Wanna' "see" a Square Plane Line?
 

Thought you TGM enthusiasts would enjoy seeing how I "locate" the Plane Line with video. I position the camera "on" the imaginary Inclined Plane, looking parallel to the Target Line. I "mark" the Inclined Plane with a drawing tool. When the clubshaft adheres closely to the marked line, then the Plane Line will be within a few degrees of Square to the Target Line. That's the case with this here example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fB2a4UPxcc

Could you define "zero Horizontal Swing Plane"? Is that the Plane you prescribe? If so could you describe the mechanical advantages you see to swinging on this angle? Could you describe the component variations you use to achieve this and how they work together with the assumed mechanical advantage of the "zero Horizontal Swing Plane" if that is what you prescribe?

thanks.

Bucket.

0* HSP is parallel to the Target Line. The ideal horizontal direction of the HSP will depend on the vertical angle of the plane, the Angle of Attack, and the desired shot "shape". With the standard descending Attack Angle, a 0* HSP will require a very slight Draw. An advantage to this is the simplicity of combining the Target Line and Plane Line into one line. As for "component variations", I don't speak TGM fluently....yet.

that's cool . . . forget "components" . . . what about arm swing? High Low Depth . . . Pivot? Centered? Weight shift? etc. how would you tell somebody to move their various body parts to achieve this "ideal" direction etc.

That depends on how the player is moving his body now. My instruction is always tailored to the individual. But when working on plane direction, a laser device, like The Smart Stick, and a "plane board" are indispensable. Let 'em see it and feel it for themselves.

fair enough . . . however . . . i would assume that you do video lessons and maybe draw lines on people? maybe not . . . but anyhooo . . . . what are the reference points to this "zero" out plane angle . . . where doe the club and hands enter and exit the body? Is it easier to achieve with "low hands" "high hands" "deep hands"? Where does the club generally exit the body on the thru side? Does it even matter? What about the wrist conditions and hand motions? Do you try to keep your left wrist flat? Let it bend? How does all this work?

As I said...the reference point for the Plane Line is the Target Line. Variance to the vertical angle of the plane does not change the location of the Plane Line. As for the rest of your questions...they are good ones. I guess you'll have to wait for the book. The point of this post was simply to share a video of a stroke which traces a straight, square Plane Line.....not to explain everything that I know about the golf stroke.

Sorry . . . i thought you were saying this was THE ideal plane angle . . . misunderstood . . . apologies . . . can you field this one though? What is the impact on the HSP and Angle of Attack as the plane angles go from "steep" to "flatter" if other variables are held constant (not sure the can)?

No problem. Again, the HSP (Plane Line) is not affected by a change to the vertical angle of the plane, either steeper or flatter. The Attack Angle will depend on WHERE impact is made on the plane. But, if impact is made at the same distance before Low Point, then the Attack Angle will be more descending when the plane is closer to vertical (steeper).

EDIT . . . I have been corrected . . . HSP is just the Machine version of the plane line . . . got it now . . . duh . . . sorry . . . .

Now . . . rephrase . . . does track man have any data on relationship of angle of attack and club head path as the plane angle goes from "steeper" to "flatter" . . .

Thanks Mr. Graham . . . for righting my ship!

It has been a while
 

Steeper plane (say 60*5 iron) = less out = less plane line rotation left to zero out path and face (if the ball is not a T)Flatter plane = more out therefore more plane line rotation to zero out the path and face.

Interesting Okie. Are you assuming the clubface is square to the Arc of Approach or true path before you rotate the plane?

