the video. Or as JT says you can Angled Hinge it too ,swing left, like a little insurance policy against the draw. Nothing wrong with a draw but they do tend to roll out .... not something you want generally with a short iron. Sometimes maybe. If so don't angle hinge it.

If you were to play a 5 iron way back in the stance with the face squared to the target, given its plane angle , lie angle ........look out draw. The flatter plane having more associated OUT less Down. More Divergence in path and face, less loft too. If you want to draw the ball then do as you say. But if you want to move the ball aft in your stance and hit the ball straight, then tilt the Plane the correct amount. Then, insure the face is square to the angle of approach at impact and the increased closing ratio of the Right Forearm Angle of Approach (because of the steeper plane) will sustain the Line of Compression.

You can draw all this stuff . Geometry of the Circle . Seems to me Geometry of the Circle , D plane (not that I know anything about it), Radar , cameras are all addressing the same issue but looking at it from different perspectives . Different disciplines . There should be a lot of overlap but there could be some points of departure too. The latter doenst really bother me much. Whats wrong with "new information of all kinds" as Homer would say? But guys looking for points of departure or worse still cooking them up in a vengeful way do bother me. Its a total waste of their time and ours, the readers. Trackman supports that an increased Angle of Approach, thus increasing divergence, then if supported by an increase Angle of Attack will again reduce the divergence.

If a D plane or Flightscope or Foresight guy etc convinced me that I was missing something .....of course Id put it in play. Why not? If they convinced me of something outside of TGM? Id put it in play. If somebody thinks Im nuts to rotate the face instead of the plane ......Im all ears. The Clubface is the Target Line. If you move the ball aft, then you've opened the face (Target Line), then rotate the face (Target Line) back to square, but you need to also steepen the plane to maintain Low Point and reduce the divergence to comply with the Turning (Closing) rate of the RFAOA.

D Plane and Trackman have conclusions very, very close to Homer Kelley. But they use "Elastic" collision and HK uses "Inelastic" collision. HK uses Hinge Action to help sustain the line of compression, while Trackman and Jorgenson were/are un-knowledgeable about such things.


I'll just wait until I can produce my video. Better yet, let's get together at the end of April if the weather permits. We can meet in Michigan for a day of Golf.

Thanks D. Im playing tomorrow in Oakville , Ontario if you're available. Light snow, pins are in , greens are ok. Bring a hammer for teeing the ball up.

Dude . Two pointS on the above:

-You Sir are totally insane .

-You will never stay ahead of Air with long winded posts like that. Gotta break it up into little pieces .

-You left out my shameless attempt at getting ........ uh reviewing a Forsight GC2.

This message brought to you by Foresight Golf makers of the GC2 Smart Camera System. Its more than a launch monitor . Its more than a simulator ....ITS A GAME CHANGER.

I like it. How much $?

Fits in your bag, no wires and costs only $7,000. Foresight Golf . Its a game changer.

I'm contacting Ed Hanczaryk. He probably has something for $29.95.

Used 6th Edition: $5.00