OK dookeyball . . . in your little 7 example on the inclined plane . . . would your "shoulder part" of the 7 not be turning perpendicular to the spine (pencil)? Is the shoulder turn "centered"? When does your 7 turn into an L and how does that work and then to a >?

Don't send that punk from Ohio down here . . . he won't make it through Virginia before he's squeelin' nekkid at some trailer park bonfire party being a target in the samich meat toss drinkin' game. Cold cut horse-shoes.

Mike O goes down ! ! !
 

Having the left arm perpendicular to the shoulder line at low point is actually an impossibility due to the power package structure being triangular in shape. The first time in a golf stroke that this shape is formed, is at followthrough - both arms straight and so even at this point, the left arm is still not perpendicular to the shoulder line. Any time prior to this - the right arm is bent making the angle between the left arm and shoulder line more acute.

Your statement implies that you think that this is even possible which is absurd and is completely offtopic and totally irrelevant. What bearing does the shoulder line being perpendicular to the left arm or not have on the FACT that the motion of the left shoulder center contains an upwards direction from impact to low point therefore moving the low point backwards a slight amount?

Sure, this is a slight offsetting factor whereby the clubhead is traveling in a circle around the left wrist, however the difference from impact to low point is nominal in comparison to the effect that the left shoulder makes on the clubhead.

There is nothing else that is going to make any effect on the clubhead going 'downward' motion that affects the clubhead downwards like your post implies.... this is again absurd.

My statements don't need to contain a health warning unlike some :laughing1.

I referenced low point and the fact that from Impact to Low Point the shoulder location moves upwards significantly enough to effect the low point and move it backwards slightly.

So No and No...lol

Opposite the left shoulder is the lowest point in relation to the left shoulder itself but not the lowest point in the clubhead orbit which occurs just prior to that.

Well I animated a power package structure remember and when I did so I found that low point exactly under the left shoulder was impossible. I didn't realise so many would have a problem with my low point statement.

Can I prove it - yes.... though you will have to give me time to create the graphics at which time I will start a new thread on this.

Trust me - you need a health warning!

I also just remembered that for me- your posts per thread - go on forever - without myself ever figuring out what you are saying. So I'm wrestling with the wrong tiger.

I'm with you on the perpendicular example- I just described it - as it was easy to show where lowpoint would be with a "machine" like that, before we moved on to a different "7" machine that might not as easily look like low point would still be opposite the lead shoulder but that was closer to your example of the golfer. So I really didn't mean to use the perpendicular example as something representing the human body- arm shoulder relationship. Then you bounced back to the human body- to show the absurdity of a perpendicular example. I'm with you.

My only point was in regard to your comment - I believe you mentioned that since the left shoulder was moving up before or when the left arm and clubshaft were opposite the left shoulder - that low point therefore would not be opposite the left shoulder but you calculated it would be slightly behind the location opposite the left shoulder. I used my "7" example to point out that the left shoulder could be moving up and low point could still be opposite the left shoulder. (Sorry ahead of time if I mis-quoted you) You may indeed be correct- but based on my simplistic "7" example- for me - I need more information to understand how low point is moved back- just because the left shoulder is moving up in an orbit- doesn't "prove" or "imply" to me that therefore low point can't be opposite the lead shoulder.

If you can disprove the "7" example (by itself) or elaborate on your idea with graphics or whatever else you need to supply- that would be great.

I like good discussions back and forth- those are the ones that you can learn stuff from. It's not my style to use impossible, absurd, etc. when posting but I've readily admitted that I'm an idiot at times- and Bucket has confirmed and not argued that statement when I have said it- although he's an idiot also- so I'm not sure where that leaves me!:confused1 Most of my posts are absurd- and maybe all of them are absurd- so you might have a point! In fact, I sense that Bucket may be posting soon- confirming that fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket
Can you prove the above? I'm not saying your wrong . . . but time somebody says "the shoulders turn perpendicular to the spine." You say, "What are your sources?"

So . .. What are YOUR sources?

Let's go dork.
Matthew,
Just so we don't misquote or mis-imply anything for the Bucket. That was the post that Bucket posted to me. I'm the Dork not you. Don't be trying to steal my Dork status- I don't like that! :eyes: Now pay attention here- we don't want to give Bucket any ammunition to speed up his attainment of his goal of 3000 posts before dinner.

Boys, boys,boys..........


I innocently stepped into a Mike O - Bucket Boy crossfire. It was an accident. Sort of.
Mike, Please let me know when you plan to cross the great state of Ohio. I would be pleased to extend some Midwest hospitality.

Buck, You and I shall have our day.........Cold cuts or otherwise.

UPP in snowy but about to melt Ohio

Yeah whatever....

Are you just going to take every piece of my humour and say it back. At least if your going to try and be funny at least come up with your own material. Its like being at school and one kid calling another some names and the kid saying back "well you are too...". Its just not a good comeback...

You know as well as anyone here that I know what I am talking about. Thats not being egotistic, its just I have done these things in 3D to test my knowledge. My threads generally go on and on because I try and describe the minute details of things.

I mean this is pretty simple and your overcomplicating by trying to add in unnessesary elements into the debate because your on the losing side.

Let me ask some very simple easy questions - Forget your 7 example - Just take the primary lever assembly and forget everything else....

The question is does the left shoulder move upwards from impact and through low point? - Yes that is a fact.

Since the left shoulder moving upwards does this mean the whole primary lever assembly is also moving upwards? - yes this is fact.

Since the whole primary lever assembly moves upwards and the clubhead is a part of the primary lever assembly - does this move the clubhead upwards too? - Yes this is a fact.

Since the left shoulder is continually moving upwards mean that this effect is only going to make the clubhead orbit have its lowest point prior to the point it passes the left shoulder when viewed directly from the front - Yes , Yes, YES....

Now, after I have listed these questions - your only possible counterarguement is that the clubhead which is moving around the left wrist which makes the clubhead radius around the left shoulder 'wider' (for lack of better word) could perhaps counteract this in some way. Unfortunately for you, I know this counteraction to be nominal because I tested it so your still on the losing side of the debate, so if you wish to go down this road then its ok by me....

No I didn't bounce back. Again yet another absurd arguement. When did I ever get off the topic of how it works in real life?

If your going to critique me of bouncing around at least use the quote button....

My post to Bucket was in an obvious comedic style with good spirited humour.
Your reply on the otherhand made no such obvious distinction to the comedic intention of the sarcasm and condescension. So don't be a hypocrit and whine about how I said your arguements are absurd. Your style could easy be taken (rightly or wrongly) as more insulting than me saying what your saying is totally wrong and bordering on the ludicrious, but gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was done in humour. So knock that ***t off....

Innocently??? Accident???

You know your goal in life is to be like Mike O (a degenerate anal incontinent mongoloid) . . .

Our "day" will have to be below the Mason-Dixon . . . I went to Atlantic City once . . . my pass go revoked.

Sorry to inform you but - he quoted me in that post.

Your ship is sinking btw :-({|=