Here's a Trackman diagram........all looks kinda familiar except some of their terminology is even weirder than ours. Something I previously thought to be impossible. Im with Homer on this name game......"Plane Angle" is a far better handle than Vertical Swing Plane. Maybe Im missing something however.

http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/a...d=129013833 7

Zero the Hero
 

Yes. All of this is of course for the purpose of "zeroing out" any divergence between the path and the face, or hitting it straight (also assuming an accurate strike) It also helps explain my method of hitting straight shots, namely trying to hit a fade! :laughing9 To me it is a matter of learning how to hit it straight and then learn to aim it. To me the inside out cut shot achieves the same result. Took a beginner, taught him how to hit a little punch shot that initially was a push-slice. We worked on the club face angle (mainly by matching it up with the clubhead path. first push-fades, then finally just pushes. Next we just started to rotate everything to the left until the ball was on target. He had 3 polies over the course of 30 or so shots. I was disgusted!:laughing9 The face still gets away from him, and we are now moving the ball closer to low point and shallowing out his angle of attack as well as the path...which typical means less adjustment in terms of reorienting the plane line. I don't use the ever popular instruction of swinging left, I just trace the right plane line.

About the vertical/horizontal swing plane terminology. I agree that knowing what an elbow plane vs a turned shoulder plane is far more user friendly but Trackman measures these planes to the degree. Not because it is an earth shattering revelation to a player that their vertical swing plane with the driver is 45*, but because that number has a lot to do with the result of the shot. Wonder hogan looks like he was going to bruise his ribcage on the following through by the degree he ripped it left! Flatter swing plane (as I already mentioned) has more of an out nature, so to have the ball start on line he rotated his stuff left (even with a closed stance)Nicklaus on the hand was into bruising his chin on the backswing and hardly seems to be making any plane line adjustments (less out.)I do not know that the take on the d-plane is over here (I was on sabbatical!) but it squares up!

Welcome back OKIE. We missed ya! :salut:

Kevin

Yes good to have you back Okie.

I've never thought about the implications to plane line adjustment given plane angle. Makes perfect sense.

Hmm? :confused1

Some members like it, some don't. When I hear the term D-Plane, I reach for the Xanax. I haven't given the subject very much thought but, as always, I'm opinionated.

D-Plane replaces Plane Line with the Target Line and Low-Point with Ball Location. It "Terms" the "Lack of Clubshaft Control" the Vertical Swing Plane, and the "Lack of Clubface Control" the Horizontal Swing Plane.

Rather than learning how to strike a ball so it responds to an Angular Force as it would a Linear Force (Hinging), or Learning Pressure Points to use mechanical advantage, the D Plane promises players to "come as you are" and compensate. It's Corporate Golf Outing mentality. It lacks only the "Bumpers" running down both sides of the Fairway to make it the official teaching sponsor at McDonald's Corporate Golf Outings.

D-Plane is "Compensation Golf". Aim Right, Swing Left, Swing Right, Aim Left and further adjust for Up-hill, down-hill and Side-hill lies. You need to adjust 3 compensations before you choose a club. With D-Plane, you need 15 clubs in the bag. The 15th, is a combination "Angle Finder - Ball Position Locator".

Anyway, it's just my opinion. I think players turn to TGM because they want solutions, not compensations. Players turn to D-Plane because they want to hit the Ball, and turn to TGM when they want to learn to hit it effectively.

Not only can you turn a diagram...
 

but a phrase as well!


[quote=Daryl;78763]Hmm? :confused1



Rather than learning how to strike a ball so it responds to an Angular Force as it would a Linear Force (Hinging), or Learning Pressure Points to use mechanical advantage, the D Plane promises players to "come as you are" and compensate. It's Corporate Golf Outing mentality. It lacks only the "Bumpers" running down both sides of the Fairway to make it the official teaching sponsor at McDonald's Corporate Golf Outings.

D-Plane is "Compensation Golf". Aim Right, Swing Left, Swing Right, Aim Left and further adjust for Up-hill, down-hill and Side-hill lies. You need to adjust 3 compensations before you choose a club. (End of quote)


Go ahead, young man, let it out!!!!! Just remember, we oppose bad ideas, not people (unless of course they are just total idiots-don't get me started). We advocate clear, careful (lighthearted in my case) thoughts. We build lasting, reasonable solutions.

Any device which can help us, can help us, since our goal is to improve. We are not "in it to win it." We are in it to improve it, imho.
:)

ICT

uh oh..... did that sound like a rant? I'm not angry or anything. I was laughing while writing it. Man, I've got a problem communicating. :)

Thanks for the photo! Very instructive.
 

OB, the assumptions built into this depiction are everything. This makes me admire Moe Norman even more, which I did not think possible. Let's say that the Trackman is spot on in it's analysis. That is sort of a gratuitous achievement, isn't it?

The real issue is effectively putting the ball into the hole. To do so, a person must master themselves over time and to some extent, master time and it's effects. THAT IS A MUCH BIGGER DEAL!!

Ask yourself another question, how much straighter can a directional line be drawn and painted on my putter or driver? Let's say it's perfectly straight. So what? I'm quite crooked in a number of ways, lmao.

A basketball is perfectly round (almost). But there was only one M. Jordan. :)

And Tiger can use or not use any healing technique or spiritual "balance" he can find, and he's still not probably ever going to be who he was. So what?! Lace 'em up and grab those sticks, men! And don't forget to enjoy the scenery!
:golf:


ICT

No, I have a rant. It's Friday and not 60 degrees!
 

But it'll be 57 domani!

No, Daryl, I'm just chiming in and blowing off my own steam, which I did in the proceeding post.


Leaving school so "see ya later." :)

ICT

D-man and D-plane
 

It did not take much to smoke you out on that one, Daryl!:laughing9 I do not think tracing a straight plane line is up for the compensation of the year award. I do know (experentially) that on an inclined plane DOWN goes with OUT. How can the ball go straight just on the merits of a square to the target face angle when the club head is clearly moving out? Ballflight and Trackman seems to confirm the validity of the d-plane concept. If anything Homer encouraged the separate identities of target line, plane line and stance line. knowing how to utilize the various options seems more like ball striking ability and less like compensation:laughing1

Thanks for the welcome back! Let my march towards a thousand posts continue!

I'm glad you're back Okie. You've always been a pleasure to talk with and I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

At the very heart of “Golf Swing” is “What makes the Ball do what it does”. Without this rational, we couldn’t decide how to strike the ball and make it go where we want. As important, we couldn’t “Improve” because we’re unaware of what to do and how doing more or less determines Ball Flight. Currently, there are two theories about “What Causes Spin” and one theory about “what happens” when the Ball Spins.

The science supporting the Golfing Machine concerns Compression”, “Impulse”, etc., and states:
Jorgensen theorized:
For the most part, this is where Jorgensen’s theorizing ends. His goal was to present a descriptive account of Ball Flight, and the “D-Plane” serves well by predicting the Ball Flight of a “spin producing collision”.

The confusion is not about what happens when the ball spins. Both Homer Kelley and Jorgensen explain Ball Flight by describing that “Lift forces” are perpendicular to the Axis of Rotation of the Ball.

The "Debate" is about what "Caused the Ball to Spin". Jorgensen suggests that it has more to do with the ball sliding up the face of the inclined striker. The Pivot closes the Clubface very evenly while the Clubhead travels its Orbital Path. It is very important to Jorgensen that the Clubface maintains a constant relationship to the Clubhead Orbit because any change in Clubface Alignment will change the amount of spin.

It's "important", in a way, that a location is chosen to take the Clubface Angle and Clubhead Path (Angular force) reading. Impact? Separation? Somewhere in between? In a way, it's not important because as long as the Clubface is closing at a constant rate, the calculation can be adjusted to read before, during or at Separation. Hmm? the math can be done before and after also.

A very significant math problem appears when you treat the Ball as Low-Point with out the Ball being Positioned at Low-Point. I can go into great detail but this post is already becoming boring for readers.

When we think of the Clubhead going Down, out and Forward, it's in relation to the Planes orientation to the ground. The reality is much simpler. The Sweetspot of the Clubhead is an Orbit. It wants to stay on an Orbit.

The Golfing Machine is very different. We know that "Hinging" will cause the Ball to respond to an Angular Force the same as it would respond to a Linear Force.

For an excellent understanding of the purpose and affect of Hinging, please refer to the following post:

http://www.lynnblakegolf.com/forum/s...rcle#post56102

Kiss people with that mouth?
 

I do not think I have a command understanding of hinge action. Jorgenson's book is in the mail. i have experimented with my understanding of D-plane on a Trackman. Understanding what to trace made it a lot easier to zero out the numbers, or produce a particular shape of shot. I have hit too many shots with an unintended draw thinking that all had to do was trace the plane line (that also happened to be the target line...with a stance line that was generally square as well) and see unintended hook spin take the shot off line. I will have to read your post an additional time or two. To me what Jorgensen claims with regard to the so-called new ball flight laws Homer claimed along time ago. What is incompatible between TGM and D-plane? If your previous post was a full answer then I apologize for my density, and respectfully request that you dumb it down a bit for an okie. Perhaps this topic has already been flogged to glue and some digging in the archives is advisable? Has Yoda voiced his opinion on d matter? D-plane has breathed new life into my ball striking...but I have been snookered by siren calls before!

I don't know if Yoda cares about the D-Plane. His specialty is teaching someone to swing a club. Yoda already knows that when the Golf Ball is properly struck, "The direction of the ball will always be practically at right angles to the Clubface and square to the leading edge of the Clubface at separation, unless there is enough time and speed for the Venturi Effect to alter it when scattered vectors have introduced a non-vertical spin."

It's not a big deal.

The "Old Ball Flight Laws" is an advertising campaign invented by Trackman to sell their machine. They weren't "Laws" at all. The "New Ball Flight Laws" are part of that advertising. They aren't laws either. The first stated that Initial Ball direction was mostly the result of Clubhead Path, and the later claims that initial Ball Direction is more a matter of Clubface orientation.

Earth-shattering? It is for Trackman. This is "Science"? Really? These are "New Ball Flight Laws"? You're kidding me. These are Advertising campaign slogans.

Both sets of these fake-Laws are based on the "False-Assumption" that "virtually-all" of the Ball Spin is created by the Ball rolling up the face of an inclined striker. That may be true for a Hollow Ball, like a Ping Pong Ball, but not for a Solid Golf Ball.

The following values are calculated and are posted as such on the Trackman web site.

Dynamic Loft*
Spin Loft*
Face Angle*

So, the entire Clubface alignment at Impact is calculated from Ball Flight Data.

Here's an written "Test" example: We know the Path of the Clubhead, Clubhead Speed, Ball Path and Spin. "Solve for Face Angle".

I'm not the only one that sees a problem with that.

Hi Okie,

What do you feel was the biggest change you made with your new understanding? Face alignment, alignment of the path, or swing change? Or is it a little of each? :salut:

Thanks,
Kevin

LOL -- Trackman isn't the only one using it as an advertising campaign. The golf swing is ALL about science. That's why the swings of every great player throughout history looks identical. :eyes: :laughing9

Kevin

Ok, but let me ask you a couple of Q´s Daryl.

- For an absolute straight shot, fulfilling all requirements of the Geometry of Circle..... Where should the planeline be set up in relation to the targetline? I think that here is one of the big differences.

- Have you been on a TM yourself ? If so, what were your findings?

The issue isn't about "Clubface Closing Rates" it's about "Which Plane the Clubface Closing is associated with".

From Release to Both Arms Straight, the Clubface will Close at a very even Rate, regardless whether one uses Angled or Horizontal Hinging. If you want to change the Closing Rate, then change from a Sweep Release to a Snap Release. The Release interval changes the amount of Clubface Closing over a given Clubhead Travel Distance.

Hinging determines whether the Clubface Closes on an Axis perpendicular to the Horizontal Plane or an Axis perpendicular to an Angled Plane.

All of this "Talk" about how much the Clubface needs to close to produce "Straight-Away" Flight Path stems from a lack of understanding of the Hinge Action.

Trackman and D-Plane assume that ALL Closing is performed on an Axis perpendicular to the Angled Plane with the Assumption that the Clubshaft is the Angled Plane. They also assume that the Ball is Low-Point. Hmm? No Divots. They also forgot to include the fact that the Clubface is "Laying Back". They ignore it on the surface but build the effect into their Clubface Angle calculations.

Another Misinterpretation of Hinge Action is that the Clubface needs to close to bring Force in line with the Plane and/or Target Line. The Clubface only needs to close to bring the Force in-line with the Angle of Approach to result in Straight-Away Ball Flight and not tilt the Backspin. A Ball Located 9" behind Low-Point will need about 1/2 degree of closing to bring the Force in-line with the Angle of Approach = the "Push Shot". This 1/2 degree of Closing is a normal amount of Closing and 9" behind Low-Point is about the center of your stance.

If the Ball is Located 1" behind Low-Point the numbers dramatically change. 1/5th of a degree will bring the Angle of Approach in-line with the Plane Line. So, it's not the Amount or Rate of Closing. The Angle of Approach is determined by Ball Location.

But even the "Math" isn't important. All that is important is for the Impact Point to become the Separation Point. "Remember – the Impact Point must become “On Line” at Separation."

I locate the Ball 1" behind Low-Point for all Clubs. I use Horizontal Hinging and Align the Plane and Target Lines Parallel. 90% of my shots are perfectly Straight. Poor execution accounts for the other ten percent.

Trackman will show my numbers to be pretty close to "0" and invent a Clubface number that will explain my straight shots (without fade or draw spin). But I'll know it's because of my Horizontal Hinge.

There is an answer I can finally wrap my arms around. Thanks Man! :salut:

Basically, the only way the guys promoting TrackMan vs Homer Kelley can really make their science stick, is to eliminate the existence of hinge actions. Hmmm.

Kevin

I hope the explanation helps a little.

I'm not against Trackman or D-Plane. As far as illustrating the curved Ball Flight they would be good tools in the hands of a TGM expert. Expert. One that understands it's limitations and contraints.

I want to try Trackman on the putting green. I want to use a Driver and approach the ball at a 45 degree angle. I'll make the 4 foot putt. :laughing9 I just want to see what my Clubface Angle was. What do you think Trackman would report? That's something where Collision "Compression Impact Theory" could explain and "Glancing Blow Theory" cannot.

I'm not against them either. I would be more enthusiastic if they were promoted based upon their merits rather than having to beat up on others to make their points. I have no idea what it would report, zero experience with it...

Kevin

Thank you for this.

As you may already know TM doesn't assume any rate of closing nor does it assume that the clubshaft is the angled plane as it tracks the centre of the head only and finally it doesn't assume the ball is low point.

If you had a centered hit on those 90% shot, TM would show that you had a planeline a tad left and not parallell to Target Line

Then Trackman would be wrong. Baiting me isn't going to solve the problems with Trackman. Trackman follows the Ball Flight and doesn't need D-Plane theory. But Trackman Calculates Face angle and Loft and it leaves a lot on the Table because it can't reconcile Horizontal Hinge Action. It assumes that the Face stays square to the path, so it does assume a closing rate. Trackman doesn't deal with Low-Point. It Tracks everything from Ball Location, including angle of Attack and Angle of Approach. Otherwise it could easily tell you how far behind or ahead of Low-Point the Ball was Located.

The assumptions are built into their calculations. You aim Trackman at the Target, it doesn't deal with Plane Lines. Trackman wouldn't know the difference between a Clubhead and Bowling ball or if you hit the ball with a Tennis Ball on the end of a String.

It's a calculator with radar. It should sell for $700.00. What would Trackman read if I hit a Plastic Ball? What if I hit a baseball with a long Bat? or a Soccer Ball with a Hockey Stick?

I'm not saying that Trackman is a health issue, I'm just cautioning you to be aware of it's limitations.

Kevin,

All of the above, but specially the angle of attack. TGM improved my mechanics, especially FLW (I seldom throw the club in a disastrous fashion these days) But according to TM my angle of attack with say my six iron was -4.2 degrees, in order to hit the ball dead straight I basicaly had to "trace left" a couple of degrees. TGM also taught me how to trace! i had a basic understanding of how the face and path interact with one another, but I did not fully grasp the role of the angle of attack, or the vertical swing plane (the angle of the swing plane)I paid through the nose to get on TM to see what all of the hulabaloo is about. I also learned how to hit my driver 18 yards further! It turned out that I needed 2-4 degrees more loft on my driver (for optimum launch numbers etc) given the angle of attack I was using (aka hitting down)It turns out my driver was perfect for a +3 degree angle of attack. So, get a new driver with granny-loft, or hit it on the way up. I have never hit the modern driver well enough to think that it was a cheat stick...I am embarrassed by some of the drives I have hit in the last couple of weeks! It almost looks like a knuckle ball. Of course because the head is moving up and in you have to rotate the plane line a bit right. I seem to recall Yoda talking about something similar. I agree that a TGM expert would make good use of TM. Unfortunately, I do not fully understand the points of contention with d-plane...I am just going on what my eyeballs and doppler eyeballs are telling me. Like hogan (the likeness ends there) I am on a quest to eradicate a hook that ended my dream of playing professionally. The best I could do was learn to play a push-draw. I have not hit it left of the centerline one time in a month. I did hit a push-fade to about 40 ft. Perhaps this will disappear like the many soap bubbles (queue violin music) of the past, OR I have something to hang my hat on. If that be the case...I'm back! :salut:

Of course it deals with plane lines, it tracks the clubhead hundreds of times on every swing, measuring both the plane line and the plane angle that the clubhead follows.

A couple of follow ups:

- Do you know the difference between measuring and calculating?

- What do you believe Trackman measures?
Since you seem as an expert on the subject, you must know how far the clubhead is tracked for and what that period of tracking allows the machine to extrapolate?

In Trackmans case everything is measured except face angle, the numbers are raw data presented in easy to understand terms. Face angle is calculated from these other data sets.

Do you want to participate in a discussion or Bait me?

If it doesn't measure face angle between impact and separation then it doesn't know the effects of a Horizontal Hinge. It's based on a "Collision Theory" involving "Glancing Blow" to Back-end-calculate face Angle from Ball Spin. That's my problem with Trackman besides the ridiculously high price for using 30 year old technology. The Profit margin for that toy would make even "Bill Gates" blush!

Then, just like anything advertised today, they package it by claiming "New Science" and "New Laws". As though the Laws of physics have ever changed. Someone soon will have a duplicate machine for half the Price. Then Trackman will announce "New and Improved Laws".

It's not much different than selling a Driver and Promising Longer Drives or a club that helps you get it up in the air, or a wedge with "Stopping Power". It's the Indian, not the arrow.

If Trackman helps a player play better golf, then great. He learned a different way to swing a club. Like Okie did. But don't claim that all the old ways were bad or that the rest of us are misinformed.

I feel that the profit margin comments are totally unnecessary! It raises the question if you have an agenda with the company.

Just want to mention for you consideration. Face angle is not calculated from ball spin as you seem to believe. If it were calculated from spin we would never see the discrepencies created by off centre hits.

So my suggestion is to leave it to what it is at the moment with no more guessing from your part until you have spent time with a TM. Then this discussion could continue.

I'm not the one with the agenda. Trackman has and is making the claims and have created an advertising campaign equivalent to the price of their product. Can't you see through the Profit motive? Are they a non-profit producer? Do they offer a list of "Mis-readings" that the machine is not able to qualify or quantify?

Off center Hits can be calculated just as well with a hand calculator. Just look at the Clubmaking charts to see the effects. Clubhead speed 110 mph with a 220 yard carry. What about Gear effect?

Trackman is not perfect.

Anyway, don't participate if you don't want to.

Are you suggesting that TGM is 100% perfect?

If the machine believes it has a poor reading, it provides no output for the club delivery data. It will still track the ball.

So far, the information provided on what the D Plane is, what Trackman can or can not do has not been accurate.

My greatest fear is that our community could be missing out on some vital information. Information that when understood and applied together with our present knowledge, thanks to Homer, could help us, as it has Okie's game.

Thanks Okie! :salut: